Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXII

[Kakko]

Take it to PM, or better yet, don't engage. We can all be respectful here.

 

[Tawnos]

When you put it like that, I agree with you.

There's some pretty bad logic being applied there.

Most people aren't appealing to authority nearly as much as they are acknowledging that we, as fans, have very little of what we would need to make an informed decision. All we have is what we see in games (including the stats that come from the games) and what we hear from the media. I don't think that represents even half of what goes on with a hockey team... and by extension what goes into managing one. That's not called appeal to authority. That's called humility. We might be passionate fans and think about this stuff all day long, but in reality we know practically nothing.

Also, we can look at 21/31 of GMs being former players. However, those 21 guys (and the maybe 10-15 more former players who might be considered for GM jobs but don't currently have one) represent an exceedingly small part of the number of former players out there. Hockey players, by and large, represent a pretty standard cross-section of business intelligence. The guys who become GMs aren't becoming GMs simply because they're former players. It's because they have that business intelligence. My point is that out of the crop of former players, you're going to have a number of guys who combine the business intelligence, direct experience with the players and, yes, the connections needed to get a job like that. It isn't just that they're former players that gets people into these positions.

It's perfectly fair to judge whether or not a GM is doing a good job from the results they get. It's completely unfair to judge the process.

 

[duhmetreE]

What's the risk in signing Panarin? I still haven't received, what I feel at least, a valid concern. Nothing changes for the worse. We wont suck as bad? His term?

We immediately get Mika some help and a 'top-ish' line.
We have all the Russians coming over, he should help.
In 2 years, if not sooner, we could contend and he could play a major part in it.
He gives the fans something to watch.. He puts asses in the seats and money flowing.

What's the issue? There's more than 2 choices, it's not full blown rebuild and full-blown win-now mode. There's an in between.

WE HAVE NO TALENT. We could land top talent with utilizing cap space. It truly is dumb founding how people are against it.

Sign Panarin, while continuing to draft and develop. The fact that Gorton signed Chara and Savard while continue to draft/develop, lines up.

Finding elite talent is not easy and not guaranteed in the draft, no matter the pick. Casually letting that talent slip through your fingers because we wont be 'contenders for 2 years' is faulty logic IMO.. He's guaranteed elite talent... there's no other alternative that's guaranteed.

 

[wafflepadsave]

Karlsson is part of the conversation because there are people both here and in the media that have said the Rangers should/will target him this off-season.

With McKenzie stating so today.

 

[Trxjw]

Yes, possibly. I just happen to think that Panarin is the better player and if he was to come to NY, trading Kreider for additional assets leads to a quicker rebuild. Adding another 1st and (2) possible good prospects (similar to Lucic) would be a nice addition to the organization.

Panarin's contract also takes up more prime years as compared to Kreider's next deal. Panarin will be ~27 when his next deal starts. Kreider will be 29. I assume both will get 7 years

He is undoubtedly the better player. No argument there at all and I can certainly see the merit in what you're saying. However, I think going down the path of Panarin as a Kreider replacement is a bit dangerous. Kreider is clearly a leader on this team through one of it's tougher periods in recent memory. That's an important player that's hard to replace in the room.

Yes, Panarin will be younger when he signs his deal, but he could also be as much as $4M more per season. That's a very hard thing for me to overlook. That's a lot or cap flexibility that, in an ideal world, we're going to need for our own young talent.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

With McKenzie stating so today.

he didn’t say anything about karlsson

 

[Edge]

Generally speaking, people who previously worked in an industry tend to be the ones getting positions in the industry.

So, former players retire and in most cases move into other roles --- scouting, coaching, player development, player personnel, etc.

For those who advance, the higher positions are head coaching jobs, GM's, hockey operations and a few others.

In many, but not all cases, the process to reach the top can take quite a while and involve multiple moves.

So in essence, while most GMs are former players, most former players do not become GMs or hold other high-ranking front office positions. But in fairness, it would also be hard to hire a medical sales person for a front office position.

However, there is difference between a fans understanding of what is transpiring and someone who works in management. There's a lot of stuff that people don't take into account. And I say that as someone whose spent a decent amount of time seeing it, but not necessarily being nostrils deep in it.

 

[Tawnos]

What's the risk in signing Panarin? I still haven't received, what I feel at least, a valid concern. Nothing changes for the worse. We wont suck as bad? His term?

We immediately get Mika some help and a 'top-ish' line.
We have all the Russians coming over, he should help.
In 2 years, if not sooner, we could contend and he could play a major part in it.
He gives the fans something to watch.. He puts asses in the seats and money flowing.

What's the issue? There's more than 2 choices, it's not full blown rebuild and full-blown win-now mode. There's an in between.

WE HAVE NO TALENT. We could land top talent with utilizing cap space. It truly is dumb founding how people are against it.

Sign Panarin, while continuing to draft and develop. The fact that Gorton signed Chara and Savard while continue to draft/develop, lines up.

Finding elite talent is not easy and not guaranteed in the draft, no matter the pick. Casually letting that talent slip through your fingers because we wont be 'contenders for 2 years' is faulty logic IMO.. He's guaranteed elite talent... there's no other alternative that's guaranteed.

The risk is his age. It's that we'll bring him in at 28 and when we're ready to compete, he'll be 31 and no longer capable of elite play. And then worse, we might be ready to contend and he might 33 and really no longer capable of it.

 

[True Blue]

What's the risk in signing Panarin? I still haven't received, what I feel at least, a valid concern. Nothing changes for the worse. We wont suck as bad? His term?

Boston was much, much further along in their build up than the Rangers were. You also have NO idea of how the "russians" who are coming over will perform.

Panarin is going to cost you 7 or 8 years at around $11m. The Rangers are NOT going to be competitors for at least the next several years. You are paying him at least $22m to "wait" until this team is competitive. From the age of 29, you will owe him 5 or 6 more years and $55 or $66m. For how many of those years will he be at "peak" performance level? Before long, you have an albatross of a contract on your hands, that is rife with NMC/NTC. Sound familiar?

Kreider is NOT going to cost that much. He is not going to need 8 years. He is a known quantity in the locker room and a leader. When he starts to get up in age, he can still play along the boards and continue to be a net front presence. Maybe it's better that one of the leaders of this team is a lifelong Ranger?

The in-between as you call it has resulted in 1 Cup in 77 years. Maybe it's time to give something else a try?

 

[Edge]

What's the risk in signing Panarin? I still haven't received, what I feel at least, a valid concern. Nothing changes for the worse. We wont suck as bad? His term?

We immediately get Mika some help and a 'top-ish' line.
We have all the Russians coming over, he should help.
In 2 years, if not sooner, we could contend and he could play a major part in it.
He gives the fans something to watch.. He puts asses in the seats and money flowing.

What's the issue? There's more than 2 choices, it's not full blown rebuild and full-blown win-now mode. There's an in between.

WE HAVE NO TALENT. We could land top talent with utilizing cap space. It truly is dumb founding how people are against it.

Sign Panarin, while continuing to draft and develop. The fact that Gorton signed Chara and Savard while continue to draft/develop, lines up.

Finding elite talent is not easy and not guaranteed in the draft, no matter the pick. Casually letting that talent slip through your fingers because we wont be 'contenders for 2 years' is faulty logic IMO.. He's guaranteed elite talent... there's no other alternative that's guaranteed.

It's the same basic principle for me that it was last week.

Now whether one agrees with that opinion is another matter. But we can essentially copy and paste all of that here and it'll probably be the same for me next week or in July.

 

[Tawnos]

The in-between as you call it has resulted in 1 Cup in 77 years. Maybe it's time to give something else a try?

Well, the reality is that we've never tried it, but you keep doing your thing.

 

[duhmetreE]

The risk is his age. It's that we'll bring him in at 28 and when we're ready to compete, he'll be 31 and no longer capable of elite play. And then worse, we might be ready to contend and he might 33 and really no longer capable of it.

I completely disagree

 

[duhmetreE]

Boston was much, much further along in their build up than the Rangers were. You also have NO idea of how the "russians" who are coming over will perform.

Panarin is going to cost you 7 or 8 years at around $11m. The Rangers are NOT going to be competitors for at least the next several years. You are paying him at least $22m to "wait" until this team is competitive. From the age of 29, you will owe him 5 or 6 more years and $55 or $66m. For how many of those years will he be at "peak" performance level? Before long, you have an albatross of a contract on your hands, that is rife with NMC/NTC. Sound familiar?

Kreider is NOT going to cost that much. He is not going to need 8 years. He is a known quantity in the locker room and a leader. When he starts to get up in age, he can still play along the boards and continue to be a net front presence. Maybe it's better that one of the leaders of this team is a lifelong Ranger?

The in-between as you call it has resulted in 1 Cup in 77 years. Maybe it's time to give something else a try?

You know we can't sign him for 8 years, right? You keep bring it up. He will get 6-7 years and his AAV will be determined by that.

I expect him to be 80+ every year of his contract, barring injury.

 

[Tawnos]

I completely disagree

I'm saying that's the risk, I'm not saying that's what he'll be. No predictions here.

If you completely disagree that it's a risk, you haven't been paying attention at all to what's been going on in this league for the last 15 years. Yeah, you have plenty of guys who continued their peak level of play until 31 or later... but you have just as many who have declined at 30 or 31. And there's no rhyme or reason to it, with the exception of smaller, physical types (like Callahan) who tend to see this around 29-30.

In the end, the question is whether or not the risk is worth it.

 

[Edge]

I'm kind of reminded of a post made concerning Panarin from last week. Something along the lines, "We haven't brought any new points to the discussion in several pages."

I kind of feel like that's where we're at today. For both sides of the debate, there's really nothing "new" to add to what we have extensively expressed.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm kind of reminded of a post made concerning Panarin from last week. Something along the lines, "We haven't brought any new points to the discussion in several pages."

I kind of feel like that's where we're at today. For both sides of the debate, there's really nothing "new" to add to what we have extensively expressed.

That was me, and I'm taking a counterpoint to signing Panarin, unlike that day

But it's a good point.

 

[duhmetreE]

I'm saying that's the risk, I'm not saying that's what he'll be. No predictions here.

If you completely disagree that it's a risk, you haven't been paying attention at all to what's been going on in this league for the last 15 years. Yeah, you have plenty of guys who continued their peak level of play until 31 or later... but you have just as many who have declined at 30 or 31. And there's no rhyme or reason to it, with the exception of smaller, physical types (like Callahan) who tend to see this around 29-30.

In the end, the question is whether or not the risk is worth it.

I know this if HF but 30 is still considered prime.. 33-35 you could anticipate some form of decline.

He would be 28-33 in a 6 year deal. Still prime years

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

You know we can't sign him for 8 years, right? You keep bring it up. He will get 6-7 years and his AAV will be determined by that.

I expect him to be 80+ every year of his contract, barring injury.

If you expect 80+ until he’s 35, you’ll certainly end up disappointed

 

[Edge]

That was me, and I'm taking a counterpoint to signing Panarin, unlike that day

But it's a good point.

Well, it's a good point.

And the truth is, while I don't particularly agree with @duhmetreE on this topic, I think he's made a sound argument for his POV.

 

[duhmetreE]

If you expect 80+ until he’s 35, you’ll certainly end up disappointed

We won't have him until he's 35.

 

[Mac n Gs]

It's the same basic principle for me that it was last week.

Now whether one agrees with that opinion is another matter. But we can essentially copy and paste all of that here and it'll probably be the same for me next week or in July.

This place is gonna be on a loop until July 1st as we all slowly lose our minds repeating the same conversation week-in and week-out.

If they want to make a move to “speed up” the rebuild, that’s fine by me. I’d rather it be in the form of identifying another 23-25 y/o player to add to Mika at the top-end of our core. They have plenty of currency to pull off a move without gutting any depth they’ve accumulated.

 

[Tawnos]

I know this if HF but 30 is still considered prime.. 33-35 you could anticipate some form of decline.

He would be 28-33 in a 6 year deal. Still prime years

We have a player on our very team who is in decline at age 30.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

This place is gonna be on a loop until July 1st as we all slowly lose our minds repeating the same conversation week-in and week-out.

If they want to make a move to “speed up” the rebuild, that’s fine by me. I’d rather it be in the form of identifying another 23-25 y/o player to add to Mika at the top-end of our core. They have plenty of currency to pull off a move without gutting any depth they’ve accumulated.

We just gotta hope and pray that the Panarin situation isn’t similar to the Kovalchuk one.

Imagine he just re-signs with the Blue Jackets in September? That’s be f***ing wild

 

[duhmetreE]

We just gotta hope and pray that the Panarin situation isn’t similar to the Kovalchuk one.

Imagine he just re-signs with the Blue Jackets in September? That’s be ****ing wild

No way he stays in Ohio.

He will be playing in NY, on our team or the other.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

We won't have him until he's 35.

He’ll be 28 in October, why is the top free agent going to accept anything less than max term (7 years)?