Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building - Locked in until July

[HandshakeLine]

Or a #1 that's more consistent in his own zone. The knock on Letang has never been that he's not decent offensively (even if he can be frustrating on the PP), it's that he's so used to using his physical gifts to cover his mistakes that he can be a liability when he's on his worst. If you get a line on someone who's not as gifted offensively, but better defensively, do you pull the trigger? That's the real hypothetical, IMO.

 

[Peat]

Or a #1 that's more consistent in his own zone. The knock on Letang has never been that he's not decent offensively (even if he can be frustrating on the PP), it's that he's so used to using his physical gifts to cover his mistakes that he can be a liability when he's on his worst. If you get a line on someone who's not as gifted offensively, but better defensively, do you pull the trigger? That's the real hypothetical, IMO.

I'd say I covered that under whether he's the Letang we need. A better way of wording it might be whether he's the right handed first pairing dman we need. Or whether we mightn't get better play with a different right handed first pairing dman.

But moving on from him to a better fit and just moving on from him for space/depth are two very different propositions.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I'd say I covered that under whether he's the Letang we need. A better way of wording it might be whether he's the right handed first pairing dman we need. Or whether we mightn't get better play with a different right handed first pairing dman.

But moving on from him to a better fit and just moving on from him for space/depth are two very different propositions.

Oh sure. 100% agreement there.

There's really very few players on this team who maybe should be moved for cap reasons, and by which, I think only Sheary and Hunwick really qualify. But I think we're getting blinkered into looking at the Letang situation as a zero sum either/or proposition and it shouldn't be seen as that. That was more my point.

For me, Letang's expendability revolves around 2 things IMO -- what's available on the UFA market and what he could bring back as a return. If neither of those things line up this year, then you keep Letang, but start looking ahead for a possible solution (via trade or draft) long term. You don't want to keep punting the can down the road until the wheels completely fall off Letang, but at the same time, you don't want to move Letang for just picks and prospects unless you have someone already lined up to take his place. And nobody on our current blueline or prospect pool qualifies for the later.

 

[Peat]

Oh sure. 100% agreement there.

There's really very few players on this team who maybe should be moved for cap reasons, and by which, I think only Sheary and Hunwick really qualify. But I think we're getting blinkered into looking at the Letang situation as a zero sum either/or proposition and it shouldn't be seen as that. That was more my point.

For me, Letang's expendability revolves around 2 things IMO -- what's available on the UFA market and what he could bring back as a return. If neither of those things line up this year, then you keep Letang, but start looking ahead for a possible solution (via trade or draft) long term. You don't want to keep punting the can down the road until the wheels completely fall off Letang, but at the same time, you don't want to move Letang for just picks and prospects unless you have someone already lined up to take his place. And nobody on our current blueline or prospect pool qualifies for the later.

We probably are to some extent - I think we do so on every trade to some extent - but I think all Letang trade discussions start with a zero sum question on whether he's close enough to his old self to render trade talk pointless this Summer. I think pretty much everyone agrees he's not, but that's where it starts.

And it then proceeds to whether he's contributing enough that we should be picky about moving him, or whether he's became so much of a liability that he's addition by subtraction. Or somewhere in between - that bit isn't zero sum.

What's available should be less important than what he contributes.

I'm also more interested in potential trade targets shaking free than the UFA market, at least this year. Green or Carlsson doesn't sound like a good idea to me as Letang replacements.

 

[RizzleMcRib]

Yeah it's a crazy thing to use a rookie and let him learn what he needs to at the NHL level and give him more than 8 games to do it. It's quite fascinating.

They are. A few actually. ZAR and Simon. Sprong came up and wasn't good enough to stick, and honestly at this point he doesn't add anything that is going to make this a better team. People need to realize the NHL isn't a development league. Maybe if we were rebuilding we could be a bit more patient, but we aren't. We are going for (and have a pretty decent shot at) a 3-peat.

 

[AverageJoeFan]

You have to wonder what team(s) would look at Letang this summer? I think there are a number of teams that would be interested, but I am thinking it would take the Pens eating some of his $ and I just do not see that happening.

I see 4 scenarios(shocked rating, lol):
1) He stays with the Pens until the end of his contract. Most likely I think Not shocked
2) He becomes worse, but won't retire and the Pens at some point in the future exercise a compliance buyout. Very little shocked
3) He retires because of health reasons. Pretty shocked
4) Pens find another franchise with$$ to spare and ship him out to retool their D. Really shocked

I am in full agreement with @Peat in that I do not want Green or EK as replacements. More of the same ole crappola.

 

[Peat]

You have to wonder what team(s) would look at Letang this summer? I think there are a number of teams that would be interested, but I am thinking it would take the Pens eating some of his $ and I just do not see that happening.

I see 4 scenarios(shocked rating, lol):
1) He stays with the Pens until the end of his contract. Most likely I think Not shocked
2) He becomes worse, but won't retire and the Pens at some point in the future exercise a compliance buyout. Very little shocked
3) He retires because of health reasons. Pretty shocked
4) Pens find another franchise with$$ to spare and ship him out to retool their D. Really shocked

I am in full agreement with @Peat in that I do not want Green or EK as replacements. More of the same ole crappola.

I was talking John Carlsson, not Erik Karlsson. If you actually mean you wouldn't want Erik Karlsson (if we could somehow get him), colour me shocked...

 

[AverageJoeFan]

I was talking John Carlsson, not Erik Karlsson. If you actually mean you wouldn't want Erik Karlsson (if we could somehow get him), colour me shocked...

Oh my bad. Isn't EK more of the same tho? Health issues, turnovers, minus 1000000, etc...

 

[RizzleMcRib]

Another comparison to Sprong worth considering is DeBrincat. Both are '97 born RWers drafted in the 2nd round, and they produced at nearly identical rates (goals and points per game, regular season and playoffs) in junior last year.

DeBrincat's doing pretty well for himself in Chicago.

The only thing they have in common is age and draft position. DeBrincat has shown he can score at the NHL level (over 15 shooting %). Sprong is more on par with a player like Yakupov. Yes I get that Yak was a number 1 pick, but both were touted as snipers, but both have below average shooting % in the NHL. I'm not calling Sprong a bust, but it's waaaaaaay to early to compare him to a player that is succeeding at the NHL level.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

The only thing they have in common is age and draft position. DeBrincat has shown he can score at the NHL level (over 15 shooting %). Sprong is more on par with a player like Yakupov. Yes I get that Yak was a number 1 pick, but both were touted as snipers, but both have below average shooting % in the NHL. I'm not calling Sprong a bust, but it's waaaaaaay to early to compare him to a player than is succeeding at the NHL level.

No. As I wrote in the post you just quoted, they also had virtually identical P/G and G/G numbers in junior in both the regular season and playoffs last year, and they are both RH shot RWs.

Same age.
Same draft pedigree.
Same junior production.
Same position.

Their production over their first 8 NHL games this year are virtually identical too. DeBrincat had 4 points in 8 games, Sprong has 3.

None of that means Sprong would score like DeBrincat if given the same opportunity over the course of a season, but it suggests it's possible. Last year, some balked when it was suggested that Guentzel could have a Panarin-like impact on our team if given the chance...and then Guentzel went out and had a bigger impact than Panarin has ever had in the playoffs.

 

[RizzleMcRib]

No. As I wrote in the post you just quoted, they also had virtually identical P/G and G/G numbers in junior in both the regular season and playoffs last year, and they are both RH shot RWs.

Same age.
Same draft pedigree.
Same production.
Same position.

Their production over their first 8 NHL games this year are virtually identical too. DeBrincat had 4 in 8, Sprong had 3.

Who cares what they did in Juniors. We are talking about a player succeeding in the NHL. Sprong through 26 games has 5 points and a below average shooting %. Sprong has averaged .19 PPG when in the NHL. Yak .20 PPG. DeBrincat over .6%.
Oh in Juniors... Sprong was -22. DeBrincat +137.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

WHO CARES ABOUT WHAT THEY DID IN JUNIORS!!!!

Anyone who cares about similarities when making a comparison between two players takes their most recent full seasons into account.

We are talking about a player succeeding in the NHL. Sprong through 26 games has 5 points and a below average shooting %. Sprong has averaged .19 PPG when in the NHL. Yak .20 PPG.

Sprong was 18 when he played 18 of those games. DeBrincat was not.

 

[Peat]

WHO CARES ABOUT WHAT THEY DID IN JUNIORS!!!! We are talking about a player succeeding in the NHL. Sprong through 26 games has 5 points and a below average shooting %. Sprong has averaged .19 PPG when in the NHL. Yak .20 PPG.

The guy whose post you quoted?

Using junior numbers to project potential impact in the NHL is hardly unusual. His NHL sample is sufficiently small that preferring it as the definitive guide to Sprong doesn't make sense, particularly when some of it was as a clearly unready 18 year old. It seems a fair comparison to make, particularly when DeBrincat didn't exactly blow up the league in his first 8 games either.

 

[Gurglesons]

No. As I wrote in the post you just quoted, they also had virtually identical P/G and G/G numbers in junior in both the regular season and playoffs last year, and they are both RH shot RWs.

Same age.
Same draft pedigree.
Same junior production.
Same position.

Their production over their first 8 NHL games this year are virtually identical too. DeBrincat had 4 points in 8 games, Sprong has 3.

None of that means Sprong would score like DeBrincat if given the same opportunity over the course of a season, but it suggests it's possible. Last year, some balked when it was suggested that Guentzel could have a Panarin-like impact on our team if given the chance...and then Guentzel went out and had a bigger impact than Panarin has ever had in the playoffs.

But, like Jake produced when he was up here and completely dominated the AHL.

Sprong isn’t doing that while having a solid AHL season.

I think part of the struggle with Sprong is consistency which has been an issue with him since being drafted

 

[AverageJoeFan]

Anyone who cares about similarities when making a comparison between two players takes their most recent full seasons into account.



Sprong was 18 when he played 18 of those games. DeBrincat was not.

Why is it that some people refuse to look at a body of work? Honestly, I would love to see Sprong get a real chance. I just do not think it's going to be here. Hope I am wrong.

 

[RizzleMcRib]

Why is it that some people refuse to look at a body of work? Honestly, I would love to see Sprong get a real chance. I just do not think it's going to be here. Hope I am wrong.

He got his chance. He was outplayed by other callups. I don't know why that's so hard to see. When he was up Crosby had 14 points. You know how many of those points Sprong contributed to? 3. It's not like Sprong was making him better. In fact even with 14 points in those 8 games, Crosby was still a - player.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

But, like Jake produced when he was up here and completely dominated the AHL.

Sprong isn’t doing that while having a solid AHL season.

I think part of the struggle with Sprong is consistency which has been an issue with him since being drafted

Yeah, earlier I acknowledged that there are no exact comparisons, and Jake was better in both the AHL and NHL than Sprong. But similar doubts were raised here about Guentzel last year, and comparables like DeBrincat or Drouin a couple years ago didn't perform any better than Sprong in the AHL (Drouin), junior (DeBrincat) or in their initial forays into the NHL at the same age.

 

[Shady Machine]

LW is a big issue after Geuntzel.

And transition D is a BIGGER issue

 

[RizzleMcRib]

The guy whose post you quoted?

Using junior numbers to project potential impact in the NHL is hardly unusual. His NHL sample is sufficiently small that preferring it as the definitive guide to Sprong doesn't make sense, particularly when some of it was as a clearly unready 18 year old. It seems a fair comparison to make, particularly when DeBrincat didn't exactly blow up the league in his first 8 games either.

I guess it's also unfair to compare the 2 when one was playing with Crosby and the other with Patrick Sharp.

 

[Shady Machine]

He got his chance. He was outplayed by other callups. I don't know why that's so hard to see. When he was up Crosby had 14 points. You know how many of those points Sprong contributed to? 3. It's not like Sprong was making him better. In fact even with 14 points in those 8 games, Crosby was still a - player.

Lol 8 games is his only chance? Operating like that will ruin prospects.

 

[RizzleMcRib]

Lol 8 games is his only chance? Operating like that will ruin prospects.

Or put us in a position to win 3 Cups in 3 years. Out of all prospects that have come up this year, he had the most NHL experience. I don't know why it's so hard to realize he didn't play well enough to stay up. ZAR has outplayed him. Simon has outplayed him. That's why they are still here and Sprong is a healthy scratch in the AHL. It's as simple as that.

 

[pistolpete11]

That's where we disagree. If we were to lose Rowney to waivers, at what point do you think people would be pining for Rowney and his 5 points in 44 games and passable PK ability?

Never. The only one to ever come back from HFBoard whipping boy status was Paul Martin. That doesn't mean it's the right decision.

I just think the Rowney hate is way overboard. Yeah, he only has 5 points in 44 games this year, but he scored at a 21 point pace last year and this season he's getting 75% d-zone starts and played most of the season with Kuhn and Reaves. I don't think that's a situation that Jooris or Bleuger would succeed in either. The grass isn't always greener.

 

[Shady Machine]

Or put us in a position to win 3 Cups in 3 years. Out of all prospects that have come up this year, he had the most NHL experience. I don't know why it's so hard to realize he didn't play well enough to stay up. ZAR has outplayed him. Simon has outplayed him. That's why they are still here and Sprong is a healthy scratch in the AHL. It's as simple as that.

Both are injured...

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

He got his chance. He was outplayed by other callups. I don't know why that's so hard to see. When he was up Crosby had 14 points. You know how many of those points Sprong contributed to? 3. It's not like Sprong was making him better. In fact even with 14 points in those 8 games, Crosby was still a - player.

Yeah some chance he got.

 

[RizzleMcRib]

Both are injured...

Yes, but they are still on the Pens roster.