Player Discussion Andrew Peeke

[Grimey]

Great point.

Just to show how much of a crapshoot the draft is, Peeke was drafted high 2nd round (34th overall) in 2016 draft. Bruins drafted Ryan Lindgren (49), basically a left shooting Peeke. In the 3rd round, where there wasn't much left, Calgary drafted Adam Fox, who would win the Norris Trophy 5 years later. So the Flames stepped in it. But they still didn't know what they had and made him part of a deal that sent Fox (along with Dougie Hamilton) to the Hurricanes while he was still in college. Not to be outdone, the Hurricanes traded him to the Rangers

Nail Yakupov: 1st overall - bust

Michael Ryder: 8th rounder - put up three 30 goal seasons, Stanley cup champ, can become Tim Thomas in a pinch.

 

[PlayMakers]

Lovely if you don’t consider they are eating up 10% of your cap. That’s astronomical for a third pair.

Zadorov is 3rd on the D in ice time.

He's not really "3rd pair" if he's 2nd or 3rd in TOI most night. You could make the argument that Wotherspoon-Carlo has become our 3rd pair.

 

[Colt.45Orr]

Zadorov is 3rd on the D in ice time.

He's not really "3rd pair" if he's 2nd or 3rd in TOI most night. You could make the argument that Wotherspoon-Carlo has become our 3rd pair.

Exactly this, and it's really annoying to continously see the lazy usual suspects slag the Zadorov signing by calling him "3rd pair".

3rd overall in icetime and leading our D in +/- and hits --and 1pt off the D lead in pts.

1 min behind Lindholm in mins/game and 1min ahead of Carlo.

"3rd pair" = grow up.

 

[TheReal13Linseman]

Nah. Defensively he's a 2nd pair guy. Ference/Boychuk territory IMO.

He's better with the puck than Carlo as well.

Carlos regression and us having such a crappy 2D is one of the reasons this season hasn't gone well.

He IS better than Carlo. I said that last year and all the Carlo fan boys jumped on me.

 

[Kalus]

Zadorov is 3rd on the D in ice time.

He's not really "3rd pair" if he's 2nd or 3rd in TOI most night. You could make the argument that Wotherspoon-Carlo has become our 3rd pair.

I say 3rd pair because that’s what his 600 plus NHL games record prior to Boston says he is. His time in Boston is a small sample size and it’s been a weird year. They gave him a 2nd pair contract and are trying to make it work that way. Willing to bet he’ll prove to be a 3rd pair guy here too. Remember, he turns 30 in a few months, he is what he is.

 

[Dr Hook]

Zadorov is 3rd on the D in ice time.

He's not really "3rd pair" if he's 2nd or 3rd in TOI most night. You could make the argument that Wotherspoon-Carlo has become our 3rd pair.

It might be time to retire the antiquated rankings of "third pair", "fourth line". etc. Roles and ice time tell the stoyy so much better and it would stop a lot of the silly player comments and evaluations. Zadorov is playing "top 4 D" minutes, but it's more about usage with him, right? Who cares if he fits the definition of a "third pair"? And I admit, I use the terms too because of ease and custom, but I don't know that those types of distinctions are all that helpful these days.

 

[Terrier]

For Mary Ruth Peeke, Bruins’ moms trip was a full-circle journey - The Boston Globe

The mother of defenseman Andrew Peeke flew north from her South Florida home before heading back to the Sunshine State with the rest of her Bruins brethren.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[DKH]

He IS better than Carlo. I said that last year and all the Carlo fan boys jumped on me.

I ripped you in the private thread so don’t lump me in the fan boys here - I’m with the cool men of HF

 

[Terrier]

Bruins notebook: Andrew Peeke stepped up to the challenge

Andrew Peeke is who he is and he knows that identity. That doesn’t mean he can’t keep adding things to his game.

www.bostonherald.com

 

[NDiesel]

So how are we feeling about losing that 2027 3rd for him these days? Seems to be stealing ice time from Carlo more and more each game.

 

[Kalus]

So how are we feeling about losing that 2027 3rd for him these days? Seems to be stealing ice time from Carlo more and more each game.

It was never about the future 3rd round pick, it was always about taking on his contract without Columbus retaining AAV or adding a draft pick. At the time, his contract was seen widely around the league as a negative value one. That was the case last year where he underperformed his cap hit. This year, I am happy to give him credit for performing to the level of his contract.

 

[NDiesel]

It was never about the future 3rd round pick, it was always about taking on his contract without Columbus retaining AAV or adding a draft pick. At the time, his contract was seen widely around the league as a negative value one. That was the case last year where he underperformed his cap hit. This year, I am happy to give him credit for performing to the level of his contract.

So in other words, you didn't agree with the price paid? Saying the 3rd was too much or that Columbus should have added/retained is really a different way of saying the same thing - you didn't like the price paid.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

I say 3rd pair because that’s what his 600 plus NHL games record prior to Boston says he is. His time in Boston is a small sample size and it’s been a weird year. They gave him a 2nd pair contract and are trying to make it work that way. Willing to bet he’ll prove to be a 3rd pair guy here too. Remember, he turns 30 in a few months, he is what he is.

Last two PO seasons #91 has gotten top 4D ice time. Physicality during PO ramps up and #91 seems to elevate his play and can handle that physicality better.
His contract isn't ideal but isn't awful.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

It was never about the future 3rd round pick, it was always about taking on his contract without Columbus retaining AAV or adding a draft pick. At the time, his contract was seen widely around the league as a negative value one. That was the case last year where he underperformed his cap hit. This year, I am happy to give him credit for performing to the level of his contract.

Like almost everybody who returned from last year his play wasn't good thru November. He has stabilized his play since Montgomery's firing but still has obvious limitations. People shouldn't let literally a career game from him
cloud their judgement of his expected play.

 

[NDiesel]

Like almost everybody who returned from last year his play wasn't good thru November. He has stabilized his play since Montgomery's firing but still has obvious limitations. People shouldn't let literally a career game from him
cloud their judgement of his expected play.

I still don't see him as a top 4 guy, but recently they are playing him more minutes than Carlo so the team may disagree with me on that.

 

[Number8]

I've always like Peeke in Boston.

Obviously a team can't ice a D lineup with six Ray Bourques.

Need unsung warriors and, largely, I think that is what Peeke has been for us.

 

[BMC]

Peeke has been very good lately IMO. Last game he was great. Don't know if he can sustain that level of play.

 

[Hookslide]

I've always like Peeke in Boston.

Obviously a team can't ice a D lineup with six Ray Bourques.

Need unsung warriors and, largely, I think that is what Peeke has been for us.

You need to stop being so rationale, you are spoiling all the Peeke haters fun.

 

[Kalus]

So in other words, you didn't agree with the price paid? Saying the 3rd was too much or that Columbus should have added/retained is really a different way of saying the same thing - you didn't like the price paid.

No, my point is that no price should have been paid by the Bruins. At the time of the trade, Peeke’s contract was widely considered negative value (and it proved to be so up until this season where he is currently playing close to the contract value). A fair trade would be something like 50% retained for future considerations or nothing retained but Peeke plus a current year 2nd for future considerations.

Bruins did Columbus a big favor by not only taking the entire contract with nothing retained but actually adding value too (albeit, a future 3rd being minimum value).

 

[NDiesel]

No, my point is that no price should have been paid by the Bruins. At the time of the trade, Peeke’s contract was widely considered negative value (and it proved to be so up until this season where he is currently playing close to the contract value). A fair trade would be something like 50% retained for future considerations or nothing retained but Peeke plus a current year 2nd for future considerations.

Bruins did Columbus a big favor by not only taking the entire contract with nothing retained but actually adding value too (albeit, a future 3rd being minimum value).

Okay but this is still contradictory to say it was never about the 3rd rounder but then also say it was too much to give up based on how you valued Peeke, you just keep rewording it but it's the same thing, you are just targeting the return instead of what we gave up but at the end of the day you are saying we overpaid in value.

My point from day 1 is that a 3rd rounder 4 years in the future has almost no value today, thought it was weird the dislike this trade got given the risk was very low to start with and the reward could potentially be high.

 

[Kalus]

Okay but this is still contradictory to say it was never about the 3rd rounder but then also say it was too much to give up based on how you valued Peeke, you just keep rewording it but it's the same thing, you are just targeting the return instead of what we gave up but at the end of the day you are saying we overpaid in value.

My point from day 1 is that a 3rd rounder 4 years in the future has almost no value today, thought it was weird the dislike this trade got given the risk was very low to start with and the reward could potentially be high.

I am not rewording anything, you are just having trouble grasping the concept, but that’s is not your fault. I will try to explain it more simply:

In a hard cap sport, contracts with too much cap and/or term for what the player can deliver on the ice for the life of the contract are considered negative value contracts. When a team wants to move a negative value contract, the team typically has to retain AAV, provide something of value along with the contract like a draft pick or valuable player, or take back a bad contract from the trading team.

Because the Bruins agreed to take on the negative value contract without insisting Columbus retain AAV, provide something else of value along with it, or take back a bad contract on Boston’s roster, the Bruins overpaid for Peeke. And then, on top of it, they also provided a future 3rd. But understand they overpaid even without giving the future 3rd by taking on the Peeke contract without any other consideration (retention, sweetener etc).

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I am not rewording anything, you are just having trouble grasping the concept, but that’s is not your fault. I will try to explain it more simply:

In a hard cap sport, contracts with too much cap and/or term for what the player can deliver on the ice for the life of the contract are considered negative value contracts. When a team wants to move a negative value contract, the team typically has to retain AAV, provide something of value along with the contract like a draft pick or valuable player, or take back a bad contract from the trading team.

Because the Bruins agreed to take on the negative value contract without insisting Columbus retain AAV, provide something else of value along with it, or take back a bad contract on Boston’s roster, the Bruins overpaid for Peeke. And then, on top of it, they also provided a future 3rd. But understand they overpaid even without giving the future 3rd by taking on the Peeke contract without any other consideration (retention, sweetener etc).

That’s assuming Peeke was a negative-value contract.

I didn’t think so at the time. Quite the opposite in fact. Still don’t.

 

[Alicat]

Better than Forbort. I said what I said.

 

[22Brad Park]

Exactly this, and it's really annoying to continously see the lazy usual suspects slag the Zadorov signing by calling him "3rd pair".

3rd overall in icetime and leading our D in +/- and hits --and 1pt off the D lead in pts.

1 min behind Lindholm in mins/game and 1min ahead of Carlo.

"3rd pair" = grow up.

Yea, that is on the Bruins backend .I saw lots of Zadorov living here in Calgary and yes he can be good one just look at playoffs last yr for Canucks.He was arguably their best player game in game out.Maybe he has cleaned things up, but he use to get caught alot and wander up ice alot and cause odd man breaks steady.Add in alot of dumb penalties too.Hats off to him playing well now ,but there is a reason others said 3rd pair.

 

[NDiesel]

I am not rewording anything, you are just having trouble grasping the concept, but that’s is not your fault. I will try to explain it more simply:

In a hard cap sport, contracts with too much cap and/or term for what the player can deliver on the ice for the life of the contract are considered negative value contracts. When a team wants to move a negative value contract, the team typically has to retain AAV, provide something of value along with the contract like a draft pick or valuable player, or take back a bad contract from the trading team.

Because the Bruins agreed to take on the negative value contract without insisting Columbus retain AAV, provide something else of value along with it, or take back a bad contract on Boston’s roster, the Bruins overpaid for Peeke. And then, on top of it, they also provided a future 3rd. But understand they overpaid even without giving the future 3rd by taking on the Peeke contract without any other consideration (retention, sweetener etc).

Look I get it, your reasoning for not liking it has nothing to do with the 3rd. At the end of the day you wouldnt have paid that price, I just don't see that 3rd as much of a price to begin with regardless of the player or contract coming back (within reason of course).

We are pretty much arguing semantics at this point though, I think given the rarity of RHD it was worth the risk then and I believe it's paying off now.

Hope he keeps up his play and stays healthy above all.

That’s assuming Peeke was a negative-value contract.

I didn’t think so at the time. Quite the opposite in fact. Still don’t.

Never got to watch a lot of Peeke before he got here, but I liked the logic of grabbing him from a dysfunctional team and hoping he'd return to form.

Given how that entire team has bounced back this year definitely makes you wonder if that bad year was due to coaching/management.