Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Bruins Trade proposals VI - MOD in OP

Status
Not open for further replies.

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
ODAAT said:
I am not disagreeing with you however perhaps offering a different reason/concern they have going all in on a rebuild. Unlike the Leafs, this team has a fan base that has shown that they will not fill seats if the product on the ice is garbagio, some here either have forgotten or may be a touch younger that they weren`t quite yet followers of the Bruins about a time, just pre-Chia/Julien where there were literally thousands of empty seats in the barn.

Spoken many times here about trips I took to Boston to catch games, purchased a few upper bowl tickets due to price, easily slid down to nice comfortable lower bowl seats. While it is always a good day when I can watch my favorite team live, there were a few years there where the rink was a ghost town. Fans in Boston get hockey and I think they`d understand if their team was or went into a rebuild mode but I also think they`d not show up to watch that team filling the stadium during it and for me, wondering if that might be something the execs calling the shots are thinking about?
Click to expand...

I understand the potential financial considerations behind avoiding a rebuild but two things:

1. You cannot contend indefinitely. Eventually the piper comes calling and the decision to suck is made for you. Chicago. LA. Detroit. The Bruins are a lot closer to becoming a team on that list than they are to being Tampa Bay or the Leafs, as much as it would pain us to admit it.

2.It all depends on the marketing. Yeah, if you do what the B's did in the mid 2000s and bring in a bunch of mediocre vets then you're probably not going to excite the fanbase or the casual hockey fan. But making kids be the focus? I bet the Boston market has an appetite for a young, fun, high-event team that has a bright future, even if they lose a lot.

Maybe I'm wrong! But if the actual goal is to win, then you have to pick a philosophy and commit to it. If the goal is to be just good enough to get some playoff revenue then yeah, there's no argument. Keep on truckin' with the half-measures. But I still think that strategy catches up with them eventually, and not for the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22Brad Park and Strafer
easton117

easton117

Registered User
Nov 11, 2017
5,093
5,704
maxl7 said:
I understand the potential financial considerations behind avoiding a rebuild but two things:

1. You cannot contend indefinitely. Eventually the piper comes calling and the decision to suck is made for you. Chicago. LA. Detroit. The Bruins are a lot closer to becoming a team on that list than they are to being Tampa Bay or the Leafs, as much as it would pain us to admit it.

2.It all depends on the marketing. Yeah, if you do what the B's did in the mid 2000s and bring in a bunch of mediocre vets then you're probably not going to excite the fanbase or the casual hockey fan. But making kids be the focus? I bet the Boston market has an appetite for a young, fun, high-event team that has a bright future, even if they lose a lot.

Maybe I'm wrong! But if the actual goal is to win, then you have to pick a philosophy and commit to it. If the goal is to be just good enough to get some playoff revenue then yeah, there's no argument. Keep on truckin' with the half-measures. But I still think that strategy catches up with them eventually, and not for the better.
Click to expand...
On your first point, I agree. As a Steeler fan, im kind of envious of Belichek. That dude is heartless when it comes to cutting players who can no longer play. It isn’t a great way to make friends. But it sure does win games.

I know it’s different contract wise in hockey. But their core is nearing the end of their run. Hell their captain has moved into natural cause of expiration territory here.

I guess the next 4 weeks will say a lot about whatever the plan is. It’ll be interesting for sure
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22Brad Park, Strafer and maxl7
RoccoF14

RoccoF14

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 1, 2016
5,642
8,454
Chicago, IL
This thread has actually evolved into some intelligent debate and its refreshing to see. Thanks guys.

Way better than the Schenn for Zboril and a second rounder nonsense......But that's just my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22Brad Park
Gordoff

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
25,178
25,482
The Hub
maxl7 said:
I understand the potential financial considerations behind avoiding a rebuild but two things:

1. You cannot contend indefinitely. Eventually the piper comes calling and the decision to suck is made for you. Chicago. LA. Detroit. The Bruins are a lot closer to becoming a team on that list than they are to being Tampa Bay or the Leafs, as much as it would pain us to admit it.

2.It all depends on the marketing. Yeah, if you do what the B's did in the mid 2000s and bring in a bunch of mediocre vets then you're probably not going to excite the fanbase or the casual hockey fan. But making kids be the focus? I bet the Boston market has an appetite for a young, fun, high-event team that has a bright future, even if they lose a lot.

Maybe I'm wrong! But if the actual goal is to win, then you have to pick a philosophy and commit to it. If the goal is to be just good enough to get some playoff revenue then yeah, there's no argument. Keep on truckin' with the half-measures. But I still think that strategy catches up with them eventually, and not for the better.
Click to expand...
Well this is all true BUT can we just have one or two more runs before that eventuality comes true? DS should've thought your way last summer and closed up the holes and given the team a better chance but no he straddled the fence too long and now we're neither here nor there. What is this team? What is the plan? To be mediocre until we suck? To win one and then go into full rebuild? What's the short and long term direction? To love each and every one of your prospects like their your children or to build a winner? I just don't see the vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxl7
ODAAT

ODAAT

Registered User
Oct 17, 2006
52,298
20,537
Victoria BC
RoccoF14 said:
This thread has actually evolved into some intelligent debate and its refreshing to see. Thanks guys.

Way better than the Schenn for Zboril and a second rounder nonsense......But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
speaking of Schenn for Zboril....oh nevermind
 

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
Strafer said:
Well this is all true BUT can we just have one or two more runs before that eventuality comes true? DS should've thought your way last summer and closed up the holes and given the team a better chance but no he straddled the fence too long and now we're neither here nor there. What is this team? What is the plan? To be mediocre until we suck? To win one and then go into full rebuild? What's the short and long term direction? To love each and every one of your prospects like their your children or to build a winner? I just don't see the vision.
Click to expand...

I'd say two more runs (after this year) with the current core before they fall off a cliff is best case scenario. One more seems the likeliest, or, at least what I would plan around were I in Sweeney's shoes. That may seem pessimistic to some but we have to be realistic about the ages of the guys that are the key dependencies on this team.

But like I said, I'm fine with either direction they want to take this team. Go all-in and leave nothing off the table to improve as much as possible for another run or two (or three)...or blow it up and start building around Pasta and McAvoy, etc.
 
Gordoff

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
25,178
25,482
The Hub
maxl7 said:
I'd say two more runs (after this year) with the current core before they fall off a cliff is best case scenario. One more seems the likeliest, or, at least what I would plan around were I in Sweeney's shoes. That may seem pessimistic to some but we have to be realistic about the ages of the guys that are the key dependencies on this team.

But like I said, I'm fine with either direction they want to take this team. Go all-in and leave nothing off the table to improve as much as possible for another run or two (or three)...or blow it up and start building around Pasta and McAvoy, etc.
Click to expand...


That's nice but IMO McAvoy's health is a scary thing to plan a team around. Some players just seem to have a black cloud over them and my gut is churning about him. I liked Chabot back when but hindsight is 20/20. McAvoy has a Teddy-Bear aura around him IMO.
 

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
Strafer said:
That's nice but IMO McAvoy's health is a scary thing to plan a team around. Some players just seem to have a black cloud over them and my gut is churning about him. I liked Chabot back when but hindsight is 20/20. McAvoy has a Teddy-Bear aura around him IMO.
Click to expand...

This has been litigated to death but McAvoy's injuries have all been things outside of his control. It's not like they were the result of poor training or conditioning. I mean, are you really gonna let superstitious voodoo thinking prevent you from retaining a legitimate right-handed first pairing 21-year-old because he blocked a shot and got a staph infection? Or because he got a concussion? It's not like he could have worked harder in the offseason to make his brain stronger.

But all of that is beside the point because I only mentioned him as an example of building around youth.
 
Gordoff

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
25,178
25,482
The Hub
maxl7 said:
This has been litigated to death but McAvoy's injuries have all been things outside of his control. It's not like they were the result of poor training or conditioning. I mean, are you really gonna let superstitious voodoo thinking prevent you from retaining a legitimate right-handed first pairing 21-year-old because he blocked a shot and got a staph infection? Or because he got a concussion? It's not like he could have worked harder in the offseason to make his brain stronger.

But all of that is beside the point because I only mentioned him as an example of building around youth.
Click to expand...
You're putting words in my mouth, don't do that. I never said "gonna let superstitious voodoo thinking prevent you from retaining a legitimate right-handed first pairing 21-year-old" I never said that it would prevent me (as if it mattered what I would do) that I would trade or get rid of him. I said
Black Cloud. This happens. It happened to Normande Leveille, it's happened to a lot of people.
It is beyond their control, s*** happens!
 

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
Strafer said:
You're putting words in my mouth, don't do that. I never said "gonna let superstitious voodoo thinking prevent you from retaining a legitimate right-handed first pairing 21-year-old" I said
Black Cloud. This happens. It happened to Normande Leveille, it's happened to a lot of people.
It is beyond their control, s*** happens!
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's pure randomness. Thinking that McAvoy has had a "black cloud" (unluckiness) over him and will continue to have it lingering over him in the future IS superstitious thought. Not a rational, reason-based foundation for making judgement calls.
 
Gordoff

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
25,178
25,482
The Hub
maxl7 said:
Exactly. It's pure randomness. Thinking that McAvoy has had a "black cloud" (unluckiness) over him and will continue to have it lingering over him in the future IS superstitious thought. Not a rational, reason-based foundation for making judgement calls.
Click to expand...
The proof is in the pudding.
THIS IS WHAT I SAID:
"That's nice but IMO McAvoy's health is a scary thing to plan a team around. Some players just seem to have a black cloud over them and my gut is churning about him. I liked Chabot back when but hindsight is 20/20. McAvoy has a Teddy-Bear aura around him IMO."
WHERE does it say anything about the future? "To plan around?" Fine, I'm not comfortable planning around a guy who misses so many games, that may change.
You keep seeing things that aren't there. You're assuming a lot in my opinion and you're putting words in my mouth.
 
Last edited:

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
Strafer said:
The proof is in the pudding.
THIS IS WHAT I SAID:
"s nice but IMO McAvoy's health is a scary thing to plan a team around. Some players just seem to have a black cloud over them and my gut is churning about him. I liked Chabot back when but hindsight is 20/20. McAvoy has a Teddy-Bear aura around him IMO."
WHERE does it say anything about the future?
You keep seeing things that aren't there. You're assuming a lot in my opinion and you're putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Is the implication not that Charlie would continue to be so unfortunate moving forward, hence the reluctance to build around him?
 
Gordoff

Gordoff

Formerly: Strafer
Jan 18, 2003
25,178
25,482
The Hub
maxl7 said:
Is the implication not that Charlie would continue to be so unfortunate moving forward, hence the reluctance to build around him?
Click to expand...
I guess it's the "voodoo" s***y comments that I'm more referring to. You're correct in that I don't feel comfortable right now about his overall longevity. It may change for sure but you sure are going to extremes to prove a point. This isn't "superstition" it's what people, and management teams do. We look at trends in all things. We look at numbers, that is scientific not "voodoo." Just being condescending for the **** of it is a lousy way to take your debate to the far-fetched accusation of "voodoo." They do have to build around Charlie, they have no choice do they? Of course they can trade him but that would be what Chia would do and that isn't happening. This subject has nowhere else to go and you can continue to beat it to death but in the end it's all opinions. Our opinions don't jibe and that's okay since our opinions don't matter when it comes to the Bruins.
 

maxl7

Registered User
Jun 14, 2017
1,442
1,445
Strafer said:
I guess it's the "voodoo" s***y comments that I'm more referring to. You're correct in that I don't feel comfortable right now about his overall longevity. It may change for sure but you sure are going to extremes to prove a point. This isn't "superstition" it's what people, and management teams do. We look at trends in all things. We look at numbers, that is scientific not "voodoo." Just being condescending for the **** of it is a lousy way to take your debate to the far-fetched accusation of "voodoo." They do have to build around Charlie, they have no choice do they? Of course they can trade him but that would be what Chia would do and that isn't happening. This subject has nowhere else to go and you can continue to beat it to death but in the end it's all opinions. Our opinions don't jibe and that's okay since our opinions don't matter when it comes to the Bruins.
Click to expand...

I truly meant no offense, so I apologize. I'm sorry for calling it voodoo.

However, I could entertain your argument if there were some throughline or cause of McAvoy's injuries that we could point to, but there isn't one. Everything has been outside of his control, as you've already pointed out. That *is* superstition, is it not? Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you concerned that the injuries Charlie has sustained so far will affect his health moving forward or his ability to maintain play at a certain level?
 
Baddkarma

Baddkarma

El Guapo to most...
Feb 27, 2002
5,562
2,401
Midland TX
Kind of a rehash of an old post of mine.

How about Dzingel and Bobby Ryan @25% retained, to Boston?

Ryan would slot on Krejci's RW and Dzingel as the 3rd center. Ryan's game to me seems like it would mesh well with 46.

I offered Krug, JFK, and 2019 1st, which I feel is a bit of an overpayment because OTT is a division rival, with the idea that Grizz and McAvoy are ready for Krug's PP production.

Have to resign Dzingel in the summer to make the deal worth it. Maybe a 5x6 and do some deals in the summer for cap purposes.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,949
4,421
Auburn, Maine
Baddkarma said:
Kind of a rehash of an old post of mine.

How about Dzingel and Bobby Ryan @25% retained, to Boston?

Ryan would slot on Krejci's RW and Dzingel as the 3rd center. Ryan's game to me seems like it would mesh well with 46.

I offered Krug, JFK, and 2019 1st, which I feel is a bit of an overpayment because OTT is a division rival, with the idea that Grizz and McAvoy are ready for Krug's PP production.

Have to resign Dzingel in the summer to make the deal worth it. Maybe a 5x6 and do some deals in the summer for cap purposes.
Click to expand...
Ottawa is the Edmonton of the Eastern Conference, imho.... did we not learn what just happened in Edmonton in the last 14 days
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom