Proposal: Boston/Colorado

[Oates2Neely]

Some fans overrate their own players, while others overrate other teams players. Barrie & Krug are similar players.

 

[SPV]

I think I'd rather move Krug for Shattenkirk.

Shattenkirk is the better player, but Krug holds value because he is an RFA. Then sign Keith Yandle and you have a great puck mover on every pairing. Just need a top line right wing, a fourth line left wing, and a backup tender.

Marchand-Bergeron-BLANK
Beleskey-Krejci-Pastranak
Vatrano-Spooner-Hayes
BLANK-Acciari-Connolly

Chara-Shattenkirk
Yandle-McQuaid
Seidenberg-C.Miller

Rask
BLANK

 

[don]

I have to disagree on K. Miller being better than McQuaid. They are close but, IMO, McQuaid brings the intimidation factor that Miller doesn't. Also we need help on the left side more than on the right. FWIW, I'm not thrilled with the original proposal either, and certainly don't want Yandle. I'd look for a youngish, left shooting, all around D-man so I could move Chara to the 2nd pairing where, IMO, he would be outstanding (read Hampus Lindholm) and I'd be willing to give up Marchand + for him.

Corrected the spelling of the guy I want.

I was waiting for a trade Marchand proposal from you. Just to be consistent.

and this adds so much to the conversation.

 

[PlayMakers]

I think I'd rather move Krug for Shattenkirk.

Shattenkirk is the better player, but Krug holds value because he is an RFA. Then sign Keith Yandle and you have a great puck mover on every pairing. Just need a top line right wing, a fourth line left wing, and a backup tender.

Marchand-Bergeron-BLANK
Beleskey-Krejci-Pastranak
Vatrano-Spooner-Hayes
BLANK-Acciari-Connolly

Chara-Shattenkirk
Yandle-McQuaid
Seidenberg-C.Miller

Rask
BLANK

I don't think STL needs another expensive defenseman. Part of the reason this deal works is that COL needs a defenseman back int he deal. STL, MIN and ANA are all dealing from strength and have too many defensemen as is. They're looking to turn that excess into help up front- and we don't really have forwards we can spare without massively downgrading our offense.

You also lose 2 years in that exchange (Krug and Barrie are months apart, Krug and Shattenkirk are 2 years apart). And it will probably cost you more to retain Shattenkirk who is a UFA than Barrie, who is RFA - even though Barrie is asking for a lot. Look at it this way, if you sign Shattenkirk to a 6 year deal for $7-8 mil, you're getting him from 27-34. If you sign Barrie to a 6 year deal for $6-7 mil, you'd be getting him from 25-31.

 

[PlayMakers]

It's funny. A lot of the naysayers in this thread are the same folks who love to say "not everyone has to be Bergeron or Chara defensively." What happened to "it takes all types?"

I'm suggesting they pair offensive guys with defensive guys, and while I'm not a big analytics guy, the numbers people have thrown out in this thread and others suggest that our defense improves when a guy like Chara is paired with a guy like Krug. Even when that guy was terrible in his own end, like a Colin Miller, Chara played better with him than with the kind of guys they lean on for penalty killing.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

It's funny. A lot of the naysayers in this thread are the same folks who love to say "not everyone has to be Bergeron or Chara defensively." What happened to "it takes all types?"

I'm suggesting they pair offensive guys with defensive guys, and while I'm not a big analytics guy, the numbers people have thrown out in this thread and others suggest that our defense improves when a guy like Chara is paired with a guy like Krug. Even when that guy was terrible in his own end, like a Colin Miller, Chara played better with him than with the kind of guys they lean on for penalty killing.

That should be the case on each pairing.

Bruins problem this year was they only had one D (Krug) that knew what to do with the puck.

As for your proposal, I rather keep Krug. Will cost less than Barrie to re-sign. But I agree that signing Yandle AND adding another top-4 D would be ideal.

Chara-Yandle
Krug-New top-4 D
C.Miller-McQuaid
Morrow

 

[LSCII]

It's funny. A lot of the naysayers in this thread are the same folks who love to say "not everyone has to be Bergeron or Chara defensively." What happened to "it takes all types?"

I'm suggesting they pair offensive guys with defensive guys, and while I'm not a big analytics guy, the numbers people have thrown out in this thread and others suggest that our defense improves when a guy like Chara is paired with a guy like Krug. Even when that guy was terrible in his own end, like a Colin Miller, Chara played better with him than with the kind of guys they lean on for penalty killing.

The objection I have isn't with the strategy of pairing an offensive guy and a defensive guy. It's that you're targeting a guy who is looking for $6-$8 mill per over a long term, and he's not a really an upgrade over the guy who you want to trade for him. That's the problem with what you suggested.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

That should be the case on each pairing.

Bruins problem this year was they only had one D (Krug) that knew what to do with the puck.

As for your proposal, I rather keep Krug. Will cost less than Barrie to re-sign. But I agree that signing Yandle AND adding another top-4 D would be ideal.

Chara-Yandle
Krug-New top-4 D
C.Miller-McQuaid
Morrow

The problem is we dressed McQuaid, Seidenberg, Kevan Miller, and Chara consistantly every night. All 4 guys are suited for stay-at-home roles, and this was the coaches choice even when healthy. Same thing will happen if we have 4 similar players on the roster next year. Unfortunately, the cheapest of the group is leaving via UFA and we have about 15 million invested in fairly one dimensional players at this point.

 

[PlayMakers]

The problem is we dressed McQuaid, Seidenberg, Kevan Miller, and Chara consistantly every night. All 4 guys are suited for stay-at-home roles, and this was the coaches choice even when healthy. Same thing will happen if we have 4 similar players on the roster next year. Unfortunately, the cheapest of the group is leaving via UFA and we have about 15 million invested in fairly one dimensional players at this point.

I don't think that's true Whaler. We had all four guys the year before this one and Julien chose to put puck movers like Hamilton and Krug with stay-homers like Chara and McQuaid. Even Bartkowski saw more minutes next to Seidenberg than Kevan Miller.

If they add puck movers who can play, they'll play, and be paired with complimentary partners.

 

[PlayMakers]

That should be the case on each pairing.

Bruins problem this year was they only had one D (Krug) that knew what to do with the puck.

As for your proposal, I rather keep Krug. Will cost less than Barrie to re-sign. But I agree that signing Yandle AND adding another top-4 D would be ideal.

Chara-Yandle
Krug-New top-4 D
C.Miller-McQuaid
Morrow

The problem with that set-up JJ, is you've got a lot of guys playing on sides they're not comfortable on. Yandle has never played on the right side. Colin Miller doesn't need to learn how to play on his off-side while still trying to find his way in the league, and if they're serious about improving, they won't ask him to play top4 minutes. The only guy on this team that has been used on both sides is Seid's.

 

[ODAAT]

It's funny. A lot of the naysayers in this thread are the same folks who love to say "not everyone has to be Bergeron or Chara defensively." What happened to "it takes all types?"

I'm suggesting they pair offensive guys with defensive guys, and while I'm not a big analytics guy, the numbers people have thrown out in this thread and others suggest that our defense improves when a guy like Chara is paired with a guy like Krug. Even when that guy was terrible in his own end, like a Colin Miller, Chara played better with him than with the kind of guys they lean on for penalty killing.

Agreed, good post

I think a guy like Shattenkirk would shine in the East, not half as physical IMO and more free wheeling

 

[Burt Reynolds]

I have to disagree on K. Miller being better than McQuaid. They are close but, IMO, McQuaid brings the intimidation factor that Miller doesn't. Also we need help on the left side more than on the right. FWIW, I'm not thrilled with the original proposal either, and certainly don't want Yandle. I'd look for a youngish, left shooting, all around D-man so I could move Chara to the 2nd pairing where, IMO, he would be outstanding (read Hampus Lindholm) and I'd be willing to give up Marchand + for him.

At least the LHD has Chara at the top. Our RHD group is not good. We don't even have a 39 year old Chara type player on the right side. The entire D corps needs to be redesigned, but at least the left side has some semblance of a #1.

 

[don]

At least the LHD has Chara at the top. Our RHD group is not good. We don't even have a 39 year old Chara type player on the right side. The entire D corps needs to be redesigned, but at least the left side has some semblance of a #1.

Sorry but I don't categorize Chara as a #1 D-man anymore. I also don't consider Siedenberg as a #2. IMO the right side, though not outstanding, is better overall than the left. I hope that we keep building the D in the draft by starting on the left side.

 

[Pia8988]

Sorry but I don't categorize Chara as a #1 D-man anymore. I also don't consider Siedenberg as a #2. IMO the right side, though not outstanding, is better overall than the left. I hope that we keep building the D in the draft by starting on the left side.

What?

Chara v Kevan
Krug v McQuaid
Seidenberg v Seidenberg (He can play both)
Morrow v Trotman/Colin

The best two by far are on the left.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

Sorry but I don't categorize Chara as a #1 D-man anymore. I also don't consider Siedenberg as a #2. IMO the right side, though not outstanding, is better overall than the left. I hope that we keep building the D in the draft by starting on the left side.

How do you not consider Chara a #1? Led the D in TOI, 2nd in points, plays all situations. What else do you want? Just because he isn't as talented as he was doesn't mean he isn't a #1. And then Krug is your 2nd best LHD. The right side has Mcquaid, K. Miller and a combination of C. Miller/Trotman. I'm sorry but the right side has nothing. This is ignoring Seidenberg completely because IMO he is a 6th defenseman/PK specialist at this time and should be bought out or traded.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Sorry but I don't categorize Chara as a #1 D-man anymore. I also don't consider Siedenberg as a #2. IMO the right side, though not outstanding, is better overall than the left. I hope that we keep building the D in the draft by starting on the left side.

Yeah this one confuses me. We are far better off on the left side of the ice.

By the way, great pic Don. You're raising him right.