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 Are Thinking "More and More" About Keeping Kreider


Phil

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:rolleyes:

Did I say he doesnt have skills? The dude has been in the league for how long, and will go weeks with being invisible, wont take the body, and have to question what is going on between the ears. Then he'll go weeks (like he is now) being one of the best players on the ice with his speed/strength.

 

YOU, as a fan, called him a " bonehead ", period. On a public forum no less. That's enough to make one up chuck. Have you actually listened to him speak? Probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorton has been signing since 2015

 

Trouba getting 8? Most recent contract that gets shit on.

Spooner/Namestnikov getting 4 each?

And then the Skjei deal... but I think all y'alls liked that contract.

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/staff/jeff-gorton

 

Shattenkirk, because they just NEEDED another offensive minded RH Dman who sucks at playing defense.

 

Smith..

 

Why's this guy always spending on D?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Gorton. My only issue is the contracts he has dished out to defensemen. Shatttenkirk,Smith,Skjei,and Trouba have all been pretty ugly

 

That is not entirely fair. Shattenkirk signed a very reasonable contract, and the same with Skjei. It's not Shattenkirk's fault that he got injured and it took a year and a half to get back to form; and Skjei's contract is very movable if they decide to go in that direction.

 

It's fair to poop on the Trouba contract as it was overpay, and the way Shattenkirk is lighting it up in Tampa only makes it worse. The Smith contract is the toughest to criticize in my opinion, but that should be fair game too. Before being acquired at the trade deadline, he had huge history of being inconsistent in Detroit and was not going to be resigned there. He played like a beast that playoff stretch and showed genuine chemistry with Skjei, so I can understand the impulse to resign him. Just think that Gorton should have shown more restraint with the AAV on it given previous history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not entirely fair. Shattenkirk signed a very reasonable contract, and the same with Skjei. It's not Shattenkirk's fault that he got injured and it took a year and a half to get back to form; and Skjei's contract is very movable if they decide to go in that direction.

 

It's fair to poop on the Trouba contract as it was overpay, and the way Shattenkirk is lighting it up in Tampa only makes it worse. The Smith contract is the toughest to criticize in my opinion, but that should be fair game too. Before being acquired at the trade deadline, he had huge history of being inconsistent in Detroit and was not going to be resigned there. He played like a beast that playoff stretch and showed genuine chemistry with Skjei, so I can understand the impulse to resign him. Just think that Gorton should have shown more restraint with the AAV on it given previous history.

 

Not sure I would classify Shattenkirk pacing 42 points in a loaded TB lineup as lighting it up. Trouba is pacing a rather meager 35 points, but he has been a far better defender than Shattenkirk ever was here. It's not even close. Yes, he makes some mistakes and has a bad game here and there, but he's also playing against other team's top lines and most of the time he does not look out of place doing it. At some point, the offense needs to be there to be worth 8M. I'm not sure that happens, but we could do a lot worse than overpaying a 6.5M defender by 1.5M. That's sometimes a premium that has to be paid to get guys to sign with the Rangers due to state taxes being ridiculously high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I would classify Shattenkirk pacing 42 points in a loaded TB lineup as lighting it up. Trouba is pacing a rather meager 35 points, but he has been a far better defender than Shattenkirk ever was here. It's not even close. Yes, he makes some mistakes and has a bad game here and there, but he's also playing against other team's top lines and most of the time he does not look out of place doing it. At some point, the offense needs to be there to be worth 8M. I'm not sure that happens, but we could do a lot worse than overpaying a 6.5M defender by 1.5M. That's sometimes a premium that has to be paid to get guys to sign with the Rangers due to state taxes being ridiculously high.

 

Question because I don’t know - is there a salary cap affordable for state tax? Florida teams having almost 10% more to spend seems like a huge advantage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was leaning toward keeping him based on his recent production and the push for the playoffs, but I've done a complete 180 on that. First, the prices this year for rentals are ridiculous...it's finally a seller's market. We could likely get a 1st, top prospect, and top 9 roster player. It's just a tremendous missed opportunity for what would likely not be that great of a benefit. I don't think, with our defense, anyone sees us going deep in the playoffs even if we make it. And frankly, "anything could happen" or "you have to go for it every year" are both inadequate to justify the missed opportunity and are the very same lines of thinking that necessitated a full reset in the first place. The Blues are not a model for winning the Stanley Cup, they're an aberration. We cannot justify slim hopes based on, essentially, a team hitting the lottery. They're the exception, not the norm, and our decision-making shouldn't be based on "that could be us this year."

 

Second, we're still in cap crunch mode. Hank and Staal are killing us. If we sign Kreider, it's going to be that much more difficult to keep Zibanejad in two years. I mean, it's going to suck losing one of ADA or Strome as it is. Zib's going to be getting a substantial raise and it would be foolish to jeopardize keeping our #1 center (first one we've had in a long time). Kreider's going to get minimum 5 years. Thanks to the smart drafting and trades, we're going to be in a position to have to pay A LOT of young talent to keep around over the next few years. That's to say nothing of the likely diminishing returns. We'll be looking at that contract in 4 years and saying, "why did we do this again? Did we learn nothing from Staal/Girardi?" We just handed a huge contract to Panarin, which is actually looking like it worked out for once. We also gave a huge contract to Trouba. But we don't have the luxury of continuing to hand out that type of money going forward.

 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it would effectively signal the end of the rebuild. This would be our first implicit acknowledgment that it's time to start going for it every year again. That premature and impatient thinking is what got us in to this mess. Unless we want another poignant letter to the fanbase after we fall just short of a Cup again, we have to stay the course for now.

 

I will acknowledge that what he brings is NOT easy to replace, if it even is replaceable. I don't know of another player we'd have access to during our upcoming "Cup window" that has his skillset. He's also an elder statesmen in a room of fresh faces and is a leader on this team. That shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not a justification for keeping him; rather, it's a justification for making sure the return in a trade is worth it. The fact of the matter is that we are not witnessing him "finally putting it all together." He's a player with a history that's rife with inconsistency and he's in a contract year. It's just simply not worth it with the opportunity to strike while the iron's hot.

 

I have long been a vocal proponent of selling off aging assets to replenish the farm and manage your cap, instead of paying through the nose to keep them. Much as I hate to lose him (and believe me, I do, he's currently the only active Rangers player's jersey I have), I'm not about to become a hypocrite and abandon the philosophy I've been proselytizing to all and sundry for years over sentiment and pipe-dreaming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the prices this year for rentals are ridiculous...it's finally a seller's market. We could likely get a 1st, top prospect, and top 9 roster player.

I agree with your post, but we’re not getting anywhere near that for Kreider. And I’m not sure why you would even suggest that, because there’s nothing suggesting anyone who give up that sort of haul for a rental this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was leaning toward keeping him based on his recent production and the push for the playoffs, but I've done a complete 180 on that. First, the prices this year for rentals are ridiculous...it's finally a seller's market. We could likely get a 1st, top prospect, and top 9 roster player. It's just a tremendous missed opportunity for what would likely not be that great of a benefit. I don't think, with our defense, anyone sees us going deep in the playoffs even if we make it. And frankly, "anything could happen" or "you have to go for it every year" are both inadequate to justify the missed opportunity and are the very same lines of thinking that necessitated a full reset in the first place. The Blues are not a model for winning the Stanley Cup, they're an aberration. We cannot justify slim hopes based on, essentially, a team hitting the lottery. They're the exception, not the norm, and our decision-making shouldn't be based on "that could be us this year."

 

Second, we're still in cap crunch mode. Hank and Staal are killing us. If we sign Kreider, it's going to be that much more difficult to keep Zibanejad in two years. I mean, it's going to suck losing one of ADA or Strome as it is. Zib's going to be getting a substantial raise and it would be foolish to jeopardize keeping our #1 center (first one we've had in a long time). Kreider's going to get minimum 5 years. Thanks to the smart drafting and trades, we're going to be in a position to have to pay A LOT of young talent to keep around over the next few years. That's to say nothing of the likely diminishing returns. We'll be looking at that contract in 4 years and saying, "why did we do this again? Did we learn nothing from Staal/Girardi?" We just handed a huge contract to Panarin, which is actually looking like it worked out for once. We also gave a huge contract to Trouba. But we don't have the luxury of continuing to hand out that type of money going forward.

 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it would effectively signal the end of the rebuild. This would be our first implicit acknowledgment that it's time to start going for it every year again. That premature and impatient thinking is what got us in to this mess. Unless we want another poignant letter to the fanbase after we fall just short of a Cup again, we have to stay the course for now.

 

I will acknowledge that what he brings is NOT easy to replace, if it even is replaceable. I don't know of another player we'd have access to during our upcoming "Cup window" that has his skillset. He's also an elder statesmen in a room of fresh faces and is a leader on this team. That shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not a justification for keeping him; rather, it's a justification for making sure the return in a trade is worth it. The fact of the matter is that we are not witnessing him "finally putting it all together." He's a player with a history that's rife with inconsistency and he's in a contract year. It's just simply not worth it with the opportunity to strike while the iron's hot.

 

I have long been a vocal proponent of selling off aging assets to replenish the farm and manage your cap, instead of paying through the nose to keep them. Much as I hate to lose him (and believe me, I do, he's currently the only active Rangers player's jersey I have), I'm not about to become a hypocrite and abandon the philosophy I've been proselytizing to all and sundry for years over sentiment and pipe-dreaming.

 

When does it end though? In a couple years are people going to be saying the same about Zib? He'll be past HIS prime, and will be effecting the signing of others as well. You have to keep some people. If Kreider comes in at a good price, I say you have to keep him. I totally get not wanting long term at big bucks. I don't want that either. The fact that he's still here and reports are shifting towards the two sides talking more, makes me think they are working on something that makes sense for the organization. The Rangers see the writing on the wall. They know they can't screw themselves here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can replace what he does, just not with one player . Others will absorb the responsibilities.

 

I don't think that approach is effective. That's like saying you can replace Panarin... With three different players each scoring 10-15 goals each... The sell is the package. One guy who brings all that to the table. The Zib line doesn't remain the threat it is if you put Mckegg in front of the net or any other schmoe. The complete package he brings makes that line what it is. Can the dynamic of that line be changed? Sure. It's going to take a hell of a long time, considering the complete lack of any top six talent on the farm or in free agency. (that they can afford).

 

Unless they can get DeBrusk, or some other young winger with top six potential back, I don't really think it's worth moving Kreider. UNLESS there's an agreement that he comes back in free agency at a team friendly deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I would classify Shattenkirk pacing 42 points in a loaded TB lineup as lighting it up. Trouba is pacing a rather meager 35 points, but he has been a far better defender than Shattenkirk ever was here. It's not even close. Yes, he makes some mistakes and has a bad game here and there, but he's also playing against other team's top lines and most of the time he does not look out of place doing it. At some point, the offense needs to be there to be worth 8M. I'm not sure that happens, but we could do a lot worse than overpaying a 6.5M defender by 1.5M. That's sometimes a premium that has to be paid to get guys to sign with the Rangers due to state taxes being ridiculously high.

 

You are misconstruing my point, which was that Trouba is overpaid; I think you even said as much in your post. My comment was a critique on the defensman contracts that Gorton signed, not Trouba's play or whether he was a good signing. Personally I love Trouba's game, as it's been a while since we have had a defenseman with his nastiness and talent.

 

What I was saying was that contract is not good, considering that wee gave up a reasonably valuable asset(1st round pick) to get him, I wonder if Gorton knew that he was going to have to overpay to keep him when they made that trade. Hindsight is always 20/20, but it would have made alot more sense to keep Shattenkirk for a year and then sign Trouba on the open market considering that they ended up giving him an open market value contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that approach is effective. That's like saying you can replace Panarin... With three different players each scoring 10-15 goals each... The sell is the package. One guy who brings all that to the table. The Zib line doesn't remain the threat it is if you put Mckegg in front of the net or any other schmoe. The complete package he brings makes that line what it is. Can the dynamic of that line be changed? Sure. It's going to take a hell of a long time, considering the complete lack of any top six talent on the farm or in free agency. (that they can afford).

 

Unless they can get DeBrusk, or some other young winger with top six potential back, I don't really think it's worth moving Kreider. UNLESS there's an agreement that he comes back in free agency at a team friendly deal.

No no no.

 

List the things Kreider does. You should have players that can fill certain roles. And you become cognizant of the others while drafting and trading.

 

Gauthier has size and speed.

Strome has leadership.

Howden/Lemieux/Chytil in front on PP?

 

You’ll never find a replacement, but look for guys that have one of those specific skills, or possibly superior skill in one or more departments.

 

You never try to replace a player. You replace their role(s).

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...