SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Haymaker26

Member Since
Jun. 3, 2021
Favourite Team
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forum Posts
1094
Posts per Day
1.0
Forum: Armchair-GMSat. at 4:11 p.m.
Thread: Exploring a Rakell Buyout
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>edeangel84</b></div><div>Turbo is the only guy in that age bracket I’d be fine with signing for 5 years (Joshua too I guess he also is close enough in age). DeBrusk is way too hit and miss and Duclair is all offense. He may hit 30 goals in year one but I certainly wouldn’t give him a 5 year deal. There’s a reason he’s on short term deals. Also Marchessault is a better player than any of those guys. I’m not looking at a guy just because he’s 33, I’m looking at him despite him being that age. Stamkos is 34 but if the dollars were right we’d be nuts to turn him down under the way off the wall chance he wanted to be a Penguin. Some players are old… some are old and still good. Overall I want a younger team but you don’t find a younger team by UFAs. You either trade away players to get younger like we did with Jake or you stay the course. Because of how this group finished the season, we owe it to them (ok 87 s 90% of this) to go in and try to improve the team ASAP without sacrificing the future. I was all for a fire sale until the last couple weeks of the season. Now I want to see 87 extend here and I don’t want him hesitant about that.</div></div>

Why Joshua over Debrusk/Duclair? He did have a pretty good breakout season, but it's the only great year he's had. The others have been good wingers long enough that we have a pretty good idea of where they are, but Joshua only has this one year to go off. I'll admit that the Duke is almost offense, but he drives play at a high level and is probably the best sniper out of this group. DeBrusk is the most versatile IMO. Has some of that scoring touch with stellar defense and a more physical game than Turbo or Duke, and he's also the youngest of the group.

Marchessault and Stammer are great players, but I honestly think The Big Three and EK are old enough that looking at players in despite their age is much more of a risk for us than it is for other teams. If the wheels fall off for either UFA, our stars aren't in their prime and will have a harder time making up the difference. If the existing core declines, how much will either one be able to mask that difference?
And even then, every time we've played younger, faster teams like the Devils or Canes the last couple seasons, we've been embarrassed. We need that kind of youth and energy to compete with them. Them being good players doesn't make them a good fit with us. Also, I don't see Stammer leaving TBL at this point.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat. at 1:30 p.m.
Thread: Exploring a Rakell Buyout
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>edeangel84</b></div><div>There’s no chance Jake comes back or I’d say yes. Otherwise I want a winger who’s an upgrade to Rakell and over 30. That fits with our timeline. Reinhart will want 7 years and 9.5 million or possibly even 10. We should not be signing someone who wants that much term when half way through we will be awful.</div></div>

I'd prefer a winger on the younger side if we're not going after the best players on the market. We've been the oldest team in the NHL for 2 years. Guys like DeBrusk, Duclair, or Teravainen can be signed for ~5 years, keep up with younger, faster, and more physical teams, and then still have enough value to be traded for futures once the rebuild comes.
I don't think Rakell has been 100% healthy since mid-November, but the line of Bunting-Malkin-Rakell was stellar once it was assembled. He has the offseason to recover, and it's a real possibility that our Rakell upgrade is Rakell. Regardless, my point initially was that I think replacing Rakell with Marchessault costs cap space that is better used for upgrades elsewhere.
Forum: Armchair-GMFri. at 3:11 p.m.
Thread: Thoughts
I'm not sure how open to moving KK the Canes even are. It's an alright move, but I'm not sure if that's even on the table for consideration.
I'd prefer DeBrusk or Teravainen over Stephenson unless it's to fill the 3C slot. Not a bad deal, but I think we need another goal scorer and Stephenson is more of a playmaker.
With Kaliyev, we're betting on potential. He's still got a lot of potential to make an impact, but if he doesn't take a step or two forward replacing Puustinen with him is a downgrade. Another decision that there's logic to, but also one that I think is pretty risky.

I like the theory in this ACGM. It fills a lot of the team's holes without breaking the bank. Honestly, most of what I said above is either nitpicky or personal preference. I've definitely seen a lot worse.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 30 at 12:16 p.m.
Thread: Pittsburgh with marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MoSeider53</b></div><div>Well it would be assumed that anyone that trades for Mitch Marner, Would come with an extension. No GM is dealing for him with a one year rental in mind. it's probably an 8 x $12,000,000 or 8 x $12,500,000 extension in place.</div></div>

And honestly, I don't think that's the best option for either the Penguins or for Marner. He's a superstar who I'm willing to bet wants to compete for the Stanley Cup. When is the next time the Pens are going to be giving players that opportunity? With a defense that looks like that, it isn't this season. And with a prospect pool like that, it isn't in the next fews years after that. Marner has a NMC, so he decides if and where he's traded. Why would he choose us over a team that can give him a greater opportunity like LA or Nashville?
As for the Penguins, if we do end up with Marner long-term, the team around him is a couple years from being atrocious. We'd have a bunch of aging legends that can't do it anymore and no supporting cast or youth to speak of surrounding one of the league's best wingers in his prime. So we wouldn't be making the playoffs, but Marner would be good enough to impede the rebuild. It's not the most likely outcome, but I won't rule out the possibility of him keeping us from drafting Hagens or McKenna if things fall apart quickly.
As far as I'm concerned, Marner doesn't fit the Pens' timeline and isn't transcendant enough to change that timeline.