Boston Globe DAN SHAUGHNESSY - What Harry Sinden thinks of these record-setting Bruins

[Therick67]

I loved how the writer puts in the Secord , O'Connell trade as one of Harry's bad trades but than try's soften the blow with although O'Conell was a good player , good grief . Secord should have been in Boston for a long enough to help bring a Cup home........

Al Secord was born to be a Bruin..I hated that trade with passion.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Cant think of 2 people who's opinions I could give less of a s*** about

 

[GordonHowe]

Agree on all these trades. Some shocked me for certain, but the ones you mentioned all turned out well.

Harry got the GM job because ownership was unhappy with how Milt handled the protected list for the expansion draft and the players lost to the new WHA. He protected Ron Plumb over Ted Green and Fred O'Donnell over Pie McKenzie. McKenzie was protected after Westfall was selected by the Islanders, but McKenzie was furious and signed with the WHA. He also protected EJ over Dan Bouchard.

Then, only first-year pros were exempt, meaning that they had to protect or trade prized prospects MacLeish and Leach. The trade for Vadnais was to protect against Orr's bad knee, which required surgery after the season. He was skating on one good leg the last half of the season, and yet, was so great, it wasn't readily noticeable to most fans.

Ownership did not have deep pockets, and so could not sign all the players to large contracts, like the Rangers did. So Milt got made the scapegoat. He deserved better.

Excellent post. I didn't know about Milt's apparent mishandling of the protected list. There was a lot going on, as you point out.

I didn't even know that Leach, MacLeash & Dornhoefer were Boston prospects. My eyes popped out when reading this in the Good Harry/Bad Harry piece.

The mistakes Schmidt made were, unfortunately, egregious and costly on multiple levels. Oy!

The counter narrative is that Milt signed Bobby, as well as orchestrating what is still adjuged by many the heist of the century by relieving the Blackhawks of Esposito, Hodge & Stanfield in exchange for Martin, Marotte & Norris.

It is a virtual certainty that absent these moves, the Boston Bruins would have never won two Cups within the space of three seasons.

 

[DaBroons]

Milbury was coach for the 1990 trip to the finals. O'Reilly stepped down in 1989.

Thanks. Once in awhile, the memory fails.

 

[DaBroons]

Excellent post. I didn't know about Milt's apparent mishandling of the protected list. There was a lot going on, as you point out.

I didn't even know that Leach, MacLeash & Dornhoffer were Boston prospects. My eyes popped out when reading this in the Good Harry/Bad Harry piece.

The mistakes Schmidt made were, unfortunately, egregious and costly on multiple levels. Oy!

The counter narrative is that Milt signed Bobby, as well as orchestrating what is still adjuged by many the heist of the century by relieving the Black Hawks of Esposito, Hodge & Stanfield in exchange for Martin, Marotte & Norris.

It is a virtual certainty that absent these moves, the Boston Bruins would have never won two Cups within the space of three seasons.

Heck, one/third of the Flyers' team were former Broons or prospects.

Both Parent and Favell in goal; Joe Watson and Barry Ashbee on D; the entire 2nd line of Ross Lonsberry, MacLeish, and Dornhoefer, Reg Leach, and Terry Crisp. Favell wasn't on either cup team, having been traded to Toronto to get Parent back, whereas Leach was only on the 2nd one.

My argument is that Milt was a convenient scapegoat for the owners' lack of deep pockets. Also, much of what happened that summer could not have been foreseen. Perhaps if Milt had spoken to MacKenzie and Ted Green ahead of the draft, he could have prevented their reactions to being initially left unprotected. The real culprits were the WHA and the constant expansion.

For example, had Milt known that Cheevers would sign with Cleveland, he could have protected star prospect Dan Bouchard. Had he known that Orr's knees would last the season, he could have kept Reg Leach, who would have taken MacKenzie's spot with Bucyk and Stanfield. However, I did not like the Mike Walton trade. He was an upgrade on Wayne Carlton on the 3rd line LW spot, but not that much, and he could have kept MacLeish. Imagine winning the cup in 1970, having the 3rd and 4th picks in the draft, and selecting two future 50+ goal scorers with the picks.

Hap Ems was the GM who signed Orr to his first NHL contract on 9-3-65 at age 18, and Lynn Patrick was the GM who signed Orr at age 14 for their Oshawa Generals junior team, making him Bruins' property.

Always a pleasure to talk about old times with you, GH.

 

[GordonHowe]

Heck, one/third of the Flyers' team were former Broons or prospects.

Both Parent and Favell in goal; Joe Watson and Barry Ashbee on D; the entire 2nd line of Ross Lonsberry, MacLeish, and Dornhoefer, Reg Leach, and Terry Crisp. Favell wasn't on either cup team, having been traded to Toronto to get Parent back, whereas Leach was only on the 2nd one.

My argument is that Milt was a convenient scapegoat for the owners' lack of deep pockets. Also, much of what happened that summer could not have been foreseen. Perhaps if Milt had spoken to MacKenzie and Ted Green ahead of the draft, he could have prevented their reactions to being initially left unprotected. The real culprits were the WHA and the constant expansion.

For example, had Milt known that Cheevers would sign with Cleveland, he could have protected star prospect Dan Bouchard. Had he known that Orr's knees would last the season, he could have kept Reg Leach, who would have taken MacKenzie's spot with Bucyk and Stanfield. However, I did not like the Mike Walton trade. He was an upgrade on Wayne Carlton on the 3rd line LW spot, but not that much, and he could have kept MacLeish. Imagine winning the cup in 1970, having the 3rd and 4th picks in the draft, and selecting two future 50+ goal scorers with the picks.

Hap Ems was the GM who signed Orr to his first NHL contract on 9-3-65 at age 18, and Lynn Patrick was the GM who signed Orr at age 14 for their Oshawa Generals junior team, making him Bruins' property.

Always a pleasure to talk about old times with you, GH.

Scanned your latest post. Have not delved deeply as very busy, but shall.

Thank you for your response.

You will have one of your own soon enough,

 

[TheReal13Linseman]

Harry had his faults and blind spots, but I've always felt the universal hatred from the Bruins fanbase toward him was out of control. He was a really good GM despite falling short of winning it all, and made some really shrewd trades even toward the end of his tenure. Not saying he's the best person or GM ever, but I'm just trying to counter the popular narrative of him being miserly and holding them back.

As a fan of the Bruins for over 50 years, I’ll agree with this. I think many here might be too young to legitimately comment, but everyone’s entitled to their opinions. I’ve been both happy and not-so-happy with Harry over the years, but IMO some of the takes about him in this thread are a bit over the top and seem to pile on, which I’ve come to understand is hallmark of today’s social media impacted discourse.

 

[DaBroons]

As a fan of the Bruins for over 50 years, I’ll agree with this. I think many here might be too young to legitimately comment, but everyone’s entitled to their opinions. I’ve been both happy and not-so-happy with Harry over the years, but IMO some of the takes about him in this thread are a bit over the top and seem to pile on, which I’ve come to understand is hallmark of today’s social media impacted discourse.

Harry had a complicated record, and doesn't deserve universal loathing, IMO.

His drafting was mediocre overall, although he had some good picks. He made a number of excellent trades, but had many poor trades. He failed to make the big trade to get the team over the top, and he was too eager to blame someone else and send them packing (e.g., Bowness and Moog).

I think his low point was the weekend at the draft in 1996, when he traded for two 4th line players from the two worst teams in the league and then presided over a disastrous draft (although it was a poor draft year overall). He set the stage for the last place in the league finish the next spring, leading to the drafting of Joe Thornton.

Things I liked about him were that he was an superlative coach. Although somewhat ruthless, he was quick to trade a player he thought was starting to slide in performance and trading them before their performance slipped so much that they didn't get maximum value for them (e.g., Esposito and Barry Pederson). These two players' performance did NOT fall off a cliff, but did drop somewhat, and he got max value for them.

I think that Milt failed to do that, keeping the same lineup too much. That team had a large core that stayed together for 5 years (1967-68 through 1971-72). The core was Cheevers, EJ, Orr, D Smith, Ted Green, Awrey, Esposito, Hodge, Bucyk, Stanfield, McKenzie, Sanderson, and Westfall. That's 13 players. Hindsight is always 20/20, however. Bill Torrey had the same failing with the Islanders, perhaps much worse. At LW on the first line, Ron Murphy was replaced by Cashman; at LW on the 3rd line, Shack was replaced by Carlton, then Walton. On D, it was Rick Smith, then Vadnais. Doak was drafted by Vancouver in 1970.

 

[Dr Hook]

Harry Sinden took Ray Bourque to arbitration.

Ray Bourque.

The Ray Bourque who played defense for the Boston Bruins. That Ray Bourque. Harry took that guy to arbitration. And he threatened to trade him if the arbitrator awarded Bourque too much.

Harry Sinden can go f*** himself for eternity.

That kind of shit is why the Bruins could never have nice things when he was in charge.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I loved how the writer puts in the Secord , O'Connell trade as one of Harry's bad trades but than try's soften the blow with although O'Conell was a good player , good grief . Secord should have been in Boston for a long enough to help bring a Cup home........

Secord had 65 points in 166 games with the Bruins. Went to Chicago to play with Denis Savard. Hence the big jump in scoring. He was all done at age 29. Bruins only right-shot defenseman was Randy Hillier when the trade was made. O'Connell was an excellent 2nd pair defenseman for Boston on the right side.

Bruins weren't wining any Cups in the 80's against the Islanders or the Oilers.

 

[Hookslide]

Secord had 65 points in 166 games with the Bruins. Went to Chicago to play with Denis Savard. Hence the big jump in scoring. He was all done at age 29. Bruins only right-shot defenseman was Randy Hillier when the trade was made. O'Connell was an excellent 2nd pair defenseman for Boston on the right side.

Bruins weren't wining any Cups in the 80's against the Islanders or the Oilers.

Your point is weak , his first two years he put up 29 goals , he was 20/21 years old give was savard playing on the Bruins those two years...........

 

[BruinDust]

Some interesting Sinden quotes to chew on..

HOCKEY; Bourque Arbitrator Rules for Bruins (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

 

[22Brad Park]

I think that's a very accurate portrayal.

He was one of the best collectors of talent the league has seen. And even with his reputation as not paying anyone and doing everything on the cheap, his teams still came really close to winning a few titles against some of the hardest competition in league history - if the players can execute a line change in 1979, if Pete Peeters doesn't go charmin soft in 1983, Glen Wesley hits an open net in 1990, and Ulf doesn't take out Neely's knee in 1991, etc. they could've been champs.

No one could discover talent like him in an era before widely available video highlights, but when contracts came up he turned hardass. Taking Bourque to arbitration was some really bad optics. That said, in the pre-1995 era where there was no real free agency to speak of, it's not like that was uncommon around the league. And he still went the extra mile to acquire Moog in 1988 and Oates in 1992 when he they were in contract squabbles with Edmonton and St. Louis respectively. It's often alleged that he wouldn't get that one last piece to put the Bourque/Neely teams over the top, but I kind of feel it's unfair because it's not like there was unrestricted free agency where you could go and sign a LaFontaine or Turgeon for your first line in the summer, and the amount of guys holding out and requesting trades due to salary reasons was limited and you had 24 other teams to compete with over offers. So there is some truth to his stinginess costing them (particularly at goal after he jettisoned Andy Moog which was part-motivated by his status with the union), but I think it's overblown and he becomes an easy scapegoat for the general dissatisfaction with results during those years.

They had some teams he knew they could use that push and never added He cost them Cups saving a buck .

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Your point is weak , his first two years he put up 29 goals , he was 20/21 years old give was savard playing on the Bruins those two years...........

His first two years Secord scored 12 and 23 goals respectively. Then 13 more in 77 games over 2 seasons in Boston. In the early 80's, that's mediocre production.

His first two season with Savard in Chicago he scored 44 and 54 goals respectively. Big difference.

Then he was injured and didn't get back to being a factor again for two years. Had a 40-goal season and then his career faded.

Can't really say what would have happened if Secord wasn't traded. All we do know is that O'Connell was a piece to the puzzle at the time and he did a great job filling it.

 

[LSCII]

Uh, who gives a flying f*** what that piece of shit thinks?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They had some teams he knew they could use that push and never added He cost them Cups saving a buck .

Examples, please.

Remember, there wasn't any free agency in the 70's and 80's so you couldn't just "add" players.

 

[EverettMike]

Examples, please.

Remember, there wasn't any free agency in the 70's and 80's so you couldn't just "add" players.

The 90-92 Bruins DESPERATELY needed another scorer.

 

[EvilDead]

I could care less what that brown noser Smithers Sinden has to say, especially when it's from a interview by John Henry's personal stenographer Dan Shaughnessy. Motherf***er should be a floor manager at a KMart in the midwest.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The 90-92 Bruins DESPERATELY needed another scorer.

1990 finals, Bruins allowed 20 goals in 5 games.

1991 lost to Pens, allowed 27 goals in 6 games.

1992 lost to Pens, allowed 19 goals in 4 games.

Another scorer wouldn't have helped much. Even if they could have acquired one.

 

[EverettMike]

1990 finals, Bruins allowed 20 goals in 5 games.

1991 lost to Pens, allowed 27 goals in 6 games.

1992 lost to Pens, allowed 19 goals in 4 games.

Another scorer wouldn't have helped much. Even if they could have acquired one.

I guess scoring more goals and keeping the puck in the offensive zone more wouldn't have helped them win high scoring games!

Also, "even if they could have acquired one" is carrying so much Harry water I'm worried about your back.

 

[Dr Hook]

They always seemed to be one good player short of what was needed and that is all on Harry and his miserly ways. For example, I remember there was real interest in Keith Tkachuk coming to Boston (IIRC it was when was considering not re-upping in Phoenix) and after all was said and done, Keith's quote about why it didn't happen was something like "Harry wouldn't pay."

 

[LSCII]

1990 finals, Bruins allowed 20 goals in 5 games.

1991 lost to Pens, allowed 27 goals in 6 games.

1992 lost to Pens, allowed 19 goals in 4 games.

Another scorer wouldn't have helped much. Even if they could have acquired one.

In fairness, you have an additional scoring option on the Bruins, and the dynamic of the entire series changes. They have to alter how they played, change their strategy. So simply taking their goal totals from what happened and saying nobody would have changed that is a little more than short sighted, IMO. It's an impossibility to say what would have happened because it's a hypothetical. Just about the only thing you can say is that they didn't have enough scoring to compete in those series, which kind of supports the other sides opinion. We'll never know though because Siden was a dick and even worse, he acted like Jacobs money was his own.

 

[22Brad Park]

Examples, please.

Remember, there wasn't any free agency in the 70's and 80's so you couldn't just "add" players.

Well I certainly remember trade deadlines and him saying he was content with team they had and thinking man if you just added that 1 player.Sure enough come up short vs Montreal.Could probably Google those old interviews with Harry.Only time I ever liked that man was when he stood up for team in tunnel about penalty calls.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I guess scoring more goals and keeping the puck in the offensive zone more wouldn't have helped them win high scoring games!

Also, "even if they could have acquired one" is carrying so much Harry water I'm worried about your back.

Unless you're talking about adding Gretzky, Bruins aren't winning any of those series.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They always seemed to be one good player short of what was needed and that is all on Harry and his miserly ways. For example, I remember there was real interest in Keith Tkachuk coming to Boston (IIRC it was when was considering not re-upping in Phoenix) and after all was said and done, Keith's quote about why it didn't happen was something like "Harry wouldn't pay."

Tkachuk was traded for 3 players and a first-round pick.

If Tkachuk said that he must have meant Harry wouldn't pay the price to acquire him, not to pay him.