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

Status
Not open for further replies.
He previously had surgery to repair that hole, so it must have reappeared or it’s a new hole…he’s genetically predisposed to this…it’s scary
He did not have a procedure to repair the hole previously. It was diagnosed after his 2014 stroke, but Letang was advised he could continue playing with it.
 
He did not have a procedure to repair the hole previously. It was diagnosed after his 2014 stroke, but Letang was advised he could continue playing with it.
I remember reading some time after the first stroke that he had surgery (wasn’t immediately after) but perhaps I’m mistaken
 
The Tristan Jarry for Calvin Pickard trade will hit like crack
Yeah I mean jarrys a bum — but I mean go get some real bums who literally don’t have the talent for a 5 straight quality start hot streak. Like 26 year old Czech league FA or throw in Larsson.

I think everyone can agree we’re a one line team. But the funny thing is Sid got outscored 5v5.

And that’s what makes this season so frustrating to me. We are legitimately bad enough w/o trading Rakell. We just won random close games when we had the chance, scooped up loser points we didn’t necessarily deserve, and got some decent goaltending at the end of the season when we still could’ve tipped into the bottom 4-5.
 
I'm just going to ask. I'll preface by saying I hope he's healthy and happy. If 58 were to retire how does that affect our cap? Would the 6 million be opened up?
 
Yeah I mean jarrys a bum — but I mean go get some real bums who literally don’t have the talent for a 5 straight quality start hot streak. Like 26 year old Czech league FA or throw in Larsson.

I think everyone can agree we’re a one line team. But the funny thing is Sid got outscored 5v5.

And that’s what makes this season so frustrating to me. We are legitimately bad enough w/o trading Rakell. We just won random close games when we had the chance, scooped up loser points we didn’t necessarily deserve, and got some decent goaltending at the end of the season when we still could’ve tipped into the bottom 4-5.

Another year in the murk.

Hopefully Wes Clark can pull a rabbit out of his hat at the draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CheckingLineCenter
Funny how every other NHL coach who has had Granlund on their roster seems to have figured out how to make him useful. But yea, poor Sully.
We don't need a revisionist history on the Granlund trade. This is my post on this forum the day of the trade:

1. Granlund's 5v5 scoring is very poor. Only 17 points in 58 games this season. His per-60 rate is 12th out of 14 forwards on the team. Can he help our power play? Maybe. Last season was a bit better (29 in 82) but still nothing special and about average on the Preds.

2. He is a negative defensively - doesn't forecheck, doesn't do the dirty work you want from a centre. He's a pure skill playmaker who isn't good enough at evens to pull that off.

3. He's 30 and has two years left after this one at $5 million

4. I wasn't over the moon about Rakell but I think I was realistic about what he was and what he was capable of, having watched a lot of him for an article I wrote. I said he's not a player who can create that much for himself but if you put him next to an elite passer he'll put pucks in the net. I don't think his tenure with the Penguins has disproven that.

Raw point totals don't tell the story here. Granlund can still pass the puck at a very high level but that is all he can do at this point. He is not the player we needed.

San Jose was able to "make Granlund useful" because they were tanking and Granlund's ideal role in the NHL is soft playmaking centre in the top six of a team that doesn't need to care even a little bit about defence. If we played him as our 2nd line centre with Rakell + put him on PP1 or something he probably would have scored some points but we would have lost his minutes.

Dallas is "making Granlund useful" because they've been fortunate enough to get great goaltending when he's on the ice, covering up literally the worst defensive numbers in the league since the trade. It could really bite them in the ass in the playoffs and was not a trade I think they should have made.

Sullivan is not at fault for how Granlund performed here. He was handed a player that did not remotely fit and did not reorient the roster to try to make it fit. By at least one account Granlund was a pet project by one of the AGMs (I can't remember which one), so it actually wouldn't shock me if Sully wasn't super enamoured with the player before the trade.
 
Mikael Granlund wasn't going to replace Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Jake Guentzel, Rickard Rakell, Bryan Rust, or Jason Zucker in the top six. Not when they're all in the midst of 20+ goal seasons and not when they all played 78+ games.

Granlund had success in San Jose because someone needed to score.

He's had some offensive success so far in Dallas because he's riding the coattails of Matt Duchene and Mason Marchmant.

Granlund never should have been acquired. Pinning his usage on Sullivan when the real issue was Ron Hextall burning $5 million in cap and a 2nd round pick for a guy who didn't fit on the roster is just ridiculous.

So, yeah, context to a player's production and time on ice is important. If Ron Hextall understood that, maybe he'd still be employed.
Acquiring him was dumb and it shouldn’t have happened. This is very true… but they did acquire him and after they acquired him the way they used him was equally as dumb. Both of these things can be true. Of course it would have been better to just not trade for him. But once they did they should have utilized him in a better way. This isn’t that hard lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy Bizarre
Sullivan is not at fault for how Granlund performed here. He was handed a player that did not remotely fit and did not reorient the roster to try to make it fit. By at least one account Granlund was a pet project by one of the AGMs (I can't remember which one), so it actually wouldn't shock me if Sully wasn't super enamoured with the player before the trade.
Chris Pryor. Probably why he was shown the door at the same time as Hextall and Burke. Even FSG knew Pryor couldn't stick around to be evaluated by a new GM.
 
We don't need a revisionist history on the Granlund trade. This is my post on this forum the day of the trade:



San Jose was able to "make Granlund useful" because they were tanking and Granlund's ideal role in the NHL is soft playmaking centre in the top six of a team that doesn't need to care even a little bit about defence. If we played him as our 2nd line centre with Rakell + put him on PP1 or something he probably would have scored some points but we would have lost his minutes.

Dallas is "making Granlund useful" because they've been fortunate enough to get great goaltending when he's on the ice, covering up literally the worst defensive numbers in the league since the trade. It could really bite them in the ass in the playoffs and was not a trade I think they should have made.

Sullivan is not at fault for how Granlund performed here. He was handed a player that did not remotely fit and did not reorient the roster to try to make it fit. By at least one account Granlund was a pet project by one of the AGMs (I can't remember which one), so it actually wouldn't shock me if Sully wasn't super enamoured with the player before the trade.
There is no revisionist history. The Granlund trade was the final nail in the coffin for Hextall. It was a stupid panic move when he ran out of time trying to land bigger fish.

It is a fact that Granlund can be a useful player. He doesn’t play defense, just like 90% of the rest of the skilled wingers in the league. Sullivan put him on a 3rd line that was being deployed strictly as a defensive, shut down role.

Who is the bigger idiot in that scenario? The GM who traded for a mid player or the coach who played that player in the absolute worst possible position.
 
We don't need a revisionist history on the Granlund trade. This is my post on this forum the day of the trade:



San Jose was able to "make Granlund useful" because they were tanking and Granlund's ideal role in the NHL is soft playmaking centre in the top six of a team that doesn't need to care even a little bit about defence. If we played him as our 2nd line centre with Rakell + put him on PP1 or something he probably would have scored some points but we would have lost his minutes.

Dallas is "making Granlund useful" because they've been fortunate enough to get great goaltending when he's on the ice, covering up literally the worst defensive numbers in the league since the trade. It could really bite them in the ass in the playoffs and was not a trade I think they should have made.

Sullivan is not at fault for how Granlund performed here. He was handed a player that did not remotely fit and did not reorient the roster to try to make it fit. By at least one account Granlund was a pet project by one of the AGMs (I can't remember which one), so it actually wouldn't shock me if Sully wasn't super enamoured with the player before the trade.
It doesn’t matter if good ole Sully is enamored with a player or not. It’s literally his job to put players acquired in the best position to succeed. That helps both the player and the team. That was not done at all with Granlund. Should they have acquired him in the first place? Absolutely not, it was a terrible trade. But once that trade was made, it got worse by Sullivan pigeon holing him into a role he isn’t suited to play. Both things can be true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy Bizarre
There is no revisionist history. The Granlund trade was the final nail in the coffin for Hextall. It was a stupid panic move when he ran out of time trying to land bigger fish.

It is a fact that Granlund can be a useful player. He doesn’t play defense, just like 90% of the rest of the skilled wingers in the league. Sullivan put him on a 3rd line that was being deployed strictly as a defensive, shut down role.

Who is the bigger idiot in that scenario? The GM who traded for a mid player or the coach who played that player in the absolute worst possible position.
The problem with Granlund is that there are levels to "doesn't play defence" and in his case it tips him over into net negative territory.

But also, he's a pure playmaker. He especially was in 2022-23. That was what made him even more of a bizarre fit. Where exactly was Sullivan supposed to play him to maximize that? Was he supposed to punt Guentzel or Rust or Rakell or Zucker out of the top six? Was he supposed to put him on PP1? Hextall did not build a team that could just slot in a pure offensive soft playmaker onto the third line and there wasn't a hole in the top six for him. Sullivan was completely set up to fail with Granlund, especially when he was performing so badly at such a critical time that he didn't exactly have the time to focus on figuring out how to optimize him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry
If you don’t study history you’re doomed to have Mike Sullivan as your coach forever.
Ahh, but that's a separate matter. Sully is here, with a can a beer, Granlund has been gone for a couple years now.
 
Let’s just all agree we wish Granlund pulled a Luke Schenn and said he’s not playing here to save us from a stupid move by an incompetent GM.
Agreed except I am giving Mr. Kyle this summer as a last chance to prove he isn't incompetent (or at least deeply misguided)
 
Agreed except I am giving Mr. Kyle this summer as a last chance to prove he isn't incompetent (or at least deeply misguided)
I can already tell you what’s going to happen.

-Jarry stays
-Nobody wants Ned
-Gryzlek brought back for too many years (ie >1)
-Hallander fills the role of hyped up Euro forward who is healthy scratched by November 8.
-Letang LTIRetires which allows them to justify keeping EK
-1 or 2 Anthony Beauvillier tier UFAs are signed to 1 year deals
-Some people are hilariously disappointed when Mitch Marner does not sign here
 
I can already tell you what’s going to happen.

-Jarry stays
-Nobody wants Ned
-Gryzlek brought back for too many years (ie >1)
-Hallander fills the role of hyped up Euro forward who is healthy scratched by November 8.
-Letang LTIRetires which allows them to justify keeping EK
-1 or 2 Anthony Beauvillier tier UFAs are signed to 1 year deals
-Some people are hilariously disappointed when Mitch Marner does not sign here
if all of that happens + we trade Rakell or Rust, I'm fine with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad