Boston Bruins Off Season Roster/ Cap Discussion III

[BergyWho37]

It pains me that this would help Toronto a ton.

Bennett would push Matthews to be a real player. And Matthews is malleable enough to be bullied into that.

Marner out - Bennett in would be a huge win for Toronto.

I think many will see just how much Matthews relied on Marner if he leaves and I’ll enjoy every minute of it mostly cause they’re always blaming him for everything that goes wrong and I just don’t see it that way and it’s comical really.
I feel like most only watch Marner in the playoffs and even then if you’re setting up a guy that doesn’t finish it’s your fault I guess.. Does he have tantrums sure I’m not here defending the guy on some of his actions just stating Leafs will regret losing his creativity heck even his PK skills for that matter.

 

[BergyWho37]

How many players making north of 12m don’t score 30 goals regularly? Zero

How much would you have paid Oates in this day of age ? Sure he’s center but the comparison is definitely there.

 

[PB37]

Improving the top 4 on the blue line has to be a day 1 of free agency move IMO. Dante Fabbro please.

 

[PlayMakers]

Is that feasible in a cap system though? Say you have Geekie-Petterson-Pasta that's a 28 million dollar line. I don't know if you can build a solid second line like that. Especially when your paying Elias Lindholm who is a complimentary guy really another 8 million. Who is driving the play on the 2nd line?

Splitting your top 2 forwards up has proven to be successful. Kane-Toews, Malkin-Crosby, Kopitar-Carter, McDavid-Drasaitl. And you always have the nuclear option.

All the bitching here about a winger for David Krejci but part of the issue was the loaded up Perfection line. 3 of your top 4 forwards on the same line instead of 2 on one and 2 on the other.

I don't remember Kane and Toews being sepearated for any length of time. Their top lines during their Cup runs were always Toews-Kane and a net front guy, Byfuglien, Bickell... Malkin and Crosby, Kopitar and Carter, even McDavid and Draisaitl are all centers. That's like saying the Bruins "broke up" Bergeron and Krejci. Those were/are teams built around two super centers, who occasionally play wing to go nuclear.

Toews-Kane, Point-Kucherov, MacKinnon-Rantanen, Barkov-Reinhart, Matthews-Marner, Stutzle-Tkachuk... plenty of teams go with the super pair. Colorado won a Cup with a super trio (add in Landeskog). I never complained about the perfection line. IMO, there was a reason coaches frequently went back to it, the Bruins were just a better team with that line together.

Yes, the cap is a factor, you still have to sign or trade for a line driver for the 2nd line, but I think the 2nd line needs two additions anyway. IMO, the 'failing' of the perfection line teams wasn't in playing them together, it was in not finding a RW for the 2nd line that made that line dangerous. You need to get some high value out of someone when you have a couple of really high-end contracts. Chicago got it from putting a 4th liner in the top6. Toronto got it from Knies. Hopefully the Bruins will eventually get that from the 7th overall pick, Poitras, maybe even a Minten could be that Bickell type.

 

[DKH]

I wonder if old friend Ryan Donato is an option now that Jimmy Murphy confirmed Marchand not coming back

 

[DKH]

As for Peeke I like him on third pair as a PK and shot blocker - he’s much more structured from his CBJ days. Leach did a nice job with him - went to a few of the Warrior practices and they were working on things around front of net

 

[pucksindeep92]

Bruins Should Bolster Blueline By Trading For Flames Star

The <a href="https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/boston-bruins">Boston Bruins</a> should look to improve several areas on their roster this off-season. This is certainly the case for their forward group, but they should also focus on their blueline.

thehockeynews.com

Sounds pricey, but I like the fit, especially if you can lure Zary at the same time. I think they’ll lock both up though.

 

[Oates2Neely]

How much would you have paid Oates in this day of age ? Sure he’s center but the comparison is definitely there.

Not enough to make him a top 3 highest paid player in the league. And yes he was a center.

 

[Oates2Neely]

Alex Tuch should be a trade target. 36 goals with not much talent on his line.

 

[Number8]

I think many will see just how much Matthews relied on Marner if he leaves and I’ll enjoy every minute of it mostly cause they’re always blaming him for everything that goes wrong and I just don’t see it that way and it’s comical really.
I feel like most only watch Marner in the playoffs and even then if you’re setting up a guy that doesn’t finish it’s your fault I guess.. Does he have tantrums sure I’m not here defending the guy on some of his actions just stating Leafs will regret losing his creativity heck even his PK skills for that matter.

Oh I agree on Marner. Toronto has a problem. Of their big four, there’s only one that I would really be comfortable with. Nylander.

Matthews is a pretender and as you say will suffer from no Marner. Hence is continual loser status.
Marner does not have the fortitude or ability to be a leader - hence his continual loser status.
Tavares is a complementary player.

So my prediction:

Marner goes somewhere where he can be and adjunct piece. And will succeed in that role a la Phil Kessel.
Matthews continues to be more interested in social media and celebrity news than hockey.

Only wildcard to that would be if someone like Bennett came in and put a rocket up Matthews ass.

Imagine a guy like Mark Recchi getting traded to this current Toronto squad. His head would explode.

 

[DKH]

Bruins Should Bolster Blueline By Trading For Flames Star

The <a href="https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/boston-bruins">Boston Bruins</a> should look to improve several areas on their roster this off-season. This is certainly the case for their forward group, but they should also focus on their blueline.

thehockeynews.com

Sounds pricey, but I like the fit, especially if you can lure Zary at the same time. I think they’ll lock both up though.

Don’t get Herald so hopefully good news

 

[Igor25]

View attachment 1041306
Did you guys see this proposal by the Skate Pod? I mean I like Fabbro and Cuylle a lot, but they tried to go for a “realistic” mockup and added yet another middle 6 center in Bennet, but kept all of the ones we already have. What a nightmare that would be. At least we’d contend for the lottery again…

What's not to like but it's just a dream right?

 

[DKH]

Alex Tuch should be a trade target. 36 goals with not much talent on his line.

Doesn’t he play with Tage the Rage and young stud JJ Peterka

I don’t see who on Boston I would want if I was the Buffalo GM

If I’m the Bruins my Buffalo target is Ryan Johnson buried in AHL and one of those young F boxed out

 

[Igor25]

I am hoping as immediate trade bait, but seriously, it is an interesting question. I would say as your standard 2c and first ,or, more likely, second PP center.
They will get slaughtered with him as the 2c, so eventually they will just give him pp and spot duty. It's the Coyle treatment but he is not as good as Bruin Coyle.

I'm not sold on him at all. Include in a trade would be my choice.

 

[BruinDust]

I don't remember Kane and Toews being sepearated for any length of time. Their top lines during their Cup runs were always Toews-Kane and a net front guy, Byfuglien, Bickell... Malkin and Crosby, Kopitar and Carter, even McDavid and Draisaitl are all centers. That's like saying the Bruins "broke up" Bergeron and Krejci. Those were/are teams built around two super centers, who occasionally play wing to go nuclear.

Toews-Kane, Point-Kucherov, MacKinnon-Rantanen, Barkov-Reinhart, Matthews-Marner, Stutzle-Tkachuk... plenty of teams go with the super pair. Colorado won a Cup with a super trio (add in Landeskog). I never complained about the perfection line. IMO, there was a reason coaches frequently went back to it, the Bruins were just a better team with that line together.

Yes, the cap is a factor, you still have to sign or trade for a line driver for the 2nd line, but I think the 2nd line needs two additions anyway. IMO, the 'failing' of the perfection line teams wasn't in playing them together, it was in not finding a RW for the 2nd line that made that line dangerous. You need to get some high value out of someone when you have a couple of really high-end contracts. Chicago got it from putting a 4th liner in the top6. Toronto got it from Knies. Hopefully the Bruins will eventually get that from the 7th overall pick, Poitras, maybe even a Minten could be that Bickell type.

Toews and Kane spent plenty of time apart over the years. When Panarin was there Kane barely played with Toews.

Some of those pairings were Center and Center but many of them played wing as well. You left out Draisaitl-McDavid and they use the nuclear option all the time but also spend time apart, it's a good strategy.

I'd argue Stutzle-Tkachuk doesn't even work (and Stutzle should be on a separate line on LW IMO). Florida isn't Barkov-Reinhart their two best players are Barkov and Matthew Tkachuk and they play on different lines. Matthews glued to Marner hasn't won anything. I liked their set-up better when it was Matthews-Nylander and Marner with Tavares as Tavares needed Marner's playmaking with his foot-speed being just so-so.

Hitching your top two forwards (and most expensive forwards) permanently together on the top line is old school thinking IMO and in a cap system I'd prefer to keep them apart (Most of the time) regardless of what position they play, it's all F1, F2, F3 in the offensive zone at the end of the day anyways. You mentioned how you want Petterson's speed up the middle. Me, I want my speed going up the wing charging through the neutral zone. It's like Stutzle in Ottawa. He should be their home-run hitter, their one true offensive force, and I don't want him wasting his energy defending in the center-ice position. It's like Kucherov, he's basically a playmaking center, arguably the league's best puck distributor, and he plays on the wing and he's not out there burning too much energy down low defending. McDavid might score 200 points without the responsibility defensively of playing center.

Going back to the Bruins, they had one line that worked last year, the focus should be on finding players to get the other lines going as you need 3 scoring lines in today's NHL and making a big move just to put that player on the Pasta line and not the two scoring lines that had trouble scoring seems to defeat the purpose.

 

[PlayMakers]

Toews and Kane spent plenty of time apart over the years. When Panarin was there Kane barely played with Toews.

Some of those pairings were Center and Center but many of them played wing as well. You left out Draisaitl-McDavid and they use the nuclear option all the time but also spend time apart, it's a good strategy.

I'd argue Stutzle-Tkachuk doesn't even work (and Stutzle should be on a separate line on LW IMO). Florida isn't Barkov-Reinhart their two best players are Barkov and Matthew Tkachuk and they play on different lines. Matthews glued to Marner hasn't won anything. I liked their set-up better when it was Matthews-Nylander and Marner with Tavares as Tavares needed Marner's playmaking with his foot-speed being just so-so.

Hitching your top two forwards (and most expensive forwards) permanently together on the top line is old school thinking IMO and in a cap system I'd prefer to keep them apart (Most of the time) regardless of what position they play, it's all F1, F2, F3 in the offensive zone at the end of the day anyways. You mentioned how you want Petterson's speed up the middle. Me, I want my speed going up the wing charging through the neutral zone. It's like Stutzle in Ottawa. He should be their home-run hitter, their one true offensive force, and I don't want him wasting his energy defending in the center-ice position. It's like Kucherov, he's basically a playmaking center, arguably the league's best puck distributor, and he plays on the wing and he's not out there burning too much energy down low defending. McDavid might score 200 points without the responsibility defensively of playing center.

Every Chicago Cup team was Toews-Kane-net front. And when Kane-Panarin played together that was also their two best players, 1 and 2 in scoring, playing together.

If loading up your two best players doesn't work, why does everyone do it? You mentioned Edmonton, the line that has played the most for Oilers in the playoffs is Draisaitl-McDavid-Perry. Two highly skilled guys and a net front.

The old school thinking is talking about a 'center's responsibility down low.' You talk about F1, F2, F3. Zone defense is now being taught D1, D2, D3. The first backchecker, regardless of whether he's a wing or center, takes on the traditional responsibilities of a center. When Coyle played RW with Marchand and Lindholm, he would frequently end up as the low guy in the Dzone because he'd be first back. I do still think that a center gets more looks in the middle of the ice on regroups and transitions, and obviously on neutral zone draws he starts in the middle of the ice, but Dzone coverage is no longer about centers or wings, that's become positionless too.

At the end of the day, I think practice of spreading your best guys out only really works in the regular season. Different opponent every night, teams aren't really game planning to stop you. But in the playoffs, it's the same matchup, and if a line only has one driver then it's easy to stop, which is why we see so many teams load up.

If I'm building a Cup contender, I'm doing it with that in mind.

 

[BruinDust]

Every Chicago Cup team was Toews-Kane-net front. And when Kane-Panarin played together that was also their two best players, 1 and 2 in scoring, playing together.

If loading up your two best players doesn't work, why does everyone do it? You mentioned Edmonton, the line that has played the most for Oilers in the playoffs is Draisaitl-McDavid-Perry. Two highly skilled guys and a net front.

The old school thinking is talking about a 'center's responsibility down low.' You talk about F1, F2, F3. Zone defense is now being taught D1, D2, D3. The first backchecker, regardless of whether he's a wing or center, takes on the traditional responsibilities of a center. When Coyle played RW with Marchand and Lindholm, he would frequently end up as the low guy in the Dzone because he'd be first back. I do still think that a center gets more looks in the middle of the ice on regroups and transitions, and obviously on neutral zone draws he starts in the middle of the ice, but Dzone coverage is no longer about centers or wings, that's become positionless too.

At the end of the day, I think practice of spreading your best guys out only really works in the regular season. Different opponent every night, teams aren't really game planning to stop you. But in the playoffs, it's the same matchup, and if a line only has one driver then it's easy to stop, which is why we see so many teams load up.

If I'm building a Cup contender, I'm doing it with that in mind.

I totally agree on how it's changing to D1/D2/D3 in the defensive end as teams get away from zone defense. Forwards are close to becoming position-less. Even on face-offs now it's pretty much always taken by a forward on his strong side. There are still some nuances that make C different from Wing but those lines are getting blurred at the speed of the NHL game.

Edmonton are using Leon with McDavid a lot in this years playoffs, but last year it was about 50/50. I don't have issue with using loading up as a nuclear option.

And yes this is very much about lines in the regular season. You have to get to the dance as well. Bruins just did a year with one line going and 3 lines not doing very much. Resulted in a DNQ and one of the worst seasons here in almost 2 decades. At one point in the first 2 months they were headed for an historically bad goal total, like Columbus Blue Jacket expansion team bad, and it was only when they put Geekie on LW with Pasta and Zacha that saved them from scoring under 200 goals.

But if I'm a GM, I'm not even looking at it as lines when constructing a team, I'd simply look at it as Forward No.1 through Forward No. 13 or 14 trying to get a nice mix of skill-sets and player types. The coach will mix and match and try to get the most out of his players.

If I'm Bruins coach and say Petterson came here, I'm not commiting myself to using him strictly at any forward position. I think pairing him with Pasta 100% of the time is a mistake. I could even live with 50/50 but not all the time like it's carved in stone. Load up more often in the playoffs, that's fine. But I don't want to see them doing that throughout the regular season. They just proved one line going doesn't result in a playoff birth.

 

[PlayMakers]

Going back to the Bruins, they had one line that worked last year, the focus should be on finding players to get the other lines going as you need 3 scoring lines in today's NHL and making a big move just to put that player on the Pasta line and not the two scoring lines that had trouble scoring seems to defeat the purpose.

Well, you can make more than one move. I do agree you need 3 scoring lines, and I expect to see additions up and down the lineup.

This whole conversation is based on the far-fetched idea that the Bruins are going to trade for a #1C like Pettersson. IF, in the unlikely event they do that, I would play that guy with Pasta and focus my free agent efforts on finding a wing that can drive the 2nd line.

You can always mix and match during the season. Split them up for a month, try different combos, but in Game 7, I'm playing them together because G7 could be on the road and the matchups out of your control. I'm expecting Ehlers-Lindholm or some similar combo to beat the other team's 2nd line. And that Zacha's line can beat or hold the other team's 3rd line, etc.

I am still a bit skeptical that our 1st line from the end of the season is the real deal. They had 77% OZ starts. That's not sustainable. So if we end up upgrading the C position that's what I'd do.

In the more likely event that we do not upgrade the C position, and that we just wait for 7 overall, assuming he's a C, to become the future 1c, then yeah we're looking at Geekie-Lindholm-Pasta as the first line. You're still spending your UFA dollars on a wing to drive the 2nd line, and depth guys to boost all 4 lines.

 

[BruinDust]

Well, you can make more than one move. I do agree you need 3 scoring lines, and I expect to see additions up and down the lineup.

This whole conversation is based on the far-fetched idea that the Bruins are going to trade for a #1C like Pettersson. IF, in the unlikely event they do that, I would play that guy with Pasta and focus my free agent efforts on finding a wing that can drive the 2nd line.

I guess this really is all pie-in-the-sky sort of stuff, because outside of Marner and Ehlers, I don't think they can find that winger (or center for that matter) who can drive the offense on the 2nd line. If they strike out on both (assuming they'll chase them). My assumption was if you bring in Petterson that's your big forward add and your not adding a play driving forward via free agency, hence why I'd split Petterson and Pasta a lot of the time.

But to your point, in a Game 7, yeah I'm all about loaded up if you have the depth to do so.

All that to say, I'm expecting to be disappointed this summer. No big add via trade, basically striking out in free agency. Too much competition, to much demand, not enough supply and the Bruins are not viewed as contenders.

 

[Hookslide]

I'm not taking Geekie away from Pasta.

If it came down to it, I'd shift Lindholm to RW (which he has played before) and Petterson can be his center.

I don't really get why people are so against just going back with Geekie-Zacha-Pasta. It was one of the league's most productive lines in the 2nd half.

They would rather ignore the failure early season of Lindhom and Pasta, and go with the last 10 games of the season success, of the Geekie, Lindhom, Pasta line and that justifies signing Lindhom, and now with the point Lindholm is putting up in the tournament makes them look even smarter, not in my eyes. Bottom line you are right Geekie, Zacha, and Pasta was a solid line. Zacha as had close to 60 point years since he came here 57 and 59, playing top line minutes he did drop last year to 47 points and in my opinion was do to him not burying his chances. I also might add that his 47 points this was the same as the 8 million dollar man, who gives you the most value. you the most value.

 

[BruinDust]

They would rather ignore the failure early season of Lindhom and Pasta, and go with the last 10 games of the season success, of the Geekie, Lindhom, Pasta line and that justifies signing Lindhom, and now with the point Lindholm is putting up in the tournament makes them look even smarter, not in my eyes. Bottom line you are right Geekie, Zacha, and Pasta was a solid line. Zacha as had close to 60 point years since he came here 57 and 59, playing top line minutes he did drop last year to 47 points and in my opinion was do to him not burying his chances. I also might add that his 47 points this was the same as the 8 million dollar man, who gives you the most value. you the most value.

When it comes to Geekie-Zacha-Pasta vs. Geekie-Elias Lindholm-Pasta I'm probably using both combinations at various times over the course of the season.

I want the upper-portion of the forward group to be more flexible and able to adjust on the fly, not get bogged down in lines carved in stone. Similar to the conversation with Playmakers, if they brought in a Petterson I'd use him at C and wing, on line 1 and line 2, at various times. I'm not even married to Elias Lindholm always at C, I think he'd be just fine on RW (where he has played before) if that's what the combo dictated.

 

[pucksindeep92]

All that to say, I'm expecting to be disappointed this summer. No big add via trade, basically striking out in free agency. Too much competition, to much demand, not enough supply and the Bruins are not viewed as contenders.

And this is what scares me if they succeed with an OS that costs our 2026 1st. Great RFA names out there, but if he doesn’t bolster the roster in other ways and you only bring one name in, it’s likely not going to impact us enough to take some of the sting away of where that 1st lands. If it lands closer to #20 at the end of the season, then who cares really. If it lands at #12 pre-lottery, well, missing playoffs and costing a potentially high 1st in the process is absolutely fireable.

 

[BergyWho37]

Not enough to make him a top 3 highest paid player in the league. And yes he was a center.

So cause I guy that gets a payday in a league when the players salary’s are about to get a significant raise from previous years is the argument here ?

That’s the only reason he be a top 3 highest paid player.

 

[pucksindeep92]

When it comes to Geekie-Zacha-Pasta vs. Geekie-Elias Lindholm-Pasta I'm probably using both combinations at various times over the course of the season.

I want the upper-portion of the forward group to be more flexible and able to adjust on the fly, not get bogged down in lines carved in stone. Similar to the conversation with Playmakers, if they brought in a Petterson I'd use him at C and wing, on line 1 and line 2, at various times. I'm not even married to Elias Lindholm always at C, I think he'd be just fine on RW (where he has played before) if that's what the combo dictated.

Let’s say you get Ehlers and another LW, be it oloffsson, Marchment, Cuylle etc. you can then flex Geekie to back to RW 2nd line in a pinch too. I like that. Prefer Geekie with Pasta, but options are better than constraints.

 

[Hookslide]

When it comes to Geekie-Zacha-Pasta vs. Geekie-Elias Lindholm-Pasta I'm probably using both combinations at various times over the course of the season.

I want the upper-portion of the forward group to be more flexible and able to adjust on the fly, not get bogged down in lines carved in stone. Similar to the conversation with Playmakers, if they brought in a Petterson I'd use him at C and wing, on line 1 and line 2, at various times. I'm not even married to Elias Lindholm always at C, I think he'd be just fine on RW (where he has played before) if that's what the combo dictated.

What you are saying is correct, never get to a point of being stubborn and not make adjustment, adjustments are made in during games, I did think Monty over exceeded the limit with his line changes. But no you are right nothing should be set in concrete, but justify your moves don't make them to show how smart you. Chemistry is huge in hockey.