Post-Game Talk: GAME 72 - Down and Out in Beverly Hills - Los Angeles 7 BRUINS 2

[ON3M4N]

Yes but he didn’t get paid until after that cup run, which management at the time pretty squarely put on Seguin (even though Horton was injured and Julien chose to keep Seguin with Peverley instead of putting him up with Krejci and letting him wheel) I remember Sweeney walking out of the room shaking his head when they chose to trade Seguin, but maybe I’m misremembering and it was after the phone call where they hear Horton wasn’t returning it

So we're going to knock Swayman for sharing time with Ullmark, but not Rask for sharing time w/ Thomas. I get the cup run, but are we forgetting what Swayman did in the playoffs?

He posted a 2.15 GAA & .913 SV% and carried that team as far as he could. The issue.....(and stop be of you've heard this before) was the team scored 2 goals or less in 5 of their 6 games vs FLA and in 3 of those 5 games they were held to just 1 goal.

 

[Hookslide]

This? This is your entire argument to what I posted? It's not even worth the energy to keep this going with you. You have no interest in having a objective conversation. You just want to kick and scream about the players you don't like and say "I told you so" about contracts.

Enjoy the rest of the season.

I have never said I told you so, I have said that I was against those contracts from the beginning, but I suggest you put me on your ignore list, because obviously comprehension is a problem for you.

 

[ON3M4N]

I have never said I told you so, I have said that I was against those contracts from the beginning, but I suggest you put me on your ignore list, because obviously comprehension is a problem for you.

And some of those forward and D-man will be moved out, Swayman with his ridiculous, contract will be here next year, and are you going to defend him next year also, if he shits the bed again. Try and be honest with yourself he has not lived up this contract, and to be fair neither has Lindholm, who I said that was a bad signing also.

^^I mean come on lol. This comment from yesterday is basically an "I told you so" comment

 

[KnightofBoston]

So we're going to knock Swayman for sharing time with Ullmark, but not Rask for sharing time w/ Thomas. I get the cup run, but are we forgetting what Swayman did in the playoffs?

He posted a 2.15 GAA & .913 SV% and carried that team as far as he could. The issue.....(and stop be of you've heard this before) was the team scored 2 goals or less in 5 of their 6 games vs FLA and in 3 of those 5 games they were held to just 1 goal.

Well I keep having to say this, but he didn’t get paid until after the 2013 run, by which point thomas was no longer on the team (he sat out 2012-13 and then played for Florida and Dallas

I honestly can’t even remember who our backup was that year…khudobin? Lol

Edit: also I did the math just for poo’s and japes, and Rask was making about 9.9% of the cap with that deal and swayman 9.6, so they’re incredibly similar deals

 

[ON3M4N]

Well I keep having to say this, but he didn’t get paid until after the 2013 run, by which point thomas was no longer on the team (he sat out 2012-13 and then played for Florida and Dallas

I honestly can’t even remember who our backup was that year…khudobin? Lol

Edit: also I did the math just for poo’s and japes, and Rask was making about 9.9% of the cap with that deal and swayman 9.6, so they’re incredibly similar deals

Yes, that was Rask first season without Thomas (I'm not refuting that). Up until that point though he had split with Thomas. Rask in his first season also didn't have a heavy workload due to a shortened season. Swayman got paid after putting up an crazy performance in the playoffs last year. If the offense was capable of doing their job and putting pucks in the net, they get past FLA. For reference, Swayman led all goalies in the playoffs last year in Goals Saved Above Expected.

As for the numbers, Puckpedia allows you to not have to do the math. Rask CH% at signing was 10.89% and Swayman was 9.38%. I'm not at all shocked by how close they were because they had very similar numbers for the 3yrs leading up to their long-term deals.

 

[KnightofBoston]

That doesn’t make sense. I’m saying that the Bruins would not have to add to Swayman just to get someone to take the contract. Any deal with any player could involve something else going the other way. The original premise is that we’d have to add to trade Swayman - which makes it a negative value contract.

Reading this (and your past few) comments was like watching a Benny hill chase sequence


You would need to add to a swayman deal to move him. Whether that be taking back salary, another bad contract, or giving up picks or prospects, it would be done. No one is taking swayman straight up as is and giving us something of value that has no warts in return. Right now he’s a negative value contract.

Gm’s wont touch goalies with long bloated contracts and question marks with a 50 foot pole

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Reading this (and your past few) comments was like watching a Benny hill chase sequence


You would need to add to a swayman deal to move him. Whether that be taking back salary, another bad contract, or giving up picks or prospects, it would be done. No one is taking swayman straight up as is and giving us something of value that has no warts in return. Right now he’s a negative value contract.

Gm’s wont touch goalies with long bloated contracts and question marks with a 50 foot pole

And that's what I'm vehemently disagreeing with. As I said, despite the weird diversion through the middle of this back and forth. You would absolutely not need to add to Swayman to move him. It's bonkers to think that. He is absolutely, 100% NOT a negative contract at this point.

 

[KnightofBoston]

And that's what I'm vehemently disagreeing with. As I said, despite the weird diversion through the middle of this back and forth. You would absolutely not need to add to Swayman to move him. It's bonkers to think that. He is absolutely, 100% NOT a negative contract at this point.

so what do you think sweeney could get for him? What would the deal look like? Who would it be with?

 

[ON3M4N]

so what do you think sweeney could get for him? What would the deal look like? Who would it be with?

That's such a hard question because there are very few comps. I can't even remember the last time a 26yr old #1 goalie signed to a long term deal was traded.

 

[KnightofBoston]

That's such a hard question because there are very few comps. I can't even remember the last time a 26yr old #1 goalie signed to a long term deal was traded.

Which also somewhat answers the question

The idea that trying to move a long term big contract for a goalie that also now has question marks wouldn’t be a huge lift for Sweeney and come with a lot of question marks the other way is quite hopeful

 

[ON3M4N]

Which also somewhat answers the question

The idea that trying to move a long term big contract for a goalie that also now has question marks wouldn’t be a huge lift for Sweeney and come with a lot of question marks the other way is quite hopeful

Does Swayman really have question marks in the eyes of those actually in the NHL or is that just how fans feel based on a season where most of the team has been question marks?