hahaha technically, musically, they don't suck...but I've never really gotten into them. Ive heard a few things from them I could certainly listen to again, and wouldn't mind at all, but I don't seek them out on Spotify or anything. The only song by them I can tell you by name is Waited All Night...or I think that's what its called.
- MattStrat

Personally, I'd put Kap in. (frank) it. He should be fine, not like he wasn't skating overseas.

What can they trade to go big with and who is available?
- Tojo.

They still have a second this year and likely have to part with a prospect, and to be honest, while obviously I'm just some nobody fan, but I'm totally fine with shipping out Poulin or Legare if it means a true impact player comes back. That said, if they do have to ship out Poulin, Legare, etc... then I'd hope it's for a non-rental.

hahaha technically, musically, they don't suck...but I've never really gotten into them. Ive heard a few things from them I could certainly listen to again, and wouldn't mind at all, but I don't seek them out on Spotify or anything. The only song by them I can tell you by name is Waited All Night...or I think that's what its called.
- MattStrat

They're very accomplished musicians, but definitely not my taste. I wasn't a fan of the Grateful Dead either which seems to run in the same spectrum.

Think Kap draws into the lineup this eve?

I'm thinking with a few days break before next game they might give him another practice....I've been wrong before.
- MattStrat

Since they just sent Lafferty down, I'd assume that means they're playing Kapanen. I don't think they actually have another healthy forward on the roster

Yeah, I knew that about Cole, but not that about Sully and Horny. The trade just doesn't make any damn sense other than get ahead of the curve with Horny (in the last good year of the window?!) and get a PMD with some offense to his game.

The reports that several other teams were interested tells me that JR put Horny on the block (instead of specifically targeting Matheson and finding out who/what Florida wants to make it work).
- Hockey66

I think it was just trying to get ahead of the curve with a defenseman the thought they could fix since they saw Hornqvist's role decreasing.

As long as those reports are just from TIOPS, take them with a grain of salt.

Since they just sent Lafferty down, I'd assume that means they're playing Kapanen. I don't think they actually have another healthy forward on the roster
- Tojo.

Def in tonight. They only have 12 forwards with kap now. Interesting to see how the 1st and 4th lines look now. I think Erod will be needed on the 4th for a bit as I think zar will struggle after his surgery. Was his pretty similar to jake’s?

Since they just sent Lafferty down, I'd assume that means they're playing Kapanen. I don't think they actually have another healthy forward on the roster
- Tojo.

Ok cool, yeah that pretty much seals it I think.

I think it was just trying to get ahead of the curve with a defenseman the thought they could fix since they saw Hornqvist's role decreasing.

As long as those reports are just from TIOPS, take them with a grain of salt.
- Tojo.

Have they ever "fixed" a defenseman? I know they have tried with several and failed miserably. I guess Schultz, but even that is suspect.

Have they ever "fixed" a defenseman? I know they have tried with several and failed miserably. I guess Schultz, but even that is suspect.
- Hockey66

I don't think they fixed anyone either. It's just either the player worked in our system better than his former team or they disliked the former coach or sometimes when a guy gets traded it just gets them excited and they play better. Schultz, Daley, Nisk....etc

Have they ever "fixed" a defenseman? I know they have tried with several and failed miserably. I guess Schultz, but even that is suspect.
- Hockey66

It was a really bad narrative that was used to justify really bad acquisitions. Here are our reclamation projects:

Ian Cole: over preformed his role on the bottom pairing in St Louis. Getting him was considered a solid move and he continued to be an above average bottom 4 defenseman here.

Trevor Daley: Had an incredible first season with us that was certainly an improvement from how he was playing, but then sunk to his mean during his second season. Brief bump in play more likely had to do with change of scenery effect and the fact he was paired with Dumoulin than anything the coaches did.

Justin Schultz: No significant deference in underlying numbers between here and Edmonton. Deployment made all difference to the eye test. Top pairing with Oilers vs bottom pairing here.

Jamie Oleksiak: Same as Cole. There wasn’t anything to reclaim in the first place. He was solid when acquired and we gave him a bigger role where he continued to do well.

Hunwick and Hainsey: vets that continued to be exactly the same players they were before. Were bad for us in elevated roles.

Jack Johnson: No comment

Marcus Pettersson: Rookie when acquired. Not a significant enough sample size of prior play to indicate if the Pens had any effect on him

Eric Gudbranson: similar to Daley. Certainly played much better his first season here, but sunk right back down to being bad the next. Gudbranson may have majorly benefited from having a legit top 4 d man as his partner on bottom pairing assignments.

But yeah, Gonchar.

Eric Gudbranson: similar to Daley. Certainly played much better his first season here, but sunk right back down to being bad the next. Gudbranson may have majorly benefited from having a legit top 4 d man as his partner on bottom pairing assignments.

- Victoro311

To be fair, a big reason why Gudbranson's play took a hit his second season here was getting played on his off-side. He was visibly attrocious there. He just looked lost.

When it comes to overpaying, I'd still probably take Gudbranson over Matheson.

It was a really bad narrative that was used to justify really bad acquisitions. Here are our reclamation projects:

Ian Cole: over preformed his role on the bottom pairing in St Louis. Getting him was considered a solid move and he continued to be an above average bottom 4 defenseman here.

Trevor Daley: Had an incredible first season with us that was certainly an improvement from how he was playing, but then sunk to his mean during his second season. Brief bump in play more likely had to do with change of scenery effect and the fact he was paired with Dumoulin than anything the coaches did.

Justin Schultz: No significant deference in underlying numbers between here and Edmonton. Deployment made all difference to the eye test. Top pairing with Oilers vs bottom pairing here.

Jamie Oleksiak: Same as Cole. There wasn’t anything to reclaim in the first place. He was solid when acquired and we gave him a bigger role where he continued to do well.

Hunwick and Hainsey: vets that continued to be exactly the same players they were before. Were bad for us in elevated roles.

Jack Johnson: No comment

Marcus Pettersson: Rookie when acquired. Not a significant enough sample size of prior play to indicate if the Pens had any effect on him

Eric Gudbranson: similar to Daley. Certainly played much better his first season here, but sunk right back down to being bad the next. Gudbranson may have majorly benefited from having a legit top 4 d man as his partner on bottom pairing assignments.

But yeah, Gonchar.
- Victoro311

hahaha great post.

To be fair, a big reason why Gudbranson's play took a hit his second season here was getting played on his off-side. He was visibly attrocious there. He just looked lost.

When it comes to overpaying, I'd still probably take Gudbranson over Matheson.
- Rinosaur

When the Pens snagged Guds everyone's heads were rolling here. It took some time for people to like Guds game with the Pens. Matheson has only had two games yet and played through a chunk of the 2nd one with an injury that now has him on IR. I didn't want Matheson and I still dont but I do think there's some upside to his game we could end up liking yet.

When the Pens snagged Guds everyone's heads were rolling here. It took some time for people to like Guds game with the Pens. Matheson has only had two games yet and played through a chunk of the 2nd one with an injury that now has him on IR. I didn't want Matheson and I still dont but I do think there's some upside to his game we could end up liking yet.
- MattStrat

I was definitely one of those people who rolled their eyes after they traded for Guds and I thought he fit here quite well from the get-go. Mind you, I'm not trying to say he was an amazing dman or anything, but I thought he played is role well until they switched him to the left side the second year.

When the Pens snagged Guds everyone's heads were rolling here. It took some time for people to like Guds game with the Pens. Matheson has only had two games yet and played through a chunk of the 2nd one with an injury that now has him on IR. I didn't want Matheson and I still dont but I do think there's some upside to his game we could end up liking yet.
- MattStrat

I was happy with guds. I think he offered something pitt needs here and there. A bit overpaid but all in all I liked him. I think MM can be alright but I think he needs to be with Marino so they can develop chemistry. I think MM needs someone with a high IQ to cover his mistakes and just generally be his dumo to Letang.