Proposal: All Bruins trade rumors/proposals: 16/17 Part VII

[Fonzerelli]

What gets me is: all the talk during preseason was acquiring a bonafide #1 or 2 young gun defenceman like Trouba or Fowler..What a pleasant surprise when Carlo and O'Gara made the opening line up. O'gara is still in our future plans for sure But Carlo is exactly what this team needed.

Carlo has been a pleasant surprise. If he hadn't been, his name wouldn't even be mentioned as the key piece in a Landeskog deal. He may be a long term 2nd pair option or he maybe just a flash in the pan. Remember the hot start Jimmy Hayes go off to in Boston? Over-valuing Carlo based on a hot start is something we should be taking advantage of while his value is high. In the 21 games before Cassidy took over, Carlo was struggling, not just by the eyeball but by the numbers as well. He was -10 with with 4 points in those 21 games. He could return to the player he was at the start, or he could revert to the player he's been recently, or, most likely, he could level out as the player he was always projected to be - which is a responsible stay at home 2nd pair defensemen. There are no guarantees, but he certainly does not look like a bonafide #1 or 2 young gun defenceman like Trouba or Fowler. That's a big stretch.

Moving Carlo or keeping him doesn't the penciled in plan of having McAvoy as the #1 RD on this team for the future, and the future can start in the spring of 2017 as easily as it can in the fall of 2017. That #1 spot never was intended to be his, and if "the plan" works, then it won't be either. What makes it easier to move Carlo, IMO, is both the emergence of Chiller and the abundance of 3rd pair RD currently on the roster. If you believe McAvoy is the guy and Chiller can play 2nd pair, then this is a position of surplus.

 

[Absurdity]

So essentially Bruins trade a large, mobile, already top four D-man, with top two written all over him, who cracked the NHL at 19 years of age in arguably the most difficult position to do so (goaltending is close) in CARLO, a still inexpensive, very creative, albeit not defensively sound, relatively young centre in SPOONER and a first for renting SHATTENKIRK (for more then likely less then 30 games) and a very underachieving BENNETT? BIG NO from Boston on that one!!! If SWEENEY evened considered these deals he would be the dumbest NHL GM ever. SPOONER for BENNETT straight up would be a decent hockey trade but the rest of your proposal would ^%$ the Bruins for years to come.

The Bruins are rumored to be trading a large, mobile, already top four D-man at the age of 19 with "top two" written all over him plus other assets for Gabriel Landeskog. Do you believe that deal will set the Bruins back years?

The Bruins want to make a trade that makes sense for them now and for the future. Bruins' management wants to make the playoffs. All I'm offering are alternative trade ideas if Carlo is available. If the Bruins trade Carlo++ for Landeskog, your beef will be with Bruins' management, not me.

Why would the Bruins give up assets for Sam Bennett?

Let alone give up Spooner, Carlo and a 1st for 20 games of Shattenkirk and Sam Bennett.

Bennett's ELC ends this season and will be a RFA. I'm offering alternative trade ideas if the Bruins want to target a LW with Carlo going the other way. Bennett is only 20 and is projected to be a top 6 F/C. Sure his numbers aren't there, but he still has talent.

The Bruins could re-sign Shattenkirk if they want in this case as well.

 

[vjcsmoke]

Ive wanted the Bs to get Duclair sice he went into his slump. I think tbey could get him too and Arizona has made some pretty awful trades this year, take advantage of Chayka and see where you end up. Wont hurt them as much cos Dvorak is finally lighting it up

A buy low on Duclair would be a smart move. He's still only 21 and although he is slumping he scored 20 goals just last season. Definitely worth a try as long as we're not giving up much.

Spooner for Duclair? Give each player a change of scenery and see if it revives them? Could be a win-win for both teams.

If Duclair bounces back, you have a young 20 goal, top6 winger. If Spooner bounces back, Arizona gets a young top6 center.

 

[PlayMakers]

I debated here with some people calling landeskog a 20ish goal 50pointish player... I keep seeing everyone say how much better duchense is at scoring

in 8 seasons now duchense has 171 goals and 409 points. my math skills tell me that's a bit under 20 goals and a around 51 points per aveage season

food for thought? or completely irrelevant?

Technically, Duchene averages 26 goals and 62 points. That's his career average over 82 games. If you want to call HIM a 25 goal 60 point forward, that would be more appropriate.

