Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
every time I see another person think we want any defensemen at all I die a little more inside
Value of: Artemi Panarin
- Thread starter CBJx614
- Start date
every time I see another person think we want any defensemen at all I die a little more inside
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,444
- 11,117
Don't think we're in the mix then. Our stuff is either too valuable or not valuable enough.
Beezeral
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2010
- 9,880
- 4,691
It's also Calgary. If Panarin doesn't want to commit to living in C-Bus, he's certainly not going to Calgary
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,444
- 11,117
Meh
Not really going to get into which city I think is better because I'm biased, but I agree, the guy looks like he'll only play on the coasts (LA/NY) and Chicago.
Right, I think that if you are looking at a non-rental return we are left here trying to guess what markets Panarin would re-sign in. And we are guessing and assuming he wants a bigger city with brighter lights.
I assume Calgary does not fit that description.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
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!
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!
CBJFan827
I hate you Brad Marchand
- Jul 19, 2006
- 1,646
- 325
Viqsi is off her game.
She's trying to unload Panarin ASAP to end the drama.
Fortunately Jarmo's job isn't to minimize emotional discomfort, and he'll wait for better.
There's also no reason at this point to think that a sign-and-trade is impossible. I'd bet there's about 5-10 teams Panarin would like to discuss an extension with. So we should expect a much bigger return than just for a rental.
2 for 1 is not helpful unless we get 2 serious upgrades -- the Jackets have scorers on all 4 lines, adding quantity doesn't provide much on the margin. It just moves Milano or Duclair to being a scratch. I would actually insist that only ONE current forward be coming back. The rest should be geared towards futures.
Erik Karlsson is acceptable. If you add that kind of scoring it doesn't matter what position the guy plays.
"Top - 6" includes everything from Connor McDavid to Mattias Janmark. It's not a helpful category here. The forward depth is strong, so they need real upgrades, that means a top-line quality player. I agree that if it's just a good second line type (like Toffoli), then we need an A prospect coming along too (like Vilardi).
She's trying to unload Panarin ASAP to end the drama.
Fortunately Jarmo's job isn't to minimize emotional discomfort, and he'll wait for better.
There's also no reason at this point to think that a sign-and-trade is impossible. I'd bet there's about 5-10 teams Panarin would like to discuss an extension with. So we should expect a much bigger return than just for a rental.
2 for 1 is not helpful unless we get 2 serious upgrades -- the Jackets have scorers on all 4 lines, adding quantity doesn't provide much on the margin. It just moves Milano or Duclair to being a scratch. I would actually insist that only ONE current forward be coming back. The rest should be geared towards futures.
Erik Karlsson is acceptable. If you add that kind of scoring it doesn't matter what position the guy plays.
"Top - 6" includes everything from Connor McDavid to Mattias Janmark. It's not a helpful category here. The forward depth is strong, so they need real upgrades, that means a top-line quality player. I agree that if it's just a good second line type (like Toffoli), then we need an A prospect coming along too (like Vilardi).
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
The fun thing is that when I wrote item #1 about "differing schools of thought", I was directly thinking of your focus on higher-value futures.
And no, I'm not trying to unload him quickly. What I want and would consider acceptable and what I think we can get and/or can actually discuss are very, very different.
I did forget to mention that, so you get a cookie.
See above re: differences of opinion.
He's one guy, and that's already been turned down by Ottawa. And we're out of exceptions in that regard. Easier and more straightforward to just say "no", because it's functionally true.
Um. You realize that I clarified that further, right? Mattias Janmark is middle-6.
@Viqsi THANK YOU for that post. God I wish every "proposal" OP had something like it.
I will quibble with your expectations on "if he agrees to sign".
I don't think current Panarin is more valuable than Lucic was when he was traded as a "no guarantee of re-sign" asset. Yes, Panarin is good for an extra 20 points, but Lucic had just as much value for all the reasons that people on here may disagree on and for the same reasons that the professionals disagree on. Especially when we are talking 2014 trends in the game.
If Panarin is getting moved in a "good luck re-signing him" situation, a first liner coming back is just out of the question entirely. I would expect a return similar in value to the Lucic deal. (13OA + Martin Jones (flipped for 1st) + Colin Miller (good but not great prospect)). Basically rental prices for a guy of that caliber.
On the flip side, if it CAN come with a "I will re-sign with you" (or at least the Turris "I intend to"), the return would really depend on how many suitors are viable fits both from Panarin's perspective and from a Cap perspective.
From a Boston perspective, I would go DeBrusk, Backes, Cehlarik, 1st if its the latter situation. For the former? Heinen, Backes, conditional 1st?
I will quibble with your expectations on "if he agrees to sign".
I don't think current Panarin is more valuable than Lucic was when he was traded as a "no guarantee of re-sign" asset. Yes, Panarin is good for an extra 20 points, but Lucic had just as much value for all the reasons that people on here may disagree on and for the same reasons that the professionals disagree on. Especially when we are talking 2014 trends in the game.
If Panarin is getting moved in a "good luck re-signing him" situation, a first liner coming back is just out of the question entirely. I would expect a return similar in value to the Lucic deal. (13OA + Martin Jones (flipped for 1st) + Colin Miller (good but not great prospect)). Basically rental prices for a guy of that caliber.
On the flip side, if it CAN come with a "I will re-sign with you" (or at least the Turris "I intend to"), the return would really depend on how many suitors are viable fits both from Panarin's perspective and from a Cap perspective.
From a Boston perspective, I would go DeBrusk, Backes, Cehlarik, 1st if its the latter situation. For the former? Heinen, Backes, conditional 1st?
Not even close. Panarin's value is understated by his boxcar stats (which are amazing by themselves). He's an incredible all around player. Top 1% in takeaways, successful zone exits, successful zone entries, high-danger passes, possession stats, etc...
People (who haven't watched enough) are treating him like a top tier complementary player, great for riding the bus. He is the bus.
predwings
Registered User
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
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!
Added to OP
It's because he played under Kane's shadow, so there's no possible way he's AS good as Kane.
Dumais
It's All In The Reflexes
- Jul 24, 2013
- 1,676
- 717
I don't want "brute force" ala Dubinsky and Anisimov for Nash. CBJ needs high end talented forwards. I would take high end prospects who are ready to play in the NHL (but haven't) over established players. Players who can develop with PLD, Wennberg, Werenski etc. core.
Only thing that sucks is Panarin has shut the window on Bob's chance at a cup.
EDIT: Maybe Jarmo is looking for a goalie prospect so he can trade Bob also.
Only thing that sucks is Panarin has shut the window on Bob's chance at a cup.
EDIT: Maybe Jarmo is looking for a goalie prospect so he can trade Bob also.
T_Cage
VP of Awesome
- Sep 26, 2006
- 5,483
- 856
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
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!
*comes in to offer Gardiner+ for Panarin to be a smart Alack*
*slinks away sheepishly instead*
Three from SJ:
Pavelski + Tierney + 2nd
60+ point forward + 40 point young roster player + 2nd
Labanc + Tierney + Norris + 1st
40+ point young roster player + 40 point young roster player + former first rounder + 1st
Meier + Labanc + 1st
40+ point former first rounder + 40+ point young roster player + 1st
Now Sharks fans probably want the first one, Columbus fans probably want the third one, so it looks like the middle on is the winner.
Pavelski + Tierney + 2nd
60+ point forward + 40 point young roster player + 2nd
Labanc + Tierney + Norris + 1st
40+ point young roster player + 40 point young roster player + former first rounder + 1st
Meier + Labanc + 1st
40+ point former first rounder + 40+ point young roster player + 1st
Now Sharks fans probably want the first one, Columbus fans probably want the third one, so it looks like the middle on is the winner.
CBJFan827
I hate you Brad Marchand
- Jul 19, 2006
- 1,646
- 325
I like Labanc and Tierney as pieces. However, with how our roster is currently constructed, I don't know that they make sense. We have a lot of middle six forwards in Foligno, Wennberg, Jenner, Bjorkstrand, Duclair, Anderson, Milano, Dubinsky (suspect) and not a lot of options for guys to effectively step up into more scoring. We could do worse than #2, but it's far from ideal for our needs.
I'm actually more intrigued by your first option than the 3rd, Kcoyote. That's closer to filling Panarin's role than others (and epitomizes the ". Has Pavelski shown any ability to play LW? I think both teams will want GMs to talk to agents for Pavelski/Panarin to see if they are open to resigning with their new teams. I wouldn't give him a max deal, but Pavelski probably has another 3-4 good years of production in him, at least.
I'm actually more intrigued by your first option than the 3rd, Kcoyote. That's closer to filling Panarin's role than others (and epitomizes the ". Has Pavelski shown any ability to play LW? I think both teams will want GMs to talk to agents for Pavelski/Panarin to see if they are open to resigning with their new teams. I wouldn't give him a max deal, but Pavelski probably has another 3-4 good years of production in him, at least.
wankstifier
All glory to the harvest god
- Jun 19, 2018
- 7,749
- 11,185
Pavelski hasn't played LW for the Sharks ever I don't believe, and if he did it was very short. Usually RW or C. Has Panarin ever played RW?
Ad
Latest posts
-
Prospect Info: [2022 - 33rd] Owen Beck (OHL - Saginaw Spirit)- Latest: Estimated_Prophet
-
-
