[friedman] "Rangers will be diving into UFA waters,"

[Pete]

Three years from now. Three years of building and developing assets. Three years of developing roster and organizational depth from which to trade from. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

It?s not complaining because I choose not to agree. Nothing has even happened yet. I?ve been consistent here. I wanted the rebuild while we argued over selling why in a playoff spot. I?m all in with it. I?m actually happy with the direction. I want to stay the course. It?s not complaining making my case anymore than it is to want to tank and be pissed when they win. To point out pionk sucks or that the Quinn is dressing 7 defenseman. None of it is whining.

And again, you're arguing what IS today vs what MAY BE in 3 years. You don't know who, if anyone, will be available in 3 years... Or what it will take to get them.

 

But we know these players, today, only cost money.

 

A bird in the hand... What's so hard to understand?

[torontonyr]

And again, you're arguing what IS today vs what MAY BE in 3 years. You don't know who, if anyone, will be available in 3 years... Or what it will take to get them.

 

But we know these players, today, only cost money.

 

A bird in the hand... What's so hard to understand?

 

You both don't understand *each other*.

 

Reading you both go back and forth was like watching a couple arguing about deal or no deal.

 

One of you wants to settle with Howie Mandel's case and the other believes there's more money in the pool.

 

Neither of you are empirically correct and it's simply a matter of philosophy.

 

With that said I'm inclined to take the deal, myself, but I totally understand it could wind up borking us long term. Heck I'm sort of convinced to go for both panarin and ek.

[josh]

I’m down for getting borked in the future

[Pete]

You both don't understand *each other*.

 

Reading you both go back and forth was like watching a couple arguing about deal or no deal.

 

One of you wants to settle with Howie Mandel's case and the other believes there's more money in the pool.

 

Neither of you are empirically correct and it's simply a matter of philosophy.

 

With that said I'm inclined to take the deal, myself, but I totally understand it could wind up borking us long term. Heck I'm sort of convinced to go for both panarin and ek.

 

Thanks for the analysis. None of this is news, and these same debates happen here about a variety of topics, daily. Not sure what the point of chiming in with commentary 2 folks having debate, rather than just adding your own opinion is.

 

I understand his PoV completely. It just doesn't make much sense, especially the parts where Panarin doesn't "move the needle".

[SaveByRichter35]

I'm with Pete in this case. I am all for signing Panarin now for nothing but money, and not giving up any of the players and prospects that we hope will be core parts of the team in the next three years. I'd pass on EK though. Not because of age but more because of injury history. I have no problem committing long term to Panarin to aid this rebuild.

[Pete]

I'm with Pete in this case. I am all for signing Panarin now for nothing but money, and not giving up any of the players and prospects that we hope will be core parts of the team in the next three years. I'd pass on EK though. Not because of age but more because of injury history. I have no problem committing long term to Panarin to aid this rebuild.

 

I'm not even 100% I want Panarin, I just don't agree with any argument in this thread otherwise. All that's been said is that he's not that good, and you can just snap up another player like him whenever you want. Both are untrue.

[BrooksBurner]

I'm not even 100% I want Panarin, I just don't agree with any argument in this thread otherwise. All that's been said is that he's not that good, and you can just snap up another player like him whenever you want. Both are untrue.

 

The only good argument is to dismantle the team further for a more guaranteed high draft pick.

 

Worst case scenario is having a non-playoff team and a team outside of the top 3 in the draft. I'm good with either going for it or dismantling, but the Rangers need to commit fully to it whichever direction is chosen here. Sitting on your hands and keeping the team how it is, is not a good decision.

[Pete]

The only good argument is to dismantle the team further for a more guaranteed high draft pick.

 

Worst case scenario is having a non-playoff team and a team outside of the top 3 in the draft. I'm good with either going for it or dismantling, but the Rangers need to commit fully to it whichever direction is chosen here. Sitting on your hands and keeping the team how it is, is not a good decision.

Sure, this is fair.

[siddious]

The only good argument is to dismantle the team further for a more guaranteed high draft pick.

 

Worst case scenario is having a non-playoff team and a team outside of the top 3 in the draft. I'm good with either going for it or dismantling, but the Rangers need to commit fully to it whichever direction is chosen here. Sitting on your hands and keeping the team how it is, is not a good decision.

 

100% agree. The UFA route never works out all that well they need to draft at least one high end talent player on offense. Otherwise thisnrebuild is half assed in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Gravesy]

100% agree. The UFA route never works out all that well they need to draft at least one high end talent player on offense. Otherwise thisnrebuild is half assed in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

I'm not entirely sure that's fair. At least not up to this point. Gorton has done everything required to launch a proper rebuild, and the fire sale is done bar a couple of less important pieces in Strome/Names/Vesey. I don't think they've done everything right, but I don't agree that adding a guy like Panarin in the summer means this rebuild is being done half assed.

[Fatfrancesa]

The only good argument is to dismantle the team further for a more guaranteed high draft pick.

 

Worst case scenario is having a non-playoff team and a team outside of the top 3 in the draft. I'm good with either going for it or dismantling, but the Rangers need to commit fully to it whichever direction is chosen here. Sitting on your hands and keeping the team how it is, is not a good decision.

