Kris Letang Trade Week, Day 1: The scene is set for a blockbuster, so let's throw out 5 crazy hypothetical trades. Day 1, Toronto

By GTOG Staff

In our acclaimed season recap podcast, we made the case that the Pens had to at least try to sign Kris Letang to an extension.  He is maddeningly frustrating, but can also be terrifyingly good.  He gives the Pens the best chance of winning the Cup next year and even if he eats up too much of the cap 3 or 4 years from now, he will still be a tradeable asset if/when the Pens develop another guy who can play 22+ minutes a night.  (Watch for the negotiations about whether Letang gets a no-trade clause.  He may really want one.  The Pens would be nuts to give it to him).

This is exactly what Shero should do to Letang's agent if he asks for a NTC

A fair price would be 8 years for $56 million with an average annual cap hit of $7 million.  Expensive, but you have to pay for quality.  Though there is uncertainly about how much the cap will rise after its initial drop next season, most are very bullish, meaning the contract could be easier to digest over time.

Is it affordable now? Answering that, and the first of five hypothetical Kris Letang trades, after the jump...
Re-signing Letang would only come at a significant, and perhaps prohibitive, cost to the rest of the roster. If the Pens extend Letang at $7 million/year, they'd have around $45 million tied up in 8 guys heading into the 2014-15 season (this assumes re-signing Dupuis at ~$4 million/year, though we think that's on the high side).  Simon Despres would be the Pens' highest profile RFA heading into that off-season.

For the sake of optimism, let's assume that the cap jumps back to what it is today ($70 million) entering '14-'15. The Pens would have approximately $25 million left over to pay 14 or 15 roster players, including Despres. That's about $1.6-$1.8 million per player, which means the Pens will either have a lot of league minimum guys or will round out the roster with a dozen Matt Cookes.  It's not terrible if you have a few guys under $1M, but it requires some guys to really outperform their salary, a kind way of saying that the coaching staff has to show some trust in the young guys and develop them.

Not the right strategy going forward.

What all this leads us to believe is not that the Pens must trade Letang, but that it's very difficult to imagine keeping both Fleury and Letang. Devoting $4-5 million total to goaltending rather than $7M would be a big relief.  If that doesn't seem like enough money for two goalies, consider: this season, the Bruins committed $4.375M to goalies, and the Blackhawks committed $3.81M.  It's hard to identify value in goalies, but Ray Shero makes a lot of money to do things that are hard.

[Not-so-quick tangent: One of these hard things is maintaining professionalism and a sense of the big picture when in front of the media, something Shero has handled very well.  Though not everyone is impressed.  Ryan Lambert of Puck Daddy, the troll of trolls, the incessant whiner who thinks he's smarter than everyone else even though he once lost an argument to John Steigerwald, the peddler of smug self-righteous paternalism who basically spends the entirety of his time complaining about how dumb hockey is, complained (surprising, right?) that Ray Shero gave Marc-Andre Fleury a "vote of confidence" during Shero's press conference.

Great point, Lambert.  The better thing for Shero to do would have been to say, "hey everyone, my goalie stinks and we are desperate to get rid of him, now make me a great offer!"  Fans can slam players with no repercussions; but it's the height of irresponsibility for a manager looking to maximize the value of a player to do anything other than publicly express support and appreciation for that player.  If Shero wants to get rid of Fleury (and he should), he has to pretend that he wants to keep Flower.  If Shero does end up keeping Fleury, whether by choice or because there are no takers for him, there is nothing to gain from a public humiliation.  We can only assume that if Lambert put his house up for sale, he'd title the Craigslist post: "SHITTY HOUSE IN TERRIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SALE!"

And finally, let's not forget that Shero and Fleury have worked together for 7 years and probably like each other personally -- you don't go out and rip someone publicly who you like.  Maybe this is hard for Lambert to understand (again, he once lost an argument to John Steigerwald), but it's also what makes the Penguins a destination franchise.  The Iginla and Morrow trades didn't work out on the ice, but they both chose to come to Pittsburgh because they wanted to play here.  We don't care that Lambert doesn't recognize the value in that. We're just glad Ray Shero does. End of tangent.]

This sets up what is likely to be a repeat of the Jordan Staal scenario: the Pens have a genuine interest in keeping the guy and make a competitive offer to do so.  If the player wants it, he stays.  If not, he's traded within a matter of days.

We'd be stunned if any of his kids' names didn't start with a K.

For the sake of wasting time, let's assume there's a trade.  What's the return?  We begin a week of exploring five unrealistic trades below, an exercise we embark on because we enjoy hockey and the NHL, not because we think these trades would actually happen.

Keep in mind:

1) Letang will only count $3.5 million against the cap this coming season, making him one of the league's best bargains in 2013-14.  His contract expiration is also well-timed because while the salary cap is dropping next year (when Letang will be affordable for almost anyone) the cap can, and probably will, rise every year after as Letang gets more expensive.  If you're bullish on the growth of the salary cap, or if you have a lot of money scheduled to come off the salary cap after the 2013-14 season [cut to us pointing at the Sedin twins], Letang is the perfect asset.

2) Letang is better than Jordan Staal.  For all of Letang's faults, this is not even a close comparison.  Letang is one of the most physically gifted players in the league; Jordan Staal is a super-tall beast with a good hockey sense, but he also has hands of stone and scores only bi-weekly for long stretches of a season.  The Staal deal is a good starting point for a Letang trade, but the Pens have to get back more than prospects and the Brandon Sutter of The Blueline.

3) Trading Kris Letang has the potential to become the worst move of Ray Shero's career.  The potential downside of trading Letang far outweighs the potential upside.  Although Letang is actually a little bit older (26) than you'd think given his on-ice immaturity, there's still exponential room for growth.  It might be as simple as getting him a new coach that can tighten the reins [cut to us pointing at Mike Babcock] to get more Good Letang and less Shout-Go-F-Yourself-At-The-TV-Letang.

Hypothetical Trade #1: The Toronto Maple Leafs

Toronto gets: Kris Letang
Pittsburgh gets: James Van Riemsdyk, Jake Gardiner and a #1 pick (21st overall)

Why it makes sense for Toronto: They get a marquee guy who plays an attractive style of hockey; makes them even faster and an even tougher match-up for any team in the East; takes offensive pressure off of Dion Phaneuf thereby freeing him up to destroy more people in open ice; Letang is insurance if the Leafs plan to let Phaneuf walk as a UFA after the coming season; Letang still has upside.

Why it makes sense for Pittsburgh: JVR is super-talented and a presence in front; he has a reasonable contract at $4.25M/year through 2018, meaning the Pens would have a top-4 of Sid, Geno, Neal, and JVR locked up for the next 5 seasons; though JVR hasn't shown consistent production, he did have 32 points in 48 games last season so he might very well be on the verge of breaking out like James Neal did 2 years ago; Gardiner had a rocky regular season but got rave reviews in the playoffs and was even compared to Scott Neidermayer by Joffrey Lupul; Pens get back into the first round (and maybe take a goalie?); Gardiner is a RFA after this season so the Pens could probably lock him up at a very reasonable $2-$4M/year price tag over the next 2-3 years rather than the $7M they'd have to give Letang.

Why it wouldn't happen: The Leafs made a very similar deal for Phil Kessel -- they gave Boston a 2nd overall pick (Tyler Seguin), a 9th overall pick (Dougie Hamilton), and a 32nd overall pick (Jared Knight).  This proposed trade would be similar -- JVR was 2nd overall, Gardiner 17th overall, and Toronto's 1st rounder this season is 21st overall.  The Leafs may be hesitant to give up another 3 pieces -- especially ones who they already know are pretty good players -- in exchange for just one guy because they're already trending up without Letang.

From the Pens perspective, the key is how quickly Gardiner can develop and even if the Pens are really high on him, there would still be too much uncertainty on the blue-line this coming season.  In any deal that unloads Letang's erratic play, the Pens need some steadiness in return. Gardiner may become that, but he also may be too uncertain this coming season.

Like the Staal trade, this move would only be the start of the broader strategy, as the Pens would still need more defense.  The Pens could scour the free agent market, the buyouts, or maybe move one of their perpetually-discussed prospects to get another D-man who can eat up some minutes and bodies.  Or they could follow up this trade by moving the one person this deal would make most expendable:

Wave goodbye to Hands? Noooooooo!!!!

Pens season recap podcast: What's next? Discussing Bylsma, Malkin, Fleury and more

Now that Ray Shero has spoken and the Pens have signed Dan Bylsma to a 2-year contract extension, the change that's coming to this team is in personnel only.  On GTOG's official season wrap-up podcast, we talk about Shero's press conference, his support of Bylsma and Fleury, what the Pens should and will do this summer with Malkin and Letang, and all the other choices -- some easy, some hard -- that the team will have to make this offseason. It's the GTOG Podcast.

Listen while you watch the Stanley Cup Finals with Pierre McGuire muted.

You can listen below or on our Spreaker page.  If you want to take the podcast mobile, either click here to subscribe on iTunes, or download the Spreaker app for iPhone or Android.

Pens fall to Bruins, 1-0; Season ends with a whimper

By Finesse (follow me on Twitter)

[Listen to the Game 4 recap podcast below or on our Spreaker page. You can click here to subscribe on iTunes, or download the Spreaker app for iPhone or Android]



If pucks could talk, Jarome Iginla's wrist shot at the final buzzer would have let out a feeble whimper as it landed almost apologetically in the glove of Tukka Rask.  It was a fitting and symbolic end to a series the Pens deserved to lose and the Bruins deserved to win.  Now armed with a body of work that reads like an inventory of a losing team's most-favored excuses -- a hot goalie, injuries, a bad goalie, and no good bounces -- the Pens have another long offseason of soul-searching ahead.

Read on for the burial...

When a team loses in such a spectacularly disappointing manner, the brain can pull you in two opposite directions are the same time.  There's the reactionary "fire everybody, Crosby sucks" approach, and then there's the "I'll just wait a few weeks and let this pain fade away so that when I decide what changes I want to make I will have tricked myself into thinking we were just a few bounces away" method (aka, The Full Leonsis).

The truth for Ray Shero and the Pens is somewhere in between, but he'd be wise to not waste the opportunity that comes with having your team so thoroughly embarrassed for the world to see.  Though the systematic errors are glaring and the individual failures are spectacular, the common thread that binds the last four playoff disappointments was woven at the Herm Edwards School of Simplicity: the Pens don't do the right thing often enough.

It's less important what that right thing is, and much more important that the Pens either can't identify it or can't do it.  The Pens started the Eastern Conference Finals playing the right way, but couldn't sustain it when it turned out that Boston was not going to be like Ottawa and pour the accelerating lubricant for the Pens' glide into the next round.  So the Pens stopped playing the right way for the next 5 periods and instead dug the first three feet of their own grave.  And once the Pens identified the problems in the way they played in games 1 and 2 and tightened up defensively, they could not, shot-differential be damned, consistently generate anything resembling the high quality scoring chances that the Pens would need to beat a locked-in goalie like Rask.  The Pens may spend the next few weeks feeling sorry for themselves for not catching a single break over 8 periods in Boston, but that would obscure the fact that the Pens rolled over when things didn't come easily in games 1 and 2, and couldn't persevere in games 3 and 4 once they finally seemed to grasp the idea that winning playoff games is supposed to be hard.

The Pens would have eventually broken through on Rask had they continued to play the way they did in games 3 and 4, but you don't get an "eventually" in the playoffs.  And, given this team's track record of mixing random slices of inexcusable chaos into their discipline sandwich, what indication is there that the Pens could have sustained their overall solid performances in games 3 and 4 anyway?

It doesn't matter what might have happened in a game 5 or if the Pens had taken the lead at any point in one of these games because they didn't.  It doesn't matter if the Pens were playing the right way when they went out because they went out.  By design, the playoffs require excellence across a small sample size; whether the Pens were trending in the right direction when they went out is irrelevant.  There's already a trophy for trending well over a large amount of time.

Comfort food for GTOG.

It's an indictment of everyone in the organization that the Pens went out this way, so it's hard to pin more blame on any one person than it is on another.  Ray Shero's acquisitions didn't get the team any further than it would have gone without those guys, and it's easy to argue that getting both Morrow and Iginla stagnated a team that simply didn't need both of them.  It's great to have a fancy shoe collection, but you can only wear one pair at a time.  Dan Bylsma added to an ever-growing resume of presiding over inexplicable performances, and when he finally recalibrated his team in one area (defense), he seemed to do it at the expense of another (offense).  Crosby, Malkin, Neal and Letang had no points in 4 games, and while that will almost certainly never happen again over any future 4-game stretch, it still happened.  And the supporting cast, supposedly the deepest in the league, didn't hold the fort while the stars got it together.  It was a total failure by everyone.

Last night's game was exciting only because it was meaningful -- if that game happens in December, it's a total snooze fest, the kind of game where if you DVR'd it, you'd actually get mad at your roommate for NOT spoiling the score and warning you against spending three hours watching it.  It's admirable (and appreciated because we watch all 82 games of it) that the Pens try to play hockey the way most people want it to be played; you know, with actual goals and excitement.  But the Pens have to be careful not to martyr themselves as the paragon of the way hockey should be played.  Because while it might be nice to enjoy the spoils of the afterlife -- like the MVP and Norris Trophy that could be coming in a couple days -- the bottom line is that you're dead.

Raw Emotion Podcast: The End. Pens lose, 1-0

Pens could have played all weekend. Still wouldn't have scored.

We talk about Game 4, Bylsma's future, the Bruins' defense, late-payment forgiveness, and so much more. It's the GTOG Podcast.

Listen below or click here. And as always, click here to subscribe on iTunes.



**If you're listening on your smartphone, the best ways to make sure that you have an uninterrupted experience are: 1) download the podcast from iTunes OR 2) download the Spreaker app by going to the App store and searching for "Spreaker" then "Get To Our Game"**

Some random follow-up thoughts on the Pens' double-OT loss to Boston

By GTOG Staff

Listen to the below or click here. And as always, click here to subscribe on iTunes.



[If you're listening on your smartphone, the best ways to make sure that you have an uninterrupted experience are: 1) download the podcast from iTunes OR 2) download the Spreaker app by going to the App store and searching for "Spreaker" then "Get To Our Game"]

The more we think about Game 3, the more we end up thinking about games 1 and 2.  The Pens probably win that game last night 53 out of 100 times. Unfortunately, they don't play best-of-100 series. Which is exactly why you can't give away 2 playoff games in a series -- at home, no less -- and expect to win 4 of 5 against a very good team when you're pretty close to dead-even with that team when you're both playing at your best. The Pens played really well last night, but all it does is shine a light on the stinkers in the first two games. We know the Pens can play as well as they did in game 3. We still have no idea why they can't do it more consistently.

No shame in losing Game 3. Great shame in being down 3-0.

Unable to put together any sort of cohesive reaction to last night, here are a bunch of random things we're thinking about, in no particular order.

- Along with the misfortune of having just faced down the barrel of a 3-0 series deficit last spring, we have the advantage of knowing exactly how this could work. Take advantage of Boston's inevitable if slight psychological shift in Game 4, when they cannot possibly match the Pens sense of desperation. Score 10 goals in the game (Note: will settle for 3. OK, 2.).



Come back to Pittsburgh and score a tight 3-2 victory. Suddenly, everything is in play. Even losing 5-1 in Game 6.

- Malkin was the best player on the ice last night, and it wasn't particularly close. He gets an A+ for generating scoring chances. But you don't win games with scoring chances. It's hard to think about the 21 shot attempts without thinking about the fact that none of them went in. It's a distinct talent to generate the types of chances that Malkin generated last night; it's also a distinct talent to finish the chances. Some of last night was just being snake-bit. The rest is him needing to be better at finishing.  If he was a running back, he'd have been taken out at the goal line.

- The Mike Alstott to Geno Malkin should be Jarome Iginla, but you could make a low-light reel of all the juicy rebounds that have bounced over Iggy's stick in the last month.

- Sidney Crosby was terrible early, but got much better as the game went on. A really strong defensive effort. But that's like complimenting your gardener for not tracking mud in the house. It's not what Sid is paid to do.

- The most disappointing part of Sid's game has been the power-play. It's expected that when teams load up to stop a guy at even-strength, they will usually have some success doing that, especially with players as good as Boston has. The power-play is the time to shake loose from those shackles and at least get comfortable having the puck on your stick. Sid hasn't done that at all. Dreadful on the PP.

- The PK was wonderful last night. PP was the real culprit.

- In moment of candor, would Ray Shero admit that he would have traded Brendan Morrow back to Dallas after Iginla fell in Pens' lap? And would he admit that after getting Morrow, he only got Iginla to keep him away from Boston? Because they're largely redundant. The Pens needed one of them. Not both.

- 7:09 on the PK for Craig Adams. What a performance. If he buries that slapper that hit the post in OT, the city probably names a steel mill after him.

- Refs on "let's take 'em both" patrol are the worst.

- Bylsma is deservedly getting a lot of heat. Arguably his worst stat from last night: Joe Vitale played 9:38 and only took 3 face-offs. If that's all you're using him for, why is he playing over Jokinen and TK, when the team's biggest issue against Boston has been an inability to score?

- It's one thing to dress Vitale if you think you need what he brings. It's another thing entirely to dress Vitale and then act like you don't even want him in the lineup. This really confuses us about Bylsma -- he insists on dressing guys in whom he has no confidence giving even a semi-regular shift. It's not like he doesn't have options.

- Speaking of TK, as we discussed on the podcast, he would have been a real asset in OT.  The one thing he never lacks is energy. There's potential for a great match-up against a tired team in OT.

- We've reached the point in the season where we're asking for more Tyler Kennedy. In other news, the Pens are about to get swept.

- Lineup changes for Game 4. Niskanen can't play with Letang. Have to keep Cooke with Geno and Neal. Bennett should stay and get PP time. BB is one definite bright spot heading into next season.

- The Pens scored 10 goals in Game 4 against Philly last year. The Pens also scored 12 in games 1-3. The Pens have 2 goals in 11 periods this series.

- The series isn't over so we're not in the mood to make pronouncements about the off-season. Except for one. Marc-Andre Fleury has got to go. This shouldn't be hard decision, and in light of the decisiveness of Shero's handling of Jordan Staal last year, we expect it will happen quickly. It doesn't matter who else is available. Fleury is not a winning option going forward.

- The way he's played this season, the Pens should feel very fortunate that Vokoun is signed through next season. He can't play 65 games. But the games he plays, he usually plays well.

- For as much talent as Letang has, and as high as his ceiling is, the Pens haven't really accomplished anything with him since he's been the team's best defenseman. Yet he's so gifted that you have to start wondering if a different coach could get him to play the right way more often. Whether here or elsewhere.

So, the Pens got destroyed by Boston last night. Now what?

By Finesse (follow me on Twitter)

Listen to the podcast below or click here.  And click here to subscribe on iTunes.



Last night the Pens were a nerdy 7th grader who got tied to a fence and de-pantsed by the cool kids at the beginning of recess, then had to stand there for the next 40 minutes while everyone laughed and pointed.  There was no facet of the game in which the Pens played well, no redeeming performance by any individual players, and almost nothing to give you confidence the Pens can win a game in this series, let alone the series itself.  All credit to the Bruins, whose stars dominated the Pens' stars, whose grinders dominated the Pens' grinders, and whose coaching staff is making Dan Bylsma look completely out of his league.

You're doing it wrong.

More after the jump...

The good news is that it was only game 2.  At least we hope that's the good news.  The Pens have shown a tendency to lose ugly this year (10 of their 12 losses were by 2 goals or more), and though it is surprising to have been so thoroughly dominated through much of two games, it would be completely unsurprising if the Pens won game 3 in Boston, even by a large margin.  What the Pens haven't done this series is get a lead on Boston and force the Bruins to adapt.  The Bruins have been able to do everything that they're really good at with very little resistance from the Pens; unless the Pens can dictate the terms of the game, even a little bit, the Bruins will win this series and will probably do it easily.

This isn't to say that the Pens need to go all crazy before game 3 and try to change everything.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.  The Pens need to figure out what will make them successful again -- making simple plays defensively, possessing the puck for long enough to allow creativity to take over -- and then do it.  And then keep doing it even if the Bruins are making it hard.  And if the Bruins are still making it hard, then you know what the Pens should do?  Keep doing it.

This is all much easier said that done, mainly because of how good Boston has been. But an almost equal reason for pessimism has to do with the Penguins' own mentality. Every quote after these losses is the same: "We got away from our game."  Well, why?  Why does a team that can be so good play so badly sometimes?  Why does Kris Letang look like a first ballot hall-of-famer some nights and a total scrub on other nights?  Why do Crosby and Malkin, now in their mid to late-twenties, still get so flustered when things aren't coming easily for them?  Why do the Pens either look like the best offensive team since the 80s or outclassed brats playing soccer with the puck because they can't connect on a pass?

The most vexing part of this team is that you have no idea what the expect from one night to the next. Game 3 in Boston could be exactly like game 3 in Philly last year where the Pens started running people and acting like babies when things weren't going their way.  Or the Pens could have a 4-goals-in-5-minutes spurt and win 6-2. Or they could play a tight-checking and disciplined 2-1 game. (That last one seems highly unlikely, but with this team, who knows).

As hard as it is to predict how the players will play, it can be equally hard to discern what the coaching staff is doing.  There's a balance between being reactive and being proactive, and Bylsma (and Shero) have failed miserably at striking that balance.  It's been 12 hours since the puck dropped and I still haven't come up with one good reason (other than possible injuries) why Derek Engelland dressed.  It's not that Engelland was any worse last night than anyone else, or even worse than Eaton would have been, but what was this move trying to accomplish?  Get grittier?  Tougher?  Why?  It's not like the Bruins' won game 1 by physically dominating the Pens -- they won game 1 because they weathered the storm and then smartly and skillfully took advantage when the Pens started chasing the game.  This move was reactionary, which on its face is disappointing from a team that went 36-12.  Even worse, it was reactionary to a non-existent problem.  Bylsma was reacting to a myth about this Bruins team -- that they're the "big, bad Bruins" -- when it's the Bruins skill and positioning that has been the major problem.

Scratching Kennedy was equally, if not more, confusing.  Yeah, Boston had won a lot of face-offs in game 1, but that "problem" didn't really tilt game 1 that much in favor of Boston -- the Pens were only outshot by 1 and the so-called "advanced stats" (which involve counting, then adding) were fairly even given this allegedly crippling discrepancy.  The problem in game 1 was that the Pens couldn't finish.  So Byslma's solution was to sit the best scorer and puck possession guy the Pens have in their bottom 6 for a guy who may be able to win the face-off ... but to what end?  Vitale wins the offensive zone draw to Niskanen, who shoots it into the corner ... who is getting it and then doing anything with it?  Brenden Morrow?  An overreaction to a real, but hardly fatal, problem.

Both of these moves were marginal in the sense that they didn't in any way cost the Pens this game.  The Pens are a unique team.  No one plays like the Pens, but the Pens don't -- and can't -- play like anyone else.  So why try?  Why let the Bruins dictate your lineup?  At home, no less.  Coupled with his inability to extract any consistency from his best players, Dan Bylsma has as much to answer for as anyone.

One thing that Bylsma can and should answer immediately is the goaltending question, although there really shouldn't be a question. Vokoun has to be the starter.  Neither goalie was responsible for this loss, but to anyone who has watched Fleury over the course of his career, it's obvious that this guy is gone mentally.  We saw the goal from Marchand almost immediately after the Sutter goal.  We don't need to see more.  He's so horrible right now that you could easily make the case that he shouldn't even dress as the backup.  Fleury looked like he wanted to cry ... when the Pens put him IN the game.

The series is not lost, though when the Pens finally get it together it may be too late to salvage given how well the Bruins are playing.  It certainly looks bleak heading back to Boston down 2-0.  If the Pens were a normal team, you could look at the results from the first two games and figure that Boston is simply a better team and the Pens would be lucky to win a game. That very well might be the case. But the Pens aren't a normal team.  So, really, who the fuck knows what's going to happen?

Podcast: Pens dominated by Bruins in Game 2, 6-1

Well that was terrible. The Pens were completely dominated by a terrific game from Boston and then compounded it with an all-time stink-bomb. We chronicle it all, LIVE on the GTOG Podcast, after the final whistle.

Listen below or click here.

The Prime Minister's face.

5 thoughts on the Pens' game 1 loss to Boston, including a new team motto

By Finesse (follow me on Twitter)

A few leftover thoughts about last night's 3-0 loss to Boston.  But first, check out the podcast.

Listen below or click here. And as always, click here to subscribe on iTunes.



5. The Showdown

The Crosby/Chara and Malkin/Bergeron showdowns at the end of the second period are getting a lot of attention, and rightfully so.  It's too soon to tell whether this was a good or a bad thing, but there's a lot not to like about it.

