Share This Page

Penguins GM Shero's deadline deals: Addition by subtraction

| Saturday, March 8, 2014, 11:09 p.m.

Penguins general manager Ray Shero didn't pull off any blockbusters at the trade deadline, deeming the bounty required for Canucks center Ryan Kesler too steep. Shero, however, infused the lineup with needed depth at forward by acquiring Calgary's Lee Stempniak and Florida's Marcel Goc for draft picks. Those pickups will cut ice time for the Pens' unproductive bottom-line forwards, helping the club fend off Boston for top seeding in the Eastern Conference and last longer come playoff time.

The Pens feature four of the NHL's top 30 forwards as measured by Point Shares, an estimate of how many standings points a player contributes. But once you get past Sidney Crosby (10.6 Point Shares), Chris Kunitz (8.6), Evgeni Malkin (8.1) and James Neal (7.2), they're waif-thin.

With Pascal Dupuis suffering a torn ACL and Beau Bennett's wrist preventing a breakout season, coach Dan Bylsma has been forced to play a handful of forwards posting negative Point Share totals while appearing in at least 10 games. Compared to them, Stempniak (0.9) and Goc (1.9) are upgrades.

Not sharing the load

Player Point shares

Chuck Kobasew -0.1

Dustin Jeffrey -0.2

Taylor Pyatt -0.4

Zach Sill -0.5

Craig Adams -0.5

Source: Hockey-Reference.com

No team in the playoff picture has suited up more unproductive forwards than the Pens, who are tied with Toronto and Detroit for the most wingers and centers with negative Point Share figures while playing in double-digit games. Western Conference heavyweights Anaheim, St. Louis and Chicago, by contrast, haven't given that much ice time to unproductive forwards.

Team Unproductive forwards

Penguins 5

Maple Leafs 5

Red Wings 5

Flyers 4

Sharks 3

David Golebiewski is a freelance writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.