Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXII

[BKGooner]

The only issue I have with losing Kreider is the loss of his speed in the line-up. He opens doors for the rest of the team because the opposing d has to respect his speed. I'm not going to pretend anyone can have his net front presence, but that is much easier to replace than speed. Look at how the loss of Hagelin impacted how the Rangers worked. The cap hit for 32 year old Kreider is the number one reason to move him besides him being one of the few assets the Rangers can move that other teams would want. When my friends and I gripe about our teams and demand coaches get canned, the first response is always who do you replace him with. So who do we replace Kreider with after he is moved and at what price.?

 

[HonestGabe]

This is by far the most intriguing deadline of this rebuild. There are a few directions this team can go.

Whatever happens, I believe Jeff and JD will make the right decisions. The players they could be shopping (Kreider, Strome, Skjei, Buchnevich, Fast, Tony D) are all producing at or above their career rates and playing well at the moment. They are in a position to have some of the most prime assets on the market if they want to sell them but also can make "hockey trades" (Buch + Skjei) where they can address a team need using a higher value trade chip that doesn't immediately remove them from the Wild Card race.

Whichever direction is taken, I expect good value for our players or for us to make moves that continue to augment this youth movement that has shown some real signs of growth the past few months.

Being a fan of the Giants and Knicks really gives you an appreciation of the Rangers front office and the fact that I can trust them to make the right (or at least a respectable) decision.

 

[Edge]

Just a thought, and I think people seem to overlook this, but, Kreider currently has an AAV of $4.6 million. I don’t think increasing that another $2 million or so is going to be the breaking point that some do, especially when the salaries of Staal, Smith and Lundqvist are coming off the books, and salaries such as Skjei and Buchnevich could be moved. I don’t believe that additional $2 to 2.4 million is the hurdle people are making it out to be.

I think it's not as big of a hurdle if you're talking about a short contract.

I think where it becomes a problem is when you start looking at that increase over a 7 year span, and it adds up to an additional $14-$15 million, without the ability to move it.

But I kind of have the opposite approach as you. $2 million doesn't sound like a lot, until you find yourself trying to resign a guy who is making progress, but hasn't quite gotten over the hump yet. Or when you're trying to add a rental at the deadline, and after the other team picks up salary, you find his contract comes to $2.5 million, or you're trying to fill in other spots on your roster.

It's deceptive in a way. It doesn't look like much, and then you realize it's 50 percent more than what you were paying. And then you're paying other guys, who are seeing raises that don't look like much on paper.

The challenge is we're almost certainly not talking about 4 years and $24 million, we're probably looking at 7 years and closer to $45-$49 million. I think most people have a comfort with the former, including the Rangers.

 

[JimmyG89]

Backstrom at 9 + over 5 years is more of a risk than Kreider 7 x 7

Do not agree with this. Backstrom's tools are his playmaking, vision, and hockey sense. Kreider is none of those. His are physical tools.

Backstrom has the ability to age like Joe Thornton did. He might slow down, but his abilities will shine through and he'll still be either a 1C or close to one for the duration of the deal. At worst, a top 6 center behind Kuznetsov.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Backstrom at 9 + over 5 years is more of a risk than Kreider 7 x 7

It's a risk but who cares? The two teams are nothing alike

One is building to hopefully be a contender in the next few years

The other just won a Stanley cup and will be competing for another this year

 

[Kovalev27]

Look I had no problem moving Stepan no problem moving Brassard (considering what we got)

I had even less of an issue moving Nash Zucc Hayes.

(I did have a problem moving miller and Mcdonagh and I still don’t think I’m wrong on those but whatever it’s a rebuild fine. More issue with the returns)

I have zero issue moving Strome Fast Buchnevich Staal Smith even Georgiev.

However when it comes to Chris Kreider I don’t see how in anyway this makes us a better team next year or the year after that. It hurts us. There is no prospect behind him that can do what he does. Or brings what he brings. He is not declining. He’s not going to be overpaid. We are not making ourselves better by moving him out for a late first rounder and a b prospect. Sorry but no way.

 

[SA16]

Backstrom at 9 + over 5 years is more of a risk than Kreider 7 x 7

He is? He's a better player, it's a shorter term, he's on way more of a win now team, and does not play anywhere near as much of a physical game. Kreider is a good player. Backstrom is a borderline hall of fame player. This does not seem very comparable.

 

[Edge]

Look I had no problem moving Stepan no problem moving Brassard (considering what we got)

I had even less of an issue moving Nash Zucc Hayes.

(I did have a problem moving miller and Mcdonagh and I still don’t think I’m wrong on those but whatever it’s a rebuild fine. More issue with the returns)

I have zero issue moving Strome Fast Buchnevich Staal Smith even Georgiev.

However when it comes to Chris Kreider I don’t see how in anyway this makes us a better team next year or the year after that. It hurts us. There is no prospect behind him that can do what he does. Or brings what he brings. He is not declining. He’s not going to be overpaid. We are not making ourselves better by moving him out for a late first rounder and a b prospect. Sorry but no way.

I don't think a Kreider trade is about making us better over the short term.

I think it's about making us better over the long term, and or at least having the flexibility to make ourselves better over the long haul, should the opportunity arise.

There's probably a short list of moves we've made since 2017 that have made us "better" teams right now.

Not a single guy we've acquired has come in and replaced the guy he was traded for. So I don't know why this is being mentioned as a criteria at this point.

I guess if one had a problem moving Miller and McD, this potential move isn't going to be different. But I also think this is kind of the end of those type of moves. So it's not something, as you said earlier, where we keep cycling out 27 year olds (even if they're actually older).

 

[NYRangers0723]

It's a risk but who cares? The two teams are nothing alike

One is building to hopefully be a contender in the next few years

The other just won a Stanley cup and will be competing for another this year

. Everything is a risk. I mean Panarin is Kreiders age as well and as awesome as he has been who know what it could be like is 3-4 years, you never know. Now I think he will be fine but you never know. Kreider I think is one of those guys who won’t break down. He has already shown he can come back from scary physical injuries. I also think he would take a little less. Like I said very very tough to replace both on the ice on in the room

 

[Kovalev27]

I don't think a Kreider trade is about making us better over the short term.

I think it's about making us better over the long term, and or at least having the flexibility to make ourselves better over the long haul, should the opportunity arise.

There's probably a short list of moves we've made since 2017 that have made us "better" teams right now.

Not a single guy we've acquired has come in and replaced the guy he was traded for. So I don't know why this is being mentioned as a criteria at this point.

I guess if one had a problem moving Miller and McD, this potential move isn't going to be different. But I also think this is kind of the end of those type of moves. So it's not something, as you said earlier, where we keep cycling out 27 year olds (even if they're actually older).

when you have Mika and Bread in their primes you don’t worry about 5 years from now. You worry about the next 3 years. Took us what 30 years to have two players that talented that can win you games if ever. It’s completely unrealistic to think any GM is thinking about 5 years from now. The team is very talented. They’re scoring a lot. They’re defense is getting better I mean do you not expect them to push for a playoff berth next year? We looking for a 6 7 year playoff drought like the late 90s early 00s cause I don’t think anyone is planning on continuing to sell every one over 27 and continue to accumulate prospects and picks and end up Edmonton East here.

the next phase of this rebuild should be learning how to win and developing our kids. The bottom out has already come and go imo.

 

[Off Sides]

The Rangers forward prospects beyond what is already in the NHL is pretty slim, beyond Kravtsov who himself may be a while off, they'd be looking at like Henriksson/Skinner a ways down the road, I guess Baron, Pajuniemi could be sooner.

I think if they want to be more sustainable they have some work to do there.

While it's often rumored the Rangers would like to add more close/ on the cusp/ already in the NHL talent, I think they should probably also be looking a little further down the road too.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Keeping Kreider around is going to require several other moves to accommodate his salary.

I don't know that Skjei+Buchnevich will be enough, especially with the raises that some of the other guys are going to get in the coming years.

 

[Edge]

I just feel like the extended Kreider argument is based on some optimism that I'm uncomfortable with:

That the physical tools hold up, because we've long debated the other tools and that's not going to change.

That the same arguments we make about Panarin and mileage don't apply to Kreider because he's a genetic wonder.

That he loves New York so much that he takes a discount on years and salary.

That the windfall of money coming off the books won't be eaten up by the top-level young talent we all love, but will have to pay.

That all of that young talent plug enough of our holes that we don't have to go out and trade for or sign talent to fill holes, and that come with their own share of costs.

Are all of these things possible? Eh, maybe?

Is Kreider the guy I want to give a big contract and pin that optimism on? Eh, not really.

Does it suck that I feel the best move is to move him? Yeah, it does. I'm not going to deny that.

 

[Thirty One]

I wonder if Brooks has punched all the players he'd like to keep into a calculator.

