Mercogliano Rangers Re-Sign Braden Schneider to 2-Year/$4.4M Extension; $2.2M AAV

[Phil]

Quote

Word is that they're making progress with Schneider on a bridge deal (likely two or three years) for an average annual value in the range of $2.5 million, according to one person with knowledge of the situation who spoke to lohud.com, part of the USA TODAY Network, under the condition of anonymity.

 

https://www.lohud.com/story/sports/nhl/rangers/2024/07/09/ny-rangers-thoughts-2024-offseason-quiet/74326891007/

[Pete]

Should have waited for the deal before he bought the ring. 

[siddious]

3 years at 2.5 would be fantastic IMO

[LindG1000]

If we get Lindgren and Schneider figured out for under 6.5m as is being reported right now, that's such a massive fucking win. That'd leave us around 1.7m in cap flexibility, assuming they use the last two D spots on Jones and Mackey(or another league min deal), and one of those 14 forwards making near league min heads to the minors. 

[BrooksBurner]

59 minutes ago, siddious said:

3 years at 2.5 would be fantastic IMO

Yup. I think it’s a bit of an overpay at 2 years, but getting that 3rd year would make all the difference

[siddious]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

Yup. I think it’s a bit of an overpay at 2 years, but getting that 3rd year would make all the difference

Exactly. Guys gonna be on that second pair too that’s a steal any way you look at it. Now let’s hope that it ends up being that.

[RichieNextel305]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Yup. I think it’s a bit of an overpay at 2 years, but getting that 3rd year would make all the difference

Agreed.

 

I think 2x2 would be good. But if you get the 3rd year, I’d be willing to go $2.5 AAV. Either or.

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Yup. I think it’s a bit of an overpay at 2 years, but getting that 3rd year would make all the difference

 

I mean, they kinda have to do this, because they're set on keeping Lindgren, but if it were me, I'd be giving Schneider whatever long-term deal they're even considering for Lindgren, and then I'd trade Lindgren for another Schneider (but on the left).

[BrooksBurner]

37 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, they kinda have to do this, because they're set on keeping Lindgren, but if it were me, I'd be giving Schneider whatever long-term deal they're even considering for Lindgren, and then I'd trade Lindgren for another Schneider (but on the left).

I agree on getting Schneider on a long term contract. It doesn’t necessarily have to be Lindgren traded. Let’s say Lindgren comes in at $4m. They’ve got $4m left to work on Schneider. What does a 6 year extension look like? 5m? A Trouba trade or waiver claim would make this incredibly easy, but I can think of another way to free up the extra bit of cap:

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, they kinda have to do this, because they're set on keeping Lindgren, but if it were me, I'd be giving Schneider whatever long-term deal they're even considering for Lindgren, and then I'd trade Lindgren for another Schneider (but on the left).

At this point you have to consider what removing Lindgren from the locker room would do in addition to everything else that's going on.

 

I think the idea of going to arbitration because term is the issue is the right one. I forget exactly the details of whether or not it's one or two years (I believe the club decides based on the ruling?).

 

But how likely is it a team is going to trade for him as an arbitration eligible player like him? They'd be paying him for his service to another team which is usually the folly reserved for unrestricted free agency. 

 

This approach feels right where some of the money Lindgren is getting now can be earmarked for Schneider later with an ELC stepping in at that point.

[Ozzy]

Great news!!  I love this kid!  He's gonna be a superb defenseman in years to come....

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, Pete said:

At this point you have to consider what removing Lindgren from the locker room would do in addition to everything else that's going on.

 

I think the idea of going to arbitration because term is the issue is the right one. I forget exactly the details of whether or not it's one or two years (I believe the club decides based on the ruling?).

 

But how likely is it a team is going to trade for him as an arbitration eligible player like him? They'd be paying him for his service to another team which is usually the folly reserved for unrestricted free agency. 

 

This approach feels right where some of the money Lindgren is getting now can be earmarked for Schneider later with an ELC stepping in at that point.

 

That's true. Especially when Vince has said a few times now, and reiterated in his latest, that the team dynamic "is messy right now" as a result of the Goodrow deal + the failed Trouba coup + leftover resentment over Jim Ramsay.

 

I'm partial to going to arb as well, or just signing him to a one-year deal, honestly. Like, one year, $4 million. Let's see how it goes and re-assess later.

[siddious]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's true. Especially when Vince has said a few times now, and reiterated in his latest, that the team dynamic "is messy right now" as a result of the Goodrow deal + the failed Trouba coup + leftover resentment over Jim Ramsay.

 

I'm partial to going to arb as well, or just signing him to a one-year deal, honestly. Like, one year, $4 million. Let's see how it goes and re-assess later.

Arbitration can be rough on both player and team.. probably not the right move at this point in time

[Phil]

50 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I agree on getting Schneider on a long term contract. It doesn’t necessarily have to be Lindgren traded. Let’s say Lindgren comes in at $4m. They’ve got $4m left to work on Schneider. What does a 6 year extension look like? 5m? A Trouba trade or waiver claim would make this incredibly easy, but I can think of another way to free up the extra bit of cap:

 

 

The reason I say trade is just because I don't think you can actually afford both long-term.

 

I'm not sure what a long-term deal for Schneider needs to be, but I'd be trying to get him in at a lower AAV in exchange for the full eight-year ride. 4x8 would be ideal.

 

A Trouba waiver claim isn't realistic, I don't think. It worked with Goodrow, but I'm not sure it would for Trouba, and like Pete said, I think doing this to two respected veterans in the same summer might cause way more damage than we're willing to admit.

[Phil]

Just now, siddious said:

Arbitration can be rough on both player and team.. probably not the right move at this point in time

 

Very much so. That's why I'm saying just get the one-year deal. It takes him right to UFA. I'm OK with that.

[siddious]

Just now, Phil said:

 

Very much so. That's why I'm saying just get the one-year deal. It takes him right to UFA. I'm OK with that.

ah sorry misunderstood what you were saying

[RichieNextel305]

39 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The reason I say trade is just because I don't think you can actually afford both long-term.

 

I'm not sure what a long-term deal for Schneider needs to be, but I'd be trying to get him in at a lower AAV in exchange for the full eight-year ride. 4x8 would be ideal.

 

A Trouba waiver claim isn't realistic, I don't think. It worked with Goodrow, but I'm not sure it would for Trouba, and like Pete said, I think doing this to two respected veterans in the same summer might cause way more damage than we're willing to admit.

I mean, at this point, yeah.

 

It would have been better had it happened somehow before free agency and we reloaded with some assets (Kane? Dillon?) because at least then it seems more like a hockey move than a personal vendetta.

[Pete]

45 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The reason I say trade is just because I don't think you can actually afford both long-term.

 

I'm not sure what a long-term deal for Schneider needs to be, but I'd be trying to get him in at a lower AAV in exchange for the full eight-year ride. 4x8 would be ideal.

 

A Trouba waiver claim isn't realistic, I don't think. It worked with Goodrow, but I'm not sure it would for Trouba, and like Pete said, I think doing this to two respected veterans in the same summer might cause way more damage than we're willing to admit.

 

5 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I mean, at this point, yeah.

 

It would have been better had it happened somehow before free agency and we reloaded with some assets (Kane? Dillon?) because at least then it seems more like a hockey move than a personal vendetta.

A Trouba waiver would be pointless because who would claim him? A buyout doesn't help.

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

 

A Trouba waiver would be pointless because who would claim him? A buyout doesn't help.

 

Who knows. Detroit, maybe. Anaheim. Whoever. What I'm saying has nothing to do with who would pick him.

 

What I'm angling at here is that waiving another respected veteran (who the players lobbied management to name captain) to get around his refusal to accept a trade could fracture an already frayed locker room. Not specifically because management is moving a player they like, but how they move that player.

[RichieNextel305]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

 

A Trouba waiver would be pointless because who would claim him? A buyout doesn't help.

I meant him being off the team before free agency in any capacity in regard to the damaging effect it would have in the locker room. If you lost Trouba and Goodrow and then pivoted to Kane and Dillon, I don’t think it would “damage” the room so much as it would shake up the culture of a room. Two respect veterans out, two respect vets in. It would be looked upon as a hockey move is all I meant by saying that.

Edited July 9 by RichieNextel305

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I meant him being off the team before free agency in any capacity in regard to the damaging effect it would have in the locker room. If you lost Trouba and Goodrow and then pivoted to Kane and Dillon, I don’t think it would “damage” the room so much as it would shake up the culture of a room. Two respect veterans out, two respect vets in. It would be looked upon as a hockey move is all I meant by saying that.

 

Also, trading Trouba isn't the same as getting around his NTC by waiving him so he's claimed by a team you knew was on his list. It's one thing to do this to your fourth-line center making $3.6 million. It's quite another to do it to your captain who the players lobbied management to have named as such.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I meant him being off the team before free agency in any capacity in regard to the damaging effect it would have in the locker room. If you lost Trouba and Goodrow and then pivoted to Kane and Dillon, I don’t think it would “damage” the room so much as it would shake up the culture of a room. Two respect veterans out, two respect vets in. It would be looked upon as a hockey move is all I meant by saying that.

Oh, I thought you meant now. 

 

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that either. Again, for the players it's not about who is getting shipped out It's about how it's being went about with contract language being circumvented, players aren't given any notice, etc.

 

They understand it's a business, but that doesn't mean they want to be treated like shit. There's a way to go about your business.

 

But on top of that, now you're playing hardball with Lindgren? That guy bleeds for this team like no other. It just needs to be considered. 

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Who knows. Detroit, maybe. Anaheim. Whoever. What I'm saying has nothing to do with who would pick him.

 

What I'm angling at here is that waiving another respected veteran (who the players lobbied management to name captain) to get around his refusal to accept a trade could fracture an already frayed locker room. Not specifically because management is moving a player they like, but how they move that player.

Yea see above. We're on same page. 

[Br4d]

2 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I mean, at this point, yeah.

 

It would have been better had it happened somehow before free agency and we reloaded with some assets (Kane? Dillon?) because at least then it seems more like a hockey move than a personal vendetta.

 

It's not a personal vendetta.  Trouba was never worth his cap figure and now post-30 he really is overpaid by a lot.

 

Getting rid of him as smoothly as you can is just business.  Every team in the NHL would be doing the same thing with him if they had the situation the Ranger's have right now.

 

The open question is whether there is any team out there for whom he makes sense.  A young team with cap space looking for a leader and some stiff contact on the ice might find him very attractive for exactly the two years left on his deal.

[Karan]

Done deal.

 

 

[Br4d]

Good deal for the Rangers.  Glad they got Schneider locked up early.