Toggle sidebar

Salary Cap: '24-'25 Salary Thread: Crosbicles Volume MMXXV - Poolman and Poolparty?!?

Empoleon8771 said:
If they're signing Marner they absolutely better trade Bunting. They need to give top-6 opportunities for young guys and keeping Rakell, Rust, Marner and Bunting would basically guarantee that doesn't happen.

At minimum, they should be running with:

Rakell-Crosby-Rust
Koivunen/McGroarty-Malkin-Marner
Hallander-Glass-Tomasino
Lizotte-Ponomarev-Acciari
Click to expand...
Again, I would make additional roster changes beyond what I listed. It was merely a proof of concept that you could add two fairly high profile free agents - Marner and Chychrun - and have plenty of options moving forward.
 
Gurglesons said:
My argument is that FSG has no reason to be a cap team for the immediate future.

This idea that they are going to spending 114 mil to ice a bottom 5 team is moronic.

FSG told Crosby that they'd be better this year. They are one of the worst teams in the league.
Click to expand...
Do you think Sid really needed to be told by a FSG executive that "they are going to be better next year" in order to resign?

They will commit to spending the money while he's here. If that means $95mil to finish bottom 5 but "at least they tried", so be it.
 
I might be in the minority here but if they are truly going to get Marner, I'm not sure I trade Bunting, especially if the idea is to run Marner with Malkin.

Koivunen-Malkin-Marner seems too soft to. Bunting-Malkin-Marner seems like a line that would work better. That said, I don't even think you need to trade any of the top 6 wings to accomplish it. You might have to dump a player or two like Hayes or Jarry or Graves but running:

Raks-Sid-Rust
Bunt-Geno-Marner
McGroarty-Glass-Hallander
Poulin-Lizotte-Pono

POJ-Letang
Pickering-Karlsson
Gryz-Shea (or whatever)

JB-Neds

Seems fine and doable.
 
DesertedPenguin said:
I think @Gurglesons believes FSG won't spend until the Pens start winning on their own, whereas some of us are arguing that they'll spend to get back to winning faster.
Click to expand...
I mean maybe? I think this idea of “they will spend to get back to winning” is vague and arbitrary. Spend what? I don’t think they’re gonna burn cash to be good.
Gurglesons said:
My argument is that FSG has no reason to be a cap team for the immediate future.

This idea that they are going to spending 114 mil to ice a bottom 5 team is moronic.
Click to expand...
If the idea is that they will add $30-40m of cash spending per year for no specific reason other than “the cap went up” I agree.

That said- I tend to agree with both of you to be honest. I highly, highly doubt FSG is going to end up vetoing good hockey moves for financial reasons. I think it more fleshes out more as things like: they maybe don’t get as aggressive with front loading and bonus structures as other ownership groups would if the Pens are bad and not clearly on the precipice of competing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sovietsanta87
FSG set up Hextall with 3 year run of the core. Dubas added to see if that could be successful. Dubas didn't add much spending to do so. But no question the spending cap will be lower to offset revenue for the next few years. Karlsson with retention, Rust, maybe retain on Jarry in the off season are my moves. Petts moved at the TDL brings back a decent package. Unless Rakell is a Jake kind of return, I keep him with far less cap. Pens are in good shape as to revenue from Arena and Hockey operations. But no question they see a hit unless they can get the rebuild moving to get back to some level of sustained success. They may be rethinking the Celtics cost and selling Liverpool may not be the best way to go to buy an NBA franchise that ratings are crumbling. Dubas may have a cap of say 75 to 80 million with retention
 
CheckingLineCenter said:
If the idea is that they will add $30-40m of cash spending per year for no specific reason other than “the cap went up” I agree.

That said- I tend to agree with both of you to be honest. I highly, highly doubt FSG is going to end up vetoing good hockey moves for financial reasons. I think it more fleshes out more as things like: they maybe don’t get as aggressive with front loading and bonus structures as other ownership groups would if the Pens are bad and not clearly on the precipice of competing.
Click to expand...

I assume you'll see them take on high cap / low money deals.

Basically, Dubas and FSG are going to turn us into the Yotes the next few years and possibly for the impending future.
 
Turin said:
I love Geno a lot

But a guy like Marner isn’t signing anywhere to play with the 39 year old version of him. Malkin needs to be made winger and the Pens are going to need to prioritize finding centers.
Click to expand...

Idk I think the reason Marner would be signing here is that you’re giving him $100 million :dunno:
 
Gurglesons said:
I assume you'll see them take on high cap / low money deals.

Basically, Dubas and FSG are going to turn us into the Yotes the next few years and possibly for the impending future.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’ll be that compressed to be honest.

I think it’ll be more like the example I gave or if we have $30 mil in space they’ll do some cap dumps/take on some contracts for picks but they won’t feel the need to squeeze assets for every last bit of cap space.
 
I actually don’t mind FSG not spending to the cap when we’re rebuilding. Won’t tie our money into stupid contracts and spending to the cap just to spend to the cap.

When we’re competitive again? Yeah, absolutely spend to the cap. And I think they will. They’ve given no indication whatsoever that they won’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurglesons and sovietsanta87
Gurglesons said:
Guess we will see.
Click to expand...
I'm also going to caveat that with - just because they are willing doesn't mean Dubas will.

Dubas used a chunk of the remainder of our cap space to bring in Hayes and Glass because we got extra assets for them and they are semi-useful. Without them, that's an extra $5mil-ish. So it wouldn't surprise me if we weren't a cap team but that is different than FSG not being willing to spend to the cap.
 
The entire point is there are multiple reasons not to spend to the cap in the immediate future, our market size is not one of them. Nor is it because FSG will refuse to put up the money when it is appropriate.
 
CheckingLineCenter said:
I mean maybe? I think this idea of “they will spend to get back to winning” is vague and arbitrary. Spend what? I don’t think they’re gonna burn cash to be good.

If the idea is that they will add $30-40m of cash spending per year for no specific reason other than “the cap went up” I agree.

That said- I tend to agree with both of you to be honest. I highly, highly doubt FSG is going to end up vetoing good hockey moves for financial reasons. I think it more fleshes out more as things like: they maybe don’t get as aggressive with front loading and bonus structures as other ownership groups would if the Pens are bad and not clearly on the precipice of competing.
Click to expand...
They're not going to just throw money around. They're not going to give Dimitri Orlov a $100 million, 7 year contract just because the cap went up.

But if Marner or Rantanen is available in free agency and Dubas wants them, FSG will spend.
 
SEALBound said:
I'm also going to caveat that with - just because they are willing doesn't mean Dubas will.

Dubas used a chunk of the remainder of our cap space to bring in Hayes and Glass because we got extra assets for them and they are semi-useful. Without them, that's an extra $5mil-ish. So it wouldn't surprise me if we weren't a cap team but that is different than FSG not being willing to spend to the cap.
Click to expand...

So we won’t be spending to the cap and we will pretend it’s because Dubas is smart. Got it.

Must rock being this guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom