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

All Bruins trade rumors/proposals: 16/17 Part VII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2017, 12:27 PM
  #51
Greek_physique
Caron - Legit SNIPER
 
Greek_physique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto, Ont
Country: Greece
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmessy View Post
I prefer knowns (Carlo) to unknowns (Zboril, Lauzon)
Everyone does....but Carlo has only played 58games too.

Let's not make him that untouchable...rookies always come out of no where, but struggle that second year.

Example: Gostisbehere

Dude was pegged to be a top 15dman this year after last year.

__________________
-Nikos
Greek_physique is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:28 PM
  #52
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick9 View Post
If they're considering moving Carlo, why didn't they do it when it was Trouba coming the other way...
Perhaps because they know Shattenkirk is really looking at Boston. Perhaps they saw McAvoy in the WJC's and think he is ready after this NCAA season ends?

If they are moving out Carlo for a forward you better believe they have a defenseman in mind.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:28 PM
  #53
ap3lovr
Registered User
 
ap3lovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iqaluit
Posts: 5,248
vCash: 500
If Carlo is in the deal, he could play 87 games this season.... It would be a new record.

ap3lovr is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:28 PM
  #54
Greek_physique
Caron - Legit SNIPER
 
Greek_physique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto, Ont
Country: Greece
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Parker View Post
If they are moving out Carlo for a forward you better believe they have a defenseman in mind.
Agree 100%.

It has been talked about the entire year...our franchise has too many prospects....time to move some out for legit talent.

Greek_physique is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:29 PM
  #55
Bobbysands
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Depending on where Carlo goes, this might be his apex in trade value (potential) & Landeskogs lowest point (previous exposed form, but in a rut).

With assets in the cupboard, plus the opportunity to move salary, I think this trade just makes sense.

Bobbysands is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:30 PM
  #56
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 14,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Parker View Post
Perhaps because they know Shattenkirk is really looking at Boston. Perhaps they saw McAvoy in the WJC's and think he is ready after this NCAA season ends?

If they are moving out Carlo for a forward you better believe they have a defenseman in mind.
If it took this long for Sweeney to finally close a deal to try to improve this team, I have less than zero confidence there's something lined up for right after it. He's filled his quota for 18 months if he makes a deal with the Avs.

bp13 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:30 PM
  #57
ap3lovr
Registered User
 
ap3lovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iqaluit
Posts: 5,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbysands View Post
Depending on where Carlo goes, this might be his apex in trade value (potential) & Landeskogs lowest point (previous exposed form, but in a rut).

With assets in the cupboard, plus the opportunity to move salary, I think this trade just makes sense.
I honestly hate any deal involving Carlo or McAvoy that doesn't bring Duchene back. I just don't think Lando is worth it.

ap3lovr is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:30 PM
  #58
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
My counter to that would be that you are realizing Miller maybe has more value now, and THAT is the reason it took this long for Sweeney to budge on Carlo. Now that he sees Miller is a viable d-man (maybe), now he feels Carlo is maybe moveable with McAvoy also in the wings.
If Miller is a projected #3-4 (which he may be showing signs of now) then Carlo can be on the table. Still need that #1 RHD though.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:30 PM
  #59
PatriceBergeronFan
Dismayed B's Fan
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazi View Post
My guess is we see these defensive pairings if the Bruins make a trade with Colorado barring any other trade for a defensemen:

Chara - Colin Miller
Krug - McQuaid
Tyutin - Kevan Miller
We already have Liles, I don't want to add another depth defenseman like Tyutin.

If Landeskog is the piece we are after I will not be happy if:

a) Carlo or McAvoy are traded
b) the plan is to trade for and overpay Shattenkirk as phase two.

PatriceBergeronFan is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:32 PM
  #60
Lord Ahriman
Registered User
 
Lord Ahriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Parker View Post
Agreed.

I see Carlo's ceiling always as a #3. I have been posting this all year:

Krug - XXX
Chara - Carlo
Miller - Miller

Carlo is what we traded away to get him for; Johnny Boychuk. Great draft pick that suddenly can bring in a guy like Landeskog?

Can anyone here say that they wouldn't trade Boychuk for Landeskog?

We also seem to forget how young Landeskog is here.

First off, I think Carlo will be better than Boychuk. That being said, the problem is trading Carlo will create another hole (a big one) and it's not Carlo for Landeskog, but Carlo++ and I'm not willing to do that.

Lord Ahriman is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:33 PM
  #61
KaptainKrug
My name is Pete
 
KaptainKrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hooksett, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 8,829
vCash: 50
Yikes, an avs fan's proposal: Beauchemin, Landeskog for Carlo, Vatrano, Zboril, and a 1st

I would flip my ****.

:

KaptainKrug is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:37 PM
  #62
Hazi
Registered User
 
Hazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500

Hazi is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:38 PM
  #63
Greek_physique
Caron - Legit SNIPER
 
Greek_physique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto, Ont
Country: Greece
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazi View Post
Which makes sense...Shatt is a UFA.

Acquire someone young, with term.

Greek_physique is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:39 PM
  #64
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3antana5757 View Post
This would be the definition of a rental just in a bigger deal. What a massive waste that would be.



Just getting on here for the first time today. I'm definitely a little bit scared that we've seen the last game with Carlo in a B's sweater. IMO, Carlo/C-Mac should be UNTOUCHABLES. I could get past C. Miller eventually. But WHY, when you seemingly have your RHD set for the next 5-10 years, would you trade any of them for a LW, which we have about 10 of in the system?

I like Landeskog and think he'd be a great addition. It would solidify the top 6 for the foreseeable future The third line would become really scary by slotting folks better. The fourth line is solid. Would just need a top LHD to replace Chara, a few minor tweaks, and guys to reach their potential and you've got a Cup contender.

Now if this is part of a bigger deal, maybe Barrie is involved? Could a third team potentially be involved(Carolina)? Trading Carlo for Landeskog and a band-aid defenseman does not help IMO. Also, hate the idea of dumping salary in this kind of deal. Find other ways to do it.

1st, Spooner, LHD prospect, other prospect/pick.
What if Bruins management think they have the RHD set for the next ten years with McAvoy and Miller? I see Carlo and Miller both as #3-4 guys respectively but the age difference and the 'shiny new toy' of Carlo makes him more valuable.

Again, when the glitter fades from Carlo and he is still a great #3-4 guy, do people regret not moving him for a guy like Landeskog when Miller perhaps is getting more minutes on that right side and Carlo is in his sophomore slump paired with Kevan Miller on the third pairing as he continues to develop (you know, like how Colin Miller has had to go through since coming here?)

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:41 PM
  #65
Bmessy
Registered User
 
Bmessy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: East Boston, MA
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
If people are valuing Landeskog on his past performance I think it's fair to project alittle and assume Carlo will be at minimum a #4 for a long time. Adding a much more than a 1st and Carlo in order to get Landeskog is something I'm not a fan of. Landeskog has steadily decreased in pts and apparently his D has gotten worse. I'm sure he'd be better on a better team but Boston has never been a place to explode offensively.

Also I just noticed that Landeskog has a Modified NTC the last 3 years of his deal. Is that an issue??

Bmessy is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:41 PM
  #66
Tim Vezina Thomas
Dougie Time
 
Tim Vezina Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
vCash: 500
Trading Carlo for Landy then trying like hell to sign Shattenkirk makes a ton of sense.

Tim Vezina Thomas is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:42 PM
  #67
Gee Wally
Global Moderator
Grumpier than ever
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: looking for tylenol
Country: United States
Posts: 46,797
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3lovr View Post
I honestly hate any deal involving Carlo or McAvoy that doesn't bring Duchene back. I just don't think Lando is worth it.
I think Duchene would be even a worse deal.
Better player? Sure...but pay that for a one year rental?

No way. Not me.

__________________



You tell 'em I'M coming...

and Hell's coming with me, you hear?! ... Hell's coming with me!
Gee Wally is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:47 PM
  #68
zaYG
Nerevarine
 
zaYG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Vezina Thomas View Post
Trading Carlo for Landy then trying like hell to sign Shattenkirk makes a ton of sense.
Holding onto Carlo and signing Shattenkirk instead of giving away great assets for an overrated declining Landeskog is an even better idea.

Mac
Shatty
Carlo
Chiller

all in the same lineup sounds amazing to me. Let's make sure that McAvoy doesn't bust and that Chiller doesn't regress before we trade away the one seemingly stable defenseman going forward in our lineup. If we can get another piece like Shattenkirk next year THEN we can think about trading away dmen for forwards.

zaYG is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:50 PM
  #69
goalieman40
Registered User
 
goalieman40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaYG View Post
Holding onto Carlo and signing Shattenkirk instead of giving away great assets for an overrated declining Landeskog is an even better idea.

Mac
Shatty
Carlo
Chiller

all in the same lineup sounds amazing to me. Let's make sure that McAvoy doesn't bust and that Chiller doesn't regress before we trade away the one seemingly stable defenseman going forward in our lineup. If we can get another piece like Shattenkirk next year THEN we can think about trading away dmen for forwards.
sure it sounds good. but you also have to look at the comparison of (1) a deal that is on the table and agreed to from both sides to (2) the risk of Shattenkirk not signing here, which is extremely possible.

I think with Miller coming along well lately and the other good D prospects we have, one may have to go eventually.

goalieman40 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:50 PM
  #70
BB88
Registered User
 
BB88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 19,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
I think Duchene would be even a worse deal.
Better player? Sure...but pay that for a one year rental?

No way. Not me.
He'd have 2 years left on his contract, why would he walk?

x- Duchene -(Pasta)
(Marchand)- Bergeron- x
top6 C's in 2 years. No need to worry about that problem for a long time.

Now we have to ask who's going to replace Bergeron/Krejci in the top6.

BB88 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:50 PM
  #71
Oates2Neely
Registered User
 
Oates2Neely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 10,673
vCash: 500
I like Cehlariks game in his very brief stint. Seems calm under pressure too, and a good fit with Krejci's style of play. Vatrano also warming up. Krejci and Backes scoring. I'm not so sure a move for Landeskog is the right play here. Left side dman seems to me the obvious hole.

Oates2Neely is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:50 PM
  #72
Fonzerelli
Registered User
 
Fonzerelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: I'll come to you
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
Seems like an opportunity for both teams to complete a variety of objectives. For Boston, build for now and the near future, fill a few holes (LW,LD,Backup G), while also moving on from some things that aren't working and providing a change of scenery for others.

Something like;

- Landeskog, Pickard, Tyuton, Iginla, Colbourne

for

- Carlo, Heinen, Spooner, Khudobin, Hayes, Liles, 2017 1st

Then run short term ...

Marchand-Bergeron-Iginla
Chelarik-Krejci-Pastrnak
Landeskog-Backes-Vatrano
Belesky-Moore-Colbourne-Schaller

Chara-Chiller
Krug-MQuaid
Tyuton-Killer
Morrow

Rask
Pickard

and it creates openings next year for some Providence guys and/or prospects

Marchand-Bergeron-XXX
Chelarik-Krejci-Pastrnak
Landeskog-Backes-Vatrano
Belesky-XXX-Colbourne-XXX

Chara-XXX
Krug-Chiller
Killer-MQuaid
Morrow

Rask
Pickard

Leaves Belesky, Killer & McQuaid exposed for Vegas


Last edited by Fonzerelli: 02-13-2017 at 01:05 PM.
Fonzerelli is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:51 PM
  #73
Hazi
Registered User
 
Hazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Vezina Thomas View Post
Trading Carlo for Landy then trying like hell to sign Shattenkirk makes a ton of sense.
I don't think Shattenkirk factors in at all, not at this year's trade deadline or in the offseason. In my opinion, if the Bruins trade Carlo, it's a sign the Bruins are comfortable going with Colin Miller and McAvoy as their top 4D long-term.

Hazi is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:51 PM
  #74
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
I think Duchene would be even a worse deal.
Better player? Sure...but pay that for a one year rental?

No way. Not me.
Same GW.

Give me the term and complete game of Landeskog. I would have moved Boychuk for him in a heartbeat and I would move any #3-4 defenseman for Landeskog.

Now McAvoy, that is a different story altogether. He has #1-2 ceiling and should not be moved for Landeskog.

Colin Miller emerging and playing to his potential finally would have me pegging him in as the #3-4 RHD in Boston on the second pairing moving forward if other teams coveted my current #3-4.

Perfect storm of value in the Bruins favor.
Perfect storm of a 1 for multiple trade that the Bruins are the team getting the 1 and giving up the multiple (we've all been screaming for that for years).

I've been one of the biggest advocates for adding a winger for Krejci and a #1 RHD pushing Chara back to the second pairing at the cost of some of the prospects he has stockpiled and developed.

Now that Sweeney is actually stepping up and doing it I will not complain in the slightest if it means that this team keeps McAvoy while continuing to draft well, develop the remaining prospects and give this core the influx of talent that they need to utilize their prime years.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:52 PM
  #75
BigBear83
Registered User
 
BigBear83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, NH
Posts: 376
vCash: 500
I've done a 180 on this.. i would include carlo for landeskog.. landeskog is a great contract has put up points and been defensively reliable and hes still young! carlo will be a shut down guy for sure but we could have the same thing in o'gara and sherman down the road .. plus with cassidy's new system this might give morrow a chance to actually shine.. or you know.. play

BigBear83 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.