PHR Mailbag

This edition of the PHR Mailbag features a look at the Blackhawks, Blues, and Islanders plus discussions on a new Pittsburgh defenseman and a certain free agent center that is holding up the market.

Zack35: What do you think the percentages are on Tavares sweepstakes? Does NYI 40%, SJ 40%, everyone else 20% sound about right?

acarneglia: Which John Tavares suitor is the best fit for him of Boston, Tampa, Dallas, Toronto and San Jose?

Not surprisingly, Tavares was a popular topic in the questions so I’ll tackle this from a couple of different angles.

In terms of the percentages, I’d give the Islanders (40%) a slight edge over San Jose (35%) simply because of the eighth year option and the fact that Tavares has said in the past he genuinely would like to stay (and I believe him).  In terms of the third best odds, I’d put Toronto (10%) ahead of the others simply because of the hometown factor and the potential for a one-year max deal that would allow him to really cash in now and then still land a huge contract next summer.  I’d have Dallas (7.5%) next since both Tyler Seguin and Jason Spezza are UFAs at the end of the year; there is a long-term spot for him that wouldn’t require a whole lot of roster movement to fit him in.  That’s not the case for Boston (3.75%) who already has a couple of pricey centers locked up (plus David Backes) and Tampa Bay (3.75%) who simply don’t have the cap room and would have to make a few moves to fit him in now and then a few more next summer.

As for where he fits in the best aside from New York, I’ll once again lead with San Jose.  Their center position could really change in the next little while and I think he would complement their offense well.  After that, I’d go with Dallas given the potential UFA situation a year from now.  The Leafs would love to have him and Auston Matthews as a one-two punch but with Matthews and Mitch Marner up a year from now, they’d have a hard time keeping all three around long-term.  Is it ideal to lock up Tavares to a max-term deal knowing they’ll probably have to deal one of the other two away a year from now?  After that, I’d put Boston ahead of Tampa Bay but I don’t like the fit that much for either team.

shelteredsoxfan: What sort of moves do you see the Blackhawks making this offseason?

They need a better backup goalie and while I’m not convinced he’s the best option out there, it certainly sounds like Cam Ward will be the choice there.  I doubt that Anton Forsberg will draw much trade interest so Ward’s addition shouldn’t result in a follow-up move.

Defensively, I have a hard time thinking they’re going to bring back the same unit that struggled in 2017-18.  Considering what they have coming up in the pipeline though, I think they’d prefer to go the trade route and get someone with a year or two left on their contract that can play on the second pairing over giving a long-term deal to someone like Calvin de Haan.  It wouldn’t surprise me to see them look to move Connor Murphy who has four years left on his deal in that type of trade.

Up front is where it’s interesting.  I think they’d like to make a splash and go after someone like James van Riemsdyk and really give themselves another scoring threat.  However, the cap room is going to be iffy, even with Marian Hossa going back on LTIR.  (Speaking of Hossa, I think GM Stan Bowman will be calling his counterpart in Ottawa about trying to offload that contract at some point.)  I also wouldn’t be surprised if this is the summer that Artem Anisimov gets moved.  Nick Schmaltz may be ready to take on a full-time second line role and enough teams will miss out on the few centers that are out there that they’ll view Anisimov as a fallback option.  A youngster-based return would free up enough space to take a run at one of those top wingers on the open market as well.  The pieces are there if Chicago wants to shake things up this summer.

@swabbb1: Hey #PHRMailbag, is Jack Johnson worth the money and 5-year deal reports out of Pittsburgh say the Pens will give him as early as Sunday? Thanks.

I know the numbers aren’t pretty but I think Johnson in a new environment will rebound somewhat.  He has needed a change of scenery for a while and I think that will rejuvenate him.  With that in mind, I don’t hate the AAV for this deal.  If he can be a decent fourth or fifth defender, that’s about the going rate in free agency.  It’s not a bargain but I don’t think it will be a massive overpay, at least at the start.

But five years?  I’m having a hard time spinning that into a positive.  It’s not like he’s 27 or 28 and can realistically be expected to still be a good contributor five years from now.  He’s 31 and is going to be showing signs of slowing down over the next couple of years, especially with all of the hard minutes he has played in the past.  I’d have thought three years at that AAV would have been reasonable.

There is some reward potential with this contract.  If getting to a new team (and one that has had success getting blueliners back on track) gets Johnson going, this could turn into a good deal.  But there is a lot of risk involved here as well, especially in those last couple of years.

Anakin Skywalker: With the chance Carter Hutton doesn’t re-sign with the Blues, should they target Lehner, Mrazek, or call up Husso?

When it comes to young goalies, unless they’re pushing to be the starter, I’m a believer in letting them exhaust their waiver exemption before bringing them up to sit on the bench for 60 games a year.  Minutes matter and Ville Husso is going to get a lot more of them in the minors than he will with the Blues so I’m all for St. Louis signing another goalie in free agency.

I prefer Robin Lehner of the two options you’ve provided.  Yes, he had a rough year in Buffalo but he had minimal defense in front of him.  He’s going to be motivated and with the Blues, he’d have a much better back end helping him out.  I think they’d like to add someone that can push Jake Allen and of the goalies that are available on the open market, Lehner’s the likeliest to do so out of any of them which would make him my primary target.

nk: Although I believe the Isles will sign JT, there are other needs especially in goal and on D. Who do you think the Isles will go after (either in trade market or UFA) for a goaltender and with a poor D and the reality that both Hickey and de Haan are probably gone, who steps up, in or is acquired to bolster that position?

In terms of goaltending, they’ve been linked to Ottawa’s Craig Anderson which is a reasonable fit.  I can’t see the asking price being particularly high and if recent history repeats itself, he’s in line for a good year in 2018-19.  They can have their choice of stopgap goalies in free agency (Carter Hutton would have been my pick but he seems to be Buffalo-bound).  After that, I like Petr Mrazek as an option for them as he has shown in the past he can be capable of getting on a hot streak.  He’d be a platoon player with Thomas Greiss and while that’s not the best tandem on paper, both netminders have had solid stretches in the past.  I wouldn’t be shocked if they kick the tires on some younger options as well such as Pittsburgh’s Tristan Jarry, Montreal’s Charlie Lindgren, or even Toronto’s Garret Sparks if GM Lou Lamoriello liked what he saw from him in his days with the Maple Leafs.

The options aren’t as plentiful on defense.  If de Haan leaves, I could see them turning to Ian Cole as a potential replacement.  He probably can’t log the 20 or so minutes per game that de Haan can but he should at least be able to cover 17 or 18 minutes a night and give them another physical player on their back end.  They’ll expect Ryan Pulock to take a big jump forward and I suspect they’ll be comfortable using Sebastian Aho more as well.  Is that really enough?  Probably not.  I could see the Islanders looking to take on a salary cap dump from another team to try to upgrade their depth – Tampa Bay’s Braydon Coburn and St. Louis’ Carl Gunnarsson (if they plan to be active in free agency) come to mind as candidates.  It’s patchwork but this isn’t a good summer to try to really rebuild a defense corps so unless they want to part with a top pick or prospect, that’s about all they’ll be able to do.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Where will John Tavares sign anyway? We might not have the answer to that until Sunday, but we can certainly answer many of your other burning questions on the recent draft or upcoming free agency. After the first round failed to play out like anyone had expected, who are the biggest winners and losers? Which free agent will get the most surprising deal?

Our Brian La Rose will answer all your questions this weekend before free agency kicks off, and provide ample fodder for your transaction thirst. We know, it’s hard to wait around for free agency; about as hard as it must be for the reporters sitting outside CAA staking out the Tavares negotiations, with “no comment” the only response to any of their questions. Well Brian will be much more forthcoming with his answers, as long as you submit them using the hashtag #PHRMailbag on Twitter, or by commenting down below.

You can read our pre-draft mailbag right here, where Brian correctly predicted Oliver Wahlstrom dropping out of the top-10 and already didn’t believe the Rangers would be involved in Tavares-talk. There’s plenty to talk about from the weekend, and he’s waiting for your questions to be submitted. If your questions doesn’t get through, don’t forget to join in on the return of our PHR Live Chat, Sunday morning before free agency opens.

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include the upcoming draft, trade scenarios for a pair of Western Canadian teams, and much more.

Zack35: I think everyone is aware this draft is probably going to be a gong show because anybody from 4-10 could probably go anywhere. Which of Tkachuk, Kotkaniemi, Bouchard, Hughes, Dobson, Wahlstrom and Boqvist could you see falling further than expected?

I think you can even go one further and say three-to-ten could go a lot of different ways.  I don’t think it’s a guarantee that the Canadiens will take winger Filip Zadina with pick number three and if they don’t, things will really get shaken up.  They’re speculatively linked to about four different players right now and will be the team that really gets the ball rolling on the rest of the top-ten.

As things stand, winger Brady Tkachuk seems to be a consensus top-five pick but I think he could slide if Montreal doesn’t take him or Zadina.  In that scenario, Ottawa likely picks the Czech winger and I think we’ll see a run on defensemen at five through seven.  That would drop him to Chicago at number eight at the earliest which would put him lower than a lot of people expect.

I think winger Oliver Wahlstrom could be another that drops a little bit.  In general, I think the top-four defenders not named Rasmus Dahlin go in the top nine which doesn’t leave a lot of room for Wahlstrom.  Teams like the Oilers and Islanders (who pick 10, 11, and 12) have real needs for blueliners so I could see a scenario where he drops a little out of the top-ten.  Having said that, I don’t expect any of that group to start falling down into the mid-to-late teens of the first round.

goggles: The Winnipeg Jets are going to have to be very creative going forward with salaries. Who will the Jets be looking to move to free up some cap space and who would fetch the best return?

Up front, Mathieu Perreault feels like a likely casualty at some point.  He fits in nicely as a player who can be shuffled into a variety of different roles and positions and still put up around 40 points but with the young talent they have pushing for spots, they can probably get a similar output from someone making less than a quarter of his $4.125MM cap hit.  A team that strikes out in free agency could very well turn to Winnipeg and offer up a decent futures-based return to get a deal done.

I wouldn’t be surprised if GM Kevin Cheveldayoff looked to move goalie Steve Mason ($4.1MM for one more year) and defenseman Dmitry Kulikov ($4.33MM AAV for two more years).  Connor Hellebuyck is going to be an expensive contract this summer and as a result, they could wind up with one of the more expensive goalie tandems in the league which isn’t ideal.  As for Kulikov, that contract felt like an overpayment right away and still does now.  One year from now when he becomes an expiring deal is probably the likeliest time that he gets dealt.

With rearguards Dustin Byfuglien signed for three more years and Jacob Trouba expected to sign long-term this summer, I question if there’s a long-term spot for defenseman Tyler Myers.  He has one year left at $5.5MM on his deal and is coming off of a really nice season.  If they were to make him available, there will be teams lining up to try to get him (and then throw a lot of money into an extension offer).  He could fetch a king’s ransom in a trade, including a young defender that’s more cost-controlled over the next few years when they have to extend wingers Patrik Laine and Kyle Connor, among others.  I suspect the Jets wouldn’t want to do this given the year they just had but it may be the prudent way to go, even if it results in a small step back in the short-term.

acarneglia: Are the Rangers a threat to sign John Tavares?

They certainly have the money to go after him but with them turning around and openly starting a rebuild and hiring a coach with the goal of short-term player development in mind, it would be a little surprising to see them quickly change gears by signing Tavares.  I also can’t see him wanting to sign with a team that isn’t focused on winning in the next couple of years.  He’s going to get offers from a lot of teams that are closer to winning now and the money is going to be pretty close in all of those offers so I’d expect him to pick more of a contender.

Instead, I think New York will turn their focus in free agency to ‘buffer players’.  These are players who are willing to sign a short-term contract to cover the gap until the likes of Lias Andersson, Filip Chytil, and others are ready to step up into prominent roles.  These veterans would then become trade bait either this season or next, allowing the Rangers to pick up some additional future assets.  If I were them, I’d put a decent chunk of the contract as signing bonuses which would make them easier to move when the time comes.  That’s certainly not as thrilling as going after a top player like Tavares but given where the Rangers are, the buffers are the likelier outcome over these next few weeks.

@bmac039: Which 1-3 players off the Canucks current roster do you view as most expendable if the Canucks are trying to fix their blue line and add a Center, via trade? In other words, teams will want Sutter? Tanev? And who would the Canucks be okay trading away if it makes them better?

Vancouver is in a bit of a rebuilding cycle now so the defense and center upgrades are going to be more long-term than short-term.  With that in mind, it’s the veterans they’re going to be looking to move.

Of those veterans, their two top blueliners are most likely to yield a quality younger asset in return.  Chris Tanev has been speculated as potential trade fodder for a while now and would attract plenty of interest.  However, GM Jim Benning has already stated that they’re not looking to move him so while he may be expendable, it doesn’t appear that they’re willing to deal him just yet.  I think that won’t be the case with Alex Edler.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he was open to a move to a contender (waiving his no-trade clause to do so) and he can slot in on a top pairing quite comfortably.  This is the type of player a contender will view as that final piece and would pay a premium for and included in that would likely be a long-term piece of the puzzle.

Unfortunately for Vancouver, he may very well be the only player that can be moved to upgrade their long-term situation.  They’d love to get out from underneath winger Loui Eriksson’s deal but at this stage, the only way he goes is in a swap of bad contracts.  Goalie Anders Nilsson is expendable but he’d be worth a mid-round pick which doesn’t move the needle.  Ditto for blueliner Ben Hutton whose poor 2017-18 season tanked his trade value.  Center Brandon Sutter has some value but as someone who is probably best served on the third line, his $4.375MM cap hit is a little steep.

There are a lot of complementary veterans that could wind up going over the next couple of years but aside from Edler (and Tanev if Benning has a change of heart), they’re not going to result in the Canucks adding core assets in return.  Accordingly, they’re probably going to stick to the current course – try to draft and develop well and sign mid-tier free agents that won’t prohibit them from making a big splash when the time is right and the core is ready to contend.

Connorsoxfan: Why does Marc Bergevin keep making 1-for-1 trades he’s destined to lose?

Friday’s trade of wingers that saw Alex Galchenyuk move from Montreal to Arizona for Max Domi was a bit of a head-scratcher from the Canadiens’ perspective at first glance.  For a team that struggles to score, trading a goal scorer for a playmaker is a risky proposition.  If Galchenyuk gets to play at center and thrives, he’ll put himself in a great situation to get paid a couple of years from now in unrestricted free agency and during his media scrum on Saturday, Bergevin did note that the team control element (four years for Domi versus two for Galchenyuk) played a factor in this trade.

As for the question at hand, I wonder if Bergevin sticks to his initial player evaluations for too long.  As part of his justification for the trade, he raved about Domi’s junior production but he hasn’t played there in three years.  He made similar comments about Jonathan Drouin when that move was made a year ago.  The scouting report for a player changes from the junior ranks to three seasons into their NHL career but Bergevin seems to believe that junior-level production and role is still a possibility despite that being very unlikely.

Montreal’s GM has often brought up attitude and character as elements that are of critical importance and ones that play a role when they struggle.  I suspect he believes that these big moves that he has made in recent years will improve the team in this area and that the gains there will offset any potential drop-off in terms of talent.  There aren’t a lot of others that would necessarily share that sentiment but as the shot-caller for the Canadiens, it’s Bergevin’s valuation that ultimately matters the most.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

The 2018 NHL Entry Draft is less than two weeks away, and things are heating up in the rumor mill. Mike Hoffman is expected to be traded at some point in the near future, while Jeff Skinner has been on the edge of the block for weeks. There will likely be plenty of movement leading up to the moment the Buffalo Sabres read out Rasmus Dahlin’s name on June 22nd, and we’re excited to cover it.

