Management Who will Sweeney bring in by the deadline

Who will Sweeney bring in by the deadline


  • Total voters
    139
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,510
22,013
Central MA
But a guy who plays a 200 foot game, brings grit and sandpaper, is a Bruin-type of player. As long as you have that, you can play for Cassidy and Sweeney.

Yeah, their devotion to bringing in guys like that is really going up my ass a mile. They're doing it to their draft picks too. Can't play up here unless you show a complete 200 foot game.
 

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,510
22,013
Central MA
To think that the Bruins gave up Vatrano whose on pace for 25 goals, for a 3rd rounder just to go out and blow a 4th rounder for 8 weeks of Tommy Wingels, a guy who couldn't even find a job in the NHL this year, is comical.

Organizationally speaking, they value the wrong things. In fact, I'd say they grossly overvalue this mythical 200 foot player to a fault. It's shaded every draft and trade they've had for years and predates Sweeney.
 

RussellmaniaKW

Registered User
Sep 15, 2004
19,698
21,801
Organizationally speaking, they value the wrong things. In fact, I'd say they grossly overvalue this mythical 200 foot player to a fault. It's shaded every draft and trade they've had for years and predates Sweeney.
in the same way they spent 20 years trying to draft the next Ray Bourque they've seemingly spent the last 8 years trying to draft the next Patrice Bergeron
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,334
21,709
Organizationally speaking, they value the wrong things. In fact, I'd say they grossly overvalue this mythical 200 foot player to a fault. It's shaded every draft and trade they've had for years and predates Sweeney.[/QUOTE]

Yup, its epidemic and goes further back than Sweeney taking over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

KrejciMVP

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
28,485
10,064
Tampa, Florida
This is the Bruins last chance bc if they fail this year they'll sell in the offseason so might as well go for broke. Panarin would put the Bruins as cup contenders
 

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
To think that the Bruins gave up Vatrano whose on pace for 25 goals, for a 3rd rounder just to go out and blow a 4th rounder for 8 weeks of Tommy Wingels, a guy who couldn't even find a job in the NHL this year, is comical.
Frank Vatrano had a total of 2 goals and 0 assists in his last season, 25 games, before he was traded. I know I wasn’t sad to see him go, I thought he was a floater that needed to play in the top 6 to be productive and he wasn’t better than Debrusk at the time or Marchand. Vatrano wasn’t going to score 30 from the 3rd line and at the time it didn’t look like he’d score 10.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,334
21,709
Frank Vatrano had a total of 2 goals and 0 assists in his last season, 25 games, before he was traded. I know I wasn’t sad to see him go, I thought he was a floater that needed to play in the top 6 to be productive and he wasn’t better than Debrusk at the time or Marchand. Vatrano wasn’t going to score 30 from the 3rd line and at the time it didn’t look like he’d score 10.

And if they had just moved Vatrano for a 3rd rd. pick, you can justify that move somewhat.

But to turn around and waste a 4th to rent a marginal NHL talent like Tommy Wingels is just brutal. Like what exactly did they see in Wingels made them desire adding him to their team?

Oh wait, I already know that answer (See post #74 of this thread).
 

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
And if they had just moved Vatrano for a 3rd rd. pick, you can justify that move somewhat.

But to turn around and waste a 4th to rent a marginal NHL talent like Tommy Wingels is just brutal. Like what exactly did they see in Wingels made them desire adding him to their team?

Oh wait, I already know that answer (See post #74 of this thread).
I don’t see those two trades as connected at all. Vatrano didn’t have a future here so they traded him for what I thought was fair value at the time. Wingles was advertised as Wagner basically so I think that’s what they wanted. You can argue they shouldn’t have got him or that they gave up too much for him, but I still think the Vatrano deal was fair value at the time.
 

Tbaybruin

Registered User
Feb 2, 2016
3,893
4,208
Don go burnt in the Nash deal. Had nothing to show for it come draft day accept a little cap relief. He won’t do that again. He’s going big this time. Buckle up it’s coming.
 

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
Don go burnt in the Nash deal. Had nothing to show for it come draft day accept a little cap relief. He won’t do that again. He’s going big this time. Buckle up it’s coming.
That’s how I feel. Everyone can joke about Stempniak and whatever but it feels like something big is going to happen.
 

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,510
22,013
Central MA
Don go burnt in the Nash deal. Had nothing to show for it come draft day accept a little cap relief. He won’t do that again. He’s going big this time. Buckle up it’s coming.

Players get hurt. It's a physical league. Hardly got burnt. Just an unfortunate injury that ended a player's career. If anything, it should serve as a reminder that despite us fans wanting players to give their all and play injured, these guys have to still live the bulk of their lives after hockey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: b in vancouver

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,334
21,709
I don’t see those two trades as connected at all. Vatrano didn’t have a future here so they traded him for what I thought was fair value at the time. Wingles was advertised as Wagner basically so I think that’s what they wanted. You can argue they shouldn’t have got him or that they gave up too much for him, but I still think the Vatrano deal was fair value at the time.

The question you need to ask is why didn't Vatrano have a future here. I agree they got fair value but why did they need to trade him right at that juncture? He wasn't having a good year for various reasons, but he showed previously he could score goals in the NHL. Why did goal-scoring ability have so little value in Sweeney's eyes, but the talents of Tommy Wingels (who isn't Chris Wagner sorry) was a must have?

That's the crux of the issue here, the Bruins brass simply don't appreciate or prioritize the right skill-sets needed to win hockey games in the NHL in 2019. And like has already been said, goes back further than Sweeney as GM.

Anyways I don't want to derail this thread anymore as we already have a Sweeney thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,510
22,013
Central MA
The question you need to ask is why didn't Vatrano have a future here. I agree they got fair value but why did they need to trade him right at that juncture? He wasn't having a good year for various reasons, but he showed previously he could score goals in the NHL. Why did goal-scoring ability have so little value in Sweeney's eyes, but the talents of Tommy Wingels (who isn't Chris Wagner sorry) was a must have?

That's the crux of the issue here, the Bruins brass simply don't appreciate or prioritize the right skill-sets needed to win hockey games in the NHL in 2019. And like has already been said, goes back further than Sweeney as GM.

Anyways I don't want to derail this thread anymore as we already have a Sweeney thread.

I think Vatrano got moved because he'd been giving a very suspect effort that last season. Hustling down ice on offensive rushes, but dogging it badly back on d.
 

duffy

Registered User
Feb 12, 2006
1,692
1,226
He does but Saad is better and Stone is a game changer
Agreed that Saad and Stone are big fish that DS has the assets to acquire but I think the ask will make him walk.
More like Z Smith or JG Pageau for 3C and Dzingal for the wing position. These 2 would be more palatable in terms of assets lost. Something along those lines seems more likely as the Nash trade probably gives him some pause.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,334
21,709
I think Vatrano got moved because he'd been giving a very suspect effort that last season. Hustling down ice on offensive rushes, but dogging it badly back on d.

But isn't that coachable? Shouldn't that be something that an NHL head coach should be able to correct? You can't teach his scoring or shooting ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
The question you need to ask is why didn't Vatrano have a future here. I agree they got fair value but why did they need to trade him right at that juncture? He wasn't having a good year for various reasons, but he showed previously he could score goals in the NHL. Why did goal-scoring ability have so little value in Sweeney's eyes, but the talents of Tommy Wingels (who isn't Chris Wagner sorry) was a must have?

That's the crux of the issue here, the Bruins brass simply don't appreciate or prioritize the right skill-sets needed to win hockey games in the NHL in 2019. And like has already been said, goes back further than Sweeney as GM.

Anyways I don't want to derail this thread anymore as we already have a Sweeney thread.
Yeah, this is the last thing I’ll say about it. I thought Wingles would be a more useful player for the Bruins since he was gritty and could play any forward position. Vatrano was a floater and I couldn’t wait to see him go. I don’t think Vatrano’s value would have risen by playing more games floating in the high slot waiting for Riley Nash to feed him the puck.
 

Mainehockey33

Powerplay Specialist
Jul 15, 2011
10,225
7,764
Maine
I think Vatrano got moved because he'd been giving a very suspect effort that last season. Hustling down ice on offensive rushes, but dogging it badly back on d.
He’d also float around the high slot looking to be fed pucks by Riley Nash. His situation wasn’t going to improve in Boston.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,334
21,709
Yeah, this is the last thing I’ll say about it. I thought Wingles would be a more useful player for the Bruins since he was gritty and could play any forward position. Vatrano was a floater and I couldn’t wait to see him go. I don’t think Vatrano’s value would have risen by playing more games floating in the high slot waiting for Riley Nash to feed him the puck.

Maybe the real issue was him waiting for freakin' Riley Nash to feed him the puck. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad