Proposal: All Bruins Trade Proposals IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
12,966
17,902
Connecticut
I know the consensus is we need a top 6 winger. I've been thinking about guys that could fit and then realized...WTF is the criteria for a top 6 winger? What separates a #2W from a #3W. So I'm going to ask the board, because I think it'll be interesting to see what people feel qualifies as a top 6 winger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lo97

neelynugs

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
35,389
9,756
@LouJersey is bang on, kyle palmieri is probably the perfect target for this team.
guy can finish, he has some jam to his game, and it's not gonna cost you a
ridiculous price to land him. assume you're talking a 1st and prospect, maybe
another mid level asset. put him on krejci's wing and put your feet up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouJersey

neelynugs

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
35,389
9,756
I know the consensus is we need a top 6 winger. I've been thinking about guys that could fit and then realized...WTF is the criteria for a top 6 winger? What separates a #2W from a #3W. So I'm going to ask the board, because I think it'll be interesting to see what people feel qualifies as a top 6 winger.

i would say look at kyle palmieri and karson kuhlman and you have your answer.
kuhlman as 3RW would be fantastic. kuhlman as 2RW is meh (and i really like
him as a player, just slotted too high for his skillset)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419

kdog82

Registered User
Oct 6, 2002
2,807
1,420
Toronto
Visit site
Not really.

The Bruins can slot Bjork in on the second line LW. Rakell also can play Center in a pinch he's an elite talent. You have to give to get. I would do it, would I want to give up prospects and picks instead? Sure would but I don't see the Ducks willing to do so.

Rakell is a world class player DeBrusk isn't there.

Disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419 and Lo97

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,281
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
@LouJersey is bang on, kyle palmieri is probably the perfect target for this team.
guy can finish, he has some jam to his game, and it's not gonna cost you a
ridiculous price to land him. assume you're talking a 1st and prospect, maybe
another mid level asset. put him on krejci's wing and put your feet up.

Without a doubt. I would pay almost whatever they wanted.... 1st and Vaak would get it done. I would probably do it. It hurts to think about losing Vaak but I guess that means its a fair offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackCrowes

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
12,966
17,902
Connecticut
i would say look at kyle palmieri and karson kuhlman and you have your answer.
kuhlman as 3RW would be fantastic. kuhlman as 2RW is meh (and i really like
him as a player, just slotted too high for his skillset)

Interesting name. Since 2016 Palmieri ranks 33rd in scoring among all wingers and 17th among RW'ers. If there are 31 teams in the NHL, would his production make him a #1RW on roughly half the teams in the NHL?
 

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
12,966
17,902
Connecticut
Without a doubt. I would pay almost whatever they wanted.... 1st and Vaak would get it done. I would probably do it. It hurts to think about losing Vaak but I guess that means its a fair offer.

Palmieri was I guy I was hoping we'd get last year. Thought he would have looked great w/ either Krejci or Bergy
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouJersey

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
21,968
16,659
North Andover, MA
I know the consensus is we need a top 6 winger. I've been thinking about guys that could fit and then realized...WTF is the criteria for a top 6 winger? What separates a #2W from a #3W. So I'm going to ask the board, because I think it'll be interesting to see what people feel qualifies as a top 6 winger.

I want to be able to write in 20+ goals OR 45+ points without it being based on hopes and dreams. And I want those numbers attainable without PP1 time.
 

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,281
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
you follow the devs more than me. what do you think they need most as far
as building for the future? this start is a disaster for them with hall impending
UFA and with how their summer went.

Stud defenders for sure, goaltending....wingers....basically everything lol. Hall is killing his value too with his zero effs attitude.
 

Saxon Eric

Registered User
Dec 18, 2005
20,175
27,028
Without a doubt. I would pay almost whatever they wanted.... 1st and Vaak would get it done. I would probably do it. It hurts to think about losing Vaak but I guess that means its a fair offer.
Interesting that New Jersey with a minor tweak could fit Backes in under their cap
There could be an opportunity here to kill 2 birds with one big overpaying stone
Vaakanainen, Frederic, Miller,Backes and a conditional pick ,start there I guess
 

Glove Malfunction

Ference is my binky
Jan 1, 2009
15,875
8,921
Pleasantly warm, AZ
Interesting name. Since 2016 Palmieri ranks 33rd in scoring among all wingers and 17th among RW'ers. If there are 31 teams in the NHL, would his production make him a #1RW on roughly half the teams in the NHL?
ON the face of it yes, but you do have to consider if he's slotting against other teams' best defenders, like a 1RW would on a nightly basis, and is still producing like that. I'm sure there are ways to quantify that, I just don't know them. In any event, he'd be an immediate upgrade on our 2nd line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lo97

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
21,968
16,659
North Andover, MA
Interesting name. Since 2016 Palmieri ranks 33rd in scoring among all wingers and 17th among RW'ers. If there are 31 teams in the NHL, would his production make him a #1RW on roughly half the teams in the NHL?

