Tangradi

[mikey287]

I guess the best one can say about the hilariously insane idea of a self-styled Stanley Cup contender trotting out Eric Trangradi on one of its top two lines is that at least the team should have a substantially higher first-round draft pick next summer to address its winger situation...

- Hasn't happened yet.
- Think about other late-bloomers, or fringe players that grew into their role. Not saying Tangradi will or won't, but your response is unneeded cynicism and lacks complete context. I wonder how Ducks fans felt when a 27-year-old left winger with less than 100 NHL games under his belt, who had just been on waivers twice the year before, was inserted into their top-six to start the season...a season that saw them win the Stanley Cup.

First of all, I remain supremely confident that Ray Shero knows that a top six consisting partially of Kunitz, Dupuis, and Tangradi would mean that the team is not anywhere close to being a meaningful Cup contender, so I am really not concerned that Eric Tangradi will ever be seriously considered for this role--especially come April 2013. Whether or not Shero can adequately address the team's glaring needs up front is a debatable proposition, but I have faith he knows they need to be addressed nonetheless.

However, to suggest that it is "unneeded cynicism" or "lacks complete context" (whatever the hell that means) if this self-styled Cup contender is actually considering Tangradi in that role in light of his skill set and production is, to put it charitably, insane. For every Chris Kunitz that you can cite, there are exponentially more players who never fit the profile of "late-bloomer" or accomplish anything at the NHL level, so I really don't get your point. What about Eric Tangradi's body of work, skill set, or career trajectory suggests that he warrants a meaningful look as a top-six forward on a self-styled Cup contender so as to justify your reference to Chris Kunitz in 2006?

Stanley Cup winning team:
Top-six forwards: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Satan/Guerin/Fedotenko/Sykora (all played within 20 secs of each other).
Top-six forwards in ice time playoffs: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Fedotenko, Kennedy

Dupuis is a superior player to Fedotenko. Kunitz remains (twice a top-six player on two different Cup winners since the lockout). The only oddball is Tangradi vs. competition (Bennett, Megna, Veilleux, FA, camp invitee, etc.). Not a dissimilar situation.

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Bust rate vs. population

Naturally more players won't become late-bloomers or even NHLers. To state so is strange. The missed connection is that there are other players with similar skill sets (Malone for instance) with similar development curves that took as long or longer to develop into NHLers. Why throw out a 23 year old power winger that has shown skill in the professional game (AHL All-Star at 21) without any rhyme or reason? If you trust the organization to make an informed decision regarding the roster make-up, then you should hear what the organization says about Tangradi...you'd be suprised.

[mikey287]

Why would they? They gave him up already. Their need for a second line center is obvious. The trade is a likely failure (almost certain) if their biggest need is not addressed by their best asset.

Columbus had many "obvious" needs; which one of those was adequately addressed when they dealt their coveted asset? The fact that they couldn't even land Michael Del Zotto for a former Rocket Richard winner should give anyone pause when they categorically insist that "X" trade for "X" player just won't cut it.

The funny thing about sports is that trades don't all always make sense, and "obvious" needs are not always addressed. We just had a bigger player dealt this summer for, essentially, pennies on the dollar, so unless Scott Howson is uniquely that stupid and incompetent (hey, it's possible, right?), NOBODY on this board should rule out otherwise reasonable offers for a player like Bobby Ryan.

Columbus was hurting for forward depth and given their quality of prospects on the way, they'll need defensive consciences among their ranks to allow for a steady and even progression of players such as Cam Atkinson, Matt Calvert and Nick Foligno. A potential second-line center (Animisov) to provide an offensive spark behind Ryan Johansen. Dubinsky is a two-way forward capable at LW and center (not unlike R.J. Umberger) that allows for versatility in the lineup and can play in any situation. Composed hockey sense on the blueline to offset wanderers (Wisniewski, Johnson). Methot, a player that can chase hits sometimes is out, smart, positional player like Tyutin, Nikitin and Erixon are in. Defensive balance.

Ideal return? Certainly not.

Factors to consider:
- Limited ability to add salary given the market conditions of losing the most marketable player
- Nash's no-trade clause severely limited the marketplace for him
- Howson's error of saying Nash asked to be traded, lowers value
- Impending collective bargaining makes a long-term, high dollar deal difficult to sell to even big market teams
- Nash's overall value trending down as time went on. Howson bluffed, everyone (namely, Sather) called.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Stanley Cup winning team:
Top-six forwards: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Satan/Guerin/Fedotenko/Sykora (all played within 20 secs of each other).
Top-six forwards in ice time playoffs: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Fedotenko, Kennedy

Dupuis is a superior player to Fedotenko. Kunitz remains (twice a top-six player on two different Cup winners since the lockout). The only oddball is Tangradi vs. competition (Bennett, Megna, Veilleux, FA, camp invitee, etc.). Not a dissimilar situation.

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Bust rate vs. population

Naturally more players won't become late-bloomers or even NHLers. To state so is strange. The missed connection is that there are other players with similar skill sets (Malone for instance) with similar development curves that took as long or longer to develop into NHLers. Why throw out a 23 year old power winger that has shown skill in the professional game (AHL All-Star at 21) without any rhyme or reason? If you trust the organization to make an informed decision regarding the roster make-up, then you should hear what the organization says about Tangradi...you'd be suprised.

This has been a general issue I've had with people on this board. Because players don't explode out of the gate, they're written off. Penguin fans have long been spoiled by the luck of drafting instant stars and forget how typical development really takes place. I've argued what you have about Tangradi and others before. I never claimed that I think Tangradi will definitely become a star, top-six or even a solid role-player. Tangradi hasn't had a real chance to not only prove what he's made of, but really a sustained chance of getting comfortable with the NHL level of play and allowing him to develop in it.

Letang, Orpik, Malone and Fleury all received this type of criticism in the beginning. Gonchar received this after a sub-par first season with the Pens...he was called washed up, over-paid, etc...The odd converse to this are players like Letestu, Jeffrey, and a few others were hailed as solid players and described by people on this board as players who are DEFINITE solid NHL players who are pretty much assumed to make the roster. I'm sure we all remember how Staal was viewed. After his first year he was viewed as a lock for the top-six, after his second year he was a "fluke", after his third year, he'll never be more than a third line center and after this past seasons, losing him is now the reason why people think we won't be as competitive.

Development has it's ups and downs when you're not an instant star or just simply a player who is NHL-ready at an early age.

[DayWalker]

I guess the best one can say about the hilariously insane idea of a self-styled Stanley Cup contender trotting out Eric Trangradi on one of its top two lines is that at least the team should have a substantially higher first-round draft pick next summer to address its winger situation...

- Hasn't happened yet.
- Think about other late-bloomers, or fringe players that grew into their role. Not saying Tangradi will or won't, but your response is unneeded cynicism and lacks complete context. I wonder how Ducks fans felt when a 27-year-old left winger with less than 100 NHL games under his belt, who had just been on waivers twice the year before, was inserted into their top-six to start the season...a season that saw them win the Stanley Cup.

First of all, I remain supremely confident that Ray Shero knows that a top six consisting partially of Kunitz, Dupuis, and Tangradi would mean that the team is not anywhere close to being a meaningful Cup contender, so I am really not concerned that Eric Tangradi will ever be seriously considered for this role--especially come April 2013. Whether or not Shero can adequately address the team's glaring needs up front is a debatable proposition, but I have faith he knows they need to be addressed nonetheless.

However, to suggest that it is "unneeded cynicism" or "lacks complete context" (whatever the hell that means) if this self-styled Cup contender is actually considering Tangradi in that role in light of his skill set and production is, to put it charitably, insane. For every Chris Kunitz that you can cite, there are exponentially more players who never fit the profile of "late-bloomer" or accomplish anything at the NHL level, so I really don't get your point. What about Eric Tangradi's body of work, skill set, or career trajectory suggests that he warrants a meaningful look as a top-six forward on a self-styled Cup contender so as to justify your reference to Chris Kunitz in 2006?

Stanley Cup winning team:
Top-six forwards: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Satan/Guerin/Fedotenko/Sykora (all played within 20 secs of each other).
Top-six forwards in ice time playoffs: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Fedotenko, Kennedy

Dupuis is a superior player to Fedotenko. Kunitz remains (twice a top-six player on two different Cup winners since the lockout). The only oddball is Tangradi vs. competition (Bennett, Megna, Veilleux, FA, camp invitee, etc.). Not a dissimilar situation.

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Bust rate vs. population

Naturally more players won't become late-bloomers or even NHLers. To state so is strange. The missed connection is that there are other players with similar skill sets (Malone for instance) with similar development curves that took as long or longer to develop into NHLers. Why throw out a 23 year old power winger that has shown skill in the professional game (AHL All-Star at 21) without any rhyme or reason? If you trust the organization to make an informed decision regarding the roster make-up, then you should hear what the organization says about Tangradi...you'd be suprised.

First of all, I would argue that the Penguins overachieved in 2009, so I am not confident that a team similarly constructed would win again.

Secondly, the Penguins had two player (Malkin and Crosby) who scored more than thirty points those playoffs, the first players to do so since Sakic in 1996, and the first teammates to do so since Leetch and Messier in 1994. I think their production was and remains ahistorical, especially in light of how they have performed since June of 2009. To expect them to match that with this roster strikes me as empirically unreasonable.

Third, Chris Kunitz is terribly unproductive in the playoffs, so the fact that he was on two Cup-winning teams is substantially less meaningful than you think. In those 37 games between Anaheim and Pittsburgh, he managed a whopping 2 goals. Craig Adams had a higher GPG in 2009, and his center for 24 of those games was not Sidney Crosby. For his career, Kunitz has scored only 12 goals in 84 playoff games, including only 8 in 49 games with the Penguins, many of which have been as a linemate for the two finest centers in the game. Although I do believe he is satisfactory as a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, if he is the best winger on either line in the playoffs, his poor playoff production suggests the team is improperly constructed. Neither Anaheim in '07 nor Pittsburgh in '09 asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, and the fact that he managed only two goals in 37 games suggests that his value was grossly overstated in even those roles. (The fact of the matter is, Kunitz's expected role diminished during the 2007 playoffs with Anaheim as the playoffs went on.) He is a fine regular season performer, but his production drops substantially when it counts in the playoffs. So long as we refer to the Pens as Cup contenders, playoff production is of paramount concern in analyzing players and what they contribute. Doing "the little things" like opening up ice and scaring Kimmo Timonen are nice, but if you are Geno or Sid's best winger, you need to produce substantially more than he has in April and beyond.

Fourth, Dupuis may be a better all-around player than Fedotenko, but he is NOT better than Fedotenko as a playoff scorer. Not even close. Fedotenko averages .20 GPG in the playoffs; Dupuis is .146. Furthermore, Fedotenko was already productive with TB in '04 before his critical secondary-scoring contributions with the in Pens in '09. If Dupuis were, again, being used as a complimentary winger like he was with Hossa and Crosby in 2008, he might suffice, but if he is the linemate of somebody as unproductive as Kunitz, your team is not going anywhere. Frankly, I believe Dupuis is miscast as a top-six forward to begin with, especially if the other winger is not a Hossa-caliber player, so I think his inclusion is out of necessity more than design. A month-and-a-half sample before New Year's Day 2011 is considerably less relevant than what a player has historically done in crunch time. Fedotenko produced twice in the playoffs; a guy who was a frequent healthy scratch in the 2009 playoffs has not.

This forward roster is not nearly as good as that one, and that doesn't even take into consideration the ahistorical production of Crosby and Malkin that spring with those overall superior playoff forwards.

As far as Tangradi, I suspect if his is given a meaningful look, it is also out of need and not design. That is an indictment of an organization that, presumably, considers itself a Cup contender. I will happily admit that I am wrong if he does produce enough for a Cup contender in that role, but I have seen little to date from him to suggest that he will fit the profile of players like Guerin or Malone.

[DayWalker]

Why would they? They gave him up already. Their need for a second line center is obvious. The trade is a likely failure (almost certain) if their biggest need is not addressed by their best asset.

Columbus had many "obvious" needs; which one of those was adequately addressed when they dealt their coveted asset? The fact that they couldn't even land Michael Del Zotto for a former Rocket Richard winner should give anyone pause when they categorically insist that "X" trade for "X" player just won't cut it.

The funny thing about sports is that trades don't all always make sense, and "obvious" needs are not always addressed. We just had a bigger player dealt this summer for, essentially, pennies on the dollar, so unless Scott Howson is uniquely that stupid and incompetent (hey, it's possible, right?), NOBODY on this board should rule out otherwise reasonable offers for a player like Bobby Ryan.

Columbus was hurting for forward depth and given their quality of prospects on the way, they'll need defensive consciences among their ranks to allow for a steady and even progression of players such as Cam Atkinson, Matt Calvert and Nick Foligno. A potential second-line center (Animisov) to provide an offensive spark behind Ryan Johansen. Dubinsky is a two-way forward capable at LW and center (not unlike R.J. Umberger) that allows for versatility in the lineup and can play in any situation. Composed hockey sense on the blueline to offset wanderers (Wisniewski, Johnson). Methot, a player that can chase hits sometimes is out, smart, positional player like Tyutin, Nikitin and Erixon are in. Defensive balance.

Ideal return? Certainly not.

Factors to consider:
- Limited ability to add salary given the market conditions of losing the most marketable player
- Nash's no-trade clause severely limited the marketplace for him
- Howson's error of saying Nash asked to be traded, lowers value
- Impending collective bargaining makes a long-term, high dollar deal difficult to sell to even big market teams
- Nash's overall value trending down as time went on. Howson bluffed, everyone (namely, Sather) called.

Yeah, the fact that Columbus couldn't land a Stepan, Del Zotto, Callahan, or Kreider for a guy who is 28 and has already scored 30 goals or more in a season without ever playing with elite talent in a league that covets goal scorers suggests that what we think a team can or should get is often less important than what happens. Again, to suggest that "X" team won't take "Y" deal and that, therefore, we should stop speculating about that deal is a posture that is empirically without merit.

[steelhammer]

I guess the best one can say about the hilariously insane idea of a self-styled Stanley Cup contender trotting out Eric Trangradi on one of its top two lines is that at least the team should have a substantially higher first-round draft pick next summer to address its winger situation...

- Hasn't happened yet.
- Think about other late-bloomers, or fringe players that grew into their role. Not saying Tangradi will or won't, but your response is unneeded cynicism and lacks complete context. I wonder how Ducks fans felt when a 27-year-old left winger with less than 100 NHL games under his belt, who had just been on waivers twice the year before, was inserted into their top-six to start the season...a season that saw them win the Stanley Cup.

First of all, I remain supremely confident that Ray Shero knows that a top six consisting partially of Kunitz, Dupuis, and Tangradi would mean that the team is not anywhere close to being a meaningful Cup contender, so I am really not concerned that Eric Tangradi will ever be seriously considered for this role--especially come April 2013. Whether or not Shero can adequately address the team's glaring needs up front is a debatable proposition, but I have faith he knows they need to be addressed nonetheless.

However, to suggest that it is "unneeded cynicism" or "lacks complete context" (whatever the hell that means) if this self-styled Cup contender is actually considering Tangradi in that role in light of his skill set and production is, to put it charitably, insane. For every Chris Kunitz that you can cite, there are exponentially more players who never fit the profile of "late-bloomer" or accomplish anything at the NHL level, so I really don't get your point. What about Eric Tangradi's body of work, skill set, or career trajectory suggests that he warrants a meaningful look as a top-six forward on a self-styled Cup contender so as to justify your reference to Chris Kunitz in 2006?

Stanley Cup winning team:
Top-six forwards: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Satan/Guerin/Fedotenko/Sykora (all played within 20 secs of each other).
Top-six forwards in ice time playoffs: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Fedotenko, Kennedy

Dupuis is a superior player to Fedotenko. Kunitz remains (twice a top-six player on two different Cup winners since the lockout). The only oddball is Tangradi vs. competition (Bennett, Megna, Veilleux, FA, camp invitee, etc.). Not a dissimilar situation.

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Bust rate vs. population

Naturally more players won't become late-bloomers or even NHLers. To state so is strange. The missed connection is that there are other players with similar skill sets (Malone for instance) with similar development curves that took as long or longer to develop into NHLers. Why throw out a 23 year old power winger that has shown skill in the professional game (AHL All-Star at 21) without any rhyme or reason? If you trust the organization to make an informed decision regarding the roster make-up, then you should hear what the organization says about Tangradi...you'd be suprised.

First of all, I would argue that the Penguins overachieved in 2009, so I am not confident that a team similarly constructed would win again.

Secondly, the Penguins had two player (Malkin and Crosby) who scored more than thirty points those playoffs, the first players to do so since Sakic in 1996, and the first teammates to do so since Leetch and Messier in 1994. I think their production was and remains ahistorical, especially in light of how they have performed since June of 2009. To expect them to match that with this roster strikes me as empirically unreasonable.

Third, Chris Kunitz is terribly unproductive in the playoffs, so the fact that he was on two Cup-winning teams is substantially less meaningful than you think. In those 37 games between Anaheim and Pittsburgh, he managed a whopping 2 goals. Craig Adams had a higher GPG in 2009, and his center for 24 of those games was not Sidney Crosby. For his career, Kunitz has scored only 12 goals in 84 playoff games, including only 8 in 49 games with the Penguins, many of which have been as a linemate for the two finest centers in the game. Although I do believe he is satisfactory as a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, if he is the best winger on either line in the playoffs, his poor playoff production suggests the team is improperly constructed. Neither Anaheim in '07 nor Pittsburgh in '09 asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, and the fact that he managed only two goals in 37 games suggests that his value was grossly overstated in even those roles. (The fact of the matter is, Kunitz's expected role diminished during the 2007 playoffs with Anaheim as the playoffs went on.) He is a fine regular season performer, but his production drops substantially when it counts in the playoffs. So long as we refer to the Pens as Cup contenders, playoff production is of paramount concern in analyzing players and what they contribute. Doing "the little things" like opening up ice and scaring Kimmo Timonen are nice, but if you are Geno or Sid's best winger, you need to produce substantially more than he has in April and beyond.

Fourth, Dupuis may be a better all-around player than Fedotenko, but he is NOT better than Fedotenko as a playoff scorer. Not even close. Fedotenko averages .20 GPG in the playoffs; Dupuis is .146. Furthermore, Fedotenko was already productive with TB in '04 before his critical secondary-scoring contributions with the in Pens in '09. If Dupuis were, again, being used as a complimentary winger like he was with Hossa and Crosby in 2008, he might suffice, but if he is the linemate of somebody as unproductive as Kunitz, your team is not going anywhere. Frankly, I believe Dupuis is miscast as a top-six forward to begin with, especially if the other winger is not a Hossa-caliber player, so I think his inclusion is out of necessity more than design. A month-and-a-half sample before New Year's Day 2011 is considerably less relevant than what a player has historically done in crunch time. Fedotenko produced twice in the playoffs; a guy who was a frequent healthy scratch in the 2009 playoffs has not.

This forward roster is not nearly as good as that one, and that doesn't even take into consideration the ahistorical production of Crosby and Malkin that spring with those overall superior playoff forwards.

As far as Tangradi, I suspect if his is given a meaningful look, it is also out of need and not design. That is an indictment of an organization that, presumably, considers itself a Cup contender. I will happily admit that I am wrong if he does produce enough for a Cup contender in that role, but I have seen little to date from him to suggest that he will fit the profile of players like Guerin or Malone.

Painfully sobering good post.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

IMO, part of winning the cup is a perfect storm for any team, not just names on the back of their jerseys and here is what I mean by that. People will sometimes think that while NJ beat Philly, then beat the Rangers that the Rangers could have clearly beat Philly and I don't buy into that train of thought. Different teams match up specifically against different teams. Different players rise into different roles in the playoffs. Momentum affects the run. All of these aforementioned things create a perfect storm that any team needs in order to win the cup and while it's obviously important for your star players to rise to the occasion, that's simply not enough.

So while Daywalker makes some very valid points and most of what he says is true in a sense, there's a perspective to his post. To say a team overachieved is slightly sophomoric in my opinion and I honestly don't mean that as a jib. That post is very astute and insightful, but I think it overlooks the need for a perfect storm.

Just look at the year Boston won the cup. At least from my perspective, Vancouver was CLEARLY a better team on all accounts. They had scoring, incredible talent throughout the entire line-up, solid defense and goaltending. Boston, clearly, was no slouch as they performed well all season, but if you lined up their rosters against each other, Vancouver is pretty clearly the better team. Boston had their best players rising to the occasion while role players coming alive and obviously incredible goaltending.

This is professional sports, teams don't overachieve their way to a championship, especially in a sport that plays as many games as the NHL does. The Penguins had the right mix of players that year, the right role players stepped up, the team played the way they needed to do in order to defeat their opponents. To say that this roster is not nearly as good as the one that won us the cup is short-sighted because most people were concerned that our roster consisted of Sykora, Satan, Fedotenko with Max Talbot being the winger for Malkin. Hind-sight is 20/20, but many people doubted the Penguins ability to win with those players. So you can't on one hand say they over-acheived with that roster then say that roster was clearly better than the one we have now when that clearly isn't true. This roster, even without Staal has more offensive prowess in it's top-nine than it did that year. The addition of Neal and the rise of Dupuis' scoring ability? Staal may be gone, but at least stats-wise, Sutter production doesn't create a large fall-off in the departure of Staal.

Tangradi - I'm not saying you're wrong per-se about him, but to say "I have seen little" is really subjective. You saw little, we all did, but how much did we see of him in a top-six role or even a top-nine role for that matter? You can't honestly think that a player playing primarily on the fourth line for limited minutes can be given a solid chance to not only develop, but adjust to the NHL level of play to the point that the second he gets a thirty-second shift on the first or second line that he'll just come alive?

Tangradi may not have the foot speed(yet), but playing the fourth line doesn't completely prepare you to handle what you face on the top line, especially when you've been given very little chance to play much at all. In years past, players who are considered decent prospects were given long looks on the top lines with the understanding that they will not play well, that they need time to adjust. If anyone thinks for a second that this isn't true, then you're all in for a rude awakening because with the line of thinking the Penguins will not draft any top-six winger who is NHL ready until they're drafting in the top ten or will simply have to go out and buy and/or trade to fill those roles.

The NHL has obviously changed. Big business has created a scenario where maybe you could say that teams need NHL ready players for the sake of making money. Teams need to fill their seats, they need to win, they need players who create excitement, but in the not too distant past, players took more than just one or two seasons to develop once being called up. They took more than just a few minutes on the fourth line before being ready for full-time play.

So again, I'm not saying that peoples assumption of what Tangradi is capable of right or wrong, I'm simply saying that I think it's a little foolish for anyone to see they haven't seen enough from him when they truly haven't seen a player get the chance they need.

[pcm]

Both Dupuis and Kunitz are complementary wingers. Kunitz is better than Dupuis, but both of them require a productive center and wing to be valuable in a top 6 role. Or one mind-obliteratingly exceptional center, as was the case when Kunitz-Sid-Dupuis was on fire before Sid's injury.

When trying out a young player in a top 6 role as will be the case with Tangradi or Bennet, you'd want to slot them into the complementary winger role. With Tangradi, I imagine this will be with Malkin-Neal. That leaves Sid again with Kunitz and Dupuis, which is putting a lot of pressure on Sid. Ideally, the team upgrades Sid's RW at some point and Dupuis falls back onto the 3rd line.

Remember, Staal has been the team's #3 forward in terms of ice time. Sutter will probably play @ 4-6 minutes less per game than Staal. So who will take those minutes? The Pens will need to employ more depth up front to spread those minutes around. The best way to do that is to give those minutes towards the development of young players (Tangradi, Jeffrey, Vitale, etc.) so that they mature throughout the season. If the organization wants to be a contender year in and out, it has to develop its own talent.

[mikey287]

First of all, I would argue that the Penguins overachieved in 2009, so I am not confident that a team similarly constructed would win again.

Reverse justification to start it out. Interesting. Bernie Parent overachieved in 1974 and 1975 (his career peak, one of the finest peaks of all-time for goalies), so therefore X...

Secondly, the Penguins had two player (Malkin and Crosby) who scored more than thirty points those playoffs, the first players to do so since Sakic in 1996, and the first teammates to do so since Leetch and Messier in 1994. I think their production was and remains ahistorical, especially in light of how they have performed since June of 2009. To expect them to match that with this roster strikes me as empirically unreasonable.

A top flight winger was added (Neal) and Malkin reached a career high in PPG this past season. Better than his 2009 season. Crosby the same way over the past two seasons. Though abbreviated. The last playoffs were a dud due to coaching, not the performance of Malkin and Crosby. To think that they are incapable of out-producing their 2009 seasons when they are during the regular season despite scoring going down over that same period is a touch presumptious. There's no doubt those seasons were outstanding, but to think they are unmatchable given your aforementioned trust in Shero...

Third, Chris Kunitz is terribly unproductive in the playoffs, so the fact that he was on two Cup-winning teams is substantially less meaningful than you think.

And the fact that you judged that entirely on production makes the point less meaningful than you think.

Understanding scoring lines, inflation and deflation of on-paper production.

Not all scoring lines were Bobby Hull-Jean Beliveau-Gordie Howe. Not all scoring lines were Maurice Richard-Wayne Gretzky-Pavel Bure either. Chris Kunitz is a typical glue guy, a fairly static producer, but physical, a quality forechecker that creates turnovers for his linemates. He's first to the corners, does fine boardwork and can finish adequately. He might be more valuable than a one-dimensional sniper on his line. We may never know that.

Historically, top-notch players were not necessarily all matched together, instead opting for different types of forwards to enhance the line's overall capability...

Alex Burrows a fine glue guy for Henrik (playmaker) and Daniel (goal scorer) Sedin. Does the board work and a good deal of forechecking for them. Henrik Sedin has led the league in assists three consecutive times with Burrows at his side more often than more talented teammates that could have gone there or did go there and didn't yield such results (Kesler, Samuelsson, Wellwood, Demitra, Grabner, Naslund).

Mikael Renberg added to the legion of doom with Eric Lindros and John LeClair...others passed up.

Sometimes an energy type player to create space and spread defenses apart to allow for cerebral linemates to create as in the case with Jean Beliveau and Boom Boom Geoffrion being paired with Jean-Guy Gendron for a time. Beliveau and Geoffrion finished one-two in scoring that season. Many more talented teammates (Dickie Moore, for one)

Sometimes a banger/protector is assigned to a scoring line. Think of Clark Gillies helping keep things safe for Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier (though the latter could certainly take care of himself). The more talented John Tonelli was pushed to the second line.

Or a defensive conscience was added to help balance a line that was purely offensive. Like when Phil Esposito and Bobby Hull were given the defensive forward Chico Maki in the mid-60's...

Chris Kunitz with Evgeni Malkin and James Neal does not look dissimilar to some of those lines. Roster limitations, especially in the salary cap era, can create the need to add players into unfamiliar roles (Rob Brown with Mario Lemieux, Mike Knuble with Joe Thornton, Blair McDonald with Wayne Gretzky). Some are met with success, some are yesterday's garbage...

In those 37 games between Anaheim and Pittsburgh, he managed a whopping 2 goals. Craig Adams had a higher GPG in 2009, and his center for 24 of those games was not Sidney Crosby. For his career, Kunitz has scored only 12 goals in 84 playoff games, including only 8 in 49 games with the Penguins, many of which have been as a linemate for the two finest centers in the game. Although I do believe he is satisfactory as a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, if he is the best winger on either line in the playoffs, his poor playoff production suggests the team is improperly constructed. Neither Anaheim in '07 nor Pittsburgh in '09 asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, and the fact that he managed only two goals in 37 games suggests that his value was grossly overstated in even those roles. (The fact of the matter is, Kunitz's expected role diminished during the 2007 playoffs with Anaheim as the playoffs went on.) He is a fine regular season performer, but his production drops substantially when it counts in the playoffs. So long as we refer to the Pens as Cup contenders, playoff production is of paramount concern in analyzing players and what they contribute. Doing "the little things" like opening up ice and scaring Kimmo Timonen are nice, but if you are Geno or Sid's best winger, you need to produce substantially more than he has in April and beyond.

A lot of numbers there. But as you note "asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines" is the only point that needs to be made. See: Gendron and Maki's production from the examples above. You have to understand team composition in the face of coaching decisions and roster limitations. You must compare to contemporary rosters. We won't be able to build a super team like the 1984 Oilers.

Fourth, Dupuis may be a better all-around player than Fedotenko, but he is NOT better than Fedotenko as a playoff scorer. Not even close. Fedotenko averages .20 GPG in the playoffs; Dupuis is .146. Furthermore, Fedotenko was already productive with TB in '04 before his critical secondary-scoring contributions with the in Pens in '09. If Dupuis were, again, being used as a complimentary winger like he was with Hossa and Crosby in 2008, he might suffice, but if he is the linemate of somebody as unproductive as Kunitz, your team is not going anywhere. Frankly, I believe Dupuis is miscast as a top-six forward to begin with, especially if the other winger is not a Hossa-caliber player, so I think his inclusion is out of necessity more than design. A month-and-a-half sample before New Year's Day 2011 is considerably less relevant than what a player has historically done in crunch time. Fedotenko produced twice in the playoffs; a guy who was a frequent healthy scratch in the 2009 playoffs has not.

It's interesting that the 2009 Penguins, as a team, a team that by and large, went to the 2008 Finals...was considered an overachiever, but Ruslan Fedotenko and his two playoffs out of 10 where he was a meaningful contributor is not? That's very strange sentiment. I'm not sure that Fedotenko's 27.9% shooting percentage was going to be sustainable. His only two noteworthy playoff performances removed: 62 GP, 3 goals, 9 assists, 12 points. 3.8% shooting percentage.

Pascal Dupuis with his two most productive playoffs removed: 53 GP, 6 goals, 11 assists, 17 points. 6.7% shooting percentage.

Dupuis wasn't given the opportunity to take on a bigger role in the 2009 playoff run because of the glut of mediocre wingers we had (Satan and Sykora also frequent scratches in that playoffs). He might be miscast as a top-six winger, but roster limitations prevent such a thing. Dupuis out-produced his static producing levels this season which is a major positive. Though, it's likely not sustainable. It's a solid, if unspectacular option, given the circumstances...

This forward roster is not nearly as good as that one, and that doesn't even take into consideration the ahistorical production of Crosby and Malkin that spring with those overall superior playoff forwards.

As far as Tangradi, I suspect if his is given a meaningful look, it is also out of need and not design. That is an indictment of an organization that, presumably, considers itself a Cup contender. I will happily admit that I am wrong if he does produce enough for a Cup contender in that role, but I have seen little to date from him to suggest that he will fit the profile of players like Guerin or Malone.

Sources in the organization suggest to me that any use of Tangradi in a scoring role is by design. Though it might be rushed one year.

[DayWalker]

First of all, I would argue that the Penguins overachieved in 2009, so I am not confident that a team similarly constructed would win again.

Reverse justification to start it out. Interesting. Bernie Parent overachieved in 1974 and 1975 (his career peak, one of the finest peaks of all-time for goalies), so therefore X...

Secondly, the Penguins had two player (Malkin and Crosby) who scored more than thirty points those playoffs, the first players to do so since Sakic in 1996, and the first teammates to do so since Leetch and Messier in 1994. I think their production was and remains ahistorical, especially in light of how they have performed since June of 2009. To expect them to match that with this roster strikes me as empirically unreasonable.

A top flight winger was added (Neal) and Malkin reached a career high in PPG this past season. Better than his 2009 season. Crosby the same way over the past two seasons. Though abbreviated. The last playoffs were a dud due to coaching, not the performance of Malkin and Crosby. To think that they are incapable of out-producing their 2009 seasons when they are during the regular season despite scoring going down over that same period is a touch presumptious. There's no doubt those seasons were outstanding, but to think they are unmatchable given your aforementioned trust in Shero...

Third, Chris Kunitz is terribly unproductive in the playoffs, so the fact that he was on two Cup-winning teams is substantially less meaningful than you think.

And the fact that you judged that entirely on production makes the point less meaningful than you think.

Understanding scoring lines, inflation and deflation of on-paper production.

Not all scoring lines were Bobby Hull-Jean Beliveau-Gordie Howe. Not all scoring lines were Maurice Richard-Wayne Gretzky-Pavel Bure either. Chris Kunitz is a typical glue guy, a fairly static producer, but physical, a quality forechecker that creates turnovers for his linemates. He's first to the corners, does fine boardwork and can finish adequately. He might be more valuable than a one-dimensional sniper on his line. We may never know that.

Historically, top-notch players were not necessarily all matched together, instead opting for different types of forwards to enhance the line's overall capability...

Alex Burrows a fine glue guy for Henrik (playmaker) and Daniel (goal scorer) Sedin. Does the board work and a good deal of forechecking for them. Henrik Sedin has led the league in assists three consecutive times with Burrows at his side more often than more talented teammates that could have gone there or did go there and didn't yield such results (Kesler, Samuelsson, Wellwood, Demitra, Grabner, Naslund).

Mikael Renberg added to the legion of doom with Eric Lindros and John LeClair...others passed up.

Sometimes an energy type player to create space and spread defenses apart to allow for cerebral linemates to create as in the case with Jean Beliveau and Boom Boom Geoffrion being paired with Jean-Guy Gendron for a time. Beliveau and Geoffrion finished one-two in scoring that season. Many more talented teammates (Dickie Moore, for one)

Sometimes a banger/protector is assigned to a scoring line. Think of Clark Gillies helping keep things safe for Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier (though the latter could certainly take care of himself). The more talented John Tonelli was pushed to the second line.

Or a defensive conscience was added to help balance a line that was purely offensive. Like when Phil Esposito and Bobby Hull were given the defensive forward Chico Maki in the mid-60's...

Chris Kunitz with Evgeni Malkin and James Neal does not look dissimilar to some of those lines. Roster limitations, especially in the salary cap era, can create the need to add players into unfamiliar roles (Rob Brown with Mario Lemieux, Mike Knuble with Joe Thornton, Blair McDonald with Wayne Gretzky). Some are met with success, some are yesterday's garbage...

In those 37 games between Anaheim and Pittsburgh, he managed a whopping 2 goals. Craig Adams had a higher GPG in 2009, and his center for 24 of those games was not Sidney Crosby. For his career, Kunitz has scored only 12 goals in 84 playoff games, including only 8 in 49 games with the Penguins, many of which have been as a linemate for the two finest centers in the game. Although I do believe he is satisfactory as a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, if he is the best winger on either line in the playoffs, his poor playoff production suggests the team is improperly constructed. Neither Anaheim in '07 nor Pittsburgh in '09 asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, and the fact that he managed only two goals in 37 games suggests that his value was grossly overstated in even those roles. (The fact of the matter is, Kunitz's expected role diminished during the 2007 playoffs with Anaheim as the playoffs went on.) He is a fine regular season performer, but his production drops substantially when it counts in the playoffs. So long as we refer to the Pens as Cup contenders, playoff production is of paramount concern in analyzing players and what they contribute. Doing "the little things" like opening up ice and scaring Kimmo Timonen are nice, but if you are Geno or Sid's best winger, you need to produce substantially more than he has in April and beyond.

A lot of numbers there. But as you note "asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines" is the only point that needs to be made. See: Gendron and Maki's production from the examples above. You have to understand team composition in the face of coaching decisions and roster limitations. You must compare to contemporary rosters. We won't be able to build a super team like the 1984 Oilers.

Fourth, Dupuis may be a better all-around player than Fedotenko, but he is NOT better than Fedotenko as a playoff scorer. Not even close. Fedotenko averages .20 GPG in the playoffs; Dupuis is .146. Furthermore, Fedotenko was already productive with TB in '04 before his critical secondary-scoring contributions with the in Pens in '09. If Dupuis were, again, being used as a complimentary winger like he was with Hossa and Crosby in 2008, he might suffice, but if he is the linemate of somebody as unproductive as Kunitz, your team is not going anywhere. Frankly, I believe Dupuis is miscast as a top-six forward to begin with, especially if the other winger is not a Hossa-caliber player, so I think his inclusion is out of necessity more than design. A month-and-a-half sample before New Year's Day 2011 is considerably less relevant than what a player has historically done in crunch time. Fedotenko produced twice in the playoffs; a guy who was a frequent healthy scratch in the 2009 playoffs has not.

It's interesting that the 2009 Penguins, as a team, a team that by and large, went to the 2008 Finals...was considered an overachiever, but Ruslan Fedotenko and his two playoffs out of 10 where he was a meaningful contributor is not? That's very strange sentiment. I'm not sure that Fedotenko's 27.9% shooting percentage was going to be sustainable. His only two noteworthy playoff performances removed: 62 GP, 3 goals, 9 assists, 12 points. 3.8% shooting percentage.

Pascal Dupuis with his two most productive playoffs removed: 53 GP, 6 goals, 11 assists, 17 points. 6.7% shooting percentage.

Dupuis wasn't given the opportunity to take on a bigger role in the 2009 playoff run because of the glut of mediocre wingers we had (Satan and Sykora also frequent scratches in that playoffs). He might be miscast as a top-six winger, but roster limitations prevent such a thing. Dupuis out-produced his static producing levels this season which is a major positive. Though, it's likely not sustainable. It's a solid, if unspectacular option, given the circumstances...

This forward roster is not nearly as good as that one, and that doesn't even take into consideration the ahistorical production of Crosby and Malkin that spring with those overall superior playoff forwards.

As far as Tangradi, I suspect if his is given a meaningful look, it is also out of need and not design. That is an indictment of an organization that, presumably, considers itself a Cup contender. I will happily admit that I am wrong if he does produce enough for a Cup contender in that role, but I have seen little to date from him to suggest that he will fit the profile of players like Guerin or Malone.

Sources in the organization suggest to me that any use of Tangradi in a scoring role is by design. Though it might be rushed one year.

I do believe the team overachieved in 2009 relative to the roster. I still believe Detroit was a better team that year, and that team was fortunate to catch many important breaks (The Rangers beating the Flyers Easter Sunday, the Canes beating the teams that I believe would have been the Pens' toughest outs in the East, Lidstrom and Datsyuk"s injuries, and so forth). As Hugo suggested, that is almost always necessary for a team to win a championship, especially in a league with cap-induced parity, but that doesn't diminish their importance. The sentiment is not designed to undermine their accomplishments, but I do offer it to suggest why references to what occurred three years ago are of limited utility now. As far as your "reverse justification" comment is concerned, I have no clue what you are talking about, nor do I follow the Parent non sequitir. Perhaps you can explain the relevance of those.

Secondly, again, three total players have scored thirty or more points in a playoff season since 1996: Briere, Crosby, and Malkin. The Penguins had two of those players. In the same season. At no point did I say those numbers were "unmatchable," so please refrain from misrepresenting what I said. However, empirically, I believe it is unwise to expect them to match that production in the future, production that was absolutely essential to the team winning the Cup that year. This is why I have long argued that just because the team won with middling wingers and complementary scorers in 2009 does not mean that taking that approach on a yearly basis is wise design. Finding secondary playoff scoring is essential for virtually every team, and it is clearly something this top-heavy team must address before next spring if it is to compete for the Cup. It seems pretty clear by what has transpired in Pittsburgh since June of 2009 that the team recognizes this glaring need (even if some posters on this message board do not), but the outcomes to date suggest that what they have done is simply not sufficient to compete for a Cup. Acquiring James Neal appears to be a good way to begin to address this need, but I do not believe it is enough.

Third, I am fully aware that teams can no longer be built like the Oilers in the 1980's and the Penguins in the 1990's. At no point was that or is that my expectation. However, I do expect substantially more from a guy who has played 43 playoff games beside either Crosby or Malkin to produce more than 7 goals during that time. Sorry, but that is unacceptable, irrespective of his forechecking abilities, physical game, or chemistry with certain players (And that doesn't even account for his disappearing act against Tampa Bay when the team was desperate for scoring from any source possible.) Again, I recognize that he does some little things well, but unless he is merely a complementary winger like he was in Anaheim in 2007 or with Pittsburgh in 2009, doing some little things well does not make up for his inability to produce in the playoffs when partnered with elite talent. As I suggested before, if Neal is the other winger on his line, I might be able to live with him as a top-six winger despite his unreliable nature as a playoff producer. (That assumes, of course, that Neal can be a reliable playoff scorer; the jury is still out on that given his limited sample size.) However, if he is the primary winger on either of the Pens' top two lines, his empirically-demonstrated inability to produce in the playoffs does not augur well for the team. As good as Crosby and Malkin are, it is entirely too easy to neutralize individual players in the playoffs. To date, Chris Kunitz has NEVER demonstrated the ability to produce critical secondary scoring when this happens. The 1984 Smythe Division semi-finals from this past spring aside, the Penguins had gone thirteen straight playoff games without scoring more than three goals. Montreal and Detroit demonstrated that Crosby (or any individual star, for that matter) can be easily neutralized by a good game plan. For that reason, it is essential that the Penguins find better secondary playoff scorers than they have had the last three seasons.

This primary vs. complementary distinction is important because as of right now, absent any other moves by Shero before the season starts, one has to assume that Kunitz will be moved back to Crosby's line as the primary scoring winger. That might suffice in the regular season, but given his unproductive playoff past, it could be deeply problematic for the team come April. This is why, again, I believe it is essential that the Penguins find a "primary" scoring winger for Crosby (if we are to assume that Neal stays with Malkin) to lessen the burden on him in the playoffs. If the Pens do that, Kunitz should suffice as a "complementary" winger on one of the top two lines. Neal, Hossa, and, to a lesser extent, Guerin have fill or have fill that role for this team before, but having only one of those is not good enough.

Fourth, even if Fedotenko overachieved, so what? Bringing him in as a cheap option during the summer of 2008 was a worthwhile gamble, specifically in light of his 12-goal playoff performance in 2004. I have to assume that when Shero brought him in, a proven ability to produce when it counts had to have been an important factor, especially for a team that was coming off of a loss in the Finals. The gamble clearly paid off, but, yeah, it was still a gamble. Regardless, those two seasons by a younger Fedotenko do not in any way justify gambling with Dupuis now if this team does indeed consider itself a Cup contender. The fact that they have to consider him for that role despite his inability to produce in the playoffs, is, again, an indictment of this team's forward depth, especially when the other winger on his line is also likely to be a "complementary" winger. The fact that you concede that he is likely miscast in top-six duty suggests why some people have serious concerns about this team's forward depth. Again, that they milked what they could out of less-than-impressive wingers in 2009, including a guy who had already had at least one productive playoff, does not mean it is wise to use the 2009 template for this season's roster.

As far as Tangradi, I am thoroughly unconvinced that this team would choose Tangradi if they believed other viable options were available. Rather, I am absolutely convinced that if he is used in a top-six capacity, it is out of need rather than design. Same for either Kennedy or Dupuis.

I trust that Shero understands the team's critical needs in its top six (and on the blue line), but the last few seasons have undermined my faith in his ability to adequately address those needs. This season will be a critical one for the direction of this franchise.

[DayWalker]

IMO, part of winning the cup is a perfect storm for any team, not just names on the back of their jerseys and here is what I mean by that. People will sometimes think that while NJ beat Philly, then beat the Rangers that the Rangers could have clearly beat Philly and I don't buy into that train of thought. Different teams match up specifically against different teams. Different players rise into different roles in the playoffs. Momentum affects the run. All of these aforementioned things create a perfect storm that any team needs in order to win the cup and while it's obviously important for your star players to rise to the occasion, that's simply not enough.

So while Daywalker makes some very valid points and most of what he says is true in a sense, there's a perspective to his post. To say a team overachieved is slightly sophomoric in my opinion and I honestly don't mean that as a jib. That post is very astute and insightful, but I think it overlooks the need for a perfect storm.

Just look at the year Boston won the cup. At least from my perspective, Vancouver was CLEARLY a better team on all accounts. They had scoring, incredible talent throughout the entire line-up, solid defense and goaltending. Boston, clearly, was no slouch as they performed well all season, but if you lined up their rosters against each other, Vancouver is pretty clearly the better team. Boston had their best players rising to the occasion while role players coming alive and obviously incredible goaltending.

This is professional sports, teams don't overachieve their way to a championship, especially in a sport that plays as many games as the NHL does. The Penguins had the right mix of players that year, the right role players stepped up, the team played the way they needed to do in order to defeat their opponents. To say that this roster is not nearly as good as the one that won us the cup is short-sighted because most people were concerned that our roster consisted of Sykora, Satan, Fedotenko with Max Talbot being the winger for Malkin. Hind-sight is 20/20, but many people doubted the Penguins ability to win with those players. So you can't on one hand say they over-acheived with that roster then say that roster was clearly better than the one we have now when that clearly isn't true. This roster, even without Staal has more offensive prowess in it's top-nine than it did that year. The addition of Neal and the rise of Dupuis' scoring ability? Staal may be gone, but at least stats-wise, Sutter production doesn't create a large fall-off in the departure of Staal.

Tangradi - I'm not saying you're wrong per-se about him, but to say "I have seen little" is really subjective. You saw little, we all did, but how much did we see of him in a top-six role or even a top-nine role for that matter? You can't honestly think that a player playing primarily on the fourth line for limited minutes can be given a solid chance to not only develop, but adjust to the NHL level of play to the point that the second he gets a thirty-second shift on the first or second line that he'll just come alive?

Tangradi may not have the foot speed(yet), but playing the fourth line doesn't completely prepare you to handle what you face on the top line, especially when you've been given very little chance to play much at all. In years past, players who are considered decent prospects were given long looks on the top lines with the understanding that they will not play well, that they need time to adjust. If anyone thinks for a second that this isn't true, then you're all in for a rude awakening because with the line of thinking the Penguins will not draft any top-six winger who is NHL ready until they're drafting in the top ten or will simply have to go out and buy and/or trade to fill those roles.

The NHL has obviously changed. Big business has created a scenario where maybe you could say that teams need NHL ready players for the sake of making money. Teams need to fill their seats, they need to win, they need players who create excitement, but in the not too distant past, players took more than just one or two seasons to develop once being called up. They took more than just a few minutes on the fourth line before being ready for full-time play.

So again, I'm not saying that peoples assumption of what Tangradi is capable of right or wrong, I'm simply saying that I think it's a little foolish for anyone to see they haven't seen enough from him when they truly haven't seen a player get the chance they need.

I agree with you entirely, Hugo, that teams frequently do benefit from "the perfect storm" when they win championships, especially in a league where a salary cap produces parity. The '09 Penguins are a testament to that. However, there is no incompatability between suggesting that the team in '09 overachieved relative to its roster and saying that this team is not as good as that one. On the contrary, recognizing that the '09 team overachieved undermines the claim that since "X" plan worked in '09, the team should be confident that it will work again. That I believe the '09 team overachieved suggests why I think this team needs to improve even more and can't, for example, rely upon less-than-stellar forwards to get the job done again. Of course nobody expected Max Talbot to be as productive as he was, but that is precisely why it is a gamble to simply speculate that "X" player can step in and fill that role this time around, even if he never has before, for no other reason than because the team caught lightning in a bottle with Talbot in 2009. To be sure, that approach certainly hasn't worked for this team the last three springs.

Secondly, how is this team better offensively than that team in 2009? Until Neal demonstrates that he can score consistenly when it matters, how can you confidently make that claim? Are you banking on Dupuis matching his career year this upcoming regular season, then producing in the playoffs? I'm not on either count. Furthermore, I do not believe Sutter now is as good of an offensive producer as Staal was then. Who plays the role of Guerin, Fedotenko, and Talbot in the playoffs? Those three produced 22 critical goals as secondary scorers after Malkin and Crosby. Even if Neal produces some of those, who else does? Kunitz? I sure hope you are not counting on that. Plus, I don't know about you, but I think it is foolish to just assume Crosby will finally be healthy this season and in the playoffs. The guy has frequently missed games over his career, so we shouldn't just pencil him in for "X" number of games. Sorry, but I completely disagree with your assessment that this team has more scoring prowess than that team in 2009--and that's not taking into account Crosby and Malkin's ahistorical production that spring.

As far as Tangradi is concerned, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I simply have not seen anything with respect to his production or skill set to suggest that he is a viable option in the top six for a supposed Stanley Cup contender. As I have already stated, if the Penguins really do give him a meaningful look in the top six, I am absolutely convinced it is only because there is no other satisfactory option available at that time, and that Shero will be working hard to address that need ASAP. The same principle applies to Dupuis and Kennedy, by the way.

[mikey287]

First of all, I would argue that the Penguins overachieved in 2009, so I am not confident that a team similarly constructed would win again.

Reverse justification to start it out. Interesting. Bernie Parent overachieved in 1974 and 1975 (his career peak, one of the finest peaks of all-time for goalies), so therefore X...

Secondly, the Penguins had two player (Malkin and Crosby) who scored more than thirty points those playoffs, the first players to do so since Sakic in 1996, and the first teammates to do so since Leetch and Messier in 1994. I think their production was and remains ahistorical, especially in light of how they have performed since June of 2009. To expect them to match that with this roster strikes me as empirically unreasonable.

A top flight winger was added (Neal) and Malkin reached a career high in PPG this past season. Better than his 2009 season. Crosby the same way over the past two seasons. Though abbreviated. The last playoffs were a dud due to coaching, not the performance of Malkin and Crosby. To think that they are incapable of out-producing their 2009 seasons when they are during the regular season despite scoring going down over that same period is a touch presumptious. There's no doubt those seasons were outstanding, but to think they are unmatchable given your aforementioned trust in Shero...

Third, Chris Kunitz is terribly unproductive in the playoffs, so the fact that he was on two Cup-winning teams is substantially less meaningful than you think.

And the fact that you judged that entirely on production makes the point less meaningful than you think.

Understanding scoring lines, inflation and deflation of on-paper production.

Not all scoring lines were Bobby Hull-Jean Beliveau-Gordie Howe. Not all scoring lines were Maurice Richard-Wayne Gretzky-Pavel Bure either. Chris Kunitz is a typical glue guy, a fairly static producer, but physical, a quality forechecker that creates turnovers for his linemates. He's first to the corners, does fine boardwork and can finish adequately. He might be more valuable than a one-dimensional sniper on his line. We may never know that.

Historically, top-notch players were not necessarily all matched together, instead opting for different types of forwards to enhance the line's overall capability...

Alex Burrows a fine glue guy for Henrik (playmaker) and Daniel (goal scorer) Sedin. Does the board work and a good deal of forechecking for them. Henrik Sedin has led the league in assists three consecutive times with Burrows at his side more often than more talented teammates that could have gone there or did go there and didn't yield such results (Kesler, Samuelsson, Wellwood, Demitra, Grabner, Naslund).

Mikael Renberg added to the legion of doom with Eric Lindros and John LeClair...others passed up.

Sometimes an energy type player to create space and spread defenses apart to allow for cerebral linemates to create as in the case with Jean Beliveau and Boom Boom Geoffrion being paired with Jean-Guy Gendron for a time. Beliveau and Geoffrion finished one-two in scoring that season. Many more talented teammates (Dickie Moore, for one)

Sometimes a banger/protector is assigned to a scoring line. Think of Clark Gillies helping keep things safe for Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier (though the latter could certainly take care of himself). The more talented John Tonelli was pushed to the second line.

Or a defensive conscience was added to help balance a line that was purely offensive. Like when Phil Esposito and Bobby Hull were given the defensive forward Chico Maki in the mid-60's...

Chris Kunitz with Evgeni Malkin and James Neal does not look dissimilar to some of those lines. Roster limitations, especially in the salary cap era, can create the need to add players into unfamiliar roles (Rob Brown with Mario Lemieux, Mike Knuble with Joe Thornton, Blair McDonald with Wayne Gretzky). Some are met with success, some are yesterday's garbage...

In those 37 games between Anaheim and Pittsburgh, he managed a whopping 2 goals. Craig Adams had a higher GPG in 2009, and his center for 24 of those games was not Sidney Crosby. For his career, Kunitz has scored only 12 goals in 84 playoff games, including only 8 in 49 games with the Penguins, many of which have been as a linemate for the two finest centers in the game. Although I do believe he is satisfactory as a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, if he is the best winger on either line in the playoffs, his poor playoff production suggests the team is improperly constructed. Neither Anaheim in '07 nor Pittsburgh in '09 asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines, and the fact that he managed only two goals in 37 games suggests that his value was grossly overstated in even those roles. (The fact of the matter is, Kunitz's expected role diminished during the 2007 playoffs with Anaheim as the playoffs went on.) He is a fine regular season performer, but his production drops substantially when it counts in the playoffs. So long as we refer to the Pens as Cup contenders, playoff production is of paramount concern in analyzing players and what they contribute. Doing "the little things" like opening up ice and scaring Kimmo Timonen are nice, but if you are Geno or Sid's best winger, you need to produce substantially more than he has in April and beyond.

A lot of numbers there. But as you note "asked him to be anything more than a complimentary winger on one of the top two lines" is the only point that needs to be made. See: Gendron and Maki's production from the examples above. You have to understand team composition in the face of coaching decisions and roster limitations. You must compare to contemporary rosters. We won't be able to build a super team like the 1984 Oilers.

Fourth, Dupuis may be a better all-around player than Fedotenko, but he is NOT better than Fedotenko as a playoff scorer. Not even close. Fedotenko averages .20 GPG in the playoffs; Dupuis is .146. Furthermore, Fedotenko was already productive with TB in '04 before his critical secondary-scoring contributions with the in Pens in '09. If Dupuis were, again, being used as a complimentary winger like he was with Hossa and Crosby in 2008, he might suffice, but if he is the linemate of somebody as unproductive as Kunitz, your team is not going anywhere. Frankly, I believe Dupuis is miscast as a top-six forward to begin with, especially if the other winger is not a Hossa-caliber player, so I think his inclusion is out of necessity more than design. A month-and-a-half sample before New Year's Day 2011 is considerably less relevant than what a player has historically done in crunch time. Fedotenko produced twice in the playoffs; a guy who was a frequent healthy scratch in the 2009 playoffs has not.

It's interesting that the 2009 Penguins, as a team, a team that by and large, went to the 2008 Finals...was considered an overachiever, but Ruslan Fedotenko and his two playoffs out of 10 where he was a meaningful contributor is not? That's very strange sentiment. I'm not sure that Fedotenko's 27.9% shooting percentage was going to be sustainable. His only two noteworthy playoff performances removed: 62 GP, 3 goals, 9 assists, 12 points. 3.8% shooting percentage.

Pascal Dupuis with his two most productive playoffs removed: 53 GP, 6 goals, 11 assists, 17 points. 6.7% shooting percentage.

Dupuis wasn't given the opportunity to take on a bigger role in the 2009 playoff run because of the glut of mediocre wingers we had (Satan and Sykora also frequent scratches in that playoffs). He might be miscast as a top-six winger, but roster limitations prevent such a thing. Dupuis out-produced his static producing levels this season which is a major positive. Though, it's likely not sustainable. It's a solid, if unspectacular option, given the circumstances...

This forward roster is not nearly as good as that one, and that doesn't even take into consideration the ahistorical production of Crosby and Malkin that spring with those overall superior playoff forwards.

As far as Tangradi, I suspect if his is given a meaningful look, it is also out of need and not design. That is an indictment of an organization that, presumably, considers itself a Cup contender. I will happily admit that I am wrong if he does produce enough for a Cup contender in that role, but I have seen little to date from him to suggest that he will fit the profile of players like Guerin or Malone.

Sources in the organization suggest to me that any use of Tangradi in a scoring role is by design. Though it might be rushed one year.

I do believe the team overachieved in 2009 relative to the roster. I still believe Detroit was a better team that year, and that team was fortunate to catch many important breaks (The Rangers beating the Flyers Easter Sunday, the Canes beating the teams that I believe would have been the Pens' toughest outs in the East, Lidstrom and Datsyuk"s injuries, and so forth). As Hugo suggested, that is almost always necessary for a team to win a championship, especially in a league with cap-induced parity, but that doesn't diminish their importance. The sentiment is not designed to undermine their accomplishments, but I do offer it to suggest why references to what occurred three years ago are of limited utility now. As far as your "reverse justification" comment is concerned, I have no clue what you are talking about, nor do I follow the Parent non sequitir. Perhaps you can explain the relevance of those.

You have me in a rare position of sounding like a homer, normally I bring the outsider opinion...this is fun and somewhat new. Anyway, I mean, to say the team overachieved, you would think that they wouldn't have been in the Finals the year before or got an excess of help along the way that led to their win...you cite Datsyuk, that's meaningful certainly, injuries happen...the Wings went 1-2 with Datsyuk in that series. When I think overachievement, I think of a team like the 2006 Hurricanes. Rookie goaltender comes in and gets hot after a pretty dreadful regular season, wins the Conn Smythe (kinda), they play Buffalo who lost 5 of 6 defensemen in the Eastern Conference Finals, then went against the hottest goalie in all the land in Edmonton in Dwayne Roloson, who was iinjured in game 1 of the series and a game that ended on a rare hiccup that very well could have tilted the series the "wrong" way...I don't think they made the playoffs the year before or after....

Winning the Cup as an established, contending team doesn't really strike me as overachieving...but maybe I'm in the minority there.

My other comments regarded how the fanbase, once bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, has now turned against the franchise because of the last playoffs and the fear that two months from now we might have one of our top prospects in the lineup...so much so, that people just come out of the woodwork, especially when the team struggles, to not only crap on the team currently assembled but justify their claim by saying the 2x Eastern Conference Champ, and 2009 Stanley Cup winner "overachieved" ...seems rather dubious. By that logic, Bernie Parent had a two-year outlier in his career in 1974 and 1975 that resulted in the Flyers only two championships "overachieved" and should be looked at with cocked-eye...

Secondly, again, three total players have scored thirty or more points in a playoff season since 1996: Briere, Crosby, and Malkin. The Penguins had two of those players. In the same season. At no point did I say those numbers were "unmatchable," so please refrain from misrepresenting what I said. However, empirically, I believe it is unwise to expect them to match that production in the future, production that was absolutely essential to the team winning the Cup that year. This is why I have long argued that just because the team won with middling wingers and complementary scorers in 2009 does not mean that taking that approach on a yearly basis is wise design.

And my point was that these "middling wingers" are good enough given the cost structure. Interestingly, James Neal (first-team all-star, James Neal) is brought in and helps produce a career year for himself and Evgeni Malkin. These guys, these middling wingers, they're producing at a greater clip than ever before especially when adjusting for scoring pace in the given season. So they very much have the potential and ability to do so. Or get by with it until their prospect wingers come to fruition (if they do) - such as Tangradi, Bennett, Megna, Marcantuoni, etc. Or they make a trade. Or they find a signing that fits.

Finding secondary playoff scoring is essential for virtually every team, and it is clearly something this top-heavy team must address before next spring if it is to compete for the Cup. It seems pretty clear by what has transpired in Pittsburgh since June of 2009 that the team recognizes this glaring need (even if some posters on this message board do not), but the outcomes to date suggest that what they have done is simply not sufficient to compete for a Cup. Acquiring James Neal appears to be a good way to begin to address this need, but I do not believe it is enough.

If anything, Neal adds more to the top-heavyness of the scoring I'd think. The secondary scoring can be a product of coaching tactics. Our third line in the Cup runs was designed to gain or keep momentum. A line that grinds out a cycle and keeps puck possession. It can manufacture offense but it wasn't informed to create offense organically. The job was to eat time, time in which we wouldn't surrender a goal, so that Crosby and Malkin could go back out there and create offense. Thus the perceived lack of secondary scoring but the excessive totals of Crosby and Malkin. It's more a product of tactics, in my eyes, than it is a indictment of how the team is built. Adjustments now may need to be made as we downgraded from Staal to Sutter.

And I bring up how well we did regarding scoring in the regular season because the team appears to have a strong correlation between regular season and playoff scoring...

Goals per game
Year |- RS -|- PO
2008 - 2.93 - 3.05
2009 - 3.15 - 3.29
2010 - 3.04 - 3.23
2011 - 2.78 - 2.00
2012 - 3.33 - 4.33

Third, I am fully aware that teams can no longer be built like the Oilers in the 1980's and the Penguins in the 1990's. At no point was that or is that my expectation. However, I do expect substantially more from a guy who has played 43 playoff games beside either Crosby or Malkin to produce more than 7 goals during that time. Sorry, but that is unacceptable, irrespective of his forechecking abilities, physical game, or chemistry with certain players (And that doesn't even account for his disappearing act against Tampa Bay when the team was desperate for scoring from any source possible.) Again, I recognize that he does some little things well, but unless he is merely a complementary winger like he was in Anaheim in 2007 or with Pittsburgh in 2009, doing some little things well does not make up for his inability to produce in the playoffs when partnered with elite talent. As I suggested before, if Neal is the other winger on his line, I might be able to live with him as a top-six winger despite his unreliable nature as a playoff producer. (That assumes, of course, that Neal can be a reliable playoff scorer; the jury is still out on that given his limited sample size.) However, if he is the primary winger on either of the Pens' top two lines, his empirically-demonstrated inability to produce in the playoffs does not augur well for the team. As good as Crosby and Malkin are, it is entirely too easy to neutralize individual players in the playoffs. To date, Chris Kunitz has NEVER demonstrated the ability to produce critical secondary scoring when this happens. The 1984 Smythe Division semi-finals from this past spring aside, the Penguins had gone thirteen straight playoff games without scoring more than three goals. Montreal and Detroit demonstrated that Crosby (or any individual star, for that matter) can be easily neutralized by a good game plan. For that reason, it is essential that the Penguins find better secondary playoff scorers than they have had the last three seasons.

This primary vs. complementary distinction is important because as of right now, absent any other moves by Shero before the season starts, one has to assume that Kunitz will be moved back to Crosby's line as the primary scoring winger. That might suffice in the regular season, but given his unproductive playoff past, it could be deeply problematic for the team come April. This is why, again, I believe it is essential that the Penguins find a "primary" scoring winger for Crosby (if we are to assume that Neal stays with Malkin) to lessen the burden on him in the playoffs. If the Pens do that, Kunitz should suffice as a "complementary" winger on one of the top two lines. Neal, Hossa, and, to a lesser extent, Guerin have fill or have fill that role for this team before, but having only one of those is not good enough.

Ideally, I'd love a "primary" scoring option for Crosby. So would the organization. They're working on it (went after Parise, for one) but it's not easy. I'm not overly worried about Kunitz's lack of goal scoring in the playoffs. I'd love for him to go all Glenn Anderson for us, but I understand the role and limitations of the player, I'm content with him. We lost in 2008 without him, we acquired him and won in 2009 and he was the fourth highest scorer on the team...I'm ok with that.

Fourth, even if Fedotenko overachieved, so what?

His pace is clearly not sustainable for the career. And when compared with Dupuis, Dupuis' average game is better than Fedotenko's average playoff game. So if Fedotenko passes as quality depth or secondary scoring or something, then Dupuis is as good of an option. I just found it odd that the anomaly of Fedotenko's 2 out of 10 playoff performances is passed over as "proven" but the Penguins are labeled "overachievers".

Bringing him in as a cheap option during the summer of 2008 was a worthwhile gamble, specifically in light of his 12-goal playoff performance in 2004. I have to assume that when Shero brought him in, a proven ability to produce when it counts had to have been an important factor, especially for a team that was coming off of a loss in the Finals. The gamble clearly paid off, but, yeah, it was still a gamble. Regardless, those two seasons by a younger Fedotenko do not in any way justify gambling with Dupuis now if this team does indeed consider itself a Cup contender.

Why?

The fact that they have to consider him for that role despite his inability to produce in the playoffs,

Again, why is Fedotenko's 0.37 pts/gm in the playoffs somehow more valuable 0.4 pts/gm in the playoffs when Dupuis is also faster and better defensively? Fedotenko was a good add, Dupuis is bad to have? These numbers are skewed by Dupuis use as a fringe forward/4th liner during a long run and Fedotenko's two anomalies...

Career pts/gm when used as a top-9 forward in the playoffs (Dupuis): 0.5
Career pts/gm when used as a top-9 forward in the playoffs (Tank): 0.38

As far as Tangradi, I am thoroughly unconvinced that this team would choose Tangradi if they believed other viable options were available. Rather, I am absolutely convinced that if he is used in a top-six capacity, it is out of need rather than design. Same for either Kennedy or Dupuis.

Kennedy is designed to be a third line winger. Dupuis can be a fine complimentary player in the top-six and has been. Tangradi might be able to slot into top-six in a Ryan Malone type role. Who knows. Maybe he's Mike Rupp. The organization seems to like his upside. Let's get a look at him and see if it's by design...

I'm now officially jumping the fence. When we first got Tangradi, I tried to curtail the lofty expectations set upon him...now the fanbase thinks he's a bust (like Fleury) and see some potential (nothing like what I saw in Fleury, of course) so I'm going to take up his case. I'm officially in the Tangradi corner.

I trust that Shero understands the team's critical needs in its top six (and on the blue line), but the last few seasons have undermined my faith in his ability to adequately address those needs. This season will be a critical one for the direction of this franchise.

Yeah, I don't get this. Went out, got two prize free agents in Martin and Michalek, which had all the makings of a top-notch shutdown pairing, traded Goligoski for Neal and Niskanen...went in on Parise...added toughness to the fourth line like Tanner Glass...acquired a major defensive prospect for a soon-to-be-depreciating asset in Staal, got an NHL ready third line center...he doesn't have a ton to work with asset wise without becoming the Flyers sacrifcing every draft pick for whatever Tom, Dick or Harry that will agree to an ill-fated six-year contract...

Shero has done a fine job. Let's hope Bylsma and his staff can figure out an improved game plan...

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

This is a tough one to breakdown because both of you make very excellent points. The problem is I see two flaws in any logic (not necessarily both of yours - this post is in genera) regarding the Penguins winning the cup that year compared to say last year or this upcoming year:

1. In regards to wingers that team was almost "perfectly constructed" come playoff time. It had nothing to do with overall talent so to speak. Kunitz was a forechecking demon, Guerin was wily vet, Talbot was so tough to play against, Fedetenko for whatever reason complemented that well with timely goals and solid two way play, our 3rd line was a cycling machine. I cant give the answer why it didnt work out moving forward - some of it now is age (Kunitz and Cooke while not awful can not match what they did 4 years ago), some of it maybe they over achieved (Talbot, Kennedy) but that forward group worked very well together. Dirty goals, pretty goals, running the ball (keeping the puck deep!), shutting down the other team you name it.

2. The 2nd and bigger point to that forward group and flawed logic in my mind is the defense. Lets not get lost in the we need wingers for Sid argument when a big part of that team was its ability to play defense. Everyone always sites Ovechkins success to minimize the importance of Gill/Scuderi. Its bs. He didnt score all his goals on them, had power play goals and lets face it - he was nasty as a player that year. That team was 6 deep in guys who could play above average in their own zone at worst. It had enough talent to move the puck up with a few guys, and had a deep group of guys on the PK. Orpik might have been the 4th or 5th best on the PK that year.

Other than Neal I dont think any of our wingers next year will bring what any of the wingers brought in 2009. My point is we have Sid, we have Malkin, we have Neal. We do not need in my mind a "winger" for Sid or "upgraded" wingers. We need guys who have an all game rounded out with a solid defensive group to compliment those two, especially in a cap year. I am nervous about the next few years because we dont cycle up front and we dont stop the cycle on defense. Let alone the other deficiencies back there those are the biggest two faults. We are easy to play against. I understand we have a solid core of young defenders coming up but we still dont have what we need to turn this ship around. We have cap space but give me Talbot circa 2009 over Parise or Doan any day (for this team not overall). Give me Mark Eaton, Hal Gill, and Scuderi (circa 2009) instead of one puck mover or $7 million guy.

When Jagr says the biggest difference between the Pens and Devils were the Pens were easy to play against, easy to win all the battles in the corner. And the Devils were tough to play against thats all I need to know.

[Idoit40fans]

Note to self: never return to page 4 of this thread.

[JoseCuervo]

cooke-crosby-tk

[Luckybreak]

I guess the best one can say about the hilariously insane idea of a self-styled Stanley Cup contender trotting out Eric Trangradi on one of its top two lines is that at least the team should have a substantially higher first-round draft pick next summer to address its winger situation...

Gotta agree with Mikey and Hugo following this comment and the subsequent discussion. I see people falling into two camps, both have seen Tangradi do very little on the score board for a supposed power forward and top prospect, and are sceptical over his ability to fill a top 6 role. Both groups realise there are no other prospect, FA, or trade options currently available. One group is horrified by this prospect and focus on what ET and Shero have failed to do. The other group focus on what ET and Shero have done given the circumstances restricting them (be it low minutes on the 4th line or salary caps etc). Personally I think writing him off is short-sighted and see Tangradi as capable of contributing from the 4th line up, if he is given an extended look at top 6 duty and succeeds then great for him and great for the team.

Describing the Pens as 'self-styled Cup contenders' is ridiculous IMO Daywalker. Vegas has the Pens as the odds on Cup favourite, so perhaps the Pens are justifiably using the term Cup contender. Would you prefer the organization to describe the team assembled as a 'mid to high draft pick contender' because you have identified a lack of secondary scoring?

The use of the word 'ahistorical' in reference to Crosby and Malkin's 2009 production is nonsensical. No one is claiming that they will automatically repeat this feat year after year based on 2009, however, both players are generational superstars who have the potential to perform at a level rarely seen. I for one am thrilled that neither seem content to limit their production to what they, or others, have historically achieved. Just because such accomplishments are rare is no justification for disregarding the fact it happened, and could well happen again. After all - part of the attraction a fan feels to professional sports is the inherent unpredictability and the beauty of watching history being over-written.

[Penspal]

Some quality posts in this thread. Congrats to you all. A few items really rang true for me.

- Cup winners often ride the perfect storm, peak at the right time, and have the luck of the hockey gods
- NHL playoffs are not a tournament. They are a war. Some opponents take more out of you, than your next opponent had taken from them.
- injuries or lack thereof make a huge difference.

So, in summary, no matter how good a job GMRS and HCDB do to get the team there, the playoffs will be won by the most deserving team, just not always the best team.

[Gaucho]

- NHL playoffs are not a tournament. They are a war.

So what you are saying is we need weapons for Sidney?

[columbia]

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Are you sure that you want to contend that Tangradi has NHL skill?
The AHL is littered with skill players (at that level), who will never make a dent in the NHL in that way.

Malone put up 20+ in his first NHL season and Guerin never looked back after his first cup of coffee.

[MRandall25]

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Are you sure that you want to contend that Tangradi has NHL skill?
The AHL is littered with skill players (at that level), who will never make a dent in the NHL in that way.

Malone put up 20+ in his first NHL season and Guerin never looked back after his first cup of coffee.

See Colin MacDonald and Brett Sterling, among others.

[mikey287]

Skill set understated

Fan base sees 1 goal in 40 games and thinks lack of skill. Has a good amount of skill and the size to gain time for himself to help offset his natural flaw, lack of speed. Takes time to put these elements together (see: Malone, Ryan; Guerin, Bill; and a host of others).

Are you sure that you want to contend that Tangradi has NHL skill?
The AHL is littered with skill players (at that level), who will never make a dent in the NHL in that way.

Malone put up 20+ in his first NHL season and Guerin never looked back after his first cup of coffee.

There's plenty of players that are more talented than Tangradi in the AHL right now, always will be. But he's got enough skill and scoring upside to be an NHLer. He has more technical talent than Mike Knuble or Tomas Holmstrom also...so there's a flipside to the same coin. Skill level relative to role is important as well. Chris Kunitz lacks a lot of technical ability also. Serviceable.

Some skill players in the AHL lack necessary components to be NHLers...size, attention to defense, hockey sense, etc.

Malone probably wouldn't have cracked the NHL so soon at all, or would have had a limited role at best, had he been competing for a job on an actual team. Malone made a glorified AHL team in 2004, one of the worst teams of the decade. He also stepped in at 24.

Re: Guerin. Who stepped in at around the same age but with much more expectation (5th overall pick, 1989). The thing to understand about those early 90's Devils teams were the balance between lines. Not very much in the way of differentiation between ES ice time. Differences in skill level were fairly limited or specialized. That created the differences on special teams units (more technical ability like Nicholls, Richer, Stastny and a net-front presence like Lemieux). Guerin scored at a comparable ES pace when put into a position to succeed.

Having seen some of Tangradi's work in the OHL and AHL and, naturally, every one of his NHL games...he has upside. He has size, he uses it well, he's strong, he has good hands, a good shot. It's not at all inconceivable that he can put it all together. I'm not a blind prospect lover (in fact, few are more critical of our scouting than I here, as you may well know), I believe he can get all of his tools in his toolbox and be a player for us...

[steelhammer]

I hope you are right, Mikey. I want to believe, but what I have seen of him at the NHL level does not give me any confidence in his ability. Quite the opposite. In summary, I hope Jeffrey is fully recovered and back to his pre-injury level. You know, where he was making an impact on the ice regardless of situation or linemates.

[meow]

I want to believe in Tangradi, but that foot speed man. That foot speed is soooo slllooowww.

[mikey287]

Valid

Foot speed is a valid concern. But he has a natural defense against it - size and puck protection. Keith Tkachuk and Bill Guerin both below average skaters, carved out meaningful careers. Thousands more, failed to become anything. It's very possible he doesn't become anything at all. But he has the ability, the potential, to be a contributing NHLer.

[HockeyDaddy]

The word is that Tangradi focused on his skating and footspeed this summer.

He has tailored his training to work on quickness, explosiveness -- particularly his first stride -- and pure strength so that he will be better at spinning off of defensemen and bringing the puck out of the corner.

He has been skating twice a week in his native Philadelphia under the guidance of Los Angeles assistant and former Flyers coach John Stevens.

"I haven't had skates like that in Philly in my whole career," he said.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/spo ... z24HurM9Qd