Marchand, yes. Krecjci, yes. But why doesn't this article mention one of the most underrated and crucial player of the Bruins... Patrice Bergeron.

Without Bergeron, there's no way the Bruins would where they are right now.

2nd to Krejci in TOI (in the forwards) with a stunning 61 FO%.

I obviously am a Canuck fan and this is where GMMG seriously f*cked the dog. Yeah everyone knows about Luo not getting traded, but nobody's talking about the Malholtra debacle. He got "retired" against his will and GMMG had no back up plan. We got owned in the FO dot and that kinda goes against our style as a "puck possession" team. If this doesn't get fixed next season, we'll see more of the craptacular same.

I'm definitely not Gillis's biggest fan, mostly because I think he's an arrogant azzhole. Anyways, regarding his drafting, who else do you think he should have picked that would put us in a better situation right now? 2008 was a bit of a wash as he was hired a month before the draft. In five drafts he's made four first round picks, 10th in 08, 22nd in 09, 29th in 11 & 26th in 12. The latter round picks are projects, as they are with all clubs. IMO we need more time to judge his drafting.

One terrible trade he made was the Ballard deal, at the time he didn't have Hamhuis signed, but he still paid too much for him and let the coach destroy his confindence and game. That's on him.

He gave Lu way to long of a contract, but I think the owner had his fingers in the pie there. Where he screwed up in this whole thing is he made a commitment to Lu and didn't follow through with it, IMO he should have traded Schneider last year while his stock was high. That's also on him. But we can make a list for every GM in the league, no one GM is without fault, not one!
- LeftCoaster

I said that about Lowe and got banned for a day.

I said that about Lowe and got banned for a day.
- allen_gamble

That's because Kevin Lowe knows about winning!!!

Ryan would be a perfect fit. It would depend on shedding all other salaries(lu, booth, ballard). If he has trouble doing so with only 2 buyouts the only option might be to deal someone like edler or burrows for a pick. That CBA seriously screwed us.
- allen_gamble

Ryan has 2 more years at $5.1m per. So in an Edler trade it'd be a wash from a cap perspective. If there's a trade to made there MG should jump at it and deal with the cap issues separately. Players like Ryan don't come around all the time.

I would expect more coming back than just a pick once you get higher than the 5th overall. He is definitely worth a 6-10 and higher pick on his own.
- Fosco

Agree. Way too much risk in a 6+ pick to not get more for Edler. If he gets traded for a pick (regardless how high) the deal will likely be multiple players / picks going each way.

I would expect more coming back than just a pick once you get higher than the 5th overall. He is definitely worth a 6-10 and higher pick on his own.
- Fosco

I highly doubt any team in the 6-8 range will give their 1st + another good asset up for Edler, but maybe I'm undervaluing his trade value.

Too bad we didn't keep cody hodgson
we could trade him and edler and our 1st for the 1st or 2nd overall and draft Mackinnon

Sedin Kesler Mackinnon Lappy/Gaunce

Too bad we didn't keep cody hodgson
we could trade him and edler and our 1st for the 1st or 2nd overall and draft Mackinnon

Sedin Kesler Mackinnon Lappy/Gaunce
- The_Kuze

If we had Hodgson(or a similar type of player) in the first place, secondary scoring wouldn't be as big of an issue either.

I say 6-10 also. If gonchar got 5 per, to me edlers deal now looks even better than before.
- allen_gamble

I'd go so far to say that Ballard's deal looks good compared to Gonchar's deal.

If we had Hodgson(or a similar type of player) in the first place, secondary scoring wouldn't be as big of an issue either.
- Nucker101

No doubt. To bad he was such a female dog about his ice time. Him on the third line made us very tough to beat.

I'd go so far to say that Ballard's deal looks good compared to Gonchar's deal.
- Chest Rockwell

We got bullied and pushed but at least we scored 8 goals and and won 3 games . Pittsburg with all their fire power and toughness were invisible. Bruins are that good .
- VANTEL

We only got bullied once we were up 2-0 in the series. That's when we started playing not to lose instead of playing to win. Boston played like they had nothing to lose... That will always trump a passive/safe strategy. "Playing between the whistles" is a horsesh!t gameplan. Never stop playing.

Ryan would be a perfect fit. It would depend on shedding all other salaries(lu, booth, ballard). If he has trouble doing so with only 2 buyouts the only option might be to deal someone like edler or burrows for a pick. That CBA seriously screwed us.
- allen_gamble

All those players are tradeable. Might not get a lot back (or in Ballard's case, anything back) but likely won't have to use buyouts on them. Gonchar's contract shows there could be a market for Ballard.

In order to get Ryan you would have to trade something (Edler, Burrows, etc).

Absolutely no way Edler or Burrows get traded for picks to clear up cap space.

Ryan has 2 more years at $5.1m per. So in an Edler trade it'd be a wash from a cap perspective. If there's a trade to made there MG should jump at it and deal with the cap issues separately. Players like Ryan don't come around all the time.
- AlexF

I make that trade all day if Gillis too, just meant that taking on a salary like that would then require us to make sure that we shed else where is all.

I highly doubt any team in the 6-8 range will give their 1st + another good asset up for Edler, but maybe I'm undervaluing his trade value.
- Nucker101

Didn't say it would be a good asset.

Just that Edler is worth more than a 6-10 pick and something would have to compensate the difference.

Fire Gillis and let the rebuild begin.

All those players are tradeable. Might not get a lot back (or in Ballard's case, anything back) but likely won't have to use buyouts on them. Gonchar's contract shows there could be a market for Ballard.

In order to get Ryan you would have to trade something (Edler, Burrows, etc).

Absolutely no way Edler or Burrows get traded for picks to clear up cap space.
- KB3Point0

I think you miss understood me or I wrote it like crap. That's kinda my point. I was saying more of a what if scenario. Ballard at 4 now doesn't look unmovable that's for sure. I hope he has a bounce back year where ever he ends up.

All those players are tradeable. Might not get a lot back (or in Ballard's case, anything back) but likely won't have to use buyouts on them. Gonchar's contract shows there could be a market for Ballard.

In order to get Ryan you would have to trade something (Edler, Burrows, etc).

Absolutely no way Edler or Burrows get traded for picks to clear up cap space.
- KB3Point0

Burrows simply won't be traded.

His value on the ice is just so much higher than anything they would receive in a trade.

Fire Gillis and let the rebuild begin.
- Orange Julius

You first.

We only got bullied once we were up 2-0 in the series. That's when we started playing not to lose instead of playing to win. Boston played like they had nothing to lose... That will always trump a passive/safe strategy. "Playing between the whistles" is a horsesh!t gameplan. Never stop playing.
- DrChristianTroy

That's also around the same time we lost Hamhuis & Rome.

Burrows simply won't be traded.

His value on the ice is just so much higher than anything they would receive in a trade.
- Fosco

I agree with this. Can't see us getting equal value in any combination.

Ryan has 2 more years at $5.1m per. So in an Edler trade it'd be a wash from a cap perspective. If there's a trade to made there MG should jump at it and deal with the cap issues separately. Players like Ryan don't come around all the time.
- AlexF

Meh. We don't need more wingers. Kesler could put up the #'s Bobby Ryan does while playing with more heart & defensive awareness. We need a 2nd line center with high hockey IQ & vision, and Burrows/Kesler/Kassian/Hansen have us set at RW.

That's also around the same time we lost Hamhuis & Rome.
- KB3Point0

That wasnt the problem. The problem was how we dealt with the loss of those 2. A Ballard/Bieksa shutdown pairing, followed by Ballard in the press box and AHLberts paired with Tanev. Ridiculous. (frank) Bowness I hope he burns in hell.

Marchand, yes. Krecjci, yes. But why doesn't this article mention one of the most underrated and crucial player of the Bruins... Patrice Bergeron.

Without Bergeron, there's no way the Bruins would where they are right now.

2nd to Krejci in TOI (in the forwards) with a stunning 61 FO%.

I obviously am a Canuck fan and this is where GMMG seriously f*cked the dog. Yeah everyone knows about Luo not getting traded, but nobody's talking about the Malholtra debacle. He got "retired" against his will and GMMG had no back up plan. We got owned in the FO dot and that kinda goes against our style as a "puck possession" team. If this doesn't get fixed next season, we'll see more of the craptacular same.
- mathonwy

Agree. Gillis' biggest mistake was he told Manny last summer he didn't think he could safely play anymore yet he didn't replace him. Whole gameplan revolved around puck possession.

Mike Gillis started with a legitimate Cup contender...do you honestly think they still are? Didn't think so. Playing in the league's weakest division has masked their decline.

Yzerman hasn't set the world on fire by any means, but he's taken a weakness and made it a strength. They have a very nice prospect pool which they'll need since they're not a Cap team like the Canucks. Unfortunately they'll need to get out from under the Vinnie contract before they can really move to the next level.

As far as adding to the core I'm actually shocked that anyone would think Gillis has done it at all. THE CORE HASN'T CHANGED! His misallocation of salary has been a fireable offense alone, IMO.
- djamon

I. LOL. AT. THIS.