Management Is there Precedence for this in Boston (or other team) Hockey History?

[dafoomie]

That's not necessary either. We should keep our core players (including Eriksson and Marchand) and fill the depth spots with all the prospects we have coming up. Hayes isn't really needed on this team. And I'd rather give someone something else to take Seidenberg off our hands than lose a good player.

How do you improve your defense with no cap space?

 

[Ten Thousand Hours]

How do you improve your defense with no cap space?

How do you improve it with cap space?

I've said that if we could get a really good D man for Loui, I would do it. But I don't see that happening. So whether or not we re-sign Loui I think our best plan would be trading for a bridge guy like Streit, hopefully with salary retained, who expires the year Marchand and Pastrnak will get big raises and then hope some of Carlo, Zboril, Lauzon, etc... pan out. And you can still look for hockey trades to make in the meantime, but you can do those with or without space.

 

[dafoomie]

That's not necessary either. We should keep our core players (including Eriksson and Marchand) and fill the depth spots with all the prospects we have coming up. Hayes isn't really needed on this team. And I'd rather give someone something else to take Seidenberg off our hands than lose a good player.

You have forwards in the system ready to move up or close to it. Pastrnak on the roster now starting to make a difference again, Vatrano, Khokhlachev, Griffith in Providence, Heinen coming out of the NCAA next season. Maybe they won't be 3rd in goals scored without Eriksson, but even without any other additions they would be fine up front. The defensemen in the system of the caliber you need are still at the junior level and are years away, so if you're counting on the system to fill the holes on defense, they simply won't be filled.

They've already shown they won't give Eriksson the years he wants. They can't give him the money he wants under a declining salary cap and still afford to extend Marchand, Spooner, Pastrnak, and Krug in the next two seasons, AND add a player or two on defense. If it were so easy to lose Seidenberg's contract it would've happened already.

How do I improve their defense WITH cap space? With a free agent like Hamhuis if all else fails, or by trading for an RFA on a team tight to the cap like Lindholm, Vatanen, Trouba, or Dumba. The assets you could get today out of Eriksson would go a long way towards one of those deals. To accept that they can't improve on defense is to accept mediocrity regardless of who they have up front, it's that bad and no one they have today is going to make it better. My preference would be to trade Eriksson for one of these guys right now, but I don't believe that's happening as those types of players usually move in the offseason. Even with a trade you need that cap space to sign the player without the other team taking any on, if they could add salary the player wouldn't be available in the first place.

With where they are and the magnitude of their needs they absolutely can't afford to hold on to Eriksson without an extension and lose out on a 1st+ for the 2nd season in a row with a player in that situation.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Ones on teams that aren't good? Lee Stempniak leads the Devils in points. Obviously they're intent on not repeating Chiarelli's mistakes which is why they're not paying him.

So the Bruins "aren't good" is what you are implying?

At 3/4 of the season done, not only we are in a playoff position, we are also in 10th spot overall for points. The FIFTH overall team (Florida) has a "whopping" THREE points more than us. There are only four teams with significantly more points than we have.
So if we are better or right there with 25 teams out of 29, how can you objectively put down the Bruins that much?

 

[Colt.45Orr]

Does the return on Ladd (at 36% retained, keep in mind) make the decision easier for anybody?

 

[PB37]

Does the return on Ladd (at 36% retained, keep in mind) make the decision easier for anybody?

As long as we can make deals that help with the now and the future, getting good value for Eriksson is a solid plan. But I'm also at ease with having Eriksson part of a 30ish core group of guys in their prime. Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand ( 28 in a few months ), Rask...that's a solid foundation of core vets still all in the same age bracket to build around. The trick is if we can get a legit top 4 ( or two ) dman without trading Loui.

 

[BruinLVGA]

As long as we can make deals that help with the now and the future, getting good value for Eriksson is a solid plan. But I'm also at ease with having Eriksson part of a 30ish core group of guys in their prime. Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand ( 28 in a few months ), Rask...that's a solid foundation of core vets still all in the same age bracket to build around. The trick is if we can get a legit top 4 ( or two ) dman without trading Loui.

Right on.

 

[Colt.45Orr]

I would say that about 70% of Bruins fans on here want Eriksson moved (myself included)

and about 30% want him signed...


and about 0% are OK with them doing neither (which is rumoured to be their course of action currently).

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

I would say that about 70% of Bruins fans on here want Eriksson moved (myself included)

and about 30% want him signed...


and about 0% are OK with them doing neither (which is rumoured to be their course of action currently).

if the Bruins could go out and get a legit top 4 (even if it's a rental) and try to make a run in the weak East then I could probably live with them letting Loui walk for nothing. Teams do it all the time and if they feel good about the team and their chances then it's a totally valid play. But if they don't move him AND don't improve the team then that's where I'd be upset.

Personally I don't think the return for Ladd was all that good. that's a late 1st and a prospect whose stock has fallen a bit. That return for Loui would be reasonable but doesn't help us now and without a 2nd move the team gets significantly worse.

 

[patty59]

if the Bruins could go out and get a legit top 4 (even if it's a rental) and try to make a run in the weak East then I could probably live with them letting Loui walk for nothing. Teams do it all the time and if they feel good about the team and their chances then it's a totally valid play. But if they don't move him AND don't improve the team then that's where I'd be upset.

Personally I don't think the return for Ladd was all that good. that's a late 1st and a prospect whose stock has fallen a bit. That return for Loui would be reasonable but doesn't help us now and without a 2nd move the team gets significantly worse.

I'm with you

 

[Colt.45Orr]

I think I have the answer:

Sell.


And Buy.

I look at it and Eriksson is turning 31 this summer –there is no way in HADES that you can sign him to the length that he justifiably wants. He would have HUGE value to a team like Chicago –in fact, he would have more value than a Boedker as they can’t extend either guy into next year anyway.

Boedker will be still 26 well into next season so the Bruins can give him the 7 year contract he wants and it will take him right through his prime. This should be a relatively easy 3 way trade –take the picks for Eriksson, flip them for Boedker, tell him you are putting him next to a C unlike anything he has ever seen in Krejci and sign him for 7 years. The Bruins rebuild/get significantly younger (5 years) and faster in one trade and still compete for the playoffs this year.

PS: I was going to put this in the Trade Rumors area but I hate going to a Rumors thread and have to read proposals or speculation ---most of use just want to read real rumors ← I realize how ridiculous that sounds.

"Boston could end up doing a Boedker deal too if they end up losing out on Eriksson" --Elliote Friedman (2 mins ago on NHIC)

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

if the Bruins could go out and get a legit top 4 (even if it's a rental) and try to make a run in the weak East then I could probably live with them letting Loui walk for nothing. Teams do it all the time and if they feel good about the team and their chances then it's a totally valid play. But if they don't move him AND don't improve the team then that's where I'd be upset.

Personally I don't think the return for Ladd was all that good. that's a late 1st and a prospect whose stock has fallen a bit. That return for Loui would be reasonable but doesn't help us now and without a 2nd move the team gets significantly worse.

As is usual over the last few months Russ, I'm with ya entirely. Spot on where I'm at.

 

[dafoomie]

So the Bruins "aren't good" is what you are implying?

At 3/4 of the season done, not only we are in a playoff position, we are also in 10th spot overall for points. The FIFTH overall team (Florida) has a "whopping" THREE points more than us. There are only four teams with significantly more points than we have.
So if we are better or right there with 25 teams out of 29, how can you objectively put down the Bruins that much?

No, they're not a good team. They are talented, their best players have carried them this far but they're a poorly constructed team that would be exposed in a 7 game series. I don't like them against any playoff team in the East except possibly the 8th seed.

The standings aren't a real reflection of how they stack up against everyone else. They have 2 wins vs playoff teams in 2016. Easiest strength of schedule in the East to this point.