Matt4776
Registered User
- May 8, 2009
- 2,896
- 690
It's not semantics for how long he got to sign for.
It's semantics in terms of a player being available. He made his choice. When the Rangers want a player, he doesn't often go elsewhere.
Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVII
- Thread starter Krams
- Start date
- Status
It's not semantics for how long he got to sign for.
It's semantics in terms of a player being available. He made his choice. When the Rangers want a player, he doesn't often go elsewhere.
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
In what world does Kreider have a better chance at still being good when the Rangers are ready to compete then Panarin?
If anyone thinks hes getting less then 7 years and less then $7MM per you are out to lunch. It's his last chance at a big deal. Hes not signing a 5 year deal that makes him 35 and now a 35+ contract.
I can see the arguing not wanting Panarin. You should not want Kreider for those reasons and more.
If anyone thinks hes getting less then 7 years and less then $7MM per you are out to lunch. It's his last chance at a big deal. Hes not signing a 5 year deal that makes him 35 and now a 35+ contract.
I can see the arguing not wanting Panarin. You should not want Kreider for those reasons and more.
Yep lots of pieces are in place to rebuild the defense but it’s likely 2 years away so we need patience. So I see no need to rush to finish the bottom 6 this summer when we won’t be good anyway
The last thing I’m worried about is this teams ability to draft bottom 6 guys
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Are you kidding me? That was the whole f***ing point of my post. I think we all want Panarin, but it DEPENDS on the price. Would you not take Panarin for 5 years at 6-7 mil AAV if you could? That’s my point. But if he costs 10 mil+, I don’t want that. I know you highlighted the first sentence, but it seems like you stopped reading after that.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Again, why is reading comprehension a problem? If you could sign Panarin at 6-7 mil AAV for 5 years, would you not do it? We all want Panarin, but some of us do not want him at the price he will probably ask for. That’s my point.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
No, I don't care if that's the price. I'm not interested at all in Panarin coming here.
If we can get Panarin at 5 years, 6-7 mil per - then sign me up right now. That'd be a major steal.
That’s a collusion deal complete with pee pee video
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
That’s crazy to me. Would you not be interested in McDavid or MacKinnon coming over here, either? What about Dahlin or Kakko? Should we trade Kreider and Zibanejad as well? Panarin is elite, still young, in his prime, and most likely a free agent. That situation does not happen very often. If you can get him for a really good price, how do you not do that? You get superstar talent whenever you can (as long as it’s not too expensive). For the sake of argument (even though I know it’s not possible), if you could sign him for 5 years at 5 mil AAV, you don’t do it? We can’t have a team that is full of only young players. Winning teams have a mix of rookies and veterans.
What if signing Panarin allows us to trade Kreider? It would be a free asset that allows us to trade another asset for more young assets. But I’m getting off topic here.
I’m probably against signing Panarin myself. If he costs us anything more than 8.5 mil AAV, I’m not doing it. But all I’m saying is that in theory, we would all like Panarin, would we not? My whole point is the price tag. Just take the price out of the equation.
Last edited:
Matt4776
Registered User
- May 8, 2009
- 2,896
- 690
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Exactly. And that’s what I mean by “we would all like Panarin,” but the cost is what turns many people off, myself included.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Yea I get that, but my point is that if we could sign Panarin for Zibanejad money (I know we never will, but let’s say in theory), it would allow us to trade Kreider. You would essentially swap Panarin for Kreider, and gain some young assets (that we would get for trading Kreider). Again, if the price is that low to sign Panarin, who wouldn’t do that?
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
If you think any team is going to be able to sign Panarin for 5/30 or 5/35...lol
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
No, I'd rather commit long-term to a top pairing Dman WHEN this team is ready to compete. You've got Kakko, Kravtso, Chytil and Buchnevich...they are all going to cost money down the line. This team is still relatively early in the process. Even if things go right and they're ready to to compete legitimately in two years, you've wasted two years on a contract. This isn't adding Nash or St' Louis to a team ready to take the next step. Kreider is almost certainly going to be moved. Zibanejad will be in his prime when this team is ready to go. So, again no, I have no interest in bringing in Panarin.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Say your team has filled the protection slots, and you have one player left over you know Seattle is going to take, are you going to just let them take him, are you going to try to pay them off to take someone else, or are you going to trade him to some other team and let Seattle take who you are not really worried about losing?
Say you try to trade him as you can get a better return there than by paying Seattle not to take him, and most of the trading teams are in a similar situation where if they do take that player they are going to have to expose someone else they do not want to.
Wouldn't it be nice if say the Rangers could return a decent asset which does not need to be protected for said player, even if they are underpaying a little compared to the overpay you'd have to give Seattle not to take said player or to take someone else?
Even beyond that say it's a player with a NMC who you have to protect, yet do not want to, say he would waive to go to the Rangers, how much is it worth in adds or how much discount do you give to make such a trade to protect something else?
Mostly the expansion draft makes for some interesting scenarios, especially if the Rangers have a spot or even two left on their protection list where they really do not need to use it on anything they do not mind losing. As is they have like what, 7-9 or so players who they'd protect, who would need protection?
Last edited:
JC704
Registered User
- Jan 6, 2012
- 785
- 267
I think it's laughable a lot of people are ready to run Chris Kreider out of town. If you keep turning the roster over during the rebuild because you want shiny new draft picks, you eventually become the Hurricanes, Oilers, Panthers and Sabres, and all three organizations were a barren wasteland for 10 years save for 2/3 occasions (Edmonton and Florida in 2016, and Carolina this season). This (HF in general) forum loves, loves, loves the concept of the "next thing."
While I agree Chris Kreider shouldn't get seven years and $7+ million because I think that would be utterly ridiculous, I'm not sure he will even cost that. He is turning 28, his career-high is 53 points -- two years ago. Kreider is an important part of this organization in other ways, and if you jettison him, there is no current player on the roster who has any experience in regard to being a part of and leading a locker room besides Hank, and his career is starting to wind down. Kreider is exactly the type of player who could get the "C" in the meantime as we see how draft selections from 2017-19 pan out in the long run. Put me in the camp that would much rather re-sign Kreider at market value and pursue other options to fix the blueline, rather than splurge on Artemi Panarin. That, and Kreider's overall skill set is very hard to replace; it takes organizations sometimes a few seasons to develop a similar player.
While I agree Chris Kreider shouldn't get seven years and $7+ million because I think that would be utterly ridiculous, I'm not sure he will even cost that. He is turning 28, his career-high is 53 points -- two years ago. Kreider is an important part of this organization in other ways, and if you jettison him, there is no current player on the roster who has any experience in regard to being a part of and leading a locker room besides Hank, and his career is starting to wind down. Kreider is exactly the type of player who could get the "C" in the meantime as we see how draft selections from 2017-19 pan out in the long run. Put me in the camp that would much rather re-sign Kreider at market value and pursue other options to fix the blueline, rather than splurge on Artemi Panarin. That, and Kreider's overall skill set is very hard to replace; it takes organizations sometimes a few seasons to develop a similar player.
Last edited:
Shesterkybomb
Registered User
- Dec 30, 2016
- 17,726
- 19,440
Great stuff, I agree all the way.
Gorts got many assets on the way in. Now keep making moves that are value positive for the organization. Outbidding everyone on the UFA market is per definition not value positive. And I don’t buy that Panarin will take a discount here, where is the talk about him wanting to go to NY coming from? Russian press, his agent. Those discounts seldom had a big impact.
And it’s the same with like Duchene. How easy isn’t if o think, why not trade Kreider and sign Duchene. A 1-2 punch of Mika and Duchene and the kids around them?
The thing is, if we sign a Panarin or Duchene, we lose a lot of flexibility. We need more assets to come in, a lot more. Gorton should aim to find a spot where we can keep adding value to the organization for 5-10 years, not just up until the draft.
Kids shouldn’t be rushed due to lack of alternatives. They should get sufficient support on the ice and not be put in a position they only can fail in. But getting a vet or two, maybe hanging on to someone like Names and Vesey, that isn’t value negatively necessarily. We shouldn’t tank and suck for 5-10 years more.
But everything is about the Cap. Teams are constantly looking to get flexibility and there is no market. Gorton knows that better than anyone else. Trade everyone? It’s not that easy. He has been forced to work really really hard to make the moves he have.
If we keep making sound smart moves, no big splashes, we will have so much ammo in trade talks. We will have so much flexibility via-a-vis the cap. Ottawa was forced to give Karlsson away. There were legit talks about Colorado shopping Mackinnon like three years ago, nobody stepped up to the plate and offered what would have been necessary. The Skinner trade sticks out. The Montour trade. We have the expansion draft coming up.
My point is just, if Gorton plays his cards right he will be a golden spot to make value positive moves for many years. That goal cannot be to just rush along and try to get into the POs we should aim to become as good as Tampa has been in the regular season. And for sure, not stinking for too long I’d a — major — part of that. But being the buyer in a trade where a desperate GM wants to move a player due to the cap to get some flexibility can be for sure. Picking up UDFAs. Signing the kids we have to good contracts is essential, to have the flexibility to pay more short term to not get into that UFA scare like when they are z4-25 y/o. You can’t have a good kid at like 24-25 be in a position where he will be a UFA a year or two down the road, sign them up until their late 30s. Getting Panarin puts us right up against the cap for the coming two years.
Shesterkybomb
Registered User
- Dec 30, 2016
- 17,726
- 19,440
To me its Panarin or stick to our own players and picks. He to me is the only ufa I'm interested in. If we dont get him its fine too.
Barnaby
Registered User
You realize that over half of those contracts are awful right?
SA16
Sixstring
Yea these are the exact players you should not be paying mostly.
Gaborik/Kovalchuk deserved it and I'm surprised they even fit in there. Would have thought they were paid more. Marchand deserved it too (he has always had elite 5v5 production...his whole point total explosion is just that they started playing him on the PP. It's actually pretty elite "planning" by Boston to keep his contract low by not playing him on PP1 until after he signed it.). And other that it's a bunch of meh...Turris is fine, Stastny fine, Oshie fine but these aren't the guys that really put you over the top. Radulov is a tough case because of his back and forth to Russia.
ZiGOODejad
intangibles
- Nov 30, 2013
- 5,375
- 1,568
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
I think that might’ve been Gaborik’s contract from LA, I think the 5 year one he got from the Rangers was around or over 10%, and I think Kovalchuk’s cap hit on the long term deal was like 6 something, and it’s 6.5 on his current one,
- Status
