Tim Benz, Mark Madden ponder Penguins’ future post-Phil Kessel | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Tim Benz, Mark Madden ponder Penguins’ future post-Phil Kessel

Tim Benz
Getty Images
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MARCH 25: Alexandar Georgiev #40 of the New York Rangers makes the second period stop on Bryan Rust #17 of the Pittsburgh Penguins at Madison Square Garden on March 25, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)

I’m back from Europe. Mark Madden is back from Vegas. It’s a day late. But our “Madden Monday” podcast for the week is up. And there is plenty to talk about concerning the Penguins.

We get Mark’s response to the Phil Kessel trade from the standpoint of how the Penguins can replace his production and how they will shape the line combinations in his absence.

Beyond that, who does Mark believe in the whole “he said-he said” between Kessel and Jim Rutherford?

The Penguins are still in a tough cap crunch. Rutherford may not be done dealing yet. Also, Mark has two bold predictions. One is about how much longer Mike Sullivan will coach in Pittsburgh. Another is about how Alex Galchenyuk will outperform Kessel in their new cities.

LISTEN: Tim Benz, Mark Madden talk Penguins moves

We discuss some of the crazy money being thrown around in the NHL, too. And is Rutherford guilty of contributing to that inflation based on the cash given to Brandon Tanev?

Plus, we kick around the topics of a Felipe Vazquez trade for the Pirates, baseball in London, juiced home run totals and Aerosmith in Vegas.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.