As long as they add a real top 6 forward, I'm fine with that D as well. It's what I expected. Of course I'm not sure how they add a real top 6F (I mean real as in via trade, not one of these old dudes on the free agent market) without giving up one of their current top 4 D, but that's not a problem for me to solve. That's the GM's job.
Speculation: Pierre McGuire thinks Shattenkirk is headed to the Bruins - but was wrong
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
- Status
As long as they add a real top 6 forward, I'm fine with that D as well. It's what I expected. Of course I'm not sure how they add a real top 6F (I mean real as in via trade, not one of these old dudes on the free agent market) without giving up one of their current top 4 D, but that's not a problem for me to solve. That's the GM's job.
GloryDaze4877
Barely Irrelevant
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,319
- 24,242
Just saying that O'Gara could be the 8th D but still playing down in Providence. Where as last season Morrow had the role of 8th D but sat upstairs for months at a time.
But as options dwindle, I'm not sure how many of them are any better than O'Gara is right now.
PlayMakers
Registered User
To me, second line LW seems like a foolish place to spend, whether that's in assets to acquire via trade or even just in tie'ing up cap space.
Vatrano, Spooner, Cehlarik, Heinen, DeBrusk, Bjork... all LH shots capable of playing LW. Unproven yes, but Marchand was unproven once. It's unlikely that they'd all bust.
If it were me, I'd go for a top6 RIGHT wing to play with Bergeron and Marchand. I'd tell Backes he's my 3C. Play Pasta with Krejci and one of the kids (my preference would be Cehlarik).
The UFA I'd target at RW would be someone older because older guys are more willing to sign short term deals, and term is important because one of those guys above may prove to be more comfortable/effective on the right, and Senyshyn is also in that RW mix down the road.
Vatrano, Spooner, Cehlarik, Heinen, DeBrusk, Bjork... all LH shots capable of playing LW. Unproven yes, but Marchand was unproven once. It's unlikely that they'd all bust.
If it were me, I'd go for a top6 RIGHT wing to play with Bergeron and Marchand. I'd tell Backes he's my 3C. Play Pasta with Krejci and one of the kids (my preference would be Cehlarik).
The UFA I'd target at RW would be someone older because older guys are more willing to sign short term deals, and term is important because one of those guys above may prove to be more comfortable/effective on the right, and Senyshyn is also in that RW mix down the road.
Trap Jesus
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2012
- 28,686
- 13,458
It's nice to have a good player with Bergeron/Marchand (ie. Justin Williams would be a great fit playing with those two) but it is not at all necessary. They were a great line with Brett freakin' Connolly playing with them.
I've been saying this for a very long time and it's never happened except for one game, but I still would like to see Spooner as their RW. Masks his weaknesses and highlights his strengths. Also gives the illusion of more depth by sliding Backes down to the 3rd line.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,319
- 24,242
I've been thinking the same thing, forget spending on Krejci's LW, find a natural Top 6 RW, so you then have the option to use Backes in the middle. Right now they don't really have that option.
Problem being, at least in UFA, options are pretty limited. No one stands out to me as a guy the B's should target.
As far as trades go, I'm not sure who is available who fits the bill of that Top 6 natural RW.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,319
- 24,242
I like the idea, problem is Spooner doesn't and insists he's a center and basically pouts when he isn't used there.
DKH
Worst Poster/Awful Takes
- Feb 27, 2002
- 76,678
- 57,740
Trap Jesus
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2012
- 28,686
- 13,458
I thought that was old news. I thought I remember him saying he'd be fine playing wherever, could be wrong though. I just think playing with Bergeron/Marchand is a unique situation as well. His responsibilities would be very minimal with that type of a safety net, he'd almost always be in the offensive zone, and both Marchand and Bergeron can finish on his passes. You could also see a lot of those "fly the zone" plays that we saw with Seguin given Spooner's skating ability.
bruinsfan1972
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2010
- 298
- 0
Jagr: 1 year, 3 mil.
He's not fast, he's won't wow anyone but he might get 35 pts then be on his way and we can worry about it all again next summer.
He's not fast, he's won't wow anyone but he might get 35 pts then be on his way and we can worry about it all again next summer.
Trap Jesus
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2012
- 28,686
- 13,458
Love the guy but I thought he clashed horribly with this team. Granted they've had significant changes since 2013, but if I have to see him on the Bergeron line again I'd puke. I just mentioned that you can plug anyone in on that line, but he may be the one exception; it was painful to watch that line at times with Jagr on it. He's just a player that needs the puck all the time to play his game.
Yeah, almost all of the comments have been less about willingness and more about comfort level, which is just his being candid. But he's the soft player whose sub 200 ft deficiencies come at the defensive end, so people carry on as though he's thrown tantrums about playing wing in the past.
PlayMakers
Registered User
The defense is more confusing...
The talent is clearly Chara, Krug, McAvoy and Carlo, but you can't have a 3rd pair of Kevan and McQuaid.
If they envisioned McQuaid staying with Krug then why expose him and not Kevan Miller?
If Kevan Miller is expected to be in the top4, then you're asking McQuaid to play his off-side in the 3rd pair, which he's never done.
Again, the decision to protect Kevan confounds me. If 54/86 were both exposed you'd likely be rid of one of them. Not that I dislike either individually, but as we all know they're redundant. Do they think they can trade one?
And just like with LW's, it seems silly to me to sign a quality UFA to be your 3rd pair LD. That would be tying up cap space for a spot that has Gryz, O'Gara, Johansson, Lauzon, Zboril, Lindgren and Sherman all waiting in the wings. To say nothing of Vaakaneinen, who also has legitimate pro experience.
The idea of signing Shattenkirk and then dealing Carlo makes more sense to me than signing a Del Zotto or Kulikov and calling that your defense. But doing that would require some creative and aggressive trading and our GM hasn't, as of yet, shown that to be a strength. So that play seems like a long shot.
The talent is clearly Chara, Krug, McAvoy and Carlo, but you can't have a 3rd pair of Kevan and McQuaid.
If they envisioned McQuaid staying with Krug then why expose him and not Kevan Miller?
If Kevan Miller is expected to be in the top4, then you're asking McQuaid to play his off-side in the 3rd pair, which he's never done.
Again, the decision to protect Kevan confounds me. If 54/86 were both exposed you'd likely be rid of one of them. Not that I dislike either individually, but as we all know they're redundant. Do they think they can trade one?
And just like with LW's, it seems silly to me to sign a quality UFA to be your 3rd pair LD. That would be tying up cap space for a spot that has Gryz, O'Gara, Johansson, Lauzon, Zboril, Lindgren and Sherman all waiting in the wings. To say nothing of Vaakaneinen, who also has legitimate pro experience.
The idea of signing Shattenkirk and then dealing Carlo makes more sense to me than signing a Del Zotto or Kulikov and calling that your defense. But doing that would require some creative and aggressive trading and our GM hasn't, as of yet, shown that to be a strength. So that play seems like a long shot.
One of the few pluses of having Backes + the number of prospects on the LH side they have is they don't have to target ANY type of forward, it can just be the best value forward they can find.
LW next to Krecji or book ending Backes? Great
C with Backes on RW on line 3? Awesome
RW with Bergeron and Krejci for condensed top 6? Fine
Good talent that works in a cap league is hard enough to find, I wouldn't be singling any one position other than they need another effective forward if they want to start breaking kids in.
LW next to Krecji or book ending Backes? Great
C with Backes on RW on line 3? Awesome
RW with Bergeron and Krejci for condensed top 6? Fine
Good talent that works in a cap league is hard enough to find, I wouldn't be singling any one position other than they need another effective forward if they want to start breaking kids in.
bruinsfan1972
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2010
- 298
- 0
Anyone with speed is too fast for Krejci. He needs a guy who can play puck possession. Lucic and Horton were both lumbering and slow so it was easy for DK to handle. He's an amazing passer, but he doesn't think fast enough. He needs deliberate motions. Plus Jagr and Pasta might have some chemistry.
PlayMakers
Registered User
I'm not sure about the trade front either but I agree with Trap Jesus that Justin Williams would be a good fit with Bergeron/Marchand. He plays that Backes/Connolly game. Has a history of scoring big goals, and like TJ said, it almost doesn't matter who plays with them so if he fades a bit over his short term deal they can absorb it. Let Backes anchor the 3c and surround him and Krejci with young energetic and creative talents on their lines. Use the young pipeline to plug and play the middle6.
sleepyh
Registered User
too bad Jagr doesn't play LW. Jagr - Krejci - Pasta world be interesting for the year. Clode isn't here any more.
DKH
Worst Poster/Awful Takes
- Feb 27, 2002
- 76,678
- 57,740
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,319
- 24,242
We have Krug unless he gets hurt as per this past playoffs. A backup plan isn't a bad idea. Would take pressure off of McAvoy to be a savior on the back end as well. I can see the Bruins signing Shattenkirk and dealing Carlo in a package for Duchene. Just don't ask me how it fits under the cap unless more bodies on the move out of town
.
!!!
ODAAT
Registered User
rather take my chances with one of Heinen/Debrusk and/or Bjork to put up 35 pts, be much faster and cost less
still huge no to Shattenkirk, if paying a guy 6-7 mill, which is probably what he`ll wind up getting from someone, that D man better not need to be insulated and/or protected from opposing teams top lines like Shatty would have to be
Well if that's the plan, I'd bet they will be after Justin Williams or Vrbata.
It would be funny if after all of the talk of the Celtics making a big free agent signing and trading for another big time player, the Bruins went out and signed Shattenkirk and traded for a big time forward in their prime.
It might be a long shot but if it's the best play he needs to make it happen. Or something like it.
This is the issue I have. We are exploring less than attractive options because we are basically ceding that our GM can't or won't use the trade market to solve his problems? Why not? If he's not closing deals because he won't give up the extra prospect or draft pick in a deal, is that really a wise decision if he's just going to end up overpaying a UFA as his fallback? Especially if his track record suggests we would cut that UFA within 6 months if we had the choice? I think it's time he start making more aggressive trade offers rather than thinking he's got free agency figured out, because he doesn't.
- Status
