Boston Bruins All Bruins Free Agent/Trade Rumours and Proposals III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr Quincy

Registered User
Jun 19, 2005
28,684
10,517
Harry F***ing Sinden is more responsible for not winning than playing the game the right way, tough, mean and physical.

The "right way" to play is to win. If the best way to win is to play wide open, 5 man attack, pedal to the metal offense.. then do it. If it's to play dump and chase, left wing lock trap.... then do it. If it's "tough, mean and physical" then do it.

But none of those ways are going to be "THE" best way, in every game, in every era, over 45 years. It's ludicrous to think that. In fact, it was that exact thinking that kept the B's from winning a Cup 35+ years. If you are stuck in what worked last year or the year before or 20 years before then you are being outsmarted, out gm'd, and outcoached.

Like everything in sports, I look at Belichick- 3-4, 4-3, linebackers blitzing, linebackers plugging holes, 2 TEs, 4 WRs, fullback, empty backfield.... the only system that works is to use every system.
 

Fenian24

Registered User
Jun 14, 2010
10,322
13,303
The "right way" to play is to win. If the best way to win is to play wide open, 5 man attack, pedal to the metal offense.. then do it. If it's to play dump and chase, left wing lock trap.... then do it. If it's "tough, mean and physical" then do it.

But none of those ways are going to be "THE" best way, in every game, in every era, over 45 years. It's ludicrous to think that. In fact, it was that exact thinking that kept the B's from winning a Cup 35+ years. If you are stuck in what worked last year or the year before or 20 years before then you are being outsmarted, out gm'd, and outcoached.

Like everything in sports, I look at Belichick- 3-4, 4-3, linebackers blitzing, linebackers plugging holes, 2 TEs, 4 WRs, fullback, empty backfield.... the only system that works is to use every system.
For a lot of those years they were outspent by either GM or ownership decree. You can't win playing any style of hockey if ownership and management only care about profit
 

Dr Quincy

Registered User
Jun 19, 2005
28,684
10,517
For a lot of those years they were outspent by either GM or ownership decree. You can't win playing any style of hockey if ownership and management only care about profit
No disagreement there. I'll never forget when Jason Allison had a really good year and was the team's #1. Sinden said "Well he won't be our #1C for long since Thornton will take that role eventually, so we aren't going to pay Allison like a #1".

This in an era when teams had Yzerman-Fedorov, Sakic-Forsberg, Lindros-Brind-amour/Primeau. The lunacy of not wanting 2 #1 quality centers because it would cost money was just an admission of "We aren't interested in winning a Cup".
 

chizzler

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 11, 2006
13,206
6,235
I appreciate what you are saying. and I know hf has rules about necroing threads. or getting into this... you were wrong in 2014 thing...

I wish they didn't have a policy against it because I love when I have debates with my friends from 5-10-20 years ago. that's who I am on a personal level. I don't really care when im wrong... not much

I actually have said that no one gets it right more than 50% of the time. that's a philosophy I have. ive invited people to share with me their ideas and if they get it right more than 50% of the time I will eat humble crow and call them a genius.

since I don't think anyone gets it right more than 50% of the time... im prepared to live with my score being less than 50% too.

theres certain things I spend a hell of a lot of time on... things that aren't a matter of opinion. things that are actually facts. when im arguing a fact I will be a bit more vigorous in my argument. specially when its an area I spend a lot of time developing my understanding.

contracts... I get pretty vigorous on those.

the teams success record... hell, I love to celebrate positive achievements so I will definitely argue in favor that this team has a pretty damn good record over the years of success

terry oreillys legacy... hes my all time favorite hero for a reason

there are some things I will argue and they mean enough to me that I will throw some elbows when I argue. so, apologize to the innocent who get tagged. my elbows are probably meant for a few others here who like to personally attack me. I cant name them because to me its never personal. its about my passion for my team and the game it plays

other things like... drafting and developing kids... I have no particular passion about it. I only have 45 years experience as a bruin fan. not all kids end up making it. and theres a limit how many kids can make it at one time. im not passionate about it... I just think the odds are in favor im right about it because history tells me im right

when I said lucic was a bad option to sign... hell im a lucic fan. I certainly wasn't passionate about saying he should be dealt. I said history tells us he should be dealt. im not a genius for looking at history, im just someone with a lot of experience who takes the time to study my history

as I said... I did a history look at marchand and so far hes defying history. my passion is in favor of marchand. ive made over a dozen posts since I said we shouldn't resign him and in every one I happily eat crow. im very passionately happy I was wrong about him so far

I said history is ok about signing david backes. I compared him to big bodies like mike Knuble and Brenden shanahan and mike fisher and ron francais and others who didn't necessarily need to run people over to be effective... who had talent in the slot and could defend and could use their big bodies even as they slowed down to get their position. of course backes hasn't been able to stay healthy, but I continue to believe if he gets healthy he will justify his contract. will I be wrong? maybe...

but its not really me... its history

history wasn't kind for louie Eriksson. I compared him to esa tikkanen, jere lehtenen, pj axlesson, jan Eriksson from the rangers... and some others who were smallish shifty euros known for their 2 way positional play. again you see overwhelming evidence that when these guys lose a step near 30... they fall off the face of the earth overnight

its a rare type of guy that stays effective much beyond 30-31 years of age so general idea is to bet against these guys. but truly elite talent can stay effect to 40 and some other certain type players have a better track record of continuing success too

not all players are finished at 30. dmen who are 'smart' tend to continue to play well after 30. guys with size who don't get hurt... tend to continue past 30

its the smaller/skaters who slow down that fall off quick... and the guys that are constantly making body contact... and the guys who had to work harder then everyone else just to earn a living on the 4th line.

anyhow... I do wish that people stopped trying to say I am always trying to claim im perfect. theres a few people here who hate me on a personal level that tried to spread this crap about me over the past several years. maybe they didn't like when I said we are all less than 50% because I include them in that too. but I sure as hell include myself
You are post master here. Long posts. I read everyone just like everybody else’s. Your opinion is as gods as everyone else. Don’t stop posting because of stupid shit.
Having said that, I was one of those that wanted the Bruins to trade Lucic when he was on the team. I always thought Chiarelli overpaid him and set himself or the team up for a split. No way they were going to go further than the 6mil he was making. Towards the end, it was bad. Maybe his father’s passing affected him? I was glad they traded him at that time.
I still root for the guy. I have a Lucic shirt to boot. His term is too long and Edmonton won’t absorb enough of his contract to make it work.
 

Blowfish

Count down ...
Jan 13, 2005
22,760
14,717
Southwestern Ontario
For a lot of those years they were outspent by either GM or ownership decree. You can't win playing any style of hockey if ownership and management only care about profit

Misconception. Bruins have always been top 5 spending. Letting go of over asking $$$ players billy Guerin was ok with me.
 

Fenian24

Registered User
Jun 14, 2010
10,322
13,303
If you could get Chiarelli to take 50% of Lucic's contract I would do it. He is still a decent third line wing and at 3mil not overpaid for that roll
 

Fenian24

Registered User
Jun 14, 2010
10,322
13,303
Misconception. Bruins have always been top 5 spending. Letting go of over asking $$$ players billy Guerin was ok with me.
This is just wrong. Period. I am driving, stuck in traffic, otherwise I could list a small army of players let go because they wanted to get paid. Free agency didn't exist in Boston until after the lockout
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mpasta

LouJersey

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
68,265
42,281
Graves to Gardens
youtu.be
Harry F***ing Sinden is more responsible for not winning than playing the game the right way, tough, mean and physical.

Meh, there were plenty of Bourque and Neely led Bruins teams that shit the bed as favorites and lost in the play-offs. I agree Sinden should have done better but the players didn't get it done either.
 
Last edited:

Fenian24

Registered User
Jun 14, 2010
10,322
13,303
Lucic sgainst leafs third line kapanen and kadri. Yah no thanks.
All day, put him with two fast players and let him hit leaf D. Not his responsibility to pick up forwards defensively would be centers, send him deep to hit and screen
 

Ratty

Registered User
Feb 2, 2003
11,965
3,484
Rive Gauche
Visit site
Misconception. Bruins have always been top 5 spending. Letting go of over asking $$$ players billy Guerin was ok with me.
Sinden gets a bad rap around here, some of it deserved.. But I can't fault him (and Jacobs) for trying to maintain some fiscal responsibility in the league.

They were trying to avoid the ridiculous salaries being handed out in basketball and other sports. History shows them to be prescient. With stars now raking in 10-12m contracts and teams saddled with the Lucics, Ryans and Backes for long terms, this is the result.

It's clear, though, that since the first lockout, the Bruins have spent up or close to the salary cap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blowfish

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610

Crazy to think that the Bruins salary costs rose almost 600% from 1989-90 until the end of 2003-04.

The Rangers, the 2nd place spenders in 2003-04, saw their salary costs rise almost 1000% over that same time period. So did Detroit, in 1st place.

Rising costs of this type of magnitude would sink almost every other business imaginable.

No wonder we lost a full season to a lock-out.
 

Fenian24

Registered User
Jun 14, 2010
10,322
13,303
Sinden gets a bad rap around here, some of it deserved.. But I can't fault him (and Jacobs) for trying to maintain some fiscal responsibility in the league.

They were trying to avoid the ridiculous salaries being handed out in basketball and other sports. History shows them to be prescient. With stars now raking in 10-12m contracts and teams saddled with the Lucics, Ryans and Backes for long terms, this is the result.

It's clear, though, that since the first lockout, the Bruins have spent up or close to the salary cap.

Do you really think it was fiscal responsibility or just greed? I'm going greed myself
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number8

Number8

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
17,840
16,605
Sinden gets a bad rap around here, some of it deserved.. But I can't fault him (and Jacobs) for trying to maintain some fiscal responsibility in the league.

They were trying to avoid the ridiculous salaries being handed out in basketball and other sports. History shows them to be prescient. With stars now raking in 10-12m contracts and teams saddled with the Lucics, Ryans and Backes for long terms, this is the result.

It's clear, though, that since the first lockout, the Bruins have spent up or close to the salary cap.

That's fine if you are bringing about change as a whole -- meaning being a champion for holding down expenditures across the League. However, for many years at the end Harry (via Jacobs directive) was alone in the woods -- holding onto the "screw them - they can sit out if they don't want to sign" philosophy long after virtually every other GM had moved on. It was really only him and his fishing buddy Sather doing that at the end, but Harry stayed all the way through. We had soooo much base talent but didn't go the extra mile.

You think back to the style of play in those days and tell me as a GM you can't find a way to get a team with Ray Bourque, Cam Neely, and Adam Oates enough complimentary pieces to win several Cups and I'll show you a GM that wasn't very good at his job at the end.

Of course that is assuming the job (should be mandate) is to win a Cup. On the other hand if the job is to keep the old man's costs to a minimum, remain competitive enough to keep the building full and get a few playoff games, then Harry was the man.

It only changed in Boston when the building started not being full. All of a sudden JJ got all "we want a Cup" religion. Funny that.

Water under the bridge at this point, but I can fault Jacobs and Sinden for those years of wanting fiscal responsibility while not supporting a team with two of the best Bruins to ever play the game. Hell, he took Ray Bourque to arbitration. I'll say that again for those who weren't yet fans ........ HE TOOK RAY BOURQUE TO ARBITRATION......

By the way, Jeremy Jacobs had more inside knowledge and info than most others on the lockout - and still he got it 100% wrong. Cannot overstate the incompetence of that screw-up.
 

compan

Registered User
Sep 30, 2009
8,223
3,051
Nashville
Crazy to think that the Bruins salary costs rose almost 600% from 1989-90 until the end of 2003-04.

The Rangers, the 2nd place spenders in 2003-04, saw their salary costs rise almost 1000% over that same time period. So did Detroit, in 1st place.

Rising costs of this type of magnitude would sink almost every other business imaginable.

No wonder we lost a full season to a lock-out.

Has NHL revenue increased a similar amount? Or were players just underpaid to the revenue they brought in back then
 

Dr Quincy

Registered User
Jun 19, 2005
28,684
10,517
Meh, there were plenty of Bourque and Neely led Bruins teams that **** the bed as favorites and lost in the play-offs. I agree Sinden should have done better but the players didn't get it done either.

Too often in the 80s and 90s they'd do 2 steps forward, 1 step back.
Have a good team, make a little run, look like you are building something...
Oh 1 of the guys is in his last year and he had a good year last year so let's trade him now for a couple of good 20 year olds about to be good.
20 years old become good, up for new contract....
Let's deal them so we don't have to pay them.

It was like that ad nauseum to me. The thing is, he WON just about every deal he made in those situations and always got great value. But it always left the team "on the verge" instead of "over the top".
 

Dr Quincy

Registered User
Jun 19, 2005
28,684
10,517
Sinden gets a bad rap around here, some of it deserved.. But I can't fault him (and Jacobs) for trying to maintain some fiscal responsibility in the league.

They were trying to avoid the ridiculous salaries being handed out in basketball and other sports. History shows them to be prescient. With stars now raking in 10-12m contracts and teams saddled with the Lucics, Ryans and Backes for long terms, this is the result.

It's clear, though, that since the first lockout, the Bruins have spent up or close to the salary cap.
To me it was never about signing free agents in those days (which is what Harry always tried to strawman the argument to). Free agency back then came so late, or had compensation, so you were never really going to get good players.

The issue was not wanting to resign his own guys to their 2nd or 3rd contracts. Totally cheaped out on them then when they really didn't need to.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
Has NHL revenue increased a similar amount? Or were players just underpaid to the revenue they brought in back then

Prior to the 1994-95 lockout, they were underpaid compared to league revenue.

Then the tables started to turn in the other direction. Hence the league's desire and bullishness to a fixed link between hockey-related revenue and player salary costs in the 2004-05 lockout.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->