don't see a 2 mil 13th forward... Fehr plays more than he sits...
- ChrisMS

The financial aspect is really irrelevant, even though they're tight to the cap they aren't in a dire situation and have plenty of depth to work with. I agree completely that Fehr plays more than he sits but it has to do with his ability to play and the fact that the coaching staff really likes him not that he gets paid 2M.

Do you honestly think Vegas would bite at taking a 3D or a 4c/W in the event we can't trade Fleury and they want to take Murray? Nope. Not a chance. They would want a first round pick at least. Fehr and Cole, while not valuable in people's eyes are players we don't have one to replace. None of the Dmen behind Cole come close to replacing him. Might sound strange. The Ian Cole I saw during the playoffs was much more competent than the one we saw during the regular season. I'm interested to see if that carries on. Fehr does things that we cannot replace. That said, Vegas wouldn't have interest in either one, nor should it, especially if it involves making a deal in which they don't take Murray, or even Horny (another guy that we don't have a replacement for).
- Oneonta Penguin

Theres very little we would have to offer them to not take murray. The only leverage we have is the threat of trading murray to someone else. Otherwise we would have to pay up like a 1st round pick, guentzel, sprong as a package.

Welp.... I give up.... Gonna have to start lurking here again so I don't claw out my eyes at work. Got so much of the stuff semi automated and scheduled I am a borderline babysitter after just a couple months.


I know almost no one but my alt, Victoro, missed me.

Welp.... I give up.... Gonna have to start lurking here again so I don't claw out my eyes at work. Got so much of the stuff semi automated and scheduled I am a borderline babysitter after just a couple months.


I know almost no one but my alt, Victoro, missed me.
- Guile

but vic... you have been here all along... don't try to fool us. I can see you comment

Theres very little we would have to offer them to not take murray. The only leverage we have is the threat of trading murray to someone else. Otherwise we would have to pay up like a 1st round pick, guentzel, sprong as a package.
- sditulli

I was going to say more than a first round pick in that case. But the point remains, neither Cole nor Fehr would have any value to Vegas in that given situation.

hornqvist on malkins line again... we have been there and done that... didn't work all that good (worked ok) before.

but vic... you have been here all along... don't try to fool us. I can see you comment
- martox

Shhhh... I definitely didn't just lose the login to this account till now

Do you honestly think Vegas would bite at taking a 3D or a 4c/W in the event we can't trade Fleury and they want to take Murray? Nope. Not a chance. They would want a first round pick at least. Fehr and Cole, while not valuable in people's eyes are players we don't have one to replace. None of the Dmen behind Cole come close to replacing him. Might sound strange. The Ian Cole I saw during the playoffs was much more competent than the one we saw during the regular season. I'm interested to see if that carries on. Fehr does things that we cannot replace. That said, Vegas wouldn't have interest in either one, nor should it, especially if it involves making a deal in which they don't take Murray, or even Horny (another guy that we don't have a replacement for).
- Oneonta Penguin

No of course not. If Murray or Hagelin are exposed they're gone and our team will suffer dearly. But we can definitely protect a guy like Kuhnhackl and maybe even a Sheary by giving up Fehr and something extra.

I like Fehr. I agree he plays a role no one else does right now and isn't a smart deal. But I think you're also overvaluing his importance. Kuhnhackl and Sundqvist have comparable skill sets and Sundqvist is equally verisitile. Once those guys reach a certain level of development, Fehr is expendable, and not only that, should be moved on from due to price tag.

No of course not. If Murray or Hagelin are exposed they're gone and our team will suffer dearly. But we can definitely protect a guy like Kuhnhackl and maybe even a Sheary by giving up Fehr and something extra.

I like Fehr. I agree he plays a role no one else does right now and isn't a smart deal. But I think you're also overvaluing his importance. Kuhnhackl and Sundqvist have comparable skill sets and Sundqvist is equally verisitile. Once those guys reach a certain level of development, Fehr is expendable, and not only that, should be moved on from due to price tag.
- Victoro311

Each team can only lose one player. If we can't deal Fleury, Murray is gone. Kuhnhackl nor Sheary would garner interest from LV. If we find a taker for Fleury, then one of the two Swedes presumably are gone.

I don't overvalue his importance because neither Kuhnackl nor Sundqvist are Fehr. That is not to say Tommy K. can't be a Fehr type in time. If he develops into Fehr, then Fehr is most likely moved.

Each team can only lose one player. If we can't deal Fleury, Murray is gone. Kuhnhackl nor Sheary would garner interest from LV. If we find a taker for Fleury, then one of the two Swedes presumably are gone.

I don't overvalue his importance because neither Kuhnackl nor Sundqvist are Fehr. That is not to say Tommy K. can't be a Fehr type in time. If he develops into Fehr, then Fehr is most likely moved.
- Oneonta Penguin

Obviously man. That's not the argument I'm making. Yes, if Murray is exposed he's the one taken. I'm assuming that Rutherford figures out the Fleury/Murray situation, which granted, is by no means a given, but that's a totally diffrent conversation.

And that's why I'm not advocating trading him. But if by next year, Sundqvist and his versatility isn't an NHL regular and Kuhnhackl can't pick up Fehr's slack on the PK, something's gone wrong in their respective developments. I simply just don't think we'll need Fehr by 2017-2018.

I think we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the Pens will end up losing a really valuable player to the expansion draft. At this point it looks like Murray but so much will depend on how the season plays out with injuries, trades and contracts still to come.

Theres very little we would have to offer them to not take murray. The only leverage we have is the threat of trading murray to someone else. Otherwise we would have to pay up like a 1st round pick, guentzel, sprong as a package.
- sditulli

I'm not going to say I disagree because that would completely contradict the point I'm about to make because there is just absolutely no way for us to have any clue what alternate compensation to protect Murray would be because we have absolutely no clue what the construction plan for LV is going to be, what other options they're going to have available and how strong the personal relationship between GMJR and McPhee is and the whole purpose of working a back-room deal is to use a personal relationship to get out for a favorable deal.

There are so many things that can greatly affect how a situation like this could play out that it's near impossible to even predict an outcome let alone predict the value of that outcome. We don't even what LV's perception of Murray would be, for all we know there's another option they prefer over Murray and Murray wouldn't even be their selection if he was available.

The 1 thing I do know for sure is that if it cost a 1st and 2 top prospects just to protect him then their fools not to trade him to another team for that same value.

I think we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the Pens will end up losing a really valuable player to the expansion draft. At this point it looks like Murray but so much will depend on how the season plays out with injuries, trades and contracts still to come.
- MacPatty

I guess it depends on how you defining losing a player to the expansion draft, if you're talking about just not having the player on the roster anymore then I completely agree but it won't necessarily be through the draft itself.

Using Murray as the example, I will go on record saying that I 100% guarantee that Murray will not be lost to LV in the expansion draft and I will back that up with anything anyone wants to put on the line. It just won't happen, they won't lose an asset that valuable for nothing, if it absolutely comes down to the point that they have no option but to keep and protect Fleury(I don't think that will happen) then they'll move Murray to another team for a decent to great return as opposed to losing him to LV for nothing. Not that I see Pouliot becoming a valuable player but if somehow he does miraculously reach his potential this year I could see them doing the same thing with him as opposed to losing him for nothing to LV. I still contend that Hornqvist is going to be the player going to LV via the draft because the situation will dictate that he will be the best option for both teams.

The financial aspect is really irrelevant, even though they're tight to the cap they aren't in a dire situation and have plenty of depth to work with. I agree completely that Fehr plays more than he sits but it has to do with his ability to play and the fact that the coaching staff really likes him not that he gets paid 2M.
- jaydogg1974

It has to do with both. If he gets out played then likely they try to trade him... you dont bench 2 mil on a cap ceiling team

Each team can only lose one player. If we can't deal Fleury, Murray is gone. Kuhnhackl nor Sheary would garner interest from LV. If we find a taker for Fleury, then one of the two Swedes presumably are gone.

I don't overvalue his importance because neither Kuhnackl nor Sundqvist are Fehr. That is not to say Tommy K. can't be a Fehr type in time. If he develops into Fehr, then Fehr is most likely moved.
- Oneonta Penguin

Hasn't Jarry performed extremely well so far and is in Pens camp?

What if hypothetically they think Jarry is a legit #2 and potentially a #1 in 4-5 years, moving Murray could be a huge haul and it would take the last yr of Kunitz off the books. They still have that other Swede G they drafted for further down the road.

Hasn't Jarry performed extremely well so far and is in Pens camp?

What if hypothetically they think Jarry is a legit #2 and potentially a #1 in 4-5 years, moving Murray could be a huge haul and it would take the last yr of Kunitz off the books. They still have that other Swede G they drafted for further down the road.
- sammy87

Not a bad idea and theory but you have to keep in mind the cap. Can we, over the corse of the next 3 or so years give out all the extensions we need to give out with Fleury's 6 mil + on the books as opposed to Murray's ~4.5 mil bridge deal. Especially depending on who we get back in the trade.

Let's consider the hypothetical where Murray gets traded for Sam Bennett like has been previously discussed. Not claiming it will happen, but I imagine Same Bennett is what most of us would consider a "haul". Bennett's ELC is up after this year. That would mean this offseason we'd have to extend Dumoulin and Bennett to sizeable contracts while finding a 2RD, whether that's extending Schultz to good money or going shopping. Not sure we have the cap space for that.

Not a bad idea and theory but you have to keep in mind the cap. Can we, over the corse of the next 3 or so years give out all the extensions we need to give out with Fleury's 6 mil + on the books as opposed to Murray's ~4.5 mil bridge deal. Especially depending on who we get back in the trade.

Let's consider the hypothetical where Murray gets traded for Sam Bennett like has been previously discussed. Not claiming it will happen, but I imagine Same Bennett is what most of us would consider a "haul". Bennett's ELC is up after this year. That would mean this offseason we'd have to extend Dumoulin and Bennett to sizeable contracts while finding a 2RD, whether that's extending Schultz to good money or going shopping. Not sure we have the cap space for that.
- Victoro311

I thought Fleury was 5.5...

I thought Fleury was 5.5...
- MattStrat

5.75

5.75
- j.boyd919

You guys are right.

Not a bad idea and theory but you have to keep in mind the cap. Can we, over the corse of the next 3 or so years give out all the extensions we need to give out with Fleury's 6 mil + on the books as opposed to Murray's ~4.5 mil bridge deal. Especially depending on who we get back in the trade.

Let's consider the hypothetical where Murray gets traded for Sam Bennett like has been previously discussed. Not claiming it will happen, but I imagine Same Bennett is what most of us would consider a "haul". Bennett's ELC is up after this year. That would mean this offseason we'd have to extend Dumoulin and Bennett to sizeable contracts while finding a 2RD, whether that's extending Schultz to good money or going shopping. Not sure we have the cap space for that.
- Victoro311

After this season Kunitz, Daley, Scuds, Dupes, will be off the books. Fehr and Cole are not long term options and Im not sure Shultz is either. There are some options, it will be interesting to see what happens. Im not convinced anyone is going to give up much for MAF. If I were a team in need of a G Id go after Murray and possibly Jarry first.

Hasn't Jarry performed extremely well so far and is in Pens camp?

What if hypothetically they think Jarry is a legit #2 and potentially a #1 in 4-5 years, moving Murray could be a huge haul and it would take the last yr of Kunitz off the books. They still have that other Swede G they drafted for further down the road.
- sammy87

I said this over the weekend, the only issue will be cap, although in saying that how much is Murray going to get paid? If we did trade Flower Murray still needs an upgrade. If the organisation went long term with Murray he probably gets Flower money anyway, bridge deal will give us breathing room to see how Jarry develops & if he does then we trade both Murray & Flower eventually.

I think Murray brings back the most, so for futures the sensible thing would be trade Murray first (even though I've been hammering Murray as our long term G!). For immediate cap relief Flower is the man to go. So what's more important???

Not a bad idea and theory but you have to keep in mind the cap. Can we, over the corse of the next 3 or so years give out all the extensions we need to give out with Fleury's 6 mil + on the books as opposed to Murray's ~4.5 mil bridge deal. Especially depending on who we get back in the trade.

Let's consider the hypothetical where Murray gets traded for Sam Bennett like has been previously discussed. Not claiming it will happen, but I imagine Same Bennett is what most of us would consider a "haul". Bennett's ELC is up after this year. That would mean this offseason we'd have to extend Dumoulin and Bennett to sizeable contracts while finding a 2RD, whether that's extending Schultz to good money or going shopping. Not sure we have the cap space for that.
- Victoro311

If JR works some cap magic & Jarry looks like a definite keeper as well, you could sign Murray long term & keep him as the G we build around & trade both MAF now & Jarry down the track (There are only so many organisations with quality G prospects coming through & at the moment there are a few good/great G available), when teams will be looking for great G & willing to pay. If both Murray & Jarry end up great then 1 will bring us potentially an organisational changing player - I think down the track (Jarry), will be the time that happens not now with Murray. At the moment it seems MAF will only be a cap relief trade & we won't get a lot back which I think won't be a bad result considering we are rolling the dice keeping 2 starting G for this season.