Confirmed with Link: Kreider extended 7 years, AAV approximately $6.5MM

Thoughts on the Kreider extension?

  • Love it!

  • Like it

  • Indifferent

  • Don't like it

  • Hate it


Results are only viewable after voting.

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
Offense across the league has been inflated the last two years. 25 players scored 82 or more points last year.

Compared to the year of the Hawks last Cup run in 2015. Only 3 players scored more than 82 or more points (Benn with the most at 87).
Who cares? Look at what HE's done. And frankly, this is even more proving my point. That ZBad has done so playing without any elite players on his line, all the while bearing the responsibility of playing against the opposition's top forwards makes it even more remarkable.

Not that points are the end all and be all, but what would his point totals look like if he had Panarin as his linemate? Or Kucherov? Or if he were to be the top line center in Colorado?

Again, short of a true generational talent like Crosby or McDavid, I am not sure at who you are looking to get and more importantly how and when.
 

NYRangers0723

Registered User
Apr 30, 2019
2,805
1,904
It was the right move. It was a reasonable deal for both sides. I still feel the return we would have gotten wouldn’t be worth the player we are losing. Like JD said yesterday this doesn’t mean they are abandoning the plan. Panarin and CK are the same age and they are gonna be apart of this transition for the long haul. I still don’t buy that CK is gonna all of a sudden break down. The guy is a physical freak who is really smart about keeping his conditioning top notch. Being in your 30s doesn’t mean you are an old man. Like I mentioned yesterday I’m almost 37 and am a workout nut lol and basketball player who plays against a lot of big quick college kids. You can’t predict injuries but being smart and working hard to keep yourself conditioned goes a long way
 

n8

WAAAAAAA!!!
Nov 7, 2002
11,463
2,707
san francisco
Visit site
I just saw that CK has a NMC the first 4 years and a NTC the last 3. Not happy about that. I hope they reveal it is a limited NTC. It does appear front loaded which is good for all parties but for giving him 7 years, I would want us to have flexibility in the last two of his contract. Please age like Ovechkin, CK!
 

mulli25

Registered User
Jun 25, 2008
2,929
324
NJ
Nor can you ignore its existence

The option to lessen the extent of the damage of your bad decision, doesn't make the initial decision any better.

If we're actually in the position where we're trying to move on from this deal in 4 years then it was a very very bad decision to sign him.

Again, consider the actual circumstances in which this would happen. We're not talking about pulling the ripcord after a 5-10 point drop in production. Exercising some of these options we're high-fiving about today means shit went very wrong, and the team will have suffered as a result.
 

mas0764

Registered User
Jul 16, 2005
13,811
11,152
I just saw that CK has a NMC the first 4 years and a NTC the last 3. Not happy about that. I hope they reveal it is a limited NTC. It does appear front loaded which is good for all parties but for giving him 7 years, I would want us to have flexibility in the last two of his contract. Please age like Ovechkin, CK!

It's a 15 team list the last 3 years apparently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n8

n8

WAAAAAAA!!!
Nov 7, 2002
11,463
2,707
san francisco
Visit site
If Kreider scores 60 points every year in his contract, is that enough for the naysayers to be appeased? Or does he need to overperform and hit 70 points to satiate their displeasure?
 

duhmetreE

Blessed Bigly
Sponsor
Jan 18, 2012
33,693
50,614
I love the logical leaps we're tkaing here. From he's inconsistent.. to he's going to be horrible
 

mulli25

Registered User
Jun 25, 2008
2,929
324
NJ
Or one can take a viewpoint that it is a smart hedge as even the best investments are not guaranteed.
I agree its smart, and I'm certainly happy they structured the deal this way.

My point is that it doesn't have any real bearing on whether or not it was a good decision to sign him

Frankly, that fact that we're even talking about it speaks to exactly how risky of a decision it was
 

NYRangers0723

Registered User
Apr 30, 2019
2,805
1,904
If Kreider scores 60 points every year in his contract, is that enough for the naysayers to be appeased? Or does he need to overperform and hit 70 points to satiate their displeasure?
Like I’ve always said there are a group of Ranger fans who placed unrealistic expectations on him based off the 2012 playoffs. They wanted him to be a 35-40 goal scorer every year and anything less is a disappointment in their eyes. I mean it’s not like he was the top overall pick or even top 10. He has been a very good top 6 player and playoff performer. Also his all around game has gotten better. Earlier in his career he was very bad away from the puck/defensively but not he has improved greatly in those areas
 

Oscar Lindberg

Registered User
Dec 14, 2015
15,628
14,453
CA
Capfriendly has the contract with a NMC all 7 years, but a partial NTC the last 3 where he submits 15 teams

Are they the only one's who's confirmed that?
 

aufheben

#Norris4Fox
Jan 31, 2013
53,577
27,261
New Jersey
Chart-1-4.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: n8 and Hire Sather

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
That's my concern. I feel like what the letter promised was a rebuild around a Chytil/Kravtsov/Kakko/2020 FRP age group. I believed in that vision and still believe that THIS age group is the one that can win us a Cup or multiple Cups. This age group would include Fox, Miller, DeAngelo, Lundkvist, Hajek, Rykov, Robertson, and Jones. It might or might not include Lias Andersson, Karl Henricksson, Morgan Barron, Levi Aaltonen. It obviously includes Shesterkin.

I was 1000% behind the Panarin signing last summer. Panarin entering his age 28 season with low NHL mileage to me looked like a player (and was supported by the Athletic's statistical projections) that would remain a top - line player, in terms of ability and production, until the very, very end of that 7 year deal. In fact, the projection even appeared that he might warrant an additional contract as either remaining a top-line player at age 36, or, maybe a reduced role contract similar to an aging Marian Gaborik for the Kings. The thought process was, being a literal top 5 or top 10 player on the planet, Panarin is the superstar overpayment, the near-Sidney Crosby talent we've chased since Jagr, who will carry the team now while it matures, still be a star when it's ready to compete, and possibly even still be a first line player as they win Cups. But the worst case scenario would be, Panarin is an excellent supplement to the TRUE core of Chytil/Kravtsov/Kakko/2020 FRP.

Zibanejad was an odd fit to this vision in my estimation. Actually younger than Panarin, but I don't know if he projects to retain his ability as long as Panarin does. Of course, since the 2019-20 season began, Mika has taken steps that has really moved the needle toward "Elite center" that would give you some hope he could also be a highly-producing veteran to that "Kakko-led core."

A guy like Trouba I did not really see as a fit for this core, this vision. He was also a bit older (similar to Zibanejad), but unlike Zibanejad who is entering elite territory at a vital position where we do not have other, younger options currently, Trouba plays a less-important position where we have literally tons of other options. But at the price tag it cost to acquire Trouba, I signed off on the trade. Pionk and a 20th pick just seemed like too good value for him as an asset, and I could live with an exception to the "core vision" I had if we were deploying Trouba as a shepherd for our young defensemen assets. But I did not anticipate that Trouba in 5-6-7 years will be a Trouba I want to continue to have around, as compared to that I suspect I will want to have Panarin still around.

But now Kreider is also brought aboard for the long term. And now there is talk about Strome, about Fast. These guys are not in the same stratosphere as Panarin or even Zibanejad when looking at their combination of age and projected ability going forward.

I'm legitimately concerned, because if they are gearing up to win with a Kreider-Panarin-Zibanejad core, then that NECESSARILY drains assets that could be supplementing the Kakko-led core. But at the same time, I do not think a Kreider-Panarin-Zibanejad core has enough to win anything substantial without the maturation of the Kakk0-led core to near-star status.

To me, Kreider was a very obvious Mendoza line. He was the oldest of this group of potential exceptions to the Kakko-core. He was the least productive, at least of the forwards, of the potential exceptions to the Kakko-core. And, as a Power Forward, historically quickly declining as a position, he seemed the most likely to not retain his current level of production as well, which was, again, already behind Ziba and Panarin.

So to me, that is where the cut off had to occur. We traded some future for some present with Panarin (because obviously without Panarin, we are like a bottom-5 team and therefore a top-5 pick). We traded some future for some present with Trouba... I didn't love it, but given that Staal and Smith were on the way out, I was ok with having one veteran presence back there on the blue line when the trade cost was cheap. And it makes sense projecting forward that at age 29, we extend Mika as well, cause he's a legit 1C at this point, and you simply cannot let those guys go.

Kreider doesn't fit any of those categorizations. He's valuable but not irreplaceable, he's unique but not a unicorn, he's a winger not a center, he's a top six player but not really a lock as a first liner, especially moving forward. And he was gonna cost a lot of money. That's where the cut had to occur.

Well, they chose that they didn't want to live without him. By doing so, they absolutely have consciously decided that they want to be able to "compete" next year and the year after, whereas my approach would have meant probably waiting till that second or maybe even third year. They've moved up the clock probably a full two seasons.

Why they felt this pressure, I do not know. Maybe they felt they "could," since they had won the Kakko derby. Maybe they felt his selection insulates them from ever being short on top-end talent in their top 6. I can see why they might feel like they have an embarassment of riches in comparison to their 2014-15 teams, because if Kakko-Kravtsov-Chytil pan out, they certainly will have more forward talent than those Cup contender teams.

But, on the other hand, they do not really have enough to compare favorably with the Lightning, Penguins, etc, historically. Dynasty teams and Cup Contenders built on their forward cores tend to have more top-6 caliber players than we either have or have in the pipeline. It's not impossible that we can still win this way, but it has become SIGNIFICANTLY harder to acquire the pieces I think we will need to have a multi-multi year run of league dominance.

We will have to get more creative and we will probably have to lose at least one additional player that we would prefer not to lose at sometime during the Kreider contract, absent the cap REALLY taking off (which is possible).

So we'll see.

I'm still bullish on the Rangers as a whole, and they are gonna be a good team. But I bought into and still buy into that they could have (maybe still can) assembled a great team. I hope that ship hasn't sailed.

Good team I agree, they can be that. They can be one of the 16 team who make the playoffs maybe as soon as this or next year. Eventually they may go on some sort of run here or there where they win one or two, maybe even three rounds at the pinnacle. An anything can happen Cinderella win is even remotely possible.

Yet that was not the type of team I was thinking they could have built. I was hoping for a team who was going to have a long window of real contention where they were among the 4 or so teams who had the best odds to win a Cup. Where it all goes right for a year or even a couple years within that window, That I'm now very much doubting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mschmidt64

Thirty One

Safe is safe.
Dec 28, 2003
28,981
24,354
If Kreider scores 60 points every year in his contract, is that enough for the naysayers to be appeased? Or does he need to overperform and hit 70 points to satiate their displeasure?
Obviously that would be god enough. The concern from me isn't about how good he is, but rather how good he'll age.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
If Kreider scores 60 points every year in his contract, is that enough for the naysayers to be appeased? Or does he need to overperform and hit 70 points to satiate their displeasure?

I would be very happy if he can sustain his ability to score 25-30 goals and 55-60 points for 5 of the years. If we can get a sixth year our of him as a declining, but valuable bottom six player, I will consider it a grand slam.

If we can also not find ourselves "having" to move valuable pieces for lateral (at best) returns, I will feel much better as well.

As I said in a private message last night. My concerns are not limited to Kreider, they are tangled with certain other moves and approaches. If we can navigate those, with each successive milestone my comfort will increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mulli25

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
Frankly, that fact that we're even talking about it speaks to exactly how risky of a decision it was
We are talking about it due to the fact that some people are taking certain viewpoints and some people are choosing to rebut them. The amount of conversation bears no relationship to amount of risk. Not on a message board.

Is there a risk to the contract? Sure. But it is below market value and has in- edded hedges. Again, it not without its risks, but compared to market comps, it is looking good right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jas

kovazub94

Enigmatic
Aug 5, 2010
12,403
8,236
It is rather impressive that half-a-million dollars and going from 7x7 to 6.5x7 would result in a literal 180 turn.

Speaking for myself:

1. It got a lot tougher to maintain "sell" while seeing how big of an impact Kreider has on this team as a whole and certain individual players. I bet there'd really only be a handful of posters who don't like Kreider as a player right now or who'd thought the Rangers would be better without Kreider in the next few years. So I (we) understand organization's motivation even if I don't agree with it.
2. It's really not $6.5m that got me turned over to the dark side (but it definitely helped) but the deal's structure that allowed for multiple options after year 4 if / when Kreider begins to decline.
 

kovazub94

Enigmatic
Aug 5, 2010
12,403
8,236
It's a 15 team list...?

Holy crap, per CapFriendly it is!

Chris Kreider - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Below market AAV, frontloaded over the first four years, virtually no signing bonuses in the last three, and only a partial NTC in the last three.

I'm feeling a TON better about this deal. Please officially change my vote from "indifferent" to "like".

Lesson for the future - don't vote until there's more analysis put forth. This place is good for it.
 

UnSandvich

Registered User
Sep 7, 2017
5,159
7,256
If Kreider scores 60 points every year in his contract, is that enough for the naysayers to be appeased? Or does he need to overperform and hit 70 points to satiate their displeasure?

The next time he hits 60 points will be the first time he hits it, so...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->