Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Why You Should Be Optimistic About The Benoit Pouliot Signing

At fist glance, many people struggled to understand the signing of unrestricted free agent and former Montreal Canadien Benoit Pouliot. However, at further examination one can see the benefits of signing a guy like Pouliot to a 1 year contract worth just $1.1 million.

Pouliot, 24, is the former 4th overall pick of the Minnesota Wild in the 2005 NHL draft where he never had much success in parts of 4 different seasons. He ended up being traded to Montreal for another disappointment, Guillaume Latendresse in the 2009-10 season. After that trade, Pouliot showed off a little of that untapped potential, scoring 15 goals and 24 points in just 39 regular season games with the Canadiens that season.

However, once the playoffs rolled around Pouliot once again disappeared, contributing just 2 assists in 18 games during the Habs' run to the conference final. He continued to struggle into this past season with the Canadiens scoring just 13 goals and 30 points in 79 regular season games. His struggles forced coach Jacques Martin to bench him after just 3 playoff games against the Bruins where he contributed 0 points.

There are plenty of reason to question the signing (as Jack Edwards is probably doing), however there are also a few reasons to be optimistic about the signing and believe that Pouliot can make something of himself with the Bruins.

Reasons for optimism after the jump...

Star-divide

Benoit Pouliot is only 24 years old

Pouliot has been around the league for a while, first seeing some playing time in the NHL with Minnesota in 2006-07, albeit in only 3 games. However, he is still very young and has a lot to learn about the game of hockey. There are plenty of players in the NHL who didn't start making an impact in the NHL until they were 24 or older.

Dan Boyle didn't have his first real impact season until he was 24 in 2002-03 with the Tampa Bay Lightning. Johan Franzen didn't start making an impact with the Detroit Red Wings until he was 28 years old in 2007-08 where he scored 27 goals. Martin St. Louis didn't breakout until he was 25 with the Tampa Bay Lightning in 2000-01.

The best comparison of all, would be Mike Knuble a guy of similar size and stature of Pouliot, did not become a full time NHL until the age of 26 years old in 1998-99 with the New York Rangers and he did not become a true impact player in the NHL until the age of 31 with the Boston Bruins in 2002-03.

These so called late bloomers are always popping up around the league and with the right coaching and mentoring, Benoit Pouliot definitely has the potential to be the next one in that line.

The Bruins recent ability to develop young players

While Pouliot is not like a regular prospect in the pure sense of the word, he still has that untapped potential that all prospects do and the Bruins are looking for. Therefore, the Bruins recent history with getting prospects to the NHL is another reason for optimism.

Over the past few years the Bruins have had multiple prospects come up from the minors or even their junior hockey team and contribute to the team. Homegrown players include Milan Lucic, Blake Wheeler, Brad Marchand, Tyler Seguin, Johnny Boychuk, Adam McQuaid, Tuukka Rask (although Wheeler, Boychuk, McQuaid and Rask were not drafted by the Bruins, I consider them homegrown because of the time they spent in Boston's system) and they even got contributions from young prospects like Jordan Caron and Steven Kampfer.

Other skaters who have been successful NHLers that have come up through the Bruins system include Kris Versteeg, Vladimir Sobotka and Matt Hunwick. Then you can look at the continued growth of Patrice Bergeron and David Krejci who were drafted by another set of people in the front office, have become top NHLers under this current staff. The Bruins recent history with youngsters like Benoit Pouliot give fans another reason for hope with this signing.

Pouliot has plenty of size and still has room to add to his frame

Pouliot has one thing that you cannot teach and is something that is valued very much in the history of this organization, which is size. Pouliot is 6'3" but he only weighs in at 199 pounds. Therefore, he has the hieght and the frame that many very good forwards have, but he still has plenty of room to add muscle.

For comparison's sake, other guys who play at 6'3" include Johan Franzen, Mike Knuble, Todd Bertuzzi and Mike Modano. Each of those guys weigh in at 222, 223, 225 and 212 respectively and all have had very productive careers. If the Bruins can get Pouliot on their weight program and get him to add more size without losing anything in the skating department, that could add a big boost to his play.

Already brings some defensive awareness

Pouliot will likely never be considered a "great" defensive forward, however looking at his +/- numbers gives you a belief the he could potentially fit into a Claude Julien team. Pouliot has never put up big numbers so the fact that he is a career +8 is surprising, especially when you consider the goal differential of the teams he has played on recently. Montreal was only a +1 in '10-'11 and a -12 in '09-'10, Minnesota was a -31 in '09-'10, a -13 in '08-'09 and a -5 in '07-'08. Therefore, Pouliot must be doing something right to stay on the positive side of things on those teams.

Even strength production similar to Michael Ryder

So far in his short career, Pouliot has piled up most of his points at even strength. In his 183 NHL games in his career he has scored 61 of his 72 points (85%) of his points even strength. When you compare that to what Michael Ryder did in his 235 games as a Bruin, he scored 86 of his 127 (68%) of his points even strength.

Pouliot has been scoring at a 0.33 PPG pace even strength so far in his career, while Ryder was scoring at a 0.37 PPG pace even strength as a Bruin. Which means that even if Pouliot does not improve on his career numbers, he will most likely replace Michael Ryder's even strength production and the Bruins will hope the improvements in Tyler Seguin's game will replace or even better Michael Ryder's power play contributions. Not to mention he will be making 2.9 million less than Ryder was making with much less of a long term commitment.

He is only signed to a 1 year deal worth $1.1 million

Lastly and most importantly, fans can look at this deal with a little optimism because there is very little financial commitment to him. Problems occur when you sign guys to long term big money contracts rather then when you sign guys to short term, small money deals. That is because if things don't work out, it is easy to part ways with a guy.

If that's the case with Pouliot, he can be stashed away in the minors if he fails and doesn't get claimed on waivers. This is a savvy deal by Peter Chiarelli who realized that Pouliot has only played 183 games in his career, which is just over 2 years in the league. He is a small risk, high reward type player and if you can get past the fact that he has worn the Canadiens jersey (which is understandably very hard to do), then you can see there is reason's to hope Pouliot finds "it" with the Boston Bruins.

Comment 100 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Minnesota definitely made out on that trade. Latendresse had a pretty good season till he got hurt. I always thought he sucked but he turned out to be decent. Hopefully you’re right with the ability the Bruins have had developing these young players. At his age, size and what he cost it could have been a great pick up.

by Dave Carignan on Jul 13, 2011 9:34 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Latendresse owned post-trade, it ruled.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 13, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well I think the biggest bonus is that the cap hit is very low-if he busts the loss isn’t huge, but if he blossoms then this will be regarded as a steal and everyone will be happy. This is definitely a risk, but the consequence if the risk doesn’t pan out is still pretty low.

I do think his age makes it a little too soon to call him a bust. He may never pan out to what would be expected of a 4th overall draft pick, but if he can produce and contribute at a Ryder clip I will be content.

by TCL40 on Jul 13, 2011 9:51 AM EDT reply actions  

Homegrown players

Is it fair to consider all of the players listed as having been developed by the Bruins?

Seguin looks like he may be good, but so far it’s difficult to say the Bruins have done any developing.
Wheeler was signed straight from college and still looks a lot like the guy he was in his rookie year.
Only about a quarter of Boychuk’s AHL career was with the Bruins organization.
Versteeg hardly ever played in the Bruins organization – he was traded midway through his first season in the AHL.

Chiarelli has many strengths, but I’m not yet convinced that targeting and developing young players is one of them – no draft pick of his has really contributed in any significant manner (attributing the 2006 draft to Gorton).

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:26 AM EDT reply actions  

No, his picks haven’t had major impacts… but it is also very early for that. Outside Seguin, all of the picks were lower in the round which means they are less likely to have an immediate impact, especially on an already deep team.

And you have to give Chiarelli credit for his eye for talent in trades… the Recchi, Horton and Seidenberg trades were all fantastic.

by BobbyOrrsBastard on Jul 14, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I love this article, because I was thinking the same thing. There is practically zero risk here, but there is significant upside.

by Phunwin on Jul 13, 2011 10:29 AM EDT reply actions  

Bad Signing

 The mere fact you are using a Ryder comparison – and to his upside is disturbing. If Pouliot is the #13th forward thats fine. If your waiting for him to develop you are mistaken. Bruins DON’T do a good job of developing players – they can identify young talent, but its dubious to say they develop it. How did Wheeler turn out and he has ten times the talent of Pouliot. I can see a Shane Doan or Ray Whitney here by the all star break.

by christopher Hayward on Jul 13, 2011 10:57 AM EDT reply actions  

If Pouliot’s the 13th forward, who’s making the team out of camp?

by Ryan Durling on Jul 13, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ryder’s numbers from last year for $1.1m would be solid

by tkent on Jul 13, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

At 1.1M it would be absolutely fantastic.

by BobbyOrrsBastard on Jul 14, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

What is wrong with the Ryder comparison? I put the stats out there for you. They produce nearly the same even strength is mediocre PP production really worth $2.9 million more to you? It certainly isn’t to me.

The Bruins most certainly do a good job developing forwards. Saying otherwise is just silly. For years, the Bruins were one of the worst at drafting and developing talent.However, since Peter Chiarelli has come along that has changed SIGNIFICANTLY. Developed Lucic into a 30 goal scorer. Developing Brad Marchand into a 2nd rounder. Developed David Krejci. Developed Bergeron. Even Blake Wheeler he is most certainly a top 6 foward in this league, that is not something to take for granted. He isn’t as good as he was projected to be when he drafted, but there is still development going on. No the Bruins are not the Detroit Red Wings, but they certainly develop players along with identifying talent.

I can see Shane Doan or Whitney here too, but once again I can see the upside in the signing. And if it fails, he is only being paid $1.1 million as I mentioned above.

Stanley Cup of Chowder - Read this Bruins blog NOW!
My Twitter @totheights

by totheights on Jul 13, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

BP almost sounds like a slightly smaller and less expensive version of Blake Wheeler.

An escalator can never break. It can only become stairs.

by jjoe1185 on Jul 13, 2011 11:10 AM EDT reply actions  

I’ve gone back and forth on the Pouliot signing. Initially I was a big fan of it as it seemed to be a relatively low-risk signing with the potential for upside.

However, with the Bruins having $8-12MM in cap space right now, I’m not a huge fan of the signing because it seems to be aligned with the strategy of filling holes as cheaply as possible. The upside is no longer present. There’s upside in using the $8 MM in available cap space on other players. But now, the money saved against the cap is not being reinvested in the team, so talking about the benefits of a cheap contract is only relevant in so far as you’re related to Jacobs.

There are lots of other guys out there that I would have rather taken on with the one-year deals they signed: Sturm, Brunette, Ponikarovsky, or Sullivan come to mind.

Hell, if the concern is the ability to avoid long-term contracts so as to sign players next year, I’d have preferred much bigger one-year contracts to some of the guys that signed deals for two-years. For example, would Connolly have signed for one year at $7 MM rather than the 2 year, $10 MM Leafs deal? Yeah, Connolly would be grossly overpaid at $7 MM, but the cap space is being unused and I assume the Bruins have the revenue to operate as a max-cap team.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 11:22 AM EDT reply actions  

I think it was about the 1 year deal and how things change next year. I think Chia wanted to avoid long term deals overpaying players.

Whether Pouliot was the best option is debatable. I figure the guy deserves a chance to prove himself though before the fans declare it a bust.

Also, I think they still may use some of that cap space. Although I think it will be more for an in season trade than anything before the season starts.

by TCL40 on Jul 13, 2011 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not declaring the move a bust. I’m declaring that I don’t like the strategy of the offseason – of which Pouliot is half of the talent they brought in (Corvo being the other half).

The team right now does not appear to be maximizing their odds of success next year. I write this because it looks like they’ll open the season $12 MM under the cap (Savard being retired / LTIR). That’s more cap space than the Blues, the Oilers, the Wild, and the Kings – teams that aren’t exactly known for spending excessively.

It may help next year’s budget to avoid the longer-term deals, you’re right. At the same time, going in to the CBA negotiations last time, the team didn’t have any longer-term commitments set up. That didn’t really help them initially.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Wild always have a way higher cap hit for their team than they should

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 13, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Is that the case this year? Heatley and Koivu are paid more than their cap hits this year. Not sure who is paid less than their cap hit this year.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

actually they’re magically in the middle of the pack for cap space right now. Last year they finished with $893,795 in cap space and out of a playoff spot. I’m used to that for the last couple years. I’m totally down with them changing that, though.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 13, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Reading this, I think I misinterpreted what you said originally and missed your point – sorry.

I thought you originally meant that the Wild were one of those teams that paid out less in salaries than their actual cap hit (i.e. they picked up players on the back-half of front-loaded contracts or had a lot of ELCs with high bonuses).

Now I realize you were actually saying that the Wild’s on-ice performance hasn’t matched the high amounts they’ve paid out.

Basically, ignore my last post to you as I was mistaken in context.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

done

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 13, 2011 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

First off, Connolly is garbage and is a center which we already have more than enough of. Why do we need to spend big to improve a team that frankly doesn’t need to improve that much? Our forwards are fine as is, let some of our prospects try their hand, if they don’t work out work the cap space in a trade mid season.

by tkent on Jul 13, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

First – Pouliot is a forward last I checked. Centers can generally be moved to the wings without much problem. So signing Connolly would have been instead of signing Pouiot. Connolly’s passing ability would help out tremendously on the power play I believe.

Second – I only picked that as one example. Hannan’s still available – sign him to a big one year deal if you want to improve the blue line.

Third – Pouliot blocks young guys just as much as a decently talented player would.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’m young and big and can sorta skate backwards. Can I get a “no-risk” contract for a million bucks?

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 13, 2011 11:44 AM EDT reply actions  

Call the NY Islanders, they are about $10m off from the cap floor.

by tkent on Jul 13, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Fuck that I don’t wanna get beat up by some Pens enforcer

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 13, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Love the offseason so far given what was available to the team, and what their situation could be going forward.

Also, while it’s impossible that they’ll be able to use $8 million in cap space at the deadline (when in practice it would be more like $20 million). There’s a difference between cap and budget even if Jacobs sets the budget at the cap’s upper limit. An example (not that I’m advocating this particular deal). Say the trade deadline approaches, and you can acquire Iginla for Peverley, Boychuk and a 1st… as long as you take on Matt Stajan’s contract.

Now, at face, you probably DON’T want Matt Stajan on the cap the next 2 years at 3.75. But, if in late February, Chiarelli has only spent $56 million on players, the possibility exists that he could ask Jacobs to include the burying in Providence of Stajan in the ‘11 budget. So while the team wouldn’t have spent to the cap, they would have spent to a reasonable budget.

by Michael Taylor on Jul 13, 2011 12:09 PM EDT reply actions  

Couldn’t that same argument be used to overpay for anyone right now to get their help for the whole season and then bury them in the minors next year to help out with the re-signing of the RFAs / UFAs to be?

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who would overpaying a mediocre free agent help get you? In that example, burying a contract helps you get an impact player like Iginla. Overpaying a free agent from the offset doesn’t get you anything except that players’ decidedly average or injury prone play at impact prices. Leaving the budget space gives you the OPTION to make a move like that, tying yourself to a free agent almost makes it an absolute that that’s going to happen. Not a fan.

Jokinen and Glencross both signed prior to free agency. Gagne signed with a team that he obviously seemed more comfortable with, and I’d take the potential for upside with Pouliot over Brunette and Sullivan.

by Michael Taylor on Jul 13, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who said anything about overpaying a mediocre free agent. You’re talking as if the Bruins have the ability to take on future commitments of $9 MM for Iginla and $6 MM for Stajan. Those numbers assume a deadline acquisition of those two players.

So, look at the guys that signed for $15 MM and tell me there aren’t some that could help the Bruins out significantly (a lot of the blue liners that were original targets for the team fall in to that category).

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can’t believe all the stuff being said about this contract. I really like this signing. This kid has some serious potential, and I think the B’s style of play really suits him. He is not a prototypical Habs forward, so it does not surprise me that he didn’t fit into to a system that preaches speed and avoiding contact rather than the grinding hard working style of the B’s. I think Puliot will fit in very nicely here because he is not afraid of contact and getting his nose dirty. And if he doesn’t pan out, we are only out $1m. I really don’t understand what the big f’n deal is.
Secondly I have no problem with the B’s not jumping into the FA market head first to overpay for a player. The contracts that are getting signed are totally ridiculous, and frankly I really don’t think there was anyone we missed out on that signed a 1 yr deal that was a can’t miss guy. Also, we still have to square away Marchand, and there are a ton of guys coming of the books next year who are going to need to be resigned. Plus we have the flexibility to add talent before the trade deadline without dumping contracts. Look what happened to the Blackhawks the last two off seasons and take that as a lesson learned as to what happens when teams don’t look towards the future. The B’s are in a position to be contenders for a pretty long time, so lets not get hung up on what we could have done or should have done just yet. Chiarelli and co. are doing a pretyty good job in my eyes.

I love that dirty water, Boston your my home...

by jfree781 on Jul 13, 2011 12:14 PM EDT reply actions  

Agreed 100%.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

The contracts that are getting signed are totally ridiculous, and frankly I really don’t think there was anyone we missed out on that signed a 1 yr deal that was a can’t miss guy

Do you think Pouliot is the best player who signed a one year deal or remaining unsigned? Do you think he’s even top 3? Top 5? If not, then I don’t see why it matters whether or not there was a can’t miss one year signing.

. Also, we still have to square away Marchand

I’d be surprised if he gets much more than $3 MM. So that’s not a concern.

Plus we have the flexibility to add talent before the trade deadline without dumping contracts

The Bruins have almost the flexibility to add a second team at the deadline. Right now, the Bruins can take on just about $28 MM in salaries at the deadline. No way is that level of flexibility necessary.

. Look what happened to the Blackhawks the last two off seasons and take that as a lesson learned as to what happens when teams don’t look towards the future.

I think filing free agent registrations at the appropriate timeline is a minimum expectation for anyone retaining their job as GM and not something to be overly proud of.

I’m also not convinced that all contracts signed have been bad contracts – there have been bargains out there. Signing players to reasonable contracts does nothing to risk the retention of players next offseason – it merely gives you trading chips that can be used to bring in other assets.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Do you think Pouliot is the best player who signed a one year deal or remaining unsigned? Do you think he’s even top 3? Top 5?

Top 3 or top 5 wouldn’t be signing at $1.1mil. I don’t think Chiarelli wants to tie up extra cash right now, and I really can’t blame him.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

We’re talking one year deals. What’s the issue with tying up more than $1.5 MM if it’s a one year deal and the team is $12 MM under the cap?

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Where are you finding a one year signing for 3.5? Do you want Alex Frolov? Poni? Cam Barker? Sami Salo? Pacal Leclaire?

These are the names going for mid-range money for one year terms. Anything you like?

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ponikarovsky? Hell yeah he’s a lot better than Pouliot. You’re talking about a guy who was a consistent 20 goal scorer up until last year where his shooting percentage went in the tank. He’s going to be a bargain as that just screams fluke.

Steve Sullivan? You think Pouliot has more upside than him if Sullivan is healthy at all?

Marco Sturm? When healthy, he’ll pot in the mid-20s.

Andrew Brunette? All he’s done the last 11 years is average 20 goals. Isn’t the absolute best case for Pouliot that he basically becomes what Brunette already is?

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Marco Sturm? When healthy, he’ll pot in the mid-20s.

not a fan of the caveat here.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

What do you mean, not a fan of the caveat? The entire content for Pouliot in this article is one big if … if we can develop him, if he gets bigger, if he improves as he ages … I’m not sure why the odds of those are any worse than the odds of a guy who has been pretty healthy in 11 of his 13 year career staying healthy.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’ve already said my piece about Pouliot; I hope he works out, and if he doesn’t, it’s not the end of the world. We let him go at the end of the year.

The caveat I was discussing was Sturm’s injuries. I’m not going to type out this entire thread for you everytime I make a comment so you don’t have to piece together everyone’s opinions yourself. I said it several times – $1.1mil for a year isn’t a huge loss. Hopefully he doesn’t blow several games for us, but if he does? Well, that’s the risk you take with anybody, to be honest.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right now, the Bruins can take on just about $28 MM in salaries at the deadline. No way is that level of flexibility necessary.

Unless a new CBA is looming and the next two years have a heap of crucial RFA’s coming due. Along with possibly a couple high-priced entry levels to add to the roster. Cap flexibility is a good thing, especially if other teams are putting themselves in precarious positions re: new CBA or cap decline.
Besides, they could only take on your estimate’s worth in expiring deals, they only have around 10m right now, before Marchand, if they want anyone who’d tie up salary for subsequent years.

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Again, that speaks to why you shouldn’t sign bad long-term deals, it doesn’t speak to why you sit on your hands and make no commitments.
It also doesn’t speak to why you only sign one of the lower-performing one-year options instead of one of the better ones.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

all of the bad deals that were made long term deals. That’s largely what makes them bad. What guy is out there that you think is worth big money but is willing to go for a one year contract? Bank the cap space and if they want to take a shot at an expiring deal with a big ticket price at the deadline, go for it, but don’t tie your hands going into next year’s uncertainty

Chiarelli didn’t sit on his hands, he made cap-conscious moves to replace production with an eye to developing from within.

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I believe I listed some of those guys already … Sturm, Burnette, Sullivan, Ponikarovsky – I would have preferred any of them, they would have been more expensive, but they each signed for one year.

Furthermore, Hannan is still out there.

Finally, as I said, use up some of the cap space and overpay on a 1 year deal for one of the guys who got a two year deal. The example I gave was $7 MM for one year for Connolly. It’s an overpayment, sure and it’s meant as more of an example of what you could do. The point being that you can’t carryover cap space to the next season.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Brunette – 46pts, 82 games, 37yo – ok, fine
Sturm – 16pts, 35 games, 32yo, knees that are shot
Sullivan – 22pts, 44 games, 37yo, frequently broken
Ponikarovsky – 15pts, 61 games, 31yo
Pouliot – 30pts, 79 games, 24yo

Not sure who you’re seeing that’s better save for maybe Brunette. Taking a stab at any of these guys in hopes they improve, i’d go w/ Pouliot for cheap

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed,

the only one I’d take is Sturm, and that’s only the pre – glass knees Sturm. Might as well grab Benny P for $1.1m.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Brunette would rule

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 14, 2011 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, i’d agree. I like that deal for the Hawks. The thing I wouldn’t like about going after him for this team this year is that it would reek of replacing Recchi.
“hey guys, remember how you loved that old guy in the room? How you followed and respected him? Well here’s a new one, close enough right?”

by TomServo42 on Jul 14, 2011 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Andrew Brunette is awesome, and not just because he scored the goal that ended Patrick Roy’s career.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 14, 2011 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

That’s exactly the reason I wouldn’t want to take him.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 14, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not even going to address 7m to Connolly as a hypothetical. Did Glen Sather hack your account?

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why? You can’t carry cap room in to the next year. What good is cap space that goes unspent?

It’s also nice that you compare Pouliot’s best year ever versus down years for each of those other guys.

What do you say … let’s put up $50 to charity of choice for the fact that I’ll say 3 of the 4 guys named get more points per game than Pouliot this season.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you sign Tim Connolly to a $7m contract, you have zero chance of signing Marchand. You cannot spend a dime of Savard’s LTIR before the first game of the season unless he retires. That would leave you $1.7m before bonus overages even come into play.

Pouliot’s best season at 24 vs. a bunch of players in their mid/late 30’s with injury issues, and Ponikarovsky, who rightly so, probably figures his best opportunity to put up numbers going into his next contract is in Carolina with their system vs. Boston. 24 year olds tend to get better, players in their 30’s tend to decline, it is an important distinction. Also, pure points without context are meaningless. They don’t take into consideration system, defensive responsibility, time on ice, power play opportunities, etc.

by Michael Taylor on Jul 13, 2011 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you sign Tim Connolly to a $7m contract, you have zero chance of signing Marchand. You cannot spend a dime of Savard’s LTIR before the first game of the season unless he retires.

In the offseason you can exceed the cap by 10%. So your point is incorrect. It’s 50.5.c.ii.B

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Point taken, I still wouldn’t sign Tim Connolly to a $7m deal, nor would I want to go over the cap before the season started 10% or no, to sign him.

Also, with Connolly and Ponikarovsky, you’re still assuming that they want to sign with you. Connolly has the chance to be the #1 center in Toronto, Ponikarovsky has a chance to play top 6 minutes in Carolina.

by Michael Taylor on Jul 13, 2011 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Bruins are apparently the only Stanley Cup winning team in a traditional hockey market that is unattractive to anyone save a 24-year old that’s been rejected by multiple teams.

That’s an odd position to be in.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Guys want ice time. The guys you mentioned could come here and be on the third line… guarantee that’s not what Connolly wants. Ponikarovsky- meh. I hate to call a guy who is a year older than me old, but compared to Pouliot, he is.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Guys want ice time my ass. Guys want money and the Bruins have the cap space to give it to them. Double the salary those guys got – the cap space isn’t being used.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Okay, so nobody wants any ice time?

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of extended discussion on the significant advantage bad teams have in recruiting and signing free agents. Generally, the thought seems to be that you have to overpay to attract people to a bad team, but you seem to think it’s the opposite.

The idea that players will choose ice time over money and winning is an interesting hypothesis, but one that I will not believe in unless shown significant evidence.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

I didn’t say anything about winning.

the point is that tim connolly can be the first line center in toronto. he would be on our third line, more than likely. why bother?

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or second line winger

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

that’s why i didn’t say it was a definite. the point is that different people want different things. some people may be satisfied with playing on the third or fourth line, and some guys may not. you can’t read their minds, and neither can i.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

And apparently when Chiarelli said that the Bruins weren’t going to be active in advance of free agency, he knew (without tampering) that all of the free agents that would improve the team were not interested in winning or money.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

OR

he doesn’t put as much stock in 30+ has-beens as you do.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yep – that’s why the defending Stanley Cup champion isn’t above the middle of the pack in salary cap commitments – purely because there were no options out there willing to sign a one year deal. Nothing at all to do with the historically cheap owner reverting to previous ways.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Spending to the cap doesn’t magically make you better.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 14, 2011 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

What is it that makes you think that spending as much as possible makes this team a winner?

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 14, 2011 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

guys want money

Like that greedy bastard vokoun?

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh, the guy that went to the team with a shot at winning the cup? The Bruins wouldn’t fit in that category, would they?

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Funny that, the old guys production are declining and the younger guy might be on the upswing.

Sure, I’ll take that wager with a slight modification to account for ice-time discrepancies – PPG/TOI

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

If we’re adding qualifiers, then if Pouliot is demoted, I win the bet.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

And many of the old guys (i.e. Ponikarovsky) scream fluke. No forward is a sub-6% shooting percentage.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

So be it.

 This is crazy. I don’t even like the guy but feel the need to defend a sensible, low cost move against the idea of blowing money like drunken sailors to get a marginal increase in points.

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

In a season where the Bruins were at all close to the cap, I would think the signings I’m proposing are completely stupid – but it seems that people have completely lost sight of the reason that you consider value per dollar spent – it’s because cap room is a limited asset. If you’re not using that asset up, then it doesn’t matter.

Let me ask you this … right now, the Bruins are roughly a $54 MM cap hit team after Marchand in and Savard out. Let’s say they’re roughly as good as last year and are a 100 point team.

Now, throughout the entire year, let’s say they’re faced with two options (and two options only).

Option 1 – they spend $10 MM, max out against the cap (for this year only), and improve to a 101 point team.

Option 2 – they spend no more money whatsoever. Nothing. No deadline moves. They stay at a 100 point team.

You seem to claim that for the team you cheer for, you would prefer option 2. I don’t get that.

I’m talking about blowing their cap space for this season only, not committing to long term deals, and saving some room for the deadline. But apparently, that’s not good enough, people are just afraid of spending the Bruins money.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Where is it guaranteed that spending more money gets you more wins? None of these guys you’re so fond of drastically improve the team. Its not like you’re talking ZOMG STAMKOS AND DOUGHTY

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Simple question I thought.

Option 1 or 2.

I didn’t see the option that was a question.

I can’t understand you if you don’t tell me how you’re thinking. I laid out pretty clear which option I preferred, so please tell me which option you’d prefer.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wait a sec. Did you just argue for maxing out the cap to get one more otl?

by TomServo42 on Jul 13, 2011 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you seriously would choose option 2?

That makes 0 sense.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Spending $10mil for one point is ridiculous.

What about spending $1.1m and hoping Pouliot works out… and if he doesn’t, whosh enter Jordan Caron.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again … option 1 or option 2.

I didn’t see the $1.1 MM option.

If you are choosing Pouliot over better players who cost more, you’re essentially choosing option 2. But I wanted to make it more explicit to you on how ridiculous your strategy seems to be.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m sorry, am I not allowed to comment unless I answer your ridiculous question? That’s new.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 14, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Spending $10mil for one point is ridiculous.

If the choice is $10 MM in profit for the owners or one more point for the team? As a fan, I go with the team getting an extra point.

When the team passed up on more talented players in order to have $10 MM in cap space, the decision they made was to forego any extra points (1 or whatever value they are). You’re saying that’s something as a fan that you like.

by Bourque77 on Jul 13, 2011 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Chiarelli has the ability to spend to the cap if he feels it’s necessary. The man just put together a cup-winning team. Consider that he might know what he’s doing.

This isn’t NHL 11. You can’t just sign an RFA in a hostile manner like that, they’d just match. And then they’d go after Marchand, Krejci, Seguin, Lucic, Rask, McQuaid, Caron, Cohen, Kampfer, Hamilton, and the list goes on.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 14, 2011 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good call

I love that dirty water, Boston your my home...

by jfree781 on Jul 13, 2011 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rec

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 14, 2011 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

you are on your way to greentown.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 14, 2011 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

100,000 times more important than standings points is a team built to play well in the playoffs.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 14, 2011 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

. What guy is out there that you think is worth big money but is willing to go for a one year contract?

not too sure about any of them.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 13, 2011 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks for breaking down my post. I guess my only response to that is; opinions are like aholes, everybody has one. And obviously some people seem to think that theirs should be the end all be all.

I love that dirty water, Boston your my home...

by jfree781 on Jul 13, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not sure how any fan can complain about signing a young player with upside for 1 year and 1.1 million. No risk high reward. Get over it, it’s a fine signing.

by mr1313 on Jul 13, 2011 7:17 PM EDT reply actions  

First – let me say that I don’t hate this signing. I don’t even dislike it.

What I do dislike are all the people out claiming it is a low-risk or even a no-risk signing. There is a risk involved and it’s a big one: That Benoit Pouliot will continue to play like…well, Beniot Pouliot of the last couple years.

He’s a negative image of the player he’s going to replace (Ryder). Sure, his regular season scoring is on par with Ryder’s but I don’t think anyone at all was happy with that. Ryder was a source of constant grumbling until the playoffs when he turned his effort up to the next level. In comparison Pouliot’s playoff results have been nonexistent. A total no-show.

Sure, there is the possibility he’ll breakout next year. There is also the possibility that Daniel Paille will – I mean Paille went in the 1st round, has decent size, plays great defense, is relatively young, and has the support of the Bruins organization. It’s just that those are broad, opaque qualifications to base future performances on.

I don’t think this is worth complaining about his signing but frankly it’s not enough to warrant gushy support posts over it.

by Sinnach on Jul 13, 2011 7:36 PM EDT reply actions  

"That Benoit Pouliot will continue to play like…well, Beniot Pouliot"

There couldn’t be a more true statement. If that is the case, add the Bruins to the list of teams he has ben a bust on.

by Dave Carignan on Jul 13, 2011 9:13 PM EDT reply actions  

watch for cheapshots

i dont like him. the only way ill want him to resign after this year is if he scores 40 or we win the cup again

You know how I said my profile pic would always be an animal? well, Chara's a BEAST!

by muffinman2 on Jul 14, 2011 1:24 AM EDT reply actions  

Pou pou

Benoit stinks. He is an embarrassment. You can be a bust at any age. Ask Alexandre Daigle. If he does anything good, it will because he has good teammates. He is truly a loser now that he is a bruin. He is part of the reason the habs didn’t kick the Bruins to the curb in the first round, That, and missing Markov and Georges.

by Habsrule1 on Jul 19, 2011 10:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Whatever helps you sleep at night in a world where the 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins’ fans can chant “ninety-three”

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 20, 2011 7:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

Bruins still suck!

And real fans don’t have 2 favorites. Bruins are last seasons news. Georges himself would have blocked 1/5 of your shots and Markov would have done a better job than horrible Spacek and Hamarlik.

by Habsrule1 on Jul 23, 2011 8:30 PM EDT 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