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

Murph & Buccigross: Moulson to Boston?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-17-2011, 10:21 PM
  #276
Dwatson783
@dwatson783
 
Dwatson783's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ahriman View Post
I think a big question needs to be answered: Ryder has been playing well and I think we have a true shoot this year, so, trading for Simmonds, who has struggled or Hickey, who is injured and according several Kings fans, is turning into a lost pick, how could this help us now? Unless the thought is "the window will only open next year".
I'd think about it more in this way:

Does Ryder put this team over the hump or does taking him away ruin their chances as contenders?

Do you plan on resigning Ryder at the end of the season?

Do you have enough assets and are other deals available that could be made if you had another 3mil in cap space?

Also, we talked to our Monarchs writer today about Hickey. He struggled to begin the season but has been on a good upswing since. Like GD pointed out, he's deep in the depth chart there, but if he progressed, he could jump our's pretty quickly.

Dwatson783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:23 PM
  #277
almostawake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by camorr84 View Post
Almostawake,Dafoomie and VeddarRants. I just don't see it. You guys make some good points,but still why move Wheeler for Moulson? If the Bruins were to move a player like Wheeler, i hope it isn't for a pending UFA borderline top 6.
I want more on the Bruins top six,i would rather have Tanguay who earns 1.7m and is UFA,he has speed and skill and creativity which the bruins are lacking on their top 6.
I guess i am just not a Moulson guy.

But here is a crazy three way deal for you.
Islanders get a 2nd (boston)
Kings get Ryder
Boston gets Moulson and a 3rd(kings)

This gives the bruins some cap space.
Just to be clear, I never, ever, said I was interested in trading Wheeler for Moulson. I'm pretty sure what I said was I would happily insert Moulson into our lineup for Ryder.

Wheeler, IMO, has significantly more value around the league because he will be RFA this off season. I really don't see the point in moving him for Moulson. For a top 4 defenseman, definitely, but not for Moulson. Plus, I really don't think that the Isles will have any offers on the table that would require us to add Wheeler.

To me Tanguay is the most interesting (potential) rental forward. His low cap hit is especially nice. However, as someone that lives in Calgary, I'll just say that his availability is still up in the air. I could certainly see the Flames signing him to a 2 or 3 year contract. The guy is still only 31.

almostawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:23 PM
  #278
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatson783 View Post
I'd think about it more in this way:

Does Ryder put this team over the hump or does taking him away ruin their chances as contenders?

Do you plan on resigning Ryder at the end of the season?

Do you have enough assets and are other deals available that could be made if you had another 3mil in cap space?

Also, we talked to our Monarchs writer today about Hickey. He struggled to begin the season but has been on a good upswing since. Like GD pointed out, he's deep in the depth chart there, but if he progressed, he could jump our's pretty quickly.
Ryder's gonna love LA.

patty59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:30 PM
  #279
almostawake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ahriman View Post
I think a big question needs to be answered: Ryder has been playing well and I think we have a true shoot this year, so, trading for Simmonds, who has struggled or Hickey, who is injured and according several Kings fans, is turning into a lost pick, how could this help us now? Unless the thought is "the window will only open next year".
Dwatson783 already raised this point, but I think that it really is the most important one.

Cap space.

Looking at the lineup with Simmonds in Ryder's place is kinda missing the point. Simmonds' cap hit is under 600k, that means we open over 3.4M in cap space.

If we're going to improve our defense some thing's gonna have to give on the cap side and, personally, I prefer it to be Ryder.


Last edited by almostawake: 01-17-2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason: bah, spelling
almostawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:32 PM
  #280
Lord Ahriman
Registered User
 
Lord Ahriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatson783 View Post
I'd think about it more in this way:

Does Ryder put this team over the hump or does taking him away ruin their chances as contenders?

Do you plan on resigning Ryder at the end of the season?

Do you have enough assets and are other deals available that could be made if you had another 3mil in cap space?

Also, we talked to our Monarchs writer today about Hickey. He struggled to begin the season but has been on a good upswing since. Like GD pointed out, he's deep in the depth chart there, but if he progressed, he could jump our's pretty quickly.
Your 2 firsts questions can be answered with the last part of my post.

The third question makes sense for me.

Lord Ahriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:34 PM
  #281
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ahriman View Post
I think a big question needs to be answered: Ryder has been playing well and I think we have a true shoot this year, so, trading for Simmonds, who has struggled or Hickey, who is injured and according several Kings fans, is turning into a lost pick, how could this help us now? Unless the thought is "the window will only open next year".
Ryder has been playing well, but just because Simmonds has struggled in LA, does not mean he would struggle here. Also, I think his role might be a little different. Just because Simmonds has less goals now, doesn't mean that he would not be a greater asset come playoff time. He has not really had much of a chance in the playoffs thus far in his career, but his game should be well-suited for the playoff-style game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by almostawake View Post
I agree that Kings could use Ryder, he'd be especially useful to push Handzus off the PP. The part I don't get, however, is how Lombardi sees Simmonds as part of the problem. He seems like a young guy who's just slumping but should figure it out and in the mean time he's playing his heart out on a 3rd line that, quite frankly, just isn't working.

I'd absolutely love to get him in Boston, but I think that Lombardi loves what he's going to bring to the Kings for the next 3-5 years. This is the way I've always understood it was in LA, has this changed? Is Simmonds in the GM's dog house?

As far as Hickey goes, I think there's a pretty good chance he'll be moved at the deadline. The guy has been passed by so many other prospects in the LA system. I can definitely see them using him as a piece.

Nitpick, but dearth means the opposite of how you used it.
I don't think Simmonds is in Lombardi's "doghouse", but the Kings need a shakeup right now, and you have to give to get a player like Ryder, who has been playing well.

Yeah, I was thinking of "dearth" in regards to the B's D prospects and then used it to describe LA instead, which should have been "glut".

GloryDaze4877 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:34 PM
  #282
PJ StockBB
Registered User
 
PJ StockBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,528
vCash: 500
i want to keep Ryder, and have for a long time. if there is a move that could seriously upgrade our team and he needs to be moved then fine, but i like him right now and i love him in the playoffs. let him walk this summer. but for now i like him and i want him here.

PJ StockBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:38 PM
  #283
Lord Ahriman
Registered User
 
Lord Ahriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by almostawake View Post
Dwatson783 already raised this point, but I think that it really is the most important one.

Cap space.

Looking at the lineup with Simmonds in Ryder's place is kinda missing the point. Simmonds' cap hit is under 600k, that means we open over 3.4M in cap space.

If we're going to improve our defense some thing's gonna have to give on the cap side and, personally, I prefer it to be Ryder.
I completely forgot about that. Would make a lot of sense if we had another one, being discussed.

Lord Ahriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:40 PM
  #284
Lord Ahriman
Registered User
 
Lord Ahriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
Ryder has been playing well, but just because Simmonds has struggled in LA, does not mean he would struggle here. Also, I think his role might be a little different. Just because Simmonds has less goals now, doesn't mean that he would not be a greater asset come playoff time. He has not really had much of a chance in the playoffs thus far in his career, but his game should be well-suited for the playoff-style game.
Fair enough. I just can't see why the Kings would trade him.

Lord Ahriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:44 PM
  #285
Rumpy
Registered User
 
Rumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,542
vCash: 500
Nothing of content to add but I would LOVE to see Simmonds on the BRUINS!

Please if this is a option Chia make it happen Please!

Rumpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:48 PM
  #286
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ahriman View Post
Fair enough. I just can't see why the Kings would trade him.
They might not want to, or might not, but they also have several other good-sized forwards in Manchester incl King, Holloway, and Meckler that could step into Simmonds' role.

GloryDaze4877 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:50 PM
  #287
almostawake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
I don't think Simmonds is in Lombardi's "doghouse", but the Kings need a shakeup right now, and you have to give to get a player like Ryder, who has been playing well.
Ya, I just can't see how Simmonds would be the guy. Or if he was, how Ryder would be at the top of Lombardi's list. If Lombardi was willing to part with Simmonds I have to think he'd be able to get nearly any of the rumored rentals, and maybe a decent pick/prospect as well.

I just think that if Simmonds was seriously on the table, Lombardi would have his pick of the rental market and he could even get 2 players from a selling team if he played his cards right.

Personally, if there's going to be a shake up I think it will be Handzus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
Yeah, I was thinking of "dearth" in regards to the B's D prospects and then used it to describe LA instead, which should have been "glut".
It happens.

almostawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 10:51 PM
  #288
bruinmann77
Registered User
 
bruinmann77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: bronx ny
Country: United States
Posts: 6,268
vCash: 500
i think we see alot of these rumors in the next 6 weeks

bruinmann77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 11:08 PM
  #289
Alan Ryan
Registered User
 
Alan Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I wouldn't be so quick to discount Hickey or Simmonds to Boston quite yet. In fact, imo, better chance of that happening than Moulson.

Simmonds is having a down year compared to last year, and the Kings need help now. Hickey is redundant on the LA back end and thats why he's not in the lineup there and still has very good potential.

If you are going to continue what has already been deemed not happening by respected people in the business, then dont discount other possibilities that actually may have some substance to it.

A potential trade for Hickey makes sense from a need (PMD) perspective.

I don't know much about Simmonds. Why would the Bruins have interest in or need for him at RW? Is he a Ryder or Wheeler replacement? Would the primary interest focus on reducing the cap hit at RW?


Last edited by Alan Ryan: 01-17-2011 at 11:18 PM.
Alan Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2011, 11:24 PM
  #290
VeddarRants
HEART AND SOUL
 
VeddarRants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ahriman View Post
I think a big question needs to be answered: Ryder has been playing well and I think we have a true shoot this year, so, trading for Simmonds, who has struggled or Hickey, who is injured and according several Kings fans, is turning into a lost pick, how could this help us now? Unless the thought is "the window will only open next year".
I think it benefits in the fact that Seguin or Marchand will see more ice time, especially on the PP with Ryder gone.

I don't see Hickey helping out this year, but he should be contending for a spot in next year's lineup. Let's not forget, he'll still be only 22 years old when he steps into camp next year.

VeddarRants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 12:17 AM
  #291
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Belgorod
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,952
vCash: 500
I have zero interest trading a roster player for Thomas Hickey. He was slated to go in the late first round or second round of NHL draft in 2007, being a top four pick means little to me.



He hasn’t really developed as expected, is often injured, and has been passed by guys like Martinez and Voynov. He is kind of like Hamill in Providence, someone you thought could be top tier talent but might need a change of scenery to reach or possibly never reach it.

Ryder + Hamill + for Simmons and Hickey if not walk away.
I don’t really care for Stuart and feel he is redundant but trading established defenseman when you are going for a cup run is bad strategy*.

*Unless they can aquire an experienced defenseman to replace Stuart

As for Ryder + for Moulson, I have been one of the more vocal supporters of Michael Ryder on this board but I would do that trade. Moulson takes a regular penalty killing shift (something Ryder has never done), has similar point totals and makes less money. Even if we are giving up a slight bit of offense, the cap money saved could net us some help on the back end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by almostawake View Post
To me Tanguay is the most interesting (potential) rental forward. His low cap hit is especially nice. However, as someone that lives in Calgary, I'll just say that his availability is still up in the air. I could certainly see the Flames signing him to a 2 or 3 year contract. The guy is still only 31.
I feel Tanguay is probably the best rental forward in the NHL right now should he be traded and I am 100% interested in this guy.

Since you are from Calgary, what would you think of adding Anton Babchuk to the Bruins? His cap hit is 1.4 million and he has 21 points this year (would be tied for second on Boston) and could add something to our power play. I think he is certainly one of the best remaining ‘band aid’ players left for our need on the back end.


Last edited by finchster: 01-18-2011 at 12:33 AM.
finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 05:38 AM
  #292
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Simmonds is having a down year and is a decent player, but he's a bottom 6 player and is far to overrated here. If its for the third line why not? but the Bruins have a zillion guys on the way like Caron, Knight, Sauve, Arniel who also should get a chance at cheaper dollars and who could be every bit as good or better.

Ride out Ryder- guys looked very good lately.

The ice aint always smoother on the other side.

DKH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 05:40 AM
  #293
OrrCam
Registered User
 
OrrCam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
vCash: 500
A tweet from Bob MacKenzie of TSN about 14 hours ago...

"If the NYI are trading Matt Moulson, as has been reported/rumored elsewhere, I am told it's not to Boston".

about 14 hours ago via web

Sounds like he's 'just sayin'.

OrrCam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 05:44 AM
  #294
Gonzothe7thDman
Registered User
 
Gonzothe7thDman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bridgewater, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 5,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
Simmonds is having a down year and is a decent player, but he's a bottom 6 player and is far to overrated here. If its for the third line why not? but the Bruins have a zillion guys on the way like Caron, Knight, Sauve, Arniel who also should get a chance at cheaper dollars and who could be every bit as good or better.

Ride out Ryder- guys looked very good lately.

The ice aint always smoother on the other side.
Agree with pretty much all of this.

Gonzothe7thDman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 07:34 AM
  #295
bigbadbruins1
Registered User
 
bigbadbruins1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Ryan View Post
A potential trade for Hickey makes sense from a need (PMD) perspective.

I don't know much about Simmonds. Why would the Bruins have interest in or need for him at RW? Is he a Ryder or Wheeler replacement? Would the primary interest focus on reducing the cap hit at RW?
Its mostly a cap reduction. Simmonds is a high potential player... He has the ability to score, but he hasn't put it all together yet. The only reason I think the Kings trade him is because they have some UFAs that they might want to bring back (sturm, Williams, Ponikorovsky, Handzus) at the end of this year, as well as Doughty is going to get an epic raise from his ELC. But if Simmonds is traded its because they want to shake up the team.

bigbadbruins1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 07:34 AM
  #296
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Lots of questions and I'm not about to quote everyone so I'll give a brief rundown here.

First off you cant go by what King's fans are saying about Hickey. Ask people that watch these guys for a living and get their take, and often times its different from what fans think. Look no further than our own board. In every thread you will find people say "Wheeler sucks" (Hickey for LA) and then there are those that truly understand the game and see him for what he's worth.

As for what would it take?

Well when the Sturm trade went down, some of you will recall i called it a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours trade" and to expect something else down the road as it wasnt a Sturm for nothing trade. In other words, Lombardi says this is the trade i want to make and Chia says well you have to help me now because i cant wait and i have to clear cap space. Lombardi says ok we'll take him off your hands now as part of deal B later. Think about it logically for a moment. The deal fell through because Sturm wasn't ready. Okay fine. 29 other teams would have said forget it, but they worked it through. IMO the initial Sturm trade is included in the potential next trade.

Now, throw this into the equation : Greeley (LA's head pro scout) has been at 4 consecutive Bruins games. He also had with him at least 1 other scout and on one occasion Lombardi himself. They are not in Boston to look at prospects they are there to scout the pro roster. If it were Toronto scouting the Bruins i'd call it coincidence because they have over half a dozen pro scouts. LA has 3, and 2 of them have been at Bruins games for the last four games when they should have been scouting other teams. That, is not coincidence.

Finally on the LA talk, i know for a fact one other team has inquired about Simmonds. That is the jist of the conversation i had with someone who would know, and all he would say is they've inquired. Does it mean Simmonds is available? No. But when someone in LA (who is also the same person that told me that they were going to be acquiring Sturm in the near future) says that the Kings would be willing to part with Simmonds in the right package, and someone from a totally different organization says that they've inquired about Simmonds, then i have to think that Lombardi has put the word out that just about anyone is available (save the obvious JJ, Doughty, Quick etc). And since they are scouting Boston much more than any other team then 2 + 2 really does equal 4.

As for Moulson, i believe the Isles re-sign him before the season is out. As a matter of fact, someone our own HFL Sim league asked me in a pm what i thought of Moulson 2 weeks ago and that was my exact response. I thought they had already started negotiations, but Bob McKenzie tweeted yesterday that Snow was going to extend Moulson but they had not yet had talks. But hey, even I trust Bobby Mac more than i trust myself . I just dont think Moulson will be available.

I hope that about covers it. Now, i have the Top Prospects Skills competition tonight in Toronto and they are calling for a freezing rain warning and it's already started. So i may have to take the train. So i have to make plans now. I'm sure the PM's will start to roll in, but trust me, i'm not ignoring you, just have a busy day planned.

Dom - OHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 08:03 AM
  #297
Bruinsfan_37
Stanley Cup Champs
 
Bruinsfan_37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Laval
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,898
vCash: 500
I'd be all over a deal that would bring Simmonds to Boston

Bruinsfan_37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 08:24 AM
  #298
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 27,150
vCash: 500
Based on OOG's LA theory could a deal centering around Simmonds/Hickey for Wheeler + ??? be something they are talking about?

Simmonds is a bit tougher and the B's could sell that deal pretty easy. Wheeler has higher upside so LA could do the same. If LA is souring on Hickey's performance then Boston could buy low on him becuase he is a guy they always liked and fits a need.

Bruwinz37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 08:30 AM
  #299
PlayMakers
Hockey's Future Staff
 
PlayMakers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellesley, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,558
vCash: 500
I missed this party yesterday, but I'd like to play out my thoughts because I'm wondering if this shows us PC's hand a bit...

My first thought was, 'meh, Moulson's another Ryder type' but there are differences and they add up: he's better around the goal and on top of the crease, he plays with more energy and puck puruit, and if he does make Ryder redundant, then it saves us cap, possibly opening up a deal for a Dman.

Now, I realize the rumor was shot down as not happening, but that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed, which makes me think that the logic behind it is valid and something to look for going forward, i.e. move Ryder for cap, bring in a cheaper version (Moulson/Simmonds), then trade Wheeler for a Dman?

PlayMakers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2011, 08:41 AM
  #300
PlayMakers
Hockey's Future Staff
 
PlayMakers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellesley, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruwinz37 View Post
Based on OOG's LA theory could a deal centering around Simmonds/Hickey for Wheeler + ??? be something they are talking about?

Simmonds is a bit tougher and the B's could sell that deal pretty easy. Wheeler has higher upside so LA could do the same. If LA is souring on Hickey's performance then Boston could buy low on him becuase he is a guy they always liked and fits a need.
I don't know why but I'm convinced LA is there to see Savard.

I mean, would the B's need to send all these scouts and have PC take in LA games to scout Simmonds? No. There's a book out on the Ryders/Wheelers/Simmonds, and you mess up a deal for Simmonds you're out $500k.

The only player on the B's worthy of this much scrutiny and trepidation is Marc Savard. He represents a significant financial commitment, so they can't screw it up. And because of his concussion history, he's a player you'd want to go see live to find out if he's not scoring because his linemates aren't scoring, or if he's not processing the game fast enough yet.

Simmonds/Hickey for Savard makes more sense to me. I don't think swapping Simmonds with Wheeler would have an appreciable impact on their team's playoff chances, but a healthy Savard as their 2nd line C (instead of Handzus) would absolutely raise them to another level.

PlayMakers 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 07:16 PM.

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

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