Mailbag: Early training camp indications of what BOS roster may look like

To be featured in a future mailbag, submit questions on X @briandefelice_, @ThePuckUps, or email at info@puckups.com

---

Thanks for the question!

Let's start off with identifying how many roster spots are allowed for an NHL team in the first place.

Teams are allowed a maximum 23-player active roster from which they select 20 players to dress each game - 18 skaters (normally 12 forwards, 6 defensemen), and 2 goalies.

For this question, i'm going to reserve the extra roster spots (players 21, 22, and 23) for two forwards, and one defenseman.

Okay, so with all of that in mind lets identify ballot openings and what my prediction will be as to who fills them out for an opening night roster spot.

Before the start of training camp, I had Casey Mittelstadt penciled in as Boston's 2nd line center, and Pavel Zacha as Boston's 2nd line left wing.

However, recent comments from Marco Sturm following day two of training camp has me rethinking, and reconfiguring certain ballot openings.

If Zacha is Boston's 2nd line center, where does that leave Casey Mittelstadt?

Does Mittelstadt slide down to 3rd line center?

If so, that would fill a void previously thought to be vacant.

Does Mittelstadt play wing?

If so, 3rd line center is still an open competition.

Something to monitor as camp goes on.

Anyway, with Sturm's comments from today in mind, combined with some early pairings we've seen through two days, here's how things currently feel:

Here are the players that are realistically battling, to varying degrees, for vacant roster spots: (forwards) Matt Poitras, Fraser Minten, Matej Blumel, Fabian Lysell, Marat Khusnutdinov, Georgii Merkulov, Michael Eyssimont, John Beecher, Dans Locmelis, Alex Steeves, Riley Duran, (defensemen) Jordan Harris, Victor Soderstrom, Michael Callahan, Frederic Brunet.

Ultimately, this is my early training camp prediction for what the 23-man roster may look like to start the season on opening night:

Now this is just an educated guess based on comments and combinations early in camp, but there's still weeks to go and have yet to be any preseason games.

There will be opportunity for some young players like Minten, Poitras, Locmelis, etc. to impress but i'm starting to get the sense that the Bruins may want these young, waiver-exempt players to all start the season in Providence gaining chemistry and furthering their development - especially with potential futures as centers at the NHL level.

Minten, to me, felt like had an inside track at making the team as Boston's 3rd line center - but if Mittelstadt, or Zacha slides down into Boston's 3rd line center role than perhaps the writing is on the wall that Minten will start in Providence.

One could argue that Minten could still be Boston's 3rd line center if Mittelstadt moves to wing - but I just don't see that happening out of the gate.

Minten could also theoretically make the team as a left winger, but the Bruins probably see more value in him continuing to play center in Providence for a consistent development path whereas playing wing could create some inconsistent habits having far less responsibilities than center.

As for the final part of your question, I see the Bruins being open to both youngsters and vets.

For example, Kuraly, Eyssimont, Arvidsson, and Jeannot are clearly vets taking up roster spots.

But at the same time (in the subjective projection above) Lysell (22), Khusnutdinov (23), Lohrei (24), Beecher (24), and Blumel (25) are all young players making the 23-man roster.

Minten (21), Poitras (21), and Locmelis (21) all are young enough to still be in the minors - developing their physical maturity, and skill sets - without feeling like they're too good or old to be there.

Locmelis, as much as I love his game, has only played 6 professional games in North America.

Minten has only played 37 games in the AHL.

Poitras, for as promising as his game can be, has only played 40 games in the AHL.

I understand there will be frustration among many fans if certain players don't make the team out of camp, but all I'll say is that if they get sent down to Providence to start the year, it's because they weren't undeniable during training camp and could still benefit from more pro seasoning in the AHL.

Meanwhile, there will still be youth on the NHL roster to start the year in names mentioned above.

Hell, even Mittelstadt is still only 26.

Thanks for the question, Marchy.

Patrice Bergeron, in my opinion, will eventually get involved with Boston's operations at some point.

Whether it's as an assistant coach, scout, consultant, who knows.

But it probably won't be this year - he's made it clear that he's focused on his family and being there for them in ways he couldn't have been during his playing days.

Once he feels ready to begin his post-playing career i'm sure it will be quick to develop.

As for Zdeno Chara, interesting week to ask this question because GM, Don Sweeney, recently commented on an impending announcement regarding the Hall of Famer.

As for what that role is?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Perhaps it's as a team consultant, working with players and staff behind the scenes?

Guess we will find out soon enough.

Great question, Quill!

Here's my understanding surrounding the details of players signing entry-level contracts (ELCs), the differing service years, and when the first of those years becomes burned, or shifted forward to a following season.

If a player signs their first contract between the ages of 18-21, then it's a 3-year ELC.

If they sign between the ages of 22-23, it's a 2-year ELC.

Should they sign at 24 years old, it's a 1-year ELC.

Anyone signing their first contract at age 25 or older, there is no ELC restrictions - they can sign a regular contract.

So, with that in mind.

What are the parameters that deems the first year of an ELC burned, or fulfilled?

Well, for players 20 years of age or older when they sign their ELC, the first year is burned immediately upon signing.

But for players who sign their ELC at age 18, or 19 - the first year of their ELC is only burned if they play 10 or more NHL games (regular season, and post-season combined) that season.

Therefore, if an 18, or 19 year-old player signs their ELC but only plays 9 or fewer games in the first year of their contract then that season doesn't end up counting as year one of their ELC - it becomes classified as a "slide", and the clock won't begin ticking on year one of their ELC until the following season.

Make sense so far?

It's a lot of moving pieces and attention-to-detail, I know ...

So now, let's apply this information to James Hagens, if he were to sign with the Bruins following his sophomore season at Boston College.

Hagens is currently 18 years old, turning 19 in November of this year.

So that means that if Hagens were to sign with the Bruins at the conclusion of BC's season - he would still be 19, and upon signing would still qualify for a 3-year ELC, and would need to play at least 10 games (regular season, postseason combined) for the 2025-2026 Boston Bruins in order to burn year one of his three year entry level contract.

The scenario of Hagens signing an ELC with Boston next spring and playing at least 10 games for the Bruins would leave him with 2 years remaining on his ELC to begin the 2026-2027 season.

Conversely, let's say BC goes deep into the NCAA tournament, and the Bruins then sign Hagens to an ELC sometime in late March, or early April.

As long as Hagens plays 9 or fewer games, year one of his ELC won't start until the following season.

Effectively, Boston would then have Hagens signed to a 3-year ELC starting in the 2026-2027 season.

Hope this helped!

---

Thank you all very much for reading and sending in questions!