Part 2

To assess lineups of each team from a position-by-position perspective, I again used Capfriendly data. I sorted active players, filtered for a minimum 41GP, by team, position, and TOI. That allows me to have a basis by which to call a player 1st line vs. 2nd line (or at least best vs. 2nd best), based on time on ice and based on whichever position Capfriendly lists (though that may not always reflect their actual usage). So, if the site lists four players for the team at left-wing and with different times, the top time-logger will get called 1LW, second highest time is 2LW, and so on. However, some teams have more than four players qualifying at a given position. So, Capfriendly is wrong about their primary use, or some teams are likely playing a player out of position.

Here are the results (listing total points at that position from qualifying players):

East

West

The table shows that at each position, the Penguins have 10-12 teams with more points than them, and thereby just as many teams ahead of them in total points. This view makes the Penguins seem competitive but not elite, and some teams with less points are ahead in the rankings because points are not everything. (Defenses and goalies are not considered here.)

We can get even more refined.

Here is how an average NHL roster is composed in terms of forwards according to these methods:

Here is how the process places the Penguins (somewhat out of position):

To better match the table to actual usage, I moved some players to other positions (the coloration is green for better than the position’s average on that line, red for worse):

This arrangement shows that the Penguins spend a bit more on players in each position – in total, in 8 of 13 individual cases, and in terms of three of the four lines – but their top-heavy lineup at least is above-average for total points (whether or not you include O’Connor). However, that calculation includes boosts from Granlund and Bonino whose contributions this season were mostly from their previous teams.

Keeping the top performers shows how difficult it could be to build an average lineup around them, let alone an elite one.

Guentzel - Crosby - [>35P $3.2M]

[>0P $1.4M] - Malkin - Rakell

[>30P $2.3M] - [>30P $2.3M] - [>30P $2.3M] (if evenly divided)

[>25P $1.7M] - [>25P $1.7M] - [>25P $1.7M] (if evenly divided)

Pairing Guentzel with Crosby could still produce a dominant top line with a third-line caliber player. A pair of Malkin and Rakell could have any player as a passenger and theoretically be competitive with other teams’ second lines, making it easier to have more than one competitive line. The small amount of production needed from the second winger on the second line also is a good sign for someone like Puustinen, who might be brought up to the big club but might not excel immediately. However, Zucker, Rust, Granlund, and Carter’s contracts are difficult to fit in this model, as some of them are paid more than nearly any other two positions combined but might not have produced twice as much. Rust’s value from previous years at a low cap hit really shows how meaningful it was to the team’s success in this light. Otherwise, the Penguin will have to continue to pull money from defense and goalie, which are in need of upgrades themselves. In my opinion, the best trade deadline move would have been to flip Zucker for two ~25P players making about half his salary.

Because of Rust and Carter’s contract clauses, the situation is even further constrained, and their point deficits need to be carried by other players to keep the team competitive:

Guentzel - Crosby - Rust

[>0P $1.4M] - Malkin - Rakell

[>30P $2.3M] - [Carter overage + >35P $1.9M] - [Rust overage + >45P $0.4M]

[>25P $1.7M] - Carter - [>25P $1.7M]

It leaves the Penguins in need of roughly four forwards making $2M (getting about 35 points each) and two forwards making league minimum (getting about 20 points each), to match the average team cap hit and performance for forwards. With no clause in his contract, Granlund’s contract effectively outweighs three open spots, and thereby, he would probably have to top 100 points to justify being included. Similarly, in this model, it does not seem reasonable to think that Zucker will be re-signed (unless spending more than league average); it simply makes it too difficult to afford other players.

Pause for a moment and think of how J.T. Miller’s $8M cap hit would look in this setup. It would leave only about $4M for five players (if staying within the average budget). Even if he neared 100 points to compensate for a third line that could not score a point, it just restricts the budget so much to the point of futility.

I acknowledge that I have only been discussing league average and that the Penguins would be likely to spend more than league average, as they have been spending, but the point remains that spending more has to amount to more production than they have been getting or does not improve their chances to get back into the playoffs or win a round. (Plus, they are likely to have to outspend to fill the holes in the forwards and other positions since internal options are not likely to perform as needed to meet the expectations of the model.)

For reference, maximum cap hits included: Toronto spending the most on forwards at $55.5M; Colorado’s cap hit on defense was the highest at $32.2M; and Florida spent the most on goalies at $11.5M. Playoff teams spent on average $47.6M (Forwards), $25.3M (Defense), and $7.9M (Goalies). The Penguins spent $48.7M (Forwards), $26M (Defense), and $5.3M (Goalies), and $83M total. So, for the Penguins to spend all of the $5-6M available in above-average cap money for forwards on one player that could have a bad year or even get hurt, it is simply too risky, in my opinion, when that money could be spread over several positions to have less need for higher breakouts from more players and make more negotiations easier.

To take these models to the next level, I could start analyzing the specific holes in other teams, evaluating each player options by position, and reviewing the history of trades and signings to see which moves make sense.

Let me know if you have interest in breakdowns of other teams, and with some time, I could give you those results too.