Yeah, the mobile cap geek wasn't clear on the overage being counted towards the total (or I just missed it). So they have a bit more room to work with.AMcGhie said:
Bruins Offseason Moves
- Thread starter BoSoxFink
- Start date
I had to manually add the totals from the F/D/G sections and figure out that they weren't 66M to figure that out. Still, let's assume that Krug gets 2M and Smith gets 1.5M (both minor raises from last season). That leaves ~1M for Svedberg or Subban, ~1M for an AHL'er to replace thornton, and the B's can throw up to 2.5M in guarnteed money (plus another bonus overage-y contract) at Iginla.cshea said:
I want Campbell gone. He just isn't very good and his cap hit is too high for a team that could be counting pennies to get Iginla signed. This post has the statistical evidence. Most telling possession wise is this:
Everyone was much better without him on the ice.
The PK is a question, but he was the worst on the team in shots against while on the PK: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=4v5&pos=skaters&minutes=50&teamid=3&type=corsi&sort=A20&sortdir=ASC
Not sure who would replace him there, but honestly the bar is low.
He is willing to fight but not very good at it.
If you're going to move him to the wing you may as well just call up Florek or Fraser who would cost half as much.
Everyone was much better without him on the ice.
The PK is a question, but he was the worst on the team in shots against while on the PK: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=4v5&pos=skaters&minutes=50&teamid=3&type=corsi&sort=A20&sortdir=ASC
Not sure who would replace him there, but honestly the bar is low.
He is willing to fight but not very good at it.
If you're going to move him to the wing you may as well just call up Florek or Fraser who would cost half as much.
It seems to me from reading the board here and various other Bruin related websites, the three players that probably aren't a fit for the B's anymore (whether it be because of too high of a cap number, depth of the position, whatever) are Chris Kelly, Gregory Campbell, and Adam McQuaid (they could all probably fetch a pick or two in a trade).
The problem seems to be that without Kelly and Campbell the PK would take a hit. I guess the question is how much of a hit would it be? Also would there be any players available that could be put on the PK unit and do the job as well as Kelly or Campbell but at less cost? I admit to not being as knowledgable about the game as some of the posters on here but any ideas on who that player(s) could be? Or would it be more prudent to retain one of Kelly or Campbell and only have to ease in one player (probably Fraser or Florek) on the PK?
The problem seems to be that without Kelly and Campbell the PK would take a hit. I guess the question is how much of a hit would it be? Also would there be any players available that could be put on the PK unit and do the job as well as Kelly or Campbell but at less cost? I admit to not being as knowledgable about the game as some of the posters on here but any ideas on who that player(s) could be? Or would it be more prudent to retain one of Kelly or Campbell and only have to ease in one player (probably Fraser or Florek) on the PK?
Would the PK actually suffer? We'd still have Bergeron, Marchand, Eriksson, Paille and possibly Soderberg as forwards. I think the PK would be fine, but 5 on 5 play might suffer since we'd have so many top 6 forwards playing on it.
One of the big reasons IMO that the B's were exposed in the playoffs was that too many top 6ers were on the PK leading to fewer even-strength shifts with full rest- looking at Krejci and Iginla in particular.
Out of the 6-7 PK forwards, we know Marchand and Bergeron will be two of them. Eriksson and Paille make 4, and I'm sure Söderberg won't look out of place on the PK.
For me, signs point to Lindblad making the club due to his prowess in this area - and to Campbell staying after Kelly's likely bought out/traded. The 4th line's great for breaking in the kids, but it also has to keep the pressure off LKI when it comes to the PK.
Out of the 6-7 PK forwards, we know Marchand and Bergeron will be two of them. Eriksson and Paille make 4, and I'm sure Söderberg won't look out of place on the PK.
For me, signs point to Lindblad making the club due to his prowess in this area - and to Campbell staying after Kelly's likely bought out/traded. The 4th line's great for breaking in the kids, but it also has to keep the pressure off LKI when it comes to the PK.
Assistant coach Geoff Ward has resigned to take a head coaching job in Germany.
https://twitter.com/nhlbruins/status/479600532789547008
https://twitter.com/nhlbruins/status/479600532789547008
If they choose to go the kid route on the 4th line, the aforementioned Matt Lindblad can kill penalties and Florek even got some time on the PK during the Detroit series. They do have some options past Campbell and Kelly, albeit the kids are a little green so it could be risky.
Interesting. So Kelly gets traded for a late pick, keep Campbell. Who else do you get rid of and who do you try to bring in? Getting rid of Kelly and McQuaid saves 4.5 million is that enough to bring in another FA, or would it likely result in just bringing back Iginla and rolling with the same team?PedroSpecialK said:
I'm not sure if this was a big problem. According to ExtraSkater here are the leaders in shorthanded TOI% in the playoffs:PedroSpecialK said:
Chara 62%
Boychuk 62%
Bergeron 43%
Campbell 34%
Eriksson 32%
Marchand 32%
Krejci 28%
Hamilton 7%
Iginla 5%
Others <5%
In the regular season Krejci was at 12% and Iginla 7%. So a big jump for Krejci, but in terms of raw numbers he only played about 1:40 shorthanded per game in the playoffs. Maybe made a difference in a couple spots?
It seems like Soderberg should be able to kill penalties. I'd give him a shot as the #2 PK C and if it's not working you can try other guys or look to trade for someone (Campbell and Kelly themselves both came relatively cheap). You're going to have Bergeron for the most important situations so it's not like the PK is going to immediately tank.
Barring a trade of a top 6/top 4 type player I think you are looking at pretty much the same team.
There are worse positions to be in than returning the team that won the presidents trophy last year. They will also have a healthy Seidenberg and Douggie should be improved if the playoffs are any indication.
The playoffs truly are a crapshoot, in 2013 the B's had no business making it out of the first round yet they end up in the SCF. This year they could have handled MTL in 5-6 games with any puck luck.
The core of this team is young and very good. No need to make household changes. Just need to replace some of the aging vets.
There are worse positions to be in than returning the team that won the presidents trophy last year. They will also have a healthy Seidenberg and Douggie should be improved if the playoffs are any indication.
The playoffs truly are a crapshoot, in 2013 the B's had no business making it out of the first round yet they end up in the SCF. This year they could have handled MTL in 5-6 games with any puck luck.
The core of this team is young and very good. No need to make household changes. Just need to replace some of the aging vets.
They have about $4.3M to work with today (not including Savard's money; more on that later). Saying bye to Kelly and McQuaid saves $4.5M.tbb345 said:
So, now they need to the following:
Krug (RFA): $1.5M (guess)
Smith (RFA): $1.5M (another SWAG)
And either sign or call up replacements for the following:
McQuaid (I'm going to say Miller, as he's already on the cap, and he'll be on a 1-way contract in 2014-15)
Kelly
Thornton
Backup goalie
Figure $1M each. So that's $6M of the $8.8M, leaving them with $2.8M. Hmmmm..., not likely to be enough to sign Iginla. And I'm still losing Bartkowski (RFA). To be fair, I may be a little high on the averages; maybe the combined Smith/Krug re-signings are $2.5M, and the averages for the 3 roster replacements are $900K. That brings the $2.8M to $3.3M. Still tight.
The above moves leave the team with:
Lucic/Krejci/xx
Marchand/Bergeron/Eriksson
Soderberg/Smith/(Kelly replacement)
Campbell/Paille/(Thornton replacement)
Chara/Hamilton
Seidenberg/Boychuck
Krug/Miller
Rask/(new backup)
The solution (and I'm not expert in the cap to know if this is viable) would be to get Krug and Smith back on 2-way contracts. I believe they could both still go to Providence at the end of training camp without being subject to waivers, and replaced with callups making $800K. Once the season officially starts, they could then LTIR Savard and recall Krug and Smith. If we assume the low end in the salaries for these 2 (it really doesn't matter at that point), the team would save an additional $1.4M. That brings them to $4.7M.
So, the question becomes: would Iginla accept a 3-year deal, back-loaded that goes $4M/$5.4M/$5.5M (maximum of 35% variability from year 1 to year 2 per new CBA)? That would give them $700K space prior to the Savard LTIR, and about $2.5M to use during the season for trades, callups, etc.
Not sure if I have this right, nor am I sure about the waiver exemption for Krug and Smith.
I believe if they LTIR Savard during the summer, they get more space to use ahead of time, but they would be tight up against the cap during the season.
That doesn't bode well for Boychuck. Unless they have a taker for Kelly, which is pretty unlikely.
I'd think Campbell would probably be gone too if Kelly is staying.
I'd think Campbell would probably be gone too if Kelly is staying.
Jarome Iginla is going to shape their offseason. It would be nice to get that sorted out, one way or another, before the draft and free agency begin. If he is back, all they really need to do is sign Smith and Krug. If Iginla leaves, they would need to be proactive in finding a replacement top 6 winger.
Looks like Chad Johnson is gone. Bruins have signed Svedberg to a 1-year, 600k deal that is one way.
I'd have to think the Bruins want him closer to $4m, and Iginla wants the $6m he got last year. I really loved him on that line, so I'd like to see him come back. He's got plenty in the tank.cshea said:
Ideally, I'd like to see them move on from one of Kelly or Campbell and give Spooner a shot. His speed would be very useful, and it seems time to find out what they have in him. It's a big offseason for Spoons. It will be tough to displace Soderberg on the 3rd, but logistically trading Campbell and giving Spooner the 4th line pivot role seems preferable from a roster perspective and Spooners development. Getting rid of Kelly is ideal from a cap perspective, but I would like to see him back on The Swedes line as well. If I had my druthers, I'd get rid of Campbell and give Spooner the 4th line center role to start. Then I'd keep the top three lines as is if Iginla comes back, and then maybe slide Spooner up depending on how he develops.
Hamilton could make a gigantic leap next year. If he continues to add size and strength, he is going to be a force to deal with. I'd like to see the Bruins move McQuaid, and go out with Chara/Boychk, Seids/Hamilton, Krug/Miller to start he year. Hopefully they can find a way to fit Boychuk and Iginla under the cap and make it all work.
This team is still one of the best teams in the NHL. Chiarelli thankfully seems to realize that, so this should be a boring offseason.
RedOctober3829 said:
Not that Johnson isn't gone, but the one-way/two-way distinction has much less to do with where a player ends up than service time and waiver status.
If the Bruins choose, they can have Svedberg count zero against the cap by keeping him in Providence another year. As he signed his first professional contract in '12-'13 and has only played 1 NHL game, he is exempt from waivers.
Similarly, the Redden rule does not apply, as that rule counts the cap hit of a one-way contract in the minors as: one way cap hit - [minimum salary + $375k], or $600k - ($550k + $375k) = -$325k which really equals $0 for Svedberg in Providence.
Regardless, more than likely Johnson's gone and Svedberg's up at $50k over the league minimum to backup Rask - just in the mood to be a PiTA
I think that what they really want to do with Iginla is sign him to a deal like last year: 1 year, low base, absurdly easy to attain incentives. That way most of his salary goes on next year's cap. (I think his full incentives for last year kicked in at 15 games played.)lexrageorge said:
I actually think it would be best to avoid a similar contract for Iginla. They have some significant signings/decisions to make next off season. Krejci, Soderberg, Boychuk and Hamilton all have expiring contracts this season. They're going to need to sign or replace those guys, plus fill out the rest of the roster. They have some money to play with ~$25 million give or take where the cap ends up being, but I'm not sure they would want another hefty overage charge eating into what they can spend to retain/replace those players. It was easier for them to sign Iginla with the bonus overage carrying over since they basically knew they had the majority of the team under contract for 2014-2015.Eddie Jurak said:
Agree with all of this, except where do you move Spooner if he develops? There is nowhere to move him. It's 4th line or bust for him next year. I think 2015 is where his real shot lays with so many expiring contracts.TheRealness said:
FL4WL3SS said:
Depending on the health of the team, sliding Yeti back over to wing would be the move there with Kelly sliding back down to center the 4th line. Not sure there are any other viable options for Spoons outside of one of the top 3 pivots going down with an injury, which seems likely.
Ugh, I'd hate to move Soderberg to wing just to give Spooner a shot at center. I think the value that Soderberg brings to center is greater than anything that Spooner can contribute next season.
It would be a great problem to have, of course.
It would be a great problem to have, of course.
If I'm coach, there's no way I'm moving Yeti off center with Loui on his wing. They played great together, just find that other wing and this team is rolling three excellent lines.
I don't expect Spooner to outplay Yeti, so I agree with your point. Ultimately, the Bruins will probably stash Spooner in Providence again unless he forces their hand. He's still only 22. Still with Krejci's contract up, don't you have to find out what you have there in Spooner? They are committed long term to Bergeron, and Soderberg is in his prime. Interesting year for a billion reasons for the Bruins.FL4WL3SS said:
Koko is an interesting guy as well. He was just as great as Spooner was an in the playoffs, and he is more comfortable on the wing than Spooner. If they move Kelly, I'd like to think he has a real shot at that 3rd line wing role if he continues his development.
If I knew how to look it up, I would, but does anyone recall how many EN goals Jarome had this year? It was similar to Lucic's totals from the year before, I believe, and I thought both distorted their contributions a little bit.cshea said:
Iginla had 4 ENG. I find it hard to knock guys for ENG's. Sure, there's no goalie, but the player is on the ice, in the defensive end, essentially facing a 6-on-5 shorthanded situation. There is something to be said for being able to move the puck out of your own end and get a goal in that situation.
cshea said:
It's not so much a matter of "knocking" guys for ENGs... it's more that empty net goals really don't say a whole hell of a lot about a player's ability to score against a goalie. I suppose scoring an ENG is an indication that the coach trusts the player on the ice when the game is on the line and an indication that the team was able to get the puck out of their end productively, though that is sometimes more about the team's play in that situation more than it is about the actual scorer's play.
But those are not skills that tell much of anything about a player's goal scoring ability in a normal game situation. Chris Kelly is a guy who deservedly has the confidence of his coach in end of game situations. If he pops in five empty net goals next year, that should not affect how we think of him as an offensive player.
No, I wasn't knocking him, just wanted to round out the picture a bit. I must have seen every one of those four and assumed there were twice as many I hadn't seen. Lucic had even more than that the year before, I believe. There seems to be a certain propensity amongst teammates to try to set up a particular guy—a bit like getting someone the hat trick in that situation. I think they were endeavoring to feed Jarome a little bit. Their reactions afterward were telling. I want him back but I don't want to lose guys for the future because we're meeting his asking price for one final year.cshea said:
RT @reporterchris: With the #bruins in a salary cap bind, Jarome Iginla has started looking elsewhere: http://bit.ly/1lhy95E
Front office moves announced in the wake of losing Benning:
- Scott Bradley promoted to AGM
- Ryan Nadeau promoted to Director of Hockey Operations/Analytics
- John Ferguson Jr. Hired as Executive Director of Player Personel
JFJ is of Raycroft for Rask fame.
- Scott Bradley promoted to AGM
- Ryan Nadeau promoted to Director of Hockey Operations/Analytics
- John Ferguson Jr. Hired as Executive Director of Player Personel
JFJ is of Raycroft for Rask fame.
Chiarelli says prices are high and he doesn't anticipate moving up tonight. They still want Iginla, but that will require moving money out. Plenty of interest/offers from other teams to help ease the Bruins cap issues, but nothing to his liking yet.
So with the cap coming down 2m less than protected it is safe to say iginla is as good as gone. Probably also have to move Campbell and paille who won't fetch much but are easily replaced and can free up the cap space that was lost with the lower cap
The cap number is going to make this team worse. Now the Lucic, Marchand, and Kelly deals look like albatrosses in a way. All 3 are overpaid and with less than expected to work with they are even more so.
If you're going to lose Iginla over a couple million you start to look where you could have done better. Kelly is way overpaid. Marchand IMO is too. If Lucic continues to do well, its ok but his number is pretty big.Papelbon's Poutine said:
RedOctober3829 said:
This is a bit of an exaggeration. You could get real value for Lucic and Marchand in a heartbeat so to say they are albatrosses is a bit much. Kelly is a tough deal to swallow and for everyone that assumes we can jettison him, that pesky NTC and lingering injury is going to make that quite the challenge.
This team has some tough decisions to make.
Yeah that has really been Chia's only contract mistake.
The real error was that they overestimated the cap increase. Would love to know how their estimate differed from what went down and if they will change their projection methodology going forward.
Capology being one of his calling cards, that has to be a little embarrassing, though mitigated a bit since so many other teams got it wrong too.
The real error was that they overestimated the cap increase. Would love to know how their estimate differed from what went down and if they will change their projection methodology going forward.
Capology being one of his calling cards, that has to be a little embarrassing, though mitigated a bit since so many other teams got it wrong too.
It does seem that Chia's biggest mistake is believing in the expansion of revenue/cap as opposed to any individual player deals. It sucks that this team is really stuck in cap hell, as I think Chia made most of those deals with the idea that the cap would be growing pretty significantly. As well, the draft misses of the late 00's seem to be pretty ugly in their longer term affects on team building.
At least he would accept 1 year from us.
God I really hope they're able to retain his services. He was a fantastic player this year.
God I really hope they're able to retain his services. He was a fantastic player this year.
I've seen Tampa, Detroit, and Chicago as teams that are interested in him. There are probably more.Reardons Beard said:
Any possibility of a 2-year deal went out the window with the lowered cap. I hope they figure something out, Iggy fit in perfectly with this team.
As for Chiarelli's misjudgment of the cap number this year, I don't really have much of a problem with it. They went for it last year, I can't fault that too much. They knew they had essentially a full roster in place for 2014-2015 so they jumped at Iginla with the bonus cushion seeing an opportunity to win with a very weak East. The alternative would have been experimenting with another Chris Bourque/Benoit Pouliot/Brian Rolston on the 3rd line again and continuing the never ending search for a top 6 winger.
As for Chiarelli's misjudgment of the cap number this year, I don't really have much of a problem with it. They went for it last year, I can't fault that too much. They knew they had essentially a full roster in place for 2014-2015 so they jumped at Iginla with the bonus cushion seeing an opportunity to win with a very weak East. The alternative would have been experimenting with another Chris Bourque/Benoit Pouliot/Brian Rolston on the 3rd line again and continuing the never ending search for a top 6 winger.
cshea said:
I mean more in terms of longer term planning and not having turnover plans for guys that got expensive, and perhaps paying just a little too much for a lot of guys and trimming off the available cap room. I'm not saying there are any individual guys whose contracts I would change (Kelly I guess) but just the idea in general. As well, the bigger effects are the Hamill and Colborne misses. If those guys developed into top 9 guys (nevermind top 6), the Bruins could have been making much different decisions the last couple years.