Panarin: Yes or No?

[True Blue]

I mean, if for no other reason, I want to see them sign Panarin just to embarrass the posters on here claiming how they’ve explained so many times to us how there’s gonna be no shortcuts.

That will be epic by itself.

Dude, this is completely assinine. What, the only friggin' valid opinion yours and the only viewpoint that makes sense is yours? How old are you?

People make points and counter points. Both sides have arguments. We can disagree. But this type of post is what I would expect a 13 year old to make. You are far, far better than this.

 

[Leetch3]

for me the issue of timing on panarin has little to do with thinking he'll be terrible in a few years or worrying about the cap down the road or even about the team being ready to win...it is about all the unknowns about the team and how it will look when its complete....

I hate to use the phrase 'final piece of the puzzle' because it implies that you need to wait till the puzzle is complete and that't not necessarily true but you are limited in the number of panarin type moves you can make because of the cap...so that type of move should be to complete the puzzle and put the team over the top.

look at the team we have now and what we know with certainty when talking about the key guys on this team...and really there is nothing. zibanejad showed he could be a #1 center last year, but he's done it exactly one year. he hasn't proven he can do it year in and year out. but for the sake of argument lets say that we know what we have with him. literally everything else is an unknown cause most of the guys haven't even played yet.

so break it down by position

top pair blueliners--who do you have? we have alot of good young blueliners but top pair guys? I think in our system the 2 best shots are the 2 1st rounders from last year, Miller and Lundkvist, but those 2 might be a few years away from that role...there is potential to have filled this and maybe you don't need a true #1 if you have a bunch of 2s and 3s but still alot of unknown

2nd center--so we've got mika as the top guy but he's not a super elite guy where you can follow behind him with a mediocre #2 center...we need another 70+ point guy there. assuming we don't get Jack Hughes, really the only guy that I see potentially filling that role is Chytil. and he has barely played center in the NHL....I like howden and anderson as a 3C but don't think either will play put up the offense we need here

and then lastly you have wingers...totally unproven at this point but we hope that kakko and kratsov are elite...

so we've got guys internally to fill this spots plus a bunch of 2019 and 2020 picks to help fill them. and if we find/develop those top pair blueliners and 2nd line center, then adding panarin to that mix would be perfect and he'd be a great fit...but what happens if those positions don't work out? we've already signed panarin so now we've got 3 elite wingers but no top pair blueliners, but we can't afford to sign or trade for a guy to fill that role cause we already spent that big chip on panarin?

I know there are a ton of what ifs...and there are a number of scenarios where panarin would be the right guy and we'd end up regretting not signing him...but this is what I'm talking about when I say we aren't ready for this type of move. its not about how good the team is or contending. its about not knowing what the team will need down the road cause the picture is so unclear..

 

[smoneil]

Bergeron makes $6.875m, Marchand makes $6.125 m. If Panarin wants to get paid like that, sign me up.

When Bergeron (5 years ago) signed his contract, it was likely seen as similarly exhorbitant. Marchand's contract is more recent, but he'll be on that contract until he's 37 years old. When Marchand signed that contract, his numbers also looked more like Chris Kreider than Panarin. Until the last 3 seasons, he was a good 2nd liner who was also a top notch pest. He was basically a rich man's Sean Avery.

 

[smoneil]

Dude, this is completely assinine. What, the only friggin' valid opinion yours and the only viewpoint that makes sense is yours? How old are you?

People make points and counter points. Both sides have arguments. We can disagree. But this type of post is what I would expect a 13 year old to make. You are far, far better than this.

It's interesting that this is the post you chose to call out. Yes, that poster's responses have gotten sort of taunting and childish at times in this thread, but he is literally (and rather obviously) responding in kind to the THREE posters (not you) who have taken an even more childish tone throughout the entire thread. I initially walked away from the thread because those three weren't interested in a conversation and they thought "Your idea is dumb and me saying that means I refuted it" was engaging with a topic. Now they've started @ing me.

TL/DR--yes, the response you posted was mildly childish, but there's abject infancy going on in this thread that you seem to be perfectly fine with because those voices agree with you.

 

[smoneil]

If people are going to @ me, I'm going to try and make my point one last time.

The main reason that I want the team to sign Panarin is because he will make the team more able to compete on a nightly basis, which will create a healthier developmental atmosphere around the influx of recent 1st rounders who will be coming in. I believe that the way the team works BEFORE it is competitive is just as important as the composition of the team when it SHOULD be competitive, and in my view, bad teams ignore that fact. I (and others) base this on actual experience building and rebuilding sports programs. Thus the argument that we don't need someone now because the team won't likely make the playoffs either way doesn't work for me. People are free to disagree, but I have not yet seen a good argument counter to this--one guy just kept saying the logic was "dumb" as if that was a legitimate response (and I'm guessing his counter experience is more with a video game console compared to building an actual team of real people). One person (I don't remember who--I think it was Edge or Inferno) offered that they don't think one season of losing most nights would impact the development of the kids. That's possible--it MIGHT not impact their mentality/development. But why risk it? To have a chance at a slightly higher draft pick? It just isn't worth it to me.

I keep seeing people complain about the money and the term. I do not understand that argument at all. This team has a BOATLOAD of cap space right now. They have more than enough to sign Panarin. I've seen arguments that Panarin would prevent us from re-signing KK or other young guys, but even if the cap DOESN'T go up (and it will), the following contracts will be off the books by the time the kids need 2nd contracts: Vesey ($2.25m), Namestnikov ($4m), Smith ($4.3m), Staal ($5.7m), and Henrik ($8.5m). All of these players have their replacements--on ELCs--either already on the roster or in the pipeline. That's almost $25 million dollars of cap coming off the books in the next three years. And that's not even taking into account the likelihood that a Panarin signing would likely be followed by a Kreider trade (take out Kreider's cap hit and Panarin would basically be getting ~$6m in additional cap for a HUGE and more durable upgrade on the top line LW). There will be NO problem whatsoever in signing kids to 2nd contracts. There is no financial impediment to signing Panarin, even at 7 years by 11 million. The money is more than there.

Other posters have already demonstrated how unlikely it is that Panarin would have a huge decline during a 7 year contract. The naysayers are painting it as a Callahan situation, where he'd be making 11m as a part time 4th liner by the end of the contract. That is highly unlikely, as again, others have shown.

The main point of difference that I have with the camp that doesn't want to sign Panarin is the fact that I believe (based on experience) that it is important for a team to believe they can win every night, even if they aren't going to be "competitive" for another couple of years. The other side wants the team to suck as much as possible for the hope that lightning will strike two years in a row in the lottery. You don't win in life banking on the lottery. You win by dealing with the things that you can control. Making a smart signing on a rare player who will likely still be playing an important (if not dominant) role when this team is competing for the Cup again, is a good thing.

If people have other ideas for how to do that that doesn't involve signing Panarin, I'm all ears and excited to listen and chat about those ideas. But thus far, through 20+ pages of discussion, the other side has chosen to call such concerns "dumb logic" (based on nothing but their arrogance) or dismiss it as not something that will cause a developmental issue. In other words, they--as many of us have been saying since early in the thread--want the team to suck hard so they can have another spin at the draft lottery, and they are willing to risk letting a toxic attitude into the room to do it. I, and others who have built teams (and, honestly, I'd bet that JD, Gorts, and the Rangers feel the same way about this), see that as incredibly reckless, and don't want to risk the phenomenal work done in the rebuild thus far in a search for "just one more piece."

 

[SA16]

When Bergeron (5 years ago) signed his contract, it was likely seen as similarly exhorbitant. Marchand's contract is more recent, but he'll be on that contract until he's 37 years old. When Marchand signed that contract, his numbers also looked more like Chris Kreider than Panarin. Until the last 3 seasons, he was a good 2nd liner who was also a top notch pest. He was basically a rich man's Sean Avery.

He was always a 1st liner he just never played on the top powerplay until 3 years ago. He's scored over 2 pts/60 every full year of his career except for 2014-2015 and Bergeron has been his most common center every year of his career. Marchand had 26 powerplay points combined from 2009 to 2016. The last 3 years he had 24/23/34.

They actually got him a lot cheaper than they should have because by not having him on PP1 it held his overall numbers now.

 

[smoneil]

He was always a 1st liner he just never played on the top powerplay until 3 years ago. He's scored over 2 pts/60 every full year of his career except for 2014-2015 and Bergeron has been his most common center every year of his career. Marchand had 26 powerplay points combined from 2009 to 2016. The last 3 years he had 24/23/34.

They actually got him a lot cheaper than they should have because by not having him on PP1 it held his overall numbers now.

I was speaking mainly to his production level (2nd line numbers), but looking at my post, I didn't really make that clear.

 

[duhmetreE]

Bergeron makes $6.875m, Marchand makes $6.125 m. If Panarin wants to get paid like that, sign me up.

I thought we were arguing players being potatoes after 30 revolutions around the sun? Now it's cap hits? They're not comparable since they did not sign as UFAs. Bergeron re-signed at 10.69%. If he were signed as a UFA, he'd more than likely be around the 12-13%. Marchand is the exception, not the rule.

A Panarin signing/cap hit will not be a problem because of the ELCs/RFAs. Cap space/big UFA commitments become an issue in 4-5 years, when we have to begin committing to our own. Same stuff gets repeated.

 

[haohmaru]

Bergeron makes $6.875m, Marchand makes $6.125 m. If Panarin wants to get paid like that, sign me up.

So, it's not about the timeline or competing, it's about the money.

 

[eco's bones]

If people are going to @ me, I'm going to try and make my point one last time.

The main reason that I want the team to sign Panarin is because he will make the team more able to compete on a nightly basis, which will create a healthier developmental atmosphere around the influx of recent 1st rounders who will be coming in. I believe that the way the team works BEFORE it is competitive is just as important as the composition of the team when it SHOULD be competitive, and in my view, bad teams ignore that fact. I (and others) base this on actual experience building and rebuilding sports programs. Thus the argument that we don't need someone now because the team won't likely make the playoffs either way doesn't work for me. People are free to disagree, but I have not yet seen a good argument counter to this--one guy just kept saying the logic was "dumb" as if that was a legitimate response (and I'm guessing his counter experience is more with a video game console compared to building an actual team of real people). One person (I don't remember who--I think it was Edge or Inferno) offered that they don't think one season of losing most nights would impact the development of the kids. That's possible--it MIGHT not impact their mentality/development. But why risk it? To have a chance at a slightly higher draft pick? It just isn't worth it to me.

I keep seeing people complain about the money and the term. I do not understand that argument at all. This team has a BOATLOAD of cap space right now. They have more than enough to sign Panarin. I've seen arguments that Panarin would prevent us from re-signing KK or other young guys, but even if the cap DOESN'T go up (and it will), the following contracts will be off the books by the time the kids need 2nd contracts: Vesey ($2.25m), Namestnikov ($4m), Smith ($4.3m), Staal ($5.7m), and Henrik ($8.5m). All of these players have their replacements--on ELCs--either already on the roster or in the pipeline. That's almost $25 million dollars of cap coming off the books in the next three years. And that's not even taking into account the likelihood that a Panarin signing would likely be followed by a Kreider trade (take out Kreider's cap hit and Panarin would basically be getting ~$6m in additional cap for a HUGE and more durable upgrade on the top line LW). There will be NO problem whatsoever in signing kids to 2nd contracts. There is no financial impediment to signing Panarin, even at 7 years by 11 million. The money is more than there.

Other posters have already demonstrated how unlikely it is that Panarin would have a huge decline during a 7 year contract. The naysayers are painting it as a Callahan situation, where he'd be making 11m as a part time 4th liner by the end of the contract. That is highly unlikely, as again, others have shown.

The main point of difference that I have with the camp that doesn't want to sign Panarin is the fact that I believe (based on experience) that it is important for a team to believe they can win every night, even if they aren't going to be "competitive" for another couple of years. The other side wants the team to suck as much as possible for the hope that lightning will strike two years in a row in the lottery. You don't win in life banking on the lottery. You win by dealing with the things that you can control. Making a smart signing on a rare player who will likely still be playing an important (if not dominant) role when this team is competing for the Cup again, is a good thing.

If people have other ideas for how to do that that doesn't involve signing Panarin, I'm all ears and excited to listen and chat about those ideas. But thus far, through 20+ pages of discussion, the other side has chosen to call such concerns "dumb logic" (based on nothing but their arrogance) or dismiss it as not something that will cause a developmental issue. In other words, they--as many of us have been saying since early in the thread--want the team to suck hard so they can have another spin at the draft lottery, and they are willing to risk letting a toxic attitude into the room to do it. I, and others who have built teams (and, honestly, I'd bet that JD, Gorts, and the Rangers feel the same way about this), see that as incredibly reckless, and don't want to risk the phenomenal work done in the rebuild thus far in a search for "just one more piece."

A lot depends on who we keep over the next couple years but it will be at least $25+ that comes off the books two years from now. The question of whether Kreider goes will be another large contract we won't be paying--also Namestnikov, Strome, Vesey and Fast could all be gone for cheaper ELC/2nd contract players by the same time 2 years from now. And then you add the cap however much it goes up. I don't see cap space being a problem at all.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Dude, this is completely assinine. What, the only friggin' valid opinion yours and the only viewpoint that makes sense is yours? How old are you?

People make points and counter points. Both sides have arguments. We can disagree. But this type of post is what I would expect a 13 year old to make. You are far, far better than this.

In all fairness , most of the arguments on here about painfully obvious things are just countered outbursts of spite by angry nerds.

In gaming, it would be called "passive inting".

 

[True Blue]

When Bergeron (5 years ago) signed his contract, it was likely seen as similarly exhorbitant.

There is always inflation but a contract signed 5 years ago is not worth virtually twice as much today. That is notthe way economics work.

Marchand's contract is more recent, but he'll be on that contract until he's 37 years old. When Marchand signed that contract, his numbers also looked more like Chris Kreider than Panarin. Until the last 3 seasons, he was a good 2nd liner who was also a top notch pest. He was basically a rich man's Sean Avery.

4 straight 30 goals years & 8 out of 9 years of 20+ goals. He is anything but Sean Avery.

It's interesting that this is the post you chose to call out. Yes, that poster's responses have gotten sort of taunting and childish at times in this thread, but he is literally (and rather obviously) responding in kind to the THREE posters (not you) who have taken an even more childish tone throughout the entire thread. I initially walked away from the thread because those three weren't interested in a conversation and they thought "Your idea is dumb and me saying that means I refuted it" was engaging with a topic. Now they've started @ing me.

I am never the post police. And what people choose to say is up to them, but when I see "I can't wait to see this happen so that other Ranger fans look like idiots" type of responses from presumably grown men, that was enough is enough.

TL/DR--yes, the response you posted was mildly childish, but there's abject infancy going on in this thread that you seem to be perfectly fine with because those voices agree with you.

What I am and am not fine with is entirely up t o me. Like I said, I am not one to criticize other posts. For whatever reason, that one struck a nerve. Especially when a poster who usually makes solid arguments, whether I agree with them or not, suddenly devolves into such antics.

 

[True Blue]

So, it's not about the timeline or competing, it's about the money.

It's about what makes sense for the long term success of the team. Not what makes instant gratification.

 

[True Blue]

I thought we were arguing players being potatoes after 30 revolutions around the sun? Now it's cap hits?

Want to tell me how many players in the history of the NHL played as well at 33 as they did at 28? Bet the number is small. And it has ALWAYS been about the package.......performance, dollars, term, NTC/NMC. If you do not know that because you have not been debating this from the beginning (which is not true as I know you have), then allow me to let you know what you may have been missing.

They're not comparable since they did not sign as UFAs. Bergeron re-signed at 10.69%. If he were signed as a UFA, he'd more than likely be around the 12-13%. Marchand is the exception, not the rule.

Who cares? Performance at over 30 is performance over 30. Term of a deal is term of a deal. NTC/NMC are eaxactly that. Cap maneuverability is cap maneuverability.

A Panarin signing/cap hit will not be a problem because of the ELCs/RFAs. Cap space/big UFA commitments become an issue in 4-5 years, when we have to begin committing to our own. Same stuff gets repeated.

And in 4-5 years, he will be a shadow of his former self at a time when the Rangers begin competing for the Cup. With a contract that is expensive and hard to move, and a player that is no longer the player he was in his prime. Oh, and his prime years, will be wasted on a team that is not competing for the Cup. But you know this viewpoint already, since you know, the same things keep getting repeated.

 

[haohmaru]

It's about what makes sense for the long term success of the team. Not what makes instant gratification.

So Panarin makes sense for the "long term success of the team" because of his salary being 6.8, or whatever, instead of 11M per? Seems to counter your arguments that by the time we're "contending" he's going to be ineffective and declining. The salary shouldn't matter if that's the case.

 

[mas0764]

Dude, this is completely assinine. What, the only friggin' valid opinion yours and the only viewpoint that makes sense is yours? How old are you?

People make points and counter points. Both sides have arguments. We can disagree. But this type of post is what I would expect a 13 year old to make. You are far, far better than this.

Have you been reading this thread? There are two posters in particular - not you - who’ve done nothing but be condescending to everyone who believes we should sign Panarin, they’ve shown themselves completely unable to acknowledge the opinion of others or, more importantly, that they don’t know literally anything and only have their own speculation and opinions which are no better than anyone else’s.

So yes, I’d get a kick out of those two getting completely embarrassed by being wrong.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Have you been reading this thread? There are two posters in particular - not you - who’ve done nothing but be condescending to everyone who believes we should sign Panarin, they’ve shown themselves completely unable to acknowledge the opinion of others or, more importantly, that they don’t know literally anything and only have their own speculation and opinions which are no better than anyone else’s.

So yes, I’d get a kick out of those two getting completely embarrassed by being wrong.

1. When the Rangers will be theoretically contenders, Panarin will be a shelf of himself and expensive as well as a hard to move.

2. Signing the younger Panarin will make the Rangers overall meh...again, which is what we are trying to avoid because it's just a first or second round exit with a much weaker draft spot.

1 + 2 . Signing the good young Panarin will make the Rangers meh...mad get weaker draft picks, and then we won't hit that theoretical window of greatness because we will have drafted less elite players, and Panarin will now be a former shell of himself.

=

The status quo of this sorry ass team.

What is being missed sir?

 

[mas0764]

1. When the Rangers will be theoretically contenders, Panarin will be a shelf of himself and expensive as well as a hard to move.

2. Signing the younger Panarin will make the Rangers overall meh...again, which is what we are trying to avoid because it's just a first or second round exit with a much weaker draft spot.

1 + 2 . Signing the good young Panarin will make the Rangers meh...mad get weaker draft picks, and then we won't hit that theoretical window of greatness because we will have drafted less elite players, and Panarin will now be a former shell of himself.

=

The status quo of this sorry ass team.

What is being missed sir?

Lots. But that’s been this whole 22 page debate. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[smoneil]

1. When the Rangers will be theoretically contenders, Panarin will be a shelf of himself and expensive as well as a hard to move.

2. Signing the younger Panarin will make the Rangers overall meh...again, which is what we are trying to avoid because it's just a first or second round exit with a much weaker draft spot.

1 + 2 . Signing the good young Panarin will make the Rangers meh...mad get weaker draft picks, and then we won't hit that theoretical window of greatness because we will have drafted less elite players, and Panarin will now be a former shell of himself.

=

The status quo of this sorry ass team.

What is being missed sir?

Two things you are missing:

1- Post 631 that goes into detail to explain why your $$ concerns are unfounded and why there is a clear benefit to bringing in a player to keep the team competitive while the prospects develop.

2- The post another gentleman made earlier in the thread that showed pretty clearly that most elite players, while they do start to decline in their early 30s, are hardly "a shell of their former selves" at that age. Based on the data provided by that poster, Panarin is likely to still be a very solid contributor in the last couple of years of his contract.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Two things you are missing:

1- Post 631 that goes into detail to explain why your $$ concerns are unfounded and why there is a clear benefit to bringing in a player to keep the team competitive while the prospects develop.

2- The post another gentleman made earlier in the thread that showed pretty clearly that most elite players, while they do start to decline in their early 30s, are hardly "a shell of their former selves" at that age. Based on the data provided by that poster, Panarin is likely to still be a very solid contributor in the last couple of years of his contract.

My concern is draft picks. you know to rebuild.

And I'm sick of these advanced stats that fly in the face of reality. These aren't sub-atomic particles. It's players over 30 who get shitty.

Again, the water is wet thing.

One day some ape is going to come on here and say ,"I just crunched the numbers , and when you hold the calculator upside down, you can see that next year Rick Nash will score 80087322 goals, so..."

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Lots. But that’s been this whole 22 page debate. You are entitled to your opinion.

I've seen lots of bad copy pasta to be honest. Most of it is wrong.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

And in regard to peoples "feelerz" getting hurt, well what tone do you expect people to give when fans who seemingly spend more time worrying about the Rangers than the Rangers themselves , want to do literally the wrong thing the team has done since the 70s: not holding and buying things.

How should someone respond to anyone over 10 years old?

With admiration?

Don't think so fam.

 

[mas0764]

My concern is draft picks. you know to rebuild.

And I'm sick of these advanced stats that fly in the face of reality. These aren't sub-atomic particles. It's players over 30 who get ****ty.

Again, the water is wet thing.

One day some ape is going to come on here and say ,"I just crunched the numbers , and when you hold the calculator upside down, you can see that next year Rick Nash will score 80087322 goals, so..."

But you are oversimplifying. Your conclusions are hardly universally true. Some of them are barely “more likely than not.”

You can repeat it like it’s fact and call all statistics showing otherwise “advanced stat” voodoo, but in the absence of statistics, you have opinion and anecdote being held up as conclusive when it’s simply not. You can say “water is wet,” but we’re talking about something way more nuanced than water. How is it reality if you have nothing to prove your argument?

Frankly it sounds like the anti-Panarin rebuttal is what is copypasta. Just a bunch of repeated cliches from some posters about ruining draft standing and fears about overpriced veterans.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

But you are oversimplifying. Your conclusions are hardly universally true. Some of them are barely “more likely than not.”

You can repeat it like it’s fact and call all statistics showing otherwise “advanced stat” voodoo, but in the absence of statistics, you have opinion and anecdote being held up as conclusive when it’s simply not. You can say “water is wet,” but we’re talking about something way more nuanced than water.

I'm not going to call a stalemate just because I'm not crazy enough to crunch numbers and post it to try to prove that players don't get less good with age let alone significantly less good.

It's not that much more nuanced. It's human beings after playing a high intensity sport violent sport for up to 12 -13 years at that point in just the NHL.

 

[RGY]

I'm not going to call a stalemate just because I'm not crazy enough to crunch numbers and post it to try to prove that players don't get less good with age let alone significantly less good.

It's not that much more nuanced. It's human beings after playing a high intensity sport violent sport for up to 12 -13 years at that point in just the NHL.

But Panarin does not have that same 12-13 years. He doesnt have the miles on his body.