Panarin: Yes or No?

[Off Sides]

They have other options than Panarin, Kreider, Duchene.

Actually even with out any of them, if they sign their RFAs they'd already have a 12 man forward NHL roster signed, without even adding in any rookies.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Spot ****ing on.

Sign the guy, he is worth every penny.

Like some others say..... Kreider at $8M or Panarin at $11M? The choice is very obvious

The choice is extremely obvious in that situation - neither.

 

[mas0764]

Are you really thinking not one single top talent will be a FA within the next 3 or 4 off seasons? When has there ever been a lack of FA talent to go on for that long?

I expect a talent like Panarin to actually hit unrestricted free agency probably yeah, every 2-3-4 offseasons. Not every offseason for sure.

But just because they hit the market doesn't mean they want to come here, or that some other team wouldn't be willing to outbid us.

The player has to hit free agency, and we have to be a high bidder if not the highest bidder, and the player has to want to be in NY. The last player that really fits that elite mold like that, who we successfully acquired in free agency, was again, Gaborik. Nash was a trade, Shattenkirk just wasn't that high profile.

Panarin does not help us now. He does not help us next year.

Simply untrue.

The kind of help we need from a guy like Panarin is help winning a cup. This team cannot compete for a cup this year or next year.

I dispute that it's impossible or even unlikely that we are Cup Contenders while Panarin is still very productive.

I'd say it's at least like a thirty three percent chance we are well stocked for a deep run while Panarin is a top-6 player.

Now, it's arguable that we could just sign a guy 2-3 years from who is 27 at that time, and that's even better. Maybe. Or maybe we could do both. I see our cap situation as pretty golden.

To me, the bottom line is, the Rangers are simply gonna commit that money somewhere. They are not going to be a cap floor scraping team. They will re-sign Kreider. They'll do other stuff with the money.

If it's a choice between Kreider at 7-8 million or Panarin at 11, it's an easy choice for me. Panarin.

 

[mas0764]

Bobby Holik
Scott Gomez which I'll grant got the team McDonagh
Wade Redden
Chris Drury
Bruce Driver
Valerie Kamensky
Guy Lafleur
plenty more too

I'll take "Players that are nothing like Artemi Panarin for $800, Alex."

 

[smoneil]

You explained why you THINK his cap isn't an issue. That doesn't make it so. Your explanation is not good enough to me. It's not good enough in general but it's like you have assumed it was a conversation ender.



This thread is full of reasons other than wanting to suck next year. You provided your opinion for the cap being a non issue. It's an opinion but not even remotely an opinion that is so strong that it can't be debated.

To be fair, I haven't read the entire thread (trying to wrap up final edits on a dissertation), but part of my frustration in this thread--and part 0f the reason my tone took a turn towards the definitive--is that nobody on the "perpetual tank" side is even trying to debate the issue. The general responses I've seen have been more in the realm of witty responses like "Nuh-uh" and the like.

I have yet to see anyone make a sound argument against the following financial points that I made re: the benefits of Panarin:

1- That his cap hit would be all but covered within 2 years by the departures of Smith, Henrik, and Staal (all of whom are set to be replaced in house with ELC players).

2- That Panarin gives us options regarding Kreider (a player whose mileage and style of play makes him more likely to break down than Panarin IMO). If the team wants to keep Kreider, it allows them to play hardball with the negotiations (2nd line LW rather than ONLY top 6 LW in the franchise depth chart). If they can't get Kreider on a team friendly deal, signing Panarin also allows them to trade Kreider for assets while still improving on the top line LW by a fairly substantial margin (and this is coming from someone who likes Kreider).

3- Having a guy like Panarin helps to keep players on their appropriate lines, which makes them more affordable down the road. Skjei isn't a #3, but he's paid like one. Kreider, ideally, is not a 1st line LW, but he's going to get paid like one. Truly bad contracts are contracts that involve a player getting paid as if he were a better player than he is. That's precisely what the issue was with Holik. Nobody looks at Crosby or Malkin or guys like that and claims those contracts are bad--those are clearly top players. Panarin is a top player, and having him on the top line enables the team to stop playing people above their skill level (and then subsequently getting paid based on where we put them rather than where they should be on a contender).

Financially speaking, I just think this is an ideal scenario where a rare top player is available for free at the team's weakest position on the organizational depth chart. I also think it gives the team significant flexibility in other contracts, based on the points made above. I'm more than happy to discuss it and be convinced otherwise, but as I've said--none of the team tank folks have thus far seemed interested in that. Hence the comment that that side's primary interest is in making the team as bad as possible to have a tiny chance at another top pick.

 

[mas0764]

The choice is extremely obvious in that situation - neither.

I mean, it's just not very likely that the Rangers strip down to nuts and bolts. They will be bringing in at least some veterans.

I would not find it believable if you told me the Rangers were not planning on using up a good chunk of their salary cap space this offseason. Of course they will, it's the Rangers. Who they use it on is the right question.

Short term contracts, 1-2 year deals for 3rd and 4th liners? Re-sign Kreider? Re-sign Hayes? Or go get impact guys like Panarin or Karlsson?

They're gonna do something with the money.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

With a core of homegrown drafted in the 2nd round and later. None of that core, except for Lundqvist, McD, and maybe Staal would rank among our current top 7 or 8 prospects (the prospect versions of the old core). Because of that, Sather went out and basically bought a top 6. I’m advocating a top line LW. Again, big difference.

Yeah why were the first rounders weak and the 2019 won't be?

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I mean, it's just not very likely that the Rangers strip down to nuts and bolts. They will be bringing in at least some veterans.

I would not find it believable if you told me the Rangers were not planning on using up a good chunk of their salary cap space this offseason. Of course they will, it's the Rangers. Who they use it on is the right question.

Short term contracts, 1-2 year deals for 3rd and 4th liners? Re-sign Kreider? Re-sign Hayes? Or go get impact guys like Panarin or Karlsson?

They're gonna do something with the money.

Trading Kreider and not signing Panarin is not even close to "stripping down to nuts an bolts", and in fact, it's the most likley scenario, so bank on it happening. They also won't be signing Hayes or Karlsson. Sorry. Every single indication from Gorton and JD is that they will be staying the course and will not be taking any shortcuts. Enough with this "It's the Rangers" bullshit. The only UFA they signed last season was Claesson. They only reason they signed Shattenkirk is because he accepted an incredibly low-ball offer from the team. They are much more likely to take on a bad contract with their cap space.

They have veterans on the team already. Mika is a veteran. Staal is a veteran. Henrik and Shattenkirk and Smith are all veterans. They might now be the veterans you want but they are guys who have played in this league for awhile now.

 

[mas0764]

So you're willing to risk signing Panarin on the chance he'll be the 1 in a million player who lasts at an elite level into his mid 30s but you won't risk the getting a top FA in 3 or 4 years even though that happens almost every year? I just don't get why. Other than shortsightedness and impatience

One in a million, lol, ok.

Someone is willing to say anything to win.

~flush~

 

[NYR Viper]

I'm not on the bandwagon of sign Panarin no matter what. I've said many times, 7 years @ $9.5m per season and I'm interested. More than that, nope, big pass.

I'm not worried about his 28-33 years. It's after that

 

[effen]

This is how I feel. Everyoen that's on the "Suck for another year" train... are they ASKING to be like buffalo?

wut

 

[TheBloodyNine]

This is how I feel. Everyoen that's on the "Suck for another year" train... are they ASKING to be like buffalo?

No we're asking to be like Chicago and Pittsburgh.

 

[mas0764]

Trading Kreider and not signing Panarin is not even close to "stripping down to nuts an bolts", and in fact, it's the most likley scenario, so bank on it happening. They also won't be signing Hayes or Karlsson. Sorry. Every single indication from Gorton and JD is that they will be staying the course and will not be taking any shortcuts. Enough with this "It's the Rangers" bull****. The only UFA they signed last season was Claesson. They only reason they signed Shattenkirk is because he accepted an incredibly low-ball offer from the team.

They have veterans on the team already. Mika is a veteran. Staal is a veteran. Henrik and Shattenkirk and Smith are all veterans. They might now be the veterans you want but they are guys who have played in this league for awhile now.

I'm unconvinced. "Sorry."

I think they'll be recommitting some significant money this offseason. The question is, for me, on who and how long?

It's all debatable, but they aren't gonna continue to operate like a small potatoes team. They just aren't. If they invest wisely, it also does not harm the rebuild.

For example, I think moving out Kreider but signing Panarin doesn't even really hurt the rebuild that much. It gives you a much needed veteran on the top line to play the kids with, but it also doesn't make up for the loss of Kreider, Zucc, and Hayes within the past calendar year. The team will still be bad, it will still bring along the kids, and we'll probably still be picking top 10 next year.

But it also positions us for a very quick uptick once all the pieces are in place.... Kakko and Kravtsov in year 2 or 3, Andersson and Chytil in year 3 or 4, these guys will all be hitting their stride when Panarin is thus in his 2nd or 3rd year of his contract. You'll have a nice 2-3 year window with Panarin, or, you can move him.

 

[smoneil]

Yeah why were the first rounders weak and the 2019 won't be?

A couple of reasons, the most important being that the team invested pretty heavily in scouting in the years after the 2004 lockout. Before the lockout, they had a couple of firsts that had bad injury luck (Cherneski and Blackburn), and a bunch of guys who were reaches and/or bad picks (Malhotra, Brendl, Lundmark, Jessiman, Montoya). The only first round picks that were contributing coming out of the lockout were Korpikoski and Staal. Most of the core that the team relied on for the previous decade were 2nd rounders or lower (Callahan, Dubi, Stepan, AA).

This core of prospects not only has more first rounders (an average of two each year for the last four years--more "bullets" as someone else put it, to mitigate the dangers of the inevitable bust or two), but it also has 1sts of higher pedigree (with the 2nd overall).

I truly wonder what a guy like Brendl or Lundmark might have developed into if they weren't dropped into that toxic environment of late 90s Rangers in their earliest years. Tom Renney was a solid youth development coach. Quinn looks to be the same. But you want those kids to expect to win and buy into a team game, and the latter only happens when the former is true.

 

[True Blue]

I think they'll be recommitting some significant money this offseason. The question is, for me, on who and how long?

It's all debatable, but they aren't gonna continue to operate like a small potatoes team. They just aren't. If they invest wisely, it also does not harm the rebuild.

I have seen absolutely no statements or have picked up any smoke signals that would leave me to believe that 1.25 years into a rebuild, Gorton is about run out and spend boatloads of money on UFAs. The only people who are beating this drum are some fans and the beat writers who have nothing better to write about.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I'm unconvinced. "Sorry."

I think they'll be recommitting some significant money this offseason. The question is, for me, on who and how long?

It's all debatable, but they aren't gonna continue to operate like a small potatoes team. They just aren't. If they invest wisely, it also does not harm the rebuild.

For example, I think moving out Kreider but signing Panarin doesn't even really hurt the rebuild that much. It gives you a much needed veteran on the top line to play the kids with, but it also doesn't make up for the loss of Kreider, Zucc, and Hayes within the past calendar year. The team will still be bad, it will still bring along the kids, and we'll probably still be picking top 10 next year.

But it also positions us for a very quick uptick once all the pieces are in place.... Kakko and Kravtsov in year 2 or 3, Andersson and Chytil in year 3 or 4, these guys will all be hitting their stride when Panarin is thus in his 2nd or 3rd year of his contract. You'll have a nice 2-3 year window with Panarin, or, you can move him.

What you believe is contrary to, and flys in the face of, literally all of the evidence that we have about the Rangers rebuild so far. The evidence has been both the words and the actions of the general manager of this team, and now the words of the new president of this team. And that evidence isn't "debateable" in the least. It's beyond cut and dry. Believe it or not - that's your choice. But prepare to be disappointed if you think they are going to be operating like the Sather era rangers of the mid-2000's.

If you are going to sign Panarin and the team will still be bad, what is the point in signing him? To waste a year of his prime? If we are going to be that bad with him, why would he even sign here? You're gonna pay a player 11 million dollars and then not make the playoffs?

JD said no shortcuts. Multiple, multiple times he has said it now. Explain to me how signing Panarin ISN'T a shortcut?

 

[smoneil]

I'm not on the bandwagon of sign Panarin no matter what. I've said many times, 7 years @ $9.5m per season and I'm interested. More than that, nope, big pass.

I'm not worried about his 28-33 years. It's after that

I'm more concerned about the term than the AAV. I'd give him $11m for 5 years. If he holds at 7, I'd be more comfortable in the range you give here as well (it's why I didn't vote in the poll. I think he'd be a great player, but the term has to be right).

 

[smoneil]

JD said no shortcuts. Multiple, multiple times he has said it now. Explain to me how signing Panarin ISN'T a shortcut?

A shortcut would be going out and signing Duchene for the 2nd line because we don't want to wait for Chytil/LA/Howden/Hughes (maybe)/Nieves (SYNERGY!) to develop into that role. A shortcut would be making a huge trade for PK Subban because we don't want to wait and see how Miller, Fox, ADA, Hajek, Rykov etc etc develop.

We don't currently have a top line LW prospect in the system. Nobody that even projects as one. It is a glaring point of weakness in this team's depth chart. And there is a ppg 27 year old guy out there for free who would give this team a lot of options as PART of the process.

 

[Off Sides]

Moving on from the, "You can't rebuild in NY" mantra to "They are not going to operate like a small potatoes team" has been a journey.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I'm more concerned about the term than the AAV. I'd give him $11m for 5 years. If he holds at 7, I'd be more comfortable in the range you give here as well (it's why I didn't vote in the poll. I think he'd be a great player, but the term has to be right).

5 years is like the key for me

If he’ll take a contract with term that short, he should be a Ranger. I just don’t think he will.

 

[Off Sides]

What position did Chytil play last year when not at center?

 

[smoneil]

What position did Chytil play last year when not at center?

LW, but again, I'm pretty sure the team sees him as a center.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

A shortcut would be going out and signing Duchene for the 2nd line because we don't want to wait for Chytil/LA/Howden/Hughes (maybe)/Nieves (SYNERGY!) to develop into that role. A shortcut would be making a huge trade for PK Subban because we don't want to wait and see how Miller, Fox, ADA, Hajek, Rykov etc etc develop.

We don't currently have a top line LW prospect in the system. Nobody that even projects as one. It is a glaring point of weakness in this team's depth chart. And there is a ppg 27 year old guy out there for free who would give this team a lot of options as PART of the process.

Which would be, say it with me now, a SHORT CUT to getting that player immediately and making the team better faster! Instead of trying to draft and develop or trade for that player who is younger or on an ELC, you go out and sign a fully developed player for a large cap hit. That is a short cut. Unfortunately for you, JD said no short cuts. So did Gorton. The sooner you guys accept the reality of this situation to easier it is going to be for you to get on board with what is actually happening.
Also, Kakko has played more games on LW than RW.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

They're gonna do something with the money.

Indeed they do...and they'd be wise to use it to fix that disaster they call the defense.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

A couple of reasons, the most important being that the team invested pretty heavily in scouting in the years after the 2004 lockout. Before the lockout, they had a couple of firsts that had bad injury luck (Cherneski and Blackburn), and a bunch of guys who were reaches and/or bad picks (Malhotra, Brendl, Lundmark, Jessiman, Montoya). The only first round picks that were contributing coming out of the lockout were Korpikoski and Staal. Most of the core that the team relied on for the previous decade were 2nd rounders or lower (Callahan, Dubi, Stepan, AA).

This core of prospects not only has more first rounders (an average of two each year for the last four years--more "bullets" as someone else put it, to mitigate the dangers of the inevitable bust or two), but it also has 1sts of higher pedigree (with the 2nd overall).

I truly wonder what a guy like Brendl or Lundmark might have developed into if they weren't dropped into that toxic environment of late 90s Rangers in their earliest years. Tom Renney was a solid youth development coach. Quinn looks to be the same. But you want those kids to expect to win and buy into a team game, and the latter only happens when the former is true.

We picked in the top 3 during that time frame?