BrooksBurner

Minnesota at the time of signing sited and parise were an up and coming team. If anything they were further along then the rangers are now. But again which team won the cup buying their main pieces?

How many times have the rangers been burned in free agency? What do they say about not learning from your mistakes?

I get the trepidation, but the guys they have been burned by are of the Redden/Gomez/Drury/Richards variety. Those guys are not on the same plane as Panarin/Karlsson. It is far more equivalent to looking at the acquisition of Jagr or to a lesser degree Gaborik, in terms of talent level, and both were successes on broadway.

The Sharks still have the inside track on keeping Karlsson. They can offer him 8 years and thus the most total dollars. Even with Pavelski and Meier as UFA and RFA respectively needing new contracts, they should have the cap space. They probably don’t bring Nyquist back, and if Thornton wants to continue playing and stay in San Jose, he can do another 1 year deal and take less money. He loves it there and it would not be any surprise if he did so.

 

Obviously every player is different, but most guys absolutely love it in that area. It’s an extremely desirable place to live, work, and raise a family, especially if you’re rich. So many guys over the years have fallen in love with that place. And many guys have taken discounts to stay or go there.

And there’s like next to no pressure out there. It’s not like an original 6 market or a Canadian market, or even a bigger US market. They’ve had great teams out there for years, been to only 1 SC finals and no Cup. And it’s basically just whatever. Media and fan scrutiny on them is very minimal. That has its appeal too.

 

Obviously Karlsson supposedly really likes NY too, so it’s still very much possible he has high interest in the Rangers. But I still think SJ has best shot.

I agree. The percentages of him coming here are very low.

Hank’s presence on the roster after 20-21 is heavily dependent upon Georgiev and Shestyorkin and how those two develop and play, assuming neither of them is traded or off the roster somehow in the next couple of seasons. If he still has something left to his game, I could see him sticking around and transitioning to a backup role at less money.

 

But that may not be available to him.

Yup! Agreed. I would selfishly like to see him hang around an extra year or two as a backup if we are good by then, to give him one last shot at a Cup. But it shouldn't be the driving force behind having him here. If the Rangers still have Georgiev and Shestyorkin, it's likely they both pass up Lundqvist in performance after 2 more years.

Karlsson isnt Redden, Smith, Richards, etc. he’s a whole different level. If you have a chance to sign a guy like him, you do it.

This is why I'm warming up to the idea. He's an elite talent. Those other guys weren't close to elite.

There are plenty of examples of defensemen playing at a very high level into their mid 30s. One of them is Karlsson's teammate by the way (Burns, who just turned 34 and had the best year of his career). Dan Boyle was very good well into his 30s. Of course, the Rangers got him too late at 38 lol. Brian Leetch was very good well into his 30s. Karlsson is in the company with these guys, not bums like Wade Redden.

If he's healthy, I wouldn't be concerned. He has been increasingly injury prone though, and that's the part that concerns me.

You're going to be paying the piper at some point with that guy, plus I bet they do something crazy dumb like go year to year with Hank until age 40 if they bring Karlsson in.

 

It just smells like a 90's Ranger move.

Well we will have to see if Henrik is still capable of being an NHL goalie in 2 more years, but if he is there should be no problem keeping him around as a veteran backup. How he treated Georgiev this season makes me think he would be fine on a low dollar backup role, especially if the team is on the upswing and a contender.

Please, God, no no no to Erik Karlsson.

That will be a catastrophic mistake that they will regret in very short order.

Lol I understand the reaction. I can't say I am sold on the idea of adding him, but I am warming up to it. Unless he gets further hurt, which is entirely possible, it would be years before we might start looking at it as an overpayment. Lineup looks pretty good with him and Panarin both in it though, and provides a significant amount of talent and leadership to the roster. It also provides several years of defensive competence at the top while our young defensive prospects come of age.

Is it?

Panarin and Karlsson are both getting in the vicinity of 11M per year probably. If the cap goes up to 83M, they would have 21M in space. They need to sign Buchnevich, Lemieux, Pionk, and Deangelo to new contracts. If Panarin signs at 11M, they have 10M left to do so. That's tight, but assume that's possible. Creating another 11M for Karlsson is not an easy task. Possibilities:

- Trade Strome, Namestnikov, Vesey for whatever low round picks you can get. Replace on the roster with players on ELC (Kakko/Hughes, Kravtsov, ?). Saves you 6.7M. An additional 4.5M of space is still needed.

- Find a taker for Shattenkirk. This has to happen. No way around it. That might cost Winnipeg's 1st round pick to shed his salary, if any team is even interested. That would save you another 6.65M if taking no money back.

This creates 13.35M in cap space to go get Karlsson and have some wiggle room. It would all be worth it, but it's so many moving pieces that I doubt it happens.

