Dejan Nails It (AKA You're Not Alone TenderRip)

[stepdad gaary]

Prove it.

you prove that he is expendable. wtf kind of statement is that

 

[Boocock]

Remove the whole year for both players then. It really doesn't effect the result.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate a look at the numbers.

Except we shouldn't be looking at either player being long-term options, so it's moot. Giving Sutter another significant raise after next year is a bad idea with Sundqvist playing well enough to make the Pens this year.

But, the Pens could hold onto Sutter and trade him when he's hit his potential, maximizing the value of the asset.

I understood perfectly. You can't remove the player from the context.

The eye test goes beyond this past year. And yes, you can remove him from the context. Dealing with absolutes isn't safe, you know?

It's not relevant. I don't make arguments to authority based on what Rutherford does or doesn't do. If I did, I'd be fine with Fleury's signing. I'm not.

That's a completely different matter entirely that would extend this debate for another two pages. Needless to say, though, I doubt Rutherford would turn down a deal involving Sutter for a winger if he felt that his third-line center could be properly replaced. It's not like he hasn't dealt Sutter for a top-six upgrade before.

He's been paired with quality possession players. Sutter is not a quality possession player.

He's great at controlling the puck and making smart plays.

Every season. And not marginally.

Sutter has taken more faceoffs, yet comes in at 53%. Goc? 56%.

No, he doesn't.

Yes, he really does.

Sutter's upside (again, moot) and goal-scoring (his only production advantage) shouldn't in any way deter Rutherford from moving him to secure Malkin's winger, if that's what it takes.

Sutter's upside isn't moot. If he reaches his potential while in Pittsburgh, his trade value will increase. Overall, I guess it really depends on the winger. For Perron? A joke of a deal. For a real impact player like Kane? Maybe.

Goc as Malkin's winger? I guess it'd be better than standing pat with the crap he has, but it's nothing I'd want to see for any extended period.

Of course not. But, it does have the potential to work well.

In the end, we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[KIRK]

If you have the time, I'd appreciate a look at the numbers.

But, the Pens could hold onto Sutter and trade him when he's hit his potential, maximizing the value of the asset.

The eye test goes beyond this past year. And yes, you can remove him from the context. Dealing with absolutes isn't safe, you know?

That's a completely different matter entirely that would extend this debate for another two pages. Needless to say, though, I doubt Rutherford would turn down a deal involving Sutter for a winger if he felt that his third-line center could be properly replaced. It's not like he hasn't dealt Sutter for a top-six upgrade before.

He's great at controlling the puck and making smart plays.

Sutter has taken more faceoffs, yet comes in at 53%. Goc? 56%.

Yes, he really does.

Sutter's upside isn't moot. If he reaches his potential while in Pittsburgh, his trade value will increase. Overall, I guess it really depends on the winger. For Perron? A joke of a deal. For a real impact player like Kane? Maybe.

Of course not. But, it does have the potential to work well.

In the end, we may have to agree to disagree.

Going to avoid the whole give and take in general, but I'd also try Goc on Malkin's wing for now . . . or at least for some shifts as part of a strategy to mix things up to maybe spark Malkin. It may not work, but Goc definitely is a guy I'd look to.

****, last game, Craig Adams-- Craig ******* Adams-- got a puck near center ice on his backhand and, in one motion, hit a streaking Goc with a backhand pass to set up a two on one. Bortuzzo, coming out early, worked a brilliant give and go with Geno last game.

When have you EVER seen Dupuis or Comeau do stuff like that for Malkin? I'm not sure that anything else will work, but what is there to lose by trying different things?

 

[Darth Vitale]

Dupuis has failed to mesh with Malkin every time he's ever been put on his line. Whereas he works OK with Crosby because of Crosby's style an need for a puck hound down low, he doesn't do anything to help Malkin. They do not work together and never will for any appreciable stretch of time. I guess we can't fault Johnston for this though because odds are he didn't specifically go looking for "the Disco tapes" on that topic.

But the longer he stays there, the more we can hold Liver Eating Johnston accountable. Dupuis belongs on the third line now, period. Nowhere else. Bennett would go a long way to solving this problem, if he could ever stay in the lineup for more than 10 games at a time.

Guess we'll have to wait and see if a trade is made.

 

[mpp9]

Sid's line is getting the easiest matchups on the team currently. Adams and Sill are hidden the most after them. Followed by Malkin's line. Then Sutter's line. Then Goc.

If Sid's line doesn't pick it up in terms of ES scoring, I'd definitely look to move Kunitz off. That guy is dragging them down.

 

[Darth Vitale]

I'd be OK putting Dupuis with Crosby and Hornqvist because he'd fit fine there (even though technically doesn't belong there). Kunitz with Malkin would in turn be much better for Geno.

 

[theicebox]

****, last game, Craig Adams-- Craig ******* Adams-- got a puck near center ice on his backhand and, in one motion

You better not be advocating this as a potential option...

 

[Boocock]

Going to avoid the whole give and take in general, but I'd also try Goc on Malkin's wing for now . . . or at least for some shifts as part of a strategy to mix things up to maybe spark Malkin. It may not work, but Goc definitely is a guy I'd look to.

****, last game, Craig Adams-- Craig ******* Adams-- got a puck near center ice on his backhand and, in one motion, hit a streaking Goc with a backhand pass to set up a two on one. Bortuzzo, coming out early, worked a brilliant give and go with Geno last game.

When have you EVER seen Dupuis or Comeau do stuff like that for Malkin? I'm not sure that anything else will work, but what is there to lose by trying different things?

Well, I've never seen Dupuis or Comeau do stuff like that for Malkin. They seem much more interested in working together, leaving Malkin out of the mix. Frankly, I think Dupuis and Comeau look great together, but terrible with Malkin. Slot Goc inbetween Dupuis and Comeau and you'll see some production. Unfortunately, that isn't an option.

The coaching staff may need to sit down and have a long talk with Malkin, Dupuis, and Comeau about the second line's expectations and issues. Eventually, they'll just need to make some changes.

Dupuis is a great glue guy, but I'd trade him in a heartbeat if it fixed Malkin's issues.

 

[mpp9]

For anyone interested.

Sid's still doing a good job in terms of possession, but with how that line is being used, they need to produce more, period.

And it's plain as day our 4th line will be so much better once Sill and Adams are out of the lineup. Goc is our D-zone specialist. And we'll be able to roll that line out instead of having to hide Adams and Sill.

 

[KIRK]

You better not be advocating this as a potential option...

I can assure you that my citing how Craig Adams has done more to set up Goc than Dupuis/Comeau have done to set up Geno is more an indictment of Dupuis/Comeau vis-a-vis how they work with Geno than an enndorsement of Malkin playing with Adams. ****, I feel dirty just having to type that.

Well, I've never seen Dupuis or Comeau do stuff like that for Malkin. They seem much more interested in working together, leaving Malkin out of the mix. Frankly, I think Dupuis and Comeau look great together, but terrible with Malkin. Slot Goc inbetween Dupuis and Comeau and you'll see some production. Unfortunately, that isn't an option.

The coaching staff may need to sit down and have a long talk with Malkin, Dupuis, and Comeau about the second line's expectations and issues. Eventually, they'll just need to make some changes.

Dupuis is a great glue guy, but I'd trade him in a heartbeat if it fixed Malkin's issues.

What if you simple flipped Spaling and Dupuis for a game . . . or flipped Sutter and Malkin?

Do you think that Dupuis-Sutter-Downie would be any less productive than Spaling-Sutter-Downie has been? Would Malkin be any less productive with Spaling and Comeau than he's been with Dupuis and Comeau?

Or, do you think, in the aggregate, 2/3 line combs of Spaling-Malkin-Downie + Dupuis-Sutter-Comeau would be any less productive than the current 2/3 line combos have been?

At the very least, wouldn't even minor juggles like that be worth trying? Some say 'well, that third line looks good'. I say 'it's not as if there aren't possible combos that wouldn't downgrade the third line AND enhance Malkin's effectiveness'. I mean, this isn't Cooke-Staal-Kennedy. It's not as if Spaling-Sutter-Downie is going to be your third line in the playoffs unless one of Dupuis or Bennett is on the fourth line in the playoffs OR JR adds nobody up front.

I'd be OK putting Dupuis with Crosby and Hornqvist because he'd fit fine there (even though technically doesn't belong there). Kunitz with Malkin would in turn be much better for Geno.

It's less noxious than Dupuis with Malkin (and Sid likely would be as productive with Dupuis and Horny as he's been with Kunitz and Horny), but it still means Dupuis in the top six. It would be like triage on the battlefield. It would arrest the bleeding in some measure without actually removing the bullet.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

If you have the time, I'd appreciate a look at the numbers.

You did a lot of legwork for some of your numbers, so no problem:

Goc, from '10-'11 to '12-'13: .47 PPG
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=51366

Sutter, from '10-'11 to '12-'13: .377 PPG
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=84687

Actually, looks like Goc was quite a bit more productive over that period.

But, the Pens could hold onto Sutter and trade him when he's hit his potential, maximizing the value of the asset.

If a legit top 6 wing option for Malkin became available contingent on Sutter, maximizing his trade value isn't really a priority.

The eye test goes beyond this past year. And yes, you can remove him from the context. Dealing with absolutes isn't safe, you know?

They're different kinds of players who have produced in different ways. The fact that Sutter does it with nice snipes off the rush doesn't affect my eye test.

That's a completely different matter entirely that would extend this debate for another two pages. Needless to say, though, I doubt Rutherford would turn down a deal involving Sutter for a winger if he felt that his third-line center could be properly replaced. It's not like he hasn't dealt Sutter for a top-six upgrade before.

Who says a top 6 winger was offered for Sutter?

He's great at controlling the puck and making smart plays.

I disagree. He's very weak on the puck.

Sutter has taken more faceoffs, yet comes in at 53%. Goc? 56%.

3% is a considerable difference, and the least pronounced difference between the two in years.

Sutter's upside isn't moot. If he reaches his potential while in Pittsburgh, his trade value will increase. Overall, I guess it really depends on the winger. For Perron? A joke of a deal. For a real impact player like Kane? Maybe.

I'd move Sutter for Perron in a heartbeat.

Of course not. But, it does have the potential to work well.

In the end, we may have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, we're at complete opposite ends of the spectrum here. You clearly value Sutter a lot more highly than I do.

 

[systemsgo]

I'd be willing to move Sutter for the right top 6 winger option as well. I just have an unsubstantiated feeling that he probably has bigger ambitions than being 3C (nothing wrong with that), with the 2 year contract leading him to UFA, if so, we would be able to fetch something more this year, than the next when he only has <1 year on his contract. Even if Sutter plays better next year, his trade value wouldn't necessarily be higher for just a rental.

Whereas the reason why Goc has a lower upside than Sutter is also why he would be more willing to stay as 3C/4C.

 

[Boocock]

Yeah, we're at complete opposite ends of the spectrum here. You clearly value Sutter a lot more highly than I do.

Obviously, but I have an issue with another one of your statements.

I'd move Sutter for Perron in a heartbeat.

I don't see Perron as being the top-six solution this team needs, at all. Rutherford can do better.

 

[KIRK]

Obviously, but I have an issue with another one of your statements.
I don't see Perron as being the top-six solution this team needs, at all. Rutherford can do better.

It's not a question of better. The question for me is whether removing Sutter from the bottom six is worth adding Perron instead of say Tlusty or Glencross.

I want one addition, a Stafford type. BUT, I want a second guy too, so it's not Beau's health or Dupuis back into the top six. I'd move Sutter to make that a huge impact guy. Perron doesn't quite qualify for me. I'd be happier keeping Sutter and renting a Tlusty or Glencross.

 

[NutCracker]

I have been saying this couple of weeks now.

Pens will not be contender if
1. both Kunitz and Dupuis are in the top-6
2. Letang is playing over 26min/g

 

[jdpitt05]

I think we just need 1 lw for Geno-Bennett via trade. Getting two top 6 wings I think is a little optimistic, especially if we want 2 above average ones.

