Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVII

[True Blue]

="Kupo, post: 159569973, member: 293879"WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING TO US!!!!

You know the answer as well as I. The more things change.......Hockey's different here.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

To me there are two paths to take.

Option 1-
Trade Kreider
Don’t sign Panarin

Option 2-
Trade Kreider
Sign Panarin

I don’t see how the Rangers should even view signing Kreider is an option

Agreed.

I’m guessing Gorton has a similar view of the situation.

Based on what he’s done the past, and what he’s said recently, I lean toward option 1 being the most likely outcome - yes, you can point to Shattenkirk, but do you see Panarin offering himself to us at a discount? I don’t.

We’ll move Kreider, add Kakko, maybe add some bottom tier UFAs, and let the chips fall where they may in that aspect. At least that's what I expect to happen.

Now, I could see Gorton targeting some bigger names via trade - we have the assets to work with. I’m sure he’s going to do his due dilligence on potentially available defenseman.

 

[True Blue]

Staal and Skjei are going to be around for a while. That leaves one spot. 3 guys in Lindgren, Rykov and Hajek. At least one will need to move over

I think that the same conversation needs to be had with Staal as it is/was with Henke. Stall is going to play, but not every game. They cannot loose a Lindgren or Hajek just because Sather greatly miscalculated when he have Staal his contract.

 

[True Blue]

To me there are two paths to take.

Option 1-
Trade Kreider
Don’t sign Panarin

Option 2-
Trade Kreider
Sign Panarin

I don’t see how the Rangers should even view signing Kreider is an option

This has nothing to do with Panarin. I think that there is value to Krieder on the other side of the rebuild. I also think that Gorton has very specific scenarios in his head. I believe that he will sacrifice Krieder if it is part of a package that gets him into the top 10 this year. If there is no such deal, I think that he has a very specific idea of what kind of a contract he will offer Kreider. If he takes it, he is back. If he does not, he will be out.

 

[True Blue]

Based on what he’s done the past, and what he’s said recently, I lean toward option 1 being the most likely outcome - yes, you can point to Shattenkirk, but do you see Panarin offering himself to us at a discount? I don’t.

Neither you nor me. Panarin is taking max years and max dollars. To go along with the NTC/NMC.

 

[Beacon]

I would oppose Panarin even if he came here on a minimum contract. He simply does not fit our timeline. All he will do is prevent the Rangers from getting a top pick. I am not interested in bringing in a guy who will make the Rangers go from the 5th overall pick in 2020 to an 11 overall pick.

The idea of getting Panarin is based exclusively on the unicorn world where 1) all our prospects hit their ceiling; 2) none of them are busts, late bloomers or even regular bloomers who take until 23-26 to reach their prime. Everyone explaining why Panarin makes sense is posting lineups where 18-21 year olds are at the top of their game. In real life, that will never happen. If you assume that our prospects have a normal development curve and we have to wait until they are a minimum 22-23 before they get over the rookie hickups, sophomore slumps, etc, then Panarin's contract will be in its last couple of years when the youth just starts getting good. A UFA contract is always an anchor by its last two years - that's the sacrifice you make to improve the team immediately. So signing Panarin DELAYS our ability to contend for the Cup by killing the cap just as the kids approach their prime.

And this flaw may be fatal for the Rangers' chances of winning the the Cup in the next dozen years. Why? Because you need ELCs with low cap hits to win the Cup, but just as our kids get good and enter their last year of ELC (usually the most productive one), we destroy the cap space with an aging UFA at the tail end of his contract. So the most prime part of our Cup window when the kids are already good, but still underpaid, gets wiped out because fans with no patience would rather finish 10th in the East than 14th next season. The level of idiocy is mind-numbing.

 

[SA16]

Neither you nor me. Panarin is taking max years and max dollars. To go along with the NTC/NMC.

I don't think Panarin is going to sign for the offer with the most dollars. Max years, for sure, since everyone will offer him 7.

I would oppose Panarin even if he came here on a minimum contract. He simply does not fit our timeline. All he will do is prevent the Rangers from getting a top pick. I am not interested in bringing in a guy who will make the Rangers go from the 5th overall pick in 2020 to an 11 overall pick.

The idea of getting Panarin is based exclusively on the unicorn world where 1) all our prospects hit their ceiling; 2) none of them are busts, late bloomers or even regular bloomers who take until 23-26 to reach their prime. Everyone explaining why Panarin makes sense is posting lineups where 18-21 year olds are at the top of their game. In real life, that will never happen. If you assume that our prospects have a normal development curve and we have to wait until they are a minimum 22-23 before they get over the rookie hickups, sophomore slumps, etc, then Panarin's contract will be in its last couple of years when the youth just starts getting good. A UFA contract is always an anchor by its last two years - that's the sacrifice you make to improve the team immediately. So signing Panarin DELAYS out ability to contend for the Cup by killing the cap just as the kids approach their prime.

And this flaw may be fatal for the Rangers' chances of winning the the Cup in the next dozen years. Why? Because you need ELCs with low cap hits to win the Cup, but just as our kids get good and enter their last year of ELC (usually the most productive one), we destroy the cap space with an aging UFA at the tail end of his contract. So the most prime part of our Cup window when the kids are already good, but still underpaid, gets wiped out because fans with no patience would rather finish 10th in the East than 14th. The level of idiocy is mind-numbing.

Huh.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

One other thing to consider about signing Panarin: you'd be sacrificing cap room that might otherwise be used to (get bribed to) take on a bad contract.

 

[Tawnos]

One other thing to consider about signing Panarin: you'd be sacrificing cap room that might otherwise be used to (get bribed to) take on a bad contract.

If those are the choices, I’d rather have the good player.

 

[Matt4776]

If those are the choices, I’d rather have the good player.

I'd agree with you if we were competing.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Fact that may only interest me. Reading about the Avs signing Cale Makar today for the remainder of their playoff run, it stated that he scored 49 points this season for UMass. The last NCAA defenseman to amass more points than Makar in a season, our very own Brendan Smith, 52, at Wisconsin in 2007.

 

[haohmaru]

I would oppose Panarin even if he came here on a minimum contract. He simply does not fit our timeline. All he will do is prevent the Rangers from getting a top pick. I am not interested in bringing in a guy who will make the Rangers go from the 5th overall pick in 2020 to an 11 overall pick.

The idea of getting Panarin is based exclusively on the unicorn world where 1) all our prospects hit their ceiling; 2) none of them are busts, late bloomers or even regular bloomers who take until 23-26 to reach their prime. Everyone explaining why Panarin makes sense is posting lineups where 18-21 year olds are at the top of their game. In real life, that will never happen. If you assume that our prospects have a normal development curve and we have to wait until they are a minimum 22-23 before they get over the rookie hickups, sophomore slumps, etc, then Panarin's contract will be in its last couple of years when the youth just starts getting good. A UFA contract is always an anchor by its last two years - that's the sacrifice you make to improve the team immediately. So signing Panarin DELAYS our ability to contend for the Cup by killing the cap just as the kids approach their prime.

And this flaw may be fatal for the Rangers' chances of winning the the Cup in the next dozen years. Why? Because you need ELCs with low cap hits to win the Cup, but just as our kids get good and enter their last year of ELC (usually the most productive one), we destroy the cap space with an aging UFA at the tail end of his contract. So the most prime part of our Cup window when the kids are already good, but still underpaid, gets wiped out because fans with no patience would rather finish 10th in the East than 14th next season. The level of idiocy is mind-numbing.

Just as they are prognosticating that the youth will develop faster than your timeline, you are prognosticating that they need to be 2-3-5 years older than they are now. There are a lot of 18/19/20 year olds that are impacting the NHL, and the teams that they're on, right now. Even playoff teams. You have no idea what Kravstov or Hughes/Kakko will bring next year. What if Kakko has a Laine-like year in his debut? What if Gorton flips Kreider & a 2nd for Trouba and signs Panarin and Chytil/Andersson/DeAngelo, etc.. all take significant steps forward? You don't know where they'd finish and certainly can't say with any certainty that they'd finish 5th without and 11th with. Let's see what team we're putting on the ice before predicting where they'll finish

Saying you wouldn't take Panarin at league minimum is just wrong on a ton of levels - whether that being what he brings to the team or what he'd bring as a trade asset with a salary like that. It's not realistic and probably best left unsaid.

There are points to be made for both sids of this issue and, without a crystal ball, nothing can be definitive about it.

All for nothing, too, most likely as I think Panarin will end up being a Panther.

 

[Tawnos]

I'd agree with you if we were competing.

If we were competing, we’d never entertain taking on the bad contract.

I’m just saying, either your spending the cap space on a good player or you’re spending the cap space on the chance at a good player.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

If those are the choices, I’d rather have the good player.

Well, IMO, it's not quite that simple. I mean, if it's Panarin for 7 years at $11MM (and potentially an anchor himself by the time the team is ready to contend) vs., say, Callahan for 1 year, which buys you the TBL 2020 1st, and then you've got cap to burn again next summer...?

 

[Irishguy42]

I would oppose Panarin even if he came here on a minimum contract.

Single dumbest thing you have ever posted, which is impressive.

 

[SA16]

Well, IMO, it's not quite that simple. I mean, if it's Panarin for 7 years at $11MM (and potentially an anchor himself by the time the team is ready to contend) vs., say, Callahan for 1 year, which buys you the TBL 2020 1st, and then you've got cap to burn again next summer...?

There is no way TB is going to trade a 1st to get rid of a guy with 1 year left on his deal. They can just buy him out and knock 3.1M off his cap hit to start.

 

[Matt4776]

There is no way TB is going to trade a 1st to get rid of a guy with 1 year left on his deal. They can just buy him out and knock 3.1M off his cap hit to start.

Agreed.

Maybe we could get the condition on this year's picked removed after they get swept.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Single dumbest thing you have ever posted, which is impressive.

"I would oppose Panarin even if he came here on a minimum contract."

This is by far the dumbest take I've seen in the last 5 years.

 

[Tawnos]

Well, IMO, it's not quite that simple. I mean, if it's Panarin for 7 years at $11MM (and potentially an anchor himself by the time the team is ready to contend) vs., say, Callahan for 1 year, which buys you the TBL 2020 1st, and then you've got cap to burn again next summer...?

No it isn’t that simple, I agree. You did present simple choices though.

The price tag on Panarin doesn’t scare me. We had three players with a similar price when we were contending.

 

[haohmaru]

Well, IMO, it's not quite that simple. I mean, if it's Panarin for 7 years at $11MM (and potentially an anchor himself by the time the team is ready to contend) vs., say, Callahan for 1 year, which buys you the TBL 2020 1st, and then you've got cap to burn again next summer...?

I'll take an elite Panarin over a 25-30th draft pick and a year of a shot Callahan any day of the week.

And, honestly, if we're not "contending (whatever that means)" 3 years from now (year 4.5 into the rebuild) then Gorton should be shown the freaking door anyway.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

There is no way TB is going to trade a 1st to get rid of a guy with 1 year left on his deal. They can just buy him out and knock 3.1M off his cap hit to start.

Fair enough. Just giving an example. Perhaps too simplistic an example as you and Tawnos both point out.

As I've said all along, I'm torn on the Panarin idea (though as the decision draws nearer, I find myself leaning more in favor of staying away from major FA signings in favor of one more year of asset accumulation and organic development first). I really don't see it as clear-cut in any direction.

 

[Matt4776]

No it isn’t that simple, I agree. You did present simple choices though.

The price tag on Panarin doesn’t scare me. We had three players with a similar price when we were contending.

The magic words.

 

[SA16]

How are we ever going to compete if we do not try to compete? Just going to hope all the prospects happen to work out? And then do it all over again when they do not?

 

[Matt4776]

How are we ever going to compete if we do not try to compete? Just going to hope all the prospects happen to work out? And then do it all over again when they do not?

If our prospects don't work out, our rebuild fails. With or without Panarin.

 

[SA16]

If our prospects don't work out, our rebuild fails. With or without Panarin.

If they don't work out and we don't bring anyone in it definitely fails. If they don't work out and we bring in other good players to supplement them it can still end up fine. Say Kakko tops out as a 2nd liner and Kravstov a 3rd line. It's not what you want but it's still two good players that will help the team. I'm not defining as "not work out" as them not being NHL players.