Proposal: Bruin's Trade Proposals IV

[Ratty]

It seems to me that right now LD is a position of need for us given the way things have gone with the combination of injuries, unproven rookies, and an aged Chara. Gryz is a top 4 guy at this point. I don't trade him for a 3C straight up. Depending on who the 2nd line RW is that we are interested in (if at all), it might make sense, but not until we have a solid d-corps in health and are convinced that one of the of the rookies is actually going to be as good as Grizz is now.

Not planning to trade him now, Doc. Obviously with all the injuries on defense, Sweeney has to keep warm bodies on the ice.

When Chara, McAvoy, Vaakanainen, Carlo and Miller return, DS will have options. I'd like to see him pick up either a RWor 3C.

Trading a D such as Grzelcyk may not have brought back much of a return last off season.

 

[LouJersey]

Once in a while, I get one right.

lol once in awhile? pretty much spot on always

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

If the throw in is Bo Horvat? Okay, I'd do it.

I'd prefer Pettersson.

 

[Ratty]

I'd prefer Pettersson.

Who wouldn't?

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Well, I haven't heard a peep about anybody else's parents, either. I'm not trying to stir **** up or even say that it is McAvoy's parents, I was just pointing out that we *do* know they are currently trying to negotiate with him. I haven't heard anything about any negotiations for any other pending RFAs.

All of this is silly though, because quite honestly, if I were running hockey ops I'll take the headache of some obnoxious parent interfering with everything as long as the player performs well on the ice. It's why I'd take Dougie back in a heartbeat and would welcome Nylander and any other problem child that helps me win. Gimme Barzal and his bad answer to a draft interview question. I'll take 21-year-old partying Seguin. I don't care. As long as he's not committing crimes or doing any other kind of heinous ****, I really don't care.

I know that's gonna rile up folks here because character is tantamount to a lot of posters here and that's a perfectly fine philosophy. I, personally, would take a roster full of players with frustrating helicopter parents and Fortnite addicts who can kill it on the ice than just having a collection of safe, boring cardboard players from the WHL who all have excellent "character" and no extra baggage.

I’m guessing you would feel differently if you actually had to deal with all these personalities and not just comment about them from behind a keyboard?

I spoke awhile ago to a guy that was a very good college D1 player and got a pro deal, but was never able to make it past the AHL level. He was telling me how razor thin the talent level is with most players between guys who make the NHL and those who don’t. Things like timing, character, and work ethic are often the difference.

The players you are talking about, who have character flaws, and can continue to be productive at an NHL level despite that, are few and far between.

 

[maxl7]

I’m guessing you would feel differently if you actually had to deal with all these personalities and not just comment about them from behind a keyboard?

I have employees that I manage for my job, so acting like I'm some basement dweller is dumb. Maybe hockey is "different" but the my ultimate point about retaining high performers while dealing with their flaws remains.

I spoke awhile ago to a guy that was a very good college D1 player and got a pro deal, but was never able to make it past the AHL level. He was telling me how razor thin the talent level is with most players between guys who make the NHL and those who don’t. Things like timing, character, and work ethic are often the difference.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Yes, I'm aware. There's also a large degree of luck in terms of organizational depth, whether you get a coach who likes you, etc. All of that is tangential to the point I was making.

The players you are talking about, who have character flaws, and can continue to be productive at an NHL level despite that, are few and far between.

Yes, and...? I'm saying if the player helps you win on the ice, you accept the off-ice stuff as part of the price of winning. Of course there aren't a zillion Seguins or Barzals or Hamiltons. My point is that the hockey world likes/liked to malign these guys for various reasons but every team should still want them on their roster.

If the Bruins have a player they feel isn't helping them win and also has overbearing parents, then get rid of them. If the player is helping them win but has awful parents, then they should suck it up or risk making another costly mistake.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I have employees that I manage for my job, so acting like I'm some basement dweller is dumb. Maybe hockey is "different" but the my ultimate point about retaining high performers while dealing with their flaws remains.


Not sure what this has to do with anything. Yes, I'm aware. There's also a large degree of luck in terms of organizational depth, whether you get a coach who likes you, etc. All of that is tangential to the point I was making.



Yes, and...? I'm saying if the player helps you win on the ice, you accept the off-ice stuff as part of the price of winning. Of course there aren't a zillion Seguins or Barzals or Hamiltons. My point is that the hockey world likes/liked to malign these guys for various reasons but every team should still want them on their roster.

If the Bruins have a player they feel isn't helping them win and also has overbearing parents, then get rid of them. If the player is helping them win but has awful parents, then they should suck it up or risk making another costly mistake.

I never said you are a basement dweller. Does your job entail managing upwards of 50 young guys, many that have been told how great they are all their life and who make millions of dollars a year (and incidentally much more than you do)?

Of course there are always varying degrees of difficulty when dealing with employees, and every company must decide if they are worth keeping based on their productivity vs those difficulties. You keep referencing Hamilton, but two organizations (so far) have decided that his on ice production wasn’t worth the headaches from the baggage that comes with him.

Let’s just say that I disagree with the idea that just because a player is talented and can help a team win, they should “suck it up” and deal with it.

We come from two different schools of thought on that.

 

[RiverbottomChuck]

I don’t think Dom saw this, or I’m sure he would have answered.

After he was drafted, within weeks Dom told some of us in a text that he would be surprised if Hamilton ever saw his second contract in Boston. Eventually, it made its way to the boards I believe (after he was gone).

Dom knows his ****.

Thanks I haven't been here long but one thing I learned pretty quick was that Dom knows his shit lol

 

[DominicT]

Well, I haven't heard a peep about anybody else's parents, either. I'm not trying to stir **** up or even say that it is McAvoy's parents, I was just pointing out that we *do* know they are currently trying to negotiate with him. I haven't heard anything about any negotiations for any other pending RFAs.

All of this is silly though, because quite honestly, if I were running hockey ops I'll take the headache of some obnoxious parent interfering with everything as long as the player performs well on the ice. It's why I'd take Dougie back in a heartbeat and would welcome Nylander and any other problem child that helps me win. Gimme Barzal and his bad answer to a draft interview question. I'll take 21-year-old partying Seguin. I don't care. As long as he's not committing crimes or doing any other kind of heinous ****, I really don't care.

I know that's gonna rile up folks here because character is tantamount to a lot of posters here and that's a perfectly fine philosophy. I, personally, would take a roster full of players with frustrating helicopter parents and Fortnite addicts who can kill it on the ice than just having a collection of safe, boring cardboard players from the WHL who all have excellent "character" and no extra baggage.

No one ever said that said player was in contract negotiations.

Let me give you a scenario - totally hypothetical, although it has happened.

You are GM. A player and his parents come to you. Father says that he is unhappy with his son's ice time and the way he is being utilized. He demands a trade. You tell them "okay, we will try and work something out. But I am not just going to trade you for the sake of trading you." Unhappy, they pack their bags, leave the team, and go play somewhere else.

You are not able to work out a trade. He returns to the team and doesn't do the things asked of him and only makes his trade stock go down. Papa gets more and more upset. You just can't find a deal to recoup an asset.

How do you handle it?

 

[DominicT]

I don’t think Dom saw this, or I’m sure he would have answered.

After he was drafted, within weeks Dom told some of us in a text that he would be surprised if Hamilton ever saw his second contract in Boston. Eventually, it made its way to the boards I believe (after he was gone).

Dom knows his ****.

My gut feeling on Hamilton went back to his days in Niagara. Dressing room situation, closed doors. I only know of two people, besides the guys in the room that heard what happened. Me and someone else. Came from a player in the room. Was bad enough that Niagara tried hard to trade him.

I knew then when the Bruins drafted him that it was never going to be a fit.

 

[LouJersey]

My gut feeling on Hamilton went back to his days in Niagara. Dressing room situation, closed doors. I only know of two people, besides the guys in the room that heard what happened. Me and someone else. Came from a player in the room. Was bad enough that Niagara tried hard to trade him.

I knew then when the Bruins drafted him that it was never going to be a fit.

Me when the Bruins drafted Hamilton..."yes, we got our new franchise, lifetime defenseman.."

Seconds later my PM lights up...

Dom, "Big time talent, but will not see a second contract in Boston"

hahaha.

 

[maxl7]

No one ever said that said player was in contract negotiations.

My mistake. Again, I'm not trying to drag any player through the mud here, I just misunderstood. But the context around how this initially came up was surrounding Nylander and his contract dispute and the idea that the Bruins don't want (another) player with an overbearing father. My ultimate point is that Nylander is the kind of player that is worth these headaches.

Let me give you a scenario - totally hypothetical, although it has happened.

You are GM. A player and his parents come to you. Father says that he is unhappy with his son's ice time and the way he is being utilized. He demands a trade. You tell them "okay, we will try and work something out. But I am not just going to trade you for the sake of trading you." Unhappy, they pack their bags, leave the team, and go play somewhere else.

You are not able to work out a trade. He returns to the team and doesn't do the things asked of him and only makes his trade stock go down. Papa gets more and more upset. You just can't find a deal to recoup an asset.

How do you handle it?

I understand how this is kind of related to my post, but this is a different situation, no? If the player is performing well, then I hold on to him until I get the price I want. If the player isn't performing, as in your scenario, then that's a different situation entirely. If Papa isn't going to understand the realities of how a the NHL trade market operates, then there's not a whole lot you can do. All of this also depends on a whole host of other factors that really require a real-world example.

But let me throw a hypothetical back at you. Same exact situation. Except this time, the player is right. He deserves more ice time. The coach isn't playing him as much as he should be. What do you do?

 

[compan]

With Dougie on his 3rd team, I'd imagine this is still a problem.

 

[JRull86]

Hamilton and Hayes rang a bell regarding parents being overly involved.

 

[maxl7]

I never said you are a basement dweller. Does your job entail managing upwards of 50 young guys, many that have been told how great they are all their life and who make millions of dollars a year (and incidentally much more than you do)?

Let's just say that "from behind a keyboard" remark implied that I'm not able to criticize.

Of course there are always varying degrees of difficulty when dealing with employees, and every company must decide if they are worth keeping based on their productivity vs those difficulties. You keep referencing Hamilton, but two organizations (so far) have decided that his on ice production wasn’t worth the headaches from the baggage that comes with him.
.

Yep. And as I've said, I put more stock on the on-ice product. Boston and Calgary aren't exactly epitomes of progressive hockey thinking. That's not a slight, just a reality. They're old-school.

Let’s just say that I disagree with the idea that just because a player is talented and can help a team win, they should “suck it up” and deal with it.

We come from two different schools of thought on that.

Absolutely. As I said, that's a perfectly fine philosophy, and one that's shared by many here.

 

[DominicT]

My mistake. Again, I'm not trying to drag any player through the mud here, I just misunderstood. But the context around how this initially came up was surrounding Nylander and his contract dispute and the idea that the Bruins don't want (another) player with an overbearing father. My ultimate point is that Nylander is the kind of player that is worth these headaches.



I understand how this is kind of related to my post, but this is a different situation, no? If the player is performing well, then I hold on to him until I get the price I want. If the player isn't performing, as in your scenario, then that's a different situation entirely. If Papa isn't going to understand the realities of how a the NHL trade market operates, then there's not a whole lot you can do. All of this also depends on a whole host of other factors that really require a real-world example.

But let me throw a hypothetical back at you. Same exact situation. Except this time, the player is right. He deserves more ice time. The coach isn't playing him as much as he should be. What do you do?

Easy answer for me. Tell the coach to play him more for as many games as required so that I could get a better asset in a trade. It happens.

 

[Fenian24]

No one ever said that said player was in contract negotiations.

Let me give you a scenario - totally hypothetical, although it has happened.

You are GM. A player and his parents come to you. Father says that he is unhappy with his son's ice time and the way he is being utilized. He demands a trade. You tell them "okay, we will try and work something out. But I am not just going to trade you for the sake of trading you." Unhappy, they pack their bags, leave the team, and go play somewhere else.

You are not able to work out a trade. He returns to the team and doesn't do the things asked of him and only makes his trade stock go down. Papa gets more and more upset. You just can't find a deal to recoup an asset.

How do you handle it?

Not like Bobby Clarke did.

 

[maxl7]

Easy answer for me. Tell the coach to play him more for as many games as required so that I could get a better asset in a trade. It happens.

Then we agree.

 

[Fenian24]

My mistake. Again, I'm not trying to drag any player through the mud here, I just misunderstood. But the context around how this initially came up was surrounding Nylander and his contract dispute and the idea that the Bruins don't want (another) player with an overbearing father. My ultimate point is that Nylander is the kind of player that is worth these headaches.



I understand how this is kind of related to my post, but this is a different situation, no? If the player is performing well, then I hold on to him until I get the price I want. If the player isn't performing, as in your scenario, then that's a different situation entirely. If Papa isn't going to understand the realities of how a the NHL trade market operates, then there's not a whole lot you can do. All of this also depends on a whole host of other factors that really require a real-world example.

But let me throw a hypothetical back at you. Same exact situation. Except this time, the player is right. He deserves more ice time. The coach isn't playing him as much as he should be. What do you do?

Tell him to shut up and be a team player, tell his daddy to shut up if not trade the whole family before word gets out what a whiner he and pops are.

 

[maxl7]

Tell him to shut up and be a team player, tell his daddy to shut up if not trade the whole family before word gets out what a whiner he and pops are.

If he's popping in goals and helping the team win, I'll set up a weekly whine and cheese meeting where he and his dad, his uncle, his fourth grade science teacher, and anyone else who wants to come can sit my office and bitch at me.

 

[kdog82]

Would anybody overpay for both Bobrovsky and Panarin? You would think at least one signs an extension, perhaps enticing the other to do the same. I'd overpay for both players as long as Columbus would be willing to take Backes in a deal.

Rask + Backes + Grzelcyk + Frederic + Donato + 2019 1st (14.4 million going out)

for

Bobrovsky + Panarin (13.5 million coming in)

Hopefully re-sign both
Bob (6 years x 8 per year)
Panarin (8 years x 9 per year)

If both agreed to these extensions it would only be a total of 3.6 million added when all is said and done.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Would anybody overpay for both Bobrovsky and Panarin? You would think at least one signs an extension, perhaps enticing the other to do the same. I'd overpay for both players as long as Columbus would be willing to take Backes in a deal.

Rask + Backes + Grzelcyk + Frederic + Donato + 2019 1st (14.4 million going out)

for

Bobrovsky + Panarin (13.5 million coming in)

Hopefully re-sign both
Bob (6 years x 8 per year)
Panarin (8 years x 9 per year)

If both agreed to these extensions it would only be a total of 3.6 million added when all is said and done.

Live look into the Columbus GM's reaction to this proposal.

 

[kdog82]

Live look into the Columbus GM's reaction to this proposal.

If you break it down they get very good value for 2 players leaving for nothing.

You're right. They probably want nothing to do with Back Aches.

 

[BigBear83]

i feel like im the only one fine with jfk as our 3rd line C.. the RW on the second is my main issue.. its been said here a thousand times for each player... but i would think toffoli, coyle , anderson would be a great pickup . wild card option .. change of scenery for nichuskin?

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Let's just say that "from behind a keyboard" remark implied that I'm not able to criticize.


Yep. And as I've said, I put more stock on the on-ice product. Boston and Calgary aren't exactly epitomes of progressive hockey thinking. That's not a slight, just a reality. They're old-school.



Absolutely. As I said, that's a perfectly fine philosophy, and one that's shared by many here.

So, you are saying the answer would be no, the guys/gals you manage aren’t professional athletes making millions of dollars?

“Behind the keyboard” is a reference to the fact that you are posting on a message board, not that you don’t have a job

If I thought that you lived in your parent’s basement and never went out, I would have said, “posting from your parent’s basement”.