By no means am I saying the New York Rangers should absolutely trade Jesper Fast regardless of return. That’s not it at all, and I’m going to explain why.
Jesper Fast absolutely has a place and role on the Rangers moving forward. He can definitely be part of the next successful Rangers team that hopes to make a deep postseason run. The question is – when is that next competitive Rangers team going to happen? Is it before Fast’s contract runs out? Is it within the next two years?
Personally, I think that answer is yes.
I have stated multiple times that I think the Rangers could be competitive as soon as next season if the off-season goes properly. I don’t think it’s insane to think Jeff Gorton and Company can pull off what the Yankees did in 2016, only to be immediate World Series threats in 2017.
But now, let’s for just a second consider the alternative. What if management thinks this rebuild will take multiple years? What if it’s a two-year plan?
To me, Jesper Fast is the unexpected measuring stick for how long we should expect this rebuild to take place. If the team wants to keep Fast, I don’t think we’re in for something long-term. Another year? Maybe. But beyond that? This team will want to be competitive.
If this rebuild is going to take two years (or the remaining years on Fast’s contract), I truly believe his value is best spent on the trade market this summer.
Every Stanley Cup contender needs a guy like Jesper Fast on their roster. He’s a jack-of-all-trades player, a Swiss Army Knife. He’s a super-utility player who can thrive in a bottom six role, yet not be over-matched if you need to press him into a top six duty for a game or two due to injury. He’s the hockey version of Marwin Gonzalez, who has the versatility to play anywhere and excel at it.
The question is, what’s Jesper Fast’s value on the trade market? That’s where things get complicated.
To me, Quickie’s best comparison is going to sound real familiar to Rangers fans:
Carl Hagelin[/text_output][image type=”circle” float=”none” alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=”” src=”2396″][text_output]After the 2015 season with Hagelin in line for a raise as he entered restricted free agency, the Rangers elected to trade him to the Anaheim Ducks along with a second round pick (59th overall) and a 6th round pick (179th overall) for Emerson Etem and the Ducks second round pick (41st overall).
Obviously, it’s hard to properly associate what this trade would be like in present terms because we know how Emerson Etem turned out (not great!!!). But at the time, with a little over 110 games under his NHL belt, the then-23-year old Etem was still seen as an upside scoring winger.
It’s also important to remember Hagelin, while under team control, was not under contract. The rumors as best I can remember is that Hagelin wanted north of $3.5 million annually on his next contract, and the Ducks eventually gave him $4 million. Meanwhile, Fast is making an extremely team-friendly $1.85 million each of the next two season, which will comfortably fit under any team’s salary cap next season.
When traded, Hagelin, coming off his age-26 season, posted 17 goals and 35 points. Fast, in his age-26 season, currently sits at 13 goals and 31 points with a handful of games to go. Where Hagelin provided more speed and natural scoring ability, Fast provides high-end penalty killing. They’re incredibly similar any way you slice it, really.
So, what’s a realistic ask for the Rangers if they’re to trade Fast?
I can easily see a contending team give up a second round pick for Fast straight up, or a decent prospect and a third round pick package.
A fair argument can be made that the Rangers would be lucky to be able to replace Fast with that type of deal, possibly leading the team to acquire diminishing returns for his services. My counter to that – again, if the Rangers are trading Fast, they’re signaling that this rebuild is not going to be a short journey. Fast’s value is not going to get higher than it currently is right now, and if you wanted to wait even a half season to shop him again, I’d have some doubts you’d be able to match what you might be able to get at this year’s draft. It’s truly a catch-22. Either trade Fast now for what you might view as an underwhelming package (personally, if you get a second rounder for Fast, that’s not underwhelming to me), or wait to trade Fast when the shine may rub off his penny.
Again, this isn’t me trying to say the Rangers should absolutely, positively trade Fast. I’m going to be very happy if Fast is still on the team come opening night, because I think that signals the Rangers intent to contend.
But if they do move Fast, I completely understand why. Turn an asset that is best-suited for cup contending teams into future upside assets. It makes sense. It’s uncomfortable to admit, but it makes sense.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”center” level=”h4″ looks_like=”h4″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]The Case Against[/custom_headline][text_output]Trading Jesper Fast would be a mistake.
I get what Greg’s getting at, having a player like Fast does not make sense for a team that is rebuilding.
Yet, at the same time, it does.
Having a guy like Fast in the lineup, you can plug him almost anywhere based on the situation. A key guy is injured? Don’t worry, Fast can get pushed into there. You need to work on the forechecking aspect to keep the puck in the offensive zone late in the game down one? Sure, you’ll need Fast there to do that.
Losing a guy like Fast would hurt the team rather than help. He’s a key piece to this lineup and can be considered a new part of the core Rangers. He’s been here through the ups and now the downs with this team. He’s been through various number changes in his short time here as a Ranger, but one thing that hasn’t changed is his drive and, most importantly, his heart.
He is one of those glue guys on the team, something that fits the “new NHL” so well: a grinder in the sense that you know he’s going to push the forecheck pressure every time he’s out on the ice, but will also chip in a goal every now and then.
Some may say that he can be replaced at the draft, and he could. But there’s obviously no guarantee in that, and you’re rolling the dice trying to find someone do something you already have covered.[/text_output][image type=”circle” float=”none” src=”2397″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]The detractors of Fast state that he doesn’t belong on the top six. Fair, but when you see what he does out there, how can you disagree that maybe in spot situations he deserves a crack at it?
Right now, it’s working, and it easily could work for the rest of the season. Now, I’m not saying when next year rolls around, you start him alongside Chris Kreider and Mika Zibanejad. You put him in the best place for him to succeed, and that is the bottom six.
Yet if the opportunity arises, or something comes up that makes sense for Fast to move up, you do the right thing and move him up.
The issue we have here comes down to this: is there going to be an enticing offer, for a player that is on a very team friendly contract?
There might be.
Does it make sense for the Rangers to consider doing it?
Yes, just like it makes sense for the Rangers to consider trading Kreider, Zibanejad, etc.
Yet, when push comes to shove, keeping a guy like Fast would make sense, if a new head coach sees the value of having some sort of utility guy that can be plugged into the lineup anywhere without consequence.
If a new coach does, then maybe it’s time to free Fast to a team, that will compete for a playoff spot and will add value having a player of his caliber on the team.[/text_output]
Author: BSB Staff
This Article is presented to you in High Definition Surround Sound by some or all of the Blueshirts Breakaway Staff. At least whoever wasn’t lazy enough to contribute.