All Bruins trade rumors/proposals: 16/17 Part IX

[TP]

Continue


Previous: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2189945

Click to read more...

 

[JAD]

QUOTE=BruinDust;128305335]They do?

They should be fine for next season, although without money going out you now have very little room to upgrade elsewhere.

Now project 2 years out.

Krejci - 7.25
Bergeron - 6.9
Marchand - 6.1
Landeskog - 5.6
Backes - 6.0
Pastrnak - 6.0 (Projected, could be slightly less)

Belesky - 3.9

Krug - 5.25
Kevan/McQuaid - 2.63 (Averaged between 2.5 and 2.75)

Rask - 7.0

Seidenberg buy-out - 1.1

So your at approx. 58 million allocated between 7 F, 2 D, and a G. Leaving about 15 million (give or take) for 6 F, 5 D, and a back-up goaltender.

Now look at your projected significant RFAs moving forward (not including Pasta this year if he gets a long-term extension)

2017 - Spooner
2018 - Colin Miller, Vatrano
2019 - Carlo
2020 - McAvoy (assuming he signs for next year)

And we haven't even factored in any of the other prospects like Cehlarik, Heinen, JFK, Debrusk, Bjork, etc. etc. making the team and becoming contributors.

Obviously things can change quickly, this is just based on what we know today.

Bring in Landeskog to load up the top 6 for the next 4 seasons, and something will have to give elsewhere, it's that simple.[/QUOTE]



It would have helped if you included years remaining on the existing contracts.
Plus, that 'top 6' could also be distributed over 3 lines.
Also, if Landeskog was to come in someone / salary will be going out.
Add in 1 or 2 entry-level contracts each year over the next 4 years that would replace some existing contracts and it could all be doable.

For the record - would love to have Landeskog as a Bruin, but not at the cost of Carlo, McAvoy, JFK and a few others I would like to keep.
Instead deal from the surplus on the LW and other defensive player/prospects.

 

[BruinDust]

QUOTE=BruinDust;128305335]They do?

They should be fine for next season, although without money going out you now have very little room to upgrade elsewhere.

Now project 2 years out.

Krejci - 7.25 (3 years)
Bergeron - 6.9 (4 years)
Marchand - 6.1 (7 years)
Landeskog - 5.6 (3 years)
Backes - 6.0 (3 years)
Pastrnak - 6.0 (Projected, could be slightly less)

Belesky - 3.9 (2 years)

Krug - 5.25 (2 years)
Kevan/McQuaid - 2.63 (Averaged between 2.5 and 2.75) (1 for McQuaid, 2 for Kevan)

Rask - 7.0 (3 years)

Seidenberg buy-out - 1.1 (2 years)

So your at approx. 58 million allocated between 7 F, 2 D, and a G. Leaving about 15 million (give or take) for 6 F, 5 D, and a back-up goaltender.

Now look at your projected significant RFAs moving forward (not including Pasta this year if he gets a long-term extension)

2017 - Spooner
2018 - Colin Miller, Vatrano
2019 - Carlo
2020 - McAvoy (assuming he signs for next year)

And we haven't even factored in any of the other prospects like Cehlarik, Heinen, JFK, Debrusk, Bjork, etc. etc. making the team and becoming contributors.

Obviously things can change quickly, this is just based on what we know today.

Bring in Landeskog to load up the top 6 for the next 4 seasons, and something will have to give elsewhere, it's that simple.

It would have helped if you included years remaining on the existing contracts.
Plus, that 'top 6' could also be distributed over 3 lines.
Also, if Landeskog was to come in someone / salary will be going out.
Add in 1 or 2 entry-level contracts each year over the next 4 years that would replace some existing contracts and it could all be doable.

For the record - would love to have Landeskog as a Bruin, but not at the cost of Carlo, McAvoy, JFK and a few others I would like to keep.
Instead deal from the surplus on the LW and other defensive player/prospects.[/QUOTE]

I have included how many years would be left starting with the 2018-19 season. See bolded.

I don't disagree, you can spread out those 6 forwards over 3 lines, in truth I would advocate as such. I'm all about building 3 balanced scoring lines rather than this old school Top 6 mentality.

I would pray that Belesky's deal either goes back in the Landeskog move, or some other way, but there is also the chance they are stuck with it.

It is doable, but it will require a few deals/players going out (Belesky, McQuaid/Kevan, and we'll see what they do with Spooner in terms of an extension). I hope it doesn't mean the sacrifice of say Vatrano, or Colin, or Carlo, or any young player because now they are up against the cap.

Me and you are on the same page more or less on Landeskog. Would like to see him as a Bruin for the right price.

 

[Dr Hook]

QUOTE=BruinDust;128305335]They do?

Now project 2 years out.

.

It seems likely that someone on that list will be taken by Vegas- I would guess McQ or Killer, perhaps Beleskey. That adds at least 2.5 mill to the available money. It's still not a lot to fill as many slots as they might have. If he continues to underperform and is not take by Vegas, I imagine we might see Beleskey gone after next season. Still tight, but workable.

 

[BruinDust]

It seems likely that someone on that list will be taken by Vegas- I would guess McQ or Killer, perhaps Beleskey. That adds at least 2.5 mill to the available money. It's still not a lot to fill as many slots as they might have. If he continues to underperform and is not take by Vegas, I imagine we might see Beleskey gone after next season. Still tight, but workable.

I made the assumption that one of Kevan or McQuaid is gone to Vegas in these projections.

That Belesky deal is the main obstacle. Followed by the future of Ryan Spooner as a Boston Bruin.

 

[Dr Hook]

I made the assumption that one of Kevan or McQuaid is gone to Vegas in these projections.

That Belesky deal is the main obstacle. Followed by the future of Ryan Spooner as a Boston Bruin.

Yeah, you are right on that- I thought JAD left that out (easy to do, I keep having to remember the expansion draft myself!). Beleskey sure could be the contractual albatross for us and while I didn't mind when we signed him so much, now I am wishing we hadn't.

Spooner is interesting in this whole mix of what we might be next year or the season after. I would prefer the Bruins sign him to a 1 year, same basic terms deal, and give him a "show me" season. Not sure if Spooner or his agent would even consider it, but if he wants much more, I say let him walk or deal him. However, if he does raise his game and becomes someone we want to keep going forward on a long term, it would make things really interesting for the Bruins cap-wise, especially if Landeskog does come after all.

 

[s3antana5757]

I made the assumption that one of Kevan or McQuaid is gone to Vegas in these projections.

That Belesky deal is the main obstacle. Followed by the future of Ryan Spooner as a Boston Bruin.

That's why I'm a big fan of including him in the deal. He can replace Landeskog from Colorado's perspective, and he definitely has some value as a scorer. Spooner, 2 prospects, 1st, maybe even a guy like Morrow that could get a few games with Colorado and see how he does. That's the deal I want to see.

 

[Bmessy]

I wonder what the cost would be to acquire Brayden Schenn and Neuvirth from Philly? Seems like Philly is struggling, and at the very least the fans are frustrated.
Gotta think that Schenn would be less than Landeskog. Plays LW and a two way game

 

[Bruinfanatic]

Eklund saying Carlo not included in talks with Colorado,like I have said don't really have much faith in anything he says but put it out there anyway.

 

[BruinDust]

Yeah, you are right on that- I thought JAD left that out (easy to do, I keep having to remember the expansion draft myself!). Beleskey sure could be the contractual albatross for us and while I didn't mind when we signed him so much, now I am wishing we hadn't.

Spooner is interesting in this whole mix of what we might be next year or the season after. I would prefer the Bruins sign him to a 1 year, same basic terms deal, and give him a "show me" season. Not sure if Spooner or his agent would even consider it, but if he wants much more, I say let him walk. However, if he does raise his game and becomes someone we want to keep going forward on a long term, it would make things really interesting for the Bruins cap-wise, especially if Landeskog does come after all.

Spooner is interesting, one day I'm ready to be done with him, then the next, he pulls me back in. He's an asset on the PP.

Problem(s) with Spooner are numerous. Is he a left-winger or C? His expiring 2-year deal was essentially the "Show-me" deal, and while inconsistent and not a strong defensive player, will likely post back-to-back 40+ pt. seasons. Factor in arbitration, and it further muddies the waters. I think worse case they go to arbitration and the Bruins just accept the decision of the arbitrator on a 1-year deal. I can't see them walking unless the $$$ is completely wacky. They'll trade him first, even for lesser value.

But maybe a 1-year deal for Spooner isn't a bad thing, because it's the following off-season you have to start making tougher decisions. At least then, the Bruins will have a better sense of what they have long-term for not just Spooner but for other young players.

 

[BruinDust]

That's why I'm a big fan of including him in the deal. He can replace Landeskog from Colorado's perspective, and he definitely has some value as a scorer. Spooner, 2 prospects, 1st, maybe even a guy like Morrow that could get a few games with Colorado and see how he does. That's the deal I want to see.

I think that's a bit pricy. To me, with Belesky included it's a 4 asset deal.

1) Belesky
2) Spooner
3) One prospect forward or D.
4) Another prospect, forward or D OR this years 1st rounder.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Eklund saying Carlo not included in talks with Colorado,like I have said don't really have much faith in anything he says but put it out there anyway.

That would sure make it easier. Lauzon, Spooner, Sherman & a pick maybe

 

[northeastern]

That would sure make it easier. Lauzon, Spooner, Sherman & a pick maybe

Done and done. Hopefully Sweeney pulls that off! **** add a second.

 

[s3antana5757]

I think that's a bit pricy. To me, with Belesky included it's a 4 asset deal.

1) Belesky
2) Spooner
3) One prospect forward or D.
4) Another prospect, forward or D OR this years 1st rounder.

I'm certainly on board with that, I just don't know that gets it done.

 

[Fonzerelli]

And what to do if the 19 year old college sophomore has a touch of growing pains/needs some time to adapt to NHL?

Are you ok with this (with a one year older Chara on other side)?

Chiller (and what if, as another poster pointed out, we lose him to LV as we have to protect Lando?!?!?!?!?)
Killer
McQuaid
McAvoy

Why would we lose him? We protect 7F and 3D. The 3D being Chara, Krug and Chiller. What does Lando have to do with it?

 

[Dr Hook]

Spooner is interesting, one day I'm ready to be done with him, then the next, he pulls me back in. He's an asset on the PP.

Problem(s) with Spooner are numerous. Is he a left-winger or C? His expiring 2-year deal was essentially the "Show-me" deal, and while inconsistent and not a strong defensive player, will likely post back-to-back 40+ pt. seasons. Factor in arbitration, and it further muddies the waters. I think worse case they go to arbitration and the Bruins just accept the decision of the arbitrator on a 1-year deal. I can't see them walking unless the $$$ is completely wacky. They'll trade him first, even for lesser value.

But maybe a 1-year deal for Spooner isn't a bad thing, because it's the following off-season you have to start making tougher decisions. At least then, the Bruins will have a better sense of what they have long-term for not just Spooner but for other young players.

We are of one mind on this- I feel pretty much the exact same way. To me he has made some improvement in his overall game versus last year and he has intriguing talent. Maybe Cassidy can get through to him on the importance of playing a complete game night and in night out (or at least as complete has his skill set allows for). If not, he has some trade value at least.

 

[Silva]

My question is this.... Why are no other teams in deep discussions with Colorado about landy? If we won't give up Carlo or mcavoy how can another team not outbid us?

 

[BruinDust]

I'm certainly on board with that, I just don't know that gets it done.

Me either, hard to say but probably not.

 

[Fonzerelli]

My question is this.... Why are no other teams in deep discussions with Colorado about landy? If we won't give up Carlo or mcavoy how can another team not outbid us?

Apparently because McAvoy is the greatest prospect in the world and Carlo is winning the Calder. To match us, Winnipeg would have to offer Laine, Montreal would be Svechnikov ++, Toronto would have to part with Matthews or Marner ++. No other teams have the talent, exept the Oilers, but apparently, McDavid is untouchable. Damn, I hate how these other teams over value their prospects and young roster players

 

[v1821]

My question is this.... Why are no other teams in deep discussions with Colorado about landy? If we won't give up Carlo or mcavoy how can another team not outbid us?

Don't have every team's cap space in front of me, but my bet is the Bruins are one of a few teams with both the cap space and prospect pool to get a deal done. Not saying they are alone but one of a few that have the capability to get it done.

V

 

[Number8]

Why would we lose him? We protect 7F and 3D. The 3D being Chara, Krug and Chiller. What does Lando have to do with it?

Good point -- my mistake.

 

[Dr Hook]

My question is this.... Why are no other teams in deep discussions with Colorado about landy? If we won't give up Carlo or mcavoy how can another team not outbid us?

I'm sure they are- Ottawa, Whalercanes among others have been mentioned in rumors. At the same time, if we aren't willing to give up a Carlo type young player, I imagine that's a steep ask for anyone else that is interested also. Sens Gm basically said Sakic wanted too much for Lando or Duchene, and I thought Bergevin said something similar also.

 

[Bruinfanatic]

My question is this.... Why are no other teams in deep discussions with Colorado about landy? If we won't give up Carlo or mcavoy how can another team not outbid us?

Who says there isn't ,Sweeney was seen talking to Sakic so it's getting most of the attention ,but sure Sakic is talking to lots of GM's.

 

[bear16]

QUOTE=BruinDust;128305335]They do?

They should be fine for next season, although without money going out you now have very little room to upgrade elsewhere.

Now project 2 years out.

Krejci - 7.25
Bergeron - 6.9
Marchand - 6.1
Landeskog - 5.6
Backes - 6.0
Pastrnak - 6.0 (Projected, could be slightly less)

Belesky - 3.9

Krug - 5.25
Kevan/McQuaid - 2.63 (Averaged between 2.5 and 2.75)

Rask - 7.0

Seidenberg buy-out - 1.1

So your at approx. 58 million allocated between 7 F, 2 D, and a G. Leaving about 15 million (give or take) for 6 F, 5 D, and a back-up goaltender.

Now look at your projected significant RFAs moving forward (not including Pasta this year if he gets a long-term extension)

2017 - Spooner
2018 - Colin Miller, Vatrano
2019 - Carlo
2020 - McAvoy (assuming he signs for next year)

And we haven't even factored in any of the other prospects like Cehlarik, Heinen, JFK, Debrusk, Bjork, etc. etc. making the team and becoming contributors.

Obviously things can change quickly, this is just based on what we know today.

Bring in Landeskog to load up the top 6 for the next 4 seasons, and something will have to give elsewhere, it's that simple.

Avs fan here. I see that you have Landeskog in your projected lineup. May I ask who/what was hypothetically traded to COL for him? Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Blowfish]

Eklund saying Carlo not included in talks with Colorado,like I have said don't really have much faith in anything he says but put it out there anyway.

Yah right why would they want hometown dude

Perhaps T Barrie macavoy swap.part of deal