Player Discussion Chris Kreider: Part III

[True Blue]

His name is Kakko, and he will probably be better than Kreider ever was in 2 years.

Kakko will be better than nearly a 30 goal, 50+ point player by the time he is 21 years old? At least you are staying within the bounds of reality.

 

[Edge]

I would be very hesitant to put the weight of immediately replacing Kreider's production on any one player --- regardless of their potential.

I would say a more realistic expectation would be replace the overall production through a number of channels --- young players advancing and developing, depth additions to the roster, pursuing outside options as they become available, etc.

In the process, you will lose some of the elements Kreider brings --- there's no way around that. What you aim to find is other elements to bring to the team.

It also means accepting that the road ahead of you might not necessarily resemble the road behind you. They are not mirror images of one another.

 

[eco's bones]

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.

First off I didn't mean to suggest 7 years at $8 or even $7 mil. I was more in the 5/6 year range and maybe topping $6. That said if the Rangers were to do that they are probably moving on from other players and that might any of Strome/Buch and/or DeAngelo--two of them are RFA's who are most likely going to get sizable contracts to stay. An argument could surely be made that DeAngelo is a more valuable player--he might also be a more redundant one with Fox here and Lundkvist on the way. If choosing between Kreider or Buch or Kreider or Strome I'd take Kreider every time.

But back to the draft that was one of the points of where I was going---is this a deep draft or a not so deep draft? I haven't paid that much attention yet so I'd like to know. What can we expect to get if we're picking anywhere from 20 to 31? And yeah I think the further you go out on a draft the more you're rolling the dice and there are drafts where I'm sorry but they're kind of shit even for the first rounders. We were kind of lucky in 2017 to get Chytil--that draft is not looking that great at the top end. There are guys like Robert Thomas later on in the 1st but a lot of guys look more like depth players or candidates to bust. Andersson will probably become an NHL'er but I don't see him becoming a top 6 NHL forward. That was a so-so year.

 

[Edge]

First off I didn't mean to suggest 7 years at $8 or even $7 mil. I was more in the 5/6 year range and maybe topping $6. That said if the Rangers were to do that they are probably moving on from other players and that might any of Strome/Buch and/or DeAngelo--two of them are RFA's who are most likely going to get sizable contracts to stay. An argument could surely be made that DeAngelo is a more valuable player--he might also be a more redundant one with Fox here and Lundkvist on the way. If choosing between Kreider or Buch or Kreider or Strome I'd take Kreider every time.

But back to the draft that was one of the points of where I was going---is this a deep draft or a not so deep draft? I haven't paid that much attention yet so I'd like to know. What can we expect to get if we're picking anywhere from 20 to 31? And yeah I think the further you go out on a draft the more you're rolling the dice and there are drafts where I'm sorry but they're kind of **** even for the first rounders. We were kind of lucky in 2017 to get Chytil--that draft is not looking that great at the top end. There are guys like Robert Thomas later on in the 1st but a lot of guys look more like depth players or candidates to bust. Andersson will probably become an NHL'er but I don't see him becoming a top 6 NHL forward. That was a so-so year.

I agree, and the sticking point with Kreider will be how much he wants. We could have unanimous agreement on a willingness to go 6x6, but one guy can completely shoot that our of the sky --- Chris Kreider. So it really comes down to what he wants. I'd be cool with him taking 6x6, but I am not holding my breath.

As for this draft, I think the second half of the first round splits the difference between 2018 and 2019. If I were to rank the guys who are likely to be on the board in the 18-30 range, I'd probably say 2018, 2020, 2019 in that order.

I think all three drafts are deeper than 2017.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

First off I didn't mean to suggest 7 years at $8 or even $7 mil. I was more in the 5/6 year range and maybe topping $6. That said if the Rangers were to do that they are probably moving on from other players and that might any of Strome/Buch and/or DeAngelo--two of them are RFA's who are most likely going to get sizable contracts to stay. An argument could surely be made that DeAngelo is a more valuable player--he might also be a more redundant one with Fox here and Lundkvist on the way. If choosing between Kreider or Buch or Kreider or Strome I'd take Kreider every time.

But back to the draft that was one of the points of where I was going---is this a deep draft or a not so deep draft? I haven't paid that much attention yet so I'd like to know. What can we expect to get if we're picking anywhere from 20 to 31? And yeah I think the further you go out on a draft the more you're rolling the dice and there are drafts where I'm sorry but they're kind of **** even for the first rounders. We were kind of lucky in 2017 to get Chytil--that draft is not looking that great at the top end. There are guys like Robert Thomas later on in the 1st but a lot of guys look more like depth players or candidates to bust. Andersson will probably become an NHL'er but I don't see him becoming a top 6 NHL forward. That was a so-so year.

