Proposal: Tomas Hertl

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Yes.


Canucks are a sure bet to crater next season. You definitely want the 2025 1st and, better yet, a chance at an unprotected 2026 1st.

Amazing insight, you definitely seem like you know what your talking about...........

 

[bossram]

Canucks are a mediocre team riding an inflated PDO this season.

They are on the PDO train for sure, but they are also a legitimately good team. They're at 54% xG and scoring chances the last 25 games. They have been playing well, and getting good fortune.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

They are on the PDO train for sure, but they are also a legitimately good team. They're at 54% xG and scoring chances the last 25 games. They have been playing well, and getting good fortune.

Shhhh, this poster is clearly not able to handle basic logic, let them continue to swim in ignorance.

 

[BruinDust]

Fair enough but I think GM's tend to value the production shown after the injury that shows it's not an issue for him any longer. Big centers with playoff success still have decent value in the trade market depending on the particulars. I don't think Hertl will get much beyond a 1st round pick back after all the details are worked out when it's time for him to go but the only way a team is going to get him, imo, is if they pay a 1st and not ask the Sharks to retain. Otherwise, I think Grier and probably Hertl are fine with staying the course for the time being.

And I have no doubt some GM would be willing to give up quality assets to get Hertl out of San Jose. Or Grier will just keep him for now. I fruly agree he has value in the marketplace.

I just don't want it to be my team to acquire him. I'm risk adverse and the Bruins have made a history of bad contracts to aging players that they had to use 1sts to get rid of or buy them out entirely.

I think we also have to factor the league getting faster between now and the end of his deal, as well as younger.

The truth is the list of guys I'd sign past 31-32 years old is extremely small.

 

[BruinDust]

That is a lot of words to demonstrate you totally missed my point that Hertl - like Joe Thornton - never relied on speed to be effective.

I didn't miss your point at all. I get it, guys like Hertl and Thornton (and others) built their games on Hockey IQ and cerebral play, not speed, and should be more effective longer. I don't disagree entirely.

But you do need to be able to play at a certain pace to be effective. Otherwise guys like Thornton would be effective much longer.

Above I cited Tavares as a similar player in that footspeed was never his main asset, but that lack of footspeed is starting to impact his effectiveness. It could go either way.

 

[BobRossColton]

He's pretty physical; one of his best attributes is how he uses his size to protect the puck

Imagine a landeskog-hertl-nichushkin line. He doesn't really hit people, uses his size very very well

 

[Sota Popinski]

Already posted above.

You seem offended that I said Hertl has had knee issues.

I'm more offended that you called a 1C making 8M a year a cap dump because he had knee injuries 4 years ago

 

[BruinDust]

I'm more offended that you called a 1C making 8M a year a cap dump because he had knee injuries 4 years ago

Well that's not what I said. But hey, if you believe come 2030 at age 36 Tomas Hertl will still be in the NHL, fine. Whatever makes you happy.

 

[Gecklund]

Well that's not what I said. But hey, if you believe come 2030 at age 36 Tomas Hertl will still be in the NHL, fine. Whatever makes you happy.

I absolutely believe he will still be in the NHL and there’s no reason to believe he won’t be other than to suit your argument.

Now if you want to say he’s not a 1C at 36 you’re probably right but to say he will be out of the NHL is just insane.

 

[BruinDust]

I absolutely believe he will still be in the NHL and there’s no reason to believe he won’t be other than to suit your argument.

Now if you want to say he’s not a 1C at 36 you’re probably right but to say he will be out of the NHL is just insane.

Well right now based on Cap Friendly's list, there are a grand total of 20 skaters left in the NHL 36 or older. I'd put money on that list being smaller 6 years from now as the league gets younger and faster. And that list includes borderline generational talents like OV and Malkin, along with future HOFers like Pavelski.

Of the 20, only 6 make significant money from their long-term deals. The rest are vets who are signed to much smaller contracts.

Those numbers tell me the chances of Hertl here in 2030 are remote. History is not on his side.

 

[TheBeard]

Well that's not what I said. But hey, if you believe come 2030 at age 36 Tomas Hertl will still be in the NHL, fine. Whatever makes you happy.

If you have a team built to win now but you won’t pull the trigger on pieces because of the potential 6 years down the road then you’re not a very good GM.

 

[Groo]

I'd take hertl w/2m retention. He's never really been a big a physical guy, he's more cerebral to me.

He's not a brawler

I didn't miss your point at all. I get it, guys like Hertl and Thornton (and others) built their games on Hockey IQ and cerebral play, not speed, and should be more effective longer. I don't disagree entirely.

But you do need to be able to play at a certain pace to be effective. Otherwise guys like Thornton would be effective much longer.

Above I cited Tavares as a similar player in that footspeed was never his main asset, but that lack of footspeed is starting to impact his effectiveness. It could go either way.

Thornton suffered a series of leg/knee injuries late in his career. It really effected his play at the end

 

[Groo]

I didn't miss your point at all. I get it, guys like Hertl and Thornton (and others) built their games on Hockey IQ and cerebral play, not speed, and should be more effective longer. I don't disagree entirely.

But you do need to be able to play at a certain pace to be effective. Otherwise guys like Thornton would be effective much longer.

Above I cited Tavares as a similar player in that footspeed was never his main asset, but that lack of footspeed is starting to impact his effectiveness. It could go either way.

Thornton suffered a series of leg/knee injuries late in his career. It really effected his play at the end

 

[hohosaregood]

I'd take hertl w/2m retention. He's never really been a big a physical guy, he's more cerebral to me.

He's a physical guy, he's just not a hitter. His bread and butter is winning puck possession down low with his strength and skill. It's a little old school but it's still effective.

 

[wintersej]

He's not a brawler


Thornton suffered a series of leg/knee injuries late in his career. It really effected his play at the end

I’m pro-Bruins going after Hertl, but he obviously has a point about Hertl’s age and contract length.. I think Bruins fans saw first hand how much losing half a step can hurt a guy that doesn’t rely on speed with Backes. Toronto fans are watching it now with Tavares. Conversely, it didn’t really hurt Krejci much. There is obviously risk with getting a guy that age signed long term. It’s a ticking time bomb and it could go off at 32 or 35 and you don’t know how big the explosion is going to be. With the cap going up and how well Hertl would match with Boston’s play style, I would go for it if I was Boston, but I totally respect the other side and know it’s a risk.

 

[Mattb124]

I didn't miss your point at all. I get it, guys like Hertl and Thornton (and others) built their games on Hockey IQ and cerebral play, not speed, and should be more effective longer. I don't disagree entirely.

But you do need to be able to play at a certain pace to be effective. Otherwise guys like Thornton would be effective much longer.

Above I cited Tavares as a similar player in that footspeed was never his main asset, but that lack of footspeed is starting to impact his effectiveness. It could go either way.

The bolded may be one of the most ignorant comments I've read on this site. Joe Thornton put up 82 points in 82 games at the age of 36. Who are these players who remained "effective much longer"?

 

[duckpuck]

Similar to Joe Thornton, Hertl’s game has never been reliant on speed. He is big, shifty, and he protects the puck well. Not sure I agree with that take.

I like Hertl as a player. But here is no world where he's in any way comparable to Thornton, who at his peak was one of the top 5 players in hockey. Hertl's best year (74 points) was a bad year for Thornton in his prime.

Thornton was pretty much point per game through 2015-16 (82 point year), when he was 36. He declined after that. And in his prime, he was consistently over PPG.

Or stated differently, all players decline, but Thornton started his decline from such a high point, he remained useful (and earned his contract) far longer than Hertl will.

And Hertl's contract AAV and term are pretty brutal. Absent retention, I don't see any team wanting to take that on and send back assets.

 

[BruinDust]

The bolded may be one of the most ignorant comments I've read on this site. Joe Thornton put up 82 points in 82 games at the age of 36. Who are these players who remained "effective much longer"?

Seems like I hit a nerve.

What I meant by that is if all it took was Hockey IQ, Joe Thornton would still be playing in the NHL today. It's not like he wanted to retire, but he couldn't find a job because at his current age, he's no longer effective. It's not like he lost his Hockey IQ along the way. The feet though. Not what it was.

If you think what I said was ignorant than that is your problem not mine.

 

[BruinDust]

If you have a team built to win now but you won’t pull the trigger on pieces because of the potential 6 years down the road then you’re not a very good GM.

If you don't look at the entire picture, including what that contract will look like at the end, your not a very good GM.

Now a GM may look at a contract, believe it may be bad at the end and still say "screw it" I want the player. It happens no doubt. Especially for guys who are franchise pillars. I get why some GM's do it. I get why San Jose gave Hertl the contract they did.

But doesn't mean I think it's a good contract or a contract for they type of player I'd be willing to overlook the term and potential for it to be a future buy out. I guess at the end of the day, I don't believe Tomas Hertl to be good enough of a player to overlook how bad his contract will impact my franchise 4-5-6 years down the road. That's my opinion on the player and I am entitled to it. Even if some disagree.

He's not a brawler


Thornton suffered a series of leg/knee injuries late in his career. It really effected his play at the end

Injury or not he was still slowing down as he got older.

 

[Hodge]

If you don't look at the entire picture, including what that contract will look like at the end, your not a very good GM.

Now a GM may look at a contract, believe it may be bad at the end and still say "screw it" I want the player. It happens no doubt. Especially for guys who are franchise pillars. I get why some GM's do it. I get why San Jose gave Hertl the contract they did.

But doesn't mean I think it's a good contract or a contract for they type of player I'd be willing to overlook the term and potential for it to be a future buy out. I guess at the end of the day, I don't believe Tomas Hertl to be good enough of a player to overlook how bad his contract will impact my franchise 4-5-6 years down the road. That's my opinion on the player and I am entitled to it. Even if some disagree.


Injury or not he was still slowing down as he got older.

Signing bonuses in all years too so you can't even really reap the benefits of a buyout.

Hertl's contract is a huge risk. He's arguably not worth the cap hit right now at 30 years old. How bad is this going to look when he's 33? 36? I understand the cap will go up but still.

 

[TheBeard]

If you don't look at the entire picture, including what that contract will look like at the end, your not a very good GM.

Now a GM may look at a contract, believe it may be bad at the end and still say "screw it" I want the player. It happens no doubt. Especially for guys who are franchise pillars. I get why some GM's do it. I get why San Jose gave Hertl the contract they did.

But doesn't mean I think it's a good contract or a contract for they type of player I'd be willing to overlook the term and potential for it to be a future buy out. I guess at the end of the day, I don't believe Tomas Hertl to be good enough of a player to overlook how bad his contract will impact my franchise 4-5-6 years down the road. That's my opinion on the player and I am entitled to it. Even if some disagree.

In four years the Bruins will have 3 players under contract and it's not like they have a ton of guys now that need contracts. The difference between Hertl and the home grown guys is that Hertl has only 6 more years left on the deal as opposed to the guys who may want 8 in free agency. Reality is if the team doesn't win in the next couple of seasons the fan base is gonna be livid.

 

[BruinDust]

Signing bonuses in all years too so you can't even really reap the benefits of a buyout.

Hertl's contract is a huge risk. He's arguably not worth the cap hit right now at 30 years old. How bad is this going to look when he's 33? 36? I understand the cap will go up but still.

Makes it even worse.

There is risk involved in acquiring him. I don't know how that is disputable.

 

[TheBeard]

Signing bonuses in all years too so you can't even really reap the benefits of a buyout.

Hertl's contract is a huge risk. He's arguably not worth the cap hit right now at 30 years old. How bad is this going to look when he's 33? 36? I understand the cap will go up but still.

Having Pasternak and Mcavoy in their primes not to mention 2 bonafide number one goalies on cheap deals while having Charlie Coyle and Pavel Zacha as your top two centers is a disaster.

 

[BruinDust]

In four years the Bruins will have 3 players under contract and it's not like they have a ton of guys now that need contracts. The difference between Hertl and the home grown guys is that Hertl has only 6 more years left on the deal as opposed to the guys who may want 8 in free agency. Reality is if the team doesn't win in the next couple of seasons the fan base is gonna be livid.

And what if something else comes up that is more enticing, but they've already made their bed acquiring Hertl?

Most teams will only have a handful of players signed past the next 3-4 years. Doesn't mean they should overlook or disregard the term remaining on aging players.

 

[TheBeard]

Makes it even worse.

There is risk involved in acquiring him. I don't know how that is disputable.

Of course there's risk. With every significant trade there's risk.