2017 free agency thread

[count2infinity]

my dad loves his pair of glasses?... overglasses? those thingies? whatever the hell those are called.

[llipgh2]

my dad loves his pair of glasses?... overglasses? those thingies? whatever the hell those are called.

Aren't they called Blue Blockers?

[columbia]

I'm totally going to rock those once I retire and take a gig as a mafia courier.

[meow]

I think their technical term is chick magnets

[Tico Rick]

Nice of you to not take advantage of the elderly. I'm sure he tipped these to you as he left.

If I could see GMJR wearing these while low-riding with Fleury and the cup in Vegas, my life would be complete.

[Great58]

9 d-men scored 50 or more points last year. He's paid market value which if we look at the contracts handed out so far is just fine. We can't expect every player to take a discount just because.

Some people like to look at more than just the "What have you done for me lately" concept. it is the same as when someone has a slip in production and everyone wants to trade them away. Same thing, just other side.

I don't think that's a good comparison. A slip in production has history to back it up. Where the market is now has teams paying for the future with RFAs. At 4.5 that's a steal for the Pens. Under 6 but more than 4.5 is market value. 6 or above is UFA money currently.

He took a 50% pay cut last year for a reason, because his history was poo-poo. He then had one good 3/4-1/2 season. In the analogy they would have the same amount of history so I am not sure why they don't compare... but it isn't a big deal.

That's called a prove it deal. If 50 points is half a season then what's he going to do with a full season?

I think that should be interpreted as 50 points in 0.875 of a season, not one-half to three-quarters of a season. Production did fall off once Letang was out for good. But I think all that really proves is that Schultz isn't a top pairing D, but a very good second pairing partner. $5.5 M, after taking $1.5 M for this season, seems reasonable.

[Dan H]

He is also the best goalie in the NHL...

Price certainly has an argument, but so does the guy who has backstopped the last two Stanley Cup champions in the Finals.

[mikey]

No disrespect to Murray, but I couldn't make an argument for Murray to be in that conversation at all...unless the best goalie wins it every year, but that's a loosey goosey way to go about it...

I'd entertain the idea of him being top 10 somewhere...I guess...but unless there's something otherworldly about a player, I'm not a big fan of anointing players after a season...especially goalies...

[meow]

Like Bonino?

The guy that played a game in the Finals with a broken leg? Yeah, he just wants his money

[columbia]

Both assessments are true.

[Dan H]

No disrespect to Murray, but I couldn't make an argument for Murray to be in that conversation at all...unless the best goalie wins it every year, but that's a loosey goosey way to go about it...

I'd entertain the idea of him being top 10 somewhere...I guess...but unless there's something otherworldly about a player, I'm not a big fan of anointing players after a season...especially goalies...

TBH, I think ranked lists like this in sports are imprecise and are only valuable as fun little toys for fans, and so you can rank goalies in any order you like based upon the criteria you think are important. No one will ever prove your list wrong because there isn't a competition designed to directly show which goalies are better than which other goalies.

Having said that, my list of the best goalies in the NHL right now, which is an entirely different list than the most eminent goalies or the goalies with the best arguments to make the Hall of Fame, would be generated largely based on how I would rank the goalies if I could pick any of them to start Game 7 in the Stanley Cup Finals tomorrow, with an arbitrary squad of skaters, coach/system unspecified, and everyone assumed healthy and in hockey shape. Recent success in the playoffs or in best-on-best international tournaments, particularly in the Finals, weighs very heavily in that ranking - especially when a team wins playoff series largely because of good goaltending.

Then again, you can also weight save percentages, track records over the past 5 - 10 years, etc., and those things probably should factor in somewhere. For one thing, you can't completely discount good players on awful teams. But the end of the day, been-there, done-that, got-the-tee-shirt is a more important criterion to me if you're asking me for the "best goalie."

If you magically set up the experiment I described above, your team versus mine for one game for the Stanley Cup, and you ended up with Carey Price and I ended up with Matt Murray, I'm not sure I'd trade goalies if you gave me the chance. I might be tempted to keep Lundqvist or Quick. I'm pretty sure I'd keep any of the above ahead of Holtby or Bobrovsky, and I might think for a few seconds about Rinne, Rask, Fleury, Dubnyk, Talbot, or Crawford, but I think I'd probably swap any of those last eight for Murray.

So, uh, there's a rough outline of my "best goalies" list. Start there and move some goalies up or down a bit based upon how they've done over the past several years. Maybe Murray moves out of the top four if you weight length of service more heavily than I do, but I can't see moving him out of the top ten, at least if you mean the same thing when you say "best goalies" as I mean. If you mean something closer to "goalies with the best arguments to make the Hall of Fame if the league folded tomorrow," then, yeah, Murray's nowhere near top-four on my list either.

[Algernon]

Lundqvist is hot garbage

[Dickie Dunn]

When I rank goalies I go strictly based on save percentage.

[meow]

Honestly **** yourself

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

who is currently being targeted to be the 3C now? I saw there was at least a whisper of Duchene talk but can't find any more than that

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

They've been doing a pretty good job at not leaving any information about who they are going after. The only information is that they are looking, lame but JR usually gets the guy he wants.

[Morkle]

I don't really see it being anyone that we thought they'd get. Madden brought up a great point yesterday that Sutter and Bonino were relative nobodies and they fit the 3C just fine. Can't imagine they're going to dump massive money into the 3C position.

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

All signs point to them trading one of the younger bottom six wingers to bring him in so the value of the player can't be all that high.

[NAN]

I don't really see it being anyone that we thought they'd get. Madden brought up a great point yesterday that Sutter and Bonino were relative nobodies and they fit the 3C just fine. Can't imagine they're going to dump massive money into the 3C position.

This. You don't always have to have the biggest name out there. You need someone who fits.

[Morkle]

I don't really see it being anyone that we thought they'd get. Madden brought up a great point yesterday that Sutter and Bonino were relative nobodies and they fit the 3C just fine. Can't imagine they're going to dump massive money into the 3C position.

This. You don't always have to have the biggest name out there. You need someone who fits.

Brownie points bro, brownie points.

[Jim]

You need a 3C to be the 3C.

[meow]

Yeaaaaaah. Sutter and Bonino were far from unknown when the Pens acquired them.

[shmenguin]

Strange that it's been 11 years or so and we've had a total of 5 centers in our top 9.

[columbia]

Depending on their perceived need of quality (for a 3C), it's either Maatta or Guentzel going in trade. Sheary's street value is probably a 2nd round pick.

[NTP66]

No **** way am I trading either of those guys for a 3C.