SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

keepcalmandbergeron

Member Since
Apr. 29, 2016
Favourite Team
Boston Bruins
Forum Posts
404
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 4, 2019 at 7:12 p.m.
Thread: Bruins 2019-2020
Minnesota might be one of the few places Backes might actually waive to go to. There is no way Cehlarik is getting $1.75M, as a matter of fact I'd give him to the Wild if they take Backes. I'd even throw another draft pick on top. Cehlarik isn't in Bostons future plans IMO.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ngikas</b></div><div>I said if they were to sign him long term such as the OP had at 8 years, he isn't going for 4 mil, it would be around 5 mil per year. Bridge contract will be 3 years for 4 imo. It's not an overpayment, I think that Carlo has gotten better every year, maybe not production wise but he's never gonna be a guy that puts up the points but overall as a defenseman he will be a top 2nd pair RHD in this league in the future. I also think trying to lock up both Charlie and Carlo long term this summer isn't the best idea for the bruins. They should look to bridge both of them imo.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jfstompers</b></div><div>carlo is just tough to value. He is a top 4 guy but lacks offense but has great size and this year hes come a along way. I think maybe he signs a bridge deal 3 years 4 million per or even 2 year 4 mil and hopes he gets the offence up a bit more and can tip up to 6 million next contract.</div></div>

I agree it is probably in the Bruins best interest to bridge both McAvoy and Carlo. Especially if they can't move Backes.

Although Acciari has been a good soldier it is time to cut him loose so he can sign a bigger contract elswhere ala Nash and Schaller. I think we can all agree that not resigning those two was the right move. The $.5M savings in playing someone like Fitzgerald or Kuhlman might be needed for an addition at the next trade deadline.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 24, 2019 at 11:34 p.m.
Thread: Top 50 Players Each Position
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sabres1108</b></div><div>may very well be true about Krug and Mcavoy but u obviously have a bias w your username...im gunna dig into the numbers on those 3 and consider changing....

who is better right now in your opinion between McAvoy and Krug?

Rask&gt;Halak

rask has been pretty steady for years sure Halak has had a great season but hes still a backup and has bounced around from team to team i think his current rating of 82 is fair considering hes above other starters in the league like Martin jones and Carter Hutton...Halak is an above average backup</div></div>

I'm only commenting on Bruins players not out of bias but because those are the ones I watch the most. I've watched Hamilton plenty enough to know I'd rather have Krug or McAvoy. They bring much different skills but if I had to pick one to play the whole game it would be McAvoy.

About Halak, you have Binnington and Hart higher and they've only played a few weeks, Raanta and Schneider hurt and awful for example. I chose not to comment on other teams players out of respect not favortism.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 24, 2019 at 9:34 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 24, 2019 at 9:28 p.m.
Thread: If Stone wanted to sign
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Breakaway</b></div><div>Obviously it's made harder to sign Stone if the Bruins decide to keep both Chara and Backes, but they wouldn't do that if they were targeting him which makes this mock complete garbage. Management litterally wouldn't go after Stone if they wanted to keep both Chara and Backes.... is that the point you're trying to prove? Well, everyone who isn't a complete fool already knew that quite well which is why no-one's mentioned it already. It was thought to be obvious enough for everyone to understand that if the team wanted to keep Chara and Backes they wouldn't go out and sign Stone. If they do sign Stone, which they can do in UFA because they can go 10% over the upper limit in the offseason, then they move on from Backes and possibly Chara. How does that need to be explained to anyone? I think you're the only one who didn't understand that. You litterally just proved that you're the biggest fool on here because you thought it worthwhile to suggest that the Bruins can't bring in Stone without moving Backes, but the rest of us already knew that which is why we put Backes in deals or put him on LTIR. I think you fancy yourself a genius, but everyone already knew something had to be done with Backes and if every other fan knows other than you, it's clear management will know it too and something will be done....</div></div>

I have yet to see any proposal that I can see happening with trading Backes. Backes has to agree to go there. He has an 8 team trade list. Then they still have to hammer out a deal. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how difficult that will be. But the worst part of your post is that when we (Gofnutand myself) point out that you missed the point you go on this rage about Backes because of your failed reading comprehension and on top of that you attack my intelligence. What exactly are you trying to prove? All you had to do was concede that you missed "A" point and move on. It's not hard, try it sometime.