Sportsnet Steve Dangle: How both Boston and San Jose won the Joe Thornton trade

ranold26

Tuukka likes the post...
May 28, 2003
21,484
6,901
I was one of the very few on here that liked the deal at the time and I'll say now say what I said then; Joe Thornton will never win a cup.
That said, I would have liked the Bruins getting him back at the trade deadline a a depth/PP guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gator Mike

Bruinaura

Resident Cookie Monster
Mar 29, 2014
46,360
90,595
What would it have looked like if they traded Bergeron instead of Thornton? :eek2:
 

TD Charlie

Registered User
Sep 10, 2007
36,266
16,113
No. Just f***ing no. While it may have ultimately worked out for the Bruins, the return for a top asset was major f***ing bullshit. So I'd say if anything, that trade worked out despite the Bruins starting off in a giant hole they dug themselves. This constant need to prove it was a good move says exactly what it really was: A horrendous trade that the team was able to overcome.

the return was poor, but eventually it worked out alright for Boston.

That’s all i care about i guess. Whether anybody says they won or lost a trade doesn’t matter to me. It’s been so long too
 

Number8

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
17,840
16,605
No. Just f***ing no. While it may have ultimately worked out for the Bruins, the return for a top asset was major f***ing bullshit. So I'd say if anything, that trade worked out despite the Bruins starting off in a giant hole they dug themselves. This constant need to prove it was a good move says exactly what it really was: A horrendous trade that the team was able to overcome.
Couldn't agree more. It would be like me dropping a 200 pound rock on my big toe. The toe is so crushed it has to be amputated. During the time I'm recuperating I learn to play the guitar -- something that gives me great joy. After the fact I decide that because I can now play the guitar, my toe getting amputated was the best thing that ever happened to me?!?!?!?!

It was a shitty shitty trade return. The fact that B's managed to put it back together and succeed after the fact doesn't change the fact that B's braintrust was really really callous with that rock.
 

KrejciMVP

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
28,422
9,964
Tampa, Florida
Habs are winning all their trades but are still dreadful and irrelevant Forever.

Bruins could definitely have gotten more for Thornton. But he had to go and it turned out great for the Bruins so I don’t care about the return anymore.

Just like that 3-0 3-0 loss to the Flyers. Paved the way to the Cup the next year so not mad about that anymore.

Butterfly effect. What if they had a better return for Thornton? Would they have won more Cups, the same or 0? We’ll never know.

One thing is certain, we are very lucky to be Bruins fans since that Chara-Bergeron reunion. Not looking like declining soon with Pasta and plethora of young kids on deck.

We won a cup in 2011 so nobody really stresses about that trade anymore, kind of like the red sox fans stopped talking about Babe Ruth after 04 ( I know Joe Thornton is not babe ruth)

no titles, different conversations
 

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,474
21,968
Central MA
Couldn't agree more. It would be like me dropping a 200 pound rock on my big toe. The toe is so crushed it has to be amputated. During the time I'm recuperating I learn to play the guitar -- something that gives me great joy. After the fact I decide that because I can now play the guitar, my toe getting amputated was the best thing that ever happened to me?!?!?!?!

It was a shitty shitty trade return. The fact that B's managed to put it back together and succeed after the fact doesn't change the fact that B's braintrust was really really callous with that rock.

This is exactly correct. It's not that they eventually won a cup after this move, it's that they won DESPITE this absolute piece of shit deal.
 

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,474
21,968
Central MA
We won a cup in 2011 so nobody really stresses about that trade anymore, kind of like the red sox fans stopped talking about Babe Ruth after 04 ( I know Joe Thornton is not babe ruth)

no titles, different conversations

But the cup win doesn't make a bad deal any more palatable. All it means is that they were able to win despite the sub par return.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrejciMVP

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,474
21,968
Central MA
the return was poor, but eventually it worked out alright for Boston.

That’s all i care about i guess. Whether anybody says they won or lost a trade doesn’t matter to me. It’s been so long too

Sure, but the counter to that is maybe they win earlier if the return is even halfway decent. Or maybe they win multiple cups. The long and short of it is that these two things are not mutually exclusive. It's not like in order to win a cup, they had to deal Thornton for way less than market value and that was the only possible way, you know?
 

KrejciMVP

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
28,422
9,964
Tampa, Florida
But the cup win doesn't make a bad deal any more palatable. All it means is that they were able to win despite the sub par return.

Marleau should have been the return, I remember the night he was traded, it was a rushed reactionary move after a last second loss to NJ during a rough start to the season. I called Dale Arnold to complain but he praised ownership
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,474
21,968
Central MA
Marleau should have been the return, I remember the night he was traded, it was a rushed reactionary move after a last second loss to NJ during a rough start to the season. I called Dale Arnold to complain buy he praised ownership

Well it's just like looking at the Seguin deal and saying if they were going to move him, they should have gotten Benn back. It's not wrong, but the only reason the Sharks and the Stars did those moves is because they got the better player in the move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrejciMVP

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,474
21,968
Central MA
I have a question for the "it's okay they got a shit return because they went on to win a cup after Thornton was traded (yeah a short 6 years later, BTW)". If the cup win in 11 makes it okay, does that mean that Peter Chiarelli's brutalizing of the cap here, and his stripping the roster of key offensive players is okay because they were able to fire him and get back to the finals after they fired PC?

It's just such flawed logic because Sweeney got the issues fixed and got the roster fixed, but he had to overcome the f***ing insanity of PC's last few years here. So the team has been successful despite the f*** ups by prior management, no? Same thing with Thornton. The trade didn't make them win a cup. In fact, it likely impeded those efforts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Make-Believe

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,775
10,836
What was Thornton's contract like back then? People always say it cleared space for Chara and Savard, but what if we had Thornton instead of Savard and still signed Chara?

Thornton
Krejci
Bergeron

Down the middle for a while would have been something else.
 

RoccoF14

Registered User
Mar 1, 2016
5,390
7,999
Chicago, IL
No. Just f***ing no. While it may have ultimately worked out for the Bruins, the return for a top asset was major f***ing bullshit. So I'd say if anything, that trade worked out despite the Bruins starting off in a giant hole they dug themselves. This constant need to prove it was a good move says exactly what it really was: A horrendous trade that the team was able to overcome.

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

LSCII

Cup driven
Mar 1, 2002
50,474
21,968
Central MA
What was Thornton's contract like back then? People always say it cleared space for Chara and Savard, but what if we had Thornton instead of Savard and still signed Chara?

Thornton
Krejci
Bergeron

Down the middle for a while would have been something else.

He had just signed a 3 year, big dollar value extension in August 05. 3 years, $20mill overall. Then he was traded in November. The f***ing ink hadn't even dried on the paperwork before they wanted to get out from under it. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: danpantz

danpantz

Registered User
Mar 31, 2013
7,775
10,836
He had just signed a 3 year, big dollar value extension in August 05. 3 years, $20mill overall. Then he was traded in November. The f***ing ink hadn't even dried on the paperwork before they wanted to get out from under it. :laugh:

Jacob$
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

TD Charlie

Registered User
Sep 10, 2007
36,266
16,113
Sure, but the counter to that is maybe they win earlier if the return is even halfway decent. Or maybe they win multiple cups. The long and short of it is that these two things are not mutually exclusive. It's not like in order to win a cup, they had to deal Thornton for way less than market value and that was the only possible way, you know?

all of this is true. Maybe if the return was Marleau then he doesn’t fit with the team or Chara/Savard don’t end up in Boston. Maybe certain changes aren’t made to management and coaching staff.

it’s all a giant what if with a million moving parts

all we know is that the return was swamp ass lol, but eventually (through some shrewd moves post shit trade and some luck!) it worked out to be forgivable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

Dicky113

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
4,393
3,251
the return was poor, but eventually it worked out alright for Boston.

That’s all i care about i guess. Whether anybody says they won or lost a trade doesn’t matter to me. It’s been so long too
Or maybe Boston wins 3 cups if they didn’t make/pooch that trade... the “it worked out” argument is pretty irrelevant when looking at the trade to me
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
What was Thornton's contract like back then? People always say it cleared space for Chara and Savard, but what if we had Thornton instead of Savard and still signed Chara?

Thornton
Krejci
Bergeron

Down the middle for a while would have been something else.

I always looked at Savard as the Thornton replacement. Even had they kept Thornton I still think they would of made an offer to Chara. But that offer would of came from MOC/Sinden, which meant it would of never been accepted by Chara's camp.

The best part of the Thornton deal, by far, was it was the beginning of the end for the MOC/Sinden regime. Without that deal and the subsequent bottoming out that followed it, who knows how much longer MOC/Sinden would of been running the Bruins into the ground.
 

TD Charlie

Registered User
Sep 10, 2007
36,266
16,113
Or maybe Boston wins 3 cups if they didn’t make/pooch that trade... the “it worked out” argument is pretty irrelevant when looking at the trade to me

as opposed to the “maybe” argument?

they won a cup. Guaranteed. It happened and can’t be argued. I’ll take the 1 guarantee over “maybe”
 

PB37

Mr Selke
Oct 1, 2002
25,297
19,299
Maine
If Brad Stuart had progressed to be the number 1 dman he should have been, it would have been alright. It worked out in the long run for the Bruins though. Sometimes shitty things need to happen to make room for the good.
 

dafoomie

Registered User
Jul 22, 2005
14,772
1,500
Boston
When you diminish how awful the trade was, you diminish how remarkable their pivot was that offseason. In one year they went from being a team that every over the hill big name would turn down to take less money, to signing two of the best free agents of the decade. At that year's draft they took 3 great players and traded for Tuukka Rask. In the following year they'd find their coach and bring in the right veterans to build a functional team.

You have to remember that Sturm, Stuart, and Primeau were all 18 months from unrestricted free agency at the time of the trade. Think of three comparable players today who will hit the market in 2022, and think of Buffalo trading Eichel for them in December.
 

Smitty93

Registered User
Dec 6, 2012
8,196
9,361
No. Just f***ing no. While it may have ultimately worked out for the Bruins, the return for a top asset was major f***ing bullshit. So I'd say if anything, that trade worked out despite the Bruins starting off in a giant hole they dug themselves. This constant need to prove it was a good move says exactly what it really was: A horrendous trade that the team was able to overcome.

It's that age old question: do the ends justify the means? The problem with a positive result from a bad decision is that it suddenly makes you think that bad strategy was actually good. You believe that you don't have to make any changes, so you continue the same behavior, which then hurts you in the future. It's why I believe self-evaluation is the most important thing for management groups. Know where your biases are, so you can work against them.

My fear with this team is that they've shown a propensity for thinking they're the smartest person in the room, and that is dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII

CharaBadSenyshynGawd

Registered User
Jun 18, 2017
1,219
1,163
Wish we had traded Marco Sturm for a 7th rounder in 2045 so we could get a few more decades of Thornton trade analysis while we wait and see how that 7th rounder turns out
 

PatriceBergeronFan

Registered User
Jul 15, 2011
59,139
36,522
USA
He isn't wrong. It was a better trade than the farce of a Seguin trade return.

And it absolutely paid off by adding Chara and Savard.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->