Walker Rangers' Igor Shesterkin Could Aim for Historic Contract After Dominant Playoff Run

[Pete]

19 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

GG screwed up by not having self-starters who actually produced at the level their contracts promised.

 

Seriously, who played well in '21-22, '22-23 and '23-24?

 

Only Kreider contributed all 3 seasons and he's the guy on the chopping block now because it's easy.

 

GMing an NHL team is not easy.

[Br4d]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Who is your other skater who has been money in the playoffs the last 3 seasons?

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Who is your other skater who has been money in the playoffs the last 3 seasons?

You're moving the goal posts. 

 

You criticized trade deadline acquisitions.

 

Vatrano 13pts in 22 regular season games, 13pts in 20 playoff games

 

Copp 18pts in 16 games, 14 in 20 playoff games... Literally the best hockey of his career. 

 

Kane 12 in 19, 6 in 7 playoff games.

 

Tarasenko 21 in 31, 3 goals in 7 games. Was probably the weakest acquisition to be honest. 

 

This trade deadline Drury swung and missed. 

 

Probably the biggest mistake was having faith in Kakko to fill the 1RW slot. I doubt they make the same mistake this summer. 

 

This is the point: The team made the conference finals and it is not possible to break it up completely without doing serious damage to the cap and the long-term success of the team because of the futures you will have to give to package the bad contracts. 

 

You have one more year of Shesty and 2 more of Panarin and possibly Trouba. Both of those players become infinitely more tradable when there's only one year left on their deal. 

 

They're simply not breaking it up this summer. They will take another crack at it, and I don't blame them for doing it. 

[Br4d]

2025 is going to be the first playoff season I have no hope for the Rangers if they run it back.

[Pete]

And that's unfortunate, but they don't make decisions based on giving you hope. 

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

And that's unfortunate, but they don't make decisions based on giving you hope. 

 

Just remember what you just said when everybody is frothing about this deadline add or that deadline add and none of it is real because the core is the problem not the missing pieces.

[LindG1000]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

You're moving the goal posts. 

 

You criticized trade deadline acquisitions.

 

Vatrano 13pts in 22 regular season games, 13pts in 20 playoff games

 

Copp 18pts in 16 games, 14 in 20 playoff games... Literally the best hockey of his career. 

 

Kane 12 in 19, 6 in 7 playoff games.

 

Tarasenko 21 in 31, 3 goals in 7 games. Was probably the weakest acquisition to be honest. 

 

This trade deadline Drury swung and missed. 

 

Probably the biggest mistake was having faith in Kakko to fill the 1RW slot. I doubt they make the same mistake this summer. 

 

This is the point: The team made the conference finals and it is not possible to break it up completely without doing serious damage to the cap and the long-term success of the team because of the futures you will have to give to package the bad contracts. 

 

You have one more year of Shesty and 2 more of Panarin and possibly Trouba. Both of those players become infinitely more tradable when there's only one year left on their deal. 

 

They're simply not breaking it up this summer. They will take another crack at it, and I don't blame them for doing it. 

 

I'm not sure this is true because I haven't got a real sense of what the market would be for a Trouba or a Kreider (these two feel like the most likely to be dealt of the "core")

 

I can see a team giving a fair deal for Trouba. We've seen lesser D moved for more, and I'm betting there are 8-10 GMs out there thinking they want to get more physical on the blue line, want a leader, want a character guy, whatever - and two years, 12 million isn't a hard pill to swallow if the return makes  sense.

 

I'm completely unsure what the market for Kreider would be. I'd bet the return would exceed our expectations - as you've said, goalscoring trumps all - and I'd guess that between the player we get back (let's say a top 6 RW and a mid-six D?), Lafreniere bumping up to PP1, and Chytil not being dead, we can replace that goalscoring production. 

 

I'm not saying to do these things. I'm simply saying that there are ways to alter the core that may net out positively and that might be worth exploring.

 

 

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I'm not sure this is true because I haven't got a real sense of what the market would be for a Trouba or a Kreider (these two feel like the most likely to be dealt of the "core")

 

I can see a team giving a fair deal for Trouba. We've seen lesser D moved for more, and I'm betting there are 8-10 GMs out there thinking they want to get more physical on the blue line, want a leader, want a character guy, whatever - and two years, 12 million isn't a hard pill to swallow if the return makes  sense.

 

I'm completely unsure what the market for Kreider would be. I'd bet the return would exceed our expectations - as you've said, goalscoring trumps all - and I'd guess that between the player we get back (let's say a top 6 RW and a mid-six D?), Lafreniere bumping up to PP1, and Chytil not being dead, we can replace that goalscoring production. 

 

I'm not saying to do these things. I'm simply saying that there are ways to alter the core that may net out positively and that might be worth exploring.

 

 

It is true because 1. They do not seem interested in dealing Kreider and 2. Even if they dealt both of those players, that does not constitute "breaking it up completely", which is what I said. 

[LindG1000]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

It is true because 1. They do not seem interested in dealing Kreider and 2. Even if they dealt both of those players, that does not constitute "breaking it up completely", which is what I said. 

 

Some of the core is outright unmovable. We can't/aren't trading Mika, Panarin, or Fox. The rest aren't quite bolted down. 

 

Agreed that there's no obvious appetite for dealing Kreider, but he's exactly the kind of guy a team would overpay for. Again - not advocating it, but not dismissing it either.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Some of the core is outright unmovable. We can't/aren't trading Mika, Panarin, or Fox. The rest aren't quite bolted down. 

 

Agreed that there's no obvious appetite for dealing Kreider, but he's exactly the kind of guy a team would overpay for. Again - not advocating it, but not dismissing it either.

Totally. But there's a good chance 80% of this roster is coming back, I think everybody is starting to realize that. It's a big move to get rid of your captain, I don't know that they have the stomach for that, but he's the only player again that is addition by subtraction. 

[LindG1000]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

Totally. But there's a good chance 80% of this roster is coming back, I think everybody is starting to realize that. It's a big move to get rid of your captain, I don't know that they have the stomach for that, but he's the only player again that is addition by subtraction. 

 

Yeah, and we should feel good about running most of it back. 

 

I think it's hard to move your captain, but at the same time it really feels like he's run his course here. He's done what was asked and now he's struggling to keep up in the system we're playing. When he was named captain, there was one guy on the team we really felt could have gotten it instead; now there's a bunch of leaders. I don't know what his value in the locker-room is, but the flexibility that 6-8m in cap space would offer feels too valuable to pass on when you're trying to find the few pieces to push past the Floridas of the world.

 

I'm also well aware that I might be holding out hope against hope that we can make the move, but it would be decently big, it would send a clear message, and we'd end up with a better system fit at 3RD.

[Br4d]

We're not fixing what ails the Rangers by getting another 3RD.

 

We need a real 1RW/2RW not a bullshit add at the trade deadline that will go missing again after the season.  It's been 3 years now that we have punted this decision until the trade deadline.  Enough is enough.  Fix the problem.

 

Then we need to figure out if Chytil is going to fit as our 3C.  if not we're either filling that role from Hartford again (think Brodzinski) or acquiring a 3C on a reasonable deal.  Right now it looks like finding a tough 3C who likes to hit would be a step up from where we've been.

 

Kreider can get us that 1RW/2RW in a real hockey trade.  We may even be able to fill the 3RD hole in that deal and then dealing Trouba becomes much simpler.

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Br4d said:

We're not fixing what ails the Rangers by getting another 3RD.

 

We need a real 1RW/2RW not a bullshit add at the trade deadline that will go missing again after the season.  It's been 3 years now that we have punted this decision until the trade deadline.  Enough is enough.  Fix the problem.

 

Then we need to figure out if Chytil is going to fit as our 3C.  if not we're either filling that role from Hartford again (think Brodzinski) or acquiring a 3C on a reasonable deal.  Right now it looks like finding a tough 3C who likes to hit would be a step up from where we've been.

 

Kreider can get us that 1RW/2RW in a real hockey trade.  We may even be able to fill the 3RD hole in that deal and then dealing Trouba becomes much simpler.

 

I think that there is this notion of trading certain guys automatically means you're not competitive for next season, and it's just an excuse to run it back.

Edited June 7 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I think that there is this notion of trading certain guys automatically means you're not competitive for next season, and it's just an excuse to run it back.

Who are "certain guys"? 

 

Trade Trouba and Kreider and you can certainly stay competitive. 

 

There's no one else who's likely to get traded.

 

I don't understand what you mean "excuse to run it back".

[LindG1000]

54 minutes ago, Br4d said:

We're not fixing what ails the Rangers by getting another 3RD.

 

We need a real 1RW/2RW not a bullshit add at the trade deadline that will go missing again after the season.  It's been 3 years now that we have punted this decision until the trade deadline.  Enough is enough.  Fix the problem.

 

Then we need to figure out if Chytil is going to fit as our 3C.  if not we're either filling that role from Hartford again (think Brodzinski) or acquiring a 3C on a reasonable deal.  Right now it looks like finding a tough 3C who likes to hit would be a step up from where we've been.

 

Kreider can get us that 1RW/2RW in a real hockey trade.  We may even be able to fill the 3RD hole in that deal and then dealing Trouba becomes much simpler.

 

I don't think you read my post all that carefully, my man. 

 

Regardless, yeah, we do need a steadier 3RD, because Trouba was on the ice for something like 75% of the goals against in the playoffs, took 10 minor penalties in the 12 games against Carolina and Florida (including multiple games where he took three penalties in the same game) and routinely got pinned in his own zone. This was a problem that would have been solved with a better system fit. 

 

Is it as urgent as a top 6 RW? Probably not, but that's why you free up 6m or so in space by moving him. The 3RD upgrade doesn't take much and it's a must-do.

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I don't think you read my post all that carefully, my man. 

 

Regardless, yeah, we do need a steadier 3RD, because Trouba was on the ice for something like 75% of the goals against in the playoffs, took 10 minor penalties in the 12 games against Carolina and Florida (including multiple games where he took three penalties in the same game) and routinely got pinned in his own zone. This was a problem that would have been solved with a better system fit. 

 

Is it as urgent as a top 6 RW? Probably not, but that's why you free up 6m or so in space by moving him. The 3RD upgrade doesn't take much and it's a must-do.

 

My point was just that 1RW/2RW is an existential need for a Stanley Cup and preferably a guy who will play as well in the playoffs as he does during the regular season.

 

We could trade Kreider for Marner and it would not do what we need to do.

[BrooksBurner]

35 minutes ago, Pete said:

Who are "certain guys"? 

 

Trade Trouba and Kreider and you can certainly stay competitive. 

 

There's no one else who's likely to get traded.

 

I don't understand what you mean "excuse to run it back".

 

I think you can trade any single one player off this roster, except for Igor, and remain a similarly competitive playoff team, after accounting for re-utilized cap on good acquisitions (FA or trade).

 

Yes, those are the two higher cap players who are most likely to be traded, or can be traded without their consent. A full NMC for Panarin and Zibanejad does not necessarily mean completely untradable. I think Panarin in particular is more likely to be amenable to a trade this summer than last summer, if Drury were to present the option to him and that they are looking to go in a different direction.

 

Excuse to run it back meaning it's the easy thing to do, not necessarily the right thing to do, and it can be justified through false reasoning like "we would go from a President's Trophy to a non-playoff team without X". The Rangers have plenty of talent on the roster to make the playoffs, to absorb one of their top 4 or 5 players missing.

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I think you can trade any single one player off this roster, except for Igor, and remain a similarly competitive playoff team, after accounting for re-utilized cap on good acquisitions (FA or trade).

 

Yes, those are the two higher cap players who are most likely to be traded, or can be traded without their consent. A full NMC for Panarin and Zibanejad does not necessarily mean completely untradable. I think Panarin in particular is more likely to be amenable to a trade this summer than last summer, if Drury were to present the option to him and that they are looking to go in a different direction.

 

Excuse to run it back meaning it's the easy thing to do, not necessarily the right thing to do, and it can be justified through false reasoning like "we would go from a President's Trophy to a non-playoff team without X". The Rangers have plenty of talent on the roster to make the playoffs, to absorb one of their top 4 or 5 players missing.

I just think there's too many variables to make any kind of statement like that. 

 

Because it really depends on what you have to retain if you were to trade Panarin. If it's 50% then it's going to be really hard to try and replace 120 points with $5 million. 

 

You might be right about it being easier to run it back, but I think you have this idea that it would be absolutely insane to run it back ... Yet it's not insane.