Chytil was a homerun pick and I believe he's the team's future 2C. He's been great. But it's taking him close to three seasons to put it all together, and that's not a knock on him at all because I think he's developed better and faster than expected, but these kids take time. The pick they get for Kreider that late in the first round is going to take just as long, if not longer, to contribute. And for the people saying you can use that pick to trade for a player, you're going to have to pay that player when he gets here or very soon after. And odds are, he's not going to bring the same things to the team that Kreider does.

 

[Edge]

And for the people saying you can use that pick to trade for a player, you're going to have to pay that player when he gets here or very soon after. And odds are, he's not going to bring the same things to the team that Kreider does.

He's not.

He's also not likely going to be paid like Chris Kreider is paid, for the same ages.

And that gap could very well be the difference between shelling out $7 million over 7 years for Kreider vs. $8 million over 4 years for a different LW and a LD.

 

[eco's bones]

Chytil was a homerun pick and I believe he's the team's future 2C. He's been great. But it's taking him close to three seasons to put it all together, and that's not a knock on him at all because I think he's developed better and faster than expected, but these kids take time. The pick they get for Kreider that late in the first round is going to take just as long, if not longer, to contribute. And for the people saying you can use that pick to trade for a player, you're going to have to pay that player when he gets here or very soon after. And odds are, he's not going to bring the same things to the team that Kreider does.

The other thing is our cap issues get easier to manage (at least for a while) after 20-21. If Henrik is still with us for 21-22 he's at a vastly reduced cap $ amount. I'm thinking $3mil at the most. It probably means we've also moved Georgiev. I do not expect Staal to get another contract from us and I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers found a team to dump Brendan Smith on and failing that if we didn't buy his last year out. Also next year is when Shattenkirk's buyout really stings--after that it's not bad.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

He's not.

He's also not likely going to be paid like Chris Kreider is paid, for the same ages.

And that gap could very well be the difference between shelling out $7 million over 7 years for Kreider vs. $8 million over 4 years for a different LW and a LD.

Why are you paying a LD 4 million a year when you have Miller, Lindgren, Rykov, Hajek and can maybe have the option move someone over from the right side? What the hell was the point of loading up on defense if you have to go outside the organization to get another one?

 

[Matt Rentfree]

He's not.

He's also not likely going to be paid like Chris Kreider is paid, for the same ages.

And that gap could very well be the difference between shelling out $7 million over 7 years for Kreider vs. $8 million over 4 years for a different LW and a LD.

It all comes down to risk mitigation.

1) Will Kreider's performance in years 4-7 of his contract be worth his % of the cap hit?

VS.

2) Will the return for Kreider (including cap space) be at least as good as Kreider?

No one has a crystal ball and until we know what teams are willing to part with, it's impossible to even guess at #2

BUT

We also have to take a guess at #1 because based on history it's more likely than not that Kreider drops off in his 30's but he also might not.

It's a tough call either way, but my opinion is there is less risk in trading Kreider unless the return is underwhelming.

 

[Edge]

Why are you paying a LD 4 million a year when you have Miller, Lindgren, Rykov, Hajek and can maybe have the option move someone over from the right side? What the hell was the point of loading up on defense if you have to go outside the organization to get another one?

Because several of those guys are probably competing for the same role, and at least one of them is a few years out.

But if you'd like, swap the LD for another position in that scenario.

 

[Crease]

Because several of those guys are probably competing for the same role, and at least one of them is a few years out.

But if you'd like, swap the LD for another position in that scenario.

I also have doubts that half of those guys (Miller, Lundqvist Lindgren, Rykov, and Hajek) will be useful NHLers. Statistically unlikely. Many of us were asking "quickest rebuild ever?" just this past summer with Kakko, Kravstov, and Andersson pegged for significant middle six contributions this season. Prospects often do not pan out or take much longer than anticipated to development into useful NHLers. I'd rather build a roster with the assumption none will pan out and deal with the positive consequences of having stud ELCs in the bottom six or bottom pair for a season or two.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Because several of those guys are probably competing for the same role, and at least one of them is a few years out.

But if you'd like, swap the LD for another position in that scenario.

I think Lindgren is gonna be here for a long time. He's the first defenseman the Rangers have had in, I don't know how long, where opposing players have to keep on eye out for on the ice. I think Fox is here, I think Trouba and ADA are here too. That's four players here for the next 5 years. If you can't find two others out of Lindqvist, Miller, Keane, Rykov, Hajek, Robertson I don't know, that scares me.

 

[Edge]

I also have doubts that half of those guys (Miller, Lundqvist Lindgren, Rykov, and Hajek) will be useful NHLers. Statistically unlikely. Many of us were asking "quickest rebuild ever?" just this past summer with Kakko, Kravstov, and Andersson pegged for significant middle six contributions this season. Prospects often do not pan out or take much longer than anticipated to development into useful NHLers. I'd rather build a roster with the assumption none will pan out and deal with the positive consequences of having stud ELCs in the bottom six or bottom pair for a season or two.

Lindgren, Hajek, Rykov were all guys who everyone mostly understood were probably second or third pair defensemen. So right off the bat, even in a best case scenario, if everyone hit their likely ceilings, that means at least one was going.

Personally, I think when push comes to shove, probably one sticks with the club and others are moved.

Whether one agrees with or not, the Rangers are probably looking at changing things up on that left side. Whether it's upgrading Skjei, or finding someone in the short term slide onto that left side, it's likely to be a focus area of the team.

But I can tell you there is very, very little comfort in going with Lindgren, Hajek and Rykov as the LD at this point in time.

So someone asked early, why would the Rangers pay an LD $4 million a year. The truth is could very well be paying an LD $7 million a year, if the right one came along. Part of the cost would be Skjei, but that upgrade cost could run you $3m + a year more than Skjei.

 

[Edge]

I think Lindgren is gonna be here for a long time. He's the first defenseman the Rangers have had in, I don't know how long, where opposing players have to keep on eye out for on the ice. I think Fox is here, I think Trouba and ADA are here too. That's four players here for the next 5 years. If you can't find two others out of Lindqvist, Miller, Keane, Rykov, Hajek, Robertson I don't know, that scares me.

Well, two of the guys you just named are RHDs, and they are almost certainly not going to be viewed as long term answers at LD. So we can take those two out of the mix.

That leaves Miller, Rykov, and Hajek to fill two spots in a post-Skjei world. I'd probably say that Rykov and Hajek are more or less competing for the same spot, and that Rykov isn't interest in sticking around if Hajek wins that battle. (I don't see the Rangers going with Rykov, Hajek, and Lindgren as their left side.)

Miller, has more upside than any of those guys, but like Robertson, he might be a few years out. Even if he's closer, he's not being thrown right into a top role, and I don't know if the Rangers are as comfortable throwing him into that role with with Lindgren and Hajek/Rykov as the buffer.

I've said this before, but one of two things is most likely happen to Skjei. Either he is going to be used to upgrade the position, as part of a package. Or he's going to be used to upgrade another position, and someone else (Buch, Strome, etc.) is then used to either replace him with someone who is a better fit for this system, or flat out a better defenseman.

I don't really see us trading him and his $5.2 salary and getting a ton of overall cap relief.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It's interesting how, when challenged, the people who seem the loudest about keeping Kreider say "Oh, no, no, no, I'd only be comfortable with 5 years/6 per or something like that," as if that's just a sidebar and not THE major issue.

It's been reported Gorton has been talking to Kreider's agent. Gorton has a #, and Kreider has a right to his #. Depending on how far apart they are will determine if Kreider gets traded or not. It will have very little to do with how concerned the Rangers are at replacing his short-term production.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Well, two of the guys you just named are RHDs, and they are almost certainly not going to be viewed as long term answers at LD. So we can take those two out of the mix.

That leaves Miller, Rykov, and Hajek to fill two spots in a post-Skjei world. I'd probably say that Rykov and Hajek are more or less competing for the same spot, and that Rykov isn't interest in sticking around if Hajek wins that battle. (I don't see the Rangers going with Rykov, Hajek, and Lindgren as their left side.)

Miller, has more upside than any of those guys, but like Robertson, he might be a few years out. Even if he's closer, he's not being thrown right into a top role, and I don't know if the Rangers are as comfortable throwing him into that role with with Lindgren and Hajek/Rykov as the buffer.

I've said this before, but one of two things is most likely happen to Skjei. Either he is going to be used to upgrade the position, as part of a package. Or he's going to be used to upgrade another position, and someone else (Buch, Strome, etc.) is then used to either replace him with someone who is a better fit for this system, or flat out a better defenseman.

I don't really see us trading him and his $5.2 salary and getting a ton of overall cap relief.

My point was you have 4 defenseman here for 5 years. You need to find two more from a system that's loaded with defensive prospects. We're worried about replacing Skjei but not worried about replacing Kreider? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

It's interesting how, when challenged, the people who seem the loudest about keeping Kreider say "Oh, no, no, no, I'd only be comfortable with 5 years/6 per or something like that," as if that's just a sidebar and not THE major issue.

It's been reported Gorton has been talking to Kreider's agent. Gorton has a #, and Kreider has a right to his #. Depending on how far apart they are will determine if Kreider gets traded or not. It will have very little to do with how concerned the Rangers are at replacing his short-term production.

I'll say it right now, I'd give him 7x7. You can buy him out six years down the road for all I care.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'll say it right now, I'd give him 7x7. You can buy him out six years down the road for all I care.

I respect the commitment, despite my personal opinion that this overvalues Kreider and the Rangers would be better served harvesting him for assets.

 

[Edge]

My point was you have 4 defenseman here for 5 years. You need to find two more from a system that's loaded with defensive prospects. We're worried about replacing Skjei but not worried about replacing Kreider? Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm "less worried" about replacing Kreider than Skjei, not "not worried" about replacing Kreider. Those are two different concepts.

The reason I am "less" worried about replacing Kreider is because we also have Panarin and Lemieux at LW right now, and in a pinch, Kravtsov has played the LW extensively in his career. Now having said that, yes, finding a player to fill that spot would be a concern and would need to an objective for the front office.


But, if you're asking me to choose between a LW position that has Panarin and Lemeiux, but doesn't have Kreider, vs. a LD position that has Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren, but doesn't have Skjei, yes I am going to tell you I am more comfortable with the former. But being more comfortable just not be misconstrued as having a higher level of comfort.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I'm "less worried" about replacing Kreider than Skjei, not "not worried" about replacing Kreider. Those are two different concepts.

The reason I am "less" worried about replacing Kreider is because we also have Panarin and Lemieux at LW right now, and in a pinch, Kravtsov has played the LW extensively in his career. Now having said that, yes, finding a player to fill that spot would be a concern and would need to an objective for the front office.


But, if you're asking me to choose between a LW position that has Panarin and Lemeiux, but doesn't have Kreider, vs. a LD position that has Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren, but doesn't have Skjei, yes I am going to tell you I am more comfortable with the former. But being more comfortable just not be misconstrued as having a higher level of comfort.

C'mon man, Lemieux stinks. He's average at best. And Kravtsov hasn't played a game in the NHL yet. I'm not saying losing Skjei is a no brainer, but they have more options internally there, way more.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I'll say it right now, I'd give him 7x7. You can buy him out six years down the road for all I care.

Anything over 5 years would be a mistake.

Kreider is the one who is going to have to bend if he wants to stay here. If he doesn't, adios amigo.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I respect the commitment, despite my personal opinion that this overvalues Kreider and the Rangers would be better served harvesting him for assets.

I just don't ever see them getting equal value in a trade. I think the Rangers lose the trade to whoever they trade him to. Maybe a GM gets desperate and gives Gorton their top prospect, I'd be ok with that. But a late 1st round pick and bottom 6 prospect does nothing for me. I know people will say they can flip that pick and prospect, but that comes with its own set of complications.

 

[Edge]

I'll say it right now, I'd give him 7x7. You can buy him out six years down the road for all I care.

See and this is part of the expense creep I've referred to.

The conversation for a lot of people tends to start with, "Well I won't go beyond $6 million. If he wants more than that he can walk."

Then it becomes, "Well what's $250-$500k more. Are we really going to walk away from this over that amount of money?"

Then as D-Day gets closer it becomes, "Well, shit, I'd go to $7 million for him. We can buy him out if we need to."

So what is the actual breaking point on Kreider?

We all know what he brings. We all know everyone's opinions on how hard they think it is to replace. We all have our theories on how we can make it work, or the list guys we'd move to make it work.

But what is the consensus on an actual cost ceiling? Because we can go back and forth until we're blue in the face, but at some point there's a monetary cost and limit.

So what does everyone think it is?

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

See and this is part of the expense creep I've referred to.

The conversation for a lot of people tends to start with, "Well I won't go beyond $6 million. If he wants more than that he can walk."

Then it becomes, "Well what's $250-$500k more. Are we really going to walk away from this over that amount of money?"

Then as D-Day gets closer it becomes, "Well, ****, I'd go to $7 million for him. We can buy him out if we need to."

So what is the actual breaking point on Kreider?

We all know what he brings. We all know everyone's opinions on how hard they think it is to replace. We all have our theories on how we can make it work, or the list guys we'd move to make it work.

But what is the consensus on an actual cost ceiling? Because we can go back and forth until we're blue in the face, but at some point there's a monetary cost and limit.

So what does everyone think it is?

Anything over 5 years would be a mistake.

Kreider is the one who is going to have to bend if he wants to stay here. If he doesn't, adios amigo.

I said I'd do it. I'm being unreasonable, I admit that. Ideally $6.5. Would I kill the Rangers for not giving him 7x7, absolutely not.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I just don't ever see them getting equal value in a trade. I think the Rangers lose the trade to whoever they trade him to. Maybe a GM gets desperate and gives Gorton their top prospect, I'd be ok with that. But a late 1st round pick and bottom 6 prospect does nothing for me. I know people will say they can flip that pick and prospect, but that comes with its own set of complications.

Considering the state of this team's bottom 6, something like that should do something for you...but to each his own.