Armchair GM Thread LXXXIV: 'Tyler Myers = Key To Success' Edition

[biturbo19]

Well yes, I didn't mean to imply that Matthias would be moving up. Just that keeping Matthias at 3LW is perhaps preferred by management, over Higgins taking it over.

Which brings me to speculate again about the Cox rumour: If Higgins and Burrows are both on the block, what does Benning have planned for 2LW and 2RW?

This is why Eriksson coming back from BOS makes some sense. He plugs the 2RW position. Meanwhile, they could work out a Higgins for Berglund swap with STL, and then immediately flip him for Perron.

Sedin-Sedin-Vrbata
Perron-Bonino-Eriksson

Lastly, if Burrows goes, I think the target then gets put on Bieksa. If they are willing dismantle the current leadership group, no one is safe.

The Berglund mention is interesting to me.

Not in the context you're describing, of a player that you try to immediately swap for Perron. But just as a guy that would fit perfectly with Willie D's "4 line philosophy". Maybe i'm just higher than others on Berglund's offensive ability...but to me, he's a guy who would be a perfect fit here as a #2LW/C or #3LW/C. He can play multiple roles, and produce similar offense to a Higgins type...if not more with the right opportunity.

STL would get a similar "tweener" winger to Berglund as Higgins, not downgrading that "role" at all for now (and with young guys ready to push for that spot anyway)...saving more than a million per year which may be pretty important to them, especially with Tarasenko cruising for an immense payday.

We get a more versatile, younger, higher upside player. I've been into the Berglund idea for a long time now. The idea that he was an alleged Benning target in the Garrison deal before the trade was nixed, is exciting to me. I think Berglund has more to give than he's showing in STL right now.

 

[biturbo19]

Oh I get it now... To offer a comparison, when Gillis was targeting Shea Weber in order to "spend smarter", he should have dealt Garrison/Salo + Bieksa before hand in order to make room. To "change the composition" of the team. Oh sure, it didn't materialize. We're still looking for that "Weber". But he's out there somewhere. And with those cap clearing trades, Gillis would have had the room to complete his "goal". Yes the defense would have been weakened in the meantime, but nuts to that, it's all about the goal... No matter how far away or unattainable that goal is... I think I've got my head wrapped around this now.

Makes complete sense.

(A bird in the hand...)

Edit: Sorry for the sarcasm but I just want the JG talk to die out for a while. No one is convincing anyone else of anything. This "people just don't get it" talk is just tiresome and repetitive. Let's leave JG in the background for now.

The difference being, Ehrhoff as a UFA to which Benning was able to tender a risk-free offer at a reasonable cap-value, and chose to sign elsewhere.

Shea Weber being an RFA where offer sheets never work, require an insane draft pick compensation scale if they do, and just was simply not ever a realistic option as a UFA who had his very best years in his entire hockey career might have been.


But i agree on the whole. The Jason Garrison thing fundamentally comes down to how people evaluate him as a player...and that's not likely to budge a huge amount post-trade. So few people are going to be swayed. Either you viewed him as a "stud top-4D" or you viewed him as a "guy who can't skate, doesn't fit with the group of highly paid d-men we have, and was a potential cap liability". That's the core of the issue...and people here don't seem generally inclined to alter their assessments of a player based on some arguments. So putting it to bed seems probably the best option for now...it's not going anywhere.

 

[DCantheDDad]

The Berglund mention is interesting to me.

Not in the context you're describing, of a player that you try to immediately swap for Perron. But just as a guy that would fit perfectly with Willie D's "4 line philosophy". Maybe i'm just higher than others on Berglund's offensive ability...but to me, he's a guy who would be a perfect fit here as a #2LW/C or #3LW/C. He can play multiple roles, and produce similar offense to a Higgins type...if not more with the right opportunity.

STL would get a similar "tweener" winger to Berglund as Higgins, not downgrading that "role" at all for now (and with young guys ready to push for that spot anyway)...saving more than a million per year which may be pretty important to them, especially with Tarasenko cruising for an immense payday.

We get a more versatile, younger, higher upside player. I've been into the Berglund idea for a long time now. The idea that he was an alleged Benning target in the Garrison deal before the trade was nixed, is exciting to me. I think Berglund has more to give than he's showing in STL right now.

At the end of the day, it still seems like a stop gap. Yes we would get younger, but to me anyway, Berglund is probably not going to take that next step to become more than a tweener.

It would still be an interesting experiment. We would be replacing Higgins with a guy who is similar who had a chance of becoming more.

I would be okay with this trade. I would alao be okay if he was swapped for Perron, as long as we arent giving up too much future in either deal.

 

[vanuck]

Given the insight we have about Benning tendering an offer to Ehrhoff...i don't think you can say that "spending less" was the goal on the blueline.

I'd say it appears "spending smarter" was the goal. Spending money on 4 guys who fit what we want/need, and pair together nicely...plus Tanev on the cheap.

Edler-Ehrhoff
Hamhuis-Bieksa
Sbisa-Tanev

Or whichever configuration thereof you come up with, that's an upper echelon blueline with insane depth...even with the declining of some of our guys. With Garrison substituted for Ehrhoff...? The mix isn't nearly as good and you get a lesser result...as we saw for two years.

That's ultimately what the moving of Garrison was about. Making room for a better fit, be that Ehrhoff (who didn't sign on), or someone in the future.

People just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that a "re-tooling" team needs to actually make moves to change the composition of the team and the salary allocation. And in the above "top-6" group...there isn't a single player whom Garrison would be a better option than in their respective role and salary space. So he was moved.

It didn't immediately materialize...we're still looking for the "Ehrhoff" component to our blueline equation...but we have the room to make that fit now. And right now, we're getting a look at what Sbisa/Stanton/Weber can do and where their limits are...for the future. They're getting opportunities to showcase their wares as a player.

There was nothing stopping him from going over the cap if be needed during the offseason - if it came down to it. With Booth and Kesler off the books that should've left enough room for him to make moves, but really the process is irrelevant. It's the end result which warrants criticism here. JB still ended up spending less on the backend and it's now showing. "He tried to bring in Ehrhoff" sounds awfully similar to "Gillis tried to bring in more scoring forwards his last few years here".

 

[Bleach Clean]

Found this blurb interesting from poster "redbeard" on the Bruins board (cites source that works for the Canucks):

bruins contacted the canucks and have been shopping eriksson hard. some names discussed on both sides are eriksson, spooner, bartkowski and krug. on the canucks side, he says bruins have interest in burrows, kassian, sestito and edler. not a 4 for 4 blockbuster but trying to come to an agreement based on salaries and other future potential deals that are close. canucks apparently really like spooner but do not want to move edler.

They want to jettison Eriksson, and they are the ones that contacted the Canucks. I believe this gives VAN an advantage. The perceived value attached to Eriksson must be really low. And with a high salary, he would be tough to move for them.

In that sense, I think Burrows + Sestito for Krug + Eriksson, as a _base_, has some merit. Futures to balance. They value Sestito. And they are going to need RW help if they move Eriksson. They were already looking for RWers with Eriksson in the fold...

 

[biturbo19]

There was nothing stopping him from going over the cap if be needed during the offseason - if it came down to it. With Booth and Kesler off the books that should've left enough room for him to make moves, but really the process is irrelevant. It's the end result which warrants criticism here. JB still ended up spending less on the backend and it's now showing. "He tried to bring in Ehrhoff" sounds awfully similar to "Gillis tried to bring in more scoring forwards his last few years here".

This isn't an "end result" though. We're not at "the end". That's the part people can't seem to grasp.

Clearly this team is not a "finished product". I don't know why anyone would suggest that it is.

What we have now, is a team in transition...with the flexibility to add a great piece somewhere. That's what a "retool" is all about.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This isn't an "end result" though. We're not at "the end". That's the part people can't seem to grasp.

Clearly this team is not a "finished product".

For the umpteenth time, this doesn't matter. People know it's not "finished". He left it unfinished. They are questioning why it was left unfinished because that's the product on the ice. That's what they are watching now. Not fairy tales and imaginary saviours. They don't care that Benning is working towards a grand design. The team now is feeling the effects. The team now has unused cap space.

It's not "failed to grasp". You've repeated this over and over again and people have rebutted it over and over again. It's "have grasped, still think it's wrong based on X, Y and Z".

Since this is going nowhere perhaps the mods can make a separate thread for this Benning/value/JG talk.

 

[biturbo19]

Found this blurb interesting from poster "redbeard" on the Bruins board (cites source that works for the Canucks):



They want to jettison Eriksson, and they are the ones that contacted the Canucks. I believe this gives VAN an advantage. The perceived value attached to Eriksson must be really low. And with a high salary, he would be tough to move for them.

In that sense, I think Burrows + Sestito for Krug + Eriksson, as a _base_, has some merit. Futures to balance. They value Sestito. And they are going to need RW help if they move Eriksson. They were already looking for RWers with Eriksson in the fold...

If dumping camp is the primary objective, while improving their RW scoring depth and offensive ability as a whole, and not sacrificing the "right now" performance of their team.

Why not go elaborate and say...

To BOS: C.Higgins + N.Jensen +

To VAN: L.Eriksson + J.Morrow +


They save $2M per year on Higgins who has been producing similarly to Eriksson...and add a guy who could be a top-6 winger as a goal scorer alongside Krejci (Jensen looked good for a spurt with Hank), we swap a winger prospect who would probably be in the Bruins lineup for a defensive prospect who would probably be in our lineup?

What's the pluses on that deal?

 

[Bleach Clean]

^ It would be Krug and not Morrow. Morrow is their succession plan to Krug, and Krug is set to get a raise at the end of the year.

I'm trying to work off the names they want per Redbeard's post. They want Burrows. My guess is to swap for Eriksson. Salaries match. Then it's a matter of compensating them for Krug specifically. Could be Higgins/Hansen/Jensen etc...

Sestito will be thrown in IMO. If that report is to be believed, they value him enough to target him and not just wait for waivers. He's an easy addition to the package.

Maybe:

Jensen + Burrows + Sestito for Eriksson + Krug?

 

[biturbo19]

For the umpteenth time, this doesn't matter. People know it's not "finished". He left it unfinished. They are questioning why it was left unfinished because that's the product on the ice. That's what they are watching now. Not fairy tales and imaginary saviours. They don't care that Benning is working towards a grand design. The team now is feeling the effects. The team now has unused cap space.

It's not "failed to grasp". You've repeated this over and over again and people have rebutted it over and over again. It's "have grasped, still think it's wrong based on X, Y and Z".

Since this is going nowhere perhaps the mods can make a separate thread for this Benning/value/JG talk.

And for the umpteenth and a half time...

What is wrong with leaving something unfinished and open to improvement?

The team now is feeling the effects, the team a month ago was mopping up and pushing for best in the league. Making trades based on month-to-month trends is far more detrimental to me, than compromising some marginal "value" in a deal clearing the decks for better players to be added (successfully or not, and even if that takes more than a couple months to accomplish).

Prior to the season, the expectations for this team were so insanely low, many people thought this would be a team in the McDavid sweepstakes. Suddenly they actually win some games and play themselves into #1 in the NHL, and then fall back down a bit because they're just not a finished product...and people are mad as hell that Benning isn't spazzing out and going full "cup now" mode, making sure the defence is 5 deep in solid top-4 D-men (at massive cap commitment on a group that didn't work), even though he clearly made a pitch (Ehrhoff) that would have rectified this defensive corps entirely and completely and put it right among the best in the league, and the unfinished group he constructed dropped off when they lost arguably their most important piece?

It's ridiculous. You want a GM who spends money on "the right pieces", not the "available pieces". With the former...sometimes it just doesn't happen...you've gotta be patient.

I'd much rather see a GM trying to do the right things and falling short, than a GM doing nothing and falling short. I want a GM motivated to actually fix things, change things, do things...and improve the team. Not a GM who wants to just keep what he has because there's a risk that he might not be able to improve what he ships out within a few months (when the "what he has" thing, is a ****** team that isn't going anywhere). You can "leave it be" on a roster when you're a legitimate stanley cup contender...if you're not, you'd best be rearranging things to get your ducks in a row for a team that can contend.

 

[biturbo19]

^ It would be Krug and not Morrow. Morrow is their succession plan to Krug, and Krug is set to get a raise at the end of the year.

I'm trying to work off the names they want per Redbeard's post. They want Burrows. My guess is to swap for Eriksson. Salaries match. Then it's a matter of compensating them for Krug specifically. Could be Higgins/Hansen/Jensen etc...

Sestito will be thrown in IMO. If that report is to be believed, they value him enough to target him and not just wait for waivers. He's an easy addition to the package.

Maybe:

Jensen + Burrows + Sestito for Eriksson + Krug?

And why should we settle for the guy they want to replace?

Go for the jugular imo. Go for Morrow. Let them deal with their own stupid cap management.


Though i'd strongly caution against "believing" some random hfboards report like that.

 

[Bleach Clean]

What is wrong with leaving something unfinished and open to improvement?

Because it costs you in the meantime. And the meantime can be enough to scuttle a season. No one does, or should get credit for "trying". It's the doing that matters. If intent matters, I'm going to start propping up past GMs for stuff they _didn't_ do.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It's a cliche for a reason. It's a tired expression for a reason. Benning tossed the bird he had for some in the bush, and came up with nothing. That _deserves_ criticism. Move the bird when you are actually going to get the one in the bush. When you are assured. Don't just leave it open and suffer in the meantime...

I'd much rather see a GM trying to do the right things and falling short, than a GM doing nothing and falling short.

I'd rather see a GM do things than try to do them. That's what he's judged on is he not? Or are we including categories for "almost completed" now? This is absurd.

No one gave a crap when Gillis/Nonis tried to do things and failed. Why should the standard be any different for Benning? If he can't complete step 2, don't do step 1 until you can.

 

[Bleach Clean]

And why should we settle for the guy they want to replace?

Go for the jugular imo. Go for Morrow. Let them deal with their own stupid cap management

Because that's who's available from their end (rumoured). You need a partner to complete a trade. I want to narrow down the possibilities based on what's actually out there via sources.

Redbeard's post is only one source. There's the Cox rumour of Higgins + Burrows being on the block. Dreger on about Krug. BOS's noted interest in acquiring a RW. Their intention in moving Eriksson and their proximity to the cap ceiling. All of these factors combined lead me to believe that Burrows + Eriksson + Krug are the main pieces being discussed.

Had Kassian not been injured throughout, I would consider him more seriously also.

 

[strattonius]

Trading a character guy like Higgins for the second coming of MA Bergeron/Torey Krug would absolutely kill me...I think Krug is totally overrated for his offensive abilities. Sprry if is old now I saw it and it hurt my head.

 

[biturbo19]

Because it costs you in the meantime. And the meantime can be enough to scuttle a season. No one does, or should get credit for "trying". It's the doing that matters. If intent matters, I'm going to start propping up past GMs for stuff they _didn't_ do.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It's a cliche for a reason. It's a tired expression for a reason. Benning tossed the bird he had for some in the bush, and came up with nothing. That _deserves_ criticism. Move the bird when you are actually going to get the one in the bush. When you are assured. Don't just leave it open and suffer in the meantime...

So what if it scuttles this season? That's the heart of the issue. This team was built to ride a razors edge...Hamhuis being injured for potentially half a season tipped that edge in the negative direction. But where does this assumption that the team must be a Stanley Cup Contender come from? It's stupid and a recent develop, coming on the heels of the "unfinished" team Benning put together overachieving. I don't think anyone around here is going to realistically argue that this team hasn't "overachieved" to date. Wtf kind of idiotic logic indicates that this overachieving section of a season indicates a necessity to make moves for "this year" at the expense of the future? You don't go "all in" in a season like this...you wade in cautiously and made deals that improve the team if you can, without harming the future...and you see where this team lands.

And the issue with your whole "1 bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush" philosophy, is that you're working with a cap on how many birds you can afford to have. And that's massively relevant to that cliche. There's a relevance to Ehroff/Garrison in that regard...but in respect to that cliche...it's all about catching that one bird in the bush. And if you do...you win big.

It's no different than the attitude people here tend to have with regards to the draft. Grasping for that elusive ideal bird in the bush is what people cry out for time and time again. that's the bird you want, to make your team complete. IMO, it's a lot safer to be trying to catch proven birds that are proven good players...than betting spastically on potentially "good birds" in the willd bush of the draft.

I'd rather see a GM do things than try to do them. That's what he's judged on is he not? Or are we including categories for "almost completed" now? This is absurd.

No one gave a crap when Gillis/Nonis tried to do things and failed. Why should the standard be any different for Benning? If he can't complete step 2, don't do step 1 until you can.

Failing to do things is not the same as failing to entirely repair a roster in one offseason. Gillis/Nonis had multiple seasons of failing to address pressing issues. The point where they reached what should have realistically been expected as a "finished product"...and it fell short. That's a very different scenario than these GMs faced in their very first year in charge. Change takes time. It's a ****ing simple concept.

Because that's who's available from their end (rumoured). You need a partner to complete a trade. I want to narrow down the possibilities based on what's actually out there via sources.

Redbeard's post is only one source. There's the Cox rumour of Higgins + Burrows being on the block. Dreger on about Krug. BOS's noted interest in acquiring a RW. Their intention in moving Eriksson and their proximity to the cap ceiling. All of these factors combined lead me to believe that Burrows + Eriksson + Krug are the main pieces being discussed.

Had Kassian not been injured throughout, I would consider him more seriously also.

wtf is this, honestly. We want "who is available"? You're willing to give up whatever it takes to get "who is available"?

Yet you're completely unwilling to consider the primary factor you're espousing, "you need a partner to complete a trade" when it comes to prior moves made by this administration? You're willing to "settle" for a less than ideal trade return because..."that's what's available", at the expense of potential value.


Straight up, for this team...who would you take? Krug or Joe Morrow?

 

[turkulad]

To me, a Burrows+Sestito for Eriksson+Krug is a perfect deal in every possible way. Sure, getting Joe Morrow would be great but that's psychotalk much like the inevinent "Hamilton or GTFO" jabs. Not reality.

Burrows for Eriksson and Sestito for Krug. How does that NOT help us?

 

[Bleach Clean]

So what if it scuttles this season?

The playoffs were and are a goal for this season. Or at least, that's what Benning has relayed. Scuttling the season is not an option. The "so what" or blaze attitude you have described is not shared.

All the other stuff you have posted is your own supposition.

And the issue with your whole "1 bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush" philosophy, is that you're working with a cap on how many birds you can afford to have. And that's massively relevant to that cliche. There's a relevance to Ehroff/Garrison in that regard...but in respect to that cliche...it's all about catching that one bird in the bush. And if you do...you win big.

And if you don't, you suffer with nothing. Nothing. That's what people have been trying to drill into your defensive posturing. To put it simply: He should have had something in hand before letting go of something. He didn't, and here we are. Very easy concept.

Your analogy loses focus in the second paragraph.

Change takes time. It's a ****ing simple concept.

Are you angry?

Yes, change takes time. So it's prudent for GMs to not jump the gun while they are making those changes... Oops.

Yet you're completely unwilling to consider the primary factor you're espousing, "you need a partner to complete a trade" when it comes to prior moves made by this administration? You're willing to "settle" for a less than ideal trade return because..."that's what's available", at the expense of potential value.

Who's willing to settle? It's about what is realistically achievable based on the information we have. You are welcome to discuss the more unrealistic/far-fetched ideas with someone else though...

But just out of curiousity, what is the impetus for BOS to trade Morrow at this time?

 

[Orca Smash]

More on possible trade talks

Elliotte Friedman was on Toronto’s Sportsnet 590 on Friday morning.

On the Boston Bruins’s trade front:

“Boston is looking around at a lot of things. I think they’re really concerned about the lack of edge on their team. The Bruins have an identity. They don’t have that identity right now, and they’re trying to find maybe a player or two that can help them get back to being the way they are.

“They’ve talked a lot with St. Louis. One of the issues the Bruins have is they don’t have a lot of cap room, and they have a lot of things they have to deal with after this year. They’ve been linked to T.J. Oshie and the issue there is that Oshie’s got more term. He’s got a couple of years, and I’m not sure Boston wants to add guys with more term. At least in Eriksson’s case, even though he’s struggled, he’s only got one year left if they want to get out of it.

“Now one name I’m starting to hear connected to the Bruins a bit – it’s a bit more a longer shot – is Zack Kassian of Vancouver. He’s hurt right now, but I think they may be willing to take a chance on him when he gets back because he probably doesn’t cost them as much. And if they can get him to be who he can be – and he hasn’t been that guy yet – he can add what they’re lacking and missing.

 

[polarbearcub]

Ugh...... Please don't trade kass

 

[Bleach Clean]

More on possible trade talks

Thanks for the info.

I hope Kassian remains a "longer shot" for the Bs. It doesn't seem like the right time to trade him. Benning should stand pat on that front for now.

 

[oceanchild]

Lol

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1796669

Funny, boston Fans are desperate to get ride of two of those contracts

We give a somewhat serviceable replacement for Lucic (not to many available)

I think Higgins when value of the contract is a better have then Eriksson (especially when you consider there cap situation)

Matthais is a much cheaper and larger then Kelly

that leaves the Krug vs Bieska and I know people are hating on Bieska but I personally think he would have significant trade value.

Is this trade lopsided for Vancouver yes, does it solve Boston’s cap crunch and offer semi replacement players for all that they give up yes.

I also think this puts them in the position to make a trade at the deadline and push for one more cup with Chara.

There is value in that on both sides. (I also think people would be surprised at the value Kassian brings in if he’s traded as well....although he will soon be Steve Benier)

 

[Kickassguy]

I have zero faith in Benning garnering equal value in a Kassian deal. Zero.

 

[Orca Smash]

What i get from the quote and based on freidmans comment it sounds more like its boston looking at kassian then benning shopping him.

 

[absolute garbage]

I have zero faith in Benning garnering equal value in a Kassian deal. Zero.

I'm terrified as well and considering Kassian is like the biggest Gillis-era move, there's a real chance he could be dealt. And yeah, the return is probably going to suck.

 

[Orca Smash]

I'm terrified as well and considering Kassian is like the biggest Gillis-era move, there's a real chance he could be dealt. And yeah, the return is probably going to suck.

Well some bruin fans are terrified they are going to overpay for him.

Really we should tone this down, it sounds like a long shot right now, bob mckenzie was on tsn1040 last night said he had not heard anything serious at all between the bruins and canucks.