[brooks] Rangers Silence Hints at a Deadline Mats Zuccarello Trade

[Future]

Is the 2nd rounder or the prospect going to lead the team in points someday? Not likely. This Zucc trade will be a bad outcome, IMO.

This is why I've always been about packaging Zucc/Hayes together if possible.

 

It's pretty unlikely that either is going to get you a return that matches the calibre of player, but combining the two, you could get a much nicer piece. I'd rather get one A prospect than 2 Bs and 2 Cs.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

This is why I've always been about packaging Zucc/Hayes together if possible.

 

It's pretty unlikely that either is going to get you a return that matches the calibre of player, but combining the two, you could get a much nicer piece. I'd rather get one A prospect than 2 Bs and 2 Cs.

 

Are there any teams that could use both that they can't get elsewhere?

[Future]

Are there any teams that could use both that they can't get elsewhere?

Colorado made the most sense 6 weeks or so ago, but now not so much. Columbus and Winnipeg both make sense to me...Laine with Zucc and Hayes could be really, really good, and important if Ehlers' game doesn't pick up right away when he comes back. But either way, Hayes and Zucc both fit. WPG could go something like...

 

Connor - Scheifele - Wheeler

Ehlers - Hayes - Laine

Lemieux - Little - Zucc

Roslovic - Perrault - Lowry/Tanev

 

Pick and choose where you want to put guys, but that is scary good depth. You could also use Hayes in the checking role like he was last year, swap him and Little, and then give him Lowry/Tanev on the wing, for a high DZS role.

 

Whether or not Zucc/Hayes is cheaper than those two pieces in separate deals is hard to say.

[Gravesy]

It would be a pretty unusual trade.

I’m also not sure 2 rentals gets you a proper a-level prospect, like Vesalainen in this case.

[Pete]

Is the 2nd rounder or the prospect going to lead the team in points someday? Not likely. This Zucc trade will be a bad outcome, IMO.

 

Let’s start off with the fact that the acquiring team will be playoff bound so that 2nd Rd pick will be in the 50’s . So if the prospect is not an A prospect then we might as well keep him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Zucc will be 32 when the season starts next year. He will likely be around 35 when we're ready to make some serious noise. What is to be gained by keeping him?

 

Hayes will be 27 when the season starts and will be in his early thirties when our windows opens. Hayes makes sense to keep. Zucc, not so much.

[Phil]

This is why I've always been about packaging Zucc/Hayes together if possible.

 

It's pretty unlikely that either is going to get you a return that matches the calibre of player, but combining the two, you could get a much nicer piece. I'd rather get one A prospect than 2 Bs and 2 Cs.

 

Will you, though? The number of clubs who can afford both is small. Smaller than the number that could afford one or the other. You automatically limit your prospects (no pun intended) that way. On top of it, how often does one club have the required assets that they are willing to give up for a double rental?

[Pete]

Will you, though? The number of clubs who can afford both is small. Smaller than the number that could afford one or the other. You automatically limit your prospects (no pun intended) that way. On top of it, how often does one club have the required assets that they are willing to give up for a double rental?

 

Lots of teams add 2 rentals at deadline, you can probably get a "bargain" by doing al your shopping in one place, like Tampa did last year.

[Phil]

Lots of teams add 2 rentals at deadline, you can probably get a "bargain" by doing al your shopping in one place, like Tampa did last year.

 

From the same team? Both of whom are considered premiere market players? I doubt it. I can't think of a single instance where this benefitted the team trading the rentals.

 

Tampa, I'd argue, benefitted more from being in on Karlsson to the wire than they did shopping in one place. They were able to get the Rangers to bite because they had them by the balls with the threat of a Karlsson deal hanging over New York's head. That deal was an eleventh hour agreement that was announced after the 3pm bell rang.

[Pete]

From the same team? Both of whom are considered premiere market players? I doubt it. I can't think of a single instance where this benefitted the team trading the rentals.

 

Tampa, I'd argue, benefitted more from being in on Karlsson to the wire than they did shopping in one place. They were able to get the Rangers to bite because they had them by the balls with the threat of a Karlsson deal hanging over New York's head. That deal was an eleventh hour agreement that was announced after the 3pm bell rang.

 

I'm not sure Zucc is considered a premier player. Or Hayes, either for that matter. Duchene and Stone set the bar.

[Future]

Will you, though? The number of clubs who can afford both is small. Smaller than the number that could afford one or the other. You automatically limit your prospects (no pun intended) that way. On top of it, how often does one club have the required assets that they are willing to give up for a double rental?

Well using the Jets as an example...they have plenty of room to take on both players. Whether or not a team is willing is the exact same question for every trade proposal. The point is that they might willing to give a bit more to get two players if they think they are getting better value.

 

It's like buying at Costco. You pay more (Vesalainen, 2nd) for a triple-ply 48-pack (Zucc, Hayes). For slightly less (3rd, 4th, Roslovic, Niku), you can buy two 24-packs at the grocery store, but it's single ply (Johansen and Brassard). Maybe you've paid more up front, but your asshole is way happier buying in bulk. Both might be alternatives to a super-premium price (Ehlers, 1st), but you get a bidet (Stone).

[Phil]

Well using the Jets as an example...they have plenty of room to take on both players. Whether or not a team is willing is the exact same question for every trade proposal. The point is that they might willing to give a bit more to get two players if they think they are getting better value.

 

It's like buying at Costco. You pay more (Vesalainen, 2nd) for a triple-ply 48-pack (Zucc, Hayes). For slightly less (3rd, 4th, Roslovic, Niku), you can buy two 24-packs at the grocery store, but it's single ply (Johansen and Brassard). Maybe you've paid more up front, but your asshole is way happier buying in bulk. Both might be alternatives to a super-premium price (Ehlers, 1st), but you get a bidet (Stone).

 

So why do the Rangers do this, instead of getting more assets by parting out to different teams?

[Gravesy]

I don’t think there’s any chance the Jets give up their best prospect for 2 rentals.

I’m sure they would rather package picks and b prospects in 2 deals than give up an elite prospect like Vesalainen.

[josh]

So why do the Rangers do this, instead of getting more assets by parting out to different teams?

 

quality > quantity.

 

But you have to combo players with term with an UFA. Fast + McQuaid, Kreider + Pionk, Hayes+ Skjei, to maximize the return. Sure, you'll get slightly more adding Zucc to Hayes, but you dont maximize the return.

[Future]

So why do the Rangers do this, instead of getting more assets by parting out to different teams?

B/c not all assets are created equal. I'd rather have one A prospect than 4 B prospects. This team doesn't get anything out of more third-line or third-pair players. The organization is loaded with them.

 

There's a bad habit in the hockey world right now of throwing around the term "asset" and acting like a huge collection of "assets" matters just because it exists. 500 7th-round picks isn't worth 1 first-rounder so calling them the same thing is odd to me.

[Future]

I don’t think there’s any chance the Jets give up their best prospect for 2 rentals.

I’m sure they would rather package picks and b prospects in 2 deals than give up an elite prospect like Vesalainen.

Maybe.

 

Would they trade Vesalainen for 2 3rds, Niku and Roslovic though? That's the logic on their end.

[Gravesy]

Well, according to most people the expected returns are

 

Hayes: 1st, a good prospect + a prospect

Zuc: 2nd and a prospect

 

If I’m the Jets I think I’d rather give that up than my elite prospect + a pick.

[Phil]

B/c not all assets are created equal. I'd rather have one A prospect than 4 B prospects. This team doesn't get anything out of more third-line or third-pair players. The organization is loaded with them.

 

There's a bad habit in the hockey world right now of throwing around the term "asset" and acting like a huge collection of "assets" matters just because it exists. 500 7th-round picks isn't worth 1 first-rounder so calling them the same thing is odd to me.

 

No disagreement here.

[josh]

Well, according to most people the expected returns are

 

Hayes: 1st, a good prospect + a prospect

Zuc: 2nd and a prospect

 

If I’m the Jets I think I’d rather give that up than my elite prospect + a pick.

 

Then add Skjei and take Laine!

[Gravesy]

I’m in!

[Pete]

B/c not all assets are created equal. I'd rather have one A prospect than 4 B prospects. This team doesn't get anything out of more third-line or third-pair players. The organization is loaded with them.

 

There's a bad habit in the hockey world right now of throwing around the term "asset" and acting like a huge collection of "assets" matters just because it exists. 500 7th-round picks isn't worth 1 first-rounder so calling them the same thing is odd to me.

 

What if those 7th rounders turn into Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Robitaille and Lundqvist!