Salary Cap: Salary Cap + Roster Building | Every time I refresh, I panic.

[KIRK]

I support that list. I think we should also be willing to target a 3C with the idea that you can send Sheahan out as well as Brassard. I doubt Brass resigns and Sheahan isn't our future 3C. I'd like to try something like a Sprong for Strome swap with the idea that Strome is your 3C you hope breaks out next year. If nothing else, it's one more in the group that could compete for it along with Blugs, Lafferty, Johnson, etc.

With that, I think we also need to be a bit more decisive on what we want the 3rd pairing to be. I like Oleksiak more than some. We lack so much physicality on the backend and it shows in the playoffs. Oleksiak in at least gives us someone with size that can make a hit. We also have to factor in Schultz.

Dumo-Letang
XXXX-Schultz
Oleksiak-XXXX

You have Maatta, Johnson, Riikola, and Rudwedel currently. I think a longer term solution needs to be developed and looked at. No more Hainseys. Go get a Montour. Be willing to use Maatta.

I'd also suggest send Sheahan out for ideally picks, see if Cullen will just fade away, Take out a top 4 dman, add a pick or two to him and get back a better top 4 PMD.

Strome+Perlini+conditional pick for Brassard+Sprong+conditional pick
Sheahan for 3rd
Maatta+Rust for Montour+pick

Jake-Sid-Horny
Pearson-Malkin-Kessel
Perlini-Strome-Simon/ZAR
ZAR/Simon-WBS-Cullen/WBS (not Garret Wilson)

Dumo-Letang
Oleksiak-Schultz (2nd Pair A)
JJ/Rud/Rik-Montour (2nd Pair B)

or

Faulk+Zykov for Maatta+Sprong+pick (from Sheahan)

JSH
PMK
RBS
Z-WBS-Zykov

Dumo-Tang
Olek-Schultz
JJ/etc-Faulk

Or you can see who may be able to switch sides and run Dumo-Tang, Faulk-Schultz and then create a 3rd pairing to shelter.

We are NOT moving Jack Johnson. He is as unlikely to be moved as Geno, because there is a zero percent chance JR is going to admit to that mistake, not after how the signing went down.

 

[Riptide]

We definitely have too many dumb players. A lot of them play defense.

I just think the younger guys are easier to mold into a team player. Plus common sense will tell you they would be hungrier.

But that doesn't mean they'll be better.

 

[Ryder71]

And he gets tried everywhere . . . except, like Sprong, with Geno.

But that's far too obvious, so why try that?

 

[Peat]

We are NOT moving Jack Johnson. He is as unlikely to be moved as Geno, because there is a zero percent chance JR is going to admit to that mistake, not after how the signing went down.

The guy who traded his last FA dman a year later and has waived a guy who he said would be on the NHL roster in both of the last two years is too stubborn to admit a mistake?

Is Johnson really in such a different league of perception in his/others' heads?

 

[Riptide]

Agree...too many dumb players, players who can’t play fast because they’re “thinking” out there, among other issues...we can’t find the ability, wherewithal or whatever at different points in the game to go out and win the game when it’s there for the taking...What’s our record in these 1-score games?

This team just doesn’t have “it”.... I don’t see them coming back from this hole....can’t see them beating any of CLB, WPG, COL....

I hope JR doesn’t trade our first and, once it’s apparent to him (shortly) that it’s a lost season, he needs to work to move out Phil imo...he’s still a good point-getter and someone gunning for the POs might pay with a couple younger players, hopefully a PMD....he should also look to move out some D salary, probably two of Maatta, JJ and Oleksiak....if he can get some younger players back and free up some salary, we could actually make a stab at some quality FAs if they don’t re-sign, like Duchene or Skinner...it’s clear they need a retool

lol what? He needs to make 1 (Olek) maybe 2 (Maatta) moves on the blueline and that would solve a good bunch of our issues. Then just get the forwards to actually play defense. The idea that we're "out of it" and that it's a "lost season" is asinine when it's 21 games in and we're 6 pts out of a WC spot with games in hand.

 

[KIRK]

The guy who traded his last FA dman a year later and has waived a guy who he said would be on the NHL roster in both of the last two years is too stubborn to admit a mistake?

Is Johnson really in such a different league of perception in his/others' heads?

You see NO difference between the circumstances surrounding the Johnson signing and the Hunwick signing? Okay then . . .

 

[KIRK]

lol what? He needs to make 1 (Olek) maybe 2 (Maatta) moves on the blueline and that would solve a good bunch of our issues. Then just get the forwards to actually play defense. The idea that we're "out of it" and that it's a "lost season" is asinine when it's 21 games in and we're 6 pts out of a WC spot with games in hand.

We're not out of it yet, but these next 5 games are a *****, and I'm not sure there's a guaranteed point in there.

 

[Riptide]

I think moving Brassard, Maatta, Oleksiak, and Rust for younger options and picks is the right move if the Penguins are worse than 500 over the next 12 to 15 games.

I think Brassard gets you Vesalainen and a 1st from the Jets.

Maatta brings back at least a first and a decent prospect. Defenceman are always at a premium come mid-season.

Oleksiak gets you a 3rd or a 4th.

Rust is exactly the kind of player a Colorado or a Buffalo would look to add if they are going to the playoffs. If Ryan Hartman gets you a late first then Rust just might too.

~20MM of cap space, 2 or 3 WBS guys, and 3 or 4 first round picks fills that out just fine.

You're delusional if you think that A) you're moving Maatta and Oleksiak without bringing salary back, and B) if you think that Rutherford would attempt to move Maatta for futures. The sole exception to that would be if he had a plan to immediately spend those futures on a replacement D - and given the complications of getting something like that done, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Rutherford isn't going to start selling players for picks/futures that only might help us in 3+ years. If he can't trade someone for something that will help this season or next season, he's not going to move them (unless they are a complete dump and he wants cap space).

 

[Slaaapshuter]

The guy who traded his last FA dman a year later and has waived a guy who he said would be on the NHL roster in both of the last two years is too stubborn to admit a mistake?

Is Johnson really in such a different league of perception in his/others' heads?

I think JR going out and publically attacking another organisation over Johnson will make it too embarrassing and humiliating for him to pull that trigger.

 

[Peat]

You see NO difference between the circumstances surrounding the Johnson signing and the Hunwick signing? Okay then . . .

Of course I see them. I referenced them right there in the post. I'm questioning whether the differences are that big for a guy who's been very quick to rectify mistakes, not saying there are none.

But why actually read a post when you could post a patronising one-liner?

 

[KIRK]

I think JR going out and publically attacking another organisation over Johnson will make it too embarrassing and humiliating for him to pull that trigger.

 

[Riptide]

With that, I think we also need to be a bit more decisive on what we want the 3rd pairing to be. I like Oleksiak more than some. We lack so much physicality on the backend and it shows in the playoffs. Oleksiak in at least gives us someone with size that can make a hit. We also have to factor in Schultz.

Dumo-Letang
XXXX-Schultz
Oleksiak-XXXX

You have Maatta, Johnson, Riikola, and Rudwedel currently. I think a longer term solution needs to be developed and looked at. No more Hainseys. Go get a Montour. Be willing to use Maatta.

Maatta+Rust for Montour+pick

Dumo-Letang
Oleksiak-Schultz (2nd Pair A)
JJ/Rud/Rik-Montour (2nd Pair B)

or

Faulk+Zykov for Maatta+Sprong+pick (from Sheahan)

Dumo-Tang
Olek-Schultz
JJ/etc-Faulk

Or you can see who may be able to switch sides and run Dumo-Tang, Faulk-Schultz and then create a 3rd pairing to shelter.

Or you just get a good LD for Maatta (one who can move the puck half decently), and then use one of many guys who can play RD (JJ, Oleksiak, Riikola, Ruhwedel). Then you don't have to worry about getting a top guy who can play his offside to stack the top4.

 

[KIRK]

Of course I see them. I referenced them right there in the post. I'm questioning whether the differences are that big for a guy who's been very quick to rectify mistakes, not saying there are none.

But why actually read a post when you could post a patronising one-liner?

Because you ignored (or didn't read) my 'under the circumstances' and then threw out a couple of red herring examples without acknowledging said circumstances?

I was unaware that type of intellectual dishonesty deserves more than a patronizing one-liner, but thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Riptide]

The guy who traded his last FA dman a year later and has waived a guy who he said would be on the NHL roster in both of the last two years is too stubborn to admit a mistake?

Is Johnson really in such a different league of perception in his/others' heads?

Hunwick only cost us a slightly lesser return on Sheary - not really the end of the world. I think Rutherford trying to move JJ this season/summer would cost us a lot more then that. And that's even without getting into what @Fill Kaesselmeister pointed out.

 

[KIRK]

You're delusional if you think that A) you're moving Maatta and Oleksiak without bringing salary back, and B) if you think that Rutherford would attempt to move Maatta for futures. The sole exception to that would be if he had a plan to immediately spend those futures on a replacement D - and given the complications of getting something like that done, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Rutherford isn't going to start selling players for picks/futures that only might help us in 3+ years. If he can't trade someone for something that will help this season or next season, he's not going to move them (unless they are a complete dump and he wants cap space).

1. One would hope, if this season goes into the toilet, that JR would want to create cap space for this offseason (then again, given how he used it the last time he created it, maybe this isn't such a good thing).

2. There's nothing to say that futures acquired in one deal can't be leveraged in a subsequent deal.

 

[Sideline]

You're delusional if you think that A) you're moving Maatta and Oleksiak without bringing salary back, and B) if you think that Rutherford would attempt to move Maatta for futures. The sole exception to that would be if he had a plan to immediately spend those futures on a replacement D - and given the complications of getting something like that done, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Rutherford isn't going to start selling players for picks/futures that only might help us in 3+ years. If he can't trade someone for something that will help this season or next season, he's not going to move them (unless they are a complete dump and he wants cap space).

Oleksiak at 2.1MM will be very movable at the deadline. You might have to take back an expiring 1MM contact, but he's hardly a Lucic situation.

On Maatta you've got more of a point, but I could see a lot of options. Suppose the Ducks offer Cogliano and a 1st. That's a cap dump on their side, but a good bottom 6 option for the Penguins that doesn't cost that much more than Sheahan.

Obviously, JR would turn most of those picks into players on draft day. My scenario is the Penguins are eliminated from the playoff hunt, not going into a full rebuild.

 

[Peat]

Because you ignored (or didn't read) my 'under the circumstances' and then threw out a couple of red herring examples without acknowledging said circumstances?

I was unaware that type of intellectual dishonesty deserves more than a patronizing one-liner, but thanks for setting me straight.

I didn't ignore it. I acknowledged there were differences and were hoping you'd expand as to what particular part of the circumstances you were referring to given Rutherford's history there. If that wasn't clear then my bad, but most people here manage to be polite when there's a failure in communication.

But anyway, I got my answer, on to shouting at each other about something else.

Hunwick only cost us a slightly lesser return on Sheary - not really the end of the world. I think Rutherford trying to move JJ this season/summer would cost us a lot more then that. And that's even without getting into what @Fill Kaesselmeister pointed out.

Oh, if it was presented as "There's no way on earth that we're moving JJ's contract next summer because dear god look at this monstrosity", I'd have absolutely agreed. Because the cost to move that thing will be ugly and probably make us a worse team than just keeping him... which is impressive.

 

[Riptide]

1. One would hope, if this season goes into the toilet, that JR would want to create cap space for this offseason (then again, given how he used it the last time he created it, maybe this isn't such a good thing).

2. There's nothing to say that futures acquired in one deal can't be leveraged in a subsequent deal.

There isn't... but it really depends on the timeline, because going for futures and then trying to flip those for other players is going to take time to sort out. And given how hard it is to make trades, that doesn't give me much confidence that it would actually get done. Not to mention that most of the teams flipping guys for futures wait until the new year or as close to the TD as possible in an attempt to max out their return. We can't do that. With how we're currently playing, we do not have the luxury of waiting 3 months to see how things play out. Especially if we just moved a blueliner who plays almost 20 minutes a night for us.

That and in general the more complicated things get, the much more likely they are to fall through. Trading Maatta for futures, then trying to flip those futures for another asset is going to be complicated.

 

[KIRK]

There isn't... but it really depends on the timeline, because going for futures and then trying to flip those for other players is going to take time to sort out. And given how hard it is to make trades, that doesn't give me much confidence that it would actually get done. Not to mention that most of the teams flipping guys for futures wait until the new year or as close to the TD as possible in an attempt to max out their return. We can't do that. With how we're currently playing, we do not have the luxury of waiting 3 months to see how things play out. Especially if we just moved a blueliner who plays almost 20 minutes a night for us.

That and in general the more complicated things get, the much more likely they are to fall through. Trading Maatta for futures, then trying to flip those futures for another asset is going to be complicated.

True.

Then again, I'm not sure you're any worse off flipping Maatta for futures and starting Prow until you can flip the futures.

Personally, the thing I'm looking to do with Maatta is move him for a defenseman who's on an expiring contract or maybe has a year left on his deal. Someone older but a better fit and better suited to help drive the offense. If that means we only have 4M in cap space to show for Maatta this summer, then I'm okay with that.

EDIT: I'm okay with this UNLESS Sid has another BFF who's a moronic wreck of a defenseman.

 

[Riptide]

Oleksiak at 2.1MM will be very movable at the deadline. You might have to take back an expiring 1MM contact, but he's hardly a Lucic situation.

On Maatta you've got more of a point, but I could see a lot of options. Suppose the Ducks offer Cogliano and a 1st. That's a cap dump on their side, but a good bottom 6 option for the Penguins that doesn't cost that much more than Sheahan.

Obviously, JR would turn most of those picks into players on draft day. My scenario is the Penguins are eliminated from the playoff hunt, not going into a full rebuild.

1) Oleksiak... I'm not so sure about that. He might be... but I think it's much more likely we're taking someone else's meh guy with money/term. I question if Rutherford could turn him into someone that's a pending FA this summer. But if he could, I'd almost certainly do it. It's why the Lovejoy suggestion holds appeal. We get an RD for the season, then he's gone.

2) Rutherford almost certainly isn't going to move Maatta for Cog's and a 1st. I think people forget how much JR likes OM. If he's moving him, it will be for a different blueliner, not cap space.

I doubt that we'll be eliminated from the POs anytime soon. Even if we don't turn things around (unlikely), we'll be stumbling around with enough points to be close enough to them that JR will want to double down and try to get in to the POs. He won't want to be the GM that misses the POs for the first time in 12 yrs (or w/e). So while I could see him moving a couple guys for better/different fits (Brassard out, a different C/W in, Maatta out, a different PMD in, etc), I don't see him selling players for futures and cap space.

 

[Riptide]

True.

Then again, I'm not sure you're any worse off flipping Maatta for futures and starting Prow until you can flip the futures.

Personally, the thing I'm looking to do with Maatta is move him for a defenseman who's on an expiring contract or maybe has a year left on his deal. Someone older but a better fit and better suited to help drive the offense. If that means we only have 4M in cap space to show for Maatta this summer, then I'm okay with that.

EDIT: I'm okay with this UNLESS Sid has another BFF who's a moronic wreck of a defenseman.

Gologiski. Or Martinez/Muzzin. We'd absolutely be adding for one of them... 1st, Sprong, something. But I'd do it.

Honestly, I don't really want to move him for someone who's a pending FA. Because while there's a few good ones (some really good ones), there's also a lot of crap there. I'd much rather get someone with some term who'll be around next season for us. At least that way if things change and we have a decent season, we don't immediately have to find a replacement for them.

 

[Gurglesons]

Gologiski. Or Martinez/Muzzin. We'd absolutely be adding for one of them... 1st, Sprong, something. But I'd do it.

Honestly, I don't really want to move him for someone who's a pending FA. Because while there's a few good ones (some really good ones), there's also a lot of crap there. I'd much rather get someone with some term who'll be around next season for us. At least that way if things change and we have a decent season, we don't immediately have to find a replacement for them.

I am not adding a 1st to Maatta for an older D. Sure Sprong. Or a future 2nd or 3rd. But no way in hell a 1st.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I am not adding a 1st to Maatta for an older D. Sure Sprong. Or a future 2nd or 3rd. But no way in hell a 1st.

I'm certainly on board with not trading our first this year

 

[Riptide]

I am not adding a 1st to Maatta for an older D. Sure Sprong. Or a future 2nd or 3rd. But no way in hell a 1st.

I wouldn't for Gogo... but for Martinez or Muzzin, who would be around for 2/1 more seasons? Potentially. Ideally not... but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as long as the pick had some sort of lottery protection.

I also don't get why it would matter if they're "older" or not. Are they better... Y/N? Because if they are, and are not ancient (34+ and this pains me, as I'm older then that), then I don't get why it matters. Sure Maatta is 24... but he's not playing great, and the excuse most use on here is he's a terrible fit... so why does the age thing matter all that much? If you're getting someone who's a good player and a much better fit... who cares if they're 29/30 and have a little term?

 

[KIRK]

I am not adding a 1st to Maatta for an older D. Sure Sprong. Or a future 2nd or 3rd. But no way in hell a 1st.

Who said to add a first to Maatta for an older D?

I said I'd move Maatta for a defenseman who was an impending UFA or had a year left. I think that is what @Riptide was replying to. Or, did I miss something?

Only time I'd consider adding a 1st to Maatta is (a) if it were top 10 protected and (b) were for a legit higher end 2/3 with some term and a good cap hit who could help Letang drive the offense (rushing the puck, smart and quick decisions with the puck) AND play a good 200 foot game