Player Discussion Zdeno Chara IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bruinaura

Resident Cookie Monster
Mar 29, 2014
46,353
90,585
Wow, a decent Fluto article

Zdeno Chara’s ugly, eye-opening first year in Boston: 'He wasn't used to losing'

The Bruins were facing an hour-long, no-pucks bag skate to compensate for the 60 minutes of work they declined to submit the day earlier. Before the players left the room to meet their fate, though, their first-year captain had something to say.
“Hey, we’ve got to do this,” said Zdeno Chara, according to former teammate Bobby Allen. “Don’t hang your head. Don’t complain. Don’t slam your stick. Let’s get out there, handle our business and be done with it.”
 

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
Agree with one exception and that is when MOC went all in with Gonchar and Nylander. Injuries killed them and just bad luck. Sammy and Nylander were lights out and that was a very good roster (pre concussion for Nylander and Gonchar with the bad shoulder)

True. But they gutted that roster during the lockout, and we wound up with a garbage roster the next season,

2005-06 Boston Bruins Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

I forget the guy's name, but they signed a once potent offensive player for serious change, and he never played a game for Boston.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
Toronto, st louis, philly, rangers were 4 of the 6-7 teams that spent more than boston in the big spending no cap era... for all that spending they had 1 cup bwtween them

Ironically the only big spending teams with success were detroit and colorado. Both teams super super super sucked for the decade of the 70s

It turns out unless you super suck first, no amount of spending will turnyou into a dynasty

Yes. We had season's tickets to Wings games at the old Olympia in the 70s. They were terrible.

When Mike Illich bought the club in 1982, he sought to throw money at the problem, which didn't work. What worked was bringing in Jimmy Devellano from the Islanders and impeccable, uncanny drafting.

It's pretty clear to me at this point that drafting, free agency signings, and trades (with the exception of Charlie Coyle) are not Sweeney/Neely strong points.

Their strong points appear to be signing undrafted players and managing cap space.

Not nearly good enough.
 

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
It's simple. You blame the GM all the time for not having the guns to beat team X, but the Bruins lost to quite a few lower seeds during the Bourque era...teams not as good....was that Sinden's fault too?

As for Sweeney, not his fault his team choked on home ice vs the Blues. He had the pieces in place and they fell apart because the other goalie made some saves in the first 15 minutes.

That is precisely my point, though we will have to agree to disagree.

Who built those rosters, which were, perpetually and maddeningly, never, ever good enough to win it all? Effing Sinden.

You can say the players lost to inferior clubs, choked, etc. But Sinden was the one would put them together.

A fish rots from the head. Under latter day Sinden, and then the lame MO, with Mr. Burns skulking in the background, it stank. To high heaven.
 
Last edited:

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
Really have a hard time understanding this line of thought. Especially from someone who's been around a long time.

Started following the Bruins in 1965. Got to see exiting, winning hockey with some of the greatest players ever over the next 25 years or so. 25 years!

I don't consider that nothing.

Post Sinden as GM, not as good. Still, they've won a Cup and been to the finals a few more times. Hardly lame, mediocre garbage.

I am not criticizing the Chiarelli/Julien era; far from it.

Those two, with the help of scouts and players (especially Z, Patrice, and Tim Thomas) totally reinvigorated a moribund franchise and brought back Big Bad Bruins DNA to a fan base starved for it.

I am, again, criticzing latter day Sinden and heir apparent, MOC.

The Bruins during those years were "competitive" at best and, especially under MOC, "meh" at worst. Because of Jacobs and Sinden, *no one* wanted to come to Boston. They were a joke, and long suffering fans were the butt of that joke.

Sinden did quite well for himself. He did poorly by the Boston Bruins.

The worst part? He didn't care. Keep Mr. Burns happy. Contempt for the fans.
 

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
Also there is zero excuse for an NHL team to lose after being up 3-0 at home game 7 18 minutes in. Zero. Choke of epic proportions and to say otherwise is only a tactic to help you sleep at night.

I agree. Both things can be true, however.

That team choked, and it was a Chiarelli team. Sinden and MOC are still responsible for putting together the rosters they did over a much longer period of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff and BMC

DaStinger

Permanent Interim
Feb 14, 2007
4,747
1,054
NB, Canada

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I mostly take issue with Sinden's, then MOC's, management of the team from the summer of '93 until they finally got removed from their duties in 2006.

Even in that time period they had a few decent teams (94, 98, 99, 02, 04) but some pretty awful ones.

97 obviously was dreadful, but despite playoff qualifying those 95 and 96 teams weren't very good and had serious flaws.

The 2000 team (Bourque trade) wasn't as bad as 97 but it wasn't much better.

2001 they didn't make it but just barely missed and we're cooking pretty good with Keenan at the helm, the GAS line and Thornton up front. They were 30-19-6 after Guerin made his Bruins debut.

I thought that 2003 team was terrible as well as their D-corps wasn't very good and the goaltending of Grahame/Shields/Hackett wasn't up to par. You know a team is bad when the GM fires the coach in mid-March and takes over behind the bench himself.

For me they super-sucked 3 times (97, 2000, 2006), were bad/flawed 3 times (95, 96, 2003), decent-but-not-a-contender (94, 98,99, and 2001) and were contenders in 2002 and 2004. Seems pretty mediocre to me.

Even 1993-94 thru 2005-06:

10th in the league in wins, 9th in winning percentage

Pretty bad in playoffs:

20th in wins, 24th in winning percentage
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruinDust

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
Even 1993-94 thru 2005-06:

10th in the league in wins, 9th in winning percentage

Pretty bad in playoffs:

20th in wins, 24th in winning percentage

The up and down from year-to-year didn't help.

Based on my take it went starting in 94 up to 2006

Decent->Flawed->Flawed->Sucked>Decent->Decent->Sucked->Decent->Contender->Flawed->Contender->Sucked

So you really only have two short stretches (98 to 99 and 01-02) where they were in my mind decent or a contender in consecutive years.

Just no consistency from year-to-year personnel wise either. They went through 7 coaches in those 12 seasons. Byron Dafoe's 5 season run here was the closest thing they got to consistent goaltending and even he wasn't great, pretty good regular season but I found him kind of lousy in the playoffs. Roster turnover of impactful players was fairly significant when you add up all 12 years. A lot of quality players came and went from 94 to the end of 2006. If you were a UFA you were gone. If you were an RFA and wanted to get paid, you were gone. If you took them to arbitration, you were gone unless your name was Bourque.
 
Last edited:

Alberta_OReilly_Fan

Bruin fan since 1975
Nov 26, 2006
14,331
3,941
Edmonton Canada
I mostly take issue with Sinden's, then MOC's, management of the team from the summer of '93 until they finally got removed from their duties in 2006.

Even in that time period they had a few decent teams (94, 98, 99, 02, 04) but some pretty awful ones.

97 obviously was dreadful, but despite playoff qualifying those 95 and 96 teams weren't very good and had serious flaws.

The 2000 team (Bourque trade) wasn't as bad as 97 but it wasn't much better.

2001 they didn't make it but just barely missed and we're cooking pretty good with Keenan at the helm, the GAS line and Thornton up front. They were 30-19-6 after Guerin made his Bruins debut.

I thought that 2003 team was terrible as well as their D-corps wasn't very good and the goaltending of Grahame/Shields/Hackett wasn't up to par. You know a team is bad when the GM fires the coach in mid-March and takes over behind the bench himself.

