Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread: Where Gods are born & Old Ones Go To Valhalla..

[Dipsy Doodle]

It would mostly be due to Ceci if that pair was somehow worse than Matheson-Ceci.

The 3rd pair should either be Matheson-Ruhwedel if Matheson is on the 3rd pair or Pettersson-Riikola if Matheson is with Marino.

I dunno. Riikola-Ruhwedel looked really good in limited action together last year.

I'd like to have seen more of it when our bottom pair was in the shitter last year, but contracts gotta be propped up for some reason.

 

[Peat]

I don't think there was ever much danger of it being as bad as JJ and post-injury Schultz.

My question was always whether it would be any better than Riikola-Ruhwedel, despite costing about 4.5 mil more per year.

Maybe, but I still like the reassuring nature of it. "Won't be as bad as worst thing we've seen in the uniform in the last decade" is just what I need.

And I think we all know that they won't be 4.5m better, and it's 50-50ish on whether they'll actually be better at all, and that the best model of our third pairing will probably be a mix and match between the names.

I dunno. Riikola-Ruhwedel looked really good in limited action together last year.

I'd like to have seen more of it when our bottom pair was in the shitter last year, but contracts gotta be propped up for some reason.

We weren't even propping up Schultz's contract. He was out the door. That was - almost definitely - pure coach faith. And I think I'd struggle to think of three Sully decisions combined that bothered me as much as how much rope JJ and Schultz got last season.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Maybe, but I still like the reassuring nature of it. "Won't be as bad as worst thing we've seen in the uniform in the last decade" is just what I need.

And I think we all know that they won't be 4.5m better, and it's 50-50ish on whether they'll actually be better at all, and that the best model of our third pairing will probably be a mix and match between the names.


We weren't even propping up Schultz's contract. He was out the door. That was - almost definitely - pure coach faith. And I think I'd struggle to think of three Sully decisions combined that bothered me as much as how much rope JJ and Schultz got last season.

One of my biggest hopes this year is that Matheson plays well enough that Seattle picks him in the draft.

Unlikely, but a man can dream.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If Matheson plays well enough that Seattle would want to take him, the Penguins sure as hell better be protecting him and moving Pettersson before the expansion draft.

Matheson is literally tailor made for this system and brings an element to the defense that is sorely lacking. Why are people already trying to find a way out of his contract if he's playing well?

 

[Peat]

While The Athletic are in a giving mood - Top 100 NHL players — from Connor McDavid to Jamie Benn – The Athletic

We've got 4 in there in Crosby, Malkin, Guentzel and Letang. Crosby's in Tier 1B, Malkin in Tier 2B, and the latter two in Tier 3B. Only six teams had more than four (Tampa and Toronto top with six) and of the six teams with tier one players, only four had a tier two to back them up. Not a lot of chat on them - more on other players. Not a lot to disagree with imo, other than if Malkin repeats last season he'll have a Tier 1 impact (but how likely is that?)

Looking at 4B and 4C - guys like Brodin and Boeser and Muzzin and Schwartz - leads me to think guys like Zucker, Rust and Marino can't have been that far away, and might be in next year's version with good seasons. Particularly Marino; there's quite a few dmen projected to be worse than him on the list but who have rep and provability on their side.

 

[Peat]

One of my biggest hopes this year is that Matheson plays well enough that Seattle picks him in the draft.

Unlikely, but a man can dream.

Like Empo said - if Matheson plays well enough to be ED bait, he's probably a guy I'd like to keep given his offensive potential and size/skating combo. He's the sort of guy we're crying out for. I like Pettersson, but he's the sort of guy you find plenty of, and he'd lose a close competition between him and Matheson for me.

I think what Matheson's going to do is the single biggest non-goaltending question mark to me. I can see so many ways it can go given his past and skillset.

 

[Empoleon8771]

On the expansion draft, I'm also not completely positive that Seattle would end up taking either Matheson or Pettersson if they were left available. Just looking around briefly, it seems like there will be quite a few Pettersson/Matheson caliber defensemen available in the expansion draft. Just a few examples:

-Colorado: Definitely Graves, maybe Toews if they go 7-3-1 (Makar playing in the 2019 playoffs caused him to be eligible for the expansion draft)
-Carolina: Probably Fleury, Skjei and Gardiner
-Anaheim: Larsson and Guhle
-Tampa: Cernak
-Florida: Nuutivara

Lefty #4 defensemen with big cap hits aren't exactly rare players nowadays. It really depends on who else the Penguins leave exposed, but I'm not 100% sure they'd lose Matheson or Pettersson if they left them exposed. There are going to be a ton of similar or better defensemen left available.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

If Matheson plays well enough that Seattle would want to take him, the Penguins sure as hell better be protecting him and moving Pettersson before the expansion draft.

Matheson is literally tailor made for this system and brings an element to the defense that is sorely lacking. Why are people already trying to find a way out of his contract if he's playing well?

Like Empo said - if Matheson plays well enough to be ED bait, he's probably a guy I'd like to keep given his offensive potential and size/skating combo. He's the sort of guy we're crying out for. I like Pettersson, but he's the sort of guy you find plenty of, and he'd lose a close competition between him and Matheson for me.

I think what Matheson's going to do is the single biggest non-goaltending question mark to me. I can see so many ways it can go given his past and skillset.

It really depends on how much Matheson cleans up his game, and how much more he can improve offensively.

Pettersson's 2 years younger, and better overall. Matheson has the tools, but Pettersson's toolbox has made him a much more effective player so far.

 

[Empoleon8771]

It really depends on how much Matheson cleans up his game, and how much more he can improve offensively.

Pettersson's 2 years younger, and better overall. Matheson has the tools, but Pettersson's toolbox has made him a much more effective player so far.

It's also insanely easier to replace someone with Pettersson's skillset than it is to replace someone with Matheson's skillset.

If you move Pettersson, you already have POJ who can slide in and effectively provide the same things as Pettersson. They have no one in the organization that is similar to Matheson, and people would be complaining about how they needed someone exactly like Matheson as soon as the Penguins lost him.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

It's also insanely easier to replace someone with Pettersson's skillset than it is to replace someone with Matheson's skillset.

If you move Pettersson, you already have POJ who can slide in and effectively provide the same things as Pettersson. They have no one in the organization that is similar to Matheson, and people would be complaining about how they needed someone exactly like Matheson as soon as the Penguins lost him.

Like I said, tools aren't everything. The toolbox matters too.

Matheson has better tools than Dumoulin. Is he a better or more valuable defenseman?

Matheson is going to need to make leaps and bounds to be more valuable than Pettersson, because right now he's somebody who needs to be sheltered by a responsible partner. Meanwhile, Pettersson is a guy you use to stabilize a pairing.

Maybe Matheson does unlock his potential here, but it's anything but guaranteed, and he has a long way to go.

 

[Gurglesons]

Even if Matheson plays well and is worth his contract this year, I think you expose him simply due to the contract. Same reason I’d expose Tanev over Teddy and McCann.

 

[Peat]

I agree that Matheson is behind Pettersson right now because he's not shown he has the toolbox regularly. I think it can change easily enough... but also not change.

Do think Pixies raises a valid point about Matheson's contract, to which I'd add even if Matheson is great this season, my trust levels in him repeating are so-so. Pettersson by contrast feels like he's unlikely to slip below his establishing floor for the next five years. That said

On the expansion draft, I'm also not completely positive that Seattle would end up taking either Matheson or Pettersson if they were left available. Just looking around briefly, it seems like there will be quite a few Pettersson/Matheson caliber defensemen available in the expansion draft. Just a few examples:

-Colorado: Definitely Graves, maybe Toews if they go 7-3-1 (Makar playing in the 2019 playoffs caused him to be eligible for the expansion draft)
-Carolina: Probably Fleury, Skjei and Gardiner
-Anaheim: Larsson and Guhle
-Tampa: Cernak
-Florida: Nuutivara

Lefty #4 defensemen with big cap hits aren't exactly rare players nowadays. It really depends on who else the Penguins leave exposed, but I'm not 100% sure they'd lose Matheson or Pettersson if they left them exposed. There are going to be a ton of similar or better defensemen left available.

This is a valid point, but with 30 guys to pick there'll be probably be a few guys picked as trade bait - and we know D generally have better trade values than W - and right now, I like Blueger and Tanev, but they're not the world's most exciting alternatives to taking a D.

Also - even if we don't lose a LD in the expansion draft, I figure we trade one shortly after. The team has three options to replace such a guy in Riikola, POJ, and Lee depending on how they develop and a need to cut some cap.

 

[Gurglesons]

I agree that Matheson is behind Pettersson right now because he's not shown he has the toolbox regularly. I think it can change easily enough... but also not change.

Do think Pixies raises a valid point about Matheson's contract, to which I'd add even if Matheson is great this season, my trust levels in him repeating are so-so. Pettersson by contrast feels like he's unlikely to slip below his establishing floor for the next five years. That said



This is a valid point, but with 30 guys to pick there'll be probably be a few guys picked as trade bait - and we know D generally have better trade values than W - and right now, I like Blueger and Tanev, but they're not the world's most exciting alternatives to taking a D.

Also - even if we don't lose a LD in the expansion draft, I figure we trade one shortly after. The team has three options to replace such a guy in Riikola, POJ, and Lee depending on how they develop and a need to cut some cap.

Which is why you rationalize losing Matheson in the draft if possible because Petts is paid less. As marginal as it is a mil is a good saving for us. He has also pretty much shown us his floor is a guy who can carry a 3rd pairing.

I’d pay Seattle to take Matheson or Tanev tbh. If we can get rid of either of them that drops us to one bad contract.

Issue being JR if still GM will just sign some other plug to a long term deal.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I think if Matheson plays well, helps us do some damage this year then gets picked in the ED that’s almost as perfect as it can go.

 

[PensandCaps]

If Matheson plays well enough that Seattle would want to take him, the Penguins sure as hell better be protecting him and moving Pettersson before the expansion draft.

Matheson is literally tailor made for this system and brings an element to the defense that is sorely lacking. Why are people already trying to find a way out of his contract if he's playing well?

Because you can find a Dman who plays "well" for much less than 5 Million per year.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Because you can find a Dman who plays "well" for much less than 5 Million per year.

Yes, that's why the Penguins have had such an easy time replacing Daley since Daley left.

Oh wait.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Yes, that's why the Penguins have had such an easy time replacing Daley since Daley left.

Oh wait.

The issue hasn't been replacing Daley, it's been icing a shitty bottom pairing.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The issue hasn't been replacing Daley, it's been icing a shitty bottom pairing.

I feel like this is a monumentally false statement.

They have been sorely missing a defenseman with the offensive ability and puck moving/skating talent as what Daley had back in 2016. Marino is certainly close but I don't think he's really a big offensive threat from the blue line.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Going over the Expansion Draft Player Exposure requirements, CapFriendly is saying that the players (unless a goalie) must be under contract for 21-22 to be exposed. Does this mean that Blueger, who will be an unsigned RFA, will not meet the exposure criteria?

I could have sworn all RFAs are at risk of being exposed, but CapFriendly says that's only for goalies.

Odd.

 

[Peat]

Which is why you rationalize losing Matheson in the draft if possible because Petts is paid less. As marginal as it is a mil is a good saving for us. He has also pretty much shown us his floor is a guy who can carry a 3rd pairing.

I’d pay Seattle to take Matheson or Tanev tbh. If we can get rid of either of them that drops us to one bad contract.

Issue being JR if still GM will just sign some other plug to a long term deal.

I dunno. You make good points. But if Matheson can fulfil his potential, keep scoring with the efficiency he did last season and use his size and don't be a drain on possession, I think that's worth the extra money. It ticks a lot of boxes on what I'd like out of a dman.

Also, if Rutherford is serious about looking for impact free agents to extend the window, then he should logically avoid tying up cap space that comes free. Not that I believe he'll deliberately seek flexibility like that, but you never know...

 

[Peat]

Going over the Expansion Draft Player Exposure requirements, CapFriendly is saying that the players (unless a goalie), must be under contract for 21-22 to be exposed. Does this mean that Blueger, who will be an unsigned RFA, will not meet the exposure criteria?

I could have sworn all RFAs are at risk of being exposed, but CapFriendly says that's only for goalies.

Odd.

Blueger does not count for the minimum number of exposed players as things stand, but if not protected he can still be selected. Does that clear it up?

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Blueger does not count for the minimum number of exposed players as things stand, but if not protected he can still be selected. Does that clear it up?

Yes, it does. Thanks.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yes, that's why the Penguins have had such an easy time replacing Daley since Daley left.

Oh wait.

That's largely on them thinking Schultz was much more than a glorified PP. And granted in 17-18 he was probably our most consistent defenseman despite his lack of goal scoring.

 

[Empoleon8771]

That's largely on them thinking Schultz was much more than a glorified PP. And granted in 17-18 he was probably our most consistent defenseman despite his lack of goal scoring.

They tried to replace Daley with Hunwick, and when Hunwick flopped, they decided to throw a stupid contract at JJ because they thought he could replace Daley's skating and offense somewhat while adding physicality.

 

[Gurglesons]

They tried to replace Daley with Hunwick, and when Hunwick flopped, they decided to throw a stupid contract at JJ because they thought he could replace Daley's skating and offense somewhat while adding physicality.

I'd have to disagree. They viewed Daley as a rock for our second pair which is why they gave Schultz the contract they did.

Hunwick was preemptive move to cheapen the loss of Cole.