confirmed: Rangers Re-Sign D Brady Skjei to 6-Year/$31.5M Extension; $5.25M AAV

[Vodka Drunkenski]

I?m not going to judge him on last season, everything was a shitshow.

[RJWantsTheCup]

The question which nobody can answer at this point is if Skjei is the up and coming player he appeared to be in his rookie season playing sheltered minutes against bottom 6 forwards or is he the horrid defender he showed last season playing against top 6 forwards? Hopefully he's at worst in between the two.

[Guest]

I guess I shouldn't say no risk, because I wouldn't have given him this contract for this reason. I soured on Skjei the last half of last season - and he lost his spot on the top pair to Marc Staal, which people forget.

 

But even then, I think he'll be a better player moving forward. I don't think he's a #1, but that deal for most any guy at this age who is going to play 20:00+ a night is fine.

 

I think that's a fair assessment. My one concern here is that as a rebuilding team that looks to have a clear cap sheet for when they are ready to compete again, there is a problem for me that the first "big" deal they've signed has some bust potential. Bust in that they could end up paying a player $2M more than their replacement level UFA would likely get to perform in a similar role when the team is competitve again. If the deal had tremendous upside as well, then perhaps that's a worthwile gamble.

 

Having watched Skjei through ~150 games though, his ceiling is a preinjury McDonagh-lite in my estimation. Less productive and without the top-end defensive skills McDonagh had in his prime. I suspect he'll be a really good 3/4 defender and that can certainly be worth $5.25M/year. But that's where I see him topping out at. So we paid a cost controlled player top-dollar for the top of his range.

 

It's a miss for me.

[Guest]

I tend to view last season as an anomaly. A catastrophic one that almost no one came out of unscathed. Not Zuccarello, not Hayes, and certainly not Skjei. Even Lundqvist suffered. I largely choose to discount it's effect on the bigger picture, which is why I view this as a win, rather than a risky gamble. I actually view it as win-win, because even if you average out Skjei year one to Skjei year two, paying that player $5.25M per year will only be an overpayment for another year or two before inflation rights the ship.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

The optics would be bad if he flattens out. The first big step in locking up what management views as the new core would be a stumble. I think Skjei's defense in year-1 over year-2 is likely what we get moving forward, but whether that can be maintained against better opposition in an increased role along with the typical increase in awareness/performance that comes with experience. On the flipside, I think year-2 offense is much more likely to be the norm for Skjei than year-1, specifically because he has no history before the NHL to indicate his rookie year production was anything beyond a fluke.

[Guest]

One final point on Skjei. We saw how he responded when the D was a shitshow last year and he was rushed into a prime role. It wasn't good. After locking him up, he will be expected to stay in that prime role, and there is danger that his career gets ruined by playing him above where he should be in the lineup simply because the team lacks better options. Now, hopefully if he continues to sink against top-tier opposition, they put Staal in that prime role and let Skjei continue to develop even as they pay him to be a top 3 defender.

[The Dude]

One final point on Skjei. We saw how he responded when the D was a shitshow last year and he was rushed into a prime role. It wasn't good. After locking him up, he will be expected to stay in that prime role, and there is danger that his career gets ruined by playing him above where he should be in the lineup simply because the team lacks better options. Now, hopefully if he continues to sink against top-tier opposition, they put Staal in that prime role and let Skjei continue to develop even as they pay him to be a top 3 defender.

 

IMO, Skjei is going to suffer more due to who he will be paired with. He may not be top pair material just yet, but who ever they pair with him is DEFINITELY not going to be a top pairing player. Not exactly sure how to gauge his play if he's stuck with a defensive liability, which most of the D men on the roster are. Pionk or Smith are the best options. A rookie and a guy who cleared waivers last year......

 

Was really hoping they could have packaged Hayes for one of the leagues RFA RH D-men that are out there. Come onnnnnnnn sign and trade (yes I'm aware it would cost more than just Hayes).

[josh]

i don’t know how you can worry about the d partner. Skjei supposed to be a rock in his own end yet has only been successful with a more defensive partner. That’s a glaring issue.

 

At best, he’s still going to be a complimentary partner. He’s a Stralman, Girardi, Smith.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

i don’t know how you can worry about the d partner. Skjei supposed to be a rock in his own end yet has only been successful with a more defensive partner. That’s a glaring issue.

 

At best, he’s still going to be a complimentary partner. He’s a Stralman, Girardi, Smith.

 

And that's what he's signed as. Girardi signed for 5,5m in 2014 and Stralman signed for 4,5m in 2014, in % of the cap Skjei's deal are cheaper than both. Skjei is already better than Smith ever has been so I don't think that's a good comparison (but he still signed for just under 1m less).

 

Now trade Hayes+ for Trouba and we have our 1st pair locked down.

[Guest]

And that's what he's signed as. Girardi signed for 5,5m in 2014 and Stralman signed for 4,5m in 2014, in % of the cap Skjei's deal are cheaper than both. Skjei is already better than Smith ever has been so I don't think that's a good comparison (but he still signed for just under 1m less).

 

Now trade Hayes+ for Trouba and we have our 1st pair locked down.

 

Girardi and Stralman were signed as UFAs in those deals, though. Skjei still had 3 years of RFA eligibility when he signed. Girardi and Stralman were both much bettern known commodities at that point as well, having each played 400+ NHL games at the time they signed those deals.

 

Skjei has 169 so far. That's the same number McDonagh had before he re-signed prior to the 13/14 season. At that time, McDonagh was well on his way to establishing himself as a top pair defenseman. I would argue that we've shown that the jury is still out on where Skjei ends up. Their salary cap percentage were pretty similar.

 

To me, a 6 year commitment to Skjei, if that was the goal, should have been $1M lower, so there was significantly more chance that he'd be paid fairly or be a steal. He really has to mirror McDonagh in almost every way to make this contract a home run for the Rangers.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Girardi and Stralman were signed as UFAs in those deals, though. Skjei still had 3 years of RFA eligibility when he signed. Girardi and Stralman were both much bettern known commodities at that point as well, having each played 400+ NHL games at the time they signed those deals.

 

Skjei has 169 so far. That's the same number McDonagh had before he re-signed prior to the 13/14 season. At that time, McDonagh was well on his way to establishing himself as a top pair defenseman. I would argue that we've shown that the jury is still out on where Skjei ends up. Their salary cap percentage were pretty similar.

 

To me, a 6 year commitment to Skjei, if that was the goal, should have been $1M lower, so there was significantly more chance that he'd be paid fairly or be a steal. He really has to mirror McDonagh in almost every way to make this contract a home run for the Rangers.

 

Sure, for it to be a home run he needs to be a #1 or 2, but it would still be a good deal if he turns out to be a solid 2nd pair player playing 20-22 min/game.

 

I just hope they don't "rush" him and asks him to play big minutes already next season in hope of him turning out to be a top pair player just because they now gave him a big contract. He still got a lot to learn and he's not ready to be the main man on a top pair right now.

 

Staal - Shatty (let the veterans play the tough matchups)

Skjei - Pionk

Smith - ADA

[RodrigueGabriel]

The risk is that his rookie year was a fluke, last year was a step back both offensively and defensively and he continues to be a marginal defender who's only real asset is his tremendous speed. IE, the Rangers locked up John Moore for 6 years at $5.25M per.

 

As I've seen this comparison in a few places I think it is fair to note that, even in his "step back" sophomore year, Skjei exceeded Moore's career high point total - which was reached in Moore's 6th of 7 full seasons in the NHL. He beat Moore's career high for hits in his rookie season and blocked shots and ATOI in his second. While there is always risk, I don't think the comparison is fair to the upside that Skjei has displayed thus far.

[Pete]

This contract, and Hayes' deal, really show me that Gorton thinks coaching was a massive problem last season.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

It was

[josh]

This contract, and Hayes' deal, really show me that Gorton thinks coaching was a massive problem last season.

 

or its not a complete 10-year "rebuild" like Rangers bloggers declared.

[Scott]

This contract, and Hayes' deal, really show me that Gorton thinks coaching was a massive problem last season.

 

hey Pete I agree when it comes to the Skjel deal because they made a long term commitment but why would a one year Hayes deal indicate AV failed. They did the polar opposite with Hayes? Just curious not looking to be an ass.

[Pete]

hey Pete I agree when it comes to the Skjel deal because they made a long term commitment but why would a one year Hayes deal indicate AV failed. They did the polar opposite with Hayes? Just curious not looking to be an ass.

 

Hayes had no leverage and they paid him as a 50 point player for a year, coming out of a "bad year" where he scored 44 points. Maybe the 25 goals put him over the $5 mil mark, but the lack of a long term commitment IMO means that they aren't really paying attention to numbers and are more going with "their gut" on what they think they have in these players. In other words regardless of what happened last year, they clearly feel SKjei is worth investing in and Hayes isn't.

[Ozzy]

This contract, and Hayes' deal, really show me that Gorton thinks coaching was a massive problem last season.

 

Don't get me started!!! LOL :rofl:

[The Dude]

i don’t know how you can worry about the d partner. Skjei supposed to be a rock in his own end yet has only been successful with a more defensive partner. That’s a glaring issue.

 

At best, he’s still going to be a complimentary partner. He’s a Stralman, Girardi, Smith.

 

I don't know that yet, but so far, that has been the case except for a bunch of glimpses of top tier talent.. I'm thinking of all the years McD was saddled with Girardi, and like many, I always wondered how much better McD could have been, if he had someone a little better out there with him. Not shitting on Girardi, but I never felt he should have gotten the minutes he did.

[Future]

I don't know that yet, but so far, that has been the case except for a bunch of glimpses of top tier talent.. I'm thinking of all the years McD was saddled with Girardi, and like many, I always wondered how much better McD could have been, if he had someone a little better out there with him. Not shitting on Girardi, but I never felt he should have gotten the minutes he did.

Being partnered doesn't explain why McD stopped using his legs to make plays or his lack of offensive instincts.

 

In 13-14, McD was a Norris-type defenseman because he was the best athlete on the ice - he could score 15 goals just by being a better skater. After that playoff run, he stopped skating and has never had the instincts to be a gamebreaker. None of that has to do with his partner, regardless of whether or not he should have been paired with G.

 

Also, off the rails here a little bit, but I still think AV's greatest fuck-up with the defense was refusing to move Mac to the right.

 

Staal - Mac

Yandle - G

Skjei - Boyle/Klein

 

Would have been tits.

[Scott]

Hayes had no leverage and they paid him as a 50 point player for a year, coming out of a "bad year" where he scored 44 points. Maybe the 25 goals put him over the $5 mil mark, but the lack of a long term commitment IMO means that they aren't really paying attention to numbers and are more going with "their gut" on what they think they have in these players. In other words regardless of what happened last year, they clearly feel SKjei is worth investing in and Hayes isn't.

 

got it - agreed.

[The Dude]

Being partnered doesn't explain why McD stopped using his legs to make plays or his lack of offensive instincts.

 

In 13-14, McD was a Norris-type defenseman because he was the best athlete on the ice - he could score 15 goals just by being a better skater. After that playoff run, he stopped skating and has never had the instincts to be a gamebreaker. None of that has to do with his partner, regardless of whether or not he should have been paired with G.

 

Also, off the rails here a little bit, but I still think AV's greatest fuck-up with the defense was refusing to move Mac to the right.

 

Staal - Mac

Yandle - G

Skjei - Boyle/Klein

 

Would have been tits.

 

I kinda felt like after 15/16 we saw that drop off in his play (despite the point total being 42 the following year)

 

I don't disagree that he definitely changed as a player. But I'm talking prior to 15/16, I think they could have gotten even more out of him.

 

I do agree that moving him to the right should have at least been tried. Especially with Yandle here. I didn't understand why they had to protect Yandle so much. IMO, you trade that much for a guy with those skills, you play the fuck out of him.

[Ozzy]

Being partnered doesn't explain why McD stopped using his legs to make plays or his lack of offensive instincts.

 

In 13-14, McD was a Norris-type defenseman because he was the best athlete on the ice - he could score 15 goals just by being a better skater. After that playoff run, he stopped skating and has never had the instincts to be a gamebreaker. None of that has to do with his partner, regardless of whether or not he should have been paired with G.

 

Also, off the rails here a little bit, but I still think AV's greatest fuck-up with the defense was refusing to move Mac to the right.

 

Staal - Mac

Yandle - G

Skjei - Boyle/Klein

 

Would have been tits.

 

I think he just became a scared player (Mac). He took a couple of hard hits and became a lot more shy. You're right about that D though, Future. That lineup would have been the way to go....but leave it to that rocket scientist we had to "coach" his way.....ok, I won't go there, but yeah, gimme a guy who plays with some reckless abandon any day.

[Future]

I kinda felt like after 15/16 we saw that drop off in his play (despite the point total being 42 the following year)

 

I don't disagree that he definitely changed as a player. But I'm talking prior to 15/16, I think they could have gotten even more out of him.

 

I do agree that moving him to the right should have at least been tried. Especially with Yandle here. I didn't understand why they had to protect Yandle so much. IMO, you trade that much for a guy with those skills, you play the fuck out of him.

AV did try it, and he said he liked Mac on the left more because he was more engaged offensively.

 

That never made sense to me, because he didn't do shit on offense ever after 13-14

[Pete]

I mean he had 42 points in 16-17 so hard to say he never did shit after 13-14.

 

His goal totals dipped after 13-14 when he scored 14 but his assist totals were consistent. Makes me think the goals stopped coming for the same reason his mobility suffered, that shoulder injury.

[Future]

I mean he had 42 points in 16-17 so hard to say he never did shit after 13-14.

 

His goal totals dipped after 13-14 when he scored 14 but his assist totals were consistent. Makes me think the goals stopped coming for the same reason his mobility suffered, that shoulder injury.

For a guy playing that many minutes, including the PP, on an offense that good, 42 points isn't anything. His pp/60 (1.34) was the same as Ryan Ellis, 28th, and considerably worse than Brady Skjei (1.68), 10th. He only had 1 more even-strength assist (22) than Nick Holden (21).

 

Mac makes a good first pass, that's all he's done offensively since the playoff run in 2014. I don't buy that a shoulder injury made him stop skating. If his shooting % dropped considerably, then maybe there's something chronic, but it didn't, he just stopped shooting, because he stopped making plays with his legs.