Does it cancel out if I've been drinking in a self-made Belichick hoodie since 4 today?
Edit: With my NAC pills. Think I converted another person tonight.
Edit: With my NAC pills. Think I converted another person tonight.
Boychuk Traded to the Islanders for Picks
- Thread starter Greg29fan
- Start date
From the mind, this is a more than solid return for Boychuk with 1 year left on his deal. With 2 probably mid-2nd rounders, coupled with the B's existing surplus of prospects, they could land someone like Giordano or Hamhuis - or pony up less and land Andrej Sekera at the deadline. If for whatever reason Brandon Gormley becomes available, they'd have the pieces for him as well. Banking the additional cap space til the deadline has the chance to pay big dividends as well, obviously depending on team needs/activity at that point.
From the heart, this blows. Boychuk is the kind of piece they should be looking to add, not sacrifice for cap reasons. I would imagine there's no team outside of Kelly's no-trade list that would offer a 7th for him - and if that's the case, they had 4 options to make the team similarly cap compliant:
1. Begin offering to withhold salary in a Kelly trade
2. Waive Kelly - if this were a possibility they'd probably be averse to the risk of him clearing and either staying on the roster or going to Providence at only a $100k cap savings
3. Strike a deal with a team on his no-trade list and ask him to waive
4. Attach assets like late round draft picks to increase his viability as a trade target
Considering moving Campbell and Bartkowski essentially accomplishes the same thing when it comes to a roster crunch/cap compliance, it's tough to say they were forced into this. I am also in erfus's camp in that losing roster players to free agency isn't a death knell. The Hawks losing Ladd, Byfuglien, etc are living proof.
Come March '15, if they trade a 2nd for Marek Zidlicky and call it a day, I will be beyond irate.
PS my NAC pills don't work for shit, probably because I haven't ponied up the cash to buy the second component or whatever, those are expensive.
From the heart, this blows. Boychuk is the kind of piece they should be looking to add, not sacrifice for cap reasons. I would imagine there's no team outside of Kelly's no-trade list that would offer a 7th for him - and if that's the case, they had 4 options to make the team similarly cap compliant:
1. Begin offering to withhold salary in a Kelly trade
2. Waive Kelly - if this were a possibility they'd probably be averse to the risk of him clearing and either staying on the roster or going to Providence at only a $100k cap savings
3. Strike a deal with a team on his no-trade list and ask him to waive
4. Attach assets like late round draft picks to increase his viability as a trade target
Considering moving Campbell and Bartkowski essentially accomplishes the same thing when it comes to a roster crunch/cap compliance, it's tough to say they were forced into this. I am also in erfus's camp in that losing roster players to free agency isn't a death knell. The Hawks losing Ladd, Byfuglien, etc are living proof.
Come March '15, if they trade a 2nd for Marek Zidlicky and call it a day, I will be beyond irate.
PS my NAC pills don't work for shit, probably because I haven't ponied up the cash to buy the second component or whatever, those are expensive.
A couple things here:
1. The move was obviously necessitated by having to pay Krejci and also by the Kelly and Seidenberg deals. Once they made the Seguin trade, extending Krejci was basically necessary, and once they signed Seidenberg, they were basically choosing him over Boychuk. I disagree with most of these moves in one way or another but that's in the past so whatever.
2. At this point, the question was would you try to get something for a year of Boychuk, or try to ditch Kelly or Campbell or McQuaid or whatever other lower-level guys, slip under the cap and then lose Boychuk next year anyway (hopefully while extending Hamilton). I think given that the team has the best goalie in the league, the best defensive C in the league (who has a concussion history) and a couple more years of Chara they should be focusing on maximizing their chances in each year. In that case, a full year of Boychuk would seem to be more valuable than two second-round picks. I buy that Boychuk was a tradeable piece but given his importance to the team I think it's too much of a hit to lose him, even if he was leaving next year.
3. This is showing an awful lot of faith in Seidenberg to be healthy and good, which is a big question given that he was showing signs of decline before his major injury. If he is too far on the downslope, the defense has a lot of questions and flaws. I don't have much faith in any of Miller, McQuaid, Bart or Krug being much more than they are now. That's fine on a team with 3-4 D who are solid, but if Seidenberg isn't 100%, it looks thin.
1. The move was obviously necessitated by having to pay Krejci and also by the Kelly and Seidenberg deals. Once they made the Seguin trade, extending Krejci was basically necessary, and once they signed Seidenberg, they were basically choosing him over Boychuk. I disagree with most of these moves in one way or another but that's in the past so whatever.
2. At this point, the question was would you try to get something for a year of Boychuk, or try to ditch Kelly or Campbell or McQuaid or whatever other lower-level guys, slip under the cap and then lose Boychuk next year anyway (hopefully while extending Hamilton). I think given that the team has the best goalie in the league, the best defensive C in the league (who has a concussion history) and a couple more years of Chara they should be focusing on maximizing their chances in each year. In that case, a full year of Boychuk would seem to be more valuable than two second-round picks. I buy that Boychuk was a tradeable piece but given his importance to the team I think it's too much of a hit to lose him, even if he was leaving next year.
3. This is showing an awful lot of faith in Seidenberg to be healthy and good, which is a big question given that he was showing signs of decline before his major injury. If he is too far on the downslope, the defense has a lot of questions and flaws. I don't have much faith in any of Miller, McQuaid, Bart or Krug being much more than they are now. That's fine on a team with 3-4 D who are solid, but if Seidenberg isn't 100%, it looks thin.
People are really discounting the growth of the young D and the potential this D core has.
Hamilton really improved last year, and might have put himself in the conversation for the second best defenseman on this team even without much of a slip on behalf of Seidenberg.
I may be misremembering - but I remember reading something where young defenseman make this biggest leap between years 2-3. If that's the case, the Bruins could have 3 top pairing guys, and then some very solid 3/4 guys in McQuaid/Krug/Miller.
Yes, losing Boychuk doesn't make the team better, but with even slight growth/improvement from the young D, it doesn't hurt the team either.
Hamilton really improved last year, and might have put himself in the conversation for the second best defenseman on this team even without much of a slip on behalf of Seidenberg.
I may be misremembering - but I remember reading something where young defenseman make this biggest leap between years 2-3. If that's the case, the Bruins could have 3 top pairing guys, and then some very solid 3/4 guys in McQuaid/Krug/Miller.
Yes, losing Boychuk doesn't make the team better, but with even slight growth/improvement from the young D, it doesn't hurt the team either.
Stings. Fucking stings.
Yes, big picture; he was going to get a big raise and move on, anyway. 2nd rounders, cap relief...very useful & necessary.
But, man...big shot...big hits...kick a guy's ass every now and then...a stand up guy.
Jack Edwards weeps.
(I will now spend the rest of my morning on youtube Johnny Boychuk highlights.)
Yes, big picture; he was going to get a big raise and move on, anyway. 2nd rounders, cap relief...very useful & necessary.
But, man...big shot...big hits...kick a guy's ass every now and then...a stand up guy.
Jack Edwards weeps.
(I will now spend the rest of my morning on youtube Johnny Boychuk highlights.)
TheShynessClinic said:
I think this is the key point. I generally think that D-first defensemen like Boychuk are a good bet to age well, and that moving Boychuk for picks certainly hurts the team in the short term. But the future success of the team isn't about the Boychuks or even most of the remainder of the 2011 core - first and foremost it's about Rask, Bergeron, Hamilton, and Krug.
I also am not sure how the team's prospect depth shakes out. One would have expected Spooner to make the team by now; it's not clear what they really have in all of the Providence guys. Maybe those draft picks are needed.
[SIZE=13.63636302948px]Just looking at the transactions in a vacuum, they did great on a long-term value basis: t[/SIZE]hey traded Matt Hendricks and got 4 seasons of solid D play, 6 total, and then 2 2nd rounders plus a conditional 3rd out of Boychuk. That's a hell of a series of moves.
That said, it's tough that this had to happen now and a knock on Chia that he couldn't manage the cap [SIZE=13.63636302948px]well enough [/SIZE]both from a player contract perspective and from a cap increase modeling perspective to avoid having to make really tough decisions like this. However, ultimately I agree with TSC and EJ - this will make the team better in the long run as it clears space to sign the future.
People making comparisons between the "Chara window" and the "Brady window" (which haven't been strongly made here, but which I did hear strongly made on the radio yesterday) are forgetting that there is a massive team value differential between the QB position and the 1D position in hockey. QB and goalie are really a better comparison in that both are key cogs on one side of the ball/puck. Chara is a great player, but ultimately much more replaceable than Brady.
I'm gonna miss the Johnny Rockets and Hip-Checks Experience.
That said, it's tough that this had to happen now and a knock on Chia that he couldn't manage the cap [SIZE=13.63636302948px]well enough [/SIZE]both from a player contract perspective and from a cap increase modeling perspective to avoid having to make really tough decisions like this. However, ultimately I agree with TSC and EJ - this will make the team better in the long run as it clears space to sign the future.
People making comparisons between the "Chara window" and the "Brady window" (which haven't been strongly made here, but which I did hear strongly made on the radio yesterday) are forgetting that there is a massive team value differential between the QB position and the 1D position in hockey. QB and goalie are really a better comparison in that both are key cogs on one side of the ball/puck. Chara is a great player, but ultimately much more replaceable than Brady.
I'm gonna miss the Johnny Rockets and Hip-Checks Experience.
I'm an Islander fan and hockey is the sport I follow the least of MLB, NFL, NBA & NHL (NBA not far behind at this point of my life). For those who follow hockey more than I do, is this and the Leddy trade more of Garth Snow giving up way too much future for the present because he knows he's the GM for 2 years until the new owners take majority control? Is this Vanek all over again?
I think Snow sees an opportunity to pounce with weak Metro division, and is influenced by the new ownership, the move to the Barclays and also the Vanek trade where they are giving the Sabres their first round pick in the 2015 draft (so no point in tanking). They've also routinely been a bottom 5 team, so stockpiling more draft picks and talent isn't all that necessary, at some point you have to try and compete. Defense and goaltending have long been the Isles biggest weaknesses, and he's addressed that with Halak, Boychuk and Leddy. I think Snow has done a decent job. I wouldn't label them contenders, but I do think they should be a playoff team.
The thing about the "Chara window" is that while yes, no player in hockey is as important to the team as a QB is to a football team, it's not just a Chara window, it's a "current core" window. The team has been the most successful in the East basically since 2011 and has as good a shot as any to make the SCF, but looking forward in the next year or two, not only do you reach the end of Chara's years as a top D in the league, but also:
-Dougie's ELC runs out and he gets more expensive
-Lucic's deal runs out and you have to make a decision on him
-Marchand and Erikkson's arguably below-market deals run out, and they get more expensive or leave
-Soderberg is a UFA
-Bergeron and Krejci reach and pass age 30 and it's a question whether they will continue perform at an elite level
Given all these factors I would argue that the team should be doing everything they can to win now. A year of Boychuk is pretty important to that goal especially when your replacements are returning from serious injury or unproven (and in my opinion, have low ceilings other than Dougie). For the record I love Hamilton but you need more than 2 d-men.
-Dougie's ELC runs out and he gets more expensive
-Lucic's deal runs out and you have to make a decision on him
-Marchand and Erikkson's arguably below-market deals run out, and they get more expensive or leave
-Soderberg is a UFA
-Bergeron and Krejci reach and pass age 30 and it's a question whether they will continue perform at an elite level
Given all these factors I would argue that the team should be doing everything they can to win now. A year of Boychuk is pretty important to that goal especially when your replacements are returning from serious injury or unproven (and in my opinion, have low ceilings other than Dougie). For the record I love Hamilton but you need more than 2 d-men.
re The Isles. I've read the thinking is Leddy is a legit #1PP dman who was blocked from that role in CHI.
I think this blows, but I don't think it's an indictment of cap management so much an indictment of how hard it is to keep everyone in the cap environment, and therefore, by extension, how much you kill yourself when you whiff completely on a couple of drafts. For instance, there is no good reason to be paying Chris Kelly other than their inability to draft a useful center. Sure, now they have Yeti but they couldn't have expected that.
Obviously the stupid lockout didn't help either.
Obviously the stupid lockout didn't help either.
I don't get this. The team went to the Finals, then followed that up with the league's best record. Chia's team building in a very tight cap era has been nothing but top notch. He went all in with Iginla last season, which in retrospect was indeed the right move as well as being upgrade from the inconsistency of Horton; unfortunately, that move hurt the team a bit this season. Earth to Felger: the cap is *NOT* crap....erfus said:
On the D, folks need to remember that Hamilton will be 21, Krug 23, and Barkowski 26. With the possible exception of Bartkowski, we haven't seen the best of any of them; I'll never get the Krug hate that appears on this board from time to time. They are relying on both Seidenberg and McQuaid staying healthy, which is scary, but they are both on the roster and neither one was really movable.
I do hate the fact that Kelly is on the team while Boychuck was traded. But Chiarelli has to make moves that are in "in the best interest of the club", and I really don't blame Chiarelli for that situation. By making this trade, they should be in better position to upgrade at the deadline, by which point they will know a lot more about the strengths and weaknesses of this season's team. That's the real reason this trade was made, IMO.
Finally, I hate the talk of the "Chara window". Yes, the core of the team does have some aging players. But playing strictly in GFIN mode is a road to folly and potential disaster. There are too many variables in hockey, such as injury, hot goaltenders in a short series, etc. IMO, better to keep together a core that will allow the team to be competitive from year to year, and add pieces around that core as they become available. And keep in mind that the core will necessarily evolve from year to year.
I agree with this in a vacuum but they have Krejci, Bergeron, Chara and Seidenberg all under contract for the next 4 seasons and all have NMCs. They traded away a young superstar on a reasonable contract, you may remember, and committed to Krejci. That's the core they've committed to for better and for worse, and it is all aging. You're especially not going to be able to replace what Chara brings considering he is a unique player in the history of the NHL.lexrageorge said:
They should be putting the pieces around them now while they are still (hopefully) playing at a high level.
Finally, it's asinine to trade Boychuk and then plan to look for a rental at the deadline. Just think of Boychuk as your rental! He's going to be better than anyone out there and he already knows the system.
Edit: One last thing: The team had hoped to limit Chara's minutes last year and ended up not really being able to because of Seidenberg's injury. This won't help that desire either.
Toe Nash said:
Is this true? I don't think it is, at all.
As to your last point, that also has the potential to not be true. If the Bruins young D guys improve even a little bit, and McQuaid doesn't go down with an injury for most of the year, and you don't lose Seidenberg for most of the year, you can easily roll 3 D pairs and not be all together too concerned that one of the pairs needs to be sheltered considerably.
The hand-wringing over the loss of Boychuk is becoming a bit much. The D got exposed last year because they were playing 3 rookies, Chara was tired, and 2 of the top 6 were out with injuries. This year, you'll have no rookies, your entering the season with a healthy top 6, and you can try to do a better job resting Chara. Yea, if injuries decimate the D again the Bruins will be hurting. But there's not a team in the league you can't say that for. The improvements you'll see from experience for Hamilton, Miller, and Krug all make this D better than last year, with (as of right now) better health.
Toe Nash said:
Nitpick, but if they trade for a rental at the deadline with Boychuk's freed money it will be for a forward, which is where they don't have much depth. Their replacements are all rookies (Spooner, Koko, Fraser, et al), and if you asked me if I'd rather have Boychuk (with the current defense post-trade) or adding a top 9 viable forward with that money, I'd take the forward because their depth on defense can absorb losing Boychuk.
Just because they're no longer rookies doesn't guarantee improvement or that they're ready to replace Boychuk's minutes. In my view, the Bruins have 3 top 4 defencemen (Chara, Seidenberg, Hamilton) and 4 bottom pairing types (Miller, Krug, Bartkowski, McQuaid). One of the bottom pairing guys is going to have to play a top 4 role, and I'm not sure any of those guys are ready for that. McQuaid is what he is- bottom pair stay at home type. Ditto for Miller. In my opinion, Krug's game is best suited as bottom pairing PP specialist. He was extremely effective in that role last season and I'd be leery of over exposing him by giving him more minutes against tougher competition. That leaves Bartkowski, and that experiment failed during the playoffs last year when he was forced into that role due to the injuries. I'm not sure he's ready for full time top 4 minutes. The other issue, IMO, is they're putting a lot of pressure on an aging/declining Chara and Seidenberg. I'd rather scale their minutes back then increase them, but they're going to have to carry a heavy load once again.
Um, can you find another guy with his combination of smarts, strength and size?TheShynessClinic said:
They may be able to find another great D-man, (not easy), but how many times has Chara swept away a puck that no one else could reach?
I mean, Hal Gill is also tall so I guess we can find another Chara.
Replace him? No. But the cumulative growth will offset his loss, is my hope.
And no, you can't assume they'll improve. But Julien has done a pretty good job developing defensemen, and I have faith in his system.
And no, you can't assume they'll improve. But Julien has done a pretty good job developing defensemen, and I have faith in his system.
He's a unique player, but, as you note in your second sentence, the role he plays (shut down defenseman with offensive upside) is not unique - just rare. His role can be replaced and probably will be by Hamilton in the near future.Toe Nash said:
At any rate, with the new rules, he's not going to be able to do that without drawing a PS (fuck this league).
Toe Nash said:
Pronger is pretty close.
Obviously you're not going to find anyone else with Chara's height, he's the tallest player in NHL history. But that doesn't make him irreplaceable. There are other defensemen in the league I would take ahead of him, and who would be better players/a better fit on the Bruins.
Who? And how do you suggest acquiring them?TheShynessClinic said:
Hamilton is very good. I am not sure he is on a Hall of Fame trajectory though. Maybe he will continue to improve and offset Chara's decline / loss (and hopefully they can afford to extend him long-term). But it's far from a certainty. I'd like to maximize our chances while we have the Hall of Famer, personally.
Toe Nash said:
I'm not trying to acquire them. I'm just saying that Chara is not irreplaceable.
Also - I really don't think you've accepted just how much Chara has slipped in the last couple of years.
But just off the top of my head, Keith Yandle is a UFA in 2016. The right deal might be able to get him from PHX before he hits FA. Marc Staal is a UFA this off-season.
There's two.
Yandle is not close to a #1. He's closer to a Krug type than a #1 defensemen. He is a guy to keep an eye on though as the season progresses. He'd fit as a second pairing, PP guy.
Edit: if we're talking about Chara equivalents (elite all situation defenders), we're looking at guys like OEL, Weber, Suter, Keith, Doughty then maybe second tier guys like Giordano, Vlasic, McDonagh etc. and those guys don't become available often.
Edit: if we're talking about Chara equivalents (elite all situation defenders), we're looking at guys like OEL, Weber, Suter, Keith, Doughty then maybe second tier guys like Giordano, Vlasic, McDonagh etc. and those guys don't become available often.
The core of the team does not necessarily remain static. Tim Thomas and Marc Savard were part of that core 3 years ago. They've added Rask to that core, and I do believe they hope to add Hamilton to that as well. There's probably other players on and off the roster they would like to add as well (I'll defer speculation on that topic to a separate thread). Like any team, they will need to add young players (aka, more Rask's and Hamilton's) to remain competitive. Yes, they hoped to add Seguin to that core, but for well documented reasons the team felt that wasn't ever going to work and decided to move on.Toe Nash said:
Unfortunately, the team found itself in a position where they had to either (a) trade Boychuk; (b) salary dump potentially other players; (c) renounce Krug and Smith; or (d) completely hamstring themselves during the season with essentially zero salary cap space. As noted, as of today, it appears this team is more likely to need a forward than another defenseman. You may not agree with the decision, but it's hardly an asinine notion. The team does have defensive depth, even if some of those depth players remain question marks.
Finally, to pick a nit, this trade is not about replacing Chara. It's about replacing Boychuk, which is a markedly easier task. It's unlikely they will ever find a true replacement for a Chara in his prime. The same could be said for most teams in the NHL, though.
You can share the workload between those guys, though. It's not a binary thing.cshea said:
I don't think the dropoff between Boychuk and a combination of McQuaid/Krug/Miller is as great as people are making it out to be. The team is good enough to absorb the loss. It's not ideal, but the hand-wringing over the loss of the team's #4 defenseman is sort of shocking to me.
Lets calm down here with the nonsense that a guy like Oliver Ekman-Larsson could replace Chara
Chara a generational talent who has arguably been the best player at his position for years. And his unique-ness and irreplacable-ness isn't just because he is tall. He is also measurably able to make his team much much better when he is on the ice, while playing 25 minutes and matching up against the best players on the other team. The Shyness Clinic is right, he's not nearly the same player he was a few years ago but he's still a top 5 defenseman in the league and that says a lot about how good he was.
It's going to be a huge loss for them when he's gone and IMO there are 0 defenseman in the league right now who could provide the value Chara did when he was in his prime and only a few that could come anywhere close. I don't think people really appreciate how good Chara was. I would argue he was easily the most valuable player on the team almost every year he's been on the Bruins. Just look at how silly some of these numbers are, keeping in mind Chara is always playing against the other team's top lines (extra skater had strength of opponent and relative corsi numbers but it's gone now):
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=571&withagainst=true&season=2009-12&sit=f10
Chara a generational talent who has arguably been the best player at his position for years. And his unique-ness and irreplacable-ness isn't just because he is tall. He is also measurably able to make his team much much better when he is on the ice, while playing 25 minutes and matching up against the best players on the other team. The Shyness Clinic is right, he's not nearly the same player he was a few years ago but he's still a top 5 defenseman in the league and that says a lot about how good he was.
It's going to be a huge loss for them when he's gone and IMO there are 0 defenseman in the league right now who could provide the value Chara did when he was in his prime and only a few that could come anywhere close. I don't think people really appreciate how good Chara was. I would argue he was easily the most valuable player on the team almost every year he's been on the Bruins. Just look at how silly some of these numbers are, keeping in mind Chara is always playing against the other team's top lines (extra skater had strength of opponent and relative corsi numbers but it's gone now):
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=571&withagainst=true&season=2009-12&sit=f10
I know I'm a little late on weighing in here and don't want to resurrect some of the old discussion, which I think got a little off track. I actually really dislike this move for the Bruins. I do think they got a good return for 1 year of Boychuk, however I just don't see any way that removing him from this year's team doesn't hurt them drastically. In my mind, they only had 4 defensemen worthy of playing in the top 4, now they have 3. I can't see McQuaid, Miller, Bartkowski or Krug picking up those minutes whatsoever. And that's important because the difference in minutes between the 4 and 5 is a lot bigger than 3 and 4 or 5 and 6.
I would probably say that with the injuries and age happening to Seidenberg, Boychuk was going to be their 3rd best defenseman this year. Now they've shifted everyone up a peg and left themselves very thin at the top of their corps if either Chara, Dougie, or Seidenberg get hurt. There has also been a non-zero impact within the dressing room where the entire team was shaken up by the move. That's not the deciding factor for whether a move should be made, and I applaud Chiarelli for being willing to make the tough decisions, but it is a secondary factor as well.
Ideally, I would have liked to see them trade/dump McQuaid and Bartkowski and backfill them with younger talent like Warsofsky, Trotman, etc as the 7th and 8th D.
From a long term point of view, it makes sense to get value for Boychuk now and bank the cap space. I just think it leaves them a worse team today than they were on Friday, with the potential of becoming extremely thin in their top 4 if any drastic injuries come into play. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
I would probably say that with the injuries and age happening to Seidenberg, Boychuk was going to be their 3rd best defenseman this year. Now they've shifted everyone up a peg and left themselves very thin at the top of their corps if either Chara, Dougie, or Seidenberg get hurt. There has also been a non-zero impact within the dressing room where the entire team was shaken up by the move. That's not the deciding factor for whether a move should be made, and I applaud Chiarelli for being willing to make the tough decisions, but it is a secondary factor as well.
Ideally, I would have liked to see them trade/dump McQuaid and Bartkowski and backfill them with younger talent like Warsofsky, Trotman, etc as the 7th and 8th D.
From a long term point of view, it makes sense to get value for Boychuk now and bank the cap space. I just think it leaves them a worse team today than they were on Friday, with the potential of becoming extremely thin in their top 4 if any drastic injuries come into play. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
I agree fully with this. I'm happy with the return as well, but short of someone unexpectedly taking a significant step forward in play, I fear Bartkowski getting a lot of minutes. A lot more than I'm comfortable with.The Four Peters said:
The Four Peters said:
I think you're completely discounting any improvement that guys like Miller/Krug/Bartkowski may make this season. McQuaid is what he is, I get that, but the upside of Krug, Miller and Bartkowski are still TBD. This move may hurt the team, but I think drastic is a bit of an over-statement.
I think the ES TOI can be handled quite reasonably by the above 3 guys, the only place this may hurt the team is on the PK where Boychuk logged a ton of minutes. I just think that the team defense/PK as a whole is so strong that it ultimately won't matter much. I think Miller and/or McQuaid could take those minutes and not miss much of a beat.
I'm not sure Boychuk's 5 on 5 play isn't replaceable by a combination of Miller/Bartkowski/McQuaid.
It's definitely a strain on the team for the reasons you stated above and they'll definitely require guys to step up and may see an adjustment period, but how much is the difference between Boychuk and Miller or Boychuk and McQuaid really worth over the season?
The other point I wanted to make was that I have heard the argument that Bartkowski was exposed in the playoffs and folks don't trust him. The problem with the defense in the playoffs had more to do with Boychuk having to replace Seidenberg than Bartkowski. Bartkowski logged a ton of minutes last season in Seidenberg's absence and did really well for himself. With Seidenberg back, I think the combination of Seidenberg/Bartkowski > Boychuk/Bartkowski.
I think you're discounting how far ahead of a player Boychuk was over those 3 already. They might make improvements, but I don't think they'll come anywhere close to giving them what they would have gotten from Boychuk over this coming season. That said, I think I am much higher on Boychuk than you, you're higher on Miller/Krug/Bartkowski than I, and that's pretty much it. I hope I'm wrong.FL4WL3SS said:
Actually, I like Krug a lot and think he'll definitely improve this year, I just don't think he'll ever be the player that Boychuk was, for obvious reasons. Just totally different types of players. I'm pretty down on Miller and Bartkowski as being anywhere close to top 4 D men, though.
I've always liked Boychuk (TFP may or may not remember my drunken defense of JB in Fris's backyard a good 5-6 years ago), but I think he's a bit overrated. His shot is outstanding and his physical play is huge....he's one of the toughest guys I've seen in the League, and that's saying a lot. I also think he has a terrible hockey IQ (for a pro defenseman of course) and was the B's 4th best defenseman (with the caveat that Seids is healthy, which may be asking too much...I don't know) coming into this season. I'm actually a bit higher on Bartkowski than most, he's a great skater and moves the puck well. Playing with Seids will benefit him too I think. I could be horribly wrong about this of course.
I think everyone is on the same page here- no one is happy but they got some necessary cap space and a real good haul. I just hope people have a little bit of patience with this team. As we know, it's just about getting in and being healthy, from there, match ups and a bit of luck will get you the big trophy.
I think everyone is on the same page here- no one is happy but they got some necessary cap space and a real good haul. I just hope people have a little bit of patience with this team. As we know, it's just about getting in and being healthy, from there, match ups and a bit of luck will get you the big trophy.
You're missing my point completely. I don't think any of Krug, Miller or Bartkowski need to be a prototypical top-4 defenseman for them to be able to fill Boychuk's skates. They can split the workload and give you probably 90% of what Boychuk gave you. If there is any improvement at all from any of them, then I see it as pretty close to a wash.The Four Peters said:
I agree with DH, I think Bartkowski surprises a lot of people this year and makes a pretty good leap. His hockey IQ is outstanding and he can move the puck.
For all that Boychuk was, his biggest drawback was his skating and puck moving ability. Being able to replace that with better players in that area will only help the offense become more prolific. If you're talking purely defensive ability, then I agree that Boychuk was far and away better than any of the options, but you're ignoring the other side of the ice.
Well Bartkowski had exactly zero goals last year, so you can't call him a step up offensively at all. He can skate, but his decision making sucks and for all the good puck moving plays he makes he seems to make just as many where he turns the puck over or makes a dumb decision. I certainly hope he improves, but I thought he took a huge step back last year. I also think it'd be insane to call Miller a better offensive option than Boychuk, for what I think are obvious reasons, but I'd be curious if you disagree. Obviously Krug is a huge step forward offensively but at a huge cost in the other end. Boychuk, to me, was far and away a better all around defenseman than all 3 and I don't see that changing this year.
And with the way pairings work...you need someone to play on that pair. You can't just rotate people in (during the game) as your plan for the whole season, so you need someone to be on the ice the same amount of time as Seids is. It's not as straightforward as "splitting the workload". Obviously it can change game to game...but my point is that none of the options are an upgrade so, so no matter who you are rotating through...it's a step back. I don't see how you can 90% of Boychuk just by rotating through guys who are at best 75% of Boychuck (from an overall perspective).
And with the way pairings work...you need someone to play on that pair. You can't just rotate people in (during the game) as your plan for the whole season, so you need someone to be on the ice the same amount of time as Seids is. It's not as straightforward as "splitting the workload". Obviously it can change game to game...but my point is that none of the options are an upgrade so, so no matter who you are rotating through...it's a step back. I don't see how you can 90% of Boychuk just by rotating through guys who are at best 75% of Boychuck (from an overall perspective).
From the quotes I've read from Chia in the wake of the trade, I think he actually agrees with you. It sure sounded like he didn't want to make such a deal but the cap situation more or less forced his hand.
Your take strikes me as eminently reasonable. It's a tough situation all around, because the time had come for the younger guys to get paid and Boychuk was the guy who had to go to make cap room. It's tough to see how it makes the team better this year, but the return might make it better in the future. They are obviously hoping McQuaid can stay healthy.
I actually think Bart's biggest weakness is his hockey IQ. He's an excellent skater but to me his problem is once he skates himself out of trouble, he lacks the vision and creativity to make things happen in the offensive end. Bart is great at wheeling around the net and carrying the puck from the defensive end to the offensive end than Bart, but once he gets across the blue line he has no idea what to do with the puck.FL4WL3SS said:
No, I don't think Miller is good offensively.The Four Peters said:
Bartkowski is 26 (compared to Boychuk's 30) and played his first full season (64 games) last season. I'm not sure how you can say he took a step back from the 11 games he played the year before. If you're comparing him to Providence Bartkowski then of course he took a step back in his first full year promotion.
We'll agree to disagree.
I think this could be said of most defenseman in their first full year of play. We didn't start seeing good Dougie until the tail end of last year. I think Bartkowski showed a lot of hockey IQ in Providence, it just hasn't translated to the NHL yet.cshea said:
If at the end of December we're still seeing the same mistakes from Bartkowski at the NHL level, then I'll fully hop on the Bartkowski hate-wagon. But let's give him another half season of development - he's still green.
This is where I stand on Bartkowski as well. If we need to get another Dman to be top four by the deadline, then this deal was a fuck up, but I want to give it a bit of time.FL4WL3SS said:
Edit: I think part of the reason people are down on Bartkowski was how he looked in that fucking Habs series, but I don't think that was completely his fault. He did look like a rookie struggling to survive out there, but the Habs and Therrien owned the B's and Juilian's rigid and predictable breakout. The Habs excel at tripping you up in the NZ as well, and I think we saw Bartkowski get a bit overwhelmed. I have (possibly misguided?) faith that he'll be better this time around.
More faith than I do in Clode changing anything.
I missed this earlier.The Four Peters said:
I am not advocating to rotate guys in and out of the pairing with Seids, but you can take the strengths of the 3 guys you have to fill his role and play them accordingly. For example Bartkowski can pickup the SH workload or a combination of Bartkowski/McQuaid while Krug picks up the even strength workload. It's not that difficult to think of situations where you can play off of the strengths of the 5-7 defensemen to fulfill the departure of your #4.
Dummy Hoy said:
I don't agree with this.
Yes if they feel the need to get a top 4 defender at the deadline, and go out and acquire someone no better that Boychuk for the price (or more than) the price of Boychuk, then yeah it is a srew up
If however they were to at the deadline go out and turn a couple players an a pick into a better #4 defenseman who is signed for a couple years, and fits better with Seids then JB did then there is nothing wrong with the deal.
Had to love the defense out there tonight, despite a poor night from Dougie. In particular you have to love the balance. McQuid with the most TOI at 41:47, and Krug on the bottom at 17:20. I figure Chara might have had to hit the exercise bike after the game because he barely played 21 minutes. There were only 5 games last year where he played less
I think the deal can only be considered a screw up, in an overall sense, if they wind up dealing the picks this year for an inferior version of Boychuk (or for someone who is better than that but struggles to fit into the system).
FWIW, I don't think losing Boychuk will a big deal during the regular season. The team did well in the regular season last year even though they did not have their top 4 of Chara/Seids/Boychuk/Hamilton for most of the season and it did not hurt them until the playoffs.
As for the obvious candidates to replace Boychuk (Miller, McQuaid, Bartkowski), I don't think any of them are going to be as good as Boychuk is today, but neither was the 2010-2011 version of Boychuk, and they won a Cup with him. All three are at a point in their careers where they can be expected to improve (all 26 or 27, and the most experienced of them does not yet have Potvin's 300 games and is coming off some injury marred seasons), there are reasonable odds that one of them will step up and be an adequate replacement or that they will be able to trade for one (i.e. not for a Mezarozs type).
I think the current group of defensemen, top to bottom, is arguably better than the group from 2010-11.
FWIW, I don't think losing Boychuk will a big deal during the regular season. The team did well in the regular season last year even though they did not have their top 4 of Chara/Seids/Boychuk/Hamilton for most of the season and it did not hurt them until the playoffs.
As for the obvious candidates to replace Boychuk (Miller, McQuaid, Bartkowski), I don't think any of them are going to be as good as Boychuk is today, but neither was the 2010-2011 version of Boychuk, and they won a Cup with him. All three are at a point in their careers where they can be expected to improve (all 26 or 27, and the most experienced of them does not yet have Potvin's 300 games and is coming off some injury marred seasons), there are reasonable odds that one of them will step up and be an adequate replacement or that they will be able to trade for one (i.e. not for a Mezarozs type).
I think the current group of defensemen, top to bottom, is arguably better than the group from 2010-11.
BigMike said:
Funny, you say you disagree, then you agree.
Also- you suggest they should upgrade over Boychuk for less than they got for him in order to acquire someone who has a longer term deal, presumably is less of a hit on the cap, and fits better with Seidenberg, then that would be a good thing. You think? Too bad Chiarelli isn't a fucking magician. Maybe he can do the same with the rest of the lineup until the B's are better at every position with more cap room.
They didn't deal Boychuk because they think they need to get another defenseman- they need cap room and potentially a finisher up front. If they have to pick up another defenseman, he's either going to be worse than Boychuk or more expensive, and I think they'd rather just stick with what they've got. Obviously if you can get Hamonic or something like that, fine, but players like that generally aren't available, and if they are, they cost more than two 2nds and a potential 3rd.
Oh, I do, do I? Funny, I think a bunch of us disagreed with the decision without giving an alternate course of action and you only called me out. Will you tell me next that I can't criticize a player unless I've played the game?veritas said:
/smiling eyeroll emoji
Sent from my iPhone
Yes, and for that matter you probably should not even be posting on a message board if you don't know how to write the code for one.slidingsideways said:
Not coming back in here to say "I told you so" because it's only been 6 games and shit can change real quick. This is far from resolved.
However, after those 6 games, the Bruins miss Boychuk terribly. McQuaid is not a 4th defenseman at all and is getting regularly exposed when having to face top competition paired with Seidenberg. Miller and Krug have been fine, but I don't see that either of them would be any better than McQuaid if bumped up. Bartkowski can't even see the ice, so I can't evaluate him. However it's certainly not a given that he can jump from 7th defenseman to their 4th defenseman.
Right now, I think it's clear McQuaid is not the answer, at least not in the short term. The Bruins only hope to shore up the D core right now is to give Bartkowski those minutes and hope he's able to make the leap.
I don't even want to get into Seidenberg. That's a topic for another day. Thank god for Chara and Dougie, that's all.
However, after those 6 games, the Bruins miss Boychuk terribly. McQuaid is not a 4th defenseman at all and is getting regularly exposed when having to face top competition paired with Seidenberg. Miller and Krug have been fine, but I don't see that either of them would be any better than McQuaid if bumped up. Bartkowski can't even see the ice, so I can't evaluate him. However it's certainly not a given that he can jump from 7th defenseman to their 4th defenseman.
Right now, I think it's clear McQuaid is not the answer, at least not in the short term. The Bruins only hope to shore up the D core right now is to give Bartkowski those minutes and hope he's able to make the leap.
I don't even want to get into Seidenberg. That's a topic for another day. Thank god for Chara and Dougie, that's all.
I wonder if it might make some sense to split up Dougie and Chara and reconfigure the defense. Chara and Dougie have been studs, while the Seidenberg-McQuaid pairing has been mostly a disaster, much of which as you imply, is Seidenberg's doing. It's early and the sample sizes are low, but Seidenberg's CorsiREL is an amusing -32.5 per 60 minutes, worst on the team. McQuaid has been a tad better and is about neutral at this point. Given that Seidenberg and McQuaid are coming of major injury it isn't really much of a surprise they're struggling. Maybe at this point try and split them up until they get their feet under them? I'd hate to split up Chara-Hamilton, but I don't see many other internal options. Seidenberg-Hamilton was a regular pairing through the lockout short season and last year until Seids blew out his knee, so there is some familiarity and maybe Hamilton picks up Seids. McQuaid with Chara would go down as one of the slowest pairings in the NHL, but Boychuk wasn't a burner and played with Chara a lot so maybe that could work for a few games while McQuaid and Seids get back into game shape.
If that doesn't work, time to look elsewhere.
If that doesn't work, time to look elsewhere.
Things have been ugly so far, but I think a lot of that has been Tuukka and his .870 save percentage. He's been more of a negative than the loss of Boychuk, IMO. The Bruins have been allowing under 22 shots per game in front of Tuukka, but he's been a sieve. This start is enough to make me wonder a bit if he is going the way of Bryzgalov.
Sure, some blame can go to the D, but I don't think their D is bad enough to make a Vezina winner look like a guy who doesn't desrve to be an NHL backup.
Sure, some blame can go to the D, but I don't think their D is bad enough to make a Vezina winner look like a guy who doesn't desrve to be an NHL backup.