Speculation: Roster Building Thread XXX: Cue Europe

[True Blue]

Been saying the same thing, Bob, and it’s why I’m becoming more entrenched in the idea that keeping Kreider for the next 4-5 years is more important to the success of this team, than the potential assets they would get back in a trade.

Gotta be honest, am also rounding into form here. For the record, I would still not do $7x7. But there IS a deal to be made

 

[kovazub94]

Years 4 and 5, I’m not concerned. 6 and 7 is legitimate. But 6 years is a long time from now. I’d like to see them compete when Panarin is still dominant. He’ll be almost the same age as Kreider in years 6 and 7.

How could you not be concerned about years 4-5???? Players continuing to do well at 32 and over are exceptions, not the rule and even then it’s mostly those who were a level higher than Kreider. Look how well aged UFA contracts given to PFs in 2016?

 

[True Blue]

@True Blue , possibly but I haven’t seen evidence that Gorton would discount quantitative considerations for, if you will, “sentimental” ones. IMO Kreider is extended if he gives Shattenkirk’s size discount and how likely that would be?

I do not for one second believe that Gorton has any sentiment in him. He is a cold
Hearted mentat.

 

[kovazub94]

I do not for one second believe that Gorton has any sentiment in him. He is a cold
Hearted mentat.

Yeah, go ask those agents. Lol

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

How could you not be concerned about years 4-5???? Players continuing to do well at 32 and over are exceptions, not the rule and even then it’s mostly those who were a level higher than Kreider. Look how well aged UFA contracts given to PFs in 2016?

2016 should be a lesson to GMs and fans. But fans in general always assume their player won't fall off a cliff. They always think their player is the exception.

Their player either has not had as many miles on it, has not had the lower body injuries, has not had a drop in play etc etc. In 4 years, Kreider will be 33. If his next contract ends at that age, fine. That's the absolute limit Gorton should go for contract length-wise.

 

[howztheglass]

Some guys on this Board need a dose of reality not to mentions self reflection. I love the phrase 'Hank should walk away for the good of the team" Really/ How many of you guys would walk away from money? The answer is zero. Don't be a phony.

Also on CK, we are building a team. You don't just get rid of someone who is a leader and a good player. The hit on the team if he were traded goes beyond a skill perspective, it impacts the mojo and could be a big set back. So yeah lets trade him for picks so we can draft another Lias who is nothing but a loser and far from a character guy this team needs.

You do realize there are many ways to “ walk away “ seeing how you only picked a few words that I wrote.

Many posters on this board believe it would be best for Hank to retire and gain the cap space. I just chose to say walk away.

There’s no reason management can’t offer Hank some office job like special assistant to Jim Dolan or some ambassador job to JD.

Take a look and see how much coin Hank has made on and off the ice. Just because he wouldn’t be playing doesn’t mean there’s no money.

Also in my opinion not that it matters but Hank looks very unhappy sitting on the bench. Now do you think if the plan is one way or the other that Hank is not playing which is better—he retires aka walks away or the Rangers buy him out. Buy out will lead to hard feelings no matter what people say. You have a job you love but lay offs or cut backs are coming and they package you out are you happy maybe for the short term if there’s money but I bet you will miss the job you love.

I will agree with you that many players don’t walk away from the money but some have—Hank has a passion for the game he’s very emotional in a good way as in very caring so maybe there is a chance.

I do want to add that I hope he waives and goes to a team that is a contender for that ring he deserves instead of having either of those choices.

CK thing if the money is right you are correct the Rangers for years chased the type of player Kreider is—but we can’t just write a blank check. Everyone has to be smart.

 

[broadwayblue]

I could live with a 5 year contract. If he falls off a cliff in 4 years we could buy out the last year.

 

[Mikos87]

2016 should be a lesson to GMs and fans. But fans in general always assume their player won't fall off a cliff. They always think their player is the exception.

Their player either has not had as many miles on it, has not had the lower body injuries, has not had a drop in play etc etc. In 4 years, Kreider will be 33. If his next contract ends at that age, fine. That's the absolute limit Gorton should go for contract length-wise.

It really is a matter of not making the same mistake under the same regime for the umpteenth time. Big money deals past the prime hockey years have not been favorable for the Rangers.

Richards
Girardi
Staal
Shattenkirk
Smith
Nash
Redden
Drury
Gomez
Stepan

The Rangers were able to trade out of three of those (Nash was a CLB signing), or had to buy out the contract, or live with a lesser player. That's a dozen times in the last 12 years or so where this has happened. After the first 9 times.... shouldn't something register in one's thought process?

That maybe.... just maybe.... this is not a good idea?

I can understand that you may need to bring in a piece to open a window of contention, or bring in a guy that can bring a winning culture. Which is why I don't have a problem with the Richards signing, the guy is a winner. Nor do I lament the Nash trade. But the rest... they are all regrettable.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

How could you not be concerned about years 4-5???? Players continuing to do well at 32 and over are exceptions, not the rule and even then it’s mostly those who were a level higher than Kreider. Look how well aged UFA contracts given to PFs in 2016?

I’m not worried about 5 years from because I think he’ll still be a very useful player.

 

[Kupo]

Good teams figure out a way to keep their best players.

And great teams make the hard decisions and avoid paying players in their late 20’s to retirement contracts. Contracts that the player will unlikely live up to.

 

[Kupo]

I’m not worried about 5 years from because I think he’ll still be a very useful player.

I, on the other hand, am worried about the cap flexibility we’ll have in 5 years knowing Kreider has 2 years left @7m with a NMC.

 

[Mikos87]

Re: Henrik-

I love Hank as much as the next fan. But objectively speaking, the Rangers have not only one, but two better, cheaper, and younger options. With one of those two who can carry the team into the playoffs with a flawed roster.

I hope they can come to a resolution, whether it's a trade, or Hank retiring, or playing in Sweden for a year.

The team is better going with Georgiev and Shesty.

Father time catches up to us all.

 

[Kupo]

What kind of sorcery helped the cup winners over the last 8 years win without Kreider on their team? I need answers!

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I, on the other hand, am worried about the cap flexibility we’ll have in 5 years knowing Kreider has 2 years left @7m with a NMC.

The reason Panarin plays for us, is because Chicago handcuffed themselves with those contracts for Seabrook and Toews (The Kane contract is worth it).

 

[mas0764]

The Rangers are actually going by what I thought their timeline was going to be thus far. Challenge for a spot next season and the year after that expect to make the playoffs and win at least a round.

They're better this year than I thought they'd be, and that's the good news. The bad news is the players that I would expect to spear head that effort haven't been the ones to do so.

And that means you need to keep acquiring youngsters.

Can’t gear up for another run led by a 24 year old goaltender and approaching-30 100 point veteran acquisition. We’ve seen that story before (Lundqvist and Jagr).

Kakko and this year’s first rounder should be the headliners. Of course, we are winning ourselves out of the picture for acquiring a top player in this draft.

 

[mas0764]

So is hanging all of the teams hopes on prospects and draft picks. I know what they have in Kreider - his speed, his size, his net front presence, his work ethic, and his leadership. He’ll still be a useful part of the team at 35. Good teams figure out a way to keep their best players.

Yes, almost all successful teams have built themselves on draft picks and prospects.

And the problem here is Kreider is not going to be one of our best players relatively soon.

 

[mas0764]

I’m not worried about 5 years from because I think he’ll still be a very useful player.

But unfortunately, strictly a third liner and not worth the money for that role.

 

[Synergy27]

I’m not worried about 5 years from because I think he’ll still be a very useful player.

I'm personally not worried about 5 years from now because if they haven't won a Cup by then, they very likely will never be winning one with the current core and would be looking to rebuild again.

This rebuild accelerated when they won the Kakko lottery, who though he isn't very good now, will/should be an impact player sooner than whoever they were going to get at 8OA in 2019. It took a massive step forward when Panarin proved that he can succeed in New York and quieted the detractors (who included me). It took yet another step when Shesterkin stepped in and dominated from day 1.

All of these things have changed the timeline. At the end of last season, the question was will Kreider still be good in 5 years when this team is hoping to compete for a Cup year in and year out. The question now, in my opinion, is who is going to replace Kreider's production, and yes, intangibles, over the next few seasons as this team tries to compete. Kreider's usefulness aligns with this team's timeline now, rendering those out years less critical a concern.

All of that said, I still think they should trade him, but only if they have reasonable certainty and a willingness on the player's part to come back. If he can land a premium asset or two as a rental it is helpful in multiple ways:

1. Pushes this current team farther up in the lottery. They are not winning the Cup this year, even in the highly unlikely event they sneak into the POs. Finishing three points out of a playoff spot this year won't be good for anyone.

2. The assets received in the Kreider return, along with our own pick that's a few spots higher than if he stays and continues to produce, can be packaged along with other assets to get an impact player that is ready to contribute next season.

Off we go.

 

[Kupo]

Posted this in the Howden thread... This is what concerns me about Kreider.

Great regular season. Terrible playoffs. Just awful starting with that ridiculous pass leading to the game one comeback.

Rangers one this deal. Amd they won it big.

I hate his contract. Gonna come bite us in the ass sooner or later. It hasn’t even started yet. Hope he can play at a decent level for a few more years at least.

He was so great for the first part of the season but fell off towards the end. That worries me considering how long his contract is.

Sure, McD has more miles on the odometer and has dealt with more injuries, but this is the reality for most players once they hit their 30’s.

 

[Minmonster]

How could you not be concerned about years 4-5???? Players continuing to do well at 32 and over are exceptions, not the rule and even then it’s mostly those who were a level higher than Kreider. Look how well aged UFA contracts given to PFs in 2016?

Plus krieder has already had a significant injury history through his mid 20s. I wouldn’t resign him but if he is I hope JG makes certain that there’s not a no movement clause that torches any flexibility to move him after year 3 or 4

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Yes, almost all successful teams have built themselves on draft picks and prospects.

And the problem here is Kreider is not going to be one of our best players relatively soon.

You’re describing Chris Kreider. Thanks.

 

[Ola]

I do not for one second believe that Gorton has any sentiment in him. He is a cold
Hearted mentat.

It’s not really about Kreider vs no Kreider. It’s Kreider vs losing other guys.

 

[kovazub94]

It’s not really about Kreider vs no Kreider. It’s Kreider vs losing other guys.

Or missing an opportunity to bring other guys whose timeline is a better fit when current 18-22 year-olds are getting to be 22-26 and older.

 

[broadwayblue]

Plus krieder has already had a significant injury history through his mid 20s. I wouldn’t resign him but if he is I hope JG makes certain that there’s not a no movement clause that torches any flexibility to move him after year 3 or 4

What significant injury history are you referring to? He had the blood clot scare. He plays at least 75 games almost every year. I think you are confusing him with someone else.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

If either go, can we attach you to them?

If it means the end of Staal in a NYR uniform, absolutely.