Gurglesons
Registered User
I think if you are making that deal you just give them 1sts and a 2nd.
Proposal: - Vej + Schmaltz to PIT
2023 1st 2024 1st 2024 2nd Ty Smith Rights Casey Desmith
Salary Cap: Penguins Salary Cap Thread: We suck again summer edition
- Thread starter Zirakzigil
- Start date
- Status
I think if you are making that deal you just give them 1sts and a 2nd.
Big Friggin Dummy
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2019
- 25,228
- 24,139
Apparently Keller's dad is causing a ruckus. There's a player that may shift this team from borderline WC team into something crazy like a team that's out in the 2nd round.
Lustaf
Registered User
Problem would be the cost to get him and other than sending Jake, I'm not sure how you manage it. Plus I don't think adding Keller and subtracting Jake actually makes you better.
Big Friggin Dummy
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2019
- 25,228
- 24,139
I'm not saying it's realistic. I was just kinda talking shit.
Keller's real good though. But much like every player who is real good, I doubt a package of a mid-1st, and some forgettable prospects gets the other team listening unless it's a Kessel situation where the player is handpicking Pittsburgh--and I have no f***ing idea why anybody would anymore.
Lustaf
Registered User
Well as long as we have reasonable expectations, I agree.I'm not saying it's realistic. I was just kinda talking shit.
Keller's real good though. But much like every player who is real good, I doubt a package of a mid-1st, and some forgettable prospects gets the other team listening unless it's a Kessel situation where the player is handpicking Pittsburgh--and I have no f***ing idea why anybody would anymore.
Maybe Keller use to grow up with a Sidney Crosby pillow.
Big Friggin Dummy
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2019
- 25,228
- 24,139
I just think it's kinda silly to talk about trading for a guy who puts up 85-90pts with a miserable Coyotes team or a guy like Saros or Hellebuyck who are two of a very short list of the best in the world at their position. This team's gonna be targeting guys like Garland because that's all they can afford--if they don't just run it back with guys like Zucker and/or Jarry.
Gurglesons
Registered User
Shesterkin for Mike Sullivan…who says no? Not the Rangers because Sullivan is so fantastic he can overcome mediocre goaltending by himself…oh wait
Wattsburgh
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2023
- 526
- 289
Gurglesons
Registered User
Big Friggin Dummy
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2019
- 25,228
- 24,139
Just imagine... Mike Sullivan's been fired.
Meet HC Todd Reirden!
Meet HC Todd Reirden!
Wattsburgh
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2023
- 526
- 289
Please maybe. I don’t see much out there. May as well try someone when Flower was still in net and the importance of it.
BlindWillyMcHurt
ti kallisti
- May 31, 2004
- 35,435
- 30,044
Just imagine... Mike Sullivan's been fired.
Meet HC Todd Reirden!
Ugh. I know I bitch up a storm about Sullivan but I take him 11/10 times over Toddddddddddd.
What are the chances even these useless tits keep their jobs? Bad enough Sullivan skates on by... his second staff cleanout should at least be a thing IMO.
Big Friggin Dummy
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2019
- 25,228
- 24,139
I dunno about the assistants but I will only believe Sullivan's job is in danger when he's actually, officially fired. Even then, I may not believe it.
AuroraBorealis
Back-to-back hater
Blomqvist may have a shot at being a starter someday. Smith should have some value too.
I know Nylander's a little older but I suspect he'll be better than DOC next season.
Sure, I'll agree. Him and the 1sts. But there's 2 players we'd have to spend assets on/for this summer, a high tier goalie and the Granlund dump. What we have is enough to do both of those things. Costly, but doable. We can acquire everything else we need in free agency, or in that Garland trade I mentioned, where we lose nothing outside of like a token late round pick.
So what's the purpose of trading Jake? What can we not fix unless he's dealt?
Empoleon8771
Registered User
I have been rallying against the idea that Granlund would cost assets to trade, but after looking at the Evgeni Dadonov saga in Vegas, I think I'm going to retract my confidence in Granlund not costing significant assets to get rid of
Like I've said before, Granlund is just another skilled player for a bad team. He's just like Hoffman, Dadonov or Drouin in that they'll put up empty points for you in an elevated role as your team is missing the playoffs. I used to think there was some minimal value in that, which would prevent the cost of dumping Granlund to be too high, but looking at the Dadonov situation changed my mind a bit on that. Vegas traded Holden (cap dump) and a 3rd for Dadonov in the 2021 off-season after Dadonov was coming off a bad year with the Senators. After about 50 games, they tried to get out of his deal due to cap constraints and agreed to Dadonov and a 2nd to Anaheim for 2 LTIR contracts in Moore and Kesler. That deal didn't go through due to a NTC, but I think that's a legitimate counterpoint to my "his value wouldn't drop so fast" claim.
As a more conceptual though to this, I think the concept of "player value" is fluid. To put it bluntly, a player's value is whatever a GM is willing to pay him, whether it be with trade assets or money. If Ron Hextall is willing to pay a 2nd for Granlund but no other GM is, you're not getting a 2nd back for him. It was the same thing when you saw JR trade a 1st and Hallander for Kapanen. I try to point to comparables to get a general estimate of what teams would pay a player or trade for a player, but ultimately player value just comes down to whatever 1 of 32 GMs is willing to pay for a guy. NHL players aren't like buying groceries with a set price and supply, it's a bartering system. GMs might hold onto their players if they can't get the price that they want, but that doesn't change what their value is.
Is there any point to this post? No, just like there is no point to most things. Just some musings I had. I used to argue that trades that weren't realistic based on value were pointless, but 2 fans agreeing to a value in a trade isn't any different than 2 GMs agreeing to a value in a trade. It's just the GM actually has the power to make those moves.
Like I've said before, Granlund is just another skilled player for a bad team. He's just like Hoffman, Dadonov or Drouin in that they'll put up empty points for you in an elevated role as your team is missing the playoffs. I used to think there was some minimal value in that, which would prevent the cost of dumping Granlund to be too high, but looking at the Dadonov situation changed my mind a bit on that. Vegas traded Holden (cap dump) and a 3rd for Dadonov in the 2021 off-season after Dadonov was coming off a bad year with the Senators. After about 50 games, they tried to get out of his deal due to cap constraints and agreed to Dadonov and a 2nd to Anaheim for 2 LTIR contracts in Moore and Kesler. That deal didn't go through due to a NTC, but I think that's a legitimate counterpoint to my "his value wouldn't drop so fast" claim.
As a more conceptual though to this, I think the concept of "player value" is fluid. To put it bluntly, a player's value is whatever a GM is willing to pay him, whether it be with trade assets or money. If Ron Hextall is willing to pay a 2nd for Granlund but no other GM is, you're not getting a 2nd back for him. It was the same thing when you saw JR trade a 1st and Hallander for Kapanen. I try to point to comparables to get a general estimate of what teams would pay a player or trade for a player, but ultimately player value just comes down to whatever 1 of 32 GMs is willing to pay for a guy. NHL players aren't like buying groceries with a set price and supply, it's a bartering system. GMs might hold onto their players if they can't get the price that they want, but that doesn't change what their value is.
Is there any point to this post? No, just like there is no point to most things. Just some musings I had. I used to argue that trades that weren't realistic based on value were pointless, but 2 fans agreeing to a value in a trade isn't any different than 2 GMs agreeing to a value in a trade. It's just the GM actually has the power to make those moves.
Buddy Bizarre
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2021
- 6,135
- 4,343
They need to reinvent themselves if they want another Cup before Sid and Geno go out. If you want them to pad their stats, then yup keep Jake.
I think re-signing Jake re-emphasizes a message that this team is easy to play against. Rust got paid and he is even more of a perimeter player than he was. Jake is going to get paid and he's cut from the same cloth.
This team needs some more snarl/energy in the top 6 to survive the playoffs ala Horny. The only guy who had that last year is likely gone in FA (Zucker). Sending Jake out would require a philosophical/tactical change. But since Sully is here, that isn't going to happen so you might as well keep Jake. I'm only typing out what I think is necessary for them to get into Cup contention.
AuroraBorealis
Back-to-back hater
This is where we diverge. I don't think they need to re-invent themselves.
I think they need to identify what's making them lose and solve those things directly.
Finishing is near the top of the list, and Jake was #1 on the team at that.
The 16th ranked finishing team, Washington, had 32 goals above expected more than us. It's just a seismic swing.
We generated wayyyy more high danger shots than them, but waste them.
So if trading Jake helped us improve THIS, that's where I'd be on board with you. But until they solve this, they won't be making the playoffs.
However, it's a fact that Jake's contract is ending and his next price tag may not be worth it. Right now he's making 6M and I fully expect him to outperform his contract, as usual.
Buddy Bizarre
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2021
- 6,135
- 4,343
There's some intertwining here so I'll try to keep this as uncomplicated as possible.
We've both touched on the philosophy/tactics. Have you considered that the type of game we play is at least a major part of the problem we shoot so terribly? I believe you've outlined that the expected GF is under what should be happening and it's been going on for a few years.
This is why I think they need to reinvent themselves or change their style. Maybe they could do that and Jake would thrive. It doesn't necessarily have to be both a) send Jake out AND b) change their tactics.
Gurglesons
Registered User
I’d trade Jake for a different player. Not moving him for futures.
Malkinstheman
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2012
- 9,773
- 9,000
Apparently Carbery is the hot name…also linked with Caps coaching vacancy too
Buddy Bizarre
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2021
- 6,135
- 4,343
AuroraBorealis
Back-to-back hater
We used the same tactics in 2020-2021 and were #2 in finishing. Similar body types on the roster.
Prior to that the Pens were always a good to great finishing team in the Sullivan era, in the regular season anyway. So what changed?
It's been going on for 2 years, yes. In 2021-22 they were 24th at finishing. The defense and goaltending masked it, that's all.
What do tactics or philosophy have to do with poor conversion rate on breakaways, wide open nets, inability to elevate in tight, botched 2 on 1's, poor shot location choices, and insufficient power behind shots? It's not like they're following orders to shoot like an AHL team.
A lot of the time it's just stupidity, lack of confidence, lack of swagger or lack of boldness.
We generate the same good shit that every team wants and don't use utilize it.
You could argue that we need more screens as a team and that's due to lack of size, sure. That's valid. But those are to increase the conversion rate on mid to low level danger shots.
Why are they so flaccid on the golden looks?
I could make a whole highlight package for you to showcase what I'm talking about. Shots at chests when the whole top of the net is open. Shots along the ice at pads when the goalie is set in his butterfly, when they're not even aiming for a pass off the pads. Inexplicably garbage choices. There's no way they're being coached to do that, with no one in front of the net.
There were years where they generated a f***ton less looks, but they were never this ineffective with what they got.
I don't think it's the tactics or philosophy leading them to making these choices. It's not even personnel driven, really. It's happening to too many guys at the same time for that.
It seems to be more emotional. Something is wrong mentally for players in front of goalies now. There's some kind of hesitancy and they're blocked from using their creativity and patience.
If we had a different coach that inspired them to regain their confidence, that might solve it. It's a hard thing to pinpoint.
I could see someone like Boudreau fixing this. He knows how to get a ton offensively out of his players.
The only way I can think of starting to solve it this summer - if Sully's not axed - is bringing in high career % shooters. Somebody like JT Miller appeals. He'd help our conversation rate at 5v5 and on PP1. But there's something wrong with the culture or whatever, and that needs to be solved at the core to really fix this.
Malkinstheman
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2012
- 9,773
- 9,000
It's funny that teams look at the Leafs/Pens the last few years and are like we want the people that were in charge of that lol
- Status
