Salary Cap: Future Roster Building (2017-18 and beyond) Pt. 4 | Contract/FA charts in Post #1

[888 98 twins]

The cap staying flat could end up being good for us if expansion goes the way I think it's going to.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Not going to quote out of the locked thread but the reality of Schultz at 5-5.5m is a real reality. Facts are he is our top defense option when Letang goes down, which I am a huge Letang fan but he will go down. I won't bet on him being long term healthy or any other player for that fact. You have to build contingency in your line up.

With the Gostisbehere signing I really feel at a bare minimum Schultz's negotiation value is north of 5m. And someone stated something of "if I were Schultz I'd take a lower hit and term for the team", well yes as a fan yes you would. But players 99% of the time utilize their maximized value when it comes to contract years. And I won't hold anything against Schultz if he pushes that number high because in his shoes I would do the same thing, pay me and pay me what I deserve and have earned.

I hope we get him at term for 4.5-4.75m but I'm not going to be shocked if he goes north of 5m.

But Gostisbehere is a good bit better than Schultz, is younger than Schultz, more established in his current ability than Schultz is and signed for 6 years. How does Schultz get above $5 million based on a better player got less than that?

 

[Penske]

I'd see what Toronto wanted for Bozak. If it was a first (with maybe a plus like a meh prospect) I'd be interested.

 

[Empoleon8771]

1) I just can't see us being able to re-sign Bonino if we also have Hagelin. We can't fit both next year.

I mean, I showed that we could with Bonino getting a reasonable extension.

2) Also, the problem isn't necessarily next season, but the following season. Guentzel, Rust, Wilson, Kuhn, Hornqvist, Cole and Sprong will all need new deals that year.

Guentzel isn't a free agent until the year after, Hornqvist likely isn't being re-signed due to depth at RW in the organization, Wilson, Sprong and Kuhnhackl won't cost much to re-sign and Cole probably walks if he wants too much money.

So in terms of trading Hagelin, I think it would be a lot safer to do that this summer when LV and certain other teams have much more flexibility, incentive and inclination to do that. I think it could get very risky for us if we put ourselves in a position where next summer we could potentially lose a key player (like Horny or Cole) if we can't move Hagelin at that time. We will be bent over a barrel and have no leverage. We should aim to move him this summer when we're not in such a compromised position.

The justification for trading Hagelin is that we don't need him and he's not worth $4 million to the Penguins, not that the Penguins can't afford him. Because the Penguins can definitely afford him.

 

[Malkinstheman]

I'd see what Toronto wanted for Bozak. If it was a first (with maybe a plus like a meh prospect) I'd be interested.

They were only asking for a 2nd but didnt get any offers. He could definitely be a good target. Dont know how good he is defensively though.

 

[SprootsMasterFlex]

3) We now cannot expect to have the cap space to go after a big name UFA or trade, which I didn't feel was likely to happen anyway (such as trade for Duchene, or signing Oshie/Alzner/Shattenkirk or anyone else such as that).

I disagree. I think with Daley, Fleury, Kunitz, Hainsey, Bonino and possibly Hagelin (if they move him) will free up enough space to add a really nice name to our lineup. That is not to mention that the Pens may move Horny, Maatta or Schultz.

I think this'll be a summer of major changes even though we will possibly be 2time champions.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Well, Guentzel won't be up next summer, he's on a 3 year ELC, but the point stands. I'd see about moving Hags this summer as well. The idea of trading LV MAF and getting a guarantee they take Hags is pretty solid.

are we thinking we won't be able to get ANY return for Hagelin so we need to give away Fleury so that LV will take him from us for free?

 

[AjaxTelamon]

A. Sheary had a nearly 70 point pace this year. You're literally making up reasons for him to have less value than Jarnkrok. It's straight up nonsense. Sheary's a top-6 forward coming off an incredible season, it's utterly baseless to say that Jarnkrok has that much more value than him.
B. Yes, I do think Wilson and a 1st would be enough for Jarnkrok.



Again, you have no evidence that it would take this much to trade for a young 3C.

I have as much evidence as you do about the valuation. And the team calling on the other team doesn't have a lot of leverage. LV isn't calling us to get Scott Wilson, they're going to have their pick of dozens of Wilsons. Further, J is signed for his entire prime for 2m a year, and LV will be starved for centers. I guess we just disagree about the value of that player on that contract. Sheary is unsigned, that hurts his value.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Nashville ends up finding a way to protect Jarnkrok anyways, so this is most likely a pipe dream.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

are we thinking we won't be able to get ANY return for Hagelin so we need to give away Fleury so that LV will take him from us for free?

I dunno, but if he puts up another season like this year, next year, who is going to want to do us a favor to take him?

I like Hags, but the risk of losing PH, Rust or Cole is real if we get stuck with his contract.

Edit, and maybe we get LV to throw in a 3rd somewhere in there to even up the value, but the general framework of MAF + Hags to LV for some middling futures seems fine. We get 10M in cap.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I still think Hagelin would be easy to trade, if for no other reason than the NHL is a copycat league and everyone has seen the Penguins get at least 1 win away from winning 2 cups in a row based on speed. He probably doesn't have that high of value, but I have a really tough time imagining a team like Ottawa or Edmonton would scoff at the idea of trading for him.

 

[jmelm]

Hornqvist likely isn't being re-signed due to depth at RW in the organization, Wilson, Sprong and Kuhnhackl won't cost much to re-sign and Cole probably walks if he wants too much money.

Firstly, the RW depth "problem" may be solved by moving Sheary or Rust to LW permanently.

Second, I would not be so quick to just "let Hornqvist and Cole walk" when we could easily re-sign both at modest raises if Hagelin is gone (I think we can get Cole for around 2.8M and Hornqvist for 4.5-4.75M). If Hagelin being on the roster possibly precludes us from signing one or both of those guys, that would be the DUMBEST case of cap & asset management I could possibly conceive of for this team.

Third, I believe we REALLY need to hedge against the possibility of Seattle getting an expansion team in the next 2-3 years. That means we would lose a very good player and is another reason why I wouldn't just let guys walk for nothing if we can keep them. We won't have an MAF to help protect us from losing a good D or F, and our good young forwards will not be exempt from an expansion draft.

are we thinking we won't be able to get ANY return for Hagelin so we need to give away Fleury so that LV will take him from us for free?

Because of his salary (now compounded by the flat cap), I don't believe we will get a significant return at all. I would be thrilled if we could get a 4th rounder for Hags. I don't think there are a lot of teams that would have interest, and posed the question on the Trade forum to gauge what teams may be a fit.

 

[Riptide]

1) I just can't see us being able to re-sign Bonino if we also have Hagelin. We can't fit both next year.


2) Also, the problem isn't necessarily next season, but the following season. Guentzel, Rust, Wilson, Kuhn, Hornqvist, Cole and Sprong will all need new deals that year.


So in terms of trading Hagelin, I think it would be a lot safer to do that this summer when LV and certain other teams have much more flexibility, incentive and inclination to do that. I think it could get very risky for us if we put ourselves in a position where next summer we could potentially lose a key player (like Horny or Cole) if we can't move Hagelin at that time. We will be bent over a barrel and have no leverage. We should aim to move him this summer when we're not in such a compromised position.

1) Bonino @4m, Schultz @5m, Sheary @3m, Dumo @3.75m and Ruh@700k puts us at 12F, 6F, 2G and 2.25m of cap space with a 73m cap.

Tight? Absolutely - especially if a few of those guys want more money. But unless we're bringing in another body it doesn't force us to trade anyone. Obviously this is dependent on who we lose in the ED and how we want to go about replacing them. And I've said many times that losing or trading Hagelin probably isnt' the worst thing - but neither do I think it's something we absolutely have to do - even if we sign Bonino to a 4m contract.

2) Guentzel is 2 years off from having a new deal kick in. Next year is more of an issue with Cole, Rust and Hornqvist all coming up. And obviously some choices will have to be made at that time. Same likely goes for the following season when Guentzel needs a new contract. Wilson, Kuhnhackl and Sprong will all likely be cheap contracts. Kuhnhackl will get a get a slight raise but as a 4th line winger, will still likely be under 800/900k. Wilson's next contract will be dependent on how he performs next season. If it's like this year - then likely 1m or less, if it's a lot better, then we'll have to see where we stand. Sprong unless he comes up and plays lights out this season will likely get the same sort of contract that Despres and Bennett and Dumoulin received - a 2 year 800/900k type of contract.

So while obviously we need to look to the future to an extent over the next couple of seasons and be-careful about what contracts we hand out - we're really not in bad shape. We have Cole, Hornqvist and Hagelin all coming off of the books in the next 2 seasons which will allow us to basically resign almost all of our young RFA's.

 

[Riptide]

But Gostisbehere is a good bit better than Schultz, is younger than Schultz, more established in his current ability than Schultz is and signed for 6 years. How does Schultz get above $5 million based on a better player got less than that?

Ghost signed the same sort of contract many young RFA D have been signing lately. It has less to do with how he values himself then how he's ensuring that whatever happens in the next few seasons that he's set for life. Ghost also doesn't have arbitration rights and isn't 1 year away from being a UFA. He also isn't turning 27 in 3 weeks. And if my math is right, that contract is only buying up 3 UFA years (perhaps only 2). Any contract longer than 1 year is buying up UFA years for Schultz.

On a side note, we should be thankful as **** that Schultz wasn't born 7 days sooner. Had he turned 27 on June 30th instead of July 6th, he'd be a UFA this summer instead of a RFA.

 

[Penske]

Yeah we definitely have enough cap to bring everyone back(obviously except for retirements and guys we don't want back/too expensive Hainsey, Daley, Cullen, Kunitz).

We really won't have money to add anyone. I think we should make some changes though to better or better fit our team.

 

[Riptide]

Because of his salary (now compounded by the flat cap), I don't believe we will get a significant return at all. I would be thrilled if we could get a 4th rounder for Hags. I don't think there are a lot of teams that would have interest, and posed the question on the Trade forum to gauge what teams may be a fit.

Agreed. Hagelin is better than Fehr, but Fehr is a C and only cost 2m, and yet we still had to pay to get rid of him. Unless there was a team specifically looking to add Hagelin's speed, or perhaps wanted to move a pending FA for someone with another year left (eg: Hagelin to TOR 1-1 for Komarov), I think we'd be hard pressed to move him. There's not a lot of teams in the NHL who have the luxuary of being able to afford (cap/budget wise) a 4m winger who can't do a lot offensively. That's not that extreme of a price for him... there's just not going to be a lot of teams who will have the cap space and be really interested in him at his current cap hit.

 

[The Old Master]

Because of his salary (now compounded by the flat cap), I don't believe we will get a significant return at all. I would be thrilled if we could get a 4th rounder for Hags. I don't think there are a lot of teams that would have interest, and posed the question on the Trade forum to gauge what teams may be a fit.

a lot of fan's in ny. are wanting him back.....just say'en

 

[Peat]

If, and that's a big if, we land Duchene I have no idea where he'd play. His previous history with Sid, coupled with his speed/skill, make it a no-brainer to put him on Crosby's wing with Guentzel. But Duchene could be a phenomenal 3C for us as well.

Guentzel - Crosby - Sheary
Hagelin - Malkin - Kessel
Rust - Duchene - Hornqvist
Wilson - Rowney/XXXX - Archibald

I kinda like the idea of him on Malkin's wing, because the idea of sending Malkin on for offensive zone face-offs with Duchene to take the draw for him is dirty.

But really, you'd pretty much have to use him as a 3C who does occasional spot duty on the big boys' wings. This team needs another 6m wing like it needs a hole in the head, particularly if you don't fill 3C first.

This is a better list of generally younger replacements (Sheahan aside). But it won't be cheap to acquire them. A first round pick may do it for a Haula, I wouldn't think it would come close for Jarnkrok. I'd imagine they would want maybe Sheary + a 2nd or 3rd.

Minnesota fans are saying Haula can be had for a second, although you might have to do that prior to the expansion draft.

edit: Detroit fans offering Sheahan for a 2nd, Eakin for a 2nd... I know fans here post some dumb crap, but the consensus seems to be a decent 3C can be had for a 2nd.

And someone stated something of "if I were Schultz I'd take a lower hit and term for the team", well yes as a fan yes you would. But players 99% of the time utilize their maximized value when it comes to contract years.

If I'm Schultz looking to maximise my numbers, I want a 2-3 year bridge deal so I can show people its not a fluke, then I go looking for the big contract.

I'd probably also want 1st PP guarantees though...

They were only asking for a 2nd but didnt get any offers. He could definitely be a good target. Dont know how good he is defensively though.

Seems like Toronto fans are pretty down on him in his own zone. I'd pass on that if they're right.

Second, I would not be so quick to just "let Hornqvist and Cole walk" when we could easily re-sign both at modest raises if Hagelin is gone (I think we can get Cole for around 2.8M and Hornqvist for 4.5-4.75M).

Horny for under 5m feels really optimistic when Lucic got 6m for a similar record of offensive production.

 

[Darth Vitale]

TSN reporting that the NHLPA will not exercise the 5% escalator, and that the cap will remain flat at $73M. There are a few things this means for the Pens, IMO.


1) It pretty much now becomes essential that we trade Hagelin. I don't think we'll get much if anything for him, but perhaps we could induce Vegas to take him in the ED if we trade MAF to them for nothing (or ensure they can take MAF if we can trade Hagelin to them)


2) This may actually help us with negotiations for guys like Dumo, Sheary, Schultz and Bonino. I'm not saying it will have a massive impact, but could shave off $250-500k on each of their deals (essentially putting them at the lower range of what is projected, i.e. Dumoulin between 3M-3.5M on a long term deal, etc.)


3) We now cannot expect to have the cap space to go after a big name UFA or trade, which I didn't feel was likely to happen anyway (such as trade for Duchene, or signing Oshie/Alzner/Shattenkirk or anyone else such as that).

Good stuff, thanks for posting that. I don't know that agree with the Hagelin part (like others have said I think there are ways to get him and Bones into the equation. Someone of these guys aren't come back as FA one would assume but we'll see.

I agree the cap remaining static would help the Pens with negotiations somewhat. These are all team guys and they understand the cap realities. I can't see any of them balking because a deal is a few hundred K less than desired, much less playing hard-ball. Then again I don't know if any have a d-bag agent, so I could be wrong. Sometimes you get that Cup logic going saying you have to capitlize / make bank when the Cup win last year (and we all hope this year too) is fresh in people's minds.

Someone mentioned more of the Fleury to Vegas thing earlier. Got me thinking, how has Jarry been developing in your views? His numbers this year in WBS look pretty damn good, like he made an obvious step forward in his development from the prior year. But I haven't watched and know numbers don't always tell teh story.

 

[jmelm]

Someone mentioned more of the Fleury to Vegas thing earlier. Got me thinking, how has Jarry been developing in your views? His numbers this year in WBS look pretty damn good, like he made an obvious step forward in his development from the prior year. But I haven't watched and know numbers don't always tell teh story.

Re. Jarry, I'm high on him, but I just think there is ZERO chance the Pens start the season with Jarry as the back up. Not because Jarry isn't capable, and I would love to see him get some NHL experience.


But Rutherford, an ex goalie, appreciates the importance more than most other GMs about having depth at the G position to mitigate the downside in the event of injuries. Given Jarry's lack of NHL experience and some (however valid) questions of Murray's durability, I think it's definite that the Pens sign a quality veteran back up. Jarry won't be hurt by spending another season in the AHL on a great team.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

If we knew Jarry will be just as good as Murray would you trade him? Yeah usually goalies don't net solid returns but he's an exception. Not that I want to trade him, but considering what we could get ..and we 100% knew Jarry would be his equal? Could see a team like the Jets offer Trouba, Lowry(there's our Bones replacement) and a 1st round pick or top D prospect. Or would you want more?

Realistically, we have Jarry as our backup... And he proves he can be a starter in this league. We eventually trade him( at least they should , instead of letting him walk when FA), but the return wouldn't be too much better than where we drafted him.

 

[Ogrezilla]

If we knew Jarry will be just as good as Murray would you trade him? Yeah usually goalies don't net solid returns but he's an exception. Not that I want to trade him, but considering what we could get ..and we 100% knew Jarry would be his equal? Could see a team like the Jets offer Trouba, Lowry(there's our Bones replacement) and a 1st round pick or top D prospect. Or would you want more?

Realistically, we have Jarry as our backup... And he proves he can be a starter in this league. We eventually trade him( at least they should , instead of letting him walk when FA), but the return wouldn't be too much better than where we drafted him.

well sure, if we had two Murray's, I'd trade one of them

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

well sure, if we had two Murray's, I'd trade one of them

That's why I say Jarry should be the backup next year.

If Murray goes down we are likely in trouble anyways. I don't see any of the vets who are available making that much of a difference over Jarry. If he does get hurt then we can add someone. But I'd rather prepare Jarry now, just in case that does happen

 

[Ogrezilla]

That's why I say Jarry should be the backup next year.

If Murray goes down we are likely in trouble anyways. I don't see any of the vets who are available making that much of a difference over Jarry. If he does get hurt then we can add someone. But I'd rather prepare Jarry now, just in case that does happen

I can understand going either way, and neither will bother me.

 

[Penske]

I can understand going either way, and neither will bother me.

JR is going to bring in a back up from outside the organisation. You can almost guarantee that.

 

[Ogrezilla]

JR is going to bring in a back up from outside the organisation. You can almost guarantee that.

Oh I agree. Just saying I wouldn't be upset with either option.