Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread - Please go full Redden on JJ's...

[JackFr]

@JackFr "We have been playing without a quality 2nd pairing RD for the past two seasons, this is not a hypothetical. "

And we would still be playing without one if Honka was one of our RDs. My point with his GPs was simply illustrating that he's not nearly the D some think. If he cant even get into games in Dallas, how the hell do you think he would be better than Schultz today?

Schultz might not be all that but hes a lot better than what we've seen out of Honka over the past few seasons.

Again, Honka was just an example of a cheap alternative (although I think evaluating a defenceman based on their coaches is dumb).

The point is if Schultz isn't a proper top 4 defenceman at this point (which, based on the past two years, he isn't) then why dump a bunch of money on him instead of keeping our options open and try to find the next Schultz?

What if in 2015 we had just resigned Ehrhoff for 5 years at 6 million AAV?

 

[Peat]

When was the last time the price for a cap dump was a highly though of young PM RD? Addison might be the ask, but odds are that wont be the cost.

You can easily argue that a 1st to move Marleau and Terevainen to move Bickell are equal to the bolded.

Empo beat me to it - Terevainen for Bickell was the comparable I was thinking of. And while I don't know where the Blackhawks' cap status was at the time, I'm assuming we're talking a trade next summer, where we really do have to dump as much cap as possible.

I might be wrong about the exact cost but that is what people are going to target - cheap and high quality.


edit: And this is why I'm willing to be patient about JJ's removal. Now Pettersson's on his bridge, it doesn't have to be done this season as long as the team is semi-realistic about his performance and game time.

But it will have to be done next off-season and the cleaner and cheaper it can be, the better.

 

[pistolpete11]

Johnson-Gudbranson? That's just crazy enough to work!

But seriously, I'd rather have that if it means Petts-Schultz is being deployed behind Geno. Maybe the possession monsters of Simon-Bjugstad-Hornqvist can keep a JMFJ-Gud pairing neutral?

 

[Giant Yankee Pens]

Jarry has a much better chance of getting through then CDS does.

True. My only question is how likely is it that CDS gest claimed? 80% yes? Idk, but it's an option they have. I'd rather keep CDS, Waive Jarry, and run a 22, rather than waive CDS and run a 23

 

[Peat]

Re Schultz - in 17/18, the team had a 58.24 GF% rate with him on the ice, 19th highest league wide among Dmen with more than 500 minutes. Yes that was higher than expected but Schultz does seem consistently able to cheat possession stats and he was just outside the top 30 for helping to drive High Danger chances.

I think it's pretty harsh to label that as being a bad top 4 dman.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Jarry has a much better chance of getting through then CDS does.

I thought this too, but then someone on the main boards brought up a good point. Sure, DeSmith had a good year last year and has been good in the NHL so far, but he doesn't exactly have a long track record of success in the NHL. Even though his cap hit isn't high, he's signed for 3 years on a 1-way deal, is 28 and only has 1.5 seasons of being a NHLer. Would a team be hesitant to claim him, with the thought that DeSmith might fall off? If he falls off, they'd be stuck with an AHL goalie on a 3 year, 1-way deal that gives you a slight cap penalty. It's not like backups like him falling off is particularly unheard of, look at what happened to Dell last year.

I think there are arguments for either of those guys getting claimed or passing through waivers.

 

[JackFr]

Re Schultz - in 17/18, the team had a 58.24 GF% rate with him on the ice, 19th highest league wide among Dmen with more than 500 minutes. Yes that was higher than expected but Schultz does seem consistently able to cheat possession stats and he was just outside the top 30 for helping to drive High Danger chances.

I think it's pretty harsh to label that as being a bad top 4 dman.

I don't want to bank 6.5 million dollars on percentages not regressing to the mean.

 

[Gurglesons]

I thought this too, but then someone on the main boards brought up a good point. Sure, DeSmith had a good year last year and has been good in the NHL so far, but he doesn't exactly have a long track record of success in the NHL. Even though his cap hit isn't high, he's signed for 3 years on a 1-way deal, is 28 and only has 1.5 seasons of being a NHLer. Would a team be hesitant to claim him, with the thought that DeSmith might fall off? If he falls off, they'd be stuck with an AHL goalie on a 3 year, 1-way deal that gives you a slight cap penalty. It's not like backups like him falling off is particularly unheard of, look at what happened to Dell last year.

I think there are arguments for either of those guys getting claimed or passing through waivers.

I think if we push one of them through like today they are fine. The longer we wait the more likely they get claimed.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think if we push one of them through like today they are fine. The longer we wait the more likely they get claimed.

Yeah, I think I've convinced myself that waiving DeSmith is the best option here. I'd say it's probably a worthwhile gamble to see if you can keep both DeSmith and Jarry by slipping DeSmith through waivers. You do get a slight cap penalty by putting DeSmith in WBS ($175k), but Jarry at $850k still saves you $400k over keeping DeSmith up. The assumption is that the term on DeSmith's deal may scare off a team from claiming him enough to get him through waivers.

I also thought about it from this POV, if you waive DeSmith and keep Jarry up, you can show the NHL what Jarry is. If he sucks in the NHL and you want DeSmith back up in the NHL, you can waive Jarry and he likely wouldn't get claimed. If he's good, you can either keep him as your backup or trade him for more than you could get now.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Again, Honka was just an example of a cheap alternative (although I think evaluating a defenceman based on their coaches is dumb).

The point is if Schultz isn't a proper top 4 defenceman at this point (which, based on the past two years, he isn't) then why dump a bunch of money on him instead of keeping our options open and try to find the next Schultz?

What if in 2015 we had just resigned Ehrhoff for 5 years at 6 million AAV?

I don't see anything wrong with Schultz's '17-'18. He was a top 4 defenseman there by just about any measure.

Last year was the problem, when he was skating on one leg with JJ.

If he plays like '17-'18 and stays relatively healthy I think he's worth 6 mil, and he's certainly a better bet there than Gudbranson at 4 mil unless the latter shows he can play like he did for 20 games with Pettersson last year.

 

[chethejet]

Jarry to me still has the greatest upside and he gives GMJR a hedge on Murray going into the contract year. Yes the cap savings is modest, but I would rather see Jarry as a goalie that can be that guy in the right circumstances.

 

[BigEezyE22]

Here's what I would bank on:

Hope the retooled forward units click enough to the point where the team shows a decided improvement over last year, where we ran 3-4 C via the ghost of Brassard and Riley fn Sheehan. If the team does function better, you can sell a bit of the JJ issue as a matter of being impacted by forwards in disarray and lessen the dump off hit.

It's a gamble, but it's a selling point to try before you reach desperation .

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Waiving DeSmith and keeping Jarry is far too risky for my blood.

The latter has never been close to as good as the former in the NHL, and DeSmith's contract is very reasonable for how he's performed.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

If there's one sure-fire way to make Gudbranson regress back to the level of play that saw Canucks fans begging to have him bought out, it's to play him with JJ.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Here's your Justin Schultz comparable. If this is the extension price for Schultz, no thanks.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Here's your Justin Schultz comparable. If this is the extension price for Schultz, no thanks.

Maybe. But Faulk is 2 years younger and a lot more durable.

I could see 6 mil per if he wants to stick around.

 

[EVGENIMERLIN]

Here's your Justin Schultz comparable. If this is the extension price for Schultz, no thanks.

Did not see this trade or extension coming. Agree with you there especially if Marino/POJ are ready...

 

[Empoleon8771]

Maybe. But Faulk is 2 years younger and a lot more durable.

I could see 6 mil per if he wants to stick around.

And that is too much as well unless Schultz has a good year this year.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

And that is too much as well unless Schultz has a good year this year.

Yep, but we may have different ideas about what "good" is.

Playing 70+ games and scoring 30+ points while putting up comparable possession stats to what he'd done here prior to last year would qualify for me. Right in that Faulk range.

 

[JackFr]

I don't see anything wrong with Schultz's '17-'18. He was a top 4 defenseman there by just about any measure.

Last year was the problem, when he was skating on one leg with JJ.

If he plays like '17-'18 and stays relatively healthy I think he's worth 6 mil, and he's certainly a better bet there than Gudbranson at 4 mil unless the latter shows he can play like he did for 20 games with Pettersson last year.

What measures are these exactly? Other than points.

Schultz is gonna cost what Faulk did. Are we really going to be Vancouver and fill our roster with bad contracts just because we'd have a hole otherwise?

 

[Darren McCord]

Here's your Justin Schultz comparable. If this is the extension price for Schultz, no thanks.

I don't think Schultz get that much. He will be 30 when he signs his next deal. Faulk is only 27.

I think average will be close but term will be less. Still to much for the pens but I think he signs with someone for

6mil x 5
or
5.5 x 7

I think you could get him to drop the average if someone commits more years.

Buuuuuut if the cap goes up who knows what some crazy gm will throw out.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If you think Schultz getting a Faulk type of contract will be good, well I'll just leave this here:



If Schultz plays 70+ games and gets 30+ points, giving him $6 million a year would be dreadfully bad. "Good" means "playing at the same level he did in 2016-2017".

I don't think Schultz get that much. He will be 30 when he signs his next deal. Faulk is only 27.

I think average will be close but term will be less. Still to much for the pens but I think he signs with someone for

6mil x 5
or
5.5 x 7

I think you could get him to drop the average if someone commits more years.

Giving term to a guy who has played at a $5.5 million level once in his career sounds like a monumentally bad idea.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

I really don't want Schultz on this team come next October. He's either going to play too poorly to be worthy of the contract he'll demand on the open market, or he's going to have an exceptional contract year and demand Letang-money or more. Either way, he's gone, imo. We'd better start prepping for that immediately if we haven't already.

 

[Riptide]

Maybe... it is the risk you run in doing so... Jarry may not make it through either, but he probably will (less of a risk but still)... who is committing 2 years 3 mill to a backup though? Most teams already have their two goalies.

Not saying I'd take Jarry over CDS (I wouldnt), but there is a good chance either could clear imo.

What are you talking about "2 yrs, 3m to a backup" ?!? CDS makes 1.25m a yr over the next 3 years. And considering that half the backups in the league make 1.5m or more, and most of the rest make 1m+, that's a very good contract.

And no there isnt a "good chance either would clear". Theres a good chance Jarry would clear because he hasn't shown a ton at the NHL level so far. But theres almost no chance CDS would clear with what hes shown to date and with his contract.

 

[Darren McCord]

If you think Schultz getting a Faulk type of contract will be good, well I'll just leave this here:



If Schultz plays 70+ games and gets 30+ points, giving him $6 million a year would be dreadfully bad. "Good" means "playing at the same level he did in 2016-2017".



Giving term to a guy who has played at a $5.5 million level once in his career sounds like a monumentally bad idea.

Gm's are dumb