Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud is doing server maintenance Thurdsay 13th at 9 AM GMT. Downtime is to be expected during the process. Server changes were implemented recently to cope with the traffic surge last week. This seems to be affecting the user login, so please anyone experiencing this, log out and clear the browser cache. We expect to have this issue solved once the maintenance is complete.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
SEALBound said:
Dubas said that they had been looking to trade him since last spring and the asking price was finally met. Personally, I think Eller was playing better than the return he got but they got what they wanted. Dubas also said they wanted the roster spot for others which I imagine meant Lizotte.

The only nice part about Eller was that his level of play was allowing us to put Malkin with Sid which boosted both. Now, we have a clear gap at 2C that can't be adequately filled by anyone. Fine as long as both Sid and Geno stay healthy but if one goes down, it's 1 line and 3 4th lines.
Click to expand...
I don't have an issue with the Eller return. Eller returned a 2027 3rd and a 2025 5th. Reilly Smith returned a 2027 2nd and a 2025 5th, but we had to retain 25% of Smith's contract.
Buddy Bizarre said:
I got the Eller trade from an objective point of view: selling an expiring asset and creating a spot for someone else.

What I don't get is getting rid of a player who has shown he doesn't quit and he always competes. He even questions his teammates' efforts You'd think that would count for something?

IDK...there were probably 5 other dudes I'd get rid of before Eller, either taking a 7th round draft pick, future considerations, or outright waiving the them.

But I don't wear glasses so I'm obviously not as smart as Dubas
Click to expand...
Part of the reason to trade Eller is that he had trade value. Waiving a player doesn't help the team in the future in the same way.

I do agree that it was a shame that he was the only expendable piece who had trade value at the time, though.
 
Big Friggin Dummy said:
Shit, I hope so. That's a good return for a nobody like Petts. Not so much the big fish at the TDL a la Jake though. :laugh:
Click to expand...

I just mean something like a cheaper roster player, a mid round pick and something from the prospect grab bag. I don't suspect the quality or quantity in the return will be the same as it was for Guentzel, but I think they'll be looking to take a similar approach - aiming for an immediate replacement and a decent prospect who is close to NHL ready over simply looking for picks.
 
Gurglesons said:
I imagine he's moved in the offseason.
Click to expand...
At the moment, it would seem like the most likely move for them is to do with Hague what we intend to do with Pettersson - get a pick and a younger replacement dman with potential.

They could opt for a young forward as well if they aren't happy with Holtz or Olof.
 
KrisLetAngry said:
So we initially got him for a free 2nd.
Blues needed there 2nd back for the offer sheets.

We got a later 2nd and 3rd for the 2nd and 5th.

Hayes for 2 years at 3.5 million got us a 2nd and 3rd for a 5th. I won't fault Dubas taking that deal on. That's what we should do is take contracts on for assets.

It does suck he is scratched but I hope next year with 1 year left on the deal he can be traded maybe for that 5th back at the deadline.
Click to expand...
He was basically done last season. There is no turnaround under Sullivan for Kevin Hayes. We will have to trade a valuable pick or prospect to get rid of him now.

Pencil him in as the 13th forward next season. OR, eat more cap space and send him to the AHL to finish off his playing days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry
Jag68Sid87 said:
He was basically done last season. There is no turnaround under Sullivan for Kevin Hayes. We will have to trade a valuable pick or prospect to get rid of him now.

Pencil him in as the 13th forward next season. OR, eat more cap space and send him to the AHL to finish off his playing days.
Click to expand...

Why would the Penguins be paying to get rid of him?

Hayes was acquired in the first place because St. Louis paid basically a 2nd and 3rd for him. Why would the Penguins then trade him to get rid of him? He was brought in specifically because St. Louis paid us to take him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry, Nikkoshine, OtherThingsILike and 1 other person
Empoleon8771 said:
Why would the Penguins be paying to get rid of him?

Hayes was acquired in the first place because St. Louis paid basically a 2nd and 3rd for him. Why would the Penguins then trade him to get rid of him? He was brought in specifically because St. Louis paid us to take him.
Click to expand...

I know it's hard to believe (and at this point maybe even misguided) but some fans still want this team to compete and having sucking cap voids like Hayes on the roster is a detriment to that.
 
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
I know it's hard to believe (and at this point maybe even misguided) but some fans still want this team to compete and having sucking cap voids like Hayes on the roster is a detriment to that.
Click to expand...

But like even if that was the case, why wouldn't you recognize that the Penguins were paid last off-season to take him on and wouldn't be paying to get rid of him?

It would be one thing had they actually acquired Hayes with the intent to play him, but they were paid to take him like half a year ago. If they were willing to do that a half year ago, why would they suddenly be willing to pay to trade him now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry
Empoleon8771 said:
But like even if that was the case, why wouldn't you recognize that the Penguins were paid last off-season to take him on and wouldn't be paying to get rid of him?

It would be one thing had they actually acquired Hayes with the intent to play him, but they were paid to take him like half a year ago. If they were willing to do that a half year ago, why would they suddenly be willing to pay to trade him now?
Click to expand...

True... it would be a confused, conflicted kind of move that implies little REAL plan.

So... you know...
 
If we’re gonna be “soft” buyers, what do people think about bringing Zucker back?

Edit:

I ask because Zucker has 23 points and is a +2 on an abysmal sabres team. No extra term, he plays a tough game when he’s healthy and he has experience here.
 
IcedCapp said:
If we’re gonna be “soft” buyers, what do people think about bringing Zucker back?

Edit:

I ask because Zucker has 23 points and is a +2 on an abysmal sabres team. No extra term, he plays a tough game when he’s healthy and he has experience here.
Click to expand...

I was never a big Zucker fan but the idea has merit and is likely about the very best tier level of help we can expect, realistically.

My biggest concern of course is this... where do we THINK he would play? Bearing in mind who coaches. Zucker is a natural LW and Sullivan was always inflexible about that (and slotting him in on L1).

In an ideal world it makes sense, though. You put Zucker on L1 LW and move one of Rust or Raks down to L2 back to their preferred position at RW.

Zucker/Sid/Rust (or Raks whatever)
Bunting/Malkin/Raks (or Rust whatever)

Suddenly looks a lot more competent a top six IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OtherThingsILike
IcedCapp said:
If we’re gonna be “soft” buyers, what do people think about bringing Zucker back?

Edit:

I ask because Zucker has 23 points and is a +2 on an abysmal sabres team. No extra term, he plays a tough game when he’s healthy and he has experience here.
Click to expand...

If they are close to the playoffs I’d give like a 4th and 5th for him and try to moved rakell or rust for more.
 
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
I was never a big Zucker fan but the idea has merit and is likely about the very best tier level of help we can expect, realistically.

My biggest concern of course is this... where do we THINK he would play? Bearing in mind who coaches. Zucker is a natural LW and Sullivan was always inflexible about that (and slotting him in on L1).

In an ideal world it makes sense, though. You put Zucker on L1 LW and move one of Rust or Raks down to L2 back to their preferred position at RW.

Zucker/Sid/Rust (or Raks whatever)
Bunting/Malkin/Raks (or Rust whatever)

Suddenly looks a lot more competent a top six IMO.
Click to expand...
I dunno where I’d play him, I’d just make sure Iginla was on his off wing.

I also figure we should be able to get him (Zucker) for a song. And then, yeah, if fills out the top-6 a bit
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Darren McCord, Lustaf, PensFutures and 1 other person

Gretz is all positive except for this lol….​

​

4. Goaltending is still a huge concern​

Since the night before Thanksgiving the Penguins have one of the NHL’s best records. They are doing that despite still getting some less-than-stellar goaltending. Their collective 5-on-5 save percentage during that stretch is 26th in the NHL, and still has them near the bottom of the league. Their all situations save percentage has been a little better, rising all the way up to 15th thanks in large part to some outstanding play on the penalty kill. I see two potential problems here. 1) I don’t know if that penalty kill goaltending can sustain itself, and 2) The Penguins are not a dominant enough team 5-on-5 to overcome that sort of goaltending long-term.

www.pensburgh.com

Six thoughts, numbers and observations on the Penguins at the Holiday break

The Pittsburgh Penguins have a couple of days off so let us talk about a few different topics.
www.pensburgh.com www.pensburgh.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom