Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLI

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Amazing Kreiderman said:
I think the no of games and intensity definitely affect how long a player can retain a certain level of play. That and the type of player they are.

Panarin is not the type of player that ages quickly so to speak.
Click to expand...
I'd say you certainly may be right...but I don't think this is something there's any precedence or proof of that I can think of.. it's a very rational way of explaining something but at best it's a percentage gamble. . Because most aging curves show that at panarins current age he has likely peaked. .. and we can also say the rangers are almost unequivocally not going to compete for a cup for at least another 2 years. What is panarin in 2 years? A 90 pt player or a 70 pt player or a 50 pt player? 11m for a player that's not putting up 90pts when your window is just opening becomes a problem. ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, Barnaby, LORDE and 1 other person
There is only 1 way I'd be ok with getting panarin..and that's if the rangers trade kreider for a high...ish..first. AND trade vesey namestnikov and strome...AND don't sign anyone else...AND panarin takes no more than 9 mil a year.

Then, we would still suck for next season and get a top 5 pick. .. and his contract wouldn't crush us going forward. ..and our kids would develop
But I can't see why on Earth panarin would be ok with us sucking for his first year.

My preference would be to continue to tear it down and get lafreniere or byfield or whatnot and then build it from that point.

1 more year of sucking really seems like the ideal way to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, Barnaby, nsvoyageurs and 1 other person
Mikos87 said:
12 Years in the league. 5 Cup appearances. 3 wins. Guy was worth the money for the teams he played on.

Was he a top UFA? I'd say so.
Click to expand...
This is the last thing I'll say on the topic, then I'm moving on. We can either say Rafalski is a top free agent, or we can say things like Panarin is a player that is never available. People can't hold both positions simultaneously. It's not a once in a generation player argument and then use Rafalski or Aaron freaking Ward to justify free agency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jas
My opening offer to Breadman is 7 yrs 60 million.
We need elite players and looking on the horizon they are few and far between. He has only 4 years wear and tear, is an elite playmaker . If we sign him he could become our all time leading scorer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Henrik Lundqvist: ”Jag vet inte om jag blir kvar i Rangers”

For the first time, Henrik Lundqvist also says that he does not know if he will end his career in the New York Rangers. Although he has a guarantee in his contract he cannot be replaced.
- I don't know if I will stay in Rangers throughout my career. I have two years left on the contract and it has always been my goal to remain in Rangers. But when you get up in the years you never know. I have my own agenda, but if the club wants something else, I have to be sensitive to it. You can't just run your own race. It's not always the dream is realistic, we'll see how it gets.
Click to expand...

Wonder if this means he'd accept a trade to a cup contender? Have to think there would be a team willing to take a chance on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilphildub, Leetch3, Emptyvoid and 1 other person
Inferno said:
Totall

Totally agree.

I'd be looking to add a short term ufa to this team, maybe 2 who can provide leadership and play the style Quinn wants...like a Simmonds for example ..tho not necessarily him.

I'd trade vesey, pionkpion strome this off-season as well because strome and pionks value will never be higher and vesey annoys me.


So something like this next season without any thought to preferred wing side...

Kakko zibanejad chytil
Lemieux lias buchnevich
Namestnikov zegras (who we got when we trade kreider) Simmonds
Boo howden fasth

Skjei DeAngelo
Hajek fox
Staal shattenkirk
Smith
Click to expand...

Simmonds is cooked! He's become irrelevant. Surprised you would want to see him as a Ranger. Plus, this is likely his last contract. Not sure he will accept a short term deal at this point, and there is likely a GM out there that will take him on for a decent chunk of change.
 
Inferno said:
There is only 1 way I'd be ok with getting panarin..and that's if the rangers trade kreider for a high...ish..first. AND trade vesey namestnikov and strome...AND don't sign anyone else...AND panarin takes no more than 9 mil a year.

Then, we would still suck for next season and get a top 5 pick. .. and his contract wouldn't crush us going forward. ..and our kids would develop
But I can't see why on Earth panarin would be ok with us sucking for his first year.

My preference would be to continue to tear it down and get lafreniere or byfield or whatnot and then build it from that point.

1 more year of sucking really seems like the ideal way to do this.
Click to expand...

I’m going to be very surprised if Panarin takes less than $10 million per no matter where he signs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inferno and FIRE DRURY
Inferno said:
I'd say you certainly may be right...but I don't think this is something there's any precedence or proof of that I can think of.. it's a very rational way of explaining something but at best it's a percentage gamble. . Because most aging curves show that at panarins current age he has likely peaked. .. and we can also say the rangers are almost unequivocally not going to compete for a cup for at least another 2 years. What is panarin in 2 years? A 90 pt player or a 70 pt player or a 50 pt player? 11m for a player that's not putting up 90pts when your window is just opening becomes a problem. ..
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emptyvoid
Trade Kreider, get that 14th overall.

Now possibly even trade Hank if he actively wants it? Have no idea what kind of return he'd garner.

Don't sign Panarin, the timing is just unfortunate and doesn't work.

If hank is traded, sign a veteran/journeyman goalie in case Georgiev/Shesty can't handle a full season between the two of them.

We'll be bad again next year, hope to get another top 5 pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave
Really sucked to see Dallas lose yesterday. They kept Bishop in the game after he was shook, that’s wasn’t a good idea. Blues just threw pucks on net because Bishop was rattled and the game was already over. Watch Dallas lose in game 7.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave and Rangers in 7
SML2 said:
Who do you see as a contender in need of a G with enough cap space? I don't think it's realistic even at 50% retained.
Click to expand...

St. Louis and Calgary. Retain half, take back Jake Allen from the Blues. Same amount of time on the books and half of Hank's contract is pretty much Jake Allen. Now, I know we have Georgiev and Shesty, but if you can rehabilitate Allen, even in the slightest, you can trade him to another team in need of a goalie.

Allen has always had talent and Allaire could help him get into a good place and move him out.

Calgary has Rittich, but he's young. Mike Smith could re-sign for cheap, but do they want to keep the same goalie situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rangers in 7
Fitzy said:
He's from the "All players are useless at 30" school of thought.

I call them the Children of the Corn.
Click to expand...

Most players over 30 decline. Panarin may or may not be one of them, but paying him 11 mil a year right now does seem foolish. We don't know what we are going to need 2 years from now. We don't know what our prospects are going to become.

Kakko will hopefully be a high end player, but he will most likely be a winger. Kravtsov could be the same. If they both become 80+ point wingers, do we really want Panarin on the wing making 11 mil? Or might that money not be better invested elsewhere? At this point, we really don't know. What we do know for certain is that at least the first 2 years of Panarin's contract would be wasted on a team that isn't expected to realistically compete for the cup. The pro-Panarin people are all banking on him being elite for the life of his contract. If that doesn't happen, not only would we waste his prime years, but we'd be saddled with a huge contract that we can't move.

The offseason can't get here soon enough. Let him sign in Florida so we can end this pointless debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94, LORDE, FIRE DRURY and 3 others
panarin is a stud but hes not what we need right now....there will be another panarin level player that hits the market in a few years when our window is opening
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beacon
JimmyG89 said:
St. Louis and Calgary. Retain half, take back Jake Allen from the Blues. Same amount of time on the books and half of Hank's contract is pretty much Jake Allen. Now, I know we have Georgiev and Shesty, but if you can rehabilitate Allen, even in the slightest, you can trade him to another team in need of a goalie.

Allen has always had talent and Allaire could help him get into a good place and move him out.

Calgary has Rittich, but he's young. Mike Smith could re-sign for cheap, but do they want to keep the same goalie situation?
Click to expand...
Hank in a St. Louis sweater would be crazy. They would be the official spot where goalies who play their whole career with one team go to die.
 
SML2 said:
Who do you see as a contender in need of a G with enough cap space? I don't think it's realistic even at 50% retained.
Click to expand...

Think Calgary, CBJ or STL are possible. CGY have Smith off now, CBJ might loose Bob, and if we take Allen back for Hank at 50% STL will earn space.
Ill give any of them Hank at 50% for a good prospect, the market is very limited, and Hank can nix it all if he is not happy with the destination.
 
GAGLine said:
Most players over 30 decline. Panarin may or may not be one of them, but paying him 11 mil a year right now does seem foolish.
Click to expand...

They do, There's a big gap between that and saying that Panarin only has 2-3 more good seasons, which is an asinine take.

What you are arguing makes some sense. But assuming Panarin is going to follow the Mike Richards age trajectory is just as silly as thinking he'll play to 42.
 
i think theres a chance that hank my not want to be a back-up. he wants to go out a starter but he may not get that opportunity here with george and shesty.

a trade to a contender with a chance to win a cup might entice him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom