You ask, we answer. The Post is fielding questions from readers about New York’s biggest pro sports teams and getting our beat writers to answer them in a series of regularly published mailbags. In today’s installment: the Rangers.

Has there been any discussion about what will happen to the Rangers’ tax exemption if they are classified as the home team in the proposed “hub city” playoffs? Will the NHL have to designate them as the road team and the Rangers lose the last-change advantage or will the city grant a waiver? — Robert Altman

As there will be no gate/concessions/parking revenue accruing to the home team in these projected play-ins and playoffs at still undetermined sites, it is unclear whether the applicable portions of the 1982 law that prohibits the Rangers and Knicks from playing home games elsewhere while granting MSG exemption from paying property taxes would be in force.

The law reads, “If one or both of said teams [Rangers and Knicks] shall cease to play their home games in said property at any time, the tax exemption provided herein shall cease immediately and said property shall immediately be restored to the tax rolls.”

For this reason, the Rangers were designated as the road team for the two January 2015 Stadium Series matches that were played at Yankee Stadium against the Devils and Islanders, respectively, and they were also designated as visitors for the 2018 Winter Classic at Citi Field against the Sabres.

Interestingly, though, the Rangers were designated as the home team for a December 1992 neutral-site match in Miami against the Lightning; an October 1993 neutral-site game in Nova Scotia against the Devils; and an October 2008 neutral-site contest in Prague against the Lightning.

If the law does apply and the Rangers must be designated as the road team for all games at their hub city, the NHL would be faced with a quandary. The league could establish all games as neutral-site contests, abandon the home/road distinction, and go with higher/lower seed in determining which team gets final change and other advantages that normally belong to home teams.

But the issue has yet been raised.

The most obvious and compelling “What If?” I can remember is the Barry Beck (trade) for half of the team that had gone to the Cup finals the year before (in 1979). Pat Hickey, Lucien DeBlois, Mike McEwen, Dean Turner and future considerations. This one deserves your expertise! — Richard

The consensus at the time of the trade was that the Rangers had ripped off Colorado. Breaking it for The Post (in the aftermath of a memorable late-night telephone chat with Rockies’ GM Ray Miron), I called it “The Beck Job.” Beck, just 22, had been the second-overall pick of the 1977 draft following the Red Wings’ selection of Dale McCourt and had burst into professional prominence when he was named to Team NHL for the 1979 Challenge Cup against the Soviet Union that was played at the Garden. That was the moment when MSG CEO Sonny Werblin began to lust over Big Beck.

Hickey and McEwen were important supporting actors for the Ooh-La-La team that had stunned the Islanders in the Battle of New York in the semifinals before losing the finals to the Canadiens. DeBlois, a third-liner, was a healthy scratch for half of the team’s 18 playoff matches.

I know that a number of players on the team believed that the deal damaged the Blueshirts’ chemistry and depth, but any team with the chance to get Beck for that type of return would have leaped at the opportunity.

So what if the Rangers had not made the deal?

They’d still have been without a Cup since 1940 when 1994 rolled around.

Although I am the biggest fan of Henrik [Lundqvist], don’t you think it’s time for these young kids to take the reins? — Bob Colligan

Igor Shesterkin and Alex Georgiev combined to start 18 of the Rangers’ final 19 games before the season paused. That does not mean, though, that there should not be a competition in camp that includes Lundqvist for the starting job for Game 1 against Carolina.

There have been a lot of very dirty hits the last couple of years (decades) where injured players lose time and the offending player gets a slap on the wrist. It would be great to see the NHL suspend the offending player a minimum of six games or match the games the injured player misses for the really bad hits. Would the NHLPA put up a fight against that? — Fullhouse68

Yes, the NHLPA would oppose that policy, but I doubt the NHL would have any interest in adopting that regulation.

Matching a player’s sentence to the amount of time missed by the injured party would create a situation where teams would be in position to rig the system. If, say, a first-pair defenseman concussed a fourth-line winger, the injured player’s team could keep him out for an additional week (‘to be safe”) just when that club was scheduled to face the defenseman’s club in a home-and-home. That would be a coincidence, of course.