Salary Cap: Pens 2024 Summer Thread: "Thus, knocking us out of these superior numbers when we emerge! Mr. President, we must not allow a non-playoff bound gap!"

[Turin]

Are Penguins fans really saying they wouldn't trade Letang, a 1st and Pickering for Marner in the trade forum?

Sign me up.

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

I’m good teach.

Monahan and Lindholm both returned 1st round picks. Guentzel did not.

Factoring in pick position, what we got was a 1.5 round pick.

I remember Dubas addressing that.

1st round Carolina is #27.
2nd round Phily is #44.
2nd round Carolina is #55.

So yeah...on paper a 1st round looks good because of the "1", but the reality is more nuanced.

 

[Gurglesons]

Factoring in pick position, what we got was a 1.5 round pick.

I remember Dubas addressing that.

1st round Carolina is #27.
2nd round Phily is #44.
2nd round Carolina is #55.

So yeah...on paper a 1st round looks good because of the "1", but the reality is more nuanced.

1.5 round pick? What are you talking about?

We got a 2nd round pick. Is this really the extent people are going to defend a bad trade on here these days?

Does that mean our 46th overall pick is actually a 1.65 round pick?

 

[SEALBound]

Yeah Smith has the same exact issues that guys like Pouliot, Juolevi and Mueller had, he both can't skate well enough and can't process the game fast enough to be an effective OFD at the NHL level.

I'm just bummed that Hextall didn't do Marino for Hoglander like I bet he could have done.

Was it early this year when it was suggested that JR might be interested in POJ for Hoglander - linking JR's fondness for Penguin players? I mean, it was purely speculation early in the year before Hoglander became a staple but still, that would have been a tremendous trade for us.

Just because we disagree doesn't make my claims baseless or moronic with zero evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that Dubas took a quantity over quality return. For example Timo Meier returned a similar package but a roster player, a prospect taken in the first round, a 1st round pick, and a 2nd round pick.

But YMMV. I know you like to help build up reasonable conversation on HFBoards so thank you for your efforts clearly here.



I think it was said Rathbone, Brannstrom and Smith were the pieces offered to us from Ottawa, Vancouver, and New Jersey respectively.

Ah, okay then. Show me where it was reported that other offers were on the table for Dubas from Carolina (or any other team) that included a 1st round pick and prospects better than what we got. Copying and pasting a link to the report or tweet or whatever isn't hard.

The "Dubas did this and that because these other arbitrary trades that have nothing to do with the trade we are discussing are different!" is not an argument (Meier was an RFA, btw. And it's been an objectively terrible trade overall for NJ.)

It's pretty easy logic path too.

1.5 round pick? What are you talking about?

We got a 2nd round pick. Is this really the extent people are going to defend a bad trade on here these days?

Does that mean our 46th overall pick is actually a 1.65 round pick?

We have pick #44. The 1st would have been #31/32.

Given this draft depth, that's absolutely nothing. But ooooooooooooooh noooooooooooooo! *sniff* *sniff* we have Bunting instead!

 

[Gurglesons]

Ah, okay then. Show me where it was reported that other offers were on the table for Dubas from Carolina (or any other team) that included a 1st round pick and prospects better than what we got. Copying and pasting a link to the report or tweet or whatever isn't hard.

The "Dubas did this and that because these other arbitrary trades that have nothing to do with the trade we are discussing are different!" is not an argument (Meier was an RFA, btw. And it's been an objectively terrible trade overall for NJ.)

It's pretty easy logic path too.

[Dreger] Sources say the Penguins are hoping to have a trade in place for Jake Guentzel by tomorrow evening. Pittsburgh is open to quality over quantity in return, but would like a 1st, young NHL player, plus prospects. Flexibility comes in the calibre of prospect or roster player.​

[Lebrun] The package sought by the Penguins depends on the suitor but past trades involving Bo Horvat last year and Claude Giroux two years ago are comparables to look at. And even Lindholm this season.

[Friedman] Friedman at the intermission says the Penguins prefer two prospects over picks for Jake Guentzel, they have told teams they want prospects over picks.

Just going to stop there since you are being willfully ignorant about this.

 

[Gurglesons]

We have pick #44. The 1st would have been #31/32.

Given this draft depth, that's absolutely nothing. But ooooooooooooooh noooooooooooooo! *sniff* *sniff* we have Bunting instead!

Carolina is picking 27th. Getting 27th overall versus 44th overall IMO is worth a lot more than Michael Bunting and some scratch off ticket prospects.

If the return would've been a comparable to the Giroux trade we'd likely be looking at something like their 1st round pick, Drury, and something like Lucius. Would've much preferred that and the cap space going into this offseason over what we got.

A team would've been probably way more likely to trade us into the top 20 for 27th + 46th. You'd also have the flexibilty to do what the Islanders did and maybe get multiple 2nds for the 27th overall. Instead we have two mid round 2nds.

 

[eXile3]

Yep, if you look at the totality of the assets we garnered in the Guentzel trade, it's worth a hell of a lot more than a late 1st rounder, heck even two late 1st rounders.

Great Job by Kyle there. I'll bet (along with Bunting) Koivunen and PONO will be NHL regulars within a a year or so. THAT'S THREE players that contribute. And we still got 440A as well as that crzy Cruz wild card.

Koivunen and Pono could very well become NHL regulars. They could also very well become duds. Neither of them are close to sure things.

 

[Ryder71]

Koivunen and Pono could very well become NHL regulars. They could also very well become duds. Neither of them are close to sure things.

And neither would two late 1st rounders. I'd rather have those guys who at least at some level showed something beyond the junior ranks. Koivunen had a historically good year in his league for a 20yr old. And Pono made CAR out of training camp prior to being injured.

 

[orby]

I cannot agree with the assessment that the Guentzel trade was bad asset management simply because it didn't involve a first round pick. Bunting is a legit top 6 winger who, while not as good as Guentzel, is also a year younger and on a decent contract. On top of him, the Pens got two above-average prospects who are almost certainly going to be in the NHL within a couple of years, in addition to a second round pick and another prospect. It's likely that they could have gotten a first round pick from another team, but the other parts of the trade more than make up for it if you ask me. The inclusion of a first rounder does not make or break a trade, especially in a year with what seems like a so-so draft.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Right but think of it from the Sens point of view. If the rumors are true they’re going to have to have half the NHL bidding for the guy.

Yep. The cost will be too much for us.

I have had multiple posts where I am more for gambles and limited assets being moved.

Trades where big assets get moved I am very against. It would just depend on the price which again would be too much for us.

 

[Gurglesons]

I cannot agree with the assessment that the Guentzel trade was bad asset management simply because it didn't involve a first round pick. Bunting is a legit top 6 winger who, while not as good as Guentzel, is also a year younger and on a decent contract. On top of him, the Pens got two above-average prospects who are almost certainly going to be in the NHL within a couple of years, in addition to a second round pick and another prospect. It's likely that they could have gotten a first round pick from another team, but the other parts of the trade more than make up for it if you ask me. The inclusion of a first rounder does not make or break a trade, especially in a year with what seems like a so-so draft.

If this is how you view the trade, then I can understand being satisfied.

I'm expecting Bunting to be a punching bag within a few months of next season and I don't see any of the prospects being sure fire NHLers.

 

[SEALBound]

[Dreger] Sources say the Penguins are hoping to have a trade in place for Jake Guentzel by tomorrow evening. Pittsburgh is open to quality over quantity in return, but would like a 1st, young NHL player, plus prospects. Flexibility comes in the calibre of prospect or roster player.​

[Lebrun] The package sought by the Penguins depends on the suitor but past trades involving Bo Horvat last year and Claude Giroux two years ago are comparables to look at. And even Lindholm this season.

[Friedman] Friedman at the intermission says the Penguins prefer two prospects over picks for Jake Guentzel, they have told teams they want prospects over picks.

Just going to stop there since you are being willfully ignorant about this.

All speculation by guys with varying levels of credibility. None of that means anything to support your claim. Show me where Carolina offered a quality-over-quantity package. Something that actually names specifics. Something that, if in a report that actually exists, would read something like: Carolina offered Dubas two packages: 1. Prospect + unconditional 1st and 2. Bunting, 3 prospects, cond 1st. And Dubas chose the latter.

You can't just make up hypothetical trades that YOU want to see or what YOU think is fair and arbitrarily use them as the gold standard to judge the actual trade on. You are just making shit up at this point because you have an agenda against Dubas. Nevermind the fact that Bunting was the best wing for us down the stretch.

Carolina is picking 27th. Getting 27th overall versus 44th overall IMO is worth a lot more than Michael Bunting and some scratch off ticket prospects.

If the return would've been a comparable to the Giroux trade we'd likely be looking at something like their 1st round pick, Drury, and something like Lucius. Would've much preferred that and the cap space going into this offseason over what we got.

A team would've been probably way more likely to trade us into the top 20 for 27th + 46th. You'd also have the flexibilty to do what the Islanders did and maybe get multiple 2nds for the 27th overall. Instead we have two mid round 2nds.

Dubas can't accept trades for specific players that are not offered by the other team.

You're like a child that's in the corner knowing full well they are wrong and instead of accepting it, you're throwing a tantrum and lashing out.

Take the L and move on. What you just posted there was complete and utter non-sense. And you know it.

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

1.5 round pick? What are you talking about?

We got a 2nd round pick. Is this really the extent people are going to defend a bad trade on here these days?

Does that mean our 46th overall pick is actually a 1.65 round pick?

It's not about defending a trade, but explaining the nuances and decisions made surrounding it. For example, 2 high 2nd round picks may be worth more than a really low 1st round pick in a trade. Especially for a team like the Penguins who really need to restock.

If all you can see is "no 1st round pick" then it's hard to discuss this.

I don't agree that #27 is worth more than #44 + Bunting (forget the other prospects). I do agree that Dubas likely valued Bunting more than Carolina, so there was likely room to squeeze more out of them,

If you are criticizing the overall deal....
Sure it could have been better, but it did check off a bunch of boxes. We have 4 younger additions, of varying ages. We got a little grittier with Bunting and cleared some cap.

Ultimately I'm happy how it went down.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Bunting, Koivunen and pick #27 is effectively the same value as Bunting, Koivunen, Ponomarev and pick #44. I really don't understand arguing the Guentzel trade was bad because "they didn't get a 1st!", when they only didn't get a 1st because they targeted multiple prospects instead of one prospect.

The difference in value between pick #44 and pick #27 is another pick around #44 overall. I don't view Ponomarev (who was taken 53rd overall in 2020 and has progressed solidly) as much different than that in value.

 

[Gurglesons]

Bunting, Koivunen and pick #27 is effectively the same value as Bunting, Koivunen, Ponomarev and pick #44. I really don't understand arguing the Guentzel trade was bad because "they didn't get a 1st!", when they only didn't get a 1st because they targeted multiple prospects instead of one prospect.

The difference in value between pick #44 and pick #27 is another pick around #44 overall. I don't view Ponomarev (who was taken 53rd overall in 2020 and has progressed decently) as much different than that in value.

Because the prospects aren't great in my opinion.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Because the prospects aren't great in my opinion.

Even if you want to look at them purely in terms of where they were drafted, both Koivunen and Ponomarev were mid 2nd rounders who have progressed well (exceptionally well in Koivunen's case) and Lucius was a 4th rounder who has also progressed really well. The value they got back was about Bunting, 3 mid-2nds and a 4th for Guentzel. That's roughly equal to Bunting, a late 1st, a mid 2nd and a 4th for Guentzel.

Is it a light return for Guentzel? Probably, but complaining that they didn't get a 1st in the deal when they absolutely got more than that in value is silly.

 

[Gurglesons]

All speculation by guys with varying levels of credibility. None of that means anything to support your claim. Show me where Carolina offered a quality-over-quantity package. Something that actually names specifics. Something that, if in a report that actually exists, would read something like: Carolina offered Dubas two packages: 1. Prospect + unconditional 1st and 2. Bunting, 3 prospects, cond 1st. And Dubas chose the latter.

You can't just make up hypothetical trades that YOU want to see or what YOU think is fair and arbitrarily use them as the gold standard to judge the actual trade on. You are just making shit up at this point because you have an agenda against Dubas. Nevermind the fact that Bunting was the best wing for us down the stretch.

Dubas can't accept trades for specific players that are not offered by the other team.

You're like a child that's in the corner knowing full well they are wrong and instead of accepting it, you're throwing a tantrum and lashing out.

Take the L and move on. What you just posted there was complete and utter non-sense. And you know it.

Thanks teach.

Even if you want to look at them purely in terms of where they were drafted, both Koivunen and Ponomarev were mid 2nd rounders who have progressed well (exceptionally well in Koivunen's case) and Lucius was a 4th rounder who has also progressed really well. The value they got back was about Bunting, 3 mid-2nds and a 4th for Guentzel. That's roughly equal to Bunting, a late 1st, a mid 2nd and a 4th for Guentzel.

Is it a light return for Guentzel? Probably, but complaining that they didn't get a 1st in the deal when they absolutely got more than that in value is silly.

I don’t see Koivunen or Pono as “progressing well”. They are not sure fire NHL prospects.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don’t see Koivunen or Pono as “progressing well”. They are not sure fire NHL prospects.

Judging 2nd rounders as "not progressing well" because "they are not sure fire NHL prospects" just shows you're putting a ridiculous standard on the prospects they acquired.

These were the prospects they got back for Guentzel:

Koivunen: 69 points in 71 games in the Liiga at age 20
Lucius: 34 points in 36 games in the NCAA at age 20
Ponomarev: 30 points in 45 games in the AHL at age 21 (mostly)

Saying any of those guys are not "progressing well" is just moronic, especially considering Koivunen and Ponomarev were 2nd rounders and Lucius was a 4th rounder.

 

[Gurglesons]

It's not about defending a trade, but explaining the nuances and decisions made surrounding it. For example, 2 high 2nd round picks may be worth more than a really low 1st round pick in a trade. Especially for a team like the Penguins who really need to restock.

If all you can see is "no 1st round pick" then it's hard to discuss this.

I don't agree that #27 is worth more than #44 + Bunting (forget the other prospects). I do agree that Dubas likely valued Bunting more than Carolina, so there was likely room to squeeze more out of them,

If you are criticizing the overall deal....
Sure it could have been better, but it did check off a bunch of boxes. We have 4 younger additions, of varying ages. We got a little grittier with Bunting and cleared some cap.

Ultimately I'm happy how it went down.

Bunting looks great because we had a couple great weeks. Rakell did too. Smith looked like an amazing addition the first month.

Let’s see what happens from there.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Sign me up.

For one year of Marner who will cost 13m afterwards? Maybe not. Letang is also essentially untouchable, not because of performance but because of his legacy with the team.

 

[Gurglesons]

Judging 2nd rounders as "not progressing well" because "they are not sure fire NHL prospects" just shows you're putting a ridiculous standard on the prospects they acquired.

These were the prospects they got back for Guentzel:

Koivunen: 69 points in 71 games in the Liiga at age 20
Lucius: 34 points in 36 games in the NCAA at age 20
Ponomarev: 30 points in 45 games in the AHL at age 21 (mostly)

Saying any of those guys are not "progressing well" is just moronic, especially considering Koivunen and Ponomarev were 2nd rounders and Lucius was a 4th rounder.

Everything I say is moronic according to you and SEALBound lol. I wish I had the insight and hockey analysis skills of two people who consistently have defended the Penguins moves over the last few years then when they look bad use the "well I can change my opinion, man".

My point with the players that you've listed is that yes they look good if you drafted them with a 2nd round pick, but we didn't. We moved Jake Guentzel for them. Getting a bunch of "hey these 2nd round players look good for where they were took" is not what I wanted in a return for Jake Guentzel. I wanted a 1st, a decent, young roster player that helped with our cap situation, and maybe one of these scratch off prospects.

A 1st is always a better trade asset regardless of the impact.

A player like Bunting to me is a negative asset. He's an average middle six guy, making middle six money. He had a few good weeks here and he does bring some skills we need, but I don't see it as a win.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Judging 2nd rounders as "not progressing well" because "they are not sure fire NHL prospects" just shows you're putting a ridiculous standard on the prospects they acquired.

These were the prospects they got back for Guentzel:

Koivunen: 69 points in 71 games in the Liiga at age 20
Lucius: 34 points in 36 games in the NCAA at age 20
Ponomarev: 30 points in 45 games in the AHL at age 21 (mostly)

Saying any of those guys are not "progressing well" is just moronic, especially considering Koivunen and Ponomarev were 2nd rounders and Lucius was a 4th rounder.

You might not get a top liner out of the three, but at least two of those guys will see NHL time. That looks good to me.

 

[chethejet]

Guentzel got what he did from the Canes. He was not signed to an extension and as a rental, Dubas did well. Look, Bunting fits the second line and a couple prospects who can make the NHL and a mid round second is part of the retool/rebuild of the farm here. Dubas will need at least 2 to 3 more years to get that in the kind of talent pool to win down the road. He also will move players for picks and prospects and have cap room to take on contracts for picks as well.

 

[Gurglesons]

You might not get a top liner out of the three, but at least two of those guys will see NHL time. That looks good to me.

Why are we sure two of these guys will see NHL time, exactly?

 

[Andy99]

Trade Targets: Decision time looms for Maple Leafs and Mitch Marner

Will the Leafs and Marner work together on an extension – or a ticket out of Toronto?

www.dailyfaceoff.com

Is there a way we could convert #12 into #4? Lol