Player Discussion Artemi Panarin

[True Blue]

If he's healthy, who says he can't?

History of when players start to go in decline.

 

[duhmetreE]

History of when players start to go in decline.

Yes, good thing he's not joeschmo. There's no history for this and it's been over-blown. Superstars play like superstars into their mid-late 30's. ( of course, barring injuries ). If you want to delve deeper, what about studs with his vision/IQ/playmaking. What does history say about them? Kane would be a solid comparable... is there any fear that he's going to fall off the edge of the earth? No?

Comparing Apples and Oranges and presenting us pears.... or something like that.

 

[True Blue]

Yes, good thing he's not joeschmo. There's no history for this and it's been over-blown. Superstars play like superstars into their mid-late 30's. ( of course, barring injuries )

There is no history for a player's decline from the late2 0's to the mid 30"s? You sure about that?

Comparing Apples and Oranges and presenting us pears.... or something like that.

That is for creating a debate that frankly no one was or is debating.

 

[duhmetreE]

There is no history for a player's decline from the late2 0's to the mid 30"s? You sure about that?

That is for creating a debate that frankly no one was or is debating.

Don't play the fool.

What elite-super-star talent has degraded to the extent, that you're proposing? barring injury?

 

[True Blue]

Don't play the fool.

What elite-super-star talent has degraded to the extent, that you're proposing? barring injury?

Don't play the schmuck.

You cannot separate injuries from age. Some injuries occur due to age and a lessening of physical abilities. And it takes much longer to recover.

Did LecaValier not slow down? Jon LeClair? Corey Perry?

Who are the players whose level of play remained exactly the same in their mid-30s since their late 20s? And how many of them are compared to the rest of the league?

Here's the bad news. Age could care less if you are a superstar or not. All of the players get older and slow down.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Don't play the schmuck.

You cannot separate injuries from age. Some injuries occur due to age and a lessening of physical abilities. And it takes much longer to recover.

Did LecaValier not slow down? Jon LeClair? Corey Perry?

Who are the players whose level of play remained exactly the same in their mid-30s since their late 20s? And how many of them are compared to the rest of the league?

Here's the bad news. Age could care less if you are a superstar or not. All of the players get older and slow down.

One difference between them and Panarin is they were bigger skilled guys. Bigger players do tend to decline quicker than small shifty highly skilled players.

 

[True Blue]

One difference between them and Panarin is they were bigger skilled guys. Bigger players do tend to decline quicker than small shifty highly skilled players.

In some instances, sure. But in the overall scheme of things, age comes for us all. To believe that Panarin's speed will not decline is silly. This is not saying he is dropping off a cliff, but the chances of a decline are far greater than the chances of holding steady.

Like with all else, time will tell.

 

[duhmetreE]

Don't play the schmuck.

You cannot separate injuries from age. Some injuries occur due to age and a lessening of physical abilities. And it takes much longer to recover.

Did LecaValier not slow down? Jon LeClair? Corey Perry?

Who are the players whose level of play remained exactly the same in their mid-30s since their late 20s? And how many of them are compared to the rest of the league?

Here's the bad news. Age could care less if you are a superstar or not. All of the players get older and slow down.

You're not being objective. How exactly am I playing the schmuck?

'EXACTLY' the same. You were being an alarmist, portraying to me at least, that he has a good chance of being a disaster past 30.

Off the top of my head, modern-day NHLer making or made it past 30
Marchand
Crosby
Burns
Kane
Ovechkin
Giroux
Bergeron
Wheeler
Backstrom
E.Staal
Thornton

If you think Perry, LeClair and LeCalvalier are good comparables... I don't know what to say. I'd call him comparable to Marchand and Kane.

 

[True Blue]

You're not being objective. How exactly am I playing the schmuck?

'EXACTLY' the same. You were being an alarmist, portraying to me at least, that he has a good chance of being a disaster past 30.

Off the top of my head, modern-day NHLer making or made it past 30
Marchand
Crosby
Burns
Kane
Ovechkin
Giroux
Bergeron
Wheeler
Backstrom
E.Staal
Thornton

If you think Perry, LeClair and LeCalvalier are good comparables... I don't know what to say. I'd call him comparable to Marchand and Kane.

Aside from them being top players what makes them good comps for Panarin? Does age magically affect all of these players the same way? And then lumping in some generational players in there, further dilutes the argument. There is a reason why Crosby and Ovechkin are considered such and he is not. Not going through all of them but you also picked some players who are a pretty young 30s. Backstrom is 31. So too is Brad Marchand. And Kane. And Giroux. Last year was the year when they put up stats at 30.

Using this is a bit misleading to the argument. No one was arguing what he was going to do at 30 or possibly even 31. It is the later years that people were worried about. Your evidence looses steam when you list several generational players (i.e. they come along once in a generation.....that is not Panarin) and others whose more recent full statistical year came at the age of 30.

Citing several generational players and a slew of players whose last full season in the league was at the age of 30 as evidence that Panarin is going to be the same player well into his 30s does not really make that much sense to me, but what do I know?

 

[duhmetreE]

Aside from them being top players what makes them good comps for Panarin? Does age magically affect all of these players the same way? And then lumping in some generational players in there, further dilutes the argument. There is a reason why Crosby and Ovechkin are considered such and he is not. Not going through all of them but you also picked some players who are a pretty young 30s. Backstrom is 31. So too is Brad Marchand. And Kane. And Giroux. Last year was the year when they put up stats at 30.

Using this is a bit misleading to the argument. No one was arguing what he was going to do at 30 or possibly even 31. It is the later years that people were worried about. Your evidence looses steam when you list several generational players (i.e. they come along once in a generation.....that is not Panarin) and others whose more recent full statistical year came at the age of 30.

Style, size and skill set are on very similar levels. Especially with Kane.

Yeah, they are in their early 30's. Do you expect them to fall off a cliff in the immediate future? If no, why? So, its not about 31-32? It's 33-34?

I'd expect ( these are my expectations ) for Panarin to peak at 30-32. A 100+ pt player. I'm pretty sure I initially said, 40-100 is on the cards with him and he still hasn't realized his full potential/production. If anything his 6th and 7th year would line up with some of our youngins hitting their prime. So, his production might not vary by much. He'd be carrying the burden over the next few years and he'd get some relief down the line.

Yes, it is not likely he'll be at his peak in his aged 34 season. You're taking a truth and contorting it. Making it seem as it will be a disaster. It's been overblown

 

[haveandare]

In some instances, sure. But in the overall scheme of things, age comes for us all. To believe that Panarin's speed will not decline is silly. This is not saying he is dropping off a cliff, but the chances of a decline are far greater than the chances of holding steady.

Like with all else, time will tell.

One of the main things that goes with age is quickness and agility. Guys who have plenty of it don't fall off much when they lose a little, because they have plenty to spare. Panarin is quick player. Those guys aren't/weren't, they were big physical guys who didn't have quickness to burn.

It's not a hard and fast rule but there's a trend there for sure imo.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Panarin also has a lot less NHL mileage on his body than most star players his age.

 

[True Blue]

Style, size and skill set are on very similar levels. Especially with Kane.

Aside from possibly style and height, how is Panrin on the level of Crosby?

Yeah, they are in their early 30's. Do you expect them to fall off a cliff in the immediate future? If no, why? So, its not about 31-32? It's 33-34?

History tells you that yes, they will decline. Will they fall off a cliff? Maybe. Maybe not. But history tells you that the likelihood is pretty great of a decline?

And saying that they are in their early thirties is a bit of an obfuscation. They are 31. Their last full year was at 30. Citing their statistical year at 30 as evidence that it will be substantially similar at the age of 34 is a bit of a stretch. At least to me.

I'd expect ( these are my expectations ) for Panarin to peak at 30-32. A 100+ pt player. I'm pretty sure I initially said, 40-100 is on the cards with him and he still hasn't realized his full potential/production. If anything his 6th and 7th year would line up with some of our youngins hitting their prime. So, his production might not vary by much. He'd be carrying the burden over the next few years and he'd get some relief down the line.

History does not agree with you, but as I have been saying, only time will tell if the fears were accurate or not.

Yes, it is not likely he'll be at his peak in his aged 34 season. You're taking a truth and contorting it. Making it seem as it will be a disaster. It's been overblown

I am not contorting anything. He is at his peak now and will likely be there for another 3 years. Will the Rangers be Cup contenders within that time frame? I tend to doubt it. In 4-5 years, chances are very good that his skills will be diminished. Will the Rangers be a Cup contender? Hopefully, unless the wheels of the rebuild have completely come off. But the point is that he will be diminished. Will it be a disaster? I have no idea. It all depends just how diminished he is. As i said, only time will tell. In 5-6 years, will his skill level have greatly declined? History tells you yes. Will the Rangers be a Cup contender? Sure, we all believe so. Will the Rangers be paying Panarin for what he was not what he is? Unfortunately, yes. It is only overblown if you believe that his skill level at the time will not be materially lessened. Clearly you do not believe so, so you believe it is overblown. I have my reservations about being so optimistic. Once again, only time will tell. I certainly want to tell you in those years that you were right and I was wrong.

 

[True Blue]

Panarin also has a lot less NHL mileage on his body than most star players his age.

That has absolutely nothing to do with how age affects your joints, bones, tendons, etc.

 

[True Blue]

One of the main things that goes with age is quickness and agility. Guys who have plenty of it don't fall off much when they lose a little, because they have plenty to spare. Panarin is quick player. Those guys aren't/weren't, they were big physical guys who didn't have quickness to burn.

It's not a hard and fast rule but there's a trend there for sure imo.

One could make an argument that says if your game is predicated on quickness and agility, that you will suffer the most as to remain on the same level, your game will need to be changed in ways that you are not equipped to do.

Who is right and who is wrong? Who knows? Like I said, history tells you what generally happens to players when they age. I certainly hope that Panarin is one of those who is not so greatly affected. But the worry was credible then and it is credible now.

 

[EdJovanovski]

That has absolutely nothing to do with how age affects your joints, bones, tendons, etc.

NHL hockey seems a lot harder on the body than KHL lol
He's someone who's had very little wear & tear and even in the NHL he's never really had an injury

 

[True Blue]

NHL hockey seems a lot harder on the body than KHL lol
He's someone who's had very little wear & tear and even in the NHL he's never really had an injury

Everybody in the NHL is a hit away from having an injury. And wear and tear that age causes has nothing to do with playing in the NHL, KHL, SEL or LIGA

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

One difference between them and Panarin is they were bigger skilled guys. Bigger players do tend to decline quicker than small shifty highly skilled players.

Also, Panarin played 60 games a season until he was 24. In a less physical environment.

 

[McRanger]

That has absolutely nothing to do with how age affects your joints, bones, tendons, etc.

Trauma accelerates degeneration so logically playing in a league with less games and less physicality should help in that regard.

Its hard to tell how much the league difference makes (the effect is probably overstated) but I can't see how it wouldn't, at least in some regard, exist.

 

[True Blue]

Its hard to tell how much the league difference makes (the effect is probably overstated) but I can't see how it wouldn't, at least in some regard, exist.

Many nuances to this debate. One thing is certain. We all have the front row seat as to how this tale will unfold.

 

[AlaBlueShirt]

Imagine, just imagine worrying about a 27-year old player getting older.
We actually signed a player who is on a 12 game point streak, is ppg for his whole career in NHL, one of the best zone entries the league, no major injuries and has the hockey iq of gods.
Yes players get older but with his vision this guy will be deadly for his whole contract.
Can you please enjoy something in the present and stop worrying about stupid little things???

 

[Inferno]

I'd be curious to see what those who strongly opposed Panarin, think now.

Being opposed to panarin was never about this year..it was about how he would perform when we were actually ready to contend for a title....in 2 or 3 years.

I guess we'll see then.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

If he's healthy, who says he can't?

Sure, he might lose a step the last year or 2 of his contract, but health permitting, he'll be very good for at least 5 of the 7 years I'd guess. Zucc played just fine at 32-33, and Panarin is of similar size and better.

No one is saying he can't. Why do so many posters talk in absolutes? What others, and myself are saying is it's quite unlikely for a player to maintain an elite level of play into their mid 30's. The ones that do are few and far between. Maybe Panarin will be one of those few, but when I'm gambling I usually like to go with the better odds.

Add on to that, that thus far he is having a career year. So what we are all witnessing might very well turn out to be his best NHL season, period. To expect a player who has never performed at the level he is performing at now, to maintain that insanely high level of play for 7 years, is not really logical.

My guess would be we get 2-3 elite years from Panarin - on a team like this where it is all but wasted. 2-3 years of a 1st line level play, but not what we see this year. 1-2 years of tailoring off play, mid 1st/2nd line.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

This also reminds me a lot of the MSL thread. Where the guy had some magic beans and was going to be good until he was 45. Obviously he was quite older then Panarin when he came here, but arguing against the effects of age is just never a wise side to take.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Being opposed to panarin was never about this year..it was about how he would perform when we were actually ready to contend for a title....in 2 or 3 years.

I guess we'll see then.

I have seen people dishonestly say what you just responded to sooo many times.