Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread: If they trade Letang, Scandy Riots

[Peat]

I thought you might have done ''something'' with him or his body. I sure hope you don't have him chained up somewhere. It's actually a real fear of mine.

Don't be silly, I wouldn't have him chained up somewhere where people could find him and use him as evidence.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'd also like to point out that as long as you don't give Fleury a massive NTC or NMC, you can very easily trade him if he realizes that he has a problem with not starting. If he's signing for cheap to play on the Penguins, which I imagine would be the case, you can easily trade Fleury with 1 or 2 years on his contract at like $1.5 million to a team where he'd start. In fact, I think that would be a very attractive trade asset.

 

[Ryder71]

Don't be silly, I wouldn't have him chained up somewhere where people could find him and use him as evidence.

My mistake. I should have realized you're far more careful and devious.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

Let's go ahead and not sign/trade for someone with the fall back being "Ah well, we can always trade 'em if/when they prove to be an issue".

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Like how accepting he's been of Lehner taking his spot in Vegas?

Fleury wants to start. There's no indication he'd be fine with a platoon spot, and definitely not as Jarry's backup.

Sullivan’s reaction to that would be epic, though...

Let's go ahead and not sign/trade for someone with the fall back being "Ah well, we can always trade 'em if/when they prove to be an issue".

What could go wrong?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Let's go ahead and not sign/trade for someone with the fall back being "Ah well, we can always trade 'em if/when they prove to be an issue".

Seriously. Why even tempt fate?

Not to mention, I'm sure that would go over well with the vets on the team.

Today: "Hey Sid, Geno, Tanger, we just signed your best buddy. You guys can all play together again! Aren't you excited to be able to see him every day?"

6 months later: "Hey guys, welp, we're trading your best friend again because he's being sulky about not being the starter"

 

[Empoleon8771]

Let's go ahead and not sign/trade for someone with the fall back being "Ah well, we can always trade 'em if/when they prove to be an issue".

People are also saying "ah well, we can always trade for a guy if he proves to be an issue" with respect to DeSmith being a backup.

All I'm seeing here is people saying "I don't want to acquire Fleury because I don't want him back in Pittsburgh", and people are trying to come up with reasons to support that. It's a lot easier to just say that than to try to make up reasons why you don't want him back. It's fine to just have the opinion and leave it at that

 

[T1K]

People are also saying "ah well, we can always trade for a guy if he proves to be an issue" with respect to DeSmith being a backup.

All I'm seeing here is people saying "I don't want to acquire Fleury because I don't want him back in Pittsburgh", and people are trying to come up with reasons to support that. It's a lot easier to just say that than to try to make up reasons why you don't want him back. It's fine to just have the opinion and leave it at that

You’re talking as if it’s an absolute fact that 1) Vegas will buy MAF out 2) MAF will sign here as a backup/1b 3) MAF will sign here on a short term, cheap deal.

A lot of big assumptions being made for something that isn’t even a good idea to begin with.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

If he no longer feels pressure to be the man, why did he throw his toys out of the pram when he no longer got to be the man?



I don't think pro athletes are that fragile. I've said nothing to that effect. Neither has anyone else.

That said - they are human, they do have frailties, and if you find them you lose elite performance. There is a big difference between the two statements. And I don't see why the latter statement would be up for debate. We are where we are because our goaltender went from strong as a rock to just another guy. If we can avoid going by the potential pitfalls of frailty that'd be good. That should be part of a team's smart decision making. Fans can get in a player's head. Media pressure can get in a player's head. Locker room splits where some players prefer one goalie and others the other can get in a player's head. Hell - role can get in a player's head, and that'd be something to worry about with both players. Would a controversy hurt either guy? I don't know, but I don't see any attraction to finding out.

And the appeal of getting a 36 year old guy with two seasons of declining numbers, who last season gave the sort of performance you could get from Mrazek or Bernier or Nilsson or any number of other not hard to acquire goalies, doesn't really counter that. Hell, ask Lundqvist whether he'd fancy the job when he gets brought out. I don't see how MAF is appealing as an asset unless we believe in athletes' mental performance enough to think his personality and locker room ties would be a boost over a bunch of other declining little over average, little under average goalies - and if that's what we believe in, I don't see writing off the risks.

You talking about with Vegas?

 

[Peat]

I think for pretty much any player you've got to ask "What's the worst that could happen" and "Can I trade him if I have to". The worst happens regularly enough in every org for it to be an issue and it's when it involves players that are difficult to trade that it hurts.

So yeah, the fact that the worst case scenario with MAF here is worse than with other goalies because of the emotional stuff should factor in. Can you trade MAF if he causes problems? If he doesn't have trade protection - and he's cheap - and it doesn't look like his decline is speeding up - and it doesn't annoy the core - then yes, you can. There's a fair few Ands there.

That said, the most likely case scenario should be the most heavily weighted one. And that one to me says "declining goalie who mightn't be NHL average anymore in an org that won't want to admit that fact". And I see nothing of interest there.

You talking about with Vegas?

Yup.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

People are also saying "ah well, we can always trade for a guy if he proves to be an issue" with respect to DeSmith being a backup.

All I'm seeing here is people saying "I don't want to acquire Fleury because I don't want him back in Pittsburgh", and people are trying to come up with reasons to support that. It's a lot easier to just say that than to try to make up reasons why you don't want him back. It's fine to just have the opinion and leave it at that

For me, personally, I think it's a lot of reasons to not want MAF back. He'll likely be an expensive backup. He's a guy who has always been the starter, and will want to be here. I think there's a very real impact potentially in the yinzers raking Jarry over coals constantly because he's the antichrist to their savior.

But, again, I don't think it's really even worth talking about. He'll get more money elsewhere, and a starting job to boot. I'd be astonished if he ended up back here.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

You’re talking as if it’s an absolute fact that 1) Vegas will buy MAF out 2) MAF will sign here as a backup/1b 3) MAF will sign here on a short term, cheap deal.

A lot of big assumptions being made for something that isn’t even a good idea to begin with.

Theres a middle ground here. Why do we need to add Fleury this upcoming season? Let him play out his contract then he can come back here if he wants. Or we could try to add him in 21 if we really need to(Jarry pulling a Murray which was formally known as a Fleury). With one year left on his deal, whether hes in Vegas or somewhere else. If Vegas moves him Im guessing theyll have to retain about 2mil.

So If for some reason Jarry/DeSmith falter , then go after MAF with 5mil on his 1 year deal.

Theres no need to do that now. Casey has been waiting 3 years now to be the backup, to have a legit chance to play if the starter is struggling. He didnt get to do that 3 years ago against the Caps(Just a game to switch things up, was obvious Murray wasnt feeling it at all). Then Jarry came along.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I think for pretty much any player you've got to ask "What's the worst that could happen" and "Can I trade him if I have to". The worst happens regularly enough in every org for it to be an issue and it's when it involves players that are difficult to trade that it hurts.

So yeah, the fact that the worst case scenario with MAF here is worse than with other goalies because of the emotional stuff should factor in. Can you trade MAF if he causes problems? If he doesn't have trade protection - and he's cheap - and it doesn't look like his decline is speeding up - and it doesn't annoy the core - then yes, you can. There's a fair few Ands there.

That said, the most likely case scenario should be the most heavily weighted one. And that one to me says "declining goalie who mightn't be NHL average anymore in an org that won't want to admit that fact". And I see nothing of interest there.



Yup.

What happened?

Either way I still dont think he would cause any issues here. But Im also on a different page than the topic here. My hypothetical was him returning once his contract is up.

 

[K Fleur]

Yinzer Jesus.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

We've only heard that what, A million times? Try coming up with something original next time.

That's the joke.

 

[Rakell67]

Theres a middle ground here. Why do we need to add Fleury this upcoming season? Let him play out his contract then he can come back here if he wants. Or we could try to add him in 21 if we really need to(Jarry pulling a Murray which was formally known as a Fleury). With one year left on his deal, whether hes in Vegas or somewhere else. If Vegas moves him Im guessing theyll have to retain about 2mil.

So If for some reason Jarry/DeSmith falter , then go after MAF with 5mil on his 1 year deal.

Theres no need to do that now. Casey has been waiting 3 years now to be the backup, to have a legit chance to play if the starter is struggling. He didnt get to do that 3 years ago against the Caps(Just a game to switch things up, was obvious Murray wasnt feeling it at all). Then Jarry came along.

Fleury will be 36 in November. His contract is for 2 more years. I don’t think we want a 38 year old Fleury coming in. If the peice is right (buyout or salary retention), he could drastically (along with Rearden) revitalize the lockerroom. They can’t keep going through the motions like they have the past 2 years.

 

[Peat]

What happened?

Either way I still dont think he would cause any issues here. But Im also on a different page than the topic here. My hypothetical was him returning once his contract is up.

The picture's a little small, but that's De Boer's name on the sword. That was posted by his agent during the playoffs. MAF never said he disagreed with the tweet.

And him coming back in a couple of years in his twilight years - well, maybe. But yeah, the conversation is about the here and now, because he's probably not in Vegas much longer.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

And for the record, I don't think MAF himself would start any issues. I don't think that for a second, dude seems like a saint. But you're being intentionally naive if you don't think the kind of yinzer shit that comes with MAF wouldn't create some tension, at the very least, for Jarry.

The only real positive of MAF returning is that he'd probably be great for the lockerroom. Other than that, I think there's no real reason to bring him around, and many reasons not to.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

The picture's a little small, but that's De Boer's name on the sword. That was posted by his agent during the playoffs. MAF never said he disagreed with the tweet.

And him coming back in a couple of years in his twilight years - well, maybe. But yeah, the conversation is about the here and now, because he's probably not in Vegas much longer.

Is there anything else or anything directly from him? IDK, that would be really out of character for MAF. And his agent is a notorious D bag. That might be reading too much into the situation.

I guess it's always possible that he's tired of losing his job in the playoffs and it's getting to him.

 

[K Fleur]

I like that even in Vegas the MAF story probably comes to an end with him being replaced in the playoffs by a better goalie.

I seriously despise MAF the player. Whether that is a rational sentiment to hold or not I really couldn’t care less.

Seems like a decent person though.

 

[Andy99]

From another poster...
“Listened to Yohe's interview with Madden. Here are the highlights:

--He said he's sure Rutherford has received calls about Letang, but he highly doubts there's any real interest on the Pens' side in moving him. Maybe if they're absolutely blown away by the offer, but they don't have anyone on the right side to take over his minutes, and he can't see any trade making them better in the stated 2 year window.

--He thinks the market for Murray is heating up and revised his claims from 2 weeks ago that Murray will only fetch a 2nd/3rd rounder or equivalent prospect. Now he thinks it might be possible for the Pens to get a 1st with the number of teams seriously interested. His sources say that's why Edmonton cooled off. Rutherford asked for a 1st, and the Oilers said no, but Rutherford thinks someone else might step up and pay that.

--It might seem like getting picks/prospects for Murray goes against the stated rationale of winning in the next 2 years, but Yohe says he doesn't see many fits with a significant roster player coming back. He did mention that Colorado was very interested, and they supposedly have some pretty good prospects who are just about NHL-ready and could help the Pens now, so they might be a good partner.

--Yohe was completely surprised by the Riikola signing. He hasn't heard anything concrete, but logically, he thinks they have to be looking to move a LD, since they also consider Joseph to be NHL-ready.

--He doesn't think RD is a real priority for Rutherford. Rutherford is willing to see if he can find a good bargain on the free agent market, but he's perfectly comfortable with Ruhwedel being the RD on the bottom pairing.”

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Well Rico does have one less testicle, it makes him more aerodynamic and all that jazz.

It’s why Kessel is such a graceful skater as well mate.

 

[pistolpete11]

If you have 2 goalies, it means you don't have a goalie.

Jarry is your guy whether you like it or not. That needs to be clear to everybody. Namely Sullivan and the players, but also to a much lesser extent, the media and fans. If you want to sign a Greiss type, OK. I think the cap could be better used, but there's at least a very clear pecking order there. Bringing in MAF or Crawford or any other goalie who's been a starter their entire career and still very clearly want to start...No. f***ing. Thanks.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Well Rico does have one less testicle, it makes him more aerodynamic and all that jazz.

That's not how aerodynamics works. If anything, the asymmetry would create uneven vortexes. Two balls are better than one in this case.

Then again, those should be covered with a symmetrical cup and pants making the above sentences worthless.

In the end, it's not the aerodynamics that was improved by having one fewer testicle. It was the reduced weight causing him to be a fraction of a millisecond faster.

 

[pistolpete11]

That's not how aerodynamics works. If anything, the asymmetry would create uneven vortexes. Two balls are better than one in this case.

Then again, those should be covered with a symmetrical cup and pants making the above sentences worthless.

In the end, it's not the aerodynamics that was improved by having one fewer testicle. It was the reduced weight causing him to be a fraction of a millisecond faster.