Confirmed with Link: Penguins re-sign Bryan Rust (4 years, $3.5 million AAV)

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,659
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
So what would you have done? tried to sign replacements through Free Agency?

I would’ve move Maatta last season for a better Sheahan and signed Hainsey to the deal he got in Toronto. Likely would have signed Bonino to the Nashville deal.

I would have played Sprong in our top nine last year to get a feel for who he was moving forward and either moved him or Rust this off season for a LW improvement depending on how good he was.

I wouldn’t give every player 3 years + at their UFA value.
 

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
That's the beauty of Rust. He fits anywhere. KIRK may hate him on Sid's wing - but he has shown chemistry there before. Players have their ups and downs and I'm not sure anyone outside of Hags/Horny/Malkin and Sid/Guentzel have shown consistent chemistry night in and night out. There were times when Sheary looked lost with Sid and times he looked like he could read his mind. Neal had his moments with Geno and plenty of absolute idiotic moments in between.

I personally hate hedging bets on guys who only fit in one part of the lineup. That's where teams fail - because guys will have off nights / off series and/or injuries...then what? When Sheary left Sid he went through a nasty slump..THAT'S a case of a guy getting overpaid. Kessel in this past playoffs? Does anyone have the true answer their? He looked f'n terrible away from Geno. I'd much rather have guys like Rust, Hornqvist, and Hags who can be moved up and down the lineup - without complaint - when needed. Gives coach flexibility which believe it or not helps you win hockey games. Sully doesn't change things up just for shts and gigs. We got worked this year because we had no legs and Trotz figured out how to best us outside of the top line.

It's a mindset thing that some folks around here have - that I honestly don't understand. Which is fine I'm not bashing it. I just prefer not to spend eternity moaning about finding the 'perfect' wing for Sid or Geno, when you've got a cheap guy who causes NO drama signing at freakin 3.5 mil. How in the world does that translate to Sprong (@750k) moving? Rust is a known commodity - which is perhaps where this griping is coming from (folks who need change for the sake of change - mistaking change for progress) - we know what we're getting out of him and what he can bring, yet we'd rather take a chance on someone else? And for what? Maybe 1M savings?

The issue is we now have three top 9 RW's, plus Sprong. You can't play Sprong on L4. The least bad thing I can think of is to just let Rust play on L4 RW with Sheahan. That is, if we can afford Sheahan after signing Rust. Unless you advocate playing Hornqvist on L4.

If Sprong is getting a real shot, it has to be in the top 9. You can't waive him now.
 

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
I'm mildly surprised it's that much. I thought three million per was very fair. I guess because we got a four year deal it raised the Annual average salary.

Yeah Rust has also shown gradual improvement every year. Seems like he really works on certain things to get better at over the break.

If he improves on anything again he’s well worth it (hopefully better playmaking). Not that he’s not worth it as is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pixiesfanyo

Ryder71

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
22,831
11,036
Yeah Rust has also shown gradual improvement every year. Seems like he really works on certain things to get better at over the break.

If he improves on anything again he’s well worth it (hopefully better playmaking). Not that he’s not worth it as is.
I like Rust, and I'm glad we're keeping him. But I didn't expect him to go anywhere when we all know Sully LOVES such players. That said I don't think 3.5 mil per is a team friendly contract. I was thinking three million per was fair or even in the high two's. And in this last playoff run he wasn't very visible at all. I thought that may temper his salary demands even ever so slightly. I think the term however dictated the heightened AAV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Hanks

wej20

Registered User
Aug 14, 2008
27,957
1,926
UK
I would’ve move Maatta last season for a better Sheahan and signed Hainsey to the deal he got in Toronto. Likely would have signed Bonino to the Nashville deal.

I would have played Sprong in our top nine last year to get a feel for who he was moving forward and either moved him or Rust this off season for a LW improvement depending on how good he was.

I wouldn’t give every player 3 years + at their UFA value.

Don't understand the logic of re-signing Bones to the Nashville deal but not re-signing Dumo/Rust. I think Schultz, Dumoulin and Rust could have all gotten more in free agency
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,567
2,936
Florida
The issue is we now have three top 9 RW's, plus Sprong. You can't play Sprong on L4. The least bad thing I can think of is to just let Rust play on L4 RW with Sheahan. That is, if we can afford Sheahan after signing Rust. Unless you advocate playing Hornqvist on L4.

If Sprong is getting a real shot, it has to be in the top 9. You can't waive him now.

I think Rust gets serious LW consideration to start the season. He has played it before and will be suitable for it now. I also think GMJR is not done 'listening' on Kessel as a means to either upgrade the LW/D/ and or free cap space. Also, our L4 this year will be completely opposite last year.. I think the mission will be to give them more minutes as a legitimate scoring line - so having Rust down there is not all that bad. In the past we've relied on ELC's to fill that role, but with Guentzel and Sprong both in the top 9 on ELC level contracts we can afford to spend a bit more on L4 right now.

Hornqvist should always be with Geno/Sid. He's too good at cleaning things up and working in areas I'd prefer them not to be.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
The issue is we now have three top 9 RW's, plus Sprong. You can't play Sprong on L4. The least bad thing I can think of is to just let Rust play on L4 RW with Sheahan. That is, if we can afford Sheahan after signing Rust. Unless you advocate playing Hornqvist on L4.

If Sprong is getting a real shot, it has to be in the top 9. You can't waive him now.
If you let your mind accept that the 4th line isn't some line that has to have cheap talent, it makes it easier to accept that Rust on the 4th line with Sheahan and a solid LW'er, is a f***ing amazing thing.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,659
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
Don't understand the logic of re-signing Bones to the Nashville deal but not re-signing Dumo/Rust. I think Schultz, Dumoulin and Rust could have all gotten more in free agency

I was high on Bones and his fit in our room and in our top nine. He played heavy d-zone starts in both the regular season and playoffs and had the ability to go on offensive tears.

I also think the center hole is the hardest position to fill in the NHL. We could easily have gotten LW and D depth that puts us past Washington at the deadline and potentially have kept our 1st rounder.

Obviously, somewhat hindsight there, but I think Rutherford mistakenly moved on from what worked here and bought into what a lot of people have and still do that Rust and Sheary are what worked. I think Bonino and Cullen made Rust and Sheary more than those players made themselves. Not really mad about any of the contracts, but I wasn’t mad about the Dupuis, Scuderi and Kunitz contracts. They’re fair value, but they are definite role players tied up that maybe had a hot playoff or two.

Same thing with Schultz got enamored with a hot December and a solid playoffs and gave him term. Hornqvist as well.

None of this contracts are bad in a vacuum, but when you add them up I want fresh blood in the roster. It is why I’d move Kessel, Letang, whoever if we get a deal that helps us build some young depth over the next two years.
 

CertifiedLurker

Registered User
Aug 13, 2016
869
182
Kessel in this past playoffs? Does anyone have the true answer? He looked f'n terrible away from Geno. I'd much rather have guys like Rust, Hornqvist, and Hags who can be moved up and down the lineup - without complaint - when needed.

I mean, you have a 12 game sample where he looked bad, and then you have a 200+ game sample where he didn't look terrible away from Malkin so...
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
I am curious where Sullivan will use Rust, for sure. We're also not 100% sure about Kessel staying either, so there's that golden nugget to digest too.

As it stands, the RW depth:

Kessel
Hornqvist
Rust
Sprong

The LW depth:

Guentzel
Hagelin
Sheary
Aston-Reese

If Sheary is interchangeable as LW/RW, so is Rust. It allows some flexibility I think.

I would’ve move Maatta last season for a better Sheahan and signed Hainsey to the deal he got in Toronto. Likely would have signed Bonino to the Nashville deal.

I would have played Sprong in our top nine last year to get a feel for who he was moving forward and either moved him or Rust this off season for a LW improvement depending on how good he was.

I wouldn’t give every player 3 years + at their UFA value.
uKwPSCP.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryan Rust

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
I think Rust gets serious LW consideration to start the season. He has played it before and will be suitable for it now. I also think GMJR is not done 'listening' on Kessel as a means to either upgrade the LW/D/ and or free cap space. Also, our L4 this year will be completely opposite last year.. I think the mission will be to give them more minutes as a legitimate scoring line - so having Rust down there is not all that bad. In the past we've relied on ELC's to fill that role, but with Guentzel and Sprong both in the top 9 on ELC level contracts we can afford to spend a bit more on L4 right now.

Hornqvist should always be with Geno/Sid. He's too good at cleaning things up and working in areas I'd prefer them not to be.

I like the idea of a 3b line too, but we need Sheahan to pull it off. Hopefully the org has something up their collective sleeve with him and a new deal, as you can't run a second third line with Blueger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: molon labe

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
I was high on Bones and his fit in our room and in our top nine. He played heavy d-zone starts in both the regular season and playoffs and had the ability to go on offensive tears.

I also think the center hole is the hardest position to fill in the NHL. We could easily have gotten LW and D depth that puts us past Washington at the deadline and potentially have kept our 1st rounder.

Obviously, somewhat hindsight there, but I think Rutherford mistakenly moved on from what worked here and bought into what a lot of people have and still do that Rust and Sheary are what worked. I think Bonino and Cullen made Rust and Sheary more than those players made themselves. Not really mad about any of the contracts, but I wasn’t mad about the Dupuis, Scuderi and Kunitz contracts. They’re fair value, but they are definite role players tied up that maybe had a hot playoff or two.

Same thing with Schultz got enamored with a hot December and a solid playoffs and gave him term. Hornqvist as well.

None of this contracts are bad in a vacuum, but when you add them up I want fresh blood in the roster. It is why I’d move Kessel, Letang, whoever if we get a deal that helps us build some young depth over the next two years.

Except usage wise, Bones wasn't getting heavy D-zone stats, he was getting closer to a split of 40/60 up until the playoffs, where he would get closer to a 25/75 split on OZ and DZ starts.

Sheahan was playing an insane amount of DZ starts and still out produced Bones this season.

Bones' Pens tenure + 1yr of Nash.

43/57 - 29pts (49/51)
42/58 - 37pts (26/74)
33/67 - 25pts (20/80)

Sheahan Pens:

27 OZ Starts/73 DZ Starts - 32pts. (playoffs 28/72)

We got a better player in Sheahan.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,659
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
Except usage wise, Bones wasn't getting heavy D-zone stats, he was getting closer to a split of 40/60 up until the playoffs, where he would get closer to a 25/75 split on OZ and DZ starts.

Sheahan was playing an insane amount of DZ starts and still out produced Bones this season.

Bones' Pens tenure + 1yr of Nash.

43/57 - 29pts (49/51)
42/58 - 37pts (26/74)
33/67 - 25pts (20/80)

Sheahan Pens:

27 OZ Starts/73 DZ Starts - 32pts. (playoffs 28/72)

We got a better player in Sheahan.

Don’t really feel like getting into this argument. My point with Bonino is he was a good player, we sign him for free, we bring in Sheahan for a low pick, we then have the ability to address either LW, keep Cole or boost the D at the deadline.

Likely means we have to walk from Hornqvist should be your argument. Not Sheahan is better.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
Don’t really feel like getting into this argument. My point with Bonino is he was a good player, we sign him for free, we bring in Sheahan for a low pick, we then have the ability to address either LW, keep Cole or boost the D at the deadline.

Likely means we have to walk from Hornqvist should be your argument. Not Sheahan is better.

That's a lot of If's. If the team kept Bonino, who knows if Sheahan would be on their radar at that point.
If that happens, losing Hornqvist is not worth Bones at any cost.

As we saw in Nashville, Bones wasn't much of a factor there either. He had a brief moment of brilliance with the Pens, but signing him would have been a huge mistake. I think a guy like Bones, he blew his hockey load with the team, whatever he is now, is a glorified 4th liner getting paid 2C-B money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryan Rust

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,659
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
That's a lot of If's. If the team kept Bonino, who knows if Sheahan would be on their radar at that point.
If that happens, losing Hornqvist is not worth Bones at any cost.

As we saw in Nashville, Bones wasn't much of a factor there either. He had a brief moment of brilliance with the Pens, but signing him would have been a huge mistake. I think a guy like Bones, he blew his hockey load with the team, whatever he is now, is a glorified 4th liner getting paid 2C-B money.

Bonino was their best center in their 1st round?

He had two solid playoffs here and another solid playoffs in Nashville. He’s the prototypical 3C and I don’t see a lot of ifs. Rutherford wanted center depth Sheahan could’ve easily been had for the same package.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
Bonino was their best center in their 1st round?

He had two solid playoffs here and another solid playoffs in Nashville. He’s the prototypical 3C and I don’t see a lot of ifs. Rutherford wanted center depth Sheahan could’ve easily been had for the same package.
I didn't watch the Preds in the playoffs, so how was he their best center in the first round?

From what I can recall, he had 1 very good game vs Colorado, Colorado.

Edit: Then vs Winnipeg, he was -8 in that series with 0pts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryan Rust

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,659
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
I didn't watch the Preds in the playoffs, so how was he their best center in the first round?

From what I can recall, he had 1 very good game vs Colorado, Colorado.

Edit: Then vs Winnipeg, he was -8 in that series with 0pts.

His line dominated Colorado that’s how. Go ask Preds fans. He split 20/80 this year for the Preds in the playoffs.

The Winnipeg series was a disaster due to Rinne.

But, you’re still missing the point. Signing a free center we knew fit here for a relatively good deal at 4x4 (rumor was it’d be a lower cap for us) would’ve allowed us to address other issues. Like Olli Maatta.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,659
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
I think we both are.

In the end. I am 100% happy with Bones not being here though.

My main point is that Rutherford took the easy decision. He resigned all the players “he should” rather than making the difficult moves. Rust is another feather in that cap.

Eventually, it is going to bite us like it bit the Kings, the Bruins and the Hawks.
 
Last edited:

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
The money doesn't bother me, but the term is a tiny bit longer than I'd like. I've never been a fan of signing non-star players to anything longer than 2-3 years.
 

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
The money doesn't bother me, but the term is a tiny bit longer than I'd like. I've never been a fan of signing non-star players to anything longer than 2-3 years.

Generally I agree with 2 year deals for bottom 6 players. Except for the 3C and wingers who can be effective in our top 6. I’d go 2-4 years then. Depends on the player of course but Rust is a pretty safe bet as a player at that term/price.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->