Proposal: PIT - SJS

[Juxtaposer]

Lmao that's hilarious.

In the 3 years before this year, Rust had 156 points in 171 games. Barabanov's career high before last year was 39 points in 70 games.

I mean, if you’re easily entertained. Barabanov is an awesome player who would be a great fit on the Penguins. I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that you haven’t watched too many Sharks games the past two seasons (and who could blame you).

Barabanov is on his way up, Rust is declining.

 

[3ladesof5teel]

This 100 times over.

Sully needs to play to his strengths as a playmaking winger, I'll never understand why he was brought in to be a shutdown 3C. In Nashville he was getting 55% o-zone starts and 3 mins of PP time per game on their 1st unit, after being traded Sully gave him 30% o-zone starts and put him on the Pens' 2nd PP unit getting a bit more than a minute of PP time per game. It just doesn't make any sense.

Spending valuable assets to move him is just bad asset management at this point.

Sure Granlund isn't best used as a 3c and would be best utilized in the top 6 but he's also not a fit for our top 6. We need a play driver and some toughness to go and get those pucks. Granlund is not that and he's not someone I want stapled to Geno nor Crosby in their final years.

Just not the type of player we need at 5 million.

This is coming from someone who liked Granlund especially a few years back. Just not here and now.

 

[stardog]

As a sharks fan I'd be all over it which leads me to believe Pittsburgh fans won't like it.

You're damn Skippy!
I can't stand this...as a Pens fan.
The O.P. Gurglesons is a solid, knowledgeable dude & I usually agree with him but not on this.

I see where he's going and the logic behind his reasoning, just don't agree with trading a relatively high first round pick in a deep draft in order to get rid of Granlund. I'd rather just buy him out than losing something that valuable. And I don't see the assets coming back from San Jose are enough to make up the difference between a buy out and not having the first round pick.

The logic being using future value to help now. Get rid of Granlund s salary, get a forward coming back who could help now and use Granlund's cap space to potentially add more.
But if we are assuming for arguments sake that the Pens are trading their first round pick for help now, I think that we need to maximize that help. Meaning that attaching it to get rid of Granlund isn't maximizing the picks value for help now. It's using value to subtract space. The value should be used to get the best possible player to make the biggest impact now. If you want Granlund gone, buy him out. If the decision has been made to trade that pick to give the last couple chances at the cup its best shot then do exactly that. Use the high value that is the 14th overall pick to get a return that brings back its equal worth in value.

Wasting it to get rid of a player who could get bought out instead and the only help received NOW, for that last shot being a pretty decent, smallish compliment scorer is only using about 40% of the 100% of that picks actual value.

And we've then blown our biggest, most valuable trade asset for help and only received 40% return...marginal help which does nothing. It won't get us closer to the cup, and we don't have the prospect we could have picked, nor the impact player it could being if traded for value instead of trading it to get cap space.

If the decision is made to trade that pick, then do so. Trade it for help now to bring back a player, or a couple of players who could move the needle on the teams chances.

 

[Grinner]

Throw in Jeff Carter

 

[stardog]

On a related note, that Rossi story said that this trade was orchestrated and then brought to Hextall by Chris Pryor who pushed for it to happen.

So there actually was more than one person who was amazingly stupid enough to think this was a good trade. The fact that each of the two are paid, one of them millions of dollars to evaluate the assets in these deals and who are so, so far off the mark is unreal. The fact that it was an obvious awful deal to pretty much everyone with a brain except for the 2 guys who make millions of dollars because they're supposed to know it was an awful deal is astonishing.

The fact that those 2 guys, proving in their tenure and sealing it with this one deal that their level of incompetence is amongst the highest in the history of the league is revealing.

The fact that BOTH of the two, were in charge of the Penguins is depressing.

Throw Burke into the mix and I can't think one could find a more incompetent, ineffective, unknowledgeable about the league or job and plain stupid team of executives in a looonnng time...if ever.
And they were in charge of the last couple seasons of a team that had a rarity of 2 generational talents playing together for their whole careers.

I suppose they could have butchered it worse but I bet they'd have to have done it on purpose...the fact that they were actually trying to make the team better and that they thought their moves would is laughable

 

[stardog]

After all that said, the fact that there were actually TWO men who thought it was a good trade for the Penguins to acquire Granlund, absorb his 5+ million cap hit for two whole more years, see his declining play (I question if either actually watched him since hired by the Pens) and then decide that all of the above combined was deemed the value of a second round pick in their professional estimation...a price which they were only happy to pay in order for the privilege of absorbing Granlund and all that he brought with him into the Penguins fold actually gives me a slim particle of hope.

Because 2 exec's were that idiotic and awful at their respective jobs; because 2 exec's couldn't see what an obvious and no brainier bad deal this was for the team they were paid by when everyone else could it gives me hope...
Hope, that since it wasn't one man that dumb; since there was a second man who was a like-minded fool...the possibility of a third existing...no matter how small that possibility is... still exists.
And lightning in a bottle strikes allowing Granlund to get traded again and the Penguins actually receive and asset for him...rather than give an asset away to move him.

It's sad thinking that we might lose a first AND a second round pick in a draft we are slotted higher than we've been in the last 20 years for a grand total of:
Granlund's 21 games and a single goal.

Jesus

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Ugh, that's awful.

Pens don't need to add their 1st to get rid of Gran.

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

Can we stop pretending Granlund is awful and a cap dump? He struggled in his short time with Pittsburgh but was a good winger prior. With Zucker gone most likely, he can take on a top 6 role and we’ll see if he bounces back.

Absolutely not attaching the 14OA to him for any reason.

Bingo! Close thread, 14 OA is not being moved

 

[SEALBound]

In all seriousness, would Granlund for Kunin be something SJS would consider?

 

[TheBeard]

In all seriousness, would Granlund for Kunin be something SJS would consider?

Not unless you throw in a second.

 

[gdsmack267]

A Granlund buyout cost the Pens $1.8 cap hit for 4 years. I dont think its worth giving up a first attached to him to rid of Hextalls blunder.

 

[Gecklund]

In all seriousness, would Granlund for Kunin be something SJS would consider?

Why would they consider that?

 

[gdsmack267]

Not unless you throw in a second.

What about the 2nd that Hextall gave up for Granlund.

Im going to go cry now.

 

[SEALBound]

Why would they consider that?

Cap room and Granlund has historically been a better player. Kunin spent much of last season hurt. Near as I can tell, SJS has an opening in their top 6.

This is more about fit with the Penguins, Kunin would likely fit better on our 4th line than Granlund on our 3rd. Would only be an extra 2.25mil on the books.
It was hardly a malicious proposal.

 

[Boondock]

Can we stop pretending Granlund is awful and a cap dump? He struggled in his short time with Pittsburgh but was a good winger prior. With Zucker gone most likely, he can take on a top 6 role and we’ll see if he bounces back.

Absolutely not attaching the 14OA to him for any reason.

I seem to remember Granlund struggling when he first moved to Nashville from Minny, and then again when moved to Pitt. I think he is just the type of players that takes some time to get comfortable. I could see a 50-55 point season out of him if he gets a full off season to get acclimatized to the Pens.

 

[SEALBound]

I seem to remember Granlund struggling when he first moved to Nashville from Minny, and then again when moved to Pitt. I think he is just the type of players that takes some time to get comfortable. I could see a 50-55 point season out of him if he gets a full off season to get acclimatized to the Pens.

I would say that is much closer to the truth than him being a cap dump - let alone a cap dump that would require a 2nd round pick to dump.

The issue with the Penguins is fit. I don't think he's a bad player, I just have doubts on whether or not he's the right player. That there is a big difference.

 

[Gecklund]

Cap room and Granlund has historically been a better player. Kunin spent much of last season hurt. Near as I can tell, SJS has an opening in their top 6.

This is more about fit with the Penguins, Kunin would likely fit better on our 4th line than Granlund on our 3rd. Would only be an extra 2.25mil on the books.
It was hardly a malicious proposal.

I mean I’m not saying it was malicious but for all the reasons you want Kunin and don’t want Granlund, it’s the same for us. I think unless PIT is adding something substantial (not sure what, maybe a 2nd and 4th?) there’s not really a reason for SJ to do it.

 

[Boondock]

I would say that is much closer to the truth than him being a cap dump - let alone a cap dump that would require a 2nd round pick to dump.

The issue with the Penguins is fit. I don't think he's a bad player, I just have doubts on whether or not he's the right player. That there is a big difference.

Yeah, I totally understand the fit piece, it just seemed like a bunch of reactionary "he sucks, you'd need an asset to move him....." I agree he didn't make any friends with his play in Pitt but he's not a dump. If he was a little more aggressive I think he would look good on Malkin's wing because Granlund is a pretty good puck distributor. Anyways, I trust your and other Pens fans opinion on fit - I just think Granlund is being poorly represented on here in general.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I seem to remember Granlund struggling when he first moved to Nashville from Minny, and then again when moved to Pitt. I think he is just the type of players that takes some time to get comfortable. I could see a 50-55 point season out of him if he gets a full off season to get acclimatized to the Pens.

The issue with Granlund and the Pens is less about the player, per se, and more about how he would be utilized by Sullivan.

*IF* Granlund was actually used properly (ie. top six scoring line role), I could see him rebounding. But Sullivan buried him on L3 and gave him ridiculous defensive assignments for some inexplicable reason. In that role, Granlund's a fish out of water.

 

[TheBeard]

Cap room and Granlund has historically been a better player. Kunin spent much of last season hurt. Near as I can tell, SJS has an opening in their top 6.

This is more about fit with the Penguins, Kunin would likely fit better on our 4th line than Granlund on our 3rd. Would only be an extra 2.25mil on the books.
It was hardly a malicious proposal.

For the Sharks, bringing in an older player at 5 for 2 years when we're in a clear rebuild makes zero sense. If the team is bringing any player like that it's because there are picks attached to help alleviate someone's cap issues.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The discourse around Granlund and players like Granlund on this site is fascinating to me, because some guys like him are viewed to have positive value while others are viewed to have negative value. You have a boatload of offense-only players making similar money and producing around the same, but you could get a wildly different valuation for these guys depending on the player.

 

[Extra Texture]

A Granlund buyout cost the Pens $1.8 cap hit for 4 years. I dont think its worth giving up a first attached to him to rid of Hextalls blunder.

It's slightly better than that: it's only 800k this coming season (a critical season to use cap) and 1.8M after that.

If Pens management uses that first as a method to dump him, when that nice a buyout option is on the table, they should be sent to an asylum.

 

[Erep]

The discourse around Granlund and players like Granlund on this site is fascinating to me, because some guys like him are viewed to have positive value while others are viewed to have negative value. You have a boatload of offense-only players making similar money and producing around the same, but you could get a wildly different valuation for these guys depending on the player.

The issue is that the value is relative to the teams needs. The Sharks have really zero need for a decent player. He is going to have no real impact on making the team overall "good". So at that point, the Sharks are only getting a 2x$5M contract, which is obviously bad.

You can make a case Granlund is someone who can have value built up, and then shipped out, but a team taking contracts (regardless of the quality of the player) would rather get paid upfront, taking on someone both sides agree is a dump, rather than hoping to get positive value later. You only take the better player to flip as a tiebreaker if the upfront payment is equal between two options.

Basically, for the Sharks, Granlund is clearly negative value. Other teams may consider him otherwise. But, clearly, Penguins (fans) view him as negative value, or they wouldn't be trying to get rid of him, in terms of his value vs the amount the money he is payed could improve the roster elsewhere, and when the team holding him considers him negative value, all leverage is lost and it lets other team treat them as negative value in negotiations unless other teams are fighting over the guy.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The issue is that the value is relative to the teams needs. The Sharks have really zero need for a decent player. He is going to have no real impact on making the team overall "good". So at that point, the Sharks are only getting a 2x$5M contract, which is obviously bad.

You can make a case Granlund is someone who can have value built up, and then shipped out, but a team taking contracts (regardless of the quality of the player) would rather get paid upfront, taking on someone both sides agree is a dump, rather than hoping to get positive value later. You only take the better player to flip as a tiebreaker if the upfront payment is equal between two options.

Basically, for the Sharks, Granlund is clearly negative value. Other teams may consider him otherwise. But, clearly, Penguins (fans) view him as negative value, or they wouldn't be trying to get rid of him, in terms of his value vs the amount the money he is payed could improve the roster elsewhere, and when the team holding him considers him negative value, all leverage is lost and it lets other team treat them as negative value in negotiations unless other teams are fighting over the guy.

This wasn't the point I was talking about. I was talking about how someone like Granlund is valued relative to very similar players who make similar money and produce the same. This website, and hockey fans in general, seem to completely arbitrarily decide who is valuable and who isn't valuable.

Here are 5 nameless players:

1. 37 points in 68 games in 2022-2023 and 65 points in 77 games in 2021-2022. 1 year left at $5.4 million, will be 29 next season.
2. 45 points in 81 games in 2022-2023 and 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022. 4 years left at $5.4 million, will be 29 next season.
3. 41 points in 79 games in 2022-2023 and 64 points in 80 games in 2021-2022. 2 years left at $5 million, will be 32 next season.
4. 46 points in 81 games in 2022-2023 and 52 points in 77 games in 2021-2022. 3 years left at $4.95 million a year, will be 28 next season.
5. 41 points in 82 games in 2022-2023 and 54 points in 74 games in 2021-2022, 4 years left at $5 million a year, will be 30 next season.

How would you rank the value of these players without including their names?

 

[Erep]

This wasn't the point I was talking about. I was talking about how someone like Granlund is valued relative to very similar players who make similar money and produce the same. This website, and hockey fans in general, seem to completely arbitrarily decide who is valuable and who isn't valuable.

Here are 5 nameless players:

1. 37 points in 68 games in 2022-2023 and 65 points in 77 games in 2021-2022. 1 year left at $5.4 million, will be 29 next season.
2. 45 points in 81 games in 2022-2023 and 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022. 4 years left at $5.4 million, will be 29 next season.
3. 41 points in 79 games in 2022-2023 and 64 points in 80 games in 2021-2022. 2 years left at $5 million, will be 32 next season.
4. 46 points in 81 games in 2022-2023 and 52 points in 77 games in 2021-2022. 3 years left at $4.95 million a year, will be 28 next season.
5. 41 points in 82 games in 2022-2023 and 54 points in 74 games in 2021-2022, 4 years left at $5 million a year, will be 30 next season.

How would you rank the value of these players without including their names?

3,1,4,5,2 (In general, with players in this range, the answer is going to be shorter contracts. Not because they are necessarily bad, but because a year of decreased production makes them completely useless if they are one way guys, and if they keep producing they likely don't get significant raises. I didn't look up any of these guys but who they play on a line with is probably a big part of it, too.)