I Know What You Did Last Deadline: All Bruins Proposals/Rumors

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Our previous thread:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2014351

Continue the discussion here.

Remember all proposals MUST be grounded in a degree of reality.

Rumors MUST be accompanied by a link to a reputable source or from an insider.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

No thanks. Nino is just another inconsistent 3rd liner. Imo, they can't take less than a 1st and a top prospect.

Not trading Eriksson and adding, let's say, Nino and Edler?

I'm trying to put a value on being maintaining competitiveness this season.

If you say Eriksson for a 1st and a prospect... Well that looks like better value than Eriksson for Niederreiter.

But considering that a 1st and a prospect means that we take a significant crap-kicking this year in the talent department, that we already have two firsts in the draft this year (and three last year) and the message that would send to the fanbase? I don't like that solution either.

1) I don't like losing Eriksson for nothing.
2) I don't like re-signing Eriksson to a big money/term contract.
3) I don't like trading Eriksson for futures and bowing out of this year's playoffs.

So that's where I'm stuck.

 

[Eddie Munson]

I'm trying to put a value on being maintaining competitiveness this season.

If you say Eriksson for a 1st and a prospect... Well that looks like better value than Eriksson for Niederreiter.

But considering that a 1st and a prospect means that we take a significant crap-kicking this year in the talent department, that we already have two firsts in the draft this year (and three last year) and the message that would send to the fanbase? I don't like that solution either.

1) I don't like losing Eriksson for nothing.
2) I don't like re-signing Eriksson to a big money/term contract.
3) I don't like trading Eriksson for futures and bowing out of this year's playoffs.

So that's where I'm stuck.

I like Nino but in all honesty he's everything the Bruins already have in their middle-6. Connolly, Hayes, Beleskey all have that 2nd/3rd line tweener, streaky player mold. IMO I don't see a need for another player like that.

 

[BB88]

I'm trying to put a value on being maintaining competitiveness this season.

If you say Eriksson for a 1st and a prospect... Well that looks like better value than Eriksson for Niederreiter.

But considering that a 1st and a prospect means that we take a significant crap-kicking this year in the talent department, that we already have two firsts in the draft this year (and three last year) and the message that would send to the fanbase? I don't like that solution either.

1) I don't like losing Eriksson for nothing.
2) I don't like re-signing Eriksson to a big money/term contract.
3) I don't like trading Eriksson for futures and bowing out of this year's playoffs.

So that's where I'm stuck.

Why if it means better future?
There's a chance we aren't even a playoff team with Lou on the team.
Getting Nino for Lou takes important assets away from that missing D-player Sweeney needs to get and the prospect could end up being better than Nino soon and cheaper.

Rumours were that Minnesota would have become smaller with Drouin trade and didn't like that so that's another negative for why Minnesota wouldn't do this, added that getting Lou would mean they'd go for it this year and wouldn't like to lose a top9 player while getting Lou.

I don't want Bruins to be a mediocre team, this team has middle 6 talent enough but not top talent.

 

[Ice Nine]

I'm trying to put a value on being maintaining competitiveness this season.

If you say Eriksson for a 1st and a prospect... Well that looks like better value than Eriksson for Niederreiter.

But considering that a 1st and a prospect means that we take a significant crap-kicking this year in the talent department, that we already have two firsts in the draft this year (and three last year) and the message that would send to the fanbase? I don't like that solution either.

1) I don't like losing Eriksson for nothing.
2) I don't like re-signing Eriksson to a big money/term contract.
3) I don't like trading Eriksson for futures and bowing out of this year's playoffs.

So that's where I'm stuck.

I understand your thinking MMB.

But I think trading Eriksson, which is absolutely the right thing to do, is accepting that we're not legitimate Cup contenders. And we aren't. As I said in the other thread, we're close, but not there, with or without Loui.

So, we move Eriksson for a 1st and prospect, which he will absolutely fetch as probably the very top talent available at the deadline this year. I mean, teams were falling all over Vermette, and Eriksson is twice the player.

I think we get a 1st and an even better prospect than Dahlbeck, who Arizona got from Chicago.

And a 1st and prospect, along with our present two 1st, is a hell of a lot of great assets to package together and do one of two things:

(1) acquire Shattenkirk before the draft, who you re-sign to a 7.5m/yr deal, which you probably could not afford if you re-signed Loui.

(2) move up in the draft, for either Chychryn, Tkachuk, Laine, Juolevi, etc I suspect with the top end talent on forwards this year, Chychryn will probably fall out of the top 5.. maybe to 6 or 7 overall. So, not impossible.

Essentially, we accept the reality of this year's team, obtain a return for an asset you cannot retain, and build on that return to address some key long term needs: either a younger D who can be our #1 eventually, or an elite offensive producer to replace Eriksson long term. I'd rather aim to be a contending team for multiple years in the future (and by future, I mean next year!), rather than obtain an inferior return for Loui just so we can keep the dream alive for a single season, even if a Cup win is highly unlikely. That, and I'm absolutely nonplussed by Niederreiter.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Why if it means better future?
There's a chance we aren't even a playoff team with Lou on the team.
Getting Nino for Lou takes important assets away from that missing D-player Sweeney needs to get and the prospect could end up being better than Nino soon and cheaper.

Rumours were that Minnesota would have become smaller with Drouin trade and didn't like that so that's another negative for why Minnesota wouldn't do this, added that getting Lou would mean they'd go for it this year and wouldn't like to lose a top9 player while getting Lou.

I don't want Bruins to be a mediocre team, this team has middle 6 talent enough but not top talent.

You know what I think the problem is?

I think you talk and talk and talk and don't listen to what others are saying.

I've already addressed what you had to say about the Wild and how the deal still makes sense from their perspective. And I've already talked about how I don't like sacrificing this team's chances now for more futures IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

I don't know... Maybe take some time to understand what people are saying before responding. Or ask for clarification or something. But responses like this are tedious and make me angry. And I know that's not what you're intending to do.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I like Nino but in all honesty he's everything the Bruins already have in their middle-6. Connolly, Hayes, Beleskey all have that 2nd/3rd line tweener, streaky player mold. IMO I don't see a need for another player like that.

I understand this line of thinking too. It's my thought that Nino is a better fit playing style-wise than all the players you mentioned outside of Beleskey and THAT's why I liked him more. That's part of the reason I could see liking him more than Eriksson.

But I definitely understand the hesitation to subtract legit top six in order to add to a top nine by-committee crew. I just think our opinions on Nino differ.

 

[BB88]

You know what I think the problem is?

I think you talk and talk and talk and don't listen to what others are saying.

I've already addressed what you had to say about the Wild and how the deal still makes sense from their perspective. And I've already talked about how I don't like sacrificing this team's chances now for more futures IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

I don't know... Maybe take some time to understand what people are saying before responding. Or ask for clarification or something. But responses like this are tedious and make me angry. And I know that's not what you're intending to do.

I didn't think you explained why it makes sense for Wild, if Wild trade for rental Lou they are going for it this year and would rather lose future assets over a top6/9(for them) roster player who brings size and skating to lineup, something important in Central division and something Minnesota doesn't have enough.


And ofcourse my plan is not to make you angry or anyone, I'm a Finn so I have to know Minnesota because of Koivu&Granlund&Backström and Haula

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I understand your thinking MMB.

But I think trading Eriksson, which is absolutely the right thing to do, is accepting that we're not legitimate Cup contenders. And we aren't. As I said in the other thread, we're close, but not there, with or without Loui.

So, we move Eriksson for a 1st and prospect, which he will absolutely fetch as probably the very top talent available at the deadline this year. I mean, teams were falling all over Vermette, and Eriksson is twice the player.

I think we get a 1st and an even better prospect than Dahlbeck, who Arizona got from Chicago.

And a 1st and prospect, along with our present two 1st, is a hell of a lot of great assets to package together and do one of two things:

(1) acquire Shattenkirk before the draft, who you re-sign to a 7.5m/yr deal, which you probably could not afford if you re-signed Loui.

(2) move up in the draft, for either Chychryn, Tkachuk, Laine, Juolevi, etc I suspect with the top end talent on forwards this year, Chychryn will probably fall out of the top 5.. maybe to 6 or 7 overall. So, not impossible.

Essentially, we accept the reality of this year's team, obtain a return for an asset you cannot retain, and build on that return to address some key long term needs: either a younger D who can be our #1 eventually, or an elite offensive producer to replace Eriksson long term. I'd rather aim to be a contending team for multiple years in the future (and by future, I mean next year!), rather than obtain an inferior return for Loui just so we can keep the dream alive for a single season, even if a Cup win is highly unlikely. That, and I'm absolutely nonplussed by Niederreiter.

I don't think we're that far apart in thinking. I still think damage could be done this year, as I don't see anyone outside of Washington as a real threat in the East.

But if we did my deal, would that exclude us from doing the others you mention? Could we not still move up in the draft with the assets we have? Would trading Eriksson for a guy who could help now exclude us from the Shattenkirk sweepstakes?

Or would it be your assertion that we would need three firsts to trade up for one? Because if that's the case, I'm not trading up... too expensive.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I don't think you explained why it makes sense for Wild, if Wild trade for rental Lou they are going for it this year and would rather lose future assets over a top6/9(for them) roster player who brings size and skating to lineup, something important in Central division and something Minnesota doesn't have enough.

And ofcourse my plan is not to make you angry or anyone, I'm a Finn so I have to know Minnesota because of Koivu&Granlund&Backström and Haula

I said in the earlier thread that it allows Minnesota to get that top six guy they want without having to give up big time futures. They also don't have to look at trading Brodin if they go this route.

Now they're looking at replacing Nino's place on a third line and that's a lot easier and cheaper for them to do IF they choose to do so.

No hit to their top four defense.
No hit to their pool of futures.
Still get maybe the best option on the market.

 

[BB88]

I said in the earlier thread that it allows Minnesota to get that top six guy they want without having to give up big time futures. They also don't have to look at trading Brodin if they go this route.

Now they're looking at replacing Nino's place on a third line and that's a lot easier and cheaper for them to do IF they choose to do so.

No hit to their top four defense.
No hit to their pool of futures.
Still get maybe the best option on the market.

I'm sorry I edited my post too late, but all the rumours from Friedman/others are saying Dumba and Brodin are available for offense, because they've been great at developing defense but failed with forwards so they can afford to lose defense for forwards, and they have 5 +30y players with heavy cap hits and can't lose one of their young better forwards over them and start the next season without Nino after letting Lou walk.
They've been looking for a longterm offense solution(Drouin/Johansen) and Brodin/Dumba could give them that.

Nino is a top6/9 winger for them and they'd miss him in the playoffs.

 

[Lord Ahriman]

I understand your thinking MMB.

But I think trading Eriksson, which is absolutely the right thing to do, is accepting that we're not legitimate Cup contenders. And we aren't. As I said in the other thread, we're close, but not there, with or without Loui.

So, we move Eriksson for a 1st and prospect, which he will absolutely fetch as probably the very top talent available at the deadline this year. I mean, teams were falling all over Vermette, and Eriksson is twice the player.

I think we get a 1st and an even better prospect than Dahlbeck, who Arizona got from Chicago.

And a 1st and prospect, along with our present two 1st, is a hell of a lot of great assets to package together and do one of two things:

(1) acquire Shattenkirk before the draft, who you re-sign to a 7.5m/yr deal, which you probably could not afford if you re-signed Loui.

(2) move up in the draft, for either Chychryn, Tkachuk, Laine, Juolevi, etc I suspect with the top end talent on forwards this year, Chychryn will probably fall out of the top 5.. maybe to 6 or 7 overall. So, not impossible.

Essentially, we accept the reality of this year's team, obtain a return for an asset you cannot retain, and build on that return to address some key long term needs: either a younger D who can be our #1 eventually, or an elite offensive producer to replace Eriksson long term. I'd rather aim to be a contending team for multiple years in the future (and by future, I mean next year!), rather than obtain an inferior return for Loui just so we can keep the dream alive for a single season, even if a Cup win is highly unlikely. That, and I'm absolutely nonplussed by Niederreiter.

1) Without Loui we don't have a legitimate 1st line winger and you can't absolutely rely on Connolly, Hayes or Pastrnak (at least not yet)

2) Acquiring a top pair dman it's a clear update only on defense, but we still have a major hole: 1st line winger

3) Moving up in the draft isn't that easy and a good example is 2015 entry draft: #13, #14 and #15 were not enough to do that


I'm not saying they should re-sign him at "whatever it takes", but the right decision should be try as hard as you can and then try to improve the defense.

 

[ORR2Sanderson2ORR]

I for one don't see Minny dealing Brodin and if they do its going to cost a significant amount and I diffidently don't see them dealing him during the season, actually I just don't see them trading him at all hes a young talented d-man already and has some huge upside.

 

[Ratty]

I understand your thinking MMB.

But I think trading Eriksson, which is absolutely the right thing to do, is accepting that we're not legitimate Cup contenders. And we aren't. As I said in the other thread, we're close, but not there, with or without Loui.

So, we move Eriksson for a 1st and prospect, which he will absolutely fetch as probably the very top talent available at the deadline this year. I mean, teams were falling all over Vermette, and Eriksson is twice the player.

I think we get a 1st and an even better prospect than Dahlbeck, who Arizona got from Chicago.

And a 1st and prospect, along with our present two 1st, is a hell of a lot of great assets to package together and do one of two things:

(1) acquire Shattenkirk before the draft, who you re-sign to a 7.5m/yr deal, which you probably could not afford if you re-signed Loui.

(2) move up in the draft, for either Chychryn, Tkachuk, Laine, Juolevi, etc I suspect with the top end talent on forwards this year, Chychryn will probably fall out of the top 5.. maybe to 6 or 7 overall. So, not impossible.

Essentially, we accept the reality of this year's team, obtain a return for an asset you cannot retain, and build on that return to address some key long term needs: either a younger D who can be our #1 eventually, or an elite offensive producer to replace Eriksson long term. I'd rather aim to be a contending team for multiple years in the future (and by future, I mean next year!), rather than obtain an inferior return for Loui just so we can keep the dream alive for a single season, even if a Cup win is highly unlikely. That, and I'm absolutely nonplussed by Niederreiter.

Agree with most of your points. I just hope the fans, and 80 yr. old Jacobs, allow Sweeney the freedom to continue to build this organization.

 

[ORR2Sanderson2ORR]

I understand your thinking MMB.

But I think trading Eriksson, which is absolutely the right thing to do, is accepting that we're not legitimate Cup contenders. And we aren't. As I said in the other thread, we're close, but not there, with or without Loui.

So, we move Eriksson for a 1st and prospect, which he will absolutely fetch as probably the very top talent available at the deadline this year. I mean, teams were falling all over Vermette, and Eriksson is twice the player.

I think we get a 1st and an even better prospect than Dahlbeck, who Arizona got from Chicago.

And a 1st and prospect, along with our present two 1st, is a hell of a lot of great assets to package together and do one of two things:

(1) acquire Shattenkirk before the draft, who you re-sign to a 7.5m/yr deal, which you probably could not afford if you re-signed Loui.

(2) move up in the draft, for either Chychryn, Tkachuk, Laine, Juolevi, etc I suspect with the top end talent on forwards this year, Chychryn will probably fall out of the top 5.. maybe to 6 or 7 overall. So, not impossible.

Essentially, we accept the reality of this year's team, obtain a return for an asset you cannot retain, and build on that return to address some key long term needs: either a younger D who can be our #1 eventually, or an elite offensive producer to replace Eriksson long term. I'd rather aim to be a contending team for multiple years in the future (and by future, I mean next year!), rather than obtain an inferior return for Loui just so we can keep the dream alive for a single season, even if a Cup win is highly unlikely. That, and I'm absolutely nonplussed by Niederreiter.

Well Said!
I hope Sweeney is feeling the same way. One other thing, just because they trade Loui wouldn't necessary mean their not making the playoffs and it will also open up more of an opportunity for Vatrano or possibly one of are prospects in the college ranks if the Bruins do go on to make the playoffs without Loui to get some playoff experience.

 

[GordonHowe]

Agree with most of your points. I just hope the fans, and 80 yr. old Jacobs, allow Sweeney the freedom to continue to build this organization.

He was born 80 year old. "Excellent."

 

[HeartsAlive]

If Sweeney is planning on something he knows will help us long term, but weaken us for the playoffs, I think the time to strike is now. As in literally this minute. He could trade Bergeron to Montreal tonight and the rest of the town won't know until the starting lineups are announced next game.

 

[bruinmann77]

maybe guys like Griffith or KOKO

 

[LouJersey]

It's hard to make a trade .

 

[Ice Nine]

I don't think we're that far apart in thinking. I still think damage could be done this year, as I don't see anyone outside of Washington as a real threat in the East.

But if we did my deal, would that exclude us from doing the others you mention? Could we not still move up in the draft with the assets we have? Would trading Eriksson for a guy who could help now exclude us from the Shattenkirk sweepstakes?

Or would it be your assertion that we would need three firsts to trade up for one? Because if that's the case, I'm not trading up... too expensive.

No, I agree, we're not that far apart at all. With your reply, I understand your reasoning even better-- you think we can move Eriksson, but actually emphasize a better roster player rather than pics (to keep our playoff run this year strong), and still do the things I'm proposing. I think that's absolutely right, but only if you're also willing to include that roster player in a future deal to do either option (1) or (2) from my initial post.

My thinking-- and perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about a potential return for Loui at the deadline-- but we can actually get a 1st and a young roster player who can contribute now, hopefully offensively (Dahlbeck, for example, immediately contributed at Arizona). I don't think we need 3 1sts for (1) or (2), but I'd like to retain at least one of those 1sts for us, and if need be, while dealing the other two.

But maybe I'm being greedy about retaining a first... Would you think two 1sts and a prospect to move up would be an overpay? According to bcbruin, Sweeney had a deal in place to send Carolina our 3 first rounders for their top 5 first pic to get Hanifan, but even that fell through... So, Sweeney thought it was worth burning 3 for 1, and I believe all scouting suggests Chychrun is a bigger talent than Hanifin. Though it's still tough. I definitely think two firsts and a prospect to get our future #1 D in Chychrun would be worth it.

My concern, is that I just don't think you're going to get a very good roster player from a contender who would be interested in Loui. You'll get a Nino, a Connolly, etc, someone who probably won't be a difference maker in a Cup run and who also likely won't be all that enticing to St. Louis or another team with a top draft pic next year. I think a 1st is far more attractive asset for those teams.

1) Without Loui we don't have a legitimate 1st line winger and you can't absolutely rely on Connolly, Hayes or Pastrnak (at least not yet)

2) Acquiring a top pair dman it's a clear update only on defense, but we still have a major hole: 1st line winger

3) Moving up in the draft isn't that easy and a good example is 2015 entry draft: #13, #14 and #15 were not enough to do that

I'm not saying they should re-sign him at "whatever it takes", but the right decision should be try as hard as you can and then try to improve the defense.

All fair points, definitely don't think anything I'm proposing is easy-- including moving up, though as I noted above, Sweeney apparently had a deal in place to do so, though it fell through at the last minute. Still don't really know what went wrong.

And I'm absolutely on board with the need for a legitimate 1st line winger-- I just don't think that's Loui, given his age and how expensive he'll be. But I think Loui is a great asset to try to address one of our two other big needs -- a young #2 or #3 who can be our #1 in the future, or young top line offensive threat.

I think if we address our young D need, we can find a top line winger from elsewhere. In ways, I'm hoping that Pasta will be ready to hit his stride next year.

Agree with most of your points. I just hope the fans, and 80 yr. old Jacobs, allow Sweeney the freedom to continue to build this organization.

Well Said!
I hope Sweeney is feeling the same way. One other thing, just because they trade Loui wouldn't necessary mean their not making the playoffs and it will also open up more of an opportunity for Vatrano or possibly one of are prospects in the college ranks if the Bruins do go on to make the playoffs without Loui to get some playoff experience.

Thanks both! And ORR -- great point about Vatrano. By moving Loui, you're opening up more roster opportunities for existing talent.

 

[Ice Nine]

It's hard to make a trade .

Chiarelli quote?

 

[jdz]

Chiarelli quote?

Quote from a lot of GMs that are under pressure actually. Montreal's Bergevin included.

 

[Danton Heineken]

I don't see Don Sweeney being the type of guy to lock up a 30 year old forward for the minimum of 5-6 years at $6M that Loui will command. I think he trades him.

 

[GordonHowe]

I don't see Don Sweeney being the type of guy to lock up a 30 year old forward for the minimum of 5-6 years at $6M that Loui will command. I think he trades him.

Me too.

 

[Over the volcano]

I don't see Don Sweeney being the type of guy to lock up a 30 year old forward for the minimum of 5-6 years at $6M that Loui will command. I think he trades him.

Well he better when Bergeron comes up.