Player Discussion Kevin Hayes

[Fitzy]

Very few teams in the league have a good 2nd PP unit. It's primarily a compilation of the team's remaining offensively gifted players thrown together with the hope that something clicks. PP1 is usually the one that is strategically designed with clearer roles and specialists.

 

[Webster]

You'll be traded

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Help the Rangers? Face of the franchise. Always among the top jersey sales. Always the guy interviewed on TV. Puts fans in the seats. Has his own brand of clothes sold at MSG. Financially, he helps the Rangers a lot.

Help the Rangers win the Cup? Let's see how the rebuild goes. You're going to need leaders in the room if you want to win a Cup. He's certainly that.

You can make arguments that we should get picks/prospects/cap space by trading the guy but the argument that he doesn't "help the Rangers" is ludicrous.

Helping put money in Dolan's pocket doesn't help the team win the Stanley Cup. And keeping a player because of "leadership" is a dumb reason, and the type of thing a team that gets their lunch eaten by the rest of the league would do. Where's Toronto or Winnipeg's hall of fame leadership?

I am making the argument that Lundqvist doesn't help the Rangers. I think its a pretty good one. Without his presence on the team last season, we'd probably have picked top 3-5. There's a big difference between that and top 9. Thats a bigger difference than any likely difference he'll make on the team in 2-3 years when there's a chance we'll be able to contend. Is he going to do the same thing this year? Rob the team of a top 5 pick? Its not his fault that he's good, but its a problem for the current team. We need to be bad to rebuild, and he hurt our ability to be that last year.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm sorry. I'm all in on this rebuild, but intentionally driving arguably the greatest player in franchise history is not ok. I think we'd be better long term if he moved but the choice is his. He earned that IMO.

I'm not going to tell you what you have to be for and against, but what you are describing is not being for a complete rebuild. You are for a rebuild on your own terms that'll likely yield less success.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Because he’s misusing an article that actually says the opposite of what he’s trying to use it to say?

Hank is perfect for the rebuild at this point. He’s not stealing game after game anymore, he helps stop then from a buffalo and Ottawa situation where nobody cares about winning, and he will help lure his replacement over next year.

We didn’t pick a higher player because we didn’t do well in the lottery. You can’t suck your way into a guaranteed top pick anymore.

And yeah force Hank out then let’s see how eager shestyorkin is to come over when we forced out our best goalie ever who also happens to be his idol so we could have slightly better odds at a higher pick one year.

So its perfect to acquire the #1 overall pick like Buffalo? We shouldn't want Dahlin and Eichel? I've been over this stuff with you before, and I think you are misunderstanding the data. The teams that successfully rebuild are those that have high picks. I'll say it because I'm sure someone will disingenuously try to misrepresent the argument, but it is true that it doesn't guarantee success. Still, its by far the most successful way to rebuild. Picking 7th and 9th usually does nothing all that big for a rebuild. You draft players like Andersson and Kravtsov. Two drafts later you are still looking for elite talent. And please don't give me the "we didn't do well in the lottery" nonsense. We dropped one spot. We did actually right about what is expected, unless no one moved up. You absolutely can suck your way into a top pick nowadays. Look at Buffalo. Look at Edmonton.

If Shestyorkin doesn't want to come over because the team is "so bad", thats his choice. We are rebuilding, anyway. Its not like there's an urgent need to be good. And I'd say its probably the opposite. You have a better chance of getting him over here if Hank's not here.

 

[JimmyG89]

And I'd say its probably the opposite. You have a better chance of getting him over here if Hank's not here.

Not when it has been noted, several times, in interviews with him that Hank is his idol. I'm pretty sure he is not going to turn down the opportunity to play with someone he idolized growing up.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Did you just write an article about yourself?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Not when it has been noted, several times, in interviews with him that Hank is his idol. I'm pretty sure he is not going to turn down the opportunity to play with someone he idolized growing up.

He's not a child. Its not a meet and greet with your idol. He's a professional athlete. He wants to play. He wants to be a starter. One of the biggest sticking points with Russian players coming from the KHL to NHL is always their role.

But its besides the point. If that makes him stay in Russia, it doesn't hurt the team that much. We already suck, and are nowhere close to contending. We'll go with another goalie, if thats the case.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I've never seen so much confirmation bias from a single person

 

[kovazub94]

You: Is PP2 time enough to be a 60 point guy?



Me: I'm not sure, but I'd find him a spot there over guys currently on PP2.



You let me know where I went wrong.

Let me help you understand how it looks from my end since it's seems complicated. Do you understand analogy?

Me: Do you think Alexey Kovalev is HOFer?
You: I don't know but he's better than Filatov.

 

[haveandare]

So its perfect to acquire the #1 overall pick like Buffalo? We shouldn't want Dahlin and Eichel? I've been over this stuff with you before, and I think you are misunderstanding the data. The teams that successfully rebuild are those that have high picks. I'll say it because I'm sure someone will disingenuously try to misrepresent the argument, but it is true that it doesn't guarantee success. Still, its by far the most successful way to rebuild. Picking 7th and 9th usually does nothing all that big for a rebuild. You draft players like Andersson and Kravtsov. Two drafts later you are still looking for elite talent. And please don't give me the "we didn't do well in the lottery" nonsense. We dropped one spot. We did actually right about what is expected, unless no one moved up. You absolutely can suck your way into a top pick nowadays. Look at Buffalo. Look at Edmonton.

If Shestyorkin doesn't want to come over because the team is "so bad", thats his choice. We are rebuilding, anyway. Its not like there's an urgent need to be good. And I'd say its probably the opposite. You have a better chance of getting him over here if Hank's not here.

No, I don't consider purposely being far and away the worst team in the league to be a good plan. I know you do, that's your right. But your opinion isn't a fact.

What has Eichel done for Buffalo? Went from worst in the league to worst in the league and now his entire ELC was 100% wasted and his team is still total garbage. This is the risk. You tear your team down on purpose to get better odds at a lottery ball and then what? Maybe you cash in on Kane, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid and maybe you happen to also develop great depth around them and maybe you get out of the basement and actually win - McDavid hasn't still, OV didn't for over a decade and he's arguably the best goal scoring winger ever. Or maybe you get a Yakupov, Ekblad, RNH, Johnson, etc and now you have a garbage team, no assets to trade worth a damn, and your shiny 1OA is a decent player but not even elite at his position and barely moves the needle for the team as a whole. Meanwhile, in all of those drafts with those crappy 1OAs, vastly superior players were taken with later picks.

I'd way rather try to bring the current kids up in a culture that isn't complete garbage and hope the lottery works out for us or our picks work out to be steals in hindsight. Dropping one spot isn't "doing well" - doing well is doing what Dallas did last year. That way you don't have to put everything on the line for a literal gamble. Totally tearing it all down to hope for the 1OA and that the 1OA you get is a franchise altering player is a desperate gamblers decision imo. The odds don't care how much you put on your bet, they are what they are, and they're not in your favor.

And in no way is Shesty not coming over not a big deal. It'd be a huge issue. Another thing not worth risking for better odds in a gamble.

 

[Waivers]

We dealt how many assets who had long term cap hits or who were going to inevitably have long term cap hits, and now there are some that feel that we should have kept Hayes for 5 years here. To me, even after 4 years in the NHL, he is still an enigma because you do not know what you are going to get out of him. The question is do the Rangers think Hayes will be bargain later in his contract years, or not? He averages 43 points a season, which is nothing to laugh at, of course. But I think the Rangers have seen what they have seen out of Hayes and they are over him. There is too much Center depth in the pipeline (which can be a good thing).

Consistency is key. Consistency is what turns good players into great players. Why would the Rangers give a consistent contract to an inconsistent player? Yeah, he did great the last 2.5 months of the season, but do you expect him to bring that same pace beginning this October, or are we going to wait again like we did last season? Yes, his numbers went up when he was given tough assignments, and that is great. Consistency... 5 years for 2.5 months of good hockey where we expect him to be. He needs to crack 50+ now, which we still do not know if it will happen. He has the tools, he has the hands, the patience, and the shot, but can he put it together for 50+ points a season, after season, after season? That is my thought process anyway.

And if Hayes gets us 60+ points, then yeah, this is a good problem to have. Hayes will be worth more to other teams during the Trade Deadline, or perhaps we overpay a bit to keep an asset who can reach 60+ points once he reaches 50 this season. There are a lot of avenues that can be explored still.

 

[silverfish]

Let me help you understand how it looks from my end since it's seems complicated. Do you understand analogy?

Me: Do you think Alexey Kovalev is HOFer?
You: I don't know but he's better than Filatov.

Okay. Agree to end the conversation?

Cool. Have a good one!

 

[kovazub94]

Okay. Agree to end the conversation?

Cool. Have a good one!

Yup. Same to you!

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

PP should be

1: Kreider, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, Chytil, Shattenkirk
2: Hayes, Andersson, Zuccarello, Pionk, Spooner

Next on F: Namestnikov
Next on D: Skjei

 

[haohmaru]

Helping put money in Dolan's pocket doesn't help the team win the Stanley Cup. And keeping a player because of "leadership" is a dumb reason, and the type of thing a team that gets their lunch eaten by the rest of the league would do. Where's Toronto or Winnipeg's hall of fame leadership?

I am making the argument that Lundqvist doesn't help the Rangers. I think its a pretty good one. Without his presence on the team last season, we'd probably have picked top 3-5. There's a big difference between that and top 9. Thats a bigger difference than any likely difference he'll make on the team in 2-3 years when there's a chance we'll be able to contend. Is he going to do the same thing this year? Rob the team of a top 5 pick? Its not his fault that he's good, but its a problem for the current team. We need to be bad to rebuild, and he hurt our ability to be that last year.

This kind of argument is just painful on so many levels. So, a guy that's probably top 1-3 Rangers in the history of the franchise he isn't helping the Rangers because he's being loyal to the franchise? He's "robbing" the team that signed him to this contract? In what universe does a guy who has ALWAYS said he wants to be a career Ranger get ostracized because he's actually doing what he said he'd do all along? This mentality that he should uproot his family and get traded to Dallas, or whoever, for "the sake of the Rangers" is ludicrous. The guy has earned whatever he gets and the Rangers have gotten more "help" from him than they ever deserved.

All to jump up a couple of spots in the draft or for a draft pick? Sorry, I can't get on board with criticizing him for being "all in" on the Rangers all the time for his entire career. The above is selfish beyond words.

You think Georgiev playing behind him (and maybe Shesty down the road) and learning from him isn't going to "help" the Rangers? His preparation, competitiveness, will to win, etc... isn't going to "help" the team? He's not going to help the club by getting more fans in the seats so this AHL squad might actually have someone cheering for them? Were you on board for signing Kovalchuk? What's the difference?

How about if all things fall the right way for this team? Skjei rebounds and improves on his rookies season? Zibenajad takes another step. Chytil and Andersson exceed expectations? Shattenkirk plays like his old self? Smith returns to form? Let's just say they are competitive - does Lundqvist help them then?

I'll forgo a spot or two ahead in the draft for the sake of him retiring a Ranger. I don't have to think about it.

 

[DanielBrassard]

PP should be

1: Kreider, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, Chytil, Shattenkirk
2: Hayes, Andersson, Zuccarello, Pionk, Spooner

Next on F: Namestnikov
Next on D: Skjei

ADA should be on the PP. Would be a mistake if he wasn't.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

ADA should be on the PP. Would be a mistake if he wasn't.

If I'm picking the lineup, he's not in it.

 

[eco's bones]

I wouldn't kill myself trying to get rid of him but at the next trade deadline Henrik might feel different about being moved. It happens sometimes that a guy who was a franchise player does not want to let go--Ray Bourque is an example---when he finally did let go he went on to win his Stanley Cup with the Avalanche. Henrik's bought in to the rebuild/tool or whatever it is for now--but really does he really know what he's bought into? I think anyone who was a Rangers fan between 1997 and the lockout will tell you that period wasn't a whole lot of fun. If the Rangers are shit this coming year--what's the point where it stops being fun for him? From what I understand Henrik thinks next year's team is going to be able to compete for a playoff spot. And I could say maybe but what I'm really thinking is probably not. So what happens if this team is at or near the bottom of the standings? What will Henrik think then? What if it's not very much fun?

The other question though is where or what is the market for him? He'll have two years and change left at $8.5 mil per. That's a big cap hit and the majority of teams are not going to be able to take that all on. We could carry some of it. As well it's usually the playoff teams at the deadline that are looking for help and most teams if not every single playoff bound team is going to have at least pretty decent goaltending. So I pretty much think that whatever market there may have been this year for Henrik has pretty much passed. He might however be disappointed enough that he'll asked to be moved and to me if that happens it's more likely to happen next summer.

 

[Mac n Gs]

If I'm picking the lineup, he's not in it.

Why? If we’re rebuilding, shouldn’t giving as much TOI to one of our skilled RHD be a priority?

 

[haohmaru]

Why? If we’re rebuilding, shouldn’t giving as much TOI to one of our skilled RHD be a priority?

Skjei / Shattenkirk
Staal / Smith
Claesson / Pionk

If we're being honest, that's probably the depth chart right now.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Why? If we’re rebuilding, shouldn’t giving as much TOI to one of our skilled RHD be a priority?

Who the f*** knows if the team is rebuilding? They are hedging their bets towards mediocrity, as usual.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Skjei / Shattenkirk
Staal / Smith
Claesson / Pionk

If we're being honest, that's probably the depth chart right now.

I think it’s generous to think Smith is viewed as the team’s second pairing RD this season based on everything from last year. It’s great to hear that he’s been working out, but he still needs to come back and be better on the ice.

Who the **** knows if the team is rebuilding? They are hedging their bets towards mediocrity, as usual.

They’re shaping up to be pretty bad this season and have focused on adding a lot of youth to the organization, while not committing much salary to older players down the line. That’s my best bet at the moment.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Why? If we’re rebuilding, shouldn’t giving as much TOI to one of our skilled RHD be a priority?

Skjei, Shattenkirk, Staal and Pionk all have spots locked up. I'm certainly no fan of Smith, but I don't see the logic in burying his career with the Rangers. He should come next. So thats five. Then its down to DeAngelo and Gilmour. Both have some potential, but also have problems in their games. The way I see it, Gilmour has shown me more. I don't think he's any better than a 6D, but I don't even know that DeAngelo is that. He's sucked so far in his Rangers career.


Skjei-Shattenkirk
Staal-Pionk
Gilmour-Smith
DeAngelo

 

[TheTakedown]

Skjei, Shattenkirk, Staal and Pionk all have spots locked up. I'm certainly no fan of Smith, but I don't see the logic in burying his career with the Rangers. He should come next. So thats five. Then its down to DeAngelo and Gilmour. Both have some potential, but also have problems in their games. The way I see it, Gilmour has shown me more. I don't think he's any better than a 6D, but I don't even know that DeAngelo is that. He's sucked so far in his Rangers career.


Skjei-Shattenkirk
Staal-Pionk
Gilmour-Smith
DeAngelo

Gilmour has shown you more? What? In what world? The guy does nothing well except skate... He is basically John Moore. ADA has much more talent