Salary Cap: Penguins Salary Cap Thread: We suck again summer edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,543
86,068
Redmond, WA
This board has really gone galaxy brain on Granlund.

This is the same situation as Galchenyuk even if the player type is different. He isn't good enough to be in a good team's top 6, and he's pointless in a bottom 6. He serves little to no actual purpose and the idea that his value can be rehabbed in a perfect situation...possible but not likely. And if you're a rebuilding team you have to focus on developing your young players over rehabbing Granlund's value.

I agree with your post except for the bolded. Rebuilding Granlund's value would allow whatever team that acquires him to get a halfway decent asset back for him as a rental. Look at what Chicago did with Domi, they gave him prime offensive minutes and he produced well in that role. They got a 2nd out of the no-risk gamble.

Not only do you need to hit the cap floor, but you also need to at least pretend you're trying to win games. Putting your young players in a perpetual losing position is detrimental towards their development. Look at 2010s Oilers or the current Ducks as an example of that.

This may sound exaggerated, but rebuilding teams need reclamation projects like Granlund to both gain more assets and also play in sizable roles to prevent rushing the young players. The issue is that there are a lot of teams who have reclamation projects they want to dump and limited teams who would get value out of them.
 

Darren McCord

Registered User
Dec 15, 2015
10,020
8,370
Disagree. I can't stomach a $1.8mil cap hit for 3 years after this one. Just doesn't make sense for us. He's a trade or keep guy.

You don't move the first though with him.

I would rather a young dmen like Sandin or Lundkvist + 1.8 cap hit. (both went for a first)
Than moving Granlund and the first.

I doubt Granlund is moved at all though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Friggin Dummy

Randy Butternubs

Registurd User
Mar 15, 2008
30,420
22,349
Morningside
I liked the main pieces of the trade @Gurglesons put together: Granlund + assets for Barabanov.

Just didn't like that the 14th overall was thrown in.

And to Emp's point above, a SJS poster even pointed out that they could feed Granlund minutes/points and get value for him at the deadline.

edit: just cause of the Russian name, Barb reminds me of when I wanted Maxim Mamin. I kinda still do for cheap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry

Big Friggin Dummy

Registered User
Feb 22, 2019
25,852
24,999
You don't move the first though with him.

I would rather a young dmen like Sandin or Lundkvist + 1.8 cap hit. (both went for a first)
Than moving Granlund and the first.

I doubt Granlund is moved at all though.
The rumors that Toronto looked into and seriously considered trading for Granlund have not given me a ton of optimism that he's going to be moved. :laugh:

It was always kind of a long shot considering the price teams will probably ask to absorb his contract, but Seravalli talking about how the Leafs nearly acquired him last season probably puts a lid on it for now.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,543
86,068
Redmond, WA
I've been thinking about this a lot regarding Granlund recently, but I've been noticing it with other players as well. It's fascinating trying to figure out who has "positive" value and who has "negative" value. I feel like there are a ton of offense-first middle-6 players making similar money to Granlund, and whether they have positive or negative value seems almost arbitrary.

For example, Hoffman had 34 points in 67 games last year and Granlund had 41 points in 79 games, but I think both are viewed as having "negative" value. On the other side, Bjorkstrand had 45 points in 82 games and Teravainen had 37 points in 68 games, but I think both are viewed as having "positive" value.

Bjorkstrand is the really interesting one to me to compare to Granlund. Bjorkstrand had 4 years at $5.4 million a year left on his deal when he was traded to Seattle as a cap casualty last off-season. He had 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022, but he was also heavily reliant on powerplay production. 19 of his 57 points were on the powerplay and he was a -35 overall. He got less chances on the powerplay in Seattle and only had 45 points in 81 games in more of a middle-6 role. But I still feel like that this website would conclude he has positive value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,847
3,274
Florida
You don't move the first though with him.

I would rather a young dmen like Sandin or Lundkvist + 1.8 cap hit. (both went for a first)
Than moving Granlund and the first.

I doubt Granlund is moved at all though.

Dubas is making a point of cleaning up Burke/Hexy's mistakes. I'd be shocked if he ISN'T moved.

I think what we will see this Summer, and what has gone under-the-radar so far is what centered around Dubas/Crosby's conversation: players with an edge who want to win.