Kunitz-Crosby-Hornqvist
Trade-Malkin-Bennett
Dupuis-Sutter-Downie
Spaling-Goc-Comeau

 

[KIRK]

I think we just need 1 lw for Geno-Bennett via trade. Getting two top 6 wings I think is a little optimistic, especially if we want 2 above average ones.

Kunitz-Crosby-Hornqvist
Trade-Malkin-Bennett
Dupuis-Sutter-Downie
Spaling-Goc-Comeau

1. That would give the coaches every reason simply to put Dupuis with Malkin and the acquisition and to use the Downie-Sutter-Bennett line they liked in the preseason.

2. Even if Bennett is with Malkin, you're one Bennett injury from Dupuis being right back in the top six. No thanks.

 

[jdpitt05]

1. That would give the coaches every reason simply to put Dupuis with Malkin and the acquisition and to use the Downie-Sutter-Bennett line they liked in the preseason.

2. Even if Bennett is with Malkin, you're one Bennett injury from Dupuis being right back in the top six. No thanks.

Bylsma is gone. Johnston isnt going to irrationally keep Dupuis there.

Im just preparing people who think were going to pull some blockbuster deals and get 2 top 6 wingers. .

 

[KIRK]

Bylsma is gone. Johnston isnt going to irrationally keep Dupuis there.

Im just preparing people who think were going to pull some blockbuster deals and get 2 top 6 wingers. .

So there's a rational reason for Dupuis being attached to Malkin's hip?

 

[jdpitt05]

So there's a rational reason for Dupuis being attached to Malkin's hip?

With the current roster and injury to Bennett he doesnt have much of a choice does he?

 

[KIRK]

With the current roster and injury to Bennett he doesnt have much of a choice does he?

Well, it's not like he could have Malkin center Goc and Comeau and expect them to have any luck entering the zone or scoring a goal, if that's what you mean.

 

[jdpitt05]

Well, it's not like he could have Malkin center Goc and Comeau and expect them to have any luck entering the zone or scoring a goal, if that's what you mean.

Eh not sure how much a difference of Dupuis to Goc would be. I'll defer to Johnstons judgement over us on hfboards here but of course I dont like Dupuis in the top 6 as much as anyone here.

Maybe its optimistic but I think if we acquire one top 6 winger this season Dupuis is out of the top 6 game 1 of the playoffs.

 

[KIRK]

Eh not sure how much a difference of Dupuis to Goc would be. I'll defer to Johnstons judgement over us on hfboards here but of course I dont like Dupuis in the top 6 as much as anyone here.

Maybe its optimistic but I think if we acquire one top 6 winger this season Dupuis is out of the top 6 game 1 of the playoffs.

Even Sill looked like a better option, hitting Malkin coming with speed in the neutral zone on Malkin's last shift of the Buffalo game. Malkin swooped in, dished to Borts, Borts hit the post. It's sad when even Sill and Adams are showing more smarts and vision than Dupuis.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I don't see Perron as being the top-six solution this team needs, at all. Rutherford can do better.

I'd love it if he did. But if he couldn't, I'd move Sutter for Perron.

 

[KIRK]

I'd love it if he did. But if he couldn't, I'd move Sutter for Perron.

That's not unfair. Not sure I would, but that's me . . .

On the thread in general, I've got to give you props. I figured, like Dejan alluded, that the PP scoring would mask the ES issues for a little longer, but you were sounding the alarm bells about the URGENCY of the matter from day one.

It's degenerated pretty quickly, and it's apparent that the staff has no clue what to do about it. When Malkin scores a goal with Goc and Comeau or makes something happen with Sill and then the next shift it's right back out with Dupuis, it's pretty clear JR needs to do something ASAP.

Thing tonight that was the breaking point wasn't even seeing Sill do stuff that Dupuis can't or the frustration of seeing Goc-Malkin-Comeau produce a Malkin goal and then never seeing that line again. It's seeing Malkin score and him being about as dispassionate about it I can recall him about scoring a goal. That's trouble, big trouble.