2021-2022 Bruins Season Thread

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,293
Tuukka's refugee camp
Remember when the Bruins saved lots of money on below market deals for their incredible first line and new second line left winger and needed a second line center and top 4 LD and instead spent that money on a cone, three redundant bottom six forwards, and Buffalo’s backup goalie while also giving said goalie a full No Movement Clause to go along with their third line possession center’s limited NTC?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Which second line center and top 4 LD should they have acquired? Their prospect pool sucks so probably have to go the UFA route here.
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
10,612
Between here and everywhere.
Which second line center and top 4 LD should they have acquired? Their prospect pool sucks so probably have to go the UFA route here.
Man, I feel like I remember someone here talking about how much Phillip Danault would fit on this team and be a great second line center - and having numerous people tell him that was a bad idea.

Hey, TSC - what does Danault's line look like this year?

3g 6a and 9pts in 14 games? While still playing incredibly defensively? Damn. How bout that.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
Depth scoring is a major problem, as usual, but I think they'll clean up the rest. Carlo isn't going to flub a puck to Leon Draisaitl like that again. 18 of 31 goals for have been scored by the top line or PP1. The depth has been embarassingly bad.

DeBrusk - Haula - Smith were run over last night. Not sure what the remeedy is here other than to yell at them. Haula's been a disappointment. Smith doesn't have a point yet in 8 games this year, though I guess you can apply the injured tag to him. Jake is Jake. He had a nice run of games early but slid into his invisibiility cloak recently which turned to dust last night as he ole'd Cody friggin Ceci right on through to a high danger chance and GWG. I guess Butch could send him to the dog house but then he's getting replaced by Karson Kuhlman who won't solve any goal scoring woes and will likely just exacerbate the problem.

They are at a full 23 man roster and nobody has wavier exemptions so they don't have a ton of flexibility. I think I'd either IR Frederic or waive Blidh or Kuhlman and bring Jack back up. Give the kid a bonafide 10 game run at the center position with either the 2nd or 3rd line. See where he and you are in 10 games. Don't yo-yo him around between C, wing, pressbox. Analytically speaking, despite his limited usage this year he's got a 61% xGF%. Let's give him a real chance.

Hall - Studnicka - Foligno
DeBrusk - Coyle - Smith
Haula - Nosek - Lazar

Flip Coyle and Studnicka if you like. Maybe something clicks.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,438
Falmouth
I don't know...I thought Danault would have been a perfect addition and maybe even able to slide into the 1C role if Bergy called it a day but I never heard ANY rumors linking him to Boston. Given the need to save money for a McAvoy extension I think Danault's price was a bit high and he was goiong to get term, which I think the Bruins are trying to be judicious about.

I think you can say it's too early to panic while recognizing that some of the guys they've gambled on haven't worked out.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
Money wise, they could've essentially consolodated Foligno ($3.7) and Haula ($2.375) into Danault ($5.5) with some spare change leftover. Problem with Danault is the 6-years. In addition to the McAvoy extension they have Bergy due up after this year, and the biggest ticket of them all Pastrnak coming up after next season.
 

durandal1707

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2007
3,562
How much of the depth scoring issue is exacerbated by the lack of any offensive threat from the blue line? Krug left and this team never found a replacement for his shot. McAvoy's offensive game is still (hopefully) developing, and Reilly and Grz are more playmakers/puck-movers than scoring threats in and of themselves. You then have guys like Carlo where it's a Xmas Miracle if they can actually get a point shot past the first defender. When Forbort is leading your defense corps in scoring, it's a real bad sign.

I realize that a goal-scoring defenseman who is at least competent in his own end is the Holy Grail of player acquisition in this sport, but this really seems to be this team's biggest need and one that I haven't seen much urgency in addressing.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
McAvoy is good offensively. His problem is he refuses to shoot. Like last night when he had the puck in the high slot with a great look and decided to pass it off to the RW who had a much worse angle when then tried a low percentage cross crease pass to the LW and they didn't even get a shot off. Chuck should've sat on the bench for the rest of the game after that.

I think Reilly and Grz are capable. Not pure scorers but good skating, transition/play making types. Reilly traditionally has been a volume shooter from the back end, but hasn't really done much shooting this year. Carlo and Forbort are blackholes where offense goes to die (on both ends).

The white whale is the LHD with some offensive chops. They don't hang on trees. Honestly, their best bet at resolving this issue is probably Mason Lohrei.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
12,916
The white whale is the LHD with some offensive chops. They don't hang on trees. Honestly, their best bet at resolving this issue is probably Mason Lohrei.
What's the word on the play of Ahcan in Providence? Is he still a viable prospect or is he going to be an AHL lifer?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
Ahcan is already 24 so he kinda stretches the limits of "prospect." It's hard to see a path for him to get to the NHL roster except for injury.

Lohrei is, 20, 6' 4", dominated the USHL last season and is currently nearly a point per game as a freshman at Ohio State. When he was drafted, his statistical profile was close to Colton Parayko. Who knows, it's an awful lot to expect this kid to be that good, but honestly he's probably the Bruins best shot at a long term, two-way, all situations LHD. You pretty much need to draft one, they don't get traded or reach free agency frequently and when they do you have to pay an arm and a leg. It's why we have Forbort and Reilly.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
12,916
Ahcan is already 24 so he kinda stretches the limits of "prospect." It's hard to see a path for him to get to the NHL roster except for injury.

Lohrei is, 20, 6' 4", dominated the USHL last season and is currently nearly a point per game as a freshman at Ohio State. When he was drafted, his statistical profile was close to Colton Parayko. Who knows, it's an awful lot to expect this kid to be that good, but honestly he's probably the Bruins best shot at a long term, two-way, all situations LHD. You pretty much need to draft one, they don't get traded or reach free agency frequently and when they do you have to pay an arm and a leg. It's why we have Forbort and Reilly.
Ahcan's a little older than I had thought. Will be interesting to see if they bring him up at some point this year. Also will be interesting to see whether Lohrei signs his ELC after OSU's season.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,288
How much of the depth scoring issue is exacerbated by the lack of any offensive threat from the blue line? Krug left and this team never found a replacement for his shot. McAvoy's offensive game is still (hopefully) developing, and Reilly and Grz are more playmakers/puck-movers than scoring threats in and of themselves. You then have guys like Carlo where it's a Xmas Miracle if they can actually get a point shot past the first defender. When Forbort is leading your defense corps in scoring, it's a real bad sign.

I realize that a goal-scoring defenseman who is at least competent in his own end is the Holy Grail of player acquisition in this sport, but this really seems to be this team's biggest need and one that I haven't seen much urgency in addressing.
I don't think its exacerbated by that at all, honestly. McAvoy is pretty much the best 5v5 offense generator in the league. Gryz and Reilly are both well above average. Reilly was better at generating chances 5 on 5 than the dude in Toronto who spells his name wrong and just got $7.5m a year.

The problem with this team is and has been for years, depth scoring at 5v5 from the forwards. I don't really think Danault was ever going to come here and I'm 100% certain Sweeney kicked the tires. There was legitimately no other top 6 centers on the market. The idea that they didnt make an attempt seems pretty far fetched. I also don't think they should have given him 6 years. I don't see his game aging well.

I actually think Coyle has been more than fine, just unlucky. That line is generating a ton of chances. Their PDO is 93.6 (lol) - it's going to turn around. The issue is much more the bottom 6. The third line got Wagnered big time last night. 25% shot share. That's where it came apart. That's also how the islanders beat the bruins last year. They got very little possession in their bottom 6 and a deeper team took advantage of that.

They need a lot more out of the third and fourth lines. I like cshea's idea of putting Stud in the middle and leaving him there. I think he'd do pretty well with Jake and Foligno. Haula could push Nosek to the wing. Frederic - Haula- Nosek is probably a pretty good fourth line.

They are one of the best defensive teams in the league. The narrative developing in this town that the defense being a problem just doesn't hold up at all. they SUCK at generating offense outside of the top 6. That's the achilles heel.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,288
Ahcan's a little older than I had thought. Will be interesting to see if they bring him up at some point this year. Also will be interesting to see whether Lohrei signs his ELC after OSU's season.
Sorry for the double post. I think he will. He's playing in a major conference an has 7 points in 8G. K'Andre Miller is a similar prospect (with a bit more of a pedigree, less offense, more d) who scored at a .5ppg pace his draft +2 year in the big 10 and was in the NHL the next year. Lohrei is a bit more raw so he may need some time in Rhode Island to refine his game (he's only been playing D a few years) but I think his upside is higher. He has the best shot at being hte long term solution at McAvoy's left of anyone in the organization since people hate that Gryz is small.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
Which second line center and top 4 LD should they have acquired? Their prospect pool sucks so probably have to go the UFA route here.
Dannault and Oleksniak would have been decent targets. Given that the needs were similar (LD) or predictable (2C) the year before, we could take a look at that free agent class as well.
I don't think its exacerbated by that at all, honestly. McAvoy is pretty much the best 5v5 offense generator in the league. Gryz and Reilly are both well above average. Reilly was better at generating chances 5 on 5 than the dude in Toronto who spells his name wrong and just got $7.5m a year.

The problem with this team is and has been for years, depth scoring at 5v5 from the forwards. I don't really think Danault was ever going to come here and I'm 100% certain Sweeney kicked the tires. There was legitimately no other top 6 centers on the market. The idea that they didnt make an attempt seems pretty far fetched. I also don't think they should have given him 6 years. I don't see his game aging well.
That’s fine, but then you eventually do spend that money, and you overpay for third and fourth liners who generate nothing. Or you pay for Buffalo’s backup and give him a full NMC. It’s not like the cost and term savings gets plowed into some useful piece or banked for next year.

Plus, notwithstanding the pandemic driven flat cap, we’re likely to see a decent enough increase in six years (when we have no idea what the team will look like, given that two of their elite forwards likely will be gone) that the Danault hit might not look so terrible. Or, at least, no worse than Haula/Nosek/Foglino 3.0.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,293
Tuukka's refugee camp
Dannault and Oleksniak would have been decent targets. Given that the needs were similar (LD) or predictable (2C) the year before, we could take a look at that free agent class as well.


That’s fine, but then you eventually do spend that money, and you overpay for third and fourth liners who generate nothing. Or you pay for Buffalo’s backup and give him a full NMC. It’s not like the cost and term savings gets plowed into some useful piece or banked for next year.

Plus, notwithstanding the pandemic driven flat cap, we’re likely to see a decent enough increase in six years (when we have no idea what the team will look like, given that two of their elite forwards likely will be gone) that the Danault hit might not look so terrible. Or, at least, no worse than Haula/Nosek/Foglino 3.0.
The Kraken signed Oleksiak during their exclusive period to negotiate with unprotected UFAs. The only way the Bruins could have gotten him was to trade for his rights, sign him, and then lose one of Gryzelcyk, Carlo, or McAvoy instead of Lauzon.

Regarding the bolded, cost and term savings do get banked for next year in the ability to re-sign Bergeron next year and Pastrnak in two years.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
Can we at least stop calling Ullmark Buffalo's backup? Even dealing with some injuries, he led them in starts the past 2 seasons.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
The Kraken signed Oleksiak during their exclusive period to negotiate with unprotected UFAs. The only way the Bruins could have gotten him was to trade for his rights, sign him, and then lose one of Gryzelcyk, Carlo, or McAvoy instead of Lauzon.
Are we really worried that they would have exposed McAvoy in this scenario?

Regarding the bolded, cost and term savings do get banked for next year in the ability to re-sign Bergeron next year and Pastrnak in two years.
Foglino, Haula, and Nosek are all on the books for next year. If you think that Bergeron is signing this off-season after a first or second round loss, do you think it’s for more than one year? What do you do to fit him in next year with these guys on the roster?

As for Pasta, you’d have DeBrusk coming off the books at $3.675, right?

Could you have done something other than sign Ullmark to $5 AAV for four years with a full NMC?
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
Can we at least stop calling Ullmark Buffalo's backup? Even dealing with some injuries, he led them in starts the past 2 seasons.
That’s fair. How about “Buffalo’s less than halftime goalie for the past two years who still got 4x $5M and a full NMC, despite the fact that he’s splitting time with a younger cheaper goalie and the Bruins might try to bring back Tuukka, as well”?

Better?
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,293
Tuukka's refugee camp
Regarding your first point, I was naming the three players that could be exposed. Of course they wouldn't do it.

Regarding the second, I'm not sure what point your making outside of pointing out that there are several moving pieces, some that were in place before the start of free agency, some that weren't. Sure, they could have undone all those things and hypothetically signed Danault. I'm not sure it makes them any better as the bottom 6 would still be a dumpster fire with Chris Wagner getting significant, regular minutes but, then again, I'm not ready to call all the offseason signings busts after 11 games and fresh off a home loss to Edmonton watched by many. I'm pretty sure Craig Smith was going to get bought out at this point last year.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
Regarding your first point, I was naming the three players that could be exposed. Of course they wouldn't do it.
So they wouldn’t have actually lost McAvoy, right? That wouldn't have been a danger of the signing? Literally not something that we have to consider in evaluating it?

Regarding the second, I'm not sure what point your making outside of pointing out that there are several moving pieces, some that were in place before the start of free agency, some that weren't. Sure, they could have undone all those things and hypothetically signed Danault. I'm not sure it makes them any better as the bottom 6 would still be a dumpster fire with Chris Wagner getting significant, regular minutes but, then again, I'm not ready to call all the offseason signings busts after 11 games and fresh off a home loss to Edmonton watched by many. I'm pretty sure Craig Smith was going to get bought out at this point last year.
My point isn’t complicated. The money does not, in fact, get banked because you, in fact, spend it. It literally has the same consequences that you’re ostensibly worried about?

You know, the “water is wet” thing that you were disagreeing with in the first place?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
That’s fair. How about “Buffalo’s less than halftime goalie for the past two years who still got 4x $5M and a full NMC, despite the fact that he’s splitting time with a younger cheaper goalie and the Bruins might try to bring back Tuukka, as well”?

Better?
Over the 2 previous season, Ullmark had the 3rd best 5x5 save percentage in hockey among goalies with a minimum of 2500 minutes, and 15th in overall save percentage despite playing behind an awful team.

The contract they gave him is fine, though it's fair to question if they money should've been redirected into anothe rarea.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,293
Tuukka's refugee camp
So they wouldn’t have actually lost McAvoy, right? That wouldn't have been a danger of the signing? Literally not something that we have to consider in evaluating it?


My point isn’t complicated. The money does not, in fact, get banked because you, in fact, spend it. It literally has the same consequences that you’re ostensibly worried about?

You know, the “water is wet” thing that you were disagreeing with in the first place?
Your point was cost and term savings don’t get banked into something useful next years when I feel both, mainly term savings, do allow you to roll open cap space into something useful in future years. I admit I may be missing your point or doing a shitty job explaining my nuance.

The rest is you being pedantic and bordering on asshole so, given where this is going, I’ll bow out for now.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
Over the 2 previous season, Ullmark had the 3rd best 5x5 save percentage in hockey among goalies with a minimum of 2500 minutes, and 15th in overall save percentage despite playing behind an awful team.

The contract they gave him is fine, though it's fair to question if they money should've been redirected into anothe rarea.
Yeah, given that he might start fewer than half the Bruins games this season, I think it’s more than a fair question, given the status quo bias arguments that we need money to sign Bergeron in the off-season and Pastrnak in two years, so this was the right roster to assemble.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,468
Gallows Hill
There was no way that a Bruins team was going to go into this season at $15 million + under the cap. They would’ve gotten destroyed in the media. Once they realized that nobody wanted their shitty prospects in a trade, and there were no elite players that they could entice here with money, the only thing they could do was try to catch lightning in a bottle with mid level free agent depth.

And it can still work out, as it’s only been 11 games over one of the weirdest schedules to start a season that I’ve ever seen.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
12,724
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
The schedule excuse sucks. If we want to say that they are still coming together as a team, that's fine, but this is a team full of professionals that have been in the league for a while. The coaching and leadership on the team is the most consistent in the league.

They're a mediocre team, it's not surprising. They've done nothing to improve themselves in the past few offseasons and have tried to ride depend on the core guys. It was a fine strategy, but it was obvious that it was going to end up this way.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,288
Dannault and Oleksniak would have been decent targets. Given that the needs were similar (LD) or predictable (2C) the year before, we could take a look at that free agent class as well.


That’s fine, but then you eventually do spend that money, and you overpay for third and fourth liners who generate nothing. Or you pay for Buffalo’s backup and give him a full NMC. It’s not like the cost and term savings gets plowed into some useful piece or banked for next year.

Plus, notwithstanding the pandemic driven flat cap, we’re likely to see a decent enough increase in six years (when we have no idea what the team will look like, given that two of their elite forwards likely will be gone) that the Danault hit might not look so terrible. Or, at least, no worse than Haula/Nosek/Foglino 3.0.
Oleksiak wasn't available to them at all. He was chosen by the Kraken and signed during the exclusive negotiating window. He was never a UFA. I already stated my issues with Danault, and the 2020 UFA period the best center who signed a deal was Michael Granlund? they also had $19m tied up in their top 3 centers last year, so it didn't really make sense to solve for that last year either. As for last year's LHD crop they let Krug walk and wanted to go with the youth. In hindsight, a pretty big miss but the other LHD signed (TJ Brodie, Sami Vatenen, Joel Edmundson) weren't really needle movers anyway.

As far as Ulmark goes, not super worried about that contract and disagree with the consistent characterization of "buffalo's backup." That's clearly loaded and incorrect. He played the most games and had the best results. He was their starter. He also only has a no move this year and next and a modified NTC the last two years. they are 21st in spending on the goalie position and will remain so until Swayman is off his ELC in 3 years (when Ulmark just has a ntc). They could have gone $4.5 of Freddy Anderson, but that didnt seem like a smart move at the time for Carolina. He's been great this year so far but hindsight. I don't get the consternation about him other than half of Boston's fanbase will always hate the goalie?

I'm also not saying they should have signed haula and foligno - I would have preferred they didn't give 2+ years for bottom six players over 30.

The mistakes they made were over the last 5+ years in development, drafting and pro scouting. some of those reared their ugly heads with Forbort this offseason, but I don't think there is a reasonable argument they could have fixed the things you're suggesting this offseason given the mess they had already created for themselves.

Sadly - there doesn't appear to be much hope to solve it in the near future. Hertl and Trocheck are UFAs next year but that's about it. It's going to be a long couple of years.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
Oleksiak wasn't available to them at all. He was chosen by the Kraken and signed during the exclusive negotiating window. He was never a UFA.
That’s fair, so far as it goes. Maybe the Bruins could have signaled interest previously so he wouldn’t have signed. But that’s a bit more to the side.

I already stated my issues with Danault, and the 2020 UFA period the best center who signed a deal was Michael Granlund? they also had $19m tied up in their top 3 centers last year, so it didn't really make sense to solve for that last year either.
The shitty Coyle deal doesn’t affect the marginal decision of knowing you need a new center very soon, though.

I don’t know why you’re hung up on how much money is being spent at a particular position. The whole point of having savings somewhere isn’t to analyze your spending elsewhere in terms of average league money spent on a position. You don’t win prizes for beating average positional spending, especially at center.

As for last year's LHD crop they let Krug walk and wanted to go with the youth. In hindsight, a pretty big miss but the other LHD signed (TJ Brodie, Sami Vatenen, Joel Edmundson) weren't really needle movers anyway.

As far as Ulmark goes, not super worried about that contract and disagree with the consistent characterization of "buffalo's backup." That's clearly loaded and incorrect. He played the most games and had the best results. He was their starter. He also only has a no move this year and next and a modified NTC the last two years. they are 21st in spending on the goalie position and will remain so until Swayman is off his ELC in 3 years (when Ulmark just has a ntc). They could have gone $4.5 of Freddy Anderson, but that didnt seem like a smart move at the time for Carolina. He's been great this year so far but hindsight. I don't get the consternation about him other than half of Boston's fanbase will always hate the goalie?
Talking about this in terms of overall goalie spending is again exactly the issue, though. The fact that you have a cheap, in house option and a plan to possibly go after your old veteran once he recovers from surgery is the reason to say, “Hey, maybe we spend this money somewhere other than on a guy who has never played 41 games in a season and might not even play half of our games, and, oh, by the way, we can’t move him for two years.” Not, “Hey, this goalie money is burning a hole in our pocket.”

I'm also not saying they should have signed haula and foligno - I would have preferred they didn't give 2+ years for bottom six players over 30.
Again, that’s the point. Danault savings don’t happen in a vacuum. The real analysis isn’t just, “I don’t really like that deal, in and of itself.” The real analysis is, “How does this look, compared to the real world alternative, given that they’re going to spend the money anyway?” So, Danault plus some kids and a relatively lower priced backup goalie for savings, or overpriced bottom six and a movement protected “Fucked if I know whether he’ll be our starting goalie.”

And, in the real analysis, this front office eschews paying more for higher end talent to simultaneously overpay and movement protect lesser talent at positions of lesser concern. Because it’s somehow safer to have more defuse overpayments and bad decisions.

“I think that house is a little overpriced, so I’m glad that you didn’t bid on it. I wouldn’t have bought those three shacks with the savings, but good job not buying that house,” doesn’t make any sense.
 
Last edited:

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
7,695
Brookline
I think I'd either IR Frederic or waive Blidh or Kuhlman and bring Jack back up. Give the kid a bonafide 10 game run at the center position with either the 2nd or 3rd line. See where he and you are in 10 games. Don't yo-yo him around between C, wing, pressbox. Analytically speaking, despite his limited usage this year he's got a 61% xGF%. Let's give him a real chance.
Came here to post something like this. Studnicka is the only prospect at Providence who seems ready to make an impact in the NHL. Bring him up and put him between Smith and Hall and see what happens. Studnicka is already a better defensive forward than Coyle, and the middle 6 forwards have been brutal in the defensive zone. He’s got speed and awareness & could pair better with Hall than Coyle.

The only possible help in Providence for the blue line is Moore, Vaakanainen & Zboril, and I doubt any one of them is better than the current top 6. Achan would just be another small, light & mobile D man. The Bruins need size and strength on the blue line. They miss Lauzon and Miller.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,288
That’s fair, so far as it goes. Maybe the Bruins could have signaled interest previously so he wouldn’t have signed. But that’s a bit more to the side.



The shitty Coyle deal doesn’t affect the marginal decision of knowing you need a new center very soon, though.

I don’t know why you’re hung up on how much money is being spent at a particular position. The whole point of having savings somewhere isn’t to analyze your spending elsewhere in terms of average league money spent on a position. You don’t win prizes for beating average positional spending, especially at center.



Talking about this in terms of overall goalie spending is again exactly the issue, though. The fact that you have a cheap, in house option and a plan to possibly go after your old veteran once he recovers from surgery is the reason to say, “Hey, maybe we spend this money somewhere other than on a guy who has never played 41 games in a season and might not even play half of our games, and, oh, by the way, we can’t move him for two years.” Not, “Hey, this goalie money is burning a hole in our pocket.”



Again, that’s the point. Danault savings don’t happen in a vacuum. The real analysis isn’t just, “I don’t really like that deal, in and of itself.” The real analysis is, “How does this look, compared to the real world alternative, given that they’re going to spend the money anyway?” So, Danault plus some kids and a relatively lower priced backup goalie for savings, or overpriced bottom six and a movement protected “Fucked if I know whether he’ll be our starting goalie.”

And, in the real analysis, this front office eschews paying more for higher end talent to simultaneously overpay and movement protect lesser talent at positions of lesser concern. Because it’s somehow safer to have more defuse overpayments and bad decisions.

“I think that house is a little overpriced, so I’m glad that you didn’t bid on it. I wouldn’t have bought those three shacks with the savings, but good job not buying that house,” doesn’t make any sense.
You needed to sign another goalie either way though. No one in their right mind would have played Swayman in 80% of the game.s. That's not how the NHL works anymore and he's legitimately never in his life had that kind of workload. All the other good (ok) goalies signed for similar money (mostly shorter term because their warts were MUCH bigger) and the presence of Rask would have necessitated a NMC for anyone who would sign here. Ullmark is a pretty good goalie though so I don't really get why you don't like it.

And me bringing up how much money they had a center meant that last year they had Charlie Coyle coming off of a pretty good year signed for 5 years and Krejci and bergeron for 1 and 2 more years respectively. They didn't have the spot for a center last year and addressing it would have required them to move one of them and cup contending teams don't do things like that. Coming into the year the Bruins had the best forward group in the NHL in all the preseason models. The bottom 6 regressed significantly and become a weakness, but saying the move was to solve this years problem last year is hindsight of the highest order. It's really not a true statement that Charlie's contract is shitty. He signed for his age 28-33 seasons after this progression.

46365

That knee injury tanked his value. but coming into last season, he was a 75th percentile player on the third line.

Also your analogy lacks context of the league around them and the Bruins organization. There simply ARENT young players that we could have comfortably slotted into the bottom 6 and expected them to be even replacement level. Providence has 2-3 potential NHLers but that's about it. The cupboard is bare. It also misses the point that there are no options available for just money. Not last offseason. Not the one before. Not this upcoming offseason. The bruins put themselves in a position to either start a restocking/rebuilding this offseason or try to fill in the bottom 6 through UFA and try to make one last run with Bergeron as 1C. They chose the latter. Through 11 games it doesn't appear to be working out but to say "they should have addressed it!!!" just tells me you weren't paying attention to the marketplace in the offseason and don't have much of a sense of the upcoming market either.

I don't really get why you're trying to make an argument around concepts and philosophy when people are rebutting your very specific commentary on the player moves they made.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
You needed to sign another goalie either way though. No one in their right mind would have played Swayman in 80% of the game.s.
Who said that Swayman is going to play 80% of the games? This is as about as honest as suggesting that I hate Ullmark because I think that the money could have been spent better elsewhere, and that the term and NMC are bad. Come on, man.

That's not how the NHL works anymore and he's legitimately never in his life had that kind of workload. All the other good (ok) goalies signed for similar money (mostly shorter term because their warts were MUCH bigger) and the presence of Rask would have necessitated a NMC for anyone who would sign here. Ullmark is a pretty good goalie though so I don't really get why you don't like it.
I’ve literally explained it three times. Your response every time is “but he’s a good goalie and you want a good goalie.” You could have brought back Halak for half (a third? Not sure if I’m reading the hit right) the cap hit, a better save percentage in two of the past three years, and a better current understanding of the Bruins system.

And me bringing up how much money they had a center meant that last year they had Charlie Coyle coming off of a pretty good year signed for 5 years and Krejci and bergeron for 1 and 2 more years respectively. They didn't have the spot for a center last year and addressing it would have required them to move one of them and cup contending teams don't do things like that.
You also could have played Coyle on the fourth line or at right wing depending on what else you had. The rest of the roster spots don’t disappear or require you to ship Krecji or Bergeron out.

Coming into the year the Bruins had the best forward group in the NHL in all the preseason models. The bottom 6 regressed significantly and become a weakness, but saying the move was to solve this years problem last year is hindsight of the highest order.
Again, please stop misrepresenting what I’ve been saying. I said that it was another time when they could have looked to solve it (the shine wasn’t 100% off some of their other players at that point, either—moving on from DeBrusk possibly could have helped in a trade) given the decidedly unsecret age of their two top centers. I didn’t say that they had to do then; we’ve also talked about an option for doing so this past offseason. There’s literally no hindsight associated with looking at Krecji’s and Bergeron’s birth certificates and contract term.

It's really not a true statement that Charlie's contract is shitty. He signed for his age 28-33 seasons after this progression.

View attachment 46365

That knee injury tanked his value. but coming into last season, he was a 75th percentile player on the third line.
Unfortunately, the plan with the signing was obviously for him to play second line center—without Bergeron and Krecji blocking tough matchups for him—for much of the deal.

Also your analogy lacks context of the league around them and the Bruins organization. There simply ARENT young players that we could have comfortably slotted into the bottom 6 and expected them to be even replacement level. Providence has 2-3 potential NHLers but that's about it. The cupboard is bare. It also misses the point that there are no options available for just money. Not last offseason.
We’ve literally been talking about one, and your response is, “But I don’t like that deal because of the term.”

Which is fine. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. It’s just a very different thing than, “There were no options available for just money.”

Not the one before. Not this upcoming offseason. The bruins put themselves in a position to either start a restocking/rebuilding this offseason or try to fill in the bottom 6 through UFA and try to make one last run with Bergeron as 1C. They chose the latter. Through 11 games it doesn't appear to be working out but to say "they should have addressed it!!!" just tells me you weren't paying attention to the marketplace in the offseason and don't have much of a sense of the upcoming market either.

I don't really get why you're trying to make an argument around concepts and philosophy when people are rebutting your very specific commentary on the player moves they made.
Because your argument in connection with the very specific player we are discussing is that you don’t like the term and then a mish mash of poorly conceived philosophical justifications and fake roster squeezes or spending based on average spending at positions and ignoring the fact that they literally don’t matter.

Your specific arguments are fine. I guess I don’t understand why you’re trying to justify them with broader philosophy that feels so half baked. I feel like those can’t be your real reasons, but they’re sort of numbery, so you feel like they’re helpful?

Here’s a spitball of what this year’s forwards could have looked like, just changing FA signings:

Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak
Hall, Danault, Coyle
DeBrusk, Studnicka, Smith
Nosek, Frederic (or switch them), Lazar / Kuhlman

Does that track?

And again, I’m fine with your term argument on Danault. Completely reasonable in a vacuum (and he just might have preferred LA! Another perfectly legitimate possibility). But it’s also completely at cross purposes with the apparent goal of taking one more real swing at it with Bergeron as 1C.
 
Last edited:

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,293
Tuukka's refugee camp
I hate wading back into this but why do you think Danault or the above scenario moves the needle on this team? At his best, Danault’s been on par with Krejci but has consistently lagged Krejci at any point of his career by pretty much any metric prior to the 14 games this year. But now, downgrading from Krejci to Danault as 2C, giving Studnicka a regular spot, filling in depth with a bunch of mediocre Providence prospects / vet minimums, and signing whatever replacement-ish level goalie to backup a completely unproven starter makes somehow them a more viable contender this year? That’s pretty much the same team give or take an extra game or two in the playoffs while still hindering roster building options moving forward.

I hate putting Danault on this pedestal but, given Kuraly was the 5th most expensive center on the market, he’s the only UFA F that would have moved the needle unless you want Hyman for 7 years, Saad for 5, or no draft picks for several years for some trade candidate.
 
Last edited:

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,288
Who said that Swayman is going to play 80% of the games? This is as about as honest as suggesting that I hate Ullmark because I think that the money could have been spent better elsewhere, and that the term and NMC are bad. Come on, man.



I’ve literally explained it three times. Your response every time is “but he’s a good goalie and you want a good goalie.” You could have brought back Halak for half (a third? Not sure if I’m reading the hit right) the cap hit, a better save percentage in two of the past three years, and a better current understanding of the Bruins system.
I wasn't saying you said that, I was saying you needed to spend money on a second goalie. The Bruins clearly went into the offseason thinking they needed to hold serve in net. They wanted a viable NHL starter to replace Rask's minutes and Swayman would take Halaks. Halak was not an option for that. He was below replacement level and had already lost his job to Swayman (and by all accounts was pissed about it.) The rest of the goaltenders on the market signed similar AAV deals to Ullmark.

1- Freddy Anderson - coming off and injury and hadnt really been good in two years - got $4.5M and a NTC
2- Peter Mrazek - played 12 games last year and isn't particularly good - $3.8M and a NTC
3- Jonathan Bernier - $4.25M

The year prior - the goalies signed deals like Lehner - $5m AAV, Markstrom, $6M AAV, Greiss $3.75 AAV

You're suggesting the Bruins should have signed a cheaper goalie to play with Swayman but the only way to do that would have been to severely downgrade the position as a whole and hope for Rask to come back. I actually didn't hate that idea and advocated for it in the offseason. Once I saw guys like Brossoit and Reimer were getting $2.5M+ on multi year deals, I realized that wasn't really a viable option for this team.



You also could have played Coyle on the fourth line or at right wing depending on what else you had. The rest of the roster spots don’t disappear or require you to ship Krecji or Bergeron out.
You could have but why would you have done that when he was coming off an excellent season? It makes no sense.


Again, please stop misrepresenting what I’ve been saying. I said that it was another time when they could have looked to solve it (the shine wasn’t 100% off some of their other players at that point, either—moving on from DeBrusk possibly could have helped in a trade) given the decidedly unsecret age of their two top centers. I didn’t say that they had to do then; we’ve also talked about an option for doing so this past offseason. There’s literally no hindsight associated with looking at Krecji’s and Bergeron’s birth certificates and contract term.



Unfortunately, the plan with the signing was obviously for him to play second line center—without Bergeron and Krecji blocking tough matchups for him—for much of the deal.
Again -- conceptually sure, but who? top 6 centers rarely get traded in the NHL and the Bruins have very few assets to trade. In the last 2 years, besides Eichel, the only top 6 center who were traded were Vinny Trochek, Jeff Carter (def doesn't solve that age problem), and PLD. Who is this mystery player they could have traded for with Jake Debrusk and slotted him in next to Coyle?

We’ve literally been talking about one, and your response is, “But I don’t like that deal because of the term.”

Which is fine. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. It’s just a very different thing than, “There were no options available for just money.”
I also said I don't think its reasonable to assume that the Bruins didn't talk to Danault given the dearth of other options. It's more than just the term on that contract its the players age, and what that term looks like given the trajectory of this team. They need as much flexibility as they can get in years 3,4,5,6 of that deal given they will need to rebuild quickly and that contract feels like it will age very poorly. I wouldn't have thrown up my hands if they signed him but I'm not sad they didnt.

Because your argument in connection with the very specific player we are discussing is that you don’t like the term and then a mish mash of poorly conceived philosophical justifications and fake roster squeezes or spending based on average spending at positions and ignoring the fact that they literally don’t matter.

Your specific arguments are fine. I guess I don’t understand why you’re trying to justify them with broader philosophy that feels so half baked. I feel like those can’t be your real reasons, but they’re sort of numbery, so you feel like they’re helpful?

Here’s a spitball of what this year’s forwards could have looked like, just changing FA signings:

Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak
Hall, Danault, Coyle
DeBrusk, Studnicka, Smith
Nosek, Frederic (or switch them), Lazar / Kuhlman

Does that track?

And again, I’m fine with your term argument on Danault. Completely reasonable in a vacuum (and he just might have preferred LA! Another perfectly legitimate possibility). But it’s also completely at cross purposes with the apparent goal of taking one more real swing at it with Bergeron as 1C.
I don't think that team is any better than what they are putting on the ice right now and it doesn't solve any long term problems either. I'm not justifying their philosophy at all, I'm saying they tied their own hands years ago and came into an important offseason with few assets, only cap space and a terrible UFA market to spend the money. I think they did they best they could in this offseason given the mess they have created over the last 5 years.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
I wasn't saying you said that, I was saying you needed to spend money on a second goalie. The Bruins clearly went into the offseason thinking they needed to hold serve in net. They wanted a viable NHL starter to replace Rask's minutes and Swayman would take Halaks. Halak was not an option for that. He was below replacement level and had already lost his job to Swayman (and by all accounts was pissed about it.) The rest of the goaltenders on the market signed similar AAV deals to Ullmark.

1- Freddy Anderson - coming off and injury and hadnt really been good in two years - got $4.5M and a NTC
2- Peter Mrazek - played 12 games last year and isn't particularly good - $3.8M and a NTC
3- Jonathan Bernier - $4.25M

The year prior - the goalies signed deals like Lehner - $5m AAV, Markstrom, $6M AAV, Greiss $3.75 AAV

You're suggesting the Bruins should have signed a cheaper goalie to play with Swayman but the only way to do that would have been to severely downgrade the position as a whole and hope for Rask to come back.
You’re basing your argument that Halak is a severe downgrade—not just 1 to 1 vs. Ullmark, but downgrading the position as a whole—on a single abbreviated season, during which Halak got COVID, right?

Because Halak’s stats look better for the other two of the past three years, don’t they? Or is that the Boston/Buffalo thing at play, and you’ve corrected for that somehow? If so, I’d love to see it. Which stats for which years show that Halak is a severe downgrade from Ullmark?

I actually didn't hate that idea and advocated for it in the offseason. Once I saw guys like Brossoit and Reimer were getting $2.5M+ on multi year deals, I realized that wasn't really a viable option for this team.

You could have but why would you have done that when he was coming off an excellent season? It makes no sense.
I honestly don’t know how many more times I can repeat myself, or if you think willful obtuseness is a useful tactic—because your top two centers are really, really old, not signed for term, and you use four centers?

You know, things that are directly in response to a fake roster squeeze that you’ve invented, and the notion that you would have had to move one of your centers to accommodate getting someone?

If you don’t like your own arguments, don’t make them. Because this, “who cares about that?” every time I respond to one is getting tireseome.

“I don’t think they should have gotten another center because Coyle is good and I don’t care about a lack of future center depth despite the age and lack of term for our top two centers.” There you go; that’s your argument. Just say it instead of using nonsense bolstering that I respond to that you then avoid as if it weren’t one of your arguments.

Again -- conceptually sure, but who? top 6 centers rarely get traded in the NHL and the Bruins have very few assets to trade. In the last 2 years, besides Eichel, the only top 6 center who were traded were Vinny Trochek, Jeff Carter (def doesn't solve that age problem), and PLD. Who is this mystery player they could have traded for with Jake Debrusk and slotted him in next to Coyle?
Again, literally not what I said. You keep doing this. I said that DeBrusk could have helped in a trade, not that he would have been the only thing going. You also had a 2021 first round pick.

You’re also doing the fun thing where you act as if not playing out every specific step in a hypothetical universe with almost 30 other GMs a year and a half ago is proof of your argument.

]I also said I don't think its reasonable to assume that the Bruins didn't talk to Danault given the dearth of other options.
Seriously, why do you keep doing this?

It's more than just the term on that contract its the players age, and what that term looks like given the trajectory of this team. They need as much flexibility as they can get in years 3,4,5,6 of that deal given they will need to rebuild quickly and that contract feels like it will age very poorly. I wouldn't have thrown up my hands if they signed him but I'm not sad they didnt.
Again, perfectly fine argument. Literally contradicts, “There’s no one available for just money!” nonsense, though.

If you don’t like your own arguments, just stop making them. Simple

I don't think that team is any better than what they are putting on the ice right now and it doesn't solve any long term problems either.
Term in a Top 2 NHL center isn’t a problem that needs to be solved?
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
TL; DR: “I think they did the best they could, given the circumstances,” is a legitimate argument. “There was nothing else that they could have done,” is not. I don’t know what the obsession with the latter is, but we got it with the question of whether starting Rask in Game 6 last year was the right move, too.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,288
I think you came here angry, made a bad post based all false assumptions due to a lack of information and/or understanding and now you’re trying to win an argument.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
I hate wading back into this but why do you think Danault or the above scenario moves the needle on this team? At his best, Danault’s been on par with Krejci but has consistently lagged Krejci at any point of his career by pretty much any metric prior to the 14 games this year. But now, downgrading from Krejci to Danault as 2C, giving Studnicka a regular spot, filling in depth with a bunch of mediocre Providence prospects / vet minimums, and signing whatever replacement-ish level goalie to backup a completely unproven starter makes somehow them a more viable contender this year? That’s pretty much the same team give or take an extra game or two in the playoffs while still hindering roster building options moving forward.
I think it’s also better than Foglino/Haula for more money in the next two years, given that you’re apparently worried about re-signing Bergeron in the off-season. Do we agree now that it doesn’t materially hinder your ability to re-sign Pastrnak, given the other money that will be coming off?

Again, “I want more payroll flexibility in the future,” is an argument. “There was nothing else that could be done,” is bullshit bolstering.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
I think you came here angry, made a bad post based all false assumptions due to a lack of information and/or understanding and now you’re trying to win an argument.
That’s fine. I think you mistake your preference for immutable reality and engage in silly rhetorical bolstering in service of that, but I screwed up the timing of the signing of Oleksiak in the 20 minutes I spent looking at this, so we can still be friends.

I would be interested in seeing the Halak to Ullmark evidence, though. It would be nice to have even more stat-based evidence of his skill—goalie stats strike me as annoyingly variable and noisy.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
And? Halak’s save percentage and even strength save percentage are better in two of the past three years (and in the third year, Halak got Injured and COVID). GA%- better in 2/3 (same parenthetical).

Here’s a comparison to their totals from the past three seasons:

https://stathead.com/hockey/pcomp_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1=ullmali01&p1yrfrom=2019&p1yrto=2021&player_id2=halakja01&p2yrfrom=2019&p2yrto=2021

I’m open to the possibility that there is some advanced analysis of which I’m not aware, especially with regard to goalies. Hell, I’d expect it. But they look pretty comparable to me, maybe with a slight nod to Halak (who certainly played behind a much better team).

If you adjust that comparison to the past four seasons, the rate stats get closer, but Halak still leads and played a lot more games.

If there really is such a severe drop off, it should be relatively easy to demonstrate, no?
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
3,418
Boston
After a promising rookie season, Debrusk has failed. At this point, maybe they should look to move on? Whether it’s breaking in another rookie/young player on the 3rd line or establishing veterans, I no longer think the future potential from Debrusk is better than trying someone new.

It’s possible he just clashes with Bruce and will be better on another team. But that doesn’t help the Bruins either.
 

jcaz

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2009
292
I don't really have a strong position here. You asked - without having done the research yourself - about a statistical comparison between the two goalies. So, I provided it, purposefully without comment. But since you seem to want me to comment, here's some observations.

In the last three years, Halak's save percentage declined from 92.2, to 91.9 to 90.5. Similarly, his GAA went from 2.34, 2.39 to 2.53. These numbers were achieved on a Bruins team that was 11th, 7th and 14th in GA. Halak also played in 48%, 44%, and 34% of Bruins' games over that period.

The same data for Ullmark show an increasing save percentage from 90.5, 91.5, 91.7%; a decreasing GAA from 3.11, 2.69, to 2.61 on a team that finished 24th, 21st and 29th in GA.

Also, Halak is 36. Ullmark is 28. I could see how Bruins management interpreted these two players as going in opposite directions.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
I don't really have a strong position here. You asked - without having done the research yourself - about a statistical comparison between the two goalies.
Respectfully, but the fuck I did. I reviewed the stats that you provided, and more advanced stats, prior to asking the question. I even reference three years worth of stats comparison a couple posts up. I was asking a specific poster for specific information supporting his position that choosing Halak over Ullmark would have severely downgraded the position, that I may have missed.

You responded to that context and run of posts by posting their career stats, because you think you’re being witty.

But hey, way to be pissy about an obvious and completely boring request that someone support their assertion with evidence.

So, I provided it, purposefully without comment.
No, you were being a schmuck, purposefully without comment. God, you people are so deep into your fucking feelings.

But since you seem to want me to comment, here's some observations.

In the last three years, Halak's save percentage declined from 92.2, to 91.9 to 90.5. Similarly, his GAA went from 2.34, 2.39 to 2.53. These numbers were achieved on a Bruins team that was 11th, 7th and 14th in GA. Halak also played in 48%, 44%, and 34% of Bruins' games over that period.

The same data for Ullmark show an increasing save percentage from 90.5, 91.5, 91.7%; a decreasing GAA from 3.11, 2.69, to 2.61 on a team that finished 24th, 21st and 29th in GA.

Also, Halak is 36. Ullmark is 28. I could see how Bruins management interpreted these two players as going in opposite directions.
So can I. It’s entirely possible that they think Halak fell off a cliff—and they saw him on a regular basis. Statistical variance from 92.2 to 91.9 year over year (in goalie stats of all things!) isn’t anything, though. So you’re basically left with an age difference and RMPS’s favorite hobby-horse: that a cherry-picked, deliberately smaller sample of goalie stats is super useful in drawing conclusions because it supports the poster’s preferred argument. And this time, it’s for a guy who had COVID in the year that helps you.

And, of course, it doesn’t actually support the argument to which I have been responding and for which I have requested evidence.

Thanks again for helping. I appreciate you.
 

jcaz

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2009
292
Again, I don't have a strong position here, so I'm not particularly keen to engage. Some final observations from me before I bow out of this conversation.

My post with what I think are very good data followed a post in which you said:

I would be interested in seeing the Halak to Ullmark evidence, though. <snip>
So, I provided what I thought would be helpful for those wanting to see evidence.

I will also offer that my observations were that there is a three year declining trend in one player versus a three year improving trend in another player in the key statistics that are typically used to evaluate that position. I don't perceive that as "cherry picking." However

<snip> Statistical variance from 92.2 to 91.9 year over year (in goalie stats of all things!) isn’t anything, though. <snip>
this observation could be considered cherry picking as it's one data point out of several that were provided.

I'll also say that I, and apparently others in this thread, don't think that you engage in productive ways. Finally, I don't feel as though I'm a schmuck nor am I deep into my feelings.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
So, I provided what I thought would be helpful for those wanting to see evidence.
No you didn’t. You know what you were doing. Just be honest and own it. Because . . .

I'll also say that I, and apparently others in this thread, don't think that you engage in productive ways.
When you go ahead and write your motivation for what you and I both know you were doing, the “Who, me?” act is a little bit much.

Own it, man. It was an awesome, very witty burn. Don’t prevaricate. Be proud.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
25,108
right here
I don't really have a strong position here. You asked - without having done the research yourself - about a statistical comparison between the two goalies. So, I provided it, purposefully without comment.
dude. you know I love you but that's exactly what happened.

46395

you also got bent out of shape and sarcastic when it was pointed out to you that Oleksiak was signed in the exclusive window. It's okay to just say "you're right, I was was wrong about that" without being a dick about it
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
dude. you know I love you but that's exactly what happened.

View attachment 46395
Are you fucking serious? There’s literally an entire run of posts that preceded this. There’s like a multiple post conversation about it.

you also got bent out of shape and sarcastic when it was pointed out to you that Oleksiak was signed in the exclusive window. It's okay to just say "you're right, I was was wrong about that" without being a dick about it
I was absolutely wrong about Oleksiak. What I took issue with was the common dishonest bolstering that we might have lost McAvoy in Kenny’s kind alternate universe where he gave me a pass on that.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
I wasn't saying you said that, I was saying you needed to spend money on a second goalie. The Bruins clearly went into the offseason thinking they needed to hold serve in net. They wanted a viable NHL starter to replace Rask's minutes and Swayman would take Halaks. Halak was not an option for that. He was below replacement level and had already lost his job to Swayman (and by all accounts was pissed about it.)

. . .

You're suggesting the Bruins should have signed a cheaper goalie to play with Swayman but the only way to do that would have been to severely downgrade the position as a whole and hope for Rask to come back.
You’re basing your argument that Halak is a severe downgrade—not just 1 to 1 vs. Ullmark, but downgrading the position as a whole—on a single abbreviated season, during which Halak got COVID, right?

Because Halak’s stats look better for the other two of the past three years, don’t they? Or is that the Boston/Buffalo thing at play, and you’ve corrected for that somehow? If so, I’d love to see it. Which stats for which years show that Halak is a severe downgrade from Ullmark?
That’s fine. I think you mistake your preference for immutable reality and engage in silly rhetorical bolstering in service of that, but I screwed up the timing of the signing of Oleksiak in the 20 minutes I spent looking at this, so we can still be friends.

I would be interested in seeing the Halak to Ullmark evidence, though. It would be nice to have even more stat-based evidence of his skill—goalie stats strike me as annoyingly variable and noisy.
I mean, come the fuck on. You don’t think I looked at the three years of stats I was talking about, especially considering how often I’ve posted them comparing Halak’s stats to Rask’s? I just luckily guessed that two out of the three of them were better?

Because that is a really oddly specific shot in the dark. ;)

jcaz knew exactly what he was doing. He even told us why.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
25,108
right here
Oleksiak wasn't available to them at all. He was chosen by the Kraken and signed during the exclusive negotiating window. He was never a UFA.
That’s fair, so far as it goes. Maybe the Bruins could have signaled interest previously so he wouldn’t have signed. But that’s a bit more to the side.
I was absolutely wrong about Oleksiak. What I took issue with was the common dishonest bolstering that we might have lost McAvoy in Kenny’s kind alternate universe where he gave me a pass on that.
Try to imagine an alternate world where someone else had made the Oleksiak mistake and then defened it by saying they could have signaled during the exclusive negotiationg period that they were interested. And then brushed it a bit more to the side. You would have had 3 posts edited 5 times pointing out how wrong they were.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
25,108
right here
I mean, come the fuck on. You don’t think I looked at the three years of stats I was talking about, especially considering how often I’ve posted them comparing Halak’s stats to Rask’s?
(I put on my Myt1 hat) Maybe people assumed you didn't put the effort into it like you didn't put the effort in about Oleksiak.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
33,596
South Boston
Try to imagine an alternate world where someone else had made the Oleksiak mistake and then defened it by saying they could have signaled during the exclusive negotiationg period that they were interested. And then brushed it a bit more to the side. You would have had 3 posts edited 5 times pointing out how wrong they were.
Sure, that’s fair.

(I put on my Myt1 hat) Maybe people assumed you didn't put the effort into it like you didn't put the effort in about Oleksiak.
Maybe neither of you read the thread?

FWIW, I did look up Oleksiak. The list I reviewed didn’t differentiate the FA signings from exclusive FA signings. So I did put in the effort; I just failed.