This is only not approved bc of OEL’s NMC

Way too much for OEL and Garland. OEL is negative value.

Boston keeps their #1, Arizona keeps Garland and sends $$ to Boston to take OEL.

I would call it fair as is

Yeah this is a no thank you - OEL is a solid player, but that contract and salary is not what the Bruins need. Lauzon filled in quite nicely this year.

Well, it definitely, definitely is not.

Too much to give up for Garland and OEL. I don't think OEL would even be an option for the bruins and I don't think McAvoy would play well with OEL.

I think you underestimate how much garland is far and away the best player in this deal. If the yotes ate $2.5 of oel this would absolutely be fair. Debrusk has no value after that abomination of a year, lauzon looked like a pylon in the playoffs, I’m not even going to get into what a colossal waste of a pick senyshyn was, the 1st is the most valuable thing you’re sending to Arizona

Lauzon had a real good year. Played in the playoffs with a broken hand. He had surgery during the playoffs.
If you think debrusk has no value, well, i just don’t think we’re watching the same league. Even with that abomination of a season (are you giving no consideration to how weird a year this was with no pre-season, and a shortened off season?) he’s still averaged a 22 goal per 82 pace. OELs contract is the real abomination in this deal.

17 points in 51 games on an offensively gifted team is an abomination yes. Getting basically demoted to the bottom line shows zero faith in him from the organization which hurts his value even further. So yes, he has minimal at best value. Lauzon had a good regular season? Fine I didn’t catch as many B’s games as I’m sure you did. Still doesn’t change the fact they garland is by far the best player in the deal. As far as oel’s contract goes, he’s a good player at $5.6 mil

He’s a good player at $3M. At 4.25 it becomes mildly interesting. At 5.6 its a hard no.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves and think that Garland is this great player and the best in this deal. I mean Garland performs at a 0.58 pts per game clip and Jake's 0.55 - Jake made some improvements defensively and even averaged almost a minute a game of Short handed time on ice compared to Garland's zero PK ability. So even with Jake's off season this year to claim he is a bad player and that Garland is that much better is a pretty silly remark. As for the moving down the lines, see my first point about the trust enough to play him in a PK situation this year and not to mention moving down to Coyles line is because we had Hall and Smith on the flanks on the second line. So its better than we pump the breaks here on the "Ra Ra Ra Garland is great". I mean if you believe the inability to play PK and provide the team an extra 2.46 pts per 82 games is great....then sure I am mistaken, he is a monster and any team should be lucky to have him.

This deal makes no sense for the Bruins - they move Jake who performs at the same level as Garland (at least stats to date), move Lauzon who was their number 1 or 2 D man on the PK and is on a cap friendly hit of 850K until the end of next season.

If you are the Bruins you say thanks, but no thanks as Lauzon, Jake and the 1st are more valuable to the team than Garland and OEL at this juncture.

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say he’s the best player in this deal. Jake has been trending down every year since his rookie, while still having better centers than anything Arizona is rolling out there. Garland put up 39 in 49 this year, on an inept offensive team in Arizona. That would’ve been good for 5th on the B’s. He had 9 less points than pasta and Bergeron. 9. So while he’s not some elite level sniper or whatever you’d like to think I’m valuing him at, he’s absolutely a top 6 player who going forward is the best player in this deal. I get you most likely don’t watch any Arizona games so you don’t really know what he brings, and that’s cool, but Jake is trending to bottom 6 grinder with some offensive upside. To say the league views Jake and Conor on the same scoring level now would be foolish at best. No one would do that swap straight up ever.

Ok two things to note - in my comments I said this trade makes no sense for the Bruins for a number of reasons, so lets be sure to note that. Also I don't believe that Garland is the best thing since sliced bread here. I have seen him play enough and while he would be an asset to a team and is a coaches player, he isnt leaps and bounds ahead of Jake. You talk as if the Bruins have lead the league in scoring year after year....Your inept scoring team only scored 15 goals less than the bruins this year (clip rate of 0.25 goals less per game) - that may explain why he was so close to Bergeron and Pasta (granted Pasta came back off an injury and still didn't look like himself) - but never the less you appear to be putting Garland on their level or close to which also blows my mind and I wont even go down that rabbit hole of explaining to you the fact that Garland isn't as good as either of those players. We will have to agree to disagree as you think Garland way better than Jake, that jake is trash and at the age of 24 he is already a lost cause with no hope trending down.... not to mention the insinuation that the 9 point difference this season somehow makes Garland close to Bergeron and Pasta now.....mind blown.

However that wont negate the original comments, the Bruins don't need this trade - Garland wont replace Smith or Hall (if they resign him) on the second line, he doesn't provide that much more than Jake, OEL contract and term would be stupid for the Bruins to take on at the expense of Lauzon and draft capital. Just makes zero sense for the Bruins to pull the trigger on this deal - Besides with Garland being so great it sounds like the Yotes would want to keep this upper echelon player any way.

Well let’s clear one thing up, if Boston got him he’s their 3rd best winger, at absolute worst 4th depending on if hall stays. Smith isn’t better than garland, that’s a joke. Did I say garland was close to the game breaker as pasta and Bergeron? No. I pointed out he wasn’t that far off their totals on a bad team, which is far better and far more valuable than debrusk. His point totals are trending down, his game has lost confidence, he’s heading for a bottom 6 with scoring pop role. Sorry to break that news to you. I know you need him to be better than he actually is due to the wasted 3 straight first rounders of which he was apart of.
As far as Arizona keeping him, sure I’d love that, but I’d also love a 1C and a 2C, of which Arizona needs to draft. It’s the nhl, it’s about building a window with players of like ages that gives you a good run to a cup. If Arizona drafts top 3 the next two years it’s probably two more after that when they can buy matthews and turn the corner. I’d rather have high picks to build the team.

Sure thing - Garland can definitely stay with the Yotes given this particular offer. I do hope that he takes another step in development as well, he is a player every team needs and likes to have, so for his sake I would like to see him produce 50+ pts every season for his career based on your evaluation of him.

Seems like he’s a good dude I’d enjoy that for him. Still better than debrusk and smith, don’t think you’d find anyone willing to trade him for either of those two. Boston will get their Detroit meltdown soon, but at least they’ll have debrusk still

Yeah - I mean Smith has his place, but even I would take the youth of 25 over his being 31 so no one ever said he would get traded straight up for Garland. But his energy, puck retrieval, 2 way game is needed on that second line with Hall and Krecji.

Yeah as for a meltdown, all good things must come to an end and they have had a solid run the past 15 years missing the playoffs I think twice, won a cup and been to the finals multiple times etc. So they have had better days than many other teams. Its good when other teams fans are wanting and calling for meltdowns....means they have been doing something right to make others envious.

I think you’re missing the point through the fandom. Is this trade perfect? No. There could be salary retained, different pieces added, a whole host of things. The price for garland at the deadline was a first and a prospect. Boston was interested, they just had hall fall in their lap instead. That prospect was likely to be debrusk. Multiple sources reported on the interest at that price. Debrusk isn’t improving, he’s regressing, that’s my entire point you seem to be missing. Nope garland isn’t Bergeron or pasta, but someone who can preform close to those point levels on a **** team is a valuable top 6 asset.

As far as envy goes, I think your 1 cup will be further down the list. You’ve cashed 2 in 50 years, I wouldn’t exactly write home about it. You have the cache of being an original 6 team, you shouldn’t be on the same level as Carolina this millennium.

You were claiming a meltdown buddy - which is true most good things come to an end. I guess my point was you need to make the playoffs at a chance to win the cup and they have had a good run the last few years and usually when people make comments about meltdowns yada yada yada its often because they want to see them fail due to success - if they were already failing no one would be calling or asking for meltdowns.

Rumours also say that every good player on the trade block is going to the Leafs - clearly that's not the case... they are just that, rumours until they are not. Its more than likely the Bruins didn't want to give up a similar player and a pick - the last reports on the trade were more so prospect and a pick

"As Friedman mentioned above, the Coyotes aren’t looking for multiple picks. They’ll want a prospect and a high draft pick in compensation. It would most likely be Urho Vaakanainen or Jakub Lauko to be sent out to the desert"

That being said, the Bruins landed Hall instead of paying this price that they thought was a bit steep.

Again we will agree to disagree - you are asking about pieces being added or not added....they are not in the above trade, sure anything is possible if you are adding different aspects to the trade, the one above makes no sense for the direction the Bruins are moving in. What's even more amusing is that you are high Garland, would he be good player to add, yes. But with resigning Hall looking promising the Bruins would be keen on OEL over Garland due to their needs - only caveat to that is his term and salary.

As for DeBrusk you are correct he regressed last year and now he is a washed up 24 year old hockey player - trend is looking down for his future as a hockey player

Well good luck with that. You seem to be stuck in your view and that’s great. Boston can go back to being the team happy Gilmore repped that one time but at least you got a cup and a patch for being original 6. Winning teams flip deprecating assets at the right times but Jake is on the rebound so you got it

Guess Garland and OEL were worth just a 1st round pick and cap dump pieces at the end of the day....who knew.

No one said oel had value, garland clearly had enough value to move out that ridiculous contract, and get a top 10 pick plus a second. Guess I was a bit more spot on with his value than you. Glad you dug this up though, find it quite comical you held on this long and then tried to imply Arizona didn’t win that trade

LMAO - yeah spot on - that the above trade made great sense and that both the Yotes assets were great - man alive some people can't see the forest through the trees

Buddy what are you even arguing here? You don’t even have lauzon anymore so clearly his value was next to nothing, the 22 pick was lower than the top 10 pick they actually got for garland, and debrusk isn’t worth Jack. I’ll happily take the offer they got from Vancouver because it’s a better offer than this one. Talk about not seeing the Forest dear lord you’re a dull one