Raycroft?

I am not saying that I am for or against this move but I still can't shake the feeling that Raycroft will be traded relatively soon. I feel this way for the following reasons;

1. The B's seem to LOVE Toivonen. (Seemingly deservedly so)
2. Very few organIzations have two young goaltenders on the NHL team, which will be the case when Hannu comes up in a few years.
3. Raycroft has a higher trade value than any of the other goaltenders in the currently log jammed system. (With the possible exception of Toivonen, who will not be traded because... see #1)
4. The talk of Burke coming here, either by trade or waivers, hasn't gone away.
5. Given the looming work stoppage, Toivonen will be able to continue his development in the minors and Burke and Potvin, are past the age where they will develop further. But for a guy like Raycroft, losing one full year of competition at his age could be severly detrimental. (Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I am assuming that Raycroft can't play in the minors during a lockout)

I am not saying that I am for or against this move but I still can't shake the feeling that Raycroft will be traded relatively soon. I feel this way for the following reasons;

1. The B's seem to LOVE Toivonen. (Seemingly deservedly so)
2. Very few organIzations have two young goaltenders on the NHL team, which will be the case when Hannu comes up in a few years.
3. Raycroft has a higher trade value than any of the other goaltenders in the currently log jammed system. (With the possible exception of Toivonen, who will not be traded because... see #1)
4. The talk of Burke coming here, either by trade or waivers, hasn't gone away.
5. Given the looming work stoppage, Toivonen will be able to continue his development in the minors and Burke and Potvin, are past the age where they will develop further. But for a guy like Raycroft, losing one full year of competition at his age could be severly detrimental. (Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I am assuming that Raycroft can't play in the minors during a lockout)

Certainly could be a possibility, but I would be absolutely livid if it did happen. Raycroft and Toivonen are the future. One year of Sean Burke means squat. Trading Raycroft for anything less than a young top 2 potential defenseman or a goalie like Martin Biron who is still young and very good is unacceptable IMO.

But yes, it certainly seems like it could happen with all the renewed interest in Burke.

I'd rather see Razor get a fair chance at being the number one guy before he's shipped out.

But, just to stir the pot a little....

Raycroft/low round pick
for
Comrie

Losing a 'tender with the potential of Raycroft would suck, but Comrie's gold in a bag.

I'd rather see Razor get a fair chance at being the number one guy before he's shipped out.

But, just to stir the pot a little....

Raycroft/low round pick
for
Comrie

Losing a 'tender with the potential of Raycroft would suck, but Comrie's gold in a bag.

I have a post somewhere about my disbelief in the B's signing all
these tenders.

If the B's do sign Burke, then I would say Raycroft is out the door to get what ever is the biggest hole on the team. Right now I would say its a legit #2 center.

I would like to see Raycroft get a shot a being a #1...IMO he has all the tools...

I have a post somewhere about my disbelief in the B's signing all
these tenders.

If the B's do sign Burke, then I would say Raycroft is out the door to get what ever is the biggest hole on the team. Right now I would say its a legit #2 center.

That is an interesting scenario to think about. How would everyone feel if the Bruins say dealt Hilbert plus a pick (we have two seconds next year) for Burke, then turned around and dealt Raycroft + for Mike Comrie? I know a lot of people dont like Comrie here, but I think he is a superior talent and would be a great addition to this team, and would be a far better #2 center than Stumpel ever was. Furthermore this would make our team just about as good as any team in the East this coming year (assuming Boynton is signed and on the off chance Burke is healthy).

I really hate to give up Raycroft, but this is a situation where I think I would pull the trigger. The Oilers getting Raycroft would also allow them to deal Salo which frees up even more money for them.

Fun to think about, but I dont think Raycroft is going anywhere.

I believe in trading anybody that will make the team better..

However , unless something really weird happens..I feel the kid has earned his shot.
Let it be up to him.... Give him a solid 30 to 35 games...
I worry about Hannu , when hannu is ready..as a matter of fact I would love the opportunity to worry about having 2 good young goalies.

That would be a first for me..

:D

Another reason I like the idea of adding Comrie is that if we dont look like we are going to be able to make a good playoff run this year I think it is almost essential to trade Brian Rolston at the deadline for some younger ready for the NHL players to a contender. Actually it is a must either way with Rolston, he will not be back, and the Bruins need to replace him with bodies at this deadline.

I think it's going to be one hell of a buyers market at the trade deadline. Moreso than ever before.

Nobody is going to want to get stuck with high priced Vets. By the same token all the sellers will be looking for picks and prospects to bolster a lowering of payroll post CBA as well as stocking the AHL if that is the only hockey being played.

It is going to be a weird dynamic going on that has me quite curious.

I am not saying that I am for or against this move but I still can't shake the feeling that Raycroft will be traded relatively soon. I feel this way for the following reasons;

1. The B's seem to LOVE Toivonen. (Seemingly deservedly so)
2. Very few organIzations have two young goaltenders on the NHL team, which will be the case when Hannu comes up in a few years.
3. Raycroft has a higher trade value than any of the other goaltenders in the currently log jammed system. (With the possible exception of Toivonen, who will not be traded because... see #1)
4. The talk of Burke coming here, either by trade or waivers, hasn't gone away.
5. Given the looming work stoppage, Toivonen will be able to continue his development in the minors and Burke and Potvin, are past the age where they will develop further. But for a guy like Raycroft, losing one full year of competition at his age could be severly detrimental. (Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I am assuming that Raycroft can't play in the minors during a lockout)

I don't understand why the Bruins can't own both Raycroft and Toivonen? Raycroft is now; Toivonen is the future -possibly even next season...remember, Cheevers had his sidekick Johnson...and Raycroft's value isn't realizable until he's put in a season with the big club...

I expect the B's starting tandem will be Potvin and Raycroft.
Potvin is a pure reflex goalie. He was rusty yesterday because he hadn't played in nine months. Potvin is a big game goalie and played some great playoff hockey for LA in 2002.

Raycroft is ready. And he's a very consistent goalie while Potvin is streaky. They'll complement each other.

The Bs were willing to swap Lapointe straight-up for Joseph because the big contracts largely offset and that could still happen, but I'd hate to see the Bs squander young talent for a short-term Sean Burke fix...

5. Given the looming work stoppage, Toivonen will be able to continue his development in the minors and Burke and Potvin, are past the age where they will develop further. But for a guy like Raycroft, losing one full year of competition at his age could be severly detrimental. (Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I am assuming that Raycroft can't play in the minors during a lockout)

Raycroft can play in the minors next season. He'll be in that category of players who are exempt from the waiver draft but eligible for regular season waivers if my info on him is correct (signed at age 20, this is his 4th pro season, will have played less than 80 NHL games at the end of this season). Such players can be assigned to the minors as long as it's done before the regular season.

FWIW, I don't think he's going anywhere. Potvin and Shields aren't so expensive that the Bruins won't hesitate to waive either one if they don't perform. It's not going to bust the budget if they clear waivers and have to be paid an NHL salary to play in the minors. If Raycroft has a good camp and one of Shields or Potvin doesn't, I think Raycroft makes the team.

That is an interesting scenario to think about. How would everyone feel if the Bruins say dealt Hilbert plus a pick (we have two seconds next year) for Burke, then turned around and dealt Raycroft + for Mike Comrie? I know a lot of people dont like Comrie here, but I think he is a superior talent and would be a great addition to this team, and would be a far better #2 center than Stumpel ever was. Furthermore this would make our team just about as good as any team in the East this coming year (assuming Boynton is signed and on the off chance Burke is healthy).

I really hate to give up Raycroft, but this is a situation where I think I would pull the trigger. The Oilers getting Raycroft would also allow them to deal Salo which frees up even more money for them.

Fun to think about, but I dont think Raycroft is going anywhere.

A few things about Burke would make me say no to Hilbert and a 2nd for him. First, Burke's injury history, as you mentioned. But also that he hasn't won a playoff series since the 80's, and that it would likely be a one year rental.
On the other hand, Burke has been the Yotes MVP over the last few years and was 5th in MVP voting in the league a couple years ago. If he's healthy he would make the Bruins a playoff lock, IMO. But I still don't think I'd give up too much youth for him.

I can't understand all this speculation about Sean Burke. I mean, what did we sign Potvin for as a free agent? Wasn't it to give a veteran, experienced presence to the team and help Raycroft ease into the #1 spot?

Its a given that The Cat is not the second coming of Terry Sawchuk. But why, at this early stage, two weeks into camp, one appearance by Potvin, who hasn't played since January, why all of a sudden, do we have to have Burke?

Beats me.

Having already committed themselves to Potvin, I dont see a conservative organization like Boston suddenly jumping on Burke.

How many mediocre bodies can one net contain? My prediction is that Potvin will play 50 games, Raycroft 30 and Shields will be left catching on to whatever organization that he can.

It seems from the outside like OC weighed his options and decided to sign Potvin over Burke simply because it didnt involve giving up a prospect in return.

All in all, not a bad decision.

If the current team was ready to contend, Burke would have been a preferrable pickup to Potvin.

Since, however, the Bruins arent going to contend right away, saving onto a prospect (even if he doesnt prove to pan out) is a good manuever.