Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLII

[bobbop]

Fixed it for ya

Not funny. Try adding some value instead.

 

[haohmaru]

I don’t give a damn what he could have made. He signed a 7 year/77M contract.

And he's not a top 5 player in the league. The guy who is missing the point here is you.

 

[haohmaru]

If McDavid, McKinnon, Crosby, etc... were free agents tomorrow you don't think they'd get contract offers north of 11M/per? Come on.

Hell, Marner's new deal will probably approach those numbers.

 

[DanielBrassard]

If McDavid, McKinnon, Crosby, etc... were free agents tomorrow you don't think they'd get contract offers north of 11M/per? Come on.

Hell, Marner's new deal will probably approach those numbers.

Matthews got more as a damn RFA.

 

[Irishguy42]

If you think you could sign the likes of Kucherov/McDavid/MacKinnon/etc. to 7/77 as FAs, since they are Top 5 players and are the only ones deserving of that high of a contract in your mind, then I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors, which will inevitably continue being horrible.

 

[Captain Monglobster]

If you're so set in your way and beliefs then I honestly have no idea why you are even here. People used to believe being a stay at home defenseman was the most important thing about defense. They believed that batting average was the most important thing for a hitter. They believed that sacrifice bunting with hitters was a good strategy. They believed that playing a stand up style as a goalie was a good style. They were all wrong. Maybe, just maybe, try considering that your null hypothesis may actually be wrong and consider alternatives. I can easily be wrong here too but it is indisputable that there are less high quality wings than there are centers which is why I have theorized that they may actually provide more value over replacement even if their actual value is lower.

Or maybe the way the games were played changed?

Maybe, just maybe, try admitting that youre full of yourself in 99% of your posts.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

So you don't care about what the actual market value is for elite players. 11M under an 82M cap is what elite, not top-5 players make. Tavares who isn't top-5, but provides similar value to Panarin got offered more than that by 2 teams. Clearly 7/77 is not what top-5 players can make in the current era.

You still don't get it. I'm sorry.

Top-5 players can definitely earn more money. That’s obvious.

The point you are both missing about my argument is I don’t care about a players market value.

Panarin can be worth 7/11 when you factor in the growing cap and his production compared to his peers. But that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t see him as a player worth that contract to us.

 

[TheGortonConspiracy]

Way more bummed about the Dallas loss than I should be

 

[SA16]

Or maybe the way the games were played changed?

Maybe, just maybe, try admitting that youre full of yourself in 99% of your posts.

The game changing has nothing to do with

1. Batting average being important in baseball

2. Sacrifice bunting being important in baseball

3. Playing stand up being good as a goalie (exception here due to possible equipment changes)

4. Preferring stay at home D to trying to move the puck.

The reason the game changes (outside of the league changing the rules obviously) is because people realize their previous beliefs were wrong and adjust.

 

[haohmaru]

Panarin can be worth 7/11 when you factor in the growing cap and his production compared to his peers. But that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t see him as a player worth that contract to us.

If there's any team in the league that can use a guy that's a proven scorer in the playoffs, it's the Rangers.

However, that's an argument that I can see your side of. 11M/per isn't what it used to be but it's still quite the hit.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Is it October yet or nah?

 

[Irishguy42]

I don’t care about a players market value.

Could have lead with this.

But that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t see him as a player worth that contract to us.

This perception should change once you see that the top-end UFA players like Panarin/Tavares/etc. aren't the ones killing the cap for teams in the short/long term, but it's the middling guys who don't give enough value relative to their cap hit. In the case for the Rangers, it's guys like Names/Strome/Vesey. You could replace them with Panarin and two cheaper replacement-level guys who do the same things as those three, and you'd come out with a net positive on the ice.

It's a problem with every team in the league and unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there is an end in sight quite yet.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

If there's any team in the league that can use a guy that's a proven scorer in the playoffs, it's the Rangers.

However, that's an argument that I can see your side of. 11M/per isn't what it used to be but it's still quite the hit.

Fast forward 3 years and my opinion on Panarin would differ quite a bit, assuming he wouldn’t get 7 years and/or a NMC.

The 7/11, with a NMC when we’re so early in our rebuild is too much risk. Especially when you consider most NHL players start to decline when they hit their 30’s.

I still see Panarin being a productive player in his 30’s, especially since he has so little miles odometer.

If I’m skeptical about 11m for him now and the year after, imagine what’s going through my mind when he’s in year 4, 5, and 6 of his contract.

We have money now. But we also have some prospects that’ll hopefully need big raises. I don’t want to see us in a similar situation that Toronto is in where they might have to move a homegrown guy like Nylander because of the contracts they handed out.

I think we need to stay the course. Avoid the big fish now. Finish building our foundation before we start making additions.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Could have lead with this.

I should have taken a step back and thoroughly read my posts to make sure I’m covering my bases. My bad.

 

[haohmaru]

Fast forward 3 years and my opinion on Panarin would differ quite a bit, assuming he wouldn’t get 7 years and/or a NMC.

The 7/11, with a NMC when we’re so early in our rebuild is too much risk. Especially when you consider most NHL players start to decline when they hit their 30’s.

I still see Panarin being a productive player in his 30’s, especially since he has so little miles odometer.

If I’m skeptical about 11m for him now and the year after, imagine what’s going through my mind when he’s in year 4, 5, and 6 of his contract.

We have money now. But we also have some prospects that’ll hopefully need big raises. I don’t want to see us in a similar situation that Toronto is in where they might have to move a homegrown guy like Nylander because of the contracts they handed out.

I think we need to stay the course. Avoid the big fish now. Finish building our foundation before we start making additions.

I guess this debate constantly comes back to your expectations for this team and when and a whole lot of that is subject to speculation - ie... how will new draft picks develop? How will those already in the system develop? How will those that are already here progress? Which UFA's will we sign? Will Kreider be traded for more futures or starting top 4 D? Too many variables.

If this team is challenging for a playoff spot in 20-21, then I think it's a move that might make sense. Honestly, at this point, high end UFA's are not signing contracts that are shorter or that don't guarantee them stability. Why would they when it's available everywhere else? If you choose not to match that, then you aren't signing significant UFA's.

I'm mixed on Panarin - leaning towards signing him and trading Kreider for a top 4 D, moving Staal somewhere at 50% retained, living with Smith as a 7D/spare forward, trading Vesey, trading Namestnikov (though I like the guy), etc...

But, I'm more optimistic about the season after next than some. And I understand why those some aren't as optimistic.

 

[Edge]

That's a risk you take with every UFA. You may as well just never sign anyone in that case.

Besides, Panarin plays like Zucc and he's a high-level performer at 31. Panarin isn't going to decline short of injury. I'd put money on it.

Eh, I somewhat disagree with that first part.

Not all contracts assume the same level of risk, based on dollars, years, and other terms.

It’s kind of like investing in stocks. Risks range from low to moderate to high, as do the rewards.

But when you talk about a massive, multi-year contract to a guy like Panarin, it’s a significantly more substantial investment than even a very good free agent.

One could certainly argue that Panarin is worth the investment. But I do think we have to acknowledge that such a move wouldn’t just be a typical free agent signing.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Eh, I somewhat disagree with that first part.

Not all contracts assume the same level of risk, based on dollars, years, and other terms.

It’s kind of like investing in stocks. Risks range from low to moderate to high, as do the rewards.

But when you talk about a massive, multi-year contract to a guy like Panarin, it’s a significantly more substantial investment than even a very good free agent.

One could certainly argue that Panarin is worth the investment. But I do think we have to acknowledge that such a move wouldn’t just be a typical free agent signing.

Signing mid-level UFA's are usually a much worse investment than signing elite UFA's almost all the time. The Okposo, Eriksson, Lucic, Ladd, contracts are the problem. I'd argue these contracts carry more risk than more expensive contracts for elite talent.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Signing mid-level UFA's are usually a much worse investment than signing elite UFA's almost all the time. The Okposo, Eriksson, Lucic, Ladd, contracts are the problem. I'd argue these contracts carry more risk than more expensive contracts for elite talent.

This is true.

For instance, I'd much rather sign Panarin than Hayes/Zucc/Nelson even with the contract disparity.

Still think their big move(s) this summer are coming via trade.

 

[Edge]

Signing mid-level UFA's are usually a much worse investment than signing elite UFA's almost all the time. The Okposo, Eriksson, Lucic, Ladd, contracts are the problem. I'd argue these contracts carry more risk than more expensive contracts for elite talent.

Elite contracts do tend to be the safer bet, and that’s part of what you pay for in years and dollars.

 

[Avery16]

Not funny. Try adding some value instead.

Is Bobrovsky part of the work? Quenneville? What about the condo? Or are those all coincidences.

 

[n8]

this probably could use its own thread but what's the outlook on our Seattle expansion draft protected list looking like? Do we go 7-3-1 or 8-1? Who is ineligible? Who has NMC/NTC?

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Signing mid-level UFA's are usually a much worse investment than signing elite UFA's almost all the time. The Okposo, Eriksson, Lucic, Ladd, contracts are the problem. I'd argue these contracts carry more risk than more expensive contracts for elite talent.

Those weren’t mid-level signings though. 7x6 for Lucic and KO. A mid level signing imo is something closer to Smith, imo.

But overall I get what you’re saying.

Elite contracts do tend to be the safer bet, and that’s part of what you pay for in years and dollars.

And a full NMC, locking you in that long, risky signing for close to a decade.

NMC’s really ****’ things up when your biggest priority as a fan is what’s in the teams best interest instead of the players.

Redden. Gomez. Drury. Smith. Shatty. Staal. Girardi. Hell, my favorite player of all time after 30 years as a fan - Lundqvist.

What we’re witnessing now with Hank is something I can already see with Panarin, but on a lesser scale. The inevitable decline.

That doesn’t mean we should avoid any and every player that’ll be signed in his 30’s. It’s a timing thing. And I don’t see this as the right fit and at the right time.

If you’re going to make a ginormous decision like this, you at least gotta make sure it makes sense in our timeline.

It’s been just 15 months since the rebuild letter went out. I just don’t see this happening.

 

[Edge]

Those weren’t mid-level signings though. 7x6 for Lucic and KO. A mid level signing imo is something closer to Smith, imo.

But overall I get what you’re saying.



And a full NMC, locking you in that long, risky signing for close to a decade.

NMC’s really ****’ things up when your biggest priority as a fan is what’s in the teams best interest instead of the players.

Redden. Gomez. Drury. Smith. Shatty. Staal. Girardi. Hell, my favorite player of all time after 30 years as a fan - Lundqvist.

What we’re witnessing now with Hank is something I can already see with Panarin, but on a lesser scale. The inevitable decline.

That doesn’t mean we should avoid any and every player that’ll be signed in his 30’s. It’s a timing thing. And I don’t see this as the right fit and at the right time.

If you’re going to make a ginormous decisions like this, you at least gotta make sure it makes sense in our timeline.

It’s been just 15 months since the rebuild letter went out. I just don’t see this happening.

I don’t want it to happen on a personal level, but a lot really depends on how the next 8 weeks go.

 

[haohmaru]

This is true.

For instance, I'd much rather sign Panarin than Hayes/Zucc/Nelson even with the contract disparity.

Still think their big move(s) this summer are coming via trade.

Our 4th for the rights to negotiate with Panarin early?

 

[Trxjw]

I don’t want it to happen on a personal level, but a lot really depends on how the next 8 weeks go.

This is basically where I'm at. I'd rather the team not go that route, but I can easily see a situation where some (more) good fortune between now and July 1st encourages the Rangers to be more aggressive with Panarin.

If the Rangers can:
- Add a guy like Zegras, Dach, Turcotte, or Newhook who could possibly step in as a pro after a D+1 season.
- Rid themselves of a bad contract on the blue line
- Find the right deal to land a proven RHD upgrade

Then I can see them turning the dial a little bit and saying, "Yeah, we're a little further ahead than we expected to be, so let's offer up that 6th year to Panarin." Or something to that effect.