2024 NHL Trade Deadline Thread

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,902
Somerville, MA
I'm not so much wondering about the DeBrusk-for-futures then futures-for-Hanifin scenario but flat out trading DeBrusk for futures even if it doesn't lead to a Hanifin this season. Basically just selling him. They've always kept their pending FA's for the playoff run but given the dearth of futures in the cupboard, does it make sense to move him either way? I don't know.
I think it depends on where we think the window is for this team, with the obvious caveat that hockey playoffs have an insane amount of variance and there's no rhyme or reason to a team getting hot in any particular year. I think the core of this team for the next run is Pasta, McAvoy, Zacha, Coyle, Lindholm, Swayman. They're all currently between 25 and 31, and it's really just Coyle and Lindholm on the higher end of that spectrum. I think if I want to build around those guys, in order to get a piece that matters, I want a 2024 1st or a highly-regarded prospect who may be ready this fall or later in the upcoming season, with a chance to hit their prime in the next 3-4 years. Because if I can't get someone to help out with that group, then I'd rather keep DeBrusk and go into the playoff-variance machine with him for this year and see what happens.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
I think it depends on where we think the window is for this team, with the obvious caveat that hockey playoffs have an insane amount of variance and there's no rhyme or reason to a team getting hot in any particular year. I think the core of this team for the next run is Pasta, McAvoy, Zacha, Coyle, Lindholm, Swayman. They're all currently between 25 and 31, and it's really just Coyle and Lindholm on the higher end of that spectrum. I think if I want to build around those guys, in order to get a piece that matters, I want a 2024 1st or a highly-regarded prospect who may be ready this fall or later in the upcoming season, with a chance to hit their prime in the next 3-4 years. Because if I can't get someone to help out with that group, then I'd rather keep DeBrusk and go into the playoff-variance machine with him for this year and see what happens.
I think they could probably get a first for him. Not sure beyond that, typically rentals don't bring back impact prospects.

I'm using the Bertuzzi deal as the comp, 1st and a 4th. We'll say the 4th was for the salary retention by Detroit.

If Vancouver or Edmonton offered that deal right now, 1st and a 4th for DeBrusk with the Bruins retaining 50%, without having anything else lined up, would you do it?
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,670
Gallows Hill
I think they could probably get a first for him. Not sure beyond that, typically rentals don't bring back impact prospects.

I'm using the Bertuzzi deal as the comp, 1st and a 4th. We'll say the 4th was for the salary retention by Detroit.

If Vancouver or Edmonton offered that deal right now, 1st and a 4th for DeBrusk with the Bruins retaining 50%, without having anything else lined up, would you do it?
Right now, I wouldn’t do it because of the message that it sends to the room. If they go something like 2-1-2 in the last five before the deadline and neither of those wins are in regulation, then I’m doing it. Players have no right to bitch, and should expect the GM to sell when you win 1 out of 16 between the all star break and the trade deadline.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
Yeah I’m in on that If the 1st is this year.
I do too. I don't think I'm going to extend him and I think gaining the future assets outweighs the on-ice loss for the rest of the year.

That said, it'd be a very strict departure from how this front office has operated.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,670
Gallows Hill
I do too. I don't think I'm going to extend him and I think gaining the future assets outweighs the on-ice loss for the rest of the year.

That said, it'd be a very strict departure from how this front office has operated.
I don’t think of it as 5 games. I’m looking at it as, are they in a tailspin since the break, and now they should sell for futures, or was this a slump and they’re coming out of it, so the FO shouldn’t give up on them yet.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
I don’t think of it as 5 games. I’m looking at it as, are they in a tailspin since the break, and now they should sell for futures, or was this a slump and they’re coming out of it, so the FO shouldn’t give up on them yet.
I guess I'm asking if trading DeBrusk is really a white flag. I think the room is strong enough that they understand the business side of things. They've been buyers for 8-years running. Also it wouldn't necessarily preclude them from trading for a cheaper replacement for the stretch run and playoffs. Like if they flip DeBrusk for a 1st+ and then move a 3rd or lower rated prospect for, say, Tarasenko is that much of a downgrade?
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,176
Tuukka's refugee camp
The key is what's the second move. If they do something like the above, I'd be fine with it. If they just send out DeBrusk, while it may make sense form an asset management perspective, it's killer from a team morale perspective.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,636
I guess I'm asking if trading DeBrusk is really a white flag. I think the room is strong enough that they understand the business side of things. They've been buyers for 8-years running. Also it wouldn't necessarily preclude them from trading for a cheaper replacement for the stretch run and playoffs. Like if they flip DeBrusk for a 1st+ and then move a 3rd or lower rated prospect for, say, Tarasenko is that much of a downgrade?
There's also the chance that the consensus among team leaders is "here we go again, Jake has an uncertain future and it's hurting his game..."
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,350
Between here and everywhere.
The key is what's the second move. If they do something like the above, I'd be fine with it. If they just send out DeBrusk, while it may make sense form an asset management perspective, it's killer from a team morale perspective.
Ullmark for Dawson Mercer.
DeBrusk for picks/propsects.

That's my dream.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
7,171
Concord
There's also the chance that the consensus among team leaders is "here we go again, Jake has an uncertain future and it's hurting his game..."
Yeah, I didn't love that quote upthread from him. I'm in no way judging him as a human, there is no right way to deal with life changing stuff like the trade deadline approaching knowing you might have to uproot your life with little to no control where. I just wonder if in a market like Boston that has a microscope on you at all times is right for a guy like him. Contract aside, I genuinely like having the guy playing for the B's, but I also worry if he makes it through the deadline he will then stress about his next contract that the team most likely won't make/match, hurting his play. I think Freddy can fairly easily fill into his spot too
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,636
FWIW, Grzelyck also said he has deadline anxiety.

(also they haven't had an extension discussions)

https://theathletic.com/5306824/2024/02/29/bruins-matt-grzelcyk-nhl-trade-deadline/
Echoing MortReport's non-judging of the player as a human being, I suspect that *every* player facing a real chance of being moved has negative thoughts taking root. Anyone would. Pro athlete or not.
He was hurt, and I didn't watch enough of the west coast games to get a good read, but has Grzelcyk's game been off as well?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
Grzelyck has been off all year. I might even go as far to say he's been bad.

Edit: For more context he's traditionally been a shot supressor but this year he's giving up almost 10 more shot attempts against per 60 minutes than he did a year ago, and almost 20 more than 2-years ago. His xGA/60 is also about half a goal higher compared to a year ago (2.93 to 2.46).
 

ColdSoxPack

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
2,473
Simi Valley, CA
What do our hockey experts DeBrusk will earn with a new contract? And is he worth it?

P.S. Currently 4 million. Not worth it.
 
Last edited:

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,670
Gallows Hill
What do our hockey experts DeBrusk will earn with a new contract? And is he worth it?

P.S. Currently 4 million. Not worth it.
I would have to look at some comps but off the top of my head, 5 years at $5.5 million. And no i wouldn’t do that. But someone will given the first round pedigree and the fact that he has scored 20+ goals in the league more than once.
 

GruberTaggedHim

New Member
Oct 5, 2021
107
Steep price to pay for Lyubushkin, but Leafs are running out of defencemen. Mitch Marner wound up playing defence for half of the game last night.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
Steep price to pay for Lyubushkin, but Leafs are running out of defencemen. Mitch Marner wound up playing defence for half of the game last night.
I thought it was a strange trade. The Leafs were rumored to be after Tanev so I get their desire for Lyubushkin, a righty defensive defenseman, but the quick pivot was odd. Lyubushkin has a history in Toronto so they are familiar with him but he's also not very good. The 3rd and a 6th isn't a ton but it's also not nothing and the Leafs, like all the other contenders, have a dearth of assets. Feels more like a last second type move instead of something to prioritize a week prior to the deadline.
 

GruberTaggedHim

New Member
Oct 5, 2021
107
I thought it was a strange trade. The Leafs were rumored to be after Tanev so I get their desire for Lyubushkin, a righty defensive defenseman, but the quick pivot was odd. Lyubushkin has a history in Toronto so they are familiar with him but he's also not very good. The 3rd and a 6th isn't a ton but it's also not nothing and the Leafs, like all the other contenders, have a dearth of assets. Feels more like a last second type move instead of something to prioritize a week prior to the deadline.
Having Giordano go down early in the game with what I suspect is a significant head injury forced their hands I think. Not that he's been overly great either, but he's a reasonably competent d-man. Dearth of assets is an understatement. Leafs have no picks in 2025 until the 5th round I think..
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,670
Gallows Hill
On Saturday's HNIC broadcast, Friedman reported that Hanifin's preferred destination is Tampa Bay.
Friedman has been on this for awhile. I heard him on NHL radio a couple weeks ago saying Hanifin likes the idea of no state tax on his new contract. So the Bruins gotta outbid them by 5% if they want him.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
Friedman has been on this for awhile. I heard him on NHL radio a couple weeks ago saying Hanifin likes the idea of no state tax on his new contract. So the Bruins gotta outbid them by 5% if they want him.
That assumes he's a free agent. Friedman and others have also said many times that Hanifin would extend in Boston so I don't think it's Tampa or bust, Tampa just appears to be his choice if he had it.

Theoretically, the Bruins just need to outbid Tampa in trade assets (not hard to do) and get him on the roster. Then the 8th year then changes a lot of the economics.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
I haven't listened to today's 32 Thoughs pod yet but here's Friedman's blurb on the Bruins in written 32 Thoughts. I suspect the pod will basically say the same thing:

29. Boston Bruins:
The phrase “hockey deals” has been thrown around with the Bruins. They don’t have much high-end draft capital, but they do have players. So it makes sense that if they’re going to make changes, it will involve their NHL roster or those close to it. The reason you’re hearing Linus Ullmark’s name is the calendar will force Boston to make a decision. They’ve begun discussing an extension with Jeremy Swayman and Brandon Bussi soon requires waivers. Something’s going to have to give.

Like several other teams considering moving a goalie, the Bruins have to decide when is the optimal time to do it. All of a sudden, Fleury and Saros are off the market, and Markstrom’s future is uncertain. So, if someone craves a netminder now, Boston’s in a position to deliver. There are two flaws to this, however. First, the Swayman/Ullmark combo gives the Bruins their best chance to win right now, and second, Ullmark has some control over this. If it involves a team he can say no to, he’s earned the right to block.
They’ve contacted Calgary about Hanifin, but I’m not sure where that stands beyond the Lightning. They’re definitely testing the market on some roster players. It’s hard to predict where this ends up, but there’s possibility of a bigger hockey trade or something as simple as added depth for the postseason.
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,350
Between here and everywhere.
Eh.

The return for Lindholm will probably be as good or better as we’re closer to the deadline now and teams may be more desperate.

May not be efficient, but I don’t see it as that bad of a use of assets.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
Would probably need. 3rd or 4th team. Lindholm makes $4.85 million. Calgary did not retain. Presumably they are moving Lindholm to fit in Guentzel ($6 million). Assuming Vancouver isn’t retaining the Bruins would need to clear ~$4 million in cap space.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
The Devils are the team that appears to be most aggressive looking for a goalie. Markstrom appears to be their preference but there's been some wondering if they pivot to Ullmark.

They supposedly had a deal agreed to with Calgary for Markstrom. It at least got to the point where Calgary asked Markstrom if he would waive his NMC for New Jersey and he agreed. Then it broke down, apparently over retention by Calgary (ownership may have kiled it). Calgary then decided to keep Markstrom but now Markstrom is grumpy so it may be back on.

New Jersey is somewhat interesting as an Ullmark destination because they have the cap space to take Ullmark without sending a contract back (Hamilton's LTIR) and they have some interesting futures. Also, they were only 15% to make the playoffs this season (this before they lost in regulation last night) so it's unlikely that the Bruins would run into Ullmark in the postseason.

View: https://twitter.com/PierreVLeBrun/status/1765382523079524657?s=20
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,267
306, row 14
Edmonton trade being reported as:

Edmonton gets: Henrique and Carrick
Anaheim gets: 2024 1st and conditional 2024 5th (can improve to a 4th if Edmonton wins Cup)

Don't think this works cap wise so need to wait for the retention/laundering piece

The Colorado Philly trade is being reported as:

Colorado gets: Sean Walker
Philly gets: 2025 1st, Ryan Johansen (to be waived)
 

Sandwich Pick

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2017
714
Johansen bring waived makes sense. I know it was 8 years ago but he butted heads with Torts in Columbus.