All of the big names at the trade deadline were traded - except for Loui Eriksson. Instead, Don Sweeney decided to trade draft picks from the 2016 and 2017 Drafts in the 2nd round, 3rd round, 4th round, and 5th round, as well as Anthony Camara, a minor-league left wing who hasn't scored a goal all season. Their return was defenceman John-Michael Liles and forward Lee Stempniak.
First, let's look at the draft picks. In 2011, Michael Schuckers, an associate professor in statistics at St. Lawrence University, published a paper estimating the value of an NHL draft pick. The probability of one of the picks the Bruins traded away. In his paper, he finds the probability of an NHL draft pick playing more than 200 NHL games by round. In total, the chance that one of the draft picks the Bruins traded away becomes an NHL player is just under 50%. I for one, would not trade away a 50% chance at an NHL player unless the short-term gain compensates for the long-term loss.
Speaking of the return, let's take a look at John-Michael Liles. The 35-year-old defenseman has spent 13 seasons in the NHL and is approaching the 800-game mark. Offensively, he's rather average, with 0.68 P60 and 0.14 G60. But interestingly, he'd be a defensive upgrade over one of my favourite players, Colin Miller. Liles has always been labeled a stay at home defenseman, and looking at this WARRIOR chart comparing him to Colin Miller shows it.
First, let's look at the draft picks. In 2011, Michael Schuckers, an associate professor in statistics at St. Lawrence University, published a paper estimating the value of an NHL draft pick. The probability of one of the picks the Bruins traded away. In his paper, he finds the probability of an NHL draft pick playing more than 200 NHL games by round. In total, the chance that one of the draft picks the Bruins traded away becomes an NHL player is just under 50%. I for one, would not trade away a 50% chance at an NHL player unless the short-term gain compensates for the long-term loss.
Speaking of the return, let's take a look at John-Michael Liles. The 35-year-old defenseman has spent 13 seasons in the NHL and is approaching the 800-game mark. Offensively, he's rather average, with 0.68 P60 and 0.14 G60. But interestingly, he'd be a defensive upgrade over one of my favourite players, Colin Miller. Liles has always been labeled a stay at home defenseman, and looking at this WARRIOR chart comparing him to Colin Miller shows it.
While Liles is trounced in terms of shot generation and goal generation, he is ahead of Colin Miller in all defensive categories, as well as individual offensive production. Obviously, he or his defensive partner needs to pick up the slack on offense, but paired with the right player (Torey Krug, perhaps?) I could see success. His cap hit of $3,875,000 in my opintion is far too expensive for a simple stay-at-home defenceman, but he becomes a UFA next year and won't handcuff the Bruins long-term.
The other player the Bruins acquired was Lee Stempniak. Stempniak signed with the Devils after agreeing to a professional tryout. In just 63 games, Stempniak has scored 16 goals (his career high is 19 goals in 82 games). His shooting percentage is a few percentage points above his career average, but he still provides useful forward depth. His 49.26 TACF% isn't that great, but he would still be a huge upgrade over Landon Ferraro (40.62 TACF%), Zac Rinaldo (45.98 TACF%), Max Talbot (47.26 TACF%), and Joonas Kemppainen (43.67 TACF%). Like Liles, Stempniak will also become a UFA at the end of this season.
But while the players the Bruins traded for could be an upgrade towards the end of the season, there is one big ripple effect that I haven't touched on in this post. The Bruins did not trade Loui Eriksson, the Bruins second-line left wing. According to the recent news from various insiders, the Bruins and Eriksson are still far apart in contract talks. A few days ago, DJ Bean noted that the Bruins offered a contract with a term of three years in December, but that the most recent offer was longer. Loui Eriksson wants a contract longer than three years, but giving him that contract would be potentially disastrous for the Bruins. Here's why.
I've discussed how Eriksson could decline in a few years, and if he does, the Bruins would not want a contract like the one Eriksson is requesting on their hands. Three years is more than enough time to see Eriksson's production go down. While it would be hard to guess his salary, I will say that it will probably be above four million dollars. Also, since he has made it clear he wants to stay in Boston**, so a no-trade clause on his next contract wouldn't be unexpected. But if Eriksson's production declines, the Bruins will have an untradeable contract on their hands. He won't be a bad player, but he will be an overpaid player, and that's something the Bruins can't afford right now.
Bottom line: the Bruins could have cost themselves by simply doing nothing.
* The exact value of the picks was calculated using reverse standings. The Bruins are
* Yes, I know that's what everyone says, but players do want stability so I could see how he could be sincere.
The other player the Bruins acquired was Lee Stempniak. Stempniak signed with the Devils after agreeing to a professional tryout. In just 63 games, Stempniak has scored 16 goals (his career high is 19 goals in 82 games). His shooting percentage is a few percentage points above his career average, but he still provides useful forward depth. His 49.26 TACF% isn't that great, but he would still be a huge upgrade over Landon Ferraro (40.62 TACF%), Zac Rinaldo (45.98 TACF%), Max Talbot (47.26 TACF%), and Joonas Kemppainen (43.67 TACF%). Like Liles, Stempniak will also become a UFA at the end of this season.
But while the players the Bruins traded for could be an upgrade towards the end of the season, there is one big ripple effect that I haven't touched on in this post. The Bruins did not trade Loui Eriksson, the Bruins second-line left wing. According to the recent news from various insiders, the Bruins and Eriksson are still far apart in contract talks. A few days ago, DJ Bean noted that the Bruins offered a contract with a term of three years in December, but that the most recent offer was longer. Loui Eriksson wants a contract longer than three years, but giving him that contract would be potentially disastrous for the Bruins. Here's why.
I've discussed how Eriksson could decline in a few years, and if he does, the Bruins would not want a contract like the one Eriksson is requesting on their hands. Three years is more than enough time to see Eriksson's production go down. While it would be hard to guess his salary, I will say that it will probably be above four million dollars. Also, since he has made it clear he wants to stay in Boston**, so a no-trade clause on his next contract wouldn't be unexpected. But if Eriksson's production declines, the Bruins will have an untradeable contract on their hands. He won't be a bad player, but he will be an overpaid player, and that's something the Bruins can't afford right now.
Bottom line: the Bruins could have cost themselves by simply doing nothing.
* The exact value of the picks was calculated using reverse standings. The Bruins are
* Yes, I know that's what everyone says, but players do want stability so I could see how he could be sincere.