Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

McKenzie: "Rangers want to get better in a hurry,"


Phil

Recommended Posts

I get it. I’m not spending that kind of money on a wing. He’s not a 27 year old Patrick Kane and he’s not a 27 year old Ovie. It’s not how I would allocate the cap. I understand your points. I just don’t agree with paying him. I do think spending on elite defense would be wise just not someone with such a horrid injury history. That doesn’t age well.

 

The rangers are a pretty bare slate. We have different opinions on how to rebuild. Your view is panarin as a way to speed up the process, I view a player like that as one of the final pieces. Nobody can say who is right. I’m sure panarin will have success here but will the team? That’s all I care about.

 

Finally don’t underestimate how much of an asset cap space is. Having it allows your gm to take advantage of other gms who are in cap trouble. This rebuild needs all kinds of prudent moves. Eliminate the cap space and you severely limit yourself from those advantages.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I get it. I’m not spending that kind of money on a wing. He’s not a 27 year old Patrick Kane and he’s not a 27 year old Ovie. It’s not how I would allocate the cap. I understand your points. I just don’t agree with paying him. I do think spending on elite defense would be wise just not someone with such a horrid injury history. That doesn’t age well.

 

The rangers are a pretty bare slate. We have different opinions on how to rebuild. Your view is panarin as a way to speed up the process, I view a player like that as one of the final pieces. Nobody can say who is right. I’m sure panarin will have success here but will the team? That’s all I care about.

 

Finally don’t underestimate how much of an asset cap space is. Having it allows your gm to take advantage of other gms who are in cap trouble. This rebuild needs all kinds of prudent moves. Eliminate the cap space and you severely limit yourself from those advantages.

 

He's 9th in the league in points (12th in ppg) since he came to the NHL. 7 of the top 9 are wings. If you wait for a player better, and the same age or younger, to get to free agency you'll be waiting forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it. I’m not spending that kind of money on a wing. He’s not a 27 year old Patrick Kane and he’s not a 27 year old Ovie. It’s not how I would allocate the cap. I understand your points. I just don’t agree with paying him. I do think spending on elite defense would be wise just not someone with such a horrid injury history. That doesn’t age well.

 

The rangers are a pretty bare slate. We have different opinions on how to rebuild. Your view is panarin as a way to speed up the process, I view a player like that as one of the final pieces. Nobody can say who is right. I’m sure panarin will have success here but will the team? That’s all I care about.

 

Finally don’t underestimate how much of an asset cap space is. Having it allows your gm to take advantage of other gms who are in cap trouble. This rebuild needs all kinds of prudent moves. Eliminate the cap space and you severely limit yourself from those advantages.

 

Kane is actually quite a good comparison for Panarin. Kane has had a couple of special years, but all of his other years have been basically Panarin's point production pace. Panarin is capable of a season that Kane is currently having (at 30 years old mind you). I think this might show how much differently you view Panarin than those of us who would like to sign him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's 9th in the league in points (12th in ppg) since he came to the NHL. 7 of the top 9 are wings. If you wait for a player better, and the same age or younger, to get to free agency you'll be waiting forever.

 

You’re going to be waiting years for this team to be a contender regardless if they sign him or not. You don’t know who’s going to be available in the years to come. To say you do is ridiculous. Panarin doesn’t make this team a contender. Signing him does put you to the cap though and adds a $12m player for 7 years probably with a ntc to boot. You all say he’s going to be the same player at 32 that he is now. Also based on nothing but hope. Yes panarin is a great player today but the team as a whole sucks. There is no way to meet in the middle here. I understand your point and you are entitled to it. Im not arguing that he won’t put up points next year, he will. However what does his addition mean to the team? How much better are they? What does adding his cap hit sacrifice in terms of moves they won’t be able to make? We would never know. What we will know and I’m sure argue in the future is his success and the teams success or lack there of. Right now this team has no foundation. I just don’t believe building that foundation should start with $12 m cap hits. Macdavid or Matthews sure but he’s not that. There are moves to be made in the future. Multiple good teams are up against the cap. They are ripe for the picking. Being able to take advantage of that takes cap space first and foremost. Everyone is so impatient to spend the cap space. We differ on opinions here. I understand and respect yours yet I disagree. You may not respect mine and that’s fine but you will not change my mind here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane is actually quite a good comparison for Panarin. Kane has had a couple of special years, but all of his other years have been basically Panarin's point production pace. Panarin is capable of a season that Kane is currently having (at 30 years old mind you). I think this might show how much differently you view Panarin than those of us who would like to sign him.

