Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXI

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Right, that's why I said outside of Hank.

Guess I glossed over that lol

 

[Edge]

Your better than this. I’m done. I’m going back to the blog

Well, I quoted your statement:

"what’s the difference between picking 8-12 and making your kids playing with less, and picking 13-18 and having panarin in the fold"

I asked a clarifying question in response.

But, hey, que sera sera.

 

[Edge]

Here’s the smarter than the staff talk. Knew at the core that’s what it’s about. Well knowing your team, they probably will go after him

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense, but okay.

 

[NernieBichols]

Well, I quoted your statement:

"what’s the difference between picking 8-12 and making your kids playing with less, and picking 13-18 and having panarin in the fold"

I asked a clarifying question in response.

But, hey, que sera sera.

What was your question, edge?

 

[Edge]

Dude. Let’s meet sometime and talk hockey. I’m sure we’d have a good time

 

[NernieBichols]

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense, but okay.

Delete

 

[Edge]

What was your question, edge?

You want to sign a player, for $11 million a season, whose great impact is moving the Rangers from picking 8-12, to having them pick 13-18?

 

[NernieBichols]

I know my hockey, i read your posts everyday and love em, but I’m just being real here man. Your not being objective, regarding the panarin and roster discussion

 

[Edge]

You don’t know me. Your typical

Yeah, something tells me meeting to discuss hockey is not in the cards.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I disagree.

But even if I didn't, that's one hell of a factor.

It is, to be fair. But I think there's a decent case to make that this team outside of the goalie is similar to the team from 2009-10. Add Panarin and up front we have Panarin, Zib, Kreider, Buch, Chytil, Howden, Andersson, Namestnikov, Strome, Fast, Lemieux compared to Gaborik, Dubinsky, Callahan, Avery, Anisimov, Christensen for guys who had potential to be on the team for a while. on Defense: Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, Gilroy compared to Skjei, ADA, Pionk. Obviously having McDonagh become a #1 D was huge, hopefully one of our prospects can become something similar.

Edit: forgot Boyle and Prust for the 09 team.

 

[E-Train]

I totally agree with this. I’ve said the rangers will be facing a panthers offer mirroring Vegas’s stone contract.

Yes. I see it the same. Also can join Dadanov and potentially rejoin Bobrovsky.

 

[NYR94]

I don't see why they would want to sign a player like Panarin right now so early in the rebuild. Gorton's letter was what, a little more than a year ago? The team is still in the acquiring pieces and early developing phase. It's going to be a lot of money for a player who isn't coming here to push the team over the top because the team still has a lot of growing pains ahead and is years away from being a contender. Just seems like with an established star like that you want to bring him in when you're on the cusp of greatness rather than have the first few years be him producing points while the rest of the team sort of plays catch up. Panarin and Karlsson both--I know they're tantalizing targets--but it doesn't feel like the right situation for the Rangers this time around in terms of timing.

The Flyers might be interested in signing him. Firing Hextall for Fletcher was a win-now move. They'll have $ to spend this summer.

“Going into the summer, we have an awful lot of cap space. We have a few young players we have to sign, but we have a lot of cap space,” Fletcher said this week. “I think we’ll be able to fill the needs that we feel we need to address.”

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelp...ers-should-get-into-artemi-panarin-discussion

 

[McRanger]

I disagree.

But even if I didn't, that's one hell of a factor.

09-10 probably was as bad, but only if you ignore Hank, which is kind of hard to do. I mean that team was brutal WITH Gaborik and his 42 goals. Without him they probably have a legit shot at Taylor Hall.

Which of course simply underscores why signing a guy like Panarin can be seriously counter productive.

 

[NernieBichols]

You want to sign a player, for $11 million a season, whose great impact is moving the Rangers from picking 8-12, to having them pick 13-18?

No I don’t want any part of him at 11mill. And for a year or two if the rangers pick 13-18 with him, cool, alright. Panarin will have a great impact, and it has nothing to do with moving acouple picks. That’s what I said you’re better than. Belittling what having player like panarin as saying oh you mean he’ll make us a middle of the rung team instead a 7-10. No, I’m saying he’s a piece of the puzzle and that’s how we’re going in circles, bc you can’t be objective about it. Signing him doesn’t mean he’s your savior, or you intent to contend in a year instead of 2-3. It means bringing a player of his caliber in, while looking st what your building and seeing a need for a top line winger. He fits years 4-7 of your timeline. And he helps in the meantime and in case we boom on a couple fronts and are ahead of schedule, we have him and aren’t wasting years waiting or assets obtaining him. Objectivity

 

[Edge]

It is, to be fair. But I think there's a decent case to make that this team outside of the goalie is similar to the team from 2009-10. Add Panarin and up front we have Panarin, Zib, Kreider, Buch, Chytil, Howden, Andersson, Namestnikov, Strome, Fast, Lemieux compared to Gaborik, Dubinsky, Callahan, Avery, Anisimov, Christensen for guys who had potential to be on the team for a while. on Defense: Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, Gilroy compared to Skjei, ADA, Pionk. Obviously having McDonagh become a #1 D was huge, hopefully one of our prospects can become something similar.

And alot of what you're propsing is very, very possible. It's the timing that I feel is the key. I see us being at that point a few years from now, not necessarily in 2019.

I see a big experience gap when you compare those two lists. I think our group now is more talented over the long-term than 2009 group, particularly at forward, but I don't think we're there...yet.

But even if we said that the forward group is close enough in comparison, the defense and goaltending is not.

A pretty injury-Staal, a 26 year old Girardi, an emerging MDZ and a prime Henrik Lundqvist is a significant difference. And to overcome that difference, in a shorter time frame, our forward group would have to be exceptional. And it's not.

 

[NernieBichols]

Yeah, something tells me meeting to discuss hockey is not in the cards.

You don’t want to talk hockey with me edge?

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

09-10 probably was as bad, but only if you ignore Hank, which is kind of hard to do. I mean that team was brutal WITH Gaborik and his 42 goals. Without him they probably have a legit shot at Taylor Hall.

Which of course simply underscores why signing a guy like Panarin can be seriously counter productive.

I’d say Vinny Prospal was our 2nd best forward that season.

That team’s roster was uber bad. Gaborik was absolutely incredible that season, probably the best season for a Rangers skater I’ve personally seen. especially considering the “talent” around him.

 

[Edge]

09-10 probably was as bad, but only if you ignore Hank, which is kind of hard to do. I mean that team was brutal WITH Gaborik and his 42 goals. Without him they probably have a legit shot at Taylor Hall.

Which of course simply underscores why signing a guy like Panarin can be seriously counter productive.

I feel like that 2009 team was a team in transition. It was transitioning from the Jagr years, and the failed Drury-Gomez experiment, but was still more or less at the point where the drafts from several years prior were coming of age and ushering in the next wave.

I don't see this team as a transition team. I think that transition is still a few years off.

It's also worth noting that Gaborik's contribution to the window included being traded. Here in 2019, Gaborik gets a NMC. And Panarin will as well.

 

[Edge]

You don’t want to talk hockey with me edge?

I assumed that's what we were doing.

 

[Tawnos]

It's been pages since any of us said anything that hadn't been said already.

 

[Zibanejbread]

No I don’t want any part of him at 11mill. And for a year or two if the rangers pick 13-18 with him, cool, alright. Panarin will have a great impact, and it has nothing to do with moving acouple picks. That’s what I said your better than. Belittling what having player like panarin as saying oh you mean he’ll make us a middle of the rung team instead a 7-10. No, I’m saying he’s a piece of the puzzle and that’s how we’re going in circles, bc you can’t be objective about it. Signing him doesn’t mean he’s your savior, or you intent to contend in a year instead of 2-3. It means bringing a player of his caliber in, while looking st what your building and seeing a need for a top line winger. He fits years 4-7 of your timeline. And he helps in the meantime and in case we boom on a couple fronts and are ahead of schedule, we have him and aren’t wasting years waiting or assets obtaining him. Objectivity

Please learn the difference between your and you're.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

It's been pages since any of us said anything that hadn't been said already.

I don’t think anyone has said Vinny Prospal’s name in years

 

[NernieBichols]

I assumed that's what we were doing.

I mean elbow to elbow man over some cold ones where we might really be able to talk and spill some beans.

lol. Let’s just say, I hear exactly where your coming from. I just don’t think the rangers will ever be able to fall low enough with hank on the team (which he’s gonna be, unless something unforeseen and than all bets are off regarding direction for the next 2) for the decision makers to think going for ping pong balls is the way to go anymore.

 

[NernieBichols]

Please learn the difference between your and you're.

I went and edited it for you. Thanks for pointing that out

 

[Edge]

Does anyone have a list of potential UFAs?

I have a feeling that as we scroll through less flashy names, those are the players who are more likely to be targets.