Mailbag: Projecting BOS opening night roster (pre-training camp)

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

---

Thanks for the question, Frank!

Hey, it's been a long summer - any hockey question to pass the time is more than welcomed!

Nils Hoglander (24) is a player i'm probably higher on than his NHL production so far deserves.

Through 293 career games played, Hoglander has amassed 58 goals, and 57 assists for 115 points.

That's a career average of .39 points per game - which is respectable but more along the lines of mid-level third line production than top-six production.

Casey Mittelstadt (26) by comparison has accumulated 81 goals, 155 assists, and 236 points in 438 games played - a career average of .54 points per game which is low-level top-six production.

So if we are purely talking production, Hoglander would likely be a downgrade over Mittelstadt.

Lysell at face value is still a better asset than a 2026 2nd round pick.

So from that perspective, this trade would likely benefit Vancouver more than Boston.

However, as mentioned earlier, there's elements to like about Hoglander's game beyond production - namely his three-zone effort, and physicality.

These are areas of the game that Mittelstadt has yet to show consistency in.

Additionally, Hoglander is under contract for the next three years at a $3M cap-hit while Mittelstadt is under contract for the next two years with a $5.75M cap-hit.

In other words, it's okay if Hoglander doesn't produce as much as Mittelstadt because he's not as much of a financial liability.

Also, Hoglander is still pretty young and may yet be able to increase his offensive production provided a new system and opportunity.

As for Lysell, if the Bruins think he ultimately doesn't have what it takes to be an effective, every day NHL player then why not attain a 2nd round pick in what's projected to be a very deep draft pool?

It's not a bad proposal but ultimately, at this stage, it feels like the Bruins would be selling low on Mittelstadt, and giving up on Lysell before they really *need to.

If the target acquisition was a stud top-six forward or top-four right shot defensemen then sure, Boston should trade Mittelstadt and Lysell in a heart beat.

But with Hoglander as the key piece coming back, plus some cap alleviation - it just doesn't seem worth it this close to the start of the season.

The Bruins aren't exactly in a position entering the year to trade away one of the few top-six caliber forwards they have, and a *potential top-six caliber prospect in Lysell for whose likely a third liner in Hoglander, and an unknown draft pick that probably lands somewhere in the high 40's, low 50's.

There's still the possibility that Mittelstadt's best hockey is ahead of him as he enters his prime years, and, or that Lysell eventually becomes an impact player - if so, Boston should wait to see if they can reap those rewards.

But if Mittelstadt and, or Lysell don't show themselves well by next years trade deadline, THEN the Bruins can re-visit the idea of trading one or both of them then.

As mentioned above - unless it's no-brainer trade (which why would an opposing team allow themselves to knowingly be part of a publicly viewed, negative, one-sided trade? Who knows, teams do dumb shit sometimes) then the Bruins should just give it a beat and see if Mittelstadt, and, or Lysell can make good on a real opportunity - unlike their post 2025 trade deadline stints when Boston was icing half a shell of a lineup.

For example, Mittelstadt was mainly playing on the "2nd line" with Cole Koepke (27) 99 career NHL games played (73 of them coming last season), and Vinni Lettieri (30) 155 career NHL games played.

That's not a fair 18 game sample size in Boston to judge Mittelstadt off of just yet - he does possess a high end skill set after all - let's see if he can consistently use it.

And if he doesn't?

See ya.

His stock isn't high right now anyway, so it's not like it would drop much further, if at all, to the point where a future return six months from now would be much less than a trade with him right now would garner.

Damn, I just love complimenting and asking myself questions, don't you?

I joke, I joke (please laugh).

Thanks for the question, Brian!

To your point, Marco Sturm indeed knows that his roster doesn't boast the deepest offensive lineup (you can all stop laughing now) compared to others around the league.

So yes, expect him to focus on building structure in all three zones, while emphasizing a commitment to team defense.

Defense leads to offense.

It's cliche, but it's true.

No exceptions - it's even true for teams with far more offensive lineups than the Bruins.

In fact, sometimes having too many offensive minded players on one roster can lead to team struggles as well because while some teams may have the skill to create and produce offensively, they can tend to lack the details, discipline, and intensity required to be strong defensively.

Scoring 4, or 5 goals in a game is great, but not when giving up 6 or 7.

Now of course there's a middle ground and right now the Bruins may struggle to find that with their lack of scoring talent outside of namely David Pastrnak.

So for now they will have to try and at least re-establish their defensive identity, because that's more about will than skill.

Earlier this summer, Sturm sat down with Conor Ryan who wrote a fantastic piece for Boston . com which you can find a link to here: https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-bruins/2025/07/08/boston-bruins-marco-sturm-nhl-hockey-dunkin-interview-qa/

Among other questions directed at Sturm, Ryan asked:

"Do you feel you have the personnel in place to consistently generate offense this season? 

To which Sturm basically admitted that's it's not going to be easy, that their offensive personnel deficiency wasn't going to be a single offseason fix, and that he wants to focus on creating a foundation first and go from there.

Makes sense.

So, what exactly does that game plan look like at the NHL level?

Well, pretty much how the Los Angeles Kings have played in recent years.

Stingy defensively, opportunistic offensively, great goaltending, and solid special teams.

Sturm spent six seasons coaching in LA's system (three as an assistant with the Kings in the NHL, and three as a head coach of the Ontario Reign in the AHL).

It's rather evident that Sturm will look to implement systems he's learned in LA with knowledge gathered from his playing career, and other coaching experiences unrelated to LA's organization.

I also think that Sturm and the Bruins will look to rely on what will hopefully be a vastly improved power play (under new assistant coach Steve Spott) to perhaps compensate for what may be a lack of even-strength offensive production.

At the end of the day, expect a blue-collar team (knowing that internal young talent like James Hagens is on the horizon) predicated on structure, defense and goaltending while being led offensively by a superstar in David Pastrnak, and whose ideally being supported by opportunistic scoring and effective special teams.

Time will tell how it all plays out.

As for my (pre-training camp) best guess at an opening night lineup?

Forwards:

Morgan Geekie - Elias Lindholm - David Pastrnak

Pavel Zacha - Casey Mittelstadt - Viktor Arvidsson

Tanner Jeannot - Fraser Minten - Matej Blumel

Michael Eyssimont - Sean Kuraly - Mark Kastelic

Extra Forwards: Marat Khusnutdinov, John Beecher

Defense:

Mason Lohrei - Charlie McAvoy

Hampus Lindholm - Henri Jokiharju

Nikita Zadorov - Andrew Peeke

Extra defensemen: Jordan Harris

Goalies:

Jeremy Swayman - Joonas Korpisalo

Now let me get ahead of an explanation for some notable exemptions, especially up front - namely Matt Poitras, Fabian Lysell, Georgii Merkulov, Alex Steeves, and my dark horse to make the opening night lineup - Dans Locmelis.

It basically comes down to the ease or difficulty of player management.

What do I mean by that?

Well, for example, all of the aforementioned names directly above (minus Steeves) are waiver-exempt - meaning they can be sent down from Boston to Providence without any prevention and risk of another team claiming them off of waivers.

So in this scenario, yes, if Steeves doesn't make the team out of training camp then he would have to clear waivers before being assigned to Providence and the Bruins would risk losing him.

It's for that same reason, and risk as to why I project that Eyssimont, Khusnutdinov, Blumel, and Beecher may make the team out of camp.

After trading for Khusnutdinov back in March, the Bruins may not want to risk losing him and his potential upside to waivers.

Same goes for Blumel whom Boston signed as a free agent this summer after the Czech forward finished 2nd in the AHL in scoring last season with 39 goals, 33 assists, and 72 points, in 67 games.

If all else were equal, and players like Poitras and Locmelis too were waiver eligible - meaning Boston would be at risk of losing them to the waiver wire if they didn't make the team out of camp - then the Bruins would undoubtedly chose Poitras and Locmelis over Blumel, Eyssimont, Beecher, and even Khusnutdinov.

But that's not the situation the Bruins are in.

Fortunately, they have the ability to send Poitras, Locmelis, Lysell, etc. to Providence (where they should light it up) to start the year - with no risk of losing them - while simultaneously giving unknowns like Blumel, and Khusnutdinov an extended NHL try-out to see if there's any smoke to Boston's recent investment in them.

Now, if players like Blumel, Khusnutdinov, Eyssimont, or Beecher don't take advantage of their initial opportunities THEN the Bruins can put them on waivers and live with the risk losing them AFTER at least having seen what they did or didn't do.

Now with all of that said, and despite my reasoning above - if a waiver exempt player simply has an outstanding, head and shoulders above the rest training camp and makes it impossible for the Bruins to cut them - then, yes, they should make the team and Boston will have to live with potentially losing a player to waivers that they recently acquired the rights to.

It is what it is - and would actually be a good problem to have.

For the record, even if Poitras and or Locmelis in particular don't make the opening night roster - I fully expect BOTH of them to be called up throughout the season and possibly never look back.

With bubble players, it's often just a numbers game coming out of camp predicated on potential, timing, and waiver status.

Essentially, if no one truly separates themselves at training camp, then it won't do the Bruins any harm to freely send waiver exempt players to Providence for a month while seeing if certain waiver-eligible players are worth a damn.

Ultimately, these dynamics usually play out the way they’re meant to over the course of a season.

It’s not necessarily about where one starts a season, it’s where they finish it.

---

That does it for this week, thank you all for participating and reading along.

Have a happy and safe Labor Day Weekend!