Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building: Does it even Maatta? The defense is still absolute Jack.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ColePens

RIP Fugu Buffaloed & parabola
Mar 27, 2008
107,022
67,647
Pittsburgh
Continue here. Utilize cap friendly until after July 1 as there will be a lot of moving threads in the next coming weeks. It will go so fast the OP does not need updated at this point.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,405
77,999
Redmond, WA
Yet at the same time, Rutherford's talking like it's not going to be a quiet summer, that he's got a bit of a retool to a different identity going on - and you don't do a retool by trading one dman for a winger and then maybe trading another winger for X.

So something doesn't add up and we'll see what it is - but I think there's a good possibility he's going to get busy sending out roster members.

My comment wasn't directed at JR's willingness to make moves, it was more so that I question how easily he can make moves like that with how close the team is to the cap. I'm talking specifically about the 1st+ for a young, cost controlled roster player. I don't think the Penguins can take back much more money than they're sending out at this point, and Schultz and Rust to a lesser extent are the only players who allow the Penguins to have some flexibility with that idea.

I guess my comment is that I think this roster has a few flaws on it, but there aren't many open spots as of right now. To fix some of those flaws, you have to move other roster players to bring in better fits, namely Kessel and Johnson. I don't think you can address the needs on the roster without trading those blocks, and without trading those blocks, I just struggle to see what you'd trade your 1st for.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,290
25,206
My comment wasn't directed at JR's willingness to make moves, it was more so that I question how easily he can make moves like that with how close the team is to the cap. I'm talking specifically about the 1st+ for a young, cost controlled roster player. I don't think the Penguins can take back much more money than they're sending out at this point, and Schultz and Rust to a lesser extent are the only players who allow the Penguins to have some flexibility with that idea.

Then work on the assumption that someone like Schultz or Rust + the 1st is what we're talking about?
 

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
Thanks T.Hanks.

(Why have I never done that before?)

Basically, yeah, what Tom said. Although, at the same time, I do think it sounds a bit similar to Rutherford's various "Come make me a really awesome offer people because elsewise it isn't happening" quotes.

JR has always been pretty aggressive in his time here. That’s going to be even more true after a poor season. It’ll really be the first time his job could potentially be on the line (if we have another poor showing). He’s going to want to stay in the minds of the other GM’s and throw lots of lines out there because you never know what you can catch.

giphy-13.gif
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,567
2,936
Florida
My comment wasn't directed at JR's willingness to make moves, it was more so that I question how easily he can make moves like that with how close the team is to the cap. I'm talking specifically about the 1st+ for a young, cost controlled roster player. I don't think the Penguins can take back much more money than they're sending out at this point, and Schultz and Rust to a lesser extent are the only players who allow the Penguins to have some flexibility with that idea.

I guess my comment is that I think this roster has a few flaws on it, but there aren't many open spots as of right now. To fix some of those flaws, you have to move other roster players to bring in better fits, namely Kessel and Johnson. I don't think you can address the needs on the roster without trading those blocks, and without trading those blocks, I just struggle to see what you'd trade your 1st for.

I would like to see Johnson paired with the 1st, and either a prospect D coming back or nothing at all (and we find a sub-2M defender to take his plae).

I wouldn't hate seeing Rust traded for a similar situation - younger/ELC player or nothing/picks. Or use Rust after the Johnson deal to get that cheap defender.

The two of them represent 7M in cap. If we could replace that with 2-3M, that would help a lot in the long run. Neither contract is necessary at this point.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,405
77,999
Redmond, WA
Then work on the assumption that someone like Schultz or Rust + the 1st is what we're talking about?

Schultz and the 1st works because you can get a top-4 RD for $5.5 million, but I'm skeptical for how well Rust and the 1st would work. I'm not sure how much of a better player you can get than Rust for $3.5 million. If a player is an "add a 1st" upgrade on Rust but makes less than Rust, they're going to make way more than Rust within a year or 2.

Now, if you trade Kessel for futures, this definitely changes things. I'm just running under the assumption they don't want to do that. That may change if you can get futures from Arizona for Kessel and then flip some of your own futures for someone like Miller or Palat.

I would like to see Johnson paired with the 1st, and either a prospect D coming back or nothing at all (and we find a sub-2M defender to take his plae).

I wouldn't hate seeing Rust traded for a similar situation - younger/ELC player or nothing/picks. Or use Rust after the Johnson deal to get that cheap defender.

The two of them represent 7M in cap. If we could replace that with 2-3M, that would help a lot in the long run. Neither contract is necessary at this point.

I would rather keep Johnson and play him on the 2nd pair over sinking a 1st rounder to get rid of him.
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,567
2,936
Florida
JR has always been pretty aggressive in his time here. That’s going to be even more true after a poor season. It’ll really be the first time his job could potentially be on the line (if we have another poor showing). He’s going to want to stay in the minds of the other GM’s and throw lots of lines out there because you never know what you can catch.

When you're swept out of the first round - largely due to self-inflicted wounds...you should be on the phone every hour until the season starts fixing the mistakes.

Maatta for Kahun does not take a team swept by the Islanders and make them contenders. I'm sure he knows that (...I mean...he knows that, right?).

My only issue with his quotes are about "yeah we'll make another change or two." - That's something I largely disagree with. Based on our trajectory alone, we should make 4-5 moves this Summer. Maatta, Johnson, Kessel, Rust, Simon*, Hornqvist*, Letang*, Schultz*, etc. Step one was a nice step forward, Kessel will be a leap forward, and Johnson would be a giant leap for Mankind forward. Beyond that it'll be 'nice-to-have' situations versus the sink or swim state we're currently in.
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,567
2,936
Florida
Schultz and the 1st works because you can get a top-4 RD for $5.5 million, but I'm skeptical for how well Rust and the 1st would work. I'm not sure how much of a better player you can get than Rust for $3.5 million. If a player is an "add a 1st" upgrade on Rust but makes less than Rust, they're going to make way more than Rust within a year or 2.

Now, if you trade Kessel for futures, this definitely changes things. I'm just running under the assumption they don't want to do that. That may change if you can get futures from Arizona for Kessel and then flip some of your own futures for someone like Miller or Palat.



I would rather keep Johnson and play him on the 2nd pair over sinking a 1st rounder to get rid of him.

You really take that stance?

I staunchly disagree. I'd give up our first rounder (which is highly overrated at this point anyway...we're looking at a few "maybe" D prospects at 21OA) without taking a pick back to get rid of Johnson.

It's not only his contract that is 3 years too long. It's how bad he makes everyone around him. Sid and Geno can carry a bad linemate here or there - but at their age, it's getting tougher to do so. Having him here will absolutely tank our chances in the post season. There's not one team in the East I favor us against if Johnson is getting 18 minutes per game.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,290
25,206
Schultz and the 1st works because you can get a top-4 RD for $5.5 million, but I'm skeptical for how well Rust and the 1st would work. I'm not sure how much of a better player you can get than Rust for $3.5 million. If a player is an "add a 1st" upgrade on Rust but makes less than Rust, they're going to make way more than Rust within a year or 2.

Now, if you trade Kessel for futures, this definitely changes things. I'm just running under the assumption they don't want to do that. That may change if you can get futures from Arizona for Kessel and then flip some of your own futures for someone like Miller or Palat.



I would rather keep Johnson and play him on the 2nd pair over sinking a 1st rounder to get rid of him.

Then maybe the plan is to shift cap elsewhere before hand (because you are right assuming that Anaheim don't lose their mind and give us Rakell for Rust + 1st)? I dunno. I'm not saying you're wrong in your objections, just that the plan does seem to be to mix things up, so we should consider the ways Rutherford can mix it up given the constraints rather than saying he's going to sit there and go "Darn" at the constraints.

edit: Losing sight of the wood for the trees. Perhaps best to say "Rutherford's comments on the 1st and our situation don't add up to it being likely moved except for a big bargain".
 
Last edited:

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,405
77,999
Redmond, WA
You really take that stance?

I staunchly disagree. I'd give up our first rounder (which is highly overrated at this point anyway...we're looking at a few "maybe" D prospects at 21OA) without taking a pick back to get rid of Johnson.

It's not only his contract that is 3 years too long. It's how bad he makes everyone around him. Sid and Geno can carry a bad linemate here or there - but at their age, it's getting tougher to do so. Having him here will absolutely tank our chances in the post season. There's not one team in the East I favor us against if Johnson is getting 18 minutes per game.

Having Johnson isn't going to be the difference between winning a cup or not for the Penguins. I don't think the positives of getting rid of him outweigh the negatives of trading a 1st to get rid of him. If it did, why would any team want to acquire him? If Johnson is so bad that you literally can't win with him, why would any team want him at any cost?
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,567
2,936
Florida
Having Johnson isn't going to be the difference between winning a cup or not for the Penguins. I don't think the positives of getting rid of him outweigh the negatives of trading a 1st to get rid of him. If it did, why would any team want to acquire him? If Johnson is so bad that you literally can't win with him, why would any team want him at any cost?

What is our purpose. What is the destiny of the human evolution? Are we alone in the universe?

Perhaps if the great Socrates were still around, some of our deepest questions could be answered.

Our first is overrated - I think you, and everyone else knows it. There are a handful of folks here who are sickeningly obsessed with tomorrow's Penguins, but aside from them - there's no reason to hang onto a 21OA in a pretty weak draft. Despite what GMJR said about this being a deep draft, one does not need to be a professional scout to see the difference in this draft versus a really good draft.

And yes - having Johnson is exactly the difference between winning and losing the cup. I would wager quite heavily that we do not win in either 2016 or 2017 with Jack Johnson on the roster. The playoffs more than any other period make teams rely on a combination of factors - luck, bounces, grit, hard work, speed, defense, etc, etc. You take every single roster player, subtract 5-25% performance from them - then add a net negative such as Johnson + his blunders, and you lose multiple series in that run (to which it only takes one series to lose). Especially in 2017 with Letang out, our defense does not hold on in those games we went 8-25 minutes without a shot on goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTang58

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,405
77,999
Redmond, WA
Our first is overrated - I think you, and everyone else knows it. There are a handful of folks here who are sickeningly obsessed with tomorrow's Penguins, but aside from them - there's no reason to hang onto a 21OA in a pretty weak draft. Despite what GMJR said about this being a deep draft, one does not need to be a professional scout to see the difference in this draft versus a really good draft.

And yes - having Johnson is exactly the difference between winning and losing the cup. I would wager quite heavily that we do not win in either 2016 or 2017 with Jack Johnson on the roster. The playoffs more than any other period make teams rely on a combination of factors - luck, bounces, grit, hard work, speed, defense, etc, etc. You take every single roster player, subtract 5-25% performance from them - then add a net negative such as Johnson + his blunders, and you lose multiple series in that run (to which it only takes one series to lose). Especially in 2017 with Letang out, our defense does not hold on in those games we went 8-25 minutes without a shot on goal.

I think you're overrating the negative impact of JJ just as much as you're saying other people are overrating the 1st rounder. Johnson is a problem, but losing yet another 1st rounder hurts more than keeping Johnson does. 1st rounders, especially in a good draft like 2019, have value where you can improve your team either in the short run or long run. The only improvement here is addition by subtraction, which isn't as big as addition by addition.
 

mpp9

Registered User
Dec 5, 2010
32,613
5,067
Short of acquiring a high end D and riding our top 2 pairings, I don't see how you can keep JJ and expect to win a Cup.

But I also don't see how you can throw away a 1st to get rid of him either.

JR better find a way to get rid of him at a moderate price.
 

JackFr

Registered User
Jun 18, 2010
4,825
3,689
I find it very interesting how JR and co. keep talking about scoring depth when that's one of our team's few actual positives.

I've been working on a model (ostensibly to do trade value but also a bunch of other stuff) and here's where depth chart ranks with the rest of the league:

nRy69lp.png


But yeah, our defence is fine and we really need more third liners.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,405
77,999
Redmond, WA
Short of acquiring a high end D and riding our top 2 pairings, I don't see how you can keep JJ and expect to win a Cup.

But I also don't see how you can throw away a 1st to get rid of him either.

JR better find a way to get rid of him at a moderate price.

Scratch JJ or limit him to 13 minutes a night and I think you can win the cup. If you didn't have Gudbranson, I'd be more confident in saying you could win with JJ. You just have to basically use him like Chicago in 2015 used their bottom pair D. Having JJ as a #6 who plays 10 minutes a night at ES and 3 minutes a night on the PK isn't going to kill you like losing a 1st for nothing would.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,290
25,206
Our first is overrated - I think you, and everyone else knows it. There are a handful of folks here who are sickeningly obsessed with tomorrow's Penguins, but aside from them - there's no reason to hang onto a 21OA in a pretty weak draft. Despite what GMJR said about this being a deep draft, one does not need to be a professional scout to see the difference in this draft versus a really good draft.

Pretty much all the scouts/prospects guys I've seen have been talking up this draft as well. Who's been saying differently?
 

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
When you're swept out of the first round - largely due to self-inflicted wounds...you should be on the phone every hour until the season starts fixing the mistakes.

Maatta for Kahun does not take a team swept by the Islanders and make them contenders. I'm sure he knows that (...I mean...he knows that, right?).

My only issue with his quotes are about "yeah we'll make another change or two." - That's something I largely disagree with. Based on our trajectory alone, we should make 4-5 moves this Summer. Maatta, Johnson, Kessel, Rust, Simon*, Hornqvist*, Letang*, Schultz*, etc. Step one was a nice step forward, Kessel will be a leap forward, and Johnson would be a giant leap for Mankind forward. Beyond that it'll be 'nice-to-have' situations versus the sink or swim state we're currently in.

If that’s what he was quoted saying I wouldn’t take it literally. He himself won’t know what he’ll do as he doesn’t control what’s offered to him. He’ll make the decisions at the time they present themselves. He’s not going to make a couple of moves and then stop just because he was quoted saying that in the past that’s what he’d do.

Even if he does say something today that opinion/thought can change later that day with one phone call. Take what is reported he says in the media with a grain of salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: molon labe

mpp9

Registered User
Dec 5, 2010
32,613
5,067
Scratch JJ or limit him to 13 minutes a night and I think you can win the cup. If you didn't have Gudbranson, I'd be more confident in saying you could win with JJ. You just have to basically use him like Chicago in 2015 used their bottom pair D. Having JJ as a #6 who plays 10 minutes a night at ES and 3 minutes a night on the PK isn't going to kill you like losing a 1st for nothing would.

Yeah. I don't think we can ride Schultz like the Hawks did with Hjalmarsson in that run though.

Pettersson is good. But it's asking enough of him to be a #4.
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,567
2,936
Florida
I think you're overrating the negative impact of JJ just as much as you're saying other people are overrating the 1st rounder. Johnson is a problem, but losing yet another 1st rounder hurts more than keeping Johnson does. 1st rounders, especially in a good draft like 2019, have value where you can improve your team either in the short run or long run. The only improvement here is addition by subtraction, which isn't as big as addition by addition.

I know I overstate it - I'll admit that.

However, I'd argue - and will always argue - that if we had Johnson on the 2016 or 2017 teams, we don't win either cup. That alone should be enough.

It's not enough he sucks in his own end, but he also sucks in the other end, the neutral zone, at skating - at everything. That's coupled with a proven negative impact on every single roster player. That negative impact varies between something like 3 percent and 25 percent - that's something our group of guys can't overcome in a grueling playoffs.....

Also, this draft is not that good. I don't know why that became the agenda for 2019 but it's not. When your top 5 picks are AT BEST going to be 55-60 point players, it's nothing to write home about. Also, if/when the wheels completely fall off the wagon, you can trade players for picks without much effort. Look at every single Summer/Deadline of the past 15 years and you can see guys with 1-2 years left in their deals netting 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders to a team trying to make a push. No reason to try and build a college-level defender for the next 3 seasons in Wilkes-Barre if that 1st could land us someone like JT Miller instead.
 

The Old Master

come and take it.
Sep 27, 2004
17,411
4,766
burgh
I staunchly disagree. I'd give up our first rounder (which is highly overrated at this point anyway...we're looking at a few "maybe" D prospects at 21OA) without taking a pick back to get rid of Johnson.
nope! this is the highest we've had a chance to pick in a long time. add to that it's very deep so it's like having an even higher pick. this is our best chance to replace one of our aging top players, cheep. with out tanking for a whole year. (that doesn't mean we will, but it dose give us a good chance to.)and that's worth more than having to eat some dead money.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,290
25,206
Also, this draft is not that good. I don't know why that became the agenda for 2019 but it's not. When your top 5 picks are AT BEST going to be 55-60 point players, it's nothing to write home about. Also, if/when the wheels completely fall off the wagon, you can trade players for picks without much effort. Look at every single Summer/Deadline of the past 15 years and you can see guys with 1-2 years left in their deals netting 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders to a team trying to make a push. No reason to try and build a college-level defender for the next 3 seasons in Wilkes-Barre if that 1st could land us someone like JT Miller instead.

Jack Hughes is at best going to be a 55-60 point player? What?

And, leaving aside that I think Miller is an overrated low IQ player, if the 1st gets you a player of the caliber at which he's generally rated, sure, do it. Elsewise, keep the pick because you can always trade that prospect for guys like Miller later. There are very few people among the people talking the draft who'd heavily disagree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->