Fatfrancesa

Is that what anyone said? It’s not sign panarin or sulk. It’s also pretty extreme to label the case of discussing signing a player to one of the richest deals in the league as just another contract to a 28 year old. It’s a straw man argument to suggest that there is only two options. Sign panarin or just suck forever. What if he doesn’t want to sign here or chooses Florida instead? Should they just give up? What’s more is that people act like the rangers have never gone down this road before. Or that this is a special anomaly. It may work out great as everyone predicts. But it could work out as just another in a long line of failed free agent splashes. Just look at shattenkirk if you need a reminder. He was going to pair with McDonough to be a dominant top pair. Now there is buyout talk and he’s been an absolute failure. Thank god it was only four years. If panarin goes bad it will be devastating. Of course you have to take risks but is this team really in the spot to need to take that risk. Even with panarin you still have a dumpster fire for defense and who plays center after Zibanejad? So the rangers are a playoff team with questionable center play and awful defense? Never heard of a good team ever built that way.

That’s fair but it doesn’t totally eliminate the possibility. It’s just a talking point for those in favor of signing him.

Ok but age is age. I’m sure when panarin wasn’t in the nhl, he wasn’t a part time hockey player. I’m sure he was still training or practicing year round. The biggest point here though is that not all players/humans are the same. Time catches up to all people diffently. There is no equal basis to start from here. There are guys who seemingly can play forever and then there are guys that grow old(playing terms) for no simple reason. I just don’t think you can make blanket statements about anybody in terms of how people age out. There is risk in signing a player who will be in his mid thirties at the end of his contract. Being willing to take that risk is an argument that stands by itself. Reasoning that risk with he’s really only 23 in games played terms is guessing. Not to mention there is always a risk in signing any player to a large contract and moving to nyc, that they lose some motivation and enjoy the big city too much. Does anybody know this guys habits off the ice? I doubt it. But those habits are also very important to not aging. For instance dietary and alcohol intake. I’m not saying I know anything but for anyone here to claim they aren’t worried about his age is speaking with less than adequate knowledge of the person.

How does someone quantify hockey age from actual age? So panarin is a young 27 while someone else is getting old in hockey terms at 27? Can somebody let me know the formula other than hopeful speculation? Is it just a “feeling” or is something you can actually predict based on facts? Is there a new advanced stat that I just don’t understand? Seriously I would love to know.

For starters cap space

I know it’s speculation but articles are appearing that macdavid may ask in private to be moved.

The rangers should have a plan in place with how they want to build their team and targets both in the draft and around the league in which to achieve that team. Missing out on one player hopefully isn’t reason to have to scrap whatever plan they have. That plan should have been in place long before they knew panarin would reach free agency. Yet you are probably right they have no other plan. It’s exactly this dysfunction that has led to one cup in 75 years.

If rumors are to believed panarin maybe more concerned with lifestyle than he is with how good the team is. Supposedly Florida is hot for him and surely that team is closer to contending and no state tax. Not sure if Miami has a large Russian population but it will be interesting if he has any feelings for them. Speculation for almost a year is that the rangers are a forgone conclusion.

Isn’t that the point of having 8-9 first round picks in three years? The idea is to draft and develop them.

I agree. I want to add vets to compete for ice time. Signing panarin and being able to do little else because of the cap basically gives all the kids spots ready or not. There is no depth in this organization, none. I agree they need a winning environment and so forth. I believe those things have a better chance of happening by strengthening multiple holes rather than just one big splash. We disagree but this is never going to end. I have my opinion you have yours. More than likely the team stinks next year no matter what they do. There are just to many holes.

That is not what I said st all. I don’t want any of them. Kane at 27 I could see maybe but panarin is not him. I didn’t bring up the comparison that they were equal. I bring up the trade because I thought you said that players like him do t become available yet he was traded for horse shit at 25. I don’t want to offer sheet anyone at the cost of four firsts other than two players maybe. Macdavid or Matthews would be the only players I would consider and both are locked up. This conversation keeps getting twisted because it turns into comparisons with other players. I Don’t want any of them. Signing the best highest price guy is not creative, it’s not logical, and it’s not new. A PlayStation gm could do better. This team is full of holes. $12m in cap space can be used on multiple improvements and better yet at little term. You want to stick Dzingel as me being all over the place? Dzingel at 4 years for half the money with no ntc is far and away from what you are talking about. In fact as the kids grow he becomes a trade asset. More importantly the rangers aren’t tied to any decision they make in year one of rebuilding. I don’t care if you find watching them boring. That’s your prerogative to feel that way. I don’t share your sentiments. I understood that rebuilding meant time. All those arguments about rebuilding before they pulled the trigger are the same people who want to expedite the rebuild now. It’s not lost on me that those who want to sign the Stars were all on board with trading first after first for Staal, handle and the like. They are also the ones that wanted no part with tearing it down when hanging around s playoff spot yet obviously fatally flawed. Now those same people make the case that the rangers can’t go on without yet again chasing the biggest fish. Well I know how the past has played out and quite frankly your record is not good. Cary on regardless

I am. He made a comparison between kane and panarin. How do their contracts not come up then? Panarin was traded because of cap certainty. So as long as there are other bad contracts on Chicago their massive deals have no bearing? Good thing the rangers are immune from handing out bad contracts.

