Ok so enough of the Q&A talk and the thread which basically turned into a why Columbus sucks thread.
We know it's not likely that he's going to re-sign in Columbus, we don't know the exact reason why other than "he doesn't know if he wants to sign for 8 years here"
This isn't a thread to discuss why he wants to be in city a over city b, it's to discuss his value and what your team would offer for him. Obviously his value is affected by him either being a rental or potentially re-signing with the team that trades for him.
In a perfect world something similar to the Nash deal would be our best case scenario.
Young(ish)top 6 winger or two experienced 2/3rd liners + A/B level prospect (depending on roster players) + 1st Rd pick + conditional picks for him re-signing.
Before you post, I urge you to read the following.
We know it's not likely that he's going to re-sign in Columbus, we don't know the exact reason why other than "he doesn't know if he wants to sign for 8 years here"
This isn't a thread to discuss why he wants to be in city a over city b, it's to discuss his value and what your team would offer for him. Obviously his value is affected by him either being a rental or potentially re-signing with the team that trades for him.
In a perfect world something similar to the Nash deal would be our best case scenario.
Young(ish)top 6 winger or two experienced 2/3rd liners + A/B level prospect (depending on roster players) + 1st Rd pick + conditional picks for him re-signing.
Before you post, I urge you to read the following.
By semipopular request, I now present the Artemi Panarin Trading FAQ.
Q1: What sort of return are you guys looking for?
A1: It's kind of variable; there's a lot of schools of thought among Jackets fans on this. Some of us want something more Okayish Roster based, and some want something more Very Shiny Future based; see below. There's one fundamental rule, tho - we really don't need defensemen (we're fine there), so forwards and picks only, please.
Q2: What kind of roster-focused return would you guys like?
A2: Probably the best we can realistically hope for is a "2-for-1" type deal, in which we essentially replace Panarin's contribution with "brute force" from two other players. In such a case, expect the two guys going to us to combined score more than Panarin did last year. (That's why it's called "brute force".) Forwards and minor picks only, please.
Q3: What kind of futures-based return are you guys looking at?
A3: High 1sts and/or forward prospects who might have the kind of upside that Panarin is showing now. Ideally that would come with something for the roster, but, again, opinions vary there. Forwards and picks only, please.
Q4: Is there some other variant on that that we can go for instead? I don't like giving up elite prospects/multiple roster forwards.
A4: Quite possibly. If we can do one really good roster forward and a pretty good future asset as the base, that can also be acceptable. It really depends heavily on the sorts of assets involved. Forwards and picks only, please.
Q5: Can we do something based around a defenseman?
A5: Nope. We're more than set on defense, so that doesn't actually bring value back to the team. And making up the difference would cost your team so much more that it's not going to be worth it to either of our teams. Stick to forwards and picks only, please.
Q6: What kinds of roster forwards are you looking for?
A6: Top-6. Specifically, guys who would be at home on the first or second lines - because we're losing an elite first-liner here. Ideally, they'd also be around the same age as Panarin (mid-20s). Middle-6 (at home on the second or third lines) is not going to be acceptable unless we're getting a REALLY good forward prospect back as part of the deal; we do not have someone who can move up to the first line. Coming to us with two middle-6 forwards and a late 1st, in particular, is going to get you torn apart like a deer amongst hungry wolves. The same goes for coming to us with defensemen in that package - forwards and picks only, please.
Q7: Will he sign with my team? / I can offer something like the above, but only if he signs here.
A7: Don't count on it. The whole reason he's potentially available is because he seems to really be interested in UFA freedom of choice. For all we know, he'll sign with Columbus after being traded (g-d, I hope so). If you want to insure your return against his possibly leaving, your best bet is conditionalized picks to go along with your forwards. We can accept that. Still, forwards and picks only, please.
Q8: Are you sure on that "no defense" thing? You could flip them for what you REALLY need...
A8: Again, this is a bad value proposition for both teams. Flipping a guy afterward just puts us in a situation where GMs know they have a second opportunity to rip us off. So while you can have blueliners involved in a three-way, the return to the Jackets should consist strictly of forwards and picks only, please.
Q9: What are your team needs? Maybe we can handle those directly...
A9: We need a game-breaking scoring forward. Like, y'know, Panarin. If you wish to do a straight-up trade like that, we'll be happy to listen. But otherwise, forwards and picks only, please.
Q10: What if we pick up one of your existing defensemen as part of the deal?
A10: It could work, but that's going to be seriously tricky to pull off well. We're really not interested in lateral moves, so frankly it'll only work as a minor value gap covering thing. Fundamentally, if you're going to trade for Panarin, the package is going to have to be centered around forwards and possibly also some picks.
Q11: You're not going to get anything like that return, you know; he wants out.
A11: That's already been accounted for in the above. The actual acceptable return would be, as noted in response #8 above, a replacement game-breaking scoring forward. The circumstances, alas, are such that this is unlikely. If you're willing to offer such, that's awesome, but we're not banking on it. Trying to haggle things down even further is just being greedy. All we need is the right combo of forwards and picks - those only, please.
Q12: Seriously, our blueliner is so awesome; why won't you take him in return? You need to get something!
A12: We don't want to damage the team any more than it's already going to be damaged. Forwards and picks only, please.
Bonus Q: You realize, of course, that this gimmick of yours means that inevitably someone's going to reply with a sarcastic defense-only offer, right?
Bonus A: Yes, but you can't win if you don't try.
Hope this helps!
Last edited:
