Salary Cap: 24-25 Salary Thread Crosbicles Volume MXVI: End of season wrap up

[Ugene Magic]

 

[eXile3]

I just looked up ZAR on edge because I remember skating being his issue coming out of college. He’s 71 percentile.

 

[Jacob]

Regarding the Sullivan system, my hockey brain works far more in a roster-building, GM capacity than an X's and O's capacity. So a lot of coach-speak goes right over my head.

That said, I will always remember something Jeff Petry said early days in his first training camp with the club. He was asked about the system here versus what he was used to in Montreal. If I remember correctly, he basically talked about how much more "freedom" there was in the Sullivan system. How it was way more "player friendly". However, he also said something to the effect of there being way more responsibilities placed on the players' shoulders. And that it was a lot easier to look foolish in the Sullivan system when things break down. He sounded both happy to be playing it but also foreshadowing potential doom.

I always remember that because nothing we saw in the Sullivan years with our own eyes suggests Petry was wrong. If I were to summarize the Sullivan system, it would be something to the effect of it being a system that is easy to PLAY but hard to excel at. And again, I am not much of an X's and O's guy. Lots of people who do this for a living have a much better understanding of this. But it seems to me, the system is predicated on predictability. So to that end, it seems obvious that if you play the game north-south instead of east-west, your teammates will be better able to predict your next move/next position, etc. Of course, so will the opponent.

If I were to hazard a guess, it would seem to me that teams should be more predictable in the defensive zone or when players do not have the puck, but less predictable when they are in the offensive zone or when they do have the puck. But under the Sullivan system, it seems there is no discrepancy there. It's north-south, predictable play by all five members at all times. So, ironically, the freedom that Petry described is actually more rigid. I firmly believe that it is the main reason why a LOT of players struggled after coming to the Penguins. Defensemen, forwards...young players, older established veterans. LOTS of players have struggled to play this way.

You could make the case that it only really worked in 2016. But how much of 2016 was this group of talent being so happy with the new coach bump that ANY coach would have sufficed at that time? Remember, we saw similar early returns under Dan Bylsma, a head coach nowhere nearly as revered as the other ex-coach. Byslma proved to be incredibly unremarkable almost immediately after winning the Cup. With Sullivan, it took an extra year but the results were similar beyond that. In 2017, you could make the argument that we were simply too talented to lose, regardless of system. Most of the 2017 finals games looked a bit like the Washington-Carolina series this year. Nashville did everything right except they could not score (which Carolina has struggled to do against Washington, but it mattered less last night) enough. They also got terrible goaltending and we were simply surgical when it came down to scoring goals. So, the theory that the Pens won because we outscored the problems with Sullivan's system is not that far from the truth.

If we look at the type of players who succeed under Sullivan, it is hard to envision THIS CURRENT NYR squad doing anything of note next season. Drury, one would assume, knows this and will do some major surgery on that roster this summer. Artemi Panarin is one of the most unpredictable players in this league. Generally speaking, that is high praise. Not under a Mike Sullivan system, though. So it would shock me if a) Panarin is not traded this summer or b) he is successful playing that style. If we look back at 4 Nations, who were the players who shone the brightest for team USA? The Tkachuk brothers, no surprise there. Dylan Larkin, because his straightline speed is exactly what Sullivan likes. Jaccob Slavin was awesome, but then again Jaccob Slavin is awesome no matter what so that came as no surprise. Who struggled, relatively speaking? Adam Fox, a very cerebral defenseman (dare I say an EK65 comp?). Kyle Connor, who has the speed for Sullivan's system, but is a lot less predictable in his play. I did not think Auston Matthews was great in that series, either. Although he is having a down year in general.

Back to us, because that is what's important here. Our new coach needs to simplify things. I think we need more separation between what this team does in the defensive zone vis-a-vis the offensive end. Dumb it down in the D zone, so that the players have the freedom they want to be unpredictable in the scoring areas. I honestly don't think it means we HAVE to become a defensive team. We don't need to become the Wild, the Bruins, the Golden Knights or the Jets overnight in terms of style. After all, it is ALWAYS about team identity and how you are constructed. We are and have always been an offensive team, basically since 1984. So that should not change. But if we keep things a bit more simple on defense, actually coach them up a little bit more and give them less to think about, I believe we can get right back on track.

Which brings me back to Owen Pickering. I do not understand one iota why anyone would want to trade this guy. People tend to want to constantly maximize value with former first-rounders, and tend to also be very disappointed when a first-round defenseman is not putting up Zayne Parekh-esque numbers. In the real hockey world, you need several different types of good hockey players in order to succeed. And if you draft a guy in the first round who turns out to be a 20-25 minute muncher who can play in any situation and stabilize things from the back, that is a GOOD thing. OK, so Owen Pickering is unlikely to make the hockey Hall of Fame. He is also the type of defenseman every single Cup winner has iced and every aspiring Cup winner needs in order to hoist the trophy. That reliability is so underrated. And I honestly do not know what you guys were watching when he played for us early in the season this past year, but I saw a player loaded with promise and ready for the NHL already. Imagine how much better he is going to look with another summer of training, a full training camp, a new coach and new system?

We are a team in desperate need of some stability on defense. Owen Pickering is part of the solution, people. So enough with the trade proposals. We should be focused on trading away the players we no longer need (whether that is because they were more Sullivan guys, or whether that is because we need to make room for the younger players in the system.)

Acciari might get back to what he once was before Sullivan, but I would rather move him because he still has value to other teams. Ryan Shea is clearly a Mike Sullivan creation. Send him to the Rangers. Thomas Novak just got here, so it is a little unfair to put him in this category but if were are trying to improve the team, he should be made available. P.O Joseph is a player I like, he seems like a very likeable player. I would not qualify him. Fresh start for all parties there. Tristan Jarry has to go. Yeah he might thrive with more reliability in front of him but his time with the organization is done. If you need to throw players into deals, try to include the likes of Hayes, Heinen or Graves. If you can't, hope for the best that they can look better under a new bench boss. I like Timmins, Tomasino and Dewar and would qualify those three. But if you have to move them to improve the team, go for it. If someone wants Nedeljkovic as a backup, you have to listen for sure. And while Lizotte is an effective player, I do not think Malkin, Novak, Lizotte is anywhere near good enough down the middle. So if you can slide someone better somewhere down the middle, we should try to do so.

I actually like Dawson Mercer as a player. I would not mind acquiring him. I just don't want to break up this core group right away. I want to see what the new coach bump can do and then reevaluate at the 2026 trade deadline. I don't think that is an unreasonable strategy.

 

[SEALBound]

Butcher and Vesey are not worth 16th overall. And most of the players on that list are top 5 picks who were played one year when they won the award.

Caulfield is the closest to howard and he was only in the NCAA for 2 years. The others are nothing like howard

Also, guys like Caulfield, Conner who were mid to late first broke out earlier. I see no reason to think Howards value shot up that much.

Vesey, you're probably right. I would disagree with Butcher, though. Butcher was absolutely derailed by knee injuries that took away his speed and mobility—the two tools that made him so good. His first two seasons in NJ are exactly what we need out of a young dman.

I understanding looking at him NOW and the entire career, especially post injuries and not thinking he's worth much, but his first two seasons in the NHL - yes. You could not have got him for a late 1st in 2017-2019.

Also, I don't think his value has "shot up". I think using that term and that argument highlights how little you may know about this upcoming draft. Not all picks are the same from year to year. 2025 is widely recognized as a weak draft. The 16ov doesn't hold the same value as what the 16ov in 2026 might - which is widely believed to be a strong draft. Easy way to demonstrate this - look at 1st overall picks. Certainly, you wouldn't argue that Crosby or McDavid are of the same value as RNH, Hall, or Yakupov because they are 1st overall, right? Look at 16 in 2025, it's likely equivalent to a late 1st in a strong draft - maybe 25th or so? I don't consider that "shooting up in value". I think that's the difference between a late 1st being a "known" vs "unknown".

If you don't agree, fine.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

View attachment 1033926

 

[eXile3]

Fair, but in the last 15 years, there are more quality NHL players that were winners than not.

2010 Blake Geoffrion
2011 Andy Miele
2012 Jack Connolly
2013 Drew LeBlanc
2014 Johnny Gaudreau
2015 Jack Eichel
2016 Jimmy Vesey
2017 Will Butcher
2018 Adam Gaudette
2019 Cale Makar
2020 Scott Perunovich
2021 Cole Caufield
2022 Dryden McKay
2023 Adam Fantilli
2024 Macklin Celebrini
2025 Isaac Howard

In the last 12, 10 have turned into regular NHL players.

It seems as the US has become better at developing players they’re attracting better talents. Fantilli, Celebrini, Makar all Canadian. It’s definitely a much better league than it used to be.

 

[SEALBound]

It seems as the US has become better at developing players they’re attracting better talents. Fantilli, Celebrini, Makar all Canadian. It’s definitely a much better league than it used to be.

The NCAA product is about to get a whole lot better with CHL players being able to make the jump.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Late to the discussion, but I don't know that I'd agree with saying that 16th overall for Howard is too much. Between the draft being bad and there likely being a lot of interest in Howard, I can definitely see a team with multiple 1sts sacrificing one of them to get Howard. I think it would be more likely a 1st around 25th overall, but I wouldn't rule out someone going a bit above that and offering that for Howard.

16th overall for Howard is a bit rich for my liking, but make it like 22nd overall and I'd do it pretty easily. Since the context was about the Rangers 1st, what I'd try to be doing is 12th overall to Philly for 24th and 25th overall and then flipping 25th overall to Tampa for Howard's rights.

That said, I pretty firmly want the Rangers pick in 2026 at this point so I would hope they just give the 2026 pick instead.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Pickering for Howard is the same as McGroarty for Yager.

It's probably a small upgrade, so I'd still do it, but I wouldn't be excited about it. Now, if they can flip some of these 2nd and 3rd round picks they have acquired for Howard, that's worth getting excited about.

Possibly. I don't want a minor upgrade. I want to take advantage of the situation.

This player wants an opportunity. I'd say Pittsburgh has it. Maybe seeing the fact McGroarty was up until the injury and how he had an opportunity makes him see us as one of the few teams he is interested in.

Right now Tampa if they do not sign him they get a late 2nd. Can't see why a mid 2nd + 3rd or another mid 2nd can't get it done.

 

[pistolpete11]

Possibly. I don't want a minor upgrade. I want to take advantage of the situation.

This player wants an opportunity. I'd say Pittsburgh has it. Maybe seeing the fact McGroarty was up until the injury and how he had an opportunity makes him see us as one of the few teams he is interested in.

Right now Tampa if they do not sign him they get a late 2nd. Can't see why a mid 2nd + 3rd or another mid 2nd can't get it done.

If he forces his way here, great. A 2nd+3rd is an easy 'yes' if you ask me.

But most likely they are bidding against other teams. So that's where a 1st and/or other prospects like Pickering come in. Tougher decision in that case.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I think there is a very real chance Howard just wants to pick a team next year and doesn’t get moved because no one can guarantee he’ll sign. But we’ll see.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think there's also a consideration of who the Penguins draft at #11 for how interested I'd be in Howard. If they take Eklund at #11, I'd be asking if they really need another speedy undersized winger like Howard in the system. That's not saying I wouldn't be interested in him, but I think I'd be less interested in him if they're also adding a similar prospect like Eklund to the system.

I don't want to draft based on need, but adding Howard to the system before the draft may make me put a bit more value on a LD prospect like Aitcheson or Smith.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I think Eklund and Howard are very different

Eklund = valuable B game if not scoring

Howard = not so much

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think Eklund and Howard are very different

Eklund = valuable B game if not scoring

Howard = not so much

My point was more about the "speedy undersized winger" part. I think Eklund is a better prospect because of his all around game, I'm just concerned they're going to be having too many small wingers as their top prospects between Eklund, Koivunen and Howard if they both draft Eklund and also trade for Howard.

 

[SEALBound]

Late to the discussion, but I don't know that I'd agree with saying that 16th overall for Howard is too much. Between the draft being bad and there likely being a lot of interest in Howard, I can definitely see a team with multiple 1sts sacrificing one of them to get Howard. I think it would be more likely a 1st around 25th overall, but I wouldn't rule out someone going a bit above that and offering that for Howard.

16th overall for Howard is a bit rich for my liking, but make it like 22nd overall and I'd do it pretty easily. Since the context was about the Rangers 1st, what I'd try to be doing is 12th overall to Philly for 24th and 25th overall and then flipping 25th overall to Tampa for Howard's rights.

That said, I pretty firmly want the Rangers pick in 2026 at this point so I would hope they just give the 2026 pick instead.

You could do a double trade back.

12+63 for 16+41
then
16 for 25+48 with Philly.

Then 25th for Howard and you can draft BPA at 41 and 48 which would similar to getting another set like Brunicke and Howe. There are definitely some guys in that range that I think would be worth the look: Cole McKinney, Ryker Lee, or if you believe my buddy over in Michigan - Will Horcoff. I also like Charlie Trethewey in that range as well. Pretty decent skater but not a super offensive guy. Reminds me a bit of Dumoulin.

I think Eklund, Cole McKinney, Charlie Trethewey, and Issac Howard would be a nice haul for the first two rounds - assuming you have two teams in Montreal and Philly wanting to move up. I have doubts that Philly wants to given the number of picks they have but they are one of the few with a combo of 1sts and 2nds that make sense.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

I've heard Eklund compared to Garland a bit. Any thoughts @CheckingLineCenter on how appropriate that comparison is?

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

My point was more about the "speedy undersized winger" part. I think Eklund is a better prospect because of his all around game, I'm just concerned they're going to be having too many small wingers as their top prospects between Eklund, Koivunen and Howard if they both draft Eklund and also trade for Howard.

Yeah I get the redundancy part I’m just saying I think it’s okay.

Plus it’s getting ahead ourselves. Fair if we are talking acquiring existing NHLers but I always think it’s a mistake to think like that on prospect/draft level. Not a single one of these guys has become a player yet. If all hit that’s a good thing and you have a nice asset or 2 for trade if you think there’s too much of the same archetype.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I've heard Eklund compared to Garland a bit. Any thoughts @CheckingLineCenter on how appropriate that comparison is?

I can see it. Eklund is bigger and better skater. Carries puck more too. Garland maybe better hands/soft skill? But both are smaller wings with some jam/fire/motor.

Comps never perfect but I think Jarvis is a decent one style wise for Eklund. Constant energy and motor and wants to carry the puck. Maybe not an elite passer.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

If he forces his way here, great. A 2nd+3rd is an easy 'yes' if you ask me.

But most likely they are bidding against other teams. So that's where a 1st and/or other prospects like Pickering come in. Tougher decision in that case.

I suppose for me I see we have 2 defensemen prospects in Brunicke and Pickering with real shots right now (possibly changes after the draft. Where we have Koivunen, McGroarty, Ilyin, Broz, and Howe.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think Garland is a reasonable projection for what Eklund ends up in the NHL, I think Eklund may have a bit more of an all around game but Garland doesn't exactly lack there either. I think Jarvis is the high end scenario but Garland is more of a reasonable expectation for what he ends up. A 2nd line, 50 point undersized winger with a high motor and some usefulness while not scoring.

 

[Jacob]

I can kind of see some Jarvis in him too. Not tall, and not very thick either, but tenacious. Skilled with a good offensive IQ but nothing elite. Shoot-first mentality.

If we draft Eklund I wouldn't be opposed to signing him and getting him in the system right away.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I can kind of see some Jarvis in him too. Not tall, and not very thick either, but tenacious. Skilled with a good offensive IQ but nothing elite. Shoot-first mentality.

If we draft Eklund I wouldn't be opposed to signing him and getting him in the system right away.

Yeah I think he’s a rare guy where it’s totally fine to throw him in the AHL in his D+1.

But Frondell I would leave in Sweden for another year or two IMO.

 

[eXile3]

I think Eklund and Howard are very different

Eklund = valuable B game if not scoring

Howard = not so much

Oh Howard’s scoring. Have you seen that flow? He should be acquired just for that.

 

[The Old Master]

Oh Howard’s scoring. Have you seen that flow? He should be acquired just for that.

are we talking hockey or babes?

 

[chethejet]

What hasn't been discussed is the rangers pick at 12. Lets assume the Rangers decide to give the pick this year. So Dubas either moves up or drafts what they have on their board. My guess is Dubas will package one of the forwards or Karlsson to add another pick to move up for a player they covet.