Trading Panarin?

[Br4d]

We're probably 50/50 Panarin drops below 90 points this season.

 

I don't think he suffers a severe drop unless he plays a significant period with injuries or is out.  He is however getting into the years where you expect him to come down off the plateau he established in his prime.

 

His contributions are significant on the offensive end.  Last season at least that's where the contribution ended.  We'll see if he's down with Laviolette's Plan or not.

[Pete]

14 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

It was obvious he lost half a step in all zones too.

 

That's fine. You can check out of the thread since you can't be objective on the topic anyway.

Oh, I'm not checking out of the thread. I'm as objective as you are. I just choose not to waste my time with you on this because we're not going to change the other's mind and I'm not going to rebut strawmen like "he lost a step". Prove it. You can't. Not worth the time.

[BrooksBurner]

9 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

Panarin is a dynamic talent that will be worth his salary every season he scores over a point per game. Although his playoff performance has been abysmal, he and Shesterkin are the reasons playoffs have been possible every year. When the guy drops below 90 points then this thread becomes worthwhile, otherwise meh.... He is here and isn't going anywhere.

 

Depends. Is 92 pts worth getting paid like McDavid, MacKinnon, Pastrnak, and Matthews? I don’t think so. 110 +/- a handful of points is the mark to achieve that IMO. There’s some flex there to offset regular season underperformance with playoff performance, but playoff performance has only reduced his worth.

[jsm7302]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Depends. Is 92 pts worth getting paid like McDavid, MacKinnon, Pastrnak, and Matthews? I don’t think so. 110 +/- a handful of points is the mark to achieve that IMO. There’s some flex there to offset regular season underperformance with playoff performance, but playoff performance has only reduced his worth.

You named players drafted to their teams who would've gone for more than Panarin on the open market. We can't draft and had to pay a premium. He is worth it; I'm not sure another UFA has been as successful for less money of recent time (though I could be wrong).

[phillyb]

3 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

You named players drafted to their teams who would've gone for more than Panarin on the open market. We can't draft and had to pay a premium. He is worth it; I'm not sure another UFA has been as successful for less money of recent time (though I could be wrong).

 

That's an interesting point, not as a barometer for trading Panarin, or whether or not he's on the decline, but that's quite an interesting point by itself. Panarin might be one of the most successful (judging by point totals, I suppose) UFA signings in a very long time and his playoff performance, or lack thereof, is still a blemish on his tenure. 

[RangersIn7]

10 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

You named players drafted to their teams who would've gone for more than Panarin on the open market. We can't draft and had to pay a premium. He is worth it; I'm not sure another UFA has been as successful for less money of recent time (though I could be wrong).

There’s always a premium attached to FA’s. And it’s only amplified in NYC, due to the insanely high cost of living, and a 3-tiered tax system. 
 

He’s been worth it. Make no mistake.

 

But he needs to put up points in the playoffs 

[Jdog99]

If we want to evaluate the panarin signing, gotta come up with some scenarios/simulations of how else we could have spent that money at the time and/or last few seasons...any takers?

[Albatrosss]

2 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

If we want to evaluate the panarin signing, gotta come up with some scenarios/simulations of how else we could have spent that money at the time and/or last few seasons...any takers?

Could’ve kept Buch, for one

[Jdog99]

Just now, CCCP said:

Could’ve kept Buch, for one

 

Yup...and depending on how you simulate (not adding goodrow in that case?) May only eat into the 11.5 mill a bit...

 

And kreid-zib-buch wouldve been a hell of an improvement on line 1 the last 2 years

[BrooksBurner]

On 10/7/2023 at 8:09 PM, jsm7302 said:

You named players drafted to their teams who would've gone for more than Panarin on the open market. We can't draft and had to pay a premium. He is worth it; I'm not sure another UFA has been as successful for less money of recent time (though I could be wrong).

 

They didn't hit the market because their teams gave them market value to keep them. This is besides the point anyway.

 

Panarin for the first 3 years was worth the salary, every penny, even with mulligans granted for the poor play-in tourney year 2 and the below average playoff year 3. Last year he declined in regular season performance along with another playoff clunker, even worse than the prior two. How is that worth his salary? This fails the $1M per 10 points sniff test, which can be offset by playoff performance, but yeah...

[BrooksBurner]

42 minutes ago, CCCP said:

Could’ve kept Buch, for one

 

100%. Half the price and a better 200 foot player at this stage of both players' careers.

 

Players' worth and value has to be evaluated as time moves. It doesn't stand still. Panarin was always a "first half of the contract" kind of signing.

[jsm7302]

20 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

They didn't hit the market because their teams gave them market value to keep them. This is besides the point anyway.

 

Panarin for the first 3 years was worth the salary, every penny, even with mulligans granted for the poor play-in tourney year 2 and the below average playoff year 3. Last year he declined in regular season performance along with another playoff clunker, even worse than the prior two. How is that worth his salary? This fails the $1M per 10 points sniff test, which can be offset by playoff performance, but yeah...

Worth his salary because without him this team is stuck slotting up the Chinstrap bandit who wouldn't sniff anywhere near 90 points and we miss the playoffs and don't gain the experience needed for this team to take the next step.

 

You're not wrong. It falls below the standard for contracts but I'll say teams generally don't pay UFA market value to retain players. There is usually a little give from the player to stay. 

 

I am in agreement from the standpoint that he should be better in the playoffs and such to earn his payday but he is who he is to this team and the reality is, they are and would've been worse without him, stuck in the dark years once again.

Edited October 9, 2023 by jsm7302

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, jsm7302 said:

Worth his salary because without him this team is stuck slotting up the Chinstrap bandit who wouldn't sniff anywhere near 90 points and we miss the playoffs and don't gain the experience needed for this team to take the next step.

 

You're not wrong. It falls below the standard for contracts but I'll say teams generally don't pay UFA market value to retain players. There is usually a little give from the player to stay. 

 

I am in agreement from the standpoint that he should be better in the playoffs and such to earn his payday but he is who he is to this team and the reality is, they are and would've been worse without him, stuck in the dark years once again.

 

For 3 years they probably would have been worse without Panarin, sure. There is a shelf life with these kinds of players at the age they sign to take advantage of what they bring, and it is really close to both the Rangers and Panarin having missed that window with him.

 

Reviewing last year, I just don't agree that they were better with Panarin than they would have been with other use of that cap space. Hard to see that switching course given his age and where he's trending.

[RangersIn7]

It’s hard to quantify.

Moreover, who would they have spent the money on?, cause the money is getting spent no matter what.

It’s only a question of how.

 

Buch is probably here still.

But not definitely.

 

Does it create some scenario wherein they acquire Eichel, but also keep Zib?

Cause if they had acquired Eichel, Zib would likely not be here. It’s not a certainty but it’s the most likely outcome. 
 

 

 

 

[jsm7302]

9 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

For 3 years they probably would have been worse without Panarin, sure. There is a shelf life with these kinds of players at the age they sign to take advantage of what they bring, and it is really close to both the Rangers and Panarin having missed that window with him.

 

Reviewing last year, I just don't agree that they were better with Panarin than they would have been with other use of that cap space. Hard to see that switching course given his age and where he's trending.

It's at a juncture for sure; he isn't turning into a playoff dynamo at 31/32. The LW is clogged up with 3 players deep of potential to succeed there (though it's hard to imagine Laf being that guy). He probably will start trending down and I see him being a trade deadline sell in 2026. When building this team, they failed to secure the center and RW position and bought high on LW both during FA and the draft. That's questionable management. 

 

Objectively looking at the build of the team. Securing Strome may have been the worst misstep due to the chemistry with the 11 mil dollar player. They lost production on their biggest asset over not paying Strome and spending that $$ on a third line grinding center. Rough look.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, jsm7302 said:

It's at a juncture for sure; he isn't turning into a playoff dynamo at 31/32. The LW is clogged up with 3 players deep of potential to succeed there (though it's hard to imagine Laf being that guy). He probably will start trending down and I see him being a trade deadline sell in 2026. When building this team, they failed to secure the center and RW position and bought high on LW both during FA and the draft. That's questionable management. 

 

Objectively looking at the build of the team. Securing Strome may have been the worst misstep due to the chemistry with the 11 mil dollar player. They lost production on their biggest asset over not paying Strome and spending that $$ on a third line grinding center. Rough look.

 

Agree with the first paragraph, though if he does in fact continue this trend down, hard to see him lasting through the end of his contract basically. While I think the Rangers would absolutely be a better playoff team with his money spent elsewhere, they unequivocally are not a playoff team if they have that kind of money tied up in a single declining player. Combined with the media pressure that would fall on Panarin, I think an earlier divorce would be in order.

 

I get the Strome argument, and it's a tough call. I probably would have brought him back at the price he got and without trade protection, but I don't think that was an option he left available for the Rangers. The reports at the time were that he was asking for more money, more years, and trade protection, and I think he had to bend on a lot of things as free agency progressed and the Rangers had already moved on. There's another side to the coin though too. It was clear the team needed to change up the personnel and how the team approached the game. Strome is an east/west player. Pass first. Stinks in the dot. Not a good back checker. He didn't check any box that the Rangers were weak in. He actually epitomized what they were weak in to a T. The one box he checked was he meshed well with a $12M player who should mesh well with just about anyone. It shouldn't be so damned hard to find line mates for Panarin, but he seems to be really particular about it which again contributes to the argument against him being worth the $.

 

I think describing Trocheck as a 3rd line grinding center is selling him quite a lot short. 20+ goals 60+ points is 2nd line production through and through. I mean he's good at things that 3rd liners are good at, but he can score and produce like a 2nd liner. Shoot first. Great in the dot. Solid back checker (not as good as billed here IMO, but still solid). That's what made him attractive as a free agent. He could play in the top 6 and still have a game to offer as he declined into a 3rd line role.

Edited October 9, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

The one box he checked was he meshed well with a $12M player who should mesh well with just about anyone. It shouldn't be so damned hard to find line mates for Panarin, but he seems to be really particular about it which again contributes to the argument against him being worth the $.

Have you seen how many wingers the Oilers have tried with McDavid? Have you seen how many wingers they tried with Crosby before he unlocked Kunitz and Dupuis?

 

This is what I mean about criticism being fair, but unfair criticism needs to be checked. They had a player who was a perfect compliment to their best player and they let him walk to overpay a player who's likely now a third liner on this team, getting paid like a 2nd liner. It was mismanagement, plain and simple.

[BrooksBurner]

55 minutes ago, Pete said:

Have you seen how many wingers the Oilers have tried with McDavid? Have you seen how many wingers they tried with Crosby before he unlocked Kunitz and Dupuis?

 

This is what I mean about criticism being fair, but unfair criticism needs to be checked. They had a player who was a perfect compliment to their best player and they let him walk to overpay a player who's likely now a third liner on this team, getting paid like a 2nd liner. It was mismanagement, plain and simple.

 

McDavid and Crosby could play with traffic cones and put up video game numbers. McDavid made Patrick Maroon a 25 goal player while cruising to well over 100 points himself, for example. Should Edmonton have kept them together since McDavid unlocked Maroon? We could rattle off probably a good half dozen examples like this with McDavid and Crosby. So far we have one guy over the course of 4 years who Panarin meshed well with in 5v5 play. Let's not brush aside the key difference here being that McDavid and Crosby unlocked so many other guys they've played with, while we are saying Panarin needed someone else to unlock him. That says a lot.

 

But I will continue to be fair here too. An elite C is in a better position to have more impact on the entire line than an elite W. That's why building down the middle has historically been so pivotal.

