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 Must Decide Whether to Keep or Deal Kreider


Phil

Recommended Posts

I would also hope that a guy you’re paying $12m a year would be a guarantee. It’s the guys you’re paying in the middle of the pack that you really need to be right on. If kreider was Adam graves and scoring 50 goals you wouldn’t be paying him $6m a year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Panarin is months younger

2. The whole khl thing is a made up talking point for those looking to diminish his age. These are people we are talking about not robots. Nobody knows how he will age or anyone else. Kreider is a workout freak, so what. The khl thing is not fact plain and simple, it’s an excuse to overlook age.

3. No doubt panarin is a much better player but kreider is not a slouch. Panarin is going to cost double the money and at least two more years in term. So there goes the age thing once again

4. Mechanics? Seriously? He is creative, he is a good player, hockey iq? Offensively he has iq. Nothing here means he will last at all nor does it mean he won’t. It’s again propaganda to support a position.

 

Wanting to sign panarin is a legitimate thought. It comes with risk lots of it. A kreider contract gone bad is nothing to what a panarin contract gone bad is. On its face it’s a ridiculous argument. Measuring which is more likely to go bad is fair and maybe kreider is more likely. The main point is still the same. In the position this team sits and the hope in the future with all that has been added lately does the risk makes sense? Hard to even discuss it legitimately when most can’t even admit the massive risk to signing a $12m 7 year contract to a 28 year old. Lord knows the rangers don’t have history at all in signing bad contracts. I know I know this one is different.

 

I'm more than willing to have the conversation here; let's not dismiss it before it's had.

 

1. Fair enough - I do think those months matter though. It would distance them by a draft year.

2. The KHL thing is actually pretty spot on - we're talking about seasons of around 60% the length of the NHL season. That adds up!

3. Panarin has put up 50 more points than Kreider - career - in 140 fewer games. Nobody's saying Kreider's a slouch, but he's not point per game good. Panarin is.

 

The other side of the coin is the cap. We're not at all strapped anymore. We have big contracts coming off the books just as our competing window opens in 2021. We're going to be paying our core players largely in rookie/bridge for the next two or three years. Committing 10-ish (Panarin's great, but I don't know if he gets more than Tavares) to Panarin for those years until Smith, Staal, Shatty, and Hank are off the books doesn't really mean much. It's not meaningfully altering our cap structure or hurting our ability to keep players. The risk comes in trying to project what these two players will be in 3 years, when we're ready to compete and we're going to have that money tied up in them. I'd bet on Panarin being the player more likely to be worth the money, even with his much larger paycheck.

 

In my mind, the question boils down to "Do you pay Kreider his assumed value (let's say 6.5, though it could be a bit more or less), and allocate that money to a 50-ish point wing, or do you spend more, bring in Panarin, and look to move Kreider for another piece?"

 

I like Kreider. I won't be mad if he's re-signed. I just think it's wiser to do something else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the Mike Knuble who averaged 29 goals a season after he turned 30? Yes.

 

I'd go 6x$6 on Kreider all day and not think twice about it.

 

I think people are way too concerned about Kreids dropping off at 30. He's a ridiculous athlete and is as well conditioned as any player in the league. He's not Derek Stepan.

 

I think people are concerned about another Dubinsky, Callahan, Staal, Girardi contract that restricts the team moving forward.

 

In 6-7 seasons, compare worst case scenario Panarin to worst case scenario Kreider.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are concerned about another Dubinsky, Callahan, Staal, Girardi contract that restricts the team moving forward.

 

In 6-7 seasons, compare worst case scenario Panarin to worst case scenario Kreider.

 

I wouldn’t sign kreider more than 5 years. Worst case is the panarin costs $12m and kreider costs $ 6.5m but his contract is 2 years shorter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are concerned about another Dubinsky, Callahan, Staal, Girardi contract that restricts the team moving forward.

 

In 6-7 seasons, compare worst case scenario Panarin to worst case scenario Kreider.

I would say worst-case scenario Panarin is far worse than Kreider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn?t sign kreider more than 5 years. Worst case is the panarin costs $12m and kreider costs $ 6.5m but his contract is 2 years shorter.

 

Then you are severely limiting your free agent pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panarin becomes Eberle.

Kreider becomes Glass.

 

Now, I dont like Eberle or Glass... but one can play in the NHL.

Well for one, that's ridiculous. If Kreider can become Glass, Panarin can become Kostitsyn.

 

Either way, Eberle at $12m is just as destructive as Glass at $6m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we trade Kreider and Panarin signs with Florida, where do we get any offense from. I have no problem bringing CK back. He can score, and has shown he can play here in New York. Having Kreider doesn’t hurt this team.

 

5m a year. Sure. That's what he's worth. Anything higher than that is a huge mistake. I have no problem with the Rangers walking away from overpriced players and continuing down the rebuild path. You don't pay people just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only Conner Mcdavid will have a higher cap hit. Seems reasonable

 

There's probably about 10-15 players who could and would command 12+ million annually on a new contract if they were a UFA on the market this offseason. But they aren't and Panarin is. Within a year or two players will start signing for more than whatever Panarin gets. That's just how contracts work really...the bar is always raised unless the cap stops increasing.

 

By the way, when McDavid signed that extension he had something like 6 more years before he was going to be UFA eligible. He didn't have UFA leverage like Tavares did or Panarin does. There's a premium to be paid for that when bidding with other teams. If McDavid was actually a UFA today he'd most likely shatter his current contract (15M+ annually?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we trade Kreider and Panarin signs with Florida, where do we get any offense from. I have no problem bringing CK back. He can score, and has shown he can play here in New York. Having Kreider doesn’t hurt this team.

 

What do we really need offense for next season if we don't get Panarin? Gotta score enough goals to finish 6th from last again instead of 3rd or 4th from last?

 

I'd trade Kreider, but the expected returns would be very different based on whether they signed Panarin or not. To me, Panarin represents a complete shift in the timeline for this franchise being competitive again. A difference between competing by 2020-2021 versus 2022-2023 at the earliest. There are cascading moves that will be made based on whether they land him or not in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably about 10-15 players who could and would command 12+ million annually on a new contract if they were a UFA on the market this offseason. But they aren't and Panarin is. Within a year or two players will start signing for more than whatever Panarin gets. That's just how contracts work really...the bar is always raised unless the cap stops increasing.

 

By the way, when McDavid signed that extension he had something like 6 more years before he was going to be UFA eligible. He didn't have UFA leverage like Tavares did or Panarin does. There's a premium to be paid for that when bidding with other teams. If McDavid was actually a UFA today he'd most likely shatter his current contract (15M+ annually?).

I understand how it works. Tavares didn’t get $12 and he’s a center and is a better player. Regardless my point was simple when discussing over paying someone. Panarin will be either 1 or 2 in terms of cap hit among all players if the rangers sign him to the contract talked about here. That was my only point before it was dissected into some other meaning. 1 player in the league has a contract like what’s being talked about. $12m will still be a lot two years from now and seven years from now.

 

And you’re right contracts go up. So why doesn’t that equate when talking kreider? Because it doesn’t fit the narrative that’s being pushed. Oh and by the way Brock Nelson is a ufa. He scored 25 goals and had 50 points last year. He is free to chase the biggest contract out there. Why wouldn’t he be at least a starting point when talking kreider. Other of course then to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get off Kreider’s dick

He’s a nice good quality top-6 winger

Not very good

Not great

Not elite

 

He doesn’t shoot well

He doesn’t have great hands around the net despite what deflection stats may say

He doesn’t score in big spots

He doesn’t produce commensurate with his ability

He disappears for 6 weeks at a time

He’s streaky as fuck

 

He’s a complimentary player

 

He may go elsewhere and blossom

That would not surprise me

 

But he hasn’t blossomed here and if that were going to happen it would have

 

 

Offer him 4-5 years for 25-30 million without trade protection

If he says no, trade him and move on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5m a year. Sure. That's what he's worth. Anything higher than that is a huge mistake. I have no problem with the Rangers walking away from overpriced players and continuing down the rebuild path. You don't pay people just because.

 

We have been burned on this a few times. Paying players for what they?ve done tether than what they will do. Staal, Lundy, etc

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...