|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 20, 2023 15:32:44 GMT
A lot to unpack here chappy. First, we agree about much more than it seems. It's a gray world we live in, with lots of nuance, and very little that can be nailed in a sentence or 1 thought. Going through the colors: 1. you build a franchise through improvement. part of that process is ensuring you stay "young enough". beyond that, it's just noise. the cap has made vision and competence even more important. the Bruins were pro hockeys most successful team in the 1970's. they were gutted with Bobby's knees. they lost the decades 1b player in Espo. The WHA and expansion were a double whammy. has anyone ever really studied the holes that should have decimated then early in the decade? 2. How many first rounders do the Bruins employ? a 1st rounder is a first rounder. why do we allocate so much more currency to those who are only 18? it should work the other way. We just let one go for cap space. It's a team process. 3. You don't do anything "solely" on anything. We talk about Bergy and DK and Marchy, but God knows how they could have played out, without Chara and Savard and Horton and Recchi and co. You have to be a smart leader, you have to be creative and you must make good deals 4 to 1 over bad ones. 4. see 3. 5. yup, they're getting expensive to keep around, but that's just the tip. are they worth keeping around is the question. was PK worth keeping around? was that a good deal? it's Pil Esposito all over again, and wherever you are competitively, is only a function of what you have to deal,,,in an attempt to get better. 6. Nobody should ever discount the draft. of course it's big. every team gets multiple picks every year. it's very, very important. what's most important is that it's oversold. almost half the league isn't selling it's product...it's selling hope. the rest can capitalize on that. look at the kessel, lucic years. we were selling hope when we shoulda been selling Cups. by averaging, JJ and co, sold off hi endedness for extra years of competitiveness without putting in the work. that's on Sweeney, but it's also on Chiarelli. Kessel made us a one line team. the 15 debacle made us limp diks for 2 years. In both cases, the draft capital didn't pay, it merely took tread off the tires. A visionary approach could have taken advantage of the rest of the league. 7. Yup, not drafting in the top 2 rounds is not good. no sugar coating that. 8. Chicago? we'll see. I hope I never see a Bruin team scratching for a lottery pick, and outside those, it gets real sketchy. Edmonton and Buffalo have sure cashed in, and there's nothing to see that makes them out to be the golden blueprint. I think the whole game nowdays, is simply having the most efficient roster. thats what made the bruins so strong last year. That's what could make em or break em this year. Say what you want about Taylor Hall. the Bruins dealt him, with no leverage. even though he's a pretty good player, there's the chance he can be improved upon at the deadline, and a high probability he can be improved upon before 24/25 drops the puck in game 1. If he had a higher cap hit...totally different situation. IMO, the draft is not nearly as big as it's made out to be. All that's important, is that you have a really really small number of players you can't move if you want to. with some A guys, you can't anyway, but they have to over deliver. Charlie Coyle may not be the piece that fires either top line. but if the rest of the league is salivating over his 5 mil and term...he very well could be the solution. a pick isn't. and multiple picks aren;t either. What makes this game great...is it's complicated. cheers OK then --- we'll lets just call it asset management. The GM's job is to maximize his return on assets in both the short (current season) and medium (3-5 year plan for the franchise) term. Draft picks are basically the only "free" assets that teams get each year in the form of one pick per round. They can trade those assets before they even pick, they can draft and develop a guy that becomes their core, they can sell high as they did with Kessel, etc. etc. The key here is that these picks give the GM a constant flow of fresh assets to manage to the betterment of the club. Now, to the efficiency angle ---- to me I think of that efficiency in terms of the gap between what you pay a guy, and what their current season play on the ice is worth in the open market. Again though here, a GM's best chance to build an efficient roster is through their draft and development pipeline because of the greater negotiating power the team has with relatively unproven talent, not to mention RFA status that gets you through those first two contracts. If we had to try to segment players into to some useful groups in order of probably efficiency, it likely goes something like this.... Rookie RFA Free Agent Pickup (low end) Aging Vet (good scenario) Home grown core player (in prime of career) Free Agent Pickup (high end) Deadline Acquisition Aging Vet (bad scenario) So if I'm a GM and putting together a team and thinking not just of the next season, but the next three to five seasons, it's hard to ignore that the draft is one of the MOST important parts of building the team. Sure there are year to year considerations in terms of where the team is in its maturity and ability to contend for the cup that are going to sway the strategy more towards the short or long term, but to me there's no escaping that without a steady pipeline or players from the draft and development function of the organization you eventually are going to have issues putting together a contending team. It may take a few years to rear it's ugly head, but it's coming nonetheless. If you look at that list above and apply it to the current state of the Bruins and the decisions of the past 5 or so years and what is clear is that we've been dabbling in the more expensive/less efficient end of that list at the expense of the most efficient options. We haven't had an impactful rookie in years outside of Swayman and even there we went out and signed a redundantly very good goalie anyways basically cancelling out the cap benefit, and may not have one for a few more although I'm pulling for Lysell, Merk and Lohrei none of which are guaranteed to work out. To make matters worse, we went BIG on deadline acquisitions last year at the expense of years worth of draft capital, and we didn't even resign a single player which is basically a sunk cost at this point never to be recouped. So what were we left with as options this year? Aging Vets. It's the only way that Sweeney could fill out the roster with no incoming talent that he was confident enough to pencil into a spot we ended up with JVR, Lucic, Heinen, Chiasson, etc just to get the proper number of bodies for the opening night roster. Sure Heinen and Chiasson are on PTO's and may not even make the team but just shows that Sweeney was bargain bin hunting out of necessity this year because all he could really do was give out short term, $1M contracts in order to stay under the cap. Now the real question that will ultimately decide how this season ends up is whether we are getting the aging vets on a positive scenario (think Mark Recchi), or the negative scenario (think Backes). Is JVR up for top six duty, or at least a solid 20-20 third line winger with some PP net front duty, or does he continue to drop off and disappoint? Will Lucic have a resurgent year in his homecoming? Or can he no longer keep up the pace under Monty's fast paced offensive system and ends up on the 7th floor most nights? To me, Charlie Coyle is irrelevant regardless of his cap hit. Nobody is salivating over Coyle, and even if we did move him, it still doesn't solve our problems up the middle. Coyle's been a pretty good (efficient) contract for the last couple years, but if we have nobody to replace him then we can't move him and that's the position we find ourselves in to this day. You can't trade away a 3C and get back a 2C. I guess the core difference here, is interpreting "free". I see it differently. What you're allocated in the draft, per year is free, but after that, it can get very expensive. What's free about Zboril, and the dozens of comparable examples. Zboril's been around forever, and his development, or lack therof, has impacted the team, whose first priority is to win tonights hockey game. Often times you invest and over invest. Danny Paille and Forbort and Zacha. Hampus, Tuuka, Hall, they were all first rounders we acquired at reasonable, to great value. Coyle, is relevant, because Zacha is. If Coyles 5 large is seen as good value elsewhere, he could be part of the next great heist. Even Pastrnak is an example to put things in perspective. There are few examples of a home run, any bigger. But from a team/competitive perspective, where's the beef? Until 16/17 he was a bit of a question mark in terms of his overall contributions, but he was outstanding value for that one year. From 17 til 2020, it could be argued, and it was...he was merely reasonable value. The last couple, it was super. So using the kind of example that only comes along once about every 25 years, the difference between drafting a player like this, vs intelligently getting him already developed, isn't as big as it would seem. Pretty hard to argue anyone was more valuable, and more fairly priced,,,for a long long time....than Chara. He was as foundational to success, as was Ray Bourque. Getting back to Pastrnak, from this day forward, there will always be comparables that could be better. And that's only because of cap. I won't ever argue the importance of the draft. I'll simply forever argue the wisdom that getting a bunch of "extra" 1st rounders means you'll soon become a powerhouse, or even a good team for that matter. Tons of examples otherwise. Specifically the Boston Bruins and those "extra" picks that were hoarded and pursued over the last 15 years.....they didn't do jack down the road, rather they only subtracted from the present. Seattle and Vegas are pretty good examples of what can happen with the right mix of castoffs/trades and signings. All that's important, is that you have inventory that others would like to have. To do that, you have to be incredibly smart, risk averse, and confident. Manage your picks well. Obviously, contenders always have to part with some. It's the nature of the beast. It's far from a given though, the way back up the ladder is simply getting extra picks. Personally, I feel picks overall, never have greater value, than while they're still picks. I didn't have a problem with phase one, in 15, or the #81 deal. Had those picks, or some of them been leveraged for actual hockey players, our chances at more cups would have been through the roof, and there's no down side, if done intelligently. Bedard could be super, but how sucky do you have to be to qualify for a #1?. How lucky do you have to be to win the lottery? What are the odds you can suck at just the right moment, to potentially land a generational player? How important is it...to have a generational player? If you're gonna trade Marchand, and another really good Bruin for picks.....might as well trade Pastr and Mac too. The only way the draft thing can possibly work, as a "strategic plan" is with a ridiculously high sample size. The Bruins are still in a good place. I hope they excercise hockey acuman to build the future, not the roulette wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 20, 2023 16:35:01 GMT
No, I'm just assuming that Linus will be good. I think Sway is a more attractive trade target and would yield a bigger return. If you are close to a contender, you don't trade your best goaler. Forget about being younger, I think Jerry's the best option right now, especially in the playoffs. Generally, no. In this particular instance, maybe you do. Keep in mind, I only suggested a Swayman trade in one scenario - if they have a clear need that could be addressed with a Swayman trade. I think it's a safe assumption that Ullmark isn't going to fall off a cliff. It could happen, sure; but if it does, the Bruins aren't contending unless Swayman is dynamite and in that scenario there is no benefit to trading him. Ullmark doesn't necessarily have to be the best goalie on the team, but they need to be close and based on last year when for long stretches they had very similar stats, I think that's more or less what we'll see again this year. Then you're thinking about who your trade partners might be. Hard to do without knowing what the needs will be (though it's easy to assume its a C or two), but we can reasonably speculate that at team looking to trade an asset of the calibre that would help push the Bruins over the top to contender status is likely coming from a team that's out of the playoff picture. Those teams very often are looking to build toward a future window, and so a 30+ goalie is less likely to be attractive than a 24 yr old. You're more likely to win the bidding for a Schiefele or a Lindholm with him than Linus. Conversely, though, I would agree that Boston isn't necessarily in a place where they need to prioritize youth. They are, to my eye, still a team built to win now and over the next 3-4 years despite the losses over the summer. Marchand's 35, and while he will slow down, he's probably a contributor for a few years yet. What he looks like post Bergeron is TBD. Coyle's 31, so there are a few years before age catches up to him. Pastrnak's in his prime at 27, while DeBrusk and Zacha are 26. That's your top 5 forwards. Linus fits right in at 30. Other than Freddy, the rest of the forward group could be a bunch of AARP members or a bunch of kids - it's up in the air. On the blueline, FoBo is 31, Lindholm and Grz 29. McAvoy and Carlo have a ton of runway at 25 and 26. So the time is now, and it doesn't matter if Swayman will be in his prime after Marchand and Coyle are gone, Lindholm and Pastrnak are on the downside. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 20, 2023 20:54:35 GMT
8. Chicago? we'll see. I hope I never see a Bruin team scratching for a lottery pick, and outside those, it gets real sketchy. Edmonton and Buffalo have sure cashed in, and there's nothing to see that makes them out to be the golden blueprint. If we had to try to segment players into to some useful groups in order of probably efficiency, it likely goes something like this.... Rookie RFA Free Agent Pickup (low end) Aging Vet (good scenario) Home grown core player (in prime of career) Free Agent Pickup (high end) Deadline Acquisition Aging Vet (bad scenario) So if I'm a GM and putting together a team and thinking not just of the next season, but the next three to five seasons, it's hard to ignore that the draft is one of the MOST important parts of building the team. Sure there are year to year considerations in terms of where the team is in its maturity and ability to contend for the cup that are going to sway the strategy more towards the short or long term, but to me there's no escaping that without a steady pipeline or players from the draft and development function of the organization you eventually are going to have issues putting together a contending team. It may take a few years to rear it's ugly head, but it's coming nonetheless. Good discussion, folks. So...close...to...having...games...to...discuss.... We've talked about Chicago before, so all I'll say here is that I don't think Chicago is proof of anything. In a year or two, I think it will be fair to say would you trade Brandon Hagel (25 yr old 30 goal scorer), Alex DeBricat (25 yr old with two 40 goal seasons, regular 30 goal potential), and Kirby Dach (38 points in 58 games on a woeful Montreal team), for Connor Bedard and Kevin Korchinski. Are you farther ahead? I think it's going to be touch and go unless Bedard is McDavid 2.0 as some expect. I have a feeling that he won't be, to be honest. But I have been wrong a lot. Regardless, I think Chicago is a long way from contending again. 3-4 years. Worth remembering as Steve points out that Connor McDavid's Oilers won one round in his first six years, only made the playoffs in 3 of 6, and didn't win a playoff game in two of those years - despite the fact that he was the four #1 overall they had in 6 years, and one of the guys they got in an off year was Draisaitl. Quebec had a bunch of #1 overalls back in the day but would have been a wasteland without the trades made to get the goaltending and back end offensive ability they needed. And Buffalo is still wasting away despite Eichel, Reinhart, Dahlin, Power, 4 8th overalls, a 7th and a 9th. No playoff appearances and the best player on their roster is a former 20+ pick they got in a trade for Ryan O'Reilly...who they got in a trade. I think some of the difference of opinion here comes from the way the league is changing. I think that list of probabilities to provide value is an old way of thinking based on the way the league has moved its thinking on salaries and young players. Rookie - agree this is the ideal situation but only because of ELCs. You get a rookie who contributes significantly, and you pay him what is essentially the same as what you'd pay a PTO. Gold. RFA - I would put this almost at the bottom unless you're re-signing your own player. If you're acquiring him as an RFA, you are almost certainly overpaying at the front end. Free Agent Pickup (low end) - Depends, but it's as much a lottery as the draft. You're paying guys to play bottom six roles, so maybe in terms of them Riley Nashing it, sure. But the problem is that that usually happens to teams in weaker competitive situations and then it leads to a high risk over over-payment because you don't often sign low end UFAs to long terms. Aging Vet (good scenario) - I think this is where you almost never see good value. Usually, the aging vet got his UFA deal at a high rate of pay. If the idea is you get a good deal paying less and he continues to play at a high rate. But that's not often what has happened with guys like Kopitar and Pavelski and Ovi getting close to the same money plus a bonus in Grecian formula. Home grown core player (in prime of career) - sometimes, but look at Toronto. All but Tavares are homegrown and they handcuff them. Free Agent Pickup (high end) - Depends. Chara, Savard...hard to say they were bad deals despite being massive contracts for the time. Deadline Acquisition - I'd put this near the top in terms of dollars. You pay almost nothing and add high value talent to the roster. If you have the picks and prospects, it's like trading farts for gold. Aging Vet (bad scenario) |
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Sept 21, 2023 12:35:30 GMT
OK then --- we'll lets just call it asset management. The GM's job is to maximize his return on assets in both the short (current season) and medium (3-5 year plan for the franchise) term. Draft picks are basically the only "free" assets that teams get each year in the form of one pick per round. They can trade those assets before they even pick, they can draft and develop a guy that becomes their core, they can sell high as they did with Kessel, etc. etc. The key here is that these picks give the GM a constant flow of fresh assets to manage to the betterment of the club. Now, to the efficiency angle ---- to me I think of that efficiency in terms of the gap between what you pay a guy, and what their current season play on the ice is worth in the open market. Again though here, a GM's best chance to build an efficient roster is through their draft and development pipeline because of the greater negotiating power the team has with relatively unproven talent, not to mention RFA status that gets you through those first two contracts. If we had to try to segment players into to some useful groups in order of probably efficiency, it likely goes something like this.... Rookie RFA Free Agent Pickup (low end) Aging Vet (good scenario) Home grown core player (in prime of career) Free Agent Pickup (high end) Deadline Acquisition Aging Vet (bad scenario) So if I'm a GM and putting together a team and thinking not just of the next season, but the next three to five seasons, it's hard to ignore that the draft is one of the MOST important parts of building the team. Sure there are year to year considerations in terms of where the team is in its maturity and ability to contend for the cup that are going to sway the strategy more towards the short or long term, but to me there's no escaping that without a steady pipeline or players from the draft and development function of the organization you eventually are going to have issues putting together a contending team. It may take a few years to rear it's ugly head, but it's coming nonetheless. If you look at that list above and apply it to the current state of the Bruins and the decisions of the past 5 or so years and what is clear is that we've been dabbling in the more expensive/less efficient end of that list at the expense of the most efficient options. We haven't had an impactful rookie in years outside of Swayman and even there we went out and signed a redundantly very good goalie anyways basically cancelling out the cap benefit, and may not have one for a few more although I'm pulling for Lysell, Merk and Lohrei none of which are guaranteed to work out. To make matters worse, we went BIG on deadline acquisitions last year at the expense of years worth of draft capital, and we didn't even resign a single player which is basically a sunk cost at this point never to be recouped. So what were we left with as options this year? Aging Vets. It's the only way that Sweeney could fill out the roster with no incoming talent that he was confident enough to pencil into a spot we ended up with JVR, Lucic, Heinen, Chiasson, etc just to get the proper number of bodies for the opening night roster. Sure Heinen and Chiasson are on PTO's and may not even make the team but just shows that Sweeney was bargain bin hunting out of necessity this year because all he could really do was give out short term, $1M contracts in order to stay under the cap. Now the real question that will ultimately decide how this season ends up is whether we are getting the aging vets on a positive scenario (think Mark Recchi), or the negative scenario (think Backes). Is JVR up for top six duty, or at least a solid 20-20 third line winger with some PP net front duty, or does he continue to drop off and disappoint? Will Lucic have a resurgent year in his homecoming? Or can he no longer keep up the pace under Monty's fast paced offensive system and ends up on the 7th floor most nights? To me, Charlie Coyle is irrelevant regardless of his cap hit. Nobody is salivating over Coyle, and even if we did move him, it still doesn't solve our problems up the middle. Coyle's been a pretty good (efficient) contract for the last couple years, but if we have nobody to replace him then we can't move him and that's the position we find ourselves in to this day. You can't trade away a 3C and get back a 2C. I guess the core difference here, is interpreting "free". I see it differently. What you're allocated in the draft, per year is free, but after that, it can get very expensive. What's free about Zboril, and the dozens of comparable examples. Zboril's been around forever, and his development, or lack therof, has impacted the team, whose first priority is to win tonights hockey game. Often times you invest and over invest. Danny Paille and Forbort and Zacha. Hampus, Tuuka, Hall, they were all first rounders we acquired at reasonable, to great value. Coyle, is relevant, because Zacha is. If Coyles 5 large is seen as good value elsewhere, he could be part of the next great heist. Even Pastrnak is an example to put things in perspective. There are few examples of a home run, any bigger. But from a team/competitive perspective, where's the beef? Until 16/17 he was a bit of a question mark in terms of his overall contributions, but he was outstanding value for that one year. From 17 til 2020, it could be argued, and it was...he was merely reasonable value. The last couple, it was super. So using the kind of example that only comes along once about every 25 years, the difference between drafting a player like this, vs intelligently getting him already developed, isn't as big as it would seem. Pretty hard to argue anyone was more valuable, and more fairly priced,,,for a long long time....than Chara. He was as foundational to success, as was Ray Bourque. Getting back to Pastrnak, from this day forward, there will always be comparables that could be better. And that's only because of cap. I won't ever argue the importance of the draft. I'll simply forever argue the wisdom that getting a bunch of "extra" 1st rounders means you'll soon become a powerhouse, or even a good team for that matter. Tons of examples otherwise. Specifically the Boston Bruins and those "extra" picks that were hoarded and pursued over the last 15 years.....they didn't do jack down the road, rather they only subtracted from the present. Seattle and Vegas are pretty good examples of what can happen with the right mix of castoffs/trades and signings. All that's important, is that you have inventory that others would like to have. To do that, you have to be incredibly smart, risk averse, and confident. Manage your picks well. Obviously, contenders always have to part with some. It's the nature of the beast. It's far from a given though, the way back up the ladder is simply getting extra picks. Personally, I feel picks overall, never have greater value, than while they're still picks. I didn't have a problem with phase one, in 15, or the #81 deal. Had those picks, or some of them been leveraged for actual hockey players, our chances at more cups would have been through the roof, and there's no down side, if done intelligently. Bedard could be super, but how sucky do you have to be to qualify for a #1?. How lucky do you have to be to win the lottery? What are the odds you can suck at just the right moment, to potentially land a generational player? How important is it...to have a generational player? If you're gonna trade Marchand, and another really good Bruin for picks.....might as well trade Pastr and Mac too. The only way the draft thing can possibly work, as a "strategic plan" is with a ridiculously high sample size. The Bruins are still in a good place. I hope they excercise hockey acuman to build the future, not the roulette wheel. If Seattle and Vegas are your counter-arguments we're on different planets first of all. Apples to Oranges. Bruins are the exact opposite of an expansion team and the expansion rules are their own thing so not sure where you are going there. As to teams with generational talents, look who wins the cup and count how many teams have generational players vs. not. All the top teams with multiple cups have generational talents. The difference for us B's fans is that we were lucky enough to draft a couple in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, which in itself is a feat of incredible luck. Colorado -- McKinnon, Pittsburg (Kane, Toews), Washington (Ovi), Bruins (Bergy, Chara), LA (Kopitar), Tampa (Hedman, Stamkos, etc). In fact, show me the team that isn't built on their top picks that won it all or contended consistently. I honestly don't know if there is anything to back up your point there. I don't know what you are saying with Pasta. Since 2016 he's been one of our top scorers with over 70 points and has now developed into one of the leagues premier offensive threats. He's been a bargain that entire time. Only now will we be paying him "market" value. Trading away a 35 year old superstar winger at a period where your team is not expected to contend for a cup (because we have no top line center), isn't the same as blowing up the entire team and also selling your two studs in the prime of their career - its just a stupid comparison. Sorry, but it's true. Brad is the captain now, so the chances of that happening is pretty low so we won't have to worry about it. Still, really, really bad comparison. By the time we are ready to content again Brad will not be the same player, that's just how age works. They are keeping him for his leadership and to maintain the culture and team identity. A strategic decision on its own, but different than what we are talking about right now. I honestly think you must be arguing for the sake of arguing right now because nothing you just said makes any sense. If you don't think that a teams draft and development process takes hockey acumen and really is just a roulette wheel then we are on different planets as far as this conversation goes. Maybe the Bruins should fire the scouting staff, just go off the latest scouting consensus, and use that budget somewhere since it's just all luck. In saying draft picks are never worth more than before they were made just made an argument to trade all of your picks for more expensive assets, after before making the argument that building a roster is about "efficiency". Ha. Good luck with that one. I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Sept 21, 2023 12:51:36 GMT
If we had to try to segment players into to some useful groups in order of probably efficiency, it likely goes something like this.... Rookie RFA Free Agent Pickup (low end) Aging Vet (good scenario) Home grown core player (in prime of career) Free Agent Pickup (high end) Deadline Acquisition Aging Vet (bad scenario) So if I'm a GM and putting together a team and thinking not just of the next season, but the next three to five seasons, it's hard to ignore that the draft is one of the MOST important parts of building the team. Sure there are year to year considerations in terms of where the team is in its maturity and ability to contend for the cup that are going to sway the strategy more towards the short or long term, but to me there's no escaping that without a steady pipeline or players from the draft and development function of the organization you eventually are going to have issues putting together a contending team. It may take a few years to rear it's ugly head, but it's coming nonetheless. Good discussion, folks. So...close...to...having...games...to...discuss.... We've talked about Chicago before, so all I'll say here is that I don't think Chicago is proof of anything. In a year or two, I think it will be fair to say would you trade Brandon Hagel (25 yr old 30 goal scorer), Alex DeBricat (25 yr old with two 40 goal seasons, regular 30 goal potential), and Kirby Dach (38 points in 58 games on a woeful Montreal team), for Connor Bedard and Kevin Korchinski. Are you farther ahead? I think it's going to be touch and go unless Bedard is McDavid 2.0 as some expect. I have a feeling that he won't be, to be honest. But I have been wrong a lot. Regardless, I think Chicago is a long way from contending again. 3-4 years. Worth remembering as Steve points out that Connor McDavid's Oilers won one round in his first six years, only made the playoffs in 3 of 6, and didn't win a playoff game in two of those years - despite the fact that he was the four #1 overall they had in 6 years, and one of the guys they got in an off year was Draisaitl. Quebec had a bunch of #1 overalls back in the day but would have been a wasteland without the trades made to get the goaltending and back end offensive ability they needed. And Buffalo is still wasting away despite Eichel, Reinhart, Dahlin, Power, 4 8th overalls, a 7th and a 9th. No playoff appearances and the best player on their roster is a former 20+ pick they got in a trade for Ryan O'Reilly...who they got in a trade. I think some of the difference of opinion here comes from the way the league is changing. I think that list of probabilities to provide value is an old way of thinking based on the way the league has moved its thinking on salaries and young players. Rookie - agree this is the ideal situation but only because of ELCs. You get a rookie who contributes significantly, and you pay him what is essentially the same as what you'd pay a PTO. Gold. RFA - I would put this almost at the bottom unless you're re-signing your own player. If you're acquiring him as an RFA, you are almost certainly overpaying at the front end. Free Agent Pickup (low end) - Depends, but it's as much a lottery as the draft. You're paying guys to play bottom six roles, so maybe in terms of them Riley Nashing it, sure. But the problem is that that usually happens to teams in weaker competitive situations and then it leads to a high risk over over-payment because you don't often sign low end UFAs to long terms. Aging Vet (good scenario) - I think this is where you almost never see good value. Usually, the aging vet got his UFA deal at a high rate of pay. If the idea is you get a good deal paying less and he continues to play at a high rate. But that's not often what has happened with guys like Kopitar and Pavelski and Ovi getting close to the same money plus a bonus in Grecian formula. Home grown core player (in prime of career) - sometimes, but look at Toronto. All but Tavares are homegrown and they handcuff them. Free Agent Pickup (high end) - Depends. Chara, Savard...hard to say they were bad deals despite being massive contracts for the time. Deadline Acquisition - I'd put this near the top in terms of dollars. You pay almost nothing and add high value talent to the roster. If you have the picks and prospects, it's like trading farts for gold. Aging Vet (bad scenario) The list wasn't in terms of bad deal/good deal --- every team is composed of guys from all these categories. The list was ordered with regards to "efficiency" basically play vs. pay. So a low end FA pickup has a chance to be a great value if they can play an outsized bottom six role at a discount -- the is exactly Geekie, Nash, Chris Kelly kind of pickups. Also think about Noel Accarri in Florida after we let him walk. Incredible value for them at a low cost. There's a reason that I split Aging Vet into two groups. When it works out it can be great (Recchi, Corey Perry on Dallas when they made a run). When it doesn't it's a cap killer (backes). Pretty cut and dry. High End free agents --- Chara is the perfect example. We signed him to our most expensive contract on the team and he was our captain. We paid for quality and we got it, but let's not paint him as a bargain. Like most longer term contracts, it was expensive when we signed him, it was a deal in the middle, and in the end you hope the play keeps up with the salary, which in Chara's case he did. Savard was a great pickup and he grew his game in Boston to become less one-dimensional, but his grade is an "incomplete" because of the concussion shortened career. Deadline acquisitions are only cheap if you don't value draft picks like Steve GM. Typically they are expiring contracts so the value/efficiency of the pickup is primarily dependent on what happens next. I'd say Orlov and Bertuzzi were VERY expensive deadline pickups because they paid for the Bruins for a couple months and cost us the next couple years of first round picks (coincidentally, we'd have to trade away Marchand and Ullmark to get those back). Lindholm was a pretty efficient pickup, not just because we signed him, but we signed him at a very good number for long term --- worth the first round pick. At no point was I trying to argue for blowing the team up and becoming Chicago, Edmonton, or Buffalo. We certainly don't want to sit in the basement like Edmonton or Buffalo, and it's really too early to say if the Chicago GM was a genius or a fool for tearing down to the studs just in time to draft Bedard. My point is simply that draft picks are an important part of long term success because those are the incremental assets that a GM gets every year to find ways to improve their team. Just so happens that we cleared the cupboard last year in a way that hamstrings our already barren pipeline for the next couple years if we don't do something to recoup some picks and get back into the draft. I plan on rooting for the Bruins for more than just the next two years, so yeah, I'd like to get back into the top two rounds of the draft before 2026. |
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Sept 21, 2023 13:02:17 GMT
If you are close to a contender, you don't trade your best goaler. Forget about being younger, I think Jerry's the best option right now, especially in the playoffs. Generally, no. In this particular instance, maybe you do. Keep in mind, I only suggested a Swayman trade in one scenario - if they have a clear need that could be addressed with a Swayman trade. I think it's a safe assumption that Ullmark isn't going to fall off a cliff. It could happen, sure; but if it does, the Bruins aren't contending unless Swayman is dynamite and in that scenario there is no benefit to trading him. Ullmark doesn't necessarily have to be the best goalie on the team, but they need to be close and based on last year when for long stretches they had very similar stats, I think that's more or less what we'll see again this year. Then you're thinking about who your trade partners might be. Hard to do without knowing what the needs will be (though it's easy to assume its a C or two), but we can reasonably speculate that at team looking to trade an asset of the calibre that would help push the Bruins over the top to contender status is likely coming from a team that's out of the playoff picture. Those teams very often are looking to build toward a future window, and so a 30+ goalie is less likely to be attractive than a 24 yr old. You're more likely to win the bidding for a Schiefele or a Lindholm with him than Linus. Conversely, though, I would agree that Boston isn't necessarily in a place where they need to prioritize youth. They are, to my eye, still a team built to win now and over the next 3-4 years despite the losses over the summer. Marchand's 35, and while he will slow down, he's probably a contributor for a few years yet. What he looks like post Bergeron is TBD. Coyle's 31, so there are a few years before age catches up to him. Pastrnak's in his prime at 27, while DeBrusk and Zacha are 26. That's your top 5 forwards. Linus fits right in at 30. Other than Freddy, the rest of the forward group could be a bunch of AARP members or a bunch of kids - it's up in the air. On the blueline, FoBo is 31, Lindholm and Grz 29. McAvoy and Carlo have a ton of runway at 25 and 26. So the time is now, and it doesn't matter if Swayman will be in his prime after Marchand and Coyle are gone, Lindholm and Pastrnak are on the downside. hmmmmmm.... First of all, I like Coyle and he's a nice piece, but I don't put him in the category of guys who make me think we are built to win it all anytime soon, especially if we are expecting him to be a top 6C. If anything the fact that we have him in the top 6 is one of my top reasons I don't expect us to be a true contender until that is no longer the case. If you ask me, Sweeney was willing to chalk this up as a transition year and I think we will see him be VERY aggressive next year with the cap space that frees up. Until then he wants to hold onto what we have (Marchand, Debrusk, Ullmark) in hopes that this is literally a one year hiatus before we come back in 24-25 with a couple more high end pieces that have us contending again. Perhaps a goalie gets moved as a part a deal putting together next years team. Marchand as captain means that he's retiring a Bruins and he's part of that resurgence plan a year from now as a 36 year old winger. It's a risky bet, but I think more than anything they wanted a bridge to try to maintain the excellent culture we've been known for for the past decade plus. Your point about the trade-ability of the goalies is valid though. If you trade Ullmark, you are trading to a contender and your likely return is either draft picks or a high end prospect/younger player who is blocked by established vets leading the team. If you trade Swayman, then that increases the potential partners to the lower end teams that have been drafting high and may have redundancy at center as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 21, 2023 18:47:42 GMT
Good discussion, folks. So...close...to...having...games...to...discuss.... We've talked about Chicago before, so all I'll say here is that I don't think Chicago is proof of anything. In a year or two, I think it will be fair to say would you trade Brandon Hagel (25 yr old 30 goal scorer), Alex DeBricat (25 yr old with two 40 goal seasons, regular 30 goal potential), and Kirby Dach (38 points in 58 games on a woeful Montreal team), for Connor Bedard and Kevin Korchinski. Are you farther ahead? I think it's going to be touch and go unless Bedard is McDavid 2.0 as some expect. I have a feeling that he won't be, to be honest. But I have been wrong a lot. Regardless, I think Chicago is a long way from contending again. 3-4 years. Worth remembering as Steve points out that Connor McDavid's Oilers won one round in his first six years, only made the playoffs in 3 of 6, and didn't win a playoff game in two of those years - despite the fact that he was the four #1 overall they had in 6 years, and one of the guys they got in an off year was Draisaitl. Quebec had a bunch of #1 overalls back in the day but would have been a wasteland without the trades made to get the goaltending and back end offensive ability they needed. And Buffalo is still wasting away despite Eichel, Reinhart, Dahlin, Power, 4 8th overalls, a 7th and a 9th. No playoff appearances and the best player on their roster is a former 20+ pick they got in a trade for Ryan O'Reilly...who they got in a trade. I think some of the difference of opinion here comes from the way the league is changing. I think that list of probabilities to provide value is an old way of thinking based on the way the league has moved its thinking on salaries and young players. Rookie - agree this is the ideal situation but only because of ELCs. You get a rookie who contributes significantly, and you pay him what is essentially the same as what you'd pay a PTO. Gold. RFA - I would put this almost at the bottom unless you're re-signing your own player. If you're acquiring him as an RFA, you are almost certainly overpaying at the front end. Free Agent Pickup (low end) - Depends, but it's as much a lottery as the draft. You're paying guys to play bottom six roles, so maybe in terms of them Riley Nashing it, sure. But the problem is that that usually happens to teams in weaker competitive situations and then it leads to a high risk over over-payment because you don't often sign low end UFAs to long terms. Aging Vet (good scenario) - I think this is where you almost never see good value. Usually, the aging vet got his UFA deal at a high rate of pay. If the idea is you get a good deal paying less and he continues to play at a high rate. But that's not often what has happened with guys like Kopitar and Pavelski and Ovi getting close to the same money plus a bonus in Grecian formula. Home grown core player (in prime of career) - sometimes, but look at Toronto. All but Tavares are homegrown and they handcuff them. Free Agent Pickup (high end) - Depends. Chara, Savard...hard to say they were bad deals despite being massive contracts for the time. Deadline Acquisition - I'd put this near the top in terms of dollars. You pay almost nothing and add high value talent to the roster. If you have the picks and prospects, it's like trading farts for gold. Aging Vet (bad scenario) The list wasn't in terms of bad deal/good deal --- every team is composed of guys from all these categories. The list was ordered with regards to "efficiency" basically play vs. pay. So a low end FA pickup has a chance to be a great value if they can play an outsized bottom six role at a discount -- the is exactly Geekie, Nash, Chris Kelly kind of pickups. Also think about Noel Accarri in Florida after we let him walk. Incredible value for them at a low cost. There's a reason that I split Aging Vet into two groups. When it works out it can be great (Recchi, Corey Perry on Dallas when they made a run). When it doesn't it's a cap killer (backes). Pretty cut and dry. High End free agents --- Chara is the perfect example. We signed him to our most expensive contract on the team and he was our captain. We paid for quality and we got it, but let's not paint him as a bargain. Like most longer term contracts, it was expensive when we signed him, it was a deal in the middle, and in the end you hope the play keeps up with the salary, which in Chara's case he did. Savard was a great pickup and he grew his game in Boston to become less one-dimensional, but his grade is an "incomplete" because of the concussion shortened career. Deadline acquisitions are only cheap if you don't value draft picks like Steve GM. Typically they are expiring contracts so the value/efficiency of the pickup is primarily dependent on what happens next. I'd say Orlov and Bertuzzi were VERY expensive deadline pickups because they paid for the Bruins for a couple months and cost us the next couple years of first round picks (coincidentally, we'd have to trade away Marchand and Ullmark to get those back). Lindholm was a pretty efficient pickup, not just because we signed him, but we signed him at a very good number for long term --- worth the first round pick. At no point was I trying to argue for blowing the team up and becoming Chicago, Edmonton, or Buffalo. We certainly don't want to sit in the basement like Edmonton or Buffalo, and it's really too early to say if the Chicago GM was a genius or a fool for tearing down to the studs just in time to draft Bedard. My point is simply that draft picks are an important part of long term success because those are the incremental assets that a GM gets every year to find ways to improve their team. Just so happens that we cleared the cupboard last year in a way that hamstrings our already barren pipeline for the next couple years if we don't do something to recoup some picks and get back into the draft. I plan on rooting for the Bruins for more than just the next two years, so yeah, I'd like to get back into the top two rounds of the draft before 2026. the bold are just a couple examples of literary dishonesty. it's really difficult to have a meaningful, enjoyable back and forth when this is core to your posts. I specifically, went into great detail regarding my overall high regard for the draft. why would you write what you just did? the only reason i posted, ..in the first place, was to counter "your" implied notion that trading Linus and Marchand, should the Bruins fall out of contention....for picks, would result in "the fastest retool in history". That is a clear, clinical, over reaction to the power of the draft. "you" specifically brought up chicago, to try and back up your over simplification of the draft. it wasn't me, or anyone else. why are you contradicting yourself now? all I did was write several counter points(as did others), that you ignored, choosing to come back with smack. to be fair, there's also reasonable stuff to debate/discuss. I don't understand your Acciari inference. we let him walk because the market was willing to pay him more than double. I don't get your "cut and dry' statement about Backes either. IMO, your interpretation is anything but cut and dry. the problem with Backes had zero to do with the fact he was an aging vet. Why run with generic, and ignore specifics? the problem with Backes was simply cap hit and term. the probabilities that were argued against Lucic's long term value, were the exact same ones as Backes...only Backes's, were more pronounced. That was simply a poor hockey decision. chara? "lets not paint him as a bargain"? I don't get that either, but I may be wrong. I don't pay for access to some of the historical facts, but off the top of my head, I'd say he was on average, one of the top 2 or 3 dmen in the league for a decade or so. I don't think his cap hit reflected that, but again, I may be wrong. Bertuzzi? I think that's highly debatable too. He apparently wanted to stay, and it isn't reasonable to assume he would have had that kind of warmth toward the franchise, had he not already experienced it. it'll become clearer as time passes, but Bert could be an example of a mistake made. Orlov? that's a bit tougher. We don't know if he was a pure rental, or if he had a bigger affinity to Boston, or the highest bidder. Cap issues are a fact of life if you have an outstanding roster. It's the type of problem good teams work toward having. But generically, what's the argument? All contenders load up at the deadline. If there is ever a case to do that sort of thing....what would be more of a clinical example than the 22/23 Bruins? the issue isn't the cap, as much as their decision to keep who they did. The games will have a lot to say about that. coaches...virtually all of them, trust players with experience, vs those without. unless you're a train wreak, you can't fit very many younguns in at once. Which leads me back to Pastrnak. you apparently want to argue, but you want to argue specifics, with generalities again. I said he was outstanding value in 16. What was so outstanding in 14 and 15? Fact is,...nothing. His contributions could have been replaced. since 2017, he's been paid about as much as any elite Bruin. only in the last couple, has that skewed heavily to the bargain spectrum. Pastrnak is about the strongest possible, one off, cherry picked example as there is to support your logic. He's a fine Bruin, but he's also a perfect example of the "actual, best case" bargain one gets with drafted players, vs smart, race ready acquisitions. Zboril is a much better, real time example of what you may expect to get with a late first rounder, and the ying to that yang, is a better, more defined product, like a Forbort, without breaking the bank. And here's one more consideration about Pastrnak. In your opinion, how many 25ths overall would the Bruins probably need, to fetch the next David Pastrnak? I have no idea what your answer will be, but it has to be at least..."several". You mention project Heinen, but omit he's draft pick Heinen. What's the big difference between him stealing a roster spot, vs a McLaughlin if that were to happen? you're not stuck with these guys til they're 40 "seattle and Vegas", are not "apples and oranges". your interpretation is. of course their roster build is unique at first, but what is concrete, is their proven example of building competitive teams without huge draft capital, rather, cashing in on what's usually available, one way or the other. Had either team not picked, specifically, who they did...the results would have been much different. and the "stupid comparison" you mention in another post? It's pretty stupid of you to call that stupid. You're the one singing the potential windfall of multiple top picks. Marchand and Linus probably get a couple and gut the team. You need more than a couple, to go from the outhouse to the penthouse, that's just common hockey sense. the only others we have that would get 2 or 3 more would be Charlie and Pastr. No sense wasting their best years on a dnq train wreak. it takes several years for can't miss 18 year olds to develop into something. Coyle. you seem to want to double down there too. who says he has any kind of top 6 prowess? nobody's arguing that. The thing with coyle is his cap hit and term....which is pretty much it...with all of them. If the league likes his cap number and the term, he could easily enhance the prospect of something better. of course he doesn't go straight up for a bonafide #1 or 2, ffs, but he can easily be part of the solution in dozens of ways. if, and only if, his cap number is attractive. finally, you state the the Bruins getting some great players in the 2nd and 3rd round as a "feat of incredible luck"(apparently you never heard of the Detroit Red Wings), then a few sentences later take a run at me by misrepresenting a common sense "roulette wheel' analogy. Yes, you contradict yourself. Of course the draft is a roulette wheel(or blackjack table). But games of chance also require huge amounts of acumen and smarts. Why would you craft something so dishonest? why would you try and diminish someone elses comments down to ..if you think it's "all luck"...when I've been repeatedly saying otherwise. My point has never been to diminish the draft, rather to torpedo the nonsense that draft tonnage is the gold standard to getting to the top. You also asked a question, regarding teams who have not relied on their top picks, to get to the promised land. One answer, is the Boston Bruins. In the 18 drafts from 05 til 2022, I only hi lited "top picks". There are 22 of them. Really only 2 that hit that high end, and fit the criteria you outline. Pastr and Mac. You can maybe throw DeBrusk in, but they didn't build around him, they just couldn;t find a decent out. He certainly isn't generational to this point, but he's a good player, and i wanna be reasonable. Frederick doesn't qualify. Kessel and Seguin and Hamilton got kicked to the wayside. We had some really high picks, but based on your own interpretation of 'generational'....2 for 22. I'll go 3 for 22. And we've already discussed, ad nauseum, the Bruins drafting ability. It's within a reasonable margin of error to everyone elses. Double that number...triple it !!! Fact is, there's no sensible way you can hoard enough picks, within any sense of reason..over a short period of years...to have a high chance at greatness. A cap league...by design, is tailor fitted to the visionaries. you can't reasonably plan on a superstar, and if you;'re lucky enough to get one, he'll hamstring you with cap by the time you fill out the rest of your roster. the draft is really important, but putting too many eggs in one basket, is rarely a good idea in anything. A cap league, unlike uncapped, guarantees the possibility of winning by a committee of 20, 4 mil players, vs 4 @12 mil and 16 @ 500 grand.(exaggerated example) We have to get back in the top 2 rounds, no question, but doing something to create additional picks, with what this team has to offer, has an incredibly high percentage of working against the preferred dream. |
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 21, 2023 19:08:30 GMT
Quebec had a bunch of #1 overalls back in the day but would have been a wasteland without the trades made to get the goaltending and back end offensive ability they needed. the Lindros deal is probably my cherry picked example of draft hysteria. 6 players to Quebec. 2 first rounders and 15 million cash, which was about a quarter of the value of a franchise. Lindros was a great player, but he wasn't worth anything close to that. And...the Nordiques didn't even hold the hammer. They were getting desperate. Just imagine what the Oilers could have got for Taylor Hall, before he ever played a game. Or we could have acquired for Seguin...the Bedard thing coulda been crazy. Look at us in 15. About the only thing that coulda went worse in that first round...is if we woulda been able to deal them all for Hanifin |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 21, 2023 20:52:37 GMT
the Lindros deal is probably my cherry picked example of draft hysteria. 6 players to Quebec. 2 first rounders and 15 million cash, which was about a quarter of the value of a franchise. Lindros was a great player, but he wasn't worth anything close to that. And...the Nordiques didn't even hold the hammer. They were getting desperate. Just imagine what the Oilers could have got for Taylor Hall, before he ever played a game. Or we could have acquired for Seguin...the Bedard thing coulda been crazy. Look at us in 15. About the only thing that coulda went worse in that first round...is if we woulda been able to deal them all for Hanifin Doesn't counter your point, but I don't think the Bruins or the Oilers would have gotten the same haul for hall or anything sexy for Segzy compare to the Lindros deal. Lindros went to the Olympics for Canada before he was drafted and was second on the team in scoring. He was "the Next One" - a player so far ahead of the rest of his draft class in people's eyes that if you went back in time and told knowledgeable hockey people that Jagr was going to have more than twice as many points and play twice as long, they'd have kicked you. I would love to see someone auction off a Bedard-level pick, and I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see it. When Chiarelli traded Segzy, it was shocking because you just didn't see teams trade young players drafted that high before they were UFA flight risks. Now you see it...maybe not often...but young stars get moved before the age of 25 no matter where they were drafted. Now that the market has shifted to teams expecting to pay full freight once a superstar young player is off his ELC, some of the bloom is off the idea that you leverage your collectively bargained control. I want to see it because I think Peter Forsberg and the multiple rings in Colorado mean we may never see a return like that again for any player. In some measure, that trade is a contributing factor the Flyers being a largely irrelevant franchise since Lindros left due to concussions. That and trying to rush a build. I suppose Chicago did more or less the same thing to themselves in a way, shedding a bunch of bona fide NHL players primarily to get Bedard. But it would be interesting to see what teams would have offered for Bedard. Could be a fun game to speculate what franchises might have been willing to put on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Sept 21, 2023 21:16:55 GMT
Doesn't counter your point, but I don't think the Bruins or the Oilers would have gotten the same haul for hall or anything sexy for Segzy compare to the Lindros deal. Lindros went to the Olympics for Canada before he was drafted and was second on the team in scoring. He was "the Next One" - a player so far ahead of the rest of his draft class in people's eyes that if you went back in time and told knowledgeable hockey people that Jagr was going to have more than twice as many points and play twice as long, they'd have kicked you. I would love to see someone auction off a Bedard-level pick, and I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see it. When Chiarelli traded Segzy, it was shocking because you just didn't see teams trade young players drafted that high before they were UFA flight risks. Now you see it...maybe not often...but young stars get moved before the age of 25 no matter where they were drafted. Now that the market has shifted to teams expecting to pay full freight once a superstar young player is off his ELC, some of the bloom is off the idea that you leverage your collectively bargained control. I want to see it because I think Peter Forsberg and the multiple rings in Colorado mean we may never see a return like that again for any player. In some measure, that trade is a contributing factor the Flyers being a largely irrelevant franchise since Lindros left due to concussions. That and trying to rush a build. I suppose Chicago did more or less the same thing to themselves in a way, shedding a bunch of bona fide NHL players primarily to get Bedard. But it would be interesting to see what teams would have offered for Bedard. Could be a fun game to speculate what franchises might have been willing to put on the table. I offered Drysaddle and Oettinger and bam!, deal done. |
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Sept 21, 2023 21:21:36 GMT
Generally, no. In this particular instance, maybe you do. Keep in mind, I only suggested a Swayman trade in one scenario - if they have a clear need that could be addressed with a Swayman trade. I think it's a safe assumption that Ullmark isn't going to fall off a cliff. It could happen, sure; but if it does, the Bruins aren't contending unless Swayman is dynamite and in that scenario there is no benefit to trading him. Ullmark doesn't necessarily have to be the best goalie on the team, but they need to be close and based on last year when for long stretches they had very similar stats, I think that's more or less what we'll see again this year. Then you're thinking about who your trade partners might be. Hard to do without knowing what the needs will be (though it's easy to assume its a C or two), but we can reasonably speculate that at team looking to trade an asset of the calibre that would help push the Bruins over the top to contender status is likely coming from a team that's out of the playoff picture. Those teams very often are looking to build toward a future window, and so a 30+ goalie is less likely to be attractive than a 24 yr old. You're more likely to win the bidding for a Schiefele or a Lindholm with him than Linus. Conversely, though, I would agree that Boston isn't necessarily in a place where they need to prioritize youth. They are, to my eye, still a team built to win now and over the next 3-4 years despite the losses over the summer. Marchand's 35, and while he will slow down, he's probably a contributor for a few years yet. What he looks like post Bergeron is TBD. Coyle's 31, so there are a few years before age catches up to him. Pastrnak's in his prime at 27, while DeBrusk and Zacha are 26. That's your top 5 forwards. Linus fits right in at 30. Other than Freddy, the rest of the forward group could be a bunch of AARP members or a bunch of kids - it's up in the air. On the blueline, FoBo is 31, Lindholm and Grz 29. McAvoy and Carlo have a ton of runway at 25 and 26. So the time is now, and it doesn't matter if Swayman will be in his prime after Marchand and Coyle are gone, Lindholm and Pastrnak are on the downside. hmmmmmm.... First of all, I like Coyle and he's a nice piece, but I don't put him in the category of guys who make me think we are built to win it all anytime soon, especially if we are expecting him to be a top 6C. If anything the fact that we have him in the top 6 is one of my top reasons I don't expect us to be a true contender until that is no longer the case. If you ask me, Sweeney was willing to chalk this up as a transition year and I think we will see him be VERY aggressive next year with the cap space that frees up. Until then he wants to hold onto what we have (Marchand, Debrusk, Ullmark) in hopes that this is literally a one year hiatus before we come back in 24-25 with a couple more high end pieces that have us contending again. Perhaps a goalie gets moved as a part a deal putting together next years team. Marchand as captain means that he's retiring a Bruins and he's part of that resurgence plan a year from now as a 36 year old winger. It's a risky bet, but I think more than anything they wanted a bridge to try to maintain the excellent culture we've been known for for the past decade plus. Your point about the trade-ability of the goalies is valid though. If you trade Ullmark, you are trading to a contender and your likely return is either draft picks or a high end prospect/younger player who is blocked by established vets leading the team. If you trade Swayman, then that increases the potential partners to the lower end teams that have been drafting high and may have redundancy at center as a result. I think we may all underestimate Coyle a bit. He had an awful season two years ago with two bad knees. Came back pretty solid the next year, but he was asked to be #2C with Hall and Pasta and it just didn't work. But he did have a good year. Last year he was actually fourth on the team in EV scoring after the Czech line, with 40 points. More than Bergie or Marchand. He did it with very little PP time (0 points, down from 9 the year before) and increased his PK role. His faceoffs also jumped up over 50%. We all have a bad taste about the idea of depending on him more, but maybe he's grown as a player. |
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 21, 2023 21:25:49 GMT
Doesn't counter your point, but I don't think the Bruins or the Oilers would have gotten the same haul for hall or anything sexy for Segzy compare to the Lindros deal. Lindros went to the Olympics for Canada before he was drafted and was second on the team in scoring. He was "the Next One" - a player so far ahead of the rest of his draft class in people's eyes that if you went back in time and told knowledgeable hockey people that Jagr was going to have more than twice as many points and play twice as long, they'd have kicked you. I would love to see someone auction off a Bedard-level pick, and I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see it. When Chiarelli traded Segzy, it was shocking because you just didn't see teams trade young players drafted that high before they were UFA flight risks. Now you see it...maybe not often...but young stars get moved before the age of 25 no matter where they were drafted. Now that the market has shifted to teams expecting to pay full freight once a superstar young player is off his ELC, some of the bloom is off the idea that you leverage your collectively bargained control. I want to see it because I think Peter Forsberg and the multiple rings in Colorado mean we may never see a return like that again for any player. In some measure, that trade is a contributing factor the Flyers being a largely irrelevant franchise since Lindros left due to concussions. That and trying to rush a build. I suppose Chicago did more or less the same thing to themselves in a way, shedding a bunch of bona fide NHL players primarily to get Bedard. But it would be interesting to see what teams would have offered for Bedard. Could be a fun game to speculate what franchises might have been willing to put on the table. yeah, agreed there's no comparable to Lindros. I mentioned Taylor/Tyler, cuz off the top of my head, can't think of many that were promoted more heavily as "the next one" in the last dozen years. In any event, I think it's reasonable to assume there's a really great chance, in about any given year, odds are overwhelming that you'll net more, by dealing your 7th overall than keeping him...if you're really shrewd. |
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Sept 21, 2023 22:07:53 GMT
hmmmmmm.... First of all, I like Coyle and he's a nice piece, but I don't put him in the category of guys who make me think we are built to win it all anytime soon, especially if we are expecting him to be a top 6C. If anything the fact that we have him in the top 6 is one of my top reasons I don't expect us to be a true contender until that is no longer the case. If you ask me, Sweeney was willing to chalk this up as a transition year and I think we will see him be VERY aggressive next year with the cap space that frees up. Until then he wants to hold onto what we have (Marchand, Debrusk, Ullmark) in hopes that this is literally a one year hiatus before we come back in 24-25 with a couple more high end pieces that have us contending again. Perhaps a goalie gets moved as a part a deal putting together next years team. Marchand as captain means that he's retiring a Bruins and he's part of that resurgence plan a year from now as a 36 year old winger. It's a risky bet, but I think more than anything they wanted a bridge to try to maintain the excellent culture we've been known for for the past decade plus. Your point about the trade-ability of the goalies is valid though. If you trade Ullmark, you are trading to a contender and your likely return is either draft picks or a high end prospect/younger player who is blocked by established vets leading the team. If you trade Swayman, then that increases the potential partners to the lower end teams that have been drafting high and may have redundancy at center as a result. I think we may all underestimate Coyle a bit. He had an awful season two years ago with two bad knees. Came back pretty solid the next year, but he was asked to be #2C with Hall and Pasta and it just didn't work. But he did have a good year. Last year he was actually fourth on the team in EV scoring after the Czech line, with 40 points. More than Bergie or Marchand. He did it with very little PP time (0 points, down from 9 the year before) and increased his PK role. His faceoffs also jumped up over 50%. We all have a bad taste about the idea of depending on him more, but maybe he's grown as a player. I sure hope you are right! |
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Sept 22, 2023 12:26:46 GMT
The list wasn't in terms of bad deal/good deal --- every team is composed of guys from all these categories. The list was ordered with regards to "efficiency" basically play vs. pay. So a low end FA pickup has a chance to be a great value if they can play an outsized bottom six role at a discount -- the is exactly Geekie, Nash, Chris Kelly kind of pickups. Also think about Noel Accarri in Florida after we let him walk. Incredible value for them at a low cost. There's a reason that I split Aging Vet into two groups. When it works out it can be great (Recchi, Corey Perry on Dallas when they made a run). When it doesn't it's a cap killer (backes). Pretty cut and dry. High End free agents --- Chara is the perfect example. We signed him to our most expensive contract on the team and he was our captain. We paid for quality and we got it, but let's not paint him as a bargain. Like most longer term contracts, it was expensive when we signed him, it was a deal in the middle, and in the end you hope the play keeps up with the salary, which in Chara's case he did. Savard was a great pickup and he grew his game in Boston to become less one-dimensional, but his grade is an "incomplete" because of the concussion shortened career. Deadline acquisitions are only cheap if you don't value draft picks like Steve GM. Typically they are expiring contracts so the value/efficiency of the pickup is primarily dependent on what happens next. I'd say Orlov and Bertuzzi were VERY expensive deadline pickups because they paid for the Bruins for a couple months and cost us the next couple years of first round picks (coincidentally, we'd have to trade away Marchand and Ullmark to get those back). Lindholm was a pretty efficient pickup, not just because we signed him, but we signed him at a very good number for long term --- worth the first round pick. At no point was I trying to argue for blowing the team up and becoming Chicago, Edmonton, or Buffalo. We certainly don't want to sit in the basement like Edmonton or Buffalo, and it's really too early to say if the Chicago GM was a genius or a fool for tearing down to the studs just in time to draft Bedard. My point is simply that draft picks are an important part of long term success because those are the incremental assets that a GM gets every year to find ways to improve their team. Just so happens that we cleared the cupboard last year in a way that hamstrings our already barren pipeline for the next couple years if we don't do something to recoup some picks and get back into the draft. I plan on rooting for the Bruins for more than just the next two years, so yeah, I'd like to get back into the top two rounds of the draft before 2026. the bold are just a couple examples of literary dishonesty. it's really difficult to have a meaningful, enjoyable back and forth when this is core to your posts. I specifically, went into great detail regarding my overall high regard for the draft. why would you write what you just did? the only reason i posted, ..in the first place, was to counter "your" implied notion that trading Linus and Marchand, should the Bruins fall out of contention....for picks, would result in "the fastest retool in history". That is a clear, clinical, over reaction to the power of the draft. "you" specifically brought up chicago, to try and back up your over simplification of the draft. it wasn't me, or anyone else. why are you contradicting yourself now? all I did was write several counter points(as did others), that you ignored, choosing to come back with smack. to be fair, there's also reasonable stuff to debate/discuss. I don't understand your Acciari inference. we let him walk because the market was willing to pay him more than double. I don't get your "cut and dry' statement about Backes either. IMO, your interpretation is anything but cut and dry. the problem with Backes had zero to do with the fact he was an aging vet. Why run with generic, and ignore specifics? the problem with Backes was simply cap hit and term. the probabilities that were argued against Lucic's long term value, were the exact same ones as Backes...only Backes's, were more pronounced. That was simply a poor hockey decision. chara? "lets not paint him as a bargain"? I don't get that either, but I may be wrong. I don't pay for access to some of the historical facts, but off the top of my head, I'd say he was on average, one of the top 2 or 3 dmen in the league for a decade or so. I don't think his cap hit reflected that, but again, I may be wrong. Bertuzzi? I think that's highly debatable too. He apparently wanted to stay, and it isn't reasonable to assume he would have had that kind of warmth toward the franchise, had he not already experienced it. it'll become clearer as time passes, but Bert could be an example of a mistake made. Orlov? that's a bit tougher. We don't know if he was a pure rental, or if he had a bigger affinity to Boston, or the highest bidder. Cap issues are a fact of life if you have an outstanding roster. It's the type of problem good teams work toward having. But generically, what's the argument? All contenders load up at the deadline. If there is ever a case to do that sort of thing....what would be more of a clinical example than the 22/23 Bruins? the issue isn't the cap, as much as their decision to keep who they did. The games will have a lot to say about that. coaches...virtually all of them, trust players with experience, vs those without. unless you're a train wreak, you can't fit very many younguns in at once. Which leads me back to Pastrnak. you apparently want to argue, but you want to argue specifics, with generalities again. I said he was outstanding value in 16. What was so outstanding in 14 and 15? Fact is,...nothing. His contributions could have been replaced. since 2017, he's been paid about as much as any elite Bruin. only in the last couple, has that skewed heavily to the bargain spectrum. Pastrnak is about the strongest possible, one off, cherry picked example as there is to support your logic. He's a fine Bruin, but he's also a perfect example of the "actual, best case" bargain one gets with drafted players, vs smart, race ready acquisitions. Zboril is a much better, real time example of what you may expect to get with a late first rounder, and the ying to that yang, is a better, more defined product, like a Forbort, without breaking the bank. And here's one more consideration about Pastrnak. In your opinion, how many 25ths overall would the Bruins probably need, to fetch the next David Pastrnak? I have no idea what your answer will be, but it has to be at least..."several". You mention project Heinen, but omit he's draft pick Heinen. What's the big difference between him stealing a roster spot, vs a McLaughlin if that were to happen? you're not stuck with these guys til they're 40 "seattle and Vegas", are not "apples and oranges". your interpretation is. of course their roster build is unique at first, but what is concrete, is their proven example of building competitive teams without huge draft capital, rather, cashing in on what's usually available, one way or the other. Had either team not picked, specifically, who they did...the results would have been much different. and the "stupid comparison" you mention in another post? It's pretty stupid of you to call that stupid. You're the one singing the potential windfall of multiple top picks. Marchand and Linus probably get a couple and gut the team. You need more than a couple, to go from the outhouse to the penthouse, that's just common hockey sense. the only others we have that would get 2 or 3 more would be Charlie and Pastr. No sense wasting their best years on a dnq train wreak. it takes several years for can't miss 18 year olds to develop into something. Coyle. you seem to want to double down there too. who says he has any kind of top 6 prowess? nobody's arguing that. The thing with coyle is his cap hit and term....which is pretty much it...with all of them. If the league likes his cap number and the term, he could easily enhance the prospect of something better. of course he doesn't go straight up for a bonafide #1 or 2, ffs, but he can easily be part of the solution in dozens of ways. if, and only if, his cap number is attractive. finally, you state the the Bruins getting some great players in the 2nd and 3rd round as a "feat of incredible luck"(apparently you never heard of the Detroit Red Wings), then a few sentences later take a run at me by misrepresenting a common sense "roulette wheel' analogy. Yes, you contradict yourself. Of course the draft is a roulette wheel(or blackjack table). But games of chance also require huge amounts of acumen and smarts. Why would you craft something so dishonest? why would you try and diminish someone elses comments down to ..if you think it's "all luck"...when I've been repeatedly saying otherwise. My point has never been to diminish the draft, rather to torpedo the nonsense that draft tonnage is the gold standard to getting to the top. You also asked a question, regarding teams who have not relied on their top picks, to get to the promised land. One answer, is the Boston Bruins. In the 18 drafts from 05 til 2022, I only hi lited "top picks". There are 22 of them. Really only 2 that hit that high end, and fit the criteria you outline. Pastr and Mac. You can maybe throw DeBrusk in, but they didn't build around him, they just couldn;t find a decent out. He certainly isn't generational to this point, but he's a good player, and i wanna be reasonable. Frederick doesn't qualify. Kessel and Seguin and Hamilton got kicked to the wayside. We had some really high picks, but based on your own interpretation of 'generational'....2 for 22. I'll go 3 for 22. And we've already discussed, ad nauseum, the Bruins drafting ability. It's within a reasonable margin of error to everyone elses. Double that number...triple it !!! Fact is, there's no sensible way you can hoard enough picks, within any sense of reason..over a short period of years...to have a high chance at greatness. A cap league...by design, is tailor fitted to the visionaries. you can't reasonably plan on a superstar, and if you;'re lucky enough to get one, he'll hamstring you with cap by the time you fill out the rest of your roster. the draft is really important, but putting too many eggs in one basket, is rarely a good idea in anything. A cap league, unlike uncapped, guarantees the possibility of winning by a committee of 20, 4 mil players, vs 4 @12 mil and 16 @ 500 grand.(exaggerated example) We have to get back in the top 2 rounds, no question, but doing something to create additional picks, with what this team has to offer, has an incredibly high percentage of working against the preferred dream. Whoa --- that's Bookboy length! Read it at my phone but got lost in the sheer length of the rant so had to come back to it. First of all --- sorry for calling your point stupid. If you took it personally, I apologize. As for the rest of it, I'm going to try not to go point by point and make this an episode of law and order. It seems perhaps we are talking past each other and arguing different things and maybe that's why I don't agree with pretty much anything you say, and you seem to be offended by my counterpoints. Taking it back to the beginning, this was a thread about "bold and fearless predictions", so I took a shot and put out that if we fall out of the race, we make trades to get back into the draft selling a 35+ winger and a redundant Vezina level goalie to restock and make a fast retool to get back to contention (not unlike what happened when Sweeney first took over). Let's now remember for the rest of this that was based on the Thread purpose, which is to make a BOLD and FEARLESS prediction (i.e. hyperbole). So let's calm down with your opening statement above with regards to my "clear, clinical, over-reaction to the power of the draft". Pretty sure the original point was to by hyperbolic and that's where this started. Let's also remember that you aren't even responding to a post I made in response to you, but to Bookboy, which by definition is a completely different conversation so perhaps that's why I'm so confused trying to read through this post. To be fair I did, tongue in cheek, make reference to your opinion on the value of draft picks which I'm guessing is the triggering offense here. As for the literary dishonesty, besides sed tongue in cheek comment regarding your opinion on draft picks I have no idea what you are talking about. We can have differing opinions on whether Coyle can be part of "part of the next great heist" (your words) without either of us being dishonest. You think he can, I made a point that in my opinion there's no way that happens because Coyle is a well paid above average 3rd line center, and we need top 6 centers. I consider your yearly allocation of draft picks to be "free assets" that can then be managed to the betterment of the team whether that's to develop them for your own team, trade them as picks, or trade them as players. You made a case that Zboril is expensive, and then compared him to Forbort who costs 3X as much in cap hit. I don't understand that, but I also don't need to debate it any further. You compared the draft to the roulette wheel and said you'd prefer we leverage "hockey acumen" rather than the draft to stay competitive, which to me implies that FA signings, deadline deals, and trades are your preferred methods vs. the roulette table. I countered with what I thought was a pretty well structured argument about asset management and how it relates to the "roster efficiency" argument that you yourself brought up. I had thought I was pulling the points together and giving a framework to think about it in by segmenting players in terms of the relative efficiency which I defined as pay vs. play. The list goes on and on, but at this point, I can't even follow your post above because I have no idea what you are arguing at this point and don't have the hours to attempt to piece it all together. Apparently Pasta hasn't been a bargain. Chara wasn't really our highest paid player for most of his career. Roulette also takes tons of skill and acumen, and being a successful GM is about being a "visionary" and not about smart asset management like I was trying to say --- by making the point that players at different stages of their careers have different profiles in terms of roster "efficiency". As for the Bruins teams of the 70's, I wasn't alive to follow them so I have no comment or opinion to share there. Anyways, I thought I was trying to play your game in terms of thinking of roster building in terms of roster efficiency and somehow I've offended you enough to write a book(boy). At this point I'm good to agree to disagree. Sorry for calling your idea that trading away a 36 year old winger and a redundant goalie was gutting the team stupid. What I meant was that I respectfully disagree that would be gutting the team. To me it would be smart asset management which I thought was the topic of conversation. Now I'm just confused. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Sept 22, 2023 13:40:16 GMT
Been awhile since the colorful magic markers came out. Thata boy illustrate!
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 22, 2023 14:56:38 GMT
Doesn't counter your point, but I don't think the Bruins or the Oilers would have gotten the same haul for hall or anything sexy for Segzy compare to the Lindros deal. Lindros went to the Olympics for Canada before he was drafted and was second on the team in scoring. He was "the Next One" - a player so far ahead of the rest of his draft class in people's eyes that if you went back in time and told knowledgeable hockey people that Jagr was going to have more than twice as many points and play twice as long, they'd have kicked you. I would love to see someone auction off a Bedard-level pick, and I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see it. When Chiarelli traded Segzy, it was shocking because you just didn't see teams trade young players drafted that high before they were UFA flight risks. Now you see it...maybe not often...but young stars get moved before the age of 25 no matter where they were drafted. Now that the market has shifted to teams expecting to pay full freight once a superstar young player is off his ELC, some of the bloom is off the idea that you leverage your collectively bargained control. I want to see it because I think Peter Forsberg and the multiple rings in Colorado mean we may never see a return like that again for any player. In some measure, that trade is a contributing factor the Flyers being a largely irrelevant franchise since Lindros left due to concussions. That and trying to rush a build. I suppose Chicago did more or less the same thing to themselves in a way, shedding a bunch of bona fide NHL players primarily to get Bedard. But it would be interesting to see what teams would have offered for Bedard. Could be a fun game to speculate what franchises might have been willing to put on the table. I offered Drysaddle and Oettinger and bam!, deal done. Other GMs have told reporters that they were not made aware that the right to draft Bedard was available and said they would "definitely" have made a stronger offer than the one from Superteam Butterface. Called the SDB GM "O'Connell-like".... |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 22, 2023 15:29:10 GMT
Doesn't counter your point, but I don't think the Bruins or the Oilers would have gotten the same haul for hall or anything sexy for Segzy compare to the Lindros deal. Lindros went to the Olympics for Canada before he was drafted and was second on the team in scoring. He was "the Next One" - a player so far ahead of the rest of his draft class in people's eyes that if you went back in time and told knowledgeable hockey people that Jagr was going to have more than twice as many points and play twice as long, they'd have kicked you. I would love to see someone auction off a Bedard-level pick, and I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see it. When Chiarelli traded Segzy, it was shocking because you just didn't see teams trade young players drafted that high before they were UFA flight risks. Now you see it...maybe not often...but young stars get moved before the age of 25 no matter where they were drafted. Now that the market has shifted to teams expecting to pay full freight once a superstar young player is off his ELC, some of the bloom is off the idea that you leverage your collectively bargained control. I want to see it because I think Peter Forsberg and the multiple rings in Colorado mean we may never see a return like that again for any player. In some measure, that trade is a contributing factor the Flyers being a largely irrelevant franchise since Lindros left due to concussions. That and trying to rush a build. I suppose Chicago did more or less the same thing to themselves in a way, shedding a bunch of bona fide NHL players primarily to get Bedard. But it would be interesting to see what teams would have offered for Bedard. Could be a fun game to speculate what franchises might have been willing to put on the table. yeah, agreed there's no comparable to Lindros. I mentioned Taylor/Tyler, cuz off the top of my head, can't think of many that were promoted more heavily as "the next one" in the last dozen years. In any event, I think it's reasonable to assume there's a really great chance, in about any given year, odds are overwhelming that you'll net more, by dealing your 7th overall than keeping him...if you're really shrewd. Two recent examples of top ten picks being traded that haven't necessarily borne out for either side, or at least not yet. These are cases where the number of the pick was known at the time of the trade. Horvat was 9th overall in Vancouver after the Canucks dealt Schneider to the Devils to be the heir to Martin Brodeur. Schneider was great for three years, but it didn't really help the Devils at all; they missed the playoffs every year he was good, and the only year they made it in, he'd started his steep decline. Horvat became Vancouver's captain and scored over 200 goals and 400 points in 9 seasons - nice, but mostly second line numbers. Vancouver made one long playoff run, but was mostly a non-playoff team for his entire tenure there. He topped 60 points once, and only topped 30 in the last two years. Vancouver traded him for a prospect who was a mid-second rounder, a former first rounder who has never really popped in Beauvillier, and a first rounder (#17) that Vancouver moved to Detroit to acquire Filip Hronek. So the Devils got three years of high level starting goaltending for a non-playoff team instead of drafting Horvat. You could argue it's a push for the Devils given that Horvat would have been among the leading scorers on an offensively weak Devils team pretty soon after being drafted, but he also might have effed up them drafting Hischier and Hughes. Schneider declined quickly, too, and you can't really hold that against the Devils. Vancouver was a clear win given that they didn't need Schneider and Luongo at the time. Second one, more recent, is Debrincat for #7. Hawks are high on the kid they took with the pick, but the Senators traded for a win now player who was pretty blase for them. DeBrincat had his lowest goal total for a full season in his career, and had almost half of his points on the PP but just 16 ES goals and 36 ES points. Trent Frederic had 17 ES goals and 30 ES points. Top it off with the Senators not being able to sign the kid. They now have Kubalik (a former 7th round pick) as the main NHL asset from that trade, a prospect in Sebrango who was an ECHL player last year, and a pick they don't get to use until the 2024 season. Not great results in any of these cases, really. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Sept 23, 2023 9:53:05 GMT
I offered Drysaddle and Oettinger and bam!, deal done. Other GMs have told reporters that they were not made aware that the right to draft Bedard was available and said they would "definitely" have made a stronger offer than the one from Superteam Butterface. Called the SDB GM "O'Connell-like".... Always late to the party. Thinking ahead and a great package gets ButtahFace the Supa Midget. |
|
|
|
Post by 4everbruin on Sept 23, 2023 22:45:03 GMT
Incredible year last year until the playoffs (didn't see that one coming!). With all the changes for the 23/24 roster, I see the Bruins being mediocre at best. Could be a while before we see another team like last years.
|
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Sept 24, 2023 0:26:41 GMT
I offered Drysaddle and Oettinger and bam!, deal done. Other GMs have told reporters that they were not made aware that the right to draft Bedard was available and said they would "definitely" have made a stronger offer than the one from Superteam Butterface. Called the SDB GM "O'Connell-like".... I am certainly bewildered that "other GMs" did not know. Media buzzzz. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 24, 2023 13:03:09 GMT
Other GMs have told reporters that they were not made aware that the right to draft Bedard was available and said they would "definitely" have made a stronger offer than the one from Superteam Butterface. Called the SDB GM "O'Connell-like".... Always late to the party. Thinking ahead and a great package gets ButtahFace the Supa Midget. I thought "O'Connell-like" would have made this a dead giveaway.... |
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Sept 24, 2023 14:08:17 GMT
Incredible year last year until the playoffs (didn't see that one coming!). With all the changes for the 23/24 roster, I see the Bruins being mediocre at best. Could be a while before we see another team like last years. After the sh!tshow the B’S displayed against Tkachump and the Cheshire Cats, it didn’t take me long to forget the regular season…. Hope to never see that Jekyll and Hyde transformation ever again…. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Sept 24, 2023 15:11:38 GMT
Always late to the party. Thinking ahead and a great package gets ButtahFace the Supa Midget. I thought "O'Connell-like" would have made this a dead giveaway.... You just wait n see. I'm gonna draft players like Krejci and Bergeron right before I get fired. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 24, 2023 23:25:43 GMT
I thought "O'Connell-like" would have made this a dead giveaway.... You just wait n see. I'm gonna draft players like Krejci and Bergeron right before I get fired. And then your punishment will be a cushy gig in LA. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Markwart on Sept 27, 2023 13:23:16 GMT
Bruins make the playoffs with the worst record possible since this new playoff format started. Then they go on a historic playoff run winning 16 straight games. The complete reverse from last year. One of the games won is a 7-6 overtime thriller versus Florida but both Montour and Tkachuk get hat tricks for good measure.
Zacha and Coyle then retire and Donnie brings in a few more left wingers. The Linus-Sway hug turns into a rubbing of butts that Jack enjoys much to Brick's dismay.
|
|
