Player Discussion Kevin Hayes - Part II

[Edge]

On this point, I thought it was agreed that management and most here regard ZBad as a legit top lie center? That is one of the reasons for the debate. Because if the thought was that they are both second line centers, then there should be no debate and Hayes is shipped out as quickly as possible. My devil's advocate argument is predicated on ZBad being considered to be a legit #1.

And that's somewhat a risk onto itself.

Some people really like Zibanejad.

Some people really like Hayes.

Some people like Zibanejad more than Hayes. Some people like Hayes more than Zibanejad.

Some people like both.

But are there really that many people who envision building a legit, Stanley Cup contender, to go against the best of the best, with our top two centers being Mike Zibanejad and Kevin Hayes?

Because God knows I've looked at it from different angles, squinted really hard, inversed the colors, and done all kinds of mental contortions, and I have yet to enable myself to receive that vision.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

And that's somewhat a risk onto itself.

Some people really like Zibanejad.

Some people really like Hayes.

Some people like Zibanejad more than Hayes. Some people like Hayes more than Zibanejad.

Some people like both.

But are there really that many people who envision building a legit, Stanley Cup contender, to go against the best of the best, with our top two centers being Mike Zibanejad and Kevin Hayes?

Because God knows I've looked at it from different angles, squinted really hard, inversed the colors, and done all kinds of mental contortions, and I have yet to enable myself to receive that vision.

I can see it. I'm old enough to realize on paper teams are sometimes better than they are coming through in the clutch. For as well as Toronto may be a wagon and seem like they have all the parts, they still have to do it. JT has always been amazing but he's never willed a team to a Cup. Marleau failed on multiple opportunities to get very good teams there as a leader. The rest of the team is young and uncertain in playoffs. Pittsburgh is aging, they are closer to done than a problem in 5 years. Boston is a wagon and they are well built and set up success but the guy who put that foundation in place now runs our team. I'm not crowning anyone and I don't think it always is a good idea to make moves based on what others are doing.

I certainly don't think its as doom and gloom as others do. I wont say its hyperbole but its a bit much IMO.

 

[SA16]

A team can certainly win a cup with Zibanejad/Hayes as their top two centers because you are also allotted 8 wing positions and 6 defensemen on a team. There is no reason your best players need to play center. The main reasons teams win when their best players are centers are because most of the top forwards are centers. That certainly does not mean you can't win if some of your best players are Kane/Panarin or Pastrnak/Marchand or Landeskog/MacKinnon even if you are weak at center (obviously not saying CHI BOS COL are weak at center). If your weaker at center you just spend your money and gain a competitive advantage elsewhere. Center depth is overrated they are not inherently more valuable than wings. As much as I despise ever using Corsica if you look at its WAR stat among forwards who have played at least 500 minutes of the top 20 only 8 (and a half really) play center.

 

[Edge]

I can see it. I'm old enough to realize on paper teams are sometimes better than they are coming through in the clutch. For as well as Toronto may be a wagon and seem like they have all the parts, they still have to do it. JT has always been amazing but he's never willed a team to a Cup. Marleau failed on multiple opportunities to get very good teams there as a leader. The rest of the team is young and uncertain in playoffs. Pittsburgh is aging, they are closer to done than a problem in 5 years. Boston is a wagon and they are well built and set up success but the guy who put that foundation in place now runs our team. I'm not crowning anyone and I don't think it always is a good idea to make moves based on what others are doing.

I certainly don't think its as doom and gloom as others do. I wont say its hyperbole but its a bit much IMO.

I don't think its doom and gloom either.

Just don't see Zibanejad and Hayes manning the top two lines on a cup contender, not without a lot, and I mean a lot of support around them.

And I don't see the team getting that level of support without making the moves to get the depth required.

And I don't see that depth coming, without making said moves.

To me, the opposite is more of a cake and eat it too type scenario and comes with incredibly small odds.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

I don't think its doom and gloom either.

Just don't see Zibanejad and Hayes manning the top two lines on a cup contender, not without a lot, and I mean a lot of support around them.

And I don't see the team getting that level of support without making the moves to get the depth required.

And I don't see that depth coming, without making said moves.

To me, the opposite is more of a cake and eat it too type scenario and comes with incredibly small odds.

Yeah, I mean. I can. I see Buchnevich, Chytil, Kreider and Krava as top 6 wingers. Kreider is a legit first line guy. Krava is looking more and more likely he will be a first line guy. I'm certainly not going to complain of a second line of Chytil-Hayes-Buchnevich until you can find an upgrade there. I don't see why if you re-build the D, which should be this teams first priority since there is talent at forward, that they can't compete with the best of them.

 

[Edge]

A team can certainly win a cup with Zibanejad/Hayes as their top two centers because you are also allotted 8 wing positions and 6 defensemen on a team. There is no reason your best players need to play center. The main reasons teams win when their best players are centers are because most of the top forwards are centers. That certainly does not mean you can't win if some of your best players are Kane/Panarin or Pastrnak/Marchand or Landeskog/MacKinnon even if you are weak at center (obviously not saying CHI BOS COL are weak at center). If your weaker at center you just spend your money and gain a competitive advantage elsewhere. Center depth is overrated they are not inherently more valuable than wings. As much as I despise ever using Corsica if you look at its WAR stat among forwards who have played at least 500 minutes of the top 20 only 8 (and a half really) play center.

Never said our best players had to play center. But we don't have those top level players at wing, or defense that are going to compensate for that.

That goes back to the whole needing more ammo aspect. Because the cost of having to go out and purchase the ammo to do that is going to be fairly cost prohibitive.

 

[Edge]

Yeah, I mean. I can. I see Buchnevich, Chytil, Kreider and Krava as top 6 wingers. Kreider is a legit first line guy. Krava is looking more and more likely he will be a first line guy. I'm certainly not going to complain of a second line of Chytil-Hayes-Buchnevich until you can find an upgrade there. I don't see why if you re-build the D, which should be this teams first priority since there is talent at forward, that they can't compete with the best of them.

Sorry, but no.

That ain't gettin' er done.

 

[SA16]

Never said our best players had to play center. But we don't have those top level players at wing, or defense that are going to compensate for that.

That goes back to the whole needing more ammo aspect. Because the cost of having to go out and purchase the ammo to do that is going to be fairly cost prohibitive.

Yes I just mean I would not have a problem with them being the top 2 centers on a team and I think you can win just as easily with them and good wings as you could with better centers and bad wings.

I wouldn't re-sign him though. Still rather save the money and go for Panarin or Stone in the offseason.

 

[Edge]

Yes I just mean I would not have a problem with them being the top 2 centers on a team and I think you can win just as easily with them and good wings as you could with better centers and bad wings.

I wouldn't re-sign him though. Still rather save the money and go for Panarin or Stone in the offseason.

But playing devil's advocate, where and how do you get the wings to play with them?

I think this discussion is coming into a centers vs. wingers discussion, which was not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that Zibanejad and Hayes do not strike me as a pair that leads a team to a cup, specifically the Rangers.

So yes, if we magically add elite wingers, and elite defenseman, and a goalie, and every other team around us ages, and no one else but us gets better, than yes we have good odds to pull it off.

So, to ammend my earlier comment, I can envision a scenario in which Zibanejad and Hayes are the top two centers on a top team.

We just have to change the entire scenario first.

 

[Ghost of jas]

And that's somewhat a risk onto itself.

Some people really like Zibanejad.

Some people really like Hayes.

Some people like Zibanejad more than Hayes. Some people like Hayes more than Zibanejad.

Some people like both.

But are there really that many people who envision building a legit, Stanley Cup contender, to go against the best of the best, with our top two centers being Mike Zibanejad and Kevin Hayes?

Because God knows I've looked at it from different angles, squinted really hard, inversed the colors, and done all kinds of mental contortions, and I have yet to enable myself to receive that vision.

I don’t foresee keeping both as option, if the goal, in the owner’s words, is to win multiple Cups, IMO, a 1-2 of Zibanejad/Hayes does not put this team on the road to that goal. My choice is to keep Zibanejad because he’s younger, already on a team-friendly contract and, IMO, still may have another level of growth in him. I just see too many pitfalls hitching the Rangers’ fortunes to Hayes. Zibanejad may have more value in a trade, but I’d also like to see the Rangers keep whom I consider the better player.

 

[Ghost of jas]

But playing devil's advocate, where and how do you get the wings to play with them?

I think this discussion is coming into a centers vs. wingers discussion, which was not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that Zibanejad and Hayes do not strike me as a pair that leads a team to a cup, specifically the Rangers.

So yes, if we magically add elite wingers, and elite defenseman, and a goalie, and every other team around us ages, and no one else but us gets better, than yes we have good odds to pull it off.

So, to ammend my earlier comment, I can envision a scenario in which Zibanejad and Hayes are the top two centers on a top team.

We just have to change the entire scenario first.

And, again, it becomes more difficult machinations just to keep Hayes in order for it to work.

 

[Edge]

And, again, it becomes more difficult machinations just to keep Hayes in order for it to work.

And that goes back to a comment made weeks (and pages ago), that it's an awful lot of work for a second line center, for a team that doesn't yet have the depth and assets in place to begin the climb.

Hayes is the guy you either add with the assets you've built up, or move for the assets to build up.

We're in the latter stage, looking to add the pieces to get to the former stage.

 

[Off Sides]

The defenders on this team are so underwhelming that I just can't envision any scenario where that changes within the first say 3 or 4 years of any new Hayes contract given three of the defenders have clauses and are on contracts no one likely would want even if those clauses were not in effect. Even once that clears I think it make take more like 2 or 3 years for them to have any chance of having a D core that is on par with what the contenders will have.

If one can not imagine Hayes/Zbad as a Cup winning center duo without the Rangers having advantages elsewhere, Skjei, Pionk are part of those advantages?

 

[Edge]

The defenders on this team are so underwhelming that I just can't envision any scenario where that changes within the first say 3 or 4 years of any new Hayes contract given three of the defenders have clauses and are on contracts no one likely would want even if those clauses were not in effect. Even once that clears I think it make take more like 2 or 3 years for them to have any chance of having a D core that is on par with what the contenders will have.

If one can not imagine Hayes/Zbad as a Cup winning center duo without the Rangers having advantages elsewhere, Skjei, Pionk are part of those advantages?

Truth be told, a lot of it is timing for me.

The whole concept of a Zibanejad-Hayes tandem working out is surrounding them really high-end wingers, defensemen, and a goalie who is at least capable of getting hot at the right time.

The problem is that we don't have enough of that and won't for a while --- assuming that we have enough depth now to make it happen in the first place, which I don't believe we do.

 

[mulli25]

I think you can definitely win a cup with Zibanejad and Hayes as your top two centers.

I think you absolutely cannot win a cup with Zibanejad and Hayes as your top 2 hockey players

 

[Off Sides]

Truth be told, a lot of it is timing for me.

The whole concept of a Zibanejad-Hayes tandem working out is surrounding them really high-end wingers, defensemen, and a goalie who is at least capable of getting hot at the right time.

The problem is that we don't have enough of that and won't for a while --- assuming that we have enough depth now to make it happen in the first place, which I don't believe we do.

I think we are saying similar things, the defense timeline is currently attached to Smith, Staal, Shattenkirk, Skjei, Pionk. That is not good and it's going to take a pretty long time to fix. Any Hayes extension and they are going to be trying to fix it while his contact is ticking away. I just do not see those two lines, Hayes and a good Defense core transecting at any future point.

(and that ignores goaltending and wings yet for simlicity purposes I don't think many are going to argue that defense core has much of any chance at being all that good)

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Sorry, but no.

That ain't gettin' er done.

Agreed to disagree. This team no, but I fully believe with a further developed winger core and a legitimate blue line would make this team so much more formidable even right now. Let alone with experience under their belts.

 

[Edge]

Agreed to disagree. This team no, but I fully believe with a further developed winger core and a legitimate blue line would make this team so much more formidable even right now. Let alone with experience under their belts.

Well, yeah, I mean that kind of goes without saying. A further developed core of high end wings, and legitimate defensive corps would do wonders for a lot of teams.

But ignoring everything else, including whether or not we actually have that potential in place, even with the most optimistic projections and favorable timelines, that's still a bit away. Which goes back to the whole timing aspect.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Well, yeah, I mean that kind of goes without saying. A further developed core of high end wings, and legitimate defensive corps would do wonders for a lot of teams.

But ignoring everything else, including whether or not we actually have that potential in place, even with the most optimistic projections and favorable timelines, that's still a bit away. Which goes back to the whole timing aspect.

Haha yes I re-read it and didn't love the way it came off but I also am at work so I spend enough time distracted.

I think I realize now you don't think it's inherently a failure if you went the route of Zbad and Hayes rather we don't have the timeline or ability to clean in-house to really maximize that effort. Which goes back to the defense and what has plagued me as a fan more often than not. I'd agree with that, seems difficult but still I'd sign him and work tirelessly on getting rid of Smith and then figure out who would be next and work tirelessly on that.

Doable but difficult. I think as far as you and I go you don't see it as a fruitful endeavor and I don't see the other route as really any easier.

 

[Trxjw]

I don’t foresee keeping both as option, if the goal, in the owner’s words, is to win multiple Cups, IMO, a 1-2 of Zibanejad/Hayes does not put this team on the road to that goal. My choice is to keep Zibanejad because he’s younger, already on a team-friendly contract and, IMO, still may have another level of growth in him. I just see too many pitfalls hitching the Rangers’ fortunes to Hayes. Zibanejad may have more value in a trade, but I’d also like to see the Rangers keep whom I consider the better player.

Totally agree and I'd add one thing: If both players ultimately end up being the guys they were coming into this season, I'm more confident in being able to move Zibanejad on his current deal than I am with Hayes on the kind of deal I expect him to sign. I'm also more comfortable living with 3 more years of Zibanejad than I am with 6 years of Hayes under the same scenario.

 

[Edge]

Haha yes I re-read it and didn't love the way it came off but I also am at work so I spend enough time distracted.

I think I realize now you don't think it's inherently a failure if you went the route of Zbad and Hayes rather we don't have the timeline or ability to clean in-house to really maximize that effort. Which goes back to the defense and what has plagued me as a fan more often than not. I'd agree with that, seems difficult but still I'd sign him and work tirelessly on getting rid of Smith and then figure out who would be next and work tirelessly on that.

Doable but difficult. I think as far as you and I go you don't see it as a fruitful endeavor and I don't see the other route as really any easier.

And to clarify, I have no bullet-proof plans on how to get this team to where it needs to be. Just strategies that I believe have greater odds of success. There's not really a right or wrong "answer" in these discussions.

 

[Tawnos]

Come on. This is just disingenuous. Want to trade him? Fine, but let's be honest here.

Small sample? 75 games is not exactly a small sample, nor is it a spin. It is just extending what you have been seeing for this entire year to show that it may not necessarily be a fluke. Within that time frame, there have been ups and downs. Want to say, as Edge has, that you do not believe that this is the new normal? Ok. Fine. I can respect that. However, to simply brush of that amount of games by calling it a small sample is not really fair.

I didn’t call 75 games a small sample. I said your sample is NOT 75 games. It’s two samples of 38 and 37 that you’re combining, while cutting both samples off from the full dataset they are each a real part of. One of those has Hayes as a 44 in 76 player, the other is incomplete.

 

[SA16]

Sample sizes don't work like that.

 

[Tawnos]

Sample sizes don't work like that.

They do when the samples being combined are separated by 6 months.

 

[Dijock94]

And that's somewhat a risk onto itself.

Some people really like Zibanejad.

Some people really like Hayes.

Some people like Zibanejad more than Hayes. Some people like Hayes more than Zibanejad.

Some people like both.

But are there really that many people who envision building a legit, Stanley Cup contender, to go against the best of the best, with our top two centers being Mike Zibanejad and Kevin Hayes?

Because God knows I've looked at it from different angles, squinted really hard, inversed the colors, and done all kinds of mental contortions, and I have yet to enable myself to receive that vision.

I think if we had them as our top two centers now with a contending team around them it’s a different story. Right now they are both arguably at their peak of their careers, but in 3-4 years from now when we have a better roster around them are they both still as good as they are today, I say no. I also say at that time both of their contracts are a net negative on the cap.