Salary Cap: Roster-Building Pt. XX!| (Fun Title Here)| Fleury Proposal Here

[Shady Machine]

John Klingberg was a healthy scratch tonight (again).
Pens play Stars on Thursday night.
Klingberg is signed @ 4.25m until 2021-22. 24 yrs old and right handed.

Can he be the main piece coming back in a package for Fleury?
Klingberg, a young forward (Nuke or Ritchie) & Lehtonen (or Niemi)
for
Fleury & Maatta

Talk about a coincidence... Maatta and Klingberg both wear #3... and both are signed until 2021-22.
Mattaa is getting paid 4,083,333 per year versus Klingberg's 4,250,000.
Its closer than some people may thing. This could actually happen especially since we'd be taking back a goalie they can't get rid of but we can have a use for... plus we can expose @ the expansion draft.

I have no idea why Klingberg is a healthy scratch, but I would personally drive Maatta and Fleury to Dallas if we got Klingberg in return. He's basically Maatta but skates better and has a better shot.

Maatta & Fleury for Klingberg & Niemi.

 

[PensandCaps]

so the coyotes might move duclair? what do they need? dmen right? id do DP for Duclair. even add too.

 

[Shady Machine]

jake guentzel will probably be #3C in a year or two.

Doubtful unless the Pens can't find other options. He is clearly being groomed as a top 6 LWer and might already be one. I wouldn't put him at 3C. We finally have a kid with the skill, speed, and hockey sense to play with Sid and Geno and people want him to play 3C? I don't get it.

 

[SEALBound]

JR is going to get Treliving really, really drunk and then we draft Nolan Patrick? Cool. I see that he's injured right now so it seems destined.

Calgary isn't finishing last overall. Arguably, if they were to get MAF today, they could easily push for a playoff slot.

John Klingberg was a healthy scratch tonight (again).
Pens play Stars on Thursday night.
Klingberg is signed @ 4.25m until 2021-22. 24 yrs old and right handed.

Can he be the main piece coming back in a package for Fleury?
Klingberg, a young forward (Nuke or Ritchie) & Lehtonen (or Niemi)
for
Fleury & Maatta

Talk about a coincidence... Maatta and Klingberg both wear #3... and both are signed until 2021-22.
Mattaa is getting paid 4,083,333 per year versus Klingberg's 4,250,000.
Its closer than some people may thing. This could actually happen especially since we'd be taking back a goalie they can't get rid of but we can have a use for... plus we can expose @ the expansion draft.

Not a chance. Klink is their Letang-lite. They are not letting him go.

Nuke's only out in his contract is next off season but he's doing damn well in the KHL. Part of me says the only real deal with the Stars is centered around Niemi and a prospect. That could be Nuke or more realistically, we should ask for Devin Shore and hope he develops into something.

I'm just not for giving Bonino any term at all. It's like every one of his past teams saw the same thing we are seeing. He has spurts of serious great hockey and then disappears. At least he isn't worthless like Sutter, but man when Bonino disappears, he goes from great to vanilla quick. It's so weird.

But then again, he can disappear all he wants in Oct/Nov/Dec. As long as he shows up when it matters the most, I don't care.

Even when disappearing, he's still a very capable 3C. He becomes the average 3C in my eyes. We've been spoiled by 3Cs in all honesty. My worry is that if you do not give him turn it means one of two things - he bolts or his cap hit is high. If he bolts, we simply do not have a current replacement. Fehr is about the best we can hope for but that's only for another year. And he's not a long term solution. After that, it's Sundqvist and I don't believe he's ready yet. Maybe after a season or two at 4C, maybe but not right now. That means you have to go find a 3C on the FA market and that never goes well. For the price you have to pay to get a player like Bonino, you may as well have paid Bonino and taken some comfort in knowing HBK is a line that can work. If you only offer him 1-2 years, he's gonna want $4mil+ and someone will give him that.

Best case, after the new year, you try to get him on a 2.5-3mil a year deal for ideally 3 years, maybe 4 if he takes the 2.5.

That does a couple things for us - holds us over at 3C in the event no internal 3C's emerge during Sid and Geno's "final years" so to speak. If a 3C emerges, players like Bonino will always have value. Good trade piece.

If we are really worried, wait until the playoffs and see how he does again. While we were "warned" that he disappears, no one ever said he wasn't a playoff warrior...because he is one. A good one. I can take a crap RS if it means getting the Bones we saw last year. Easily. We may complain now, but we'll eat crow later.

See above.

Classic.

From a prospect pool POV, center is the need. That 1st should be best center available. The 2nd I would argue goes to the same. The 3rd and 4th and so on can go to BPA C/W/D. Don't think we need a goalie.

 

[PensandCaps]

Doubtful unless the Pens can't find other options. He is clearly being groomed as a top 6 LWer and might already be one. I wouldn't put him at 3C. We finally have a kid with the skill, speed, and hockey sense to play with Sid and Geno and people want him to play 3C? I don't get it.

alot can happen in a year or two. maybe we find some decent LWers.

who am i kidding

 

[Randy Butternubs]

See above.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Calgary isn't finishing last overall. Arguably, if they were to get MAF today, they could easily push for a playoff slot.



Not a chance. Klink is their Letang-lite. They are not letting him go.

Nuke's only out in his contract is next off season but he's doing damn well in the KHL. Part of me says the only real deal with the Stars is centered around Niemi and a prospect. That could be Nuke or more realistically, we should ask for Devin Shore and hope he develops into something.



Even when disappearing, he's still a very capable 3C. He becomes the average 3C in my eyes. We've been spoiled by 3Cs in all honesty. My worry is that if you do not give him turn it means one of two things - he bolts or his cap hit is high. If he bolts, we simply do not have a current replacement. Fehr is about the best we can hope for but that's only for another year. And he's not a long term solution. After that, it's Sundqvist and I don't believe he's ready yet. Maybe after a season or two at 4C, maybe but not right now. That means you have to go find a 3C on the FA market and that never goes well. For the price you have to pay to get a player like Bonino, you may as well have paid Bonino and taken some comfort in knowing HBK is a line that can work. If you only offer him 1-2 years, he's gonna want $4mil+ and someone will give him that.

Best case, after the new year, you try to get him on a 2.5-3mil a year deal for ideally 3 years, maybe 4 if he takes the 2.5.

That does a couple things for us - holds us over at 3C in the event no internal 3C's emerge during Sid and Geno's "final years" so to speak. If a 3C emerges, players like Bonino will always have value. Good trade piece.

If we are really worried, wait until the playoffs and see how he does again. While we were "warned" that he disappears, no one ever said he wasn't a playoff warrior...because he is one. A good one. I can take a crap RS if it means getting the Bones we saw last year. Easily. We may complain now, but we'll eat crow later.



Classic.

From a prospect pool POV, center is the need. That 1st should be best center available. The 2nd I would argue goes to the same. The 3rd and 4th and so on can go to BPA C/W/D. Don't think we need a goalie.

Bpa all day every day, i dont care if that means drafting 7 goalies.

For example if the Pens let prospect pool needs affecr drafting we wouldnt have Matt Murray or Sundqvist right now. The used a 2 third round picks when they were starved for wing prospects.

You take the best player because having too many good players at one position is a fixable problem missing on good players because you pigeon hole a certain position isnt.

 

[SEALBound]

Bpa all day every day, i dont care if that means drafting 7 goalies.

For example if the Pens let prospect pool needs affecr drafting we wouldnt have Matt Murray or Sundqvist right now. The used a 2 third round picks when they were starved for wing prospects.

You take the best player because having too many good players at one position is a fixable problem missing on good players because you pigeon hole a certain position isnt.

Using for 1sts for a org need is different than using a 3rd for BPA.

Where would Mike DePietro fit into the org he was taken with our 1st?

Not to mention, your argument is weak. We took Pouliot who was not an organizational need instead of Filip Forsberg so...

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

John Klingberg was a healthy scratch tonight (again).
Pens play Stars on Thursday night.
Klingberg is signed @ 4.25m until 2021-22. 24 yrs old and right handed.

Can he be the main piece coming back in a package for Fleury?
Klingberg, a young forward (Nuke or Ritchie) & Lehtonen (or Niemi)
for
Fleury & Maatta

Talk about a coincidence... Maatta and Klingberg both wear #3... and both are signed until 2021-22.
Mattaa is getting paid 4,083,333 per year versus Klingberg's 4,250,000.
Its closer than some people may thing. This could actually happen especially since we'd be taking back a goalie they can't get rid of but we can have a use for... plus we can expose @ the expansion draft.

I wish, that would be highway robbery !!!

Not like if we've never done it to the Stars

 

[Shady Machine]

Bpa all day every day, i dont care if that means drafting 7 goalies.

For example if the Pens let prospect pool needs affecr drafting we wouldnt have Matt Murray or Sundqvist right now. The used a 2 third round picks when they were starved for wing prospects.

You take the best player because having too many good players at one position is a fixable problem missing on good players because you pigeon hole a certain position isnt.

To be fair, we also were starved for goalie and center prospects too.

Sure BPA all day, until you have so many at one position that you trade a few for less than market value to fill a need on your team at the deadline (see Morrow, Joe). It's about BPA and balancing the prospect pool at the same time. The key is not drafting for current roster needs, but for roster needs in the next 3 to 5 years. We have absolutely no need for a top goalie prospect for the next decade. Sure, keep drafting them, but no more in the 1st or 2nd round unless that player is so obviously the BPA.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Calgary isn't finishing last overall. Arguably, if they were to get MAF today, they could easily push for a playoff slot.


From a prospect pool POV, center is the need. That 1st should be best center available. The 2nd I would argue goes to the same. The 3rd and 4th and so on can go to BPA C/W/D. Don't think we need a goalie.

As far as the Flames are concerned, it will depend on when Gaudreau comes back. Without Johnny Hockey, they are not even close to being a playoff team. Monahan has gone off the rails too this season. Gulutzan, to me, looks like a coach that is in way over his head. I doubt he is coaching them next season. And the goaltending situation is still very interesting, with Chad Tres y Uno outplaying Brian Elliott by a fairly significant margin so far this season. JR may have already had Treliving by the scrotum had Johnson not stepped up. He could implode at any time, though.

The Flames remain a possibility for Fleury. But maybe a dark horse we need to pay attention to is Florida. They have no goaltender of the future, really. Samuel Montembeault is probably their best prospect but he is far from a sure thing. Luongo has a bad hip and is already 37. Reimer has struggled as the backup so far. Berra is not a long-term answer. Plus, the Panthers are making bizarre decisions now based on strictly numbers. Are Fleury's analytics numbers worse than the eye test or his regular goaltender numbers? If they are not worse, then Florida might have interest.

As far as needing a center prospect more than anything, that could be true. But we could use a shutdown defenseman, too. We could use more wingers, always and forever. Hey, if there is a guy in the draft who can step into the lineup next season and play center on the third or fourth line, that would be fantastic. Or even in a year's time. But if we go winger, I won't complain. If we get a defenseman who can play shutdown minutes, I'm in.

Bpa all day every day, i dont care if that means drafting 7 goalies.

For example if the Pens let prospect pool needs affecr drafting we wouldnt have Matt Murray or Sundqvist right now. The used a 2 third round picks when they were starved for wing prospects.

You take the best player because having too many good players at one position is a fixable problem missing on good players because you pigeon hole a certain position isnt.

Sure, BPA works...as long as the guy you draft actually turns out to be the best player. But when you draft for need, that often helps your player turn out better than the guy who gets stuck behind too many players on the depth chart and winds up traded for 70 cents on the dollar or waived.

Let's face it, drafting for need can positively affect whether the player winds up becoming the BPA. Under Shero for years, there were many wingers who could have turned into the BPA had they gotten a shot to play with either Crosby or Malkin.

I didn't mind the Gustavsson pick last year, mostly because of the uncertainty surrounding the goaltending position prior to the expansion draft. But if we take another goaltender in Round 1 this year?

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

jake guentzel will probably be #3C in a year or two.

Extremely slim chance.

Althought I disagree that center should be our highest priority when drafting. We need high-end D-prospects. I wouldn't mind a RW either, since Sprong is kinda all we got there (I guess Gardiner soon maybe?).

 

[billybudd]

If Florida's trading for bad players (Purcell) and firing good coaches over some sort of esoteric analytical concerns, they're not going to see Fleury as anything they'll want.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

If Florida's trading for bad players (Purcell) and firing good coaches over some sort of esoteric analytical concerns, they're not going to see Fleury as anything they'll want.

Yeah, we have to rely on any team looking past this year's performance as the result of too little playing time and a new routine for MAF. His stats for the last few seasons since Bales have been pretty good, definitely top 15 in the league type ranking (and often better) for your basic goalie stats. Not too shabby at all for a team with immediate aspirations and pressure like they have, or should have, in Florida.

The big issue is that Luongo is under contract for 5 more years(!). They may just need to buy that out. His buyout has incredibly ugly cap ramifications, but it would be very cheap dollar wise. I have no feel for that newish ownership group, and how attractive that might be to them. But at 37, the writing is on the wall for Luongo one way or another.

 

[Riptide]

Could you please be more specific about your standard?For instance,Anthony Beauvillier and Travis Konecny are listed as W/C. Do you think they won't succeed as third line centers?

Many many players in juniors are listed as centers. Why? Because when you're a first round talent at that level, it allows you to do more for your team. Some can handle it, some can't. Regardless of that though, many (most?) players listed as a center in juniors are not centers at the NHL level - they're simply not good enough.

As for Beauvillier, he's now 2 years post draft and is on pace for 28 points. So no, I don't think he could replace Bonino. Not to mention that he's not playing as a center, but as a winger - just like Konecny (who's doing better than Beauvillier production wise - and their production actually means even less to me then their all around game). Again, remember how Sullivan use's Bonino (and Cullen for that matter). That's going to be even more important next season when Cullen retires.

One of the reasons for our success last year was that we didn't match up against other teams - and that forced them to play match up against us. That immediately goes out the drain if our #3C is marginal.

 

[Riptide]

jake guentzel will probably be #3C in a year or two.

If that was the case, don't you think they would have had him playing center in WBS?

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Using for 1sts for a org need is different than using a 3rd for BPA.

Where would Mike DePietro fit into the org he was taken with our 1st?

Not to mention, your argument is weak. We took Pouliot who was not an organizational need instead of Filip Forsberg so...

No its not someone you deem a lesser talent should never be taken over someone you believe is a better talent. Having a better player at a position of strength is better than having a lesser player at a position of weakness. Having "too many" good player at one position can be filled by trading them to fix the weakness if necessary.

Yeah there will sometimes be mistakes in evaluation i.e. Pouliot and forsberg. But if your good enough drafting and evaluating talent you will come out ahead. Instead of guessing and jaut taking a player because you need the position. Not to mention i think we all agree that vauling position over talent is one of the BIG reasons Pouliot was taken in the first place.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

To be fair, we also were starved for goalie and center prospects too.

