Rangers Give Kravtsov Permission to Seek Trade; Loaned to KHL

[josh]

25 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

I'd rather dress Cuylle or Othmann.  They're both 40 goal scorers.

I'd have no issue inserting either into the lineup if they can help the team win.

 

Even if they didnt help this team get to the playoffs.

 

 

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

This is the conspiracy, that the team is holding a grudge against him.  Its not a grudge.  He quit on his teammates.  He doesn't get to walk into the playoffs.  That's a slap in the face to all the guys that bought in all year and earned it.

 

I'm really torn on this, because I think there's no logical argument that we're set on RW by any stretch. Kravtsov has got to be better than Hunt, or than Goodrow or Reaves moving up in the event of injury. At the same time, bringing back Kravtsov onto this team after the whole shitshow in October flies in the face of the meritocracy they've set up this season.

 

It's a hard decision, because there's no denying in my mind that Kravtsov could help, but I'd fully understand why that might be a double-edged sword.

[jsm7302]

2 minutes ago, G1000 said:

 

I'm really torn on this, because I think there's no logical argument that we're set on RW by any stretch. Kravtsov has got to be better than Hunt, or than Goodrow or Reaves moving up in the event of injury. At the same time, bringing back Kravtsov onto this team after the whole shitshow in October flies in the face of the meritocracy they've set up this season.

 

It's a hard decision, because there's no denying in my mind that Kravtsov could help, but I'd fully understand why that might be a double-edged sword.

Leave it to the room to vote. Survivor style....

[LindG1000]

Just now, jsm7302 said:

Leave it to the room to vote. Survivor style....

I honestly think if Kreider, Trouba, and Mika want him here, it'd be fine to bring him back. That's a lot to lay on your players though.

[josh]

4 minutes ago, G1000 said:

 

I'm really torn on this, because I think there's no logical argument that we're set on RW by any stretch. Kravtsov has got to be better than Hunt, or than Goodrow or Reaves moving up in the event of injury. At the same time, bringing back Kravtsov onto this team after the whole shitshow in October flies in the face of the meritocracy *they've set up this season**.

 

It's a hard decision, because there's no denying in my mind that Kravtsov could help, but I'd fully understand why that might be a double-edged sword.

 

we*

thread**

 

I really dont think Kratsov holds the power or the ego to disrupt the lockerroom. The guys look at him like the long-lost cousin that got in trouble when he was younger. They arent looking at him to be THE man, or think he is, to the point it would disrupt the lockerroom. We keep trying to take the DeAngelo feelings about a divided lockerroom and shove them into this scenario - buts its different. The Brooks article is complete personal speculation with no proof or support.

[josh]

6 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

Leave it to the room to vote. Survivor style....

 

No. You dont implement a potential lockerroom splitting vote at this part of the season. Even if its 1 or 2 people that vote differently than others - its not worth it.

 

It's a yes or no from upper management and move on. (for the boys. We will continue to fight the good fight on here, though)

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, josh said:

 

No. You dont implement a potential lockerroom splitting vote at this part of the season. Even if its 1 or 2 people that vote differently than others - its not worth it.

 

It's a yes or no from upper management and move on. (for the boys. We will continue to fight the good fight on here, though)

 

Amazing how you can apply this logic to this, but applying it to the concept of bringing him over at all — which could produce the same thing, naturally — is a bridge too far.

[RangersIn7]

14 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Exactly this. Exactly all of this.

 

I do so in training camp next year. "Clean slate." If there's any indication he intends to quit again, dump him to a team who thinks they can fix him.

 

Bringing him over now isn't just a massive offense to the guys who didn't quit on the team, but is insanely risky. If he quit again now, he'd have negative value.

Well, it honestly doesn’t even need to go that far.

No offense to you, but to the point, I don’t know how it’s even a question. You can’t do it. It’s not an option.

Even with the injury to Motte, you have what, 3-4 other forward options in front of him who are not likely to be in the lineup come playoff time. He can’t jump those guys. 
The fact that Brooks wrote about it is actually a joke. It’s such a non-option that to even write about it just illustrates 2 things: 1)proves how awful the major sports media is. They simply hijack stories and hypothetically twist them to create false or non-existent narratives. 

2) Americans as a whole are really fucking dumb. Cause they actually buy it and discuss it.. and do so without calling it out. 
 

It’s bullshit. 

[Phil]

I don't think this is a hijacked story at all. It's literally been what fans have been talking about and speculating about for a few weeks now as Kravtov's team made the playoffs and then fell behind in the series.

[Keirik]

37 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

This is the conspiracy, that the team is holding a grudge against him.  Its not a grudge.  He quit on his teammates.  He doesn't get to walk into the playoffs.  That's a slap in the face to all the guys that bought in all year and earned it.

No, that doesn’t make it a conspiracy. It means exactly what it means. The organization isn’t over what Kravtsov himself did and aren’t willing to extend an olive branch.  A conspiracy means the organization always wanted to hold him down intentionally regardless of anything and that’s just silly.

 

 And again, the olive branch means inviting him back to the organization even if it means press box until an injury or something changes where Gallant wants a different look or a spark. No one is saying to invite him back and gift him top minutes. 
 

 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Keirik said:

No, that doesn’t make it a conspiracy. It means exactly what it means. The organization isn’t over what Kravtsov himself did and aren’t willing to extend an olive branch.  A conspiracy means the organization always wanted to hold him down intentionally regardless of anything and that’s just silly.

 

 And again, the olive branch means inviting him back to the organization even if it means press box until an injury or something changes where Gallant wants a different look or a spark. No one is saying to invite him back and gift him top minutes.

 

That's fine, if he's willing to accept that, but that needs to be agreed upon as precondition. They have every right to not be over what he did, because they take on all the risk bringing him back. If he quits again, his value goes negative.

[josh]

15 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Amazing how you can apply this logic to this, but applying it to the concept of bringing him over at all — which could produce the same thing, naturally — is a bridge too far.

I am under the impression the majority of the players dont care about the Kravstov situation as much as we speculate on here. The most you'll get is "maybe he could help, maybe not, its whatever" from a player.

 

Requiring a vote to take sides is forcing it to be an issue.

[RangersIn7]

Just now, josh said:

I am under the impression the majority of the players dont care about the Kravstov situation as much as we speculate on here. The most you'll get is "maybe he could help, maybe not, its whatever" from a player.

 

Requiring a vote to take sides is forcing it to be an issue.

They don’t care. He’s an afterthought who hasn’t been around the team in 6+ months. There’s actual guys who have played for this team in the last 6 months who won’t see the ice in the playoffs. 
 

He’s a next season option. 

[Keirik]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's fine, if he's willing to accept that, but that needs to be agreed upon as precondition. They have every right to not be over what he did, because they take on all the risk bringing him back. If he quits again, his value goes negative.

Well that’s the crutch of my point. It’s testing the waters and it answers more than just slamming the door does. Krav fucked up. 6 months ago. A lot has changed in the world from 6 months ago. Maybe he hasn’t but I’d like to see where his head is today. I really do like that 900k cap hit he likely gets next year too. 
 

  Also, I’m sorry Gaut et al fans but if there is an injury, come playoff time or end of regular season time and he’s been practicing with the team and no issues, he has the potential to bring more than other black aces. 

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, josh said:

I am under the impression the majority of the players dont care about the Kravstov situation as much as we speculate on here. The most you'll get is "maybe he could help, maybe not, its whatever" from a player.

 

Requiring a vote to take sides is forcing it to be an issue.

 

I agree, but the moment you call him up and he potentially plays over guys who've been here all year, you're at risk of creating a problem.

 

Like @RangersIn7 said — he's a next season option. Clean slate. Training camp. Come back, let's leave the past in the past, and move forward together.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Well that’s the crutch of my point. It’s testing the waters and it answers more than just slamming the door does. Krav fucked up. 6 months ago. A lot has changed in the world from 6 months ago. Maybe he hasn’t but I’d like to see where his head is today. I really do like that 900k cap hit he likely gets next year too. 
 

  Also, I’m sorry Gaut et al fans but if there is an injury, come playoff time or end of regular season time and he’s been practicing with the team and no issues, he has the potential to bring more than other black aces. 

 

I wouldn't "slam the door." If this preconditon can't be met, I'd simply tell him "OK, no problem — let's put a pin in this and pick it up again ahead of training camp. We still think you have a bright future with us and we look forward to finding a solution that works for all parties then."

[josh]

5 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

They don’t care.

 

He’s an afterthought who hasn’t been around the team in 6+ months. There’s actual guys who have played for this team in the last 6 months who won’t see the ice in the playoffs. 
 

He’s a next season option. 

I dont think these first 2 statements necessarily go together.

They dont care - probably not.

 

But you're also talking about a cup. They want to win, and understand it means someone sitting - whether its a deadline acquisition, Chris Kreider straight from Boston College playing 18 in the playoffs, Lauri Korpiski getting a call up for his first NHL game, or whomever.

 

Id hate to be on that team, see a talented player not be put in the lineup over some childish shit that's going to cost me a cup. Fuck no.

[josh]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I agree, but the moment you call him up and he potentially plays over guys who've been here all year, you're at risk of creating a problem.

 

Like @RangersIn7 said — he's a next season option. Clean slate. Training camp. Come back, let's leave the past in the past, and move forward together.

 

All this is fine if he sucks and you don't care about winning the cup.

 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, josh said:

 

All this is fine if he sucks and you don't care about winning the cup.

 

 

What? No. The team has a legitimate shot at being first in the East. The idea that they need Kravtsov to ensure they win is absurd.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

What? No. The team has a legitimate shot at being first in the East. The idea that they need Kravtsov to ensure they win is absurd.

Metro. No way they are catching Florida.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, rmc51 said:

Metro. No way they are catching Florida.

 

Sorry, that's what I meant. Freudian slip, or whatever.

[BrooksBurner]

46 minutes ago, josh said:

 

we*

thread**

 

I really dont think Kratsov holds the power or the ego to disrupt the lockerroom. The guys look at him like the long-lost cousin that got in trouble when he was younger. They arent looking at him to be THE man, or think he is, to the point it would disrupt the lockerroom. We keep trying to take the DeAngelo feelings about a divided lockerroom and shove them into this scenario - buts its different. The Brooks article is complete personal speculation with no proof or support.

+100 for the we/thread correction. Don’t know how many times Kakko and Lafreniere deserved to be in the AHL. Red carpet treatment…meritocracy? Not a chance.

[josh]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

What? No. The team has a legitimate shot at being first in the East. The idea that they need Kravtsov to ensure they win is absurd.

 

Hopefully not. But Motte is hurt, Kakko and Rooney rusty, Reaves is ... not good, Gauthier - fuck no, Lafreniere needs another reset, I forgot Copp in my projected playoff lineup, etc.

 

Probably should stop mocking Dryden Hunt, as you'll really need him, now.

[RangersIn7]

5 minutes ago, josh said:

I dont think these first 2 statements necessarily go together.

They dont care - probably not.

 

But you're also talking about a cup. They want to win, and understand it means someone sitting - whether its a deadline acquisition, Chris Kreider straight from Boston College playing 18 in the playoffs, Lauri Korpiski getting a call up for his first NHL game, or whomever.

 

Id hate to be on that team, see a talented player not be put in the lineup over some childish shit that's going to cost me a cup. Fuck no.

 

2 minutes ago, josh said:

 

All this is fine if he sucks and you don't care about winning the cup.

 

Look… if his agent called, or Drury called his agent, and the conversation was… “Look, he’s a 21 year old kid who made not a great choice, but went to Russia, worked hard, and was productive, and he wants to be a part of this and will fall in line.”

 

Then… ok. Let’s see what the room says.

 

But even then, how do you put him in front of players who have actually been there and played for you?  That’s a hard sell.

 

Personally, I actually think that he’s the absolute perfect player to play RW with Panarin and Strome. Perfect. He’s big. Skilled. Likes to shoot. Skates well. He scores. He’s their complement. And what’s funny is that had he just accepted the Hartford assignment in October, he’d have been there this season, playing with those 2. 
With 50 games playing with those 2, 20+ goals might have happened for him. 
 

 

I’ll forgive a lot for people who are young. 
But he has to be conciliatory and humbled. 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, rmc51 said:

+100 for the we/thread correction. Don’t know how many times Kakko and Lafreniere deserved to be in the AHL. Red carpet treatment…meritocracy? Not a chance.

 

Again, context matters.

 

Laf and Kakko deserved AHL time, I agree, but not because they were poorly conditioned. Because they were ineffective. Kakko was statistically one of the worst wingers in the entire NHL in his rookie year. But he never quit. Neither did Laf. Laf, in fact, has shown an early willingness to do anything asked of him, including getting stapled to the bench in games he's not playing well in. We never hear a peep, and when we do, it's positive. It's always about "I need to be better. I need to work harder."

 

tl;dr: they didn't quit. Kravtsov did. That's all the difference.