Penguins and Head Coach Mike Sullivan Agree to Part Ways

[Skatingpen]

Thoughts?

[Ohio_Pens_fan]

A monocle would complement the stash nicely, then he'd look like Fearless Leader on the old Bullwinkle show.

[Daniel]

A monocle would complement the stash nicely, then he'd look like Fearless Leader on the old Bullwinkle show.

He kinda has the Sam Elliot look going on

[bse]

Granlund netting a hatty tonight. If only the horrible Penguins” GMs had supplied Master Sullivan with players of that ilk they would have won anther Cup with his amazing, unbeatable system.

That's some pretty serious cherry picking of data there considering Granlund has never been a goal scorer. What IS telling is that going back to the 21-22 season, Granlund's production has been very consistent at about 1 point per 25 min of ice time...except for his stint with the Penguins where he averaged 1 point per 65 minutes of ice time. He produced in Nashville the year before he came to the Pens, he produced in San Jose the next two years, and has produced in Dallas this year. The only place he didn't produce was here. Now we can blame Sullivan, and yeah, sure, he should get some, but everyone with half a brain knew at the time of the trade that Granlund wasn't what this team needed: we struggled with finishing, and Granlund is a pass first player.

I do envision a world in which we brought in Granlund and kept him to be the 2C as Malkin as aged and faded, but hindsight is already 20/20.

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

[Puck-Lurker]

Granlund netting a hatty tonight. If only the horrible Penguins” GMs had supplied Master Sullivan with players of that ilk they would have won anther Cup with his amazing, unbeatable system.

That's some pretty serious cherry picking of data there considering Granlund has never been a goal scorer. What IS telling is that going back to the 21-22 season, Granlund's production has been very consistent at about 1 point per 25 min of ice time...except for his stint with the Penguins where he averaged 1 point per 65 minutes of ice time. He produced in Nashville the year before he came to the Pens, he produced in San Jose the next two years, and has produced in Dallas this year. The only place he didn't produce was here. Now we can blame Sullivan, and yeah, sure, he should get some, but everyone with half a brain knew at the time of the trade that Granlund wasn't what this team needed: we struggled with finishing, and Granlund is a pass first player.

I do envision a world in which we brought in Granlund and kept him to be the 2C as Malkin as aged and faded, but hindsight is already 20/20.

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

If we want to blame Sullivan, it's for things like having Heinen on the roster for 2.25M instead of ERod for 3M.

[Antonio]

He's gone now so don't worry. The bad man can't hurt you anymore.

[Badamski9]

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.
[/quote]

Agreed, other than Kessel. He blossomed here for some reason.

[Victor]

Agreed, other than Kessel. He blossomed here for some reason.

Agreed on Kessel. However, when he was brought in, the HC was still Mike Johnston.

[Pitts]

Granlund netting a hatty tonight. If only the horrible Penguins” GMs had supplied Master Sullivan with players of that ilk they would have won anther Cup with his amazing, unbeatable system.

That's some pretty serious cherry picking of data there considering Granlund has never been a goal scorer. What IS telling is that going back to the 21-22 season, Granlund's production has been very consistent at about 1 point per 25 min of ice time...except for his stint with the Penguins where he averaged 1 point per 65 minutes of ice time. He produced in Nashville the year before he came to the Pens, he produced in San Jose the next two years, and has produced in Dallas this year. The only place he didn't produce was here. Now we can blame Sullivan, and yeah, sure, he should get some, but everyone with half a brain knew at the time of the trade that Granlund wasn't what this team needed: we struggled with finishing, and Granlund is a pass first player.

I do envision a world in which we brought in Granlund and kept him to be the 2C as Malkin as aged and faded, but hindsight is already 20/20.

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

If we want to blame Sullivan, it's for things like having Heinen on the roster for 2.25M instead of ERod for 3M.

Pretty sure that would be on the GM, not the coach. Now, actually playing Heinen ... yeah, coach.

[ahawk9]

Kapanen with the OT winner for Edmonton last night. I don't think we can lump him into the Sully dumpster; he was simply an enigma who had flashes of talent but never completely put it together. Rutherford gave up waaaaaaayyyyyy too much to reacquire him.

[Pitts]

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

Agreed, other than Kessel. He blossomed here for some reason.
[/quote]

For one, Kessel did NOT blossom here. He was great long before coming to the Pens.

Secondly, this is a bit disingenuous. The following players all were pretty successful (depending on role) while here working under Sullivan. Not all players need to be superstars to be successful. None of these are Pen's draft picks. For the defensemen listed, most of them actually resurrected their careers playing for Mike Sullivan.

Patric Hornqvist
Rickard Rakell
David Perron (began season under previous coach)
Carl Hagelin
Nick Bonino
Matt Cullen
Conor Sheary
Evan Rodrigues
Jared McCann
Brian Boyle
Brock McGinn
Jason Zucker
Michael Bunting
Jeff Carter (yes, he had a very good season here)
Lars Eller
Anthony Beauvillier
Jesse Puljujärvi (successful despite little playing time)
Philip Tomasino (a little early yet perhaps)

Justin Schultz
Trevor Daley
John Marino
Mike Matheson
Cody Ceci
Jeff Petry
Matt Grzelcyk

[Gunnerfan]

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

Agreed, other than Kessel. He blossomed here for some reason.

For one, Kessel did NOT blossom here. He was great long before coming to the Pens.

Secondly, this is a bit disingenuous. The following players all were pretty successful (depending on role) while here working under Sullivan. Not all players need to be superstars to be successful. None of these are Pen's draft picks. For the defensemen listed, most of them actually resurrected their careers playing for Mike Sullivan.

Patric Hornqvist
Rickard Rakell
David Perron (began season under previous coach)
Carl Hagelin
Nick Bonino
Matt Cullen
Conor Sheary
Evan Rodrigues
Jared McCann
Brian Boyle
Brock McGinn
Jason Zucker
Michael Bunting
Jeff Carter (yes, he had a very good season here)
Lars Eller
Anthony Beauvillier
Jesse Puljujärvi (successful despite little playing time)
Philip Tomasino (a little early yet perhaps)

Justin Schultz
Trevor Daley
John Marino
Mike Matheson
Cody Ceci
Jeff Petry
Matt Grzelcyk
[/quote]
100% correct. This kinda closes the door on that subject. Sullivan was a lot of things, but many players did thrive under his leadership.

[FLPensFan]

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

Agreed, other than Kessel. He blossomed here for some reason.

For one, Kessel did NOT blossom here. He was great long before coming to the Pens.

Secondly, this is a bit disingenuous. The following players all were pretty successful (depending on role) while here working under Sullivan. Not all players need to be superstars to be successful. None of these are Pen's draft picks. For the defensemen listed, most of them actually resurrected their careers playing for Mike Sullivan.

Patric Hornqvist
Rickard Rakell
David Perron (began season under previous coach)
Carl Hagelin
Nick Bonino
Matt Cullen
Conor Sheary
Evan Rodrigues
Jared McCann
Brian Boyle
Brock McGinn
Jason Zucker
Michael Bunting
Jeff Carter (yes, he had a very good season here)
Lars Eller
Anthony Beauvillier
Jesse Puljujärvi (successful despite little playing time)
Philip Tomasino (a little early yet perhaps)

Justin Schultz
Trevor Daley
John Marino
Mike Matheson
Cody Ceci
Jeff Petry
Matt Grzelcyk

100% correct. This kinda closes the door on that subject. Sullivan was a lot of things, but many players did thrive under his leadership.
[/quote]

I agree with the overall argument that Sullivan helped more than just a few players, but I also think a lot of the players on that list don't belong there. A lot of them stayed status quo at best. They didn't improve under Sullivan:

--Hornqvist - He came in and had similar stats to what he had in Nashville, and after 2-3 years, Sullivan started shoving him down the lineup.
--Boyle - Played well, overcame cancer, but his season here was on par with prior years.
--McCann - He showed promise, but again, he didn't improve too much overall, which was why we parted ways. Seattle greatly improved him as a player, showing that if you gave him enough TOI, he could do better.
--McGinn - same or slightly worse numbers than Carolina, went on a 30+ goalless drought at one point.
--Zucker - too injured to make a difference.
--Bunting - much better output in Toronto
--Tomasino - has yet to show anything different than he did in Nashville. Had a nice run here, but then went cold and battled injuries
--Marino - Had one good year, then regressed before heading to NJ

But for the ones that remain on the list, there are also the Granlund, Smith, Brassard, Bjugstad, Gaudreau, Karlsson, etc type of players that came here and went down hill, or came here, struggled, and returned to form after leaving here.

[ahawk9]

Man, Brassard still gets me. I was excited by that trade and was shocked at what seemed to be his disappointment being a 3rd-line center here. What did he expect? I figured he'd come in hungry to win and would be the kind of third line guy who can drive offense and make a difference in the playoffs. I was wrong. Also, I thought Rutherford did an unreal job trading him, too, because I liked McCann and, to a lesser degree but still close, Bjugstad. I felt those two would be long-term regulars. Wrong again. But Brassard withered away in Pittsburgh. Either Sully couldn't motivate him (which he really shouldn't have had to do) or Brass was just a pouter who phoned it in.

[Pitts]

Man, Brassard still gets me. I was excited by that trade and was shocked at what seemed to be his disappointment being a 3rd-line center here. What did he expect? I figured he'd come in hungry to win and would be the kind of third line guy who can drive offense and make a difference in the playoffs. I was wrong. Also, I thought Rutherford did an unreal job trading him, too, because I liked McCann and, to a lesser degree but still close, Bjugstad. I felt those two would be long-term regulars. Wrong again. But Brassard withered away in Pittsburgh. Either Sully couldn't motivate him (which he really shouldn't have had to do) or Brass was just a pouter who phoned it in.

We all did with Brassard. What an ass he turned out to be. (Yes, he was the pouter)

[Puck-Lurker]

Man, Brassard still gets me. I was excited by that trade and was shocked at what seemed to be his disappointment being a 3rd-line center here. What did he expect? I figured he'd come in hungry to win and would be the kind of third line guy who can drive offense and make a difference in the playoffs. I was wrong. Also, I thought Rutherford did an unreal job trading him, too, because I liked McCann and, to a lesser degree but still close, Bjugstad. I felt those two would be long-term regulars. Wrong again. But Brassard withered away in Pittsburgh. Either Sully couldn't motivate him (which he really shouldn't have had to do) or Brass was just a pouter who phoned it in.

We all did with Brassard. What an ass he turned out to be. (Yes, he was the pouter)

Reilly Smith gave me heavy Brassard vibes.

[Victor]

I agree with the overall argument that Sullivan helped more than just a few players, but I also think a lot of the players on that list don't belong there. A lot of them stayed status quo at best. They didn't improve under Sullivan:

--Hornqvist - He came in and had similar stats to what he had in Nashville, and after 2-3 years, Sullivan started shoving him down the lineup.
--Boyle - Played well, overcame cancer, but his season here was on par with prior years.
--McCann - He showed promise, but again, he didn't improve too much overall, which was why we parted ways. Seattle greatly improved him as a player, showing that if you gave him enough TOI, he could do better.
--McGinn - same or slightly worse numbers than Carolina, went on a 30+ goalless drought at one point.
--Zucker - too injured to make a difference.
--Bunting - much better output in Toronto
--Tomasino - has yet to show anything different than he did in Nashville. Had a nice run here, but then went cold and battled injuries
--Marino - Had one good year, then regressed before heading to NJ

But for the ones that remain on the list, there are also the Granlund, Smith, Brassard, Bjugstad, Gaudreau, Karlsson, etc type of players that came here and went down hill, or came here, struggled, and returned to form after leaving here.

I think McCann showed the player he could be in his last season in Pittsburgh - the covid-shortened 20-21. When looking at points/60, he had a similar rate to what he had in his 70-point season with Seattle. He had 14G, 32P in 43G playing 14 minutes/game. 1 point in 6 playoff games that year and Hextall being dumb sealed his fate though.

[Pitts]

The problem is that it wasn't only Granlund. Pretty much every forward acquired played worse after coming here. No player actually exceeded expectations or rebounded or anything like that. That has to be on Sullivan.

Agreed, other than Kessel. He blossomed here for some reason.

For one, Kessel did NOT blossom here. He was great long before coming to the Pens.

Secondly, this is a bit disingenuous. The following players all were pretty successful (depending on role) while here working under Sullivan. Not all players need to be superstars to be successful. None of these are Pen's draft picks. For the defensemen listed, most of them actually resurrected their careers playing for Mike Sullivan.

Patric Hornqvist
Rickard Rakell
David Perron (began season under previous coach)
Carl Hagelin
Nick Bonino
Matt Cullen
Conor Sheary
Evan Rodrigues
Jared McCann
Brian Boyle
Brock McGinn
Jason Zucker
Michael Bunting
Jeff Carter (yes, he had a very good season here)
Lars Eller
Anthony Beauvillier
Jesse Puljujärvi (successful despite little playing time)
Philip Tomasino (a little early yet perhaps)

Justin Schultz
Trevor Daley
John Marino
Mike Matheson
Cody Ceci
Jeff Petry
Matt Grzelcyk

100% correct. This kinda closes the door on that subject. Sullivan was a lot of things, but many players did thrive under his leadership.

I agree with the overall argument that Sullivan helped more than just a few players, but I also think a lot of the players on that list don't belong there. A lot of them stayed status quo at best. They didn't improve under Sullivan:

--Hornqvist - He came in and had similar stats to what he had in Nashville, and after 2-3 years, Sullivan started shoving him down the lineup.
--Boyle - Played well, overcame cancer, but his season here was on par with prior years.
--McCann - He showed promise, but again, he didn't improve too much overall, which was why we parted ways. Seattle greatly improved him as a player, showing that if you gave him enough TOI, he could do better.
--McGinn - same or slightly worse numbers than Carolina, went on a 30+ goalless drought at one point.
--Zucker - too injured to make a difference.
--Bunting - much better output in Toronto
--Tomasino - has yet to show anything different than he did in Nashville. Had a nice run here, but then went cold and battled injuries
--Marino - Had one good year, then regressed before heading to NJ

But for the ones that remain on the list, there are also the Granlund, Smith, Brassard, Bjugstad, Gaudreau, Karlsson, etc type of players that came here and went down hill, or came here, struggled, and returned to form after leaving here.

But honestly, I feel like we are analyzing this in a vacuum. This happens to every team just as much, It's simply the nature of players/coaches, personalities, work habits, systems., etc. I really do not think it is some outstanding problem for the Pens or Mike Sullivan.