Toggle sidebar

Salary Cap: Pens '24-'25 Salary Thread: The Crosbicles Volume XIX

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
If that's overachieving then I DEFINITELY want no part of him unless it's rock bottom, bargain bin discount prices.
Click to expand...
That's the trick isn't it? This isn't a team that should be adding but Tomasino still made sense because it cost next to nothing to get him and he's already had a positive impact.

If Hoglander isn't pricey, it seems fine to add him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fordy and Empoleon8771
Ugene Magic said:
He overachieved on a pretty good Canuck team; do you really think he's going to do the same on a team like the Pens to drive up his value? Remember, he's going to come with a 3.0 cap for 3 years.

Basically, another possible contract to either buyout or retain on.
Click to expand...

I mean if they play him for a full year with Crosby, yes I can absolutely see him outperforming what he did with Vancouver.

Would I be acquiring him to play with Crosby? No, I think he makes more sense as a 3rd line addition. But play him there for 2 years and have him put up 25 goals a season, and you're suddenly getting a great return for him with 1 year at $3 million left.

I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if they ran with this after acquiring Hoglander:

Hoglander-Crosby-Rust
Rakell-Malkin-Tomasino
Bunting-Lizotte-O'Connor/Beauvillier
Beauvillier/O'Connor-Hayes-Acciari
 
Pancakes said:
That's the trick isn't it? This isn't a team that should be adding but Tomasino still made sense because it cost next to nothing to get him and he's already had a positive impact.

If Hoglander isn't pricey, it seems fine to add him.
Click to expand...

I think Tomasino is a flash in the pan but that's a whole other topic.

I don't disagree. At the very least the younger a guy is the more other GMs think they can fix them and you shouldn't have an issue moving on in a year or two. Maybe you even get a pick for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PensFutures and Pancakes
Pancakes said:
That's the trick isn't it? This isn't a team that should be adding but Tomasino still made sense because it cost next to nothing to get him and he's already had a positive impact.

If Hoglander isn't pricey, it seems fine to add him.
Click to expand...

If we are trading DOC, Pulju, Nieto and hopefully Acciari, I think it makes some sense to bring in Hoglander if he's dirt cheap as a bottom six option with some term that could potentially get us back an asset in a year or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry and Pancakes
Sidney the Kidney said:
I'll be honest. I don't understand the massive appeal of Hoglander that the Pens seem to have. He's just not this needle-mover to me that would make any sort of noticeable difference out there.

Just seems like yet another middle six winger that we already have plenty of.
Click to expand...
Completely and utterly disagree if the price is right

In theory: He’s a buy low candidate bc of his impending cap hit. You’re going to sell off a lot of pieces in the next 1.5 seasons and someone needs to play top 6/middle 6.

It’s the same as Tomasino. Pick him up, hope he plays better here, likely flip them in 2-4 years as they likely don’t align with a true rebuild. Hopefully they do ok and you’re able to flip them for more than you paid. No you probably wont strike lightning in a bottle nor will he move needle but it’s better than having the Garrett Wilson’s of the world play in the middle 6 with your graduating prospects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikkoshine, Peat, Turin and 3 others
CheckingLineCenter said:
Completely and utterly disagree if the price is right

In theory: He’s a buy low candidate bc of his impending cap hit. You’re going to sell off a lot of pieces in the next 1.5 seasons and someone needs to play top 6/middle 6.

It’s the same as Tomasino. Pick him up, hope he plays better here, likely flip them in 2-4 years as they likely don’t align with a true rebuild. Hopefully they do ok and you’re able to flip them for more than you paid. No you probably wont strike lightning in a bottle nor will he move needle but it’s better than having the Garrett Wilson’s of the world play in the middle 6 with your graduating prospects.
Click to expand...

I think this is a factor that some aren't putting enough stock in, especially if you want Crosby and Malkin to produce as much as possible. As a team, they don't really have the prospects to be able to plug into major NHL roles with the amount of guys they're going to be selling off. Getting these guys like Tomasino and Hoglander for cheap with intent on increasing their value can fill some of the gaps that the prospect pool has.

It would be one thing if acquiring Hoglander would block out a top prospect from taking that role, but who would Hoglander be blocking from playing on Crosby's LW? There just isn't much talent there. Adding more guys like Hoglander and Tomasino (especially on D, I think they need both a LD and RD) for the cost of 3rd or 4th rounders is what they should be doing to fill out the roster. Even if you go super prospect heavy in the NHL, you don't really have enough good prospects to fill every role.

Assuming they won't be able to move Hayes or Acciari in the next year, I'd be advocating for a forward group like this for next year:

Hoglander-Crosby-Rust/Rakell (trade one of Rakell or Rust for futures)
McGroarty-Malkin-Tomasino
Bunting-Lizotte-Beauvillier type of UFA or trade
Poulin-Ponomarev-Hayes

Eventually plan on trading Bunting, Hayes and that Beauvillier type of UFA to promote guys like Broz, Koivunen and whatever other WBS player deserves a promotion.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
I think this is a factor that some aren't putting enough stock in, especially if you want Crosby and Malkin to produce as much as possible. As a team, they don't really have the prospects to be able to plug into major NHL roles with the amount of guys they're going to be selling off. Getting these guys like Tomasino and Hoglander for cheap with intent on increasing their value can fill some of the gaps that the prospect pool has.

It would be one thing if acquiring Hoglander would block out a top prospect from taking that role, but who would Hoglander be blocking from playing on Crosby's LW? There just isn't much talent there. Adding more guys like Hoglander and Tomasino (especially on D, I think they need both a LD and RD) for the cost of 3rd or 4th rounders is what they should be doing to fill out the roster. Even if you go super prospect heavy in the NHL, you don't really have enough good prospects to fill every role.

Assuming they won't be able to move Hayes or Acciari in the next year, I'd be advocating for a forward group like this for next year:

Hoglander-Crosby-Rust/Rakell (trade one of Rakell or Rust for futures)
McGroarty-Malkin-Tomasino
Bunting-Lizotte-Beauvillier type of UFA or trade
Poulin-Ponomarev-Hayes

Eventually plan on trading Bunting, Hayes and that Beauvillier type of UFA to promote guys like Broz, Koivunen and whatever other WBS player deserves a promotion.
Click to expand...

What we will get..

Hall - Crosby - Rust
Bunting - Malkin - Rakell
Lizotte - Dvorak - Tomasino
Nieto - Acciari - Hayes
 
Gurglesons said:
What we will get..

Hall - Crosby - Rust
Bunting - Malkin - Rakell
Lizotte - Dvorak - Tomasino
Nieto - Acciari - Hayes
Click to expand...

They won't go as prospect heavy as I posted but I do hope they find more of a middle ground between what I posted and what you posted :laugh:

I figure something more realistic would be:

Hoglander-Crosby-Rust
Rakell-Malkin-Tomasino
Bunting-Lizotte-McGroarty
Hayes-Ponomarev-Acciari

Probably add on a top-9 UFA addition to push McGroarty for a spot and that's what I'd bet on.
 
I also just kinda feel like... Sure yeah maybe hoglander is a fine middle sixer

But why should we be targeting him.. Now?

Like, this is the big move to make this month? Is he signed longer? Yes. Is it more? Yes.

f*** it. I guess.... Lame ass deck chair shuffling. But it's got yall jazzed about something.
 
BusinessGoose said:
I also just kinda feel like... Sure yeah maybe hoglander is a fine middle sixer

But why should we be targeting him.. Now?

Like, this is the big move to make this month? Is he signed longer? Yes. Is it more? Yes.

f*** it. I guess.... Lame ass deck chair shuffling. But it's got yall jazzed about something.
Click to expand...

Like what was said above, he's a buy low guy that can fill a hole that this team will have as they're tearing down.
 
Hoglander's young, fast, cost controlled, and has at least shown he can score goals without any PP time.

Why not buy low on him and see what happens?
 
Empoleon8771 said:
I think this is a factor that some aren't putting enough stock in, especially if you want Crosby and Malkin to produce as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah I just mean you need to have some modicum of talent that allows your core pieces/prospects to develop. I’d rather it be Tomasino, Hoglander than having to overpay UFAs

Kind of a “perfect” storm. Guys like Tomasino, Hoglander are good enough to throw next to Geno/Sid, play McG/Koivunen/Pono/etc with to see what you have, not good enough to make you a playoff team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat
Really curious what O'Connors value is. Would rather keep him, but if teams actually value him then yea he can go I guess.

I just don't want another Rodrigues/McCann/Oleskiak thing with him where you deal with his warts for years and then when he's ready to be a really valuable player you deal him.
 
Turin said:
Really curious what O'Connors value is. Would rather keep him, but if teams actually value him then yea he can go I guess.

I just don't want another Rodrigues/McCann/Oleskiak thing with him where you deal with his warts for years and then when he's ready to be a really valuable player you deal him.
Click to expand...

I think the major difference now is where the team will be in the near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Friggin Dummy and Empoleon8771
I think it's totally possible that O'Connor ends up much better elsewhere than here, but I'm more concerned with what kind of trade return he's bringing back for the Penguins. If you can somehow get a 2nd for him, you trade him now. If you can only get a 3rd or less, I think there's a debate to be had whether you're better off keeping him.

I think it's a balancing act for leaving spots open for young guys while also having support for young guys. You don't want to clog up the bottom-6 with veterans that block young guys (like what they have now especially on L4), but you also don't want to put your young guys in a position to fail by not supporting them enough. I think the best option is to continuously sign short term UFAs that you can easily move if a young guy steps up to take their spot, but I think O'Connor may be in that "short term UFA" category himself.

I think the best option is to trade O'Connor now, sign a 3rd liner like O'Connor to a short term deal in UFA (even if it literally is O'Connor) and just continue that cycle until a young guy takes his role. I think they're pretty damn close to McGroarty being able to take his spot anyway, so I figure it won't take too long.

As an aside, I think Lizotte next year will fall in this same category. It will be a debate whether to re-sign him or trade him and continue this same cycle until Broz or Ponomarev takes his spot as the 3C.
 
Dipsy Doodle said:
Hoglander's young, fast, cost controlled, and has at least shown he can score goals without any PP time.

Why not buy low on him and see what happens?
Click to expand...
Cost controlled this year, sure. The next 3 when his extension kicks in? TBD.
He's producing no better than Acciari this year, so it depends what you get from him moving forward.

The Hoglander route also entails abandoning getting a 1st for Petts most likely, so that's pretty notable too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BusinessGoose
AuroraBorealis said:
Cost controlled this year, sure. The next 3 when his extension kicks in? TBD.
He's producing no better than Acciari this year, so it depends what you get from him moving forward.

The Hoglander route also entails abandoning getting a 1st for Petts most likely, so that's pretty notable too.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty unlikely that Pettersson ends up bringing back a 1st, with or without Hoglander being included. I wouldn't deem it impossible but most guys in his playstyle (DFD without physicality) tend to bring back more of a 2nd and B prospect than a 1st.

I think Gavrikov is the only kinda similar player to Pettersson who brought back a 1st, otherwise it's something like a 2nd and a prospect or 2 2nds. Defensemen who bring back 1sts are either physical guys who dumb GMs salivate over or legitimate drivers/carriers of a D pair. Pettersson doesn't fit in either of those.
 
Turin said:
Really curious what O'Connors value is. Would rather keep him, but if teams actually value him then yea he can go I guess.

I just don't want another Rodrigues/McCann/Oleskiak thing with him where you deal with his warts for years and then when he's ready to be a really valuable player you deal him.
Click to expand...

He's 27 and a UFA. You need to move him. Regardless if the value sucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom