Is Panarin's Contract a Detriment to the Team?

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, Phil said:

 

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.

Right, that's fair. They weren't too damaging, I suppose, but still bad contracts, especially Drury's, as you said. I don't really see Panarin's contract really getting in the way of anything this team wants to do in the future. You want a 90-100 point guy, you have to pay. If anything, Trouba's contract may be detrimental, to make the conversation more reasonable. I'm not saying it will, it's just more likely.

[Phil]

I mean, I guess you could make a loose argument that Panarin cost them an opportunity at Tkachuk, but it's just that — an opportunity. If the Flames liked the deal from anyone else better, the Rangers would just be out a 100+ point player, too.

 

When it comes time to re-sign younger players like Miller, Lafreniere, and others, it's possible that Kreider and/or Trouba will need to be moved to make room, so I could argue that their deals are "detrimental," but only then. Not yet. Even though I maintain Trouba is absolutely overpaid by anywhere from $1.5 – 2 million per year.

[Albatrosss]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

I mean, I guess you could make a loose argument that Panarin cost them an opportunity at Tkachuk, but it's just that — an opportunity. If the Flames liked the deal from anyone else better, the Rangers would just be out a 100+ point player, too.

 

When it comes time to re-sign younger players like Miller, Lafreniere, and others, it's possible that Kreider and/or Trouba will need to be moved to make room, so I could argue that their deals are "detrimental," but only then. Not yet. Even though I maintain Trouba is absolutely overpaid by anywhere from $1.5 – 2 million per year.

its the collective overpayment for players as maybe Panarin by a $1M or so, Trouba, Reeves, probably Goodrow, and even probably Fox is what getting us in cap trouble.  Shave off a Mill here and there and we're talking about $4-$5M in additional cap

[Sod16]

If Panarin could be put on waivers and was taken tomorrow, would the Rangers be better off with an additional $11.6 per year in cap space but no Panarin?  You might have to trade a nice asset to get a replacement star, so you have to factor that in as well -- it would probably mean not just losing Panarin but someone else as well.  It could work out better, but not clearly.

[Albatrosss]

im not sure why you would put Panarin on waivers.  I'm sure there's a trading partner for a 100 point LW

[Br4d]

30 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

If Panarin could be put on waivers and was taken tomorrow, would the Rangers be better off with an additional $11.6 per year in cap space but no Panarin?  You might have to trade a nice asset to get a replacement star, so you have to factor that in as well -- it would probably mean not just losing Panarin but someone else as well.  It could work out better, but not clearly.

The biggest single effect of losing Panarin tomorrow would be a guaranteed top 6 slot at LW for Lafreniere and a guaranteed bottom 6 slot for one of Cuylle and Othman.

 

Whether the Rangers would maintain their scoring pace would depend on whether Lafreniere could make real hay on PP1 and whether the bottom 6 LW was ready to steup up and be a star-in-waiting.

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

I mean, I guess you could make a loose argument that Panarin cost them an opportunity at Tkachuk, but it's just that — an opportunity. If the Flames liked the deal from anyone else better, the Rangers would just be out a 100+ point player, too.

 

When it comes time to re-sign younger players like Miller, Lafreniere, and others, it's possible that Kreider and/or Trouba will need to be moved to make room, so I could argue that their deals are "detrimental," but only then. Not yet. Even though I maintain Trouba is absolutely overpaid by anywhere from $1.5 – 2 million per year.

If we didn't have Panarin we wouldn't have 100 point player to trade for Tkachuk. 

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Br4d said:

The biggest single effect of losing Panarin tomorrow would be a guaranteed top 6 slot at LW for Lafreniere and a guaranteed bottom 6 slot for one of Cuylle and Othman.

 

Whether the Rangers would maintain their scoring pace would depend on whether Lafreniere could make real hay on PP1 and whether the bottom 6 LW was ready to steup up and be a star-in-waiting.

That's completely incorrect. 

 

You're losing 100 points. You'd be lucky to get 100 points from Laf and whomever your bottom 6 LW is... But then you ALSO need to replace what Laf was already giving you. So you really need to replace about 150 points.

 

Also put aside the fact that defenses need to plan for two "First" lines when they play us. That would not happen with Laf. 

 

Frankly the idea that you would expect such young players to just step in and fill that role is such flawed thinking. 

[The Dude]

11 hours 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.  

But you were just saying that you DONT think he's overpaid.... just that his cap hit is a problem.   

 

Come on man. 

 

You're just being difficult now. If you're just busting balls and trying to rile someone up. Ok. You did it.

 

You just keep finding new ways to say you don't like the player. That's fine. But over and over again with beating around the bush and making it about his cap hit. I mean, I can beat a dead horse like a dead horse beating champion.... Could ya maybe let off the gas here? 

 

 

[Capt]

Just for the record he's never scored 100 pts.  Yet it's mentioned over nd over here

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Capt said:

Just for the record he's never scored 100 pts.  Yet it's mentioned over nd over here

You do understand the concept of "points per game" right? 

 

Maybe you don't ... Or maybe you're just trolling. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Pete

[Capt]

I do but that's different than scoring 100 points in one season.  There is 82 games in season not 100.

[Pete]

Just now, Capt said:

I do but that's different than scoring 100 points in one season.  There is 82 games in season not 100.

Okay so you don't understand points per game. 

 

Now things are starting to make sense. 

[Capt]

11 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

Since you wrote this I thought maybe you didn't realize the he never score 100 points ever.  

[Capt]

Roughly 40 players scored point per game this season.  Only 8 scored 100 points.  Big difference but proceed in talking down to me & if I understand.  

Edited July 25, 2022 by Capt

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Capt said:

Since you wrote this I thought maybe you didn't realize the he never score 100 points ever.  

249 points in 186 games as a Ranger is 109 pts per 82 games. 

 

You really need to stop because you're embarrassing yourself at this point. 

[Pete]

Just now, Capt said:

Roughly 40 players scored point per game this season.  Only 8 scored 100 points.  Big difference but proceed in talking down to me & if I understand.  

Why don't you explain to us why that matters?

 

Player is Miss games all the time due to injury or other reasons. I guess your next knock against Panarin will be that he doesn't play 82 games, he only plays 72 LOL. 

 

Take the L. 

[BrooksBurner]

Saying Panarin has never scored 100 points with a straight face is as goofy and disingenuous as saying Chytil is only a 22-23 point player.

[Capt]

He's never scored 100 points in season. Fact.  You fucking with the numbers to fill your narrative doesn't change the point.  

 

The L regarding what?  You saying he did score 100 points in one season?  You're saying things that re factually not true.  Then saying I don't understand.  Yup I guess I don't.  You write the Tktchuck's 100 point yr does nothing because he has to back it up..  He's point per game player the pst 3 yrs.  Why is it different? 

 

 

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Saying Panarin has never scored 100 points with a straight face is as goofy and disingenuous as saying Chytil is only a 22-23 point player.

Well, now...

 

[Capt]

6 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Saying Panarin has never scored 100 points with a straight face is as goofy and disingenuous as saying Chytil is only a 22-23 point player.

WTF re you talking bout.  Fact he never scored 100 points in 7 seasons in the NHL.  

[Capt]

Enlighten me.

 

https://www.nhl.com/player/artemi-panarin-8478550

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Capt said:

I'd be suspended for this post

You're right.

 

But you're trolling the entire board with this senseless narrative and willful ignorance. I'm not. I contribute. You don't.

 

So you've accumulated points to be suspended, and I haven't. That's how this works.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well, now...

 

[The Dude]

27 minutes ago, Capt said:

Roughly 40 players scored point per game this season.  Only 8 scored 100 points.  Big difference but proceed in talking down to me & if I understand.  

96. In what you consider a down year. Seriously.