The Rangers sit a few days away from arbitration hearings for Ryan Strome (Nov 5) and Brendan Lemiuex (Nov 6). In our little neck of the hockey world, the resolution of each is major. But in the grand scheme of things, as seen from the column below, it is a small blip. There is though a possible connection between the two for which I want your view.
The season will not begin until January 1. With all the machinations that need to take place, it's possible we may not start until February. Due to the length of time between now and whenever the puck is first dropped, we will have plenty of time to discuss what remains open from my
top-25 questions blog.
Emily Kaplan and Greg Wyshynski summarized where the league stands on several items. No decisions have been made, but like the original pandemic delay and conversations, options are being raised to be discussed. The situation is fluid - including where games will be played, timelines, training, payments and salaries, daily testing, border crossings, hybrid playing locations and teams opting out. In addition, the length of the schedule is up for debate.
Let's start with the obvious: a start date of Jan. 1, mid-January or sometime in February -- which some teams believe is still possible -- would likely mean a shortened season. That could mean upward of 65 games or as low as 48 games, like we've seen in seasons impacted by work stoppages. According to league sources, a 48-game season is considered the absolute minimum at this point.
A shortened schedule has been in place three times since the Rangers won the Cup. Coincidence? I say no, since the world turned on its axis and others said they could Die in Peace with that happening. Lockouts resulted in the first two instances, with 48 games getting played in 1994-95 and 2012-13, with 68-72 contests played last year due to the pandemic. My point of highlighting this is that there is a history to playing at least 48 games, though we all would love a full season or as many games as possible.
Here is my question. If the league only played 48 games, would that alter your view on bringing back Ryan Strome? Since the season would in essence be a sprint, would you be more likely to want him to stay, regardless of salary, because the chemistry that exists between him and Artemi Panarin might be impossible to be replicated by a new player coming onboard? What about if on a two-year deal? As year 1 would be prorated from the norm, would it be worthwhile to retain Strome for a second season or even if you agree that keeping him this year would make sense, a second year would be foolish.
Update as of 11a, November 2. The Rangers and Strome exchanged figures. New York gave him slightly more than the 10% uptick required above the $3.1 million he made last year. Strome asked for a crazy figure. Good luck meetings in the middle, and even if the arbitrator awarded that figure, the number would be above the walkaway amount. I really thought New York would come in closer to $4 million, which would make it more likely for Strome to accept if the team walked away. Now, not so sure and think the sides, as we see from the submissions, are way far apart, but we are likely to see one year around $4.65 million, though that is not a done deal even if that is the award.
What say you, both on the original question and now the arb offer and ask?
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»