 

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re going to be waiting years for this team to be a contender regardless if they sign him or not. You don’t know who’s going to be available in the years to come. To say you do is ridiculous. Panarin doesn’t make this team a contender. Signing him does put you to the cap though and adds a $12m player for 7 years probably with a ntc to boot. You all say he’s going to be the same player at 32 that he is now. Also based on nothing but hope. Yes panarin is a great player today but the team as a whole sucks. There is no way to meet in the middle here. I understand your point and you are entitled to it. Im not arguing that he won’t put up points next year, he will. However what does his addition mean to the team? How much better are they? What does adding his cap hit sacrifice in terms of moves they won’t be able to make? We would never know. What we will know and I’m sure argue in the future is his success and the teams success or lack there of. Right now this team has no foundation. I just don’t believe building that foundation should start with $12 m cap hits. Macdavid or Matthews sure but he’s not that. There are moves to be made in the future. Multiple good teams are up against the cap. They are ripe for the picking. Being able to take advantage of that takes cap space first and foremost. Everyone is so impatient to spend the cap space. We differ on opinions here. I understand and respect yours yet I disagree. You may not respect mine and that’s fine but you will not change my mind here.

 

Like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we also gonna trade for Kucherov to pass him the puck?

 

Well I think the assumption is, some teams are at the cap ceiling and will give away guys incredibly cheap. So you'd get Marner or Nylander for a 3rd, Point for Pionk, and Trouba for future considerations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, yes. Stats matter, and they don't care about anyone's opinion.

 

Since the hawks paid Kane and towes they?ve fallen into mediocrity if not flat out sucked. Not because Kane still doesn?t produce but because his contract along with toews doesn?t allow a supporting cast around them. Panarin is not the player Kane is and any gm or any other serious person would Never claim as much.

 

If anything Chicago is an example that proves my point. Edmonton too and their guys are centers. You can?t and don?t build teams around one or two guys without a foundation of competence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think the assumption is, some teams are at the cap ceiling and will give away guys incredibly cheap. So you'd get Marner or Nylander for a 3rd, Point for Pionk, and Trouba for future considerations

 

Who said that? Wasn’t panarin traded from chicago for Saad because of the cap? Instead of making stuff up why not just stick to what’s actually said.

 

And why even have a gm if the idea of rebuilding is to sign the best ufa every offseason? Why send a letter? What’s changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the hawks paid Kane and towes they’ve fallen into mediocrity if not flat out sucked. Not because Kane still doesn’t produce but because his contract along with toews doesn’t allow a supporting cast around them. Panarin is not the player Kane is and any gm or any other serious person would Never claim as much.

 

If anything Chicago is an example that proves my point. Edmonton too and their guys are centers. You can’t and don’t build teams around one or two guys without a foundation of competence.

 

Honestly, those are not the contracts that hurt them. The Seabrook (6.875 x 8), Crawford [injured] (6 x 6), 40-point Anisimov (4.5 x 5), Saad (6 x 5*), are the ones that hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that? Wasn’t panarin traded from chicago for Saad because of the cap? Instead of making stuff up why not just stick to what’s actually said.

 

And why even have a gm if the idea of rebuilding is to sign the best ufa every offseason? Why send a letter? What’s changed?

 

Same cap hit, and Panarin's contract was signed when he was with the Hawks. Instead of making stuff up why not just stick to what’s actually said.

Saad is good friends with Toews.

 

 

why not target FAs instead of destroying your rebuild by giving up 4 1sts for a guy with 1 good season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the hawks paid Kane and towes they’ve fallen into mediocrity if not flat out sucked. Not because Kane still doesn’t produce but because his contract along with toews doesn’t allow a supporting cast around them. Panarin is not the player Kane is and any gm or any other serious person would Never claim as much.

 

If anything Chicago is an example that proves my point. Edmonton too and their guys are centers. You can’t and don’t build teams around one or two guys without a foundation of competence.

 

Who said that? Wasn’t panarin traded from chicago for Saad because of the cap? Instead of making stuff up why not just stick to what’s actually said.

 

And why even have a gm if the idea of rebuilding is to sign the best ufa every offseason? Why send a letter? What’s changed?

 

Panarin and Saad both make $6M per year, so no that trade had nothing to do with cap. Toews wanted Saad back.

 

Not sure how Chicago proves your point. They sucked for a decade. Picked in the top 10 seven times. Got lucky to have the #1 OA pick in Kane's year (he has 300 more points than anyone else in that draft). They won 3 cups and were buyers at the deadline. They paid their guys and it left them with no farm system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...