Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
André wrote:bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting Näslund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.
Idoit40fans wrote:bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
The other thing to consider is that some of those forward spots could be filled by Caputi and/or Jeffrey. So thats an inexpensive roster spot, but in any case, I agree.
bhaw wrote:André wrote:bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting Näslund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.
Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.
Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).
With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.
PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.
The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.
I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.
PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.
newarenanow wrote:PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.
The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.
I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.
What was the best interest of the team? Just wanted to know your opinion.
canaan wrote:just ignore it. seriously. its not even amusing anymore..
canaan wrote:newarenanow wrote:PenguinHockeyFanatic wrote:There are a lot of players I would have rather been signed over Satan and Feditenko. Naslund being near the top of that list. But statistically Satan and Naslund are mirror images of each other, so in theory Satan could turn out to be a better fit.
The Penguins will remain a team to be well respected this season, based primarily on the character and resourcefulness that their core demonstrated all of last season. This is a young, battle tested squad with added vets who want to follow their lead into greatness.
I'm in the minority of being very disapointed with the way management pursued the best interest of the team, but in the end it still comes down to that young core. It remains unmatched in the world of hockey.
What was the best interest of the team? Just wanted to know your opinion.
just ignore it. seriously. its not even amusing anymore..
André wrote:bhaw wrote:André wrote:bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting Näslund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.
Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.
Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).
With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.
Again, his points totals are not that fair since he hasn't had a real center around. Whenever paired with the Sedins he's been good for a point per game.
Look at his talents, wheels and shot. He could be awesome getting a fresh start with a guy like Sid. At 4 mil Näslund would've been a solid signing. He needs some help but on the Pens would've gotten it.
I'd take him over Satan any day of the week. We obviously don't agree though
bhaw wrote:André wrote:bhaw wrote:André wrote:bhaw wrote:Here is the problem...
Next year the Pens only have 5 forwards and 5 D signed. That means they need to sign 2 D, Staal, and 7 other forwards. They already have roughly 41M spent.
If Naslund were signed, that's 7 needed forwards with Naslund being the only top line winger (possibly Dupuis if you put him in there). And assuming a 60ish cap, 15M to sign Staal, 2 D, at least one more top line winger, and 5 role players, and a back up goalie.
If Staal costs on the high end, you are left with 10-11M to cover the rest. That is a VERY thin budget.
By keeping Naslund out of the picture, we now have 19ishM to cover the same spots. Not a lot more but it's something, especially when you have another year to plan what to do with those spots.
Flexibility going into next year is what Shero was after. And I probably would not sacrifice that flexibility for a marginally better player.
Yeah but he would've been one of the top line wingers to sign and getting Näslund at 4 mil is not that easy to beat. I have a feeling he'd look great again playing with Sid.
Sure it's easy to beat. He has declined in points every year since 2002-2003.
Last year he got 55 points. 60 the year before. You're telling me we can't find a 60 point winger for $4M? And probably one on the upswing instead of the downswing? The only real upside is that he has been healthy every year. Since 2002-2003, his production is almost cut in half (104 vs 55).
With Naslund, we would have had ONE top 6 winger spot filled. 2 if you count Dupuis. And only 15M to sign TWO more top 6 wingers plus everyone else I mentioned. Staal really throws a whole monkey wrench into the situation because we don't know what he is going to do.
Again, his points totals are not that fair since he hasn't had a real center around. Whenever paired with the Sedins he's been good for a point per game.
Look at his talents, wheels and shot. He could be awesome getting a fresh start with a guy like Sid. At 4 mil Näslund would've been a solid signing. He needs some help but on the Pens would've gotten it.
I'd take him over Satan any day of the week. We obviously don't agree though
2 points to this then I'm done with it:
1. Almost any player in the league would benefit being with Sid compared to who they have now. Satan played with zilch on the Islanders, so the same thing you argued could be said for him. Again... the big difference being that Satan wanted to play here, so we didn't have to get into a bidding war AND he only took one year. There are countless players I would rather have over either of them, so I don't see any sense in jeapordizing next year to sign a guy that is EASILY replaced at this point in his career. Declining points are declining points. He produced 104 points on the same team that he produced 55.
