Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXII

[FIRE DRURY]

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.

At this point it's the same people repeating the same things, but hoping for different results.

The good news is we'll continue having this discussion for another 3 1/2+ months!!!

 

[FIRE DRURY]

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

Because of reasons!

 

[duhmetreE]

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

Shattenkirk? He was a bad player before he was signed. I despised the signing.

 

[duhmetreE]

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

For a higher salary? For going to the team he wants? Negotiations? IF he wants to just get paid, sure.

His first season with the new team will be at 28.

 

[Tawnos]

At this point it's the same people repeating the same things, but hoping for different results.

The good news is we'll continue having this discussion for another 3 1/2+ months!!!

I mean we did have exactly the same discussions over and over again for the 5 months from the beginning of the season until the deadline. 3.5 months is better!

 

[Ghost of jas]

At this point it's the same people repeating the same things, but hoping for different results.

The good news is we'll continue having this discussion for another 3 1/2+ months!!!

Oh, joy.

 

[Tawnos]

Shattenkirk? He was a bad player before he was signed. I despised the signing.

You absolutely cannot deny that his production has decreased even in his time as a Ranger. Good player or bad player, the decline is apparent.

 

[duhmetreE]

You absolutely cannot deny that his production has decreased even in his time as a Ranger. Good player or bad player, the decline is apparent.

He's was 40+pt defenseman that gets his points on the PP. We have no talent and he hasn't even been playing on our #1PP.

He was romanticized as something that he was not. He's still the same bad player that might have gotten fat.

 

[Tawnos]

He's was 40+pt defenseman that gets his points on the PP. We have no talent and he hasn't even been playing on our #1PP.

He was romanticized as something that he was not. He's still the same bad player that might have gotten fat.

He hasn't been playing on our #1 PP because he can't.... because he's declined. 2 years ago Shattenkirk never gets beaten out by guys like Pionk and DeAngelo for that job.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

For a higher salary? For going to the team he wants? Negotiations? IF he wants to just get paid, sure.

His first season with the new team will be at 28.

He can get paid AND go to the team he wants, he has most of the leverage here. And his first season will be at 28, but his last will be at 35. There’s not even a guarantee he’ll score 80 next year if he comes to the Rangers, because, as you’ve said, they have no talent

 

[Off Sides]

I always go back to timeline, to repeat myself...

Lundqvist, Staal, Smith, Shattenkirk have contracts that all end in the same off-season.

Only two players signed beyond them, Zbad, Skjei currently ages 25 and 24.

The CBA will end somewhere in there

Expansion will take place somewhere in there too.

They signed Hayes, Name, Vesey, Spooner to deals that all were short term and end(ed) as them being UFAs.

Traded Spooner for Strome, also has an expiring contract.

Their big UFA signings were Claesson and McLeod.

Traded for picks and 2016 drafted players.

Pretty much rented McQuaid for a regular season.

Unless that was all coincidence, it kind of seems like from my tea leaf reading perception, there is some plan that goes along with that.

I'd never would just assume the Rangers are not going to put in offers to UFAs, yet I can't imagine them just completely changing directions. Seems to me more like it will be Shattenkirk like offers, if the player is willing to take less than he'd get by going elsewhere, and he fits into the post letter grand scheme, I do think they'll sign them, but I do not expect any blank check sort of stuff.

If I were to guess, I think accelerating the rebuild pertains mostly to those 2016 draftees they traded for. To them having all of Chytil, Howden, Lias, Hajek in the NHL all at the same time probably a season before they otherwise would.

With that said I humbly admit I could be all wrong and it would not be the first time I thought they had things lined up pretty well and saw them go off and make some very questionable moves, but for whatever reason, and maybe they are fooling me for like a 10th time, this just seems different.

 

[duhmetreE]

He can get paid AND go to the team he wants, he has most of the leverage here. And his first season will be at 28, but his last will be at 35. There’s not even a guarantee he’ll score 80 next year if he comes to the Rangers, because, as you’ve said, they have no talent

Year 1 -28
Year 2- 29
Year 3- 30
Year 4- 31
Year 5- 32
Year 6- 33
Year 7 -34

Why didn't Tavares go to San Jose? Why did Shattenkirk take less (even though it was still overpaying)?

If he wants to be in NY, he'd consider a 6 year deal at 11-12per.

There's no guarantee we'll get any elite player to score 80 in the draft..

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Yea h tis won't be a 2-3 year process likesome think. I think it's going to getworse.

 

[duhmetreE]

Then why keep Mika? He'll be 29 when he becomes a UFA. Why would we pay him? Why should we keep him? He's doesn't 'line up with' when we're to start contending, 2-3 years from now.

Trade him when his value is sky high.

 

[Edge]

I know there's the belief that Panarin wants to go to a big city and play in a big market.

But if you're a 28 year old free agent, are the Rangers really at the top of your list in 2019?

Don't get me wrong, I think we're on the right path. The city is a great place to live.

But there's a hell of a lot to swallow when it comes to signing with this team, at this point in time.

I mean even if everything comes together, even the most optimistic posters are citing two years from now as when this team would really start to come together. And even then, that doesn't make them a top contender. So you're looking at maybe spending half your contract and the remaining time in your 20s with a team that you hope can be a contender?

I mean that's either a world of dedication to a place he's never lived, or it feels an awful lot like the big free agent signings of the late 1990s.

 

[Thirty One]

Then why keep Mika? He'll be 29 when he becomes a UFA. Why would we pay him? Why should we keep him? He's doesn't 'line up with' when we're to start contending, 2-3 years from now.

Trade him when his value is sky high.

Because we can make that decision on Mika when we (hopefully) are ready to contend. Panarin requires a decision in 2019 hoping for 2021 that will still effect 2026.

 

[East Coast Bias]

At this point it's the same people repeating the same things, but hoping for different results.

The good news is we'll continue having this discussion for another 3 1/2+ months!!!

It's a roster building thread. On a message board.

Shall we just all simulate lottery draws and post our results for 3 months?

 

[Edge]

Because we can make that decision on Mika when we (hopefully) are ready to contend. Panarin requires a decision in 2019 hoping for 2021 that will still effect 2026.

I would also say Mika being two years younger and commanding half the contract is a consideration.

 

[True Blue]

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

I am doing my thing. I am pointing out that right now Gorton has put the franchise on a course that is previously uncharted and is NOT an in-between. What am I missing?

 

[Edge]

It's a roster building thread. On a message board.

Shall we just all simulate lottery draws and post our results for 3 months?

In fairness, I don't think that's what he meant. So much as that there's actually nothing new that we're adding that we haven't really said very recently.

 

[alkurtz]

The question is: just because some players begin to decline at age 28, do we automatically say that we will never sign a player at age 28? If we answer yes, we cut ourselves off from a valueable source of talent. But, I understand the sentiment. Every free agent signing is a gamble. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Do you never gamble? Personally, I am more willing to gamble on forwards than Dmen. If you consider Panarin an elite or near elite talent, and he checks all the other boxes (fitness, work ethic, injury history), than the gamble is worth it. Especially if you think he will still be productive in 2 or 3 years, when our young core is, hopefully, ready to seriously compete. But it is a gamble: if you lose, it drags down the cap for years. If you win, you are helping propel your team to another level. There is no easy answer. I gamble....

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Year 1 -28
Year 2- 29
Year 3- 30
Year 4- 31
Year 5- 32
Year 6- 33
Year 7 -34

Why didn't Tavares go to San Jose? Why did Shattenkirk take less (even though it was still overpaying)?

If he wants to be in NY, he'd consider a 6 year deal at 11-12per.

There's no guarantee we'll get any elite player to score 80 in the draft..

Tavares didn’t take less term. And with both Tavares and Shattenkirk, they’re living out childhood dreams, I’ll wait for the picture of Panarin as a child in Rangers pajamas.

While you can’t expect to get an 80+ point player in the draft, when you do, there’s your next 12+ years of your franchise as opposed to the 7 max of Panarin as a compliment to a (right now) nonexistent core

 

[True Blue]

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.

Ok, not 8 years, but 7. How many of those last 5 years will he be producing at a level commensurate with his level of pay?

 

[duhmetreE]

Because we can make that decision on Mika when we (hopefully) are ready to contend. Panarin requires a decision in 2019 hoping for 2021 that will still effect 2026.

but he'll be 29 and going to want similar term/$$$. We'll give him 7-8 years @ 29?

So, if we're not going to keep Mika long term, why not trade him when his value is the highest?

 

[duhmetreE]

Ok, not 8 years, but 7. How many of those last 5 years will he be producing at a level commensurate with his level of pay?

This is all subjective, but I fully expect Panarin to be a point per game player, well into his 30's. 34-35 he might show some decline.

 

[Thirty One]

but he'll be 29 and going to want similar term/$$$. We'll give him 7-8 years @ 29?

We can make that decision when he's 29. After seeing how the team plays out in the next couple years. You have to see how that's an advantage, right?