Confirmed with Link: Pens sign F Nick Spaling to 2-year, $4.4M contract (2.2AAV)

[Sidney the Kidney]

Not me.

I've been watching hockey long enough to know that a stacked top 6 and an awful bottom 6 is, invariably, a recipe for disaster.

Conversely, plenty of teams with 1 to 5 less-than-ideal pieces in the top 6, but great depth, have run off with the whole thing. Including the Penguins in 2009.

The bottom six was a DEFCON1 situation last year. For all the keystrokes spent complaining about it, "Pascal is suboptimal for a first line role" was like 50th on the list of things that were wrong with last year's club at any point in the season, in order of importance.

It's still not what I want, but it is composed of players that I recognize as, at least, legitimate NHL depth players. At no point was that the case last season.

Actually, I'd disagree with the bolded. In fact, the Pens in 2009 are the *only* Cup champions in recent memory who you could describe as having a weak top six.

Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Detroit, and even Carolina were incredibly deep in their top six. The closest thing was Anaheim, but even they had a strong top six. Other than the Pens, none of those Cup winners since the lockout had clearly identifiable weaknesses in their top six, like the Pens currently have (and have had pretty much forever).

I also think it's easier to fix a weak bottom six at the trade deadline than it is to fix holes in the top six. We saw that last year when adding even just Stempniak and Goc made our top six somewhat decent come playoff time.

 

[billybudd]

The key difference being that JR didn't spend too much on them. We all want depth. But Shero spent too much money on depth players who were not worth it.

On D, maybe. At forward, an argument can be made for Kennedy, but that's about it.

If you're referring to #9, Shero viewed that contract as spending on the top 6. That may be something of a problem in itself, but it's a different problem than one of too much resource allocation to the bottom of the lineup.

 

[Ogrezilla]

On D, maybe. At forward, an argument can be made for Kennedy, but that's about it.

If you're referring to #9, Shero viewed that contract as spending on the top 6. That may be something of a problem in itself, but it's a different problem than one of too much resource allocation to the bottom of the lineup.

I guess that's true. The problem is that he thought we had Sid's wingers. Which is way worse.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

yes, 100%. I've said the same thing about both of them. I've also said paying them a combined $6MM is nuts.

The Penguins could very well have a $10MM 3rd-line with ZERO (0) ELITE 3RD LINE PLAYERS.

How the **** is that 1) possible 2) good managing?

I still hold out hope JR just trades Sutter. I keep cringing when I open these forums that I'll hear we signed him to 4x4 or something. Hell, trade him for Cooke.

 

[billybudd]

Actually, I'd disagree with the bolded. In fact, the Pens in 2009 are the *only* Cup champions in recent memory who you could describe as having a weak top six.

Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Detroit, and even Carolina were incredibly deep in their top six. The closest thing was Anaheim, but even they had a strong top six. Other than the Pens, none of those Cup winners since the lockout had clearly identifiable weaknesses in their top six, like the Pens currently have (and have had pretty much forever).

Furthermore, Chicago, LA, Boston, Carolina, Anaheim and the Red Wing team that won the cup had great depth.

The Wings team that lost in the finals had a better top 6 than the Cup winner, but worse depth than both their opponent and their previous team.

I also think it's easier to fix a weak bottom six at the trade deadline than it is to fix holes in the top six. We saw that last year when adding even just Stempniak and Goc made our top six somewhat decent come playoff time.

Our bottom six was soft and couldn't forecheck or cycle even with those two. It was horrible. I have no idea how anyone could have watched that and thought it was fixed.

 

[The Tang]

I still hold out hope JR just trades Sutter. I keep cringing when I open these forums that I'll hear we signed him to 4x4 or something. Hell, trade him for Cooke.

If you're going to deal Sutter package him for a top six winger. Trading him for a fading third liner is beyond stupid. Given what the likes of bolland and brassard got this off season, $4mm isn't terrible even though overpaying

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Furthermore, Chicago, LA, Boston, Carolina, Anaheim and the Red Wing team that won the cup had great depth.

The Wings team that lost in the finals had a better top 6 than the Cup winner, but worse depth than both their opponent and their previous team.

Uh? Why did you quote those logos?

And I know they had great depth. But they also had great top six depth, which is counter to what you said about how teams can do well with holes in their top six as long as they have strong bottom sixes.

Name one single team that won the Cup (other than the Pens) in the last decade that only had 2 or 3 good top six players, with the rest of their top six filled with less than ideal guys. Just one.

Our bottom six was soft and couldn't forecheck or cycle even with those two. It was horrible. I have no idea how anyone could have watched that and thought it was fixed.

Fixed, as in it got a lot stronger with two simple additions. When everyone was healthy, the bottom six we went into the playoffs with was much improved over the bottom six before the deadline. Now let's talk about our top six. Oh, wait.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

If you're going to deal Sutter package him for a top six winger. Trading him for a fading third liner is beyond stupid. Given what the likes of bolland and brassard got this off season, $4mm isn't terrible even though overpaying

My point is that having Sutter and Spaling is a waste, and even the addition of a different kind of player with some edge and physicality would be an improvement. I'd prefer to package Sutter for a top 6 wing.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Wasn't Michal Handzus' corpse centering Chicago's second line in 2013? That's a bigger hole in the top six than whatever the Penguins' biggest weakness there the past few years.

 

[Ogrezilla]

My point is that having Sutter and Spaling is a waste, and even the addition of a different kind of player with some edge and physicality would be an improvement. I'd prefer to package Sutter for a top 6 wing.

Why is it a waste to have both?

 

[penguins2946*]

I don't have an issue with his dollar total. $2.2 million for his production and PKing is fair. My issue is if we pay Sutter something asinine like $3.75 million. The difference between Sutter and Spaling isn't $1.5 million. You can't spend $6 million on 2 players that are basically the exact same for the 3rd line. Sutter is redundant with the players on our roster and he wants significantly more than either of the 2 3Cs we have are making. Signing Sutter to a $3.5-$4 million deal while we have 2 players who can do what he does and a hole in the top-6 is beyond stupid.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I don't have an issue with his dollar total. $2.2 million for his production and PKing is fair. My issue is if we pay Sutter something asinine like $3.75 million. The difference between Sutter and Spaling isn't $1.5 million. You can't spend $6 million on 2 players that are basically the exact same for the 3rd line. Sutter is redundant with the players on our roster and he wants significantly more than either of the 2 3Cs we have are making. Signing Sutter to a $3.5-$4 million deal while we have 2 players who can do what he does and a hole in the top-6 is beyond stupid.

Everything I've read about Spaling is that he's gritty, works the boards well and crashes the net. The only similarities I've read would be that he PKs and that he is a 3rd liner who can play center.

 

[penguins2946*]

Everything I've read about Spaling is that he's gritty, works the boards well and crashes the net. The only similarities I've read would be that he PKs and that he is a 3rd liner who can play center.

Those 2, and Goc for that matter, are close enough that you can't justify paying Sutter that much. That was the point of my post.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Those 2, and Goc for that matter, are close enough that you can't justify paying Sutter that much. That was the point of my post.

Goc is much more similar to Sutter. He's not as good though. I think Spaling and Sutter sound like a solid complimentary pair, though they could really use a playmaker. Downie would be a nice match with the two of them I think. Him or Bennett. If its Dupuis, now we are starting to get redundant.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

Goc is much more similar to Sutter. He's not as good though. I think Spaling and Sutter sound like a solid complimentary pair, though they could really use a playmaker. Downie would be a nice match with the two of them I think. Him or Bennett. If its Dupuis, now we are starting to get redundant.

Well I think you're right here, with Downie or Bennett they get the playmaker they need. With Dupuis that line would have possession problems, and would probably have trouble generating good shots. But where do we stick Dupuis then? I'm having trouble coming up with balanced top 6 lines if we use BB or Downie on the third.

Spaling and Sutter could be a good PK pair though considering both can take draws, one right handed one left, good defensively, etc.

 

[The Tang]

My point is that having Sutter and Spaling is a waste, and even the addition of a different kind of player with some edge and physicality would be an improvement. I'd prefer to package Sutter for a top 6 wing.

I hardly call those two a waste. Sutter played significantly better when he got decent linemates at the end of the year and we haven't seen enough of spaling to just write him off yet. And if we get rid of them, well, that's just more depth players we need to go out and acquire

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Well I think you're right here, with Downie or Bennett they get the playmaker they need. With Dupuis that line would have possession problems, and would probably have trouble generating good shots. But where do we stick Dupuis then? I'm having trouble coming up with balanced top 6 lines if we use BB or Downie on the third.

They can't make balanced lines, they need another legitimate top 6 winger, preferably a lefty, to do that. Dupuis with one knee can't be in the top six when he wasn't a top 6 winger before, though.

If there's no trade. Hope that Kapanen takes a giant leap forward and/or Megna does, I guess. It's too many RHS wingers but they're wingers with skill. Hornqvist can play LW... Dupuis can go wherever he can be put. The 35 year old who blew out his knee needs to earn his spot, for the team's and his own good. No sticking him somewhere out of respect, history or his contract so he can flounder there.

 

[Woodrow]

If you're going to deal Sutter package him for a top six winger. Trading him for a fading third liner is beyond stupid. Given what the likes of bolland and brassard got this off season, $4mm isn't terrible even though overpaying

I still hold out hope JR just trades Sutter. I keep cringing when I open these forums that I'll hear we signed him to 4x4 or something. Hell, trade him for Cooke.

Sutter won't get that much. He opted not to go to arbitration because he would have been crushed. He really doesn't have that much leverage at all because the Pens have other options for a #3 center. In my opinion he is likely to take a relatively cheap 1 year deal in order to try to cash in next year.

 

[Captain Hook]

Sutter won't get that much. He opted not to go to arbitration because he would have been crushed. He really doesn't have that much leverage at all because the Pens have other options for a #3 center. In my opinion he is likely to take a relatively cheap 1 year deal in order to try to cash in next year.

I agree Sutter would have been crushed in arbitration but he does have leverage due to the fact that he's one year away from UFA and the Pens don't want to give him a one year deal and lose him for nothing next summer. He's in position to make the Pens pay quite a bit to keep him from going to UFA next summer. He's definitely got leverage in that regard.

 

[Woodrow]

I agree Sutter would have been crushed in arbitration but he does have leverage due to the fact that he's one year away from UFA and the Pens don't want to give him a one year deal and lose him for nothing next summer. He's in position to make the Pens pay quite a bit to keep him from going to UFA next summer. He's definitely got leverage in that regard.

Ya I understand what you're saying but I don't think the Pens should/can afford to lock a #3 center for big dollars long term and both Sutter and the Pens know this. Given that, if I were the Pens I would be offering him 1 year deals near his qualifying offer or longer term contracts that are very trade-able. I think Sutter is basically going to have to decide how confident he is that he won't **** the bed this season.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Well I think you're right here, with Downie or Bennett they get the playmaker they need. With Dupuis that line would have possession problems, and would probably have trouble generating good shots. But where do we stick Dupuis then? I'm having trouble coming up with balanced top 6 lines if we use BB or Downie on the third.

Spaling and Sutter could be a good PK pair though considering both can take draws, one right handed one left, good defensively, etc.

There's still a decent chance Dupuis is the top 6 LW at least some of the time. Two of those three will be there most likely. Honestly, I expect a bit of rotation between them.

Dupuis-Crosby-Hornqvist
Kunitz-Malkin-Bennett
Spaling-Sutter-Downie

That's not the top 6 I'd want, but its a hell of a good third line.

 

[billybudd]

Uh? Why did you quote those logos?

And I know they had great depth. But they also had great top six depth, which is counter to what you said about how teams can do well with holes in their top six as long as they have strong bottom sixes.

Name one single team that won the Cup (other than the Pens) in the last decade that only had 2 or 3 good top six players, with the rest of their top six filled with less than ideal guys. Just one.

Hockey wasn't invented in 2004. If you go back 20 years, I can name 4 that fit your criteria, not counting the Penguins, including a quasi-dynasty in the Devils.

There are zero teams in that same time span that won anything with bottom six forwards of the caliber that the Pittsburgh Penguins have been icing since 2011. Zero.

 

[Gurglesons]

Hockey wasn't invented in 2004. If you go back 20 years, I can name 4 that fit your criteria, not counting the Penguins, including a quasi-dynasty in the Devils.

There are zero teams in that same time span that won anything with bottom six forwards of the caliber that the Pittsburgh Penguins have been icing since 2011. Zero.

Are you saying the Devils didn't have a solid top six when they were winning cups?

 

[mpp9]

I agree Sutter would have been crushed in arbitration but he does have leverage due to the fact that he's one year away from UFA and the Pens don't want to give him a one year deal and lose him for nothing next summer. He's in position to make the Pens pay quite a bit to keep him from going to UFA next summer. He's definitely got leverage in that regard.

I'm assuming we're going to have to pay quite a bit to keep him here longterm with him being a UFA next summer.

I'm alot more worried about JR giving him a 1-2 year deal, and thinking he can re-sign him before he hits UFA. Would not be a fan of that approach.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Hockey wasn't invented in 2004. If you go back 20 years, I can name 4 that fit your criteria, not counting the Penguins, including a quasi-dynasty in the Devils.

There are zero teams in that same time span that won anything with bottom six forwards of the caliber that the Pittsburgh Penguins have been icing since 2011. Zero.

First off, the salary cap kind of limits teams. So that's why I'm sticking to the past decade.

Second, New Jersey? Seriously? 2000 Cup team had Elias, Sykora, Gomez, Arnott, Lemieux, and Mogilny. That's leaps and bounds better than your criteria of "teams can win with a few holes in their top six". The other Devils teams had one of the most dominant defense/goalie tandems in the past 30 years, while still having solid depth up front. The only team that's even remotely close to your definition is the 2003 Devils team.

I've shown you the PAST DECADE to show how every team that's won has needed a strong top six. But you're insisting that it can be done because the 2003 Devils did it? One example versus a dozen examples and you think that's a strong argument in your favor?