It seems like plenty has happened surrounding the Bruins since last Wednesday. Like many weeks leading up to National Hockey League free agency, this of course means two things:
1. Almost nothing has actually happened.
2. What’s transpired has left us with more questions than answers.
Short answer: Nothing for sure. It does move the Torey Krug trade needle, but not because Grzelcyk is a mini-Krug.
Long answer: The Bruins extended Grzelcyk to a two-year contract with an annual cap hit of $1.4 million. The 24-year-old emerged as a reliable third-pairing defenseman in his rookie season, producing 3-12--15 and a plus-21 rating in 61 games.
The on point “bridge contract” will allow Grzelcyk to develop before it’s time for a potential big time contract; It also dispels a notion that Grzelcyk is “Krug 2.0,” something that keeps popping up but isn’t quite accurate.
Yes they’re both 5-foot-9, and the Bruins definitely don’t need two 5-foot-9 defensemen -- but if they were to trade Krug, who’s under contract at $5.25 million for two more years, Grzelcyk isn’t about to shift up and score 59 points in 76 games. Grzelcyk’s strength is his ability to get the puck out of the danger zone, and quick. The Bruins obviously see value in that, but in more of a “Matt Grzelcyk 1.0” way than a “Torey Krug 2.0” way.
That’s just fine, because the Bruins don’t need Krug 2.0. They can’t need Krug 2.0.
The original Krug’s importance to the Black and Gold can’t be understated. Perhaps it surfaced most intensely when he stepped up for the B’s with 14 points in the 10 games Patrice Bergeron missed last season.
He just shouldn’t have had to go so hard in the first place. As potential offensive threats like Jake DeBrusk and Danton Heinen are getting more comfortable, the hope is the Bruins will be able to find more secondary scoring in their forwards, and more...defending in their defensemen.
The first step is always admitting you have a problem, and two 5-foot-9 left-side defensemen is definitely a problem. They’ve known this for a while, and Bruins president Cam Neely acknowledged it back in May.
“As far as size goes, would it be nice to have a little bigger (defenseman) on the left side other than (Chara)? Yes,” he said. “So that’s something I think Don (Sweeney) is going to work on in the offseason.”
You can think Krug is a great player and you can also think that trading him is the Bruins’ best bet for a return high enough to fix their left defense woes. It’s okay, really. We will get through this together.
So, knowing Sweeney is “working on” not having two 5-foot-9 defensemen on the left side, and knowing one of them has just been extended, process of elimination points to shopping Krug around at the very least.
It’s being reported that Jake DeBrusk would be Carolina’s first ask in a trade for Noah Hanifin. That’s about as much of a no-go as it gets for the Bruins, as they showed when they refused to trade him at the deadline. Sweeney could still finesse something solid with Krug. It shouldn’t come as a shock that teams have expressed interest in Krug, but the question becomes if there’s a trade partner Sweeney will deem adequate.
Here’s what we know for sure:
There are two 5-foot-9 left-side defensemen on the Bruins’ current roster. The powers that be have acknowledged that’s not ideal. One of them just got extended. The other sure looks great on this market.
Short answer: Just wait and see.
Long answer: In addition to Grzelcyk, the Bruins signed their 2017 first-round pick defender and a Slovak forward known for a ridiculous shootout goal this week.
• It’s not completely out of the question that 19-year-old Vaakanainen shows up to training camp and proves a viable solution to the left-side defense dilemma, but it’s certainly not the plan.
The 6-foot-1 left shot has logged top-pairing minutes against older players in Finland’s top pro league, Liiga, for the last two seasons. But the understanding is the Bruins value Vaakanainen’s future potential too much to toss him into the NHL before he’s absolutely ready -- no matter how urgently they need what he could eventually provide.
The expectation is that Vaakanainen will be part of the Zdeno Chara replacement plan, something hard enough as it is. He could be ready tomorrow, April, or any date in between. What’s clear is the Bruins want to be extra sure they avoid messing his development up for short term benefit.
• Bakos is a wild card, so the low pressure, one-year contract is ideal. If trade talk is stressing you out you should just watch the video of his shootout goal and remember the Bruins signed him with no real downside. Maybe he’ll pan out, maybe he won’t. He’ll probably add forward depth in replacement of Kenny Agostino and/or Brian Gionta and provide some extra competition at training camp.
Short answer: The Bruins seem increasingly interested. So do the Sharks.
• It seemed Kovalchuk would sign with a West Coast team since the Sharks and Kings first showed interest and met with the 35-year-old winger. The Bruins expressed interest, but so did half the NHL. There were literal tiers of interest. Even though the B’s were in the “first tier” with three other teams, I still thought they would kind of shrug, throw in the towel, and re-sign Rick Nash.
I changed my mind when NHL.com’s Amalie Benjamin reported last week that Don Sweeney has a meeting set up with Kovalchuk’s agents.
"He's a guy who plays in your top six, helps your power play. He's a big, strong guy (6-foot-3, 230 pounds) that can score goals," Sweeney told Benjamin. "And he wants to win. He's coming back over here for a chance to win."
The push for Kovalchuk got interesting again Tuesday afternoon, when the Sharks traded Mikael Boedker (shredding the last two years of his $4 million annual salary) for Mike Hoffman, then flipped Hoffman to the Panthers for three draft picks.
If you’re still with me, that gives them an extra $4 million in cap space, which they were reportedly opening up to make a run at both John Tavares and Kovalchuk.
Apparently there’s an emphasis on the run at Tavares, but they’re serious about both.
Kovalchuk is expected to make a decision before July 1, though he can’t make anything official until then.
Short answer: That isn’t a question.
Long answer: The Athletic’s Mike Russo reported Tuesday that the Flyers are “gearing up to potentially trade Wayne Simmonds.”
Sure, he reported it as a nugget in an article about potential targets for the Minnesota Wild. And anything after a phrase like “gearing up to potentially trade” needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
...But are you saying there’s a chance?
Silly as it is to deem a player a good fit because he seems like a Big Bad Bruin or whatever, the 2018-19 squad could use significantly more Neely -- and Simmonds fits that bill. He’s a tough guy who’s scored in the 30-goal range (29, 28, 32, 31) up until a 2017-18 run plagued by injury. Better yet, he’s under a $5 million annual contract with a $3.975 million cap hit.
Would either side ever go for a potential trade, or are we just screaming into the abyss?
If Boston isn’t on Simmond’s 12 team no-trade list, The Athletic’s lead Flyers writer Charlie O’Connor wouldn’t rule out the possibility.
“I do think that (Flyers GM) Hextall wants to keep Simmonds -- he loves what he brings to the table both on and off the ice. But considering the circumstances, he’d be foolish not to see what other teams might offer for him,” O’Connor said. “My guess is that a first-round pick and either a solid prospect or (preferably) a good young NHL’er would be the ask. But my feeling is that teams will have to bowl Hextall over for him to pull the trigger.”
• It’s also worth mentioning (...I guess) that the Flyers need a third-line center, and Blues rinkside reporter Andy Strickland tweeted Tuesday that David Backes is “generating more interest than some might think.” That was a follow up to a Darren Dreger TSN report that the Bruins “would like” to trade Backes.
Well, with three years left of $6 million annually and a 2018-19 no-movement clause...yeah. The Bruins “would like” to trade him.
Don’t get me wrong, Backes has been a particularly helpful locker room presence with the youth movement, his lack of production is in part due to his role of helping others flourish, and he’s one of the only “grit” forwards the Bruins have left. All of those things are more important than people sometimes want to admit. But $18 million for 3 more years has seemed bleak since Backes’ playoff run ended in a concussion in Game 5, Round 2.
Isn’t this time of year something else? I nearly just convinced myself that a Backes-Simmonds trade could happen.
Anyway, assuming the Bruins are even interested in Simmonds, their system is overflowing with said young players and solid prospects the Flyers might want. Just -- for the love of God -- stop asking for DeBrusk.