Interesting thing about Palmieri... in that time period guys like Maroon, Pearson and Byron have more 5 on 5 goals than he does. He won't be getting PP1 in Boston.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lo97 and TCB

bp13

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
16,933
3,331
Visit site
Not sure I'd give up Vaak at this point. I agree 2RW is our clear need, but Chara is down to a season or two at most and Krug still isn't signed. People keep talking about the depth of young D we have but none of those kids has stepped up and grabbed a job from guys like Steven Kampfer. So at this point, I think moving the supposed most promising of the group seems awful risky to me.
 

TCB

Registered User
Dec 15, 2017
12,777
22,385
North Of The Border
Not sure I'd give up Vaak at this point. I agree 2RW is our clear need, but Chara is down to a season or two at most and Krug still isn't signed. People keep talking about the depth of young D we have but none of those kids has stepped up and grabbed a job from guys like Steven Kampfer. So at this point, I think moving the supposed most promising of the group seems awful risky to me.

Kampfer is the perfect utility type player and he knows his role and does it well. You don't want a Vaak,Lauzon,Zboril or any highly regarded prospect filling that roll. You want them playing as much as possible.
 

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
21,968
16,659
North Andover, MA
Not sure I'd give up Vaak at this point. I agree 2RW is our clear need, but Chara is down to a season or two at most and Krug still isn't signed. People keep talking about the depth of young D we have but none of those kids has stepped up and grabbed a job from guys like Steven Kampfer. So at this point, I think moving the supposed most promising of the group seems awful risky to me.

I mean Clifton literally did that and pushed Kampfer into the press box. We don't want the young D sitting in the press box. Not sure I follow your point. Vaakanainen, Lauzon and Zboril could all play in the NHL right now.
 

BigBear83

Registered User
Jan 29, 2013
835
327
Haverhill, NH
i move vak in a heartbeat... im beating a drum here .. but i try and do a one for one with florida.. vak for tippet, heck, throw in cehlarik.. we need a pure goal scorer.. as a underdog move i try and get fischer out of arizona who hasnt live up to the hype as of yet and we know arizona needs d men ...
 

Skelen

Registered User
Jan 5, 2015
1,284
1,506
i move vak in a heartbeat... im beating a drum here .. but i try and do a one for one with florida.. vak for tippet, heck, throw in cehlarik.. we need a pure goal scorer.. as a underdog move i try and get fischer out of arizona who hasnt live up to the hype as of yet and we know arizona needs d men ...

Of everyone we could get for our top prospect, you go for a kid with 7 NHL games under his belt and still a huge question mark.

They didn't trade Vaak for Stone they won't be trading him for a prospect to a divisional rival
 

BigBear83

Registered User
Jan 29, 2013
835
327
Haverhill, NH
Of everyone we could get for our top prospect, you go for a kid with 7 NHL games under his belt and still a huge question mark.

They didn't trade Vaak for Stone they won't be trading him for a prospect to a divisional rival
uhh im pretty sure vaak and tippet have the same experience and the same question marks? also , tippet is near the top of floridas prospect list, hence why i thought it was a good one for one.. the reason i said this was because we are going to need some studs going forward.. yes we have great prospect depth .. i feel like tippet has a chance to be a top talent.. just my opinion. also , i think we all can say that vaak does not compare to bransstrom as far as prospects are concerned .. vak wasnt the deal breaker for stone .. stone was the deal breaker for stone
 

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
12,966
17,902
Connecticut
i move vak in a heartbeat... im beating a drum here .. but i try and do a one for one with florida.. vak for tippet, heck, throw in cehlarik.. we need a pure goal scorer.. as a underdog move i try and get fischer out of arizona who hasnt live up to the hype as of yet and we know arizona needs d men ...

So basically Florida is going to trade #10OA for #18OA.
 

BruinsNetwork

Guest
Of everyone we could get for our top prospect, you go for a kid with 7 NHL games under his belt and still a huge question mark.

They didn't trade Vaak for Stone they won't be trading him for a prospect to a divisional rival

Vaakanainen, as good as he is, wasn't going to beat out someone like Brannstrom for the Stone sweepstakes.

Still, I think moving Vaakanainen would hurt in some capacity, but you have to give to get. I wouldn't be looking at other unproven and inexperienced prospects though. I would be looking at a proven, youthful scorer somewhere if Vaakanainen is being moved in said scenario. I'd still rather see the Bruins test out all of their in-house options (properly, that is) before they go and acquire someone. Let's see what the prospects can do and then if the issue isn't solved, address it at the deadline, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->