Boston Bruins 2024-25 Roster and Salary Cap Discussion II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
Bevy of reasons. Not because I don’t like him. But because I think he has value, we need more offense from the defense and we cannot afford to have any more guys back there with ZERO puck moving ability in our own zone.

Carlo is a great (not good) shutdown d-man. A team will trade for him.
For what it’s worth, I’d also be looking at trading Charlie Coyle. Again, not because I don’t like him. But because ideally, he’s your third line C. And we happen to have four other guys who could fit that bill (Frederic, Merkulov, Geekie, Poitras). And with this UFA class being so short in C talent, I’m sure we could get something for him that’s decent.
 

Healthy Wrap

Registered User
May 15, 2014
2,228
3,181
Neely’s Kitchen
Bevy of reasons. Not because I don’t like him. But because I think he has value, we need more offense from the defense and we cannot afford to have any more guys back there with ZERO puck moving ability in our own zone.

Carlo is a great (not good) shutdown d-man. A team will trade for him.
If the justification for trading Carlo is his deficiencies in the transition game, then you also have to be willing to trade Lindholm. No D struggled more with moving the puck than him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

JoeIsAStud

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
12,717
7,251
Visit site
For what it’s worth, I’d also be looking at trading Charlie Coyle. Again, not because I don’t like him. But because ideally, he’s your third line C. And we happen to have four other guys who could fit that bill (Frederic, Merkulov, Geekie, Poitras). And with this UFA class being so short in C talent, I’m sure we could get something for him that’s decent.

I would be more willing to move Coyle than Carlo, but I just don't think the value is there in the trade market for him. Maybe once teams fail to get their guy in FA, but still I just don't think his trade value is high.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
It’s funny after the team loses, people cry about needing change and the definition of insanity and here are the things we lack…

Then when change is proposed, it’s “how dare you suggest that!” :laugh:

I want to get faster. I want to get meaner. And I want a little more scoring pop from both the blueline and the top (or middle) six.

Icing the same team as this year or overspending on poor men’s versions of past early playoff exits is gonna land you right smack dab where we currently sit. Good regular season team, but a passive post-season muffin.

Analyze your weaknesses. Fill the holes. Forge an identity. Only way to move forward.
 

JoeIsAStud

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
12,717
7,251
Visit site
If the justification for trading Carlo is his deficiencies in the transition game, then you also have to be willing to trade Lindholm. No D struggled more with moving the puck than him.

I think many would be willing to walk away from Lindholm and his contract. But the difference of course is Carlo is a lot more \movable and likely would return a lot more value in a deal, because of the lesser contract, and because Lindholm has a NMC.

And Lindholm's value is suppressed at the moment after not playing his best hockey this year
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruins19

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
If the justification for trading Carlo is his deficiencies in the transition game, then you also have to be willing to trade Lindholm. No D struggled more with moving the puck than him.
You’re right. He sucked at this this year. McAvoy struggled too.

Traditionally though? Not a weakness for either of them. Carlo has never been good at it.

That being said - what’s the offer for Lindholm? I’d listen.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
I would be more willing to move Coyle than Carlo, but I just don't think the value is there in the trade market for him. Maybe once teams fail to get their guy in FA, but still I just don't think his trade value is high.
For whom? Coyle?

I mean you could be right. But people are frothing at the mouth for Elias Lindholm and Charlie Coyle handily outplayed him in almost every area this season.

A team misses out on one of the few FA options out there, I’d be willing to bet they’d look at Coyle as being a viable option at less money/commitment.

But you may be right. That’s just my read of the current market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RiverbottomChuck

SPV

Zoinks!
Sponsor
Feb 4, 2003
11,395
6,305
New Hampshire
hfboards.com
This is not because it’s Heinen, I’ll say the same if it’s Boqvist (who I’ve included in earlier mock lineups because I thought he was signed thru next year)…but if they are sincere about improving, there is little reason to bring either guy back.

To be notably better they need 2 top 6 forwards and JDB or a replacement.

Which, makes the top 6 be;

Pasta, Marchand, Zacha, JDB/replacement, 2 UFA’s.

Third line: Frederic Coyle Geekie

Fourth line, which needs to be cheap:

Lauko, Beecher, Brazeau, Maroon/Muscle.

Of course if they do something big on the backend and trade a forward then things change, but again they will likely not need or be able to afford Heinen or Boqvist.
I think we’re on pretty much the same page. I love that bottom six/seven. I think the defense is pretty good already, maybe another big body. Edmundson intrigues me a bit.

With any luck Ullmark brings back something to plug into the top six too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff and sarge88

Lord Ahriman

Registered User
Oct 21, 2009
6,771
2,105
Bevy of reasons. Not because I don’t like him. But because I think he has value, we need more offense from the defense and we cannot afford to have any more guys back there with ZERO puck moving ability in our own zone.

Carlo is a great (not good) shutdown d-man. A team will trade for him.

That's something justified: I hate some "let's trade Carlo, just because...". That being said, if a change on defense is the right move them you keep Carlo and trade Lindholm, because we are not getting a top 4 puck moving making $4M. Not to mention, I want some nasty from our defense and I still ready to overpay for Zadorov. So, a possible scenario would be:

Zadorov - McAvoy
puck moving - Carlo
Lohrei - Peeke
 

RiverbottomChuck

Registered User
Jul 20, 2018
5,159
7,516
Washington DC
That's something justified: I hate some "let's trade Carlo, just because...". That being said, if a change on defense is the right move them you keep Carlo and trade Lindholm, because we are not getting a top 4 puck moving making $4M. Not to mention, I want some nasty from our defense and I still ready to overpay for Zadorov. So, a possible scenario would be:

Zadorov - McAvoy
puck moving - Carlo
Lohrei - Peeke
I’d be totally behind trading Lindholm for the right deal even though I like him and think he can bounce back but I don’t think there will be many takers for his contract and I don’t think management would do a turnaround that quick on a top 4 guy they traded for and signed to a longish term.

Maybe they have a taker for Lindholm if the Ullmark for Chychurn + deal happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

TCB

Registered User
Dec 15, 2017
13,200
23,487
North Of The Border
That's something justified: I hate some "let's trade Carlo, just because...". That being said, if a change on defense is the right move them you keep Carlo and trade Lindholm, because we are not getting a top 4 puck moving making $4M. Not to mention, I want some nasty from our defense and I still ready to overpay for Zadorov. So, a possible scenario would be:

Zadorov - McAvoy
puck moving - Carlo
Lohrei - Peeke
Your puck mover your looking for is down on your 3rd pairing.
 

wintersej

Registered User
Nov 26, 2011
23,269
19,119
North Andover, MA
It would overload Hampus and Charlie with even more shutdown minutes, is what it would do. Last thing we need.

If we are being fair, McAvoy gets put out there in as many offensive situations as possible leaving Lindholm and Carlo to take the brunt of it. Having someone better than McAvoy offensively probably allows McAvoy to play to his strengths as a two way D better.

I do think it’s a pathway worth at least mapping out and discussing, even if OUR guts are right and Carlo for Necas isn’t a base we are interested in.

If you roll with

Lorhei McAvoy
Lindholm Montour

You are certainly switched from a “let’s guard the house” mindset to a “let’s always be on the attack” mindset on the backend and I think you get more out of Lindholm this way. And teams on the attack are the ones that are still playing.

But your PK is in shambles. And if you fail to move the puck out well you aren’t going to defend as well. And, of course, Montour will certainly make more than Carlo. I don’t think an 8x7 deal is out there for the 30 year old, but he would cost more than Carlo, obviously, and is on the wrong side of the aging curve. Matt Roy would be someone that could split the difference a bit. More of a two way guy than either Carlo or Montour. Can move the puck and is stout if not tall. Maybe there is RD out there for Ullmark. Shit maybe there is a mega deal with Carlo and Ullmark involved. If the team ain’t doing their due dillegnce on this kind of shit they ain’t doing their job.
 

bbfan419

Registered User
Jul 3, 2006
9,275
9,959
Moncton NB
Would they take Coyle or Zacha with maybe Lysell for Necas? they would still get a middle 6 forward and pretty good prospect.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
If we are being fair, McAvoy gets put out there in as many offensive situations as possible leaving Lindholm and Carlo to take the brunt of it. Having someone better than McAvoy offensively probably allows McAvoy to play to his strengths as a two way D better.

I do think it’s a pathway worth at least mapping out and discussing, even if OUR guts are right and Carlo for Necas isn’t a base we are interested in.

If you roll with

Lorhei McAvoy
Lindholm Montour

You are certainly switched from a “let’s guard the house” mindset to a “let’s always be on the attack” mindset on the backend and I think you get more out of Lindholm this way. And teams on the attack are the ones that are still playing.

But your PK is in shambles. And if you fail to move the puck out well you aren’t going to defend as well. And, of course, Montour will certainly make more than Carlo. I don’t think an 8x7 deal is out there for the 30 year old, but he would cost more than Carlo, obviously, and is on the wrong side of the aging curve. Matt Roy would be someone that could split the difference a bit. More of a two way guy than either Carlo or Montour. Can move the puck and is stout if not tall. Maybe there is RD out there for Ullmark. Shit maybe there is a mega deal with Carlo and Ullmark involved. If the team ain’t doing their due dillegnce on this kind of shit they ain’t doing their job.
I get a guy LIKE Montour for the right side.

Then I add a defensive defenseman with some nasty in his game for the left.

You don’t need the dollars to be equal. There’s $21M there for the extra. More than that if you move Ullmark. More than that if you also move Coyle.

Or some such ilk. Doesn't have to be specifically those moves.
 

wintersej

Registered User
Nov 26, 2011
23,269
19,119
North Andover, MA
I get a guy LIKE Montour for the right side.

Then I add a defensive defenseman with some nasty in his game for the left.

You don’t need the dollars to be equal. There’s $21M there for the extra. More than that if you move Ullmark. More than that if you also move Coyle.

Or some such ilk. Doesn't have to be specifically those moves.

Would you rather go spend a pile of cash on Lindholm/Stephenson or one of the UFA D? Tend to like the aging curves on D better.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
Would you rather go spend a pile of cash on Lindholm/Stephenson or one of the UFA D? Tend to like the aging curves on D better.
I would suggest one of each. But like I've said before: I think Elias Lindholm is Fool's Gold and I'd stay far away.

Stephenson won't give you much more production at 2C than what you got this year. If any. But the f***er can fly. And to me, he changes the dynamic of the second line in a way that's desperately needed.

Montour would do the same for the defense. Back to back years eliminated in the playoffs with an insurmountable problem getting the puck out of their own zone.

If I really had to pick one or the other? Well I'm not entirely sure I can right now. Which I know betrays the point of your question. I just think both things are required.
 

s3antana5757

Registered User
Feb 15, 2014
2,459
1,078
Why have the Bruins shown no ability to draft centers for the last 20 years? Going back to the 2004 draft with Krejci, of course they drafted Seguin who's been a major success. But outside of that, Frederic may be the best C they've drafted? Spooner maybe?

With that in mind, sign or trade is going to be the route we have to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodit9 and bbfan419

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
Sometimes we really need a dislike button . Move Carlo to replace him with whom?? Finding another Rd with the Carlo skill set at his cap hit .I do not think you are finding
Great banter. Total disregard of everything else I've said. "Why would you do dat you dum idiot?? Duhhhh..." *DISLIKE BUTTON*

I mean, disagree with me on where I think the holes on the roster are. Disagree with the strategy or the direction. Tell me what you would do instead. I'm happy to have the conversation.

Or not! Just smash the keyboard with your forehead. :laugh:
 

Gee Wally

Old, Grumpy Moderator
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
76,594
98,781
HF retirement home

Don Sweeney and the Bruins’ top brass pledged an “aggressive” offseason this summer, especially with Boston set to enter free agency with nearly $21 million in cap space.

It’s to be expected that the Bruins’ first orders of business this offseason will be to settle in-house business such as Jeremy Swayman’s next contract — as well as determining the futures of both Linus Ullmark and Jake DeBrusk.

But when it comes to allocating a hefty portion of Boston’s remaining cap space, it’s all but a given that the Bruins will be aggressive in adding another center to their lineup, either through free agency or trade.

Speaking on his latest “32 Thoughts” podcast with co-host Jeff Marek, Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman offered up two potential targets for the Bruins as they brace for themselves for a busy offseason.

“We talked about Elias Lindholm, and how he’s a player they liked before he got traded to Vancouver,” Friedman said of the Bruins and their expected targets in free agency. “So I am expecting them to be in on him if he hits the market. Someone else said to me — throw Chandler Stephenson’s name in there. I think there are a lot of people expecting that Stephenson will be on Boston’s radar. People definitely believe Boston is going to get a center.

“When the Bruins say they’re going to do something, they tend to do it. And they tend to attract good players to them because they’re generally a very well-run organization. So I think there’s — whether it’s Lindholm or Stephenson or somebody we’re missing right now. There’s definitely a belief Boston is going to do something here down the middle as they have promised.”

Another top-six center would be a major boost to Boston’s lineup, with a proven option down the middle not only giving Boston added scoring punch — but also pushing other players further down the depth chart in roles perhaps better suited toward their skillset.

Pavel Zacha, Charlie Coyle, and Morgan Geekie all exceeded expectations and thrived in elevated roles last season with Boston. But the addition of a proven top-six option like Lindholm could allow Coyle to slot back to his usual spot at third-line center, or push Zacha back over to the wing.


As Friedman noted, the Bruins have been linked to Lindholm over the last year — even after the Canucks traded for him in a deal with the Flames on Jan. 31. The pending UFA will command a sizable contract as the best center on the open market — especially given his profile as an effective two-way pivot.

The 29-year-old forward had a down season — production-wise — with Calgary and Vancouver, finishing with 44 points over 75 games. But Lindholm has surpassed the 50-point threshold four times in his career, while his defensive game (second in voting for 2021-22 Selke Trophy) and faceoff skills (56.4 percent this season) would be welcomed in Boston.

Lindholm may not be a bonafide 1C on a stacked roster, but he’s certainly an upgrade over what the Bruins currently feature on their roster.

Stephenson, much like Coyle and Zacha, is a solid middle-six option who probably isn’t suited for a top-line role. But that doesn’t mean that Stephenson isn’t a productive playmaker with a high motor.


Even though Lindholm figures to be the top target for the Bruins in free agency, Stephenson stands as a solid contingency plan if the Bruins intend on coming out of free agency with at least one pivot added to the mix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad