clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Rumor round-up: Suter, Yandle, and...Ryan Getzlaf?

New, comments

Good times.

NHL: OCT 14 Ducks at Bruins Photo by John Crouch/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

Rumor season is here, and we’ve got plenty of them!

The Bruins took care of their first bits of off-season business by re-signing Taylor Hall and Brandon Carlo, but there’s plenty of work left to do.

We all know the B’s need help on the blue line, but they’re likely looking to plug holes elsewhere in the lineup as well.

While we all know rumors are rumors and they range from interesting to complete nonsense, let’s take a look anyways!

Ryan Suter likely won’t be an option

When Ryan Suter was bought out by the Minnesota Wild, it made sense to consider him a target for the Bruins: big, eats minutes, left shot, etc.

Many people (myself included) speculated that maybe Suter, who has made $100+ million over the course of his career, might consider taking a short-term deal to have a real shot at winning the Cup.

However, it appears that he’s looking for more term than the Bruins should even remotely consider offering:

Nope. Hard pass. Best of luck down south, Suter.

There’s no situation where giving a 36-year-old defenseman with declining levels of effectiveness a four-year contract (unless it was for the league minimum, and that obviously won’t be the case).

Suter will be an interesting addition for Dallas or Florida (or watch when Tampa somehow enters the mix), but the Bruins should look elsewhere.

Speaking of Ryans, what about Getzlaf?

This one came out of left field:

I...sure? Okay?

Ryan Getzlaf is 36 years old and will be an unrestricted free agent on Wednesday. He’s coming off of a contract that carried an $8.25 million AAV, and should expect to earn significantly less this time around.

Getzlaf, a premier power forward when he was in his prime, is coming off of the worst season of his NHL career.

He had just 5 goals and 12 assists in 48 games; that mark of 0.35 PPG was a big step down from previous two years (0.61 and 0.72, respectively).

Whether or not bringing Getzlaf in is a good move depends wildly on two factors: how he’d be used and what he’d be paid.

Assuming it’s short money and for a year, sure, whatever — however, you have to consider that this might be Getzlaf’s last contract, so he may be looking for a decent payday.

The second (and more important) factor: is he coming here to add size and production to the bottom-six, or is he coming here to be your second-line center?

If it’s the latter...no. David Krejci is a better player, better fit, all of the above. If Krejci declines to return, there have to be better options out there (or in the system) than Getzlaf.

If it’s the former, I could get on board. Somehow getting Getzlaf in the mix with someone like Trent Frederic on the fourth line or Charlie Coyle (if he shifts to wing) on the third would be quite a heavy line.

Still, you have to wonder if Getzlaf would be willing to accept a lesser role than he’s accustomed to.

“Yandle to the Bruins” supposedly remains a possible thing

When I heard that Keith Yandle was being bought out, I half-jokingly thought “here come the Yandle-to-Boston rumors.”

Turns out it’s no joke, and that the Bruins have at least kicked around the idea:

There are a handful of Tweets from different sources echoing what’s above, all essentially saying that the Bruins are very much in on Yandle and that he’s likely to choose his new home Tuesday or Wednesday.

Yandle will be 35 by the time next season begins, and is a left-shot defenseman, which the Bruins need.

However, I’m not sure he’s the right fit for 2LD at this point in his career (and certainly not for 1LD).

Yandle has always been more of an offensive, puck-possession type defender, not a shutdown, stay-at-home type.

He’d likely be able to help the B’s on the power play, but at what cost? As is always the case with these rumors, at the right price, sure! Bring him in.

But with other teams interested, the Bruins would be wise to avoid a bidding war (for both AAV and, more importantly, term).