Media Bytes: Rationalizing the Panarin Return, Greentree, Trocheck, Miller's Comments
Was the Panarin return rushed, misunderstood, or simply the best the Rangers could do? Media Bytes breaks down the fallout, the Greentree debate, and what comes next.
Welcome back to Media Bytes, a weekly column from Blueshirt Banter. Every Sunday, we’ll help you start the week right with a quick catch-up on the latest stories and developments around the New York Rangers and the broader NHL media landscape.
The full version of Media Bytes is for Blueshirt Banter members only. To read the full thing and get it delivered to your inbox every Sunday, become a member at Blueshirt Banter today.
Rationalizing the Return
1. The inevitable Artemi Panarin trade finally happened Wednesday afternoon, squeaking in just before the 3 p.m. ET Olympic roster freeze—a self-imposed soft deadline the Rangers, by all accounts, were eager to meet. Panarin is gone, off to Los Angeles. Liam Greentree and a handful of conditional draft picks are in. And now the rationalizing begins.
Jonny Lazarus of Daily Faceoff was among the first to weigh in, posting a video response on X Wednesday night making it clear he didn't believe the Rangers came anywhere close to maximizing Panarin's value.
"Panarin just signed an extension for two years. Not three, not four, not five—and at less money than he's making right now," Lazarus said. "That’s not some outrageous, franchise-crippling contract." To Lazarus, the two-year, $22 million extension Panarin agreed to with the Kings as part of this trade is, by definition, team-friendly—the exact opposite of the season-long narrative that this entire situation existed because Panarin was chasing massive term and money.
"The reporting earlier this season completely shaped how fans—including me—felt about this," Lazarus continued. "It made it easier to move on emotionally. You're like, 'OK, you can't commit to that at Panarin's age.' But if this was the offer on the table from the Rangers—short term, lower AAV—this is a slam dunk. You sign him."
Exasperated, Lazarus questioned what changed between then and now, because to him, the logic simply doesn't add up. Especially when you factor in The Letter 2.0, issued earlier this year, which he likened to showing your hand in a poker game.
"Every GM in the league knows you're motivated," Lazarus said. "That kills your negotiating position. If you keep this quieter and don't telegraph a tear down or a shift, maybe you squeeze more out of the market."
In Lazarus' view, the Rangers not only rushed the deal unnecessarily, but in doing so failed to capitalize on the type of player who historically sets the market in trade talks. "At minimum, you're talking about a first-round pick or a blue-chip equivalent," he said. "Why not let deadline pressure build? Why not wait until contenders get desperate and start throwing first-round picks around like candy?"
It's entirely possible—plausible, even—that the Rangers were never going to get more, particularly given post-trade reporting that Panarin's camp effectively left them with only one viable partner. Still, it's hard not to agree with Lazarus' broader point: the Olympic "deadline" was self-imposed, and so was The Letter 2.0, which appears to have undercut their own leverage in these types of negotiations, undermining the very direction that the letter was supposed to signal in the first place.
