MuddyInTheMiddle

I don't think it's contradictory at all; simply pragmatic. The team has to believe that DeAngelo & Lemieux will play some sort of role moving forward in this rebuild as long as they continue to develop, whether it's them playing towards their ceiling or selling high on them for future acquisitions. While both players certainly do not have any leverage and can indeed be forced to play for their qualifying offer, is that really the best strategy to get them there, when we are talking about saving a relatively small amount(albeit precious) cap space. Now in the case of Kreider, he is due a major payday in less than 12 months. It's been argued here to ad nauseam that he is not worth that Kevin Hayes type deal even though he can probably command it on the open market; I am sure Rangers management believes that too. This puts them into the position of having to manage their asset, my hyperbole aside. It's not like there isn't a precedent for this type of negotiation given that it was widely reported that this is how they negotiated Mats Zucarello's previous contract. I don't believe that the fact that he is their longest tenured player, is really not going to be much of a factor in that negotiation.

Not sure if that is a comment, question, or echo ThirtyONE?

<a href= I think what Drew said above is spot on about Namestikov or Strome getting moved as well to free up additional cap room. That will give the Rangers the flexibility to not force DeAngelo & Lemieux(creating all sorts of disenfranchisement) to play for their qualifying offers and leave room to keep a Nieves/Gettinger/McKegg/Fogarty type as well as Shesterkin on the roster if they want to. Or it let's them put a gun to Kreider's head and say "This is the term/$$ we are willing to resign you for; take it or have fun playing in Winnipeg this season".