Bruins Trade Deadline 2016

[cshea]

The deadline is still about 2 months away (2/29), but yesterday's league activity seems to be the opening bell of trading season.

Here's where the Bruins stand today. 44 points, 2nd wild card spot. They are on a 95 point 82 game pace which is typically right on the bubble. 96 wasn't good enough last year, but traditionally the last playoffs spots are 90-94 points. As for assets and cap space, they're good on both fronts. $1.5 million in space currently, and they do have Kelly's LTIR to play with if they choose too. They have plenty of picks and prospects to make things happen if they do buy. On the flip side, if they sell they have some options there too (Eriksson).

It is going to be an interesting two months. Lots of different ways to go. I think we're all in agreement that the most pressing need, both in the short term and the long term is a top 4 D, maybe even a 1 or 2. Those aren't easy to find. I'm not sure how I feel about rentals for this season, but if they go that route it's hard to not see someone like Byfuglien, who is likely available, being high on their list.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

I wouldn't see Byfuglien as a rental. The Bruins should try very hard to resign him if they trade for him, he'd be a good Seidenberg replacement.

If they win their games in hand on Montreal, Florida, et al, then they will be in really good shape going into the trading deadline. I would only look to add a defenseman and the price would have to be right.

I also wouldn't be against upgrading some of the kids to a seasoned veteran or two. I would love for the Bruins to go hard after Scott Hartnell, he'd be a great fit for this team and the Blue Jackets align very well with the Bruins as trading partners. Bumping a guy like Rinaldo from the lineup and replacing him with Hartnell would make this team very formidable up front. You could then bump down some other forwards a line or two and it would add a ton of depth up front.

 

[The B’s Knees]

I don't see many selloff type trades happening at least for another month. Columbus and Buffalo are the only teams currently more than 5 points out of a playoff spot. Look at what Florida did in the last 4 weeks or so.
There's likely to be some separation, especially in the West, during that span.

Besides Byfuglien, the only big name UFA I can see for the low ranking teams is Eric Staal, and he's really a shell of his former self (someone will pay otherwise in hopes he isn't though).
I can't see many other, if any, 1/2 D-Men being available, but there will likely be lots of 3/4/5's available such as Wideman or Medvedev.

 

[The B’s Knees]

I wouldn't see Byfuglien as a rental. The Bruins should try very hard to resign him if they trade for him, he'd be a good Seidenberg replacement.

If they win their games in hand on Montreal, Florida, et al, then they will be in really good shape going into the trading deadline. I would only look to add a defenseman and the price would have to be right.

I also wouldn't be against upgrading some of the kids to a seasoned veteran or two. I would love for the Bruins to go hard after Scott Hartnell, he'd be a great fit for this team and the Blue Jackets align very well with the Bruins as trading partners. Bumping a guy like Rinaldo from the lineup and replacing him with Hartnell would make this team very formidable up front. You could then bump down some other forwards a line or two and it would add a ton of depth up front.

I like Hartnell as well - as a 33yr old power forward. Not sure I'd like him as much in the spring of 2019 as a 37 yr old finishing out his $4.75 mil/yr contract.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

He's on pace for another 30 goal season on, what's turned out to be, a pretty bad team. He's been as about as consistent as they come over his career and guys like him age very well. The last year of that contract might start getting a little long in the tooth, but 4.75M for a 30 goal scorer is a really good deal. I'm assuming the cap will be going up again a couple of more times before 2019, so that contract is actually going to provide a lot of value over the next 2-3 seasons.

I wouldn't bat an eye having him on the team for another 4 years, he's worth it.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

And just because it's tradition at this point, I'll throw out my annual longing for Shane Doan (except this year the Coyotes are actually decent).

Maybe they can sign him in the offseason!!

 

[burstnbloom]

The Loui question is such a difficult one to answer. He would likely be the highest value rental asset on the market this year, if the Bruins made him available. At the same time, he's a legit first line winger that compliments this team very well and he's the same age as the two most important forwards. What do you do here?

