Confirmed with Link: Bruins and Kevan Miller agree to four-year, $10 million deal, per agent Peter Fish.

[CDJ]

The problem isn't Millar. It's having Millar, McQuaid and Seidenberg to go along with an aging Chara. Plus, they will pay Krung.

Yes, it's only May 25th, but who can they move? and what will they need to take back.

The defense sucked last year, lets keep it in tact.

Buyout Seidenberg, trade McQuaid


I think it's doable. I agree with what you are saying but I guess where we differ is our expectations on what will happen. I will most certainly be disappointed if those 3 are on the same blue line though I can assure you of that. I will be in the same boat

I just don't think we will see that happen. There is no way they can possibly be that inept and keep all of them

 

[BruinDust]

Which is still one million more than Miller just got, four years ago. That right there should tell you there is no comparison other than they both shoot righty.

I made the Kevan Miller vs. Boychuk comparison back in 2014 when they traded Boychuk to the Isles, and how Kevan was a decent replacement for Johnny.

I was wrong, so very very wrong.

 

[Stone Clode]

I honestly don't know why they are so focused, and afraid of their 3rd pairing, why does it have to be the priority.

Chara,
Vatanen/Brodin
Yandle
Krug
type of top4,
who cares at that point how the 3rd pairing looks like?
That's the easiest, cheapest problem to fix in the league.

Fixed top4 would allow them to play 3rd pairing guys 10minutes a night and they have Colin and Carlo getting ready, depth is easy to add at the deadline, talent isn't.

Now that Yandle (ufa signing example) money is getting paid for our 3 rd pairing vets instead and they can afford max 1 D-player instead of 2 skilled players.
They could be contenders in the East if they werent so focused on these signings.



Those guys are off the books already, Seids/McQuaid have years left on their contracts.

Schenn is, yes. But Vinny still has 2 years left on his deal though? Unless he retired? Either way, that's sorta just a technicality, not like they knew he was retiring.

 

[Therick67]

Buyout Seidenberg, trade McQuaid


I think it's doable. I agree with what you are saying but I guess where we differ is our expectations on what will happen. I will most certainly be disappointed if those 3 are on the same blue line though I can assure you of that. I will be in the same boat

I just don't think we will see that happen. There is no way they can possibly be that inept and keep all of them

I want to believe that, but my confidence level in this organization is a bit shaky.

 

[Therick67]

Schenn is, yes. But Vinny still has 2 years left on his deal though? Unless he retired? Either way, that's sorta just a technicality, not like they knew he was retiring.

Part of the Trade was Vinny agreeing to retire at the end of this season.

 

[CDJ]

I want to believe that, but my confidence level in this organization is a bit shaky.

I'm with you, I don't have full faith in the org, but keeping all 3 would be SO magnificently stupid. I refuse to believe they make the money they do and are that dumb

At least I hope they aren't

That wouldn't be good.

 

[BB88]

Schenn is, yes. But Vinny still has 2 years left on his deal though? Unless he retired? Either way, that's sorta just a technicality, not like they knew he was retiring.

He agreed to retire after the season, he wanted to get his 1 last shot.
So yes both of those players are gone.

 

[LSCII]

Part of the Trade was Vinny agreeing to retire at the end of this season.

That is correct. It was a stipulation of the trade.

 

[Stone Clode]

Part of the Trade was Vinny agreeing to retire at the end of this season.

Huh, I never knew that. Is that the first time that's ever happened? Is that even legal in NHL contracts? Thanks for pointing that out, I seriously didn't know.

 

[Therick67]

I'm with you, I don't have full faith in the org, but keeping all 3 would be SO magnificently stupid. I refuse to believe they make the money they do and are that dumb

At least I hope they aren't

That wouldn't be good.

I like Don Sweeney, think he's a smart guy. I hope he knows he can move either McQuaid or Seideberg (or both) as opposed to thinking he can.

 

[Therick67]

Huh, I never knew that. Is that the first time that's ever happened? Is that even legal in NHL contracts? Thanks for pointing that out, I seriously didn't know.

I have no ideal. I heard it on the NHL Sirius channel when the trade went down.

 

[Danton Heineken]

I like Don Sweeney, think he's a smart guy. I hope he knows he can move either McQuaid or Seideberg (or both) as opposed to thinking he can.

If he wants to throw in a prospect and get a 6th round pick back.

 

[member 96824]

Buying out Seidenberg is a horribad decision.

Since everyone wants to link this move to the next one(something I'm not a big fan of, but for the purpose of this exercise...lets say they did. That costs the Bruins 1.166M on the cap next year, and 2.166M the year after, dipping back down to 1.166 in the following two years.

If your logic is "This signing is good because of what they'll do next."...and what they do next is buy out Seidenberg...than putting 2+2 together wouldn't that make keeping Kevan Miller a $3.6M decision this coming season? and a $4.6M the season after that?

Buying out Seidenberg is also a terrible idea come expansion draft, IF the expansion draft happens and IF it goes through as the rumored rules that everyone is playing as set in stone. Why? The rumor is 25% of your previous seasons cap hit needs to be exposed. Seidenberg being $1.166M in dead weight, without being here, means the Bruins need to expose someone who isn't Seidenberg(assuming this is probably someone better), and that player needs to make more money.

If the expansion draft was this year and these rules went through, the Bruins would have to expose 17.6M. Lets use the NHL's estimate even though I think it's on the high side...a cap team would have to expose 18.5M @ the rumored 25%. Paying for Seidenberg to not be here hurts them in this regard.

You probably end up exposing and losing whomever you fill Seidenberg's spot with..then you're out two defenders and paying over $2M for Seidenberg not to be here in 2017-18.

That would be poor poor management and really make things tough to "fix" the defense. Buyout probably isn't an option here. Trade with no salary retained is probably the only way that makes sense...and my guess is Mr. Market won't treat Dennis Seidenberg very well.

 

[MtlBoxFan]

I like him or McQuaid on bottom pair - if you play either up its bad

I like Claude but we all know Claude likes Miller over Morrow and Trotman

i will let play out - seems incomplete situation

Right, but a bottom pairing does not deserve 2.5 or 4 years. Bottom pairing means they are at the last bus stop before the press box and the second to last bus stop before the AHL.

You can sign a bottom pairing defenseman anytime, anywhere. What you can't sign, is an impact player because your money is tied up in Miller, McQuaid and Seidenberg.

He's coming off his first ever full season in the NHL. I just don't get the reward to a player that messes up that much.

4 MORE YEARS!

 

[LSCII]

Buying out Seidenberg is a horribad decision.

Since everyone wants to link this move to the next one(something I'm not a big fan of, but for the purpose of this exercise...lets say they did. That costs the Bruins 1.166M on the cap next year, and 2.166M the year after, dipping back down to 1.166 in the following two years.

If your logic is "This signing is good because of what they'll do next."...and what they do next is buy out Seidenberg...than putting 2+2 together wouldn't that make keeping Kevan Miller a $3.6M decision this coming season? and a $4.6M the season after that?

Buying out Seidenberg is also a terrible idea come expansion draft, IF the expansion draft happens and IF it goes through as the rumored rules that everyone is playing as set in stone. Why? The rumor is 25% of your previous seasons cap hit needs to be exposed. Seidenberg being $1.166M in dead weight, without being here, means the Bruins need to expose someone who isn't Seidenberg(assuming this is probably someone better), and that player needs to make more money.

If the expansion draft was this year and these rules went through, the Bruins would have to expose 17.6M. Lets use the NHL's estimate even though I think it's on the high side...a cap team would have to expose 18.5M @ the rumored 25%. Paying for Seidenberg to not be here hurts them in this regard.

You probably end up exposing and losing whomever you fill Seidenberg's spot with..then you're out two defenders and paying over $2M for Seidenberg not to be here in 2017-18.

That would be poor poor management and really make things tough to "fix" the defense. Buyout probably isn't an option here. Trade with no salary retained is probably the only way that makes sense...and my guess is Mr. Market won't treat Dennis Seidenberg very well.

Wait. hold on. So you're saying there's a shot they move Seids???

 

[Therick67]

Buying out Seidenberg is a horribad decision.

Since everyone wants to link this move to the next one(something I'm not a big fan of, but for the purpose of this exercise...lets say they did. That costs the Bruins 1.166M on the cap next year, and 2.166M the year after, dipping back down to 1.166 in the following two years.

If your logic is "This signing is good because of what they'll do next."...and what they do next is buy out Seidenberg...than putting 2+2 together wouldn't that make keeping Kevan Miller a $3.6M decision this coming season? and a $4.6M the season after that?

Buying out Seidenberg is also a terrible idea come expansion draft, IF the expansion draft happens and IF it goes through as the rumored rules that everyone is playing as set in stone. Why? The rumor is 25% of your previous seasons cap hit needs to be exposed. Seidenberg being $1.166M in dead weight, without being here, means the Bruins need to expose someone who isn't Seidenberg(assuming this is probably someone better), and that player needs to make more money.

If the expansion draft was this year and these rules went through, the Bruins would have to expose 17.6M. Lets use the NHL's estimate even though I think it's on the high side...a cap team would have to expose 18.5M @ the rumored 25%. Paying for Seidenberg to not be here hurts them in this regard.

You probably end up exposing and losing whomever you fill Seidenberg's spot with..then you're out two defenders and paying over $2M for Seidenberg not to be here in 2017-18.

That would be poor poor management and really make things tough to "fix" the defense. Buyout probably isn't an option here. Trade with no salary retained is probably the only way that makes sense...and my guess is Mr. Market won't treat Dennis Seidenberg very well.

I guess we better hope someone wants McQuaid then. I'd think he has more value at this point.

 

[chizzler]

Wait. hold on. So you're saying there's a shot they move Seids???

Nah. The hit is too much. Just keep him and get it over with ASAP. If they can unload him with a prospect or San Jose's pick for example, do it.

 

[Hali33]

Buying out Seidenberg is a horribad decision.

Since everyone wants to link this move to the next one(something I'm not a big fan of, but for the purpose of this exercise...lets say they did. That costs the Bruins 1.166M on the cap next year, and 2.166M the year after, dipping back down to 1.166 in the following two years.

If your logic is "This signing is good because of what they'll do next."...and what they do next is buy out Seidenberg...than putting 2+2 together wouldn't that make keeping Kevan Miller a $3.6M decision this coming season? and a $4.6M the season after that?

Buying out Seidenberg is also a terrible idea come expansion draft, IF the expansion draft happens and IF it goes through as the rumored rules that everyone is playing as set in stone. Why? The rumor is 25% of your previous seasons cap hit needs to be exposed. Seidenberg being $1.166M in dead weight, without being here, means the Bruins need to expose someone who isn't Seidenberg(assuming this is probably someone better), and that player needs to make more money.

If the expansion draft was this year and these rules went through, the Bruins would have to expose 17.6M. Lets use the NHL's estimate even though I think it's on the high side...a cap team would have to expose 18.5M @ the rumored 25%. Paying for Seidenberg to not be here hurts them in this regard.

You probably end up exposing and losing whomever you fill Seidenberg's spot with..then you're out two defenders and paying over $2M for Seidenberg not to be here in 2017-18.

That would be poor poor management and really make things tough to "fix" the defense. Buyout probably isn't an option here. Trade with no salary retained is probably the only way that makes sense...and my guess is Mr. Market won't treat Dennis Seidenberg very well.

I'm not sure if I'm thinking about this right. But if we're talking about strategies for the presumed expansion draft wouldn't it make more sense to keep Seidenberg out of the 3, if his salary is the highest which helps them meet the minimum exposure $$. And he has the least amount of remaining years on his contract so he would be the quickest to go and open up a spot for the youth they plan on integrating into the D.

 

[LSCII]

Nah. The hit is too much. Just keep him and get it over with ASAP. If they can unload him with a prospect or San Jose's pick for example, do it.

Yeah, I was jokingly paraphrasing the line from Dumb and Dumber...

 

[member 96824]

Wait. hold on. So you're saying there's a shot they move Seids???

haha...I mean maybe, but I'm struggling to see who would be the taker outside of a cap floor team..but even then, is he going to waive his full NTC(has that until 12/31 this year) to go to a cap floor team? Do we end up spending assets just to dump Seidenberg?

I don't know the answers to these questions but with so many teams running up against the real cap or an internal cap, it seems like Seidenberg will be a tough sell. Maybe not though...maybe Benning has been in a coma since he left Boston(I think many Vancouver fans would get on board with this theory) and therefore hasn't seen Seidenberg post 2013/14 injury.

edit: Just saw the dumb and dumber reference. Damnit, how did I miss that one!?

 

[member 96824]

I'm not sure if I'm thinking about this right. But if we're talking about strategies for the presumed expansion draft wouldn't it make more sense to keep Seidenberg out of the 3, if his salary is the highest which helps them meet the minimum exposure $$. And he has the least amount of remaining years on his contract so he would be the quickest to go and open up a spot for the youth they plan on integrating into the D.

Exactly. He's expendable and keeps a high cap $.

But you have to balance that with icing a good team. Another argument that's pro playing the long game really IMO

 

[Son of Donegal]

Which is still one million more than Miller just got, four years ago. That right there should tell you there is no comparison other than they both shoot righty.

No comparison, ehh?

1. Both took the long path to the NHL
2. Both are physical and tough to play against in front of the net and along the boards.
3. Both have an above average shot from the point
4. Both players had nearly identical output at the NHL level leading up to their 28th birthday.
5. Both are right handed.
6. Both are glue guys in the locker room and stick up for their teammates.

Miller is not as solid in his own zone, but I think a lot of that has to do with overplaying the puck. If he simplified his game on the back end, he will be a much better option. Miller also needs to take more shots and get them off more quickly. neither player is the most graceful skater, but I give the advantage to Miller in that category.

I am not saying Miller and Boychuk are equal quality defense men at age 28...all I am saying is it is more likely than not that he will improve upon his 15-16 season, which in my opinion, wasn't as bad as many are making it out to be. If the Bruins replace Seidenberg with a high quality defender, Miller looks a lot better as a member of the squad.

 

[GloveSave1]

Wish I was as confident as you that Sweeney will be able to do anything. What has Sweeney done to benefit the team? Okay, the Lucic trade but in retrospect trading Jones was a huge mistake. He seems to get the short end of every trade.

As far as Seidenberg, he is done. He has never come back from the knee injury. Why would this year be any different? Not sure why another team would want him.

I like the Beleskey move and his drafting...DS still has more of a window, with me...I haven't come to a conclusion on him. I'm willing to give some learning time on a first time GM.

As for Seidenberg...you could be right. We'll find out.

While I agree he has permanently lost crucial foot speed after the injury, and with age, I think he will get some of it back a year removed and with another full off season. Enough to be a decent heady #4.

I'm not sure I can say that about either McQuaid or K. Miller. Which is the scary crux. One of those guys is there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for moving Seids out of need. While my expectations of a bunch of moves on D are tempered...I do feel DS will address the D with one semi-flashy new guy. I think he has to. And unless he passes on Krug or moves McQuaid after signing him fairly big last year, Seids is the only spot.

Oh, and buying out Seids is right up there with Yandle in horrible moves. Please no. We can't be kicking ourselves for years. DS can make a trade happen. Pay the mid prospect, if you must. Bottom line, you pay in trade here before you pay in dead money cap years.

 

[Elmer]

No comparison, ehh?


6. Both are glue guys in the locker room and stick up for their teammates.

If Kells doesn't come back, what are the odds Julien makes Miller the assistant captain?

 

[Saxon Eric]

Boston likes to reward mediocrity ,in fact they get moved to the front of the line.
2.5 per for 4 years for a #6 defenceman is incompetent