Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread: Trade Me If You Can

Status
Not open for further replies.

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
40,104
18,216
Also as bad as Matheson's give away to take away ratio was Ekblad's was worse every year. So I think it was the system. I not passing judgement on this trade after 2 games from Matheson when our team was all playing terrible. I love his skating and skill package and think he can be a good player for us.

I always said this trade has nothing to do with what Hornqvist does. Whether we win or lose this deal all comes down to how well Matheson does. If Matheson turns his game around with us we win the deal and it is that simple. Matheson is one of they best skating defenseman in the league and has above average skills in all areas so if he learns to play in our system and plays to his potential then we win this deal. A 26 year old defenseman with his skill set that plays to his potential is worth much more than a mid 30's winger.

If Matheson doesn't turn it around with the Pens we lose the deal because of his years and contract. It was a win this year with the real money savings but if he doesn't turn it around like Niskanen, Schultz, and Daley did then it is a bad deal. I like the deal because it is a high risk high reward deal that has a ton of upside. Better than trading assets to get someone to take Hornqvist or have to retain part of Hornqvist's salary. Watching TJ go on waivers and nobody took him tells me Hornqvist had negative value. Matheson had negative value also but at least he has the upside and the age to actually have a chance to not have negative value.

Agreed but I think we have to be careful how much we read into guys like TJ going on waivers and not getting claimed. In a tight cap world I think that has more to do with a team not wanting to suddenly take on a $5mil player. I tend to think that if a team was interested they would rather send back salary to help absorb the cap hit. Not what Tampa would prefer obviously but then again, if TJ was a highly desirable $5mil player, he would get claimed.
 

Pens x

Registered User
Oct 8, 2016
16,184
7,959
Also as bad as Matheson's give away to take away ratio was Ekblad's was worse every year. So I think it was the system. I not passing judgement on this trade after 2 games from Matheson when our team was all playing terrible. I love his skating and skill package and think he can be a good player for us.

I always said this trade has nothing to do with what Hornqvist does. Whether we win or lose this deal all comes down to how well Matheson does. If Matheson turns his game around with us we win the deal and it is that simple. Matheson is one of they best skating defenseman in the league and has above average skills in all areas so if he learns to play in our system and plays to his potential then we win this deal. A 26 year old defenseman with his skill set that plays to his potential is worth much more than a mid 30's winger.

If Matheson doesn't turn it around with the Pens we lose the deal because of his years and contract. It was a win this year with the real money savings but if he doesn't turn it around like Niskanen, Schultz, and Daley did then it is a bad deal. I like the deal because it is a high risk high reward deal that has a ton of upside. Better than trading assets to get someone to take Hornqvist or have to retain part of Hornqvist's salary. Watching TJ go on waivers and nobody took him tells me Hornqvist had negative value. Matheson had negative value also but at least he has the upside and the age to actually have a chance to not have negative value.
I really think you have blinders on to some degree. You need three good d pairings, but you hang up once his name is mentioned by Zito. When the Pens won their cups, their bottom pairing dmen were not paid $5 million. You are only trying to justify having a third pairing d with that contract because we now have one. If he doesn’t work out here, we are royally screwed with that contract. Is the team going to pay him $2.5 mil a year for the best decade to go away if he sucks here? The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

For every Niskanen (traded for 10 years ago), there is a Hunwick, Oleksiak, Gudbranson, Johnson, etc.

Schuktz went back to garbage after he briefly rejuvenated his career.

Daley was a horrible fit in Chicago. How did we fix him? He was great in Dallas and ended up in Chicago for 29 games before coming here. The guy was in the league for 11 years before coming here. He was bad for 29 games, that is it. People give way too much credit for this bogus we fixed Daley BS.

If the capitals made this same trade, you’d be laughing at them.

Should Florida get credit for “rejuvenating” career or is just more him not being asked to play with crap on the third line? I think Horny producing so well makes Sully look awful more than JR.
 
Last edited:

CrosbyMalkin

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
6,700
1,722
I really think you have blinders on to some degree. You need three good d pairings, but you hang up once his name is mentioned by Zito. When the Pens won their cups, their bottom pairing dmen were not paid $5 million. You are only trying to justify having a third pairing d with that contract because we now have one. If he doesn’t work out here, we are royally screwed with that contract. Is the team going to pay him $2.5 mil a year for the best decade to go away if he sucks here? The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

For every Niskanen (traded for 10 years ago), there is a Hunwick, Oleksiak, Gudbranson, Johnson, etc.

Schuktz went back to garbage after he briefly rejuvenated his career.

Daley was a horrible fit in Chicago. How did we fix him? He was great in Dallas and ended up in Chicago for 29 games before coming here. The guy was in the league for 11 years before coming here. He was bad for 29 games, that is it. People give way too much credit for this bogus we fixed Daley BS.

If the capitals made this same trade, you’d be laughing at them.

Should Florida get credit for “rejuvenating” career or is just more him not being asked to play with crap on the third line? I think Horny producing so well makes Sully look awful more than JR.

Schultz was very good until the serious knee injury. Judging him after that means nothing to this situation. As far as those other guys you mentioned none of them make any sense in comparing them to Matheson, Niskanen, Daley, and Schultz. Those guys have actual skating and skill and those other guys don't. So you are the one with blinders on in this comparison.

Will see when Matheson gets back but I believe he has much more talent than a 3rd pairing defenseman and probably more than any of the success stories of the past. That doesn't mean he is a guarantee and that is why I said it is a high risk high reward type trade.
 

WheresRamziAbid

Registered User
Oct 31, 2013
7,183
2,049
That’s fine, but you also don’t need to spend $5 mil in cap on a bottom pairing dman.

You dont HAVE to do anything.

but your 3rd pairing is a better spend of 5 million than any bottom 6 F (other than maybe 3c). The only time you need to worry about the salary is if it stops you from acquiring a legit difference maker or you have a cheaper guy that makes it redundant.

Thankfully POJ is showing that you can move one of the others it depends on who you choose to move.

Pigeonholing what roster spots can make what dollar amounts is stupid
 

Pens x

Registered User
Oct 8, 2016
16,184
7,959
Schultz was very good until the serious knee injury. Judging him after that means nothing to this situation. As far as those other guys you mentioned none of them make any sense in comparing them to Matheson, Niskanen, Daley, and Schultz. Those guys have actual skating and skill and those other guys don't. So you are the one with blinders on in this comparison.

Will see when Matheson gets back but I believe he has much more talent than a 3rd pairing defenseman and probably more than any of the success stories of the past. That doesn't mean he is a guarantee and that is why I said it is a high risk high reward type trade.
Yea if he is a top 3, it’ll pay off. But if he struggles and only is the lineup because of his contract, it’ll be terrible.

Im pulling for him big time since our D looks terrible.
 

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
40,104
18,216
I really think you have blinders on to some degree. You need three good d pairings, but you hang up once his name is mentioned by Zito. When the Pens won their cups, their bottom pairing dmen were not paid $5 million. You are only trying to justify having a third pairing d with that contract because we now have one.

For every Niskanen (traded for 10 years ago), there is a Hunwick, Oleksiak, Gudbranson, Johnson, etc.

Schuktz went back to garbage after he briefly rejuvenated his career.

Daley was a horrible fit in Chicago. How did we fix him? He was great in Dallas and ended up in Chicago for 29 games before coming here. The guy was in the league for 11 years before coming here. He was bad for 29 games, that is it. People give way too much credit for this bogus we fixed Daley BS.

If the capitals made this same trade, you’d be laughing at them.

Should Florida get credit for “rejuvenating” career or is just more him not being asked to play with crap on the third line? I think Horny producing so well makes Sully look awful more than JR.

Dmen making big bucks while on the bottom pairing happens all the time. Usually it comes after a younger cheaper player breaks out, for example, Marino or POJ - they would presumably bump Matheson to the 3rd pairing. When they made the trade, I'm betting they saw him as the 2nd pairing guy so it's a little disingenuous to assume they brought him here solely to be on the 3rd pairing.

Now, granted, you RARELY have any idea what you're talking about, but suggesting Hunwick and Oleksiak and even Gudbranson are in the same boat as Johnson really shows us something new about your inability to understand nearly anything that goes on with this team, players, or hockey. Hunwick outplayed Cole for the entirety of the season and was a primary reason he was traded. It was only after his brain becoming mush after a concussion did his play trail off. I, and many here, had zero issues with Oleksiak, and the same with Gudbranson. His adv stat line while here was actually quite impressive. JMFJ was a dumpster fire but we all know that. Point being, none of those three are in the same category as Niskanen, Daley, and Schultz as @CrosbyMalkin was alluding to. Hunwick wasn't signed as a project and neither Oleksiak nor Gudbranson were traded for as such. That is just asinine to suggest.

The last point, you are reading too much into what "fix" is. With those three, there generally wasn't much "fixing" to do. All three benefited greatly from a new role, new team, new system, and a different set of expectations. That's why they were targeted. There was an article that came out just before or just after the Schultz trade (can't remember exactly) but it said that their scouts and adv stats guys did a lot of homework on him to determine if he was a bad player in a bad position and all the criticism was warranted or if he was generally a good player in a bad situation that would benefit from a change of scenery. Obviously, they determined it was the latter and they went through with it and low and behold, it worked out. It's not as if they came here and JR put in a cheat code and edited their talent rankings like some video game.

Something you are missing about Horny as well - he was not going to be in the top 6 here. Rust and Kapanen had those spots locked up. Would Horny be producing at the same rate with Bleuger and McCann? History says probably not. But don't let meager details like that trip you up of your agenda base rage posts, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrosbyMalkin

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
Dmen making big bucks while on the bottom pairing happens all the time. Usually it comes after a younger cheaper player breaks out, for example, Marino or POJ - they would presumably bump Matheson to the 3rd pairing. When they made the trade, I'm betting they saw him as the 2nd pairing guy so it's a little disingenuous to assume they brought him here solely to be on the 3rd pairing.

Now, granted, you RARELY have any idea what you're talking about, but suggesting Hunwick and Oleksiak and even Gudbranson are in the same boat as Johnson really shows us something new about your inability to understand nearly anything that goes on with this team, players, or hockey. Hunwick outplayed Cole for the entirety of the season and was a primary reason he was traded. It was only after his brain becoming mush after a concussion did his play trail off. I, and many here, had zero issues with Oleksiak, and the same with Gudbranson. His adv stat line while here was actually quite impressive. JMFJ was a dumpster fire but we all know that. Point being, none of those three are in the same category as Niskanen, Daley, and Schultz as @CrosbyMalkin was alluding to. Hunwick wasn't signed as a project and neither Oleksiak nor Gudbranson were traded for as such. That is just asinine to suggest.

The last point, you are reading too much into what "fix" is. With those three, there generally wasn't much "fixing" to do. All three benefited greatly from a new role, new team, new system, and a different set of expectations. That's why they were targeted. There was an article that came out just before or just after the Schultz trade (can't remember exactly) but it said that their scouts and adv stats guys did a lot of homework on him to determine if he was a bad player in a bad position and all the criticism was warranted or if he was generally a good player in a bad situation that would benefit from a change of scenery. Obviously, they determined it was the latter and they went through with it and low and behold, it worked out. It's not as if they came here and JR put in a cheat code and edited their talent rankings like some video game.

Something you are missing about Horny as well - he was not going to be in the top 6 here. Rust and Kapanen had those spots locked up. Would Horny be producing at the same rate with Bleuger and McCann? History says probably not. But don't let meager details like that trip you up of your agenda base rage posts, lol.

It’s a very fair point by @Pens x since we had Dumo and Pettersson before acquiring Matheson.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,292
25,206
I think everyone who could see lightning and hear thunder thought it was a little odd that we were adding a third 4m+ dman when we had Dumo and Pettersson, with most people assuming it would mean us moving a guy.
 

Pens x

Registered User
Oct 8, 2016
16,184
7,959
It’s a very fair point by @Pens x since we had Dumo and Pettersson before acquiring Matheson.
Yea I don’t know how anyone can think he’d play ahead of those guys. It just seems like we had so much cap allocated to our top 4 dmen, plus 2 guys getting somewhat pricey one-way deals at depth dmen (Riikola and Ruh).

Whatever, only time will tell. I just feel like so many posters here cannot be objective. If we have three really good centers, you NEED that to win. If we don’t have really good centers like right now, suddenly the bottom six doesn’t matter, including 4C and 3C. If we have a great goalie tandem like when we won the cup, that is a necessity, but when we don’t, the tandem is downplayed like right now. Now it’s suddenly ok to drop $5 mill aav on a bottom pairing dman because now have one. Whatever the Pens currently have a surplus of at the time is suddenly the most important part of the team. Whatever we lack no longer matters nearly as much.

It is what it is I guess, it comes with the territory.
 
Last edited:

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,097
I think everyone who could see lightning and hear thunder thought it was a little odd that we were adding a third 4m+ dman when we had Dumo and Pettersson, with most people assuming it would mean us moving a guy.

They weren't that high on Petts and thought Matheson had substantial upside. I mean, he does. But I think they way overestimated their odds at him reaching his upside when they made the deal which is why they lost value.

The thing is: Matheson still has a chance to prove all of us naysayers wrong. If Math looks like a good player I'm not at all attached to keeping Dumo especially given what he's shown this year and the emergence of POJ.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
Schultz was very good until the serious knee injury. Judging him after that means nothing to this situation. As far as those other guys you mentioned none of them make any sense in comparing them to Matheson, Niskanen, Daley, and Schultz. Those guys have actual skating and skill and those other guys don't. So you are the one with blinders on in this comparison.

Will see when Matheson gets back but I believe he has much more talent than a 3rd pairing defenseman and probably more than any of the success stories of the past. That doesn't mean he is a guarantee and that is why I said it is a high risk high reward type trade.
Also concussions, Schultz like most Pens players on Defense, kept coming back too soon it felt like, which again, really bothered me about Dumoulin last year to start the season and yeah. Look at Schultz now, he looks healthy and is playing fine right now, not some amazing 1st pairing guy or any ridiculous statement like that, but he's looking like a top 4 again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrosbyMalkin

Pens x

Registered User
Oct 8, 2016
16,184
7,959
Dmen making big bucks while on the bottom pairing happens all the time. Usually it comes after a younger cheaper player breaks out, for example, Marino or POJ - they would presumably bump Matheson to the 3rd pairing. When they made the trade, I'm betting they saw him as the 2nd pairing guy so it's a little disingenuous to assume they brought him here solely to be on the 3rd pairing.

Now, granted, you RARELY have any idea what you're talking about, but suggesting Hunwick and Oleksiak and even Gudbranson are in the same boat as Johnson really shows us something new about your inability to understand nearly anything that goes on with this team, players, or hockey. Hunwick outplayed Cole for the entirety of the season and was a primary reason he was traded. It was only after his brain becoming mush after a concussion did his play trail off. I, and many here, had zero issues with Oleksiak, and the same with Gudbranson. His adv stat line while here was actually quite impressive. JMFJ was a dumpster fire but we all know that. Point being, none of those three are in the same category as Niskanen, Daley, and Schultz as @CrosbyMalkin was alluding to. Hunwick wasn't signed as a project and neither Oleksiak nor Gudbranson were traded for as such. That is just asinine to suggest.

The last point, you are reading too much into what "fix" is. With those three, there generally wasn't much "fixing" to do. All three benefited greatly from a new role, new team, new system, and a different set of expectations. That's why they were targeted. There was an article that came out just before or just after the Schultz trade (can't remember exactly) but it said that their scouts and adv stats guys did a lot of homework on him to determine if he was a bad player in a bad position and all the criticism was warranted or if he was generally a good player in a bad situation that would benefit from a change of scenery. Obviously, they determined it was the latter and they went through with it and low and behold, it worked out. It's not as if they came here and JR put in a cheat code and edited their talent rankings like some video game.

Something you are missing about Horny as well - he was not going to be in the top 6 here. Rust and Kapanen had those spots locked up. Would Horny be producing at the same rate with Bleuger and McCann? History says probably not. But don't let meager details like that trip you up of your agenda base rage posts, lol.
Oh I realize Horny wouldn’t produce like that here. Sully would have made sure if it.

Should the Caps now get credit for re-fixing Schultz? +9 with 6 points in 8 games. But I thought his play fell off because of his injuries?! I guess his concussions and knee injuries miraculously disappeared?

Do you ever think players rebound simply because they are traded and have a change of scenery more so than another team “fixing” them?

Schultz likely wanted out here as much as we wanted him gone. I just think Schultz’s resurgence makes the whole fixing thing even weaker. So this team couldn’t get Schultz back on track, who is now playing very well I DC but they will fix Matheson? Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Daley played 29 games poorly, that was a slump on a team that wasn’t the right fit. You act like he struggled in Chicago for years before we salvaged him.

Niskanen was just too long ago to have ANY relevance for today.
 
Last edited:

sovietsanta87

Registered User
Jan 3, 2013
2,576
1,485
Pittsburgh, PA
When it comes to Matheson’s contract, it certainly carries risk. I’m not a Florida fan so I never really paid attention to Matheson.

what I do know (or logically predict) is Hornqvist will retire in like two years because of his injury history, age and style of play.

so if Matheson becomes a decent defenseman, we’ve essentially given up nothing for him.
 

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,097
When it comes to Matheson’s contract, it certainly carries risk. I’m not a Florida fan so I never really paid attention to Matheson.

what I do know (or logically predict) is Hornqvist will retire in like two years because of his injury history, age and style of play.

so if Matheson becomes a decent defenseman, we’ve essentially given up nothing for him.

Maybe the reality is also that we won't be a cap team once Sid/Geno/Letang decline (which uh, is already happening pretty severely) so who cares about the contract even if it becomes an anchor.
 

CrosbyMalkin

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
6,700
1,722
Yea I don’t know how anyone can think he’d play ahead of those guys. It just seems like we had so much cap allocated to our top 4 dmen, plus 2 guys getting somewhat pricey one-way deals at depth dmen (Riikola and Ruh).

Whatever, only time will tell. I just feel like so many posters here cannot be objective. If we have three really good centers, you NEED that to win. If we don’t have really good centers like right now, suddenly the bottom six doesn’t matter, including 4C and 3C. If we have a great goalie tandem like when we won the cup, that is a necessity, but when we don’t, the tandem is downplayed like right now. Now it’s suddenly ok to drop $5 mill aav on a bottom pairing dman because now have one. Whatever the Pens currently have a surplus of at the time is suddenly the most important part of the team. Whatever we lack no longer matters nearly as much.

It is what it is I guess, it comes with the territory.

Maybe because our 3rd pairing was the biggest reason we lost that series. 5 of the 9 goals let up with them on the ice. They played less than a 1/4 of the game time but gave up 55% of the goals. Obviously Rutherford had faith in Blueger and his assessment of him also is being proven correct. Jankowski is also a good pick up for $700,000 he can play the 4th line Center job and let's Blueger move up to a more equally offensive to defensive line compared to a strictly shutdown assignment his line had last season. All those moves make sense to me.

You want to see another example of why it was important to improve that 3rd pairing just look at our 3rd pairing with these injuries and how they literally gave up most of the goals in those games despite playing minimal minutes. Best thing Rutherford ever did was bringing in all these defenseman like Pettersson, Marino, POJ, Matheson, and Ceci. Even with all of them we can barely put 2 real pairings together with all these injuries. Just imagine what this would be like without all these reinforcements. Really every move has worked out pretty well to this point since the Pettersson trade. The only one in question at this point is the Matheson trade and that is because he has only played 2 games. We will find out shortly when he gets back how this all works out because it looks like very shortly our pairings will be this until Pettersson or Dumoulin get back.

POJ-Letang
Matheson-Marino
Ruhwedel-Ceci

That is my guess when Matheson is added to this lineup shortly. Even when one of Pettersson or Dumoulin get back Matheson will still be in the lineup and have time to prove if someone like Dumoulin is expendable for a trade for something to help another position.
 
Last edited:

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
40,104
18,216
It’s a very fair point by @Pens x since we had Dumo and Pettersson before acquiring Matheson.

Not really since they clearly viewed Pettersson as the third pairing LD as evidence by the majority of the time Matheson has been here. With that Matheson brings a different skill set than Pettersson. To make a comparison, Pettersson is your Dumoulin and Matheson is your Schultz. Help in puck moving, transition, and offense from the blueline was needed. At the end of the day, Matheson brought that and more importantly, was available for Hornqvist. There was certainly more to that trade though than purely Hornqvist and Matheson but that was already well discussed in the trade thread.

Yea I don’t know how anyone can think he’d play ahead of those guys. It just seems like we had so much cap allocated to our top 4 dmen, plus 2 guys getting somewhat pricey one-way deals at depth dmen (Riikola and Ruh).

He was literally put on the 2nd pair after 2 or 3 days of camp...and in both games he played, it was on the 2nd pairing. WTF are you talking about?

Oh I realize Horny wouldn’t produce like that here. Sully would have made sure if it.

Should the Caps now get credit for re-fixing Schultz? +9 with 6 points in 8 games. But I thought his play fell off because of his injuries?! I guess his concussions and knee injuries miraculously disappeared?

Do you ever think players rebound simply because they are traded and have a change of scenery more so than another team “fixing” them?

Schultz likely wanted out here as much as we wanted him gone. I just think Schultz’s resurgence makes the whole fixing thing even weaker. So this team couldn’t get Schultz back on track, who is now playing very well I DC but they will fix Matheson? Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Daley played 29 games poorly, that was a slump on a team that wasn’t the right fit. You act like he struggled in Chicago for years before we salvaged him.

Niskanen was just too long ago to have ANY relevance for today.

What are you even arguing here?

Like, I literally just made that exact argument to counter the one you made...
 
Last edited:

CrosbyMalkin

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
6,700
1,722
Oh I realize Horny wouldn’t produce like that here. Sully would have made sure if it.

Should the Caps now get credit for re-fixing Schultz? +9 with 6 points in 8 games. But I thought his play fell off because of his injuries?! I guess his concussions and knee injuries miraculously disappeared?

Do you ever think players rebound simply because they are traded and have a change of scenery more so than another team “fixing” them?

Schultz likely wanted out here as much as we wanted him gone. I just think Schultz’s resurgence makes the whole fixing thing even weaker. So this team couldn’t get Schultz back on track, who is now playing very well I DC but they will fix Matheson? Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Daley played 29 games poorly, that was a slump on a team that wasn’t the right fit. You act like he struggled in Chicago for years before we salvaged him.

Niskanen was just too long ago to have ANY relevance for today.

Will see how that Schultz experiment works at the end of the year and not this sample size. Also good for him if he keeps it up. Bottom line that made no sense for your argument. Schultz actually is the most similar to Matheson at the time of those deals. Both came into the league with high expectations and did decent at first. Then both went bad and I remember all the Oilers fans and fans from other teams posting Schultz was the worst defenseman in the NHL when we traded for him. Obviously they had been way off. Matheson has even more raw talent skill wise than Schultz and he is coming off a year in which Florida was happy to get rid of him. As I said this is a high risk high reward trade but Matheson has the skills to make this a win trade for the Pens. Obviously he could bust but I definitely think the Pens evaluation of him was similar to the Schultz situation and they think his style will fit in nice with us.

I don't believe Caps did anything to fix Schultz and that if his play keeps up it is because he is healthy and wasn't the past couple season's in Pittsburgh. It doesn't have anything to do with how he was played for us because before the knee injury he was a legit top 4 defenseman. Did we fix him or did we evaluate his skill set and trade for him because we believed he could play well in our system. I think a little bit of both which would be the case for Matheson also. They brought Schultz along slowly his first season with us. I don't think Matheson will get that luxury with these injuries.
 

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
Not really since they clearly viewed Pettersson as the third pairing LD as evidence by the majority of the time Matheson has been here. With that Matheson brings a different skill set than Pettersson. To make a comparison, Pettersson is your Dumoulin and Matheson is your Schultz. Help in puck moving, transition, and offense from the blueline was needed. At the end of the day, Matheson brought that and more importantly, was available for Hornqvist. There was certainly more to that trade though than purely Hornqvist and Matheson but that was already well discussed in the trade thread.



He was literally put on the 2nd pair after 2 or 3 days of camp...and in both games he played, it was on the 2nd pairing. WTF are you talking about?



What are you even arguing here?

If it’s clear then I’m not seeing it. Matheson was demoted to the bottom pair after the first game. Both games Pettersson played more minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
When it comes to Matheson’s contract, it certainly carries risk. I’m not a Florida fan so I never really paid attention to Matheson.

what I do know (or logically predict) is Hornqvist will retire in like two years because of his injury history, age and style of play.

so if Matheson becomes a decent defenseman, we’ve essentially given up nothing for him.
I know people want to keep beating the MM contract to death, but the real issue for me isn't even the term as much as the NTC that kicks in next season.

But basically taking away his 2nd contract that should lead into a longer term one like this (not as long) is hardly an issue for me. I still think he'll fit in the "system" or well, at least within this group and the pairings, the NTC is the only real problem imo.

I'd still be looking at moving Dumoulin, that would at least alleviate one of the NTC's off this roster that deservedly should be moved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darren McCord

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
Will see how that Schultz experiment works at the end of the year and not this sample size. Also good for him if he keeps it up. Bottom line that made no sense for your argument. Schultz actually is the most similar to Matheson at the time of those deals. Both came into the league with high expectations and did decent at first. Then both went bad and I remember all the Oilers fans and fans from other teams posting Schultz was the worst defenseman in the NHL when we traded for him. Obviously they had been way off. Matheson has even more raw talent skill wise than Schultz and he is coming off a year in which Florida was happy to get rid of him. As I said this is a high risk high reward trade but Matheson has the skills to make this a win trade for the Pens. Obviously he could bust but I definitely think the Pens evaluation of him was similar to the Schultz situation and they think his style will fit in nice with us.

I don't believe Caps did anything to fix Schultz and that if his play keeps up it is because he is healthy and wasn't the past couple season's in Pittsburgh. It doesn't have anything to do with how he was played for us because before the knee injury he was a legit top 4 defenseman. Did we fix him or did we evaluate his skill set and trade for him because we believed he could play well in our system. I think a little bit of both which would be the case for Matheson also. They brought Schultz along slowly his first season with us. I don't think Matheson will get that luxury with these injuries.
Being able to heal from his concussion and his leg properly is why he's playing "normal" again.

I mean now, he took a puck to the face, so who knows what his injury is, a puck to the face is now classified as "Upper-Body Injury" which will lead to a few weeks later of being reported as a concussion.

His break out season on the Pens - 2016-17, he had a concussion I believe. I remember reading about it, around the 50-60 game mark when he had 39-40pts.
2017-18 Season - He suffered a lower body injury, missed 11 games, had a concussion, had the lower body linger throughout that season.
October 2018 (2018-19 season) - He started Pre-season with a nagging upper body injury, he then fractured his leg vs the Habs.
2019-20 Season - Lower body injuries, etc.

Schultz was always going to get back to being a solid top 4, the time off really did a lot of blokes like him a ton of good. He came back rather quickly from his leg injury and then had some others that just kept piling up, people like to think when you're off, you're just letting it all heal at the same time, but certain things stop you from rehabilitating other things. Concussion? Cool, you can't do any workouts, so your leg is now still weak af.

But it's always ridiculous to me how a player will be so injury prone on the Pens but then go elsewhere and be mostly fine. I still remember Rozsival, felt like he was made out of glass, he goes away, comes back with the Rags and is suddenly fine the rest of his 6 seasons there.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
91,486
73,658
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
Being able to heal from his concussion and his leg properly is why he's playing "normal" again.

I mean now, he took a puck to the face, so who knows what his injury is, a puck to the face is now classified as "Upper-Body Injury" which will lead to a few weeks later of being reported as a concussion.

His break out season on the Pens - 2016-17, he had a concussion I believe. I remember reading about it, around the 50-60 game mark when he had 39-40pts.
2017-18 Season - He suffered a lower body injury, missed 11 games, had a concussion, had the lower body linger throughout that season.
October 2018 (2018-19 season) - He started Pre-season with a nagging upper body injury, he then fractured his leg vs the Habs.
2019-20 Season - Lower body injuries, etc.

Schultz was always going to get back to being a solid top 4, the time off really did a lot of blokes like him a ton of good. He came back rather quickly from his leg injury and then had some others that just kept piling up, people like to think when you're off, you're just letting it all heal at the same time, but certain things stop you from rehabilitating other things. Concussion? Cool, you can't do any workouts, so your leg is now still weak af.

But it's always ridiculous to me how a player will be so injury prone on the Pens but then go elsewhere and be mostly fine. I still remember Rozsival, felt like he was made out of glass, he goes away, comes back with the Rags and is suddenly fine the rest of his 6 seasons there.

Schultz sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sovietsanta87

JTG

Registered User
Sep 30, 2007
50,369
5,670
Matheson's defensive game is as bad as advertised, and it's drastically worse than any reclamation project I think we have had over the years. That being said, I think his offensive ceiling is higher than any project we've had. The guy has good offensive awareness and a really hard shot. If he comes back while Letang is out, I'd be curious to see him on the powerplay.

He has some serious work to do in the defensive zone though because that part of his game is absolutely abysmal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChaosAgent
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->