How different would the Bruins franchise be if they didn’t trade Joe Thornton in 2005?

[SeanMoneyHands]

And say they trade Bergeron instead? Do they still win the cup in 2011?

Click to read more...

 

[TossingPizzas]

Yes

 

[RussianShark]

I doubt Marco Sturm scores that OT winner in the Winter Classic for them. Seemed like a Sharks lifer.

 

[Crosby2010]

I think you might see a different reputation for Thornton come playoff time. They don't need to trade Bergeron either. But can you imagine him as the #2 centre on that team? That gives Thornton a ton of breathing room I think. Also, the Bruins are generally well managed and somewhere along the line they win a Cup I think. They still probably draft Marchand in 2006, he was a 3rd round pick. They still might even make the trade for Rask. They already had Thomas. So you've got Thornton, Bergeron and Krejci down the middle. Maybe one of them slides to the wing. Not sure if they still draft Lucic. But maybe they do, he was a 2nd round pick.

The key for me is do they sign Chara in 2006? Because that is the straw that stirs the drink for them in many ways. I think they still would want an elite d-man. Anyway, I think somewhere they still win a Cup, yes, with Thornton

 

[JianYang]

I think you might see a different reputation for Thornton come playoff time. They don't need to trade Bergeron either. But can you imagine him as the #2 centre on that team? That gives Thornton a ton of breathing room I think. Also, the Bruins are generally well managed and somewhere along the line they win a Cup I think. They still probably draft Marchand in 2006, he was a 3rd round pick. They still might even make the trade for Rask. They already had Thomas. So you've got Thornton, Bergeron and Krejci down the middle. Maybe one of them slides to the wing. Not sure if they still draft Lucic. But maybe they do, he was a 2nd round pick.

The key for me is do they sign Chara in 2006? Because that is the straw that stirs the drink for them in many ways. I think they still would want an elite d-man. Anyway, I think somewhere they still win a Cup, yes, with Thornton

Yeah, the question is whether they can still sign Chara because I assume Thornton had a larger cap hit than Bergeron at the time.

 

[Crosby2010]

Yeah, the question is whether they can still sign Chara because I assume Thornton had a larger cap hit than Bergeron at the time.

Or even the more important thing to do that could change history is go to the Senators and say "So, Wade Redden, yeah, he's NOT the defenseman you want to make sure you keep for the future. It's Chara." Do the Sens have a Cup even as quickly as 2007 if they do this?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

And say they trade Bergeron instead? Do they still win the cup in 2011?

why would they trade bergeron?

for a few years before the cup they had marc savard scoring in the top ten plus krejci emerging and they still kept bergeron

 

[Stephen]

In hindsight trading Joe Thornton was absolutely necessary for the Bruins culture shift and 2011 cup win to occur, not only because it gave them the cap space to go after Chara and Savard and shifted a strength and identity to D, but left enough of a gap in the room for some different kind of culture to grow in its place. That's what it looks like from the outside anyway.

Moving Thornton also upped the stakes for what it meant to be a Bruin. If Thornton could be traded. So could you. So could Kessel. So could Seguin. Not always the best hockey move on paper but it reinforced something. I don't think they would have ever figured it out if it was Thornton instead of Bergeron, and the status of Chara, etc. unknown.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

And say they trade Bergeron instead? Do they still win the cup in 2011?

No.

If Thornton stays they don't sign Chara. The big selling point for Chara was getting the C. That doesn't happen with Thornton still around.

Also they don't bottom out, don't dump MOC and don't push Sinden out the door. Which means it's doubtful they draft Marchand or Lucic in 2006. Nor do they add Seidenberg, Boychuk, Horton, Ference in trades. And probably keep Raycroft and keep riding him

Basically without the trade, the ceiling is being what the Sharks became. A perennial disappointment

 

[JianYang]

No.

If Thornton stays they don't sign Chara. The big selling point for Chara was getting the C. That doesn't happen with Thornton still around.

Also they don't bottom out, don't dump MOC and don't push Sinden out the door. Which means it's doubtful they draft Marchand or Lucic in 2006. Nor do they add Seidenberg, Boychuk, Horton, Ference in trades. And probably keep Raycroft and keep riding him

I've also heard of the C being a big deal for Chara. I wonder if that ever played into the decision for Ottawa when they had to choose between redden and Chara.

Ottawa was very clearly alfredsson's team and they had no reason to move him whereas boston already had bad blood with Thornton.

If the C situation was truly a dealbreaker for chara, i think ottawa would just have selected to retain redden by default.

 

[Voight]

I think you might see a different reputation for Thornton come playoff time. They don't need to trade Bergeron either. But can you imagine him as the #2 centre on that team? That gives Thornton a ton of breathing room I think. Also, the Bruins are generally well managed and somewhere along the line they win a Cup I think. They still probably draft Marchand in 2006, he was a 3rd round pick. They still might even make the trade for Rask. They already had Thomas. So you've got Thornton, Bergeron and Krejci down the middle. Maybe one of them slides to the wing. Not sure if they still draft Lucic. But maybe they do, he was a 2nd round pick.

The key for me is do they sign Chara in 2006? Because that is the straw that stirs the drink for them in many ways. I think they still would want an elite d-man. Anyway, I think somewhere they still win a Cup, yes, with Thornton

I believe the Thornton trade provided them with enough cap space to later sign Chara.

 

[MadLuke]

This seem to big of what if for my brain to run the simulation.

It is such a big piece Thornton instead of Chara, and maybe we romanticize the culture building (Kessel-Seguin will follow that path) but could have been true.

Who knows. In a world were free agency exist and a cap exist, a trade does not necessarily have to mean much, you create the market value space and will be able to fill it, it need to be either a bad contract for the player, bad free agency season, or limited by the cap.

 

[seventieslord]

By itself, the trade is seen as a bad trade, and rightly so. But some have already alluded to the culture change it ushered in, and the results are hard to argue with.

What Bruins fan would go back in time 18 years and stop them from making this trade? Are they sure that Boston would get a better result than one cup, three finals appearances, a record setting presidents trophy and a culture that is still the envy of the league at a time when just one player remains from the 2013 roster?

Me, I'm actually pretty sure the results would not be as good in this alternate reality.

 

[RR44]

Or even the more important thing to do that could change history is go to the Senators and say "So, Wade Redden, yeah, he's NOT the defenseman you want to make sure you keep for the future. It's Chara." Do the Sens have a Cup even as quickly as 2007 if they do this?

Redden at that time was arguably the better dman than Chara and Ottawa had to make a choice who to sign. What couldn't be foreseen by Ottawa was Redden's shocking decline. Chara I forgot had a 41 point season while 3rd in +/- and a Norris Trophy nomination with Ottawa so he was showing glimpses of the potential he eventually surpassed in Boston.

 

[RR44]

By itself, the trade is seen as a bad trade, and rightly so. But some have already alluded to the culture change it ushered in, and the results are hard to argue with.

What Bruins fan would go back in time 18 years and stop them from making this trade? Are they sure that Boston would get a better result than one cup, three finals appearances, a record setting presidents trophy and a culture that is still the envy of the league at a time when just one player remains from the 2013 roster?

Me, I'm actually pretty sure the results would not be as good in this alternate reality.

I believe Thornton was on his way out of Boston:

-contract talks stalling after the lockout was over...Boston eventually ponied up a 3 year, $20 million dollar deal

also some hard feelings lingered as Thornton was crucified by the media and Boston for his 2003-04 playoffs vs Montreal 0pts in a 7 game loss despite his torn rib cartilage he played through.

 

[Crosby2010]

Redden at that time was arguably the better dman than Chara and Ottawa had to make a choice who to sign. What couldn't be foreseen by Ottawa was Redden's shocking decline. Chara I forgot had a 41 point season while 3rd in +/- and a Norris Trophy nomination with Ottawa so he was showing glimpses of the potential he eventually surpassed in Boston.

Redden did have a good season in 2006 and had a better postseason than Chara who did not play well. We all know that hindsight is 20/20 and I don't think there was a player in NHL history who got more of the "Okay just wait he is finally reaching his potential" benefit of the doubt than Redden. To be fair though, 2004 and 2006 Chara was a 1st and 2nd team all-star, something Redden never was.

 

[MadLuke]

Chara was an all star that signed a 7.5 cap hit contract with Boston, a very small list of player was making more at the time, much bigger than what Redden got. I am not sure if GMs really considered Redden better that summer or just a bit cheaper in term and amount to sign. Ottawa was loaded talent wise and faced a significant cap limit issue.

He played 27:11 on his last Sens season (versus 23:28 for Redden), was around top 3 in norris the 2 previous season.

27:33 with Boston, Islanders->Senators Chara was a bit of a surprise, but Ottawa->Bruins it was already quite clear.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Chara was an all star that signed a 7.5 cap hit contract with Boston, a very small list of player was making more at the time, much bigger than what Redden got. I am not sure if GM really considered Redden better that summer or just a bit cheaper in term and amount to sign. Ottawa was loaded talent wise and faced a significant cap limit issue.

He played 27:11 on his last Sens season (versus 23:28 for Redden), was around top 3 in norris the 2 previous season.

27:33 with Boston, Islanders->Senators Chara was a bit of a surprise, but Ottawa->Bruins it was already quite clear.

Yeah the Chara going to Boston just went AS-1, AS-2, 2-4 in Norris the prior 2 seasons

I wonder how much Ottawa thought his style of play wouldn't survive the "new" NHL. Besides the savings I feel like they banked on high pace, high offense hockey taking hold and instead we had a 1 year outlier and then another DPE

 

[JianYang]

This seem to big of what if for my brain to run the simulation.

It is such a big piece Thornton instead of Chara, and maybe we romanticize the culture building (Kessel-Seguin will follow that path) but could have been true.

Who knows. In a world were free agency exist and a cap exist, a trade does not necessarily have to mean much, you create the market value space and will be able to fill it, it need to be either a bad contract for the player, bad free agency season, or limited by the cap.

It is a big what if (on paper) but I think the relationship had strained alot by the time he was traded. I do recall the 2004 playoffs where Thornton went pointless in 7 games, while playing with a rib injury.

He was getting criticized for his play and the organization didn't really back him up at the time. The relationship seemed strained and I suppose looking back, it was just a matter of that a big shakeup was to happen.

 

[overpass]

The Ottawa fans and media had some talking points about how Redden was a better fit for the new NHL than Chara, but I think it was basically cope. Chara was in higher demand around the league but Ottawa offered him the same number they offered Redden, I believe it was 6 million/year, which was clearly below market value. Chara's camp didn't respond, so the Sens focused on signing Redden.

There were a couple of other factors suggesting that Ottawa never really had a chance with Chara. For one, there was the Peter Chiarelli factor. Chiarelli was the assistant GM in Ottawa, and was hired by Boston to be their GM on May 26, 2006. But he was required to finish out his assistant GM responsibilities with the Sens until July 8. And Chara signed with the Bruins on July 1. Many people assumed Chiarelli had negotiated with Chara on behalf of Boston while still employed with Ottawa.

I've also heard that Chara was not impressed with the way the Sens treated fellow Slovak Marian Hossa, when they signed him and then traded him immediately to Atlanta. And if Chara wanted the C, the Sens would have to trade or Alfredsson or take the letter away from him. Which maybe wasn't out of the question at the time, as fans and media had questions about Alfie's leadership in that 2003-2006 time period, and he was the subject of several trade rumours.

That said, maybe the Sens could have had a chance with Chara if they came to the table offering superstar money right from the start, so there is a sense in that they chose Redden instead. But it was entirely because Redden was cheaper.

There was a goal in the 2006 series loss to Buffalo where Daniel Briere just blew past Chara, and many people saw that as the direction of the "new NHL", where speed beats out size. But I just went back and watched the highlights of that series, and man, Redden was on for a lot of goals against, and he didn't always look great on them either.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Almost for sure means they don’t have a Cup.

Thornton didn’t figure out what it took until it was too late.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Almost for sure means they don’t have a Cup.

Thornton didn’t figure out what it took until it was too late.

He never figured it out.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

In hindsight trading Joe Thornton was absolutely necessary for the Bruins culture shift and 2011 cup win to occur, not only because it gave them the cap space to go after Chara and Savard and shifted a strength and identity to D, but left enough of a gap in the room for some different kind of culture to grow in its place. That's what it looks like from the outside anyway.

Moving Thornton also upped the stakes for what it meant to be a Bruin. If Thornton could be traded. So could you. So could Kessel. So could Seguin. Not always the best hockey move on paper but it reinforced something. I don't think they would have ever figured it out if it was Thornton instead of Bergeron, and the status of Chara, etc. unknown.

Almost for sure means they don’t have a Cup.

Thornton didn’t figure out what it took until it was too late.

What evidence is there exactly to condemn Thornton as a leader?

Keep in mind the media spent pretty much a decade 2010-2020 pushing the idea that Thornton was a terrible captain and Toews was the ultimate leader... right up until we found out that behind the scenes Toews let his teammates down completely on something way more serious than hockey.

The only specific story Ive ever heard about Thorntons leadership was the "What is this the first hockey game youve ever lost?" story and quite frankly I think that could be the mark of a great leader depending on context.

 

[Gorskyontario]

What evidence is there exactly to condemn Thornton as a leader?

187 playoff games, 24 years of failures.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

187 playoff games, 24 years of failures.

Give me an example of Thorntons leadership style having anything to do with that. A specific example like a story about how he reacted to a loss or a teammates play. Anything. Weve discussed his just okay personal play enough times.

Having a roster that never peaked high enough isnt the same thing as not playing the game the right way.