Proposal: N. Bjugstad for A.Stralman

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,678
3,067
Florida
:pens
Anton Stralman (RD)
2 years x 5.5M

:panthers
Nick Bjugstad (C, RW)
1 year x 4.1M


Plus on either side if necessary. Essentially the Panthers moving on from an underperforming (disappointing?) Stralman who has 2 years left on his deal for Bjugstad - who is uneccessary on the Pens and has been unable to find a spot in the lineup due to both injury and the fact our roster was a mixed bag of forwards - who has just 1 year left on a lesser deal.

Pens get the RD replacement to Schultz (albeit more expensive than we'd like) / stop gap for Marino to take over 2RD or share duties with. Panthers use Bjugstad however.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,454
79,570
Redmond, WA
Oh god no, definitely not. The Penguins need to get out of Bjugstad's contract to just get cap compliant, adding Stralman (who has an additional year) makes that even worse.
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,678
3,067
Florida
Oh god no, definitely not. The Penguins need to get out of Bjugstad's contract to just get cap compliant, adding Stralman (who has an additional year) makes that even worse.

Still gotta find the 2/3 RD. It's two seasons (if he's not moved after one) of a guy who'd bring in the same salary as Schultz is carrying out.

Not sure anyone in the league is absorbing Bjugstad with another season of a stale cap. Many deals (as you know) were signed with expectations of an 83M cap, then onward.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,454
79,570
Redmond, WA
Still gotta find the 2/3 RD. It's two seasons (if he's not moved after one) of a guy who'd bring in the same salary as Schultz is carrying out.

Not sure anyone in the league is absorbing Bjugstad with another season of a stale cap. Many deals (as you know) were signed with expectations of an 83M cap, then onward.

I'd sooner play Johnson-Riikola on the bottom pair and just try to LTIRetire Bjugstad. Bjugstad's contract is done after next year, I don't want to get an even more expensive player with more term back for him.
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,678
3,067
Florida
I'd sooner play Johnson-Riikola on the bottom pair and just try to LTIRetire Bjugstad. Bjugstad's contract is done after next year, I don't want to get an even more expensive player with more term back for him.

Sure, but A) he's not retiring and that's wishful thinking from our board...and B) Stralman has the potential to have value if he comes and performs better than our current bottom pairing (not hard) so could either remain in the role or traded at a future time - whereas Bjugstad has no value because of his lack of playing time and also has no place on this roster.
 

CheckingLineCenter

Registered User
Aug 10, 2018
8,328
8,860
Not a chance. I’d rather just play Bjugstad at 3 or 4C than spend 5.5M on a 3rd pair RD for two more seasons.

They have to extend Marino after this year, this hinders that quite badly.
 

Laus723

Paradise hockey
Sponsor
Jan 27, 2006
31,556
5,327
Wellington, FL
Our biggest need to get rid of is Matheson, Stralman played well at the start of the season, struggled (mostly while paired with Matheson) and looked better when paired with the rookie Stillman.

Most Panther fans don’t want to see Bjugstad anywhere near the team again, we were very happy being able to rid ourselves of him and his contract. Terrific person, unfortunately nothing more than a porcelain giant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheImpatientPanther

chethejet

Registered User
Feb 4, 2012
8,469
1,871
Pens simply need to get younger and have enough issues with JJ, trading Murray, possibly McCann, and Bjugstad as to his health and career. In a perfect world GMJR finally grasps his ultimate responsibility is to set the franchise up for success now and going forward.
 

Riptide

Registered User
Dec 29, 2011
38,887
6,520
Yukon
Sure, but A) he's not retiring and that's wishful thinking from our board...and B) Stralman has the potential to have value if he comes and performs better than our current bottom pairing (not hard) so could either remain in the role or traded at a future time - whereas Bjugstad has no value because of his lack of playing time and also has no place on this roster.

The issue is we can't afford to have almost 9m tied up in our bottom pairing. If it was Bjugstad and JJ then perhaps that makes sense for us. But just Bjugs alone doesn't. It adds too much cap and term and doesn't bring enough benefit.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad