Panarin: Yes or No?

[TheBloodyNine]

Do you know the definition of hypocritical? Do you know how it should applied? Because what I said was nowhere even close to an example of hypocrisy. This is getting to be too much for you. Two different years, two potentially different expectations. Nothing hypocritical about that. You are starting to go off the deep end here.

You said it's bad to shoot for the lottery and the team shouldn't play like that.

But then you later say that you expect them to be in the lottery next season. So you're ok with being in the lottery then, even though you just said that was bad. Which is it?

This is getting too much for you. You don't have a realistic view of this team. Or how rebuilds are done. I mean, that doesn't surprise me in the least but maybe if you start paying attention to the actions and words of the people running this team you'll get there someday.

 

[smoneil]

I tend to think that if having a losing 2019-2020 season is the difference between creating a losing culture and not, we're probably in pretty big trouble already. I'm also not sure that the Panarin is the only approach to find a good balance.

Having a young team get blown out every night and running up massive losing streaks is a recipe for disaster. It's why the Knicks are not likely to do much without signing huge names, AND why those huge names don't usually want to sign with the Knicks (and why Porzhingis asked out). You ALWAYS want your players to feel like they can legitimately win every game, and once they lose that, it is almost impossible to get it back.

I don't think that Panarin is the only approach to getting that balance. I DO think that he is the best option, for reasons that I mentioned earlier, both financial and in terms of what he brings to a team.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I tend to think that if having a losing 2019-2020 season is the difference between creating a losing culture and not, we're probably in pretty big trouble already. I'm also not sure that the Panarin is the only approach to find a good balance.

I think this is a major point for me as well. People are citing Panarin as some kind of Messier type figure who is going to instill a winning culture here. It doesn't have to be him. It could also be our ultra competitive goalie. Or Marc Staal a veteran of a SCF and multiple conference finals. Guys with way more winning experience than Panarin has ever had.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

And they were in most games this year as well. But after selling off McD, Nash, Grabner, Zucc, Hayes, and Miller, with a likely trade of Kreider and maybe Names and Vesey forthcoming, what's left of this roster is likely to get shelled.

I'd easily sign the right guy (and I think Panarin is such a player) for 7 x 11 to keep the team in most games and stave off a losing mentality. People are so fixated on the cap hit/money, but it is a literal non-issue both now and in the future. We have SO much money coming off the books in the next two years.

Most of those players were gone before this past season, the idea that trading Kreider, Namestnikov, and Vesey (the latter two would most likely be deadline deals IMO) is going to leave the roster barren doesn’t mesh with the idea that doing that and adding Panarin evens out the scales to me.

 

[Edge]

Having a young team get blown out every night and running up massive losing streaks is a recipe for disaster. It's why the Knicks are not likely to do much without signing huge names, AND why those huge names don't usually want to sign with the Knicks (and why Porzhingis asked out). You ALWAYS want your players to feel like they can legitimately win every game, and once they lose that, it is almost impossible to get it back.

I don't think that Panarin is the only approach to getting that balance. I DO think that he is the best option, for reasons that I mentioned earlier, both financial and in terms of what he brings to a team.

I hear you. I'm not sure this is a team that is going to get blown out every night. I'd say that next year would probably closely resemble this season, with the exception that I'd like to see more kids acclimate to the NHL, take on increasing responsibilities and really start to show us what they have.

Having said, with or without Panarin, if this team is getting blown out, it's endemic of a larger problem. Because that means our goalies have regressed and are struggling, ADA, Buch, and other young players aren't taking the next steps, and our younger talent is still treading water.

But based off what I saw last year, and the number of guys who are trying to take the next step and/or break into the NHL, I just don't know if we're going to see a 180 from that. Even in losing efforts, this was a pretty plucky bunch.

 

[Inferno]

I know it was a typo likely caused by autocorrect, but I really want to make the phrase "open the coffee" a thing, haha. #Coffeeaddict

I definitely need some coffee. 2 kids... 1 is only 3 months old...I think technically speaking I'm an undead zombie right now.

 

[Off Sides]

Why does it have to be so extreme, Rangers even without doing much of anything have a roster that is about on par with several other teams who are also rebuilding, or are otherwise bad for whichever reasons.

The Devils, Detroit, Buffalo, Edmonton, Anaheim, Vancouver, are all going to have a similar overall rosters. LA and Chicago who knows? If Arizona has to cost cut? Ottawa? Columbus with all their pending possible departures? The Wild are getting old, did Philly find a goal tender? Every year Florida is supposed to be better than they are. And for some reason the Rangers beat Carolina almost all the time.

Would they really not be competitive among those teams without any major additions?

Then there are teams who just play to their opponent where their rosters should be able to easily beat lesser ones, yet every year we see that too.

In a way it takes a special talent for a NHL team to be getting crushed all the time. Rangers are not going to have a days since last incident sign around their franchise that reads in the single digits every time one looks.

It's not so much without any additions I'd expect the Rangers to be good, more so that even as bad as they were last year they finished 6th worst naturally only 4 points back of Philly in 10th worst.

 

[Edge]

It's not so much without any additions I'd expect the Rangers to be good, more so that even as bad as they were last year they finished 6th worst naturally only 4 points back of Philly in 10th worst.

I feel like this cuts both ways. They were only 4 points away from Philly, but only six points back of NJ. The difference between the third worst team and the 10th really wasn't that substantial last year. A few different bounces or changes to the loser points and there's a whole bunch of teams in the 3-10 range that could slip and slide around.

Last year I picked this team to finish 4-6 without the lottery, and went with 5 as splitting the difference. They picked up more loser points that most of their basement neighbors and finished 6th.

As is, they'd probably more or less be in the same ballpark with finishing anywhere from 3-10 as a possibility depending on how things break.

 

[Alluckks]

We should rip him in half and compromise

 

[RGY]

You said it's bad to shoot for the lottery and the team shouldn't play like that.

But then you later say that you expect them to be in the lottery next season. So you're ok with being in the lottery then, even though you just said that was bad. Which is it?

This is getting too much for you. You don't have a realistic view of this team. Or how rebuilds are done. I mean, that doesn't surprise me in the least but maybe if you start paying attention to the actions and words of the people running this team you'll get there someday.

I did not say I expect them to be a lottery team next season....forget it, you just can’t read.

 

[True Blue]

Because, frankly, I’m not sure Gorton isn’t constructing his own model.

He may well could be. Though if I had to guess, his basic building blocks began in Boston. That goes right through the type of personnel he seems to be importing.

 

[alkurtz]

I think this is a major point for me as well. People are citing Panarin as some kind of Messier type figure who is going to instill a winning culture here. It doesn't have to be him. It could also be our ultra competitive goalie. Or Marc Staal a veteran of a SCF and multiple conference finals. Guys with way more winning experience than Panarin has ever had.

I don't think that even the most pro-Panarin supporters would equate him with Messier. I don't put much stock in the idea of bringing vets in to teach players "'how to win;"' well unless your Messier, one of the most unique athletes I have ever seen in any sport. Older players can set examples for how to be a professional, how to train, how to care for yourself, etc. But that is different from holding hands and saying "this is how you win."

What Panarin would do is improve the talent level on the team, resulting in perhaps a handful of more wins, resulting in young players experiencing some success. In other words, improving the culture of the team. Young players need to experience success. That is an essential part of the development process.

That is why I am in favor of signing Panarin. But if Ranger management decides not to pursue him or he signs elsewhere, I won't be upset or disappointed.

 

[Off Sides]

I feel like this cuts both ways. They were only 4 points away from Philly, but only six points back of NJ. The difference between the third worst team and the 10th really wasn't that substantial last year. A few different bounces or changes to the loser points and there's a whole bunch of teams in the 3-10 range that could slip and slide around.

Last year I picked this team to finish 4-6 without the lottery, and went with 5 as splitting the difference. They picked up more loser points that most of their basement neighbors and finished 6th.

As is, they'd probably more or less be in the same ballpark with finishing anywhere from 3-10 as a possibility depending on how things break.

I'm not sure if my point was not the same, my post was in progress before yours was posted and before I read it.

The Rangers as currently constructed I think will be in the mix with the other teams who are either rebuilding or not good for some other reason. Even if they do trade Kreider and sign or take back a downgrade from him.

The idea that they are going to get shellacked game in and game out I see as far fetched. Some games sure but they'll be right there with some of the other teams.

 

[Edge]

I'm not sure if my point was not the same, my post was in progress before yours was posted and before I read it.

The Rangers as currently constructed I think will be in the mix with the other teams who are either rebuilding or not good for some other reason. Even if they do trade Kreider and sign or take back a downgrade from him.

The idea that they are going to get shellacked game in and game out I see as far fetched. Some games sure but they'll be right there with some of the other teams.

Agreed. I think they'll be in the same range, but hopefully have some of the younger talent eating the minutes and some of the production of guys who have been shipped out. I expect there will be times when we "overachieve" and times when "underachieve" but the end result will likely be in the same ballpark.

If they happen to do better than expected, and it's primarily because of the progress of younger players, that's fine too.

 

[chosen]

I've seen most of the playoff games this year and what I keep noticing is how much better the defensive groups are around the league as opposed to the Rangers. There are also a lot of players that have impressed me in secondary roles, including Clifton, Heinen, Johannsson, and Kuraly on Boston.

St. Louis has impressed me in the post-season with outstanding defense and the most physical team in the league. Robert Thomas reminds me of Pavelich.

The Rangers are still pretty far from this level of play.

They need a lot of the young guys to take a step forward next season. If not, I would keep moving players out for picks.

Hopefully, Pick #2 is a major push in the right direction. I would expect either one of them to be a top 3 forward on the team next season.

 

[haohmaru]

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

"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 rebuild started in the summer 2017. Arguably February 2018. Panarin is 27.

Panarin will be 27 when this season starts. So, he'll be 33 when our season starts in 2025, which is 8 years+ after the rebuild began or 7 1/2 years if you're counting from February 2018.

So, you said eight seasons.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

What needs to happen in order for this team to improve to bubble team status next season:

- Most of the 2nd year kids take step forward.
- Pionk is traded, Staal plays sparingly
- Zibanejad repeats or improves on 2018-19
- Hank bounces back or Geo gets most of the starts and holds up as a starter
- Kakko and Kravstov are both 40+ point players out of the gate


What needs to happen in order for this team to fall flat next season:

- Zibanejad goes down with a long term injury.


I feel like this applies with or without Panarin with the way the roster stands right now.

 

[chosen]

What needs to happen in order for this team to improve to bubble team status next season:

- Most of the 2nd year kids take step forward.
- Pionk is traded, Staal plays sparingly
- Zibanejad repeats or improves on 2018-19
- Hank bounces back or Geo gets most of the starts and holds up as a starter
- Kakko and Kravstov are both 40+ point players out of the gate


What needs to happen in order for this team to fall flat next season:

- Zibanejad goes down with a long term injury.


I feel like this applies with or without Panarin with the way the roster stands right now.

If Zib goes down and your other stuff happens, I think they would have a good shot of making the playoffs.

 

[LORDE]

Y do we want him? We aren’t going to use him to get anywhere except 1st rd exit fodder.

Let’s do that organically and then pick 1st in 2020

 

[chosen]

Y do we want him? We aren’t going to use him to get anywhere except 1st rd exit fodder.

Let’s do that organically and then pick 1st in 2020

How did you determine they would be 1st round fodder?

Columbus was just first round fodder.

 

[haohmaru]

Y do we want him? We aren’t going to use him to get anywhere except 1st rd exit fodder.

Let’s do that organically and then pick 1st in 2020

Finish "last" and you've got an 18.5% to pick first.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Finish "last" and you've got an 18.5% to pick first.

But a 100% chance to be in the top 4, and there’s like 5-6 A+ prospects at the top of next year’s draft

 

[haohmaru]

But a 100% chance to be in the top 4, and there’s like 5-6 A+ prospects at the top of next year’s draft

Yes, I know. But he said FIRST.

 

[SA16]

Here is data I compiled earlier today regarding aging for elite players. The players included in this data set are those that scored at 1 point per game or better, in a minimum of 60 games, for multiple seasons between age 24-28 during the years 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. Why did I choose these limits for age and season? Largely because I had to go through everything manually and a data set of 50 players would be unwieldy.

The 2012-2013 season was also entirely excluded because hockey reference does something very weird with the adjusted data in the short season.

Takeaways are this "rapid drop off after age 30" is not a real thing. It's just a slow decline for years. Additionally these players remained playing at a 1st line level pretty much their entire careers - at least through age 34 they were scoring over 60 adjusted points/82 and then age 37 is still at 54 points. The sample sizes are 550+ player games for all years up to age 35 and then around 400 games for age 36 and 37.

So the logic of not wanting Panarin because of a potential huge drop off and albatross contract is just being extremely overly risk adverse as it is not really founded by any data but much more by anecdotal evidence from previous past signings that were not really even comparable situations. We should fully expect him to be a 1st line caliber player for the entirety of his next contract even if towards the end he is more of a lower tier 1st liner (which would still be better than basically every wing we've had the last 10 years outside of Gaborik and Nash). Not wanting him because you'd rather wait for a better spot in a couple of years, while I don't agree with, is a perfectly reasonable stance.

 

[Leetch3]

Here is data I compiled earlier today regarding aging for elite players. The players included in this data set are those that scored at 1 point per game or better, in a minimum of 60 games, for multiple seasons between age 24-28 during the years 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. Why did I choose these limits for age and season? Largely because I had to go through everything manually and a data set of 50 players would be unwieldy.

The 2012-2013 season was also entirely excluded because hockey reference does something very weird with the adjusted data in the short season.

Takeaways are this "rapid drop off after age 30" is not a real thing. It's just a slow decline for years. Additionally these players remained playing at a 1st line level pretty much their entire careers - at least through age 34 they were scoring over 60 adjusted points/82 and then age 37 is still at 54 points. The sample sizes are 550+ player games for all years up to age 35 and then around 400 games for age 36 and 37.

So the logic of not wanting Panarin because of a potential huge drop off and albatross contract is just being extremely overly risk adverse as it is not really founded by any data but much more by anecdotal evidence from previous past signings that were not really even comparable situations. We should fully expect him to be a 1st line caliber player for the entirety of his next contract even if towards the end he is more of a lower tier 1st liner (which would still be better than basically every wing we've had the last 10 years outside of Gaborik and Nash). Not wanting him because you'd rather wait for a better spot in a couple of years, while I don't agree with, is a perfectly reasonable stance.

nice research and props for creating the first stat related graph/chart that my dumbass can understand without questions lol