Speculation: Keeping Ck

[Edge]

So figure it out later?

Not trying to be a jerk, I just do not get it. The timeline they've attached themselves to should be about the #2 pick and Panarin/Zbad, no?

I'm not sure what the confusion is, or follow the whole figure it out later component.

 

[Off Sides]

I'm not sure what the confusion is, or follow the whole figure it out later component.

Well, Panarin is going to be 28, Zbad has three year left on his term. The entry levels will have two or three years left.

How do they reconcile all that into something that gives them a chance to win a Cup before the cap crunch happens in three years where they have to lose at least some of it?

What would be the point in them adding futures to that group where those futures would not play within any timeline before Zbad is gone and Panarin is on the back end of his deal?

 

[Edge]

Well, Panarin is going to be 28, Zbad has three year left on his term. The entry levels will have two or three years left.

How do they reconcile all that into something that gives them a chance to win a Cup before the cap crunch happens in three years where they have to lose at least some of it?

What would be the point in them adding futures to that group where those futures would not play within any timeline before Zbad is gone and Panarin is on the back end of his deal?

I guess I'm confused as to what you think they can add instead of cheaper, future-oriented talent.

Personally, I'm not sure we are facing a contract apocalypse in three years. There's a lot of money coming off the books there. But assuming that was a threat, wouldn't that kind of answer the question about why they would want younger, future talent?

 

[Gluten Free Breadman]

The last point is something that often gets overlooked. There very well could be deals out there that this board loves, but the Rangers aren't in love with. Likewise, there could be deals the Rangers are interested in that this board would not necessarily be in love with.

Can you give any specifics? Or maybe wait until after the deal gets done?

 

[Edge]

Can you give any specifics? Or maybe wait until after the deal gets done?

The one I will point to is Boston. There's some guys there the Rangers like, none of them scream "blue chip" though, and a pick would likely be a late first. I think there's the potential there for a good return, but I don't think anyone would be blown away by it.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Make him fit for this year, trade him in Jan/Feb when he has built up more value and helped our kids get acclimatized.

None of the options fit, so I didn't vote.

 

[Off Sides]

I guess I'm confused as to what you think they can add instead of cheaper, future-oriented talent.

Personally, I'm not sure we are facing a contract apocalypse in three years. There's a lot of money coming off the books there. But assuming that was a threat, wouldn't that kind of answer the question about why they would want younger, future talent?

This money coming off the books, in two years, ~25M (Lundqvist, Staal, Shattenkrik, Smith) will not be taken up if not exceeded in three years by some combo of Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil, Howden, Fox, Lias, Hajek, Rykov, Lindgren, Shesterkin, Georgiev?

In the mean time, before that comes off they are to let Panarin, Zbad, Trouba, Skjei just age?

I don't understand why they would make the moves they did if the idea was to just hold off and wait now?

 

[GAGLine]

What sucks about the #20 situation is this.

Technically, this club has 3 top 6 forwards currently. Panarin who is at an absolute monster of a contract. Then Zbad who is here for 3 more years at a very, VERY afforadble $5.35 mil. Then Kreider who is only at $4.625. That gives you a really nice trio. The real problem is you can't keep them all due to albatross contracts already can't deliver. So were talking about moving out a really good player to keep within the top 6, simply due to the fact that the Rangers have dinosaurs that they just cannot move out. #18, #22, #42....Due to the inability to move these players the Rangers are about to lose an integral piece of the puzzle.

If we wanted to keep Kreider, we could. There are other players that can and will be moved, and there are buyout options.

Management has already decided that they don't want him for the next 8 years, the last 7 of which he will be making 7 mil. If Kreider is willing to sign for 4 x 6, maybe that changes management's decision, but after what Hayes just got from Philly, I'm sure Kreider will be looking to cash in, and good for him. He just won't do it as a Ranger.

 

[Edge]

This money coming off the books, in two years, ~25M (Lundqvist, Staal, Shattenkrik, Smith) will not be taken up if not exceeded in three years by some combo of Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil, Howden, Fox, Lias, Hajek, Rykov, Lindgren, Shesterkin, Georgiev?

In the mean time, before that comes off they are to let Panarin, Zbad, Trouba, Skjei just age?

I don't understand why they would make the moves they did if the idea was to just hold off and wait now?

For starters, I think assuming all 11 of those guys are on the roster is being very generous, especially if you're allocating two bigger contracts to both Shesty and Georgiev.

Ditto for the assumption that Fox, Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren are all getting big contracts when there's also Miller, Trouba, Skjei, and ADA in the mix. Even playing devil's advocate and going with your proposal, it means one or two guys are getting moved (let's say Skjei for example). So there's that money you have to account for.

And that hypothetical money, would be on top of what you're not paying Kreider, so now you're already well over $30 million.

But all of that aside, I don't know what any of that has to do with just letting the guys you named age? Who said anything about holding off and waiting? They can still make moves, and will.

But I feel like your answering your hypothetical with the Chris Kreider thing. Whether this team is rebuilding, or building, or whatever term we want to use, the cap means it will need to keep circulating young talent into the lineup.

So trading Kreider isn't just sitting back and waiting, nor is the addition of future's inherently against what we've done this summer. I just really don't understand the train of thought here.

 

[sbjnyc]

Make him fit for this year, trade him in Jan/Feb when he has built up more value and helped our kids get acclimatized.

None of the options fit, so I didn't vote.

If the rangers are playoff contenders, trading CK at the TDL would seem like an odd move IMO.

 

[Konamic Ice Hockey]

So I am in the minority here but now that Panarin is signed and Trouba is on the team I want to keep Keider. Trade Names and Strome, have Smith play 13F/7D roll a 21 player roster. I also do not want to buy anyone out, it will hurt in a few years when that money is needed. When someone gets hurt for more than a couple of games call up a kid. Panarin anchors line 1, Kreider anchors line 2, with kids rotating in and out.
To me the D is a mess that will sort itself out in two seasons. The F group is in good shape, heavy on wings and could use a another center but fine. The question I think is: Would you rather have Buch/Keider or Names/Strome? Why do I group it that way? If you have no problems with putting out a worse team this year but gain futures that you hope pan out, you trade Buch and Kreider, they are worth more. If you want a better team this year and the next few you trade Names and Strome.
Looking at Capfriendly NYR is in better shape than so many teams, compare NYR to CHI.
It is time to try and win it all(don't expect to win it all, but try), I don't want to trade away talent right now, it will send mixed messages to the team. I think any trades should be hockey trades skewered towards getting ELC players not picks and JRs players.
The only thing I want in a Kreider trade would be a 2c. Will need to add Buch/ADA to balance the value out.

 

[Lion Hound]

If we wanted to keep Kreider, we could. There are other players that can and will be moved, and there are buyout options.

Management has already decided that they don't want him for the next 8 years, the last 7 of which he will be making 7 mil. If Kreider is willing to sign for 4 x 6, maybe that changes management's decision, but after what Hayes just got from Philly, I'm sure Kreider will be looking to cash in, and good for him. He just won't do it as a Ranger.

That's speculation for the now. Gorton hasn't actually said that yet. Neither has JD. If you read between the lines, they are pretty much just dancing around the question. Personally, i think they probably had offers but not to their liking which is why he is still here currently.

 

[Richard Banger]

Those prime, contending Rangers rosters are gonna be down to Hank and Marc Staal

The passage of time is sad and unwavering RIP

Yeah but think of the new young and talented contending Rangers

 

[Off Sides]

For starters, I think assuming all 11 of those guys are on the roster is being very generous, especially if you're allocating two bigger contracts to both Shesty and Georgiev.

Ditto for the assumption that Fox, Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren are all getting big contracts when there's also Miller, Trouba, Skjei, and ADA in the mix. Even playing devil's advocate and going with your proposal, it means one or two guys are getting moved (let's say Skjei for example). So there's that money you have to account for.

And that hypothetical money, would be on top of what you're not paying Kreider, so now you're already well over $30 million.

But all of that aside, I don't know what any of that has to do with just letting the guys you named age? Who said anything about holding off and waiting? They can still make moves, and will.

But I feel like your answering your hypothetical with the Chris Kreider thing. Whether this team is rebuilding, or building, or whatever term we want to use, the cap means it will need to keep circulating young talent into the lineup.

So trading Kreider isn't just sitting back and waiting, nor is the addition of future's inherently against what we've done this summer. I just really don't understand the train of thought here.

I said a combo of those players, not all 11

How about

A starting goalie
two top liners
a defender or two
a middle 6 or two

Is that really a stretch?

Just even that all coming off their entry levels within 3 years is going to absorb if not exceed the cap hits coming off the books.

 

[Edge]

I said a combo of those players, not all 11

How about

A starting goalie
two top liners
a defender or two
a middle 6 or two

Is that really a stretch?

Just even that all coming off their entry levels within 3 years is going to absorb if not exceed the cap hits coming off the books.

I feel pretty comfortable with having $25-$30 million to work with for that list. And that's assuming there are no other moves over the next three years (Names, Strome, etc.).

And if by some chance we have too much talent and not enough cap, I'll gladly take that problem because it means we can still move guys to get other pieces, just like other top teams have done without falling off a cliff. Because getting value for talent is the least of my concerns at this point.

 

[eco's bones]

So my question is, why hasn't this happened yet? They've now had two drafts and almost two offseasons to move him for the return you're suggesting, which seems to be pretty fair. Is there internal debate? Are people in the organization reluctant to move him? I've heard from two people with legit connections to the organization that Sather loves him and maybe that was holding things up?

It mainly comes down to timing--Hayes gets his package because Winnipeg feels a need for another center going into the playoffs and they don't want one of their competitors getting him either. When we're talking about the draft that's something different--teams are more focused on getting players for the future. Winnipeg's wasn't going to be a lottery pick either.

So after the draft is over and if you've a team that thinks it's a playoff team and need a winger or if you think that's what you need to make the playoffs trading next year's pick isn't necessarily off the table---now it may take some time for some teams to decide all that but once a team thinks it's got a chance then Kreider becomes more attractive and add to that if it's late in the season most of his cap is already off the books.

 

[Trxjw]

I would expect a return similar to Hayes, maybe plus that amount if the market conditions are right and the timing includes with a full season of utilization.

That's basically where I'm ballparking it. I don't think that'll be enough for some but I'd they can get a good prospect who fits a need and a first then that's a win for me. I think enough bubble teams missed out in free agency that it's possible to pry a first from someone.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

It mainly comes down to timing--Hayes gets his package because Winnipeg feels a need for another center going into the playoffs and they don't want one of their competitors getting him either. When we're talking about the draft that's something different--teams are more focused on getting players for the future. Winnipeg's wasn't going to be a lottery pick either.

So after the draft is over and if you've a team that thinks it's a playoff team and need a winger or if you think that's what you need to make the playoffs trading next year's pick isn't necessarily off the table---now it may take some time for some teams to decide all that but once a team thinks it's got a chance then Kreider becomes more attractive and add to that if it's late in the season most of his cap is already off the books.

I get what you're saying, but personally I don't know if I buy the timing thing. His name has been brought up in almost every trade since he was at BC. It feels like it's been 6 years of speculating when and where he's going to get traded and for who. Every draft day and every trade deadline day his name comes up and he's still here. I don't see how it's possible they haven't been offered an acceptable package since the letter came out. No one was willing to part with a 1st round pick and b prospect since then?

 

[Machinehead]

What sucks about the #20 situation is this.

Technically, this club has 3 top 6 forwards currently. Panarin who is at an absolute monster of a contract. Then Zbad who is here for 3 more years at a very, VERY afforadble $5.35 mil. Then Kreider who is only at $4.625. That gives you a really nice trio. The real problem is you can't keep them all due to albatross contracts already can't deliver. So were talking about moving out a really good player to keep within the top 6, simply due to the fact that the Rangers have dinosaurs that they just cannot move out. #18, #22, #42....Due to the inability to move these players the Rangers are about to lose an integral piece of the puzzle. The only physical player in their top 6. That's the real problem. Why is that important? Ask Tampa, or Toronto? Both clubs have all the talent in the world yet they just can't play a heavy game. Clubs that are playing that style were rewarded with Conference championships.

Even the Islanders showed what they were capable of with that style of hockey. Tavares-less they ousted Pitt in the first round. They fell short in the 2nd but that team isn't done cooking yet.

Rangers are going to have some serious talent. I absolutely love that this Organization committed to a rebuild. I love the style of hockey they want to play. Relentless. Gotta have tenacious players if you want to play that brand of hockey. They now have some legitimate skill up front. Do they have enough grit? Is Gorton looking to become the next Tampa Bay? Win a presidents trophy, lose in rd 1 to Columbus to played a very heavy game? Is he looking to be the next Calgary? All the talent in the world up front. Lose out to Colorado who just couldn't contain McKinnon, Rantanen and Landeskog? Or...maybe this years playoffs were just a fluke?

With the cupboard re-stocked here, Gorton should look at trading one of#18, #22, #42 along with #2nd round pick in 2020 draft for a B prospect that doesn't hit the cap. Sens, Jackets, the Jets etc. I would assume a club that just lost some valueable assets would grab a player to gain a pick. It's only for 2 seasons for any of the aforementioned. Get-r-done!

Getting rid of those guys doesn't fix the cap situation. They're all expiring before our big guns need a raise anyway.

We can absolutely keep Kreider right now. Committing to him long-term is the issue.

 

[NernieBichols]

The one I will point to is Boston. There's some guys there the Rangers like, none of them scream "blue chip" though, and a pick would likely be a late first. I think there's the potential there for a good return, but I don't think anyone would be blown away by it.

If it brings in the right kind of role players that could have a Jesper fasth like/lite career here, I’m down with that.

If things go right for the rangers they are gonna top end talented with a lot of skill. Getting the right role players could be the difference between winning playoff rounds or just not having the right combo of guys.

So I’m Good with 2 3rd/2nd line guys who’s gonna be here for 4-5 years in a fast like role or one guy like that and late 1st and prospect

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Absolutely not.

We won’t be able to afford what he will want so i’m not sure why that’s an option. Poor poll options, should have made it YES / NO.

 

[TheDirtyH]

What remains unclear to me is the actual cost of an extension for Kreider. He signed his second contract at a lower AAV than was anticipated. Plus his comparables are really all over the place.

Anders Lee just signed the contract you're all assuming is Kreider's destined one. Lee has a 3o and 40 goal season on his resume and was his team's captain last season.

If Kreider can be signed for 6-6.5 over 6-7 years, that's not really a difficult contract to work with as the cap continues to rise, and especially after the Seattle team joins the league. If he's willing to sign for 5 years like Van Riemsdyk (2 3o goal seasons) for 7 million or less, then, again that's hardly a crippling contract.

I'm disappointed that by all accounts JG hasn't pursued substantive discussion about what it would take to get an extension done. And if it's it's an Anders Lee contract, then fine, maybe better to move on. But I think Kreider is a pretty unique player in this league; one whose skill set is much more valuable in a game than in salary demands. Moving on from him because you assume you have players who can fill in by committee... maybe. I don't see it. But then, I'm not at all impressed with Lemieux and the Rangers by all accounts are high on him.

 

[LORDE]

I can't imagine this situation is good for Kreider either... he knows he's been shopped and has likely played his last game for us.

Having him start the season here would be a terrible situation.

 

[GunkWinger]

No to Kreider. We need the cap room to get everyone signed for the future. And I'm fully prepared for him to be traded to say a TBL and become a monster due to linemates. But that's okay as we'll have our own monsters in Kravtsov, Kappo, Panarin......

He was a very, good player for us that never quite fulfilled his potential and now we have others to look forward to. Unfortunately because of other players of similar skill levels (if not more) but younger and cap issues, he has to be moved.

 

[offdacrossbar]

kreider has no future here.

we want no part of paying him 7/7 second deal taking him to 34/35.

those are the deals you avoid for players you have concerns with

we just moved away from hayes for the very same reasons and concerns. he got paid. krieder is worth more $$

this team needs to move on from kreider. he is what he is. let someone else pay him 49 mil. for 25 goals and 30 assists.

too much money and term for me. with panarin, kakko, kravtsov and trouba all here now, CK is toast.