|
Post by asmaha on May 4, 2015 13:28:24 GMT
I think Smith and Eriksson are both guys who can excel in a more up-tempo transition and puck possession game. Let's see how the changes suit these players before shipping them out of town.
I'm no fan of Smith, but a big issue is Claude keeps rolling him out there like a 2nd line RW. He just isn't. The whole idea of a deep lineup is our guys have an advantage over their guys each turn...and that doesn't happen with Smith being on the Bergeron line.
Like Ryder back in the day, let Smith go on the 3rd line slot to be slightly better than the other team's 3rd line winger. Get Eriksson up on the 2nd where he belongs. Gain some advantages.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on May 4, 2015 14:05:49 GMT
I think Smith and Eriksson are both guys who can excel in a more up-tempo transition and puck possession game. Let's see how the changes suit these players before shipping them out of town. I'm no fan of Smith, but a big issue is Claude keeps rolling him out there like a 2nd line RW. He just isn't. The whole idea of a deep lineup is our guys have an advantage over their guys each turn...and that doesn't happen with Smith being on the Bergeron line. Like Ryder back in the day, let Smith go on the 3rd line slot to be slightly better than the other team's 3rd line winger. Get Eriksson up on the 2nd where he belongs. Gain some advantages. Nice post. I think Smith is a 3rd liner, especially on a deep team. That's his value. Like him on the 2nd PP unit as well. Love that line that he's slightly better than the other teams 3rd liner. Perfectly said. Eriksson cannot put up top 6 numbers if he isn't in the top 6.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 4, 2015 14:21:40 GMT
As an onlooker, I think the Bruins went wrong with having too many "core" guys. Fourth liners should never have job security if they can't perform spot duty on other lines. Signing players like Paille, Campbell and Thornton to multi year NHL only deals shows loyalty, but doesn't make financial sense. Not to mention that not a single Bruin in the top-4/6 signed a cap friendly deal. Lucic, Bergeron, Seidenberg, Rask all great players, but not one took a below market value deal. Add in a dearth of quality players on ELCs and you have an untenable situation and a fired GM. Respectfully disagree. Guys making 1.3, 1.0, and 1.6 aren't considered core. When many insiders call them the best 4th line in hockey, it isn't dumb to want to keep them around. Most teams are going to tie up more than 3 mil on their 4th line, so I don't see the problem. Thorton was cast off, and got a raise. Campbell and Paille have been cut loose too. The only thing that will keep them from a collective raise, is if the Cap flattens or goes down. We'll find out for sure soon. When guys leave you for more money, it's hard to validate the claim you're paying too much. Even with his crappy numbers, Lucic will get a substantial raise on the free market. 29 other teams would kill for Bergeron and his 6.5 mil cap hit. The phone lines would melt if the Bruins offered to waive Rask and his 7 million dollar cap hit. In another thread, it was pointed out that there are several goaltenders making more than Rask, and almost 2/3rds of the league is spending about the same money on the position as are the Bruins. Seidenberg has a 4 million dollar cap hit. If you do the research, you'll see that 4 mil isn't huge money for a decent D-man. Most teams would love to have Seidenberg, and his cap hit. Even in this disastrous year..the Bruins are still pretty stingy in goals against compared to the rest of the league, and that's with only 2 experienced defensemen.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 4, 2015 14:32:45 GMT
Eriksson already got a lot of ice time, even on the third line. He'll want more money after next season, and so will Lucic. Can the Bruins afford to spend about $40M per year on just six players (Rask, Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, Eriksson, Lucic)?
|
|
RLL
Regular Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by RLL on May 4, 2015 17:04:19 GMT
I think Smith and Eriksson are both guys who can excel in a more up-tempo transition and puck possession game. Let's see how the changes suit these players before shipping them out of town. I'm no fan of Smith, but a big issue is Claude keeps rolling him out there like a 2nd line RW. He just isn't. The whole idea of a deep lineup is our guys have an advantage over their guys each turn...and that doesn't happen with Smith being on the Bergeron line. Like Ryder back in the day, let Smith go on the 3rd line slot to be slightly better than the other team's 3rd line winger. Get Eriksson up on the 2nd where he belongs. Gain some advantages. Nice post. I think Smith is a 3rd liner, especially on a deep team. That's his value. Like him on the 2nd PP unit as well. Love that line that he's slightly better than the other teams 3rd liner. Perfectly said. Eriksson cannot put up top 6 numbers if he isn't in the top 6. Loui scored a hat trick today for team Sweden. I cant say for sure, but I bet he wasn't on the 3rd line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 20:00:02 GMT
As an onlooker, I think the Bruins went wrong with having too many "core" guys. Fourth liners should never have job security if they can't perform spot duty on other lines. Signing players like Paille, Campbell and Thornton to multi year NHL only deals shows loyalty, but doesn't make financial sense. Not to mention that not a single Bruin in the top-4/6 signed a cap friendly deal. Lucic, Bergeron, Seidenberg, Rask all great players, but not one took a below market value deal. Add in a dearth of quality players on ELCs and you have an untenable situation and a fired GM. Respectfully disagree. Guys making 1.3, 1.0, and 1.6 aren't considered core. When many insiders call them the best 4th line in hockey, it isn't dumb to want to keep them around. Most teams are going to tie up more than 3 mil on their 4th line, so I don't see the problem. Thorton was cast off, and got a raise. Campbell and Paille have been cut loose too. The only thing that will keep them from a collective raise, is if the Cap flattens or goes down. We'll find out for sure soon. When guys leave you for more money, it's hard to validate the claim you're paying too much. Even with his crappy numbers, Lucic will get a substantial raise on the free market. 29 other teams would kill for Bergeron and his 6.5 mil cap hit. The phone lines would melt if the Bruins offered to waive Rask and his 7 million dollar cap hit. In another thread, it was pointed out that there are several goaltenders making more than Rask, and almost 2/3rds of the league is spending about the same money on the position as are the Bruins. Seidenberg has a 4 million dollar cap hit. If you do the research, you'll see that 4 mil isn't huge money for a decent D-man. Most teams would love to have Seidenberg, and his cap hit. Even in this disastrous year..the Bruins are still pretty stingy in goals against compared to the rest of the league, and that's with only 2 experienced defensemen.
How aren't they core players when they've been on the team for 3-5 years? 1.3/1.0/1.6 sound like paltry sums even though that's a pretty expensive fourth line. Just because Lucic would get 7 million on the open market doesn't make his deal a good contract. Clarkson went for that much, and Lucic hasn't scored 25 goals in years. And if the deals were good, why is Chiarelli fired? I can guarantee that as a business man, Charlie Jacobs is asking why almost every Bruins got a player friendly deal. Did anyone take a discount? The entire 2011 cup team has made out like bandits, instead of getting a customary bump of about 250-500k.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 4, 2015 20:04:35 GMT
Loui had two power play goals and one at even strength. Don't know what line he's on.
I was just about to write a little essay about Tyler Seguin and his scoring drought and the effect bohemian beer can have on you (it sure had some on me when I spent a weekend in Prague in 1997 - I strongly recommend Velkopopovický Kozel) when "Seg" scored on the power play...
|
|
|
Post by bruins92 on May 4, 2015 23:50:29 GMT
Respectfully disagree. Guys making 1.3, 1.0, and 1.6 aren't considered core. When many insiders call them the best 4th line in hockey, it isn't dumb to want to keep them around. Most teams are going to tie up more than 3 mil on their 4th line, so I don't see the problem. Thorton was cast off, and got a raise. Campbell and Paille have been cut loose too. The only thing that will keep them from a collective raise, is if the Cap flattens or goes down. We'll find out for sure soon. When guys leave you for more money, it's hard to validate the claim you're paying too much. Even with his crappy numbers, Lucic will get a substantial raise on the free market. 29 other teams would kill for Bergeron and his 6.5 mil cap hit. The phone lines would melt if the Bruins offered to waive Rask and his 7 million dollar cap hit. In another thread, it was pointed out that there are several goaltenders making more than Rask, and almost 2/3rds of the league is spending about the same money on the position as are the Bruins. Seidenberg has a 4 million dollar cap hit. If you do the research, you'll see that 4 mil isn't huge money for a decent D-man. Most teams would love to have Seidenberg, and his cap hit. Even in this disastrous year..the Bruins are still pretty stingy in goals against compared to the rest of the league, and that's with only 2 experienced defensemen.
How aren't they core players when they've been on the team for 3-5 years? 1.3/1.0/1.6 sound like paltry sums even though that's a pretty expensive fourth line. Just because Lucic would get 7 million on the open market doesn't make his deal a good contract. Clarkson went for that much, and Lucic hasn't scored 25 goals in years. And if the deals were good, why is Chiarelli fired? I can guarantee that as a business man, Charlie Jacobs is asking why almost every Bruins got a player friendly deal. Did anyone take a discount? The entire 2011 cup team has made out like bandits, instead of getting a customary bump of about 250-500k. I would argue that Bergeron took a discount. Look at what toews will make this year. We can argue who is the bettercplayer but they are at least comparable.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 5, 2015 0:01:35 GMT
Eriksson already got a lot of ice time, even on the third line. He'll want more money after next season, and so will Lucic. Can the Bruins afford to spend about $40M per year on just six players (Rask, Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, Eriksson, Lucic)?No they cannot afford all of them I think the new GM moves one or maybe even two of those players.
|
|
|
Post by bruins92 on May 5, 2015 0:05:08 GMT
Eriksson already got a lot of ice time, even on the third line. He'll want more money after next season, and so will Lucic. Can the Bruins afford to spend about $40M per year on just six players (Rask, Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, Eriksson, Lucic)?No they cannot afford all of them I think the new GM moves one or maybe even two of those players. Especially with two of the five in need of new contracts after this season. I know people have mentioned trading krejci but its really bad business to trade a player before they even start a long term extention. Players won't want to sign here long term if the pattern starts.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 5, 2015 0:20:49 GMT
Krejci needs to stay for sure.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 5, 2015 4:10:24 GMT
Whatever...Neely-level member.
Oh, you're a member alright....
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 5, 2015 4:21:11 GMT
Eriksson already got a lot of ice time, even on the third line. He'll want more money after next season, and so will Lucic. Can the Bruins afford to spend about $40M per year on just six players (Rask, Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, Eriksson, Lucic)?
Now there's an interesting little research project: what's the mean for top six players on a team across the NHL?
Even with the Kane/Toews deals, Chicago is under $40M for their top 6 (10.5, 10.5, 6, 5.9, 5.8). Pens are even under that threshold. Caps. I would guess, based on those teams being at the high end, that the mean is closer to $33-$34M.
|
|
|
Post by goodnewsbears on May 5, 2015 8:33:47 GMT
Eriksson already got a lot of ice time, even on the third line. He'll want more money after next season, and so will Lucic. Can the Bruins afford to spend about $40M per year on just six players (Rask, Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, Eriksson, Lucic)?
Now there's an interesting little research project: what's the mean for top six players on a team across the NHL?
Even with the Kane/Toews deals, Chicago is under $40M for their top 6 (10.5, 10.5, 6, 5.9, 5.8). Pens are even under that threshold. Caps. I would guess, based on those teams being at the high end, that the mean is closer to $33-$34M.
Chicago is 40M for their top 5 Book, not top 6.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 5, 2015 11:20:23 GMT
Eriksson is a "nice" player. But that is part of the problem imho...He does everything well but nothing elite. Spending top dollars on nice players is not prudent. I'd rather have his kind of cash invested in players in the former mold of Horton (when he was healthy) or Iginla. The Bruins need to get back the identity that made them a tough team to play against and nice guys like Loui or Riley Smith are not those guys. I do like Loui, but not at a top dollar amount. Ericsson has ten times the heart Horton did. Sure, Horton could be nasty 2 or 3 times a year, but it was not a part of his game, and he took way too many nights off. $4.5 is nowhere near elite dollars. It's incredible value. and it's not reasonable to expect elite anything within that pay scale. The only problem with Louis, is he's going to get a nice raise, and it'll probably be too rich for the Bruins. Despite his nice guy image, he regularly comes out of the corner "with' the puck. Lots of tough guys, can't seem to pull that off as often.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 5, 2015 11:34:34 GMT
Respectfully disagree. Guys making 1.3, 1.0, and 1.6 aren't considered core. When many insiders call them the best 4th line in hockey, it isn't dumb to want to keep them around. Most teams are going to tie up more than 3 mil on their 4th line, so I don't see the problem. Thorton was cast off, and got a raise. Campbell and Paille have been cut loose too. The only thing that will keep them from a collective raise, is if the Cap flattens or goes down. We'll find out for sure soon. When guys leave you for more money, it's hard to validate the claim you're paying too much. Even with his crappy numbers, Lucic will get a substantial raise on the free market. 29 other teams would kill for Bergeron and his 6.5 mil cap hit. The phone lines would melt if the Bruins offered to waive Rask and his 7 million dollar cap hit. In another thread, it was pointed out that there are several goaltenders making more than Rask, and almost 2/3rds of the league is spending about the same money on the position as are the Bruins. Seidenberg has a 4 million dollar cap hit. If you do the research, you'll see that 4 mil isn't huge money for a decent D-man. Most teams would love to have Seidenberg, and his cap hit. Even in this disastrous year..the Bruins are still pretty stingy in goals against compared to the rest of the league, and that's with only 2 experienced defensemen.
How aren't they core players when they've been on the team for 3-5 years? 1.3/1.0/1.6 sound like paltry sums even though that's a pretty expensive fourth line. Just because Lucic would get 7 million on the open market doesn't make his deal a good contract. Clarkson went for that much, and Lucic hasn't scored 25 goals in years. And if the deals were good, why is Chiarelli fired? I can guarantee that as a business man, Charlie Jacobs is asking why almost every Bruins got a player friendly deal. Did anyone take a discount? The entire 2011 cup team has made out like bandits, instead of getting a customary bump of about 250-500k. Core players are generally considered your best, most expensive players. They're the ones in short supply. What do you think a 4th line should cost? What is the average 4th line cost in the NHL? I say 3.9 isn't off base. And yes, open market numbers don't make something a good deal. They just hi-lite reality. If any player can get 7, on the open market, usually for a longer term..he's not staying put for 6. No GM can overcome those realities. You either pay the price, or you pull out and go in another direction. A player friendly deal, means they got too much. More than market value. I don't see that, with the exception of Smith. And if he scores 20(like he already has) that won't be a problem either.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 5, 2015 12:27:20 GMT
Now there's an interesting little research project: what's the mean for top six players on a team across the NHL?
Even with the Kane/Toews deals, Chicago is under $40M for their top 6 (10.5, 10.5, 6, 5.9, 5.8). Pens are even under that threshold. Caps. I would guess, based on those teams being at the high end, that the mean is closer to $33-$34M.
Chicago is 40M for their top 5 Book, not top 6. Yeah, well...the name isn't for a math book....
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 5, 2015 13:05:47 GMT
How aren't they core players when they've been on the team for 3-5 years? 1.3/1.0/1.6 sound like paltry sums even though that's a pretty expensive fourth line. Just because Lucic would get 7 million on the open market doesn't make his deal a good contract. Clarkson went for that much, and Lucic hasn't scored 25 goals in years. And if the deals were good, why is Chiarelli fired? I can guarantee that as a business man, Charlie Jacobs is asking why almost every Bruins got a player friendly deal. Did anyone take a discount? The entire 2011 cup team has made out like bandits, instead of getting a customary bump of about 250-500k. I would argue that Bergeron took a discount. Look at what toews will make this year. We can argue who is the bettercplayer but they are at least comparable. Bergeron is really the only one who might be "underpaid". Still, we will never know if PC could have saved money had he tried a different approach (and risked losing players to the highest bidder).
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 5, 2015 13:12:24 GMT
Quick note about Eriksson: some are getting tripped up on him playing regular shifts on the third line and are assuming he is not getting quality minutes. That is not the case, of course. He led all forwards in minutes played and PP time. The latter gives him a huge advantage to showcase his offensive talents. So lets keep things in perspective here.
And let's keep the hyperbole down to a minimum when comparing Horton with him. In case we happened to forget, Horton scored 2 series winning goals for the team in 2011. Eriksson, on the other hand, has exactly zero GWG's in 34 playoff games. Zero. Now who has shown to be more reliable in the clutch?
Just some perspective.....
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 5, 2015 16:05:21 GMT
"It's not just goal scoring that he brings to the table"
This actually applies to Eriksson, where it does not apply to player like Kelly anymore. Eriksson can play in all situations and put up 20 goals with a very inconsistent center in Soderberg.
He'a a steal at $4.5M and should get a shot to ride with Krejci all year. Bet LouI would pop 35 in if he rode #46 for a complete season. All while playing on the PK and PP as well.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 5, 2015 16:19:29 GMT
I think we can all assume that the Yeti is gone, so there will be no reason for CJ (or whoever the coach is) not to put Loui on a line with Krejci, provided Loui is still a Bruin when the season starts.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 5, 2015 16:23:27 GMT
Quick note about Eriksson: some are getting tripped up on him playing regular shifts on the third line and are assuming he is not getting quality minutes. That is not the case, of course. He led all forwards in minutes played and PP time. The latter gives him a huge advantage to showcase his offensive talents. So lets keep things in perspective here. And let's keep the hyperbole down to a minimum when comparing Horton with him. In case we happened to forget, Horton scored 2 series winning goals for the team in 2011. Eriksson, on the other hand, has exactly zero GWG's in 34 playoff games. Zero. Now who has shown to be more reliable in the clutch? Just some perspective..... I don't get your perspective.
If 2 series winning goals in a Cup year should be proper perspective...Horton is the greatest player in decades. I doubt Gretzky can match that.
No disrespect to Horton, but Iginla was a huge upgrade. And Iginla really wasn't considered elite by the time he got to Boston. They're different playing styles, but I'd argue the absence of Ericssons contribution would have had the Bruins written off before Christmas. He's one of a very, very small group that wasn't worse than the year before.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 5, 2015 16:24:56 GMT
I think we can all assume that the Yeti is gone, so there will be no reason for CJ (or whoever the coach is) not to put Loui on a line with Krejci, provided Loui is still a Bruin when the season starts. Agree and I think he stays.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 5, 2015 16:30:09 GMT
Quick note about Eriksson: some are getting tripped up on him playing regular shifts on the third line and are assuming he is not getting quality minutes. That is not the case, of course. He led all forwards in minutes played and PP time. The latter gives him a huge advantage to showcase his offensive talents. So lets keep things in perspective here. And let's keep the hyperbole down to a minimum when comparing Horton with him. In case we happened to forget, Horton scored 2 series winning goals for the team in 2011. Eriksson, on the other hand, has exactly zero GWG's in 34 playoff games. Zero. Now who has shown to be more reliable in the clutch? Just some perspective..... I don't get your perspective.
If 2 series winning goals in a Cup year should be proper perspective...Horton is the greatest player in decades. I doubt Gretzky can match that.
No disrespect to Horton, but Iginla was a huge upgrade. And Iginla really wasn't considered elite by the time he got to Boston. They're different playing styles, but I'd argue the absence of Ericssons contribution would have had the Bruins written off before Christmas. He's one of a very, very small group that wasn't worse than the year before.
I don't even want to imagine what Marco & friends would have done at BDC had Loui actually been worse this season than the year before...
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 5, 2015 16:33:26 GMT
Quick note about Eriksson: some are getting tripped up on him playing regular shifts on the third line and are assuming he is not getting quality minutes. That is not the case, of course. He led all forwards in minutes played and PP time. The latter gives him a huge advantage to showcase his offensive talents. So lets keep things in perspective here. And let's keep the hyperbole down to a minimum when comparing Horton with him. In case we happened to forget, Horton scored 2 series winning goals for the team in 2011. Eriksson, on the other hand, has exactly zero GWG's in 34 playoff games. Zero. Now who has shown to be more reliable in the clutch? Just some perspective..... I don't get your perspective.
If 2 series winning goals in a Cup year should be proper perspective...Horton is the greatest player in decades. I doubt Gretzky can match that.
Steve, who on earth is comparing Horton to 99?
|
|