Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman -neither elect arbitration (page 16)

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Again, you wait to trade Ullmark, and you can’t have the offseason you had, and you deal with a new no trade list.

And do you really think management doesn’t consider the motivations of agents? Who is trying to save face?

I'll preface this by saying that I am 100% confident that Swayman will re-sign and that it will be for a number and term that the vast majority of us will be happy with. I am not worried in the slightest.

But the Bruins could have done everything they did this offseason - save Dean Letourneau - if they had decided to keep Ullmark on the roster and deal with him after Swayman's contract was finalized.

 

[EverettMike]

I'm voting #2

Let's say this exact thing happens and Goalie Bob "fixes" Korpisalo, what do you think his ceiling is as a goalie in that scenario? Legit #1 starter? All-star? Vezina candidate?

Because he's played nine seasons in the NHL and only had a positive Goals Saved Above Average in three of them, and far and away his best in 2023 is a HUGE outlier.

In 39 games (split between CBJ and LAK) he was +11.5. His other two positive years are:

'16 (as a rookie) - +4.5 in in 31 games
'20 - +1.1 in 37 games

Here are his numbers for every other season

'17: -3.3 in 14 games
'19: -8.3 in 27 games
'18: -8.5 in 18 games
'21: -12.7 in 33 games
'22: -19 in 22 games
'24: -20.8 in 55 games

Even with a magical goalie coach, what exactly do we think a bad career backup is going to become at age 30?

Is "serviceable" within reach? It's hard to think anything else is achievable unless you're putting a ton of stock in exactly one good, outlier year out of nine.

But okay, let's say he turns out slightly better than serviceable. That's his ceiling. His floor is "worst goalie in the league," and we know that because that's where he was last year and pretty much what his career numbers say he is.

That's a guy you take on for an AAV of 3 with term? All on the "hope" our goalie coach can fix him at the age of 30?

Horrific, horrific, horrific asset management.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Again, you wait to trade Ullmark, and you can’t have the offseason you had, and you deal with a new no trade list.

And do you really think management doesn’t consider the motivations of agents? Who is trying to save face?

You can say "again" all you want, but that still doesn't make it true.

You can absolutely sign any of the players they wanted to sign and sign Swayman and have Ullmark.

"Again" you are allowed to be over the cap during the summer by about $9m. And I'm not even sure they'd be over the cap anyway.

Let's say worst case scenario, they keep Ullmark, who costs $2m more on the cap than Korpisalo. End of camp, there's no injuries you can use to take advantage of LTIR and there have been no deals that you could've made to clear space.

Waive Max Jones and go with 22 players. Saves $1m.

Waive Andrew Peake. Gets claimed and you replace him on the roster with regular. Saves $2m.

You're $1m under.

Unless you are arguing that Sweeney gave up a draft pick for a guy who would clear waivers. I mean, that would've been a mistake, you God knows you don't think he ever makes a mistake.

But that's worst case scenario. I want you to post your 22 or 23 man roster, with cap hits. How me the math that has them with less than $2m of space.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I'll preface this by saying that I am 100% confident that Swayman will re-sign and that it will be for a number and term that the vast majority of us will be happy with. I am not worried in the slightest.

But the Bruins could have done everything they did this offseason - save Dean Letourneau - if they had decided to keep Ullmark on the roster and deal with him after Swayman's contract was finalized.

Agree with every single word of this.

If only we can convince the poster(s) who want to pretend that the cap has the same limit on July 1 as it does on October 4(or whenever the season officially starts this year).

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Agree with every single word of this.

If only we can convince the poster(s) who want to pretend that the cap has the same limit on July 1 as it does on October 4(or whenever the season officially starts this year).

Problem with doing it in that order is you devalue Ullmark even more. Now you have your #1 goalie locked up for big money and are in a cap crunch and have to move salary (aka Ullmark). That's a significant change in negotiating position in trade talks

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Well no matter what the number is this place will go nuts.
Hopefully next week while Im gone.

Wherever you're going, I hope you enjoy your vacation!

 

[Dr Quincy]

Problem with doing it in that order is you devalue Ullmark even more. Now you have your #1 goalie locked up for big money and are in a cap crunch and have to move salary (aka Ullmark). That's a significant change in negotiating position in trade talks

I think the plan would be that Ullmark is your back up for the year and you treat him like your own rental.

I get the idea of dealing Ullmark and getting something for him now. That's a totally legit strategic decision, and arguably the correct one.

I disagree with the idea that they NEEDED to deal Ullmark for cap reasons.

 

[EverettMike]

I think the plan would be that Ullmark is your back up for the year and you treat him like your own rental.

I get the idea of dealing Ullmark and getting something for him now. That's a totally legit strategic decision, and arguably the correct one.

I disagree with the idea that they NEEDED to deal Ullmark for cap reasons.

Ullmark also would have had financial incentive to accept a deal at the deadline. He could go to another team, step in as the #1, and hope a good playoff run would increase his free agent deal. Also easier not to uproot his family for a couple months.

This idea that Sweeney just had to trade him exactly when he did, to exactly the team he did, for exactly the package he got is so absurd I wish we could ban it from the board.

 

[Therick67]

Ullmark also would have had financial incentive to accept a deal at the deadline. He could go to another team, step in as the #1, and hope a good playoff run would increase his free agent deal. Also easier not to uproot his family for a couple months.

This idea that Sweeney just had to trade him exactly when he did, to exactly the team he did, for exactly the package he got is so absurd I wish we could ban it from the board.

I bet you could get more at the deadline from a desperate team as opposed to a late first, a scrub goalie and a fourth liner, but Donny needed something to do at the draft this year

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Problem with doing it in that order is you devalue Ullmark even more. Now you have your #1 goalie locked up for big money and are in a cap crunch and have to move salary (aka Ullmark). That's a significant change in negotiating position in trade talks

Okay but look what you got for him. Not exactly a return from a position of strength. You had to absorb four years of $3M/yr to absolve yourself of $2M for one year.

Even if you dealt Ullmark somewhere else in the offseason and ate $2M in the process... You think the return would have been worse than being saddled with a four year cap liability?

And that's IF you decided to move Ullmark. There are other ways to become cap compliant (like the Doc pointed out), or you can look keeping him long-term and dealing Swayman if the ask is too high. Or if the ask is too high, elect to go to arbitration which opens up buyout options.

The point is, the idea that Sweeney had no other option but to make that deal with the Senators is entirely false. There were countless other options.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Okay but look what you got for him. Not exactly a return from a position of strength. You had to absorb four years of $3M/yr to absolve yourself of $2M for one year.

Even if you dealt Ullmark somewhere else in the offseason and ate $2M in the process... You think the return would have been worse than being saddled with a four year cap liability?

And that's IF you decided to move Ullmark. There are other ways to become cap compliant (like the Doc pointed out), or you can look keeping him long-term and dealing Swayman if the ask is too high. Or if the ask is too high, elect to go to arbitration which opens up buyout options.

The point is, the idea that Sweeney had no other option but to make that deal with the Senators is entirely false. There were countless other options.

The other options were to keep Ullmark and then deal off another piece in order to become compliant, yes. And how does that influence Swayman’s leverage for a long term deal?

You also deal with Ullmark’s new NTC list which no one seems to want to handle - his agent put together a great list that hamstrung the Bruins from dealing him last deadline and this offseason. Why would we expect different this deadline? Not to mention a year pushed out on any draft compensation.

It was pretty clear that there weren’t many if any other places to deal him this offseason or last deadline. So of course he didn’t have to deal him for the return he got. But what does keeping Ullmark really do?

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

I'm voting #2

GASP, GULP!

 

[BiteThisBurrows]

I'll preface this by saying that I am 100% confident that Swayman will re-sign and that it will be for a number and term that the vast majority of us will be happy with. I am not worried in the slightest.

But the Bruins could have done everything they did this offseason - save Dean Letourneau - if they had decided to keep Ullmark on the roster and deal with him after Swayman's contract was finalized.

Except find a trade partner with a limited number of options of where they could send him. Other teams would have made other plans.

 

[NDiesel]

Let's say this exact thing happens and Goalie Bob "fixes" Korpisalo, what do you think his ceiling is as a goalie in that scenario? Legit #1 starter? All-star? Vezina candidate?

Because he's played nine seasons in the NHL and only had a positive Goals Saved Above Average in three of them, and far and away his best in 2023 is a HUGE outlier.

In 39 games (split between CBJ and LAK) he was +11.5. His other two positive years are:

'16 (as a rookie) - +4.5 in in 31 games
'20 - +1.1 in 37 games

Here are his numbers for every other season

'17: -3.3 in 14 games
'19: -8.3 in 27 games
'18: -8.5 in 18 games
'21: -12.7 in 33 games
'22: -19 in 22 games
'24: -20.8 in 55 games

Even with a magical goalie coach, what exactly do we think a bad career backup is going to become at age 30?

Is "serviceable" within reach? It's hard to think anything else is achievable unless you're putting a ton of stock in exactly one good, outlier year out of nine.

But okay, let's say he turns out slightly better than serviceable. That's his ceiling. His floor is "worst goalie in the league," and we know that because that's where he was last year and pretty much what his career numbers say he is.

That's a guy you take on for an AAV of 3 with term? All on the "hope" our goalie coach can fix him at the age of 30?

Horrific, horrific, horrific asset management.

I'd be curious to see what that stat is for the other goalie on each of those teams, feel like it's lacking context without that, because unless the other goalie is far better or far worse it just points to how terrible Columbus is, doesn't it?

EDIT: Looked quickly and he's always much worse than everyone else.

 

[BiteThisBurrows]

The other options were to keep Ullmark and then deal off another piece in order to become compliant, yes. And how does that influence Swayman’s leverage for a long term deal?

You also deal with Ullmark’s new NTC list which no one seems to want to handle - his agent put together a great list that hamstrung the Bruins from dealing him last deadline and this offseason. Why would we expect different this deadline? Not to mention a year pushed out on any draft compensation.

It was pretty clear that there weren’t many if any other places to deal him this offseason or last deadline. So of course he didn’t have to deal him for the return he got. But what does keeping Ullmark really do?

I think keeping Swayman and trading Ullmark also signaled faith in Swayman and they basically were telling him you are our guy. This may have been needed after last year's arbitration. Unfortunately, that also gives Swayman's agent leverage but you can't have it both ways. They wanted to do right by the guy and you can see that was good since neither side has now asked for arbitration.

There are two additional things. One, you're absolutely right on the idea of trading him later. His NTC went up to 15 teams now I think it was and if he leaves off the solid in net playoff teams (like Saros, Vasilevsky etc) he can pretty much wipe out just about every possible destination once again.

Secondly, he may have pissed them off a little not going to L.A. last year so they were done with him despite the happy smiles in public. In their minds they may feel a player they'd have gotten from L.A. might have been the missing piece in our cup run and they have a grudge on that. I personally think a grudge over DeBrusk's trade request also factored into that decision but that's just speculative. Neely just strikes me as a guy who values loyalty, but also does not forgive easily.

 

[RoccoF14]

Secondly, he may have pissed them off a little not going to L.A. last year so they were done with him despite the happy smiles in public. In their minds they may feel a player they'd have gotten from L.A. might have been the missing piece in our cup run and they have a grudge on that.

I think that's a very plausible theory....

For the record, I didn't like the Ullmark trade either, but I'm over it. I also wasn't a fan of signing Derek Forbort's replacement for $5mil/yr, but I'm over that as well.

 

[UncleRico]

Let's say this exact thing happens and Goalie Bob "fixes" Korpisalo, what do you think his ceiling is as a goalie in that scenario? Legit #1 starter? All-star? Vezina candidate?

Because he's played nine seasons in the NHL and only had a positive Goals Saved Above Average in three of them, and far and away his best in 2023 is a HUGE outlier.

In 39 games (split between CBJ and LAK) he was +11.5. His other two positive years are:

'16 (as a rookie) - +4.5 in in 31 games
'20 - +1.1 in 37 games

Here are his numbers for every other season

'17: -3.3 in 14 games
'19: -8.3 in 27 games
'18: -8.5 in 18 games
'21: -12.7 in 33 games
'22: -19 in 22 games
'24: -20.8 in 55 games

Even with a magical goalie coach, what exactly do we think a bad career backup is going to become at age 30?

Is "serviceable" within reach? It's hard to think anything else is achievable unless you're putting a ton of stock in exactly one good, outlier year out of nine.

But okay, let's say he turns out slightly better than serviceable. That's his ceiling. His floor is "worst goalie in the league," and we know that because that's where he was last year and pretty much what his career numbers say he is.

That's a guy you take on for an AAV of 3 with term? All on the "hope" our goalie coach can fix him at the age of 30?

Horrific, horrific, horrific asset management.

I absolutely think he will be serviceable. For me I just don’t think the difference between korpisalo and bussi would be much over the course of 25-27 games against bottom feeder teams.

Certainly not worth the 4 year contract

 

[Nothingbutglass]

Let's say this exact thing happens and Goalie Bob "fixes" Korpisalo, what do you think his ceiling is as a goalie in that scenario? Legit #1 starter? All-star? Vezina candidate?

Because he's played nine seasons in the NHL and only had a positive Goals Saved Above Average in three of them, and far and away his best in 2023 is a HUGE outlier.

In 39 games (split between CBJ and LAK) he was +11.5. His other two positive years are:

'16 (as a rookie) - +4.5 in in 31 games
'20 - +1.1 in 37 games

Here are his numbers for every other season

'17: -3.3 in 14 games
'19: -8.3 in 27 games
'18: -8.5 in 18 games
'21: -12.7 in 33 games
'22: -19 in 22 games
'24: -20.8 in 55 games

Even with a magical goalie coach, what exactly do we think a bad career backup is going to become at age 30?

Is "serviceable" within reach? It's hard to think anything else is achievable unless you're putting a ton of stock in exactly one good, outlier year out of nine.

But okay, let's say he turns out slightly better than serviceable. That's his ceiling. His floor is "worst goalie in the league," and we know that because that's where he was last year and pretty much what his career numbers say he is.

That's a guy you take on for an AAV of 3 with term? All on the "hope" our goalie coach can fix him at the age of 30?

Horrific, horrific, horrific asset management.

He'll be better than serviceable and revive his career just like Khudobin, Halak etc do on the Bruins. When is the last shit goalie the Bruins have had? Subban? They still got a pick for him

 

[EverettMike]

He'll be better than serviceable and revive his career just like Khudobin, Halak etc do on the Bruins. When is the last shit goalie the Bruins have had? Subban? They still got a pick for him

What career is he "reviving?" His career is "a bad goalie." It's not like he was good and then turned bad. He's nine years in and by every measure a below average goalie.

The Bruins are hoping Essensa can elevate him to something he's not and never has been outside for one single, obvious outlier season.

You take a guy like that for four years at an AAV of 3? It's insanity even if it works out, which will almost certainly mean he's fine at best.

That's the type of guy you might take a flyer on at league minimum for a year, not four years when a divisional opponent is desperate to get off his horrendous contract.

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

A lot of it has to do with the Bruins style of play (my opinion) and their 'build from the goalie out' mentality. Even Chad Johnson's best season as a backup was with the Bruins back like 10 years ago and then he went back to mediocre stats once he left.

 

[Nothingbutglass]

What career is he "reviving?" His career is "a bad goalie." It's not like he was good and then turned bad. He's nine years in and by every measure a below average goalie.

The Bruins are hoping Essensa can elevate him to something he's not and never has been outside for one single, obvious outlier season.

You take a guy like that for four years at an AAV of 3? It's insanity even if it works out, which will almost certainly mean he's fine at best.

That's the type of guy you might take a flyer on at league minimum for a year, not four years when a divisional opponent is desperate to get off his horrendous contract.

He's been on shit teams. He'll be fine. I bet you $20 no one will be complaining about him like Ottawa fans were. That team sucks all around. We dont.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

History says the risk of locking a player up for the prime years of their career is extremely low and has rarely come back to hurt the team. In the salary cap era, the vast majority of players who've signed long-term contracts through their prime years has always ended up a great deal for the team. It boils down to do they believe and know the player. IMO Swayman is the real deal. I've seen enough that I would make the long-term commitment without any hesitation.

Is 8 million even superstar money when we'll soon see guys making 14-15 million? Even if he's only very good and not great, it's probably 5-8% of the cap in a few years and still good value.



Remember the good old days when fans were just happy their team re-signed their star players?

But goaltenders are different.

See Carey Price.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

A lot of it has to do with the Bruins style of play (my opinion) and their 'build from the goalie out' mentality. Even Chad Johnson's best season as a backup was with the Bruins back like 10 years ago and then he went back to mediocre stats once he left.

Nice one.

 

[DKH]

Bruins are paying him $3 M to play in Boston and a cap hit/insurance policy of $1.85 M to play in Providence

No one likes to pay insurance until you need it

To me his $3M contract seems ball park and he’s experienced and won playoff games

I don’t get the drama

If he’s in Boston and plays well he’s worth it

If he’s in Providence he’s less then 2 M insurance policy who cleared waivers

At 3 M he could even be claimed or the Bruins retain 12.5 % and make him a 2.5 M Goalie

To me this is silliness because of Sweeney hate because he’s short

 

[EverettMike]

Bruins are paying him $3 M to play in Boston and a cap hit/insurance policy of $1.85 M to play in Providence

No one likes to pay insurance until you need it

To me his $3M contract seems ball park and he’s experienced and won playoff games

I don’t get the drama

If he’s in Boston and plays well he’s worth it

If he’s in Providence he’s less then 2 M insurance policy who cleared waivers

At 3 M he could even be claimed or the Bruins retain 12.5 % and make him a 2.5 M Goalie

To me this is silliness because of Sweeney hate because he’s short

Glad I took real time and real effort to state my case so it could be dismissed in such a patronizing manner. f***ing love this place.