Red Mosquito

I really couldnt hate it more, thus far at least. They've intentionally gotten weaker IMO.

numbers wrote:I really couldnt hate it more, thus far at least. They've intentionally gotten weaker IMO.

in what way? you think they'd be a better team with peverley, seguin, ference, and khudobin than ericksson, iginla, bartkowski, and svedberg?

When you watched the Bruins, did you think "man, they need more guys that are great two way players and less pure scorers." Erikkson wont come close to approaching his offensive numbers in Dallas under Julien's system, so the argument that in the present Erikkson brings more to table doesnt fly for me. I'm not even saying Erikkson isnt a good player or a good fit for this team, he is absolutely both. I just dont think he was anywhere near value for Seguin. It just strikes me as the complete opposite of the kind of trade a team in the Bruins situation should be making. I've heard people compare this to when Chicago re-tooled after their first cup, but they didnt trade Patrick Kane, and Seguin was the Bruins equivalent.

On another topic, does anyone think that Iginla will have a problem walking into this team after what happened last season? I'm not really inclined to say yes, as it's a new team and they've gotten rid of a ton of guys, but just wondering what others think.

numbers wrote:When you watched the Bruins, did you think "man, they need more guys that are great two way players and less pure scorers." Erikkson wont come close to approaching his offensive numbers in Dallas under Julien's system, so the argument that in the present Erikkson brings more to table doesnt fly for me. I'm not even saying Erikkson isnt a good player or a good fit for this team, he is absolutely both. I just dont think he was anywhere near value for Seguin. It just strikes me as the complete opposite of the kind of trade a team in the Bruins situation should be making. I've heard people compare this to when Chicago re-tooled after their first cup, but they didnt trade Patrick Kane, and Seguin was the Bruins equivalent.

On another topic, does anyone think that Iginla will have a problem walking into this team after what happened last season? I'm not really inclined to say yes, as it's a new team and they've gotten rid of a ton of guys, but just wondering what others think.

Dude, Seguin can't hold Kane's jock strap on the ice...maybe on the chick banging scoreboard, but not on the hockey one

MattA75 wrote:

numbers wrote:When you watched the Bruins, did you think "man, they need more guys that are great two way players and less pure scorers." Erikkson wont come close to approaching his offensive numbers in Dallas under Julien's system, so the argument that in the present Erikkson brings more to table doesnt fly for me. I'm not even saying Erikkson isnt a good player or a good fit for this team, he is absolutely both. I just dont think he was anywhere near value for Seguin. It just strikes me as the complete opposite of the kind of trade a team in the Bruins situation should be making. I've heard people compare this to when Chicago re-tooled after their first cup, but they didnt trade Patrick Kane, and Seguin was the Bruins equivalent.

On another topic, does anyone think that Iginla will have a problem walking into this team after what happened last season? I'm not really inclined to say yes, as it's a new team and they've gotten rid of a ton of guys, but just wondering what others think.

Dude, Seguin can't hold Kane's jock strap on the ice...maybe on the chick banging scoreboard, but not on the hockey one

I said he was the equivalent as far as the B's were concerned, the young offensive player with elite talent.

im really bummed about cooke

now does orpik or niskanen or both get traded

elliseamos wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Iginla to Boston. For real this time.

exactly 1 minute late. but you're right. totez 4 realz this time.

details on the Iggy deal: $1.8 M base salary, $3.7 M games played bonus, $500,000 goal scoring/team playoff performance: total $6 M

Also, the way I understand it, for players over 35 who's $ causes their team to exceed the cap, the team can pay the overage against the cap in the following season. so were Iggy to meet all his bonuses the team might face a "penalty" the next season (but likely willingly depending on how the season ended).

hossa 2.0

numbers wrote:When you watched the Bruins, did you think "man, they need more guys that are great two way players and less pure scorers." Erikkson wont come close to approaching his offensive numbers in Dallas under Julien's system, so the argument that in the present Erikkson brings more to table doesnt fly for me. I'm not even saying Erikkson isnt a good player or a good fit for this team, he is absolutely both. I just dont think he was anywhere near value for Seguin. It just strikes me as the complete opposite of the kind of trade a team in the Bruins situation should be making. I've heard people compare this to when Chicago re-tooled after their first cup, but they didnt trade Patrick Kane, and Seguin was the Bruins equivalent.

On another topic, does anyone think that Iginla will have a problem walking into this team after what happened last season? I'm not really inclined to say yes, as it's a new team and they've gotten rid of a ton of guys, but just wondering what others think.

1) to this point in his career, seguin does not equal kane... if anything, krejci equals kane. the way i see it, iginla can hopefully fill most of what horton provided and ericksson can help the #2 line as they're typically matched up against the other team's top-scoring line. remember, the scoring that ericksson is replacing is seguin's (which has been below ericksson's production in dallas anyway), which was down last season and non-existent in the playoffs. i would have been happy to see seguin develop like bergeron has; i would have also been happy to see them get more out of trading him, but based on what they got, i'm satisfied that the team did not take a step back and this offseason is not "a disaster."

2) this team got over pouliot's hit on ference, so i'm thinking they'll be professionals. it's not like they signed matt cooke.

Well, at least the Clarkson deal wasn't the worst of the day (I would have to give that to Clowe and Filpulla). I do think, from the Leafs perspective, that the Clarkson signing is fairly easily defensible. If he can fill the Darcy Tucker role (score 20 goals, irritate the opposition, stand up for teammates) then I'm OK with it. They basically handed him Grabovski's money, and I'm OK with that too. Also, after signing Clarkson, re-signing Bozak and extending Bernier, the Leafs have about $11 million in cap space to sign Kadri, Gunnarsson and Franson. That should leave them with plenty of room to finish up the offseason with a better team than last year.

philpritchard wrote:Well, at least the Clarkson deal wasn't the worst of the day (I would have to give that to Clowe and Filpulla). I do think, from the Leafs perspective, that the Clarkson signing is fairly easily defensible. If he can fill the Darcy Tucker role (score 20 goals, irritate the opposition, stand up for teammates) then I'm OK with it. They basically handed him Grabovski's money, and I'm OK with that too. Also, after signing Clarkson, re-signing Bozak and extending Bernier, the Leafs have about $11 million in cap space to sign Kadri, Gunnarsson and Franson. That should leave them with plenty of room to finish up the offseason with a better team than last year.

right, the new eastern conference is going to be strong.

elliseamos wrote:

philpritchard wrote:Well, at least the Clarkson deal wasn't the worst of the day (I would have to give that to Clowe and Filpulla). I do think, from the Leafs perspective, that the Clarkson signing is fairly easily defensible. If he can fill the Darcy Tucker role (score 20 goals, irritate the opposition, stand up for teammates) then I'm OK with it. They basically handed him Grabovski's money, and I'm OK with that too. Also, after signing Clarkson, re-signing Bozak and extending Bernier, the Leafs have about $11 million in cap space to sign Kadri, Gunnarsson and Franson. That should leave them with plenty of room to finish up the offseason with a better team than last year.

right, the new eastern conference is going to be strong.

My thought when I saw 7 years for Clarkson and Horton is the GMs are counting on another lockout and buyout opportunity in 4 or 5 years. Neither of those players should have received year deals, especially Horton with his injury history.

The only thing I like about the Iginla signing is that it's just one year. He's overpaid and the Bruins already have enough players lacking foot speed. He'll have a decent regular season and do absolutely nothing come the playoffs. I would have preferred Grabovski on a 1 or 2 year deal at 3 or 4 million.

elliseamos wrote:

philpritchard wrote:Well, at least the Clarkson deal wasn't the worst of the day (I would have to give that to Clowe and Filpulla). I do think, from the Leafs perspective, that the Clarkson signing is fairly easily defensible. If he can fill the Darcy Tucker role (score 20 goals, irritate the opposition, stand up for teammates) then I'm OK with it. They basically handed him Grabovski's money, and I'm OK with that too. Also, after signing Clarkson, re-signing Bozak and extending Bernier, the Leafs have about $11 million in cap space to sign Kadri, Gunnarsson and Franson. That should leave them with plenty of room to finish up the offseason with a better team than last year.

right, the new eastern conference is going to be strong.

Sure is. Should be a hell of a season.

What I remember about Clarkson is that I was always pissed off at him when Toronto played New Jersey, and that can only be a good thing.

i think the money & years to those two guys specifically shows that power forwards are making a comeback, so having iginla paired with lucic is great for the Bs next year. teams like montreal and detroit will try to counter it with speed, but that's where a line like marchand-bergeron-ericksson will be an equalizer/neutralizer.

Khabibulin to CHI. i don't know about anybody else, but i feel good about seeing "the wall" continue to last.

I've done a complete 180 on my opinion of this trade. Team numbers.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've done a complete 180 on my opinion of this trade. Team numbers.

You guys have justified the absolutely horrendous return the Bruins got for Joe Thornton because of the domino effect it had and the salary it cleared up, but you don't see the value in the cap space, impact player and prospects they got for Seguin?

philpritchard wrote:You guys have justified the absolutely horrendous return the Bruins got for Joe Thornton because of the domino effect it had and the salary it cleared up, but you don't see the value in the cap space, impact player and prospects they got for Seguin?

your mistake is in pluralizing it. i see it. they don't.

elliseamos wrote:

philpritchard wrote:You guys have justified the absolutely horrendous return the Bruins got for Joe Thornton because of the domino effect it had and the salary it cleared up, but you don't see the value in the cap space, impact player and prospects they got for Seguin?

your mistake is in pluralizing it. i see it. they don't.

Well I noticed you're on my side, but there are a couple on the crazy side, too.

philpritchard wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

philpritchard wrote:You guys have justified the absolutely horrendous return the Bruins got for Joe Thornton because of the domino effect it had and the salary it cleared up, but you don't see the value in the cap space, impact player and prospects they got for Seguin?

your mistake is in pluralizing it. i see it. they don't.

Well I noticed you're on my side, but there are a couple on the crazy side, too.

but one of them's chud, so...