Panarin: Yes or No?

[mas0764]

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.

I demand you explain to me how signing Panarin isn't a shortcut! WHY WON'T ANYONE ANSWER ME?!?!

 

[SA16]

I demand you explain to me how signing Panarin isn't a shortcut! WHY WON'T ANYONE ANSWER ME?!?!

The better question is why is a shortcut a bad thing? Did people seriously drive all the way down Rainbow Road in Mario Kart 64 instead of jumping off the edge and landing on the lower level?

 

[mas0764]

The better question is why is a shortcut a bad thing? Did people seriously drive all the way down Rainbow Road in Mario Kart 64 instead of jumping off the edge and landing on the lower level?

Yeah, I said this on the last page:

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.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The better question is why is a shortcut a bad thing? Did people seriously drive all the way down Rainbow Road in Mario Kart 64 instead of jumping off the edge and landing on the lower level?

Lmao this is awesome.

Trading for another top 10 pick this year, trading for a young player off of another team that needs to make space and landing a top pick next year would be the ultimate shortcut.

 

[haohmaru]

It's not garbage. It's reality. The fact of the matter is that by the time that the Rangers are ready to truly compete, Panarin will be a shadow of the player he is today. How can I say that? Look at the level of play that the majority of 33 year olds have. They may still be good players. But not those you want to pay out $11m for per year.

The Rangers aren't "competing" until Panarin is 33? So, that's, eh, the 2025-26 season?

Man, we're doing it wrong and at that point the "patience" argument will have come and gone and NYR fans are going to burn down the Garden. An eight year rebuild to "compete".

 

[smoneil]

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.

If you don't want the team to do anything until a player who isn't even drafted yet can play top line wing, then you need to sell Zib, Kreider, Buch, and basically EVERYONE who wasn't drafted in the last year or two. It's absurd. There is no team in this league that hasn't used a well-chosen FA signing to plug a hole in the roster and there is no team in this league made up entirely of homegrown draft picks. Your other option, to "trade" for a first line LW on his ELC is a pipe dream. Nobody would make such a trade. They don't happen.

Finally, leave the snark at the door or don't bother responding to me. I'm not impressed with weak arguments "bolstered" by sarcastic attacks.

 

[Edge]

I think the problem with this whole conversation is that many of these topics have been broached, in no less than several threads. There’s literally nothing new to add.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

No.

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

Because if you can’t explain it then that means I’m right. JD said no shortcuts. Stop ducking the question. If you can answer it then it should be no problem for you

 

[smoneil]

We picked in the top 3 during that time frame?

You know we didn't. I'm not entirely certain what point you're trying to make here. My argument was that--due to both improved scouting and the increased number of draft picks (on top of the #2oa)--the current core of prospects is already significantly stronger than the one we had coming out of the 2004 lockout. Since that group of prospects--developed as I've been suggesting--saw 10+ years of success, a SCF, 2 ECFs, and a President's trophy, it seems like now would be a good time to engage in a similar developmental cycle with what we've got rather than risk ruining those prospects by trying to completely bottom out.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

If you don't want the team to do anything until a player who isn't even drafted yet can play top line wing, then you need to sell Zib, Kreider, Buch, and basically EVERYONE who wasn't drafted in the last year or two. It's absurd. There is no team in this league that hasn't used a well-chosen FA signing to plug a hole in the roster and there is no team in this league made up entirely of homegrown draft picks. Your other option, to "trade" for a first line LW on his ELC is a pipe dream. Nobody would make such a trade. They don't happen.

Finally, leave the snark at the door or don't bother responding to me. I'm not impressed with weak arguments "bolstered" by sarcastic attacks.

You literally don’t have to do any of that. You just have to stand pat and let the rest of the team develop.
Not sure how many times it needs to be said but we’ll say it again, those teams that added UFA had, now pay attention because this is the important part: ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED CORES. We do not have that yet. Not even close.

The sooner you realize the Ranger aren’t going to be good and will be a lottery a team the better. Then you can except the reality of the situation.

Prospect who go one to be developed into top line players get traded. The Rangers just traded a bunch of picks to get one they think will be that.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

You know we didn't. I'm not entirely certain what point you're trying to make here. My argument was that--due to both improved scouting and the increased number of draft picks (on top of the #2oa)--the current core of prospects is already significantly stronger than the one we had coming out of the 2004 lockout. Since that group of prospects--developed as I've been suggesting--saw 10+ years of success, a SCF, 2 ECFs, and a President's trophy, it seems like now would be a good time to engage in a similar developmental cycle with what we've got rather than risk ruining those prospects by trying to completely bottom out.

Significantly stronger....and proven absolutely nothing yet on a consistent basis at the NHL level.

It’s pretty clear you just don’t understand what a rebuild is. A rebuild is not a year and a quarter and then OK TIME TO COMPETE AGAIN. That is not a view that both our President and our General Manager share.

 

[smoneil]

You literally don’t have to do any of that. You just have to stand pat and let the rest of the team develop.
Not sure how many times it needs to be said but we’ll say it again, those teams that added UFA had, now pay attention because this is the important part: ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED CORES. We do not have that yet. Not even close.

The sooner you realize the Ranger aren’t going to be good and will be a lottery a team the better. Then you can except the reality of the situation.

Prospect who go one to be developed into top line players get traded. The Rangers just traded a bunch of picks to get one they think will be that.

You seem entirely incapable of doing anything other than make personal attacks laced with sarcasm. You (and several others on the tank side of this issue) have refused to even try to engage with any of the points I made in my posts explaining both the financial and the team-building benefits of signing someone like Panarin.

