Discussion in 'Boston Bruins' started by Gator Mike, Sep 6, 2019.
one for each of them
Charlie "1/6th in charge" Jacobs
Back on topic
As long as Charlie is calling the shots I’m good
He wants to win as much as anyone here
Jeremy's face would be a perfect Halloween mask.
One thing I’ve never understood.
“He didn’t want to win, he wanted to make money”
A. Duh. It’s a business, not a charity.
B. How is it a one thing or the other proposition? Success breeds money in this business with everyone except dumb leaf fans who toss their jerseys on the ice and then run to the pro shop for a new one.
It's more sensible today in the salary cap era, but in the days with no cap, there were owners who were less willing to cut big checks on long term contracts.
I read a report a few years ago the the Houston Astros had the lowest team payroll yet the highest profit margin, as there is no cap in baseball. All while losing over 100 games.
I think it is safe to say that winning (and by winning I mean championships, not just winning records) means a lot more money for the owner than just making the playoffs. My problem with JJ is that pre-cap era he would not make that additional investment to enable his franchise to win the Cup. Yes, Sinden was in charge but the buck stopped with JJ- he was the owner, he could have instructed Sinden to spend more money to get those one or two players that would have gotten them over the hump but he never did. Sinden did a remarkable job for the most part but Boston never had the horses to be a serious & consistent Cup winning threat. Then there was the lockout debacle...
I hope the family is tight and have common purpose.
A lot could go wrong by splitting majority share six ways. It would only take one or two of the siblings going rogue to sell to turn over control to an aggressive minority shareholder, and then you don't know what you're going to get.
I feel like things would go a lot more smoothly if he just turned it all over to Charlie with the expectation that he'd take care of his siblings.
Somehow these 2 points don't jive.
One of worst owners in sport, but team is always a player away. Always being one player away implies to me that the team was always very good.
This line of thought always confounded me. Why would a guy that knows how to make money hand over fist not try to win the Cup when its always so close? Winning the Cup is a gold mine for ticket sales and merchandising.
JJ has gotten way too much hate throughout the years. He's probably one of the primary reasons the NHL stayed solvent and didn't contract a few franchises around the 2004-05 lockout. And obviously we just hated that he wasn't throwing monopoly money around to sign superstars like the Rangers and Red Wings when we were constantly one or two players away from contention in the 90s.
The tightfistedness should be more on Harry Sinden anyway. JJ has been a relatively hands-off owner for the most part. I'm sure he gave Sinden a personnel budget and it was Harry who decided to be a massive scrooge in negotiations because it was always 1971 in his eyes. The only time I really remember Jacobs meddling and affecting the on-ice product was the Marty Lapointe signing, which was a direct response to an insult from Mike Ilitch.
Spend the cap and I'm happy.
Merchandising wasn't as big until the mid nineties, NHL profits were based on ticket sales, parking and concessions. If you could put out a team that was a couple players short, or just one, and save that salary but make the same money, why spend money on that player. You are sold out and making the playoffs, winning the cup or making the final amde similar money, if you could do it cheap and not add a player and pocket the money you did it. JJ sure did.
Want some examples?
That is just off the top of my head.
Mike Illitch calling the way JJ ran the bruins a disgrace.
I can't find a source for the quote but I always recall JJ saying winning a cup cost to much.
You are trying to defend someone who was indefensible (unless you were an investor and hated the Bruins) throughout the late 70's, 80's and 90's and the early 200's until the salary cap. If there was no cap this team would be totally irrelevant while the Rangers, Red Wings, Leafs and now Blackhawks without Wirtz won year after year by spending. Look up salaries in those years and see where the Bruins were.
Even Dale Arnold, who acts like he desperately wanted to be Jacobs child 7, didn't defend him with the vigor he normally does, saying what amounted for Dale to a scathing criticism of "they could spend more money"
Leafs? The LEAFS!!?? Win "year after year"? The Leafs couldn't win in the no cap era in the high flying 80s.
Go home Fenian. You're drunk.
The Leafs, without Ballard and with the money they make they would have been top contenders year after year. Yes you need good management but you need good ownership first, that wasn't Harold Ballard, with ownership straightened out and no cap they Leafs I believe would be perpetual contenders and have won a Cup or two. The Bruins, with Jacobs and no cap, would not, unless he sold.
Yes, changing reality will always prove your argument.
Better training and skill and size and I would of been the Heavyweight champion of the world
But that is the point. You are posing hypotheticals that can’t be proven to further your hatred of Jacobs.
The way Jacobs ran this team, that coincided with my whole time as a fan of them, is reason enough to hate him. I still say without a cap JJ stays the same and the Bruins don't win a Cup. there was no proof at any point he had interest in winning one until the bottom fell out on attendance.
Again. A hypothetical that didn’t happen that you can’t prove. I am not defending the guy but you are just making stuff up.
The Leafs? Yeesh
It's a ******* hypothetical, what isn't is how this team was run until the salary cap era.
Bill Guerin's a good example. He helped Boston to an NQP and a one & done in his 2 seasons. His 2001 salary was pretty steep. Bruins didn't re-sign him. Cheap bastards.
Guerin signed with Dallas in 2003. The bolded below was his salary, the total to the far right is what that would be in today's dollars. Dallas bought him out after 2006.
2001-02$5,100,000$7,213,7212002-03$8,732,891$12,160,0292003-04$8,866,445$12,070,8942004-05Lockout year: Season cancelled - no NHL salary paid.2005-06$6,738,498$8,935,912
Good illustration of how acquiring one good player guarantees nothing.
Also a good example of why the lockout was necessary. Guerin was only the 13th highest paid player when he signed that contract with Dallas.
Glad you agree
And here I am thinking I was next in line.