Boston Bruins VIII-Rumors, Trade Proposals, Speculation, etc.. (rumors must have recognized source/link)

Status
Not open for further replies.

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,282
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
Yep- those and if the team has a losing skid "blow it up, Fire Sweeney" and if they lose to a "heavy" team (no matter why), "Bruins need to get bigger and tougher!!!"

The truth is somewhere in between.....No secondary scoring and getting bludgeoned by the Blues and Lightning physically have many people not buying in and they have been correct with the end results.

Team can't score 5v5 and have the worst HDC in the league. Those aren't minor issues.
 

Dr Hook

It’s Called Ruins
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2005
14,084
20,842
Tyler, TX
The truth is somewhere in between.....No secondary scoring and getting bludgeoned by the Blues and Lightning physically have many people not buying in and they have been correct with the end results.

Team can't score 5v5 and have the worst HDC in the league. Those aren't minor issues.

Yep there may be some truth there, but those are still ultra-predictable responses for this place regardless of the reality.
 

NDiesel

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
9,216
9,603
NWO
Since 2013, 64 games . 11 g 31 s 42 pts. He hasn't been our best play-off performer in quite some time. he is generally superb one series and mediocre the next. Guessing that's pretty normal tho for NHL players
Why would you purposely choose to start the cut off after a point per game performance and before his worst performance in the playoffs. Weird to me to also choose a year that marked the last time being in the playoffs before missing two seasons. At least go his recent 4 year stint where he's at 39 points in 52 games if you're trying to show recent performance.

.75 ppg in playoffs since 2016-2017. Your point stands perhaps best performer is not true, however he has easily been top outside of that top line and feels like its a backward step to try to move on from him rather than add to what we have, especially with our already apparent scoring issues.
 

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,282
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
Why would you purposely choose to start the cut off after a point per game performance and before his worst performance in the playoffs. Weird to me to also choose a year that marked the last time being in the playoffs before missing two seasons. At least go his recent 4 year stint where he's at 39 points in 52 games if you're trying to show recent performance.

.75 ppg in playoffs since 2016-2017. Your point stands perhaps best performer is not true, however he has easily been top outside of that top line and feels like its a backward step to try to move on from him rather than add to what we have, especially with our already apparent scoring issues.

Ok that is fair enough, I just went back to when he was our best playoff performer is all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDiesel

RussellmaniaKW

Registered User
Sep 15, 2004
19,698
21,801
personally if I were Sweeney it would ne Jake, Vaak, 1st and something for Forsberg and Bjork, 2nd and something for Palmieri (50% retained) and hope for the best.
damn you for getting me wound up all day and then ending it with something totally reasonable
 

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
24,937
24,928
The Hub
Jaskin played one year of junior here in Moncton as a 19 year old and looked like a man against boys most games, figured this guy would be an NHL power forward at some point. I would take a flyer on him.
Don't Jaskin's NHL rights belong to Washington?
 

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
24,937
24,928
The Hub
They could still own his rights yes, maybe we trade then Cehlarik or JFk for Jaskin?
Only problem is that with the hostilities between the two teams (on ice) and the fact that the Bruins have pretty much figured out how to beat the Caps, I doubt they want to help us with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419

UConn126

Bass Player.
Sponsor
Jun 12, 2010
8,531
7,236
Somerville, MA
I have no idea (and I'm not advocating this) if he's over the river and thru the woods but: DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER!
Report: Patrick Marleau Has Requested A Trade.

Again, I am not advocating this only trying to post something other than debates on DK and the last 72 months of the Sweeneely regime.
I've been a big Marleau fan through his career, but I don't think he has much left in the tank. Not sure what value he provides a true contender, aside from a depth option who may not be in the lineup most nights.
 

ODAAT

Registered User
Oct 17, 2006
52,238
20,410
Victoria BC
worried a touch that the Islanders, with all of Lee`s cap hit free due to injury that they`ll make a big splash for an already solid team
 

Grimes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 5, 2012
8,538
4,954
Tippet's Doghouse
Garland would really be a good fit for the Bruins I think. A RW in his prime who creates and actually finishes 5v5? Sign me up.

Hell, I'd consider taking Goligoski too if they're looking to save some cash. Not sure what the story is with him this year, just two assists in 32 games, but last year he put up 32 points from the blueline. Anyone watch him this year? Is he washed or what?

Yotes fan coming in peace.
1. I'd probably begin rooting for Boston in the playoffs if you get Garland. Absolutely love the kid, one of my favorites on the team, the entire group seems to love him (Hall and him apparently got along very well last season) and only Chychrun works as hard as him game in and game out. The point explosion doesn't seem artificial, and he has improved all three seasons being here. He said he wanted to work on his playmaking this offseason and we are absolutely seeing the difference from the work he put in. Just watch some of the highlights from him this year.
2. Goligoski was a great signing for us. He has always been consistent offensively and better than average defensively. I don't feel we ever had a partner that he really clicked with here, and while he has his gaffs from time to time the good has always outweighed the bad. Our secondary scoring has all but washed up this year, we are pretty much being carried by Garland and his line, and Chychrun. It's been excited to see all of Keller, Garland and Schmaltz really start to click at times, but other lines just can't seem to get going consistently. I think this is mostly why Goligoski's production has fallen off. He also doesn't get nearly the PP time he used to with Chychrun becoming so dominant.
 

Dr Hook

It’s Called Ruins
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2005
14,084
20,842
Tyler, TX

bp13

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
16,933
3,331
Visit site

I get the notion of determining "how the team is playing" as well as the general health of the roster, but that feels more like an excuse here to me. He's got a veteran roster with high-end talent and all the key spots filled (top line, #1 dman, top-flight goalie). He knows this team will make the playoffs and have a good shot. If his point here is that he has to decide where to make a splash, be it D or O, then maybe so. But that's his job, to predict. I realize he likes to wait it out until the last minute, but always seems to limit the options.

Hopefully he's playing coy for value purposes, but you never know. Count me as one fan who doesn't need the rationalizing or excuses. Just get the guys they need or don't. I don't think anyone wants to hear the excuses, and I'm not sure who believes them anyway.
 

the negotiator

Registered User
Sponsor
Nov 2, 2012
1,246
2,352
Sweeney is analytical ...sometimes to a fault.

Balance and objectivity can get in the way of pulling the trigger ...- like buying a house- there are times when you have to give a little more than you budgeted to get what you really want

Let's use Forsberg - whom I wouldn't be surprised to learn isn't even on the market- as an example....Jake, Vaak and a first probably fall short of Nashville's expectation while also being more than Sweeney would be willing to give. Which leads to the refrain of Boston was " in" but didn't end up doing the deal
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad