Boston Bruins All Bruins Free Agent/Trade Rumours and Proposals IV

[BruinDust]

willingness to play physical is important...but durability becomes a problem more often in smaller guys when they are equally physical to bigger guys. also if they are equally physical their effectiveness is less

but id rather have a willing small guy like brad marchand than a log like jimmy hayes

marty st louis and theon fleury had all the fire in the world in their bodies and refused to be intimidated. but ive seen some big 6'3 guys get intimidated

I also have argued having a goon on the team does almost nothing to protect the team. goons don't protect anyone.

being teammates… being there for each other... having each others back... pack mentality...

but it needs a leader... it needs the lead dog. there has to be a culture that everyone is following or there needs to be strong physical leadership

ive seen Edmonton with all their goons repeatedly look the other way when their best players are molested. it kills the teams chances to win

all this blind devotion to speed and skill is coming at a price that wont lead to any success. there must be a balance. speed and skill is more valuable when it comes along with the size and grit

And I agree with you on most of this. That and I don't want another Sheep in Wolves clothing thread, we already got one now.

Bottom line, it has a lot more to do with what's between the ears and in the heart of players than it does heights, weights and muscles.

I don't expect a deal before training camp. I'm excited about this upcoming season, I think it's a better team than last year, I think were going to see more from the Bruins current young players, and we may even see a prospect not talked about surprise like Gryz did last year. And I think it will be a very good one for us Bruins fans, entertaining if nothing else.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

And I agree with you on most of this. That and I don't want another Sheep in Wolves clothing thread, we already got one now.

Bottom line, it has a lot more to do with what's between the ears and in the heart of players than it does heights, weights and muscles.

I don't expect a deal before training camp. I'm excited about this upcoming season, I think it's a better team than last year, I think were going to see more from the Bruins current young players, and we may even see a prospect not talked about surprise like Gryz did last year. And I think it will be a very good one for us Bruins fans, entertaining if nothing else.

I was soooo hoping this thread could be given to trade proposals and here I am the worst offender making too many non trade proposal posts. but man is it ever hard to come up with any trade proposals that aren't ridiculous

our cap is maxed out... when you figure the performance bonus risk... and next years needs... we really cant go over the cap this year without a disaster next year

its so hard to come up with proposals that make sense

the team signing moore… sort of proves moore is in the plans. none of us might like it... but that's how it plays out

chara is in the plans.

it sort of points a big giant glowing finger that krug is going to be the odd man out

but then... how long is chara around for? if we are moving krug AND losing chara too... then what?

I think the most likely possible trade would be krug for a guy that fits the team better... but no one here wants to hear that

 

[The don godfather]

I have a question of what it takes to become a general manager in the nhl. If Chiarelli can trade seguin and leave us with nothing in return and trading a mvp player in hall for a third pairing dman. I'm wondering if all it takes is completing a high school diploma?

 

[DKH]

Heinen and DeBrusk going cost $10 M between them

 

[Glove Malfunction]

im saying 1 year of nurse is worth a first, a second, a third. even if he walks away after 1 year... I can live with that.

I think you may be the only one who thinks that.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Heinen and DeBrusk going cost $10 M between them

im usually guilty of upsetting everyone with my high predictions... but even I have to say I hope you are high on that estimate

 

[DKH]

im usually guilty of upsetting everyone with my high predictions... but even I have to say I hope you are high on that estimate

No way

Dvorak 6/26.7 good young player average 35 points over last 2 years

$4,450 M

Also DeBrusk is not a RFA for 2 years

Donato is after this year

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

No way

Dvorak 6/26.7 good young player average 35 points over last 2 years

$4,450 M

Also DeBrusk is not a RFA for 2 years

Donato is after this year

ive adopted a formula for estimating contracts in recent years... figure out a number we think is reasonable and then add at least 25%

if they do come in at 10 its at least 2 above my highest estimates and it will really cause problems

fans should realize... cap management is a real concern for Sweeney and management and something that has to be kept factored into all potential moves

 

[Glove Malfunction]

you are arguing that the nhl is moving towards all small speedy players. im suggesting that the 2 most successful teams are moving towards bigger stronger lineups

speed and skill are very good... but not at the cost of becoming soft smurfs

the teams that win have speedy skilled big strong players.

id like to see someone smart like you tell us who you feel the best 50 forwards in the nhl are now... see how many are under 180 pounds? I could make my own list... but you don't really care who I think the top 50 players are. your list would be more interesting I think

The point you're missing is that after these teams have moved towards bigger stronger lineups, how much success have they had? Pittsburgh lost with that bigger stronger lineup, after winning two cups. Is that your definition of success? You are right though, that the combination of speed, size and skill is hard to beat. But that wasn't how you laid it out in your post that BruinsDust replied to.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

The point you're missing is that after these teams have moved towards bigger stronger lineups, how much success have they had? Pittsburgh lost with that bigger stronger lineup, after winning two cups. Is that your definition of success? You are right though, that the combination of speed, size and skill is hard to beat. But that wasn't how you laid it out in your post that BruinsDust replied to.

I guess I don't just judge success by winning a cup? but a lot of other people do... so I argue on their terms???

honestly for me... im happy to say that a team finished in the top third of the league. if my team is a top 10 team... im ok.

and you might be able to find teams that finished in the top 10 that are fairly small. it strikes me vegas was fairly small. I might be wrong about that but my impression is they were small.

I don't really expect vegas to be a top 10 team this year. I don't really respect their ability to substain success

tampa was a good team this year... but honestly it didn't surprise me they missed the playoffs last year. I probably thought they would make it... but I don't have a lot of respect for small teams. it didn't surprise me they fell apart at the first sign of adversity. I wont be surprised if they fall apart this year too. I see no character/grit on that tampa team. they could easily fall apart imho

that's how I judge teams. I said this year early on... I wasn't surprised Edmonton was sucking. a few people called me out on it. said I must be some sort of rocket scientist... no... not a rocket scientist. just someone that is never surprised when soft teams end up sucking

a lot of other people are surprised when tampa misses the playoffs last year... or Edmonton misses this year. im not surprised.

im pretty consistent when I say I usually think small/soft teams are going to struggle. im pretty consistent when I say that skill and speed isn't going to be enough to elevate a team if it has a fatal flaw in its character.

did pittsburg completely suck after moving towards more size and grit? {and honestly the moves they made were not core moves} or... did most pundits predict they would run Washington again?

was pittsburgs loss to Washington an indication they suck now? am I supposed to be ashamed of saying they are one of the better teams in the league {remember they won 2 of 3 cups}

maybe I use them as an example because they are ahead of the curve. their decesions lead to more cup wins then anyone else. they are the gold standard. so if they are trying to get bigger and stronger... maybe that's not a bad thing?

honestly... winning the cup... or finishing in the top 8... doesn't matter a lot to me. I feel the bruins had success last year. we got eliminated same round as pittsburg but I feel it as success.

I feel Nashville and LA had success... its ok to finish in the top 8 imho

how many small smurfy teams finished top 8? is Winnipeg considered small?

I guess tampa and vegas would qualify for being small? does Nashville? I haven't looked...

but I think it was mostly bigger stronger teams that got through the first round. im just saying.

its no guarantee for success... be big... that's no guarantee. but being big and also skilled is better than being small and also skilled.

big is better than small if all else is equal. guys like byfuglin can turn it on at playoff time and become monsters. guys like brent burns can become unstoppable. guys like Jamie benn can become the mvp. guys like milan lucic can turn around an entire playoff with one devastating shift.

big can influence games positively... small is just a handicap that guys need to hope they can overcome

 

[Pia8988]

I guess I don't just judge success by winning a cup? but a lot of other people do... so I argue on their terms???

honestly for me... im happy to say that a team finished in the top third of the league. if my team is a top 10 team... im ok.

and you might be able to find teams that finished in the top 10 that are fairly small. it strikes me vegas was fairly small. I might be wrong about that but my impression is they were small.

I don't really expect vegas to be a top 10 team this year. I don't really respect their ability to substain success

tampa was a good team this year... but honestly it didn't surprise me they missed the playoffs last year. I probably thought they would make it... but I don't have a lot of respect for small teams. it didn't surprise me they fell apart at the first sign of adversity. I wont be surprised if they fall apart this year too. I see no character/grit on that tampa team. they could easily fall apart imho

that's how I judge teams. I said this year early on... I wasn't surprised Edmonton was sucking. a few people called me out on it. said I must be some sort of rocket scientist... no... not a rocket scientist. just someone that is never surprised when soft teams end up sucking

a lot of other people are surprised when tampa misses the playoffs last year... or Edmonton misses this year. im not surprised.

im pretty consistent when I say I usually think small/soft teams are going to struggle. im pretty consistent when I say that skill and speed isn't going to be enough to elevate a team if it has a fatal flaw in its character.

did pittsburg completely suck after moving towards more size and grit? {and honestly the moves they made were not core moves} or... did most pundits predict they would run Washington again?

was pittsburgs loss to Washington an indication they suck now? am I supposed to be ashamed of saying they are one of the better teams in the league {remember they won 2 of 3 cups}

maybe I use them as an example because they are ahead of the curve. their decesions lead to more cup wins then anyone else. they are the gold standard. so if they are trying to get bigger and stronger... maybe that's not a bad thing?

honestly... winning the cup... or finishing in the top 8... doesn't matter a lot to me. I feel the bruins had success last year. we got eliminated same round as pittsburg but I feel it as success.

