Panarin: Yes or No?

[Hi ImHFNYR]

"because he doesn't fit the timeline" or whatever garbage they're peddling now.

We should take him bc you should sign guys to 7 or 8 year max $ contracts regardless of team construction.

Never try to project when a player's skill will decline either.

Yea...bc that's smart.

Are you seriously a NYR fan? Were you not here for Redden, Gomez, Drury, Girardi, Staal, Richards, etc, etc.?

I get if you want to take the risk anyway but to be as oblivious as you are being and claiming it's "garbage peddling" as if our concerns have no basis in reality? Makes you look either delusional or just ignorant of how NYR and hockey history has plaayed out

If he wants to accept a 5 year deal? Hell sign him for max money then.

But the NHL does not look kindly on 30+ year olds making 8-10 M per so no way in hell would I want to have him making max money for years 30, 31, 32 and 33.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

This board tends to be very naive about the salary cap.

Yes, We usually cheer wildly for aged veterans on high cost, long term deals and they usually bite us in the ass. Doubly so if it's a big name offensive defense-man already past his prime. In the past we were a strong, contending team so it made sense to try to get these vets. We hoped to get 3 or 4 great years out of them with the understanding that we'd have to suffer through seeing them make top dollar while being absolute trash. Of course we usually get 1 year out of them if we're lucky. Which is why signing Panarin now when his decline will be exactly when the team is ready to compete seems like a bad move.

The Rangers have a grand total of two veteran players under contract for 2021-22 and the expectation that a large portion of the roster will be on entry level contracts. Given the youth in the organization now and what’s coming, I anticipate they will have at least 5 ELCs every year until the middle 20s.

I do not see that as a realistic prediction at all. More importantly, it's not enough to offset the guaranteed reality of the situation.

Assuming these guys make the team this year we have Kravtsov, kakko, Chytil, Buch, ADA, Pionk, Shesty/Georgiev, all off ELC by 2022. Some of them could very well be making BIG money. I see no reason to have a declining Panarin making top dollar alongside them when we could wait until 2021, get a more accurate view of what each of those guys will be making and THEN start to add a big name vet at top dollar.

Once the new US TV deal is signed, cap will jump 6-8MM (minimum) in one year. There is no cap congestion and it won’t be an issue until 2023 or 2024. If the Rangers do go all in on Panarin (and I can’t imagine they won’t) I expect they will take great pains to structure his contract in a way that gives them a back door down the road.

Money is not the issue. It is the evaluation of the player that should be concerning everyone.

None of this matters. You don't piss away 8 M in cap for the next 7 or 8 years just to have a top FA waste his last remaining prime years on a bad team. I mean you CAN. But it'd be dumb.

Great pains? What pains? A Limited NTC? Fight over a NMC?

If it's such a pain to negotiate a backdoor then you know what panarin will do? Sign somewhere else. He should. Let him be someone elses 8M + headache for the last 4 years of whatever ridiculous contract he gets.

Wait another off season or two, then add top FAs...plural...bc not wasting money now allows you to get multiple huge FAs later when you actually need them.

It's not a cap issue. It is a timing, planning and strategy issue.

If we get him now for 5 years or if he gives us a limited NTC for the final 3 years then I guess I'm ok with it.

If he comes here with a full NMC making the kind of money we all think he'll be making? Welp. That'll suck.

 

[bobbop]

Yes, We usually cheer wildly for aged veterans on high cost, long term deals and they usually bite us in the ass. Doubly so if it's a big name offensive defense-man already past his prime. In the past we were a strong, contending team so it made sense to try to get these vets. We hoped to get 3 or 4 great years out of them with the understanding that we'd have to suffer through seeing them make top dollar while being absolute trash. Of course we usually get 1 year out of them if we're lucky. Which is why signing Panarin now when his decline will be exactly when the team is ready to compete seems like a bad move.



I do not see that as a realistic prediction at all. More importantly, it's not enough to offset the guaranteed reality of the situation.

Assuming these guys make the team this year we have Kravtsov, kakko, Chytil, Buch, ADA, Pionk, Shesty/Georgiev, all off ELC by 2022. Some of them could very well be making BIG money. I see no reason to have a declining Panarin making top dollar alongside them when we could wait until 2021, get a more accurate view of what each of those guys will be making and THEN start to add a big name vet at top dollar.



None of this matters. You don't piss away 8 M in cap for the next 7 or 8 years just to have a top FA waste his last remaining prime years on a bad team. I mean you CAN. But it'd be dumb.

Great pains? What pains? A Limited NTC? Fight over a NMC?

If it's such a pain to negotiate a backdoor then you know what panarin will do? Sign somewhere else. He should. Let him be someone elses 8M + headache for the last 4 years of whatever ridiculous contract he gets.

Wait another off season or two, then add top FAs...plural...bc not wasting money now allows you to get multiple huge FAs later when you actually need them.

It's not a cap issue. It is a timing, planning and strategy issue.

If we get him now for 5 years or if he gives us a limited NTC for the final 3 years then I guess I'm ok with it.

If he comes here with a full NMC making the kind of money we all think he'll be making? Welp. That'll suck.

I really can’t figure out if you are arguing with me or yourself here. Your second point validates my first point. You didn’t read the third post completely.

C’mon man!

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I really can’t figure out if you are arguing with me or yourself here. Your second point validates my first point. You didn’t read the third post completely.

C’mon man!

I'm countering the post I quoted. People read posts and respond. That's usually how this works lol.

As it stands, the post I quoted makes it look like you are finding reasons to justify signing him. I disagreed with that

If you said something different in another post later on then I'm sorry but that's kind of your fault for not editing in a clarification to your first post

It sounds like you're cherry picking a small part of my post and saying it supports your point.

My post, in its entirety, very clearly is pointing out flaws in your stance and why I disagree with it. Either that or you worded your argument poorly and you actually meant that it's bad to sign panarin.

 

[mas0764]

My argument for Panarin is that he kinda checks the box for "free agent of the quality which does not come available every year or two or three." He's produced high, high numbers in two stops, and he's only got 4 seasons of NHL mileage on him, which is important when considering his age. He's a young, low mileage 27 years old, who has been remarkably consistent across his four years with the Blackhawks and Blue Jackets: 27-31 goals, 43-59 assists, 74-87 points. That's basically second tier of NHL star (behind the Ovechkins, Crosbys and McDavids of the world), and you are probably gonna get that production for longer than the average 27 year old.

Duchene strikes me more as the type of guy we get into trouble with. Big name and a high price, but has been bounced around for different reasons than Panarin (who was only traded to reunite old teammates in a quest to re-establish chemistry, not because the team had moved on from Panarin). His high point total is 70, not 87, and he has plenty of up and down throughout his career so far: seasons of 59, 41 (!!!), 59, 55, and 28 points (though in a less than full season, but one in which he still played 58 games). Etc. He also is WAY higher mileage... he's been in the league since 19, and has a full ten seasons of service. He's gonna age more rapidly than normal, most likely. I mean, christ, this guy just screams that he's gonna come to NY and put up 45-55 points and be an unmitigated disaster at 9 million a season.

I'd happily pay 11 million to Panarin and his 75 points if only to avoid getting sucked in on Duchene. Yes, I know we need center options, but Zibanejad is young enough to be one, we have assets to trade up and get another top 6 center this year, and if not this year, we'll have assets to trade up and get another top 6 center the year after in a center-strong draft. On top of that, Chytil, Andersson, and Howden are all probably middle-6 capable centers (if not better), especially if their wingers are Kakko, Kravtsov, and Panarin. You can get by with a second line center only putting up 40-50 points when you've got 70-80 point wingers flanking him on both sides.

 

[True Blue]

My argument for Panarin is that he kinda checks the box for "free agent of the quality which does not come available every year or two or three."

And yet we seem to be discussing these type of players now seemingly every year.

 

[SA16]

And yet we seem to be discussing these type of players now seemingly every year.

Personally I really wanted us to sign David Backes a few years ago. That was one of the real "once in a lifetime" free agents. It was close between him and Frans Nielsen for me. I did have both of them slightly edging out Martin Hanzal though.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

My argument for Panarin is that he kinda checks the box for "free agent of the quality which does not come available every year or two or three." He's produced high, high numbers in two stops, and he's only got 4 seasons of NHL mileage on him, which is important when considering his age. He's a young, low mileage 27 years old, who has been remarkably consistent across his four years with the Blackhawks and Blue Jackets: 27-31 goals, 43-59 assists, 74-87 points. That's basically second tier of NHL star (behind the Ovechkins, Crosbys and McDavids of the world), and you are probably gonna get that production for longer than the average 27 year old.

Duchene strikes me more as the type of guy we get into trouble with. Big name and a high price, but has been bounced around for different reasons than Panarin (who was only traded to reunite old teammates in a quest to re-establish chemistry, not because the team had moved on from Panarin). His high point total is 70, not 87, and he has plenty of up and down throughout his career so far: seasons of 59, 41 (!!!), 59, 55, and 28 points (though in a less than full season, but one in which he still played 58 games). Etc. He also is WAY higher mileage... he's been in the league since 19, and has a full ten seasons of service. He's gonna age more rapidly than normal, most likely. I mean, christ, this guy just screams that he's gonna come to NY and put up 45-55 points and be an unmitigated disaster at 9 million a season.

I'd happily pay 11 million to Panarin and his 75 points if only to avoid getting sucked in on Duchene. Yes, I know we need center options, but Zibanejad is young enough to be one, we have assets to trade up and get another top 6 center this year, and if not this year, we'll have assets to trade up and get another top 6 center the year after in a center-strong draft. On top of that, Chytil, Andersson, and Howden are all probably middle-6 capable centers (if not better), especially if their wingers are Kakko, Kravtsov, and Panarin. You can get by with a second line center only putting up 40-50 points when you've got 70-80 point wingers flanking him on both sides.

One thing, bc i was thinking about the 4 years. It's not like he was home all that time. He was playing, just not in the nhl.

You want to say the grind wasnt as bad outside the nhl, I can buy that but only to a small degree. Do we have any sort of study showing how "nhl tread" on the tires affects what age players decline?

 

[Lone Ranger]

Other than JT, who was never coming to the Rangers, not a single forward, even remotely as talented as Panarin has reached UFA in the past five years. He's well worth the investment

 

[SA16]

One thing, bc i was thinking about the 4 years. It's not like he was home all that time. He was playing, just not in the nhl.

You want to say the grind wasnt as bad outside the nhl, I can buy that but only to a small degree. Do we have any sort of study showing how "nhl tread" on the tires affects what age players decline?

No. But it's pretty obvious. Consider it like a battery. They degrade both from age, even if not used and kept in storage, and from being used repeatedly.

 

[bobbop]

Yes, We usually cheer wildly for aged veterans on high cost, long term deals and they usually bite us in the ass. Doubly so if it's a big name offensive defense-man already past his prime. In the past we were a strong, contending team so it made sense to try to get these vets. We hoped to get 3 or 4 great years out of them with the understanding that we'd have to suffer through seeing them make top dollar while being absolute trash. Of course we usually get 1 year out of them if we're lucky. Which is why signing Panarin now when his decline will be exactly when the team is ready to compete seems like a bad move.



I do not see that as a realistic prediction at all. More importantly, it's not enough to offset the guaranteed reality of the situation.

Assuming these guys make the team this year we have Kravtsov, kakko, Chytil, Buch, ADA, Pionk, Shesty/Georgiev, all off ELC by 2022. Some of them could very well be making BIG money. I see no reason to have a declining Panarin making top dollar alongside them when we could wait until 2021, get a more accurate view of what each of those guys will be making and THEN start to add a big name vet at top dollar.



None of this matters. You don't piss away 8 M in cap for the next 7 or 8 years just to have a top FA waste his last remaining prime years on a bad team. I mean you CAN. But it'd be dumb.

Great pains? What pains? A Limited NTC? Fight over a NMC?

If it's such a pain to negotiate a backdoor then you know what panarin will do? Sign somewhere else. He should. Let him be someone elses 8M + headache for the last 4 years of whatever ridiculous contract he gets.

Wait another off season or two, then add top FAs...plural...bc not wasting money now allows you to get multiple huge FAs later when you actually need them.

It's not a cap issue. It is a timing, planning and strategy issue.

If we get him now for 5 years or if he gives us a limited NTC for the final 3 years then I guess I'm ok with it.

If he comes here with a full NMC making the kind of money we all think he'll be making? Welp. That'll suck.

OK, I'll spell it out for you.

I don't have to find reasons to justify signing Panarin. He's an excellent player. As @mschmidt64 pointed out, he's on a second tier behind the Ovechkins and Crosbys of the world. He is a free agent of high quality that is seldom available. Looking out over the next two years, there are very few perspective free agents that will demand this kind of investment or interest. He's 27 going on 28. He has several years of high productivity in front of him. There is nothing in his history that would lead you to believe that his performance will fall off a cliff in 3-4 years.

If you think his decline is inevitable when this team is starting to seriously compete, then we have a real disconnect on timelines.

I'd hope that several of the young Rangers earn pretty big contracts in the next year or two. That would be terrific. It would also indicate the rebuild is moving along faster than expected. I'm all for that. I also know that the salary cap will likely be around $83MM this year and will continue to increase. When the new US national TV contract is signed, it will jump $6-8MM in one fell swoop. The Rangers have almost nothing on the books right now for the years 2021-22 and beyond. And the Rangers will have plenty of players on ELCs through the middle 20s. At the earliest, Miller won't need a new contract until 2023-24. There will others who follow later. This teams is etting up to be very young for the next several years.

And as for the great pains in putting a back door in the contract, I didn't think I needed to spell that out but I will. 7 years NMC, 4-5 years NTC, 2-3 years LTC.

Bringing in a top ten scorer in the league who is in the prime of his career and has excelled with less than optimum teammates (in Columbus) is not pissing away money. And by the way did I mention that he is Russian? Just like Kravtson, Rykov, Sherstykin and Buchnevich?

I wouldn't call him a once in a lifetime opportunity, but he's the best free agent I can remember the Rangers having the ability and the wherewithal to bid on in a long time.

 

[bobbop]

And yet we seem to be discussing these type of players now seemingly every year.

Examples?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

No. But it's pretty obvious. Consider it like a battery. They degrade both from age, even if not used and kept in storage, and from being used repeatedly.

The question isnt whether they decline from both storage and/or from repeated use. It's the degree of decline that's in question. We've seen players with low usage decline rapidly at an early age like prucha, we've seen others with high usage and even various injuries like Crosby play for an eternity. Others like Richard's decline at the drop of a hat way sooner than crosby after a decently lengthy. Career.

You get Matt Harvey's and Derek Jeter's.

Human bodies are a total wild card.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

OK, I'll spell it out for you.

I don't have to find reasons to justify signing Panarin. He's an excellent player. As @mschmidt64 There is nothing in his history that would lead you to believe that his performance will fall off a cliff in 3-4 years.

If you think his decline is inevitable when this team is starting to seriously compete, then we have a real disconnect on timelines.

Bringing in a top ten scorer in the league who is in the prime of his career and has excelled with less than optimum teammates (in Columbus) is not pissing away money. And by the way did I mention that he is Russian? Just like Kravtson, Rykov, Sherstykin and Buchnevich?

I wouldn't call him a once in a lifetime opportunity, but he's the best free agent I can remember the Rangers having the ability and the wherewithal to bid on in a long time.

You didnt spell out anything. You reiterated the stance I originally argued against.

I correctly understood you the first time. You, for some reason, didn't understand me and created the confusion.

Nothing in his history? By that logic, for the vast majority of players, there's never anything in any players history that says when exactly they'll decline.

If you think this team is seriously competing in 2 years then I want what you're smoking.

It is pissing away money in the context I mentioned. Context you ignored.

Glad he's Russian? Hooray?

Then you have a short memory and you are overrating what "best FA" means to this team now and 4/5 years from now when the team is poised to be in its prime.

You're shortsighted.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

As someone who adamantly doesn't want to see Panarin here, I don't think he's going to age the same way a lot of other players do when they hit their 30's. Primarily because of lack of miles on his odometer.

I watched Columbus closely in the playoffs and although I will admit Panarin is a hell of a player, he's not a 10m+ player. He coasts a lot. I also question his effort, especially in the defensive zone. I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that he has lazy tendencies.

I don't understand why we should be taking any risks when we're a few years from contending. I get why Sather kept flipping future assets when we were in our window. That's when I don't mind seeing us aggressively target a guy that can potentially put us over the top. But right now? Meh.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

"because he doesn't fit the timeline" or whatever garbage they're peddling now.

Garbage?

I see both sides making very fair arguments why they would or wouldn't. Just because you disagree with those opinions doesn't make them garbage.

 

[LORDE]

As someone who adamantly doesn't want to see Panarin here, I don't think he's going to age the same way a lot of other players do when they hit their 30's. Primarily because of lack of miles on his odometer.

I watched Columbus closely in the playoffs and although I will admit Panarin is a hell of a player, he's not a 10m+ player. He coasts a lot. I also question his effort, especially in the defensive zone. I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that he has lazy tendencies.

I don't understand why we should be taking any risks when we're a few years from contending. I get why Sather kept flipping future assets when we were in our window. That's when I don't mind seeing us aggressively target a guy that can potentially put us over the top. But right now? Meh.

Especially at a position that is currently an organizational strength.

 

[DarthSather99]

No Thanks, sign players at a much lower cost for shorter terms until we can see which young players pan out.

 

[Made Dan]

Personally would be against the move. Love the player, without a doubt, but don't think the timing is right. I'm mostly opposed on the basis of what I think the orgs gonna wind up doing.

Think they'll push hard for one of the big guns (Panarin/Karlsson), I don't really agree but I think that will be the case. If it winds up coming to fruition, at that point I say f*** it and grab a second stud. One alone doesn't launch us into contention, but adding two certainly gets us close. I'd rather avoid the splurging now all together, but not convinced Gorts and Co agree. If that's the plan, I'd bet it'd be one F and one D. The d-man in all likelihood would be Karlsson, who we know is going to get a mammoth long-term deal. If we're the ones giving it to him, I'd be way more interested in pursuing a deal for Malkin (which I'm not convinced is anything more than Brooksie rubbish). Panarin is currently better but I'd prefer Malkin for a few reasons:
- He's a center
-Locked in at 9.5 (figure around 2M less than Panarin)
-Only signed for 3 more years.

Last point is the most important to me. Signing BOTH Karlsson and Panarin (which may not even be possible) would kill us when some of our kids come off their ELCs in 3 years. Would expect Kakko to be in line for a huge deal, maybe Kravtsov and co as well. Less long-term risk with Malkin really.

 

[True Blue]

Personally I really wanted us to sign David Backes a few years ago. That was one of the real "once in a lifetime" free agents. It was close between him and Frans Nielsen for me. I did have both of them slightly edging out Martin Hanzal though.

Karlsson when he was never going to be available. Or a player like Parise, who never becomes available. Or a player like Sutter. Defensemen like him never become available. And at the time of the trade, players like Rick Nash never become available. Or John Tavares, who never become available.

Funny thing, the more you look at it, the more you see that players of the ilk of "never become available" actually do be come available.

 

[True Blue]

Other than JT, who was never coming to the Rangers, not a single forward, even remotely as talented as Panarin has reached UFA in the past five years. He's well worth the investment

We were just talking about Karlsson with the same baited breath.

 

[True Blue]

Examples?

I just did. Karlsson. Tavares. Not that long ago, it was Parise and Sutter. Not that long ago a trade for Nash was done.

 

[smoneil]

Lol. They just took too many loser points like a bunch of dumbasses.

The team was ****. It should be ****.

Then it can git gud. Rangerstown fans are their own enemies

They were in every game. Toxic losing culture is a thing and it should be avoided as the plague that it is. The only way to have good odds for a top 5 pick is to embrace that kind of losing culture. This team got lucky with the 2oa. Don't get greedy.

And incidentally, my views on this topic are based less on my being a fan of the team and more on almost 15 years as a coach in another sport. Building the right team culture is huge, and if the wrong kind of culture seeps into a locker room, the only way to fix it is to purge the room. You see embracing the suck as a way to add another high end piece or two. I see it as needlessly risking the huge pile of assets that the team has spent the last couple of years acquiring.

 

[SA16]

Karlsson when he was never going to be available. Or a player like Parise, who never becomes available. Or a player like Sutter. Defensemen like him never become available. And at the time of the trade, players like Rick Nash never become available. Or John Tavares, who never become available.

Funny thing, the more you look at it, the more you see that players of the ilk of "never become available" actually do be come available.

Different CBA...and Tavares was not available for the Rangers and I think you'll find most people do not want to sign Karlsson. Which brings us down to precisely one high quality FA under this CBA who has not ruled out playing for the Rangers (Tavares) or has major concerns (Karlsson and potentially Hall next year).

Do you want to trade Howden+Andersson+Lundkvist+1st for someone in a few years instead? That's relatively similar to the Dubinsky+Anisimov+Erixon+1st package. Two all around centers who were 40ish point players then, a good defensive prospect and a 1st.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Different CBA...and Tavares was not available for the Rangers and I think you'll find most people do not want to sign Karlsson. Which brings us down to precisely one high quality FA under this CBA who has not ruled out playing for the Rangers (Tavares) or has major concerns (Karlsson and potentially Hall next year).

Do you want to trade Howden+Andersson+Lundkvist+1st for someone in a few years instead? That's relatively similar to the Dubinsky+Anisimov+Erixon+1st package. Two all around centers who were 40ish point players then, a good defensive prospect and a 1st.

I’d rather do that trade than trading one of their rights to move up in the second round and a nothing player because they’re too expensive to resign