The All Things Sprong Containment Thread

[The Old Master]

I disagree completely.

you sir, are well with in your right to do so.

 

[Ms Maggie]

Had no idea Sprong has so many close relatives in the Pittsburgh area.

 

[Fatty McLardy]

trade a player like Sprong, but somehow keep garbage like Sheahan on the roster.....*mindblowngif*

 

[Ogrezilla]

trade a player like Sprong, but somehow keep garbage like Sheahan on the roster.....*mindblowngif*

I heard sully sold his third car but he still owns a bike. Mindblown

 

[Fatty McLardy]

I heard sully sold his third car but he still owns a bike. Mindblown

like all the other points in this thread, you miss this one too...

 

[Ogrezilla]

like all the other points in this thread, you miss this one too...

What's the point then?

 

[K Fleur]

Tonight

 

[Ryder71]

Had no idea Sprong has so many close relatives in the Pittsburgh area.

Well played. lol

 

[Fatty McLardy]

What's the point then?

Basically, Our coach/gm gave a chance to a player who had 0 goal in 79 games on one of the worst teams in the league but they didn't have it in them to give a 21 year old kid with a rocket shot who was one of the best AHL players last year, a chance.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Basically, Our coach/gm gave a chance to a player who had 0 goal in 79 games on one of the worst teams in the league but they didn't have it in them to give a 21 year old kid with a rocket shot who was one of the best AHL players last year, a chance.

So I'll amend my comment. Sully sold his third car shortly after buying a bike.

They are completely different players in completely different roles with completely different competition on the roster. They are both NHL forwards. That's where the similarities end. Seriously, Greg McKegg and Carter Rowney were our 3C and 4C when we traded for Sheahan. Patrick Hornqvist and Phil Kessel were Sprong's competition.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Still way different than having a legitimate need at scoring line RW. You can't possibly think the opportunity for that role here and with the ducks is the same regardless of coach.

I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.

We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.

What if Rust outproduces Sprong the rest of the season and continues to do so next year? At what point can we say that the Penguins didn't have the top 9 spot for Sprong and JR was able to get best value out of him before things went bad for both parties? I'm not sure I believe it yet, but it's certainly possible.

Remember, Rust doesn't want to be a 4th liner either so if you give Sprong the spot Rust had previously earned, you risk alienating a player that pretty valuable to the Pens identity over time.

This is all hypothetical, but most of us logically thought it was just a matter of time until Rust started putting things together again. Coincidentally, since Sprong was shipped out, Rust is proving he is a top 9 winger again and has scored MORE goals than Sprong has in similar opportunities.

That wouldn't affect anything AFAIC. For some reason, people continue to push this false scenario where Sprong being given a legit chance in the top 9 somehow necessitates Rust to the 4th line forever. As long as Sprong were producing with those opportunities, we could have come out for the better.

How about we just try Rust on the line where he eventually broke out about 15 games earlier until he looks like he's seen a puck before? Would that have been so hard? Does that mean Rust's a 4th liner for the rest of his days as a Penguin, or that a vet get can demoted for awhile when he's playing like garbage? If we had done only that much, then maybe we wouldn't have had Rust wasting a top 9 spot for so long while losses mounted, had to resort to Sheahan as a top 9 RW when injuries hit, or needlessly tank the value of our best goal scoring prospect.

Neat. Now he is and is succeeding what exactly is your point?

Do you just need confirmation you were right that Sprong would score goals in a top six role? You were right. I think most of us agreed that could happen, it didn’t happen here because of Hornqvist and Kessel. If the Ducks had Hornqvist and Kessel do you think they are searching for a top six RW? If we had Pouliot or Prow up here succeeding with our D do you think we are searching for a D?

Sprong was treated a certain way here. We have been doing very well since moving him and likely will not regret the trade if MP continues to play and grow as a D.

I don’t really get what the Sprong fans want. Your boy is succeeding and so is the trade piece we got for him.

Simple. We tanked the value of, then traded an asset that could have been extremely valuable to us going forward for no good reason.

Pettersson's value is not the same, and I'd take issue with the idea that we've been doing "very well" since Sprong was moved. Over the last 3 games we got worked by the Hawks, beat a woefully undermanned Bruins team, then squeaked by the Kings after blowing a 2 goal lead. It's been a rollercoaster - we've not been doing "very well" relative to our standard of previous years, or IMO what we'd have been capable of with the Sprong we're seeing in Anaheim with one of Crosby, Malkin, or Brassard.

 

[Gurglesons]

I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.

We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.



That wouldn't affect anything AFAIC. For some reason, people continue to push this false scenario where Sprong being given a legit chance in the top 9 somehow necessitates Rust to the 4th line forever. As long as Sprong were producing with those opportunities, we could have come out for the better.

How about we just try Rust on the line where he eventually broke out about 15 games earlier until he looks like he's seen a puck before? Would that have been so hard? Does that mean Rust's a 4th liner for the rest of his days as a Penguin, or that a vet get can demoted for awhile when he's playing like garbage? If we had done only that much, then maybe we wouldn't have had Rust wasting a top 9 spot for so long while losses mounted, had to resort to Sheahan as a top 9 RW when injuries hit, or needlessly tank the value of our best goal scoring prospect.



Simple. We tanked the value of, then traded an asset that could have been extremely valuable to us going forward for no good reason.

Pettersson's value is not the same, and I'd take issue with the idea that we've been doing "very well" since Sprong was moved. Over the last 3 games we got worked by the Hawks, beat a woefully undermanned Bruins team, then squeaked by the Kings after blowing a 2 goal lead. It's been a rollercoaster - we've not been doing "very well" relative to our standard of previous years, or IMO what we'd have been capable of with the Sprong we're seeing in Anaheim with one of Crosby, Malkin, or Brassard.

So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.

It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?

I don’t get what you end game is?

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.

We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.



That wouldn't affect anything AFAIC. For some reason, people continue to push this false scenario where Sprong being given a legit chance in the top 9 somehow necessitates Rust to the 4th line forever. As long as Sprong were producing with those opportunities, we could have come out for the better.

How about we just try Rust on the line where he eventually broke out about 15 games earlier until he looks like he's seen a puck before? Would that have been so hard? Does that mean Rust's a 4th liner for the rest of his days as a Penguin, or that a vet get can demoted for awhile when he's playing like garbage? If we had done only that much, then maybe we wouldn't have had Rust wasting a top 9 spot for so long while losses mounted, had to resort to Sheahan as a top 9 RW when injuries hit, or needlessly tank the value of our best goal scoring prospect.



Simple. We tanked the value of, then traded an asset that could have been extremely valuable to us going forward for no good reason.

Pettersson's value is not the same, and I'd take issue with the idea that we've been doing "very well" since Sprong was moved. Over the last 3 games we got worked by the Hawks, beat a woefully undermanned Bruins team, then squeaked by the Kings after blowing a 2 goal lead. It's been a rollercoaster - we've not been doing "very well" relative to our standard of previous years, or IMO what we'd have been capable of with the Sprong we're seeing in Anaheim with one of Crosby, Malkin, or Brassard.

Sprong tanked his own value. The fact we got more than a mid rd pick and a warm body was a miracle. Considering a guy like Zykov was waiver bait a week prior.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.

We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.

You know I would have given Sprong chances in that spot, so I agree with this to a point. But I still say that IF we just had those openings from the start, things would have been different. Because we don't have a spot for him when we're healthy, it was really easy for Sully to write Sprong off early. Then add in Sprong doing himself no favors in the 4th line role and Sully's opinions were reinforced even more. So by the time those openings came up, Sully's mind was already made up. But if we needed a top 9 RW going in to the year, I believe Sprong would have been given a legit chance there. So as I said, this is the part of how it was handled that I disagree with. But I still see what Sully was thinking, and it goes beyond "I don't like him personally."

And we aren't seeing anything right now. Sprong doing well on the Ducks for 5 games doesn't change the fact that he wasn't likely to jump Horny or Kessel on the depth chart. We would have still been looking to trade a RW. Maybe it wouldn't have been Sprong. But then we most likely wouldn't have gotten an NHL ready cheap contract like we got back. And considering our RW situation vs our D situation, I would rather have a cheap young D than a cheap young RW. The RW's are great, and the D is a hot mess. So you can keep disagreeing with me on the trade value, but I think this was a good trade for us. It's considerably better than I would have guessed we'd have gotten this summer. I figured it would be a pick or someone else's "needs a change of scenery" prospect. Instead it's another team's position surplus prospect.

 

[Ogrezilla]

So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.

It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?

I don’t get what you end game is?

Sprong tanked his own value. The fact we got more than a mid rd pick and a warm body was a miracle. Considering a guy like Zykov was waiver bait a week prior.

I really really really don't think his value was tanked. We traded a 2nd round wing prospect for a 2nd round D prospect. Both are cheap and young. Both are good prospects.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.

It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?

I don’t get what you end game is?

It's the Sprong thread...for discussing Sprong-related things, including but not limited to why it was a mistake to move him without putting him in a position to succeed, so that we might learn something the next time and evaluate things differently.

Why do you keep discussing it? Nobody's holding a gun to your head, though you did seem much happier when posting his P/G just a short time ago.

 

[Gurglesons]

It's the Sprong thread...for discussing Sprong-related things, including but not limited to why it was a mistake to move him without putting him in a position to succeed, so that we might learn something the next time and evaluate things differently.

Why do you keep discussing it? Nobody's holding a gun to your head, though you did seem much happier when posting his P/G just a short time ago.

But, I’ve been discussing what Sprong is doing now. Not what should’ve or could’ve happened. It just seems pointless to me.

 

[SouthGeorge]

So now we got a log jam at d-men? Riikola's development is going to be ruined because Sully had a vendetta against a player and feels like he has to play Pettersson so he looks right. Niiice.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You know I would have given Sprong chances in that spot, so I agree with this to a point. But I still say that IF we just had those openings from the start, things would have been different. Because we don't have a spot for him when we're healthy, it was really easy for Sully to write Sprong off early. Then add in Sprong doing himself no favors in the 4th line role and Sully's opinions were reinforced even more. So by the time those openings came up, Sully's mind was already made up. But if we needed a top 9 RW going in to the year, I believe Sprong would have been given a legit chance there. So as I said, this is the part of how it was handled that I disagree with. But I still see what Sully was thinking, and it goes beyond "I don't like him personally."

And we aren't seeing anything right now. Sprong doing well on the Ducks for 5 games doesn't change the fact that he wasn't likely to jump Horny or Kessel on the depth chart. We would have still been looking to trade a RW. Maybe it wouldn't have been Sprong. But then we most likely wouldn't have gotten an NHL ready cheap contract like we got back. And considering our RW situation vs our D situation, I would rather have a cheap young D than a cheap young RW. The RW's are great, and the D is a hot mess. So you can keep disagreeing with me on the trade value, but I think this was a good trade for us. It's considerably better than I would have guessed we'd have gotten this summer. I figured it would be a pick or someone else's "needs a change of scenery" prospect. Instead it's another team's position surplus prospect.

I think a coach prematurely making up his mind on a talented 21 year old after putting him in a garbage situation is a serious problem. That doesn't have anything to do with Sullivan's feelings about Sprong as a person, but Sullivan's ability to recognize different types of talent in the org and exploit it by putting them in position to succeed.

People have made a point of talking about how Pettersson could be a Dumo-type, but that seems like a best-case scenario. If Sprong becomes a 25-30 goal scorer in short order, Pettersson had better be as good as Dumo within a similar timeframe, otherwise we got hosed - and I say this fully understanding the differences in vacuum value between wingers and defensemen. The former seems more likely than the latter to me, based on where each of them is right now.

I don't agree that it would have been good value to move Sprong for Pettersson in the summer, coming off of their respective seasons. JR did get better value than I thought he would after Sullivan buried him though.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

But, I’ve been discussing what Sprong is doing now. Not what should’ve or could’ve happened. It just seems pointless to me.

It can be constructive to dissect how and why things go wrong in an organization.

This can help avoid similar problems next time, provided people try to learn from their experiences.

Pens fans shouldn't be happy with how their favourite team needlessly buried a young talent. Contenders making unforced errors like that when their stars are fading tend to end up being cautionary tales like the Blackhawks. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I think a coach prematurely making up his mind on a talented 21 year old after putting him in a garbage situation is a serious problem. That doesn't have anything to do with Sullivan's feelings about Sprong as a person, but Sullivan's ability to recognize different types of talent in the org and exploit it by putting them in position to succeed.

The problem is that the position he needs to succeed is already filled. Yes, we could have gotten him in there. We could force guys to LW and he could have gotten chances throughout the year up to now. But end of the day, the most natural positions for him are already taken by some really good players. So trading him for a player in a position we actually do need makes sense.

And I do still say that we need to move a D out (or just sit one for Riikola) to get the most out of the trade.

People have made a point of talking about how Pettersson could be a Dumo-type, but that seems like a best-case scenario. If Sprong becomes a 25-30 goal scorer in short order, Pettersson had better be as good as Dumo within a similar timeframe, otherwise we got hosed - and I say this fully understanding the differences in vacuum value between wingers and defensemen. The former seems more likely than the latter to me, based on where each of them is right now.

I think you're 1) undervaluing strong defensive guys like Dumo and 2) understating how rare it is to be a solid defensive guy like Pettersson is as a 22 year old.

I also think it's silly how nonchalantly you throw out Sprong hitting his peak while making it seem impossible for Pettersson to reach his.

I don't agree that it would have been good value to move Sprong for Pettersson in the summer, coming off of their respective seasons. JR did get better value than I thought he would after Sullivan buried him though.

And we just disagree. I think you're way overstating Sprong's value.

I'll repeat my point I made before. Similar to the Neal for Horny deal, even if we "lose" this trade on paper I think it can be a good trade. If we get a 2nd pairing version of Dumo-lite, I think that helps THIS TEAM more than what Sprong could do here, even if he's scoring 25-30 goals for the Ducks.

 

[Empoleon8771]

So far in this game, I'd say Sprong has looked no different than how he looked in Pittsburgh. All I've noticed from him was 1 shot attempt from the blueline, which was a bad decision and resulted in a rush against (and a powerplay and powerplay goal against).

That was a hell of a pass by Sprong. Out-waited the Penguins defensemen and set up Ritchie for a great chance. He took advantage of Jack Johnson being stupid though, so maybe he doesn't deserve too much credit

 

[Riptide]

So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.

It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?

I don’t get what you end game is?

We all need to admit that WC is right and knows best.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think Sprong had a good game overall today, he was pretty invisible in the first, but he generated some chances for himself and got an assist by putting the puck on net. Coincidentally, I also think Pettersson had a good game today.

 

[Coastal Kev]

Focused on Sprong, we gave up a young stud who has unlimited offensive potential. When he gets the pacing down and a good C, maybe at LW....... Watch out


Disaster of a trade