Mercogliano What Happens at Center?

[Pete]

Doesn't matter, he's not signing today. One more time. He signed...before...the....flat....cap.

 

 

[LindG1000]

59 minutes ago, Capt said:

All rumors.  He signed for $9.7M.  Who cares about the circumstances.  What would Panarin be worth on the open market today?  It is not $11.6M

The same team that just gave Gaudreau 9.75 a year until 2030 offered Artemi Panarin 12M a year before the flat cap came into play.

[Ozzy]

[Phil]

Yeah, here's the thing about NHL contracts. They're guaranteed and can't be renegotiated, which is to say, you don't get to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It doesn't matter if you think Panarin is overpaid by any amount. He signed a deal which, at the time, was commiserate with his level of play, and actually left a ton of money on the table from the Islanders (and a reported four-year deal worth $16 million max from the Avs) to sign here.

 

"Worth" has two distinct valuations in a hard capped league. The first is the value you create for yourself in an open market. The second is the value you retain for yourself relative to what you sign for going forward. It's entirely possible that Panarin "isn't worth" $11.6 million, but see toothpaste analogy above. Complaining about it won't help matters any, and neither will comparing Panarin's deal to deals signed years after the fact, in a multi-year flat cap era.

 

All in all, we're wasting keystrokes over something that nothing can be done about over a false equivalence.

[Capt]

4 hours ago, Phil said:

Yeah, here's the thing about NHL contracts. They're guaranteed and can't be renegotiated, which is to say, you don't get to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It doesn't matter if you think Panarin is overpaid by any amount. He signed a deal which, at the time, was commiserate with his level of play, and actually left a ton of money on the table from the Islanders (and a reported four-year deal worth $16 million max from the Avs) to sign here.

 

"Worth" has two distinct valuations in a hard capped league. The first is the value you create for yourself in an open market. The second is the value you retain for yourself relative to what you sign for going forward. It's entirely possible that Panarin "isn't worth" $11.6 million, but see toothpaste analogy above. Complaining about it won't help matters any, and neither will comparing Panarin's deal to deals signed years after the fact, in a multi-year flat cap era.

 

All in all, we're wasting keystrokes over something that nothing can be done about over a false equivalence.

Why is it so hard to understand I'm not arguing what his worth at the time of the signing.  I'm not trying to put the paste back in the bottle.  I'm saying after the pandemic and the flat cap Panarin's contract is out whack compared to his piers.  I'm not arguing if it was a bad signing or not.  I'm arguing his cap hit to today';s team is a detriment to the team going forward for what he brings and what could replace that money.  Everyone here is arguing against a straw man here.  

 

In fact there is something that can be done about it.  He can be traded.  

[Phil]

17 minutes ago, Capt said:

Why is it so hard to understand I'm not arguing what his worth at the time of the signing.  I'm not trying to put the paste back in the bottle.  I'm saying after the pandemic and the flat cap Panarin's contract is out whack compared to his piers.  I'm not arguing if it was a bad signing or not.  I'm arguing his cap hit to today';s team is a detriment to the team going forward for what he brings and what could replace that money.  Everyone here is arguing against a straw man here.  

 

In fact there is something that can be done about it.  He can be traded.  

 

These are two different arguments.

 

The first, I agree with. It's based in fact. The second I don't. It's your opinion, and it's shared by — from the looks of things — no one. I'm not even sure @Vodka Drunkenski would agree with that statement.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

 

These are two different arguments.

 

The first, I agree with. It's based in fact. The second I don't. It's your opinion, and it's shared by — from the looks of things — no one. I'm not even sure @Vodka Drunkenski would agree with that statement.

His peers would include people who signed the same year that he did, folks who signed after him have nothing to do with the conversation at all. 

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, Capt said:

All rumors.  He signed for $9.7M.  Who cares about the circumstances.  What would Panarin be worth on the open market today?  It is not $11.6M

[Capt]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

 

These are two different arguments.

 

The first, I agree with. It's based in fact. The second I don't. It's your opinion, and it's shared by — from the looks of things — no one. I'm not even sure @Vodka Drunkenski would agree with that statement.

Of course it's my opinion.  I think his contract along with some others are a detriment to improving this team.  The difference is I feel like the Rangers are deepest at his position and his contract being the largest is the best way to make room to improve.  Of course that is my opinion.  

 

The first part of my argument is directed to posters who deemed my opinion that he is overpaid not worthy of discussion.   Factors of why his contract is an overpayment can be discussed and of course is mainly the cause of the flat cap.  But the reason doesn't matter.  In today's competitive marketplace where you are competing against other real teams who have the same flat cap to deal with his contract is obstructive.  That doesn't mean he sucks or that his signing was a bad move.  It means that unfortunate circumstances have made him less valuable than his contract.    

[Capt]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

His peers would include people who signed the same year that he did, folks who signed after him have nothing to do with the conversation at all. 

Of course they do.  We are discussing the team as of today not years ago.  Just take the L and move on.  Facts matter

[Pete]

19 minutes ago, Capt said:

Of course they do.  We are discussing the team as of today not years ago.  Just take the L and move on.  Facts matter

It's very clear to everybody that you don't understand how the economics of sports work. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. 

 

"Panarin makes more than any other LW today, because he signed a fair market deal 3 years ago before a flat cap and has performed on par with top players at left wing since then. So, because the Rangers are now cap-strapped due to other deals they've made since then, the only viable solution is to try and trade him to another team in a flat cap market... And it won't make us better but at least we will have cap space."

 

Brilliant strategy. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Pete

[The Dude]

6 hours ago, Capt said:

Of course it's my opinion.  I think his contract along with some others are a detriment to improving this team.  The difference is I feel like the Rangers are deepest at his position and his contract being the largest is the best way to make room to improve.  Of course that is my opinion.  

 

The first part of my argument is directed to posters who deemed my opinion that he is overpaid not worthy of discussion.   Factors of why his contract is an overpayment can be discussed and of course is mainly the cause of the flat cap.  But the reason doesn't matter.  In today's competitive marketplace where you are competing against other real teams who have the same flat cap to deal with his contract is obstructive.  That doesn't mean he sucks or that his signing was a bad move.  It means that unfortunate circumstances have made him less valuable than his contract.    

But you're trading one of the best LWs in the game. One of, if not the best forward on the team. You can't trade the talent and expect the same results.

 

They have cap issues.  Every team has cap issues.

We understand your plight (cap space), but the wording you use (detrimental) isn't really fitting the one example you're trying to make.  Then you are going to an extreme with every other point.

 

Trading Panarin for cap space isn't going to happen without retention. Trading Panarin and bringing in a game changer for less isn't going to happen. Trading Panarin and thinking the team will be better isn't going to happen.  So... Trading Panarin isn't going to happen. 

 

Maybe you were thinking aloud and just posting a thought. Happens all the time. What you are dying on the hill for here, is an unrealistic suggestion, that is held together by your pride or something. 

 

Let it go. I'm not going to use cool guy terms like "take the L bro (yuck)". Because you obviously aren't in agreement with anyone else here. That's your plight. Great. Noted. Got it.  Let's move on and talk about other things.

 

Like how are we going to get Gauthier into the top 6 where he belongs.   Ehhh? Ehhhhhhh? 

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm not going to use cool guy terms

I wouldn't expect you to. You're not cool. 

 

[Pete]

19 hours ago, Phil said:

Yeah, here's the thing about NHL contracts. They're guaranteed and can't be renegotiated, which is to say, you don't get to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It doesn't matter if you think Panarin is overpaid by any amount. He signed a deal which, at the time, was commiserate with his level of play, and actually left a ton of money on the table from the Islanders (and a reported four-year deal worth $16 million max from the Avs) to sign here.

 

"Worth" has two distinct valuations in a hard capped league. The first is the value you create for yourself in an open market. The second is the value you retain for yourself relative to what you sign for going forward. It's entirely possible that Panarin "isn't worth" $11.6 million, but see toothpaste analogy above. Complaining about it won't help matters any, and neither will comparing Panarin's deal to deals signed years after the fact, in a multi-year flat cap era.

 

All in all, we're wasting keystrokes over something that nothing can be done about over a false equivalence.

Panarin is the highest paid LW in the NHL. Since he signed his deal he is #1 in P/GP amongst LW. 2nd in assists. 1st in +/-. 1st in EVP. 2nd in PPP. 

 

He makes 2M more than Jaime Benn who's like a 50pt player and 2M more than Ovechkin, who he's outperformed. 

 

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how he's overpaid. 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Panarin is the highest paid LW in the NHL. Since he signed his deal he is #1 in P/GP amongst LW. 2nd in assists. 1st in +/-. 1st in EVP. 2nd in PPP. 

 

He makes 2M more than Jaime Benn who's like a 50pt player and 2M more than Ovechkin, who he's outperformed. 

 

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how he's overpaid. 

 

He isn't. He's paid commiserate with what he does and has been since the deal was agreed to. The problem I have is with the idea that he should be traded because he's a detriment. It's not based in reality, because A, he's cost them no one so far, B, he's blocking no one on the team by being here, and C, he's a 90-100+ point player. Unless you're going to sit here and suggest to me that Lafrenière is on the cusp of a 90-100 point season, this is an absurd suggestion.

 

More than that, the suggestion that he needs to be traded because he makes too much also falls on it's face because it conveniently ignores that every other team in the league operate with the same flat cap. Name me the team who can take an $11.5 million cap hit and that Panarin would want to play for.

 

 

Hint: no one.

 

But even if you pretend that team exists, the logic still makes no fucking sense. You'd be trading Panarin for another $11 million player — putting yourself right back into the position of "overpaying" a player relative to the flat cap.

 

Congratulations. You now have John Tavares, and your team is worse for it. Older, slower, and less productive than it was with Panarin.

 

tl;dr: this is a giant waste of everyone's time.

[Albatrosss]

What team wouldnt want a player who puts up 90-100 points for $11.5M?

Laf, Oth, Cuyle all LW

[Cash or Czech]

And the argument for trading him is that shedding the cap space would help improve the team. Who are you getting that'll improve the team?

[RangersIn7]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Panarin is the highest paid LW in the NHL. Since he signed his deal he is #1 in P/GP amongst LW. 2nd in assists. 1st in +/-. 1st in EVP. 2nd in PPP. 

 

He makes 2M more than Jaime Benn who's like a 50pt player and 2M more than Ovechkin, who he's outperformed. 

 

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how he's overpaid. 

The reality is that he is not overpaid.

We are just in a cap crunch and would like his cap hit to be smaller, so then the narrative becomes that he’s overpaid.

 

Trouba is overpaid. By probably $1-1.5 million. 
We’d all like Trouba’s deal better if he got $45-50 million vs $56 million. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

He isn't. He's paid commiserate with what he does and has been since the deal was agreed to. The problem I have is with the idea that he should be traded because he's a detriment. It's not based in reality, because he's cost them no one so far, and no one on the team is being blocked by his being here, unless you're going to sit here and suggest to me that Lafrenière is on the cusp of a 90-100 point season.

 

The suggestion that he needs to be traded because he makes too much also falls on it's face because it conveniently ignores that every other team in the league operate with the same flat cap. Name me the team who can take an $11.5 million cap hit and that Panarin would want to play for.

 

 

Hint: no one.

 

But even if you pretend some team exists, the logic makes no fucking sense. You'd be trading him for another $11 million player. Congratulations. You now have John Tavares, and your team is worse for it. Older, slower, and less productive than with Panarin.

 

tl;dr: this is a giant waste of everyone's time.

Yea, it is. Can we at least keep it sequestered to one thread? This is a thread about centers.

[jsm7302]

So our C depth now looks like:

Z

Trocheck

Chytil

Goodrow/Carpenter

 

Looks good. Do you think GG keeps the kid line together to start the year and slot in Blais and Krav in the top 2 lines?

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Cash or Czech said:

And the argument for trading him is that shedding the cap space would help improve the team. Who are you getting that'll improve the team?

 

I think he suggested J.T. Miller before.

[josh]

20 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

So our C depth now looks like:

Z

Trocheck

Chytil

Goodrow/Carpenter

 

Looks good. Do you think GG keeps the kid line together to start the year and slot in Blais and Krav in the top 2 lines?

Should definitely be tougher to play against up the middle.

 

[Cash or Czech]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I think he suggested J.T. Miller before.

 

Shedding Panarin and adding Miller doesn't make us better, IMO

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

Shedding Panarin and adding Miller doesn't make us better, IMO

 

Correct. It makes them worse. Even if Miller is a point-per-game player, Panarin is better than point-per-game. Miller makes them harder to play against, but this kind of collectivist philosophy only works if you weaponize the cap space you've opened by going from $11.6M Panarin to, say, $8.5M Miller. Which probably won't happen. What will happen is what's likely going to happen anyway — they'll give that money to Lafreniere and K'Andre Miller. It's Trouba or Kreider who will be liquidated in '24.

 

I'm having an awfully hard time buying the idea that liquifying Panarin to do this is better than liquifying Trouba.

[Slobberknocker]

ugh.  let me know when the direction of this post changes.   cant read this anymore.