Confirmed with Link: Penguins re-sign Zach Aston-Reese (2 years, $1m AAV)
- Thread starter Peat
- Start date
Ugene Magic
EVIL LAUGH
Last edited:
I guess I just don’t think having signed him for two years that they’d risk waiving him...think he could be traded at some point but until that’s possible, someone who might be producing a point per game in WBS could be prevented from being called up...we don’t know...maybe Bellerive or Almeida are killing it, and we’re now prevented from calling them up...
Freeptop
Registered User
Point per game players in WB/S last season (more than 1 game played):
Garrett Wilson (18 points in 18 games)
Chad Ruhwedel (5 points in 5 games)
Next closest:
Teddy Blueger (39 points in 45 games)
Jean-Sebastian Dea (22 points in 26 games)
Zach Aston-Reese (9 points in 11 games)
If a player is really tearing it up down there, they find a way to call them up. Considering the Pens can never stay healthy, it's usually not difficult.
I pencil Tanev in the 2nd line or 3rd line. Depending on if you want to spread the talent or load up top two lines. I want to have Tanev play the Hagelin role on the Malkin-Galchenyuk line. Tanev can give them space to make plays by backing the defenseman off with his speed and also create turnovers with his speed forechecking on the defense. Tanev also would provide a defensive presence that would be badly needed with the combination of Malkin and Galchenyuk.
Even if the Pens decided to go with a more offensively loaded 2nd line with someone like McCann in the LW spot I would still put Tanev with Bjugstad and Hornqvist. My 4th line would be Simon-Blueger-Rust. Like I said I prefer to spread out the forwards and have a fast forechecking forward on each line. I believe that first man in is important for Sullivan’s system to work.
My favorite starting lineup would be:
Guentzel-Crosby-Kahun
Tanev-Malkin-Galchenyuk
McCann-Bjugstad-Hornqvist
Simon-Blueger-Rust
Everyone plays on best side also. I hate when people want McCann with Crosby and Guentzel which puts Guentzel on the RW. You put your best goal scorer in his best spot. Moving him to RW is like when Blysma moved Iginla. Plain stupid in my humble opinion.
As you might have noticed, I don’t have ZAR in our top 12 at this time. Unless a trade is made I don’t see ZAR beating out any of the 12 I have in my lineup.
Last edited:
Empoleon8771
Registered User
See, I think that's the big problem I have with ZAR. He's not a nightmare to play against and he's not fast, he's kinda just there because he doesn't have the speed to be a difference maker. He doesn't really fit what the Penguins are trying to make their forward group into, he's one of the vanilla forwards that was a problem in the past. Even what JR said about ZAR suggests this, saying a guy is "responsible defensively" and "is good on the PK" is basically saying "he's Riley Sheahan".
With the forward depth they have, I just don't see a point in keeping him if he's making noticeably above league minimum. At $1 million, you're getting borderline there.
If there's guys they want up from WBS, if someone's actually that obvious an NHL guy, then they can move guys to make space. They've done it before - see Derek Grant. The majority of our forwards could be moved for okay value in a day - and ZAR is one of them.
I don’t know about completing a trade in a day...I’m not saying we can’t trade someone, but it doesn’t always fall the way you want...it’s just taking an unnecessary risk imo by having all your roster players be too experienced to be waiver exempt...just limits flexibility...
Tacitus Kilgore
Registered User
I saw Rutherford said he could be cap compliant without making any trades. Rutherford said they could just have a lower number of players on the big club. Is that really even possible? For example I said something about hiding JJ in the minors but someone said that he would still count against the cap. Is that the case and if so then why would sending down other one way contracts not count? For example let’s take Rutherford at his word and say we started the season with 12 forwards and 7 defenseman and sent down ZAR and Riikola who I don’t have in my starting lineup. With those players down if those caps didn’t count then I could see enough room to fit in a one year prove it deal with Pettersson at $1.4 million. We could fit Pettersson in with $1.3 million according to capfriendly with only moving Riikola down since they also have Trotman on the cap as of now for some strange reason. That would allow 13 forwards and 7 defenseman which would seem fine with me. I know Riikola could be snagged up by another team but I would be okay if it happened. Of course this is not ideal but if true it doesn’t force a bad trade.
Can someone inform me if something like this is possible to fit in the cap like Rutherford said. Thanks in advance.
Can someone inform me if something like this is possible to fit in the cap like Rutherford said. Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
Tacitus Kilgore
Registered User
I'm not sure we can Start ZAR in the minors with a One way contract without sending him through waivers no?
Yes, we can do 22 players and be cap compliant if Petts signs for something like $1.5 mil AND the team is willing to waive JJ...if they send Trotman down, we’re about $500k under the cap...waiving JJ gets us another $1.025 mil....
Tender Rip
Wears long pants
For those people who shall here be nameless, but know who they are...
When you have a player like ZAR, that you got for free and have developed on.... who is just coming into his own at 24, to the point where he has been in the NHL and looked at home, producing to a pace of 16 goals/35 points over half a season and having very good underlying defensive numbers (relatively, no matter who he is playing with), then you should be weary of not getting such a guy a real chance.
When your GM then signs him to two years at a 1 million AAV, and your instinct is to be critical and All-CAPS style verbose about it, then you should remind yourself that you are most likely nuts.... and you should take a minute to think over just how nuts you are, before you criticize ANYTHING about that deal.
When you have a player like ZAR, that you got for free and have developed on.... who is just coming into his own at 24, to the point where he has been in the NHL and looked at home, producing to a pace of 16 goals/35 points over half a season and having very good underlying defensive numbers (relatively, no matter who he is playing with), then you should be weary of not getting such a guy a real chance.
When your GM then signs him to two years at a 1 million AAV, and your instinct is to be critical and All-CAPS style verbose about it, then you should remind yourself that you are most likely nuts.... and you should take a minute to think over just how nuts you are, before you criticize ANYTHING about that deal.
Last edited:
I know we would have to put him through waivers just like anyone on a one way contract. My point was if that is the case then why we couldn’t do the same with JJ? My point was Rutherford said we could be cap compliant by having less than a 23 man lineup. If that is a possibility I saw we could do it if they signed Pettersson to a one year prove it deal of $1.3 million and just send Riikola down. Capfriendly also had Trotman on the cap for some strange reason. The point is that we could start with 13 forwards and 7 defenseman and be cap compliant with a low prove it deal. If we wanted a higher cap deal with Pettersson then ZAR would be my next guy sent down. If we lost ZAR I would be fine with Johnson being our 13th forward or Blandisi if you didn’t want Johnson sitting on the bench and would rather him playing.
The point is if that is an option I would rather do that then get sucked in to a bad trade because a team low balls us because they know we have cap issues. This could all be mind games to get a better trade. I am fine trading a player with a good cap hit with JJ if we did sign Gardiner. Although I would be also fine going in with our lineup we have and make a deal during the season if we have to.
SHOOTANDSCORE
Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
- Sep 25, 2005
- 10,952
- 4,675
Being on a one way or two way contract is completely irrelevant to whether a player has to clear waivers or not.
Waivers FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Freeptop
Registered User
One-way deals have nothing to do with waivers. Waiver exemption is based on age at time of signing the first contract combined with number of years since the contract began. Generally speaking it works out that once a player has completed their entry-level contract, they are no longer exempt from waivers. It is possible to run out of waiver exemption before completing the entry-level contract, though.
A "one-way" contract simply means that it pays the player the same whether they are playing in the NHL or the AHL. A "two-way" deal means that the player gets a different (lower) pay when they are assigned to the AHL team then they do when they are on the NHL roster.
Plenty of players are on two-way deals, but need to pass through waivers. Zach Trotman, for example, had to clear waivers last season to get sent down, and he's been on two-way deals the entire time he's been with the Pens. Aston-Reese would have had to pass through waivers even if they'd signed him to a two-way deal (and since he was going to arbitration, there's no way he would have agreed to a two-way deal, in any case).
A "one-way" contract simply means that it pays the player the same whether they are playing in the NHL or the AHL. A "two-way" deal means that the player gets a different (lower) pay when they are assigned to the AHL team then they do when they are on the NHL roster.
Plenty of players are on two-way deals, but need to pass through waivers. Zach Trotman, for example, had to clear waivers last season to get sent down, and he's been on two-way deals the entire time he's been with the Pens. Aston-Reese would have had to pass through waivers even if they'd signed him to a two-way deal (and since he was going to arbitration, there's no way he would have agreed to a two-way deal, in any case).
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
JimmyTwoTimes
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2010
- 19,958
- 5,281
No reason to put Tanev in the top 6...at least not right away. You see what Kahun/Galchenyuk/McCann do...assuming those are the 3 wingers(should be).
Tanev should be with Blueger forming a solid duo on the 4th line. Maybe ZAR as the other winger. Or they go with Simon. With Rust and Hornqvist being centered by Bjugstad on the 3rd.
Theres wingers we can move up and down but the 3 duos I see from the start should be...
Crosby/Guentzel
Malkin/Galchenyuk
Blueger/Tanev
Find the right 3rd wheels and the best 3rd line combo and the forward group is set. Plenty of options to choose from so there should be no more excuses
Tanev should be with Blueger forming a solid duo on the 4th line. Maybe ZAR as the other winger. Or they go with Simon. With Rust and Hornqvist being centered by Bjugstad on the 3rd.
Theres wingers we can move up and down but the 3 duos I see from the start should be...
Crosby/Guentzel
Malkin/Galchenyuk
Blueger/Tanev
Find the right 3rd wheels and the best 3rd line combo and the forward group is set. Plenty of options to choose from so there should be no more excuses
PAJEN NORDGREN
Registered User
Well, Iginla’s ppg was higher on his off-side with pens than on his right side before coming over. But I agree with putting players in a position where they most likely will succeed. And I like your lines.
If, and that is a big if, ZAR stays healthy all season and is ranked as the 13th forward, he probably will be playing more than a couple of other forwards anyways because of injuries.
When was the last time this situation has majorly hurt an org? Because I honestly can't think of a situation like it. Situations where there's a logjam, sure - we had one last season - but we traded our way out of it with no real problems. As do most orgs. Or they simply leave the kid to keep developing - which has hurt very few prospects - because the NHL team is very strong anyway. As far as I can see, either there's no pressing need to push guys along, or there's an obvious trade candidate. Maybe there's some bad cases I've missed or something but this doesn't seem a risk that comes to fruition very often.
I would have to say your wrong on Iginla because I remember him saying he never played the other wing before Blysma putting them in that spot. He was saying how uncomfortable he felt in that spot so I don’t know what you are talking about but from his own words he stated this back then.
Edit: Now I reread your post and you stated PPG which is much different and not even practical of what I was talking about. My point still stands that you don’t move your best goal scoring winger like the Pens did with Guentzel to put McCann on that line. I was talking even strength time and that’s why I mentioned Iginla because Blysma made the same mistake with him. Your point about the PP has nothing to do with that because switching sides for PP is not nearly the same as 5v5.
Last edited:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes- Updated: