i wouldnt deal Kreider straight up for Schenn. I think Schenn is seriously overrated. Schenn is better right now, no doubt, but Kreiders upside is WAAAAYYYYY higher than Schenns.
This. I think most people know how I feel about Schenn.
This. I think most people know how I feel about Schenn.
yeah, ive already gotten blasted enough in this thread, i just think Schenn is so ridiculously overrated. Schenn is clearly better than Kreider right now, but I still think Kreider will end up being the better NHLer.
Wow, just wow. Eric Staal was a 100 point scorer and Stanley Cup winner at 21 years old.
Chris Kreider scored .75 PPG in college at 20 years old.
Dont know where you uncovered that comparison, but its ridiculous
Do you have reading comprehension issues? He never said Kreider would be as good as Eric Staal, he said he compares to him. Kreider also compares to Bill Guerin and Mike Gartner, but nobody is saying he is as good as them.
Easily my biggest pet peeve with these forums.
Last edited by ColonialsHockey10: 06-18-2011 at 01:28 PM.
yeah, ive already gotten blasted enough in this thread, i just think Schenn is so ridiculously overrated. Schenn is clearly better than Kreider right now, but I still think Kreider will end up being the better NHLer.
The ironic thing is that he is the exact opposite of Kreider in terms of credentials. Absolutely dominated the WHL, while Kreider was just solid in the NCAA. Racked up 5 and 6 point games against weak competition in the WJC, while Kreider was average. Then, in the medal rounds, Schenn blends in, while Kreider stands out. Schenn was also quite unimpressive in his NHL stint, while Kreider was impressive during the WHC.
Schenn is definitely a better prospect right now, but I agree that Kreider has more upside.
Because we're just burgeoning with PP quarterbacks? Maybe I'm not as high on MDZ as others, but if we had a chance to acquire one of LA's awesome PMD prospects, I'd absolutely do it.
Kreider is a steep price to pay, but might be a necessary one. Don't get me wrong, I think Kreider will end up being a good player, but I'm not convinced he'll ultimately end up being any better suited to the first line left wing slot than Dubinsky. We have depth at LW, while, outside of MDZ, we have no one who projects to be an elite puck moving defenseman.
Kreider is our best prospect and has been compared to Eric Staal in the way he plays, but faster. He isn't worth anything you give us.
Not really.
Maybe in the aspects that he's fast and physical, but Staal and Kreider have two completely different styles of play.
Kreider to me is a more physical version of Tony Amonte, I said it from day one and still stick to it. People say a more skilled version of Callahan, while that's possible, I don't see Kreider ever being that kind of player defensively, and I'm MORE than fine with a more physical Amonte, who was one of my early favorites watching the Rangers as a kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
1) Very good read on Kreider. At this point in his development, he could be a very successful 3rd line checking forward. However, he's talents, which include not only his elite skating ability, but, also his shot. However, he still has a ways to go in his development. My impression of him is that when he reaches full development, we will see a hybrid of Tony Amonte and Bill Guerin.
Don't see the Guerin comparisons as Guerin was always more of a smarter defensive player, even in his earlier years. It wasn't just because of his development with the Devils.
Quote:
2) Make no mistake, I like Brayden Schenn a great deal, and would love to see him on the Rangers. But, Chris Kreider is a personal favorite of mine, and I really do not want to see moved.
I see Schenn becoming a Dubinsky, and nothing more. Maybe a 25-30 goal, 30 or so assist 60-65 point player, which I still think Dubinsky has a great chance of hitting.
No reason to trade an asset that we need more of (goal scoring wingers) for yet another two-way playmaking center when we have Dubinsky, Anisimov and Stepan. Redudancy in parts will end up forcing yet another trade, only to be looking to get back to the kind of asset (Kreider) that we traded away in the first place.
It's basically cutting your nose off to spite yourself.
Because we're just burgeoning with PP quarterbacks? Maybe I'm not as high on MDZ as others, but if we had a chance to acquire one of LA's awesome PMD prospects, I'd absolutely do it.
Kreider is a steep price to pay, but might be a necessary one. Don't get me wrong, I think Kreider will end up being a good player, but I'm not convinced he'll ultimately end up being any better suited to the first line left wing slot than Dubinsky. We have depth at LW, while, outside of MDZ, we have no one who projects to be an elite puck moving defenseman.
If we traded Kreider, we don't have any blue chip prospects at forward. You don't trade that away for a PMD when you have one in Del Zotto. If you don't like Del Zotto, that's fine, but it's still a bad move to get rid of your only blue chip offensive prospect for a second blue chip playmaking defenseman, especially with the bulk of other defensemen we have in the system.
I don't get how people are so low on MDZ after one season. I know it's a big sophomore slump to have, but people are practically saying this kid's a bust and we should move him. I'd personally like to give him another chance, and get Richards and see how it goes for him both at even strength in his own zone and on the power play.
Now, back to Kreider, why would you trade a player with such raw talent and sheer athleticism for another defenseman? PMD or not, you don't trade away an asset that covers a need in which we have such little depth of to get another player that would end up being in position that we're log-jammed at.
Makes no sense. That's what Tully has been trying to say (and few are listening/reading apparently) throughout this thread.
I like the scouting report on Voynov. Sounds like a more physical and nastier version of fellow country man, Sergei Zubov. I especially enjoyed reading how he destroyed John Tavares in the Super Series a few years back. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2008/NHL-D...cheslav-Voynov
Projecting the possibility of watching him do that at the NHL level while wearing a Rangers jersey sounds even better.
Being a right handed shot he'd probably fit just perfectly with Staal, McDonagh, or Erikson. The odd man out would be one of Girardi, Sauer, or McIlrath. Like someone said, one of the 3 players would probably be used to try and pick up another promising young forward anyway. Neither of the 3 aforementioned "D" men in the Rangers organization would be luring enough to get a prospect like Kreider straight up.
So even if Voynov solidifies our defense and makes it much stronger than it would be with either Sauer, Girardi, or McIlrath, it still comes at the expense of losing the #18 overall prospect on Future Watch and the team's number one prospect.
I don't think we can afford to give up our most promising young forward. Unless it was some kind of package deal but besides Schenn, none of L.A.'s other forward prospects stand out to me.
Loktionov maybe.... But is he any more promising than the other Eastern Euro's we already have in the organization like Anisimov or Grachev?
Gotta say no to the OP, unless you can give up a forward like Schenn, Brown, or Kopitar (which you wouldn't want to do) because this organization has already passed up on enough currently starring forwards who've all somehow slipped under the Ranger's scouts radar in previous drafts.
Last edited by gravytrain6t: 06-18-2011 at 05:24 PM.
We are really overhyping Kreider. I don't know if its Leslie's rating or his international performances (Both substantial) but people's realistic expectations should be a kid who grows into perhaps a 25 goal scorer, who is a pest with his speed.
He won't be better than Kopitar.
What are you saying? The pundits rate Kreider almost as highly as they rated Enver Lisin and Matt Gilroy, and we know pundits are never wrong.
In all seriousness, I love young players, but I always try to temper my enthusiam regarding Ranger prospects. When I did so here with Lisin & Gilroy, I was assailed. And with Montoya, Sanguinetti, and even as far back as Brendl (at another site)... it was the same thing. Even Nigel Williams!
Kreider needs to demonstrate he can lead a team and score goals on a consistent basis before I annoint him the second coming. The WJC's, although encouraging, are simply too small a sample, and size & speed do not guarantee greatness.
I think Fitzy's assessment is optimistically realistic at this point.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? He never said Kreider would be as good as Eric Staal, he said he compares to him. Kreider also compares to Bill Guerin and Mike Gartner, but nobody is saying he is as good as them.
Easily my biggest pet peeve with these forums.
So please explain how he compares to them if he will not be as good as them, besides that they all play hockey.
Staal doesn't compare to Guerin or Gartner in style, so I'm really lost.
So please explain how he compares to them if he will not be as good as them, besides that they all play hockey.
Staal doesn't compare to Guerin or Gartner in style, so I'm really lost.
I have reading comprehension issues, also.
