How do you say I'm missing a large point and then make a point I've acknowledged repeatedly?
Yes I did say this repeatedly.
This makes zero sense. Missing 1 FA does not mean we can't go for a different one a year or two from now
Again, how are you going to tell me I'm missing nuance and then tell me the exact point I've acknowledged repeatedly? I literally spoke repeatedly about signing one or TWO of these big FA's...just later
It's more likely that you pissed away cap you need later bc you were too shortsighted
That's bc only one of these concerns is worth actually thinking about right now. Timing. Unless he takes a sweetheart 5 year deal. He'll likely take 7 or 8
I guess if he agrees to a 5 year deal then it's acceptable. 7 or 8 like he's going to be asking for? No. Awful.
When there's a comparable FA available 3 or 4 years down the line...when we actually have the prospects developed and ready to contend, we'll have a 40 point, 9-11 M albatross blocking us from signing an 80 pt player that we need.
Not all the teams in the NHL will be offering Panarin a contract this summer. Teams have timetables when to do stuff like that.
You don't commit 8 years, 9 M+ for a guy who young players lean on. You don't commit to that for a playoff run. You commit to it when you know that you have the pieces to contend.
You want guys for the kids to leans on? You keep Zibby, kreider and guys like that. They can be had for 2-5 year deals at way less money.
I said you are missing a large point because the post of yours I quoted was missing a large point. You said you can't fathom why anyone would ever be ok with paying $11m for 47 points or whatever it was you said.
That's missing the point. Overpaying on the tail end of a contract is a
mostly necessary byproduct of getting an elite player for his elite years. I have no idea what else you may or may not have said in this thread. I was addressing that one specific post, and it missed the point. No one is advocating paying $11m for 47 points. We are advocating paying that much for 80 points now, and we are ok with suffering through the overpayment later. It's a trade-off, and it's one that pro-Panarin advocates are willing to make.
You aren't willing to make it, and that's fine. We can disagree on whether it's a smart move to make, but if you take a blanket position that it's never wise to invest that much money into a 27 year old on a 6-7 year contract, because you'll always end up with years at the end of the deal where they are getting $11m for much less points, well, then you'll just never give a contract to any 27 year old. They all will drop off. It's a question of how much less production you are willing to live with. And that is a question of, what is the rest of your cap situation like? What other players are around to pick up the slack? And how much do you need the player in the present to sacrifice that future overpayment?
You keep referring to it being an albatross contract. No doubt it will be hefty, but I am unconvinced it will be an albatross. We moved Nash's deal at $8 million under a smaller salary cap than the one moving forward. We moved Gaborik's $7.5 million contract with a year and a half left in a MUCH lesser salary cap world than the one we will be in this year and in future years. Giving Panarin $11m is basically exactly the same percentage as the $7.5 million we gave Gaborik at 27 years old back in 2009, and he had way more mileage on him. Panarin is just as likely to last into his early 30s, and then, if we have to move him, history indicates we'll be able to do so. So why would I think of it as an albatross?
Furthermore, have you examined our cap situation? How do you know we will be cap crunched in 3-4-5 years? Most of our young players will still be cost controlled at that point. We probably will be able to fit them all under the cap, so "albatross" doesn't seem to fit. Our cap situation is so good, in fact, that we could probably sign Panarin AND have enough room and long-term cap flexibility to sign another impact free agent in 2021 or 2022. So I just don't see the "albatross" argument. Especially since I believe that he'll produce highly in the next 3-4 years, and thus be very tradable if we have to move him.
Finally, we disagree on need. You see no need to tie up money in him now because we aren't ready to compete. I'm generally a pro-tanker, and if we decide to let it continue to bottom out this year, I'm fine with that, but I also understand and agree that you can't have a skeleton roster. When faced with the prospect of re-signing Kreider for 5 years at 8 million a year, or Duchene at 5-7 years for $9+ million a year, or Panarin for 5-7 years at $11m a year, it's a no-brainer to me. The extra $$$ is worth it for Panarin. You have to have some veterans for the kids to grow up around. It is the height of foolishness, IMO, to prefer signing 29 year old Kreider to a massive deal, but not 27 year old Panarin. For similar years, I'll pay the extra $4 million and have the vastly superior player. I straight up do not want to re-sign Kreider, he should be traded, and I straight up do not want Duchene either.
