Panarin: Yes or No?

[True Blue]

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).

Point being that these players do in fact come around. If the Rangers tried to make Tavares the highest player in the league, he might well be here. Commentary that these type of players are never available is just false. They are.

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 will let you know that in a few years when I see how close the Rangers are to being true Cup contenders. Until then, I see no need to lock up future cap space to a player who will be in decline when I thing the Rangers are true competitors. Not to mention I want to see what is under the hood so that you can begin to assess what your future salary cap structure will look like.

As someone already pointed out. Right player, wrong time.

 

[mas0764]

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.

Yeah, he's way more Marian Gaborik and/or Rick Nash than he is, like, Bobby Holik or Brad Richards. And I know Nash became everyone's whipping boy, but he remained a valuable, productive player until the last year of his contract, when we were able to trade him for a first round pick and a valuable prospect package. You probably get 3-4 more seasons of 70+ point play from Panarin (due to his light tread at this point), and then I'd guess you probably get 2-3 seasons after that where he's valuable third liner type, before he's toast.

Gaborik kinda fell off at 33, but he had been playing in the NHL since 19, and he lasted as a bit player till about 35. Nash "fell off" more like 31, but remained a quality defensive wings and still 20+ goal scorer till 33 also, and he had been in the league since 18.

Panarin entered the league at 24. He'll probably last a bit past 32, 33 at a top 6 level, before experiencing a similar slide, would be my guess.

 

[mas0764]

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

That's not true. No one like that last year. The year before, Shattenkirk was a big get, but no one claimed he was a "once every couple years free agent." He was simply a good player willing to take a discount to come here, which made him appealing, though it hasn't worked out.

Panarin is simply on a different level to anyone we've signed or acquired since Gaborik, or maybe Nash.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

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.

That's a weak comparison.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

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 **** 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.

If they sign EK and Panarin, I'll wear and Islander jersey with 1940.

Considering everything , that would make this franchise the most loony toon sack of shit ever.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Panarin entered the league at 24. He'll probably last a bit past 32, 33 at a top 6 level, before experiencing a similar slide, would be my guess.

I have no problem if you want to think this but I am not sure that we have any evidence to show that his lack of NHL tread is any sort of guarantee that he'll play at an 8M+ level until he's 32, 33.

He was playing those years, just elsewhere is all. I suspect that the determining factors for who lasts until their mid 30s has WAY more to do with off ice work habits and genetics than it does with playing in one league vs the NHL until being 23/24.

I'm sure it can't hurt to avoid the heavier grind of the NHL for a longer period of time but there are just too many factors.

I'd love to see a sample size (hundreds of players deep) that shows a comparison between guys who stay in the K until they're 23/24 vs guys who start the NHL way early. I'd love to see a comparison of guys who make the NHL early compared to guys who stay in the AHL or NCAA. AFAIK no study has ever been done to indicate this difference being something that shaves literal years off a players prime playing years.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Dont forget PK Subban. That dude would never be available. You'd need something insane to get him...or a past his prime Dman...

A notch below but McD certainly is close enough to that category. Gabs was certainly in that category. Jagr was. Guys you'd never think could be reasonably had, become available almost every year

 

[romba]

NO SHORTCUTS DAMMIT!







So that's a 'yes' of course.

 

[smoneil]

That's a weak comparison.

As someone who has built teams (and had to rebuild teams based on the toxicity that a prior staff let flourish), I disagree. It is VERY difficult to develop the right team culture when the team isn't even competing most nights.

 

[smoneil]

Dont forget PK Subban. That dude would never be available. You'd need something insane to get him...or a past his prime Dman...

A notch below but McD certainly is close enough to that category. Gabs was certainly in that category. Jagr was. Guys you'd never think could be reasonably had, become available almost every year

Subban cost in trade. McD wasn't what he is now when he was traded. Gabs had MASSIVE injury concerns. Jagr was seen as toxic, having sourpussed his way out of both Pitts and Washington. Most players of that level who are "available" also come with a serious side-issue.

 

[romba]

If they sign EK and Panarin, I'll wear and Islander jersey with 1940.

At least we now have a silver lining if they do sign both.

 

[eco's bones]

I don't know how many of Kreider, Namestnikov, Strome, Vesey of Fast are going to be gone by this year's trade deadline. Even if it's only two or three of them--that will subtract a lot from our salary cap. Next year it will be Lundqvist, Shattenkirk, Staal, Smith and Beleskey's turn and almost for sure none of them will be re-signed and that's a a massive $26 mil coming off the books all at once which leads us into the 21-22 season.

And if the cap ceiling is around $90--these are the guys that will still be on their ELC's--Kakko/Hughes, Kravtsov, Fox, Miller, Lundkvist (if he's signed), Barron, Reunanen, Keane, Lindbom (if he's signed), the 20 OA in this draft if he's signed.

Players on second contracts--Shesterkin, Rykov, Lindgren, Hajek, Chytil, Andersson and Howden and probably Georgiev.

Players maybe on their 3rd--DeAngelo, Pionk, Buchnevich, Lemieux.

The above list of players will make up the bulk of our team--you can figure on 13 or 14 of these guys being Rangers in 21-22 and add in Skjei and Zibanejad. But of those 13-14 guys it's very likely that not one of them will be making as much as $5 mil per year and 4 or 5 of them making less than $1 mil per on their ELC's. It ain't going to be easy making it to a $70 mil cap floor.

And if the Rangers don't sign Panarin there's no way I would trade Chris Kreider for a mid 1st round pick--we're going to need him for cap compliance.

 

[SA16]

Point being that these players do in fact come around. If the Rangers tried to make Tavares the highest player in the league, he might well be here. Commentary that these type of players are never available is just false. They are.

I will let you know that in a few years when I see how close the Rangers are to being true Cup contenders. Until then, I see no need to lock up future cap space to a player who will be in decline when I thing the Rangers are true competitors. Not to mention I want to see what is under the hood so that you can begin to assess what your future salary cap structure will look like.

As someone already pointed out. Right player, wrong time.

Sort of like how the Sharks tried to make Tavares the highest player in the league and he turned it down because he had a specific destination in mind right?

 

[mas0764]

I have no problem if you want to think this but I am not sure that we have any evidence to show that his lack of NHL tread is any sort of guarantee that he'll play at an 8M+ level until he's 32, 33.

He was playing those years, just elsewhere is all. I suspect that the determining factors for who lasts until their mid 30s has WAY more to do with off ice work habits and genetics than it does with playing in one league vs the NHL until being 23/24.

I'm sure it can't hurt to avoid the heavier grind of the NHL for a longer period of time but there are just too many factors. So for me, I just don't believe it's even a remote guarantee that he's got another 2 or 3 extra years of being in his prime. If he does, it might be more to do with off ice work habits and genetics than his NHL tread.

I'd love to see a sample size (hundreds of players deep) that shows a comparison between guys who stay in the K until they're 23/24 vs guys who start the NHL way early. I'd love to see a comparison of guys who make the NHL early compared to guys who stay in the AHL or NCAA. AFAIK no study has ever been done to indicate this being something that shaves literal years off a players prime playing career.

I'm not claiming Panarin will play at an $11+ million dollar level when he's 32 or 33. In fact, he probably won't.

But paying the premium sticker price now is the price you have to pay to get that guy when he's 27, 28 and 29. The question is, will he be usable at his salary at age 32?

If we get Marian Gaborik-level production when he's 33 years old (47 points in a secondary scoring role), and when 11 million dollars is no longer a top winger salary but more like a second winger salary, then I'd say that's actually a good move. He'll also be tradeable for a Rick Nash or Marian Gaborik-level package (ie, we got a first and high end prospect for Nash, and Brassard+ for Gaborik). That type of production is movable when you no longer want or need it.

As long as he's not a dumpster fire, a la Bobby Holik, Wade Redden, or Brad Richards, we'll be fine. And there are no signs indicating this guy will be a dumpster fire like that. He's way younger and way more productive and has way less wear and tear.

You'd like to give Panarin a little more money if you can shave a year off the contract, granted.

 

[mas0764]

I don't know how many of Kreider, Namestnikov, Strome, Vesey of Fast are going to be gone by this year's trade deadline. Even if it's only two or three of them--that will subtract a lot from our salary cap. Next year it will be Lundqvist, Shattenkirk, Staal, Smith and Beleskey's turn and almost for sure none of them will be re-signed and that's a a massive $26 mil coming off the books all at once which leads us into the 21-22 season.

And if the cap ceiling is around $90--these are the guys that will still be on their ELC's--Kakko/Hughes, Kravtsov, Fox, Miller, Lundkvist (if he's signed), Barron, Reunanen, Keane, Lindbom (if he's signed), the 20 OA in this draft if he's signed.

Players on second contracts--Shesterkin, Rykov, Lindgren, Hajek, Chytil, Andersson and Howden and probably Georgiev.

Players maybe on their 3rd--DeAngelo, Pionk, Buchnevich, Lemieux.

The above list of players will make up the bulk of our team--you can figure on 13 or 14 of these guys being Rangers in 21-22 and add in Skjei and Zibanejad. But of those 13-14 guys it's very likely that not one of them will be making as much as $5 mil per year and 4 or 5 of them making less than $1 mil per on their ELC's. It ain't going to be easy making it to a $70 mil cap floor.

And if the Rangers don't sign Panarin there's no way I would trade Chris Kreider for a mid 1st round pick--we're going to need him for cap compliance.

Right on. I don't think people realize how much cap space we are going to have.

We should be able to sign not just Panarin, but another free agent potentially in 2-3 years, if we want.

 

[LORDE]

As someone who has built teams (and had to rebuild teams based on the toxicity that a prior staff let flourish), I disagree. It is VERY difficult to develop the right team culture when the team isn't even competing most nights.

This team was bottom 6 last year, with Hayes and Zucc and competed almost every night. There is nothing to suggest that the team is tanking.

There is also very little to suggest that they'll be ANY better this coming season since the defense will be nearly identical (due mostly to contract status) except a year older in the case of the aforementioned contract "anchors"

No one is saying to tank it up... but they may finish bottom 3-8 organically and nothing should be done to mitigate that if it hampers the team in the following years.

 

[smoneil]

Right on. I don't think people realize how much cap space we are going to have.

We should be able to sign not just Panarin, but another free agent potentially in 2-3 years, if we want.

It also helps to push some talent down to lower lines. People keep saying the team is stacked at wing, but it's all on the RW (KK, Krav, Buch, Fast). On the left? We have Kreider, Vesey, Lemieux, Names, maybe Chytil, though I think they prefer him at center.

Signing a guy like Panarin lets you roll a top line of Panarin/Zib/KK and pushes a guy like Kreids down a line. You could do a 2nd line of Kreider/Chytil/Buch and a 3rd line of Names or Strome/LA/Kravtsov and a 4th of Lemieux/Howden/Fast.

The D is still a work in progress, but those are lines that could sneak into the playoffs depending on how NHL ready KK and Krav are. It also gives you the luxury as a coach to sit a rookie down and let him watch for a game or two rather than rely on those kids to be difference makers this early in their careers.

It also allows the team to take a harder line with Kreider's contract negotiations. He can demand more money if he knows that the top line LW after him is Jimmy Fecking Vesey (and there aren't really any top LW prospects in the pipeline).

 

[mas0764]

Also, to be clear, the claim isn't that players like Panarin "never become available."

It's just that they aren't always there for the taking. They simply aren't on the market every offseason. If they are on the market, it may not be an offseason where it makes sense for the Rangers to jump in. It may be a player that doesn't want to come to NY. It may be a year that some other team has more cap space and is willing to pay whatever the price to outbid you.

We have a year here where Panarin is available. He's a star right there solidly in that second tier or so, maybe a little less because he's a winger, maybe a little less marketability also because he's a Russian, but his production is right there with the Tavares's of the world, offensively. We have the cap space to get him. We have the roster openings to feature him and the need for someone to take the pressure off the kids in a way that Chris Kreider can't. And apparently he's amenable to, even desirous of, coming to NY.

When the stars align, you have to strike. It's not that this will never happen again -- of course it will, we're NY.

But you don't know if it will happen again in 2-3 years. And if it does, and you need to move Panarin, well, you can probably make that happen, as has been demonstrated with Gaborik and Nash. Gaborik was moved 3 years into a 5 year deal, and Nash was moved in the last year of his deal, when they were both declining, but still productive players, whose reputations meant other teams still wanted them.

People are still snakebit by Bobby Holik, Brad Richards and Wade Redden. Unfortunately, Shattenkirk has kinda been a disaster too, because if you take him out of the mix, I don't think people are as suspicious of our big name acquisitions anymore. The Gaborik and Nash acquisitions were pretty much complete positives.

 

[smoneil]

This team was bottom 6 last year, with Hayes and Zucc and competed almost every night. There is nothing to suggest that the team is tanking.

There is also very little to suggest that they'll be ANY better this coming season since the defense will be nearly identical (due mostly to contract status) except a year older in the case of the aforementioned contract "anchors"

No one is saying to tank it up... but they may finish bottom 3-8 organically and nothing should be done to mitigate that if it hampers the team in the following years.

24 of the Rangers' 36 losses were by a margin of one goal. They are adding three top prospects at worst (KK, Krav, and Fox), and have guys who are likely to up their games (Chytil, LA, ADA). I would be shocked if they were bottom 5 this coming season--teams that compete every night don't tend to get that many bad bounces two years in a row.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I'm not claiming Panarin will play at an $11+ million dollar level when he's 32 or 33. In fact, he probably won't.

But paying the premium sticker price now is the price you have to pay to get that guy when he's 27, 28 and 29. The question is, will he be usable at his salary at age 32?

If we get Marian Gaborik-level production when he's 33 years old (47 points in a secondary scoring role), and when 11 million dollars is no longer a top winger salary but more like a second winger salary, then I'd say that's actually a good move. He'll also be tradeable for a Rick Nash or Marian Gaborik-level package (ie, we got a first and high end prospect for Nash, and Brassard+ for Gaborik). That type of production is movable when you no longer want or need it.

As long as he's not a dumpster fire, a la Bobby Holik, Wade Redden, or Brad Richards, we'll be fine. And there are no signs indicating this guy will be a dumpster fire like that. He's way younger and way more productive and has way less wear and tear.

You'd like to give Panarin a little more money if you can shave a year off the contract, granted.

11 m is beyond bonkers for 40 pts now and in the foreseeable future. I am stunned that anyone would want a guy making that money playing at that level just so he can play well now when we dont need him. Idk what else to say other than just...I'm baffled. We arent even contenders. We arent even a year or two away. Vehemently disagree

 

[Inferno]

Right on. I don't think people realize how much cap space we are going to have.

We should be able to sign not just Panarin, but another free agent potentially in 2-3 years, if we want.

I don't think it's ever that cut and dry. First we have no way to know what our current group of players will do. What if lemieux busts out into a 30 goal 60 point p.i.t.a? He's suddenly a 6 to 7 m player.

What if kakko is an 80 pt player right off the bat?

What if Connor mcdavid wants out from Edmonton and the rangers have the assets but not the cap space to absorb his contract?

What if some other player we're not even thinking of becomes available? Like Charlie McAvoy?

Good teams don't just look at it like ..we've got space to burn so let's burn it. They need to maintain flexibility so that when a player they want, like a Rick Nash, becomes available, you can trade spareparts and absorb an 8mil a year contract.

Panarin is a great player, but can anyone honestly say that they think we will be a cup contender during what few prime years he has left? At absolute best we are 3 years away. I don't see a 31 year old panarin carrying this team on his back.

 

[True Blue]

Sort of like how the Sharks tried to make Tavares the highest player in the league and he turned it down because he had a specific destination in mind right?

Speculating where one may be heading and speculating how often these players become available are two different debates.

 

[Inferno]

24 of the Rangers' 36 losses were by a margin of one goal. They are adding three top prospects at worst (KK, Krav, and Fox), and have guys who are likely to up their games (Chytil, LA, ADA). I would be shocked if they were bottom 5 this coming season--teams that compete every night don't tend to get that many bad bounces two years in a row.

The team that played all those close games also had Kevin Hayes, zucc, and a kreider and zibanejad posting career years... If they trade kreider, as I am expecting them to do, and they pass on panarin, as I'm also expecting them to do... I'll be shocked if they finish outside the bottom5

 

[True Blue]

Panarin is simply on a different level to anyone we've signed or acquired since Gaborik, or maybe Nash.

Now you are changing the parameters. There is a big difference in discussing the caliber of players the Rangers signed as compared to how often these type of players become available. Panarin, Karlsson, Tavares. You list out Gaborik and Nash. Another year or two back, and now you have Sutter & Parise.

As you can tell, yes, these type of players become available.

We have a year here where Panarin is available. He's a star right there solidly in that second tier or so, maybe a little less because he's a winger, maybe a little less marketability also because he's a Russian, but his production is right there with the Tavares's of the world, offensively. We have the cap space to get him. We have the roster openings to feature him and the need for someone to take the pressure off the kids in a way that Chris Kreider can't. And apparently he's amenable to, even desirous of, coming to NY.

So what? He makes no difference to where this team is going to go over the next several years. So what that he is available?

Kreider is a legit top line winger. His playing on such a line and against the opposition's top players takes away pressure off the kids in the same way that Panarin would do in his place.

 

[True Blue]

I don't think it's ever that cut and dry. First we have no way to know what our current group of players will do. What if lemieux busts out into a 30 goal 60 point p.i.t.a? He's suddenly a 6 to 7 m player.

What if kakko is an 80 pt player right off the bat?

What if Connor mcdavid wants out from Edmonton and the rangers have the assets but not the cap space to absorb his contract?

Do not see why the need for instant gratification is so large. You are right. Hey, let's evaluate what is here and what is the horizon. The point is to build a perennial contender, not a team destined to be in the dreaded middle on most year.