Salary Cap: Salary Cap + Roster Building (Cap Details in First Post) | Roster Freeze Ends 12:01am Dec 28

[Riptide]

I like Oleksiak, I think a lot of his issues are that he's moved from LD to RD, back and forth, and he's with the wrong D partner. He's a guy that would thrive with a defensive first kind of guy. I would rather see him with Pettersson than Johnson or Maatta.

But if people want Petrovic, cool, I hope it happens. He's elite at blocking punches with his face.

The problem is that defensive first kind of guy also needs to be a strong passer/puck mover, because you don't want Oleksiak being the best PMD on the pairing.

I know few are happy with the mix on the blueline, and while I'm not sure Oleksiak individually is part of the issue, I really do not think he's part of the solution. Especially since we need a very specific partner for him - and I'm not even talking about getting the best out of Oleksiak... just turning the pairing into something that doesn't scare the shit out of us whenever it's on the ice. Add in Maatta and JJ, and of those 3 I think Oleksiak is the easiest to move, the easiest to replace internally (TOI, not being someone we'd miss) and the least worry some if we f*** up the deal (cap space + a 3rd doesn't bother me at all, where as I'd probably be pretty pissed if we did that for Maatta).

 

[Honour Over Glory]

How many games does he need with the same guys before we say that that isn't working? Because at a certain point, even that starts to stop being an excuse. Bottom line is that he's had stable linemates for a couple games here and there, but after the line did sweat **** all for a few games, things got changed.

As for his role and fit... this was one of the reasons I didn't want Brassard last spring, but wanted us to go after a rental in Pleks (or someone like that) and just role with Sheahan/Pleks as our 3/4Cs.

Then we got him after Rutherford decided to go full overkill. Fine, not the end of the world. But even last spring before he get hurt, the fit with Kessel was awkward at best. This year it's just been bad vs awkward, and I put a lot of that blame on Brassard himself and the game he's currently playing.

I didn't want this team to lose Cole, especially heading into the playoffs. We lost Bonino who was our other warrior type of player, then we lost Cole because of some stupid beef (which really, from our f***ing coach?) and then this team just tried to throw pieces together that didn't fit.

What I don't get is, they tried Brass at wing and center, but they won't put him with the 2nd line at C and just let it be Brass and Geno there for a bit, like f*** it, at this point you do it because you aren't getting ton even strength out of either guy and Brass is being used 52+ in DZ starts which in his entire NHL career, he's never been used to. To get him back to being in more OZ starts, put him at C on the 2nd line, why isn't that an option?

At best - They produce, he raises his value, the team can move him if they want or they found a new solution on the 2nd line.
At worst - He sucks, you have now exhausted every avenue and say f*** it, see ya.

I would have liked to see, for 3-4 games...

Guentzel, Crosby, Kessel
Aston-Reese/Pearson, Brassard, Malkin
Aston-Reese/Pearson, Sheahan, Rust
Cullen, Grant, Dea

For one, I think Geno being at wing might spark something for him, I know he likes being a C, but just being able to wheel around more freely as a winger would be good for him. That's a top 6 that is heavier to stop and that 3rd line, I think it'd be more solid than people want to admit.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

@Riptide I actually remember agreeing about Plekanec, I wanted him as well because I was absolutely pissed off that our 4C option was Josh f***ing Jooris, McKegg, and Dea (who I thought was better as a winger with his size).

 

[Empoleon8771]

The problem is that defensive first kind of guy also needs to be a strong passer/puck mover, because you don't want Oleksiak being the best PMD on the pairing.

I know few are happy with the mix on the blueline, and while I'm not sure Oleksiak individually is part of the issue, I really do not think he's part of the solution. Especially since we need a very specific partner for him - and I'm not even talking about getting the best out of Oleksiak... just turning the pairing into something that doesn't scare the **** out of us whenever it's on the ice. Add in Maatta and JJ, and of those 3 I think Oleksiak is the easiest to move, the easiest to replace internally (TOI, not being someone we'd miss) and the least worry some if we **** up the deal (cap space + a 3rd doesn't bother me at all, where as I'd probably be pretty pissed if we did that for Maatta).

Coincidentally, I think they actually have someone like that now in Pettersson. If the Penguins can ship off Johnson, I'd be completely happy to have Pettersson-Oleksiak as the bottom pair for at least the next year and a half. You also have Riikola, who has shown to be a good puck mover and strong defensively. It's just a matter of those guys getting consistent minutes and improving from where they're currently at.

I think Maatta should definitely be moved (because he's not needed with Pettersson and Riikola) and you should move one of Oleksiak or Johnson, but I'm pretty indifferent on which one of JJ or Oleksiak they decide to keep. I see pros and cons for keeping either of them. Would you rather keep the younger guy with untapped potential or the safer guy who can be used in a larger variety of roles?

 

[Riptide]

I didn't want this team to lose Cole, especially heading into the playoffs. We lost Bonino who was our other warrior type of player, then we lost Cole because of some stupid beef (which really, from our ****ing coach?) and then this team just tried to throw pieces together that didn't fit.

What I don't get is, they tried Brass at wing and center, but they won't put him with the 2nd line at C and just let it be Brass and Geno there for a bit, like **** it, at this point you do it because you aren't getting ton even strength out of either guy and Brass is being used 52+ in DZ starts which in his entire NHL career, he's never been used to. To get him back to being in more OZ starts, put him at C on the 2nd line, why isn't that an option?

At best - They produce, he raises his value, the team can move him if they want or they found a new solution on the 2nd line.
At worst - He sucks, you have now exhausted every avenue and say **** it, see ya.

I would have liked to see, for 3-4 games...

Guentzel, Crosby, Kessel
Aston-Reese/Pearson, Brassard, Malkin
Aston-Reese/Pearson, Sheahan, Rust
Cullen, Grant, Dea

For one, I think Geno being at wing might spark something for him, I know he likes being a C, but just being able to wheel around more freely as a winger would be good for him. That's a top 6 that is heavier to stop and that 3rd line, I think it'd be more solid than people want to admit.

I'm usually opposed to moving Malkin to the wing... but given what we've seen out of both him and Brassard recently, I'd try that too. Or do something like Brassard - Malkin - Rust/X for a while. But we need a lot more out of Brassard then what we've gotten... so I'd be open to pretty much anything that might get that going for us.

 

[Peat]

That's the thing that gets me here, it's why I'm so confused for why there are any people defending Brassard. Brassard in Pittsburgh has played with better linemates (larger percentage of ice time with Crosby, Malkin or Kessel) in a better offensive role, yet he's marginally outproducing what Sheahan was able to do as the 3C last year. Not only that, but he brings nothing of the defensive game that Sheahan brings. I just have no clue how anyone can be satisfied with the performance he has put up in the 3C spot, and that's not even touching on what they gave up for each of them.

I guess if you see what Sheahan did as sort of the top end achievable for a 3C but were never happy in his ability to sustain it, you might be happy? Which wouldn't be an unfair point of view I guess, but one that asks the wrong questions for me.

I'd love for Brassard to turn it around and I think he still could. But he's gonna have to be quick.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

The problem is that defensive first kind of guy also needs to be a strong passer/puck mover, because you don't want Oleksiak being the best PMD on the pairing.

I know few are happy with the mix on the blueline, and while I'm not sure Oleksiak individually is part of the issue, I really do not think he's part of the solution. Especially since we need a very specific partner for him - and I'm not even talking about getting the best out of Oleksiak... just turning the pairing into something that doesn't scare the **** out of us whenever it's on the ice. Add in Maatta and JJ, and of those 3 I think Oleksiak is the easiest to move, the easiest to replace internally (TOI, not being someone we'd miss) and the least worry some if we **** up the deal (cap space + a 3rd doesn't bother me at all, where as I'd probably be pretty pissed if we did that for Maatta).

Which is why I said I would love Tanev on this team, he would stabilize a lot and he has a good first pass, he's a guy that isn't absolutely devoid of any sort of talent with handling the puck, he does the quick pass out thing very well and is a stud in his own end and at shutting top end talent down or keeping them in check better than most.

I think as @Empoleon8771 and I have mentioned (I think I mentioned it above in one of my posts) that Pettersson would be a good fit for him. But then the issue is, you're stuck putting Johnson and Maatta together and yeah...you know how that ends.

While we have no Letang...

Dumoulin, Riikola
Pettersson, Oleksiak
Maatta, Johnson

That 3rd pair, I'd be 100% ok with never seeing them play for us ever again, to be honest.

When Tanger and Schultz are back, I wouldn't mind keeping that 2nd pair the same, for our 3rd pair and try to fit Riikola with Schultz or with Letang and put Dumoulin with Schultz.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I guess if you see what Sheahan did as sort of the top end achievable for a 3C but were never happy in his ability to sustain it, you might be happy? Which wouldn't be an unfair point of view I guess, but one that asks the wrong questions for me.

I'd love for Brassard to turn it around and I think he still could. But he's gonna have to be quick.

How many 3C's in the league produced what Sheahan did last year, with 72+% DZ starts?

Just for fun - I was wrong about Plekanec too, look at his usage in Toronto last year, very similar to how we used Sheahan, difference is, Sheahan thrived in it, Plekanec put up a paltry 2pts in 17 games.

Sullivan is doing this team and Sheahan a disservice by not keeping him as a 3C and letting him build something with 2 wingers. I would honestly be ok with him just keeping ZAR and Rust as his wingers and let it be, he'll be fine. But also moving him from W to C, yikes.

Grant and Cullen seem to be showing chemistry, so I like them as a duo on the 4th line, I just wish our options weren't just Dea or Wilson as the RW there right now.

 

[Riptide]

Coincidentally, I think they actually have someone like that now in Pettersson. If the Penguins can ship off Johnson, I'd be completely happy to have Pettersson-Oleksiak as the bottom pair for at least the next year and a half. You also have Riikola, who has shown to be a good puck mover and strong defensively. It's just a matter of those guys getting consistent minutes and improving from where they're currently at.

I think Maatta should definitely be moved (because he's not needed with Pettersson and Riikola) and you should move one of Oleksiak or Johnson, but I'm pretty indifferent on which one of JJ or Oleksiak they decide to keep. I see pros and cons for keeping either of them.

I think one of Maatta or Oleksiak will be gone this summer, if not by the TD. Of the two, I'd be a lot happier if it's Oleksiak, as I have a LOT more faith in Maatta being useful in the POs. Although if we bring in another D, then we should move both.

The big thing for me is we should only have 1 of Maatta, Oleksiak and JJ on the roster next season, and of those 3, JJ almost certainly isn't getting traded. I could easily see Maatta, JJ, MP and Riikola fighting it out for those 3 spots (see below), with one of Riikola/MP being the 7th D (because lets be realistic). In an ideal world we've traded Maatta+ for someone good (Muzzin, Martinez, etc), and then while we still have Riikola/MP duking it out for the 6/7th spot, at least our blueline should be pretty good for another season and we get more time to see what exactly we have in Riikola and MP (because even our 7th D will get 40+ games).

Dumoulin - Letang
XXXXX - Schultz
XXXXX - XXXXX

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I think one of Maatta or Oleksiak will be gone this summer, if not by the TD. Of the two, I'd be a lot happier if it's Oleksiak, as I have a LOT more faith in Maatta being useful in the POs. Although if we bring in another D, then we should move both.

The big thing for me is we should only have 1 of Maatta, Oleksiak and JJ on the roster next season, and of those 3, JJ almost certainly isn't getting traded. I could easily see Maatta, JJ, MP and Riikola fighting it out for those 3 spots (see below), with one of Riikola/MP being the 7th D (because lets be realistic). In an ideal world we've traded Maatta+ for someone good (Muzzin, Martinez, etc), and then while we still have Riikola/MP duking it out for the 6/7th spot, at least our blueline should be pretty good for another season and we get more time to see what exactly we have in Riikola and MP (because even our 7th D will get 40+ games).

Dumoulin - Letang
XXXXX - Schultz
XXXXX - XXXXX

I'd rather it was Maatta.

The return would be better and his cap hit is bigger, I think Oleksiak has more to his game that I would rather keep him around at half the cost and 1 less year.

 

[Riptide]

How many 3C's in the league produced what Sheahan did last year, with 72+% DZ starts?

Just for fun - I was wrong about Plekanec too, look at his usage in Toronto last year, very similar to how we used Sheahan, difference is, Sheahan thrived in it, Plekanec put up a paltry 2pts in 17 games.

I remember looking it up last season around the TD... and the answer is not many. He was easily in the top 10 (maybe top 5?) for ES points when looking at the deployments. Kinda depends on how you weighted things, but bottom line is he didn't have all that many comparables for ES production and a brutal DZ deployment.

But the catch was you pretty much needed to put one of Kessel or Guentzel with him to get that production. Not the end of the world, because they were giving you pretty much what you wanted out of L3 (vs what we're seeing now)... but it's worth noting that we had to give him some serious help offensively, and that's something most of the others who did what he did last year didn't have/need - I think.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I remember looking it up last season around the TD... and the answer is not many. He was easily in the top 10 (maybe top 5?) for ES points when looking at the deployments. Kinda depends on how you weighted things, but bottom line is he didn't have all that many comparables for ES production and a brutal DZ deployment.

But the catch was you pretty much needed to put one of Kessel or Guentzel with him to get that production. Not the end of the world, because they were giving you pretty much what you wanted out of L3 (vs what we're seeing now)... but it's worth noting that we had to give him some serious help offensively, and that's something most of the others who did what he did last year didn't have/need - I think.

Sheahan produced a little with Jake and Phil, but not enough to say they carried him to the 30pts he had. But my point even then was, Sheahan was fine as the 3C, he needed better wingers, which is why I think JR made the wrong move and went after a 2C that would never thrive in a 3C situation and ruined whatever good thing he built with Sheahan breaking out of a slump from Detroit.

Even now, if we're healthy...

The emergence of Simon, ZAR being back to last year's version before Wilson broke his face, and Horny back, they CAN put better wingers with him, or even move Brass for a better rental winger, but they won't.

We'll be back to looking for a new 3C and 4C because Sheahan will walk and so will Brassard.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I guess if you see what Sheahan did as sort of the top end achievable for a 3C but were never happy in his ability to sustain it, you might be happy? Which wouldn't be an unfair point of view I guess, but one that asks the wrong questions for me.

I'd love for Brassard to turn it around and I think he still could. But he's gonna have to be quick.

The questions I'd be asking is why you're bringing in Brassard when Sheahan is performing at the top end achievable for a 3C, in that case. The only argument for bringing in Brassard last year was that Brassard could step into a top-6 role well if Crosby/Malkin were hurt, but I've always disliked that justification for acquiring a player.

The big thing for me is we should only have 1 of Maatta, Oleksiak and JJ on the roster next season, and of those 3, JJ almost certainly isn't getting traded.

There is a situation where keeping 2 of them makes sense, it's where Maatta rebounds and gets back into top-4 form. If all of your defensemen are playing to their capabilities, this defense:

Dumoulin-Letang
Maatta-Schultz
Pettersson-Johnson/Oleksiak
Riikola

Should be really good. Key word there is should, that 2nd pair is a huge risk because both Maatta and Schultz have questions about their ability to get back to their old levels. I think you definitely have the players on defense right now to build a good defense, it's just a matter of those players playing to their capabilities. If they can't do that, you have to send them out and bring in guys who can.

 

[Riptide]

I'd rather it was Maatta.

The return would be better and his cap hit is bigger, I think Oleksiak has more to his game that I would rather keep him around at half the cost and 1 less year.

Other than Maatta having more trade value, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Oleksiak could magically disappear tomorrow and I'd do a little happy dance - that's how much I do not like him on our blueline, and think that we'd be a better team without him playing nightly.

While I don't think either Maatta or Oleksiak individually are part of the problem, I think Maatta at least could be part of the solution - either just with him improving his play or as a trade asset that brings in a solution. I don't see Oleksiak being either, and as such I'd love nothing more than for him to disappear and for Riikola or MP to take his spot full time.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I think for as much as you hate Oleksiak, I hate Maatta @Riptide

 

[Riptide]

I think for as much as you hate Oleksiak, I hate Maatta @Riptide

Hate isn't the right word. He just shouldn't be here, and his value isn't high enough for me to care about the return vs just getting cap space and letting Riikola/MP play. I mean we could move him for a conditional pick and I'd be happy. Maatta has more value then that.

 

[Peat]

The questions I'd be asking is why you're bringing in Brassard when Sheahan is performing at the top end achievable for a 3C, in that case. The only argument for bringing in Brassard last year was that Brassard could step into a top-6 role well if Crosby/Malkin were hurt, but I've always disliked that justification for acquiring a player.

Not the only argument - the other one was sheer Overkill. But otherwise, yes. Its a good question now and it was a good question then.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Dumoulin-Letang
Maatta-Schultz
Pettersson-Johnson/Oleksiak
Riikola

The more and more I look at this defense, the more I like it. This defense just becomes dramatically more appealing on paper by getting Schultz back and swapping a bad defensive, mediocre puck mover for a strong defensive, good puck mover. You have a #7 defenseman who can take literally any of the top-6 spots in case of injury, and all of your pairs have a good combination of puck moving talent, offensive skill and defensive awareness. If Maatta could skate, that defense would be absolutely perfect on paper.

Something I just thought of, I could see the Penguins planning on letting Schultz walk as a free agent after next year and replacing him with Riikola on the 2nd pair. That makes your 2nd pair Maatta-Riikola and your 3rd pair Pettersson-Johnson for the long term, which seems like the logical way to use those 4.

Not the only argument - the other one was sheer Overkill. But otherwise, yes. Its a good question now and it was a good question then.

I feel like the argument of going overkill for a 3C isn't an actual argument and is just people being greedy. If the Penguins didn't have Kessel on their 3rd line regularly, I think the argument of bringing in Brassard to make the 3rd line a difference maker offensively would hold some weight. The problem is that the plan was to have Brassard and Kessel together on the 3rd line.

 

[Riptide]

The more and more I look at this defense, the more I like it. This defense just becomes dramatically more appealing on paper by getting Schultz back and swapping a bad defensive, mediocre puck mover for a strong defensive, good puck mover. You have a #7 defenseman who can take literally any of the top-6 spots in case of injury, and all of your pairs have a good combination of puck moving talent, offensive skill and defensive awareness. If Maatta could skate, that defense would be absolutely perfect on paper.

Something I just thought of, I could see the Penguins planning on letting Schultz walk as a free agent after next year and replacing him with Riikola on the 2nd pair. That makes your 2nd pair Maatta-Riikola and your 3rd pair Pettersson-Johnson for the long term, which seems like the logical way to use those 4.

Would really depend on how MP and Riikola progress. But you're a lot more willing to let Schultz go then most. I'd actually rather move Maatta and re-sign Schultz then the other way around.

I feel like the argument of going overkill for a 3C isn't an actual argument and is just people being greedy. If the Penguins didn't have Kessel on their 3rd line regularly, I think the argument of bringing in Brassard to make the 3rd line a difference maker offensively would hold some weight. The problem is that the plan was to have Brassard and Kessel together on the 3rd line.

IDK, I can see why the appeal was there. We'd have a good/great top 6 and the ability to run an insane L3. It just hasn't panned out that way so far.

 

[Peat]

I feel like the argument of going overkill for a 3C isn't an actual argument and is just people being greedy. If the Penguins didn't have Kessel on their 3rd line regularly, I think the argument of bringing in Brassard to make the 3rd line a difference maker offensively would hold some weight. The problem is that the plan was to have Brassard and Kessel together on the 3rd line.

I guess you could call it greed too. But, whatever you call it, I think that it was part of Rutherford's rationale - that he was looking for the strongest line up possible for his buck and thought Brassard at 3C and Sheahan at 4C was it. And that Brassard could help Kessel tentpole a line in a way that Sheahan couldn't, freeing up Guentzel to return to Sid's wing and sorta recreating the HBK effect.

Woulda been great if it had worked. Instead I find myself wondering what would have happened if we'd had those assets free to chase McDonagh...

 

[Riptide]

Woulda been great if it had worked. Instead I find myself wondering what would have happened if we'd had those assets free to chase McDonagh...

I hate you. Seriously. I've come to the conclusion that you're not a nice person. How dare you paint a picture of a blueline that instead of having JJ (and likely Oleksiak), has McDonagh on it...

Dumoulin - Letang
McDonagh - Schultz
Maatta - Riikola/MP

***** **** *** **** **** **** you.

 

[Peat]

I hate you. Seriously. I've come to the conclusion that you're not a nice person. How dare you paint a picture of a blueline that instead of having JJ (and likely Oleksiak), has McDonagh on it...

Dumoulin - Letang
McDonagh - Schultz
Maatta - Riikola/MP

***** **** *** **** **** **** you.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Would really depend on how MP and Riikola progress. But you're a lot more willing to let Schultz go then most. I'd actually rather move Maatta and re-sign Schultz then the other way around.

I'm not concerned with how Pettersson and Riikola progress, I'm really confident that both will end up at least Cole caliber defensemen (fringe #4/5 defensemen who can play on the 2nd pair in a pinch). I think Pettersson's worst case scenario is a solid #5 who can anchor the bottom pair, because I feel like he's not that far off from that right now (if he's off from that at all). I'm similarly confident in Riikola, I wouldn't be concerned right now with penciling him in as the long term #4D. That doesn't mean he's definitely going to hit that level, I just wouldn't be worried about whether he'd hit that level right now.

I think the best case scenario with those 2 are defensemen similar to Dumoulin (Pettersson's comparable) and Niskanen (Riikola's comparable), but even if they don't quite hit that level, I don't think they'll be that far below it. I don't think either has a high bust potential. The additions of Riikola, Pettersson and Addison in the last 6 months has made me wildly more optimistic with the defense in the long run.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I hate you. Seriously. I've come to the conclusion that you're not a nice person. How dare you paint a picture of a blueline that instead of having JJ (and likely Oleksiak), has McDonagh on it...

Dumoulin - Letang
McDonagh - Schultz
Maatta - Riikola/MP

***** **** *** **** **** **** you.

Legit LOL.


On the topic of improving the defense, Martinez is my guy. Then Muzzin and then perhaps Del Zotto. Oleksiak and, probably, Maatta have got to go.

Dumoulin-Letang
Martinez-Schultz
Pettersson/Riikola/Johnson
Ruhwedel

That looks quite nice.

 

[NMK11]

Legit LOL.


On the topic of improving the defense, Martinez is my guy. Then Muzzin and then perhaps Del Zotto. Oleksiak and, probably, Maatta have got to go.

Dumoulin-Letang
Martinez-Schultz
Pettersson/Riikola/Johnson
Ruhwedel

That looks quite nice.

With the right partner, Schultz can handle bigger minutes. We could absolutely have pulled a Nashville with two really solid pairs to lean on and could give our third pair sheltered minutes to a) protect Maatta and/or b) break in Riikola and MP. This D could have been much more set.

As irritated as I was with the 3C debacle last year and the issues this year, the handling of the defensive roster this offseason has been the worst management decision JR has created since he got here.