Hard to believe it has been 5 years

[Artemis]

I actually feel similarly. But then I'd missed watching the broadcast as it happened (was listening to Gouch/Beers on my mobile... had to control myself standing in line at a movie theatre when Z scored the winner), and only viewed the incident later, after it had blown up and the rest of hockey world was treating Shawn like a leper. So I don't know if that's colored my view of it incontrovertibly.


Yes, like I said, he paid dearly for that. Obviously he shouldn't be a lineup regular here anymore, but it hurts to think this was one of the things that took him away from Boston.

I don't think that had anything to do with it. Thornton wasn't offered a contract because he was an aging fourth-line player who could be replaced by a younger/cheaper option.

I was glad for him that he got a good deal in Florida, but the consensus around the NHL was that it was a vast overpayment. There's no way the Bruins were going to match it.

 

[chicoutimicucumber]

I don't think that had anything to do with it. Thornton wasn't offered a contract because he was an aging fourth-line player who could be replaced by a younger/cheaper option.

I was glad for him that he got a good deal in Florida, but the consensus around the NHL was that it was a vast overpayment. There's no way the Bruins were going to match it.

Fair enough. No doubt actual decline in play plus the cap situation were the determining factors. Would make sense to say the need to restructure the fourth line in response to what’s happening around the league played a role too, though I think management hasn’t quite figured out what they want to do there (may depend on how Talbot turns out now). That this one situation where the actual enforcing part of an enforcer’s role blew up so spectacularly in their faces may have added to the sense that adaptation is needed (judging by the fact that, Bobby Ryans notwithstanding, they have not found a replacement for an enforcer on the team).

I don’t know. I’m just speculating (and rambling a bit).

 

[Artemis]

Fair enough. No doubt actual decline in play plus the cap situation were the determining factors. Would make sense to say the need to restructure the fourth line in response to what’s happening around the league played a role too, though I think management hasn’t quite figured out what they want to do there. That this one situation where the actual enforcing part of an enforcer’s role blew up so spectacularly in their faces may have added to the sense that adaptation is needed (judging by the fact that, Bobby Ryans notwithstanding, they have not found a replacement for an enforcer on the team).

I don’t know. I’m just speculating (and rambling a bit).

From everything I've heard, the Bruins staff all love and respect Thornton, and nothing changed that. Not re-signing him was purely a business decision.

 

[chicoutimicucumber]

From everything I've heard, the Bruins staff all love and respect Thornton, and nothing changed that. Not re-signing him was purely a business decision.

Oh, not arguing that it changed things personally at all. Speculation was whether it was a strategic--in addition to business--decision. I could be completely wrong though.