Boston Bruins 24-25 Roster/Cap thread XVII

[smithformeragent]

I suspect those in favour of trade Geekie are doing so with the assumption that what we’ve seen since being placed on Pastrnak’s line this season… isn’t likely sustainable.

Would fear a multi-year contract at $4M-$5M and would prefer to “sell high” with the idea that he returns to being a 15ish goal player for the duration of his career.

Unfair?

To me, I don’t see them being in contention any time soon.

He may continue to produce (and even improve), but to what end?

If you’re not contending over the next 2-3 seasons, I’m in favor of asset management and acquiring future pieces.

 

[goldenblack]

I think Geekie getting the Zacha range contract is both wise, and good value.

Both would be great gets from Don, on a team that lacks top 6 talent (that sure isn't coming from the prospect pool).

Geekie is so young. You just sign him.

 

[Bruin4]

While I disagree with your prediction, I still find your line of thinking to be entirely reasonable. The arguments you’re getting about draft picks in return don’t address the perspective.

Huh ?
I think its more than obvious the reason one would want to trade Geekie. People aren't just proposing to trade him for the sake of making a trade.

I mean if you want to keep him, you think he'll keep producing near what he's been doing and you think he'll end up producing enough to help this team moving forward. If you want to sell him you think he wont. Its not like were splitting the atom here.

 

[Bruin4]

Rangers are doing what Sweeney should be

 

[DominicT]

I suspect those in favour of trade Geekie are doing so with the assumption that what we’ve seen since being placed on Pastrnak’s line this season… isn’t likely sustainable.

Would fear a multi-year contract at $4M-$5M and would prefer to “sell high” with the idea that he returns to being a 15ish goal player for the duration of his career.

Unfair?

I have a feeling the conversation goes something like this:

Moldaver: Hi Don, Judd here. We are looking for a 4-year $5 million deal for Morgan.
Sweeney: Hi Judd. Haven't seen you in some time, but will see you in arbitration then.
Sweeney: Evan, Don here. Prepare an arbitration case for Geekie.

While I don't doubt someone would pay that in unrestricted free agency, I have a very strong feeling the Bruins are looking for a lower cap hit or a one-year prove it deal. That, unfortunately takes him to UFA status.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Huh ?
I think its more than obvious the reason one would want to trade Geekie. People aren't just proposing to trade him for the sake of making a trade.

I mean if you want to keep him, you think he'll keep producing near what he's been doing and you think he'll end up producing enough to help this team moving forward. If you want to sell him you think he wont. Its not like were splitting the atom here.

Problem being the first you get for him is going to be a late first and far from a guarantee of even making the NHL let alone becoming a 20-25 goal scorer which Geek is on his to being.

This would imply that for you, it’s not so obvious.

 

[Over the volcano]

Golden Knights Trade Talk: Does Brad Marchand Fit?

The Trade Deadline is less than a week away, and the Vegas Golden Knights aren’t exactly dominating the rumor mill. With Shea Theodore and William Karlsson on LTIR, the Golden Knights have plenty of salary cap space to accommodate a new acquisition. However, after mortgaging their future to win...

vegashockeynow.com

Maybe Marchand and Carlo? Says their biggest need is on defense and Cassidy knows the best of Carlo...

It'd be a haul coming back but that's a legit pair to get excited about adding for a playoff push.

 

[Dr Hook]

To me, I don’t see them being in contention any time soon.

He may continue to produce (and even improve), but to what end?

If you’re not contending over the next 2-3 seasons, I’m in favor of asset management and acquiring future pieces.

They are not likely to gut the entire team and go full rebuild, so they still need to ice an NHL roster. If they take 2-3 years to retool and return to contender status, why get rid of one of the few players that is actually pulling his weight this season and who is only turning 27 this summer?

 

[The National]

I think Geekie getting the Zacha range contract is both wise, and good value.

Both would be great gets from Don, on a team that lacks top 6 talent (that sure isn't coming from the prospect pool).

Geekie is so young. You just sign him.

He’s 26 will be 27 at start of contract, if it’s Zacha deal would be 4.75m til he’s 31. On a good team he’s not a top 6 player imo.

I don’t see them as contenders in that time without legit top 6 talent, gaining a 1st for probably a 3rd liner to use preferably in a trade to get that piece seems like a smart move to me.

I see the other side though, especially with how they’ve been drafting.

 

[JCRO]

I suspect those in favour of trade Geekie are doing so with the assumption that what we’ve seen since being placed on Pastrnak’s line this season… isn’t likely sustainable.

Would fear a multi-year contract at $4M-$5M and would prefer to “sell high” with the idea that he returns to being a 15ish goal player for the duration of his career.

Unfair?

This is my line of thinking.

That said, I’m not entirely sold on moving him IF the number is really in the 4 range for multiple years. He IS still young and has shown a lot of improvement in his own skill set. Yes he is playing with Pasta, but he has been able to create space and chances on his own as well.

I just wish we had more viewing time before committing to a top 6 like salary. But I’m not completely ignorant to the fact the player has improved, and may continue to improve, simply cause I am open to seeing him moved.

 

[smithformeragent]

They are not likely to gut the entire team and go full rebuild, so they still need to ice an NHL roster. If they take 2-3 years to retool and return to contender status, why get rid of one of the few players that is actually pulling his weight this season and who is only turning 27 this summer?

Because they badly need assets and he could be cashed in for one.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I have a feeling the conversation goes something like this:

Moldaver: Hi Don, Judd here. We are looking for a 4-year $5 million deal for Morgan.
Sweeney: Hi Judd. Haven't seen you in some time, but will see you in arbitration then.
Sweeney: Evan, Don here. Prepare an arbitration case for Geekie.

While I don't doubt someone would pay that in unrestricted free agency, I have a very strong feeling the Bruins are looking for a lower cap hit or a one-year prove it deal. That, unfortunately takes him to UFA status.

If this is where Bruins management is at with Geekie, then I say trade him.

 

[pucksindeep92]

I fear too many people here would immediately give Geekie 6x5 and not see the issue.

Zacha deal at the very max, but I’m shopping hard this week if he says no to 4.25. You know there’s a few team that would love to overpay for him right now. Add in any of Carlo/Marchand/Coyle/Freddy and you really could be looking at something.

 

[Dr Hook]

This is my line of thinking.

That said, I’m not entirely sold on moving him IF the number is really in the 4 range for multiple years. He IS still young and has shown a lot of improvement in his own skill set. Yes he is playing with Pasta, but he has been able to create space and chances on his own as well.

I just wish we had more viewing time before committing to a top 6 like salary. But I’m not completely ignorant to the fact the player has improved, and may continue to improve, simply cause I am open to seeing him moved.

The $4m range is not really a top 6 salary, though. It's more than fair for a guy that should get you 20-40+ for the next few seasons.

 

[Gordoff]

what would make you think that?

It seems like every picture I see of him he looks miserable.

 

[JCRO]

The $4m range is not really a top 6 salary, though. It's more than fair for a guy that should get you 20-40+ for the next few seasons.

And like I said, I’m open to it if that’s what it is.

The caps going up.

 

[DominicT]

If this is where Bruins management is at with Geekie, then I say trade him.

The thing is, despite the very good production from him, he doesn’t have a whole lot of bargaining power because of arbitration and even less in arbitration.

If you are his agent, find me a comparable contract with the cap going up the way it is. You won't find one and you can not use the cap rising the way it is in an arbitration case.

I could be way off here, but it is the sense I am getting.

 

[Dr Hook]

Because they badly need assets and he could be cashed in for one.

Assets are just hopes, though. Assets are not going to make the team better until/unless they actually pan out. I am in favor of moving players and restocking the cupboard and all that, but it should be for players that are not moving the team forward now or in the future. There are a number of players on that list that will have some type of value around the league that can be used to acquire assets.

The only way I favor moving Geekie is as part of a deal to land a high-profile proven top-6 guy. Just to move him for futures is counter-productive for a team that is not going full rebuild.

 

[Over the volcano]

I suspect those in favour of trade Geekie are doing so with the assumption that what we’ve seen since being placed on Pastrnak’s line this season… isn’t likely sustainable.

Would fear a multi-year contract at $4M-$5M and would prefer to “sell high” with the idea that he returns to being a 15ish goal player for the duration of his career.

Unfair?

 

[JoeIsAStud]

Because they badly need assets and he could be cashed in for one.

Then they might as well go all in on the tank and deal everyone who carries their weight.

What is the point of carrying Pasta and McAvay if they don't intend to feel a competitive team for 3-5 seasons

 

[Dr Hook]

The thing is, despite the very good production from him, he doesn’t have a whole lot of bargaining power because of arbitration and even less in arbitration.

If you are his agent, find me a comparable contract with the cap going up the way it is. You won't find one and you can not use the cap rising the way it is in an arbitration case.

I could be way off here, but it is the sense I am getting.

Arb question here Dom: do players or teams ever use historical contracts as comps (adjusted for inflation) or are they just current ones? Geekie feels to me like a peak Craig Smith sort of player in terms of production as an example of comp.

 

[Bruin4]

Bruins need to sit out Coyle and Carlo for roster management purposes, in an attempt to get a deal done for them. Plus it would help us get closer to a top 10 pick. Win/Win

 

[smithformeragent]

Then they might as well go all in on the tank and deal everyone who carries their weight.

What is the point of carrying Pasta and McAvay if they don't intend to feel a competitive team for 3-5 seasons

They may very well reach that point, but probably not for at least another year.

Having said that, I’m not completely opposed to the idea if it comes to it.

 

[DominicT]

Arb question here Dom: do players or teams ever use historical contracts as comps (adjusted for inflation) or are they just current ones? Geekie feels to me like a peak Craig Smith sort of player in terms of production as an example of comp.

You don't want to go to far back because there is no adjusting for inflation or anything like that. You want to stay current and in Geekie's case, he has nothing to back him up under the new cap ceiling unless someone signs a deal before then.

Only guessing but I think we will see a lot of waiting until someone sets the market.

 

[Jorah Marshmont]

I’m fine with keeping the Geek, if the price is right.
That line works, they fit well.
But they absolutely need at least one first liner on the second line. You can put that player/s with Pasta on the PP, end of games, etc.
You can afford to have lesser players with Pasta if you can get consistent offense from another line imo