Confirmed with Link: Kravtsov requests trade

[rangers1314]

Maybe. Some teams who are deep in prospects and lack space on the NHL roster may consider a home-run swing on a kid with clear high end talent and someone who has developed and stayed healthy since being drafted in lieu of a 'safer' player they have who may be blocked. I think the Kings probably have a couple of pieces who may be pushed down a bit by Danault and Arvidsson.

True, but I think those "home run swing" deals are more so about those "this kid has talent, for whatever reason it hasn't clicked for him where he's at. Maybe a change of scenery snaps him out of it" situations.

That isn't what we're dealing with here. This kid has taken his ball and gone home TWICE b/c he wasn't given a spot in the NHL line up.

His camp can say "oh he's willing to go to the AHL for another organization", but is anyone really buying that? Like he's going to be a model citizen in January playing for the Ontario Reign? I'm skeptical.

 

[brakeyawself]

There's always a gain. Unless you're a habitual liar who can't help himself, you lie to gain something--whether it's to gain some sort of favor or advantage, or to avoid an uncomfortable situation as you said, there's always a gain. If there's no gain there's no reason to lie. You can replace gain with "benefit" if you want.

I could see a situation where maybe someone promised him something that ended up not happening, but that seems like less of a lie and more like reneging. It's a subtle but important difference. We've all had people promise us things that didn't happen; did it not happen because, despite the genuine intentions of the person who made the promise, circumstances changed? Or did it not happen because the person was lying to you when they made the promise, knowing the promise would never come to pass? Both situations suck, but one is much more difficult to stomach, IMO.

If you guarantee something and you reneg, it was a lie.

Now you are just trying to rationalize this using semantics.

Such a reneg would be"deceit" or "lie" any way you look at it.

Anyway, I haven't really seen anything to indicate that the team lied to him, misled him, or reneged on any promises. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but for me it's not at the top of the list of likely f*** ups.

His reaction would be the first clue. His willingness to play in the AHL for another team, but not the Rangers. The fact that they didn't invite him to the prospect showcase, signalling that he likely had a place on the roster. These are all reasons enough to add that speculation to the pool of possibilities.

And sure, them having possibly lied to him isn't the ONLY explanation for these things. But it certainly is one of the plausible culprits. And there is no way we can know right now really. Certainly the Rangers wouldn't admit something like that without being forced.

 

[NYR Viper]

True, but I think those "home run swing" deals are more so about those "this kid has talent, for whatever reason it hasn't clicked for him where he's at. Maybe a change of scenery snaps him out of it" situations.

That isn't what we're dealing with here. This kid has taken his ball and gone home TWICE b/c he wasn't given a spot in the NHL line up.

His camp can say "oh he's willing to go to the AHL for another organization", but is anyone really buying that? Like he's going to be a model citizen in January playing for the Ontario Reign? I'm skeptical.

I mean LA did it with Andersson already and his skill level was considerably lower. Granted the price was a late 2nd but in saying that, what is Turcotte's value right now? I would venture that his value is that of a lower 1st right now. He hasn't set the world on fire completely as of yet

 

[NYR Viper]

But this begs the question, if they knew this why trade Buch?

I don't think the team wanted to pay him and have another large contract on the wing

 

[leetch99]

In this day and age the team should have a full time momma/babysiter/soother type adult on the payroll because if you look around at the younger generation you have to see how many are in that , I'm ENTITLED category !!! It's not just hockey....it is everywhere ,the picking on poor me attitude ! Ask any schoolteacher about it ....or a minor hockey coach . It won't get better anytime soon . The best way to handle it is avoid the obvious ones and do the legwork before they are drafted and that might mean going wide on the hometown circle . Every team will be going through this ....it's a new reality . I don't blame Drury and Gallant for this . He was inherited by both of them from a previous regimen . Blaming them is narrow minded thinking for such a large problem that runs way deeper than hockey . The kids want instant gratification these days.....kids don't get stepped on at home anymore ....especially rich ones .

 

[brakeyawself]

But this begs the question, if they knew this why trade Buch?

Yup.

The first clue that this is all a recent development is they didn't invite VK to the prospect showcase.

The second was trading away Buch for Blais and a 2nd. And don't get me wrong, Blais has looked, decent. But that's well under the value that Buch would be to us now without Kravtsov.

I have almost no doubt, they either weren't thinking ahead to the future at all or they did not have any plan to move on from Krav until very recently.

 

[brakeyawself]

In this day and age the team should have a full time momma/babysiter/soother type adult on the payroll because if you look around at the younger generation you have to see how many are in that , I'm ENTITLED category !!! It's not just hockey....it is everywhere ,the picking on poor me attitude ! Ask any schoolteacher about it ....or a minor hockey coach . It won't get better anytime soon . The best way to handle it is avoid the obvious ones and do the legwork before they are drafted and that might mean going wide on the hometown circle . Every team will be going through this ....it's a new reality . I don't blame Drury and Gallant for this . He was inherited by both of them from a previous regimen . Blaming them is narrow minded thinking for such a large problem that runs way deeper than hockey . The kids want instant gratification these days.....kids don't get stepped on at home anymore ....especially rich ones .

That's honestly a great idea. Like how when you go to a lot of prep schools you get "etiquette" training and you must stick to certain customs and rules.

All sports team should have a dedicated psychiatrist at least, on hand to help any player or prospect in the organization. But especially for prospects.

 

[Edge]

But this begs the question, if they knew this why trade Buch?

Buch was a goner the minute they re-signed Kreider. Barring a major and (truly unexpected) pivot, the writing was on the wall there. They weren't going to lock themselves into another deal with a winger.

The Rangers are pinning hopes, for better or worse, on Blais' ability to add offense to the physicality he brings. So right or wrong, he's a player they specifically targeted.

 

[brakeyawself]

I don't think the team wanted to pay him and have another large contract on the wing

Well, depending on who they end up trading Krav for, we will see how true that is.

But really, if you take out Blais at 1.5 mil, and Krav, like 832k, Buch only then adds 3,468,000 difference. Which really isn't crazy. I think Buch is a steal at his current contract of 5,800,00 aav/cap hit.

But without Blais and Krav, it makes a whole lot more sense. And I don't think it would be too difficult to manage that contract into future plans. Maybe we don't re-sign Strome and we move on from Trouba when his NMC is over.

And consider that Kreiders cap hit is 6,500,000 for 7 years. I would way way rather have Buch at 5.8. And then Kreider's NMC runs out in like 3 years I think, around the same time Othmann should be ready. So I think long term, it would have been wiser to keep Buch and eventually move on from Kreider and Trouba. And then Panarin's contract is up in 2026. And I doubt we re-sign him regardless.

So, I don't really think Buch, at that great value, was worth moving, if they knew they weren't going with Kravtsov. I think they had every intention of moving forward with Krav, until very recently. Which is also why I think there is a possibility they did give him some off-record guarantee or promise that he had a roster spot and a future with the Rangers and then called backsies.

 

[rangers1314]

I mean LA did it with Andersson already and his skill level was considerably lower. Granted the price was a late 2nd but in saying that, what is Turcotte's value right now? I would venture that his value is that of a lower 1st right now. He hasn't set the world on fire completely as of yet

True, but Turcotte has been a productive AHL'er already in his teenage years.

If that deal is there, I'd take it and run for the hills. But I doubt it is.

 

[Off Sides]

I kind of wonder what the Rangers are saying when they are trying to get these prospects to sign their entry levels?


Are they telling them about how that will lead to them playing in the NHL, become a star, millions of dollars, chicks for free, etc, etc ?

Or

Are they telling them that if they sign, they are still not guaranteed to even make the NHL, it's a tough road, you need to earn it, the AHL salary is much lower, etc, etc?

Like if they are leaving it up to the players agent to convey that, I'm pretty sure which version of the possible future they are going to get.

 

[Edge]

Well, depending on who they end up trading Krav for, we will see how true that is.

But really, if you take out Blais at 1.5 mil, and Krav, like 832k, Buch only then adds 3,468,000 difference. Which really isn't crazy. I think Buch is a steal at his current contract of 5,800,00 aav/cap hit.

But without Blais and Krav, it makes a whole lot more sense. And I don't think it would be too difficult to manage that contract into future plans. Maybe we don't re-sign Strome and we move on from Trouba when his NMC is over.

And consider that Kreiders cap hit is 6,500,000 for 7 years. I would way way rather have Buch at 5.8. And then Kreider's NMC runs out in like 3 years I think, around the same time Othmann should be ready. So I think long term, it would have been wiser to keep Buch and eventually move on from Kreider and Trouba. And then Panarin's contract is up in 2026. And I doubt we re-sign him regardless.

So, I don't really think Buch, at that great value, was worth moving, if they knew they weren't going with Kravtsov. I think they had every intention of moving forward with Krav, until very recently. Which is also why I think there is a possibility they did give him some off-record guarantee or promise that he had a roster spot and a future with the Rangers and then called backsies.

Keeping in mind it's also the salary beyond this season. It was trading for or signing a center and having that cost go up. It's having to pay Fox in a year. It's next contracts as well.

The impression I always got was that there really wasn't a desire to be locked into three wingers on larger contracts, even if we could afford it right now.

 

[brakeyawself]

Buch was a goner the minute they re-signed Kreider. Barring a major and (truly unexpected) pivot, the writing was on the wall there. They weren't going to lock themselves into another deal with a winger.

The Rangers are pinning hopes, for better or worse, on Blais' ability to add offense to the physicality he brings. So right or wrong, he's a player they specifically targeted.

Yup. And personally, I think it's clear choosing Kreider of Buch is a giant mistake. Especially because Buch is on a cheaper contract than Kreider and Buch adds way more to the team and gameplay. He's better offensively and I think he's become just as good if not a little better defensively.

 

[NYR Viper]

Well, depending on who they end up trading Krav for, we will see how true that is.

But really, if you take out Blais at 1.5 mil, and Krav, like 832k, Buch only then adds 3,468,000 difference. Which really isn't crazy. I think Buch is a steal at his current contract of 5,800,00 aav/cap hit.

But without Blais and Krav, it makes a whole lot more sense. And I don't think it would be too difficult to manage that contract into future plans. Maybe we don't re-sign Strome and we move on from Trouba when his NMC is over.

And consider that Kreiders cap hit is 6,500,000 for 7 years. I would way way rather have Buch at 5.8. And then Kreider's NMC runs out in like 3 years I think, around the same time Othmann should be ready. So I think long term, it would have been wiser to keep Buch and eventually move on from Kreider and Trouba. And then Panarin's contract is up in 2026. And I doubt we re-sign him regardless.

So, I don't really think Buch, at that great value, was worth moving, if they knew they weren't going with Kravtsov. I think they had every intention of moving forward with Krav, until very recently. Which is also why I think there is a possibility they did give him some off-record guarantee or promise that he had a roster spot and a future with the Rangers and then called backsies.

I'm not arguing Buch or Kreider as it's history. The decision was made when Kreider was set to be a UFA that he was the teams choice to keep. Having $12m combined in cap hit for (2) top-6 wingers would not be ideal. On top of that, if Buch was here, we'd be hearing that Kaako or Lafreniere would be playing on the 3rd line for the foreseeable future.

I would have traded Kreider AND Buch but that's just me

 

[Edge]

Yup. And personally, I think it's clear choosing Kreider of Buch is a giant mistake. Especially because Buch is on a cheaper contract than Kreider and Buch adds way more to the team and gameplay. He's better offensively and I think he's become just as good if not a little better defensively.

At some point the Rangers are going to move guys. Contrary to some beliefs, the Rangers could work out moves for Kreider, Strome, and Trouba if they were so inclined.

They're not. At least at present time.

 

[EdJovanovski]

In this day and age the team should have a full time momma/babysiter/soother type adult on the payroll because if you look around at the younger generation you have to see how many are in that , I'm ENTITLED category !!! It's not just hockey....it is everywhere ,the picking on poor me attitude ! Ask any schoolteacher about it ....or a minor hockey coach . It won't get better anytime soon . The best way to handle it is avoid the obvious ones and do the legwork before they are drafted and that might mean going wide on the hometown circle . Every team will be going through this ....it's a new reality . I don't blame Drury and Gallant for this . He was inherited by both of them from a previous regimen . Blaming them is narrow minded thinking for such a large problem that runs way deeper than hockey . The kids want instant gratification these days.....kids don't get stepped on at home anymore ....especially rich ones .

I’m giving you a “like” here because I agree with your overall take and think it rings true in every facet of society, including hockey. I disagree with Kravtsov’s actions but I think he’s right about this being a completely moronic decision on Drury’s part. I could go back and find the post, I do not think Kravtsov is above criticism, the first time he got sent down to the AHL I made a pretty negative post about him saying he was sulking like a baby. But this time I do think this roster choice was absolutely baffling and that he 100% should’ve been on that roster.

 

[brakeyawself]

Keeping in mind it's also the salary beyond this season. It was trading for or signing a center and having that cost go up. It's having to pay Fox in a year. It's next contracts as well.

The impression I always got was that there really wasn't a desire to be locked into three wingers on larger contracts, even if we could afford it right now.

5.8 for a top line RW, who was on pace for 70 points and has gotten terrific defensively, I am not sure I would consider a "large" salary.

And yea, I am talking about down the road. And if that's true,, why sign Kreider to 7 years at 6.5?

And they would have to have extended Kravtsov which would have cost substantially more than his current contract. And my guess is we extend Blais at higher than his current 1.5. So I definitely think the Buch trade involved more determinants than simply long term cap management.

 

[Edge]

In this day and age the team should have a full time momma/babysiter/soother type adult on the payroll because if you look around at the younger generation you have to see how many are in that , I'm ENTITLED category !!! It's not just hockey....it is everywhere ,the picking on poor me attitude ! Ask any schoolteacher about it ....or a minor hockey coach . It won't get better anytime soon . The best way to handle it is avoid the obvious ones and do the legwork before they are drafted and that might mean going wide on the hometown circle . Every team will be going through this ....it's a new reality . I don't blame Drury and Gallant for this . He was inherited by both of them from a previous regimen . Blaming them is narrow minded thinking for such a large problem that runs way deeper than hockey . The kids want instant gratification these days.....kids don't get stepped on at home anymore ....especially rich ones .

What's interesting is that for two years we've been hearing how Drury was instrumental in beefing up the support network for players and helping integrate them into the fabric of the organization. Afterall, that was one of his qualifications and something we spent money recruiting and hiring people to do.

In all of the aggravation of the current situation, that's kind of become a forgotten piece of history.

 

[nyr2k2]

If you guarantee something and you reneg, it was a lie.

Now you are just trying to rationalize this using semantics.

Such a reneg would be"deceit" or "lie" any way you look at it.



His reaction would be the first clue. His willingness to play in the AHL for another team, but not the Rangers. The fact that they didn't invite him to the prospect showcase, signalling that he likely had a place on the roster. These are all reasons enough to add that speculation to the pool of possibilities.

And sure, them having possibly lied to him isn't the ONLY explanation for these things. But it certainly is one of the plausible culprits. And there is no way we can know right now really. Certainly the Rangers wouldn't admit something like that without being forced.

The word is renege and you should look it up because it's quite distinct from "lie."

Anyway, I'm not arguing semantics. I drew the distinction because you offered what I granted was a plausible scenario, wherein someone in the organization promised him something that didn't happen. In that case I think it would be important to know if it was something the team reneged on due to circumstance or an outright intentional lie. That really does make a difference.

