Proposal: Bruins Trade Proposals V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oates2Neely

Registered User
Jan 19, 2010
19,884
14,766
Massachusetts
Kings
Blues
Knights
Oilers
Coyotes

Western Conference teams most likely not sniffing playoffs. LA & Edmonton need major overhauls. Blues need tweaking.

Penguins
Panthers
Devils
Red Wings

I don’t see a trade happening with either of these teams. All younger teams facing growing pains. Penguins are just... idk.

How is Kovalchuk doing in LA?
 

JRull86

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
27,774
15,815
South Shore
In a no cap world Krug would be a Bruin for life - great team guy, PP specialist,...problem is we are not and they will not be able to keep the core intact if they have to pay Krug "market" when his deal is up. otherwise you are in the position like Chicago who had to deal great young players for less than value b/c of their cap predicament. Charlie Mac, Moore (b/c of his contract), Vaak, Gryz, Carlo are the core based on cap management
I disagree, they have wiggle room for the next few years because Bergeron, Marchand, and Pastrnak are all well below market value. Couple the with the cap rising slightly every year, and they have the room to keep someone like Krug around while the window is open again.

Now, all of this is predicated on the RFAs coming up getting signed to reasonable deals. McAvoy & Carlo, plus whoever of the young forwards they decide to keep will obviously get paid, but Sweeney has shown an ability to get guys who are already here signed to reasonable money. Marchand, Pastrnak, are the obvious ones, but deals like John Moore look really good in terms of future impact. Moore makes what he should be making, if not slightly more right now, but gave up money for security. A bottom pair guy, who could play middle pairing minutes, making 2.75/year 4 years down the line is probably less than market value. Let's also not forget that Chara is year to year, but probably won't be around much longer.

Obviously I'm not advocating them paying Krug slightly below a Karlsson, but realistically market value for what he is, most likely slots in at around 6/6.5, which going forward doesn't really hamper them all that much.

That all being said, I think if the right deal is there to be made involving moving Krug, you do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: don and Strafer

ODAAT

Registered User
Oct 17, 2006
52,691
21,605
Victoria BC
end of the day for this fan, I sit pat right now, wait until some bodies return and see what the team plays like when healthy or at the very least, healthier.

I don`t want to see a panic move at the 20 game mark, in a situation where I would suspect the B`s are or would be dealing from a position of weakness and still 3/4 of a season left
 

JRull86

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
27,774
15,815
South Shore
Also, huge no to Lucic.

I get the Backes deal sucks for what he's giving them right now, but it's an extremely moveable deal after this season to a cap floor team (assuming he waives).

Even if they are stuck with him until the end of the deal, it ends in the 20-21 season, unlike Lucic who still has another two seasons after that.

People can get on Backes play all they want, and given his age, it's not going to improve. It's also a preview of what's to come for Lucic, who is well on his way there already.

I'm all set having a 6 million cap hit tied up until 22-23 in a player who can barely keep up with the pace of play right now.
 

Absurdity

light switch connoisseur
Jul 6, 2012
11,428
8,070
The problem (IMO) with Namestnikov is that he makes $4m next season, so the B's would have to a shed a similar contract in order to re-sign their own free agents.
Maybe if Boston is willing to offer Donato, the Bruins can somehow add Backes to the deal with a sweetener like a 2nd/3rd? :dunno:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer

BruinsFanSince94

The Perfect Fan ™
Sep 28, 2017
32,709
43,380
New England
Are people ignoring that Lucic's production over the same time frame as Backes's has been equal? He has 4 more points than Backes this season. He has 2 more ES points than Backes this season. He averages just ~2 more minutes per game than Backes does. He's on pace for the worst production of his career. He's signed at the same cap hit as Backes and has 2 more years remaining on his deal.

Why are people STILL pining for this guy? He's not going to come back to Boston and have a career revival. He is declining just like Backes. So why don't we bite the bullet with Backes and get out of the same deal 2 years earlier instead of prolonging it 2 extra years? Its mind boggling that people would add to Backes to get Lucic back here. HE IS NOT THE LUCIC THAT LEFT BOSTON AND NEVER WILL BE.
 

Gordon Lightfoot

Hey Dotcom. Nice to meet you.
Sponsor
Feb 3, 2009
18,936
5,416
The problem (IMO) with Namestnikov is that he makes $4m next season, so the B's would have to a shed a similar contract in order to re-sign their own free agents.

That seems like a workable problem. People keep saying that Krug will likely be moved (or at least that it's a good idea) because he's going to be looking for a huge raise. Maybe that can be part of it (not a direct deal with NYR) but as part of a larger picture thing. A lot of our defense is out, but when they come back it feels like we're going to be stacked back there. I'd consider moving Krug because that would be dealing from a position of strength.

Chara/McAvoy
Carlo/Grzelcyk
Moore/Miller (Lauzon?)

Obviously would hurt to lose Krug's offense but if we could land a quality forward I'd explore that.

(Side note: I am genuinely concerned about McAvoy's health but without really knowing anything about it I can't fully endorse my idea).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
26,421
28,050
The Hub
Maybe if Boston is willing to offer Donato, the Bruins can somehow add Backes to the deal with a sweetener like a 2nd/3rd? :dunno:
While I like the idea, I'd prefer to keep Donato. I think that he's going to be a 1000% better player in the near future. The Providence experience is the best thing in the world for him right now. I would rather give up a JFK or Cehlarik or even both to get it done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419

smack66

Registered User
Mar 5, 2008
5,035
3,677
ontario
Are people ignoring that Lucic's production over the same time frame as Backes's has been equal? He has 4 more points than Backes this season. He has 2 more ES points than Backes this season. He averages just ~2 more minutes per game than Backes does. He's on pace for the worst production of his career. He's signed at the same cap hit as Backes and has 2 more years remaining on his deal.

Why are people STILL pining for this guy? He's not going to come back to Boston and have a career revival. He is declining just like Backes. So why don't we bite the bullet with Backes and get out of the same deal 2 years earlier instead of prolonging it 2 extra years? Its mind boggling that people would add to Backes to get Lucic back here. HE IS NOT THE LUCIC THAT LEFT BOSTON AND NEVER WILL BE.
I don't think people are necessarily pining for Lucic, it would be more of a "how do we get rid of Backes" type of situation. I personally think we are stuck with Backes and hope that if his play doesn't improve he simply becomes the 13th forward on most nights.

the only hope we have is to pay him his 3 million bonus on July 1st, add a sweetener and hope someone takes the last two years of his contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer

Chief Nine

Registered User
May 31, 2015
12,006
15,755
I don't think people are necessarily pining for Lucic, it would be more of a "how do we get rid of Backes" type of situation. I personally think we are stuck with Backes and hope that if his play doesn't improve he simply becomes the 13th forward on most nights.

the only hope we have is to pay him his 3 million bonus on July 1st, add a sweetener and hope someone takes the last two years of his contract.

Yeah but Backes for Lucic is totally an out of the frying pan and into the fire situation. It's really not workable and I seriously doubt Don Sweeney has even spent 2 seconds thinking about a deal like this. It just doesn't make any sense other than to wait it out like you say and see what happens next summer
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419

JRull86

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
27,774
15,815
South Shore
I don't think people are necessarily pining for Lucic, it would be more of a "how do we get rid of Backes" type of situation. I personally think we are stuck with Backes and hope that if his play doesn't improve he simply becomes the 13th forward on most nights.

the only hope we have is to pay him his 3 million bonus on July 1st, add a sweetener and hope someone takes the last two years of his contract.
It's totally doable.

If the Bruins pay his July 1st bonus, then whatever team acquries Backes is on the hook for 5 million real dollars for 12 million in cap. I've said it a ton recently, but that is an attractive deal for a cap floor team, especially since it would only be for two seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419

BruinsFanSince94

The Perfect Fan ™
Sep 28, 2017
32,709
43,380
New England
I don't think people are necessarily pining for Lucic, it would be more of a "how do we get rid of Backes" type of situation. I personally think we are stuck with Backes and hope that if his play doesn't improve he simply becomes the 13th forward on most nights.

the only hope we have is to pay him his 3 million bonus on July 1st, add a sweetener and hope someone takes the last two years of his contract.

Eh, I've seen a lot of proposals calling for a re-acquisition of Lucic to come to the conclusion that he is pined for around here. Not by all, but some. Trading Backes for Lucic is not a situation that helps us.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,362
24,347
Also, huge no to Lucic.

I get the Backes deal sucks for what he's giving them right now, but it's an extremely moveable deal after this season to a cap floor team (assuming he waives).

Even if they are stuck with him until the end of the deal, it ends in the 20-21 season, unlike Lucic who still has another two seasons after that.

People can get on Backes play all they want, and given his age, it's not going to improve. It's also a preview of what's to come for Lucic, who is well on his way there already.

I'm all set having a 6 million cap hit tied up until 22-23 in a player who can barely keep up with the pace of play right now.

I don't see it that way at all. Mostly because where are all these teams looking to take on these contracts in order to meet the cap floor?

Carolina is last right now in salary cap at $63 million, that's 4 million above the floor.

Vegas did it during their inception but they are past that point now.

Arizona is the team most notorious for taking on bad contracts for assets, but even they have mostly stuck to the guys they could LTIR (and likely had insured contracts). Bolland and Hossa being the two still on the books today (previous had Pronger and Datsyuk). Does a team bleeding millions really want even $5 million of real money paid out to Backes? Doubtful, even if you could convince Backes to go there. Maybe if the Bruins eat half, but even then, what value does Backes bring even for half his contract?

I just don't think it's an easy contract to move, not at all.
 

DominicT

Registered User
Sep 6, 2009
20,542
37,653
Stratford Ontario
dom.hockey
The problem (IMO) with Namestnikov is that he makes $4m next season, so the B's would have to a shed a similar contract in order to re-sign their own free agents.

I'm not sure its a mountain that can't be conquered.

Personally, I suspect the cap will climb to $82 - $83 million. Gives the Bruins with $16 million in cap space for next year. (and that's using the 12 d-men counting against the cap today)

Chara, McAvoy and Carlo are the guys to sign (if Chara even returns considering his latest injury). Heinen is another but how much negotiating power does he really have? And he's arbitration eligible.

How much are Chara, McAvoy Carlo and Heinen going to command? And to a lessor extent, JFK, Donato? (with one of them likely to be in the AHL anyway)

I said it earlier in the thread: I think Vladdy should be a target. Would be a perfect 3C and has already proven he can play with superstars and move up in a pinch if necessary
 

RussellmaniaKW

Registered User
Sep 15, 2004
19,729
21,853
I'd do a Lucic/Backes swap if a significant portion of Looch's salary was retained. At least Lucic plays with a pulse which is more than I can say for Backes now. But it would only be a marginal upgrade if that and it just makes use even more left-side biased.

With that said, why would Edmonton take on Backes AND pay for half (or whatever) of Lucic's salary?

btw I reserve my right to say this as a fan and not a GM. I love Lucic and always will so take it for what it's worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Make-Believe

BruinsNetwork

Guest
Tyler Toffoli and Adrian Kempe
for
Torey Krug and Forsbacka-Karlsson

Toffoli could be the answer at 2RW. He's a smart, right handed shooter and LA plays that heavy-on-the-boards cycle game that Krejci loves. He scored 31 goals 2 years ago and I believe he plays mostly with Jeff Carter who's a shoot-first center so paring him with a pass-first center like Krejci could elevate his game. He makes $4.6 this year and next so he should be motivated to cash in on his UFA status in 2 years.

Kempe is a big, powerful Swedish center who scored 37 points last year. I haven't watched him closely but Swedish is usually synonymous with "smart, two way player" and reports are he's got outstanding straight line speed. He has struggled so far this season (he's down to 12minutes a game) and that makes me think they wouldn't see moving him as a big loss. If the change of scenery can spark him back to life he could be the answer at 3c for us this year and if not he's an RFA at the end of the year and the Bruins can walk away.

LA gets the best player in the deal (Krug) at an area of need. Krug has outscored Toffoli in the last two seasons as a defenseman. Honestly, it pains me to lose Krug but left defense is clearly an area of strength for Boston. On the other hand, LA has a strong core with Doughty, Muzzin and A-Mart, but after that their defense is paper thin. Phaneuf is only playing 15 minutes a night and is -10. The two guys after him are rookies in their mid-20's. So I think Krug would give them a big boost, and the idea of Doughty pushing the pace on the first pair and Krug driving the offense on the second would have to be enticing. LA is thin on RW, but with the deal for Hagelin they have some depth at LW so maybe they swap Kovalchuk to the right side.

The contracts are almost a wash, both in terms of current cap hit and when they (Krug/Toffoli) become UFA's. JFK is in there to replace the youth lost in Kempe, and I think Boston can afford to move JFK because of Frederic and Studnicka. Boston's healthy lineup would look like this...

Marshy - Bergeron - Pasta
DeBrusk - Krejci - Toffoli
Heinen - Kempe - Bjork
Nordstrom - Kuraly - Wagner

Chara - McAvoy
Moore - Carlo
Gryz - Miller


Toffoli is a good winger with an even better shot, but don’t think he’s worth one of the best scoring-defenders in the NHL. He scored 31-goals a few seasons ago, but he hasnt come close since then. He’s on pace for 20-goals this year again, so he’s definitely a consistent scorer, that’s for sure.

Being a right-shot, he’d certainly fill a void at 2RW for the Bruins, and you’re right that he would fit in next to Krejci quite well. I just think Krug+ should be netting an enormous return, something much bigger than this. JFK isn’t the strongest of prospects in terms of value, so its fair he would be going back the other way. Again, I like the rationale here.

IMO, the return to trade Krug should be something that involves a prospect like Vilardi, if we’re talking Kings. This clearly wouldn’t work from LA’s perspective because their clock is counting down and they’ll be banking on Vilardi to become their next 1C or 2C sooner rather than later. With that being said, this is what you should be aiming for when suggesting to move Krug, because his value is sky-high.

I’ll be remaining in the camp that Krug is far too valuable to this team, and to others, he should have to be bought— not sold.

I’d much rather roll with JFK or even Frederic when he returns from injury instead of Kempe. As someone who’s seen a lot of Kempe, I can tell you I really don’t think he’s worth all of that, and he isn’t much of a solution at 3C. He’s got good size and a good shot, but I question his ability to drive the play down the middle. Last year, he only won something like 38.5% of his faceoffs, and is currently well under 50% on the dot this year. He’s struggling to produce because in my opinion, he just isn’t that great of a centerman. Will he continue to improve? Well, I’m sure he can, but is the risk (moving Krug) worth the outcome? I don’t think so, personally.

We’ve seen over the last few years just how valuable defenders who can score are, and Krug is sitting there with the NHL’s elite in regards to his production. That’s worth way more than this package, if you’d ask me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Absurdity

Gordon Lightfoot

Hey Dotcom. Nice to meet you.
Sponsor
Feb 3, 2009
18,936
5,416
I'd do a Lucic/Backes swap if a significant portion of Looch's salary was retained. At least Lucic plays with a pulse which is more than I can say for Backes now. But it would only be a marginal upgrade if that and it just makes use even more left-side biased.

With that said, why would Edmonton take on Backes AND pay for half (or whatever) of Lucic's salary?

btw I reserve my right to say this as a fan and not a GM. I love Lucic and always will so take it for what it's worth.

I think Backes plays with a pulse (to me that means giving effort) but he's just not able to do anything. He's too slow and whatever puck skills he had are about gone.

I'll also always love Lucic. If he came back I bet he'd kick butt for like 5 games and then revert to being crappy, though.
 

DominicT

Registered User
Sep 6, 2009
20,542
37,653
Stratford Ontario
dom.hockey
I don't see it that way at all. Mostly because where are all these teams looking to take on these contracts in order to meet the cap floor?

Carolina is last right now in salary cap at $63 million, that's 4 million above the floor.

Vegas did it during their inception but they are past that point now.

Arizona is the team most notorious for taking on bad contracts for assets, but even they have mostly stuck to the guys they could LTIR (and likely had insured contracts). Bolland and Hossa being the two still on the books today (previous had Pronger and Datsyuk). Does a team bleeding millions really want even $5 million of real money paid out to Backes? Doubtful, even if you could convince Backes to go there. Maybe if the Bruins eat half, but even then, what value does Backes bring even for half his contract?

I just don't think it's an easy contract to move, not at all.

It's not about this year though. It's about next year. If we assume a $60 million floor, which is what I expect, a team like NJ will be $13 million below the floor. Where do you see making that up?
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,362
24,347
It's not about this year though. It's about next year. If we assume a $60 million floor, which is what I expect, a team like NJ will be $13 million below the floor. Where do you see making that up?

Yes, I'm just using Carolina as an example that even this year, teams close to the bottom aren't even all that close to the floor.

Where could NJ make that up? Not by taking on the contract of David Backes unless he's going straight to LTIR.

They may need to take on a contract to hit the floor, but I can guarantee you there will be better options than two-years of David Backes at even 5 million of real money.
 

DominicT

Registered User
Sep 6, 2009
20,542
37,653
Stratford Ontario
dom.hockey
Yes, I'm just using Carolina as an example that even this year, teams close to the bottom aren't even all that close to the floor.

Where could NJ make that up? Not by taking on the contract of David Backes unless he's going straight to LTIR.

They may need to take on a contract to hit the floor, but I can guarantee you there will be better options than two-years of David Backes at even 5 million of real money.

If there was one thing I have learned over the years doing this is that when it comes to teams taking on bad contracts, there is never a guarantee.

It may cost the Bruins to move it, if they even have to, but it can be done. #NoMarkMessierGuarantee
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lord Ahriman

JRull86

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
27,774
15,815
South Shore
Yes, I'm just using Carolina as an example that even this year, teams close to the bottom aren't even all that close to the floor.

Where could NJ make that up? Not by taking on the contract of David Backes unless he's going straight to LTIR.

They may need to take on a contract to hit the floor, but I can guarantee you there will be better options than two-years of David Backes at even 5 million of real money.
Obviously I'm not privvy to NJD's needs, but here's an early look at 2019 UFAs. Some interesting names, but overall, a lot of underwhelming names that aren't due massive raises aside from the obvious few.

2019 NHL Free Agents Tracker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad