Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXV

[Off Sides]

If they get there. They might. Can you plan on it?

Not anymore than they could plan on whenever Panarin may or may not decline.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Outside of Gaborik all four of those signed cheating contracts that are no longer allowed. That's also nobody more recent than 7 years ago. The CBA has changed since then making it less likely those players become FA since the current team has the advantage of offering the extra year. It's no surprise the quality of FA players has dropped pretty much instantly with this new CBA (Suter/Parise were in 2012...new CBA in 2013).

We're going to see 2 in 2 years for sure and perhaps 3.

The "These guys are NEVER AVAILABLE in UFA" argument is tired and false and not a good reason to make the signing.

Had this team embarked on the rebuild after getting smoked by Pittsburgh? Yeah it would probably make sense. But they didn't and it doesn't.

 

[Tawnos]

Not anymore than they could plan on whenever Panarin may or may not decline.

I mean, if we're talking levels of risk... I agree they are about equal.

Aside from the bird-in-the-hand metaphor.

 

[SA16]

We're going to see 2 in 2 years for sure and perhaps 3.

The "These guys are NEVER AVAILABLE in UFA" argument is tired and false and not a good reason to make the signing.

Had this team embarked on the rebuild after getting smoked by Pittsburgh? Yeah it would probably make sense. But they didn't and it doesn't.

It's called an outlier. 2 in 2 years. 0 in the previous 7. We already know there are 0 in the two years after this other than maybe Hall who is very risky.

 

[BBKers]

Just one small thing regarding the Panarin vs Parise comparison. Parise at Panarins relative age had played more than 250 more NHL games (268 to be precise including the POs) than Panarin. That mileage and Parises serious injury in 2010/2011 has to come into play when one makes an approximated decline curve. And to be gin clear - I Am not a Panarin (or EK) fanboy in the slightest... I simply do not think he is good enough to get anywhere near what he wants and will likely get. Somewhere. Hopefully not out of Jim Dolan’s wallet though. His availability does not fit into our general rebuilding scheme and timeline methinx.

 

[True Blue]

Had this team embarked on the rebuild after getting smoked by Pittsburgh? Yeah it would probably make sense. But they didn't and it doesn't.

Agreed. The timing is just not there right now. And wasting at least two of his prime years while waiting for the Rangers to begin to be competitive seems to be a poor investment.

As Edge said, there is nothing in these new 7 pages that has not been regurgitated over and over again.

 

[TheTakedown]

And how many of those years will we waste by not being good? Will we try to accelerate the rebuild to take advantage of his elite years? Will we trade away prospects and picks in an effort to win while he is still elite? It's a slippery slope.

Beyond that, the one thing that most people seem to ignore, is why is Panarin signing with a rebuilding team? He's going to get his money wherever he goes. Why wouldn't he sign somewhere that he will also have a good chance to win a cup?

Cup Contenders do not have that kind of cap space... Very simple.

Pittsburgh, Winnipeg, Dallas, Tampa, etc

 

[GAGLine]

Cup Contenders do not have that kind of cap space... Very simple.

Pittsburgh, Winnipeg, Dallas, Tampa, etc

No they don't, but there are teams out there with cap space who are in a better position than us in terms of ability to compete. Montreal, Philly, Dallas, Florida, Carolina, Colorado, St. Louis, the Islanders. Maybe he re-signs with Columbus. Yeah, some of those teams aren't much better than us right now, but those are teams that are trying to turn pretenders into contenders. We aren't at that stage yet. Right now, we aren't even pretending.

 

[DutchShamrock]

Gaborik, Hossa (twice), Parise, Suter, Kovalchuk.

I'm probably missing a few.

This argument applies to Karlsson if he gets there, Not Panarin.

Brad Richards. They pop up nearly every season, maybe 2 out of 3 years. Wait for Hall next season.

Parise was never on the level of Panarin. Kovalchuk re-signed with his current team (although he took his time to do so). Nonetheless the most recent examples are from the summer of 2012, it's no longer the recurring phenomenon it once was.

Parise was. But we use hindsight to cloud our view of these players at that time. In retrospect, these players lost that elite, never available before status. At the time however, the clamoring was persistent, high and confident.

Two things we should take away: this level of player is available more often than we wish to acknowledge and they hardly pan out the way most people project.

 

[aufheben]

I’ve been on the fence the last 18 months w/r/t the big fish like Panarin—50/50. What are the risks (I’m not saying there aren’t any)? Not the philosophical issues.

 

[Tawnos]

I’ve been on the fence the last 18 months w/r/t the big fish like Panarin—50/50. What are the risks (I’m not saying there aren’t any)? Not the philosophical issues.

The individual risks are the same as any late-20s UFA. When will he decline?

Any long-term UFA contract, you have to expect that you're only really getting full value out of the first half of it. With that in mind, the risk is that he declines before he reaches that half-way point (like Richards did).

 

[Off Sides]

My argument against UFAs mostly boils down to these lists of players who changed teams as UFA. The most expensive ones carry a super high risk of turning into a contract that team would love to dump, and usually it does not even take more than a couple years for it to play out as such.

Do I believe Panarin is better than most of these guys, Sure, yet he is not immune from injury or decline at any point.

2018 NHL Free Agents Tracker
2017 NHL Free Agents Tracker
2016 NHL Free Agents Tracker
2015 NHL Free Agents Tracker
2014 NHL Free Agents Tracker
2013 NHL Free Agents Tracker
2012 NHL Free Agents Tracker



Reason I believe there is a decline age, injury risk involved?

These are approximate numbers as I may have missed one or two, yet did not miss a bunch or anything.

There are ~113 players in the whole league who are currently age 32 or older, there are ~71 forwards

Of those 71 forwards there are

11 who currently have 50 or more points
7 60 or more points
4 70 or more points
2 80 or more points

Do the Rangers think Panarin at age 32 is going to be putting up 60 or more points when only about about 10% of the current NHLers that age or older can? Is 11M or whatever in cap space good for him maybe being in that ~10% at 60 points?

How about at age 33?
Currently ~52 forwards
Only 6 players with 50 or more points
Only 3 with 60 or more points, Ovechkin, Bergeron and Pavelski.

Are the Ranger really going to risk Panarin being one of those 6 or 3 players at ages 33 who can put up more than 50 or 60 points?

I believe ages 32/33 is the general decline age span, Sure some players are outliers, yet there are outliers the other way to who declined even a little younger, often due to injury yet that has to be factored into the risk.

From a Rangers perspective, last season above 50 points and age
Gomez 29
Drury 32
Gaborik 29
Richards 33
Nash 30

To be fair sure there could be a Gretzky, Messier, Jagr or Shanahan in there, yet that is counteracted by Lindros age 29 last 50 point or above season and I don't think anyone is comparing Panarin to those level of players.

As far as D, tough to use points for most but even Leetch had his last really good season at age 32 and 33. Sure he may have injured himself somehow off the ice, yet still, the risk is there.

The risk is just to much for me, last thing I want to see is the Rangers be gearing up towards being a contender only to have a Panarin or some other large cap hit player fall off right at the wrong time. And yes to me that goes for Kreider too.

Why are we seeing a shift towards big contracts to players who are younger than UFA age? I'd argue partly because the cap hit reflects downward with any RFA years within that contract, and the players are in their prime with less chances of decline.

 

[duhmetreE]

You need a lot of money to do cool things. People who win the lotto have a lot of money....

I will no longer plan my life... I will just play the lotto.. I will get rich eventually and do cool things..

This is a loose interpretation of the logic used for 'getting our elite players'

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

You need a lot of money to do cool things. People who win the lotto have a lot of money....

I will no longer plan my life... I will just play the lotto.. I will get rich eventually and do cool things..

This is a loose interpretation of the logic used for 'getting our elite players'

No it’s not

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I’ve been on the fence the last 18 months w/r/t the big fish like Panarin—50/50. What are the risks (I’m not saying there aren’t any)? Not the philosophical issues.

When his play drop off. Will he put up the numbers to make his contract worth it when he plays for what will be the worst team he’s ever been on? Are two big ones for me

Edit: also the Rangers will never be able to trade him, because if he signs here, it’ll come with a NMC and with the reason being for location rather than chance to win

 

[duhmetreE]

No it’s not

Yes it is

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Yes it is

If that’s what you think, you haven’t been listening, because it’s not just about drafting elite players, it’s about gathering assets (which no, they don’t have enough of at this point either) so that they can make some quantity for quality trades if they don’t end up drafting top 2-3

 

[True Blue]

You need a lot of money to do cool things. People who win the lotto have a lot of money....

I will no longer plan my life... I will just play the lotto.. I will get rich eventually and do cool things..

This is a loose interpretation of the logic used for 'getting our elite players'

Very interesting comparison, but no. The logic regarding Panarin will be that his most productive years, will be spent 1) waiting for the Rangers to become competitive & 2) playing on a team that is just starting to become competitive. At the back end of his contract, when the Rangers should be truly ready to compete, his production will not be nearly as the same as what the Rangers will need at that time.

The timing just is not right.

 

[Edge]

When his play drop off. Will he put up the numbers to make his contract worth it when he plays for what will be the worst team he’s ever been on? Are two big ones for me

Edit: also the Rangers will never be able to trade him, because if he signs here, it’ll come with a NMC and with the reason being for location rather than chance to win

It's a lot of money and years, with a movement clause, and a lot of things to fall into place in order to get close to maximizing that investment.

Short term is probably out, so then the hope is long-term, and the big question of when?

 

[McRanger]

Signing Panarin would be foolish considering the state of the team and the likely state of the team the next few years with or without Panarin.

That said Panarin actually is a bit of an anomaly. There aren't too many undersized undrafted 24 year olds who step into the league, become stars and become UFAs while they are still statistically trending up.

Panarin has more in common with an uncommon guy like Zucc than a guy like Parise. I dont know if its the playing style or the lack of wear and tear coming to NA so late but Zucc is 32 and is (this years moping not withstanding) still pretty much the same player he was at 27 and I would not be surprised if he is still that same player at 34 or 35.

So while I agree signing him is a bad idea, I also agree that Panarin is an atypical free agent simply because he is an atypical player with an atypical story.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

High end free agency in the NHL is just too risky in general. It’s absolutely insane how much it favors the players and how badly it handcuffs the teams.

Want to improve your team and sumplement it with high end talent? Okay, you’re gonna have to be comfortable with the guy for SEVEN years at a large cap hit that you are bound to for the entirety of those seven years, under the most suffocating cap system in sports.

Seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to try and project into the future. Hopefully the new CBA lowers max term to 4 years in UFA and 5 years for the team re-signing them.

 

[Gardner McKay]

High end free agency in the NHL is just too risky in general. It’s absolutely insane how much it favors the players and how badly it handcuffs the teams.

Want to improve your team and sumplement it with high end talent? Okay, you’re gonna have to be comfortable with the guy for SEVEN years at a large cap hit that you are bound to for the entirety of those seven years, under the most suffocating cap system in sports.

Seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to try and project into the future. Hopefully the new CBA lowers max term to 4 years in UFA and 5 years for the team re-signing them.

I couldn't disagree more. Let GM's make their own mistakes. At the least, I could see an argument for 6/7 but 4/5? Nah. Stupid GM's can't do stupid things and smart GM's can't take advantage of those stupid GM's. It takes the creativity out of being a GM and makes the game about who gets luckiest in the draft.

 

[SA16]

High end free agency in the NHL is just too risky in general. It’s absolutely insane how much it favors the players and how badly it handcuffs the teams.

Want to improve your team and sumplement it with high end talent? Okay, you’re gonna have to be comfortable with the guy for SEVEN years at a large cap hit that you are bound to for the entirety of those seven years, under the most suffocating cap system in sports.

Seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to try and project into the future. Hopefully the new CBA lowers max term to 4 years in UFA and 5 years for the team re-signing them.

I don't think the problem is seven years. I think it's being smart with who you give the seven years to. From Off Sides post above here are the FA since 2013 who got 7 years (I don't want to include 2012 as that was under the old CBA) - Tavares, Okposo, Lucic, Ladd, Niskanen, Horton, Clarkson. One of these is...not exactly like the others. One elite first liner, sure. And then six complementary players that somehow got that long of a deal.

 

[duhmetreE]

Very interesting comparison, but no. The logic regarding Panarin will be that his most productive years, will be spent 1) waiting for the Rangers to become competitive & 2) playing on a team that is just starting to become competitive. At the back end of his contract, when the Rangers should be truly ready to compete, his production will not be nearly as the same as what the Rangers will need at that time.

The timing just is not right.

You're fixated on Panarin... This has nothing to do with Panarin

 

[duhmetreE]

If that’s what you think, you haven’t been listening, because it’s not just about drafting elite players, it’s about gathering assets (which no, they don’t have enough of at this point either) so that they can make some quantity for quality trades if they don’t end up drafting top 2-3

We don't have enough assets? Really?

We have 5 picks in the top 2 rounds. We will be overloaded with assets after this draft.