Waived: Craig Cunningham

[Jeff077]

I liked Cunningham but he is easily replaceable on this years and next years roster.
Yes, he has a cheap contract and work hard but he is a dime a dozen player.
In his first 4 games in Arizona he has seen his ice time drop every game to the point where his last game he had about 1/2 the ice time and shifts as he did in his 1st game there.
To me a lot of overreaction on a very replaceable player.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I liked Cunningham but he is easily replaceable on this years and next years roster.
Yes, he has a cheap contract and work hard but he is a dime a dozen player.
In his first 4 games in Arizona he has seen his ice time drop every game to the point where his last game he had about 1/2 the ice time and shifts as he did in his 1st game there.
To me a lot of overreaction on a very replaceable player.

Replaceable, yes.

But more to the point that giving away assets isn't really the best practice as a GM. He gave away Matt Fraser, he gave away Craig Cunningham.

Obviously there was some interest in these kind of players, since they were claimed, but we let them go for nothing. It's not a huge deal, but for a team that was struggling and questionably buying or selling, probably letting go or moving overpaid vets, it just seemed like silly asset management.

 

[Therick67]

Replaceable, yes.

But more to the point that giving away assets isn't really the best practice as a GM. He gave away Matt Fraser, he gave away Craig Cunningham.

Obviously there was some interest in these kind of players, since they were claimed, but we let them go for nothing. It's not a huge deal, but for a team that was struggling and questionably buying or selling, probably letting go or moving overpaid vets, it just seemed like silly asset management.

Exactly. Especially for an organization that hasn't drafted well.

 

[Jeff077]

Replaceable, yes.

But more to the point that giving away assets isn't really the best practice as a GM. He gave away Matt Fraser, he gave away Craig Cunningham.

Obviously there was some interest in these kind of players, since they were claimed, but we let them go for nothing. It's not a huge deal, but for a team that was struggling and questionably buying or selling, probably letting go or moving overpaid vets, it just seemed like silly asset management.

I agree to a certain extent, albeit small assets. Do we know if they tried to trade them? Maybe teams were unwilling to give up a late pick for them but when the opportunity to grab them for free it was worth the shot?
After a decent start Fraser has been non existent with the Oilers as well.
As I said I like Cunningham but I am fine with the decision.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Anyone who thinks a team would simply release a guy for nothing without first trying to trade them isn't thinking at all.

 

[Jeff077]

Exactly. Especially for an organization that hasn't drafted well.

In my opinion from 2007-2009 the drafts were not good.

Since 2010 I think the drafts have average or above. 11 of 31 players drafted have played for the Bruins already, although some are elsewhere now.
That's not counting some of the guys is College who are good prospects, O'Gara, Grzelcyk, McIntyre, Arnesson in Sweden and a few other ones.

Just my opinion but it is not ear as bad as some make it out to be.

 

[JOKER 192]

Are we seriously crying about losing Fraser who in his last 12 games 0g 0a 0p -8 and Cunningham who in 38 games 2g 1a 3p -4. I really doubt you'd get anything for those two.

A bottom feeder will take them for free because they don't have better but PO teams wouldn't touch these guys and non playoff teams are usually sellers not buyers.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Are we seriously crying about losing Fraser who in his last 12 games 0g 0a 0p -8 and Cunningham who in 38 games 2g 1a 3p -4. I really doubt you'd get anything for those two.

A bottom feeder will take them for free because they don't have better but PO teams wouldn't touch these guys and non playoff teams are usually sellers not buyers.

Seriously crying? No. But we can criticize his asset management.

Chia was once able to get Marc Recchi and 2nd round pick for 2 busts. Boychuk for Matt Hendrix (no one really thought that was a big deal when it happened). He also made plenty mistakes, too. We can criticize or praise each move, that's what these boards are for.

In the short term, no, it's not a really big deal. So no, we aren't crying. But little things do add up and that's why we are discussing it.

 

[JOKER 192]

Seriously crying? No. But we can criticize his asset management.

Chia was once able to get Marc Recchi and 2nd round pick for 2 busts. Boychuk for Matt Hendrix (no one really thought that was a big deal when it happened). He also made plenty mistakes, too. We can criticize or praise each move, that's what these boards are for.

In the short term, no, it's not a really big deal. So no, we aren't crying. But little things do add up and that's why we are discussing it.

Not every trade you make is going to be an absolute steal like the ones you mentioned. And sure you can discuss and that is what I'm doing, I'm saying I couldn't care less. It just seems like *****ing for the sake of *****ing when it comes to these two.

 

[Era of Sanity]

I was indifferent to losing Fraser. Can't skate. Would have prefered to keep Cunningham to losing him for nothing, I don't get why they didn't send Ferlin down instead who didn't have to clear waivers but what's done is done.

 

[rcduthie77]

Seriously crying? No. But we can criticize his asset management.

Chia was once able to get Marc Recchi and 2nd round pick for 2 busts. Boychuk for Matt Hendrix (no one really thought that was a big deal when it happened). He also made plenty mistakes, too. We can criticize or praise each move, that's what these boards are for.

In the short term, no, it's not a really big deal. So no, we aren't crying. But little things do add up and that's why we are discussing it.

I know for a pretty certain fact that we were about to do a deal near the same for Ray Whitney in 2012 & again in 2013.

Also as much as Chiarelli can be criticized for some of his trades (and rightfully so on some) and people have said he hasn't done enough at deadlines, he has tracked down some big deals and been ready to pull the trigger before our dance partners got cold feet & as they say it takes two to tango.

Not entirely excusing Chiarelli on a lot of things (cap crunch) but I do think he takes more flak then is deserved.

 

[Blowfish]

I was indifferent to losing Fraser. Can't skate. Would have prefered to keep Cunningham to losing him for nothing, I don't get why they didn't send Ferlin down instead who didn't have to clear waivers but what's done is done.

I believe the bruins wanted to give the kid a chance to succeed....it wasn't going to happen in Boston for Cunningham.

 

[Lucic and Chong]

Replaceable, yes.

But more to the point that giving away assets isn't really the best practice as a GM. He gave away Matt Fraser, he gave away Craig Cunningham.

Obviously there was some interest in these kind of players, since they were claimed, but we let them go for nothing. It's not a huge deal, but for a team that was struggling and questionably buying or selling, probably letting go or moving overpaid vets, it just seemed like silly asset management.

I think perspective is key. Sometimes, the best practice of a GM is to expose a guy to waivers, and let waivers do its thing. It's all about giving a guy the chance to stay in the league or truly break into it. For a guy like Cunningham, or Matt Fraser, or Nate Thomspon, it's about having learned all you can learn in Providence and still not being a good option for Boston. If there is a team out there who sees it differently, well, there they go. It's a chance for the player to earn a better living or his next contract, which is not a given with his current employer.

Goodwill is an asset too, after all, and one could argue it's of relatively the same value as a 6th or 7th pick, which is what teams would likely give for Cunningham.

 

[ChargersRookie]

Replaceable, yes.

But more to the point that giving away assets isn't really the best practice as a GM. He gave away Matt Fraser, he gave away Craig Cunningham.

Obviously there was some interest in these kind of players, since they were claimed, but we let them go for nothing. It's not a huge deal, but for a team that was struggling and questionably buying or selling, probably letting go or moving overpaid vets, it just seemed like silly asset management.

I don't get that or maybe I don't want to get it. My guess is the Bruins have too many players like them as is. Plus the fact of our little cap issues. Test drive a car and if it's not for you don't buy it.

Does anyone remember the Riendeau kid and no not the goalie?

 

[ThomasJ13]

I think perspective is key. Sometimes, the best practice of a GM is to expose a guy to waivers, and let waivers do its thing. It's all about giving a guy the chance to stay in the league or truly break into it. For a guy like Cunningham, or Matt Fraser, or Nate Thomspon, it's about having learned all you can learn in Providence and still not being a good option for Boston. If there is a team out there who sees it differently, well, there they go. It's a chance for the player to earn a better living or his next contract, which is not a given with his current employer.

Goodwill is an asset too, after all, and one could argue it's of relatively the same value as a 6th or 7th pick, which is what teams would likely give for Cunningham.

I agree with respect to goodwill. However with respect to the bolded IMO if teams would likely give a 6th or a 7th for Cunningham....then they would have.

Anyone who thinks a team would simply release a guy for nothing without first trying to trade them isn't thinking at all.

This.

 

[PsychoDad]

I don't understand what some people write here.
Do you really think GM's in the NHL waive players before exploring trade options? I heard of something like that only once when Burke waived Bryzgalov out of some kind of curtesy, that's it.

If there was not a trade partner, you simply need to move players like Cunningham and Fraser who would cloud the AHL roster and keep fresher players from playing time. Also, AHL allows only 5 skaters on a roster who have too many pro games (4 with over 260, 1 with over 320). Both Cunningham and Fraser are above this limit so they are not even welcome as AHL fodder for other teams.

 

[Therick67]

In my opinion from 2007-2009 the drafts were not good.

Since 2010 I think the drafts have average or above. 11 of 31 players drafted have played for the Bruins already, although some are elsewhere now.
That's not counting some of the guys is College who are good prospects, O'Gara, Grzelcyk, McIntyre, Arnesson in Sweden and a few other ones.

Just my opinion but it is not ear as bad as some make it out to be.

Maybe they can produce some decent NHL talent before we proclaim them above average at drafting?

 

[WreckItRask]

Replaceable, yes.

But more to the point that giving away assets isn't really the best practice as a GM. He gave away Matt Fraser, he gave away Craig Cunningham.

Obviously there was some interest in these kind of players, since they were claimed, but we let them go for nothing. It's not a huge deal, but for a team that was struggling and questionably buying or selling, probably letting go or moving overpaid vets, it just seemed like silly asset management.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but I'll state it anyway. The interest in these two guys WAS because they were available for nothing. I have zero doubts that he attempted to find a taker for both of them...especially Cunningham since it was at the deadline.

As a related notion, your friend's old Fridge isn't worth a dime to you, but if he wants to give it to you for free, then you think about whether it might be nice to have a 2nd fridge in the basement. You're not paying him anything for it, but if it's free you might be willing to take it off his hands.

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

Anyone who thinks a team would simply release a guy for nothing without first trying to trade them isn't thinking at all.

well said. the waiver metaphor is simple : there are a lot of movies I watch for free that I wouldn't pay for. likewise some gms are ok with something for nothing. it's low risk. but they wouldn't trade an asset for it, particularly a pick.

 

[Ratty]

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but I'll state it anyway. The interest in these two guys WAS because they were available for nothing. I have zero doubts that he attempted to find a taker for both of them...especially Cunningham since it was at the deadline.

As a related notion, your friend's old Fridge isn't worth a dime to you, but if he wants to give it to you for free, then you think about whether it might be nice to have a 2nd fridge in the basement. You're not paying him anything for it, but if it's free you might be willing to take it off his hands.

Is that your friend with his old fridge in your avatar?

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I don't understand what some people write here.
Do you really think GM's in the NHL waive players before exploring trade options? I heard of something like that only once when Burke waived Bryzgalov out of some kind of curtesy, that's it.

If there was not a trade partner, you simply need to move players like Cunningham and Fraser who would cloud the AHL roster and keep fresher players from playing time. Also, AHL allows only 5 skaters on a roster who have too many pro games (4 with over 260, 1 with over 320). Both Cunningham and Fraser are above this limit so they are not even welcome as AHL fodder for other teams.

I do think some GM's do not do their due diligence in situations. Maybe he did search for options and came up empty. Maybe he asked a couple of other GM's and gave up. But wouldn't be the first time other GM's didn't know a player was available when he was. Maybe just no one wanted to swap AHL fodder for them.

Either way, I doubt we'll even talk about either of the players again (unless they some how break out a la Danny Briere or someone else).

 

[PsychoDad]

I do think some GM's do not do their due diligence in situations. Maybe he did search for options and came up empty. Maybe he asked a couple of other GM's and gave up. But wouldn't be the first time other GM's didn't know a player was available when he was. Maybe just no one wanted to swap AHL fodder for them.

Either way, I doubt we'll even talk about either of the players again (unless they some how break out a la Danny Briere or someone else).

As I mentioned, once players reach the maximum requirement of the AHL "development level" and are not good enough to be carried as a 13th player on an NHL roster they are done. No wonder they both wound up on the contenders in the special McDavidCup - so both teams can keep throw them under the bus and let the prospects develop properly in the AHL without being a part of this mess. In 1-2 years both are gone to Europe or will live the dream of an AHL journeyman.