Rutherford to Rossi: "You're a ****ing jerk. ... Your opinion is ****."

[Waffle Fries]

Well, those teams have prospects and young NHLers we simply don't have.

Which is fair, but we are far from the only team that trades 1st rounders. Our trade was better than most as well.

Penguins: Received a 26 year old winger singed for another season that can fit into the team long-term.

Islanders: Giving up a first for a player who isn't even on the team this year.

Blackhawks: Received a 32 year old UFA

Predators: Received Franson (who played a whopping 13 minutes in a triple OT game) and Santorelli who put up 4 points in 22 games. Both are UFAs

Tampa: Received Coburn. He's barely played in Tampa because of an injury so it is hard to judge. I'm not a big fan of his, and they also gave up a strong young player in Gudas.

Blues: Miller isn't on the team now. They have Steve Ott to show for that first round pick.

Rangers: This is the second first that they will have given up for MSL.

 

[Gallatin]

Put the Fleury deal at an 8 or 9.. still won't move the average much. JR's decision making has been questionable.

now you are talking sense Cassius. JR has not been bad, but he has not been goo either. Kinda the story of most of his career IMO.

The Gang Of Nine as a group is a disaster though. Fire everyone is the only thing that makes sense to me...

 

[Waffle Fries]

6 / 10 bro - that ain't good.

You have been the most vocal in your displeasure of Rutherford and even with minimizing his good moves, you still average his rating out to 6/10. It's just funny.

Everything you posted above is your opinion, hardly fact and I disagree with nearly all of it.

I can't argue the Perron trade since at the time I was ok with it. I Still wish we had traded for a bigger forward with more speed though. Since if he does go cold, he could still have added much needed grit.

Hated the Ehrhoff signing. Complete waste of cap space for another PMD. This isn't hindsight since it was said by many at the time of signing. Now, a year later. We still have to get Harringon and Dumo playing time to see what we have.

Neal trade was bad since Spaling was the second piece. We didn't need another soft, non descript forward that doesn't excel in any one area.

Despres trade???? My mind was *****. Black is white, good is bad and going gay is now an option.

Hated Winnik. I didn't know much about the guy except what I was told from others description of the guy. Not very physical, not a scorer, not skilled and better than Adams. Well Better than Adams is now on the first line.

I still can't fathom how anyone can watch Hornqvist play and say the Neal trade was bad. I really, really can't.

 

[Shady Machine]

6 / 10 bro - that ain't good.

bro 6/10 is in the decent or average category. So, based on your own rating scale, Rutherford has done an average job (5.944/10). Explain how that deserves all the vitriol you have thrown JR's way.

I think they should likely move on from him, but your arguments here show that you don't even believe half the **** you say.

 

[SEALBound]

That's a weak-ass argument. We have 1 pick in the first four rounds in this draft. We have two forwards with any sort of upside.

The future is mortgaged alright. We're one of the four oldest teams in the NHL this season and a lot of the older guys are under contract beyond this year.

Martin, Ehrhoff, and Adams will be coming off the books. That will drop it quite a bit especially if you assume its the young prospects taking over. And who cares about being the youngest team? Since when do the youngest teams win cups? Look at our 09 team, there was a healthy mix of youth, mid age, and vets. You need them all to win cups.

Ehrhoff: D
Spaling contract: D-
Comeau: C-
Downie: B-
Winnik: F
Perron: C-
Lovejoy: F
MAF: B-
Cole: B+

GPA = 1.66 (D)

Why this for the Spaling contract? You are looking at the Summer 2014 signings through Spring 2015 goggles. Dumb to do. Think about the state of the bottom six prior to obtaining Spaling.

The bottom 6 was:

Kobasew-Sutter-Pyatt
Glass-Vitale-Adams

And 4 of them were about to leave. We needed bottom 6 guys and you can't always rely on free agency. Spaling was the difference between Neal and Hornqvist. He was capable and more importantly at the time VERSITLE bottom player. We had Sutter who needed a new contract and we weren't exactly sure what his demands would be. Spaling would have easily been the 3C had Sutter asked for 5 mil. It is absolutely understandable why Spaling got what he got at the time. Has he produced like a 2.2mil man? Probably not...but the signing doesn't warrant a D.

Winnik has been great for us. So he didn't breakthrough as a Top line wing for Sidney Crosby...boohoo. That's not who he was brought in to be. Was the price high? Sure. But that's the deadline for ya. Everyone has to pay a little more at the deadline.

Comeau should be an A. The fact he isn't shows just how clueless your list is. I notice you left Lapierre off the list...interesting. Perhaps because its a trade everyone pissed and moaned about for weeks until the playoffs start and he turned into a beast? Nice omission. Again, joke of a list/ratings.

JR didn't let Orpik and Niskanen walk, Shero did. Those players' values were minimal in the offseason. Martin and Ehrhoff both were needed on this team with the injuries sustained. Scuderi and Adams were inherited by Shero, and Adams isn't even playing. 26 is still young; Perron will be playing for as long as Sid and Malkin are worth their contracts.

Orpik and Nisky priced themselves out of town. Word was they weren't happy with the coaches being fired either. So we not have been able to keep them even if we wanted to.

Perron is like James Neal 2011. That trade was looking bad Nealer had a whopping two goals as a Penguins through 2011. Then he breaks out the next year. Perron is fine. He is a Top 6 wing and will continue to be a top 6 wing. Who would we have in the lineup if he wasn't there? Seriously.

The amount of whining that "JR has destroyed the team" is reaching delusional obsessive levels. Are there still issues, yes. But as far as I'm concerned, sans the Despres trade, he's done a decent job at putting together a decent team with the mess he inherited.

 

[cassius]

bro 6/10 is in the decent or average category. So, based on your own rating scale, Rutherford has done an average job (5.944/10). Explain how that deserves all the vitriol you have thrown JR's way.

I think they should likely move on from him, but your arguments here show that you don't even believe half the **** you say.

Average is 7/10

In what land is 6/10 average..? If you got a 60% on a test, how would that be considered average?

I assumed that 1-10 scale was common knowledge, but apparently not.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I have to say, I don't understand the defending of Rutherford. It seems the main reason to defend what he's done is because of hatred for his predecessor, for the scribes in Pittsburgh or to defend people's own prognostications and/or philosophies.

It's the same way with Johnston. The best thing people can say about Johnston is "he's not Bylsma". And the best thing people can say about good ol' JR is "Shero was the one who destroyed this franchise, not JR", or "JR really put Rossi in his place".

Giving JR MORE time would be throwing gasoline onto the bonfire. We know his M.O. We know he ignores the draft and is basically a GM for the here and now. That's counter to what is currently needed.

His 'good' moves are what they are, but where we currently sit is more important than winning or losing a deal. And we are currently in the worst spot we've ever been since winning the '05 lottery.

Bottom line.

 

[Shady Machine]

Average is 7/10

In what land is 6/10 average..? If you got a 60% on a test, how would that be considered average?

I assumed that 1-10 scale was common knowledge, but apparently not.

You just invented your own rules for a 1-10 scale.

 

[cassius]

You just invented your own rules for a 1-10 scale.

Agree to disagree man.

I guess anyone who gets a 60/100 on a test really did average and deserves a C, not a D.

 

[kodoshin]

You just invented your own rules for a 1-10 scale.

Just to interject, he's using the same grading scale that was present when I was a youth in school. A grade in the C-rank was always in the 70% range, and considered average. I'm sure this has changed by now, but it was a long-time standard. A rank of D, where he graded Rutherford, would have been considered below average, and any less than that (59% and down) would be a total failure.

 

[Shady Machine]

I have to say, I don't understand the defending of Rutherford. It seems the main reason to defend what he's done is because of hatred for his predecessor, for the scribes in Pittsburgh or to defend people's own prognostications and/or philosophies.

It's the same way with Johnston. The best thing people can say about Johnston is "he's not Bylsma". And the best thing people can say about good ol' JR is "Shero was the one who destroyed this franchise, not JR", or "JR really put Rossi in his place".

Giving JR MORE time would be throwing gasoline onto the bonfire. We know his M.O. We know he ignores the draft and is basically a GM for the here and now. That's counter to what is currently needed.

His 'good' moves are what they are, but where we currently sit is more important than winning or losing a deal. And we are currently in the worst spot we've ever been since winning the '05 lottery.

Bottom line.

I agree with you. I just can't stand ridiculous hyperbole and I think the problems are much bigger than just JR. Canning him and promoting Guerin or Botteril will NOT lead to better results IMO. The whole lot of them need to go.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Average is 7/10

In what land is 6/10 average..? If you got a 60% on a test, how would that be considered average?

I assumed that 1-10 scale was common knowledge, but apparently not.

Terrible comparison. Grades only go A through F. So, technically, 1 through 6. You're taking things on a 1-6 scale (60% on a test) and applying them to a 1-10 scale, which is why no one gets it.

 

[billybudd]

Which is fair, but we are far from the only team that trades 1st rounders. Our trade was better than most as well.

Penguins: Received a 26 year old winger singed for another season that can fit into the team long-term.

Islanders: Giving up a first for a player who isn't even on the team this year.

Blackhawks: Received a 32 year old UFA

Predators: Received Franson (who played a whopping 13 minutes in a triple OT game) and Santorelli who put up 4 points in 22 games. Both are UFAs

Tampa: Received Coburn. He's barely played in Tampa because of an injury so it is hard to judge. I'm not a big fan of his, and they also gave up a strong young player in Gudas.

Blues: Miller isn't on the team now. They have Steve Ott to show for that first round pick.

Rangers: This is the second first that they will have given up for MSL.

I'm not sure about the Perron trade and probably wouldn't have made it (at least, not with THIS year's first), but you're not wrong that we spent our first less foolishly than a lot of teams.

The Despres and, especially, the Winnik trade are the ones that are extremely problematic. The Perron trade was potentially catastrophic if we'd missed the playoffs...but we didn't.

 

[Shady Machine]

Just to interject, he's using the same grading scale that was present when I was a youth in school. A grade in the C-rank was always in the 70% range, and considered average. I'm sure this has changed by now, but it was a long-time standard.

When did a 1-10 scale become the same as a school grade %'s?

 

[Uemoda]

Can anyone send that Too Many Cooks video from Adult Swim to the Penguins organization?

It seems fitting.

 

[cassius]

Terrible comparison. Grades only go A through F. So, technically, 1 through 6. You're taking things on a 1-6 scale (60% on a test) and applying them to a 1-10 scale, which is why no one gets it.

1-100%. or 1-10.. same thing.

=>90% or >=9 A..
=>80% or >=8 B..
=>70% or >=7 C..
=>60% or >=6 D..
< 60% or < 6 F..

You follow? I'm happy to help you guys out with understanding simple concepts like this.

 

[Winger for Hire]

Average usually is the midpoint. 5 out of 10 is average.

The grading scale is not something to base average off of.

 

[Shady Machine]

1-100%. or 1-10.. same thing.

=>90% or >=9 A..
=>80% or >=8 B..
=>70% or >=7 C..
=>60% or >=6 D..
< 60% or < 6 F..

You follow? I'm happy to help you guys out with understanding simple concepts like this.

If I told you a girl was a 6 on a scale of 1-10 how would you interpret it?

 

[Coastal Kev]

I still can't fathom how anyone can watch Hornqvist play and say the Neal trade was bad. I really, really can't.

I like Horny, but Spaling drags the deal down. It is possible that JR could have got Horny and kept Neal. Maybe I'm wrong classifying the trade as bad, but Spaling eats cap space takes a valued spot in our lineup an I'm still not sure what he brings to the Pens with helping them win on a nightly basis.

 

[Waffle Fries]

Just to interject, he's using the same grading scale that was present when I was a youth in school. A grade in the C-rank was always in the 70% range, and considered average. I'm sure this has changed by now, but it was a long-time standard. A D, where he graded Rutherford, would have been considered below average, and any less than (59% and down) would be a total failure.

A grading scale and a 1-10 rating system aren't the same thing.

When you are rating something on a scale of 1 to 10, a 5 is considered average or mediocre.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Which is fair, but we are far from the only team that trades 1st rounders. Our trade was better than most as well.

Penguins: Received a 26 year old winger singed for another season that can fit into the team long-term.

Islanders: Giving up a first for a player who isn't even on the team this year.

Blackhawks: Received a 32 year old UFA

Predators: Received Franson (who played a whopping 13 minutes in a triple OT game) and Santorelli who put up 4 points in 22 games. Both are UFAs

Tampa: Received Coburn. He's barely played in Tampa because of an injury so it is hard to judge. I'm not a big fan of his, and they also gave up a strong young player in Gudas.

Blues: Miller isn't on the team now. They have Steve Ott to show for that first round pick.

Rangers: This is the second first that they will have given up for MSL.

Some teams can afford to trade a first rounder. I think when we got Iggy we COULD have afforded that deal, especially since they didn't give up much more than the first and because they were acquiring a Hall-of-Famer. Iggy > Perron, all day every day. Of course, we screwed that one up as well.

THIS year? We really couldn't afford it. I will also state that I think ALL teams who dealt away 2015 firsts will live to regret those decisions. I was shocked so many were moved.

Organizations don't value wingers as much as the other positions, but this year's draft has a plethora of great winger talent. We'll probably see 5-10 in the NHL right away, too.

More than any other team, and moreso this year than any other year, we really couldn't afford to move our pick this year for anything less than a total slam dunk. Some may suggest David Perron is a slam dunk, but I don't believe that to be the case.

Martin, Ehrhoff, and Adams will be coming off the books. That will drop it quite a bit especially if you assume its the young prospects taking over. And who cares about being the youngest team? Since when do the youngest teams win cups? Look at our 09 team, there was a healthy mix of youth, mid age, and vets. You need them all to win cups.

Yes, you need a nice mix to win Cups. But you're putting the cart before the horse. First we need to retool this roster. THEN we can start the search for the right mix again.

We don't have a nucleus to win a Stanley Cup anymore. We need to draft and develop new pieces to add to the older guard (Crosby, Malkin) in order to get back to where we wanna go.

You, like good ol' JR, believes we're a lot closer than that. And that's the scary part. That's what is going to continue to make us wallow in mediocrity for several more years.

 

[cassius]

If I told you a girl was a 6 on a scale of 1-10 how would you interpret it?

Depends on my alcohol intake at the time

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

1-100%. or 1-10.. same thing.

=>90% or >=9 A..
=>80% or >=8 B..
=>70% or >=7 C..
=>60% or >=6 D..
< 60% or < 6 F..

You follow? I'm happy to help you guys out with understanding simple concepts like this.

So you nullify the last 5 numbers of the scale... effectively making it pointless. If 1 through 5 are all the same, there is literally no reason for them to exist. Therefore, it's an incorrect application of the 1-10 scale. Quite simple really.

 

[Shady Machine]

I like Horny, but Spaling drags the deal down. It is possible that JR could have got Horny and kept Neal. Maybe I'm wrong classifying the trade as bad, but Spaling eats cap space takes a valued spot in our lineup an I'm still not sure what he brings to the Pens with helping them win on a nightly basis.

How in the hell could we have gotten Horny without giving up Neal?

You are fine to dislike the trade, but we weren't getting Hornqvist without giving up Neal.

 

[billybudd]

I have to say, I don't understand the defending of Rutherford. It seems the main reason to defend what he's done is because of hatred for his predecessor, for the scribes in Pittsburgh or to defend people's own prognostications and/or philosophies.

It's the same way with Johnston. The best thing people can say about Johnston is "he's not Bylsma". And the best thing people can say about good ol' JR is "Shero was the one who destroyed this franchise, not JR", or "JR really put Rossi in his place".

Giving JR MORE time would be throwing gasoline onto the bonfire. We know his M.O. We know he ignores the draft and is basically a GM for the here and now. That's counter to what is currently needed.

His 'good' moves are what they are, but where we currently sit is more important than winning or losing a deal. And we are currently in the worst spot we've ever been since winning the '05 lottery.

Bottom line.

Johnston's a different story to me. Is he the right coach? I don't know. But he's not incompetent. He's not incompetent. The best evidence anyone can point to of Johnston's incompetence is the prominence of Kunitz in-season. The problem is, when it comes time to suggest an alternative all anyone comes up with is dead silence or Bennett, which are the same thing.

For my money, his work at the deadline and cap management tells me JR is incompetent. There's nothing like that to grab onto with Johnston.