Rumor: Ilya Kovalchuk will be signing a 2-3 year deal with NYR

[GregSirico]

For all of you who think being the worst team in the league is the best strategy ever ... read this, it's disturbing.

Sabres' Ryan O'Reilly says he lost love of game, lacked mental toughness

"We're stuck in this mindset of just being OK with losing,"

"It's disappointing. It's sad. I feel throughout the year I've lost the love of the game multiple times. You need to get back to it because it's just eating myself up and eats the other guys, too. It's just eating us up, and it's tough."

"I just hated to lose, and just with everything that's gone on, I just kind of had nowhere to go with it," O'Reilly said. "It was just kind of, 'Oh, it's all right. As long as I did some things well, it's OK.'

"That's how I kind of fell out of love with it, and I miss that. I want to get back to myself."

 

[GregSirico]

I think he gets plenty of credit.

I just don't think this team is in any position to be handing out a 6 or 7 year deal at 10+ million a year.

Very fair point.

 

[TheTakedown]

Not being talked abput in here is the fact that if there is an expansion draft in 2020, the rangers may not want to have to deal with protecting Kovalchuk. Kovalchuk might also be open to a 2 year deal because he would be a UFA to be leading up to the 2020 expansion draft, minimizing his chances of being picked.

2 year deal works for everyone involved. If kovy wants that 3rd year the rangers can work it out after the expansion draft.

Also, all Russians in the KHL are not accruing professional seasons since there is no transfer agreement between the leagues. Rykov, Bereglazov, etc

 

[GAGLine]

Hmmm... here's a question... would you rather sign Kovalchuk and Tavares (yea I know, cap since you'll have to throw the bank at Tavares), only one of them, or none of them and rebuild through draft?

Regardless of who we sign, I want to build through the draft. I don't think signing either or both precludes us from building through the draft (though I am steadfastly against signing Tavares).

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Carp says it's not true as the two sides can't even talk right now and kovy can't sign until july 1st

That said, I could see rumors on the Russian side of things that Kovy wants to sign with the Rangers and that's being assumed to "will sign with the Rangers for *this deal*". Wouldn't be surpirsed if there's mutual interest, even Brooks was pushing it, though who knows if he had info or just spinning his own opinions.

I wouldn't trust Carp's info over Igor Eronko's. Carp usually has no info, Eronko breaks news all the time about Russian players, teams.

Teams also tamper all the time without getting punished. I wouldn't doubt that he's signed, and it just won't become official until July 1.

 

[eco's bones]

I don't think signing Kovalchuk means we won't suck. Lets say he replaces Zucc for next season, and produces Zucc's production at a slightly better rate, are we much/any better?

If they produce the same?--we'll have what we get back in a Zuccarello deal too which should be something pretty good.

I like Mats a lot. I can't see giving him a long term contract for much more than he's making now though. IMO tack on a two year deal to the one year he has left--NMC the first year--15 team list his second year $5 mil a year is about as far as I'd want to go with him right now. I wouldn't mind seeing how he'd work with Kovalchuk though. Zucc is a creative playmaker and Ilya can shoot the puck.

 

[Hire Sather]

Kovalchuk all day over Tavares. No UFA is worth 10 years unless Sather finds a way to get out of the deal halfway through.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I don't think signing Kovalchuk means we won't suck. Lets say he replaces Zucc for next season, and produces Zucc's production at a slightly better rate, are we much/any better?

Nope, but I think that Kovlachuk will be a strong presence around the kids.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don't think signing Kovalchuk means we won't suck. Lets say he replaces Zucc for next season, and produces Zucc's production at a slightly better rate, are we much/any better?

If everything else stays the same? Yes, a bit. If he can stabilize the room and bring some fire out there I'm all for it, he doesn't even have to score 30.

All I'm looking for from this team next year is further development of young players, a competent system and some semblance of passion from the team as a whole.

If that leads to a playoff berth so be it, but no one should be surprised (or upset) if/when it doesn't. This is a process, not a 1 year reboot.

 

[Hire Sather]

Man I'm so pumped he was my favorite player when he was with Atlanta.

This is a jersey purchase.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Switches to 8.

**Rangers are retiring Steve Vickers' number**

If we draft Dahlin and he wants 8, Steve Vickers can pick another number to have retired.

 

[FJB]

Kovalchuk all day over Tavares. No UFA is worth 10 years unless Sather finds a way to get out of the deal halfway through.

I presented the thought on that assumption.. you know Slats is going to find a way to get out of it just in case LOL

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

If we draft Dahlin and he wants 8, Steve Vickers can pick another number to have retired.

I like him in 26 personally

And he’d have to make Vesey change his number in that case which is a plus

 

[Ghost of jas]

Hmmm... here's a question... would you rather sign Kovalchuk and Tavares (yea I know, cap since you'll have to throw the bank at Tavares), only one of them, or none of them and rebuild through draft?

I don’t want Tavares, and I take the Kovalchuk signing to ensure they’re moving Zuccarello at the draft. More assets, which the Bobfather has claimed Gorton will use to trade up for draft picks that will have a greater impact. Kovalchuk also serves as a veteran presence for the likes of Buchnevich and Chytil as well as he was teammates with Rykov and Shestyorkin.

Signing Tavares is a same old Rangers’ move. Attempting to build a core through buying an elite player about to turn towards the back half of his career.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Yes, Vegas holds his rights indefinitely because there is no transfer agreement between the NHL and Russian Federation/KHL. He is classified as a "defected player" in the CBA.

Even if Gusev could hypothetically become a UFA at age 27 that wouldn't be until 2020-21 as his birthday is a week after the June 30th UFA cutoff date.

Do we know how exactly this would work? He turns 27 during the free agent period. Would he have to wait an extra year or since his birthday falls within the window he would become a UFA in 2019-20? I wasn't sure about this.

 

[GregSirico]

I presented the thought on that assumption.. you know Slats is going to find a way to get out of it just in case LOL

One thing Slats is good with .... finding a way to fleece SOMEONE.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Man I'm so pumped he was my favorite player when he was with Atlanta.

This is a jersey purchase.

Much like the case with Shanahan, I just get to watch one of favorites 10 years too late.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

If they produce the same?--we'll have what we get back in a Zuccarello deal too which should be something pretty good.

I like Mats a lot. I can't see giving him a long term contract for much more than he's making now though. IMO tack on a two year deal to the one year he has left--NMC the first year--15 team list his second year $5 mil a year is about as far as I'd want to go with him right now. I wouldn't mind seeing how he'd work with Kovalchuk though. Zucc is a creative playmaker and Ilya can shoot the puck.

Do we have the cap space to keep Zucc and Kovy? If we could potentially sign Karlsson or Tavares, someone would definitely need to go, and Zucc would be the obvious candidate.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I like him in 26 personally

And he’d have to make Vesey change his number in that case which is a plus

I always feel like D men look better in single digits.

But f it, if he ends up coming here I would start a petition to the league to make #99 available to him if he wants it.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Not to pick on any one particular poster here, but in general, there seems to be a healthy amount of overlap between those who have resisted the idea of a rebuild over the past year or so and those who are raging against this reported move now.

Then:
"No! You always fight to get into the playoffs! There's always a chance! New York won't tolerate a rebuild! Look at Edmonton and Buffalo – do you want to be that bad? You can get elite players later in the draft, just look at Detroit! Real fans don't accept losing!" Etc., etc.

Now:
"You said you were rebuilding! Okay, fine, so we're doing it – what the f*** is this shit? If you rebuild you must be as bad as you can be at all times! You told me we needed to draft high! If we're going to do it, well then f***ing do it, because all that matters is getting a few more ping-pong balls!" Etc., etc.

For the umpteen-millionth time: rebuilding ≠ "tanking". "Tanking" means losing as much as possible – and is IMO used primarily by anti-rebuilding/go-for-it-every-year fans as a pejorative term to denigrate the process of an orderly rebuild.

What rebuilding means is:

• Trading good players who are in their prime, but are unlikely to be by the time the team rebounds, in exchange for picks, prospects, and young players.
• Backfilling with UFA on short-term deals, who will foster a positive clubhouse and habits, help develop the kids, and can potentially be flipped for more picks/prospects/young players.

Sure, as a result, you will typically see more losses, which will lead to higher picks – and yes, this is in line with the long-term goal of acquiring elite talent. But losing is not, in and of itself, the purpose of a proper rebuild. It is a temporary outcome that occurs as part of the process.

No rational GM (or fan of proper rebuilding) goes into a season hoping for losses. You hope the team will show development and exceed expectations – and accept that a certain amount of losing is a likely result. And then, of course, once you get to the last 10 games of the season, and it's clear the year is lost, you can hope to see the kids play well without damaging your pick too significantly.

Signing Kovalchuk to a 2-3 year deal (especially if it means they are then going to go out and also trade Zucc and one or more of the RFAs for more picks/prospects/young players) absolutely fits with proper rebuilding.

 

[mouser]

Do we know how exactly this would work? He turns 27 during the free agent period. Would he have to wait an extra year or since his birthday falls within the window he would become a UFA in 2019-20? I wasn't sure about this.

You have to be age 27 as of June 30th immediately preceding the new league year / UFA period. No different then how you determine if a player is RFA or UFA. e.g. Rob O'Gara won't be eligible to be a UFA until 2021-22, even though he turns 27 on July 6th of 2020 (assuming he doesn't become a UFA earlier by virtue of not being qualified/signed).

In the case of Gusev it's moot since he doesn't become a UFA at age 27. He's classified as a Group 4 RFA, CBA 10.2(b). There are a number of qualifications for how those players might become UFA's, however they don't automatically do so at age 27. So long as the team holding their rights wants to sign the player then they're probably not going to become UFA's. Once a Group 4 player signs and completes an NHL contract then their UFA/RFA status is re-evaluated after the contract is completed.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Not to pick on any one particular poster here, but in general, there seems to be a healthy amount of overlap between those who have resisted the idea of a rebuild over the past year or so and those who are raging against this reported move now.

Then:
"No! You always fight to get into the playoffs! There's always a chance! New York won't tolerate a rebuild! Look at Edmonton and Buffalo – do you want to be that bad? You can get elite players later in the draft, just look at Detroit! Real fans don't accept losing!" Etc., etc.

Now:
"You said you were rebuilding! Okay, fine, so we're doing it – what the **** is this ****? If you rebuild you must be as bad as you can be at all times! You told me we needed to draft high! If we're going to do it, well then ****ing do it, because all that matters is getting a few more ping-pong balls!" Etc., etc.

For the umpteen-millionth time: rebuilding ≠ "tanking". "Tanking" is a pejorative term that, IMO, for the most part anti-rebuilding/go-for-it-every-year fans use to denigrate the process of an orderly rebuild.

What rebuilding means is:

• Trading good players who are in their prime, but are unlikely to be by the time the team rebounds, in exchange for picks, prospects, and young players.
• Backfilling with UFA on short-term deals, who will foster a positive clubhouse and habits, help develop the kids, and can potentially be flipped for more picks/prospects/young players.

Sure, as a result, you will typically see more losses, which will lead to higher picks – and yes, this is in line with the long-term goal of acquiring elite talent. But losing is not, in and of itself, the purpose of a proper rebuild. It is a temporary outcome that occurs as part of the process.

No rational GM (or fan of proper rebuilding) goes into a season hoping for losses. You hope the team will show development and exceed expectations – and accept that a certain amount of losing is a likely result. And then, of course, once you get to the last 10 games of the season, and it's clear the year is lost, you can hope to see the kids play well without damaging your pick too significantly.

Signing Kovalchuk to a 2-3 year deal (especially if it means they are then going to go out and also trade Zucc and one or more of the RFAs for more picks/prospects/young players) absolutely fits with proper rebuilding.

Preach. Add in that Kovalchuk was a teammate for our future #1 goalie and one of the D prospects acquired at the deadline. I’d have more problems if they were pursuing the likes of Neal, Carlson or Tavares which would be repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Nope, but I think that Kovlachuk will be a strong presence around the kids.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Not to pick on any one particular poster here, but in general, there seems to be a healthy amount of overlap between those who have resisted the idea of a rebuild over the past year or so and those who are raging against this reported move now.

Then:
"No! You always fight to get into the playoffs! There's always a chance! New York won't tolerate a rebuild! Look at Edmonton and Buffalo – do you want to be that bad? You can get elite players later in the draft, just look at Detroit! Real fans don't accept losing!" Etc., etc.

Now:
"You said you were rebuilding! Okay, fine, so we're doing it – what the **** is this ****? If you rebuild you must be as bad as you can be at all times! You told me we needed to draft high! If we're going to do it, well then ****ing do it, because all that matters is getting a few more ping-pong balls!" Etc., etc.

For the umpteen-millionth time: rebuilding ≠ "tanking". "Tanking" is a pejorative term that, IMO, for the most part anti-rebuilding/go-for-it-every-year fans use to denigrate the process of an orderly rebuild.

What rebuilding means is:

• Trading good players who are in their prime, but are unlikely to be by the time the team rebounds, in exchange for picks, prospects, and young players.
• Backfilling with UFA on short-term deals, who will foster a positive clubhouse and habits, help develop the kids, and can potentially be flipped for more picks/prospects/young players.

Sure, as a result, you will typically see more losses, which will lead to higher picks – and yes, this is in line with the long-term goal of acquiring elite talent. But losing is not, in and of itself, the purpose of a proper rebuild. It is a temporary outcome that occurs as part of the process.

No rational GM (or fan of proper rebuilding) goes into a season hoping for losses. You hope the team will show development and exceed expectations – and accept that a certain amount of losing is a likely result. And then, of course, once you get to the last 10 games of the season, and it's clear the year is lost, you can hope to see the kids play well without damaging your pick too significantly.

Signing Kovalchuk to a 2-3 year deal (especially if it means they are then going to go out and also trade Zucc and one or more of the RFAs for more picks/prospects/young players) absolutely fits with proper rebuilding.

I want to take this post and paint it on the ceiling of a church.