Are the 2010s Bruins the NHL equivalent of the 1990s Atlanta Braves?

[EvilDead]

I was listening to Felger and Mazz earlier in the week and Jim Murray made a point that never crossed my mind but as soon as he mentioned it made crystal clear sense when he compared the Boston Bruins of the 2010s to the 1990s Atlanta Braves. Two great teams that could beat anyone on their best day and made it to many championship finals but when the chips were down were only able to win one title and massively underachieved because of choking in big games. Ever since Murray made that comparison, it has been stuck in my head and now I can't separate the two. Think of all the big series this incarnation of the Bruins have thrown down the toilet. The reverse sweep loss to Philly, losing to Washington after winning the cup the year previously, and getting trounced by the Lightning multiple times among other things. This team, given the talent that it had, should have won another cup. But just like the Braves of 90s, something always happened to prevent them from getting that second one.

I would like to know your thoughts on the matter both by voting and posting as to whether or not the 2010s Bruins do fit the description of being hockey's Atlanta Braves of the 90s. Because after hearing Jim Murray elucidate on this, there must be more people that at least have made the comparison in their head.

Click to read more...

 

[kthx]

Modanos Dallas kind of?

 

[EvilDead]

Modanos Dallas kind of?

Fair point. Forgot about them.

 

[RoccoF14]

Not even close....The Braves won their division for something like 13 out of 14 straight years. The Bruins didn’t string together nearly that many consistent post season appearances, let alone that many division crowns.

People are just butt-hurt about the Tampa loss, and now the world is suddenly coming to an end......

 

[Fenway]

I am convinced the LA Kings won the Cup in 2012 and 2014 in large part because the Bruins stumbled in those years.

2013 - If the Bruins had won Game 1 they would have beaten Chicago.

2019 was the worst

 

[finchster]

It takes a lot of luck to win the Stanley Cup. We always say, 'the best team always wins', but the NHL is the most unpredictable of the four major sports leagues (maybe MLS is more unpredictable). Bruins probably should've won at least an additional championship, but I was living in British Columbia in 2011, and that was the sweetest victory.

 

[rfournier103]

I’d say it’s a fair comparison. A lot of missed opportunities.

At least they got one. Honestly, I never really thought I’d ever see that.

Thank God for 2011.

 

[Fenway]

I’d say it’s a fair comparison. A lot of missed opportunities.

At least they got one. Honestly, I never really thought I’d ever see that.

Thank God for 2011.

The Bruins got a break in 2011 thanks to NBC Sunday Night Football.

They lost a heartbreaking Game 5 1-0 on Friday but Game 6 was Monday.

They were not going to lose Game 6 in Boston and then it became simple - They had to score first in Game 7

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I don't know a lot about the Atlanta Braves, but if the argument is that the Bruins fell short in the last decade or so in terms of the number of Cups they won relative to the quality of their core and the state of their roster relative to the competition, then yes, absolutely. One is very nice, but it's underperforming relative to their potential, and they really should have had two.

The Bruins never had a roster that was quite as strong and dominant as the Penguins and Blackhawks both had for a time, but their core was every bit as good as anybody's in the last 15 years, and the difference between the records of those two teams and the Bs largely comes down to too-frequent failure to execute in big moments, and management making too many mistakes in building the second and third tiers of the roster. The Kings achieved more with less within the same timeframe.

Unfortunately coming up frustratingly short is not new in Boston though. We all know their SCF win/loss record is abysmal. Some teams just have long-term histories of struggling to get over that final hurdle, and the Bruins are definitely one of those.

 

[BruinDust]

I don't know man, I'm gonna have to say no to this comparison.

Take 2010 for example. Despite the ending, that team over-achieved even getting to Round 2 and one game away from the 3rd round. That was a pretty average team, they were 29th out of 30 teams offensively. Rask was a rookie and by the time we got to the 2nd round, he was awfully fatigued (we've seen how a well-rested Rask can play) but Thomas was injured and really couldn't be put in the net despite acting as the back-up. They wouldn't of had a chance against the 2010 Hawks, one of the best teams of the cap era (seriously that roster was stacked).

2015 and 2016 they didn't even qualify (missed by a hair) and if they had they weren't poised to do any damage. 2017 they were also fairly average really, having fired Julien mid-season. The coaching change gave them a bump but the team wasn't anything special.

2011 they win a cup.

2012 they never lose to the Caps and Holtby in 7 games had Horton, their best goal scorer, been healthy enough to play. McQuaid's absence meant the injection of Greg Zanon and Mike Motteau, and neither guy was familiar with the Boston defensive system.

2013 and 2019 they make the finals. 2013 they lost to the better team. And the Dog-man open net will haunt many of us forever.
If the refs make that blatant call on Bozak in Game 5 in 2019, who knows how it all turns out. That was the turning point in that series IMO.

2018 they were pretty overmatched vs. TB, got some bad calls, had some injuries. 2020 they were too but we'll never know how they were impacted by the shutdown as they were rolling at that point. Had that been a regular playoff match-up I think the Bruins at the very least put up a good fight and take it to 7 hard fought games. We know now that the B's two best offensive players were playing through some tough injuries. That didn't help their cause.

2014 was the big one for me. No excuse to lose to Montreal in the 2nd round. They weakened themselves offensively with the Seguin deal and lacked natural goal scorers, but I thought they were simply outcoached and outplayed in Games 6 and 7. 2014 was for me the big lost opportunity as I think they destroy the Rangers and would of been a very tough match-up for the Kings and could of beaten them.

The Braves comparison doesn't work for me as it's not like the Bruins were a rock-solid contending Top 3-5 team every single year of the decade, even though in hindsight they are one of the top 3 teams of the decade, mostly because the Hawks fell off late in the decade, and outside of the Kings 2012-2014 run, they've been bad-to-mediocre for the rest of it so the Bruins jump ahead of them IMO to join Chicago and Pittsburgh. 4 of the 11 years (2010, 2015-17) they were fairly average in my eyes.

 

[roflstomper]

2014 and 2019 are the only years I felt we lost to a team we should have beaten.

 

[member 96824]

Initial reaction: “wow great comp!”

But then I thought about it more and the Braves just couldn’t get it done on the field, while the Bruins had a golden opportunity and couldn’t get it done in the front office.

End result was the same of “man what if? XXX should have been better” but the cause was very different.

 

[member 96824]

I am convinced the LA Kings won the Cup in 2012 and 2014 in large part because the Bruins stumbled in those years.

2013 - If the Bruins had won Game 1 they would have beaten Chicago.

2019 was the worst

or game 6. Duncan Keith said recently that if they didn’t win game 6 he wasn’t going to be cleared to play game 7 cause of injury. Skated most of that game on 1 leg. Would have been interesting.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Initial reaction: “wow great comp!”

But then I thought about it more and the Braves just couldn’t get it done on the field, while the Bruins had a golden opportunity and couldn’t get it done in the front office.

End result was the same of “man what if? XXX should have been better” but the cause was very different.

I agree. I think oftentimes the Bruins were simply beat by better teams (2019 notwithstanding).

It’s frustrating because I feel the fix has never been an arduous one to acquire (like say a first line center or reliable starting goaltending), but rather complimentary pieces that we see move around the league all the time. The core has both been in place and been arguably the league’s finest.

It’s not the fault of an underperforming roster, but rather that of those who annually put the Seth Griffiths of the world in key positions.

 

[BAD BOY]

The LA Dodgers

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Not even close....The Braves won their division for something like 13 out of 14 straight years. The Bruins didn’t string together nearly that many consistent post season appearances, let alone that many division crowns.

People are just butt-hurt about the Tampa loss, and now the world is suddenly coming to an end......

The Braves also won 5 pennants

But the Braves had our nemesis too. The owner wouldn't spend the little extra money to bring in the missing piece, a slugger.

3 Cy Young, HOF pitchers for a decade wasted

 

[member 96824]

I agree. I think oftentimes the Bruins were simply beat by better teams (2019 notwithstanding).

It’s frustrating because I feel the fix has never been an arduous one to acquire (like say a first line center or reliable starting goaltending), but rather complimentary pieces that we see move around the league all the time. The core has both been in place and been arguably the league’s finest.

It’s not the fault of an underperforming roster, but rather that of those who annually put the Seth Griffiths of the world in key positions.

I am trying to think of a team across leagues with a salary cap that has had an opportunity like the Bruins had at the turn of the century.

In 12 months they:
Picked 2nd overall with someone else's pick (Tyler Seguin)
Won cup
Picked 9th overall with someone else's pick (Dougie Hamilton)

The forward core of that cup roster: Lucic 22, Krejci 24, Bergeron 25, Horton 25, Marchand 22. Add Seguin to the mix leading the team in goals and points the following year.

Goaltending: Thomas 36 but the perfect succession plan in place with Rask already showing that he's ready to take over at 23.

Defense was a bit older, I think that was by design for the era back then, but Chara still had 10 years left, Boychuk, Seidenberg still on the right side of 30, etc. plus Dougie coming in obviously

Of course, there's always roster turnover, salary cap implications, and such...but they had a rare chance to have their cake and eat it too. The only thing I can think of being comparable is the Celtics with the nets picks, but they weren't top of the league in between. So it would be as if they won #18 in between picking Tatum and Brown.

If you told anyone in July 2011 "Well that was fun, but that's it. They won't win another for at least 10 years" you would have been laughed off these boards. Hard.

But hey, at least most of the people involved got promotions, so they have that going for them.

 

[Number6]

Atlanta Braves Manager Reminds Team October Is Where Other Teams’ Legacies Are Made

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

Bergeron is Greg Maddux

 

[DKH]

I am convinced the LA Kings won the Cup in 2012 and 2014 in large part because the Bruins stumbled in those years.

2013 - If the Bruins had won Game 1 they would have beaten Chicago.

2019 was the worst

Yes

the Bruins were 3 Cup winning team quality

 

[DKH]

How about this

would you rather be Bruins last 12 years or LA Kings

I’ll take Bruins two reasons

1. they were better much better with a 5 years they were in Cups Finals and 2 other Presidents Trophy 2014 & 20

2. the 2011 Cup run 2 months of twists and turns a roller coaster dark ride like Spider Man at Universal

 

[BruinDust]

How about this

would you rather be Bruins last 12 years or LA Kings

I’ll take Bruins two reasons

1. they were better much better with a 5 years they were in Cups Finals and 2 other Presidents Trophy 2014 & 20

2. the 2011 Cup run 2 months of twists and turns a roller coaster dark ride like Spider Man at Universal

It's not really close IMO.

The Kings had a very good 3-year run (2012-2014).

Outside of that, the past twelve seasons they have FIVE playoff DNQs, and FOUR 1st round loses. So they've only gotten further than the first round 3 times out of 12.

They won 10 rounds in the 12 years. From 2009-2014 they were equal in playoff rounds won with 10 each, but the Bruins have won 5 more since.

Since winning their 2nd cup of the decade in June 2014, the Kings won a grand total of ONE playoff game since.

 

[smithformeragent]

Feels like we relive the same miserable moments of the past decade round here despite the one Cup.

It’s fair to say they underachieved.
Draw whatever comparisons across sports you will.

I guess the other way to look at it is that they weren’t that good; a notch or two below the elite.

I’m too young to have truly been experience the lean years with the Red Sox and Patriots.

I vaguely remember Butch Hobson as manager and when Parcells was hired as head coach.

However, I remember quite vividly when this Bruins franchise bottomed out.

It’s difficult to make a final evaluation on them if the window is fully closed.

Underachieved? Probably? Maybe?

But they won the one Cup, which nobody can take away.

 

[Estlin]

Yes, Boston has underachieved. One Stanley Cup during that period is not enough, especially with all the talent on those teams and being gifted Seguin and Hamilton, as @BrainOfJ noted.

 

[Number6]

How about this

would you rather be Bruins last 12 years or LA Kings

I’ll take Bruins two reasons

1. they were better much better with a 5 years they were in Cups Finals and 2 other Presidents Trophy 2014 & 20

2. the 2011 Cup run 2 months of twists and turns a roller coaster dark ride like Spider Man at Universal

Excellent analogy and very fun ride! The 2011 Cup run was amazing indeed, 3 game 7, one of the best game I have seen in my life (Game 7 against TBL). So many vivid memories.