 

Sitting on your hands is not the argument. It’s not panarin or no one. The rangers can add quality guys who don’t demand 7 years in order to compete in the short term while others develop. Adding panarin and even ek doesn’t make them a guaranteed playoff team and it certainly doesn’t make them an elite team. It probably puts them right in the mushy middle you want to avoid.

[BrooksBurner]

Sitting on your hands is not the argument. It’s not panarin or no one. The rangers can add quality guys who don’t demand 7 years in order to compete in the short term while others develop. Adding panarin and even ek doesn’t make them a guaranteed playoff team and it certainly doesn’t make them an elite team. It probably puts them right in the mushy middle you want to avoid.

 

I don't want to sign the middle of the road guys you consider quality. That's more of the same for this franchise. I'd rather invest in actual high end players. Really, this all stems from the fact you don't view Panarin in the same light as I do in that he is a PPG player (non-debatable - that's what he is) who is a star and can be part of the core for the next 5-7 years. For whatever reason, you don't think he is as good as his numbers. You're more than welcome to holding that opinion, but it's not based on anything factual.

[Fatfrancesa]

I agree that he’s a good player and a point per game guy. I just don’t think adding him makes the rangers good. And they won’t be for years. At the point in which they maybe good Will panarin still be elite? How can honesty know that?

 

They aren’t competing for the cup next year. I think you agree with that? I’m just of the opinion that adding 7 year contracts don’t make sense, not at lest for guys in their late 20’s.

 

I know I’m not going to impress anyone here but here’s a example lineup of what I’m talking about. It’s not sitting on your hands yet it’s not going for it either.

 

Kreider. Zibanejad buchnevich

Kravtsov Dzingel chytil

Lemieux Howden strome/Vesey

Fast Anderson Tanev

 

Skeij stralman

Staal/chiarot/ Claesson. DeAngelo

Hajek shattenkirk

 

Namestnikov, strome or Vesey and pionk moved this summer.

Nieves, Lindgren as extras.

[Fatfrancesa]

I don't want to sign the middle of the road guys you consider quality. That's more of the same for this franchise. I'd rather invest in actual high end players. Really, this all stems from the fact you don't view Panarin in the same light as I do in that he is a PPG player (non-debatable - that's what he is) who is a star and can be part of the core for the next 5-7 years. For whatever reason, you don't think he is as good as his numbers. You're more than welcome to holding that opinion, but it's not based on anything factual.

 

 

So what if panarin doesn’t want to sign here? And being that you disagree with all of it, it’s your stance that it’s panarin or nothing?

[BrooksBurner]

So what if panarin doesn’t want to sign here? And being that you disagree with all of it, it’s your stance that it’s panarin or nothing?

 

Dismantle. It's a one shot deal to get a star player for the core. Otherwise I'm trading Kreider and doing what's necessary to try and improve the chances of getting one in the draft.

 

I don't sign EK without Panarin.

[BrooksBurner]

I agree that he’s a good player and a point per game guy. I just don’t think adding him makes the rangers good. And they won’t be for years.

 

I don't think he alone makes the Rangers a playoff team next year. I agree with you in terms of that. I think we have different estimations of when they will be good if they had him moving forward. I would personally expect the year after next, but by year 3 of the contract at the latest. Panarin would be 30 in year 3 of his contract and that is not old by any means. Also have to remember that Lundqvist, Shattenkirk, Staal, and Smith all come off the books after 2 more seasons. That is 26 million off the books to work with. That is a lot of extra cap space, and at that point we can add whatever is missing from the roster. While this is going on, it does not stunt the growth of our youth. We are talking 1 guy, maybe 2 if you get EK as well. All other spots up for grabs.

 

At the point in which they maybe good Will panarin still be elite? How can honesty know that?

 

Nobody knows, but that's when I look at probabilities. What's a higher probability: Panarin still being elite between the ages of 29-33, signing a non-elite player for less money and hoping he becomes elite, or hoping a draft pick becomes elite after several years? I'll bank on the proven elite player and hope the player doesn't regress too quickly past 30.

 

They aren’t competing for the cup next year. I think you agree with that?

 

Agreed. Best case is competing for a WC spot, 1st round exit even if they make it.

 

I’m just of the opinion that adding 7 year contracts don’t make sense, not at lest for guys in their late 20’s.

 

I would normally agree with you here, but there's exceptions to every rule. I don't have a particular "fanboy liking" of Panarin, but I recognize his talent level. For an example, his career points per game is better than Tavares. If Tavares actually wanted to go to the Rangers I don't think anyone would have blamed them if they gave him the contract that the Leafs gave him.

 

I know I’m not going to impress anyone here but here’s a example lineup of what I’m talking about. It’s not sitting on your hands yet it’s not going for it either.

 

Kreider. Zibanejad buchnevich

Kravtsov Dzingel chytil

Lemieux Howden strome/Vesey

Fast Anderson Tanev

 

Skeij stralman

Staal/chiarot/ Claesson. DeAngelo

Hajek shattenkirk

 

Namestnikov, strome or Vesey and pionk moved this summer.

Nieves, Lindgren as extras.

 

Dzingel really replaces what Hayes was, both in the lineup and production wise. Roughly 45-50 points. Potential to be better. I would rather just try to sign Hayes back if this is the Rangers' plan. It just doesn't really do much for the team short term or long term, without a surprise leap forward into an upper echelon player.

 

Stralman will be 33, but I'd consider him on a short term cheap deal to add some defensive stability to the team. This is a move that doesn't prevent signing Panarin, but it does prevent signing EK. So if Panarin is coming and EK is not, this might be a decent signing on a 2 year deal.

 

I'm fine with trading any or all of the 4 guys you mentioned without thinking twice. I'd use the cap savings from the trades to re-sign Buchnevich and Lemieux. I'd be okay trading Buchnevich too at this point, but having him on a 2 x 2.5 deal is fine as well. I'd actually just go ahead and lock up Lemieux on a longer team friendly deal now if it's at a reasonable rate (6 x 4.5? 5 x 5?). Depends how many UFA years that buys.

[Fatfrancesa]

Lemeuix at $4.5-5m? Wow I’m sure he’d take that running.

 

The point of my roster would be to develop the kids while fielding a competitive team from which to grow. The other point is that while none of these guys they sign as ufas are in the plan past three or four years, their contracts are up at that point. That is the point. As the years pass all can be moved if desired but most importantly the rangers get a chance to accurately assess what they have rather than what they hope to have. Dzingel over Hayes because of term that’s all. Maybe Dzingel will more years if so I pass. However the rangers now have a massive hole short term at center. Not sure chytil, Howden, or Anderson can play a top 2 center role. I don’t think it’s good for their development and it needs to be addressed. Signing panarin makes that difficult.

 

The whole premise that players won’t be available in later years is a prediction. One made to justify signing a player NOW. We don’t know what we don’t know as far as future options. But the contracts handed out today for 7 years will undoubtedly have an effect on the future. The longer they are the riskier the out years become. Again it doesn’t mean the contract will become a problem but what if it does? Having other cap space doesn’t make up for bad contracts. Every team has equal cap space, maximizing that space with production is what separates the teams. And as always in signing ufas you are paying for what the player has done, not what he’s going to do.

[Fatfrancesa]

Dismantle. It's a one shot deal to get a star player for the core. Otherwise I'm trading Kreider and doing what's necessary to try and improve the chances of getting one in the draft.

 

I don't sign EK without Panarin.

 

 

Other than trading kreider which may happen regardless, what does a further dismantle look like?

[BrooksBurner]

Was just spitballing on Lemieux. I think we have like 3-4 more years of control anyhow so it is too soon to discuss long term for him.

 

The roster you laid out has a pretty low ceiling. Don't know the point of committing years and dollars with no shot or hope of doing much of anything. What do you think Dzingel would cost relative to Hayes? They seem like they would get similar deals. 6 x 6.5 ish.

[Mr.wiskers]

If it?s me, it?s either Panarin or Duchene and no one else, when it comes to free agent forwards. Other than that it?s let?s make a deal. Do you call the Winnipeg Jets and tell them we will give Patrik Laine an offersheet high enough that you will have to decide if it?s worth matching his contract and risk letting Trouba, Myers and Connor go or working out a trade for him.

 

As far as the defense goes. It?s Karlsson in free agency or no one. We would have to look at offersheets or trades.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[BrooksBurner]

Other than trading kreider which may happen regardless, what does a further dismantle look like?

 

Trading Kreider is a big one. That is not an easy decision to make. The last player that fans have a real attachment to from the core the last 5-7 years other then Henrik. If you go this dismantle direction and trade Kreider, there is no potential for this team to be any good for probably 4 or 5 years. That's a lot different than 1-2 years.

 

Other than that you can trade Shattenkirk and Staal for cheap. Eat most of their salary. Someone would want them for half price. Namestnikov, Strome can probably fetch draft picks.

 

If you dismantle that much, Lundqvist might hit his breaking point and beg for a trade. That would be ideal.

[Fatfrancesa]

Kreider maybe traded even if you sign panarin

[Fatfrancesa]

If it’s me, it’s either Panarin or Duchene and no one else, when it comes to free agent forwards. Other than that it’s let’s make a deal. Do you call the Winnipeg Jets and tell them we will give Patrik Laine an offersheet high enough that you will have to decide if it’s worth matching his contract and risk letting Trouba, Myers and Connor go or working out a trade for him.

 

As far as the defense goes. It’s Karlsson in free agency or no one. We would have to look at offersheets or trades.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

What kind of offer sheet? $9-10m a year? I believe that’s 4 1st round picks as compensation. I think they would say go ahead. That would kind of kill the rebuild wouldn’t it?

[Fatfrancesa]

Dzingel 4-5 years at $5-6. If it’s more than you pass it up. It maybe. Just curious what does your lineup look like signing panarin? Is it just him into this dumpster fire?

[josh]

Exact deal they need to avoid.

 

Why the f would they overpay middle 6 forwards during a rebuild????