I agree it makes too much sense.

Not enough for Pavelski. Stars get a 1st + prospect for him at the deadline. He’s basically a PPG player over the last couple of years & there will be a bidding war among playoff teams for him.

I would let go the 1st round pick if the Rangers were willing to trade one their young RD for him. But every time I suggest something like that, Rangers' fans are shutting the door right into my face.

They have a lot of young D that will have a tough time breaking the line up, and trading one of them for a probable key piece for a deep playoff run is not such a high price to pay.

Dont agree. Wont be as many teams that can fit him, and that price reflects Rangers not asking for retention. Will have to see stars willingness to eat cash to get a bigger return. Lastly I believe he has an NTC where he can pick the 3 teams he will allow a trade to. So hopefully he would be willing to go to NYR, but unlikely for their to be a bidding war.

I would hope that the Stars would retain 50% in order to elevate the offers.

As for the 3 teams on his trading list, that's true. But, Pavelski might be willing to extend that list in order to get on a SC contender roster for the remaining of the season.

You both make great points and I think it will be in the middle. I think you end up with another prospect from us like a Mathew Robertson as an example and no retention. You’re asking the billionaire owners to spend money to get better prospects/picks. If you are in full rebuild mode then I see it happening but you’re just liquidating UFAs currently and still competitive but for some reason not at the top like a few years back would have us believe

You’re gonna get an exaggerated “we want more” from one or two people; but I couldn’t agree more with the idea and proposal. While it is true that Joe Pa puts a team in line for a deep Cup run, we’re talking about a 37 year-old. If this had been seven years ago, this is probably 2 firsts and a prospect as a return. His 12 goals and 27 points does make a case for a meatier return; but, if not taking back a value contract is reason to keep the asking price.