You needed to sign another goalie either way though. No one in their right mind would have played Swayman in 80% of the game.s.
Who said that Swayman is going to play 80% of the games? This is as about as honest as suggesting that I hate Ullmark because I think that the money could have been spent better elsewhere, and that the term and NMC are bad. Come on, man.
That's not how the NHL works anymore and he's legitimately never in his life had that kind of workload. All the other good (ok) goalies signed for similar money (mostly shorter term because their warts were MUCH bigger) and the presence of Rask would have necessitated a NMC for anyone who would sign here. Ullmark is a pretty good goalie though so I don't really get why you don't like it.
I’ve literally explained it three times. Your response every time is “but he’s a good goalie and you want a good goalie.” You could have brought back Halak for half (a third? Not sure if I’m reading the hit right) the cap hit, a better save percentage in two of the past three years, and a better current understanding of the Bruins system.
And me bringing up how much money they had a center meant that last year they had Charlie Coyle coming off of a pretty good year signed for 5 years and Krejci and bergeron for 1 and 2 more years respectively. They didn't have the spot for a center last year and addressing it would have required them to move one of them and cup contending teams don't do things like that.
You also could have played Coyle on the fourth line or at right wing depending on what else you had. The rest of the roster spots don’t disappear or require you to ship Krecji or Bergeron out.
Coming into the year the Bruins had the best forward group in the NHL in all the preseason models. The bottom 6 regressed significantly and become a weakness, but saying the move was to solve this years problem last year is hindsight of the highest order.
Again, please stop misrepresenting what I’ve been saying. I said that it was another time when they could have looked to solve it (the shine wasn’t 100% off some of their other players at that point, either—moving on from DeBrusk possibly could have helped in a trade) given the decidedly unsecret age of their two top centers. I didn’t say that they had to do then; we’ve also talked about an option for doing so this past offseason. There’s literally no hindsight associated with looking at Krecji’s and Bergeron’s birth certificates and contract term.
It's really not a true statement that Charlie's contract is shitty. He signed for his age 28-33 seasons after this progression.
View attachment 46365
That knee injury tanked his value. but coming into last season, he was a 75th percentile player on the third line.
Unfortunately, the plan with the signing was obviously for him to play second line center—without Bergeron and Krecji blocking tough matchups for him—for much of the deal.
Also your analogy lacks context of the league around them and the Bruins organization. There simply ARENT young players that we could have comfortably slotted into the bottom 6 and expected them to be even replacement level. Providence has 2-3 potential NHLers but that's about it. The cupboard is bare. It also misses the point that there are no options available for just money. Not last offseason.
We’ve literally been talking about one, and your response is, “But I don’t like that deal because of the term.”
Which is fine. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. It’s just a very different thing than, “There were no options available for just money.”
Not the one before. Not this upcoming offseason. The bruins put themselves in a position to either start a restocking/rebuilding this offseason or try to fill in the bottom 6 through UFA and try to make one last run with Bergeron as 1C. They chose the latter. Through 11 games it doesn't appear to be working out but to say "they should have addressed it!!!" just tells me you weren't paying attention to the marketplace in the offseason and don't have much of a sense of the upcoming market either.
I don't really get why you're trying to make an argument around concepts and philosophy when people are rebutting your very specific commentary on the player moves they made.
Because your argument in connection with the very specific player we are discussing is that you don’t like the term and then a mish mash of poorly conceived philosophical justifications and fake roster squeezes or spending based on average spending at positions and ignoring the fact that they literally don’t matter.
Your specific arguments are fine. I guess I don’t understand why you’re trying to justify them with broader philosophy that feels so half baked. I feel like those can’t be your real reasons, but they’re sort of numbery, so you feel like they’re helpful?
Here’s a spitball of what this year’s forwards could have looked like, just changing FA signings:
Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak
Hall, Danault, Coyle
DeBrusk, Studnicka, Smith
Nosek, Frederic (or switch them), Lazar / Kuhlman
Does that track?
And again, I’m fine with your term argument on Danault. Completely reasonable in a vacuum (and he just might have preferred LA! Another perfectly legitimate possibility). But it’s also completely at cross purposes with the apparent goal of taking one more real swing at it with Bergeron as 1C.