Quoting: Hobo
But you are basically suggesting the Bruins retain salary for another team, move 3rd round picks, a Vezina winning goalie for basically Calum and a 2nd. The two 3rd round picks are more valuable to the Bruins as they need more picks not less rebuild their prospect pool.
I can understand where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree. The Bruins prospect pool doesn't lack guys that can crack an NHL lineup, it lacks guys that can crack the top 6 of an NHL lineup. They need talent. In my opinion, two 3rds is not worth as much as a 2nd for addressing their needs.
It helps to break it down a bit into the constituent parts:
Ullmark with retention for Ritchie+Georgiev is not enough for the Avs even to me as a non-Avs fan. I threw in a 3rd to try to smooth over the gap. Again, I estimate the current best return for Ullmark to be a 2025 late 1st rounder (you can disagree, but that is my logic). I value Ritchie over a 1st round 2025 pick because he will be ready to contribute 2 years sooner, and he gets a slight bump from his 20OA status for performing well in the OHL for 1 season after being drafted.
Georgiev with retention probably deserves more than I took back now that I think about it. Maybe a 2nd outright. I was initially thinking a 3rd, but that is probably fair value without the retention. When I had this as a trade with LA in my ACGM, where retention makes more sense, I was taking back a prospect which was probably closer to the equivalent of a late 2nd.
Quoting: Hobo
So you are saying retain salary and move a vezina goalie for Calum? Not going to fly. Bruins will basically hold on to both goalies to start the year if that is the best offer they get and try to move him at the deadline. Varlamov and Schneider both got top 11 overall picks in a trade.
I think I value Ritchie more than you do. We can disagree, but hopefully you understand my logic above.
Quoting: Hobo
Heck even Darcy Kuemper got a 1st, prospect and a 3rd as a return.
Looking at the details, it was a likely late-round 1st (32 OA in the end) + Connor Timmins (2nd round pick, not a blue-chipper). The 3rd was conditional on winning the cup, which was always a long-shot, but they did it! I am not seeing a significant gap between late 1st vs. late 1st + mid-tier prospect + 3rd conditional on winning the cup. Also in Colorado's situation, they were a contending team who was desperate for a starting goalie, as they had just lost Grubauer, so they might have needed to throw in some sweeteners. You could argue that NJ and LA are in a similar position and would be better trade partners, but I am not sure that they have a big-bodied C prospect with as high of a pedigree on a similar timeline.
Quoting: Hobo
I get rebuilding a pipeline, but retaining valuable salary, moving out 2 draft picks to get 1 that is moderately better and moving a very good goalie for 1 prospect doesn't move the needle for the team. There are pieces that can be worked with here, but the Bruins aren't making that deal above.
We've touched on why I feel the 2nd is much more important than 2 3rd, and I also conceded that maybe we should only be sending out a single 3rd. Also, I don't see retaining salary for a single year as much of an issue. We aren't signing any impact players to 1 year deals this year, so any UFA signings we make will impact us for years. I think the Bruins can be competitive with maybe 1-2 key signings this offseason, but even if they signed a 3rd guy I don't think it puts them over the top into true cup contender status. I'd rather maintain cap flexibility to re-sign our guys without being leveraged and to see who is available in the 2025 offseason. And in terms of ways to use cap space for a single year, I'd rather spend the left over cap space on improving the prospect pipeline through 1 year of retention than just letting it accrue for a deadline trade or adding more low-impact guys on 1 years deals.