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

[Brandinho]

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.

I disagree. Only drafting who you perceive to be the BPA whilst ignoring organization needs is just as bad as only drafting for organizational needs whilst ignoring BPA. You have to balance both. To wit, if there's a goalie in this next draft who's rated slightly higher than a winger, you take the winger. We have a young NHL starter, a top NA prospect and a top EU prospect on top of a vaguely intriguing longshot like Maguire. We absolutely do not need another goalie prospect and goalies do not tend to have the same trade value as other positions, so it's not even a situation where you can just flip one easily for something you need.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I disagree. Only drafting who you perceive to be the BPA whilst ignoring organization needs is just as bad as only drafting for organizational needs whilst ignoring BPA. You have to balance both. To wit, if there's a goalie in this next draft who's rated slightly higher than a winger, you take the winger. We have a young NHL starter, a top NA prospect and a top EU prospect on top of a vaguely intriguing longshot like Maguire. We absolutely do not need another goalie prospect and goalies do not tend to have the same trade value as other positions, so it's not even a situation where you can just flip one easily for something you need.

Completely disagree you dont evaluate need because simply by the time they are ready you have no damn clue what you will need and even if you feel stacked at a position throughout the system there will be attrition through injurys trades and flat out busts. As far as the draft goes acquire the most possible talent period. And evaluate and fill needs at a higher level once you have more information.

So many picks will bust to begin woth there is no need to add to it by prioritizing things that might not even matter by the time the player is ready.

The only position you an consider skipping over is G since you only roster 2 and really play 1. But still if the guy available is in your mind clearly better take him. You can always make other move later if necessary.

 

[Brandinho]

Completely disagree you dont evaluate need because simply by the time they are ready you have no damn clue what you will need and even if you feel stacked at a position throughout the system there will be attrition through injurys trades and flat out busts. As far as the draft goes acquire the most possible talent period. And evaluate and fill needs at a higher level once you have more information.

So many picks will bust to begin woth there is no need to add to it by prioritizing things that might not even matter by the time the player is ready.

The only position you an consider skipping over is G since you only roster 2 and really play 1. But still if the guy available is in your mind clearly better take him. You can always make other move later if necessary.

Organizational need, not NHL need. If your system is devoid of skaters, but you are stacked with goalies, you do not take another goalie, period. I don't even understand what you're arguing about when your last line even concedes the point about goalies when that was the entire basis of my argument.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I think you draft what is avilable for positional depth or what not and then in the later rounds take some risks. bpa doesn't always work out for anyone unless it's like top 30 first round.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I wish, that would be highway robbery !!!

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

Honka is supposed to be better than Klingberg. Klingberg is solid offensively but isn't as good defensively and Maatta is his opppsite. It really depends on where their biggest need is. Left side or right side. Looks like left side needs help.

But if Klingberg isn't available. I try to get Johns and a prospect for fleury is fine by me.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Organizational need, not NHL need. If your system is devoid of skaters, but you are stacked with goalies, you do not take another goalie, period. I don't even understand what you're arguing about when your last line even concedes the point about goalies when that was the entire basis of my argument.

I said that the only time you can make an argument for. I still wouldnt do it if the goalie is clearly superior prospect. If their tied it doesnt matter.

I dont care if their is no forward prospects. They can be acquired through other means. And through different pock when they ARE the beat players avalible.

The draft is the one free and easy time to be able to acquire as mich talent as possible. You dont waste it by projecting needs. You can always fill needs later. You cant always fill needs later. You can always fill need later. Because the only real place that needs exist is your NHL roster. Where your prospect strengths are are irrelevant.

Whether thats trading prospects for now, trading now for peospects, or through FA.

Example: if your staked on D both in the nhl amd have a couple good prospects to boot and your 1st round pick comes alomg and you have a d man rated cleary ahead, take him, and either move one of you other prospects for a forward or move one of your nhl d men for a forward and call one of the other prospects up and replace him with the guy you just drafted.

As long as you keep bringing in good talent you will always have options. Theres no point in having balance if the players arent as good. It adds up if you continue to do so.

 

[Brandinho]

I said that the only time you can make an argument for. I still wouldnt do it if the goalie is clearly superior prospect. If their tied it doesnt matter.

I dont care if their is no forward prospects. They can be acquired through other means. And through different pock when they ARE the beat players avalible.

The draft is the one free and easy time to be able to acquire as mich talent as possible. You dont waste it by projecting needs. You can always fill needs later. You cant always fill needs later. You can always fill need later. Because the only real place that needs exist is your NHL roster. Where your prospect strengths are are irrelevant.

Whether thats trading prospects for now, trading now for peospects, or through FA.

Example: if your staked on D both in the nhl amd have a couple good prospects to boot and your 1st round pick comes alomg and you have a d man rated cleary ahead, take him, and either move one of you other prospects for a forward or move one of your nhl d men for a forward and call one of the other prospects up and replace him with the guy you just drafted.

As long as you keep bringing in good talent you will always have options. Theres no point in having balance if the players arent as good. It adds up if you continue to do so.

No, you said that you don't factor in need at all, which seems ridiculous to me. Factoring in need and BPA does not mean that the two are weighted equally. BPA should always have the heavier weight and should influence drafting more than need, but there's no defensible argument for ignoring need entirely. The mere fact that you concede the point about goalies demonstrates that you actually are factoring in need to some extent, so it seems to me like you're contradicting yourself without realizing it.

 

[SEALBound]

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.

No.

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.

Again, no. BPA above all else is how you end up with bad prospect pools or lopsided prospect pools. The only thing worse than BPA above all else is Shero's strategy of take all PMD so you can trade them for wings later. Foolish. I honestly do not think you are giving the scouts and the Pens drafting team / front office any credit at all. They will indeed evaluate org needs and BPA, not just BPA. They will likely say "our biggest need is a center. We will take best center available".

By your logic, if G Mike DePietro is the BPA in the first round in the 2017 Draft, the Penguins should take him. That is what you are saying and advocating, correct? And you believe this to be the best route to always 100% be followed?

In the 1st and 2nd, you look at BPA for org needs unless there is a prospect that drops that you can't pass up. Think Olli Maatta in 2012. By all accounts, we didn't really need Maatta after having Morrow, Harrington, Despres, and Pouliot. But Maatta was highly regarded and by most accounts fell to the Penguins at 21/22 (whatever it was). In that case, sure you take him. But right now, dmen are not a pressing need. Wings are not a pressing need. Looking 4-5 years into the future, a 3C possibly a 2C is absolutely 100% a need. Unless there is a wing or a dman that falls significantly in the draft that you are high on but never thought you'd get, you look for the best center available.

BPA regardless of needs is a poor way to manage your prospect pool.

Organizational need, not NHL need. If your system is devoid of skaters, but you are stacked with goalies, you do not take another goalie, period. I don't even understand what you're arguing about when your last line even concedes the point about goalies when that was the entire basis of my argument.

BPA...unless ya know...you don't need one in that position. Which is the point we were all trying to make to him.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

No, you said that you don't factor in need at all, which seems ridiculous to me. Factoring in need and BPA does not mean that the two are weighted equally. BPA should always have the heavier weight and should influence drafting more than need, but there's no defensible argument for ignoring need entirely. The mere fact that you concede the point about goalies demonstrates that you actually are factoring in need to some extent, so it seems to me like you're contradicting yourself without realizing it.

No, i said its the only time you "can make the argument" to even consider it. Specifically because roster limations. IMO i still wouldnt do it if i felt the goalie prospet is a better prospect.

Take this team as an example... The one place we are unequivally stacked is golaie. We have a young top end nhl goalie, a prover atarter backing him up. Another good ahl prospect with starters potential, and an even younger guy in Europe that could be just as good as any of them.

If our 1st round pick comes along and i beleive the best prospect id a goalie, I take him even if i believe i have a serious lack in another area. Why? Options. Now i have a tom.

I can trade Fleury to back fill that position either through prospects or more picks, if inthink one of my other guy will be truely great i could trade Murray and get a haul including bolstering that need if its the right return. I can trade Jarry since i dont need one right now and the new goalie can back fill the pipeline. Or I can sit on my depth for a couple year and make a decision later.

