Who Should the Bruins Give Qualifying Offers To?

Teams have just over three weeks until June 30 to submit qualifying offers to their restricted free agents, ensuring they retain their rights. Those who don’t receive an offer will officially become unrestricted free agents on July 1. With the deadline approaching, it’s never too early to assess which players it impacts for the Boston Bruins.

Player	AAV	Qualifying Offer	Arbitration
Morgan Geekie	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	Yes
Oliver Wahlstrom	$1,000,000	$1,000,000	Yes
John Beecher	$925,000	$874,125	Yes
Georgii Merkulov	$925,000	$874,125	Yes
Marat Khusnutdinov	$925,000	$874,125	Yes
Mason Lohrei	$925,000	$874,125	Yes
John Farinacci	$910,000	$897,500	Yes
Jaxon Nelson	$870,000	$813,750	Yes
Trevor Kuntar	$867,500	$813,750	Yes
Daniil Misyul	$867,500	$813,750	Yes
Drew Bavaro	$867,500	$813,750	Yes
Jakub Lauko	$787,500	$840,000	Yes
Ian Mitchell	$775,000	$813,750	Yes

According to the Memorandum of Understanding between the NHL and NHLPA signed in 2020, the minimum salary for the 2025-2026 season is set at $775,000. Additionally, teams can bury up to $1,150,000 in the AHL without it impacting their salary cap—two key figures in this discussion.

Morgan Geekie and Mason Lohrei stand out as clear candidates for qualifying offers. While their eventual contracts will exceed those amounts, teams must still extend a qualifying offer to retain their rights—or secure a deal beforehand.

From there, it gets more complicated.

Many fans might lean against qualifying Oliver Wahlstrom, but at $1 million, it’s worth considering. Regardless, the Bruins still need to fill out its Providence roster, and if he doesn’t secure an NHL spot, he can be sent down without affecting the salary cap. Given his solid performance for the P-Bruins this season, you have to consider it. Pursuing a two-way contract would be the way to move forward for Boston, but that might not be acceptable to Wahlstrom, especially if he gets another offer.

Ian Mitchell finds himself in a similar position to Wahlstrom. Short of an unforeseen situation, he’s not going to crack the opening night roster. While he could compete for the seventh defenseman spot, he’s far more likely to play a key role on Providence’s blue line. That alone makes him worth bringing back, especially with so many young defensemen in Providence who could benefit from his experience.

Jakub Lauko is set for a slight raise with his qualifying offer, and if he’s content with that, bringing him back as a fourth-liner or extra forward makes sense. However, if the team plans to slot him into a third-line role—as they did at times after reacquiring him from the Minnesota Wild—it might be wiser to allocate those funds elsewhere.

Marat Khusnutdinov, acquired alongside Lauko from the Wild, would see a pay cut from his entry-level contract if he accepts his qualifying offer. Given his flashes of strong play in a third-line role—even on a struggling team—I’d favor him over Lauko for those duties.

The remaining players, John Beecher, Georgii Merkulov, John Farinacci, Jaxon Nelson, Trevor Kuntar, Daniil Misyul and Drew Bavaro also have qualifying offers below their currant cap hits.

The Bruins have already moved Bavaro at the AHL level, signaling that he likely won’t return—and that’s perfectly fine. Providence would be better off giving its younger players more ice time. If Mitchell returns, he and Billy Sweezey can provide valuable mentorship to the developing defensemen.

I’m not extending a qualifying offer to Nelson. After five years at the University of Minnesota, the 25-year-old struggled to secure a regular spot in Providence’s lineup. When he did get on the ice, he couldn’t rediscover the scoring touch he had in his final two collegiate seasons. Based on what I’ve seen, there’s not enough in his game to justify bringing him back.

Farinacci is a player worth keeping around. He showed promise early in his first season with Providence before hitting the rookie wall, and despite missing time due to injury this year, he still matched his rookie totals. Notably, he netted his first NHL goal in his lone game at the top level this season. With clear NHL potential, bringing him back is the right move.

Kuntar struggled in his second season with Providence, but his high-energy style remains a strong asset. His compete level is impressive, though he sometimes pushes the limits and will need to rein that in. While his ceiling is likely as a fourth-line grit player at the next level, teams still need those types of players. Despite his tough season, bringing him back on a league-minimum, two-way contract would be a worthwhile move, if only to see if he can rebound.

On March 13, the Bruins traded Marc McLaughlin for Misyul, opting to gain an asset rather than lose McLaughlin to free agency as a Group 6 unrestricted free agent at season’s end. Misyul, a big-bodied left-shot defenseman, is primarily a shutdown presence. With Providence lacking depth on the left side—featuring Frederic Brunet, Jackson Edward (who often plays on the right), and potentially rookie Loke Johansson—bringing Misyul back on a league-minimum two-way deal makes sense. Unless you are going bargain hunting somewhere else.

That brings us to Merkulov and Beecher.

I’d absolutely extend a qualifying offer to Merkulov to retain his rights. However, the Russian center/winger wants an NHL opportunity—whether in Boston or elsewhere. If he doesn’t find a spot with the Bruins, he would likely want a trade to better opportunities. His alternative would be heading overseas to play in Europe. He does have some choices here.

That leaves Beecher, and I am torn. And the fan base is divided on whether to qualify him or not bring him back. Let’s take a deep dive:

Supporters of Beecher often highlight his faceoff performance. While his 51.8%-win rate was solid, it still lagged behind Elias Lindholm (55.2%), Mark Kastelic (54.4%), Pavel Zacha (53.2%), and Casey Mittelstadt (51.9%). This suggests that his future will continue to lie on the wing rather than at center.

Beecher’s defensive responsibilities were substantial. With just 17.7% of his starts in the offensive zone and 82.3% beginning in the defensive zone, he carried the highest defensive zone start percentage on the team. The question remains—was this a reflection of his defensive skill, or simply a result of the coaches lacking trust in other options? His 14 takeaways versus 49 giveaways indicate a less-than-ideal ratio, though he did manage 71 blocked shots, trailing only Lindholm among forwards.

Beecher’s penalty-killing prowess is another positive aspect of his game brought forward. He ranked fourth among forwards in average shorthanded ice time (1:30) on a struggling penalty-killing unit, trailing only Charlie Coyle (2:07), Lindholm (1:45), and Zacha (1:43). However, the team’s issues on the penalty kill were more a product of systemic flaws rather than individual shortcomings.

Beecher’s supporters present strong arguments, but quantifying his impact remains challenging. His individual stats aren’t particularly impressive, yet they also reflect the broader struggles of the team as a whole.

Critics of Beecher tend to take a blunt approach without much elaboration, often dismissing him as a “dime a dozen player” or “easily replaceable.” While that might hold some truth, the real question is whether the Bruins have a viable alternative in their system for September—someone who would make moving on from Beecher a confident decision. Wouldn’t it be worth giving him another shot to see if he can elevate his game?

Bringing Beecher back for another season makes sense, giving him a chance to prove himself under improved conditions. However, a pay increase wouldn’t be warranted at this stage.