The Bruins didn't need Pirri. They did need a winger. And the market doesn't always operate the way we want it to. And a 2017 2nd has less value than a 2016 2nd; you cannot treat all 2nd round picks as being equivalent.
Bruins Trade Deadline 2016
- Thread starter cshea
- Start date
How far do the Bruins have to advance in the playoffs for these moves to be considered a success?
If you hold Loui and give up 2-5th rd picks you have to assume that done is with an eye towards the playoffs this year. If you miss the playoffs is it fair to say this trade deadline was a disaster? Assuming you make it do you need to advance at least one round to feel good about these moves? What should the expected return be for investing this type of draft capital at the deadline.
Of course Rask/Bergeron/Marchand could get injured tonight and all bets are off but assuming reasonable health what are fair expectations now for the season?
If you hold Loui and give up 2-5th rd picks you have to assume that done is with an eye towards the playoffs this year. If you miss the playoffs is it fair to say this trade deadline was a disaster? Assuming you make it do you need to advance at least one round to feel good about these moves? What should the expected return be for investing this type of draft capital at the deadline.
Of course Rask/Bergeron/Marchand could get injured tonight and all bets are off but assuming reasonable health what are fair expectations now for the season?
Content, though not thrilled with this deadline. I guess a bigger D-man would have been good, but let's see what happens. If this gives the team a shot of confidence then maybe they start playing like they can.
Basically they already offered what I am comfortable with. The 4 year offer worth about 5.125 million a year or whatever it was, was about how far I would go. He turned it down and thus I am out. I do not want to pay him until he's 35-36 and I'm worried he will decline soon.
You should put this into a new thread.
This is a good question and would be a good discussion.
I will say this about Pirri......I can't recall a guy with as many as 22 goals in a season and as few as 2 assists (pirri last season).
In the end, it looks like a combination of not an offer for Loui worth making where Sweeney/Neely see some value in just making the playoffs. Toward that end, they helped the offense and marginally helped the defense.
I think you're viewing it incorrectly, to be honest. I always view the trade deadline like I do gambling (or more specifically, poker). If you make an educated and informed decision and get beat, that's just the way it goes. You'll lose money, but you made the right decision.
Sweeney made a decision he thought was best for the team, he can't guarantee future success (or injuries) and if they don't make the playoffs it'll be unfortunate, but it will not change how I feel about the trades. I think they're mediocre trades that don't make the team significantly better, but I'm ok with the cost. If they miss the playoffs, I'm still ok with the cost.
When evaluating a trade deadline, we're talking about opportunities, not guarantees.
EDIT: @j44thor
Sweeney made a decision he thought was best for the team, he can't guarantee future success (or injuries) and if they don't make the playoffs it'll be unfortunate, but it will not change how I feel about the trades. I think they're mediocre trades that don't make the team significantly better, but I'm ok with the cost. If they miss the playoffs, I'm still ok with the cost.
When evaluating a trade deadline, we're talking about opportunities, not guarantees.
EDIT: @j44thor
That's about where I'm at. I think my disappointment with today is that it's no clearer how Sweeney views the team than it was when he remade the roster initially around the draft. I just want to know if he sees the team as contending as they're made or if he thinks they're going to have to take some medicine soon in order to give hope to the Bergeron/Rask window not getting a lot smaller.
It's hard to say, because it's hard to know where they would end up without the new additions.
I'd say there was a high risk the Bruins would have been faced with a 1st round exit, given their deficiencies. Of course, the rest of the ECF also has deficiencies, so who really knows. If the Bruins somehow make the Conference Finals, with Lille and Stempniak contributing, then it was probably worth making the trades. How realistic is that? Still seems like a long shot to me, but the NHL playoffs are often unpredictable. A slight move of the needle can make a huge difference.
If they miss the playoffs entirely, they we can safely call the trades a disaster, although I still feel the team did not really give up that much, save the opportunity to trade Eriksson.
I have to believe the trade market for Loui just wasn't really there, and Sweeney decided to hold the line on price. If that's the case, then I can't really blame Sweeney; throwing away a playoff spot is usually not a good strategy. I still think Eriksson will be too expensive to resign this offseason. It certainly doesn't make sense to lose Marchand and Pastrnak/Spooner in the hopes of keeping Eriksson around when he's 37.
7 years and $50M will be enough for me to decide he's not worth resigning. At some point, the future salary cap space, and the ability to retain the next Loui-style player, becomes more valuable than the 2016 goals and points.
I'm fine with the trades he made. It's the trade he didn't make that I'm bothered with. They had to unload Loui Eriksson for the best possible D prospect they could get and some picks. It is unacceptable to me that he is still here without a long-term deal. He will either walk out that door and Sweeney will be sitting there with his you-know-what in his hand or he'll pull a Chiarelli and massively overpay him. He missed an opportunity to make the team better for the long term. He could have both traded for what he did today and also trade off Eriksson.
Obviously there is an upper limit to what we'd all be comfortable paying Loui. That number may be different for all of us, but that's a lot different than saying you don't want the Bruins to sign Loui at all.
The assumption behind your post is that the market for Loui was such they could have received the bolded. We don't really know that. Selling Loui for a couple of 2nd rounders and a Zboril-level prospect is not appealing for a team that wants to advance in the playoffs this season. If that was the best return Sweeney could get, then you can't blame him for holding pat now.
Guessing the new lineup will be something like this:
Marchand - Bergeron - Stempniak
Eriksson - Krejci - Pastrnak
Beleskey - Spooner - Hayes
Ferraro - Kemppainen - Connolly
Chara - K. Miller
Seidenberg - Liles
Krug - McQuaid
Marchand - Bergeron - Stempniak
Eriksson - Krejci - Pastrnak
Beleskey - Spooner - Hayes
Ferraro - Kemppainen - Connolly
Chara - K. Miller
Seidenberg - Liles
Krug - McQuaid
I think my issue with these moves is because my priorities for the team are different than management, and obviously mine mean nothing. I hate that this means no more Morrow or C. Miller this year. Their development stalls another season. I also think it now takes a top 6 injury for Vatrano to get any more run. I think it would be good for any of those guys to continue getting minutes because they represent players for the future with upside. Clearly management believes this team is capable of a run and made relatively low cost trades to supplement the roster. I happen to disagree with them, but I'm happy they didn't overpay too much to make that statement.
So was the Bruins team as of yesterday one Lee Stempniak and a JM Liles away from the eastern conference finals? I don't think so. Basically they gutted the high middle of a draft in order to get these guys, and I don't see how they make a significant difference. Adding these types of players for mid to late round picks when you have a contender is a good idea. When you're a borderline playoff team, it's just how you stay on the mediocrity treadmill. You could have traded for good players who'd be around longer or better picks with that ammo this summer. Ugh.
I have a much bigger problem with the Stempniak and Liles deal than I do with keeping Eriksson now that I've had a bit of time to digest it.
I understand not wanting to blow up the team, and considering Loui a "rental" means they paid whatever the best offer is they received in order to keep him. Whatever that was, Loui is more valuable to the Bruins than any other team, and more valuable than any other rental would have been. He's familiar with his teammates, the system, doesn't have to move across the country, etc.
With Loui, the Bruins have an outside chance of winning the cup. Any team who makes the playoffs has a chance of winning the cup, especially with an elite goalie like Tuukka. Let's just agree with Vegas and say they have a ~6% chance of winning it all. It's not great, but they have a chance. I would think losing Loui would move the needle down to ~1%, and there would be a significant chance of not even making the playoffs. I don't agree with the decision, but I at least can understand trying to avoid the latter situation.
Throwing away 4 middle round picks for two guys that barely move the needle is what really bothers me. The goal of a good NHL GM, in my opinion should be to build a team that can contend every year. The expected value of a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th round pick is probably a 3rd liner who you have for cheap for a few years. Which is way more valuable than a 3rd liner for 2 months. It's going to actually contribute to them being a better team, more likely to win a cup, over multiple seasons.
edit: (pretty much what shaggydog2000 said in a lot more more words)
I understand not wanting to blow up the team, and considering Loui a "rental" means they paid whatever the best offer is they received in order to keep him. Whatever that was, Loui is more valuable to the Bruins than any other team, and more valuable than any other rental would have been. He's familiar with his teammates, the system, doesn't have to move across the country, etc.
With Loui, the Bruins have an outside chance of winning the cup. Any team who makes the playoffs has a chance of winning the cup, especially with an elite goalie like Tuukka. Let's just agree with Vegas and say they have a ~6% chance of winning it all. It's not great, but they have a chance. I would think losing Loui would move the needle down to ~1%, and there would be a significant chance of not even making the playoffs. I don't agree with the decision, but I at least can understand trying to avoid the latter situation.
Throwing away 4 middle round picks for two guys that barely move the needle is what really bothers me. The goal of a good NHL GM, in my opinion should be to build a team that can contend every year. The expected value of a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th round pick is probably a 3rd liner who you have for cheap for a few years. Which is way more valuable than a 3rd liner for 2 months. It's going to actually contribute to them being a better team, more likely to win a cup, over multiple seasons.
edit: (pretty much what shaggydog2000 said in a lot more more words)
And thats just it - the Bruins have basically established what they're comfortable paying Loui, and it isn't anywhere in the same league as what he gets in FA from another team. Loui is absolutely perfect for this team right now and don't want to lose him but I'd put the odds of him being here next season at less than 5%. So that being said, I'd rather lose him for value rather than nothing.
And this is also where I stand. For the people who keep saying that "the Bruins have a lot of picks", well ya, they do. But picks are retainable assets, and throwing them away on rentals instead of using them to gain other retainable pieces who improve your picture beyond this season, or bundling multiple picks together to gain better draft position, etc, is asset mismanagement. You're giving up something, for fungible talent that really doesn't make you any better. In a vacuum sure its not bad, but its a loss in potential moves you now wont be able to make.
The shitty Eastern Conference is really hiding the holes in this team. People maintaining delusions of playoffs with this trainwreck of a D are kidding themselves.
I've seen a couple people post about not seeing a plan in Sweeney's moves. Its not like Don is locked away in some doomsday bunker making all these decisions with no understanding of anything outside of his bubble or with no input. While he(ok really Neely) has the final say, its generally reached by group discussion and scouting in regard to a team plan laid out for the present and future. If he was the only person in the room that felt like these deals accomplished anything and everyone else thought he was nuts does anyone really think they would go through?
And by accomplishment we need to still remember this is a business. If the FO feels the monetary assigned values of those draft picks is less than the amount of money the team would take in with an extra playoff round, then is it not a sound business decision?
And by accomplishment we need to still remember this is a business. If the FO feels the monetary assigned values of those draft picks is less than the amount of money the team would take in with an extra playoff round, then is it not a sound business decision?
I get the point, but a focus on the bottom line rather than the on-ice product was what drove me nuts about Sinden - and was a big factor in diminishing my interest in the Bs overall.
Taking a step back and looking at the trade deadline as a whole, I don't think there was a single trade made where I think the Bruins missed the boat. Obviously we have no idea what the offers were, but It doesn't seem like the market ever really materialized for Eriksson. Ladd was the only player moved for a 1st and quality prospect. The Boedker return was pretty lousy. From a counting stats perspective, Lee Stempniak was actually the highest scorer moved and he got a 2017 2nd round pick and a 4th this year. I would've liked to have moved Loui for a nice package of futures, but maybe that just wasn't out there. If the best they were offered for Loui was a Stempniak or a Jiri Hudler type return, then I'm fine keeping him.
Moving out some of the draft picks stings, but I'm OK with the Stempniak and Liles additions. They navigated their way around a Kris Russell disaster and landed on Liles, and supplemented the right wing by adding Stempniak. I guess they could've just held and done nothing, but at the same time I don't think there much sense in tanking it from here on out. They made 10 picks a year ago and added 3 NCAA UDFA's that look to be legitimate prospects (Vatrano, Czarnik and Acciari). The sheer number of picks and prospects is going to force a crunch at some point. They still have 7 picks this year including 3 in the first 2 rounds. At the end of the day, they didn't do anythning today that should jeopardize their ability to make further moves in the summer to find a more long term solution on defense.
The most surprising thing to me may be that Khokhlachev and Griffith are still here. I thought for sure one or the other would go.
Moving out some of the draft picks stings, but I'm OK with the Stempniak and Liles additions. They navigated their way around a Kris Russell disaster and landed on Liles, and supplemented the right wing by adding Stempniak. I guess they could've just held and done nothing, but at the same time I don't think there much sense in tanking it from here on out. They made 10 picks a year ago and added 3 NCAA UDFA's that look to be legitimate prospects (Vatrano, Czarnik and Acciari). The sheer number of picks and prospects is going to force a crunch at some point. They still have 7 picks this year including 3 in the first 2 rounds. At the end of the day, they didn't do anythning today that should jeopardize their ability to make further moves in the summer to find a more long term solution on defense.
The most surprising thing to me may be that Khokhlachev and Griffith are still here. I thought for sure one or the other would go.
I don't think they did anything bad today, but I'm not sure they did anything better than okay today either. If no one wanted to pay sellers' rates for Loui, I accept that they did the right thing, but wish someone had been desperate enough to give up a Brodin or Jaskin for Loui. As it is, the little information we have about the negotiations between his team and the Bruins hasn't been overwhelmingly positive, so the last piece left to get excited about from the Kessel trade is probably walking out the door in the off-season.
The move for Stempniak was safe. Same with the move for Liles. And I'm coloring this from my point of view, which is that this team needs to start some kind of rebuild fairly soon if they're going to give Bergeron and Rask another shot at the Cup with the Bruins. With that in mind, today just kicked the can on a roster that needs some tough choices made about it sooner rather than later, and that's how a team can end up like Calgary towards the end of Iginla's time there: perpetually just good enough to sit in 7th-10th in the conference, but never on either extreme, never close enough to a full rebuild or truly contending for the Cup.
The move for Stempniak was safe. Same with the move for Liles. And I'm coloring this from my point of view, which is that this team needs to start some kind of rebuild fairly soon if they're going to give Bergeron and Rask another shot at the Cup with the Bruins. With that in mind, today just kicked the can on a roster that needs some tough choices made about it sooner rather than later, and that's how a team can end up like Calgary towards the end of Iginla's time there: perpetually just good enough to sit in 7th-10th in the conference, but never on either extreme, never close enough to a full rebuild or truly contending for the Cup.
First I want to start off by saying I made that point trying to give a POSSIBLE alternate reasoning behind adding marginal rental talent only slightly upgrading a perceived non-Cup contender. Like I said, he isnt doing this for shits and giggles, there is a reasoning behind this. I would view it as the opposite of being cheap. Cheap would be wanting to keep the draft picks so you have more chances at low cost talent. If Sweeney and Co believe that the players available in the next draft are weak, they may view the best use of those picks is to make more money than rolling the dice on players they may not believe in contributing. I'm not saying I agree with it but anyone that went to business school knows you try to best utilize your assets to make the most money, and MAYBE this is how the FO viewed them
I have no problem admitting fault if you prove me wrong, so how about you tell me why it makes zero sense because I see at least some sense to it from a purely business standpoint
To anybody appreciating how succinctly I made my argument, I now realize I should have just posted this picture and been done with it. Bravo.
You're admittingly just throwing crap against the wall -- and it is extra smelly crap with little kernels of corn in it. Don't ask people to prove you wrong. You need to offer up some shred of evidence that it would have had any place in Don Sweeney's thinking -- and the part where you tell everyone you went to business school isn't evidence. It was a pretty stupid thought -- just move on.
I think they're still in position for a rebuild/re-tool to accommodate the Bergy window. They've got a replenished prospect pool, and more high picks. They've got some cap space to work with. They've got an elite goalie and a forward group that has scored the 3rd most goals in the league. Everyone knows the defense needs a lot of work, but they've got the assets to do so. As I said above, that's going to be a job for the summer. If October rolls around next year and we're looking at the same D with a minor tweak, then we've got issues.
I agree with the idea that they're in a good place once they rebuild the defense, but Sweeney still leaves a sour taste in my mouth for giving up a 3rd round pick in exchange for a guy DPS knows on a first name basis and extending one of their most fungible defensemen to be the only one signed past next season. I'm not totally pessimistic, but I'd like to see something in that direction before minting my "In Don We Trust" coins.
And since there's no place to put it, I don't really see the Bruins as big losers today. In fact, I think St. Louis and Vancouver did WAY worse. Like, "Armstrong needs to fear for his job" bad.
And since there's no place to put it, I don't really see the Bruins as big losers today. In fact, I think St. Louis and Vancouver did WAY worse. Like, "Armstrong needs to fear for his job" bad.
Well since pretty much no one on this board knows what Sweeney is thinking wouldn't any opinion fall under "throwing crap against the wall"? I admit that I threw it against the wall, but I was more trying to open a dialogue about valuation of assets with a purely monetary standpoint and how teams make decisions in that regard, and wondering if it was possible for a team to make a move like that. Since everyone seems to think my idea was crazy I'll let it die
Oh and no business school for this guy, I wasted all that money on beer and whiskey
Wait, what? They need a rebuild?
They have a very solid core of youngish guys and a youngish goalie. They need a few upgrades, but a rebuild?
Seriously this is turning into some weird shit.
I think the reaction to the non-trade of Loui comes down to how spoiled the fanbases in Boston are becoming. No one can look at this team and say they are a legit contender, but they are more than likely playoff bound. Now I'm not going into the whole "but ANYTHING could happen!" routine, but is there any precedent of team trading away a pending UFA of Loui's caliber while they are in playoff contention? I am absolutely fine with letting him play the season out and not resigning him. The Seguin trade is over and done with, that chicken is not getting un-fucked. Trading Loui would absolutely make this team weaker for the rest of the season and put the playoffs in jeopardy. They kept all of the high value assets, so the top pairing D (that absolutely no one traded away this deadline) can still be had at the draft. They didn't over spend on Stemp or Liles, Sweeney spread the picks over 2 drafts and Camara is likely never to be a regular NHL player anyway. If that's the cost of increasing the odds of making the playoffs, I can live with that.
Honestly the only 2 negatives I can come up with is that Liles is a LD and that means Morrow likely sits the remainder of the season just when he's starting to look better and they didn't move Koko who they will probably lose for nothing in the offseason. Was it a good deadline? Probably not. But I don't think it's nearly as bad as some (here, other boards, media) are portraying it.
Honestly the only 2 negatives I can come up with is that Liles is a LD and that means Morrow likely sits the remainder of the season just when he's starting to look better and they didn't move Koko who they will probably lose for nothing in the offseason. Was it a good deadline? Probably not. But I don't think it's nearly as bad as some (here, other boards, media) are portraying it.
It has nothing to do with being spoiled. Criticisms of front offices doing useless shit existed even when no Boston teams were winning (that IS when SoSH started after all).
The issue is this whole "playoff contention" thing. The only reason this team is in the hunt at all is a function of the other teams around them sucking, which is the wrong way to go about business for continued runs of success. At the beginning of the season I posted in the prediction thread that this team's top end talent would allow them to feast on weaker teams but lack of D and depth would mean they'd struggle against legitimate contenders and that is exactly how its playing out and is also the worst spot to be in - as Miracle says above, its perennial borderline playoff caliber with no real shot at contending.
EVERY team, but especially this team, need to build with an eye towards the future. With the talent they have they don't need a rebuild but at least a retool. If they keep putting this off the core they do have will continue getting older. Last deadline I felt they should have been sellers to get the retool going and they did nothing to improve the future, then missed the playoffs. This deadline, also did nothing that helps the future. At some point losing assets while gaining no value catches up to you because other teams who get value for their assets are able to stock up (see: Chicago trading Patrick Sharp).
What do you mean by especially the Bruins? Why do the Bruins need to have an eye on the future more than other teams? To headly's point, the Bruins really need a top pairing D but looking at the deadline, it (now) seems unrealistic to have expected a Shattenkirk, Dumba, Brodin or an Anaheim D trade while their teams were contending. Is there another player that they could have acquired? The trades will need to come before the draft.
My biggest complaint is still having Koko on the team. I assume he's gone to the KHL but he's produced at the AHL levels. It seems like there have been times when the Bruins could have gotten assets for him and now he's likely leaving for nothing. It's surprising NJD or Car didn't want him in place of the lower draft pick. To me, that would have been a win for both teams.
No team wants to cripple themselves so they all make moves with an eye on future seasons, but it makes sense when legitimate cup contenders take on rentals. Current cellar dwellers have no real timetable for their full rebuild.
This Bruins team has a solid core with a short term timetable though, so this teams real goal should entirely be finding a sweet spot where Bergeron, Krejci, Rask, and Marchand are still top players while also having a "new core" that will still be cheap that can supplement them. Taking on players who are simply gone at the end of the year don't do anything to improve the team in that window they should be shooting for, so any assets spent on those rentals are essentially lost.
While not a trade deadline deal, there was the year that the Sinden traded a future 1st round pick for Landon Wilson and the immortal Anders Myrvold. The Bruins finished dead last that season. Which at least set them up to draft Joe Thornton the following offseason.
For those of us that lived that period, the recent deals don't seem all that horrible.
For those of us that lived that period, the recent deals don't seem all that horrible.
I can see legitimate reasons why people can fall on both sites of the trade / keep Loui line. I'm clearly on the side that keeping him unless a Shattenkirk type deal was offered was the right move. Futures are great, but they are all lottery tickets. If you want to maximize the window for the current core, drafting or trading for 18-20 YO potential franchise DMan isn't really helping. Outside of a very few elite players, top pairing defensemen typically don't reach potential until they start to approach 23-24 years old.
I believe the value of getting into the playoffs is huge for the development of players such as Spooner, Pasta, and even Rask. More than any other sport, future success is paved in the NHL playoffs. Beyond that, playoff success in the NHL factors on who is healthy and who is hot. It's a crap-shoot, Holtby goes down the east is wide open. The Bruins are a better team than a week ago and have the legit ability to win a round or two. Maybe not cup contenders without a shitload of dominoes falling in place, but in this league a decent run is definitely possible.
I believe the value of getting into the playoffs is huge for the development of players such as Spooner, Pasta, and even Rask. More than any other sport, future success is paved in the NHL playoffs. Beyond that, playoff success in the NHL factors on who is healthy and who is hot. It's a crap-shoot, Holtby goes down the east is wide open. The Bruins are a better team than a week ago and have the legit ability to win a round or two. Maybe not cup contenders without a shitload of dominoes falling in place, but in this league a decent run is definitely possible.
Neely on F&M said if they got the offer they were anticipating for Eriksson they would have moved him. They wanted a young player who would have got into their lineup or a 1st round pick. There was no ownership push to make the playoffs.
Makes sense to me. Look at the landscape. Aside from Ladd, noting of significance moved. The market wasn't there for Loui.
Is that surprising to anyone else? One would think a possession monster with a small cap hit would be highly sought after for the playoff push. I have no reason to doubt Cam's word but I really thought there would be teams falling over each other to get him.
It doesn't really surprise me when looking at the situations some of the team's rumored to be interested in Loui are in.
Minnesota- In the 2016 draft they have 4 picks left- 1st, 4th and 2 7th. The rest are traded. They also traded their 2nd round pick in 2017. Makes sense that they didn't want to move another draft pick out for a rental, especially as borderline playoff team. Aside from Brodin, Dumba, Scandella, I don't really think the Wild have a young prospect ready to jump in. The 3 guys I mentioned obviously aren't moving for a rental.
St Louis- This was probably our best shot, but injuries have put the Blues in a bad spot cap wise. They have picks and prospects, and perhaps a willingness to add, but they got hit by a ton of injuries. They are currently eating into LTIR with Steen, Ott, Elliott, and Pietrangelo (who was just activated). Any trade with the Blues would've had to have been dollar in dollar out, and looking at their salaries, there really isn't an easy way to make things match up. They don't really have a bad contract we could've taken back. Anyone making money for them is useful.
Anaheim- I thought this was a good fit, but they went the cheaper route with McGinn and Pirri in, Maroon out. Another team that was short on picks to begin with, since 2nd went to Vancouver for Bieksa, and their 5th was already gone as well. I would've loved to get one of their D prospects, but who knows maybe they just didn't have the appetite for that kind of deal.
Then I'm not sure who else had interest. I'm assuming the Bruins didn't want to move him to an East team. Chicago clearly preferred Ladd. LA made their moves and didn't have cap space for him (not to mention they are short on picks and have a middling system). Dallas seemed focused on the backend. I tend to believe Cam, I don't think the market ever really developed for Loui.
And I'll add that Sweeney was right to hold the line on Loui's trade value. I don't think anyone here would have been all that pleased with getting a couple of second rounders back. It would have looked like Boychuk all over again. And the Bruins biggest desire, a young D prospect, is the one thing that teams don't want to give away. And it's not always wise for a team to break the bank in a GFIN move. Eriksson would certainly have improved Anaheim, but there's enough unpredictability about the NHL playoffs that I can see why Murray would pause before giving away his store for a rental. There'd still be no guarantee that they could get by Chicago, Dallas, LA, or St. Louis.
The Bruins earned 4 hugely critical points this week. They now have a pretty decent cushion over the Devils, Flyers, Whalers, and Senators. Yes, they have a difficult schedule coming up. But that should actually make the rest of the regular season fun to watch. They're healthy (knock on wood), and they've at least retooled the bottom of their roster. Might as well enjoy the ride against the NHL's iron.
The Bruins earned 4 hugely critical points this week. They now have a pretty decent cushion over the Devils, Flyers, Whalers, and Senators. Yes, they have a difficult schedule coming up. But that should actually make the rest of the regular season fun to watch. They're healthy (knock on wood), and they've at least retooled the bottom of their roster. Might as well enjoy the ride against the NHL's iron.
I also think there is value going forward to not making a trade just for the sake of making a trade. In future negotiations, potential trading partners know that Sweeney has, in the past, held onto assets when the right return wasn't there even at the risk of losing the player for nothing. I am not suggesting Sweeney is suddenly Red Auerbach or anything, but it lends a certain amount of credibility going forward.
It should also be noted that of the 3 most logical destinations (Anaheim, St. Louis, Minnesota) none of them are in a GFIN situation where they might lose multiple pieces this offseason; the only major UFAs on those 3 teams are Perron on Anaheim and Backes on St. Louis. Combined with the cap likely to stay flat or decrease and those teams needing to sign their RFAs (Vatanen, Lindholm, Dumba, Schwartz, Jaskin), it's not that surprising that nobody was willing to move out high picks or cheap NHL contributors for someone likely to be a pure rental.
I'm not that surprised teams wouldn't pay up for a rental, he'd need to be a perfect fit and finishing move for a team that thinks it can legitimately win the cup.
I am surprised that Neely said no one offered as much as two #2s for Loui, but decided the price of a #2 and a #4 for Stempniak was a fair price.
Everybody that wanted to trade Loui can suck it!
In all seriousness, the team looks sharp right now. I think the deadline passing might have loosened them up again. I'm convinced they can do some damage in the postseason. I'm excited about this group of guys.
In all seriousness, the team looks sharp right now. I think the deadline passing might have loosened them up again. I'm convinced they can do some damage in the postseason. I'm excited about this group of guys.
Glad they now kept him for the stretch run. The deadline passing looks like it helped them and the additions have been helpful. Now free Vatrano and put Connolly on the 9th floor.
Agreed. Last year sucked without seeing the Bruins in the playoffs, and there is a good chance this year was a repeat of that if they trade Loui. Nothing is clinched yet, obviously, but at least these games are meaningful. There are a lot of teams with a few games in hand on them, but there's also a lot of teams who need to leap frog each other to get to them as well.
I really think the fact that Philly and Pittsburgh play each other three more times is huge for the Bruins playoff chances right now. It would suck if all three of those games become three point games, but if two or all three are won in regulation, that's basically 4 extra points for the B's. (I'm sure I am not explaining my thoughts on this right... but I gave it a try...)
I really think the fact that Philly and Pittsburgh play each other three more times is huge for the Bruins playoff chances right now. It would suck if all three of those games become three point games, but if two or all three are won in regulation, that's basically 4 extra points for the B's. (I'm sure I am not explaining my thoughts on this right... but I gave it a try...)