Exactly

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?

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.

No.

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.

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.

I agree with you but they are not throwing away a season and either is the coach. And josh maybe the difference here is how we view the players. Ek while elite is a ticking time bomb with his health. Panarin while also elite is a wing and I don’t want to pay a wing top center money. So I don’t have a problem with signing long term massive contracts. I just don’t want to sign tee two guys to those contracts because the risk outweighs the reward in my opinion.

Part of the benefit of signing multiple vets would be for the overflow to go to Hartford. Also Hartford can be addressed by ways otter than the draft. Nothing wrong with signing good ahl players to ahl contracts.

My point is I don’t want any deals more than four years. The counter was I don’t want to do anything which is not true. I would sign a bunch of nhl vets to increase my depth and role competition. It would hopefully net a competitive team with good veteran leadership which would aid in the devolpment of our prospects. Secondly I would spare no cost to fix the mess in Hartford. Hartford needs to be a breeding ground for what’s to come. The fact that this organization has turned such a blind eye to what happens down there is embarrassing.

Quinn is never just going to let them play if the effort or attention to detail isn’t there. I would argue that if Howden or Anderson go 40 games without a point that maybe it’s not good for their development to just continue to be thrown over the boards due to the thinking that development is just time and minutes in the nhl. I fully understand your point. The problem is the ranger front office and coaching staff will never play to lose. They don’t view it in black and white terms. More importantly their coach is never going to just role out players. He’s going to coach to win every game. It’s the nhl and that is how it should be.

My logic is to deepen our roster depth. To yes kind of tread water for a year or two to develop the kids while also putting a competitive team on the ice. One that would not be a laughing stock. The kids would still have all the opportunity to take as many minutes as possible. If chytil performs he would take the 2nd kind center spot or the minutes you would hand out to a player in that role. Anderson and Howden would be given the opportunity to play and succeed as would Hajek and whomever else. It would be their spots to lose but if they can?t handle an advanced role they could be sheltered into less minutes and better match ups. To do that there has to be guys here to fill those roles at least somewhat. If competition is what we can all agree upon being good for development than how do the rangers achieve that? Adding veteran players on short term deals would accomplish this as there isn?t much in the organization that isn?t already here. Yes Kravtsov but that is it for next year. If the goal isn?t to be a wasteland here for years than the most prudent way to build any team is down the middle and on defense. The defense has guys coming but years away. The current group is awful as a whole. The center position as it stands has Zibanejad and then all kids who have struggled. Their struggles are expected and more will come. To help them it would benefit the group to add a adequate nhl player to help soften their matchups and give the coach another option when a night off is needed. Signing panarin and ek is very popular. It?s probably going to happen. The argument for signing them is all about their effect years from now. All with the assumption that the kids grow into core that can contend. My issue is that nobody know what those two will be three to six years from now. Paying $12m a year is risky, period. The kids turning into that core is equally in doubt if not more so. Chytil looks like a decent bet but Anderson and Howden don?t like more than bottom six players. I know it?s early. Everybody else is an unknown as far as the kids. Pretty much everybody here will tell you how draft picks are basically lottery tickets and how few ever become good nhl players. It?s always the argument against trading anyone. Yet as soon as we draft those picks and names are put next to them. Those names are magically inserted into substantial roles throughout thexrangers lineup. Fact is when you list all of the rangers prospects most of them are going to disappoint and fail. Which in the end means this rebuild isn?t taking two or three years. It?s unrealistic. Always has been. Which is why I don?t see the need to committing to long term massive deals because the reality is five years from now those guys could actually hurt what is a good team

Each scenario is awful, unless chytil is ready to take on that role. Why you wouldn’t insulate him though is hard to understand. It wouldn’t be so bad slitting him there the problem is the depth below him. They are unpolished kids too, who maybe over their heads. The more I think about the more I’m against panarin. Signing him leaves little to no money to address what’s actually wrong with this team or even stabilize this team so players can properly develop. On top of that Hartford isn’t a great place for developing players either. Both of those things can be addressed by adding depth throughout the organization.

My biggest concern for next year is not adding a nhl center or two to this team. After Zibanejad who do they have? I know the kids but I’m not sure counting on that is a good idea. And I’m talking about their development not winning games. Pressure is going to mount rightly or not for them to produce. It would be nice to shelter them if need be. If they surprise them great but there should be a plan in place to avoid them struggling as much as possible.