Dreger Rangers Taking Calls on Kaapo Kakko

[Keirik]

Question

 

    If Anaheim offers a direct swap of Kakko for Vatrano, do you make that deal? 

[Albatrosss]

9 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Question

 

    If Anaheim offers a direct swap of Kakko for Vatrano, do you make that deal? 

i probably wont.  Vatrano brings nothing if he doesnt score goals.  Kakko brings nothing at all but there's always an upside that he might develop into a defensive forward, at the least...lol

[JHS]

Players I won't miss once they are off the team-  Kappo Kakko.  I had hopes for this guy going into this season but with his injury and just overall terrible point production for a second overall pick, it's time to explore other options.  He has limited skill sets, his traits as a hockey player are weak and certainly not developing-  he seems to have plateaued to a 3rd/4th line type players.  It's not looking good for his future as a Ranger and before he has absolutely no value, it would make sense to package him for a ready to play center or even maybe a top 6 winger. 

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, JHS said:

Players I won't miss once they are off the team-  Kappo Kakko.  I had hopes for this guy going into this season but with his injury and just overall terrible point production for a second overall pick, it's time to explore other options.  He has limited skill sets, his traits as a hockey player are weak and certainly not developing-  he seems to have plateaued to a 3rd/4th line type players.  It's not looking good for his future as a Ranger and before he has absolutely no value, it would make sense to package him for a ready to play center or even maybe a top 6 winger. 

 

Totally agree. And I won't have to hear about how much "promise" he has any more.

[Phil]

34 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

i probably wont.  Vatrano brings nothing if he doesnt score goals.  Kakko brings nothing at all but there's always an upside that he might develop into a defensive forward, at the least...lol

 

That's not "upside." It's basic competence. Most third-liners are "defensive forwards" because they lack the offensive talent to be anything else.

[Pete]

Those seem like totally reasonable reasons to trade a 22 year old.

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's not "upside." It's basic competence. Most third-liners are "defensive forwards" because they lack the offensive talent to be anything else.

I'm interested to hear how you come to this conclusion. A lot of NHLers aren't very good defensive players, and for a lot of young players that's where they have the most room to grow. Yet you feel that's "basic competence"? Then why do so many need to be taught the defensive side?

 

I will agree that most 3rd liners were 1st liners when they were younger, who's skillsets/assets didn't translate or weren't transferrable to the NHL, but this isn't a sliding scale where if you're getting better at defense, you're getting worse at offense, which is what I'm gathering from "third-liners are "defensive forwards" because they lack the offensive talent to be anything else."...Because plenty of those guys never learn defense and wind up in the Danish Super League.

 

But Kakko is already a very good defensive player. He's much better offensively than what he's shown this year, and we know this because we've seen it. So if he winds up as Jesper Fast, 35-45 pts and sound defensively, then we've finally replaced Fast—A guy who we've been trying to replace since he left.

 

Speed of development is probably the worst reason to trade a player who's just 22.

Edited January 31 by Pete

[fletch]

Any move where we lose Kakko, Othmann, Cuylle, or other young players is compromising our future.  They are the kind of moves GMs make when they desperately need to help to prop up a present-day flawed roster by acquiring veterans to fix holes in the lineup.  GMs that are planning for 3-5 year windows don't sacrifice the future to go all-in on a given year.  But it is the kind of move that wouldn't surprise me coming from the Rangers.

[Albatrosss]

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm interested to hear how you come to this conclusion. A lot of NHLers aren't very good defensive players, and for a lot of young players that's where they have the most room to grow. Yet you feel that's "basic competence"? Then why do so many need to be taught the defensive side?

 

I will agree that most 3rd liners were 1st liners when they were younger, who's skillsets/assets didn't translate or weren't transferrable to the NHL, but this isn't a sliding scale where if you're getting better at defense, you're getting worse at offense, which is what I'm gathering from "third-liners are "defensive forwards" because they lack the offensive talent to be anything else."...Because plenty of those guys never learn defense and wind up in the Danish Super League.

 

But Kakko is already a very good defensive player. He's much better offensively than what he's shown this year, and we know this because we've seen it. So if he winds up as Jesper Fast, 35-45 pts and sound defensively, then we've finally replaced Fast—A guy who we've been trying to replace since he left.

 

Speed of development is probably the worst reason to trade a player who's just 22.

Fast was the first guy in on forecheck and a banger.  Kakko isnt it and will probably never be any kind of hitter.  

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

Fast was the first guy in on forecheck and a banger.  Kakko isnt it and will probably never be any kind of hitter.  

You're talking about one specific thing that frankly isn't needed much if he's playing across from Cullye.

 

A defensively responsible forward capable of 35-45 points is all that's needed from a 3RW

Edited January 31 by Pete

[Sod16]

Kakko's value is so low at the moment that I would prefer to just keep him and try to develop him as a good third line player.  Of course, the environment on the team that drafted him second overall is probably not conducive to developing him into something far less than was expected.  For that reason, sooner or later he will get dumped for very little and probably will become a passable player elsewhere.

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

Of course, the environment on the team that drafted him second overall is probably not conducive to developing him into something far less than was expected.

What makes you say this?

[Karan]

1 hour ago, Albatrosss said:

i probably wont.  Vatrano brings nothing if he doesnt score goals.  Kakko brings nothing at all but there's always an upside that he might develop into a defensive forward, at the least...lol

 

What else do you really need from Vatrano? lol If he's #2 RW, Kreids and Mika are good enough on the defensive side of the puck. You don't need 3 defensively sound forwards on your 2nd line. I'd be perfectly fine with him being a pure scorer and wafting around when he's not. If he boosts that line's 5v5 goal scoring, that could make all the difference in a tight playoff series.

[Phil]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm interested to hear how you come to this conclusion. A lot of NHLers aren't very good defensive players, and for a lot of young players that's where they have the most room to grow. Yet you feel that's "basic competence"? Then why do so many need to be taught the defensive side?

 

I will agree that most 3rd liners were 1st liners when they were younger, who's skillsets/assets didn't translate or weren't transferrable to the NHL, but this isn't a sliding scale where if you're getting better at defense, you're getting worse at offense, which is what I'm gathering from "third-liners are "defensive forwards" because they lack the offensive talent to be anything else."...Because plenty of those guys never learn defense and wind up in the Danish Super League.

 

But Kakko is already a very good defensive player. He's much better offensively than what he's shown this year, and we know this because we've seen it. So if he winds up as Jesper Fast, 35-45 pts and sound defensively, then we've finally replaced Fast—A guy who we've been trying to replace since he left.

 

Speed of development is probably the worst reason to trade a player who's just 22.

 

I guess basic competence isn't the best way to phrase it. What I mean is is that I find it difficult to accept the concept of "promise" on a player when what's being potentially promised is that he might ultimately develop into a reliable 200-foot player with limited offense. It feels too lofty a phrase to describe what I would personally classify as "utility" or "reliable." Jesper Fast is a great example of why that's the case, in fact. Fast is a good defensive player and a lot of NHL players do fail to develop the defensive end of their game, but I'd never use the phrase "promise" on him. I also wouldn't say there's any "promise" to Jesper Fast — would you?

 

Kakko is only 22, so it's possible something will click with him offensively in future years, but the phrase I would be using regarding him is "reliability," because it's yet to. "Promise" feels out of reach because, based on my definition, that speaks to visible scoring upside — elite shot, creativity/vision, playmaking, and/or stickhandling — something that you can point to and say "there, that is what's coming." With him, that just doesn't exist. The people who try to claim this always point to the same tic-tac-toe "kid line" goal from a few years ago. To which I'd respond, one play makes not a trend. And we're still talking about a player with nearly 300 games who's approaching his sixth NHL season. That's not exactly a small sample size.

[Phil]

32 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

Kakko's value is so low at the moment that I would prefer to just keep him and try to develop him as a good third line player.  Of course, the environment on the team that drafted him second overall is probably not conducive to developing him into something far less than was expected.  For that reason, sooner or later he will get dumped for very little and probably will become a passable player elsewhere.

 

This is a perfectly acceptable outcome for the Rangers, but it requires one component we can't speak to: a desire from the player to accept this as his lot in life. We don't know one way or another yet, but it's possible he might want to move on simply to find a better path to power play time, for example.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I guess basic competence isn't the best way to phrase it. What I mean is is that I find it difficult to accept the concept of "promise" on a player when what's being potentially promised is that he might ultimately develop into a reliable 200-foot player with limited offense. It feels too lofty a phrase to describe what I would personally classify as "utility" or "reliable." Jesper Fast is a great example of why that's the case, in fact. Fast is a good defensive player and a lot of NHL players do fail to develop the defensive end of their game, but I'd never use the phrase "promise" on him. I also wouldn't say there's any "promise" to Jesper Fast — would you?

 

Kakko is only 22, so it's possible something will click with him offensively in future years, but the phrase I would be using regarding him is "reliability," because it's yet to. "Promise" feels out of reach because, based on my definition, that speaks to visible scoring upside — elite shot, creativity/vision, playmaking, and/or stickhandling — something that you can point to and say "there, that is what's coming." With him, that just doesn't exist. The people who try to claim this always point to the same tic-tac-toe "kid line" goal from a few years ago. To which I'd respond, one play makes not a trend. And we're still talking about a player with nearly 300 games who's approaching his sixth NHL season. That's not exactly a small sample size.

Well to that end he is a reliable 200 ft player already. He's very good defensively, he just hasn't contributed offensively this season, for a variety of reasons that are mostly mental. 

 

He does have tools, he does have a great shot which he never uses, he does have creativity and play making ability and he displayed it, again there's a reason why before the season many were picking him as the breakout candidate. 

 

Everything that's going on right now is in his head. He's the ultimate example of a player who needs to be coached, so I'll ask again where is Peca in all this? Where is Muse? 

Edited January 31 by Pete

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well to that end he is a reliable 200 ft player already. He's very good defensively, he just hasn't contributed offensively this season, for a variety of reasons that are mostly mental. 

 

He does have tools, he does have a great shot which he never uses, he does have creativity and play making ability and he displayed it, again there's a reason why before the season many were picking him as the breakout candidate. 

 

Everything that's going on right now is in his head. He's the ultimate example of a player who needs to be coached, so I'll ask again where is Peca in all this? Where is Muse? 

 

It's hairsplitting, but I don't really see a ton of untapped potential in his shot or creativity/play making. That said, I do agree he'd benefit a lot from coaching because you can see that he's in his own head.

[RangersIn7]

24 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well to that end he is a reliable 200 ft player already. He's very good defensively, he just hasn't contributed offensively this season, for a variety of reasons that are mostly mental. 

 

He does have tools, he does have a great shot which he never uses, he does have creativity and play making ability and he displayed it, again there's a reason why before the season many were picking him as the breakout candidate. 

 

Everything that's going on right now is in his head. He's the ultimate example of a player who needs to be coached, so I'll ask again where is Peca in all this? Where is Muse? 

The more I watch him, the more I see the “One Day” player.

 
That is to say… one day, it’s just gonna happen for him. 
 

That could be here. That could be somewhere else. And who the heck knows when.

 

Just my opinion. And just what I see.

 

He was almost everyone’s breakout candidate for this season. That wasn’t for no reason. 
 

 

I don’t understand the trade talk fully.

I get where it comes from, but you’re still shallow at the position he plays. So you wanna trade him… thus giving you less depth at the position?

 

If there’s a hockey trade to be made… ok. You can look at that.

 

It just seems like people want to trade him out of frustration.

 
How does doing things out of frustration usually work out?

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, fletch said:

Any move where we lose Kakko, Othmann, Cuylle, or other young players is compromising our future.  They are the kind of moves GMs make when they desperately need to help to prop up a present-day flawed roster by acquiring veterans to fix holes in the lineup.  GMs that are planning for 3-5 year windows don't sacrifice the future to go all-in on a given year.  But it is the kind of move that wouldn't surprise me coming from the Rangers.

 

We're betwixt and between at the moment.  The vet core is rudderless and the youth movement is sputtering.  There's enough talent on the team to win some games but without a Messier-like leader it's hard to see where that leads in the playoffs.  Also, the vets are playing like chickenshit for the last few weeks leaving us all wondering if they're going to pull out of the tailspin before the team crashes and burns.

 

This is the situation we thought might get fixed by a coaching change but unfortunately here we are headed into 2024 with a worse pattern of play than anything that happened in the GG years.

 

Do we double down on another vet core guy for this window?  Do we rent yet again in what is becoming an annual rite of blowing future value?  Do we just sit tight and see what the first 10 games after the break brings?  There's a world where we are sellers this year even with the huge head start.

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

The more I watch him, the more I see the “One Day” player.

 
That is to say… one day, it’s just gonna happen for him. 
 

That could be here. That could be somewhere else. And who the heck knows when.

 

Just my opinion. And just what I see.

 

He was almost everyone’s breakout candidate for this season. That wasn’t for no reason. 
 

 

I don’t understand the trade talk fully.

I get where it comes from, but you’re still shallow at the position he plays. So you wanna trade him… thus giving you less depth at the position?

 

If there’s a hockey trade to be made… ok. You can look at that.

 

It just seems like people want to trade him out of frustration.

 
How does doing things out of frustration usually work out?

We haven't really seen too many players traded due to lack of development, especially players who have good attitudes like KK. Trading him out of frustration would be very shortsighted. 

 

They're likely taking calls on him because they believe he has value (I'm not sure how much he really does at this point) and he's one of the few players that doesn't have trade protection and they feel they can get something for him. 

 

I don't think they're actively shopping him, but I don't think he's a deal-breaker if a team should ask. I also don't understand why you would trade him without getting a right wing back, the same as it makes no sense to trade Miller unless you're getting a defenseman back. 

 

At this point of the season you can't create a hole in your lineup that you aren't going to fill. You can't trade KK for a center, you can't trade Miller for a winger. 

[siddious]

The point of trading kaapo isn’t to spite him it’s becusss this team, with some minor tweaks can really compete and kakko isn’t really contributing the way you need him too. 
 

if he was progressing you could say “ok he’s getting there” but he’s simply not. 
 

im not saying get what you can for him but it a good deal is to be had then move on from the kid. 5 nhl seasons and there’s nothing to show for it. 

[RangersIn7]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

We haven't really seen too many players traded due to lack of development, especially players who have good attitudes like KK. Trading him out of frustration would be very shortsighted. 

 

They're likely taking calls on him because they believe he has value (I'm not sure how much he really does at this point) and he's one of the few players that doesn't have trade protection and they feel they can get something for him. 

 

I don't think they're actively shopping him, but I don't think he's a deal-breaker if a team should ask. I also don't understand why you would trade him without getting a right wing back, the same as it makes no sense to trade Miller unless you're getting a defenseman back. 

 

At this point of the season you can't create a hole in your lineup that you aren't going to fill. You can't trade KK for a center, you can't trade Miller for a winger. 

I think they think he maybe needs a change of scenery and that the league feels that way too. 
 

If you trade him, you need to get a RW. That’s comparable in age. And that you feel gives you more right now. But also, maybe you’re willing to pay longer term.

 

Thats a hockey trade and I’m ok with that.

 

Same with Miller.

Wanna move him. Fine. Get a LD though that you like better. Both now and moving forward.

 

But swapping them for players at other positions is lateral. Unless you’re just fleecing someone, which I don’t see.

 

Anaheim wants to do Kakko for Zegras, I’m there.

But short of that, it’s dicey.

[fletch]

50 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

We're betwixt and between at the moment.  The vet core is rudderless and the youth movement is sputtering.  There's enough talent on the team to win some games but without a Messier-like leader it's hard to see where that leads in the playoffs.  Also, the vets are playing like chickenshit for the last few weeks leaving us all wondering if they're going to pull out of the tailspin before the team crashes and burns.

 

This is the situation we thought might get fixed by a coaching change but unfortunately here we are headed into 2024 with a worse pattern of play than anything that happened in the GG years.

 

Do we double down on another vet core guy for this window?  Do we rent yet again in what is becoming an annual rite of blowing future value?  Do we just sit tight and see what the first 10 games after the break brings?  There's a world where we are sellers this year even with the huge head start.

 

I just don't see any need to go all-in with this team, unless Drury is worried about getting fired after this season if they don't have a deep run.   

 

We know what kind of production to expect from the core vets in the regular season - in a playoff series or multiple playoff series it's a small sample size, and tough to predict who's going to be hot or cold.  

 

The hope is the young players are just beginning to tap into their potential, and that they haven't reached their ceiling yet.

 

If Drury needs to make a splashy move at the deadline to fill a hole and boost morale, I get it.  But I don't agree with dealing any of our young players.  I'm seeing what Kreider, Zib, Panarin, and the core vets can do with Laviolette as coach in the post-season, before doing anything radical with the roster.

 

 

[Pete]

23 minutes ago, siddious said:

The point of trading kaapo isn’t to spite him it’s becusss this team, with some minor tweaks can really compete and kakko isn’t really contributing the way you need him too. 
 

if he was progressing you could say “ok he’s getting there” but he’s simply not. 
 

im not saying get what you can for him but it a good deal is to be had then move on from the kid. 5 nhl seasons and there’s nothing to show for it. 

He's only played 267 games, so that's just over three seasons from a developmental standpoint. 

[jsm7302]

16 minutes ago, fletch said:

 

I just don't see any need to go all-in with this team, unless Drury is worried about getting fired after this season if they don't have a deep run.   

 

We know what kind of production to expect from the core vets in the regular season - in a playoff series or multiple playoff series it's a small sample size, and tough to predict who's going to be hot or cold.  

 

The hope is the young players are just beginning to tap into their potential, and that they haven't reached their ceiling yet.

 

If Drury needs to make a splashy move at the deadline to fill a hole and boost morale, I get it.  But I don't agree with dealing any of our young players.  I'm seeing what Kreider, Zib, Panarin, and the core vets can do with Laviolette as coach in the post-season, before doing anything radical with the roster.

 

 

Two years removed from a Conference Final appearance and a bad exit last year is absolutely the time to go all in with this core. They invested in this group and to just throw a year away is pointless. This is the time to go all in. Send Kakko packing for an upgrade. Cap is going up and with the proper moves, this group can extend another 2-3 shots at the cup over the next few years. They aren't blowing this thing up; they are going all in. I support it as long as it isn't for the big name AGAIN.