Dreger Rangers Taking Calls on Kaapo Kakko

[jsm7302]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

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

But he was playing with men before he came here, no?

 

Edit: I'm an idiot.

Edited February 1 by jsm7302

[Sod16]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

What makes you say this?

Players who do not fulfill their initial promise are often moved under the theory that they would be better off getting a fresh start somewhere else.  Being so highly touted will always hang over Kakko's head here.  There won't be so much high draft pick baggage attached to him with a new team, which may make acceptance of a lesser role easier for that teams fans and management and the player himself.

[fletch]

2 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

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.

You point to the Conference finals 2 years ago, I point to the NJ series last year. 

 

If you believe coaching was the major issue last year, then you believe Laviolette and a tweaked roster is capable of a deep playoff run.

 

I believe that vets like Kreider can't elevate their game in the playoffs like comparable players on other rosters (who we would face in playoff series).  The Rangers don't always put in a full 60 minutes, even in a playoff game.  I don't think that the organization has used healthy scratches and reduced ice time (over the years) to hold players accountable, and I think that has caused problems in the locker room.  I believe until you deal with some of the NMC on the roster you are staring at early round playoff exits, no matter who is coaching or what tweaks you make at the trading deadline.  We have an abundance of soft playmakers, and not enough physical bad asses.  The cross-ice passes, the pretty goals that work in the regular season disappear in the playoffs.  Dirty goals, screened goalies, simple hockey plays, winning physical battles win playoff series - and the Rangers aren't good at ugly physical play - which puts a ceiling on how far they can advance.

 

Or I'm wrong.  We'll see this spring/summer.

[Albatrosss]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

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

so he's not replacing Fast, cause he's nothing like Fast

[siddious]

32 minutes ago, Pete said:

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

 I mean fine fair enough. 1/5th of the way to 1000 games played and I’ve yet to see why he was the consensus #2 pick in that draft. or why you should continue to give him top 6 minutes to develop when his game doesn’t evolve beyond protecting the puck in the zone. 
 

again I don’t hate the guy but at this point he’s expandable if a move that helps this team (ideally beyond this season) is to be had.

[Albatrosss]

2 hours ago, Karan said:

 

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.

the most goals he ever scored in a season was 22.  And he was -29 for the season.  Not a very good passer either.  It's either he scores (which he doesnt do much of) or he does nothing else.  Much like Kreider but at least CK kills penalties.  We already tried Vatrano, i dont really want to go back to that.  I'd rather go after Tank or even Buch, if possible.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, jsm7302 said:

But he was playing with me before he came here, no?

What you do with your personal life is your own business. 

[Pete]

58 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

so he's not replacing Fast, cause he's nothing like Fast

A defensively responsible forward who can chip in 35 to 45 points is nothing like fast? You're talking about a specific role, and one job within that specific role. It's too niche. 

 

Fast was the first in on the forecheck because that was his job. It wouldn't be KK's job because Cuylle is doing it. 

Edited January 31 by Pete

[Pete]

46 minutes ago, siddious said:

 I mean fine fair enough. 1/5th of the way to 1000 games played and I’ve yet to see why he was the consensus #2 pick in that draft. or why you should continue to give him top 6 minutes to develop when his game doesn’t evolve beyond protecting the puck in the zone. 
 

again I don’t hate the guy but at this point he’s expandable if a move that helps this team (ideally beyond this season) is to be had.

You can say this about anyone on the team. 

[siddious]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

You can say this about anyone on the team. 

Theoretically,  yes. realistically some

guys it takes a lot more in returns before you’re ready to move on from them.

 

as a fan.. as this team stands now there's maybe 2-3 guys I would really not move on from. I’m over this core. 
 

 

[BrooksBurner]

4 hours 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.

I don’t agree any move involving them is compromising our future, but definitely any move just to land a rental. I’m fine with Kakko going in a deal for a guy like Ek. I’m not fine with him going in a deal for Lindholm. I could careless about an extension. He’s going to be a UFA and they could get him for no assets in July anyway. Kakko for 3 months of Lindholm is disastrous.

 

There’s a gray area though, and that’s the hybrid rental / pick return for Kakko I mentioned yesterday. Kakko for Duclair and a 2nd is a tougher call for me. It’s a compromise between rental now and a pick for the future. This can’t be the only move though. They aren’t a Duclair away.

Edited February 1 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

55 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don’t agree any move involving them is compromising our future, but definitely any move just to land a rental. I’m fine with Kakko going in a deal for a guy like Ek. I’m not fine with him going in a deal for Lindholm. I could careless about an extension. He’s going to be a UFA and they could get him for no assets in July anyway. Kakko for 3 months of Lindholm is disastrous.

 

There’s a gray area though, and that’s the hybrid rental / pick return for Kakko I mentioned yesterday. Kakko for Duclair and a 2nd is a tougher call for me. It’s a compromise between rental now and a pick for the future. This can’t be the only move though. They aren’t a Duclair away.

You're feeling Kakko can get Duclair+? I was of the mind that he couldn't even get a second straight up... 

[Keirik]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're feeling Kakko can get Duclair+? I was of the mind that he couldn't even get a second straight up... 

I'd say specifically for Duclair yes because of the connection between Quinn and Kakko. He likely would vouch for the talent level and they could take a chance on a guy that likely doesn't get much of a raise from his QO. I personally don't think that's a great trade because its a rental. I don't trade Kakko for a rental. I had floated a straight Vatrano for Kakko trade (not saying i'd actually do it) solely because there at least is another year of Vatrano who's not 30 until March at a decent cap hit next year. 

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I'd say specifically for Duclair yes because of the connection between Quinn and Kakko. He likely would vouch for the talent level and they could take a chance on a guy that likely doesn't get much of a raise from his QO. I personally don't think that's a great trade because its a rental. I don't trade Kakko for a rental. I had floated a straight Vatrano for Kakko trade (not saying i'd actually do it) solely because there at least is another year of Vatrano who's not 30 until March at a decent cap hit next year. 

I don't know that it necessarily changes the return...A second + Duke is a lot for Kakko, IMO anyway.

[BrooksBurner]

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're feeling Kakko can get Duclair+? I was of the mind that he couldn't even get a second straight up... 

 

I’ve got Kakko higher than that in value. Lias Andersson was worth a 2nd, Look at what Kirby Dach former 3OA returned. A mid 1st + a 3rd. Kakko for all his offensive struggles has a 40 point season under his belt and contributes defensively. I think he’s worth at least a late first, andI think San Jose can get a 2nd for Duclair, so I think the difference has to come from their end

[Keirik]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't know that it necessarily changes the return...A second + Duke is a lot for Kakko, IMO anyway.

It is, but as you said, you are talking about a 40 point defensively responsible player thats turning 23 in weeks. His value isn't really as a 6 point player. It's more of somewhere a bit more and lower than what you expect out of a 1st round pick really. 

 

 

    Personally, if some of us like myself think the real problem is somewhere within this core, then i don't really know why you trade the 23 year old and leave the core untouched. 

[jsm7302]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

What you do with your personal life is your own business. 

Hahahaha I just reread it. He was playing with MEN** before the NHL, right?

[Pete]

41 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I’ve got Kakko higher than that in value. Lias Andersson was worth a 2nd, Look at what Kirby Dach former 3OA returned. A mid 1st + a 3rd. Kakko for all his offensive struggles has a 40 point season under his belt and contributes defensively. I think he’s worth at least a late first, andI think San Jose can get a 2nd for Duclair, so I think the difference has to come from their end

I agree with that. Not sure how the rest of the league feels at this point. 

[Pete]

24 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

Hahahaha I just reread it. He was playing with MEN** before the NHL, right?

 

Yeah, but the NHL is completely different than Euro leagues. Much less time and space, and you're seeing how that impacts him. 

[Pete]

39 minutes ago, Keirik said:

It is, but as you said, you are talking about a 40 point defensively responsible player thats turning 23 in weeks. His value isn't really as a 6 point player. It's more of somewhere a bit more and lower than what you expect out of a 1st round pick really. 

 

 

    Personally, if some of us like myself think the real problem is somewhere within this core, then i don't really know why you trade the 23 year old and leave the core untouched. 

I agree that his value is in a six-point player, but as I said in the post above, not sure what the rest of the league thinks. 

 

I don't want to get into a larger debate about the core, because we've had it before, but what can't be argued is that the core actually contributes. At the end of the day, boxcar stats are boxcar stats and that's what players get paid on and it's a majority of where value is determined. 

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I agree with that. Not sure how the rest of the league feels at this point. 

I mean, listen, I don’t hate Kakko. His 80 point power forward ceiling that existed at draft time has obviously been significantly destroyed, but he’s still a quality 3rd line NHL player with some room for growth. If he never progressed another day in his life, he’s still in that Arturri Lehkonen bucket of players. Two years ago, a 26 y.o. Lehkonen returned a 2nd and a 2020 1st round drafted prospect from the Avs. If someone wants Kakko they are still going to have to pay.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I mean, listen, I don’t hate Kakko. His 80 point power forward ceiling that existed at draft time has obviously been significantly destroyed, but he’s still a quality 3rd line NHL player with some room for growth. If he never progressed another day in his life, he’s still in that Arturri Lehkonen bucket of players. Two years ago, a 26 y.o. Lehkonen returned a 2nd and a 2020 1st round drafted prospect from the Avs. If someone wants Kakko they are still going to have to pay.

I'm with you. I have no interest in trading him at all. He's a valuable defensive contributor, and I still believe his offensive game will manifest at some point. JT Miller and Blake Wheeler weren't point per game players until they were almost 30.

[Keirik]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I agree that his value is in a six-point player, but as I said in the post above, not sure what the rest of the league thinks. 

 

I don't want to get into a larger debate about the core, because we've had it before, but what can't be argued is that the core actually contributes. At the end of the day, boxcar stats are boxcar stats and that's what players get paid on and it's a majority of where value is determined. 

 

57 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I mean, listen, I don’t hate Kakko. His 80 point power forward ceiling that existed at draft time has obviously been significantly destroyed, but he’s still a quality 3rd line NHL player with some room for growth. If he never progressed another day in his life, he’s still in that Arturri Lehkonen bucket of players. Two years ago, a 26 y.o. Lehkonen returned a 2nd and a 2020 1st round drafted prospect from the Avs. If someone wants Kakko they are still going to have to pay.

 

51 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm with you. I have no interest in trading him at all. He's a valuable defensive contributor, and I still believe his offensive game will manifest at some point. JT Miller and Blake Wheeler weren't point per game players until they were almost 30.

Agree with all of this. I'm in the same camp as not wanting to really deal him. My only change would be if it's for a deal that improves us past this season.  Likely the only way that happens is in the offseason as a sign and trade if his cap hit is good and he's more of a value contract for what he gives. If he's that though, he's as valuable if not more than he is now FOR US. 

[Gravesy]

My only problem with this is the wording really. 

"The Rangers taking calls on Kakko" reads as if they're seeing what they can get, with a view of getting rid of him I presume to regain some assets and recoup cap space. I don't like the sound of that.

"The Rangers actively using Kakko as a trade chip" sounds much better to me, i.e. we're willing to use Kakko in a deal to get someone who improves the team immediately. 

[Fkm]

Obviously I have no issue moving kakko if it improves the team long term. However you cannot trade him for a rental. Which is more likely kakko develops into a reliable top 6 wing or the Rangers win a round no less the cup because of whoever they get for him?  Duclair?  People are kidding right?

Edited February 1 by Fkm