Tyler Seguin - Revisited v5

[FL4WL3SS]

It is pure idiocy to call Eriksson "comparable offensively" - even ignoring everything that has happened since the trade. Seguin's offense in Boston was far better than Eriksson's recent production in Dallas.

If Chiarelli really thought that, in terms of offensive production, Seguin for Eriksson was a short term wash, then he is an idiot and should be fired ASAP. I think he knew he was getting less than a 30 goal scorer in Loui. maybe I give him too much credit.

Why are you making the argument that goals are the end-all be-all for a player? In baseball we count a run prevented as much as a run scored, right? I know it's nearly impossible to analyze, but there is (significant?) value in being able to prevent goals, too. If Loui scores 25-30 while preventing 10 goals more than Seguin over the course of the season, then they're pretty comparable players, no?
 
In your world, you'd probably trade Seguin for Bergeron straight up, since, you know, Seguin can score 50 goals and all.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Why are you making the argument that goals are the end-all be-all for a player? In baseball we count a run prevented as much as a run scored, right? I know it's nearly impossible to analyze, but there is (significant?) value in being able to prevent goals, too. If Loui scores 25-30 while preventing 10 goals more than Seguin over the course of the season, then they're pretty comparable players, no?
 
In your world, you'd probably trade Seguin for Bergeron straight up, since, you know, Seguin can score 50 goals and all.

Call me crazy, but if you say that two players are "comparable offensively", then I am going to take that as a statement about their offense. Is Bergeron a better player than Phil Kessel? Sure. Is he comparable offensively? No, he's not even close.

 

[cshea]

It is pure idiocy to call Eriksson "comparable offensively" - even ignoring everything that has happened since the trade. Seguin's offense in Boston was far better than Eriksson's recent production in Dallas.

If Chiarelli really thought that, in terms of offensive production, Seguin for Eriksson was a short term wash, then he is an idiot and should be fired ASAP. I think he knew he was getting less than a 30 goal scorer in Loui. maybe I give him too much credit.

Um what? Over the two seasons prior to the trade, Loui and Tyler has basically identical offensive numbers.

Loui: 11/12- 82g, 26-45=71
Tyler: 11/12- 81g, 29-36=67

Loui: 12/13: 48g, 12-17=29
Tyler: 12/13: 48g, 16-16-36

Tyler outscored Loui by a whopping 3 points over 2 years. It has t worked out for Loui but it was entirely reasonable to expect a short term wash offensively for the Bruins. Eriksson's 3 full seasons prior to the lockout were 71 points, 73 points, 71 points. Unfortunately it hasn't quite worked out the way they hoped.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
 
So who would you give up? Seguin, Bergeron, Krejci, or Tuukka? The Bruins very likely wouldn't have re-signed one of them if Seguin stayed.
 

Krejci, easily. Krejci is fine, but he's going to decline from here on out (hopefully slowly) and is something around the 20-30th best forward in terms of P/60 over the last few years (with good to great linemates). Fine defensively but obviously not at a level of Bergeron.
 
They chose Krejci over Seguin which is understandable if you're going for it, and win in the next year or three. But Seguin is only getting better and Krejci's deal could look pretty rough soon.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Um what? Over the two seasons prior to the trade, Loui and Tyler has basically identical offensive numbers.

Loui: 11/12- 82g, 26-45=71
Tyler: 11/12- 81g, 29-36=67

Loui: 12/13: 48g, 12-17=29
Tyler: 12/13: 48g, 16-16-36

Tyler outscored Loui by a whopping 3 points over 2 years. It has t worked out for Loui but it was entirely reasonable to expect a short term wash offensively for the Bruins. Eriksson's 3 full seasons prior to the lockout were 71 points, 73 points, 71 points. Unfortunately it hasn't quite worked out the way they hoped.

 
Eriksson was 6 years older than Seguin when the deal was made. Eriksson's was already at his peak numbers, Seguin's could have reasonably been expected to go up, and that by a lot.

 

[burstnbloom]

Cshea already responded in kind, but EJ you're off the mark here.  Loui could have reasonably expected to be a close wash offensively while being a far more complete player. 
 
Things have changed since then.  

 

[RIFan]

If Chiarelli really thought that, in terms of offensive production, Seguin for Eriksson was a short term wash, then he is an idiot and should be fired ASAP. I think he knew he was getting less than a 30 goal scorer in Loui. maybe I give him too much credit.

I doubt he looked at it that way.  It was more likely Eriksson + Horton/Iginla  > Seguin + Peverly positioned them better to compete for the cup in 13-14 and 14-15.  
 
Serious question, had the trade not happened, do you think the B's were better last year and this year?  Assuming Seguin continues to skate with Bergy and Marchand, there is still a gapping hole on the 1st line and not for this year, but last year as well.   How would you have filled the top 6 role with bumping up against the cap?
 
Since you have the complete benefit of hindsight, what would have been your team in October 2013 and how do you think they would have fared?  (and for the record, don't waste our time "trading" guys with NMC's - fantasyland only goes so far).
 
To help you out, here is the capgeek archive from July 2013.  http://web.archive.org/web/20130630115747/http://capgeek.com/bruins/  
As of that date they had $8M in cap space (using Savard's LTIR exemption).  11 forwards, 6 defensemen and 0 goalies under contract. 

 

[Toe Nash]

I agree that signing Seguin to the contract extension was a mistake (the first mistake), 

I'm confused about this. Seguin's contract looks like one of the best bargains in the NHL now - he's signed a good deal under his market value through his prime. The mistake was filling out the rest of the cap with questionable deals like Kelly, Seidenberg, etc. and giving them NMCs.
 
I think the point that "he wouldn't have produced like that here" is an interesting one. He probably wouldn't get 50 goals, no. But he put up one of the best seasons by a 20-yo ever, so I think it's folly to think he wouldn't have achieved success.
 
More importantly, in Dallas they let him play his natural position, gave him talented players to play with, and well, there you go. I would make the argument that when you have a player of Seguin's obvious talent level you should maybe be the flexible one (within reason) to let him shine rather than criticizing him for not being physical and winning puck battles or whatever the brain trust says in that clip and elsewhere.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Cshea already responded in kind, but EJ you're off the mark here.  Loui could have reasonably expected to be a close wash offensively while being a far more complete player. 
 
Things have changed since then.  

not really. He could have been expected to be a more complete player, as he has been. There was no reason beyond wishful thinking to expect him to match Seguin's scoring. This was a guy who had peaked and should have been expected to decline.

 

[cshea]

 
Eriksson was 6 years older than Seguin when the deal was made. Eriksson's was already at his peak numbers, Seguin's could have reasonably been expected to go up, and that by a lot.

Of course, I don't think anyone was expecting Eriksson to outscore Seguin in the long-run. The trade was a short term move.

I'm just saying Loui was no slouch. He was an in-his-prime 70 point two-way winger on a bargain contract. They were expecting him to give them maybe 80-90% of Seguin's offense along with a two way game that was right in Julien's wheelhouse. For a variety of reasons, the offense hasn't translated as we hoped, although he seems to be coming around over the past month or so. Maybe it was the concussions, maybe it was the new system, who knows.

Edit: IMO, the trade was all about trying to better position themselves for 1-3 years.

 

[kenneycb]

I'm confused about this. Seguin's contract looks like one of the best bargains in the NHL now - he's signed a good deal under his market value through his prime. The mistake was filling out the rest of the cap with questionable deals like Kelly, Seidenberg, etc. and giving them NMCs.
 
I think the point that "he wouldn't have produced like that here" is an interesting one. He probably wouldn't get 50 goals, no. But he put up one of the best seasons by a 20-yo ever, so I think it's folly to think he wouldn't have achieved success.
 
More importantly, in Dallas they let him play his natural position, gave him talented players to play with, and well, there you go. I would make the argument that when you have a player of Seguin's obvious talent level you should maybe be the flexible one (within reason) to let him shine rather than criticizing him for not being physical and winning puck battles or whatever the brain trust says in that clip and elsewhere.

Because they had no reason to sign him prior to the season unless they thought he was going to keep upwardly producing.  He did not do so in the subsequent year and, given he was an RFA, they could have waited him out on that front before handing out that large of a contract.  Because the NHL has a wink wink deal about signing RFA's doling out a contract a year early isn't necessary if you want to keep a player.  It may have saved them some money given he sucked that year (relative to expectations) or it may have motivated him to not play like shit and be a major reason there's another banner in the Garden.  Who knows.  
 
Also, Seidenberg was on a bargain contract and was extended last year so unless you have a problem with the 4 year, $13M contract he signed after the Florida heist, please provide a more relevant name, of which there are plenty.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Edit: IMO, the trade was all about trying to better position themselves for 1-3 years.

I agree that was the point of it, but i don't think it has worked out that way.

 

[kenneycb]

Edit: Whoops

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Thanks for the explanations, Fl4wl3ss and others.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Because they had no reason to sign him prior to the season unless they thought he was going to keep upwardly producing.

This. For an example of a team in a very similar situation that handled matters differently, look at the Avs and Matt Duchene. The Avs didn't lock him up after a promising year 2, he had a disappointing year 3, and Colorado was able to keep him without offering a mega deal.

I think the Bruins went from overrating Seguin at the end of 2012 (not thinking a step back like the next year was possible) to understating him a year later (dealing him at a discount to his real value). They were like the investor who botches an attempt to time the market and loses a lot of money.

 

[kenneycb]

This. For an example of a team in a very similar situation that handled matters differently, look at the Avs and Matt Duchene. The Avs didn't lock him up after a promising year 2, he had a disappointing year 3, and Colorado was able to keep him without offering a mega deal.

I think the Bruins went from overrating Seguin at the end of 2012 (not thinking a step back like the next year was possible) to understating him a year later (dealing him at a discount to his real value). They were like the investor who botches an attempt to time the market and loses a lot of money.

That said, it does also run the risk of turning into a Ryan O'Reilly situation.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

That said, it does also run the risk of turning into a Ryan O'Reilly situation.

Which worked out OK for
Colorado. Heck, even Phil Kessel departure worked out OK for Boston.

Also, I think the Bruins front office underrates the value that Kessel/Seguin types do bring. They obviously bring a very different set of strengths and weaknesses than the typical Bruin forward. That's a good thing, but the Bruins front office sees it as a negative - having to take note of a breakaway threat keeps the other team honest in a way that another grinder won't.

 

[MoGator71]

I'm late to this little party as usual, but re: comparing Loui vs. Seguin offensively, yes Loui Eriksson is (was?) a fine offensive player, he's definitely more the the 2-way responsible guy that Julien likes. But the argument from the anti-Seguin B's fans is always "Seguin wouldn't be scoring like this in Boston" which I think is probably true. But if that's the way you want to look at it you can't really turn around and give Chiarelli a pass on Eriksson not putting up the same offense with the Bruins. If Seguin the Bruin isn't a league-leading scorer in Boston then neither is Eriksson the same offensive guy. 
 
This is a separate issue than Eriksson's health, which obviously couldn't be predicted or expected.
 
My issue with it at the time and now is that I have these "trade one horse for 4 ponies" deals in general, and I'd like to know what other offers Chia had. We didn't (as I recall, you guys follow the B's closer than I do obviously) hear rumblings that he was available and I wonder if he just pulled the trigger quickly after the fiasco of the Iginal trade/no trade...that was the summer after Iginla right?
 
A bigger issue is, do you guys have a problem with the organization's apparent inability/unwillingness to be able to deal with one jackass? Dallas is apparently managing. Chicago seems to be able to deal with Kane. You obviously don't want a roster full of knuckleheads, but if your leadership isn't strong enough to be able to deal with one guy, I think it's a problem.

 

[TSC]

 
A bigger issue is, do you guys have a problem with the organization's apparent inability/unwillingness to be able to deal with one jackass? Dallas is apparently managing. Chicago seems to be able to deal with Kane. You obviously don't want a roster full of knuckleheads, but if your leadership isn't strong enough to be able to deal with one guy, I think it's a problem.

 
Well they have Lucic. So the "one jackass" quota may be filled.

 

[cshea]

My issue with it at the time and now is that I have these "trade one horse for 4 ponies" deals in general, and I'd like to know what other offers Chia had. We didn't (as I recall, you guys follow the B's closer than I do obviously) hear rumblings that he was available and I wonder if he just pulled the trigger quickly after the fiasco of the Iginal trade/no trade...that was the summer after Iginla right?

Supposedly they talked to Calagary and the deal being discussed was Seguin for Johnny Gaudreau and the #6 pick. Calgary's owner may have stepped in and veto'd that deal down. Johnny Hockey and Sean Monahan are looking good now, but I would have preferred the Dallas package at the time since it gave them immediate help.

 

[lexrageorge]

I'm late to this little party as usual, but re: comparing Loui vs. Seguin offensively, yes Loui Eriksson is (was?) a fine offensive player, he's definitely more the the 2-way responsible guy that Julien likes. But the argument from the anti-Seguin B's fans is always "Seguin wouldn't be scoring like this in Boston" which I think is probably true. But if that's the way you want to look at it you can't really turn around and give Chiarelli a pass on Eriksson not putting up the same offense with the Bruins. If Seguin the Bruin isn't a league-leading scorer in Boston then neither is Eriksson the same offensive guy. 
 
This is a separate issue than Eriksson's health, which obviously couldn't be predicted or expected.
 
My issue with it at the time and now is that I have these "trade one horse for 4 ponies" deals in general, and I'd like to know what other offers Chia had. We didn't (as I recall, you guys follow the B's closer than I do obviously) hear rumblings that he was available and I wonder if he just pulled the trigger quickly after the fiasco of the Iginal trade/no trade...that was the summer after Iginla right?
 
A bigger issue is, do you guys have a problem with the organization's apparent inability/unwillingness to be able to deal with one jackass? Dallas is apparently managing. Chicago seems to be able to deal with Kane. You obviously don't want a roster full of knuckleheads, but if your leadership isn't strong enough to be able to deal with one guy, I think it's a problem.

The general consensus from the hockey media types at the time was that Chia got fair value for Seguin.  Sometimes the "one horse for 4 ponies" trades work; it technically did with the Kessel trade.  So I don't believe it was a rushed trade or one where Chia jumped at the first offer that came his way (a-la Mike O'Connell with the Joe Thornton trade).  
 
There were a number of factors that went into the decision to trade Seguin:  his contract, the team's cap situation, his disappearance during the 2013 playoffs (1 goal in 22 games is not a small sample size, and Seguin was healthy by all accounts), the fact that Chiarelli was able to get a couple of NHL ready players that would contribute immediately, and the fact that the Bruins were in a GFIN mode at the time (they had just come off of their 2nd SCF appearance in 3 years).  The "off ice" issues that Neely alluded to in the video were also part of it, but I don't believe it was a major part.  Had Seguin scored 19 goals in those 22 playoff games, or had the lockout not totally screwed up the team's salary cap projections, or had the return for Seguin been a couple of 4th line plumbers and a late round drat pick, the trade doesn't happen no matter how much of a pain in the ass he was to the coaching staff.  
 
To be fair, I wasn't a huge fan of this trade, as I felt there was a real risk that it would look like Larry Andersen-for-Jeff Bagwell in a few years.  But if this trade didn't happen, then there would have been implications with other players on the roster instead.  Trading Krejci instead of Seguin is not slam-dunk obvious decision that some here are making it out to be.  And I don't believe a roster with Seguin and Peverley would have had any more success in last year's playoffs than the one with Iginla and Erickson and Smith.  

 

[veritas]

My issue with it at the time and now is that I have these "trade one horse for 4 ponies" deals in general, and I'd like to know what other offers Chia had. We didn't (as I recall, you guys follow the B's closer than I do obviously) hear rumblings that he was available and I wonder if he just pulled the trigger quickly after the fiasco of the Iginal trade/no trade...that was the summer after Iginla right?
 
A bigger issue is, do you guys have a problem with the organization's apparent inability/unwillingness to be able to deal with one jackass? Dallas is apparently managing. Chicago seems to be able to deal with Kane. You obviously don't want a roster full of knuckleheads, but if your leadership isn't strong enough to be able to deal with one guy, I think it's a problem.

 
That was the summer after the Iginla fiasco, and the summer they signed Iginla. Which they were able to do in part because they got rid of Seguin's cap hit. I was optimistic about the trade at the time, and in hindsight it was not as good as I thought. But short term it was definitely a win for the Bruins (and maybe Dallas too). They turned Seguin into 3 top 6 forwards (1 year of Iginla, 3 of Eriksson, and potentially a bunch of Smith), plus a good prospect in Morrow, and a lottery ticket who never panned out in Frasier. Long term, yeah the trade is a loss for the Bruins, but it's not like Seguin would magically make this year's team a first place team. Undo the trade and the lines look something like this (assuming they had to ditch Kelly for cap reasons):
 
Marchand-Bergeron-Seguin
Lucic-Krejci-Griffith
Paille-Soderberg-Cunningham
Caron-Campbell-I don't even know
 
Not even going into what that would have looked like when Krejci was out. They would be seriously short on depth. Plus you can't assume Seguin becomes the same player if he stays in Boston.
 
As for jackasses, Marchand and Lucic are two that the organization has made core parts of the team. I think the trade really was more about going for it in the short term with depth and proven value. Long term, Seguin ended up being a lot better than they thought  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[MiracleOfO2704]

 
As for jackasses, Marchand and Lucic are two that the organization has made core parts of the team. I think the trade really was more about going for it in the short term with depth and proven value. Long term, Seguin ended up being a lot better than they thought  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is the long and short of it. The organization decided they had to go for another Cup or two before the Chara Window closes around 2016. As TFP said in this and the other thread, his knee may have closed that window early, and now they're paying the price.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
That was the summer after the Iginla fiasco, and the summer they signed Iginla. Which they were able to do in part because they got rid of Seguin's cap hit. I was optimistic about the trade at the time, and in hindsight it was not as good as I thought. But short term it was definitely a win for the Bruins (and maybe Dallas too). They turned Seguin into 3 top 6 forwards (1 year of Iginla, 3 of Eriksson, and potentially a bunch of Smith), plus a good prospect in Morrow, and a lottery ticket who never panned out in Frasier. Long term, yeah the trade is a loss for the Bruins, but it's not like Seguin would magically make this year's team a first place team. 

 
It's not fair to count Iginla in there, as 1) there were other ways Chiarelli could have freed up $2 million and 2) can't talk about Iginla without considering his bonuses that are charged to this year's cap.  
 
Looking at last year's moves, taken together, as short term vs long term strategy doesn't quite work because of Iginla's bonuses.  In retrospect, it was really more like very short term (2013-14) or bust. It looks to me like the Chara window may be all but closed.  Was last year worth it?
 
I agree Seguin would not magically make this year's team a first place team.  But...
 
 
 

 
Long term, Seguin ended up being a lot better than they thought  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 
This is an inexcusable error.  The current Bruin team is short of what it takes to win in all sorts of ways: short on scoring, short on forward depth, short on cap room, etc.  A team with that many holes cannot afford to do anything but maximize the return on the assets it does have.  With Seguin they didn't do that.  

 

[RIFan]

 
It's not fair to count Iginla in there, as 1) there were other ways Chiarelli could have freed up $2 million and 2) can't talk about Iginla without considering his bonuses that are charged to this year's cap.  
 
Looking at last year's moves, taken together, as short term vs long term strategy doesn't quite work because of Iginla's bonuses.  In retrospect, it was really more like very short term (2013-14) or bust. It looks to me like the Chara window may be all but closed.  Was last year worth it?
 
I agree Seguin would not magically make this year's team a first place team.  But...
 
 
 

You keep bringing up the $2M.  It wasn't $2M, it was $3.85M.  (Seguin $5.75 + Peverly $3.25 - Eriksson $4.25 - Smith $.900)  You cannot discount the fact that Peverly was a salary dump and that was part of the equation.  The need to dump additional salary had to suppress the return value.   It is absolutely fair to include Iginla.  Part of the plan was to attempt to bring back Horton as I assume they thought he was more important to a cup run than Seguin.  It's fair to say they wiffed on Horton's desire to return and market value.  Iginla fell in their lap as an unanticipated back up plan.   They had limited cap space that had to be spent on Rask and very shortly later a Krecji extension.   The contract structure for Iginla allowed them to get Rask signed to a long term extension and mitigated the risk that Iginla had nothing left in the tank.  They undoubtedly sacrificed the long term to GFIN.  I wouldn't have made the trade as I thought Seguin was a generational talent, but I can objectively see the rational for doing so.   You've been repeatedly shown rational for doing the deal, but you've yet to offer anything of substance on what else they could have done.  
 
The talent is still there to pull it together and get hot by the playoffs.  If Chara gets back to 90-95% of his pre-injury state and Seidenberg continues to get healthier they'll be able to control the defensive end.  The offense needs to obviously improve, but the guys that are there have track records of performing.  They need to get healthy and/or get their heads out of their asses and play to their potential.  

 

[TSC]

What's scary is how bad this team would be now if Chiarelli got his way and HAD signed Horton or Iginla long term like he was trying. Columbus and Colorado saved his skin there, a bit.

 

[RIFan]

(assuming they had to ditch Kelly for cap reasons):
 
Marchand-Bergeron-Seguin
Lucic-Krejci-Griffith
Paille-Soderberg-Cunningham
Caron-Campbell-I don't even know
 
 

The one thing I'll add is that they repeatedly point how losing Boychuk and Thornton affected the locker room. By most accounts, Kelly is one of the most respected voices in the room.   They'd be relying on a lot of young guys with a thin leadership group.  I think it's arguable that the team you outline would be a bottom 10 team (which I think is your point).

 

[charlieoscar]

 
It's not fair to count Iginla in there, as 1) there were other ways Chiarelli could have freed up $2 million and 2) can't talk about Iginla without considering his bonuses that are charged to this year's cap.  
 
Looking at last year's moves, taken together, as short term vs long term strategy doesn't quite work because of Iginla's bonuses.  In retrospect, it was really more like very short term (2013-14) or bust. It looks to me like the Chara window may be all but closed.  Was last year worth it?
 
I agree Seguin would not magically make this year's team a first place team.  But...
 
 
 
 
This is an inexcusable error.  The current Bruin team is short of what it takes to win in all sorts of ways: short on scoring, short on forward depth, short on cap room, etc.  A team with that many holes cannot afford to do anything but maximize the return on the assets it does have.  With Seguin they didn't do that.  

 
Wasn't the contract the Bruins gave him an impediment to the salary cap? Don't get me wrong, at the time I thought trading him was a poor decision. Shades of Phil Kessel: all he can do is score; he's not the "Bruins' type," or so I envision the management mumbling.

 

[MoGator71]

Supposedly they talked to Calagary and the deal being discussed was Seguin for Johnny Gaudreau and the #6 pick. Calgary's owner may have stepped in and veto'd that deal down. Johnny Hockey and Sean Monahan are looking good now, but I would have preferred the Dallas package at the time since it gave them immediate help.

 
Yea, at the time I'd have probably preferred the Dallas deal as well.
 
I keep thinking Holmgren would have offered Jake Voracek+ for Seguin, and if the + wasn't ridiculous I probably would have been OK with it.