I saw a Bruins fan post up a Virtanen for Spooner swap on another site, and at first I was completely turned off by it with Virtanen's lack of success in the NHL and AHL, but after looking into it more, I wouldn't hate it. Vancouver might not be for it, so I'd be interested in their take on a deal. Wouldn't have to be a 1 for 1....I could see both sides adding to it, if needed (Bruins adding for Virtanen, and Vanocouver adding something (minor) for Spooner). But the premise of the deal is that Vancouver has interest in Spooner according to Ryan Kennedy, THN. Boston has a need for a player who actually fits the team better, and Virtanen (who may need a change of scenery after a shaky start in Vancouver) may be a perfect fit. He can come in and slide right next to Bergeron and Marchand. If he struggles, the Bruins slide him down in the lineup, and he still plays a game effective for that role.

After that, in this scenario, Boston doesn't seek a LW via trade and goes with a young player with upside. DeBrusk has had himself a solid rookie season, coming on of late and carrying it into the playoffs. Cassidy has hinted at giving him a look at a top 6 role next year already. Also for this scenario, the Bruins can't find a buyer for Beleskey and see if he can regain his form from his first season here. If he could do that, it would be huge for Boston. Kuraly, to me, fits in a 4th line role, and he subs in for anyone is struggling. O'Gara subs in for Colin if he struggles.

I think you can get Pasta for a little less. I'm not suggesting Boston should give him the shaft, but (I'm writing off the cuff here...0 research) I think that would be the largest RFA contract extension to date. He's a great player and a Kuch type contract shouldn't be expected, but I'm thinking just under $6M. Also, do you think Boston should create a term just enough so his next contract keeps him @ RFA? Thoughts?

I know Pastrnak wants to stay in Boston long term and Boston obviously has the same feeling. I think Boston would want to lock him up for as long as possible. This matches Marchand's deal to a "T". They get him under 6.5M which if he has another season like this past one, he'll easily surpass. As a fan, I want him locked up. I have no idea what Boston is thinking though.

Also, wouldn't Tarasenko's last deal be the largest? His deal was 60M/8Y = 7.5 AAV

The Virtanen trade is an interesting idea. At first glance, I was 90% for it, but after looking at his performance in Vancouver I have some doubts. Granted, its pretty difficult for a young player to reach his full potential on a dumpster fire that is the Canucks, but he wasn't even performing at the AHL level. Vancouver would have to add a pick (maybe a 3rd or 4th) for me to get on board with this.

But on the other hand this could be a low risk/high reward scenario. Spooner isn't playing another game in Boston, so we need to get at least something of value in return for him. If Virtanen can come into Boston and perform well with Bergy and Marchand, it could really help out our lines (i.e. no need to look for a LW as you mentioned). It would also provide a veteran presence on the third line w/Backes helping out JFK and Vatrano.

Okay im done rambling. Good mock.

I very generously gave you a 3 star rating. #1 problem is that Vancouver already has 3 C's in Sedin, Horvat and Sutter, so Spooner doesn't meet their needs at all. #2 you traded for a guy who's not only had zero NHL success, but also zero AHL success and you put him on your first line. That's basically obviously insane and a lack of pure logic. Even if you're trying to balance the lines, this guy won't keep up and will be back in the AHL before you know it. This would be better if you just added a mid priced UFA to play on the first line. Maybe Justin Williams for like 3Mil x2years? I don't know.... just a suggestion, I don't wanna take over your mock.... just think theres gotta be a better option than Virtanen on line 1. Lets see him prove himself at the AHL level before we go to crazy with him.

I'm just going off Vancouver having interest in Spooner. It wasn't something I came up with randomly. So if Vancouver has interest, then they have interest for a reason, regardless of the 3 centers. Spooner has no spot in Boston anymore. He still has value though. He is a 40-50 point centerman. He just won't get the legitimate look here in Boston. Maybe he can find success somewhere else.

On Virtanen, I highlighted the lack of production in my first post. If you look at his underlying NHL numbers, they're not bad. He's played basically 4th line minutes at the NHL level. I don't know his use at the AHL level. This was his rookie season there though. He seemed to miss some games as well. Not sure on the reasoning. I put him on the first line because look at the two players he'd be playing with. Marchand and Bergeron. Virtanen plays a game perfectly built for these two. He has the speed and skill to keep up and he can also make space. Also, just because he starts on the 1st line doesn't mean he starts there. I mentioned he could easily flop and be nothing more than a bottom 6 type player.

THN reported that Vancouver is interested in making an offer for Spooner.

It would have been nice if he had read my first comment on the mock haha.....Must have missed that part.

I like the Virtanen idea. He's a big strong kid, good skater, nhl release, can throw the body and is willing to stick-up for teammates. The kid is your prototypical power forward with the downside being he has a tendency to take bad penalties. Its a low risk high reward move. I think his style of play is better suited for "the big bad Bruins" instead of the skill speed style of the Canucks.

I definitely don't see that happening.

Love the simplicity and sensibility. Like the cap space. Bruins might need it for need on defence or RW, even if it's with short term vet signings.

Thanks. Good to see you back posting as well! Hope you're feeling better.

3 stars from me ... Virtanen couldn't get Spooner in my opinion, and Kokhlachev will probably never come back to the NHL.

With Vegas, Koko would probably consider a return to the NHL. GMGM loves his Russians.

oh, ok

Yeah, sorry I missed your post. I think Virtanen's value is basically a 3rd round pick at this point and you said that we could get more than that for Spooner in my mock. Virtanen has done nothing so far and it's hard to imagine him being better than our prospects like Heinen or Cehlarik, who were actually good in the AHL when next season starts. If we do trade for him he's going to have to have a monster training camp to make the NHL roster in a top 6 role. This mock isn't impossible, but it is improbable.


Edit: I just wanted to add that I do like your Hayes trade, if we get anything of value for him at this point I'd consider it a win.

Well, like I said above a few times, just because he starts there, doesn't mean he finishes there. Virtanen plays a pro game. He's just not having success. He's played 65 NHL games at around 10-11 minutes of average TOI. This was also his first AHL season. He's a risk.....But his underlying NHL stats aren't bad at all. Vancouver is a dumpster fire.....A change of scenery and a system that would fit him a bit better could potentially do wonders. Worst case, you get a player who fits a bottom 6 role more than Spooner does.

What I'm saying is that he's done nothing to make the big team. Man you must be like totally stoked on Heinen, who actually put up numbers in the AHL at around the same age under the same circumstances. Personally I don't see any way Virtanen beats out Heinen in camp, so just having him on the roster, when our prospects who were in their first AHL year borderline dominated, is weak. He gets the nod because he's new? He certainly hasn't proven he's any better than Cehlarik, Heinen, DeBrusk.... as they were great in the AHL in their first year. I just don't see how he leapfrogs everyone in our pipeline when he's literally done nothing but decline in value since he was drafted.

You're way too literal with these things. This is nothing more than a mock. I'll be doing a bunch of them. Your opinion means little.