I've never understood this stubbornness that coaches have with playing 1 system & trying to fit all the square pegs into round holes to go with the round pegs that he has, or demanding the square pegs be traded for round ones.

I know this might be world-changingly innovative, but *gasp* why not just build your system to maximize whatever strengths you have while minimizing your weaknesses instead of insisting on "tweaking" existing systems.

You have a major change in your lineup in the offseason & it becomes obvious your existing system doesn't match up with your personnel? Throw out the plan and figure out a new one that DOES work instead of trying to make your bad plan magically turn good with magical coaching alchemy "tweaking".

He's like the type of dman that will be available to Pittsburgh- not terrible but really only a 4D at best. No measurable upgrade.
- jfkst1

I only ask because he is on waivers.

Perron and a 3rd for E Johnson?

Both upcoming UFAs

Seabrook too. My guess is CHI will trade as a rental. They almost have too. Re-stock for the next few years. Kind of their MO. What pens should've done w/ Nisk, Orpik, Martin. Hindsight is 20/20 tho.

Pouliot/Perron/3rd for Seabrook????
- stowerkraut

They extended Seabrook to a questionable contract. Also, even if he was a UFA that's a crazy payment for a rental.

Apparently CAR is trying to move skinner... can JR pull off a kuni for skinner trade? We can through in lovejoy

Not sure where I ever said I would trade him for Carl Gunnarson, I'm pretty sure I specifically said I would only move him if someone similar to yourself overvalued him because of his irrelevant AHL numbers. I'm also not the one who is willing to call a guy a franchise goalie because of 1 preseason game and 1 big save in that game.

You were probably that guy that thought the Rangers should have traded Lundqvist because Talbot played a handful of game where he looked like a franchise goalie.
- jaydogg1974

No, I couldn't care less about the Rnagers. I did however insist that Duloulin was already a top 4 caliber dman all summer when people like yoursefl said he would be lucky to be the 7th guy.

I've never understood this stubbornness that coaches have with playing 1 system & trying to fit all the square pegs into round holes to go with the round pegs that he has, or demanding the square pegs be traded for round ones.

I know this might be world-changingly innovative, but *gasp* why not just build your system to maximize whatever strengths you have while minimizing your weaknesses instead of insisting on "tweaking" existing systems.

You have a major change in your lineup in the offseason & it becomes obvious your existing system doesn't match up with your personnel? Throw out the plan and figure out a new one that DOES work instead of trying to make your bad plan magically turn good with magical coaching alchemy "tweaking".
- ScienceJesus

Systems are killing the game. Let creative players play.

Yes, we've watched for 6 years as the Pens nail down a system only to run into playoff caliber opponents that are completely game planed for your system. The result is coaches and players left scratching their balls and heads.

magical coaching alchemy "tweaking"

Like this......?

This team and I use that word very loosely better wake up. They are only 6 pts out of the bottom of the league. But maybe that is the plan. Tank it and get Mathews next year and trade Crosby. Now wouldn't that be interesting. Youth in the lineup....I don't like it......I love it Bazinga
- holeinone

Haven't you died of old age yet???

They extended Seabrook to a questionable contract. Also, even if he was a UFA that's a crazy payment for a rental.
- Victoro311

I missed that. Was still on a potential 2016 UFA list. Damn.

Roster player, prospect, pick isn't the going rate for high end rentals?

Apparently CAR is trying to move skinner... can JR pull off a kuni for skinner trade? We can through in lovejoy
- nh4442

Not sure Skinner has more value than Kunitz taking everything into consideration.

No, I couldn't care less about the Rnagers. I did however insist that Duloulin was already a top 4 caliber dman all summer when people like yoursefl said he would be lucky to be the 7th guy.
- Dcoms

John Gibson is supposedly a future NHL starter, Jake Allen is now becoming the franchoise goalie he was always projected to become, Markstrom is projected to be a franchise goalie. Guess what Murray has better number and a weaker supporting cast. Tristan Jarry has better rookie numbers than any of those 3 as well. Those are guys you don't trade gor Carl Gunnarson reguardless of if they have played in the NHL yet or not. Murray could very easily be Fleury's backup this year, he's much better than Zatkoff even right now. But the kid needs to play and he needs to play a lot.

If I'm Ruth, I don't make any moves until a get a look at this team under a new coach/leadership.

I hate the thought of trading Hornqvist. He's the kind of player they've badly needed for many years. Don't give up on him after such a short sample of poor play.

If I'm Ruth, I don't make any moves until a get a look at this team under a new coach/leadership.

I hate the thought of trading Hornqvist. He's the kind of player they've badly needed for many years. Don't give up on him after such a short sample of poor play.
- madmike71

Agreed. Trading Horny would be idiotic.

John Gibson is supposedly a future NHL starter, Jake Allen is now becoming the franchoise goalie he was always projected to become, Markstrom is projected to be a franchise goalie. Guess what Murray has better number and a weaker supporting cast. Tristan Jarry has better rookie numbers than any of those 3 as well. Those are guys you don't trade gor Carl Gunnarson reguardless of if they have played in the NHL yet or not. Murray could very easily be Fleury's backup this year, he's much better than Zatkoff even right now. But the kid needs to play and he needs to play a lot.
- Dcoms

So out of all of those guys you've listed 1 that has even somewhat established himself as a reliable NHL player that may hit his potential. wow wasting seasons for a 25% of having a guy hit his potential 2-4 years from now. What a guy is projected to be and what he actually becomes are 2 completely different things, Milan Kraft was projected to be a generational talent how did that work out?

Secondly, please don't make poop up to try to defend your point, it doesn't make you any more right and if anything shows that you can't defend your opinion on merit. When did I ever even mention Gunnarson as a viable trade option for a player like Murray? I actually have said multiple times that you only move Murray if someone over values him because of his prospect status, offering up Gunnarson certainly isn't over valuing Murray so I don't understand why you keep bringing his name up.

I missed that. Was still on a potential 2016 UFA list. Damn.

Roster player, prospect, pick isn't the going rate for high end rentals?
- stowerkraut

We're trading a top 6 LW and LW happens to be a position of need, our best prospect who is regarded as a top 5 d prospect in the league when we have one of the shallowest prospect pools in the league, and a third round draft pick when we're starved for top end picks. I agree that Seabrook would go for something along those lines, but that's not a trade the Pens can make. That's a trade that a team solidly in contention makes if they deem that Seabrook is the last thing to send them over the edge. We have a lot of other problems to fix before we start thinking about "the lay piece".

No, I couldn't care less about the Rnagers. I did however insist that Duloulin was already a top 4 caliber dman all summer when people like yoursefl said he would be lucky to be the 7th guy.
- Dcoms

Allow me to correct you as usual, Dumoulin wasn't a top 4 defenseman this summer, he's only now a quarter of the season in starting to show glimpses of being top 4 capable and is still borderline top 4 on a team that has a decent defensive corp.

Anyone seen the latest magic 8 ball EK rumor?

I've never understood this stubbornness that coaches have with playing 1 system & trying to fit all the square pegs into round holes to go with the round pegs that he has, or demanding the square pegs be traded for round ones.

I know this might be world-changingly innovative, but *gasp* why not just build your system to maximize whatever strengths you have while minimizing your weaknesses instead of insisting on "tweaking" existing systems.

You have a major change in your lineup in the offseason & it becomes obvious your existing system doesn't match up with your personnel? Throw out the plan and figure out a new one that DOES work instead of trying to make your bad plan magically turn good with magical coaching alchemy "tweaking".
- ScienceJesus

It's really not anything new but it has become more magnified over recent years because of the over coaching that is creeping into hockey. It's also been greatly impacted by the arrogance that has grown with the salaries of coaches.

If I'm Ruth, I don't make any moves until a get a look at this team under a new coach/leadership.

I hate the thought of trading Hornqvist. He's the kind of player they've badly needed for many years. Don't give up on him after such a short sample of poor play.
- madmike71

Yeah exactly. Johnston has until January to do something other than rely on goaltending to win. The team is doomed regardless of whoever else they bring in to help the blue line if they don't make an improvement in their system.

We're trading a top 6 LW and LW happens to be a position of need, our best prospect who is regarded as a top 5 d prospect in the league when we have one of the shallowest prospect pools in the league, and a third round draft pick when we're starved for top end picks. I agree that Seabrook would go for something along those lines, but that's not a trade the Pens can make. That's a trade that a team solidly in contention makes if they deem that Seabrook is the last thing to send them over the edge. We have a lot of other problems to fix before we start thinking about "the lay piece".
- Victoro311

The problem is that fans are not viewing the situation the same way management is viewing the situation, picks and prospects mean a lot to the fans because they are future hope and shiny new toys, this current management group won't be hereto see any of those picks or prospects benefit the team so they have no benefit to them. If GMJR and ownership thought that moving Sprong, Dumoulin and every 1st round pick until 2055 would increase their chances of winning the Cup this year they would all be gone in a second. GMJR could care less about the disaster he's leaving for the next GM that comes in and Mario/Burkle don't give two shytes about the team they are leaving for the new owners if the Cup gets them a higher selling price. As far as all involved are concerned, the future is now and nothing after this season matters as long as this season gets them where they want to be.

If I'm Ruth, I don't make any moves until a get a look at this team under a new coach/leadership.

I hate the thought of trading Hornqvist. He's the kind of player they've badly needed for many years. Don't give up on him after such a short sample of poor play.
- madmike71

So instead of giving the coach you currently have employed the tools necessary to be successful now you would rather just waste another month or maybe 2 to give that support to a new coach that may not be better than the 1 you have right now?

The problem is that fans are not viewing the situation the same way management is viewing the situation, picks and prospects mean a lot to the fans because they are future hope and shiny new toys, this current management group won't be hereto see any of those picks or prospects benefit the team so they have no benefit to them. If GMJR and ownership thought that moving Sprong, Dumoulin and every 1st round pick until 2055 would increase their chances of winning the Cup this year they would all be gone in a second. GMJR could care less about the disaster he's leaving for the next GM that comes in and Mario/Burkle don't give two shytes about the team they are leaving for the new owners if the Cup gets them a higher selling price. As far as all involved are concerned, the future is now and nothing after this season matters as long as this season gets them where they want to be.
- jaydogg1974

Am I stupid for thinking that perspective buyers of hockey franchises will notice if management has sold the farm and the piplines are dry and realize that they might make good profits the first few years but then are in for a major several year rebuild? Even if perspective buys aren't hockey people that have to hire advisors that would say the future of a farmless franchise is bleak and not a good investment. This is why I think that Lemieux won't let Rutherford trade Pouliot, Sprong, and a three firsts for OEL or anything along those lines. No one seems to be thinking about that though and are content in being pessimistic and assuming that no one in the FO cares about anything because they are selling/retiring.

So instead of giving the coach you currently have employed the tools necessary to be successful now you would rather just waste another month or maybe 2 to give that support to a new coach that may not be better than the 1 you have right now?
- jaydogg1974

There is no reason to believe Johnston can maximize the talent on this roster even if we gave him more toys. He's time and time again shown that he is a poor dession maker. He didn't have to keep Cole and Letang together for all those games, he doesn't have to play Scuderi night in and night out, he didn't have to keep Dupuis on the top line for that long, and he didn't have to keep the PP separated for that long/try it at all. Coach Farce needs to go. OEL/Shattenkirk/Barrie won't fix the fact that we have a bad coach.

So instead of giving the coach you currently have employed the tools necessary to be successful now you would rather just waste another month or maybe 2 to give that support to a new coach that may not be better than the 1 you have right now?
- jaydogg1974

Well, Jay... Thanks for bringing your own brand of "doucheyness" to this board too. I guess bashing everybody on TIOPS got boring?

It must be tough keeping up with correcting everybody in Pittsburgh that has a differing opinion than yours......although I'm 100% certain you will try.

Am I stupid for thinking that perspective buyers of hockey franchises will notice if management has sold the farm and the piplines are dry and realize that they might make good profits the first few years but then are in for a major several year rebuild? Even if perspective buys aren't hockey people that have to hire advisors that would say the future of a farmless franchise is bleak and not a good investment. This is why I think that Lemieux won't let Rutherford trade Pouliot, Sprong, and a three firsts for OEL or anything along those lines. No one seems to be thinking about that though and are content in being pessimistic and assuming that no one in the FO cares about anything because they are selling/retiring.
- Victoro311

This is what I have been saying which is why from a selling standpoint the idea of trading Crosby or Malkin even if its arguably a valid move can't happen nor can they allow the team to flounder with them in the line up either. They need the stars to perform, have the ability to move far in the playoffs, and have a strong farm as much as possible to try to drive the price to as close to the asking price as possible.

This limits what there moves are going to be to a point. So basically anyone with a short contract and dead weight with a few options in the farm pipeline as well. It really does complicate things for JR.

Am I stupid for thinking that perspective buyers of hockey franchises will notice if management has sold the farm and the piplines are dry and realize that they might make good profits the first few years but then are in for a major several year rebuild? Even if perspective buys aren't hockey people that have to hire advisors that would say the future of a farmless franchise is bleak and not a good investment. This is why I think that Lemieux won't let Rutherford trade Pouliot, Sprong, and a three firsts for OEL or anything along those lines. No one seems to be thinking about that though and are content in being pessimistic and assuming that no one in the FO cares about anything because they are selling/retiring.
- Victoro311

Many of the people in the Pens FO will likely be there for a long time. Can't see them mindlessly endorsing moves just for the win-now mentality.