Larry Brooks in his
Sunday Slapshots column spends much of his article on Jacob Trouba and the Rangers. Brooks discusses again that he expects the two sides to reach an accord on a long-term deal. But the longer the stalemate exists, the greater the potential that a one-year deal, taking Trouba to UFA status after the season, might be the end result. More thoughts from me after the column.
From the moment the Rangers acquired Jacob Trouba from Winnipeg on June 17, it seemed a foregone conclusion they would sign the (then-impending) restricted free agent defenseman to a seven-year contract worth in the range of $7.5 million-$7.8 million per season and obviate the need for salary arbitration.
Even as late as Tuesday night, when I reported the July 25 date for Trouba’s arbitration date (eligible players routinely file) on Twitter, I wrote, “Would be stunning if it reaches that point.”
But if this drags on and Trouba wants to bet on himself, he could theoretically turn a seven-year contract into a nine-year commitment and guarantee himself an extra $15 million or so of owner Jim Dolan’s treasure chest. It is possible.
The 25-year-old American — whom the Rangers envision as their matchup, first-pair righty and first-unit power-play guy through this transition into contention and beyond — cannot sign an eight-year max term contract with the team until the trade deadline passes. Hence, Trouba could opt for a one-year deal via arbitration then sign an eight-year extension either late in the season or before July 1. That, of course, could not be a topic of conversation between the parties at this time, much less agreed upon, for that would represent circumvention.
But if Trouba takes this path, he’d get a sum of around $70 million rather than $55 million, presuming that a one-year arbitration award is likely to come in closer to $6.75 million than $7.75 million based on existing comparables. Going this way would represent a risk for Trouba, but he went through arbitration last summer and played on a one-year $5.5 million award while turning in the most productive season (8 goals, 42 assists, 50 points) of his career.
But going this route also could make Trouba a short-timer on Broadway rather than a critical piece of the foundation of this developing team.
If No. 8 plays on a one-year deal, there is no guarantee Gorton might not try to flip him for a rental haul at the deadline and look elsewhere for a young first-pair righty. Who knows? And who wants that? Who needs the drama?
Not the Rangers. If not for the acquisition of Trouba, management might not have signed Artemi Panarin. And the same applies to Trouba, who wanted to play for the Rangers and who has extolled the benefits of playing in New York for both himself and his fiancée, Kelly Tyson, who is on the career path of becoming an MD.
Talks continue, but urgency may not present itself until within two or three days of the arbitration date. The Rangers have routinely avoided arbitration over the years by striking agreements in the hour(s) before scheduled hearings, but none of the deals were close to this financial magnitude. It would probably serve the franchise well to get this wrapped up as quickly as possible.
Of course, though, Trouba has the leverage.
Trouba became the ninth defenseman age 25 or younger to record an at least 50-point season over the past three years with his 2018-19 production, per hockey-reference.com. The others are Morgan Rielly (twice), Seth Jones, John Klingberg, Thomas Chabot, Torrey Krug, Matt Dumba, Dougie Hamilton and Shayne Gostisbehere. Jones, Dumba, Hamilton and Klingberg are righties.
Dumba, entering the second season of a five-year deal, is the highest paid at $6 million per. Hamilton, in the fifth year of a six-year contract, is at $5.7 million per. Jones, going into the fourth year of a six-year contract, is at $5.4 million per. Krug has one year remaining on a deal under which he is earning $5.25 million per. They are the four highest-paid of the group.
You never know what might happen in arbitration, where the arbiters often split the difference between asks and Trouba’s side would probably use different comparables, but the defenseman would surely make a fair amount less (AAV) on a one-year deal than on a long-term one that would buy out six years of unrestricted free agency.
A few thoughts:
- signing a one-year deal to set himself for a possible eight-year contract would be a risk for Trouba but one for the Rangers as well. Trouba excelled on a one-year deal last season but could struggle his first season in New York and the possibility for injury exists. On the flip side, if Trouba plays as he did last season, he could be in line for a contract with an AAV higher than the projected $7.5-$8 million, pricing him out of the range than Gorton would be comfortable in paying.
- look at the comparables. Granted, timing in a player's career - especially when the deal is signed as compared to number of years of service - plays a part in the contract. In addition, the salary cap, and especially, % usage within the cap, are key factors as well. But do you look at that list and think a) Trouba belongs in that company and/or b) a seven-year deal at $7.5 million or so is fair and he is worth it?
- does anyone not expect the two sides to reach an accord of a long-term deal and be forced to settle for a one-year contract in arbitration? As I mentioned in prior blogs on the topic, the only way I could see New York going that route is if they expect the award to be in the $6.5 million range, saving a $1 million in cap space this year, where every $ counts, Though this is not the route I would take. The Rangers and Gorton knew exactly what they were in getting in Trouble and the deal he wanted, so playing this situation out seems kind of foolhardy. Expect a deal at the latest right before the arbitration hearing is to take place.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»