Player Discussion Kevin Hayes - Part II

[True Blue]

I fully expect a cold snap sometime in the near future. It’ll even out to his normal pace.

Since December of 2017, he has been pretty much this well.

 

[Tawnos]

Since December of 2017, he has been pretty much this well.

No, he hasn’t. He’s been this for 10 games. The rest of the time, he’s been a 45-55 point player.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

No, he hasn’t. He’s been this for 10 games. The rest of the time, he’s been a 45-55 point player.

In this calendar year (75 games) Hayes has 61 points.

He had 13 pts in 14 GP last month too.

He isn't as good as hes been over the last 9, but hes clearly taken a pretty substantial step forward.

 

[Tawnos]

In this calendar year (75 games) Hayes has 61 points.

He had 13 pts in 14 GP last month too.

He isn't as good as hes been over the last 9, but hes clearly taken a pretty substantial step forward.

I’m generally unimpressed by “calendar year” numbers, but we can play that game all we want. If the rest of Hayes’ season looks like the 8 games before his streak, he’ll end the season with 56 points.

I still say he’s going to have a cold snap.

 

[Edge]

I can accept the range being 56-63 ish over the last year; high end/ low end type deal.

That’s a very good player, but is it something we’ve struggled to find for the better part of the last decade? Heck, if anything, it’s the quest to find guys capable of more than 56-63 points that’s been a big problem so far this century.

 

[romba]

I can accept the range being 56-63 ish over the last year; high end/ low end type deal.

That’s a very good player, but is it something we’ve struggled to find for the better part of the last decade? Heck, if anything, it’s the quest to find guys capable of more than 56-63 points that’s been a big problem so far this century.

You are correct of course.

Kreider(hopefully about to graduate from this list), Hayes, Callahan, Dubinsky Anisomov, Stepan, Hagelin, Brassard (blossomed with us), Zuccarello, Miller.

No problem finding these types of players in all rounds, but the out of the box first liner by 23 hasn’t happened yet (mentioning Cherepchanov RIP)

 

[True Blue]

No, he hasn’t. He’s been this for 10 games. The rest of the time, he’s been a 45-55 point player.

Since last December, he has played 75 games. He has 61 points. For 82 games that comes out to be roughly 67 points.

 

[Tawnos]

Since last December, he has played 75 games. He has 61 points. For 82 games that comes out to be roughly 67 points.

Calendar year stats don’t mean anything. Taking small samples that have no continuity and combining them is purely spin.

Players go through ups and downs in a season. Hayes is in the midst of a massive up and hasn’t yet hit the down. His numbers this season are wildly skewed at the moment because of it. I have little doubt he’s going to hit a career high in points, but I’m not sure I see him surpassing his previous high by 35%. I could be wrong, but if that does happen, it screams situational success.

 

[McRanger]

I can accept the range being 56-63 ish over the last year; high end/ low end type deal.

That’s a very good player, but is it something we’ve struggled to find for the better part of the last decade? Heck, if anything, it’s the quest to find guys capable of more than 56-63 points that’s been a big problem so far this century.

We’ve had a few 50 point scorers and a smaller handful of players that have been able to score 50 in consecutive years.

But the amount of players who have been able to score 60 points is a lot smaller and the amount of players that have scored 60 in consecutive years is zero.

If that ends up being Hayes, that is absolutely not something we’ve been able to find easily.

 

[Edge]

We’ve had a few 50 point scorers and a smaller handful of players that have been able to score 50 in consecutive years.

But the amount of players who have been able to score 60 points is a lot smaller and the amount of players that have scored 60 in consecutive years is zero.

If that ends up being Hayes, that is absolutely not something we’ve been able to find easily.

I wouldn't say they grow on trees per se, but over the last 20 years, these are the centers in the 55-63 point range for us, or who scored more.
Gretzky
Nedved
Messier
Holik
Nylander
Straka (kinda)
Gomez
Drury
Prospal (kinda)
Richards
Stepan
Brassard

Doesn't account for multiple seasons at the level, lockouts, guys who just missed, or other factors.

To me, Hayes/Zibanejad seems more like a redux of the Brassard/Stepan years.

Not that it is inherently bad, I just don't see it as being anymore the answer than it was several years ago.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I wouldn't say they grow on trees per se, but over the last 20 years, these are the centers in the 55-63 point range for us, or who scored more.
Gretzky
Nedved
Messier
Holik
Nylander
Straka (kinda)
Gomez
Drury
Prospal (kinda)
Richards
Stepan
Brassard

Doesn't account for multiple seasons at the level, lockouts, guys who just missed, or other factors.

To me, Hayes/Zibanejad seems more like a redux of the Brassard/Stepan years.

Not that it is inherently bad, I just don't see it as being anymore the answer than it was several years ago.

I think Lindros also hit that number.

 

[McRanger]

I wouldn't say they grow on trees per se, but over the last 20 years, these are the centers in the 55-63 point range for us, or who scored more.
Gretzky
Nedved
Messier
Holik
Nylander
Straka (kinda)
Gomez
Drury
Prospal (kinda)
Richards
Stepan
Brassard

Doesn't account for multiple seasons at the level, lockouts, guys who just missed, or other factors.

To me, Hayes/Zibanejad seems more like a redux of the Brassard/Stepan years.

Not that it is inherently bad, I just don't see it as being anymore the answer than it was several years ago.

Er are we no longer using “the better part of the last decade” as our time frame?

Because the amount of consecutive (let alone consistent) 60 point scorers we’ve had in that timeframe is precisely zero.

If that’s what Hayes becomes, its fairly significant.

 

[Irishguy42]

I think Lindros also hit that number.

Yep.

In his three years here, he hit 73, 53, and 32 respectively

 

[will1066]

Point streak ended quietly tonight

 

[Edge]

Er are we no longer using “the better part of the last decade” as our time frame?

Because the amount of consecutive (let alone consistent) 60 point scorers we’ve had in that timeframe is precisely zero.

If that’s what Hayes becomes, its fairly significant.

If we do approximate last decade we’d have combos featuring Gomez-Drury, Stepan-Brassard.

Accounting for a number of factors, I’d more or less say Zibanejad and Hayes are roughly in the same neighborhood as those combos. We can split hairs over systems, lockouts, coaches, strengths and weaknesses, but I still don’t arrive at a conclusion that the end result is very different. At least not enough to change the mindset of this team ultimately needing more.

 

[BroadwayStorm]

I feel Mika/Hayes are inferior to those two duos and the era reflects it in the win column too. If those two are your two top line centers you are in trouble without an elite winger like Jagr/Gaborik/Nash. And they are.

 

[Edge]

One of the challenges I have is that even if I think Hayes is the best second line center in hockey, I still think we need additional assets moving forward. That will require additional moves, and moving guys who have good value.

Beyond that, I still have concerns about the movement clause, in combination with what I think this team will need moving forward, to say nothing about the the timeline in which they realistically would be able to find it.

So even as I clear one hurdle, or allow myself to play devil’s advocate, the next hurdle and the hurdle beyond the next hurdle almost immediately pop up.

So it’s somewhat difficult for me to just give in and throw my support behind the concept of resigning Hayes.

There’s just too many factors at play for me. And if it’s not a no-brainer, despite how far Hayes has come, then I gotta go with my initial, gut reaction.

 

[McRanger]

If we do approximate last decade we’d have combos featuring Gomez-Drury, Stepan-Brassard.

Accounting for a number of factors, I’d more or less say Zibanejad and Hayes are roughly in the same neighborhood as those combos. We can split hairs over systems, lockouts, coaches, strengths and weaknesses, but I still don’t arrive a conclusion that the end result is very different. At least not enough to change the mindset of ultimately needing more.

Not trying to be pedantic but none of those four players ever had back to back 60 point seasons with the Rangers, let alone were consistently that productive. The last center to do it was Nylander. Which of course was the point, if Hayes could be a consistent 60 point player, that is absolutely NOT something the Rangers have been able to find easily or consistently. Hayes has been a ~45 point player with little PP production and this year is on pace for 70+ while seeing time on the first unit and currently has almost as many PP points as all of last season. Which brings us back to the main question: what player would a re-signed Hayes be? If he’s closer to the former then in re-signing him we run the risk of overpaying for something we’re familiar with but if it’s closer to the latter then we run the risk of trading away something we are always trying to get.

On a side note, the “that didn’t work so we should do something different” mentality that’s become popular recently regarding our ‘14-‘15 teams is one that certainly has some merit but I also take some issue with. Those teams were objectively successful in both the regular season and the playoffs, a few lost games in OT doesn’t change that. And if we’re talking about being even better the next time then our center situation is not the first place I’d look; a “star winger” who can stay healthy (and productive) and a #1RHD who wasn’t atrocious would be a probably good starting point. Behind Hank and McD our centers and our depth were what made those teams tick.

Honestly the whole idea of trying to follow a strict blueprint to success sounds like something that looks great on a message board and is a complete shitshow in reality.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

I wouldn't say they grow on trees per se, but over the last 20 years, these are the centers in the 55-63 point range for us, or who scored more.
Gretzky
Nedved
Messier
Holik
Nylander
Straka (kinda)
Gomez
Drury
Prospal (kinda)
Richards
Stepan
Brassard

Doesn't account for multiple seasons at the level, lockouts, guys who just missed, or other factors.

To me, Hayes/Zibanejad seems more like a redux of the Brassard/Stepan years.

Not that it is inherently bad, I just don't see it as being anymore the answer than it was several years ago.

I’m a little confused why Brass/Step was so bad that we don’t want to repeat it with Zbad/Hayes. Y’all do remember us going to the Cup finals with them? I know there were times we were outplayed that series but that’s what happens in most series. We were about 3 bad bounces from having a commanding lead going into Game 5 rather than. That series (specifically) could have went so many different ways it was so close yet it looks horrible. I don’t see why this team (outside of the blue line which has been frustrating to me for what feels like 15 years eating money) can’t take the talent in the system and this next draft class without dealing Hayes, develop the offense mainly on wings and depth and slowly fix the blue line while they do that?

I just don’t see how the blueprint of Zbad/Hayes is so inherently any-winning the Cup.

One of the challenges I have is that even if I think Hayes is the best second line center in hockey, I still think we need additional assets moving forward. That will require additional moves, and moving guys who have good value.

Beyond that, I still have concerns about the movement clause, in combination with what I think this team will need moving forward, to say nothing about the the timeline in which they realistically would be able to find it.

So even as I clear one hurdle, or allow myself to play devil’s advocate, the next hurdle and the hurdle beyond the next hurdle almost immediately pop up.

So it’s somewhat difficult for me to just give in and throw my support behind the concept of resigning Hayes.

There’s just too many factors at play for me. And if it’s not a no-brainer, despite how far Hayes has come, then I gotta go with my initial, gut reaction.

If that’s really what we’re talking about then they absolutely need to put Mika on the block.

People claim we have no business trading him because of his contract. I argue it’s upping his market value. Some argue he’s simply better than Hayes, I say that ups his market value. I’m concerned a bit with Zbads ability to stay healthy whereas Kevin is constantly in the lineup and rarely in high stress situations. I’d also argue, while everyone is worried Hayes is playing for cash, that Zbad constantly has his second career in DJing going on and that presents a constant flight risk for a young guy who potentially by 25/26 could be quite banged up and thinkimg about his long term personal health.

I’m not advocating trade Zbad over Hayes. I’m advocating if this is all about assets and one of them has to go because we absolutely without debate need an elite 1C, then we should be shopping both of them and take the best offer that stocks the cupboard whichever player it may be.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Not trying to be pedantic but none of those four players ever had back to back 60 point seasons with the Rangers, let alone were consistently that productive. The last center to do it was Nylander. Which of course was the point, if Hayes could be a consistent 60 point player, that is absolutely NOT something the Rangers have been able to find easily or consistently. Hayes has been a ~45 point player with little PP production and this year is on pace for 70+ while seeing time on the first unit and currently has almost as many PP points as all of last season. Which brings us back to the main question: what player would a re-signed Hayes be? If he’s closer to the former then in re-signing him we run the risk of overpaying for something we’re familiar with but if it’s closer to the latter then we run the risk of trading away something we are always trying to get.

On a side note, the “that didn’t work so we should do something different” mentality that’s become popular recently regarding our ‘14-‘15 teams is one that certainly has some merit but I also take some issue with. Those teams were objectively successful in both the regular season and the playoffs, a few lost games in OT doesn’t change that. And if we’re talking about being even better the next time then our center situation is not the first place I’d look; a “star winger” who can stay healthy (and productive) and a #1RHD who wasn’t atrocious would be a probably good starting point. Behind Hank and McD our centers and our depth were what made those teams tick.

Honestly the whole idea of trying to follow a strict blueprint to success sounds like something that looks great on a message board and is a complete ****show in reality.

This is spot on. All of it, but the last sentence especially.

 

[True Blue]

Calendar year stats don’t mean anything. Taking small samples that have no continuity and combining them is purely spin.

Players go through ups and downs in a season. Hayes is in the midst of a massive up and hasn’t yet hit the down. His numbers this season are wildly skewed at the moment because of it. I have little doubt he’s going to hit a career high in points, but I’m not sure I see him surpassing his previous high by 35%. I could be wrong, but if that does happen, it screams situational success.

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.

 

[mulli25]

So for those advocating keeping Hayes, what are you seeing as the path forward to a Stanley Cup?

Trading guys like Kreider or Mika instead? Not trading anyone and hope that some of our current prospects + standard annual draft picks develop into studs? Are you expecting one of our top current guys like Hayes Kreider or Mika to take another step forward into the elite territory? Trading picks prospects for NHLers and signing big ticket free agents?

We all know this team does not have the talent level needed to compete for a cup, but all have a lot of different opinions on how to get to that point. I see a lot about what Hayes brings to the table, but not a lot about how this team builds a cup contender with him on the roster.

 

[Edge]

So for those advocating keeping Hayes, what are you seeing as the path forward to a Stanley Cup?

Trading guys like Kreider or Mika instead? Not trading anyone and hope that some of our current prospects + standard annual draft picks develop into studs? Are you expecting one of our top current guys like Hayes Kreider or Mika to take another step forward into the elite territory? Trading picks prospects for NHLers and signing big ticket free agents?

We all know this team does not have the talent level needed to compete for a cup, but all have a lot of different opinions on how to get to that point. I see a lot about what Hayes brings to the table, but not a lot about how this team builds a cup contender with him on the roster.

One of the things that really concerns me is that we'd have both Zibanejad AND Hayes locked into NMCs.

We can debate whether Hayes is a 55-60 point, 60-65 point, or even 65-70 point center, but the fact remains we are still debating it. That means it's not really a known quantity. That's the gamble of signing Hayes to the kind of contract it will take to sign him. It could be great deal, a fair deal, or a bad deal. That's going to be the risk/reward.

But the idea of having two guys, who most agree are second line centers, locked into NMCs for the next several years leaves me uneasy. Even if both guys are considered elite second line centers, that's still a pretty significant commitment to two guys who at 26 and 27 still haven't proven that they're legit first line centers. And let's not forget that Kreider is almost certainly going to be looking for a movement clause as well. Just something to keep in mind.

Regarding the desire to do something differently than 14-15, I think there's something that's lost in the pushback to that opinion --- that the desire to go a different direction is not solely based on the fact that it didn't work, so therefore we should do something different.

It's based on the opinion that we were able to get away with that last time because we had a future HOF goalie in net. While I think those mid-decade teams don't get enough credit, I think we need to be honest about a few of aspects we got away with because Lundqvist was in the crease. Without him, we don't get where we're going with Stepan-Brassard as our top two centers. Without Lundqvist in the future, we don't get where we want to go with two centers on that level.

To be perfectly blunt, that's the type of approach that often results in teams getting entrenched in the good, but not quite good enough categories. Barring us having the next Lundqvist in the system, we're going to need as much ammo as possible. That's what 2018 and 2019 are about, no matter how tempting it might be wander from the path.

 

[True Blue]

One of the things that really concerns me is that we'd have both Zibanejad AND Hayes locked into NMCs.

By far, my biggest concern.

But the idea of having two guys, who most agree are second line centers, locked into NMCs for the next several years leaves me uneasy.

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.

 

[Edge]

By far, my biggest concern.

I think, if you sign Hayes, you move Zibanejad. I just have a really, really, really hard time seeing Gorton putting himself in a position where he can't move both or either as he sees fit.

If the Rangers commit to Hayes, than I think Zibanejad's odds of being moved go up significantly --- especially because his movement clause will kick-in after this season.

I'll give a Zibanejad-Hayes tandem with movement clauses similar odds of a Hayes deal without a movement clause --- very low.