Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How The Kings Beat The Coyotes: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Beyond the Numbers: Is the Krejci Deal a Smart One for the Bruins?


Yesterday it was announced that the Boston Bruins have come to terms with center David Krejci on a new 3 year deal that will carry an average cap hit of 5.25 per season beginning next season. The news has many fans rejoicing as the lack of news on the subjects over the past few months left many question marks. Did the Bruins see their point leader from the season before as still part of it's core going forward? Was what Krejci asking for above and beyond what he's proven he's worth? Did management believe that Seguin would be moving into that top line center slot sooner rather than later? Was Krejci expendable, especially with rumors that a certain Anaheim Duck might be available in a swap?

Star-divide

The news essentially squashed these questions. Krejci will be signed for another three seasons after this current one and will be paid comparably to Patrice Bergeron and along with that, be given a certain level of security in terms of staying in Boston as after next season an NMC will kick in and limit the Bruins options in trading him to six teams. At first glance the deal is reasonable and close to expectations. The question is though, is it the right deal for the Bruins to be making at this point?

To start, let's look at the comparable players: In Montreal we have likely the closest comparison in Tomas Plekanec. Plekanec's deal is similar to Krejci's in dollars but was originally twice as long. Since signing the deal he's become the main pivot for the Habs and has put up similar numbers in the regular season. Both have failed to make the jump to the point per game level in a season but make up for it by playing well in the other two zones.

Also in the five million dollar range, two Selke favorites, Patrice Bergeron and Ryan Kesler. Neither plays the same game as Krejci but both are equally effective offensively and are strong in the defensive and neutral zones. Additionally, both are more of the rugged North American build and thus less susceptible to nagging injuries that come with the wear and tear of an 82 game season + playoffs. Most notably about these players is that both are considered more reliable or rather, less streaky. Their contracts in comparison to Krejci's are
both less though Bergeron's was signed before last season and the cup run while Kesler's was signed with a much longer term (six years like Plekanec).

Looking beyond centers we find 3 wings who fall in the price range and have shown greater offensive upside: Bobby Ryan, Martin St Louis and of course, Phil Kessel. While Kessel would not likely be welcomed back in Boston and has large holes in his game (that he is working on) and St Louis is going towards the tail end of his career, Bobby Ryan is similar in age and offensive contributions. Ryan is a goal scoring wing who has potted 30+ in the past three seasons. He's strong, fast and epitomizes the wing Bruins fans have prayed for over the past decade.

Drop a price range and four names come up: Simon Gagne, Dustin Brown, Claude Giroux and Ales Hemsky. While two of these guys have had injury issues over the past seasons, both have proven they can contribute,
especially Gagne who has done so as well in the playoffs (as Bruins fans remember). Brown, while not as offensively gifted, brings a power forward's game to the ice, is a leader, and a key cog on the Kings. Giroux at 23 is the most impressive of this bunch and just signed a three year deal at 3.75 (Krejci's current deal). While he's young, his numbers this season are nothing to scoff at and in his 40 game playoff career he's put up 38 points while shining enough for the Flyers to pass the offensive reins over to him this season.

So from these comparisons what do we find? That Krejci is not necessarily overpaid but that there are a number of contracts that might have been better comparisons. The fact that he did help win the cup this past season though is something that most guys on this list can't boast of (or at least couldn't when resigned) and thus sets him apart. The question is though, has he, or rather can he, be consistent enough to warrant the value placed on him?

Beyond the simple comparison numbers game, the timing of this deal is rather questionable. While GM Peter Chiarelli is known for getting his contracts done early, Krejci's seemed to linger, likely due to discrepancies in dollar value. During this lingering window a number of things have unfolded:
1. Tyler Seguin has emerged as the top offensive presence on this team
2. David Krejci's offensive contributions have been lacking (with numbers leaving him 9th on the team in points and one of only three negative players)
3. A number of players have been shopped around the league by teams looking to add 1st/2nd line centers to their roster

These three events opened up the questions originally asked in this article:

Is David Krejci expected to be a core component of this team going forward when Tyler Seguin is making significant strides in his sophomore season and with Patrice Bergeron already signed (and to add to that, two guys capable of playing center in Chris Kelly and Rich Peverley contributing as they have)? If he's going to play second fiddle to Seguin offensively and if it's in the best interest of the club to have Seguin move to center, then why pay him 5.25, a value given usually to key components of a team and along with that, an NMC?

While the NMC doesn't technically kick in until the 13-14 season, it's hard to believe that the Bruins will move Krejci before then. As he's just signed this deal if they were to move him before the season end the backlash of the move would be significant. Players looking at Boston for their new home could become wary as the perceived stability would be minimal. More importantly, guys currently on the team looking to stay would be less inclined to take 'hometown discounts' and instead elect to make sure they got what they could as the chance they could end up elsewhere would be in the front of their heads.

Trading Krejci next season would also be unlikely. A trade during that time frame would likely indicate that the Bruins had a log jam that needed clearing and potentially, a salary cap issue looming over them requiring resolution. In such a situation they would be trading as the underhanded team and the value they would receive in return would be much less than what they could potentially receive at this point in time (unless of course Krejci turned into a point a game player but at that point, it would not be him leaving the team most
likely). Anything beyond next season would then be limited by the NMC which would make things even worse.

So with that said, the timing of this deal is rather suspect. Krejci has been behind in play this season, the uncertainty around him being a key core player is in the air, and by signing him now, the Bruins have made it extremely difficult in potentially moving him (if the need is to arise). His status as an RFA makes it so that even if they did go to the off season without resigning him he couldn't simply just walk away and sign elsewhere. Of course the threat of an offer sheet is always there but at his current price the cost to the prospective team would be a 1st, 2nd and 3rd (certainly worth it). The Bruins could match the offer and likely offer additional years or considerations to make it easier for David to stay than go. So there hasn't necessarily been the need to have this deal done unless of course you're Peter Chiarelli and are thinking that it's too much of a weight on David's shoulders and getting it done means he'll finally start producing consistently like he did Wednesday against the Leafs.

The troubling aspect of this is the potential issues this sets up over the next few seasons. Specifically, how will Chiarelli handle the negotiations of Milan Lucic and Tyler Seguin? Both have performed to a higher level than Krejci, could be considered more important to this team in coming seasons and could potentially go into the negotiations performing better than David Krejci (or at least let's hope so). At what ceiling can their requests be stayed? Will the need to be the highest paid guys on the team (or at least highest paid forwards) play into the talks and if so, will it result in either the forming of a top heavy team or a change in what the front lines of the team looks like?

If Krejci's numbers were held at 4.5 million then future talks would be simple: we're a team, all the guys that want to be here can be here and we'll get paid fairly well while doing really well. If he was stayed at 5 million then it still would be easy- we have a value we give to our top centers and leaders on this team while our upper tier guys are given slightly less and we still end up with enough to have depth. Giving Krejci more than other forwards though may or may not play out into other scenarios that lead to inflations in contracts. On the other hand it could easily be that increases in cap space will dictate that depending on when you sign a level of inflation will be taken into account and what you get is close and essentially comparable.

In any case we'll be left to wonder what if's as outsiders viewing this transaction. Could the Bruins have done better in the long run by packaging Krejci with prospects and maybe a defenseman to make a run at Ryan? Would it have been better off accepting an offer sheet for Krejci and then giving his money (and a bit more) to land that American Hero of a wing playing just south of Boston? Could Seguin slide into that #1 center role here and now and allow Krejci's money and value to be used to solidify our defensive corps that many find
shaky for another playoff run? We may never know the answers to these as Krejci is almost certainly here for the rest of this season and the following three, but for now, they'll be stuck in the minds of many.

At the end of the day though, even with these questions it's hard to say this wasn't the smartest move to make. Krejci is what this team knows and they've proven they can win with him here. The money and
terms aren't horrible and while we may have to make concessions in the future the more important thing to focus on at this point is the present and the present looks great. The team just came out of a November for the history books, we have depth up front, solid defense and what is likely the best goalie in the game (along with a not too shabby backup). The question marks are ones the team can take and worry about later on. For now they can once again focus on what's truly important- repeating last spring's miracle run.

