they are missing a rakell type player, they arent missing lehkonen type.

Rakell for sure

There’s not much of a difference between Goodrow and Lehkonen imo. As @hanson493 stated, we’re missing a Rakell-type player. If we get Rakell, our top 9 would be

Kreider-Zibanejad-Laf
Panarin-Strome-Rakell/Kakko
Vatrano-Chytil-Rakell/Kakko
Goodrow-Rooney-Brodzinski/Reaves

with the vatrano addition rakell would probably slot in at 2rw with kakko at 3 rw. but i think they are paying goodrow too much for 4th line, so i think itll be more like goodrow chytil vatrano. or panarin strome vatrano goodrow chytil kakko. i almost think the vatrano move takes them out of another fw. even though they need another scoring complete forward.

Those saying Rakell over Lehkonen are Pat Verbeek throw away accounts

I think the price will be a little higher for Rakell than it will be for Lehkonen but I will say one thing, if you want to improve offensively, you easily go with Rakell. if you want to improve defensive play, you go with Lehkonen.

Can someone explain to me how, in a situation where the present is most important, the Rangers would prefer the winger who has been less productive and been worse defensively this season? Is it reputation?

Rakell has the same amount of points in 5 fewer games, plus he has historically been at least a 40 point scorer and is a few seasons removed from a nearly 70 point season. Lehkonen's career high is 31 points.

And the Rangers are set with defensive forwards. They need scoring.

first i think you need to check your math. 2nd lehkonens BEST year is this year. you cannot expect he keeps this level of production up. meanwhile rakell yes has had a down few years but he also has 2 30 goal seasons and is very capable of hitting those numbers.

Historic isn't all that relevant because Rakell is a rental.

Rakell plays more and is producing at a lower rate. His production also skews more PP than 5v5, which is not where the Rangers need help offensively.

The only player on the Rangers producing at a higher rate 5v5 than Lehkonen is Panarin. Panarin, Strome and Zibanejad are the only Rangers with more 5v5 points. The areas that the Rangers are terrible at (5v5 general play, specifically defensively) are areas that Lehkonen is and has been excellent.

How on earth are the Rangers set on defensive forwards? They are by far the worst playoff team defensively.



https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playercompare.php?fromseason=20212022&thruseason=20212022&stype=2&sit=all&score=all&stdoi=std&rate=y&p1=8476483&p2=8477476&loc=B&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single

Rakell is a rental, this year is what matters.

If Drury has a plan to re-sign Lehkonen, then go for him. If whatever player is acquired is purely gonna be a rental, then go Rakell.

Not so clear cut imo. Lehkonen is producing at a higher rate with an average of 4 minutes less ice time.

If you're hoping to get 24 year old Rakell and lock him up for cheap before he returns to 70 point production, maybe.

you also get lehkonen at his peak going into a contract year. so now you have to overpay to get him from montreal and give him a new contract.

if price point is similar, or for whatever reason rakell is less, i go with the player who has historically produced at a much higher rate. production wise lehkonen has produced less point wise, sure in lesser ice time but youre gunna tell me for the rest of his career hes going to be a 12.1% shooter? thats 3.5% more than his career (not including this year). rakell for his career is an 11.07% shooter. (shooting 11.8% this year) those are skewed by an 18% year and a 6% year but in the end still end up averaging out to his career norms. so while yeah maybe rakell isnt producing at a 30 goal 70 point clip i think hes a better player. imo look at david perrons career... he turned it around after leaving pitt.

That's why I say it might be preferable to get Rakell if the idea is to get him locked up for cheap and get production higher than his cap hit long term.
If it's just for this year, I'd go with Lehkonen.

If Rakell produces as you expect before an extension, he's going to have a higher price than Lehkonen due to his history of production. Conversely, you should be able to keep Lehkonen's contract more reasonable for the same reason.

at 26 if you dont give lehkonen a solid deal he just takes a prove it 1 year arb deal and walks to ufa.

the rangers need goal scorers. proven goal scorers. rakell has proven he can do it in years past. its the same reason ide want the bruins to trade for him.

you dont want to pay montreals asking price for lehkonen to become the 8.6% shooter he was before this year.

We're talking about a hypothetical where both

Lehkonen and Rakell have shot at similar rates the last 4 seasons. And again, Rakell is a rental. Rangers can't afford to keep him either. At least Lehkonen's rights have more value.

I don't even want Montreal to move Lehkonen, I just can't understand how you can look at what the Rangers have done this season and look at Lehkonen and Rakell have done this season and think that Rakell fits them better now.

Again, if it's just for this year I take Lehkonen.

Rakell hinges on him being more productive and signed to a deal that is in line with a .5(ish) p/g player, as he has been the last 2 years. If you can do that and then he produces at a .7(or more) p/g rate, go with Rakell.
If you sign him for the .7 rate and he only gives you the .5, that's going to be a disaster.

Getting Lehkonen for this year plus a 1 year arbitration deal, is better than getting Rakell for just the rest of this year.
You can still recoup some value if you trade Lehkonen in the off season as well, which reduces the final cost to acquire.

Rakell is the riskier move with a potentially higher reward. Lehkonen is a safe bet.

We're talking simply skill and ability here. Lehkonen is putting up the best season of his career and its barely a 40 point season. Rakell has been producing 40 points on avg every year. Rakell is the better scoring player, that's not debatable but as we know there's more to winning than just scoring. So it really depends on what is needed more. Flat out offensive production or all round play. Each guy brings something different.

Rico you keep saying this year you can recoup value if you trade lehkonen in the offseason. theres just as much risk nyr doesnt get this version of lehkonen when he goes to the rangers and he regresses to his norm. like i keep saying and marco reiterated, this is lehkonens best year by far. Rangers are 3rd in the league in goals against, i think defensively they might need a dman... but forward wise they need guaranteed offense being only 17th in goals for. Rakell is having an average year for his career. you would be getting what is advertised. but rakells average year is only marginally worse than lehkonens best year. so do you take the 1 year rental or do you take the risk on the guy "performing a little better" in what might be an anomoly year and hope he keeps that pace up? equal risk to both transactions. lehkonen could go to NYR and fall apart and kill all trade value he has right now.

Lehkonen has been consistent. His norm is still good. He will be solid defensively and put up 30 points in a bottom 6 role. It doesn't matter much who he is playing for, with, or against, his performance remains level. He's not going to crash and burn with a new team or different linemates.

My opinion is Lehkonen now, with the option to extend or flip in the off season OR Rakell now but with a cap friendly extension.
Vs
Rakell as a rental or with a cap hit based on past production and not the last 2 years.

I'm not saying no to Rakell. I'm saying no to a rental or a $6M x 6 extension.