Rumor: Rask signing with B's imminent

PatriceBergeronFan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 15, 2011
61,640
40,321
USA
Koskinen is an expiring contract. They would be rolling Rask and Swayman anyways. Koskinen can sent down and hide 1 million of the contract. If they are going to send down Swayman, why not send down Koskinen and add a 1 rounder for the draft or a potential deadline deal?

Adding Koskinen literally means nothing for Boston and the standings. There's not much difference between a Rask/Swayman tandem and a Rask/Ullmark, that first could be used towards a guy like Giroux at the deadline.

Depending on his contract, that could be quite a bit of wasted cap space in burying Koskinen to the AHL.
 

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
5,442
4,802
This is another paint myself in the corner move by Sweeny...............he is just terrible
 

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
27,230
8,996
Winnipeg

Because Bruins fans have a crystal ball that showed them management was intent on signing Rask from the beginning, obviously.

They seem to forget there were a) legitimate questions about Rask hanging it up prior, and that was before he had the hip injury and b) acting like Rask is now going to be here for the long term despite him being an about to be 35 year old goalie with hip injuries and has already thought about retirement.
 

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
27,230
8,996
Winnipeg
$5 mil of cap space lit on fire by Sweeney with that Ullmark signing. Horrible :help:

As opposed to going into the season with two unknowns in Swayman and some scrub backup?

Do we as fans just like to hate on goalies at this point? Half of the fanbase bitched incessantly about Rask for a decade, clamoring for the next guy and now the new guy also isn't good enough?
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
14,560
19,982
Las Vegas
Because Bruins fans have a crystal ball that showed them management was intent on signing Rask from the beginning, obviously.

They seem to forget there were a) legitimate questions about Rask hanging it up prior, and that was before he had the hip injury and b) acting like Rask is now going to be here for the long term despite him being an about to be 35 year old goalie with hip injuries and has already thought about retirement.

Because regardless of Rask, you bring in a low cost veteran to back up and give Swayman the job. Stop acting like the goalie market was 1 man

Low cost vets from this past offseason performing at or above Ullmark:

Holtby - 1 yr x $2m - .922 sv%
Anderson - 1yr x $750k - .921 sv%
Raanta - 2yrs x $2m - .919 sv%
Reimer - 2yrs x $2.25m - .928 sv%
Lindgren - 1yr x $750k - .958 sv%
 
  • Like
Reactions: BergyTime37

WhalerTurnedBruin55

Fading out, thanks for the times.
Oct 31, 2008
11,347
6,720
Because Bruins fans have a crystal ball that showed them management was intent on signing Rask from the beginning, obviously.

They seem to forget there were a) legitimate questions about Rask hanging it up prior, and that was before he had the hip injury and b) acting like Rask is now going to be here for the long term despite him being an about to be 35 year old goalie with hip injuries and has already thought about retirement.
But little foresight in the Ullmark deal.

While no one had a crystal ball, it wasn't a stretch that he was coming back.

And here we are.

Have 3 solid goalies = a nice luxury.

Too bad the rest of the team needs a lot of work. Cap space is king. Ullmark at 5M possibly ending up the #3 goalie is a very bad use of cap space.

This isn't crystal ball talk. This was said at the time of the signing, too.

Well, either way, I wish Sweeney luck. He's gonna need it.

And I'll be perfectly happy if we have a new GM come draft.
 

McJedi

Registered User
Apr 21, 2020
10,724
7,655
Florida
Ullmark for Koskinen+2nd/3rd?
Why not Ullmark for Yamamoto and a higher pick.

Boston won’t want Koskinen. Oil would need to add just to get rid of Koskinen.

At TDL: oil 2022 3rd + Koskinen to team X for nothing but cap space sounds like a realistic trade scenario.
 
Last edited:

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
5,442
4,802
Is this^some 3yr old posting? "Rask is terrible" One of the best goalies of the last 10yrs...
I did not mention Rask.............what I was trying to say was that if he intended to bring Rask back ,why did go out and sign a goalie 20 mil for 4years and I believe no trade clause. That is what I call painting yourself in a corner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BergyTime37

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
13,771
19,261
Connecticut
I did not mention Rask.............what I was trying to say was that if he intended to bring Rask back ,why did go out and sign a goalie 20 mil for 4years and I believe no trade clause. That is what I call painting yourself in a corner.

Because Rask coming back was never a 100% lock to happen. He needed to have surgery, rehab and get into game shape. Even if all that happened Rask still had to want to come back vs calling it a career.
 

BergyTime37

Registered User
Jun 17, 2015
256
239
As opposed to going into the season with two unknowns in Swayman and some scrub backup?

Do we as fans just like to hate on goalies at this point? Half of the fanbase bitched incessantly about Rask for a decade, clamoring for the next guy and now the new guy also isn't good enough?

I like Rask, I also like Ullmark they are both good goalies. I don’t think it’s particularly wise to spending top of the market money when you knew your veteran was returning. I don’t believe it for a second the bruins didn’t have any idea he was coming back either. You had Vladar and Halak that you could turn to for cheap until he came back. It’s not a pro or anti Rask take like every bruins fans makes it out to be. If you knew he was coming back patch it up and put your money elsewhere.
 

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
13,771
19,261
Connecticut
I like Rask, I also like Ullmark they are both good goalies. I don’t think it’s particularly wise to spending top of the market money when you knew your veteran was returning. I don’t believe it for a second the bruins didn’t have any idea he was coming back either. You had Vladar and Halak that you could turn to for cheap until he came back. It’s not a pro or anti Rask take like every bruins fans makes it out to be. If you knew he was coming back patch it up and put your money elsewhere.

But they didn't know because they had to see how he felt after surgery and if he even wanted to play again
 

BergyTime37

Registered User
Jun 17, 2015
256
239
But they didn't know because they had to see how he felt after surgery and if he even wanted to play again

I still wouldn’t be dishing out a long term deal to a free agent goalie if rask had said he wasn’t up to it.

I’d have preferred the $5 mil be spent elsewhere trying to address forward and D depth that is so lacking which to be fair they tried to do, but swung and missed.
 

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
13,771
19,261
Connecticut
I still wouldn’t be dishing out a long term deal to a free agent goalie if rask had said he wasn’t up to it.

I’d have preferred the $5 mil be spent elsewhere trying to address forward and D depth that is so lacking which to be fair they tried to do, but swung and missed.

Well your not going into the season with 2 rookie goalies and your not digging around the bargin bin hoping some meh goaltender find his game in Boston. As you said they spent money on Fwad/DEF and missed, but you want them to throw another $5 at it and hope they don't miss :huh:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad