The roster that has the best goaltending tandem, McAvoy, Lindholm, Carlo, Pastrnak, etc? Half the roster could leave and it remains a playoff team.
Value of: Bruins wants
- Thread starter wintersej
- Start date
The roster that has the best goaltending tandem, McAvoy, Lindholm, Carlo, Pastrnak, etc? Half the roster could leave and it remains a playoff team.
Shesty for McAvoy, 1:1
quality for quality
Bs get instant 3m cap relief
can w/o rushing figure out best haul for either Ulmark or Sway.
RD is a bit thin, but should be able to recover and end result = net +.
Rs exception to the rule, temp add salary.
Talbot + Hajek at min-ish = stopgap, Garand promoted asap
move Trouba [his last w/nyr?] next season when nmc->ntc, play at RD and 4RW
KAM extend 6.25 x 8
Deal Lindgren for highest pick offered = 3m cap relief, covers dif on S for Mc.
LD = kam, Robertson, Scanlin + depth Harpur, Mikkola?
RD = Fox, McAvoy, Schneider
quality for quality
Bs get instant 3m cap relief
can w/o rushing figure out best haul for either Ulmark or Sway.
RD is a bit thin, but should be able to recover and end result = net +.
Rs exception to the rule, temp add salary.
Talbot + Hajek at min-ish = stopgap, Garand promoted asap
move Trouba [his last w/nyr?] next season when nmc->ntc, play at RD and 4RW
KAM extend 6.25 x 8
Deal Lindgren for highest pick offered = 3m cap relief, covers dif on S for Mc.
LD = kam, Robertson, Scanlin + depth Harpur, Mikkola?
RD = Fox, McAvoy, Schneider
why?
All Star/Vezina --- All Star
quality for quality
numbers are also as I represented
and helps w/Bs immediate cap crunch
The Bruins already have two #1G and you want them to add a third? If the Bruins were going to trade McAvoy, who has no trade protection until the 1st, they would be talking to teams like WPG or Calgary who have a center to move. Nevermind it’s a dumb allocation of salary resources for the Rangers just because McAvoy is from LI.
non sequitur
Adding Shesty = immediate cushion, then enables for both Ulmark + Sway to each get a haul -- which I specified, but you ignored.
OP premise was strategic answer for B cap needs, which this did/does.
e.g., one of Ulmark/Sway to LA = can replacement high end RD prospect + .
Dealing other to EDM/BUF can = picks/prospects further helping w/cap.
You want to keep McAvoy, fine, but don't pretend it's not a good offer.
It wasn't ignored its patently false. The Bruins don't have to move Ullmark/Sway. It makes sense for them to, but they don't have to. They already are in the situation you are describing where they can be patient and smart.
Except in your scenario there is an added sword of Damocles hanging over their head where they run into next year with three goalies if they don't start making deals.
In a vacuum is it a bad offer? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think goalies have ever pulled players of that caliber because of how inconsistent they can be. But it doesn't make any sense IRL regardless of value.
If Ullmark is truly available I wonder if Treliving takes a look because there are already reports of him being in Carter Hart so he's obviously looking at goaltending and he should because while Samsonov was very good in the regular season his performance in the playoffs wasn't good, 8 games finished 6 times he allowed 3+ goals.
He arguably stole game 6 VS Tampa but that's it.
I know Ullmark wasn't good in the playoffs but at least has an injury excuse.
Samsonov doesn't have that, he got hurt in game 5 VS Florida.
He arguably stole game 6 VS Tampa but that's it.
I know Ullmark wasn't good in the playoffs but at least has an injury excuse.
Samsonov doesn't have that, he got hurt in game 5 VS Florida.
Not sure where you got the direction you went.
Nothing was "false".
In OP, you said:
"Ullmark: 1st or 2nd and prospect or equivalent. LD and C prospects of most interest. Guys like Jack Drury or POJ, not your top guys, but guys that are NHL ready and can slide into a sheltered role.
.....
And then there is another list of guys who I could see the Bruins move if they were getting market value, but wouldn’t be their first choice like DeBrusk, Swayman, etc."
Adding Shesty gives flexibility about which or either of Ul + Sway get moved, and when. I never said carry all 3 going forward. If enuf on the table now, can do it all now.
You say "I don't think goalies have ever pulled players of that caliber because of how inconsistent they can be." This is in contrast to what you said in post 1. Presumably you will do the best combo of moves, whatev they are, to retain talent while shedding at least min cap nec.
"But it doesn't make any sense IRL regardless of value."
It does make sense in real life unless you think haul for McAvoy would be far greater than Shesterkin, and whether it is/is not, and depending on the pieces involved, that is a discussion.
Need more data to make an informed opinion there.
But it is not unrealistic.
Petes2424
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2005
- 8,399
- 3,054
They have $74 million of their $78-79 million already committed to next season, and still need Swayman and 6 forwards signed. Yes, it’s a mess anyway you try to sugarcoat it.
Swayman is getting $3+. So enjoy those 6 forwards with a couple million left and a whole lot of good assets with no contracts.
They have no choice but to give players away. Swayman is likely one of the few they’ll get return on.
It’s Vegas from last summer without the contracts already in place. So it’s worse. By far.
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,347
- 6,720
Two-way play may be in the Bruins prototype, but they may need to start accepting a different style when Bergeron, the perennial Selke candidate hangs them up.
More just saying they may need to play players in roles and accept those with warts, vs. having Bergeron available to play in most capacities.
This here is what is false. Having THREE number one goalies REMOVES flexibility and means you HAVE TO move a goalie. The Bruins having Ullmark and Swayman means they have an option to move Ullmark (or Hall, or Gryz, or a combination they're off). Adding Shesty FORCES THEM TO MOVE A GOALIE AND LIMITS THEIR OPTIONS.
They can buy out Reilly and Forbort and trade Gryz at a loss and still be a contender. Then they *could* make other moves to bring back Bertuzzi, re-sign Frederic, or make other moves to allow them to let kids marinate more. But, they will be fiiiiine.
FORWARDS (13)
Right Wing: David Pastrnak ($11,250,000) - Fabian Lysell ($863,333) - Jake DeBrusk ($4,000,000) - AJ Greer ($762,500) - Oskar Steen ($800,000)
Centre: Pavel Zacha ($4,750,000) - Patrice Bergeron ($2,500,000) - Charlie Coyle ($5,250,000) - Marc McLaughlin ($800,000)
Left Wing: Georgi Merkulov ($925,000) - Brad Marchand ($6,125,000) - Taylor Hall ($6,000,000) - Jakub Lauko ($800,000)
DEFENSE (7)
Right: Charlie McAvoy ($9,500,000) - Brandon Carlo ($4,100,000) - Connor Carrick ($800,000)
Left: Mason Lohrei ($925,000) - Hampus Lindholm ($6,500,000) - Jakub Zboril ($1,137,500) - Nathan Beaulieu ($850,000)
GOALTENDER (2)
Linus Ullmark ($5,000,000) - Jeremy Swayman ($4,000,000)
BUYOUTS (2)
Derek Forbort ($666,667) - Mike Reilly ($333,334)
DETAILS
Roster Size: 22
Salary Cap: $83,500,000
Bonus Overages: $4,500,000
Cap Hit: $83,138,334
Cap Space: $361,666
Not false.
You have added a Vezina calibre G.
Yes, you now have 3 Gs
I said you were gonna likely move 2 of them, although depending on various variables, you might be able to get away with only 1. But let's say it is 2 of them.
You still have a high quality G left.
You are getting premium swag in return.
Your options are not limited. THEY ARE INCREASED!
You could do any 2 of 3 of Shesty [presumed you are keeping], Ul and Sway.
There is high demand for high quality netminders.
Competitive bidding works to your favor.
Again, if you prefer to keep McAvoy for the next 6-7 whatev years, and say that is a rock = foundation piece, ok, I get that. I have no problem with that.
But I don't believe it is appropriate to dismiss the intellectual analysis of this out of hand.
Petes2424
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2005
- 8,399
- 3,054
We shall see what happens, but it’s likely they take a big dip in the standings next season. Your roster would need a lot of the fillers to over perform. If Bergeron retires, that group of Cs, chance of contending drops dramatically too.
What’s the deal with Beecher?
Teams commonly find a way. I can’t count them out since they always remain competitive
Beecher doesn’t have any hands. Big and fast and bottom six max. Those that watch on Providence say he is still working on game to game consistency and probably won’t be ready for game 1 next season. (They also think Lysell isn’t ready but that Merkulov is)
Oates2Neely
Registered User
In what world does a goaltender land a 25 yr old number one dman with 7 years left on his contract who regularly receives Norris votes?
dredeye
BJ Elitist/Hipster
- Mar 3, 2008
- 27,392
- 3,047
It’s a weird offer that makes zero sense to the other team. Why would a team trade two high ranking starting goalies so they can trade an elite d for another one? It’s an awful proposal.
Would you trade Fox for Ullmark or Swayman your choice? Because that’s exactly what you just proposed.
Yes the team that just had the best regular season of all time will surely regress. We won’t be a runaway next year but we’ll be in the mix which is pretty much what we all expect.
Last edited:
One where that goaltender is a Vezina winner, arguably one of, if not, the best, who is for less $$$ and provides flexibility by offering options on structural cap recovery since he is not long term, but can be negotiated for more years, and team w/the D is balls in a vice level of cap tight right now
That one.
You are mixed together apples and oranges, and oblivious to cap issues.
You don't trade 2 excellent Gs to get an even better one.
You acquire the better one so you can exploit the swag you get for the other 2.
That is the correct narrative and trying to spin it otherwise is disingenuous.
You acquire Shesty who is an upgrade, then you can
FOR EXAMPLE:
do Ulmark to Kings for top RD prospect(s) gets you younger which you need while lowering cap + ________________ + __________________
then eventually also do Swayman to BUF or wherever, rinse and repeat.
As to would I trade Fox for Ullmark or Swayman, I would consider it if R situation mirrored Bs, which it does not, and if Ullmark or Swayman were closer to Fox value, which they are not. McAvoy + Shesty are close.
Rs have a G of the future in Garand.
If we got enuf back, we could risk dealing Shesty now and stopgap break Garand in this year, promote to starter when he's ready.
Bs don't need to do my deal, but doing it allows BOS to retain top netminder while maxing swag.
If you keep McAvoy, which is one obv +, then you can only really deal only 1 of Ullmark or Swayman, not both. Do it my way and you can manipulate play all offers seeking Gs vs each other, and max return.
Again, you want to keep McAvoy, fine. We are all entitled to our preferences.
But don't make like the offer is not worth considering, cause on paper it is.
rsteen
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2022
- 385
- 277
Why would the Rangers do this? Why would Boston do this? Now Boston has 3 #1 goaltenders and the Rangers have two 1RDs and no goaltender.
dredeye
BJ Elitist/Hipster
- Mar 3, 2008
- 27,392
- 3,047
How is this disingenuous exactly? Our goalie is likely winning the Verona this year. Honestly, give it up. Your trade proposal makes no sense at all end of story.
Yes not doing your deal means we can only trade one of our goalies. That is our preference. Much like the rangers we can keep the goalie of the future Swayman or the present goalie Ullmark. Literally the same as the rags except Swayman is proven at this point.
On paper and in reality the offer is not worth considering. Sorry but that’s the truth. Like someone else said if we’re going to trade our #1 dman it would be for a #1 centre not another although high end goalie. We have two of those already.
We can still trade in of our goalies likely Ullmark and save 5 million right there. Guess what we can still get the same pieces you suggested from the same team and others. Or we trade to address actual holes on our current roster and not add to our greatest strength. Use common sense.
They don’t it makes literally no sense.