If you want to move the goal posts and call Landeskog a 25 goal 60 point forward because he did that once, then you need to be consistent and call Duchene a 30 goal 70 point forward.

but.. but... he skates fast... in his last 7 seasons hes a -46... landeskog is +14 in that same time on the same team... but of course plus/minus is irrelevant.

We can do without the condescending but... but's...

Again, if people want to point to physical traits like size/strength as assets for Landeskog (which they are), then it's only fair to consider Duchene's speed and agility, because like Marchand, those are the physical traits that make him stand out.

Plus/minus is a tough one... Is Kevan Miller better defensively than the rest of the Bruins defense because he led the team in plus/minus for three years? If you look at the last 3 seasons, Landeskog is -25 to Duchene's -23. Does that mean they're both terrible defensively? I don't think so. In the games I've watched, they both backcheck, they both battle and have a lot of takeaways. Lando is more physical and Duchene is a beast at the face-off dot at something like 62%. But honestly, I haven't focused that much on their defensive games to have an opinion either way. You think Lando's better defensively? That's fine.

I'm ok with people saying we shouldn't trade for either guy... but it bugs the hell out of me when someone tries to slam landeskog trying to use statistics to do it and in the same breath wants to support duchense.

I don't think anyone is trying to slam Landeskog, just get an accurate sense of what he is and what he isn't. Folks said Horton was a 30 goal scorer but he really wasn't, and he didn't put up those numbers in Boston. Still a really good player, worth what we gave up and helped the Bruins do great things, but folks were really frustrated with him during the season and disappointed he wasn't more productive.

 

[cheg1349]

So how long until we see a trade made to take attention away from Montreal hiring Julien?

 

[bruinmann77]

I hope this does not happen

 

[BruinDust]

The Bruins are rumored to be trading a large, mobile, already top four D-man at the age of 19 with "top two" written all over him plus other assets for Gabriel Landeskog. Do you believe that deal will set the Bruins back years?

The Bruins want to make a trade that makes sense for them now and for the future. Bruins' management wants to make the playoffs. All I'm offering are alternative trade ideas if Carlo is available. If the Bruins trade Carlo++ for Landeskog, your beef will be with Bruins' management, not me.

Bennett's ELC ends this season and will be a RFA. I'm offering alternative trade ideas if the Bruins want to target a LW with Carlo going the other way. Bennett is only 20 and is projected to be a top 6 F/C. Sure his numbers aren't there, but he still has talent.

The Bruins could re-sign Shattenkirk if they want in this case as well.

Don't mind me Hazi, I'm still confused as to why the Bruins are targeting a LW period.

I don't see the need of acquiring a LW, whether it be Bennett or Landeskog.

I'm perfectly fine with Vatrano being the 2nd best LW on this team. I don't think they need to find some mythical power-forward style LWer just to appease David Krejci, even if Vatrano is on the 3rd line.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Technically, Duchene averages 26 goals and 62 points. That's his career average over 82 games. If you want to call HIM a 25 goal 60 point forward, that would be more appropriate.

If you want to move the goal posts and call Landeskog a 25 goal 60 point forward because he did that once, then you need to be consistent and call Duchene a 30 goal 70 point forward.



We can do without the condescending but... but's...

Again, if people want to point to physical traits like size/strength as assets for Landeskog (which they are), then it's only fair to consider Duchene's speed and agility, because like Marchand, those are the physical traits that make him stand out.

Plus/minus is a tough one... Is Kevan Miller better defensively than the rest of the Bruins defense because he led the team in plus/minus for three years? If you look at the last 3 seasons, Landeskog is -25 to Duchene's -23. Does that mean they're both terrible defensively? I don't think so. In the games I've watched, they both backcheck, they both battle and have a lot of takeaways. Lando is more physical and Duchene is a beast at the face-off dot at something like 62%. But honestly, I haven't focused that much on their defensive games to have an opinion either way. You think Lando's better defensively? That's fine.



I don't think anyone is trying to slam Landeskog, just get an accurate sense of what he is and what he isn't. Folks said Horton was a 30 goal scorer but he really wasn't, and he didn't put up those numbers in Boston. Still a really good player, worth what we gave up and helped the Bruins do great things, but folks were really frustrated with him during the season and disappointed he wasn't more productive.

You are one of my favorite posters... but when someone is as respected as you are I feel stronger compelled to defend small points of contention

In this post you bring up horton... and put him down for real production as opposed to theoretical pròduction

In this exact same post you say I'm wrong for bringing up duchesne real numbers... remember projecting numbers over 82 games is what I did earlier when I was criticized for it... now you try to use it?

I was clearly throwing people's argument back in their face... but you are coming across as a double standard. I'm sure that isn't your intention.

There's tons of posts here saying Duchense is fast and explosive... I didn't introduce that for discusion. Many of those posters dismiss landeskog as a leader... as a 2way player...

Forgive me if I use the real production numbers of Duchene to prove over the past 6 years he didn't score significantly more than landeskog.

In theory maybe he could... in reality he didnt

 

[ODAAT]

So how long until we see a trade made to take attention away from Montreal hiring Julien?

I don`t believe Julien landing in Montreal creates one bit of panic in Boston.....or anywhere else for that matter

What CJ will do is improve that brutal D, he`ll apply his system that like it or not, covers up alot. Where the Habs are also struggling is offensively and CJ won`t be able to change much there although strong D often helps produce opportunity at the other end of the rink

 

[ORR2Sanderson2ORR]

????

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Don't mind me Hazi, I'm still confused as to why the Bruins are targeting a LW period.

I don't see the need of acquiring a LW, whether it be Bennett or Landeskog.

I'm perfectly fine with Vatrano being the 2nd best LW on this team. I don't think they need to find some mythical power-forward style LWer just to appease David Krejci, even if Vatrano is on the 3rd line.

Are we sure they are? I haven't heard neely or Sweeny say so

I was looking at a realistic lineup for next year... here's what I see

Pencil pastrnak/backes at rw and then czarik/senshyn probably battle... but there's an overload at lw that might play here

Krecji/bergeron are locks at center... karlsson has an oppotunity... spooner is still around... Nash can fill in... backes might end up here.

Lw starts with marchand of course and then some variables... but vatrano looks like a 20 goal guy. Belesky is being paid. Spooner is around. Debrusk, chelek, bjork, heinen are going to push

Adding a high paid top9 forward makes no sense unless we are getting rid of 2-3 of them

If we are talking with colorado I see beauchimen coming here more so than a forward. I continue to predict we will be in on faulk before all the dust settles

But it's fun to debate... I like having fun

 

[pisele]

Would not be surprised if all this talk amounts to nothing in the end. Blockbuster deals happen in the offseason and usually not at the deadline. The Vegas Expansion draft might trigger some things?

Went back and took a look at the trades before the deadline last year. Biggest one's (and it happened on 1/6) were the following:

January 6th:
PREDATORS GET: F Ryan Johansen
BLUE JACKETS GET: D Seth Jones

February 9th:
SENATORS GET: D Dion Phaneuf, F Matt Frattin, F Casey Bailey, F Ryan Rupert, D Cody Donaghey
MAPLE LEAFS GET: D Jared Cowen, F Milan Michalek, F Colin Greening, F Tobias Lindberg, 2017 2nd round pick.

February 22:
MAPLE LEAFS GET: F Raffi Torres, 2017 2nd round pick, 2018 2nd round pick,
SHARKS GET: D Roman Polak, F Nick Spaling

I am not posting the smaller deals, just the more significant ones and they happened way before the deadline. Smaller deals I define as the the ones for role players since we are discussing a Landeskog, Duchene scenario. Some of these players were set to become UFA's as well.

February 25th:
BLACKHAWKS GET: F Andrew Ladd, D Jay Harrison, F Matt Fraser
JETS GET: F Marko Dano, 2016 1st round pick, 2018 conditional 3rd round pick

February 27th:
PANTHERS GET: F Jiri Hudler
FLAMES GET: 2016 2nd round pick, 2018 4th round pick

February 28th:
HURRICANES GET: F Aleksi Saarela, 2016 2nd round pick, 2017 2nd round pick
RANGERS GET: C Eric Staal

February 29th (Deadline Day):

OILERS GET: F Patrick Maroon
DUCKS GET: D Martin Gernat, 2016 4th round pick

STARS GET: D Kris Russell
FLAMES GET: D Jyrki Jokipakka, F Brett Pollock, conditional 1st or 2nd round pick

If the B's and Av's deal, it will happen before deadline day. What do these deals say about Landeskog or Duchene's value? Have a feeling they are stuck for now, maybe on Carlo?

 

[Fonzerelli]

The Bruins are rumored to be trading a large, mobile, already top four D-man at the age of 19 with "top two" written all over him plus other assets for Gabriel Landeskog.

No not trading McAvoy. Our 19 year old d-man with "top 2" written all over him is not in question.

The rumour is that our soon-to-be 21 year old 2nd pair projected defenseman who's sole body of work to date includes one partial inconsistant, up and down season. That's who we are talking about. Carlo. Not McAvoy

 

[Fonzerelli]

Don't mind me Hazi, I'm still confused as to why the Bruins are targeting a LW period.

Here's a perspective on that

With lots of talent in the system, both up front and on the blue line, Boston has the pieces to make a major trade if they so choose. What they lack, is immediate help at left wing. Brad Marchand and Frank Vatrano have top left side spots locked up long-term, but Matt Beleskey has had a down year after career-highs in 2016-17 and Tim Schaller is not a top-nine option. Rookie Peter Cehlarik, recently recalled from the AHL’s Providence Bruins where he has been the best player all year long, played great in front of Sakic last night, but is a pass-first player on a team in search of a sniper. Former college star Danton Heinen failed to make a difference in his Boston tryouts earlier this year and 2015 first-rounder Jake DeBrusk has failed to earn his first career call-up yet. The Bruins most promising left wing option in the system may be Marchand clone Jesse Gabrielle or Notre Dame star Anders Bjork.

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/02/bruins-avalanche-talking.html

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

No not trading McAvoy. Our 19 year old d-man with "top 2" written all over him is not in question.

The rumour is that our soon-to-be 21 year old 2nd pair projected defenseman who's sole body of work to date includes one partial inconsistant, up and down season. That's who we are talking about. Carlo. Not McAvoy

why do you feel the need to downplay the fact that Carlo is already playing on the top pair at 20 years old?

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Technically, Duchene averages 26 goals and 62 points. That's his career average over 82 games. If you want to call HIM a 25 goal 60 point forward, that would be more appropriate.

I think the fair way to phrase this was done earlier in the thread. Landeskog .67 points per game. Duchene .75 points per game. Duchene has blazing speed and great puck skill. But the difference is not that between an elite offensive producer and second-line winger.

If you acquired Duchene, you'd either have to play one of your centers on the third line, or put him on the wing... which he can play, just not as effectively as centre. And at any rate, you'd have to pay him more money in a couple of years, or watch him walk away.

And while Duchene is the better goal-scorer of the two, Landeskog is the more complete three-zone player and physical presence.

Am I unfair to either?

Duchene as a bit of a better player. Landeskog is a much better fit for the Bruins.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Are we sure they are? I haven't heard neely or Sweeny say so

Boston undoubtedly needs some scoring help, both this year and in the future, as Sweeney said himself recently.

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/02/bruins-avalanche-talking.html

What they need: Scoring help and a top-six wing would bolster a group that could then get stronger by being able to demote a player (or players) to improve its struggling third and fourth lines; backup goaltending.

https://www.nhl.com/news/atlantic-division-trade-deadline-preview/c-286540362

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Don't mind me Hazi, I'm still confused as to why the Bruins are targeting a LW period.

I don't see the need of acquiring a LW, whether it be Bennett or Landeskog.

I'm perfectly fine with Vatrano being the 2nd best LW on this team. I don't think they need to find some mythical power-forward style LWer just to appease David Krejci, even if Vatrano is on the 3rd line.

Coach has stated this many times... Bruins have three major holes right now.

Top Six Winger
Top pair defenceman
Back up goaltender

Not being able to acquire that defenceman should not be used as an excuse to avoid trying to fill the other holes.

 

[Fonzerelli]

why do you feel the need to downplay the fact that Carlo is already playing on the top pair at 20 years old?

I don't. It's obvious to everyone where he is playing now. We are talking about a trade for our future moving forward, where the plan is to have McAvoy in that spot, not Carlo, who has always been projected as a 2nd pair guy and has shown nothing to change that projection. The fact he is playing top line minutes now speaks only to the fact that our defense is void of a true top pair RD. In the famous words of Chris Rock "you can drive a car with your feet. Doesn't mean you should"

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

Don't mind me Hazi, I'm still confused as to why the Bruins are targeting a LW period.

I don't see the need of acquiring a LW, whether it be Bennett or Landeskog.

I'm perfectly fine with Vatrano being the 2nd best LW on this team. I don't think they need to find some mythical power-forward style LWer just to appease David Krejci, even if Vatrano is on the 3rd line.

This is my angle too. If we were still rolling Schaller next to Krejci and had no other options, I'd get it. Marchand/Cehlarik/Vatrano is cheap, young and hungry. The Euro chemistry is evident, even at this stage. Why mess around with it ? Even for a player of Landeskog's quality, it's an unnecessary risk.

I do get the argument that Carlo could bust - that's a risk too. He's never gonna be a 40 point player. But I just get the feeling that a mid-twenties, man-strength Carlo is the kind of guy you have on a cup-winning D corps.

 

[Sheppy]

What about a guy like Grabner?

 

[ODAAT]

This is my angle too. If we were still rolling Schaller next to Krecji and had no other options, I'd get it. Marchand/Cehlarik/Vatrano is cheap, young and hungry. The Euro chemistry is evident, even at this stage. Why mess around with it ? Even for a player of Landeskog's quality, it's an unnecessary risk.

I do get the argument that Carlo could bust - that's a risk too. He's never gonna be a 40 point player. But I just get the feeling that a mid-twenties, man-strength Carlo is the kind of guy you have on a cup-winning D corps.

I just don`t see Carlo becoming a bust. Already this season we`ve seen his peaks and valleys and what I`m really encouraged about is when he`s in one of those valley`s, he`s found a way to right his game and seemingly put his mistakes in the rear view mirror.

I listened to, I believe Scotty Bowman on a show down here, said for a D-man, about 3-4 seasons of pro hockey (AHL/NHL) is when you will most likely be able to predict the future of a player. Up to that point, can`t push aside a kid who hasn`t found "it" too soon

 

[Fonzerelli]

I listened to, I believe Scotty Bowman on a show down here, said for a D-man, about 3-4 seasons of pro hockey (AHL/NHL) is when you will most likely be able to predict the future of a player. Up to that point, can`t push aside a kid who hasn`t found "it" too soon

I would agree with that. But we aren't talking about "pushing him aside". It's not like we are talking about sending him to rot in the minors. We are talking about cashing him in for a player who we can predict. Who fills a need now and in the future. Who has already played 4 years of impressive NHL hockey. Who comes with great term at a good price. Not to mention, we have Carlo replacements in the system.

 

[DominicT]

Has Dom gone into hiding? Look at what he has created!

Where`s Dom?

I demand his presence immediately, providing us with all his sources and rumors while he`s at it

I'm here. I read every post. Some I laugh at, some I cry at.

Status quo. It's close and Sakic has decisions to make. Ball is in his court (read scouting).

So really, no update so nothing more for me to add. I have names, but you sure as hell know I'm not going to post them.

and don't pm, I'm not giving them out

 

[PlayMakers]

You are one of my favorite posters... but when someone is as respected as you are I feel stronger compelled to defend small points of contention

In this post you bring up horton... and put him down for real production as opposed to theoretical pròduction

In this exact same post you say I'm wrong for bringing up duchesne real numbers... remember projecting numbers over 82 games is what I did earlier when I was criticized for it... now you try to use it?

I was clearly throwing people's argument back in their face... but you are coming across as a double standard. I'm sure that isn't your intention.

There's tons of posts here saying Duchense is fast and explosive... I didn't introduce that for discusion. Many of those posters dismiss landeskog as a leader... as a 2way player...

Forgive me if I use the real production numbers of Duchene to prove over the past 6 years he didn't score significantly more than landeskog.

In theory maybe he could... in reality he didnt

I don't follow AOF.

How am I not using real numbers? I'm taking all of the points they've scored in their careers and averaging it out over 82 games. Those aren't real numbers?

I said Landeskog was a 50ish point player. His career average is 54.8.
I said Duchene was a 60ish point player. His career average is 63.96.

I think Duchene is a better offensive player. It matters to me that he's put up 30 goals in one season, and 70 points in another season. Those are hard plateaus to reach and he hit them both. That doesn't mean I don't like Landeskog too, and I've repeatedly tried to praise him and would welcome him on this team.

Fwiw, I'm a big fan of your posts too. Just trying to weigh in with my opinion on who I'd prefer and why.