Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: POJ traded to Penguins for Future Considerations

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • 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.
simon IC said:
I was hoping POJ could replace Perunovich on the third pairing, but it turned out POJ wasn't even good enough for that. It's disappointing.
Click to expand...
I think most of us, if not all, agree with you, Simon. The word out of PIT was that POJ was misutilized (that's a new word) and that a change of scenery would help and all that. It's disappointing because I wanted to enjoy the feel-good, family bro thang.

Rudy Russo said:
Dubas made a huge mistake in signing Graves.
Click to expand...
That's a bum deal, but Dubas seems kinda lost in his head sometimes. Just looked at CW. He's got FOUR more years @4.5. Sheesh!

BTW, is that Kurt Russell from 'Used Cars' in your avatar?

Damn it, Fuchs!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Drubilly and Rudy Russo
ChicagoBlues said:
I think most of us, if not all, agree with you, Simon. The word out of PIT was that POJ was misutilized (that's a new word) and that a change of scenery would help and all that. It's disappointing because I wanted to enjoy the feel-good, family bro thang.


That's a bum deal, but Dubas seems kinda lost in his head sometimes.

BTW, is that Kurt Russell from 'Used Cars' in your avatar?

Damn it, Fuchs!!
Click to expand...
1734574967153.png
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Drubilly and ChicagoBlues
TheOrganist said:
Good. He sucked. Funny some posters were advocating for MORE ice time for him as a criticism to the Fowler trade.
Click to expand...
I don't remember individuals wanting more ice time for POJ, but, if they did, then can we trade them to HFPenguins for Future Considerations?
 
Majorityof1 said:
He had to have requested it. Why would we trade him at all unless he wanted it. He was completely buriable in the press box or AHL.
Click to expand...
Or feedback from Montgomery has led to a couple moves. Or Armstrong has more confidence in Montgomery integrating young guys, so making room for permanent call-ups (probably not, but it could factor in).

This team has several veterans of borderline ability, filling in the roster until rising prospects displace them. Some have played better than expected, some have not. But it’s gratifying to see some of these guys start to be moved out. It makes me feel like more exciting moves aren’t far off where true core pieces start to fill in. If we aren’t a playoff team, I’d at least like to see more young player growth to engage my hopes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A Real Barn Burner, Cotton McKnight, Bye Bye Blueston and 2 others
Stupendous Yappi said:
Or feedback from Montgomery has led to a couple moves. Or Armstrong has more confidence in Montgomery integrating young guys, so making room for permanent call-ups (probably not, but it could factor in).

This team has several veterans of borderline ability, filling in the roster until rising prospects displace them. Some have played better than expected, some have not. But it’s gratifying to see some of these guys start to be moved out. It makes me feel like more exciting moves aren’t far off where true core pieces start to fill in. If we aren’t a playoff team, I’d at least like to see more young player growth to engage my hopes.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's to make room for younger guys, aside from Broberg. Poj was behind Suter (40) and Fowler (33). I assume he knew he was 4th on the totem poll at best. Possibly 5th behind Peru, and even further back if Leddy ever gets healthy. I guess he asked to be moved out somewhere he may have a better shot at PT.

Why would any feedback from Montgomery cause Armstrong to trade a guy for zero return? If Montgomery doesn't like him, he can just not play him. They could have sent him to Springfield to be available as depth later if need be. Its only fans who hate a player so much they want that player traded for literally nothing. A coach who doesn't like a player can just not play that player. Unless Armstrong is doing Joseph a favor, sending him some place he can play, or management is concerned about saving $500k (which is possible), then there was no reason to trade him.
 
All I can say i could absolutely see Armstrong going to POJ and the conversation going

Army - "Hey, PO, so we're most likely going to he waiving you soon and there's a large chance you would be Claimed. Before I do that and you are claimed by a team that isn't ideal, is there any team you would prefer to go to so I can see if there's a position open for you so we can make sure you go somewhere you like"

PO - "Pittsburgh if Possible"

Army - "I'll see what i can do"
 
  • Like
Reactions: StLewis11, mk80, stl76 and 1 other person
POJ was a good gamble. We gave a former first-rounder a change of scenery in a wide-open competition. He was super cheap. It’s a shame we couldn’t flip him for something, but nothing of value was lost by giving him a shot.

I generally liked POJ in his brief stint here. He was ok most of the time, and he made some good breakout passes. No harm no foul all around.

Wish him the best back in Pitt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston, Stupendous Yappi, Xerloris and 2 others
I’m a little disappointed in seeing him go. I don’t have much to say about him as a talent. But I did like the story of having the brothers play together. It was a nice, harmless little story for the season.

Oh well. I hope he has success in Pittsburgh. Not expecting better results, but one can still hope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stlwahoo and Stupendous Yappi
Majorityof1 said:
Funny how you completely failed to understand the point. Actually, no that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I didn’t misunderstand anything. You literally posted in the Fowler trade thread to play POJ more referencing his age and to let him and the other mediocre, not so young defenseman in our system to play more and let them “sink or swim.”
 
TheOrganist said:
I didn’t misunderstand anything. You literally posted in the Fowler trade thread to play POJ more referencing his age and to let him and the other mediocre, not so young defenseman in our system to play more and let them “sink or swim.”
Click to expand...

No. Someone posted that we were ruining young guys development by overplaying them. I was pointing out the that any of the players we would possibly overplay had we not acquired Fowler aren't "young".

I listed multiple options ahead of POJ that could gave been given more ice time. And I clearly stated the goal was not for the player to be successful. I didn't care of they made mistakes, because my goal is to preserve assets, not vainly try to be competitive this year.

You are either being extremely disingenuous to mischaracterize my viewpoint as thinking POJ is some great player or you cannot fathom a view where someone would want to take a brief step back to then take a bigger leap forward. Either way, that says a TON more about you than it does about me.
 
Majorityof1 said:
No. Someone posted that we were ruining young guys development by overplaying them. I was pointing out the that any of the players we would possibly overplay had we not acquired Fowler aren't "young".

I listed multiple options ahead of POJ that could gave been given more ice time. And I clearly stated the goal was not for the player to be successful. I didn't care of they made mistakes, because my goal is to preserve assets, not vainly try to be competitive this year.

You are either being extremely disingenuous to mischaracterize my viewpoint as thinking POJ is some great player or you cannot fathom a view where someone would want to take a brief step back to then take a bigger leap forward. Either way, that says a TON more about you than it does about me.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're such an intellectual heavy that your viewpoint was not decipherable. Jesus.

You've been vocal that the retool will not be successful long-term b/c Armstrong elected not to bottom out and it clouds your opinion of every decision. Your hypothesis will not be known for some time. I actually felt similarly in probably 2023 but I give Armstrong credit for navigating both the short-term and long-term objectives of the franchises rather successfully. They are not bottoming out so I don't understand why we are still having this conversation as a fanbase. That debate is over. Now it's time to watch and analyze the results of this decision.

Currently, Armstrong is trying to improve the team at the margins while not sacrificing any significant long-term piece. Perhaps it's an edict from ownership to stay semi-relevant. But trading a 2nd round pick for a stop-gap defenseman like Fowler that it no way blocks any significant young defenseman but also stabilizes the blueline (which has a core piece in Broberg who was starting to get overexposed) is not mortgaging any future. We're not trading Lindstein and 1st for Malkin. You seem to have difficulty making the distinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reality Czech and PocketNines
At least Doug waited until after the social media staff posted the promo video of the Joseph brothers in the record store to make this move.

The storyline of having both on the same was intriguing going into the season but ultimately hockey wise, not much is lost with this trade. And it’s much better for him than being put on waivers
 
TheOrganist said:
Yes, you're such an intellectual heavy that your viewpoint was not decipherable. Jesus.

You've been vocal that the retool will not be successful long-term b/c Armstrong elected not to bottom out and it clouds your opinion of every decision. Your hypothesis will not be known for some time. I actually felt similarly in probably 2023 but I give Armstrong credit for navigating both the short-term and long-term objectives of the franchises rather successfully. They are not bottoming out so I don't understand why we are still having this conversation as a fanbase. That debate is over. Now it's time to watch and analyze the results of this decision.

Currently, Armstrong is trying to improve the team at the margins while not sacrificing any significant long-term piece. Perhaps it's an edict from ownership to stay semi-relevant. But trading a 2nd round pick for a stop-gap defenseman like Fowler that it no way blocks any significant young defenseman but also stabilizes the blueline (which has a core piece in Broberg who was starting to get overexposed) is not mortgaging any future. We're not trading Lindstein and 1st for Malkin. You seem to have difficulty making the distinction.
Click to expand...

So you do understand, and you are just mischaracterizing my opinion to get some sort of rise out of me. Got it.

I have never said we should completely bottom out. I'd like the see that post you got that from. That would take trading away talent(Thomas) I don't want to trade and taking longer than our current core has (Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko). I advocating taking a few steps back (draft 5-10, 5-10, 10-15), then make playoffs.

Armstrong and Co actually did take a step back. I would have hoped for a few more (trade Buchnevich and Binnington) but they were willing to take a slower path to competitiveness. Then Broberg and Holloway hit and Monty came available. Now they are making moves again, and it seems with the Fowler trade they are trying to accelerate the plan. I don't see the justification.

The Fowler trade may not block any D but it does waste a 2nd. A big part of the plan, mine or Army's, involves drafting well and getting multiple shots at drafting well. There are great players available throughout the draft. But they are not as obvious after the top 10. If we do not have a top 5 pick, we need multiple late 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.

We are trading another shot at a difference maker, even if its a long shot, for a guy who will be gone when it matters. And the only justification people in support of the move can say is we don't want to ruin the development of our young players by forcing them to play too early, while also saying he'll be gone before any of these young players are ready.

Maybe I'm projecting, but I feel like they just don't have the stomach for losing in the short term and are making excuses. Even if it's not a full-scale tank, I think there is benefit to staying the slow and steady course. That 2nd round pick could be the next Colton Parayko, ready when the current one retires. Instead we have Fowler for a year and a half where we have major holes in our roster like no middle 6 Cs at all, none.
 
the question is moot.

they're not bottoming out and in fact are trying to make the playoffs this year. Armstrong is closing out his GM career this year and next, he spends his time thinking how to thread the needle and get the team into the playoffs now. Six months ago there was no shot of playoffs so there was a prevalent defensible feeling that we shouldn't hurt ourselves down the road by trying to squeak in now.

But in that six months we got two highly unlikely positive events, the double offer sheet win which added two young impactful pieces immediately. Then we got exactly the right coach who popped free at the right time. That is not reasonably foreseeable, these are outlier events, but Armstrong's risks have paid off and we have to acknowledge it and even further acknowledge they are DEFINITELY not trying to bottom out now that these thigns have happened so the question is definitely moot.

And in that context, adding Fowler today for a Biakabatuka and a 2d round draft pick in 30 months makes them better on the ice right now, that isn't debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOrganist
without both brothers here we have a smaller chance to see that woman that was sitting next to his dad again. No idea who she was but I assume a relative. She will be missed.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Drubilly
Majorityof1 said:
So you do understand, and you are just mischaracterizing my opinion to get some sort of rise out of me. Got it.

I have never said we should completely bottom out. I'd like the see that post you got that from. That would take trading away talent(Thomas) I don't want to trade and taking longer than our current core has (Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko). I advocating taking a few steps back (draft 5-10, 5-10, 10-15), then make playoffs.

Armstrong and Co actually did take a step back. I would have hoped for a few more (trade Buchnevich and Binnington) but they were willing to take a slower path to competitiveness. Then Broberg and Holloway hit and Monty came available. Now they are making moves again, and it seems with the Fowler trade they are trying to accelerate the plan. I don't see the justification.

The Fowler trade may not block any D but it does waste a 2nd. A big part of the plan, mine or Army's, involves drafting well and getting multiple shots at drafting well. There are great players available throughout the draft. But they are not as obvious after the top 10. If we do not have a top 5 pick, we need multiple late 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.

We are trading another shot at a difference maker, even if its a long shot, for a guy who will be gone when it matters. And the only justification people in support of the move can say is we don't want to ruin the development of our young players by forcing them to play too early, while also saying he'll be gone before any of these young players are ready.

Maybe I'm projecting, but I feel like they just don't have the stomach for losing in the short term and are making excuses. Even if it's not a full-scale tank, I think there is benefit to staying the slow and steady course. That 2nd round pick could be the next Colton Parayko, ready when the current one retires. Instead we have Fowler for a year and a half where we have major holes in our roster like no middle 6 Cs at all, none.
Click to expand...
I thought Armstrong was pretty clear about his reasoning getting Fowler. He wants the young players to grow up in an environment of competitiveness.

I think if you asked and caught him unguarded, he’d admit it’s not as important whether they make the playoffs, as much as the fact that they are playing meaningful games late in the season and guys are learning to compete. They’ll be expecting to BEAT playoff caliber competition, if they want a spot.

This is a pretty fundamental part of his vision as a GM. He has always prioritized trying to win over maximizing draft leverage. We all know the bad examples of teams with multiple high picks who struggle to establish a winning culture. They get young players who have learned how to lose.

The more time passes, the more wisdom I see in Armstrong’s philosophy there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reality Czech, MissouriMook and joe galiba
Stupendous Yappi said:
I thought Armstrong was pretty clear about his reasoning getting Fowler. He wants the young players to grow up in an environment of competitiveness.

I think if you asked and caught him unguarded, he’d admit it’s not as important whether they make the playoffs, as much as the fact that they are playing meaningful games late in the season and guys are learning to compete. They’ll be expecting to BEAT playoff caliber competition, if they want a spot.

This is a pretty fundamental part of his vision as a GM. He has always prioritized trying to win over maximizing draft leverage. We all know the bad examples of teams with multiple high picks who struggle to establish a winning culture. They get young players who have learned how to lose.

The more time passes, the more wisdom I see in Armstrong’s philosophy there.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Armstrong there. And I'd argue Armstring is being a being a bit of a salesman with it mkre than he believes it matters. If it was soo important we be competitive for the young players. Why has he been filling holes with the cheapest possible options until now?

We went dumpster diving this off season prior to the offer sheets. Our guiding principle was taking bad contracts to get free players or players with picks who may turn things around. Now suddenly he wants to be competitive when we entered the season with 1 top 6 C? I do not buy it.
 
Stupendous Yappi said:
I thought Armstrong was pretty clear about his reasoning getting Fowler. He wants the young players to grow up in an environment of competitiveness.

I think if you asked and caught him unguarded, he’d admit it’s not as important whether they make the playoffs, as much as the fact that they are playing meaningful games late in the season and guys are learning to compete. They’ll be expecting to BEAT playoff caliber competition, if they want a spot.

This is a pretty fundamental part of his vision as a GM. He has always prioritized trying to win over maximizing draft leverage. We all know the bad examples of teams with multiple high picks who struggle to establish a winning culture. They get young players who have learned how to lose.

The more time passes, the more wisdom I see in Armstrong’s philosophy there.
Click to expand...

People that never played don't value the importance if a winning culture and playing important games.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Celtic Note, Reality Czech and Bye Bye Blueston
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom