The Boston Bruins have played their first game under new head coach Joe Sacco. They defeated the Utah Hockey Club 1-0 with Korpisalo getting his second shut out of the season. So, all is well in Bruins land now, right? Well, let’s talk about it and see just how much better, if at all, the Bruins were last night.
Any team, in any sport, that fires their coach mid-season will expect a jump in play from the team in their next outing or two. That’s exactly what the Bruins got last night in their game against Utah. But as I said, that is to be expected. If you fire your coach and the team still comes out flat it might be time to pack up camp and call it a franchise. The question is, will this level of play continue in the next game? How about the game after that? How about a week from now? I am not saying it will not continue; I am just saying we cannot know if it made a difference until we see the bump in play last multiple games.
Something else to consider is that Korpisalo was in goal last night. For the most part the Bruins have played much better in front of him than they have in front of Swayman for what ever reason. Let’s see how they look when Swayman is in-between the pipes. Again, is this raise effort in the game going to be sustained? We shall see. and what happens when they fall behind? The Bruins obviously never trailed in last night’s game. What happens if they give up a goal or two? Do they sulk and quit like they have so far this season or do they continue to fight and give their best effort?
And let’s not get carried away here. The Bruins scored 1 goal last night. They didn’t exactly light it up. And the one goal was on the power play not even an even strength goal. Did the power play look a lot better? Sure but it wasn’t anymore effective. They managed to go 1 for 7 with the man advantage last night. (By the way, I was mistaken, Joe Sacco was in charge of the penalty kill, not the power play before getting elevated to head coach. Not that the penalty kill had been much better so far this season.) So they managed to score one goal which is exactly what they did when they played Utah in Utah. The difference is they gave up a goal in regulation and another in overtime to eat the loss in the Beehive State. So let’s not make it seem like the coaching changed turned them into the Gretzky Oilers. It was nice to see them play with a lot of effort for the full 60 minutes but there is still a long way to go.
In other Bruins news, they sent Georgii Merkulov back down to Providence and called up Marc McLaughlin from Providence. I don’t understand sending Merkulov down after only 3 games. Was he really that bad. Are 3 games really enough to judge someone on? I know McLaughlin has been hot of late but why not bring him up instead of Merkulov to begin with? To me this feels like showcasing. Usually showcasing is just something the fans thinks happens but actually never does. But this seems like maybe that’s what is going on. Reports are the Bruins are trying to make a trade and there have been lots of scouts at their games. Well, those scouts got a 3-game look at Merkulov and now they will get a look at McLaughlin. At this point I wouldn’t be shocked if after 3 games or so, assuming McLaughlin doesn’t light it up, Lysell gets recalled. Let teams get a look at him at the NHL level. I mean if you are just looking to add firepower to the lineup, why not call up Vinni Lettieri, he leads the P Bruins in goals? But he’s 29 and still in the AHL, teams won’t be looking to trade for him. Look, as I said, showcasing in sports is usually not a real thing. But to me, it’s the only way giving Merkulov only 3 games to prove himself makes sense.
Speaking of trades, there’s been a lot of talk around the Bruins that they need to make a big hockey trade. I don’t disagree with this. However, I mentioned in my last article that I do not believe a “shake up” trade in needed at this point. Let’s see how the coaching change affects the team. With that in mind, the idea of trading Pastrnak makes no sense. Pastrnak in a top 5 goal scorer in the NHL at worst. Any trade you make involving him, by definition, is at best going to be a lateral move. Sure, if you can trade him and like a draft pick or something for Conner McDavid, go right ahead. But I can’t imagine anyone is going to trade someone who is actually better than Pastrnak. So trading him is going to be a talent downgrade. Which makes it a shake up trade. I am 100% against it.
With that said, I think he is the only player in that situation. Even Charlie McAvoy can be upgraded. He is not a bad player by any means but he has never lived up to the expectations he had on him from his rookie season. But then I am not looking to trade McAvoy. To me, unless you are blowing a team up and rebuilding, which no one is seriously suggesting the Bruins should do, you don’t want to trade your good players, you want to add to them. That’s how you get better. Trading your one good player for another good player still leaves you with only one good player. The Bruins should be looking to make trades (the ones they should have made in the off season) but they should be trade to add to the talent they have. You want to trade the prospects that they clearly hate, draft picks, and any of the 15 middle class players they have like Coyle, and Zacha, and Hampus Lindholm.
On that note, I am not sure I would trade Trent Frederic. He’s having a slow start to the season but he has a good blend of skills. He’s the type of role player you want when your team has its fair share of high-end players. I mention this because there is a lot of talk that he is someone other teams would really like in a trade. Now, he is not untouchable by any means, but he is someone I would look to hold on to if I can or I would have to get a really nice return in any trade that includes him.
The Bruins had a solid start to the Joe Sacco era. Let’s all hope they continue to improve as they move forward. Their next game is at the Detroit Red Wings. Lets see how they do on the road against a team that is pretty even with the Bruins.