Confirmed with Link: Penguins sign Josh Maniscalco to a three-year, entry-level contract

[Peat]

Rodrigues is a 27 year old with 199 NHL games.

He didn’t know Guentzel or ZAR from his WBS days, I’d argue Lafferty got left in too long when he was struggling and Rodrigues doesn’t fall under youth. He’s really not Bylsma with young players. Where he is, is that he’s got a problem with loyalty to and favouritism of vets. A lot of coaches do but it’s not the same thing as a problem with playing young players.

Didn't know Blueger either. Or Pettersson. Probably didn't know DeSmith either, if we're counting 26 year olds as kids.

The whole thing "he only likes kids he had in WBS" thing is just bizarre.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Rodrigues is a 27 year old with 199 NHL games.



Didn't know Blueger either. Or Pettersson. Probably didn't know DeSmith either, if we're counting 26 year olds as kids.

The whole thing "he only likes kids he had in WBS" thing is just bizarre.

Let's be real, it's "Sullivan hates young players because he doesn't play young players I like". Let's not beat around the bush and strain trying to figure it out. It's really obviously that.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

You can correctly hold Sullivan accountable for many things but I'm not entirely sure that not serving the youth is one of them.

Frankly aside from Marino I can't think of much in the way of actually-young players he's had to work with that aren't butt, though. If there is a lack of youth in the lineup I think it's more because the team doesn't have much in the way of NHL quality youth.

Though Sullivan CLEARLY has favorites. And I can see how the two issues could become conflated.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I’m not sure POJ has the best shot but he’s the one we’ve seen the most recently. The natural counter is that they needed those 4 years more or have less room to grow. I expect a free for all with the young D, tbh. Everything being interrupted and delayed could shake things up. Then the prize is JJ.




I wouldn’t lean towards defensive, at least not in his college career. He was an all situations D for them but that doesn’t mean he leaned towards defensive. I’d argue RPI’s production or lack there of would force a player like that to be more offensive than they otherwise would be. What happens after will be interesting because of that. Maybe playing with more talent pushes him offensively or he gets outclassed and commits to his defensive game being a priority. He’s been one of the more interesting prospects to follow.

Pens fans know ENG are the hardest goals to score.

Re: Reilly and offensive versus defensive

He won ECAC's "Best Defensive Defenseman" award this year:

William Reilly

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Rodrigues is a 27 year old with 199 NHL games.



Didn't know Blueger either. Or Pettersson. Probably didn't know DeSmith either, if we're counting 26 year olds as kids.

The whole thing "he only likes kids he had in WBS" thing is just bizarre.

Blueger is more debatable. I’d argue that his attachment to Rowney at least kept Blueger from getting a cup of coffee earlier but for awhile there were questions of him not liking Blueger. Said delay might have held his debut back but idk. He’s been fine with Blueger since he got into the NHL so I don’t think it was a dislike of the player but it stood out.

Anyway, he’s not a monster with the youth. Bylsma seemed to actively try to sabotage them if they got forced on him. After he was fired Errey tore into him over his treatment of Bennett during a game. People forget Bylsma’s worst, tbh.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Blueger is more debatable. I’d argue that his attachment to Rowney at least kept Blueger from getting a cup of coffee earlier but for awhile there were questions of him not liking Blueger. Said delay might have held his debut back but idk. He’s been fine with Blueger since he got into the NHL so I don’t think it was a dislike of the player but it stood out.

Anyway, he’s not a monster with the youth. Bylsma seemed to actively try to sabotage them if they got forced on him. After he was fired Errey tore into him over his treatment of Bennett during a game. People forget Bylsma’s worst, tbh.

To be fair with Rowney, he was also a fairly young player who has been pretty good for the Ducks since leaving Pittsburgh. He's not a bad player, it's not like Sullivan was playing someone like Adams over Blueger.

 

[Peat]

Blueger is more debatable. I’d argue that his attachment to Rowney at least kept Blueger from getting a cup of coffee earlier but for awhile there were questions of him not liking Blueger. Said delay might have held his debut back but idk. He’s been fine with Blueger since he got into the NHL so I don’t think it was a dislike of the player but it stood out.

Anyway, he’s not a monster with the youth. Bylsma seemed to actively try to sabotage them if they got forced on him. After he was fired Errey tore into him over his treatment of Bennett during a game. People forget Bylsma’s worst, tbh.

When Rowney was last a Penguin - a 44 game Penguin which suggests a lot of HSes or injuries - Blueger was a sophomore AHL player coming off the back of an unproductive first season with plenty to prove. I don't recall there being many questions as to why Blueger wasn't there - he improved that season to 45 in 70, but still work to do. Maybe shoulda got a cup of coffee ahead of Dea at some point.

Now, season after when Blueger was near ppg in the AHL was a different story, but Rowney wasn't here. People were angry Garrett Wilson got games ahead of him but Wilson was a wing and Blueger wasn't. His debut probably could have been sooner but the extent to which that's on Sullivan is questionable. I'm pretty sure Sullivan did pile trust on Blueger on the PK pretty quick though, which isn't a bad sign.

 

[Rakell67]

To be fair with Rowney, he was also a fairly young player who has been pretty good for the Ducks since leaving Pittsburgh. He's not a bad player, it's not like Sullivan was playing someone like Adams over Blueger.

I’d rather have Rowney than ZAR.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

To be fair with Rowney, he was also a fairly young player who has been pretty good for the Ducks since leaving Pittsburgh. He's not a bad player, it's not like Sullivan was playing someone like Adams over Blueger.

Rowney was hobbled a lot that season and put up 5 points in 44 games. He was bad that season, that doesn’t make him a terrible player.

When Rowney was last a Penguin - a 44 game Penguin which suggests a lot of HSes or injuries - Blueger was a sophomore AHL player coming off the back of an unproductive first season with plenty to prove. I don't recall there being many questions as to why Blueger wasn't there - he improved that season to 45 in 70, but still work to do. Maybe shoulda got a cup of coffee ahead of Dea at some point.

Now, season after when Blueger was near ppg in the AHL was a different story, but Rowney wasn't here. People were angry Garrett Wilson got games ahead of him but Wilson was a wing and Blueger wasn't. His debut probably could have been sooner but the extent to which that's on Sullivan is questionable. I'm pretty sure Sullivan did pile trust on Blueger on the PK pretty quick though, which isn't a bad sign.

It was injuries and the season they had no Cs to start. They added Sheahan and Brassard later but were playing an injured Rowney over Blueger earlier on. There were questions because of that and I still think he should have gotten a cup of coffee then. He would have had to earn being a regular but he should have gotten a cup of coffee. It’s an interesting contrast to Lafferty’s treatment this season where I’d say he had too much leash for his own good.

The thing with Blueger being a C was that Sullivan took a couple of games to play him at wing once he got into the nhl. There was a choice to stick with Wilson over trying anything else like Blueger on the wing or Cullen on the wing.

It’s a weird one more than anything. They avoided trying him in the NHL before being totally fine with him in the NHL.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

And people still wanna whine about JR. I was mad at first about his comments about JJ until I took a step back to see what he was actually trying to do in a business sense.

Anyway - now we can say...Marino, POJ, and Maniscalco.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I now demand Bronson Pinchotnuk!

 

[JTG]

Keep'em coming JR!

I mean, why wouldn't you pick the Pens as a college free agent. You almost immediately go right to the top of the depth chart.

That was a big get after trading away Addison.

 

[66-30-33]

I now demand Bronson Pinchotnuk!

He can be part of the Murray deal to Sharks.

 

[Son Goku]

And, JR’s win now moves have had some major misses lately. Brassard, Marleau, f***ing free agency and his aimless ping ponging between trades. They would have been better off sitting out some of his win now moves lately. It’s not like he’s been spending assets wisely for awhile now.

I agree on Marleau but I don’t think any of us could have predicted Brassard being THAT bad. I expected him to be a solid 2-3C

 

[HuskerTornado]

I now demand Bronson Pinchotnuk!

Would you do the dance of joy?

 

[Honour Over Glory]

He didn’t know Guentzel or ZAR from his WBS days, I’d argue Lafferty got left in too long when he was struggling and Rodrigues doesn’t fall under youth. He’s really not Bylsma with young players. Where he is, is that he’s got a problem with loyalty to and favouritism of vets. A lot of coaches do but it’s not the same thing as a problem with playing young players.

He is like Bylsma with how he used Sprong for example. Which usually gets people whining but he looked good with Geno but was forced on Sids wing and when that didn’t work it was the fourth line and then benched. He also had Blueger up but refused to play him for that one year.

Riikola being punished for mistakes JJ made regularly and then recently playing Murray over Jarry after Jarry out played him all season and even in the tune up games and scrimmages.

 

[Will Hunting]

I really can't find a reasonable spot for Hornqvist in our lineup anymore. IMO this is the last chance to move him while he has some value. If they talk about real shakeup and getting faster and younger, then probably this makes a lot of sense. Nothing against Horny, but really, I just dont see a good spot for him and any ES line with him is very questionable.

 

[Peat]

It was injuries and the season they had no Cs to start. They added Sheahan and Brassard later but were playing an injured Rowney over Blueger earlier on. There were questions because of that and I still think he should have gotten a cup of coffee then. He would have had to earn being a regular but he should have gotten a cup of coffee. It’s an interesting contrast to Lafferty’s treatment this season where I’d say he had too much leash for his own good.

The thing with Blueger being a C was that Sullivan took a couple of games to play him at wing once he got into the nhl. There was a choice to stick with Wilson over trying anything else like Blueger on the wing or Cullen on the wing.

It’s a weird one more than anything. They avoided trying him in the NHL before being totally fine with him in the NHL.

Blueger was a second year pro who still needed to work on not chasing the puck and his goalscoring (and probably other things). I think its questionable as to whether he was even ready then, and even more questionable as to putting him in the NHL instead of working on his game in the AHL was in the best interest of the team.

It's also questionable as to what Sullivan had to do with that. As best I know, it'll be the coach in WBS providing the evaluations on Blueger's readiness, and Rutherford making the final call. Which also might account for the org keeping Blueger at C for as long as possible, and then Sully deciding "screw this, I can put him on the wing" when he got his hands on him.

This one feels like digging to me.

I agree on Marleau but I don’t think any of us could have predicted Brassard being THAT bad. I expected him to be a solid 2-3C

Quite that bad, no, but not taking well to being a 3C, yes, that was predicted.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

Who did Brassard even play with? I legitimately can't remember. Rust?

 

[HandshakeLine]

I really can't find a reasonable spot for Hornqvist in our lineup anymore. IMO this is the last chance to move him while he has some value. If they talk about real shakeup and getting faster and younger, then probably this makes a lot of sense. Nothing against Horny, but really, I just dont see a good spot for him and any ES line with him is very questionable.

Yeah, I know we all love the guy, but him on the 3rd seems like a serious misuse of 5.3 million. If he leaves we'd have to redesign the power play too, which I don't entirely see as a bad thing considering how bad it's been lately.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

Yeah, I know we all love the guy, but him on the 3rd seems like a serious misuse of 5.3 million. If he leaves we'd have to redesign the power play too, which I don't entirely see as a bad thing considering how bad it's been lately.

Agreed. Thirty teams around the league don't have a Hornqvist on their PP, and a good many of them manage far better than we do.

Can't spend nearly $5.5 million AAV for a PP specialist and 3rd liner who doesn't accomplish much at ES with the guys we have to play alongside him.

 

[Peat]

A lot of this stuff on Hornqvist doesn't fit the numerical results of what's happened.

One of the major problems with the PP though is how often they keep taking Hornqvist off of PP1; it usually performs with him there. Perhaps that in itself means we we need to cut the umbilical and form a different style if we are going to keep removing the PP's focal point, but the PP doesn't struggle with Hornqvist there, it struggles when he's not. I think it took us about a month to score a PP goal without him on the ice last season. Or to put it another way - in the roughly 160 minutes we spent with Hornqvist and at least one of Sid + Geno on the ice on the PP, we scored 26 goals; roughly 1 every 6 minutes. In the roughly 98 minutes one or more of Sid and Geno spent without Hornqvist, we scored 7 goals - so roughly 1 in every 12 minutes.

He also produced at a 2nd line rate at 5v5 despite only playing 52 games, mostly away from the big dogs; if we want to express it as p/60 he was 63rd with 2.17, equal to or better than Marner, Kyle Conner, O'Reilly, Barzal, and a ton of others. He also had strong relative possession rates and GF%, which is historically the case - Hornqvist drives a good shot/chance ratio in the bottom six more than than not, and what's more, he's about the only player here where that's true.

Now, past performance does not dictate future results, and between his battle with Father Time and this weird insistence on removing him from PP1, maybe it'd be better to move on. But his results as a bottom sixer who doubles as a top six shake-up option and PP specialist are really good. He's got a role and it works. And if you could guarantee no age related decline and him getting good usage, I'd predict good results for next year too.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I don't mean my comments as any knock on Hornqvist, @Peat. It's just weird that coaching staff for whatever reason takes him out of the situations where he'd be the most effectively used, and I believe if he's not going to be used to his best ability here, we should seriously consider moving him for a player that will be. It has almost nothing to do with PH as a player, and for the record, I think his contract is very reasonable for what he does. It's just that.. well, we could also use that 5.3 million to shore up another hole and it's easier to find someone else to click on that line than say, a legit 2nd pairing puck moving D.

 

[Peat]

I don't mean my comments as any knock on Hornqvist, @Peat. It's just weird that coaching staff for whatever reason takes him out of the situations where he'd be the most effectively used, and I believe if he's not going to be used to his best ability here, we should seriously consider moving him for a player that will be. It has almost nothing to do with PH as a player, and for the record, I think his contract is very reasonable for what he does. It's just that.. well, we could also use that 5.3 million to shore up another hole and it's easier to find someone else to click on that line than say, a legit 2nd pairing puck moving D.

I mean, yeah, if they don't want to use him on the PP it should be curtains. That one is just surreal to me. And there's certainly some other stuff we could use that 5.3m on alright - although I figure if we moved him we're probably taking cap back, which has got to be factored into things there.

I do really like him on the third though. Ensure someone else on the line is good at transition and playmaking and it works.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I mean, yeah, if they don't want to use him on the PP it should be curtains. That one is just surreal to me. And there's certainly some other stuff we could use that 5.3m on alright - although I figure if we moved him we're probably taking cap back, which has got to be factored into things there.

I do really like him on the third though. Ensure someone else on the line is good at transition and playmaking and it works.

As with lots of things, it all depends on the return, not just for Hornqvist, but also for the other moving parts this off-season. If you can grab a better playmaker for the 3rd, then keep Horny, and move someone else. But if Horny's part of a package for a legit hockey trade, I'd definitely move him, just simply because for whatever reason, he's just not being used the most effectively here.