Paul Martin is currently one of our 4 best defensemen. As long as we don't sign anyone else he will be here for at least 1 more season.
Well, CURRENTLY Paul Martin isn't playing hockey. Several others are. And the last time we saw Paul Martin, several younger players were outperforming Martin (and other veterans, too).
That's some circular logic though...he was one of our top 4 defensemen
in the top 4? Well yeah, it'd be impossible not to, wouldn't it?
I'll put it this way: I have no doubt that any of Engelland, Niskanen, or Despres could step in and play at least as well as Martin did in a top 4 role last year. But he makes millions and millions of dollars more, and we may have to expose Strait or Bortuzzo to waivers just to retain his questionable services.
Agreed. And IF we lose guys like Strait and Bortuzzo to waivers, then this draft strategy of taking the best player available simply isn't being maximized to the fullest. Terrible asset management, in fact.
Simple point. After the 2013-14 season, Martin is the only NHL defenseman under contract. For those who are so sold on buying Martin out, look at the following (source: capgeek):
Martin (1 year remaining at 5,000,000)
Orpik (UFA)
Letang (UFA)
Niskanen (UFA)
Engelland (UFA)
After the balance of this present season, that leaves the Penguins with one season of a defense composed of somewhat-experienced defensemen under contract. For those considering buying Martin out, the Wilkes-Barre blueline is your future.
So? Do you keep a player around simply because of his birth certificate? Do you stay with a girl you hate simply because nobody else is paying you any attention?
Do we honestly think we will go without signing any of our UFAs AND not be able to sign/trade for any other veteran D-men in the next two years? Hell, the way our defense played in the playoffs last spring, we should be thanking our lucky stars that we don't have more than one guy under contract for the long haul.
I won't disagree when just talking about the playoff series. He was atrocious. Though his role wasn't really replaced by rookies. That top 4 spot was taken by Niskanen. Niskanen's 3rd pairing spot was then replaced by rookies. And now we don't have Michalek taking one of the other top 4 spots. If we get rid of Martin, someone better be ready to be thrown into the deep end ready to swim.
I would love to find an upgrade over Martin. Especially with both him and Niskanen in the top 4. I would just like a bit more size and physicality there. But until someone shows that they are ready to take the spot, I don't think it makes much sense to get rid of him. Let the young kids battle for the 3rd pairing opening. If a couple of them really impress, well we can cross that bridge when we get there.
I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but I don't like the notion that the kids need to prove themselves (but Martin does not). What have you done for me lately needs to be implemented here, imo. Everybody on defense needs to prove themselves, as soon as we start up again. None of them were good enough against Philly, and nobody really knows what a half-season away from the NHL has done for those that HAVE played, as well as those that HAVE NOT.
Personally, I'd like to see one of the kids step up A S A P and be paired with Letang. This will probably be Despres, but it may also be Dumoulin, Strait, Harrington or maybe even Bortuzzo. Then, Orpik and Niskanen can be paired together. Martin could be paired with Engelland, so that maybe some of the latter's toughness could rub off on the former's ********* ways. Then, keep another kid as the No. 7 (probably Strait or Bortuzzo). Get rid of Lovejoy.
Then, when Morrow is ready we can move on from Martin, and go with...
Despres/Dumoulin/Strait/Harrington-Letang
Orpik-Niskanen
Morrow-Engelland
Then, we re-evaluate once Maatta and Pouliot are ready. That's how I see things. Not ideal, but honestly the only real concern re: the defense is the present situation, because the future looks awfully bright. And I hope the team stops thinking about the 'window closing' and all of that nonsense. The sooner we rebuild the blueline, the more quickly we'll get back to hoisting the Cup. Because as we very well know by now, the group of blueliners we had were simply not good enough to win. While we added more talented guys (Martin, Michalek, Niskanen), we simply lost the ability to do the simple play, the little things, the gritty things that winning teams do. In many ways, I feel we had it backwards: we kept all the grit up front, but got rid of most of it from the back. I'd rather have more talent up front and more stability and grit at the back, but maybe that's just me.