Is Panarin's Contract a Detriment to the Team?

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Capt said:

100%.  Couldn't happen unless P@nri@n went to the Flames.  Detriment to the team, exactly my point.

 

Nope. Bridge too far for me. But I'd make that trade ten times out of ten, no hesitation.

[LindG1000]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

Tkachuk is what they needed. Same position. Same-ish production. Mean as fuck.

 

I'm gonna duck for cover on this one because it won't be popular....

 

Tkachuk's 2021-22 season was a rather significant outlier in his NHL career and it's probably a far higher risk to pay him 9.5 a year for 8 years assuming that Matt Tkachuk is going to be a consistent 100 point player instead of the 65-80 point guy that he has been than it was and still is to pay Panarin 11.6 for 4 more.

 

 

[The Dude]

30 minutes ago, Capt said:

When did I write he had down season? I think his $11.5 could be better spent.  He's not t the level with those who get $ like him.  Post after post refers to him 100 pt guy.  He's never hit 100 points in one yr, ever.  PPG yes of course.  I write the sky is blue & I'm goofy & disingenuous.  Some here won't even give me the facts in this discussion.  Yet I'm disingenuous?

 

If he didn't have a down season, what the heck are you complaining about? Over a PPG player and you feel the need to think they or he can do better?

 

Better spent on what? He's the top point producer at his position. He had ONE poor playoffs (has had better in the past, this isn't Rick Nash) and still put up points. 

 

96 points may as well be 100 man. Come off it. The fucking guy is really good and atop point producers for his position consistently. 

 

Your gripe is overblown. Besides the flat cap  screwing up everything,  you COULD chalk it up to a bad team having to pay more for a legit superstar (even though he reportedly took less to come here). The guy is one of the best in the game. You can't deny that. The stats show it. 

 

I honestly think Panarin is going to have an MVP, Art Ross, Conn Smythe type season next year. Fuckin guy is great. Back off a bit man. Realize how much he means to this team. 

 

Would I rather Tkachuk? Fuck yes. But, as usual the Rangers weren't in a position to aquire such a player.  Too many variables that go past Panarins contract. 

 

Let it go. Embrace the FACT that the Rangers have one of the most elite LWs in the entire world. 

[Phil]

Just now, LindG1000 said:

I'm gonna duck for cover on this one because it won't be popular....

 

Tkachuk's 2021-22 season was a rather significant outlier in his NHL career and it's probably a far higher risk to pay him 9.5 a year for 8 years assuming that Matt Tkachuk is going to be a consistent 100 point player instead of the 65-80 point guy that he has been than it was and still is to pay Panarin 11.6 for 4 more.

 

Entirely plausible. I still risk it. Because I think, like the Flames, the Rangers have the talent up front to keep his production high. It's the difference in the playoffs I'm most interested in.

[Albatrosss]

Tkachuk is much more than just a point producer.

[Capt]

Just now, Phil said:

 

Nope. Bridge too far for me. But I'd make that trade ten times out of ten, no hesitation.

I get it.  My opinion is his contact is. problem for what he provides & the opportunity cost of keeping him.  I don't see why it's so controversial to keep this opinion or how I'm being willfully ignorant.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Capt said:

I get it.  My opinion is his contact is. problem for what he provides & the opportunity cost of keeping him.  I don't see why it's so controversial to keep this opinion or how I'm being willfully ignorant.

 

It's not "controversial." You just aren't going to get many to agree with you that it's a detriment. It's too strong a term for a player who's scored 249 points in 186 games as a Ranger.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, CCCP said:

Tkachuk is much more than just a point producer.

 

Ultimate "drag you into the fight" player. Exactly what they need in the playoffs.

[LindG1000]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Entirely plausible. I still risk it. Because I think, like the Flames, the Rangers have the talent up front to keep his production high. It's the difference in the playoffs I'm most interested in.

 

Sure. His play style certainly lends itself to some benefit for this team too, but it's still the case that if you're paying a guy over 9M or so, you need top-tier production from him. That's gotta be P/G+ for any wing, and that's definitely a concern when he's had more seasons where he's been more of a Ryan Strome level producer than an Artemi Panarin level producer. None of this is to say he's a shit player or a poor leader or not the sort of guy we could have used; It's simply a statement on the salary cap and the level of risk the Tkachuk contract came with.

 

[Albatrosss]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Sure. His play style certainly lends itself to some benefit for this team too, but it's still the case that if you're paying a guy over 9M or so, you need top-tier production from him. That's gotta be P/G+ for any wing, and that's definitely a concern when he's had more seasons where he's been more of a Ryan Strome level producer than an Artemi Panarin level producer

 

But he’s young. You don’t expect anyone to come into the NHL and instantly become a PPG player 

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Capt said:

100%.  Couldn't happen unless P@nri@n went to the Flames.  Detriment to the team, exactly my point.

 

Detriment just isn't the right word man. If you have $100 to spend on a new outfit and you go to the Gap with Pete and his friends and spend $60 on a sweater vest button up combo, yeah you might only have $40 for a pair of jeans and boat shoes, but you still have a pretty sick combo up top that's worth $60.

[Capt]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

 

If he didn't have a down season, what the heck are you complaining about? Over a PPG player and you feel the need to think they or he can do better?

 

Better spent on what? He's the top point producer at his position. He had ONE poor playoffs (has had better in the past, this isn't Rick Nash) and still put up points. 

 

96 points may as well be 100 man. Come off it. The fucking guy is really good and atop point producers for his position consistently. 

 

Your gripe is overblown. Besides the flat cap  screwing up everything,  you COULD chalk it up to a bad team having to pay more for a legit superstar (even though he reportedly took less to come here). The guy is one of the best in the game. You can't deny that. The stats show it. 

 

I honestly think Panarin is going to have an MVP, Art Ross, Conn Smythe type season next year. Fuckin guy is great. Back off a bit man. Realize how much he means to this team. 

 

Would I rather Tkachuk? Fuck yes. But, as usual the Rangers weren't in a position to aquire such a player.  Too many variables that go past Panarins contract. 

 

Let it go. Embrace the FACT that the Rangers have one of the most elite LWs in the entire world. 

Better spent on. more complete player.  I don't view points s the end of it.  He's perimeter player who hs. questionable compete level.  He's skilled s fuck, no doubt.  However if I'm paying top 3 money it better be  perfect player.  He is not even close.  The guys he's $ like, re centers, which is so much more important.  They also put up  lot more gols nd I don't have to mess with the numbers to get to 100 pt yrs.  

 

The playoffs while some my think I'm overblowing made it crystal clear the he's very flawed player.   Skilled nd productive during the regular season but also easily confined to the point of being irrelevant when the teams get used to each other.   Tht is not the case with his peers making his money. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

 

Detriment just isn't the right word man. If you have $100 to spend on a new outfit and you go to the Gap with Pete and his friends and spend $60 on a sweater vest button up combo, yeah you might only have $40 for a pair of jeans and boat shoes, but you still have a pretty sick combo up top that's worth $60.

 

[Capt]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

It's not "controversial." You just aren't going to get many to agree with you that it's a detriment. It's too strong a term for a player who's scored 249 points in 186 games as a Ranger.

I'm fine with that.  I don't need agreement.  Just not goofy, ignorant nd plying with crayons. Big difference.

[LindG1000]

5 minutes ago, Capt said:

I get it.  My opinion is his contact is. problem for what he provides & the opportunity cost of keeping him.  I don't see why it's so controversial to keep this opinion or how I'm being willfully ignorant.

 

It's a fair statement, but it really ignores that if not for COVID we'd have seen his contract surpassed multiple times in UFA/RFA negotiations at this point. It's a fuckton of "hindsight is 20/20" thinking to point to the number and the output - which are actually pretty well aligned for UFA contracts around the league - and then talk about how he's somehow a detriment.

 

You say he's a perimeter player, and while true, he might be the best perimeter player on the planet. He creates opportunities by commanding the respect of the defense in ways that others don't and can't. That has a ton of value and to me, he uses it really well most of the time. I think teams like the Carolinas and Tampas of the league - and there's like two others - do a really good job of taking his options away instead of playing him up, and that flustered him more than it should have.

[LindG1000]

4 minutes ago, CCCP said:

But he’s young. You don’t expect anyone to come into the NHL and instantly become a PPG player 

 

No, but to catapult from two straight seasons of around .7=.8 p/g to 1.25 p/g in the contract year certainly should raise some eyebrows. He's a damn good player, but now he's getting paid to be the latter.

 

Again - not taking anything away from the guy. I'd love him on my team. I just think we underestimate the risk of that contract.

[The Dude]

58 minutes ago, CCCP said:

I think Fox is little overpaid but i guess that’s today’s NHL. He basically had one awesome season and got paid for it. I think if he was getting $7 or 7.5 or something that looks remotely like a bridge deal, we’d be in a better shape. 

I'm with you. I generally don't agree with more than tripling a rookie contract on the 2nd deal. There's so many anomaly type seasons from offensive D men that jumping to the top of the league on a 2nd contract is just dangerous.

 

For as much shit as Panarin has gotten,  I feel Fox should get just as much.  

[Capt]

2 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

It's a fair statement, but it really ignores that if not for COVID we'd have seen his contract surpassed multiple times in UFA/RFA negotiations at this point. It's a fuckton of "hindsight is 20/20" thinking to point to the number and the output - which are actually pretty well aligned for UFA contracts around the league - and then talk about how he's somehow a detriment.

 

You say he's a perimeter player, and while true, he might be the best perimeter player on the planet. He creates opportunities by commanding the respect of the defense in ways that others don't and can't. That has a ton of value and to me, he uses it really well most of the time. I think teams like the Carolinas and Tampas of the league - and there's like two others - do a really good job of taking his options away instead of playing him up, and that flustered him more than it should have.

I'm not arguing that his contract ws bd when they signed him.  Covid happened & while we cry bout it the league & the world moved on.  The league's standard for competition adjusted.  I'm very simply saying the team needs to explore their options in getting out from his contract nd building in other direction.  Doesn't infer that his contract ws awful  when signed, it's just hindering now.  Yes because the cp didn't go up.  Covid isn't going to be the excuse why I'm not locking up Miller & Lf long term.  Nobody cares bout Covid, move on.  The rest of the league will without you

[Albatrosss]

12 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

 

Detriment just isn't the right word man. If you have $100 to spend on a new outfit and you go to the Gap with Pete and his friends and spend $60 on a sweater vest button up combo, yeah you might only have $40 for a pair of jeans and boat shoes, but you still have a pretty sick combo up top that's worth $60.

[Albatrosss]

10 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

No, but to catapult from two straight seasons of around .7=.8 p/g to 1.25 p/g in the contract year certainly should raise some eyebrows. He's a damn good player, but now he's getting paid to be the latter.

 

Again - not taking anything away from the guy. I'd love him on my team. I just think we underestimate the risk of that contract.

No risk IMO. He’s Messier type

[The Dude]

54 minutes ago, Capt said:

Both.  I agree with others here he's overpaid by bout $2M. I further believe that his production my deem him $9.5M guy but I don't want him on my team even then.  I'd rather spend the money elsewhere.   He's too perimeter for me & his playoff performance to me is not some fluke but harbinger of things to come.  The Wilson incident shook him up.  Frankly over his tenure here tough teams that employ tight checking gives him fits. I'm not tying my hopes in him being the guy.  I'm moving on right now while my kids careers re in front of them.  Igor is in his prime, I'm not wasting it tying it to  guy who won't compete when things get tough.  Maybe I'm too caught up in the playoff performance.  However combine it with the Wilson thing & strungles with the Isles, Bruins, etc nd I'm moving on.  

 

I never implied that he's awful, ever.  I just don't think one dimensional wingers should be $ like he is.  I don't think it's. recipe to  cup.     

So, this whole thing really is just a "I don't like the player" thing  

 

Ok. Move along. You dragged this whole thing out and what we have all been saying about your opinion  (which you denied) was actually true. You just don't like the player. It's not his salary. It's not his production. It's you not liking his make up. I think you'd have gotten more backing than you think,  if you just came out and said this from the beginning. But you had to drag his cap hit and production into it. 

 

This was ridiculous man. All this to get here. 

[Pete]

42 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Exactly. That's why I think another shrinking violet performance is gonna be a death sentence. You can tolerate it while he gets you there in the regular season, but guys like that get paid the big bucks to perform when it matters most. I know he had like 14 points and that game-winner in the Pens series, but the characterizations of his play from most are accurate. Entirely predictable and small.

Good luck finding someone to just take $11M without getting a worse contract back.

 

This is all fiction. 

[The Dude]

29 minutes ago, CCCP said:

But he’s young. You don’t expect anyone to come into the NHL and instantly become a PPG player 

Unless their name is Kakko....

[Pete]

38 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I'm gonna duck for cover on this one because it won't be popular....

 

Tkachuk's 2021-22 season was a rather significant outlier in his NHL career and it's probably a far higher risk to pay him 9.5 a year for 8 years assuming that Matt Tkachuk is going to be a consistent 100 point player instead of the 65-80 point guy that he has been than it was and still is to pay Panarin 11.6 for 4 more.

 

 

Welcome to the Tkachuk trade thread. I've been there for days. 

[Scott]

27 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

 

Detriment just isn't the right word man. If you have $100 to spend on a new outfit and you go to the Gap with Pete and his friends and spend $60 on a sweater vest button up combo, yeah you might only have $40 for a pair of jeans and boat shoes, but you still have a pretty sick combo up top that's worth $60.