Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Kreider for Oilers Klefbom Serves Both Teams


Phil

Recommended Posts

Fueled by unequal parts injury, suboptimal performance, and salary cap concerns as the team is set to enter the $100 million Connor McDavid era, the Oilers appear poised yet again to try and trade their way out of this tailspin. This time, as Sportsnet?s Elliotte Friedman reports, it?s Oscar Klefbom?s turn to flap in the trade winds.

 

Meanwhile, back in the East, the New York Rangers?similarly disappointed with their lot but heading in the right direction?might have a solution to Peter Chiarelli?s problem. Though they?ve just begun the arduous process of rebuilding their club, it?d be awfully difficult for Jeff Gorton to pass up on an opportunity to potentially join the growing list of NHL general managers who?ve fleeced Chiarelli in the recent past.

 

 

The logic as to why the two clubs would deal with each other at this junction is rather simple. The Rangers, now without Ryan McDonagh, could really use a shot in the arm on their blueline. Conversely, the Oilers could use a speedy winger capable of keeping pace with McDavid. You can probably see where this is headed already. Chris Kreider for Oscar Klefbom, anyone?

 

?

 

To win the deal, perhaps Gorton, who has repeatedly referenced a desire to ?rebuild on the fly? in New York, could not only pick up Klefbom but additional assets to boot. Kailer Yamamoto, the Oilers? first-round pick (22nd overall) from 2017, or Jesse Puljuj?rvi, selected fourth overall in 2016, are probably both a bridge too far, but perhaps one of the Oilers? second tier prospects such as Tyler Benson, Ostap Safin, and/or Dmitri Samorukov could tilt the scales in the Blueshirts? favor? Even if Gorton needed to send a defenseman back to Edmonton in the deal, he has a plethora of lower-end options including Neal Pionk and John Gilmour to pick from that shouldn?t significantly harm his club?s coffers.

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/rangers-kreider-for-oilers-klefbom/

 

--

 

The only thing I can ask is that you sheath your knives?at least temporarily?and read this for the full context. It makes more sense than you might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deal doesn't work for the Oilers, IMO. Why would they trade defense? Chiarelli doesn't seem as smart as he used to, but it's a little disingenuous to say the deal serves both teams.

 

Kreider makes sense for the Oilers, but not at the price of Klefbom.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Klefbom is nearly as good as people think, but sure, he's a top 4 on a good team and we need a D-Man. If Maroon looked good with McDavid, imagine Kreider.

 

I don't hate it. Want something else though to go with Kreider and their cupboard is bare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only takes an amateur fan to realize the importance of Kreider, to this team, simply based on the last few weeks of play. His presence in the lineup is vital to the Rangers, and much more than anything that Klefblom would provide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it makes any sense for either team.

 

Why would Edmonton trade one of their better D-men? They need to add D not take away from what little they have. I don't see Edmonton looking to add any forwards via trade to play with McDavid. IMO, they would learn from Pitt, and see that they can plug in almost anyone onto a line with one of the best centers on the planet. Bargain shopping and playing younger cost effective players from within should be the way to go. Using Lucic there should maybe be revisited.

 

The Rangers need veteran D men. Sure. I think Kreiders size and ability would be a guy you keep around in a rrebuild. Definitely a player who could make life a little easier for younger players coming in, as well as anyone willing to sign here. And for a 2nd pairing type of D man, I say a hard no.

 

Only way I see the 2 teams as trade partners would be in a salary dump, with the Rangers taking Lucics contract. Thus letting the Oilers free up cap space to sign a Dman this summer or next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To everyone asking why Edmonton would trade a defenseman, I'm not the one to ask. I'm working off the report that Friedman put out there that Klefbom was being shopped. Why would they? Ask Chiarelli. The same guy who flipped Hall for Larsson, Eberle for Strome, and essentially dealt Barzal and a second for Griffin Reinhart.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I?d rather have Puljuj?rvi and Yamato back than Klefbom. I really don?t want to trade Kreider and not for a fledging defenseman who is very overrated.

 

How is he fledgling? He's averaged more minutes at a younger age than Girardi, Boyle, Staal, and Yandle did as Rangers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To everyone asking why Edmonton would trade a defenseman, I'm not the one to ask. I'm working off the report that Friedman put out there that Klefbom was being shopped. Why would they? Ask Chiarelli. The same guy who flipped Hall for Larsson, Eberle for Strome, and essentially dealt Barzal and a second for Griffin Reinhart.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

I didnt read the article, but I'd assume it'd be a Kelfbom + top prospect for OEL type of deal. I cant see them deal for a wing, when they are in desperate need of defensive talent. And its not like he's on a bad contract.

 

If Nurse kills it next season, Larsson is on his game, they get a top D in the draft, and have one emerge as a capable top-4 during the season, then they might pertain an idea like this close to the deadline, but it doesn't help them at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To everyone asking why Edmonton would trade a defenseman, I'm not the one to ask. I'm working off the report that Friedman put out there that Klefbom was being shopped. Why would they? Ask Chiarelli. The same guy who flipped Hall for Larsson, Eberle for Strome, and essentially dealt Barzal and a second for Griffin Reinhart.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

The Friedman piece was a 31 thoughts about why Klefbom was playing when rumor had it he was hurt. Friedman speculates he's being showcased. That's not the same as a Friedman report that a player is being shopped, which carries much more weight. I know the source is reliable, but he is still (by his own admission) speculating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmonton needs scoring and a goalie more than a defenseman. They gotta give to get.

 

Last year I had issues getting tix, this year I could have went to every game after Halloween. They need to figure it out quickly.

They have guys coming up. There is no rush on their end.

 

If the situation is right, it could be a deadline deal. Doesnt make much sense right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmonton needs scoring and a goalie more than a defenseman. They gotta give to get.

 

Last year I had issues getting tix, this year I could have went to every game after Halloween. They need to figure it out quickly.

They need scoring on the wings but not at the expense of D. Borrowing Peter to pay Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have Sekera, Larsson, Russell, Benning, and Nurse. Bear is up. Auvitu is depth.

 

For a team that has the 12th-worst GF/GP (2.78) this season and is tied for sixth-fewest goals scored in the league since the start of 2018, I'm inclined to agree with Dunny. They need scoring a helluva lot more than they need defense, and don't have much to barter with up front to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not claiming they're good. I'm saying they have the bodies to field an NHL defense, even if it's in the lower third of the league in effectiveness. They don't have much else by way of collateral at the moment. I also mentioned in the article that the Rangers could afford to flip them a lower-end defenseman to compensate the loss somewhat.

 

There’s also the factor of free agency in which they could probably sign an affordable stop-gap like Sbisa, Ian Cole, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...