PHR Mailbag

This edition of the mailbag tackles a couple of draft questions, Jonathan Toews’ future, Ottawa’s struggles this season, plus the NHL rulebook.

DaBinx: Which of these options would be the best for the Canadiens?

Move down in the draft and acquire more picks.
Stay at #3 and see who is available.

If you think there is a better option let me know.

Of those two options, I’d prefer the stay at #3 one from the standpoint of the Canadiens.  This is a team that is lacking in top talent up front so dropping back and losing out on some of the more talented forwards (I’m assuming they’d be leaning towards a forward and not a defenseman here) doesn’t seem ideal.  They also already have four second-rounders so a deal to potentially add another one doesn’t make much sense unless they plan to package two of those to get back in towards the bottom of the round.

The other option, of course, is to trade the pick.  Despite their tough season, Montreal’s roster is designed to be more of a win now team.  Accordingly, trading for someone who could make more of an impact now will probably be considered.  I’m not talking about someone with a year or two left on their deal before they become unrestricted but a 20-22-year-old who is somewhat established in the league already and is ready to fill an important role now.  And if that player happened to play center, all the better from Montreal’s standpoint.  If they can’t get that, then they should hold onto the pick and give themselves another quality forward to build around, even if they’re not necessarily ready to make a big impact right away.

acarneglia: What will the Rangers do with their 3 first round picks? Will they trade up with someone like Ottawa who doesn’t have a first next year?

Considering that their two extra picks project to be at the back of the round, it will be difficult to use those to move their top selection (ninth overall) up by any substantial amount.  A team like Ottawa probably isn’t going to want to drop down five spots when they have to give up an unprotected first-round pick to Colorado next year.  If they’re keeping that pick (and it appears they are), they’re likely going to want to use it on a top youngster and will value quality over quantity.

If someone ranked in the early teens starts to fall, then maybe there’s a case to try to move up by packaging the two later firsts.  Alternatively, maybe moving one for a young NHL player who can fit in next season and the foreseeable future would be something worth considering.

Otherwise, I like the idea of them simply keeping the three and hoping to hit big on one of their picks at the back of the round.  If you can get two impact NHL players in the first round, that’s pretty good for them long-term.  New York is doing a good job at stockpiling young prospects but they’re not at a spot where they have enough where they can start packaging just yet unless there’s a big upgrade on the table and because those picks are so deep in the round, I don’t think they’ll be able to combine them to get that big upgrade.

@jwlwade: Has the game passed Jonathan Toews by?

I wouldn’t go quite to that extent but I’d acknowledge that his days as one of the elite players in the league are probably done.  He’s still a number one center on quite a few teams and even though he has started to slow down, he still brings a lot to the table for Chicago.  He remains a very effective defensive player, is still quite strong at the faceoff dot, and he has managed to score 20 or more goals even as his decline starts.

Unfortunately for the Blackhawks, with what they’re paying him ($10.5MM for five more years after this one), this decline is going to be a concern.  With that type of cap hit, they’re expecting an elite player, not ‘just’ an above average one.  I think Toews has several years left of being a solid performer for Chicago but they’re not going to be getting great bang for their buck the rest of the way.  Considering they’re already a team with some continued salary cap challenges, this is cause for some concern.

ThePriceWasRight: Sounds like the Sens are blaming Boucher for last year but should the blame not fall more on Dorion for some poor personnel decisions? (Condon contract, Oduya pickup, etc.)

I would say the coaching staff still deserves a good chunk of the blame.  Guy Boucher’s system can be effective but it’s a drag to play.  That’s part of the reason he has bounced around a bit as of late – it works for a while and then the players aren’t as willing to buy in.  This year was exacerbated by their poor performance – it’s even less fun to play a no-fun system when it isn’t resulting in wins.  Clearly, GM Pierre Dorion wants to see Boucher be a bit more flexible in his methods which is why they wouldn’t commit to him until they had their meeting earlier in the week.

