Do we think Kreider is totally safe on the trade front?

Let's me raise something potentially here.

The Rangers want Shattenkirk.

The Blues bargain power is limited because he is year away from unrestricted free agency.

A deal for Shattenkirk by a team with whom he is an unlikely to sign probably doesn't bring back a ransom for the Blues.

While I don't love the Rangers trading assets for guys that may become unrestricted in year, Shattenkirk obviously wants to be here.

So, my question is this, given the limitation that Shattenkirk's contract places in the Blues and the fact that he probably wants to be a Ranger, does a Kreider for Shattenkirk deal make sense?
- Pete V

You answered your own question. Y give up assists for a guy we can get for free next year

Do we think Kreider is totally safe on the trade front?

Let's me raise something potentially here.

The Rangers want Shattenkirk.

The Blues bargain power is limited because he is year away from unrestricted free agency.

A deal for Shattenkirk by a team with whom he is an unlikely to sign probably doesn't bring back a ransom for the Blues.

While I don't love the Rangers trading assets for guys that may become unrestricted in year, Shattenkirk obviously wants to be here.

So, my question is this, given the limitation that Shattenkirk's contract places in the Blues and the fact that he probably wants to be a Ranger, does a Kreider for Shattenkirk deal make sense?
- Pete V

I would do it if we could also trade one of our right side d man for a forward this summer. Also as long as Shattenkirk is willing to sign an extension before he is a ufa.

There is definitely risk involved with the money and term it will take to get him wrapped up. If the right deal is out there for him, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but that does further cut into the speed element of the team which I like so much, so it's a double-edged sword. Hopefully he can get better and learn to play a more complete game.
- Pete V

Yeah, I'm not against Kreider, I just think the money being thrown around at 5+ is really funny when certain other players who were as fast and much more well rounded wouldn't get 4.

Yeah, I'm not against Kreider, I just think the money being thrown around at 5+ is really funny when certain other players who were as fast and much more well rounded wouldn't get 4.
- mdw7413

OMG, I hope he signs soon, this is starting to get irritating

OMG, I hope he signs soon, this is starting to get irritating
- jimbro83

as irritating as playoff Kreider stats

You answered your own question. Y give up assists for a guy we can get for free next year
- nyrangers9479

The Rangers only have control over Kreider for two more years, so the asset is not that great from a term perspective. And, for those that don't think he is worth the money, there is also the benefit of not having to pay him.

Now, that leaves you short at the forward position. But, forward can be addressed easier then defensemen. Hell, there are guys that are still out there in free agency that can serve as a stop gap for a 25% of Kreider's price.

The Rangers only have control over Kreider for two more years, so the asset is not that great from a term perspective. And, for those that don't think he is worth the money, there is also the benefit of not having to pay him.

Now, that leaves you short at the forward position. But, forward can be addressed easier then defensemen. Hell, there are guys that are still out there in free agency that can serve as a stop gap for a 25% of Kreider's price.
- Pete V

Yup, and the Rangers problems last year weren't offense.

as irritating as playoff Kreider stats
- mdw7413

those are irritating?

one assist and 0 goals in Hagelin's last 13 Ranger playoff games, those were irritating stats

Yup, and the Rangers problems last year weren't offense.
- mdw7413

The Rangers have interest in Shattenkirk.

The Blues have interest in moving him.

If a deal between the two teams happens, which I still think is unlikely, I think Kreider will be involved.

those are irritating?

one assist and 0 goals in Hagelin's last 13 Ranger playoff games, those were irritating stats
- jimbro83

Just so we clear something up Jim, I didn't want Hagelin signed for anything more than 3.5. I'm being consistent. I'm doing a comparison of players and what fans were willing to give. And it is so ridiculously inconsistent.

Just so we clear something up Jim, I didn't want Hagelin signed for anything more than 3.5. I'm being consistent. I'm doing a comparison of players and what fans were willing to give. And it is so ridiculously inconsistent.
- mdw7413

last summer if all we had to sign was Hagelin and Kevin Hayes and had 10.5 million in space, Hagelin would have been signed

it wasn't the reality last summer

they had to dump Hagelin in a bad trade and they still had cap problems all year

it's not the same situation

the only way they could have kept Hagelin last summer and given him that 4 year 16 mil deal was if they had managed to trade Nash

The Rangers have interest in Shattenkirk.

The Blues have interest in moving him.

If a deal between the two teams happens, which I still think is unlikely, I think Kreider will be involved.
- Pete V

Do the Blues have a young promising defenseman that is ready to slot in if Shattenkirk is gone? Might explain a little more what they might be interested in a trade.

Just so we clear something up Jim, I didn't want Hagelin signed for anything more than 3.5. I'm being consistent. I'm doing a comparison of players and what fans were willing to give. And it is so ridiculously inconsistent.
- mdw7413

I think part of the difference is the Rangers were absolutely strapped for cap space last year. Hagelin was viewed as a third liner, and before going to the Pens, I don't think anyone would have complained about not giving him $4 million. And then he plays on a line with a guy, who IMO, is the most underrated player in hockey, and he flourishes.

People think that Kreider is a top 6 guy. Don't think many thought the same about Hagelin, although Hagelin is more complete. Your argument is a good one, but it's a different year and different situation.

last summer if all we had to sign was Hagelin and Kevin Hayes and had 10.5 million in space, Hagelin would have been signed

it wasn't the reality last summer

they had to dump Hagelin in a bad trade and they still had cap problems all year

it's not the same situation

the only way they could have kept Hagelin last summer and given him that 4 year 16 mil deal was if they had managed to trade Nash
- jimbro83

True, and I get that. We had how many months of Hagelin or Zuccarello discussions before Zuccarello signed.

I'm just talking about what fans would be willing to pay for certain players.

Just so we clear something up Jim, I didn't want Hagelin signed for anything more than 3.5. I'm being consistent. I'm doing a comparison of players and what fans were willing to give. And it is so ridiculously inconsistent.
- mdw7413

Hags topped out at 17 goals, granted his speed cause turn overs and he battled harder than most along the boards, but he was asking for far too much money than his output at the time had justified. That's all there is to it. If there was no cap, they could've signed him for the money and we would all be happy, but with the cap it just wasn't fiscally responsible.

True, and I get that. We had how many months of Hagelin or Zuccarello discussions before Zuccarello signed.

I'm just talking about what fans would be willing to pay for certain players.
- mdw7413

I am not even convinced that Zucc is totally safe. They gave him a one year no trade clause. Clearly they wanted some flexibility.

Oh yeah. I get all Toms most hated players mixed up.
- mdw7413

I didn't hate Richards. Mike Richards on the other hand....

I am not even convinced that Zucc is totally safe. They gave him a one year no trade clause. Clearly they wanted some flexibility.
- Pete V

Yup. Although he would be at the top of my list of forwards I would not want to trade.

Also about Kreider, the money situation is different but they still have a cap and just because they have the money, I'm not sure they should overpay.

I didn't hate Richards. Mike Richards on the other hand....
- tomburton99

Sorry Tom, its a long list.

Yup. Although he would be at the top of my list of forwards I would not want to trade.

Also about Kreider, the money situation is different but they still have a cap and just because they have the money, I'm not sure they should overpay.
- mdw7413

sounds to me like you think the Rangers should just go through with arbitration

Yup. Although he would be at the top of my list of forwards I would not want to trade.

Also about Kreider, the money situation is different but they still have a cap and just because they have the money, I'm not sure they should overpay.
- mdw7413

Then you make a choice, either reach a deal with the player or trade him, because you don't want to pay him.

sounds to me like you think the Rangers should just go through with arbitration
- jimbro83

Honestly Jim, I'm torn. Because deep down I see what kind of player he could be, I just don't know if he will ever be that player. So I don't mind the longer term at a cheaper number. Kreider drives me (frank)ing nuts. I don't think I ever had such mixed emotions about a player.

sounds to me like you think the Rangers should just go through with arbitration
- jimbro83

My view is that in two years someone is going to pay him well $5 million or more, so if you don't want to do it, no sense waiting too long and having his value decrease. Just trade him if our not willing to commit to around $5 million per.

Honestly Jim, I'm torn. Because deep down I see what kind of player he could be, I just don't know if he will ever be that player. So I don't mind the longer term at a cheaper number. Kreider drives me (frank)ing nuts. I don't think I ever had such mixed emotions about a player.
- mdw7413

He's lightning fast, strong as a bull, and has a hard shot (although inaccurate).

But, he has stone hands, misses the net way too much, is smart as hell off the ice but dumb as a box of rocks on it, and is invisible in long stretches.

The cons are limiting factors to his potential. I don't think he'll every be a $7 million per year guy because of those cons, but he could be a $5 million per year guy.

Sorry Tom, its a long list.
- mdw7413

Your boy Boyle is at the very top.