Player Discussion Andrew Peeke

[UncleRico]

This defense also gives you depth, how playoffs have taken a bad turn because of injuries , Carlo, Lindstrom just to name a couple, love this D..............And please can we have a year of acknowledgement of just how good and how important Carlo is to this team.


Yes! let's get older with Skinner, and go back to being smaller with Brannstrom,............keep your freaking hands off this defense.

We have a bunch of monsters on the defense lol I’ll sacrifice one spot for a puck moving defenseman making $900k. Plus that avoids the inevitable situation of having two defenders in zadorov and peeke together who struggle to move the puck.

Hell if you don’t want brannstrom go with wotherspoon.

Like I said it doesn’t have to be skinner. Can be anyone.

I would much rather spend on a top 6 RW than have a #6 defender making as much as our 2nd and 3rd line RWs combined.

2nd line RW is a much more important area to address than a #6 defender.

And potentially relying on Geekie who despite being a serviceable bottom 6 guys, isn’t a 2nd line RW. Then potentially relying on a guy in brazeau who has 19 career games played… isn’t exactly an ideal situation. Especially with marchands age opposite of that 2nd line RW.

 

[JoeIsAStud]

We have a bunch of monsters on the defense lol I’ll sacrifice one spot for a puck moving defenseman making $900k. Plus that avoids the inevitable situation of having two defenders in zadorov and peeke together who struggle to move the puck.

Hell if you don’t want brannstrom go with wotherspoon.

Like I said it doesn’t have to be skinner. Can be anyone.

I would much rather spend on a top 6 RW than have a #6 defender making as much as our 2nd and 3rd line RWs combined.

2nd line RW is a much more important area to address than a #6 defender.

And potentially relying on Geekie who despite being a serviceable bottom 6 guys, isn’t a 2nd line RW. Then potentially relying on a guy in brazeau who has 19 career games played… isn’t exactly an ideal situation. Especially with marchands age opposite of that 2nd line RW.

But you are making the assumption that it is Zadarov and Peeke on the 3rd pair, which maybe it will be at times, but may not be a lot of the time. It could well be that they choose to have Lohrei on the 3rd pair, and if you do that matching him up with a low end PMD is likely a recipe for disaster.

 

[Grimey]

Fine, just don’t sign peeke and we have enough room to sign skinner/branstrom easiest solution.

Both of those guys either are past their prime or never had it to begin with but I guess since it isn’t Andrew Peeke. Maybe if people will stop crying about this trade it might be worth it.

 

[UncleRico]

But you are making the assumption that it is Zadarov and Peeke on the 3rd pair, which maybe it will be at times, but may not be a lot of the time. It could well be that they choose to have Lohrei on the 3rd pair, and if you do that matching him up with a low end PMD is likely a recipe for disaster.

Easy solution.

I’d play lohrei top 4 minutes all year with either McAvoy or Carlo.

 

[UncleRico]

Both of those guys either are past their prime or never had it to begin with but I guess since it isn’t Andrew Peeke. Maybe if people will stop crying about this trade it might be worth it.

Skinner put up 20+ goals last year and Brannstrom was a serviceable defender last year on a bottom feeder in ottawa. So much so that Colorado brought in Brannstrom to play their 3rd pairing right side D.

I guess teams like Colorado and Edmonton who have seen much more recent success than us lately are wrong though.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

So who are you casting out, Brazeau? Geekie?

Zacha-Lindholm-Pasternak
Marchand-Coyle-Geekie
Frederic-Poitras-Brazeau
Kastelic-Beecher-Jones

I guess by this, Brazeau? But I have him on the fourth. See the Roster thread for reasoning.

 

[Yeti34]

besides Mcavoy and occasionally Lindholm the rest of our Dmen play about the same 17-18 mins. So a “third” pairing Peeke is seeing a lot more overtime than your typical 3rd pairing dman.

I’d like to see at least for the start of the year. This lets Mcavoy focus on a little more offense.

Zardov-Mcavoy
Lindholm-carlo
Lohrei-Peeke

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Skinner put up 20+ goals last year and Brannstrom was a serviceable defender last year on a bottom feeder in ottawa. So much so that Colorado brought in Brannstrom to play their 3rd pairing right side D.

I guess teams like Colorado and Edmonton who have seen much more recent success than us lately are wrong though.

You really want the Justin Bieber of Hockey?

Skinner is a left winger, right?

Probably one of softest wingers in the game right now.

 

[UncleRico]

You really want the Justin Bieber of Hockey?

Skinner is a left winger, right?

Probably one of softest wingers in the game right now.

I said a bunch of times previously doesn’t have to be skinner I was just throwing a name out there, but yes I’d rather have him over Peeke.

As I said before I’m part of the crazy world where I would rather spend on top 6 wingers as opposed to 6th defenders.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I said a bunch of times previously doesn’t have to be skinner I was just throwing a name out there, but yes I’d rather have him over Peeke.

As I said before I’m part of the crazy world where I would rather spend on top 6 wingers as opposed to 6th defenders.

Fair enough.

 

[BruinDust]

besides Mcavoy and occasionally Lindholm the rest of our Dmen play about the same 17-18 mins. So a “third” pairing Peeke is seeing a lot more overtime than your typical 3rd pairing dman.

Fact is, Andrew Peeke averaged more ice-time per game (17:36) with the Bruins than the 6th highest forward (Morgan Geekie) at 15:25.

At the end of the day, the argument isn't specific to Andrew Peeke. It boils down to how much value does one place on that particular role on the team. Do they value a 3rd pair D who kills penalties and plays 16-17-18 mins a night? If so, invest in it.

If not, go with a cheap UFA or an ELC guy and hope for the best.

One could make the same statement about back-up goaltenders, 4th line forwards, etc.

The debate goes around in circles because there is no one definitive answer.

 

[NDiesel]

Doesn’t have to be skinnier could be anyone for top 6.

But hey skinner was good enough for a teams that’s had much more recent success than the bruins.

Funny, aren't you always pretty adamant that losing in a cup final isn't success?

 

[UncleRico]

Funny, aren't you always pretty adamant that losing in a cup final isn't success?

More* success being the key part of the sentence, but yes in general losing isn’t success. However making it further than someone is more.

Hell I have numerous posts talking about Sweeney and chiarelli where I talk about total playoff series wins, ECF appearances as different levels of success. But ya chiarelli winning a cup and going to another cup and losing is more success than Sweeney only making it to a cup.

But I imagine what you are alluding to is my posts where I say I’d rather have been the kings over the past 15 years winnings 2 cups and mixed in missing the playoffs as opposed to 1 cup and always in the playoffs. Which yes still stands.

Cups are king.

 

[dafoomie]

Fact is, Andrew Peeke averaged more ice-time per game (17:36) with the Bruins than the 6th highest forward (Morgan Geekie) at 15:25.

At the end of the day, the argument isn't specific to Andrew Peeke. It boils down to how much value does one place on that particular role on the team. Do they value a 3rd pair D who kills penalties and plays 16-17-18 mins a night? If so, invest in it.

If not, go with a cheap UFA or an ELC guy and hope for the best.

One could make the same statement about back-up goaltenders, 4th line forwards, etc.

The debate goes around in circles because there is no one definitive answer.

There's no debate at all as long as no one can suggest a credible option for that slot who costs less than Peeke. There's just one or two people yelling at clouds.

 

[Grimey]

Skinner put up 20+ goals last year and Brannstrom was a serviceable defender last year on a bottom feeder in ottawa. So much so that Colorado brought in Brannstrom to play their 3rd pairing right side D.

I guess teams like Colorado and Edmonton who have seen much more recent success than us lately are wrong though.

And the solution apparently is to go and immediately gamble on a soft forward with a concussion history who is on the wrong side of 30 and was ACTUALLY (not just speculated to be) bought out by another shit team in Buffalo? Sounds like the exact same thing you guys have been harping on Sweeney for. Sure I’ll agree on Brannstrom but you just said he’s a 3rd pair D (so basically Andrew Peeke) when you also are saying you want to spend that money on that top six.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

You kno these stupid memes? This is not how building a team works.

 

[UncleRico]

And the solution apparently is to go and immediately gamble on a soft forward with a concussion history who is on the wrong side of 30 and was ACTUALLY (not just speculated to be) bought out by another shit team in Buffalo? Sounds like the exact same thing you guys have been harping on Sweeney for. Sure I’ll agree on Brannstrom but you just said he’s a 3rd pair D (so basically Andrew Peeke) when you also are saying you want to spend that money on that top six.

And as I will say for probably the 10th time skinner was just an example it could literally be anyone.

My point is not getting skinner. It’s getting a top 6 forward. If you don’t want skinner then fine pick another top 6 forward for all I care because I don’t care who it is.

I’ll say it once again. I would rather pay a top 6 forward than a #6 defender any day of the week.

Unfortunately there’s been a bunch of moves since peeke was acquired so cap space is gone, but I would have never acquired Peeke to begin with and approached the offseason differently than Sweeney did.

I am much more in favor of going the Colorado Avs route of picking up cheap 3rd pairing D like Calvin de haan and Brannstrom for a combined $1.7m while loading up in the top 6/top4

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

And as I will say for probably the 10th time skinner was just an example it could literally be anyone.

But why male models?

 

[Tbaybruin]

I'd love to hear the in-depth analysis on how he was "miss used" in Columbus.

No in-depth. They didn’t let him develope in the minors and played him to much in the NHL.

 

[Tbaybruin]

The best better be yet to come because I’m not sure it could get any worse.

Over the last three seasons he’s had the 13th most GA while on ice in the league. Everyone with more had at roughly 500 or more minutes played than him

Well playing on the bottom teams in the league will do that. He has shows he can be good at times. He was very good against Edmonton this year while with Columbus. Our pro scouts have done a great job lately, I will side with them. Also the Bruins don’t have picks and extra cap space to fill holes. They identified this player and went with it.

 

[BiteThisBurrows]

We have a bunch of monsters on the defense lol I’ll sacrifice one spot for a puck moving defenseman making $900k. Plus that avoids the inevitable situation of having two defenders in zadorov and peeke together who struggle to move the puck.

Hell if you don’t want brannstrom go with wotherspoon.

Like I said it doesn’t have to be skinner. Can be anyone.

I would much rather spend on a top 6 RW than have a #6 defender making as much as our 2nd and 3rd line RWs combined.

2nd line RW is a much more important area to address than a #6 defender.

And potentially relying on Geekie who despite being a serviceable bottom 6 guys, isn’t a 2nd line RW. Then potentially relying on a guy in brazeau who has 19 career games played… isn’t exactly an ideal situation. Especially with marchands age opposite of that 2nd line RW.

Zadorov doesn't struggle moving the puck. You will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[BiteThisBurrows]

I guess by this, Brazeau? But I have him on the fourth. See the Roster thread for reasoning.

I want the heavier 4th line. Brazeau is basically taking the JVR spot (as he did) and I'm more interested in how players will fit together and work with each other's abilities for my lines, so how it shakes out will depend on which of Lysell/Poitras/Merkulov earns that one open spot.

Going to save all that reasoning for the fall though. Way too early for line combinations for me.

 

[Mad-Marcus]

Uncle Rico starring in "Relentless". Same point over and over is not going to change minds or make it happen. It white noise by now. Time to move on to another part of the roster.
FYI Skinner doesn't play defense, therefore he doesn't fit the B's mold of everyone being defensively responsible. They even expect Pasta to try.
Brannstrom is another midget that will get exposed in the playoffs.
The most reasonable thing you've said in this entire thread is they could have gone with Wotherspoon and had Regula as a 7th D. That I could see.
But I see they're 6 D as solid as anybody's, big, all can skate. Peeke had a couple of moment when he cut into the zone a label a pass cross crease, one of them was finished, the other was a save.
Too many people on this thread have stated that he's better than you're admitting. Smoke=fire.
As I said I give you credit, you stick by your guns. Doesn't I see it the same.
2.75M is nothing in todays NHL and Lohrei is the sub 1M bargain on D.

Peace brother and I guess we'll see how much Peeke contributes this year.

 

[NDiesel]

So Peeke = new Gryz?

 

[LSCII]

So Peeke = new Gryz?

I’d say it’s the other way, actually. So many people here refuse to accept that he’s an overpaid bottom pairing, depth guy for whatever reason. They act like he’s a top pairing dman if anyone dares to be critical. So I’d say peeke is there new McAvoy, but most of his defenders wanted to run Charlie out of town during the playoffs.