News Article: Chris Kreider 2019-20 Edition

[bobbop]

Chris Kreider has been on of my favorite players for a long time. I really would like to see him stay here long term.

The logical side of me has long thought he would not get a contract extension at the type of money he would likely command.

I am however rethinking the premise of keeping rather than trading him. Kreider is without question, a leader (if not the leader) of the team. Take him away and the senior forwards are Panarin and Zibanajad. Both great guys and very good players (and very good locker room influences) but that doesn't exactly scream veteran leadership to me. With Staal and Lundquist aging out in the next year or two, I wonder where the veteran leadership on this team is going to come from. Go read the Mark Recchi article that's been floating around to see my point.

I also have much less concern about Kreider aging badly due to the type of game he plays. Kreider at 85% is still faster than 3/4 of the league. He contributes at both ends of the ice.

Logic says you can't give a 29 year old player a seven year contract. I agree. I also think there may not be a lot of really good teams willing to line up to do exactly that. Kreider may be anticipating the market and seeing his options may not be all that exciting. If the cap is only going to go marginally next year, there are a lot of teams that are already in cap trouble.

My though is that 4 years @$7.5MM (the Pacioretty contract) or 5 years @ $7MM (the Van Riemsdyk contract) may be doable and possible. If the player will bite, I would.

I think the Rangers would like to see this settled before training camp. One large distraction removed from the 2019-20 season.

I think we may end up being surprised here.

 

[B17 Apricots]

I'm in favor of balancing the lines with player styles and chemistry,

Panarin Ziba Andersson
Kreider Chytil Kakko
Buch Howden Kravstov
Lemieux Strome Fast

Truthfully I really don't even hate the idea of Strome in that two spot, it's a win win for everyone. He put up a 40 point pace getting 3rd line minutes, he has talent, what happens if he starts getting 18 mins a game with more talented players? Either way one hand if he drowns in that role oh well, the kids fill in, but if he rolls with it he'll get a nice deadline return and a nice contract somewhere. He reminds me of Victor Rask in a lot of ways

There's so many variables and question marks though when it comes to the lines it's almost limitless, who knows what they're gonna wind up doing at center. I know some people don't like the idea of Kakko or Kravstov at center but what Gordie Clark said still interests me, I think there's a real chance one of them plays C at some point. For all we know 3 years later Zib may have priced himself out of NY and our top line is Panarin, Kravstov and Buch

 

[Leetch3]

Chris Kreider has been on of my favorite players for a long time. I really would like to see him stay here long term.

The logical side of me has long thought he would not get a contract extension at the type of money he would likely command.

I am however rethinking the premise of keeping rather than trading him. Kreider is without question, a leader (if not the leader) of the team. Take him away and the senior forwards are Panarin and Zibanajad. Both great guys and very good players (and very good locker room influences) but that doesn't exactly scream veteran leadership to me. With Staal and Lundquist aging out in the next year or two, I wonder where the veteran leadership on this team is going to come from. Go read the Mark Recchi article that's been floating around to see my point.

I also have much less concern about Kreider aging badly due to the type of game he plays. Kreider at 85% is still faster than 3/4 of the league. He contributes at both ends of the ice.

Logic says you can't give a 29 year old player a seven year contract. I agree. I also think there may not be a lot of really good teams willing to line up to do exactly that. Kreider may be anticipating the market and seeing his options may not be all that exciting. If the cap is only going to go marginally next year, there are a lot of teams that are already in cap trouble.

My though is that 4 years @$7.5MM (the Pacioretty contract) or 5 years @ $7MM (the Van Riemsdyk contract) may be doable and possible. If the player will bite, I would.

I think the Rangers would like to see this settled before training camp. One large distraction removed from the 2019-20 season.

I think we may end up being surprised here.

a 4 or 5 year deal makes it much more doable but the question is why would kreider agree to that unless we are overpaying in those 4 years compared to what he can get on a 7 year deal...he's not gonna take 4 years 7 per when he can easily get 7 years 7 per...

also for us I think more than the risk of paying a 29 year old on a long term deal is the fact that we'll also have panarin, trouba, zibanejad on his next contract plus hopefully big deals for some of the kids coming off ELC meaning that they are good. my concern is more about all the other cap hits than worried about kreider suddenly not being able to play.

 

[Rangers in 7]

a 4 or 5 year deal makes it much more doable but the question is why would kreider agree to that unless we are overpaying in those 4 years compared to what he can get on a 7 year deal...he's not gonna take 4 years 7 per when he can easily get 7 years 7 per...

also for us I think more than the risk of paying a 29 year old on a long term deal is the fact that we'll also have panarin, trouba, zibanejad on his next contract plus hopefully big deals for some of the kids coming off ELC meaning that they are good. my concern is more about all the other cap hits than worried about kreider suddenly not being able to play.

i completely agree with you....the more i think about kreids the less i want to sign him long term, its not because i dont like him as a player but what you see is what you get. hes not going to grow much in his game and we will have to pay all these young studs in the coming years

 

[B17 Apricots]

Chris Kreider has been on of my favorite players for a long time. I really would like to see him stay here long term.

The logical side of me has long thought he would not get a contract extension at the type of money he would likely command.

I am however rethinking the premise of keeping rather than trading him. Kreider is without question, a leader (if not the leader) of the team. Take him away and the senior forwards are Panarin and Zibanajad. Both great guys and very good players (and very good locker room influences) but that doesn't exactly scream veteran leadership to me. With Staal and Lundquist aging out in the next year or two, I wonder where the veteran leadership on this team is going to come from. Go read the Mark Recchi article that's been floating around to see my point.

I also have much less concern about Kreider aging badly due to the type of game he plays. Kreider at 85% is still faster than 3/4 of the league. He contributes at both ends of the ice.

Logic says you can't give a 29 year old player a seven year contract. I agree. I also think there may not be a lot of really good teams willing to line up to do exactly that. Kreider may be anticipating the market and seeing his options may not be all that exciting. If the cap is only going to go marginally next year, there are a lot of teams that are already in cap trouble.

My though is that 4 years @$7.5MM (the Pacioretty contract) or 5 years @ $7MM (the Van Riemsdyk contract) may be doable and possible. If the player will bite, I would.

I think the Rangers would like to see this settled before training camp. One large distraction removed from the 2019-20 season.

I think we may end up being surprised here.

The length I'm completely fine with and I absolutely agree with the leadership aspect but at the end of the day Kreider is 28, he is what he is. And sure he probably will have a career year at some point and itll absolutely help playing with some potential superstars but it's hard for me to justify shelling out 7.5 million to a guy that has never reached the 55 mark

 

[Leetch3]

i completely agree with you....the more i think about kreids the less i want to sign him long term, its not because i dont like him as a player but what you see is what you get. hes not going to grow much in his game and we will have to pay all these young studs in the coming years

i love kreids and hate that we need to move him, but after signing panarin it just doesn't make sense for the team long term.

 

[B17 Apricots]

i love kreids and hate that we need to move him, but after signing panarin it just doesn't make sense for the team long term.

I agree, and in terms of the leadership loss I think some of the kids in there have the type of personalities that'll make up for that, Kakko, Trouba, Lias, even DeAngelo might be a darkhorse in that aspect

 

[Kaapo Bustfreniere]

You realize we are going to have the same conversation about Mika 2 years down the line? He is also going to be 28 going into the last year of his contract and looking for a big raise...

 

[Thirty One]

You realize we are going to have the same conversation about Mika 2 years down the line? He is also going to be 28 going into the last year of his contract and looking for a big raise...

Yeah, it's not our first rodeo. There will be players approaching UFA status almost every season, and for each one they need to consider how they might age, the organizational depth at the position, how likely the team is to compete in the early years of the contract etc.

 

[Leetch3]

You realize we are going to have the same conversation about Mika 2 years down the line? He is also going to be 28 going into the last year of his contract and looking for a big raise...

no we won't because mika is a legit #1 center and unless we suddenly have a cheaper, younger #1 center to replace him then paying him is a no brainer...a decision to invest $$ in kreider as a depth winger on a team with panarin, kakko, kravtsov, buchnevich etc isn't the same as the decision to invest in mika as a #1 center when we don't even know who our 2nd, 3rd or 4th line centers are.

 

[bobbop]

a 4 or 5 year deal makes it much more doable but the question is why would kreider agree to that unless we are overpaying in those 4 years compared to what he can get on a 7 year deal...he's not gonna take 4 years 7 per when he can easily get 7 years 7 per...

also for us I think more than the risk of paying a 29 year old on a long term deal is the fact that we'll also have panarin, trouba, zibanejad on his next contract plus hopefully big deals for some of the kids coming off ELC meaning that they are good. my concern is more about all the other cap hits than worried about kreider suddenly not being able to play.

I’m not so sure there is going to be a seven year deal out there for him.

Kevin Hayes and Evander Kane both got 7 year deals at age 27.

Van Riemsdyk got 5 years and Pacioretty got 4 years at age 29. Other teams know all of this.

I'm concerned about other cap hits too but I also know the cap is going to accelerate in 2021-22 when the new US TV contracts are in place. (BTW -- those negotiations are quietly going on right now)

 

[bobbop]

I agree, and in terms of the leadership loss I think some of the kids in there have the type of personalities that'll make up for that, Kakko, Trouba, Lias, even DeAngelo might be a darkhorse in that aspect

Other than Trouba, those players will not be veteran leaders anytime soon.

 

[Thirty One]

Kevin Hayes and Evander Kane both got 7 year deals at age 7.

Too risky from the teams' perspective IMO.

 

[B17 Apricots]

Other than Trouba, those players will not be veteran leaders anytime soon.

Veteran leaders? Youre right, no. But leaders? Maybe

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Other than Trouba, those players will not be veteran leaders anytime soon.

Does the veteran leader need to be on the team today?

 

[bobbop]

Does the veteran leader need to be on the team today?

No.

 

[One Winged Angel]

He'll get 2nd line ES time (which is usually basically the same 1st line ES time) and probably 1st unit PP time.

If things go well his value could be pretty significant at the TDL.

We’ll see. I just imagine that they’ll want to showcase him and get the best return possible at the deadline.

 

[Machinehead]

Too risky from the teams' perspective IMO.

RB would be all over that.

 

[kovazub94]

There's always that potential trade-off when it comes to moving guys in the off-season vs. the TDL: moving them in the off-season, there's a potentially larger market and the acquiring team gets more value. At the TDL, there may be lesser teams interested but they also may be more "desperate," thinking they need to make the big acquisition to push them over the top. I've never seen anything that really indicates whether returns are highers in the summer or at the TDL; frankly I don't know how you'd quantify such a thing.

Right, but these day with the way cap crunch impacting team's abilities in offseason to absorb salaries via trades (after spending money on UFAs) I don't think there's that much of a market vs. TDL. With the influx of talent (and this being Kreider's contract year) it's very possible that Kreider again stays on a 40 goal pace, and if there's no injury - he will do it even longer. Possibly long enough to be viewed closer to Stone than Hayes in terms of a return (fingers crossed).

 

[darko]

If Kreider is willing to take 4 or 5 year deal I'd be all over that. 7 years is too long.

 

[RGY]

It all comes down to term and money for Kreider. I love him. I got to watch him up close in college. I finished college and he was coming right out of college for that fantastic run in 2012. Still have vivid memories. Loved when he fell after scoring on that slapper vs the Caps.

But again it all comes down to term and money. Not sure where anything stands with him because neither his side or the Rangers have hinted at much. Yeah conversations have happened and thats it. No indication of one way or the other. To me it sounds like the Rangers put him out there on the trade market to see if they could cash in big on him with a team having him for a full season. Now the position could be lets see where we stand at the deadline and where contract talks are. The risk is, if he has a monster year then he will want to get paid. Then you have to way in where we are in the standings. I know its highly unlikely, but if this team bursts out onto the scene a year ahead of schedule, maybe you dangle as Namestnikov as the only deadline piece, slide others up the depth chart then add a vet forward for the back end on the cheap for the playoff run.

Really dont know what we are going to get this year which makes it all the more exciting.

But have to say, the thought of Panarin and Kreider down the LW makes you thirsty for this season to start already.

 

[will1066]

Too risky from the teams' perspective IMO.

I see what you did there.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

depth chart then add a vet forward for the back end on the cheap for the playoff run.

Really dont know what we are going to get this year which makes it all the more exciting.

But have to say, the thought of Panarin and Kreider down the LW makes you thirsty for this season to start already.

Gimme this with Kakko and Kravtsov on the opposite side for the next 5 years please.

 

[True Blue]

no we won't because mika is a legit #1 center and unless we suddenly have a cheaper, younger #1 center to replace him then paying him is a no brainer...a decision to invest $$ in kreider as a depth winger on a team with panarin, kakko, kravtsov, buchnevich etc isn't the same as the decision to invest in mika as a #1 center when we don't even know who our 2nd, 3rd or 4th line centers are.

Kreider is a legit top line wing, not a depth winger. When the Rangers start to compete for playoff contention, having Panarin and Kreider staring as your top 2 LW, is quite something. We have no idea of what the K boys will be like. We have lots of hopes, but that is it. And Buch is a lot of thing so far, but he is NOT Kreider.

Look, there is a possibility that he will be traded. I also do not discount the possibility that it is Buchnevich that is the one who is moved and Kreider is resigned. As was pointed out, term and dollars. He may agree to a 5 year deal at a hometown discount. He is a career Ranger and a cornerstone of the current leadership group.

 

[TheTakedown]

Chris Kreider has been on of my favorite players for a long time. I really would like to see him stay here long term.

The logical side of me has long thought he would not get a contract extension at the type of money he would likely command.

I am however rethinking the premise of keeping rather than trading him. Kreider is without question, a leader (if not the leader) of the team. Take him away and the senior forwards are Panarin and Zibanajad. Both great guys and very good players (and very good locker room influences) but that doesn't exactly scream veteran leadership to me. With Staal and Lundquist aging out in the next year or two, I wonder where the veteran leadership on this team is going to come from. Go read the Mark Recchi article that's been floating around to see my point.

I also have much less concern about Kreider aging badly due to the type of game he plays. Kreider at 85% is still faster than 3/4 of the league. He contributes at both ends of the ice.

Logic says you can't give a 29 year old player a seven year contract. I agree. I also think there may not be a lot of really good teams willing to line up to do exactly that. Kreider may be anticipating the market and seeing his options may not be all that exciting. If the cap is only going to go marginally next year, there are a lot of teams that are already in cap trouble.

My though is that 4 years @$7.5MM (the Pacioretty contract) or 5 years @ $7MM (the Van Riemsdyk contract) may be doable and possible. If the player will bite, I would.

I think the Rangers would like to see this settled before training camp. One large distraction removed from the 2019-20 season.

I think we may end up being surprised here.

I actually posted the other day that I thought Kreider was worth the Anders lee contract, and everyone came out and said that lee was worth that because he had 30 and 40 goal seasons under his belt and that he's a Center so he's a higher cost. They're all right! Check out these comparables instead:

Mikael Backlund - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Jordan Eberle - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Patric Hörnqvist - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Mats Zuccarello - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
James Neal - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
James van Riemsdyk - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Max Pacioretty - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Kyle Okposo - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Jakob Silfverberg - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

For reference, Kreider currently has 271 Points in 460 Games. If we pro-rate another 50 point season over the next 75 games, that puts him at 321 Points over 535 Games

The closest point comparable for him would be Kyle Turris. 320P in 544 Games, 6 years, $6M. Turris is a Center, signed at age 28, and plays for a team with no state income tax so those are bonus factors on his $6M/year salary
Shockingly, I think the CLOSEST comparable with the closest matching age, position, and point/game rate is Gustav Nyquist

306 points in 500 games, winger, signed at age 29, got a 4 year deal, at $5.5M/year
If you pull up metrics, obviously Kreider is the better player, but I'm not seeing a situation where there is a $7M * 7Y deal out there for kreider.

The HIGHEST cap hit on that list is $7M for JVR. Unless Kreider thinks he can corner the market to his services and secure additional $, bobbop might be onto something here--there may not be a 7 year deal out there for Kreider.