Penguins will have to cut salary after dipping into free agent pool |

Penguins will have to cut salary after dipping into free agent pool

Jonathan Bombulie
Alexandar Georgiev of the New York Rangers makes the second period stop on Bryan Rust of the Pittsburgh Penguins at Madison Square Garden on March 25, 2019.

Dipping into the free agent pool will have consequences for the Pittsburgh Penguins.

After signing winger Brandon Tanev to a six-year, $21 million contract Monday afternoon, the Penguins have about $79.2 million committed to 20 players, leaving them about $2.3 million under the cap.

They still need to re-sign restricted free agents Marcus Pettersson, Zach Aston-Reese and Teddy Blueger.

According to estimates calculated by the website, those three players will command a total of around $4 million in salary. If the Penguins sign Pettersson to a long-term deal, that figure could be even higher.

Add it all up, and the Penguins need to move out a player making a healthy paycheck.

General manager Jim Rutherford has expressed satisfaction in his defense corps, so the cap casualty is likely to come from the forwards ranks. Nick Bjugstad, who makes $4.1 million, and Bryan Rust, who makes $3.5 million, are the most logical candidates.

If Bjugstad were traded, the Penguins would have to find a replacement at third-line center. Jared McCann and Dominik Kahun are both natural centermen who could fill the role.

If Rust were traded, the Penguins would be dealing away one of their fastest players and would be a little light on the right side of the depth chart, but lefties Kahun, Alex Galchenyuk and Dominik Simon are comfortable on their off wings.

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all offseason long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review assistant sports editor. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.