That isn't true. He put up 30+ pts 06, 08, and 09 while playing 73+ games and had more than 3 goals multiple times in his career. He has put up more assists than Dumoulin has put up points in a season, nine times. Dumoulin has also spent the majority of his time with Letang. He also has scored 5 goals in 200 games.
Sorry, I mean in his time in Pittsburgh. I could care less about what he did in NJ given that that was 7+ years ago.
I think you miss understood my point here. I was trying to say I think it is really strange that the franchise would be super gung ho to basically give Dumo a blank check and then turn around and try to low ball Sheary. I like our winger depth, but who is actually replacing Sheary's offense if we trade him? You have to hope either Sprong or ZAR suddenly becomes a 40-50+ pt winger. Hagelin isn't doing, Rust isn't doing it, Kuhn / Wilson aren't doing it.
Who talked about trading Sheary?
Really? You can't see why when a GM looks at Dumoulin who had a very good rookie campaign, then a great rookie playoffs, and then a decent sophomore season and a good playoffs... and you can't see why the qualities he has and the play he's played doesn't reassure a GM? It's pretty easy to see what you're going to get with Dumoulin.
And then compare that to Sheary. He had a decent rookie season, but nothing outstanding. He had some up's and downs in the playoffs in 15/16, but overall was good. He then had a great sophomore season, but some meh playoffs. So which version of Sheary will we get next season? Will it be the rookie who was decent? Or the playoff version of him that was meh? Or the RS version of him that was outstanding? There is the potential for some real falling back to earth for Sheary going forward, and this is what his contract reflects.
The issue is players that play defensive games in junior generally aren't safe bets. Usually they don't make the league.
Also, if you are going to pay that much money and term for a D, shouldn't you be looking to take risks that hopefully pan out in a year or two. I just completely disagree with "building our picks", right now the Pens should be drafting players that are hopefully roster eligible in two years maximum.
That would be stupidly short sighted. Most prospects take between 3-5 years to become impact NHLers - if they ever do. As for who we're picking, I'm not disagreeing with you - just offering an opinion on why JR is picking who he's picking.
I totally tried to make the point that my issue really isn't with either contract as much as the fact as it is with both of them and especially the term on Dumo. If you could save a million or a million and a half on these two players and only have them for the next two or three years, it may have given you a chance to sign a more effective 4C. Basically, spend less money on the D and try to build back what you had with Cullen and Bonino, because I think it is pretty obvious the Penguins have proven you can win the cup with one elite D and a bunch of 17 - 19 minute guys.
Like I said, I really like Dumo. It just seems like a risky contract after the one Rutherford already gave Maatta in my opinion. If you trade Maatta, you can probably say that it allows you to have the Dumo contract, but next year and the year after the money tied up in our D is definitely going to effect us resigning players like Horny, Rust, Guentzel, etc and I don't think it is worth that.
Bold 1: As a GM, you have to look longer than just a year or two. You probably could have saved 1-1.5m, if you'd just signed BD and JS until they were FAs (so 1 and 2 years). But then you're either paying more for JS or trying to find a high end offensive top 4 RD. Odds are that's going to cost you more than 5.5m. And was saw what Alzner signed for (5x4.65m). Replacing Dumoulin 2 years from now will not get cheaper unless we happened to have someone internally.
Bold 2: Sure you can... with players like Hunwick playing an important role. However you've also been very critical of JR in signing Hunwick... so I'm not sure what you're after here. I mean you give him **** for signing BD/JS to some term and say we should be fine using lesser guys... and when we signed a lesser guy, you did nothing but ***** about him...
And before you say "don't do both", we don't have too many options. No one, other than perhaps myself and a couple others - liked the idea of Ruhwedel being our #6D when healthy - and even we had reservations.
Bold 3: Dumoulin's contract is about as risk free as you can get. But it's odd that you should use that term, after talking about depending on guys like Hunwick and Cole to play 17-19 minutes a night.
That is risky - especially if you can't shelter them. Which without Dumoulin around, you would have a hard time doing.
Bold 4: Having the blueline we have may affect one of Hagelin, Hornqvist or Rust. But it's not just the blueline. Having Crosby, Malkin and Kessel also play parts of that as well. IF we want depth throughout the roster, it costs money. We have a lot of high end talent... which means we need to ensure that money elsewhere is spent as judiciously as possible. That said... with a small raise in the cap, letting Cole walk, and having a cheap #3 (2.5m or less), extending Hornqvist isn't that big of an issue.
The bigger issue will be June 2019 when Guentzel and Murray need around 8m in raises, and there will only be ~3m coming off the roster (Hagelin - replacement) without trading players. Add 2m or so in a cap raise, and we're still falling short.
That will be the summer where we see some real change and tough decisions made.