Feel free to throw snark into the void, but welcome to my block list.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

You seem entirely incapable of doing anything other than make personal attacks laced with sarcasm. You (and several others on the tank side of this issue) have refused to even try to engage with any of the points I made in my posts explaining both the financial and the team-building benefits of signing someone like Panarin.

Feel free to throw snark into the void, but welcome to my block list.

We’ve engaged each of your points with answers that you didn’t like and you didn’t have response to our answers. Have fun running away from the truth of the matter. Bye!

 

[RGY]

We’ve engaged each of your points with answers that you didn’t like and you didn’t have response to our answers. Have fun running away from the truth of the matter. Bye!

To be fair, your answers/responses to his side of the argument is not truth at all. At least not until this offseason is completed. You dont know any better than anyone else on these boards as to what is going to happen in the next 2-3 months, yet you tell people to subscribe to your opinion enforcing it with words such as “truth” and “reality”. That is how you respond to the pro-Panarin crowd that is trying to have a discussion with everyone. You tell them they are wrong, that your way is right.

We have no way of knowing what side is right, so stop acting as such.

And this is said with respect to the OPINIONS and BELIEFS of the camp that is against spending money on any expensive UFA or really adding much outside of bottom feeder vet forwards and defensemen. I respect it. But I certainly do not sit here and tell them how to feel.

 

[Inferno]

I think the problem with this whole conversation is that many of these topics have been broached, in no less than several threads. There’s literally nothing new to add.

I'd just like to add a player with a full nmc (as panarin is sure to get) is not moveable. If Thethey were Marc staal would have been gone a while ago. The player has all the leverage in those situations.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

To be fair, your answers/responses to his side of the argument is not truth at all. At least not until this offseason is completed. You dont know any better than anyone else on these boards as to what is going to happen in the next 2-3 months, yet you tell people to subscribe to your opinion enforcing it with words such as “truth” and “reality”. That is how you respond to the pro-Panarin crowd that is trying to have a discussion with everyone. You tell them they are wrong, that your way is right.

We have no way of knowing what side is right, so stop acting as such.

And this is said with respect to the OPINIONS and BELIEFS of the camp that is against spending money on any expensive UFA or really adding much outside of bottom feeder vet forwards and defensemen. I respect it. But I certainly do not sit here and tell them how to feel.

I go by what evidence has been presented. And So far the actions and words of both the General manager and President of this organization go directly against a Panarin type move. No Shortcuts.

 

[Irishguy42]

Panarin is a "shortcut" if your view of a rebuild follows a timeline that you think the team MUST follow in order for the rebuild to be successful.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Panarin is a "shortcut" if your view of a rebuild follows a timeline that you think the team MUST follow in order for the rebuild to be successful.

And how is it not a short cut? Now do that one.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

And how is it not a short cut? Now do that one.

It’s not a shortcut because they aren’t sacrificing any draft picks to acquire him. It’s not a shortcut because the player is 27 years old. It’s not a shortcut because his signing won’t take away ice time from a young player. It’s not a shortcut because they aren’t planning on a big FA signing blitz this offseason with the hope of making the playoffs next year. He’s just one player playing a position they aren’t currently deep at. It’s maybe signing an 80 pt winger for money. Not even your money.

Stop being obnoxious. You’re no smarter or more in tune than anyone else here. You’re a fan, like the rest of us

 

[mas0764]

Because if you can’t explain it then that means I’m right. JD said no shortcuts. Stop ducking the question. If you can answer it then it should be no problem for you

It means no such thing; and additionally, I am also not claiming the Rangers WILL sign Panarin, so what JD claims to be doing, which is vague and not at all indicative of reality based on your own reading of his words, has no real bearing on this argument.

So again... explain how this hilarious rhetorical trap you are trying to set means literally anything?

 

[mas0764]

Lmao this is awesome.

Trading for another top 10 pick this year, trading for a young player off of another team that needs to make space and landing a top pick next year would be the ultimate shortcut.

JD said no shortcuts! Explain it or I’m right!!!

 

[TheBloodyNine]

It’s not a shortcut because they aren’t sacrificing any draft picks to acquire him. It’s not a shortcut because the player is 27 years old. It’s not a shortcut because his signing won’t take away ice time from a young player. It’s not a shortcut because they aren’t planning on a big FA signing blitz this offseason with the hope of making the playoffs next year. He’s just one player playing a position they aren’t currently deep at. It’s maybe signing an 80 pt winger for money. Not even your money.

Stop being obnoxious. You’re no smarter or more in tune than anyone else here. You’re a fan, like the rest of us

Does it make the team better in a shorter amount of time? If the answer to that is yes, then it’s a short cut. If the answer to that is no, then the next question is, why are you signing him for 11 million a year?
The player is 27, not 20, he’s headed out of his prime.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

It means no such thing; and additionally, I am also not claiming the Rangers WILL sign Panarin, so what JD claims to be doing, which is vague and not at all indicative of reality based on your own reading of his words, has no real bearing on this argument.

So again... explain how this hilarious rhetorical trap you are trying to set means literally anything?

It’s not vague in the least what he said. You just can’t do it. And because you can’t do, I’m proven right.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

JD said no shortcuts! Explain it or I’m right!!!

If there are alternate explanations, why can’t you give one? Because you can’t.

 

[mas0764]

It’s not vague in the least what he said. You just can’t do it. And because you can’t do, I’m proven right.

You haven’t proven literally anything other than your ability to entertain me.

Please tell me more. This is downright hilarious.