Confirmed with Link: Quaider dealt to Rangers for Kampfer and a 4th

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
I didn’t think he was a critical part of the team. The Bruins don’t live or die on his presence.

But I do believe he brought positive things to the table. I do think he is a presence that will be missed. And I think he has more value than $2.75M in unused cap space.
He’d definitely be sitting most of the year. I like Mcquaid more than Miller but I don’t think the organization does. I don’t know, I just don’t think losing a guy that would be sitting most of the year is a big deal. Add to that the chance for a rookie to get some games in the NHL and it makes sense to me from the Bruins point of view. Now they have more flexibility at the deadline to bring in someone decent if they decide to. It gives them options.

Like others have said, it’s better for Mcquaid to be able to play so maybe he asked for the trade. The writings been on the wall for awhile.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
Agree wholeheartedly unless of course that 2,75M is used to improve the team. To me this whole deal hinges on what happens next. If we get to trade deadline and we make a few minor changes and do use the cap I will be disappointed that we didn't hold on to Quaider as he brings a lot of intangibles to this team.
Agreed.
Here’s just where my cynicism kicks in.
How many times have we said nearly the exact same thing with no payoff? My skepticism is earned. I’m pre-disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smack66

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
True, but does that make Malkin a second line center and thus valued as such?

Hyperbole but do you see my point? I think (pending injury) teams know what McQuaid is.
You can’t compare a bottom pair defenseman who sits half the year to a guy that people know is one of the best in the world and shows it on the ice almost every game.

What would you give up to get a third pairing defenseman that’s been sitting in the box all year?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estlin and maxl7

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
Agree wholeheartedly unless of course that 2,75M is used to improve the team. To me this whole deal hinges on what happens next. If we get to trade deadline and we make a few minor changes and do use the cap I will be disappointed that we didn't hold on to Quaider as he brings a lot of intangibles to this team.

The cap space might also be used as flexibility to avoid cap overages for any potential ELC bonuses. I'll take removing a guy who was likely not going to play much, if ever, to forego any potential headaches next season. Especially when "intangibles" are easy to acquire and cheap (unless you're David Backes).
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
He’d definitely be sitting most of the year. I like Mcquaid more than Miller but I don’t think the organization does. I don’t know, I just don’t think losing a guy that would be sitting most of the year is a big deal. Add to that the chance for a rookie to get some games in the NHL and it makes sense to me from the Bruins point of view. Now they have more flexibility at the deadline to bring in someone decent if they decide to. It gives them options.

Like others have said, it’s better for Mcquaid to be able to play so maybe he asked for the trade. The writings been on the wall for awhile.
Oh yeah, if you’re of the opinion that he’s more a hindrance now to the young players than he is an asset to the team, of course this deal makes sense. It’s an opinion I don’t share, but it’s a valid one and I understand it.

And maybe it’s better for McQuaid to have a better shot at consistent playing time. I don’t really know one way or the other or if that conversation happened.

Trading away one of my favourite players just isn’t exactly a feather in the cap of an offseason that I’ve been pretty critical of.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
Trading McQuaid isn't the issue - the cause is understandable.
However, trading him for free because of "feelings" is absurd.

Get a better asset or trade him at the deadline.

Well they didn't trade him for free. And none of us know what the market was for McQuaid. Maybe you get a 3rd instead of a 4th at the deadline.

Is that worth having him around all season if he's unhappy about being scratched, just to get a pick a round earlier? After hearing managements comments on how it was hard on McQuaid to find it difficult to get back into the line-up once he returned from injury last year it makes more sense now.

Part of managing is managing the people working under you, no different than any other workplace. Trying to manage a team as if these guys are pawns on a chessboard or purely assets is absurd, players are still people. Doesn't mean you cater to their every ask, whim or desire. But if you can find a reasonable solution to accommodate them then most workplaces, even pro hockey teams, will do just that.
 

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,281
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
Wondering if there are any plans to add to the team or go as is?

We went all in at the deadline, with disappointing results, and this summer we haven't improved the forward corps with proven NHL talent, and traded a serviceable 6/7 for futures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Make-Believe

PatriceBergeronFan

Registered User
Jul 15, 2011
59,139
36,522
USA
If he was even healthy at the deadline, what would you trade for Mcquaid. He’s a solid bottom pairing defenseman. You’re not getting a 2nd for Mcquaid.

We would have to see how injuries are looking at that point really - he could be used for a depth forward of similar value instead of us sending out a pick. Who knows, we never will! ;)

I do think he is worth a 3rd if not a 2nd at the deadline. Grit and experience are almost overrated throughout the NHL. For good reason.
 

Bruinator

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2005
7,737
4,024
Toronto
True, but does that make Malkin a second line center and thus valued as such?

Hyperbole but do you see my point? I think (pending injury) teams know what McQuaid is.
Not sure I do see your point. If the guy is not playing, his value will faulter. Not sure what Malkin has to do with that.
 

bearcountry17

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
3,242
1,870
South Shore, MA
It's ok to miss the guy but some people are going a little overboard here. Mcquaid was the worst regular dmen to step on the ice for the Bruins last year and makes high end bottom pairing money. I'm honestly surprised he returned anything of value without some caphit coming back.
 

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,281
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
34 pages on a nothing trade? Man slow month

Nothing trade?

Any time a 2011 guy leaves, the greatest sports moment/team of many of our lives vanishes with them. It sucks. He deserves a better comment than that.

He is also 41-27 in the play-offs. Was the toughest Bruin currently by far, did everything to protect the team, block a shot, play hurt..Was he a limited player? Yep. He was a very good penalty killer, shot blocker and teammate.



one of my favorite McQ moments



remember when Chara and Lucic wouldn't drop them with Scott? Scott made the Bruins soft as baby shit when they played but as always #54 would show up.



gwg/series clincher

Nathan Horton overtime winner, series clincher 4/27/11

The most underrated pinch and keep in, in Bruins history

Nathan Horton overtime winner, series clincher 4/27/11
 

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
Oh yeah, if you’re of the opinion that he’s more a hindrance now to the young players than he is an asset to the team, of course this deal makes sense. It’s an opinion I don’t share, but it’s a valid one and I understand it.

And maybe it’s better for McQuaid to have a better shot at consistent playing time. I don’t really know one way or the other or if that conversation happened.

Trading away one of my favourite players just isn’t exactly a feather in the cap of an offseason that I’ve been pretty critical of.
I understand that. I liked Mcquaid more than Miller as a player, always have. I think he’s better defensively, but when you factor in health and Mcquaid’s ability to get a freak injury most years, I can see why they kept Miller.
 

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
We would have to see how injuries are looking at that point really - he could be used for a depth forward of similar value instead of us sending out a pick. Who knows, we never will! ;)

I do think he is worth a 3rd if not a 2nd at the deadline. Grit and experience are almost overrated throughout the NHL. For good reason.
I don’t think any GM would pay a 2nd round pick for a Mcquaid type 6-7th defenseman, that’s crazy. Sweeney would be crucified if he gave up a 2nd at the deadline for a defenseman like Mcquaid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estlin

chizzler

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 11, 2006
13,206
6,235
Trading McQuaid isn't the issue - the cause is understandable.
However, trading him for free because of "feelings" is absurd.

Get a better asset or trade him at the deadline.
A better asset when he’s being sat most of the season? He won’t be worth shit.
It’s obvious something happened and either they asked or the brass gave him an out to help on his next contract.
I don’t think he was as physical as people think last two years. He sticks up for his team mates. I love the guy but it was time. They need to be physical as a group and not just rely on a few to the dirty work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->