People who know this draft better can speak about that but the usual 1st rounder a team gets back from a playoff team for a player could be 20, could be 25, could be 31 and those draft positions can make a huge difference in the quality of player and it's one reason why when someone says a rental is raising his value it's almost meaningless or at least in the sense that you're spinning a roulette wheel to see where it lands. What prospects are likely going to be around and what their general upsides are at those various draft positions.......and then there is the waiting for that player to develop. So one question I have is just how deep is this coming draft?
That is why also whatever + we get in addition to the 1st would be very important and maybe even more important than the 1st itself and keeping in mind no playoff bound team really wants to give up on a young player with a real future that they're also hoping will help them right now.
In a way the simplest thing to do would be to re-sign Kreider--you know what you got then. The issue then is about cap space and we're probably going to have to move on from other players instead.
The challenge is that signing Kreider to the term he can command, if he is not willing to budge, isn't altogether that simple.
Because now you
have to make moves that shed salary, instead of making moves where salary is a consideration, but not necessarily
the deciding factor.
As we've discussed, instead of moving Strome and Buch for different players who come in at roughly the same price tag, now you have to find guys who come in cheaper. Instead of a lower salaries being a bonus, it now becomes a prerequisite. And that's really the thing with Kreider, unless you get him to come down considerably from his market value, signing him has a cascading effect across the entire NHL roster as it impacts trades, signings, composition, etc.
Some people view Kreider as essential, or irreplaceable. I can understand their reasoning; I get where its coming from and how it arrived at its destination. Personally, I tend to view Kreider as a more of a luxury item.
He's a first line LW, we want to play on our second line, behind a star player who also mans the position. So in that sense, his ability and his impact his greater than that a typical second line LW. But, and this is a key point, that comes with a cost. Because he is a first line LW, there is probably the expectation to be paid like a first line LW. And so the question becomes, would you rather have (and pay for) a first line LW to play on your second line, or would you rather allocate the money differently, have an actual second line LW in that spot (and pay him accordingly), and then use the difference to improve another area?
Some people would rather have the former, others the later. There's pros and cons, risks and rewards to both approaches.
Having said all that, I'm not sure the Rangers would actually use any pick they received from Kreider. I could definitely see them leaning toward packing the pick. But, let's assume there isn't a deal out there that they like.
There's good depth in this draft and some prospects with very good potential to be found in the latter half of the first. And that's ultimately what the Rangers would have to identify --- as they did with Miller, Lundkvist, Skjei and Chytil --- all players who were taken with the 21st pick or later. Hell, even the guy we're debating was taken 19th overall. So I think there's the potential for similar value in this draft. I think as a group we've become a little too dismissive of late first round picks in recent months. Yeah, it's a risk. But the goal of any trade would be to get a package that brings back you the equivalent of Lemieux/Lindgren/Hajek along with a pick that turns into Miller/Lundkvist/Heinola.