Comment 67 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

you, uh…you have a little formatting trouble there, champ?

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 2, 2011 11:04 AM EST reply actions  

yeah, i’m fixing it now.

Link ninja/occasional writer of useful things at Stanley Cup of Chowder
Coverin' the bb B's at Something's Bruin
Watch me yell about stuff on the twitters
(also: Let's Go Bluuuuuuuues!)

by sarahconnors on Dec 2, 2011 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

it’s okay

it happens to everyone sometimes

nothing to be ashamed about

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 2, 2011 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

all set!

Link ninja/occasional writer of useful things at Stanley Cup of Chowder
Coverin' the bb B's at Something's Bruin
Watch me yell about stuff on the twitters
(also: Let's Go Bluuuuuuuues!)

by sarahconnors on Dec 2, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

refreshed. much better

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 2, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

Mentioned this before, limiited NTC meaning 6 teams he can’t be traded to, not only 6 teams he can be traded to.

He’s been a top 5 ES center in terms of P/60 in 2 of the last 3 years. That’s top 5 in the league.

He’s been a near-elite playoff scorer on a team likely to make the playoffs every year of the extension.

I actually think the timing of the move is brilliant. My thought is that Krejci was looking for something along the lines of $5.5-6m at 4/5 years this summer, coming off his playoff campaign. Chiarelli (rightfully so) balked at those numbers, and let the discussion continue into the season (unlike Chara and Bergeron). Once the Anaheim rumors came out, my guess is that Krejci, not wanting to move from Boston, decided to come to a more favorable contract. His slow start probably helped that. In my mind, Chiarelli bought low on a tremendously valuable asset to this team.

Don’t see anything wrong with Seguin either playing the role of elite wing with less defensive responsibility having Bergeron as his center, or going 3 centers deep as we start to break in young wingers in Caron, Knight, Koko (and also possibly Spooner).

by Michael Taylor on Dec 2, 2011 11:16 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

yeah but he’s not so great on the PP

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 2, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

this team has collectively sucked on the PP, not sure his production can be pinned on him alone. Regardless, if he produces exceedingly well 5on5, what does it matter?

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 11:24 AM EST up reply actions  

if I’m going to be successfully a grumpy gus about it I need to find something

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 2, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions  

hear hear

Given the market, 4.5m is not a realistic offer for a center of Krejci’s stats if the contract term remains short. Chiarelli could have bargained for a marginally lower cap hit if he’d locked the team into a long deal, but that ties him to the team core in the long run.

I don’t understand all the hand wringing about .75k in perceived overpayment

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 11:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Especially when you consider the contracts signed during this past summer’s free agent frenzy. Sheesh.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I’ll just leave you with 2 points mike:

1. Was Krejci’s performance away from Boston (so essentially outside of the blowouts against Vancouver and Philly) spectacular enough in the playoffs for you to consider him a consistent playoff performer? I went back through game by game last night and while he did put up a number of points, his performance in the Montreal series and then playing in Vancouver left some gaping holes. Is he truly capable of being the offensive powerhouse that can carry a team in the playoffs? I’ve seen guys like Danny Briere do it, I’m not sure if I’m thoroughly convinced Krejci has (though he’s given it a good go when he has produced)

2. Are you convinced he can be a power play contributor? I think 5 on 3 he’s fantastic but 5 on 4 the slowing down of the game seems to hinder things. If you’re going to have him be your number 1 guy, shouldn’t he be able to contribute there?

I have a hard time based on these points in believing that we bought low for an RFA. I think we bought at market which isn’t a bad thing. But timing wise, it still makes me think it may not have been the best possible move (but still a decent one at worst).

