Bruins give up a ton for Rick Nash

[hf101]

 

Wow.  overpayment or what?  

[hf101]

 

 

[ruxpin]

I don't--and won't--understand why that expensive lump of absolutely nothing was an attraction at the deadline to anybody. 

 

What has he done the last couple years that would warrant interest, let alone that kind of outlay by Boston? 

 

It's a name, period. A used, worthless, hasbeen name that did nothing to help anything in Columbus and did nothing for New York except be along for the ride when Lundqvist tried to will them to a Cup. 

 

Boston is doing well. Adding a piece at the deadline is understandable and probably justified.  There were many better choices that would have greatly better helped them competitively without gutting assets. 

 

Horribly moronic move. Here's a bold prediction:  the Bruins will not make the finals. And this trade is why. 

[yave1964]

I like Nash, he contributes even when he doesn't score and his offense has picked up a bit. I like him quite a lot as a second liner, a lot more than on the top line with the Rags. Spooner and Belesky were just bodies to make the deal work, the prospect hasn't done much so really it comes down to Nash for a first. Still a bit steep but not that bad.

[ruxpin]

14 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

I like Nash, he contributes even when he doesn't score and his offense has picked up a bit. I like him quite a lot as a second liner, a lot more than on the top line with the Rags. Spooner and Belesky were just bodies to make the deal work, the prospect hasn't done much so really it comes down to Nash for a first. Still a bit steep but not that bad.

I actually disagree with the first part. 

 

I kind of agree with your assessment of what the bruins gave up. I just think they should have been smart and given that up for a different player coming back. 

 

I just don't agree that Nash does anything for a team other than put his name on the back of his jersey. Just a fat overpaid lump of nothing for me. 

 

Ultimately, I don't have a horse in this show. So it's nothing for me. (it's possible I'm reacting as strongly as I am because the flyers may do something similarly stupid with Kane. But I thought this about Nash before I had any idea where he was going. I wouldn't trade Manning straight up for him). 

[belowthegoalline]

I think Nash is at the point where you can't expect him to contribute on the scoreboard every single night. If you can temper your expectations of him to be a 20-goal scorer, and a guy who's going to get around 40 points and play good defense, then you should be excited to have him around. He's still being paid as an elite NHL player right now (until July 1st), and I think that's why people are disappointed with him. Give him a $3.5-$4.5 million contract, and everyone would love him on their team. I would take him over Mikkel Boedker any day (given I'm a Sharks fan), except maybe in the last two weeks/month where Boedker has been playing some great hockey.

[yave1964]

5 hours ago, belowthegoalline said:

I think Nash is at the point where you can't expect him to contribute on the scoreboard every single night. If you can temper your expectations of him to be a 20-goal scorer, and a guy who's going to get around 40 points and play good defense, then you should be excited to have him around. He's still being paid as an elite NHL player right now (until July 1st), and I think that's why people are disappointed with him. Give him a $3.5-$4.5 million contract, and everyone would love him on their team. I would take him over Mikkel Boedker any day (given I'm a Sharks fan), except maybe in the last two weeks/month where Boedker has been playing some great hockey.

Welcome to the forum!

 

This. It is exactly what I have beensaying of Nash, a selfless two way player who is stingy, in fact the entire Boston haul at or near the deadline was a bunch of tough to play against gritty players, Wingels, Nash, Holden and Gionta aren't sexy but all contest every inch of the ice. This team will be a tougher out come postseason because of these moves. 

[JR Ewing]

On 2/25/2018 at 7:42 AM, ruxpin said:

I don't--and won't--understand why that expensive lump of absolutely nothing was an attraction at the deadline to anybody. 

 

What has he done the last couple years that would warrant interest, let alone that kind of outlay by Boston? 

 

It's a name, period. A used, worthless, hasbeen name that did nothing to help anything in Columbus and did nothing for New York except be along for the ride when Lundqvist tried to will them to a Cup. 

 

Boston is doing well. Adding a piece at the deadline is understandable and probably justified.  There were many better choices that would have greatly better helped them competitively without gutting assets. 

 

Horribly moronic move. Here's a bold prediction:  the Bruins will not make the finals. And this trade is why. 

 

This is coming with some caveats, but is only mean to illustrate a point, not draw a heavy line under it...

 

Rick Nash, last two seasons: 41-25-66, 1.86 Pts/60

Patrick Maroon, last two seasons: 41-31-72, 1.85 Pts/60

 

Rick Nash brought in a haul. Maroon, without the name or pedigree, brought a 3rd rounder in return on Deadline Day.

 

NOW... This is a very simple bit of analysis, and doesn't exactly dig deep, with the biggest issue being that it doesn't take into consideration quality of linemates. Maroon quite simply had better linemates to play with at Even-Strength (doesn't get PP minutes; not with Connor at least), even when we account for him playing less with McDavid this year, and Draisaitl centering his own line much of the time.

 

Still, I think there's a point here. There isn't such a massive gulf between these two players to explain the price that Boston paid.

 

---

 

Also, we can say that guys like Ryan Spooner are just throw-players, but the numbers 2016 to 2018 (since he became a full-timer) don't suggest such a player at all.

 

34-85-119, 2.44 Pts/60 (Nash over the same period of time was 1.95 Pts/60)

 

He's sitting in 60th in the NHL in Pts/60, right between Nik Ehlers and Logan Couture. Dude is a really productive player.

 

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

This is coming with some caveats, but is only mean to illustrate a point, not draw a heavy line under it...

 

Rick Nash, last two seasons: 41-25-66, 1.86 Pts/60

Patrick Maroon, last two seasons: 41-31-72, 1.85 Pts/60

 

Rick Nash brought in a haul. Maroon, without the name or pedigree, brought a 3rd rounder in return on Deadline Day.

 

NOW... This is a very simple bit of analysis, and doesn't exactly dig deep, with the biggest issue being that it doesn't take into consideration quality of linemates. Maroon quite simply had better linemates to play with at Even-Strength (doesn't get PP minutes; not with Connor at least), even when we account for him playing less with McDavid this year, and Draisaitl centering his own line much of the time.

 

Still, I think there's a point here. There isn't such a massive gulf between these two players to explain the price that Boston paid.

 

---

 

Also, we can say that guys like Ryan Spooner are just throw-players, but the numbers 2016 to 2018 (since he became a full-timer) don't suggest such a player at all.

 

34-85-119, 2.44 Pts/60 (Nash over the same period of time was 1.95 Pts/60)

 

He's sitting in 60th in the NHL in Pts/60, right between Nik Ehlers and Logan Couture. Dude is a really productive player.

 

 

Thanks for this.    It actually justifies my "feeling" on this trade that I didn't have the metrics to support.

[belowthegoalline]

8 hours ago, yave1964 said:

Welcome to the forum!

 

This. It is exactly what I have beensaying of Nash, a selfless two way player who is stingy, in fact the entire Boston haul at or near the deadline was a bunch of tough to play against gritty players, Wingels, Nash, Holden and Gionta aren't sexy but all contest every inch of the ice. This team will be a tougher out come postseason because of these moves. 

Rick Nash is like a poor man's Marian Hossa in my mind. He's going to score less, but plays a good game all around.

 

Don't understand the Gionta thing. Wingels is injury insurance. Holden is a good 3rd pair guy. The Bruins had a good team. They just added pieces to make it deeper in case of injury. Nash > Spooner, so for me, they did good.

 

3 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

 

This is coming with some caveats, but is only mean to illustrate a point, not draw a heavy line under it...

 

Rick Nash, last two seasons: 41-25-66, 1.86 Pts/60

Patrick Maroon, last two seasons: 41-31-72, 1.85 Pts/60

 

Rick Nash brought in a haul. Maroon, without the name or pedigree, brought a 3rd rounder in return on Deadline Day.

 

NOW... This is a very simple bit of analysis, and doesn't exactly dig deep, with the biggest issue being that it doesn't take into consideration quality of linemates. Maroon quite simply had better linemates to play with at Even-Strength (doesn't get PP minutes; not with Connor at least), even when we account for him playing less with McDavid this year, and Draisaitl centering his own line much of the time.

 

Still, I think there's a point here. There isn't such a massive gulf between these two players to explain the price that Boston paid.

 

---

 

Also, we can say that guys like Ryan Spooner are just throw-players, but the numbers 2016 to 2018 (since he became a full-timer) don't suggest such a player at all.

 

34-85-119, 2.44 Pts/60 (Nash over the same period of time was 1.95 Pts/60)

 

He's sitting in 60th in the NHL in Pts/60, right between Nik Ehlers and Logan Couture. Dude is a really productive player.

 

 

I ask you, with whom did Patrick Maroon play? The answer is Connor McDavid (last year's MVP, and a stud the year before before he got hurt) and Leon Draisaitl. That's pretty good running mates.

 

Who did Rick Nash play with? Derek Stepan who had half of the points #97 had last year. If he was to play a full year with david Krejci, I would image he would have much stronger numbers than Maroon.

 

Also your point about Spooner, I don't agree he was a throw in. Matt Belesky was the throw in. Ryan Spooner is a decent number 2, good number 3 center. But he wasn't playing there with the Bruins, and he downright stinks as a winger. They needed to move cap space and Spooner was honestly being passed up by younger guys. He'll do fine in NY, but he wasn't a piece the Bruins were going to use in the future.

 

[hf101]

I still think the Bruins overpaid for Nash but I agree with @belowthegoalline (welcome to HockeyForums btw), in that Maroon doesn't get those numbers unless playing on a line with a high scoring center as in McDavid.   

Nash was brought in to increase the scoring on the 2nd line with Krejci something that wasn't happening with  Spooner or Belesky on the wing.  No forward on the Bruins roster had more than 12 goals other than the those on the top line prior to the deadline.  Teams that go deep in the playoffs have offensively strong first and 2nd lines, and with Nash I think they got that. 

 

Given the steep price the Bruins paid I wouldn't be surprised for them to sign Nash to a 2-3 year deal in the 3-4M dollar range which if they can do that the amount they paid upfront can be balanced over the course of a resigning.

[JR Ewing]

1 hour ago, belowthegoalline said:

 

I ask you, with whom did Patrick Maroon play? The answer is Connor McDavid (last year's MVP, and a stud the year before before he got hurt) and Leon Draisaitl. That's pretty good running mates.

 

Who did Rick Nash play with? Derek Stepan who had half of the points #97 had last year. If he was to play a full year with david Krejci, I would image he would have much stronger numbers than Maroon.

 

Why would you ask when I already mentioned that Maroon primarily plays with McDavid and Draisaitl, and flat-out had higher quality linemates.

 

I agree that Nash would have better numbers in Maroon's position, but perhaps my point wasn't stated explicitly enough. I'm not saying that Patrick Maroon is better than Rick Nash or as good as Rick Nash. I'm saying that there was a huge difference between the price that Nash fetched and the one that Maroon returned, and I'm not convinced that the difference between the two players is, at this time, equal to that difference in cost.

 

I think the Bruins overpaid.

 

---

 

Oh! And welcome aboard.   

 

[JR Ewing]

29 minutes ago, hf101 said:

I still think the Bruins overpaid for Nash but I agree with @belowthegoalline (welcome to HockeyForums btw), in that Maroon doesn't get those numbers unless playing on a line with a high scoring center as in McDavid.   

 

 

That's like agreeing that it's hot on the sun. Who would say (or has said) anything to the contrary?

 

[hf101]

3 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

That's like agreeing that it's hot on the sun. Who would say (or has said) anything to the contrary?

 

  

Did you just take my post of complete context... or did I write what I wanted to say that poorly?  

I originally wrote my post with the first two sentences in one paragraph.  I think should have left it that way. 

 

15 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

I'm saying that there was a huge difference between the price that Nash fetched and the one that Maroon returned, and I'm not convinced that the difference between the two players is, at this time, equal to that difference in cost.

 

But I think you have to consider what the Bruins needed.  They wanted a sized goal scorer on the 2nd line.  Maroon hasn't averaged 30 goals/ season in his career as basically, Nash has.  Granted Nash hasn't put up those numbers the last couple of seasons which can also be attributed to the center he as played with, but I do think Nash can be that 30 goal guy much more than Maroon can with Krejci.  

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Some interesting takes on both sides on whether the Bruins overpaid for the players they got or not, but at the end of the day, if the Bruins win a Cup, all this is moot.

 

Actually, since I believe the Bruins weren't expected to win a Cup (probably not even an Eastern Finals this season anyways), if they at least GET to a SC Finals, or even an Eastern Finals...would these moves be successes?

 

I guess we will see.

 

My personal take is the Bruins DID pay quite a bit....but they also got players that certainly make them a stronger team NOW.

Of course, no one took into account Patrice Bergeron now being unavailable.....Boston best hope he can come back for the post season...

Bruins have about three single important players they simply cannot do without in their lineup:  Marchand, Rask, and yes, Bergeron.

[JR Ewing]

25 minutes ago, hf101 said:

  

Did you just take my post of complete context... or did I write what I wanted to say that poorly?  

I originally wrote my post with the first two sentences in one paragraph.  I think should have left it that way. 

 

No, I don't think I took your post out of context. There seems to be the idea (and I could be wrong) that people see me as not understanding that Maroon's offense has been helped by playing with Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. He flat-out had the best linemates in hockey. All I'm saying is that I think all reasonable would agree that he was helped.

 

 

Quote

 

But I think you have to consider what the Bruins needed.  They wanted a sized goal scorer on the 2nd line.  Maroon hasn't averaged 30 goals/ season in his career as basically, Nash has.  Granted Nash hasn't put up those numbers the last couple of seasons which can also be attributed to the center he as played with, but I do think Nash can be that 30 goal guy much more than Maroon can with Krejci.  

 

Well, yes, I think Nash can be that guy better than Patrick Maroon. Why not? He's a better hockey player than Maroon. I'm just not sure they're going the get the huge difference in quality with price factored in. It's sort of like trying to get the best time with a production car at the Nurburgring. You can take out a Lamorghini LP640 and beat a Nissan GTR by 16 seconds over those 13 miles, but you're paying about $500,000 compared to only $150,000. Not exactly the best bang for your buck.

 

 

[yave1964]

21 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

 

That's like agreeing that it's hot on the sun. Who would say (or has said) anything to the contrary?

 

  While I agree that the scoring is relatively equal between Maroon and Nash, the subtelties, the ability to play in all three zones in every situation clearly tilts towards Nash. As he has aged and the scoring has levelled off and then slipped he has developed a well earned reputation as a very fine two way player with a non stop motor who doesn't take shifts off, who even when he is not scoring he is shutting down his man. The same has never been said about Maroon by anyone objectively.

 

  I have taken the defend Rick Nash line in here not just with this trade but when anyone dogs him, I admit that his offense is not what it was, he will never score 40 in a season again, I think it is 50/50 if he ever scores 30 in a year again but he does not need to in order to have value. The Bruins value that type of forward and despise the ones who are one dimensional. Spooner has a well earned rep as being one dimensional, his scoring is what brought him to the league and all that he has going for him, he can play center or wing but neither at an elite level, his faceoff skills are okay, nothing special, in short the exact type of player who Cassidy and the Bruins don't keep around. Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand, Nash, the other Nash, Backes, Wingels, Gionta, does any team in all of Hockey have a tougher group of forwards to play against? Boston executed a plan, their defense is not the best, Chara is having his best year in the last three but is stil a pylon, Krug is offense only, two talented but raw kids and a bottom pair that is really AHL level. The reason they are one of the elite defensive squads is because of the relentless backchecking and the three additions and subtraction of Spooner made that elite. Maroon simply would not have been a good fit for the Bruins, Nash fits like a glove.

[belowthegoalline]

22 hours ago, hf101 said:

I still think the Bruins overpaid for Nash but I agree with @belowthegoalline (welcome to HockeyForums btw), in that Maroon doesn't get those numbers unless playing on a line with a high scoring center as in McDavid.   

Nash was brought in to increase the scoring on the 2nd line with Krejci something that wasn't happening with  Spooner or Belesky on the wing.  No forward on the Bruins roster had more than 12 goals other than the those on the top line prior to the deadline.  Teams that go deep in the playoffs have offensively strong first and 2nd lines, and with Nash I think they got that. 

 

Given the steep price the Bruins paid I wouldn't be surprised for them to sign Nash to a 2-3 year deal in the 3-4M dollar range which if they can do that the amount they paid upfront can be balanced over the course of a resigning.

 

Agree with you guys that the Bruins overpaid, but don't most teams overpay near the deadline? I mean, I'm SHOCKED at the lack of value the Sharks sent to Buffalo for Evander Kane, who has been great so far for the Sharks.

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, belowthegoalline said:

 

Agree with you guys that the Bruins overpaid, but don't most teams overpay near the deadline? I mean, I'm SHOCKED at the lack of value the Sharks sent to Buffalo for Evander Kane, who has been great so far for the Sharks.

 

Quite a fair point on both counts.   I'm with you in that I'm more shocked about the lack of value in the Kane trade.    I personally wouldn't have wanted Kane, but he has done well so far at San Jose.    Ride it while ya got it, because he turns cold with a switch.  But I really thought he'd get the Sabres more than that.   I think I underestimated how much most GMs apparently liked him as little as I do.

 

Nash.   I agree, most teams overpay.   I think that's my irritation, especially with a player like Nash that is all marquee and no show.  Again, glad it wasn't my team.

[belowthegoalline]

@ruxpin  I tell you what, they kept saying that the Sharks wouldn't want him because of Pete DeBoer's past/present relationship with Paul Maurice, who coached him in Winnipeg, but it sounds like he has really turned a corner in the maturity thing. I mean, he's done stupid things in his past, and thing he probably could have/should have ended up doing time for, but he hasn't done anything stupid lately. The Sharks players are raving about him as a person since coming to town, so it seems like a good fit. Remember, he played with Pavelski in Europe during the lockout, so he knows a little about what the team is like.

 

I think you undervalue what Nash does though. Like I said before, his days of being an elite goal scorer are over, but he's still a really good two-way player. He chips in goals, and he's decent in the playoffs. I mean, he's 23rd in the NHL in playoff points since the lockout. Sure his teams haven't fared that well, but can't you also blame shaky goaltending, or lack of scoring overall as a team, too? Watch Rick Nash score the game winning goal to get the Bruins to the Stanley Cup Final. You'll be eating your words then. Haha.

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, belowthegoalline said:

Watch Rick Nash score the game winning goal to get the Bruins to the Stanley Cup Final. You'll be eating your words then. Haha.

 

If that happens, I will eat my words.  But I think I'm going to go hungry.  I've never been a fan of Nash, and less so the past couple years.   I think saying I undervalue him is probably a fair statement, but I don't think those who value him highly are watching much more than the name on the back of the sweater (I actually don't mean you, here.  You seem to take a more middle/tempered view).

 

As for the goaltending, especially in NY, I'm not sure.   The Rangers went out of their way to sign--at high cost--an astoundingly poor defender in Shattenkirk rather than spend moderate money on a couple actual defenders.   So, in many cases, Lundy was hung out to dry.  Lundy himself, though, is not what he used to be.  His glove has become suspicious and his lateral movement is a tick or two slower.   He'd still be very good --well, good--in a system and with competent defenders.     But the part about goaltending that made me smile is that it was specifically in reference to Nash, who I think rode along behind Lundqvist when they went to the ECF rather than leading the team.   Yeah, I think diminished goaltending can be blamed for exposing Nash as a barely average player at this point in his career and can be blamed for hiding that somewhat previously.

 

I think it probably just comes down to pay vs. performance.  For his money, I want to see better than 23rd in NHL playoff points and ("really good" is overstated) maybe above average two-way player.   And I struggle saying he's above average two-way.   I wouldn't want him on my team.

[belowthegoalline]

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

If that happens, I will eat my words.  But I think I'm going to go hungry.  I've never been a fan of Nash, and less so the past couple years.   I think saying I undervalue him is probably a fair statement, but I don't think those who value him highly are watching much more than the name on the back of the sweater (I actually don't mean you, here.  You seem to take a more middle/tempered view).

 

As for the goaltending, especially in NY, I'm not sure.   The Rangers went out of their way to sign--at high cost--an astoundingly poor defender in Shattenkirk rather than spend moderate money on a couple actual defenders.   So, in many cases, Lundy was hung out to dry.  Lundy himself, though, is not what he used to be.  His glove has become suspicious and his lateral movement is a tick or two slower.   He'd still be very good --well, good--in a system and with competent defenders.     But the part about goaltending that made me smile is that it was specifically in reference to Nash, who I think rode along behind Lundqvist when they went to the ECF rather than leading the team.   Yeah, I think diminished goaltending can be blamed for exposing Nash as a barely average player at this point in his career and can be blamed for hiding that somewhat previously.

 

I think it probably just comes down to pay vs. performance.  For his money, I want to see better than 23rd in NHL playoff points and ("really good" is overstated) maybe above average two-way player.   And I struggle saying he's above average two-way.   I wouldn't want him on my team.

 

Didn't Shattenkirk take less money to sign with NYR? And is HE the real problem, or is it guys like Staal, who can't keep up in the league anymore that they overpaid.

 

Shattenkirk is what he is. He's a decent 2nd pair guy. Is he overpaid? Yes, but he was the biggest fish in the pond last July. And if you don't have the Staal contract, you can live with his salary. McDonagh, Skeji and Shattenkirk is a good start on the blueline. It was beyond that that was awful.

 

Final argument on the Rick Nash thing: what do you think of Chris Kunitz? Guy has played 62 games in the playoffs since the lockout and scored 34 points. Nash scored 33 in 61 playoff games. You like Kunitz, no? So he scores basically the same as Nash (even though he plays with one of the best players of all time, as opposed to a bunch of second line centers at best), and you would take him on your team, even though Nash is the better player in his own end. What it comes down to is you feel like Nash should have been on a $3.850mil contract like Kunitz as opposed to the $7.800mil that he did get. I agree with you, but I would argue that he is still a good player, and worth being on your team, even if he doesn't put up the numbers in critical moments. And I would even argue that point, as Nash is 12th in the league since the lockout in GWG in the regular season, as opposed to Kunitz, who is 55th. Play the guy, say $5.500mil, and I think you wouldn't be on his case so much.

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, belowthegoalline said:

Shattenkirk is what he is. He's a decent 2nd pair guy. Is he overpaid? Yes, but he was the biggest fish in the pond last July. And if you don't have the Staal contract, you can live with his salary. McDonagh, Skeji and Shattenkirk is a good start on the blueline. It was beyond that that was awful.

 

I think he's horrible.  Yes, he was the biggest fish in the pond, but sometimes that's the wrong move.  It's "ooh shiny."  If the aim was to trick foolish fans into buying tickets, that's the play.  If it's trying to win, it's a horrible more.  The guy is utterly horrible in his own end.  He's a legitimate liability.   He works IF you have a really strong all-star-level defensive guy to pair him with.   If you don't, just put up a "this way to the goal" sign in your defensive end.   And he wasn't that great offensively, either.

 

I was going to quote but won't. I'll just say this:   I think your Nash/Kunitz argument is fair.   Pay the guy $5.50 million and maybe you're right that I'm not on him so much.  Not just "maybe."  You're "probably" right.  I didn't like the exit at Columbus, either, so there's also that.   But yeah, it comes down to ROI.   I've just never thought he justified that outlay.   He's making in the same bracket (just Boston) as Bergeron, Pastrnak, and Marchant.  I'd take any of them over Nash.   Oddly, I'd put him with Backes, who I also can't believe is being paid $8M.   

 

I mean, that's the market, but I still scratch my head at owners who lock out their employees because of their own crack habit only to return nearly immediately to the same idiocy and do it all over again.  For me, Nash is the perfect example of a bloated overpaid player AND name that's bigger than justified on the ice.

 

Kunitz didn't have the same name.  Always liked the guy and am probably one of the few Flyers' fans willing to say that.   Kunitz went to the Olympics and I was like, "why?"   But he played a very similar role, as you say, to Nash and did it successfully.    At a rate that was appropriate.   Yeah, I'd have been okay with either of them in the $5 - $5.5M range.  

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, belowthegoalline said:

Didn't Shattenkirk take less money to sign with NYR? And is HE the real problem, or is it guys like Staal, who can't keep up in the league anymore that they overpaid.

 

I didn't answer this.  The latter is certainly true.

The other problem is too many of similar type players who kind of just skate around.  Hayes, Zibanejad, Kreider, now Namestnikov (whom I like).   I don't think they've done a great job of building a team.

 

But Shattenkirk is the poster child for the real problem.  It's the "ooh Shiney!" rather than "this is what we need, let's go get it done in a reasonable way that allows us to build a team."

 

I think it was clear at the end of last year that Shattenkirk is a horrible liability in his own end.  He was flatly horrible in Washington.   And nothing changed in St. Louis in his absence. So, let's give him a ton of money and make him the centerpiece of the defense rather than filling actual needs.   Is he THE problem?   No, but he's emblematic of it.

[JR Ewing]

@yave1964

 

In fairness, please keep in mind what I have said here: that Rick Nash is a better hockey player than Patrick Maroon and he very well could be a better fit for Boston. I just think the Devils got a lot more bang for their buck than the Bruins.