HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What could the Bruins realistically give to get Chris Stewart?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2012, 08:09 PM
  #51
The Special K
Hoss MOFO, Hoss.
 
The Special K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Thanks.

And some here think Chiarelli overpays.
How is Stewart's contract an overpayment? This is a great deal for the Blues. I have a feeling that this kid is gonna pot 30 next season.

I would LOOOOOOVE to have this kid on the bruins for that kind of money.

The Special K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 08:11 PM
  #52
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Thanks.

And some here think Chiarelli overpays.
How is 3M/1y for Stewart an overpayment?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 08:15 PM
  #53
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Game time, baby
Country: United States
Posts: 39,391
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Thanks.

And some here think Chiarelli overpays.
I take that deal every day and twice on Sunday..

WBC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 08:18 PM
  #54
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Thanks.

And some here think Chiarelli overpays.

Not sure if serious.

Last 3 years: Chris Stewart has 71 goals .. Chris Kelly has 49

Oh and Stewart is 7 years younger.


If you are looking at these 2 contracts together, Chia DOES overpay.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:04 PM
  #55
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 19,633
vCash: 500
"Last three years"?

Last year Stewart had 30 points in 79 games. He was a healthy scratch twice in this year's playoffs.

If he'd played like that for the Bruins (after they traded for him and gave up Shattenkirk), you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder about him being re-signed at that price.

The double standard around here is unreal.

Artemis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:29 PM
  #58
Bruins1726
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
"Last three years"?

Last year Stewart had 30 points in 79 games. He was a healthy scratch twice in this year's playoffs.

If he'd played like that for the Bruins (after they traded for him and gave up Shattenkirk), you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder about him being re-signed at that price.

The double standard around here is unreal.
Shattenkirk was traded with Stewart to STL.......

Bruins1726 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:50 PM
  #60
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
"Last three years"?

Last year Stewart had 30 points in 79 games. He was a healthy scratch twice in this year's playoffs.

If he'd played like that for the Bruins (after they traded for him and gave up Shattenkirk), you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder about him being re-signed at that price.

The double standard around here is unreal.
Why is looking at a larger body of work a laughable proposition? It's not as though he was scoring at a much higher rate a decade ago... It was one season removed. That same year, Chris Kelly scored 28 points in 81 games.

Statistically, you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

Stewart is signed to a one-year deal. That's probation, not a long-term commitment. It's designed to show the Blues that last season was an anomaly and for Stewart to put forth a more consistent effort if he has designs toward making any money after 12-13. It's also a low enough number that if he falters, the Blues can deal him to a team who sees the potential that a 64 point sophomore could fit in nicely with their club.

I'd say there are people who whine and complain at every contract handed out in Boston... But this deal would also garner a ton of support from the hf faithful. I would venture to guess that it would have YOUR support as well, if it was Chiarelli handing it out.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 12:03 AM
  #61
N o o d l e s
Registered User
 
N o o d l e s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,410
vCash: 500
If we can't get Stewart out of St. Louis, I'll take Reaves. Kid's a monster.

N o o d l e s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 06:12 PM
  #62
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
"Last three years"?

Last year Stewart had 30 points in 79 games. He was a healthy scratch twice in this year's playoffs.

If he'd played like that for the Bruins (after they traded for him and gave up Shattenkirk), you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder about him being re-signed at that price.

The double standard around here is unreal.
Oh yes, it makes much more sense when evaluating talent to look at one year and less games than more years and more games. That's genius logic.

Oh and Stewart's "bad year' is about an average Kelly year. I'll tell you what: $100 says that Stewart gets more goals than Kelly this year. Deal?

And um I don't think you know what you are talking about. Stewart wasn't obtained in exchange for Shattenkirk. He was traded ALONG WITH Shattenkirk.

But keep on digging.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 06:14 PM
  #63
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by N O O D L E S View Post
If we can't get Stewart out of St. Louis, I'll take Reaves. Kid's a monster.
I'd love that kid too. But where does he play? The only way there's room for his is if Thornton or Paille are gone.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:04 PM
  #64
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by N O O D L E S View Post
If we can't get Stewart out of St. Louis, I'll take Reaves. Kid's a monster.
You guys have enough good fighters on the Bruins you just leave our tough guys alone... j/k. Some of our fans don't see the need to have more than one fighter on the team but I do. I like the way the Bruins defend their goaltender at all cost by battling it out down low and not letting the opposition park there and I think that is what kills St. Louis at times. Jackman is our only defenseman that plays confrontational in the crease, Polak is tough but he doesn't normally engage in a gritty game unless provoked. As far as the forwards Reaves is a really good fighter and is starting to develop some offensive skill as well, I think Crombeen will end up getting let go if Reaves continues to develop. Stewart can throw them pretty good too especially if he's angry, hopefully he can bounce back this year.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:46 PM
  #65
Rookie Chargers
Registered User
 
Rookie Chargers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Quebec
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,751
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Rookie Chargers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
"Last three years"?

Last year Stewart had 30 points in 79 games. He was a healthy scratch twice in this year's playoffs.

If he'd played like that for the Bruins (after they traded for him and gave up Shattenkirk), you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder about him being re-signed at that price.

The double standard around here is unreal.
When some need to pass gas they write, then they say it's not them.

I would like to compare the minutes both players play.

Rookie Chargers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 04:32 PM
  #66
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie Chargers View Post
When some need to pass gas they write, then they say it's not them.

I would like to compare the minutes both players play.
1) People here are way too hung up on minutes. It's like "Sure that guy scored 7 more goals, but he played more minutes!!!" Guess what, 7 goals have a real effect on a team winning. Time you spend on the bench is time you aren't helping your team. If Chara is on the ice, that means non-Chara is not on the ice. There's a benefit to that.

2) It's also assumed that a player who played less minutes would score at the exact same rate they did if they had more minutes. That isn't necessarily true. Shorter/less shifts means maybe the guy can give more effort and have more effectiveness in any one shift. In fact, that's WHY Claude rolls the lines the way he does. He feels a guy is MORE EFFECTIVE when used that way. The opposite must be inversely true: more minutes would reduce his effectiveness.

3) Stewart played something like 45 seconds more a game than Kelly. If 1 shift a game really is a big deal to you then I don't know what to say.

But I tell you what, make a poll on the poll board and ask unbiased fans who they think is better.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:00 PM
  #67
N o o d l e s
Registered User
 
N o o d l e s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
I'd love that kid too. But where does he play? The only way there's room for his is if Thornton or Paille are gone.
Ya, there's no room for him lol. I was just expressing my love for him

N o o d l e s is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.