Bruins buyout Dennis Seidenberg
- Thread starter cshea
- Start date
maybe the best move Sweeney has made yet. Now let's see how he fills that hole with a (I hope) better player.
He was declining prior to the injury and pretty awful after it, but this is still one less somewhat competent defenseman on the roster. Sweeney has a lot of work to do on the blue line.
Huzzah. If they were going to commit to the madness of extending Miller they had to continue by buying out Seids. Thank God they did.
I agree with the move, but man oh man was Seidenberg a stud during the Cup run.
This gives the B's an additional ~$2.8mm in cap availability this year, though in some ways I think freeing up the roster spot is more valuable.
This gives the B's an additional ~$2.8mm in cap availability this year, though in some ways I think freeing up the roster spot is more valuable.
Thanks.
And yeah, this is about the roster spot not the money (which doesn't hurt).
I'll go against the grain and disagree with this. I don't see the cap being an issue this year. Why not do the following:
1. Trade and retain salary (has a cap hit for 2 years instead of 4)
2. Send down to AHL, eat the cap hit this year, buyout next year.
Both frees up a roster space, and I'm really not sure that they need the cap space this year because there's no slam dunk acquisition to make with that cap space.
I'm not a fan.
1. Trade and retain salary (has a cap hit for 2 years instead of 4)
2. Send down to AHL, eat the cap hit this year, buyout next year.
Both frees up a roster space, and I'm really not sure that they need the cap space this year because there's no slam dunk acquisition to make with that cap space.
I'm not a fan.
I would guess that the locker room ramifications of sending an established vet like Seids down to the AHL for the year might be one of the reasons they went for the buyout now. That might piss off a lot of guys. Yeah, the team stunk last season so they should just get over it, but such moves don't usually play out in a vacuum. Just a guess on my part, though.
I am a fan of this. He was their worst defenseman on the ice last year, and it wasn't close. That's scary to think about given what else they had on defense at the time.
TFP, I would counter your points with this:
1. I don't see there is any way they would be able to move him without including some other asset, and eating money. At that stage, it's not worth it. I don't see anyone wanting him to even be on their roster.
2. I don't think they wanted to disrespect Seids by sticking him in the AHL like that. I agree with your assessment money wise, but I think buying him out was a better solution for Seids.
That being said, I will miss that German engineered machine. He was a major part of that cup run, and played balls out hockey ever time he could. It's too bad he lost his legs and all of his skating ability. I will miss his bald head.
TFP, I would counter your points with this:
1. I don't see there is any way they would be able to move him without including some other asset, and eating money. At that stage, it's not worth it. I don't see anyone wanting him to even be on their roster.
2. I don't think they wanted to disrespect Seids by sticking him in the AHL like that. I agree with your assessment money wise, but I think buying him out was a better solution for Seids.
That being said, I will miss that German engineered machine. He was a major part of that cup run, and played balls out hockey ever time he could. It's too bad he lost his legs and all of his skating ability. I will miss his bald head.
Fair points for #2, even if I don't agree.
Disagree on #1. I absolutely think they could retain salary and get another team to take him. We'll see if/where he signs, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't catch on somewhere. I wouldn't give up a major asset, but I would definitely rather be retaining salary than carry his cap hit for more years, especially when they'll need that cap space in years 3 and 4.
Disagree on #1. I absolutely think they could retain salary and get another team to take him. We'll see if/where he signs, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't catch on somewhere. I wouldn't give up a major asset, but I would definitely rather be retaining salary than carry his cap hit for more years, especially when they'll need that cap space in years 3 and 4.
I'm pretty sure he said if the Bruins don't want him, he will retire. Don't have the link handy, but that is what I remember.
Still, I just don't see how any team takes him on without wanting some decent draft picks (3rd or 4th) or some B Level prospect I'd rather they not include.
I don't disagree with TFP overall - I'd much rather retain $2m per year in cap hit. I'm just not sure that was ever on the table without the add-ons (my guess would be 3rd rounder+) being too much to stomach, especially with so many mid-round picks having already been traded.
Even for a cap floor team, they can easily take a look at his possession #s and see that Seidenberg on the roster at any cost would be a detriment, either by blocking a prospect or by being no longer an acceptable NHL defenseman. Without getting the type of supplemental asset that would make it worth their while, why not wait to evaluate the free agent market first to get a better player at that price point?
Even for a cap floor team, they can easily take a look at his possession #s and see that Seidenberg on the roster at any cost would be a detriment, either by blocking a prospect or by being no longer an acceptable NHL defenseman. Without getting the type of supplemental asset that would make it worth their while, why not wait to evaluate the free agent market first to get a better player at that price point?
So it saves them about $4.6M over the first 2 years (but with having to pay his replacement), and costs them $2.3 over the following 2 years. It's not going to make or break them either way, and having the roster flexibility is a good thing. Just reeks of being a last resort type of move, and maybe it was all they had.
What % of teams do you think put weight into possession #'s, esp for D men? I'd be shocked to find out that more than 1/2 the GMs look at possession #'s more than blocked shots/hits for a stay at home defenseman. I'm not arguing the point, just think are you jumping to conclusions assuming most GMs are using advanced metrics all that much.
Case in point will be when Matt Martin becomes a very rich man in about 24hrs.
It's also quite possible that Sweeney had some exploratory talks with other GM's regarding a trade of Seidenberg. And he does have an NTC, so he could refuse a trade if the situation wasn't to his liking. And, as noted, I can see how stashing him in the AHL this year may not go over very well. So I will give Sweeney the benefit of the doubt (I know, I know...) on this move. It's time to see what Colin Miller and Joe Morrow can do.
Seidenberg really should be remembered as Chara's pairing partner during the 2011 playoff run.
Seidenberg really should be remembered as Chara's pairing partner during the 2011 playoff run.
Who gives a shit if he gets mad about being sent down? If anything, it would tell the players that mediocrity isn't rewarded.
This isn't a terrible move because it gets rid of him, but I'd rather trade him even if it meant retaining salary, or send him down. That way you get the cap charge off the roster sooner and you can use it when you might be looking for something to put you over the top. Are they going to spend to the cap this and next year? If not, subsidize his trip out of here or send him down.
They're going to have an annoying cap hit on their books until 2019-20.
This isn't a terrible move because it gets rid of him, but I'd rather trade him even if it meant retaining salary, or send him down. That way you get the cap charge off the roster sooner and you can use it when you might be looking for something to put you over the top. Are they going to spend to the cap this and next year? If not, subsidize his trip out of here or send him down.
They're going to have an annoying cap hit on their books until 2019-20.
Every potential trade target and free agent would look at that as a reason not to come to Boston.
Yeah, players around the league talk and take note of these things. It's one thing to do it to a Peter Scheafer, but Seids has been too good for too long to think you could have him riding buses to St John's and not have players gossip about that.
Sending him down wouldn't have saved them much. Only 950,000 this year and next if he cleared waivers. So that's not a lot of savings and you still have to replace him. I'd have preferred trading with retained salary over a buyout but stashing in the ahl isn't as enticing as a get out of jail free card.
I wasn't defending or criticizing any trade; I was just responding to the idea that the players involved were "slandered".
And buying out Seidenberg wasn't a shitty move; it was a move that made the most sense given the circumstances. Stashing him in the AHL was hardly the panacea that some here are making it out to be. And, for the record, Sweeney did not sign him to the extension; Chia had final say on all player matters when that happened.
And buying out Seidenberg wasn't a shitty move; it was a move that made the most sense given the circumstances. Stashing him in the AHL was hardly the panacea that some here are making it out to be. And, for the record, Sweeney did not sign him to the extension; Chia had final say on all player matters when that happened.
Agreed on Seidenberg. I've been convinced about stashing him the AHL being a less optimal move. I also forgot he had a NTC as well which may have played into it (or may not have). I still would have preferred finding a way to move him if at all possible, I have a hunch that cap space will be necessary those two years.
The Bruins were in an undesirable situation with 4 possible losing outcomes.
We keep him and he's a bottom-pairing guy for the next 2 years at 4M/yr
We trade him, retain salary, and probably send a prospect along. The B's save ~2m for the next 2 years, but probably pay that to the guy we get back in the trade. The B's also lose a B(ish?) level prospect. (Probably not an option given Seids NTC)
We demote him to the minors. he costs 1M less per year, the B's are not looked at fondly by veterans for a while.
We release him. He counts 1.1/2.1/1.1/1.1 against the cap for 4 years.
Its really easy to shit on each other's choices when all 4 options aren't great, because there's a legitimate argument against each one. Sweeney, however, made the right move here by taking the one that was the least bad.
We keep him and he's a bottom-pairing guy for the next 2 years at 4M/yr
We trade him, retain salary, and probably send a prospect along. The B's save ~2m for the next 2 years, but probably pay that to the guy we get back in the trade. The B's also lose a B(ish?) level prospect. (Probably not an option given Seids NTC)
We demote him to the minors. he costs 1M less per year, the B's are not looked at fondly by veterans for a while.
We release him. He counts 1.1/2.1/1.1/1.1 against the cap for 4 years.
Its really easy to shit on each other's choices when all 4 options aren't great, because there's a legitimate argument against each one. Sweeney, however, made the right move here by taking the one that was the least bad.