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

McDavid and Crosby could play with traffic cones and put up video game numbers. McDavid made Patrick Maroon a 25 goal player while cruising to well over 100 points himself, for example. Should Edmonton have kept them together since McDavid unlocked Maroon? We could rattle off probably a good half dozen examples like this with McDavid and Crosby. So far we have one guy over the course of 4 years who Panarin meshed well with in 5v5 play. Let's not brush aside the key difference here being that McDavid and Crosby unlocked so many other guys they've played with, while we are saying Panarin needed someone else to unlock him. That says a lot.

 

But I will continue to be fair here too. An elite C is in a better position to have more impact on the entire line than an elite W. That's why building down the middle has historically been so pivotal.

Then explain why they are paying Hyman 5.5 a year until he's 36 to play with McDavid?

 

Because this isn't EA sports.

[Albatrosss]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Have you seen how many wingers the Oilers have tried with McDavid? Have you seen how many wingers they tried with Crosby before he unlocked Kunitz and Dupuis?

 

This is what I mean about criticism being fair, but unfair criticism needs to be checked. They had a player who was a perfect compliment to their best player and they let him walk to overpay a player who's likely now a third liner on this team, getting paid like a 2nd liner. It was mismanagement, plain and simple.

 

31 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

McDavid and Crosby could play with traffic cones and put up video game numbers. McDavid made Patrick Maroon a 25 goal player while cruising to well over 100 points himself, for example. Should Edmonton have kept them together since McDavid unlocked Maroon? We could rattle off probably a good half dozen examples like this with McDavid and Crosby. So far we have one guy over the course of 4 years who Panarin meshed well with in 5v5 play. Let's not brush aside the key difference here being that McDavid and Crosby unlocked so many other guys they've played with, while we are saying Panarin needed someone else to unlock him. That says a lot.

 

But I will continue to be fair here too. An elite C is in a better position to have more impact on the entire line than an elite W. That's why building down the middle has historically been so pivotal.

Guys please dont argue. Last time you two argued I got banned from posting for an hour. 

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, CCCP said:

 

Guys please dont argue. Last time you two argued I got banned from posting for an hour. 

That means everybody wins.

[BrooksBurner]

46 minutes ago, Pete said:

Then explain why they are paying Hyman 5.5 a year until he's 36 to play with McDavid?

 

Because this isn't EA sports.

They signed him before he even played a game with McDavid. They wanted better two way players because that’s what they needed. It had nothing to do with unlocking McDavid like Strome for Panarin.
 

Interesting example though when applied to Trocheck. Hyman was good not great year 1 with McDavid. It took a year for some chemistry to form. Maybe Panarin and Trocheck should be revisited. Perhaps the gun has been jumped on scrapping that combination.

[Sharpshooter]

Oh, look. This old chestnut. I'm so ready for regular season games right now.

[Pete]

5 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

They signed him before he even played a game with McDavid. They wanted better two way players because that’s what they needed. It had nothing to do with unlocking McDavid like Strome for Panarin.
 

Interesting example though when applied to Trocheck. Hyman was good not great year 1 with McDavid. It took a year for some chemistry to form. Maybe Panarin and Trocheck should be revisited. Perhaps the gun has been jumped on scrapping that combination.

Like I said, anybody who's watched any amount of games can see Tro and Panarin don't work. They both want the puck. Strome and Panarin worked because of a give and go, Not a give and keep.

 

There's clearly a nuance to the game that's lost on some people. 

[BrooksBurner]

21 minutes ago, Pete said:

Like I said, anybody who's watched any amount of games can see Tro and Panarin don't work. They both want the puck. Strome and Panarin worked because of a give and go, Not a give and keep.

 

There's clearly a nuance to the game that's lost on some people. 

 

Pretty big pivot after the failed example you gave.

 

Anybody who's watched Panarin for the last 3 playoffs can see he doesn't have what it takes when time and space is taken away. There's a nuance about playoff hockey that some people just don't understand.

Edited October 10, 2023 by BrooksBurner