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

1. Absolutely. I don’t even see how it’s questionable. First, his assist against Tampa was potentially THE biggest offensive play in the latter rounds. Against Vancouver, two of his pointless games were the shutouts, so it wasn’t like those were close games in which everyone produced but he failed to, and I disagree with the notion of sweeping aside his performance against Philly just because it was a sweep, lest we forget what happened the season before. If anything, given how the other series went, the Bruins NEEDED the sweep against Philly since they got extended to 7 in the others. I’d have been curious to see how Chara/Seids would have held up had they logged extra games.

2. No, I don’t think he ever becomes a 5 on 4 producer, but what I think that frees them up to start doing (I hope anyway) is putting guys like Seguin and Peverley out there for extra PP time, and let Krejci soak up some of the extra ES minutes. His game is just not conducive to 5 on 4, as strange as that might seem.

by Michael Taylor on Dec 2, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn’t mean to sweep aside the Philly performance- rather highlight it in looking at the idea of elite scoring in the playoffs. If you only really dominate offensively in a single series then are you an offensively dominant player? I don’t mean to take anything away from him and the playoff run- I agree that the game 7 assist was likely the biggest point in the entire run outside of Bergy’s game 7 goal.

But answer me this, when the team is down in the 3rd in a playoff game do you believe Krejci is the guy that will always be the one to shoulder the burden and get them out of the hole? Has he proven that and going forward do you believe he’ll certainly be the one to do so over Seguin/Lucic/Bergeron/Marchand? If the answer is no then do you pay him more than those guys and if so, how do you justify it (especially if he’s not also the catalyst on your PP)?

PS- You know I hate the comparisons with the prior year’s series vs Philly. There’s no way to say that with David we win, without him we lose and that this team essentially rides on his success. David was in that year the straw that broke the camel’s back, not the camel’s back itself.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 12:52 PM EST up reply actions  

There haven’t been many playoff series in his career that he hasn’t put up a ppg or slightly less, and what I really like is the fact that his last two playoff season, his goal scoring has come alive.

by Michael Taylor on Dec 2, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Montreal series: 0 goals 1 assist -2

A full 7 game series where he fails to produce. Can you have a guy that you look to as your offensive leader perform like that? It’s a matter of consistency and being able to play against a variety of looks. I think he has it in him to do well but there are still glaring holes

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions  

If the guy that leads the playoffs in scoring isn’t considered a dominant offensive player, then is there such a thing?

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Look at PPG rather than points leader in the playoffs. That’s a stat that is a bit misleading. Also since it’s a small sample size, look at the instances where scoring occurs, it’s impact, who’s it against, etc. Just going off that 1 note doesn’t tell the whole story.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 1:24 PM EST up reply actions  

If you’re going to go by ppg, then you should probably go by points per 60 so that you’re accounting for different levels of ice time.

Here, again, Krejci comes up high – 11th in the NHL in points per 60 minutes in playoffs.

I also fail to see any relevance at all as to “where scoring occurs, it’s impact, who’s it against, etc.”

First, I disagree with the premise that scoring at different times actually matters and is something a player can control. But even if it were, we’re talking playoff scoring here on a team that went 7 games in three series. How do you get any more important than that. And if you think Philly’s series can be dismissed because it was a sweep … must I point you to the last time that Bruins had a 3-0 series lead against a team from Philly and the importance of scoring in the 4th game of such a series?

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 1:38 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

And if you think Philly’s series can be dismissed because it was a sweep … must I point you to the last time that Bruins had a 3-0 series lead against a team from Philly and the importance of scoring in the 4th game of such a series?

Score one for the Bourquester.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Who it’s against isn’t important? You’re then discounting the value of the competition and the ability to score against them. Tell me this, is scoring against Luongo the same as scoring against a high school goalie? If it isn’t then how is the difficulty of competition not included (and why do people bother coming up with stats that include it if it’s not relevant)?

And if we’re going to bring up the Philly series where we had the big let down are we also going to point out the other injuries and that we actually had 1 NHL center playing unconcussed when we lost 4 straight? Or are we going to again ignore level of competition?

In the end I guess that’s the great thing about stats- you can make them tell any story you’d like. You should thank god for that.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

is scoring against Luongo the same as scoring against a high school goalie?

Depends? Is it a Boston home game?

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I never said which was more difficult to score against.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

In the end I guess that’s the great thing about stats- you can make them tell any story you’d like. You should thank god for that.

Really … you’re going to go on a sarcastic comment like that when you haven’t brought up Corsi / Fenwick, shooting percentages, or comparisons with other players at all?

Tell me this, is scoring against Luongo the same as scoring against a high school goalie?

I wasn’t aware the Bruins had a schedule that included high school teams. However, they do track quality of competition and … lo and behold, Krejci was on the ice against tougher than average competition throughout the playoffs. You can check behindthenet.ca to verify it.

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Of course I’ll drop a sarcastic comment like that when you fail to recognize quality of competition in your arguments and then drag up stats for to wave around like a gold medal.

Let’s take a look then:

P/60: Krejci ranks 26th (4th on Bruins)
On Ice goals for/60: 68th (15th on Bruins)
Rel Corsi to QoC: 13th on Bruins

Looking at the goals scored you find Krejci with a single point when up against their toughest goaltender in the playoffs (Price)- something not seen in the stats there sadly (as I pointed out as a reason why you should look at the individual performances and quality of competition…). You find him putting up solid numbers against Philadelphia who only this year decided that the equivalent of high school goaltenders didn’t work. When matched against Vancouver he only puts up a single point on the road.

I’m not saying all of this to discredit the guys work- without his assist in game 7 of the Tampa series we’re not in the finals. Without his work against Philly it might have been a longer series and could have been costly later on. What I am saying though is that the numbers and what we actually see on the ice hasn’t proven he is a go to guy, the one that will win you the big games. If that’s the case, then is this the smartest move right now?

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I like the fact that you just presented evidence that it’s a good deal. Thank you. By the very worst metric that you listed, Krejci is 68th. If you want to average things … he’s 36th. His cap hit next year, without including any of the signings that are coming up, is currently 60th in the NHL. Add in the free agent signees and all you’ll see is it drop further down the list.

So, it seems to me like what you’re saying is it’s a reasonable contract. Glad we agree. Since it also has minimal restriction on his movement, that to me means that it’s the smartest move right now.

I can’t see how you can reasonable do anything but agree, so I’m glad we’ve both come to the same conclusion.

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

1. Please go read the original article and my comments. I have not said the deal itself is bad- I have said that if it were a great deal that needed to be signed now that things don’t add up but that the number value given is roughly market value.

2. With point 1 given, there are a number of other reasons as to why it might not have made sense or been the best move to make at this point in time. Again, I’ll encourage you to read the original article as beyond the player comparisons, the long term impact of the deal is highlighted.

If in fact you do read the entire article, the stats I’ve pointed out in my previous response will be a bit more interesting to you. If you are of the mindset that the above is tl;dr then grab one of the other guys here who can help fill you in a bit.

At the end of the day I’m not upset with the signing, it just may not have been the smartest thing to pull off this week (ie, Chia could have waited or made a different move that could have been marginally better but in the end, it’s not a bad move).

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions  

tl;dr is a bit different than contradictory. I’ve followed everything, but it gets hard when you seem to go down different paths.

A couple of your quotes to illustrate.

“At the end of the day though, even with these questions it’s hard to say this wasn’t the smartest move to make.

“What I am saying though is that the numbers and what we actually see on the ice hasn’t proven he is a go to guy, the one that will win you the big games. If that’s the case, then is this the smartest move right now?

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 4:30 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m blushing at the fact that you went through my entire post and took the time to pull those out- cheers.

If you reread those though, one is a question asking if it truly is while the other is a statement saying that it’s hard to say- not impossible. If it were impossible, I wouldn’t have gone on as long as I did about this. Actually, I wouldn’t have written it at all.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 4:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I generally agree with this statement but....

you also have to take into consideration that points in the playoffs come at a premium as you go deeper in the playoffs. Teams are better, willing to do more to prevent chances etc. so IMO I think that PPG are a good inbdicator and lets also remember that your playing the top half of the league and no bottom feeders.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

by beachguy113 on Dec 2, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions  

this

is excactly how I feel.

Yes, he was absent for most of the Montreal series, but the whole top line played like shit for at least half of it, and Lucic was completely invisible.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions  

We lost game 6 vs TB, but the Krejci scored a hat trick; I think that gets lost in the shuffle.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Some players..

just play better or worse against opposing teams/systems. You see it in the regular season and in the playoffs so I will not ding Krecj based on just one series or the other. This is what makes this team so special. They can play so many different styles (offensively) and still beat you at it.

by Federko on Dec 2, 2011 12:49 PM EST up reply actions  

re: the power play

The team is consistently bad on the PP. I don’t think we should be eyeing Krejci specifically in that department; it’s a coaching issue above all else.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

You can’t blame it all on coaching- the guys out there need to produce. Looking at Krejci’s game it’s not hard to see that his skill set does not mix well with how a power play operates. I think blaming the whole team for it is too much of an excuse.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, here I totally agree with Doug. Krejci’s game isn’t suited to 5 on 4 with no icing. On 5 on 5 he uses the over agressiveness of defenders against them, that doesn’t work when you already have the operating space to deal with, but the other team is maintaining somewhat compact. Someone with a deeper playing background might be able to explain that better. But that’s my theory.

by Michael Taylor on Dec 2, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions  

If I dare post my other article next week I give a bit of a breakdown of this.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I am still a little baffled by how many people question this deal. Krejci has proven his worth in Boston. Sure he can be a little up and down… but Horton is far more prone to extreme swings of play. I mention Horton because in the offseason after next, he is the guy who is going to have to take a pay cut to stay in Boston. Lucic and Seguin will be taken care off. This offseason will mark the departures of some fan favorites, but not core guys. Krejci is a core guy.

The other X factor is the new labor agreement (and lets hope they hammer that out swiftly). Will the cap go up or down? either way, it will effect every team the same.

Also, Marc Savard isnt coming back. That is money to spend.

by theDbaker on Dec 2, 2011 11:37 AM EST reply actions  

Small but good point

I think a great point was raised in the NMC section – how moving Krejci in the near future would ruin the idea of a “hometown discount” for other players. This is key because there are a ton of important guys coming due in the next two offseasons (Lucic, Seguin, Horton, Rask) that need to feel like if they make a commitment to the Bruins for less money, they won’t immediately be flipped elsewhere.

Johnny Boychuk - The infamous bottle of $100,000 champagne, I thought it was meh.

by PeterMacKellar on Dec 2, 2011 11:45 AM EST reply actions  

If players are taking hometown discounts to avoid being traded, they’ll sign NMCs / NTCs. Only a very naive player or agent would do anything else.

As such, I don’t really think trading Krejci would have any impact on this at all.

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 12:30 PM EST up reply actions  

One thing about this, I’m not sure a player can get an NTC until they hit their UFA years.

by Michael Taylor on Dec 2, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions  

But pre-UFA, they’re essentially forced to take a home town discount due to their diminished bargaining power / the additional cost that compensation imposes on the team signing them. As such, it’s really only in the UFA years that things make a big difference.

by Bourque77 on Dec 2, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions  

full circle

thus, a potential sticking point during CBA negotiations. I certainly hope they get something done quickly. The sport can nott afford another protracted delay.

by Federko on Dec 2, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Fun fact

Out of playoff leading scorers since ’03, none have had a lower cap hit upon renewal than David Krejci

(granted, most of the guys on that list are super-elite and would make bank regardless, but let me cherrypick a factoid out of my ass will ya!)

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 12:15 PM EST reply actions  

If you’re looking at guys based on ppg in playoffs look at Giroux’s deal.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

not quite comparing apples to apples there. Giroux was coming of his ELC. Krejci’s coming off a second contract with a longer resume, playoff and otherwise

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Look at the age and playoff games/points. Giroux’s is not too shabby. He’s certainly is right off an ELC but Krejci isn’t a UFA tomorrow. The faith that the Flyers have put in Giroux says quite a bit as well and he certainly could have pulled more if we’re comparing around the league.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

it’s a good deal, no doubt. But his deal is not Krejci’s measuring stick, it’s Marchand’s

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Not saying it is- just adding context to your above statement. There are comparable contracts out there that fit the Krejci deal- the numbers aren’t too far off from what I would have preferred and I don’t find them unreasonable. The issue with this deal is more or less the timing of it and it’s effects on future signings.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions  

fair. I get your overall argument, but i don’t think Krejci’s deal – which most are ultimately agreeing is fair market value – is the cause of future disruption in the roster, but a symptom of having a ton of young talent. Can’t keep guys on ELCs and frugal re-ups (like Marchand and Krejci’s last deal) forever. Eventually, some decisions will have to be made to ditch some higher paid guys or those about to earn that and inject yet younger blood.

The way i see it, Chia has last year’s winning core – hell, the whole winning team pretty much – for the remainder of this year and next. That’s a pretty good job by management in my eyes. Beyond that, yeah, Horton or Seidenberg or someone’s going to have to go, but I’m liking that we’ve been pretty active in restocking the system.

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I’d like to see a Horton sign-and-trade. I know a lot of guys are streaky, but he’s the epitome of streaky, and that, coupled with his tendency to let his temper get the team in trouble relatively often makes me want to move him.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions  

sign-and-trades only happen in the NBA because of the cap. Otherwise they are known as “reasons not to sign with that team as a UFA”

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 2, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I realize this. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see the team get something back for him.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

he’s signed through next year, see where we’re at in the off-season and toward the deadline of 2012/13

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t know why I thought he was up at the end of this year. meh.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok so if you do agree with the fact that it could impact the future of this club then do you sign this deal at this point in time? Is Krejci still the core center that you go with if you know that you’re going to need to shed salary down the road and the deal that you’ve given him could hinder what your potential return is?

Again, you’re right with the fair value, it’s likely the deal that they come to eventually, but do you sign it this week, with this level of production, the offers you’re seeing and the fact that it commits you before you can fully determine what return you may see? You may still do it- Chiarelli did. I just can’t agree it is 100% the best move at this point.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions  

but do you sign it this week, with this level of production, the offers you’re seeing and the fact that it commits you before you can fully determine what return you may see?

Isn’t that the case any time you sign somebody, though?

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Dec 2, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

To address your qustions:

Yes I do. He’s established a fairly consistent level of scoring and is in a cold stretch. He’ll command more if he’s hot later in the year. Krejci is the core center that I go with until another (one in particular) is further developed… 3ish years looks like a good length in that regard. I personally might have preferred two, but that was probably a non-starter for the Krejci camp. When it comes to future cap concerns, I don’t view Horton as an essential core piece and Thomas will be off the books in all likelihood, mitigating the possibility of being back in cap jail.

Not sure I follow Re; potential return. I presume you mean in trade, which presupposes that I view him as expendable and worth exchanging for another player. I don’t. Also, I agree with Michael, this is Chiarelli buying low.

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

By fairly consistent level of scoring do we mean a 60 point player? Just confirming that this is the expectation we have for him.

I thought we said though that he was essentially bought at market price- is that really buying low or is it just not playing inflated prices?

Regarding the other moves, sure Horton could be gone which will open up some money, Thomas will be off the books but likely that money will be moved over to Tuukka and we can’t forget that Seguin, Hamilton, Lucic will all likely be needing payment along with any replacements. While we have some wiggle room, I can’t say it’s necessarily enough where tougher choices will need to be made.

Again, the contract number isn’t a bad one- it’s market value. I just can’t say it’s what I would have signed this week when considering all the factors.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

yes, 60pt as a baseline. And I believe it’s buying low based on how inflated the market for his position has become, when taking into account contract length. Yeah, we’re basically quibbling over semantics on what we call it, but I would draw the line at calling it overpayment though.

I’m enjoying the hell out of capgeek’s calculator:
http://www.capgeek.com/cap_calculator/popup.php?teamId=5

Provided Rask and Hamilton are fit under the cap for next year lets say (doable, try it out), there’s plenty of money going around between Thomas and Horton to reallocate to Seguin, Marchand and Lucic raises. One forward has to be a goner in two years, my money’s on Horton.

by TomServo42 on Dec 2, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Sadly I don’t have the time right now to run through the calculator for the following seasons- I’ve been through quite a bit of it the past few nights though and what you’re suggesting is possible I believe. My hope is that it doesn’t become a bit too tight and we end up with a situation we were in 2 years ago, that’s all.

by dwatson783 on Dec 2, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions  

what a great discussion....sorry i missed this one!

I would like to say that although the article is definitely one persons opinion it was well written and one of the best articles I have read on SBN in a while. Although I feel Krejci is a great signing I somewhat agree that the timing is kind of off. At the same time PC might have noticed something we cant pick up on and realized he needed to get his #1 C signed and sealed. Not that contract stuff is an excuse for lack of production but having the confidence of your upper mgmt can also lead to great things. I think that the best way to gague the current signing is like all other….wait and see how he plays. If the previous game is any indication then let us all hope that we have bigger and better things to enjoy.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

by beachguy113 on Dec 2, 2011 9:00 PM EST reply actions  

Great discussion on this one.

For my part, I think its an okay signing. I don’t think its a bargain, at all, not when Krejci still had RFA status. But PC opted to trade a slightly higher short term salary for long term flexibility, and that’s usually a wise move. So I’m inclined to give it a thumbs up. I’d feel better if it had been half a million per year cheaper, but I like the philosophy of keeping contracts to three years.

But if Chris Kelly signs for 3 years and $10 million, I’m going to start throwing things.

by Phunwin on Dec 3, 2011 10:06 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

I should add that I don’t know what the 2012 free agent market looks like. If its weak in forwards, like 2011, then the deal looks better.

by Phunwin on Dec 3, 2011 10:10 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

not the most exciting bunch:

http://www.capgeek.com/free_agents.php?year_id=2012&team_id=-1&position_id=F&fa_type_id=2

Agree w/ your previous post re: Kelly. I’m a little nervous about PC offers to him, Campbell and Rask. Really have no bead on what he’ll offer

by TomServo42 on Dec 3, 2011 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I’m scared to death of what Kelly will get. Peverley got overpaid, and I’m worried that PC will start down the same road that led to guys like Ryder and Kobasew being badly overpaid, and costing the Bruins Kessel. I can live with overpaying Krejci; he’s a core player. But peripherals should be places to find bargains.

by Phunwin on Dec 3, 2011 11:48 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

PUNCH ALL THE WHALES!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Durling_headshot_small
NHL Playoffs 2012: Western Conference Finals Game Three Open Thread
Small
Dougie Hamilton OHL Jersey
Looch-t_cap_small
LA Kings - 2012 Stanley Cup Champions?
Durling_headshot_small
Belated USA-Canada IIHF Open Thread
Axe_small
Wishlist!
Milt_schmidt_small
The All-Boston Team: Summer Project
Small
Chance to win a Bruins Prize pack, anyone else have a few minutes for a university project?!
246904_10150207466208058_559893057_6815629_7738165_n_small
He said she said trade rumor thread
Small
NHL Playoff Format
Small
Thanks Chowder

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor

Thomas_small sarahconnors

Durling_headshot_small Ryan Durling

Editors

B75ed5811b_bradmarchand_09262006_small Phunwin

Me_small xokathryn

5531_630546183341_11011139_37429402_2472201_n_small Biz Jacobs

Doug_roma_small dwatson783

Authors

Small Scott Frano

Resized_small Kristian Limas

Profile_pic_small PeterMacKellar

427799_10150607786667127_578457126_9253226_1796777750_n_small Dave Carignan

Boooyyyccchhuuukkk_small Shelby Lefebvre