The Biggest What If?

[Stone Clode]

****DISCLAIMER**** This is purely HYPOTHETICAL. This is NOT a "Who cares, what happened, happened" thread. I want to keep the topic of the discussion to this. JUST. FOR. FUN. Just play along. If you don't want to, for the sake of a fun discussion, please don't bother participating. This wasn't meant to just dispel any hypotheticals for pure reality. That's what every other thread is for.

Thank you,
NB



We are in the last days of the offseason folks, as captain's practice is nearly upon us. I just want to take one last trip down memory lane before be get back to the reality of the upcoming season. Bare with me for this one, folks.

On March 7, 2010, the state of the Bruins franchise was altered. In the offensive zone at 5:40 remaining in the 3rd period, Matt Cooke made contact with Marc Savard's head in a devastating hit that effectively ended Savard's career. He made a dramatic comeback in Game 1 of the 2010 playoffs against the Philadelphia Flyers with an overtime winner, and started to play again in 2011, the year of the Stanley Cup, but a second hit took him out of the game for good, as he has not touched the ice for an NHL game since. At the time of the hit, he had 33 points in 41 games, and led the team the year before in scoring with 88 points.


The injury of Marc Savard left the offensively scarce Bruins team without their most potent weapon, yet fell just 1 game short of the Eastern Conference finals in that season. It also paved the way for David Krejci to shift up into the number 1 offensive center role, splitting the number 1 overall role with Patrice Bergeron. Even with Savard, the offense just could not get it done, finishing dead last in the NHL in goals per game in the 09-10 season. In the series against Philadelphia, Savard did return, however it was clear he was not close to 100%, and some speculate he did return too early. With the loss of David Krejci as well in that series, the Bruins were doomed, blowing a 3-0 series lead.


And with that, history changed...

The Boston Bruins drafted with the 2nd overall pick Tyler Seguin of the Plymouth Whalers, and was one of the higher touted kids in years, sparking the Taylor/Tyler debate for the number 1 pick that year. Seguin stepped into the team right away, learning the game while spending time on the third line, and eventually providing a big moment with a 5 point game in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals that year against the Tampa Bay Lightning. You know the res of this narrative...


Back now to Savard. I bring up the question of: What if? What if Marc Savard never got concussed? You head into that playoffs with a healthy Savard. What happens if the Bruins, fully healthy, knock out the Flyers? You move into the next year, and suppose that Tyler Seguin still cracks the team's lineup. You now have Tyler Seguin with David Krejci or potentially Marc Savard as his pivot, as opposed to Rich Peverley. Does it change the development/outlook of Seguin's career here in Boston? Do the Boston Bruins move forward with a three-center outlook of Savard/Krejci/Bergeron, or does Krejci become the odd-man out salary wise? Assuming Nathan Horton still comes to town, what happens then? Do we see a deadline move for impactful playoff guys like Peverley and Kelly?


Marc Savard's injury was a blessing and a curse for this Bruins team. His injury forced PC to show his hand and make some moves. Crucial movies that structured this team to win a Stanley Cup the following season, and make 2 Cup Finals in 3 years. The roster looks much different today than it did on that fateful day. But the question is, where would the Boston Bruins be today if that Marc Savard injury never occurred? Would they be better off? Would Tyler Seguin still be in the fold? What about David Krejci, or Chris Kelly, or Rich Peverley? Would they have competed for the Cup in 2011?


I am just curious to see HF's opinion on this. Where do you stand in regards to this situation. Marc Savard's injury was very crucially a turning point for this team, and is a large factor for why the roster is constructed the way it is today (obviously not entirely, or the sole reason, but you get my point).


I am just wanting to play the hindsight game for fun. I am not saying anybody is right or wrong in this situation, but more just to spark some stimulating discussion. The idea for this was sparked by Bill Simmons' The Book of Basketball. There is an entire section of the book dedicated to the what ifs of the history of basketball, and I felt it would be interesting to apply it here.

Have at it, folks.

Click to read more...

 

[BNHL]

I personally think that Marc Savard was beginning his decline and I would have been looking to deal him.

 

[LouJersey]

We are in the last days of the offseason folks, as captain's practice is nearly upon us. I just want to take one last trip down memory lane before be get back to the reality of the upcoming season. Bare with me for this one, folks.

On March 7, 2010, the state of the Bruins franchise was altered. In the offensive zone at 5:40 remaining in the 3rd period, Matt Cooke made contact with Marc Savard's head in a devastating hit that effectively ended Savard's career. He made a dramatic comeback in Game 1 of the 2010 playoffs against the Philadelphia Flyers with an overtime winner, and started to play again in 2011, the year of the Stanley Cup, but a second hit took him out of the game for good, as he has not touched the ice for an NHL game since. At the time of the hit, he had 33 points in 41 games, and led the team the year before in scoring with 88 points.


The injury of Marc Savard left the offensively scarce Bruins team without their most potent weapon, yet fell just 1 game short of the Eastern Conference finals in that season. It also paved the way for David Krejci to shift up into the number 1 offensive center role, splitting the number 1 overall role with Patrice Bergeron. Even with Savard, the offense just could not get it done, finishing dead last in the NHL in goals per game in the 09-10 season. In the series against Philadelphia, Savard did return, however it was clear he was not close to 100%, and some speculate he did return too early. With the loss of David Krejci as well in that series, the Bruins were doomed, blowing a 3-0 series lead.


And with that, history changed...

The Boston Bruins drafted with the 2nd overall pick Tyler Seguin of the Plymouth Whalers, and was one of the higher touted kids in years, sparking the Taylor/Tyler debate for the number 1 pick that year. Seguin stepped into the team right away, learning the game while spending time on the third line, and eventually providing a big moment with a 5 point game in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals that year against the Tampa Bay Lightning. You know the res of this narrative...


Back now to Savard. I bring up the question of: What if? What if Marc Savard never got concussed? You head into that playoffs with a healthy Savard. What happens if the Bruins, fully healthy, knock out the Flyers? You move into the next year, and suppose that Tyler Seguin still cracks the team's lineup. You now have Tyler Seguin with David Krejci or potentially Marc Savard as his pivot, as opposed to Rich Peverley. Does it change the development/outlook of Seguin's career here in Boston? Do the Boston Bruins move forward with a three-center outlook of Savard/Krejci/Bergeron, or does Krejci become the odd-man out salary wise? Assuming Nathan Horton still comes to town, what happens then? Do we see a deadline move for impactful playoff guys like Peverley and Kelly?


Marc Savard's injury was a blessing and a curse for this Bruins team. His injury forced PC to show his hand and make some moves. Crucial movies that structured this team to win a Stanley Cup the following season, and make 2 Cup Finals in 3 years. The roster looks much different today than it did on that fateful day. But the question is, where would the Boston Bruins be today if that Marc Savard injury never occurred? Would they be better off? Would Tyler Seguin still be in the fold? What about David Krejci, or Chris Kelly, or Rich Peverley? Would they have competed for the Cup in 2011?


I am just curious to see HF's opinion on this. Where do you stand in regards to this situation. Marc Savard's injury was very crucially a turning point for this team, and is a large factor for why the roster is constructed the way it is today (obviously not entirely, or the sole reason, but you get my point).


I am just wanting to play the hindsight game for fun. I am not saying anybody is right or wrong in this situation, but more just to spark some stimulating discussion. The idea for this was sparked by Bill Simmons' The Book of Basketball. There is an entire section of the book dedicated to the what ifs of the history of basketball, and I felt it would be interesting to apply it here.

Have at it, folks.

You don't beat the Habs in 2011 without Peverley and Kelly , so no Cup,, healthy Savard or not IMO...

Habs shut down the Bruins top line pretty good that series..third line went 6-8-14 ....

 

[smithformeragent]

Who the heck knows?

It's hockey.

Maybe they get past the Flyers in '10 and beat the Canadiens and lose in the finals to Chicago.
Maybe they lose to Montreal
Maybe they beat Chicago.

Maybe they win 3 cups in a row.

 

[member 96824]

Too soon.

 

[Stone Clode]

Who the heck knows?

It's hockey.

Maybe they get past the Flyers in '10 and beat the Canadiens and lose in the finals to Chicago.
Maybe they lose to Montreal
Maybe they beat Chicago.

Maybe they win 3 cups in a row.

Thanks for the enthusiasm. Its all just hypothetical. Do you feel the team was better with Savard or without? Just have fun with it.

And to Brad, you're avatar sparked my thought as well. So I'm sorry...but its all your fault.

 

[Shaun]

a healthy savard feeding seguin would have led to 3 straight cups.

 

[Artemis]

On the one hand, speculation is interesting, especially historical. What if the Nazis hadn't invaded the Soviet Union? What if JFK hadn't been assassinated? What if the Army of Northern Virginia had been supplied with AK-47s by time-traveling South Afrikaners?

But the "what if" game in sports is something I have trouble with, perhaps because the variables are so random. In your scenario, we could wonder what if the Oilers chose Seguin? What if Toronto's pick was #4 instead of #2?

You could play "what if?" on any Cup run. What if Vancouver doesn't get that wierd bounce in 2011 to beat Chicago? What if Horton misses the net in Game 7 OT vs. Montreal?

I dunno, in historical discussions, "what if" seems to be more of an intellectual exercise, whereas in sports it's more a Chris Farley "that was (would have been) awesome" outlook. But maybe (probably) that's just me.

 

[Kaoz*]

You don't beat the Habs in 2011 without Peverley and Kelly , so no Cup,, healthy Savard or not IMO...

Habs shut down the Bruins top line pretty good that series..third line went 6-8-14 ....

Marc Savard was a Habs killer. Think he had better then a PPG versus them over his career.

With him, perhaps that first line doesn't struggle nearly as much as it did (does?) against the Habs.

 

[Stone Clode]

On the one hand, speculation is interesting, especially historical. What if the Nazis hadn't invaded the Soviet Union? What if JFK hadn't been assassinated? What if the Army of Northern Virginia had been supplied with AK-47s by time-traveling South Afrikaners?

But the "what if" game in sports is something I have trouble with, perhaps because the variables are so random. In your scenario, we could wonder what if the Oilers chose Seguin? What if Toronto's pick was #4 instead of #2?

You could play "what if?" on any Cup run. What if Vancouver doesn't get that wierd bounce in 2011 to beat Chicago? What if Horton misses the net in Game 7 OT vs. Montreal?

I dunno, in historical discussions, "what if" seems to be more of an intellectual exercise, whereas in sports it's more a Chris Farley "that was (would have been) awesome" outlook. But maybe (probably) that's just me.

I understand exactly what you are saying here. And to an extent, you are certainly correct. But what if you took out all of the other variables and looked solely at the Bruins having Savard as opposed to not having him. When looking at historical examples, the tendency is to do that as well. "If the Nazis didn't invade Russia, and found ways to fully attack Britain instead, etc". There are infinite number of ways to break down those scenarios as well ad nauseum. Maybe I expanded the thought process a bit too much and should have simply narrowed it to, what if Savard were never got hurt. How would the team look now? Everything past the injury point is blurry. What happens if that never happens?

 

[Artemis]

I understand exactly what you are saying here. And to an extent, you are certainly correct. But what if you took out all of the other variables and looked solely at the Bruins having Savard as opposed to not having him. When looking at historical examples, the tendency is to do that as well. "If the Nazis didn't invade Russia, and found ways to fully attack Britain instead, etc". There are infinite number of ways to break down those scenarios as well ad nauseum. Maybe I expanded the thought process a bit too much and should have simply narrowed it to, what if Savard were never got hurt. How would the team look now? Everything past the injury point is blurry. What happens if that never happens?

Yeah, narrowing the parameters would probably help. Just Savard getting hurt knocks over a lot of dominoes - adding in other variables makes the possible scenarios multiply like Tribbles.

It's an emotional venture as well, and I imagine something poor Savvy has lived in his head a million times over.

If he hadn't gotten hurt, the Bruins certainly would have had a much better chance at the Cup in 2010, that much is certain. I can't say they would have won, though, as his (and Krejci's) were far from the only injuries.

As for further down the road, I have even less of a notion. Perhaps Kelly and Peverley never become Bruins. Perhaps Savard never meets his current wife and his daughter doesn't exist. Even with narrowed perameters, you could write as many scenarios as your mind could come up with, I suppose.

 

[Stone Clode]

Yeah, narrowing the parameters would probably help. Just Savard getting hurt knocks over a lot of dominoes - adding in other variables makes the possible scenarios multiply like Tribbles.

It's an emotional venture as well, and I imagine something poor Savvy has lived in his head a million times over.

If he hadn't gotten hurt, the Bruins certainly would have had a much better chance at the Cup in 2010, that much is certain. I can't say they would have won, though, as his (and Krejci's) were far from the only injuries.

As for further down the road, I have even less of a notion. Perhaps Kelly and Peverley never become Bruins. Perhaps Savard never meets his current wife and his daughter doesn't exist. You could write as many scenarios as your mind could come up with, I suppose.

And I think that's the real fun of it all. That is what the message board aspect allows for. What do people feel would have happened. You cannot say whether anybody is right or wrong, but thats the intrigue I get from it all. Its just interesting to think about and explore. I don't want to spark fighting or arguing, but a different approach for once. I think the board could use a breath of fresh air in that aspect.

 

[LouJersey]

And I think that's the real fun of it all. That is what the message board aspect allows for. What do people feel would have happened. You cannot say whether anybody is right or wrong, but thats the intrigue I get from it all. Its just interesting to think about and explore. I don't want to spark fighting or arguing, but a different approach for once. I think the board could use a breath of fresh air in that aspect.

Not here, the fun police quash everything!

 

[member 96824]

I personally think that Marc Savard was beginning his decline and I would have been looking to deal him.

Curious to know why

He was a monster in 08-09.

09-10 pre concussion he had a couple other injuries that bothered him and kept him out of the line up. Broken foot a few games into the season, followed by a partically torn MCL

 

[smithformeragent]

If he never gets hurt, then they're not looking at the cap consequences, but they're also not looking at the benefit of his LTIR exception. As a result of him being here, it impacts the ice time and opportunities/development of other players. It impacts line combinations. It impacts everything.

It's not as simple as inserting a player's stats into a line up and stating that you get X more wins per year. It's easier to quantify in other sports for sure, but hockey is such a different animal entirely.

Having said that, there are a lot of fun "what ifs".

What if Raycroft doesn't hold out post lockout and O'Connell doesn't bring in Tim Thomas as leverage?

What if the Sens re-signed Chara and let Redden walk instead?

 

[member 96824]

Lucic-Savard-Seguin

Modern day Heatley-Thornton-Marleau

 

[Stone Clode]

If he never gets hurt, then they're not looking at the cap consequences, but they're also not looking at the benefit of his LTIR exception. As a result of him being here, it impacts the ice time and opportunities/development of other players. It impacts line combinations. It impacts everything.

It's not as simple as inserting a player's stats into a line up and stating that you get X more wins per year. It's easier to quantify in other sports for sure, but hockey is such a different animal entirely.

I'm not saying it is as simple as inserting him into the lineup. I'm just saying that his injury impacted the ENTIRE organization. And you're right. His cap hit impacts bringing in guys like Kelly/Peverley/Kaberle. But it gives a guy like Seguin / Hall (whomever you end up with at that pick) a bigger role in that next season.

And in any of these "what if" scenarios, you simply HAVE to hold certain things constant. And there is obvious inherent bias in whichever factors you decide to hold constant. The ultimate goal is to choose to hold those that would be least impactful to the state of affairs with everything else. I chose to hold constant factors outside of the team's direct control. For example, Toronto still finishing 2nd worst. Bruins had little impact on that either way in the end.


And I'd tend to disagree with you on that its different for hockey. Basketball is similar. I again refer you to the Book of Basketball (whether or not you like the sport, its a good comparison point). Bill takes singular instances and just projects out what the future could have held. He holds a lot of things constant, because he sort of has to.

Ex. What if Portland drafts Durant over Oden. Team as constructed then (Aldridge, Roy, etc) much better built, has the missing superstar they need, potentially contends for titles.

What I am looking for here is each and every one's views and opinions on what they think might happen. I think it applies just as much to other sports as it does hockey, and that your notion is a bit exaggerated.

 

[Stone Clode]

Lucic-Savard-Seguin

Modern day Heatley-Thornton-Marleau

Interesting, but Heatley-Thornton-Marleau didn't have a Patrice Bergeron, Tim Thomas, and Zdeno Chara on their roster either. They were the pinnacle on those teams and everything else wasn't really close (Dan Boyle nonwithstanding). I compare it to a Sharp-Toews-Kane. Similar setup, but right pieces around it. In a vacuum, Heatley-Thornton-Marleau could and should have won a title. The rest of the roster was just so mediocre though.

 

[member 96824]

We still would have had Seguin, he was drafted under the assumption that Savard was coming back healthy and Edmonton never really was going to stray away from Hall.

and I don't think not getting Kelly/Peverley is probably a little overstated. We would have been rolling Savard/Krejci/Bergeron down the middle. Very very nice.

 

[member 96824]

Interesting, but Heatley-Thornton-Marleau didn't have a Patrice Bergeron, Tim Thomas, and Zdeno Chara on their roster either. They were the pinnacle on those teams and everything else wasn't really close (Dan Boyle nonwithstanding). I compare it to a Sharp-Toews-Kane. Similar setup, but right pieces around it. In a vacuum, Heatley-Thornton-Marleau could and should have won a title. The rest of the roster was just so mediocre though.

Oh no absolutely the team success would have been greater...just that was probably the best "superline" in recent memory. Sharp-Toews-Kane don't play together a whole lot.

 

[Artemis]

And I think that's the real fun of it all. That is what the message board aspect allows for. What do people feel would have happened. You cannot say whether anybody is right or wrong, but thats the intrigue I get from it all. Its just interesting to think about and explore. I don't want to spark fighting or arguing, but a different approach for once. I think the board could use a breath of fresh air in that aspect.

No argument there. The Savard question may be a little too emotional for me, but one thing I always enjoy speculating about is draft picks. Here's one - what if, instead of Phil Kessel, the Bruins had drafted Jonathan Toews?

 

[member 96824]

No argument there. The Savard question may be a little too emotional for me, but one thing I always enjoy speculating about is draft picks. Here's one - what if, instead of Phil Kessel, the Bruins had drafted Jonathan Toews?

I was looking back on a thread the other day. 47% of the board would have been upset getting Toews over the other 4 (EJ, Kessel, Backstrom, Staal)

 

[Stone Clode]

No argument there. The Savard question may be a little too emotional for me, but one thing I always enjoy speculating about is draft picks. Here's one - what if, instead of Phil Kessel, the Bruins had drafted Jonathan Toews?

People on this board with have Toews traded within a week.


But seriously, that would a potential dynasty (as long as we know what we did then about Tim Thomas that we do now). I love thinking about that though. Bergeron/Krejci/Toews would be the best top 3 potentially ever. Ok, I'm exaggerating. But wow.

 

[Artemis]

I was looking back on a thread the other day. 47% of the board would have been upset getting Toews over the other 4 (EJ, Kessel, Backstrom, Staal)

Interesting. Another thing I've wondered about - what if the Pens had chosen Toews, rather than Staal? You can play this game all day.

 

[Neely08]

You don't beat the Habs in 2011 without Peverley and Kelly , so no Cup,, healthy Savard or not IMO...

Habs shut down the Bruins top line pretty good that series..third line went 6-8-14 ....

We'll never know, but I have to disagree, Whammer.

We'd of had a PP for starters. And, one where Chara was actually a weapon from the point, as Savard was a master of creating lanes for him, as well as guys down low. Savard and Krug? Would have been filthy... "Savard fakes a shot near the right circle, drops it to Krug...one-timer...SCOOOORE!!!! Hat trick for Krug!!"

Savard, Bergy, and Krejci down the middle, w/ Krejci ripping up 3rd line competition w/ playoff Ryder? I guess I envision a team that can fill the net on you, while hopelessly grinding your will to score into the dirt w/ their team D. That's before facing Timmy/Tuukka.

Personally, I think once they get back to that formula, which I thought they were hitting on last year. We'll get back there. Savvy would have made it all that much easier the first time around. Three seven game series wouldn't have taken years of our lives in stress, we get more output in 2013 it could have been different. But, we didn't.