Sid's last shift this year said everything that needed said about this team [he utterly gave up and skated to the bench]- we went too off the deep end with players who are just living for per diem and playing vanilla hockey. That's just not a roster that can win. Petry, Granlund, Carter, Rust, Kappy, Blueger, Ruhwedel....just a bunch of guys that look like they belong in Toronto - they don't look like they give a flying F if we win or lose. Rust being the biggest shocker as he used to be a gamer then just took the Summer off last year. Petry sits there and whines about being popular in the room and Carter happy to collect a check,. No late hits. No edgy play.....we went from teams that had Hornqvist's, Hagelin's, Cole's...even Eric Fehr....guys that would put the knife in or play a little extra curricular to a team that looked (un)happy to be here....


What I'm saying is that Sid made it clear to Dubas that he wants to win and the team needs players that want to win. Not loser mentality guys who will go on to talk on podcasts about how great the checks were...but guys that lose teeth in persuit of victory. Who those guys are, we will see - but Granlund and these soft ass players are not them. That dude looked like an absolute ghost on the ice. The ironic thing is how much this team looks like what people complain about Toronto for: soulless. Is it Sully? Is it the lack of youth fighting for their lives at the NHL level? Is it the softness? Age? Leadership? Personally if I'm Dubas I don't even care - I assume it's everything and scorch this place. The more new faces the better next year. I don't care that Sid et all have complained about faces changing. Last year, and even the prior 4 were so outwardly sad that they don't get to make requests like that (not that I think Sid has...but comments like Letang on Dumo etc.).
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,847
3,274
Florida
I've been thinking about this a lot regarding Granlund recently, but I've been noticing it with other players as well. It's fascinating trying to figure out who has "positive" value and who has "negative" value. I feel like there are a ton of offense-first middle-6 players making similar money to Granlund, and whether they have positive or negative value seems almost arbitrary.

For example, Hoffman had 34 points in 67 games last year and Granlund had 41 points in 79 games, but I think both are viewed as having "negative" value. On the other side, Bjorkstrand had 45 points in 82 games and Teravainen had 37 points in 68 games, but I think both are viewed as having "positive" value.

Bjorkstrand is the really interesting one to me to compare to Granlund. Bjorkstrand had 4 years at $5.4 million a year left on his deal when he was traded to Seattle as a cap casualty last off-season. He had 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022, but he was also heavily reliant on powerplay production. 19 of his 57 points were on the powerplay and he was a -35 overall. He got less chances on the powerplay in Seattle and only had 45 points in 81 games in more of a middle-6 role. But I still feel like that this website would conclude he has positive value.

Interesting topic that frankly you could have started an entire thread on. My take:

Player values are team/system, division, and contract specific in that order.

Ex1) Granlund could provide a good value for a team like Chicago: he gets points, power play, etc...enough so where they're not literally scoring 0 goals....but Granlund does not provide 'value' in the sense he's worth 'anything' to trade for (i.e. it would behoove Chicago to acquire him, but in the sense that they accept him with a middling pick...not that they actually target him.). Granlund is of ZERO value to a team like Tampa, Toronto...or what we all hope: Pittsburgh....teams looking to 'get over the hump'. Those teams need guys that put up points like Granlund, but on DOC money. They overpay top positions in hopes to get value from bottom positions. It's the only way. All the cup teams have a few guys at the top, and a few at the bottom....overpaying for that mid-tier performance is more of a hindrance to those guys.

Ex2) Patric Hornqvist, Tom Wilson, Matthew Tkachuk. What are these guys when ranked amongst their peers statistically? What about emotionally or in crunch time? You can value them at a dollar figure, or value them with 'intangibles'...or fankly actual measurable impact. The Pens used to have a team flush full of guys who were absolute aces at one thing - but just okay at others. The great thing about that is those guys can step up in 'those things' but their deficiencies can be made up by the top guys. Was Hornqvist great at skating, forechecking, etc.? Was he a top forward in the league? At 5M (?) was he not a guy every contender in the league would have loved...but a team (see above) that Chicago would have almost no use for OTHER than to flip to one of those contending teams for a haul. That's what it would be like for Wilson. The Tkachuk example is on where, you're not JUST paying for points/position like TO did with Matthews - he brings other things. Not many do.

