Irresponsible Rumormongering

Can (Should) the Rangers pull off a trade and re-sign with Kevin Hayes?

One of the bigger stories heading into this season was that of Kevin Hayes and his one-year contract. A one-year contract on a rebuilding team is a giant sign saying “I’m getting traded.” It makes sense, as the Rangers have a bunch of centers who will be vying for that 2C or 1C role. With Mika Zibanejad already locked up, Hayes’ fate seemed sealed.

The 26 year old center is set to hit free agency at 27 years old and will be extremely coveted. Hayes has stepped up his game this year in an expanded role, showing he can play all three strengths effectively. He’s been arguably the best forward/skater on the team thus far. All this spells big time rewards at the deadline for the Rangers, if they decide to move him.

But therein lies the conundrum. Nothing is guaranteed with Lias Andersson or Filip Chytil. Both may flop (unlikely). Both may become elite superstars (also unlikely). Both may turn into top-six/top-nine players (very likely). But the biggest question mark is where they wind up in the lineup. Will they both be centers? Chytil has been a wing for a while now and is currently thriving. Is that Andersson’s future as well? If so, then if Hayes is gone, who’s the 2C the Rangers would then desperately need?

Brett Howden’s name has come up, but he’s slowed considerably since his hot start. He might hit the potential for that role, but he’s no guarantee (sensing a theme). For a team with such promising talent on the horizon, with Hayes gone, there is no insurance plan in case one or all three do not pan out.

Which brings us back to Hayes. All logic tells us to trade him while the getting is good. Winnipeg should be able to shell out a first rounder and a solid prospect, and possibly more, for Hayes’ services. Vegas might be able to do the same. Ditto Boston. But can the Rangers do a little wink-wink, nudge-nudge with Hayes? Trade him and re-sign him, a la Keith Tkachuk and St. Louis in 2007?

Don’t get me wrong, this entire thought process is borderline collusion. The Rangers can’t have any kind of discussion like this without fear of major penalties (which, if we follow the New Jersey model, can be delayed three years, then reduced). It would certainly be in the Rangers’ best interest to not only trade him, but keep him around. Even if all three prospects develop to their fullest potential, is there anything wrong with too much talent?

Of course all this depends on the contract Hayes will want to sign. Hayes’ market value at 27 years old is probably around –and keep in mind I did not do any research into this yet, that’s for a later date– six years and around $6.5 million. Can the Rangers afford to commit that much to Hayes, who would then be the highest paid forward on the team?

The best case scenario for the Rangers is trading Hayes and then re-signing him for a contract that has less term and dollars than the 6/$6.5m described above. But is that a realistic scenario? Likely not.

As much as the Rangers should attempt to trade and then re-sign Hayes, it looks like it is going to be one or the other. Should the Rangers trade Hayes? Or should they keep him? I don’t think there’s necessarily a wrong answer here.

"Can (Should) the Rangers pull off a trade and re-sign with Kevin Hayes?", 3 out of 5 based on 5 ratings.
Tags
Show More

76 Comments

  1. I’m ok if they sign him, I’m not ok with the No Move or Trade clauses. I would like to see the team have the option to leave him unprotected in the expansion draft, or eventually trade him.

  2. Hmm … corey in the athletic this morning writes that scouts think VK future may be at the C position, which he’ll be playing for russia. Does that confound anything re signing hayes l/t?

  3. I think this is generally a good option if they could pull it off. It also gives us a chance to see Chytil in the 2C role for the remainder of the season before we commit. And the contract is reasonable enough.

  4. Hayes is an excellent player and we do not have an heir apparent. That said, his value in 2 years might be less than stellar. Sell high!

    1. I’m wary of committing 7 years at ufa rates to a guy that hasn’t put up 50 points yet. especially if they are so far from legit contending.

      That being said gorton can’t botch this deal. No cents on the dollar / sum of the parts deals here.

    2. No way do we want to sign anyone to a seven year contract not named Mc David, Crosby, Mathews. Hayes is nowhere near these guys in talent, or skill set, and wants long term? As I stated before ship him off, thank him for his services, and show him the door. Let him be a liability to some other team three years down the road!!!!!!!!!

  5. I do not see any scenario where the Rangers with the current defense can make the playoffs. We had the tank discussion yesterday – no need to get into that. Suffice to say these guys are not a playoff team.

