Mailbag: Draft trading scenarios

June 4, 2018, by

Bobby Ryan. (Photo by Andre Ringuette/NHLI via Getty Images)

A few questions for the mailbag today, all revolving around trading up or down at the draft.

Josh asks (1 of 2): Think Chicago takes the 26, 28, and 48 for the 8 and the Hossa contract?

I like the thought process. Chicago is always up against the cap, and the Rangers happen to have oodles of it right now. Hossa carries another three years and $5.275 million on his deal, but he’s only owed $1 million a year for that duration. That said, Chicago balks at this for two reasons.

  1. Chicago is not a budget team. They can afford to keep the contract and throw him on LTIR for the next three years.
  2. A true budget team will probably make a better offer, or at least one that doesn’t include the 8th pick.

That said, I think the 27, which Chicago has as part of the Ryan Hartman trade with Nashville, might be a chip to dump the contract. But again, point #1 above applies. This only really impacts the Hawks if they are looking to spend over the cap ceiling by more than 10% this summer. Anything is possible, but I don’t see Chicago as a viable option here.

Josh asks (2 of 2): Zuccarello (retain $2 million), Beleskey, and the 28 to Dallas for the 13?

This is something Tom Urtz at Blueshirt Banter covered actually. I’m not going to get into too much detail on it, but this is an overpayment. Zuccarello alone should be enough for the 13 pick, especially to a team like Dallas that only missed the playoffs because of some bad luck.

Dave (not me) asks: Is there anyone in particular the Rangers should trade up for in the teens?

This is a tough question. Unless there is an obvious outlier that is slipping, like potentially Boqvist, I say don’t trade up in this draft. Once you’re outside of the top 10 or so, there’s a marginal difference from 15-40, give or take based on who you talk to. Ideally, the Rangers actually trade back from 26 or 28 and get another pick in that range. The more picks before 40, the better.

A different Dave (I’m going to start going by last names soon) asks: At what point is it worth it to trade up from 9, and at what cost?

If you are like me and believe that 1) Montreal is going to take Brady Tkachuk at 3, a major overdraft, and 2) Ottawa can be targeted to move up and possibly target Filip Zadina, then yes trade up. However that means trading up in the right scenario, without overpaying and leveraging something you know Ottawa covets: Real dollars back and perhaps taking a contract in return.

I theorized on Twitter that there could be a framework around the 4 and Bobby Ryan for the 9 and one of Marc Staal or Brendan Smith. Bobby Ryan is due a lot of money, and is only $2 million more in cap space than Staal, or $3 million more than Smith. Given the current cap situation, the Rangers can absorb that. Assuming there is also a compliance buyout after the lockout in 2020 happens –good lord that sounded depressing– then that’s another reason for the Rangers to make the deal.

I don’t think Ottawa makes that deal as is, though, especially if Zadina is on the table. Assume the Rangers need to part with someone else. I doubt someone like Tony DeAngelo is enough to bridge the gap, so it may be one of the 26 or 28, or a good prospect. However I am of the belief there is a deal to be made there, especially since it opens Ottawa up to an Erik Karlsson trade that is free of Bobby Ryan.

"Mailbag: Draft trading scenarios", 2 out of 5 based on 6 ratings.
Categories : Musings


  1. Walt says:

    Knowing that the top 3 picks are locked, and the odds are that it would take half the franchise to get any one of the players, why not wait and see how the draft goes before we give away the shop. You said yourself that the possibility of trading with Ottawa may be doable especially if the Habs go for Tkachuk. We won’t know until the time comes, so why waste the time coming up with such ideas, they may draft someone else?

    Case in point, the first proposed trade, we give up 26, 28, and 48, and get back an 8th and a dead contract, how stupid is that. We are moving up a mere one spot, and give away three very good picks, and get back additional garbage makes no sense to me at all. How do we even know that the Hawks would be drafting the player we want????? Just what are people thinking…………….

    • Walt says:

      Having re-read the article, I misread the fact that we weren’t giving away the 9th, and the other picks for the 8th, my wrong, and that could be a good deal for us after all………….

    • Jerry says:

      I certainly wouldn’t even think about giving up 26,28 & 48 to move up one spot. Although I wouldn’t call it “stupid” as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

      As I’ve said NUMEROUS times, this will be the first time in a very long time I’ll enjoy watching the NHL draft.

      Let me add, I have faith in JG not to repeat mistakes of the past. I think he’s done a great job so far. This will be the draft that defines him as a GM. Now if Sather just stays in CA and plays golf, we should be fine.

    • sherrane says:

      The first trade isn’t about moving up one spot. Its about getting the 8th and 9th pick in this draft at the expense of two late 1st rounders and the second second. This would give the Rangers #8, #9, and #39 in the first two rounds instead of #9, #26, #28, #39, and #40.

      • JB says:

        I would not hesitate to do the deal with Chicago first and foremost. To have the 8&9 would be well worth it from a further perspective. Imaging taking Whalstrom and Boqvist as picks in those spots?? Just think about that or Whalstrom and Dobson?? Fantastic move if they can pull it off.

    • Mintgecko says:

      Andrew Shaw has future NYR written all over him.

      Gilmour has that typical Montreal Canadiens vibe to him.

      I expect a trade to move up so they can snag Tkuchuk.

      • SalMerc says:

        According to MancurianCandidate, you are greatly insulting Tkahuck’s heritage by spelling his name wrong. Shame on you.

        • Mintgecko says:

          Eh He’ ll have a hard on anytime I talk up Hayes around here. They’re cousins so it’s a wash aka idgaf what he thinks.

        • Mancunian Candidate says:

          To the alleged Sal—who is clearly not the real Sal—It’s so cool how you sign in with all these multiple names, when you are really John B. You’re a really droll troll. What’s the matter, you’ve run out of Mein Kampf quotes?

  2. Creature Feature says:

    As the draft unfolds, if someone overpicks someone slated as 7th or 8th pick, I think Gorton needs to have players and picks available to move in order to jump up 3 spots. Not so sure it is worth trading picks to move up one slot – in fact, it might be in their interest to trade # 9 if they could get a 12 and a 15.

  3. Tyler says:

    Dave, just curious… what makes you think MON is taking BT? Have there been rumors indicating that?

    • Leatherneck says:

      Montreal desperately needs a center, I see them trading 3 to Vancouver or AZ to nab in my opinion Kotkeniemi

      • JB says:

        I would love to see the Rangers get this kid Kotkeniemi…he would be a perfect fit up front for us…If we can’t get him the possibly Voleno who I like almost as much as Kotkeniemi. I don’t think the Rangers need another D-man unless we are talking Dobson … My deepest hope is that Whalstrom falls to the 9 pick…just don’t think he will get past the Blackhawks…this is where Kotkeniemi comes in… I want a stud forward in this draft. We have so many defenseman already!!

    • Dave says:

      Montreal is full of “old time hockey guys” who will want Tkachuk over anything else. It’s not a rumor, just an educated guess.

      Tkachuk at 9 is great. Tkachuk at 3 is a reach.

  4. Leatherneck says:

    You don’t trade away picks this draft

    trade players to get another pick in 1st

    26 and 28 still gets you good players

    One of Dobson, Bouchard Kotkeniemi with Dobson being most likely

  5. Leatherneck says:

    Where a trade makes sense is #3 Montreal say to Chicago Vancouver or Phoenix. They need a center and Tkachuk or Kotkeniemi will be around and you add more picks and prospects to your stable

    Not us moving up and depleting yet again

    Now if this was say the 97 draft…yeah trade up

    This draft is 03/08 caliber draft….and we stunk it up. Let’s not do the same thing

    At #9 we are getting a real good player
    9 Dobson Kotkeniemi
    26 Kaut or Dellandrea
    28 Dellandrea or Lindqvist
    39 Bahl or McIssacs
    48 Kotkov or McBain
    70 Morozov
    88 Hall
    101 Clark

    This would make me a happy camper
    Even happier if we get to select at #9 Wahlstrom but highly unlikely yet it could happen

    We get Wahlstrom at #9 we trade for a pick 10-16
    selection Bode Wilde

    We select Dobsom
    10-16 Hayton, Veleno, Noel or Kravtsov

  6. SalMerc says:

    If you look back at the last 10 drafts, there has always been a trade that happened in the first round. Do not be shocked if one occurs this year as well. The trade will happen due to:

    Cap Space
    Move of an existing player
    GM love for a draftee
    all of the above

    Expect it to happen, now whether we will be part of it depends on the value proposition. If GMs think there is value to be had, they will pull the trigger. If we were a total rebuild, I would expect us to try to gather more picks in the first and second round. If we want to be competitive, we use the available Cap space to augment our team and gather an upgraded pick.

  7. Ray says:

    The first question treats the Hossa contract as a negative and you rightly note that LTIR largely negates that problem. However, I think Chicago may see the Hossa contract as a plus, something they can add to a deal. If a team is really short of the salary minimum, they can get a $5.275M cap hit for only $1M. I would imagine they could get a low round draft choice at the very least. The new team of course does not put Hossa on LTIR.

    OTOH, I would imagine the Rangers would have to pay to get someone to take Beleskey off their hands (and at least this year won’t do it), so Dallas would not see Beleskey as a sweetener.

    • Dave says:

      That’s what I was alluding to when I said a true budget team will make a better offer. Getting to the floor for $1 million is a good move for a lot of teams.

      • Reenavipul says:

        Only teams that have to reach to get to the floor would be Carolina & Arizona.

        AZ can get there by giving OEK what he wants(both in dollars & term.)

        Carolina has all their D coming off their ELCs by next season, they will run out of cap room in a hurry.

  8. lv says:

    Dobson and Bouchard might be gone by #9. Still, let’s hold our 9 and get a good prospect. Then lets have another pick shortly after 10 – 15.
    We need a ‘D’ and a winger before 15 and should be proactive. I agree with either we move up by taking a bad contract or we trade a late first, a 2nd and someone like Nieves, or we trade both lower 1sts to move to mid 1st. No way you throw Zucc into that mix.

  9. SalMerc says:

    The NHL is a man’s game and we need to look into acquiring a player that can play a man’s game. Wahlstrom is an option. Tradingup for Zadina is another. Both those guys can play a man’s game.

    • Creature Feature says:

      Mans game? You mean made for tough men? I thought it was a combination of talent and desire that made it a man’s game.

  10. Hatrick Swayze says:

    Nay- it is the fur in one’s loins which determine such

  11. StoolDentist says:

    I like having NHL players as clients. They are a constant source of income.

  12. Rangers West says:

    Surprised nobody on the any of the Rangers’ blogs mentions Miller or Samuelsson for the later picks. Woo would be a nice pick too. I just pray they do not pick Merkley. Only way taking a fly at Merkley would be okay is if he fell to the 4th or 5th round.

  13. Lace says:

    Honestly I’d rather the Rangers just pick at number 9 than to make a potentially bad trade to move up. I think the first 2 picks are out of reach. If we could get the #3 to grab Zadina or if the Russian D still on the board, otherwise stick with #9 and pick the best player.
    We already had a lockout. The owners got their way in 2012 so it’s probably a player strike in 2021. If I remember correctly there’s a option for an additional season on current CBA but might be wrong about that.
    In any

  14. Reenavipul says:

    If you’re going to take on Ryan’s contract, you’re committing to a multi year rebuild. You can eat a year, maybe two, but you start threading a needle when looking at a year three buyout.

    • Walt says:


      Remember a few years back, so many wanted Ryan, no matter the cost. Just look at him now, as I predicted at the time, he’s a waste!!!!!!!