Trade Deadline 2014
- Thread starter cshea
- Start date
TheShynessClinic said:
If it's prorated, then they wouldn't have needed to create any space for Vanek, right?
FWIW, CapGeek is using the full hit: http://www.capgeek.com/bruins/
Ed Hillel said:
So simplest way to look at it is that everyone has a cap number for the year, at any given time during the season, the sum of all your current players' cap numbers needs to be under the salary cap
Why pay deadline prices for this, though? The deadline should be used to fill holes, not reconstruct the team. What they're doing is working and adding a bit player to it will be beneficial.j44thor said:
I don't agree with your argument.
ForceAtHome said:
Gotta feel for the guy.
St. Louis fucked him over pretty hard here. Good on Yzerman for getting the return he could.
PedroSpecialK said:
To build on that, Yzerman said something like, and I'm paraphrasing, "I don't know if we're better. We're different."
PedroSpecialK said:
I do too. I used to really like MSL, but after all this shit, screw him. I'm irrationally angered by the whole thing...who knew MSL was such a diva, fuck the Rangers for being the Rangers, and fuck Glen Sather for having a horseshoe surgically implanted in his ass. First people line up to take his shitty contracts off his hands (Gomez), then he gets 1st line wingers at the dollar store because they've got their current GM by the nuts.
I wish Yzerman called MSL's bluff and kept him, at least for this season.
Also, congrats to Montreal. They managed to get softer, thought that was impossible. Garth Snow fucked up, somebody had to have been willing to beat that, even if Vanek doesn't show up all the time.
Also I may have missed part of this, but I swear I heard Luongo get asked if he would have had any issues being in a goalie tandem with Thimas (since apparently Timmy asked out after the Bobby Lu deal), and Luongo said "I've always gotten along with all of my backups". Strombone is awesome.
MTL is better, but I'm not sure how much better they actually are. Vanek is a good player, but he's actually fallen off a bit the last few seasons and is definitely a soft player. Montreal has been winning with smoke and mirrors this season - as a team, they are only +6 in goal differential. Vanek will definitely help, but I'm not any more worried about the Canadiens today than I was yesterday.
You guys realize the Rags gave up a 1st rounder for a guy who will be 39 soon right?
This is Rags as usual and history tells us exactly how well acquiring aging stars works for the Rags.
This is Rags as usual and history tells us exactly how well acquiring aging stars works for the Rags.
Anaheim had the cap space with Fasth and Penner being shipped out to do something big. Not bringing in Vanek/Moulson/Cammalleri seems like a real loss for them. I think they're a worse team than they were two days ago.
Yeah I'm shocked they at least couldn't put something together for Cammalleri - almost as much so as Calgary getting a 2nd rounder (albeit '14) for Reto Berra.
veritas said:
Got it, thanks. The confusion for me came from CapGeek having already prorated the cap space. I thought they were saying the Bruins were legitimately 5.5 million under the cap, not 5.5 million under the cap prorated.
Burke says he had agreed on terms with one team as part of a three way deal. Third team couldn't work it out though, so it fell apart at 3. Sounds like he was getting picks and eating some salary, likely for Cammalleri. Was willing to take bad contracts to get picks.
The NHL and press corps unintentionally confuses the bejesus out of fans with the pro-rated nonsense. The team has to compute it daily, but for all intents and purposes the only way to determine if they have room for Player X is to see if they have the cap space to fit his AAV. I''ve been over this countless times and know it's correct, which probably means I'm dead wrong.veritas said:
Edit- I should read what I quote first since you covered it.
Milhouse: I can't go to juvie! They use guys like me as currency!
Chief Wiggum: Yeah, they'll pass you around like... like currency, like you said.
Haggerty on with Gresh and Zo: "Getting a Meszaros or a Tallinder was a safety valve in case they couldn't get anything done. With an aging Chara, the defense, and a core in the prime of their career (the trade deadline acquisitions) weren't good enough." Haggs still sticks to his story that something with Columbus was either done or close to being done on Tuesday. Pumps up MacDonald and Robideau("an absolute warrior").
"Lackluster and underwelming moves."
"Right now, for them to win the Cup or get back, something is going to have to happen above the norm. Players will have to play above their talent level. What they have right now isn't good enough."
"Montreal got a lot better."
"Lackluster and underwelming moves."
"Right now, for them to win the Cup or get back, something is going to have to happen above the norm. Players will have to play above their talent level. What they have right now isn't good enough."
"Montreal got a lot better."
Well to win the Cup they will likely need to get by the Pens and one of the uber WC teams, so yeah something above the norm may have to happen.
Though I'm sure that's not what he meant.
Though I'm sure that's not what he meant.
RedOctober3829 said:
He's become like a fat munchkin Felger. I lasted 30 seconds before turning it off on my brief drive to get my lunch.
I fucking hate those arguments. Right now the Bruins are 3 points behind Pittsburgh and have a good hold on 1st in the division. We have as good a chance as anybody in the East at least. Is MacDonald over Meszaros, a marginal improvement at best, really going to be the difference between making the ECF and not?
"It's going to take something above the norm" So winning championships is hard? No shit.
"It's going to take something above the norm" So winning championships is hard? No shit.
allstonite said:
It's the creeping Fantasy Football-ism into analysis. You're at this level, so just trade for this guy to get to this level, and profit!
Dimwitted and annoying. This all stems IMO from being upset that Vanek, a player who kills the Bruins all the time, went to Montreal, a team we all hate that matches up well against us and who we might face in the playoffs. But that's all emotion and fear and anger talking, not rational hockey analysis.
Yup! That entire thing was a travesty from start to finish. Sabres are one of the big obvious winners at the trade deadline while the Islanders are the most obvious losers.BoSoxFink said:
TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle said:
Shut up you. This ain't no game thread.
Plus I'm now old and tired.
A dude from a Devils podcast dropped this line today:
The Devils got more from the league today than the Islanders got for Vanek yesterday.
The Devils got more from the league today than the Islanders got for Vanek yesterday.
Haggs posted this reasonable and positive article yesterday morning::
So he basically made all the points that a reasonable person would make when discussing the current and future fortunes of this team. He clearly wants the team to pick up a depth defenseman, and strongly implies that there isn't much of a drop-off, if any, between MacDonald and the other guys who would definitely be moved/might be available.
But then the deadline passes, and even though Chia did EXACTLY what he predicted/suggested, he can't help but grab a pitchfork with the rest of the mob and claim less than 24 hours later that it's suddenly not enough while implying that basically every other guy Chia might have acquired was not only available but magically devoid of any flaws. Fucking Montreal bogeyman. Of course had they acquired Vanek the tone would be "What about the defense?" This is grade-A trolling right here. As a purported Bruins and NHL insider, this would have been a prime opportunity for a guy like Haggs to explain to the public how difficult it would have been to shore up the defense and pick up a shiny forward toy, all within the rules of the cap and all without upsetting the balance, toughness, and two-way play that the Bruins' championship foundation is built on. The amazing thing is he (or whatever other shitty writer) could do all that and still make his argument that Chiarelli sucked, and the argument would probably be more effective coming from someone who has recognized all sides.
It's too bad these guys feel like they have to stop writing in-depth, well-informed articles when the team they cover experiences success. They just get sucked into this vortex somehow. At least it makes it easier to identify the good ones like Edes and Reiss who can be passionate and critical without sounding like a jilted lover, but I guess when a guy like Shank constantly makes headlines and gets airtime it's easy for a guy like Haggs to take the easy low road.
So he basically made all the points that a reasonable person would make when discussing the current and future fortunes of this team. He clearly wants the team to pick up a depth defenseman, and strongly implies that there isn't much of a drop-off, if any, between MacDonald and the other guys who would definitely be moved/might be available.
But then the deadline passes, and even though Chia did EXACTLY what he predicted/suggested, he can't help but grab a pitchfork with the rest of the mob and claim less than 24 hours later that it's suddenly not enough while implying that basically every other guy Chia might have acquired was not only available but magically devoid of any flaws. Fucking Montreal bogeyman. Of course had they acquired Vanek the tone would be "What about the defense?" This is grade-A trolling right here. As a purported Bruins and NHL insider, this would have been a prime opportunity for a guy like Haggs to explain to the public how difficult it would have been to shore up the defense and pick up a shiny forward toy, all within the rules of the cap and all without upsetting the balance, toughness, and two-way play that the Bruins' championship foundation is built on. The amazing thing is he (or whatever other shitty writer) could do all that and still make his argument that Chiarelli sucked, and the argument would probably be more effective coming from someone who has recognized all sides.
It's too bad these guys feel like they have to stop writing in-depth, well-informed articles when the team they cover experiences success. They just get sucked into this vortex somehow. At least it makes it easier to identify the good ones like Edes and Reiss who can be passionate and critical without sounding like a jilted lover, but I guess when a guy like Shank constantly makes headlines and gets airtime it's easy for a guy like Haggs to take the easy low road.
These sorts of things always come out after the fact, but FWIW Neely says they had "bigger" deal agreed to in principle. It was contingent on the other team making a separate move that never happened, and everything fell apart. I know Chiarelli said yesterday he was somewhat disappointed that something on Tuesday fell through, but he said it at least laid some groundwork for potential offseason moves.
I think the B's did well yesterday, but with F&M, Haggs, etc., all up in arms and jumping off the Tobin, Neely could've just been trying to do some after the fact damage control. But coupled with Chiarelli's quotes yesterday though it may be something to keep in mind for the offseason.
I think the B's did well yesterday, but with F&M, Haggs, etc., all up in arms and jumping off the Tobin, Neely could've just been trying to do some after the fact damage control. But coupled with Chiarelli's quotes yesterday though it may be something to keep in mind for the offseason.
Great line...and true.mikeford said:
Gotta say, that unless the Devils KNOW that Loktionov is going to follow Kovy back to the KHL next year, the trade for a -19 Ruutu makes zero sense. It only makes sense if Loktionov has indicated that he's going back to Russia. The Hurricanes get a salary dump for a player who is now slow and performing poorly, and the Devils get a roll of the dice that Ruutu can regain some of his former ability after being traded, knowing that Loktionov was gone anyway after this season.
cshea said:
There had to be a lot of that going on. Take Anaheim, no way they're just dumping Penner and clearing cap for the hell of it. They had to figure they had a deal for somebody that fell through.
I don't get all the hand-wringing from Felger et al. The Bs were looking for a depth d-man...does anybody really actually think that Robidas or MacDonald or Tallinder (or Phillips, if he didn't re-sign) over Meszaros was going to be a difference-maker between Cup or no Cup? Even if one of those guys is better, this isn't baseball, the piece you add has to fit. For whatever reason Chiarelli felt Mez was his best option (have to assume some input from Chara was part of it).
Are these guys that stupid? Or are they just bitching for the sake of bitching, or to drive callers or whatever. I hope it's the latter.
Judging from just about every mouthpiece in the Boston Sports Mediasphere, I take it no one remembers who Randy Myers was and his impact on the San Diego Padres.
EDIT: No, Myers isn't a perfect analogy, but it's useful here. Acquiring players and using the resources it takes to acquire said player you don't actually want is rarely an effective strategy. On top of that, with the ~20 games remaining, Vanek may score 12 goals...or 2, it's hard to tell which streak he's on.
EDIT: No, Myers isn't a perfect analogy, but it's useful here. Acquiring players and using the resources it takes to acquire said player you don't actually want is rarely an effective strategy. On top of that, with the ~20 games remaining, Vanek may score 12 goals...or 2, it's hard to tell which streak he's on.
Michael Augello @MikeInBuffalo 1h
@TSNBobMcKenzie says that the #leafs & #wild had offers for Vanek significantly better than the MTL's, but NYI would not retain any salary.
@TSNBobMcKenzie says that the #leafs & #wild had offers for Vanek significantly better than the MTL's, but NYI would not retain any salary.
I'm going to have to totally agree. Young players do not develop under him. He tends to make them self-conscious and worse. Look at what he's doing to Gelinas' confidence right now. Look at what happened to Reid Boucher's game after having DeBoer on him. DeBoer just doesn't know how to build up a young player. His coaching tends to break them down and not only do they not improve their shortcomings, they tend to lose their strengths. I thought that Loktionov was improving and the kid has skills. I'm going to miss him and I think the Devils are going to miss him as well. Ruutu is not the answer to any question the Devils have. A slow team just got a heckuva lot slower.mikeford said:
To follow up on Neely's comments from earlier, Chiarelli was on the pre-game show tonight and basically confirmed what Neely said. "We were in on a defensemen with term, and a no-trade and he would've waived for us." Chiarelli also said he wasn't in on any of the "big guys" which I took to be Vanek, Gaborik, St. Louis and the group of forwards.
My guess is either Christian Ehrhoff or maybe Mark Giordano. Giordano seems more likely, perhaps the B's deal was contingent on a Cammalleri trade. Interesting.
My guess is either Christian Ehrhoff or maybe Mark Giordano. Giordano seems more likely, perhaps the B's deal was contingent on a Cammalleri trade. Interesting.
cshea said:
FWIW, Burke definitely alluded to having some three way deal in the works that fell apart because of a third team.
both he and Neely also said this is something that they laid groundwork for and could revisit in the futurecshea said:
Greg29fan said:
Way to go Wang. Let's place more value on $500K than maybe getting a good young prospect/player or high draft pick that might actually improve your team.