To start off, New Jersey rejects that deal, and seeing 2 of the players on the Bruins would have to waive their full NMC, it's just not realistic at all. It's too big of a trade, and would never happen. I'm sure these two deals go together, but the fact the 2nd deal doesn't happen, the first deal would be horrendous for Boston.
It's just a scary thought that fans think trades like this are beneficial to Boston. They give up the two best players in the deal + a prospect with Top 4 defensive upside and get back a 4th liner bust candidate and a center that doesn't move the needle at all. It's great you addressed a need here, but why bend the Bruins over in the process?
Pass on this one. You're notorious for trade proposals where the Bruins come out on the losing end. Here is another example.
appreciate your opinion... id still like to see it happen, but I can appreciate im not making a Sydney Crosby for jimmy hayes proposal so it probably wont be popular with most hard core bruin fans
but other than neely for Pederson... Wesley for 3 first... kessel for a couple firsts... backup goalie for the pick that became bourque… going way back to esposito… and a couple other examples we might agree on...
how many slam dunk HUGE WIN trades were ever made by our team?
I think theres something to be said pulling off one of these 'sleeper' type movies
I mean when derek morris was sent out and dennis Seidenberg came in the back door a couple days later... did most of us know how well that would work out?
same time... kobasew sent out... paille brought in...
I got to admit I was a fan of morris/kobasew and I didn't think much of Seidenberg/paille. I was DEEPLY UNDERWHELMED by these moves. But I got a bit more educated when they clearly worked out. our team became much better with these quality pieces occupying depth spots on the club and fitting the new identity we were trying to put together
im a fan of understated trades that move ill-fitting pieces that might not work... for pieces that might work. am I guaranteed of being right? no... so theres the fun of debate. I have no problem with you not liking the particulars of my proposal
my response is 100% saying that I think its ok to value smaller trades if the trade itself is a good trade. I don't see the cap room to afford a big trade so I wont be throwing one of them out. I do think our bottom half of the lineup now could use some upgrading