Speculation: Keeping Ck

[mas0764]

How many numbers are we retiring?

Some of these people won't be getting their number retired. Igor and Fox will likely be the only 2, esp if we don't win a cup.

I think hanging in the rafters should be an honor that doesn't necessarily equal "retirement."

In fact, in a sport where there are 99 numbers to choose from, and 23 players on a roster at any moment, I'm kinda against the idea of permanent number retirements.

Assuming Kreider finishes out his contract without a long term injury he'll be one of 4 rangers to play 1,000 games with the team. Outside a ring I think it's hard to come up with parameters for a player to get their number retired that Kreider doesn't satisfy.

The guy is basically a long term top 6 forward who has now just twice broken 30 goals.

I kinda think retirement should be for, like, stars. Lundqvist. Leetch. Messier (though he's not home-grown).

It's just sad we have so few long term, home grown stars, so Kreider is the best of a relatively bad bunch (historically speaking).

 

[sbjnyc]

I'd be pretty shocked if we don't look to move his contract in the summer of 24. We are going to need money and full his NTC goes to only 15 teams.

Certainly possible but I think they look elsewhere.

I think hanging in the rafters should be an honor that doesn't necessarily equal "retirement."

In fact, in a sport where there are 99 numbers to choose from, and 23 players on a roster at any moment, I'm kinda against the idea of permanent number retirements.



The guy is basically a long term top 6 forward who has now just twice broken 30 goals.

I kinda think retirement should be for, like, stars. Lundqvist. Leetch. Messier (though he's not home-grown).

It's just sad we have so few long term, home grown stars, so Kreider is the best of a relatively bad bunch (historically speaking).

You don't necessarily need to be an all-time great player to be an all-time great ranger. The Knicks haven't won a championsihp in 50 years. Aside from Ewing (who is 60) the youngest living player with their number in the rafters is Walt with no new blood in sight. That's how bad they've been over the last 20 years. Rangers have been a much better team and deserve the additional honors even without generational/HoF calliber players.

 

[NYRangers0723]

I’ve always felt Kreider might be the most under appreciated Rangers. Looking back at this thread it’s fascinating seeing how many wanted yo get rid of him although I’m sure they will now admit we made right decision and the team would be nowhere close without him. As for retiring his number I don’t think it’s inconceivable. I mean he is already in his way to be too 3 all time in goals by the middle of next season I believe, he has been a big playoff performer since he debut as well. I still see the whole “he didn’t score 30 until he was 30” thing but who cares. I mean technically he didn’t but there was some bad luck/injuries that played into it too. The year before his 52 goal season he score 20 in 50 game abbreviated season which would’ve been 30 in a normal season, the year before that he had 25 on his way to 30 goal season until he injured his ankle, and one of his 28 goals seasons I believe he missed like 8 games as well. But despite that he was a 25-28 goal guy who provides so much with his size, speed, and net presence. Over the last couple years he has become a complete player and has what almost 90 goals in the past two years? No reason he can’t do that for a couple more years at least. If we win a cup I think it’s pretty much a lock his number will be retired but even if we don’t I think you can make a case for it unless he completely goes south startling next year which I don’t see happening

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I went back and read this entire thread. Some of the posts in here were nothing short of amazing. Can't keep him because they wouldn't be able to afford Buch, Namestikov and get this, Brendan Lemiuex

Ya'll should be embarrassed with your piss poor takes. There were like 5 posters in favor of keeping him. Gold. But shoutout to @TheDirtyH for nailing the contract details, way back when

 

[NYRangers0723]

I went back and read this entire thread. Some of the posts in here were nothing short of amazing. Can't keep him because they wouldn't be able to afford Buch, Namestikov and get this, Brendan Lemiuex

Ya'll should be embarrassed with your piss poor takes. There were like 5 posters in favor of keeping him. Gold. But shoutout to @TheDirtyH for nailing the contract details, way back when

Hell I even saw “We can’t keep him because we have a stud in Kravstov” . Funny enough I was a fan of the Kravstov pick while most weren’t but even that was ridiculous. As for Buch he was always a fan favorite here so that was t surprising but I think if you ask any team who they would WS t between the two they would pick CK. I think it goes back to the 2012 playoffs. CK jumped right from college to scoring big playoff goals fans demanded that he be a star right away and score 35-40 goals right away. When that didn’t quite happen all of a sudden he was lazy or taking games off which was nonsense

 

[TheGortonConspiracy]

I went back and read this entire thread. Some of the posts in here were nothing short of amazing. Can't keep him because they wouldn't be able to afford Buch, Namestikov and get this, Brendan Lemiuex

Ya'll should be embarrassed with your piss poor takes. There were like 5 posters in favor of keeping him. Gold. But shoutout to @TheDirtyH for nailing the contract details, way back when

You should go through the thread on when they announced his contract, a good number of meltdowns in there

 

[TheDirtyH]

I went back and read this entire thread. Some of the posts in here were nothing short of amazing. Can't keep him because they wouldn't be able to afford Buch, Namestikov and get this, Brendan Lemiuex

Ya'll should be embarrassed with your piss poor takes. There were like 5 posters in favor of keeping him. Gold. But shoutout to @TheDirtyH for nailing the contract details, way back when

LMAO

Nailing it is generous, but I was definitely wanting to keep him and happy we did. Still am, as a fellow IRL Christopher James.

 

[mas0764]

I still want to trade him.

 

[NYRangers0723]

You should go through the thread on when they announced his contract, a good number of meltdowns in there

Yup I remember lol. Now when you look at the contract it’s pretty much a bargain. I mean they may end up trading him with a year or two left of term for cap reason but overall I think most agree it was a smart signing

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

LMAO

Nailing it is generous, but I was definitely wanting to keep him and happy we did. Still am, as a fellow IRL Christopher James.

You had 6/6.5 for 7, right on the money. I'd call that nailing it.

 

[NYRangers0723]

I still want to trade him.

Why?

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I still want to trade him.

Of course you do.

 

[NYRangers0723]

Of course you do.

Yeah even if you’re not a CK fan and that poster clearly isn’t what sense does it make trading him when 1. You’re a win now team 2. He is coming off a 52 goal season and 35(and counting) goal seadon and 3 he is a leader on the team. Nobody has show they can replace what he brings

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Yeah even if you’re not a CK fan and that poster clearly isn’t what sense does it make trading him when 1. You’re a win now team 2. He is coming off a 52 goal season and 35(and counting) goal seadon and 3 he is a leader on the team. Nobody has show they can replace what he brings

Because in some people's minds, Kreider is keeping Laff and Kakko from being all they can be. They can't stand the idea of playing the kids on a line that's numbered 3, even if that number is completely useless and not indicative of ES ice time. Counting playoffs Kreider has 97 goals since the start of last season. The horror!

 

[mas0764]

Why?

I think the return you can get for him, including but very hardly limited to the cap space you'd free up (even though his contract is ultimately valuable), would be worth more to the franchise than his continuing presence on the team.

He's aging and at some point the on-ice returns will be diminishing as well. Better to monetize that asset a year too early than a year too late. Meanwhile, someone may be willing to pay through the nose for a player on a $6.5m contract that can score 35 goals.

But I'm not giving him away, it was once reported that the offer from Dallas, on an expiring deal, was a first and prospect Jason Robertson, at a time when Robertson had scored a total of 1 NHL point, so we are talking high-end but uncertain (not "can't miss) prosects here, not established young NHL top liners.

If you can't get a big haul for him, we can keep him. But I'm of the opinion that someone has to be moved (Goodrow, Kreider, Trouba, some big contract). Goodrow might suffice to help you squeak by, cap-wise, but if you could get a haul in addition to just the cap space (even more cap space, actually), I think that's ultimately substantially more valuable to the team. I'm also of the opinion you can swindle someone and win a trade for a player who ultimately doesn't have a ton of time left as a first liner.

FWIW Scott Wheeler had Robertson as the 37th best drafted prospect in 2019, very close to guys like Kravtsov, Hayton, and Farabee.

This year he has similar ranked names such as Othmann and Dylan Holloway in that range. Alex Holtz and William Eklund in the 20s (not that we'd trade him to the Devils or that San Jose would want him).

I'd take another Othmann and a first for Kreider after this season ends.

 

[NYRangers0723]

Because in some people's minds, Kreider is keeping Laff and Kakko from being all they can be. They can't stand the idea of playing the kids on a line that's numbered 3, even if that number is completely useless and not indicative of ES ice time.

I’m so sick of that excuse. I mean let’s be honest they’ve tried Laffy and Kakko with Mika and it didn’t work. They work well together. So e fans still can’t get over the fact that CK wasn’t a superstar right away and they can’t get past that which is silly considering he was the 19th pick not the 1st overall pick or even top 10. I mean if you look at his career as a whole you would see a lot of big goals especially in the playoffs and if you ask Mika why he had had so much success he would credit CK and vice versa. If we traded him in 2020 we do t make the playoffs last year no doubt about it and it would have left a huge hole that like I said nobody has shown they could fill. Power forward like CK don’t grow on trees especially when they become good overall players and penalty killers like the last couple years

I think the return you can get for him, including but very hardly limited to the cap space you'd free up (even though his contract is ultimately valuable), would be worth more to the franchise than his continuing presence on the team.

He's aging and at some point the on-ice returns will be diminishing as well. Better to monetize that asset a year too early than a year too late. Meanwhile, someone may be willing to pay through the nose for a player on a $6.5m contract that can score 35 goals.

But I'm not giving him away, it was once reported that the offer from Dallas, on an expiring deal, was a first and prospect Jason Robertson, at a time when Robertson had scored a total of 1 NHL point, so we are talking high-end but uncertain (not "can't miss) prosects here, not established young NHL top liners.

If you can't get a big haul for him, we can keep him. But I'm of the opinion that someone has to be moved (Goodrow, Kreider, Trouba, some big contract). Goodrow might suffice to help you squeak by, cap-wise, but if you could get a haul in addition to just the cap space (even more cap space, actually), I think that's ultimately substantially more valuable to the team. I'm also of the opinion you can swindle someone and win a trade for a player who ultimately doesn't have a ton of time left as a first liner.

Makes no sense right now. Plus he is one of the best conditioned players in the NHL so you dint have to worry about him “breaking down”. Unless you are rebuilding it makes little sense. They probably will trade him at the end of his contract for cap reasons but I don’t see it happening anytime soon

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I’m so sick of that excuse. I mean let’s be honest they’ve tried Laffy and Kakko with Mika and it didn’t work. They work well together. So e fans still can’t get over the fact that CK wasn’t a superstar right away and they can’t get past that which is silly considering he was the 19th pick not the 1st overall pick or even top 10. I mean if you look at his career as a whole you would see a lot of big goals especially in the playoffs and if you ask Mika why he had had so much success he would credit CK and vice versa. If we traded him in 2020 we do t make the playoffs last year no doubt about it and it would have left a huge hole that like I said nobody has shown they could fill. Power forward like CK don’t grow on trees especially when they become good overall players and penalty killers like the last couple years

The good news is management views him very differently than people here and that's all that matters. The same folks screaming that Rangers can't develop forwards somehow forget that they turned a raw project into one of the top power forwards in the game. The guy has been an exceptional Ranger his entire career and as one poster said a while back, it feels like he's been on the ice for just about every big goal scored in the playoffs since he got here.

This team would be a mess without him.

 

[mas0764]

Makes no sense right now. Plus he is one of the best conditioned players in the NHL so you dint have to worry about him “breaking down”. Unless you are rebuilding it makes little sense. They probably will trade him at the end of his contract for cap reasons but I don’t see it happening anytime soon

It makes a ton of sense after the season. Whether or not they choose to explore that route is another matter; he's an organization and fan favorite so that explains a lot, as does, ultimately, the NTC, which is not an impossible obstacle but it is an obstacle nonetheless.

If your position is that you should never trade any expensive productive player until you are either sure they are finished or sure that you, as a team, are finished, then that's a bad approach to asset management. Sometimes you have to take a gamble to come out ahead.

 

[NYRangers0723]

It makes a ton of sense after the season. Whether or not they choose to explore that route is another matter; he's an organization and fan favorite so that explains a lot, as does, ultimately, the NTC, which is not an impossible obstacle but it is an obstacle nonetheless.

If your position is that you should never trade any expensive productive player until you are either sure they are finished or sure that you, as a team, are finished, then that's a bad approach to asset management. Sometimes you have to take a gamble to come out ahead.

No it doesn’t. I’m not saying you shouldn’t trade a player but there are a lot of variables you seem to be not getting. How do you replace him? How will this effect Mika’s play? Are the Rangers still trying to win? Even if we win the cup the Rangers are still going to try and win the next couple of seasons at least. So seems illogical that he would be traded until the very earliest 2025-26. So maybe enjoy what he brings to your team?

The good news is management views him very differently than people here and that's all that matters. The same folks screaming that Rangers can't develop forwards somehow forget that they turned a raw project into one of the top power forwards in the game. The guy has been an exceptional Ranger his entire career and as one poster said a while back, it feels like he's been on the ice for just about every big goal scored in the playoffs since he got here.

This team would be a mess without him.

Extremely difficult to replace him no doubt about itv

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

It makes a ton of sense after the season. Whether or not they choose to explore that route is another matter; he's an organization and fan favorite so that explains a lot, as does, ultimately, the NTC, which is not an impossible obstacle but it is an obstacle nonetheless.

If your position is that you should never trade any expensive productive player until you are either sure they are finished or sure that you, as a team, are finished, then that's a bad approach to asset management. Sometimes you have to take a gamble to come out ahead.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's wise for teams with Cup aspirations to trade highly productive, core players on reasonable deals coming off 52 (+10 in the post season) and 35+ goal seasons. And he's become an absolute threat on the PK. Not bad for a dinosaur on the wrong side of 30. What makes you think he's going to slow down in the next few years?

 

[mas0764]

No it doesn’t.

Yes, it does.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t trade a player but there are a lot of variables you seem to be not getting. How do you replace him? How will this effect Mika’s play? Are the Rangers still trying to win? Even if we win the cup the Rangers are still going to try and win the next couple of seasons at least. So seems illogical that he would be traded until the very earliest 2025-26. So maybe enjoy what he brings to your team?

With the money you free up you can extend the kids to longer, more team friendly deals. You could theoretically keep Goodrow instead of moving him out. You can probably afford to keep either Kane or Tarasenko on a multi-year deal, in addition to Othmann being promoted.

The team will look different, but Kreider is a relatively one-dimensional player and scorer. It's not impossible to subtract him and still ice a Cup contender.

I'm not saying to dump him for peanuts or just cap savings. The concerns you have named all have answers that are going to have to be answered sooner rather than later anyway.

If someone is giving me a high end prospect and a first, I'm induced to find out a little sooner with no substantial decrease in my winning odds, because like I said, it means you probably bring back someone else you'd have to let go this offseason.

 

[NYRangers0723]

Yes, it does.



With the money you free up you can extend the kids to longer, more team friendly deals. You could theoretically keep Goodrow instead of moving him out. You can probably afford to keep either Kane or Tarasenko on a multi-year deal, in addition to Othmann being promoted.

The team will look different, but Kreider is a relatively one-dimensional player and scorer. It's not impossible to subtract him and still ice a Cup contender.

I'm not saying to dump him for peanuts or just cap savings. The concerns you have named all have answers that are going to have to be answered sooner rather than later anyway.

If someone is giving me a high end prospect and a first, I'm induced to find out a little sooner with no substantial decrease in my winning odds, because like I said, it means you probably bring back someone else you'd have to let go this offseason.

Completely Disagree

Generally speaking, I don't think it's wise for teams with Cup aspirations to trade highly productive, core players on reasonable deals coming off 52 (+10 in the post season) and 35+ goal seasons. And he's become an absolute threat on the PK. Not bad for a dinosaur on the wrong side of 30. What makes you think he's going to slow down in the next few years?

Exactly. If it makes sense that’s fine but he doesn’t seem to get it. The Rangers are looking to compete the next few years regardless of what happens this year so trading one of your top players for picks and prospects at this point makes no sense. Now if this is a couple years down the road and the Rangers are looking to retool then I understand but it’s not happening now

 

[mas0764]

Generally speaking, I don't think it's wise for teams with Cup aspirations to trade highly productive, core players on reasonable deals coming off 52 (+10 in the post season) and 35+ goal seasons. And he's become an absolute threat on the PK. Not bad for a dinosaur on the wrong side of 30. What makes you think he's going to slow down in the next few years?

Father time tells me he is destined to slow down eventually. History for players of his type (the power forwards) tend to slow down faster. In many respects, Kreider already has slowed down, but to his credit he's re-invented himself as a Johan Franzen type to extend his usefulness, though it's limited him in other respects.

Generally speaking it isn't wise, as you've said, but there are exceptions to every rule. Kreider finds himself at the unique juncture of being one of THE MOST replaceable players we have (we have left wings for days - Panarin, Lafreniere, Othmann, etc), a nice fat salary target, and also extremely desireable in trade for other teams with reasonable term and AAV left on his deal. It's a perfect storm that could allow us to absolutely win a trade.

Also, again, the team isn't staying the same next year anyway. Someone is going. The logic that "we can't move on from anyone if we are trying to win," ignores the reality of the cap and the necessity of turning over key roles to young players as a simple matter of continuing to field a winner. Deciding which veterans to keep and which to let go is mandatory; you can't just say "keep all veterans because we are trying to win."

If we don't make any big veteran trades, then Tarasenko probably walks (for nothing) in free agency. What if trading Kreider for assets allowed us to re-sign Tarasenko? Isn't that a better balancing of the roster? Isn't that better asset management?

Simple math:

Tarasenko @$4.5m, 1st, and a 30's prospect > Kreider @$6.5m.

 

[NYRangers0723]

Generally speaking it isn't wise, but there are exceptions to every rule. Kreider finds himself at the unique juncture of being one of THE MOST replaceable players we have (we have left wings for days - Panarin, Lafreniere, Othmann, etc), a nice fat salary target, and also extremely desireable in trade for other teams with reasonable term and AAV left on his deal. It's a perfect storm that could allow us to absolutely win a trade.

Also, again, the team isn't staying the same next year anyway. Someone is going. The logic that "we can't move on from anyone if we are trying to win," ignores the reality of the cap and the necessity of turning over key roles to young players as a simple matter of continuing to field a winner. Deciding which veterans to keep and which to let go is mandatory; you can't just say "keep all veterans because we are trying to win."

If we don't make any big veteran trades, then Tarasenko probably walks (for nothing) in free agency. What if trading Kreider for assets allowed us to re-sign Tarasenko? Isn't that a better balancing of the roster? Isn't that better asset management?

I mean I like Tarasenko but not getting rid of one of our top players to keep him. He always most likely going to be a rental anyway. I mean as much as I like him he has only 17 goals on the season. Tbh I don’t see anyone else saying “trading CK is a great idea” you know man lol

 

[mas0764]

I mean I like Tarasenko but not getting rid of one of our top players to keep him. He always most likely going to be a rental anyway. I mean as much as I like him he has only 17 goals on the season. Tbh I don’t see anyone else saying “trading CK is a great idea” you know man lol

Tarasenko is very possibly better than Kreider. I think your opinion of Kreider may be a little influenced by favoritism.

They are both averaging 0.71 ppg this year exactly. And for their careers it is no contest, Tarasenko is very much the better player.

Again, simple math:

Tarasenko @$4.5m, a first, and a 30s prospect > Kreider @$6.5m by himself.

This is obviously assuming we could get that contract and that haul. I've never said we should give Kreider away just to get rid of him.