Panarin: Yes or No?

[TheBloodyNine]

Getting a kick out of the folks that want the roster to only be filled by players the Rangers drafted and aren't under 30. Edmonton Oilers fan base could use some of you.

Well the Oilers are bad because they have bad management not because they have young players so yeah that comparison doesn't really fly.

 

[Edge]

Literally? They don't have to say it in a post... its been coming through between the lines in a lot of drivel around here lately. I blame the time of year, anxiety and perhaps allergies are blocking oxygen to the brain.

I think for many people it's a matter of timing and having a better understanding of what we have (versus what we hope we have).

I don't think there's a blanket opposition to trades and signings. But the reality is that the trades and signings we're debating are BIG trades and signings. We're not talking about going 3 years for a wing, or flipping Names and Pionk to shore up a hole. We're primarily talking about what could be one of the largest contracts in the NHL, and/or gambling with assets in trades for whom we don't necessarily know what we might have.

So there's like a lot of context missing from your initial comment. It's like buying a car. Just because someone doesn't want a $70k sports car, doesn't mean they aren't necessarily willing to purchase a $25k sedan.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Literally? They don't have to say it in a post... its been coming through between the lines in a lot of drivel around here lately. I blame the time of year, anxiety and perhaps allergies are blocking oxygen to the brain.

For my response see what @Edge just said

 

[Off Sides]

Getting a kick out of the folks that want the roster to only be filled by players the Rangers drafted and aren't under 30. Edmonton Oilers fan base could use some of you.

Rangers players 30 and older, Staal, Smith, Shattenkirk, Beleskey, Lundqvist

Oilers players 30 and older, Lucic, Sekera, Koskinen, Gagner (will be 30 by start of next season)

Is it really that difficult to see why people would prefer the under 30 players?

Rangers also already traded for several players they did not draft.

Comparing New York to Edmonton is also interesting as the two locations and markets share so much in common.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

From the lockout on the Rangers ranged from mediocre to very good. At no point did they bottom out and get chances to stockpile multiple high-end draft picks. They also traded away A LOT of draft picks. They never drafted a forward who has broken 60 points. That caused a need to supplement the team with UFAs. That is the old Ranger way. And a number of Rangers fan still possess this mindset. That is not how you build a team, and that is not how the Rangers are building their team.

Bro, they bottomed out right before the lockout and got screwed out of Crosby. They traded away picks because they were trying to win a cup - they went to one final and two Eastern Conference finals. And again, nothing they've done since the Stepan trade indicates this is the old Ranger way. A freaking expansion team went to the finals last season, should teams start emulating that??? What team that won a Cup in the last 10 years didn't supplement the roster with FAs?

 

[RGY]

From the lockout on the Rangers ranged from mediocre to very good. At no point did they bottom out and get chances to stockpile multiple high-end draft picks. They also traded away A LOT of draft picks. They never drafted a forward who has broken 60 points. That caused a need to supplement the team with UFAs. That is the old Ranger way. And a number of Rangers fan still possess this mindset. That is not how you build a team, and that is not how the Rangers are building their team.

And now they have been stockpiling 1st round picks.

There can be an in between here. You can add a high end UFA talent that scores 70-80 points per year AND not be stupid and trade all of your draft picks. Give these kids proven elite talent to play and grow with.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I don't think it's necessarily about every star in the universe to align, so much as feeling like you want to have as many supplies as you can carry before you set out into the wilderness. Obviously at some point you gotta get your ass out the door, but I'm not quite sure the Rangers are there yet. I think they're closer, and I think different things falling in line could push them closer to feeling like they are ready to walk through the door.

When I look at next year's team, I see a finish close to where we are this season. I think there's an opportunity to come away with one more elite, high-upside prospect, even if we don't win the lottery or pick in the top 5. I've always seen the 2020 draft as the last of the "packing" phase.

Right now, with or without Panarin, I do not think we will have the high-end potential we will need for the long run. I think our strength lies in having great prospect depth, and a bunch of guys who can potentially fill important roles on the team, but I do think we need we will need a little more on top of the Kakko, Kravtsov, Miller and maybe Chytil. I think we can get that, with even a decent pick in 2020. I think we can especially get that if we have a decent pick and some combination of a first from Dallas and a first for Kreider. So I don't think it's ping-pong balls or bust. But I also think that helps offset the question you asked about someone not panning out.

I think once move beyond the "packing" phase, there's going to be a lot of hiking involved. The reality is that there will probably be some stumbles, some scrapes and some things that don't going according to plan. If anything, that reinforces my desire to get the best value we can from the 2020 draft before we head out. I tend to think that this part of the process is also the one that a lot of people don't fully take into account, or kind of gloss over. We're not likely to go from leaving the cabin to reaching the mountain top overnight. There's likely going to be at least a season where we're somewhat in the middle (2020-21) and a season where things are coming together, but still has some noticeable holes (2021-22). To me, it's around that time, 2021, where we have a good idea of what we have, what we need, and what its going to cost to get it.

Now, I do think there are things that could impact the Rangers approach.

It's become apparent to me that there are guys the Rangers have ranked near the top of this draft that they really want. Speculation about names aside, and ignoring where the Rangers think said players will be drafted, I definitely think there's a desire to be more aggressive in this draft. Is there the opportunity to do so? I don't know.

But let's say the Rangers find a path forward. For ****s and giggles let's say they move Kreider and get into a position to grab a player they like. That very well could impact their approach. I could see a scenario where they apply Kreider's salary and term to Panarin, feel content knowing they took big upside talent in this draft, and feel comfortable with the possibility of two firsts next year and a chance to sign Trouba. I think that scenario is very much in play. How much of it depends on moving Kreider and some of the factors, I can't really say. But I think the odds go up if more of those elements start to materialize in the next month.

I totally expect stumbles, scrapes or whatever. I'm fine with what they've done so far and again, I don't want Panarin (I'd much rather they sign Kreider to an extension and roll out last year's lineup with Kakko and Kravtsov as their adds) but the reason for not getting him is what exactly? They need another high pick in 2020? Is that the magic elixir? They have a ton of picks in the draft in a few weeks, I would imagine they'll have at least two first round picks in 2020. Getting Panarin does nothing to alter what they're currently doing except make them more competitive this year, which is a big no-no on this site apparently. I understand this is hockey futures but some users obsession with draft picks (not implying you) is frankly a little creepy.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Bro, they bottomed out right before the lockout and got screwed out of Crosby. They traded away picks because they were trying to win a cup - they went to one final and two Eastern Conference finals. And again, nothing they've done since the Stepan trade indicates this is the old Ranger way. A freaking expansion team went to the finals last season, should teams start emulating that??? What team that won a Cup in the last 10 years didn't supplement the roster with FAs?

Which proves my point, they never GOT the picks and traded away, which is why they had to supplement with UFAs. Now they are not competing, they are rebuilding. They are stockpiling assets

Again, the teams that supplemented their teams with UFAs and won did so AFTER they had been bad and had an established core. That is not what we have here. We have been rebuilding for not even two seasons now. We are far from over.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

And now they have been stockpiling 1st round picks.

There can be an in between here. You can add a high end UFA talent that scores 70-80 points per year AND not be stupid and trade all of your draft picks. Give these kids proven elite talent to play and grow with.

That is a proven path to mediocrity, which as we established before, you are ok with.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't think it's necessarily about every star in the universe to align, so much as feeling like you want to have as many supplies as you can carry before you set out into the wilderness. Obviously at some point you gotta get your ass out the door, but I'm not quite sure the Rangers are there yet. I think they're closer, and I think different things falling in line could push them closer to feeling like they are ready to walk through the door.

When I look at next year's team, I see a finish close to where we are this season. I think there's an opportunity to come away with one more elite, high-upside prospect, even if we don't win the lottery or pick in the top 5. I've always seen the 2020 draft as the last of the "packing" phase.

Right now, with or without Panarin, I do not think we will have the high-end potential we will need for the long run. I think our strength lies in having great prospect depth, and a bunch of guys who can potentially fill important roles on the team, but I do think we need we will need a little more on top of Kakko, Kravtsov, Miller and maybe Chytil. I think we can get that, with even a decent pick in 2020. I think we can especially get that if we have a decent pick and some combination of a first from Dallas and a first for Kreider. So I don't think it's ping-pong balls or bust. But I also think that helps offset the question you asked about someone not panning out.

I think once we move beyond the "packing" phase, there's going to be a lot of hiking involved. The reality is that there will probably be some stumbles, some scrapes and some things that don't going according to plan. If anything, that reinforces my desire to get the best value we can from the 2020 draft before we head out. I tend to think that this part of the process is also the one that a lot of people don't fully take into account, or kind of gloss over. We're not likely to go from leaving the cabin to reaching the mountain top overnight. There's likely going to be at least a season where we're somewhat in the middle (2020-21) and a season where things are coming together, but still has some noticeable holes (2021-22). To me, it's around that time, 2021, where we have a good idea of what we have, what we need, and what its going to cost to get it.

Now, I do think there are things that could impact the Rangers approach.

It's become apparent to me that there are guys the Rangers have ranked near the top of this draft that they really want. Speculation about names aside, and ignoring where the Rangers think said players will be drafted, I definitely think there's a desire to be more aggressive in this draft. Is there the opportunity to do so? I don't know.

But let's say the Rangers find a path forward. For ****s and giggles let's say they move Kreider and get into a position to grab a player they like. That very well could impact their approach. I could see a scenario where they apply Kreider's salary and term to Panarin, feel content knowing they took big upside talent in this draft, and feel comfortable with the possibility of two firsts next year and a chance to sign Trouba. I think that scenario is very much in play. How much of it depends on moving Kreider and some of the factors, I can't really say. But I think the odds go up if more of those elements start to materialize in the next month.

If they are going to change their approach based on some prospect who would take a couple years to likely even make the NHL or enter his prime in it, their approach from the onset must be pretty questionable.

If they are going to sign Panarin, they may as well just flip the switch and go all out. Start trading picks and prospects for other vets to build around him. Buy out some D and get some others in. May as well trade one of the young goalies as it's back to riding Lundqvist.

Signing Panarin or any expensive long term UFA at the ages they are at because they moved up in a draft to pick a prospect who is 10-11 years younger, where if he does really well he would still be 2-3 years out would make even less sense.

 

[Edge]

I totally expect stumbles, scrapes or whatever. I'm fine with what they've done so far and again, I don't want Panarin (I'd much rather they sign Kreider to an extension and roll out last year's lineup with Kakko and Kravtsov as their adds) but the reason for not getting him is what exactly? They need another high pick in 2020? Is that the magic elixir? They have a ton of picks in the draft in a few weeks, I would imagine they'll have at least two first round picks in 2020. Getting Panarin does nothing to alter what they're currently doing except make them more competitive this year, which is a big no-no on this site apparently. I understand this is hockey futures but some users obsession with draft picks (not implying you) is frankly a little creepy.

I will admit that next year's draft is part of the equation for me, but probably as part of the broader context of timing and impact on the overall timeline.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Which proves my point, they never GOT the picks and traded away, which is why they had to supplement with UFAs. Now they are not competing, they are rebuilding. They are stockpiling assets

Again, the teams that supplemented their teams with UFAs and won did so AFTER they had been bad and had an established core. That is not what we have here. We have been rebuilding for not even two seasons now. We are far from over.

They tried and got screwed out of Crosby. They tried to ice a shitty team after the lockout and the team ended up playing well. What did you want them to do? Purposely ice an even worse team? Honestly, have you ever played the game? Know how it feels to step out onto the ice and know you're at a humungous disadvantage before they even drop the puck. Is that the culture you want here? Do you understand the pride players have in the locker room? The coaches? You have any idea how stupid it is to purposely try and lose in professional sports? Especially in a sport where being the worse team doesn't guarantee you the 1st pick? Have they made stupid moves? For sure. Every team does. Every team makes an awful trade. But how is your way working out for teams like Edmonton and Buffalo? How'd the teams you wish you had like Tampa and Toronto make out in the playoffs this year?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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

You said something stupid, then he asked you to explain and you refused to. It's not abut being obsessed with shortcuts it's about his expectation you'd have an honest discussion

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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".

Assuming he lasts until 33, sign me up. Assuming he lasts until he's 30 and then precipitously drops off? (which is the more reasonable assumption)

No. Avoid.

 

[mas0764]

You said something stupid, then he asked you to explain and you refused to. It's not abut being obsessed with shortcuts it's about his expectation you'd have an honest discussion

He didn’t ask me anything that has any relevance to the discussion. He thinks he has some misguided point about shortcuts being bad and that JD said no shortcuts.

It’s pretty much irrelevant so I’m not going to play his games. Nothing dishonest about it. He needs to come clean with the nature of his own position being HIS OPINION, not fact.

 

[Edge]

If they are going to change their approach based on some prospect who would take a couple years to likely even make the NHL or enter his prime in it, their approach from the onset must be pretty questionable.

If they are going to sign Panarin, they may as well just flip the switch and go all out. Start trading picks and prospects for other vets to build around him. Buy out some D and get some others in. May as well trade one of the young goalies as it's back to riding Lundqvist.

Signing Panarin or any expensive long term UFA at the ages they are at because they moved up in a draft to pick a prospect who is 10-11 years younger, where if he does really well he would still be 2-3 years out would make even less sense.

I don't think it hinges on the prospect, so much as the different components --- aka Kreider, what they view as a timetable, what opportunities they seem coming down the pike, etc.

But all in all, I get the sense that they're not quite as sold on the sign Panarin/trade assets for an established player route as some might be.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I will admit that next year's draft is part of the equation for me, but probably as part of the broader context of timing and impact on the overall timeline.

I'm a fan, I don't root for the GM or the cap guys, I root for the players. I understand people enjoy different aspects about organizations and that's fine, some like the team building aspect more or the salary structures and all that. But I'm not spending this summer or next season fantasizing about LaFrenierre or whoever. The worst team this year ended up with the 4th pick. And I have no problem with the rebuild so far, if it's another year so be it. But people need to stop telling other people how a team should be run. What the right way is or isn't. If these past two finals prove anything, there isn't one way.

 

[Edge]

I'm a fan, I don't root for the GM or the cap guys, I root for the players. I understand people enjoy different aspects about organizations and that's fine, some like the team building aspect more or the salary structures and all that. But I'm not spending this summer or next season fantasizing about LaFrenierre or whoever. The worst team this year ended up with the 4th pick. And I have no problem with the rebuild so far, if it's another year so be it. But people need to stop telling other people how a team should be run. What the right way is or isn't. If these past two finals prove anything, there isn't one way.

I mostly agree with the sentiment. But I also think it's kind of the seat belt argument at times. Yes, you can wear your seat belt, get trapped in your car, and die after a serious accident. But the odds say you're more likely to go through the windshield and get killed if you don't wear the seatbelt.

At some point, odds do come into player. Is it an exact science? Certainly not. But if there's one thing that rings true for most sports fans, it's that they if they get fixated on an idea, they will cling to that idea until the last --- no matter what the odds say.

 

[charliemurphy]

I think for many people it's a matter of timing and having a better understanding of what we have (versus what we hope we have).

I don't think there's a blanket opposition to trades and signings. But the reality is that the trades and signings we're debating are BIG trades and signings. We're not talking about going 3 years for a wing, or flipping Names and Pionk to shore up a hole. We're primarily talking about what could be one of the largest contracts in the NHL, and/or gambling with assets in trades for whom we don't necessarily know what we might have.

So there's like a lot of context missing from your initial comment. It's like buying a car. Just because someone doesn't want a $70k sports car, doesn't mean they aren't necessarily willing to purchase a $25k sedan.

I agree its a matter of timing and knowing what you have in players which for this team is unknown right now.
My point was that would be a different discussion if some were having actual debates and not jumping the gun on things... for example, where and why are some wanting to trade Zib and Butch? Where did this rationale come from?

 

[Edge]

I agree its a matter of timing and knowing what you have in players which for this team is unknown right now.
My point was that would be a different discussion if some were having actual debates and not jumping the gun on things... for example, where and why are some wanting to trade Zib and Butch? Where did this rationale come from?

Can't answer that, because it's not really something on my radar.

I think if Zinbanejad was coming off another 20 goal, 50 point season, I think the Rangers might've given strong consideration to moving him before his movement clause kicks in. Now? Slim to none that they move him, unless they get an offer they absolutely can't turn down.

Re: Buch, I think it's a combination of potentially having Kakko and Kravtsov in the system, and the rumblings that the Rangers might be willing to move Buch. Personally, I think if Kreider moves, Buch stays. With or without Panarin, I don't think the Rangers head into next season with so little experience or results on the wings.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Will any forward comparable or better than Panarin (especially in terms of age/production) actually become UFA in 2020? 2021? 2022?

1st thing to consider is.
When's the last time we had a gap longer than 4 years between a great FA being available to the league?

2nd thing to consider is
How many times during that time was a great trade option made available at a reasonable cost

3rd thing to consider is.
Does it matter if a Panarin type player is available 3 seasons from now?

Panarin himself won't be Panarin anymore at that point so hypothetical time.

If there are no FA's at Panarin's level 3 years from now then which of the following is better?

Is it better to have Panarin playing well below his current level and have his massive contract for another 3 or 4 years after that? It'd be blocking us from signing or trading for a potential player who IS at the level that Panarin is at now. Panarin also likely gets us 4-6 extra wins each season that he is here in his prime. With how bad our team is likely going to be next year that's the difference between picking in the top 5 or picking 11-15. So 3 seasons from now we have a 40-60 pt Panarin signed for many more years and we've hurt our rebuild by getting worse draft picks for 2 or 3 seasons.

Or is it better to have that cap flexibility and have all 3 of our previous 3 draft picks be better picks.

Keep in mind plentyu of our current prospects can be busts too.

Too many people want Panarin which makes me think they're ignoring this possibility too. Do I need us to tank? No. But I don't need to get an extra 4-6 wins and still miss the playoffs anyway which is very likely during Panarin's first two seasons if he comes here.

 

[mas0764]

I don’t accept this notion that’s being put forth as fact that either Panarin will be “way below” his current level in 3-4 years, or that it will be hamstringing us.

Neither of those things are even necessarily more likely than not, never mind proven.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I mostly agree with the sentiment. But I also think it's kind of the seat belt argument at times. Yes, you can wear your seat belt, get trapped in your car, and die after a serious accident. But the odds say you're more likely to go through the windshield and get killed if you don't wear the seatbelt.

At some point, odds do come into player. Is it an exact science? Certainly not. But if there's one thing that rings true for most sports fans, it's that they if they get fixated on an idea, they will cling to that idea until the last --- no matter what the odds say.

Totally. And again, I'm not advocating signing Panarin or Karlsson or a bunch of FAs this summer in hopes of making the playoffs, at the expense of Kakko, Kravtsov and co. I'm cool with them staying the course but if they sign Panarin, I don't think what they're trying to accomplish suddenly goes up in smoke or means they've reverted to their 'old school' ways. It's funny though, people bring up Chicago and Pittsburgh but dismiss Edmonton and Buffalo because of bad management or geographic location. You can't have it both ways.

 

[RGY]

That is a proven path to mediocrity, which as we established before, you are ok with.

There is nothing proven. That is just your opinion. As many have pointed out to you, you are no expert in the field of rebuilds

 

[Bluenote13]

3 years is a long time in sports. So much could happen.

In 2013 did anyone know Hall, Zibanajed, Johansen, Shattenkirk, Subban, Weber would be up for trade in 2016?

I don't discount FA's but we no longer have to rely on them as our main source of acquiring talent. We have a good GM that I trust handling our assets.