Playoff talk and more

To lead off this mailbag, we have a reader wondering what it is about Bruins-Canadiens that makes it such a tough series to forecast. We also have several thoughts on the recent four-year extension the Bruins gave to Tim Thomas, who figures to be a huge part of the team's playoff run.

Hey Fluto - The Bruins look mostly healthy and ready to roar . . . so why am I so worried? Why was I half-hoping the Habs would beat the B's in that last regular-season contest to maybe finish seventh and play the Caps instead of Boston? In other words, even though on paper I think the Bruins should win this series in five games, six tops, am I right to be nervous about the ghosts of playoffs past (most atrociously 2004) coming back to haunt the Bruins again? Talk me down off the ledge and tell me the Bruins are going to win this series! If they do get out of the first round, I really believe they can go all the way to the Finals and maybe even win the Cup!
MW, Burlington, Vt.

A: I agree that on paper, the Bruins have the advantage. But so did the Canadiens last year after running the table in the regular season and finishing as the top seed, and they needed seven to advance. There's something about this series that makes history and paper matchups irrelevant. Would not be surprised to see it go seven games again.

How do the Bruins match up with Montreal regarding speed?
Robert Mackidd, Winnipeg

A: About even, I'd say. You've got burners in Kessel and Kobasew up front and Hunwick on the back end. From what I know of Montreal, Tanguay and Kostitsyn can get up and down the ice, and Schneider can jump up in the rush.

Hi Fluto -- Larry Brooks over at the NY Post is reporting that Tim Thomas's deal actually will be counted as an "over-35" one:

"Tim Thomas, who signed a four-year, $20 million extension with the Bruins yesterday, will be considered on over-35 contract even though he doesn't turn 35 until April 15. For contract purposes, the player's age is calculated on the June 30 before the season the deal goes into effect."

This is different from the way I've seen the deal written up in the Globe and puts the deal in a different light because of the cap considerations. Is Brooks right?
Marc, New York

A: Marc, Larry is correct and I goofed on this one. Thomas will be considered 35 as of the start of 2009-10, and falls into the category of over-35 player. So for example, if Thomas retires after the first season, the Bruins would have to carry his full remaining salary on the books for the next three years. Apologies for the error. Obviously, the Bruins can't do anything about Thomas's age. He would have been considered 35 regardless of anything. So yes, ideally it would have been a two- or three-year contract to minimize risk. But the fact that they signed him for four years indicates that Thomas would have gotten a similar deal (if not better) on the open market. He was their top priority, and to have him sign elsewhere would have been a hole not easily replaced.

Fluto, how does the signing of Thomas affect TuukKa Rask's status? Given how close the team is to the salary cap and Rask's rather large cap number for a backup, could it be another 2-3 years before Rask lands on the big club full time? Alternatively, what kind of trade value would Rask have? If the Bruins are forced to trade Kessel, for instance, to save money against the cap, would they consider dangling Rask for a younger, cheaper player to fill his goal scoring void?
Cal, Brookline

A: Cal, barring a surprise, Rask will be Thomas's backup next year. Because it won't be a hard cap next year, Rask won't be counted as the full $3.2 million against the ceiling. In fact, if Thomas holds up to form and puts in a similar performance next season, Rask will not come close to hitting his bonuses, meaning he will be counted per his base salary ($850,000). Also, 2009-10 is the last season of Rask's three-year entry-level contract, and he will not be eligible for any bonuses on his next deal. They would not consider trading Rask. They have no goaltending prospects that are even close to making the NHL. Doubtful that Kevin Regan will ever make it up here, and a prospect like Michael Hutchinson is at least two seasons away from getting a sniff.

Hi Fluto -- Great job this year. Love the blog. My question to you is: What is your opinion on the Thomas signing and the long term issues the contract brings as far as cap issues? IMHO; Thomas does deserve the money and years he got -- just not with the Bruins. Thomas has been stellar this year, no doubt, but I think this team from the blueline out,can be in the running for years to come. The way Peter Chiarelli (and predecessor Mike O'Connell for that matter) has put together this team in such a short time is remarkable. They have all the pieces. This signing is a guarantee that this team will not be as good after this year. Signing Krejci is a must, even beyond that they have to sign up Lucic, Savard, and Ryder after 2009-10...Not enough dough to go around because of the TT signing.
John, Quincy

A: John, the terms of Thomas's contract are not ideal. But he's been the perfect fit in Boston. The Bruins don't want to mess with that fit. I don't think signing Thomas necessarily means the Bruins will be worse next year. You have to factor in the development of young players. It's a good bet that players like Wheeler, Lucic, Krejci, and Hunwick will be better players next year. Yes, they'll most likely have to make some trades to sign Krejci (the Bruins will not let him get away). But they're projecting other young players to be better, while also counting on veterans like Thomas and Chara to dominate at their positions.

Hi Fluto, great job as usual. Look forward to the mailbag. I have a question about Blake Wheeler's plus/minus in the game against Canadiens on April 9. The scoresheet shows that he was on the ice at D'Agostini's goal, which gives him -1 for the game. But he was also on the ice for Kessel's goal, which is NOT shown on the scoresheet. I think this is important because it would mean Wheeler tied with David Krejci as the top plus/minus players.
Lucia, Somerville

A: The official scoresheet and the play-by-play do not show Wheeler on the ice for Kessel's goal. I don't remember the goal well enough to remember who was on the ice at the time.

Fluto, great coverage this season. I was just hoping you could give your loyal readers a quick update about the Bruins' injury list. Common sense tells me that Julien was just resting guys. However, a good-faith evaluation of the injury issue would go a long way to reassuring Bruin fandom. CJ has played the fear-monger role well when describing these injuries --- in fact, I'm comparing him to Krushchev and Brezhnev in my history class!!! Keep up the good work!
Jim Peirce, Dracut

A: Jim, Ference will not play tonight. Everybody else is ready to go. Both Bergeron (foot) and Axelsson (undisclosed) said they might have been able to play in the last few games if the Bruins were fighting for a playoff spot.

Why would the Bruins shop Patrice Bergeron? He's a great player and hasn't reached his full potential. And we already gave away Joe Thornton - imagine if we had him in our lineup along with the current roster. He'd be feeding all those goal scorers. Also, we need a better backup goalie than Manny Fernandez. He isn't worth what's he's getting paid.
Cheryl, Maynard

A: Cheryl, that's the reality of the business right now. You don't want to trade good players. And certainly not core players like Bergeron who came up through the system. But this is the dilemma that just about every team is facing right now. They are bumping against the ceiling because of the bad economy (and thus stagnant or declining cap), and they're being forced to consider their rosters and think about where they can trim to make space for others. Because the Bruins are deep at center, Bergeron is one of the assets that might have to go elsewhere, especially when you factor in his $4.75 million annual cap hit and risk for injury. There's no doubt the Bruins would like to keep Bergeron. Over the last two weeks, he's been their best all-around center. But they are considering every angle as they prepare their roster for 2009-10 and beyond. Thornton: long time ago now. Backup goalie: Moot point now that we're in the playoffs and salaries don't count.

Now that the playoffs are here, the one single threat to me is Washington, but they should have a tougher time than the Bruins to get out of Rd. 1. I believe the Bruins have more depth on defense than any team in the east, and they have the best fourth line in the league. They also have the penalty-killing specialist in PJ Axelsson, who may be the best defensive forward in the league. They have the right recipe to pull this off. Chara should win the Norris, the offense is balanced, and I envision Lucic having a huge playoff. What do you say? Thanks.
Jim, Rhode Island

A: Washington is certainly scary. But they are certainly not the only dangerous team. You want to play Pittsburgh? Or how about Carolina (late surge)? Or physical Philly? They're all going to be tough teams. I do not agree that the Bruins have the deepest defense in the East, especially with Andrew Ference on the shelf. I'm a big fan of New Jersey's blue line -- bunch of underrated guys who can play tough and move the puck.

I read Larry Brooks at the NY Post the other day where he said that Milan Lucic made an illegal knee on knee hit on Nik Antropov. The article alluded that the hit was done on purpose and that Lucic should have been suspended. Lucic does not have this type of reputation. It didn't look like an intentional knee on knee hit. Your reaction?
Paula, Boston

A: Don't believe it was an intentional hit. Lucic tries to play within the code. Don't think he was targeting Antropov on the play.

Rask and Wheeler had inflated cap numbers this year because the players had not voted to extend the CBA. Now that they have extended it will Rask and Wheeler have lower cap figures next year?
Chuck Moretto, Weymouth

A: Yes, it will no longer be considered a hard cap in 2009-10.

Is there an NHL rule stating that the Bruins can't wear the '' men in black '' jerseys in the playoffs? Just curious because I'm a big fan of them.
Tom, South Boston

A: Tom, they can wear the third jersey in the playoffs. However, once they choose to wear them as their home black jersey, they must keep wearing them throughout the series.

What is your take on Jeremy Jacobs's role in the organization. Specifically, his relationship with Chiarelli, involvement in the draft, etc.?
Dan, Marblehead

A: Jeremy is the boss, naturally. He approves every big-time transaction and business move. Jacobs and Chiarelli speak regularly. He is not involved in the draft or any such example of hockey operations.

I love the re-signing of Tim Thomas, but why four years? He will be 39 when is contract is up and with Tuukka Rask excelling in Providence do the Bruins plan on trading him or will he share playing time over the next few seasons? And from watching all the games on NHL GameCenter, I have noticed that Bergeron looks like he is almost back to his pre-Randy Jones form. But do you think he will start putting the puck in the net a little more often?

P.S. - As an inspiring hockey journalist, I love and admire yours and KPD's coverage of the Bruins. I only hope there is still an opportunity to write when I graduate.
Mike, Athens, Ga.

A: Mike, four years is what the Bruins felt was the appropriate market for Thomas. As I stated earlier, two or three years would have been preferable, but he probably would have gotten better offers from other teams after July 1. There is no guarantee that Rask will be a good NHL goalie, especially so early in his career. Look at how long it took Thomas to find his NHL game. They will ease Rask into the NHL. If he plays better than Thomas, then he'll get playing time. Simple as that. Bergeron has been outstanding lately. Good on the draw. Has played physical. Has played against other top lines. Has been creative offensively. His game isn't necessarily scoring goals. Good luck with your writing career.

As all the amateur GMs (including myself) try to guess what Chiarelli will be doing in advance of the draft, player signings, etc., it seems that the one question that needs to be answered before any of us can put forth a semi-reasonable opinion is this: What is going to happen in 2009-2010 regarding the so-called "bonus cushion" as it relates to the cap? A simple case in point: If Rask's cap hit is the current $3.2 million, it's very difficult to believe he will be backing up Thomas next year (or even remain with the Bruins). But if the additional bonus money is excluded, then his cap hit of $850,000 should make the decision a lot easier. Do you have a definite answer? If not, when will we know? Also: What's the deal with Glen Murray's contract? Did he win or lose? The decision on that will also determine the amount of money available to Chiarelli. Thanks.
Joe, Billerica

A: Bonus cushion will be back in play. Teams will be able to go over the cap by 7.5 percent if necessary (penalty the following season). As noted earlier, Rask will have a tough time making his bonuses, so his cap hit will not come close to $3.2 million. No word yet on Murray's grievance. Ruling is still pending.

Why doesn't the league see that they need to get rid of the instigator rule? Do you think people like Sean Avery would be doing this stuff if they new they were going to get beat up? Just doesn't make sense to me.
BsRock, Terrace, B.C.

A: I'm with you. Colin Campbell believes fiercely in keeping the instigator rule. I have not come across a player yet that likes it. Get rid of it.

Looking at the signing of Yannick Riendeau, he seems to have some phenomenal stats. Have you seen any footage of him, and do you think he will have a chance at making the big team next year?
Pat, Hopkinton

A: Pat, I have not seen Riendeau play. He has some ridiculous stats, but his skating needs work, according to the people who have seen him play. If he makes the big team next season, it will be one of the year's biggest upsets.

Your choice for all-time favorite draft class? 2003 is pretty impressive for this decade, but better than 1983? The jury is out on the 2003 class, but it will be hard to top Lafontaine, Yzerman, Barrasso, MacLean, Neely, and Gagner in the first round, then Claude Lemieux, Probert, Tikkanen, Klima, Galley, Stevens, Tocchet, Fetisov, Makarov, Kasatonov, and some guy named Hasek. 1979 deserves mention too with Gartner, Vaive, Bourque, Propp, Goulet, and Lowe in the first round, then Naslund, Dale Hunter, Neal Broten, Carbonneau, Messier, Glenn Anderson, Anton Stastny. And that was only six rounds. 1990 tops 2003 in my books too -- Nolan, Nedved, Primeau, Jagr, Sydor, Tkachuk, Brodeur in the first, then Weight, Sanderson, Kozlov, Zhamnov, Zubov, and 500-goal-scorer Bondra in the eighth round. We're still a long way away from seeing if 2003 can top these classes.
Chris, Ottawa

A: Good points Chris. We'll see.