Blog parameters:
Each person covered will be given a rating. Factoring into that rating will of course be his performance but another input is going to be performance versus expectation coming into the season. Much of the background I likely covered in my tear down blogs, so don't expect massive chapter and verse but possibly some quick hitting information if not already covered in those blogs. In addition, to create some parameters, a player will have had to play 20 games to get a grade. Anything less means there isn't a representative sample for which to make a decision, so Brady Skjei and Marek Hrivik, to name two, will not get grades.
Here is where it gets really funky and interactive. I want you the reader to comment on the blog as to the rating. But not just hey I think you are right on or you are crazy but to provide your own rating and rationale for it. So if you agree with what I wrote, great, say that. But if the belief is the rating should be higher or lower, then you have to provide the rationale accordingly. Plus and minus grades are allowed to enable a broader opinion. Before the next blog, we will see if the blog comments consensus rating mirrors mine.
In addition, to shake it up, I will jump around a bit, so not all the players of the same rating are listed in a row, same with positions. So in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, you never know what you're going to get.
Covered in this blog:
Chris Kreider
This is what I wrote on Part III of my Rangers tear down and post-mortem blogs.
Kreider was invisible for most of the first part of the season, but came on late. He finished the year with 21 goals, including 10 in a 20-game stretch, and 22 assists. But his performance and lack of growth left us wanting more.
Kreider would appear to be the perfect prototypical power forward, possessing great speed and strength. If you point him down the wing and tell him to head to the net, he's fine. Any form of required creativity and you get what we saw most of the first part of the season, floundering. That said, a look behind the early lack of production revealed a player driving possession and chances, which he converted later in the season. Kreider, an RFA, made $2.475 mil in the second season of the two year deal he signed in the 2014 offseason and is arbitration eligible this year, meaning expect a decent rise in his salary.
When he is going right, he is a beast. If not, you scratch your head and wonder what the hell is going on. Kreider has one more deal left before he becomes a UFA, so NY has to decide do you go one year (which would be crazy), 2-3 years (more likely), long term (somewhat remote) or deal him, possibly with a lousy contract to create room. Kreider would draw a ton of interest if he was made available. So the Rangers better be real careful and have a strong conviction if they do trade him, since it could backfire horribly.
Overall Grade:
C+ (if you base the grade solely on what we expected from Kreider, 30 goals while taking the next step to be a consistent force, the grade would be a lot lower. But he still finished with 21 goals and showed in the playoffs signs of what he could be. That's the issue with Kreider. We all have the belief of what he could or should maybe but maybe what we see if what we will get and no more and our expectations are unrealistic.
If there was one piece of advice most of us would give him, it's don't think, just skate. When he overanalyzes, that's when his play tails off. In addition, keep your feet moving, because hen he stops, he gets caught watching the play, rather than reacting. React don't think, then maybe it will all come together.
The problem is what do you pay Kreider? That number is impacted by the cap this year, which I will discuss further below. In addition, with others RFAs- - Miller and Hayes - to pay and and decisions to be made on Yandle, Nash, M Staal and Girardi, dealing him could end up the direction New York goes. Regardless of the cap hit, unless it becomes so draconian that there is no choice, giving up too early on 25-year old who looks to have 2-3 more gears and levels of upside seems to make little sense unless the return is so large you can't pass it up ).
Players covered in prior blogs,
My grade,
Consensus Grade
Matz Zuccarello B+/B+
Kevin Klein C+/C+
Tanner Glass C/D
Rick Nash C-/C
Assistant Coaches C/C
Dan Girardi D+/C or C-
Derick Brassard, B/ B+
Larry Brooks wrote in today's
NY Post the following on the possible 2106-17 cap:
According to a source with ties to the Players’ Association, the cap — set at $71.4 million this year — would be reduced to approximately $69.3M for 2016-17 unless the PA triggers the 5 percent escalator. If the union does exercise the bump, then the cap should increase to approximately $72.8M. The union, which debated the issue at meetings at the end of the week, has voted for the increase all but once.
Exercising the trigger will increase escrow to a degree — players probably will wind up forfeiting around 16 percent of their pay when this past season’s numbers finally are reconciled — but a higher cap obviously allows for more available money to sign players on expiring contracts and offers more choices for unrestricted free agents and more protection against cap-necessitated buyouts and waivers.
So the PA is expected to vote to approve the increase and thus prevent the first organic decrease of the cap (not counting the reset following the 2012-13 Owners’ Lockout III) since the system was adopted for 2005-06.
At one point, it looked like the cap would rise to $74 mil aided by what looked to be a rebound in the CDN/USD exchange rate. That extra $2.6 mil likely would have covered J.T. Miller's salary this season. Now, if the escalator is triggered, which impacts the escrow and future money available, at best, the rise will be $1.2 million, adversely impacting teams near the cap. As mentioned in the blog comments, the lack of a Canadian playoff team likely impacted revenue and clearly adversely impacted viewership.
For a team like the Rangers, that difference in available salary might have large ramifications. If there was a thought to buying out Dan Girardi, does $1.2 mil less in available cap room mean that you won't want to have what would be $1.75 mil in dead cap space resulting from the buyout (no snarky comments that his whole salary is dead cap space). What about sending Tanner Glass down to the minors knowing that about $500k in salary remains on the cap? Discussions about dealing Rick Nash may now include less salary eaten by NY to move him because of the smaller cap. Major ramifications up and down the lineup and off-season plans for the Blueshirts due to this news.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»