Management Don Sweeney explains why Bruce Cassidy was fired and a rebuild is possible - UNEDITED

[DKH]

Dean? Seriously? The guy he fired as fast as he could?

Who was fired ? Dean

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Who was fired ? Dean

 

[DKH]

management is an old boys club in boston.
jacobs, Harry Sinden, Cam Neely, Don Sweeney.
Harry Sinden advises jacobs, Neely takes orders from Sinden, ( plays the game ) buddy buddy
Sweeney takes orders from Neely ( plays the game ) buddy buddy
these are the guys who drive the bus.
So Sweeney bought himself sometime by firing Cassidy. " Hey Cam if we fire Cassidy will you
give me a 5 year contract extension as opposed to a 2 or 3 year extension ". So if i get fired
in 2 years i can ride off in the sunset .
Neely " O.K. Don "

Is there a video Of this ?

Thanks for the information

I had heard 4 years but 5 is a bit surprising

 

[Saxon Eric]

Is there a video Of this ?

Thanks for the information

I had heard 4 years but 5 is a bit surprising

I heard 6

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I haven't turned on him. I just think this Cassidy thing is a small blemish on him. Don't think it's a good look.

And I'm no Cassidy super fan. It's more just that I want Sweeney fired into the Sun.

Doesn’t it sound more like the media warping the narrative though?

I don’t doubt that conversations were had with the players regarding Cassidy. Tell us the good and tell us what you’d like to see changed. And I’m sure there were compliments and fair criticism.

Management weighed all of it and made a decision. And the sensationalist taking heads of Boston Sports media chose to whisper rumours of discontent around the campfire.

I suspect what happened is that a few up the chain realized that they weren’t going to be able to make wholesale changes to the roster, but felt they needed to do “something” to attempt to avoid entering next season at a total status quo. They may have used some of the feedback they received from the players as justification for their decision to fire Cassidy.

Ultimately I think it was more of a PR play and they were taken aback when the fan response was mostly negative. And that the BS about it having anything to do with Bergeron not liking Cassidy is… bullshit

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

i thought the rumor was he signed the deal to facilitate the trade so the team getting him wouldnt have any questions.

either way he's still a passenger in my book. not a guy you win with.

Tell that to Leafs fans.

They may have reached round 2 for 1st time in decades if not for his game 7 performances.

Leafs killer.

 

[bb_fan]

lets be real here, he had one good game.

other than t hat non existent.

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

At least Sweeney can spin it into his favor by saying his team beat Colorado handedly back in February.

 

[chizzler]

No terms on Sweeney’s contract yet?

 

[Ladyfan]

And that the BS about it having anything to do with Bergeron not liking Cassidy is… bullshit

BINGO

 

[EverettMike]

Doesn’t it sound more like the media warping the narrative though?

I don’t doubt that conversations were had with the players regarding Cassidy. Tell us the good and tell us what you’d like to see changed. And I’m sure there were compliments and fair criticism.

Management weighed all of it and made a decision. And the sensationalist taking heads of Boston Sports media chose to whisper rumours of discontent around the campfire.

I suspect what happened is that a few up the chain realized that they weren’t going to be able to make wholesale changes to the roster, but felt they needed to do “something” to attempt to avoid entering next season at a total status quo. They may have used some of the feedback they received from the players as justification for their decision to fire Cassidy.

Ultimately I think it was more of a PR play and they were taken aback when the fan response was mostly negative. And that the BS about it having anything to do with Bergeron not liking Cassidy is… bullshit

I don't know, seems like a lot of smoke. A lot.

And while I can't speak for everyone else, I personally haven't been paying much attention to the Boston Sports Media when it comes to this story, because I find very little value in it when it comes to Bruins coverage. I think a whole lot of people covering the Bruins are always trying to get hired by the Bruins. A lot of what I've seen is coming from outside Boston.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, but I'll say this: if Bergeron wanted Cassidy to remain the coach he'd still be the coach. They certainly wouldn't have fired him if they thought it hurt their chances to resign Bergeron.

 

[Number8]

The most damning thing about the Backes quotes weren’t that he thought he had his old game left in him, or that he thought he could adjust to what it seemed Cassidy wanted the team to be… it’s that Cassidy never talked with him about it. How a coach could leave a respected veteran of the league in the dark in terms of what the teams expectations were for him and what they hoped he could provide is a reeeealllly huge blindspot and hole in leadership. And Backes wasn’t alone in that critique.

As for everyone playing hard for him, he seemed to make it harder, not easier for them to do. It speaks to their professionalism, not his. If he made it easier for them to play hard maybe they’d have a little left in the tank against the Hawks, or game 7 against the Blues, or they wouldn’t have folded as often against the Canes

The problem I have with these arguments (Cassidy didn't treat an aging veteran the right way or the best way) is it ignores the central argument.

Why was Backes brought in in the first place and was it a good signing that addressed that need? And if not, do you really want your coach to have to take the time to continually address the difficult subject of "the game has passed you by"?

It was not a good signing -- it was an expensive, unproductive signing. One that saddled a coach with the "how do I treat an aging veteran with respect -- i.e. play him where and when he wants -- when he's a guy that should be in Providence?" Working on the power play -- no, today is tricky personnel management day. Again.

That's far less on the coach and almost exclusively on Management.

Of course management could also be brought up on charges of mental abuse. After the shit show that was the Backes contract they went and did it again. And wasn't one of Foligno's gripes that he doesn't think he suited for 4th line duty????? He of almost the first half of the season on the First PP?

Guys like Foligno and Backes are NOT the coaches problem.

 

[Over the volcano]

The problem I have with these arguments (Cassidy didn't treat an aging veteran the right way or the best way) is it ignores the central argument.

Why was Backes brought in in the first place and was it a good signing that addressed that need? And if not, do you really want your coach to have to take the time to continually address the difficult subject of "the game has passed you by"?

It was not a good signing -- it was an expensive, unproductive signing. One that saddled a coach with the "how do I treat an aging veteran with respect -- i.e. play him where and when he wants -- when he's a guy that should be in Providence?" Working on the power play -- no, today is tricky personnel management day. Again.

That's far less on the coach and almost exclusively on Management.

Of course management could also be brought up on charges of mental abuse. After the shit show that was the Backes contract they went and did it again. And wasn't one of Foligno's gripes that he doesn't think he suited for 4th line duty????? He of almost the first half of the season on the First PP?

Guys like Foligno and Backes are NOT the coaches problem.

I might give him a pass if it were just Backes - maybe then it’s a 50/50 issue about communication with a player. But we’re at the point where we need to decide how much smoke means there’s a fire.

If a coach can’t have a conversation with his players about how and when they will be used and what he needs from them then he’s just not doing his whole job. We can say those guys aren’t his problem, but if they’re on his roster then they are.

I’m also a little curious where all the good will towards Cassidy comes from other than people see propping him up him as another way to rip the front office.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I might give him a pass if it were just Backes - maybe then it’s a 50/50 issue about communication with a player. But we’re at the point where we need to decide how much smoke means there’s a fire.
If a coach can’t have a conversation with his players about how and when they will be used and what he needs from them then he’s just not doing his whole job. We can say those guys aren’t his problem, but if they’re on his roster then they are.
I’m also a little curious where all the good will towards Cassidy comes from other than people see propping him up him as another way to rip the front office.

Good point.

 

[finchster]

The problem I have with these arguments (Cassidy didn't treat an aging veteran the right way or the best way) is it ignores the central argument.

Why was Backes brought in in the first place and was it a good signing that addressed that need? And if not, do you really want your coach to have to take the time to continually address the difficult subject of "the game has passed you by"?

It was not a good signing -- it was an expensive, unproductive signing. One that saddled a coach with the "how do I treat an aging veteran with respect -- i.e. play him where and when he wants -- when he's a guy that should be in Providence?" Working on the power play -- no, today is tricky personnel management day. Again.

That's far less on the coach and almost exclusively on Management.

Of course management could also be brought up on charges of mental abuse. After the shit show that was the Backes contract they went and did it again. And wasn't one of Foligno's gripes that he doesn't think he suited for 4th line duty????? He of almost the first half of the season on the First PP?

Guys like Foligno and Backes are NOT the coaches problem.

Yeah, I don't really give a damn about what players with 20 points in 70 games or 13 points in 64 games say about the coach misusing them after they got powerplay time and didn't produce.

Backes played 37 games over two seasons after the cup final, and one would think Folingo might have a similar record.
Simply put, They were/are done as NHL hockey players.

We still have the 'brain trust' of Cam Neely who said he would pick Eichel over McDavid if he had the chance, that's all you need to know about the Bruins management.

 

[Spooner st]

I might give him a pass if it were just Backes - maybe then it’s a 50/50 issue about communication with a player. But we’re at the point where we need to decide how much smoke means there’s a fire.

If a coach can’t have a conversation with his players about how and when they will be used and what he needs from them then he’s just not doing his whole job. We can say those guys aren’t his problem, but if they’re on his roster then they are.

I’m also a little curious where all the good will towards Cassidy comes from other than people see propping him up him as another way to rip the front office.

The blame is on the coach for the mistake the GM made. Reading your opinion Sweeney has no blame at all...

 

[Spooner st]

Yeah, I don't really give a damn about what players with 20 points in 70 games or 13 points in 64 games say about the coach misusing them after they got powerplay time and didn't produce.

Backes played 37 games over two seasons after the cup final, and one would think Folingo might have a similar record.
Simply put, They were/are done as NHL hockey players.

We still have the 'brain trust' of Cam Neely who said he would pick Eichel over McDavid if he had the chance, that's all you need to know about the Bruins management.

But, but... the coach didn't communicate with the player... Cassidy never told Backes he needed to score goals and make plays. He was there for the leadership, players love him.

Just the fact Backes is on the ice the players play better. They lost G7 because Backes wasn't playing.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah, I don't really give a damn about what players with 20 points in 70 games or 13 points in 64 games say about the coach misusing them after they got powerplay time and didn't produce.
Backes played 37 games over two seasons after the cup final, and one would think Folingo might have a similar record.
Simply put, They were/are done as NHL hockey players.
We still have the 'brain trust' of Cam Neely who said he would pick Eichel over McDavid if he had the chance, that's all you need to know about the Bruins management.

How about Ron Hextall actually drafting Patrick Nolan instead of Cale Makar in 2017.

 

[BruinsNetwork]

I might give him a pass if it were just Backes - maybe then it’s a 50/50 issue about communication with a player. But we’re at the point where we need to decide how much smoke means there’s a fire.

If a coach can’t have a conversation with his players about how and when they will be used and what he needs from them then he’s just not doing his whole job. We can say those guys aren’t his problem, but if they’re on his roster then they are.

I’m also a little curious where all the good will towards Cassidy comes from other than people see propping him up him as another way to rip the front office.

Cassidy definitely deserves a lot of his good will, he’s earned it.

That said, you kinda answered the question in the last sentence— it’s a method of ripping the front office.

Cassidy was honest, candid, respectful and open to the media and fans at all times. He usually said the right things and he made a lot of writers’ jobs a little bit easier by doing so.

I don’t blame any of the writers for going on a crusade for him, but I do find it oddly negligent that almost no one is mentioning the fact that Kevin Weekes, the hottest insider in the NHL right now, reported that he talked to enough people in Boston who said the guys were just kinda over Bruce’s message.

Couple that with Ryan Whitney, host of the most player-oriented podcast on the planet, saying that he had heard players “hated” playing for Cassidy and it just seems weird for that not to be mentioned.

Obviously that’s not always a good barometer of what was actually happening in the locker room, but this isn’t Joey from Dorchester stirring the pot for clicks, it’s the most influential hockey podcast out there and one of the biggest, most connected reporters in the game saying this stuff.

Just seems really odd how that’s seemingly slipped through the cracks.

 

[Spooner st]

Cassidy definitely deserves a lot of his good will, he’s earned it.

That said, you kinda answered the question in the last sentence— it’s a method of ripping the front office.

Cassidy was honest, candid, respectful and open to the media and fans at all times. He usually said the right things and he made a lot of writers’ jobs a little bit easier by doing so.

I don’t blame any of the writers for going on a crusade for him, but I do find it oddly negligent that almost no one is mentioning the fact that Kevin Weekes, the hottest insider in the NHL right now, reported that he talked to enough people in Boston who said the guys were just kinda over Bruce’s message.

Couple that with Ryan Whitney, host of the most player-oriented podcast on the planet, saying that he had heard players “hated” playing for Cassidy and it just seems weird for that not to be mentioned.

Obviously that’s not always a good barometer of what was actually happening in the locker room, but this isn’t Joey from Dorchester stirring the pot for clicks, it’s the most influential hockey podcast out there and one of the biggest, most connected reporters in the game saying this stuff.

Just seems really odd how that’s seemingly slipped through the cracks.

That is a good post and you bring good points.

But, to be honest No one needs excuses or "methods " to rip the front office. There's plenty of material and evidence to rip them 3 life's over.

 

[GoBs]

How about Ron Hextall actually drafting Patrick Nolan instead of Cale Makar in 2017.

That has to hurt

 

[crimsonace]

How about Ron Hextall actually drafting Patrick Nolan instead of Cale Makar in 2017.

I remember Nolan Patrick being the consensus No. 1 in what was considered a very weak draft and it was a shock NJ picked Nico Hischier over him.

 

[Ladyfan]

I’m also a little curious where all the good will towards Cassidy comes from other than people see propping him up him as another way to rip the front office.

BINGO

 

[frankiess]

Cassidy definitely deserves a lot of his good will, he’s earned it.

That said, you kinda answered the question in the last sentence— it’s a method of ripping the front office.

Cassidy was honest, candid, respectful and open to the media and fans at all times. He usually said the right things and he made a lot of writers’ jobs a little bit easier by doing so.

I don’t blame any of the writers for going on a crusade for him, but I do find it oddly negligent that almost no one is mentioning the fact that Kevin Weekes, the hottest insider in the NHL right now, reported that he talked to enough people in Boston who said the guys were just kinda over Bruce’s message.

Couple that with Ryan Whitney, host of the most player-oriented podcast on the planet, saying that he had heard players “hated” playing for Cassidy and it just seems weird for that not to be mentioned.

Obviously that’s not always a good barometer of what was actually happening in the locker room, but this isn’t Joey from Dorchester stirring the pot for clicks, it’s the most influential hockey podcast out there and one of the biggest, most connected reporters in the game saying this stuff.

Just seems really odd how that’s seemingly slipped through the cracks.

How can one verify anything that Weekes or Whitney heard, as fact? ''heard'.' It's conjecture.

 

[everett rats]

I don't know, seems like a lot of smoke. A lot.

And while I can't speak for everyone else, I personally haven't been paying much attention to the Boston Sports Media when it comes to this story, because I find very little value in it when it comes to Bruins coverage. I think a whole lot of people covering the Bruins are always trying to get hired by the Bruins. A lot of what I've seen is coming from outside Boston.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, but I'll say this: if Bergeron wanted Cassidy to remain the coach he'd still be the coach. They certainly

wouldn't have fired him if they thought it hurt their chances to resign Bergeron.

There's no way Patricia anyone else on the team has any say and who the coaches or isn't if you think that's the case then you're wrongly mistaken