The PuckUps Podcast with Brian DeFelice, Ep. 34: What's next for the Boston Bruins?

In what ways was the Bruins season a success, and in what ways a failure? Brian breaks down the positives and negatives from the Bruins 2025-2026 season and looks ahead at what's next for the black and gold. 

Join Brian DeFelice every Monday and Friday as he discusses all things Boston Bruins, NHL, and the world of hockey. Subscribe on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts and be a part the show by submitting comments, and questions via X (@briandefelice_ / @thepuckups), email: info@thepuckups.com, or voicemail (617)-539-6958.

Follow us on X: @thepuckups | @briandefelice_

Follow us on Instagram:  ⁨@thepuckups⁩

Follow us on TikTok:  ⁨@thepuckups⁩

Follow us on Substack: https://briandefelice.substack.com/?u...

Visit our website: https://www.thepuckups.com

#NHLBruins #BostonBruins #NHL #Hockey

Transcript

SPEAKER_06 0:01

You're listening to the Puck Ups Podcast. It's time to hit the ice with Brian D Felice.

SPEAKER_00 0:13

Welcome into episode 34 of the Puck Ups Podcast. I am Brian D. Felice and thank you all for joining me. On today's show, we're going to talk about the positives and the negatives from the Boston Bruins 2025-2026 season. We'll also discuss their captaincy vacancy heading into the offseason and next year and what's next for the Boston Bruins, both in terms of personnel and systematic play. All of that and much more. But first things first, if you haven't done so already, please go ahead and subscribe to the puck ups on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else that you get your podcast. And to get in touch with me or be a part of the show, you can email me infothepuckups.com. You can tweet at me on X at Brian D Felice underscore. You can tweet at the show at the puck ups or leave a comment on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, anywhere the show has a social media account and post content. I want to start off with a rather subjective question. And I'm curious, truly curious of your responses. So go ahead in the comment section here or email me or tweet at me on X. But the question I have is this nobody believed in the Boston Bruins heading into the season. And yet they made the playoffs, but they didn't get far. So they defied a lot of expectations that people had. They soared over many expectations, but ultimately they didn't come close to sniffing a Stanley Cup, which in hockey is the end result. That's the ultimate goal. So with all that said, did the Boston Bruins have a successful season? It really just depends on what your definition of a successful season is. And I truly think that team to team and organization to organization, what deems a successful season varies. Right? Sure, for all 32 teams, the end goal is a Stanley Cup championship. But reality, in all reality, a Stanley Cup championship is the realistic goal for what? 12 to maybe 14, 15 teams a season. You have true contenders, and then you have teams that could, if all goes well, and then maybe a dark horse or two. The Bruins weren't one of those teams heading into the season. And despite making the playoffs and being one of the final 16 teams remaining, winning a Stanley Cup championship was not realistic for this Bruins team this year. Okay, so they fell short of that goal. So is their season not a success? I think that there are certain successes in this season for the Bruins, but I also think that there were a lot of failures. And I'll get to those in a little bit. And I don't mean that to be a pessimist. I just think truly you have to look at some of the under-the-hood numbers with this Bruins team and say to yourself, is that sustainable? How did they make the playoffs? Why did they fail on round one? Why aren't they a final eight team or a final four team or a final team? Right? So again, the Tampa Bay Lightning, for example, they lost in the first round to the Montreal Canadiens. The Dallas Stars lost in the first round to the Minnesota Wild. All four of those teams, I think you can make the argument, certainly for at least three of them, that they entered the year with Stanley Cup aspirations. And their season ended in the same round as the Boston Bruins. So for those teams, more so than the Bruins not winning a Stanley Cup, you have to say that their seasons were objectively a failure because they're already at Stanley Cup contender status. The Bruins losing in the first round and not winning a Stanley Cup, I mean, I guess, right? Because all 32 teams, their goal is a Stanley Cup, but like I said, certain teams, for certain teams, that's realistic. For the Bruins, it wasn't. Okay. So the Bruins season wasn't a failure simply because they didn't win the Stanley Cup. Nobody expected that. So what else could make this season a success or a failure for the Bruins? Well, I said earlier it depends on where certain organizations are in their development. And for the Bruins, in the 24-25 season, you sold at the deadline because you were clearly going down a dead end road, and you had to replenish and restock your your prospect pool and and some draft collateral. And in doing so, you ended up with the fifth worst record in the NHL. Okay. You were 28th in goals for per game last year in 24-25. You were 29th in team goal differential in 24-25 at minus 50. You had the 29th worst power play and the 24th worst penalty kill. The Bruins had a very, very bad season in 24-25. We all know this. And then the next year, despite not winning the Stanley Cup, you finish with a record of 45, 27, and 10. So you have 12 more wins than the previous season and 100 more points. Or sorry, 24 more points. You finish the year with 100 points. Okay, that's definitely a step forward. There's objectively no arguing that the Bruins had a had a step forward season than last year. So in that regard, yeah, that that's a successful year. You had a first-year head coach in Marco Sturm, first year NHL head coach in Marco Sturm, who, in my opinion, should have been a top five, seven favorite for the for the Jack Adams for coach of the year. Okay, so that's a positive. Jeremy Swayman had a ton of question marks heading into this past season. He had a very bad year in 24-25. He was entering the final year of his contract where he had no trade protection. So if he had another down year and then his trade protection kicks in, oh boy, the Bruins would have been in serious trouble. And if he had a very bad year this year, maybe you're talking about trying to move him at the deadline before you can't. But fortunately, Jeremy Swayman bounced back in a big way. He was he's uh one of the finalists for the Vesna. And when we get to some of the Bruins under the hood numbers a little bit later on, you'll realize just how much they relied on not only him, but also Jonas Corposalo. The Bruins relied heavily on goaltending this year, and it really isn't a recipe for success going forward for any NHL team to rely on your on your goaltending as much as the Bruins did this past season. Charlie McAvoy had his best offensive season of his career. David Pasternak had another 100-point season, his fourth consecutive 100-point season. Now, it mainly came in the assist variety. He had 71 assists on the year, and he also led the NHL in primary assists. So it's not like he was just collecting a bunch of secondaries, but an underwhelming year for Pasternak in terms of his goal scoring, but his point scoring was still um what he's been doing, right? One of the top forwards in the world. Career year in goals and assists for both Morgan Geeky and Pavel Zaka, those are positives. You had the emergence of Fraser Minton putting up 35 points in his rookie season. You had the emergence of Marat Housnadinoff in his first full season in the NHL with 33 points in 77 games. You had Victor Arvidson, along with Pavel Zaka and Casey Middlestad, being one of the best lines in hockey in the regular season. Arvidson had gave you 25 goals, a bounce back year for him, who's an aging player that's had injury histories, and it wasn't a sure thing. He was going to give you what we what he what he ended up giving you. So that was a positive. As far as is he a part of the Bruins future or not, we'll find out this summer. Jonathan Aspro had his first NHL game of his career, 26 years old this season, and he went on to lead the Bruins in plus minus with plus 30. You had James Higgins getting his first experience as a pro hockey player in Providence and in Boston, regular season and postseason, although it wasn't a huge sample size. But still, as I've said on recent episodes, especially when Higgins was still in Providence, I said, hey, I think James Higgins getting NHL games this year is massive for him because he gets to go into a full-off season knowing firsthand how to train and how to prepare and what to prepare for for next year versus somebody telling him, hey, James, this is what it's like at the NHL level. He now knows. He knows how quickly time and space evaporates out there. And he knows that you have to get your shot off quicker and have an improved shot and how important acceleration is and just being physically mature. So James Higgins having that firsthand experience at the NHL level is gonna be um instrumental, I think, this offseason for him, getting ready. He knows what to get ready for versus being told what to get ready for. Uh the Bruins power play went from 29th in the NHL in 24-25 to 9th in the NHL in 25-26. And for most of the season, it was actually top five, but they had a pretty tough final month of the year, and so they dropped down to ninth. Okay, so their goal differential, their team goal differential, as I said earlier, it was minus 50 in 24-25, and it was plus 22 this past season in 25-26. So they went from 29th to 11th in team goal differential. So these are all positives. These are all positives that the Bruins can hang their hats on despite not winning the Stanley Cup. If they entered the year with Stanley Cup aspirations and they lost in the first round, like Tampa Bay did, like Dallas did, like the Bruins have done in years past, then you look at the season and say, no, it was it was an objective, straight up failure. You had hopes of winning a championship and you came well short. But in a year where those weren't your expectations, certainly from the outside, but internally as well, the Bruins knew that their ceiling was a wild card, wild card playoff team and nothing more. And that's ultimately what they what they were. Okay. So you can look at this season in a vacuum and say, for certain reasons, it was a step forward. But ultimately, your goal is to win a Stanley Cup championship. So even though we all knew that wasn't gonna be the case this year for the Bruins, how can that be the case for the Bruins going forward? You can't you can't play year after year, year after year, hoping that you're a wild card team and nothing more. This was step one for the Bruins, but they have many steps to go. And, you know, they have some work to do in terms of in terms of system play, but they have some work to do in terms of personnel. And the latter is where I really have questions for this team going forward and how they're gonna be able to acquire what they need. There's definitely some positives with some younger players. Can Fraser Minton be this? Can James Haggins be that? Can Marat Husadinoff be this? You know, forward looking into future years. Will Dean Laterno be this? Can Will Zellers be that? Right? So the Bruins have, and there are other prospects in the Bruins system. Matt Potra, what's what can he still be for the Boston Bruins if not a trade chip? Right? Um, you know, Cooper Simpson, he's gonna go to North Dakota next year. First first year in the NCAA, he was one of the top players in the USHL this past season. Um, you know, there will William Moore at BC, what's he gonna turn into? Um you know, Chris Pelosi, what can he be at the at the pro level? Like there, there's a there's a lot of question marks with the prospects, but the reality is until they're in the pros, they're prospects. The Bruins also have some draft capital that we'll see what happens with that, right? We'll find out tomorrow on May 5th if the Bruins keep Toronto's 2026 pick, and if they do, it means that they're probably drafting sixth or seventh overall. Or did Toronto keep their top five protected pick in 2026? And now the Bruins have their pick in 28 instead of 26. That makes a difference. It kind of affects your offseason plans, I think, in certain ways. Um, you know, so we'll we'll we'll we'll get into that too. Um, but you but you know, if the Bruins do draft six or seven overall this year with Toronto's pick, and then they draft 23rd with their own. Again, these are more prospects that are entering the system, high-end prospects that you can probably bookmark to be uh on the Bruins in the next calendar year or two. So they have they have help on the way in in terms of prospects and picks, but those guys aren't going to help you in October of 26 when you're starting the year. And as David Paschenak said uh at the end of the season post-game six against Buffalo, and then he reiterated on breakup day, he's very cognizant of the fact that he's turning 30 years old by the time next season comes around. And Charlie McAvoy is not far behind. So these guys aren't on, they're not on hole 17 of 18 on their careers, but they just got a dog at the turn, right? They're on hole nine, hole 10, hole 11, so they still have a whole back nine to go. But I think players start to become aware when they've hit that second half of their career. And you have to be aware as a Bruins organization to help supplement these guys as best as best you can. But you can't exactly do so while completely mortgaging the future that's taken Boston so long to finally recuperate. So it's going to be a very interesting offseason. But there were a lot of positives for this Bruins team, and they certainly had some negatives. And we'll get to those as well because it it, you know, in many ways, the Bruins being a playoff team this year, it was kind of a mirage. You know, it was kind of fortuitous for them in more ways than one. Their underlying numbers would indicate that they were pretty fortunate to be where they were in the standings. But at the same time, you also had certain teams like the Florida Panthers that did not make the playoffs. And I I'm telling you guys right now, as long as Florida is back to fully healthy next year, which they were anything but in 25-26, the Panthers will be right back in the playoffs next year. They are, in my opinion, still top to bottom the best team in the Eastern Conference when they're healthy. The problem was they were without many of their top players for much and for all the season this past year. So Florida's gonna be right back in the playoffs. And you already had an Atlantic division that sent five teams to the postseason, the Bruins being one of them. But we all know how good Tampa Bay is. Now, they've had their first round struggles in recent years. They've now lost in the first round four consecutive years, and they're gonna have some questions what to do with their with their team going forward. But Tampa Bay, on paper, they're still a better team than the Bruins. Montreal is better than the Bruins, Buffalo is clearly better than the Bruins, as indicated by their round one victory. I think Ottawa on paper, they have their questions off the ice for sure. And it's not easy street for the Senators. They have some issues of their own, but on paper, they're a better team than the Bruins. They certainly performed better than the Bruins analytically. Ottawa did not give up much to the opposition, and they created a lot. Like they're a good team. Uh, Detroit's, you know, they're they've been knocking on the door for a couple of years now, and they just can't seem to make themselves a playoff team. Um, they haven't made the playoffs in over a decade now. But at some point, maybe you know, every blind squirrel finds a nut. So will Detroit finally find a way in? I'm just saying, like, there's a lot that has to go right for the Bruins next year. They're not gonna catch any teams off guard, right? They're not gonna have this rallying cry of, oh, the world doesn't believe in us. Let's go show them wrong, let's go prove them wrong, right? Let's let's take advantage of a couple of teams having down years like Florida and Toronto. Who knows what happens with Toronto? I don't think they're gonna get much better anytime soon. But the Bruins kind of had a perfect storm this year to to make the playoffs, and I just don't know how sustainable that is with what the group has currently constituted and with their systems giving up as much as they currently do. So there's some significant work to do, but there were some positives, and it's important to highlight those. I think I think Jeremy Swayman bouncing back the way that he did was huge for this team. For your goaltending to not be a question mark, at least nearly as much as it was heading into this past season, is huge. How many teams have look at the Edmonton Oilers? The Edmonton Oilers would have a couple of cups right now in the last three, four years if they had any sort of goaltending to their names. I mean, the Philadelphia Flyers have spent decades looking for a number one goaltender, and Philly props of them being in the second round right now, with former Bruin uh Dan Vladar, no less. But I'm just saying, when you don't have the goaltending, man, it's it's uncomfortable. So the fact that the Bruins have their guy and he bounced back in a big way again, Vesna finalist, that's huge, right? McAvoy did not have a great first round against Buffalo. Turns out he broke his hand in game two. Now, is that a complete excuse? No, but it's worth mentioning. Um, either way, he had a great regular season, won a gold medal for Team USA, and had his highest point total in point per game production as a Boston Bruin. So that was important. I think he took steps in the power play. That was important. David Pashnak, again, he had 100 points again this year, and he had some comments about wanting to shoot more next year. We'll get to those in a little bit. But David Pashnak, you don't have to worry about his offensive production. And I do think he he has uh I think it's his team. We'll get to the the captain scene in a little bit, but I think if you have to ask yourself the question, who should the next captain of the Boston Bruins be, just ask yourself whose team is it? Whose room is it? Is it Charlie McAvoy's? Is it Nikita Zodorov's? I don't think so. I think it's David Pashenak, but we'll get to that. Fraser Minton, again, the fact that we got this kid in the Brandon Carlo trade, regardless if the Bruins get Toronto's first round pick or not this year, and it turns into a 2028 first or a 2026 first, the fact that he got Fraser Minton for Carlo straight up, I would have taken. Fraser Minton, I've said it before, speaking of captaincy, he will be wearing a letter for the Boston Bruins at some point in his career. He's 21 years old. I could very easily see him with an A on his jersey by the time he's 25. Um, and you know, beyond the likes of Pasternak and McAvoy, when it's James Higgins and Fraser Minton and others, you know, who knows what he's wearing in the future. But he's he he proved himself as somebody who can be more than just a third-line center in the National Hockey League. He's a he's a complete two-way player. He definitely has surfaces to reach both defensively and offensively, but more so offensively. Um, you know, his offense went away in the postseason. His offense kind of went away actually in the final month of the regular season, too. Same can be said for Murat Husendinoff. But overall, both those guys, you know, they work really hard. And that's first and foremost the most important. You have to love a good work ethic, especially from young players. Those two players are wise beyond their years, they're mature beyond their years. And I think that when you have Minton at 21 and Hussein Dinoff at 23 being that mature on and off the ice, I think that bodes well for the future of the Bruins core. Um, because Haggins is a mature player, too. So it's good that the Bruins young players are mature and and skilled, and that's great. Okay, so these are all bright spots. Again, the Bruins power play being a top 10 power play was huge. Steve Spott came in, did a good job. That's important. Um, you know, Morgan Geeky having a career high in goals and points, that that's that's good. He took a step forward from what was already a career high the year before. You know, he's been criticized for being somebody with just an inflated shooting percentage. But hey, if you if you have an if you have an inflated shooting percentage year after year, maybe that's just kind of who you are. I still think Morgan Geeky can improve at being a one on one player, and I think his speed and quickness can improve. I think his playmaking can improve. I think he's a bit one dimensional, in my opinion. Uh, it's great that he scores goals, but I like him to do a little bit more than just being able to score goals. Like you have to be able to create to and and back off defenders. And I know, you know, if speed's not your game, it's not your game, but it's still something you can work on. Um Pavel's. Zaka, again, um, I think it's fair to question his playoff performances in Boston. Turns out he's been playing with a high ankle sprain. So that could explain some things. But again, he had a career high in goals and points, uh, 30 goals for the first time in his career. Um, you know, is he somebody that the Bruins view as part of their intermediate future? His contract is up at the end of next season. He's unable to negotiate an extension until July of this summer. Uh, I could also see him being a valuable trade chip, but when you're talking about a Bruins team that needs as much top six true top six skill as they can get, I think Zaka is one of those guys that they actually have that is a top six uh forward. Problem is you have Elias Lindholm whose contract is pretty much immovable, and Zaka is a very movable contract, and so it depends what the Bruins want to do with him. But he had a career year, and that certainly would would help his value if the Bruins wanted to trade him or keep him, right? He's clearly a valuable player for the Bruins in all three zones and in all situations, so it's good that he had a bounce back year. All right, so these are a lot of the positives. As I said, there's definitely room for improvement that we'll get to as well. To start that conversation, let's do a couple of clips here from head coach Marco Sturm on breakup day. He had some comments about the Bruins giving up too much defensively in the regular season and the postseason. He talked about what he wants to see from his group in year two. He also touched on the idea of the Bruins going with a captaincy by committee again next year versus announcing a captain at some point. We'll get to all three of these clips, but let's first start off with Marco Sturm talking about the Bruins and their defensive structure, giving up perhaps a little bit more than they would feel comfortable with going forward.

SPEAKER_02 24:07

Marco, when you look back at the regular season and the playoffs, you you gave up more grade A chances than I'm sure you you would have wanted. How do you remedy that? Is it you know personnel? Is it tweaking system, or what do you see?

SPEAKER_05 24:21

I have to uh I have to look at it first. Um, you know, areas uh where we can get better or have to get better for sure. Um I'm not gonna change the whole system. No, I think the foundation is set now. Um I like, I believe what we do and what I try to teach here. Um having said said that, there will be areas we we're probably gonna uh change some things. Um but I need I need more time. I need more time to look at some video and stuff like that. And yeah, to part of your question, is it personal? Yeah, it's part of it. Uh I think uh you know, a few guys had fitted more to the system we played than maybe some others, and more other guys needed more time. Um so there's a is there's a little bit of combination for sure.

SPEAKER_00 25:24

So heading into the season, the narrative around the Bruins was that they, if they wanted to make the playoffs, that they would have to do so by kind of just bottling up all three zones, or certainly the defensive and neutral zones, and rely on really structured defense and opportunistic scoring to make the playoffs. But that's not really what happened when you look at the Bruins season, especially the under-the-hood numbers. Now, listen, your goaltending is part of your team defense, obviously, but I think it's fair to kind of separate the two. You know what I mean? So when you look at the Bruins this year, it's not really like Marco came in and implemented this Daryl Sutter or Chloe Julian defensive defensive system and just locked teams down and gave up nothing. And and they were just so stingy to play against, and they took advantage of some opportunities, and and and that's that was their recipe to success to get to the playoffs. That's not what happened. What happened was Jeremy Swayman for the most part locked the door uh in goal. He obviously had his off nights and his off games and some goals he liked back, all goalies do, especially over the course of '82. But him and you know, to Jonas Corposalo's credit, Jonas Corposalo at times, they kept the Bruins in games, and they allowed the Bruins to be a bend but don't break team at many points in the season. And here are some numbers to back it up. Because teams, I'm sure you know this if you watch the Bruins enough, it felt like the Bruins were defending a lot, and they were, and they were outshot a lot because they were. Teams did not play the Boston Bruins and say to themselves, oh man, boys, you just gotta you gotta just do everything you can tonight, get bodies and pucks in the net because Boston does not give up much. No. Teams went to play the Bruins every night knowing they were gonna get their chances, and the million-dollar question was could they score on Swayman? And you know, could they slow down the Bruins top players and keep the Bruins off the board in a power play? The Bruins goal differential as a team this year, as I said earlier, was 11th in the NHL at plus 22. Do you know what the Bruins expected goal differential was as a team? Minus 30. How does that make sense? They were plus twenty-two in reality, but their expected goal differential was minus thirty. So in reality, they were 11th, but their expectation, analytically, was to be 26th in the NHL. So basically, in layman's terms, what that says is that the Bruins should have given up a hell of a lot more than they did, and they shouldn't have scored nearly as much as they did. So why did the reality happen? Well, the reality happened because, as I said, Jeremy Swayman was there to bail out the Bruins far more often than he didn't. And offensively, I think the Bruins were great on the power play for 90% of the year. They were excellent. They were a top three power play in the league for at least a quarter of the year and a top five power play in the league for at least three quarters of the year. And then, as I said, you know, pretty much from the Olympics on, they were not great. And they dropped down to ninth overall by season's end. But for much of the regular season, the Bruins power play was a massive weapon. And then they did have some balanced scoring up and down their lineup at five and five by some, you know, unsuspecting combinations. I mean, they had a fourth line of Tanner Janeau, Sean Corralli, and Mark Castlick. All three of those guys had more than 20 points. You had a second line of Pavel Zaka and Casey Middlestad and Victor Arvinson be one of the best second lines in hockey all year. Or one of the best lines in hockey all year, analytically. Don't know how, but they did. I made the joke online during the year. They were like the cone heads from Miracle, just three guys you wouldn't expect to be great linemates, and they were. Um, David Passenak, again, 100 points from him. It's gonna get you a long way. Uh, you know, 60 plus points from Charlie McAvoy, his his best season offensively. It's gonna go a long way. Again, a lot of that was done in the power play, but those guys, you know, they came. They came and uh they contributed like they like they were expected to. Morgan Geeky, another career high for him in points and goals. He had a great first half of the year, kind of a slower second half, but it was kind of by committee, okay. But defensively, man, the Bruins gave up a lot. Okay, so I mentioned their expected goal differential was minus 30. That's crazy. That's a crazy delta. That's a crazy. What's so that that's a delta of 52 goals between what their reality was and what their expectation was. Um, again, another negative. The Bruins gave up the second most penalty minutes per 60, 9.78. So for back-to-back years, the Bruins were among the most penalized teams in the league. Their discipline has to be better. And why is that important? Well, because for the second consecutive year, the Bruins had the 24th worst penalty kill. In 24-25, the Bruins PK, where did it go? Um, yeah, in 24-25, the Bruins penalty kill clicked at 76.3%. In 25-26, it was 77%. So barely improved. And in the standings, it was still 24th worst. So you remain one of the most undisciplined teams in the league, and you remain a bottom third penalty kill in the league. That's not a good combination. So that is definitely an area where they have to improve for next season. Interestingly enough, the Bruins did draw the third most penalty minutes, penalty minutes in the league this year at 8.86 per 60. So the Bruins were in the box a lot, but they also goaded their oppositions into penalties a lot, which is surprising to me because you would think that like the fastest teams in the league, the most puck possessive teams in the league, would draw the most penalties per 60, like a like a Colorado. Colorado, I think, was 19th in the NHL at drawing penalties per 60. The Bruins are third. So I don't know if that's just a result of the Bruins dragging their opponents into fights and um, you know, kind of blue-collar games per per se. But that that did surprise me. Um so that's that's a good number for the Bruins to keep going uh going forward. But the Bruins had the fifth most shots on goal against this year. So of all 32 teams, the Bruins gave up the fifth most amount of shots. They were 23rd in the NHL in high danger shots on goal four. So they were basically among the five or the they were among the 10, 9, 10 worst teams in the NHL at high danger shots four. So they they weren't very threatening, is the moral of that story. Conversely, in addition to giving up the fifth most amount of shots in the NHL, they gave up the fourth most high danger shots in the NHL. So they created among the worst high danger shots for and gave up some of the most high danger shots against. They also were fifth in the NHL in defensive zone giveaways. So these are the types of numbers I'm talking about. When I say, hey, it's great that they made the playoffs, it's great that they showed some spine this year, it's great that they wanted to right the wrongs of last year and try to re-identify themselves as a hard team to play against. And I I do think from a physicality standpoint and from a fortitude standpoint, I do think the Bruins are harder to play against this year. They they seem to be stronger mentally, but in terms of shot generation, teams still had their way against the Bruins this year. And so from that perspective, they weren't that hard to play against. And so these are the negatives analytically that make me say, okay, why are the Bruins giving up so much? And Marco Sturm implemented kind of a in the in the defensive zone at least, he kind of implemented this hybrid style of man-on-man coverage and zone coverage. And I can't exactly tell you when or why they to they choose to go into man-on-man or or zone. It just it kind of seems like they just do it on the fly at different times. So I don't know if it's a certain matchup per game that they see or want to do it against. I don't really know. It's too much in the weeds without being in the room. I can't tell you exactly why they decide to go man-on-man here and zone there, but I can tell you that they do a little bit of both. And what I can also tell you is that their man-on-man coverage exposed them a lot. Man-on-man is very difficult to implement. It's hard to play against, but only if the team is excellent at it. Like the Carolina Hurricanes, they're a really good team at man-on-man. They, and even they, who have been doing it for years, fall into um, you know, problems at times. But it's way harder to implement man-on-man coverage in hockey per se than basketball because uh the game just happens so much faster, and the puck is just ping-ponging around and pinballing around everywhere. The game is very unpredictable. Whereas basketball, it's more X's and O's. There's X's and O's in hockey too, but basketball is very, it's very X's and O's, and it's very kind of, you know, you have to get around picks and this and that and picks, pick, pick and rolls and stuff like that. But hockey is just way too unpredictable. X's and O's implement, they help with structure, but hockey is organized chaos. And so man on man can be tough to play in hockey. It's tough to play against, but again, as I said, only when the team you're playing against has it mastered. And the Bruins do not have it mastered, and it just got them exposed at times, and it gave oppositions way too many two-on-ones, way too much open ice because guys couldn't, they were getting confused and they couldn't stand their guy. And I just think that the Bruins going away from man on man, certainly to the extent that they played it this past season, can help mitigate some of the shifts in their own end where they get caught running around for minutes at a time. Now, if the Bruins want to keep having some sort of neutral zone trap to try to disturb opposition's transitional play, you know, go for it. I'm still a proponent of a more aggressive team than laid back team and trapping teams into mistakes. I think it's better to force mistakes than to wait for them. I think there's a time and a place for it, but ultimately, I think in the D zone, the Bruins would be better off going to more of a zone coverage. So that's something that I would like to see the Bruins adjust next year. And then in the offensive zone, I'd have to go back and watch some film throughout the course of the season to kind of see how consistently they forechecked a certain way. But it's tough because you can watch a whole game, and sometimes teams change their forecheck based on what line's out there. So you can watch an entire game for an hour and be like, okay, what are they running for a forecheck? But you might see four or five different types of forechecks depending on the score of the game, depending on what line's out there. Um, so it's it's kind of tough to see what the Bruins consistently run on a forecheck. But generally speaking, I like to see more of an aggressive style by the Bruins next year, where in the O zone, I like to see their D pinch a little bit more. Um, I want them to be calculated, and I certainly don't want them to pinch if they don't have any forward up high to fill their lane and cover for them. But I just think it's really difficult on teams when you're trying to break the puck out and the strong side D is just right there closing on the winger, strong side winger, or you know, it gets teams hemmed in. You know, sometimes the weak side D can telegraph a cross-sey's pass and just really step up. But again, you need to be synchronized. Your defensemen have to be synchronized with your forwards. You cannot pinch if you don't have um your teammates having your back, because otherwise, if you mess up, it's an odd man rush and it's just completely irresponsible. So things I like to see the Bruins adjust next season systematically is I want to see them go to more zone coverage in the defensive zone, and I want to see them have more of an aggressive fore check, and I want to see them with more active D, especially when teams are trying to break out. Not every time, but enough to hem teams in. And something else too, and this might be personnel, but man, the Bruins defense as a whole have to do a hell of a lot better of a job getting pucks through to the net from the blue line. Uh the Bruins, I think, I mean, I'll look it up at some point here, but it just feels like generally speaking, the Bruins are never a strong team on getting shots through from the point from the back end. Their shot attempts are probably there, but the amount of shin pads that the Bruins, you know, break, you know, they're they're they're keeping Bauer and Vapor and you know, all these brands, Easton, they're keeping them in business with their shin pads because the Bruins are probably breaking them 10 times a game. Um, so yeah, those are some things uh systematically that I think could help mitigate some of these under-the-hood numbers that the Bruins were struggling with this past year in terms of um, you know, expected goals for, expected goals against, you know, all the shots against and all that stuff. So yeah, I'm sure that you might need some different personnel in place. Marco Sturm mentioned on the back half of that question. Is it more of a personnel issue? And I think that there are certain players that don't fit into Marco Sturm's system. I think Mason Lorai, who to his credit had a really good bounce back year from having the worst plus-minus in the NHL last year to being a positive player in the plus-minus department this year. I do think you saw some growth in Mason Lorraine's game. But he's a guy that found himself sitting out of the lineup the last three games of the playoffs because Marco Sturm just didn't trust him. And I think you look at a guy like Henry Yoki Haryu, I don't think that's a player that Marco Sturm probably loves in the defensive system. So, you know, we'll see what the Bruins do for offseason moves. But personnel aside, those are some systematic adjustments that if I were the Bruins, I would try to implement next year to try to help um not be a team that's so easy to generate offense against. Now, again, fortunately for the Bruins, they had Jeremy Swayman, who was a Vesna finalist, to save the day for them. But you can't you can't put that much on your goaltenders year in and year out. It's just not, it's it's not it's not a recipe for success. I mean, it really isn't. You shouldn't be relying that much on your goaltending. It's good to have them, obviously, but you're gonna have breakdowns. Even the best teams have breakdowns every game. Goaltending is always important, but man, to to be uh to have a plus 22 goal differential this year in reality, but have a expected goal differential for minus as minus 30, that's telling. That's really telling. Okay, let's go to Marco Sturm's second comment here on what he expects out of his group in year two behind the bench of the Boston Bruins.

SPEAKER_07 41:44

You set the foundation in year one. What do you want year two to look like from your perspective with your hockey team? And it evolves as you go out through the summer and into the season.

SPEAKER_05 41:56

Yeah, we um the one thing I learned over the past coaching, um, I don't know if I learned I I took out of it, let's put that way, is we gotta start from scratch again. And that for me goes back to back to zero, back to our day one training camp. It's it's very gonna be very, very similar. Um, training camp will be shorter. The system is in place, we will probably tweak a few things system-wise, but other than that, it's a it's a new season again, so there's nothing we gotta learn our you know our identity again. Um we gotta start from scratch and we gotta build something again. Um, we'll be willing to story started this season and then go from there. Because I see a lot of teams were not in the playoffs this year, they will be back in the picture. So you just can rest in this league.

SPEAKER_00 42:59

I like a lot of what Marco Sturm had to say there. I think it's important for his team to know hey, listen, just because we made the playoffs last year doesn't mean it's gonna happen again this year. And I do think that there's enough Bruins on that team that have been around the block a few times to know that last year gets you nowhere next year. And so, listen, the Bruins behind closed doors, Marco Sturm, his coaching staff, those players, they know they know that they were not a good team analytically, uh, at least in terms of advanced analytics. And and that goal differential number is a perfect example. So if you're looking at the standings and you go to plus minus or you know, team goal differential, and you find the teams that had the best goal differential all the way down to the teams with the worst, you'd find the Bruins 11th on. That list is that an analytic you're damn right it is, right? So you can sit there and say, hey, whoa, the Bruins were 11th best in the NHL and goal differential. What do you that's that's good and that's that's a good analytic number to have, and you're you're not wrong. Like that, of course it is, that's great. However, when you look at their expected goal differential at minus 30, which is made up analytically between the combination of you know uh shots per game that they had, shots against per game that they had, uh low, medium, and high danger chances for low, medium, and high danger chances against, like all these things. And there's other calculations that go into it. There's what they did, and there's what they should have been. And I'm fine if you want to sit there and say, Brian, this is what they were, but there's nothing wrong with me rebutting with okay, fine, but this is what they were supposed to be. And I know that what you are and what you were is more important at the end of the day, but in terms of long-term sustainability, it allows you to look at the numbers under the hood and say, okay, they they weren't a team that generated a lot, they weren't a team that dictated play a lot. So if that's the case, I'm glad they were a playoff team this one year, but that's not a recipe for sustained success going forward. You can't be a team every year that is one of the worst teams in terms of high danger chances against, and one of the worst teams and high danger chances for, and expect that you're gonna be a good team every year. You won't be. You might luck your way into a playoff like they did this year. And and listen, I don't want to say luck because it it does take, listen, it took Jeremy Swayman to make those saves. And it did take the Bruins to capitalize on the power play a lot this year. So like they they they earned their way too, but you you can only bend, bend, bend, bend, bend so much before breaking. And I just don't think that bending year in and year out is a is a recipe for success and making the playoffs every year, let alone being a Stanley Cup champion, which is what the Bruins are trying to be, right? That's the end goal. The end goal at the end of the day is to build your franchise to the point where you're winning a Stanley Cup championship, not just happy to be in the playoffs. And it does kind of feel like this year, the Bruins, based on last year, were happy to make the playoffs, but going forward, that can't be the case, and it has to start with how how can we be a better team overall, um, personnel-wise and analytically, and they they do go together. Okay, so I do like that Marco Sturm said that we have to start fresh next training camp. And I also like that he mentioned the teams that didn't make the playoffs because he knows Marco Sturm knows the Florida Panthers are the best team in the Eastern Conference when they're healthy. Everyone knows that they've been to three straight Stanley Cup finals heading into this year, and they won the last two. And if they were healthy again this year, maybe the war of attrition would have came back to bite them in the ass in the playoffs and they wouldn't have gone as far, but they would have been in the playoffs. There's no denying that. I mean, the Florida Panthers have way too much talent and experience to not be a playoff team when they're healthy, so they'll be back. Um, and then you have the other four teams outside of the Bruins that made the playoffs in the Atlantic division, and then there's some good teams in the Metro Division that just missed, right? Columbus, they just missed the playoffs. Um so Detroit, they didn't miss the playoffs by much, like they're gonna have their their day in the sun at some point. So um the Bruins have some work to do and they're not gonna catch anybody off guard next year, they're just not. So I think that's uh that's important. That's important for the Bruins heading into next year. Don't don't rest on the fact that you made the playoffs this year because they were kind of fortunate to do so based on the analytics, and uh their roster needs some work to do. So it's gonna be a big offseason for the Bruins if they want to take another step forward next year. Now, uh speaking of next year, I want to get to one final comment from Marco Sturm, and this has to do with the vacancy right now for the Bruins not having a captain. And uh, Marco Sturm mentioned that he prefers to have a captain uh in a perfect world, but at the same time, the Bruins leadership by committee did work this year, and as far as what that means for next year, it remains to be seen. And the Bruins have some decisions to make this offseason. But let's hear what Marco Sturm had to say about the captaincy vacancy for the Boston Bruins.

SPEAKER_06 48:45

You've complimented your leadership group a lot this year, particularly your three alternate captains. Do you think it's important moving forward to have a single captain?

SPEAKER_05 48:56

I I always said uh I wanted a captain, but now being through that uh first time, uh, me as a head coach not having a captain, and um, I I thought it went real well. I just maybe because uh guys were really close to the leadership group uh group. I thought they did a good job overall. Um everyone had their input. Um there was no outsider. We always kept it really tight. Um so I actually I actually didn't mind it. I I uh but having said that, that that will be more con conversation to have um with with Dawn Um how we're gonna move forward. But uh personally, I um I liked how we handled the and especially the players, how they handled this the situation uh all year long.

SPEAKER_00 49:51

I mean, listen, I think the Bruins leadership did do a good job this year. I think to a man, they knew that last year was unacceptable and that the Boston Bruins cannot be a team that is a is a layup win every night. Now, as I said, you know, in in the recent segment just now, that the Bruins did give up a lot of chances against, and you know, their advanced analytic numbers were not very favorable to this Boston Bruins team, but they were still definitely a harder team to play against. They they they they were tougher, they they they were greasier. Um they worked hard. The this Boston Bruins team did work hard, and they had some guys that you don't like playing against, like Tanner Janot, Mark Castlick, Nikita Zodoroff, and like you know, there's there's plenty of others too that the Bruins, like Victor Arvinston's a bit of a pest to play against, right? He he he brought a lot of um what was the what was the coined term, piss and vinegar, that Cam Neely said the Bruins needed more of. So they were a harder team to play against. They had a much better training camp. Um, they were locked in from the start, they were able to navigate some ups and downs, especially in the first couple months of the year with some big losing streaks that they were able to bounce back from and salvage their season. And then the second half of the year, they didn't lose two games in a row um very often. So I I do think that the the Bruins leadership stepped up this season. Charlie McAvoy had the best year of his career, and David Pasternak continued to do his thing. As I said earlier on in the episode, if you ask yourself whose team is this, it's not Charlie McAvoy's team. It's not Nikita Zodorov's team, it's not Hampis Lindholm's team, it's it's David Pasternak's team. David Pasternak should be the captain of the Boston Bruins going forward. I think it was fine to go with no captain this past year because it was, you know, I had no issue with giving Charlie McAvoy and David Pasternak a full season to try to show management and ownership, you know, where that they should be the captain. Like there was nothing wrong with that. And I think both guys had great years. And I think both guys, should they wear the C, would be a good captain, a deserving captain. But David Pasternak is a top five, top six forward in the NHL. He's the longest tenured Bruin. He I think has a more approachable demeanor. He's more he, I would say he's less uh less of a wild card, less of a um emotional tornado at times than Charlie McAvoy. I think McAvoy's a great player when he's heads on straight. He's a top 15 defenseman in the NHL, I think, um, when he's on his game. But I think it's simple. I think the answer is Charlie McAvoy. I don't or uh David Pashnak. I don't want I don't want two C's next year, I don't want three A's. I just like to me if if you go with no captain next year, I think that's a cop-out way of saying that we don't think that there's a leader who's capable of being the guy. And that's and that's and I don't want that to be the case because that means that somebody's missing something. Because if you're a coach in that room and you're a manager of that team, you know if somebody has stepped up as that guy. And if you know who that guy is, then you give him the letter. I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world to not have a captain. I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world to have a captain. But let's be honest here every professional sports team and every league has a captain. So let's not turn this into me making a big deal, making a mountain out of a mohill that the Bruins don't have a captain. It's it's a part of sports. So I was okay with it this past year because it gave it gave McAlloy and Pasternak an opportunity to show themselves and prove they want to be that guy. And I don't think either one's a perfect player, and I'm sure neither one's a perfect leader. I don't think there are perfect leaders or perfect players, but I think it's very evident that that it's David Pasternak's team. So enough with the you know the BS shared captaincy and just give it to him next year. That doesn't mean it can't still be leaders by committee. Zadano Chara wore a C on his jersey for years in Boston, and Patrice Bergeron had an A. And I don't think people in that dressing room um didn't view Bergeron as a co-captain with with with Chara. So I think it's the same thing with Pashnak and McAvoy. Um, but I do think it belongs to Pashtenak if you're gonna give a CO. And if you don't give out O C, I think it's I think it shows that the Bruins don't believe one of those guys can be it. Otherwise, why if you can see a leader, if you can see the guy, you give him the C. I don't want to hear, oh no, no, it's it's best if it's by committee. Why? What team goes by committee for multiple years? I don't think it's very smart. I think they got away with it this past year. It was great. They kind of galvanized behind the world saying that they weren't gonna be a playoff team and they knew they had to be better than last year. But going forward, I just think it's best if you if you choose a guy. And if it's McAvoy, it's McAvoy. But you know, I give it to Pashnak, I think it's his team. So that's where I stand on it. Um, speaking of Charlie McAvoy, let's hear what he had to say on breakup day. He was asked about his optimism for the Bruins heading into next year with players like James Higgins and Fraser Minton, and just some other prospects and draft capital that the Bruins have combined with their current core and just general optimism for next year for the Boston Bruins from Charlie McAvoy.

SPEAKER_08 55:36

Some moves. How optimistic are you for the future of this team?

SPEAKER_01 55:41

Yeah, I mean, I think we surprised a lot of people this year. I think there were a lot of people that kind of left us, you know, for dead coming into the year. And I remember I went up to Vegas and kind of tried to tell everybody that said we're gonna be a playoff team, we got everything we need. So you know, I think we proved to ourselves that you know no matter no matter who's in here, you know, with the right system and belief and just pushing each other to be our best. Like, you know, we we we really got the most out of this group, you know. I think that we could, I think it was great. I think guys will have big summers and you know we'll come back here next year, hopefully with you know guys just ready to take that leap and that next step. Um, you know, when as far as it goes with with with scenes and management and stuff, they're every year I've been here, they try and put us in the best position and they try and field the best team. They do that, they're committed to that. So I you know, I have no doubt that that's something that they'll try and do again this summer.

SPEAKER_00 56:40

I'm glad Charlie has no doubt. I think there's a lot of Bruins fans who are wondering where the high-end talent that Boston is sorely missing, at least established high-end talent that Boston's missing, and how it's gonna get uh get acquired. I mean, the Bruins have $16 million in cap space right now, but you only have I mean, you have a lot of guys under contract. The only players that aren't currently under contract uh heading into this this offseason are uh Victor Arbittson, pending UFA, Andrew Peake, pending UFA, Jordan Harris, I think he's a pending RFA, and uh Lucas Reichel, pending RFA. So this roster wasn't good enough, clearly, based on all the chances they gave up, based on the fact that they, you know, pretty much got dominated in for in the first round of the playoffs. I mean, listen, they it was a it was a six-game series, they got two wins against Buffalo, but territorially and chance generation-wise, Buffalo severely out chance Boston in that series and they got the win. So where if you have all these guys under contract, you know, where's the room for improvement personnel-wise? You're kind of stuck with a lot of what you have, unless the Bruins can find a way to move on from guys under contract. Like, I don't know, does Mikey Aceimont need to be on this team next year? Okay, if you deem no, where's he going? Who's gonna who's gonna you know trade for him? Um, you know, Alex Steves, you sign him to an extension midseason um after a good couple of months, but he kind of disappeared after that. Um now it's not the biggest money in the world, and it doesn't hurt to have depth guys, but again, it's a guy under contract. Um you know, Sean Corale, he had an okay you know year at 20 20 plus points barely, um, which is what you want out of a fourth line center, good veteran leader. I think the game, uh speed-wise, has has passed Sean by a bit, which is you know interesting because when he was with the Bruins the first time around, speed was kind of his game, um, being a bigger power forward guy. And you know, it's crazy what seven, eight years can do, but that's you know, that's how long it's been since he was a Bruin. So um, you know, he's under contract for another year. I think, you know, I don't have an issue with that, but again, it's a contract on the books. Uh Tanners knows in the books. I have no issue with that, honestly. I thought he had a really good first year as a Bruin. And if that's what you can get out of him going forward, um, no problems there. Casey Middlestad, you know, I think is a guy he was a he was a part of a very, very important and consistent line for the Bruins. But do I think he's part of their long-term plans? No, I don't. He's under contract for one more year. Um, I think he's a guy that the Bruins will be willing to part with, especially with some younger players in the way. Victor Arvidson, I think the Bruins like. I know the Bruins like him based on what Marco Sturm says. Um does he want to take a hometown discount to remain a Bruins? If that's the case, then yeah, I can see the Bruins signing up for a couple of years. If does he want to cash in on what's his final opportunity, probably to make make some big money in the NHL for his family? If that's the case, then he's probably gonna have to go elsewhere to do so. So that remains to be seen. Um Elias Lindholm, you know, he's the guy. He's the guy that you look at the Bruins roster right now up front and say, oh boy. Like, you know, he's he's not really a five-on-five generator or producer. How much of that is because of injury? Don't know. Don't know. I'm sure, I'm sure a decent amount of it is. Uh, let's get to Elias Lindholm because he spoke during breakup day. And it's just it's a it's a shitty situation all the way around. I'll detail a little bit more uh on the other side of this clip. Let's hear what Elias Lindholm had to say uh after the brewing season.

SPEAKER_04 1:00:43

Um obviously ended up going and uh after that it was it was tough to uh you know kind of recover, I think uh you know, going over there and my body was not great, but uh battled through and then came back and uh you know kind of kept grinding and uh couldn't find uh you know the conference or stuff like that to to play my game. So uh it was tough. What was the interest here? Uh same as last year, the the back. Did you ever feel 100% at all this season?

SPEAKER_10 1:01:20

Early on, yeah. Do you feel that this has gotta be a recurrent thing, or is there a way to approach this uh fix it because uh I think it's been feeling good.

SPEAKER_04 1:01:33

Obviously, I did the same uh injection uh early on the first season. Uh and it worked good and uh didn't have an issue with at all, felt good coming in and then uh yeah. Obviously, I think uh the bus trip from uh from New York that day was uh was probably too much for my back. So uh yeah, it is what it is, but uh just gotta uh you know find a way to to make it better.

SPEAKER_06 1:02:04

Is it a wear and tear thing or was there a contacted kind of thing?

SPEAKER_04 1:02:08

Uh I mean looking back at it, I think uh you know the faceoff happened and he kind of pushed me a little bit, but uh it was kind of the twisting motion a little bit that after it was tough.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:23

Alright. I don't know about you guys, but back injuries are no joke. And chronic back injuries, they don't really go away. Um, you know, maybe with enough time and rest, but when you're a professional athlete, you only have so much time and rest. Even in your off season, you know, you're training, you're supposed to be training, right? So uh oftentimes you know back ailments lead to you know therapy and and surgeries and fusions, whatever. But it's it's not it's not uh a good situation for listen listen from a from a human perspective, it sucks. It sucks for Elias Lynnholm that he is hurt, that he feels like he can not uh showcase himself uh as well as he wish he could for the Bruins fans, for the Bruins, for himself. He knows that he's probably been a bit of a whipping boy for for Bruins fandom. Um, you know, you sign a big ticket contract as a free agent, you come in and you just don't perform to you know the standards that certainly the team expected you to do, you expected yourself to do. Um, and you know, you want to be able to do right by yourself and the contract and the team you play for and their fans, but you don't have the you don't have the health to do it. And especially in hockey, like as a center iceman, specifically on face-offs, but when you're skating, I mean, so much of your uh strength and and explosiveness comes from you know from from from your torso, your lower back, and your of course your legs. But I'll tell you guys, I I uh I've messed my back up a couple of summers ago. Just I think I was I don't even know what I did. I think I was playing tennis or something with my brother, and I just I I I I didn't even feel it right away. I I later that day, I just I guess I was just trying to serve up a couple too many aces, you know, and and and you know I I did. I I I served up a couple of aces. I I I kicked my brother's ass that day. Uh don't tell him I said that, but I did. But I felt it. I felt it. Uh, you know, later that afternoon, I was like, oh boy, what was what would I do there? You know, I took I went a little too I went a little you know a little too Roger Federer on on him there. And uh anyway, so my back was kind of you know fucked up for like the next at least month that summer. I, you know, I'd I'd wake up and um I never had a back injury in my life, I guess turning 30. Um, you know, that's that's par for the course, but um, I you know getting out of bed, it it it it was very painful. Um, you know, stretching, you would stretch, try to make it feel better, and it would help temporarily. But you know what the worst pain was was sitting down. You know, I'd sit down to work and um I'd get up like an hour later and I couldn't even I couldn't even straighten myself out. Um and so when Elias Lindholm talks about sitting on a on a bus for four hours to New York and and that hurting his back even more, I I believe it. Like you you your body stiffens up when you're sitting up straight. Um ironically, walking was okay, but any time spent sitting down for a bit, it just it just tightened up. And um, you know, for me personally, I think you know that kind of messed with me for about like a maybe like maybe like five weeks or so. Um, but that was just a bit of a tweak. I'm sure for anybody listening or watching, if you've had back pain in the past for one reason or another, um, whether it was marginal or or more serious, it's it's you you don't realize uh How much your lower back stabilizes and drives your mobility until you have a back injury. And I'm not trying to equate whatever I dealt with to what Elias has been dealing with because clearly it's been more chronic for him than it was for me. I'd I had a I had a you know month and a half thing a couple summers ago. Um but you take for granted your whole life uh what your lower back does for you until you one day are like, oh like holy shit, I can't even tie my shoes right now. Um so it's a long-winded way of me saying that, you know, if he's dealing with back pain, regardless if they're shooting him up or not, it makes sense why somebody who even in his prime wasn't the fastest of skaters um or most explosive of skaters is having a hard time getting up and down the ice with any sort of separation. You know, he's he he honestly looks at times like he's skating with the piano on his back. And and now that we realize after breakup day that he's still dealing with this back pain that he dealt with earlier on in his Bruins tenure, it doesn't bode well for a guy who's you know 31 years old and is signed under contract till he's 36. Who's gonna, you know, how do you how do you rectify that? How do you move that contract? You can't. I mean, you can try to buy it out, but that'll be against the cap for quite some time. And you know, I I think you just have to kind of hope that he can get himself back into being, you know, close as a player he once was, but I don't know what that remedy is. Is that back surgery? Is it I really is it is it moving him to the wing so he's taking less face-offs? I don't know. I mean, he's very vulnerable if if if if one face-off twisted him the wrong way and one bus ride to New York did that to him. That's not that's not good long term. So uh, and you know, as far as the signing goes, it really it's it's tough luck all around because Don Sweeney is going to be killed for this contract that he signed Elias Lindholm to with the anchor of the contract that it is. But to be fair to Sweeney, the the injury that Elias Lindholm suffered initially that started all this back pain was lifting over the summer when the Bruins signed him. So he was training for his first year as a Bruin after the Bruins signed him, and that's when he tweaked his back. So it's not like the Bruins signed him and didn't do proper due diligence on his injury history for a free agent. Like, no, they signed a guy who had had some good years in the past, and he fucked up his back before even playing game one for the Bruins, and it's kind of been a lingering issue ever since. Now, that doesn't bode well for the rest of his contract, but it's just a shitty situation all the way around. And so, you know, you you you feel for the guy on a personal level, and you just hope that professionally he can get back to a place where you know he's helping the team you know win games, and because you know, I don't see the Bruins being able to move him. Who's gonna want to take on this contract, especially if he's hurt, even if the Bruins ate money and sent an asset the other way, which honestly, it's like I'd rather just stick him on the fourth line than to get rid of assets right now, but um he just doesn't bring much for a team to acquire him right now, and it would be doing a massive favor for the Bruins if they did. So I think you're kind of stuck with them for now. So you have you just have to hope that you know he can get the proper care and and and recovery because it's gonna be a long five years. Uh, but you know, the injuries do go on to explain why we've seen such a uh regression in Lindholm's play. I I know he was never Connor McDavid in Calgary and in Carolina before that, and I know he's been good on the power play for the Bruins. Um, it's honestly where 60% of his production comes from. But five on five, he's not been nearly good enough at producing or generating. And you just wonder how it's gonna get any better with the the latest and greatest news that we have here. So um speaking of Elias Lindholm, he spent much of the year with David Pashnak. I want to get to one more thing before we sign out here, and that is David Pashnak. He made some commentary, even having a hundred points to his name, and Marco Sturban said, Hey, listen, I don't care if how he gets those points as long as he's getting them. Um, but it was a down year for Paschanak in terms of goal scoring. Now, you may you may be under the mindset of, hey, listen, I don't care how he scores as long as he collects points, and that's fine. But I'm telling you that a guy like David Pashnak, he he he likes to find the back of the net, and he's capable of doing so uh you know as good as anybody in the world when he's when he's going. And so David has mentioned he was aware that he wasn't shooting pucks enough this year, and here's what he had to say during breakup day.

SPEAKER_09 1:10:54

Your your number of shots this year were down. Uh we're used to seeing you one, two, three in the league. Is that something to try to improve on? Is that just circumstantial?

SPEAKER_03 1:11:04

Yeah, for sure. I I need to be better, uh, you know, to uh definitely get back more to the shooting, get the confidence. Obviously, I've been playmaking a lot on the power play, and uh that sometimes can take away the confidence from goal scoring, right? And and uh uh I I could sense it sometimes during the year uh that like you know maybe I I rushed even when I was getting the chance I rushed it out or didn't have the confidence you know to to make my better shot or stuff. If you understand what I'm getting to. And uh so yeah, definitely uh have to improve to that again, get back to shooting, and and I'm still gonna make a play. Uh when I see somebody in better position to score than me, I still gonna make that, but uh definitely uh uh want to score more goals.

SPEAKER_00 1:11:54

So I mean, listen, the elephant in the room here is that David's passing more because he has to, right? Like we just talked about Elias Lindholm. He is not a setup man, he is not a great one-on-one player. Morgan Geeky, he can finish. He has proven that he can finish. Morgan Geeky is not a great one-on-one player, he's not a very fast player, he can't really create the way that David Paschanak can to set up David Pashnak as much as 88 sets up others. So when you look around at this Bruins lineup, David used to play with guys like Patrice Bergeron and Brad Marshand and David Craichy. Like those guys and Tori Krug, those guys set up David. Those those types of players aren't really around the Bruins locker right now. Yeah, there's some potential, definitely. I mean, James Higgins will be one of those facilitators, of course. I think Fraser Minton, I think he's gonna be a hell of a player. He's gonna be able to do it all. I think Marat Husadinoff is a guy who has some creativity and finesse and speed, love what he brings to the table. He's only gonna get better. Uh Charlie McAvoy, he's capable of facilitating. Pavel Zaka, he can play well with David. Um, again, Geeky can finish. Elias Lindholm, we talked about why it's gonna be tough for him to do so going forward, barring any massive turnaround. So basically, there aren't a lot of guys right now in the past couple of years who have been able to set up David Pasternak to be that goal scorer. Pasternak has looked around the room and said, hey, no one's gonna be able to set me up. So I need to be that guy. If you give some if you give some more talent around Pashnak, some more elite talent, then that can help him become more of a shooter. But until Morgan Geeky or Elias Lindholm magically learn how to become great one-on-one players and and and thread the needle to David Pashnak to set him up for open nets like he does for them, well, then he's gonna keep being a facilitator. So if you want David to shoot more, yeah, he can control some of that. David can shoot more if he wants, he can be more selfish if he wants, definitely. But you still need guys to help find him. And so when we talk about what's next, which is what this subject ticker says, based on the conversation we just had about Elias Lindholm, like I you're you might be stuck with Elias Lindholm, fine, but you gotta find ways to to supplement David Pashnak with with better talent. So out of you know, Don Sween is gonna have to get creative with a hockey trade or two or three this summer. He has to figure it out. He just has to. James Higgins, yes, I think James Higgins can be that guy with David Pashnak in the future, but is it next year? I don't know, right? Like, so Marco Sturm said he he envisions James Higgins as a center one day, but he said that's he doesn't think he's ready for that yet. So I take that comment as Marco Sturm saying he's gonna start Higgins at the wing next year. So maybe Higgins is on the other wing with Pashnak, but I just think it's gonna be a little bit of time before you have Higgins and Pashnak kind of playing together at five on five, if they ever do. Maybe he separates those two guys to balance out the lineup. So I just think the Bruins, we all know it. We all know that there's some high-end forwards away, we all know that they're a top four top pair defensemen away. Maybe some of this can come through some drafts and some future prospects that they currently have. But as far as next October or September, because the season's gonna start earlier, if you want David to be more of a shooter, then give surround him with guys who can set him up. And they don't have that right now. I think James Higgins can, but I don't think it's gonna be in October. So as far as what is next for the Bruins, it starts tomorrow night. It starts at the NHL draft lottery, and I think that what happens in the draft lottery can impact and will impact the Bruins offseason plans because if the Toronto Maple Leafs keep their top five protected pick, then I think you know the Bruins obviously don't get it, and their pick will move to 2028. So now you'll have I think Toronto's and Florida's first round picks in 2028, but nothing to show for in 26 or 27. And so in that situation, I think you might see Don Sweeney try to package together some first round picks and maybe some some prospects and maybe a roster player or whatever or two to try to bring in some upgrades at the forward position or on the back end. Um if Toronto loses their first round pick in the lottery tomorrow to Boston, and there's a 58% chance of that happening, because all you need is for one team behind Toronto to leapfrog them and they'll go out of the top five, and Boston will get their pick. If the Bruins end up with Toronto's first round pick this year at six or seven overall, well, now I think if you're the Bruins, you're drafting the best player available. And this is a very high-end draft, certainly in the top you know, half of the draft. So the Bruins could end up with the um a prospect who could be ready to play who could be ready to play as early as next season or you know, later next season, similar to what you saw with James Haggins this past year. Either way, you're supplementing your current core with another high-end prospect that should be close to ready to play in the NHL if it's six or seven overall. And so you'll keep you'll keep that pick. You should keep that pick and draft best available. And then you know, you have the 23rd overall pick of your own. Um, maybe you package that or keep it, but it all just kind of depends on what happens in the draft lottery. So for me, that's what's next. Of course, you have the draft and free agency. Um, but it to me, it all kicks off with the draft lottery tomorrow. Do the Boston Bruins have a top 10 pick this year or do they not? Do they have two first-round picks this year, one in the top seven and one at 23? Or do they have just 23 overall this year and then three first-round picks but in 2028? That makes a difference. Because if you don't have Toronto's first round pick this year, then I do think that the Bruins will feel more pressure to use some of those draft picks in three years from now or two years from now as potential trade chips to help supplement your current core. Because the comments that David Paschnak made after game six against Buffalo and on breakup day suggests that you gotta get some real talent around these guys. And, you know, to give, you have to get. So we'll see. It starts Tuesday night. We shall see. So that'll do it for this episode. There was a lot to catch up on. Um, thank you all for bearing with me. Over the last uh you know week and a half or so. I was traveling during the first round of the Bruins and Sabres, so I wasn't able to provide um content as frequently as I as I would have had I been home. I still tried to put out um what I could. And so thank you all for bearing with me there. And I will be here all summer. We'll be talking all summer, whether it's twice a week or three times a week or once a week. Um, it may vary depending on the month, but I'll be here all summer long. We'll be talking about the draft and free agency. We'll we'll do some some Bruins history episodes, you know, talk about some games from the vault. Um, you know, that's the that's this that's the part about um being a fan. You know, it's it always sucks when your team gets eliminated from the playoffs or doesn't qualify, but once that dust settles, you quickly get um excited and start looking forward to next year, right? And so um we will be here the whole time to do that. Thank you all very much for listening, and I will talk to you uh later on this week. Take care.