Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: The Second Overall Pick Thread: Part II (Kakko/Hughes Talk)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn, I didn't realize how good of a comparable contract that was. Seems pretty clear he's worth that then if Kane got it.
 
On the question of trading Kreider for a mid-round 1st--such as to Arizona and Colorado--it's fair value straight up but if I were the GM of either of those teams I'd want a guarantee that he would re-sign before I made a deal for him.
 
eco's bones said:
On the question of trading Kreider for a mid-round 1st--such as to Arizona and Colorado--it's fair value straight up but if I were the GM of either of those teams I'd want a guarantee that he would re-sign before I made a deal for him.
Click to expand...
Except a signed Kreider should be worth more than just a mid-round pick. After all, an UFA-to-be Hayes just returned a pick in the 18-22 range plus a solid young player in Lemieux for only 1/4 of the season. Kreider for one full season should therefore be enough by himself to get you at least that mid-round pick with no guarantees beyond this year — if not a pick in the lower teens, and maybe even a pick in the 8-10 range, depending on the market. (Especially since as @Edge has pointed out on multiple occasions, if the season doesn’t go to plan, the acquiring team can always then flip him at the deadline for a Hayes-like return.) If you want the guarantee in advance (which with July 1 fast approaching is essentially the opportunity to negotiate the new contract prior to making the trade), it should cost more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94, broadwayblue and haveandare
eco's bones said:
On the question of trading Kreider for a mid-round 1st--such as to Arizona and Colorado--it's fair value straight up but if I were the GM of either of those teams I'd want a guarantee that he would re-sign before I made a deal for him.
Click to expand...

See now I think when you start getting a signed situation, the cost goes up considerably.

Now you start talking about a Lucic-type deal: the pick and a couple of prospects.

The truth is that both teams need to assume some risk.

If the Rangers make a deal prior to the draft, they don’t know who will be available, nor do they know if the player they take will develop. That’s the risk they assume. The upside is a young, cost-controlled talent with a higher ceiling.

For the acquiring team, the risk they assume is Kreider’s contract and whether he can get them over the hump. The upside is a playoff run, playoff revenue and excitement, and the safeguard that the player they’re acquiring still has value if things don’t work. So in most cases, they’ll recoup at least some of their cost.

So while acquiring Kreider might cost a team the 14th pick, they also know the option exists to potentially flip him for a lower pick and a prospect as a potential downside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94
Instead of trying to raise value with another team extending Kreider, just use his one year left as the value.

Take back some cap hits which almost cancel Kreider's out. They are then not risking him leaving, they are gaining cap space by moving out bad, while importing good for at least a year.

Beyond that I don't think any team is going to want to move from an early pick all the way out of the 1st, hence the inclusion of a later 1st going back.

Trying to find a team who will extend Kreider, and having him actually want to play there, and also having that team give up what the Rangers are looking for, I think that is low odds.

Trading his last year for what it is (a late 1st and meh), adding to it( (a late 1st), and taking back some cap, to me that is pretty fair value to move up.

Of course that all depends on how the draft breaks, who is left on the board when a trade like that could maybe be made, Kreider's clause, yet if I am the trading team and I'm in a market where I'm worried about drafting out the NCAA or Russia, or even if I just need to try to improve my NHL teams quicker than through a earlier 2019 pick, I think I'd be considering a package like that as all I am really doing is moving back in a draft while improving the NHL team quickly and substantially while not even paying that much in real money or cap to do so.
 
I believe the Rangers have the ability to retain on Kreider, can someone confirm?

But if they do, that’s a potential selling point as well. Now a team might be getting a year of Kreider for an unbeatable price.
 
Edge said:
I believe the Rangers have the ability to retain on Kreider, can someone confirm?

But if they do, that’s a potential selling point as well. Now a team might be getting a year of Kreider for an unbeatable price.
Click to expand...
The Rangers can retain on two more contracts next season (Spooner still has one more year)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edge
Irishguy42 said:
The Rangers can retain on two more contracts next season (Spooner still has one more year)
Click to expand...

So now you’re potentially looking at the Rangers being able to dangle Kreider to another team for salary of about $2.3 million?

Yeah, I think that might help the bargaining position a little.
 
Edge said:
So now you’re potentially looking at the Rangers being able to dangle Kreider to another team for salary of about $2.3 million?

Yeah, I think that might help the bargaining position a little.
Click to expand...
And they can still take back a cap dump like Manning and/or Brodziak (Edmonton as an example) and Kreider is essentially free.
 
Edge said:
See now I think when you start getting a signed situation, the cost goes up considerably.

Now you start talking about a Lucic-type deal: the pick and a couple of prospects.

The truth is that both teams need to assume some risk.

If the Rangers make a deal prior to the draft, they don’t know who will be available, nor do they know if the player they take will develop. That’s the risk they assume. The upside is a young, cost-controlled talent with a higher ceiling.

For the acquiring team, the risk they assume is Kreider’s contract and whether he can get them over the hump. The upside is a playoff run, playoff revenue and excitement, and the safeguard that the player they’re acquiring still has value if things don’t work. So in most cases, they’ll recoup at least some of their cost.

So while acquiring Kreider might cost a team the 14th pick, they also know the option exists to potentially flip him for a lower pick and a prospect as a potential downside.
Click to expand...

Arizona/Colorado could move Kreider assuming that he is healthy at the deadline. If not--they could lose out completely. As well the teams that they'll move him to will be playoff teams and likely they'll be in the late teens to mid to late 20's--so it's a delay getting their draft pick replacement and almost certainly dropping from 14/16 maybe 5-10 spots and that can be significant.

I don't see all that much risk for the Rangers. I see the potential inconvenience of finding someone to replace Kreider--though I'd be after Panarin anyway. But really the Rangers will have a general idea of players who will be available between 15 and 20 (and someone might fall besides) and there's also a chance that they could use it to move into the top 10. If the player doesn't pan out--yeah, I guess but I suspect the chances of that player becoming a fairly decent 3rd liner or 4/5 d-man are pretty damned good.

It seems a lot riskier to me for Arizona/Colorado.
 
eco's bones said:
Arizona/Colorado could move Kreider assuming that he is healthy at the deadline. If not--they could lose out completely. As well the teams that they'll move him to will be playoff teams and likely they'll be in the late teens to mid to late 20's--so it's a delay getting their draft pick replacement and almost certainly dropping from 14/16 maybe 5-10 spots and that can be significant.

I don't see all that much risk for the Rangers. I see the potential inconvenience of finding someone to replace Kreider--though I'd be after Panarin anyway. But really the Rangers will have a general idea of players who will be available between 15 and 20 (and someone might fall besides) and there's also a chance that they could use it to move into the top 10. If the player doesn't pan out--yeah, I guess but I suspect the chances of that player becoming a fairly decent 3rd liner or 4/5 d-man are pretty damned good.

It seems a lot riskier to me for Arizona/Colorado.
Click to expand...

For me, the big selling point is that Arizona/Colorado are getting the known quantity, potentially at a steep discount on contract.

A 28 year old, 25-30 goal scorer and immediate boost to their lineup.

In return they give up nothing from their roster, and likely nothing that will significantly help them for at least 2-3 years.

In theory, they should be ready to take the next steps - and that comes with a cost. Any team who thinks they’re just going to keep acquiring young talent, and that’s all it will take, is in for disappointment. And that will hold true for the Rangers at some point as well.

The risk for those teams is whether they are successful and then unable to sign him. But that’s the deal. Otherwise the cost to them is a hell of a lot more than a pick in the teens and $2.3 million in salary.

At some point you pay a reasonable price and assume reasonable risks, or you pay a significantly higher price and some of those risks are mitigated (or replaced with a whole new set of risks).

But a mid first round pick for a 25-30 goal scorer at $2.3 million is not unreasonable to me - especially for teams that NEED to show progress and get out of that dreaded zone where they aren’t bad enough to get a high pick, and aren’t good enough to make the playoffs.

In Colorado’s case, they still have a fourth overall pick to come away with, and they can say, “last year’s team made it to the second round, what does that look like if we potentially add Kreider to the mix, and maybe even the kid we took fourth.”

A teen pick is a very good, but it’s not earth-shattering. It’s more exciting to us because of where we are as an organization, and because we have additional assets that potentially enhance the value of a mid-teen pick by being able to bundle it for a higher pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FIRE DRURY, Mikos87, broadwayblue and 2 others
Growing up in Turku, Kakko would go to TPS games and watch players like future Buffalo Sabres defenseman Rasmus Ristolainen and Colorado star Mikko Rantanen, the latter of whom has been a model for Kakko thanks to the way the Avs right winger protects the puck. But Kakko’s No. 1 fave right now is Toronto’s Auston Matthews.

“He’s a good stickhandler, good with the puck, a great offensive player and especially a smart player with
the puck,” Kakko said. “That’s what I like about him.”

Matthews of course, went first overall the year Laine went second and it’s kinda fun that another Finn could go right after another American center this year. If Kakko continues to play as well as he has this season, inevitably there will be some folks wondering if he should go ahead of Hughes (personally, I don’t think a team can pass on Hughes, but much like Laine, Kakko is a helluva consolation prize).

“I don’t make the choices,” Kakko said. “He’s an awesome player, but I’m confident that I’m a great player too and I have a great opportunity here.”
Click to expand...

Kaapo Kakko is proving he's the real deal for the 2019 draft - TheHockeyNews

Rantanen showed what a great player he is with his performance in the Calgary series.

The Rangers would be ecstatic with Kakko performing like Rantanen.
 
Edge said:
For me, the big selling point is that Arizona/Colorado are getting the known quantity, potentially at a steep discount on contract.

A 28 year old, 25-30 goal scorer and immediate boost to their lineup.

In return they give up nothing from their roster, and likely nothing that will significantly help them for at least 2-3 years.

In theory, they should be ready to take the next steps - and that comes with a cost. Any team who thinks they’re just going to keep acquiring young talent, and that’s all it will take, is in for disappointment. And that will hold true for the Rangers at some point as well.

The risk for those teams is whether they are successful and then unable to sign him. But that’s the deal. Otherwise the cost to them is a hell of a lot more than a pick in the teens and $2.3 million in salary.

At some point you pay a reasonable price and assume reasonable risks, or you pay a significantly higher price and some of those risks are mitigated (or replaced with a whole new set of risks).

But a mid first round pick for a 25-30 goal scorer at $2.3 million is not unreasonable to me - especially for teams that NEED to show progress and get out of that dreaded zone where they aren’t bad enough to get a high pick, and aren’t good enough to make the playoffs.

In Colorado’s case, they still have a fourth overall pick to come away with, and they can say, “last year’s team made it to the second round, what does that look like if we potentially add Kreider to the mix, and maybe even the kid we took fourth.”

A teen pick is a very good, but it’s not earth-shattering. It’s more exciting to us because of where we are as an organization, and because we have additional assets that potentially enhance the value of a mid-teen pick by being able to bundle it for a higher pick.
Click to expand...

I'm not against the Rangers doing such a deal--I'm just not convinced the targeted teams will want to--that's all. A player one year away from unrestricted free agency has a certain amount of control over his future. If his new team does end up trading him because he's decided to explore other options they're very unlikely to get a lottery first rounder for him--more like to be late teens to late 20's or if they send Kreider to the eventual Stanley Cup winner that's 31.

And again I think the risks involved in our trading Kreider rest mostly on the acquiring team than it does on the Rangers. We're going to have a fairly good idea of players available mid-round and the hope as well to move up into the top 10 again. So I'll repeat I'm not against us doing that. I'll also repeat though that I'd be all in on Panarin come July 1.
 
The main reason teams choose to trade a player prior/at the draft, instead of at the trade deadline, is because they can get more teams involved and increase the bidding. That said, there's no way I trade Kreider for a pick in the #10 range. I realize people have draft pick fever but why can't we trade Kreider for a player who is further along in their development and maybe a lesser pick?

There are few teams that could "not" use Kreider in their lineup. I want to trade for more of a known quantity than a roll of the dice.
 
I’ve mentioned this before but wouldn’t it be something to see Colorado sign Hayes and trade for Kreider? With Hayes there perhaps Kreider re-signs. Colorado immediately builds a true second line in one offseason. They have the cap space.

That would make a ton of sense for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mikos87 and Brooklyn Rangers Fan
charliemurphy said:
Trying to juggle the possible lines (so many play multiple positions) if Krieder and someone like Namestnikov are dealt:

Panarin-Andersson-Kravtsov
Chytil-Zib-Kakko
Lemiuex-Howden-Buchnevich
Vesey-Strome-Fast
Click to expand...

A bit premature to be penciling Andersson in on the first line, no? Let's see him thrive in a 2nd or even 3rd line role first.
 
eco's bones said:
I'm not against the Rangers doing such a deal--I'm just not convinced the targeted teams will want to--that's all. A player one year away from unrestricted free agency has a certain amount of control over his future. If his new team does end up trading him because he's decided to explore other options they're very unlikely to get a lottery first rounder for him--more like to be late teens to late 20's or if they send Kreider to the eventual Stanley Cup winner that's 31.

And again I think the risks involved in our trading Kreider rest mostly on the acquiring team than it does on the Rangers. We're going to have a fairly good idea of players available mid-round and the hope as well to move up into the top 10 again. So I'll repeat I'm not against us doing that. I'll also repeat though that I'd be all in on Panarin come July 1.
Click to expand...

I guess I don’t see a mid first pick being quite as off limits for teams that have already picked a ton of times in the top 10 - which is what some of those mid teen teams are.

So essentially, even if the team were to trade him, you’re talking about a pick that’s 5-10 spots lower, but in a deeper draft next year. And again, that’s if things go sideways this season.

I just don’t think that’s a huge gamble for a team that’s trying to take that next step, isn’t at a loss for young talent, and for a GM that may not want to wait until the year 2022 to see what they’ve got from this draft.
 
AKA Chief said:
The main reason teams choose to trade a player prior/at the draft, instead of at the trade deadline, is because they can get more teams involved and increase the bidding. That said, there's no way I trade Kreider for a pick in the #10 range. I realize people have draft pick fever but why can't we trade Kreider for a player who is further along in their development and maybe a lesser pick?

There are few teams that could "not" use Kreider in their lineup. I want to trade for more of a known quantity than a roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

Not sure you get Kreider for a more or a known quantity.

There’s a good possibility that the team looking to acquire him is looking to add him to what they’ve already got, and may not be particularly included to take away from that group.

The pick approach is about the acquiring team essentially making a purchase on credit rather than with cash.

I think the Rangers would certainly be open to getting a player further along, and would love it quite frankly. I’m just not sure that type of deal is going to be out there.

I also know the Rangers are keenly interested in getting a second pick in the top 10. That being the case, there are certain actions that make that more likely and a good amount of them involve the possibility of moving a guy like Kreider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba
Edge said:
I guess I don’t see a mid first pick being quite as off limits for teams that have already picked a ton of times in the top 10 - which is what some of those mid teen teams are.

So essentially, even if the team were to trade him, you’re talking about a pick that’s 5-10 spots lower, but in a deeper draft next year. And again, that’s if things go sideways this season.

I just don’t think that’s a huge gamble for a team that’s trying to take that next step, isn’t at a loss for young talent, and for a GM that may not want to wait until the year 2022 to see what they’ve got from this draft.
Click to expand...

Great point. How long do some of these GMs have? Will Chayka be employed in 2020 as ARI's GM if they miss the playoffs again? The 2019 1st isn't going to help him out.

ARI doesn't have a whole lot coming their way upfront outside of Hayton. They didn't have a single 20 goal scorer, and added 25 to their team would have been the difference between the playoffs versus not. Add in the fact that they can't draw free agents... then Chayka should be on the market.

EDM- there troubles are well chronicled.

MTL may be a wildcard, but being close to the playoffs this year was house money for them. They've got more kids coming. Poehling is going to be a poor man's Auston Mathews for them imo. They've got Suzuki.

MTL has a shortage on defense and has trouble attracting UFAs. They need a prime age top 4 LHD. I don't see the Rangers trading Skjei. And Bergevin isn't feeling any heat, he's been lauded for taking a step forward... the Habs this year were a byproduct of a lot of trades.

So outside of EDM and ARI, is there a team that's going to trade out of the top 15 for something the Rangers have?

I can't see it happening.
 
Kreider for Car 1 and Fox.

Where does the Carolina pick and the Winnipeg pick get you? Or at that point do you just want to hang onto those picks and just take what ever is there?
 
ZuccsFluffierFluffer said:
Kreider for Car 1 and Fox.

Where does the Carolina pick and the Winnipeg pick get you? Or at that point do you just want to hang onto those picks and just take what ever is there?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking, the Carolina pick probably wouldn’t get you into the top 10 range.

In that scenario, I’d probably just look at using seconds to trade up from one or both picks, depending on who is on the board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom