Salary Cap: 24-25 Salary Thread Crosbicles Volume MXVI: Sad Penguins, no Ploffs, got tariffed instead

Status
Not open for further replies.
I put age down and mix on defense…that would apply, but I hold them a lot less responsible than Sullivan, Jarry and even Dubas
But the team wasn't going anywhere prior to Dubas being here. Now, not trading Rakell to help facilitate the tank. And destructively calling up the kids like he did cost us big time this draft. Complete and utter ineptitude and stupidity there no question!
 
Getting a player of Marner's caliber for free is never a "stupid" decision for a team.
Eh, vehemently disagree. Breaking it down; You're gonna have to get into a bidding war against probably 20 other teams in the league in order to lure him here. We'll just assume it'll be a $14M AAV x 7 year deal with a full NMC to get him to sign on to a dead franchise going nowhere (But he looooooves Sid! lol :eyeroll:) . This team's style and coach probably turns a 100pt dynamic winger into like an 80pt guy, hurting his value down the road when you try to move on from him. He's not young enough to be part of the long term plans post-Sid (not old by any means, but he's like a month out from 28 and probably like 33+ by the time this team is ready to potentially contend again, from an extremely optimistic standpoint via the next few drafts). He's not a "build around, cornerstone" player either imo, he's firmly in the Kessel category where he's very good, but best suited as a supporting cast piece where he's not the focus of the team building around him, and he's not the focus of the opposition's shutdown gameplan. He's also good enough to ratf*** this team's hopes of ending up with top 5 picks in the next few drafts, so it'll be more of this bullshit 8th-15th stuff.

No thanks. Dumb as shit. And it'd be dumb as shit for him to pick this shithole organization over any number of other options. If he wants to finally compete after a decade in Toronto, this isn't the place now or for the foreseeable future. If he wants money, he's getting that anywhere he goes. If he wants living situation, he's got way better spots to pick from than Pittsburgh. If he wants a team he can be a part of the growth into a competitor, he could go to San Jose or Chicago or Montreal or someplace else.

It could happen, and I'm sure this team's gonna kick the tires on him, I'm not discounting that fwiw--but it's f***ing dumb by all parties involved. No real way to sugarcoat it. It's a sloppy, desperate attempt to cut corners on a genuine rebuild that's almost assuredly just gonna be in vain and blow up in their face. Cool, we'll get two years of Sid+Marner, then what? You've ruined your shot at adding top flight draft talent which this team needs to add for the longterm health of the org, whether they or we want to admit it. Team still needs about a dozen other things before they're really in the conversation again. /shrug
 
Im not sure how you twist failing to deal Rak was anything less than a big f*** up.

I cant wait til Dubas is defended because of hindsight
Not defending it at all. I'm on record as he should have been moved. But I can see Dubas' pov. Especially if he's moved in the off-season when more teams are open to adding cap
 
Saying no to signing Mitch Marner because "you'll ruin your chance at getting a top flight draft talent" is literally the Family Guy mystery box meme.

Mitch Marner is a top flight draft talent that you'd have from his age 28-34 year old seasons. He is likely as good as any top-5 pick you'd be getting in the next 5 drafts, unless you luck into someone like McKenna or DuPont. It's getting essentially a free top-5 pick because Marner is a top end player in the NHL that you'd be lucky to pull off from a top-5 pick.

Feel free to say that Marner shouldn't want to sign here, but saying it would be stupid for the Penguins to sign him because "it ruins their chances at getting a top flight draft talent" is insanity. What adding Marner does is makes it possible that this team can be legitimately ready to contend in 2-3 years, especially if Crosby plays into his 40s. Crosby and Marner plus their current prospect pool, 4 1sts in the next 3 drafts (plus possibly more if they trade Rakell or Karlsson) and the excess of cap space they'd have should absolutely be enough to build a contender in the not too distant future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sideline
Yeah, and you're just continuing to spin your tires ad infinitum in this same Sabres-esque bullshit no man's land. Marner's a dumb idea. Great player, doesn't deserve anywhere near the amount of hate he gets from the Leafs fanbase or media, but makes zero sense to chase as a team in the Pens' position. Just a classic "can't see beyond the tip of my nose" shortsighted move, but, to your credit Emp, is exactly the type of stupid shit this team's likely to do.
 
Yeah, and you're just continuing to spin your tires ad infinitum in this same Sabres-esque bullshit no man's land. Marner's a dumb idea. Great player, doesn't deserve anywhere near the amount of hate he gets from the Leafs fanbase or media, but makes zero sense to chase as a team in the Pens' position. Just a classic "can't see beyond the tip of my nose" shortsighted move, but, to your credit Emp, is exactly the type of stupid shit this team's likely to do.

How is signing Marner any different than winning the draft lottery for McKenna next year? McKenna would also screw with their draft position and push them into the 8-15 range, which will prevent them from doing a "true rebuild".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sideline
Saying no to signing Mitch Marner because "you'll ruin your chance at getting a top flight draft talent" is literally the Family Guy mystery box meme.

Mitch Marner is a top flight draft talent that you'd have from his age 28-34 year old seasons. He is likely as good as any top-5 pick you'd be getting in the next 5 drafts, unless you luck into someone like McKenna or DuPont. It's getting essentially a free top-5 pick because Marner is a top end player in the NHL that you'd be lucky to pull off from a top-5 pick.

Feel free to say that Marner shouldn't want to sign here, but saying it would be stupid for the Penguins to sign him because "it ruins their chances at getting a top flight draft talent" is insanity. What adding Marner does is makes it possible that this team can be legitimately ready to contend in 2-3 years, especially if Crosby plays into his 40s. Crosby and Marner plus their current prospect pool, 4 1sts in the next 3 drafts (plus possibly more if they trade Rakell or Karlsson) and the excess of cap space they'd have should absolutely be enough to build a contender in the not too distant future.
Insanity is blowing a f***ing massive wad on cap space for Marner while keeping Sullivan as coach and expecting something different.

Because now you f***ing suck yet again but you have another massive cap hit player and now you won’t even draft high enough to wash this shit sandwich down.
 
Rakell will also be 33 next year, could get injured and no guarantee he'll duplicate the career year he had. No, it was a mistake. He should have been moved and keeping him will cost us in our draft positioning this year.
I said same on deadline day. He could still get the same value before next season when most teams aren't near/up against the cap. Just not the overpayment he might've been looking for.
 
Sullivan apparently doesn't see the standings. Pens just are losing top 6 centers here and that is just going to limit them in the rebuild. Maybe O'Brien falls to 10 but man just how do you screw up the chance to get a quality top 6 center. So F'N stupid.
 
Sullivan apparently doesn't see the standings. Pens just are losing top 6 centers here and that is just going to limit them in the rebuild. Maybe O'Brien falls to 10 but man just how do you screw up the chance to get a quality top 6 center. So F'N stupid.

Their draft position has literally not changed for about 6 weeks.

They've been sitting at #6-#8 for weeks. If they lose today, their pick is guaranteed to be #9 or higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OtherThingsILike
Yes but they had a shot at top 4 or 5 three weeks ago. These wins mean nothing. Oh well, maybe lottery luck but I prefer that magic ping pong ball next year.
 
Yes but they had a shot at top 4 or 5 three weeks ago. These wins mean nothing. Oh well, maybe lottery luck but I prefer that magic ping pong ball next year.

This is the issue with assuming teams will tank.

People say strip down the Penguins. If they still have Sid, Malkin, and EK, I guarantee they are somehow better.

The issue with the Penguins the past few years if focusing on old players who are slow. Adding in hungry young players who can skate is probably resulting in us being where we are now.

The reality is the teardown isn't coming until Sid retires.
 
it doesn't matter where we finish. the player we dreamed of getting will fall to the team that picks right before we do and they will grab him. i will start throwing things at the tv, kick the dog etc. and you all know it's going to happen. :cry:
edit; been there, done that.
 
How is signing Marner any different than winning the draft lottery for McKenna next year? McKenna would also screw with their draft position and push them into the 8-15 range, which will prevent them from doing a "true rebuild".
Well, for one, you land a McKenna and you potentially get 20 years of a franchise pillar to build around. Not really comparable imo. Dude's putting up insane numbers in Junior that we haven't seen, legitimately, since Sid 20 years ago. Could be a Kucherov in that he's a guy you make your franchise cornerstone, capable of carrying a team through the season/playoffs even though he's a winger as opposed to a center or blueliner. Sure, he could bust, but we'll see. That's the risk you gotta take in order to end up with a franchise icon for decades. You don't pass on a shot at landing MacKinnon because you have the opportunity to sign Kovalchuk or whatever.

Marner, you're getting the tail end of his prime years at 28, and it's with a team that's going nowhere--with or without Marner. How is this a comparable, even? The goal is to build back up through the draft. Not to emulate the Rangers, who for all of their regular season success the past few years, have f*** all to show for it and may be on the verge of crashing out anyway after their like 4 years of relevance this past decade. If you land a McKenna, you've got a prized centerpiece to build around for maybe decades. With Marner, you're just locking into more of this same barely in, barely out WC bullshit that's just gonna end in unavoidable bottom feeder stuff when Sid retires anyway. Which, I guess if you give a shit about a "thanks for showing up, enjoy golfing in a week" playoff appearances, means something. I couldn't give a shit about being a barely there team, hovering around the fringes with no promise of long term competitiveness or anyway. The goal should be to get back to being Cup caliber, even if it means some genuinely lean years as this team navigates the end of Sid's career and the post-Sid turning of the page. This team's already been losing for years, it's time to get building blocks for losing.

I dunno man, shit's f***in' dumb. It's a sad, desperate clawing attempt to remain even an afterthought in the grand conversation, and stave off the tough but required rebuilding years that will be happening whether you, I, FSG, Dubas, or Sid wants 'em to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bambamcam4ever
Well, for one, you land a McKenna and you potentially get 20 years of a franchise pillar to build around. Not really comparable imo. Dude's putting up insane numbers in Junior that we haven't seen, legitimately, since Sid 20 years ago. Could be a Kucherov in that he's a guy you make your franchise cornerstone, capable of carrying a team through the season/playoffs even though he's a winger as opposed to a center or blueliner. Sure, he could bust, but we'll see. That's the risk you gotta take in order to end up with a franchise icon for decades. You don't pass on a shot at landing MacKinnon because you have the opportunity to sign Kovalchuk or whatever.

Marner, you're getting the tail end of his prime years at 28, and it's with a team that's going nowhere--with or without Marner. How is this a comparable, even? The goal is to build back up through the draft. Not to emulate the Rangers, who for all of their regular season success the past few years, have f*** all to show for it and may be on the verge of crashing out anyway after their like 4 years of relevance this past decade. If you land a McKenna, you've got a prized centerpiece to build around for maybe decades. With Marner, you're just locking into more of this same barely in, barely out WC bullshit that's just gonna end in unavoidable bottom feeder stuff when Sid retires anyway. Which, I guess if you give a shit about a "thanks for showing up, enjoy golfing in a week" playoff appearances, means something. I couldn't give a shit about being a barely there team, hovering around the fringes with no promise of long term competitiveness or anyway. The goal should be to get back to being Cup caliber, even if it means some genuinely lean years as this team navigates the end of Sid's career and the post-Sid turning of the page. This team's already been losing for years, it's time to get building blocks for losing.

I dunno man, shit's f***in' dumb. It's a sad, desperate clawing attempt to remain even an afterthought in the grand conversation, and stave off the tough but required rebuilding years that will be happening whether you, I, FSG, Dubas, or Sid wants 'em to.

You didn't answer my question. You said that Marner would be a bad signing because it would screw with their draft position and force them to be picking in the 8-15 range, meaning they'd fail to do a proper rebuild? Why is that a legitimate criticism to throw at signing Marner, but that somehow does not apply to McKenna? Yes, McKenna is younger, but the same exact logic applies to him. Getting McKenna next year will also screw with their draft pick and prevent them from "doing a proper rebuild".

This has nothing to do with McKenna being a potential franchise player versus what we know Marner is. It has to do with you not applying consistent arguments for McKenna that you're applying for Marner. If adding Marner is a negative because it prevents you from doing a "proper rebuild", then it's also a negative to win the draft lottery next year because McKenna will screw with your draft position just like Marner would. In fact, I'd pretty easily bet that McKenna would screw with your draft pick more than Marner would.

My point is that "it will screw with their draft pick and prevent them from doing a proper rebuild" isn't a legitimate argument against bringing in Marner. If you apply that logic to Marner, you should also be applying that logic to winning a draft lottery anytime in the near future, because any #1 pick you're going to get is going to do the same exact thing that Marner would to their draft position.
 
You didn't answer my question. You said that Marner would be a bad signing because it would screw with their draft position and force them to be picking in the 8-15 range, meaning they'd fail to do a proper rebuild? Why is that a legitimate criticism to throw at signing Marner, but that somehow does not apply to McKenna? Yes, McKenna is younger, but the same exact logic applies to him. Getting McKenna next year will also screw with their draft pick and prevent them from "doing a proper rebuild".

This has nothing to do with McKenna being a potential franchise player versus what we know Marner is. It has to do with you not applying consistent arguments for McKenna that you're applying for Marner. If adding Marner is a negative because it prevents you from doing a "proper rebuild", then it's also a negative to win the draft lottery next year because McKenna will screw with your draft position just like Marner would. In fact, I'd pretty easily bet that McKenna would screw with your draft pick more than Marner would.

My point is that "it will screw with their draft pick and prevent them from doing a proper rebuild" isn't a legitimate argument against bringing in Marner. If you apply that logic to Marner, you should also be applying that logic to winning a draft lottery anytime in the near future, because any #1 pick you're going to get is going to do the same exact thing that Marner would to their draft position.
if you get McKenna, you'll have your corner stone. Marner doesn't give you that. then you won't need another 1oa to build around him. you don't have the time to build around marner.
 
You didn't answer my question. You said that Marner would be a bad signing because it would screw with their draft position and force them to be picking in the 8-15 range, meaning they'd fail to do a proper rebuild? Why is that a legitimate criticism to throw at signing Marner, but that somehow does not apply to McKenna? Yes, McKenna is younger, but the same exact logic applies to him. Getting McKenna next year will also screw with their draft pick and prevent them from "doing a proper rebuild".

This has nothing to do with McKenna being a potential franchise player versus what we know Marner is. It has to do with you not applying consistent arguments for McKenna that you're applying for Marner. If adding Marner is a negative because it prevents you from doing a "proper rebuild", then it's also a negative to win the draft lottery next year because McKenna will screw with your draft position just like Marner would. In fact, I'd pretty easily bet that McKenna would screw with your draft pick more than Marner would.

My point is that "it will screw with their draft pick and prevent them from doing a proper rebuild" isn't a legitimate argument against bringing in Marner IMO.
The point of a f***ing rebuild is to land franchise cornerstone prospects like McKenna, Emp. I didn't think that had to be specifically written out here. You're doin' like a debate pervert bit at this point, right?. :laugh: Yeah, you're maybe losing out on your shot to land Dupont, but you're probably still picking top 10 until Sid retires and you have a f***ing Gavin McKenna in your organization's pocket. :laugh: This team can still tank with Sid (and McKenna!) if they do the commonsense thing and trade hangers on like Rust and Rakell. The Pens drafted Sid, he posted 100pts, and they still drafted 2nd overall that next summer. :laugh:

I'm just gonna have to agree to disagree and move on. This is f***in' dumb and I simply don't give a shit anymore. You're absolutely right; Go Marner. Throw a colossal deal at him that makes it impossible to get value in two years when Sid retires and the team pretty much bottoms out anyway. :laugh:
 
if you get McKenna, you'll have your corner stone. Marner doesn't give you that. then you won't need another 1oa to build around him. you don't have the time to build around marner.

Will you though?

He's an undersized winger. What team has built a franchise around that?

People need to stop taking CHL production as some type of feat. Lots of average looking prospects have been putting up big numbers in that league for the last few years. I understand they were older but, Cristall, Firkus, Steel. If McKenna goes into the NCAA and puts up Celebrini type production, I'll start being more a believer in him as "the next one", but Bedard was an incredibly elite goal scorer and is a 20 goal guy in the NHL.

I don't care if "he has no talent around him". The transfer of that skill from junior to the NHL raises huge questions about the competition in the W right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jared Grayden
if you get McKenna, you'll have your corner stone. Marner doesn't give you that. then you won't need another 1oa to build around him. you don't have the time to build around marner.

I agree that is a difference between them, but my point was regarding the "will ruin their ability to do a proper rebuild" point. I'm not saying Marner and McKenna are equal, but winning the McKenna lottery next year will have the same exact impact in terms of "ruining their rebuild" by "being good enough to ratf*** this team's hopes of ending up with top 5 picks in the next few drafts". I would even argue it has a larger impact, since McKenna projects to be better than Marner.

If you get McKenna and Crosby doesn't retire, it's very possible that the Penguins will be a playoff team in 2026-2027. I just don't see how you can reasonably apply that argument to Marner but not McKenna. My point is that I don't view that as a legitimate argument, and you shouldn't pass up on acquiring top tier talent just because you're worried it might lower your draft pick a bit.

Guys like Marner simply do not hit free agency, getting him signed to a long-term deal is basically like getting a free top-5 pick in my eyes.
 
Question for all you peeps,
How has Heinen looked since returning to the Pens and who do you see returning out of the RFAs/UFAs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad