Bruins Trade Rumors and News

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,468
Nope, not saying that. Our most pressing need is a scoring winger and we are not going to do a massive overpay (i.e. Carlo, 1st round pick, etc.) to facilitate that type of trade.
I completely agree with both of you on what they should do, I'm just disappointed in what I expect them to do based on their history. Which is pretend they're a depth defenseman and a bottom 6 winger away from something. They just don't seem ready to accept they need to look long term right now, not super short term.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
To me their biggest need is a backup goalie. Khudobin is terrible and Rask can't handle a 65 game pace.

I wonder what it would cost to roll the dice on a rental like Bishop. Would a 2nd rounder and a lower level prospect get it done? That would seem like a reasonable deadline deal for the Bruins to make this season.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
I agree that they need a backup G, but I think they're kinda screwed and have to ride it out with Khudobin for this season. I don't think it makes sense to pay a premium for Bishop or another G to play less than 10 games.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
I agree that they need a backup G, but I think they're kinda screwed and have to ride it out with Khudobin for this season. I don't think it makes sense to pay a premium for Bishop or another G to play less than 10 games.
Normally I'd agree but this year it seems like the easiest place to upgrade. And if they want to have a chance at going far in the playoffs, I think they need to give Rask a much lighter load the rest of the regular season.

The real question is, what's the price for a decent rental goalie? They rarely get traded at the deadline so comps are hard to find. And someone like Bishop might have enough question marks to prevent any teams from offering something unreasonable. OTOH, he has enough history and upside that a GM may be willing to do something crazy. I have absolutely no idea what the real market value is, but if it's reasonable I'd love the Bruins to be in on it
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Their goal at the deadline should be to try to move McQuaid or K. Miller off to a playoff team who could use a veteran right shot defensman.

Old friend Pete out in Edmonton could probably help out. They're pretty short on the right side.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
Normally I'd agree but this year it seems like the easiest place to upgrade. And if they want to have a chance at going far in the playoffs, I think they need to give Rask a much lighter load the rest of the regular season.

The real question is, what's the price for a decent rental goalie? They rarely get traded at the deadline so comps are hard to find. And someone like Bishop might have enough question marks to prevent any teams from offering something unreasonable. OTOH, he has enough history and upside that a GM may be willing to do something crazy. I have absolutely no idea what the real market value is, but if it's reasonable I'd love the Bruins to be in on it
The most recent comp I can think of was the Ryan Miller trade to St. Louis. That was a weird deal- Ryan Miller and Steve Ott to the Blues for Jaro Halak, Chris Stewart, William Carrier and 2 draft picks with conditions.

That is the only real trade of a starting G that I can come up with. Looking at the last 2 deadlines, the goalie trades have been:

2015- Buffalo sends Michael Neuvirth to NYI for Chad Johnson and a conditional 4th round pick.

2016- Toronto sends James Reimer (and Jeremy Morin) to SJS for Alex Stalock, Ben Smith and a conditional 2018 4th round pick.

Edmonton traded Anders Nilsson to STL for 2016 5th round pick and G Niklas Lundstrum.

My only real takeaway is that these goalie trades tend to be goalie for goalie. Maybe they could trade Khudobin to a team that has a decent UFA backup but needs a G to expose in the expansion draft.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
8,945
Brookline
As much fun as it is to speculate about trades, I'm for basically standing pat. Sure, if some wants Liles as a rental in exchange for a draft pick, do it.

Let Dobie play his 8 or 10 more games this year. I really don't see an upgrade out there that won't cost the Bruins prospects. This team is in a rebuild with a new coach. Let's stockpile prospects and think about trades next February, when the Bruins could be a much better team.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,494
The Island
This team is in a rebuild with a new coach.
See, this is where I think we differ from the FO. We here at RMPS clearly think the NHL roster is lacking and that they shouldn't be thinking about the playoffs this year. However, everything Charlie, Cam, and Don have said basically since Chiarelli was put on notice in January 2015 indicates that they think, so long as they have Chara, Bergeron, and Rask, they're a sure playoff team and, under the right circumstances, a Stanley Cup contender. Hence, why a lot of us believe the team is working against itself.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
8,945
Brookline
See, this is where I think we differ from the FO. We here at RMPS clearly think the NHL roster is lacking and that they shouldn't be thinking about the playoffs this year. However, everything Charlie, Cam, and Don have said basically since Chiarelli was put on notice in January 2015 indicates that they think, so long as they have Chara, Bergeron, and Rask, they're a sure playoff team and, under the right circumstances, a Stanley Cup contender. Hence, why a lot of us believe the team is working against itself.
Well said.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
Czarnik and Morrow assigned to Providence. Conditioning loan, in Morrow's case. Probably nothing to see here, but I wonder if this is them getting Morrow some game prior to the deadline as a showcase. I don't think he holds much value anyways, but the timing seemed curious.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,318
Boston
Zboril and Lauzon will make him irrelevant in short order, so moving him if they can get anything would be nice.
I'd even take a 7th round pick. Last year they elected not to move Khoko, I guess we will see if he ever comes back to play for Cassidy but it was a similar situation where they should consider a minor return.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
I'd even take a 7th round pick. Last year they elected not to move Khoko, I guess we will see if he ever comes back to play for Cassidy but it was a similar situation where they should consider a minor return.
This is funny because I was debating whether if I was a rival GM I would trade a 7th for Morrow. My conclusion was a no, but it was close.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,071
Tuukka's refugee camp
If you have the cap and roster space it's worth the lottery ticket. You figure he has a better shot than a 7th rounder to do something in the league so the downside risk is basically zero.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
Seems Shattenkirk is going to be the biggest name to move before the deadline. Reports got out last night that since the draft, STL has had 3 deals agreed to in principle to trade him that fell through because he turned down contract extensions with the acquiring team. Supposedly the 3 deals were Edmonton at the draft (for Hall?), Arizona early in the season, and then in the last week or 2 Tampa Bay. He reportedly turned down 7 / $42mm from the Bolts.

B's have been linked to him for years, but don't think they'll (and they shouldn't) dip their toes into this market.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
Seems Shattenkirk is going to be the biggest name to move before the deadline. Reports got out last night that since the draft, STL has had 3 deals agreed to in principle to trade him that fell through because he turned down contract extensions with the acquiring team. Supposedly the 3 deals were Edmonton at the draft (for Hall?), Arizona early in the season, and then in the last week or 2 Tampa Bay. He reportedly turned down 7 / $42mm from the Bolts.

B's have been linked to him for years, but don't think they'll (and they shouldn't) dip their toes into this market.
If Shattenkirk is muddying the water for the Blues, they may have to be willing to sell at a discount. I'd argue this is exactly the time to see what they'd be willing to take for him.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
If Shattenkirk is muddying the water for the Blues, they may have to be willing to sell at a discount. I'd argue this is exactly the time to see what they'd be willing to take for him.
The Blues ask for him as a pure rental is a 1st, good prospect and a 3rd piece. Too steep for me. The B's are around a coin flip for the playoffs at this point, so I don't think it's worth coughing up that kind of package for him. I also think F is more of a need than D, so I'd rather target help up front before looking at the D.

 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
FWIW, Friedman think's Shattenkirk's preference is NYR first, B's second. It is probably more of a free agency thing since he doesn't have a no-move, but we'll see. Seems like for 3 years now there have been Shattenkirk-to-Boston rumors. I can't see the money he's likely to get working for the B's or NYR though.

http://www.fanragsports.com/nhl/friedman-shares-perspective-scrapped-shattenkirk-trades/
I think he's always wanted to go to the NYR in free agency and that will happen if the NYR are able to sort out the $'s and cap hit.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
The Blues ask for him as a pure rental is a 1st, good prospect and a 3rd piece. Too steep for me. The B's are around a coin flip for the playoffs at this point, so I don't think it's worth coughing up that kind of package for him. I also think F is more of a need than D, so I'd rather target help up front before looking at the D.

Absolutely too high for me as well, although if you change "good prospect" to "5-10 in system", I'd probably start to consider it. Shattenkirk is a defensively responsible two way D, and - while probably not a surefire #1 D that anchors a defense - is a top pairing player. Anything that forces the B's hand to relegate someone like McQuaid to the skybox is a move I'm for.

My hope is that the Blues realize getting something is better then nothing in the offseason and that they have to bite the bullet on a 75 cent on the dollar offer.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I found this article to be very frustrating.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/bruins/2017/02/bruins_gm_don_sweeney_doesn_t_think_much_will_happen_before_wednesday_s_trade

Specifically these two quotes from Sweeney.

"There are a lot of teams that are still in the hunt. In the rental market, with the (Ron) Hainsey trade, the market has been set. The prices will be high.”

“I’m sort of doing my due diligence on which players will be available with a better understanding of what the costs are going to be."

Dear Don and Cam,

If the prices are high because there aren't many sellers, take the opportunity to become a seller rather than buy to add to this flawed team. This may be an opportunity to get K. Miller, McQuaid, Beleskey or Hayes off your books. OK, probably not Hayes but a guy can dream.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,414
Gallows Hill
I found this article to be very frustrating.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/bruins/2017/02/bruins_gm_don_sweeney_doesn_t_think_much_will_happen_before_wednesday_s_trade

Specifically these two quotes from Sweeney.

"There are a lot of teams that are still in the hunt. In the rental market, with the (Ron) Hainsey trade, the market has been set. The prices will be high.”

“I’m sort of doing my due diligence on which players will be available with a better understanding of what the costs are going to be."

Dear Don and Cam,

If the prices are high because there aren't many sellers, take the opportunity to become a seller rather than buy to add to this flawed team. This may be an opportunity to get K. Miller, McQuaid, Beleskey or Hayes off your books. OK, probably not Hayes but a guy can dream.
Nobody wants our garbage cap dumps. You'd need to add a draft pick for a team to take any of those contracts for a conditional 7th.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Nobody wants our garbage cap dumps. You'd need to add a draft pick for a team to take any of those contracts for a conditional 7th.
I'll bet you if they traded Miller or McQuaid, they'd actually get something. Not a lot, but something. Teams are always looking for right shot D at the deadline.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,078
I found this article to be very frustrating.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/bruins/2017/02/bruins_gm_don_sweeney_doesn_t_think_much_will_happen_before_wednesday_s_trade

Specifically these two quotes from Sweeney.

"There are a lot of teams that are still in the hunt. In the rental market, with the (Ron) Hainsey trade, the market has been set. The prices will be high.”

“I’m sort of doing my due diligence on which players will be available with a better understanding of what the costs are going to be."

Dear Don and Cam,

If the prices are high because there aren't many sellers, take the opportunity to become a seller rather than buy to add to this flawed team. This may be an opportunity to get K. Miller, McQuaid, Beleskey or Hayes off your books. OK, probably not Hayes but a guy can dream.
To be fair, nothing Sweeney said precludes the possibility of the Bruins selling off some parts. But, there are issues:

1.) Someone has to play defense. Selling off McQuaid or K. Miller means more minutes for Joe Morrow or Lilles.

2.) It's a bit awkward to sell off pieces right after naming a new coach.

3.) Due to their respective contracts, the players you noted are unlikely to be easily moved. Beleskey has a limited NTC to boot.

4.) Teams must expose to the expansion draft at least one defenseman and two forwards that have played in 40 or more games this past season (or 70 or more the past two seasons). The B's get to protect 7 forwards, which gives them 4 remaining slots after Krejci, Bergeron, and Backes (all NMC folks). You can count on their protecting Marchand and Pastrnak and possibly Spooner (not sure how his RFA status affects this). As of today, it means they must expose 2 of Hayes, Beleskey, Nash, and Schaller to the expansion draft. That's obviously not a huge problem for them, but it does add a layer of complexity to any trade for established players.

And, for all the angst he causes, Hayes is under contract for only one more year.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
To be fair, nothing Sweeney said precludes the possibility of the Bruins selling off some parts. But, there are issues:
True, It doesn't preclude him selling. But is it unfair to infer from the article, and his quotes, that he seems more focused on buying than selling?

1.) Someone has to play defense. Selling off McQuaid or K. Miller means more minutes for Joe Morrow or Lilles.
Zero issue with that. I think playing Liles or Morrow at left D, rather than McQuaid or Miller on their off-side, isn't much of a downgrade if it is at all. Certainly nothing that would stop me from dealing one of them.

2.) It's a bit awkward to sell off pieces right after naming a new coach.
This shouldn't be in their thinking at all.

3.) Due to their respective contracts, the players you noted are unlikely to be easily moved. Beleskey has a limited NTC to boot.
Don't think it will be. Just said I'd prefer they're looking to move one of those guys off the books rather than buy at the deadline. They may not be able to move any of them.

4.) Teams must expose to the expansion draft at least one defenseman and two forwards that have played in 40 or more games this past season (or 70 or more the past two seasons). The B's get to protect 7 forwards, which gives them 4 remaining slots after Krejci, Bergeron, and Backes (all NMC folks). You can count on their protecting Marchand and Pastrnak and possibly Spooner (not sure how his RFA status affects this). As of today, it means they must expose 2 of Hayes, Beleskey, Nash, and Schaller to the expansion draft. That's obviously not a huge problem for them, but it does add a layer of complexity to any trade for established players.

And, for all the angst he causes, Hayes is under contract for only one more year.
Right. As you say if they were somehow able to move one of the D, Beleskey and Hayes, which is very unlikely, they'd still be in compliance for the expansion draft. Shouldn't be an issue.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
True, It doesn't preclude him selling. But is it unfair to infer from the article, and his quotes, that he seems more focused on buying than selling?
Yes, because what team wants to send out someone to tell their fans that they are selling when they are ostensibly in the playoff race?
 

Stickman709

New Member
Jul 20, 2014
15
They should absolutely be looking to move K Miller, McQuaid, etc. They need to make room for McAvoy who could be here soon if BU gets bounced early. I would see if the blues would consider Miller or McQuaid as part of a Shattenkirk deal.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
A couple of things here..

1. McAvoy isn't playing in Boston this year. BU will be in the tournament and the absolute earliest their season can end is 3/24. The Bruins would have 8 games left and I can't see them, and don't want them, burning an ELC year for 8 games. It is bad business. I could see maybe Bjork joining the team if ND loses early, but only if the B's need to use burning the ELC year as a sweetener to get him to sign. That's not happening with McAvoy.

3. The expansion draft. It is muddying the deadline. The Bruins are compliant and in good shape. They probably go 7/3/1, protecting Bergeron, Marchand, Pastrnak, Backes, Krejci, Spooner and then probably 1 of Hayes/Beleskey/Nash up front. Chara, Krug and Colin Miller on D, and then Rask. They've covered in the exposures as well, so they do have some maneuverability. The Bruins could theoretically add a player with term, and be able to protect them in the draft without too much trouble. An impact forward boots out Beleskey/Hayes/Nash who they can all afford to lose. Adding a D could be somewhat problematic, since you'd risk exposing a Colin Miller, but they can work around it. Any D they acquire that they'd want to protect, is likely an upgrade on Colin Miller and / or he'd be in the deal going out. A lot of teams aren't in position for this, which makes it difficult for teams to acquire a player with term left. Say find someone interested in McQuaid. That team would have to either have room to protect him in the draft, or risk losing him to Vegas. The risk of losing him would need to be factored into the acquisition cost. They almost need to be treated like rentals.

In short, I don't think they'll be able to move Kevan Miller, McQuaid, Hayes or Beleskey. Too complex to work out right now, but maybe they can move 1 before the expansion draft this summer. Right now, maybe someone tosses them a late draft pick for Morrow or Liles, but that's really all I can see in terms of selling. On the buying side, they can add without any expansion draft problems. I just don't want any expensive rentals. I could be talked into an extended Shattenkirk, but that's about it.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,414
Gallows Hill
They should absolutely be looking to move K Miller, McQuaid, etc. They need to make room for McAvoy who could be here soon if BU gets bounced early. I would see if the blues would consider Miller or McQuaid as part of a Shattenkirk deal.
Why would St. Louis do that? McQuaid & Miller are overpaid 6-7 defensemen with multiple years left on their deals. They have negative value. Only way one of them moves in a Shattenkirk deal is if you gave St. Louis a ridiculous overpayment in actual value (1st round picks, top prospects, good young NHL players on ELC's) and they take one of those guys to make the cap work. Most teams in the league either have 6 guys better then those 2 on their D core, or they have young guy they like on an ELC that they'd rather give the minutes too. Only way those guys are moving is in expansion draft, a buyout or attaching a pick/prospect to get someone to take the contract.
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
I don't see us making any significant moves (ie. Top 6 forward with term, Shattenkirk, etc.) prior to the deadline. Liles or Morrow may get moved for a late round draft pick but Sweeney won't move assets for a rental player this year.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,370
A couple of things here..

1. McAvoy isn't playing in Boston this year. BU will be in the tournament and the absolute earliest their season can end is 3/24. The Bruins would have 8 games left and I can't see them, and don't want them, burning an ELC year for 8 games. It is bad business. I could see maybe Bjork joining the team if ND loses early, but only if the B's need to use burning the ELC year as a sweetener to get him to sign. That's not happening with McAvoy.

3. The expansion draft. It is muddying the deadline. The Bruins are compliant and in good shape. They probably go 7/3/1, protecting Bergeron, Marchand, Pastrnak, Backes, Krejci, Spooner and then probably 1 of Hayes/Beleskey/Nash up front. Chara, Krug and Colin Miller on D, and then Rask. They've covered in the exposures as well, so they do have some maneuverability. The Bruins could theoretically add a player with term, and be able to protect them in the draft without too much trouble. An impact forward boots out Beleskey/Hayes/Nash who they can all afford to lose. Adding a D could be somewhat problematic, since you'd risk exposing a Colin Miller, but they can work around it. Any D they acquire that they'd want to protect, is likely an upgrade on Colin Miller and / or he'd be in the deal going out. A lot of teams aren't in position for this, which makes it difficult for teams to acquire a player with term left. Say find someone interested in McQuaid. That team would have to either have room to protect him in the draft, or risk losing him to Vegas. The risk of losing him would need to be factored into the acquisition cost. They almost need to be treated like rentals.

In short, I don't think they'll be able to move Kevan Miller, McQuaid, Hayes or Beleskey. Too complex to work out right now, but maybe they can move 1 before the expansion draft this summer. Right now, maybe someone tosses them a late draft pick for Morrow or Liles, but that's really all I can see in terms of selling. On the buying side, they can add without any expansion draft problems. I just don't want any expensive rentals. I could be talked into an extended Shattenkirk, but that's about it.
This is a really good post, thanks for breaking it down.

But the suspense of what point #2 was is going to kill me.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,231
Question for those of you who follow the team more closely than I do...any chance the Jacobs are applying pressure on the FO to buy and not sell in an effort to make the playoffs?

I'm one of those Bs fans who cared a lot more in the 80s and 90s but got frustrated by an ownership I feel cares about making the playoffs more than winning a championship. Realize the salary cap has changed things, so I'm curious to know if the Jacobs are still a problem.
 
Last edited:

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,494
The Island
Question for those of you who follow the team more closely than I do...any chance the Jacobs are applying pressure on the FO to buy and not sell in an effort to make the playoffs?

I'm one of those Bs fans who cared a lot more in the 80s and 90s but got frustrated by an ownership I feel cares about making the playoffs more than winning a championship. Realize the salary cap has changed things, so I'm curious to know if the Jacobs are still a problem.
I ranted about this a few weeks ago. My view is: Big Daddy Jeremy was willing to use his team and its fan base to make a point about how the league should operate, but once he got what he wanted, the team was consistently spending to the cap and usually competitive once they got a decent NHL talent evaluator into the fold in the form of Chiarelli. Over the last three or so years, though, Jeremy has withdrawn from being the public face of ownership and has given Charlie a lot more run in the day-to-day of the team. While his father at least had the common sense to know that he doesn't know hockey that well (hence a reliance on Harry Sinden, even after that cow gave sour, whiskey-tainted milk), Charlie seems to really think he knows the team and how they should be run. It was Charlie that put out the playoffs-or-bust sentiment in 2015 that sent Chiarelli packing, put a time bomb around Julien's neck, and gave a lot more power to Neely.

Now, is Charlie Jacobs going to tell the front office to put their chips on the table in a bid to make the playoffs this year? I don't think he has to, since Neely thinks similarly (namely, that as long as the team has Chara, Rask, and Bergeron, they should be in he playoff mix) and is absolutely at the top of the food chain, over Sweeney even. Now, if Sweeney can convince Neely and Jacobs Jr. that the Bruins are competitive without trading away any of their high-end youngsters (McAvoy, Carlo, JFK, Lauzon, Senychyn, et. al.), I suspect they'll be content.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Yes, because what team wants to send out someone to tell their fans that they are selling when they are ostensibly in the playoff race?
He could've just passed on the interview in that case, no?

He's not forced to talk to Stephen Harris.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,078
Here's the thing: Sweeney is not going to be allowed to "punt" on the playoffs by becoming sellers. That shipped sailed when Boston won 5 of 6 after Julien was fired. So selling McQuaid or K Miller just isn't happening; the Bruins value those 2 players significantly higher than we do here, no matter how much we wish that wasn't the case. And while McQuaid and Miller are not good, Morrow/Lilles are truly dreadful. The expansion draft only compounds the issues as noted above. Jacobs and Neely absolutely see this as a team that should be in the playoffs; I don't think anything or anyone is going to convince them otherwise.

The best we can hope for is for Sweeney to convince Neely/Jacobs that holding tight to their prospects is the way to go for now. Last season, they could afford to dish off a couple of draft picks; this season, not so much.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,370
They shouldn't sell or buy. Stay with what they have, hopefully get the playoff experience, and go from there.
 

biff_hardbody

New Member
Apr 27, 2016
317
I agree with TFP w/r/t not buying or selling, however, the eternal optimist in me can't help but think someone like Patrick Sharp would look really good in Hayes' spot.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
Sharp is intriguing. $5.9mm cap hit, UFA at the end of the season. He does have a modified NMC where he would submit a 10 team OK list to the Stars. He's having a down year counting stats wise, but I thought he looked OK yesterday. Would've had a 1g 1a game if not for the Rask ridiculous diving save. Looks like he's going through a shooting slump, 6.6%. His career average is ~11.3%. His shot rates seem normal, but he dealt with injuries early on and has also been playing mostly with Shore and Faksa, 2 rookies.

I think he could help and is certainly an upgrade on Hayes and provides Cehlarik insurance. He obviously also has a ton of playoff experience which would hopefully come in handy in 6 weeks. I wouldn't go too crazy, but if his high cap hit (no problem for the B's) and NMC drive the price down to a 4th round pick and fringe prospect or something cheap like that, I'd be interested.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,687
Why would the stars do that?
Yeah, they wouldn't, my bad.

I saw someone above theorizing that Sharp might only cost a 4th, and saw online that Dallas is shopping Oduya as well, and got carried away with the idea of two of my favorite players being available and getting rid of one of my least favorite players at the same time. But Pointless Hayes has way too much negative value (he's signed for another year after this? Yeesh.) and Dallas will probably get a nice return if they move either Sharp or Oduya.
 

BoSoxFink

Stripes
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
7,646
South Park
Yeah, they wouldn't, my bad.

I saw someone above theorizing that Sharp might only cost a 4th, and saw online that Dallas is shopping Oduya as well, and got carried away with the idea of two of my favorite players being available and getting rid of one of my least favorite players at the same time. But Pointless Hayes has way too much negative value (he's signed for another year after this? Yeesh.) and Dallas will probably get a nice return if they move either Sharp or Oduya.
Which brings me to this question. Johnny Oduya and Patrick Sharp are your two favorite players in the league? I mean, so be it if true, but that is two completely random dudes. I guess Sharp used to be good so I can get that one but Oduya has always been an average player.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,687
Two of, not two favorite.

I like the Bruins and follow them, but I have been a Blackhawks fan for decades, back to when Tony Esposito was in goal against Montreal in the finals.

Sharp and Oduya were big parts of winning multiple Cups, and I've always liked them a lot.

Sorry for the thread derailment. Here's something on the Bruins:
"Jimmy Murphy: A source is saying that the Boston Bruins have let teams that Matt Beleskey, Jimmy Hayes, Riley Nash, Colin Miller, Kevan Miller and Joe Morrow are available for trade."

So it looks like they will be standing pat at the deadline.
 
Last edited:

Murby

New Member
Mar 16, 2006
1,770
Boston Metro
Two of, not two favorite.

I like the Bruins and follow them, but I have been a Blackhawks fan for decades, back to when Tony Esposito was in goal against Montreal in the finals.

Sharp and Oduya were big parts of winning multiple Cups, and I've always liked them a lot.

Sorry for the thread derailment. Here's something on the Bruins:
"Jimmy Murphy: A source is saying that the Boston Bruins have let teams that Matt Beleskey, Jimmy Hayes, Riley Nash, Colin Miller, Kevan Miller and Joe Morrow are available for trade."

So it looks like they will be standing pat at the deadline.
Hmmmm...Colin Miller...but not McQuaid? Interesting if true. Good news is Shattenkirk seems gone to the Caps.