Counter: do both.

That'd be great, but it's a very complicated task to get both and make it work cap wise. It's not impossible, but it's difficult to do in a short amount of time.

Me too.

 

Same logic though, Kakko makes it a lot more sensible to sign Panarin than otherwise.

From my point of view, the push for Panarin is because the Rangers lack a forward of "franchise player quality" that is highly skilled. No disrespect to Zibanejad, who has been growing into a franchise player lite. Assuming Kakko meets expectations, then he helps fill that need. At the very least, it improves the outlook by a lot and reduces the need to spend money on one.

There's nothing wrong with pursuing him still, but it makes me wonder more about using the money for defense (EK?) rather than continuing to add forwards.

No. In fact, I think the second overall makes it less likely they offer sheet, period. Gotta find room over the next three-to-five for some combination of Kreider, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, Kakko or Hughes, Chytil, Kravstov, and probably Panarin, too. Subtract Kreider for a defenseman (Trouba) and you've still got a top-six ready to go.

 

The only way they go this route is for a defender, and I'm not so sure they need to. Trouba can probably be had. Not cheap, but I think Winnipeg will be willing to talk shop. They can't afford to keep him anyway.

Agreed. I am wondering how much bearing it has on other things as well. It makes it more palatable to trade Kreider, and perhaps it influences what they are thinking they might try to do in free agency. As much as all of the talk has been on Panarin, maybe their eyes shift more towards EK instead since they will have another guy in Kakko or Hughes to add to their top 6/9 immediately which was unexpected.

I don’t know what you’re referring to regarding Lias and “huge expectations.” From the day he was drafted and based on scouting reports beforehand, it was said all along that he was a high compete guy, characterized by two-way play, high character, leadership and intangibles but that he was not going to blow anyone away with his offense.

His ceiling is that of 15-20 goals, 45-50 points, and quality two-way play awith some passing/play making ability. I’ll absolutely take that player.

 

And he absolutely can still reach that ceiling. He’s played 50 games.

 

Give him time.

He was hyped as a player who was NHL ready playing against men in the SHL and doing well. It's 2 full seasons later and he's looked like garbage during that time. No, I'm not throwing in the towel on him, and yes, I will give him more time. I'm just saying this is the opposite of what they sold him as when they picked him. If they believed his ceiling was 15 goals and 45 points, that's a terrible use of a #7 pick. So I don't buy that.

Does getting this pick make anyone feel better about Lias?

I wouldn't say it makes me feel better about Lias, but it makes me feel less worse about "missing" on the pick. It's too early to tell what he will be, but there has been a huge expectation for him to be something he is not because he was the highest draft pick we have had in a long time. I think the sting of not getting an immediate and impactful player at that spot is softened a little bit by getting the #2 this year.

And if that’s your reasoning why are you trading Georgiev? Another ridiculous argument here. Obviously those who want to trade him don’t believe he’s any good. Yet they want to package him with pionk and presto there is some retarded gm that is going to give you a first for that trash. The premise of the entire conversation is ludicrous. Some team should be convinced by 40 games that he’s the real deal yet those who want to trade him aren’t at all convinced of anything. If you actually think he’s good why the hell would you trade him? Shestyorkin is unproven, you’re right, just like knight, yet the rangers should trade away Georgiev and rely on an unproven goalie. Yet you’re reasoning to why another team would make the deal is so not to rely on an unproven goalie? Do you see the hypocrisy in your points.

 

Just come out and say it? You don’t think Georgiev is any good yet maybe some idiot will fall for his last two months and trade us a nice piece.

Wow you got all of that out of one question?

Georgiev showed some promise and put together some good games especially to finish up the year. I think he is a fine backup with potential to be a starter, but we have Lundqvist for 2 more seasons and we need to see what we have with Shestyorkin as well. Personally, I am fine with holding onto Georgiev and putting him in the A while we get a look at Shestyorkin, but if there is a market for Georgiev from teams who need a goalie then it would be pretty silly not to entertain potential deals. Let's not act like trading Georgiev and the WPG 1st to move up 10 spots is an outlandish idea. What is outlandish is asking what the point is of trading for a 23 year old goalie with some positive NHL experience instead of drafting a 17 year old kid who hasn't played a single game at a professional level and won't be ready until 2024.

Why would a team trade a late first for Georgiev when they can just draft knight with that pick?

For the same reason we can't bank on Shestyorkin?

To who, though, Edmonton? I suppose DET and BUF could use upgrades in net, but at the expense of their own first for a player with just 43 NHL starts? I'm not buying it.

Why couldn't it be a combination of Georgiev and picks? WPG 1st should be in play.

I'm not ready to think either these guys are Crosby/McD/Matthews territory. Probably more Kane/Laine.

 

However, it's an easy pick and the the later first we have should keep Clark busy identifying the latest star out of England.

The desire to be a genius is strong with Clark.

Now we just gotta hope that he doesn't play so well in the world championships that he charms Shero into taking him.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Well Hughes looks Crosbyesque so I wouldn't complain hah. I don't think we can complain either way. Hell of a night!

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.

Edit: Sorry for the long post, but honestly this is a topic that requires thought.

I'll piggyback on some of what others have said re: games played but also add a huge factor is style of play. In particular with games played, I pay attention to the league that those games were played. I'd like to think most would agree that games played in the NHL generally have more wear and tear on your body since it's the best, fastest and most physical league. Chris Kreider and Artemi Panarin are essentially the same age, with Kreider about 6 months older. This is a perfect use case to analyze if you ask me.

Start with Kreider.

Pros:

- Physical and willing to go to the tough parts of the ice in front of the net. He's willing to take a beating for a screen, dirty goal, or deflection.

- Very fast north/south speed and can generate offense via stretch passes off the boards.

- Has a good shot, but should probably score more goals than he does. This has always baffled me.

Weaknesses

- Bad puck handler.

- Not a good playmaker aside from the occasional great pass here and there.

- Doesn't generate much offense by himself with the puck on his stuck.

I'd point out that Kreider's weaknesses are generally skills that can extend a player's career when they age and slow down. Once Kreider's north/south speed begins to deteriorate, one of his key strengths disappears and he won't be able to fall back on an ability to create offense via vision, passing, puck handling, etc. Additionally, considering the hard nosed style of game he plays I tend to believe that each game played takes a larger toll on his body than more finesse players. Kreider is at 460 NHL games and 628 total games including college and AHL.

Now Panarin, who is basically the exact opposite of Kreider.

Strengths

- Upper echelon playmaker (I'll refrain from elite out of respect for the Crosbys of the world) and passer.

- Elite puck handler.

- Incredible vision.

- Can generate offense on his own with the puck on his stick.

- Excellent shot. He should probably score more goals than 30. If he ever does he'll be a 90-100 point player.

- Good speed (not as fast north/south as Kreider), but deceptively quick and agile in the zone.

Weaknesses

- Smallish, not physical.

- Generally won't find him getting dirty goals in front of the net.

- ?? not much else...

Most of Panarin's strengths have a longer shelf life than Kreider's. When he starts to lose his speed and quickness, he will be able to fall back on his puck handling, vision, and ability to create offense for teammates. He also has far less NHL wear and tear with 322 NHL games. If you include his KHL experience, he has played in 585 games. While only 43 games less than Kreider's total, the KHL is not as physical or competitive of a league as the NHL. His style of play also reduces the physical toll on his body compared to Kreider.

Just my two cents.

That’s what’s happening. Guys are establishing themselves big time on their ELC, and teams are giving them 6-8 years and locking them up until they’re 28-29, so there isn’t tons of prime seasons left when they hit the market. That is the risk on Panarin. Turns 28 in October. Gets a 7 year deal. How many prime seasons at huge money will they actually get?

I'm not as leery on Panarin. He has a lot less mileage than a typical 28 year old hockey player. He also plays the kind of game that ages extremely well - finesse, vision, high skill. I'd have no trouble believing he has 5 years of a 7 year deal before seeing some dip, and at that point he should still be a good player.

Kreider on the other hand...when his speed starts to deteriorate he is going to have to rely almost exclusively on front of the net presence to be productive. That could be in just a few short years.

They signed Gaborik.

 

 

Most guys in their prime dont hit free agency. With Stamkos flirting, and JT hitting the market, maybe its a new trend.

To me it seems the trend is the reverse, and not just in the NHL. The MLB has seen a few young guys do this. Young guys getting locked up long term in their early 20s, rather than waiting on their first year of UFA eligibility.

Kevin Hayes? I feel like that ship has sailed.

 

Panarin is definitely not a lock and I also wouldn't sign Kreider to a nearly 7m dollar deal. I get that goals cost you more but we're talking about a guy who hasn't eclipsed 30 in his career.

The fact Kreider didn't get 30 goals when he was at 24 with 30 games left is exactly why he's not guaranteed to get extended. He is as streaky as they come, and the inconsistency should either cost him years or money (i.e., 4 x 7, 5 x 6.5 or 6 x 6).

I'm trying to resist the urge to pick Dallas to the WCF, just because I want it to happen. Is everyone picking the same East? Lol...

https://bracketchallenge.nhl.com/brackets/165608?share_bracket=1

i'm not sure panarin is a lock. he has a home in florida, and quenville and the gm love him, as well as a significant tax benefit comapared to the communist state we live in.

Agreed. Definitely not a lock. If they don't get Panarin, there is no other legitimate "speed up" option. It would be a big miss.