Salary Cap: 2016-17 Roster Building XXII | Only 75 shopping days left till the deadline

[Ogrezilla]

It was thinking about this and I was going to say that the Penguins wouldn't trade Maatta or Dumoulin. Then I thought about it for a second, if the Penguins got back a defenseman from Colorado (someone like Wiercioch or Zadorov), would they do it? Something like Maatta, Guentzel and another asset for Landeskog and Wiercioch/Zadorov. It's an interesting idea, put Landeskog with Crosby, have Cole-Schultz be the 2nd pair and have Wiercioch/Zadorov-Daley be the bottom pair.

I'd love Lando, but I don't think I'd do that. We are opening up a hole going forward on D, adding a forward we need to protect, and losing what should be an affordable long term wing in the process. Though I suppose with how bad Guentzel is defensively, maybe its best to cut ties while he still has some trade value left

 

[Asuna]

landeskog with crosby would be amazing. infinite cups would be ours

 

[UnrealMachine]

Please show your work. Were those goals his fault?

He has already been asked this question multiple times. 'No answer' is also an answer.

 

[Rufus]

It was thinking about this and I was going to say that the Penguins wouldn't trade Maatta or Dumoulin. Then I thought about it for a second, if the Penguins got back a defenseman from Colorado (someone like Wiercioch or Zadorov), would they do it? Something like Maatta, Guentzel and another asset for Landeskog and Wiercioch/Zadorov. It's an interesting idea, put Landeskog with Crosby, have Cole-Schultz be the 2nd pair and have Wiercioch/Zadorov-Daley be the bottom pair.

No way. Wiercioch is not an impressive defenseman by any stretch and a Zadorov/Landeskog package would cost more than that.

 

[Empoleon8771]

No way. Wiercioch is not an impressive defenseman by any stretch and a Zadorov/Landeskog package would cost more than that.

You sure about either of those? I'm not sure Landeskog would have more value than Guentzel and Maatta (Johansen a year ago was only traded for Jones, Hall was only traded for Larsson, ect). Zadorov probably wouldn't be a logical target since he's eligible for the expansion draft, but Wiercioch would be fine as a bottom pair defenseman.

 

[Beauner]

We don't need Lando more than we need Dumo or Maatta. I'm not okay with trading what little defensive depth we have left for another forward we have to protect

 

[Shady Machine]

I'd love Lando, but I don't think I'd do that. We are opening up a hole going forward on D, adding a forward we need to protect, and losing what should be an affordable long term wing in the process. Though I suppose with how bad Guentzel is defensively, maybe its best to cut ties while he still has some trade value left

If Pouliot was the player he was supposed to be this year then I'd do it, but we don't even know if he's an NHLer and they might lose Daley.

Top 4 d is just more important than top 6 winger given our organizational depth.

 

[Rufus]

You sure about either of those? I'm not sure Landeskog would have more value than Guentzel and Maatta (Johansen a year ago was only traded for Jones, Hall was only traded for Larsson, ect). Zadorov probably wouldn't be a logical target since he's eligible for the expansion draft, but Wiercioch would be fine as a bottom pair defenseman.

Johansen was on his way out of town because of Torts. Landy may not have a ton of value right now, but he is their captain and adding Zadorov to him, who I thought the Avs were really high on, would make the value more than Maatta+Guentzel+pick. Maybe I am wrong on Wiercioch. I just see that he was non-tendered by Ottawa in the off-season and that he's not setting the world on fire this year. I'm hesitant to make Cole-Schultz the full time second pairing too

 

[Ogrezilla]

If Pouliot was the player he was supposed to be this year then I'd do it, but we don't even know if he's an NHLer and they might lose Daley.

Top 4 d is just more important than top 6 winger given our organizational depth.

yeah, good call on DP.

 

[Ogrezilla]

You sure about either of those? I'm not sure Landeskog would have more value than Guentzel and Maatta (Johansen a year ago was only traded for Jones, Hall was only traded for Larsson, ect). Zadorov probably wouldn't be a logical target since he's eligible for the expansion draft, but Wiercioch would be fine as a bottom pair defenseman.

But Cole is also a guy who is fine as a bottom pair defenseman. I don't want our 3rd pairing becoming our 2nd pairing for the sake of a wing. Especially since we all know it would mean Wilson sits and Sheary is on the 4th line with Kunitz left untouched.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Colorado wants young D in a trade, we don't have a surplus in that position and trading from a weakness to strengthen a strength would be a horrible idea, so we're not getting either.

Then again I'm perfectly fine with that as I've always found Landeskog to be immensely overrated.

 

[JTG]

Colorado wants young D in a trade, we don't have a surplus in that position and trading from a weakness to strengthen a strength would be a horrible idea, so we're not getting either.

Then again I'm perfectly fine with that as I've always found Landeskog to be immensely overrated.

He is overrated. I do believe he can play up to his salary though and he brings it every night.

 

[JTG]

The more I stew the more I want to see Trouba here. We have to find a defenseman to have behind Letang for when he gets hurt.

I also do not believe Olli Maatta fits particularly well in Sullivan's system.

 

[Ogrezilla]

The more I stew the more I want to see Trouba here. We have to find a defenseman to have behind Letang for when he gets hurt.

I also do not believe Olli Maatta fits particularly well in Sullivan's system.

The more I see of Schultz, the less interest I have in looking for a 2nd pairing right D. He's the defenseman we've needed behind Letang for years. Actually, Daley was that guy last year too. We went 4-1-2 without Letang during this injury, but Daley was out for all of those losses too.

As for Maatta, he's getting better as the year goes on imo. And if we trade him, we need to replace him on the left side.

 

[Ugene Magic]

I'd love Lando, but I don't think I'd do that. We are opening up a hole going forward on D, adding a forward we need to protect, and losing what should be an affordable long term wing in the process. Though I suppose with how bad Guentzel is defensively, maybe its best to cut ties while he still has some trade value left

Don't trade Guentzel with Maatta and trade Sheary with him, problem solved.

The D side is fixed in his scenario as well.

As much as I think you guys are over pushing Guentzel being up now, I think he has more upside then, Sheary, but his stock right now is pretty high.

Landeskog would be blocking him anyways.

Obviously there would have to be more involved like a Pens 1st for their 2nd or who know's what? Wilson?

But that could be totally worked out, just that it is more in the fantasyland way of thinking the team would make that sort of trade.

I'd think they'd be more incline to do a one for one trade to not jumble up the lineup too much.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Don't trade Guentzel with Maatta and trade Sheary with him, problem solved.

The D side is fixed in his scenario as well.

As much as I think you guys are over pushing Guentzel being up now, I think he has more upside then, Sheary, but his stock right now is pretty high.

Landeskog would be blocking him anyways.

Obviously there would have to be more involved like a Pens 1st for their 2nd or who know's what? Wilson?

But that could be totally worked out, just that it is more in the fantasyland way of thinking the team would make that sort of trade.

I'd think they'd be more incline to do a one for one trade to not jumble up the lineup too much.

That's literally the same problem, except now you're trading the guy we KNOW can play at this level for an extended time in the NHL and through the playoffs

And no, the D gets worse in that scenario. We can't make our D worse. Why trade from a position of weakness (D) to improve a position of strength (F)?

Finally, I think any team trading a guy like Landeskog is absolutely looking to jumble up the lineup. That's not a roster tweak, that's a major overhaul trade.

 

[Ugene Magic]

The more I see of Schultz, the less interest I have in looking for a 2nd pairing right D. He's the defenseman we've needed behind Letang for years. Actually, Daley was that guy last year too. We went 4-1-2 without Letang during this injury, but Daley was out for all of those losses too.

As for Maatta, he's getting better as the year goes on imo. And if we trade him, we need to replace him on the left side.

It's not replacing him. It's keeping most of what you have.

Dumoulin, Letang
Cole, Schultz
Pouliot/?, Daley

It's looking for depth D-men still, and getting a throw in could work for now.

They'd have to let Pouliot go another year of trying to figure it out, and it's not as if he was a total lost cause to this point. It's a process that hasn't fully been shut down yet.

Still fantasyland, Landeskog would be a hell of a catch.

 

[Ogrezilla]

It's not replacing him. It's keeping most of what you have.

Dumoulin, Letang
Cole, Schultz
Pouliot/?, Daley

It's looking for depth D-men still, and getting a throw in could work for now.

They'd have to let Pouliot go another year of trying to figure it out, and it's not as if he was a total lost cause to this point. It's a process that hasn't fully been shut down yet.

Still fantasyland, Landeskog would be a hell of a catch.

So like I said, you're creating a hole on the left side of the D. You're playing a 3rd pairing guy on the 2nd pair, and a guy who doesn't belong in the NHL on the 3rd pair. If Pouliot was where we expected him to be, you could consider trading Maatta. But he's not. Not even close. We can't replace Maatta internally. Trading him pretty much means we have to trade for a top 4 LD if we want to win this year.

 

[Ugene Magic]

That's literally the same problem, except now you're trading the guy we KNOW can play at this level for an extended time in the NHL and through the playoffs

And no, the D gets worse in that scenario. We can't make our D worse. Why trade from a position of weakness (D) to improve a position of strength (F)?

Finally, I think any team trading a guy like Landeskog is absolutely looking to jumble up the lineup. That's not a roster tweak, that's a major overhaul trade.

Um..... Landeskog for the first part. There is no arguing Landeskog>>>Sheary.

2nd part: While I do agree they downgrade at D, I don't think it is enough to say they are not any worse then adding depth, one which they add within the deal, leaving it, down to just a #8/#9.

Bold: was for the Pens side of the coin.

I'll still put a fantasyland tag on this while saying it really isn't that huge a swing to the bad side when you consider who has stepped up and allow's them this scenario.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

The more I see of Schultz, the less interest I have in looking for a 2nd pairing right D. He's the defenseman we've needed behind Letang for years. Actually, Daley was that guy last year too. We went 4-1-2 without Letang during this injury, but Daley was out for all of those losses too.

As for Maatta, he's getting better as the year goes on imo. And if we trade him, we need to replace him on the left side.

Yeah, Schultz is really making me think they've found that final long term top 4 D. If Schultz keeps it up, Dumoulin pulls it together and Maatta stays on this track then the D is set for awhile. Not sure things but not ridiculous gambles.

Defense also just isn't a place of strength to trade from now. Move Maatta for Trouba and the left is bad, and Trouba isn't signed long term. Trade Maatta for a winger and you need to find another top 4 defenseman. Trade Maatta for another LD and you're probably selling low on a 22 D who is improving and who went through some **** but has a history of performing.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Um..... Landeskog for the first part. There is no arguing Landeskog>>>Sheary.

2nd part: While I do agree they downgrade at D, I don't think it is enough to say they are not any worse then adding depth, one which they add within the deal, leaving it, down to just a #8/#9.

Bold: was for the Pens side of the coin.

I'll still put a fantasyland tag on this while saying it really isn't that huge a swing to the bad side when you consider who has stepped up and allow's them this scenario.

Lando is better than Sheary, yes. But he's also more expensive, and it opens up a hole at 2LD. I don't know why you seem to think we'd only need to fill depth. We would have a gaping hole in our top 4.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

So like I said, you're creating a hole on the left side of the D. You're playing a 3rd pairing guy on the 2nd pair, and a guy who doesn't belong in the NHL on the 3rd pair. If Pouliot was where we expected him to be, you could consider trading Maatta. But he's not. Not even close. We can't replace Maatta internally. Trading him pretty much means we have to trade for a top 4 LD if we want to win this year.

Exactly...plus if any injuries happen we have a AHLer in the top 6...that's not exactly ideal/acceptable.

As much as I love Määttä, he isn't someone who should be seen as untouchable...but for this team right now you absolutely cannot trade him without getting a comparable D back in return. The only way we could deal someone like Määttä in-season would be if we were getting someone like Trouba back.

 

[Ugene Magic]

So like I said, you're creating a hole on the left side of the D. You're playing a 3rd pairing guy on the 2nd pair, and a guy who doesn't belong in the NHL on the 3rd pair. If Pouliot was where we expected him to be, you could consider trading Maatta. But he's not. Not even close. We can't replace Maatta internally. Trading him pretty much means we have to trade for a top 4 LD if we want to win this year.

Cole and Schultz are playing capable 2nd pairing as a tandem. This also allows Pouliot a bit more time sticking to 3rd pairing minutes to get a foot hold.

Maatta has pretty much rendered himself to a defensive PMD.

I'm not advocating this be done, just that it is plausible with what Empoleon's put forth.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Exactly...plus if any injuries happen we have a AHLer in the top 6...that's not exactly ideal/acceptable.

As much as I love Määttä, he isn't someone who should be seen as untouchable...but for this team right now you absolutely cannot trade him without getting a comparable D back in return. The only trade within reason this team could have made involving him this season that I can get behind would have been one involving Trouba.

Yeah, Trouba seemed like a good idea to me earlier. But with Schultz stepping up and DP disappointing so far, I wouldn't want to make that trade at this point.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Cole and Schultz are playing capable 2nd pairing as a tandem. This also allows Pouliot a bit more time sticking to 3rd pairing minutes to get a foot hold.

Maatta has pretty much rendered himself to a defensive PMD.

I'm not advocating this be done, just that it is plausible with what Empoleon's put forth.

I want nothing to do with Cole as a top 4 staple or Pouliot as a regular in the line-up right now. As I said, we would have a gaping hole at LD. That's not a championship defense.