Player Discussion Chris Kreider

[True Blue]

If Kreider re-signs, it’s going to be for 6 years. I would almost bet on it.

Agreed. Some of this pie in the sky such as 5 years, or better yet 4 years is just fantasy. I guess people have the right to do what they want, but why hypothesize about scenarios that are just not realistic?

The 6 years is an absolute given.

 

[True Blue]

still scared by that extra year.

5 years/6.5 -7 mil i think gets it done. plus the promise of the C.

You can be scared of it all you want, but the chances of it being less than 6 years are zero point zero.

 

[NYRangers0723]

You can be scared of it all you want, but the chances of it being less than 6 years are zero point zero

.

True. I can live with 6 as long as it’s not crazy money

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

He's not signing for less than 6 years and even that's probably a stretch. These 5 year deals people are pining for is as likely as them getting Newhook.

This is why I think he's goes unless he takes a hit on the AAV.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

C'mon guys, if you can live with 5 you can live with 6. If you can live with 6 you can live with 7. So much hand wringing over an extra year or $250k. Who the hell knows where this team is in 4 years let alone 7. If they want him, they want him. They know the parameters and what it's going take. I'm sure each side has some built in wiggle room, but the deal is going to be the kind of deal discussed here for the last 10000 months. If not, he's gone Monday afternoon.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

This is why I think he's goes unless he takes a hit on the AAV.

Sure, but you can't say "hey Chris we really want you to stay, you're an important part of the core but we're offering you a million less and two years less than what'd you get on the market." I think there's room for both sides to compromise but they need to come close.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Agreed. Some of this pie in the sky such as 5 years, or better yet 4 years is just fantasy. I guess people have the right to do what they want, but why hypothesize about scenarios that are just not realistic?

The 6 years is an absolute given.

then he should be moved for a 1st., a solid prospect and a conditional if he resigns plus the cap space to retain younger core players key to the rebuild.

no need to make an exception for a soon to be 29 yr old kreider. the plan is the plan. stick with it.

good bye and good luck

 

[NYRangers0723]

Sure, but you can't say "hey Chris we really want you to stay, you're an important part of the core but we're offering you a million less and two years less than what'd you get on the market." I think there's room for both sides to compromise but they need to come close.

. Yup that’s true. IMO I think there is interest in a compromise. If the two sides were so far apart I think CK would have been gone by now or sitting

 

[Edge]

C'mon guys, if you can live with 5 you can live with 6. If you can live with 6 you can live with 7. So much hand wringing over an extra year or $250k. Who the hell knows where this team is in 4 years let alone 7. If they want him, they want him. They know the parameters and what it's going take. I'm sure each side has some built in wiggle room, but the deal is going to be the kind of deal discussed here for the last 10000 months. If not, he's gone Monday afternoon.

That's why I think it has to be one or the other for the Rangers.

I think they're willing to compromise on the years, or the salary, but not both.

I'll venture the debate might not be so much about 6 years at $6.5m vs. $6.75m, so much as it might be about 6 years at $6.5m, vs. 7 years at $7m.

And to that latter point, that's where I think that's where the response would be if you want years, the salary needs to come down, or if you want $7 million, the years need to come down. And I'll be honest, I'm not sure the Rangers want to touch $7 million regardless of whether it's for 7 years or 6 years.

 

[TheBPA]

C'mon guys, if you can live with 5 you can live with 6. If you can live with 6 you can live with 7. So much hand wringing over an extra year or $250k. Who the hell knows where this team is in 4 years let alone 7. If they want him, they want him. They know the parameters and what it's going take. I'm sure each side has some built in wiggle room, but the deal is going to be the kind of deal discussed here for the last 10000 months. If not, he's gone Monday afternoon.

you absolutely have to draw a line somewhere. For many, that line is 5. The extra years on these contracts for guys in their early/mid thirties are what really kills a team’s cap flexibility.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

C'mon guys, if you can live with 5 you can live with 6. If you can live with 6 you can live with 7. So much hand wringing over an extra year or $250k. Who the hell knows where this team is in 4 years let alone 7. If they want him, they want him. They know the parameters and what it's going take. I'm sure each side has some built in wiggle room, but the deal is going to be the kind of deal discussed here for the last 10000 months. If not, he's gone Monday afternoon.

Nope.

The difference between 5 and 6 is huge, let alone 5 and 7.

a 2 year difference is astronomical. Had we signed Staal for 4 years instead of 6 we would have been rid of him after last year instead of stuck with him until next year. Even at 5, that extra space opening up this summer would be pretty nice right now wouldn't it?

 

[Edge]

. Yup that’s true. IMO I think there is interest in a compromise. If the two sides were so far apart I think CK would have been gone by now or sitting

Eh, this can cut both ways. If they weren't that far apart, you could argue a deal would've been signed by now and they wouldn't be talking to teams about what they are willing to offer.

I think at the end of the day, the ball is going to be in Kreider's court as to how much he is willing to take off the 7x7 price point. And thus far, I don't know if the desire to remain a Ranger has totally blown the doors off his financial considerations.

 

[NYRangers0723]

That's why I think it has to be one or the other for the Rangers.

I think they're willing to compromise on the years, or the salary, but not both.

I'll venture the debate might not be so much about 6 years at $6.5m vs. $6.75m, so much as it might be about 6 years at $6.5m, vs. 7 years at $7m.

And to that latter point, that's where I think that's where the response would be if you want years, the salary needs to come down, or if you want $7 million, the years need to come down. And I'll be honest, I'm not sure the Rangers want to touch $7 million regardless of whether it's for 7 years or 6 years

.

. Would you say the chances of a compromise better than many think? I just feel if there was no shot then he would be sitting or even be gone by now. Thanks I enjoy your information!!!

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

That's why I think it has to be one or the other for the Rangers.

I think they're willing to compromise on the years, or the salary, but not both.

I'll venture the debate might not be so much about 6 years at $6.5m vs. $6.75m, so much as it might be about 6 years at $6.5m, vs. 7 years at $7m.

And to that latter point, that's where I think that's where the response would be if you want years, the salary needs to come down, or if you want $7 million, the years need to come down. And I'll be honest, I'm not sure the Rangers want to touch $7 million regardless of whether it's for 7 years or 6 years.

Totally agree. But that gets back to my point of how much do they really want him? They know what he'll get offered this summer, if you want him offer him less, ok. But at least offer him something that's going to make him think long and hard about turning down. Let him weigh how much he likes it here vs an extra year or extra 300k per.

 

[Edge]

. Would you say the chances of a compromise better than many think? I just feel if there was no shot then he would be sitting or even be gone by now. Thanks I enjoy your information!!!

I still have it as 60/40 for him being traded.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

you absolutely have to draw a line somewhere. For many, that line is 5. The extra years on these contracts for guys in their early/mid thirties are what really kills a team’s cap flexibility.

But it has to be a realistic line. Asking a guy to take one less year, ok. Two? That's insulting.

Nope.

The difference between 5 and 6 is huge, let alone 5 and 7.

a 2 year difference is astronomical. Had we signed Staal for 4 years instead of 6 we would have been rid of him after last year instead of stuck with him until next year. Even at 5, that extra space opening up this summer would be pretty nice right now wouldn't it?

I'm not comparing Staal or whoever to Kreider. Different guys at the helm. Yes, in hindsight having Staal off the books would be great. But it's only another year they have to navigate. It's a bad contract, your screen name suggests as much. But you can't say we want you, but we're gonna make you a shitty offer. I don't think it works like that.

 

[Edge]

Totally agree. But that gets back to my point of how much do they really want him? They know what he'll get offered this summer, if you want him offer him less, ok. But at least offer him something that's going to make him think long and hard about turning down. Let him weigh how much he likes it here vs an extra year or extra 300k per.

I think that's probably where we're at. I'd be shocked if an offer isn't sitting there, maybe even two options.

 

[NYRangers0723]

I think that's probably where we're at. I'd be shocked if an offer isn't sitting there, maybe even two options.

I feel the same way. This is just my personal opinion but I think the closer we get the more CK will bend. But I could be totally wrong too lol

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

C'mon guys, if you can live with 5 you can live with 6. If you can live with 6 you can live with 7

This is the worst logic I've seen on here in a while

So kudos lol

 

[True Blue]

then he should be moved for a 1st., a solid prospect and a conditional if he resigns plus the cap space to retain younger core players key to the rebuild.

no need to make an exception for a soon to be 29 yr old kreider. the plan is the plan. stick with it.

good bye and good luck

That may be your view, but it is not that of the Rangers. Again, we need to stick with reality. Or at least should. If they can sign him for a price they are comfortable at, it will be for 6.

 

[NYRangers0723]

This is the worst logic I've seen on here in a while

So kudos lol

I can live with 6. 7 is a complete dealbreaker for me no matter what

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I think that's probably where we're at. I'd be shocked if an offer isn't sitting there, maybe even two options.

But how far apart are they, is the question.

 

[TheBPA]

But it has to be a realistic line. Asking a guy to take one less year, ok. Two? That's insulting.



I'm not comparing Staal or whoever to Kreider. Different guys at the helm. Yes, in hindsight having Staal off the books would be great. But it's only another year they have to navigate. It's a bad contract, your screen name suggests as much. But you can't say we want you, but we're gonna make you a shitty offer. I don't think it works like that.

I agree, I doubt 5 years would be seriously considered unless the dollars are high.

 

[Edge]

But how far apart are they, is the question.

It's all gonna come down to dollars and decimal points.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

It's all gonna come down to dollars and decimal points.

Knights of Columbus!