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

[22Brad Park]

Avs fan coming in peace. Out of curiousity, say the deal is landeskog for carlo, a first and one non mcavoy prospect. Who would you guys hate to lose the most? Seems like u have a bunch of solid prospects with similar value which is why i ask

For me it's 3 players Cehlarik,Senyshyn,and Forbakka Karlsson.I am sure others here have their Favs too.

 

[22Brad Park]

While I like Spooner, he's coming from a position of strength unlike our defense. I don't have the same problem giving him up to fill a position of need.

Halak would not only give Rask someone dependable but would also push Tuukka and that can't be bad.

The last few games under Cassidy Spooner has looked great.I hope Bruins keep him.

 

[toreykingkrug]

Avs fan coming in peace. Out of curiousity, say the deal is landeskog for carlo, a first and one non mcavoy prospect. Who would you guys hate to lose the most? Seems like u have a bunch of solid prospects with similar value which is why i ask

Donato's upside is higher, Forsbacka-Karlsson is more safer. The Bergeron comparison is a bit of ridiculous right now, besides they both were drafted in 45 and win a lot of faceoffs, nothing similar. In terms of style, Forsbacka-Karlsson is more Krejci than Bergeron. Somehow he could end up a poor man Derek Stepan, 40-45 pts 2nd line C with terrific defense I think I will be very happy. Donato is the forgotten one here, but in terms of hands, not a single one in the system is better than him. While he is good defensively too. But he won't be a C, more of a LW. Forsbacka-Karlsson can step in next season, while Donato may need two more years. But the reward may be much more.

It all depends what Sakic and his team think about. If he think you have too much C, Jost, and Hischier or Patrick on the way, than maybe Donato. If they wanna the safer one, then Forsbacka-Karlsson. As someone who followed them a lot past 2 years, if you ask me which hurts most. I will tell you, both. Maybe Donato since he called himself a proud Bruins prospect in his twitter. But I love the McAvoy—Forsbacka-Karlsson friendship too

One more thing I wanna add, is B's right now are really lacking center depth in the farm. Forsbacka-Karlsson and Frederic are the only good ones. They need more not less. If good centers are so easily to find, why teams like Montreal and St. Louis struggled like that? On the other hand LW is their biggest strength. That is the biggest reason I feel a bit of weird of Landeskog trade. I know he is better now, highly possible none in the system will be as good. But at the cost of a already weak defense, after years of poor showing I just simply didn't understand. We will see how that play out by both sides

 

[22Brad Park]

Donato's upside is higher, Forsbacka-Karlsson is more safer. The Bergeron comparison is a bit of ridiculous right now, besides they both were drafted in 45 and win a lot of faceoffs, nothing similar. In terms of style, Forsbacka-Karlsson is more Krejci than Bergeron. Somehow he could end up a poor man Derek Stepan, 40-45 pts 2nd line C with terrific defense I think I will be very happy. Donato is the forgotten one here, but in terms of hands, not a single one in the system is better than him. While he is good defensively too. But he won't be a C, more of a LW. Forsbacka-Karlsson can step in next season, while Donato may need two more years. But the reward may be much more.

It all depends what Sakic and his team think about. If he think you have too much C, Jost, and Hischier or Patrick on the way, than maybe Donato. If they wanna the safer one, then Forsbacka-Karlsson. As someone who followed them a lot past 2 years, if you ask me which hurts most. I will tell you, both. Maybe Donato since he called himself a proud Bruins prospect in his twitter

Donato does look good.Cannot disagree there Looks like a keeper as well and can shoot a puck.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Duclair could certainly be the poor man's Landeskog. He's younger and has talent by the bushel full. He's fallen out of favor in Arizona and could be a buy low candidate. It would take a Spooner type talent, though, to get him. Last season he was 20-24-44 and was a prolific scorer at Quebec.

Very poor.

It's amazing to me the way that Landeskog is viewed by many here because of one off year on a horrible Avs team. I think the guy is a stud and would be a great fit in Boston. No offense, but I don't think Duclair can carry Gabe's jockstrap.

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

Very poor.

It's amazing to me the way that Landeskog is viewed by many here because of one off year on a horrible Avs team. I think the guy is a stud and would be a great fit in Boston. No offense, but I don't think Duclair can carry Gabe's jockstrap.

I can only speak for myself, but my desire to keep Carlo isn't a reflection of me not rating Landeskog - I would love to see him in a B's uniform. I just don't want to pay the price.

 

[CombatOnContact]

Part of building / re building a contending roster involves identifying assets that have real true value and that the team can "survive" without. I think that's where the Bruins are at with Carlo.

There's no doubt he's a solid prospect / already a stay contributing defender. That's exactly what any other team would notice and want.

So can you live without him? I think they have answered that question. Now and long term, they have the assets to move on without him. Will there be short term pain? Sure.

But to me (and it appears many others) adding another piece to a core group without giving up anything from the core group? That's the right move to make.

We can't fit all the upcoming prospects on the roster. We have been carrying 8 NHL capable D men all year.. and arguably there are at least a couple more down in Providence.

Carlo is exactly the type of trade asset a team should maximize.

Landeskog appears to be the likely target right now.. but are there other contingency plans / possibilities that involve moving him for a core player?

So for all those not wanting to give up Carlo for Landeskog, I'm curious as to who you feel is fair value for him. And would you make that deal tomorrow? Or is it about carlo alone and the desire to build through the draft?

 

[Fierce1]

The way I look at is that in two years Carlo could be our most important D-man. In two years Landescog would still be 2nd line LW behind Marchand. Big D-men that can skate don't come along every day or year.

 

[C77]

Part of building / re building a contending roster involves identifying assets that have real true value and that the team can "survive" without. I think that's where the Bruins are at with Carlo.

There's no doubt he's a solid prospect / already a stay contributing defender. That's exactly what any other team would notice and want.

So can you live without him? I think they have answered that question. Now and long term, they have the assets to move on without him. Will there be short term pain? Sure.

But to me (and it appears many others) adding another piece to a core group without giving up anything from the core group? That's the right move to make.

We can't fit all the upcoming prospects on the roster. We have been carrying 8 NHL capable D men all year.. and arguably there are at least a couple more down in Providence.

Carlo is exactly the type of trade asset a team should maximize.

Landeskog appears to be the likely target right now.. but are there other contingency plans / possibilities that involve moving him for a core player?

So for all those not wanting to give up Carlo for Landeskog, I'm curious as to who you feel is fair value for him. And would you make that deal tomorrow? Or is it about carlo alone and the desire to build through the draft?

I disagree. It is time to be patient. I have watched Landeskog lately. He does a lot of things well, good size and strength, can skate the puck up the ice from the d-zone, seals d-men off on the walls, can pass and receive a pass, kill penalties. Problem is he hasn't come close to scoring when I watch him and he plays with MacKinnon. Doesn't it suggest something is off if Colorado is considering moving him? He is only 24 and Colorado is rebuilding, if he was as good as his reputation (some of which is based on draft position), then the Avs would be committed to holding onto him. Maybe I'm wrong and he bounces back nicely.

With Carlo you have a right-shot d-man (strong defensively) that you could possibly plug in the Top 4 for 10 years. He is cap friendly and should still be when he gets his second contract. I would much rather keep Carlo and use other assets (and cap space) to bring in a less-heralded player than Landeskog. I don't see a reason to jump in now. What if McAvoy doesn't turn out like we hope? The right-shot d-man is the hardest position to fill. What if Chara retires after next season? Who does Boston have as a Top 4 shutdown d-man? Another factor is that I don't see left-wing as a major weakness to fix in this organization. You have Marchand, Vatrano will probably put up 20+ goals in a full season. Beleskey should be adequate on 3rd line.

 

[BB88]

Part of building / re building a contending roster involves identifying assets that have real true value and that the team can "survive" without. I think that's where the Bruins are at with Carlo.

There's no doubt he's a solid prospect / already a stay contributing defender. That's exactly what any other team would notice and want.

So can you live without him? I think they have answered that question. Now and long term, they have the assets to move on without him. Will there be short term pain? Sure.

But to me (and it appears many others) adding another piece to a core group without giving up anything from the core group? That's the right move to make.

We can't fit all the upcoming prospects on the roster. We have been carrying 8 NHL capable D men all year.. and arguably there are at least a couple more down in Providence.

Carlo is exactly the type of trade asset a team should maximize.

Landeskog appears to be the likely target right now.. but are there other contingency plans / possibilities that involve moving him for a core player?

So for all those not wanting to give up Carlo for Landeskog, I'm curious as to who you feel is fair value for him. And would you make that deal tomorrow? Or is it about carlo alone and the desire to build through the draft?

Carlo could be Bostons Hjalmarsson, valuable player in the playoffs.

Have we not witnessed enough what a garbage defense does to a team, who's going to logg the defensive minutes when Chara is gone?
All the Gm's want to trade for defenseman but the price is sky high, almost impossible to add top3 players. But here we are again trading a potential top3 shutdown defenseman for a Lw. Something this team needs the least.

 

[DKH]

I disagree. It is time to be patient. I have watched Landeskog lately. He does a lot of things well, good size and strength, can skate the puck up the ice from the d-zone, seals d-men off on the walls, can pass and receive a pass, kill penalties. Problem is he hasn't come close to scoring when I watch him and he plays with MacKinnon. Doesn't it suggest something is off if Colorado is considering moving him? He is only 24 and Colorado is rebuilding, if he was as good as his reputation (some of which is based on draft position), then the Avs would be committed to holding onto him. Maybe I'm wrong and he bounces back nicely.

With Carlo you have a right-shot d-man (strong defensively) that you could possibly plug in the Top 4 for 10 years. He is cap friendly and should still be when he gets his second contract. I would much rather keep Carlo and use other assets (and cap space) to bring in a less-heralded player than Landeskog. I don't see a reason to jump in now. What if McAvoy doesn't turn out like we hope? The right-shot d-man is the hardest position to fill. What if Chara retires after next season? Who does Boston have as a Top 4 shutdown d-man? Another factor is that I don't see left-wing as a major weakness to fix in this organization. You have Marchand, Vatrano will probably put up 20+ goals in a full season. Beleskey should be adequate on 3rd line.

Agree

I like landeskog but if JFK is even considered they are nuts considering 37 & 46 age

Landeskog is not even a major need

 

[CombatOnContact]

The way I look at is that in two years Carlo could be our most important D-man. In two years Landescog would still be 2nd line LW behind Marchand. Big D-men that can skate don't come along every day or year.

What about Miller, McAvoy, Zboril, Lauzon, Sherman, Lindgren, Johansson, even Morrow, Grezlyk?

Could any of them be close to, the same, or better than Carlo?

I'm not saying that Carlo won't be great. And I'd be really sad to see him go. To me, Landeskog is worth Carlo. But if there are other options, I'd love to discuss it. I think Moving Carlo for a more immediate impact asset is the right play for the team.

 

[Fenian24]

Very poor.

It's amazing to me the way that Landeskog is viewed by many here because of one off year on a horrible Avs team. I think the guy is a stud and would be a great fit in Boston. No offense, but I don't think Duclair can carry Gabe's jockstrap.

If it was 1986 people would be screaming about trading Pederson for Neely and a pick because Neely hadn't developed on a terrible Vancouver team who put a ton of pressure on him because of his draft position.

Landeskog with a new team, not as the captain and with an above average center would excel here in my opinion and possibly live up to his draft hype. Some of the people he is being compared to is nonsensical, I'm sure if Sweeney traded O'Gara, Donato and Subban there are people who would think the Bruins overpaid.

 

[CombatOnContact]

Carlo could be Bostons Hjalmarsson, valuable player in the playoffs.

Have we not witnessed enough what a garbage defense does to a team, who's going to logg the defensive minutes when Chara is gone?
All the Gm's want to trade for defenseman but the price is sky high, almost impossible to add top3 players. But here we are again trading a potential top3 shutdown defenseman for a Lw. Something this team needs the least.

I don't see how this defense goes from where it is with Carlo now, to being garbage if they move him.

I think it's been mentioned already that Landeskog can actually play any forward position. That versatility is worth something.

 

[The Special K]

I don't want landeskog....certainly not at the price of Carlo++. We don't need landeskog, he's just a younger Backes. This would be a stupid trade IMO.

 

[Blowfish]

Eaves 21 goals at $ 1 million rental minus 1st/2nd round pick plus draft pick

OR

Landskog at 11 goals $6 million minus Carlo, 1st draft, and draft pick like Donato

Not in favour of Lanskog...to risky. Why? He may or may not be the player he was or projected to be and don't want to see any of our top D prospects traded for him because of the unknown. Way to risky.

 

[Fenian24]

Part of building / re building a contending roster involves identifying assets that have real true value and that the team can "survive" without. I think that's where the Bruins are at with Carlo.

There's no doubt he's a solid prospect / already a stay contributing defender. That's exactly what any other team would notice and want.

So can you live without him? I think they have answered that question. Now and long term, they have the assets to move on without him. Will there be short term pain? Sure.

But to me (and it appears many others) adding another piece to a core group without giving up anything from the core group? That's the right move to make.

We can't fit all the upcoming prospects on the roster. We have been carrying 8 NHL capable D men all year.. and arguably there are at least a couple more down in Providence.

Carlo is exactly the type of trade asset a team should maximize.

Landeskog appears to be the likely target right now.. but are there other contingency plans / possibilities that involve moving him for a core player?

So for all those not wanting to give up Carlo for Landeskog, I'm curious as to who you feel is fair value for him. And would you make that deal tomorrow? Or is it about carlo alone and the desire to build through the draft?

Great post and I agree with the evaluation, I'm not in favor of giving away Carlo but Landeskog is a core player, somebody you build around, you don't build around a second pairing D man, even one who could be very good.

The portion I bolded is because I'm pretty sure there is now a group that would not give up Carlo for any player over 20, not on an ELC with star potential. Even if that player never reaches Landeskog level there is "potential" which seems to matter more to some people. Carlo is replaceable and may not develop past his current level. Glen Wesley was a great rookie who had a good career but never reached the level of player projected for him. Trading Carlo for an established, young top 6 forward with a good contract is the right thing to do. Don't trade him for a rental, the Bruins should not be looking at rentals, but don't overvalue him either.

 

[Fenian24]

I don't want landeskog....certainly not at the price of Carlo++. We don't need landeskog, he's just a younger Backes. This would be a stupid trade IMO.

Yeah who would want a 24 year old Backes just entering his prime

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

A question that underpins a lot of this debate is: are we in 'win now' or 'win later' mode? I still don't know where Don's head is at. I must admit that there's a part of me that feels like Cassidy could do a Sullivan, but is it naive? I don't know. Adding McAvoy and Landeskog would certainly go a long way to making it happen. We've seen how inconsistent this team can be, but we're on a blank slate now.

I just really, really don't want to give up the future of the D corps. It could be a behemoth in 5 years time. There's a lot of conflicting thoughts going on.

 

[bbfan419]

If the rumour is true about Halak to the Bruins, what would be the cost? Also would the Islanders retain $$?

 

[Blowfish]

If the rumour is true about Halak to the Bruins, what would be the cost? Also would the Islanders retain $$?

Better yet take Hayes and or Belesky.

 

[Pia8988]

If Carlo goes for Landeskog, I want Beleskey to be a part of the deal as well.

 

[BB88]

I don't see how this defense goes from where it is with Carlo now, to being garbage if they move him.

I think it's been mentioned already that Landeskog can actually play any forward position. That versatility is worth something.

Chara, Kevan, McQuaid, Liles. None of them are longterm Bruins, atleast should be.
That defense goes nowhere this year and nowhere in 2 years.

 

[Fenian24]

If Carlo goes for Landeskog, I want Beleskey to be a part of the deal as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where the deal is now, Sweeney and Sakic negotiating on how much salary Sakic has to take back and from which player. Hayes would cost you more in prospects than Belesky even if Belesky's cap hit is bigger he is a useful player. If the Bruins were willing to eat the whole difference in salary I would bet this deal would be done by now.

 

[Pia8988]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where the deal is now, Sweeney and Sakic negotiating on how much salary Sakic has to take back and from which player. Hayes would cost you more in prospects than Belesky even if Belesky's cap hit is bigger he is a useful player. If the Bruins were willing to eat the whole difference in salary I would bet this deal would be done by now.

I don't agree with that. Hayes' contract really isn't that bad in terms of overall cost and length. Beleskey is he plays like he has is awful and has 3 more years. Hayes at worst gets buried next season and can be replaced by a prospect who in turn would essentially cost the cap the same as if Hayes was around.