 

[Edge]

when you have Mika and Bread in their primes you don’t worry about 5 years from now. You worry about the next 3 years. Took us what 30 years to have two players that talented that can win you games if ever. It’s completely unrealistic to think any GM is thinking about 5 years from now. The team is very talented. They’re scoring a lot. They’re defense is getting better I mean do you not expect them to push for a playoff berth next year? We looking for a 6 7 year playoff drought like the late 90s early 00s cause I don’t think anyone is planning on continuing to sell every one over 27 and continue to accumulate prospects and picks and end up Edmonton East here.

the next phase of this rebuild should be learning how to win and developing our kids. The bottom out has already come and go imo.

See that first line is captures almost everything I was concerned about over the summer, and remain concerned about: "when you have Mika and Bread in their primes you don’t worry about 5 years from now. You worry about the next 3 years."

I feel we have to play a longer game than that.

And god do I f***ing hate the Edmonton comparison. I just don't have the time or energy to obliterate that comparison for what feels like the thousandth time.

As for bottoming out, we're two points out from picking sixth in the draft. Outside of winning the lottery, that would be our highest draft position through this process. We are still at or near the bottom of this process.

However, we are showing some progress and should continue to see some moving forward. But the journey is still going to take a while --- and give us some unexpected opportunities, as well as challenges.

 

[RangerBoy]

I don't think a Kreider trade is about making us better over the short term.

I think it's about making us better over the long term, and or at least having the flexibility to make ourselves better over the long haul, should the opportunity arise.

There's probably a short list of moves we've made since 2017 that have made us "better" teams right now.

Not a single guy we've acquired has come in and replaced the guy he was traded for. So I don't know why this is being mentioned as a criteria at this point.

I guess if one had a problem moving Miller and McD, this potential move isn't going to be different. But I also think this is kind of the end of those type of moves. So it's not something, as you said earlier, where we keep cycling out 27 year olds (even if they're actually older).

The Rangers don't miss any of the players they have traded away in the last 3 plus years starting with Brassard for Zibanejad. Stepan. Nash. McDonagh. Miller. Hayes. Zuccarello. Is there any player the Rangers regret trading away? Nope.

 

[NYRangers0723]

I wonder if Brooks has punched all the players he'd like to keep into a calculator.

Honestly Brooks has never been a big Kreider guy so even him saying we have to keep him kind of shows how tough of a decision it would be to trade him

 

[Edge]

I wonder if Brooks has punched all the players he'd like to keep into a calculator.

No, he hasn't. That's why he never quotes numbers, or seems to go back and reference past articles --- even as he dusts them off and inserts a new name.

The tab on Kreider, Miller, McD and Hayes is going to come in around $25 million dollars, give or take, when all is said and done.

If you believe Brooks, he wouldn't have traded any of them.

 

[Edge]

Honestly Brooks has never been a big Kreider guy so even him saying we have to keep him kind of shows how tough of a decision it would be to trade him

Or it keeps people clicking on his articles, which Brooks is a master of.

 

[NYRangers0723]

Or it keeps people clicking on his articles, which Brooks is a master of.

I honestly don’t read his shit usually but I have always been on the “keep kreider” side. I could understand if he asked for something ridiculous but I don’t see that. As long as it’s pretty fair I think Kreider would come back for less

 

[Kovalev27]

See that first line is captures almost everything I was concerned about over the summer, and remain concerned about: "when you have Mika and Bread in their primes you don’t worry about 5 years from now. You worry about the next 3 years."

I feel we have to play a longer game than that.

And god do I ****ing hate the Edmonton comparison. I just don't have the time or energy to obliterate that comparison for what feels like the thousandth time.

As for bottoming out, we're two points out from picking sixth in the draft. Outside of winning the lottery, that would be our highest draft position through this process. We are still at or near the bottom of this process.

However, we are showing some progress and should continue to see some moving forward. But the journey is still going to take a while --- and give us some unexpected opportunities, as well as challenges.

And it was a valid concern Over The Summer. But we made the move. We brought in Panarin and he and Mika are superstars. That’s current reality.

so it does change things. It does accelerate the rebuild. Let’s work off of what we have now. Not concerns from the summer over what we might do. How are you not thinking about the immediate 3 years in front of you?

and unfortunately you go 5 years without the playoffs no one is proud of you. You need to show growth. You need to show you’re about winning. Otherwise you are in fact Edmonton East.

this will most likely be year 3 of no playoffs but really year 5 of the rebuild. You trade Kreider and you’re looking at year 4 next year easily no playoffs. You want to continue to sell off your top end players for late firsts and marginal prospects? It does nothing to make your current team better today or the following year or the year after that.

 

[Edge]

And it was a valid concern Over The Summer. But we made the move. We brought in Panarin and he and Mika are superstars. That’s current reality.

so it does change things. It does accelerate the rebuild. Let’s work off of what we have now. Not concerns from the summer over what we might do. How are you not thinking about the immediate 3 years in front of you?

and unfortunately you go 5 years without the playoffs no one is proud of you. You need to show growth. You need to show you’re about winning. Otherwise you are in fact Edmonton East.

this will most likely be year 3 of no playoffs but really year 5 of the rebuild. You trade Kreider and you’re looking at year 4 next year easily no playoffs. You want to continue to sell off your top end players for late firsts and marginal prospects? It does nothing to make your current team better today or the following year or the year after that.

And circling back to my point over the summer, what we have isn't nearly enough --- even with two superstars. At best, we've done exactly what I said would happen --- we've thrust ourselves into the dreaded middle.

Sorry, but I also don't think moving Kreider tacks on four years of missing the playoffs. And that's assuming that the Rangers sit back and do nothing with every asset they've acquired, which they will never do --- even if means flipping them.

As for the late firsts, prospects and marginal players, here's a partial list of them since 2017:

Miller
Lundkvist
Lindgren
ADA
Fox (partially using a pick we acquired)
Hajek
Howden
Henriksson
Robertson
Rykov

 

[The New Russian Five]

I just feel like the extended Kreider argument is based on some optimism that I'm uncomfortable with:

That the physical tools hold up, because we've long debated the other tools and that's not going to change.

That the same arguments we make about Panarin and mileage don't apply to Kreider because he's a genetic wonder.

That he loves New York so much that he takes a discount on years and salary.

That the windfall of money coming off the books won't be eaten up by eaten up by the top-level young talent we all love, but will have to pay.

That all of that young talent plugs enough of our holes that we don't have to go out and trade for or sign talent to fill holes, and that come with their own share of costs.

Are all of these things possible? Eh, maybe?

Is Kreider the guy I want to give a big contract and pin that optimism on? Eh, not really.

Does it suck that I feel the best move is to move him? Yeah, it does. I'm not going to deny that.

I agree. I feel like the keep Kreider camp wants to keep him for a combination of emotional attachment and short-sightedness. Everyone thinks that as soon as the Staal, Smith, and Lundqvist come off the books that we won't have to worry about the cap. But everyone is forgetting that in about 2-3 years we will have to deal with Kakko, Chytil, Fox, Shesterkin each getting big raises, including all the other ELCs (Hajek, Lindgren, Kravtsov?, Rykov?) also getting bumps in their salary. Even And that doesn't even include that Kravtsov could meet his potential and may likely be a big raise himself. What are we going to do about Zibanejad when his contract ends? And don't forget ADA is going to get a huge raise this year himself if we plan to keep him. The Kreider contract can have cascading effects on our young and improving roster as early as 2-3 years from now.

The only way I see keeping Kreider long term as being a good option is if they trade Trouba this year with plans of trading Skjei or Buch in the future. Otherwise the math from a Kreider contract is going to hurt our cap situation real badly.

Trading Kreider won't get us a player of equal value in return but it gets us more assets and helps our cap situation. I see at some point this off season or next season Gorton starting to package some of these assets together for upgrades. We just need to suffer through this one last year before I think next year we are a playoff team again.

 

[Kovalev27]

And circling back to my point over the summer, what we have isn't nearly enough --- even with two superstars. At best, we've done exactly what I said would happen --- we've thrust ourselves into the dreaded middle.

Sorry, but I also don't think moving Kreider tacks on four years of missing the playoffs. And that's assuming that the Rangers sit back and do nothing with every asset they've acquired, which they will never do --- even if means flipping them.

As for the late firsts and marginal players, here's a partial list of them since 2017:

Miller
Lundkvist
Lindgren
ADA
Fox (partially using a pick we acquired)
Hajek
Howden
Henriksson
Robertson
Rykov

please stop circling back to the summer lol. It’s over it happened we’ve accelerated the rebuild.

And I’m not sure why you’re talking about prospects because I’m not arguing the previous bottoming out as I said. We did it already it’s over. I’m talking about going forward. At some point the next phase has to start and that’s actually trying to win

 

[NYR Viper]

It's not even a low IQ debate, it's a matter of whether it's enough to carry him if the physical stuff slides --- which it likely will.

It's not a low vs. high debate, it's a checklist of skills across the board that exist beyond his skating.

If I'm going to bet on someone into their 30s, on a large, multi-year contract, that will have a movement clause, I feel like I need to be sold on more than his skating and physical gifts.

I took off for a bit but I'm loving that I started this earlier and you seem to be literally taking the words out of my mouth as far as responses to a lot of these