Boston Bruins 24-25 Roster/Cap thread XVII

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

Gee Wally

Old, Grumpy Moderator
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
77,407
102,019
HF retirement home
Please continue.




The question can’t really be whether or not the Bruins should be sellers as the NHL’s trade deadline rapidly approaches, can it?

How many more signs does the franchise need to accept that it’s time to rebuild? If this middling, uninspiring season already had left our resident NHL representatives resembling a staggered and listing fighter, Sunday’s injury updates from general manager Don Sweeney were knockout blows. With Hampus Lindholm definitely not returning this season and fellow defenseman Charlie McAvoy unlikely to be back any time soon, the Bruins approach to this season’s March 7 sell-by date was settled for them.

So no, the question isn’t about whether or not to sell. The question is about having faith in the men doing the selling.
For Sweeney, for his boss and team president Cam Neely, and for their boss, team CEO Charlie Jacobs, the patience of the fan base is running dry, and understandably so. The bill has come due on years of late-season moves that gave up draft capital, years of poor draft choices that left the feeder system bereft of high-end talent, and years of early playoff exits that have failed to fulfill the only measurement by which Jacobs says he gauges success — Stanley Cups.

Here the Bruins sit in the wake of yet another hideous loss. They blew a 3-0 lead to Toronto to lose, 5-4, in overtime Tuesday, and are barely clinging to their Red Sox-style illusion of contention. Even if they defied odds to make the wild-card lifeboat, they would more than likely peter out early again.

With a minus-27 goal differential (bottom six in the league) and without their top two defensemen, any path to the playoffs would require a Herculean effort from goalie Jeremy Swayman — and the 1-0-, 2-1-style wins required would wear Swayman out before the postseason even began. No matter what way you look at this season, there’s just not enough talent to contend with the league’s average teams, never mind the best ones.

So what to do?

Beyond the bad luck from the injury gods, this is no longer a win-now team. The offseason spending spree didn’t work, with the combined $84.25 million in free agent contracts for Elias Lindholm and Nikita Zadorov failing to pay any significant dividend. The protracted contract negotiations with Swayman didn’t help, though he’s the least of their problems. The coaching change from Jim Montgomery to Joe Sacco — the third coach Sweeney has fired in his GM tenure — wasn’t enough to ignite a playoff-worthy hot streak. There aren’t any more buttons to push.

Outside of Swayman, McAvoy, and David Pastrnak, the Bruins should be willing to move anyone. Even captain Brad Marchand.

There are excellent and easily defensible arguments for retaining Marchand, the strongest link to the franchise’s last championship, the heart and soul of the well-established and well-regarded culture in the locker room, and a highly respected leader who can still bring some offensive firepower. Maybe Sweeney finds his way to an extension, maybe that happens in the offseason, or maybe the GM even allows Marchand to call his own shot, greenlighting a trade to a contender or nixing a potential deal in favor of finishing his entire career in one place. That’s assuming there is a big market for the 36-year-old forward.

The point is, everything is on the table. Or at least it should be.


Sweeney said as much Sunday, all but pulling the white flag out of his briefcase.

“I think historically, we’ve been pretty aggressive when our team’s been in a position,” he said. “I think we’ll take a much more cautious approach as we approach the deadline.

“That being said, if there are opportunities to improve our team now and certainly moving forward, whether that’s positional shifts that other teams are trying to identify that we may have a strength at — we will look at all opportunities to improve our team now, but more importantly, moving forward.”

It’s not an easy admission to make, especially for a franchise accustomed to being in the postseason mix. The Bruins haven’t missed the playoffs since 2015-16. Since then, they made it to the Stanley Cup Final and won a Presidents’ Trophy. The first, under coach Bruce Cassidy, ended in the heartbreak of a Game 7 loss at home. The second, under Montgomery, ended with the same heartbreak in Round 1.

The close calls and near-misses, not to mention the cash that comes along with the full stands and concession sales lost with them, seem to be enough to keep Jacobs from blaming his front office duo.

But Neely and Sweeney are the common denominator. The through line that goes from the ill-fated draft bust of 2015 to free-agent duds Matt Beleskey (five years, $19 million in 2015), David Backes (five years, $30 million a year later) and now Lindholm and Zadorov, goes through them. The inability to refill the talent drain left by the retirements of Zdeno Chara (one of their best free agent adds), Patrice Bergeron, and David Krejci does, too.

But on they go, looking again to fix the roster. The decisions are theirs to make.

For now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pucksindeep92
And he also had a shitty start to the season like pretty much the entire team outside of Hampus and the 4th line. He has 30/30 in him and I hope he gets extended at an appropriate term and AAV.
I also think he has that in him. He's making 2mil now, and hasn't completely exploded offensively. It's possible that they could extend him for another short (comparatively) money deal.

I'd like to take a calculated risk on this guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Hook
You guys that are anti moving Pasta - I ask this in the most sincere way - why?

If it's an emotional thing, I get it - he's one of the most positive energy guys we've ever had on this team, and is one of the best players in the world to boot. It's easy to fall in love with Pasta, we all have - or at least those with two brain cells to rub together.

But emotion can't drive business decisions 99% of the time. So where's the non-emotional logic?

If you:

a) aren't good enough to compete as constructed (they aren't)
b) if you don't have the resources in sufficient enough number to fix how you're constructed (they don't)
c) if you don't have a pipeline of talent knocking on the door of the big leagues (they don't)

Then what exactly is the point of retaining him? Seriously - I am not being a jackass when I ask this - why?

It's a waste of his career (admittedly a projection on my part - but I think a reasonable take) because teams can't win based on a single player - and hell, we don't even have a single LINE.

Moving him would sting, of course - but biting that bullet and moving guys like Pasta and Charlie would, theoretically anyway, REALLY accelerate the pace at which we get back to where we all wanna be - a perennial playoff entrant.

Explain to me, because outside of emotion I truly don't get it.
My non emotional logic is really simple.

I have an asset, in this case a top 3, arguably number one asset at the position.

I have an option to trade this asset for a bunch of smaller assets that maybe, and only maybe, will be as good as the asset I already have.

Or I have the option to keep this outstanding asset, and explore avenues of improving elsewhere.

The proposition is a gamble at best. I don’t really think it’s all that complicated of a decision. There is really no logical reason to trade Pastrnak at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skelen and sarge88
I also think he has that in him. He's making 2mil now, and hasn't completely exploded offensively. It's possible that they could extend him for another short (comparatively) money deal.

I'd like to take a calculated risk on this guy.

I'd be good somewhere in the range of $4m/3yrs or so. You are paying partially for potential, but a healthy raise for what he's already done. If he is a flash in the pan, that isn't a crippling salary to carry or to move if needed.
 
My non emotional logic is really simple.

I have an asset, in this case a top 3, arguably number one asset at the position.

I have an option to trade this asset for a bunch of smaller assets that maybe, and only maybe, will be as good as the asset I already have.

Or I have the option to keep this outstanding asset, and explore avenue of improving elsewhere.

The proposition is a gamble at best. I don’t really think it’s all that complicated of a decision. There is really no logical reason to trade Pastrnak at this time. You mention they are wasting his career, is this not an emotional projection?
Can they make better use of that 11mil?

Will that "bunch of smaller assets" be a better option when the Bruins are ready to compete in 2, 3...5 years? Don't forget to include salary in the assessment.

Still, it's a gamble for sure. You gotta entertain offers at the very least

I'd be good somewhere in the range of $4m/3yrs or so. You are paying partially for potential, but a healthy raise for what he's already done. If he is a flash in the pan, that isn't a crippling salary to carry or to move if needed.
I was thinking the exact same offer lol

Might even go a little higher. I'm feeling froggy today
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Hook
Can they make better use of that 11mil?

Will that "bunch of smaller assets" be a better option when the Bruins are ready to compete in 2, 3...5 years? Don't forget to include salary in the assessment.

Still, it's a gamble for sure. You gotta entertain offers at the very least


I was thinking the exact same offer lol

Might even go a little higher. I'm feeling froggy today
With the cap increasing, Pastrnak will have one of the best contracts in the league. You are going to see third liners get mid $4-5M on the regular.

Pastrnak alone is the reason why the Bruins aren't the Sharks this season. The Ducks with all of their high draft picks are still worse than a Bruins team with Pastrnak and a bunch of middle 6 players. In my opinion, rebuilding is not the answer.
 
Can they make better use of that 11mil?

Will that "bunch of smaller assets" be a better option when the Bruins are ready to compete in 2, 3...5 years? Don't forget to include salary in the assessment.

Still, it's a gamble for sure. You gotta entertain offers at the very least


I was thinking the exact same offer lol

Might even go a little higher. I'm feeling froggy today
Can they make better use of $11 million than using it on a franchise level player and generational scorer? Is this a serious question? I would say no.

It really just boils down to ponies for a horse. Historically speaking the team trading the horse comes out worse.

As for listening to offers, sure you always listen.
 
Can they make better use of that 11mil?

Will that "bunch of smaller assets" be a better option when the Bruins are ready to compete in 2, 3...5 years? Don't forget to include salary in the assessment.
They can make worse use of 11m:

Elias Lindholm 7.85m
Nikita Zadarov 5m
Total (12.85m)

I’m curious who these smaller assets you’d consider better. Can you share some realistic names and cap hits that total up to 11m per whom you think would be better use of that 11m? I’m just curious what you’d consider “better use”.

If you’re trading Pastrnak for draft picks there’s no guarantee those picks will be lottery picks.
 
Proposal

To Edmonton: Marchand (75% retained), Frederic (50% retained), Peeke (25% retained), 2025 3rd

To Boston: Savoie, 2026 1st, 2025 2nd (Blues original pick), conditional 2025 3rd (Blues) if Marchand resigns

Edmonton gains much needed winger depth with a scoring punch, a little grit, defensive depth, essentially making them more of a threat everywhere but goalie, with enough retained to fit under the cap. Bruins make out with picks now and later, and the best would be prospect in their pipeline. Those blues picks would also be closer to a late 1st/2nd
 
  • Haha
Reactions: weaponomega
With the cap increasing, Pastrnak will have one of the best contracts in the league. You are going to see third liners get mid $4-5M on the regular.

Pastrnak alone is the reason why the Bruins aren't the Sharks this season. The Ducks with all of their high draft picks are still worse than a Bruins team with Pastrnak and a bunch of middle 6 players. In my opinion, rebuilding is not the answer.
But is it bad that I would rather be the Sharks?

Toiling around in mediocrity is certain death
 
They can make worse use of 11m:

Elias Lindholm 7.85m
Nikita Zadarov 5m
Total (12.85m)

I’m curious who these smaller assets you’d consider better. Can you share some realistic names and cap hits that total up to 11m per whom you think would be better use of that 11m? I’m just curious what you’d consider “better use”.

If you’re trading Pastrnak for draft picks there’s no guarantee those picks will be lottery picks.
I’m just asking the questions. I don’t know the answers. I listen to offers and I’m not dead set on Pastrnak being untouchable.

If they aren’t going to compete while Pastrnak is still about to do Pastrnak things, there is an argument to be made in favor of trading him sooner rather than later.
 
1740591079586.jpeg
 
But is it bad that I would rather be the Sharks?

Toiling around in mediocrity is certain death

OK sure, in 5 years maybe they are not awful, but they still might well be . But at least they have have a shiny toybox that might have a boat inside it.

I’m just asking the questions. I don’t know the answers. I listen to offers and I’m not dead set on Pastrnak being untouchable.

If they aren’t going to compete while Pastrnak is still about to do Pastrnak things, there is an argument to be made in favor of trading him sooner rather than later.

Well Pasta is only as touchable as he wants to be. The Bruins could get an offer of Misi, and 2 future #1 picks, and Pasta may well say I'm staying in boston.

And if you shop him then it becomes a very uncomfortable situation for all involved.
 
for those who hadn't seen it
Sounds like he's keep hold of the possibility of moving him out if they cant come to an agreement in 7-8 days.


It’s close to Neely’s “64 million reasons” comment on Swayman but without the numbers. As a fan, I really appreciate that, when we can get some sort of transparency on what’s happening it leaves less room for the crowd to point our un-educated fingers. Sounds like they’ve put a bag, however big or small, on the table for Brad to consider. So if they trade him, it’s likely because he didn’t want to take a discount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Hook and Bruin4
Proposal

To Edmonton: Marchand (75% retained), Frederic (50% retained), Peeke (25% retained), 2025 3rd

To Boston: Savoie, 2026 1st, 2025 2nd (Blues original pick), conditional 2025 3rd (Blues) if Marchand resigns

Edmonton gains much needed winger depth with a scoring punch, a little grit, defensive depth, essentially making them more of a threat everywhere but goalie, with enough retained to fit under the cap. Bruins make out with picks now and later, and the best would be prospect in their pipeline. Those blues picks would also be closer to a late 1st/2nd
Can't retain 75 %
 
It’s close to Neely’s “64 million reasons” comment on Swayman but without the numbers. As a fan, I really appreciate that, when we can get some sort of transparency on what’s happening it leaves less room for the crowd to point our un-educated fingers. Sounds like they’ve put a bag, however big or small, on the table for Brad to consider. So if they trade him, it’s likely because he didn’t want to take a discount.

I'd like to see Marchand sign but he needs to come to an agreement and if not, move him out. With that,
Ive heard two different reports on the Leafs being interested in Brayden Schenn and it may cost them Easton Cowan their top prospect. Now I like Schenn he brings a lot to the table, but if the Bruins can move Marchy and get a prospect like Cowan, I think they have to do it, but thats all just pure speculation on the cost, no one really knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pucksindeep92
I also think he has that in him. He's making 2mil now, and hasn't completely exploded offensively. It's possible that they could extend him for another short (comparatively) money deal.

I'd like to take a calculated risk on this guy.

I like and admire Geekie's shooting persistence and board work. I do wish he had some better 1v1 moves against the goalie - he'd probably have a better chance at hitting 30 that way.
 
Last edited:
As much as I’ve shit on this team this year, I still think if they had a more competent coaching staff and a healthy roster they’d be in a playoff spot.

Team looks like they have no system or structure at all & it’s been that way since preseason
 
As much as I’ve shit on this team this year, I still think if they had a more competent coaching staff and a healthy roster they’d be in a playoff spot.

Team looks like they have no system or structure at all & it’s been that way since preseason
I would agree. Healthy D, better coaching and one high end forward would have a good ripple effect through this team. I feel like most of hte offense is playing one or two spots too far up on the roster. Its not an easy or cheap position to fill but the ripple down would be huge.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad