The Kevin Hayes Conundrum

[text_output]We’ve reached the final few days leading into the NHL Draft, which means speculation about trades, free agent maneuvers and god knows what else will be reaching a pinnacle.

For Rangers fans (us included), it’s been a whirling dervish of what ifs, possibilities and mock trades since, well, just shortly after the trade deadline. This is what happens when you miss the playoffs and find yourself sitting on a heap of assets that not only intrigue your own front office, but possibly every other front office in hockey.

You want to talk draft picks? The Rangers have more than they know what to do with. Intriguing players looking to sign extensions? In spades. Cap space? All of it. The Rangers can literally do whatever they want and execute whatever plan they want over the next two weeks. What that plan will be has been the focus of very smart people since the season officially ended.

This weekend, that plan took on another form when Larry Brooks dropped Kevin Hayes’s name as the Ranger most likely to bring in a significant return via trade before (or during) the NHL Draft.

It’s both not surprising to hear Hayes’s name thrown around in trade discussions (because management has long said nobody is truly off limits) and a little jarring (because the focus has long-remained on many other players on the roster, specifically Vladdy Namestnikov and Ryan Spooner).

Here’s the portion of Brooksie’s piece that opened the most eyes:[/text_output][image type=”none” float=”none” src=”2636″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Let’s not get bogged down with names specifically, because we can spend an infinite amount of time discussion who the Rangers should target in an ideal Kevin Hayes trade (Drew Way is going to be pumping up a Sam Bennett/Adam Fox package with the Flames, and I’ll simply take this opportunity to once again mention Oscar Klefbom).

Instead, let’s focus solely on what trading Kevin Hayes really signals for the Rangers.[/text_output][image type=”circle” float=”none” src=”2638″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]The biggest discussion point Ryan and I have focused on podcasts is the Rangers new timetable. It’s something neither of us have been able to pinpoint, and it’s something Brooks doesn’t seem to have a grasp on, either (to no fault of his own).

A Hayes trade definitely complicates that timetable further.

For starters – any fan saying “why would the Rangers move Hayes? Isn’t center depth our biggest problem right now?” doesn’t really understand the whole purpose of this rebuild. Or retool. Or reload. Or whatever the hell we’re calling it today.

One thing has been made clear: we need to find out what Filip Chytil and Lias Andersson are capable of down the middle. That’s not to say both will stay at center long-term, or that it’s imperative to the Rangers long-term success that both man center positions on this team for the next 10 years.

Instead, it says here are our two youngest, most-NHL ready prospects, and they need time to figure out their games on the parent club. In order to get the proper time and line-up placement to figure their games out, neither Chytil nor Andersson can occupy the Rangers 4th line, and the same goes for Mika Zibanejad and Kevin Hayes.

Hayes has the experience to move to wing, and he absolutely could flip-flop with Andersson or Chytil should either warrant a move off center themselves, so it’s not like the Rangers have to trade Hayes to open up the spot. But, if you want to open up the spot, wouldn’t you at least explore it?

The next, and arguably most critical, question regarding Hayes: is Kevin Hayes a viable part of the Rangers long-term future?

Hayes is 26 and, as Drew discussed recently, is set to sign a likely four or five year extension, potentially keeping him signed through his age-31 season. Affording Hayes at his likely $4.5-5M cap hit is no problem, and fans should be thrilled to have a two-way center with the scoring upside of Hayes locked up through his prime years at that low of a number.

But, what are the Rangers going to be for the first two years of that contract? If the Rangers can’t acquire a top-end defender to anchor their young defensive core of Brady Skjei, Neal Pionk and Libor Hajek (and potentially someone like Noah Dobson, Adam Boqvist or Evan Bouchard), is there truly a net gain from locking Hayes up long-term?

Now, there are other ways the Rangers could explore acquiring a defenseman who fills that need without including Hayes in a package. For one, they could shop their ninth overall selection, or package one (or both) of their late first round picks with a different RFA-eligible player or veteran and hope that’s enough to get the player they need in return. But, as we’ve heard from Brooks, the sense around the league is Mats Zuccarello’s value isn’t as high as Rangers fans perceive it to be, and the interest in Spooner/Namestnikov is lukewarm, at least in terms of them being included in another blockbuster.

If Kevin Hayes is your best shot at adding a game-changing defensive player, it’s a shot you have to take. The number one priority for this team moving forward has to be identifying a young, impactful defensive player to build around who currently isn’t on their roster, and they’ve finally built up their center depth (we haven’t even mentioned Brett Howden in this piece) to provide them the opportunity to move someone like Hayes.

With all this said, and I think this is an important note to include, I am completely fine if the Rangers decide against trading Hayes. He was one of the few players to see his game take a positive step forward last year, and I truly believe there’s untapped scoring potential remaining in his game should he start seeing more significant power play time. 25 goals last year could be the norm for him, if not the floor in a different offensive system.

But I also recognize Hayes is the best chance this Rangers team has at immediately addressing their biggest long-term question mark. Now it’s up to Jeff Gorton to successfully answer this latest riddle.[/text_output]