Panarin: Yes or No?

[ReggieDunlop68]

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

The same asshats think EK will fix that.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

The same asshats think EK will fix that.

I suspect a lot more than that have the same belief. Scary.

I'd be happy not to see Subban, EK or Trouba (the other "name" floating around).

 

[mas0764]

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?

I didn't say Panarin isn't a shortcut. I said "I'D" sign Panarin. I have no idea if JD will sign him.

I said, the Rangers are gonna do SOMETHING.

And if we're gonna do something, I'd rather it be Panarin than re-signing Kreider or signing Duchene or signing myriad other options.

FWIW, I don't necessarily think Panarin is a shortcut. I think adding Panarin but subtracting Kreider, Zucc, and Hayes, is still a net negative that will resultingly rely on the improvement of home grown and drafted assets, which is the opposite of a short cut. Panarin is just a nicer piece to tie yourself to for in 3 years from now, than Kreider, Hayes, or others would be. In my book.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I didn't say Panarin isn't a shortcut. I said "I'D" sign Panarin. I have no idea if JD will sign him.

I said, the Rangers are gonna do SOMETHING.

And if we're gonna do something, I'd rather it be Panarin than re-signing Kreider or signing Duchene or signing myriad other options.

FWIW, I don't necessarily think Panarin is a shortcut. I think adding Panarin but subtracting Kreider, Zucc, and Hayes, is still a net negative that will resultingly rely on the improvement of home grown and drafted assets, which is the opposite of a short cut. Panarin is just a nicer piece to tie yourself to for in 3 years from now, than Kreider, Hayes, or others would be. In my book.

Why would you pay 11 million a year for a net negative? 3 years from now Panarin will be headed out of his prime. You want to pay a player 11 million a year to waste his best years on a team that won't make the playoffs?

 

[mas0764]

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.

You haven't heard them talking about accelerating the rebuild? You didn't see them trade picks for Adam Fox instead of waiting for him to hit free agency? I don't think they want to rush things, but I also don't think they have the same "bottom out" mentality that some posters have.

I see the logic in trying to "be like Chicago and Pittsburgh," and suck hard until you've got a Crosby/Malkin or Toews/Kane combo, but

(1) We might already have an elite combo in Kravtsov/Kakko
(2) I don't think the organization believes that is how they should or have to build, and
(3) the re-balanced lottery odds mean that even if you're the worst team in the league, you might pick 4th and miss out on the generational player.

Now, I've argued that despite the lotto odds, you still want to finish poorly, because at worst you can fall 3 spots. So finishing 4th and being bumped to 7th is still better than finishing 7th and being bumped to 8th.

I'm frankly concerned that we are not a bottom 3 or 4 team as-is.

I think despite losing Zucc and Hayes from last year's team, adding Kakko, Kravtsov, and Fox, plus improvement from Chytil, Andersson, Howden, the young defenders, means we'll probably be somewhere around 6 again. Maybe a little bit better with better puck luck (as we lost more than our fair share of 1-goal games this year, it's bound to bounce the other way eventually). Adding Panarin bumps us up a little, but I also don't think he rockets us into playoff contention either - still too many young guys we are counting on. Panarin's value is in 2-3 years when Kakko and Kravtsov and Chytil and company are all turning into 60+ point players, and he's there to help them with amazing feeds or to be burying their passes. He's the guy who helps mold them into finished products, and keeps the pressure off while they are developing. And he's young enough that in 4 years, he could still be a 60 point guy himself along with 90 point Kakko and 75 point Kravtsov. Etc.

 

[mas0764]

Why would you pay 11 million a year for a net negative? 3 years from now Panarin will be headed out of his prime. You want to pay a player 11 million a year to waste his best years on a team that won't make the playoffs?

They won't make the playoffs THIS year.

In 3 years, this team could be a powerhouse and Panarin could still be a big part of it.

And even if not, he's likely moveable.

Also, I didn't say Panarin is a net negative. I said the outflow of talent represents a bigger negative than the positive that Panarin would represent. But what, am I supposed to ice a team with AHL level talent? He's an early step back in the direction of relevancy.

I'm not as panicky as some of you are that he's either going to ruin a tank or be worthless in 3 years.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

They won't make the playoffs THIS year.

In 3 years, this team could be a powerhouse and Panarin could still be a big part of it.

And even if not, he's likely moveable.

Again, if you are paying a player 11 million dollars and your aren't going to make the playoffs, that means your team isn't ready for that player. No shortcuts.

 

[mas0764]

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).

If he'll go down to 5 years, I think I'd give him way more than 11 mil a year.

 

[mas0764]

Again, if you are paying a player 11 million dollars and your aren't going to make the playoffs, that means your team isn't ready for that player.

Again, this is not a true statement. There is use for this player.

No shortcuts.

It's not a shortcut.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Again, this is not a true statement. There is use for this player.



It's not a shortcut.

Explain how it isn't a shortcut where earlier you even said "I'm not saying it's not a short cut".
Exact words: I didn't say Panarin isn't a shortcut. I said "I'D" sign Panarin. I have no idea if JD will sign him.
Please explain.

 

[mas0764]

Which would be, say it with me now, a SHORT CUT

Being rude doesn't make your opinion more right.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Being rude doesn't make your opinion more right.

You're right. Being Right makes my opinion right.

 

[mas0764]

Please explain.

I was swayed by this post: Panarin: Yes or No?

 

[mas0764]

You're right. Being Right makes my opinion right.

If only you were!

 

[TheBloodyNine]

If only you were!

I mean I'm basing everything on facts, concrete evidence, logic and common sense. You are basing everything on none of those things. You can't even give me a concrete answer as why Panarin IS NOT a shortcut, you keep ducking that question, just like all the rest before you. Please go back and listen to what JD and Gorton have been saying. They are not building this team they way you want them to, and thank god for that.

 

[True Blue]

You haven't heard them talking about accelerating the rebuild? You didn't see them trade picks for Adam Fox instead of waiting for him to hit free agency? I don't think they want to rush things, but I also don't think they have the same "bottom out" mentality that some posters have.

Accelerating the rebuild can be a lot of things. You also heard JD say there will be no short cuts. Why are you not bringing that into your analysis.

Oh, and if you cannot understand the difference between "accelerating" by acquiring a prospect like Fox and spending money on the top UFA, I am not sure what to tell you.

As for the term "bottoming out", it means different things to different people. For me, yes, I think the Rangers are a lottery team next year even with Panarin. So, to me bottoming out happens next year and the exclmation point on acquiring assets is made at next year's draft.

I see the logic in trying to "be like Chicago and Pittsburgh," and suck hard until you've got a Crosby/Malkin or Toews/Kane combo, but

There is no one, or at least very few, talking about tanking like that.

(1) We might already have an elite combo in Kravtsov/Kakko

You might, you might not. Either way, the chances of them playing at an elite level over the next several years is not great.

(2) I don't think the organization believes that is how they should or have to build, and

Neither do the fans. No one is really about the tank. That said, in all of their actions and all of their words and with everything we have garnered from various insiders, there is NOTHING to indicate that 1.25 years into a rebuild they are suddenly going on major spending sprees on UFAs.

(3) the re-balanced lottery odds mean that even if you're the worst team in the league, you might pick 4th and miss out on the generational player.

Talking about being a lottery team and hoping for the tank are two different things. The former is a realistic look at who is here, reading the tea leaves and making an educated guess on the outcome.

I think despite losing Zucc and Hayes from last year's team, adding Kakko, Kravtsov, and Fox, plus improvement from Chytil, Andersson, Howden, the young defenders, means we'll probably be somewhere around 6 again.

The chances of Kakko & Kravstov replacing the production of Hayes and Zucc is very small. Then factor in the possibility of Krieder's production being gone. As for the rest of the youngsters, how much they improve is hardly written in stone. Some could regress. We certainly hope that they take steps forward, but how much is really up in the air and may not make that much of a material difference.

But we are splitting hairs. You say around 6, I say somewhere between 4-7. So we are not far apart.

He's the guy who helps mold them into finished products, and keeps the pressure off while they are developing.

So too does Kreider, who plays the top line and keeps the pressure off.

And he's young enough that in 4 years, he could still be a 60 point guy himself along with 90 point Kakko and 75 point Kravtsov. Etc.

Yes, but in 4 years, paying $11m for a 60 point player and being locked into that contract for another 3 years is not what you want.

 

[mas0764]

I mean I'm basing everything on facts, concrete evidence, logic and common sense. You are basing everything on none of those things. You can't even give me a concrete answer as why Panarin IS NOT a shortcut, you keep ducking that question, just like all the rest before you. Please go back and listen to what JD and Gorton have been saying. They are not building this team they way you want them to, and thank god for that.

They are building the team exactly the way I want them to, and yes, thank god for that. Whether they sign Panarin or not I'm thrilled with the way this rebuild is going, so kindly keep your speculation on my opinion to yourself.

As for what you are "basing everything on," it's pretty apparent your basis for everything is volume, arrogance, and shouting everyone else down, which is the opposite of logic and common sense. If we want to talk facts, Gorton actually has a history of signing free agents for his rebuilds, and so does JD. And since we aren't mind readers, what they are saying could be a smokescreen or we could just be misinterpreting their words. None of that is fact: It's your own speculation based on what YOU want to happen.

They may not want to sign Panarin, or they may want to but fail to do so. But pretty much nothing you've said "concretely" proves why it would be bad.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

They are building the team exactly the way I want them to, and yes, thank god for that. Whether they sign Panarin or not I'm thrilled with the way this rebuild is going, so kindly keep your speculation on my opinion to yourself.

As for what you are "basing everything on," it's pretty apparent your basis for everything is volume, arrogance, and shouting everyone else down, which is the opposite of logic and common sense. If we want to talk facts, Gorton actually has a history of signing free agents for his rebuilds, and so does JD. And since we aren't mind readers, what they are saying could be a smokescreen or we could just be misinterpreting their words. None of that is fact: It's your own speculation based on what YOU want to happen.

They may not want to sign Panarin, or they may want to but fail to do so. But pretty much nothing you've said "concretely" proves why it would be bad.

Explain to me why Panarin wouldn't be a shortcut.

 

[SA16]

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

So you're only worried about year 7 of his 7 year deal? That's...not much to be worried about.

 

[mas0764]

Accelerating the rebuild can be a lot of things. You also heard JD say there will be no short cuts. Why are you not bringing that into your analysis.

Well, again, this is more about whether we would sign Panarin, not whether the Rangers will.

What I said I believe is that the Rangers will do SOMETHING with the money. Even if it's re-signing Kreider.

I don't know what this obsession with the word "short cuts," is all about. I want to make the team into a Stanley Cup contender and I want to do it in the most efficient way possible. I'm looking for short cuts, actually, in order to do that. Is there a better, easier way to get the best talent? Sign me up.

As for the term "bottoming out", it means different things to different people. For me, yes, I think the Rangers are a lottery team next year even with Panarin. So, to me bottoming out happens next year and the exclmation point on acquiring assets is made at next year's draft.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think Panarin really prevents another bottom-10 finish next year. I also don't think if we ignore him, that we are destined to pick top 3 either.

There is no one, or at least very few, talking about tanking like that.

Well, then we can take the "He ruins the tank" as a rebuttal off the board.

So too does Kreider, who plays the top line and keeps the pressure off.

I'd much rather pay Panarin big money than Kreider.

Yes, but in 4 years, paying $11m for a 60 point player and being locked into that contract for another 3 years is not what you want.

Maybe it is what I want. I'm not convinced that this contract will prevent us from making other moves to acquire free agents we need at that time. If Panarin is playing well and has good chemistry with a line, but takes a back seat as a secondary scoring option on an elite second line, why is that something I don't want?

I only don't want it if it costs me re-signing a player I want, or prevents me from signing another free agent I want. But with this influx of home grown talent we have coming, all of which will be on cheap ELCs and then many of them on bridge deals, I don't know that I'm missing anything by having Panarin at $11m.

And again, history shows us that if he remains productive through about 31, 32, he will be movable with 2 years left on his deal even at that price. You'll be able to flip him for a first and prospect package, or a younger, cheaper player, or even if you have to swallow some money, another team will take him off your hands. The risk is minimal if you get the next 3-4 years from now at an elite level (which I think we will).... and if one of your arguments isn't that you're afraid he'll ruin a tank (which I don't think he will).

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Building a roster in only one way is exactly why we haven't been able to get over the hump as we abandoned the draft and signed ufa players. If you focus on one thing it won't work, you have to get quality players in which ever way you can, if we focus solely on the draft or solely on ufa players we will fail this rebuild. We may never draft a player who will produce like Panarin will over the next 4 to 6 years, I hope Kappo and Kravtsov can but there is no guarantee either of their games translates to the NHL, the cap space at this point is irrelevant. Most people felt Anderson was the most nhl ready player in his draft year, most people would have been wrong looking back. If a Panarin is available and you can fit him into your cap plan without giving up futures you have to 100 percent do it. At some point you have to turn the corner with these kids.

 

[mas0764]

Explain to me why Panarin wouldn't be a shortcut.

No.

Explain to me why you think that this is some sort of rhetorical trap that has any meaning to this debate.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Accelerating the rebuild can be a lot of things. You also heard JD say there will be no short cuts. Why are you not bringing that into your analysis.

Oh, and if you cannot understand the difference between "accelerating" by acquiring a prospect like Fox and spending money on the top UFA, I am not sure what to tell you.

As for the term "bottoming out", it means different things to different people. For me, yes, I think the Rangers are a lottery team next year even with Panarin. So, to me bottoming out happens next year and the exclmation point on acquiring assets is made at next year's draft.

There is no one, or at least very few, talking about tanking like that.

You might, you might not. Either way, the chances of them playing at an elite level over the next several years is not great.

Neither do the fans. No one is really about the tank. That said, in all of their actions and all of their words and with everything we have garnered from various insiders, there is NOTHING to indicate that 1.25 years into a rebuild they are suddenly going on major spending sprees on UFAs.

Talking about being a lottery team and hoping for the tank are two different things. The former is a realistic look at who is here, reading the tea leaves and making an educated guess on the outcome.

The chances of Kakko & Kravstov replacing the production of Hayes and Zucc is very small. Then factor in the possibility of Krieder's production being gone. As for the rest of the youngsters, how much they improve is hardly written in stone. Some could regress. We certainly hope that they take steps forward, but how much is really up in the air and may not make that much of a material difference.

But we are splitting hairs. You say around 6, I say somewhere between 4-7. So we are not far apart.

So too does Kreider, who plays the top line and keeps the pressure off.

Yes, but in 4 years, paying $11m for a 60 point player and being locked into that contract for another 3 years is not what you want.

6.5 million seemed like a lot of money to hand Pastrnak only 2 years ago. Currently he is underpaid about 3 mill. 11 mill in 5 years time will look like 6 or 7 with the way the cap keeps going up. I personally think Panarin will continue to produce baring injury for 5 or 6 years but even if his production falls off in 4 years his percentage of the cap will get smaller as the years pass as well.

 

[mas0764]

6.5 million seemed like a lot of money to hand Pastrnak only 2 years ago. Currently he is underpaid about 3 mill. 11 mill in 5 years time will look like 6 or 7 with the way the cap keeps going up. I personally think Panarin will continue to produce baring injury for 5 or 6 years but even if his production falls off in 4 years his percentage of the cap will get smaller as the years pass as well.

He'll be moveable like Nash or Gaborik, barring injuries completely breaking him down. This won't be a Brad Richards situation where he becomes worthless and we have to buy him out. He was already 31.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I'm against them signing Panarin 100% but if they did, why is that a short cut? Because of his (gasp) age and he won't fit perfectly within this self imposed timeline? Is it because the last year or two of a 7 year deal might be a bother? Is he blocking the progression of any of the young players? Did they use those young players to acquire him? Does signing Panarin mean this mythical rebuild timeline has been destroyed? Are they going start throwing 1st round picks around at next years trade deadline?

And how are people so sure that's what JD or Gorton were talking about when they called for patience? The only thing I've taken from the Rangers the last few months is, if they like a player they're going to try and get that player, like Fox. Some of you people are so crazy insanely protective of this rebuild, it's like a goddam golden retriever puppy.