Friedman sheds light on reasons for Marchand’s Bruins departure

Allegedly.

While the Bruins dealing Brad Marchand on Friday came as a surprise, it wasn’t necessarily a complete shock.

After all, we’d heard for a while that the Bruins and Marchand hadn’t been able to reach an agreement on a new contract, and when a player is a pending UFA and hasn’t signed a new deal, a trade is always possible.

That gap in contract talks appears to be what led the Bruins to make their move at the deadline, at least according to Elliotte Friedman of Sportsnet (Canada) — who was also the first to announce that the trade was happening on Friday.

Last night, Friedman spoke on Sportsnet’s Saturday Headlines:

In case you can’t watch the video, here are the key quotes:

“I think the Bruins and the player had agreed on term — three years. But as Don Sweeney said yesterday, there was a gap, and there was a gap on AAV. I don’t think he was being asked to take a pay cut or anything like that, but I do think there was a sizable gap they obviously could not bridge.”

Friedman continued:

“Where I think things really went sideways was there was a point this week where Brad Marchand…asked for a face-to-face meeting with Bruins management. I don’t know exactly when it was, I don’t know exactly who was there, but it did happen, and in that meeting Brad Marchand asked for a compromise. He said ‘I will compromise, I will bend on some of my ask, I’m asking the Bruins to bend on some of their stance, and we’ll find a way to get this deal done,’ because he wanted to stay as a Bruin.”

And the last bit:

“It just didn’t happen. The Bruins had gone as far as far as they were willing to go…I think [Marchand] was really stunned by that…I think it really hurt Marchand that the face-to-face meeting couldn’t get a deal done.”

Friedman added that prior to the deadline when it became clearer that a deal wasn’t going to get done, Marchand’s agent “made it clear” that Marchand had a destination in mind — that being Florida.

Friedman added that the Bruins “acquiesced” to that demand, which might explain why the deal came down to the wire: the Bruins may not have wanted to send Marchand to Florida, be decided at the last minute to agree to that condition to facilitate some kind of deal.

In the aftermath of Friedman’s comments, it’s no surprise that some segments of the Bruins fanbase are up in arms (again), saying the Bruins cheaped out on a franchise legend who wanted to stay — which, if Friedman’s sources are accurate, is mostly true.

However, and not to try to carry water for management, a tear-down like the one the Bruins need requires some level of ruthlessness, right?

If you’re selling off pieces and trying to start from some level of scratch, you can’t leave much room for nostalgia.

Still, it seems like the right decision would have been to accept Marchand’s compromise, bring him back, and move forward; even if he’s not the player he used to be, he still brings a lot of value and experience to the table.

Regardless, Friedman’s comments have turned up the heat on Sweeney & Co.

We’re not likely to get any kind of rebuttal from their camp but Marchand himself has yet to speak, so we might get a little more insight in the days to come.

Your thoughts on Friedman’s comments? Salt in the wound, or about what you expected when you learned of the trade?