[Br4d]

18 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I think you can trade any single one player off this roster, except for Igor, and remain a similarly competitive playoff team, after accounting for re-utilized cap on good acquisitions (FA or trade).

 

Yes, those are the two higher cap players who are most likely to be traded, or can be traded without their consent. A full NMC for Panarin and Zibanejad does not necessarily mean completely untradable. I think Panarin in particular is more likely to be amenable to a trade this summer than last summer, if Drury were to present the option to him and that they are looking to go in a different direction.

 

Excuse to run it back meaning it's the easy thing to do, not necessarily the right thing to do, and it can be justified through false reasoning like "we would go from a President's Trophy to a non-playoff team without X". The Rangers have plenty of talent on the roster to make the playoffs, to absorb one of their top 4 or 5 players missing.

 

We know what the older stars produce and when they produce.

 

At this point the CK-MZ line is not a scoring line at 5v5 and that means they either need to be given another role outside the top 6 or we're going to be watching more tight, grindy games again next season and when the Bread Line is quiet we're going to lose more than we should.

 

This was a problem this year already but the Rangers had one of the luckiest seasons I have ever seen.  The luck isn't going to be there like that next season.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

I just think there's too many variables to make any kind of statement like that. 

 

Because it really depends on what you have to retain if you were to trade Panarin. If it's 50% then it's going to be really hard to try and replace 120 points with $5 million. 

 

You might be right about it being easier to run it back, but I think you have this idea that it would be absolutely insane to run it back ... Yet it's not insane.

 

I don't. I think there's more variables involved to say the team would be a non-playoff team without a single player.

 

No retainment required. They would have to take some salary back given that it would be to another competitive team, and that's the retainment.

 

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. The biggest reasoning behind "running it back" opposed to making major changes, is that trade protection or contracts ties Drury's hands from making big enough changes anyway. That's not a vote of confidence in the team or the position, and not a good enough reason to pass on making major moves that are possible and do set the team up for a better chance of success later.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I don't. I think there's more variables involved to say the team would be a non-playoff team without a single player.

 

No retainment required. They would have to take some salary back given that it would be to another competitive team, and that's the retainment.

 

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. The biggest reasoning behind "running it back" opposed to making major changes, is that trade protection or contracts ties Drury's hands from making big enough changes anyway. That's not a vote of confidence in the team or the position, and not a good enough reason to pass on making major moves that are possible and do set the team up for a better chance of success later.

I don't think anyone saying that if you remove the single player, they wouldn't be a playoff team except for Panarin and in that instance it would depend on what you're getting back and how much you have to retain. 

 

I don't see the point in taking a team that went to the Eastern conference finals two out of the past three seasons and making it worse instead of just letting it play out for what will probably be one more season, two at the most. 

 

I also think it's just a flawed idea that you're doing "the same thing over and over" because players change, people change, matchups change. 

 

Even Florida is not going to be the same team next year that they were this year. They're going to lose some people, they're going to gain some people.

 

A lot can happen over the summer. 

Edited June 7 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I don't think anyone saying that if you remove the single player, they wouldn't be a playoff team except for Panarin and in that instance it would depend on what you're getting back and how much you have to retain. 

 

I don't see the point in taking a team that went to the Eastern conference finals two out of the past three seasons and making it worse instead of just letting it play out for what will probably be one more season, two at the most. 

 

I also think it's just a flawed idea that you're doing "the same thing over and over" because players change, people change, matchups change. 

 

Even Florida is not going to be the same team next year that they were this year. They're going to lose some people, they're going to gain some people.

 

A lot can happen over the summer. 

Yeah…i think that’s why you run it back.  We could be a RW and a healthy Fox away from the cup. 

[Rangers1994]

Here's a proposal - Rip up the last year in Shesterkin's contract.  And then you give a 4-5 year deal at $9 millions per year, starting this coming season.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Rangers1994 said:

Here's a proposal - Rip up the last year in Shesterkin's contract.  And then you give a 4-5 year deal at $9 millions per year, starting this coming season.

Can't be done under the CBA. 

 

And why would they want to do that?

Edited June 8 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

7 hours ago, Rangers1994 said:

Here's a proposal - Rip up the last year in Shesterkin's contract.  And then you give a 4-5 year deal at $9 millions per year, starting this coming season.

I’d like to rip up @BrooksBurner