Is Panarin's Contract a Detriment to the Team?

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, ThirtyONE said:

Without Panarin, it's possible this isn't even a playoff team. The PP runs through him and Fox. The offense is dynamic because of him. Who are you giving his money to that puts up a similar amount of points? No one. 

 

Laf can't hold Panarin's jock so let's not pretend the team would be good without him.

 

The cap killers are Kreider and Trouba who were signed at a time when it was impossible to know what was to come. Both contracts are moveable in the next few years. Luckily for us the kids still stink and their contracts wont break the bank.

I'll never understand how people think the Rangers are lucky the kids stink.  That's bad. They shouldn't stink. 

[josh]

16 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Lesser Kreider and more Trouba but I agree the combined amount and redundancies at LW and developing D make it more crippling. 
 

Trouba always was the head scratcher since he HAD to coke here for family reasons and gave zero discount but it is what it is. 

Kreider and Trouba are such impact players. 
 

miller was a -5 in the playoffs. Trouba wasn’t. He was one of the most reliable players defensively and took the hard matchups. He also had a huge impact. 
 

Kreider did the same offensively. I hate all contracts, but we aren’t at the place the whine about these 2. Or Panarin, for the record 

[Keirik]

32 minutes ago, josh said:

Kreider and Trouba are such impact players. 
 

miller was a -5 in the playoffs. Trouba wasn’t. He was one of the most reliable players defensively and took the hard matchups. He also had a huge impact. 
 

Kreider did the same offensively. I hate all contracts, but we aren’t at the place the whine about these 2. Or Panarin, for the record 

Agreed. We don’t get where we are without both guys having the years they had. Miller being -5 is understandable considering his age and how little structure he’s asked to play. We like to shit on Trouba for getting walked here and there but Miller was caught in total no man’s land more times than I can even count all playoffs. 

 

He will learn though

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

Lesser Kreider and more Trouba but I agree the combined amount and redundancies at LW and developing D make it more crippling. 
 

Trouba always was the head scratcher since he HAD to coke here for family reasons and gave zero discount but it is what it is. 

Nobody has to do drugs, occifer. 

[Keirik]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Nobody has to do drugs, occifer. 

 

I’d definitely conduct a field sobriety test though

[Phil]

4 hours ago, ThirtyONE said:

Without Panarin, it's possible this isn't even a playoff team. The PP runs through him and Fox. The offense is dynamic because of him. Who are you giving his money to that puts up a similar amount of points? No one. 

 

Laf can't hold Panarin's jock so let's not pretend the team would be good without him.

 

The cap killers are Kreider and Trouba who were signed at a time when it was impossible to know what was to come. Both contracts are moveable in the next few years. Luckily for us the kids still stink and their contracts wont break the bank.

 

Kreider isn't a cap-killer. He's paid exactly what you expect to pay a player of that type. Even at his usual 29 goals.

 

Trouba is, but not by that much. Maybe $2 million at most. This is simply an issue of timing. Every team goes through this need to create room. Teams that draft top-end talent just have to do it faster.

[RangersIn7]

53 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Kreider isn't a cap-killer. He's paid exactly what you expect to pay a player of that type. Even at his usual 29 goals.

 

Trouba is, but not by that much. Maybe $2 million at most. This is simply an issue of timing. Every team goes through this need to create room. Teams that draft top-end talent just have to do it faster.

The flat cap makes Trouba’s contract look worse than it would, both now and moving forward.

I don’t get the issue with Panarin though.

Yes, we all wanted a big postseason from him. It didn’t happen. Though it was hardly disastrous. Just needed to make more impact in some spots. 
But he’s literally one of the league’s best offensive players and one of the most productive.

Not sure the issue here. 
He’s paid commensurate with his production.

 

No. His contract is not a detriment.

 

Know what would be?

 

Not having his production and presence in the lineup.

 

 

 

[jsm7302]

His contract is on par for his performance and role on this team. It is expensive and it doesn't look pretty with the flat cap (but neither do gas prices, grocery, home improvement costs, real estate pri es since the pandemic hit; these things couldn't be forecasted or controlled).

 

BUT I believe our roster today is just as strong as it was when the season ended, with some real  potential for the cost controlled kids to grab the reigns and help steer. With that said, you build a team knowing you will need some people to step up and some luck. 

 

So, is it a detriment to this team? NO. Could it be to others without the youngins to step in and take a role? Yes, but not this team due to the prospects in house and our current situation.

 

Ask this question again when Bread falls below an annual PPG player and the answer could change. 

[Capt]

Tkchuck $9.5M a year

[BrooksBurner]

Last 3 seasons

 

Matthew Tkachuk: 1.00 pts/game

Artemi Panarin: 1.34 pts/game

 

34% higher production.

 

$9.5M + 34% = $12.73M

 

Looks like Panarin is actually underpaid I guess?

[Capt]

17 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Last 3 seasons

 

Matthew Tkachuk: 1.00 pts/game

Artemi Panarin: 1.34 pts/game

 

34% higher production.

 

$9.5M + 34% = $12.73M

 

Looks like Panarin is actually underpaid I guess?

Haha.  I guess you think Tkachuck's effect is just about the points he produces?  He's also 24 and obviously just entering his prime right now.  Panarin is hitting 31 in Oct.  Tkchuck while close in points  also scored 10 more goals  

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Capt said:

Haha.  I guess you think Tkachuck's effect is just about the points he produces?  He's also 24 and obviously just entering his prime right now.  Panarin is hitting 31 in Oct.  Tkchuck while close in points  also scored 10 more goals  

 

I would rather have Tkachuk at $9.5M than Panarin at $11.6M, but that isn't how I understood the thread with the argument being that Panarin is overpaid and his contract is a detriment.

 

I can rather have Tkachuk at a cheaper cap hit and also think Panarin is worth $11.6M. Both can be true.

[josh]

1 hour ago, Capt said:

Haha.  I guess you think Tkachuck's effect is just about the points he produces?  He's also 24 and obviously just entering his prime right now.  Panarin is hitting 31 in Oct.  Tkchuck while close in points  also scored 10 more goals  

Listen, I understand - we all understand - how a big contract can limit what the team can do.

 

it would also be silly to think this team, with Panarin removed, wouldn’t go out and get another big name/big contract player to… do exactly what Panarin does. 
 

i hate spending money more than anyone else (prove me wrong) but this isn’t the contract or player to be complaining about, right now. 

[Pete]

8 hours ago, rmc51 said:

 

I would rather have Tkachuk at $9.5M than Panarin at $11.6M, but that isn't how I understood the thread with the argument being that Panarin is overpaid and his contract is a detriment.

 

I can rather have Tkachuk at a cheaper cap hit and also think Panarin is worth $11.6M. Both can be true.

 

7 hours ago, josh said:

Listen, I understand - we all understand - how a big contract can limit what the team can do.

 

it would also be silly to think this team, with Panarin removed, wouldn’t go out and get another big name/big contract player to… do exactly what Panarin does. 
 

i hate spending money more than anyone else (prove me wrong) but this isn’t the contract or player to be complaining about, right now. 

Exactly. The argument started as "He's overpaid" and when that got blown up, goal posts shifted to "Well he just stops us from adding [Insert collection of lesser players or someone we MAY have been able to trade for]".

 

Instead of just " he produces worth his deal and I just don't like the player". 

[Capt]

59 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Exactly. The argument started as "He's overpaid" and when that got blown up, goal posts shifted to "Well he just stops us from adding [Insert collection of lesser players or someone we MAY have been able to trade for]".

 

Instead of just " he produces worth his deal and I just don't like the player". 

Um no.  I'm still saying he's overpaid.  Two 100pt left wings signed this off-season for considerably less than what he gets pid.  

[Pete]

Yeah except 1 100 point season doesn't mean Jack unless you can replicate it. It's been illustrated that Panarin is the top performing left wing since he signed his deal. He's either at the top or in the top three of every offensive statistical category as well as plus minus. 

 

Also, it doesn't matter what players signed for this year, again has been illustrated a hundred times that a flat cap dropped everybody's salaries.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Capt said:

Um no.  I'm still saying he's overpaid.  Two 100pt left wings signed this off-season for considerably less than what he gets pid.  

We’d all love it if he were paid a little less.

Hes not.

But that’s ok.

Hes one of the highest paid players in the league…. Because he’s one of the highest production players in the league. Which is exact how it’s supposed to work. 
 

Sub-par showing in the postseason notwithstanding, he’s got 250 points in 185 games over 3 seasons as a Ranger. That’s elite level offensive production. He’s done exactly what he’s being paid to do. Not sure what you want. 
 

 

[Pete]

41 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

We’d all love it if he were paid a little less.

Hes not.

But that’s ok.

Hes one of the highest paid players in the league…. Because he’s one of the highest production players in the league. Which is exact how it’s supposed to work. 
 

Sub-par showing in the postseason notwithstanding, he’s got 250 points in 185 games over 3 seasons as a Ranger. That’s elite level offensive production. He’s done exactly what he’s being paid to do. Not sure what you want. 
 

 

He wants a price adjustment. Like when you buy something in the Gap for $40 and 2 weeks later it's on sale for $29.99, you go with your receipt and they give you the difference.

 

Except NHL contracts don't work that way. You bought the goods at full price and 2 years later those goods are discounted due to a flat cap, so we should just move out the full priced item and try to get a cheaper one.

 

Except...And here's where the willful ignorance comes in...If teams had cap to absorb $11+M in salary, Gaudreau would have had offers off 11+M. But teams don't have that cop because, again, flat cap. One team did, Calgary. They offered it to him, he didn't want to play there. The top performing LW on the UFA Market had, count them, 3 offers outside Calgary. NJ, CBJ, NYI. So the fact that he signed for just under what Panarin is being paid, with no market for him, just shows teams don't have that cap space.

 

So why are we talking about trading him, still? It's not happening. But here we are, every day, repeating ourselves because it's July and that's what we do.

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

He wants a price adjustment. Like when you buy something in the Gap for $40 and 2 weeks later it's on sale for $29.99, you go with your receipt and they give you the difference.

 

Except NHL contracts don't work that way. You bought the goods at full price and 2 years later those goods are discounted due to a flat cap, so we should just move out the full priced item and try to get a cheaper one.

 

Except...And here's where the willful ignorance comes in...If teams had cap to absorb $11+M in salary, Gaudreau would have had offers off 11+M. But teams don't have that cop because, again, flat cap. One team did, Calgary. They offered it to him, he didn't want to play there. The top performing LW on the UFA Market had, count them, 3 offers outside Calgary. NJ, CBJ, NYI. So the fact that he signed for just under what Panarin is being paid, with no market for him, just shows teams don't have that cap space.

 

So why are we talking about trading him, still? It's not happening. But here we are, every day, repeating ourselves because it's July and that's what we do.

You shop at the Gap?

[RangersIn7]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

He wants a price adjustment. Like when you buy something in the Gap for $40 and 2 weeks later it's on sale for $29.99, you go with your receipt and they give you the difference.

 

Except NHL contracts don't work that way. You bought the goods at full price and 2 years later those goods are discounted due to a flat cap, so we should just move out the full priced item and try to get a cheaper one.

 

Except...And here's where the willful ignorance comes in...If teams had cap to absorb $11+M in salary, Gaudreau would have had offers off 11+M. But teams don't have that cop because, again, flat cap. One team did, Calgary. They offered it to him, he didn't want to play there. The top performing LW on the UFA Market had, count them, 3 offers outside Calgary. NJ, CBJ, NYI. So the fact that he signed for just under what Panarin is being paid, with no market for him, just shows teams don't have that cap space.

 

So why are we talking about trading him, still? It's not happening. But here we are, every day, repeating ourselves because it's July and that's what we do.

Exactly.

 

What do you reckon the cap would be at right now if their had been no Pandemic and all that came along for the ride with it?

 

It really is overlooked.

Conservatively, we’d be looking at what? Another $4-5 million?

If they had that cap space now, or at least the better part of it, the numbers with complaint would be significantly thinned. 

[Pete]

3 hours ago, rmc51 said:

You shop at the Gap?

I have friends who managed stores.

[Albatrosss]

i think Panarin frustrated many fans, myself included, during the second and third rounds of these playoffs.  Pretty much all he did was skate down the left wing and countlessly turn the puck over with the slightest physical pressure applied.  His inability to generate any kind of offense against TB is why some fans have an issue with his cap hit.  Having a great regular season is awesome but in the playoff is where it matter the most.  Maybe paired with Trochek who is more of a North/South and a drive to the net kind of player, Panarin will have little more room for his type of game, but as of right now im not impressed.   

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, CCCP said:

i think Panarin frustrated many fans, myself included, during the second and third rounds of these playoffs.  Pretty much all he did was skate down the left wing and countlessly turn the puck over with the slightest physical pressure applied.  His inability to generate any kind of offense against TB is why some fans have an issue with his cap hit.  Having a great regular season is awesome but in the playoff is where it matter the most.  Maybe paired with Trochek who is more of a North/South and a drive to the net kind of player, Panarin will have little more room for his type of game, but as of right now im not impressed.   

 

100%, but this isn't the same thing as saying a 100+ point player "isn't worth" his contract. I thought he was dogshit in the playoffs, too, but I don't think it's justified to suggest dumping him based on that, because you take this team minus a 100+ point regular season Panarin and they're hurting for it.

[Sharpshooter]

I get we're annoyed with his playoff performance, but this is still a pretty bad take. The Gomez, Drury and Wade Redden contracts were a detriment to the team. Not this one. Not by a long shot.

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

I get we're annoyed with his playoff performance, but this is still a pretty bad take. The Gomez, Drury and Wade Redden contracts were a detriment to the team. Not this one. Not by a long shot.

 

Not even those. Only Drury, maybe, by the final year, because he was on their fourth line and regularly hurt. Redden was dumped in year one and never hurt them (because The Redden Rule didn't exist yet). Gomez they pretty quickly parlayed when they wanted to move on.

 

Deals that are "detrimental," to me, are deals that cost you another player directly. Like the JvR deal did to the Flyers with Gaudreau. I guess you can maybe argue that Panarin "cost" the Rangers Tkachuk, but kinda hard to prove.