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 VIII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2017, 03:03 PM
  #101
Alan Ryan
Registered User
 
Alan Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsdad View Post
No one wants to trade Carlo or McAvoy, so I will throw another out there to see what the reaction is....

To Colorado...

Spooner, draft pick, prospect like DeBrusk/Zboril....and Colin Miller

Are people more willing to move Colin???

I think that group would be worth exchanging for Landeskog. Is it is attractive enough for Colorado?

Alan Ryan is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 03:10 PM
  #102
PatriceBergeronFan
Dismayed B's Fan
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,871
vCash: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
For me it comes down to where our biggest need is. And I see it as:

1) Defense
2) Backup Keeper
3) Forward

Adding defense is hard. It's also an area where blue chip prospects can do great or struggle. Nowhere to hide -- particularly on a team like Boston that has a number of 4,5,6's (actual and higher projected guys that are still developing) and no dominating top pair.

Adding a great back-up keeper is hard. Adding one that can get more than two wins at this point should be easy. On that I give DS an F. If we miss playoffs by a hair? Look no further than this obvious hole.

Adding a guy like Lando? Hard. If you have a strong Defense AND a wealth of prospects on D, then do it yesterday. If not, and your number 1 need is defense? (IMO) do it at high risk.

Been a lot of debate on value of Lando. Maybe not fair -- I think we can all agree he'd be a great add if price is right. I just don't think we have the luxury of giving in an area that is weak but full of good prospects. D prospects are much harder to develop and bring up to speed than Forward prospects.

Just my take.
If the price is right is exactly right.

Not McAvoy/Carlo.

Other prospects, even Zboril + 1st, etc is fine. Not those two, Landeskog and his 20 goals are not worth it.

PatriceBergeronFan is online now  
Old
02-15-2017, 03:23 PM
  #103
BruinDust
Registered User
 
BruinDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greek_physique View Post
So why can't you make the argument that Landeskog is more like a Bill Guerin, Jason Arnott or K.Tkachuk for that matter? I understand people have there own opinions on players and if they don't like them...usually look for examples where others failed...but Landeskog in this conversation is different.

Richards was highly effective because he was your modern day Marchand that hit 10x more; but Los Angeles won 2 cups....and if they had to do that trade over again...they'd do it again if you win those cups.
You can.

And I didn't bring up Richards name first.

Yeah I'm sure LA do make that deal again. Even if by Cup 2 Richards was their 4th line center.

It's just an example of what can happen when a player who is only average size (Landeskog is about average) can see a decline based on physical style.

I could cite names like Clark and Dustin Brown as well.

Or he could go on to play another decade at a high level like Gary Roberts or Shane Doan. Who knows.

BruinDust is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 03:48 PM
  #104
RoccoF14
Registered User
 
RoccoF14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriceBergeronFan View Post
If the price is right is exactly right.

Not McAvoy/Carlo.

Other prospects, even Zboril + 1st, etc is fine. Not those two, Landeskog and his 20 goals are not worth it.
I agree with your point, but not with your assessment of Landeskog. He, MacKinnon and Duchene are much better players than what their numbers show.

Not sure if you've seen much of Colorado this year, but they are a really BAD hockey team (their games against us excluded) and their organization is a bit of a mess. I don't see MacKinnon ever being dealt, but both Landeskog and Duchene have a lot of upside in my opinion, if they end up in the right situation.

In my opinion, this board, and most NHL teams in general, massively overvalue their prospects vs. established NHL talent and I think there's inefficiency in the market that can be capitalized on at the moment. This year's draft doesn't have a lot of top end talent, like years past, and I'd be fine moving high end picks + prospects to land a player like Landeskog, provided we can secure him long term.

All depends on the offer and what we would give up.

RoccoF14 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 03:51 PM
  #105
PatriceBergeronFan
Dismayed B's Fan
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,871
vCash: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoF14 View Post
I agree with your point, but not with your assessment of Landeskog. He, MacKinnon and Duchene are much better players than what their numbers show.

Not sure if you've seen much of Colorado this year, but they are a really BAD hockey team (their games against us excluded) and their organization is a bit of a mess. I don't see MacKinnon ever being dealt, but both Landeskog and Duchene have a lot of upside in my opinion, if they end up in the right situation.

In my opinion, this board, and most NHL teams in general, massively overvalue their prospects vs. established NHL talent and I think there's inefficiency in the market that can be capitalized on at the moment. This year's draft doesn't have a lot of top end talent, like years past, and I'd be fine moving high end picks + prospects to land a player like Landeskog, provided we can secure him long term.

All depends on the offer and what we would give up.
I like Mackinnon and Duchene a LOT more than Landeskog. His backing down from Lucic after picking a fight really soured my opinion of him certainly but he is also just a very good player, not elite. It needs to be an elite return to move our elite prospects.

PatriceBergeronFan is online now  
Old
02-15-2017, 03:58 PM
  #106
CBove1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 466
vCash: 500
I can't get past the fact that Adam Larsson netted Taylor Hall straight-up. Why would we give up Carlo+ for Landeskog if this is the market for top-4 D?

CBove1 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:04 PM
  #107
Number8
Jacobs Must Go
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoF14 View Post
I agree with your point, but not with your assessment of Landeskog. He, MacKinnon and Duchene are much better players than what their numbers show.

Not sure if you've seen much of Colorado this year, but they are a really BAD hockey team (their games against us excluded) and their organization is a bit of a mess. I don't see MacKinnon ever being dealt, but both Landeskog and Duchene have a lot of upside in my opinion, if they end up in the right situation.

In my opinion, this board, and most NHL teams in general, massively overvalue their prospects vs. established NHL talent and I think there's inefficiency in the market that can be capitalized on at the moment. This year's draft doesn't have a lot of top end talent, like years past, and I'd be fine moving high end picks + prospects to land a player like Landeskog, provided we can secure him long term.

All depends on the offer and what we would give up.
Agree completely. Two quick points though:

1). If we were talking moving forward prospects for Lando it's a totally different discussion.

2). Many are guilty of doing same thing with McAvoy but in reverse. Some seem to think we can move Carlo (an at least somewhat known commodity in NHL) because McAvoy will come in to save the day.

IMO we are not deep enough on NHL defense to move either McAvoy or Carlo for hel at forward. Maybe they'll both bust. However, without them and salary cap issues in bringing in a top 2 established D man if we take on Lando...... our defense is a bust moving forward.

Number8 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:05 PM
  #108
RoccoF14
Registered User
 
RoccoF14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriceBergeronFan View Post
......but he is also just a very good player, not elite. It needs to be an elite return to move our elite prospects.
You are making my point. An Elite prospect (whatever your definition) is still just a prospect. Problem today with a lot of NHL teams, is that there is an over valuation of prospects when compared to established NHL talent. I think there's opportunity to capitalize on that if you are smart.

RoccoF14 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:08 PM
  #109
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 RoccoF14 View Post
You are making my point. An Elite prospect (whatever your definition) is still just a prospect. Problem today with a lot of NHL teams, is that there is an over valuation of prospects when compared to established NHL talent. I think there's opportunity to capitalize on that if you are smart.
I agree. But I also think most GM's know what they have.

Now, I also posted last week that perhaps Sweeney has gone HF Boards Member and 'fallen in love' with his prospects where dealing any seems too pricey for him.

In which case the prime years of our core are going to be extinguished before most of them realize their potential and the current core is a thing of the past.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:08 PM
  #110
RoccoF14
Registered User
 
RoccoF14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBove1 View Post
I can't get past the fact that Adam Larsson netted Taylor Hall straight-up. Why would we give up Carlo+ for Landeskog if this is the market for top-4 D?
When you look at it in a vacuum it doesn't make sense. When you look at it as Larsson AND Lucic (free agent signing) for Hall, it starts to be more reasonable.

RoccoF14 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:13 PM
  #111
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 samsdad View Post
No one wants to trade Carlo or McAvoy, so I will throw another out there to see what the reaction is....

To Colorado...

Spooner, draft pick, prospect like DeBrusk/Zboril....and Colin Miller

Are people more willing to move Colin???
I think Miller is a 2nd pairing defensman with speed and a killer shot but has shown mental blunders in the past; the definition of a #3-4. So is Carlo. Keep one by all means and move the other to address other needs while still looking for that #1.

High price tag but it's a deal that doesn't include Carlo or McAvoy.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:14 PM
  #112
RoccoF14
Registered User
 
RoccoF14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Parker View Post
I agree. But I also think most GM's know what they have.

Now, I also posted last week that perhaps Sweeney has gone HF Boards Member and 'fallen in love' with his prospects where dealing any seems too pricey for him.

In which case the prime years of our core are going to be extinguished before most of them realize their potential and the current core is a thing of the past.
Depends on where you are as an organization. Teams like Arizona, are dumping everything they can to stockpile picks and prospects. Its a full rebuild. Boston isn't in that mode, and in my opinion, are probably a little too heavy in the prospect pool right now for the reason you outlined above.

RoccoF14 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:18 PM
  #113
DGS
Registered User
 
DGS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Quote:
because McAvoy will come in to save the day
Question here...isn't McAvoy still technically not a sure thing to be in Boston? He doesn't have a contract, and could pull a Vesey if he wanted to play out his years in college, and then become a free agent, right?

It would be sad to trade Carlo because he's the "lesser" of our two top RHD futures, only to have McAvoy end up playing somewhere else. Seems like a small risk, but a risk none the less.

DGS is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:22 PM
  #114
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 DGS View Post
Question here...isn't McAvoy still technically not a sure thing to be in Boston? He doesn't have a contract, and could pull a Vesey if he wanted to play out his years in college, and then become a free agent, right?

It would be sad to trade Carlo because he's the "lesser" of our two top RHD futures, only to have McAvoy end up playing somewhere else. Seems like a small risk, but a risk none the less.
If we were in Nashville's shoes and had drafted Fabbro I'd be more concerned. Seems the Bruins and McAvoy are a good fit outside of Twitter...

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:22 PM
  #115
Number8
Jacobs Must Go
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGS View Post
Question here...isn't McAvoy still technically not a sure thing to be in Boston? He doesn't have a contract, and could pull a Vesey if he wanted to play out his years in college, and then become a free agent, right?

It would be sad to trade Carlo because he's the "lesser" of our two top RHD futures, only to have McAvoy end up playing somewhere else. Seems like a small risk, but a risk none the less.
I don't know. His value is high right now, that's for sure -- not sure if I were him if I'd risk two more seasons and risk of leveling off and/or injury. That said, I hope he's a lock, but until he is it's a valid question.

I do know that if I were McAvoy I'd be one part flattered and one part wigged out right now.

Number8 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:27 PM
  #116
SPLBRUIN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinDust View Post
I'm with you on that. I can't say JFK is my favorite Bruins prospect, but he's my favorite center and right-handed forward.

Eugene Melnyk brushed off Ottawa even considering dealing Colin White, and I'd put JFK in the same stratosphere.
To be fair, the Sens are very low on good prospects outside of White and Chabot. The Bruins almost have too many legitimate prospects.

SPLBRUIN is online now  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:28 PM
  #117
BlackFrancis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 83
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoF14 View Post
I agree with your point, but not with your assessment of Landeskog. He, MacKinnon and Duchene are much better players than what their numbers show.

Not sure if you've seen much of Colorado this year, but they are a really BAD hockey team (their games against us excluded) and their organization is a bit of a mess. I don't see MacKinnon ever being dealt, but both Landeskog and Duchene have a lot of upside in my opinion, if they end up in the right situation.

In my opinion, this board, and most NHL teams in general, massively overvalue their prospects vs. established NHL talent and I think there's inefficiency in the market that can be capitalized on at the moment. This year's draft doesn't have a lot of top end talent, like years past, and I'd be fine moving high end picks + prospects to land a player like Landeskog, provided we can secure him long term.

All depends on the offer and what we would give up.
The real blind sight on inefficiency right now, I believe, is that each of those prospects will be paid less than one million dollars per season, ignoring bonuses, for three NHL seasons if they are capable of holding down a roster spot. For the price of the McQuaid/Miller combo, you could ice five Carlos. Think about that. It is the bargains on your roster who enable you to carry and pay for legit talent. Those players also help hide away unproductive mistakes like Backes and Beleskey, or even retain salary to dump them and replace them with productive players.

The Bruins have an expensive top 6 group of forwards once Pastrnak gets paid. They have expensive guys producing below the expectations their salaries would indicate. Trading cheap, productive players for an expensive productive player is not ideal at this time, especially when the Bruins have over ten lottery tickets that could turn into a player capable of covering any needed wing position while their pipeline has exactly three right handed kid defensemen.

Trade a package centered around Carlo for a potentially better right handed defenseman? I'm all for it. Until Landeskog's versatility enables him to take shifts at RD, he's a luxury item for a team that can't really afford luxuries at this point in time.

BlackFrancis is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:35 PM
  #118
Blowfish
Registered User
 
Blowfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Kitts, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBove1 View Post
I can't get past the fact that Adam Larsson netted Taylor Hall straight-up. Why would we give up Carlo+ for Landeskog if this is the market for top-4 D?
Omg great point.

Blowfish is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:45 PM
  #119
BruinDust
Registered User
 
BruinDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPLBRUIN View Post
To be fair, the Sens are very low on good prospects outside of White and Chabot. The Bruins almost have too many legitimate prospects.
True, the Bruins have excess that the Sens don't.

I guess the key is dealing the right pieces from that excess.

BruinDust is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:46 PM
  #120
Jdavidev
Registered User
 
Jdavidev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoF14 View Post
When you look at it in a vacuum it doesn't make sense. When you look at it as Larsson AND Lucic (free agent signing) for Hall, it starts to be more reasonable.
AND the #4 pick coming up in the draft.

Chia gave up big value for Larsson, but with the draft and FA upcoming, he couldn't keep all the former top 10 draft picks and contracts. Dropping the contract as well was big. And losing Hall hurts. but a sacrifice that needed to be made to fill out his roster properly.

COL is in a similar spot, with a punch of high paid former top 10 players, another one coming in the draft, but all the rumors I have seen (Carlo, 1st, top prospect, 2nd prospect)... how does this hurt for COL?

If I was Sweeney, I would say, fine you want Carlo? Ok. Carlo for Landeskog straight up. No, wait, you have to take Beleskey too. Not fair value? I know, but we are in a playoff push and we can't afford to give up our D, so if you want him, can't add anymore.

--OR-- Take a look at theseprospects, you can have 1 from pool A, 2 from pool B, a 1st and Hayes. This one is over-value, but you get 4 nickels instead of 2 dimes. But you need secondary prospects to go along with your top 10 talents. You need guys who have to work everyday of their life just to make the 2nd line, and you'll better for it.

You can choose option 1 or 2. No mixing and matching. Your call. But it has to hurt for you and me to make this work.

Jdavidev is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:54 PM
  #121
lucic27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: QUÉBEC CITY
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
trade for now and the future( BOSTON NYI )

Mcavoy is growing a long beach good prospect solid dman 14 pick over all 2016

Bebrusk a excellent prospect 14 pick over all 2015

Belesky dump the salary 3,900 a year

Liles dump the salary 2,000 for the rest season

1 pick 2017

FOR Nick Leddy and Anders Lee two players 25 years old Leddy is a good
Dman

skill speed hard shot left d man sing 2020 2021 5,500 millions a year

Anders lee 6 ft 3 hard players good scorer sing 3 other years 3,750

line up : Marchand Bergeron Pastrnak

Lee Kreci Backes

Vatrano Spooner Cehlarik

Schaller Moore Nash ( Hayes )

Leddy Miller

Chara Carlo

Krug Mcquaid or ( k miller )

Rask


Last edited by lucic27; 02-15-2017 at 05:07 PM..
lucic27 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 04:56 PM
  #122
RoccoF14
Registered User
 
RoccoF14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFrancis View Post
The real blind sight on inefficiency right now, I believe, is that each of those prospects will be paid less than one million dollars per season, ignoring bonuses, for three NHL seasons if they are capable of holding down a roster spot. For the price of the McQuaid/Miller combo, you could ice five Carlos. Think about that. It is the bargains on your roster who enable you to carry and pay for legit talent. Those players also help hide away unproductive mistakes like Backes and Beleskey, or even retain salary to dump them and replace them with productive players....
Agree 100%. Youth absolutely has cap benefits but there is a limit to how many you can carry. Take our current D prospect pool: C Miller, Carlo, Morrow, O'Gara, Grzelcyk, McAvoy, Zboril, Lauzon & Lindgren. Tough for me to see 6 of those 9 making up our future D corps. So who do you deal, if the price is right?

RoccoF14 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 05:01 PM
  #123
RoccoF14
Registered User
 
RoccoF14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdavidev View Post
AND the #4 pick coming up in the draft.

Chia gave up big value for Larsson, but with the draft and FA upcoming, he couldn't keep all the former top 10 draft picks and contracts. Dropping the contract as well was big. And losing Hall hurts. but a sacrifice that needed to be made to fill out his roster properly.

COL is in a similar spot, with a punch of high paid former top 10 players, another one coming in the draft, but all the rumors I have seen (Carlo, 1st, top prospect, 2nd prospect)... how does this hurt for COL?

If I was Sweeney, I would say, fine you want Carlo? Ok. Carlo for Landeskog straight up. No, wait, you have to take Beleskey too. Not fair value? I know, but we are in a playoff push and we can't afford to give up our D, so if you want him, can't add anymore.

--OR-- Take a look at theseprospects, you can have 1 from pool A, 2 from pool B, a 1st and Hayes. This one is over-value, but you get 4 nickels instead of 2 dimes. But you need secondary prospects to go along with your top 10 talents. You need guys who have to work everyday of their life just to make the 2nd line, and you'll better for it.

You can choose option 1 or 2. No mixing and matching. Your call. But it has to hurt for you and me to make this work.
Great post.

RoccoF14 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 05:08 PM
  #124
lucic27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: QUÉBEC CITY
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
for what moved my threads ? Thank You

lucic27 is offline  
Old
02-15-2017, 05:12 PM
  #125
Wobbly Pops
Quiet, Gnashgab.
 
Wobbly Pops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,368
vCash: 160
That's what we do w trade proposals, pretty much as far back as I can recall

Wobbly Pops is online now  
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 05:08 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.