Caron Traded to COL for Max Talbot
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
Nice, kicking in a pick to get Colorado to pick up some cap hit.
Or, ya know, don't trade for him in the first place but whatever.
Or, ya know, don't trade for him in the first place but whatever.
If Colorado is eating half the salary, does that make Talbot's cap space be $900K? That's now very reasonable for a 4th line player.
I guess the question is whether Talbot >> Campbell. If so, then this trade ain't half bad. If not, then it's essentially a sideways move. I doubt there were any season saviors to be found this year, so the latter situation is OK.
I guess the question is whether Talbot >> Campbell. If so, then this trade ain't half bad. If not, then it's essentially a sideways move. I doubt there were any season saviors to be found this year, so the latter situation is OK.
This trade is neither here nor there for me. Not sure why they made it, but ultimately I'm not sure it really matters. They're grabbing a 4th line player to replace Campbell/Paille for a reasonable price. Caron was gone after this year anyway and he wasn't going to play much down the stretch.
Not sure the vitriol over this trade. If this is the trade that is pushing you over the edge with regards to Chiarelli then you already had an axe to grind.
Not sure the vitriol over this trade. If this is the trade that is pushing you over the edge with regards to Chiarelli then you already had an axe to grind.
Yeah, Talbot cap hit for the Bruins is $875K. That's not so terrible for next year as a Campbell replacement. They're inevitably going to have a veteran, gritty, character guy in that spot. Might as well be a subsidized Max Talbot.
I just have no idea how they intend on playing everyone down the stretch this year.
I just have no idea how they intend on playing everyone down the stretch this year.
It's a 6th. The odds of them hitting on that pick are single digits most likely.PedroSpecialK said:
I had and continue to have an axe to grind - not because of Chiarelli personally, but because of what ultimately led to the trade of the top-4 defender that this team is still missing.
As illustrated in another thread, the Bruins had every opportunity to go into the season with the young, revamped fourth line they had preached all offseason - while keeping Boychuk - and didn't do it. They compounded the fourth line's speed issue by signing an ancient Simon Gagne. They lost Fraser to waivers - which is defensible, as he isn't doing anything for you if he isn't in the top 9 - then they lost Cunningham to waivers, the only forward on the fourth line who seemed to warrant a regular spot. He also happened to be the most affordable member of the unit.
Look at the team as currently constructed - do we not think the aggregate $3.775 cap hit on Paille - Campbell - Talbot right now could not have been better allocated? The players were in-house before the season to construct a fourth line that could not have been worse than the current unit, at less than half the cap hit. Florek ($600,000) - Cunningham ($600,000) - Caron ($600,000) = $1.8m.
I know it seems like I'm deep-ending/SJHing, but there is a legitimate beef with the roster construction of this team. The way Claude allocates ice time is perfectly conducive to developing young talent on the fourth line, given they generally see 9-12 minutes/night depending on the penalty situations. Instead of using that line to blood and develop players like Spooner, Ferlin, Lindblad, Cunningham, etc it's been given to zero-upside vets. I don't doubt that in the end, Talbot can help down the stretch and may even be an asset going into the postseason. My issue is with sacrificing Boychuk for the fourth line when the marginal benefit of a veteran fourth line is much less than the marginal benefit of Boychuk over Miller.
Sidenote: I don't put Kelly quite into the camp of overpaid fourth liner - yes, he's a mucker and plays a gritty game, but he also has some level of skill and is a solid fit as the most defensively-responsible forward on the 3rd line of a contending team.
Last, the 6th rounder itself in the Talbot trade doesn't particularly irk me, more that it's an asset surrendered up for a superfluous player on an already-crowded fourth line.
/rant
As illustrated in another thread, the Bruins had every opportunity to go into the season with the young, revamped fourth line they had preached all offseason - while keeping Boychuk - and didn't do it. They compounded the fourth line's speed issue by signing an ancient Simon Gagne. They lost Fraser to waivers - which is defensible, as he isn't doing anything for you if he isn't in the top 9 - then they lost Cunningham to waivers, the only forward on the fourth line who seemed to warrant a regular spot. He also happened to be the most affordable member of the unit.
Look at the team as currently constructed - do we not think the aggregate $3.775 cap hit on Paille - Campbell - Talbot right now could not have been better allocated? The players were in-house before the season to construct a fourth line that could not have been worse than the current unit, at less than half the cap hit. Florek ($600,000) - Cunningham ($600,000) - Caron ($600,000) = $1.8m.
I know it seems like I'm deep-ending/SJHing, but there is a legitimate beef with the roster construction of this team. The way Claude allocates ice time is perfectly conducive to developing young talent on the fourth line, given they generally see 9-12 minutes/night depending on the penalty situations. Instead of using that line to blood and develop players like Spooner, Ferlin, Lindblad, Cunningham, etc it's been given to zero-upside vets. I don't doubt that in the end, Talbot can help down the stretch and may even be an asset going into the postseason. My issue is with sacrificing Boychuk for the fourth line when the marginal benefit of a veteran fourth line is much less than the marginal benefit of Boychuk over Miller.
Sidenote: I don't put Kelly quite into the camp of overpaid fourth liner - yes, he's a mucker and plays a gritty game, but he also has some level of skill and is a solid fit as the most defensively-responsible forward on the 3rd line of a contending team.
Last, the 6th rounder itself in the Talbot trade doesn't particularly irk me, more that it's an asset surrendered up for a superfluous player on an already-crowded fourth line.
/rant
Your assuming they could have traded Paille and Campbell this offseason without having to give up an asset. Not sure that's a safe assumption. Then there's the whole idiotic manner in which the league counts Savard's salary against the cap for 1 whole day.
Sorry but I don't think there is any doubt that those two on one year commitments would have had trouble going for 5th-7th rounders. Daniel Winnik just went for a 2nd, Torrey Mitchell for a conditional 3rd.
It is increasingly clear that chances that the B's would have shopped them though are slim-to-none.
It is increasingly clear that chances that the B's would have shopped them though are slim-to-none.
I think some are overreacting to this trade because they wanted a top 6 forward or top 4 D. First, look at the deal for what it is. What the hell were you expecting in return for Caron? The guy hasn't been able to prove he belongs on the B's 4th line, yet we got a guy who most certainly can play there for him. The B's are a better team now than they were before the trade, even if it is just a bit. And unlike other sports, especially with the Bruins, they like to roll 4 lines, so each spot on each line provides value. They upgraded one of those spots. When they won the cup it was with additions to strengthen the bottom 6, not the top. Why hate on adding depth and improving the roster just because you wanted a 30 goal scorer?
The Mort Report said:
I'm 100% in agreement with everything PSK just posted above, which are complaints that have nothing at all to do with them not adding a 30 goal scorer. It's nice that they won a Cup rolling four lines, but Chia needed to adjust once the top players started getting in line for their big raises.
The Mort Report said:
This is not true. I didn't expect a 30 goal scorer. I, and I think many others, just hate clogging up the bottom 6 with expensive players who don't bring much more than their league min counterparts. Now, in this instance, I'm not AS mad as i was about it after finding out that the Avs are paying the freight. I don't like Talbot but he is fine at $875k.
I am worried how this plays out when Campbell comes back though. It certainly means Ferlin is going down at the very least. In my mind, the ideal roster right now is:
Marchand - Bergeron - Smith
Loui - Soderberg - Connolly
Lucic - Spooner - Pastrnak
Talbot - Kelly - Ferlin
but I can't see any scenario where Claude doesn't play Paille and Campbell, which makes me think Ferlin and Connolly spend some time in the press box over players that are worse than them.
burstnbloom said:
Yeah, if they trade for Connolly only to not give him a shot in the top 9 because they want to roll out Paille-Campbell-Tabot my head is going to explode.
If they assign Connolly to Providence in favor of putting Paille on the third line, my head my re-explode, then implode, then explode, then implode again.
Connolly would need waivers to go down so I think he's safe. I'm assuming when Krejci returns we'll get some sort of platoon of Pastrnak and Connolly on that line.
I have no idea how the bottom 6 shakes out.
I have no idea how the bottom 6 shakes out.
Connolly is a fantastic pickup for the Bruins. If Chiarelli had ended the day with that, he could have walked away saying he got a cost controlled top 6 player (upside) without giving much from an asset perspective. That's a great deadline.
But when you factor in losing Cunningham for nothing and bringing in Talbot, it's like 2 steps forward and 2 steps back. Cunningham is no great shakes but he is exactly the type of player they need. Young, cheap, hard working and a little skilled.
But when you factor in losing Cunningham for nothing and bringing in Talbot, it's like 2 steps forward and 2 steps back. Cunningham is no great shakes but he is exactly the type of player they need. Young, cheap, hard working and a little skilled.
I think that's about right. I'll say 2 steps forward, 1 back, though... If They are right on Connolly that will outweigh the other moves. Maybe that is giving them too much credit.The Four Peters said:
Do you think in two years we'll be missing Craig Cunningham? Honest question.The Four Peters said:
I think losing him for nothing and no apparent reason sucked, but ultimately will it really matter?
Cunningham specifically? Probably not. But did we think we'd be be missing Versteeg when he was traded? What if Marchand was waived months into the 2011 season?
And the point isn't that all these players turn into great players (see Caron, Fraser, Hamill, etc). My point is that Campbell and Gagne and Yelle and Begin and Talbot never turn into those players.
I'm probably the biggest fan of Kelly and Paille on this board...but they don't need more of them.
And the point isn't that all these players turn into great players (see Caron, Fraser, Hamill, etc). My point is that Campbell and Gagne and Yelle and Begin and Talbot never turn into those players.
I'm probably the biggest fan of Kelly and Paille on this board...but they don't need more of them.
PedroSpecialK said:
But didn't Claude 86 the young 4th line? I think that's on him more than Chia. I mean, it may be both of them, but Claude's preferred style of play is to have a 4th line that grinds and mucks with gritty muscle. I felt like he was the one with the short fuse on having a speed 4th line at the beginning of the season and his preference to have piles of Campbells around. And Chia is guilty as sin for some of the deals he gave the guys, but he and Claude are hand in hand.
My track record for suggesting break out threads is poor, but I'd be curious what people think of Chia/Claude chicken/egg.
Claude works for Chiarelli. If Chiarelli has a plan in the offseason then ditches it in the preseason because he can't get his coach to buy in then that's on him.Dummy Hoy said:
I actually think Talbot is a better player than Caron for the B's. The biggest downside to the deal for me was his cap hit next year. Since Colorado is eating half of that, it definitely moves this trade into the category of "whatever" and not nearly as horrible as I thought it was yesterday. Talbot is another bottom 6 guy who I'd rather have playing than Campbell (fat chance, though). I do think there is something to needing more veteran leadership in the locker room where Talbot will help, but not sure how much of that is quantifiable or if it's worth the cost.FL4WL3SS said:
Marchand - Bergeron - Smith
Eriksson - Soderberg - Connolly
Lucic - Spooner - Pastrnak
Paille - Talbot - Kelly
Ferlin/Campbell
I think that's a pretty good lineup right there.
You would think, with lines like those, that they would be able to manage whatever defense issues Spooner's line has.The Four Peters said:
I don't believe there was any speed on the 4th line at the beginning of the season either. Caron is no speedster, and the other guys they rotated in didn't do anything either.Dummy Hoy said:
There are a number of reasons the Bruins struggled this season, some of which have nothing to do with Chiarelli (injuries to Chara and Krejci, inane LTIR rules, lockout, opaque salary cap calculations by the league), and others for which Chiarelli does deserve some blame (Seguin trade). Then there's the Iginla overage, but it's hard to "blame" anyone for that. But none of these really have anything to do with the 4th line or how much Campbell is being paid.
Salem's Lot said:
That's fair, although as a GM who has worked closely with the coach, do you just alienate him by telling him to go against his wishes? Maybe that's his job and he should tell Claude who to coach and how to do it.
It was just my impression that Claude wanted nothing to do with an inexperienced 4th line.
lexrageorge said:
I thought Spooner and Koko and even some other guys like Florek and Cunningham could have provided some youth, speed, and a bit of offensive punch on a 4th line, but that got shut down right away. Maybe it was because none of those guys were ready for that, but Claude sure as fuck didn't give it a real chance.
Shit, I sound like Cafardo with all my "maybes" and questions.
Huh? The 4th line has been an absolute black hole. Yes they're the 4th line so their negative impact is minimized but making or missing the playoffs could come down to a goal here and there, and the Bruins have played a large number of close games.lexrageorge said:
Of 388 forwards with at least 300 minutes of even-strength ice time this year, Campbell is 6th-worst in CorsiRel. Some other factors mitigate that a bit, but it's really, really bad. There are plenty of cheaper players who were freely available that would be better (not great, but better). And having a slightly better player for ~8-10 minutes could make the difference in a couple of close games over a season.
Most importantly, the 4th line may not be the biggest reason the team is underperforming, but it is the easiest to improve. You're not going to undo the Seguin deal or find a top 4 D to replace Boychuk, but Campbell's contract could be cleared with just one year left and they could find any number of players to step in for less money. This could have happened in the offseason or RIGHT NOW.
Also, having to deal Boychuk - a major factor in the team's year that you fail to mention - absolutely has to do with how much Campbell is being paid and the team's loyalty to him. If they saw him for the less-than-replacement level player that he is (and was last year, too), they could have had the foresight to clear his salary and some others and found a way to keep Boychuk for this year.
I have less problem with Paille (he was more useful in recent history) and Gagne (since he was cheap and only played 23 games) than Campbell.
The Four Peters said:
This is where I am at. With Colorado eating the money, this gives Claude his 4th line grit, allows us to let Campbell go and actually decrease the cap hit.
As an aside, I wonder if Spooner is playing his way into next year's lineup at the expense of Soderberg. Maybe I'll start a thread on this if it continues, but if Spoons continues to play well I could definitely see him given the 3rd line role, as Soderberg may command ~$5m per year on the open market.
Spooner is not your typical 4th line player. And the other guys mention may have actually been worse than Campbell, short sample sizes of Corsi ratings notwithstanding. It's not Julien's job to "give it a real chance" except in training camp. He's under pressure to win now, no excuses, and that's coming from the very top of the organization. Can't blame Claude for Campbell being on the team or overpaid in his position.
We're assuming that there was a trade market for Campbell in the offseason that did not require the team giving up an asset or eating much of the contract. I'd much rather have Boychuk than Campbell, and if that was the choice in front of Chia and Co, that's probably what they would have took. I'm assuming that such a choice never really presented itself.
When Paille was extended, he was one of the team's better penalty killing forwards. Similarly, Campbell had good chemistry with Paille on the PK unit.Dummy Hoy said:
I highly doubt Julien told Chiarelli to avoid trading either one this past offseason.
I'm not so sure about this. Campbell hasn't gotten so much as one night off even as they rotate through other options (until he was hurt). They could put him on waivers and see if anyone bites. Going back a bit, they could have used their compliance buyout on him.lexrageorge said:
But they LOVE him. We don't know for sure but I don't think they seriously considered dealing him.
While in hindsight they probably should have used their compliance buyout, I doubt that alone would have allowed them to keep Boychuk on the team. And I'm guessing the team thought the 2013-14 Campbell may have only been a slight overpay in 2014-15.Toe Nash said:
Two entirely different questions.Dummy Hoy said:
If Chiarelli asked Julien what he thought about Paille and Campbell, he would have likely gotten positive reviews; keep in mind neither were this bad in 2013-14.
If Chiarelli asked Julien for permission to trade these guys, then Chiarelli would not have lasted one day as GM in any league.
We're getting all crossed up here.lexrageorge said:
No one suggested Chia asked Claude's permission to trade anyone. I was suggesting the former, and that when Chia said something to the effect of "what would you like to do with your fourth line" Claude told him that he would prefer status quo.
Re: being hurt: Is that true? He obviously had the broken leg in the 2013 offseason but they could have bought him out in the 2014 offseason -- was he hurt then and I'm forgetting?The Four Peters said:
Second point: He was just as poor by advanced metrics numbers last year. Maybe even worse. They should have taken care of the problem in the offseason.
This post is overly vitriolic but the stats are sound:
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2014/6/13/5795666/2013-2014-player-report-cards-greg-campbell
Anyway, he's obviously around for the rest of the year so whatever. Hopefully they don't re-sign him (ugh)
He had the hernia/back issue in this past offseason and was injured throughout training camp and into the beginning of this season.
http://nesn.com/2014/10/claude-julien-bruins-gregory-campbell-doubtful-for-regular-season-opener/
http://nesn.com/2014/10/claude-julien-bruins-gregory-campbell-doubtful-for-regular-season-opener/
Honestly, after a few games now, I actually really like this move so far. I don't know if you can contribute it solely to him, but the 4th line actually doesn't suck anymore and individually he has been contributing on and off the scoreboard. He's been better than I expected, we'll see if it continues.
I would still hate the deal at the $1.7 million, but at $800k+ I'm much more ok with it.
I would still hate the deal at the $1.7 million, but at $800k+ I'm much more ok with it.
Indeed. I'm eating crow on my initial hate of the trade without knowledge of Colorado kicking in the max 50% retained-salary. I'm also eating crow on still disliking the deal because of what the targeting of another age 30+ fourth liner represented. I also thought that Talbot was cooked, and thus far am glad to have been proven wrong.
He brings an element of skating the fourth line has lacked, and to the naked eye his play has been contagious on Paille and even the corpse of Campbell. I still fear the Bruins will retain one or (gulp) both of Paille/Campbell, which would again defeat the purpose of acquiring Talbot in the first place. IMO a fourth line of Talbot plus a rookie and either $600k vet or Chris Kelly (if they can't move him) would be ideal moving forward, and it remains to be seen whether Chiarelli finally cuts ties with the Merlot old guard.
In the mean time...
He brings an element of skating the fourth line has lacked, and to the naked eye his play has been contagious on Paille and even the corpse of Campbell. I still fear the Bruins will retain one or (gulp) both of Paille/Campbell, which would again defeat the purpose of acquiring Talbot in the first place. IMO a fourth line of Talbot plus a rookie and either $600k vet or Chris Kelly (if they can't move him) would be ideal moving forward, and it remains to be seen whether Chiarelli finally cuts ties with the Merlot old guard.
In the mean time...
Agree on all points. I'd still like to see Ferlin on that line - with Talbot, not instead of him.The Four Peters said:
Through 7 games (6 w/ Campbell there):
all stats at 5v5
Campbell before Talbot arrived: -11.9% CorsiRel
after: -14.4%
Campbell and Talbot together (~60 min): 35.3% CF%
Campbell without Talbot on ice (all year): 42.1%
Paille and Talbot together (~60 min): 36.8% CF%
Paille without Talbot (all year): 46.4% CF%
Not a big enough sample to really suss out the causes but the early returns on the possession numbers are that Talbot is bringing a poor line down even further. Not the only important thing in hockey but I don't think it's an improvement.
all stats at 5v5
Campbell before Talbot arrived: -11.9% CorsiRel
after: -14.4%
Campbell and Talbot together (~60 min): 35.3% CF%
Campbell without Talbot on ice (all year): 42.1%
Paille and Talbot together (~60 min): 36.8% CF%
Paille without Talbot (all year): 46.4% CF%
Not a big enough sample to really suss out the causes but the early returns on the possession numbers are that Talbot is bringing a poor line down even further. Not the only important thing in hockey but I don't think it's an improvement.
The catch to that is that they might be playing against tougher competition, particularly given the defensive struggles of the Spooner line.