Bruins Trade Rumors/Targets
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
I heard some of it on WEEI on the ride home. They cut out before it was over but there are the highlights from what I heard...
- They project Connolly as a top 6 forward. He was available because Tampa is loaded.
- He was asked about where he thought Connolly would play right away. Basically deferred to Claude.
- They looked at rentals, thought a controlled asset in Connolly was a better use of the picks than a rental. Connolly helps now and hopefully will be part of the group going forward.
- They did look at depth D. They went back and reviewed the depth D trades they've made in past deadlines. Some have worked, some haven't. They decided that it is tough to adapt to the system on the fly so they decided to stay the course. They like what they have down in Providence with Morrow, Warsofsky and Chris Breen. A gamble, but one they wanted to take.
- Some bigger, core group, hockey trades discussed. He said the Evander Kane trade sort of shook open the market, but cap makes it very hard to pull these types of deals off in the middle of the season.
- On waiving Cunningham...He said they had some deals being discussed that may have required Cunningham's cap space. Basically he either had to put Cunningham in the deal or send him down.
- Campbell is very close to coming back. Adding Talbot not a sign that Campbell was being shut down or more injured than they led on.
Edit: Last two that I forgot. He said they were in on Vermette, didn't want to give up their first rounder. Also they never considered selling.
- They project Connolly as a top 6 forward. He was available because Tampa is loaded.
- He was asked about where he thought Connolly would play right away. Basically deferred to Claude.
- They looked at rentals, thought a controlled asset in Connolly was a better use of the picks than a rental. Connolly helps now and hopefully will be part of the group going forward.
- They did look at depth D. They went back and reviewed the depth D trades they've made in past deadlines. Some have worked, some haven't. They decided that it is tough to adapt to the system on the fly so they decided to stay the course. They like what they have down in Providence with Morrow, Warsofsky and Chris Breen. A gamble, but one they wanted to take.
- Some bigger, core group, hockey trades discussed. He said the Evander Kane trade sort of shook open the market, but cap makes it very hard to pull these types of deals off in the middle of the season.
- On waiving Cunningham...He said they had some deals being discussed that may have required Cunningham's cap space. Basically he either had to put Cunningham in the deal or send him down.
- Campbell is very close to coming back. Adding Talbot not a sign that Campbell was being shut down or more injured than they led on.
Edit: Last two that I forgot. He said they were in on Vermette, didn't want to give up their first rounder. Also they never considered selling.
I'm not sure i understand this. Why couldn't they wait to see if the deal was made and if he wasn't included send him down then?cshea said:
My guess is because Cunningham needed waivers to be sent down. Have to do it in advance.
I've gone back and forth on this one, but I think it is poor asset management. At first I thought he was a dummy and should've just assigned Ferlin/Pastrnak/Spooner down for a day and voila, cap space. That gets complicated though because after the deadline you're only allowed 4 call-ups between the deadline and the end of the regular season. Having to burn them to bring those guys back up on a paper transaction isn't ideal. In the end though, I'd want the trade to be done before I expose a potential asset to waivers.
I've gone back and forth on this one, but I think it is poor asset management. At first I thought he was a dummy and should've just assigned Ferlin/Pastrnak/Spooner down for a day and voila, cap space. That gets complicated though because after the deadline you're only allowed 4 call-ups between the deadline and the end of the regular season. Having to burn them to bring those guys back up on a paper transaction isn't ideal. In the end though, I'd want the trade to be done before I expose a potential asset to waivers.
I don't get the gnashing of teeth on Cunningham. He seems like the NHL version of a AAAA player; okay at the highest levels of the minors, not particularly good enough at anything to be worth crying about. He seems like the kind of player you see on waivers all the time. Losing Fraser for nothing was a far stupider move than Cunningham.
If I'm interpreting the CBA correctly, they also could have stashed Cunningham in Providence once every 30 days as a paper move with subsequent recall to not allow his waiver clock to reset.
They'd have to have gotten creative with it to not draw the NHLPA's ire, of course - ie on weekends with Friday games, send Cunningham down to get 3 games with total playing with the PBs Saturday and Sunday - but it was possible.
Overall I think I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at Chiarelli's mismanagement and his propensity to throw his hands up and say the salary cap is difficult. This is particularly agitating when we think back to 2006 and the B's surrendering a 3rd rounder for the right to hire an executive billed as being a number cruncher who knows how to maneuver under the cap.
It doesn't help that when you look a few hundred miles north, Marc Bergevin is making salad with shit, relatively speaking.
They'd have to have gotten creative with it to not draw the NHLPA's ire, of course - ie on weekends with Friday games, send Cunningham down to get 3 games with total playing with the PBs Saturday and Sunday - but it was possible.
Overall I think I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at Chiarelli's mismanagement and his propensity to throw his hands up and say the salary cap is difficult. This is particularly agitating when we think back to 2006 and the B's surrendering a 3rd rounder for the right to hire an executive billed as being a number cruncher who knows how to maneuver under the cap.
It doesn't help that when you look a few hundred miles north, Marc Bergevin is making salad with shit, relatively speaking.
Sure, Cunningham was pretty fungible, but it doesn't mean you just give him away for free. I actually think losing Fraser was more defensible than Cunningham. Fraser needs to play in the top 9 and the Bruins gave him a shot but he couldn't cut it. He's not a 4th liner. Cunningham was fairly useful as a 4th liner. You could've made a case for him being Campbell's replacement going forward.Scoops Bolling said:
Edit: I'm not worked up over losing Cunningham, rather that I feel like they could've at least gotten a lottery ticket late round draft pick for him.
I don't get the Cunningham complaints either. Not only is he the kind of player you see on waivers all the time, he himself was on waivers in October and cleared. Then he plays here as injury depth, is neither terrible nor distinguishes himself, and they replace him with a veteran who will count an extra 275K next year. What is his upside? Fourth line center? Does he even have third line upside? I don't think he does.Scoops Bolling said:
Can't imagine anyone ever thinking in future seasons, man we'd be so much better this year if we just had Craig Cunningham back.
And if I had to predict, Craig Cunningham will be available to the Bruins between now and opening day next season when he's waived by Arizona.
Because Cunningham, Fraser, Ferlin et al are the kind of guys you work into bottom 6/3 roles and you move on from the Paille/Campbell/Talbot types. The bottom third of the roster has been mismanaged and this is another example.mcpickl said:
That mismanagement has cost you in the upper tiers of your roster. Cunningham isn't the difference but players of his ilk are exactly who they should be blending in if only for cost efficiency against return.
and I think if the Bruins want to go that route, players of Cunninghams' ilk, and likely Cunningham himself, are readily available.Titoschew said:
Though I have no issue with having a veteran or two on the back end of the roster. Don't think it hurts to have someone with experience playing with the Cunningham types rather than roll three kids out together.
Also not a believer in the theory that spending an extra millionish on the fourth line cost you anything on the upper tier of the roster. The salary cap not going up as quickly, and the Bruins going all in with Iginla last year( which I was completely on board with), did.
If everything works out and Cunningham really develops into a player at the NHL level, his upside is basically Talbot.
I love the kid, and it is possible he has a Nate Thompson career, but he also has some limitations in his game. He is certainly never going to bring a physical presence, which Campbell does
I have little doubt that Lindblad could come up and do whatever Cunningham does. He is a bit slower as a skater, but maybe even more well rounded as a player
I love the kid, and it is possible he has a Nate Thompson career, but he also has some limitations in his game. He is certainly never going to bring a physical presence, which Campbell does
I have little doubt that Lindblad could come up and do whatever Cunningham does. He is a bit slower as a skater, but maybe even more well rounded as a player
Mike Miccoli @MikeMiccoli 1m1 minute ago
.@Real_ESPNLeBrun reports that Bruins offered Spooner & a 2nd for Chris Stewart in October, but Sabres wanted to wait for better offer. Oof.
.@Real_ESPNLeBrun reports that Bruins offered Spooner & a 2nd for Chris Stewart in October, but Sabres wanted to wait for better offer. Oof.
soxhop411 said:
Holy shit.
I don't know how I would have handled that. I think the answer is not well. But wow. What the fuck is Chiarelli doing.
Mike Miccoli @MikeMiccoli 2m2 minutes ago
LeBrun further reports that the Bruins offered two 2nds for Stewart, Neuvirth, and Brian Flynn…on Saturday.
LeBrun further reports that the Bruins offered two 2nds for Stewart, Neuvirth, and Brian Flynn…on Saturday.
soxhop411 said:
Jesus wept that is brutal. More so on Tim Murray for turning that, as well as Spooner+2nd for Stewart straight up, down.
Spooner's upside is still uncertain, and whatever upside exists is beyond this season. And 2nd round picks usually turn into nothing. So offering those guys up to get a veteran right winger is not the worst idea, especially if you have an inkling that your job is on the line if the team fails to make the playoffs. I'm also glad it didn't happen, but the rationale is not as far out there as we're making it out to be.
soxhop411 said:
Thank you Ruffalo! That would have been awful.
soxhop411 said:
I don't even... Why would they even offer that? We really need to band together and send Buffalo some thank you cards.
Let's hold off and see if they give us McDavid/Eichel for two 1sts and Subban in three years.TheRealness said:
Carmine Hose said:
Ryan Donato
Linus Arnesson
Alexander Khokhlachev (4GP)
Ryan Spooner (36GP)
Jared Knight
Maxime Sauve (1GP)
Tommy Cross
Since 2007 (You stopped at Lucic. I started there....) - 2nd round picks. Total of 41GP in the NHL. 1 goal. 2nd round hits may turn into nothing, but they appear to be in this regime.
ETA - that may be more of a rant against the drafting, rather than the value of second round picks...