So yeah, I think values cannot be determined league wide. They really never have been but the common fan might not see it that way. You have to take the team/system -assess their needs - then rank it against their own division - then take contracts in to effect and determine fit/retention etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat and ChaosAgent

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
96,300
78,208
Joshua Tree, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
I've been thinking about this a lot regarding Granlund recently, but I've been noticing it with other players as well. It's fascinating trying to figure out who has "positive" value and who has "negative" value. I feel like there are a ton of offense-first middle-6 players making similar money to Granlund, and whether they have positive or negative value seems almost arbitrary.

For example, Hoffman had 34 points in 67 games last year and Granlund had 41 points in 79 games, but I think both are viewed as having "negative" value. On the other side, Bjorkstrand had 45 points in 82 games and Teravainen had 37 points in 68 games, but I think both are viewed as having "positive" value.

Bjorkstrand is the really interesting one to me to compare to Granlund. Bjorkstrand had 4 years at $5.4 million a year left on his deal when he was traded to Seattle as a cap casualty last off-season. He had 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022, but he was also heavily reliant on powerplay production. 19 of his 57 points were on the powerplay and he was a -35 overall. He got less chances on the powerplay in Seattle and only had 45 points in 81 games in more of a middle-6 role. But I still feel like that this website would conclude he has positive value.




I think this might be the reason. Or you know. You watch the Kraken, Bjorkstrand is a totally different type of player.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,543
86,068
Redmond, WA




I think this might be the reason. Or you know. You watch the Kraken, Bjorkstrand is a totally different type of player.


I mean, I'm heavily skeptical of any analytical model that puts Bjorkstrand at the 92nd percentile of WAR in the NHL :dunno:

But back to the point I was making, a better comparison to make on this website's inconsistency is Bjorkstrand vs Garland. I think this website would claim Garland's value is negative while Bjorkstrand's value is positive, despite the two being extremely similar IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
18,561
12,606
I mean, I'm heavily skeptical of any analytical model that puts Bjorkstrand at the 92nd percentile of WAR in the NHL :dunno:

But back to the point I was making, a better comparison to make on this website's inconsistency is Bjorkstrand vs Garland. I think this website would claim Garland's value is negative while Bjorkstrand's value is positive, despite the two being extremely similar IMO.

I'd do Granlund + 3rd for Garland also.
 

Pancakes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2011
27,429
20,001
I really do not want to move Ty Smith over our 1st round pick this year. Smith was great in the minutes he played last year, is easily our best prospect under 24 and just had a relatively good AHL season given the circumstances.
I'd be fine with moving him. I don't think you can go into this season with both Smith and POJ playing regular minutes, so one of them probably should be dealt to address needs elsewhere.

Pick whichever one you like best and move the other.
 

Goalie_Bob

1992 Vezina (2nd)
Dec 30, 2005
4,468
2,162
Pittsburgh
I've been thinking about this a lot regarding Granlund recently, but I've been noticing it with other players as well. It's fascinating trying to figure out who has "positive" value and who has "negative" value. I feel like there are a ton of offense-first middle-6 players making similar money to Granlund, and whether they have positive or negative value seems almost arbitrary.

For example, Hoffman had 34 points in 67 games last year and Granlund had 41 points in 79 games, but I think both are viewed as having "negative" value. On the other side, Bjorkstrand had 45 points in 82 games and Teravainen had 37 points in 68 games, but I think both are viewed as having "positive" value.

Bjorkstrand is the really interesting one to me to compare to Granlund. Bjorkstrand had 4 years at $5.4 million a year left on his deal when he was traded to Seattle as a cap casualty last off-season. He had 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022, but he was also heavily reliant on powerplay production. 19 of his 57 points were on the powerplay and he was a -35 overall. He got less chances on the powerplay in Seattle and only had 45 points in 81 games in more of a middle-6 role. But I still feel like that this website would conclude he has positive value.

This is Hockey Futures, Bjorkstrand and Teraveinen are 3 years younger and thus better, what part of that do you not understand? :sarcasm:

Back to being a bit more serious, it's not just about points. Granlund receives the negative value tag because he is a small guy with zero edge that can't score goals and doesn't produce at even strength and is on the downward trajectory of his career.

The way I look at it, if he was a UFA tomorrow, how much would he get? I'm thinking a 2 year deal for around 2.5 AAV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
96,300
78,208
Joshua Tree, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
I mean, I'm heavily skeptical of any analytical model that puts Bjorkstrand at the 92nd percentile of WAR in the NHL :dunno:

But back to the point I was making, a better comparison to make on this website's inconsistency is Bjorkstrand vs Garland. I think this website would claim Garland's value is negative while Bjorkstrand's value is positive, despite the two being extremely similar IMO.

Like I said, I think the eye test would show you why Granlund and Bjorkstrand are seen as completely different players. Bjorkstrand is a forechecking speedster who has Granlund’s skill set. Granlund is 31, slow, and has an awful shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pancakes

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,543
86,068
Redmond, WA
This is Hockey Futures, Bjorkstrand and Teraveinen are 3 years younger and thus better, what part of that do you not understand? :sarcasm:

Back to being a bit more serious, it's not just about points. Granlund receives the negative value tag because he is a small guy with zero edge that can't score goals and doesn't produce at even strength and is on the downward trajectory of his career.

The way I look at it, if he was a UFA tomorrow, how much would he get? I'm thinking a 2 year deal for around 2.5 AAV.

Probably similar to Mike Hoffman when he got 3 years at $3.5 million. If he wouldn't have gotten traded to Pittsburgh, I'd probably guess even higher than that.

Ryan Strome got 5 years and $5 million last year. If Granlund would have hit UFA last year, he would have gotten a very similar contract. A bad 20 game stretch where the Penguins grossly misused him isn't going to have that major of an impact on his value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
96,300
78,208
Joshua Tree, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
Probably similar to Mike Hoffman when he got 3 years at $3.5 million. If he wouldn't have gotten traded to Pittsburgh, I'd probably guess even higher than that.

Ryan Strome got 5 years and $5 million last year. If Granlund would have hit UFA last year, he would have gotten a very similar contract. A bad 20 game stretch where the Penguins grossly misused him isn't going to have that major of an impact on his value.

This is a foolish line of thought.

Lucic and Neal got 6 x 6 and both immediately had no value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,543
86,068
Redmond, WA
Like I said, I think the eye test would show you why Granlund and Bjorkstrand are seen as completely different players. Bjorkstrand is a forechecking speedster who has Granlund’s skill set. Granlund is 31, slow, and has an awful shot.

You are aware Bjorkstrand is 28, right? It's bizarre to bring up Granlund being 31 as this massive issue.

There is obviously more to hockey than just points, but I think fans have both come to overrate analytics and underrate production in recent years. A guy who offers things beyond his offense is better than a guy who produces the same that doesn't offer anything beyond his offense obviously, but it almost seems like production is taking a back seat to analytics when production is actually the thing that wins you games.

This is a foolish line of thought.

Lucic and Neal got 6 x 6 and both immediately had no value.

What is a foolish line of though, that Granlund would have gotten a similar contract to Ryan Strome last off-season?
 

Sideline

Registered User
May 23, 2004
11,483
3,384
Jason Zucker is arguably a top 5 UFA forward option this summer. Lots of teams are about to sign players to deals that will make Granlund's look reasonable.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
96,300
78,208
Joshua Tree, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
You are aware Bjorkstrand is 28, right? It's bizarre to bring up Granlund being 31 as this massive issue.

There is obviously more to hockey than just points, but I think fans have both come to overrate analytics and underrate production in recent years. A guy who offers things beyond his offense is better than a guy who produces the same that doesn't offer anything beyond his offense obviously, but it almost seems like production is taking a back seat to analytics when production is actually the thing that wins you games.

From a points per 60 at 5v5 standpoint over the last three seasons Bjorkstrand was 133rd and Granlund was 408th.

He's 57th in the league at 5v5 over those three years versus 191st.

Is that analytics?

What is a foolish line of though, that Granlund would have gotten a similar contract to Ryan Strome last off-season?

It's foolish to think just because a player gets a UFA deal that he will have trade value.
 

Pancakes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2011
27,429
20,001
You are aware Bjorkstrand is 28, right? It's bizarre to bring up Granlund being 31 as this massive issue.

There is obviously more to hockey than just points, but I think fans have both come to overrate analytics and underrate production in recent years. A guy who offers things beyond his offense is better than a guy who produces the same that doesn't offer anything beyond his offense obviously, but it almost seems like production is taking a back seat to analytics when production is actually the thing that wins you games.
His production isn't that good though. Any halfway competent offensive player could put up a 50 point pace given top six minutes and loads of powerplay time.

People pump the tires of guys all the time who put up points primarily because of opportunity. Jeff Carter could probably come close to 50 points if Mike Sullivan gave him nothing but top six minutes and #1 pp time. And I don't think any of us would mistake Jeff Carter with being good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat and ChaosAgent

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
18,561
12,606
What is a foolish line of though, that Granlund would have gotten a similar contract to Ryan Strome last off-season?
Strome had 29 ES points in 56 games in 2021
39 ES points in 74 games in 2021-2022

Granlund had 36 ES points in 80 games in 2021-22
Granlund had 29 ES points in 79 games in 2023-2023

The productivity Strome provided was simply much better than what Granlund has provided over the last 2 years.

I don't think Granlund is more productive than a DOC if given the same usage, and DOC at least brings some speed and a tiny bit of snarl out there.
 

Big Friggin Dummy

Registered User
Feb 22, 2019
25,852
24,999
Granlund's not Jack Johnson. He's not a player with catastrophically negative value--but he's not good, at all, and he's an awful fit for this team on top of that. He's a bad or downright terrible fit on all four forward lines, imo.

Do I think he's movable? Probably, but you're gonna have to part with an asset of some value, and teams don't like doing that. Especially teams several years deep into masquerading as relevant. If the price is too high to unload his contract, the team probably just keeps him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pancakes

Pancakes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2011
27,429
20,001
Granlund's not Jack Johnson. He's not a player with catastrophically negative value--but he's not good, at all, and he's an awful fit for this team on top of that. He's a bad or downright terrible fit on all four forward lines, imo.

Do I think he's movable? Probably, but you're gonna have to part with an asset of some value, and teams don't like doing that. Especially teams several years deep into masquerading as relevant. If the price is too high to unload his contract, the team probably just keeps him.
He's worth a buyout if you have a clear upgrade path for the cap space you gain from doing so. But I wouldn't do it just to do it. He's not that bad. But if it's like oh we can get [good player] with the extra space...yeah, go for it. The cap penalty isn't that bad or that long.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
96,300
78,208
Joshua Tree, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
Strome had 29 ES points in 56 games in 2021
39 ES points in 74 games in 2021-2022

Granlund had 36 ES points in 80 games in 2021-22
Granlund had 29 ES points in 79 games in 2023-2023

The productivity Strome provided was simply much better than what Granlund has provided over the last 2 years.

I don't think Granlund is more productive than a DOC if given the same usage, and DOC at least brings some speed and a tiny bit of snarl out there.

If you tried to move Ryan Strome right now he'd cost you to move.

That's why the last time he was traded he was moved for Ryan Spooner.

Just because he got 5 x 5 because a team like Anaheim was desperate doesn't meant he suddenly has positive value.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,543
86,068
Redmond, WA
Strome had 29 ES points in 56 games in 2021
39 ES points in 74 games in 2021-2022

Granlund had 36 ES points in 80 games in 2021-22
Granlund had 29 ES points in 79 games in 2023-2023

The productivity Strome provided was simply much better than what Granlund has provided over the last 2 years.

I don't think Granlund is more productive than a DOC if given the same usage, and DOC at least brings some speed and a tiny bit of snarl out there.

Why are you including Granlund's 2022-2023 numbers when I specifically said that this is what he would have gotten if he was a free agent last off-season?

Granlund had 36 ES points and 65 points overall in 2021-2022. Strome had 39 ES points and 54 points in 2021-2022. Granlund absolutely would have been paid similarly to Strome last off-season. Including his terrible season this year would bring him down closer to what Hoffman is making at $3.5 million a year.

If you tried to move Ryan Strome right now he'd cost you to move.

That's why the last time he was traded he was moved for Ryan Spooner.

Just because he got 5 x 5 because a team like Anaheim was desperate doesn't meant he suddenly has value.

Literally no one said this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad