I think they’ll re-sign Guentz and, if they don’t, they’ll just sign another FA rather than give up assets. Pens decline.

Replacing a 40 goal scorer for a 20 goal scorer really isn't replacing them.

The Pens just brought in that guy. His name is Reiley Smith. He cost a 3rd.

Bruins won't want Gourde's contract. A 2nd may still be enough for Ully if he has a meh 2023 season or if the goalie market is good for buyers. You might need to throw in a prospect if he has a good season.

Idk, Gourde is only $166k more than Ullmark. He can put up around d 50pts, plays a solid two-way game and hits. I mean a younger player would be great, but I wouldn't hate the idea of Gourde + 2nd. I don't love it, but I think it has potential.

Considering Yamamoto can’t play Center and also sucks the Capitals will not be doing this. If the Caps trade Kuznetsov, they will be in need of a Top 6 C.

The only two reason for the Bruins to trade Ullmark are to get back future assets and to gain cap flexibility. Ideally, they want both. If Gourde came back the other way, they lose the flexibility.

I have no problem with Gourde the player, but the Bruins are lacking in top 6 talent (now and in the future), so I'd rather them focus on rebuilding the prospect pool or accruing assets to swing a trade for a top 6 guy.

Goalies don't tend to get fair value in trades. The cap is expected to jump around $4 million next year so the Bruins should be in a good spot cap wise.

You guys also need a top 6 C, probably 2. Gourde may not be a 1C, but he certainly fills a needed roster spot and doesn't make your cap picture worse.

If he is valuable to the Bruins (a claim I am making), his cap hit doesn't matter (implied by matching cap hits), and you cannot get back fair value, then why not just keep him? Or why not wait and see if you can get better value at the TDL?

I have to be consistent here. I've said that the Bruins don't want Pageau even if he would be one of their top 2 centers because that doesn't make them a contender. Same goes for Gourde. He is a great middle 6 guy, but he would be a bandaid for the Bruins. They need to find a way to fix their top 6, even if it takes a few years. Their asset management should be focused on that.

Because goalies historically don't get fair value. MAF won a Vezina and that off-season was traded for basically nothing. This deal proposed by the OP is also at the end of the season. Ullmark will have 1yr remaining and Swayman will be due for a new contract and likely it'll be a long-term one. Does it really makes sense for Boston to spend 10-12 million on goaltending? No it doesn't.

Let me back up. I think a 2nd + something would be fine value in the offseason for Ullmark. I just personally don't want that something to be a 30+ middle 6 pending UFA making over 5m. I understand he would likely make the team better, but I'd rather take a flier on prospect, and take Ully's cap hit and use it with the cap jump to chase a UFA 1C if available. I believe you feel they would have enough cap space to chase a UFA 1C anyway. I am personally not sure about that.

I understand the argument about having too much tied up in goalies. I feel the same way about having too much tied up in guys who are best as 3Cs. I think we are just quibbling about finer details and strategy here.

There are only 3 "#1C's" that are projected to be UFA's right now in Matthews, Lindholm & Scheifele. Odds are slim that any of them actually make it to FA though.

Gourde over the last 3 years ranks 51st in goals and points among center. His numbers are nearly identical to Zacha's over that time and I'd consider Zacha a top 6 player.

I guess we will see. I can't predict the future, and I too think that in general that the chances of the Bruins truly fixing their top-end center issues in the next 2 years are slim. But I do think they need to maintain the flexibility to pursue those options as long as there is a possibility that they can sign someone, and once the door closes on that for a given year, they can seek out bandaid options.

Its fine to maintain flexibility, but while you wait for that opportunity why wouldn't you want a pair of top 6 guys as your centers? Again, Gourde has been as productive as Zacha the last 3 years and ranks basically Top 50 among centers in production. Unless we're also saying that Zacha is at best a 3C, in which case we're looking for a #1C and a #2C.

I still think we're not that far apart. I agree Gourde is probably a better 2C than Zacha, and I agree that Zacha is better suited as a 2W or a 3C on a championship-caliber team. But that doesn't make Gourde a 2C on a championship-caliber team. I think the big difference is that Zacha is already here, and he will likely be here for a while. I wouldn't use the cap space to take on Gourde unless other options were exhausted because it won't be the piece that makes them competitive for the Cup, and it doesn't help them solve their long term center talent problems in any way.

Gourde would make them better at center for a year, but as a strategy I'm personally of the opinion that they need to spend at least 2 years focused on trying to pursue UFAs (requires luck), replenishing the prospect pool, and/or accruing desirable assets for a larger trade. I don't want them to be trading assets for expiring contracts to be slightly better until after they have opened a new contention window. But at the end of the day, the centerpiece of the proposed trade was the 2nd, not Gourde. And I was just suggesting I'd rather have a prospect than Gourde because it has potential to help them once a contention window opens. I suppose if the Bruins were able to flip Gourde at the TDL for something like another 2nd rounder, that would actually work out pretty well, and that is not something I had considered.