When you say a player is available for the right value, but you place that value somewhere in the realm of a prime Gretzky +++, then you don't really believe that the player is available.
It is supply and demand.
I don't think we give CK for a Vatanen when we can do a Zuc instead.
I would otherwise say Kreider + for MacKinnon, except the point is to try and unite the two on a dominant line. Swapping one for the other defeats that. Would not say no, but again, try to maximize pieces so you can dominate.
I don't disagree with you here. Kreider hasn't lived up to his talent. Selling him now isn't worth what the team might get by just being a bit more patient with him. Callahan, Dubinsky, and a lot of players around the league made strides as they hit their mid-20s. No reason Kreider can't as well.
Thanks
None of this is based on fact.
Let's see.
He's our best center--that's a fact.
It's an opinion that is well supported, but not unanimously, by the facts.
A case could have been made for Brassard, and Zibby is a potentially, if not actually, better version of Brassard.
So again, being subjective it is opinion, I'll say Zib.
He's a lower-tier first line center--that's a fact.
I said he is like 20th best, ballpark.
We agree.
Again that statement is subjective opinion, but facts open to interpretation tend to support.
He's PAID as a lower tier first line center--also a fact. His salary and contract are not a problem.
He's getting top dollar now, but long term will be great value, possibly a bargain.
However, salary is not in a vacuum.
There are only so many big ticket amounts we can give out, and we have properly Hank compounded with overpay to Girardi and Staal.
So a fair question is not just what you pose, which is does he deserve it -- answer yes -- but also, can we afford him? Or is he a luxury?
This absurd notion you have that he has plateaued is just that--absurd. When you argue that one player has "plateaued" and is part of the veteran crowd and that another player has endless upside and is part of the "young core" when those two players are less than a year apart in age, your bias is showing. Kreider is valuable. He has the potential to be more valuable than Stepan, but has yet to show it. Stepan is infinitely more valuable than Kreider. He plays the more valuable position. He's on the ice in tougher situations.
both are valuable, IMO Kreider more so based on his potential
that is a subjective opinion.
it is an opinion, but one supported by the facts, that Stepan has not, emerged beyond this level of production, and it is reasonable based on fact to expect that will not change. For example, he is not overweight and will not speed up his skating by losing weight; he can not grow more in height to match up better vs the bigger guys, etc.
Stepan is not more valuable, certainly not "infinitely" so.
And just to anticipate your standard follow-up here, yes, I'm aware that Kreider has been in a lot of proposals on this forum. That's for two reasons. 1- He was an RFA and EVERY RFA shows up in trade proposals on here. 2- People seemed to think that he would be available. Him showing up in proposals isn't a sign that the entire league is salivating over Kreider, but rather a sign that fans of other teams thought the Rangers and their fans might be souring on a player who has had more potential than production for a while now.
I disagree, it is the other side of the coin.
Kreider is the most demanded because he has the most to offer. On top of that as coincidence is the lookout to see if Gorton was gonna do Slats stupid giveaway stuff, thankfully no, hopefully any 'kick the can' concession stupidly given to AV is done and over with.
But that's not what you do. Look to this very thread. You brought Stepan up as a trade piece for a rental defenseman who is already a couple of years older than Stepan and within a year will be more expensive than Stepan. You don't like Stepan. You haven't since the day he made the team. I have no idea why, but it's patently obvious. Own up to it rather than trying to pretend that your dislike is based on "righteousness."
I brought it up after input from StLouis fan who said that would be their desired target based on need for pivot.
But I have consistently said we should have moved Girardi and Stepan because we were better off with the return, and I stand by that. In the case of G, it is way obviously clear.
No, it isn't a fact. It's your belief that any player on the team who you don't like that has a NMC or NTC needs to be traded immediately. You ignore the fact that we only have two top 6 centers and one of them isn't all that proven yet.
Anything that ties our hands is not good and an NMC which makes our gm impotent must be avoided at all costs. THAT IS FACT, I'm sorry you don't get that.
Right. Of course we are. And who will play top line center. Zib? Quick way to destroy a kid by throwing him to the wolves. Hayes? He couldn't even lock down the 3rd line center role last year--oh, but I forgot, he's tall.
Regardless of need for potential to develop, the point is we are best off by making trades that max talent being returned, even if there is a temporary shortage in given positions. Seems we disagree there.
You seem like a good natured dude, Bern, but you throw your opinion out there as fact--often in an insulting tone--and it gets old after awhile.
thanks for the positive, and as to the rest, I have tried very hard, I believe the record reflects, to clarify precisely what is opinion/fact.
