|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 28, 2021 11:17:46 GMT -5
Coleman signing with Calgary instead. 6 yrs!!! 4.9 per That's a lot, but I would have done it. |
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 12:00:07 GMT -5
Coleman signing with Calgary instead. 6 yrs!!! 4.9 per That's a lot, but I would have done it. I was hoping for Coleman today too. After the new D signed, we're down to 14 pre-Krejci signing though, with indefinite goalie situation, and probably wanting to save money for in season additions. Krecji plus coleman probably took you down to 3-4 mill. cap space remaining, which was probably too tight for managements taste. I wanted Coleman though. 20 goals coming off that third line from him...gives me shivers. |
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 12:01:55 GMT -5
CBJ gave Kuraly 2.5 AAV x 4 years? Yuck!
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 12:05:48 GMT -5
Some possible money saving moves:
Trade JD (would've thought this was coming when rumors of Coleman signing were happening)
Trade/Bury Wagner
Trade/Bury Moore
In both of the latter 2 cases, would assume bury would have to be the move as I'm not sure anyone would want them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 28, 2021 12:21:31 GMT -5
That's a lot, but I would have done it. I was hoping for Coleman today too. After the new D signed, we're down to 14 pre-Krejci signing though, with indefinite goalie situation, and probably wanting to save money for in season additions. Krecji plus coleman probably took you down to 3-4 mill. cap space remaining, which was probably too tight for managements taste. I wanted Coleman though. 20 goals coming off that third line from him...gives me shivers. I don't expect Krejci to get as much as your post would imply here, and I wouldn't spend more than what Halak got (1.5) on a G. Plus, we have DeBrusk's salary to move. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 13:32:37 GMT -5
Erik Haula - 2yrs, 2.375 per
|
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 13:34:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 13:35:14 GMT -5
and Tomas Nosek, 2 yrs/1.75 per
|
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 13:39:30 GMT -5
4th line guys, right? I don't see anything in their stat lines that are all that exciting. Haula had one good year in 17-18, 29 goals, but these guys look like bottom 6?
Total of the two is roughly Debrusk, I wonder if they found a taker...but what a mediocre way of replacing him if that's the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 13:42:18 GMT -5
Both can play C or W (LH shots). Feels like both are 3-4th line players, yes.
Haula and Coyle are tight.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,928 
|
Post by cdj on Jul 28, 2021 13:55:40 GMT -5
Haula is a 3rd liner and will play with Coyle
Nosek is a good 4th liner who had a career year last year
Forbort at 3/9 is about what I expected. He logged huge min in the playoffs last year for the Jets. That’s more of an indictment on their D-group, but he’s a good PKer and will block a ton of shots while providing some physicality
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 13:59:36 GMT -5
Hasn't come up yet but Boston was interested in Ullmark.
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 28, 2021 14:13:13 GMT -5
Both can play C or W (LH shots). Feels like both are 3-4th line players, yes. Haula and Coyle are tight. Honestly, I think they feel like they have two good scoring lines (assuming Krejci re-signs), and they are just adding depth and options behind them. Like, maybe Coyle regains some of his magic, maybe Haula recaptures a bit of the 29 Goal stuff, maybe Studnicka emerges.... But I think they're fine with two scoring lines, plenty of depth and a bunch of guys who have a chance to do a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 14:58:17 GMT -5
Could also be that they don't want to just hand jobs over to their youngsters (Stud/Freddy at F; Zboril at D). We'll see if that applies to G as well.
In addition to Ullmark, I had read that they also were asking about Kuemper.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 14:58:51 GMT -5
Wow. Michael Russo saying Boston is signing Nick Foligno.
Dreger saying it's 2 years in the high 3s for AAV
EDIT - Foligno says the fact that Boston Children's Hospital saved his daughter's life was a key factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 28, 2021 15:57:58 GMT -5
Ullmark to Boston per Friedman
and NHLRumorsDaily saying other goalie related moves coming. Wonder if we see Vlad moved. As RJP pointed out, he has to go through waivers.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,928
|
Post by cdj on Jul 28, 2021 17:05:33 GMT -5
Vladar to Calgary for a 3rd
|
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 17:44:01 GMT -5
We knew it was unlikely the Bruins went into the season with Swayman and Vladar as their goalie tandem, but I thought raising our own next star in Swayman (which we saw in flashes only so far, granted), seemed possible. With this contract Ullmark got today, is there any chance Swayman even sniffs starting minutes? Seems counterproductive? Blocking the blue chip prospect with a huge contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 17:47:43 GMT -5
annnnnnnnd, what does Foligno have left in the tank at this point? Is that Backes 2.0 signing (with lower AAV?)
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 28, 2021 18:16:09 GMT -5
We knew it was unlikely the Bruins went into the season with Swayman and Vladar as their goalie tandem, but I thought raising our own next start in Swayman (which we saw in flashes only so far, granted), seemed possible. With this contract Ullmark got today, is there any chance Swayman even sniffs starting minutes? Seems counterproductive? Blocking the blue chip prospect with a huge contract? Hate this move. Despise it. Everything else they had done was solid, if not sexy. But this one I can't stand. We spent all our dough to block Swayman with a guy who's decent, not great. And if Swayman somehow fights his way thorough, then we've blown the financial advantage we'd have with a young, cheap G because we'll be spending $5 mil per year on his backup. Ugh. |
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 18:28:59 GMT -5
We knew it was unlikely the Bruins went into the season with Swayman and Vladar as their goalie tandem, but I thought raising our own next start in Swayman (which we saw in flashes only so far, granted), seemed possible. With this contract Ullmark got today, is there any chance Swayman even sniffs starting minutes? Seems counterproductive? Blocking the blue chip prospect with a huge contract? Hate this move. Despise it. Everything else they had done was solid, if not sexy. But this one I can't stand. We spent all our dough to block Swayman with a guy who's decent, not great. And if Swayman somehow fights his way thorough, then we've blown the financial advantage we'd have with a young, cheap G because we'll be spending $5 mil per year on his backup. Ugh. Agreed. ONLY scenario I can see that works with this, is if as quoted today a few folks think Ullmark might actually be much better than he looks given he was on such a horrid team, and then you turn around and sell him as an asset at some point...I don't know, I think it was a bad move too. A serviceable backup was really what we needed and then bring back Rask late in the season if needed. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jul 28, 2021 18:33:41 GMT -5
Ok so nothing Earth shattering but a solid deep team right. Isn't that what they have achieved? They signed guys for the bottom 6 that are really good players for that level. I would have liked to see a really solid top Dman but that was expensive in this FA class right.
Think about it for a second. After the deadline deals this past year they were really really good. They brought all those guys back and added some 3rd and 4th line depth. They really didn't need to swing for the fences in the top 6 but they look really deep on the the back 6. My question is the D, are they good enough. Seems like they are offensively but not so much in tough sturdy D first guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 28, 2021 18:42:01 GMT -5
Hate this move. Despise it. Everything else they had done was solid, if not sexy. But this one I can't stand. We spent all our dough to block Swayman with a guy who's decent, not great. And if Swayman somehow fights his way thorough, then we've blown the financial advantage we'd have with a young, cheap G because we'll be spending $5 mil per year on his backup. Ugh. Agreed. ONLY scenario I can see that works with this, is if as quoted today a few folks think Ullmark might actually be much better than he looks given he was on such a horrid team, and then you turn around and sell him as an asset at some point...I don't know, I think it was a bad move too. A serviceable backup was really what we needed and then bring back Rask late in the season if needed. Yeah, obviously it could turn out that he's a lot better than anyone thinks and/or Swayman and Vladar both turn out to be garbage. But we can have opinions until than. That's what sports are all about. And this just feels like a terrible decision for several reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 28, 2021 18:43:46 GMT -5
I'm also not sure why we're loading up on so many LWs.
For an hour or two earlier today I was wondering if we were going to see some kind of blockbuster (Eichel?) built around Swayman and Frederic.
|
|
|
|
Post by homerdante on Jul 28, 2021 20:02:39 GMT -5
I'm also not sure why we're loading up on so many LWs. For an hour or two earlier today I was wondering if we were going to see some kind of blockbuster (Eichel?) built around Swayman and Frederic. Noticed that as well, I was wondering why the LW depth buildup, even though 3 of the additions are also listed as capable of center, and Foligno listed as RW too. I'm trying to imagine the plan is to have more veteran leadership in that bottom 6. A guy like Foligno brings that at least? Say Studnika comes up a lot and gets a lot of minutes, more mentorship in game on his line? Otherwise I can't make some of these moves add up. |
|