If i take whatever skater is the other option, its much more settled but ive limited my future upside. If you keep thinking that way year after year you have given a lot away for the sake of prospect balance. And thats a good way to becoming a mediocre team.

 

[SEALBound]

No, i said its the only time you "can make the argument" to even consider it. Specifically because roster limations. IMO i still wouldnt do it if i felt the goalie prospet is a better prospect.

Take this team as an example... The one place we are unequivally stacked is golaie. We have a young top end nhl goalie, a prover atarter backing him up. Another good ahl prospect with starters potential, and an even younger guy in Europe that could be just as good as any of them.

If our 1st round pick comes along and i beleive the best prospect id a goalie, I take him even if i believe i have a serious lack in another area. Why? Options. Now i have a tom.

I can trade Fleury to back fill that position either through prospects or more picks, if inthink one of my other guy will be truely great i could trade Murray and get a haul including bolstering that need if its the right return. I can trade Jarry since i dont need one right now and the new goalie can back fill the pipeline. Or I can sit on my depth for a couple year and make a decision later.

If i take whatever skater is the other option, its much more settled but ive limited my future upside. If you keep thinking that way year after year you have given a lot away for the sake of prospect balance. And thats a good way to becoming a mediocre team.

This is the Ray Shero approach and it never came to fruition. It did leave us with a deplorable winger situation that prevented us from challenging for a cup.

 

[The Greatest 101]

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.

We have to agree to disagree then. They're playing in the top six. They are better than third liners. And do you know how many points Bones is on pace for? 30.

 

[The Greatest 101]

I said that the only time you can make an argument for. I still wouldnt do it if the goalie is clearly superior prospect. If their tied it doesnt matter.

I dont care if their is no forward prospects. They can be acquired through other means. And through different pock when they ARE the beat players avalible.

The draft is the one free and easy time to be able to acquire as mich talent as possible. You dont waste it by projecting needs. You can always fill needs later. You cant always fill needs later. You can always fill need later. Because the only real place that needs exist is your NHL roster. Where your prospect strengths are are irrelevant.

Whether thats trading prospects for now, trading now for peospects, or through FA.

Example: if your staked on D both in the nhl amd have a couple good prospects to boot and your 1st round pick comes alomg and you have a d man rated cleary ahead, take him, and either move one of you other prospects for a forward or move one of your nhl d men for a forward and call one of the other prospects up and replace him with the guy you just drafted.

As long as you keep bringing in good talent you will always have options. Theres no point in having balance if the players arent as good. It adds up if you continue to do so.

Hello,Ray.

 

[Empoleon8771]

There's a healthy medium between drafting BPA and drafting based on need. I actually think Shero's late round pick strategy was a good one, look for people who have 1 trait that will get them into the NHL. That's what they did with Rust and others. JR's strategy seems to be pick overagers and defensemen who can skate late and pick the BPA with the early picks. That's what he did with Kapanen, Sprong and Gustavsson (possibly Bjorkqvist too, I'm not sure how highly they ranked him).

 

[SEALBound]

http://insidepittsburghsports.com/story/penguins-islanders-odd-man-out-with-hornqvists-return/

What three players is it bad for? Wilson, Kunitz, Fehr?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

The BPA model is the best route, but goalies are both a) a crapshoot and b) of limited trade value, so you have to treat them differently.

The BPA model wasn't what was wrong with Shero's plan. The problem was his failure to execute a key part of the BPA philosophy, which is to leverage your strengths to address your weaknesses.

We drafted a ton of d talent but let them rot on the vine in favour of crappy old vets.

 

[SEALBound]

The BPA model is the best route, but goalies are both a) a crapshoot and b) of limited trade value, so you have to treat them differently.

The BPA model wasn't what was wrong with Shero's plan. The problem was his failure to execute a key part of the BPA philosophy, which is to leverage your strengths to address your weaknesses.

We drafted a ton of d talent but let them rot on the vine in favour of crappy old vets.

Shero's plan was not BPA. It was draft only PMD dmen and trade them for needs. If you have a need, you draft a need. You can't always do BPA and then hope you can trade it for the need.

 

[Pancakes]

BPA is the way to go but I'd put the slight caveat there of saying that if you have a bunch of goalies you can probably take a winger or d over a goalie unless you really really like that goalie prospect a lot.

On the other hand you can never have enough good d and forward prospects, so even if you have a need for wingers like we do I'd still be fine with the Pens drafting a d if they liked that defenseman more than whatever forward prospects were on the board.

 

[Ugene Magic]

What I'm saying is, I don't think there is a huge difference between forwards or defense late in round one. Due to that, need can come into play.

Goalies don't come into play because there is no real reason to pick one in round #1. With those they currently have, that's a purely wasted pick.

This is a good year to take need.

 

[Riptide]

Take this team as an example... The one place we are unequivally stacked is golaie. We have a young top end nhl goalie, a prover atarter backing him up. Another good ahl prospect with starters potential, and an even younger guy in Europe that could be just as good as any of them.

If our 1st round pick comes along and i beleive the best prospect id a goalie, I take him even if i believe i have a serious lack in another area. Why? Options. Now i have a tom.

I can trade Fleury to back fill that position either through prospects or more picks, if inthink one of my other guy will be truely great i could trade Murray and get a haul including bolstering that need if its the right return. I can trade Jarry since i dont need one right now and the new goalie can back fill the pipeline. Or I can sit on my depth for a couple year and make a decision later.

If i take whatever skater is the other option, its much more settled but ive limited my future upside. If you keep thinking that way year after year you have given a lot away for the sake of prospect balance. And thats a good way to becoming a mediocre team.

Actually, no you don't. Now you A) have a prospect that you're going to struggle to find icetime for once he's actually in the system (there's only 2 goalie spots in WBS), and B) you're entirely dependent on another team to agree to make a deal for a player you want. Sure you may have some decent prospects, but as we saw with Shero and his PMD, it doesn't mean all that much if A) you can't (or don't) play them and B) can't use them to fill the gaping holes you have elsewhere in your organization (such as our consistent lack of skilled winger depth - at an organizational level).

Also, why have you limited your future upside? This team even now is always going to be hungry for skilled offensive wingers. That will not change 4 years from now. I mean if you're choosing between a goalie who you think will be the next Price, and a good skilled prospect like Sprong, sure take the goalie. But if you're choosing between someone like Jarry and Sprong, you take the forward every single day of the week, even if 5 years from now you think Jarry might be slightly better. I could see a legitimate argument for taking the goalie (Jarry in the above example) if we didn't have all 3 of Murray, Jarry and Gustaffson and MAF. But we do. Which means for this team to pick a goalie just because he's BPA and slightly better than a forward, is absolutely asinine.

 

[Riptide]

We have to agree to disagree then. They're playing in the top six. They are better than third liners. And do you know how many points Bones is on pace for? 30.

They may be playing in the top 6 (I'm not going to bother to check their TOI to see if that's true or not), but neither are doing so as centers. Which considering that's what you said you were going to draft to replace Bonino 2 years from now, is a pretty big deal. Also, I wouldn't be bragging about them playing "in the top 6" and being accomplished players... when they're on pace for 30 points. That should be a pretty clear sign that they're not ready yet.

Additionally, (and I said this before, but I see ignored it) are you really going to sit there and pretend that a young player 2 years removed from his draft is going to have the complete game Bonino does? Do you know how incredibly rare that is?

Disagree with me all you want... but the stats back this up. The number of centers who are taken late in the 1st round who are impact players 2 years removed from their draft years is minuscule (and it doesn't get much better if you look at 3 years removed either). And if you look at forwards instead of centers... that list is almost as small. What you certainly do not do is bet a season on a player like that absolutely needing to step up. At least not when you're a contending team. Carolina can do that. So can Arizona and Toronto. The defending cup champions who have a short window to win another cup before having to make changes, cannot.

 

[Riptide]

http://insidepittsburghsports.com/story/penguins-islanders-odd-man-out-with-hornqvists-return/

What three players is it bad for? Wilson, Kunitz, Fehr?

Jake Guentzel’s emergence this season will have a significant trickle down effect on the Penguins’ roster in the coming weeks. The Penguins have seen enough since the start of the AHL season from Guentzel where they don’t see a scenario where he plays his way back down to Wilkes Barre. The organization feels he’s here for good and will be an integral part to the team the rest of the way.

Guentzel’s arrival is bad news for three players in particular.

Have to think Kuhnhack and Wilson are two of those guys. I think the 3rd would be between Rust, Fehr and Kunitz all depending on who's playing well or not. Figure that Wilson gets sent down, and that Kuhnhack is the first scratch once everyone is healthy. What we'd see would just depend on whether it's Malkin and Kessel or HBK. If it's the latter, that would really make things interesting with where Kunitz ends up if Guentzel is playing #2LW.

 

[The Greatest 101]

They may be playing in the top 6 (I'm not going to bother to check their TOI to see if that's true or not), but neither are doing so as centers. Which considering that's what you said you were going to draft to replace Bonino 2 years from now, is a pretty big deal. Also, I wouldn't be bragging about them playing "in the top 6" and being accomplished players... when they're on pace for 30 points. That should be a pretty clear sign that they're not ready yet.

Additionally, (and I said this before, but I see ignored it) are you really going to sit there and pretend that a young player 2 years removed from his draft is going to have the complete game Bonino does? Do you know how incredibly rare that is?

Disagree with me all you want... but the stats back this up. The number of centers who are taken late in the 1st round who are impact players 2 years removed from their draft years is minuscule (and it doesn't get much better if you look at 3 years removed either). And if you look at forwards instead of centers... that list is almost as small. What you certainly do not do is bet a season on a player like that absolutely needing to step up. At least not when you're a contending team. Carolina can do that. So can Arizona and Toronto. The defending cup champions who have a short window to win another cup before having to make changes, cannot.

I just love how you simply ignore that I said I hope they move up,but OK. If you want to spend 15 millions on your third line for the next couple years,fine.

 

[BlacknGold4life]

Sheary- Crosby- Horny
Guentzel - Malkin - Rust
Hagelin - Bonino - Kessel
Kuhn - Cullen - Fehr

Kunitz - trade
Wilson
Sprong - when healthy goes to Malkins line? definitely on opening night roster next season.
Sundqvist - Takes Cullens spot next year for sure
Sesito - AHL/fill in enforcer
Simon - AHL this year and start of next year
Dea - AHL this year and start of next

Trade Kunitz. What is return we should look for? 1st at TDL? can we get more?

Trade 1 of Kunitz, Rust, Sheary.. 1 has to go.... love them all but we should try to maximize return. Sheary is up for a new contract (RFA?). Only problem is does Wilson become 1st line LW? probably not.


I love Kuhn - Cullen - Fehr line very productive and see smooth transition to Sundqvist next year... even if Fehr takes center spot.

keep HBK.


What are your guys inputs? I think we should be trading forwards for D/D-Prospects..

Fleury either gone through expansion or trade ofc.

 

[KIRK]

Have to think Kuhnhack and Wilson are two of those guys. I think the 3rd would be between Rust, Fehr and Kunitz all depending on who's playing well or not. Figure that Wilson gets sent down, and that Kuhnhack is the first scratch once everyone is healthy. What we'd see would just depend on whether it's Malkin and Kessel or HBK. If it's the latter, that would really make things interesting with where Kunitz ends up if Guentzel is playing #2LW.

No way Kunitz doesn't go right back into the top six, right with Malkin. No matter how much better Malkin looks with Guentzel and Rust, that's not what really matters where Kunitz is concerned.

 

[billybudd]

We drafted a ton of d talent but let them rot on the vine in favour of crappy old vets.

That's been a common refrain for years, but it doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. The only D...perhaps the only player...who was trapped behind a veteran he was better than under Shero's administration was Despres, and that was only for a half-season, which doesn't exactly constitute being "left to rot."

Rest of the "talented" D were either playing (Maatta, Bortuzzo), not ready yet (Dumoulin, Pouliot) or have subsequently proven to be terrible at this level (Morrow, Harrington).