Between AHL assignments and trades, I find it highly unlikely that all of these players will be suiting up for the Rangers on opening night next year. However, regardless of this likelihood, the contracts they realistically can receive this off-season still matter a lot, as contracts play a large role in determining player trade value. For that reason, I thought it would be worthwhile to examine what the next contracts might look like for each of the Rangers’ restricted free agents.
In order to establish what these contracts might look like, I relied on the excellent work of Matt Cane and the Solberg Twins (better known as EvolvingWild on Twitter), all of whom have created models that predict what future contracts might look like for impending unrestricted and restricted free agents. At the time of writing this, none of the analysts have published the full methodologies of their models yet (although Matt Cane recently said that he will be doing this soon), but both models rely on many of the same factors that both you and I do when discussing what we think a player’s next contract will be. Things such as past performance, age, durability, position, the number of years until they become a UFA (for RFAs) and comparable contracts.
Matt Cane has been publishing the results of his model for a few years now, has made a number of tweaks to his model along the way, and it has been pretty accurate to this point at predicting the AAV (average annual value, aka the cap hit) of a player. He shared this tweet recently, which provides the average margin of error for the cap hit portion of his model, which was $305K for forwards, $278K for defenseman and $530K for goalies. Is his model perfect? Of course not, but those are fairly small margins of error considering that we are often discussing multi-million-dollar AAV contracts.
Matt Cane’s model also offers predictions for the most likely term length of the contracts, which he admits still needs work (but has been improved), and the model also provides per-term AAV projections for every player. By that I mean, the model provides how much the AAV should be if the player inks a one-year contract, how much the AAV should be if the player inks a two-year contract… how much the AAV should be if the player inks an eight-year contract, which is the longest allowed term for new player contracts under the current CBA. It should be noted that, a player can only get an eight-year deal if he is re-signing with his current team, and if he is looking to jump to a new team, the maximum term is seven years. For Evander Kane, who just signed a new seven-year, $49 million contract with the San Jose Sharks (AAV of $7 million), his model predicted a four-year deal with an AAV of $7.33 million as the most likely outcome, but, had the AAV of a potential seven-year contract at $7.1 million, so his model was awfully close to the actual deal Kane got, which is pretty remarkable considering most fans and pundits thought he got overpaid.
The Solberg Twins’ model sticks to only projecting the AAV of the most likely deal for each free agent; however, the document containing the projections includes a valuable comparable contracts tab, which lists the five contracts most comparable to the free agent based on the factors considered in the model (most notably, signing age, team control status, past performance and contract term). These player contract comparisons help to add a lot of valuable context to the contract projections.
It should also be noted that for both models, each analyst examines contracts as a percentage of the cap at the time a contract was signed, and not a nominal dollar amount. Examining contracts in this manner is a far superior way of analyzing contracts, because it helps adjust for the fact that the cap typically changes from one year to the next. A player making $5 million against a $60 million cap is taking up 8.3% of the cap, but that same $5 million AAV is only 6.25% of an $80 million cap, which is what the cap is projected to be for next season. In the $80 million cap, a player taking up 8.3% of the cap would have an AAV of $6.64 million. This is extremely important to recognize when discussing player contracts, and why it is irresponsible to simply compare the nominal AAV amounts when comparing two players who signed their deal at different times.
A good example is looking at Connor McDavid’s new contract, which starts next year. A lot was made when the McDavid extension was announced last off-season, which will pay him $100 million over eight seasons, good for an AAV of $12.5 million a year. There were a ton of hot takes from people that were simply looking at that cap hit, and making ridiculous claims along the lines of, “you can’t win in the NHL if you are paying a single player that much.” When the contract starts next season, that $12.5 AAV represents 15.6% of the $80 million-dollar cap. Let’s compare that to Sidney Crosby shall we, a player who has won two cups while signed to his current contract, is regarded as perhaps the best player of his generation, and whose current $8.7 AAV (11.5% of next year’s cap) is considered to be an extremely team-friendly contract by many. When he inked his 12-year (which are no longer permitted), $104.4 million extension, which kicked in for the 2013-2014 season, that represented 13.5% of the $64.3 million cap that year. When Crosby signed his first extension with the Penguins, which kicked in for the 2008-2009 season (the year the Penguins won the cup) and also carried an AAV of $8.7 million, the cap was only $56.7 million, meaning that $8.7 million took up 15.3% of the Penguins cap. Funny, I don’t recall hearing fans and media complaining back in 2009, when Crosby was taking up nearly the same percentage of the cap that McDavid will be next year, that you can’t win with a player making that much against the cap.
Long story short, when you are analyzing player contracts, don’t be that person that only looks at the cap hit numbers and then bitches and moans about the deal. Do everyone a favor and please look at the percentage of the cap that the player’s contract will be taking up before you decide to bitch and moan.
Ok, with that little rant of mine out of the way, let’s get back to the purpose of this piece shall we. Below, I provide the contract projections from Matt Cane’s and the Solberg Twins’ for each of the Rangers restricted free agents. For Matt’s model, I provide the contract deemed as most likely in bold, along with the four most likely contracts, in order from most to least likely (all dollar figures are AAV, not actual salary). For the Solberg Twins’ model, I provide the projected AAV (they do not offer AAVs for various potential term lengths), as well as three of the comparable contracts highlighted by the model. For each player I also provide some of my own personal commentary, and what I am either hoping or expecting from each contract. At the end of the piece, I provide a little summary table that lists all of my own personal expectations for each contract, which I also provide in each individual player’s section.
One last quick thing to note, since we are dealing with restricted free agents: longer contracts does not necessarily mean lower AAV in the manner that it does with unrestricted free agents. Since the player is still under team control, the team has much stronger bargaining power with RFAs, so the salaries during the RFA years is typically lower. However, if a contract goes long enough where UFA years begin to be bought out, the salary will jump up to accommodate for that. Because of this, you will often see a spike in AAV in Matt’s model, which corresponds with the first year where the player would’ve been eligible to be a UFA.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2605″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Ryan Sproul[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2606″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]With all due respect to Ryan Sproul and any fans of his that may be out there, this one isn’t really worth talking about much. He got limited time with the Rangers at the end of last season after trades and injuries decimated the roster and the team was long out of playoff contention, and despite putting up some moderately impressive advanced stats, he did little to make me think that he has a long-term future with the Rangers. To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Rangers don’t extend him a qualifying offer, allowing him to become an unrestricted free agent to sign elsewhere. If the team does decide to sign him, my guess is that it would be a one-year, $700,000 contract.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]John Gilmour[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2607″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Shortly after winning the fastest skater competition at the AHL all-star game, John Gilmour was called up to the big club and impressed many in his 28-game stint. While he only posted five points, including two goals, during these 28 games, he posted some impressive advanced statistics, including the best score-adjusted 5v5 relative Corsi for percentage and expected goals for percentage among all NYR defenseman, at 3.54 and 5.2, respectively. Gilmour also posted the second highest Game Score per-60 of 0.64, which was the second best among NYR defenseman that accumulated at least 400 minutes of 5v5 ice time, behind only Ryan McDonagh.
However, there are a few significant caveats that need to be placed on Gilmour’s production, so excuse me while I act like a wet blanket for a bit. First, 28 games is still a very small sample size when discussing advanced metrics; many leading statisticians across multiple sports believe you need at least a full season of data before you can really begin to come to significant conclusions on a player. This relatively small sample size is also important to note for a point I will make a bit later. Next, Gilmour saw heavily sheltered minutes, with nearly 40% of his shifts that started with a faceoff being in the offensive zone, which was the third most among NYR defenseman, behind only Kevin Shattenkirk and Tony DeAngelo. While zone start rates aren’t the best indicator of usage, and most shifts do not start with a faceoff, they help to give us a glimpse at how the coaching staff was attempting to deploy the player, and it was clear that Alain Vigneault sought to shelter John Gilmour.
Lastly, and most importantly, while a handful of smart NYR fans have pointed to the fact that Gilmour’s most common defensive partners at 5v5 were Ryan Sproul (122.42 minutes together) and Rob O’Gara (106.24), and used this to make Gilmour’s number seem even more impressive, fact of the matter is this is a bit disingenuous, and is over-stating how poor his quality of teammates were. In fact, he played only three fewer minutes with Brady Skjei at 5v5 than he did with Rob O’Gara, and when you look at his WOWY chart below (courtesy of Micah Blake McCurdy’s excellent HockeyViz website), you see that no player had a more positive impact on John Gilmour’s numbers than Brady Skjei. Back to the point about the relatively small sample size; because of the fact that we are only talking about roughly 415 minutes of 5v5 ice time, the 103 minutes shared with Skjei can, and did, significantly skew his numbers in a positive direction.
For those unfamiliar with these charts, it shows how every player that received at least 100 minutes of ice time at 5v5 with Gilmour did in terms of scored-adjusted Corsi for and against when they were with Gilmour and without, and how Gilmour did without each of these players. The numbers in the box indicate the player (so the 76 boxes represent Brady Skjei), while the black box shows how the player did with Gilmour, the red box shows how the player did without Gilmour, and the blue box shows how Gilmour did without the player. The further to the right you go on the graph, the more shots the team took while the player/combination were on the ice, and the further you go up, the less shot attempts the team gave up. As you can see in the boxes that I called out, Gilmour and Skjei both helped each other out immensely, but that Gilmour’s numbers on a whole while without Skjei on the ice were far from impressive, and the blue 76 box, which represents Gilmour without Brady Skjei, is firmly entrenched in the area of the graph that represents few shots for, and a lot of shots against.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” link=”true” target=”blank” info=”tooltip” info_place=”bottom” info_trigger=”hover” src=”2608″ alt=”” href=”http://hockeyviz.com/” title=”John Gilmour WOWY Chart – Courtesy of HockeyViz” info_content=”John Gilmour WOWY Chart – Courtesy of HockeyViz” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]When you account for all of this, I feel comfortable in saying that I think Gilmour showed enough to warrant being qualified by the Rangers, but there is plenty of reason for skepticism. Personally, I’d give Gilmour a one or a two-year deal in the range of $700k-$850k.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Rob O’Gara[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2610″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Rob O’Gara did very little in his 30 games with the Rangers to prove to me that he’s a player worth extending a qualifying offer to. His eye test was average at best, and fairly brutal on many nights, and his numbers paint an even worse picture. O’Gara only shared at least 100 minutes of ice time at 5v5 with three players—Jimmy Vesey, John Gilmour and Brady Skjei—and he had a significantly negative impact on each of these players in terms of score-adjusted shot share (depicted in the HockeyViz chart below). His relative shot share and expected goals numbers at 5v5 were both firmly in the negative range, meaning that he had a negative impact on the team in terms of both shot quantity and quality when he was on the ice compared to the average Ranger player, which as we all know wasn’t the highest bar to pass during the season, especially the end of the season. Lastly, in terms of his box score production, he notched 3 points—two primary assists, one secondary assist and zero goals—in 30 games. If the Rangers want to extend him a one-year contract south of $800k, I won’t cry about it, but I honestly think he’s not even worth the roster spot, and that spot would be better served on a European signing or undrafted player that might still have some upside.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” link=”true” target=”blank” info=”tooltip” info_place=”bottom” info_trigger=”hover” src=”2611″ alt=”Rob O’Gara WOWY Chart – Courtesy of HockeyViz” href=”http://hockeyviz.com/” title=”Rob O’Gara WOWY Chart – Courtesy of HockeyViz” info_content=”Rob O’Gara WOWY Chart – Courtesy of HockeyViz” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Jimmy Vesey[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2612″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Jimmy Vesey is one of the more interesting scenarios the Rangers will have to deal with this off-season in my opinion. He’s clearly an NHL player, but opinions on him vary about as widely as anyone on the team among the New York Rangers fanbase. In my opinion, to this point in his career he’s shown that he’s a capable third line wing, that can do a variety of things at an average level, but doesn’t do anything that really stands out as a particular advantage of his over his teammates or the competition. Among the players on the roster at the end of the season, he finished 9thth on the Rangers in total Game Score and 9th in Game Score per-60, but was firmly in the negatives in both team and teammate relative shot attempts and expected goals share (all at 5v5). However, among the players that finished the season on the Rangers roster he finished tied with Pavel Buchnevich in primary points at 5v5 play with 20, behind only Kevin Hayes, Mats Zuccarello and Jesper Fast, and seventh in primary points per-60.
To be honest, I don’t have any strong takes on Jimmy Vesey. I believe he’s a capable and reliable third line wing, that you can play up on the second line in a pinch, or down on the fourth if you want to truly roll four lines. While this equates to a useful player, it also equates to a very replaceable player. If I were Jeff Gorton, Vesey would be a guy that I’m trying to throw into larger deals to sweeten the pot in order to get a more impact asset back, like a young roster player or a pick. For example, if the Rangers decide to set their sights on Edmonton, and try to pry either Oscar Klefbom or the 10th overall pick from Peter Chiarelli, than I’m starting with a baseline offer that is a bit of a lowball (this is Peter Chiarelli after all, no need to shoot your shot on the initial offer), and then I’m offering to include Vesey if the original offer gets declined. That said, I’m also perfectly happy if the team decides that there will be enough roster turnover as is, and wants to re-sign Vesey to have some stability in middle-6 or bottom-4. As far as what that deal might look like, I think that Matt Cane’s model and the contract comp that the Solberg Twins identified of Zemgus Girgensons seems right. If the Rangers decide to re-sign Jimmy Vesey, I’d expect a deal in the ballpark of two years with an AAV in between $1.5 and $1.7 million.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Ryan Spooner[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2613″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Speaking of interesting scenarios, Ryan Spooner is a player that I think truly is 50-50 on whether or not he’ll be dealt in the off-season. He looked very impressive for the Rangers after arriving from Boston in the Rick Nash trade, but he’s also a player that despite putting up decent production numbers (1.86 points per-60 and 1.35 primary points per-60 at 5v5 over the past three seasons), never seems like he’s truly fit on any team he’s played for. I work with a few Boston fans, and I have multiple Boston fan friends, which has led me to watch a lot more Bruins games over the years than your typical New York fan, and he was a guy that I always thought looked better than his reputation, but for whatever reason never seemed to fit. When you dig into his numbers, one thing that jumps off the charts is that he always seems to put up strong box score production, but has consistently been weak in terms of his impact on his teams’ shot attempts and expected goals share. In fact, over the prior two seasons, Ryan Spooner is in the 72nd percentile among NHL forwards in Game Score and in the 76th percentile in points at 5v5, but is in the 26th percentile in relative to teammate Corsi for percentage and in the abysmal 14th percentile in relative to teammate expected goals for percentage (percentiles courtesy of Bill Comeau’s SKATR Comparison Tool). When I watch him play, he’s strong on the puck and is a decent playmaker, and he is a strong zone entry and exit player, as evidenced by the fact that he’s in the 81st and 76th percentiles in possession entries and possession exits, respectively, among NHL forwards over the prior two years (data courtesy of CJ Turtoro’s All Three Zone Player Comparison Tool and Corey Sznajder).
I know that a lot of Rangers fans became enamored with Ryan Spooner because of his impressive production with the team, but if I’m GM Jeff Gorton, he’s a guy that I am aggressively shopping in the off-season. While he’s an RFA this off-season, he is eligible to be a UFA next season, so I’m in agreement with Matt Cane’s model that Spooner likely will be looking for a one-year deal, which then will allow him to take full advantage of unrestricted free agency next season. He’s a solid player, but he’s definitely far from an irreplaceable player in my opinion, and I think the truth in his ability lies in between his decent box score production and zone entry/exit numbers and poor shot attempt and expected goal share numbers. Obviously, I wouldn’t trade him just to trade him, the price would need to be right, but I think he’s a good enough player to serve as a decent piece in a larger trade to help land the Rangers a more impactful asset. If the Rangers decide to hold onto him, I’d expect a one-year deal with an AAV of about $2.95-$3.1 million. He’s coming off of a one-year, $2.825 million deal, and I think he performed well enough to warrant a bit of a raise, but as I stated earlier, I think he’s looking to cash in on larger pay days that come with unrestricted free agency as soon as possible.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Brady Skjei[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2614″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Brady Skjei put up one of the more impressive rookie seasons I’ve seen from a Rangers defenseman in quite some time in his 2016-2017 season, and looked particularly impressive during the playoffs (when Alain Vigneault actually let him play that is). However, as it’s been covered by numerous smart writers, most notably in this excellent piece for The Athletic by Shayna Goldman, Brady Skjei regressed rather significantly in his sophomore season, likely leaving the Rangers with more questions than answers regarding what to do with Brady Skjei’s next contract. Further muddying the waters is the fact that practically the entire Rangers team had a disastrous season last year, so it’s difficult to identify how much of Skjei’s disappointing season should be attributed to team effects. And to make matters even more complicated, Skjei’s most common defensive partner last season was Kevin Shattenkirk, who we now know was practically playing on one leg for most of the season.
Honestly, I’m fully admitting that this very well may be a bit naïve of me, but I firmly believe that Skjei is closer to the player that we saw in his rookie season that last year, and I think his down year last year could end up being a blessing in disguise for the Rangers long-term, as he absolutely lost himself a good chunk of change on what he can expect from a long-term contract, should the Rangers decide to make that sort of commitment to him. When you look at the two contract projection models, they both seem to think that based on his performance, a one-year deal is most likely for Skjei. However, you can see from the likelihood percentages that Matt Cane’s model can thinks a six-year deal is only 10.52% less likely than a one-year deal, so even his model isn’t entirely sure what to make of Skjei. As with practically every player on the Rangers, I think GM Jeff Gorton should also be open to trading Skjei for the right price, but for me personally, that would need to be one very, very sweet price to pry Skjei away.
In the NHL, a player isn’t UFA eligible until he has either logged seven seasons of play, or is 27-years-old, so Skjei, who has only played two full seasons and just turned 24 in March, isn’t UFA eligible until the 2021-2022 season. If I’m the Rangers, I try to buy out a couple of those UFA years by committing to Skjei long-term. I really like the look of that six-year, $4.6 million AAV deal in Matt Cane’s model, which very closely resembles the six-year, $4.7 million deal McDonagh signed back in 2013-2014. Now, Skjei has not proven as much as McDonagh had at the point when McDonagh obtained that deal, but the salary cap was also roughly $16 million less than what the cap is projected to be next season, meaning that McDonagh’s deal took up a considerable higher percentage of the cap at the time. To be exact, $4.7 million represented 7.3% of the $64.3 million cap in the 2013-2014 season, whereas that amount only represents 5.9% of the projected $80 million cap in the 2018-2019 season. I think given the way the last two years have panned out, and the Rangers’ future plans, that offering Skjei a six-year deal with an AAV between $4.5 and $4.8 million is very fair for both sides.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Vladislav Namestnikov[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2615″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Similar to Ryan Spooner, I believe Vladislav Namestnikov also has about even odds of getting dealt this off-season, and he’s a player the Rangers should aggressively shop to see what sort of return they can get for him. Personally, I’ve been a defender of Namestnikov’s and I think it is utterly foolish to judge him primarily based on his brief body of work with the Rangers, much of which saw him banished to the bottom-6 because Alain Vignault Alain Vignault’ed him. Fact of the matter is, every single smart Lightning fan I know, and the Lightning-focused writers I’ve read, all agree that Namestnikov is a good two-way player that has the playing style and skill set to be an excellent complement to a good line.
Further, in early March I wrote an article discussing the Solberg Twins’ teammate relative statistics model, which in my opinion is a vast improvement to typical relative statistics (which are team relative) and Corsica’s teammate relative statistics. In the piece, I used J.T. Miller vs. Vladislav Namestnikov as a usage example, and showed that, as of March, even when you adjust for the superior teammates that Namestnikov was playing with, he still had a larger impact on expected goal generation for his team, and a significantly larger impact in shot attempt share. Sure, Miller is absolutely a more dynamic offensive player than Namestnikov, but Namestnikov is a vastly superior defensive player, leading him to have a larger overall impact on the percentage of expected goals and shot attempts his teams generate relative to the opposition than J.T. Miller.
In terms of the Rangers plans for this off-season, I’d be truly stunned if both Ryan Spooner and Vladislav Namestnikov are on the team, and I wouldn’t be surprised if both are gone. I think the team will aggressively shop both, and if they can get the right price, they will deal them. I’d happily include Namestnikov and/or Spooner in deals to move up from 26 or 28 in the draft to get a talented kid that could be still on the board in the late teens or early 20s, such as a Dominik Bokk or Vitali Kravstov. If I had to choose one to keep on the Rangers, I’d hold onto Namestnikov over Spooner. Despite what we saw at the end of the season, I think Namestnikov is objectively just a more flexible and better all-around player than Ryan Spooner, and having him on the roster allows the team to be a lot more flexible with various line constructions and deployment strategies. Spooner is a better point producer than Namestnikov, but when you compare their numbers over the past two seasons, that’s his only real advantage over Namestnikov. Obviously, that is an important advantage, as the name of the game is to put the puck in the net, but Namestnikov has a significantly better impact on preventing the opposition from scoring, and he also helps his teams to generate more quality scoring chances.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” link=”true” target=”blank” info=”tooltip” info_place=”bottom” info_trigger=”hover” src=”2616″ alt=”SKATR Comparison Tool: Ryan Spooner vs. Vladislav Namestnikov” href=”https://public.tableau.com/profile/bill.comeau#!/vizhome/SkaterComparisonToolv2/Dashboard1″ title=”SKATR Comparison Tool: Ryan Spooner vs. Vladislav Namestnikov” info_content=”SKATR Comparison Tool: Ryan Spooner vs. Vladislav Namestnikov” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]So, if the Rangers don’t get the package they are looking for in a Namestnikov deal and decide to hang onto him, what kind of contract are we looking at? As you can see by the probabilities in Matt Cane’s model, nobody really has any damn clue, as there is only a 2% spread between the probability of a two-year deal and a six-year deal. Seeing that Namestnikov is only two years away from UFA, and, despite my praise for him, I’m not sure he’s the type of player you need to hook your wagon to long-term when going through a team rebuild. Given that, I’d bridge him to his unrestricted free agency, and offer him a two-year deal with an AAV between $3.7 and $4 million.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Kevin Hayes[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2624″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Last, but certainly not least, we arrive at Kevin Hayes. Hayes undoubtedly is due for the largest next contract of any of the Rangers restricted free agents due to the development of his strong two-way game, and the scoring touch he has shown in flashes in his career. This past season was the first of his career that he eclipsed the 20-goal mark, posting 25 goals that was largely bolstered by a hot streak to cap off the season. However, Hayes has also surpassed 40 points in three of his first NHL seasons, and if he can balance the playmaking skills he showed in his rookie and third seasons with the scoring touch he showed at the end of last season, and perhaps get a bit more favorable offensive deployment from new head coach David Quinn, I think Hayes can easily turn into a consistent 50-60 point producer.
However, the negative side to Hayes’ game is that over his career (aside from his rookie season) he has put up poor shot share and expected goal share numbers, even relative to the team as a whole, which has notoriously been poor in these areas as well over this timeframe. However, while there are some flaws in Hayes’ game, which have led some bozos in the fanbase to assign him with the label of a “lazy” player; which, if you ask me, is ironic because it’s often the laziest of analysis that has led to assigning the lazy label to Hayes. Stupid narratives aside, Hayes is far from a perfect player, and at times he has struggled away from the puck, and maddeningly has given up prime scoring chances in favor of a pass to a covered teammate.
However, and this may be a bit naïve, or dare I even say lazy on my part, but I struggle to place all the blame on Hayes, a player who flashed great offensive potential early in his career, and then who head coach Alain Vigneault decided that come hell or high water would be turned into a defensive-minded center. To Vigneault’s credit, his efforts have seemed to pay off, and Hayes now really is a strong two-way center who has taken tremendous strides in the defensive areas of his game. That said, there were a lot of road bumps along the way which I think absolutely hampered his play while making this transition in play style. In the end, so long as he can gain back some of the playmaking ability that he flashed early in his career and keep the goal scoring touch he flashed late last season, I believe the focus on the defensive areas of his game will end up benefiting his play in the long run, and he will play a vital role for this Rangers team going forward. That is, should they decide to keep him.
Personally, despite the ups and downs we have seen over the past four years, I’m a big fan of Kevin Hayes, and I was an advocate of his all season. That said, I have no problem including Hayes in a deal, if the return is right of course. I do believe however that Hayes is likely valued higher by the Rangers, who have closely watched the development of his overall game, more than other teams who have surely scouted him, but don’t have nearly the viewing sample size as the Rangers and could be more heavily relying on his less-than-stellar production. Like I said earlier, I think Hayes can fairly easily become a 50-60 point producer over the next few seasons if deployed properly and given some power play run, but my guess is many teams will argue that he is already 26, and according to aging curves is firmly already in the prime of his career, so the argument can be made during a negotiation that given these player aging curves, you can’t expect him to produce much more than he already has.
Given all of this, I don’t see Hayes as a likely trade candidate, because I don’t believe it is entirely realistic that the Rangers can obtain the value they would be looking for in return. So, let’s talk new contract numbers shall we. Hayes is eligible to be an unrestricted free agent next year, as he will be 27 before July 1, so that will increase his numbers a bit. While I like Hayes a lot, I don’t necessarily think you need to go super long on a deal with him, so personally I’d rule out the six to eight-year term lengths. I think the Solberg Twins’ model is underrating Hayes here, but Matt Cane’s model looks spot on to me. I’d offer Hayes either the four or five-year deals highlighted in Matt Cane’s model, so either a four-year deal with an AAV of $4.8-$5 million, or a five-year deal carrying an AAV around $5.3 million.[/text_output][image type=”circle” float=”none” src=”1386″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Summary[/custom_headline][text_output]For your convenience, here is a table of all of the contracts that I stated that I personally would be comfortable with, should the Rangers decide to sign the respective player. As always, feel free to hit me up on Twitter if you have any feedback or just want to discuss or debate any of this.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2621″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””]
Author: Drew Way
Diehard New York Rangers fan since 1988! Always has been fascinated by sports statistics, and is a big proponent of supplementing analytics with the eye test. Also a big Yankees, Giants and Knicks fan.