Proposal: All Bruins rumors/proposals: 16/17 Part III
- Thread starter bruinsfan1970
- Start date
- Status
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
Exactly. Bruins have more than enough space and Colorado has already paid almost 2.7 million of it leaving 2.8 or so still to be paid out.
None of us have a crystal ball.
Number for next year is unknown. Expansion draft. Liles gone. Chara drop to 4 million.
The point is can do now and most likely going forward too. Depending how things are structured. The urban myth of the Bruins being in Cap trouble is old like me.
Mpasta
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2008
- 5,804
- 722
This worked out horribly for the Bruins a few years ago and that's why we had to do a rebuild.
wintersej
Registered User
Yeah, the Boychuk ordeal certainly leaves this fan a little gun shy about just waiting to see how it works out. You would think a team looking for some culture change would welcome a guy like McQuaid, to be honest.
Mpasta
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2008
- 5,804
- 722
I would love to bring in Landeskog but we should absolutely be sending a current roster player the other way.
Will add this article to the conversation. It's a summary by Brian LaRose on Craig Custance's take with how he foresees with teams/players in the mix given the trade landscape at the moment. Couple links in the article to access Craig's insider report for each of the east and west divisions. Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to access those but though somebody here may.
http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/01/custances-latest-sizing.html
http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/01/custances-latest-sizing.html
SpitfireIX
Registered User
The 1st round pick going the other way in the reported Bruins offer is what scares me. Zboril and Debrusk don't bother me at all, Morrow is one step away from being put through waivers but even with Landeskog this team could still fall even more. I would do the trade playoffs or no playoffs without the 1st round pick because we would get the best player in the deal now and based on what we can see going forward. The Landeskog trade, while actually good for the future of the team since the kid is a great leader and player with upside, does not address our biggest issue which is our defense. We cannot make the playoffs with this defensive unit so trading our first round pick again would be a set back. I'm critical of Sweeney's trades, free agency signings and 1st round picks from the 2015 draft but outside of that 1st round I think he did a really good job overall in the 2016 draft and the 2015 second round on. If Sweeney is still the GM I want him to have a 1st round pick in this coming draft, if he is not I don't want him leaving our new GM without a 1st round pick in his first year. We need to find a future franchise center and the most obvious place to find one is in the first round.
BB88
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2015
- 41,466
- 21,852
With K.Miller is there any kind of chance Sweeney protects him?
He gave him that nice 4 years contract past offseason, that's my fear.
don
Registered User
IMO, our biggest weakness is LD, followed by scoring from the right side. At this point I want to keep all of the D-men you mentioned. This is mainly due to, not only, Chara's age but the quality and injury history of the rest of the D. Before anyone asks,Carlo is also off of my trade list.
Haven't seen him much but a first round pick, 2016/2017 record to date 19 points and a +13 with 12 PIMs seems like a keeper to me. I know you didn't say "trade him" but I don't think you gave a complete picture.
DitClapper
Registered User
- May 15, 2014
- 7,896
- 348
We have to give to get.
Our system is still loaded with some serious prospects. We don't really 'need' our first. Especially if a guy like Landeskog is coming back in the deal. Our core would be set for years.
IMO, the Edmonton 2nd round pick is going to play a factor here. We can afford to lose a pick.
- Feb 3, 2009
- 18,936
- 5,416
I don't think most 1st round picks will be near as good as Landeskog. When you combine that with his great contract, I personally don't let our 1st break this deal.
People saying McAvoy will be 'late help', if BU make it that far, doesnt their season finish in April? Meaning the Bs would need to be in the playoffs to get any use out of him?
Id rather not include DeBrusk in a trade, we're short on good wingers that play in the dirty areas, and thats what this kid does, wouldnt make sense to trade him.
Seabrook (according to Hawks fans) will be on the out with Panarin's next contract kicking in next year, could explore something there for Brent who would instantly launch our D. I just have no confidence in Boston making a 'major' trade and not being on the wrong side of it, can't blame me though.
Id rather not include DeBrusk in a trade, we're short on good wingers that play in the dirty areas, and thats what this kid does, wouldnt make sense to trade him.
Seabrook (according to Hawks fans) will be on the out with Panarin's next contract kicking in next year, could explore something there for Brent who would instantly launch our D. I just have no confidence in Boston making a 'major' trade and not being on the wrong side of it, can't blame me though.
Oates2Neely
Registered User
wintersej
Registered User
s3antana5757
Registered User
- Feb 15, 2014
- 2,459
- 1,078
The more I think about it, the price is too high. 4 pieces is too much. Landeskog is not worth what has been said. No way. Sorry Moltisanti.
If the proposed deal of Zboril/Lauzon, DeBrusk, Morrow and 1st happens, I'd be ok with that return. We still need a #1 LHD for the future regardless of whether Zboril/Lauzon are here or not. Once Pasta gets his extension, the top 6 would be set for the foreseeable future of 4-5 years. You then have Spooner, Vatrano, Czarnik, Heinen, Senshyn, JFK, Moore, Nash, Blidh, Schaller, etc to fill the bottom 6. Could be a really solid offensive team with two elite top lines especially defensively and some cheap talent to play the bottom 6.
The RHD seems to be set for the future, and you'd just need a top 4 LHD and we get after it. Think we could find a bottom pairing LHD out of Zboril/Lauzon, Lingdren, O'Gara, Grzelcyk, etc.
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
its not the cap space this year that has to be worried about... I'm sure you know this wally but for those who don't... anyone can manage cap space today
the capologists are paid to manage next week... next month... next year...
we have seen teams forced into buyouts {not something that makes owners happy}
we have seen teams forced to give up prized kids and other assets to move contracts
{not something that makes any of us happy}
now I'm not in a position to have first hand info on how movable macquaid or hayes or belesky are push come to shove. is moving their contracts as simple as telling someone please take these guys?
if so... all system go... bring on whatever contracts we want and no worries about signing pastrnak next year... no worries about affording the kids possible bonuses... no worries about adding deadline upgrades the next couple years if we are close.
BUT we must be certain we can manage the cap.
we did a damn good job this year... having lots of room. we could add both langeskog AND iginla AND maybe even a dman later... this year... its good
but next year is shaping up as a bigger challenge.... already we have given marchand a raise. now we have pastrnak needing a contract... we have spooner eligible for arbitration... the only savings we can bank on is chara's reduction and liles being replaced by a cheaper guy
if we now add langeskog without eliminating some cooresponding salary we are looking at a 7-8 mill INCREASE in cap hit
its absolutely necessary to get rid of ONE OF belesky or spooner at the same time we are bringing langeskog in... not necessarily to Colorado... but somewhere. quite simply we don't need 4 lw marchand/langeskog/spooner/belesky because that leaves vatrano out in the cold looking in... so cost cutting option #1 says 1 of these guys {spooner or belesky} go right away
that would account for around half of langeskog's salary hit next year
if we can then move ONE OF k miller/macquaid and replace with a 800-900k dman we could pretty much absore langeskog without pain
if we can also moves hayes... it would all balance
I think we could quite possibly get Vegas to take belesky... we might be able to include spooner to Colorado as part of the trade... I think macquaid would have value to some team looking for character in the off season... the one contract that seems to be most difficult to move is jimmy hayes
personally I want to add langeskog... it doesn't make me blink twice to firesale these 4 contracts out if that's what it takes... BUT I also want to add a dman if we do this. We can become a contender quite quickly if we make bold moves
trading a debrusk wont matter if we have marchand/langeskog/vatrano locked in place as our top 3 lw... and if we have backs/pastrnak/shyshyn looking strong on the right side we are in good shape to move some of our kids...
guys like heinen and czarik and even Bjork could be moved to bring in the right pieces... and theres more dmen prospects than we can play too... theres a couple with value we could include in deals.
but trading kids/prospects for big contracts WILL require we move our deadweight bottom feeder contracts like belesky/spooner/liles/macquaid/hayes... this is around 13 mill if we bring them back next year when we could be dressing kids for 5 mill and getting the same type of help... that 8 mill difference is what pays for langeskog and a dman and turns us into a contender
He has been on the decline and his contract runs for like 7 more years until he is pushing 40. One area where the Bruins future looks bright is RHD, I see no reason to pursue Seabrook.
Oates2Neely
Registered User
AOF, with all due respect please stop suggesting the Bruins acquire Iginla. If he were a UFA after this season then ok maybe. But he's not. He's half the man he was as a Bruin
mich25
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2013
- 741
- 0
Doubt this would happen but interesting nonetheless re: van Reimsdyk.
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2017/1/7/14199260/james-van-riemsdyk-toronto-maple-leafs-boston-bruins-trade-target?utm_campaign=stanleycupofchowder&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2017/1/7/14199260/james-van-riemsdyk-toronto-maple-leafs-boston-bruins-trade-target?utm_campaign=stanleycupofchowder&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Michael the main point is for this deal right now cap space is a non issue.
Then the Bruins have 8 months to do more or something else. Its not curing cancer. Chara cap drops. Cap goes up. Liles is gone. Modt likely player or two gone via draft or trade.
A lot can happen. None of it is that hard. Literally nothing has to happen right now.
Bottom line is it can be done if the opportunity presents itself.
Then the Bruins have 8 months to do more or something else. Its not curing cancer. Chara cap drops. Cap goes up. Liles is gone. Modt likely player or two gone via draft or trade.
A lot can happen. None of it is that hard. Literally nothing has to happen right now.
Bottom line is it can be done if the opportunity presents itself.
Deal Law
I would love to QEF your PFIC
The article completely ignores the obvious question of why in the holy hell would Lamoriello trade one of his top six wingers, in the middle of a playoff race, to the exact team with which he is fighting (and is tied with) for the final Conference playoff spot?
If the dude's hell bent on getting value for JVR no matter what, I'm sure there are plenty of playoff bound western conference teams with which he could readily deal.
- Status
