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

[billybudd]

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?

Gee, I dunno, 5 examples in 20 years seems like kind of a lot of teams to win championships with a lackluster or incomplete top 6.

Can you name 1 team in the last 50 that won a Stanley Cup with the relative lack of quality in the bottom six? I'm guessing not.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Gee, I dunno, 5 examples in 20 years seems like kind of a lot of teams to win championships with a lackluster or incomplete top 6.

I'm still waiting for this list of teams with bad top sixes. I even went ahead and named one for you, the 2003 Cup winning Devils. So who are these 5 teams?

PS. even if you can list 5 teams out of 20 years, you DO know that that's still a horrible percentage to argue your case with, right? That means that 15 out of those 20 teams had deep top sixes.

Can you name 1 team in the last 50 that won a Stanley Cup with the relative lack of quality in the bottom six? I'm guessing not.

Why would I do that? I never once argued about bottom six depth. I SPECIFICALLY called you out on your saying a team doesn't need a strong TOP six.

This was your original post that I quoted. Note the bolded part that I disagreed with.

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.

1 to 5 pieces? The "1" piece might be valid, but I disagreed entirely with you with the "to 5 pieces" thing. Name a single team with 5 weak top six players that won a Cup.

 

[iFishyHD]

Man Nashville trolled us in the Neal trade worse than I originally had thought.

How? Spaling is a great 3rd liner and Horny will be killer on the PP and put up good 5v5 numbers with Sid and Geno. Neal will struggle with Ribero, Roy, and Wilson rather then two best in the world. Ugh...

 

[Gurglesons]

How? Spaling is a great 3rd liner and Horny will be killer on the PP and put up good 5v5 numbers with Sid and Geno. Neal will struggle with Ribero, Roy, and Wilson rather then two best in the world. Ugh...

I mean this could be true, but Neal could continue his dominance from earlier last year and put up 80 points.

 

[iFishyHD]

I mean this could be true, but Neal could continue his dominance from earlier last year and put up 80 points.

Was Neal dominant in the playoffs? I think my scenario is more realistic, and Neal was my favorite Penguin (as odd as my statements sound). I liked him better on the left side (except on the PP). I wish we would have kept him, but the trade we got wasn't terrible, so it's fine to me. I would rather see the Pens win then have Neal.

Horny could be a 30/30 and Spaling 15/15. That's more then Neal's production, and our PP will benefit. Spaling will bring something to the PK that Neal didn't. Horny and Spaling combined should have less penalty's than Neal.

 

[NMK11]

I think it's safe to say that unless something unexpected happens (injury, career best/worst years) then Hornqvist should score more than in Nashville and Neal should score less than in Pittsburgh. The question which is going to make or break this trade is how much in each direction and if Hornqvist makes Sid's or Malkin's line more cohesive. Spaling may be an above average third liner, but unless he has an extremely good or extremely bad year, he's probably not going to affect my judgement on this trade.

 

[Gurglesons]

Was Neal dominant in the playoffs? I think my scenario is more realistic, and Neal was my favorite Penguin (as odd as my statements sound). I liked him better on the left side (except on the PP). I wish we would have kept him, but the trade we got wasn't terrible, so it's fine to me. I would rather see the Pens win then have Neal.

Horny could be a 30/30 and Spaling 15/15. That's more then Neal's production, and our PP will benefit. Spaling will bring something to the PK that Neal didn't. Horny and Spaling combined should have less penalty's than Neal.

He can still put up 80 points in the regular season and not be good in the playoffs. Especially given the fact that he is going to be on a power play where the other option is Shea Weber's slapshot. He is going to be the main forward offensive catalyst in Laviolette's system which is offense based. I could see him putting up 80 points if he plays at the level he was playing at around October and November last year.

 

[wej20]

I'd be shocked if he put up 80 points, 70 I guess if everything clicks for him.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I watched the last Nashville game (@Minnesota) from this season.

Spaling wasn't too noticeable in the 1st period. He had good stick and board work. I noticed that he was playing both wings.

Then, near the start of the 2nd, he created/sustained a cycle that lead to an Ellis goal. Not sure if he got an assist. More good/sly board work behind the net that leads to another goal from a defenseman (Josi this time).

Weber just assaulted Cooke.

Spaling just cleared the puck during a PK on his backhand. That was something the Penguins PKers struggled with, even on their forehand.

Cooke gets assaulted by Clune this time. Clune with a misconduct. He just dropped his gloves after a whistle and went after Cooke.

Spaling just got some PP time in the 3rd. He did his work in front of the net. Nothing came of it though. More board play, first time I've seen him do it in the defensive zone however.

2 assists, +3, and 16:30 of ice time

Unrealted: how has Weber not won a Norris yet? We should've traded the 2nd overall that became Staal for him.

 

[billybudd]

I'm still waiting for this list of teams with bad top sixes. I even went ahead and named one for you, the 2003 Cup winning Devils. So who are these 5 teams?

Not only did I already name them, I even gave you the logos.

And I didn't say "bad," I said "1 to 5 less than ideal pieces."

Anyway, 93 Habs, 94 Rangers, 95 Devils, 99 Stars, 03 Devils and the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins. So that's actually six in the last 20 seasons. Not 5.

PS. even if you can list 5 teams out of 20 years, you DO know that that's still a horrible percentage to argue your case with, right? That means that 15 out of those 20 teams had deep top sixes.

6/20 > 0/95

Why would I do that? I never once argued about bottom six depth. I SPECIFICALLY called you out on your saying a team doesn't need a strong TOP six.

It's ideal, but it's not absolutely necessary. Depth is absolutely necessary.

1 to 5 pieces? The "1" piece might be valid, but I disagreed entirely with you with the "to 5 pieces" thing. Name a single team with 5 weak top six players that won a Cup.

1995 devils.

You have that team for me yet? Championship club with an abomination of a bottom six? Or even one as luckluster as last year's bottom six, which you described as "fixed" even though their was a whopping one player on it who could forecheck and cycle (Goc).

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Not only did I already name them, I even gave you the logos.

And I didn't say "bad," I said "1 to 5 less than ideal pieces."

Anyway, 93 Habs, 94 Rangers, 95 Devils, 99 Stars, 03 Devils and the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins. So that's actually six in the last 20 seasons. Not 5.

You must have an odd definition of "less than ideal pieces" if you list those teams, then. What do you consider "less than ideal pieces"?

Is Chris Kunitz considered "less than ideal"? Or is Pascal Dupuis?

Is Jamie Langenbrunner "less than ideal"? Or is Max Talbot?

Because the former two are hardly what I'd consider "less than ideal". The majority of the Cup winners had the likes of Kunitz and Langenbrunner in their top six, but they certainly did not have 1-5 Dupuis or Talbots.

For me, "less than ideal" suggests a player playing in the top six who shouldn't really play there. Guys like Talbot during the Cup run (and even Fedotenko at that point). Guys like Dupuis the last couple of years. Guys who are probably more considered 3rd or 4th liners who find themselves in a team's top six because there's no other options. That's "less than ideal".

Guys like Kunitz, Langenbrunner, Drury, etc. might not be all stars, but they're certainly top six players. So if they're part of your definition of "less than ideal", then your expectations for what IS ideal are out of whack.

I'm not arguing that every team that's won the Cup has 6 all-star players playing in their top six. I'm arguing that you can't have 1-5 "less than ideal" players (emphasis on the "to 5" part) in your top six and win the Cup, because no team has done that.

6/20 > 0/95

It's ideal, but it's not absolutely necessary. Depth is absolutely necessary.

1995 devils.

You have that team for me yet? Championship club with an abomination of a bottom six? Or even one as luckluster as last year's bottom six, which you described as "fixed" even though their was a whopping one player on it who could forecheck and cycle (Goc).

What part of "I wasn't arguing about bottom six depth, but was talking specifically about your comment about top six depth" don't you understand?

You keep asking me to name a team with a horrid bottom six that won it all, when I NEVER MADE MENTION OF A TEAM'S BOTTOM SIX.

You're creating a strawman just to keep harping on this bottom six nonsense and take focus away from my discussion about the top six.

 

[mpp9]

He's saying having proper depth is more important than loading up your top 6.

I find it frustrating in the media when they say we were too top heavy of a team and that's why we lost. Brian Gibbons on Crosby's RW in the playoffs. And Malkin needing to be moved away from Jokinen and Neal to be productive. Yep, we were definitely top heavy.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

He's saying having proper depth is more important than loading up your top 6.

I find it frustrating in the media when they say we were too top heavy of a team and that's why we lost. Brian Gibbons on Crosby's RW in the playoffs. And Malkin needing to be moved away from Jokinen and Neal to be productive. Yep, we were definitely top heavy.

I took exception to his "you can have 1-5 less than ideal players in your top six" part, more than anything, because that's bogus. You can't. Not a single Cup winner had up to 5 players who were less than ideal top six players.

I mean, I don't care how strong your bottom six is. Are you winning the Cup with Crosby and 5 Pascal Dupuis or 5 Max Talbots? Are you winng the Cup with Crosby, Malkin and 4 Pascal Dupuis?

I know you have to have depth. I never said otherwise. But you also can't have a bunch of holes in your top six like his original statement that I bolded suggested you could.

Now, if his definition of "less than ideal" includes guys like Dustin Brown, Chris Kunitz, Ryan Malone (during our first Cup run in '08), etc. Then I agree with him. But since the discussion is kind of based around this current Pens team, and talking about guys like Downie and Dupuis as "less than ideal" top six wingers, that's a stretch.

 

[mpp9]

I'm fine with guys in the top 6 who don't have a ton of skill, but they better be monster forecheckers and go to the net. And bring a skill of some kind that's top 6 quality.

I think Sid could use a guy who can carry the puck routinely so he can more easily handle the matchups he faces.

With Malkin, give him a couple guys in the mold of my first statement, and he can go demon mode. Neal and Jokinen weren't creative enough offensively to make up for their laziness, poor skating and wall play IMO. And Dupuis doesn't have enough skill and a size/mean streak to make up for it in a top line role.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Just for fun, even though I DIDN'T argue about being able to win with a weak bottom six, Colorado's second Cup winner was quite top heavy, proving a potent top six and a mediocre bottom six can still win the Cup.

Top Six:
Tanguay - Sakic - Hejduk
Reinprect - Forsberg - Drury

Bottom Six:
Podein - Yelle - Nieminen
Reid - Hinote - Messier

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Carolina's 2006 team looks like it might've had a decent third line, but a practically non-existent fourth.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Carolina's 2006 team looks like it might've had a decent third line, but a practically non-existent fourth.

Bite your tongue. I seem to recall it had an ace PK and defensive specialist playing on its 4th line.

Also, what's better than 1 Adams? Why, 2 of them on the same line!

 

[Zen Arcade]

Just for fun, even though I DIDN'T argue about being able to win with a weak bottom six, Colorado's second Cup winner was quite top heavy, proving a potent top six and a mediocre bottom six can still win the Cup.

Top Six:
Tanguay - Sakic - Hejduk
Reinprect - Forsberg - Drury

Bottom Six:
Podein - Yelle - Nieminen
Reid - Hinote - Messier

I don't know, that bottom six looks pretty good to me, aside from Eric Messier who was pretty awful.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I don't know, that bottom six looks pretty good to me, aside from Eric Messier who was pretty awful.

Yelle was essentially Goc, Hinote was Vitale, Reid was 2009 version Craig Adams at that point, Messier was Glass, and Nieminen was ... Fedotenko? It wasn't awful, but it also wasn't that good, IMO. Certainly not compared to some of the other bottom sixes Cup winners have had. One of the better examples, IMO, of a top heavy Cup winner.

 

[billybudd]

Your talent evaluation is way off. On Hinote's worst day, he was a better player than Vitale on his best day.

Podein was everything you could ask for from a third line wing. Niemenen was good enough that he spent half his time on the second line. He'd have stayed in that role for much of his career if he took his conditioning more seriously.

And while I like Marcel Goc, he does almost nothing as well as Stephane Yelle. Prime for prime, you'd be a fool if you traded the latter for the former.

Reid was a bit better than 2009 Adams, and 2009 Adams was better than anybody who was on the Penguins fourth line for the last 3 seasons.

Eric Messier is the only garbage player in that entire lineup (unless you want to count Reinprecht, but Reinprecht didn't come into the league as a garbage player, he developed into one). Eric Messier who was only dressed because Deadmarsh got his brains scrambled half way through the year.

So your example of a Championship team with an awful bottom six is one with a spectacular third line and a meh fourth line that's still far better than anything the Penguins have iced since 2011.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

This is what a top heavy team looks like. 7 top 6 forwards (66, 10, 68, Sandstrom, Nedved, Murray, Smolinski), 1 legitimate, if soft, bottom six forward (Kevin Miller) and 4 beer league flunkies.

Incidentally, that club was eliminated by a club whose own best forward was Stu Barnes, a checking center by trade.

 

[billybudd]

You must have an odd definition of "less than ideal pieces" if you list those teams, then. What do you consider "less than ideal pieces"?

Jamie Langenbrunner spent the vast majority of his career as a defensive forward, producing about what you'd expect from Matt Cooke.

If you're okay with him in a top 6 capacity, you should be ecstatic that Dupuis is locked up long term for $4 million per year.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Jamie Langenbrunner spent the vast majority of his career as a defensive forward, producing about what you'd expect from Matt Cooke.

If you're okay with him in a top 6 capacity, you should be ecstatic that Dupuis is locked up long term for $4 million per year.

Jamie Langenbrunner was a much better hockey player than Pascal Dupuis. He produced much more than Matt Cooke. Langenbrunner averaged 0.59 points per game over his career. Cooke has produced 0.38 points per game. That puts Langenbrunner's production 55% higher than Matt Cooke's. Dupuis has produced 0.47 points per game. Langenbrunner's is 25% higher than that. The gap between Langenbrunner's and Kunitz's production is smaller than the gap between Dupuis' and Langenbrunner's. And as you said, Langenbrunner did this while being a phenomenal two way player.

Just a terrible comparison.

 

[Zbynek]

Jamie Langenbrunner spent the vast majority of his career as a defensive forward, producing about what you'd expect from Matt Cooke.

If you're okay with him in a top 6 capacity, you should be ecstatic that Dupuis is locked up long term for $4 million per year.

I understand your point, but Matt Cooke isn't a fair comparison for Langenbrunner at all. He was a crucial piece of the Devils cup run after he got traded to NJ. He always played his heart out and with tenacity but never took bad penalties. He had a great hockey sense and played an incredible two-way game. He was a perfect fit in NJ's top-6. I don't see how anyone could possibly make the argument he was less than ideal. I would say in his prime he was a much better Chris Kunitz with less overall scoring ability.

source: I grew up following the Devils.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I understand your point, but Matt Cooke isn't a fair comparison for Langenbrunner at all. He was a crucial piece of the Devils cup run after he got traded to NJ. He always played his heart out and with tenacity but never took bad penalties. He had a great hockey sense and played an incredible two-way game. He was a perfect fit in NJ's top-6. I don't see how anyone could possibly make the argument he was less than ideal. I would say in his prime he was a much better Chris Kunitz with less overall scoring ability.

source: I grew up following the Devils.

Seriously, he's way off. Prime Langenbrunner would probably be the best overall wing on our team right now.

 

[stardog]

I'm sorry, but I have ZERO issues with our bottom six when you compare it with last years and when you take into consideration what our GM had to work with. We were all yelling for an upgrade, & now that it is CLEARLY upgraded, 1/2 of you seem to be crying because it isn't the exact upgrade you personally wanted with the exact players you personally wanted.

I don't get this board at times.