Boston Bruins 24-25 Roster/Cap thread VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
I hear what you are saying but don’t think it’s so cut and dry.

1) I challenge you to find anyone thinking they were stocked at C last year, especially after the playoffs.
2) Coyle has shown no ability to play with higher end players, while Lindholm has. It’s more of a Toyota vs entry level Lexus analogy.
3) I 1000% agree that Coyle out and a winger in makes sense on paper, but there was only one winger that fit the bill for that in Guentzel.

Could the Bruins match the pitch Tampa made? I know which situation I would choose. If you start dipping into the next level of guys like Turbo, you are just paying a bunch to block a prospect that looked an NHL ready at the end of the year and plays the same game. Disappointing camp for Lysell, of course, but I think the reasoning was sound.
Not a bad post, but I’ll save Dust some time and answer the challenge to point 1)

Me. I thought they were stocked at C. They were missing a true #1 guy there which most on this board assured me was being addressed by signing Elias Lindholm. I disagreed. I thought Lindholm was going to give us more of (more or less) what we already had. That there was no #1C on the market, so we were better off not paying one to play above his head.

And much like @BruinDust, I felt we were better off turning some of the roster and signing wingers to help bolster scoring throughout the lineup.
 

BiteThisBurrows

Registered User
Feb 11, 2022
1,344
2,912
I'm not really sure what you mean by this but all I'm saying is that they don't have to solve every problem in each given off-season. I was fine with them waiting for an opportunity to acquire legit offensive help, it was clear that is what this franchise is lacking IMO.

If they feel Lindholm is an upgrade over say Coyle, then sign Lindholm and trade Coyle when they had a chance. They certainly didn't need to over-allocate money and roster space for essentially more of the same (middle of the line-up two-way centers).

Call it what it is, the spent money for the sake of spending money. Never solved any of their real problems. And now they have serious issues and the can't, they won't have an sort of significant cap space to work with until next off-season.

Why does not spending all the available cap space = well just as well rebuild? Can an NHL GM not just be patient? Good players do become available via trade in-season but it's hard to capitalize on those players when you have no cap flexibility, which the Bruins never seem to have.

You seem to want an all or nothing approach. Spend/spend/spend in the offseason right to the cap, or tear it all down and trade everyone away. Times have changed, you can walk the middle ground now if a GM is both smart and patient. I probably wouldn't of said that 10 years ago but the league is different now. Rising cap, expansion, seeing the way some teams do business (somewhat ruthlessly has changed the game for NHL GMs.
No. That's why I'm saying you want it both ways. This "walk the middle ground". Do you honestly think if they hadn't spent all the money and had just "been patient" they'd be better? No, they wouldn't, they'd be even worse.
 

Alan Ryan

Registered User
Jun 1, 2006
9,182
1,967
I hear what you're saying and also see teams overplaying Pasta right now, but I think that's more because he's the only one willing to shoot, everyone else is looking to pass.

I mean, most teams in the league don't have multiple 40 goal scorers on their PP. Chicago doesn't and they have a top10 PP. Lots of teams out there with worse personnel that are doing better than our B's.

When I watch our PP, it's pass, pass, great look! but another pass, and then a pass that's off the mark and now it's out of the zone. So for me, they need another guy who's willing to shoot. I don't even think he has to be a great threat to score, you have the numbers, just get the puck to the net and go to work down low.

It's frustrating for me because when Charlie Coyle scored on the PP last week they had a few great rotations and I thought it was a scheme (I literally have my team run that exact same setup with two forwards on either side of the net instead of a bumper and a net front) but it looks now like it was just an off the cuff play by Coyle and Marchand and not a scheme.
I agree with you Bill--just get the puck to the net and go to work down low.

That’s the best way to approach it. And not just on the power play. H. Lindholm and Lohrei shoot from the back end pretty regularly. Get all of them doing the same thing.

Forwards like Marchand, Johnson, Brazzeau and Koepke should be able to take advantage of shots on net, deflecting and picking up rebounds.

Hard to imagine a team with good players go a whole period without one shot on net. Shoot da puck!! :banghead:
 
Last edited:

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,716
25,234
No. That's why I'm saying you want it both ways. This "walk the middle ground". Do you honestly think if they hadn't spent all the money and had just "been patient" they'd be better? No, they wouldn't, they'd be even worse.

Would they though? Because the game isn't played on paper. Adding Lindholm (and Kastelic) created a domino effect by pushing guys to the wing who were productive at center. And if lets say for arguments sake they signed Lindholm and traded Coyle for a draft pick, are they dramatically worse for not having kept Coyle around? Your still dressing 12 forwards regardless. Someone leaves without another player coming back and it creates opportunity for someone lese. They spent 5 million on Zadorov, and all he's done is make this team worse with a parade to the penalty box and tons of missed defensive assignments.

Leaving (or creating) some cap space to fill a major need might create some short term pain, but if allows them to capitalize on an opportunity when that player becomes available possibly later in the season, in the long run they may be better off for it. Every year the Bruins seemingly go into the season up against the cap with no flexibility to do anything to fill a need or maybe take advantage of a team in a tough spot (for example when Eichel and Buffalo had their falling out). Has that mind-set really worked? Sometimes a GM needs to play the long game. Fans still crap on Chiarelli's "Make a trade to make another trade" because the execution was poor, but the concept itself made a lot of sense as that team badly needed help up front on the wing.

Look at the situation now. They made those moves this summer but instead of adding Lindholm and moving Coyle coming off his strongest statistical season, if they want the cap space to bring in scoring help mid-season, you're probably looking at a younger more valuable player like a Carlo heading out the door to create some of the cap space needed. You can't just "buy" a scoring winger with picks/young prospects because money got to head out the door to make it all work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

BiteThisBurrows

Registered User
Feb 11, 2022
1,344
2,912
Would they though? Because the game isn't played on paper. Adding Lindholm (and Kastelic) created a domino effect by pushing guys to the wing who were productive at center. And if lets say for arguments sake they signed Lindholm and traded Coyle for a draft pick, are they dramatically worse for not having kept Coyle around? Your still dressing 12 forwards regardless. Someone leaves without another player coming back and it creates opportunity for someone lese. They spent 5 million on Zadorov, and all he's done is make this team worse with a parade to the penalty box and tons of missed defensive assignments.

Leaving (or creating) some cap space to fill a major need might create some short term pain, but if allows them to capitalize on an opportunity when that player becomes available possibly later in the season, in the long run they may be better off for it. Every year the Bruins seemingly go into the season up against the cap with no flexibility to do anything to fill a need or maybe take advantage of a team in a tough spot (for example when Eichel and Buffalo had their falling out). Has that mind-set really worked? Sometimes a GM needs to play the long game. Fans still crap on Chiarelli's "Make a trade to make another trade" because the execution was poor, but the concept itself made a lot of sense as that team badly needed help up front on the wing.

Look at the situation now. They made those moves this summer but instead of adding Lindholm and moving Coyle coming off his strongest statistical season, if they want the cap space to bring in scoring help mid-season, you're probably looking at a younger more valuable player like a Carlo heading out the door to create some of the cap space needed. You can't just "buy" a scoring winger with picks/young prospects because money got to head out the door to make it all work.
I will agree on Zadorov. He has been a big disappointment but Lindholm makes this team better. Is he perfect? No. Is he worth his money? Probably not. But the team with him extracted from it is significantly worse.

Besides, guys pushed to the wing? Who? Geekie? We've seen the line juggle. Most of them aren't productive anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

Ozzy Osbourne

Registered User
Nov 14, 2023
1,808
2,120
I was very excited to bring in Lindholm, Zadorov and even Max Jones. Do any of these signings look wise at this point? I actually thought that, along with trading for Kastelic, that Sweeney finally “gets it”. Minus Debrusk and Grizz, it’s basically the same team only bigger and meaner. I’m not blaming Sweeney this time. I think he brought in the main missing ingredient which was snarl. We are solid in goal. Not on last years level, but good enough to be better than we are record-wise.

The problem is 100% (at least 94%) on coaching. We have the personnel to hit, scrap, battle and fight. Monty seems to hate a physical team more than Cassidy did. There’s no way Sweeney brought in guys only to have them neutered by Monty.


My first choice would be the unavailable Torts. I would bring in Gallant, keep Leach and Essensa and fire Sacco and Kelly. The team would have a whole new look and no matter what, it would be a more entertaining product than this bunch of garbage we’ve seen so far.
 

Gee Wally

Old, Grumpy Moderator
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
76,903
100,003
HF retirement home

The best little hockey team on Causeway Street nearly put the TD Garden faithful to sleep Saturday night, a 3-2 OT loss to the Senators that featured a zero-sum, no-shot, no-spark, no-clue, good-golly-Miss-Molly third period by the Black-and-Gold centenarians.

Only sporadically in their 100 years doing hockey business — a milestone to be commemorated Dec. 1 with the ho-hum Habs in town — have the Bruins been so, shall we say, woefully comme ci, comme ca (translation: like this, like that) in how they go about their skate-and-shoot business.

With 2 points to be had, the score at 2-2 after 40:00, the hometown team produced a bagel on home ice with zero shots for the final 20:00. That bit of stunning ignominy is something they hadn’t done since Dec. 21, 2006, when nursing home a 2-0 win over the Canucks.

Zero. Literally nothing to see here, folks.

Please, wait, hold my $18 beer while I have a moment. Actually, here, hold both of my $18 beers. What we are seeing right now is getting tough on the eyes and harder to wash down.

For those of us who’ve witnessed upward of two-thirds of Bruins hockey history — the good, the godly, the bad, the ugly — this win-one, lose-one model is taking on the feel of the early- and mid-’60s Boston brand. That was the pre-Bobby Orr, pre-Channel 38, pre-Jeremy Jacobs, pre-Jumbotron iteration.

They were not good times, including a franchise-record eight consecutive playoff DNQs, the last of those including Orr’s 1966-67 rookie season (reminder: even the sainted No. 4, then only 18 years old, couldn’t lift the deadweight on that roster).

Oh, those days were damned entertaining, absolutely, because of standard Original Six mayhem: big fights, bucket-of-blood donnybrooks, the ice sheet covered in abandoned sticks, gloves, and sweaters. Those days are gone for good — for reasons good, bad, and political — but the passion around the play had a way of making up for the mediocre, sometimes passionless play of bad Bruins teams.

We’re seeing far too much of the mediocre and passionless right now in 2024. It’s a disturbing retro look. The 20:00 bagel on Saturday felt like a defining moment.

The final word on the latest loss — their ninth in 16 outings (7-7-2) to date — belonged to coach Jim Montgomery:

“We just weren’t good enough.”

When asked how to explain what’s happening here, because, well, it ain’t exactly clear, Montgomery said he’d leave that for the media members gathered in the building’s third-floor press room to figure out.

Awesome. We media folk have all the answers, albeit with zero authority, less influence, and a collective annual cap hit that, let’s just say, would fit comfortably below the $2 million Morgan Geekie is collecting these days as the Black-and-Gold’s mothballed 13th forward.

Here’s one thing to try: end Charlie McAvoy’s role as the lone point man on the No. 1 power play unit. Right now. Today. Big Mac is a skilled, gifted defenseman, but that gift does not come with the big red bow cloned and spun from the fabric of a shooter’s gloves. He just won’t fire.

As of Sunday morning, following another PP “0-for” Saturday night, the Bruins power play ranked T30 with Washington, a paltry 12.5 percent success rate. Only the Blues (10.8 percent) were worse. The Bruins have cashed in on only 8 of 64 opportunities.



Perfect setup for an emphatic, no-you-don’t-in-our-building response by the Bruins. Take back the night. Nope. The lost opportunity got folded into a stretch of some 25 minutes in which the Bruins didn’t land a single shot.

Not to put the unit’s failure all on McAvoy, because he could have shot and still not scored, but … well, he did not shoot. Yet again. Failure to launch. At least twice, maybe three times, perhaps four, the puck came McAvoy’s way and he either gathered it in for a hold, or dished off, or was unable to control it. The point is, he consistently opted for the knife instead of the gun. Reminder: the guy holding the knife in a gunfight isn’t the one left standing when all the smoke clears.

If Montgomery is going to remain fixed on the 4F-1D PP approach for his No. 1 unit, then it’s time for Hampus Lindholm to try the role up top. He clearly does not have McAvoy’'s overall game heft, but right now, as opposed to last season, he is more prone to shoot and more prone to score. He already has three goals, matching his entire output of last season.

The Bruins have reached the point, with the season’s first quarter mark fast approaching, where Montgomery must conjure up a fix. If there is no fix, general manager Don Sweeney and president Cam Neely will be left to send him packing or answer for engineering a roster that looks pretty good on paper, but so far not so good when the puck drops to the ice.

A century-wide view of how that either/or scenario typically plays out would point to Montgomery taking the fall, be that fair or unfair. That’s just the hockey biz. But does anyone out there think the coach is telling McAvoy not to shoot, for his forwards not to suck it up and drive pucks to the net, for the majority of his 18 skaters to show up with their only jam left home, spread on their morning toast?

Yep, the Habs will be here Dec. 1, game No. 26 for the Bruins on this season’s schedule, faceoff just after 3 p.m. It will be exactly 100 years removed from the first time the two cities went skate toe to skate toe, facing off across town in the building known in 1924 as Boston Arena.

So much of the game has changed in those 100 years. Yet what has remained the Bruins trademark, their legacy, has been not so much winning (a mere six Cups, only once since 1972), but the pride and passion consistently found in the product.

Pride and passion have been the ingredients keeping the fans connected, believing, buying, what made the Gallery Gods in the old Garden bellow louder than steam-driven iron horses when they didn’t like the effort. How they would have blown their gaskets Saturday night.
 

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
5,805
5,248
I hear what you're saying and also see teams overplaying Pasta right now, but I think that's more because he's the only one willing to shoot, everyone else is looking to pass.

I mean, most teams in the league don't have multiple 40 goal scorers on their PP. Chicago doesn't and they have a top10 PP. Lots of teams out there with worse personnel that are doing better than our B's.

When I watch our PP, it's pass, pass, great look! but another pass, and then a pass that's off the mark and now it's out of the zone. So for me, they need another guy who's willing to shoot. I don't even think he has to be a great threat to score, you have the numbers, just get the puck to the net and go to work down low.

It's frustrating for me because when Charlie Coyle scored on the PP last week they had a few great rotations and I thought it was a scheme (I literally have my team run that exact same setup with two forwards on either side of the net instead of a bumper and a net front) but it looks now like it was just an off the cuff play by Coyle and Marchand and not a scheme.
Great post, the PP is so easy to read, they waste more time moving the puck around and everyone knows where it is going to end up, Pasta, if others would show shots from elsewhere it gives the goaltender and defenseman something else to think about, it also takes Pasta out of it for a bit, but it actually helps him, so as he is not over played. Even on 5v5 time let's start shooting the puck, look ror rebounds and when players are consistently passing up opportunities to shoot, maybe some ass and bench time will be the best remedy.

I think elias lindholm is a excellent player great signing . 2 way players that produce are impossible to find and hes in his prime at 29 years old.
He is 30 in two weeks, and he already lost his job as # 1C. Bad signing.
 

kdog82

Registered User
Oct 6, 2002
2,867
1,572
Toronto
Visit site
This team has the best collection of 3rd/4th liners in the league. Good for the Beer League Championship.

Zadorov makes me laugh. What a horrible signing he has been so far. What exactly does he do that is good?

Also, I don't care as a fan if Lysell doesn't win board battles. He is the only prospect we have that has hockey skills. Call him up and lets see what he can do. Play him in the top 6 and lets see. This team is painful to watch.
 

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
5,805
5,248
This team has the best collection of 3rd/4th liners in the league. Good for the Beer League Championship.

Zadorov makes me laugh. What a horrible signing he has been so far. What exactly does he do that is good?

Also, I don't care as a fan if Lysell doesn't win board battles. He is the only prospect we have that has hockey skills. Call him up and lets see what he can do. Play him in the top 6 and lets see. This team is painful to watch.
You don't care about him winning board battles, until he doesn't.
 

The don godfather

Registered User
Jul 5, 2018
20,992
22,484
Woodbridge Ontario
Great post, the PP is so easy to read, they waste more time moving the puck around and everyone knows where it is going to end up, Pasta, if others would show shots from elsewhere it gives the goaltender and defenseman something else to think about, it also takes Pasta out of it for a bit, but it actually helps him, so as he is not over played. Even on 5v5 time let's start shooting the puck, look ror rebounds and when players are consistently passing up opportunities to shoot, maybe some ass and bench time will be the best remedy.


He is 30 in two weeks, and he already lost his job as # 1C. Bad signing.
Yea a month into the contract it's a disaster . Let's give it a bit of time he has put some points up so far .
 

