Firstly, You're assuming all of the players we get to replace those vets will be lesser talent. That is your projection in no way a proven fact. Is it possible, sure, I concede it is possible but it is also possible they could spend some of the extra assets they have gotten to maybe upgrade a few of those spots.
There is no firstly. You don't know anything about the future. You're expecting equal talents being acquired. You can stop b/c you're using mental gymnastics.
What we do know is what Verbeek received in the TDL. He went young and AHLers. They're plugs, right? Right. I can hope that we will get better talent than them this off-season. But we're going to be spending some assets to acquire upgrades. Do you think those upgrades will be cheap in Fiala or Chychrun? We'll be spending more assets in acquiring them than us trading ours away. There are limited assets.
I am under the assumption that we will trade for a few players we have extra assets from selling the UFAs. Like seriously, If we had just signed the players to extensions it would then be okay to add spend the assets then right? So why does that suddenly make those acquired assets unavailable? Trading for players is not a bad thing. Its building the teams talent level up.
Here's is your fatal mistake. You think re-signing all is equal to the new players we'll acquire this off-season alone. We're back to "firstly", you don't know anything.
Anyhow, if we kept and re-signed Lindholm, Manson, Rakell, and Des, then we know they work here. How many times do I have to share when Lindholm, Manson, and Fowler are all healthy that we're an amazing defensive team. We aren't looking for a middle pairing D guy, instead we're looking for a bottom pairing DFD who can PK that can pinch into the middle pairing. That's what you agreed with during the season.
With our current D makeup, we're missing a lot. Yet, you believe we'll be able to replace Lindholm and Manson equally easily this off-season without overspending assets. We got the 22nd overall pick, 2022 2nd rd, 2023 2nd rd, and Vaak for Lindholm. To acquire Chychrun will start with our #10 overall pick and we have to add more. We are losing the asset exchange here by losing the #10 pick alone.
I'm not opposed trading for players. I'm opposed to recklessly overspending assets to want to feel relevant this season. That's your failure to comprehend.
Secondly, I commented because I thought it was worth noting. If you are going to Caveat that the team had more vets as a reason why it was okay to go after those players then and ignore that the vets that we lost are in all likely hood being replaced by other vets. You were playing both sides of the conversation. IMO, talent is depth. Adding a good player is still adding depth and generally a lot harder to get than the types of players a lot of people around here think we should target. We have what looks like a strong, young, yet unproven core. IMO it is better to surround them with good players to help them develop more then ask them to carry the team by themselves. Doing that is setting them up for failure. Maybe you're okay with that? I am not.
Now you're doing mental gymnastics and projecting. You've lost your argument already as we go back to your "firstly".
We know the vets then worked. Again, you're back to projecting that vets we get back this off-season will be of equal talent that will not cost a lot in assets. Lots on here have floated Fiala and Chychrun as equal or better talent to replace some of the talents we lost. That's gonna be costly as I previously gave the example.
I didn't go that route. I'm looking for inexpensive asset acquisitions at both young and old, which is why I targeted VGK as the most likeliest trade partner by acquiring LD Hague plus a salary dump for cheap.
Thirdly, you do realize that just a youtuber and his opinion is about a relevant as yours or mine right? Boston's depth issues are more to do with roster construction than anything, that and their Top players are older, and older typically is more expensive and likely to be injured, IMO. I actually don't even think that Boston had bad depth issues outside of their center position. They didn't replace Krejci so they had an older 1st line center and 2 3rd liners. Look at their top 6:
Marchand-Bergeron-Debrusk
Hall-xxx-Pastrnak
Then you have:
Haula-Coyle-Smith
Those 3 guys all produced around 40 pts which is on the high side for 3rd liners.
They lost Krejci and tried to replace him with Coyle and Coyle with Haula. Foligno was terrible for them and a waste of 3.8 mill. Bad contracts cripple cap teams. If they can get out of that deal and move one of their LD, they have like 5 now, they can generate 6-7 mill in cap space. All that being said and its not like depth issues don't affect every "contender." Tor has depth issues, Carolina is going to have to make some hard choices. Colorado is going to have them this summer. Tampa is going to have them this summer as well, its why they spent 2 fists on an okay player who was a great value contract. The idea that Boston kept trading their first rounders or first prospects is why they have depth issue just isn't true. Since 2014 they have picked 8 times in the first round. Those picks include Pasternak, McAvoy, after that the next best player is Debrusk. Seems there issue isn't necessarily trading away those players but picking the wrong ones. Beacher and Lysell are really too new to judge by Lysell seems well thought of. If they don't make a move to get back into the 1st round this year that would mean 8 of 9 first rounders over a 9 year period. Of those picks, 3 have become NHL roster players. Of the 3 picks/prospects they did move they got Lindholm with 2 and Rick Nash. Senyshyn was also traded but he was pretty much a bust before then. Zboril, looks like a bust. Debrusk, could be a player but he may want out. So out of 9 first rounders, they got 4 NHL players, 2 top pairing D and 2 top 6 forwards. They should have been draft centers IMO. Teams competing for cups are going to have depth issues as long as they are going to have more than a couple star players on their roster and Boston arguably has 4 star forward. Bergy, Marchand, Pasta and Hall, and Hall isn't even all that expensive.
I feel like people are looking at Tampa as the golden standard of depth but ignore that the team has strongly benefited from the LTIR rules these last 2 years. They are currently an 89 million dollar team. Last year was 98 mil, the year before was their first cup at just over 80 mill on an 81.5 mill cap with some Key players on cheaper deals. Most teams can't afford to lose star players in the playoffs. It seems to be a pretty common trend in the NHL. Building around 3 or 4 stars.
You're joking, right? You do know Verbeek was a part of the development of Tampa. That's what I don't get about you is you're not taking Verbeek, his background, and his actions into what will happen. What Boston is going through is that Verbeek is trying to avoid.
Boston just traded a 2022 first rd pick, 2022 second rd, 2023 second rd, and Vaaks for Lindholm. They have $2.3 mil cap space available. If they can get rid of some contracts? How do you think they'd go about that? Don't you think they'd want to add assets for a cap dump? What if Bergeron wants to return? That would usurp most of that cap space gained.
While you think the Bruins offense was okay, apparently it wasn't good enough. That's what you missed in the video.
| Bruins | | | | | | | |
|---|
| Seasons | Games | GF | GF/Game | Rank | GA | | Rank |
| 2016-17 | 82 | 234 | 2.85 | 13th | 212 | 2.59 | 8th |
| 2017-18 | 82 | 270 | 3.29 | 6th | 236 | 2.88 | 3rd |
| 2018-19 | 82 | 259 | 3.16 | 11th | 215 | 2.62 | 4th |
| 2019-20 | 70 | 227 | 3.24 | 9th | 174 | 2.49 | 1st |
| 2020-21 | 56 | 168 | 3.00 | 14th | 136 | 2.43 | 4th |
| 2021-22 | 82 | 254 | 3.10 | 15th | 220 | 2.68 | 4th |
As the youtuber identified, that scoring was just above average. You're okay with that trying to win a cup? You're quite okay with an average offense to win the whole damned thing. I guess you're fine with that, but apparently we already know the results.
The intent is to beat whoever is the best. If that's Tampa, then that's who you gotta beat. Yeah... move along here.
If we traded for PLD imagine Zegras, PLD, McTavish and Lundestrom down the middle. Its a perfect example of how going after the right players with future assets is still viable for a rebuilding team. IF the cost is right. I'm not suggesting we should throw everything and the kitchen sink to get 4 players or even a single player. We have extra assets. We should be open to moving them in the right deals. Heck, Say we go out and get a big name forward and spend significant assets, we can still take on a cap dump to try and recoup some of those assets.
What the hell is this non-sense where we keep our 2021 first round pick? Columbus would want that 1st round pick at least for PLD. We don't even get a sniff at McTavish. You're playing quite loose here with assets and a favorable bias in trade wins.
We would have PLD, Zegras, and Lundestrom down the middle. But we'd also have Getz too. The NHL roster remains intact, but we would not own the 2021 first round pick, maybe Comtois and Perreault are gone, as well as probably another draft pick or two. Could you imagine PLD on this roster going into 2021-22 season?! We'd still be thin on defensive NHL talent, though.
That's the point of me identifying Murray being in a rebuild, but still trading for a top-end player. But we are relying on the current roster to help power us through, which we know works.
We don't know what FA or trade will work out well or not. I can't bank on it working out b/c it really is an unknown.
We are a very young group and that's our foundation. We build to support that group. But our young core still isn't established. There isn't a sign of consistency there in our youths yet. I don't want to overspend just to make a big splash now. There will always be good players available year after year. We do not have to create an emergency to overspend on assets today.
Verbeek's here for the longer game, otherwise he'd re-sign the FA's.
