Panarin: Yes or No?

[Inferno]

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.

Technically speaking Steven stamkos was available as well Toronto effed everything up by scaring him during their meeting.

 

[Inferno]

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.

I agree. The key is to bottom out, draft well, then jeep drafting well as you turn the corner. Keep supplementing your existing roster with youth, identify key player and move on from those who aren't long term assets.

The rangers core was always too weak to win a cup outside of Henrik dragging us kicking and screaming

 

[Off Sides]

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.

31 of those 47 Gaborik points came when he was age 32.



Gaborik as a 33 or older player,

80 points

184 games

~ .43 ppg

~35 points per 82 games

 

[mas0764]

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, it's not that cut and dry, but again, given our cap situation, I think we will have plenty of flexibility even if we keep Panarin through the length of a 5-6 year deal, and secondly, I suspect given his low mileage that he will be moveable at age 30-31 if we want to, just like Gaborik was and Nash was.

 

[Inferno]

True, it's not that cut and dry, but again, given our cap situation, I think we will have plenty of flexibility even if we keep Panarin through the length of a 5-6 year deal, and secondly, I suspect given his low mileage that he will be moveable at age 30-31 if we want to, just like Gaborik was and Nash was.

There is no way on Earth panarin is signing for less than 7 years.

 

[SA16]

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.

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.

Suter and Parise don't count. If you are including them you are being intentionally obtuse. You cannot use a previous CBA with different rules regarding free agency as a basis of comparison.

 

[True Blue]

True, it's not that cut and dry, but again, given our cap situation, I think we will have plenty of flexibility even if we keep Panarin through the length of a 5-6 year deal, and secondly, I suspect given his low mileage that he will be moveable at age 30-31 if we want to, just like Gaborik was and Nash was.

Low mileage or not, age tends to do the same thing to athletes. Natural depreciation will happen. How moveable will a player be with NTC/NMC and getting paid $11m for another 3 years? Nash was becoming a UFA.

 

[True Blue]

Suter and Parise don't count. If you are including them you are being intentionally obtuse. You cannot use a previous CBA with different rules regarding free agency as a basis of comparison.

Of course they do. If the debate is about how often such players become available, you need to include players that became available. A UFA is stilla UA. If you are not including them, they you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Inferno]

Low mileage or not, age tends to do the same thing to athletes. Natural depreciation will happen. How moveable will a player be with NTC/NMC and getting paid $11m for another 3 years? Nash was becoming a UFA.

Totally agree... I don't like the low miles argument. Age is age. Some guys age better than. Others .. but we all age

 

[SA16]

Of course they do. If the debate is about how often such players become available, you need to include players that became available. A UFA is stilla UA. If you are not including them, they you are being intentionally obtuse.

So if in the next CBA they change the rule to something extreme like you can re-sign your own player to a deal for 7 years but you can only sign a player changing teams to a deal for 3 years at the most you don't think that would change the quality of the free agent pool at all then?

 

[eco's bones]

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.

Kakko will still be on an ELC in 21--22 and I don't think any of us have been suggesting at operating anywhere near the cap ceiling for the next couple years--so there should be plenty of $'s for him in 22-23 when his second contract comes around. Panarin would fit in with plenty of cap space left. More the problem will be hitting the floor in two years if we've divested ourselves of any contract over $6 mil per and are going almost entirely with ELC and 2nd contract players.

Lemieux turning into a 30 goal 60 point player would be extremely unlikely but if he did I would call that a good problem to try and figure out.

McDavid becoming available is even more extremely unlikely and would cost at least one of Kakko/Kravtsov going back the other way ++.

Thing is we don't have to trade anything to get Panarin--he's an unrestricted and legit elite 1st line winger and a better player than Rick Nash. We can keep our spare parts for some other project and sign Artemi for nothing but his contract costs.

 

[mas0764]

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

I think you are missing a very large point here.

I am saying teams often have to swallow paying a guy for some lower-production years because that's simply the cost of buying their higher-production years. I'd love to give Panarin a 3 year deal: guess what? He won't sign it, because some other team will give him more. Ok, so you say, let some other team give him the higher years. Ok, but again, eventually, if we want to build -- and maintain -- a Cup contender, you are going to have to give a big contract to a 27 year old or 28 year old and live with the reality that the day will come when their salary is far outpacing their production.

You have to pick your spots when a guy is worth it, or not. They can't all be Sidney Crosby producing 100 point seasons into their 30s. If you are waiting around on that, you'll never give a long term deal to anyone, and that's no way to build a contender either.

Your argument is missing nuance: SOMETIMES, it's a good thing to give a 27 year old a long term deal, where he will dominate for 3-4 seasons and then tail off, because you get to have him for those dominant seasons. The overpayment at the end is just the unfortunate fact-of-life byproduct of having the guy in his prime.

If you end up with Marian Gaborik at age 32 scoring 47 points, in the last or the penultimate year of his contract, you'll have done very well for your team.

Your argument may be timing-based (ie, the Rangers don't need him right now), but that has nothing to do with whether he'd be good value producing at Gaborik levels throughout a 5-6 year deal. He would be great value with that production, and it's "beyond bonkers" that anyone would REFUSE a player at 11 million a year for 3-4 80 point seasons, if the last season or two he still chipped in with 47 points.

Of course, we also disagree that the Rangers need him now. You say they don't because they aren't ready to compete. I say they do because they need a high level vet for the kids to lean on. I also think he will probably be a useful player at a time when we are making playoff runs, which I anticipate will probably be sooner than others seem to think.

 

[True Blue]

Totally agree... I don't like the low miles argument. Age is age. Some guys age better than. Others .. but we all age

It does it to us all. People, athletes. There are things that can be done to mitigate, but natural depreciation is fact.

 

[mas0764]

Low versus high mileage is definitely a thing.

The problem is, there are so many variables with a human being that it's hard to predict. But its certainly a factor in Panarin's favor.

 

[True Blue]

So if in the next CBA they change the rule to something extreme like you can re-sign your own player to a deal for 7 years but you can only sign a player changing teams to a deal for 3 years at the most you don't think that would change the quality of the free agent pool at all then?

When there is such a huge disparity in CBAs, I will get back to you.

 

[Inferno]

Signing panarin wont help us win a cup in the next 3 years .. most of us will agree with that

Players tend to rapidly decline after they hit 30... We can mostly agree on that

I don't see the pro panarin argument. And frankly...I don't see why panarin would sign here...we're not going to win anytime soon...if I were him I'd head to a contender who can afford me. Vegas would fit him real well if they could make the numbers work.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Technically speaking Steven stamkos was available as well Toronto effed everything up by scaring him during their meeting.

Lmao what did they do?

 

[True Blue]

Low versus high mileage is definitely a thing.

So too is the natural aging process. Yes, there is usage and milage, but there is also the undeniable effect that age and exertion tends to do to a body.

 

[Inferno]

Low versus high mileage is definitely a thing.

The problem is, there are so many variables with a human being that it's hard to predict. But its certainly a factor in Panarin's favor.

Based on what though? People keep saying it's a thing but it's all just.. people saying it. I've yet to really see any proof of that.

 

[Inferno]

Lmao what did they do?

Toronto Maple Leafs’ Sales Pitch Apparently Scared Off Steven Stamkos

 

[mas0764]

I think we very well could be a Cup contender in 3 years.

Why not? If Kakko, Kravtov, Fox, and Shesterkin are as advertised. Sign Panarin and we are basically one top-6 center (which may already be on the roster) away from having a lethal scoring offense (again, in 3 years).

 

[Inferno]

If the rangers were set to compete for a cup in any of the next handfill of years I'd be all over getting panarin..but I don't see it...so I want flexibility to get the next panarin when I do see it.

 

[SA16]

When there is such a huge disparity in CBAs, I will get back to you.

Lol. Absolutely, and truly hopeless.

 

[Inferno]

I think we very well could be a Cup contender in 3 years.

Why not? If Kakko, Kravtov, Fox, and Shesterkin are as advertised. Sign Panarin and we are basically one top-6 center (which may already be on the roster) away from having a lethal scoring offense (again, in 3 years).

It's just so.....optimistic.

I don't see it.

I can remember a time when I thought...all we have to do is wait for pock, kundratev, immonen, baranka, Dawes, grachev, etc etc to develop


And then none of them actually do.

Right now there's only 2 youngish players I can say for sure looks like 100% a keeper... And that's buchnevich and deangelo.. that's it. The rest is a bunch of incompletes.

Until I see it, imno longer being beholden to the... Wait till this prospect hits his ceiling argument.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Toronto Maple Leafs’ Sales Pitch Apparently Scared Off Steven Stamkos

Lol if this is true Toronto turning a high profile player off on the idea of being a UFA is the most Leafs thing ever.