I'm not sure those comments can be construed as running him out of town and what's to say they aren't just more comments trying to get him on the right side of the edge.
They've looked into moving him in the past. Good players get traded.
None of this suggests the bruins would want to get rid of him anyways. Moreso they want him to get his game in check.
Even if they traded him what makes them any less likely to acquire another skilled player in his place. Seems like you're trying to make a connection that just isn't there. Seems you're trying to create a narrative that the bruins sell every skilled young player they've ever had and that they do so while replacing them with non skilled bruisers.
I don't see that.
I actually agreed with pretty much everything you said until the bolded when you started putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say once that the Bruins replaced their skill guys with unskilled bruisers? Did I even say that they have any unskilled bruisers to begin with?
That's just 'off' to me because at what point does a player fit the "Boston Model"? If guys like Burrows are referred to as "skill" players, and Krejci exists well in that environment - then what is a Boston type player?
This is exactly why Im confused as hell as to what the "Boston Model" actually is. I dont think Bruins management even knows.
Even a 2way pest like Marchand is "skill guy", and so does not fit the Model definition you have put forth. Meaning, he is another player that does not fit the "Boston Model" to you, yet has been a key cog in that environment for years.
What is the "Boston Model" I have put forth? Im dying to know since I just stated I dont know what the hell it is
The one consistency I know about how the Bruins have recently managed their teams is that when they see something they dont like in a young player, they trade them and try to make it work with a different player rather than work through those issues.
What does this mean? Where is your "line", and how does it differ? Your line has defined Burrows and Marchand as "skill players", something that is the antithesis of what Boston promotes (your assertion), but Marchand is a key figure in the BOS team identity and Burrows is often regarded as the 2way/hard working compliment to the 'skilled' twins.
There doesn't seem to be a clear definition here.
Actually, I said Burrows' skills are not his defining trait, but alright.
My quote when you asked me if Burrows is a skill player:
I dont think its necessarily his defining trait but he is certainly a skilled player
I dont get what the issue is with that. Do you not think Burrows is a skilled player? Everyone knows his defining traits are his hard work and 2 way play. I didnt think that needed to be stated.
I think its important to recognize I called Burrows a "skilled player" not a "skill player." Saying "skill player" implies
that is what they are, while saying a player is "skilled" implies
a certain trait about their game.
Anyway as far as the whole "line" thing:
When I say that my line isnt in the same place as Boston management, what I mean is that I would never be one to trade a player like Tyler Seguin in the same way that they did.
Obviously they felt that Seguin's issues were so massive that they couldn't ever be solved or worked out to a point that they could go on doing business together. This concept is crazy to me considering Seguin was a 21 year old who just led their team in scoring. If he was a replaceable bottom 6 guy, sure. Ship him outta town, not worth the trouble.
But when you have a truly special player like TS you dont just give up on him at age 21 for not living up to your wet dream of him becoming the next Patrick Kane. So to answer the "line" thing: My "line" with young, skilled players would be more patient than the Bruins "line" with young, skilled players.
I don't get it
