Another point re: my comments on a broken system that forces us to trade a player in his prime after we have drafted and developed him.
This has nothing to do with free agency: a hard-earned and well-earned right that all players have. At some point in his career a player should have the right to go where he wants and be the master of his own fate.
But CK is not yet a free agent and is still under contract.
This is not about a team saying that, yes, he has become a fine player and we want to keep him. It is also not about other financial decisions that the team has made, for better or worse.
This is about a system where a team would be better with a particular player, would possibly even love to keep him for a reasonable amount of years (if the player wants to stay), but feels they must trade him well before his contract is up. This is not about whether CK will begin to decline in a few years or continue to be productive well into his thirties. Something we just can't know with any degree of certainty.
This is not about a player we acquired from another team via trade or free agency.
This is about a player we drafted, who was discussed on these boards in hundreds of posts while he was still in college, who we watched become a NHLer in the playoffs right out of BC, who frustrated us on one hand but who was the subject of multiple man-crushes on these boards on the other, who is likely the first player that other teams discuss when they game plan for the Rangers (that will likely change with Panarin). This is not about perhaps the poor decision not to lock him up for a longer term when we had the chance.
When CK becomes a free agent, the choice is his, no matter his history. But he is not yet a free agent.
The Rangers would be a better team with CK than without. The Rangers are planning to compete for a playoff spot this year. Whether that is the right or incorrect decision is another issue altogether. But being forced to trade a player like CK, or any other comparable player on any team, when you clearly would be better retaining him and he still is under contract, is just not right. This is also not about trading a player at the TD when you are out of the playoff hunt and his contract will expire in a few short months. But, it is the way it is and we have to live with it. But it is wrong. I don't know what the answer is w/o radically restructuring the CBA and that is unlikely to happen even when negotiations become serious. Making it even worse is that, in any trade that involves CK, we will certainly not get back anything close to equal, or even close to, equal value. The system is dysfunctional.
This has nothing to do with free agency: a hard-earned and well-earned right that all players have. At some point in his career a player should have the right to go where he wants and be the master of his own fate.
But CK is not yet a free agent and is still under contract.
This is not about a team saying that, yes, he has become a fine player and we want to keep him. It is also not about other financial decisions that the team has made, for better or worse.
This is about a system where a team would be better with a particular player, would possibly even love to keep him for a reasonable amount of years (if the player wants to stay), but feels they must trade him well before his contract is up. This is not about whether CK will begin to decline in a few years or continue to be productive well into his thirties. Something we just can't know with any degree of certainty.
This is not about a player we acquired from another team via trade or free agency.
This is about a player we drafted, who was discussed on these boards in hundreds of posts while he was still in college, who we watched become a NHLer in the playoffs right out of BC, who frustrated us on one hand but who was the subject of multiple man-crushes on these boards on the other, who is likely the first player that other teams discuss when they game plan for the Rangers (that will likely change with Panarin). This is not about perhaps the poor decision not to lock him up for a longer term when we had the chance.
When CK becomes a free agent, the choice is his, no matter his history. But he is not yet a free agent.
The Rangers would be a better team with CK than without. The Rangers are planning to compete for a playoff spot this year. Whether that is the right or incorrect decision is another issue altogether. But being forced to trade a player like CK, or any other comparable player on any team, when you clearly would be better retaining him and he still is under contract, is just not right. This is also not about trading a player at the TD when you are out of the playoff hunt and his contract will expire in a few short months. But, it is the way it is and we have to live with it. But it is wrong. I don't know what the answer is w/o radically restructuring the CBA and that is unlikely to happen even when negotiations become serious. Making it even worse is that, in any trade that involves CK, we will certainly not get back anything close to equal, or even close to, equal value. The system is dysfunctional.
