Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building | Cat On a Tin Roof, Dogs In a Pile

[Riptide]

The problem is that we need to shed salary somewhere if we want to retain both Horny and Kessel AND acquire a legit 3C, and there aren't many reasonable targets beyond Letang. I don't think the PMD coming back would have to be a world-beater. A reliable cost-controlled top 4 RH PMD would be enough to cover what we need on the back-end, IMO.

Not really. Without making ANY trades and just re-signing our RFA's and UFA's (mainly Hornqvist), we should have around 3-4m depending on some of the contracts that players receive, and what the final cap number is. I used 80m and the following signings:

Horqnvist: 5.5m
Rust: 2.5m
Sheahan: 2.2m
Jarry: 1.5m
Oleksiak: 1.5m
Sprong: 1.125m
Simon: 750k
Kuhnhackl: 700k

Guentzel - Crosby - Sprong
Rust - Malkin - Kessel
Sheary - Sheahan - Hornqvist
Hagelin - XXXX - Simon

With ~3m or so to find another quality center, I don't think it would be that hard. All we need at the low end is someone as good as Sheahan, and at the higher end, someone a tad better than him. With some of those that will hit the market, that's not asking for that much. Bozak, Ryan, Filppula (might be a little tight), Nash, Letestu, Pleks. These are all guys who can play a 3A/B center role who's salary demands are probably going to be in a range that we can likely afford.

And if any moves are made (cough Hunwick/Hagelin cough), that free's up more space (even if some retention is needed). I also have a hard time seeing that top 9 stay together regardless of how this season plays out. Some sort of trade will happen to the forwards.

 

[Coach Travis]

Question for those penciling in Hornqvist for a ~30% raise: Are we expecting him to improve going into his 30s?

 

[Sideline]

Question for those penciling in Hornqvist for a ~30% raise: Are we expecting him to improve going into his 30s?

I don't expect Hornqvist will get better, but on a percentage of the cap basis 5.25MM next year is going to be equivalent to what his current 4.25MM was when he signed his last contract.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Question for those penciling in Hornqvist for a ~30% raise: Are we expecting him to improve going into his 30s?

No. He doesn’t need to either.

 

[Coach Travis]

I just cannot understand this perspective. At all. So I have to ask some questions:

- Why would the Pens look to focus on asset management now with a guy like Hornqvist?

- Why wouldn't we do everything we can to re-sign him instead of focusing on asset management? Working out a deal can take time.

- What do you honestly think we would get for him? And to whom are you trading him?

- What the hell do you want with futures?

- Why would the Pens not be one of those teams looking for "that one piece" and trying to find it in a different way?

And most importantly - what do you think the Pens window is? I would say a solid 5 year window here. With that solid 5 year window, I'm not busy worrying looking for draft picks and stuff. I'd rather suck after Sid/Geno leave and i'd rather find the next Sid/Geno to piss people off.

I guess because Hornqvist isn’t all that great, is where we differ. He’s going into his 30s and his is a very rugged game that typically drops off a cliff sooner than later. I could stomach giving him a raise relative to inflation but at most I’d go 2 years.

I’m not talking about futures. I’m thinking a forward with speed and finishing ability. Like if Bergevin were dumb enough to trade Patches for Horny, holy hell! Outside that, there’s maybe some other options, maybe not.

 

[ColePens]

I guess because Hornqvist isn’t all that great, is where we differ. He’s going into his 30s and his is a very rugged game that typically drops off a cliff sooner than later. I could stomach giving him a raise relative to inflation but at most I’d go 2 years.

I’m not talking about futures. I’m thinking a forward with speed and finishing ability. Like if Bergevin were dumb enough to trade Patches for Horny, holy hell! Outside that, there’s maybe some other options, maybe not.

Coach. Come on.

In one post you say we should be looking for teams who feel they are one piece away. Those teams aren't doing a hockey trade for us. So you are talking about futures. On the other post now you are saying IF MB is dumb enough to give us Patches. Well... now your two posts don't make sense. Especially now that you are saying "no futures".

If a team is "one piece away" as you said, they aren't going to give us one of their pieces they need. ESPECIALLY for a rental. You want Patches with some term left for a rental Hornqvist to a team who may not make the playoffs. Okay. Makes zero sense. And now you are saying we should attack Montreal who is a heck of a lot of pieces away. And why? Because you are assuming Bergevin is just going to be dumb. That's not logical posting.

You can think what you want of #72. I understand why some fans think that. I personally do not agree one single bit, but will respectfully agree to disagree. But you can't sit there and say "no futures, hockey trade" for Hornqvist. I don't think JR gets enough credit for the Hornqvist acquisition. He needed to give up a great scorer but he fit something this team desperately needed.

 

[Coach Travis]

I don't expect Hornqvist will get better, but on a percentage of the cap basis 5.25MM next year is going to be equivalent to what his current 4.25MM was when he signed his last contract.

I could see that. I’d shop him just because I think there are some GMs who still overvalue “grit”, “intangibles”, “heart”, etc, etc, but if we can’t move him he’s not a terrible player, just have to find a spot where he can capitalize on a high volume of shot attempts.

 

[JTG]

I'd like for us to target younger players, but Pacioretty here has been a wet dream of mine for 7 years. Bringing in guys who are 30 are basically us saying "we have 5 years to win as many Cups as we can, and then we plan on sucking for a few years."

 

[Coach Travis]

Coach. Come on.

In one post you say we should be looking for teams who feel they are one piece away. Those teams aren't doing a hockey trade for us. So you are talking about futures. On the other post now you are saying IF MB is dumb enough to give us Patches. Well... now your two posts don't make sense. Especially now that you are saying "no futures".

If a team is "one piece away" as you said, they aren't going to give us one of their pieces they need. ESPECIALLY for a rental. You want Patches with some term left for a rental Hornqvist to a team who may not make the playoffs. Okay. Makes zero sense. And now you are saying we should attack Montreal who is a heck of a lot of pieces away. And why? Because you are assuming Bergevin is just going to be dumb. That's not logical posting.

You can think what you want of #72. I understand why some fans think that. I personally do not agree one single bit, but will respectfully agree to disagree. But you can't sit there and say "no futures, hockey trade" for Hornqvist. I don't think JR gets enough credit for the Hornqvist acquisition. He needed to give up a great scorer but he fit something this team desperately needed.

It’s not as common now but “hockey trades” still do happen. Coaches/GMs don’t mesh with some talented players or GMs feel the need to “shake things up” or they look at a player on another roster and “know” they can get more out of that player, he just needs a “change of scenery”. There may be no trade partner out there, the probability is low, but we’re not trying to move 50,000 units or Hornqvist, we just need 1 bad GM...

I don’t dislike Hornqvist, I just think as far as dictating play and play making, he’s very average, maybe below average in some cases where he’s seems only too eager to give pucks away in the name of “getting it deep”. He is a world class talent at net front presence but as Sid & Geno get older and can’t dominate as consistently as they have, they’ll need wingers who can carry the Corsi load, not a specialist. And Hornqvist will have even fewer opportunities to perform his “bread & butter” with Sheahan.

 

[Tom Hanks]

I guess because Hornqvist isn’t all that great, is where we differ. He’s going into his 30s and his is a very rugged game that typically drops off a cliff sooner than later. I could stomach giving him a raise relative to inflation but at most I’d go 2 years.

I’m not talking about futures. I’m thinking a forward with speed and finishing ability. Like if Bergevin were dumb enough to trade Patches for Horny, holy hell! Outside that, there’s maybe some other options, maybe not.

All the falling off a cliff talk I think is a bit over the top. He doesn’t rely on skating or his hands. Obviously he has some skills but his strength and determination make it so he always gives his best. He’s 31 already and here are his totals. Nothing suggests at this stage he’ll nose dive, at least not for a while while we are contenders.

Goal/points totals
*rookie & lock out season not shown
25/51 (2017/18 on pace this season)
21/44
22/51
25/51
22/53
27/43
21/48
30/51 (2009/10)
*Missed 49 games over these 8 years.

Death, taxes and Hornqvist’s production.

 

[Coach Travis]

I'd like for us to target younger players, but Pacioretty here has been a wet dream of mine for 7 years. Bringing in guys who are 30 are basically us saying "we have 5 years to win as many Cups as we can, and then we plan on sucking for a few years."

Well... Aren’t we? I mean, what are Sid & Geno going to look like at 35 & 36? Hopefully still very good and hopefully we’ll keep being able to retool on the fly but my hope is that those two will retire here and it seems unlikely that we’ll be a playoff team the year after they’re gone.

 

[billybudd]

Russell Crowe seems cool. Like a man's man.

Do we still have Snoop? Where's Jeff Goldblum's allegiance?

99% Snoop defected to the Ducks because he liked George Parros' mustache.

 

[ColePens]

It’s not as common now but “hockey trades” still do happen. Coaches/GMs don’t mesh with some talented players or GMs feel the need to “shake things up” or they look at a player on another roster and “know” they can get more out of that player, he just needs a “change of scenery”. There may be no trade partner out there, the probability is low, but we’re not trying to move 50,000 units or Hornqvist, we just need 1 bad GM...

I don’t dislike Hornqvist, I just think as far as dictating play and play making, he’s very average, maybe below average in some cases where he’s seems only too eager to give pucks away in the name of “getting it deep”. He is a world class talent at net front presence but as Sid & Geno get older and can’t dominate as consistently as they have, they’ll need wingers who can carry the Corsi load, not a specialist. And Hornqvist will have even fewer opportunities to perform his “bread & butter” with Sheahan.

I'm not trying to be rough here, but you ignored everything in my post and now are starting to use advanced stats on a guy like Hornqvist.

- You said originally JR should be going to teams that are "one piece away". Teams that are one piece away are not making hockey trades or else they are still one piece away.

- Your example of a trade for Hornqvist was solely based on IF Bergevin is an idiot. That's not a realistic situation and I know he's not the brightest but Hornqvist as a rental for Patches with years left is downright silly. Sure if JR can get a steal of a deal, he should have everyone on the market. But we cannot use our only example as some ridiculous steal that wouldn't even work in NHL 18.

Now you are saying the one reason we should trade Hornqvist is because a bad GM MAY be out there. Okay. That's an extremely weak argument and I hope that GM gives us a 3C first.

 

[Coach Travis]

All the falling off a cliff talk I think is a bit over the top. He doesn’t rely on skating or his hands. Obviously he has some skills but his strength and determination make it so he always gives his best. He’s 31 already and here are his totals. Nothing suggests at this stage he’ll nose dive, at least not for a while while we are contenders.

Goal/points totals
25/51 (2017/18 on pace this season)
21/44
22/51
25/51
22/53
27/43
21/48
30/51 (2009/10)
*Missed 49 games over these 8 years.

Death, taxes and Hornqvist’s production.

I’m just stating what’s statistically typical for NHL forwards. Maybe Hornqvist is an outlier. Certainly only missing 49 games over 8 years would make me more hopeful but I definitely wouldn’t want to see us risk signing him for more than 2 seasons.

 

[Tom Hanks]

You have you star players then you have your role players and you want to have diversity in those role players to complement each other. Teams win on the ice, not on the line up sheet.

Hornqvist takes one of the roles that we’ve had trouble filling in the past and we don’t currently have anyone that comes close to what he can do. If we are trading him and then bring in someone else we downgrade straight away and trades are pretty hard to do right now as you can see. It’s an important role so we’d probably have to overpay as well. Plus the teams that will want him are teams we will be competing against. He also has a modified NTC (not a strong one but still there).

 

[Coach Travis]

I'm not trying to be rough here, but you ignored everything in my post and now are starting to use advanced stats on a guy like Hornqvist.

- You said originally JR should be going to teams that are "one piece away". Teams that are one piece away are not making hockey trades or else they are still one piece away.

- Your example of a trade for Hornqvist was solely based on IF Bergevin is an idiot. That's not a realistic situation and I know he's not the brightest but Hornqvist as a rental for Patches with years left is downright silly. Sure if JR can get a steal of a deal, he should have everyone on the market. But we cannot use our only example as some ridiculous steal that wouldn't even work in NHL 18.

Now you are saying the one reason we should trade Hornqvist is because a bad GM MAY be out there. Okay. That's an extremely weak argument and I hope that GM gives us a 3C first.

Maybe “one piece away” is the wrong wording. It’s not exactly a technical term and is open to interpretation so I think your issue is one part, I could have worded it better, one part, you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said I’m looking for futures, you drew that conclusion all on your own.

As I stated, I’m doubtful that there’s that perfect combination of skilled/under appreciated forward+team in the right situation+dumb GM but every year we see it and I think Hornqvist is the kind of player that a dumb GM would overvalue. Short of that, we keep him. NOT shop him for futures just LOOK and see if PERHAPS that combination is out there. Is that okay? Is it okay to just LOOK and maybe put some feelers out just IN CASE we can improve our team?????

 

[Tom Hanks]

I’m just stating what’s statistically typical for NHL forwards. Maybe Hornqvist is an outlier. Certainly only missing 49 games over 8 years would make me more hopeful but I definitely wouldn’t want to see us risk signing him for more than 2 seasons.

I think what’s probably different for others is they probably relied on hands and skating which Hornqvist doesn’t.

You know he’s not signing a 2 year deal and I really doubt he’s traded. Leaves us with letting him walk and readjust the team through trades/FA or sign him to 5X5.5mil.

I’d sign him. Doesn’t mean I’m right but everything has risks and I think he’s worth it. 3-4 yrs is perfect for us but that won’t cut it

 

[Coach Travis]

You have you star players then you have your role players and you want to have diversity in those role players to complement each other. Teams win on the ice, not on the line up sheet.

Hornqvist takes one of the roles that we’ve had trouble filling in the past and we don’t currently have anyone that comes close to what he can do. If we are trading him and then bring in someone else we downgrade straight away and trades are pretty hard to do right now as you can see. It’s an important role so we’d probably have to overpay as well. Plus the teams that will want him are teams we will be competing against. He also has a modified NTC (not a strong one but still there).

You want diversity but I feel like in short order we’ll have a roster where we need to allocate more cap space to guys who can control play. Horny operates on a high volume of shot attempts. If Sullivan concludes that he’s not good enough to hang with Sid or Geno he’ll be hard pressed to do what gives him value consistently.

A lot depends, as it always does, on what kind of deal he’s looking for. I definitely wouldn’t over pay for him.

 

[cygnus47]

Horny is right on the line for me. Overpaying role players is the worst thing you can do GM-wise, and Horny is tending towards role player at some point soon on this team. If he's not playing with Sid consistently (and I don't want him playing with Malkin), then he's playing 3rd line minutes with PP time. Should we pay 5.5M for that when his role is only going to get smaller?

I'd agree that he's worth that for 2 years, but I don't know beyond that.

 

[Tom Hanks]

You want diversity but I feel like in short order we’ll have a roster where we need to allocate more cap space to guys who can control play. Horny operates on a high volume of shot attempts. If Sullivan concludes that he’s not good enough to hang with Sid or Geno he’ll be hard pressed to do what gives him value consistently.

A lot depends, as it always does, on what kind of deal he’s looking for. I definitely wouldn’t over pay for him.

Hornqvist didn’t have Sid or Geno in Nashville and he did just fine with Fisher/Legwand.

We have a bunch of guys who can control the play. To keep control you need to win board battles as well. You can’t just pass the puck around and think you won’t get push back or it’ll be easy. If we think that way we’re ****ed. Like any player he has some weaker areas but so will the other 4 skaters who are on the ice with him.

 

[Jacob]

I’ve flip flopped several times in Horny. I’m now in the position that we can afford him for the short term easily at 5.75-6 million cap hit, and even if he demands too long of term it’s worth the risk. Even a 5 year deal only takes him from 31 to 36. It’s not near as egregious as or Dupuis who were 34 and signed deals to 38.

He’s just far too unique of a player. And playing style is no predictor of longevity (or lack of it) in my opinion, just look at Holmstrom.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Horny is right on the line for me. Overpaying role players is the worst thing you can do GM-wise, and Horny is tending towards role player at some point soon on this team. If he's not playing with Sid consistently (and I don't want him playing with Malkin), then he's playing 3rd line minutes with PP time. Should we pay 5.5M for that when his role is only going to get smaller?

I'd agree that he's worth that for 2 years, but I don't know beyond that.

Is 5.5mil overpaying for a consistent 50 point player? No!

Also don’t think top 6/bottom 6. We are built right now based on a top 9 scoring team. When doing a line up your 3 best players don’t have to be on the 1st line, you’re next 3 don’t have to be on the 2nd line.

We do have to make the cap work but we are looking pretty good for the next little while.

 

[Jacob]

Is 5.5mil overpaying for a consistent 50 point player? No!

And points don’t even tell his whole story. How many goals does he create by a screen or a center lane drive without getting a point? Probably a handful every season, conservatively.

And if it was easy to drive the net and screen the goalie there’d be more Hornqvists in the league.

 

[66-30-33]

Woof! That would be a laughably bad contract. No way Horny should be getting a raise! This is what we call “paying a premium for past performance”.

What? you're against 5.5M for a consistent 50 point scorer who makes enemies with the goalies and brings his all every game? that's just weird.

 

[Ryder71]

I understand the love and adoration for Hornqvist and I myself love what he brings to the team. But if anyone thinks his production won't start to fall off or that the injuries aren't likely to pile up due to his style of play, then I suggest you're thinking with your heart and not your head. It's easy to say we'll worry about the lean years down the road, but when they come the gnashing of teeth and disgruntlement as to what happened would be epic.

All that being said I seriously doubt he's a Penguin beyond this season.