Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XVI

[Ghost of jas]

I think because our cap isnt currently a problem, people forget about managing salaries throughout the roster.

For argument sake, let's assume this version on Kevin Hayes is the real deal and he plays 4 years to this level. That's still, what, 50 points? Good two way play. Nice size, but not a punishing player. What's the price for this? 6 x $6m? More? A NMC for sure.

On a cup team he's your 3rd line center. That's a pricey 3rd. I roll the dice with Howden there. I mean, you have to gamble on the future in a cap world. This is a low risk gamble ultimately. I rather do this and find a better 1st/2nd line center than gamble that Hayes elevates or maintains his play.

That’s exactly my argument for not signing him long term. It’s not difficult to find a player that can give you what Hayes gives you. And more than likely you can get someone to do it at a lower price.

 

[offdacrossbar]

That’s exactly my argument for not signing him long term. It’s not difficult to find a player that can give you what Hayes gives you. And more than likely you can get someone to do it at a lower price.

such an easy thing to say. not sure its that easy in reality

this conversation is entertaining atleast. hes got good to very good numbers, passes the eye test, has been out best forward, 3rd in scoring and best +/- against top line matchups and can play both an offensive and shutdown role equally well.

he has value on the market and has been the subject of inquiries by suitors.

hell bring back excellent value when moved.

but he sucks and is easily replaced..... unless its a bonafide top 4 cost controlled dman. naw.

26 yrs old. 6'5 220 lbs.

trade him for a maybe. gotcha

 

[Ghost of jas]

such an easy thing to say. not sure its that easy in reality

this conversation is entertaining atleast. hes got good to very good numbers, passes the eye test, has been out best forward, 3rd in scoring and best +/- against top line matchups and can play both an offensive and shutdown role equally well.

he has value on the market and has been the subject of inquiries by suitors.

hell bring back excellent value when moved.

but he sucks and is easily replaced.....

26 yrs old. 6'5 220 lbs.

gotcha

Drafted a Stepan

Traded for Brassard

Traded for Zibanejad

Very difficult, you’re right.

 

[McRanger]

That’s exactly my argument for not signing him long term. It’s not difficult to find a player that can give you what Hayes gives you. And more than likely you can get someone to do it at a lower price.

I would amend that statement slightly.

Its not difficult to find a player who gives what we've seen Hayes give in the past when he played more as a passenger.

It is difficult to find a player that gives what Hayes is giving the Rangers now, when he's engaged and playing great two way hockey.

I think that's the biggest question; what type of Hayes will we get the next few years after he signs his deal?

 

[offdacrossbar]

Drafted a Stepan

Traded for Brassard

Traded for Zibanejad

Very difficult, you’re right.

and theres a big difference between any of those guys ? both in production and cost ?

theres all 2/3c's depending on the team.

all lateral moves. why not just keep hayes ?

unless hes moved for something alot better than basically himself.

seems like we are chasing a player who might be the same as the player we have.

im not following your argument here.

 

[Machinehead]

You’ve been awesome the past six months to argue with. You start out on the extreme, but you’ve adjusted your POV based on what you’ve witnessed. Gorton and Quinn are slowly gaining your trust. Your opinion of both Kravtsov and Miller has shifted. At one point a couple of weeks ago, you were even disappointed by the Rangers winning a shootout because it inflated their point totals. It was glorious.

Likewise, sir.

We all need to adjust, and while we all have our own philosophies, none of us are perfect. It's healthy to see things another way. AV taught me that. It's the one thing I take from his tenure.

I think a lot of us have reached a point now where we know we can use another game-breaking talent and blindly competing for the sake of competing and stealing games reduces those odds, but it's still fun and good for our players to win the right way.

Hughes would be awesome but I don't think we're THAT bad, nor should we take any more steps than we have to be that bad, other than selling at the deadline again. I also understand we're not that good but I'm willing to be a little more patient after seeing how our pool has grown.

If we end up picking 7-10 after a not great but respectable season, I'm more than willing to play that hand.

And like I said before, I want to watch the games. In 16-17 and 17-18 I felt like the Rangers were homework. That's gone at least, and it's a relief.

 

[NYR Viper]

and theres a big difference between any of those guys ? both in production and cost ?

theres all 2/3c's depending on the team.

all lateral moves. why not just keep hayes ?

unless hes moved for something alot better than basically himself.

seems like we are chasing a player who might be the same as the player we have.

im not following your argument here.

For me it's not about the player Hayes is currently, it' about the projection. He's going to be 27 years old when his next contract starts. If I were him, I'd be looking for a 6 year deal. That's 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 years old. He is not a fleet footed player as it is and the league is becoming ever increasingly faster year by year. With the depth the Rangers have in the system, they SHOULD NOT be looking to pay a 2/3C $6-7m per season. That is what he is going to command on the open market. Guys like Howden and Andersson project to be almost exactly what Hayes is now, which is a good player, a player you can win with for sure, but also not someone you want to overpay for.

If the Rangers had a Hayes-like player playing RD I'd be more inclined to pay him. But not when (3) of your top-7 or 8 prospects are centers like Chytil, Andersson and Howden and all are playing well in the NHL already.

For me it's all about cap management and not about the player.

 

[Trxjw]

St Louis might be an interesting destination for Skjei. They've struggled, JayBo isn't his old self, and they have some very good young pieces they might be more willing to part with now that they're behind the pack.

Goaltending is their biggest problem of course but that's a tough but to crack. Bolstering the D might be the next best thing.

 

[True Blue]

I would amend that statement slightly.

Its not difficult to find a player who gives what we've seen Hayes give in the past when he played more as a passenger.

It is difficult to find a player that gives what Hayes is giving the Rangers now, when he's engaged and playing great two way hockey.

I think that's the biggest question; what type of Hayes will we get the next few years after he signs his deal?

What he was and what he has been, really for almost two years now, is pretty far apart. You are right. Finding someone who is playing the way he has been is not that easy and frankly not that easy to find in the draft. You are stating the $ million question. What is he going to be? If the answer is that you think he has hit his stride and what you see now is what you will see for the next 4-5 years, then having such a player on your roster for $6-$6.5 m is the right value. If you do not, then you do not want to be paying for who he can be but not who he is. Tough choice for Gorton. But in the end, I would still think that he trades him.

 

[offdacrossbar]

For me it's not about the player Hayes is currently, it' about the projection. He's going to be 27 years old when his next contract starts. If I were him, I'd be looking for a 6 year deal. That's 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 years old. He is not a fleet footed player as it is and the league is becoming ever increasingly faster year by year. With the depth the Rangers have in the system, they SHOULD NOT be looking to pay a 2/3C $6-7m per season. That is what he is going to command on the open market. Guys like Howden and Andersson project to be almost exactly what Hayes is now, which is a good player, a player you can win with for sure, but also not someone you want to overpay for.

If the Rangers had a Hayes-like player playing RD I'd be more inclined to pay him. But not when (3) of your top-7 or 8 prospects are centers like Chytil, Andersson and Howden and all are playing well in the NHL already.

For me it's all about cap management and not about the player.

fair argument.

im all for trading kevin hayes for a dman thats a legit cost controlled top 4 guy.

im not for trading him for scrubs or maybes or mid picks.

too lateral for me and not worth moving on from a known commodity to a maybe.

and we dont know what howden and andersson will become.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Likewise, sir.

We all need to adjust, and while we all have our own philosophies, none of us are perfect. It's healthy to see things another way. AV taught me that. It's the one thing I take from his tenure.

I think a lot of us have reached a point now where we know we can use another game-breaking talent and blindly competing for the sake of competing and stealing games reduces those odds, but it's still fun and good for our players to win the right way.

Hughes would be awesome but I don't think we're THAT bad, nor should we take any more steps than we have to be that bad, other than selling at the deadline again. I also understand we're not that good but I'm willing to be a little more patient after seeing how our pool has grown.

If we end up picking 7-10 after a not great but respectable season, I'm more than willing to play that hand.

And like I said before, I want to watch the games. In 16-17 and 17-18 I felt like the Rangers were homework. That's gone at least, and it's a relief.

You had valid criticisms. And a lot of this discussion is based on faith. But the disagreements were never personal. Like I said, even where there has been a difference of opinion, you were honest about what bothered you. It has been fun.

 

[Ghost of jas]

What he was and what he has been, really for almost two years now, is pretty far apart. You are right. Finding someone who is playing the way he has been is not that easy and frankly not that easy to find in the draft. You are stating the $ million question. What is he going to be? If the answer is that you think he has hit his stride and what you see now is what you will see for the next 4-5 years, then having such a player on your roster for $6-$6.5 m is the right value. If you do not, then you do not want to be paying for who he can be but not who he is. Tough choice for Gorton. But in the end, I would still think that he trades him.

I don’t agree it's difficult to replace Hayes. I would present six Eastern Conference teams that have better 2C s than Hayes. Is the goal here to just have a repeat of the last run, or do we want to actually win a Cup or two? If it’s the former, sure sign Hayes to the long term deal. But, then, what was the point of this whole process we’re going through?

 

[egelband]

I care to refute that the only way to get either is the #1 pick, putting your entire strategy into the hands of a lottery and that spending this season crying about the team's play because it's not bad enough is stupid.

Preach.

 

[Ghost of jas]

fair argument.

im all for trading kevin hayes for a dman thats a legit cost controlled top 4 guy.

im not for trading him for scrubs or maybes or mid picks.

too lateral for me and not worth moving on from a known commodity to a maybe.

and we dont know what howden and andersson will become.

I’m trading him for another chance to add another Chytil or Miller

 

[Fvital92]

Hayes's become one of the most overrated players in this boards. The funny thing it's that he was one of the most underrated players in the past few years.

 

[brians1128]

I can see Skeji actually in Boston to replace Chara. I can maybe see him in a deal for Trouba, Winnipeg is pretty weak on the left side. Montreal could use a lefty D.

 

[brians1128]

Hayes to Colorado just seems like the best fit. Given that Sakic just got a huge haul for Duchene I think there is less pressure on him to get the right deal, They have cap space to even include Names with him to there. They have the deadliest line in hockey adding some depth up front would be huge for them

They have 2 firsts, Timmins, Jost, Kaut etc

 

[Edge]

I would amend that statement slightly.

Its not difficult to find a player who gives what we've seen Hayes give in the past when he played more as a passenger.

It is difficult to find a player that gives what Hayes is giving the Rangers now, when he's engaged and playing great two way hockey.

I think that's the biggest question; what type of Hayes will we get the next few years after he signs his deal?

Man, it's that last part that really has me torn. That lingering doubt that Hayes is as good as he is playing right now and what kind of contract value you put on that.

I have similar feelings to what @jas has expressed a few times. Let's assume they look Hayes up long term, I'm not really sure that a lineup with Zibanejad and Hayes down the middle gets them close to their end-game. I feel like it would inevitably fall into the "good, but not good enough" category, and would also require the team to move one or both of Chytil and Andersson to the wings. The latter might happen anyway, but I just don't think Hayes is a guy I move that many people around accommodate. His presence would, to varying degrees, have a significant impact on 3 of our top 5 prospects.

Hayes, even right now, looks like a very good second line center. Does he look like an great or an elite second line center on a top team? I'm less certain about that. But that's probably what his next contract will look like.

Yes, rolling the dice and hoping for one of Chytil, Andersson or Howden to be as good of a second line center is a risk --- but I don't find it to be as big of a risk as asking them to replace a 70 point Kevin Hayes as our first line center. To some extent, I feel like we're almost treating closer to the latter.

I guess if I was being very direct, my stance would be that I don't love Kevin Hayes quite as much as some, or find him to be as replaceable as some others might.

With or without Kevin Hayes, I tend to see the same challenge moving forward --- deciding whether we have a legit first line center, or varying degrees of second line centers ranging from elite to merely good. Right now, that's what I see --- a plethora of second like centers, either real or potentially.

At best, Kevin Hayes fits into the higher end of that equation. But it keeps coming back to cost and long-term needs, some of which the Rangers could at least potentially move toward solving with acquiring more assets and chips to play poker with.

I keep thinking that Kevin Hayes feels like the "security blanket" option that doesn't look nearly as sexy three years from now when the fear of the boogeyman and the unknown is lurking behind every decision and discussion.

 

[offdacrossbar]

if william nylander signs with toronto i go right to don waddle and inquire about adam fox.

fox isnt far away now. hes a blue chip kid. righty shot and super intelligent build around dman.

kevin hayes and brendan smith for brett pesce and adam fox plus

were weak up the middle once hayes is gone.

is there a deal there with the canes ?

 

[NYR Viper]

fair argument.

im all for trading kevin hayes for a dman thats a legit cost controlled top 4 guy.

im not for trading him for scrubs or maybes or mid picks.

too lateral for me and not worth moving on from a known commodity to a maybe.

and we dont know what howden and andersson will become.

I think what Edge pointed out as the basis of a deal for Hayes would be a solid deal back. A good prospect (hopefully a wing or RD), a 1st rounder and another piece (be it a younger NHLer looking for a spot, a prospect that is a bit further down the depth chart that the Rangers like, or someone else).

Kristian Vesalainen was playing in the AHL this year and left for Europe. Perhaps there is a small rift between the player and the NHL club? Could the Rangers pry him away in a deal that sends a re-signed Hayes there way?

 

[McRanger]

What he was and what he has been, really for almost two years now, is pretty far apart. You are right. Finding someone who is playing the way he has been is not that easy and frankly not that easy to find in the draft. You are stating the $ million question. What is he going to be? If the answer is that you think he has hit his stride and what you see now is what you will see for the next 4-5 years, then having such a player on your roster for $6-$6.5 m is the right value. If you do not, then you do not want to be paying for who he can be but not who he is. Tough choice for Gorton. But in the end, I would still think that he trades him.

It's probably unfair of me not to give Hayes the benefit of the doubt considering how much work he's put in to improve his game... but yeah I just don't know.

And yeah I agree that he trades him.

 

[Edge]

I also want to add to this and say it seems like they’ve changed their draft strategy since Gorton became the GM, it feels like they’re taking bigger/bolder swings on upside earlier than they used to

I think you'll continue to see that in 2019 as certain guys continue to show early promise and good returns and the Rangers feel more confident that they at least have "some" talent to work with in place.

But it also speaks to a topic we haven't talked about too much.

We tend to focus on the differences between picking in the top 3 compared to picking in the 7-10 range, and they are significant. But we also have to account for the tremendous difference between picking 7-10 and picking in the 20s.

When you start getting to the 20s, the odds of getting those home runs go down significantly. Not to say it doesn't happen, but in a typical draft the gap between hitting one of the park at 10 is higher than 24.

I've never felt the Rangers under Gordie were afraid to take a big swing, I felt like they just weren't willing to do it in all situations.

Even if the Rangers two most referenced misses, Jessiman and McIlrath, were actually pretty big swings. It's easy to overlook that aspect because they spectacularly busted, but neither pick would've been considered a safe pick.

Since 2005, I'd say the Rangers took pretty big swings from 2006-2010. I don't know if we quite recognize that.

Sanguinetti and MDZ were not conservative picks and based upon the hopes of higher offensive returns despite concerns about defense and other aspects.

Kreider was not a conservative pick at all, having not played above high school and with the idea being that he could be a guy who scores 30, or his never heard from again.

Cherepanov from Russia was certainly a big swing for the context and climate of the time.

The McIlrath pick was sure banking on a lot of factors coming together post-draft.

In fact, I'd say only Staal, Miller and Skjei were on the more conservative side for their times.

But I don't think the conservative angle is quite as pronounced as we might be led to believe.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Man, it's that last part that really has me torn. That lingering doubt that Hayes is as good as he is playing right now and what kind of contract value you put on that.

I have similar feelings to what @jas has expressed a few times. Let's assume they look Hayes up long term, I'm not really sure that a lineup with Zibanejad and Hayes down the middle gets them close to their end-game. I feel like it would inevitably fall into the "good, but not good enough" category, and would also require the team to move one or both of Chytil and Andersson to the wings. The latter might happen anyway, but I just don't think Hayes is a guy I move that many people around accommodate. His presence would, to varying degrees, have a significant impact on 3 of our top 5 prospects.

Hayes, even right now, looks like a very good second line center. Does he look like an great or an elite second line center on a top team? I'm less certain about that. But that's probably what his next contract will look like.

Yes, rolling the dice and hoping for one of Chytil, Andersson or Howden to be as good of a second line center is a risk --- but I don't find it to be as big of a risk as asking them to replace a 70 point Kevin Hayes as our first line center. To some extent, I feel like we're almost treating closer to the latter.

I guess if I was being very direct, my stance would be that I don't love Kevin Hayes quite as much as some, or find him to be as replaceable as some others might.

With or without Kevin Hayes, I tend to see the same challenge moving forward --- deciding whether we have a legit first line center, or varying degrees of second line centers ranging from elite to merely good. Right now, that's what I see --- a plethora of second like centers, either real or potentially.

At best, Kevin Hayes fits into the higher end of that equation. But it keeps coming back to cost and long-term needs, some of which the Rangers could at least potentially move toward solving with acquiring more assets and chips to play poker with.

I keep thinking that Kevin Hayes feels like the "security blanket" option that doesn't look nearly as sexy three years from now when the fear of the boogeyman and the unknown is lurking behind every decision and discussion.

Again, if the goal is to simply repeat what was done in the past, then why not sign Hayes long term? I’m hoping the goal is more than that. So far, the approach has been to not repeat prior mistakes. Signing Hayes long-term just feels like the Girardi/Staal contracts all over again. (So does the Skjei contract for that matter.). I know there are differences, but, these are the type of contracts that box a franchise in from making the extra moves needed to put a team over the top. If you’re doing your job correctly, you have a couple of Hayes/Skjei types ready to move in when the prior ones become to expensive. You give the big money to the players you can’t replace from within.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I think you'll continue to see that in 2019 as certain guys continue to show early promise and good returns and the Rangers feel more confident that they at least have "some" talent to work with in place.

But it also speaks to a topic we haven't talked about too much.

We tend to focus on the differences between picking in the top 3 compared to picking in the 7-10 range, and they are significant. But we also have to account for the tremendous difference between picking 7-10 and picking in the 20s.

When you start getting to the 20s, the odds of getting those home runs go down significantly. Not to say it doesn't happen, but in a typical draft the gap between hitting one of the park at 10 is higher than 24.

I've never felt the Rangers under Gordie were afraid to take a big swing, I felt like they just weren't willing to do it in all situations.

Even if the Rangers two most referenced misses, Jessiman and McIlrath, were actually pretty big swings. It's easy to overlook that aspect because they spectacularly busted, but neither pick would've been considered a safe pick.

Since 2005, I'd say the Rangers took pretty big swings from 2006-2010. I don't know if we quite recognize that.

Sanguinetti and MDZ were not conservative picks and based upon the hopes of higher offensive returns despite concerns about defense and other aspects.

Kreider was not a conservative pick at all, having not played above high school and with the idea being that he could be a guy who scores 30, or his never heard from again.

Cherepanov from Russia was certainly a big swing for the context and climate of the time.

The McIlrath pick was sure banking on a lot of factors coming together post-draft.

In fact, I'd say only Staal, Miller and Skjei were on the more conservative side for their times.

But I don't think the conservative angle is quite as pronounced as we might be led to believe.

It would appear that they are better at identifying big swing talent that can actually reach their potential.

 

[kovazub94]

Chytil is a game-breaking talent. Kravtsov and Miller are future game-breaking talents. Yes, the Rangers need more, but, they are not devoid of game-breaking talents. And, as @True Blue posted, Kreider has become a legitimate 1st line talent with game-breaking ability. And I would submit that Zibanejad is not that far behind.

And Buchnevich has IT to join this group as far as the team's pieces already in place concerned.