The Hard Truth About What a Rangers Panarin Trade Would Really Look Like

The idea of an Artemi Panarin trade will always spark debate in New York, but the reality of what such a move would look like is far more complicated — and far less lucrative — than fans might expect. The pending UFA has popped up in trade speculation, and the idea that the Rangers could simply move Panarin at the deadline isn’t as easy as it sounds.

---

In a recent Athletic mailbag, Vincent Z. Mercogliano laid out the key obstacle standing in the way of any Panarin deal: control. With a full no-movement clause, Panarin holds all the leverage. If the Rangers ever decided to explore a trade, he would have to approve not just the concept, but the destination — and there’s no guarantee he would approve any team at all.

That alone dramatically limits the Rangers’ options.

Unlike Vincent Trocheck, whose partial no-trade protection still allows flexibility, Panarin could simply say no and force New York into an uncomfortable position: keep him and risk losing a premier asset for nothing in free agency, or accept a lesser return from a short list of approved teams.

The closest recent comparison is Brad Marchand’s trade from Boston to Florida. Mercogliano writes:

“In Marchand’s case, the Bruins extracted a conditional second-round pick that turned into a first when the Panthers won two playoff rounds. Panarin is two years younger than Marchand was at the time and more productive, which leads me to believe he’ll command a better return. A first-round pick plus another mid-rounder or B-level prospect seems reasonable, but the Rangers already have two firsts in the upcoming draft. Their preference would be good, young players who can contribute sooner, but how many teams are willing to surrender those for a 34-year-old rental?”

A Panarin Trade Is Not About Maximizing the Return

The Rangers, should they try to move Panarin, would need to understand something: a Panarin trade wouldn’t kick off a rebuild or fund a blockbuster acquisition. There’s no way they’re getting enough in any trade to make a complete pivot.

It would be about asset management — mitigating risk, not maximizing return. And that reality may be what ultimately keeps Panarin in New York.

Next: The Canucks’ Hybrid Rebuild, and What It Really Means