spending $9.7M on a 30 year old winger when those are your options at center seems crazy to me.

"You can't polish a turd". Putting Zacha between Pasta and Guentzel (or any top winger) is neutering the wingers potential. Zacha did great, but he needs to be back on the wing with someone better at C

There is no top line center available. Even the 2C options aren't great and I'm not interested in overpaying Lindholm either. Guentzel is a top line player and that's what they need. Sure he's 30, but again there isn't many options.

Who is better and on a similar/better contract? I'd rather stick with what they have for the short-term than make a high-risk, low reward move just for the sake of doing something. Also, most top lines have two 1st liners with another complementary player (Pacioretty-Stephenson-Stone, Verhaeghe-Bennett-Tkachuk)

I dont hate the Guentzel signing at all, I just think it’s unrealistic he signs here if we don’t have a good C for him. Maybe playing with Pasta could be enough? I think this team does need some talent. You do have $3.8m in cap still. I wonder if you trade a Geekie to free up $2m and avoid the Carrier signing, that frees up about $7m. I also think the best way for this team to improve the bottom 6 rather than signing someone for it, is to acquire a player that bumps Coyle back down to 3C. Maybe there is a creative way to get a C via trade within this framework or maybe Lindholm takes $7m aav.

I agree that there isn't a top line center out there (at least not a good one), but the logic of giving out the second or third biggest contract in franchise history to a guy that's going to be 30 when puck drops because, "there's no one else," is how teams wind up with buyouts. Also, I don't think that its a guarantee that Guentzel is what we've seen on the stat sheet in boston. He's spent his entire career playing with elite centers, and Boston doesn't have that to offer. I could certainly see a scenario where that 40 goal winger on crosbys wing is actually more of a 27 goal winger on Zacha's wing. With that risk, I really don't want to be paying him for 7 years at top of the market.

So no, I don't think paying that guy, who isn't really a positional need and has some concerns is the answer to, "but there's no one else out there."

take some lower risk shots:
make stamkos is available
maybe Lindholm or Stephenson don't have the market we might think and could be had at a more reasonable tag.
Barring that, there are good depth options out there that will come with much less term, so that if they don't work out, it's not going to be a handcuff for the better part of a decade.

Now, the one argument I could see for going this route - slap Poitras between Guentzel and Pastrnak. if that kid can't develop with those two guys on his wings, he's not meant for this league.

I'll believe it when I see it, but chances are you are more likely to regret a Lindholm/Stephenson contract than Guentzel. They will cost less because they are worse players and while the Bruins do need to replace DeBrusk, their priority should be elite/high-end talent to help in addition to Pastrnak. Guentzel and Reinhart are 1st liners.

Stamkos is 35 next season and he isn't the play driver he once was. Health concerns aside, why would he leave TBL to join another team in the same division? It's doubtful he takes a discount either. Most importantly, it would have to be a short-term contract and I'm not sure the Bruins will be a serious threat in that time.

Lets say Stamkos signs for three years at $7M. I see way less risk in that than 7x9.7 for guenztel, and frankly more upside too. The reason to leave tampa is the salary cap. it's really tight down there.

I do think there's a chance to regret a Lindholm deal, but at least it addresses the position of need. if he can be had at 7x7, I really don't think there's much of a chance you regret it for 3-4 years. Stephenson should be shorter term...maybe 4x6. there's just not that big of a risk there. Guentzel is a massive risk, and I just don't see how its really a team need.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say that next off-season Draisaitl is available. I don't think having Stephenson at six million for three more seasons will prevent you from getting an offer to Draisaitl. Guentzel at 9.7 for another six might.

Stamkos is much more likely to keep regressing over that 3-year deal.

You can add Lindholm to replace DeBrusk and therefore improve the position of center, but few guys are still line one line too high (including Lindholm who isn't a 1st liner). Center or wing, there is a hole.

"and I just don't see how its really a team need"
They need elite or high-end forwards. Pastrnak is one. They need a 1st line C. Marchand is 36yo and will continue to decline as he isn't the elite forward he was few years ago so they do have a need on the left wing too.

Players have random reasons when they sign. Gaudreau to Columbus and Panarin to NYR while they were rebuilding, Hall to Buffalo when he wanted to win. It's really about convincing Guentzel with the advantages.

Of course, even with Guentzel, they're still missing a 1st line C and another top6 forward unless Poitras takes a massive step.

Even if you save money on Geekie/Carrier, you need to fill another spot and keep enough money in case of injuries/callups + accruing a bit of cap space.

on stamkos - yes, he's likely to regress. the risk of both regression and contract disasters is much smaller in a three year window than a seven year window. with stamkos you probably get two good years and one year where you don't love the contract. Very possible with Guentzel you wind up with four years that aren't great, or downright horrible.

They don't need elite forwards. its just not how the bruins build teams, or play hockey. the bruins forward groups are based on structure. Do they need talent? sure. but just throwing money at a goal scoring winger isn't the way the bruins do business.

what they need is responsible centers that do have the talent to facilitate offensive production.

Offensively-inclined players like Guentzel tend to age well in their 30s. There's a risk, but the reward is higher. Every Cup winner has multiple top line players. A bunch of complementary top-6 players doesn't cut it unless the goal is to only participate and compete.

no, but if you look at the way boston has done things, and despite only having one cup, they're certainly in that upper echelon of teams regarding success (three finals appearances, some presidents trophys etc), it isn't just, "ummmm go get top line players!" it's more, "get the right ones." The top line players they identify always are defensively responsible. Even Pastrnak is pretty good on the other side of the puck for what he brings offensively.

They lost Bergeron and Krejci. It's pretty clear that's the problem here. Guentzel doesn't replace those guys.

Yes and and the fact they were consistent 0.80 pts/game player was one of the main reasons they succeeded. You're not getting far with Tomas Nosek or Adam Lowry even if they great defensively. Of course, you'd like the best two-way player and the closest he can be to Bergeron, but that's nearly impossible especially if you're trying to get it in free agency or via trade. Guentzel is top offensive player and whatever he's sacrificing defensively, it's not close to the offense he provides which is the toughest thing to acquire. Stephenson or Lindholm don't provide more positive value than Guentzel because they play a little bit better defensively. If you want a solid defensive player, Reinhart will possibly be available.