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

Stats Don't Lie — We're Sellers


LindG1000

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand your last paragraph but the fact is they simply can't afford to pay Kreider in short term dollars and long term deal for him would be unwise. You simply have to trade him. While that makes the team worse in the short term, it makes us better (esp cap wise) long term.

 

Do you want to pay top dollar because of 3 months of a hot Kreider?

 

Last paragraph there - this run has been fun, but it's more important to keep the process going. The question is whether it's more valuable to the process to let sleeping dogs lie and see what meaningful games look like, or to move UFAs for assets. And yes, if we stand pat, there are meaningful games coming up.

 

I'm also just not sure what the market for Kreider really is. I'm not enthused by the Avs 1st and Kaut. I'm not really enthused by whatever the Bruins can still offer. It's not like the 1st we'd get has potential to be anything more than, say, 25th, and the prospect we'd be getting is a mid-sixer two years off, probably. We're not getting a Kirill Kaprizov or a lottery ticket here, or even an Alex Newhook; we're probably getting something of lesser return. I'm not sure it's actually more valuable than even the experience of failing to make the playoffs and understanding what it takes to succeed in the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think you plug holes as easily as thought. It takes time to build a team that isn't a collection of mercenaries. I'm big on continuity and big on culture.

 

me too.

 

 

But more so when you have a successful team.

Unfortunately, the Rangers have been one of the worst teams with Kreider-Zibanejad - Buchnevich.

So pay them like 2nd liners, or move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

me too.

 

 

But more so when you have a successful team.

Unfortunately, the Rangers have been one of the worst teams with Kreider-Zibanejad - Buchnevich.

So pay them like 2nd liners, or move on.

I don’t know. That’s such a forced skewed narrative. Obviously with kreider they made it to the finals. With Ziby they made it to the 2nd round then blew the team up the following year. They aren’t one of the “worst” teams because of those three. They are because they blew the team up including coach and tore it all down. That’s a product of circumstance , not a measure of the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last paragraph there - this run has been fun, but it's more important to keep the process going. The question is whether it's more valuable to the process to let sleeping dogs lie and see what meaningful games look like, or to move UFAs for assets. And yes, if we stand pat, there are meaningful games coming up.

 

I'm also just not sure what the market for Kreider really is. I'm not enthused by the Avs 1st and Kaut. I'm not really enthused by whatever the Bruins can still offer. It's not like the 1st we'd get has potential to be anything more than, say, 25th, and the prospect we'd be getting is a mid-sixer two years off, probably. We're not getting a Kirill Kaprizov or a lottery ticket here, or even an Alex Newhook; we're probably getting something of lesser return. I'm not sure it's actually more valuable than even the experience of failing to make the playoffs and understanding what it takes to succeed in the NHL.

 

Whether or not any of us are enthused is besides all other things. A 1st and a prospect plus maybe a throw in piece if they’re lucky is the top of the market.

 

What else do you want for a rental? In all seriousness?

I get it if that doesn’t make you go “Wow! They hit the jackpot!”

Deadline deals for rentals seldom if ever do.

In all honesty, if that pick and prospect turn into solid NHL players, but in lesser roles (i.e. bottom-6 forwards, bottom pair D) what’s wrong with that?

You need those guys too.

 

And Kreider isn’t Joe Nieuwendyk in December of 1995. He’s not going to bring back Jarome Iginla.

 

Or maybe they take those assets or part of them and flip them for a need.

 

Keeping Kreider to make the playoffs vs turning down worthwhile NHL assets is a mistake. Paying him on a long-term deal is probably a bigger one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know. That’s such a forced skewed narrative. Obviously with kreider they made it to the finals. With Ziby they made it to the 2nd round then blew the team up the following year. They aren’t one of the “worst” teams because of those three. They are because they blew the team up including coach and tore it all down. That’s a product of circumstance , not a measure of the player.

Yeah.. a good 2nd line can’t carry thebteam. I agree.

 

Just because they were a default top line, doesn’t mean you pay them as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or even 6 years of Kreider.

 

Over under on how many seasons he has left of being his most productive Kreider is how many? 3? Maybe 4?

Based on what we know about performance, it's a good guess he's going to start trending down immediately.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that Kreider and the COL first rounder are likely to be 3rd liners scoring 30 points a year when you want to resign Zib, Kakko, Shesty, the other guys coming.

 

Only difference is the COL first won't be making $7M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what we know about performance, it's a good guess he's going to start trending down immediately.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that Kreider and the COL first rounder are likely to be 3rd liners scoring 30 points a year when you want to resign Zib, Kakko, Shesty, the other guys coming.

 

Only difference is the COL first won't be making $7M.

 

I actually think the next 2-3 seasons of Kreider, health permitting, will be very good. About in the ballpark that they are now. After that I think he declines.

 

But agree with the rest. While them not getting their money’s worth on him is a concern, the bigger concern is who else signing him now will cost them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not any of us are enthused is besides all other things. A 1st and a prospect plus maybe a throw in piece if they’re lucky is the top of the market.

 

What else do you want for a rental? In all seriousness?

I get it if that doesn’t make you go “Wow! They hit the jackpot!”

Deadline deals for rentals seldom if ever do.

In all honesty, if that pick and prospect turn into solid NHL players, but in lesser roles (i.e. bottom-6 forwards, bottom pair D) what’s wrong with that?

You need those guys too.

 

And Kreider isn’t Joe Nieuwendyk in December of 1995. He’s not going to bring back Jarome Iginla.

 

Or maybe they take those assets or part of them and flip them for a need.

 

Keeping Kreider to make the playoffs vs turning down worthwhile NHL assets is a mistake. Paying him on a long-term deal is probably a bigger one.

 

I think that's the context we'd look at it in normally, and I'd agree with that...except I don't know if it's right this time.

 

You have five scenarios here:

 

1 - Kreider re-signs at a team-friendly rate on team friendly terms. If so, great. Nobody's upset about that, I think.

2 - Kreider re-signs at market value. That's probably a serious cap issue - you can't pay Kreider market rates of over 6.5M for the next half a decade+

3 - The Rangers trade Kreider for the traditional high end rental package of a 1st and a prospect.

4 - The Rangers get a "can't say no" offer and trade Kreider

5 - The Rangers do nothing and stay the course, revisiting the Kreider situation after the season ends.

 

Ultimately, you have three assets: money, whatever's coming our way in a trade, and time.

 

We're not a team that's screwed right now. We're within reasonable striking distance of the playoffs with the youngest team in the NHL. Now, I'm not saying to go for it, nor am I saying we should re-sign Kreider to a market value contract. I'm simply suggesting that there's a value weight assigned to the contract, the trade assets, and the growth you get from going through a run at the playoffs - even a failed one.

 

If the return is a very late 1st and a mid-range prospect, I have to ask whether or not there's just more value in letting him lead the team as far as they're able to go in a season, and getting yourself three extra months to figure out the fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's the context we'd look at it in normally, and I'd agree with that...except I don't know if it's right this time.

 

You have five scenarios here:

 

1 - Kreider re-signs at a team-friendly rate on team friendly terms. If so, great. Nobody's upset about that, I think.

2 - Kreider re-signs at market value. That's probably a serious cap issue - you can't pay Kreider market rates of over 6.5M for the next half a decade+

3 - The Rangers trade Kreider for the traditional high end rental package of a 1st and a prospect.

4 - The Rangers get a "can't say no" offer and trade Kreider

5 - The Rangers do nothing and stay the course, revisiting the Kreider situation after the season ends.

 

Ultimately, you have three assets: money, whatever's coming our way in a trade, and time.

 

We're not a team that's screwed right now. We're within reasonable striking distance of the playoffs with the youngest team in the NHL. Now, I'm not saying to go for it, nor am I saying we should re-sign Kreider to a market value contract. I'm simply suggesting that there's a value weight assigned to the contract, the trade assets, and the growth you get from going through a run at the playoffs - even a failed one.

 

If the return is a very late 1st and a mid-range prospect, I have to ask whether or not there's just more value in letting him lead the team as far as they're able to go in a season, and getting yourself three extra months to figure out the fit.

 

I agree with the premise.

But I just don’t think they can wait based on his impending free agency and the fact that they’d potentially lose him for nothing.

Obviously none of us know exactly what is in his head as far as years and term, nor do we know how great his desire is to be here long-term vs possibly being elsewhere.

 

All we know is that he’s an impending UFA in not a great FA class. We know he’ll be desirable and we know roughly what the market is for him, given his age, position, production, experience, and recent contracts given to similar players.

We can safely assume I think that the Rangers know:

 

A) His asking price at full value

And

B) What he’d take, if at all, on a discount to stay,

And

C) The most they’re willing to give him.

 

If they’re not close, then dealing him is the only option.

 

Also, whatever individual fans feel about Kreider, and whatever the expected projections might be on him moving forward, no one can deny that they’ve had horrible luck on guys who aren’t superstars signing contracts here (either their own guys or UFA’s) around age 30.

 

I personally don’t believe keeping him would be any different.

I think they’d get a couple of nice seasons and then he’d be a weight around their neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's the context we'd look at it in normally, and I'd agree with that...except I don't know if it's right this time.

 

You have five scenarios here:

 

1 - Kreider re-signs at a team-friendly rate on team friendly terms. If so, great. Nobody's upset about that, I think.

2 - Kreider re-signs at market value. That's probably a serious cap issue - you can't pay Kreider market rates of over 6.5M for the next half a decade+

3 - The Rangers trade Kreider for the traditional high end rental package of a 1st and a prospect.

4 - The Rangers get a "can't say no" offer and trade Kreider

5 - The Rangers do nothing and stay the course, revisiting the Kreider situation after the season ends.

 

Ultimately, you have three assets: money, whatever's coming our way in a trade, and time.

 

We're not a team that's screwed right now. We're within reasonable striking distance of the playoffs with the youngest team in the NHL. Now, I'm not saying to go for it, nor am I saying we should re-sign Kreider to a market value contract. I'm simply suggesting that there's a value weight assigned to the contract, the trade assets, and the growth you get from going through a run at the playoffs - even a failed one.

 

If the return is a very late 1st and a mid-range prospect, I have to ask whether or not there's just more value in letting him lead the team as far as they're able to go in a season, and getting yourself three extra months to figure out the fit.

 

Kinda this.

 

Do the Rangers need more mediocre talent to stack up? What's the 25th+ pick going to get them? They need elite talent. Kreider may not be elite, but he the closest thing they are going to get to that in the next few years. I disagree with anyone who says you fill that void with multiple players. It doesn't work and that's how you get stuck rebuilding for ever while trying to make the playoffs.

 

If that's how people want it. Fuck it trade Panarin. He's a big cap hit. This way we are assured all the players who aren't even here yet can get their bridge contracts in 5 years.... It's ridiculous. Panarin was brought in to take that next step and have elite talent. You aren't building a winner with dog shit, reclamation projects, surprise 7th round steals and the 30th pick in the draft...

 

Again if Kreider can be retained at a team friendly cost that makes sense, I think they have to do it. If not, I'm on board with getting assets for something they aren't going to keep past this season. And if he goes, everyone else not on their ELC is available. But this "let's rebuild forever" attitude is going too far. They have to try to go for it. Now... If they are competitive. And they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda this.

 

Do the Rangers need more mediocre talent to stack up? What's the 25th+ pick going to get them? They need elite talent. Kreider may not be elite, but he the closest thing they are going to get to that in the next few years. I disagree with anyone who says you fill that void with multiple players. It doesn't work and that's how you get stuck rebuilding for ever while trying to make the playoffs.

 

If that's how people want it. Fuck it trade Panarin. He's a big cap hit. This way we are assured all the players who aren't even here yet can get their bridge contracts in 5 years.... It's ridiculous. Panarin was brought in to take that next step and have elite talent. You aren't building a winner with dog shit, reclamation projects, surprise 7th round steals and the 30th pick in the draft...

 

Again if Kreider can be retained at a team friendly cost that makes sense, I think they have to do it. If not, I'm on board with getting assets for something they aren't going to keep past this season. And if he goes, everyone else not on their ELC is available. But this "let's rebuild forever" attitude is going too far. They have to try to go for it. Now... If they are competitive. And they are.

 

I'd also wonder - supposing we make the deal, what does that extra 1st get us? Let's say it's 25th or whatever; is that enough to address an area of need by trade? Are there youngish forwards who could be on the trading block at the draft for which having that pick is valuable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also wonder - supposing we make the deal, what does that extra 1st get us? Let's say it's 25th or whatever; is that enough to address an area of need by trade? Are there youngish forwards who could be on the trading block at the draft for which having that pick is valuable?

 

You'd probably be able to get a guy that is on a bridge deal and about to get paid. Otherwise such players would be targeted NOW and not a guy about to hit UFA and get serious coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also wonder - supposing we make the deal, what does that extra 1st get us? Let's say it's 25th or whatever; is that enough to address an area of need by trade? Are there youngish forwards who could be on the trading block at the draft for which having that pick is valuable?

 

You'd probably be able to get a guy that is on a bridge deal and about to get paid. Otherwise such players would be targeted NOW and not a guy about to hit UFA and get serious coin.

 

It all depends on the player they’re targeting to address that need.

Maybe that extra 1st on its own doesn’t get it done.

But maybe you package that pick with another asset or 2 and you get a piece you really want that helps right now.

 

Who knows? Maybe that’s the plan Gorton has.

 

And a deal like that would certainly represent them not being in a forever rebuild

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a mistake if we are sellers. I can see losing a guy or two like Skjei and one of our horrid contracts but this group needs to stay here, Reup contract wise, and continue the good progress until next year and year after to compete for a cup. There are some awesome pieces already here and blossoming other ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a mistake if we are sellers. I can see losing a guy or two like Skjei and one of our horrid contracts but this group needs to stay here, Reup contract wise, and continue the good progress until next year and year after to compete for a cup. There are some awesome pieces already here and blossoming other ones.

 

I've seen an improved Brady Skjei the last month or so. I'm not entirely keen on trading him unless they have someone else lined up. As much as Skjei can frustrate, he is far better than any replacement we currently have on the left side.

 

Lindgren has brought some needed stability to the left side, but he doesn't replace Skjei. He's another good second pairing LD, so right now we have two second pairing LDs and no 1LD. If we trade Skjei, we have a very large gap between him and the next best. Staal? Smith? Hajek? Gross on the first two and Hajek needs more time to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a mistake if we are sellers. I can see losing a guy or two like Skjei and one of our horrid contracts but this group needs to stay here, Reup contract wise, and continue the good progress until next year and year after to compete for a cup. There are some awesome pieces already here and blossoming other ones.

 

I'm torn man. I'm a Kreider fanboy and I think they legit have a chance this season. Yet, I know it's a long shot and not getting something for a guy that is likely to walk as a top target FA in the off-season... You kinda HAVE TO walk away. I am gung ho on going for it as is or even with a trade or two... But I can't complain if they have to move him. It's the right thing to do on paper, but I don't know how Panarin, Trouba and all the young guys like DeAngelo will take a white flag by management after such a good year of development and chemistry building they have gone through.

 

I'm disappointed more in the fact that Kreider doesn't see the light, and can't budge to make it work for all involved. Lundqvist too. Something is brewing with this team, but tomorrow the legs will be cut off and the season is essentially over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen an improved Brady Skjei the last month or so. I'm not entirely keen on trading him unless they have someone else lined up. As much as Skjei can frustrate, he is far better than any replacement we currently have on the left side.

 

Lindgren has brought some needed stability to the left side, but he doesn't replace Skjei. He's another good second pairing LD, so right now we have two second pairing LDs and no 1LD. If we trade Skjei, we have a very large gap between him and the next best. Staal? Smith? Hajek? Gross on the first two and Hajek needs more time to develop.

 

I think Lindgren is equal if not above Skjei.

 

Lindgren replaces Skjei

Hajek/Rykov takes Lindgrens current role.

 

Skjei isn't first pair just as much as Lindgren isn't... Yet. I think he pairs up nicely with Trouba. Even kinda frees him up to do more offensively, like he's expected to be doing. Skjei is IMO replaceable from within. May take some time, but it's not like Skjei is settled in to a definite role here. Is he a top pair assistant type or is he a 2nd pair? 3rd pair? It's that close that his cap hit makes him expendable. I'm not even thinking about Miller or Lundkvist down the road. IMO he's replaceable NOW.

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...