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

[BruinDust]

Landeskog brings way more than goals.

Michael Ryder in his prime probably scores more goals than Landeskog. But I'd take Landeskog.

Don't disagree.

Fenian's point was having a Top 6 of all 20 goal scorers is a big advantage.

My argument is the Bruins already have that advantage in Vatrano based on his point.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

25 goal left wingers are players you build around?

We should do a poll to see how many posters here believe Landeskog is a franchise player.

Trading quality 20-year old D-mean for 25 goal wingers is never the right thing to do.

I think Landeskog is pretty darn close to being a core player, the guy is a great 2 way player who is already a captain, so his intangibles are off the charts. Get him out of that mess in Colorado and I think he would flourish here in Boston where he could just be himself without the pressure of being captain for such a poor team. He is at worst a 2nd line player/borderline 1st line.

 

[C77]

Landeskog brings way more than goals.

Michael Ryder in his prime probably scores more goals than Landeskog. But I'd take Landeskog.

There is a lot to like about Landeskog but he doesn't create that much offensively. I think that what he can bring can be found in other wingers, who may not have the same pedigree, but would cost less. Look at Killorn in TB, I know I am beating a dead horse but he is trending up, is 26 and could be acquired for less.

 

[CombatOnContact]

There is that key word. Potential.

Carlo has PROVEN he can play in the NHL, and be effective.

There is a chance none of the rest of Boston's D prospect become Top 4 D-men. Not to mention most of them shoot left. Even the legendary Charlie McAvoy is no guarantee to be an effective NHLer. I like his chances, I'd even put money on it, but there is zero guarantees.

And folks keep citing Hjalmarsson as a comparable to Carlo. And it's not far off base.

But if were talking potential why can't Carlo be a Seabrook?

Landeskog is 24.. he's out of potential already?

Carlo could be Seabrook. Could be the next Ray Bourque too.

I'll stop there... I really like Carlo and this is not meant in any way to demean him, his value, or contributions so far..

I think the Bruins can still defend well without him and I think the Bruins scouting brass would have a good read on whether or not someone else in the system could replace him.

I really like Landeskog. Think he'd be a terrific fit and has the potential to take his game to another level with Boston.

He's a player worth paying a price to acquire.

All this discussion is fun and great.. but based on the fact that nothing has happened by now, I'm starting to think bruins management disagrees with me (and others) and prefers to not trade Carlo. That, or Sakic set the price way higher than just Carlo + 1st + B prospect...

 

[BlackFrancis]

Personally, I don't think the pro-Landeskog crowd is being disingenuous enough, comparing Carlo to Hal Gill and Landeskog to Hall of Famers like Neely. You guys should try cultivating a Carlo attitude problem narrative or something.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I think Landeskog is pretty darn close to being a core player, the guy is a great 2 way player who is already a captain, so his intangibles are off the charts. Get him out of that mess in Colorado and I think he would flourish here in Boston where he could just be himself without the pressure of being captain for such a poor team. He is at worst a 2nd line player/borderline 1st line.

Are his intangibles worth:
1. Making the current team worse overall?
2. Mortgaging the future?

I'm down with acquiring him for the right price, but not breaking the bank.

 

[Fenian24]

There is that key word. Potential.

Carlo has PROVEN he can play in the NHL, and be effective.

There is a chance none of the rest of Boston's D prospect become Top 4 D-men. Not to mention most of them shoot left. Even the legendary Charlie McAvoy is no guarantee to be an effective NHLer. I like his chances, I'd even put money on it, but there is zero guarantees.

And folks keep citing Hjalmarsson as a comparable to Carlo. And it's not far off base.

But if were talking potential why can't Carlo be a Seabrook?

Agree that Carlo can play now, and play well, but how many players have had solid/good first seasons and never moved past that level. Just off the top of my head Glen Wesley and Kyle McLaren come to mind here. Both were good defensemen, neither, in my opinion, reached the level of play expected after their respective first seasons.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Agree that Carlo can play now, and play well, but how many players have had solid/good first seasons and never moved past that level. Just off the top of my head Glen Wesley and Kyle McLaren come to mind here. Both were good defensemen, neither, in my opinion, reached the level of play expected after their respective first seasons.

How does this mentality not apply to the risk of Landeskog?

Honest question. If Carlo is what he is, what about Landeskog who has statistically decreased each year?

I personally think each player can and will get better. Carlo fits a direct NEED right now, I'm really really not feeling the need to acquire Landeskog. He would be an overpaid luxury on a team that's still retooling. If this was the Bruins back in 2013 or 14, it would be different, but we aren't those teams anymore.

 

[ODAAT]

If Tyson Barrie is on the table, this deal should be done immediately.

I doubt he is but if Carlo is moved, who the he** in this lineup is capable of stepping up and playing top minutes? Or, looking into the future, where`s that replacement R handed D man coming from?

Heavy on the left side, very slim depth in the system on the right. I`m kinda old school in this regard, ya build from the net out. I get that a guy like Landy would be a nice addition, no way am I willing to move Carlo and create a big hole yet again on the back end.

This ain`t the Bruins of only a few years ago where an attractive UFA would be racing to sign on board with, this is a team in transition and in order to get a UFA, a heavy over payment would be necessary IMO, I don`t want that either.

 

[C77]

Agree that Carlo can play now, and play well, but how many players have had solid/good first seasons and never moved past that level. Just off the top of my head Glen Wesley and Kyle McLaren come to mind here. Both were good defensemen, neither, in my opinion, reached the level of play expected after their respective first seasons.

Boston came into this season with 2 top 4 dmen in Chara and Krug. Carlo has made it 3. If we trade Carlo and Chara retires, do we really want to have to rebuild the defense from scratch? Seems to me like a recipe for a last place finish.

 

[ODAAT]

How does this mentality not apply to the risk of Landeskog?

Honest question. If Carlo is what he is, what about Landeskog who has statistically decreased each year?

I personally think each player can and will get better. Carlo fits a direct NEED right now, I'm really really not feeling the need to acquire Landeskog. He would be an overpaid luxury on a team that's still retooling. If this was the Bruins back in 2013 or 14, it would be different, but we aren't those teams anymore.

right there with you.

 

[ON3M4N]

I really didn't want to get into Landeskog discussion again, but it seems no one wants to talk about anything else. Let me pose this question to everyone.

Do you feel like Landeskog could be better in Boston than he is in Colorado? i.e. could he become the 30/40 guy that everyone envisioned he would be after his '13-'14 season.

Another way to phrase it, would you trade Carlo in a deal for a 30G/40A 24 yr winger?

I look at it this way. Both players are a gamble, but Landeskog is less of a gamble. Carlo looks like he has a bright future, but we still don't know realistically what he's going to be. In Landeskog you know your getting at worse a 20G/30A guy that plays a 200ft game.

Now before anyone freaks out, I'm very pro keeping Carlo, but I'm also open to what options are available.

 

[CombatOnContact]

Are his intangibles worth:
1. Making the current team worse overall?
2. Mortgaging the future?

I'm down with acquiring him for the right price, but not breaking the bank.

1. Carlo for Landeskog does not make this team worse overall. But that's a matter of opinion.
2. Trading Carlo does not mortgage the future.. unless you feel like the Bruins have no other decent prospects in the system. Also a matter of opinion.

 

[Bruinfanatic]

Bruns biggest weakness is there defence,so can't see trading Carlo for a forward,who is taking his place? I guess the Bruins would be giving up on this season if they made that trade,and would be hopping one of there defensive prospects could step in and play next season.I say stay the course with what they have.

 

[Lord Ahriman]

I doubt he is but if Carlo is moved, who the he** in this lineup is capable of stepping up and playing top minutes? Or, looking into the future, where`s that replacement R handed D man coming from?

Heavy on the left side, very slim depth in the system on the right. I`m kinda old school in this regard, ya build from the net out. I get that a guy like Landy would be a nice addition, no way am I willing to move Carlo and create a big hole yet again on the back end.

This ain`t the Bruins of only a few years ago where an attractive UFA would be racing to sign on board with, this is a team in transition and in order to get a UFA, a heavy over payment would be necessary IMO, I don`t want that either.

Not only that: Barries makes 5.5M and Landeskog 5.6M, how do you stay under the cap next year?

And don't get me wrong I'd rather have Carlo than Barrie.

 

[ODAAT]

1. Carlo for Landeskog does not make this team worse overall. But that's a matter of opinion.
2. Trading Carlo does not mortgage the future.. unless you feel like the Bruins have no other decent prospects in the system. Also a matter of opinion.

they do have prospects but I`ll ask you, which RHD is stepping in to eat his minutes? I see none among the prospect pool, most of them are LHD. I don`t think C Miller is the right guy for that job and I cringe at the thought of Quaider being the guy

Honestly, I think a deal for Landeskog could be consummated without losing either of Carlo or McAvoy.

 

[Bmessy]

Agree that Carlo can play now, and play well, but how many players have had solid/good first seasons and never moved past that level. Just off the top of my head Glen Wesley and Kyle McLaren come to mind here. Both were good defensemen, neither, in my opinion, reached the level of play expected after their respective first seasons.

Mentioning two players who had 15+ year careers is a bad example. I don't think Carlo has #1 potential. But I do think he has a steady presence in a top 4 for years to come. What the heck is wrong with that? If Carlo plays 15 years in the NHL, like your examples, that's a damn steal for the second round even if he's "just" a #4 shutdown dman.

Haven't we been searching for D depth ever since we traded it away? Now we have it, it's affordable and controllable. He's huge and skates well and is a shutdown dman. Thats more rare than a Colin Miller.

Taking into consideration our forward struggles, I believe that can be solved in house. Bergeron and Krejci seem to be hitting their strides. I don't want to trade Carlo to fix a forward problem. Maybe we should have gotten assets for Soderberg or Eriksson, or should get assets for Spooner and address some issues that way. Enough with letting assets just walk away.

 

[JAD]

If the Bruins could get Landeskog without giving up Carlo or McAvoy they should seriously consider it.

But as of right now Carlo is too important to this Bruins defense to trade away.
And as of right now McAvoy is to important to the Bruins future defensive needs.

Both Carlo and McAvoy will be on ELCs the next two - three years. And then hopefully bridge deals. This is a very important consideration for cap issues.
Replacing either of those two with a veteran defenseman making 6 - 7 million just plan strangles cap management, unless that veteran D is the missing piece to immediately winning the cup.

 

[Lord Ahriman]

1. Carlo for Landeskog does not make this team worse overall. But that's a matter of opinion.
2. Trading Carlo does not mortgage the future.. unless you feel like the Bruins have no other decent prospects in the system. Also a matter of opinion.

At this moment, 20+ min top 4 dman makes a lot more sense than a 20/25 goals top 6 forward.

 

[Over the volcano]

The undervaluing of Landeskog by focusing on his goals alone and the overvaluing of Carlo focusing on the role he's been playing is bananas.

To tip the scales back a bit
Landeskog is a 24 year old captain in the league (youngest in the leagues history at th time he was named) and can play at any forward position.
Carlo is playing the role out of necessity as much as anything - Trotman was in that spot last year and performed roughly the same.

There is great potential in Carlo, but if he goes there has to be a young defense-man coming back as part of the deal.

 

[ODAAT]

Not only that: Barries makes 5.5M and Landeskog 5.6M, how do you stay under the cap next year?

And don't get me wrong I'd rather have Carlo than Barrie.

think the B`s have over 10 mill of space now

RFA`s are Spoons/Pasta/Czarnik/Schaller/Morrow, my guess, only Pasta a shoe-in for a new deal

I`m not overly worried about the cap space TBH, Z`s hit drops next year too

 

[ON3M4N]

they do have prospects but I`ll ask you, which RHD is stepping in to eat his minutes? I see none among the prospect pool, most of them are LHD. I don`t think C Miller is the right guy for that job and I cringe at the thought of Quaider being the guy

Honestly, I think a deal for Landeskog could be consummated without losing either of Carlo or McAvoy.

Does Boston step outside the organization and go after a guy like Michael Stone from ARI? 26yr old UFA who would cost $2 million the rest of the season and avg 20 minutes a night right now, but shows the ability to log 22+ a night.

 

[BruinDust]

they do have prospects but I`ll ask you, which RHD is stepping in to eat his minutes? I see none among the prospect pool, most of them are LHD. I don`t think C Miller is the right guy for that job and I cringe at the thought of Quaider being the guy

Honestly, I think a deal for Landeskog could be consummated without losing either of Carlo or McAvoy.

At least there should be.

Boston has enough sub 25 assets to give Colorado a more than fair offer on Gabriel Landeskog without having to give up Carlo or McAvoy.

 

[Bruinfanatic]

Mentioning two players who had 15+ year careers is a bad example. I don't think Carlo has #1 potential. But I do think he has a steady presence in a top 4 for years to come. What the heck is wrong with that? If Carlo plays 15 years in the NHL thats a damn steal for the second round even if he's "just" a #4 shutdown dman. haven't we been searching for D depth ever since we traded it away? Now we have it, it's affordable and controllable. He's huge and skates well and is a shutdown dman. Thats more rare than a Colin Miller

Has Carlo not been a top 2 Defenceman for the Bruins all this season.?

 

[ODAAT]

The undervaluing of Landeskog by focusing on his goals alone and the overvaluing of Carlo focusing on the role he's been playing is bananas.

To tip the scales back a bit
Landeskog is a 24 year old captain in the league (youngest in the leagues history at th time he was named) and can play at any forward position.
Carlo is playing the role out of necessity as much as anything - Trotman was in that spot last year and performed roughly the same.

There is great potential in Carlo, but if he goes there has to be a young defense-man coming back as part of the deal.

I like them both to be honest, but truthfully, I`m not sure it`s not the other way around, I think too many over valuing Landy and under valuing Carlo and that`s ok, disagreement is what makes this board great

I don`t see Carlo as the next Scott Stevens but finds like him(Carlo) just aren`t easy