I feel Nashville and LA had success... its ok to finish in the top 8 imho

how many small smurfy teams finished top 8? is Winnipeg considered small?

I guess tampa and vegas would qualify for being small? does Nashville? I haven't looked...

but I think it was mostly bigger stronger teams that got through the first round. im just saying.

its no guarantee for success... be big... that's no guarantee. but being big and also skilled is better than being small and also skilled.

big is better than small if all else is equal. guys like byfuglin can turn it on at playoff time and become monsters. guys like brent burns can become unstoppable. guys like Jamie benn can become the mvp. guys like milan lucic can turn around an entire playoff with one devastating shift.

big can influence games positively... small is just a handicap that guys need to hope they can overcome

What is the biggesst goal in the league? Why isn’t that a measure of success?

 

[Nothingbutglass]

Edmonton is small and soft?

Vegas has been in the league a year, how can they have a record of sustained success?

Washington winning this year is outlier considering the same team had previously under-performed in the playoffs.

 

[pkunit]

Washington capitals
Ovechkin 6'3 and 235
Wilson 6'4 and 220
knutsov a small 6'2 and around 200
Backstrom 6'1 and 200
Connolly 6'3 and 198
eller 6'2 and 207
beagle 6'3 and 218
oshie… the midget of the bunch at 5'11 and 195
peluso and chaison… big 6'3 6'4 guys
burakovsky is 6'3 and 200 too

do they have a single forward playing above the 4th line who isn't 6 feet and 200 pounds other than oshie?

sure seem that way for me... and that's a lot of factual information in one post too. the small tampa forwards got pillowed by this capital team

Skill ,size and talent!

Wash would have more cups if it wasn't for the Bruins beating them up in reg seasons for all those years!

Pittsburgh...whatever

 

[don]

What is the biggesst goal in the league? Why isn’t that a measure of success?

What is considered "success" depends on who you are. Some would say it is making money, some winning THE CUP, others just making it to the playoffs, and still others would be happy improving from last year. For me it is consistently making it being in the top 25% of the league.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

What is the biggesst goal in the league? Why isn’t that a measure of success?

its a bigger question... and one people don't agree must you be number 1 or is it a failure to fall short?

is your kid a failure if another kid gets a higher score on the test?

is burger king a failure if mcdonalds sells more hamburgers

is megan fox considered ugly if you think Jessica alba hotter

for some people the ONLY mark of success is number 1. but I think both megan fox and Jessica alba are ok

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I guess I don't just judge success by winning a cup? but a lot of other people do... so I argue on their terms???

honestly for me... im happy to say that a team finished in the top third of the league. if my team is a top 10 team... im ok.

and you might be able to find teams that finished in the top 10 that are fairly small. it strikes me vegas was fairly small. I might be wrong about that but my impression is they were small.

I don't really expect vegas to be a top 10 team this year. I don't really respect their ability to substain success

tampa was a good team this year... but honestly it didn't surprise me they missed the playoffs last year. I probably thought they would make it... but I don't have a lot of respect for small teams. it didn't surprise me they fell apart at the first sign of adversity. I wont be surprised if they fall apart this year too. I see no character/grit on that tampa team. they could easily fall apart imho

that's how I judge teams. I said this year early on... I wasn't surprised Edmonton was sucking. a few people called me out on it. said I must be some sort of rocket scientist... no... not a rocket scientist. just someone that is never surprised when soft teams end up sucking

a lot of other people are surprised when tampa misses the playoffs last year... or Edmonton misses this year. im not surprised.

im pretty consistent when I say I usually think small/soft teams are going to struggle. im pretty consistent when I say that skill and speed isn't going to be enough to elevate a team if it has a fatal flaw in its character.

did pittsburg completely suck after moving towards more size and grit? {and honestly the moves they made were not core moves} or... did most pundits predict they would run Washington again?

was pittsburgs loss to Washington an indication they suck now? am I supposed to be ashamed of saying they are one of the better teams in the league {remember they won 2 of 3 cups}

maybe I use them as an example because they are ahead of the curve. their decesions lead to more cup wins then anyone else. they are the gold standard. so if they are trying to get bigger and stronger... maybe that's not a bad thing?

honestly... winning the cup... or finishing in the top 8... doesn't matter a lot to me. I feel the bruins had success last year. we got eliminated same round as pittsburg but I feel it as success.

I feel Nashville and LA had success... its ok to finish in the top 8 imho

how many small smurfy teams finished top 8? is Winnipeg considered small?

I guess tampa and vegas would qualify for being small? does Nashville? I haven't looked...

but I think it was mostly bigger stronger teams that got through the first round. im just saying.

its no guarantee for success... be big... that's no guarantee. but being big and also skilled is better than being small and also skilled.

big is better than small if all else is equal. guys like byfuglin can turn it on at playoff time and become monsters. guys like brent burns can become unstoppable. guys like Jamie benn can become the mvp. guys like milan lucic can turn around an entire playoff with one devastating shift.

big can influence games positively... small is just a handicap that guys need to hope they can overcome

You used Pittsburgh as an example of teams moving towards bigger rosters and having success. But they had less success than the two previous years, after moving more towards the bigger stronger roster (Yes, they were still pretty good). That's all I'm saying. At least in this post you offered some better examples.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

You used Pittsburgh as an example of teams moving towards bigger rosters and having success. But they had less success than the two previous years, after moving more towards the bigger stronger roster (Yes, they were still pretty good). That's all I'm saying. At least in this post you offered some better examples.

just because I am a bit of a retentive sticker... I have to say I in no way wanted to use Pittsburgh as an example of a team that had success after getting bigger.

what I did want to do... is point out the size of this years cup winning team
and then for a lark I decided to look at the team that won the last 2 years

I was interested in seeing if they also were big because I remember them big when they had Lemieux and jagr and stevens and francais. to be honest I wasn't sure what I would find when I started going through their roster.

then I noticed... the recent additions were all big... and the recent subtractions were small {reeves was both an addition and a subtraction}

the point I saw... which wasn't one I was trying to make... but just jumped out to me when I did the research... was that the same team that won 2 cups by being the flagship team of the nhl… they weren't trying to get faster and smaller and more skilled. this team that won 2 cups was trying to get bigger and stronger

now obviously they didn't win... but that goes to my point about not all teams can win. that doesn't interest me. what does interest me is the direction this successful franchise is headed in.

the argument, you must remember, is that the league is headed towards smaller/faster and we are dinosaurs if we think bigger will be a good thing. and yet Washington is bigger. they won this years cup. Pittsburgh is trying to get bigger. they won the last 2 cups.

so you see what im getting at here? teams that haven't won anything might be talking about speed and skill. Edmonton cant stop bragging about how great connor McDavid is. but Edmonton missed the playoffs. try to win something before you brag that you are the next big thing.

I will go so far as to say the rule changes in the nhl do let small players have an easier time holding their own in todays nhl. a great small player was always able to make it. but even very good small players might make it in todays nhl thanks to the rule changes

but I said something earlier that I really liked. being big can definitely be an advantage. being small will always remain something that these guys much overcome and compensate for.

a lot of big guys cant play... and none of us want one of those slugs on our team. but a lot of small guys cant play too. not being able to play knows no size bias. there are bad players who are big and bad players who are small

and good players who are big... and good players who are small.

I love me my brad marchand. imho he is now the best bruin in the past 20 years. I take him over joe thornton or even zdeno chara. im just so awed by what hes done these past 2 years.

marchand doesn't play small but he is small

I wouldn't want a team with 23 marchands because I think they would get killed... but if someone offered me 3-4 marchands id take that in a heart beat

im not against all small players... im just against the idea of a team becoming too small to be able to stick up for itself

 

[Rumpy]

will be an interesting argument to continue in 3 years... lets put a pin in it for now because trying to predict where 22 year old dmen might project to be when they have under 200 games under their belt is largely considered hit and miss guesswork by most hockey evaluators.

im saying hes worth a low level gamble giving up a first, a second, and a third... clearing some cap room by moving a couple guys I would probably move anyhow even without nurse coming in.

are you in the camp that says he has no offensive skill? is a dumb turnover machine? and basically is someone we shouldn't make any effort to get?

or did you simply want to debate me? im not sure you actually stated your position on whether you might be in favor of going after nurse or not. by debating me, I would guess you don't want him? or do you simply want to debate me? im not sure?

I tossed out some names for cautionary tale. what I said was true. how you interpret it is up to you. I was debating specific points other posters were making about nurse... saying he had no offense... saying he was a turn over machine... I was pointing out they were making some assumptions based on stats and I was simply showing stats of other similar players

you say the other players aren't similar... we disagree. and its something neither of us can 'prove' today. its an opinion. your opinion is they are not similar. my cautionary tale is that people felt the same way about these other guys at the same time.

feelings are risky to use when we are attempting to write off 22 year old dmen

I prefer to stick to the facts when I can. and nothing I said was factually incorrect. I invite everyone to use their own feelings to interpret. im just pointing out how often feelings are wrong about 22 year old big talented dmen breaking into the league who need a couple years to really bring out their full potential

You’re jumping to conclusions on what I wrote.

Yes I think he is prone to a couple dummy plays a game. Lots of players are...

But you have been comparing and talking about him like he is a future star. Which from what I’ve seen he isn’t.

I think he falls closer to Brandon Carlo value wise and projects as a solid 3/4. Carlo isn’t as tough and doesn’t have the shot but he is better positionally and moving the puck.

Grass is greener are you giving Brandon Carlo 7 M for his next contract?

To take this a step further I probably would give up a 1-2-3 for this type of player in the right situation and contract. But you’re getting another 3/4 dman and not the 1/2 you think or hope.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

You’re jumping to conclusions on what I wrote.

Yes I think he is prone to a couple dummy plays a game. Lots of players are...

But you have been comparing and talking about him like he is a future star. Which from what I’ve seen he isn’t.

I think he falls closer to Brandon Carlo value wise and projects as a solid 3/4. Carlo isn’t as tough and doesn’t have the shot but he is better positionally and moving the puck.

Grass is greener are you giving Brandon Carlo 7 M for his next contract?

that's probably a fair stance to take. I do think ti will be interesting in 3 years to revisit the argument. for now ive gone on too long circling this and im sure people are sick and tired of what I have to say about it.

I am a fan of nurse... but I don't really see it happening. just a wishful thinking

 

[NDiesel]

Hahaha yeah, 9 forwards were listed out of 12. That's a fact
Also those 9 forwards listed made our forwards look like the Habs in 2011, that's a fact.
I understand you and others like the smallish speedster new NHL way, and I can respect that, doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor does it mean I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa. Move along!

The only point I am trying to make is that size means literally nothing. We got out hit by a bunch of smaller forwards who were quick. So why would the answer be more huge guys who can't skate? Give your head a shake.

 

[The don godfather]

My gut is telling me don is gun shy to make a trade. He got bent over by Gorton and drank the kool aid when nash came over. Giving up a first round pick Spooner lindgren and o Gara for rick was absolutely the worst trade last nhl season. He knows it and is now set in allowing players from providence to solve any issues.

 

[Pia8988]

My gut is telling me don is gun shy to make a trade. He got bent over by Gorton and drank the kool aid when nash came over. Giving up a first round pick Spooner lindgren and o Gara for rick was absolutely the worst trade last nhl season. He knows it and is now set in allowing players from providence to solve any issues.

Or the more logical reason. He has a lot of options to fill a few holes and wants to see that play out in camp first.

 

[Sevendust]

My gut is telling me don is gun shy to make a trade. He got bent over by Gorton and drank the kool aid when nash came over. Giving up a first round pick Spooner lindgren and o Gara for rick was absolutely the worst trade last nhl season. He knows it and is now set in allowing players from providence to solve any issues.

Its bad to grumble about a trade being the worst when you dont even know the right players of the trade

 

[Dueling Banjos]

Heinen and DeBrusk going cost $10 M between them

Maybe even more and that would be a good thing.

 

[Dizzay]

The only point I am trying to make is that size means literally nothing. We got out hit by a bunch of smaller forwards who were quick. So why would the answer be more huge guys who can't skate? Give your head a shake.

What are you even talking about? When did I ever say in my posts that we should get huge guys who can't skate? That's the problem is people read and interpret what they want and base their arguments on it. Did you not read what @Alberta_OReilly_Fan wrote? Look what the Caps did to the Bolts! Imagine what they would have done to us if the Bolts pushed us around? We're not building a team to beat TB in a first or second round match up, our goal is to be able to beat the Champs. I believe he kindly put the size of the Caps forward group, and I'm adding that all those guys can skate. Give your head a shake pal!