My colleague Vincent Z. Mercogliano handled part one of the mailbag<\/a>. Now let\u2019s dig into part two.<\/p>\n Note: Some questions have been edited for clarity and length.<\/p>\n The Rangers top players are aging and declining, there are no young players ready to take over and they don\u2019t have assets to acquire elite talent. How are the Rangers not a rebuilding team? \u2014 Robert P.<\/strong><\/p>\n The Rangers aren\u2019t a rebuilding team because they are making moves that are clearly focused on keeping a competitive window open. President and general manager Chris Drury traded for Miller, who is 32, and signed Vladislav Gavrikov, who is 30. The team used its financial might to woo coach Mike Sullivan, who won two Stanley Cups with Pittsburgh. Those aren\u2019t moves rebuilding teams make.<\/p>\n As the deadline nears, the Rangers will have to decide whether it makes sense to continue with the current approach. As your question hinted at, this isn\u2019t a team in position to trade its limited assets for rentals. If anything, Drury will likely have to consider moving players on expiring contracts (think Carson Soucy, or maybe even Artemi Panarin, who we\u2019ll discuss later) as he did last deadline. Perhaps the front office should take an even more drastic approach and think about trading players with term in an effort to get younger. That would be more in line with rebuilding.<\/p>\n In my eyes, the worst-case scenario for the Rangers is accidentally becoming a rebuilding team without fully committing to it. We\u2019ve seen that with other clubs: They try to elongate an aging or incomplete core\u2019s window, and it results in teams operating in win-now mode that are neither good enough to make noise or bad enough to maximize draft lottery odds. It\u2019s how you stay bad for a long time.<\/p>\n What would you think of a trade of Igor Shesterkin as a means of rebuilding? It seems like massive goalie contracts are at least part of the problem in building a championship team. What do you think a deal would bring back in terms of players and roster flexibility? \u2014 Maki D.<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019d push back on big goalie contracts being a problem for building a championship team, at least on well-built clubs. Look at Sergei Bobrovsky, who has won back-to-back Cups on a $10 million average annual value deal. His contract took up 11.97 percent of the salary cap in Florida\u2019s first Cup year. This year, Shesterkin\u2019s contract (eight years at $11.5 million AAV) is at 12.04 percent of the Rangers\u2019 cap. Next year, it will be barely over 11 percent. Neither the goalie \u2014 whom we named team MVP<\/a> at the midway point \u2014 nor his contract is an issue.<\/p>\n As for the possibility of a trade, I can\u2019t see it. Shesterkin has a full no-movement clause, and it\u2019s hard to envision him wanting to uproot his family after signing a massive extension last year. Owner James Dolan presumably wouldn\u2019t stomach it either. Even if he could be convinced to embark on a roster reset, Shesterkin is someone the franchise would likely want on its next competitive team.<\/p>\n To entertain your hypothetical: Shesterkin would fetch a massive haul. Jacob Markstr\u00f6m and Linus Ullmark both recently fetched packages that included a first-round pick, and Shesterkin is a better goalie and multiple years younger than both of them. I\u2019d expect he\u2019d get the equivalent of multiple firsts, whether in the form of actual picks or young prospects. As for roster flexibility, the Rangers would gain $11.5 million of space a year. The impact of that could be marginal, though. New York already has flexibility and might not have many free agents to spend it on.<\/p>\n \n Neither Igor Shesterkin nor his eight-year contract is an issue for the Rangers. (Tomas Diniz Santos \/ Getty Images)<\/p>\n Is it time to cut bait on Alexis Lafreni\u00e8re and his absurd contract? \u2014 Michael W.<\/strong><\/p>\n In my eyes, this is not the right time to make any moves involving Lafreni\u00e8re unless, of course, a big-name player becomes available. As frustrating as the post-2023-24 Lafreni\u00e8re has been, he\u2019s still one of the only young forwards on the roster with offensive upside, as he showed in a strong Winter Classic performance. New York needs more youth, not less of it. I could perhaps be convinced if a similar-aged player becomes available \u2014 think the Josh Norris-Dylan Cozens swap last year \u2014 but trading Lafreni\u00e8re now would be selling low and feels rash. Perhaps I\u2019d feel differently if the Rangers were one piece away from winning the Stanley Cup, but that\u2019s not their reality.<\/p>\n Lafreni\u00e8re\u2019s contract \u2014 $7.45 million AAV through 2031-32 \u2014 is not an insignificant amount of money, but I don\u2019t view it as absurd. Remember, the salary cap is going up. Paying that amount for a decent but not game-breaking top-six winger isn\u2019t catastrophic like it perhaps would have been a few years ago. Colleague Dom Luszczyszyn\u2019s model still projects a greater than 50 percent chance that the contract will end up having positive value for the Rangers.<\/p>\n Would it be realistic to package Lafreni\u00e8re for another young player? Would Matty Beniers be a potential one-for-one trade? Could we snag Byfield for Lafreni\u00e8re and a pick? \u2014 Jrblinbaum<\/strong><\/p>\n Unfortunately for the Rangers, Lafreni\u00e8re\u2019s trade value isn\u2019t as high as it was after the 2023-24 season. Beniers hasn\u2019t become a star like it looked like he might after his Calder Trophy-winning rookie season, but he still has had similar production levels to Lafreni\u00e8re, all while playing a more valuable position (center) and without a linemate as offensively gifted as Panarin, whom Lafreni\u00e8re has frequently skated with in recent years. Beniers also makes slightly less money, and Seattle presumably views him as one of its core pieces going forward. I doubt New York would be able to land him in a one-for-one deal.<\/p>\n Quinton Byfield\u2019s ability to play center would also make Los Angeles hesitant to move him for Lafreni\u00e8re, even if there\u2019s some extra draft compensation going to the Kings. Luszczyszyn\u2019s model gives both Byfield\u2019s and Beniers\u2019 contracts better percentage chances of bringing positive value to their teams. They\u2019re also both around a year younger than Lafreni\u00e8re.<\/p>\n People talk a lot about trading Panarin, but I don\u2019t see any potential free agent or realistic trade target who can match his production. For a team that has trouble scoring goals, don\u2019t we want to hold onto the best we have and add to it instead of subtracting? \u2014 Mike K.<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s certainly the concern with saying goodbye to Panarin. There aren\u2019t players in this upcoming free-agent class who bring as much to the table offensively. The big question is whether it\u2019s worth it for the Rangers to pay as much as it would cost to retain the winger, especially since he\u2019ll turn 35 shortly after his new contract goes into effect. His production has taken a slight downturn this year; with 44 points in 42 games, he\u2019s producing at the lowest rate of his Rangers career. Is that merely a blip or a sign of him starting to age?<\/p>\n Panarin also has agency in this. He could decide it\u2019s time to move on, especially if he doesn\u2019t view the Rangers as a true contender in the coming years. If that\u2019s the case or the Rangers don\u2019t want to commit a high-money deal to him, trading him at the deadline makes sense if he\u2019s willing to waive his no-movement clause. That would be better than losing him for nothing.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/GettyImages-2254425695-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/USATSI_27883246-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n