That being said, Dorion’s decisions haven’t been perfect by any stretch.  The goalie tandem of Craig Anderson and Mike Condon is inconsistent so giving three years to Condon was a bit much and even the in-season extension for Anderson was somewhat questionable.  He also didn’t make out too well in the Matt Duchene deal (and I wasn’t a fan of the Dion Phaneuf swap either).  That back end needs improvement after losing Phaneuf and Marc Methot in expansion and that really wasn’t addressed aside from Johnny Oduya’s pickup that clearly didn’t pan out like they hoped.  The fact that they’ve now committed to more of a rebuild will buy Dorion a bit of time but he needs to have a better summer this time around.  With a new deal looming for Mark Stone and Erik Karlsson’s situation, there will be a lot of pressure on him.

ByeTheNumbers: Any rule changes likely in the offseason? What rule changes would you like to see? Coach’s challenge for penalties? Elimination of the trapezoid?

The goalie interference rule is bound to come up in any offseason discussions.  We’ve seen a lot of frivolous challenges which makes me wonder if we might see some talk of changing to the way the offside rule is now – you don’t need a timeout but it’s a penalty if the call on the ice stands.  Obviously, it’s not necessarily as cut and dry as an offside call but if they’re looking to drastically reduce the number of questionable (and largely unnecessary) challenges, that is something that I could see being discussed.  If they want to expand challenges to include penalties, the puck-over-glass one would be an option.  I’m not sure there’s much of an appetite for big changes though.

In terms of what I’d like to see changed, a few things come to mind.  I’ve never liked the trapezoid but I think that’s here to stay (with some advertising coming in the no-play zones in the near future).  I’d like to see the NHL adopt the current IIHF rule when it comes to shootout eligibility – if a player is in the box at the conclusion of overtime, they become ineligible to participate in the shootout.  There have been instances where a player takes a penalty in the dying seconds of overtime and then play a role in the shootout moments later.  Since overtime isn’t getting extended, extend the penalty to take the player out of the shootout.  It’s not much, but it’s something.

I’d also like it if the NHL tried to go back to the era of the fast faceoff.  The standard back then was five seconds for the visitors to change, five for the home team, and five to drop the puck.  On icings, since one team can’t change, it could go even quicker.  At a time where professional sports leagues are looking to speed up the overall length of a game, going back to this standard would certainly help.  Unfortunately, it didn’t last long when they tried to implement it and with the haggling over faceoff alignment we’ve seen this season, it probably isn’t going to be on the table anytime soon.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

The first mailbag of the postseason takes a closer look at one of the top pending free agents, the coaching market, and much more.

Connorsoxfan: Why aren’t NHL teams as active with trading up and down on draft day as NFL teams are?

It wasn’t all that long ago that there were a lot of trades on draft day in the NHL but that has fallen by the wayside as of late.  I don’t expect it to really change much in the near future either, especially as the salary cap continues to force teams to put more young, entry-level salaried players in the lineup to stay in compliance with the Upper Limit.

In the NFL, quite a few teams believe in the draft pick value chart.  If the ‘value’ of two or more lesser picks equals the higher one, some teams are willing to make that swap.  That doesn’t seem to be too prevalent in the NHL.  Back in 2011, Michael Schuckers of Stat Sports Consulting put together an NHL equivalent value chart and the conclusion pretty much drawn from that is that trading up usually doesn’t make a whole lot of sense; it appears a lot of teams are in agreement with that.

Generally speaking, there is a big variability in draft lists beyond the first round.  A final draft list for teams heading into the draft may only be 50-75 players long and they’ll still get players on that list in the sixth and seventh rounds.  Accordingly, why should a team give up an extra pick or two to move up a little bit when there’s a decent chance the player they want will still be on the board?

Another factor is that the opportunities to acquire younger talent are much more prevalent in the NFL.  There are a large number of undrafted players that sign as free agents that either land on a practice squad or sometimes even crack the active 53-man roster.  In the NHL, undrafted players are often signed to be depth players; there is the odd diamond in the rough but most players wind up just being fillers years down the road.  The best shot to get top young talent that will have an impact with the big club sooner than later is the draft so teams aren’t going to willingly surrender extra chances as frivolously as they were in the past.

Not all that long ago, the draft was one of the more active trading times in June but now, it feels like the opposite is true.  There will be an influx in the days leading up to it and some after before free agency opens up but for the foreseeable future, draft day isn’t going to feature a lot of trade activity.

@NicholasAlexa14: Do you think The Boston Bruins have a chance at John Carlson or John Tavares in NHL free agency this offseason?

I can’t see Boston being too active in a pursuit of Tavares.  With Patrice Bergeron, David Krejci, and David Backes (a natural center playing the wing) all signed to big money deals, there isn’t a major need to add Tavares.  Of course, they could trade one of them to make room if they had to but there are other priorities to address.

Carlson, meanwhile, would be a more interesting fit.  He would lock in Boston’s right side (with Charlie McAvoy and Brandon Carlo) for years to come and that’s a strong one-two-three group.  He’d also give them another workhorse as realistically, Zdeno Chara can’t keep leading them in ice time for much longer.  The only concern I might have is that they might have too many offense-first defenders with Carlson, McAvoy, and Torey Krug but even if GM Don Sweeney thought that was the case, teams would be lining up to alleviate Boston of that ‘problem’.  It’s an intriguing fit, especially since he’s from the area.

ThePriceWasRight: If Washington is eliminated in the first round, when do they restructure the team and stop blaming the coaching?

And who do you see making a pitch for Carlson?

Considering everything GM Brian MacLellan has said publicly regarding the coaching staff dating back to last offseason, an early exit is probably going to result in a change behind the bench regardless of what happens with the roster.  I do agree, however, that if they get eliminated this round, it may be time to change up the core.  What could Washington get for Nicklas Backstrom, a bona fide number one center locked up for two more years at a team-friendly rate?  With Evgeny Kuznetsov proving himself to be a top-liner as well, that’s a strength they could deal from and either address some holes on the roster or set themselves up nicely down the road.  With this much top-end talent, the lack of depth that results from it is certainly a factor that they may want to try to address.

As for Carlson, MacLellan has said they’d like to keep him around but that’s going to be tough to accomplish given their salary cap situation.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Vegas took a run at him over making another pitch for Erik Karlsson as effectively a one-year rental to give them a true top-pairing defender.  Buffalo is in need of help on the back end so I expect they’ll make a pitch.  If Thomas Dundon greenlights more spending in Carolina, I think they’ll kick the tires, especially with Justin Faulk a couple of years away from free agency; adding Carlson could allow them to move Faulk.  New Jersey still needs help on the back end so they’ll be it in as well – it was only a year ago that they made the top financial offer for Kevin Shattenkirk.  There will surely be quite a few other teams as well but these ones should be in the mix at the very least.

Pawtucket: What is Calgary going to do with Sam Bennett?

It’s safe to say that things haven’t gone well for Bennett in his first three full NHL years.  The fourth-overall pick back in 2014 has shown signs of brilliance and others where he has looked out of place.  The end result has been a position change (from center to the left wing) but it didn’t yield much improvement as his 11 goals this past season were a career-low.

While the Flames could certainly look to cut bait with the 21-year-old, they’d be doing so with his value about as low as it has been.  That’s not an ideal situation to be in.  Instead, it makes more sense for them to hold onto Bennett for one more year.  Perhaps their new head coach finds a way to get more out of him and gets him back on the right track.  If not, then he enters restricted free agency without a lot of leverage and perhaps at that time, a trade makes more sense; it’s not as if his value would drop much lower than it currently is.  Calgary has shown a lot of patience already with their former top prospect and they’d be wise to do so for one more year at least.

@ZonaNitro67: Who’s the next Stars coach?

GM Jim Nill’s first two hires have been veterans in Lindy Ruff and Ken Hitchcock.  He also came from an environment in Detroit that favored veteran coaches (Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock were the mainstays during that time).  As a result, on the surface, it would certainly be reasonable to assume that he may be inclined to look for someone with experience.  Alain Vigneault is a speculative candidate but Blues associate coach Craig Berube and former Ducks assistant Paul MacLean (who Nill is familiar with from their days in Detroit where MacLean was an assistant for six years) should be in the mix as well.  Dan Bylsma is on the market as well and has experience with a team with a lot of firepower from his days with Pittsburgh.

Some of the comments made following Hitchcock’s retirement suggested that the team may be more open to bringing in someone with no experience.  That would have people like Sheldon Keefe (Toronto) and Benoit Groulx (Tampa Bay) in the mix as well as college coaches like Jim Montgomery (Denver) and David Quinn (Boston University).

However, given that the Stars are a veteran-laden team with a lot of firepower up front, I have a hard time thinking that Nill will hand the keys to the team to a rookie bench boss.  This is a team built to win now so I think someone with NHL experience will be the way he prefers to go.  Berube is going to be a popular candidate this summer and he could be the fit here but if not him, I could see MacLean getting the nod.  He had some success in his last stint with Ottawa and the existing relationship he has with Nill won’t hurt either.  MacLean may be a shorter-term coach but with the way the team is currently constructed, that might not be a bad thing.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

The first mailbag for the month of April takes a look at several Metropolitan Division squads, impact college signings, and an intriguing hypothetical for the Golden Knights.

FortArnold: What’s your take on Dave Hakstol? I think most Flyers fans are unhappy with him. He did give Couturier a chance to excel as the team’s top center. Giroux moving left wing has worked out but I would chalk up his health as a major reason for the resurgence as well. Gostisbehere recovered from the same surgery with a similar trajectory. Beyond that, it seems like he slows their young players’ progression in favor of inept veterans. The team struggles against inferior teams and he as a coach seems to lack the ability to shift the momentum of a game like a Laviolette. Special teams are inept which doesn’t completely fall on him but still is an issue. Heck, North Dakota didn’t win a championship until after he left.

Philadelphia’s tendency to go on a long winning streak and follow that up with a long losing stretch (or vice versa) has been rather befuddling.  It’s fair to put some of that blame on Hakstol as most teams don’t do that and the Flyers do with some regularity.

However, I don’t think he has done a particularly poor job overall.  While he may prefer veterans more than some fans would like, the same could be said for a lot of coaches around the league.  Most coaches are cautious by nature and will opt to go with the safer (veteran) option more often than not.

That said, he has done well integrating a lot of young players into the lineup pretty quickly.  This is a team that has seven of their top 11 scorers aged 25 or younger while players like Ivan Provorov, Shayne Gostisbehere, and Travis Konecny are making big impacts early in their careers.  Nolan Patrick has even been allowed to develop at a nice, gradual pace which is a luxury that isn’t often afforded to top picks.  I suspect the Flyers will reap the benefits of that next season.

Ron Hextall as a manager appears to be quite patient with his team building.  He has been content to build slowly and steadily so I imagine that will be the case with Hakstol as well, especially since they’re on their way to the postseason once again.

hurricane johnny: What’s up with the Canes? Not one ELC to date. Also, with McKeown, Zykov, Foegele, and possibly Fleury being assigned to Charlotte for the Calder Cup playoffs, what do you think the chances are of them going all the way?

mikedickinson: Hurricanes GM? What the heck is going on with it? Also, and chance Tavares comes to Raleigh this summer? They’ve got the owner with deep pockets….

The 50-contract limit doesn’t get a lot of attention but this is one time of the year where it makes a difference.  The ‘Canes sit just one below the maximum which makes it difficult to offer a contract that begins this season.  That will take them out of the race for some of the more prominent college free agents.  What also doesn’t help is not having a general manager – who has the authority to make a roster move right now?  Don Waddell (or even Ron Francis) may like a prospect but the eventual new GM may not so I’m not too surprised they’re inactive at this point in the UDFA market.  As for the Checkers, they’ll get reinforcements but Lehigh Valley (their likely first opponent) is going to be a tough out, especially with Anthony Stolarz now back in goal.

As for their GM search, things have quieted down for now and that’s not necessarily a bad thing (other than possibly hamstringing them in the prospect free agent market at the moment).  With so many of the candidates publicly withdrawing, Thomas Dundon needs to rethink his strategy.  Obviously, there is something that the people being interviewed aren’t liking so Dundon needs to decide if he wants to change what’s being offered (in terms of role, decision-making authority, salary, etc).  I’m sure Carolina will make a run at John Tavares but there are other teams that have deep pockets and plenty of cap room as well.  Leaving the Islanders (a fringe playoff team) for the Hurricanes (another fringe team) doesn’t seem like too likely of a move at this time, however.

Connorsoxfan: Could Vegas pull off getting Karlsson and Tavares if they aren’t forced to take on Bobby Ryan?

With the salary cap expected to jump a bit next year and the fact that players like James Neal and Mikhail Grabovski ($5MM each) are off the books, they could make it work financially.  However, I don’t think Vegas gets Erik Karlsson without taking on Ryan’s contract.

The Golden Knights don’t have the deepest of systems thanks to this being just their first year in the league.  Not having a first or third-rounder this season won’t help that either.  That’s why Ryan’s inclusion was very important to Ottawa from their talks back in February.  They wouldn’t get the prospect capital in return that they could have got from other teams but getting Ryan’s contract off the books would have at least freed up some other possibilities.

As for Tavares and Vegas, I don’t think that idea has gotten enough attention; they haven’t been among the teams bandied about as possible destinations if he decides to go elsewhere.  If they have a good run in the postseason, they’re going to be an attractive option for a lot of free agents and that would certainly catch the eye of Tavares.

@twin1todd: Who is the college post-tournament player that will make the biggest impact for their team getting to the playoffs?

Right now, it’s hard not to pick Ryan Donato in Boston.  Not only has he held his own, he has thrived so far.  They’re a pretty deep team up front and for him to step into a top-six role and not miss a beat is quite impressive.  Even when they get all of their players back, it’s hard to see him really falling out of the top-nine for the postseason.  I can’t see him maintaining a point-per-game pace like he is through his first seven regular season contests but he should still play an important role.

If Anaheim can hold onto a playoff spot, I could see Troy Terry playing a regular role for the Ducks in the postseason, though it may be more of a depth one.  He has produced in big games before so it wouldn’t be surprising to see him be a factor at some point.  Adding him and Jason Chimera (back at the deadline) gives them a much-improved speed element which should come in handy in the postseason.

Walter T: NYR have four RFA forwards in Hayes, Namestnikov, Spooner and Vesey. Who do you think they sign long-term and do you see them trading any of them? Thanks.

Considering the way Vladislav Namestnikov was playing when he came over from Tampa Bay, I’d have called him a lock for a long-term deal this summer.  However, he hasn’t played all that well in New York which complicates things a little bit.  If they’re not sold on him rebounding to his form with the Lightning next season, I could see them looking at a one-year deal for him.  If, however, they believe this drop is just a blip and that he’ll be fine with a full offseason and training camp under his belt, then he’s the most likely of the group to sign a lengthy deal.

Kevin Hayes has been a fairly steady middle-six player for the past several years and should earn a nice raise on his $2.6MM salary this season.  The question becomes, is he a core player, or just a nice middle-six fit?  If it’s the latter, signing players like that to long-term, big money contracts are the types of deals that can come back to haunt teams down the road.  I don’t think they’ll go year-to-year with him but he’s not getting a contract of six or more years either.  Three or four, a term that buys out a bit of UFA time while keeping the cap hit reasonable, seems like the way to go.

It’s a similar question for Ryan Spooner although his track record is a little more erratic.  I don’t think a six-week stretch is enough to make him part of the core so, like Hayes, a deal that buys out a year or two of UFA rights is about as far as I think GM Jeff Gorton would go.  Spooner is only a year away from UFA eligibility so a two or three-year pact may be the end result.  As for Jimmy Vesey, players in his role aren’t ones teams should be signing to big contracts.  The true ‘bridge deal’ isn’t really available since he’s only two years away from UFA eligibility but I think they’d like to give him one more year before deciding whether or not he’s worth committing to long-term or if he’s more of an expendable player.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

It’s that time again folks, the #PHRMailbag is taking questions. The mailbag will be released this weekend with our very own Brian La Rose answering those burning queries like always. Have a question about playoff seeding? What about the NCAA tournament? Which draft-eligible prospect will surprise, and which will disappoint?

Make sure to submit your questions on Twitter using the hashtag #PHRMailbag, or leave them in the comment section down below. Though Brian may not be able to answer every single one, our other readers may chime in with their thoughts.

You can read our last mailbag right here, where Brian touches on several topics including Evander Kane, Jacob Trouba and the future for Alain Vigneault. You can also click the tag at the bottom of the article for past mailbags, or use this link.

This edition of the PHR Mailbag takes a look at some impending free agents, early draft projections, a discussion on Alain Vigneault’s future with the Rangers, plus what might be on tap for the Blues this summer.

mz90gu: Do you think Kane re-signs with the Sharks?  If so what kind of contract to expect?

Evander Kane is certainly off to a nice start in San Jose although to be fair, a four-goal game does skew the numbers a little bit.  He’s a nice fit for them in terms of his playing style and the Sharks certainly have the payroll room to bring him back.  However, I don’t think he would priority number one for them.

With Joe Thornton’s contract expiring and the fact he’s nearing retirement, San Jose’s top priority is probably going to be adding some help down the middle.  They’re probably going to be in on any top-six center that hits the open market and locking in some long-term stability there is going to be ahead of bringing Kane back (although if he’s willing to be patient in free agency for a little bit, they could easily accomplish both).

His next contract is certainly going to be really interesting.  Young players that are power forwards don’t become available very often so if one was to look at that alone, it could be suggested that he could easily surpass the $5.25MM he’s making now.  However, given the lack of trade interest he had throughout the season, I think some teams may shy away which could make his market considerably less robust.  A short-term deal to rebuild some value (and prove that the off-ice distractions are behind him) could be a way to go and that might come in around a $6MM AAV.  If he gets a long-term deal though, the cap hit may come in a little bit cheaper than that.

@folcaraj: Anything on Jacob Trouba? Will he sign or be dealt?

Trouba’s situation back in 2016 was a fascinating one to follow and I think this one could be even more intriguing from a distance.  Heading into this season, many expected that he would have a career year and really dominate.  That just hasn’t happened and his injuries don’t help either.

I don’t think Winnipeg has much appetite to move him.  Tyler Myers is a UFA after next season and his potential departure provides the top-four role on the right side that Trouba is said to prefer (compared to playing on his off-side).  If their plan is to funnel the savings from Myers’ expiring contract towards re-signing the likes of Patrik Laine and Kyle Connor (both restricted free agents next summer), they’ll want to keep Trouba as their insurance policy at the very least.

It’s often at this point on the service time clock that we really start to see talk of a long-term deal rather than opening up the option to go two years through arbitration and then onto unrestricted free agency.  While I believe the Jets would like to go long-term, their offers are going to be based in large part off of this season so there is likely to be a large gap to bridge once again.  At this stage, my prediction would be that Trouba files for arbitration, Winnipeg elects the one-year term, and then they try to work out a one-year pact for next season.  That will buy them more time to get the long-term deal done or if they’re so far apart on money, then they will have the time to find the right trade for him in the summer of 2019.

acarneglia: Are Alain Vigneault’s days numbered in New York? Who could be his replacement?

I generally am not a fan of suggesting that teams stick it out with coaches that are struggling and I’m actually pleased that teams have been more patient with their bench bosses this year with no in-season firings.  However, having said that, I would not be surprised if this is it for him.  Unless ownership feels his salary ($4MM next year and $4.25MM in 2019-20) is too high to pay for him not to coach, the time may be right for a change.

With the Rangers heading squarely into a rebuild, having a head coach who is used to working with veteran teams and pushing for contention may not be the best idea.  That would seem to take current assistant Lindy Ruff out of the running.  If their plan is to develop their younger players, their coach should be someone with experience in that regard.  Accordingly, I’d be looking to the AHL level for a potential replacement.

As for who those options could be, Sheldon Keefe in Toronto is going to probably draw some attention.  Dallas Eakins (San Diego) didn’t have a good run in Edmonton but he’s far from the only coach who struggled with the Oilers and his reputation is that of being someone who can develop prospects.  Keith McCambridge (the Rangers’ AHL bench boss) would probably be considered as well.  In terms of assistant coaches in the NHL that could get a look, I’d toss out Davis Payne (Buffalo) and Kevin Dineen (Chicago) as options – both have NHL experience but also have coached with some success at the minor league level in the past.

rowdelicious: Who do you think are the best defense prospects in this year’s draft and where are they ranked in the draft?

MrMet19: What could the top 10 in this year’s draft look like, and how many players selected early could make an immediate NHL impact?

Blueliner Rasmus Dahlin is the prize prospect of this draft class and is widely expected to go first overall.  He has drawn early comparisons to Ottawa’s Erik Karlsson and is believed to be a true franchise player.  As for others that could go early, Adam Boqvist may wind up going in the five to eight range while Noah Dobson, Evan Bouchard, and the undersized but highly skilled Quinn Hughes should go towards the back of the top-ten or before the teens.  All in all, it’s a nice top end of the draft for teams looking for help on the back end.

In terms of slotting an early top-ten, Dahlin will go first with scoring wingers Filip Zadina and Andrei Svechnikov going second and third (though they could easily be flipped).  Wingers Brady Tkachuk and Oliver Wahlstrom along with Boqvist make up the next tier that should go in the four-to-six range.  After that, the other three defensemen should slot in fairly quickly and with this being a poor draft for centers and the number of teams in dire need of help down the middle, I wouldn’t be shocked if someone reached for Joe Veleno by a few spots either to round out a top-ten.  Lots can change between now and then though as the playoffs at all the junior and college levels approach.

Paul Heyman: Do the Blues buy out Bouwmeester this summer along with maybe some others and maybe try to either sign Stastny again or go after maybe Tavares and some other big names?

The hip injury to Jay Bouwmeester will make it pretty much impossible for St. Louis to buy him out.  The four-to-six month timeline for recovery will make it that he will be injured through the main buyout window in June and injured players cannot be bought out.  A lesser-known second window opens up if a team has multiple arbitration filings but even if the Blues were to have multiple players file, the hearings only run through early August.  Unless Bouwmeester gets the green light before then, he still cannot be bought out.  Even if St. Louis was to try it, it feels like it would be something that Bouwmeester and the NHLPA would try to grieve and they’d probably have a pretty good case.

I could see them trying to bring Paul Stastny back this offseason.  He’s not a true number one center anymore but there’s no denying he was still a quality player for them before he was dealt to Winnipeg.  I expect John Tavares will be their preferred target but with over $61MM committed already for next season, I’m not sure they’ll have the money to sign him, re-sign Joel Edmundson while filling out the rest of the roster, and stay under the salary cap.  Stastny isn’t on his level but he’d certainly be a nice consolation prize for St. Louis or for whoever winds up getting him.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

The trade deadline has come and gone and not surprisingly, some of the big moves (and non-moves) dominated the questions for this mailbag.

acarneglia: What is your reaction to the Ryan McDonagh trade? On the surface, who was the winner and did the Rangers get a good enough return to justify trading their top D-Man and one of their best young players?

Pawtucket: Why would NYR trade Miller (RFA) for Namestnikov (RFA), when Miller is proven to be versatile on any line and has been a product of the Rangers for many years?

Not surprisingly, the Ryan McDonagh trade to Tampa Bay was the hot topic of the week so let’s lead off with that and look at it from a couple of angles.  For starters, I think New York did better here than some are giving them credit for.  The inclusion of Vladislav Namestnikov and J.T. Miller (more on them in a moment) is relatively even so in essence, the Rangers picked up a guaranteed first, a guaranteed second that could become a first, plus a pair of good (not great) prospects for a year and a quarter of McDonagh.  That’s far from terrible.

I can understand some disappointment from the perspective that there isn’t a real blue-chip piece in that group and they’re unlikely to get one from the draft picks.  Given the lack of top prospects that moved at the deadline though, I don’t really think there was one out there to be had and that may not have changed in the offseason when it actually becomes a pure rental situation.  This isn’t a home run for GM Jeff Gorton but I don’t believe it was a fleecing for the Lightning by any stretch either.

The inclusion of the two forwards in Namestnikov and Miller was a bit of a head-scratcher.  I think it really comes down to a preference for a specific type of player.  Miller is a bit more of an all-around piece that can shuffle into a few different spots so that type of versatility will be useful with the Lightning.  Namestnikov is more of a pure skill player and while that limits how many spots he can fit into a lineup, they may believe the overall upside is a bit greater.  Given that their ages and contractual status are a wash, it probably comes down to each GM thinking the guy they got is a better fit than the one they gave up.  I think Miller, in particular, should fit in quite well with Tampa Bay.

ByeTheNumbers: Which teams were the biggest winners and losers after the deadline? Which players were the biggest winners and losers?

Tampa filled a massive need so it’s hard not to put them here.  Having already discussed the trade earlier, I won’t add much here but they already had the forward depth and strong goaltending and now their biggest weakness has been addressed in a big way.  Winnipeg also wins by getting a versatile center in Paul Stastny to really help them make a run.  His addition gives them enviable depth down the middle and insurance if one of Mark Scheifele or Bryan Little gets hurt.  Losing a first-rounder hurts a bit but they have the prospect pool to overcome losing that and Stastny should be a great fit there.

In terms of a team that lost, the Islanders immediately come to mind.  They’ve had goaltending issues all year and did nothing to address that.  Their back end has been struggling considerably and Brandon Davidson isn’t going to fix that; he’s just another depth option.  (The optics aren’t great about them giving up a third-rounder for a player who was a waiver claim not all that long ago but to be fair, their situation health-wise has changed since then).  They also had an opportunity to use some of their extra draft picks to add an important piece to really aid in their postseason push while perhaps helping to entice John Tavares to stick around (or at least help replace him).  They failed on that end as well; adding another physical forward in Chris Wagner to an already-physical fourth line certainly didn’t move the needle at all.

As for players that are big winners, McDonagh is an obvious one.  He goes from a situation where the Rangers are in full rebuilding mode to a Tampa Bay squad that’s going for the Stanley Cup and he won’t have as many responsibilities on his shoulders with Victor Hedman around.  That’s a nice spot to be in for him.  Evander Kane getting a shot at a postseason run is also a win for him with free agency on the horizon.  To pick an off the radar player, I’d also suggest Chris Bigras who was flipped to the Rangers in a late trade with Colorado is a winner as well.  He has gone from a quality prospect to somewhat of an afterthought lately and with New York’s back end getting blown up, he should get an opportunity to re-establish himself with his new team down the stretch.

On the flip side, Jack Johnson not getting dealt puts him in a tough spot moving forward.  As much as he’s saying the right things publicly, this is still a pretty awkward situation to be in where he asked for a trade, the team acquired what looked to be a replacement in Ian Cole, and he still didn’t get dealt.  It’s hard to imagine that he’s happy with the way things played out.

@therealscyie: So the Bruins overpaid highly for Rick Nash, when the Leafs get Tomas Plekanec for a 2nd and two prospects. Plekanec has had more points than Nash in the past three years combined. So my question is did Sweeney get fleeced again on another trade?

I believe Boston overpaid in the Nash trade but not because of what Toronto gave up for Plekanec.  Yes, their point totals over the past three years combined are close but looking at this season and last, it’s not exactly close (69 points in 131 games for Nash, 48 in 123 contests for Plekanec).  One is still a top-six player, the other is more of a checker so naturally, Nash was going to yield a better return.

What surprised me was how much the Bruins gave up for someone that isn’t a front line upgrade.  Ryan Spooner had been speculated as a change of scenery candidate for a while now but he is still a productive forward with team control (that actually has more points than Nash at the moment in considerably fewer games).  Ryan Lindgren is a decent prospect and they added a first-rounder (albeit a late one) as well.  Considering the price for players like Paul Stastny and Evander Kane, that was a steep price to pay.

The other reason I’m not a big fan of Nash’s acquisition from Boston’s perspective is their playoff matchups.  If they want to get out of the division, they have to get through Toronto and Tampa Bay, two of the quickest teams in the league.  Nash isn’t exactly a speedster and that could come into play through the first couple of rounds.  He’s undoubtedly an upgrade for the Bruins but I don’t think he was the perfect fit and they certainly paid a high price to get him.

Read more