Chiarelli said he expects the salary cap to come down because of the problems in the North American economy, and the lack of top-tier players on the market could also inflate the prices of those that are available. There’s also the fact that the Bruins need to re-sign some of their own, including rookie phenom forward Brad Marchand, who is due for a big raise after their championship season.
Another reason Chiarelli won't try to outbid rival teams on the opening day of free agency is the implication for those contracts on a young team he wants to hold together. The salary cap is $64 million for 2011-12, but Chiarelli thinks economic problems will eventually require a cap decrease.
"So I'm really not in a position to go out," Chiarelli said, "and give a (free agent) a big-term contract."
Those quotes are nearly a year old now...there are quotes a week old speculating a huge increase in cap.
and those are about last year...there was no one in free agency last year. Of course he's not going to go and give a huge contract to Joel Ward, or Sean Bergenhiem. We're talking Ryan Suter, Zach Parise here.
Those quotes are nearly a year old now...there are quotes a week old speculating a huge increase in cap.
and those are about last year...there was no one in free agency last year. Of course he's not going to go and give a huge contract to Joel Ward, or Sean Bergenhiem. We're talking Ryan Suter, Zach Parise here.
This past June/July when the deals would have been signed, the general consensus was that the Cap could easily go down. Given the amount of key young guys the B's had to re-sign, I don't blame Chia at all for not making a big splash this past offseason, which is what the OP was talking about.
If the Cap goes up, the B's don't repeat, they have the money this offseason to improve the roster, and still do nothing, then we can gripe.
This past June/July when the deals would have been signed, the general consensus was that the Cap could easily go down. Given the amount of key young guys the B's had to re-sign, I don't blame Chia at all for not making a big splash this past offseason, which is what the OP was talking about.
If the Cap goes up, the B's don't repeat, they have the money this offseason to improve the roster, and still do nothing, then we can gripe.
Right, but the post that he quoted (which was quoting a request from me) was referring to the Bruins making a splash this coming off season, not last.
This past June/July when the deals would have been signed, the general consensus was that the Cap could easily go down. Given the amount of key young guys the B's had to re-sign, I don't blame Chia at all for not making a big splash this past offseason, which is what the OP was talking about.
If the Cap goes up, the B's don't repeat, they have the money this offseason to improve the roster, and still do nothing, then we can gripe.
Right....and I completely understand that. But to say "No, Chia won't go for Parise/Suter because he said he doesn't want to go for a big contract cause the cap is going down" and referencing to quotes from literally 10 months ago referencing to a completely different offseason is simply misleading.
I don't think Chia really messed up this offseason, especially as far as free agency goes. Jagr's the only free agent doing anything worth a damn, it was the weakest offseason in years.
Right....and I completely understand that. But to say "No, Chia won't go for Parise/Suter because he said he doesn't want to go for a big contract cause the cap is going down" and referencing to quotes from literally 10 months ago referencing to a completely different offseason is simply misleading.
I don't think Chia really messed up this offseason, especially as far as free agency goes. Jagr's the only free agent doing anything worth a damn, it was the weakest offseason in years.
I'm talking July 2012.
Gotcha.
I thought he was referring to the original post and not this offseason. Obviously, if the B's get eliminated early and the Cap goes up, there is no reason why Chia would not be looking to improve the team dramatically, if he could.
If you had to choose one, Suter or Parise, to have the biggest impact on the club, who do you sign?
I thought he was referring to the original post and not this offseason. Obviously, if the B's get eliminated early and the Cap goes up, there is no reason why Chia would not be looking to improve the team dramatically, if he could.
If you had to choose one, Suter or Parise, to have the biggest impact on the club, who do you sign?
I say Suter.
Tough call if they're both available. I probably say Parise, but it's a 1a 1b situation. I believe a forward of Parise's caliber will have more impact than a defender in Claude's system because the system when working properly can make Dennis Siedenberg look like Ryan Suter for example if you follow me.
Now as far as which one will be available, I think the chances of Parise being a FA are much greater than Suter.
I thought he was referring to the original post and not this offseason. Obviously, if the B's get eliminated early and the Cap goes up, there is no reason why Chia would not be looking to improve the team dramatically, if he could.
If you had to choose one, Suter or Parise, to have the biggest impact on the club, who do you sign?
I say Suter.
Given what I'm seeing recently, Suter, easily. The defense is awful beyond Chara. Seidenberg isnt really a carry a top 2 pairing guy. A top 4 of Chara, Suter, Seidenberg, Boychuk would be one of (if not the) league's best.
You could make a valid argument that the return of Horton and Peverley gives the Bruins a very good forward situation. Beyond adding Hamilton directly from the OHL, I don't see anyone on the backend for whom we can say that.
That being said, I also think we might have a better shot at Parise.
Tough call if they're both available. I probably say Parise, but it's a 1a 1b situation. I believe a forward of Parise's caliber will have more impact than a defender in Claude's system because the system when working properly can make Dennis Siedenberg look like Ryan Suter for example if you follow me.
Now as far as which one will be available, I think the chances of Parise being a FA are much greater than Suter.
Fair enough.
I would argue that even with CJ's system, if you add Suter to the mix, it will take pressure/workload off of Chara, and potentially make him better even as he ages. Suter would also provide a "bridge" between Chara and Hamilton (provided he turns out to be what the B's hope he is). This also moves Sides down to 2nd pair (likely with JB as MT said) and this makes them even more formidable.
As far as who is more "available" Suter or Parise, I have heard and/or read little about either. Why do you think Parise is more likely to bolt NJ than Suter NAS?
I would argue that even with CJ's system, if you add Suter to the mix, it will take pressure/workload off of Chara, and potentially make him better even as he ages. Suter would also provide a "bridge" between Chara and Hamilton (provided he turns out to be what the B's hope he is). This also moves Sides down to 2nd pair (likely with JB as MT said) and this makes them even more formidable.
As far as who is more "available" Suter or Parise, I have heard and/or read little about either. Why do you think Parise is more likely to bolt NJ than Suter NAS?
Tend to agree with all of this. Look at the ages of their forwards. If you assume a Suter signing means no Kelly, the oldest forward is Peverley 30, with most being much younger. And 3 of the top 4 prospects are forwards.
On the defensive side, 3 of the current top 4 are over 30 (Boychuk being the exception), and Hamilton is really the only significant prospect (unless they have confidence Chudinov would spend a year in the AHL).
Given what I'm seeing recently, Suter, easily. The defense is awful beyond Chara. Seidenberg isnt really a carry a top 2 pairing guy. A top 4 of Chara, Suter, Seidenberg, Boychuk would be one of (if not the) league's best.
You could make a valid argument that the return of Horton and Peverley gives the Bruins a very good forward situation. Beyond adding Hamilton directly from the OHL, I don't see anyone on the backend for whom we can say that.
That being said, I also think we might have a better shot at Parise.
Tough call if they're both available. I probably say Parise, but it's a 1a 1b situation. I believe a forward of Parise's caliber will have more impact than a defender in Claude's system because the system when working properly can make Dennis Siedenberg look like Ryan Suter for example if you follow me.
Now as far as which one will be available, I think the chances of Parise being a FA are much greater than Suter.
What I like about Parise is he comes from a system that is similar to the one the B's play in and should adjust into pretty seamlessly. I would be ecstatic with either as any of of would but I think with the big ? surrounding Horton and if he'll be able to come back there is more value to Parise than Suter. But if you look at it from a different angle. After Hamilton we really have no depth at d in the system where in a year we'll have potentially 3 forwards hopefully capable of making the jump. I'd say one of the 3 should be able to make the jump after next season. Suter would have a spot immediately where without losing anyone we actually enjoy having on the team. Parise fits right in if Horts can't come back. If he can he'll be on the 3rd line which seems like overkill for someone like Horton. I think it'll really depend on Hortons health in the off season.
Looking back, I feel like Chiarelli BOMBED the past offseason going into this season. Financially, the Bruins had enough money coming off the books to be decent players in the FA/Trade market, and arguably ended up a worse team than last year.
We did not make a substantial addition, and lost Ryder, Recchi to boot. Seguin is a completely different player, but he was on the team last year and so while you may say he replaced Ryder, who replaced Seguin and his ability, albeit a rookie, to be able to make a play?
Corvo may be an upgrade to Kaberle, but that's not saying much. Taking a flier on a guy like Sheldon Souray to help out the PP, or a cheap 6th guy like Scott Hannon or MA Bergeron, maybe making a play for Ian White. I think he could have done better than Corvo and finding a 7th dman aside from Kampfer.
Offensively is where he REALLY screwed up though. He lost Recchi and Ryder, both 20 goal scorers we will call them. Both played great in the playoffs and he replaced them with Benoit Pouliot. Which is a fine signing if you want to take a low-risk high reward flier on a guy who could replace what Seguin did last year. But he didn't make a play for a forward.
Chiarelli opted to play it safe instead of making a splash (Det signed Hossa after cup appearance). He could have made a play for Gagne, maybe did something epic and signed Jagr to play with Krejc (1 year deal, low risk).
I know it wasn't the best offseason player wise, but there were a few moves he could have done, maybe explored trade market more. I was disappointed in July/August and aside from that one stretch, the team has been putrid for most of the season.
Geez, it took this long long for revisionist history to start. While we are at it he should have fired Julian also.
I would be hypocritical if I started slamming Chiarelli now, I was fine with what he did last summer in not committing to the cap with long-term cotnracts on overpriced free agents given the uncertainty and the fact that he had his own guys to lock up, ones he just won the cup with. If we had known Ryder would score 30+ goals of course they would have pushed harder but the fact was that Ryder was coming off 2 18 goal seasons, albeit he was good in the playoffs.
It's the cap. When the smoke clears with this new CBA the Burins aren't going exactly going to be swimming in cap space as it is, even with their restaint last summer, people who think they are going to be players for Parise are dreaming. They still have alot of unsigned bottom 6 roster spots and Tuukka Rask to resign who will get a healthy raise and it's good that Chiarelli won't be vulnerable to an offer sheet on Rask because that is one guy they are going to need in the future I remember the Bruins being in the wilderness for many years when they lacked a clear #1 goaltender.
Lastly, I don't think we should be burying our heads in the sand and writing this season off either. Yes they have looked terrible of late and not impressive for a long time but this team has the potential to be a force, it has proven that to.
This past June/July when the deals would have been signed, the general consensus was that the Cap could easily go down. Given the amount of key young guys the B's had to re-sign, I don't blame Chia at all for not making a big splash this past offseason, which is what the OP was talking about.
If the Cap goes up, the B's don't repeat, they have the money this offseason to improve the roster, and still do nothing, then we can gripe.
The thing about the cap is that we won't know whether it is going down until the new CBA is reached. It will go up in the summer, but many feel that it will be a temporary increase that will vanish come September with the new CBA, and then it may drop below current levels. The NHLPA will fight like hell to keep this from happening of course, but from I've read it is a concern among many NHL GM's (Chiarelli included, apparently).
If last year’s theme was head shots, this year’s can easily be defined by three letters: C-B-A.
The expiration of the seven-year collective bargaining agreement on Sept. 15 has obviously fueled some uncertainty heading into the offseason. GMs will look to the league in Boca Raton to give them guidance as to how they should proceed this summer.
On the surface, the league plans to keep the CBA quota as light as possible at the GM meetings. But the league can’t control how many questions the GMs will have and that’s where I think the meetings will get bogged down to some degree.
"I intend to give a brief overview of where we are in the collective bargaining process and obviously we’ll try the best we can to answer whatever questions the managers might have," Bill Daly, the NHL’s Deputy Commissioner, told ESPN.com Thursday.
I wrote a few weeks ago about what especially will be of concern to the GMs in the strange summer that could be at hand. In late June, the league will need to introduce an updated salary cap number (both upper limit and lower limit) in order to set up the opening of free agency on July 1, as per the terms of the current CBA. Based on expanding league revenues, the $64.3-million upper limit for the cap is expected to go up yet again, perhaps as high as $69 million. The problem, of course, is that it’s a cap number that is simply temporary for the summer before the new CBA brings in new financial parameters. And if the owners and league have their way, there will be a lower salary cap for next season.
So, GMs face the bizarre scenario where they get handed a higher salary cap for July and August with the knowledge that it likely will be lower when the puck drops next season. So how much should they spend this summer? Hence, they’ll have questions for the league in the meetings next week.
I haven't heard any indication one way or the other about this that came out of Boca Raton (maybe somebody else has?), but it will certainly dictate what the Bruins and every other team can and can't do. So until we hear otherwise this summer appears to be a unique one with respect to the cap, until the new CBA is hammered out/understood.
I would be hypocritical if I started slamming Chiarelli now, I was fine with what he did last summer in not committing to the cap with long-term cotnracts on overpriced free agents given the uncertainty and the fact that he had his own guys to lock up, ones he just won the cup with. If we had known Ryder would score 30+ goals of course they would have pushed harder but the fact was that Ryder was coming off 2 18 goal seasons, albeit he was good in the playoffs.
.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this until the Ryder part. Ryder wouldn't be playing with Jamie Benn, Loui Eriksson(who has never left his side regardless of which center), or Mike Ribero here...The Bruins would have gotten the same Ryder they had, not this new Ryder who is playing top line minutes with top line linemates.
For some reason, that's been a concept that's been pretty hard to grasp here whenever Ryder comes into the discussion. Here he would not be playing the same minutes and definitely not have the same line mates he does there....therefore just saying "Ryder's scoring 30 goals again!!! WE should have kept him!!!!!!!!!!!" is looking for either an excuse to have kept him, or misleading
Then a question... Do you think giving up a 1st rounder would have been detrimental to the team when you consider how close they are to be a perennial contender ( they just wont the Cup too )?
I don`t have an issue with giving up a 1st rounder usually, but with no second rounder it`s a tough call, either way, the B`s first round pick, as it stand today is an 11th pick, that`s a pretty solid draft pick but again, I`m not sure who was out there at the deadline who would have been worth a first rounder???
Certainly not a Gaustad
This summer, if someone like a Weber/Suter or Parise would consider Boston as a landing spot, I`d move Krejci yesterday to ensure the B`s could snag one of them, Horty now on concussion #2 with no signs of him getting close to skating unless I`m mistaken?? This is something that will have to be looked at too.
All told, before anything happens in the summer, a CBA has to be agreed on and I`m not overly optimistic when the two names calling the shots are Fehr and Bettman that this happens quickly
Those quotes are nearly a year old now...there are quotes a week old speculating a huge increase in cap.
Yes, but Chiarelli was speculating on what would happen in 2012-13 off-season , the salary cap is set prior to free agency and it went up, so he wasn’t speculating on 2011-12. Also Chiarelli didn’t want to acquire anyone with a contract longer than a year and added with the recent article posted by ThomasJ13 leads me to believe Chiarelli feels (or felt) the cap will go down.
Personally, I don’t believe it will go down and the worst case scenario is the cap stays stagnate for a year or two, but that is a different debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877
Gotcha.
If you had to choose one, Suter or Parise, to have the biggest impact on the club, who do you sign?
I say Suter.
Suter, 10/10 times.
Chara Suter and Seidenberg would be the best top three since Pronger, Niedermayer and Beauchemin. Parise is a great player, but I feel Seguin makes him redundant because we have a young player of that potential producing good numbers now. It remains to be seen if Seguin can hit Parise’s heights, but Parise only has five more points than Seguin does this year. We currently have no one of the skill set of Suter except for Hamiliton, but as a prospect he is very much an unknown commodity and maybe five years or more from playing at Suter’s level (if he should reach it).
Suter will be the least likely to hit free agency however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ
.For some reason, that's been a concept that's been pretty hard to grasp here whenever Ryder comes into the discussion. Here he would not be playing the same minutes and definitely not have the same line mates he does there....therefore just saying "Ryder's scoring 30 goals again!!! WE should have kept him!!!!!!!!!!!" is looking for either an excuse to have kept him, or misleading
All true, but not at the crux of the matter for me.
I was Ryder’s biggest fan while he was here, but I understood it might be time to move on. My one reservation was if you let Ryder go, you have to sign an upgrade or comparable talent. This team won on depth and having a guy like Ryder who would be a top six player on many teams play on our third line illustrated that.
Pouliot signed and I took a wait and see approach, Pouliot might be a decent bottom six player but he has no effectiveness on the top six. It really says something when the Bruins have Rolston given to them as a money dump and he is more effective in a top six role and on the power play than Pouliot.
Ryder wouldn’t be playing the way he is in Dallas here, but I would feel more comfortable with Ryder or a comparable player in our top six and power play right now. Seguin and Marchand progressing replaced Recchi and Ryder’s production, but you still need effective bodies to compete especially when you have injuries.
I agree with this until the Ryder part. Ryder wouldn't be playing with Jamie Benn, Loui Eriksson(who has never left his side regardless of which center), or Mike Ribero here...The Bruins would have gotten the same Ryder they had, not this new Ryder who is playing top line minutes with top line linemates.
For some reason, that's been a concept that's been pretty hard to grasp here whenever Ryder comes into the discussion. Here he would not be playing the same minutes and definitely not have the same line mates he does there....therefore just saying "Ryder's scoring 30 goals again!!! WE should have kept him!!!!!!!!!!!" is looking for either an excuse to have kept him, or misleading[/QUOTE]
You don't know that, either. I see a Ryder playing with confidence and being used the right way. With Horton out, he could be playing with Krejci & Lucic. Or Bergeron & Marchand. Or he might have taken a step up in his game since the cup win and his playoff performance.
Ryder supporters don't know that he would have scored 30 here, but you also certainly don't know that he wouldn't.
One thing's for sure, he'd be a hell of a lot better than most of the crap we've had to ice and he was only signed for 2 years.
At the time of free agency last season, I thought the only contracts I would have matched, everything being equal, were Ryder & Gagne. I was wrong about Gagne as he just can't seem to shake his injury woes, but turns out I'm looking pretty accurate on Ryder.
You don't know that, either. I see a Ryder playing with confidence and being used the right way. With Horton out, he could be playing with Krejci & Lucic. Or Bergeron & Marchand. Or he might have taken a step up in his game since the cup win and his playoff performance.
Ryder supporters don't know that he would have scored 30 here, but you also certainly don't know that he wouldn't.
One thing's for sure, he'd be a hell of a lot better than most of the crap we've had to ice and he was only signed for 2 years.
At the time of free agency last season, I thought the only contracts I would have matched, everything being equal, were Ryder & Gagne. I was wrong about Gagne as he just can't seem to shake his injury woes, but turns out I'm looking pretty accurate on Ryder.
If you believe in the butterfly effect than Horton and Peverley's injuries wouldn't have happened because the situation would have been different with a different roster....but that's a weird trippy way to go haha.
Either way the argument against Ryder scoring 30 here is much more realistic, considering he never scored 30 in Boston...and failed to score 20 the last two seasons. So saying "well you don't know he wouldn't score 30 here" is simply revisionist history....I do know that, because he didn't....and he certainly wouldn't be playing with Benn and Eriksson here(both offensively better than anyone we've got not named Seguin) in the high tempo Dallas plays compared to the Bruins.
Looking at a stat sheet and saying "look Ryder scored 30 in dallas already. Bruins messed up" is just blindly looking at a stat sheet and not really putting any thought into anything. Would he be better than Max Sauve, Trent Whitfield, etc. Sure he definitely would be...but does that mean you want to have a roster of 30 NHL caliber players just incase everyone gets hurt? Injuries are something you really can't plan ahead for.
If you believe in the butterfly effect than Horton and Peverley's injuries wouldn't have happened because the situation would have been different with a different roster....but that's a weird trippy way to go haha.
Either way the argument against Ryder scoring 30 here is much more realistic, considering he never scored 30 in Boston...and failed to score 20 the last two seasons. So saying "well you don't know he wouldn't score 30 here" is simply revisionist history....I do know that, because he didn't....and he certainly wouldn't be playing with Benn and Eriksson here(both offensively better than anyone we've got not named Seguin) in the high tempo Dallas plays compared to the Bruins.
Looking at a stat sheet and saying "look Ryder scored 30 in dallas already. Bruins messed up" is just blindly looking at a stat sheet and not really putting any thought into anything. Would he be better than Max Sauve, Trent Whitfield, etc. Sure he definitely would be...but does that mean you want to have a roster of 30 NHL caliber players just incase everyone gets hurt? Injuries are something you really can't plan ahead for.
Fair enough. Wouldn't have shocked me if Ryder put up 25-30 goals with the Bruins. He had 2 mediocre seasons, but I think he's playing with so much confidence after the playoff cup run that he'd rebound in the regular season here as well. Maybe not as much as he has in Dallas.
I've put thought into everything, and it still comes up to me that Ryder should've been re-signed. Unless he would've chosen Dallas with identical offers, which I doubt. Our 3rd line has been inconsistent at best and putrid at worst for much of the season. Ryder, no matter what slump he's in, is one nice shot away from making a difference in a game. Having that 3rd line part-time sniper who can get hot was critical for a team relying on 3 lines to score. I thought his effort woes were far overstated and more that he's just an inconsistent goal scorer, the way most goal scorers are that aren't elite.
He also stays healthy and knows the system very well. He seems to step up in big situations. And it was only 2 years, $7 million.
I understood the decision at the time, although was hesitant to embrace it. Now, in hindsight, it was a mistake, IMO. It's easy to criticize a GM for mistakes in hindsight, but it's also part of their job to have better foresight than we have, seeing as they get paid a lot of money to do their job.
Like I've said before, if the cap goes down $3-5 million after this season, then I will apologize and laud Chia for not having Ryder at $3.5 million on the 3rd line. But if the cap stays where it is or goes up, then I fail to see how not re-signing Ryder can be anything but a mistake. He's not a savior, but he's a far better piece to the puzzle than Pouliot, Rolston, or even Caron (although I like what Jordan's been doing lately)
but does that mean you want to have a roster of 30 NHL caliber players just incase everyone gets hurt? Injuries are something you really can't plan ahead for.
Yes, that's what separates good teams from bad teams.