Very little good can come from this.

It's admirable in a lot of ways that Crosby and Malkin are willing to mix it up more than most superstars are, but it's also not that smart for them to do it for the simple fact that when they fight or jaw at people, they aren't better at it than anyone else.  They make themselves ordinary.  Rather than staying on a higher plane than other players because of their superior talent, they can be brought down to the level of their competition.  Give the Bruins credit for getting Sid and Geno to do it.

The other potential problem with their "standing up for themselves" response is that it's not very logical.  Whatever Boston did to get Crosby and Malkin that upset (and maybe it was simply frustration with not scoring), does anyone think that Boston is going to stop messing with 87 and 71 because they fight back?  Does anyone really think any of the Bruins are going to be afraid of getting their asses kicked by Crosby and Malkin?  If Crosby and Malkin are reacting like that, then it means that they're at least somewhat rattled emotionally and obviously Boston will try to keep doing that if that's the response they can get from those two guys.  Boston is only going to stop with that stuff when the scoreboard dictates that they have to stop.

New motto: Ignore and Score.

Four more thoughts after the jump...

4. The bottom 6 has become necessary

As we discussed on our podcast, the Pens are going to need contributions from the bottom 6 to win this series.  Our initial thought was that scoring from the bottom 6 would be sufficient to beat Boston, but not necessary.  After game 1, it looks more necessary than ever.  Boston is going to load up, as they should, to stop the Pens' top 6, and they're good enough that they might be able to.  If the bottom 6 doesn't contribute offensively, the Pens could easily lose this series.  It's not enough that the bottom 6 wasn't on the ice for any of Boston's goals.  They need to be on the ice for Pittsburgh's goals.

Some numbers so far in the playoffs:

Good: Kennedy (5 points in 8 games)
OK: Morrow (4 points in 11 games)
We're seeing some things, but need to see more: Cooke (3 points in 12 games); Jokinen (3 points in 7 games)
We know not to expect much, but it would be nice every once in a while: Adams (1 point in 12 games); Glass (1 point in 5 games); Vitale (1 point in 4 games); Bennett (1 point in 4 games)
Really disappointing: Sutter (2 points in 12 games)

There are 132 action shots from game 1 on the Pens' website. Brandon Sutter is in 1 of them.

You don't win Stanley Cups with passengers.

3. Hit the net

As Dejan Kovacevic pointed out in his column this morning, the Pens need to focus on hitting the net, not necessarily picking corners.  The Pens got a lot of good looks, especially early, but channeled their inner-Alex Semin and airmailed them way over the net.  When the Pens missed the net off the rush, these misses started Boston's breakouts at least a handful of times in the first period.  And even though we're pretty close to being done worrying about the PP combinations, because all of the combinations are good, the emphasis needs to be on more traffic.  Doesn't matter who.

2. Easy on the pinching 

Letang wasn't at his worst, but also wasn't at his best.  He seemed dedicated to pinching on almost every opportunity last night -- great if it works, nightmare when it doesn't.  Boston isn't Ottawa -- not only can they get the puck past Letang when he pinches, they can score when they do.  This certainly didn't cost the Pens the game, but it's something to watch going forward.

Textbook?

1. Video review on 5-minute majors 

Refereeing is our least favorite topic.  The Pens didn't lose the game last night because of officials -- the Pens PK was perfect, and they had 4 power-plays.  No complaints on that front.

But the 5-minute major on Cooke was ridiculous.  It's such a difficult call for the refs to make at full speed, and it's such an impactful decision to give a guy 5 and a game, why not let this be subject to video review?  I hate anything that slows the game down, but if the ref believes in his decision to give 5 and a game, let's take away the excuse that things happen quickly.  Make him look at it again, and then decide.  If he makes the wrong decision after video review, then the league should discipline him.  Or just let the league review it.

Bottom line: No panic heading into Game 2. The Pens know what they have to do to win, they just have to do it. And not stop doing it if it isn't working right away.

Penguins vs. Bruins: Tale of the Tape

By GTOG Staff

[You can find the preview podcast here]

It's Eastern Conference Finals Eve, Boston vs. Pittsburgh, when thoughts of Mario Lemieux torturing Ray Bourque swirl in our heads, somewhere Andy Moog is waking up in a cold sweat, and the Tale of the Tape between these two titans becomes urgent and required reading. Our thoughts and prayers are with Ulf Samuelsson's right thigh, which is to this day still traumatized by Cam Neely's carelessness. And we wish Vladimir Ruzicka the best in his quest to forget everything that happened after his 5-point performance in Game 2 in 1991. Let's break this down.

Obstacle Overcomability

This is always our most important category, because it defines the NHL playoffs. If you can play, you can play, but if you can't overcome adversity, you can't win. The Bruins had that historic comeback against the Leafs when they were down three goals in the third period of Game 7, and down two goals with 1:22 left in regulation. Amazing, unprecedented stuff from the Bruins. But you know what else is amazing? The fact that the Toronto Maple Leafs took a 4-1 lead in Game 7 against Boston in Boston. You don't give Bill Clinton credit for still being married to Hillary because no one gets obstacle overcomeability points for overcoming themselves.

The Penguins saw Marc-Andre Fleury - arguably their most important piece of the playoff puzzle heading into round 1 - melt down against the Islanders. They're still meshing as team and figuring out who belongs in the lineup. Their captain and best player is only now setting aside a face shield that - believe it or not - limited his effectiveness. They face enormous external pressure to win and win going away. And all the Penguins are doing is getting better.

EDGE: Pens.

Read on for the rest of the categories ...

Emergeability

The bad news for the Pens is that this is one Tale of the Tape category that they can never win, at least as currently constituted.  Unless like 8 guys get hurt, we're not seeing anyone play whose ceiling we don't already know, or at least have a pretty good idea.

"Brian Dumoulin is not walking through that door!"

Torey Krug redefined emergeability in the Bruins' series, scoring 4 goals in 5 games.  But it may not even be the right kind of emergeability.  Claude Giroux showed great emergeability in 2008-09 against the Pens, then blew the doors off emergeability in '09-'10 when the Flyers went to the Cup.  That was the right kind of emergeability -- he emerged into a much better player than anyone thought he was.  What Krug did was so unexpected that it raises the question: was this emergeability or flashinthepanability?  Regardless, the Bruins may use three rookie defensemen at any point in this series.  Pretty sure everyone on the Pens has been in the league for a dozen years.

EDGE: Bruins.

Coiffability

Hair is about appearance, but it's also about trust. And if you can't trust your captain's hair, how can you trust your captain?

Here's Bruins' captain Zdeno Chara winning the Stanley Cup.

He looks like any other 6'9" man struggling with hair loss, probably figuring that no one will see the top of his head.  But here he is at the parade a few days later.

Are we really supposed to believe that it's natural for a 30+ year-old-man to magically patch-up his male pattern baldness in a few days?  Get real.

Zdeno made a deal with the devil to win that Cup. Now the debt has come due.

EDGE: Pens. 

Sex Appealability

Time to check in with the Women of GTOG for their thoughts on this always crucial factor.

Mrs. Artistry: Edge, Penguins.

Artistry's Mom: Edge, Penguins.

EDGE: Pens.

Legacyability 

This is a forward looking category -- think 10 or 15 years in the future and ask yourself whose legacy is more positively or negatively impacted by winning or losing this series.

In the upside department, the Pens have more to gain, if only because they have two players who will be far more memorable than anyone on the Bruins.  If the Pens go on to win the Cup, Crosby and Malkin each get a second Cup and become, without any further question, the two defining players of the salary cap era, which would instantly come to be known as the Sid and Geno Era.  And because of their popularity and excellence, the Penguins become the defining post-lockout team.  Fair or not, that's how life works.  If Boston wins, then they can make a better argument for having the best team post-lockout, though there will still be plenty of other teams making a case in what would be an ongoing debate.  From an individual perspective, outside of Chara, the Bruins aren't really defined as individuals -- if  they win the Cup, they'll basically have 6 or 7 guys who will be remembered like Patrick Elias is remembered.  (I mean that as a compliment).

Such a memorable face.

If the Pens lose, it won't put any sort of choker label on them, but it will be devastating.  A total wasted opportunity.  And if the Bruins lose, does their 2011 Stanley Cup deserve an asterisk because they didn't have to go through Crosby and Malkin to get there?

All of this is a long way of saying that it will be awesome if the Pens win so that we can make fun of the Bruins' Cup in 2011.

EDGE: Pens.

Spurnability 

We've made our thoughts on Jaromir Jagr clear this week, but to summarize: we're basically out of thoughts on Jagr.  It is the classic it-is-what-it-is situation.  He didn't want to play for the Pens last year.  We're over it.

"I ain't over it."

Iginla's spurning of Boston is much fresher, though unlike Jagr and unlike Marian Hossa in 2008, the Bruins never really had Iginla.  They wanted him; he wanted someone else.  There's a big difference between your rival stealing away a girl you just met at the bar and stealing away your girlfriend.

Nevertheless, this will be made into a story all while being downplayed by the Bruins' players.  If Boston loses the series, they will continue to downplay it.  But if they win?  Boy, did we show him!

EDGE: Bruins.

Annoyability

The Islanders were annoying in the way that it's annoying to play pickup basketball against a guy who hustles and sets a lot of screens.  He's not doing anything wrong, but who wants the hassle?  The only annoying thing the Senators did was make you feel guilty for beating them so badly.

The Bruins are a whole different animal in this department. Brad Marchand and Milan Lucic are this year's Wayne Simmonds and Scott Hartnell -- you want to laugh at them like you do to a Chris Neil, but they're actually good players.  Nathan Horton's face when he scores is Cammalleri-esque.  Gregory Campbell's dad works for the NHL -- not his fault, but also not our fault for hating him.  Pierre McGuire will verbally fellate Patricie Bergeron the first time he makes a good defensive play on Crosby.  Tyler Seguin has 1 goal in 12 games, so he will probably score a hat trick Game 1, and then you'll read stories about him being part of  the Phil Kessel trade and then you'll be like, "I'm already disgusted and now I'm being forced to read about Phil Kessel?"  David Krejci is going to make some sick pass that embarrasses Matt Niskanen, and then McGuire will scream, "KREJCI'S IN HIS HEAD, DOC! DAVY KREJCI IS IN MATTY NISKANEN'S HEAD, DOC!"  Jaromir Jagr will make a diving motion at Crosby while we furiously Google "Paul Pierce wheelchair."  And you know at least one of their rookie defensemen is going to goad Evgeni Malkin into a bad penalty.

You will see this face. Just be ready for it.

The Pens have their share of annoying tendencies, but there's a huge difference between the two teams.  The Bruins can win by getting under your skin.  The Pens can get under your skin by winning.

EDGE: Bruins.

Stalwartability 

Dejan Kovacevic wrote about the Letang-Chara "match-up" the other day and figured that whoever outplayed the other one would win the series.  But in reality, it's not quite that simple.  Letang doesn't need to outperform Chara -- he needs to prove that he can do for the Pens what Chara can do for Boston.  As great of a player as Letang is and can be, he hasn't anchored a defense to a Stanley Cup the way Chara did for Boston in 2011.  When the Pens won the Cup in 2009, Letang averaged 19:18 of ice time per game in the playoffs, the fifth most among Pens' defensemen, and finished with a +1 rating. When the Bruins won the Cup in 2011, Chara averaged 27:39 per game and was a +16.

This isn't to say that Letang can't do it, just that he hasn't.  Yet.  So far this post-season, Letang is averaing 27 minutes per game and could realistically end up leading the playoffs in scoring by the time it's over.  He's been that good.  But it also isn't getting any easier.

Chara isn't a target for Letang to beat. He's a measuring stick.

EDGE: Bruins.

Leadability

"I'll take this one, guys."

I like to look at life as a fraternity. Right now the fraternity is me, Tom, Drew, Aar, Joe, Eli, and Pey. I see a lot of that fraternity within these teams. You got Sid, who I'm close with, I feel comfortable just saying to him, 'hey, you know, Sid, if you ever need to shoot some ideas around or pick my brain, me and Ash will have you over any time.' Geno, too. Now they bring in Brend' and 'Rome. Boston is full of great leaders, too. It started with John. Then you had John Quincy. Bill. Larry. Now Tom. I look at their team and I see Looch and March and Kre and 'Deno and it looks a lot like a brotherhood to me. So I just keep doing what I'm doing, controlling what I'm controlling, whether it's going 8-8 with the dink-n-dunk or winning 2 Super Bowls with me throwing deep to 'Twan, 'Tone, and 'Tonio. You know, whatever the team needs. And I see a lot of myself in Sid. This one's for 'Rome.

EDGE: Pens.

Intangibility

This category is less about the more commonly discussed intangibles like leadership, toughness, want-to, really-want-do, sorta-want-to, and definitely-want-to than it is about the ultimate intangible -- whether the invisible hand of destiny will decide to intervene.  The Pens don't really have anything in this department; for Boston, the question is whether the whole Boston Strong movement in the wake of the marathon bombings is going to be an emotional factor in this series.  It's hard to imagine that it's still going to be, given the amount of tributes, anthems, Sweet Carolines, and all of the other sports-related ceremonies and memorials that have been done already and, of course, the fact that the Pens have already played there in the immediate aftermath (and won).  If anything, the emotional toll and the toll on convenience from the manhunt was a negative for Boston: they closed the regular season by going 2-5 and then nearly (and probably should have) lost to Toronto.  Now things have returned to normal and the Bruins are rested.  That's a scarier thought than destiny intervening.

EDGE: Bruins

FINAL SCORE: 5-5

Predictions

Boston can and might win this series.  They are a really good team without a lot of weaknesses the Pens can exploit. But if the Pens are who we all think they are, the Pens will win this series.  An eight day break leaves a lot of time for breaking down specific match-ups, but it all comes back to the most basic match-up: who has better players?  Unless something weird starts happening, the Pens don't have any glaring weaknesses that Boston can exploit to overcome the simple fact that the Pens have more better players.  Not much better. But better.

Pens in 6.

Pens-Bruins preview podcast: Oozing with analysis, emotion, and predictions

It's our Pens-Bruins Eastern Conference Finals preview podcast.  How does the long delay affect the series? Which Bruin do you fear the most? What's the deal with the Tortorella firing? All that, our predictions, and so much more. It's the GTOG Podcast.

Click here to subscribe on iTunes

**If you're listening on your smartphone, the best ways to make sure that you have an uninterrupted experience are: 1) download the podcast from iTunes OR 2) download the Spreaker app by going to the App store and searching for "Spreaker" then "Get To Our Game"**

TWITTER: Follow Artistry. Follow Finesse. Follow GTOG.

A 7-3 victory sounds about right; Pens push Sens to the brink in Game 4

By Finesse (follow me on Twitter)

We opened our podcast last night asking the question: Was Game 4 the game we've been waiting for the Pens to play all postseason?  Our answer was a definitive 'no.'  Game 3 was the game we had been hoping the Pens were capable of -- a tight, 1-0 win, with scoring from an unexpected place, and an ability to overcome a hot goalie with a hot goalie of our own.  But you know, shit happens.


[Listen above or click here to subscribe on iTunes]

Game 4 was the game we knew the Pens had in them, and the Pens teased us with it a few times in the Isles series (Games 1 and 5) and even early in this series (Game 1).  But they never got all the way there like they did last night.  Game 4 was total domination.  The Pens OWNED the first period and probably should have been winning 5-2 after 20 minutes.  With all due respect to Dejan Kovacevic, who is having himself a hell of a playoffs, the Pens were not "awful" in the first period.  In fact, it was arguably the Pens most dominant period offensively in the whole playoffs; it just took a few minutes more of play in the second period to reap the benefits on the scoreboard.  What happened in the third period -- 4 goals in 10 minutes -- was not the product of 10 good minutes of hockey, something which has often been enough for the Pens to win games.  It was the well-earned payoff from two excellent overall performances in Ottawa in Games 3 and 4.

The Pens went into Ottawa and scored 8 goals in 2 games -- it's just a matter of bad fortune that they weren't spread out more evenly to come home with two wins.  Because one thing is clear this morning and it's that this series should already be over.

Read on for more...

Unfortunately, it's not over.  The mental errors that the Pens make way-too-regularly are not going away, so there's no guarantee that the Pens close it out in Game 5.  But the Pens would be wise to keep their foot on the gas and try to bury Ottawa right from the start because as clearly as the fans and media can see that the Pens are the better team, the Senators themselves seem to see it most clearly.  From Scott Burnside of ESPN.com:

Ottawa captain Daniel Alfredsson, who reached the 100-point plateau in playoff scoring with a power-play goal with the game out of reach in the third, was asked whether it was feasible to win three straight against this Pittsburgh team.

"Probably not," he answered with brutal candor. "With their depth and their power play right now, it doesn’t look too good.

"I’m just saying that I don’t think there’s much going for us. Maybe that’s the way we like it."

The Senators are ready to lose this series.  The only way they get back in it is if the Pens let them, and the killer-instinct and refusal to get frustrated last night is the most encouraging sign yet that the Pens won't allow it.  The last 4 games for Ottawa have been like nursing a sick relative.  There was a brief glimmer of hope, but we all know how it should end.  It's time to pull the plug and let go.

It's ok, Paul. Don't be scared.

- Somehow Evgeni Malkin ended up with zero points despite the Pens putting up a 7-spot, including two on the power-play.  He's now gone two straight games without a point. On paper, this looks bad.  But if you have eyes, then it's evident he is returning to his MVP form of last season.  If Geno and Sid are both playing at their highest level -- where they each are around 1.5 points per game -- the Pens are a near-impossible match-up for anyone.  With no Cups in the prior three season, there have been questions about whether the "2 superstar model" works.  The answer is that it does work when the 2 superstars are playing like the 2 best players in the league.  Which they are.

- Tomas Vokoun is something to behold.  I've never seen a goalie look behind himself so much to make sure the puck isn't dribbling between his legs and in.  It doesn't dribble between his legs, though, and that's all that really matters.  As long as he keeps winning -- and he's 5-1 with a 1.82 GAA and .942 save percentage -- there is nothing to discuss.  He's the goalie.  If he falters (and despite the constant looking over his shoulder, there's no indication that a collapse is imminent), Fleury will be ready.  The only question at this point is whether if Vokoun has a bad game, would that even be enough for Fleury to supplant him as the #1 goalie again?

- Kris Letang must be bi-polar.  One personality is an evolutionary Scott Neidermayer; the other is a de-evolutionary Mike Green.  His first period was horrific, from giving up a shorthanded breakaway to falling on top of his goalie.  But then he had 4 assists.  When he isn't limiting himself, his ceiling is unlimited.

- If healthy, Jussi Jokinen needs to stay in the lineup.  Joe Vitale did a very nice job in his few games, but Jokinen brings something that can further separate the Pens from the competition -- an ability to sustain offense.  The Pens are so top-heavy that you can't even really say they have a "1st line."  With Jokinen, the same is true at the bottom of the lineup.  There's really no 4th line.  With Cooke, Kennedy, Sutter, Jokinen, Adams, and Bennett/Morrow, it doesn't really matter what you call any combination.  Each can play 10-15 effective minutes.  Here are Game 4's time on ice numbers:

Gorgeous.

- Last night was a sad night for Sergei Gonchar.  He was a -4 and was in the box for James Neal's killer PP goal early in the third.  He's a big time liability at this point.

- 15:32 from Crankshaft, and you barely heard his name.  That's a great thing.

Pens need to put this one away on Friday.  We suspect they will.  Go Pens.

Second Period Recap: It's Tyler Kennedy's world; Sidney Crosby is just living in it

There's so much more work to do in this game.

Tyler Kennedy's goal was a beauty.  We rag on Letang as much as anyone, but that's a $7 million pass he made.

Crankshaft.

Sid's goal was just such a Sid goal.  It's not even about the hands.  It's about the legs.  Divine balance.

Pretty sure Kennedy and Vitale are doing cocaine in between periods.

Pens win 5-4 in OT; The good, the bad, and the Mark Eaton

By Finesse (follow me on Twitter)

Having cooled off after the Pens' dramatic 5-4 overtime win over the Islanders to take a 2-1 lead in the series -- yes, we needed to cool off after a win -- perhaps we were too negative in our Raw Emotion Podcast recorded minutes after the Pens escaped with a win they didn't deserve.



After all, the Pens have scored 13 goals in 3 games and are winning a series against an Islanders team that played possibly its best game of the season, yet still lost 5-4 to a Pens team playing as poorly, sloppily, and lazily as it has played all year.  If the Pens can actually play better, rather than just talk about the universally accepted notion that they need to play better, this can still be the 5-game series we predicted all along.  So in this spirit of looking at the bright side of things, lets sprinkle a dusting of good among the bad, the ugly, and the repugnant.

Read on after the jump...

THE GOOD: Sidney Crosby.  He had two goals in Game 2 but for long-time connoisseurs of his excellence, he was noticeably rusty and far less able to dictate the game than he was before his injury.  That was all to be expected, of course.  But seeing him that rusty made us a little bit skeptical that he would be able to get back to his level from March so quickly.  That was dumb.

Crosby was far and away the Pens best player Sunday and he was the only guy who inspired any confidence when he was on the ice. His passing was sublime and he dominated the boards in the offensive zone when he wasn't preoccupied in his own zone because of defensemen who were unwilling to take seriously the fact that there are two teams in each playoff game and the other team isn't going to step aside and allow you to tap-dance to loose pucks then gently push them in the general direction of "anywhere I won't get hit."

THE WAAAAAHHHHHHHH: As sure as the days get longer, the trees start to bloom, and co-workers lament their allergies during awkward elevator rides, Sidney Crosby is the subject of springtime controversy, having drawn the penalty that led to the game winning goal.  This is a good place to be if you're a Pens fan because any shift of the conversation away from how terrible the team played to the psychological comfort food that is defending Sid against allegations of diving is a welcome distraction.

Was it a dive?  No.  Was it a soft call, as the estimable panel of Jeremy Roenick and Mike Milbury suggested during the post-game show?  No.



There may be some truth to the notion that Crosby gets the benefit of the doubt, as have so many superstars over time.  But there's more truth to the notion that superstars are superstars for a reason: they are better than guys like Brian Strait. Would hockey be a better sport if Strait was allowed to offset his cavernous talent disadvantage by reaching out with both arms to impede the best player in the world from doing the very thing that makes him the best player in the world?  Of course not.  I agree with the argument that that play would not have been a penalty against any other player, but not because the "rules of nature" don't apply to Crosby as Jesse Spector suggests.  It's because if Crosby was any other player, Brian Strait wouldn't have had to use both arms to haul him to the ice after getting worked over on the boards.

Not a penalty? Get real.

THE            : Brandon Sutter was invisible yet again, which means it's a safe estimate that 95% of the minutes he's played this season have been borderline useless.  Are we not reading the right newspapers or blogs, or are we the only place that's noticing just how much he isn't contributing?  We're not asking for the guy to be able to give the 20 solid minutes per game that Jordan Staal gave the team, but to contribute something. Anything.  And if he can do it more than once a game, even better.

THE NOT WORKING: Sutter and Morrow together isn't really working.  Advanced stats will tell you that both players are bad with puck possession; your eyes will tell you that they routinely get pinned deep in their own zone and Morrow, for as much as he came on late in the season, looks like a guy who would be a lot more effective playing with guys who can actually get the puck so that he can do what he's good at: stand in front of the net and be tough to play against.  You know when Brenden Morrow is not tough to play against?  When he's sucking wind at the end of a 75 second shift spent entirely in his own zone.

THE STATUS QUO: The Pens defense gave Marc-Andre Fleury even less help in Game 3 than in a terrible Game 2, but four goals is four goals, and at some point if you want to be taken seriously as a goalie who can win another Stanley Cup you have to give up four goals a lot less frequently.  The Pens defense was so bad, however, that the status quo holds: Fleury starts game 4, but remains on a very short leash.

THE REPUGNANT: It's hard to imagine that a hockey player could have a worse game than the game Mark Eaton played today.  Matt Niskanen and Kris Letang certainly gave it their best shot, but Eaton reached such historic levels of terribleness during this game that he would have been better off spending his shifts laying across the goal line and hoping that he saved a goal by accident.  And the thing is, we love Mark Eaton.

THE HANDSY: Chris Kunitz. Where would we be without him.

THE OUTLOOK: Despite our general malaise, the Pens are in a great position to win this series.  The past two games have served to narrow our focus from the big picture to the little things like GETTING THE PUCK OUT OF YOUR OWN ZONE.  Wooooosahhh.  Anyway, the biggest reason to remain optimistic, other than leading the series, reclaiming home-ice advantage, and having the best player in the world back, is the if.  If the Pens can just get by this self-imposed psychological hurdle of the first round of the playoffs, maybe they return to being the team that won fifteen straight and looked damn good doing it.  It's just not going to be as easy as we hoped.