Draft and UDFA Thread 2018-19: Part VIII (No Kakko/Hughes Talk)

[Ghost of jas]

Well I'll be surprised if they get #17 for Kreider

I think they could easily get 14 from Arizona

 

[NYR Viper]

I think they could easily get 14 from Arizona

14 + Crouse + conditional pick

 

[Ghost of jas]

14 + Crouse + conditional pick

Again, if Hayes is worth Brendan Lemieux and a 1st, with only two months left on his deal, Kreider for a full year is easily worth more.

 

[Edge]

Well I'll be surprised if they get #17 for Kreider

What do you see as the value for Kreider?

 

[Off Sides]

I think they could easily get 14 from Arizona

I just don't see it, we've gone over the multiple reasons, trade clause, one year term, that team having to move completely out of the 1st round, who would be available with that pick, whether that team thinks they have any chance to extend Kreider.

I believe this will come down to like 5 outcomes,

The Rangers either undervalue Kreider similar to me and trade him for what amounts to about what he'd return next deadline anyway.

They keep him until next deadline and trade him for the rental like Hayes return where the pick could fall #18-#31 maybe they get a limited ceiling prospect or on the cusp player too. If he is not injured

They re-sign him to his terms.

They self rent him and either let him walk or sign him to his terms.

They find a perfect match where he is willing to extend where he is traded and that team is also willing to give up more than his what his deadline return would be.


None of that to me is saying the Rangers should hold out for equal trade value as that value is depreciating the longer they refrain.

On the flip side the longer they refrain the more leverage they are giving him to get his terms if they are extending him.

Anyway, I know you will not see it as such, which is fine, we agree on most other things.

 

[Off Sides]

What do you see as the value for Kreider?

What his return would likely be next deadline, a late 1st and a limited ceiling prospect or on the cusp prospect as Hayes returned.

His regular season should also be worth something yet I'm not so sure teams are willing to trade much for that, or if they will look to UFAs, or at other trades.

 

[Thirty One]

I think they could easily get 14 from Arizona

Colorado is the team I'm really keeping an eye on.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Colorado is the team I'm really keeping an eye on.

They're another one. I figured Kreider is the type of player Chayka drools over, and he's made Stepan better, which Chayka would know. Adding Kreider is a move that could put Arizona in the playoffs.

 

[Calad]

Maybe they could get 14+ from arizona for Kreider. But Kreider has an 11 team NTC and I'd guess that the yotes would be among those 11 teams

 

[Edge]

What his return would likely be next deadline, a late 1st and a limited ceiling prospect or on the cusp prospect as Hayes returned.

His regular season should also be worth something yet I'm not so sure teams are willing to trade much for that, or if they will look to UFAs, or at other trades.

See now that last part is probably where I tend to veer off in a different direction.

Looking at this year's playoffs, I definitely think there is a value-added for teams who are also looking to get to the dance in the first place. You have teams that finished with the 16th and 18th picks who came within a goal or two of reaching the conference finals. You have third team picking at 19 who almost went there as well. You have a team that finished with 99 points who is in the finals.

I think there are teams sitting there in the mid-teens who are thinking, "why not me?" and GMs who realize that if they can be next year's Stars, Avs or Canes, they're looking at adding time to their clock. Kreider is an attractive option from that perspective.

 

[iamitter]

I think our expectations for a return on Kreider are a bit out of whack.

What would you all want to pay for someone like Trouba? He's got a year left, plays a more valuable position and is younger.

Take that, and less than that is what we'll get for Kreider.

 

[Off Sides]

Colorado is the team I'm really keeping an eye on.

Colorado probably makes the most sense, may not be on his list, they already have another top pick, and are probably looking to improve their NHL team, they have cap space and maybe he even extends there.

I'd still be surprised to see it as a one for one deal where the Rangers do not have to add or take back something, yet at least some of the roadblocks may not be there.

 

[Leetch3]

I think our expectations for a return on Kreider are a bit out of whack.

What would you all want to pay for someone like Trouba? He's got a year left, plays a more valuable position and is younger.

Take that, and less than that is what we'll get for Kreider.

fair point...but the cost is always WAY more than fans want to pay and the return is always way less than fans expect. so its not surprising that what we want to give up for trouba vs what we want back for kreider are out of whack

 

[Off Sides]

See now that last part is probably where I tend to veer off in a different direction.

Looking at this year's playoffs, I definitely think there is a value-added for teams who are also looking to get to the dance in the first place. You have teams that finished with the 16th and 18th picks who came within a goal or two of reaching the conference finals. You have third team picking at 19 who almost went there as well. You have a team that finished with 99 points who is in the finals.

I think there are teams sitting there in the mid-teens who are thinking, "why not me?" and GMs who realize that if they can be next year's Stars, Avs or Canes, they're looking at adding time to their clock. Kreider is an attractive option from that perspective.

Okay, yet if the Rangers are asking for their first pick in the 2019 draft, and that teams has some other ideas of alternatives, whether that be to sign a free agent, or make some other trade that did not require that price, where those other options come at least somewhat close to what Kreider would add to the regular season, I think they probably explore the other options.

It depends on how they look at it, how tough is it for them to find something that cost less than that pick which could make a decent dent in that ~52 points. Yet if they are looking at his intangible values too maybe they do see the value difference.

 

[Edge]

I think our expectations for a return on Kreider are a bit out of whack.

What would you all want to pay for someone like Trouba? He's got a year left, plays a more valuable position and is younger.

Take that, and less than that is what we'll get for Kreider.

Three thoughts come to mind:

1. There's a bit of a disconnect on the Trouba discussions between what a lot of this board would pay/think it would take, compared to what it would actually cost.

2. It's not necessarily the best comparison because the Jets aren't looking for draft picks for Trouba. They're going to want talent with some history behind them. So we're probably not looking for the same package as the Jets would.

3. The Jets are a team with deep playoff aspirations. We're not. So the incentive for the Jets to move Trouba is different than it is for the Rangers to move Kreider.

 

[Edge]

Okay, yet if the Rangers are asking for their first pick in the 2019 draft, and that teams has some other ideas of alternatives, whether that be to sign a free agent, or make some other trade that did not require that price, where those other options come at least somewhat close to what Kreider would add to the regular season, I think they probably explore the other options.

It depends on how they look at it, how tough is it for them to find something that cost less than that pick which could make a decent dent in that ~52 points. Yet if they are looking at his intangible values too maybe they do see the value difference.

From a free agency standpoint, I'm not sure there are other options (other than the superior and more expensive option in Panarin).

From a trade perspective, the alternatives are:

• Do nothing
• Trade for a less impactful player at a lower cost
• Trade for a more impactful player at a higher cost
• Trade for an equally impactful player, with term, at a higher cost

 

[Off Sides]

From a free agency standpoint, I'm not sure there are other options (other than the superior and more expensive option in Panarin).

From a trade perspective, the alternatives are:

• Do nothing
• Trade for a less impactful player at a lower cost
• Trade for a more impactful player at a higher cost
• Trade for an equally impactful player, with term, at a higher cost

From a pure production stand point, If they trade for a less impactful player at a lower cost, if the guy can put up 40 points and don't have to give up the 1st, they are only down 12 points.

That is what I'd be arguing the Rangers do if the situation were reversed. What does Andreas Johnsson cost in trade? Rakell, Zucker, Eakin, can they sign Ferland, will Ottawa pay me to take on Ryan?

 

[Edge]

From a pure production stand point, If they trade for a less impactful player at a lower cost, if the guy can put up 40 points and don't have to give up the 1st, they are only down 12 points.

That is what I'd be arguing the Rangers do if the situation were reversed. What does Andreas Johnsson cost in trade? Rakell, Zucker, Eakin, can they sign Ferland, will Ottawa pay me to take on Ryan?

Eh, I don't think it always quite works that way --- AKA where Player A with 40 points and Player B with 20 points = Player C with 60 points.

Could a team go down that route? Yes. But I think the team's interested in Kreider aren't looking for depth to get them over the hump, I think they're looking for a first line impact.

Trade return aside, I think we're also undervaluing Kreider as a player.

 

[Leetch3]

Eh, I don't think it always quite works that way --- AKA where Player A with 40 points and Player B with 20 points = Player C with 60 points.

Could a team go down that route? Yes. But I think the team's interested in Kreider aren't looking for depth to get them over the hump, I think they're looking for a first line impact.

Trade return aside, I think we're also undervaluing Kreider as a player.

that holds true if Player D who is player C's teammate has 0 points

 

[Off Sides]

Eh, I don't think it always quite works that way --- AKA where Player A with 40 points and Player B with 20 points = Player C with 60 points.

Could a team go down that route? Yes. But I think the team's interested in Kreider aren't looking for depth to get them over the hump, I think they're looking for a first line impact.

Trade return aside, I think we're also undervaluing Kreider as a player.

I get that which is why I stated as pure production standpoint, yet if I'm being honest and the Rangers finished as a borderline playoffs team or even made them and was 1st round fodder, there is no way I'm promoting them to trade their first round pick for only one guaranteed year of Kreider.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I think our expectations for a return on Kreider are a bit out of whack.

What would you all want to pay for someone like Trouba? He's got a year left, plays a more valuable position and is younger.

Take that, and less than that is what we'll get for Kreider.

Skjei and Andersson would likely be a starting point.

And we already have a better comparison with Kevin Hayes. A full season of Kreider , a better player, should be worth more than Lemieux and a 1st.

 

[Edge]

I get that which is why I stated as pure production standpoint, yet if I'm being honest and the Rangers finished as a borderline playoffs team or even made them and was 1st round fodder, there is no way I'm promoting them to trade their first round pick for only one guaranteed year of Kreider.

I guess it depends on if your job is on the line, if you've already stockpiled a ton of young talent, and if you consider the downside of the risk being that you trade Kreider at the deadline for a first and a prospect next year.

But if we're looking for a comparable, I'm not sure the Rangers don't trade the 15th pick in the 2011 draft if there's a player of Kreider's ability available to fill a hole they had.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I am really uncertain about Kreider’s value.

In theory getting a season out of him should add value but there is increased risk - both injury and that the team dealing for him won’t even make the playoffs.

One of the reason rentals garner first round picks is because there is a clearer view of player health and a clearer view of where the acquirer’s draft pick will end up due to how the season is going.

 

[Edge]

I am really uncertain about Kreider’s value.

In theory getting a season out of him should add value but there is increased risk - both injury and that the team dealing for him won’t even make the playoffs.

One of the reason rentals garner first round picks is because there is a clearer view of player health and a clearer view of where the acquirer’s draft pick will end up due to how the season is going.

And that second section is part of the protection that an acquiring team has to offset their gamble.

The reality is that if it doesn't work, you're basically deferring a pick by a year to take a shot. And the difference could be as little as 2 - 6 picks.

 

[Off Sides]

I guess it depends on if your job is on the line, if you've already stockpiled a ton of young talent, and if you consider the downside of the risk being that you trade Kreider at the deadline for a first and a prospect next year.

But if we're looking for a comparable, I'm not sure the Rangers don't trade the 15th pick in the 2011 draft if there's a player of Kreider's ability available to fill a hole they had.

The other downside is perhaps he is injured at deadline time, that goes for both the Rangers and if he is traded and not extended.

The GM hot seat angle, to a point sure, we've seen that before, yet most of them will likely be on his no trade list if he is enforcing it.

The Rangers may have made a trade as such, and I would not have liked that either, as where it leads is where they went and now are.