Player Discussion Kevin Hayes

[NYR Viper]

He doesn't need to hit 70 points to make $6M. If he becomes a 50-55 point guy, with the game he plays up-and-down the ice, that to me is a quality 2C. It certainly is a 2C based on production (according to NHL.com's center scoring leaders, which always includes guys that aren't even centers). $6M isn't what it was even five years ago; it's not some cap-breaking number that cripples the ability of your franchise to make moves. A cap hit of $6M puts you in the 45-60 range of salaries among forwards, and probably lower after this summer.

You run into a problem if you hand out a few $6M contracts and a couple don't work. Girardi, Staal, Richards. Then you have cap problems. We have Staal and Shattenkirk. Shattenkirk is paid too much, but he's still a decent player. Staal probably gets a buyout. You can clear space moving Namestnikov. You can clear space if you want to move Strome--especially if he plays well. Zuccarello is gone. Maybe you can retain on Smith and move him. The Rangers are not in bad shape with the cap. Giving $6M to Hayes doesn't put them in bad shape and depending on what they do with the other guys doesn't really put them in peril of being in bad shape with the influx of guys on ELCs coming in who will then be getting RFA deals at the end of Hayes' term.

I don't see it as shortsighted at all. I think it's the opposite. I'm looking towards the future. You have Zibanejad and Hayes as your 1C and 2C. Guys like Howden and Andersson have no pressure to step into that role. They can develop at their own pace. People always talk about good players as being "replaceable" until they find out they're not, and then the team either forces kids to do things they can't, overpays for a UFA, or just has a glaring hole on the roster. If someone forces Hayes out of a spot but he's still productive, he can be moved. Being forced to 3C by a younger player won't kill his value if Hayes still looks good. Everyone knew Jordan Staal wasn't a 3C and he received 10/$60M five years ago.

For me it boils down to: is Hayes still getting better? Do I think he will maintain this level of play for the next five or so years? For me, the answer is both, and bringing him back at something like 5/$30 is an easy call. I don't think it jams up the roster at all, I don't think it messes up the cap at all, and I think it helps the team compete now and in the future.

I'm less concerned with the $6m number being thrown around than both the term (I think he gets 6-7 years), the NMC which I believe he will get and the fact that his cap hit will most likely exceed $7m.

I would assume he gets:
7 years @ $7.25m with M-NTC (list of 5 teams he ca submit that he can be traded to)

 

[nyr2k2]

I'm less concerned with the $6m number being thrown around than both the term (I think he gets 6-7 years), the NMC which I believe he will get and the fact that his cap hit will most likely exceed $7m.

I would assume he gets:
7 years @ $7.25m with M-NTC (list of 5 teams he ca submit that he can be traded to)

And if this is what it comes to, I'm out. Like I said in my original shortsighted post, if he asks for too much, you move him out. Beyond that, if he refuses to negotiate until after the season you move him out. If he wants a full NMC, move him out. Limited NTC? Fine.

 

[Ghost of jas]

He doesn't need to hit 70 points to make $6M. If he becomes a 50-55 point guy, with the game he plays up-and-down the ice, that to me is a quality 2C. It certainly is a 2C based on production (according to NHL.com's center scoring leaders, which always includes guys that aren't even centers). $6M isn't what it was even five years ago; it's not some cap-breaking number that cripples the ability of your franchise to make moves. A cap hit of $6M puts you in the 45-60 range of salaries among forwards, and probably lower after this summer.

You run into a problem if you hand out a few $6M contracts and a couple don't work. Girardi, Staal, Richards. Then you have cap problems. We have Staal and Shattenkirk. Shattenkirk is paid too much, but he's still a decent player. Staal probably gets a buyout. You can clear space moving Namestnikov. You can clear space if you want to move Strome--especially if he plays well. Zuccarello is gone. Maybe you can retain on Smith and move him. The Rangers are not in bad shape with the cap. Giving $6M to Hayes doesn't put them in bad shape and depending on what they do with the other guys doesn't really put them in peril of being in bad shape with the influx of guys on ELCs coming in who will then be getting RFA deals at the end of Hayes' term.

I don't see it as shortsighted at all. I think it's the opposite. I'm looking towards the future. You have Zibanejad and Hayes as your 1C and 2C. Guys like Howden and Andersson have no pressure to step into that role. They can develop at their own pace. People always talk about good players as being "replaceable" until they find out they're not, and then the team either forces kids to do things they can't, overpays for a UFA, or just has a glaring hole on the roster. If someone forces Hayes out of a spot but he's still productive, he can be moved. Being forced to 3C by a younger player won't kill his value if Hayes still looks good. Everyone knew Jordan Staal wasn't a 3C and he received 10/$60M five years ago.

For me it boils down to: is Hayes still getting better? Do I think he will maintain this level of play for the next five or so years? For me, the answer is both, and bringing him back at something like 5/$30 is an easy call. I don't think it jams up the roster at all, I don't think it messes up the cap at all, and I think it helps the team compete now and in the future.

You call him a quality 2C; I see him as a middle of the pack 2C at best. That type of production from your 2C, while not getting elite level production from your 1C doesn’t look like a Cup contender to me. And that’s what I was told by Ranger management was what the goal was here. Another run like the last one may satisfy people here. I want more.

 

[offdacrossbar]

im not buying the argument that hayes will stop "trying" if he gets paid. hes shown alot of "try" last season and certainly this season.

first off, who can make that statement ? i mean is that even a rational argument. its conjecture and based on emotion and a "feeling".

second, if true, he wouldn't be the first one to do that. but at his age, its unlikely. these guys are professionals.

as a basis for retaining him or trading him, that argument is weak at best.

and this trade before he gets hurt or slumps ?? i mean that is beyond words.

let me try, i dont think we should trade hayes because the guy we get back "will stop trying" or "get hurt" or "slump".

there, no trades. ever.

this thread has passed over into craziness.

 

[Ghost of jas]

And if this is what it comes to, I'm out. Like I said in my original shortsighted post, if he asks for too much, you move him out. Beyond that, if he refuses to negotiate until after the season you move him out. If he wants a full NMC, move him out. Limited NTC? Fine.

I said shortsighted because I believe there are far more implications to signing Hayes long term than you have acknowledged.

 

[offdacrossbar]

I'd really rather try to sign him. Unless he's asking for $7M+ or something. He's a very good player, though. Well-rounded. Is, at worst, a consistent 45-point guy; possibly one who is improving into something more. Really would like to keep him.

If his demands are unreasonable, I guess it's adios.

i feel like you and i are the only ones arguing this point. i would also certainly retain him if the trade value is not there.

the whole trade him for a maybe thing though isnt reality. im not for making this team worse.

this guy has been money. the numbers discussed arent crazy at all. 6/5 would be a fair deal. period.

hes a proven 2 way nhl centerman and part of the young core here. hes assumed a role based on his seniority and production. hes everything we would want the guy who replaces him to be. and thats a huge maybe.

if we hate the numbers, thats one thing but to trash him with these baseless emotional statements like "im uneasy" are just irrational.

 

[offdacrossbar]

I'm less concerned with the $6m number being thrown around than both the term (I think he gets 6-7 years), the NMC which I believe he will get and the fact that his cap hit will most likely exceed $7m.

I would assume he gets:
7 years @ $7.25m with M-NTC (list of 5 teams he ca submit that he can be traded to)

way too much money.

period.

no argument there.

but 6/5 or even 6/6 is a bargain

hell be one of our most productive 2 way forwards with a decent deal .

the marc staals, shattys and brendan smiths are what we should be concerned about.

 

[nyr2k2]

You call him a quality 2C; I see him as a middle of the pack 2C at best. That type of production from your 2C, while not getting elite level production from your 1C doesn’t look like a Cup contender to me. And that’s what I was told by Ranger management was what the goal was here. Another run like the last one may satisfy people here. I want more.

That's all well and good, but his production would put him firmly in 2C territory, and I think he's certainly worth more than the point production. To me, he's a good 2C. But, agree to disagree.

Whether Zibanejad's production is enough as a 1C is irrelevant to me regarding Hayes, unless we have a plan to acquire an actual 1C and Hayes somehow prevents that from happening. And I see no plan to get a 1C, unless we strike gold in the draft, which is not a reason for me to be okay with discarding the good players we currently have.

If, however, in a year or two we had both Zibanejad and Hayes producing 50-60 points and then someone like Brett Howden emerging to post 40 points, that's really good center depth. I think you can overcome not having an elite 1C if you have three guys who would be considered "very good" in the role, particularly if you give them a Panarin, an emergent Kreider, a developing Chytil, maybe Lias Andersson, etc.

What I don't want is Zibanejad at 1C, and then some combination of Howden, Andersson and Chytil not being able to handle 2C, and us regressing, taking us farther from that Cup run.

I said shortsighted because I believe there are far more implications to signing Hayes long term than you have acknowledged.

Let's discuss them. Clearly, I'm willing to discuss this.

 

[SA16]

As far as I can tell, since last year, among players who have played at least 500 mins who mainly play center Hayes is 21st in the NHL in points/60. This is not low end 2C production. It's low end 1C production.

For reference the players ahead are MacKinnon,McDavid,Matthews,Stamkos,Barzal,Point,Malkin,Bergeron,E. Staal,Getzlaf,Monahan,Kuznetsov,Duchene,Tavares,Karlsson,Hischier,Barkov,Eichel,Couturier,Scheifele.

As I said in the other thread the main reason he does not have the same counting numbers as the others is due to less ice time (prior to this year) and much less PP time.

 

[nyr2k2]

As far as I can tell, since last year, among players who have played at least 500 mins who mainly play center Hayes is 21st in the NHL in points/60. This is not low end 2C production. It's low end 1C production.

Easily replaceable.

 

[Riche16]

I'm a little surprised no one is accounting for the Cap going up with the giant revenue stream coming from Seattle joining the league. The Cap (even conservatively) should keep going up and reducing the Cap % of Hayes' hit regardless. In the last 3/4 years of Hayes deal there's going to be a big spike in the Cap from a 32nd team.

Because it's not just about cap hit, it's about the almost assured NMC that will be attached to him. Once that happens and Zbad's kicks in (end of this season) you have real issues if you want to move one of them due to a kid pushing one out.

 

[DanielBrassard]

As far as I can tell, since last year, among players who have played at least 500 mins who mainly play center Hayes is 21st in the NHL in points/60. This is not low end 2C production. It's low end 1C production.

For reference the players ahead are MacKinnon,McDavid,Matthews,Stamkos,Barzal,Point,Malkin,Bergeron,E. Staal,Getzlaf,Monahan,Kuznetsov,Duchene,Tavares,Karlsson,Hischier,Barkov,Eichel,Couturier,Scheifele.

As I said in the other thread the main reason he does not have the same counting numbers as the others is due to less ice time (prior to this year) and much less PP time.

Good post. Give the man his ice time and he will produce. If you can get him long-term around 6, it would be a valuable deal for the team.

 

[Ghost of jas]

That's all well and good, but his production would put him firmly in 2C territory, and I think he's certainly worth more than the point production. To me, he's a good 2C. But, agree to disagree.

Whether Zibanejad's production is enough as a 1C is irrelevant to me regarding Hayes, unless we have a plan to acquire an actual 1C and Hayes somehow prevents that from happening. And I see no plan to get a 1C, unless we strike gold in the draft, which is not a reason for me to be okay with discarding the good players we currently have.

If, however, in a year or two we had both Zibanejad and Hayes producing 50-60 points and then someone like Brett Howden emerging to post 40 points, that's really good center depth. I think you can overcome not having an elite 1C if you have three guys who would be considered "very good" in the role, particularly if you give them a Panarin, an emergent Kreider, a developing Chytil, maybe Lias Andersson, etc.

What I don't want is Zibanejad at 1C, and then some combination of Howden, Andersson and Chytil not being able to handle 2C, and us regressing, taking us farther from that Cup run.


Let's discuss them. Clearly, I'm willing to discuss this.

Committing to Hayes IMO already hampers the attempt to build a Cup winner. Players like Hayes are not hard to acquire. The Rangers have had no problem getting 50 point 2C’s. This is a rebuild. I’ll take my chances either in the draft, someone Gorton gets back in a deal or simply by one of Howden or Andersson reaching that level in the near future, and not have to pay $6 million a year for that player. Hayes, to me, is an expensive safety net that isn’t really necessary. It also sets an new standard for signing players going forward, and leads to more Staal/Girardi type of signings. Hayes’ value, IMO, may not be any higher than it is right now. I think he holds more value to the Rangers as a trade asset than as a member of this roster, contrary to what some here might think. A 1st round pick in the 20’s, with another chance to someone like Chytil or Miller will have more impact on what this team becomes than having Kevin Hayes as the 2nd line center at $6 million+ per the next few years. So there are some of the implications I was talking about. Not to mention Hayes may somewhat inflate the Rangers’ point total in the present year.

I have long advocated the long view in this process that Ranger management sketched out. I’ve been on board with getting as many assets as possible, while stripping away all but the irreplaceable parts of the team. Zibanejad and Kreider, to me, have established themselves as almost irreplaceable; Hayes, in my mind, has simply upped his trade value.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

From my recollection rarely is a NMC handed out for the duration of a deal, especially with the ones we have handed out. I want to say Hank is the only one to receive one from start to end of a contract given to them by this franchise, someone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Point being, if that is the case I don't see the issue of moving Hayes in the summer between years 3 and 4 of his deal so we're not enduring the NMC.

I personally would love to find a way to keep him but can fully see the benefit in shopping and perhaps dealing him. I just think a locked up Hayes is a better asset for right now rather than impending-UFA Hayes.

 

[NYR Viper]

Why would the top center on the market at age of 27 sign for $6m per season?

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Why would the top center on the market at age of 27 sign for $6m per season?

The same reason Tavares would leave money on the table. To put yourself in a preferable situation rather than chase top dollar. All personal preference for these guys.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Why would the top center on the market at age of 27 sign for $6m per season?

oh i dont know.

1. loves ny
2. feels same about his team
3. believes this team can win
4. feels like hes part of the core with an important role.
5. signing elsewhere doesnt guarantee anything.

just for starters.

 

[SA16]

As far as I can tell, since last year, among players who have played at least 500 mins who mainly play center Hayes is 21st in the NHL in points/60. This is not low end 2C production. It's low end 1C production.

For reference the players ahead are MacKinnon,McDavid,Matthews,Stamkos,Barzal,Point,Malkin,Bergeron,E. Staal,Getzlaf,Monahan,Kuznetsov,Duchene,Tavares,Karlsson,Hischier,Barkov,Eichel,Couturier,Scheifele.

As I said in the other thread the main reason he does not have the same counting numbers as the others is due to less ice time (prior to this year) and much less PP time.

Oh and for those who like raw numbers Hayes is 24th in the league in 5v5 points using the same criteria. So really it's just the PP ice time that holds him back.

 

[nyr2k2]

Because it's not just about cap hit, it's about the almost assured NMC that will be attached to him. Once that happens and Zbad's kicks in (end of this season) you have real issues if you want to move one of them due to a kid pushing one out.

From my reading of the thread, it seems clear that most people advocating for retaining Hayes also acknowledge there are things that would cause them to walk away--a full NMC, some exorbitant salary request, etc. I haven't seen anyone take a "sign him at all costs" approach.

If he wanted to give us friendly terms, like five years, $5.9M per (obviously unlikely), then I would consider at least a limited NMC. But if he wants a market deal and full NMC? Then we have a no-go.

FWIW, I happen to be of the belief that the significance of NMCs is vastly overstated. In most instances, I think if a team expresses a desire to remove a player from their organization, the player is generally willing to work with the team to find a different spot. It certainly gives the leverage to the player, but at the end of the day, I don't think anyone wants to work for a place that wants them gone. How many guys have exercised their NMC and just perpetually refused to move? I actually think the biggest impact of the NMC is something that is no longer relevant--dumping a guy in the AHL, since you don't save much money. Now an NMC is just a NTC, really, and in all sports including hockey guys with NTCs get traded all the time. The front office just has to work harder to find the right fit.

 

[Ghost of jas]

As far as I can tell, since last year, among players who have played at least 500 mins who mainly play center Hayes is 21st in the NHL in points/60. This is not low end 2C production. It's low end 1C production.

For reference the players ahead are MacKinnon,McDavid,Matthews,Stamkos,Barzal,Point,Malkin,Bergeron,E. Staal,Getzlaf,Monahan,Kuznetsov,Duchene,Tavares,Karlsson,Hischier,Barkov,Eichel,Couturier,Scheifele.

As I said in the other thread the main reason he does not have the same counting numbers as the others is due to less ice time (prior to this year) and much less PP time.

Okay, but this year, I would assume his ice time is up, and he’s now getting PP time, so while he is on pace for a career high in points, his goal-scoring is down, and it would appear he’s not producing on that same level this year, since his pace puts him at 56 points which is not 1C production. So where is the disconnect?

 

[Shesterkybomb]

A blind man could see they intend to move him, why else would a team who is looking to get a guy under a decent contract give him our two best wingers to play with? Mika and Kreider have great chemistry and they have abandoned that because why? Because they wanna get Hayes up to 50 or more points by the deadline so they can move him. They already have Zibanajad under a good contract, Hayes had the opportunity to do the same but instead he chose the 1 year deal, and the inevitable result is hayes is getting moved.

 

[NYR Viper]

The people on the side of signing Hayes are bringing up good, solid points about p/60 and his overall play, etc. These are all facts. They all show him to be a very good 2C which, on the open market, gets more than $6m. Hell, Stepan, who had RFA years left, signed for $6.5m back when the cap was not as high as it is today.

I have already shown how his stats probably fall in line with someone like Evander Kane and yet Hayes is a prime PKer and at a more valuable position. He's getting no less than $7m per year

 

[Ghost of jas]

Why would the top center on the market at age of 27 sign for $6m per season?

I’m looking more from Hayes potentially giving the Rangers a ‘hometown discount ‘. The truth is, you are right, he’ll likely get more than that if he goes to free agency, because free agency always inflates salaries.

 

[SA16]

The people on the side of signing Hayes are bringing up good, solid points about p/60 and his overall play, etc. These are all facts. They all show him to be a very good 2C which, on the open market, gets more than $6m. Hell, Stepan, who had RFA years left, signed for $6.5m back when the cap was not as high as it is today.

I have already shown how his stats probably fall in line with someone like Evander Kane and yet Hayes is a prime PKer and at a more valuable position. He's getting no less than $7m per year

I am actually more on the sign of trading Hayes (assuming they won't buyout Staal or something) to not block them from being able to pursue Panarin. Rather just sign both it's pretty easy to make it work.

 

[Riche16]

From my reading of the thread, it seems clear that most people advocating for retaining Hayes also acknowledge there are things that would cause them to walk away--a full NMC, some exorbitant salary request, etc. I haven't seen anyone take a "sign him at all costs" approach.

If he wanted to give us friendly terms, like five years, $5.9M per (obviously unlikely), then I would consider at least a limited NMC. But if he wants a market deal and full NMC? Then we have a no-go.

FWIW, I happen to be of the belief that the significance of NMCs is vastly overstated. In most instances, I think if a team expresses a desire to remove a player from their organization, the player is generally willing to work with the team to find a different spot. It certainly gives the leverage to the player, but at the end of the day, I don't think anyone wants to work for a place that wants them gone. How many guys have exercised their NMC and just perpetually refused to move? I actually think the biggest impact of the NMC is something that is no longer relevant--dumping a guy in the AHL, since you don't save much money. Now an NMC is just a NTC, really, and in all sports including hockey guys with NTCs get traded all the time. The front office just has to work harder to find the right fit.

I think a lot of the times a NMC ties a team into not wanting to ask the player... it would make them look bad and remove that as a form of currency. A NMC is a team giving a player a commitment and stability. Once you start handing them out and then asking those players to waive it becomes a false premise.

That being said my response was directed at someone advocating to resign him due to cap increase. I was pointing out that there is more to it than that.

Personally I like Hayes. We signed him for free and we can get a decent haul (remains to be seen of course) for him.

I have been an advocate of timing this rebuild all along. Age, contracts, cap, clauses all should be viewed on a timeline of validly being contenders again. Hayes to me doesn't fit that timeline and that's the reason I'd move him.