Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXII

[wafflepadsave]

he didn’t say anything about karlsson

Thank God.

 

[Tawnos]

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?

The in-between course he's talking about has never been tried in this organization either. The course of action that sees us simultaneously trading off pending assets, going heavy at the draft with no intention of even being a bubble team and bringing in talent from any and every source we can find, including UFAs, isn't something we've done.

 

[Fitzy]

Every team in the league signs players in their late 20's to long term deals.

Every single team. Go over to the Bruins board and tell them they made a mistake signing Marchand or Bergeron.

 

[Fitzy]

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

Yes, I suspect we will.

 

[duhmetreE]

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?

I'd say it's poor asset management. We do not want to sign players into their late 30's.

If he's not going to be a part of your future, you should get the most for him.

 

[DanielBrassard]

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.

Not at 5v5. His biggest decline has been his PP production. Which is sort of inexplicable but I think it's easier to improve that than it would be if he was showing massive declines in 5v5 play.

 

[duhmetreE]

Yes, I suspect we will.

Then, we should be for the signing of Panarin.

Unless, our reasoning is based on hypocritical emotion, rather than a constant logic.

 

[duhmetreE]

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.

That was never the issue, for me at least, that was being debated... He might choose another big market team that's contending? He might choose the Islanders. When comparing organizations though, the NYR are world-class, during and after your tenure. That plays a big role.

The fact that some don't even want to offer him a contract, is the issue at hand.

 

[Fitzy]

Then, we should be for the signing of Panarin.

Unless, our reasoning is based on hypocritical emotion, rather than a constant logic.

I think the timing of the signing matters too, if we consider competitive 'windows' to be a real thing.

The case is that Zibanejad, currently 2.5 years younger than Panarin, is more likely to have his more productive years sync up with the best of the Rangers rebuild.

Also, we could have discussions about the relative need of high priced players at the center versus wing position.

So we can include many purely logical factors that render decisions on the two players not synonymous.

 

[Edge]

Every team in the league signs players in their late 20's to long term deals.

Every single team. Go over to the Bruins board and tell them they made a mistake signing Marchand or Bergeron.

Speaking for myself, I fully expect that we will sign players in their late 20s to long term deals...at some point.

Obviously it depends on who, how much and how long, but it’ll happen.

Now if that’s resigning a 28 year old, core player, coming off a 42 win season, to a $6.125 million annual hit, I’m probably going to have a somewhat different view than if we’re almost doubling that figure coming off a season in which we picked in the top 10 and have high expectations for several teenagers to hit on their potential.

So the timing and context there is also important to me.

 

[Edge]

That was never the issue, for me at least, that was being debated... He might choose another big market team that's contending? He might choose the Islanders. When comparing organizations though, the NYR are world-class, during and after your tenure. That plays a big role.

The fact that some don't even want to offer him a contract, is the issue at hand.

So in that vein, what do you envision as a Rangers offer for Panarin?

 

[FIRE DRURY]

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.

Someone gets it.

 

[Edge]

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....

And I gamble too, but I’m willing to put more money behind a good hand, at the right time.

And that’s really what the debate boils down to — timing and the belief in whether this is the point in the game that we want to start raising.

Because with any gamble, timing is everything.

 

[Fitzy]

So in that vein, what do you envision as a Rangers offer for Panarin?

Not to answer for him, but the NYR send lowball offers to players they aren't 100% in on all the time.

They offered Kovalchuk only 3x6 when he was on the market. They sent a similarly low offer for Marian Hossa. They offered Shattenkirk 2 years less than everyone else was offering.

So I think "Putting in a lowball mildly insulting bid" versus bidding with the top teams looking for his service are two different ballparks.

 

[Thirty One]

Colorado got the first two picks in my lottery sim. Rangers 10th.

 

[Edge]

Not to answer for him, but the NYR send lowball offers to players they aren't 100% in on all the time.

They offered Kovalchuk only 3x6 when he was on the market. They sent a similarly low offer for Marian Hossa. They offered Shattenkirk 2 years less than everyone else was offering.

So I think "Putting in a lowball mildly insulting bid" versus bidding with the top teams looking for his service are two different ballparks.

Hey, if Panarin wants to consider three or four years at $8 million, we can talk.

But I’m not really sure that’s what we’re really debating, or if anyone would be this passionate if it was simply a matter of throwing some low cost bait out there and seeing if he bites.

 

[Edge]

Colorado got the first two picks in my lottery sim. Rangers 10th.

Wow. There goes lunch.

 

[Fitzy]

Colorado got the first two picks in my lottery sim. Rangers 10th.

Conspiracy theories would be all over the main boards.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

That was never the issue, for me at least, that was being debated... He might choose another big market team that's contending? He might choose the Islanders. When comparing organizations though, the NYR are world-class, during and after your tenure. That plays a big role.

The fact that some don't even want to offer him a contract, is the issue at hand.

Because he won't be worth what it would take to get him here.

Unless he Shattenkirks it and takes something like 10-10.5 at 5 years, it isn't happening. Most free agents chase the money and if he is that guy (which history would indicate he probably is), he isn't coming here.

Yeah I know, city, location blah, blah, blah. There will be teams that can offer him that plus the money and years. His interest in coming here is overblown and entirely based off of hearsay from a beat reporter (albeit a good one) during training camp.

Mind you, it goes against everything that this organization has preached for the last 13 months. Before anyone plays the "DURR LOOK AT WHAT GORTON DID WITH THE BRUINS", realize that Chia was pulling the strings behind the curtain.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Every team in the league signs players in their late 20's to long term deals.

Every single team. Go over to the Bruins board and tell them they made a mistake signing Marchand or Bergeron.

I think most Ranger fans would be thrilled to give their version of Marchand and Bergeron long-term deals, especially if they've delivered a Cup, and continue to contend for one after that. We're not at that point right now.

 

[NYR Viper]

I’d give Panarin the same exact cap hit and term as Stone except all signing bonuses. Tell him to put his condo in Miami as his main residence and collect the signing bonus money before the season starts at which point he will be living in FL. No state income tax.

 

[duhmetreE]

I think the timing of the signing matters too, if we consider competitive 'windows' to be a real thing.

The case is that Zibanejad, currently 2.5 years younger than Panarin, is more likely to have his more productive years sync up with the best of the Rangers rebuild.

Also, we could have discussions about the relative need of high priced players at the center versus wing position.

So we can include many purely logical factors that render decisions on the two players not synonymous.

You bring up valid points and I agree on some aspects, besides giving Zibanejad a long-term ( 7-8year ) deal when he's 29. I'd be against signing him past 35.

I brought it up because people tend to get 'age sensitive' selectively.

The point is to create a long-term product that succeeds. Getting players locked up through their primes and letting them go a year or two early if necessary. Continually drafting and developing.

Circling back, I don't see Panarin hurting any of that. He fills a major need and is something we do not have for the foreseeable future.

If you draw a line on certain terms/money, that's understandable... To flat out just say 'No', is what I'm really trying to understand.

 

[Edge]

Kovy in 2018. Panarin in 2019.

Reporters hedging on what the Rangers will do, or how quickly they want to do it.

I wonder who the name will be this time next year.

 

[NYR Viper]

Kovy in 2018. Panarin in 2019.

Reporters hedging on what the Rangers will do, or how quickly they want to do it.

I wonder who the name will be this time next year.

Hall. It’s only natural

 

[duhmetreE]

Kovy in 2018. Panarin in 2019.

Reporters hedging on what the Rangers will do, or how quickly they want to do it.

I wonder who the name will be this time next year.

If Kovalchuk accepted 2 years , he'd be a Ranger.
If Panarin accepts 6years, he'll be a Ranger.