Starved for offense, Bruins double down on what didn’t work

I swear I've already lived through what Bruins general manager Don Sweeney tried to sell everybody on after the first day of free agency on Tuesday.

In a hot video room at Warrior Ice Arena (Sweeney compared it to the heat that GMs feel on the first day of free agency), there was a lot of talk about a better power play and specifically how one player (Viktor Arvidsson) is going to fix that and get it "back online." There was talk of “teasing more offense” out of non-traditional scorers or guys who haven't scored a lot historically, and having a better forecheck. Oh, and being a tougher team to play against.

Again, we heard all of this before, and it didn't work, which is putting it lightly considering the Bruins were the fifth-worst team in hockey a year ago in what was their worst season in almost 20 years.

Soooooo, why double down on it?

Watching the 2024-25 Bruins for all 82 games, it was painfully clear what this team needed: Offense, offense, and even more offense.

A year ago, the Bruins ranked 28th in goals per game a year ago, their power play ranked 29th, and their 26.5 shots per game ranked 29th. The Bruins also had 42 games where their offense maxed out at two goals or less, which was the fourth-most such nights in the entire NHL for the 2024-25 season, and the Bruins went a predictable 5-37-0 in those games. And as a team, the Bruins scored 120 goals in 1,655 minutes with David Pastrnak (43 goals, 106 points) on the ice, and just 102 in the nearly 3,319 with him on the bench or in the penalty box. Add in Morgan Geekie (33 goals) and the Geekie-Pastrnak duo accounted for over 34 percent of Boston's total offense in 2024-25. Boston's sixth-highest scoring forward finished with 22 points.

Again, the needs could not have been clearer.

The Bruins addressed those needs by giving five years at $3.4 million per season to Tanner Jeannot (seven goals but 211 hits in 67 games last year), $1.85 per year for two years of Sean Kuraly (six goals in 82 games last year), and Mikey Eyssimont (nine goals in 77 games) for two years at $1.4 million per year. Add it up and the Bruins doled out a combined $6.65 million for guys that project as bottom-six talents and do little to address your scoring issues.

To potentially make matters worse, it's also worth noting that Jeannot (and even Eyssimont) have struggled to stay out of the box, with Eyssimont averaging 1.71 minors per 60 (4th-most) and Jeannot averaging 1.32 minors per 60 (19th-most) among a group of 325 forwards with at least 700 five-on-five minutes played. For a Boston team that already took the sixth-most minors and had the ninth-worst penalty kill in the league, that’s a terrifying proposition. 

Beginning with their biggest signing of the group, Jeannot, it's not that he is a player that you dislike having on your team. Players who stick up for their teammates and lay the body are always welcomed. But prioritizing that — as not only just a signing, but then in both years and term — is the Bruins showing that they really haven't learned from their past mistakes. The Bruins tried this with Matt Beleskey. It didn't work. They tried it with David Backes. It didn't work. They traded for Nick Ritchie. It didn't work. Even Nick Foligno, who was a character signing made to add a locker room element that they felt they were missing, didn't really work. There is absolutely no reason to think the Bruins have suddenly cracked the code and that they've nailed it with a guy who's coming off a season-ending groin injury and whose game has shown serious signs of heading in the wrong direction for multiple years in a row, or that that's a bidding war that the Bruins in their current state need to win.

Instead, it's another example of the Bruins feeding their fans another signing that preys on their love of the 'Big Bad Bruins' and nostalgia. I love to talk on Twitter. It's a problem. But in talking online these last few days, I can't help but notice that every possible justification of the Jeannot signing that I've received has come with some sort of reference to what the Bruins did in 2011, or the franchise's roots and the city's love for nastiness. And I'm not here to tell you what to love (hard rule of mine: don't tell people how to fan), but almost nothing has mentioned what this player has done lately and why it's a fit for this club. Because when we really look under the hood, it's really not.

In signing Jeannot for five years, the Bruins have essentially locked up a lineup spot for him for at least two, no matter what the on-ice results are. Sweeney can say that the best players will play, sure, but Jeannot has a full no-trade clause in the first two years of this deal, and what you would consider extremely player-friendly trade protection in year three. He's playing.

The Bruins are also quick to mention the 'hard to play against' element of Jeannot's presence and how every player will feel two inches taller with him out there. But I can't help but ask that if it was as valuable as they say, why have the Preds, Lightning, and now Kings all been willing to move away from it? We asked these same questions when Beleskey and Backes became available.

And if there was one thing the Bruins did well last year, it's hit and fight. They actually finished the year with the second-most fighting majors and third-most hits among all NHL teams. This was not a glaring need for the club.

Last season, I caught up with a Bruins player after a fight. Fighting was not their game. But they were doing what they could to get the team going. "We're trying, but we just don't have enough. It's obvious," the player told me.

The only thing that truly changes with the Jeannot signing is that now Jeannot might be the guy saying that now.

The Bruins did add an offensive-minded player in Arvidsson, though, as noted.

Playing in more of a complementary role in Edmonton, the 32-year-old Arvidsson totaled 15 goals and 29 points a year ago. Arvidsson does have a history of pretty strong production, though, and has experience with new Bruins head coach Marco Sturm, having posted 20 goals an 49 points in 66 games during Sturm’s final year as LA’s assistant coach in 2021-22. 

In Edmonton, the key to any semblance of offensive success is playing with either Connor McDavid or Leon Draisaitl. Arvdisson got some of that in 2024-25, too, and the was on the ice for 27 goals for in 515 minutes with McDavid and/or Draisaitl on the ice with him, and McDavid and/or Draisaitl assisted on eight of Arvidsson's 15 goals. When playing without either one of those guys on the ice, however, Arvidsson was on the ice for 17 goals for in 490 minutes. That's a rate of 2.08 goals per 60, which is a lower rate than 2024-25 Bruins skaters such as Tyler Johnson, Justin Brazeau, and Fabian Lysell.

The Bruins have already circled the power play as to where Arvidsson, who's typically playing around the front of the net on the man advantage, will make the biggest impact for the Bruins. (They said something similar when they added Elias Lindholm last season, citing Lindholm as the best bumper option they've had since Patrice Bergeron, but let's stick to Arvidsson for now.)

On the ice for over 73 minutes of power-play work — on a power play that was much better than anything the B's put out there last year — Arvidsson scored just one power-play goal and three total power-play points. That was tied for the third-fewest power-play points among a group of 240 forwards to log at least 70 power-play minutes, and when you rate it out over a per-60 figure, his 0.82 goals per 60 ranked 196th, and the points (2.45) ranked 204th.

Arvidsson did have a monster season on the man advantage back in 2022-23 (10 goals and 25 points on the power play), but that was 2023, and it remains the only time in his career that he's hit double-digit power-play point totals.

There's an awful lot of faith being put in that returning to the table in 2025-26.

Perhaps the biggest mistake the Bruins made last summer was that they simply assumed that Pavel Zacha and Charlie Coyle were going to permanently be the guys they were during obvious career years in 2023-24. They were not. But that has not stopped the Bruins from putting that same level of faith in Geekie after a 33-goal, 57-point breakout year that came with a $33 million extension.

Given Geekie's ability to consistently elevate his game over the last three years between Boston and Seattle, it's entirely possible that he can be that guy.

But where the Bruins were 'let down' last year came with the fact that Coyle and Zacha did not deliver at the same rate while the Bruins let Jake DeBrusk walk, assuming they would essentially replace him in the aggregate. The Bruins still haven't replaced DeBrusk, and they didn't even make a dent in replacing the production that they've lost with Brad Marchand.

If Geekie isn't what he was a year ago, the Bruins are in an even deeper hole.

They have somehow made themselves even thinner at their thinnest spot.

And worst of all, they're nearly capped out.

With a full roster on July 3rd, the Bruins have just over $2.1 million left in projected cap space, and are no closer to fixing their biggest issues. And they have a combined $12.65 million tied up in bottom-six forwards Eyssimont, Jeannot, Kuraly, defenseman Henri Jokiharju, and backup goaltender Joonas Korpisalo. All of whom have term beyond this next season. Beyond the logjam in creates for a franchise desperate for younger players to emerge, it adds up and impacts what the Bruins can do at the top of the roster. Yes, the cap is going up. But it's going up for everyone, not just the Boston Bruins.

In essence, these players are not projected difference makers... but they're enough to potentially cost you a difference maker when you're starved for help.

In the now, the Bruins are going to focus on being "harder to play against."

But when doubling down on a strategy that clearly didn't work, the only person they're making it harder on is themselves.