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

Trade A Goalie

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-28-2010, 10:34 AM
  #51
IrishPaulie
Sooshii is AWESOME!!
 
IrishPaulie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Woostah
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,675
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to IrishPaulie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
It doesn't matter if Thomas retires tomorrow. Is contract is on the books until after the 2012-2013 season.
There is some light shining down the tunnel come 2012 though. Rask will be an RFA so it's not as if he could just decide to walk without the B's getting anything back for him. Also, starting his last year of his contract in 2012/2013 Thomas' salary drops to 3m. It would seem enticing enough to get some trade offers from some cap cellar teams that want his 5m cap hit but only have to pay him 3m.

Either way this is a complete non-issue till we see how next years shakes out.

IrishPaulie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 10:42 AM
  #52
SPV
Zoinks!
 
SPV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 4,843
vCash: 500
this is a fantastic idea, in fantasy land. For instance, in NHL 11 I parlayed Thomas into Bryan McCabe & Chris Higgins. Much more offensive depth and a puck mover.

However, as has been beaten to death already, bad idea in real life where fatigue and injuries are far too common. When Rask's contract is up, so is Thomas' NTC (if I rememeber correctly). Last year I think we all expected a more 50/50 split, but Rask outplayed Thomas and got the majority of starts, just the opposite so far this year.

As has been pointed out before, the last duo the Bruins had like this, Andy Moog and Reggie Lemelin. The results from that duo, two stanley cup final appearances. I'd be okay with that (though I'd like to win one this time!!)

SPV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 10:43 AM
  #53
BigBadBruin8
@rsox1221
 
BigBadBruin8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, MA
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,276
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BigBadBruin8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
It doesn't matter if Thomas retires tomorrow. His contract is on the books until after the 2012-2013 season.
Maybe I need some more CBA clarification, but I thought that even if it was a 35+ contract, if someone voluntarily retires, said contract would be removed from the cap. Wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong, but it seems strange to say the least that we can get rid of his cap hit if he retires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
And if Thomas continues with the kinda play he has had so far, and the B's go deep in the playoffs.... you'd deal Thomas?

I'm not saying that's a bad move, but it's not going to be popular.

It seems crazy to talk about trading either guy, and I'm not sure it's at all plausible right now, but as I've said since the day they gave Thomas his deal... at some point we'll look back and say it was a mistake.

Clearly, right now is not that day.
I would. Popular no, but the idea has already been discussed for sure. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I still think that TT's pads/mask combo this season was part of his way of preparing to potentially get traded.

It would make a lot more room for the team on the cap to trade Thomas, and his value would be extremely high. People are clamoring to trade Rask right now with no thought toward the future and with his value diminished.

Thomas can't play forever, and we've got another top caliber GK who's shown he can play in this league who's a decade younger and cost-controlled for a few more seasons. While TT is lighting it up right now, I would still look to move him in the offseason since his trade would give us more, in both assets and cap room.

__________________
"The only thing that beats winning [in Toronto] is winning in Montreal.--Aaron Ward

"I've gotta go run some little French guys over."--Shawn Thornton


Last edited by BigBadBruin8: 12-28-2010 at 12:46 PM.
BigBadBruin8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 10:44 AM
  #54
Hartford Mike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
Thomas right now looks like the guy who belongs, not Rask. Some of you guys need to quit following the Boston Globe theory of potential being greater than rational stats. Thomas is still playing lights out right now, and regardless of save percentage. Thomas has lead the Bruins to more wins, where as Rask hasn't.

That being said though, with the cap trending upwards each year and the fact Thomas has a NTC thing going for the next year, It doesn't really bother me to see both guys on the roster, and as I have mentioned before the team has other glaring holes in the roster (and not just this mythical PMD everyone seems to think will fix everything).

If this is screwing around with Rask's mental state, then he is weak minded and someone I wouldn't want to see on a regular basis anyways, Even though we see report after report about how He and Thomas get along swimmingly we still get posters whine about how the kid must be sulking.

In this 'what have you done for me lately' world, I question the age and memory spans of some of the people who routinely beat their drum about how awesome Rask is, yet forget the late 90's and early 00's the revolving door of young one hit wonders. I'd rather see the Bruins take their time and let him develop with the Thomas safety net we have now then turn it over and have more and more playoff style breakdowns.

I love the fact we have both Rask and Thomas, but people need to realize that cap hits aside we have a number of very hot/cold forwards that needs more addressing, than how much cap room we have to make deals.

Hartford Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 11:29 AM
  #55
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadBruin8 View Post
Maybe I need some more CBA clarification, but I thought that even if it was a 35+ contract, if someone voluntarily retires, said contract would be removed from the cap. Would be the first or last time I was wrong, but it seems strange to say the least that we can get rid of his cap hit if he retires.


Voluntary, injury... it doesn't matter. WIth 35+ contracts, retirement doesn't wipe if off of your cap.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 11:50 AM
  #56
LucicTrain*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,873
vCash: 500
lol guys, its not a tandem. a tandem is when both goalies are getting relatively equal number of starts. 45/55 or 40/60 at the most. right now Tukka is getting 25% of the starts, he's back up and there's no need for that talented of a back up goalie. that's just wasting talent, whether it be from a playing or trade potential stand point.

LucicTrain* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 11:53 AM
  #57
bruinmann77
Registered User
 
bruinmann77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: bronx ny
Country: United States
Posts: 5,787
vCash: 500
why are people looking to move either goalie this should be an non issue

bruinmann77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 11:57 AM
  #58
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENG FTW View Post
lol guys, its not a tandem. a tandem is when both goalies are getting relatively equal number of starts. 45/55 or 40/60 at the most. right now Tukka is getting 25% of the starts, he's back up and there's no need for that talented of a back up goalie. that's just wasting talent, whether it be from a playing or trade potential stand point.
Lemme see the start totals at the end of the year. I'd bet they're relatively equal at that point.

And I don't agree that they're wasting the talent of a 23 year-old goalie. They're simply riding the hot hand, same as any coach with a tandem would do.

Tuukka will get his starts.

Roll 4 Lines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 12:19 PM
  #59
corpfan1
Registered User
 
corpfan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
I say TRADE THOMAS NOW...

Here is my take: http://www.primalslant.com/235/bosto...de-tim-thomas/

corpfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 12:28 PM
  #60
stick9
Registered User
 
stick9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENG FTW View Post
youre absolutely right Thomas saves this team. so what does that say about the rest of the team? unless you think this Thomas is gunna play the role of Hasek in '99 for the Sabres, then i dont think it really matters.

btw id rather watch this movie



except with the Bruins on the cover. call me crazy, but i dont think i'll be watching this movie in June
Most likely you won't, but it won't have to do with goaltending. This team has problems on the blue-line, up front, and behind the bench. Trading Thomas (something I actually support) wouldn't fix everything. Unless other more drastic changes are made this won't be their year.

stick9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 01:07 PM
  #61
LucicIsABeast
Registered User
 
LucicIsABeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brookline
Country: United States
Posts: 1,220
vCash: 500
Im in the minority but I would entertain trading Thomas, but it really depends on the return. And based on how many people on HF value Thomas, they won't get much. If that the case, keep em both.

LucicIsABeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 01:08 PM
  #62
DaStinger
My Precious!
 
DaStinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,994
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to DaStinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston BROin View Post
What other dominate teams went on cup runs with two outstanding goaltenders? The idea of a fall back of Rask or Thomas is great, but is it really necessary to plan for that? We can make a significant upgrade to severely lacking areas of this team with a trade of Tuukka or Timmy.

The point of this game is to win a championship. I would gladly sacrifice the future for a better shot at the cup the next two years. People were a little scared when the Celtics went for it all and got rid of their "future". That one championship was great. Why not put all our eggs in the next two seasons and trade Tuukka for a great piece now?

It's a risk either way, but here is how I look at it. Goaltender is such an impossible position to predict. Tuukka could be a star or a bust. Look around the league for great examples. We can keep Tuukka and be right on the cusp of greatness for a few years or trade Tuukka, ride Thomas, and try and put this team over the top.

Just something to think about.
I do agree with your point of view to an extent. In no way do I see having two good goalie help us win IN the playoffs. If things start to go bad in June it's probably too late.

Having two great goalies certainly can help get a team into and in good seed for the playoffs.

In a situation like ours I would be glad to trade one at the deadline for a scorer, pmd, etc. However I feel we are in a unique situation that prevents this. Rask is our future in net, this kid is going to be very good one day and Thomas is 2-3 years from age catching up with him. Thomas has a ntc, and so far it appears he is our best bet this season.

It's a decision between trading the potential vezina, jennings, and heart winner who just might keep this going until June or trading what could be a future franchise goalie. To me this is a situation where you have to do nothing but sit back and watch, at least for this season.

DaStinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2010, 01:36 PM
  #63
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
 
Rabid Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murica
Country: United States
Posts: 19,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartford Mike View Post
Thomas right now looks like the guy who belongs, not Rask. Some of you guys need to quit following the Boston Globe theory of potential being greater than rational stats. Thomas is still playing lights out right now, and regardless of save percentage. Thomas has lead the Bruins to more wins, where as Rask hasn't.

That being said though, with the cap trending upwards each year and the fact Thomas has a NTC thing going for the next year, It doesn't really bother me to see both guys on the roster, and as I have mentioned before the team has other glaring holes in the roster (and not just this mythical PMD everyone seems to think will fix everything).

If this is screwing around with Rask's mental state, then he is weak minded and someone I wouldn't want to see on a regular basis anyways, Even though we see report after report about how He and Thomas get along swimmingly we still get posters whine about how the kid must be sulking.

In this 'what have you done for me lately' world, I question the age and memory spans of some of the people who routinely beat their drum about how awesome Rask is, yet forget the late 90's and early 00's the revolving door of young one hit wonders. I'd rather see the Bruins take their time and let him develop with the Thomas safety net we have now then turn it over and have more and more playoff style breakdowns.

I love the fact we have both Rask and Thomas, but people need to realize that cap hits aside we have a number of very hot/cold forwards that needs more addressing, than how much cap room we have to make deals.
This should be the official word on the subject but I fear it falls on deaf ears.

Rabid Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 02:05 PM
  #64
LucicTrain*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,873
vCash: 500
the more i think about this, the more i realize that if Tim Thomas is on this Bruins team at the end of next season. there's strong chance the Bruins will not be able to resign Tuukka from a financial standpoint, not to mention the fact that they would probably have to tie up close to 10 million in goaltending

LucicTrain* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 02:12 PM
  #65
BruinsFTW
Registered User
 
BruinsFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,350
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BruinsFTW
What good are 2 goalies if the coach doesn't play the other one?

In the playoffs last year Rask obviously wore down but kept starting him. I can't bear to see that happen again this year if he keeps starting Thomas so much.

I'd like to keep them both, but Julien needs to take some pressure off Thomas once in a while..He can't carry us forever

BruinsFTW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 02:57 PM
  #66
LyndonByers
Registered User
 
LyndonByers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENG FTW View Post
the more i think about this, the more i realize that if Tim Thomas is on this Bruins team at the end of next season. there's strong chance the Bruins will not be able to resign Tuukka from a financial standpoint, not to mention the fact that they would probably have to tie up close to 10 million in goaltending
IIRC Rask is not due for a raise until 2012.

However, as much as we seem to be on an island here I certainly agree that Thomas will have to be traded at some point. He has played great this year but we can't forget he is 36 yrs old & Rask is 23. As of right now they are riding Thomas. 2 assets while only one can play at a time.

I also believe Thomas will have more trade value at the deadline then he will in the offseason. His value now is as high as it may ever be. We have seen how the goalie market has played out over the last couple of years. There are some good names that are UFA's and younger then Thomas in the summer of 2011.

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/tag/...l-free-agents/

Why would a team trade valuable assets for Thomas when they could get cheaper, younger assets for just money & less of a risk as a UFA? Would there not be more value returning if the Bs took advantage of a desperate team (Tampa, Ottawa, Chicago, San Jose, Washington) at the trade deadline when teams think they have a shot at the cup or teams/GM's are desperate to make the playoffs to save there own job?

By holding on to Thomas you also risk the possibility that he wears down in the 2nd half/playoffs & all of a sudden he has zero value again. Then there is even less of a chance to move him in the offseason.

All that, plus the question of hurting Rask's development is just as much, if not more of a risk then trading Thomas & having Rask blow up. At some point in the near future the Bs will have to deal with this issue before totally alienating Rask against the organization. I agree with you. Why not move him while his value his high so you can improve in weaker areas & free up some longterm cap space that will be needed in 2012 for the Bruins RFA's & for 2011 to improve the blueline? The Bs should be taken advantage of Rask's caphit right now because they will not get a discount on his next deal. For people to say we have 2 goalies for 6.5 million is true. But in a capworld great contracts are vital to take advantage of. Rask has a great contract but has played 10 games this year.

There seems to be many people here who are off the Rask bandwagon & to me that is very shortsighted. The guy was outstanding last season & lost his job after 1 start where the whole team sucked. I certainly don't believe there would be as much of a dropoff between the 2 then most here. I think Rask could go on a run as well if he was give the opportunity to get some traction.

Somehow he seems to take the brunt of the criticism from some for that total debacle against Philly last season when there were other much older players & coaches who were just as much to blame if not more.

I personally don't believe 2 # 1 goalies in a capworld is a good idea. Maybe I will be probed wrong but I can't see this lasting past this current season.

As for Thomas being injured last year. If he was as injured as many say I am curious why he wouldn't go on injured reserve so the Bs could have used the injury exemption to attempt to acquire that 1 player who may have put them over the top? Good on him if he gutted it out but if he was not capable of playing up to par would the Bs have been better off with the additional injury capspace to use to acquire another asset?


Last edited by LyndonByers: 12-29-2010 at 03:04 PM.
LyndonByers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:04 PM
  #67
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndonByers View Post
IIRC Rask is not due for a raise until 2012.

However, as much as we seem to be on an island here I certainly agree that Thomas will have to be traded at some point. He has played great this year but we can't forget he is 36 yrs old & Rask is 23. As of right now they are riding Thomas. 2 assets while only one can play at a time.

I also believe Thomas will have more trade value at the deadline then he will in the offseason. His value now is as high as it may ever be. We have seen how the goalie market has played out over the last couple of years. There are some good names that are UFA's and younger then Thomas in the summer of 2011.

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/tag/...l-free-agents/

Why would a team trade valuable assets for Thomas when they could get cheaper, younger assets for just money & less of a risk as a UFA?

By holding on to Thomas you also risk the possibility that he wears down in the 2nd half/playoffs & all of a sudden he has zero value again. Then there is even less of a chance to move him in the offseason.

All that, plus the question of hurting Rask's development is just as much, if not more of a risk then trading Thomas & having Rask blow up. At some point in the near future the Bs will have to deal with this issue before totally alienating Rask against the organization. I agree with you. Why not move him while his value his high so you can improve in weaker areas & free up some longterm cap space that will be needed in 2012 for the Bruins RFA's & for 2011 to improve the blueline? The Bs should be taken advantage of Rask's caphit right now because they will not get a discount on his next deal. For people to say we have 2 goalies for 6.5 million is true. But in a capworld great contracts are vital to take advantage of. Rask has a great contract but has played 10 games this year.

There seems to be many people here who are off the Rask bandwagon & to me that is very shortsighted. The guy was outstanding last season & lost his job after 1 start where the whole team sucked. I certainly don't believe there would be as much of a dropoff between the 2 then most here. I think Rask could go on a run as well if he was give the opportunity to get somne traction.

Somehow he seems to take the brunt of the criticism from some for that total debacle against Philly last season when there were other much older players & coaches who were just as much to blame if not more.

I personally don't believe 2 # 1 goalies in a capworld is a good idea. Maybe I will be probved wrong but I can't see this lasting past this current season.

As for Thomas being injured last year. If he was as injured as many say I am curious why he wouldn't go on injured reserve so the Bs could have used the injury exemption to attempt to acquire that 1 playe who may have put them over the top? Good on him if he gutted it out but if he was not himself would the Bs have been better off with the additional injury capspace?
Forget that I completely disagree with the minority-Trade-Thomas-crowd. Forget all of the points against that argument for a second.

Sing it with me.

Aaaah No Trade!

Bada bump bada bump.

No trade.

Bada bump bada bump.

No trade.

EverettMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:10 PM
  #68
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Registered User
 
WhalerTurnedBruin55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENG FTW View Post
the more i think about this, the more i realize that if Tim Thomas is on this Bruins team at the end of next season. there's strong chance the Bruins will not be able to resign Tuukka from a financial standpoint, not to mention the fact that they would probably have to tie up close to 10 million in goaltending
Getting ahead of yourself, no? Tuukka is gonna have to play lights out to warrant anything close to a 5M dollar contract (which is a 3.75M raise). Could he do it? Maybe. Maybe not. Also the little coincidence that Thomas's NTC goes away the same off season Tuukka needs to be resigned. We are far from in dire need to move either one of them right now. Or even this off-season.

I would entertain the idea of trading one of them, but until a reasonable offer comes our way, I'd say no way. I still haven't heard a single trade idea that would improve us; as well be realistic from the other teams perspective. The whole idea falls on the idea that we are going to get a significant return, something which hasn't been presented to us yet. (Which I asked you earlier if you could list some possible returns which you'd think could happen). With no incentive to trade them this season, we have no reason to actively try to move one of them.

WhalerTurnedBruin55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:10 PM
  #69
LyndonByers
Registered User
 
LyndonByers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Forget that I completely disagree with the minority-Trade-Thomas-crowd. Forget all of the points against that argument for a second.

Sing it with me.

Aaaah No Trade!

Bada bump bada bump.

No trade.

Bada bump bada bump.

No trade.
Is that you Chia? We shall see.

LyndonByers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:16 PM
  #70
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndonByers View Post
Is that you Chia? We shall see.
See what?

Tim Thomas has a no trade clause.

?

EverettMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:21 PM
  #71
LyndonByers
Registered User
 
LyndonByers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
See what?

Tim Thomas has a no trade clause.

?
Believe it or not he maybe willing to waive that.

My point is you saying there will be no trade holds as much weight as me saying he will be traded for sure. I have no idea what will happen. Just my opinion.

LyndonByers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:27 PM
  #72
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Registered User
 
WhalerTurnedBruin55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndonByers View Post
IIRC Rask is not due for a raise until 2012.

However, as much as we seem to be on an island here I certainly agree that Thomas will have to be traded at some point. He has played great this year but we can't forget he is 36 yrs old & Rask is 23. As of right now they are riding Thomas. 2 assets while only one can play at a time.

I also believe Thomas will have more trade value at the deadline then he will in the offseason. His value now is as high as it may ever be. We have seen how the goalie market has played out over the last couple of years. There are some good names that are UFA's and younger then Thomas in the summer of 2011.

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/tag/...l-free-agents/

Why would a team trade valuable assets for Thomas when they could get cheaper, younger assets for just money & less of a risk as a UFA? Would there not be more value returning if the Bs took advantage of a desperate team (Tampa, Ottawa, Chicago, San Jose, Washington) at the trade deadline when teams think they have a shot at the cup or teams/GM's are desperate to make the playoffs to save there own job?

By holding on to Thomas you also risk the possibility that he wears down in the 2nd half/playoffs & all of a sudden he has zero value again. Then there is even less of a chance to move him in the offseason.

All that, plus the question of hurting Rask's development is just as much, if not more of a risk then trading Thomas & having Rask blow up. At some point in the near future the Bs will have to deal with this issue before totally alienating Rask against the organization. I agree with you. Why not move him while his value his high so you can improve in weaker areas & free up some longterm cap space that will be needed in 2012 for the Bruins RFA's & for 2011 to improve the blueline? The Bs should be taken advantage of Rask's caphit right now because they will not get a discount on his next deal. For people to say we have 2 goalies for 6.5 million is true. But in a capworld great contracts are vital to take advantage of. Rask has a great contract but has played 10 games this year.

There seems to be many people here who are off the Rask bandwagon & to me that is very shortsighted.
The guy was outstanding last season & lost his job after 1 start where the whole team sucked. I certainly don't believe there would be as much of a dropoff between the 2 then most here. I think Rask could go on a run as well if he was give the opportunity to get some traction.

Somehow he seems to take the brunt of the criticism from some for that total debacle against Philly last season when there were other much older players & coaches who were just as much to blame if not more.

I personally don't believe 2 # 1 goalies in a capworld is a good idea. Maybe I will be probed wrong but I can't see this lasting past this current season.

As for Thomas being injured last year. If he was as injured as many say I am curious why he wouldn't go on injured reserve so the Bs could have used the injury exemption to attempt to acquire that 1 player who may have put them over the top? Good on him if he gutted it out but if he was not capable of playing up to par would the Bs have been better off with the additional injury capspace to use to acquire another asset?
A few things I'd like to respond to. Rask has only played 10 games this season because Thomas has played awesome this season. That is why he has played most of the games. Rask will get games when Timmy cools down or Rask goes on a hot streak. I think having healthy competition is better for Rask than having the pressure to HAVE to be the #1 right now.

I don't think many people are off of the Rask bandwagon. But I'm sure you can agree that he's not ready for a full workload just yet. He needs some more space to grow; and ideally a little more playing time would be beneficially, but as a team we need to go with the goalie that is hot. The 1st half of this season it's Tim Thomas, not even questionable. Rask will get his time to shine, and I'm sure many of us haven't jumped off his bandwagon.

As for Thomas being injured last season, I believe it was stated he injured himself near the end of the season. Putting him on IR during the play offs wouldn't have helped us get anyone at that stage. I do think if he was fully healthy, Julien probably would have stuck him in for game 6 (or maybe he wouldn't have, I don't trust Julien). Regardless, if Thomas was injured near the end of the season, it wouldn't have benefited us to move him to IR.

There is a good chance Thomas will be moved eventually. But moving him now would be horrible for team moral, plus getting rid of the guy that won us atleast a handful of games this season single handedly would not only be a slap in the face, but the opposite of what a team trying to win would do.

The best comparison is the Huet/Price situation in Montreal. Huet, in my opinion was moved too early, and Price struggled. Montreal didn't get anywhere, and it seemed to stall Price's development a bit. I think the Bruins for once, are doing the right thing. We have our Goalie, and we have his successor here right now. Until the successor proves he's ready to take the reigns, there should be absolutely no reason to rush it.

WhalerTurnedBruin55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:29 PM
  #73
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndonByers View Post
Believe it or not he maybe willing to waive that.

My point is you saying there will be no trade holds as much weight as me saying he will be traded for sure. I have no idea what will happen. Just my opinion.
Except you are talking about it like it is a 50/50 proposition.

Timmy has already stated his desire to stay here.

He moved his sick parents here last year (fact).

He is not eager to relocate them (fact).

Those two facts come directly from a Bruin's coach.

Why would a guy who is in the MVP discussion, on a team he loves in a city he loves and got entrenched in waive his no trade when he is in first place as the starter?

The burden of proof is on you, good sir.

EverettMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:40 PM
  #74
LucicTrain*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndonByers View Post
IIRC Rask is not due for a raise until 2012.

However, as much as we seem to be on an island here I certainly agree that Thomas will have to be traded at some point. He has played great this year but we can't forget he is 36 yrs old & Rask is 23. As of right now they are riding Thomas. 2 assets while only one can play at a time.

I also believe Thomas will have more trade value at the deadline then he will in the offseason. His value now is as high as it may ever be. We have seen how the goalie market has played out over the last couple of years. There are some good names that are UFA's and younger then Thomas in the summer of 2011.

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/tag/...l-free-agents/

Why would a team trade valuable assets for Thomas when they could get cheaper, younger assets for just money & less of a risk as a UFA? Would there not be more value returning if the Bs took advantage of a desperate team (Tampa, Ottawa, Chicago, San Jose, Washington) at the trade deadline when teams think they have a shot at the cup or teams/GM's are desperate to make the playoffs to save there own job?

By holding on to Thomas you also risk the possibility that he wears down in the 2nd half/playoffs & all of a sudden he has zero value again. Then there is even less of a chance to move him in the offseason.

All that, plus the question of hurting Rask's development is just as much, if not more of a risk then trading Thomas & having Rask blow up. At some point in the near future the Bs will have to deal with this issue before totally alienating Rask against the organization. I agree with you. Why not move him while his value his high so you can improve in weaker areas & free up some longterm cap space that will be needed in 2012 for the Bruins RFA's & for 2011 to improve the blueline? The Bs should be taken advantage of Rask's caphit right now because they will not get a discount on his next deal. For people to say we have 2 goalies for 6.5 million is true. But in a capworld great contracts are vital to take advantage of. Rask has a great contract but has played 10 games this year.

There seems to be many people here who are off the Rask bandwagon & to me that is very shortsighted. The guy was outstanding last season & lost his job after 1 start where the whole team sucked. I certainly don't believe there would be as much of a dropoff between the 2 then most here. I think Rask could go on a run as well if he was give the opportunity to get some traction.

Somehow he seems to take the brunt of the criticism from some for that total debacle against Philly last season when there were other much older players & coaches who were just as much to blame if not more.

I personally don't believe 2 # 1 goalies in a capworld is a good idea. Maybe I will be probed wrong but I can't see this lasting past this current season.

As for Thomas being injured last year. If he was as injured as many say I am curious why he wouldn't go on injured reserve so the Bs could have used the injury exemption to attempt to acquire that 1 player who may have put them over the top? Good on him if he gutted it out but if he was not capable of playing up to par would the Bs have been better off with the additional injury capspace to use to acquire another asset?
i agree, in fact this maybe the only time you can trade Thomas. i dont think many teams are gunna take the risk in the off season on Thomas repeating what he has done so far this season. if he's not gone by the deadline, there's about a 99% chance he is here till the end of that contract

LucicTrain* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2010, 03:57 PM
  #75
LyndonByers
Registered User
 
LyndonByers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhalerTurnedBruin55 View Post
A few things I'd like to respond to. Rask has only played 10 games this season because Thomas has played awesome this season. That is why he has played most of the games. Rask will get games when Timmy cools down or Rask goes on a hot streak. I think having healthy competition is better for Rask than having the pressure to HAVE to be the #1 right now.

I don't think many people are off of the Rask bandwagon. But I'm sure you can agree that he's not ready for a full workload just yet. He needs some more space to grow; and ideally a little more playing time would be beneficially, but as a team we need to go with the goalie that is hot. The 1st half of this season it's Tim Thomas, not even questionable. Rask will get his time to shine, and I'm sure many of us haven't jumped off his bandwagon.

As for Thomas being injured last season, I believe it was stated he injured himself near the end of the season. Putting him on IR during the play offs wouldn't have helped us get anyone at that stage. I do think if he was fully healthy, Julien probably would have stuck him in for game 6 (or maybe he wouldn't have, I don't trust Julien). Regardless, if Thomas was injured near the end of the season, it wouldn't have benefited us to move him to IR.

There is a good chance Thomas will be moved eventually. But moving him now would be horrible for team moral, plus getting rid of the guy that won us atleast a handful of games this season single handedly would not only be a slap in the face, but the opposite of what a team trying to win would do.

The best comparison is the Huet/Price situation in Montreal. Huet, in my opinion was moved too early, and Price struggled. Montreal didn't get anywhere, and it seemed to stall Price's development a bit. I think the Bruins for once, are doing the right thing. We have our Goalie, and we have his successor here right now. Until the successor proves he's ready to take the reigns, there should be absolutely no reason to rush it.
Very fair points. Just a couple of things though.

1) Very true that Thomas has been outstanding. Much better then certainly I expected coming into the season. But IMO both goalies have showed that they can wear down late in the season. Rask being the younger of the 2 I feel it is something he can overcome & improve his endurence at some point. So I feel having Rask play more will be ultimately better for his development & better for Thomas (overworked) & for Rask to stay sharp.

2) There have been some posters very critical of Rask with the neverending comparisons to Raycroft, Lacher & Carey. Rask may very well prove to be an underachiever but he also could benefit from being given the ball like Brodeur & Roy. (I am not comparing Rask to either but simply making the point that some guys can handle the pressure of being given to much to early) To compare Rask to all the guys who ended up struggling is a little unfair IMO especially given the play we have seen from him since he burst on the scene here. Even this year he has been very good. Not Thomas good but he has been good. My concern is his lack of playing time hindering his development at such an important stage in his career.

3) I am not CJ's biggest fan either especially when it comes to playoff adjustments. Very good point about the time of the injury as I recall Thomas himself stated he hurt it in early March. But some feel it was the reason he struggled last year & my point was if he was hurt all year maybe he should have went on IR so the Bs could have had a backup plan in case Rask struggled. But if it was early March then I agree it would not of helped the Bruins that late in the season.

4) Certainly a good point about team morale but I feel everyone knows it is a business & if the Bruins feel that is the best time to move him then they have to do what is best for the future of the franchise. It is not like they will be giving Andre Racicot the bulk of the games. I also feel any deal the Bs make for Thomas would be bringing back a backup goalie or someone who could share time with Rask while playing in a goalie friendly system under CJ.

5) I guess they are a bit similar but Price is doing pretty good right now. Montreal realized they had a stud in Price & decided to give him the ball rather then take the conservative route. It may have hurt shorterm but it certainly looks good now. In a capworld it is hard to have a Moog/Lemelin situation. I too would have no problem keeping Thomas for the rest of this season if they could move him in the offseason. I do however, feel if both stay this season Rask should play more then he has been playing. Not only for Rask development but Thomas' workload.

I realize it is a risk whichever side you take in this matter but I couldn't help wondering last season how the Bruins could have used that additional 4 million last year in the playoffs & would it have put them over the top against Philly. I understand it is great to have a safety net but don't feel it is worth more then actually using additional capspace to improve in other lacking areas.

LyndonByers 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 01:09 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.