JimmyG89
Registered User
- May 1, 2010
- 9,555
- 7,842
^This^
The only exception is for heavy powerhouse teams that are favored to go far in the playoffs. Those rentals joining the team are driven to help win the cup like a missing piece of an incomplete puzzle.
It seems to never work out when the players are brought in as the lynchpin. Don’t have to go to far for proof of this. Just look at Sather’s years here and all the players he brought in on expiring contracts who couldn’t wait for the team to get eliminated so the could get back to their families and home. Very little incentive.
Not true at all. You also have assets that will depreciate since that player is blocked an NHL spot.
Someone currently blocked is Matt Robertson. You can keep him, but he's behind Nemeth and Jones for 3LD. He's valuable to a rebuilding team since he is more steady than flashy.
Someone like Barron is also a depreciating asset. He's going unused right now. Behind a lot of players. It took a while to get him in. Down 4 forwards and he barely played. A seller takes him in and he plays. He's got talent, just not really an opportunity.
So rentals aren't only for the top of the top teams. Why would the Rangers not add a rental? Their window is just opening. The amount of assets in the system is very high. Not all of those will hit and not all of those will be able to play on the team.
We're also not talking about blocking the current young guys. Their acquisition isn't robbing Laf, Kakko, Miller, Schneider, etc of the experience. It's to remove the McKeggs, Hunts, and Gauthier from the lineup.
They're a top 6 team in the East with those guys playing roles and being used more than anyone thought. How could you not explore rentals to remove them from the equation? Would a non-rental be good to get? Sure, but you cannot remove the rental option since it is "early" in the process.