Brad Richards (Eklund)

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickyHussle. Show RickyHussle's posts

    Brad Richards (Eklund)

    http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Who-are-the-2-Most-Desperate-Teams-Right-Now---Bruins-Clearing-for-BR/1/33300

    Eklund's latest blog has the Bruins going after Richards.  They would send Wheeler away (possibly to TOR) and use Savvy's cap space if he indeed goes on LTIR.  That just about covers the cap space. What they would need to give up to get Richards is not even discussed.

    I will just say I don't buy this anymore then Dezaruchi's Greene/Parise trade.  The only difference is that Dez admits his is just theoretical.  It is interesting however so I posted for the rest of you who still read fruitlessly like I do.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from darrenryan. Show darrenryan's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    lol i was going to post this too, but i know how people get with Eklund so i didnt,

    however this is interesting to me on 2 fronts,

    1 - why would Dallas even think about trading a player of his caliber when they are battling for a cup...doesnt add up. 

    2 - would the Bruins look for a center rather then a PMD?...I would put all assets into a puck mover rather then a Center....although Richards is very good 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickyHussle. Show RickyHussle's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]lol i was going to post this too, but i know how people get with Eklund so i didnt, however this is interesting to me on 2 fronts, 1 - why would Dallas even think about trading a player of his caliber when they are battling for a cup...doesnt add up.  2 - would the Bruins look for a center rather then a PMD?...I would put all assets into a puck mover rather then a Center....although Richards is very good 
    Posted by darrenryan[/QUOTE]

    You know I am especially interested in your second point.  I love Kampfer, I think he could be special, but I would prefer he be on the third Line come playoff time.  I would also have him on one of the PPs.  I would NOT want Chara or Seidenberg to have to cover for his defensive deficiencies during 5 on 5 play in the playoffs.  The kid just has too much work to do on his defensive zone game.  I really think a top 4 veteran PMD is the number one need for this team going into the playoffs.  I am wary of Kaberle because I hear he makes as many mistakes as the kid, but it seems like Regehr has a better reputation in his own zone and he seems the ideal fit to me for that reason.

    Anyways I think we're going to do something possibly a blockbuster and I'm currently just as nervous as I am excited because these pieces won't be free.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Richards has an expiring contract.  Hicks is trying to sell the team, so giving Richards a 5 year, $30M contract isn't going to help that.  Dallas would most likely lose Richards in the off season.  Trading him now makes sense.

    With Savard's cap space and an underachieving offenes, the B's could use an injection.

    2+2=4.

    Eklund does this all the time.  He sees a decent fit and states it as pending fact.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickyHussle. Show RickyHussle's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]Richards has an expiring contract.  Hicks is trying to sell the team, so giving Richards a 5 year, $30M contract isn't going to help that.  Dallas would most likely lose Richards in the off season.  Trading him now makes sense. With Savard's cap space and an underachieving offenes, the B's could use an injection. 2+2=4. Eklund does this all the time.  He sees a decent fit and states it as pending fact.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I used to argue this, but wasn't Phillips probable last week?  I mean at the very least he is exagerating the likelihood of the moves he discusses and it would be difficult for me to argue with people who have a more skeptical view of his "insider information".

    I'm just considering it for it's interest as a theoretical move not as something which is in the works.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    darrenryan- why would the b's look for a center?- did you not know that the b's most likely lost savvy for the season? i'm so sick of pmd-stupidness-i think people just like to write that because it makes them "sound" smart.  defense is the last thing this team needs-the thin spots are up front-who are these pmd's going to pass the puck to? people make it sound like they are using the but end of their sticks to get out of their own zone!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from derrickmorin. Show derrickmorin's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Add Richards to the list of players that will never wear the spoked B now that Ek has mentioned him.  Soon there will be noone to add at the deadline.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from bandgbleeder. Show bandgbleeder's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Number 6 in the NHL in goals for is underperforming? # 2 in the conference is too?
    http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLAAAAll&sort=avgGoalsPerGame&viewName=goalsFor

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]Richards has an expiring contract.  Hicks is trying to sell the team, so giving Richards a 5 year, $30M contract isn't going to help that.  Dallas would most likely lose Richards in the off season.  Trading him now makes sense. With Savard's cap space and an underachieving offenes, the B's could use an injection. 2+2=4. Eklund does this all the time.  He sees a decent fit and states it as pending fact.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]Number 6 in the NHL in goals for is underperforming? # 2 in the conference is too? http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLAAAAll&sort=avgGoalsPerGame&viewName=goalsFor In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund) :
    Posted by bandgbleeder[/QUOTE]

    Instead of looking at the total goals for the season, I was looking at the fact that the top pointgetter on the team has 40, tying him at 38th overall.

    Bergeron has 40 points.  Richards has 37 assists.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bandgbleeder. Show bandgbleeder's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    And yet the Bruins still have more goals i the same number of games, and against better goaltending.

    I'm not saying I wouldn't want Richards, but expecting him to come in and fit into the system immediately and keep producing quickly is a tiny bit of a stretch.

    Bruins have 10 players over 20 points, Stars have 7.

    And Richards is the highest scoring member of his team, with a +/- a third of Bergeron's, meaning his defense is probably about where Savards was when Savard got here.

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund) : Instead of looking at the total goals for the season, I was looking at the fact that the top pointgetter on the team has 40, tying him at 38th overall. Bergeron has 40 points.  Richards has 37 assists.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Why would a very good West Conf. Team like Dallas deal one of their best players?

    Eklund is a rube.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Im pretty sure if Dallas traded Richards now there would be rioting in the street, actually maybe if they did it during the superbowl no1 would notice.

    But why would Dallas consider trading richards because some other team could use him its completely absurd notion. Im sure 29 other teams in teh NHL could use Chara. Im actually shocked that Chara to every other team isnt e4 yet.

    What a joke.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Us Bruins fans make fun of (and thank) Burke and the leafs everyday for setting us up to be a very good team for a very long time.  And yet a lot of people want to throw that away on a rental player.  I can't think of the last time a rental trade was not regretted by the start of the next year.  The leafs throwing prospects and pics at rental players in the 90's is why they are where they are now.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bandgbleeder. Show bandgbleeder's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    BINGO!
    The only way I can see a deal like that being done is if the Bruins can somehow talk the Stars into letting them negotiate a new contract with Richards and the contract signing being contingent on the trade.

    If the new ownership is intent on having a couple cheap rebuilding years, this could happen. Although I'd rather throw in even two of Caron, Colborne, Suave, Knight instead of both 1st round picks.

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]Us Bruins fans make fun of (and thank) Burke and the leafs everyday for setting us up to be a very good team for a very long time.  And yet a lot of people want to throw that away on a rental player.  I can't think of the last time a rental trade was not regretted by the start of the next year.  The leafs throwing prospects and pics at rental players in the 90's is why they are where they are now.
    Posted by Seabasshole[/QUOTE]
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]And yet the Bruins still have more goals i the same number of games, and against better goaltending. I'm not saying I wouldn't want Richards, but expecting him to come in and fit into the system immediately and keep producing quickly is a tiny bit of a stretch. Bruins have 10 players over 20 points, Stars have 7. And Richards is the highest scoring member of his team, with a +/- a third of Bergeron's, meaning his defense is probably about where Savards was when Savard got here. In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund) :
    Posted by bandgbleeder[/QUOTE]

    Richards is a total pro, not like Kovalchuk or Kessel.  Fitting into the system should be no problem.

    How does the amount of people with 20 points or more on either team matter?

    +/- is more based on a team, not an individual.  Look at Dennis Wideman's stats for more on this.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    May I ask again what people think Boston can give Dallas for Richards for it to make sense for them?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hockguy0818. Show Hockguy0818's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    ^This. If I were Dallas, I'd ask for Toronto's #1 in the package (along with other assets as well--whether it be prospects or players).

    I agree, however, that the B's could use another real good offensive player, like NAS said, regardless of the fact that he plays Centre. In the end, it comes down to what the Bruins would be willing to give up, AND if Richards would grant them permission to negotiate an extension in a certain time-window. For those wondering what type of deal it would take, think along Savard's 7 years, but with more money.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Richards wanted 6-7YRS at 6-7M per. He's a darn good player, but I would not part with the top 5 pick unless Richards is willing to sign an extension.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Does Richards salary of 7.8 million not bother anyone else?  thats more than Chara. do you think he's going to take a big paycut in the summer to stay with the Bruins or just sign with the Rangers or Leafs after a bidding war?  Also, that 7.8 is less due to being 1/4 of the season but so is the space we have to clear, its relative, we need savard on the LTIR and another 4 million off the books.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]Does Richards salary of 7.8 million not bother anyone else?  thats more than Chara. do you think he's going to take a big paycut in the summer to stay with the Bruins or just sign with the Rangers or Leafs after a bidding war?  Also, that 7.8 is less due to being 1/4 of the season but so is the space we have to clear, its relative, we need savard on the LTIR and another 4 million off the books.
    Posted by Seabasshole[/QUOTE]

