Mailbag: May 20, 2026

Mailbag: May 20, 2026

Usually, these mailbags are packed with trade pitches and people wanting my read on them. Not this time. This round brought in some genuinely strong questions.

Matt D asks: Thinking of trade chips and re-signings, what if we let Arvidsson go (would like to keep him), trade Middlestadt, and let Peeke walk. Opens up space for Hagens, and signing two or three upgrades to D and Center.

Answer: Trade proposals are always catnip for Bruins fans — and, frankly, for every fan base this time of year. Letting Andrew Peeke walk makes sense on paper, but all indications are that Don Sweeney intends to take a real run at re‑signing him. Viktor Arvidsson is a different conversation: at the right number and the right term, there’s a case to be made for bringing him back.

Casey Mittelstadt is the wild card. If Sweeney can find a willing partner, he has to at least explore that avenue. But none of these decisions feel like the kind that would block James Hagens from cracking the lineup. The more pressing concern is Matthew Poitras. With waivers looming next season, any roster squeeze puts him at real risk of being claimed, and that’s a scenario Sweeney can’t ignore.

Matt K asks: Is it unrealistic to try to move on from Elias Lindholm this offseason? A trade? Package him with some other player(s) or picks? A buyout perhaps?

As a fan I find him to be very disappointing. Doesn’t seem to hustle. Not strong enough on the puck. Doesn’t have chemistry with Pasta or Geekie. Not a “line driver”. Not looking forward to him being a part of this team through at least the end of the 2029 season.

Answer: If you can find a taker for Elias Lindholm, you make the move. But a buyout? That feels like a non‑starter. The Bruins aren’t going to saddle themselves with cap charges stretching all the way to the end of the 2035‑36 season.

Playing alongside David Pastrnak, Lindholm doesn’t need to be a line driver — Pastrnak handles that burden — and there are stretches where he looks serviceable with Morgan Geekie as well. But you’re right: he’s not the one dictating play.

At this point, the most realistic hope for Bruins fans is that he finally puts the injuries of the last two seasons behind him, gets healthy, and gives them something closer to the player they thought they were acquiring. Moving him may not be feasible until the cap rises enough that teams scrambling to reach the floor start looking for contracts exactly like his.

Domenic F asks: Are the LA Kings a good trading partner for the Boston Bruins? Many young forwards and defencemen. Maybe a good landing spot for Pavel Zacha?

Answer: Los Angeles profiles as a perfectly reasonable trade partner for Pavel Zacha, and I’d put Columbus, Seattle, and Minnesota in that same tier. But before you even get to the trade‑tree hypotheticals, the more interesting question is what an extension looks like. Zacha becomes eligible to sign one on July 1, and on paper he’s positioned for a meaningful raise.

Here’s the wrinkle: multiple reports suggest the NHL and NHLPA significantly underestimated next season’s revenue projections. The $104 million cap ceiling may already be outdated, and there’s now chatter that the 2027‑28 cap could spike to $125 million, not the previously projected $113 million. That’s a massive shift in the financial landscape.

So, you have to ask: why would Zacha rush into an extension now? He’s in line for a substantial bump as it is, and a cap environment that suddenly balloons only strengthens his negotiating position. That alone makes the Bruins’ calculus more complicated — and it makes the idea of at least considering a trade part of the conversation.

Mike O asks: With the recent rumors regarding Evan Gold and the potential 2 other front office staff joining him, if he landed the job in Vancouver, could there be a friction going forward with him in the organization wondering what your thoughts are.

Answer: Good question, Mike. No one outside the hockey operations suites at TD Garden truly knows the internal dynamics, so all I can offer is my read — and for me, the answer is no.

Under Cam Neely, the Bruins have never stood in the way when another club has asked permission to speak with one of their staff members about a better opportunity. Whether it was Evan Gold or Jamie Langenbrunner, both were given the green light when teams came calling.

Reporting indicates it was Gold who ultimately declined the Vancouver opportunity, and that decision was said to be financially driven (though disputed). Meanwhile, Langenbrunner is still reportedly in the mix for the Nashville job. The Bruins’ announcement granting him permission to pursue other opportunities certainly hints at a mutual parting of ways, but nothing about it suggests a rift or internal fallout.

Jeff S asks: Do you think from a development perspective the Bruins should give Hagens a year at wing, or try him off the rip at center? Thanks!

Answer: Well, Jeff, when it comes to James Hagens, I see it a little differently. Playing center for the Bruins is no small ask — especially for a rookie stepping into that environment. I’d start Hagens primarily on the wing, ideally alongside a center who can slide over if needed. But from Day 1, if they get a matchup they like, I’d have no issue giving him a few shifts in the middle just to get his feet wet.

From there, you can build the position into his game gradually: break down those reps on video, work with him off the ice, and let him absorb the nuances without throwing him straight into the deep end. It’s a slower runway, but it’s the route I would take if the eventual plan is to have him in the middle.

James L asks: If you were the GM for the Bruins who would you keep and who would you dangle for a trade and are there any under the radar players who interest you.

Answer: Well, James, I don’t believe in the concept of “untouchables.” If another team wants to call, you always listen — that’s just smart business. But there’s a difference between listening and shopping a player, and I wouldn’t be actively putting certain players out there. That said, it would take a massive overpay to pry David Pastrnak, Charlie McAvoy, or Jeremy Swayman from me. Those conversations start at a premium and only get steeper from there.

As for under‑the‑radar options, I was all‑in on the Bruins pursuing Yegor Chinakhov when he asked out of Columbus. Now, the names that stand out to me as under the radar are Pavel Mintyukov in Anaheim, Nils Hoglander in Vancouver Mario Ferraro in San Jose and Bobby McMann in Seattle, although he is not really under the radar — players who aren’t front‑page trade targets but fit the profile of smart, opportunistic adds if the door opens.

Kyle K asks: Do you think they would make Chara or Bergeron AGM? Thanks.

Answer: No, I don’t. Zdeno Chara is an exceptionally intelligent person, but it’s hard to imagine he would want to step into that role without first building a deeper base of experience. As for Patrice Bergeron, he’s thriving with Penzy Films, and all indications are that he intends to keep investing his time and energy there.

Wayne D asks: Hi Dom, realistically do you see Boston competing for a cup in the next couple of seasons? How long before Pastrnak request a trade to compete for a cup? Last year i was wondering if Pastrnak to LA for Byfield and Brent Clarke was a possibility. What realistically could Boston expect in a Pastrnak trade, knowing Pastrnak controls his destination, if moved.

Answer: It’s fair to project that they could be back in the mix within three years, but the margin for error is thin and a lot has to break their way. As for David Pastrnak, there’s no real sense of urgency or concern on that front. He understands how difficult it is to win — he’s been there twice and come away empty — and there’s no guarantee a move elsewhere gets him any closer to a Cup.

What a potential return looks like is impossible to pin down until there’s an actual request on the table and a clear idea of how many teams he’d be willing to consider.

Bob M asks: Why have the Bruins struggled to draft and develop players that make an impact at the NHL level? I understand that they have been in win now mode for the better part of 10 years, but so have other NHL teams who routinely trade away draft capital and yet somehow, they still manage to hit on picks later on in the draft. Is this a scouting issue, or a development issue, is it a combination of both, etc.?

Answer: Let’s start with the development piece. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve written extensively about the Bruins’ development shortcomings — those pieces are all available to look back on — and several podcasts have since taken deep dives into the same issues. So yes, I absolutely believe it’s a real problem.

On the drafting side, when Don Sweeney took over, it took several years to overhaul the scouting department and a couple more before he fully trusted the group he built (which is an issue itself). The scouting has improved in recent years, but the mandate has to remain the same: draft talent above all else. This year’s draft will be a clear indicator of whether they’re truly committed to that philosophy. And if they aren’t, I’ll be the first to call it out.

William asks: Do you think Lysell was a bad pick or did the Bruins stunt his development? Does he have any value at all at this point?

Answer: Great question, William. Let’s start with the straightforward part — Fabian Lysell is a diminished asset at this stage. That much is clear. As for the first half of your question, the reality is that it’s a bit of both, and there’s some nuance worth unpacking.

I don’t think Lysell was a bad pick in terms of pure value — not at that spot in the draft. The issue was fit. He never aligned with the profile of a prototypical Bruins player. Much to the frustration of some fans, I pointed out his limited two‑way game after he was drafted not because he lacked talent, but because his style never matched the organization’s identity. In that sense, yes, it ultimately became a bad pick because they were hell-bent on sticking to their philosophy.

They made the wrong choice on the front end, but the development side compounded it. Instead of leaning into what he did well, they tried to mold him into something he wasn’t — and in the process let him down, let the fans down, and ultimately let the organization down. That’s the core issue here: either stop drafting players who don’t fit your identity, or evolve your development model so you’re not falling behind the rest of the league.

A former player told me not long ago: “The fear of making a mistake is real.”

Ryan asks: Curious about 2 prospects. Walsh and Pelosi. It seems the type of player the Bruins are missing up front are dogs with skill. A little more jam in the top of their lineup but still having enough skill to fit in up there. From what I’ve heard, these two might fit this bill. What are your thoughts?

Answer: I’m surprised neither Chris Pelosi nor Ryan Walsh turned pro the moment their seasons ended. Both look ready for the next step. I give Pelosi a slightly better chance of eventually carving out NHL time, but if it happens in Boston, it’s almost certainly going to be on the wing rather than down the middle.

At this stage, both project more as third‑line or middle‑six options than true top‑six talents. But you’re right — they each bring an element of bite and competitiveness the Bruins could use more of.

Jeff asks: Was heartbroken to not get Toronto’s pick this year. Do you think it forces a decision which the Bruins get wrong? The likely optimal path to them surpassing their talent gap is not free agency or even trade but using those ‘28 picks well. However, both self-interest and Boston fans immense impatience will probably force a move- a and leave them just short of the needed true contention talent.

Answer: Hey Jeff, hope you’re doing well. To start, nothing changes until there are empty seats. As long as the building is full, no one in that front office feels pressured to pivot based on fan sentiment. They’ll continue to operate on their own timeline and make the decisions they believe are best for the organization. Right or wrong.

Losing the Leafs pick stings, no question, but we also have no idea what that selection will look like in 2027 or 2028 – wherever it falls. As for where the Bruins find help — and how they acquire it — that’s the part that remains unclear. But they need reinforcements, and they need them sooner rather than later.

V asks: If Mason McTavish is available, do you make a play if you are Sweeney? If so, what are your thoughts on the player?

Answer: I’m probably in the minority here, but I’m looking elsewhere. Had the Bruins held onto the Leafs’ first‑round pick, Mason McTavish would’ve been a far more realistic target had they drafted a defenseman with that pick. But here’s how I see it: I study the draft more than most, and that work didn’t start a month or two ago — it started last season. Based on the class and where Boston is positioned, their first two selections are most likely going to be forwards, in my opinion.

They need help across the board, but with James Hagens and Dean Letourneau on the way — and others in the pipeline — the blue line needs more attention. I’d rather see them use the assets required to land McTavish on addressing that. I’m obviously focusing beyond next season.

Larry Q asks: Hi Dom. Is there a list of players you think the Bruins should be targeting in the draft?

Answer: There is, Larry. I’m in the middle of putting together my annual list of Bruins draft targets — the players they should at least have circled going into draft weekend. That series starts rolling out on June 1, so stay tuned. Better yet, subscribe below and get it delivered straight to your inbox so you don’t miss a thing.

George W asks: Hey Dom, hope all is well with the grandkids. Recently you were very critical of the Bruins development of prospects and now everyone is talking about it. Just curious why you waited so long.

Answer: Thanks, George. The grandkids are doing great, and I hope things are good on your end as well. What I said needed to be said, and I’m glad the conversation has finally started to widen.

As for why I waited until now — it actually stemmed from a conversation I had with a scout from another organization while putting together my Bruins draft‑target list. I won’t spill the details just yet — that comment will be part of the draft breakdown I mentioned above — but it struck a nerve, and that’s when I knew it was time to speak up.

Ricky Asks: Hi Dom, what are your thoughts on where Mason Lohrei is in his development and ultimately what his ceiling is? Whether it was trouble fitting into Sturm’s system or lack of experience he certainly had some ups downs last season. Thanks.

Answer: Well Ricky, I still have plenty of time for Mason Lohrei. However, I do think it’s a system thing with him. If you look back at his time in Boston, he certainly had some good to very good moments. While he has certainly looked better than last season despite the system change, I don’t think it suited him. Now, that doesn’t mean things can’t change over the summer. I’d hate to give up on him to soon.

Denis Potvin once said it takes a defenseman 200 NHL games to truly learn the nuances pf playing defense in the league. Lohrei is at 191.

Bob M asks: Does the overachieving Bruins making the playoffs this season make Sweeney think they are closer to being contenders and hit free agency hard at the expense of roster spots for some of the younger guys?

Answer: No, I think everyone knows the free agency class is not very good. But there will be some angst over some signings for sure, because most people still fail to realize they have an AHL roster to fill and there are about a dozen roster spots there to fill.