SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Bruinsdiehard

Member Since
May 22, 2018
Favourite Team
Boston Bruins
Forum Posts
202
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 10, 2020 at 4:32 p.m.
Thread: Calgary would you do this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ledge_And_Dairy</b></div><div>If you are going to make comments at least fact check them. Gaudreau would have been 5th in scoring on the Bruins this playoffs in 3 less games. Your top 6's scoring was almost equally as invisible.

Im not angry i just know you have no idea what you are talking about. Gaudreau had the worst season of his career and was still leagues better that Jake DeBust.</div></div>

Hahahahaha! Wow!!! 5th?! You don’t say? How impressive! 5th!!!! Wooo!

lol looking at your profile, you’re clearly one of the countless posters on this site who just seems to thrive on calling people trolls and shouting about all the things you think are so dumb. So good for you. I’m honestly glad you root for a train wreck of a team. You’re clearly so passionate and aggressive about it so it’s fun thinking about how much Calgary will continue to suck year after year. Maybe if you shout loud enough, Brad Treliving will hear you and hire you to be his next little assistant!
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 10, 2020 at 4:17 p.m.
Thread: Calgary would you do this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ledge_And_Dairy</b></div><div>Lmao what?
1. Moore is far from cost controlled. He eould be paid almost 3 million to play in the minors. Flames have 4 maybe 5 better LD than him.
2. DeBrusk is 3 years younger than Gaudreau not 5. DeBrusk is a middle 6 player that might not even make Calgary's 2nd line.
3. Flames retain on Gaudreau?!?! God you are funny. Have you tried stand up?

The fact that you think this offer is even remotely close to fair shows how much of a homer you are.</div></div>

Just because Moore isn’t playing regularly for the Bruins doesn’t mean he’s not a good defender. Same type of situation with how Matt Irwin was in the AHL for the Bruins and then went on to start for Nashville when they went to the Finals. Or Nick Holden who couldn’t crack the Bruins lineup but has played 60+ games for Vegas in each of the last two years. But if you think John Moore is THAT terrible, then that’s your opinion.

As for Debrusk, my apologies, I read his DOB wrong. But that being said, at 24 he still has a little time left to shape his perception in the league........unlike Gaudreau who apparently has cemented his legacy as a soft, regular season player who disappears completely in the playoffs. So before you start crapping all over what Debrusk may or may not be, you might wanna look at what Gaudreau actually is.

I get that you’re angry Calgary has once again proven themselves to be the laughingstock of “competitive” teams, but you might wanna take a breath there buddy
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 10, 2020 at 4:05 p.m.
Thread: Calgary would you do this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>benjgc</b></div><div>They're absolutely gonna move at least one D this offseason, and possibly more. Priority is to add scoring talent up front. Not sure the Domi idea happens, but Jarmo knows a 2C is the goal. And I don't see Andy getting 6 or more from anybody, so a 4- or 5-year deal seems his most likely option.</div></div>

Ok, well I’m not gonna argue with all those moves you suggested (although the Wennberg buyout is truly outrageous...almost no team has ever bought out a guy with 3 years left on his contract since the last lockout) since that’s your purview as a Blue Jackets fan, but I will say the Anderson thing I feel is just flat out wrong. I agree that nobody would want to give him a long term contract given his injury history, so that’s exactly why a short term deal would be in everyone’s best interest. He can prove he has healed and that is 20+ goal season wasn’t a fluke, and then sign a longer term deal when he’s 27 or 28. The only way he takes a 4-5 deal is if he believes his value will never be higher, which would be a scary proposition given he is coming off shoulder surgery.
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 10, 2020 at 3:58 p.m.
Thread: Calgary would you do this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ledge_And_Dairy</b></div><div>When did Gaudreau become a cap dump? Isn't it too early to be drinking? No chance Calgary considers this troll offer

Heres my counter
Dube, Lucic and a 5th for Bergeron and a 2nd</div></div>

Like I said in the caption for this roster, this assumes Calgary signs Taylor Hall and are looking to move on from Gaudreau (which has been widely reported anyways, but who knows). As for the trade, Calgary is getting value in a cost controlled LD in John Moore, and Jake Debrusk is 5 years younger than Gaudreau. The picks I guess could be changed around if Calgary was willing to retain a slight amount of Gaudreau’s contract, but that’s ultimately dressing on the deal. The heart of it is Debrusk and Moore for Gaudreau.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 28, 2018 at 2:42 p.m.
Thread: Tavares on the Bruins Roster
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PenGoater99</b></div><div>You'd have to retain 50% or pay the other team to take Backes</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jshherman</b></div><div>It's plausible, but I don't see Carolina taking on Backes (with no retained salary, as they already have a cap crunch esp. for a small market team) and giving you a third in the process.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Cakes2015</b></div><div>Yeah I would find it hard to believe that any GM would take that deal. Although I do think Backes still has some considerable value even though he wasn't amazing last season. I'm just spitballing.</div></div>

Move Cehlarik to the Backes deal, retain 1M of his salary and drop Carolina's pick to a 4th rounder, and there you have it. This is of course assuming Backes would ever move his NMC to go to Carolina which...why would he?
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 28, 2018 at 8:16 a.m.
Thread: Tavares isn't Stamkos
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KnifeBoot28</b></div><div>I think trying to sign a player with a cap-hit like Nino's while also signing JT is a mistake.
</div></div>

He wasn't a signing, he was included in the trade from Minnesota. I included him in the trade because the value of doing this trade from Minnesota's perspective lies more in clearing money off the books for Zucker and Dumba instead of the assets they get back (although they are getting those too).

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KnifeBoot28</b></div><div>
I think the only way JT fits in the cap structure is to trade Krug, like you did, but also find a taker for Krejci's albatross. Moving Krejci would likely mean losing a high end prospect or younger high level roster player (Heinen, Donato, or DeBrusk) in the deal in exchange for Krejci's cap hit.
</div></div>

That's not really true. Bruins fans have been doing 2019-2020 roster builds for the last few days since the Tavares rumors picked up steam. And while the Bruins may need to buyout Krejci (or perhaps move him) in the 2019 offseason IF they sign Tavares, they certainly don't need to trade him AND Krug this year to make a JT signing work. Please see:

<a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/754305">https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/754305</a>

And

<a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/757055">https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/757055</a>

And

<a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/742167">https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/742167</a>

Moving Backes and Krejci in the 2019 offseason is a much simpler proposition since they will no longer be in possession of full NMCs. However...

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KnifeBoot28</b></div><div>Moving Backes may prove difficult without retaining substantial salary, in which case they may wait to for 19-20 for a buy out.</div></div>

They cannot buyout David Backes' contract. The cap hit for a buyout would be virtually identical to the cap hit for his contract, because almost all of the money he's paid comes in the form of a signing bonus. I suspect this was done intentionally to prevent the Bruins from being able to buyout Backes' contract, knowing that it was a very unlikely proposition that he would still be worth the money in year 4 or 5 of the contract (sadly, he wasn't worth the money starting in year 1).

Also, the trade scenario above has Boston retaining 1M and Carolina retaining 1M of Backes salary before he eventually ends up in Minnesota. I'm not sure how much more of his salary you want retained, but the CBA stipulates no more than 50% of a player's salary can be retained in a trade, and no more than 3 teams can retain a player's salary on their books. I think having 2M of Backes' 6M cap hit retained is more than fair for Minnesota to take him on.