Panarin has nothing to do with the deal and isn't a guarantee and either is Kravtsov. You're "looking ahead of the curve" but you're under the mindset that everything will work out way you think it will, completely shoving aside the notion of possible failure of 1. The Rangers acquiring Panarin and 2. Kravtsov panning out to what you think he can become.
Not a reasonable criticism, based on percentages.
Sure, we have seen in recent years there is no change from the history of how high picks can disappoint. Even a top pick can bust.
However, Kravtsov on paper and more importantly as to the eye test, looks very, very, very good - like most of Kreider's raw physicality + touch and scoring ability. There are also musings on our board somewhere that he has played C, or something else to the effect he would make a great pivot due to his vision. While I hate that we passed up on some other jewels, I got no complaints here.
Yes, I am acknowledging that therefore what remains is chemistry, and you don't know that until you experiment. But there is no reason to be pessimistic. He would be likely our top line, perhaps top 6. Who's there after my deal above, and we ship Lias+ for a top D prospect? Kreider, Chytil, Hayes, probably Panarin. Add Kratsov, that's 5. The weak link is Nieves, assuming he is not replaced by Kratsov at pivot. I have said Nieves in a vacuum is not a 1C; I have insisted we be open minded to see if he has chemistry with Kreider and the ideal RW, which is a reasonable hunch, given N's size and speed, solid defensive work, and ability to take draws/match up. He might cut it, he might not. But it costs us nothing to try, and we have an obligation to be open minded and go there. Nieves however, is only 1 piece of that equation. Other 1C options exist if the Nieves experiment fails. Howden looks like a bonafide 3C on day 1, with zip NHL experience beyond these few games to date. He looks like a good alternate to center K[reider] and K[ratsov].
So as to the above, that is more than reasonable.
Not a given, but strong %age wise.
Panarin is a totally known commodity.
Again, chemistry is a reality.
But no reason to think he will be ineffective esp since the top 6 above have talent, ability and potential to excel as a group.
So you're willing to give up core pieces in one big deal where the Rangers lose HORRIBLY value wise to in essence, take a gigantic gamble on bunch of futures, when three of the four pieces being moved by the Rangers are well shy of 30 years old.
The premise here is that if there is SO much on the table, Nil can't say no. That is a necessary sacrifice if you want a blue chip this intense a degree of blue. And it is a coin flip for Dallas. Either they don't want to go all in, and want to parallel Sabes' Eichel and Dahlin with Seguin and Heiskanen, each a C and a D anchor. Or, they figure we have our franchise level guy in Seguin now and locked up, if I am getting enough overpay now, I can kill it with the rest of the lineup, and go for win now, letting Heisk go.
Sure Zib + Buch + Skjei are mid 20s. We are getting younger but that is not the key here.
What this is about, and what naysayers are ignoring, is that to win in today's NHL, you must have a difference maker. Doughty, Stamkos, Crosby [and to lesser extent, banged up Malkin], McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, EK, etc., and most recently Ovie obviously carrying the Caps by sheer force of will over a good and gritty VGK team. The last team to buck this trend was the pre McAvoy, pre emerging Pasta Bruins.
The Rangers do not have a guy at this level. Kreider can do most of it, but he unfortunately does not have the shot to finish. He needs a scorer, or someone else who can force defenders to pay enough attention that better percentage shots for everybody emerge.
Heiskanen could still fall on his face, but the eye test says no, he's already arrived. He WOULD be to us what Letang has been as a difference maker for Pens, perhaps only better.
That's not good asset management at all, Bernie. You're selling for pennies on the dollar. Zuccarello alone could get a first being dealt separately at the deadline.
The Rangers need to add more horses, on that I think we agree.
But continuation of what started last yr [moving McDonagh, etc], will get us there as we continue to swap experience and established value for youth and potential.
However, getting a 1st is NOT the same as getting a 3OA, and more importantly, a guy who so far, eye test, is can't miss.
More horses is not enough.
We a need a Triple Crown winner to augment them.
You don't dictate the terms of Heiskanen because that much talent doesn't normally become available. You either say you can or cannot afford the overpay, and decide accordingly. But if you can, you take the deal, even if it effs up --- to a correctable and manageable extent --- the rest of the roster; and you do that b'c a franchise player is necessary [not for a winning club but to go beyond to seek the cup], and availability is EXTREMELY rare.
Dallas won't do it because they value Heiskanen more than anyone in the organization, sans Seguin, Benn and Klingberg.
Like I've explained there is a fork for Nil to consider.
Does he keep Heiskanen to add to Seguin?
Or does he say this is too much to pass up, I immediately become Cup favorite, I only need to keep an eye out for a little better D or G to get
even stronger?
From the Rangers perspective, this would be a fireable offense for Gorton.
If they retained the core depth I indicated above and added Heiskanen, no it would not be.
Thanks for the share.