 

[FL4WL3SS]

You unquestionably keep him and resign him in the offseason.

 

[RedOctober3829]

What about Drouin?

 

[Scoops Bolling]

You unquestionably keep him and resign him in the offseason.

I think this depends somewhat on what the market will offer. If Eriksson is the best asset on the market, and you think the team is a "playoff caliber, but not championship contender" type squad, then it might make more sense to take the best offer you can get for him, and see if you can't make some moves in the offseason instead. It would really depend on what you can get, but if I'm in Sweeney's shoes, I definitely listen. Eriksson's value may never be higher, so I'd take the short term hit if it means getting some long term value (even if that's just value you plan to package in a D-man trade in the offseason).

 

[TSC]

You unquestionably keep him and resign him in the offseason.

I agree with you, but I don't think it's unquestionable. The return for Loui at the deadline may be greater than his value to this team in the long-term. The Bruins aren't going to win the cup this year, there's a good chance they won't win the cup next year either. Signing Loui long term keeps this team status quo for the next couple of years. Get the right players back for him and 3-5 years from now (especially with the young kids currently developing) you could be looking at a great team.

I don't know who those players are, and I'm not sure the Bruins get them. But it's not unquestionable to keep and re-sign him.

 

[lexrageorge]

You unquestionably keep him and resign him in the offseason.

Ericksson could get really expensive on the open market, and I don't see him as the type of player you commit significant cap dollars to. Plus, as TSC noted, they are not that close to a Cup winning roster today, and so this team will need that cap space going forward.

 

[cshea]

Loui's trade value is probably a first round pick, not much more. If we trade him the return will likely be a pick in the 20-30 range at the draft.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Loui's trade value is probably a first round pick, not much more. If we trade him the return will likely be a pick in the 20-30 range at the draft.

Even the "vastly inferior to Loui" Antoine Vermette was worth a first and a good prospect. Loui ought b to be worth significantly more than that - otherwise there isn't much point in trading him.

 

[cshea]

I also don't think this season is a complete lost cause. The East is terrible. The only team I would say they are significant underdogs against are Washington and maybe Montreal with Price. If the Bruins were to get in, the Rask-Chara-Bergeron back bone is good enough to carry them and if the chips fall right, they are capable of winning a round or two. I wouldn't sell the farm for this season, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to adding with an eye on this year.

 

[cshea]

Even the "vastly inferior to Loui" Antoine Vermette was worth a first and a good prospect. Loui ought b to be worth significantly more than that - otherwise there isn't much point in trading him.

Yeah, they'll get some sort of prospect but not a blue chipper. Dahlbeck was the 10th rated prospect in Chicago's system when he was traded for Vermette. A decent, not great, piece.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

I also don't think this season is a complete lost cause. The East is terrible. The only team I would say they are significant underdogs against are Washington and maybe Montreal with Price. If the Bruins were to get in, the Rask-Chara-Bergeron back bone is good enough to carry them and if the chips fall right, they are capable of winning a round or two. I wouldn't sell the farm for this season, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to adding with an eye on this year.

Bingo.

It's amazing to me how many people would want to remove a critical piece this season just for shits and giggles (I know the reasoning, just don't agree). I mean, before the last couple of losses, the Bruins had the 5th highest points% and were sitting pretty in the division. They have a number of games on hand with every team in the east. I think they can reasonably improve the team and make them a contender without doing anything drastic.

Since the dreadful 0-3 start, the team has a 0.6857 points% which would be 3rd behind Washington and Dallas. They are currently a respectable +13 in goal differential.

This team is much closer than folks are giving them credit for.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Yeah, they'll get some sort of prospect but not a blue chipper. Dahlbeck was the 10th rated prospect in Chicago's system when he was traded for Vermette. A decent, not great, piece.

Right, but Loui >>>> Vermette.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

I also don't think this season is a complete lost cause. The East is terrible. The only team I would say they are significant underdogs against are Washington and maybe Montreal with Price. If the Bruins were to get in, the Rask-Chara-Bergeron back bone is good enough to carry them and if the chips fall right, they are capable of winning a round or two. I wouldn't sell the farm for this season, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to adding with an eye on this year.

I agree with this assessment of the team, but my stance is that I don't think Eriksson moves the needle enough by himself to not consider moving him if the price is right. Is the step down from Eriksson to Pasta really so substantial that it dramatically changes the calculus of this team's chances? I don't think it does. If you can get a package for Eriksson that adds substantial assets for the near future, the team will have a lot of pieces and a good chunk of cap space to work with. Keeping and re-signing Eriksson might make the team a bit better this year, but I think it hurts us in the near future and could put us back in the same boat we were in the last couple of years where we had no space, and not a lot of assets to create flexibility. I'd rather maximize our chances than push in on a year that doesn't necessarily warrant it, particularly when doing so would undo a lot of the pivoting done in the offseason.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

You're going to replace Eriksson's nearly 20 mins/gm with Pastrnak? How are you replacing Eriksson's 2+ mins of PK time per game?

I just don't get why you'd want to remove a key piece of the team in the middle of a successful season for a potential flier draft pick. The mind reels.

 

[cshea]

Right, but Loui >>>> Vermette.

I hear that. My point is that historically, top prospects typically don't move at the deadline for rentals. Maybe the Bruins end up getting a blue chipper, but I'm just pointing out that we should hedge expectations on any Loui trade return. Teams traditionally don't back up the Brink's truck for rentals.That's all. I posted the list of comparables in the Loui thread.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

You're going to replace Eriksson's nearly 20 mins/gm with Pastrnak? How are you replacing Eriksson's 2+ mins of PK time per game?

I just don't get why you'd want to remove a key piece of the team in the middle of a successful season for a potential flier draft pick. The mind reels.

Because you're not moving him for a "potential flier draft pick", you're only moving him if you're getting something like a 1st round pick and a good prospect (better than involved in the Vermette deal). I don't get why you're so obsessed with retaining and resigning a non-core player entering his 30s when he's going to likely cost a mint and you only just exited cap purgatory for the first time in years. The mind reels.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I hear that. My point is that historically, top prospects typically don't move at the deadline for rentals. Maybe the Bruins end up getting a blue chipper, but I'm just pointing out that we should hedge expectations on any Loui trade return. Teams traditionally don't back up the Brink's truck for rentals.That's all. I posted the list of comparables in the Loui thread.

That's fair. But I'd say, if you want Loui than you WILL back up the truck. (Otherwise, just keep him).

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Non-core player? He's second on the team in points and contributes the 3rd most minutes among all forwards on the team (including significant time on both special teams units). If that's not the definition of a core player, I'm not sure what is.

A 1st round pick is still a flier that won't be realized for 3-4 years potentially. They're about to enter the portion of the season where they'll be fighting for a playoff spot and seeding and you want to remove that level of production and potentially tank the season for a guy that we could only hope becomes Loui in the future.

Whatever, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's a dumb move, but we'll see what Sweeney does.

 

[cshea]

There is a strong case to be made that Eriksson is a core player. It doesn't mean that they should just sign him to whatever, nor trade him. That's what makes deciding what to do with him so difficult.

 

[veritas]

I love Loui as much as anyone, but he's going to get PAID this offseason and I want no part of that contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they should trade him, but if they get a Lucic-type offer for him, that'd be hard to turn down. They could also take the picks/prospects they get for him and flip it for a younger, cost-controlled player.

Ditto for Byfuglien with his history of weight and conditioning issues. If the Bruins moved on from Lucic, I can't see them signing a defenseman version of him with all the same issues.

 

[lexrageorge]

I love Loui as much as anyone, but he's going to get PAID this offseason and I want no part of that contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they should trade him, but if they get a Lucic-type offer for him, that'd be hard to turn down. They could also take the picks/prospects they get for him and flip it for a younger, cost-controlled player.

This is where I'm at. Eriksson is clearly a core player: paired with Krejci on the #1 line, first PP unit, and PK unit as well. But some GM is going to give him a $42/6 type deal, and so it's a 95% certainty that Loui is gone for nothing after this season. Come February, if they are in 10th place and are outside looking in at that last WC, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of dishing him and getting something in return. Given the fragility of the Bruins defense and Krejci's injury and the continual granting of ice time to Max Talbot and Kevan Miller, that possibility definitely exists.

 

[Jordu]

Keep Ericsson and sign him. This team has four core forwards: Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand and Ericsson. The drop-off from there is steep. (Spooner has the points, but he's still a significant defensive liability.) Who's going to replace Loui?

I've said this before, but Ericsson's game is built on skills that don't deteriorate as quickly in a player's 30s as speed/strength: great stick, excellent hands, high hockey IQ. I really fear that without Ericsson the Bruins will be a non-playoff team this year and next year and maybe the year after -- or until the high draft picks in Juniors arrive.

 

[timlinin8th]

I really fear that without Ericsson the Bruins will be a non-playoff team this year and next year and maybe the year after -- or until the high draft picks in Juniors arrive.

The problem is that in standing pat and letting the core continue to get older, the Bruins could end up being a non-playoff team this year and next year anyways yet have less bullets and cap space to retool with down the line.

I don't have an answer as I see how both sides "could" be right but am not clairvoyant. I would imagine it would depend on what his contract demands would be as I think everyone here wants Loui back, but it would need to be at the right price. Giving him Krejci/Bergeron money isn't going to happen, and hopefully the FO already has some gauge on what he may be looking for. If his demands would be too high you'd hate to lose him anyways and have nothing to show for it.

 

[Reardon's Beard]

I want to see what we get out of adding The Kid back up to the varsity squad. Seeing what Pasta does playing on the top two lines would lead me to think about resigning Loui trading/signing a top Dman to GFIN.

Shore up the D, get your forwards hot, and with Rask in net - anything is possible.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

The Bruins just started a 6 games in 9 days stretch. I think by this time next week we'll have a much better idea of where they sit. It's a big week for them.

Hopefully they can get some momentum.

 

[BigMike]

I love Loui as much as anyone, but he's going to get PAID this offseason and I want no part of that contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they should trade him, but if they get a Lucic-type offer for him, that'd be hard to turn down. They could also take the picks/prospects they get for him and flip it for a younger, cost-controlled player.

Ditto for Byfuglien with his history of weight and conditioning issues. If the Bruins moved on from Lucic, I can't see them signing a defenseman version of him with all the same issues.

I wouldn't tough Byguglien with a 10 foot pole. He'd be interesting as a playoff rental, but I think far to expensive for that. But in terms of a long term contract, absolutely no chance I want a long term Huge money contract with the guy with the worst conditioning problems in the league especially since the deal would extend to the end of his career (and likely beyond it)

You're going to replace Eriksson's nearly 20 mins/gm with Pastrnak? How are you replacing Eriksson's 2+ mins of PK time per game?

I just don't get why you'd want to remove a key piece of the team in the middle of a successful season for a potential flier draft pick. The mind reels.

I agree on Pasta. The goal is to not have Pasta replace Eriksson, that is a downgrade. You want to add Pasta to a spot where he replaces your weakest forward, thus upgrading multiple lines.

In terms of the trade deadline it is WAY to early to determine where the Bruins are and what they should do. If Boston is solidly within the playoffs at the deadline then you don't consider deadline Eriksson, and you might even make a significant move forward.

If the Bruins are on the outside looking in (say 6+ points out), then it is easy and you deal Eriksson, maybe others in an attempt to move forward and rebuild.

Where it gets tough is if they are somewhere similar to where they are today, but maybe with a.bit more separation from the top. Let's say they are 6 points behind 3rd place n the east, and in a pool with or 6 teams competing for the 2 wildcard spots. At that point it is a very tough question

 

[cshea]

http://www.tsn.ca/mondaymustread-will-the-blues-move-shattenkirk-for-scoring-help-1.421109

There are some rumblings around the league that the Blues may move Shattenkirk. I'm not sure the Bruins match up well with the win-now Blues, but it is certainly worth a phone call to find out.

 

[Salem's Lot]

Would Loui for Shattenkirk be too much of a lateral move for both clubs? We'd get the top 4 defenseman that we need (while sacrificing a very good offensive player) and they'd get the secondary scoring they need while sacrificing a very good defenseman. Would either team do this?

 

[teddykgb]

Although I'd do that deal, I'm not sure what that does for the Blues. Presumably they're moving Shattenkirk for the same reason we're moving Loui in that they're not sure they can afford to re-sign him. If that's the case, then they'd be better off trading him for assets they control for longer or else they run into the same problem.

I'll disagree with others in this thread in that I think the Bruins have to actively look to sell Loui almost wherever they are standings wise. It's fun to hope and say "anything can happen" but I fundamentally think they're a few pieces short of a true Cup contender and they won't be able to get the pieces they need at the deadline. Re-signing Loui for what he is likely to cost is a non starter for me -- you don't get better re-signing the players you already have to bigger money contracts. As a result, if you can turn him into some assets you can use down the road and free up cap space I think you have to do it.

I recognize why this is both an unpopular opinion and one that is hard to enact because it takes two to tango. But we are looking at a very real scenario right now where Loui walks away for practically nothing or we pay him too much money in regards to his contribution levels. It's awesome that Loui has become the player we thought we were getting when we traded Seguin for him and the Loui of today would have been a real difference maker on those SC teams but he's not a good fit for where this team is right now IMO.

 

[Salem's Lot]

They are not "selling" Eriksson at the deadline unless they are clearly out of the playoff mix. They want to make the playoffs this year. If they're 6-8 points out at the deadline then Sweeney could sell to ownership why it would be a good idea to trade him for futures. If they're in the mix it would make sense to look at a deal where they could get a top 4 defenseman with term for him. That deal probably isn't out there but it's Sweeney's job to look.

 

[The B’s Knees]

Frank Seravelli on TSN is throwing out Kevin Shattenkirk's name. Him for Loui would be a trade I'd be all over, plus he has an extra year on his contract at $4.25/mil.

http://www.tsn.ca/mondaymustread-will-the-blues-move-shattenkirk-for-scoring-help-1.421109

 

[TFP]

Frank Seravelli on TSN is throwing out Kevin Shattenkirk's name. Him for Loui would be a trade I'd be all over, plus he has an extra year on his contract at $4.25/mil.

http://www.tsn.ca/mondaymustread-will-the-blues-move-shattenkirk-for-scoring-help-1.421109

Would Loui for Shattenkirk be too much of a lateral move for both clubs? We'd get the top 4 defenseman that we need (while sacrificing a very good offensive player) and they'd get the secondary scoring they need while sacrificing a very good defenseman. Would either team do this?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Could even be worse than lateral in the short run. Shattenkirk may require some adjustment time once he gets here, and subtracting Loui blows a huge hole in the forward lines.

 

[The Napkin]

Would Loui for Shattenkirk be too much of a lateral move for both clubs? We'd get the top 4 defenseman that we need (while sacrificing a very good offensive player) and they'd get the secondary scoring they need while sacrificing a very good defenseman. Would either team do this?

 

[burstnbloom]

I can't imagine 2 months of Loui is nearly enough to get 1 year and 2 months of a player of Shattenkirk's caliber. Don't get me wrong, I love Loui, but the Blues almost certainly can't resign him. They have Backes and Schwartz needing new deals this offseason and Payrako emerging gives them 6 strong defensemen. I think they'd move him for a package of players that will help ease the cap crunch they are entering over the next couple of years. Shattenkirk is exactly what the Bruins need but I don't know that they match up all that well with St. Louis .

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I can't imagine 2 months of Loui is nearly enough to get 1 year and 2 months of a player of Shattenkirk's caliber. Don't get me wrong, I love Loui, but the Blues almost certainly can't resign him. They have Backes and Schwartz needing new deals this offseason and Payrako emerging gives them 6 strong defensemen. I think they'd move him for a package of players that will help ease the cap crunch they are entering over the next couple of years. Shattenkirk is exactly what the Bruins need but I don't know that they match up all that well with St. Louis .

Maybe we can throw in Kevin Miller and Shithead...

 

[cshea]

I can't imagine 2 months of Loui is nearly enough to get 1 year and 2 months of a player of Shattenkirk's caliber. Don't get me wrong, I love Loui, but the Blues almost certainly can't resign him. They have Backes and Schwartz needing new deals this offseason and Payrako emerging gives them 6 strong defensemen. I think they'd move him for a package of players that will help ease the cap crunch they are entering over the next couple of years. Shattenkirk is exactly what the Bruins need but I don't know that they match up all that well with St. Louis .

Yeah, unless the Blues are willing to take futures, I don't see much of a fit. I think Spooner would be of some interest to the Blues, but I don't think he moves the needle enough for them this year for them to trade Shattenkirk mid-season. the Blues have Stastny, Backes and Lehtera down the middle. Backes probably leaves after this season, so Spooner would be a cheap, controllable center for them. A Spooner + Loui package may pique their interest, but I don't think the Bruins could withstand that sort of blow up front this year. They'd have to find another forward to come in from somewhere. That's the best I could come up with.

 

[LogansDad]

Maybe we can throw in Kevin Miller and Shithead...

Riiiiiiiggght... throwing in Kevan Miller is only going to get the Bruins LESS in the deal. Maybe he will retire.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Ugh all of a sudden the offense has gone cold at a critical point in the season; the defense doesn't look half bad.

If this keeps up, I'm not sure what they should do. I keep waiting for them to go on some sort of run, but it's just not happening.

 

[cshea]

They hit the exact midpoint of the season last night. So it's a 94 point pace, chasing a wild card spot. Looking at their underlying numbers, that seems about right. They're possession is middle of the pack, 49.2% CF. Shooting % is 7.75% and ES PDO is 100.2. Those numbers support their current standing as a good, not great, potential playoff team.

A little less than 7 weeks to the deadline. Things can change but as of now I'd be more interested in long term pieces than rentals. It is a tough call, but part of me sees and incredibly weak east and this an opportunity to do some damage if they were to get in.

 

[NYCSox]

Ugh all of a sudden the offense has gone cold at a critical point in the season; the defense doesn't look half bad.

Well I mean they are missing 46. Offense is going to be a problem until he comes back.

A little less than 7 weeks to the deadline. Things can change but as of now I'd be more interested in long term pieces than rentals. It is a tough call, but part of me sees and incredibly weak east and this an opportunity to do some damage if they were to get in.

What would be fantastic is for Montreal to completely collapse without Price and play golf in April. Barring that, having them be the second wild card and getting kicked to the Metro would work as well.

 

[NickEsasky]

If this keeps up, I'm not sure what they should do. I keep waiting for them to go on some sort of run, but it's just not happening.

All those pesky home games keep getting in the way.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

It's so true. Maybe they should start sleeping in a hotel when they're home.

 

[McDrew]

Since no one has noted this yet, The B's drafts in the next 2 years in the top 3 rounds differ from their slotted picks in the following ways:
The B's own San Jose's 2016 first round pick.
The B's own the Islanders 2016 second round pick.
The B's own Edmonton's 2016 second round pick, but Edmonton has the right before the 2016 draft to defer that pick to 2017. Given that this pick might be in the mid 30's overall, Edmonton might defer.
The B's do NOT own their 2016 second round pick
The B's do NOT own ther 2017 3rd round pick.