Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    IMO Peverley has been a huge disappointment this year and one of the main culprits for the drop in team scoring (goals/points).  Last season he was 11-31-42 in 57gp, in an 82-game season that pace would have been good for 60 points.  This year, he is 4-8-12 in 33gp, and part of the well discussed shortfall of the 3rd-line.  In short, I would be fine if he were moved in an effort to improve the club.

    Since joining the Thrashers in 2008-09 and later the Bruins in 2010-11 through last year, Peverley held a 64-109-173 line in 260gp.  Normalizing that production to an 82-game schedule, that would result in a scoring line of 20-34-54. 

    Additionally, Peverley is outstanding on draws.  He is 59% this year, was 61% LY and was 56% in 2010-11.  He is also versatile, can play either C/W as demonstrated in his time with the B's.

    His contract is also fairly reasonable and is under control for another 2 seasons @ $3.25M.  He does have a graduated NTC that would need to navigated, which includes an 8-team submission for 2012-13 and 15-teams in 2013-14.

    So, what is a Stanley Cup champion, 50-point versatile forward, who is outstanding on draws with a reasonable contract worth in the marketplace?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    SOLD ...GONE ....HOPEFULLY

    there are 3 players I would like to see go play elsewhere...Pandolfo , Flying mosquito (PEV), and ST.......I cannot believe that a team of our caliber have those 3 players on their roster,  Halpern picked up by Mtl pn waivers...played 3 games with his new team and already scored once and plays over 17 minutes per game ....what do we do with those 3 stooges on our team ???

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NorthernB. Show NorthernB's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    COLUMBUS of all teams is looking to add scoring and they are willing to part with one of their first round picks...

    Will the Bruins become sellers and buyers..time will tell..

    Chia - time to stir the (bean)pot!!

    BBB

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    You make a great case as to why the Bruins should keep Peverley.  i.e., he's good.

     

    He's had a bad year, no doubt, but he's been playing with garbage all year and was dropped from the pp to start the season in favour of a couple rookies, which no doubt was a blow to his confidence.  The Bruins need to keep Peverley for his versatility.  He can play top-line, third line, any line, and brings intensity, speed and jam.  What they need is someone with skill for him to play with.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to OatesCam's comment:

     

    He's had a bad year, no doubt, but he's been playing with garbage all year and was dropped from the pp to start the season in favour of a couple rookies, which no doubt was a blow to his confidence.  The Bruins need to keep Peverley for his versatility.  He can play top-line, third line, any line, and brings intensity, speed and jam.  What they need is someone with skill for him to play with.



    Completely agree with this. Stick anyone with Pandolfo and Caron for half a season and their stats will drop to nil.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    The Bruins need to add to the roster, not delete from it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NorthernB. Show NorthernB's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to OatesCam's comment:

    You make a great case as to why the Bruins should keep Peverley.  i.e., he's good.

     

    He's had a bad year, no doubt, but he's been playing with garbage all year and was dropped from the pp to start the season in favour of a couple rookies, which no doubt was a blow to his confidence.  The Bruins need to keep Peverley for his versatility.  He can play top-line, third line, any line, and brings intensity, speed and jam.  What they need is someone with skill for him to play with.



    Sorry Oates - you are 2 for 4 on your commentary:

    Versatile = YES, Speed = YES, Intensity and Jam = No & NO !!! this guy rarely wins a puck battle... i like Peverley but something is missing in his game this season.. He was the leading scorer on Atlanta with very little help.. he has been absent all year with or without Kelly in the lineup. Anybody could have a good year when you surround them with good players. He is the player that should make players around him better - no the opposite..imo

    BBB

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    The Bruins need to add to the roster, not delete from it.




    Exactly, you get rid of Peverley and replace him with...?

    If the answer is simply the return on his trade then you have not really added.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    The Bruins need to add to the roster, not delete from it.

     




    Exactly, you get rid of Peverley and replace him with...?

     

    If the answer is simply the return on his trade then you have not really added.



    Wasn't thinking you deal Peverley for draft picks or prospects.

    Thinking about how to land a legimate top-3/top-6 winger or a top-4 d-man.  The will still have versatile forwards in Kelly & Campbell that you could re-make the 3rd-line with.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

     Wasn't thinking you deal Peverley for draft picks or prospects.

     

    Thinking about how to land a legimate top-3/top-6 winger or a top-4 d-man.  The will still have versatile forwards in Kelly & Campbell that you could re-make the 3rd-line with.



    I have no problem dealing Peverley for something better if it can be done, believe me. Rich would have to be packaged up with a high draft pick and prospect because he is not going to get much of a return on his own obviously.

    Just as long as it is simply not a lateral move of exchanging one underperforming third liner for another.

    Speaking of Kelly, what if he does not make it back for the playoffs? Another hole to fill...

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     



    Wasn't thinking you deal Peverley for draft picks or prospects.

     

    Thinking about how to land a legimate top-3/top-6 winger or a top-4 d-man.  The will still have versatile forwards in Kelly & Campbell that you could re-make the 3rd-line with.




    If you deal Peverley, you need two top-9 FWs coming back.  The Bruins currently have eight top-9 FWs including Kelly.  I'd like a healthy Bruins team to have Campbell and Paille on the fourth line, even though both are good enough to be third line fill-ins.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

     

     Wasn't thinking you deal Peverley for draft picks or prospects.

     

    Thinking about how to land a legimate top-3/top-6 winger or a top-4 d-man.  The will still have versatile forwards in Kelly & Campbell that you could re-make the 3rd-line with.

     



    I have no problem dealing Peverley for something better if it can be done, believe me. Rich would have to be packaged up with a high draft pick and prospect because he is not going to get much of a return on his own obviously.

     

    Just as long as it is simply not a lateral move of exchanging one underperforming third liner for another.

    Speaking of Kelly, what if he does not make it back for the playoffs? Another hole to fill...

     



    Daugavins

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     



    Daugavins

     



    He's not that good.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

     

    Daugavins

     




    Yes, the man even ST has more goals than :)

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

     



    Wasn't thinking you deal Peverley for draft picks or prospects.

     

    Thinking about how to land a legimate top-3/top-6 winger or a top-4 d-man.  The will still have versatile forwards in Kelly & Campbell that you could re-make the 3rd-line with.

     




    If you deal Peverley, you need two top-9 FWs coming back.  The Bruins currently have eight top-9 FWs including Kelly.  I'd like a healthy Bruins team to have Campbell and Paille on the fourth line, even though both are good enough to be third line fill-ins.

     



    Disagree.  Paille & Campbell are legimate 3rd-line players that this team has chosen to use on their 4th.  You could build a resonable 4th-line from what is leftover; Thornton, Caron, Pandopho. 

    You could also argue that Peverley is a top-6 forward miscast on a 3rd-line, but not good enough to beat out Horton.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to NorthernB's comment:

    In response to OatesCam's comment:

     

    You make a great case as to why the Bruins should keep Peverley.  i.e., he's good.

     

    He's had a bad year, no doubt, but he's been playing with garbage all year and was dropped from the pp to start the season in favour of a couple rookies, which no doubt was a blow to his confidence.  The Bruins need to keep Peverley for his versatility.  He can play top-line, third line, any line, and brings intensity, speed and jam.  What they need is someone with skill for him to play with.

     



    Sorry Oates - you are 2 for 4 on your commentary:

     

    Versatile = YES, Speed = YES, Intensity and Jam = No & NO !!! this guy rarely wins a puck battle... i like Peverley but something is missing in his game this season.. He was the leading scorer on Atlanta with very little help.. he has been absent all year with or without Kelly in the lineup. Anybody could have a good year when you surround them with good players. He is the player that should make players around him better - no the opposite..imo

    BBB




    My bad.  I didn't realize Ilya Kovalchuck and Brian Little (Peverley's LW and RW in Atl) were so similar in talent to Jordan Caron and Jay Pandolfo. I  also didn't realize you could score the same points getting 15mins per game instead of 20.

    I don't know who you are watching, but Peverley always brings intensity.  He skates hard and battles at both ends.

    I am not saying he's elite talent by any stretch.  He can't carry a line, he won't put up big points no matter who he's with. But he's a great asset for his cap hit.  If a good skill player was brought in, Peverley would compliment them well.  If you could deal Peverley and get more talent in return, great.  But I don't think you could...Peverley's pretty underated.  I think a better strategy is keeping him and finding a skilled wing to play with him.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

     

     

    Daugavins

     

     




     

    Yes, the man even ST has more goals than :)



    Daugavins suggestion was a little tongue-in-cheek, glad you got it.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

     

     Daugavins suggestion was a little tongue-in-cheek, glad you got it.

     



    I wonder if he is playing tonight. I want to see Chara slap him upside the head if he attempts a dumb shootout move or barks like a dog when he scores.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:



    Disagree.  Paille & Campbell are legimate 3rd-line players that this team has chosen to use on their 4th.  You could build a resonable 4th-line from what is leftover; Thornton, Caron, Pandopho. 

     

    You could also argue that Peverley is a top-6 forward miscast on a 3rd-line, but not good enough to beat out Horton.

     




    It's funny you say disagree, because I actually agree with everything I put in bold.  On a lot of teams, Paille and Campbell are third liners and Peverley a second liner.  However, the Bruins are one of the best teams in the league.  They've been contenders since '09.  They're built a little differently than the other top teams because they don't have elite forwards on their top line.  Because of this, they need more from their third and fourth lines than the other contenders.  That's why I like Paille and Campbell on the fourth and I'd like to add someone to play with Peverley on the third.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     



    Disagree.  Paille & Campbell are legimate 3rd-line players that this team has chosen to use on their 4th.  You could build a resonable 4th-line from what is leftover; Thornton, Caron, Pandopho. 

     

    You could also argue that Peverley is a top-6 forward miscast on a 3rd-line, but not good enough to beat out Horton.

     

     




    It's funny you say disagree, because I actually agree with everything I put in bold.  On a lot of teams, Paille and Campbell are third liners and Peverley a second liner.  However, the Bruins are one of the best teams in the league.  They've been contenders since '09.  They're built a little differently than the other top teams because they don't have elite forwards on their top line.  Because of this, they need more from their third and fourth lines than the other contenders.  That's why I like Paille and Campbell on the fourth and I'd like to add someone to play with Peverley on the third.

     



    I would prefer to get a legimate finisher or a top-4 d-man.  If that means de-emphasizing the role/impact of the 4th-line, I am ok with that.  Plenty of good players left to build a solid 3rd-line.  I would also increase the TOI of the top-2 lines and top-4 d-men. 

    Best players need to be your best players.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    We can replace Pev by whoever you want...Pev is uselesss when will the management see that ...the flying mosquito skates around but never goes to the net ...you cant score anymore in the NHL if you dont go to the net ....Pev needs to apply for the Ice Capades ...he will look great I promise I will buy 2 tickets to go see him....or we could send him to the KHL for NOTHING...him and Pandolfo are USELESS we just lose some roster spots ..that could be use by Spooner or Tardi or Cunningham or whoever you want but not by the worst player who ever played for the B's (Pandolfo) and the flying mosquito...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ...WAKE UP SOMEONE ! , 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    I would prefer to get a legimate finisher or a top-4 d-man.  If that means de-emphasizing the role/impact of the 4th-line, I am ok with that.  Plenty of good players left to build a solid 3rd-line.  I would also increase the TOI of the top-2 lines and top-4 d-men. 

     

    Best players need to be your best players.

     



    My first thought was that playing the top lines more would be death for the Bruins.  If you start playing that 70s and 80s game where you ask them to out-produce the top lines on the other teams, I would have though that they'd lose more than they are now especially on the road where the opposition will be able to pick and choose who to exploit when the weaker third and fourth lines are on the ice.

    But that's based on the propaganda about the Bruins needing to find a sniper or scoring star for the top six because no Bruin has had a sniff of the top 10 in scoring since Savard's best year as a Bruin.  It's also relying on the conventional wisdom that the Bruins have an "exceptional" bottom six - that they can beat you with their bottom six vs. your bottom six.  It's the top six, though, that closes the gap between teams with a dominant top line and the Bruins because the Bergeron line is as capable of scoring as the Krejci line.  The impact is clear in that they finished tied for second in goals for last year. 

    Last year, the Bergeron line put up 186 points and the Krejci line 180 (projecting Horton at 57 for a full season) for a total of 366 points from the top two lines.  Here is the point production for just the top lines on the other teams in the top 7 in scoring last year: Pitt 249, Philly 212, Ottawa 181, Vancouver 200+, Chicago 212, Detroit 192.  So 4 of the 6 topped 200 points and three of the four were at 212 or more, so a minimum of 26 above the Bergeron line.  The Stamkos line - 236 (team was 9th in scoring).  Perry-Getzlaf-Ryan?  174 (meaning the top two lines on the Bruins out-scored this $22.5M line).  Ovechkin-Semin-Backstrom would have hit 200 if Backstrom was healthy (team was 14th; might have been top ten with a healthy Backstrom).  Rangers top line 193 (for beaucoup bucks with Richards and Gaborik).  Most of these top the Bergeron line.  Top 6, though, more than evens it out.

    Pittsburgh's top two lines would have rung up about 475 points with a healthy Crosby and Kennedy - beyond comparison.  Philly got a comparable 360 from their top six and tied the Bruins overall.  Ottawa had 320 from their top 6, but added 78 from Karlsson to finish 17 goals behind the Bruins.  Vancouver only got 331 from their top 6.  Chicago with a healthy Toews would have topped the Bruins by about 6 points.  Detroit 346, though they might be close to 360 if Datsyuk plays an extra dozen games and Bertuzzi another ten.  So, with both lines accounted for, only Pitt and Chicago have more productive top sixes than Boston - and that's with the Bruins firing a pedestrian 43 PPG overall.

    So - I don't know that the top 6 needs an "upgrade" or that you could get that upgrade for what the Bruins would be able to give up.  The best option would be Peverley playing like the 50 point player he has been and an upgrade on defense if there's such a player available.   

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    I agree with Book. I just think the 3rd line has been a mess all season, but Peverly and Kelly together still have the ability to be a strength over the 3rd of other teams. Pick your poison:

    Peverly-Kelly-Jagr

    Peverly-Kelly-Horton

    Both look just fine to me.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to asmaha's comment:

    I agree with Book. I just think the 3rd line has been a mess all season, but Peverly and Kelly together still have the ability to be a strength over the 3rd of other teams. Pick your poison:

    Peverly-Kelly-Jagr

    Peverly-Kelly-Horton

    Both look just fine to me.




    I would presume Jagr is going to be a top 6 guy...meaning Horton is the one who gets the demotion....not a bad situation to have.

    Of course Kelly is not around which makes these lines theoretical

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Making the Case for Peverley's Trade Value

    In response to jmwalters's comment:


    I would presume Jagr is going to be a top 6 guy...meaning Horton is the one who gets the demotion....not a bad situation to have.

     

    Of course Kelly is not around which makes these lines theoretical



    That's too bad.  Hearing Edwards say: "Pandolpho to Jagr" would be music to my ears.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share