Yesterday, the Penguins acquired 40-year-old Patrick Marleau to help bolster their bottom-six depth. Immediately after the trade, some started comparing the transaction to the Jarome Iginla trade of 2013.
I don't see it.
Sure, Marleau is an elder statesman, much like Iginla back in 2013. That's where the analogy ends.
Jarome Iginla was the prize of the trade market during the lockout shortened 2012-2013 season. He had scored 32 and 43 goals the previous two years. He was brought in to play with Sidney Crosby, and he was brought in at a big cost. The Pens gave up two college prospects and a first-round-pick for the former Calgary Flame.
Marleau is a good player, but he's clearly on the downside of his career in terms of production. He's not being brought in to play with Sidney Crosby, though he may move up and down the lineup. The cost to acquire Marleau was a conditional third-round-pick. That's nothing.
In 2013, Ray Shero went overboard at the deadline. Prior to the deal, the Pens were in the midst of a 13-game winning streak. They ultimately won 15 straight games that March. That's to say that that team was really good. They had an embarrassment of riches. Making the move for Iginla was overkill.
This year, going into the deadline, I thought that it was a must for Jim Rutherford to procure some bottom-six depth. God bless Andrew Agozzino, Anthony Angello, and Sam Lafferty, but they're simply not good enough to be rostered players for a Stanley Cup contender.
The difference between getting Iginla and Marleau is the difference between want and need. The Penguins wanted Iginla in 2013. They needed bottom-six help this year.
There's also the coaching factor. Dan Bylsma played Jarome Iginla on his off wing. Mike Sullivan will not misuse Patrick Marleau.
So, sure, the Pens acquired one old guy seven years after they acquired a different old guy. That's about as far as that analogy can go.