He was saying people compare Kreider to Guerin in style.
I think it's pretty dumb making player comparisons, but you see it in the draft. Do you think Landeskog will be as good as Mike Richards? I don't, but people compare their playing styles and intangibles.
He was saying people compare Kreider to Guerin in style.
I think it's pretty dumb making player comparisons, but you see it in the draft. Do you think Landeskog will be as good as Mike Richards? I don't, but people compare their playing styles and intangibles.
I haven't seen enough of Kreider to compare him to any of them, but a player cannot compare to Staal, Guerin, AND Gartner, because they aren't similar to each other in style.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? He never said Kreider would be as good as Eric Staal, he said he compares to him. Kreider also compares to Bill Guerin and Mike Gartner, but nobody is saying he is as good as them.
Easily my biggest pet peeve with these forums.
Then what the **** is the point in putting these names in the same sentence with Kreider? It makes zero sense.
Next time you decide to lecture someone, try to actually have a point.
What are you saying? The pundits rate Kreider almost as highly as they rated Enver Lisin and Matt Gilroy, and we know pundits are never wrong.
In all seriousness, I love young players, but I always try to temper my enthusiam regarding Ranger prospects. When I did so here with Lisin & Gilroy, I was assailed. And with Montoya, Sanguinetti, and even as far back as Brendl (at another site)... it was the same thing. Even Nigel Williams!
Kreider needs to demonstrate he can lead a team and score goals on a consistent basis before I annoint him the second coming. The WJC's, although encouraging, are simply too small a sample, and size & speed do not guarantee greatness.
I think Fitzy's assessment is optimistically realistic at this point.
I here what you are saying, up until Lombardi took over we never really had much in the way of prospects so never paid attention. Now that we do, it is hard not to envision the kids playing in the NHL and then once they start climbing the ladder and they start to falter you start to understand just because they project to one thing when they are drafted you are never really sure where they will end up once (if) they make to the NHL.
Sounds like a deal between our teams would be difficult, all we really have to offer at this point is PMD and potentially Loktionov.
Got to say, you guys are a fun group and hopefully we can see each other in the playoffs in the near future
Then why do so many posters moan that if he stays in school against inferior competition, it will greatly hinder him?
Statistically, at least, he has not excelled at the collegiate level.
Are people moaning about the competition in college? Maybe a few, but it's just the classic NCAA vs Major Junior debate. And playing in Hockey East, one could easily make the case that he's facing consistently better competition than he would be in the QMJHL.
I think the most frequent complaint about his NCAA service is that he won't develop his offense the way he would in Major Junior, but that has more to do with how he's used by Jerry York at BC than the level of competition.
I think the most frequent complaint about his NCAA service is that he won't develop his offense the way he would in Major Junior, but that has more to do with how he's used by Jerry York at BC than the level of competition.
I find this argument makes no sense. Talent will emerge as long as effort is put in, no matter the coach. Coaching can teach defensive responsibility and some of the nuances, but in the end I don't think it plays much of a role in how a player turns out.
There's no question at least as far as the stats go that Kreider's been an inconsistent performer in Hockey East. It's not an easy league and he was about as green as far as competition level--entering BC. One can say that at least in the first half of his freshman year that York had issues with his all around play and treated that accordingly. There is also the issue of where Kreider would start to go and along came an injury--concussion in his first year--broken jaw in the second which was a freak play. I think what's frustrating is Kreider almost always seems to come up big in big games--the WJC's, the Beanpots, the Hockey East and NCAA championships is where he shines the most. That he's played for the US WC team two years in a row can give you the idea that it's more than just Rangers scouts and management that see a big future for him.
The tools are there in any case and I have no doubt he's going to be a good NHL player--the only question is how good?--and for an NHL first line or even second to happen he's going to have to be a more consistent producer. There are instances of players being better pros than amateurs--he might be one of them.
Then what the **** is the point in putting these names in the same sentence with Kreider? It makes zero sense.
Next time you decide to lecture someone, try to actually have a point.
BECAUSE THEY LOOK AND PLAY SIMILAR. Nobody said his upside is Eric Staal, they said he compares to him. Not to mention the original poster that "offended" you pulled out a ****ing quote from a professional scout that, word for word, compared him to Eric Staal. That should end this argument right there. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the professional who gets paid a yearly salary to do this stuff.
How is this difficult to understand? The best way for people to visualize a prospect is to compare them with a past/present NHL player that people have seen. Not everyone has watched Kreider consistently.
I for one, when I watch Kreider, see a Jeff Carter clone. Now, I could say, "Kreider reminds me of a faster, less offensively talented, slightly larger, american, more physical, brown haired Jeff Carter". Instead, Kreider compares to Jeff Carter.
If I want to describe Kreider's realistic potential, I would specifically say "Kreider's upside is similar to that of a..."
Ola always says Grachev will become a Franzen type of player. That is upside, he specifically says what he feels Grachev will become. However, when I watch Grachev, he reminds me of Malkin in so many ways. That's a ****ing comparison, nobody expects Grachev to be as good as Malkin, anyone who cannot understand that either didn't read it correctly, or they're trying to argue.
So please explain how he compares to them if he will not be as good as them, besides that they all play hockey.
Staal doesn't compare to Guerin or Gartner in style, so I'm really lost.
I have reading comprehension issues, also.
Bill Guerin, a frequent comparison used by many posters on HF (along with Tony Amonte), was a big, fast, power forward that had a great knack for scoring goals. That's Chris Kreider's scouting report nearly word for ****ing word. Guerin is arguably the exact same height/weight according to hockeydb (incoming "I saw Guerin/Kreider in person, he's not that big), both attended BC, both are goalscorers first and forement, and both have an almost awkward looking stride in middle gear, but when they gets going it's a thing of beauty.
I never even said I agreed with the OP's comparison to Staal, but he made a harmless comparison, he isn't going Nostradamus on you and giving you his potential. However, describe Staal to me, using adjective. Now do the same thing for Guerin, and then Kreider. Ta ****ing da.
Last edited by ColonialsHockey10: 06-20-2011 at 12:28 AM.
Everyone says our defense is set and yet I see Gilroy is still in our top 6, and all of our defensemen struggle to reach 30 points. I'd do Kreider for Johnson without thinking twice. That deal is perfect for us. Kreider won't solve our PP. Johnson will.
One of our biggest demands was PMD and now we're suddenly turning it down? Why, because we got Erixon? We don't even know who this ****in kid is!! Nor do we know if Del Zotto will rebound. I'd jump at Kreider for a PMD.
Everyone says our defense is set and yet I see Gilroy is still in our top 6, and all of our defensemen struggle to reach 30 points. I'd do Kreider for Johnson without thinking twice. That deal is perfect for us. Kreider won't solve our PP. Johnson will.
One of our biggest demands was PMD and now we're suddenly turning it down? Why, because we got Erixon? We don't even know who this ****in kid is!! Nor do we know if Del Zotto will rebound. I'd jump at Kreider for a PMD.
Bill Guerin, a frequent comparison used by many posters on HF (along with Tony Amonte), was a big, fast, power forward that had a great knack for scoring goals. That's Chris Kreider's scouting report nearly word for ****ing word. Guerin is arguably the exact same height/weight according to hockeydb (incoming "I saw Guerin/Kreider in person, he's not that big), both attended BC, both are goalscorers first and forement, and both have an almost awkward looking stride in middle gear, but when they gets going it's a thing of beauty.
I never even said I agreed with the OP's comparison to Staal, but he made a harmless comparison, he isn't going Nostradamus on you and giving you his potential. However, describe Staal to me, using adjective. Now do the same thing for Guerin, and then Kreider. Ta ****ing da.
In other words, if Poster A compares a player to player b and another poster makes a comparison to a different player, I should accept that as evidence of something.
Gartner, Guerin, and Staal share nothing stylewise, so comparing them all to Kreider, to me has no validity.
No matter how exasperated you get, and shake your head. If someone does not see logic and says that, they are not being argumentative. They are expressing an opinion that what they have read is nonsense. I still think the comparisons are nonsense.
