I think the xGF that RW posted shows well what I'm saying: Zucker is a better option at ES
- Tojo.

No, the stats don’t show that. You’re selecting one stat he excels in over Phil and making a blanket statement that isn’t true.

Our PP will indeed change** is how it was supposed to read. I do everything from my iPhone *shrug*

Yeah I’d rather just get an actual valuable asset and eat dead cap on Johnson than cheapen the Phil return with Rask.
- Victoro311

I’d rather bang playboy models every day. We would all rather do things that are better, but some things aren’t an option.

Moving out JJ ensures a less than desirable exchange, but I think Rask is as good of an option as you can hope for without having to incentivize a team to take him with retaining salary and futures.

I’d rather bang playboy models every day. We would all rather do things that are better, but some things aren’t an option.

Sending JJ ensures a less than desirable exchange, but I think Rask is as good of an option as you can hope for without having to incentivize a team to take him with retaining salary and futures.
- Rinosaur

Put it this way: we’re a worse team by subtracting Phil and Johnson and adding Zucker and Rask. Obviously we should just not trade Phil, but when we do, it’s a massive failure if we don’t at least get close to staying about the same level of good. That trade is not a win for us when we can just explore other avenues to get rid of Johnson if everyone would get over themesleves. I’d honestly rather just keep Johnson and hope he gets buried on the bottom pairing than make that trade.

Put it this way: we’re a worse team by subtracting Phil and Johnson and adding Zucker and Rask. Obviously we should just not trade Phil, but when we do, it’s a massive failure if we don’t at least get close to staying about the same level of good. That trade is not a win for us when we can just explore other avenues to get rid of Johnson if everyone would get over themesleves. I’d honestly rather just keep Johnson and hope he gets buried on the bottom pairing than make that trade.
- Victoro311

The only part I agree with here is that moving Phil is a bad idea. Bury JJ on the bottom pair? Any time he hits the ice he hurts this team.

This trade would be a loss on the Phil side because he’s in a different realm than Zucker, but the Pens would still have a solid useful forward. Moving JJ is an automatic win because he no longer hurts this team. Rask can buried much easier and sheltered from having any real affect on the production of the top six.

This trade would be a mixed bag, but they’d also free up about $1M in space. If they made other moves to make room for Gus or Zucc, then the ripple effect becomes a win, but we’ve seen what JR does with free space.

The only part I agree with here is that moving Phil is a bad idea. Bury JJ on the bottom pair? Any time he hits the ice he hurts this team.

This trade would be a loss on the Phil side because he’s in a different realm than Zucker, but the Pens would still have a solid useful forward. Moving JJ is an automatic win because he no longer hurts this team. Rask can buried much easier and sheltered from having any real affect on the production of the top six.

This trade would be a mixed bag, but they’d also free up about $1M in space. If they made other moves to make room for Gus or Zucc, then the ripple effect becomes a win, but we’ve seen what JR does with free space.
- Rinosaur

You’re either overrating Zucker or underrating exactly how valuable a PPG player is. Keeping Johnson and getting Zucker, Dumba, and Pick >>>>>> dumping Johnson and only getting Zucker. Our defense would improve significantly and it would actually allow us to hide whatever pairing Johnson’s on because we have a legitimate top two that’s capable of facilitating offense, something we never had this season. The sub-1mil cap savings we’d get from your trade plus however much we get from trading Maatta isn’t gonna free up enough cap to sign Gus or Zuc, especially when you consider that we’re probably throwing big money at Murray this offseason and that future cap hit will be considered when making moves, or at least it should if Rutherford is competent.

I don't think it's as easy as just putting Guentzel on the 1PP. He's a left handed shot and that is going to handcuff him with passes coming from Letang. Schultz on the other hand could at least load up a 1-timer, but I dunno. I personally don't see a way where trading Kessel makes the Pens better, at ES probably while that is valuable for most of the league, but adding in his PP production, which is elite, I think outweighs the move totally.
- j.boyd919

I'd agree Schultz is likely the better option. Even then there's a loss.

5v5 WOWY past 2 years

Malkin-Kessel (Malkin w/out Kessel)-
CF 50.9 (52.2) SF 50.3 (53.5)
GF 49.6(51.8) xGF 50.0 (54.4)
SCF 51.4 (55.0) HDCF 47.6 (55.3)
HDGF 40.4 (57.7). PDO .998 (.994)
Offensive FO 70.1 (56.1)

Malkin with Kessel is heavily sheltered yet get worse results. And Zucker is better than who he normally plays with when he doesn't get Phil. I think it's a big gain ES, and Phil is at an age he can start declining.

I agree, they should get more and hopefully if this goes through they do. What I am saying is Zucker is a great main piece that can help them get better overall.

Also I'm saying Phil drags Malkin down, which is an actual hockey reason to move him.

I think there could be a right Phil trade centered around Zucker, but it’s not Phil and Johnson for Zucker and Rask. When you decided that you’re gonna move a PPG for the sake of moving him you need to maximize your return, and using him to dump a bad contract isn’t that. If Rutherford wants out of Johnson, he needs to suck it up and buy him out. The dead cap isnt terrible, and well worth bleeding Minnesota out of every last asset rather than downgrading Phil to Zucker and taking back (frank)ing Rask.
- Victoro311

It's going to be hard to maximize any deal involving Kessel considering his NTC. I'm sure there are plenty of clubs that will be scared off by him being difficult to coach.

Multiple people say they tried to trade him last year but didn't like the return.

You’re either overrating Zucker or underrating exactly how valuable a PPG player is. Keeping Johnson and getting Zucker, Dumba, and Pick >>>>>> dumping Johnson and only getting Zucker. Our defense would improve significantly and it would actually allow us to hide whatever pairing Johnson’s on because we have a legitimate top two that’s capable of facilitating offense, something we never had this season. The sub-1mil cap savings we’d get from your trade plus however much we get from trading Maatta isn’t gonna free up enough cap to sign Gus or Zuc, especially when you consider that we’re probably throwing big money at Murray this offseason and that future cap hit will be considered when making moves, or at least it should if Rutherford is competent.
- Victoro311

I think you misunderstood my assessment of Zucker vs. Kessel.

I think you misunderstood my assessment of Zucker vs. Kessel.
- Rinosaur

You think Zucker is a good enough return to make a lateral move from Jack Johnson just to get rid of Jack Johnson. Isn’t that the crux? I’m telling you he’s not and that’s a super poopty return on value.

It's going to be hard to maximize any deal involving Kessel considering his NTC. I'm sure there are plenty of clubs that will be scared off by him being difficult to coach.

Multiple people say they tried to trade him last year but didn't like the return.
- madmike71

Oh totally agree. To be clear I don’t think The Wild do Zucker, Dumba, and a Pick for Kessel either, that’s just my idea of what approximates a fine Kessel trade.

I am fully bracing for a really bad Kessel trade because of the handicap of Phil’s NTC, and I just don’t trust Rutherford’s infatuations with players anymore, cus that’s how he operates. He doesn’t actually just throw poop at the wall like a lot of us, including me, rip on him for. He gets fixated on certain players half hazardously, but decisively, and then move mountains to get those specific players. He’s like a half blind bull shark who hunts by bump and bite. He has no idea if what he’s eating is gonna be any good for him, but he’s damn well sure gonna eat it. If Rutherford gets infatuated with the wrong player and uses Phil as the avenue to acquire him and loses a ton of value in the process, we’re pretty (frank)ed.

No, the stats don’t show that. You’re selecting one stat he excels in over Phil and making a blanket statement that isn’t true.
- Rinosaur

That one stat is the best we have to measure a player's positive and negative impact on play. Phil has been negative 3 straight years. He puts up points, but they also give up more when he's on the ice, in large part due to his turnovers and lack of effort. He's not a good ES player.

Those aren't the only numbers and I posted Malkin's WOWY for Kessel. Here's Kessel without Malkin propping him up, again past 2 years. He ends up lucking into slightly higher goals, but his overall numbers are bad while Malkin's are elite away from him.

CF: 45.8 SF: 47.6 GF 52 xGF 48. SCF 47.8 HDCF 47.3. PDO 1.02.

Oh totally agree. To be clear I don’t think The Wild do Zucker, Dumba, and a Pick for Kessel either, that’s just my idea of what approximates a fine Kessel trade.

I am fully bracing for a really bad Kessel trade because of the handicap of Phil’s NTC, and I just don’t trust Rutherford’s infatuations with players anymore, cus that’s how he operates. He doesn’t actually just throw poop at the wall like a lot of us, including me, rip on him for. He gets fixated on certain players half hazardously, but decisively, and then move mountains to get those specific players. He’s like a half blind bull shark who hunts by bump and bite. He has no idea if what he’s eating is gonna be any good for him, but he’s damn well sure gonna eat it. If Rutherford gets infatuated with the wrong player and uses Phil as the avenue to acquire him and loses a ton of value in the process, we’re pretty (frank)ed.
- Victoro311

A couple rumors floating around that Phil turned down the request anyway. Still, I don't hate that trade considering the restrictions.

I think there could be a right Phil trade centered around Zucker, but it’s not Phil and Johnson for Zucker and Rask. When you decided that you’re gonna move a PPG for the sake of moving him you need to maximize your return, and using him to dump a bad contract isn’t that. If Rutherford wants out of Johnson, he needs to suck it up and buy him out. The dead cap isnt terrible, and well worth bleeding Minnesota out of every last asset rather than downgrading Phil to Zucker and taking back (frank)ing Rask.
- Victoro311

The bold is largely my take. I think Phil is vastly overrated at ES (you win by scoring more than the other team, not just scoring) and is a drag on Malkin, so my plus is probably smaller than yours to be satisfied. But there should be a plus better than JJ for Rask.

The bold is largely my take. I think Phil is vastly overrated at ES (you win by scoring more than the other team, not just scoring) and is a drag on Malkin, so my plus is probably smaller than yours to be satisfied. But there should be a plus better than JJ for Rask.
- Tojo.

I don’t even think JJ for Rask is a plus. We’re just taking on a bigger cap hit for a nearly equally useless player. It doesn’t help us.

You think Zucker is a good enough return to make a lateral move from Jack Johnson just to get rid of Jack Johnson. Isn’t that the crux? I’m telling you he’s not and that’s a super poopty return on value.
- Victoro311

No, I’m saying it’s not a complete loss and it’s not a complete win. That’s what a mixed bag is

No, I’m saying it’s not a complete loss and it’s not a complete win. That’s what a mixed bag is
- Rinosaur

It’s a complete loss.

Johnson to Rask is extremely close to lateral. We lose a lot of value by using Kessel to incentivize the Wild to do a trade that honestly is realistic on its own.

The bold is largely my take. I think Phil is vastly overrated at ES (you win by scoring more than the other team, not just scoring) and is a drag on Malkin, so my plus is probably smaller than yours to be satisfied. But there should be a plus better than JJ for Rask.
- Tojo.

It's all about leverage. Phil's has an 8 team list. I would imagine the Pens explored that avenue. What happens if none of them are takers? It's a very real possibility the return could be much worse.

I don’t even think JJ for Rask is a plus. We’re just taking on a bigger cap hit for a nearly equally useless player. It doesn’t help us.
- Victoro311

I'd disagree because I think JJ just hurts us on ice more. But at best it's a marginal upgrade and I'd like to get more for Phil.

Important to note all Yohe reported was Kessel and Zucker were the main parts and JJ and Rask we're discussed so this is not necessarily the trade.

It's all about leverage. Phil's has an 8 team list. I would imagine the Pens explored that avenue. What happens if none of them are takers? It's a very real possibility the return could be much worse.
- madmike71

You're right and Phil's rep weighs him down (which is how we got him so cheap to start). I actually mostly hate having to take Rask which probably leaves us still needing to dump salary.

PIT trading Kessel for Zucker is horrible. Kessel is better than Zucker will ever be. Has to be more in the offer, perhaps:

Zucker + Dumba + Foligno FOR Kessel + Maatta + Johnson (+maybe prospect or mid rnd pick)?

PIT can then deal Shultz (or Letang) if they want, perhaps to get a winger or 3C (Kadri for Shultz?)
- mventres

Hasn't Rutherford said multiple times that JJ has been a good dman for Pitt?....or is that just smoke and mirrors?

It’s a complete loss.

Johnson to Rask is extremely close to lateral. We lose a lot of value by using Kessel to incentivize the Wild to do a trade that honestly is realistic on its own.
- Victoro311

I don't want to move Phil. There's no trade for another forward where the Pens even get a lateral move. If moving him is inevitable, then move him for a dman who's a real upgrade over Schultz, then use Schultz to grab a forward or free up space to sign one.

Johnson to Rask is not a lateral move IMO. Yes, they are both severely overpaid. If Rask is used as a 4th line forward, the Pens may actually have a positive experience with him in the lineup. There are ZERO situations where JJ has been positive to this lineup, he's only hurt the team every single time he's been on the ice.

If we just erase the the Kessel trade, I trade JJ for Rask all day every day. I want to show you a Rask/Cullen comparison. Rask couldn't have had a worse year this past year, so I'm being a little sneaky use the 17-18 season because up until this past season, he's been fairly consistent in what he does.





Rask has been consistent enough in his career where last season was likely an aberration and can at least come back to his previous performance. Now, I'm not suggesting ANYTHING more than a 4th line role.

JJ doesn't even come close to adding anything positive in any way shape or form.

EDIT: Sorry for the WSCTeton17 sized post.

I'd rather get a guy like Rask and bury him on the 4th line than have Johnson hold down his d partner and the forwards on the ice. If you have the ability to dump a really bad dman, you take it.

Rask is only 26. Still time to turn it around into a decent player. not sure too much about his game, but I'd take him and roll the dice compared to Johnson where you know what you will get and it isnt good.

If there is a deal on the table that involves Kessel for Subban, I'd rather pursue that deal and see what happens. I'd rather get the best player available than a combo or two or three players.

Brown and Zaitsev for Phil?

Brown and Zaitsev for Phil?
- Byfuglien Ate Me

Im gonna go out on a limb and say Toronto is not on his list.