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
5,805
5,248
Yea a month into the contract it's a disaster . Let's give it a bit of time he has put some points up so far .
You and I are just fans, but you might not agree with me but Zacha, had 60 points last year, and I thought he was solid player defensively, which is a positive with a player like Pasta. Pasta had 110 points last year, what needed to be fixed. The money he spent on Lindholm, could have been used on a goal scorer, or two, and many were counting on a Poitras rising to the top, why would they be screaming for a #1 center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

KillerMillerTime

Registered User
Jun 30, 2019
8,406
7,080
I was very excited to bring in Lindholm, Zadorov and even Max Jones. Do any of these signings look wise at this point? I actually thought that, along with trading for Kastelic, that Sweeney finally “gets it”. Minus Debrusk and Grizz, it’s basically the same team only bigger and meaner. I’m not blaming Sweeney this time. I think he brought in the main missing ingredient which was snarl. We are solid in goal. Not on last years level, but good enough to be better than we are record-wise.

The problem is 100% (at least 94%) on coaching. We have the personnel to hit, scrap, battle and fight. Monty seems to hate a physical team more than Cassidy did. There’s no way Sweeney brought in guys only to have them neutered by Monty.


My first choice would be the unavailable Torts. I would bring in Gallant, keep Leach and Essensa and fire Sacco and Kelly. The team would have a whole new look and no matter what, it would be a more entertaining product than this bunch of garbage we’ve seen so far.
Only missing Gryz and DeBrusk? Through the first 16 games last year JVR had
5G and 7A. That would put him 2\3 in scoring on this team. Forbort took only 3 minor penalties and was a +9 through Boston's first 16G was terrific on the PK.

So no, you are not correct about DeBrusk\Gryz. In fact DeBrusk had 1 or 2 G first 16G.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
31,792
21,676
Connecticut

The best little hockey team on Causeway Street nearly put the TD Garden faithful to sleep Saturday night, a 3-2 OT loss to the Senators that featured a zero-sum, no-shot, no-spark, no-clue, good-golly-Miss-Molly third period by the Black-and-Gold centenarians.

Only sporadically in their 100 years doing hockey business — a milestone to be commemorated Dec. 1 with the ho-hum Habs in town — have the Bruins been so, shall we say, woefully comme ci, comme ca (translation: like this, like that) in how they go about their skate-and-shoot business.

With 2 points to be had, the score at 2-2 after 40:00, the hometown team produced a bagel on home ice with zero shots for the final 20:00. That bit of stunning ignominy is something they hadn’t done since Dec. 21, 2006, when nursing home a 2-0 win over the Canucks.

Zero. Literally nothing to see here, folks.

Please, wait, hold my $18 beer while I have a moment. Actually, here, hold both of my $18 beers. What we are seeing right now is getting tough on the eyes and harder to wash down.

For those of us who’ve witnessed upward of two-thirds of Bruins hockey history — the good, the godly, the bad, the ugly — this win-one, lose-one model is taking on the feel of the early- and mid-’60s Boston brand. That was the pre-Bobby Orr, pre-Channel 38, pre-Jeremy Jacobs, pre-Jumbotron iteration.

They were not good times, including a franchise-record eight consecutive playoff DNQs, the last of those including Orr’s 1966-67 rookie season (reminder: even the sainted No. 4, then only 18 years old, couldn’t lift the deadweight on that roster).

Oh, those days were damned entertaining, absolutely, because of standard Original Six mayhem: big fights, bucket-of-blood donnybrooks, the ice sheet covered in abandoned sticks, gloves, and sweaters. Those days are gone for good — for reasons good, bad, and political — but the passion around the play had a way of making up for the mediocre, sometimes passionless play of bad Bruins teams.

We’re seeing far too much of the mediocre and passionless right now in 2024. It’s a disturbing retro look. The 20:00 bagel on Saturday felt like a defining moment.

The final word on the latest loss — their ninth in 16 outings (7-7-2) to date — belonged to coach Jim Montgomery:

“We just weren’t good enough.”

When asked how to explain what’s happening here, because, well, it ain’t exactly clear, Montgomery said he’d leave that for the media members gathered in the building’s third-floor press room to figure out.

Awesome. We media folk have all the answers, albeit with zero authority, less influence, and a collective annual cap hit that, let’s just say, would fit comfortably below the $2 million Morgan Geekie is collecting these days as the Black-and-Gold’s mothballed 13th forward.

Here’s one thing to try: end Charlie McAvoy’s role as the lone point man on the No. 1 power play unit. Right now. Today. Big Mac is a skilled, gifted defenseman, but that gift does not come with the big red bow cloned and spun from the fabric of a shooter’s gloves. He just won’t fire.

As of Sunday morning, following another PP “0-for” Saturday night, the Bruins power play ranked T30 with Washington, a paltry 12.5 percent success rate. Only the Blues (10.8 percent) were worse. The Bruins have cashed in on only 8 of 64 opportunities.



Perfect setup for an emphatic, no-you-don’t-in-our-building response by the Bruins. Take back the night. Nope. The lost opportunity got folded into a stretch of some 25 minutes in which the Bruins didn’t land a single shot.

Not to put the unit’s failure all on McAvoy, because he could have shot and still not scored, but … well, he did not shoot. Yet again. Failure to launch. At least twice, maybe three times, perhaps four, the puck came McAvoy’s way and he either gathered it in for a hold, or dished off, or was unable to control it. The point is, he consistently opted for the knife instead of the gun. Reminder: the guy holding the knife in a gunfight isn’t the one left standing when all the smoke clears.

If Montgomery is going to remain fixed on the 4F-1D PP approach for his No. 1 unit, then it’s time for Hampus Lindholm to try the role up top. He clearly does not have McAvoy’'s overall game heft, but right now, as opposed to last season, he is more prone to shoot and more prone to score. He already has three goals, matching his entire output of last season.

The Bruins have reached the point, with the season’s first quarter mark fast approaching, where Montgomery must conjure up a fix. If there is no fix, general manager Don Sweeney and president Cam Neely will be left to send him packing or answer for engineering a roster that looks pretty good on paper, but so far not so good when the puck drops to the ice.

A century-wide view of how that either/or scenario typically plays out would point to Montgomery taking the fall, be that fair or unfair. That’s just the hockey biz. But does anyone out there think the coach is telling McAvoy not to shoot, for his forwards not to suck it up and drive pucks to the net, for the majority of his 18 skaters to show up with their only jam left home, spread on their morning toast?

Yep, the Habs will be here Dec. 1, game No. 26 for the Bruins on this season’s schedule, faceoff just after 3 p.m. It will be exactly 100 years removed from the first time the two cities went skate toe to skate toe, facing off across town in the building known in 1924 as Boston Arena.

So much of the game has changed in those 100 years. Yet what has remained the Bruins trademark, their legacy, has been not so much winning (a mere six Cups, only once since 1972), but the pride and passion consistently found in the product.

Pride and passion have been the ingredients keeping the fans connected, believing, buying, what made the Gallery Gods in the old Garden bellow louder than steam-driven iron horses when they didn’t like the effort. How they would have blown their gaskets Saturday night.
"For those of us who’ve witnessed upward of two-thirds of Bruins hockey history — the good, the godly, the bad, the ugly — this win-one, lose-one model is taking on the feel of the early- and mid-’60s Boston brand."

The writer must be misremembering. If those Bruins teams won one and lost one for any extended time it would have been considered a hot streak. Still fans showed up to see the game as well as the great players of the time (on the opposing teams).

Other than that, seems like an excellent take on the current Bruins situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

Kegs

Registered User
Nov 10, 2010
4,177
5,010
this teams power play makes me sick. They have trouble entering the zone. Maybe they need to throw Beecher on the ice to get the puck in. Then they just pass it around the outside. They need another goal scorer out there to free up pastrnaks lane. I think loosing debrusk has hurt this team more than we know.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
Flyers scratching Morgan Frost tonight. He’s been BAD this year but possibly a change of scenery guy? Would a Geekie for Frost swap interest anybody?
Precisely the type of move that I think needs to be made.

I’d poke around on Robertson from the leafs as well.

I was going to suggest an offseason target I had in Daniel Sprong who didn’t end up working out in Vancouver. But they just traded him to the Kraken a couple of days ago (for FC).
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
31,792
21,676
Connecticut
this teams power play makes me sick. They have trouble entering the zone. Maybe they need to throw Beecher on the ice to get the puck in. Then they just pass it around the outside. They need another goal scorer out there to free up pastrnaks lane. I think loosing debrusk has hurt this team more than we know.

Debrusk is in his 8th season and has 30 power play goals in his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kegs

Kegs

Registered User
Nov 10, 2010
4,177
5,010
Debrusk is in his 8th season and has 30 power play goals in his career.
Yes but keep in mind having him out there means the other team has to watch him. Seems like the other teams are watching pastrnak and letting the Bruins move it around the other side. Other then pasta do the bruins currently have a player that’s as good as debrusk at scoring?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad