article: Mercogliano: Will Jesper Fast be a Casualty of the Flat Cap?

When the bottom six forward sometimes needs to slot into your top six and not hurt you, is the lead penalty killer on your team, and a veteran in a room of youngsters, I'd say the answer is yes.

 

It's funny how we all say you can't win in the playoffs without depth, but we think all of our depth players are expendable.

He was in the top 6. The bottom 6 is dreadful. If he gets paid 4th line money, and plays on the 4th line, sure. They dont need a $3m 4th liner playing in the top 6.

He was in the top 6. The bottom 6 is dreadful. If he gets paid 4th line money, and plays on the 4th line, sure. They dont need a $3m 4th liner playing in the top 6.

He'll be somewhere in the middle 6 depending on what Kakko does. It's not like we've seen some vast improvement from him to warrant a massive raise. $2.25 would be a 25% raise for him, and something we can afford. If someone offers him more than $2.25, he should take it and run. We simply don't have the room.

When the bottom six forward sometimes needs to slot into your top six and not hurt you, is the lead penalty killer on your team, and a veteran in a room of youngsters, I'd say the answer is yes.

 

It's funny how we all say you can't win in the playoffs without depth, but we think all of our depth players are expendable.

Not to mention he has a history of stepping up in the playoff with big plays. '15 2nd round vs Washington especially.

Was Fabbri a UFA?

RFA

I understand why you feel that way, but he's also a guy where 6 weeks into the season you're saying "Wish we had Fast".

 

Guys like Gauhtier and DiGi might be able to play on lower lines, but it's not like they're going to move up and not hurt you. They'll move up and you'll see a significant gap on the line they're on. He's also a big PK presence, at his some form of continuity and veteran leadership on a real young team.

 

In my mind you have to try and keep him with a modest raise.

Evolving Wild's projection (basically the Robbi Fabbri contract — 2.95 x 2) is more than reasonable. At that kind of rate, I can't think of any reason to not keep Fast, even if it means losing below replacement level players like Lemieux. In fact, the team would be better by moving on from Lemieux and simply giving his money to Fast, who can actually play hockey, anywhere in your lineup, with very little drawbacks but for when he's in an extended top-six role.

You know....I can dig those points, fellas. The question is, does Fast take a 2 year deal at age 29, or does he want more, I suppose. I don't mind keeping a player like him, who has some very useful defensive experience for the kids that are evolving, but the cost is obviously the question.

I like the "modest raise" and "more than reasonable" terms and I'm down for a 2 or maybe 3 year deal....but anything more than that and it's adios amigo!

Exactly.

If there's a problem with Fast it's with his deployment, not the player.

I mean, it's pretty difficult to think about a significantly better player to plug into your bottom 6, who kills penalties, is a great locker room guy and can slide up in a pinch. Most people are in agreement that the Rangers need to fix their bottom 6, and with that in mind re signing Fast to a reasonable deal seems like a complete no brainer. I think the reason so many are perfectly fine with him leaving is primarily because he's been over used in the top 6 by consecutive coaches. That shouldn't be a problem going forward, with Lafreniere on the team and Kakko being a year older.

Moreover, if that player exists on the market, he more than likely costs more than what this projection suggests. Better the devil you know.

When he’s playing in the bottom-6 and filling the role appropriate to his skill set and level of ability, you see his value.

When he’s playing in the top-6 and asked to do or contribute more or differently than he’s capable of, you see his flaws.