Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXII

[Edge]

Prediction - Florida trades for the rights to both Panarin and Bob and signs them both long term before they hit the open market:

Funny how the state income tax complaints are a thing...until the team sucks and it’s not.

 

[duhmetreE]

You know it’s funny, I don’t really see the parallels between Shattenkirk and Panarin from a decline standpoint, but I do see it from a mindset and approach standpoint.

The idea with Panarin is that he’s too good to pass up, and that there’s no one he is particularly blocking. And there’s logic in that mindset. I “get” where it’s coming from.

But I also think it changes the mindset. You don’t sign a guy like Panarin because you want to give your young centers the best support possible on the wings. I think that’s a nice thought, but the economies of the situation dictate otherwise.

You sign a guy like Panarin, and the contract he WILL command (don’t kid yourself otherwise) because you are prepared to go for it.

Not two years from now.

Not a year from now.

Now.

And that, in and of itself, will never have the best interest of young talent at heart.

Again, it’s a noble thought to believe we can have both, but it doesn’t work that way. As I’ve said before, you simply don’t give a guy 8 figures to ease the transition for young talent, or because you’re prepared to let them comfortably develop on their own.

Short of turning that statement into a Sean Bean Lord of the Rings meme, I really can’t emphasize it enough.

It’s not just the money. Or the years. Or the health. Or our depth on the wings. Or Panarin’s talent. Or his longevity. Or a short list of other things.

It’s about a mindset shift, and going down a path that will lead to a desire to build a support system around Panarin sooner rather than later. We can convince ourselves otherwise, but that signing inherently brings different expectations, and timelines, and interests.

And that, more than whether Panarin can score 30 goals past the age of 30, is the risk. Because if we screw this up now, and try to force this process, we run the risk of undoing everything we’ve accomplished over the past 12 months.

You start screwing with developmental timelines, you start increasing your risks of failure exponentially. Hell, you might even see a short term gain. But you will find you’ve sacrificed sustainability in order to achieve that gain.

Signing elite talent, still in their prime years, will never be a bad thing. What you think happens after, is a near apocalyptic, disastrous event. I don't see it that way.

Mindset shift... Failure... Screwing with developmental timelines... You're running wild based on conjecture while becoming increasingly condescending. Maybe your perception of the 'rebuild', isn't as absolute as you think it is?

 

[Edge]

Signing elite talent, still in their prime years, will never be a bad thing. What you think happens after, is a near apocalyptic, disastrous event. I don't see it that way.

Mindset shift... Failure... Screwing with developmental timelines... You're running wild based on conjecture while becoming increasingly condescending. Maybe your perception of the 'rebuild', isn't as absolute as you think it is?

And this is why I’ve avoided debating the issue further.

Because when you get the reasons as to why people don’t want it, you label it conjecture and view it as condescending.

You’ve said no one has given you convincing reasons why the Rangers shouldn’t go down this path. They have, you just don’t agree with those reasons. But your not agreeing with them doesn’t mean they haven’t been expressed or don’t exist.

I’ve never said my perception is absolute. But if you want reasons as to why people have a different opinion, I’ve pretty much layed it out there for you, a few times. Others have as well. Whether you agree with that or not is not my call.

Frankly, you don’t have to agree with it. But the fact that my perception is different really shouldn’t be a surprise. Otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it at length in the first place.

 

[bobbop]

Shattenkirk’s recent history also illustrates the one thing you simply cannot control about free agents or any players for that matter; injuries.

 

[bobbop]

Getting back to Trouba, my reasoning behind wanting him starts with this...he’s not on the first power play unit in Winnipeg and he is slotted behind Big Buff as an offensive defenseman. He is a breakout waiting to happen. Oh and he’s pretty good right now (38 points in 68 games) and he plays a physical game. I see a 1-2 defenseman locked behind a really good player. He will be costly no matter how he is acquired but 25 year old players like him seldomnly come available. Winnipeg is in a real jam here.

 

[Edge]

Shattenkirk’s recent history also illustrates the one thing you simply cannot control about free agents or any players for that matter; injuries.

I think the concern with older players, in general, is that the window to recoup some of your investment disappears faster.

A 22 year old misses half a year with a knee injury, you still have time for them to recover at a reasonable cost or potentially move them for a return.

A 29 year old misses half a year with a knee injury and a very expensive clock is ticking with significantly less opportunity to potentially move said player for a return.

 

[Edge]

Getting back to Trouba, my reasoning behind wanting him starts with this...he’s not on the first power play unit in Winnipeg and he is slotted behind Big Buff as an offensive defenseman. He is a breakout waiting to happen. Oh and he’s pretty good right now (38 points in 68 games) and he plays a physical game. I see a 1-2 defenseman locked behind a really good player. He will be costly no matter how he is acquired but 25 year old players like him seldomnly come available. Winnipeg is in a real jam here.

Are you concerned that 68 games now marks the second highest total of his career and that players don’t tend to get more durable as they age?

 

[duhmetreE]

And this is why I’ve avoided debating the issue further.

Because when you get the reasons as to why people don’t want it, you label it conjecture and view it as condescending.

You’ve said no one has given you convincing reasons why the Rangers shouldn’t go down this path. They have, you just don’t agree with those reasons. But your not agreeing with them doesn’t mean they haven’t been expressed or don’t exist.

I’ve never said my perception is absolute. But if you want reasons as to why people have a different opinion, I’ve pretty much layed it out there for you, a few times. Others have as well. Whether you agree with that or not is not my call.

Frankly, you don’t have to agree with it. But the fact that my perception is different really shouldn’t be a surprise. Otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it at length in the first place.

Again, it’s a noble thought to believe we can have both, but it doesn’t work that way. As I’ve said before, you simply don’t give a guy 8 figures to ease the transition for young talent, or because you’re prepared to let them comfortably develop on their own.

Condescending and absolute...

Your entire argument is based on what you think might happen after he signs and you're piggybacking off of it, as if it's an absolute. Hence, 'you're running wild with conjecture.'

It's either win-now or full rebuild? I don't see it that way. I think we can start moving forward and be contenders in a couple years. While keeping draft picks and developing kids in the background.

 

[Edge]

Condescending and absolute...

Your entire argument is based on what you think might happen after he signs and you're piggybacking off of it, as if it's an absolute.

Well, yes when we’re talking about a player who isn’t even on the team, the discussion is going to come down to what we think might happen.

In the case of Panarin, can you cite examples of someone signing an UFA at that price point and not intending to go for it?

There’s a reason for that, a precedent if you will.

So what is it that you think will happen if the Rangers got Panarin?

 

[duhmetreE]

Well, yes when we’re talking about a player who isn’t even on the team, the discussion is going to come down to what we think might happen.

In the case of Panarin, can you cite examples of someone signing an UFA at that price point and not intending to go for it?

There’s a reason for that, a precedent if you will.

So what is it that you think will happen if the Rangers got Panarin?

Stay the course but with a first line. Bring over Kravtsov. Stack Hartford.

Make a hockey trade or two for the defense. Trim the fat ( Shattenkirk, pun intended )

 

[RGY]

Shattenkirk not being elite doesn’t matter. He deteriorated from what he was. So will Panarin. When? No one knows. Any speculation in any direction is pure bull****. It’s common bull**** now, but it’s still bull****. Besides, how little wear and tear he might have has nothing to do with when he will lose a little tick of reaction time, and then some more.

That’s why it’s a risk. Risk worth taking? Maybe.

Im sorry Tawnos but its not comparable. Youre guess is as good as anyones that his reaction time will slow down. Maybe it wont. Maybe because he doesnt have the miles on his body it wont. It makes a difference.

 

[bobbop]

Are you concerned that 68 games now marks the second highest total of his career and that players don’t tend to get more durable as they age?

Concerned, but not overly, He just turned 25. Best I can tell he doesn’t have a chronic injury (e.g. knee, shoulder) to consider. That would scare me a lot more than random injuries that it appears he has had.

He’s never struck me as someone who shies away from contact, perhaps to his detriment. If he was the man, I’d expect he would pick his spots a little more carefully.

 

[Edge]

Stay the course but with a first line. Bring over Kravtsov. Stack Hartford.

Make a hockey trade or two for the defense. Trim the fat ( Shattenkirk, pun intended )

Cool. I totally get the idea. No confusion.

But what examples do we have a team making that kind of move and saying the course with talent that (mostly) isn’t even old enough to drink and in some cases, wont be for years?

That’s the gap IMO. You’re presenting what you want them to do, and history has shown as that it rarely works out that way. And I only use the word rarely because I am not “absolute” in my belief that I can say never.

By your own admission, Panarin is an elite talent. I 100 percent agree with you. He is an elite talent.

But teams don’t sign elite talents to stay the course. They just don’t. At least not intentionally.

They might sign good talent. Maybe even very good talent.

But when someone signs great, or elite talent, their intention is not just to let things come along as they were. The very action of the signing elite talent is the antithesis of that approach.

So what you consider absolute is merely an opinion based on the history and precedent that teams don’t do that.

Sure we can throw precedent out the window, and maybe the Rangers are going for fairly unchartered territory. But the smart money is on that not happening.

And that not happening is the scenario I described a few posts up.

I don’t really know what to tell you, it’s just not.

 

[Edge]

Concerned, but not overly, He just turned 25. Best I can tell he doesn’t have a chronic injury (e.g. knee, shoulder) to consider. That would scare me a lot more than random injuries that it appears he has had.

He’s never struck me as someone who shies away from contact, perhaps to his detriment. If he was the man, I’d expect he would pick his spots a little more carefully.

See now I have almost the opposite take.

The odds of him finding a significant improvement to his health is pretty unlikely, and being the man puts him front and center to a bigger role, with more ice time, more focus, and the other teams focusing on him.

Right now he can slide into that second threat role and it works. But I don’t know if I am comfortable with having a lot riding on that transferring over being the man here, with far less support and protection.

 

[Elliman]

Would prefer Panarin and EK on team friendly contracts and years. Limited no trade clause. You wanna play in NYC, at the Garden for a storied original six franchise then that’s the price. We are not in a position to add these players on big long term conditions but we can on team friendly deals. They don’t want it? Fine. No issues. Go be a mercenary somewhere else.

 

[bobbop]

Even with the overtime loss tonight, the Rangers are up to seventh place in the lottery standings. This continues to be a make or break trip to see if they can get much higher.

 

[bobbop]

See now I have almost the opposite take.

The odds of him finding a significant improvement to his health is pretty unlikely, and being the man puts him front and center to a bigger role, with more ice time, more focus, and the other teams focusing on him.

Right now he can slide into that second threat role and it works. But I don’t know if I am comfortable with having a lot riding on that transferring over being the man here, with far less support and protection.

It’s a good conversation. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Crease]

Would prefer Panarin and EK on team friendly contracts and years. Limited no trade clause. You wanna play in NYC, at the Garden for a storied original six franchise then that’s the price. We are not in a position to add these players on big long term conditions but we can on team friendly deals. They don’t want it? Fine. No issues. Go be a mercenary somewhere else.

Get them in a room together and pitch them as the next Messier/Leetch. Play the Oh Baby! VHS until their eyes bleed, then remind them it's the salary cap era so it needs to happen on workable terms.

 

[GAGLine]

See now I have almost the opposite take.

The odds of him finding a significant improvement to his health is pretty unlikely, and being the man puts him front and center to a bigger role, with more ice time, more focus, and the other teams focusing on him.

Right now he can slide into that second threat role and it works. But I don’t know if I am comfortable with having a lot riding on that transferring over being the man here, with far less support and protection.

Every player has his flaws. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

 

[Edge]

Every player has his flaws. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

At what cost though?

Because in Trouba’s case, you’re talking about a trade and not a free agent.

So depending on the approach and opinion, say like the difference Bobbop and I have, there could be a pretty decent range there.

And that’s where it gets interesting.

 

[duhmetreE]

Cool. I totally get the idea. No confusion.

But what examples do we have a team making that kind of move and saying the course with talent that (mostly) isn’t even old enough to drink and in some cases, wont be for years?

That’s the gap IMO. You’re presenting what you want them to do, and history has shown as that it rarely works out that way. And I only use the word rarely because I am not “absolute” in my belief that I can say never.

By your own admission, Panarin is an elite talent. I 100 percent agree with you. He is an elite talent.

But teams don’t sign elite talents to stay the course. They just don’t. At least not intentionally.

They might sign good talent. Maybe even very good talent.

But when someone signs great, or elite talent, their intention is not just to let things come along as they were. The very action of the signing elite talent is the antithesis of that approach.

So what you consider absolute is merely an opinion based on the history and precedent that teams don’t do that.

Sure we can throw precedent out the window, and maybe the Rangers are going for fairly unchartered territory. But the smart money is on that not happening.

And that not happening is the scenario I described a few posts up.

I don’t really know what to tell you, it’s just not.

Is there really much precedence for 'elite players'? Is Tavares, going to Toronto, precedence? before that?

We're not talking about overpaying for an average-good player, we're talking about the piece that has eluded us for a long while. If anything, shouldn't we be worried about the precedence set in that regard? We have issues landing/drafting players like Panarin. I dont know what Panarin will decide, but if he's willing to play here, I'd be more than happy to have him.

We're subject to luck of the draw/lottery and as things are, I believe this year is the bottom; probably our best chance for hitting the lotto.

Maybe a big market team, like the NYR, need to go into 'uncharted waters'. Hockey's different here

 

[Edge]

Is there really much precedence for 'elite players'? Is Tavares, going to Toronto, precedence? before that?

We're not talking about overpaying for an average-good player, we're talking about the piece that has eluded us for a long while. If anything, shouldn't we be worried about the precedence set in that regard? We have issues landing/drafting players like Panarin. I dont know what Panarin will decide, but if he's willing to play here, I'd be more than happy to have him.

We're subject to luck of the draw/lottery and as things are, I believe this year is the bottom; probably our best chance for hitting the lotto.

Maybe a big market team, like the NYR, need to go into 'uncharted waters'. Hockey's different here

Probably depends on how far we want to go back. In recent history we’d have Tavares. Post lockout you’d have to consider names like Chara, Gaborik and Hossa in the conversation. Maybe Parise and Suter. There are other names we can possibly include. In most cases you can make arguments for or against their inclusion, or debate where they rank in comparison to Panarin, but they’re close enough to flesh out some context.

Those teams were very much about taking the next step and trying to push through to that next level — starting immediately.

Are the Rangers at that point? No, I don’t think they are.

Should they be at that point? I’d say no, not yet.

Would they be at that point with Panarin? I’d say it’s far more likely than not it would push them in that direction. Which circles me back to whether they should be at this point, with the same answer I gave previously.

Even if we debate who we consider elite, or positions, or the age of the players we are discussing, there’s still not a precedent for signing a top free agent and going down the path of status quo or youth-oriented player development.

Personally, I think there’s a reason for that and it’s because the concepts are quite far apart.

 

[effen]

Parise and Suter are a good but imperfect comparison for signing Panarin. Proven #1 LW and #1D in their primes designed to help a .500 team get better with a bunch of decent prime aged support pieces and a veritable crapton of youth ready to step in over the years (Spurgeon, Coyle, Brodin, Clutterbuck, Granlund, Zucker, Scandella).

They got a lot of 1st round exits.

 

[RangerBoy]

$3.2m ($3.1m?) is a high cap hit?

Strome is on pace for 29 points. He has 12 goals and 25 points in 68 games.

$3.2M salary/$3.1M cap hit.

His value was so down that Edmonton traded him for Spooner. Edmonton tried to trade him and couldn't find a taker for Strome.

A player making $3.2M in salary and a $3.1 cap hit should have more 29 points at the end of the season. He had 1 good season 4 years ago.

You think this player is worth those numbers.

Now that's funny.

 

[True Blue]

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.

Sorry, but I feel that is just a variation of what has been done in the past. So yes, this exact in-between has not been done, but other versions of it have. The full rebuild that Gorton is undertaking has not been done before. At least not as I recall.