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

[Pancakes]

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I think Granlund's reputation as a cap dump is probably overstated. He had a 51 point pace with Nashville last year (36 points in 58 games) and had 64 points in 80 games in 2021-2022. He's not sexy analytically and he failed miserably in the usage that Sullivan put him in with the Penguins, but there are quite a few either worse forwards or worse contracts for players who make a similar amount of money. Just a few examples I can see are Coleman, Labanc, Bailey, Ryan Strome, Olofsson, Mantha and Silfverberg. Brendan Gallagher is like a crown jewel of shit on this list as well.

The Penguins still obviously need to get out of his deal, but I don't know that I necessarily agree with the ultra negative reputation he has developed since the trade. He was a stupid target by the Penguins and they played him in a role that he flat out didn't fit in, but the value he was providing in Nashville is positive value for some teams.

He's playable, but I don't think he's a fit for this team and he's too expensive for what he brings.

But you could do worse for sure (see Carter, Jeff)

 

[Empoleon8771]

He's playable, but I don't think he's a fit for this team and he's too expensive for what he brings.

But you could do worse for sure (see Carter, Jeff)

Yeah that's why the Penguins have to get out of his deal but not a justification for why he's this ultra negative value cap dump.

The thing with Granlund is that he won't be in that role if you have a good team, but if you have a bad team, are you going to get better than Granlund's 50 points in a top-6 role with $5 million a year? Teams should be aiming higher than Granlund for that role, but if you don't have anything better, will you get better than that with $5 million in free agency? I don't think it's a given. Hell, I don't even know if I'd call it likely.

Another way to put what I'm saying: I think he has negative value to Pittsburgh but I don't know that he'd have negative value to every team in hockey.

 

[The GM]

Lol…not a fan of his

I’m not really a fan either, just think he might fit well with Sid similar to a Kunitz type

 

[Pancakes]

Yeah that's why the Penguins have to get out of his deal but not a justification for why he's this ultra negative value cap dump.

The thing with Granlund is that he won't be in that role if you have a good team, but if you have a bad team, are you going to get better than Granlund's 50 points in a top-6 role with $5 million a year? Teams should be aiming higher than Granlund for that role, but if you don't have anything better, will you get better than that with $5 million in free agency? I don't think it's a given. Hell, I don't even know if I'd call it likely.

Another way to put what I'm saying: I think he has negative value to Pittsburgh but I don't know that he'd have negative value to every team in hockey.

Unfortunately he did so poorly here that he may well be viewed as a cap dump by other teams, even though he's capable of better than he showed.

Dubas should test the hell out of the market with him though. See what the interest is.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Unfortunately he did so poorly here that he may well be viewed as a cap dump by other teams, even though he's capable of better than he showed.

Dubas should test the hell out of the market with him though. See what the interest is.

You'd think that but they also managed to get out of McGinn's deal for basically free. It's obviously way smaller of a contract but he's also providing way less than what Granlund could provide in the right role.

We'll see what happens. I have a feeling that dumping Granlund will end up being similar to dumping McGinn or Kapanen, in that it costs way less than most people here are expecting.

 

[Empoleon8771]

To add one more point, I could see a piece like Puustinen being of interest for a team like the Ducks. I know people here like Puustinen, but I think there is very little chance he ever gets a regular spot under Sullivan due to his play style. He doesn't like offense only players in his bottom-6 and he'll never get a chance in their top-6. Throwing Puustinen in a potential Gibson deal to get some extra salary retained helps the Penguins cap situation while it also gives the Ducks another potential point producer.

I threw out Granlund, Joseph, Puustinen and New Jersey's 3rd to Anaheim for Gibson at $5 million in the Gibson thread on the main board. The package is simultaneously a lot while also not really being a ton of value I think.

 

[DesertedPenguin]

Thoughts on Ross Colton?

Seravalli says that he's due for a raise and that Tampa's cap situation means it is unlikely he stays in Tampa.

Colton has arbitration rights and has established himself as an 18-to-20-goal scorer who can be a consistent contributor on a contending team’s third line. That will make him in-demand for teams who think he can elevate in their lineup. Even if Alex Killorn walks in free agency, Tampa will have less than $10 million to spend to fill out eight roster spots, and will also have to pay Tanner Jeannot.

The Summer of Chevy: Winnipeg Jets’ Hellebuyck, Scheifele, Dubois and Wheeler join Trade Targets

Several core Winnipeg players could change addresses in the coming weeks.

www.dailyfaceoff.com

I think he could be cheaper than Zucker or Bunting, but perhaps a better fit.

And another nugget from Seravalli:

Granlund’s status in Pittsburgh has become fascinating. The Kyle Dubas-led Maple Leafs nearly acquired him one year prior. In Pittsburgh, the Granlund trade was one of the moves that put the nail in the coffin of GM Ron Hextall’s tenure. One word to describe his stay in the Steel City: Disastrous. Granlund scored a grand total of one goal in 21 games as the Pens missed the playoffs. To be fair, that wasn’t all on him, but he certainly didn’t hold up to his end of the bargain. Now, with two more years left on his deal, his contract is either a problem for Dubas to clean up – or one for Dubas and Co. to rehab.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Thoughts on Ross Colton?

Seravalli says that he's due for a raise and that Tampa's cap situation means it is unlikely he stays in Tampa.

Colton has arbitration rights and has established himself as an 18-to-20-goal scorer who can be a consistent contributor on a contending team’s third line. That will make him in-demand for teams who think he can elevate in their lineup. Even if Alex Killorn walks in free agency, Tampa will have less than $10 million to spend to fill out eight roster spots, and will also have to pay Tanner Jeannot.

The Summer of Chevy: Winnipeg Jets’ Hellebuyck, Scheifele, Dubois and Wheeler join Trade Targets

Several core Winnipeg players could change addresses in the coming weeks.

www.dailyfaceoff.com

I think he could be cheaper than Zucker or Bunting, but perhaps a better fit.

Yes on Colton, but not as a LWer for Malkin. Colton would be a guy you bring in to beef up the 3rd line, not play in the top-6.

 

[DesertedPenguin]

Yes on Colton, but not as a LWer for Malkin. Colton would be a guy you bring in to beef up the 3rd line, not play in the top-6.

I'm just wondering if it is more cost effective to go with two guys who can bounce between Malkin's line and the third line, depending on who is hot.

 

[Peat]

It also has the potential to go really sideways. What if Gibson is just washed up but POJ or Granlund thrive in Anaheim?

If you look at Granlund more like a "reclamation project" type instead of a "cap dump" type, it's actually an interesting idea for both sides. Granlund can put up points for a bad Ducks team as they continue to rebuild. It's well known that the Ducks suck defensively, but they're also terrible offensively and finished 31st in the NHL in goals for last year.

I think you have to do it if you're the Penguins because you're not giving up anything you seriously need and you're getting a guy who could potentially solve your goaltending woes for the rest of the Crosby era. At the same time, if Gibson is washed you're making a bad situation worse. You're digging downwards by trading Granlund out for Gibson in if Gibson is just bad at this point.

I mean I did say it could go awful.

Although I don't care what Granlund does away from Pittsburgh. He's probably not going to do it here so it doesn't matter. POJ taking off would be grating, particularly if Ty Smith doesn't, but even that isn't a huge deal. It'd be kinda assumed we were losing a good player in that.

The big sideways part is what is Gibson is washed up because at 6.4m that's a killer. And while I mostly think he probably isn't and that Anaheim just really stink... boy is it a risk. But if he isn't, then getting a goalie and getting rid of Granlund in one fell swoop is sweet.

There's other ways to get a goalie though. Obvious point is obvious, but it's not this deal or nothing. I don't envy Dubas getting to sort through which one makes sense.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I mean I did say it could go awful.

Although I don't care what Granlund does away from Pittsburgh. He's probably not going to do it here so it doesn't matter. POJ taking off would be grating, particularly if Ty Smith doesn't, but even that isn't a huge deal. It'd be kinda assumed we were losing a good player in that.

The big sideways part is what is Gibson is washed up because at 6.4m that's a killer. And while I mostly think he probably isn't and that Anaheim just really stink... boy is it a risk. But if he isn't, then getting a goalie and getting rid of Granlund in one fell swoop is sweet.

There's other ways to get a goalie though. Obvious point is obvious, but it's not this deal or nothing. I don't envy Dubas getting to sort through which one makes sense.

Yeah I think the "digging downwards" is much less about Granlund thriving elsewhere but making one mistake in Granlund then making an event bigger mistake with Gibson.

I think the ideal solution is to just dump Granlund elsewhere and focus on getting the best goalie you can get. Don't make it about getting great value by gambling on Gibson while dumping Granlund, just go for as good as you can reasonably get that doesn't cost a fortune against the cap.

 

[Zirakzigil]

I think Granlund would be easier to move than the average fan thinks. A team like Chicago could use him and has the cap space to take him full salary.

Zucker I want back here. Hes a heart and soul guy and one of the view who showed he cared game in and game out. Team was much better with him in the line up.

 

[Peat]

Yeah I think the "digging downwards" is much less about Granlund thriving elsewhere but making one mistake in Granlund then making an event bigger mistake with Gibson.

I think the ideal solution is to just dump Granlund elsewhere and focus on getting the best goalie you can get. Don't make it about getting great value by gambling on Gibson while dumping Granlund, just go for as good as you can reasonably get that doesn't cost a fortune against the cap.

If Gibson can roll back the years he might be the best goalie you can get though.

I know we're a long way removed from it, but he was pretty much the best performing goalie in hockey around when we were winning cups, and at 29 he shouldn't be physically washed. His stats don't look great but Anaheim stink. Obviously you'd want a very thorough going over his video, and maybe chat with Rakell as to what he's like behind the scenes - I really wouldn't be surprised if a lot of veterans in Anaheim are checked out right now, Ducks fans told us that about Rakell and he's been anything but here - but if he checks out...

I hate the gamble at 6.4m. But I'm still intrigued.

 

[Pancakes]

If Gibson can roll back the years he might be the best goalie you can get though.

That's a galaxy-sized if

 

[Malkinstheman]

Dubas made a similar kind of bet with Murray and got burned. Not sure if he's gonna try the same strategy again with Gibson/Markstrom who have even worse contracts.

 

[Peat]

That's a galaxy-sized if

In terms of consequences? Yes. In terms of his ability to get back there? I don't know, I'm not a goaltending expert... but I do know a ton of players who've suddenly looked a ton better for changing situation.

Dubas made a similar kind of bet with Murray and got burned. Not sure if he's gonna try the same strategy again with Gibson/Markstrom who have even worse contracts.

The big difference is Murray is physically cooked and the other guys aren't, or at least so it appears.

 

[Pancakes]

In terms of consequences? Yes. In terms of his ability to get back there? I don't know, I'm not a goaltending expert... but I do know a ton of players who've suddenly looked a ton better for changing situation.



The big difference is Murray is physically cooked and the other guys aren't, or at least so it appears.

Yes, the consequences. It just seems like an insanely risky thing to do, even with retention.

I also don't think Anaheim will give him up super cheap, even with his struggles. And especially if retention is asked for.

 

[Peat]

Yes, the consequences. It just seems like an insanely risky thing to do, even with retention.

I also don't think Anaheim will give him up super cheap, even with his struggles. And especially if retention is asked for.

No argument with any of that.

 

[cygnus47]

As sloppy as guys like Sid and Geno have been on the PP (more so Sid this past season), I think the biggest issue with our PP is Letang as the QB. He shoots when he should pass, he passes when he should shoot, he can't put the puck into Geno's wheelhouse, and he reacts to plays more than he sees plays developing.

He's a guy whose athleticism allowed him to be passable in his prime, but as his physical tools diminish he doesn't think the game well enough to be a competent PP QB.

I agree that Letang is the biggest personnel issue there, but they haven’t looked like a coached group in years. They don’t seem to have a goal when they’re out there or any set plays they’re looking for to simplify their options. You can see them thinking out there and Letang sucks the most when that’s happening.

The teams that have strong pps set up one or two major plays and then read off what the other team does. When we’ve had success we’ve gone back to a few moves - kessel high roll, Geno one timer, the high to low to bump into the slot, Sid deflections from beside the net etc. They need to get back to having one or two actual aims out there even more than they have to improve on Letang imo.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If Gibson can roll back the years he might be the best goalie you can get though.

I know we're a long way removed from it, but he was pretty much the best performing goalie in hockey around when we were winning cups, and at 29 he shouldn't be physically washed. His stats don't look great but Anaheim stink. Obviously you'd want a very thorough going over his video, and maybe chat with Rakell as to what he's like behind the scenes - I really wouldn't be surprised if a lot of veterans in Anaheim are checked out right now, Ducks fans told us that about Rakell and he's been anything but here - but if he checks out...

I hate the gamble at 6.4m. But I'm still intrigued.

Yeah I think any sort of Gibson acquisition would have to come with an extensive video analysis to get a better idea of how much it is him versus how much it is the Ducks being terrible. You flat out can't ignore how bad the Ducks are, their performance last year was an all-time level bad defensively while also being bad offensively. But at the same time, you also don't want to anchor yourself with a goalie who hasn't been good in 4 years if he's actually just not good anymore.

The gamble is tough to gauge for me, because I think Gibson is better than how he has performed in recent years but I don't know if it's worth is cap hit or if the Penguins can be good enough defensively for him. Even if you trade for Gibson and he ends up a consistent .910 save% goalie going forward, I don't think that's worth $6.4 million. I think you need him to be great or better to justify the cap hit, which makes the gamble more towards no IMO.

Gibson is the 4th highest paid goalie in the NHL and I would hope he can give top-10 results at minimum with that salary. That would be like a .915 save% today based on how good goalies are today.

 

[Peat]

Yeah I think any sort of Gibson acquisition would have to come with an extensive video analysis to get a better idea of how much it is him versus how much it is the Ducks being terrible. You flat out can't ignore how bad the Ducks are, their performance last year was an all-time level bad defensively while also being bad offensively. But at the same time, you also don't want to anchor yourself with a goalie who hasn't been good in 4 years if he's actually just not good anymore.

The gamble is tough to gauge for me, because I think Gibson is better than how he has performed in recent years but I don't know if it's worth is cap hit or if the Penguins can be good enough defensively for him. Even if you trade for Gibson and he ends up a consistent .910 save% goalie going forward, I don't think that's worth $6.4 million. I think you need him to be great or better to justify the cap hit, which makes the gamble more towards no IMO.

Gibson is the 4th highest paid goalie in the NHL and I would hope he can give top-10 results at minimum with that salary. That would be like a .915 save% today based on how good goalies are today.

Vanacek had the 10th best save percentage out of starters this season at .911 (Jarry was somehow 11th da fuq). Vanacek was 10th best for GSAA/60 on NST too. 10th best for GSAA/60 on MoneyPuck is Oettinger.

I dunno those numbers help any, except perhaps to reiterate there's a small number of goalies that look like genuine difference makers and most of them don't look the same year on year. Which says it all about taking on a big goalie contract to try and get big goalie numbers...

 

[Empoleon8771]

Vanacek had the 10th best save percentage out of starters this season at .911 (Jarry was somehow 11th da fuq). Vanacek was 10th best for GSAA/60 on NST too. 10th best for GSAA/60 on MoneyPuck is Oettinger.

I dunno those numbers help any, except perhaps to reiterate there's a small number of goalies that look like genuine difference makers and most of them don't look the same year on year. Which says it all about taking on a big goalie contract to try and get big goalie numbers...

Mentioning Vanacek is funny because I mentioned him on the main boards as well with me saying this:

"Even if you want to adjust his .902 save% for the quality of team, how much can you even adjust that? Even if it brings it up to say a .910 save%, which is above average (and especially above average for last year), that's still $6.4 million a year for a goalie on par with Vitek Vanecek last year. I think he needs to jump into a near .920 save% goalie to be worth his cap hit, and I think that jump is more than the handicap he has from playing for the Ducks."

I think the gamble with Gibson is that you need him to be great based on what he's making. If they can get retention on him, that dramatically lowers how good he has to be to be worth his deal. But for $6.4 million a year, I'd be expecting great results. I would be expecting him to be on par with guys like Shesterkin or Sorokin for that price.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I think Granlund would be easier to move than the average fan thinks. A team like Chicago could use him and has the cap space to take him full salary.

Zucker I want back here. Hes a heart and soul guy and one of the view who showed he cared game in and game out. Team was much better with him in the line up.

Especially to play with a guy like Bedard.

Work those phones, Doobie, and make it happen.

 

[Peat]

Mentioning Vanacek is funny because I mentioned him on the main boards as well with me saying this:

"Even if you want to adjust his .902 save% for the quality of team, how much can you even adjust that? Even if it brings it up to say a .910 save%, which is above average (and especially above average for last year), that's still $6.4 million a year for a goalie on par with Vitek Vanecek last year. I think he needs to jump into a near .920 save% goalie to be worth his cap hit, and I think that jump is more than the handicap he has from playing for the Ducks."

I think the gamble with Gibson is that you need him to be great based on what he's making. If they can get retention on him, that dramatically lowers how good he has to be to be worth his deal. But for $6.4 million a year, I'd be expecting great results. I would be expecting him to be on par with guys like Shesterkin or Sorokin for that price.

No real argument.

The only counterpoint is that I'd be okay to overpay for a goalie who is consistently top 15-20 at worst, rarely injured, and usually plays well in the playoffs. Obviously I don't want to overpay, but I'd prefer it to scrambling around looking for something. Guys like Vanacek or Anton Forsberg who look like the answer for a bit then fade are no good.

Obviously I've no idea if that's Gibson, although I'd darkly note the amount he falls under expected goals in Anaheim is very consistent so he's got that going for him. Although I do think it's probably not Markstrom based on his historic numbers. Up and down history there.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah I think that’s a super good point to mention about Gibson, he’s really durable and is consistent from season to season outside of his big drop off. I described my ideal goalie yesterday or earlier today as “consistently solid and reliable”, and wouldn’t a healthy goalie who consistently puts up a .910 save% be exactly that? If you buy that Gibson is still solid but just behind a shit team, it’s really not a stretch to think he can give you say 60 starts with a .910 save% over a season.

It’s just a question of whether he’d be worth $6.4 million at that point. But the flip side to that is that I’d much rather pay a good goalie great money then any other position.