Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread - I'd rather be your cocoon

[Empoleon8771]

I call

It's a really safe bet to say that Jarry is more likely to be traded than Murray:

1. Murray's either playing well enough where the Penguins wouldn't trade him, or badly enough where he wouldn't get anything back worthwhile in a trade
2. JR tried to trade Jarry all last off-season
3. I really doubt 15 great games for Jarry and 11 bad games for Murray is suddenly making JR change his mind on what he thinks of the two goalies.
4. Jarry is much likely easier to trade for high value, due to him being cheaper on his next contract

The reasons that some people want to trade Murray and make Jarry the starter are the same reasons for why Jarry is more likely to be traded. I'd place it as being much more likely that Murray is lost in the expansion draft than Murray is traded.

 

[Tom Hanks]

All I know is that my ignore list is being filled up to the brim because of this Murray discussion, because some of you guys aren't even worth engaging with



Last 2 years: .912 save%, within +/- .002 of Gibson, Price, Fleury, Varlamov, Dubnyk and Holtby
Last 4 years: .914 save%, within +/- .002 of Fleury, Price, Markstrom, Varlamov, Lundqvist and Holtby

Pointing out Murray has a .910 save% over the last 3 years, which is hardly a reason for concern, paints a different picture than "he's 32nd in save% behind James Reimer". For comparison, Holtby is 36th and Price is 34th in save% in the sample size you posted, but no one is saying that James Reimer is a better goalie than they are.



Matt Murray has the same exact save% in the last 2, 3 and 4 years as guys like Price, Holtby and Fleury. But yeah, hE's NoT eStAbLiShEd or something.

When it comes to signing long term it’s very relevant. You can bump up the minutes up to 6000 minimum (100 games) and then he’s still 17th out of 24. That’s still not great. He’s in the bottom 3rd relevant to his peers over a decent sample size (the most recent).

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

 

[Pittsburgh1776]

Matt Murray has the same exact save% in the last 2, 3 and 4 years as guys like Price, Holtby and Fleury. But yeah, hE's NoT eStAbLiShEd or something.

Nice, educated response. Too bad he was inconsistent from game to game, injury prone, and is off to a very bad start this year. 183 games is all he’s played. That’s a real low bar for 7-8M. No chance.

You keep repeating the 11 bad games narrative. Like the current discontent with Murray is based on 11 bad games, and like he’s only played 11 bad games in the last two years. Again, there is zero chance Rutherford will pay Murray 7-8M at his current level. I doubt even great play the rest of the year would be enough to get north of 6.5. And great play is in doubt.

 

[Empoleon8771]

When it comes to signing long term it’s very relevant. You can bump up the minutes up to 6000 minimum (100 games) and then he’s still 17th out of 24. That’s still not great. He’s in the bottom 3rd relevant to his peers over a decent sample size (the most recent).

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

And he's still right next to Brayden Holtby and Carey Price and doesn't have a bad stat line to begin with. He's been slightly below average in the last 2 years. And I imagine when he reverts back to form after this slump ends, he'll be back around slightly above average.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Nice, educated response. Too bad he was inconsistent from game to game, injury prone, and is off to a very bad start this year. 183 games is all he’s played. That’s a real low bar for 7-8M. No chance.

Carey Price from November 5th, 2019 to November 28th, 2019: 10 games, .877 save%

I guess Price was "off to a very bad start this year", plus Price is injury prone too. I bet if Price was up for his extension, he wouldn't get more than $5 million a year.

You keep repeating the 11 bad games narrative. Like the current discontent with Murray is based on 11 bad games, and like he’s only played 11 bad games in the last two years. Again, there is zero chance Rutherford will pay Murray 7-8M at his current level. I doubt even great play the rest of the year would be enough to get north of 6.5. And great play is in doubt.

Maybe because IT HAS ONLY BEEN 11 BAD GAMES. Do I need to post the game logs to prove that, or do you not care enough to see them?

The current "discontent" with Murray comes entirely from his cold slump. If you seriously think this animosity was directed towards him in the off-season, I genuinely don't know what to tell you. I find it hilarious that you, who didn't post here in the off-season, is trying to say that what is being said now was also said about Murray during the off-season. It's delusional. Also stop with the $7-$8 million nonsense. No one is suggesting Murray should get that at this point. That's just a dumb strawman.

 

[Peat]

IF it weren't for the impending expansion draft that might be an option. But if you go into next season with the same predicament you're kinda playing with fire. IF both are playing well (relatively speaking) we'll likely lose one of them to Seattle. Other teams will know we could possibly lose one or the other for nothing. Which could compromise our leverage and hurt our return quite a bit. That wouldn't be an issue if such a move was made THIS summer however.

You might lose a bit of value, but you wouldn't lose all of it (and losing a goalie to Seattle isn't the worst thing in the world), and you'd have a lot less risk in the goaltending department in the coming year - to me the last part of the sentence justifies the first, but fair enough if you think otherwise.

 

[Pittsburgh1776]

Carey Price from November 5th, 2019 to November 28th, 2019: 10 games, .877 save%

I guess Price was "off to a very bad start this year", plus Price is injury prone too. I bet if Price was up for his extension, he wouldn't get more than $4 million a year.

Also stop with the $7-$8 million nonsense. No one is suggesting Murray should get that at this point. That's just a dumb strawman.

Hold on, you’re comparing 183-game, inconsistent Murray to 654-game Price? Come on. Again, Murray is not a proven veteran in this league. He has yet to show he can backstop a team over years. And this year has done nothing to change this.

And yes, people absolutely were suggesting that money for him, and it’s rumored he’s asking for 8M. It’s Mark Madden, so take it with a lot of salt, but it’s a rumor.

 

[ChaosAgent]

I'd rather have Jarry (himself a ???)/??? for $4M next year than Jarry/Murray for $10M. That's the nature of goaltending.

People need to remember that we're making a choice between Murray or a top-6 winger/top-4 dman next year. Budgets reflect choices.

 

[Riptide]

I mean, Murray isn't bringing gold back.

There's not much value in tendies.

Likely not a good idea to move him, even if you want to move him ASAP

Theres also a very short list of in their prime goalies that have been traded. I think we could get something decent for either of these guys next season. The biggest downfall for us is that if we wait till then, that we will likely lose CDS next Oct to waivers. Not the end of the world, but if it looks like were moving a goalie it would be nice to know we have a quality backup in place.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Hold on, you’re comparing 183-game, inconsistent Murray to 654-game Price? Come on. Again, Murray is not a proven veteran in this league. He has yet to show he can backstop a team over years. And this year has done nothing to change this.

You can at least try to hide your bias somewhat, because calling Murray "inconsistent" while not applying the same tab to Price is hilariously biased. That's also true with the "injury prone" title. Price himself is super injury prone and inconsistent, he's just insanely good when he's on.

You just saying "Murray is not a proven veteran in the league!" counts for nothing, because he is. He has been a starting goalie for 3 full years at this point. If he's not a "proven starter", then there are like 15 proven starters in the NHL and guys like Hart, Binnington, Hellebuyck and Markstrom are not proven starters.

And yes, people absolutely were suggesting that money for him, and it’s rumored he’s asking for 8M. It’s Mark Madden, so take it with a lot of salt, but it’s a rumor.

Outside of clueless Pittsburgh media members, who was suggesting that kind of money for Murray at this point? Hell, over the off-season, we had debates here for whether Murray even had a case for that kind of money. And you seriously think that people are still saying he deserves that kind of money?

I'd rather have Jarry (himself a ???)/??? for $4M next year than Jarry/Murray for $10M. That's the nature of goaltending.

People need to remember that we're making a choice between Murray or a top-6 winger/top-4 dman next year. Budgets reflect choices.

1. Why is that the numbers for the comparison?
2. Going with question marks in net is 10000000000000% not worth adding a top-4 D or a top-6 winger, especially considering they don't "need" either one of those. You can't win with bad goaltending. You can win with having 1 short top-4 D (which they don't have) or 1 short top-6 winger.

 

[Peat]

He has definitely not been above average in “two and bit seasons.”

Won a Cup in his first bit of a season, top 5 in save percentage for starters in 16/17 and 18/19. Two and a bit seasons, above average.

Even two very solid seasons are not enough to be an established player in this league.

Yeah it is.


edit: p.s. The number asked for by people in negotiations is frequently not the number they're willing to settle on.

 

[Pittsburgh1776]

Maybe you’re getting confused. Nobody said anything about the off-season. I don’t make it a habit to post here since joining 10 years ago, but I read the discussions and people were absolutely not pleased with Murray during the season or the playoffs. There was a lot of frustration with his play last year. And this year it’s only gotten worse. You’re calling this a slump; I hope that’s all it is, but I see a goalie who hasn’t been elite since 2017. And I like a lot of people, am concerned with his inconsistency, concerned with his injuries, concerned about his below average glove, and concerned that he hasn’t been in the league long enough to truly prove himself worth big money over a long term. And I think it’s funny that you seem to have a problem with that.

None of this is an argument for Jarry. My hope is that Murray will establish himself and prove that he can play well consistently. But he hasn’t yet.

 

[Ugene Magic]

All I know is that my ignore list is being filled up to the brim because of this Murray discussion, because some of you guys aren't even worth engaging with

Say's the guy who's supper aggressive towards posters here and the main boards.


I'm sure he won't see this.

 

[ChaosAgent]

1. Why is that the numbers for the comparison?
2. Going with question marks in net is 10000000000000% not worth adding a top-4 D or a top-6 winger, especially considering they don't "need" either one of those. You can't win with bad goaltending. You can win with having 1 short top-4 D (which they don't have) or 1 short top-6 winger.

1) $6.5M Murray $3.5M Jarry.
2) Every goalie is a question mark. You're acting as though Jarry/? (let's even just say DeSmith for sake of simplicity) can't provide good goaltending but Murray/Jarry obviously can. Why? Is the difference between Murray and DeSmith that high to where it's worth paying Murray $5M more than DeSmith to be a backup or 1B?

If Jarry is still the starter at the end of the year, think about what you're saying for a second: let's pay our backup goaltender $6M/year. That doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

[Empoleon8771]

1) $6.5M Murray $3.5M Jarry.

I think that's super optimistic for Jarry, I think he'd basically have to do what Binnington did last year or what Murray did in 2016 to push that kind of number. It's not absurd, but it's optimistic.

2) Every goalie is a question mark. You're acting as though Jarry/? (let's even just say DeSmith for sake of simplicity) can't provide good goaltending but Murray/Jarry obviously can. Why? Is the difference between Murray and DeSmith that high to where it's worth paying Murray $5M more than DeSmith to be a backup or 1B?

No, I never said that. I said the risk of them not being able to provide good goaltending is much higher if you trade Murray than if you kept Murray as the backup. And yes, considering how immensely important goaltending is, I'd 100% pay Murray $5 million more a year over going with DeSmith as the backup, especially considering Jarry himself is very unproven as a NHL goalie.

Jarry-DeSmith is a flat out non-starter to me. I will not willingly make my goaltending depth such a risk just to get a player they don't need. If you're trading Jarry, you have to get a platoon goalie capable of handling the load if Jarry falters. The risk of Jarry faltering is way too high to go with another unproven goalie in the tandem.

If Jarry is still the starter at the end of the year, think about what you're saying for a second: let's pay our backup goaltender $6M/year. That doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Yes, 100%. Because they have the cap space to do that and Jarry is super unproven as a starter. You can go with an unproven backup or an unproven starter, you can't do both.

 

[Pittsburgh1776]

Won a Cup in his first bit of a season, top 5 in save percentage for starters in 16/17 and 18/19. Two and a bit seasons, above average.



Yeah it is.


edit: p.s. The number asked for by people in negotiations is frequently not the number they're willing to settle on.

I’m sorry but you have a really low standard for proven vet status.

I posted the rumor because I think it would be crazy that someone in Murray’s current position would even ask for 8M to start with. I mean, you can only go down a lot and look bad doing it.

 

[Ryder71]

You might lose a bit of value, but you wouldn't lose all of it (and losing a goalie to Seattle isn't the worst thing in the world), and you'd have a lot less risk in the goaltending department in the coming year - to me the last part of the sentence justifies the first, but fair enough if you think otherwise.

If the objective is to extract as much as value as viably possible, this summer (in theory anyhow ) would be the drop off point. The interesting decision if you look to the summer to move one of them is if you trade or keep Desmith. Unless you get a very good return you keep him and he is your back up for next year and beyond. That's gonna be a very interesting dynamic in this situation.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Say's the guy who's supper aggressive towards posters here and the main boards.


I'm sure he won't see this.

Don't post dumb things and I won't get "super aggressive" towards you

Like I'm not aggressive with others, because even if I disagree with them, they're not making insane hot takes and refusing to budge on them when evidence against their hot takes is presented. Like in this discussion, there is nothing wrong with saying "they should consider it open for who the starting goalie is going forward, and Jarry should be given just as much of a chance to be the starter as Murray". That's perfectly reasonable. Saying "Murray sucks and has sucked since Fleury left", "Murray is their 3rd string goalie, DeSmith is actually the 2nd string" and "Murray was terrible last year", all of which have been said in a Murray thread recently, are not reasonable and they deserved to be mocked for posting them. Hell, I could make a book of the stupid crap from the guy who said Murray looks like a heroin addict.

If the objective is to extract as much as value as viably possible, this summer (in theory anyhow ) would be the drop off point. The interesting decision if you look to the summer to move one of them is if you trade or keep Desmith. Unless you get a very good return you keep him and he is your back up for next year and beyond. That's gonna be a very interesting dynamic in this situation.

I don't think that should be the objective. I don't think "maximizing trade value" should at all be something this team worries about. Their focus should be making the best team right now, not maximizing the return you can get on players.

 

[Peat]

If the objective is to extract as much as value as viably possible, this summer (in theory anyhow ) would be the drop off point. The interesting decision if you look to the summer to move one of them is if you trade or keep Desmith. Unless you get a very good return you keep him and he is your back up for next year and beyond. That's gonna be a very interesting dynamic in this situation.

Aye, you're probably right on asset value, although I think even with the impending expansion draft, both Jarry and Murray can boost their values sufficiently next season to make it close (you probably don't get both of them doing it).

The true objective is winning the next Stanley Cup though. Keeping Murray and Jarry a season too long to be sure of victory wouldn't be the biggest case of lost asset value we've had in that chase. And I do think it's probably wiser to keep both if possible and we're not given great trade offers.

 

[WayneSid9987]

This is pointless to bicker back and forth about until you know MM's ask.
Only thing rumored is 8M for alotta years.
Thats a "see ya" from me.
Give me the next rumor plz.

 

[ChaosAgent]

I think that's super optimistic for Jarry, I think he'd basically have to do what Binnington did last year or what Murray did in 2016 to push that kind of number. It's not absurd, but it's optimistic.



No, I never said that. I said the risk of them not being able to provide good goaltending is much higher if you trade Murray than if you kept Murray as the backup. And yes, considering how immensely important goaltending is, I'd 100% pay Murray $5 million more a year over going with DeSmith as the backup, especially considering Jarry himself is very unproven as a NHL goalie.

Jarry-DeSmith is a flat out non-starter to me. I will not willingly make my goaltending depth such a risk just to get a player they don't need. If you're trading Jarry, you have to get a platoon goalie capable of handling the load if Jarry falters. The risk of Jarry faltering is way too high to go with another unproven goalie in the tandem.



Yes, 100%. Because they have the cap space to do that and Jarry is super unproven as a starter. You can go with an unproven backup or an unproven starter, you can't do both.

If Jarry is still the starter by the end of this year, he won't be unproven anymore. Even in '17-'18 he was like...passable. Better than Murray is right now. That's a fact.

We gleefully declare that Marino's emergence makes Schultz surplus to requirements then turn around and not act like Marino:Schultz::Jarry:Murray. Normally I'd say that's some "name on the back is more important than the logo on the front" stuff but your hangup seems to be that goalie is super-important and we have a chance to invest accordingly. Fair enough I guess - my POV is below.

Goaltending is important but goalies themselves are high-variance and uncertain. That's why the middle class of goalies - that includes MM and may also include Jarry soon enough - is going to see their paychecks drop drastically over the next few years, at least relative to the cap. I'd rather be ahead of the curve than behind it, but I suppose Jarry-Murray's games could dovetail nicely like Murray and MAF did in '17. I'd say it's very rare for two goaltenders' hot streaks to line up so perfectly, but it has a non-zero chance of happening again.

We're at loggerheads here. Merry Xmas.

 

[Gurglesons]

If Jarry is still the starter by the end of this year, he won't be unproven anymore. Even in '17-'18 he was like...passable. Better than Murray is right now. That's a fact.

We gleefully declare that Marino's emergence makes Schultz surplus to requirements then turn around and not act like Marino:Schultz::Jarry:Murray. Normally I'd say that's some "name on the back is more important than the logo on the front" stuff but your hangup seems to be that goalie is super-important and we have a chance to invest accordingly. Fair enough I guess - my POV is below.

Goaltending is important but goalies themselves are high-variance and uncertain. That's why the middle class of goalies - that includes MM and may also include Jarry soon enough - is going to see their paychecks drop drastically over the next few years, at least relative to the cap. I'd rather be ahead of the curve than behind it, but I suppose Jarry-Murray's games could dovetail nicely like Murray and MAF did in '17. I'd say it's very rare for two goaltenders' hot streaks to line up so perfectly, but it has a non-zero chance of happening again.

We're at loggerheads here. Merry Xmas.

If you want a Marino comparison look at how this board is butchering Pettersson. Petts was a godsend for us last year, he is still playing solid and somehow he is “terrible.”

Marino is replacing Schultz because Schultz’s contract is up as a UFA and we have enough competent D to shield ourselves in that position.

Jarry has played a select amount of games as a bonafide # 1 in the hardest position to have depth in and also the most up and down position in terms of performance as well. The truth is having both Murray and Jarry makes us a better team. Just like it did when we had MAF and Murray and MAF and Vokoun.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If Jarry is still the starter by the end of this year, he won't be unproven anymore. Even in '17-'18 he was like...passable. Better than Murray is right now. That's a fact.

We gleefully declare that Marino's emergence makes Schultz surplus to requirements then turn around and not act like Marino:Schultz::Jarry:Murray. Normally I'd say that's some "name on the back is more important than the logo on the front" stuff but your hangup seems to be that goalie is super-important and we have a chance to invest accordingly. Fair enough I guess - my POV is below.

Goaltending is important but goalies themselves are high-variance and uncertain. That's why the middle class of goalies - that includes MM and may also include Jarry soon enough - is going to see their paychecks drop drastically over the next few years, at least relative to the cap. I'd rather be ahead of the curve than behind it, but I suppose Jarry-Murray's games could dovetail nicely like Murray and MAF did in '17. I'd say it's very rare for two goaltenders' hot streaks to line up so perfectly, but it has a non-zero chance of happening again.

We're at loggerheads here. Merry Xmas.

Tell that to the guy who said Murray wasn't proven at this point, though

I can understand the comparison between Marino and Jarry, but the big difference is that Jarry plays a much more important position than Marino does. And it's ultimately why I'm not willing to go with question marks in net. If you go with a Jarry-DeSmith tandem, you have risks in both your starter (Jarry not having a starter's workload in the past, because he won't get it this year) and DeSmith (DeSmith sucked after his crazy hot start last year). I'm not willing to do that, and I'd only be willing to consider it if you had some bigger glaring flaws that would prevent your team from winning. I don't see the Penguins having that issue. At worst, your 2nd pair will be Pettersson-Marino and your top-6 will have McCann, Kahun, Guentzel and Rust as the wingers. I don't see that as a big enough flaw to justify running with such question marks in net.

Sure, you could be fine with Jarry-DeSmith. But you could also implode if Jarry can't handle being a full time starter (which some people have argued is true with Murray) and DeSmith is actually an AHL goalie who just had a hot run in the NHL. Goaltending is a high variance and uncertain position, that's why I'm not comfortable with going with risky goaltending options.

 

[Ryder71]

Aye, you're probably right on asset value, although I think even with the impending expansion draft, both Jarry and Murray can boost their values sufficiently next season to make it close (you probably don't get both of them doing it).

The true objective is winning the next Stanley Cup though. Keeping Murray and Jarry a season too long to be sure of victory wouldn't be the biggest case of lost asset value we've had in that chase. And I do think it's probably wiser to keep both if possible and we're not given great trade offers.

I'm just hoping that Jarry can play at a high and prolific level all season including playoffs. IF that occurs I'd be much more inclined to move on for MM. Jarry is younger, would cost less and as I mentioned is better with the stick. Ideally they both play well. I'm comfortable with Desmith as the back up however. I just want to see a bigger body of work from Jarry before making that decision. Which would likely afford us an optimal return come june.

To be fair I wouldn't be totally against bringing both back next year. However if that would occur the value we could extract in moving one is likely diminished. To what degree we can't conclusively know, but it's likely a good bit less. That also means we are losing Desmith if we bring both MM and TJ back for 20-21. Which is why I'd prefer the first option.

 

[Will Hunting]

It's a really safe bet to say that Jarry is more likely to be traded than Murray:

I wanna make that bet. We have a Christmas now. Which goaltender stays here longer. I say Jarry stays here longer. Come on man. Real money bet. Dead serious. You dont go to the dance and you are a coward who just pumps Murray.