Post-Game Talk: Penguins 5, Red Wings 2 - #81, #19 Almost Get HT's; ZAR Almost Does Something

[Peat]

I think you can gamble on either Addison or Riikola being that 2nd pair RD in 2+ years. Maybe Riikola takes the spot first and Addison takes it if he ever reaches that level. Either way, I think we have the young guys who can replace Schultz in the long run, so you don't have to worry about down the line when it comes to the 2nd pair RD spot.

The purpose would be getting a short term upgrade on Schultz, or at least someone who's a safer option than Schultz. Whether that be Green or Muzzin doesn't matter much, it's just getting a guy that isn't coming off a broken leg and a poor season last year. Let's say you get Muzzin, you'd end up with Maatta-Muzzin as your 2nd pair for the next year and a half and then you see how far Riikola has progressed by the end of the 2019-2020 season. If he's ready to be the 2nd pair RD, you can move one of Maatta or Muzzin and then make Riikola the 2nd pair RD. I really think people overemphasize how essential it is to keep Schultz. He's in the same boat as Maatta, if you can get someone better or less risk than him, you do that. There is a ton of risk that comes with him, both from his injury and his poor play last year.

If I can get someone better than Schultz at a reasonable price, I get them... and then keep Schultz anyway for the rest of the season if I can at all help it. I think you severely underestimate how positive an impact he has here.

 

[Icarium]

Nobody has dared to bump the Kessel thread after this game. I wonder why.

The result was a bit flattering and the defence is still a mess for long periods of time but if Murray can keep this form and the third and second line start scoring, watch out NHL. Pearson was so much more noticeable than in most previous games, Geno's line finding some chemistry, Guentzel and Crosby missing some glorious chances. This game could easily have ended something like 6-5.

 

[Gurglesons]

The risk with him comes from what will happen to his skating from his ankle/leg injury. I'm not worried about Schultz's puck moving or offensive ability. I'm concerned about his skating and how rusty he will be this year. Schultz was never that great of a skater to begin with, he was a fantastic puck mover, but his skating wasn't as good as his puck moving. What impact is a 5 month leg injury going to have on his skating? Now combine that with him playing with Maatta when he gets back, who looks even slower now, and it's not something I'm comfortable with.

I don’t think it’ll be that big of a deal. He’ll have two months to get into game shape.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If I can get someone better than Schultz at a reasonable price, I get them... and then keep Schultz anyway for the rest of the season if I can at all help it. I think you severely underestimate how positive an impact he has here.

You don't have the cap space to do that. If you want to add someone like Schultz, you have to trade Schultz (or Maatta). Like I said in the salary cap thread, any addition has to come with a subtraction on this roster. If you want a top-4 defenseman, you have to subtract a top-4 defenseman because you don't have a spot otherwise.

I don’t think it’ll be that big of a deal. He’ll have two months to get into game shape.

You're much more confident than I am. I view that entire 2nd pair to be a potential disaster waiting to happen, I would feel extremely uncomfortable with a 2nd pair of Maatta-Schultz beyond the trade deadline. There is just such a huge risk with running with that pair.

How comfortable would you be with a Maatta-Johnson 2A or 2B pair going into the playoffs? If you run with Pettersson-Schultz as one pair and Maatta-Johnson as another pair, I might be more comfortable with the defense with the thought of Johnson's playoff track record.

 

[Peat]

You don't have the cap space to do that. If you want to add someone like Schultz, you have to trade Schultz (or Maatta). Like I said in the salary cap thread, any addition has to come with a subtraction on this roster. If you want a top-4 defenseman, you have to subtract a top-4 defenseman because you don't have a spot otherwise.

Well you gave one answer in your post

How much cap space do we have at the deadline? Capfriendly says 5.27m, but that sounds wrong to me - but then I don't know how LTIR interacts with this. You don't need much to fit in, say, Muzzin for Oleksiak out and Sheahan out (replaced with some WBS kid).

 

[Empoleon8771]

Well you gave one answer in your post

How much cap space do we have at the deadline? Capfriendly says 5.27m, but that sounds wrong to me - but then I don't know how LTIR interacts with this. You don't need much to fit in, say, Muzzin for Oleksiak out and Sheahan out (replaced with some WBS kid).

But like I said, you don't have a spot for Muzzin if you do that. Any addition of any significant player has to come with a corresponding subtraction of another player. This isn't a cap space problem, and it's not even a roster space problem. It's a problem of this team already having 5 defensemen they flat out won't scratch and a 6th guy who's playing too well to scratch.

For me, the best case scenario for this defense when everyone is healthy is:

Dumoulin-Letang
Maatta-Johnson
Pettersson-Schultz

Just shelter your 3rd pair and make the 2nd pair a defensive pair. I think that 2nd pair would work better as a shutdown pair in the playoffs than it would in the regular season, especially considering JJ's playoff track record.

 

[Peat]

But like I said, you don't have a spot for Muzzin if you do that. Any addition of any significant player has to come with a corresponding subtraction of another player. This isn't a cap space problem, and it's not even a roster space problem. It's a problem of this team already having 5 defensemen they flat out won't scratch and a 6th guy who's playing too well to scratch.

For me, the best case scenario for this defense when everyone is healthy is:

Dumoulin-Letang
Maatta-Johnson
Pettersson-Schultz

Just shelter your 3rd pair and make the 2nd pair a defensive pair. I think that 2nd pair would work better as a shutdown pair in the playoffs than it would in the regular season, especially considering JJ's playoff track record.

You say problem, I say desired end scenario. If you can somehow score Muzzin while only giving up Oleksiak then you shrug apologetically at Petterson, give Muzzin his place, and celebrate not fearing your first non-first pairing defence injury in the slightest. If the team was willing to bring in Schultz for 15-16 and have one of him and Lovejoy sit, then I see no reason they wouldn't or shouldn't aim to do the same this year with Petterson as the victim.

 

[Shady Machine]

The comment was that you can trade Schultz for a less risky version of Schultz, and you don't have to worry about the long run because Riikola is your long term 2nd pair RD. When I say "long term", I mean down the line, as in like 2 years from now. You can get someone like Muzzin or Green right now, with shipping off Schultz, and just plan on Riikola taking the 2nd pair RD spot once it becomes available.

You are making an assumption that a player you believe should be #7 now will be a 3-4 in 2 years, which I think is a tad risky at this point and I really like Riikola.

I just see no reason to trade Schultz unless you get a sick offer. We need more Schultz like players on D and he has proven he works on this team, has chemistry with out stars, etc.

For me, he's close to last on who I would trade on D.

 

[Shady Machine]

The risk with him comes from what will happen to his skating from his ankle/leg injury. I'm not worried about Schultz's puck moving or offensive ability. I'm concerned about his skating and how rusty he will be this year. Schultz was never that great of a skater to begin with, he was a fantastic puck mover, but his skating wasn't as good as his puck moving. What impact is a 5 month leg injury going to have on his skating? Now combine that with him playing with Maatta when he gets back, who looks even slower now, and it's not something I'm comfortable with.

If it's that big of a risk, why is some other team going to pay us anything worth a damn for him? Pens don't have unlimited resources to move Schultz for peanuts and then pay good assets for an upgrade.

 

[Shady Machine]

Well you gave one answer in your post

How much cap space do we have at the deadline? Capfriendly says 5.27m, but that sounds wrong to me - but then I don't know how LTIR interacts with this. You don't need much to fit in, say, Muzzin for Oleksiak out and Sheahan out (replaced with some WBS kid).

That deadline space includes Schultz LTIR space. Once he's back, I would assume the actual space is negligible.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You say problem, I say desired end scenario. If you can somehow score Muzzin while only giving up Oleksiak then you shrug apologetically at Petterson, give Muzzin his place, and celebrate not fearing your first non-first pairing defence injury in the slightest. If the team was willing to bring in Schultz for 15-16 and have one of him and Lovejoy sit, then I see no reason they wouldn't or shouldn't aim to do the same this year with Petterson as the victim.

There's a difference between acquiring Schultz in 2016 and acquiring Muzzin now. I also wasn't happy about acquiring Schultz in 2016 because it screwed over Pouliot and hurt his development. Pouliot was playing really well before the Penguins acquired Schultz, but then he was banished to the press box right when Schultz got there. I don't want to see that happening with Pettersson, especially considering the Penguins gave up Sprong for him. It just doesn't seem like a smart use of assets to trade your best prospect for a defenseman, and then trade more assets for a defenseman to sit that guy in the stands as he's playing well.

You are making an assumption that a player you believe should be #7 now will be a 3-4 in 2 years, which I think is a tad risky at this point and I really like Riikola.

I just see no reason to trade Schultz unless you get a sick offer. We need more Schultz like players on D and he has proven he works on this team, has chemistry with out stars, etc.

For me, he's close to last on who I would trade on D.

You have people who want him to be a middle pair D right now

Riikola right now is probably an offensive #5 or #6 defenseman in my eyes. I just want him to be the #7 here because I think the Penguins have 6 better guys (or rather, 6 guys who will be playing above him). I'm not concerned with Riikola being able to perform at a #4 defenseman level in 2 years from now, it's not like I'm penciling him into a massive role. If Riikola can't do that, it certainly looks like Pettersson will be able to.

If it's that big of a risk, why is some other team going to pay us anything worth a damn for him? Pens don't have unlimited resources to move Schultz for peanuts and then pay good assets for an upgrade.

He's that big of a risk because of the risks also associated with Maatta. If Maatta was playing well, the risks with Schultz wouldn't be as big. Puck moving RD are pretty rare assets (although I think they've become much more common in recent years), to the point where teams would still want Schultz with those risks. If the Penguins just didn't have Maatta as their 2nd pair LD, I would be much more comfortable with gambling on Schultz coming back healthy.

I still think the best answer is trading Maatta and bringing in Muzzin, I will make that very clear. I just don't think the team wants to do that, and if they don't want to move Maatta, they have to do something.

 

[Shady Machine]

You have people who want him to be a middle pair D right now

Riikola right now is probably an offensive #5 or #6 defenseman in my eyes. I just want him to be the #7 here because I think the Penguins have 6 better guys (or rather, 6 guys who will be playing above him). I'm not concerned with Riikola being able to perform at a #4 defenseman level in 2 years from now, it's not like I'm penciling him into a massive role. If Riikola can't do that, it certainly looks like Pettersson will be able to.

I'm referring to the inconsistencies in your posts rather than my actual opinion of him. I do think he can be a top 4 dman, but I don't really see what that has to do with trading Schultz today. Schultz is paid fairly for his contributions and there is zero reason to consider trading him.

He's that big of a risk because of the risks also associated with Maatta. If Maatta was playing well, the risks with Schultz wouldn't be as big. Puck moving RD are pretty rare assets (although I think they've become much more common in recent years), to the point where teams would still want Schultz with those risks. If the Penguins just didn't have Maatta as their 2nd pair LD, I would be much more comfortable with gambling on Schultz coming back healthy.

I still think the best answer is trading Maatta and bringing in Muzzin, I will make that very clear. I just don't think the team wants to do that, and if they don't want to move Maatta, they have to do something.

Here's my problem with your posts. You are assuming because Jiggy and others have heard that the org loves Maatta that they are more willing to move Schultz than him. I have no idea why you think that's a logical assumption. The only reason people are hearing the org loves Maatta is because nearly everyone is suggesting he be traded at some point. If the fanbase and media at large started suggesting the org trade Schultz, I would suspect you hear how much the org loves Schultz.

And because of your assumption, you want to trade Schultz because Maatta weighs him down? Lol.

 

[Gurglesons]

Do people think Riikola should be in the top four when healthy?

I feel like everyone that wants him in the line-up wants this:

Dumo - Letang
Pettersson - Schultz
Maatta - Riikola

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'm referring to the inconsistencies in your posts rather than my actual opinion of him. I do think he can be a top 4 dman, but I don't really see what that has to do with trading Schultz today. Schultz is paid fairly for his contributions and there is zero reason to consider trading him.

There are no inconsistencies there. I don't think Riikola has been as good as other people in here think, but I still think he'll be able to be a #4 defenseman in 2 years. I'd lean closest to him being a #6 OFD right now, and he should be the #7 on this team. Nothing there is inconsistent. Me thinking Riikola is overrated by some on here doesn't mean I think he's bad.

And because of your assumption, you want to trade Schultz because Maatta weighs him down? Lol.

No? Where did I ever say that?

Again, I've made this really clear, I don't know why some can't get it. I think the 2nd pair with Maatta and Schultz is a massive risk. You have a risk from Schultz coming back from an injury and from whatever the hell Maatta is doing this year. There are a ton of red flags with that pair. You have to trade one of those guys for a safer or better option for me to be comfortable with that 2nd pair. If the team won't trade Maatta, they have to trade Schultz for me to be comfortable with the defense. I would prefer them to trade Maatta for a lot of reasons, but if they aren't willing to do that, they have to move Schultz.

I don't know if they want to move Maatta or Schultz more, or if they don't want to move either of them. I just know for me to be comfortable with the 2nd pair, they need to add someone better than what they have and trade one of those two. Maatta is the guy I want to be moved out, because he definitely has more value, would be a lot easier to trade and is more easily replaced than Schultz. They just have to do something with that 2nd pair, and if it's not Maatta, it has to be Schultz.

Do people think Riikola should be in the top four when healthy?

I feel like everyone that wants him in the line-up wants this:

Dumo - Letang
Pettersson - Schultz
Maatta - Riikola

I've seen some people suggest a Riikola-Schultz 2nd pair with trading Maatta. It's not many, but I have seen a few. I do like those pairs if Johnson wasn't here, the problem is that Johnson is here.

 

[Peat]

That deadline space includes Schultz LTIR space. Once he's back, I would assume the actual space is negligible.

Mmph. Had a feeling that might be the case. That sucks.

There's a difference between acquiring Schultz in 2016 and acquiring Muzzin now. I also wasn't happy about acquiring Schultz in 2016 because it screwed over Pouliot and hurt his development. Pouliot was playing really well before the Penguins acquired Schultz, but then he was banished to the press box right when Schultz got there. I don't want to see that happening with Pettersson, especially considering the Penguins gave up Sprong for him. It just doesn't seem like a smart use of assets to trade your best prospect for a defenseman, and then trade more assets for a defenseman to sit that guy in the stands as he's playing well.

Sure it hurt Pouliot's development. But it also helped win a cup. I would rather continue to up my chance of winning Cups than developing prospects - besides, you can always rationalise your defence against in the off-season. But to do so in the final leg of the season, when everyone's seeking to get as deep as you can? Makes no sense to me.

And caring who we gave up to get for Petterson makes no sense to me. Smells like a sunk cost fallacy.


p.s. Re Riikola - the strongest part of his game right now is not getting scored on. He's got a lot of offensive skills, but making the jump to him being a worthy Schultz replacement is a considerable one.

 

[Shady Machine]

There are no inconsistencies there. I don't think Riikola has been as good as other people in here think, but I still think he'll be able to be a #4 defenseman in 2 years. I'd lean closest to him being a #6 OFD right now, and he should be the #7 on this team. Nothing there is inconsistent.



No? Where did I ever say that?

Again, I've made this really clear, I don't know why some can't get it. I think the 2nd pair with Maatta and Schultz is a massive risk. You have a risk from Schultz coming back from an injury and from whatever the hell Maatta is doing this year. There are a ton of red flags with that pair. You have to trade one of those guys for a safer or better option for me to be comfortable with that 2nd pair. If the team won't trade Maatta, they have to trade Schultz for me to be comfortable with the defense. I would prefer them to trade Maatta for a lot of reasons, but if they aren't willing to do that, they have to move Schultz.

I don't know if they want to move Maatta or Schultz more, or if they don't want to move either of them. I just know for me to be comfortable with the 2nd pair, they need to add someone better than what they have and trade one of those two.

Well, you are going on and on about moving Schultz and then when I ask why, you say it's because he's a risk coming back from injury and playing with Maatta is also a risk. So, don't play them together if it's going to be that terrible instead of trading a very valuable player at their lowest value coming off an injury.

I'm just really against trading Schultz and any justification for trading him that includes another player not being very good is absurd in my view.

 

[Empoleon8771]

ure it hurt Pouliot's development. But it also helped win a cup. I would rather continue to up my chance of winning Cups than developing prospects - besides, you can always rationalise your defence against in the off-season. But to do so in the final leg of the season, when everyone's seeking to get as deep as you can? Makes no sense to me.

And caring who we gave up to get for Petterson makes no sense to me. Smells like a sunk cost fallacy.

And if you don't win a cup, it's going to look really bad to screw over young guys who are performing well because you weren't willing to trade one of your underperforming and more expensive defensemen. If it wins the cup sure, do whatever you want to win a cup. You can't predict that ahead of time, though.

p.s. Re Riikola - the strongest part of his game right now is not getting scored on. He's got a lot of offensive skills, but making the jump to him being a worthy Schultz replacement is a considerable one.

I'm not saying he's a replacement now, I'm saying I'm confident he will be able to replace him in 2 seasons.

Well, you are going on and on about moving Schultz and then when I ask why, you say it's because he's a risk coming back from injury and playing with Maatta is also a risk. So, don't play them together if it's going to be that terrible instead of trading a very valuable player at their lowest value coming off an injury.

I'm just really against trading Schultz and any justification for trading him that includes another player not being very good is absurd in my view.

So what are your other options if you're not playing them together? You can run with Pettersson-Schultz (which I like on paper) and Maatta-Johnson, but that's about it. Johnson isn't being healthy scratched and scratching Pettersson after he performed as well as he has seems crappy. If you want to get a rental like Edler and push Pettersson to the #7 role, I'd at least be fine with that if you can make the cap work and rotate Pettersson in for struggling players.

 

[Peat]

And if you don't win a cup, it's going to look really bad to screw over young guys who are performing well because you weren't willing to trade one of your underperforming and more expensive defensemen. If it wins the cup sure, do whatever you want to win a cup. You can't predict that ahead of time, though.

Well no, you can't predict it ahead of time, so you make reasonable gambles. Petterson getting less ice time for 20-40 games in favour of beefing up the defence significantly is personally a reasonable gamble.

I'm not saying he's a replacement now, I'm saying I'm confident he will be able to replace him in 2 seasons.

I know. I can't share that confidence.

 

[RSPens]

It can be a steal all you want but that means squat when it disrupts the team that was playing well and you reduced your depth at D to below -0.

They had nothing to the point they didn't even play their 7th D-man.

You have to look at it beyond what you sent out for what you brought in.

It played itself out when you dress Ruhwedel as a main cog with nothing better behind him.

So... maybe the trade value was good in retrospect, (I've said as much) but the the repercussions cost them something more.

Why?

because they couldn't defend worth a damn. The D-corps were hemmed in.

There is no revisionist history there, that's what happen.

I'm guessing that someone has already responded to this, but I am still back on page 6. The problem is that keeping Cole or moving Cole has little to nothing to do with the fact that the forwards didn't help the defense. The Pens could have been fine and could have went further last year if the forwards would have actually helped the defense out.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Well no, you can't predict it ahead of time, so you make reasonable gambles. Petterson getting less ice time for 20-40 games in favour of beefing up the defence significantly is personally a reasonable gamble.

The problem wouldn't be him getting less ice time, it's him getting no ice time. If I was confident Sullivan would rotate Pettersson in for struggling players on defense, I'd be totally fine with adding a guy like Edler. I'm just not confident in that. It all comes down to the best option being trading Maatta, everything just becomes so much easier without Maatta on this roster.

 

[Shady Machine]

So what are your other options if you're not playing them together? You can run with Pettersson-Schultz (which I like on paper) and Maatta-Johnson, but that's about it. Johnson isn't being healthy scratched and scratching Pettersson after he performed as well as he has seems crappy. If you want to get a rental like Edler and push Pettersson to the #7 role, I'd at least be fine with that if you can make the cap work and rotate Pettersson in for struggling players.

Yes that's probably the most realistic other option to run with and I'd prefer than before trading Schultz.

Having said that, I am frustrated that there could be better overall options that don't seem possible. This is my favorite makeup with current collection of players:

Dumo-Letang
MP-Schultz
Maatta-Riikola

But JJ is going to play and I can't really argue it too much with his history in the playoffs. I just wish JR didn't sign JJ because it was so unnecessary if he isn't willing to move Maatta. Too many dollars and roster spots tied up into 5-7 dmen.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yes that's probably the most realistic other option to run with and I'd prefer than before trading Schultz.

Having said that, I am frustrated that there could be better overall options that don't seem possible. This is my favorite makeup with current collection of players:

Dumo-Letang
MP-Schultz
Maatta-Riikola

But JJ is going to play and I can't really argue it too much with his history in the playoffs. I just wish JR didn't sign JJ because it was so unnecessary if he isn't willing to move Maatta. Too many dollars and roster spots tied up into 5-7 dmen.

I have more of a problem with JR being unwilling to move Maatta in general. Especially now that you've acquired Pettersson, who plays a very similar game to Maatta and has been fantastic with the Penguins this year, why keep Maatta at $4 million? You have 2 cheap and similar guys to Maatta in Pettersson and Riikola. Johnson is at least unique on this defense, Maatta is just a more expensive version of what they have already.

When you have Pettersson and Riikola on cheap deals, you can do better than Maatta as your 2nd pair LD for $4 million. If Maatta isn't playing much better than the guys making a quarter of what he makes, why even keep him?

 

[Peat]

The problem wouldn't be him getting less ice time, it's him getting no ice time. If I was confident Sullivan would rotate Pettersson in for struggling players on defense, I'd be totally fine with adding a guy like Edler. I'm just not confident in that. It all comes down to the best option being trading Maatta, everything just becomes so much easier without Maatta on this roster.

If our defence corps was any more injury prone they'd cut their heads off shaving. I'm sure he'd get some minutes. And if he doesn't and we went all the way through the play-offs with an absolutely d-corps that never missed a minute... I could live with that too.

And sure, I could live with trading a Maatta for a Muzzin too. But if I can swing Muzzin without using Maatta? Even better.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If our defence corps was any more injury prone they'd cut their heads off shaving. I'm sure he'd get some minutes. And if he doesn't and we went all the way through the play-offs with an absolutely d-corps that never missed a minute... I could live with that too.

And sure, I could live with trading a Maatta for a Muzzin too. But if I can swing Muzzin without using Maatta? Even better.

I think I realized what it is: I fully think Pettersson is better than Maatta right now. Scratching Pettersson to keep Maatta in the lineup just seems wrong to me. Maatta hasn't even been bad recently from what I've seen, he had a good game right before the Christmas break and I don't think he was bad last night. I just think Pettersson is better and is their 3rd best defenseman right now, so any result of Pettersson getting scratched is something I don't like.

 

[Shady Machine]

I think I realized what it is: I fully think Pettersson is better than Maatta right now. Scratching Pettersson to keep Maatta in the lineup just seems wrong to me. Maatta hasn't even been bad recently from what I've seen, he had a good game right before the Christmas break and I don't think he was bad last night. I just think Pettersson is better and is their 3rd best defenseman right now, so any result of Pettersson getting scratched is something I don't like.

I don't know if MP is "better" than Maatta, but he's a better fit with our RD than Maatta. So at least on this team, I want him in the lineup over Maatta.