Confirmed with Link: Kevin Hayes signed: (2 years/$2.6m)

[SA16]

I think it's a good deal but I'd have easily preferred a long term say 5 year deal for him.

 

[silverfish]

I think it's a good deal but I'd have easily preferred a long term say 5 year deal for him.

Totally agree.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

They'll probably regret not signing him longer for more money now. Bridge deals are the worst but so it goes

 

[Tawnos]

I think it's a good deal but I'd have easily preferred a long term say 5 year deal for him.

He didn't earn a 5 year contract. And while there's a good chance last year was just a sophomore slump, what if it wasn't? Gambling 5 years on a player in that situation is a mind-boggling concept to me. He raised more questions than he answered last year. Sorry, that player doesn't deserve term.

 

[silverfish]

Match game! Below is a list of 5v5 primary points aggregated over the past two seasons for the Rangers. I challenge you, without cheating, to match the player to the point total.

64
59
56
55
51
48
42

[spoil]Zucc, Nash, Hayes, Kreider, Stepan, Brassard, Miller [/spoil]

 

[SA16]

If you never give a player like that a long term deal then you're stuck only giving out long term costly deals and never even have the chance to get a value deal. It's not like he would get huge money over 5 years you're talking maybe 4M. Two years in a row he's been one of the teams best even strength scorers.

It's really exaggerated how "bad" he was last year. Miller outscored him by 7 points in 150 more even strength minutes. Kreider outscored him by 7 points in 100 more even strength minutes and 70 power play minutes. Despite being "lazy" and "poor defensively" he somehow managed to still be 5th on the team in forwards in RelCF% and 3rd in RelGF%. The year before he was 4th and 6th so it's really not that much different there. He's the typical case of a tall slowish guy looks lazy and lumbering when he played. People hated Beltran when he was on the Mets because he looked uncaring and lazy when he really just had a really smooth and not "all out aggressive" type style that showed energy all the time.

 

[silverfish]

If you never give a player like that a long term deal then you're stuck only giving out long term costly deals and never even have the chance to get a value deal. It's not like he would get huge money over 5 years you're talking maybe 4M. Two years in a row he's been one of the teams best even strength scorers.

It's really exaggerated how "bad" he was last year. Miller outscored him by 7 points in 150 more even strength minutes. Kreider outscored him by 7 points in 100 more even strength minutes and 70 power play minutes.

It's like I have two accounts

 

[GAGLine]

I agree with what you are saying, but if the Rangers want to be competitive this season, I don't think this defense has the potential to be good enough this season. I think out of those 7D, you could have a pretty good group of players in a vacuum, if players play to their potential, but its not a vacuum. The problem of this defense will probably be the lack of points, the lack of skating and the lack of puck moving.

Moving players helps, but we also need to add PMD to this defense. It can't just be getting rid of one or two players. Those players will probably be gone eventually, and McIlrath might be as well, but until the Rangers have some balance between offense and defense with the group of defenseman, the team will struggle.

The retool/rebuild whatever you want to call it isn't going to happen in one offseason. It's going to take time. Nobody wants Girardi and Staal and they both have NMCs anyway, which makes it even more difficult to trade them. We have to be patient. In the meantime, we make the team the best we can without sacrificing the future.

 

[Tawnos]

Match game! Below is a list of 5v5 primary points aggregated over the past two seasons for the Rangers. I challenge you, without cheating, to match the player to the point total.

64
59
56
55
51
48
42

[spoil]Zucc, Nash, Hayes, Kreider, Stepan, Brassard, Miller [/spoil]

Match game! Below is a list of even strength points per game variance from 14-15 to 15-16. I challenge you, without cheating, to match a player to the variance.

+38%
+28%
-7%
-14%
-15%
-23%
-27%

[spoil]Zucc, Miller, Kreider, Brassard, Stepan, Hayes, Nash[/spoil]

 

[silverfish]

Match game! Below is a list of even strength points per game variance from 14-15 to 15-16. I challenge you, without cheating, to match a player to the variance.

+38%
+28%
-7%
-14%
-15%
-23%
-27%

[spoil]Zucc, Miller, Kreider, Brassard, Stepan, Hayes, Nash[/spoil]

What happens to players in the following season after seeing such wild swings in their 5v5 point/gp total from one year to another?

Do players have a huge swing up see a decline? And do players who have a huge downswing see an increase?

How does this compare to their points/60 variance year over year?

EDIT - I've got nothing going on right now, I'll solve these. Give me a few mins.

 

[SA16]

I have just noticed that Kevin Hayes played exactly 925:41 at even strength each of the past two seasons. Will he be doing the same again?

 

[SA16]

This all comes down to risk management. Personally I think Hayes is already an extremely good player and has the ability to be even better. He hasn't played much on the powerplay in his career yet and he has mostly played on the third line without top players. His most common linemates this year were Lindberg and Stalberg. Last year it was Hagelin and a revolving door including Miller, Fast, and Stempniak. Despite that he's been one of the most produtive even strength players on the team. In fact he is 25th in the league in points/60 since he came in the league among forwards min 1500 minutes right next to guys such as Pacioretty, Malkin, Hall, Trocheck, Thornton, Getzlaf, Zucc etc...

And I think he has shown improvement. Last year he demonstrated a much higher propensity to shoot the puck and he's still really strong on the puck and able to hold and shield it away from opponents. With time he'll get even better and recognizing when he should hold on to the puck and try to make a play and when he should get rid of it quicker. I see no reason he can't play a very similar role on the PP as Thornton which is mostly in a distributing role. Obviously he's not and won't ever be as good as Thornton but he can do similar things on the PP.

His "down year" actually makes me want to sign him to a long term deal even more as because of that perception it would have given the opportunity to sign him long term for even cheaper. I don't think there is much risk in his game that would cause him to completely fall off in the next two years and not be an NHL player. If we gave him something like 5-20 now I see very little chance he wouldn't be worth that and I think he can very very easily exceed that. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him put up Mike Ribeiro type numbers which is typically around 15 goals and 40 assists.

 

[Tawnos]

What happens to players in the following season after seeing such wild swings in their 5v5 point/gp total from one year to another?

Do players have a huge swing up see a decline? And do players who have a huge downswing see an increase?

How does this compare to their points/60 variance year over year?

First of all, I was mocking the way you cherry picked the statistics there. Statistics absolutely do not tell the story of what happened with Hayes last year. If he played the same way last year and still put up 23% less point production, I don't think there would be nearly as much concern around giving him a long term contract.

As it is, it wasn't hard to identify problems with Hayes' shift-to-shift consistency last season as being a primary culprit. For someone like, say, Rick Nash who is a veteran in this league who hasn't really shown those problems in the past, you chalk it up to an inability to find a groove and expect that he will right his game the next season (I'm not accusing Nash of this, just giving a hypothetical). A veteran gets the benefit of the doubt. When it's someone who is still just a kid, and who displayed these tendencies in year two, it throws up some red flags.

Is it a sophomore slump? Or is it the result of coming off the high of making it into the league? Was his success in year one based on his ability, including the ability to be effective consistently? Or was it situational? I can't imagine any NHL GM wanting to give a guy with those question marks a long-term contract.

 

[silverfish]

First of all, I was mocking the way you cherry picked the statistics there. Statistics absolutely do not tell the story of what happened with Hayes last year. If he played the same way last year and still put up 23% less point production, I don't think there would be nearly as much concern around giving him a long term contract.

As it is, it wasn't hard to identify problems with Hayes' shift-to-shift consistency last season as being a primary culprit. For someone like, say, Rick Nash who is a veteran in this league who hasn't really shown those problems in the past, you chalk it up to an inability to find a groove and expect that he will right his game the next season (I'm not accusing Nash of this, just giving a hypothetical). A veteran gets the benefit of the doubt. When it's someone who is still just a kid, and who displayed these tendencies in year two, it throws up some red flags.

Is it a sophomore slump? Or is it the result of coming off the high of making it into the league? Was his success in year one based on his ability, including the ability to be effective consistently? Or was it situational? I can't imagine any NHL GM wanting to give a guy with those question marks a long-term contract.

Using point totals is cherry picking stats?

 

[Tawnos]

Using point totals is cherry picking stats?

Using a two-year total when you know one year is significantly higher than the other is cherry picking stats. I know it's his only two years in the league, so that's the only sample size that exists, but it's really just a deflection from the concerns he generated.

For example, and keep in mind that I am 100% not comparing these two players, someone could have made a very similar argument about Petr Prucha after 2006-07. It wouldn't be a good argument at all.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The retool/rebuild whatever you want to call it isn't going to happen in one offseason. It's going to take time. Nobody wants Girardi and Staal and they both have NMCs anyway, which makes it even more difficult to trade them. We have to be patient. In the meantime, we make the team the best we can without sacrificing the future.

So if you say Girardi and Staal aren't being traded, and I agree about that, what about trading the other DFD? It's not like we have a Hjalmarsson who just can't be traded. Klein and McIlrath are players the fans like, I think mostly because they dislike Girardi and Staal, but its not like trading Klein and McIlrath is the difference between making the playoffs and missing the playoffs. Even in Klein's best season, he was exposed on the top pair, when he played it. He's probably a #4D, not the type of player that should be kept around just because he's not the problem with the team, and the fans like him. McIlrath is 24, and has shown very little. We aren't losing out on the next Scott Stevens by trading him. Best case scenario is probably a #4/5D, and thats probably his ceiling, which he hasn't reached yet. The Rangers and Ranger fans can't be picky. Get rid of Klein and McIlrath, work with what you have with Girardi and Staal, bring in some PMD and thats your defense.

Instead, everyone's complaining about Girardi and Staal when it was stupid to think they would be traded to begin with. As you said, NMC's. Everyone trading them away to Edmonton or Columbus or Winnipeg or wherever is wasting their own time. The chances either of them would be traded this offseason is so slim. I also blame the Rangers though. Why are Klein and McIlrath still on the team? Why haven't they been replaced by PMD? If the Rangers have the same plan as some of the fans and only want Girardi and Staal off the team, it would explain why we have all these DFD still on the team, and we added Holden, which was another move that doesn't make sense. It may all be a long term plan, and the Rangers might be content with not contending this season, but I hope they don't sell us on contending when we have such a big imbalance between PMD and DFD.

This isn't directed at you. I'm sorry if it seems that way. Some fans are being so picky about improving this defense. They want specific players off the team that they dislike the most and they won't settle for less, even though the specific players they want off the team have NMC's. I hope the team isn't the same way in their decision making. Klein and McIlrath could easily go, and the Rangers wouldn't be getting much worse. The Holden signing also made no sense.

 

[silverfish]

What happens to players in the following season after seeing such wild swings in their 5v5 point/gp total from one year to another?

Do players have a huge swing up see a decline? And do players who have a huge downswing see an increase?

I used forwards who appeared in at least 500 minutes of 5v5 time in every season from 13-14 through 15-16 (last three years). This also only entails 5v5 primary points per game. (Normally, I'd use p1/60 here, but Tawnos used points per game, so I'm going to keep things uniform).

48 players saw their points per game variance increase 25% or more year over year (13-14 to 14-15). Of those 48 players, 4 saw another increase from 14-15 to 15-16. 13 didn't play in 15-16. The rest of the sample saw their points per game decrease the next season.

107 players saw their points per game variance decrease by -20% or less (13-14 to 14-15). Of those 107 players, 47 players saw an increase from 14-15 to 15-16. 28 players didn't play in 15-16. The rest of the sample size saw their points per game decrease the next season.

 

[SA16]

Using a two-year total when you know one year is significantly higher than the other is cherry picking stats. I know it's his only two years in the league, so that's the only sample size that exists, but it's really just a deflection from the concerns he generated.

For example, and keep in mind that I am 100% not comparing these two players, someone could have made a very similar argument about Petr Prucha after 2006-07. It wouldn't be a good argument at all.

It's only a 7 point difference. He was 14-22-36 at even strength in 14-15 and then 11-18-29 at even strength in 15-16. He was still T-5 in even strength points last year on the team ahead of everyone except Stepan Miller, Zuccarello, and Brassard all of whom played at least 100 more minutes than him except for Stepan.

And you can't make the same argument for Prucha unfortunately as, even though I was a huge Prucha fan, Pruchas success had a ton to do with shooting 23.1% his first year (and 16 power play goals) and then 16.2% his second year. At the time I definitely would have liked to have locked Prucha up long term however that was 10 years ago and I can say definitely that I was wrong to think that.

 

[Levitate]

If you never give a player like that a long term deal then you're stuck only giving out long term costly deals and never even have the chance to get a value deal. It's not like he would get huge money over 5 years you're talking maybe 4M. Two years in a row he's been one of the teams best even strength scorers.

It's really exaggerated how "bad" he was last year. Miller outscored him by 7 points in 150 more even strength minutes. Kreider outscored him by 7 points in 100 more even strength minutes and 70 power play minutes. Despite being "lazy" and "poor defensively" he somehow managed to still be 5th on the team in forwards in RelCF% and 3rd in RelGF%. The year before he was 4th and 6th so it's really not that much different there. He's the typical case of a tall slowish guy looks lazy and lumbering when he played. People hated Beltran when he was on the Mets because he looked uncaring and lazy when he really just had a really smooth and not "all out aggressive" type style that showed energy all the time.

I just dont' think you can give everyone longterm deals though, which is what it seems this board wants at times. I totally get the "lock up longterm so the player is cheaper later instead of giving them the chance to demand more later" but if you do that with everyone then you can really screw yourself

 

[Mac n Gs]

To be fair, Hayes should have better linemates this season. Last season was a carousel between Lindberg, Stalberg, Fast, etc.

 

[Tawnos]

I used forwards who appeared in at least 500 minutes of 5v5 time in every season from 13-14 through 15-16 (last three years). This also only entails 5v5 primary points per game. (Normally, I'd use p1/60 here, but Tawnos used points per game, so I'm going to keep things uniform).

48 players saw their points per game variance increase 25% or more year over year (13-14 to 14-15). Of those 48 players, 4 saw another increase from 14-15 to 15-16. 13 didn't play in 15-16. The rest of the sample saw their points per game decrease the next season.

107 players saw their points per game variance decrease by -20% or less (13-14 to 14-15). Of those 107 players, 47 players saw an increase from 14-15 to 15-16. 28 players didn't play in 15-16. The rest of the sample size saw their points per game decrease the next season.

Thanks for the work, but I don't really find the data significant. You'd need to normalize for players of a certain tenure in the league, otherwise you've got numbers being skewed by young players improving and old players declining. I'm sure these things are more volatile at the extremes of careers.

 

[SA16]

I just dont' think you can give everyone longterm deals though, which is what it seems this board wants at times. I totally get the "lock up longterm so the player is cheaper later instead of giving them the chance to demand more later" but if you do that with everyone then you can really screw yourself

You can't but I happen to think Hayes is one player who is absolutely worth it. And I think that he already showed he can put up really good production even with a third line role the last couple of years, relatively poor linemates, and minimal powerplay time. I think he can easily put up even bigger raw numbers if given top 6 ice time and a consistent PP role. Obviously he can't get top 6 ice time here now as a center with Stepan and Zibanejad but it doesn't mean he can't still get a lot of time.

Out of all our RFA's I'd have actually preferred giving Hayes a long term deal than any of them. Still - I don't think this new deal is bad by any means I just think we would have been better off choosing him as the guy to give the long term deal on. And why is that?

1. While I don't want to trade him Kreider easily has the most trade value of the three given his past years, playoff success, and reputation.
2. Millers underlying numbers are somewhat concerning and he actually shoots less than Hayes and isn't nearly as strong with the puck. I think his bridge deal is a good deal.
3. I think Hayes is just a much stronger player and able to do things that not many good. Obviously that's very subjective but he's put up near elite per-60 numbers so far in his career and given his play style I definitely don't think it's a mirage.

 

[silverfish]

Thanks for the work, but I don't really find the data significant. You'd need to normalize for players of a certain tenure in the league, otherwise you've got numbers being skewed by young players improving and old players declining.

I'd argue that this skew is not at play here.

If this was fact, let's say, young players improving and old players declining, then the findings that I received would've been opposite.

Players who saw an increase in their variance (ie. young players improving), would have continued to see that increase.

Players who saw a decrease in their variance (ie. old players declining), would have continued to see a decline.

Meanwhile, we have samples that are as such:

48 players increased one season. Four players increased again after that season. Should be higher for more young players continuing to improve.

107 players decreased one season. 47 players increased after a season of decline. Should be lower for more older players continuing to decline.

I'd argue this analysis can be thrown out as insignificant due to the fact that it is a small sample size, but I disagree with your conclusion as to why you believe it may be skewed.

 

[Tawnos]

It's only a 7 point difference. He was 14-22-36 at even strength in 14-15 and then 11-18-29 at even strength in 15-16. He was still T-5 in even strength points last year on the team ahead of everyone except Stepan Miller, Zuccarello, and Brassard all of whom played at least 100 more minutes than him except for Stepan.

And you can't make the same argument for Prucha unfortunately as, even though I was a huge Prucha fan, Pruchas success had a ton to do with shooting 23.1% his first year (and 16 power play goals) and then 16.2% his second year. At the time I definitely would have liked to have locked Prucha up long term however that was 10 years ago and I can say definitely that I was wrong to think that.

7 points is a huge number when you're talking about numbers in that range. It's like a player going from 80 points one season to 64 the next. That's a major shift.

Petr Prucha saw almost a 30% drop in his shooting percentage. Hayes saw a 31% drop in his. Again, I'm not comparing the players. I'm just trying to make the point that you just don't know, after two very different seasons, which of the two seasons is more like what you should expect from the player moving forward.

If Hayes is a 3rd line center and nothing more, which even his numbers last year would qualify him for, then that's completely fine. But since there's a chance that this is the case, I would not risk a long-term deal wiping out his bridge and paying him as a 2nd line player, which is all I'm saying.

 

[broadwayblue]

Thread title is wrong, no? I thought the deal was 2 years, 5.2M. Or is he really only making 1.3M average per year?