Early Impressions: Marcus Pettersson

[Turin]

I know some people aren't a big fan of plus minus, but their is a huge difference between them.

Petterson plus 8 with the Pens and plus 12 overall for the year.

Sprong minus 4 for the Ducks and minus 11 for the year.

Sprong could be a +3 and be just as bad 5 on 5 as he is.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Sprong could be a +3 and be just as bad 5 on 5 as he is.

That pretty much is the crux of this.

Sprong will have to at least not be a complete liability out there when he is not scoring or better be the next Ovechkin. I would not bet against him doing it, but a team is going to have to suffer through what he is now for as much as a couple of years to really find out.

 

[The Old Master]

Sprong could be a +3 and be just as bad 5 on 5 as he is.

yep! there are 5 other players on the ice that have just as much of a factor on that sat as any one player.

 

[Empoleon8771]

That pretty much is the crux of this.

Sprong will have to at least not be a complete liability out there when he is not scoring or better be the next Ovechkin. I would not bet against him doing it, but a team is going to have to suffer through what he is now for as much as a couple of years to really find out.

It's why I don't think he'll end up sticking with Anaheim, I don't think they'll have the patience to give Sprong the 2 or so years that he'll need to round out his game (if he'll ever round it out). They have too much talent on RW when everyone is healthy for me to think that they'll stick through years of Sprong being a PP specialist and a liability at ES. My guess is that he's traded next season if he doesn't show a demonstrable improvement in the next 60-80 games or so, and when I say "demonstrable improvement", I mean both offensively and defensively.

Sprong isn't a NHL caliber player right now and probably should be spending all of this season in the AHL. Considering he's 21, I don't think that's a slight against him or a huge negative. But considering his waiver situation, that's a big problem.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Was Peterson down and out when we got him?

I wouldn't go that far. Not saying that Gonchar isn't helping him get better... but Pettersson was already a good player in Anaheim. They just have a lot of good young blueliner's and could take the chance on moving Pettersson for a young winger with high upside and high bust potential.

Yeah, I guess it's a bit of a stretch to call him a reclamation project, but Gonchar really does do wonders with these D-Man acquisitions and I stand by my claim that Gonchar should be dubbed "The D-Man Whisperer"

 

[Tom Hanks]

Yeah, I guess it's a bit of a stretch to call him a reclamation project, but Gonchar really does do wonders with these D-Man acquisitions and I stand by my claim that Gonchar should be dubbed "The D-Man Whisperer"

*except for Oleksiak

 

[Rodgerwilco]

*except for Oleksiak

:O I think Oleksiak has worked out just fine, minus the injury, obviously. I like him in the roster a lot. Even if he's not the best D-man on the ice, he's certainly improved significantly from where he was in Dallas.

 

[Empoleon8771]

*except for Oleksiak

Eh, I think they have gotten a good return out of Oleksiak. He had a strong year last year and a good start to this year, he has just become pretty vanilla since like November. He's not even that bad right now, I'd probably say he's a borderline #5/6 that's a #5 if he plays like he did earlier in the season.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Sprong will be really pissed at the Pens come April when he does his taxes.

Pettersson is gonna be thrilled, though he might have liked a trade to Florida, Vegas or Dallas better.

 

[dogthateats]

I thought that I read that Gonchar was not in town for the last few weeks or months. And in the same article, the dumb PGH reporter said that was why Malkin was struggling. I can’t find it now of course.

 

[Zirakzigil]

I thought that I read that Gonchar was not in town for the last few weeks or months. And in the same article, the dumb PGH reporter said that was why Malkin was struggling. I can’t find it now of course.

Gonchar was recently doing line rushes in practice with an extra player, so he’s been around.

 

[Turin]

Give me one example of a player Gonchar has fixed besides Schultz, who had good underlyings in Edmonton any way.

Pouliot busted, Oleksiak still sucks (it’s the breakout that insulates him), Johnson still sucks. Pettersson was fine in Anaheim.

He’s probably useful in giving tips to developing players but there has been no turning shit to gold here.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Eh, I think they have gotten a good return out of Oleksiak. He had a strong year last year and a good start to this year, he has just become pretty vanilla since like November. He's not even that bad right now, I'd probably say he's a borderline #5/6 that's a #5 if he plays like he did earlier in the season.

Yeah the value was fine in trade. He’s an NHL D man but he’s not a good fit for us. He was bad last playoffs and really hasn’t done much this season outside of a very small production stretch. He just can’t think the game quick enough.

 

[Gurglesons]

Give me one example of a player Gonchar has fixed besides Schultz, who had good underlyings in Edmonton any way.

Pouliot busted, Oleksiak still sucks (it’s the breakout that insulates him), Johnson still sucks. Pettersson was fine in Anaheim.

He’s probably useful in giving tips to developing players but there has been no turning **** to hold here.

Ian Cole.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah the value was fine in trade. He’s an NHL D man but he’s not a good fit for us. He was bad last playoffs and really hasn’t done much this season outside of a very small production stretch. He just can’t think the game quick enough.

They got a regular bottom pair defenseman for a 4th, that's good value. I don't know why people think Oleksiak is some horrible player all of a sudden, he's not anything special, but he's a fine bottom pair guy. If he'd use his size like he should, I'd like him a lot.

 

[Tom Hanks]

They got a regular bottom pair defenseman for a 4th, that's good value. I don't know why people think Oleksiak is some horrible player all of a sudden, he's not anything special, but he's a fine bottom pair guy. If he'd use his size like he should, I'd like him a lot.

I said he’s a NHL defenseman. I also said he’s not a good fit for us. Why is he a good fit for us?

I don’t think he’s fine on our team. He’ll make too many dumb decisions or react to slow to situations. He needs to have the right partner which we don’t have or can’t play with him and his minutes need to be limited.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Give me one example of a player Gonchar has fixed besides Schultz, who had good underlyings in Edmonton any way.

Pouliot busted, Oleksiak still sucks (it’s the breakout that insulates him), Johnson still sucks. Pettersson was fine in Anaheim.

He’s probably useful in giving tips to developing players but there has been no turning **** to hold here.

Niskanen

 

[Gurglesons]

Niskanen

Gonchar was playing in Ottawa, Dallas, and Montreal while Niskanen was playing here.

 

[Riptide]

They got a regular bottom pair defenseman for a 4th, that's good value. I don't know why people think Oleksiak is some horrible player all of a sudden, he's not anything special, but he's a fine bottom pair guy. If he'd use his size like he should, I'd like him a lot.

Because he got a new contract that's significantly more expensive then his previous one.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Gonchar was playing in Ottawa, Dallas, and Montreal while Niskanen was playing here.

That’s how good he is

 

[Gurglesons]

Because he got a new contract that's significantly more expensive then his previous one.

More importantly a contract with term that is likely resulting in an equal player with seemingly more upside in Riikola to be scratched occasionally.

 

[Peat]

The contract doesn't help, but lets not discount the fact that he's simply looked a worse fit and player here than he did last season. Once you put his puck movement and defensive IQ really in the spotlight, its pretty clear that he's marginal at this level and that's what this team thrives on. He's got a lot of good hockey skills but the total package is lacking key components. Credit to Ian Cole for insulating him so well I guess.

 

[Turin]

Niskanen

Nothing to do with Gonchar.

 

[Turin]

Ian Cole.

What was added to Cole’s game that was not there? He was a bottom pair dman, ended as a bottom pair dman.

 

[Jacob]

Gonchar was recently doing line rushes in practice with an extra player, so he’s been around.

He was behind the bench in a recent game too.. forget which one but it was in the past week.