Mercogliano Can the Rangers Win a Stanley Cup With Mika Zibanejad as Their Top Center?

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

It dismantles your whole lineup and cripples your thought process, but sure. 

 

Quote

Even if you assume they don’t, then ok. Take Geekie, you can fit him. Or take Carlo or Peeke for the 3rd pair and move Trouba. These are easy solutions. It doesn’t prevent the concept from being very realistic.

 

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

Those are significant downgrades from the lineup you posted.

[BrooksBurner]

38 minutes ago, Pete said:

Those are significant downgrades from the lineup you posted.

No. You take a Carlo back the forward lineup stays the same. Trouba out somewhere else half retained frees up the 4m and Carlo takes his spot in the lineup. Point being if Boston wants to send some salary back, even though that’d be stupid because they don’t have to, we have ways to absorb it.

Edited June 15 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

10 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

No. You take a Carlo back the forward lineup stays the same. Trouba out somewhere else half retained frees up the 4m and Carlo takes his spot in the lineup. Point being if Boston wants to send some salary back, even though that’d be stupid because they don’t have to, we have ways to absorb it.

When is the last time a player of Panarin's caliber was traded coming off the season he just had, for picks and prospects?

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

When is the last time a player of Panarin's caliber was traded coming off the season he just had, for picks and prospects?

I didn’t realize Geekie or Carlo were prospects.

 

No matter how many questions you ask, it doesn’t change there are teams out there who check all the boxes for a trade.

[Pete]

32 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I didn’t realize Geekie or Carlo were prospects.

 

No matter how many questions you ask, it doesn’t change there are teams out there who check all the boxes for a trade.

And no matter how many teams you think check boxes, this isn't EA NHL...Players like Panarin are rarely traded after MVP caliber seasons, rarely traded within conference, rarely traded for zero retention or contracts back, and the team trading them is rarely better for it.

 

Calgary traded the better player, they're not great now.

 

Florida might have traded their version of Panarin... But it's because Tkachuk fell in their lap, not because they had balls (and there's only one Matt Tkachuk, even Brady is a poor facsimile). Florida wasn't trading Hurberdeau for Geekie and Carlo. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

And no matter how many teams you think check boxes, this isn't EA NHL...Players like Panarin are rarely traded after MVP caliber seasons, rarely traded within conference, rarely traded for zero retention or contracts back, and the team trading them is rarely better for it.

 

Calgary traded the better player, they're not great now.

 

Florida might have traded their version of Panarin... But it's because Tkachuk fell in their lap, not because they had balls (and there's only one Matt Tkachuk, even Brady is a poor facsimile). Florida wasn't trading Hurberdeau for Geekie and Carlo. 

The goal post shifting is insane.
 

”No team good enough can take his cap!”

-yes there is, here’s how…-

”But there’s no way you dont have to take salary back or retain”

-i dont agree but even if so, here’s how the Rangers can make room for that

”Thats not the same forward lineup!”

- yes it is, here’s how

”But these guys are never traded, except that one franchise player fresh off a 115 pt performance for a Presidents Trophy team two years ago!”

-eye roll-

 

And my personal favorite:

 

“Nobody trades a player off an MVP caliber season, and you’d have to retain for anyone to take him!”

 

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 canThe goal post shifting is insane.
 

”No team good enough can take his cap!”

-yes there is, here’s how…-

”But there’s no way you dont have to take salary back or retain”

-i dont agree but even if so, here’s how the Rangers can make room for that

”Thats not the same forward lineup!”

- yes it is, here’s how

”But these guys are never traded, except that one franchise player fresh off a 115 pt performance for a Presidents Trophy team two years ago!”

-eye roll-

 

And my personal favorite:

 

“Nobody trades a player off an MVP caliber season, and you’d have to retain for anyone to take him!”

 

I'm sure that's the experience you're having because you painted yourself into a corner with scenarios that aren't viable, which you'll now defend to the death rather than just admit it's a reach, at best.

 

My position hasn't changed, and it's really easy to rebut your points one by one.

• He's unlikely to waive, no matter how hard you wish for it.
• If he waives, you've yet to answer these questions...
  • When was the last time a player was traded after an MVP caliber season with no money coming back or no retention?
  • When was the last time a player like Panarin was traded in conference? (Let's pin for now the point that there's zero Russian community in Boston, so hard to see him waiving there)
• When is the last time the team trading the best player got better?

So when you're done answering all that, you can address that your original lineup had JAM and Bertuzzi because we were "freeing up $11.5" but when I said they'd have to take a contract back you countered with Geekie...And I said that wasn't as strong a lineup...and it's not, soooo....

 

Let's also address that you're suggesting Boston use hal their available cap on Panarin and barring that sending Geekie back when they are looking to add centers, not move them.

 

And yes, regardless of if you're MVP caliber or not, barely any teams FOR WHICH HE WOULD WAIVE can take on $11.5 while not giving anything back.

 

You can use all the emojis you want, but these are just fantasy hockey ideas. You're upset because @RJWantsTheCup asked for realistic ideas, not "possible" ideas that work on a spreadsheet but not in real life, and the idea you have is easily pushed back on with realism.

 

So to recap, you think the Rangers should trade their best offensive player to a conference rival for zero retention and take zero contracts back so that they can go and sign JAM and Bertuzzi (assuming both would even want to come to NYC, especially super conservative Bertuzzi) and assuming neither drop off, even though JAM is 33 and you're always talking about players getting worse at 30 and it took Bertuzzi 2/3 of the year to figure it out in Toronto, and then you're in another thread talkin about how hope isn't a strategy?

 

Come on.

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm sure that's the experience you're having because you painted yourself into a corner with scenarios that aren't viable, which you'll now defend to the death rather than just admit it's a reach, at best.

 

My position hasn't changed, and it's really easy to rebut your points one by one.

• He's unlikely to waive, no matter how hard you wish for it.
• If he waives, you've yet to answer these questions...
  • When was the last time a player was traded after an MVP caliber season with no money coming back or no retention?
  • When was the last time a player like Panarin was traded in conference? (Let's pin for now the point that there's zero Russian community in Boston, so hard to see him waiving there)
• When is the last time the team trading the best player got better?

So when you're done answering all that, you can address that your original lineup had JAM and Bertuzzi because we were "freeing up $11.5" but when I said they'd have to take a contract back you countered with Geekie...And I said that wasn't as strong a lineup...and it's not, soooo....

 

Let's also address that you're suggesting Boston use hal their available cap on Panarin and barring that sending Geekie back when they are looking to add centers, not move them.

 

And yes, regardless of if you're MVP caliber or not, barely any teams FOR WHICH HE WOULD WAIVE can take on $11.5 while not giving anything back.

 

You can use all the emojis you want, but these are just fantasy hockey ideas. You're upset because @RJWantsTheCup asked for realistic ideas, not "possible" ideas that work on a spreadsheet but not in real life, and the idea you have is easily pushed back on with realism.

 

So to recap, you think the Rangers should trade their best offensive player to a conference rival for zero retention and take zero contracts back so that they can go and sign JAM and Bertuzzi (assuming both would even want to come to NYC, especially super conservative Bertuzzi) and assuming neither drop off, even though JAM is 33 and you're always talking about players getting worse at 30 and it took Bertuzzi 2/3 of the year to figure it out in Toronto, and then you're in another thread talkin about how hope isn't a strategy?

 

Come on.

 

If you don’t think it’s realistic for Panarin to waive for anybody, then why are you even bothering to respond to any of it?

 

I think you’re just a bit flustered that there is a realistic and plausible example on the table where your fav gets traded.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

If you don’t think it’s realistic for Panarin to waive for anybody, then why are you even bothering to respond to any of it?

 

I think you’re just a bit flustered that there is a realistic and plausible example on the table where your fav gets traded.

It's possible, but it's not plausible or realistic.

 

If you can't debate like an adult then stop responding to me. 

Edited June 15 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

It's possible, but it's not plausible or realistic.

 

If you can't debate like an adult then stop responding to me. 

It doesn’t matter if you think it’s plausible or not. Drury said nothing was off the table. I believe it.
 

Nice pot shot.

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

It doesn’t matter if you think it’s plausible or not. Drury said nothing was off the table. I believe it.
 

Nice pot shot.

"Nothing is off the table" doesn't mean that Panarin wants to waive, that Boston wants him with no retention or that they want to trade Geekie, or Carlo.

 

It wasn't a pot shot, it was a request. You want to have an adult conversation, have one without insults. You can't bitch about pot shots when you throw way fucking more than are thrown at you.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

"Nothing is off the table" doesn't mean that Panarin wants to waive, that Boston wants him with no retention or that they want to trade Geekie, or Carlo.

 

It wasn't a pot shot, it was a request. You want to have an adult conversation, have one without insults. You can't bitch about pot shots when you throw way fucking more than are thrown at you.

No it doesn’t. But it’s logical and plausible.

 

I’m sorry if you consider strong counterpoints to your points some kind of non-adult debate. That’s on you. No need to make it personal.

[Sod16]

Give me an example of a player coming off a great season, with a good team, with no particular tensions between himself and management, with good relations with his teammates, in a city he specifically chose to play in, waiving a NMC to get traded?   

[Albatrosss]

15 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

Give me an example of a player coming off a great season, with a good team, with no particular tensions between himself and management, with good relations with his teammates, in a city he specifically chose to play in, waiving a NMC to get traded?   

There’s no precedent until there is one. Just sayin’

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

No it doesn’t. But it’s logical and plausible.

 

I’m sorry if you consider strong counterpoints to your points some kind of non-adult debate. That’s on you. No need to make it personal.

Responding with laughing emojis or "Oh no they're gonna trade your fave" isn't an adult debate nor is it a strong counterpoint, and asking you to stop isn't personal.

 

What you're suggesting is logical. But not plausible. It's not reasonable or believable that this could happen. Panarin came to NYC and left money on the table from CBJ and COL because he wanted to be in a large Russian community so it came down to LI and NYR and NYR won. To think he'd waive to go to Boston where there is zero community is probably a reach. It's also literally the only team you've suggested, if only to point "Hey! Look, that's possible, so I win!"

 

Taking a step back, this has become an exercise in "move Panarin at all costs" rather than "how do we make this team better", rather than just riding out Panarin's deal, which is infinitely more logical, realistic, plausibe, and whatever other adjective we want to use.

 

I'd rather ride Panarin out than sign 34 year old JAM for 5 years, or Bertuzzi to a retirement contract. I've seen far too many UFAs come here at 30 and fail to think that's a good idea, especially an ultra conservative living in NYC.

Edited June 15 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Responding with laughing emojis or "Oh no they're gonna trade your fave" isn't an adult debate nor is it a strong counterpoint, and asking you to stop isn't personal.

 

What you're suggesting is logical. But not plausible. It's not reasonable or believable that this could happen. Panarin came to NYC and left money on the table from CBJ and COL because he wanted to be in a large Russian community so it came down to LI and NYR and NYR won. To think he'd waive to go to Boston where there is zero community is probably a reach.

 

Taking a step back, this has become an exercise in "move Panarin at all costs" rather than "how do we make this team better", rather than just riding out Panarin's deal, which is infinitely more logical, realistic, plausibe, and whatever other adjective we want to use.

Just to correct you a little: Boston has a thriving Russian community, and I dont think its a fact that Panarin wanted to be in NY because of the russian community.  Piles offered him more money and he declined because he wanted to play for the rangers. Plus i think he lives in Connecticut, pretty far from Brighton Beach. So we can rest the whole Russian thing to rest. 
Not disputing anything else you posted. 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Albatrosss said:

Just to correct you a little: Boston has a thriving Russian community, and I dont think its a fact that Panarin wanted to be in NY because of the russian community.  Piles offered him more money and he declined because he wanted to play for the rangers. Plus i think he lives in Connecticut, pretty far from Brighton Beach. So we can rest the whole Russian thing to rest. 
Not disputing anything else you posted. 

I have a Russian buddy who said the Russian community is tiny and nothing compared to NY, so I was going off that. It's also a fact that he wanted to be around larger Russian community and picking between the Islander and Rangers is an easy decision. Lots of Rangers loved Brighton Beach but none of them lived there.

 

That said, were he to waive for Boston, I still don't see the Rangers trading him there.

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

Responding with laughing emojis or "Oh no they're gonna trade your fave" isn't an adult debate nor is it a strong counterpoint, and asking you to stop isn't personal.

 

What you're suggesting is logical. But not plausible. It's not reasonable or believable that this could happen. Panarin came to NYC and left money on the table from CBJ and COL because he wanted to be in a large Russian community so it came down to LI and NYR and NYR won. To think he'd waive to go to Boston where there is zero community is probably a reach. It's also literally the only team you've suggested, if only to point "Hey! Look, that's possible, so I win!"

 

Taking a step back, this has become an exercise in "move Panarin at all costs" rather than "how do we make this team better", rather than just riding out Panarin's deal, which is infinitely more logical, realistic, plausibe, and whatever other adjective we want to use.

 

I'd rather ride Panarin out than sign 34 year old JAM for 5 years, or Bertuzzi to a retirement contract. I've seen far too many UFAs come here at 30 and fail to think that's a good idea, especially an ultra conservative living in NYC.

 

 

Again, as I’ve said, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve countered your opinion with reasonable answers, and now you are adding expertise in Russian communities and strawmen positions about contract lengths that I said nothing about. That tells me you feel the need to try to come up with other points because of the plausibilty of my solution. You can always keep falling back to an unprovable position that Panarin won’t waive. That’s your prerogative.

 

Regardless, someone else asked for a realistic scenario where they could potentially trade a piece of the core. I gave one. You don’t have to personally like it.

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

Again, as I’ve said, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve countered your opinion with reasonable answers, and now you are adding expertise in Russian communities and strawmen positions about contract lengths that I said nothing about. That tells me you feel the need to try to come up with other points because of the plausibilty of my solution. You can always keep falling back to an unprovable position that Panarin won’t waive. That’s your prerogative.

 

Regardless, someone else asked for a realistic scenario where they could potentially trade a piece of the core. I gave one. You don’t have to personally like it.

I'm giving you reasons why Panarin wouldn't waive and and it's a fairly reasonable assumption Bertuzzi is going to want term. Maybe JAM won't, but he's going to be 34 and leaving a team and city he loves so pardon me if I don't expect he'll produce at exactly the same rate moving forward.

 

I'm talking about what's realistic and you're still talking about what's possible. Not a matter of what I like, it's a matter of what I think is believable, and none of this is. 

 

Edited June 15 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

42 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm giving you reasons why Panarin wouldn't waive and and it's a fairly reasonable assumption Bertuzzi is going to want term. Maybe JAM won't, but he's going to be 34 and leaving a team and city he loves so pardon me if I don't expect he'll produce at exactly the same rate moving forward.

 

I'm talking about what's realistic and you're still talking about what's possible. Not a matter of what I like, it's a matter of what I think is believable, and none of this is. 

 

I don’t agree that your reasons are insurmountable. I also don’t care about names like Marchessault specifically. There’s quite a few options in the market who can accomplish the desired result. Remove small playoff players and start changing the look. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Edited June 15 by BrooksBurner

[RichieNextel305]

32 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don’t agree that your reasons are insurmountable. I also don’t care about names like Marchessault specifically. There’s quite a few options in the market who can accomplish the desired result. Remove small playoff players and start changing the look. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, no. But in order to even begin building Rome, you need to get to the playoffs. Believe me, I’ve been on the train of thought where dealing a core member may be the play. And I have in the past wanted to banish Panarin to Bangladesh myself. But if you remove him from the equation, and you’re taking back lesser players, are we really better? Or are we taking 3 steps back and 2 steps forward?

 

All of that aside, I have not seen one scenario posted where dealing Panarin, from the Rangers POV, makes sense both cap wise and team wise. If, and this is a huge if, this ever were to happen, it likely is a 1-for-1 where you get back a player of similar value with different styles. And I can’t even begin to imagine who that ever may be, both because it’s a guess and because it’s incredibly unlikely. It’s not like Panarin needs a “change of scenery” because he just had a 49 goal, 120 point season.

 

We need more North-South. And we need to get to the middle more. Panarin may not be that player, but you don’t need 12 forwards who play the exact same style of hockey in order to win.

Edited June 15 by RichieNextel305

[BrooksBurner]

21 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

Rome wasn’t built in a day, no. But in order to even begin building Rome, you need to get to the playoffs. Believe me, I’ve been on the train of thought where dealing a core member may be the play. And I have in the past wanted to banish Panarin to Bangladesh myself. But if you remove him from the equation, and you’re taking back lesser players, are we really better? Or are we taking 3 steps back and 2 steps forward?

 

All of that aside, I have not seen one scenario posted where dealing Panarin, from the Rangers POV, makes sense both cap wise and team wise. If, and this is a huge if, this ever were to happen, it likely is a 1-for-1 where you get back a player of similar value with different styles. And I can’t even begin to imagine who that ever may be, both because it’s a guess and because it’s incredibly unlikely. It’s not like Panarin needs a “change of scenery” because he just had a 49 goal, 120 point season.

 

We need more North-South. And we need to get to the middle more. Panarin may not be that player, but you don’t need 12 forwards who play the exact same style of hockey in order to win.

I’ve said the same as this so I agree, but used in this context I think it is hyperbole. I don’t think trading one player is some kind of overcorrection. It’s one player and the Rangers would not be devoid of talent.

 

I’ve seen your posts banishing players in the moment lol. I don’t hold you to it. Lots of emotions during games and right after them. That’s not where I’m coming from. I’ve talked about it for a year based on what I’ve seen and what the analytics tell me, and I’ve been consistent.

 

Trading Panarin is not even my preferred approach, but to me it beats the hell out of running it back. I know how that ends. I really don’t care about throwing the kitchen sink at this core to try and prop them up. There’s too many losing players who don’t play the right way in the playoffs. I’d rather do a minor teardown and shift to becoming younger and faster. Let Laviolette mold them. That’s an avenue of promise.

Edited June 15 by BrooksBurner

[RJWantsTheCup]

Only way I can see Panarin being traded is if he’s part of a trade with Edmonton for Draisaitl or if he’s traded straight up for Marner.  I wouldn’t want Marner.  When Edmonton loses to Florida they might be looking to make a move and I think they are going to do whatever it takes to keep McDavid.  

[Rangers1994]

Maybe it pays to sign Reinhart or Stamkos be be 1C and move Mika to RW.