Kreider scored 52 goals last season and so far has 35. He also plays all three situations so trading him just opens up a bigger hole. Trouba I can see possibly but they just named him captain too so I don’t see either happening for another couple years especially since the Rangers are going to try and win the next couple years regardless of what happens this year. I’d love to keep Tarasenko but he was always looked at as a re talk since he would probably price himself out too much
Player Discussion Vladimir Tarasenko
- Thread starter JMan74
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Casper The Soy Ghost
Registered User
- Jan 11, 2013
- 8,822
- 5,376
Thanks for looking up his stats.
The thing is Kreider doesn't do much for me. And we're stronger on LW than on RW. Tarasenko has more chemistry with the team and he's a better player.
Kreider is very good at deflections/tap ins, and I like him. But sometimes you gotta think what's best for the team.
Chytilmania
Registered User
- Dec 31, 2017
- 4,749
- 7,248
The Gloaming
23
Kreider is very good at putting the puck in the net at crucial times. At a much higher rate than anyone on the team. But yeah, other than that, he doesn't do much.
I completely disagree. He does a hell of a lot more for the team than “tip ins and deflections”. Last I checked he also is a key penalty killer and one of the top ones at SH goals
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
You've stated this truth so many times and no one ever listens to you.
We have to hear again and again that neither of them can be moved.
No, they can. There are just obstacles... that can be overcome.
You do know we could probably trade Goodrow for some cap relief right? Tarasenko was always going to be a rental anyway just like Copp and Vatrano were last year because he is going to want one more big contract. If we can find a way to keep Tarasenko that’s great but getting rid of one of your top scorers snd PK’s when you are trying to compete is a bit silly no?
Last edited:
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
I do know that and I advocate for it if there is no better alternative.
Which there could be.
The problem with trading Goodrow is that he in fact does create a hole and you probably don't get much back for him, if anything. If someone told me I could get a first round pick for Goodrow since he has term, it changes to something I strongly advocate for.
You are really hung up on this, but it doesn't have to be true. We could have signed Copp if we wanted. We probably would have, in fact, if Trocheck didn't end up being a better option.
If he does, then he's probably gone. If he is willing to take a reasonable deal I'd like to find a way to keep him.
Including moving someone else who has a big contract, wouldn't create a huge hole since we have a redundancy at his position, and who would bring back assets, if needed.
I mean, if I can keep them all, great, but I can't, that's just not going to be mathematically possible.
It's not, for all the reasons I explained to you in another thread, but there's no reason to go bringing it up in this thread. I was responding to Amazing Kreiderman's take on NTCs which applies more than just to your favorite LW.
Trying to compete means fielding your best team and our best team might involve having 2 top-6 LWs and 2 top-6 RWs instead of 3 top-6 LWs and 1 top-6 RW.
It is true. Again grow up. I don’t have a favorite player I’m a Ranger fan first and foremost. If getting rid of a player made sense then I’m fine with it. I even said a couple years down the line i would t be surprised if they ate trying to retool and need to trade CK but makes little sense now especially given the production and other attributes he provides. If anyone is hung up on this it’s you
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
Forgive me for not trusting your superior hockey acumen but I tend to think not lol
True
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,067
- 40,913
There have been examples of it in the past of players waiving a full NMC right before it changes to a M-NTC. That doesn't mean it's a guarantee, but it's very much a possibility.
PuckLuck3043
Stairway To Heaven
You have been talking about this for 2 years like they must trade Kreider and all he has done is put up 87 goals(and counting) in the last 2 years. How many players in the league have matched that goal scoring production the last 2 years? I bet it's a short list. He's one of the best net front players in the game, a goal scorer, PK's, is one of the teams fastest skaters, and a team leader. Who is going to fill that void? He's lived up to his contract and then some. Why are you so hell bent on trading this guy? I think you are underestimating both what he brings on and off the ice. He is an integral part of the culture of this team and would be sorely missed.
The discussion about moving Ck is that left wing has 3 top 6 left wingners.
Most of us see that for Laf to grow, he needs top 6 ice time.
We can’t move Panarin, so Kreider is the most likely to move.
PuckLuck3043
Stairway To Heaven
Why? Is Laf not getting about 15 minutes a game? Is it a problem to have 3 good LW's. Why should we weaken 1 side to strengthen another? We can probably sign Tarasenko without trading the top goal scorer the last 2 years.
Its not a problem to have 3 good left wings. Its a problem to have a kid who needs to develop getting only 15 minutes of basically even strength time.
Laf at 21 is already out performing kreider at 23 (at even strength)
Laf needs both more even strength time, and more power play time to truly develop, and he's blocked by CK (and not because CK is really out performing him)
This season CK has 22 even strength points, in 18 minutes of ice time.
PuckLuck3043
Stairway To Heaven
Kreider has 36 even strength points, including 27 goals at ES. Not to mention all that other stuff I mentioned previously. The kids are getting their minutes and Gallant has been giving them more ice time lately. They are also starting to get some PP time as well. I see no reason to trade a guy that has averaged 40+ goals the last 2 years to give Laf a little more ice time. The kids seem to developing just fine.
Kreider has 23 goals at ES. He has 35 goals total, 8 on the pp and 4 short handed.
He has 53 points, he has 9 assists on the power play.
CK has a total of 32 even strength points in comparison to laf's 35.
With an additional 3 minutes per game of ice time for CK.
As to why move a guy who's averaged 40 goals?
Because we would actually get value back on any kreider move, we have a forward who's clearly ready for top 6 time, and no one believes that his 50 goals wasnt just incredibly fluky.
The 35 goals this year is probably closer to his actual annual production, and that will start to decline sooner than later.
Its always better to move a player a year too early, than a year too late. If we tried to move kreider the year after he scores 20 goals while playing 82 games, then we're paying to move him.
Last edited:
SA16
Sixstring
This. I don’t want to get off topic since this is about Tarasenko but you’re on the money. I think the vast majority feel the same at you fo but a select few for some reason can’t get over the text that CK didn’t become a monster right away even though he still was solid and they’re cheating themselves out of enjoying what he is doing now
Hey folks, we seem to be going a little off tangent from the Tarasenko discussion.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
That is part of the discussion. We also have a fourth high end LW on the way, probably our most imminent impactful prospect.
Another part is that some expensive veterans have to go at some point. And it's not gonna be Panarin, Zibanejad, Fox or Shesterkin, sorry.
So... there are two names next on that list with fat salaries.
That's why they "must" trade either Kreider or Trouba. And they will, eventually, one if not both. (well, technically three names... Trochek will also eventually come up on this block. He's too recently signed to be on it yet though).
They are going to string it out as long as they can with Kreider cause yes, he's a good player.
But to bring this back to Tarasenko.... since this is the Tarasenko thread....
If the choice is Tarasenko, a first, and a high end prospect, or, Kreider.....
.... my answer is the former. Yeah, Kreider will be missed and no one ever said he wouldn't.
Tarasenko will be equally missed when he's gone because when he wasn't here, our offense was mediocre because we lacked enough RWs after Kravtsov bombed out.
I know the org isn't forward thinking enough to go that route though, they are far too loyal to pressure him to waive yet. If there was no NTC then I think it would be an open discussion. I'm sure we will roll next year with Vesey getting too many important RW minutes and our offense will be mediocre at 5v5 again.
Last edited:
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
There is going to be a void no matter which expensive veteran we move on from this offseason. If it's Tarasenko, he will leave a pretty substantial void as well. He and Kreider are scoring at identical 0.71 ppg paces this year.
I'd rather lose the guy who costs more, will return prime assets in trade, and won't leave a gaping hole in our lineup with his departure.
I doubt that is true. If it is true, fine, keep them all.
But this discussion is operating under the premise that Tarasenko probably walks, I don't think there's enough money even if he wants just $4m, even if you move Goodrow.
I think to keep Tarasenko at $4m or so, you have to move someone else.
Last edited:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Finland vs Sweden - Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 3Staked: $387.00Event closes - 2 days from now
- Updated:
-
USA vs Canada- Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 3Staked: $389.00Event closes - 2 days from now
- Updated:
-