Management Which Bruins Fan Grouping Are You In?

[Coach Parker]

Hey All!

Loving this time of year and the great debates. It is becoming clear that there is a clear divide of multiple philosophies of what the Bruins management should do this weekend. So let's see what the poll says!

Click to read more...

 

[patty59]

Team Thomas, oh wait.

 

[Pia8988]

Hey All!

Loving this time of year and the great debates. It is becoming clear that there is a clear divide of multiple philosophies of what the Bruins management should do this weekend. So let's see what the poll says!

There seems to be something absent of this thread

 

[Coach Parker]

There seems to be something absent of this thread

Yeah sorry Pia it makes the thread then you have to write all the poll options after it is posted. They are up now. Wanted to cover all the options I have come across.

Cheers

 

[Pia8988]

Since it's unlikely to get him on a 3 to 4 year deal, I'm fine with dealing him as long as the plan is those pieces for something better. Wouldn't be happy to have 3 more 1st round picks with how strong the pool currently seems. If they do keep him I would look into moving on from one of Hayes/Connolly and Seidenberg to free up space and money on the roster. Vatrano could replace one of those two next year.

I also take extreme offense to being called Pie! I don't even like Pie!

 

[Coach Parker]

Since it's unlikely to get him on a 3 to 4 year deal, I'm fine with dealing him as long as the plan is those pieces for something better. Wouldn't be happy to have 3 more 1st round picks with how strong the pool currently seems. If they do keep him I would look into moving on from one of Hayes/Connolly and Seidenberg to free up space and money on the roster. Vatrano could replace one of those two next year.

I also take extreme offense to being called Pie! I don't even like Pie!

HAHA. Edited. Check the reason.

 

[Oates2Neely]

Option 1 skewed word play. Suggest trading Eriksson now for assets which will return a #1-2 dman. A late 1st is highly unlikely to be a major part of a trade to acquire a top pairing dman.

Why not "trade Eriksson for a 1st + prospect."

 

[GloveSave1]

I went trade him for a 1-2. But I'd personally even take a solid, steady, 3-4.

But I'm coming around to paying him a sizable contract. I would just need that to happen before the deadline...otherwise I'm almost certainly using that giant trade chip.

 

[Coach Parker]

Option 1 skewed word play. Suggest trading Eriksson now for assets which will return a #1-2 dman. A late 1st is highly unlikely to be a major part of a trade to acquire a top pairing dman.

Why not "trade Eriksson for a 1st + prospect."

It's not skewed at all. It is a poll and I want them to trade Eriksson for assets to move later or now for a top pairing defenseman. If you don't like that option, pick another one you do like. That one is pretty straightforward.

I could put 'eat your shoe' and if people choose it, they choose it.

 

[GloveSave1]

Option 1 skewed word play. Suggest trading Eriksson now for assets which will return a #1-2 dman. A late 1st is highly unlikely to be a major part of a trade to acquire a top pairing dman.

Why not "trade Eriksson for a 1st + prospect."

Because DS wouldn't bail on this year's team, like that. Not too many ways he could get fired, doing that and then missing the playoffs might be one.

Upper management/owners have to have playoffs.

Full sale mode excuse went out the door a while back. The team is just not bad enough.

 

[Lord Ahriman]

You can't re-sign Loui and at the same time improving the defense (I'm totally against rentals), unless you find a taker for Seidenberg.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

I chose option one, but primarily because I don't see the Bruins signing Eriksson.

The key here for me, is when the dust settles on Monday, I want the Bruins to have a better team than they have now. I have no interest in dealing for more picks or more prospects at the expense of today's roster. If that happens, I'd be more disappointed than I would if Eriksson walked away for nothing.

 

[Coach Parker]

...

I chose option one, but primarily because I don't see the Bruins signing Eriksson.

The key here for me, is when the dust settles on Monday, I want the Bruins to have a better team than they have now. I have no interest in dealing for more picks or more prospects at the expense of today's roster. If that happens, I'd be more disappointed than I would if Eriksson walked away for nothing.

You forgot the best part:

Now all us theorists and debaters have a separate thread from the trade one to discuss the philosophical moves management should make!

 

[GloveSave1]

...

I chose option one, but primarily because I don't see the Bruins signing Eriksson.

The key here for me, is when the dust settles on Monday, I want the Bruins to have a better team than they have now. I have no interest in dealing for more picks or more prospects at the expense of today's roster. If that happens, I'd be more disappointed than I would if Eriksson walked away for nothing.

Interesting, because on the ride home I was thinking to myself that I'm almost at "as long as he doesn't walk for nothing I'm happy."

I'm not thrilled about paying him a huge contract, but it wouldn't kill me. And I don't worry about Loui going for picks or prospects, DS could never justify that.

 

[northeastern]

Easy. Move loui and commit to the rebuild. We need a dman. Stock pile assets until we can get one.

 

[DitClapper]

If Trouba is indeed on the market, I would offer all three 1st round picks for him in the summer.

 

[13Hockey]

...

I chose option one, but primarily because I don't see the Bruins signing Eriksson.

The key here for me, is when the dust settles on Monday, I want the Bruins to have a better team than they have now. I have no interest in dealing for more picks or more prospects at the expense of today's roster. If that happens, I'd be more disappointed than I would if Eriksson walked away for nothing.

Same boat

I'll only be okay with dealing Eriksson if

We get a top 4 D via Loui + assests trade & acquire a top 9 winger to replace him....or acquire a younger top 6 winger for Loui +

I will not be happy if we deal Eriksson for a mid 20s pick and a prospect....I know most of our fans will but I can bet if that is our only deadline move....it will cause some problems between our players and management...I can't imagine what Bergeron, Marchand, Z, Rask, etc will think about our front office trading a top 10 NHL winger in Goals and Points for 2...18 year olds who they won't even see for 3-4 more years if ever...when they have the 8th best record in the NHL

 

[bolt thrower]

3 or 1. Would love to keep him but if that doesn't work out, accept the best offer.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

We can't afford to lose him for nothing, if we were a cup contender I would hold onto him, but we are not. Continue to add prospects, the mini rebuild is going really well this year.

 

[BruinDust]

I watch this team plays game like last night, the way the forward lines have gelled when everyone's healthy, and the goaltending, and think what if.

I've been on the Sell-Eriksson bandwagon for awhile.

But if Sweeney could some how, some way, pull a rabbit out of his hat and deliver the Bruins the top end RD they desperately need, not this summer, but right now, I think I'd be OK with keeping Eriksson not signed past the deadline.

But alas, this is fantasy stuff, back to reality.

Sell, sell, sell!

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

Pretty lopsided results.

 

[KrejciMVP]

need to simplify this poll a bit more

 

[Flannelman]

No, I think it is clear: the majority of the board recognizes that defense, top pairing, is the most anemic part of our roster and they realize that Loui, or assets received by moving him, can help us get that type of player.

 

[ODAAT]

need to simplify this poll a bit more

seems pretty straight forward to me

 

[NightmanCometh]

Is option number 1 even really feasible? What top pairing guys are even on the market... Brodin, maybe?