Post-Game Talk: Can't Capital-ize: 4-3 Sens

[Huffer]

If that's how you've interpreted my post your severely oversimplifying the situation.

Unless you've discovered a way to bend the space time continuum, yes there is such a thing as overkill. There is only so much icetime to go around. there is opportunity cost in the value of having a player fill a role that another one could (even though he may be able to do more with it).

You can run 2 pairs more equally? Ok, but why is that better, your #1 pair is now getting less ice time then it could effectively use.

if you don't think value gets lost in such a way then you won't see my point and I have to give up.


I guess it comes down to this: if i was building a team i'd rather have Crosby and Chara (or whoever else we abritrarily determine is the best dman in the league) then Crosby and Malkin.

Sorry, I just don't agree with you then. And that's not an oversimplification, the Crosby and Malkin example is the exact same thing. Time taken from one is time the other is not on the ice. You now say you would rather have Crosby and Chara, but that's also a preference. There is value in having Crosby and Chara, and there is value in having Crosby and Malkin and knowing you always have the best centre on the ice.

Not every team has to build their roster to play their top pair close to 30 minutes a night. There is value in having two extremely solid pairs that can handle 23+ minutes a night as well. That's how I would rather have it anyway, so that's my preference as well. Injuries and fatigue are also a factor. What happens to the Wild if they are in the playoffs and Suter goes down?

 

[surixon]

I doesn't seem like a lot of people understand that. Would Pittsburgh be better off with Bergeron and Shattenkirk (arbitrary #2 C and #2-3d) over Malkin? I believe so. Malkin is probably underutilized when playing on a team with Crosby. Maximize the talent within the cap. Malkin at $9m when playing $5.5m minutes isn't ideal.

Well Pitts is paying Letang 7 plus million now so they could theoretically have all three.

 

[pucka lucka]

Well Pitts is paying Letang 7 plus million now so they could theoretically have all three.

I was creating an example not trying to build their roster.

 

[scelaton]

Yes, I still move Buff over Bogo if Buff gets a 2C and Bogo gets a 1C.

I don't agree at all with your premise that somehow having Bogo and Trouba as top RHD is overkill. In that scenario if both still play on the right, we now have two excellent pairings anchored by #1 guys. And to top it off, Bogo is locked in at then a massive discount. That would be the best scenario, not the worst.

That's like saying why should the Penguins want Malkin? Crosby is already a number 1 centre. Why would a team want two number 1 centres?

There's no overfill. That value doesn't just get lost, it would just make both pairings that much stronger.

And if you're keeping Buff to be a #3RHD, you'll be paying him as a #1/2 D man to do it. That doesn't seem like a very good move. I would shudder to think what james10011 would think about paying Buff 7 million or more to be on the 2nd pair .

I usually agree with you, Huffer, but not in this case.
Bogo is not Crosby or Malkin, or Duchene or RNH. Not even close. But if we were offered one of the latter two 1Cs for him (we would obviously have to add), I would do it in a second. Then you address Buff separately.
OTOH, I wouldn't take a 2C for Buff; he's too valuable. The very fact that he was in discussion for the US Olympic team tells you that, even if you don't believe the fancy stats. You've got to wait for the right offer for Buff; it will come.
Best case scenario: We trade Buff for a 1C and Bogo blossoms. But the world may not work out that way and Chevy may need to do something else, something that hurts A LOT for the good of the team, if the right deal comes along.

 

[Grind]

Or you could put plugs on the bottom pairing and run the top 2 pairings harder. That way your number one pair still gets their minutes.

More than one way to skin a cat. I do agree that one of our RD should be moved this summer, but to me that's Buff.

You can do that with the plugs thing, but then it comes down to difficulty of acquiring assets. The point being, even in this situation it is easier to acquire a "suitable" middle forward (2c) and a "suitable" bottom pairing then it is to acquire an above average middle forward (or the hypothetical #1c forward) and below average bottom pairing.

I'm not even convinced it isn't buff myself, I just don't fathom how some people are so 100% hitched to buff like there's not even a discussion to be had.

 

[Grind]

Sorry, I just don't agree with you then. And that's not an oversimplification, the Crosby and Malkin example is the exact same thing. Time taken from one is time the other is not on the ice. You now say you would rather have Crosby and Chara, but that's also a preference. There is value in having Crosby and Chara, and there is value in having Crosby and Malkin and knowing you always have the best centre on the ice.

Not every team has to build their roster to play their top pair close to 30 minutes a night. There is value in having two extremely solid pairs that can handle 23+ minutes a night as well. That's how I would rather have it anyway, so that's my preference as well. Injuries and fatigue are also a factor. What happens to the Wild if they are in the playoffs and Suter goes down?

yes it is.

Assuming you are getting "equivilent value" to what malkin is, it makes sense to move him for a #1 dman. Why? because it's easier to acquire the #2 c and the #3 c to take the minutes and effectiveness that Malkin would have been, then it is to acquire a #1 dman. that's not an insignificant point in itself.

A good portion of malkins value is that he is an extremely rare piece (a bonifide #1 c). His team doesn't need another bonifide #1 C (but ahve obviously built their roster in this way).

From an "economic" standbpoint (not money, but player impact on the game) it would make more sense for pittsburg to replace malkin with other pieces and acquire a similarly rare piece at another position.

If i was gm Shero, I would trade malkin for a Dman or Wing with the same caphit, term, age and effectiveness at his position (essentially consensus top 4 in the league, though winger would have to be like top 2) if it was offered.

 

[Huffer]

I usually agree with you, Huffer, but not in this case.
Bogo is not Crosby or Malkin, or Duchene or RNH. Not even close. But if we were offered one of the latter two 1Cs for him (we would obviously have to add), I would do it in a second. Then you address Buff separately.
OTOH, I wouldn't take a 2C for Buff; he's too valuable. The very fact that he was in discussion for the US Olympic team tells you that, even if you don't believe the fancy stats. You've got to wait for the right offer for Buff; it will come.
Best case scenario: We trade Buff for a 1C and Bogo blossoms. But the world may not work out that way and Chevy may need to do something else, something that hurts A LOT for the good of the team, if the right deal comes along.

That's cool, but I also said Bogo could be moved for a high end C but that you would have to likely address Buff separately as well.

 

[surixon]

That's cool, but I also said Bogo could be moved for a high end C but that you would have to likely address Buff separately as well.

Let's be honest neither Buff or Bogo is likely bringing back a number one center.

With regards to Grinds comments via Buff vs Bogo. I don't give Buff a 2nd thought because we only control him for 2 more years, he's approaching the twilight of his career and he's been known not to take the best care of himself. Going forward with him longterm would be a massive risk IMO.

 

[Huffer]

yes it is.

Assuming you are getting "equivilent value" to what malkin is, it makes sense to move him for a #1 dman. Why? because it's easier to acquire the #2 c and the #3 c to take the minutes and effectiveness that Malkin would have been, then it is to acquire a #1 dman. that's not an insignificant point in itself.

A good portion of malkins value is that he is an extremely rare piece (a bonifide #1 c). His team doesn't need another bonifide #1 C (but ahve obviously built their roster in this way).

From an "economic" standbpoint (not money, but player impact on the game) it would make more sense for pittsburg to replace malkin with other pieces and acquire a similarly rare piece at another position.

If i was gm Shero, I would trade malkin for a Dman or Wing with the same caphit, term, age and effectiveness at his position (essentially consensus top 4 in the league, though winger would have to be like top 2) if it was offered.

So why haven't the Penguins done that yet? Why didn't they trade Malkin for Weber? Why did they just resign both Crosby and Malkin?

Not saying that moving Malkin and getting a Weber would be a bad thing, but you thinking it is somehow factually the only correct move to make is not true.

And while getting a 2C to replace Malkin's minutes is easier, how does a lesser #2C replace Malkin's effectiveness? That doesn't happen.

 

[Huffer]

Let's be honest neither Buff or Bogo is likely bringing back a number one center.

With regards to Grinds comments via Buff vs Bogo. I don't give Buff a 2nd thought because we only control him for 2 more years, he's approaching the twilight of his career and he's been known not to take the best care of himself. Going forward with him longterm would be a massive risk IMO.

Agreed.

 

[pucka lucka]

So why haven't the Penguins done that yet? Why didn't they trade Malkin for Weber? Why did they just resign both Crosby and Malkin?

Not saying that moving Malkin and getting a Weber would be a bad thing, but you thinking it is somehow factually the only correct move to make is not true.

And while getting a 2C to replace Malkin's minutes is easier, how does a lesser #2C replace Malkin's effectiveness? That doesn't happen.

Why didn't they? How many times has a close to generational talent been traded in his early 20's? Is it zero? There are many reasons for this and a few aren't hockey related.

 

[pucka lucka]

Let's be honest neither Buff or Bogo is likely bringing back a number one center.

With regards to Grinds comments via Buff vs Bogo. I don't give Buff a 2nd thought because we only control him for 2 more years, he's approaching the twilight of his career and he's been known not to take the best care of himself. Going forward with him longterm would be a massive risk IMO.

Buff has also played like an elite d-man. We have a partial season of Bogo playing like a top 5. You really don't see the difference? You seems willing to risk a lot on very little.

 

[Huffer]

Why didn't they? How many times has a close to generational talent been traded in his early 20's? Is it zero? There are many reasons for this and a few aren't hockey related.

which is my point. Shero didn't all of a sudden panic and worry that he now was "stuck" with two excellent #1C's.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

IMHO, Buff is a declining asset, while Bogo has potential for more upside. As surixon and Huffer have argued, I think that's why you have to consider moving him first.

2yrs out, you have Enström, Bogo, Trouba and Morrissey in the mix - all very good offensive defensemen, if not at the level of Buff. Mix in a good forward return for Buff, and I think you end up with a much more balanced lineup, with a good amount of scoring coming from the blue line.

We're getting OT, but the conversation is very interesting. Should move onto the pre-game, but don't want to shut this down yet.

 

[pucka lucka]

which is my point. Shero didn't all of a sudden panic and worry that he now was "stuck" with two excellent #1C's.

huh? that wasn't the point of anything I have said, and likely Grind.

 

[pucka lucka]

HF Jets seems like a battle between NT's and non-NT's. Hopefully someone has a clue what that means.

 

[Grind]

]So why haven't the Penguins done that yet[/B]? Why didn't they trade Malkin for Weber? Why did they just resign both Crosby and Malkin?

Not saying that moving Malkin and getting a Weber would be a bad thing, but you thinking it is somehow factually the only correct move to make is not true.

And while getting a 2C to replace Malkin's minutes is easier, how does a lesser #2C replace Malkin's effectiveness? That doesn't happen.

I don't think i said it was the only correct move. I"ve said what i would do, and i've explained the logic behind it. My whole point is not in saying what's the correct move, but pointing out that both are options.

Why hasn't shero moved malking for a #1 dman? maybe because at this moment there isn't a dman available of equal value? or because he already has a dman close enough in value that it doesn't make it worth while?

Your getting hung up on the specifics Huff. The examples are only being thrown around to illustrate the logic, including the discussion of bogo for a #1c. I don't think bogo's worth a #1 c. I Don't think buffs only worth a #2c.



My point was that if Bogo is so much more valuable to us then buff, then his return in a trade would be as well. If you don't think his trade value would mirror that, maybe we need to consider why?

Furthermore, and that even though running 2 awesome d pairs is great, he'd be worth more to a team that doesn't already have a #1 rhd dman then he would be to us and would thus give us identical assets at a position we require for him.


short version:

If i knew we could resign buff (a big if), i'd rather have a center equivelent of Bogosian, Trouba, and Buffliegn, then the Center equivelent of Bufflieng, Bogosian and Trouba.

 

[Huffer]

huh? that wasn't the point of anything I have said, and likely Grind.

The point was made that the Pens should move Malkin (or Crosby I guess) because having two #1C's is inefficient, and not the way a roster should be created. If there was indeed a hard and fast rule that all teams strive to follow, then maybe one of those guys would have been dealt by now. The fact that neither has shows that GM's are not working from a script.

What I'm saying is that there is no exact blueprint. Unless you have 0 depth, or 0 decent defenseman, having the problem of having two number 1C's is just organizational preference and the good luck of getting them. And they have built their team around it.

Not every team has the same blueprint. The pens are front loaded, the Bruins and Blues and balanced, etc.

And to go back to our team, having two potential top pairing quality guys playing on two pairings is not "in and of itself" a factually bad thing either. As long as you can build your roster around it as well.

 

[pucka lucka]

The point was made that the Pens should move Malkin (or Crosby I guess) because having two #1C's is inefficient, and not the way a roster should be created. If there was indeed a hard and fast rule that all teams strive to follow, then maybe one of those guys would have been dealt by now. The fact that neither has shows that GM's are not working from a script.

What I'm saying is that there is no exact blueprint. Unless you have 0 depth, or 0 decent defenseman, having the problem of having two number 1C's is just organizational preference and the good luck of getting them. And they have built their team around it.

Not every team has the same blueprint. The pens are front loaded, the Bruins and Blues and balanced, etc.

And to go back to our team, having two potential top pairing quality guys playing on two pairings is not "in and of itself" a factually bad thing either. As long as you can build your roster around it as well.

I was illustrating a point, not building the Penguins roster.

 

[Huffer]

I don't think i said it was the only correct move. I"ve said what i would do, and i've explained the logic behind it. My whole point is not in saying what's the correct move, but pointing out that both are options.

Why hasn't shero moved malking for a #1 dman? maybe because at this moment there isn't a dman available of equal value? or because he already has a dman close enough in value that it doesn't make it worth while?

Your getting hung up on the specifics Huff. The examples are only being thrown around to illustrate the logic, including the discussion of bogo for a #1c. I don't think bogo's worth a #1 c. I Don't think buffs only worth a #2c.



My point was that if Bogo is so much more valuable to us then buff, then his return in a trade would be as well. Furthermore, and that even though running 2 awesome d pairs is great, he'd be worth more to a team that doesn't already have a #1 rhd dman then he would be to us.

short version:

If i knew we could resign buff (a big if), i'd rather have a center equivelent of Bogosian, Trouba, and Buffliegn, then the Center equivelent of Bufflieng, Bogosian and Trouba.

What specifics am I getting hung on?

You're only looking at it from a very simplistic point of view then. Even if Bogo did return marginally more than Buff, that's not taking into account the contract situations to then be faced with in two years.

I'm not saying Bogo can no way no how be traded either. But this isn't a simple trade where the guy who gets the better return should be dealt. Trading Bogo over Buff necessitates cascading moves to compensate, and either Buff at a much higher cap hit, or another defenseman at an unknown caphit in the future would have to be signed to replace Bogo.

Is your short version saying you would rather have the centre version of Bogo, with Buff and Trouba as D, over the centre version of Buff, with Bogo and Trouba as D?

This is then the crux if that's the case.

I would much rather have the centre equivalent of Buff with Bogo and Trouba as D.

Have to agree to disagree then.

 

[meedle]

Let's be honest neither Buff or Bogo is likely bringing back a number one center.

With regards to Grinds comments via Buff vs Bogo. I don't give Buff a 2nd thought because we only control him for 2 more years, he's approaching the twilight of his career and he's been known not to take the best care of himself. Going forward with him longterm would be a massive risk IMO.

I agree as well. IMO the only reason you seen him in such good shape is the olympics. Now that he is out I'm sure going forward and next year we will see his weight bloat again. Won't be surprised if we hear the 300lbs number again.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

HF Jets seems like a battle between NT's and non-NT's. Hopefully someone has a clue what that means.

Are the non-NT's SJ's, SP's, or NF's?

Debate is good - whether or not I agree with others, it does give me pause to think and evaluate my positions.

 

[Grind]

What specifics am I getting hung on?

You're only looking at it from a very simplistic point of view then. Even if Bogo did return marginally more than Buff, that's not taking into account the contract situations to then be faced with in two years.

I'm not saying Bogo can no way no how be traded either. But this isn't a simple trade where the guy who gets the better return should be dealt. Trading Bogo over Buff necessitates cascading moves to compensate, and either Buff at a much higher cap hit, or another defenseman at an unknown caphit in the future would have to be signed to replace Bogo.

certainly. There's an argument to be made for either side. Y



I don't buy that buff is going to cost dramatically more then bogo and while performing at best the exact same way.


Buff will cost more then bogo, because for the first two years, he'll likely be a better defenceman then bogo. Will he cost more after? yes, but isn't having that bonified top pairing dman for the time beforehand worth something? If bogo's being overpaid right now why is his contract a good deal but this hypothetical byfuglien one won't be?


If it's so obviously written in stone that buff will be so crappy three years out, why do we assume GM's will pay him so much? Do Gm's not know the effects aging has on players?

And if "thats just the way it is" then surely buff's return would have to be miniscule when compared to bogo's, would it not? Or are we all operating on the assumption were smarter then all 30 NHL gm's?

EDIT: and yes, the short version is a big part of the crux. Ex: even with pittsburgh's altered system, I still feel you get better mileage out of one of them if the other isn't on the team.

 

[Bartho]

HF Jets seems like a battle between NT's and non-NT's. Hopefully someone has a clue what that means.

Does it mean we should be prepared for some halfheaded Psych 101 analysis?

 

[Jimby]

I believe he is saying he thinks half the people here are idiots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical

Does it mean we should be prepared for some halfheaded Psych 101 analysis?