SB Nation Boston Editor's Pick

Murph: Bruins in on Bieksa

by Phunwin on Aug 18, 2010 9:22 AM EDT

Per this Tweet. Kevin Bieksa is, apparently, Boston's latest and greatest attempt to add some talent on the blue line, following failed attempts to get Dan Hamhuis and (apparently) Tomas Kaberle. Bieksa seems like a poor man's Kaberle: he's offensively gifted, but doesn't bring as much to the party as Kaberle, nor is he quite as good in his own end. (If you're wondering: Kaberle is a homeless man's Steve Duchesne.) I think Bieksa has also benefited quite a bit from being paired with Willie Mitchell. Still, he would upgrade the defensive corps, presumably with either Mark Stuart or Johnny Boychuk in the second pair.

Got to say, this deal seems like a bit of a longshot, but what the hell, there's nothing else to talk about right now.

The Canucks, like the Bruins, are pressed against the cap. Murph says that the Canucks had interest in Michael Ryder back when he was a free agent, and I have to think the Bruins would leap at the chance to unload Ryder for Bieksa, but that seems like a pretty light return for the Canucks, not to mention doing nothing whatever to help their salary cap situation (in fact, it would make it marginally worse, since Ryder makes $4M and Bieksa $3.75M). The Bruins have enough organizational depth to send back a prospect as a sweetener in such a deal, or for that matter, they could offer a prospect for Bieksa straight up and bury Ryder in the minors and Marco Sturm on LTIR. Maybe Matt Hunwick and the suddenly buried Zach Hamill for Bieksa? That would get the Canucks under the salary cap, and give them a prospect for their trouble.

And this is surely a pipe dream, but an Andrew Ference for Bieksa swap would give the Canucks a crucial $1.5M in short-term cap relief. Of course, it would come at the expense of their long term cap, and Ference isn't close to being as good as Bieksa. Again, a prospect or draft pick might make that deal palatable, but it's hard to imagine that they couldn't get a better return elsewhere.

All in all, it just doesn't seem like there's a fit here, but who knows, maybe the Canucks will take 50 cents on the dollar to get some cap relief.

Many FanPosts are written by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Stanley Cup of Chowder, SB Nation, their sponsors, or business partners.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Boston Bruins, Vancouver Canucks

Comments

WHO'S READY FOR SOME STAT TABLES?

oh boy oh boy oh boy is it me? is it me? YES IT IS!

So I threw the Bruins defensemen and Kaberle and Bieksa into a little table, stolen from BehindTheNet.ca, and sorted it a couple ways, by defensive GVT, offensive GVT, and total.

Here’s the list, sorted Defensively:

Bieksa compares pretty poorly against the rest of the Boston defense (and Kaberle) based on last year. Slightly less than Hunwick in that category and we all know Hunwick wasn’t exactly a defensive stalwart.

Here is the list, sorted Offensively:

Bieksa looks good on that list….right up there with Derek Morris and Dennis Wideman. Seidenberg’s is a lot lower, but remember that he only had 17 games to get that 1.8, not the 55 or more of everyone above him on the list. GVT is a counting stat, not per game.

And finally, just for kicks, sorted by total GVT:

Zdeno Chara owns, we all know that. Bieksa is an upgrade over Mark “Old Battleship Chin/American Hero” Stuart, overall. However most hockey stats favor offense and you can see above that Stuart is better in his own end.

All in all our defense sucked pretty bad offensively last year so Bieksa would probably be an upgrade, even if it doesn’t offer anything in the way of cap relief or getting more/better wingers.

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 18, 2010 10:04 AM EDT reply actions

I don’t need hockey version of sabermetrics to known that Ference is worthless, but it helps my case.

Stanley Cup of Chowder: A Hearty Helping of Hockey in The Hub

by Stanley Cup of Chowder on Aug 18, 2010 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions

How about to tell you Wideman was better defensively than Stuart last year?

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 19, 2010 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Actually, the difference was statistically insignificant. If you equalize for games played, assuming an 82 game season, Stuart comes out at 3.7 and Wideman at 3.9. But point taken.

I would, however, be interested to see a month-by-month breakdown of Wideman’s numbers, because I would wager that the last couple weeks of the season buttressed his stats significantly. I can’t fathom the possibility that he was a valuable player between Thanksgiving and St. Patrick’s Day.

by Phunwin on Aug 19, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, absolutely not. He was our leading scorer in the playoffs, though.

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 19, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions

dont say shit like that… it gives me chills

by BlueNGoldBomber on Aug 19, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, I know. That’s the one thing that gave me a moment of pause with the Horton deal. What if Wideman just had a prolonged slump, and is much closer to the player of 2008-9 than he looked last year? If that’s the case, that deal suddenly looks much, much less rosy.

by Phunwin on Aug 20, 2010 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions

He definitely was on an upswing. I wouldn’t mind if he plays well in Florida – lord knows they need the help and Wideman got a pretty raw deal from fans in Boston. He definitely had a prolonged slump but he was on an upswing when we traded him. Whatever, it’s done and we sold high and now we’ve got Nathan “Cro-Magnon” Horton.

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 20, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions

agreed, i fully see wides having a bounce back year. i dont think he can handle being a big time player in a big time market. he will bounce back, but that being said, in the end i still think we win this trade

by BlueNGoldBomber on Aug 20, 2010 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Could be win-win-win for all parties. The panthers get a good offensive d-man, Wideman doesn’t have to deal with getting booed in his own building by 15,000 drunken idiots, and we get Horton. As long as Horton’s still good the rest is gravy.

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 21, 2010 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions

i kind of get the vibe that horton suffers from randy moss syndrome… he gets a bad rep, but i feel like once he is on a squad that actually gives a damn and can win some hockey games, he is going to be way happier than he was in florida

by BlueNGoldBomber on Aug 21, 2010 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions

I think you’ve got a point there. I kept hearing how Horton didn’t give a damn and such, and yet, he was one of the Panthers’ leaders in plus minus, which suggests that, at a minimum, he was doing at least some good work on defense.

I really hope that Savard stays and Horton’s on his line. 40 goals wouldn’t be unreasonable, given that combo.

by Phunwin on Aug 22, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I think some of the bad press comes to help explain the trade. For example, the complaints about Kessel were less under the microscope while he was in Boston prior to him holding out/traded to Toronto.

That being said, Horton brought up some good points during a post-trade interview where he said he found it difficult situation in Florida having 5 different coaches in 7 years. This might explain him not living up to his potential if every year he had to play differently or get mixed signals from coaches.

by BruinsSelectSeguin on Aug 22, 2010 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

My mouth just started watering!

40 goals wouldn’t be unreasonable, given that combo.

by SkateHitShoot on Aug 22, 2010 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions

this table does not compute...

Dennis Wideman should be at the bottom. Any statistics that are based on ice time… I can think of many things much better to rate a player on. For example, if you play Chara on the fourth line or put him on the third defensive pairing, do you think those stats would be as gaudy?

Where are the block shots(blocked opportunities)? Where are the hits(creates ice space, plays the man)?

This table doesn’t account for games played properly. If someone plays less than 25% of the season, where’s the value?

by Nedflthngs on Sep 12, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

GVT isn’t great to measure defense. Tom Awad has said so himself.

If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want craziness, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want humor, go to Battle of California.If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog (now featuring two Penguins fans as co-authors) and Twitter.

by red army line on Aug 21, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Got a better metric?

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 21, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

GVT and the eye test. To a team building a d-corps from scratch it doesn’t matter how you play defense, but if you’re looking for someone to do the heavy lifting, for example, it does matter.

For example, in 2008-2009 Mike Green led the league in DGVT. I think that speaks for itself.

by red army line on Aug 21, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

hahahahahahahaha how’d he manage that?

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 21, 2010 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions

He was really aggressive offensively and had the puck on his stick a lot, and if it wasn’t on his stick it was on Sergei Fedorov’s, or Alex Ovechkin’s, or Nicklas Backstrom’s, or Viktor Kozlov’s, or Alexander Semin’s. This season he became less of a puck-rushing defensemen.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the winger that has now terrorized over 70 NHL goalies.

by red army line on Aug 28, 2010 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

You’re 100% right on all counts. Alas, we must use the tools we have.

by Phunwin on Aug 22, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Not Sabrmetrics...

"That place was for diehard sports fans. I only follow my team when they're in the playoffs" - Homer Simpson
Join the Lacrosse community The Lacrosse Blog

by bestbostonsports on Aug 19, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, I know that. That’s just what I call advanced hockey stats.

Stanley Cup of Chowder: A Hearty Helping of Hockey in The Hub

by Stanley Cup of Chowder on Aug 23, 2010 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Here are Bieksa’s career numbers (sorry if this looks clunky)

GGVT DGVT GVT
-0.9 1.3 0.4 – 2005-6
5.4 6.6 11.7 – 2006-7
0.4 0.7 1.1 – 2007-8
7.2 2.9 9.8 – 2008-9
2.5 1.2 3.8 – 2009-10

In 2005-6 and 2007-8, he played less than half the season. In 2006-7, he played 72 games, and in 2008-9, 81. For reference, last year, he played 55. So, okay, he’s injury-prone. That’s not great. But when healthy, those numbers are very impressive.

by Phunwin on Aug 18, 2010 11:08 AM EDT reply actions

and where would we get the cap space to sign him?

"That place was for diehard sports fans. I only follow my team when they're in the playoffs" - Homer Simpson
Join the Lacrosse community The Lacrosse Blog

by bestbostonsports on Aug 18, 2010 11:36 AM EDT reply actions

Depends on who goes the other way. Obviously, sending Ryder back would make it easy, though I doubt the Nucks would be interested. The fact that Ryder can be exiled to Providence, and Sturm stashed on LTIR gives Boston a bit of flexibility.

I, for one, would LOVE to see a situation where they sent Ference out as part of the deal. And while I think that’s unlikely, it depends on exactly how desperate the Nucks are for cap space this year. Trading for Ference to save money on this year’s cap (again, $1.5M, which is just short of what they need to make the cap) is a great example of robbing Peter to pay Paul, yet if they’re desperate enough, and the other pieces of the deal were appealing enough, maybe they’d do it.

by Phunwin on Aug 18, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Superman Punch!!1!!eleven!

Bieksa would be a key component in the Bruins’ War on Mike Richards.

by Arenacale on Aug 18, 2010 12:15 PM EDT reply actions

That punch was sweet. Give Richards some credit, though, he hung in there pretty well.

by Phunwin on Aug 18, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Personally, I’m satisfied with the Bruins defence as it stands. What I want to see is what kind of offense we’ll have.

by BruinsSelectSeguin on Aug 19, 2010 7:16 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

If they dont do something stupid (you know what I am talking about), they could be amuch better offensive team

2010 Red Sox Playoffs.... We Can Do It!
"That place was for diehard sports fans. I only follow my team when they're in the playoffs" - Homer Simpson
Join the Lacrosse community The Lacrosse Blog

by bestbostonsports on Aug 22, 2010 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions

I’m pretty sure Bieksa is better defensively than Kaberle, as least in a “pure” sense.

Also, I don’t think the Canucks want offense, unless it’s a solid two-way player. They have an excess of D, and their offense was #2 (it should regress since guys like Samuelsson had high sh%, but still, it shouldn’t regress all that much), and of course they’re set in goal. I bet they want a pick or a prospect.

by red army line on Aug 21, 2010 2:13 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, cap relief and a prospect. That’s what I sort of figured they’d be looking for. As I said, my hopes that we could pawn off Ference on them were more pipe dream than serious suggestion.

by Phunwin on Aug 22, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions