Confirmed with Link: Penguins Extend Rutherford Through 2021-22
- Thread starter turd
- Start date
Personally, if he goes winless the rest of the way, it'll be hard not to fault extending him. A contract extension shouldn't be thanks for previous work, it should be given in anticipation of what the future holds.
It's not hard right now to call the possibility that it'll go wrong. I'm not nearly as down on him as some, but I think there's a reinvention test here that he's yet to pass.
ncm7772
Registered User
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Just throwing this out there, these are the NHL impact moves JR has made since the Penguins won their cup in 2017:
1. Paid a 2nd to Vegas to ensure they'd take Fleury, when McPhee was planning on taking Fleury all along. I should note that other teams were trying to get Rust via Vegas, so I can't complain about this too much.
2. Traded Sundqvist and a 1st for Reaves and a 2nd.
3. Let Bonino, Daley, Kunitz, Cullen and Hainsey walk as free agents
4. Re-signed Sheary for 3 years at $3 million
5. Re-signed Schultz for 3 years at $5.5 million
6. Re-signed Dumoulin for 6 years at $4.1 million
7. Signed Hunwick for 3 years at $2.25 million and Niemi for 1 year at $700k as free agents
8. Had no backup option after re-signing Cullen, so they entered 2017-2018 with McKegg and Rowney as their bottom-6 centers.
9. Traded Pouliot for Pedan and a 4th
10. Traded Wilson and a 3rd for Sheahan and a 5th
11. Essentially traded Archibald for Oleksiak
12. Made that ultra complicated 3-way trade, which ended up being Cole, Reaves, Gustavsson and a 1st for Brassard and Lindberg.
13. Re-signed Hornqvist for 5 years at $5.3 million
14. Traded Sheary and Hunwick for a 4th
15. Re-signed Simon and Sprong for 2 years at $750k
16. Signed Riikola to a 1 year ELC
17. Re-signed Sheahan for 1 year at $2.1 million
18. Re-signed Rust for 4 years at $3.5 million
19. Re-signed Oleksiak for 3 years at $2.1ish million
20. Signed Johnson for 5 years at $3.25 million, Cullen for 1 year at $650k and Grant for 1 year at $650k
Of these moves, how many of these moves are either good moves or panned out well for the Penguins? About 5 of them? I forgot to include some (like signing DeSmith and re-signing Ruhwedel), but even with those, how many good moves are there here? Riikola to an ELC looks promising, the Simon contract looks great and the Oleksiak and Sheahan trades were good (but not what they re-signed them to), but the rest either haven't panned out or were bad moves.
1. Paid a 2nd to Vegas to ensure they'd take Fleury, when McPhee was planning on taking Fleury all along. I should note that other teams were trying to get Rust via Vegas, so I can't complain about this too much.
2. Traded Sundqvist and a 1st for Reaves and a 2nd.
3. Let Bonino, Daley, Kunitz, Cullen and Hainsey walk as free agents
4. Re-signed Sheary for 3 years at $3 million
5. Re-signed Schultz for 3 years at $5.5 million
6. Re-signed Dumoulin for 6 years at $4.1 million
7. Signed Hunwick for 3 years at $2.25 million and Niemi for 1 year at $700k as free agents
8. Had no backup option after re-signing Cullen, so they entered 2017-2018 with McKegg and Rowney as their bottom-6 centers.
9. Traded Pouliot for Pedan and a 4th
10. Traded Wilson and a 3rd for Sheahan and a 5th
11. Essentially traded Archibald for Oleksiak
12. Made that ultra complicated 3-way trade, which ended up being Cole, Reaves, Gustavsson and a 1st for Brassard and Lindberg.
13. Re-signed Hornqvist for 5 years at $5.3 million
14. Traded Sheary and Hunwick for a 4th
15. Re-signed Simon and Sprong for 2 years at $750k
16. Signed Riikola to a 1 year ELC
17. Re-signed Sheahan for 1 year at $2.1 million
18. Re-signed Rust for 4 years at $3.5 million
19. Re-signed Oleksiak for 3 years at $2.1ish million
20. Signed Johnson for 5 years at $3.25 million, Cullen for 1 year at $650k and Grant for 1 year at $650k
Of these moves, how many of these moves are either good moves or panned out well for the Penguins? About 5 of them? I forgot to include some (like signing DeSmith and re-signing Ruhwedel), but even with those, how many good moves are there here? Riikola to an ELC looks promising, the Simon contract looks great and the Oleksiak and Sheahan trades were good (but not what they re-signed them to), but the rest either haven't panned out or were bad moves.
It's hard not to believe in his vision when he was able to have success with it, so I don't fault the extension.
I don't know that I agree he needs to reinvent things. His original concept he used to win two cups with (speed and skill) still applies. If he retooled our defense to be faster and more skilled, and did the same with our bottom six, I think we'd be right back to being the team that won two cups. There's still plenty of speed and skill on this team. But there's also enough useless players now that there are some cracks in our armor.
SomeDude
Registered User
It’s almost like a bad 10 game streak is, now stay with me here, not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things.
Like all of that is good except for 2, 7, 8, 14, and 19. And 19 was spurred by Crosby, so while JR ultimately pulled the trigger I wonder how much blame to place there.
Son Goku
henlo u stinky egg
If speed and skill is still the concept, I have to seriously question his judgment of players and question some of the statements to the press about seeking to get more physical. I find it more likely - and less worrying - that the concept has changed somewhat.
But even if the concept is the exact same, he still needs to reinvent the roster that executes it. And its one thing to tweak a roster you inherit, another to tweak your own roster.
You forgot to mention Oleksiak's new contract btw.
I'd describe that as mostly a long list of small nods, shrugs and small shakes of the head. There's very little there that's disturbingly bad (pending Johnson, Hunwick is currently the worst move made and frankly he's chump change in the grand scale of things) and very little that makes you go "Whoooo!". Brassard was meant to be that moment but we'll see.
In other words, its basically the same roster we had after the 2017 people left minus a few minor shuffles.
And I have to say that, while letting all those guys walk was the right move, he has arguably struggled big time to replace them as a group and that this is leaving quite the impact.
edit: Even if a lot of the guys who left had already failed to replaced the 15-16 versions of themselves.
Also, that was a lot of locker room voices leaving in one big chunk. And now we've got a locker room that seems a bit brittle.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
I think you and I have different definitions of "good". Paying Schultz $5.5 million after he had 1 good year isn't "good". Letting all of those guys walk in 2017. while not addressing the holes they left, isn't "good". The Brassard trade hasn't panned out at all, same with the Rust extension.
The ones that I would say were actually good are the Dumoulin and Sheary contracts, the Sheahan trade, the Oleksiak trade, the Riikola ELC and the Simon contract. That's about all that I would call "good".
Yeah, I added the Oleksiak contract in with an edit. I agree with most of what you said, a lot of those moves aren't terrible. They're just not that good. I think "Acceptable" is a fair word to use, it's neither good or bad. I wouldn't call Hornqvist's extension "good", I'd call it "acceptable". Same thing with the Schultz contract.
I don't get how anyone can look at what's happening to us this year without Schultz, and what happened to us last year without Schultz, and object to paying him 5.5m.
Not to mention its a tad inconsistent to complain about not addressing the holes left by letting other free agents go while complaining about keeping another
Empoleon8771
Registered User
I don't get how anyone can look at what's happening to us this year without Schultz, and what happened to us last year without Schultz, and object to paying him 5.5m.
Not to mention its a tad inconsistent to complain about not addressing the holes left by letting other free agents go while complaining about keeping another
I don't have a problem with keeping Schultz, I have a problem with giving Schultz that huge of a contract after 1 good year. I don't dislike keeping him at all, I have a problem with the contract that they gave him. If he would have signed for 3 year at say $4.5 million, it would definitely fall in the "good" category. It's similar with Hornqvist, had he signed for 3 years instead of 5 (or was it 6?), I'd be saying it was a good move. Rutherford has had a problem in free agency with being incapable of signing players to good value deals, for the most part.
I wouldn't say those moves were bad, though. I like your word of "acceptable", they're fine. They're just not good or bad.
zero8771
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2012
- 2,339
- 712
Haters gonna hate.I don't get how anyone can look at what's happening to us this year without Schultz, and what happened to us last year without Schultz, and object to paying him 5.5m.
Not to mention its a tad inconsistent to complain about not addressing the holes left by letting other free agents go while complaining about keeping another
Great extension for GMJR. I know he's not quite as good as the geniuses on this board but compared to the rest of the NHL he's a top GM. Now he doesn't need to feel bad about making some moves
Tom Hanks
Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
- Nov 10, 2017
- 30,456
- 32,530
The guy who left Tampa so he could be with his family full time in Detroit. That Yzerman?
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
Not freely available this season (still technically a Bolts employee) and there's roughly a 0% chance he'd choose us over Detroit anyway.
The timing is a bit off, but no part of me is surprised by this. Once Rutherford got that second ring he bought himself the right to dictate when he steps away.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Tom Hanks
Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
- Nov 10, 2017
- 30,456
- 32,530
I'm going to assume - maybe wrongly - that the choice was between keeping Schultz at that contract and not keeping Schultz. Which puts it down as "good" for me. Maybe a smaller cap hit could have been negotiated, I don't know, but you know someone else would have offered that money and we'd have had a tricky ugly time without him. Honestly, 5.5m for someone who has such a marked effect on the team seems pretty reasonable to me.
There's also the minor point that Rutherford was possibly keeping good faith with Schultz with that payment after getting him on a cheap show me deal the year before - I don't know what was said in the negotiations for the 1.4m deal, but if he's said "You succeed and I'll look after you", he does need to look after him.
As for Hornqvist... Horny for 3 years at that cap hit would be an insanely good move and one with very few precedents that I'm aware of. I think your expectations are too high if you think that was possible or only good. In a a world where Evander Kane got 7m the same summer, I think Horny at 5.3m is good.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
anyone else hate the center ice salute to fans by the losers?- Latest: Yozhik v tumane
