Panarin: Yes or No?

[mas0764]

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

Alternative arguments for what? Your arrogance at this point is only exceeded by your breathtaking incoherency.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

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

Please tell me more. This is downright hilarious.

Why can’t you just answer the question. Seriously, it shouldn’t be hard.

 

[mas0764]

Why can’t you just answer the question. Seriously, it shouldn’t be hard.

Why would I answer questions that have literally no bearing on anything I’m arguing?

Literally no one gives a damn about your shortcut semantics.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Why would I answer questions that have literally no bearing on anything I’m arguing?

Literally no one gives a damn about your shortcut semantics.

You keep ducking it because you can’t answer it. Doesn’t even matter what you are arguing.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

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.

No idea if it will make them better or not next year. Are they trading Kreider or Buch? How well are the 1st and 2nd year YOUNG players playing? How well is Hank playing? Are they healthy all year or not? Will it make them a better team in 2 or 3 years? Certainly.

I don’t care how old a player is. I want hockey players. They could be 23 or 33, hockey players are all I care about. Boston and St Lous have a bunch of 30+ years doing alright. You’re a big tank guy, that’s a fair position. But Calgary, Tampa and Toronto went down that road and they flopped tremendously. THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY.

 

[RGY]

You keep ducking it because you can’t answer it. Doesn’t even matter what you are arguing.

What was the question? Because I am not even sure anymore at this point.

 

[mas0764]

You keep ducking it because you can’t answer it. Doesn’t even matter what you are arguing.

I don’t even care to spend another second thinking about it, because you don’t even have a rationale argument you’re making at this point.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

No idea if it will make them better or not next year. Are they trading Kreider or Buch? How well are the 1st and 2nd year YOUNG players playing? How well is Hank playing? Are they healthy all year or not? Will it make them a better team in 2 or 3 years? Certainly.

I don’t care how old a player is. I want hockey players. They could be 23 or 33, hockey players are all I care about. Boston and St Lous have a bunch of 30+ years doing alright. You’re a big tank guy, that’s a fair position. But Calgary, Tampa and Toronto went down that road and they flopped tremendously. THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY.

This was Calgary's first year as a "contender", Tampa was lol, that is as floppy as a flop can get.

Toronto pushed Boston to 7 and had them against the ropes. There is work that needs to be done there, but it's hard to say that they flopped when they lost to the conference representative in the finals.

You bolded is true though. Outside of getting Hughes or Kakko (almost certainly Kakko), we have no idea how June is going to go for this team, let alone the rest of the summer.

Do they trade for a higher pick(s)? Do they trade picks for "now" talent? Does Hank say "f*** it" and decide that he wants to try to win somewhere else?

At the least they have a ton of options available to them. Thats all you can really ask for at the moment.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

What was the question? Because I am not even sure anymore at this point.

Doesn’t matter what the question is, but the answer is any move that makes them remotely competitive next season is clearly wrong because our number 1 center of the future just graduated kindergarten

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

This was Calgary's first year as a "contender", Tampa was lol, that is as floppy as a flop can get.

Toronto pushed Boston to 7 and had them against the ropes. There is work that needs to be done there, but it's hard to say that they flopped when they lost to the conference representative in the finals.

You bolded is true though. Outside of getting Hughes or Kakko (almost certainly Kakko), we have no idea how June is going to go for this team, let alone the rest of the summer.

Do they trade for a higher pick(s)? Do they trade picks for "now" talent? Does Hank say "**** it" and decide that he wants to try to win somewhere else?

At the least they have a ton of options available to them. Thats all you can really ask for at the moment.

I don’t even want Panarin! But I’m not gonna flip out if they sign him or throw myself in front of a train because Oh MY God, they’re killing the rebuild. He’s one player.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don’t even want Panarin! But I’m not gonna flip out if they sign him and throw myself in front of a train become Oh MY God, they’re killing the rebuild. He’s one player.

It'd be a terrible move if we were picking like say, 9th. Kakko changes things a bit, though not that much.

Kakko and another top 10 pick? Yeah, then I'm more interested.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

It'd be a terrible move if we were picking like say, 9th. Kakko changes things a bit, though not that much.

Kakko and another top 10 pick? Yeah, then I'm more interested.

I don’t know how you can say getting Kakko or Hughes won’t change things. It changes everything. I don’t think their work is done, they still have a few tough choices to make. But if their biggest offseason priority is worrying about where they’re picking in 2020, they’re doing the organization and the players a tremendous disservice. Sign him, don’t sign him. Just make sure you’re putting kids like Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil and whoever else in the best possible to succeed. Can’t have a bare bones roster.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don’t know how you can say getting Kakko or Hughes won’t change things. It changes everything. I don’t think their work is done, they still have a few tough choices to make. But if their biggest offseason priority is worrying about where they’re picking in 2020, they’re doing the organization and the players a tremendous disservice. Sign him, don’t sign him. Just make sure you’re putting kids like Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil and whoever else in the best possible scenario to succeed. Can’t have a bare bones roster.

I don't want one either, but I don't think committing 11 million to a player at this point is a smart move.

I am all for using our abundance of assets to land a younger player via trade. Kappo changes a bit, but this team still has a ways to go. Their offseason plan should be to get better organizationally. It may not necessarily manifest it self in immediate results, but its always been about the bigger picture anyway.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I don't want one either, but I don't think committing 11 million to a player at this point is a smart move.

I am all for using our abundance of assets to land a younger player via trade. Kappo changes a bit, but this team still has a ways to go. Their offseason plan should be to get better organizationally. It may not necessarily manifest it self in immediate results, but its always been about the bigger picture anyway.

I don’t think that anyone who wants to sign Panarin isn’t fully aware they still have a ways to go. But I’ll bet there’s a bunch of anti sign Panarin guys who want this team to be as awful as humanly possible.

 

[Edge]

If I were to read the tea leaves based on comments made by the Rangers (and I know that’s risky), I’m getting the sense that this is a team that is still in accumulation mode and not necessarily a team that is itching to go high and long on a contract, or move multiple assets for someone they’d have to sign as well.

 

[aufheben]

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

 

[RangerBoy]

If I were to read the tea leaves based on comments made by the Rangers (and I know that’s risky), I’m getting the sense that this is a team that is still in accumulation mode and not necessarily a team that is itching to go high and long on a contract, or move multiple assets for someone they’d have to sign as well.

The Rangers also want their young players to become the key players on the team.

What kind of expectations do you have for the Rangers in 2019-20?
It sounds cliché, but I think for us, we need to get better every day. We need our young players to have big summers. We need a guy like Mika (Zibanejad) to go to another level, which he went to another one this year. So I think we're looking for our veteran players to establish the way we want to play and show that. But we need our young players to get better, and the only way we're going to go where we want to go is [if] we get better every day.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

If Panarin wants to sign for like $6m, sure, sign him

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Talk about missing the point. WHen you have to misquote someone and finish with "Or whatever it was you said" how do you not question if maybe you're missing something? (You are).

Besides, either way, what I did isn't called missing the point it's called disagreement. It's very normal for someone to understand a point and feel that it's not enough of a justification to change a person's mind. These kinds of things happen when people have strong social, cultural or ideological divisions... or if the point is just plain dumb.

Much of what you said in your massive post is dumb. Not all of it. But much of it. For multiple reasons. For example your Gaborik point. It's irrelevant. Gaborik came for 5 years regardless of if we traded him. He had a contract that was tradeable bc of the number of years he had left as well as bc of his performance still being good up until that point.

He was still only 3 or 4 years into that contract. Out of 5.

it's also incredibly stupid bc the point of signing Panarin would be that you hope, by some miracle, he's still an 80 point player 4, 5, 6 years into the contract so that he can help us when we are ready for a cup. Why on Earth would we be wanting to trade him then? If we do trade him right when we are ready to compete then it again begs the question, why did we bother signing him when we didn't need him, just to trade him when we do need him?

Do you really not see how Panarin is very likely going to be very different from Gaborik...who was on a 5 year deal?

Again I GET IT if you want to take the risk but I'm still going to point out how dumb of a risk it is with minimal likelihood of reward. I actually am fine with a 5 year deal. But don't come up with dumb reasons to justify it. Don't use bad comparables to justify it. Why can't you just be honest and acknowledge it's a blind risk you're taking if you sign him for 7 or 8 years with your fingers crossed?

I have no idea what else you may or may not have said in this thread.

That much is obvious

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.

It's a lot easier to read a few comments earlier to see I already addressed all of this then to type this mountain. Get into a thread late and miss a comment? It happens. I've now told you I had earlier comments and yet you're still reiterating things I addressed. You made a lot of work for yourself to make a point I already countered

 

[Ghost of jas]

If Panarin wants to sign for like $6m, sure, sign him

Toews was drafted in 2006 and Kane was drafted in 2007. Hossa was signed in 2010. If we’re using that model, we need to sign our version of Hossa in 2022.

 

[True Blue]

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.

Resigning a locker room leader is different than jumping into the UFA pool. And not what I think of when use the term "heavy investing". Or whatever term it was that was used.

I don't know what this obsession with the word "short cuts," is all about.

I am not using the term "short cut". As such, it is not an issue that I need to discuss in our little conversation.

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.

We are all looking to get the team to the promised land as quickly and most efficiently as possible. But there is a difference between wanting that and discussing a better, easier way to get the best talent. That is a statement made with tunnel vision. When discussing building a lasting winner, there are other factors to consider besides the instant gratification of signing the top available talent to a long term deal.

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.

Again, not the issue not the debate. Not many, if at all, think that adding Panarin changes drastically anything in the standings next year.

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

Not my debate as I do not use such terminology. There are very few people who honestly feel that way.

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

Your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think that there is a path to Panarin, but there are many dominoes that need to fall before that begins to make sense, IMO.
[/QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
That can be what you want. What I do not want for the time when the Rangers are looking to compete for the top, that they have 3 years and $33m locked into a player who is a shadow of his former self and has a contract that has NTC/NMC and we are discussing how much of his salary we can retain in an effort to move him.

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).

Since he will be 28 to start the year, when he turns 32 he will have 3 full years left. History shows that trading that type of term on a declining player does not bring back as much as you think. History also shows that the chances of his play being at an elite level at that time is very low.

 

[True Blue]

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.

Because you are presuming that the cap will continue to move at a favorable pace. That is usually the time that the owners get together and cry a "save us from us" song. As for his production in 5 or 6 years, that has been regurgitated over and over again. Whatever point I will make now, I will be making it for the 862nd time.

 

[True Blue]

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".

Who is saying a 8 year rebuild? I have outlined what I thought of multiple times. I think that next year they bottom out. I think that then the rise up begins. I think that the following two years they begin to get competitive and within the next two years they will be ready to compete for the Cup. So I believe that they will compete in several years and begin to compete for the Cup in 4-5. That is reality, IMO

 

[RangerBoy]

The Hawks lost in the Western Conference Finals in 2008-09 to the Red Wings. Toews and Kane were in their 2nd seasons in 08-09. The Hawks had all of their pieces in place. Their goaltending was in flux but everything else was there.They signed Hossa in the summer of 2009. They won the Cup in 09-10.

When the Rangers are ready to win and the opportunity to improve the team is there, the Rangers should make their move. It doesn’t have to be a free agent. The Rangers will have so many younger assets and all of them won’t play in New York so they could make a trade to get that missing piece(s).

The Hawks missed playoffs in 07-08 which were the rookie seasons for Toews and Kane.

JD said the team isn’t ready to win last week. He believes it can turn around quick with the development of the young players and Gorton has been saying that since last February.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

That's funny, could have sworn that those guys were signed after they had drafted Kane, Toews, and Keith and had an established core. Oh, and they signed Hossa to an illegal, back diving contract that is not allowed anymore.

Oh, that's right, they were. It is unbelievable that this fact needs to keep getting repeated. The Rangers are nowhere near where the Hawks were when they signed those guys.