Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part VIII: Dilly Dilly - Lets Tank!

[Mac n Gs]

I think the kids are going to dictate whether or not Hayes stays or goes.

If Chytil and LA can hold down a spot before the TDL, Hayes is a goner..

I was just about to post something similar. Gorton is hedging his bets on more than one of the kids being ready for an NHL C position, even if I think that’s a poor move. Having Hayes on a five-year deal while these kids are on ELCs and bridges doesn’t really hurt the immediate future at all. It gives them two proven NHL Cs to insulate the kids and allows them to get easier minutes. If someone like Chytil shows more offensive prowess, then it’s easy to just shift Hayes back to his matchup C role and give Chytil those 2C minutes.

What was Hayes’ rumored ask this offseason? 5x6? That’s a perfectly fine deal for a guy through his 27-32 y/o seasons when you have your other C locked up to a reasonable cap hit and have a bunch of ELCs to add to the lineup. If anything, I think Hayes as a rental hurts his value.

 

[kovazub94]

I believe much of Kreider's weight loss is fat, something that's not going to help much anyway if you plan to win a strength competition. And we're talking some 10 pounds.

You don't know what you're talking about (maybe change handle from Webster to Wiki and start using it).

As @Tawnos called it perfectly - this is intolerable.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Would rather go with a dman but switch Turcotte for Dach and I’m on board.

No

 

[TheTakedown]

All the more reason to be concerned. Too many alternatives that didn't exist in the past.

Like what? The Knicks? They're even worse off than this team. The Jets or Giants? Neither team is making the playoffs this year? The Nets? Give me a break

 

[Off Sides]

I too am not so sure turning Hayes into rental value was the best asset management move, yet I also understand the reluctance towards signing him long term especially if there had to be a clause in the UFA years of that deal.

Rangers, my guess, did not want to be in position where they knew a clause was about to kick in, Hayes and the Rangers may be coming off a poor season, what do they do with him at that point if it came to be, considering they may already be in that position with Zbad?

 

[kovazub94]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the ideal situation from Gorton's perspective was to parlay a big contract year from Hayes into a prime return at the trade deadline. However, even if he doesn't have a big year, I think he goes before the TDL. Zibanejad is here for the Long haul and with the prospects we have at center right now there's no reason to sign a guy just to create a blocker. Writing is on the wall with the 1 year commitment, IMO.

For now Hayes serves as a proven protection to not have our youngsters put into positions they are not ready, and also as an insurance policy if something goes wrong with their development (to "cash in" by signing Hayes to long term deals with some trade protections). But as you said the most likely outcome that he'd be traded at some point during the season for a return used toward rebuild.

 

[Thirty One]

Like what? The Knicks? They're even worse off than this team. The Jets or Giants? Neither team is making the playoffs this year? The Nets? Give me a break

No, like Fortnite and high quality internet porn.

 

[kovazub94]

No, like Fortnite and high quality internet porn.

Could've just said VR. Now get off my lawn.

 

[NYR]

I was just about to post something similar. Gorton is hedging his bets on more than one of the kids being ready for an NHL C position, even if I think that’s a poor move. Having Hayes on a five-year deal while these kids are on ELCs and bridges doesn’t really hurt the immediate future at all. It gives them two proven NHL Cs to insulate the kids and allows them to get easier minutes. If someone like Chytil shows more offensive prowess, then it’s easy to just shift Hayes back to his matchup C role and give Chytil those 2C minutes.

What was Hayes’ rumored ask this offseason? 5x6? That’s a perfectly fine deal for a guy through his 27-32 y/o seasons when you have your other C locked up to a reasonable cap hit and have a bunch of ELCs to add to the lineup. If anything, I think Hayes as a rental hurts his value.

While I agree that retaining him certainly makes sense, I don't think I'd want to give him any more than 3 years.

I also think that JG has already made up his mind and he's looking for an out.
His actions kind of speak to that IMO

Speaking of JG hedging his bets..It's a bold way of thinking and similar moves have burnt him before but I'm expecting more twists to this story.

Seguin?

 

[LORDE]

If you look at the contracts given (prior to JG and since) they're structured in a way to have us free and clear in '21 of any big deals.

They might have tried to get Hayes for 3 yrs and he said no (this is my opinion anyway). Hence the 1yr compromise.

That seems to imply that IF Hayes has a breakout year, he'll more valuable at TDL... and probably gone and IF not he's a goner because he still gets something and we don't want to extend.

Either way doubtful he's back. But it sure seems like Gorts wasn't going to give him 5 years at almost any price.

Lets say Chytil and Andersson are both not ready THIS season... you can still deal Hayes and bring them up at the TDL like last season and be fine since we aren't competing.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I think it would have been better to sign Hayes to a long-term deal in the offseason rather than wait until the TD. I Don't see the upside of waiting. If he has a great season, he will cost more to re-sign, and need more term, when if you looked at the rate based numbers, he was already deserving of a long-term deal in the first place. I would bet he still gets moved though.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I think it would have been better to sign Hayes to a long-term deal in the offseason rather than wait until the TD. I Don't see the upside of waiting. If he has a great season, he will cost more to re-sign, and need more term, when if you looked at the rate based numbers, he was already deserving of a long-term deal in the first place. I would bet he still gets moved though.

I’m gonna go conspiracy theory here and say that Hayes is getting traded at the deadline and these comments by Gorton are a smoke screen in order to facilitate the trade he wants.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I’m gonna go conspiracy theory here and say that Hayes is getting traded at the deadline and these comments by Gorton are a smoke screen in order to facilitate the trade he wants.

I would agree with you. However I would prefer to keep him, but it's probably a slim chance.

 

[Webster]

You don't know what you're talking about (maybe change handle from Webster to Wiki and start using it).

As @Tawnos called it perfectly - this is intolerable.

Believe what you want...

But I agree there's no point in this kind of conversation based on opinions, when it's not possible to post confirmed facts. Better leave it be.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I think it would have been better to sign Hayes to a long-term deal in the offseason rather than wait until the TD. I Don't see the upside of waiting. If he has a great season, he will cost more to re-sign, and need more term, when if you looked at the rate based numbers, he was already deserving of a long-term deal in the first place. I would bet he still gets moved though.

There is literally no upside to waiting

All they've done is drive up the price for him next summer if they actually want to re-sign him.

I get not wanting to lock him up long term because of the young centers, but I still have a hard time believing you couldn't facilitate a trade a year or two into his deal if you had to move him after giving him the term he wanted

 

[Mac n Gs]

While I agree that retaining him certainly makes sense, I don't think I'd want to give him any more than 3 years.

I also think that JG has already made up his mind and he's looking for an out.
His actions kind of speak to that IMO

Speaking of JG hedging his bets..It's a bold way of thinking and similar moves have burnt him before but I'm expecting more twists to this story.

Seguin?

Why not? Having good forwards on good contracts doesn’t hinder this team at all, and it would just allow us to have really good depth. I don’t want to put the cart before the horse just because we have good prospects in the pipeline. I’d rather do what Boston did (hopefully not because of injury) and integrate the kids in waves.

Seguin would be great, but I doubt Dallas let’s him go. They don’t have any C in the pipeline with high upside outside of Dellandrea, and most of their talent is on the Ws. If they lose Seguin, Radek Faksa would become their 1C, and while he’s a pretty good player, he isn’t a top-line C. In short, Nill can’t risk losing Seguin.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think it would have been better to sign Hayes to a long-term deal in the offseason rather than wait until the TD. I Don't see the upside of waiting. If he has a great season, he will cost more to re-sign, and need more term, when if you looked at the rate based numbers, he was already deserving of a long-term deal in the first place. I would bet he still gets moved though.

Yeah it's tough to know what Hayes really wanted, though. Athletes bet on themselves all time--turning down seemingly very lucrative deals because they think they'll have a great year and be worth even more. I remember in baseball Scherzer bet on himself and came out way ahead. Of course, guys like Ian Desmond, Nerlens Noel, Neil Walker, etc., bet on themselves and lost a lot of money. I can't think of any hockey examples off the top of my head but I'm sure they exist.

Anyway, my point is it's conceivable Hayes wanted a one-year deal instead of multiple years from us, thinking he'll blow up this year and earn more on the open market.

 

[Tawnos]

I think it would have been better to sign Hayes to a long-term deal in the offseason rather than wait until the TD. I Don't see the upside of waiting. If he has a great season, he will cost more to re-sign, and need more term, when if you looked at the rate based numbers, he was already deserving of a long-term deal in the first place. I would bet he still gets moved though.

The upside of waiting is not risking being tied to a contract you don't want at all.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

He’s not a heavy weight by any means but he won’t hesitate to drop the gloves and does fairly well.

He's also decent at the physical part of the game where he doesn’t just aimlessly run around nailing people but rather does it within the context of the game.

I’m not really sure why his point production disappeared but I would much rather have him in the line up over McLeod any day of the week.

He’s just not really a good hockey player, he had a 20 goal season (a contract year) playing with Getzlaf and Perry and then got a big contract from Boston. Most of the stuff you’ve been mad about with Shattenkirk (getting a big pay day and giving up) applies really well to Beleksy except Shattenkirk has been one of the best offensive defensemen in the league throughout his career and Belesky has been a dime a dozen grinder.

 

[Off Sides]

I think it's possible Hayes wanted a no movement clause for all his UFA years and that may have turned out to be the thing the Rangers really did not want.

They already have Zbad who has that NMC which will kick in should they retain him past July 1st. Adding Hayes to that as well seems like it would kind of hurt their flexibility.

Hypothetically let's say Hayes did sign a ~5x6m, he has a similar season to last, somewhere in the ~45 point range, he had a no movement clause about to kick in, what is his trade value and how desperate are the Rangers to move him before that clause kicks in?

I am playing devils advocate there a little, signing a player right to UFA, I don't think painting that as a good thing is quite right, but there are some scenarios that are not out of the realm that could make this one year deal a good thing in comparison.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Believe what you want...

But I agree there's no point in this kind of conversation based on opinions, when it's not possible to post confirmed facts. Better leave it be.

At least you're calling it an opinion, rather than a fact based on information you're "not allowed to make public". That basically ends the debate

 

[Trxjw]

I was just about to post something similar. Gorton is hedging his bets on more than one of the kids being ready for an NHL C position, even if I think that’s a poor move. Having Hayes on a five-year deal while these kids are on ELCs and bridges doesn’t really hurt the immediate future at all. It gives them two proven NHL Cs to insulate the kids and allows them to get easier minutes. If someone like Chytil shows more offensive prowess, then it’s easy to just shift Hayes back to his matchup C role and give Chytil those 2C minutes.

What was Hayes’ rumored ask this offseason? 5x6? That’s a perfectly fine deal for a guy through his 27-32 y/o seasons when you have your other C locked up to a reasonable cap hit and have a bunch of ELCs to add to the lineup. If anything, I think Hayes as a rental hurts his value.

My argument is that you can't guarantee which Hayes youryo getting. If he plays the way he did last year, then yeah, that deal is just fine and probably pretty valuable on the trade market should the need arise.

However, if he regresses then you're in a tough spot. You have an asset you have to hope bounces back because you've commited to him for a while. So while it's risky to hope that our prospects pan out, I think it's also risky to commit to a guy when you have the option to just wait and see. Besides, if our prospects don't pan out, we're going to have bigger problems than not having a Hayes replacement.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I personally like Hayes and think having him the next 5 years would be really valuable, but if they have a different strategy, I'm ok with that. It's ok to not feel that a good player fits into the long-term plans.

But man, the rewriting of history and hyperbole on Hayes is ridiculous. The same thing happened when Stepan was due a contract. A few people trying to torch the place at the suggestion of signing him, and ending up at "HE SUCKS" in their argument. If you have to redefine the player and market to justify your feelings on a potential contract, it says a bit more about you than it does the player/contract.

 

[NYR]

Why not? Having good forwards on good contracts doesn’t hinder this team at all, and it would just allow us to have really good depth. I don’t want to put the cart before the horse just because we have good prospects in the pipeline. I’d rather do what Boston did (hopefully not because of injury) and integrate the kids in waves.

Seguin would be great, but I doubt Dallas let’s him go. They don’t have any C in the pipeline with high upside outside of Dellandrea, and most of their talent is on the Ws. If they lose Seguin, Radek Faksa would become their 1C, and while he’s a pretty good player, he isn’t a top-line C. In short, Nill can’t risk losing Seguin.

Having enough good depth can never be understated, agreed.

However, I may be in the minority here but I’m just tired of watching certain players get long term contracts all while proving nothing.

Hayes (and Zib) aren’t bad players at all so don’t get me wrong but I look at the bottom line and scoring just 30 5v5 points between the two of them is just completely unacceptable to me and we can make up all the excuses until we’re blue in the face but what is it exactly we’re paying for, performance or just a stop gap?

I think Seguin stays in Dallas as well.

 

[NYR]

He’s just not really a good hockey player, he had a 20 goal season (a contract year) playing with Getzlaf and Perry and then got a big contract from Boston. Most of the stuff you’ve been mad about with Shattenkirk (getting a big pay day and giving up) applies really well to Beleksy except Shattenkirk has been one of the best offensive defensemen in the league throughout his career and Belesky has been a dime a dozen grinder.

Yeah, I'm not really a Belesky fan.
I was just saying that out of him or McLeod, I think Beleskey brings a bit more to the table.

I like defenders that can actually defend.
Other than that I'm going to leave the Shattenkirk comment alone lol.