Salary Cap: Salary Cap + Roster Building | Cap Details + Links in First Post

[Sidney the Kidney]

The Penguins would have to absolutely guy their system to pull off Muzzin, because he would have cost Addison, Hallander and a 1st. For a team like Toronto, that's something they can afford to do. Pittsburgh? That's taking a rocket launcher to their prospect pool. For Muzzin, I don't think the Penguins had the chips to get into a bidding war for him. They're going to have to find someone who likes Maatta and would trade a better defenseman for Maatta and futures.

I'm not sure why it would cost Addison and Hallander because the Leafs prospects who went the other way aren't on par with those guys. It would be closer to someone like Phillips and Bjorkqvist plus the 1st. Durzi's way more of a wildcard long shot than Addison is, and Grundstrom projected to have a lower ceiling than Hallander is expected to have.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'm not sure why it would cost Addison and Hallander because the Leafs prospects who went the other way aren't on par with those guys. It would be closer to someone like Phillips and Bjorkqvist plus the 1st. Durzi's way more of a wildcard long shot than Addison is, and Grundstrom projected to have a lower ceiling than Hallander is expected to have.

Based on what? Durzi was taken 1 pick above Addison in the draft last year. Grundstrom was a 2nd rounder in 2016 that had similar success in the SHL to Hallander. Hallander and Addison is almost a perfect comparison for the 2 prospects the Leafs gave up.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Based on what? Durzi was taken 1 pick above Addison in the draft last year. Grundstrom was a 2nd rounder in 2016 that had similar success in the SHL to Hallander. Hallander and Addison is almost a perfect comparison for the 2 prospects the Leafs gave up.

Durzi's also two years older than Addison. He was drafted as an "overager". And the common belief is Durzi's one of those high risk, high reward types who will either be a homerun pick or not see NHL ice because of his style.

Based on scouting reports, a guy like Leo Komarov seems to be the best comparable for what Grundstrom will become. IMO, Hallander's upside is better than that.

 

[Peat]

Based on what? Durzi was taken 1 pick above Addison in the draft last year. Grundstrom was a 2nd rounder in 2016 that had similar success in the SHL to Hallander. Hallander and Addison is almost a perfect comparison for the 2 prospects the Leafs gave up.

You can make a case for us giving Bjorkqvist rather than Hallander given age, but it absolutely has to be Addison. If we went to LA and said Bjorkqvist/Hallander + Philips + 1st for Muzzin, he'd still be a leaf. I can see Addison maybe being valued more highly than Durzi who seems to have some durability issues, but its a lot closer than Philips (who I rate) and Durzi.

Durzi's also two years older than Addison. He was drafted as an "overager". And the common belief is Durzi's one of those high risk, high reward types who will either be a homerun pick or not see NHL ice because of his style.

Based on scouting reports, a guy like Leo Komarov seems to be the best comparable for what Grundstrom will become. IMO, Hallander's upside is better than that.

Boom or bust has been levelled at Addison as well.

Addison is our only D prospect who gets us in that conversation.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Besides, I also don't really care if they did have to trade 2 of those guys. We're in win now mode. A guy like Muzzin is more valuable to this team than whatever Addison, Hallander or Bjorkqvist become in 4 or 5 years time.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Durzi's also two years older than Addison. He was drafted as an "overager". And the common belief is Durzi's one of those high risk, high reward types who will either be a homerun pick or not see NHL ice because of his style.

Based on scouting reports, a guy like Leo Komarov seems to be the best comparable for what Grundstrom will become. IMO, Hallander's upside is better than that.

Eh, I'm not sure about that. I don't see anything with Hallander that makes me think he has higher upside than Grundstrom, who has done really well since being drafted. He's at 30 points in 44 AHL games this year as a 20/21 year old rookie, I don't see anything that makes me think that Hallander has much higher upside.

Maybe Bjorkqvist is more comparable to Grundstrom at this point, but it's still the equivalent of Addison, Bjorkqvist and a 1st for Muzzin. Even without trading Hallander, that's taking a sledge hammer to the Penguins prospect pool. The Penguins have like 3 B level prospects and trading for Muzzin would have taken away 2 of them plus their 1st this year. For Toronto, who has like 7 or 8 B level prospects, that's a move they can make.

The moves the Penguins should be making are trading roster players, redundant prospects (big one being Jarry) and picks for better roster players. They're not a team that can trade a boatload of futures for help now, they haven't been stockpiling those young assets like other teams have.

 

[WayneSid9987]

Besides, I also don't really care if they did have to trade 2 of those guys. We're in win now mode. A guy like Muzzin is more valuable to this team than whatever Addison, Hallander or Bjorkqvist become in 4 or 5 years time.

JR still would've had to move $ out tho on top of just paying the steep price vs TOR not having to.

He could've offered up Olli to a MTL for a 2nd+prospect or two 2nd's.
Still doesn't mean MTL says yes...

 

[Andy99]

I was wondering if LA would do Quick for Murray, since LA is rebuilding maybe it would make sense to get a younger goalie.

If I’m Pens management and we flame out again this year with a mediocre and oft- injured Murray, you’d have to consider it...not until the summer though...try to flip a couple players for picks and take a young goalie in the draft to develop...I mean if Murray can’t stay healthy and play consistently good (.920 Sv%) the time to move on from him is this summer...

 

[Empoleon8771]

If I’m Pens management and we flame out again this year with a mediocre and oft- injured Murray, you’d have to consider it...not until the summer though...try to flip a couple players for picks and take a young goalie in the draft to develop...I mean if Murray can’t stay healthy and play consistently good (.920 Sv%) the time to move on from him is this summer...

This is a ridiculous standard to hold him to, this is absolutely asinine. You are aware the average save% in the NHL this year is a .908, right? He's paid $3.75 million, to say that they have to move on from him if he's not putting up elite numbers is just a ridiculous standard to hold him to.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Eh, I'm not sure about that. I don't see anything with Hallander that makes me think he has higher upside than Grundstrom, who has done really well since being drafted. He's at 30 points in 44 AHL games this year as a 20/21 year old rookie, I don't see anything that makes me think that Hallander has much higher upside.

Maybe Bjorkqvist is more comparable to Grundstrom at this point, but it's still the equivalent of Addison, Bjorkqvist and a 1st for Muzzin. Even without trading Hallander, that's taking a sledge hammer to the Penguins prospect pool. The Penguins have like 3 B level prospects and trading for Muzzin would have taken away 2 of them plus their 1st this year. For Toronto, who has like 7 or 8 B level prospects, that's a move they can make.

The moves the Penguins should be making are trading roster players, redundant prospects (big one being Jarry) and picks for better roster players. They're not a team that can trade a boatload of futures for help now, they haven't been stockpiling those young assets like other teams have.

I mean, we also have to be willing to give to get. Fans are bemoaning the fact our defense corps is largely what's holding us back, but then bemoan giving up prospects like Addison in order to bring in a guy who could legitimately be the upgrade this defense needs.

The cost of upgrading from Maatta/Johnson to a guy like Muzzin likely would have been Addison. Personally, I'd make that swap any day simply because Muzzin's going to be much more help during the time frame we're a contender than Addison is.

 

[Peat]

Besides, I also don't really care if they did have to trade 2 of those guys. We're in win now mode. A guy like Muzzin is more valuable to this team than whatever Addison, Hallander or Bjorkqvist become in 4 or 5 years time.

It wouldn't be overly surprising if one or both of Hallander and Bjorkqvist had made their NHL debut by the end of next season. They're not long term projects.

More to the point though, it would have gutted our ability to make further trades. Imo, Muzzin isn't the level of difference maker worth doing that for.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I mean, we also have to be willing to give to get. Fans are bemoaning the fact our defense corps is largely what's holding us back, but then bemoan giving up prospects like Addison in order to bring in a guy who could legitimately be the upgrade this defense needs.

The cost of upgrading from Maatta/Johnson to a guy like Muzzin likely would have been Addison. Personally, I'd make that swap any day simply because Muzzin's going to be much more help during the time frame we're a contender than Addison is.

And LA didn't want Johnson or Maatta obviously, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. I agree with you that's what they should be doing, they just couldn't do that with Muzzin. They should be trying to do something like Maatta, Jarry and a 1st for a better version of Maatta. The Penguins just couldn't bid with other teams for Muzzin because they can't go punch for punch when it comes to futures assets.

If you want a better defenseman, you have to find a team that likes Maatta and would trade their better defenseman for Maatta and futures. Someone like Fowler fits this if the rumors of the Ducks liking Maatta are true. But Muzzin? That just doesn't work because of what they wanted back for him.

 

[Andy99]

This is a ridiculous standard to hold him to, this is absolutely asinine. You are aware the average save% in the NHL this year is a .908, right? He's paid $3.75 million, to say that they have to move on from him if he's not putting up elite numbers is just a ridiculous standard to hold him to.

.920 is not elite...it’s what good goaltending is...we’re going nowhere if our goaltending can’t reach that level...Murray was above that for us when we won the two Cups...that’s what it’s going to take to win the Cup...very few teams win the Cup with less

 

[Empoleon8771]

.920 is not elite...it’s what good goaltending is...we’re going nowhere if our goaltending can’t reach that level...Murray was above that for us when we won the two Cups...that’s what it’s going to take to win the Cup...very few teams win the Cup with less

Yes it is, that is completely elite in the NHL today. You have completely unreasonable standards for a goalie making $3.75 million if you think they should get rid of him for not putting up elite numbers.

Do you know how many teams have starting goalies with a save% above .920? 5. This isn't 2014, where the average save% was like .916. You're holding Murray to a standard that is outdated by 2-4 years at this point, and saying they need to get rid of him if he's not up to that standard. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Peat]

.920 is not elite...it’s what good goaltending is...we’re going nowhere if our goaltending can’t reach that level...Murray was above that for us when we won the two Cups...that’s what it’s going to take to win the Cup...very few teams win the Cup with less

Then the majority of goaltenders in this league aren't even good, which is going to make replacing Murray even harder.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If Murray is at a .915 save% this year, he'll likely end up in the 9-11 range for save% among starters. That is a good season for him, and even if he was making $6.5 million a year, that would be a good season for him. With him only making $3.75 million a year, you can't reasonably hold him up to the standard of guys like Rask or Price and say "get rid of him if he doesn't reach these standards".

Murray is at a .909 save% this year, which is a shade behind Fleury (.911), Hellebuyck (.910) and Dubnyk (.913) and a shade above Holtby (.908), Lundqvist (.906) and Varlamov (.905). I really don't see why he's a problem with save% in that group. My hopes for him are a .915 save%, and I'm not going to say "get rid of him" if he doesn't hit that save%.

 

[ChaosAgent]

I’d definitely consider moving Murray unless he plays outstanding in the POs if we make it...he hasn’t shown he can be healthy or consistent over the last two years...if we flame out again, he’s got one year left on his contract and we should consider moving him over the summer and bringing in another goalie

Okay so Crosby/Malkin/Jake/Letang untouchable. Murray and Dumo at "blow us away" levels and the rest we can talk about.

If I'm trading Murray I'm not swapping change-of-scenery goalies. I'm trading him to a goalie-desperate team that would give us a good young skater, a good prospect and a 1st or something like that.

 

[Andy99]

Yes it is, that is completely elite in the NHL today. You have completely unreasonable standards for a goalie making $3.75 million if you think they should get rid of him for not putting up elite numbers.

Do you know how many teams have starting goalies with a save% above .920? 5. This isn't 2014, where the average save% was like .916. You're holding Murray to a standard that is outdated by 2-4 years at this point, and saying they need to get rid of him if he's not up to that standard. That's just ridiculous.

You say goalies are worse than a .916 now? Here’s the list of goalies who are .916 or above with at least 10 wins...Price, Howard, Halak, McElhinney, Rittich, DeSmith, F.Andersen, Greiss, Rask, Bishop, Vasi, Lehner , and theres 7 more with at least a .910 or above...that’s more than half the starting goalies...it’s not the save % during the RS the counts as much as the POs...and that’s what I’m talking about...if you look at save % in the POs, you’ll see most winning goalies have .920or above

 

[Peat]

The injury things means I'd listen on Murray, but at the end of the day he's still probably one of the 15 most likely to give you .920 in the playoffs guys out there and nobody wants to give up on any of others. I mean, who's the alternatives? Quick, who has posted .920+ once in the RS and once in the playoffs since 2013-14? And who's gonna be 7m and is in his declining years? That's not a super attractive alternative.

 

[Andy99]

If Murray is at a .915 save% this year, he'll likely end up in the 9-11 range for save% among starters. That is a good season for him, and even if he was making $6.5 million a year, that would be a good season for him. With him only making $3.75 million a year, you can't reasonably hold him up to the standard of guys like Rask or Price and say "get rid of him if he doesn't reach these standards".

Murray is at a .909 save% this year, which is a shade behind Fleury (.911), Hellebuyck (.910) and Dubnyk (.913) and a shade above Holtby (.908), Lundqvist (.906) and Varlamov (.905). I really don't see why he's a problem with save% in that group. My hopes for him are a .915 save%, and I'm not going to say "get rid of him" if he doesn't hit that save%.

In the POs...we can by with lesser goaltending in the RS...Holtby was terrible last year in the RS and picked it up post season...I don’t see what he’s earning has anything to do with judging him on his save %....vasi makes the same as Murray and has been much better...

 

[Empoleon8771]

You say goalies are worse than a .916 now? Here’s the list of goalies who are .916 or above with at least 10 wins...Price, Howard, Halak, McElhinney, Rittich, DeSmith, F.Andersen, Greiss, Rask, Bishop, Vasi, Lehner , and theres 7 more with at least a .910 or above...that’s more than half the starting goalies...it’s not the save % during the RS the counts as much as the POs...and that’s what I’m talking about...if you look at save % in the POs, you’ll see most winning goalies have .920or above

Yes, based on league average save%, completely:

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

The league average save% in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 was .915. It's .908 now. To say that Murray needs to have a .920 save% or he needs to leave is just an absurd standard, there's no other way to describe it.

 

[TimmyD]

TIOPS (yes I know how bad they are) is saying that management envisions Bjugstad playing on Sid’s RW. If that’s true I would think the lines would be

Jake Sid Bjugstad
Rust Malkin Kessel
Pearson McCann Hornqvist
Simon Cullen ZAR

I like that lineup but my fourth line would probably be Blueger Cullen Simon

 

[Peat]

In the POs...we can by with lesser goaltending in the RS...Holtby was terrible last year in the RS and picked it up post season...I don’t see what he’s earning has anything to do with judging him on his save %....vasi makes the same as Murray and has been much better...

You are not going to be able to trade for a goaltender that will consistently give you .920 in the playoffs.

TIOPS (yes I know how bad they are) is saying that management envisions Bjugstad playing on Sid’s RW. If that’s true I would think the lines would be

Jake Sid Bjugstad
Rust Malkin Kessel
Pearson McCann Hornqvist
Simon Cullen ZAR

I like that lineup but my fourth line would probably be Blueger Cullen Simon

You did see the practice lines today right?

I'll give TIOPS this... it may not be ground breaking, but at least reprinting what the rest of the league already knows has a decent chance of being accurate for once

 

[Andy99]

The injury things means I'd listen on Murray, but at the end of the day he's still probably one of the 15 most likely to give you .920 in the playoffs guys out there and nobody wants to give up on any of others. I mean, who's the alternatives? Quick, who has posted .920+ once in the RS and once in the playoffs since 2013-14? And who's gonna be 7m and is in his declining years? That's not a super attractive alternative.

Agree that Quick may not be the answer...but if we’re in the POs this year and Murray is average or below again, I don’t see how you can to yourself, well he posted .920 a few years ago, maybe he can do it again...I’m not interested in paying Murray $6 mil on his next contract in the hope he can do it again...some guys have good year or two and fall back to earth...I’m just saying, if you can get a good offer for Murray, the team should listen to it

 

[Empoleon8771]

In the POs...we can by with lesser goaltending in the RS...Holtby was terrible last year in the RS and picked it up post season...

According to your logic, they should have gotten rid of him after 2016-2017 because he only had a .909 save% in the playoffs then.

I don’t see what he’s earning has anything to do with judging him on his save %

Because you're saying "if Murray isn't putting up elite numbers, they should get rid of him". His salary 100000% has an impact here, because he's not paid elite money. To hold him to a ridiculous standard that is way above his pay scale and say "get rid of him if he's not on this level" is just stupidly unfair.

....vasi makes the same as Murray and has been much better...

Oh okay, so if you're not Andrei Vasilevskiy for the Penguins and their leaky defense, you should get traded. Gotcha.

It really comes down to you having absurdly unreasonable expectations for your goalies. If Murray is at a .915 save% in a season, he had a great year in today's NHL. Stop applying 2014 standards to goalies in 2019.