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

Why Kevin Shattenkirk Will Soon be Rangers Salary-Cap Casualty


Phil

Recommended Posts

So because he wasn’t moved at the draft, that means that no one wants him? What were the offers for him? And I guess we will ignore the fact that Gorton said they like him and want to keep him here.

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here.

I said the fact they tried to move him at the draft is an indication he’s not in their long term plans.

I’m sure plenty of teams want him, but there aren’t many potential trade partners with cap space at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here.

I said the fact they tried to move him at the draft is an indication he’s not in their long term plans.

I’m sure plenty of teams want him, but there aren’t many potential trade partners with cap space at the moment.

 

And Rangers in 7 is saying that the team doesn’t want him, and I am asking where he is getting it from. They aren’t going move him because they don’t want him, if they move him, it’s a salary cap issue, not that they want to because he doesn’t like him. It’s the same issue it was with Stefan and Hayes. But Gorton has come out saying if they can work something out, they would like to keep him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Rangers in 7 is saying that the team doesn’t want him, and I am asking where he is getting it from. They aren’t going move him because they don’t want him, if they move him, it’s a salary cap issue, not that they want to because he doesn’t like him. It’s the same issue it was with Stefan and Hayes. But Gorton has come out saying if they can work something out, they would like to keep him.

 

I never said at all that they don’t want him. I said that he’s not in their plans because they don’t want to pay him.

That’s all.

If you want to treat that as a cap issue, ok. That’s fine.

I’ve said repeatedly that they like him cause I’m sure they do.

But they don’t want to pay him.

 

And if he’s asking for what he likely is asking for, they shouldn’t pay him.

 

And when they traded Stepan, he was already under contract. He got moved because his NMC was about to kick in and they didn’t want to be tied to him

 

And again, I’m getting it from 3 places:

1) He has no extension and they haven’t even discussed one.

2) They’ve already attempted to trade him.

3) The significant number of articles and interviews published discussing his potential trade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorton has to say that dude.

What?s he going to say? ?We don?t like him much. We aren?t intending to keep him.?

How would that help him get a good return?

How would that look to other players on the team or prospective players he?d like to add down the road?

 

How did everyone knowing that Trouba wasn?t going to stay in Winnipeg and that he wanted out help Winnipeg get a return?

 

There are plenty of teams that would want him. The Rangers just want a price for him. They may not have that price yet. Or they may have an offer they like, and they?re waiting cause maybe they feel they can do better.

 

People want him. Make no mistake. They just maybe can?t or won?t meet the price. Or they want to wait and see if something better comes along.

 

Gorton doesn?t have to say shit. He doesn?t have to answer at all about what?s going on with Kreider. If they were actively shopping him, we would have heard from someone what they asking for, and no one has reported it. He hasn?t demanded a traded, so this is nothing like Trouba, in fact they are very different. The team doesn?t have to move him either, but like any player, if a good deal is offered, they will take it, doesn?t mean they don?t want him like you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said at all that they don’t want him. I said that he’s not in their plans because they don’t want to pay him.

 

Saying he is t a part of their plans, is saying it. They aren’t actively shopping him. And where has anyone in the team said that they don’t want to pay him? You assuming a lot here with zero facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorton doesn’t have to say shit. He doesn’t have to answer at all about what’s going on with Kreider. If they were actively shopping him, we would have heard from someone what they asking for, and no one has reported it. He hasn’t demanded a traded, so this is nothing like Trouba, in fact they are very different. The team doesn’t have to move him either, but like any player, if a good deal is offered, they will take it, doesn’t mean they don’t want him like you are saying.

 

He does have to say something if he’s asked about it. Which he was. Him saying we’d like to work something out is what anyone would expect him to say.

 

He’s not going to say anything else that might tip his hand.

And we wouldn’t have heard from other teams. They can’t comment about guys they’ve tried to acquire or would like to acquire that are under contract with other teams.

People have reported it.

It’s been out there on a few different outlets that Colorado absolutely wanted him, just didn’t want to meet the price.

 

 

I never said they don’t want the guy.

 

I said just the opposite

Go back to post # 18 of this very thread and read the last paragraph.

 

Saying he isn’t part of their plans is not the same as them not wanting him.

It’s pretty clear they don’t want to pay him. And they aren’t going to say that publicly either.

Since when do teams and GM’s put their internal assessments and intentions regarding their own players out in public?

That’s what’s fucking bad for business.

 

My assumption is based on facts.

No extension or negotiations regarding an extension is a fact.

The attempted trade at the draft is a fact

The numerous reports by media outlets of them trying to trade him and listening to offers that he’s available, actively shopped or not. These are facts.

 

But again, I’ll say it.

 

THEYD LOVE TO KEEP HIM. BUT NOT AT HIS ASKING PRICE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does have to say something if he’s asked about it. Which he was. Him saying we’d like to work something out is what anyone would expect him to say.

 

He’s not going to say anything else that might tip his hand.

And we wouldn’t have heard from other teams. They can’t comment about guys they’ve tried to acquire or would like to acquire that are under contract with other teams.

People have reported it.

It’s been out there on a few different outlets that Colorado absolutely wanted him, just didn’t want to meet the price.

 

 

I never said they don’t want the guy.

 

I said just the opposite

Go back to post # 18 of this very thread and read the last paragraph.

 

Saying he isn’t part of their plans is not the same as them not wanting him.

It’s pretty clear they don’t want to pay him. And they aren’t going to say that publicly either.

Since when do teams and GM’s put their internal assessments and intentions regarding their own players out in public?

That’s what’s fucking bad for business.

 

My assumption is based on facts.

No extension or negotiations regarding an extension is a fact.

The attempted trade at the draft is a fact

The numerous reports by media outlets of them trying to trade him and listening to offers that he’s available, actively shopped or not. These are facts.

 

But again, I’ll say it.

 

THEYD LOVE TO KEEP HIM. BUT NOT AT HIS ASKING PRICE

 

Again, there are no negotiations going on, so he has no asking price yet. No one knows how much he is asking for. And like I said earlier, there are no negotiations going on because neither side can sign yet, so why negotiate anything? Doesn’t mean that because there are no negotiations that it means they are looking to trade him. They weren’t pushing that hard at the draft to trade him, nor are there any now. There is talk that he might be moved, but there is still nothing concrete that they have been made any offers or are listening to any offers. Again, like any player, anyone can be moved, we’ve seen it before here. You jumping to conclusions here when there really is not that much going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, there are no negotiations going on, so he has no asking price yet. No one knows how much he is asking for. And like I said earlier, there are no negotiations going on because neither side can sign yet, so why negotiate anything? Doesn’t mean that because there are no negotiations that it means they are looking to trade him. They weren’t pushing that hard at the draft to trade him, nor are there any now. There is talk that he might be moved, but there is still nothing concrete that they have been made any offers or are listening to any offers. Again, like any player, anyone can be moved, we’ve seen it before here. You jumping to conclusions here when there really is not that much going on.

 

 

Do you think that they don’t have a good idea of his ask in both dollars and term just because a formal negotiation hasn’t occurred?

As for having to wait, he’s in the last year of his deal, so I’m pretty sure he can sign whenever. Unless I’m wrong, only on a 1year deal does the January 1st date apply, if that’s what you’re referring to.

 

And if you’re saying they weren’t pushing that hard at the draft, how do you know that? And define “pushing hard.”

If he had conversations with 5 teams would that be pushing hard?

Or would it have to be 10?

 

It’s not speculation

 

It’s deductive reasoning

 

Arriving at a conclusion that Kreider is a likely candidate to be moved based on him entering the final year of his contract, will likely want more than they can afford, will likely want to get paid till he’s 35+, has had no negotiation as of yet, they’ve already attempted to trade him, and the numerous articles about the topic is the likely conclusion you arrive at. That isn’t speculation. It’s logic.

 

And this is a fan forum. We’re supposed to do that.

 

Is it that you feel I’m speculating?

Or that I say they “don’t want him”?

Or do you love Kreider and not want to accept that it’s at least fairly likely he’s not here any more in the foreseeable future?

 

He’s gotta be looking at what Hayes got a d shoot close to that. Even at a discount it’s still gonna be $40 million

Still too much.

 

He’s a good player. But he’s replaceable

I don’t understand why it’s a thing for some fans of his that we try desperately to keep him. Even if he does go elsewhere and thrive, which I believe could happen, what does it cost.

He’s not the future of this team.

Others are.

Make room for them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I fully "get" what's going on in this thread.

 

1. I think it's reasonably clear that a move has to be made here. Buch signed at a very specific time; this was not accidental. Either Gorton's got a trade lined up to clear space, or he's moving on a buyout.

2. I think it's also pretty fair to say that there's not a trade market on Smith or Staal, and possibly not even on Namestnikov. That's unfortunate, but probably a reality we're going to deal with.

3. If you're a team interested in Shattenkirk, and you knew those two bits of info (which at this point are either public facing or pretty solid speculation), would you actually trade for Shattenkirk? He can cost you an asset and $3.25m/y or he can come in on a 1y/2m "prove it" deal. Which do you prefer if you're any of the other 30 GMs?

4. Selling on Kreider right now is frankly, insane. If you want to move him after the cap settles, fine, but he's a premium enough piece to fetch much more than cap space, especially at the deadline.

 

Now, if you're talking about buyout options, Shattenkirk is the silver bullet move too. He's the best of the three defenders being discussed, but he's also the most cap relief. Fie on the big hit for next year. It's a grow year where the only valuable asset we've got in need of a contract is Kreider, who, depending on the year, doesn't even end the season with us. Even with the buyout and heavy bonuses, we'd go into the FA period with some 10m in space to deal with Nieves, Strome, and Georgiev, of whom only Georgiev likely stays. All of that ugly cap is gone when we need to give the money to key players.

 

Finally, history should show us that being the team to sign Kreider is going to end poorly. Any of you want Andrew Ladd, Kyle Okposo, David Backes, Milan Lucic, Dustin Penner? Much as we love him, history has not been kind to players like him. Father Time catches those big wings fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I fully "get" what's going on in this thread.

 

1. I think it's reasonably clear that a move has to be made here. Buch signed at a very specific time; this was not accidental. Either Gorton's got a trade lined up to clear space, or he's moving on a buyout.

2. I think it's also pretty fair to say that there's not a trade market on Smith or Staal, and possibly not even on Namestnikov. That's unfortunate, but probably a reality we're going to deal with.

3. If you're a team interested in Shattenkirk, and you knew those two bits of info (which at this point are either public facing or pretty solid speculation), would you actually trade for Shattenkirk? He can cost you an asset and $3.25m/y or he can come in on a 1y/2m "prove it" deal. Which do you prefer if you're any of the other 30 GMs?

4. Selling on Kreider right now is frankly, insane. If you want to move him after the cap settles, fine, but he's a premium enough piece to fetch much more than cap space, especially at the deadline.

 

Now, if you're talking about buyout options, Shattenkirk is the silver bullet move too. He's the best of the three defenders being discussed, but he's also the most cap relief. Fie on the big hit for next year. It's a grow year where the only valuable asset we've got in need of a contract is Kreider, who, depending on the year, doesn't even end the season with us. Even with the buyout and heavy bonuses, we'd go into the FA period with some 10m in space to deal with Nieves, Strome, and Georgiev, of whom only Georgiev likely stays. All of that ugly cap is gone when we need to give the money to key players.

 

Finally, history should show us that being the team to sign Kreider is going to end poorly. Any of you want Andrew Ladd, Kyle Okposo, David Backes, Milan Lucic, Dustin Penner? Much as we love him, history has not been kind to players like him. Father Time catches those big wings fast.

 

My point is simply that Kreider seems not to be in the plan and they might as well move him. Doing so sooner gives the team more time with Kreider and this should get you more in return. I’m not advocating trading him simply for cap space. Nor am I say they should get nothing for him.

I’m advocating trading him because it looks like they aren’t going to pay him, so they should get something for him.

More importantly, they shouldn’t be the team to pay him. And if they take a little less for him, it’s not a disaster. His trade isn’t key to the rebuild.

 

We can dream about him taking a discount and asking for less years. But realistically, he saw what his buddy Hayes got. He’s capable of getting that simply because Hayes did. He’d be a fool not to pursue something like that. And some other fool will give it to him. It just shouldn’t be us

 

And mind you, I honestly believe that if he got traded tomorrow and we t and played with a really elite couple of players, his next 2-4 seasons would potentially be awesome and he’d become the player we all hoped he’d be .

 

But I’m ok with him being that for someone else for a few years as long as we don’t have to pay him till 2028. Cause he won’t be worth what he’s going to be making by 2024.

 

I say move on

Not because I don’t like him

But because he isn’t the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is kreider a lock to be awful four five years from now but panarin will be fine? I’m just not sure I get the logic. Lucic bakes okposo etc are not kreider. He skates so much better then them. I’m not sure I want to sign him either. However I don’t get why anyone thinks he can’t be the player he is now four years from now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is kreider a lock to be awful four five years from now but panarin will be fine? I’m just not sure I get the logic. Lucic bakes okposo etc are not kreider. He skates so much better then them. I’m not sure I want to sign him either. However I don’t get why anyone thinks he can’t be the player he is now four years from now.

 

It’s just unlikely. Most would call Kreider a power forward. They’ll cite his skating, but they’ll also cite his net front presence. How many guys that play that way age well? Power forwards just don’t

 

It’s uncertain with Panarin too. But given his elite skill level, you’re more willing to gamble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s just unlikely. Most would call Kreider a power forward. They’ll cite his skating, but they’ll also cite his net front presence. How many guys that play that way age well? Power forwards just don’t

 

It’s uncertain with Panarin too. But given his elite skill level, you’re more willing to gamble

 

There both gambles I agree. Kreider skates better than any of the power forwards people mentioned. In fact he skates better than most finesse skilled players or any players in the league. That is a big trump card in his favor. His skating is never going to be bad or even average. Everyone of those other failed guys lost a step and was then too slow to play effectively. That will never be kreiders problem unless he suffers a catastrophic injury.

 

As far as gambles one costs you double the money than the other. It’s hardly the better gamble because of that. I think the argument to not signing kreider is sound but it’s thd same argument to avoiding panarin. Risk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There both gambles I agree. Kreider skates better than any of the power forwards people mentioned. In fact he skates better than most finesse skilled players or any players in the league. That is a big trump card in his favor. His skating is never going to be bad or even average. Everyone of those other failed guys lost a step and was then too slow to play effectively. That will never be kreiders problem unless he suffers a catastrophic injury.

 

As far as gambles one costs you double the money than the other. It’s hardly the better gamble because of that. I think the argument to not signing kreider is sound but it’s thd same argument to avoiding panarin. Risk

 

I get that

And Kreider does skate so well, and while that can help as he ages, eventually he will lose steps. At least that’s how I feel.

 

As for Panarin, I understand why anyone would have apprehension given the money and term. But the high skill guys have the best chance of aging well, and he’s undeniably that

I don’t think he’s great for 7 years. But I think they get 5.

 

Risk either way. But Panarin’s high-end is so much more the CK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Kreider is that his speed is the source of too few goals, while his size and savvy in front of the net is where he gets most of them. He'll be fast for a long time to come, and when he loses a step, he'll be a pretty good player. It's too bad that we likely are going to lose him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Kreider is that his speed is the source of too few goals, while his size and savvy in front of the net is where he gets most of them. He'll be fast for a long time to come, and when he loses a step, he'll be a pretty good player. It's too bad that we likely are going to lose him.

 

I agree with that for the most part. Taking all the bumps around the net in the dirty areas will take its toll though.

 

It’s not too bad they’ll lose him though if they have to shell out $45-50 million to keep him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like it will be just wait and see time with Kreider. If there was much of a market he would have been dealt by now. In the unlikely event we have a playoff shot we keep him. Otherwise we deal him at deadline. Makes no sense to sign him long term. Don?t have the money and we could not lock up another 7 years for a player approaching 30. I hate the idea of a buyout at this stage of the build since it will just make things tougher in a few years. Good news is we will have 4 nice lines if young centers work out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that they don?t have a good idea of his ask in both dollars and term just because a formal negotiation hasn?t occurred?

As for having to wait, he?s in the last year of his deal, so I?m pretty sure he can sign whenever. Unless I?m wrong, only on a 1year deal does the January 1st date apply, if that?s what you?re referring to.

 

And if you?re saying they weren?t pushing that hard at the draft, how do you know that? And define ?pushing hard.?

If he had conversations with 5 teams would that be pushing hard?

Or would it have to be 10?

 

It?s not speculation

 

It?s deductive reasoning

 

Arriving at a conclusion that Kreider is a likely candidate to be moved based on him entering the final year of his contract, will likely want more than they can afford, will likely want to get paid till he?s 35+, has had no negotiation as of yet, they?ve already attempted to trade him, and the numerous articles about the topic is the likely conclusion you arrive at. That isn?t speculation. It?s logic.

 

And this is a fan forum. We?re supposed to do that.

 

Is it that you feel I?m speculating?

Or that I say they ?don?t want him??

Or do you love Kreider and not want to accept that it?s at least fairly likely he?s not here any more in the foreseeable future?

 

He?s gotta be looking at what Hayes got a d shoot close to that. Even at a discount it?s still gonna be $40 million

Still too much.

 

He?s a good player. But he?s replaceable

I don?t understand why it?s a thing for some fans of his that we try desperately to keep him. Even if he does go elsewhere and thrive, which I believe could happen, what does it cost.

He?s not the future of this team.

Others are.

Make room for them

 

Very few players in the league are players you don't trade, and CK isn't one of them. In fact, no one on the team is like that. My issue is that you are jumping to conclusions in saying he doesn't fit into their plans moving forward, when its far from the truth. Im sure they were listening to offers on everyone at the draft. Kreider's name comes up more because after this season he is a free agent. He can't sign anything until I believe its December 1st, might be January 1st, so thats why there isn't any talk. They won't talk numbers because say he is on pace for 40 goals this season, you don't think he is going to want more than what he wants now? Or if he is having a worse year than thought, he knows he will get less, not to mention, the Rangers still have 2 RFA's to deal with plus possible buy outs. Plus, this isn't the time of year you move a player like him, you make the move at the deadline if nothing is going on.

 

Saying he doesn't have a future here is far from the truth. What he brings on the ice with his speed and size alone is a rare commodity in the NHL. I don't care if the move him, just like I don't care if any player gets moved, I just don't get the speculation that because they were listening to deals at the draft or that they haven't started negotiations yet, that that means he doesn't fit into their plans anymore.

 

This is a fan forum, but when your making speculative posts with no evidence to back it up, then yes Im going to question it. If they were shopping him as hard as you are saying, what were they asking for him and who were they talking with? Again, he was available, which they said, but Im sure that everyone on the team was available at the right price as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few players in the league are players you don't trade, and CK isn't one of them. In fact, no one on the team is like that. My issue is that you are jumping to conclusions in saying he doesn't fit into their plans moving forward, when its far from the truth. Im sure they were listening to offers on everyone at the draft. Kreider's name comes up more because after this season he is a free agent. He can't sign anything until I believe its December 1st, might be January 1st, so thats why there isn't any talk. They won't talk numbers because say he is on pace for 40 goals this season, you don't think he is going to want more than what he wants now? Or if he is having a worse year than thought, he knows he will get less, not to mention, the Rangers still have 2 RFA's to deal with plus possible buy outs. Plus, this isn't the time of year you move a player like him, you make the move at the deadline if nothing is going on.

 

Saying he doesn't have a future here is far from the truth. What he brings on the ice with his speed and size alone is a rare commodity in the NHL. I don't care if the move him, just like I don't care if any player gets moved, I just don't get the speculation that because they were listening to deals at the draft or that they haven't started negotiations yet, that that means he doesn't fit into their plans anymore.

 

This is a fan forum, but when your making speculative posts with no evidence to back it up, then yes Im going to question it. If they were shopping him as hard as you are saying, what were they asking for him and who were they talking with? Again, he was available, which they said, but Im sure that everyone on the team was available at the right price as well.

 

Pretty sure he can sign an extension now. I think the Jan 1st requirement on extensions is only for players who just signed a 1 year deal or went to arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few players in the league are players you don't trade, and CK isn't one of them. In fact, no one on the team is like that. My issue is that you are jumping to conclusions in saying he doesn't fit into their plans moving forward, when its far from the truth. Im sure they were listening to offers on everyone at the draft. Kreider's name comes up more because after this season he is a free agent. He can't sign anything until I believe its December 1st, might be January 1st, so thats why there isn't any talk. They won't talk numbers because say he is on pace for 40 goals this season, you don't think he is going to want more than what he wants now? Or if he is having a worse year than thought, he knows he will get less, not to mention, the Rangers still have 2 RFA's to deal with plus possible buy outs. Plus, this isn't the time of year you move a player like him, you make the move at the deadline if nothing is going on.

 

Saying he doesn't have a future here is far from the truth. What he brings on the ice with his speed and size alone is a rare commodity in the NHL. I don't care if the move him, just like I don't care if any player gets moved, I just don't get the speculation that because they were listening to deals at the draft or that they haven't started negotiations yet, that that means he doesn't fit into their plans anymore.

 

This is a fan forum, but when your making speculative posts with no evidence to back it up, then yes Im going to question it. If they were shopping him as hard as you are saying, what were they asking for him and who were they talking with? Again, he was available, which they said, but Im sure that everyone on the team was available at the right price as well.

 

 

Just because you choose to ignore or not view these points as evidence that he isn’t in the long-term plan, doesn’t make it so. And that’s aside from the fact that it’s hard to see them finding the kind of money they’ll need to sign him. And not to mention, his contract wouldn’t kick in till next year, when he’s 29, so they’d be paying a guy who isn’t elite into the age 34-36 range, which they shouldn’t do.

 

As for not talking numbers, we all have a good idea as to where they’re going to be more or less. Gorton knows roughly what it will cost to keep him around and it’s very likely to be a cost prohibitive number in dollars and term.

 

Knowing that, plus his age, plus their cap situation, plus him being made available, plus no negotiation, plus the many articles and comments from the media IS evidence that you base an assertion of him not being in the plan long-term upon. Just because there’s no smoking gun doesn’t mean those pieces don’t add up to that conclusion potentially.

 

As for the date of January 1, you may be right on that, but I do believe that only applies to players on 1 year deals. He’s not on a 1 year deal, and being in the last year of a deal doesn’t qualify as that. And you can only sign an extension in the final year of your current deal.

 

And I’ll say this logically.

 

Ignoring what I present, do you really want him in the fold for the next 7-8 season at a number like $6.5 million per or better? Can you not see that as something that is potentially disastrous?

 

On top of that, all of the media speculation surrounding him, which comes from guys who are way more plugged into the league and it’s teams than we are, should lead you to believe that a deal involving him is more than likely. While it’s true that they may not be dealing him now, it’s hard to see him being here in 6-7 months.

This is all a logical conclusion based on facts, all of which indicate that keeping him around log-term isn’t really a priority for them and is something they aren’t too likely to do. Negotiation aside, if they had the idea in their head that they’d like to keep him, based on your point of not formally getting his asking price even though they know the range , don’t you think they’d at least ask so that they can maybe maneuver to start getting near a position to be able to do that?

 

Now at this point I will agree that they’ve resigned themselves to going into the season with no extension in place, and they will probably just let it ride and wind up revisiting things at a later date.

 

But I don’t see how you can say it’s pure speculation. There’s too much clearly apparent stuff that indicates he’s not going to be in Rangerstown for much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on the "keep Kreider" band wagon up until now. Long-term deal? I'm beginning to face the pro$pect of that likelihood and am beginning to see the light differently. I'd definitely agree with keeping him 2-3 years but he won't sign that deal as he begins to look towards the twilight of his career. He's not at that point now, but the 5th, 6th and 7th year of the deal to keep him a Ranger no longer makes sense to me. I'll miss the speed of his game, but as others have pointed out, his speed alone is not piling up 40-50 goal seasons. I'm not convinced that he won't disappear from 110% effort once he gets paid. CK is one of those enigmas that confounds a fan's logic. (Not inferring anything to the poster using 'logic' in the thread.)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on the "keep Kreider" band wagon up until now. Long-term deal? I'm beginning to face the pro$pect of that likelihood and am beginning to see the light differently. I'd definitely agree with keeping him 2-3 years but he won't sign that deal as he begins to look towards the twilight of his career. He's not at that point now, but the 5th, 6th and 7th year of the deal to keep him a Ranger no longer makes sense to me. I'll miss the speed of his game, but as others have pointed out, his speed alone is not piling up 40-50 goal seasons. I'm not convinced that he won't disappear from 110% effort once he gets paid. CK is one of those enigmas that confounds a fan's logic. (Not inferring anything to the poster using 'logic' in the thread.)

 

My feelings too

 

And actually I think he’ll go elsewhere and really excel for the next few seasons. But then he’ll decline.

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...