Many many thoughts on this. I think most have hit the high points. I'll just point out a few things.
Overall I think the 3C model isn't a bad one to run. Two extremely good offensive lines/centers and a great shutdown C who can control play and score. Pittsburgh could have been successful with that (more so than what they were) had 3 things happened. One if the players who had the higher contracts perform up to those contracts. Two if they'd done a much better job using their young players. Their strength was on their blueline, but they did a piss poor job using those assets. High lighted by choosing to sign Scuderi to an expensive contract (relative to what he could provide vs what a young guy like Despres could have done) vs signing McArthur for the same price (was rumored to have had interest before we used our cap on RS). And lastly, by having done a piss poor job at drafting (and then drafting very D heavy).
You look at Chicago specifically as they're likely the closest example to Pittsburgh with their high contracts, and the difference is very noticeable. Chicago can afford to lose Sharp this summer because they have a multitude of young cheap guys who will be able to cover at least a chunk of his offense. Pittsburgh has 3 decent F prospects and 2 of those were drafted in the last 2 years while the 3rd (Bennett) is injury prone and has struggled. But it goes beyond top 6 talent. You look at just their forwards in general, and we haven't had ANY success drafting players to play any meaningful role even in the bottom 6. Which means we've overpaid for FAs which limits our ability to spend on top 6 wingers.
Something to be leery of, is I see a similar situation with Edmonton in terms of their drafting and developing. No offense to Gordon... but Edmonton shouldn't have had to overpay for a #3/4C. This will be key going forward for Edmonton to be able to afford the skill they have - especially if they all come close to their potential. Those guys getting paid have to perform, and everyone else has to be cheap. And the easiest way to get cheap talent is to draft it.
Overall I think the 3C model isn't a bad one to run. Two extremely good offensive lines/centers and a great shutdown C who can control play and score. Pittsburgh could have been successful with that (more so than what they were) had 3 things happened. One if the players who had the higher contracts perform up to those contracts. Two if they'd done a much better job using their young players. Their strength was on their blueline, but they did a piss poor job using those assets. High lighted by choosing to sign Scuderi to an expensive contract (relative to what he could provide vs what a young guy like Despres could have done) vs signing McArthur for the same price (was rumored to have had interest before we used our cap on RS). And lastly, by having done a piss poor job at drafting (and then drafting very D heavy).
You look at Chicago specifically as they're likely the closest example to Pittsburgh with their high contracts, and the difference is very noticeable. Chicago can afford to lose Sharp this summer because they have a multitude of young cheap guys who will be able to cover at least a chunk of his offense. Pittsburgh has 3 decent F prospects and 2 of those were drafted in the last 2 years while the 3rd (Bennett) is injury prone and has struggled. But it goes beyond top 6 talent. You look at just their forwards in general, and we haven't had ANY success drafting players to play any meaningful role even in the bottom 6. Which means we've overpaid for FAs which limits our ability to spend on top 6 wingers.
Something to be leery of, is I see a similar situation with Edmonton in terms of their drafting and developing. No offense to Gordon... but Edmonton shouldn't have had to overpay for a #3/4C. This will be key going forward for Edmonton to be able to afford the skill they have - especially if they all come close to their potential. Those guys getting paid have to perform, and everyone else has to be cheap. And the easiest way to get cheap talent is to draft it.
