There's always someone behind you until you become an immovable object with an NMC.
It doesnt matter if I think he's all world, the point is why would the front office use such hyperbole if they were truly disappointed. If they were disappointed a "We are very pleased with his progress" is more than enough to avoid controversy. Hahaha. Sure "all-world" could certainly be hyperbole for a player they are actually HIGH on though. I mean that makes logical sense. I already addressed that and you quoted it.
I think bc they just benched him for the elimination game you cant just go in soft with the generic "we are pleased with his progress" bc their action say otherwise. If they were pleased he wouldnt have been scratched.
Not at all dude! We love hockey, we can both get a little overexcited! I love discussing this shit and appreciate you engaging.
Depends, if he breaks out into a 50-60, or more point player, sure.
I'm not arguing that they weren't stale to start.... but when they play well they should be rewarded. When they are producing, they should be left alone. Both players were moved after starting to find their groove.. most notably Kakko with Panarin and Laffy was replace by Reaves in Minnesota.
There's no risk in giving him a 2-3 year deal.
The market will be much different in 2-3 years.
Maybe they have a plan where they will have more cap space next off season and they get another year to decide if they want to lock him up longer term using it.
I think Panarin should play RW. He is already excellent at it on the powerplay. He loves to gain the zone and make a pass. On the right side, he can do exactly that on his forehand.
I think it has something to do with how they break out out of their own zone and move up ice. They want that rush play with the stretch pass, usually with the right-handed Fox and Trouba, who can cross-seam it onto an onrushing Kreider's forehand. I've also seen Kreider do a better job of making the quick first pass and chipping pucks out of the zone while under pressure on the left wall. His center is also right-handed. If he's on the RW, he would receive a lot of passes on his backhand.
A 1 year deal for Kakko would be bad because the last thing we need is another player who needs to be re-signed in 2023. We already have Laf, Miller and Chytil who will need new contracts. If Kakko does break out, we'd be screwed. If he doesn't, it still makes things more difficult as we'd need to re-sign him or move him. It's better all around if we give him a 2 year deal. 3 is no good, as that will push the AAV up more. 2 years is the sweet spot.
I hate to say it, but what if he does bust? The tight cap could be seen the other way; you don't want to commit what's more than necessary. On a 1-year deal, he's still RFA and his rights retained after next year. Kakko needs to prove it, if on a 1-year deal. There's also RFA arbitration as an option. Looking at it from management's side.
If the plan is to give both Kakko and Kravtsov 1 year deals to let them slug it out over the season they set them up for stress, disappointment and resentment. So much of point production depends on usage, minutes, chemistry with your line mates etc. Or if they get jerked around (again) once they start to produce... There's so many factors that are out of the hands of the players. And if both have great seasons then you face the fact you have 4 great kids that need new contracts, Miller, Kakko, Kravtsov, Laf in the same off season.
He's still RFA after a 2 year deal. He'll be arbitration eligible in either case. If he's going to be a bust, we probably aren't going to know that by next summer. The cap savings on 1 year deal vs a 2 year deal will be minimal. It's not worth the risk of having his contract expire at the same time as everyone else.
