The Penguins have re-signed Bryan Rust to the following deal
So you have 3.5M per year. It's fine. I think the deal favors the player slightly more than the team, but it isn't a bad deal. Rust's strengths are his skating and using that ability to create zone exits and zone entries which I highlighted in an article in May. Those are valuable skills that translate into better offensive chances
I thought the deal would be close to 3M per year. Matt Cane's model had a four-year deal at 3.77M. It leaned more on Matt's projection (his projections are very good and I don't doubt that actual GM's reference them).
Value wise it is similar to the deal Conor Sheary received. Some people won't want to believe that, but information says otherwise. It's one of those things that you should either think both deals are fine or neither of them are.
The samples above include Sheary's 2016-17 season with Sidney Crosby. Bryan Rust's most common linemate in 2017-18? ? Sidney Crosby. Rust's most common linemate in 2016-17? Sidney Crosby.
I bring this up not to make things a battle between Rust vs. Sheary, but to highlight how eyes can drastically alter perceptions of players. The Conor Sheary flubs are a thing and they also dominate his player evaluation by most. Sheary's results are very much in line with a 3M player in the current NHL. I feel like the Rust and Sheary contracts are similar in value. You'd probably like them a little bit cheaper, but neither deal is some kind of atrocious overpay with the cap a shade under 80M. Both players are capable of bumping up and down the lineup. Both players have played each wing. Both players have spent time with Sidney Crosby. Bryan Rust killed penalties last year and Sheary should join him in doing that this year if he's still on the team.
It's not an either/or as of writing this blog. The team has both under contract and neither one is a bad deal for player or team. I'm not against the idea of moving Sheary due to Daniel Sprong and Zach Aston-Reese more than likely being on the team combined with a potential Kunitz reunion. It's fine if you want to trade Sheary for value. It seems misguided as a salary dump. If you want to go that route Carl Hagelin is right over there, not to mention Matt Hunwick.
What I have a problem with is ignoring evidence and somehow thinking 3M is a drastic overpay for the player that had the third most 5v5 goals on the team last year after leading the league in points per 60 the year before. The latter accomplishment certainly isn't something he's going to do again, but he did it. Sheary's true value is likely to fall between his 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons.
The problem is when you cut a middle tier contract that has acceptable value in order to make room for an objectively terrible player like Jack Johnson
Guys like Rust and Sheary are more valuable to the team in constructing four strong lines than wasting money on a bottom pairing replacement level hack that is not going to be paid like one. Which one of Pittsburgh's five Stanley Cups was driven by their defensemen? None.
It's OK to spend on forward depth. It's OK to sometimes move a contract like Sheary because you have other players moving up the ranks. It's not OK to waste cap space on crappy players at the expense of functional ones.
tl;dr
Bryan Rust can be placed in a lot of different roles. His skating is an asset and helps with zone entries/exits.
Bryan Rust and Conor Sheary both have acceptable contracts in line with their value. You should either like both deals or neither based on the evidence available.
It is stupid to trade away good value to make space for crappy value.
It is OK to trade away good value to get good value in return.
Thanks for reading!
Pittsburgh Penguins Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»