Sure BPA all day, until you have so many at one position that you trade a few for less than market value to fill a need on your team at the deadline (see Morrow, Joe). It's about BPA and balancing the prospect pool at the same time. The key is not drafting for current roster needs, but for roster needs in the next 3 to 5 years. We have absolutely no need for a top goalie prospect for the next decade. Sure, keep drafting them, but no more in the 1st or 2nd round unless that player is so obviously the BPA.

Making a bad trdae is in and of itself. The is a roght and wrong way to do it. Look at the preds last year they had an unundance of d so they traded at top d for a top c. If they tried to pigeon hold taking a center that draft year instead of taking the beat player (jones) to fill need they might very well end up with elias lindholm instead of ryan Johansen

Also guess what your need will be in 3-5 years is a bigger guessing game than anything. 2-3 years ago we had no RWers i mean brian gibbons was getting playoff minutes on the first line for gods sake. Now we have horny kessel rust fehr and sprong

 

[Riptide]

Making a bad trdae is in and of itself. The is a roght and wrong way to do it. Look at the preds last year they had an unundance of d so they traded at top d for a top c. If they tried to pigeon hold taking a center that draft year instead of taking the beat player (jones) to fill need they might very well end up with elias lindholm instead of ryan Johansen

Also guess what your need will be in 3-5 years is a bigger guessing game than anything. 2-3 years ago we had no RWers i mean brian gibbons was getting playoff minutes on the first line for gods sake. Now we have horny kessel rust fehr and sprong

There is a difference though between drafting to fill your NHL needs, and recognizing that organizationally your prospect pool is weak in a certain area. Rutherford said as much last draft that he'd like to bolster our blueline, which is why 4 of the 6 picks made were blueliners last summer. The two summers before that? 8 of 9 picks were forwards. If they think we're weak up front or down the middle (and I don't think anyone is wrong to think so), then aiming for a C isn't the worst thing in the world - as long as there's no major skill level difference between that center and the BPA. Or you drop back a couple of spots and let someone else take BPA and you gain other picks to make additional selections, while still getting the guy you want.

It all really depends on how one evaluates two (or more) different prospects.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

There is a difference though between drafting to fill your NHL needs, and recognizing that organizationally your prospect pool is weak in a certain area. Rutherford said as much last draft that he'd like to bolster our blueline, which is why 4 of the 6 picks made were blueliners last summer. The two summers before that? 8 of 9 picks were forwards. If they think we're weak up front or down the middle (and I don't think anyone is wrong to think so), then aiming for a C isn't the worst thing in the world - as long as there's no major skill level difference between that center and the BPA. Or you drop back a couple of spots and let someone else take BPA and you gain other picks to make additional selections, while still getting the guy you want.

It all really depends on how one evaluates two (or more) different prospects.

It should be about how you rate the prospects period. And yes aometimes your draft will lean all one direction and thats ok as long as you believe your taking the guy that will be the best nhl player. Need can ALWAYS be adressed down the line if the players you took are good enough. Its the same reason we took a goalie prospect in the second. We shouldnt need a goalie for the next 10-15 years if Murray is a good as we think. We will need another position at some point and is gustavsson is as good as we believe we can if need trade him or jarry to fill that need. Selecting a lesser talented player to fill our d or c prospect pool might be that player down the line but asming they develop they still (if you evaluated correctly) wont be as good as the value you can trade for AND might not even be a position of need by that time.

 

[Riptide]

It should be about how you rate the prospects period. And yes aometimes your draft will lean all one direction and thats ok as long as you believe your taking the guy that will be the best nhl player. Need can ALWAYS be adressed down the line if the players you took are good enough. Its the same reason we took a goalie prospect in the second. We shouldnt need a goalie for the next 10-15 years if Murray is a good as we think. We will need another position at some point and is gustavsson is as good as we believe we can if need trade him or jarry to fill that need. Selecting a lesser talented player to fill our d or c prospect pool might be that player down the line but asming they develop they still (if you evaluated correctly) wont be as good as the value you can trade for AND might not even be a position of need by that time.

So what you're saying is that in every single case when PIT made their selections last June, that after the 2nd round, they felt that the absolute best player every time was a D? I find that extremely hard to believe.

 

[Shady Machine]

It should be about how you rate the prospects period. And yes aometimes your draft will lean all one direction and thats ok as long as you believe your taking the guy that will be the best nhl player. Need can ALWAYS be adressed down the line if the players you took are good enough. Its the same reason we took a goalie prospect in the second. We shouldnt need a goalie for the next 10-15 years if Murray is a good as we think. We will need another position at some point and is gustavsson is as good as we believe we can if need trade him or jarry to fill that need. Selecting a lesser talented player to fill our d or c prospect pool might be that player down the line but asming they develop they still (if you evaluated correctly) wont be as good as the value you can trade for AND might not even be a position of need by that time.

You're acting like there is consensus on who the best prospects are. Once you get past the first round, and often times in it, there are prospects that are pretty close in terms of BPA. Teams have wildly different lists in the later rounds too. My point is that once you are past that 1st round, there really isn't a material enough difference in BPA (no one knows what BPA really is to be honest) to just say "draft BPA all the time".

Looking at your organizational depth should absolutely be part of the drafting plan. If all your scouts like 3 players at a spot, 1 is a center and you have a gaping organizational hole at center, you take the center. Just saying "draft the BPA" is this weird kind of trump card that doesn't actually have weight unless you know the players.

 

[billybudd]

Yeah, we have to rely on any team looking past this year's performance as the result of too little playing time and a new routine for MAF. His stats for the last few seasons since Bales have been pretty good, definitely top 15 in the league type ranking (and often better) for your basic goalie stats. Not too shabby at all for a team with immediate aspirations and pressure like they have, or should have, in Florida.

The big issue is that Luongo is under contract for 5 more years(!). They may just need to buy that out. His buyout has incredibly ugly cap ramifications, but it would be very cheap dollar wise. I have no feel for that newish ownership group, and how attractive that might be to them. But at 37, the writing is on the wall for Luongo one way or another.

Jesus, I knew he had a long contract, but I didn't know it was that long.

Does Florida get snared by cap recapture in the event of a buyout or does Vancouver?

 

[AjaxTelamon]

Jesus, I knew he had a long contract, but I didn't know it was that long.

Does Florida get snared by cap recapture in the event of a buyout or does Vancouver?

They both do, but Vancouver gets it way, way worse. And it's bad enough that I remember talk of it being in VAN's best interest to actually re-acquire him if FLA was ever serious about buying him out.

Best to ask a Detroit fan about the intricacies of how bad you can get screwed, they are all too familiar with that these days

 

[Riptide]

Jesus, I knew he had a long contract, but I didn't know it was that long.

Yeah but in the 4 final years of that contract he's owed a total of 7m. He gets 6.7m this year and next year, but after that it's nothing. I'd be absolutely shocked if he finished out that contract. More realistically, he retires within the final 3 years of it (when he'd have 3.5m left on it).

16/17: 6.7m
17/18: 6.7m
18/19: 3.3m
19/20: 1.6m
20/21: 1m
21/22: 1m

Vancouver paid him 30.148m and had a cap hit of 21.32 over those 4 years.
Florida paid him 26.856m (assuming he plays next season) and he had a cap hit of 21.32m. If he plays to 18/19, he would have had a cap hit of 26.65m and been paid 30.238m.

If he retires early, Vancouver would be hit with a 8.828m penalty that would be applied against how many years he has left on his contract. So if it's June 2018, thats around 2.2m a year for 4 years. If it's June 2020, it would be around 4.4m for two years. If it's June 2021, it's an 8m penalty. I think that's how it works.

Florida on the other hand gets off pretty easy. He could retire this summer and they'd get hit with a 1.1m penalty for 5 years. By 2020 they wouldn't face any penalty.

On a side note, this isn't anything different then what Nashville faces with Weber.