AirGut
Registered User
..because it’s Toews and it’d be difficult to do. NYR gives up too much in your original proposal, no way they agree to that, and with Toews’ contract and play.. NYR would need to really want that guy, Chicago would have to agree with your outlook, both sides would have to work around cap- and it’s just easier to leave the Chicago hero in Chicago and let him facilitate the younger guys’ development. I get it, you like Toews and want him in NY- but once again, I just don’t think it’s easy enough or desired enough by the actual teams involved.
Meanwhile Toews has been up and down the past few years, a decline of some degree should be expected given his age- and personally that’s not someone I’d want to trade for and put in a new situation- a guy who’s put all his passion and talent into one team- sometimes adjusting to a new squad isn’t easy. Unless he’s really angry at Hawks management I doubt he’d want to leave or be the same player in a new system, necessarily.
In my opinion I don't think he wants to stay the next three years with Chicago. From what it seems they really haven't been telling him much of anything as to where the team truly is headed. They just now finally went forth and published an official letter, just a week ago the guy seemed pretty disgruntled. It's not so much he's angry but he wants to win now, he expects to compete when he starts camp and him waiting another 3-4 years possibly even longer to even get a snuff is not something I seem him being 100% on. Kane maybe, but not him. Not to mention the Rangers are by all means looking into a center of his caliber. If they got talking for Eichel they sure as hell were thinking of moving some pieces for him, you don't think they'd be willing to use those same pieces to push a Toews trade now that CHI is ready to fully dive in? It all matters on what Toews says in the next week or month to be honest. Also like I've said if Bowman is smart he'll know that years of getting mid 1st round picks aren't gonna magically thrust your rebuild unless you hit on those guys. So how is CHI gonna sell a rebuild to Toews in the first place if they aren't competitive by his contract year? Toews is either gone in 3 years for absolutely nothing or you can move him now when you'll get decent building blocks to move forward with. And it works for NYR because they want to be as competitive as they can be NOW with some of our guys still on ELC's. Trust me Gorton is looking for that 1B type C and Toews is almost a perfect match in some sense. The cap works with R.Strome and I don't see CHI not willing to accept him considering he's a 26 year old who has changed his career around. The NYR would be paying Toews around 7 after retention which is what Strome might be getting anyways, most likely at similar term even. If it's not Toews the Rangers don't really have other guys like that to look into, I mean call me crazy but I'd even rather have Toews right now on this team going forward rather than Barkov. We already got the finesse and points, we need that leader that experience and that discipline to show these young guys what being a contending team means. That energy that rubs off on all the young players is all worth it. That sort of stoic energy isn't something around all the time.
There is a huge gap between Hajek ------> Miller --------> Lundkvist
Yes there is a gap but not as much between Miller/Lundkvist as you might think. Miller and Nils I view in the same tier and giving either of them up you better be getting something more, that's why Hajek makes the most sense to me. Or someone like Jones.
Did the Rangers get a 10 million dollar cap increase ? No? Well not happening then
We wouldn't be giving them just rookies, Strome's contract would carry to them so they'd still save some money albeit not much with retention. And the 6-7 that Toews would be making on the NYR's cap would replace Strome. Look the point of moving Toews isn't about "clearing cap" you're doing it because you now fully committed to a rebuild and you need to accumulate prospects and young assets.