Member Since
Feb 20, 2016
Favourite Team
New York Rangers
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 11:40 am
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 10:59 am
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 3:28 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 8:52 am
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jimbo1119</b></div><div>Problem with your CK strategy is that the 6/6.75 offered in this lineup is if he signs before TDL...No lottery team is going to trade their 1st for a rental...and relying on the Ranger's chances of getting into top 3 in the draft...good luck with that- so if they make the decision to sign him after they know their draft position is outside top 3- will require him to go UFA...and the starting point for that will be 7X7...the term will become the real deal breaker here.</div></div>

who said anything about a lottery first for CK? After rangers sell off they are bound to fall in the standings. I don't think they will make the playoffs, so they'll have a lottery pick-- which means they have the potential to have a top 3 pick (even if it's not probable). I do not think the rangers have a high probability of this, I'm just saying it would be stupid to resign kreider and have Lafreniere's or Stutzle's path to a top 6 LW spot blocked. I'm saying they should follow what the Yankees did a few years back (assuming they don't get a top 3 pick). I know it's baseball but look what the yankees did with Chapman-- they traded him when they weren't playoff bound for Gleyber Torres (stud prospect) and then resigned Chapman in the offseason. All I'm saying is it would be in the best interest of the <em>team</em> to do the same, even if they are interested in keeping CK.

Rangers can talk to CK now about extension and even though it may not be "ethical" they can talk about giving him the opportunity to go for a cup this year and then resigning him to a deal in the summer-- if he really wanted to stay with the rangers he can still take a discount (look at david perron, exposed in expansion draft then signed a team friendly deal with the team that gave him up). The only way your logic works is if the rangers were signing him to a 8 year deal (please god no) for the cap hit to be a bit lower-- they won't be able to if they trade him, the max would be 7 but in the example you say it would be 6 years so it wouldn't be affected.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 8:23 am
Forum: Armchair-GMTue at 9:22 am
Thread: Upgrades
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb 7 at 9:43
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb 5 at 8:47
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb 4 at 1:15