...the rangers could be in trouble. i fully believe that joe pavelski should be far and away the biggest target on the rangers board, but with the stars playing better as of late we could be in trouble. if pavelski is off the table, i think the rangers have to turn to the blackhawks for brandon hagel. this is a perfect middle six winger that can play a strong two-way game, can finish, and is cost-controlled with term. recent reports that the blackhawks turned down offers for him and are looking for a top prospect and FRP+ are concerning but makes sense considering the quality of player that hagel is. both lundkvist and kravtsov are prospects that i do not want to trade because i believe they will have excellent careers, but given the current state of the team and its needs, they will likely be the most expendable. along with them, i included a decent depth prospect in henriksson and a first + third. i overpaid a bit based on the blackhawks' criteria due to lundkvist's slow start in NA and kravtsov's situation, plus the small retention over the next two seasons.
montreal will most likely end up being a trade partner for the rangers, but i'm staying away from lehkonen due to his percieved value compared to his fit on this team. instead, i targeted brett kulak as a depth defenceman for the playoff run, and sami niku for the AHL/additional depth. with the canadiens reported interest in numerous young players on the rangers, i've sent julien gauthier and libor hajek along with a mid-round pick. it hurts me to trade gauthier because of how much i believe david quinn hurt his development, but i would love to see him thrive even in montreal.
i was very interested in jared mccann from seattle, but with the hagel trade i'm not sure i could make another trade for such a highly valued player. instead i targeted jarnkrok, who would fit perfectly as a versatile bottom-six guy that is good defensively and has had a great shooting season (15.6%). as a rental, he would most likely cost around a 2nd which would make perfect sense for the rangers.
these trades would allow the rangers to completely revamp their third line for the playoffs. i would allow the new first line to continue developing chemistry, as they have looked great in their few games together (laf has looked like a different player). having kakko play with panarin and strome has been the best combination for the second line at 5v5, so they should absolutely return to this once kakko is healthy. now with this third line, hagel adds a new element of physicality and offense that could be a difference maker in the playoffs, as well as solid defensive play and the ability to play on both special teams units. jarnkrok adds great defensive play with penalty kill responsibility, and is on a bit of a shooting streak that, along with hagel's shooting ability, could help solve the finishing issue on the 3rd line. with the 4th line, i decided to keep hunt in over rooney due to his 5v5 play and the acquisition of two potential penalty killers that could replace rooney.
adding brett kulak gives the rangers another veteran defensive option aside from nemeth, who was struggled a lot this season and has been away from the team multiple times. i would hope that zac jones gets his spot in the lineup back during the end of the regular season, as his pairing with schneider looked very good in their few games together and was a competent pairing moving the puck with the bottom six on the ice. i've also been waiting patiently for lindgren and miller to be swapped, at least at 5v5. miller-fox would be be a dynamic pairing of talented defensemen who have still put up good defensive results despite playing top minutes at the beginning of their careers, and lindgren-trouba would allow trouba to play his offensive-minded but mistake-prone game with the most stay-at-home type defenseman in lindgren, and form an extremely physical duo.
while these trades might not include the splash deal for joe pavelski, they could still help solve a lot of the problems that the rangers have while not really closing the window any more than they already have.
isn't that a lot to give up for a 3rd line winger?
what am i missing?
above average middle-sixer at the league minimum for 2+ seasons during a cap crunch for a contending team that desperately needs depth scoring. can play all situations and brings more of the "gritty" play style that drury wants while still being a net positive in all areas of the ice. yes it is a lot to give up for one 3rd liner, but it keeps the contention window open and provides cap flexibility while still returning a good player for assets that are seemingly out regardless.
above average middle-sixer at the league minimum for 2+ seasons during a cap crunch for a contending team that desperately needs depth scoring. can play all situations and brings more of the "gritty" play style that drury wants while still being a net positive in all areas of the ice. yes it is a lot to give up for one 3rd liner, but it keeps the contention window open and provides cap flexibility while still returning a good player for assets that are seemingly out regardless.
the sum of all the parts that the Rangers are giving up in this scenario is much greater than a "gritty/utility 3rd liner".
this isn't how trades work.
the sum of all the parts that the Rangers are giving up in this scenario is much greater than a "gritty/utility 3rd liner".
this isn't how trades work.
his value is so high because of what he brings within the context of his contract and team control. a versatile middle six forward who would score 30+ goals in a full season on our second line that would be getting paid 750k for two seasons after this one would be exactly what this team needs. opting to play him on the third line with a fully healthy lineup and him being a "gritty" player doesn't change his value to the blackhawks or make him any less valuable for us. i'm paying the asking price plus a little more because i'm not giving up the best prospect plus the multi-year retention, which means i'm not really giving up more than what his value is. if you have a trade that you think is a better use of these same assets (none of which are currently being used by this team) then i would love to see it, but i think this is one of our better options
good post , i think all 3 team accept . you targeted specific players and were not affraid to paid the price even more then what it actualy cost (IMO). But as a MTL fan i accept it .
good post , i think all 3 team accept . you targeted specific players and were not affraid to paid the price even more then what it actualy cost (IMO). But as a MTL fan i accept it .
his value is so high because of what he brings within the context of his contract and team control. a versatile middle six forward who would score 30+ goals in a full season on our second line that would be getting paid 750k for two seasons after this one would be exactly what this team needs. opting to play him on the third line with a fully healthy lineup and him being a "gritty" player doesn't change his value to the blackhawks or make him any less valuable for us. i'm paying the asking price plus a little more because i'm not giving up the best prospect plus the multi-year retention, which means i'm not really giving up more than what his value is. if you have a trade that you think is a better use of these same assets (none of which are currently being used by this team) then i would love to see it, but i think this is one of our better options
i get it. he is a young, cheap workhorse option. i am not discrediting the player himself.
the point i am trying to make is that teams don't give up the equivalent of 3 first round picks, a 3rd and a b/c prospect for a guy who plays the middle 6.
if Chicago's ask is a 1st and a prospect - that is their homerun ask. there isn't much motivation to move him out of Chicago, he is only 23.
if there is leaguewide buzz around this guy, my guess is that he gets a 1st and a middle tier prospect.
no reason for the Rangers to overpay here. the above is more than the Toffoli trade
Maybe a tad overpay, yet very nice. Refreshing really, compared to the usual multiple trade assets for pure rentals/big cap/flaky/all in stuff. This is like TBL Goodrow trade: highbrows, then cups!
Maybe a tad overpay, yet very nice. Refreshing really, compared to the usual multiple trade assets for pure rentals/big cap/flaky/all in stuff. This is like TBL Goodrow trade: highbrows, then cups!
i actually based this off the coleman trade, so we’re basically on the same page. in my mind it’s a similar move, but with a bit bigger return considering hagel would be younger, cheaper, and potentially better than coleman (at least scoring wise) at the time while having more term on his contract and still being under team control at the end of the deal. so yeah it would probably make a lot of people mad but i think it would pay off
i get it. he is a young, cheap workhorse option. i am not discrediting the player himself.
the point i am trying to make is that teams don't give up the equivalent of 3 first round picks, a 3rd and a b/c prospect for a guy who plays the middle 6.
if Chicago's ask is a 1st and a prospect - that is their homerun ask. there isn't much motivation to move him out of Chicago, he is only 23.
if there is leaguewide buzz around this guy, my guess is that he gets a 1st and a middle tier prospect.
no reason for the Rangers to overpay here. the above is more than the Toffoli trade
i definitely get what you’re saying, there’s a lot of value going back in return and it’s probably more than what chicago gets back in return. in my head this wouldn’t be far off from similar trades that we’ve already seen (coleman/goodrow to tampa) but it is still a lot to give up. i just think that this would be a better use of assets compared to an older rental given the current roster makeup of this team, although i don’t think it would necessarily cost this much in the end
evanonthemoon and Fox_Czar_Cup liked this.
Reply
CapFriendly
CapFriendly