Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 349
Likes: 246
This is definitely an overpay for an RFA D, however I don't think think it's fair to compare this negotiation to that of a typical RFA. He was headed to arbitration, and a 1 year award likely comes close to $7M, if not over, anyway. If that happens, he walks next year. The rangers got him cheap in terms of assets, but part of reason for that is because they wouldn't have a lot of leverage in negotiations. The fact that they gave up assets at all, especially at the stage the teams is at, means they couldn't let this turn into a 1 year deal, and Trouba knew that. So unless he was getting an AAV that was better than what you expect in arbitration, why would he sign?
The bigger issue is that I think the Rangers overrate what Trouba is. They paid $8M because they see him as a high end #1 D. He isn't, I don't think it's very difficult to point out a minimum of 31 D who are flat out better than him today, and I could definitely see an argument that he isn't even an above average #2. That doesn't mean he isn't good, but there is a gap between what he is being paid to be, and what he is.
On the plus side though, RFA deals tend to carry much lower risk of turning into albatross contracts. Based on his age, he could improve, or at least stay at constant value for most of the contract, meaning his cap hit looks better as years go by. The contract will not likely ever be too difficult to move either, as if he is overpaid by a bit, he still provides value at a position that is hard to get, so chances are a GM would still give up something to get him, and there is just less consensus about D evaluations, so as long as he is good, which he should be, there will be a wide variance in how GMs rank him, with the ones that like him the most either driving the price up, or at least be willing to take him on.
Reply
CapFriendly
CapFriendly