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, 12:19 PM
  #101
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Vezina Thomas View Post
Its probably not realistic, especially since we have so much time before the deadline.

My guess is either Sweeney put Carlo back on the table and itll be Carlo+ for Landy or Sakic identified a prospect he likes and we're adding a 1st on top of it, plus other assets.

I will be fine with anything but Macavoy.
Same.

Now if McAvoy continues to progress, Colin Miller doesn't regress, the Krejci winger is addressed they just have the #1 RHD to assess.

And we all hope Zboril continues to progress in hopes he can be a 2nd pairing LHD to replace Chara in a year and a half. No more, no less.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:20 PM
  #102
BklyNBruiN
Registered User
 
BklyNBruiN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 14,122
vCash: 500
3 wins will not fool me. They're playing well and winning always helps but I definitely think they're playing on adrenaline at the moment and I hope management threads carefully. Let's get it popping!

BklyNBruiN is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:21 PM
  #103
Fonzerelli
Registered User
 
Fonzerelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: I'll come to you
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisele View Post
Wow. Lots of stuff being thrown around here today. Panic in Bruins nation. If there is one thing I have learned trolling these boards for years, it's that we all do not get it correct always. Did anyone even have a sniff last year that it was Liles and Stempniak coming Boston's way at the deadline? I can tell you I do not recall anyone on here calling that correctly.
One guy got it pretty close ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonzerelli View Post
if we do extend Loui then we are going to need at least some short term help for the next few months. Stempniak and Hamhuis should make us more competitive and shouldn't cost too much is my thinking there
(post #937 on 02-29-2016, 11:44 AM in thread 24 Hours From Tulsa - All Bruins Trade Rumors/Proposals - MOD WARNING IN OP)

He's a good "guesser", that guy!

Fonzerelli is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:21 PM
  #104
Dizzay
Registered User
 
Dizzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bruinsland
Country: Canada
Posts: 540
vCash: 500
I was scanning through the Avs roster and I don't like anyone else besides the big three: MacKinnon, Landeskog, and Duchene. Zaderov looks good but I think our own D prospects are better. Rantanen looks like a solid player but again, nothing I'd sell the farm for. I wonder if we take a flyer on Iggy for our third line to play with Vatrano and Spooner? I think someone said that Vatrano looked foolish on the left side though.

Lets assume we get Landeskog for someone not named Carlo/MacAvoy, would you flip one of those two as the centerpiece in a deal for OEL?

Dizzay is online now  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:22 PM
  #105
BruinDust
Registered User
 
BruinDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,093
vCash: 500
I may be in the minority here, but I wouldn't trade Carlo for Landeskog straight up if I'm Boston.

Then start talking Carlo + quality prospects + picks. For Gabriel F******* Landeskog?

Sickening if that is actually the case.

BruinDust is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:24 PM
  #106
camdon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
I'd prefer to stay on track and let the young kids develop and possibly be a seller at the deadline.

I hope we don't see a repeat of last year... Giveing up a 2,3,4 &5 round pick for a Lee Stempniak & John-Michael Liles... Then not tradeing Loui Eriksson for for a late 1st, or 2nd and prospect.

camdon is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:25 PM
  #107
pisele
Registered User
 
pisele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 54
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonzerelli View Post
One guy got it pretty close ...


(post #937 on 02-29-2016, 11:44 AM in thread 24 Hours From Tulsa - All Bruins Trade Rumors/Proposals - MOD WARNING IN OP)

He's a good "guesser", that guy!

"if we do extend Loui then we are going to need at least some short term help for the next few months. Stempniak and Hamhuis should make us more competitive and shouldn't cost too much is my thinking there."

I stand corrected. Nice work Fonz.

pisele is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:26 PM
  #108
Fonzerelli
Registered User
 
Fonzerelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: I'll come to you
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisele View Post
I stand corrected. Nice work Fonz.
Too bad it didn't work out, but it seemed like the right idea at the time if they couldn't get what they wanted for Loui, though I would have prefered they had extended him

Fonzerelli is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:27 PM
  #109
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinDust View Post
I may be in the minority here, but I wouldn't trade Carlo for Landeskog straight up if I'm Boston.

Then start talking Carlo + quality prospects + picks. For Gabriel F******* Landeskog?

Sickening if that is actually the case.
This is a very scary rumor...

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:27 PM
  #110
Lord Ahriman
Registered User
 
Lord Ahriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinDust View Post
I may be in the minority here, but I wouldn't trade Carlo for Landeskog straight up if I'm Boston.

Then start talking Carlo + quality prospects + picks. For Gabriel F******* Landeskog?

Sickening if that is actually the case.
I don't think you are. Trading Carlo for Landeskog is beyond stupidity.

Lord Ahriman is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:29 PM
  #111
Tampbear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,011
vCash: 500
I like the D as currently constructed and would not want to trade away Carlo.

I thought the third line was a black hole and needed a mix up but has really come to life since Cassidy took over which really changes things. In our current top 9 the only hole is Spooner's rw, maybe Czarnick can fill that hole when he comes back as that line is finally doing something. Alternatively Cehlarick could burn out quickly from the initial excitement and need to be replaced. I think the best case scenario would be to get Landeskog for a combination of their favorite D not named McCavoy and not in the Bs top 6, they can then choose their favorite forward prospect not playing for the Bs currently and not JFK of Frederick, and a draft pick, then we send them a cap dump ideally Beleskey. Avalanche get a ton of value for the future the Bs get someone that can immediately help the team without hurting the lineup somewhere else.

I'm not sure I would commit much more than that right now seeing this new spark in the team. Cehlarik, Spooner, and Vatrano all have more to show or not show before I create a hole on D.

Tampbear is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:29 PM
  #112
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,399
vCash: 500
I don't know if Dom has heard names for that rumored trade. I don't want him to give us those. Just if he would be happy if that trade happen.

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:31 PM
  #113
gvkmedia
Preaching B's hockey
 
gvkmedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oshawa.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,426
vCash: 500
Hello, my name is stupid.

I am called that here because, yes I would trade Brandon Carlo for Gabriel Landeskog straight up.

Sorry. Anyone want a box of chocolates?

gvkmedia is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:31 PM
  #114
BMC
PerJohan Axelsson
 
BMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northeastern CT
Country: United States
Posts: 29,941
vCash: 500
If Sweeney trades either Carlo or Chiller I will shove a hockey stick up his ass. Especially for a forward coming back. Bruins defense can't endure the loss of either one at this point of the season.

BMC is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:32 PM
  #115
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvkmedia View Post
Hello, my name is stupid.

I am called that here because, yes I would trade Brandon Carlo for Gabriel Landeskog straight up.

Sorry. Anyone want a box of chocolates?
How about Carlo+prospect+1st?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:32 PM
  #116
ranold26
Oh them Bruins.....
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500

ranold26 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:32 PM
  #117
OneManIsNoMan
Registered User
 
OneManIsNoMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 443
vCash: 500
Can we just stand back for a second and let it sink in that Sweeney used a 2nd round pick on Carlo and now he's (Carlo) the main piece wanted in a deal for Landeskog who was selected #2 overall and the leading scorer of his draft class.

Touche Sweeney, Touche

OneManIsNoMan is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:34 PM
  #118
camdon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinDust View Post
I may be in the minority here, but I wouldn't trade Carlo for Landeskog straight up if I'm Boston.

Then start talking Carlo + quality prospects + picks. For Gabriel F******* Landeskog?

Sickening if that is actually the case.
I'm still of the opinion that we're weak on Defence and Landeskog's not the answer. Let's overpay for a top Defenceman.

camdon is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:34 PM
  #119
gvkmedia
Preaching B's hockey
 
gvkmedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oshawa.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
How about Carlo+prospect+1st?
No

Straight up - yes.

There would have to be more coming back and/or cap money going out (which is an asset to us)for me to be on board for that price tag.

gvkmedia is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:35 PM
  #120
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Registered User
 
WhalerTurnedBruin55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManIsNoMan View Post
Can we just stand back for a second and let it sink in that Sweeney used a 2nd round pick on Carlo and now he's (Carlo) the main piece wanted in a deal for Landeskog who was selected #2 overall and the leading scorer of his draft class.

Touche Sweeney, Touche
Draft selection means nothing once they are in the NHL.

Would you give up Bergeron drafted in the second round for Nail Yakupov?

I'm not overly fascinating with Landeskog, he's a good piece, but not worth screwing up our defense for.

WhalerTurnedBruin55 is online now  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:36 PM
  #121
Sharp Shooting Neely
Registered User
 
Sharp Shooting Neely's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
I'm afraid of what it will cost... Don't have faith that Coma Don will pull a good trade.
How is the situation any different for Sweeny than any other GM in the league? There is nothing of signifiance with moves that has taken place. All indications are that he has gotten futhur down the road than most GM's.

There is a clamour for a deal to be made and daggers are out for Sweeny's for not having acted as yet. There is equal, if not more clamouring, that he can't possibly put together a deal without blowing it. Nothing wrong with taking time to get quality pieces that help now and well into the future vesus the bargin basement shopping that takes place at the deadline to acquire marginal pieces, often rentals.

Settle in and wait to see how it unfolds and then analyze what he has done with a move(s). He hasn't spent the last couple seasons acquiring prospects with our a though of using them at the appropriate time to take bigger steps toward significant improvements. Sometimes the best moves end up being the ones you don't make. Doesn't mean the required work is not being done by a GM to make a move simply because it's hard to get inside info to confirm it.

Sharp Shooting Neely is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:37 PM
  #122
Bauer3000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 236
vCash: 500
To me it's fairly simple if you don't think you have that player (landeskog) in the system and you feel you have a surplus of this player (Carlo) coming through or already here then that is why a deal would be made. We aren't talking about a rental here which many of us are afraid of. If you evaluate Carlo as at best a #3 and you think you are getting at minimum a top 6 power forward then maybe that's their thought process. I'm not saying I agree but it's certainly not stupid at least I wouldn't call it that

Bauer3000 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:37 PM
  #123
OneManIsNoMan
Registered User
 
OneManIsNoMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhalerTurnedBruin55 View Post
Draft selection means nothing once they are in the NHL.

Would you give up Bergeron drafted in the second round for Nail Yakupov?

I'm not overly fascinating with Landeskog, he's a good piece, but not worth screwing up our defense for.
Nobody would, but Carlo hasn't even played a full season in the NHL. Its not like it's 5 years after his draft and he turned out to be a solid player, he was drafted less than 24 months ago lol.

OneManIsNoMan is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:38 PM
  #124
s3antana5757
Registered User
 
s3antana5757's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
That to me is encouraging. Seems they may have backed off taking top prospects and would be ok with a package.

s3antana5757 is offline  
Old
02-13-2017, 12:39 PM
  #125
riverhawkey91
Registered User
 
riverhawkey91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lowell, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 654
vCash: 500
No interest in moving Carlo/McAvoy for Landeskog.

Even if Carlo only maxes out as a #3, I just don't think it's a risk you take right now. Who knows how all of these kids will look in a few years; suppose Carlo ends up being the best of all of them? I'd much rather take the Nashville approach and see how they all fit in and progress before flipping them. Even at best, Landeskog is a 2LW in Boston behind Marchand.

Salary cap implications are pretty big here too. We're talking almost 6 years (ELC + bridge years) with each of these kids making probably under $3 million, versus Landeskog who already isn't performing up to his nearly $6 mil contract. We just can't afford to move out guys in a position of need for more players with these mythical intangibles...it's Seguin for Eriksson all over again (lower stakes, but still).

riverhawkey91 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 05:07 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

Powered by 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.