Yes. All views are valid just as long as they agree with mine and are within my parameters.
Panarin: Yes or No?
- Thread starter Maximus
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
TheBloodyNine
Pure Bred Soviet Savage
This is so important. Right now, about 90% of our roster/future roster is pure potential, and that includes Kakko. If you leap before you don't know what you got you turn into the Minnesota Wild.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,864
- 13,013
Ha, I know as Rangers fans we are supposed to be conditioned to failure and bad luck, but this is just so.... pessimistic. Come on, guys like Pock, Kundratev, Immonen, Dawes, Grachev, those were team-spin stories polishing up second and third rate prospects to make us feel good about our chances with an awful farm system. Those guys, you are talking about undrafted college free agents, 8th rounders, 6th rounders, 5th rounders. Grachev was a third rounder.
That would be like basing our rebuild around Jimmy Vesey, Neal Pionk, Sean Day, Morgan Barron, Ryan Gropp, and Dominik Lakatos. Yeah, that'd be reason to be pessimistic.
Kravtsov, Kakko, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, Panarin, Chytil, Andersson, Howden, and another first round pick or two make up the backbone of the most talented top-6 or top-9 of PROSPECTS I've seen the Rangers have in my lifetime (I'm 36). There are probably 3 NHL point per game players in that group of names. Maybe 4. And we're not done adding to it! We could trade up and get another top 6 prospect; and the organization has been sporting a very nice batting average over the last few drafts with these first round picks, so I would see no reason not to feel good if we trade up this year, or with a high pick next year as well.
TheBloodyNine
Pure Bred Soviet Savage
For some reason people seem to conflate "Pessimism" with "Realism". It's realistic to not believe that every player we have is eventually going to reach their ceiling. The odds favor it. They are an excellent group of prospects. Nothing more than that.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,864
- 13,013
I'm not sure about the construction of that sentence....
It's reality that not all of these prospects will reach their ceiling, yes. But I think the odds are pretty good that most of them reach at least most of the way to their potential, given the stages in their development they are currently at, and their caliber as prospects. Ie, Kakko is more than your average prospect: He seems as close to a sure thing as anyone to come down the pike in the last decade or so, outside of McDavid, and maybe one or two others. The guys who have been in his class as prospects have seemed to work out at a very high rate.
Kravtsov is less certain, but he's also flown up the boards, to the point where he's been ranked as the best drafted prospect not in the NHL. A lot of the risk on him was PRE draft. We gambled and it has panned out: he has already done a lot of developing to the point where it seems more likely than not he ends up having an impact in the NHL. Chytil is a similar case, though less certain for sure, but he already has transcended his draft status and looks like he'll probably be at least a valuable second liner. Etc.
I mean, it's definitely "pessimism" to say "They are an excellent group of prospects. Nothing more." - because that implies equal likelyhood of any outcome. That is not really the case. I think it's significantly more likely than not that most of these guys have NHL careers that make us very happy.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
Three thoughts on this subject:
1. Post-draft, we will arguably have the best collection of young players we've had in our organization since the early 90s.
2. All prospects, no matter how talented, are all suspects until they proof otherwise. Obviously some have significantly better odds than others, but I'm always hesitant to get too far ahead with projections - many of which tend to assume the best possible outcome.
3. Time and patience will be our two best friends along this journey. Even if most things fall into place, it probably won't be as quickly as our more optimistic projections and will differ significantly from what we're envisioning on May 28, 2019.
1. Post-draft, we will arguably have the best collection of young players we've had in our organization since the early 90s.
2. All prospects, no matter how talented, are all suspects until they proof otherwise. Obviously some have significantly better odds than others, but I'm always hesitant to get too far ahead with projections - many of which tend to assume the best possible outcome.
3. Time and patience will be our two best friends along this journey. Even if most things fall into place, it probably won't be as quickly as our more optimistic projections and will differ significantly from what we're envisioning on May 28, 2019.
SA16
Sixstring
3 seasons ago the Leafs came in last in the East, the Blue Jackets were 2nd to last, the Flames were 3rd to last in the West, the Jets were 4th to last. The Ducks and Kings were 1-2 in the Pacific, Florida and Detroit were 1-3 in the Atlantic. Things turn around very quickly.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
You have a very optimistic outlook on those points and that is fine. If Fox and Kravtsov end up in Hartford for a half year or more, no one would be surprised. Kakko may play up the whole year but he's gonna need to adjust. Nothing I have seen tells me LA is going to be significantly better... Chytil maybe and ADA could be a healthy scratch again.
I have zero desire to make the playoff this season... if they do, they do, but being a lottery team for one more year is best for this team.
So many tight games with a pretty different roster.
This current team is with out 2 of their top 6 forwards from most of last year. If all of Chytil, ADA and Andersson take a step forward, that would be fantastic...
But it's just as likely, if not even more so, that guys like Staal, Hank and Shattenkirk take an even further step back.
I'm not saying that this team is a lock to finish bottom 5. But to claim that there is no way that they finish bottom 5 is silly. All it would take is a Zibanejad injury.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I do think that as we cite some of those teams as examples, it's important to remember the number of high picks it took to get there as well.
If we want to go back three seasons ago, to the year 2016:
The Leafs were coming off a season where they grabbed the first overall pick. The year prior they had the 4th pick. The year prior the 8th pick. In 2012 they picked 5th, in 2009 they picked 7th, and in 2008 they picked 5th. So that's 6 top 10 picks in the previous 9 seasons.
The Blue Jackets in 2016 picked third. The year prior they picked 8th, in 2012 they picked 2nd, in 2010 they picked 4th, in 2008 they picked 6th. So they had 5 top picks in the previous 9 seasons (and more beyond that window).
The Flames in 2016 picked 6th, they picked 4th in 2014 and 6th in 2013.
The Jets picked 2nd in 2016, but also 9th in 2014, 9th in 2012, 7th in 2011, 8th in 2010, 4th in 2009 and 3rd in 2008.
So between all 4 teams, we're talking about a combined 21 picks in the top 10 in the years leading up to their "quick" turnarounds.
Obviously some picks panned out better than others, but there's also factors like trading players with that pedigree for similar players (Seth Jones for example) and the fact their success wasn't overnight.
Look, I love what we've done here, but there is still a good amount of road ahead of us. And that's if absolutely everything we've done to this point hits reasonably close to its potential.
Last edited:
I fall in that good player to add but wrong timing. If the next few years yield good draft choices and those draft picks are actually worth something and have a few years under their belts in the NHL, than adding a player or two with the talent that Panarin brings could prove beneficial. Lets establish a young team first and then see where are needs fall.
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Why do I have to argue if water is wet wit. you people without offending your personal successes?
I don't agree with @bobbop being a homer on this either , but it doesn't make me think he knows less about pizza.
You acquire the top end talent in the NHL by bottoming out. It's a virtually closer system with a near monopoly of a extremely limited number of qualified players.
More people can be astronauts than NHL players.
The biggest mistake I made running a minor league hockey team was that I concentrated too much on acquiring talent and hired a coach who had no idea how to build a winning culture. @smoneil is right on this one. You can have all the talent in the world but you better have the right culture and teamwork. I can identify a number of teams through the years that missed completely on the second point.
I managed a 110 person team at the peak of my career. I got more out of less because I had to.
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Are my posts auto translating to Swahili? Maybe a mod can help me on that.
How do you say I'm missing a large point and then make a point I've acknowledged repeatedly?
Yes I did say this repeatedly.
This makes zero sense. Missing 1 FA does not mean we can't go for a different one a year or two from now
Again, how are you going to tell me I'm missing nuance and then tell me the exact point I've acknowledged repeatedly? I literally spoke repeatedly about signing one or TWO of these big FA's...just later
It's more likely that you pissed away cap you need later bc you were too shortsighted
That's bc only one of these concerns is worth actually thinking about right now. Timing. Unless he takes a sweetheart 5 year deal. He'll likely take 7 or 8
I guess if he agrees to a 5 year deal then it's acceptable. 7 or 8 like he's going to be asking for? No. Awful.
When there's a comparable FA available 3 or 4 years down the line...when we actually have the prospects developed and ready to contend, we'll have a 40 point, 9-11 M albatross blocking us from signing an 80 pt player that we need.
Not all the teams in the NHL will be offering Panarin a contract this summer. Teams have timetables when to do stuff like that.
You don't commit 8 years, 9 M+ for a guy who young players lean on. You don't commit to that for a playoff run. You commit to it when you know that you have the pieces to contend.
You want guys for the kids to leans on? You keep Zibby, kreider and guys like that. They can be had for 2-5 year deals at way less money.
Last edited:
The Pens weren't exactly winning the cup in Crosby's first season. When the talent was ready, they made the signings they had to and took off running.
Inferno
Registered User
smoneil
Registered User
But they are still people, and people perform better in certain environments. Particularly when you are bringing most of those people in in their formative adult years (unlike, say, astronauts). It's not about "offending" my personal successes or bobbop's experience. It's about the fact that we HAVE experience. In exactly this thing. And that is why we hold the views that we do. You haven't even made an argument. You just respond wit empty snark and wiseassery.
The team is not a video game. Players will develop (or not) based more on the environment they are in than where they were drafted (with the ideal being a good combination of the two). The Rangers have compiled an impressive farm of talent and potential. I don't want to see them turn that into Buffalo by letting that group get comfortable with losing for the first few years of their careers. By the time this team IS ready to compete, I'd like them to know what the playoffs are like, as that's the kind of thing that needs to be experienced.
A player like Panarin isn't going to impact this team's cap at all (we have plenty of room right now, and Henrik, Staal, and Smith all coming off the books sooner rather than later, ALL with in house replacements on rookie deals in place).
A player like Panarin also helps to keep costs down in the future. Why do you think somebody like JT Miller got paid like he did? Why is Namestnikov getting what he's getting? Hell, why do you think Skjei is getting paid what he is? Because they had to play above where they should have been in the lineup and got paid like a poor man's 1st/2nd liner or a #2/3 defender rather than what they actually are. The higher up the lineup you push guys like Vesey, Buch, Howden, and Lemieux, the more expensive they are going to be relative to the role they SHOULD be playing on a good roster. They will also face matchups above their skill level, which could stunt development. Players who are able to play where they can succeed will develop better than players thrown in over their heads.
If a team doesn't expect to win when they play, you know what else becomes common? Selfishness and stat-hunting. If it doesn't matter whether or not the team wins, players will impact something they CAN influence--their own stat line (which impacts their own well being). It's damned near impossible to break a player of that kind of play once it becomes 2nd nature. That's exactly the kind of crap this team was famous for in the dark ages. It was a roster full of individuals with no team. We can't rely on another lockout to purge the entire roster like that again.
You have a different view? Fine. You do you. But don't waste my time with the bellicose, over-the-top, nonsense with no substance behind it. The reality--with real players, not video games--is that putting the team in a position to fail runs a risk. You risk stunting individual development by putting too much on kids. You risk ruining team dynamic by letting the room get comfortable with failure. You literally risk pissing away all of the above average assets the team has assembled and all for the HOPE--statistically improbable as it is--that the team wins the lottery again rather than dropping. That's an asinine plan to me.
smoneil
Registered User
Those are all teams that bottomed out. The Rangers, by starting their re-build as a team that legitimately could have made the playoffs when it sold off assets, did not bottom out.
Here's a puzzler for you: How many top 10 draft picks have the last two teams standing (Boston and St. Louis) had in the last 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? I'll give you a hint--even in that last range, you'll only need one hand to do the counting.
Development leads to more success than bottoming out. The reason the last Rangers core wasn't good enough is due to the fact that most of the players in that core weren't even first rounders. And the team STILL made a cup final and a couple of ECFs. The farm at the moment is literally stocked with recent first rounders: 8 in the last four drafts (counting 2019). That's not even counting guys like ADA (first rounder in 2014) or guys drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round who would go higher in a re-draft (like Fox, Shestyorkin, and possibly Hajek). A core made up of discount goods was developed properly and competed for 10+ years. This group of prospects puts that one (Dubi/Cally/Girardi/Staal/AA/Stepan) to shame. It also now has an elite piece on the way in KK/Hughes. It's time to develop a winning culture with that group rather than risk poisoning the well by bringing them into an environment that's comfortable with losing.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
smoneil
Registered User
If not for injuries and Alain-fatigue, they could have snuck into a wild card spot in 2017-18 before they sold off. They were ~5 games over .500 when they started holding out McD, and 3 games over .500 when they released the "letter." With the way the team seemed to have shut down (and the injury issues), I doubt they would have made it--at the very least, I doubt they would have gone far--but the Rangers of years past would have traded their 1st rounder for a 2nd liner and pushed to get in.
So the TL/DR answer to your question is "last year."
Inferno
Registered User
Just because something is true for a small sample size (this years scf) doesn’t mean it holds true in a larger sample size (last 10)
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Not to be snide, but I was completely jammed up today and somehow this thread advanced like 5 pages. Did anyone say anything new?
- Status
