Rumor: Ilya Kovalchuk will be signing a 2-3 year deal with NYR
- Thread starter FoxyClean
- Start date
- Status
GregSirico
KakkoSZN
Rangers aren't going to ice a whole team of 18 year olds, there needs to be some some of veteran presence somewhere.
I obviously prefer two, but I don't think three is "bad." I don't think one year turns a contract from fine to bad.
AIexisLafreniereNYR
Registered Drug User
So are we keeping Zucc? I would say we should go all in on JT now but we need to solidify that defense if we want to contend
GregSirico
KakkoSZN
I think this is a solid point. People have to realize we aren't going to piss years away. No chance. Sure, there's a great likelihood we will not be a good team in 2018/2019 but to throw it away because of that? No that won't happen. Kovy is a goal scorer (which we lack depth on, let's be fair) and he's a veteran presence for the kids especially the Euro's (Chytil Andersson, Rykov when he comes over) to learn from. I see very little downside here to a 2-3Y deal. It's better than giving 5Y for some NHLer now who is looking for a big time deal in free agency.
Last edited:
JT wouldn't sign here and do that to the Islanders. Just won't happen. He's too classy of a guy.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Why such a big or long contract, who are the Rangers bidding against? Rumored he wants to be in tri-state area, the Devils are signing him? He wants to go to the Islanders? The KHL, if so why is he wanting to not stay there anyway?
Even if we scope that out, how many of the teams in the NHL are going to sign a plus 35 contract for that type of term or cap hit? Who has that type of cap space who is not saving it for either free agency or to re-sign something they already have? If that only leaves the destinations he does not really want to go to why are the Rangers treating their market like those ones?
Offer 1 year with easy to attain performance bonuses that can get him up to 7M, even a no movement clause, who cares if it's one year, see how it goes. If it goes well he can sign another similar if not better contract next summer, if things go poorly in that one year they avoid a prolonged issue.
Even if we scope that out, how many of the teams in the NHL are going to sign a plus 35 contract for that type of term or cap hit? Who has that type of cap space who is not saving it for either free agency or to re-sign something they already have? If that only leaves the destinations he does not really want to go to why are the Rangers treating their market like those ones?
Offer 1 year with easy to attain performance bonuses that can get him up to 7M, even a no movement clause, who cares if it's one year, see how it goes. If it goes well he can sign another similar if not better contract next summer, if things go poorly in that one year they avoid a prolonged issue.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Again, it likely means Zuccarello gets moved, meaning Gorton adds more assets. It provides some leadership, especially for the likes of Chytil and Buch. Maybe they move him to a contender in a year or two.
AIexisLafreniereNYR
Registered Drug User
Hes no Kovalchuk
How sweet could that be. We'd become five times more hated by the Devils and Islanders, would make for an interesting season
Blueshirt Special
Shady Brey
I'm not ready to buy the "should be a good mentor to the young Russians" mentality. What is this based on? He left his team in the middle of a long term contract to go to the KHL. Is that the kind of "mentoring" we want?
What if he is recruiting for the KHL?
What if he is recruiting for the KHL?
GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,296
- 21,181
A 2 year deal is meant to be a short term solution rather than a long term one. If we sign him, it won't be because we expect him to be part of a championship team. It will be because we want someone who can help make the team better in the short term while the kids mature, and that we can flip for quality assets later. If he comes in and scores 30+ goals and we trade him for a 1st rounder, that's a huge win asset-wise.
Some have suggested taking on bad contracts in order to get additional assets, which I'm not against provided the terms are 2 years or less. Signing Kovy would be a similar move, except that instead of taking on a bad contract to get an asset, we are signing a good player for free and flipping him for an asset. Maybe people don't want him because they want the team to be as bad as possible next year to get a better pick, but I don't think Gorton will do that. He isn't going to intentionally ice a team that he believes will bottom out.
GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,296
- 21,181
No, we most definitely should not. Potentially signing a 35 year old player to a 2 or 3 year contract isn't a signal that Gorton is going all in, which is an absolutely ridiculous notion after raising the white flag just a few months ago and declaring a rebuild.
There is little risk in signing Kovy. JT will want 10+ mil for 7 years. Gorton won't give him that. He's already on record saying he isn't looking to give out long term deals. And JT isn't going to do that to the islanders. He may leave them, but he isn't going to turn around and sign with their biggest rival.
Hes no Kovalchuk
Yeah let’s make all our moves based on how other fan bases would feel about us instead of making the right moves for this team so that they can win a cup one day.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
If he is scoring 30 goals in season two of that deal, are the Rangers not playoff bound and self renting him?
GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,296
- 21,181
Lol, I don't think we have to worry about him recruiting for the KHL. Years back, there were people actually worried that the KHL would compete with the NHL, but it was never a competition, and it's even less of one now.
Something that never gets brought up though when speaking of Kovy and his "leadership" is when he was sent home during the playoffs by his KHL team. I don't know that it was ever reported what that was really all about, but when a team is making their best player a healthy scratch in the playoffs, something must be wrong.
That said, I don't think we would bring Kovy in for his leadership. Maybe it is just to provide a familiar face and encourage Shesterkin and Rykov to come over next summer. Or maybe it's just so that we can get a free asset that we can flip at the deadline. Or maybe it's just so that the team isn't a complete trainwreck next season.
I'm not interested in giving him 3 years, but 2 I could live with. There isn't much risk involved with that and I'm not really expecting the Rangers to be very good the next 2 years anyway.
AIexisLafreniereNYR
Registered Drug User
Kovalchuk is a difference maker, heck he can become trade bait if things dont work out.
I wonder what coach slots him were with our lineup. I just hope we dont deal Zucc now. I want to compete.
I wonder what coach slots him were with our lineup. I just hope we dont deal Zucc now. I want to compete.
GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,296
- 21,181
GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,296
- 21,181
If Kovy isn't being brought in, it won't be with idea of legitimately competing for the cup. He isn't the answer to any of our problems. He's an asset that we can maybe turn into other assets that will actually help us long term.
Bad was the wrong word to use, but I don’t like 3 years for a variety of reasons.
1. We’re stuck with the cap hit for that extra season if he flames out
2. In the event that this team still sucks in 2019-20, he’ll be harder to move
3. Potential cap complications due to other players becoming available- though I suppose there are other ways to get around this.
As a note though: I don’t buy this rumor.
will1066
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2008
- 48,071
- 67,117
I once read that Brodeur was quoted saying Kovalchuk is a great locker room guy and has taken care of the younger guys when he was in NJ. I don't remember where I read it, but I do recall this.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Are we not assuming the Rangers have about what they have now, plus any improving prospects, Plus Kovalchuk scoring 30 goals?
Are they trading away a bunch of other stuff that would help because they signed Kovalchuk?
I just don't get how it can be both ways, they are trying to be competitive which is good but just not that competitive, and somehow that does not end up with them being stuck in the "dreaded middle"
- Status
