CharasLazyWrister
Registered User
I think the Bruins were willing to take the risk of trading away an underperforming (at least compared to the prior season) player for the sake of dumping a contract and bringing a hopefully productive player in.
Was there a possibility in DS’s and the front office’s mind that they may get the better player in Hayes? I think so. Now, I admittedly didn’t watch Hayes really at all prior to him arriving in Boston, but given the fact that Reilly Smith had come out of nowhere and then regressed, the idea of Hayes being at least a comparable option wasn’t all that bad. If I recall correctly, Smith had an unreal first half of his first season in Boston and then had floated somewhat into the background for the remainder of his Boston stay. He proved he could be productive, but there was also a very real possibility he was going to be a half year wonder.
Overall, the Bruins still solved at least one of their issues with the trade, but they obviously got fleeced on Hayes/Smith straight swap. If we had held onto Smith and still retained Savard’s contract, there would have been an added 4.9 million to deal with on the cap plus the exposure issue in the expansion draft (the place where FLA lost Smith).
There are a lot of moving pieces and factors within that deal. And while it’s easy to say “hey we could have solved our problems last year if we hadn’t traded Smith”, there’s too many other things to weigh that would have therefore played out differently to really make that an honest statement.
Was there a possibility in DS’s and the front office’s mind that they may get the better player in Hayes? I think so. Now, I admittedly didn’t watch Hayes really at all prior to him arriving in Boston, but given the fact that Reilly Smith had come out of nowhere and then regressed, the idea of Hayes being at least a comparable option wasn’t all that bad. If I recall correctly, Smith had an unreal first half of his first season in Boston and then had floated somewhat into the background for the remainder of his Boston stay. He proved he could be productive, but there was also a very real possibility he was going to be a half year wonder.
Overall, the Bruins still solved at least one of their issues with the trade, but they obviously got fleeced on Hayes/Smith straight swap. If we had held onto Smith and still retained Savard’s contract, there would have been an added 4.9 million to deal with on the cap plus the exposure issue in the expansion draft (the place where FLA lost Smith).
There are a lot of moving pieces and factors within that deal. And while it’s easy to say “hey we could have solved our problems last year if we hadn’t traded Smith”, there’s too many other things to weigh that would have therefore played out differently to really make that an honest statement.