2. The Penguins have had ZERO success with any older players. Whether it's the system, the surrounding players, the coach...
Leclaire - bombed
Recchi - couldn't keep up for a whole season
Roberts - on ice contributions were nothing
Sydor - he's doing ok but had trouble fitting in
Sykora is the only guy who made it, and he's only 32 (Naslund at 35). Satan is 34, which isn't a big difference, but then I go back to 1 year vs 2. If Satan doesn't fit in, we cut ties in the spring and no harm done.
If no other winger above the age of 33 has worked out, why would you risk 4 million (actually it would take more to get him since 4 is what NY offered, meaning we would need more) over 2 years? Again... it jeapordizes A LOT next year. If you are ok with Naslund over Staal, then that's fine... but that is the choice that would have had to be made if Staal produces numbers this year.
bhaw wrote:Sorry, but I have to ask... does your passion to want Naslund here stem from the fact that he's Swedish?
André wrote:bhaw wrote:Sorry, but I have to ask... does your passion to want Naslund here stem from the fact that he's Swedish?
I'm not talking about passionately wanting him here, but was by the end mainly arguing he's better than Satan, that it wasn't easy this summer to do a better signing than Näslund at 4 mil and why your comparisons weren't accurate
That said, yes, I like him
bhaw wrote:André wrote:bhaw wrote:Sorry, but I have to ask... does your passion to want Naslund here stem from the fact that he's Swedish?
I'm not talking about passionately wanting him here, but was by the end mainly arguing he's better than Satan, that it wasn't easy this summer to do a better signing than Näslund at 4 mil and why your comparisons weren't accurate
That said, yes, I like him
I never said Satan was better... I actually think I said Naslund was marginally better. My underlying points are about the flexibility to do what they need this coming off season. Naslund would handcuff them no matter what way you slice it. Satan was a better signing.
stefanh wrote:If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and Näslund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. Näslund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.
I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.
I would prolly prefer Näslund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.
Career wice Näslund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.
Career Goal ratio:
Näslund 0.358 goals per game
Satan 0.356 gpg
I dunno. When I watched Nucks games last year, Naslund just seemed a shell of his former self. He really didn't look all that fast to me. He was one player that I was glad the Pens didn't take a chance on. Satan was sort of "meh" too last year but he's less of a chance since it's only one year. I also think the one year deal provides some incentive to play better, i.e. Ryan Malone. I think Satan has the better year of the two.André wrote:stefanh wrote:If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and Näslund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. Näslund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.
I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.
I would prolly prefer Näslund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.
Career wice Näslund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.
Career Goal ratio:
Näslund 0.358 goals per game
Satan 0.356 gpg
Yeah but he took his time coming around. His top ceiling is alot higher than Satan's, and there's no denying he's the greater talent.
This is getting old though
bh wrote:I dunno. When I watched Nucks games last year, Naslund just seemed a shell of his former self. He really didn't look all that fast to me. He was one player that I was glad the Pens didn't take a chance on. Satan was sort of "meh" too last year but he's less of a chance since it's only one year. I also think the one year deal provides some incentive to play better, i.e. Ryan Malone. I think Satan has the better year of the two.André wrote:stefanh wrote:If we only look at goals the difference between Satan and Näslund aint that great in the modern NHL era. Post lockout Satan got 78 even with that terrible last season which was his only with less than 25 goals since 97/98. Näslund got 81 goals over those 3 seasons.
I also agree that the term is a big factor as well.
I would prolly prefer Näslund too, but this might very well turn out for the better.
Career wice Näslund got 34 goals more than Satan, but have also plaid 88 more games.
Career Goal ratio:
Näslund 0.358 goals per game
Satan 0.356 gpg
Yeah but he took his time coming around. His top ceiling is alot higher than Satan's, and there's no denying he's the greater talent.
This is getting old though
Users browsing this forum: Badger Bob, Sigwolf and 17 guests