Rangers Re-Sign Kaapo Kakko to 2-Year/$4.2M Extension; $2.1M AAV

[Pete]

Just now, Br4d said:

Most players have shown strong hints of what they ultimately will be when they are two full seasons in.

 

With Kakko you have to give him a small benefit of the doubt because 2020 was such a screwed up season.  It's hard to develop as a young player in the kind of bubble the Rangers played in.  Tough teams all over the place particularly for a Euro player to acclimate in.

 

That said, he really hasn't shown even flashes of being a great player.  Not at any point in his tenure here.  That generally means he isn't likely to be a great player.

More "he hasn't done X by Y so Z".

 

And yet so many players buck that trend. 

[Pete]

Just now, rmc51 said:

I think you’re still just seeing him through rose colored glasses because he was selected 2nd overall.

 

Time to re-evaluate. I don’t agree he’s made big strides in any department whatsoever.

And yet you show patience with Chytil for no reason at all... oh, wait, those three playoff games when he went on a heater... 

[BrooksBurner]

Just now, Pete said:

And yet you show patience with Chytil for no reason at all... oh, wait, those three playoff games when he went on a heater... 

I’ve never roped Chytil off in trade suggestions or painted illusions of grandeur…or even wanted the Rangers to make long term sacrifices because of him. The most I’ve ever said is he has good size and speed, and I think he could put it together. I’ve also said that might not be here because they can’t wait too long on it.

 

Apples and oranges anyway. Kakko was way more highly touted, and people are still viewing him through that 2OA lens. They’ve been gaslit into seeing growth that isn’t there because of it.

[Scott]

5 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Yup, and then we'll hear "see! It's coming!" and then it just never will lol.

 

[Br4d]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

More "he hasn't done X by Y so Z".

 

And yet so many players buck that trend. 

 

I'm not looking at numbers particularly.  I'm looking at Kakko and nothing suggests that he is going to be a great player at this point.

 

And really many players do not buck the trend.  A few buck the trend and then we can point at them and "look it can happen."

 

As an example: Zibanejad at 19 and 20 didn't look like a great player except for brief flashes here and there.  Then he stepped up in his 21 year and was a solid player, scoring 20 goals.  He had established that he could play at the NHL level, sometimes quite well.  He also had weirdness to deal with at the start due to the NHL lockout.

 

Out of Kakko we've had very little to go on so far.  Basically his big strength right now is that the Rangers have the puck more often when he is on the ice than not and while that is a good thing it doesn't show up as much in the +/- as it should because he's neither a scorer or playmaker based on what we have seen so far.  He could break out at 21 like Zibanejad did but by this point in his career Zibanejad had already established that he was an NHL player - the only question was whether he was a really good player or just a roster spot in the bottom 6.

 

Maybe Kakko's career would have advanced further at this point if the Rangers had a way to send him back to Finland in his 18 season the way the Senators returned Zibanejad to Sweden when the NHL just looked to fast for him at 18.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Br4d

[RangersIn7]

6 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

I think you’re still just seeing him through rose colored glasses because he was selected 2nd overall.

 

Time to re-evaluate. I don’t agree he’s made big strides in any department whatsoever.

Re-evaluate is fine. 
I agree on big strides. There’s been no major move forward in his game other than him not looking lost in year 2 like he did as a rookie. 

I do think though that he’s shown some things at times, and that he has made gains in other areas, but nothing beyond small to moderate. 
 

Just not ready to make anywhere near a definitive, final evaluation on him.

We honestly haven’t seen him a whole heck of a lot over 3 seasons. It’s insane. It’s all fits and starts. 

For what it’s worth:

 

He makes the roster as an 18 year old, and is awful. Minus-26 that first season. Plus-3 and plus 9 the previous. Without much offense. That’s improvement. 
His possession numbers over the last 2 seasons are actually pretty damn good considering he doesn’t shoot at all and needs to. He’s over 11% in shooting over the past 2 seasons too. 
 

So there’s some statistics to suggest improvement. 

 

I honestly expected best case, a guy who would eventually be 25-30 and 60+ with strong two-way and all-situation play. 
If he takes a big step this year, scores around 20, tops 40-45 points, can be utilized to kill penalties, and plays highly responsible defense, I’d be really happy with that. 
Anything more is gravy. 

But we need to see it. And he needs to keep his ass in the lineup.

 

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I'm not looking at numbers particularly.  I'm looking at Kakko and nothing suggests that he is going to be a great player at this point.

 

And really many players do not buck the trend.  A few buck the trend and then we can point at them and "look it can happen."

 

As an example: Zibanejad at 19 and 20 didn't look like a great player except for brief flashes here and there.  Then he stepped up in his 21 year and was a solid player, scoring 20 goals.  He had established that he could play at the NHL level, sometimes quite well.  He also had weirdness to deal with at the start due to the NHL lockout.

 

Out of Kakko we've had very little to go on so far.  Basically his big strength right now is that the Rangers have the puck more often when he is on the ice than not and while that is a good thing it doesn't show up as much in the +/- as it should because he's neither a scorer or playmaker based on what we have seen so far.  He could break out at 21 like Zibanejad did but by this point in his career Zibanejad had already established that he was an NHL player - the only question was whether he was a really good player or just a roster spot in the bottom 6.

 

Maybe Kakko's career would have advanced further at this point if the Rangers had a way to send him back to Finland in his 18 season the way the Senators returned Zibanejad to Sweden when the NHL just looked to fast for him at 18.

How much 19 or 20 year old Zib did you watch? 

[Albatrosss]

Excuses, excuses, excuses.  Blah..blah..blah

 

Believe!!

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

8 hours ago, rmc51 said:

Apples and oranges anyway. Kakko was way more highly touted, and people are still viewing him through that 2OA lens. They’ve been gaslit into seeing growth that isn’t there because of it.

I think it's the other way around. You're too stuck on the "he should be a lot better by now because he was a 2OA" so you want him gone. Saying we've "sacrificed" other better players to fit in Kakko's 2.1m contract is just nonsense. Even if Kakko wouldn't improve a single bit from last season he's still a valuable 3rd liner for 2.1m, so I really don't understand your argument here.

 

And saying he hasn't improve at all means you didn't watch a single game of him from his rookie season because he's improved a lot since then. He's still slow as shit, but his skating have actually improved a lot.

 

He needs to "break out" during this 2 year contract, but even if he doesn't he'll still be a defensively responsible 35-ish points 3rd liner that usually costs more than 2.1m.

[4EverRangerFrank]

15 hours ago, Jdog99 said:

Which is also the position we seem to be in with Chytil now...if he builds on his playoff performance and starts to really breakout, i guess he'll be done here.

I hope Kakko watched Chytil step his game up during the playoffs and that he too, steps up! If they both develop into something great, then I'll take 2 years of production and worry about how to keep them later. Right now? There's not much downside risk here at this price.

[Phil]

  

14 hours ago, Pete said:

Where are you getting 4 years from? It's barely been two full seasons of games played. 

 

Going into his fourth year. My mind skipped too far ahead anticipating another year of meh.

 

As for games played, yes, that's a factor, but there's nothing dishonest about saying that in three seasons — whatever portions of them he's played, for whatever reason — there's not a lot of shine there. But my larger point is this is now very much shit or get off the pot territory. He has "two years" to get it in gear, but in reality, more like one and a half, because come deadline time a year and a half from now, if we're still counting the excuses, they're gonna move on.

[RangersIn7]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

  

 

Going into his fourth year. My mind skipped too far ahead anticipating another year of meh.

 

As for games played, yes, that's a factor, but there's nothing dishonest about saying that in three seasons — whatever portions of them he's played, for whatever reason — there's not a lot of shine there. But my larger point is this is now very much shit or get off the pot territory. He has "two years" to get it in gear, but in reality, more like one and a half, because come deadline time a year and a half from now, if we're still counting the excuses, they're gonna move on.

Yes.

 

The next 18 months are crucial. 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yes.

 

The next 18 months are crucial. 

 

Yup. Never been a stronger/deeper team. Better goaltending. Better defense. Better forwards. And he has every opportunity to crack the team's top-six. In fact, this coming year, the decks have been cleared even more than they were when they dumped Buch to get he and Kravtsov the runway they apparently needed.

 

Sorry, but I'm done accepting excuses. Perform, or piss off.

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I think it's the other way around. You're too stuck on the "he should be a lot better by now because he was a 2OA" so you want him gone. Saying we've "sacrificed" other better players to fit in Kakko's 2.1m contract is just nonsense. Even if Kakko wouldn't improve a single bit from last season he's still a valuable 3rd liner for 2.1m, so I really don't understand your argument here.

 

And saying he hasn't improve at all means you didn't watch a single game of him from his rookie season because he's improved a lot since then. He's still slow as shit, but his skating have actually improved a lot.

 

He needs to "break out" during this 2 year contract, but even if he doesn't he'll still be a defensively responsible 35-ish points 3rd liner that usually costs more than 2.1m.

To some degree, you're right. I am stuck on "he should be a lot better by now given he was a highly touted 2OA", but rightfully so. It's such a Rangers fan mentality to pull out every excuse in the book 2 seasons worth of games and 3 years later. Smells like some serious cope. He's probably not even on the roster right now if he was a 2nd round pick. I don't think I've ever said "I want him gone", but he's no longer immune to harder hitting critique. The potential may still be in there and I've acknowledged that, but there's a real risk that it may be several years before he taps into it, and the ceiling that existed has been significantly lowered. So now the team is potentially waiting years for a much lower ceiling player than originally projected. Additionally, another year like the previous 3 and he's worth next to nothing. Apparently he's already not worth much on the trade market even at a cheap cap hit, so damage might already be done there.

 

I made that statement about sacrificing certain players for Kakko (and Chytil) in another thread and followed up on it with more context so I won't go back into that here.

 

Pretty low blow on games watched. Yeah, I post all of the time on a message board online but don't watch any games. The improvement from year 1 to year 2 was more or less learning the game on NA ice and effort-related. He became harder on the puck carrier along the boards and vastly improved his defensive positioning. That stuff is positive, but nothing that screams high end talent or potential. Year 2 to year 3 was pretty lateral. Riveting stuff.

 

Agreed he needs to break out, but I don't necessarily think he has 2 years to do it. I think it needs to be next year or he'll be gone.

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

To some degree, you're right. I am stuck on "he should be a lot better by now given he was a highly touted 2OA", but rightfully so. It's such a Rangers fan mentality to pull out every excuse in the book 2 seasons worth of games and 3 years later. Smells like some serious cope. He's probably not even on the roster right now if he was a 2nd round pick. I don't think I've ever said "I want him gone", but he's no longer immune to harder hitting critique. The potential may still be in there and I've acknowledged that, but there's a real risk that it may be several years before he taps into it, and the ceiling that existed has been significantly lowered. So now the team is potentially waiting years for a much lower ceiling player than originally projected. Additionally, another year like the previous 3 and he's worth next to nothing. Apparently he's already not worth much on the trade market even at a cheap cap hit, so damage might already be done there.

 

I made that statement about sacrificing certain players for Kakko (and Chytil) in another thread and followed up on it with more context so I won't go back into that here.

 

Pretty low blow on games watched. Yeah, I post all of the time on a message board online but don't watch any games. The improvement from year 1 to year 2 was more or less learning the game on NA ice and effort-related. He became harder on the puck carrier along the boards and vastly improved his defensive positioning. That stuff is positive, but nothing that screams high end talent or potential. Year 2 to year 3 was pretty lateral. Riveting stuff.

 

Agreed he needs to break out, but I don't necessarily think he has 2 years to do it. I think it needs to be next year or he'll be gone.

 

This is accurate as fuck. Valiquette literally spoke to this, about Kakko (and Lafreniere) during a post game last year talking about how draft pedigree matters. I recorded it because I thought it was really relevant:

 

That typically take "three or four years," according to Vally, so Kakko's on the clock.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

5 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

To some degree, you're right. I am stuck on "he should be a lot better by now given he was a highly touted 2OA", but rightfully so. It's such a Rangers fan mentality to pull out every excuse in the book 2 seasons worth of games and 3 years later. Smells like some serious cope. He's probably not even on the roster right now if he was a 2nd round pick. I don't think I've ever said "I want him gone", but he's no longer immune to harder hitting critique. The potential may still be in there and I've acknowledged that, but there's a real risk that it may be several years before he taps into it, and the ceiling that existed has been significantly lowered. So now the team is potentially waiting years for a much lower ceiling player than originally projected. Additionally, another year like the previous 3 and he's worth next to nothing. Apparently he's already not worth much on the trade market even at a cheap cap hit, so damage might already be done there.

 

I made that statement about sacrificing certain players for Kakko (and Chytil) in another thread and followed up on it with more context so I won't go back into that here.

 

Pretty low blow on games watched. Yeah, I post all of the time on a message board online but don't watch any games. The improvement from year 1 to year 2 was more or less learning the game on NA ice and effort-related. He became harder on the puck carrier along the boards and vastly improved his defensive positioning. That stuff is positive, but nothing that screams high end talent or potential. Year 2 to year 3 was pretty lateral. Riveting stuff.

 

Agreed he needs to break out, but I don't necessarily think he has 2 years to do it. I think it needs to be next year or he'll be gone.

I think everyone agree that he SHOULD be better by now, but the reality is that he isn't. Now we can continue to look at him as an underperforming 2OA or we could just look at him as a developing young player. It's not like it's either 70 points top 6 player or completely bust with. If he's a 35-45 points, defensively responsible 3rd liner for the next two seasons, isn't that really good value for a player on a 2.1m contract? We're past the rebuild so it's not like the team is "waiting for him". He's a player on the team. Currently he's a serviceable 3rd liner, hopefully he turns into more, but we're neither waiting for anything nor sacrificing anything to keep him here.

 

It wasn't meant like that, I obviously know you watch the games, but you literally said "this lack of growth is what concerns me. It hasn’t grown…like at all." and that's just not right. He was BRUTAL, totally lost on the ice, now he's at least serviceable and not a liability. There's lightyears between rookie Kakko and last post-season Kakko. It says more about rookie Kakko, but there's still been a lot of improvements.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

This is accurate as fuck. Valiquette literally spoke to this, about Kakko (and Lafreniere) during a post game last year talking about how draft pedigree matters. I recorded it because I thought it was really relevant:

 

That typically take "three or four years," according to Vally, so Kakko's on the clock.

And that should be on management, not on Kakko.

 

Andersson, Chytil, Kakko, Lafreniere, even Miller and Howden were all rushed to the NHL too soon.

[Pete]

41 minutes ago, Phil said:

  

 

Going into his fourth year. My mind skipped too far ahead anticipating another year of meh.

 

As for games played, yes, that's a factor, but there's nothing dishonest about saying that in three seasons — whatever portions of them he's played, for whatever reason — there's not a lot of shine there. But my larger point is this is now very much shit or get off the pot territory. He has "two years" to get it in gear, but in reality, more like one and a half, because come deadline time a year and a half from now, if we're still counting the excuses, they're gonna move on.

Agreed.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

To some degree, you're right. I am stuck on "he should be a lot better by now given he was a highly touted 2OA", but rightfully so. It's such a Rangers fan mentality to pull out every excuse in the book 2 seasons worth of games and 3 years later. Smells like some serious cope. He's probably not even on the roster right now if he was a 2nd round pick. I don't think I've ever said "I want him gone", but he's no longer immune to harder hitting critique. The potential may still be in there and I've acknowledged that, but there's a real risk that it may be several years before he taps into it, and the ceiling that existed has been significantly lowered. So now the team is potentially waiting years for a much lower ceiling player than originally projected. Additionally, another year like the previous 3 and he's worth next to nothing. Apparently he's already not worth much on the trade market even at a cheap cap hit, so damage might already be done there.

 

I made that statement about sacrificing certain players for Kakko (and Chytil) in another thread and followed up on it with more context so I won't go back into that here.

 

Pretty low blow on games watched. Yeah, I post all of the time on a message board online but don't watch any games. The improvement from year 1 to year 2 was more or less learning the game on NA ice and effort-related. He became harder on the puck carrier along the boards and vastly improved his defensive positioning. That stuff is positive, but nothing that screams high end talent or potential. Year 2 to year 3 was pretty lateral. Riveting stuff.

 

Agreed he needs to break out, but I don't necessarily think he has 2 years to do it. I think it needs to be next year or he'll be gone.

I don't agree at all. At worst he'll be a cost controlled 3rd liner for year 2, and possibly beyond. There's really no reason to move on from him other than fan frustration. He's not really taking anyone's spot in the bottom 6. Better to keep him than Blais, TBH.

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

If he's a 35-45 points, defensively responsible 3rd liner for the next two seasons, isn't that really good value for a player on a 2.1m contract? We're past the rebuild so it's not like the team is "waiting for him". He's a player on the team. Currently he's a serviceable 3rd liner, hopefully he turns into more, but we're neither waiting for anything nor sacrificing anything to keep him here.

It's exactly this.

[Ozzy]

My boy is gonna bust out like Andy Dufresne this year!  

 

Some flashes of The Kakko:

 

[Phil]

21 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I think everyone agree that he SHOULD be better by now, but the reality is that he isn't. Now we can continue to look at him as an underperforming 2OA or we could just look at him as a developing young player. It's not like it's either 70 points top 6 player or completely bust with. If he's a 35-45 points, defensively responsible 3rd liner for the next two seasons, isn't that really good value for a player on a 2.1m contract? We're past the rebuild so it's not like the team is "waiting for him". He's a player on the team. Currently he's a serviceable 3rd liner, hopefully he turns into more, but we're neither waiting for anything nor sacrificing anything to keep him here.

 

It wasn't meant like that, I obviously know you watch the games, but you literally said "this lack of growth is what concerns me. It hasn’t grown…like at all." and that's just not right. He was BRUTAL, totally lost on the ice, now he's at least serviceable and not a liability. There's lightyears between rookie Kakko and last post-season Kakko. It says more about rookie Kakko, but there's still been a lot of improvements.

 

Yes. For as long as he makes $2.1 million. That ends two years from now. Look around the league. 23/24-year old 45-point players get 45-point player money. I'm not sure how much interest I have in Kakko at $5 million.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yes. For as long as he makes $2.1 million. That ends two years from now. Look around the league. 23/24-year old 45-point players get 45-point player money. I'm not sure how much interest I have in Kakko at $5 million.

Yes and if he remains only a 45-point player over the next two years he's in that "danger zone" area and will probably be too expensive to keep as a middle 6 guy.

 

This contract is his last chance, but even if he were to "fail" he would still be serviceable enough that he's good value for his contract over the next two season.

 

Now if you got no confidence in him whatsoever and want him traded before he loses all his value, that's another discussion, but I think his value in a trade is too low atm that it's better to just keep him and see what happens.

[BrooksBurner]

36 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I think everyone agree that he SHOULD be better by now, but the reality is that he isn't. Now we can continue to look at him as an underperforming 2OA or we could just look at him as a developing young player. It's not like it's either 70 points top 6 player or completely bust with. If he's a 35-45 points, defensively responsible 3rd liner for the next two seasons, isn't that really good value for a player on a 2.1m contract? We're past the rebuild so it's not like the team is "waiting for him". He's a player on the team. Currently he's a serviceable 3rd liner, hopefully he turns into more, but we're neither waiting for anything nor sacrificing anything to keep him here.

 

It wasn't meant like that, I obviously know you watch the games, but you literally said "this lack of growth is what concerns me. It hasn’t grown…like at all." and that's just not right. He was BRUTAL, totally lost on the ice, now he's at least serviceable and not a liability. There's lightyears between rookie Kakko and last post-season Kakko. It says more about rookie Kakko, but there's still been a lot of improvements.

 

I've actually got no problem with him on the 3rd line right now going into the season. They will still be a playoff team and they can see if he surprises, but serviceable 3rd liners are replaceable and I'm not sold he's the right kind of 3rd liner to complement the top half of this team in the playoffs anyway. If he's got 9 goals and 13 assists in 51 games at the trade deadline and Chicago wants him for Kane, I'm probably doing it. I still just don't agree that they haven't sacrificed anything to keep him here, but again I've said my piece on that elsewhere.

 

When I said hasn't grown at all, I was referencing growth in specific areas. He still has no burst, no acceleration, slow top speed, etc. Pete says his edge work is better. Maybe it is, but it's not good that after 3 years that's what we have to lean on.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

This is accurate as fuck. Valiquette literally spoke to this, about Kakko (and Lafreniere) during a post game last year talking about how draft pedigree matters. I recorded it because I thought it was really relevant:

 

That typically take "three or four years," according to Vally, so Kakko's on the clock.

 

Love that quote. Goes back to the argument that "gifted" roster spots actually do exist based on draft status. Take it from Vally. He knows.