|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 13, 2024 22:35:45 GMT
If Kempe was involved, B’S would be sending more than just Linus…. Nobody said it was a one for one, just that Kempe' was part of the deal & could've possibly been the reason Donnie approached Linus to begin with. Had to have been a good offer. Probably gets done right after the end of the SCFs.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 14, 2024 1:40:10 GMT
Nobody said it was a one for one, just that Kempe' was part of the deal & could've possibly been the reason Donnie approached Linus to begin with. Had to have been a good offer. Probably gets done right after the end of the SCFs. I am hoping after the parade. But if that happens, maybe no trade.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Mar 14, 2024 7:07:35 GMT
I think it's a mixture - a coach being too soft or weak or indecisive (they should have given him the "Hamlet Award" instead of the Adams), a goalie being too eager to play, a centerman/team captain being too eager to come back from a bad injury. Danny is right that a case can be made that the team didn't need Bergie, after they had won both road games without him. And yes, Ullmark & "old reliable" Matt Graesslich screwed up big time in game 5. I seem to recall that there was more than a little debbie downerism going into the two games without Bergeron or DK. And they did fine, but that was hardly taken as evidence they didn't need thise two. I should have qualified my post - "the team didn't need an injured Bergie".
|
|
|
Post by fiberglassmask on Mar 14, 2024 12:24:23 GMT
I think it's a mixture - a coach being too soft or weak or indecisive (they should have given him the "Hamlet Award" instead of the Adams), a goalie being too eager to play, a centerman/team captain being too eager to come back from a bad injury. Danny is right that a case can be made that the team didn't need Bergie, after they had won both road games without him. And yes, Ullmark & "old reliable" Matt Graesslich screwed up big time in game 5. I seem to recall that there was more than a little debbie downerism going into the two games without Bergeron or DK. And they did fine, but that was hardly taken as evidence they didn't need thise two. I think it’s really easy , with 20/20 hindsight, to say after they lost that maybe Bergie shouldn’t have played. But as was said, what Coach in his right mind would not dress #37 if he wanted in? Worst case scenario, you limit his ice time accordingly. Would you not have dressed Chara in ‘19? The problem here is this team, kinda under Cassidy and very much under Monty, is a bit weak/lazy mentally . They take games off. They squeeze their sticks when the going gets rough. And they 100% are the types that would say, “oh Bergy’s back, PRESSURE’S OFF. I believe that’s what happened. That and using Ullmark was flat out stupid no matter what he or Goalie Bob had to say. I was all for riding Ullmark at the beginning. But he proved he didn’t have it for whatever reason… THATS WHEN YOU MAKE A SWITCH WHEN YOU HAVE A VALID REPLACEMENT. I’m sorry, I liked the Monty hire but the more I see him the less I like it.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 14, 2024 16:41:30 GMT
I seem to recall that there was more than a little debbie downerism going into the two games without Bergeron or DK. And they did fine, but that was hardly taken as evidence they didn't need thise two. I think it’s really easy , with 20/20 hindsight, to say after they lost that maybe Bergie shouldn’t have played. But as was said, what Coach in his right mind would not dress #37 if he wanted in? Worst case scenario, you limit his ice time accordingly. Would you not have dressed Chara in ‘19? The problem here is this team, kinda under Cassidy and very much under Monty, is a bit weak/lazy mentally . They take games off. They squeeze their sticks when the going gets rough. And they 100% are the types that would say, “oh Bergy’s back, PRESSURE’S OFF. I believe that’s what happened. That and using Ullmark was flat out stupid no matter what he or Goalie Bob had to say. I was all for riding Ullmark at the beginning. But he proved he didn’t have it for whatever reason… THATS WHEN YOU MAKE A SWITCH WHEN YOU HAVE A VALID REPLACEMENT. I’m sorry, I liked the Monty hire but the more I see him the less I like it. Exactly. It is always a calculus of "is the team better with star player x at 75% than his replacement at 100% Often that is complicated by guys playing out of their role or above their usual competence and you might be happy that say, Heinen, drops a hat trick with the opportunity to play up the lineup, but you can't count on it regularly. Did they overperform in Florida or was it predictable they would continue to win without the captain? I don't see any way other than hindsight to criticize the decision. You can say it went wrong but I don't think anything else was a more reasonable option.
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Mar 15, 2024 13:16:53 GMT
I think it’s really easy , with 20/20 hindsight, to say after they lost that maybe Bergie shouldn’t have played. But as was said, what Coach in his right mind would not dress #37 if he wanted in? Worst case scenario, you limit his ice time accordingly. Would you not have dressed Chara in ‘19? The problem here is this team, kinda under Cassidy and very much under Monty, is a bit weak/lazy mentally . They take games off. They squeeze their sticks when the going gets rough. And they 100% are the types that would say, “oh Bergy’s back, PRESSURE’S OFF. I believe that’s what happened. That and using Ullmark was flat out stupid no matter what he or Goalie Bob had to say. I was all for riding Ullmark at the beginning. But he proved he didn’t have it for whatever reason… THATS WHEN YOU MAKE A SWITCH WHEN YOU HAVE A VALID REPLACEMENT. I’m sorry, I liked the Monty hire but the more I see him the less I like it. Exactly. It is always a calculus of "is the team better with star player x at 75% than his replacement at 100% Often that is complicated by guys playing out of their role or above their usual competence and you might be happy that say, Heinen, drops a hat trick with the opportunity to play up the lineup, but you can't count on it regularly. Did they overperform in Florida or was it predictable they would continue to win without the captain? I don't see any way other than hindsight to criticize the decision. You can say it went wrong but I don't think anything else was a more reasonable option. Exactly book! Can you imagine what would've been said IF it came out Bergy was ready to go at 75%, didn't play & the B's still lost because they couldn't hold those late leads?! Hurlot would be the 1st in line to be bitchin'! "HOW DO YOU NOT DRESS THE BEST 200 FT PLAYER BLAH, BLAH, BITCH, MOAN, BITCH!" RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Mar 15, 2024 13:19:42 GMT
I don't know what the Kings were offering, but I heard a few times on NHL radio that Kempe' was involved. No idea if that's accurate, but that could be why Donnie talked to Ully. I've also read he was going to the Avs, Senators and Sharts, so who really knows where he was rumored to be going and for what, it's only elephant talk. The return this summer for Ullmark should be good whatever it is, picks or prospects or a combination are all good by me. I hope they ride out Ully's contract tbh!
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Mar 15, 2024 14:25:37 GMT
I've also read he was going to the Avs, Senators and Sharts, so who really knows where he was rumored to be going and for what, it's only elephant talk. The return this summer for Ullmark should be good whatever it is, picks or prospects or a combination are all good by me. I hope they ride out Ully's contract tbh! I personally wouldn't mind if they could keep both guys at reasonable salaries going forward but i don't think that will work. I think both guys want to be a bonafide #1 and rightly so and i think both guys won't want to take pay cuts to stay. Everyone knows the B's have to address the C position going forward and trading a goalie is the way to do it. Whether they can get a good young C back in trade remains to be seen but the b's should get a good return nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Mar 15, 2024 15:01:43 GMT
I've also read he was going to the Avs, Senators and Sharts, so who really knows where he was rumored to be going and for what, it's only elephant talk. The return this summer for Ullmark should be good whatever it is, picks or prospects or a combination are all good by me. I hope they ride out Ully's contract tbh! And let him walk for nothing? A decision between the duo will be made this off-season…. And the only way Linus remains is if Jay Sway’s asking for the moon…. Or if Donnie receives a trade offer he absolutely can’t refuse….
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 15:18:04 GMT
I hope they ride out Ully's contract tbh! I personally wouldn't mind if they could keep both guys at reasonable salaries going forward but i don't think that will work. I think both guys want to be a bonafide #1 and rightly so and i think both guys won't want to take pay cuts to stay. Everyone knows the B's have to address the C position going forward and trading a goalie is the way to do it. Whether they can get a good young C back in trade remains to be seen but the b's should get a good return nonetheless. If the first part of the bold is true, then there's not much more to say. Someone has to move, and for a host of reasons, it's not going to be Swayman. It could be, and you might even find reasons to think it should be, but it won't be because there are too many complications in terms of contract status etc. But I don't know...I wonder what they'd say if you said the choice was stay here on a competitive team and be the best tandem in hockey for the next half decade or, for the same money, go elsewhere and maybe play behind a swiss cheese defense but be the unquestioned #1? Because a lot of the teams that don't have goaltending don't have the Cap to pay either of them to be their #1s long term. They've all made other choices. I don't know that pay cuts or hometown discounts are even necessary, though. I keep coming back to 12M against a Cap that will be $92M when Ullmark's deal expires is the same percentage of Cap space dedicated to goal as Tuukka at $7M and a $1M backup. From the Bruins perspective, I think the path forward should be heavily dependent on the next few months. If a team built like this one is built - goal, then blueline, then an elite goalscorer and then a lot of size and structure up front - can go deep in the playoffs or win a Cup, then you keep the build and the goalies are the core of that. If not, if they flame out again, then you have to make a change and I don't think you can unless you start by using Ullmark and his cap space as moveable assets.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 15:18:38 GMT
I hope they ride out Ully's contract tbh! And let him walk for nothing? A decision between the duo will be made this off-season…. And the only way Linus remains is if Jay Sway’s asking for the moon…. Or if Donnie receives a trade offer he absolutely can’t refuse…. Sure. They got him for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Mar 15, 2024 15:42:16 GMT
I personally wouldn't mind if they could keep both guys at reasonable salaries going forward but i don't think that will work. I think both guys want to be a bonafide #1 and rightly so and i think both guys won't want to take pay cuts to stay. Everyone knows the B's have to address the C position going forward and trading a goalie is the way to do it. Whether they can get a good young C back in trade remains to be seen but the b's should get a good return nonetheless. If the first part of the bold is true, then there's not much more to say. Someone has to move, and for a host of reasons, it's not going to be Swayman. It could be, and you might even find reasons to think it should be, but it won't be because there are too many complications in terms of contract status etc. But I don't know...I wonder what they'd say if you said the choice was stay here on a competitive team and be the best tandem in hockey for the next half decade or, for the same money, go elsewhere and maybe play behind a swiss cheese defense but be the unquestioned #1? Because a lot of the teams that don't have goaltending don't have the Cap to pay either of them to be their #1s long term. They've all made other choices. I don't know that pay cuts or hometown discounts are even necessary, though. I keep coming back to 12M against a Cap that will be $92M when Ullmark's deal expires is the same percentage of Cap space dedicated to goal as Tuukka at $7M and a $1M backup. From the Bruins perspective, I think the path forward should be heavily dependent on the next few months. If a team built like this one is built - goal, then blueline, then an elite goalscorer and then a lot of size and structure up front - can go deep in the playoffs or win a Cup, then you keep the build and the goalies are the core of that. If not, if they flame out again, then you have to make a change and I don't think you can unless you start by using Ullmark and his cap space as moveable assets. That's another reason why I'm glad Ully stayed. "They" are the main cog for this team moreso than any other season they've been together. I wanted to see how they fare in the post season with the hope that JM keeps his word & uses BOTH guys in the post season. Then, depending on how that plays out Donnie & Cam can come up with the game plan going forward. I know you're also taking a chance that if BOTH guys falter. That could downgrade their value in a deal, but that's the chance I wanted them to take. I honestly think that the days of having a "workhorse" in goal is going away. How many true workhorses are truly there now? Helly, Vasil, Demko, Bobo, Shershkin? Sorokin & Ott are unknowns because since Ott has been pushed to be a # 1 his play hasn't been the greatest. Sorokin also seems to wear out when used too much & needs Varly to play his share in order for Sorokin to be his best. Swayman & Ully I think are better playing in that 40-45 range & I don't see that changing.
|
|
|
Post by fifthline on Mar 15, 2024 15:56:00 GMT
1 Management just tried to trade Ullmark, so they’re going to try to do it again come Cup, cap relief or high water. 2. Don’t they have two up and coming goalies in the system they have to use or lose?
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Mar 15, 2024 15:57:04 GMT
And let him walk for nothing? A decision between the duo will be made this off-season…. And the only way Linus remains is if Jay Sway’s asking for the moon…. Or if Donnie receives a trade offer he absolutely can’t refuse…. Sure. They got him for nothing. I find getting something for something that cost you nothing is even better….
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Mar 15, 2024 16:07:56 GMT
1 Management just tried to trade Ullmark, so they’re going to try to do it again come Cup, cap relief or high water. 2. Don’t they have two up and coming goalies in the system they have to use or lose? Don’t think Donnie was looking to move Linus unless it was making the B’S better heading into the playoffs, and in case the injury bug is going to bite again this Spring…. And if it does, let’s hope Monty makes better decisions to this around…. That said, once this season’s done, one of the duo will be going elsewhere…. And if the best deal is for Linus, I’m pretty sure that Donnie’s even willing to pay Linus to go to a destination not on his wish list….
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 15, 2024 16:27:12 GMT
1 Management just tried to trade Ullmark, so they’re going to try to do it again come Cup, cap relief or high water. 2. Don’t they have two up and coming goalies in the system they have to use or lose? Yup and Bussis play in the AHL is equal to if not better than Swaymans AHL play. For a big goalie Bussi moves really well. An advantage he has over Swayman at the same stages of there AHL career.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 17:31:20 GMT
1 Management just tried to trade Ullmark, so they’re going to try to do it again come Cup, cap relief or high water. 2. Don’t they have two up and coming goalies in the system they have to use or lose? 1. We don't know that management tried to trade Ullmark, but we do know Sweeney said after the deadline that he's happy they didn't. We don't know if someone just came to the Bruins with a deal they couldn't refuse or if they told teams that they'd move him for the right price or if they are feeling like they have to move him and so will take the best available offer in the summer. If they simply wanted him off the books, I have no doubt they could have found someone who wasn't on his no trade. And as I've said before, if you take this build and win a Cup with it, what's the rationale for moving one of arguably your three or four best players just because he shares a position with one of the other 3-4 best players? 2. I hate that argument, just on principle. You have prospects in the system who you hope might be NHL stars someday...so get rid of the guy who is already what you hope they might be to give them that chance to fail? The only way that makes sense is if you need the Cap space elsewhere or if you're moving the established player for a strong return that bolsters your roster elsewhere. And you do that anyway; the kids in the minors is just a nice mitigation that allows you to say you traded from a position of strength. 2.a. The top goalie prospects in the A for the Bruins are 25 and 24, not 19-20. They hit UFA in a year or two. That matters on two fronts. One is that they have had several years to force their way into a position where they're either pushing for an NHL job or in demand from teams needing a goalie, and they haven't. Bussi is in his third year now, and has yet to get a single NHL minute. DiPietro played three games with Vancouver and has Malcolm Subbanesque stats. I am as hopeful as the next guy, but these are not sure thing players who are driving the reigning Vez winner to the airport. And the second is that if you call them up and give them 35 games next year, and they excel, you're likely in the position of having to pay them more than $1M or lose them as UFA anyway. Or trade them. Because every NHL player without a contract is a UFA at age 27. I don't get why everyone is sold on wanting to move Ullmark now. It makes sense in the context of seeing them as limited by the lack of a top C, and Ullmark being a valuable chip to acquire one, and I'm not against moving him to acquire a significant piece for another part of the roster...but the argument about them needing a centre has to take a hit with every game that goes by and they continue to be the second best team in the NHL. Right? At very least, it can't be "they're screwed if they don't get a C" rather than "they get the right #1C and they could be even more dangerous." And yes, playoffs are the only proving ground any of us cares about after last year, so...let's see what happens in the playoffs. It's not inconceivable that they rotate goalies, win a lot of close games with good defense, garbage goals and Pastrnak, and make a serious run that puts an end to the "need a centre" story the same way the Cup in 2011 finally killed "they need a snipah!"
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 17:38:00 GMT
1 Management just tried to trade Ullmark, so they’re going to try to do it again come Cup, cap relief or high water. 2. Don’t they have two up and coming goalies in the system they have to use or lose? Yup and Bussis play in the AHL is equal to if not better than Swaymans AHL play. For a big goalie Bussi moves really well. An advantage he has over Swayman at the same stages of there AHL career. Sure, but isn't that a bit of a false comparison? Bussi is five months older than Swayman and still in the AHL never having played an NHL game. They even signed and played veteran journeyman Kinkaid ahead of him. Not disputing that he is now better in the A than Swayman was as a 22 yr old in the A; just pointing out that he's had three more years to develop his game than Swayman had had, and that matters if you're suggesting he has as much talent and growth potential.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 17:53:31 GMT
Sure. They got him for nothing. I find getting something for something that cost you nothing is even better…. Depends, because in "getting something" you now ARE giving something up. You're trading a Vezina calibre goalie who, over his 2.8 years in Boston, has the best save percentage of any NHL goalie with more than 10 games played, is tied for best GAA, and tied for first in goals for. What's a year of that worth? I think it's worth a lot and you don't give it up just for "something". And that "something" also needs to be better than $5M in cap, which is also what you get if Ullmark walks as a UFA. I like both of those options better than making a Taylor Hall to Boston type of trade or Tarastinko to the Cats for a couple of mid-round picks. As long as the Bruins are a playoff team because of their goaltending tandem, I am not screwing with it just because it used to be bad to lose FAs when you could have traded them.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Mar 15, 2024 19:25:13 GMT
Put it this way, i don't think Sweeney is trading Ullmark just to get rid of him nor will he trade him for peanuts. I think he won't be able to refuse the offer or one of the offers he gets. The B's need to replenish their draft pick options and maybe they will get a player thrown in with the return. If all Donnie receives are crappy offers then hold on to Ullmark until the trade deadline or keep for his contract duration. One thing is clear, the Bruins are in the drivers seat in whichever route they take.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 15, 2024 20:05:27 GMT
Yup and Bussis play in the AHL is equal to if not better than Swaymans AHL play. For a big goalie Bussi moves really well. An advantage he has over Swayman at the same stages of there AHL career. Sure, but isn't that a bit of a false comparison? Bussi is five months older than Swayman and still in the AHL never having played an NHL game. They even signed and played veteran journeyman Kinkaid ahead of him. Not disputing that he is now better in the A than Swayman was as a 22 yr old in the A; just pointing out that he's had three more years to develop his game than Swayman had had, and that matters if you're suggesting he has as much talent and growth potential. Age has absolutely ZERO to do with Bussi being next in line to crack the goalie lineup. What's important is that for 2 years Bussi has proved his worth, up the Bruins goalie ladder, as did Swayman in the AHL. Bussi will be under good contract control for years as Swayman is the #1. That gives Boston money to do more throughout the roster. And Bussi is home grown in the Bruins system. I don't care how old Swayman was when he came ul and I won't when Bussi makes his way to Boston. Irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 15, 2024 20:07:54 GMT
I hope they ride out Ully's contract tbh! And let him walk for nothing? A decision between the duo will be made this off-season…. And the only way Linus remains is if Jay Sway’s asking for the moon…. Or if Donnie receives a trade offer he absolutely can’t refuse…. And other GMs know now Sweeney will move Ullmark with the right offer. I can guarantee at least that Sweeney doesn't want start the 2024 draft waiting until the 3rd round. Sure he's sick of doing that.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 21:26:34 GMT
Sure, but isn't that a bit of a false comparison? Bussi is five months older than Swayman and still in the AHL never having played an NHL game. They even signed and played veteran journeyman Kinkaid ahead of him. Not disputing that he is now better in the A than Swayman was as a 22 yr old in the A; just pointing out that he's had three more years to develop his game than Swayman had had, and that matters if you're suggesting he has as much talent and growth potential. Age has absolutely ZERO to do with Bussi being next in line to crack the goalie lineup. What's important is that for 2 years Bussi has proved his worth, up the Bruins goalie ladder, as did Swayman in the AHL. Bussi will be under good contract control for years as Swayman is the #1. That gives Boston money to do more throughout the roster. And Bussi is home grown in the Bruins system. I don't care how old Swayman was when he came ul and I won't when Bussi makes his way to Boston. Irrelevant. I think you're missing my point, and I think you are massively over-stating a few things. And I am not here to hate on Bussi. If they do trade Ullmark for a good return, I'll be pulling for him. I just think it's ass-backwards to move Ullmark just to make room for an AHL star. Jeremy Swayman did not spend 2 years proving his worth in the AHL. Jeremy Swayman played a grand total of 14 AHL games over two season. He has never played more games in the A than in the NHL in any season of his career. Jeremy Swayman proved himself in the NHL. When Swayman was in the A, he was statistically better than Bussi has been. In year one, as a 21 yr old, he played 9 games, went 8-1, had a .933s% and a 1.89 GAA; year 2, 5 games, 3-2, 2.18 GAA and .911 s%. Bussi was 5 games, 3-2, .920 and 2.54; 32 games, 22-5-4, .924 and 2.40; and this season he's 32, 18-9-3, .912 and 2.63. But comparing the two statistically probably doesn't mean much because Swayman's games played is almost too few to mean much statistically. What does matter to me is that Swayman came out of the NCAA already NHL ready at 21; so saying that Bussi's extra 4 years of development to get to someplace similar doesn't matter seems like you're reaching. Swayman got a chance to play in the NHL and was so good they didn't send him down again and basically mothballed Halak. Bussi hasn't been able to get a game yet even though both Ullmark and Swayman have missed stretches due to injury. Age matters because there is no scenario that avoids the fact Bussi is not under control after his next contract. He'll be a UFA after his next deal because he'll be over 27, so no, they will not have him under good control to create cap space for years. Unless his agent is a moron, Bussi is not signing anything longer than maybe a 2 year deal on the promise of being Swayman's backup in Boston. He probably wants a one year deal to prove himself and then follow the money. The Bruins, if they trade Ullmark, will want to lock him up for two. If they want him for longer, they'll have to pay more than typical rookie backup money. If he's good, he'll want a lot more. Boston will not have a lot of leverage with him. He's RFA, and as you say, he has proven himself to be a very good AHL goalie. His numbers over the last two years are close to, but not as good as Dustin Wolf (and Wolf is struggling as an NHL goalie, though, with just an .892s% through 8 starts). If Boston says they aren't going to sign him for fewer than 4 years (to pick a longer term), and they want to hold the line at $1.2M or something, Bussi can shop himself and take the best one year from anyone else in the league. Boston could then match to keep him, but he's a UFA after that. The Bruins can only force him to take low pay for post UFA age years if no other team is at all interested, and with the lack of goalies out there, that's not going to happen. So either you pay Bussi something over $2M at minimum - and more the longer you want to have him under contract - or you're at risk of losing him as a UFA at the same time as Ullmark goes to UFA.
|
|
|
Post by fifthline on Mar 15, 2024 21:36:21 GMT
1 Management just tried to trade Ullmark, so they’re going to try to do it again come Cup, cap relief or high water. 2. Don’t they have two up and coming goalies in the system they have to use or lose? 1. We don't know that management tried to trade Ullmark, but we do know Sweeney said after the deadline that he's happy they didn't. We don't know if someone just came to the Bruins with a deal they couldn't refuse or if they told teams that they'd move him for the right price or if they are feeling like they have to move him and so will take the best available offer in the summer. If they simply wanted him off the books, I have no doubt they could have found someone who wasn't on his no trade. And as I've said before, if you take this build and win a Cup with it, what's the rationale for moving one of arguably your three or four best players just because he shares a position with one of the other 3-4 best players? 2. I hate that argument, just on principle. You have prospects in the system who you hope might be NHL stars someday...so get rid of the guy who is already what you hope they might be to give them that chance to fail? The only way that makes sense is if you need the Cap space elsewhere or if you're moving the established player for a strong return that bolsters your roster elsewhere. And you do that anyway; the kids in the minors is just a nice mitigation that allows you to say you traded from a position of strength. 2.a. The top goalie prospects in the A for the Bruins are 25 and 24, not 19-20. They hit UFA in a year or two. That matters on two fronts. One is that they have had several years to force their way into a position where they're either pushing for an NHL job or in demand from teams needing a goalie, and they haven't. Bussi is in his third year now, and has yet to get a single NHL minute. DiPietro played three games with Vancouver and has Malcolm Subbanesque stats. I am as hopeful as the next guy, but these are not sure thing players who are driving the reigning Vez winner to the airport. And the second is that if you call them up and give them 35 games next year, and they excel, you're likely in the position of having to pay them more than $1M or lose them as UFA anyway. Or trade them. Because every NHL player without a contract is a UFA at age 27. I don't get why everyone is sold on wanting to move Ullmark now. It makes sense in the context of seeing them as limited by the lack of a top C, and Ullmark being a valuable chip to acquire one, and I'm not against moving him to acquire a significant piece for another part of the roster...but the argument about them needing a centre has to take a hit with every game that goes by and they continue to be the second best team in the NHL. Right? At very least, it can't be "they're screwed if they don't get a C" rather than "they get the right #1C and they could be even more dangerous." And yes, playoffs are the only proving ground any of us cares about after last year, so...let's see what happens in the playoffs. It's not inconceivable that they rotate goalies, win a lot of close games with good defense, garbage goals and Pastrnak, and make a serious run that puts an end to the "need a centre" story the same way the Cup in 2011 finally killed "they need a snipah!" 1b I believe the reporting they had a deal that Ullbaby nixed. 2a money is the reason. They got rid of Krug and kept Gryz hoping he’d become Krug. Proves your point that hope isn’t actual future outcomes but management jettisons higher priced talent guys hoping new cheaper guys are as good as part of th heir job. 2b or not 2b. I’m all for keeping Ullbaby long term and moving Sway if the haul is good enough - Pettersson, Draisatl
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 15, 2024 22:14:45 GMT
1. We don't know that management tried to trade Ullmark, but we do know Sweeney said after the deadline that he's happy they didn't. We don't know if someone just came to the Bruins with a deal they couldn't refuse or if they told teams that they'd move him for the right price or if they are feeling like they have to move him and so will take the best available offer in the summer. If they simply wanted him off the books, I have no doubt they could have found someone who wasn't on his no trade. And as I've said before, if you take this build and win a Cup with it, what's the rationale for moving one of arguably your three or four best players just because he shares a position with one of the other 3-4 best players? 2. I hate that argument, just on principle. You have prospects in the system who you hope might be NHL stars someday...so get rid of the guy who is already what you hope they might be to give them that chance to fail? The only way that makes sense is if you need the Cap space elsewhere or if you're moving the established player for a strong return that bolsters your roster elsewhere. And you do that anyway; the kids in the minors is just a nice mitigation that allows you to say you traded from a position of strength. 2.a. The top goalie prospects in the A for the Bruins are 25 and 24, not 19-20. They hit UFA in a year or two. That matters on two fronts. One is that they have had several years to force their way into a position where they're either pushing for an NHL job or in demand from teams needing a goalie, and they haven't. Bussi is in his third year now, and has yet to get a single NHL minute. DiPietro played three games with Vancouver and has Malcolm Subbanesque stats. I am as hopeful as the next guy, but these are not sure thing players who are driving the reigning Vez winner to the airport. And the second is that if you call them up and give them 35 games next year, and they excel, you're likely in the position of having to pay them more than $1M or lose them as UFA anyway. Or trade them. Because every NHL player without a contract is a UFA at age 27. I don't get why everyone is sold on wanting to move Ullmark now. It makes sense in the context of seeing them as limited by the lack of a top C, and Ullmark being a valuable chip to acquire one, and I'm not against moving him to acquire a significant piece for another part of the roster...but the argument about them needing a centre has to take a hit with every game that goes by and they continue to be the second best team in the NHL. Right? At very least, it can't be "they're screwed if they don't get a C" rather than "they get the right #1C and they could be even more dangerous." And yes, playoffs are the only proving ground any of us cares about after last year, so...let's see what happens in the playoffs. It's not inconceivable that they rotate goalies, win a lot of close games with good defense, garbage goals and Pastrnak, and make a serious run that puts an end to the "need a centre" story the same way the Cup in 2011 finally killed "they need a snipah!" 1b I believe the reporting they had a deal that Ullbaby nixed. 2a money is the reason. They got rid of Krug and kept Gryz hoping he’d become Krug. Proves your point that hope isn’t actual future outcomes but management jettisons higher priced talent guys hoping new cheaper guys are as good as part of th heir job. 2b or not 2b. I’m all for keeping Ullbaby long term and moving Sway if the haul is good enough - Pettersson, Draisatl I guess I would like to know more about whether they were pushing the deal or the partner was before I conclude that they're moving on from Ullmark. I don't think they need to create Cap space, and I haven't really seen them get cheaper to get cheaper for a while. I like the Grz/Krug lesson, but IIRC, they offered Krug the same deal he eventually took from StL but pulled it when he didn't sign it in time and then decided to move on. It wasn't a question of saving money originally. And I think it WAS reservations about Krug's game more than anything about Grz taking his role. Nobody was happy with how all of that turned out - Krug's not having a great time in StL, Grz in Boston, so neither team's super happy. I've said it before; I can't find a single statement that says they moved Krug because Grz could do the job, and I have always seen that as a fan/media driven narrative based almost solely on them both being short. They're not the same player in any way, and they weren't then. And I'm not against moving Ullmark per se. I just don't agree that it's a foregone conclusion or that they just move him for "something". Get what he's worth or ride.
|
|