For example--say the team told him that if he worked hard over the summer and came in in good shape and worked hard, that he'd break camp with the team. Then the guy got hurt and missed time and they felt he needed to go Hartford and rehab before coming back up. You could say that's reneging on a promise he was given over the summer, but it wasn't a lie. As you alluded to originally, the intent matters.

That's really all I was getting at in my last post.

 

[rangers1314]

At some point the Rangers are going to move guys. Contrary to some beliefs, the Rangers could work out moves for Kreider, Strome, and Trouba if they were so inclined.

They're not. At least at present time.

Interesting, so you know that there are places where Kreider or Trouba would waive to go to currently?

 

[brakeyawself]

I'm not arguing Buch or Kreider as it's history. The decision was made when Kreider was set to be a UFA that he was the teams choice to keep. Having $12m combined in cap hit for (2) top-6 wingers would not be ideal. On top of that, if Buch was here, we'd be hearing that Kaako or Lafreniere would be playing on the 3rd line for the foreseeable future.

I would have traded Kreider AND Buch but that's just me

Right but I am saying, if the goal was not to get stuck in on any long term winger contracts, then why sign Kreider to 7 years at 6.5?

 

[Edge]

5.8 for a top line RW, who was on pace for 70 points and has gotten terrific defensively, I am not sure I would consider a "large" salary.

And yea, I am talking about down the road. And if that's true,, why sign Kreider to 7 years at 6.5?

And they would have to have extended Kravtsov which would have cost substantially more than his current contract. And my guess is we extend Blais at higher than his current 1.5. So I definitely think the Buch trade involved more determinants than simply long term cap management.

Well that's your answer right there, because they committed to Kreider.

It was always one or the other for the Rangers.

And yes it was more than salary, they specifically targeted Blais. He's someone they believe has the ability to be a 20 goal/40 point shit disturber who can play a top 9 role.

 

[Edge]

Interesting, so you know that there are places where Kreider or Trouba would waive to go to currently?

There are places that are high probabilities when the time comes. But the Rangers are not looking at those options right now. It's a non-topic.

 

[NYR Viper]

True, but Turcotte has been a productive AHL'er already in his teenage years.

If that deal is there, I'd take it and run for the hills. But I doubt it is.

Turcotte had a weird Freshman season at Wisconsin where he had 26 points in 29 games, followed by last year in the AHL where he had 21 points in 32 games when he was 20 years old. That's the league that was pretty watered down from years past. This isn't to say that he has been a disappointment or a bust, just that he hasn't set the world on fire for a 5th overall pick from a couple of years ago. He's back in the AHL this year and LA has:

Kopitar
Danault
Vilardi

AND

Turcotte
Kupari
Madden
Helenius

 

[brakeyawself]

The word is renege and you should look it up because it's quite distinct from "lie."

Anyway, I'm not arguing semantics. I drew the distinction because you offered what I granted was a plausible scenario, wherein someone in the organization promised him something that didn't happen. In that case I think it would be important to know if it was something the team reneged on due to circumstance or an outright intentional lie. That really does make a difference.

For example--say the team told him that if he worked hard over the summer and came in in good shape and worked hard, that he'd break camp with the team. Then the guy got hurt and missed time and they felt he needed to go Hartford and rehab before coming back up. You could say that's reneging on a promise he was given over the summer, but it wasn't a lie. As you alluded to originally, the intent matters.

That's really all I was getting at in my last post.

lol fine. But bro, what are you talking about? Again, you are playing semantic games.

Here is the definition of renege.
Definition of renege
intransitive verb
1 : to go back on a promise or commitment
2 : revoke
3 obsolete : to make a denial

To go back on a promise or commitment. Which means the original guarantee was indeed deceitful or in other words a lie. It doesn't have to be a direct synonym. Again, you are just trying to rationalize it using semantics. Do you know what a "promise" or "commitment" is?