    No one is worried about the salary because there is no way this happens.  Richards is an elite center and proven playoff performer.  Why would a playoff team trade that away?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    This is a solid move if the bruins are considering that Savard may retire rather than risk his future health. Richards is a class act and knows it's a business, and may very well be willing to agree to a period of negotiation. Going to Dallas could be some of Chiarelli's pick[s] plus one of the young forwards. Also, Chiarelli may negotiate Ryder's remaining mil to offset Richards current contract. If the Bruins eliminate both Savard and Ryder's $ they will have enough for Richards next contract as part of the core.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from darrenryan. Show darrenryan's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]darrenryan- why would the b's look for a center?- did you not know that the b's most likely lost savvy for the season? i'm so sick of pmd-stupidness-i think people just like to write that because it makes them "sound" smart.  defense is the last thing this team needs-the thin spots are up front-who are these pmd's going to pass the puck to? people make it sound like they are using the but end of their sticks to get out of their own zone!
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]


    Yes we lost Savvy....I get that....but we have a team thats depth chart at center is by far the strongest on the team

    Krejci
    Bergeron
    Savvy
    Seguin
    Campbell
    Hamill
    Colborne
    Spooner
    Knight
    Arniel
    Wheeler can play center as well

    but yet you think its a wise desicion to take some young assets and trade for another center?....no thanks, not needed

    What is our defence going to do come playoff time when the forcheck increases 25%....they will fail   TRUST ME

    you need a Puck moving defensmen (boy did i sound smart)...hense why every team is looking for one
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bandgbleeder. Show bandgbleeder's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    Just for future reference...
    Did you list the centers in a particular order or just as they came to you?


    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund) : Yes we lost Savvy....I get that....but we have a team thats depth chart at center is by far the strongest on the team Krejci Bergeron Savvy Seguin Campbell Hamill Colborne Spooner Knight Arniel Wheeler can play center as well but yet you think its a wise desicion to take some young assets and trade for another center?....no thanks, not needed What is our defence going to do come playoff time when the forcheck increases 25%....they will fail   TRUST ME you need a Puck moving defensmen (boy did i sound smart)...hense why every team is looking for one
    Posted by darrenryan[/QUOTE]
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from xenimus. Show xenimus's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]May I ask again what people think Boston can give Dallas for Richards for it to make sense for them?
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    In defense to Boston (Even McKenzie) said that the Bruins are the team that hold the most ammo in terms of trading power due to young talent on roster, prospects, and high draft picks in early rounds.

     Basically, the Bruins can get anyone they want if they get creative enough to do so.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund) : Yes we lost Savvy....I get that....but we have a team thats depth chart at center is by far the strongest on the team Krejci Bergeron Savvy Seguin Campbell Hamill Colborne Spooner Knight Arniel Wheeler can play center as well but yet you think its a wise desicion to take some young assets and trade for another center?....no thanks, not needed What is our defence going to do come playoff time when the forcheck increases 25%....they will fail   TRUST ME you need a Puck moving defensmen (boy did i sound smart)...hense why every team is looking for one
    Posted by darrenryan[/QUOTE]

    Just because they're in the system, it doesn't mean they're any good, or good enough for the NHL.  Anytime you start listing AHL and CHL players, you're exposing an impressive lack of argument.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jwb413. Show jwb413's posts

    Re: Brad Richards (Eklund)

    In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brad Richards (Eklund) : In defense to Boston (Even McKenzie) said that the Bruins are the team that hold the most ammo in terms of trading power due to young talent on roster, prospects, and high draft picks in early rounds.  Basically, the Bruins can get anyone they want if they get creative enough to do so.
    Posted by xenimus[/QUOTE]

    I hope you are right. Now is the time to make this team a strong contender. This is what the Dr. ordered.
     

Share