Speculation: Defensemen to camp
- Thread starter FreeBobbyFarnham
- Start date
Shady Machine
Registered User
- Aug 6, 2010
- 36,704
- 8,141
Don't be so sure
It may be wishful thinking, but I just can't imagine why MJ would be okay with it. If you take out Pouliot, the puck moving ability from the back end takes a fairly big hit (especially if you have Maatta-Letang as the top pairing).
Maatta-Letang
Cole-Lovejoy
Scuds-Dumo
Second pairing is mediocre at moving the puck and the 3rd will suck. I like Dumo, but he's not Despres yet and Scuds will be an even bigger anchor than last year.
If they want the forward group they assembled to be effective, they need mobile, puck moving guys on each pair. Pouliot will be a big part of that.
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
Oh, it would be stupid, but I wouldn't be surprised. Really depends on how they see him. He struggled at times last year and wasn't THAT productive offensively. Personally, I think he has more to gain by being in the NHL and adjust to the pace of it than to get back to the AHL and don't have a real challenge. Maybe management believe he still has a real challenge down there. I wouldn't agree, but what do I know...
Shady Machine
Registered User
- Aug 6, 2010
- 36,704
- 8,141
Right his offensive production wasn't that high, but his skillset is absolutely needed on the back end, especially with how they built their team (4 scoring lines). You can't have average puck movers on a team who is built to score goals and defend by always having the puck.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it would be an insanely stupid decision to put him in the AHL. Now I guess I could see a scenario where the place him in the AHL to start the season as some sort of cap flexibility move and then call him back up.
Freeptop
Registered User
Andersen signed his first NHL contract with the Pens, so he should have one year of exemption from waivers as a result.
radapex
Registered User
You're right. The CBA has an incomplete table in Exhibit 16 which doesn't include the 25+ exemption. I'm gonna go back and update my post just so it's doesn't confuse anyone. So even with him being able to go to WBS waiver-free, it still means potentially giving away two (or three) or Dumoulin, Clendening, and Erixon for free.
Last edited:
Freeptop
Registered User
I have a hard time believing the Pens gave Dumoulin a one-way contract just to end up sending him down to the AHL at this point, so I'm pretty confident he'll make the team. Barring injuries or the team finding some way to get rid of Scuderi, I fully expect them to try to sneak Clendening and Erixon through waivers, though.
I really wish they'd found a way to get rid of Scuderi. I'd be fine with risking a fairly inexperienced blueline to start the season if it meant we didn't have a guaranteed possession black-hole on it.
Jacob
as seen on TV
- Feb 27, 2002
- 49,511
- 25,121
steveg
Registered User
Reading this statement you made (which I basically agree with) just sort of shouted out to me (as if it weren't crystal clear already) how absolutely ESSENTIAL it is to get rid of Scuderi.
The Pens have indeed built a very skilled offensive team, and they ABSOLUTELY need a back end that can support that, in order for it all to be effective. And Scuds is absolutely the ANTITHESIS of the type of defensemen that can support an offensively minded team. They absolutely MUST have an ace up their sleeve that will remove Scuds from the roster -- either a trade, a waive, or at the VERY least a demotion to #7 or #8.
I get so frustrated on here reading things that imply the idea of "if we match him with the right partner to cover for his declining defensive skills, he's still serviceable/OK..."
NO!!! While you might find a partner to cover for his slow skating/declining defensive skills, that is NOT, in my opinion, the worst part of Scuds. It's the fact that he literally KILLS, I mean absolutely renders IMPOTENT, our transition game and our play in the O-zone. While most here know this clearly, so many Scuds defenders do not seem to...
HellasLEAF
'93 to Infinity
- Sep 14, 2006
- 15,339
- 1,798
DoktorZaius
Registered User
- Feb 7, 2013
- 3,833
- 41
He's actually been really bad so far. If anything, he's regressed. A lot of us wouldn't be surprised at this point if he's bumped back down to top pairing minutes for WBS to get back his confidence and game.
cygnus47
Registered User
- Sep 14, 2013
- 7,574
- 2,668
That said, it is only pre-season so who knows how he'll be in a few weeks. Still, definitely not breeding much confidence...
steveg
Registered User
To start the year, my opinion is yes. While some time in the A could allow Pouliot to get back to a higher level, I have been pleasantly surprised with Clendening's play. If what he's brought is what he continues to bring, he should prove to be a definite contributor to our D -- maybe as a decent #5? He could regress, of course, but he's been impressive, compared to what I -- and I think most -- expected.
radapex
Registered User
I don't think it'll make a difference. He won't be called up unless the injury bug strikes again given that they're probably going to be carrying 8 defensemen as is.
Shady Machine
Registered User
- Aug 6, 2010
- 36,704
- 8,141
Well this comment looks stupid after looking at Pouliot's performance in camp. He still may not go to WBS, but I now wish he would.
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in the Flood
Vujtek
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2007
- 3,540
- 627
Määttä is +7 in 3 pre-season games so far. On the other end of the scale are Gonchar (-8 in 4 games) and Pouliot (-7 in 4 games).
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=107787
Anyways, today's lineup should give an indicator as what to expect on opening night with regards to the D-pairings.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=107787
Anyways, today's lineup should give an indicator as what to expect on opening night with regards to the D-pairings.
