Panarin: Yes or No?

[TheBloodyNine]

The sum up what some here think, teams can NEVER be bad for multiple years and then be good, because of the myth of the "culture of losing". That is utterly false. So many in for a very rude awakening, which is incredibly surprising given how bad this team was this past season.

 

[RGY]

You don't want this team to be bad. Yet the team was bad and now we got the number 2 overall pick. And if we didn't we still would have gotten a great player in the top 10. Sorry you have no patience for the rebuild. They will be bad again next year. Deal with it.

We were not good this year, yes. Did I say I wanted to make the playoffs this year? Nope. I expected us to be in the lottery. But I did want the team to compete for the betterment of the prospects who we already have. For their development.

We shall see what happens next year. Draft hasnt happened yet. Free Agency hasnt happened yet. If they stand pat then so be it. If they add and they are still bad then so be it. The add would not be based around the 19-20 season but rather the following one and one after that.

No reason to discuss any further with the way you talk to people around here who want to have an open discussion on a message board.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Panarin is amazing.
Panarin is in his prime
Panarin doesn't have a lot of miles on him.
Players like panarin don't become available in free agency all that often...

Also...

Who says panarin will get 7 years?
Who says panarin will get a nmc?
Who says it will cost 11mil?

Sigh.

Well anyone expecting him to not get 7 years, an NMC, or 11M or so is out to lunch. I haven't seen many people saying that though.

 

[smoneil]

As I said in another thread, if this were July 1, 2021 and Panarin's clone were up to be signed, the consensus would be near-unanimous.

Here's a hypothetical: It's July 2021, and a 29 year old Panarin is willing to sign a 5-year deal at numbers below 2021-max levels (more along the line of 2019 max levels). Do you sign that contract?

 

[Edge]

It didn't, but to me, that was because the team almost always had a chance to win. So many close games. The idea of signing a guy like Panarin is that he allows the team to keep doing that, which helps to prevent a losing culture from seeping in (see the posts bobhop and I were making several pages earlier about the importance of a winning culture on player development).

Also, while I think this team is at least 3 years away from being a contender, I want these kids to cut their playoff teeth before that point if possible. Most players are a little overwhelmed on their first experience with playoff hockey. The sooner these kids experience that, the better in my opinion (I would love to see them make the postseason in 20/21 for example).

I definitely hear the concerns about breeding a losing culture, and I share those concerns, but I'm not sure we're there yet.

I think there are a lot of kids who are coming in and wanting to earn their place in the NHL, and I think we still have a good amount of veterans who can guide them. So I don't think the difference between generating a winning culture and a losing culture is going to come down to the 2019-20 season, nor do I believe that someone like Panarin is the panacea for avoiding a losing culture either.

Personally, I expect the 2019-20 season to be about growth, and players (hopefully) earning their spots, and taking the next steps. And as that progress comes into focus, and we have a better understanding of what we have (and don't have), we can make educated decisions on next steps --- be it free agents, trades, including package deals, etc.

I like what we have, and I think it has a good deal of promise. But I also don't think we have enough of it, and believe that it's probably going to take a little longer than we'd like to truly know what we're looking at.

My concern is less about free agent signings and trades, and really more about the timing of such actions and the impact said moves have on us at different points in time. Am I 100 percent against trades and free agent signings? No, I'm not.

Am I incredibly uneasy with offering what is probably close to a max contract to a free agent, or packaging two or three pieces for more immediate help at this particularly point in time? Yeah, I am.

 

[Edge]

Well anyone expecting him to not get 7 years, an NMC, or 11M or so is out to lunch. I haven't seen many people saying that though.

Oh yeah, it's out there.

Having said that, I agree with you. I think the odds of him not getting 7 years and $77 million and a NMC are incredibly slim.

 

[Edge]

Here's a hypothetical: It's July 2021, and a 29 year old Panarin is willing to sign a 5-year deal at numbers below 2021-max levels (more along the line of 2019 max levels). Do you sign that contract?

I'd be more receptive to it. A big reason for that is because I think the next two years are going to be instrumental in revealing what we've done well, and what we haven't.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

We were not good this year, yes. Did I say I wanted to make the playoffs this year? Nope. I expected us to be in the lottery. But I did want the team to compete for the betterment of the prospects who we already have. For their development.

We shall see what happens next year. Draft hasnt happened yet. Free Agency hasnt happened yet. If they stand pat then so be it. If they add and they are still bad then so be it. The add would not be based around the 19-20 season but rather the following one and one after that.

No reason to discuss any further with you talk to people around here who want to have an open discussion on a message board.

You expect us to be in the lottery, yet you rail against being in the lottery. Which is it?

 

[RGY]

You expect us to be in the lottery, yet you rail against being in the lottery. Which is it?

How hard is that to comprehend?

I said I expected them to be in the lottery contention going into last season.

This year, the offseason hasn’t even started yet. I am not willing to make that call yet on what my expectation is.

This is getting too hard for you.

 

[SA16]

I have posted similar things before but I will once again.

Since 2006-2007 there have been 24 instances of a 26 or 27 year old scoring 80+ points in a year. 3 players did it twice (Panarin/Crosby/Lecavalier). I am intentionally leaving out 2005-2006 since that was a far higher scoring environment right out of the lockout with a ton of powerplays due to the obstruction crackdown.

10 of these players have already played their age 24 season (the remaining 11 either have not yet reached that age or didn't play in the league at that age for varying reasons like Kovalchuk and Heatley. I think we can neglect the guys who don't reach age 34 as if that were to happen for Panarin either he would be retired or on LTIR and his cap hit would be essentially off the books).

The 10 players mentioned combined to average 93.5 points in their age 26 or 27 season. In their age 34 season, which would be the last year of a 7 year deal for Panarin, these players combined to average 60 points. Lecavalier, Cammalleri, and Gaborik were bad (Gaborik/Cammalleri in particular had a long history of injury thoughout their career), Tanguay was hurt but producing (only played 16 games), and the other six all scored between 62 and 76 points (Sedin, Sedin, Zetterberg, Thornton, Hossa, Ribeiro).

There is no logical reason to expect Panarin will be a bad player/albatross contract at the end of his deal. He will most likely still be scoring 60+ if healthy.

 

[True Blue]

I absolutely see his side of it in that regard. I totally understand the concern. There is risk involved. I am not the one saying he is wrong or foolish. By no means am i doing that. He has continually asked for response to whatever his question is now. I simply gave a different interpretation of that.

I have stated over and over again that if they decide not to sign Panarin for whatever their reasoning is that I would not be pissed or angry. I would understand it. But I can see their reasons for signing Panarin. That is the issue in all of this. One person is being obnoxiously arrogant trying to force their opinions onto others as fact.

Fair enough. Good stuff.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Come one. Rebuild started when at the TDL 1.25 years ago. Trading Steppan was not the start of it. He then went out and signed Shattenkirk. What rebuilding team would do that?

If you want to say the rebuild began with the infamous letter. Ok. I think that's a silly point to argue. But you can't say that trading your #1 C with no replacement was Gorton brimming with optimism about the upcoming season. And Shattenkirk, yeah that was odd but he gave the team a sweetheart deal. He grew up in New Rochelle and wanted to play for his team. I don't think many GMs would have passed that up.

 

[smoneil]

I definitely hear the concerns about breeding a losing culture, and I share those concerns, but I'm not sure we're there yet.

I think there are a lot of kids who are coming in and wanting to earn their place in the NHL, and I think we still have a good amount of veterans who can guide them. So I don't think the difference between generating a winning culture and a losing culture is going to come down to the 2019-20 season, nor do I believe that someone like Panarin is the panacea for avoiding a losing culture either.

Personally, I expect the 2019-20 season to be about growth, and players (hopefully) earning their spots, and taking the next steps. And as that progress comes into focus, and we have a better understanding of what we have (and don't have), we can make educated decisions on next steps --- be it free agents, trades, including package deals, etc.

I like what we have, and I think it has a good deal of promise. But I also don't think we have enough of it, and believe that it's probably going to take a little longer than we'd like to truly know what we're looking at.

My concern is less about free agent signings and trades, and really more about the timing of such actions and the impact said moves have on us at different points in time. Am I 100 percent against trades and free agAent signings? No, I'm not.

Am I incredibly uneasy with offering what is probably close to a max contract to a free agent, or packaging two or three pieces for more immediate help at this particularly point in time? Yeah, I am.

I agree with a lot of this. I just see Panarin as a particularly good option at the moment because:

1- I don't see any issue with the cap (see below).

2- I see him as an opportunity to upgrade at 1LW over a player with less offense and more injury concerns (Kreider).

3- I like the fact that the re-build has been based on volume of high end prospects thus far (1st rounders are more likely to become NHL players, and even if a bunch of our draftees DON'T pan out, just based on sheer volume, odds are good that enough of them will).

4- I do think that Kakko changes the game a little bit--he could still bust, but the odds are exceptionally low.

So taking those four things into account, it make sense to me to target this one guy who has no character or durability issues and plays a position we aren't particularly deep at organizationally. He makes it easier to trade Kreider for another 1st in 2020. His salary fits well within our current cap situation even before trading Kreider, and it won't hurt the cap situation moving forward, as guys like Names, Smith, Staal, and Henrik all come off the books when we'll need to sign RFA contracts (and that's not even taking into account the possibility of the cap going up).

I understand your point that one season of losing every night might not lead to a losing culture, but having seen the toxicity of such a culture, I just don't want to risk that. To me, it's taking an unnecessary risk that, if it backfires, could set the rebuild back by multiple years. Again though, having had to re-build a program with that kind of toxic negativity, I'm probably a bit more sensitive to that particular issue. It's possible I'm being overly-cautious about it.

 

[True Blue]

Panarin is amazing.
Panarin is in his prime
Panarin doesn't have a lot of miles on him.
Players like panarin don't become available in free agency all that often...

Also...

Who says panarin will get 7 years?
Who says panarin will get a nmc?
Who says it will cost 11mil?

Sigh.

You mean that the premier free agent on the market will more than likely not take a sweat heart deal? Surely your joking.

 

[True Blue]

If you want to say the rebuild began with the infamous letter. Ok. I think that's a silly point to argue. But you can't say that trading your #1 C with no replacement was Gorton brimming with optimism about the upcoming season. And Shattenkirk, yeah that was odd but he gave the team a sweetheart deal. He grew up in New Rochelle and wanted to play for his team. I don't think many GMs would have passed that up.

Pretty sure that a rebuilding team would not sign someone for over $6m with NTC/NMC for a period of 4 years. If they were trying to lock up their own young player to buy out some UFA years, it would be for longer than that.

 

[True Blue]

Here's a hypothetical: It's July 2021, and a 29 year old Panarin is willing to sign a 5-year deal at numbers below 2021-max levels (more along the line of 2019 max levels). Do you sign that contract?

I would be a lot more open to it, sure. A lot would depend how the team is doing and frankly how he has continued to perform.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

On the ‘losing culture’ subject, I’d be much more worried about it if Quinn wasn’t the coach of this team

 

[Inferno]

I have posted similar things before but I will once again.

Since 2006-2007 there have been 24 instances of a 26 or 27 year old scoring 80+ points in a year. 3 players did it twice (Panarin/Crosby/Lecavalier). I am intentionally leaving out 2005-2006 since that was a far higher scoring environment right out of the lockout with a ton of powerplays due to the obstruction crackdown.

10 of these players have already played their age 24 season (the remaining 11 either have not yet reached that age or didn't play in the league at that age for varying reasons like Kovalchuk and Heatley. I think we can neglect the guys who don't reach age 34 as if that were to happen for Panarin either he would be retired or on LTIR and his cap hit would be essentially off the books).

The 10 players mentioned combined to average 93.5 points in their age 26 or 27 season. In their age 34 season, which would be the last year of a 7 year deal for Panarin, these players combined to average 60 points. Lecavalier, Cammalleri, and Gaborik were bad (Gaborik/Cammalleri in particular had a long history of injury thoughout their career), Tanguay was hurt but producing (only played 16 games), and the other six all scored between 62 and 76 points (Sedin, Sedin, Zetterberg, Thornton, Hossa, Ribeiro).

There is no logical reason to expect Panarin will be a bad player/albatross contract at the end of his deal. He will most likely still be scoring 60+ if healthy.

You should push all those numbers up a year...he turns 28 less than a month into the season...

 

[Ghost of jas]

People can throw out the examples of Chicago/Pittsburgh and Buffalo/Edmonton for comparisons, but I won’t be surprised if in three or four years, people aren’t looking at the Ranger rebuild model. Because, frankly, I’m not sure Gorton isn’t constructing his own model. If Kreider ends up returning another 1st, Zuccarello re-signs in Dallas, the Rangers will have 10 1st round picks in four years, which is unprecedented. That, more than any other move, is accelerating a rebuild. Plus, he also added depth to the organization by adding DeAngelo, Rykov, Lindgren, Hajek, Howden, Lemieux and Fox. This is uncharted territory, especially for the Rangers.

 

[smoneil]

You mean that the premier free agent on the market will more than likely not take a sweat heart deal? Surely your joking.

While I don't expect Panarin to do so, you do know that the premier free agent on the market took less money than they could have gotten in each of the last two years (Tavares and Shattenkirk), right? Like I said, I don't think it happens in this case, but it's not exactly a unicorn scenario.

 

[Inferno]

Well anyone expecting him to not get 7 years, an NMC, or 11M or so is out to lunch. I haven't seen many people saying that though.

It's happened in this thread a few times. Calling him.. tradeable implies he's not getting a full nmc. Some people talking about a 5 year deal etc.

 

[Edge]

I agree with a lot of this. I just see Panarin as a particularly good option at the moment because:

1- I don't see any issue with the cap (see below).

2- I see him as an opportunity to upgrade at 1LW over a player with less offense and more injury concerns (Kreider).

3- I like the fact that the re-build has been based on volume of high end prospects thus far (1st rounders are more likely to become NHL players, and even if a bunch of our draftees DON'T pan out, just based on sheer volume, odds are good that enough of them will).

4- I do think that Kakko changes the game a little bit--he could still bust, but the odds are exceptionally low.

So taking those four things into account, it make sense to me to target this one guy who has no character or durability issues and plays a position we aren't particularly deep at organizationally. He makes it easier to trade Kreider for another 1st in 2020. His salary fits well within our current cap situation even before trading Kreider, and it won't hurt the cap situation moving forward, as guys like Names, Smith, Staal, and Henrik all come off the books when we'll need to sign RFA contracts (and that's not even taking into account the possibility of the cap going up).

I understand your point that one season of losing every night might not lead to a losing culture, but having seen the toxicity of such a culture, I just don't want to risk that. To me, it's taking an unnecessary risk that, if it backfires, could set the rebuild back by multiple years. Again though, having had to re-build a program with that kind of toxic negativity, I'm probably a bit more sensitive to that particular issue. It's possible I'm being overly-cautious about it.

Interestingly enough, I'm not sure the cap issue is really on my radar. I guess it might be for some, but it's never really figured into my thought process.

I agree that we have some high-end prospects, though I do think we need a few more with top-shelf skills. I think we have a group of players who can form a good nucleus and provide depth, but I'd still like a bit more talent to put the exclamation point on what we're doing. I don't think we're actually that far from being able to do so and tend to view the 2020 draft as that opportunity.

It's really not Panarin's talent that concerns me. It's more of a timing issue. I just don't see how signing a guy like Panarin, at the contract it will take to do so, doesn't reverberate throughout the organization in terms or priorities, timelines, expectations, approach, etc. I have a very hard time reconciling that aspect.

 

[SA16]

You should push all those numbers up a year...he turns 28 less than a month into the season...

So therefore it is exactly what I said.

He just played his age 26 and 27 seasons.

Year 7 of his contract will be his age 34 season.

 

[Ghost of jas]

If you want to say the rebuild began with the infamous letter. Ok. I think that's a silly point to argue. But you can't say that trading your #1 C with no replacement was Gorton brimming with optimism about the upcoming season. And Shattenkirk, yeah that was odd but he gave the team a sweetheart deal. He grew up in New Rochelle and wanted to play for his team. I don't think many GMs would have passed that up.

By the end of the 2016-7 playoffs, Zibanejad had pretty much replaced Stepan as the 1C. And Hayes was going to be given the opportunity to be the 2C.

 

[True Blue]

While I don't expect Panarin to do so, you do know that the premier free agent on the market took less money than they could have gotten in each of the last two years (Tavares and Shattenkirk), right? Like I said, I don't think it happens in this case, but it's not exactly a unicorn scenario.

You're right of course, but I think that you would agree that such odds are greatly against it. And I guess you can call Tavares taking less at $11m per year, but it is not that much less.