With more and more people checking in with PHR for all their NHL news and analysis, we’d like to ask you to submit some questions for the next edition of the #PHRMailbag. Your questions will be answered this weekend and can cover any topic from the draft to free agency to the offseason trade market. Submit them using the hashtag #PHRMailbag on Twitter, or by commenting down below.

You can read our last mailbag right here, where our very own Brian La Rose explained why he felt Carolina would be going with Andrei Svechnikov at #2. The Hurricanes have since confirmed their intention to take the big Russian winger. He also examined the Edmonton Oilers and suggested a swap of bad contracts, before the news surfaced that the team was looking to move Milan Lucic’s deal one way or another. Submit multiple questions if you’d like, and we’ll try to get to them all!

With most teams now in offseason mode, this edition of the mailbag attempts to forecast some of the activity around the league this summer.

@kingspencer24: What do you think Florida will do this offseason via trade, free agency and draft how active do you think they’ll be? Do you think they’ll be a playoff team next season?

I’ll start with the last one.  Yes, I think they will be a playoff team in 2018-19.  I don’t want to read too much into their late-season run that got them back into the mix but their young core should only improve with another year of experience under their belts while they have some prospects pushing to make the jump.  As long as they can get steady goaltending out of Roberto Luongo and James Reimer, a Wild Card spot at the very least is a possibility.

With that in mind, I don’t expect them to be too active.  GM Dale Tallon has suggested previously that he’s more interested in adding players closer to the age of their core which limits them in free agency.  I suspect they’ll either only look to add players that are 27 or 28 that are close enough to that core age or one-year stopgaps in case some of their youngsters need more development time.

The trade market is where I expect they’ll be more active.  They have a deep prospect pool to deal from and if their intention is to keep Nick Bjugstad (a natural center) on the wing moving forward, dealing him would make some sense given the demand around the league for help down the middle.  That prospect pool could also enable them to deal their first-rounder although I don’t see them doing that.  I can see them targeting a younger top-six winger and looking to build from within the rest of the way.  All in all, I doubt it will be as busy an offseason as the summer of 2017 was.

Paul Heyman: Who should the Blues try to target in free agency and should they sign Fabbri to a 1yr deal to see if he has a healthy season next year?

The short answer is that any top-six forward should be targeted.  That was a need this past season but this time around, they actually have some money to work with.  They’re going to need to sign a replacement for Paul Stastny (or perhaps try to bring him back as a free agent) so they’ll surely kick the tires on John Tavares and it wouldn’t be surprising to see them inquire about Tyler Bozak as well.  Beyond them, the next level has players comparable to internal options like Patrik Berglund or Vladimir Sobotka so adding a similar player to them may not be the best use of their funds.

On the wing, I’ve long thought that James van Riemsdyk would be a good fit there.  He’s not a great fit as a number one go-to option but with Vladimir Tarasenko and Jaden Schwartz already there, he wouldn’t need to be.  He was great with Toronto in more of an exploitative role and he could be in that spot in St. Louis.  James Neal would fit in a similar role as well while Patrick Maroon, a St. Louis native, would certainly add some grit into their top-six.

As for Robby Fabbri, the short-term bridge deal (one or two years) makes the most sense but if I was Doug Armstrong, I’d at least kick the tires to see if his camp was open to some long-term security.  Given how long he has missed, there’s at least a chance for a possible discount on a longer-term deal and if the Blues are confident he can rebound, getting a top-six piece locked up for a cheaper rate would be a big help for them.  That said, I expect they’ll go the bridge route and use the money saved by doing that to put towards adding more established help up front.

goggles: Do you think the Jets can and will re-sign Trouba?

Back when Jacob Trouba was in his contract squabble (which was a little more than a year and a half ago), I’d have thought there was no chance that this would be an option.  The bridge deal was just going to be a way to get him playing again for prospective suitors and it would be a new team having this conversation with him.  That’s clearly not the case now.

Yes, the logjam on the right side (his clearly-desired spot) is still there but it’s only for one more year as Tyler Myers is just one season away from unrestricted free agency.  With Dustin Byfuglien still signed for three more seasons and new deals for Blake Wheeler (UFA), Patrik Laine, and Kyle Connor (both RFAs) one year away, I’d suggest that Myers is the likelier one to feel the squeeze 12 months from now when they’re forced to let some players go since they won’t be able to keep them all.  That shouldn’t be the case this summer so why make a Trouba trade now?

Trouba isn’t coming off the best of platform seasons having only played in 55 games which would hurt Winnipeg’s bargaining power in a trade but will help them in negotiations.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a little bit of a compromise between the two sides.  I doubt Winnipeg wants to go the year-by-year route and considering the year Trouba had, it’s not a great one to build off of for long-term contract talks.  As a result, I think a four-year, meet in the middle compromise may happen.  That will provide the Jets with a pair of RFA years to lower the AAV a little bit which will come in handy for next summer while allowing Trouba a shot to hit the open market in his 20s.  It’s not a perfect situation for either side but is one that would work well enough for each of them.

Zack35: Edmonton has a ton of pressure to bounce back after a horrible season, does Chiarelli panic and make another Chiarelli one for one move?

With Edmonton being fully in win-now mode, I expect GM Peter Chiarelli to be active this summer.  Given that they’ll be tight to the salary cap thanks in large part to Connor McDavid’s new $12.5MM deal, they’re not going to be in a position to add much on the free agent market so any moves they make are going to have to involve salary going the other way.  Long story short, another one-for-one move is very much a possibility.

However, there is one other option that I could see them go with that would be a different type of move from the player-player swaps we’ve seen the last two summers.  The Oilers have the tenth-overall pick in next month’s draft and whoever they get with that selection isn’t going to be ready to jump in right away.  Accordingly, I could see Chiarelli try to move that pick for someone that is a year or two older that is still on an entry-level deal but could be ready to step in either at the beginning of next season or soon after that.

Instead of swapping out core players like they did previously in Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle though, I wonder if they try a different approach and look to do a swap of bad contracts in the hopes that a change of scenery will revitalize whoever comes the other way.  I don’t think they want to shake up their core much more so doing this, changing up the expensive complementary players, becomes the next option at Chiarelli’s disposal.

@PeteSchirrick17: Think the Canes go Svechnikov or Zadina at #2? And do they make an immediate impact next season?

mikedickinson: Big Canes fan and I want them to stay at #2, but what kind of package would it take for teams to move up?

I think they go with Barrie winger Andrei Svechnikov at second overall.  He’s a dynamic winger and while he isn’t a true power forward at the moment, he has the potential to fill out his frame and become one in the years to come.  Zadina is a pure goal scoring talent but he doesn’t have that power forward potential so I’d take Svechnikov who, in my opinion, is in a class of his own in terms of the forwards in this draft class.  Yes, Zadina showed some chemistry with Martin Necas at the World Juniors but that alone isn’t enough to justify picking him over Svechnikov.

A trade-down scenario doesn’t make much sense for Carolina.  They’re a team that has good secondary talent but lacks top-end pieces.  Trading down means foregoing a top-end player for presumably lesser-talented ones.  Svechnikov is a top-line winger down the road and should make a notable impact next season.  For a trade to make sense, they’d need to get a top-line player in return and that’s not going to be available in a trade down.  That’s more of a trade-out situation where you give up longer-term control for someone who can help move the needle right away.  That’s the likelier trade scenario for Carolina since they’re looking to make a splash under new ownership but for them, the best call they can make is to stand pat and take Svechnikov.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

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.