    So with that, is Hayes more valuable on the current team or for what he can bring back? In this time and place you trade him while his value is high and continue to stockpile assets.

    If Hayes plus something can get the Sens #1 from the Avs then it has to be done. It would certainly need to be an attractive package but with Hayes included it can be done. Having two lottery picks is a really attractive situation. And we will still have the Lightning’s #1 after they bring home the Cup.

    As a fallback, other scenarios which would bring back young studs, game-breakers, and/or someone who can play defense need to be explored and whoever has the highest bid wins.

    the bottom line is, if you resign Hayes then you have Hayes – if you trade Hayes for something of great value, then you have that value and the money you didn’t spend on Hayes to spend on someone else – perhaps Panarin who seems to be a popular option. If the value you receive is a high-profile d-man then you have improved the team while dealing from a position of strength, center.

    If the team thinks he is that good then they can have the “we want you back” discussion at the trade time without getting into collision issues.

    Collusion, by the way, is not a crime 🙂

    1. My original thought process has been to build from the goalie on out. That was scrapped because it’s become painfully clear that the Rangers are not capable of that.

      So now I shift to dumping as many salaries as they can to get higher end players to lead the team to go along with the younger players and certain price certain vets like Kreider.

      Bottom line is if Hayes is the team’s leading scorer, just like Zuc has been the last few years, then that does not bode well if you are talking about playoffs and contending.

        1. Chytil appears to be special, Buch is probably the real deal, and Howden is good but limited.

          Any Panarins here? Maybe Chytil. We have a lot of 50ish pt players here, but none in the 70-80 pt range. Which would be fine if the D were good, but they’re not. So we do need those upper echelon players up front.

      1. Tony – I think, or at least I hope, that Kravtsov becomes the player that comes in and makes a difference and everything starts to jell with all of the young guys.

        We have had an overabundance of the middling 50 pt forwards for a long, long, long time. Your post made me curious so I went back at looked at the team scoring leaders for a bunch of years. Pretty interesting actually – and not in a good way.

        Here is what I see:
        • Since 2002-03 the Rangers scoring leader has had under 60 points – 8 out of 15 seasons (one being a short schedule)
        • No one has reached 70 points since Gaborik in 2011-12
        • And here is the kicker for me – Since 2002-03 only ONE PLAYER DRAFTED BY the Rangers has led the team in scoring and that was Dubinsky with a whopping 54 points in 2010-11

        Your point about losing Zucc and Hayes is well taken – Zucc has led the team in scoring 4 out of the last 5 seasons – with a high of 61 points which is kind of sad in itself.

        NY Ranger Scoring Leader
        2017-18: Zucc – 53
        2016-17: Zucc – 59
        2015-16: Zucc – 61
        2014-15: Nash – 69
        2013-14: Zucc – 59
        2012-13: Stepan – 44 (48 game lockout schedule)
        2011-12: Gaborik – 76
        2010-11: Dubinsky – 54
        2009-10: Gaborik -86
        2008-09: Gomez -58
        2007-08: Jagr -71
        2006-07: Jagr -96
        2005-06: Jagr -123
        2004-05: NO SEASON – LOCKOUT
        2003-04: Holik -56
        2002-03: Nedved -58

        1. That’s the whole point, my friend.

          Now we do have to acknowledge that Cherapnov (RIP) may have been the real deal (Jagr played with him and said as much). But yeah, the Rangers, getting middle of the round picks, lessen the chance of getting that elite player in the draft. Not to say that yo can’t get elite talent at 10-15, just less likely, and you’re not getting McDavid or Matthews at those picks, players that change franchises (Chiarelli is a dumb GM and is killing the Oilers).

          So, as a result, the Rangers have always had to go outside the org to get better players: Jagr, Nylander, Zherdev, Nash, Gabby, etc., in the recent past.

          The best of the recent past Ranger drafts, of the established drafts, meaning for players that have played several seasons and are established NHLers: Staal (yes, he makes the list because he was very good before the injuries), Kreider, JT Miller, Buch, Stepan, Hagelin, Skjei, Fast, Duclair, and Sauer (sad). The 2017 and 2018 drafts are too soon to tell.

          This is the best of the best for the recent past Ranger draft picks, a very underwhelming group, overall, given the number of years’ picks (yes, many #1s were traded away to get those better players). Shesty is a pick and appears to be the real deal. Chytil, Kravtsov, and K. Miller, the same, they look great so far.

          As golf hackers like myself say, when we hit a good shot, is: Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. I mean not once, hit the jackpot on a draft pick for a scoring forward? So far?

          Very disappointing and why the Rangers always have to go outside for help.

  6. I feel like it’s just better to move on from Hayes. He’s not game-changing enough for a rebuilding team to dedicate the amount of money he’ll command. Get assets and call it a day.

  7. Quick comment on trade and resign. I point to Mark McGwire. He was an impending free agent, expected to sign with Anaheim IIRC at the end of the season. The Cardinals got him as a rental and he stayed. The chances of this happening in hockey are even greater I think. A good team player makes bonds with his team. Take Zuccarello. He is a dyed in the wool Ranger – but he is a team guy. Right now, those are the same thing. He’d love to come back if traded. But if he goes to Nashville (picking a team out of a hat), he will build connections that he will not want to break. And lo and behold a Ranger return seems less desirable than staying in Nashville because that is his team now.

    Maybe you can trade and resign — but if you do, make sure it is to a team that has no desire to keep him.

    1. I agree Ray, but in Zucc’s case I think given his age if he were to come back it would have to be with a short duration contract at around $4m — then again we really do need some space for guys like Andersson and Kravs next year.

  8. I wish I better understood where we are with CAP money. Is Panarin at $9M per a better value that Hayes at $6M per? We may actually find this out.

    1. no advanced calculus here. would you rather pay a guy last trailing 3-4 seasons:

      77, 74, 82 (34 ) – 9 million or

      45 36 49 44 (27) – 6.5 million or even 7 ?

      im taking the former every single day.

      1. Looks to me like Panarin has elite numbers and Hayes has nice numbers. No brainer – IF we can get Panarin

      2. The slight flaw in your logic is you try not to pay for past performance, but for future performance. Given that Hayes is about 1.5 years younger and plays a greater defensive role than Panarin makes this more like advanced calculus than straight up mathematics. 😉

      3. Both Hayes and Panarin will be struggling to post 40 point seasons by 2022 … hard pass on signing both to anything beyond a 4 year contract.

        It IS nice seeing Hayes develop into a force though. Shame the latter half of his prime years don’t line up with the Rangers window to contend.

        1. I don’t agree on Panarin. He’s been basically a pt a game player, on 2 different teams no less. I don’t see him slowing down.

          I agree on Hayes, which is why I don’t want him long-term.

          1. Is Panarin a time bending wizard?

            Virtually every NHL player hits a wall at 29 and sees their production dip. Panarin will likely still be a good player, but he won’t produce like the superstar that his enormous contract will require for the Rangers to have success while Panarin is a Ranger. Panarin’s contract will be an albatross for the Rangers by time all the kids make this franchise a contender again.

            At a likely over $9M a year cap hit, I’d prefer some other team roll the dice on Panarin.

            1. So instead of signing a guy like this, what is the game plan? Continue to draft around #10 and hope to build a playoff team?

            2. Chris

              And there lies the problem, one should never give long term contracts except to players that I mentioned in my above post. I can’t blame the players for trying to cash in like that, but management in the NHL has no idea of what they do!!!! There is a reason they posed a cap on the teams, to protect the teams from going nuts with those contracts……….

            3. Actually there is an age factor unique to Panarin.

              Your average NHL player that hits the wall at 29 has been putting himself through grueling AHL hockey or a 70-80 game NHL schedule since the age of 19-20.

              Panarin didn’t come over until he was 24, and was playing the much easier, less physical, 50 game schedule in Europe before then.

              He has a ton less mileage on his body than your average NHLer, so the average NHLer trajectory won’t necessarily apply to him.

    2. Good question … Hayes is bigger, younger and plays the tougher position. He’s better defensively. Panarin is clearly the better offensive player, but not by so much (at least this year) as to negate the benefits of keeping Hayes — plus of course there’s the discrepancy of salary.

      1. But to speak to value, we have no wingers with those types of point totals, but could have centers who replicate Hayes’ ability to an extent.

        1. I don’t see those centers tbh. I don’t think any of them are ready to assume a #2 role and play consistently well. I agree with you that we are short top quality wingers, but Kravs will come over next year and I suspect his adjustment period will be a lot quicker than most — quicker than Chytil. Don’t get me wrong, I would like Panarin in a Rangers uniform, or even Mark Stone … but not necessarily at the cost of Hayes. Panarin (or Stone) can slot in money-wise if we move Zucc and his $4.5m and say Namestnikov with his $4m. We also have McQuaid’s 2.75m coming off the books next year … and Giradi’s money will drop from 3.6m to 1.1m the following year.

  9. Just curious…why trade him with so much support and desire but when it comes to Leaky…untouchable…Some of you just make me laugh with your hypocrisy…lol….News flash…he is less than a fit than Hayes

    Yes trade Hayes while his value is an all time high

    1. For starters Hayes doesn’t have a no movement clause. For the millionth time, Hank does. Hank is soon to be 37, he makes too much money for there to be a successful cap fit for most teams. End of story.

      1. Funny, every player with star status minus a couple has been traded during their careers. Orr played for another team, Gretzky, Coffey, Messier….I can go on with names.His NTC is a non factor if there is the will to trade him. He has the ability to waive it and indeed there are ways to get him to do that. So for the millionth time to your close minded response I offer my rebuttal to your answer.

        1. The team’s will doesn’t matter if the player won’t waive their NTC. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The player holds all the leverage unless the team buries the player in the press box.

          And then how do you propose trading Hank if you’ve buried him beforehand in an attempt to make him waive a no movement clause? That way you destroy any value he has. Not to mention the Rangers aren’t going to drag their best player for the past 14 seasons through the mud in an attempt to shame him into waiving his no movement clause.

    2. The situations are totally different. Lundqvist has a no trade clause which he won’t waive – and frankly, with his contract, is untraceable without retained salary. If the Rangers offered him fro a seventh round pick, 30 general managers would laugh.
      Hayes OTOH is a potential free agent with whom they cannot agree. within. a contract and who has considerable trade value.

      1. Just a note on NTCs, they can always be broken …. if all of a sudden Hank is splitting or getting less time in net than with say Georgiev, how does he feel then? I’m not advocating this btw, just suggesting that NTCs often times get waived when the situation at home isn’t quite as palatable as before.

  10. In the right here right now Kevin Hayes is fun to watch and a huge cog that drives the Rangers offense. While every players on a team is tradable, I think moving Hayes would like pulling the flowers and keeping the weeds.

  11. NO … this should be a renovation, not a tear it down and rebuild.

    I say sign Hayes. I see no evidence of any player being able to replace him and his role at the current time or in the very near future. I like Chytil on the wing for now and neither Howden, Namestnikov or Andersson appear to be ready to step in. Regarding the rumor about Kravs playing center, NO … not at least for the foreseeable future. Let him develop the first few years without the added pressure of playing center (especially in Quinn’s system).

    The issue with Hayes should be less about money, front load the contract and make sure that any NTC has some level of flexibility built in. I see no reason why his value should decline over the course of the next year, in fact it might increase if he’s signed long term and may open up the possibility of trading him even over the summer/prior to the draft.

    If on the other hand a team is willing to part with a TOP LEVEL prospect with true elite potential, then of course all bets are off … but to trade Hayes for a late 1st rounder and an ok prospect who is neither a sure thing or truly a possible elite player down the line, makes little sense to me. Hayes was cultivated here, he’s ready to assume greater responsibilities. He was groomed for this, let’s not do all the work for another team to reap the true benefits.

    My other issue with trading Hayes is the fact we have other players, less important to this team’s maturation process over the course of the next 2-3 years that could be good trade bait. I believe Zucc will command a 1st rounder and a ok prospect at the trade deadline, Namestnikov, given his improved play of late, might also command a 1st round pick (without prospect) or a 2nd and prospect — guys like McQuaid might garner a mid-round pick … and moving Shattenkirk for a 1st could also be possible. Focus on moving what we can easily afford to move without killing this team’s prospects for next season.

    As for a trade and resign scenario, I just don’t trust it.

    1. So, let’s say the Rangers sign him to a 6 year, $36M contract, a very reasonable contract for both sides. And let’s just say the Rangers get their way and it’s a modified contract that allows the Rangers to trade him at some point.

      What’s next for the team? What moves do they make after using up $6M per of cap space?

      1. We lock ourselves up with a middle tier player, of which we have too many of already. Move him out and get a good pick or a former first round pick who is ready to move into the NHL. Solid righty defense needs come to mind

        1. lol, that’s where I’m coming from, in general. I think that the top part of the team’s talent has to be improved. Which is why I’m in the camp of trading Hayes, even though he’s having the best year he could possibly have.

          My dream has been Trouba. But the question is, does even adding him to this D corps really improve the D corps? Is the situation so bad that one player is not going to make that much of a difference?

          My latest feeling is to tear down the D corps, play younger, cheaper players on D, and load up on upper tier forwards, to go along with or own younger forwards.

      2. Richter, you replace Zucc and say Namestnikov at 8.5m total with Panarin (or Stone at a lower cost) and Kravs. We also shed McQuaid’s $2.75m next year.

        Creature Feature, Hayes is not a middle tier player, he’s entering his prime and approaching his plateau (which I think will be next year or the year after that) … I suspect like Stepan he’s a non-elite 1c very good 2c.

          1. The D is a mess. lol In an ideal world you trade Skjei++ for Trouba, Shattenkirk for a late 1st rounder, Staal for a 2nd or 3rd (if it’s possible), McQuaid for a 4th or 5th, and Smith for a 3rd or 4th (again, if possible) … then hope ADA and Pionk continue to develop, hope that Miller develops VERY quickly, add Hajek and and keep Claesson … so you have Trouba, Pionk and ADA on the right side, Miller, Hajek and Claesson on the left side. 7th and 8th d’men come from the pool of d’men, Lundqvist, Crawley, maybe Keane and …

            1. The Rangers indeed have more work to do on defence. Not sure about all the hype about Freddy O. He’s a 3rd pair dman at best who doesn’t move the needle and is expendable.

            2. I don’t think the D is as bad as people think. There is no true first pair, but I think if Tampa Bay just handed them Hedman and Stralman, they could field one of the top defenses in the league with three quality pairs. Of course, TB won’t do this so the question is where does a true top pair come from. Well, defensemen develop slowly and we really don’t know how good Pionk, ADA, Hajek, Lindgren, Rykov, Miller are going to be. Quinn seems to like what he sees in Pionk and maybe he will grow into the role. Who knows? perhaps Hajek-Pionk can be a top pair next year.

              Of course, there are salary cap issues with the four S’s all making $4M plus a year. It may be that there is a general manager out there who thinks these guys are not overpaid (not the same gm for all four presumably) and deals can be made. And one does not have to get rid of all of them. But I can’t see how one gets much in return. Other teams don’t want salary cap issues either. The Rangers have ten players making $4M plus a year. I suspect the average gm would not even give up a seventh round pick for 3-4 of them (not the same 3-4 necessarily).

              1. Raymond, the D bleeds shots like crazy. Do the forwards get some blame for this? Sure, but they’re not capable of owning the puck and taking the pressure off the D.

                Which is why I say, if this is going to be the D corps that they have, then the Rangers need forwards who are going to own the puck, meaning having higher end talent up front. The Rangers do not have that right now.

    2. “but to trade Hayes for a late 1st rounder and an ok prospect who is neither a sure thing or truly a possible elite player down the line, makes little sense to me. Hayes was cultivated here, he’s ready to assume greater responsibilities. He was groomed for this, let’s not do all the work for another team to reap the true benefits.”

      ^ Thank you saying this

      Clear up cap and retool. I want to see JG become a major player for the Tarasenko bid. If Panarin comes over the summer than great… Clear out Smith, Zucc, Staal and Vlad before next season. Use Kreider as apart of the package that goes over to STL. That would be enough space to pay Hayes, Tarasenko and Panarin. Rangers would still have Buch the Chytil in the top 6. Howden would have Kravstov on the 3rd line.

      1. That sounds nice Mint, but I suspect that the Blues aren’t serious about trading Tarasenko … he’s the type of player you can build around (not generational like Crosby, Matthews, etc.), but an elite player. I think the costs would be exorbitant — much greater than Kreider. I also worry that getting rid of both Smith and Staal would be nearly impossible, one of the two perhaps. I definitely though agree that getting rid of Zucc and Namestnikov are no brainers — although it would be nice to Namestnikov playing on a 3rd line (but at $4m?).

      2. your plan to redo the defense….. which requires a complete stripping down?

        As ive said before re-tool/renovation is an NHL /sports Blackhole, especially if you do not have the elite player already. It also suggests indecisiveness and organizational indecision which is true of the nyr right now.

  12. Hayes is having a banner year, may reach 60 points, so what then?

    Is this a freak year, and should we bet on a repeat of same?

    When will Kevin begin his decline? This is a fast game, Kevin is somewhat slow, will that hamper his ability to play long term for us?

    There are too many questions to be answered, and the fact that he is having a very good year for our team, has it impacted our standing? If he were out of the line up, what happens? I see a replacement who may not be quite up to Hayes’ talent, now that is, but having a chance to play more, can exceed his output.

    At what point can we get the best return for him? I suspect right now, so move him along, develop another center, and continue with the rebuild with quality kids that we wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance of drafting without the additional picks we get for making these deals!!!!!!

    1. I don’t think this is a freak year at all, this is what he’s been building up towards. Let’s remember his point totals reflected his position on the center depth chart for years, the 3rd line center. Now that he has been given consistent Top 6 minutes game in and game out, his point totals are increasing — plus let’s not forget the yeoman-like work he’s done on the PK the last couple of years.

      He may never be more than a 60 point guy, but they don’t grow on trees … especially those 60 point guys who can handle defensive responsibilities.

      Re: skating … all this improvement has come during the era of fast skaters, he isn’t slow. Sure though, when he gets North of 30 he’ll start slipping, but it looks to me like he’ll have a few more real good years left in him.

      Re: trade value, a late 1st is nice … but we got a #7 for Stepan. Hayes will still be very tradeable next year and the year after that. If he’s signed that gives us the flexibility of trading him anytime, not just at the trade deadline when all you can reasonably hope for is a later 1st rounder. So who knows, but either way a late 1st rounder will probably still be doable in 2+ years. It’s a small risk, imo.

  13. This is where the 1 year deal we gave him inhibits trade talk. You are not going to get what you want for him when the supposed team to trade with….. can just try to sign him in the offseason. That is unless they work out with Hayes that he will definitely sign a deal right after the trade. Which surprisingly does happen in the NHL. So his value as a trade asset does come with limitations and we as Rangers fans are only looking at our team and not all the other Kevin Hayes’ that are out on the market also this season. And really don’t see any playoff contenders dying to add a Kevin Hayes to their roster for a swap of a Trouba and a 1st rounder. I have been wrong many times but this one seems very unlikely to me.

    My point with the whole 1 year deal hurting his value is with the caveat that he will go to a team like the AVS or Senators which undoubtedly will be cellar dwellers. Hence a high pick. And these teams are in no rush whatsoever to get to the cup. We can muster all the 25th to 30th picks we want but real talent lies much higher in the draft most times. Not always. Ah La Lias Andersson.

    I truly feel this was a prove me contract by Gorton/Sather and he, as in Hayes, is doing it. Which almost certainly guarantees he will resign for what he wants. Which I personally feel isn’t bad today but horrible long term. Cause it most likely will be a redonkculous long term 6 or 7 million contract. Just a general Satherish contract. Need examples of what satherish is….. look to Staal’s or Giardi’s great deals.

    Like Dave said either way might not be all that bad.

    I for one would like to see guys like Lias get traded now. Namestikov and DeAngelo and just players who have seen for a while and just haven’t hit their stride. I think teams will be much more willing to give up picks for somewhat proven assets that just haven’t clicked here in NY. To me that would be the shrewdest move. You know what you have in a Hayes or Zuc…but odds are you are not going to get very much for them.

  14. I just did an armchair GM (lol) on Cap Friendly for next year, based on:

    Staal buyout.
    Smith buried in Hartford.
    Names trade for a pick.
    Hayes, Zuc, McQuaid, McLeod, all gone.
    Panarin signed for 7 years, $9M per.
    Stone signed for 7 years, $7.5M per.
    Pionk re-signed for 2 years, $3M per.
    DeAngelo re-signed for 2 years, $1.5M per.
    Buch re-signed for 2 years, $3M per.
    Claesson re-signed for 2 years, $1M per.
    Hajek promoted.

    Here is the result:

    Panarin-Zib-Stone
    Kreider-Chytil-Buch
    Vesey-Howden-Kravtsov
    Strome-Andersson-Fast

    Claesson-Shatty
    Skjei-Pionk
    Hajek-DeAngelo

    Hank and Georgiev

    The remaining cap is around $3M to fill in the rest.

    1. Man I like dreamers! That is a lot of ifs that we both know won’t happen. But dreaming is a nice picture. We are not a contender with this roster but in a year or two we certainly could be. I think this would expedite the rebuild/retood alot faster. But just how much of this do you think will actually transpire?

      1. What does it take? Look at that list and all are attainable. Panarin and Stone are all $$ transactions, no trades needed.

        Tell me which parts are unrealistic? Granted both Panarin and Stone have to agree to come here, but the Rangers have as good a chance as anyone else.

        1. How about if we trade Pionk, Tampa’s pick and a second rounder to the Oilers for Adam Larsson, it satisfies 2 things… we get a right handed defenseman that can actually defend and doesn’t suck, and Edmonton can use the cap relief.

        2. How about we trade Pionk, Tampa’s pick and a second rounder to the Oilers for Adam Larsson. It satisfies a problem for each team… we get a right handed defender that actually defends and doesn’t suck, and Edmonton gets cap relief.

          1. I actually think that is a very solid idea. Or at least very realistic. Most casual fans would see this as a rape from the get go but if Larsson shores up the right side…It would be a win at that exact moment no matter what happens with Pionk and his career unless he turns into the next Chelios and has a amazing career with cups every year. And Larsson is on a great deal at 4.1 million per.

            I mean we sold the last season for Deangelo supposedly so if Larsson could stabilize him and relieve some pressure from the kid and allow him to grow … essentially what Shattenkirk I thought was brought in to do and has so far failed horribly at. Great idea Emile.

            The more I keep thinking the more this really could happen. Age is right …played in the metro…low cap hit…where is this a bad deal for us? Just would have to convince edmonton of Pionk’s high upside etc etc. And that tampa will definitely win the cup.

          2. Good idea, the issue is though whether Larsson is good enough to make a difference on the Rangers’ messy D corps.

        3. This is why you are dreamer. No way in hell Staal gets bought out…they are done with buyouts atleast til g’s contract comes off. Smith will never get sent back down for unproven kids. Names will never get traded cause they see him as a high asset while I feel most other franchises see him as a 3rd or 4th liner. I said above Hayes isn’t going anywhere. They won’t get what they want for Zuc to trade him away. And for whatever reason McCleod is here to stay. So where is all the free money to sign Pan and Stone? We presently sit at 1.5 million under the cap …Dont see the money being there.

          Now….. could they do this ….oh most definitely. But will they…that is the real question. You think after we came to a conclusion as to how stupid sather is that he won’t be stubborn and do all the things I just listed? I mean …it is not in his track history. It would be a major step in the right direction and shut me up immediately. I might just go to a few games if this happens. But never could I see this all happening. You might get 1 or 2 of your thoughts but all those moves in one offseason is just not his style. Now if the front office had a guy like cashman in it…then I could believe it. That guy goes into the offseason …figures out a game plan with his guys and executes it to the best of his ability. Hence the Yankees are never that far from a Ring. We have a guy who enters a offseason with the plan to rebuild since february and his biggest offseason acquisition is McQuaid for 2 draft picks and some money? And the resigning of McCleod, Spooner and NAmestikov. Yeah not going to happen but I like your dreams brother!

    2. Tony

      That is some line up, but there are too many moving parts. If I were to make moves, I’d also include Shatty this year for a #1, and prospect. The Rykov kid s a right d-man who is much better defensively that Shatty ever was, on the cheap.

      The Panarin, and Stone contracts would be very expensive, and both would want long term deals, which I oppose big time. We made too many mistakes with long term deals. Girardi, Staal, come to mind immediately, and I get a bad case of indigestion!!!!!!!!

      1. I think that the issue of long-term contracts for the Rangers is more on the D side. Other than McD, the contracts they gave to D men have been terrible since then.

        1. Lots of bad contracts across the board. Redden,Gonez,2 Traffic comes ( I would have been way happier if it was Staal bought out instead of G ) , Yandle, Shatty, Boyle, Richards, Drury, Naslund ( thank god he seen the light and retired )

    3. Richter – if you can pull that off. You’re my next GM. Love that lineup. Particularly Stone.

    4. That proposed D is a joke. Claesson on first pair? All three right D 5’11″/6.0′ ? They are loosing board battles day in and day out, and can’t clear anyone from the paint. Looks even worse that right now.

Back to top button
Close
Close