For me they super-sucked 3 times (97, 2000, 2006), were bad/flawed 3 times (95, 96, 2003), decent-but-not-a-contender (94, 98,99, and 2001) and were contenders in 2002 and 2004. Seems pretty mediocre to me.

if we use this same revisionist history to x-ray any other team... how many will pass your test?

is the problem really the teams themselves... or fans crazy expectations?

truth is... in any singular season... there are 6-7-8 teams entering the playoffs with a 'realistic' chance to win it all if things bounce their way {and only 1 team will win}

this means that quite frankly there were at least 5 teams that did a pretty good job getting close enough and simply fell short because of bounces and ref calls and injuries and hot goalies etc etc etc

if it was really so easy to say 1 team was going to win the cup... you, me, and joe would all take our life savings and bet vegas... but no... sorry... playoffs are a crapshoot and the 'best team' wont necessarily win. betting even for genius like you and i {joe aint no genius} is a risky business

so... 5-6-7 teams are good enough to win... and dont... that means 7 teams could all get their 6 years in a row and by pure math 1 of them is going to end up with no cups

how many times in that 20 year or 10 year period of time were the bruins one of those 7 teams? has there ever been a decade where the bruins werent a vegas favorite at least 3 out of the 10 times?

what other franchise can boast this level of success?

i was born in 68... which other team has been to the finals more often than boston in those 52 years? or if you want to get rid of the orr factor... the last 40 years? how many of the 21 teams in existence in 1979 when bourque and gretzky joined us have been to the finals more than we have?

is there 1 team better? or 2? or none?

sure... if winning the cup is the ONLY MATRIX OF SUCCESS then stick to your guns. tell me tampa sucked 3 of the last 4 years... that vegas has sucked since entering the league... that toronto has sucked my entire lifetime... sure... if thats your method of success analysis i wouldnt even pick a favorite team for a year until late june

for other people who can cheer effort... and entertainment... i suggest boston is as good as it gets for a favorite team. i know i have never regretted my support

go bruins go {and by the way, 3 cup wins in my lifetime... who has more?}
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

bb74

Thanks for Everything Bill
Sep 24, 2003
4,146
1,222
Cuttyhunk
  • Like
Reactions: GordonHowe

Bruinaura

Resident Cookie Monster
Mar 29, 2014
46,353
90,585
I'm bored; thus, have some Chara picspam
jPARIPb.jpg
Zdeno-Chara-795x485.jpg
chara-stanley-cup-2011.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alicat and BMC

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
if we use this same revisionist history to x-ray any other team... how many will pass your test?

is the problem really the teams themselves... or fans crazy expectations?

truth is... in any singular season... there are 6-7-8 teams entering the playoffs with a 'realistic' chance to win it all if things bounce their way {and only 1 team will win}

this means that quite frankly there were at least 5 teams that did a pretty good job getting close enough and simply fell short because of bounces and ref calls and injuries and hot goalies etc etc etc

if it was really so easy to say 1 team was going to win the cup... you, me, and joe would all take our life savings and bet vegas... but no... sorry... playoffs are a crapshoot and the 'best team' wont necessarily win. betting even for genius like you and i {joe aint no genius} is a risky business

so... 5-6-7 teams are good enough to win... and dont... that means 7 teams could all get their 6 years in a row and by pure math 1 of them is going to end up with no cups

how many times in that 20 year or 10 year period of time were the bruins one of those 7 teams? has there ever been a decade where the bruins werent a vegas favorite at least 3 out of the 10 times?

what other franchise can boast this level of success?

i was born in 68... which other team has been to the finals more often than boston in those 52 years? or if you want to get rid of the orr factor... the last 40 years? how many of the 21 teams in existence in 1979 when bourque and gretzky joined us have been to the finals more than we have?

is there 1 team better? or 2? or none?

sure... if winning the cup is the ONLY MATRIX OF SUCCESS then stick to your guns. tell me tampa sucked 3 of the last 4 years... that vegas has sucked since entering the league... that toronto has sucked my entire lifetime... sure... if thats your method of success analysis i wouldnt even pick a favorite team for a year until late june

for other people who can cheer effort... and entertainment... i suggest boston is as good as it gets for a favorite team. i know i have never regretted my support

go bruins go {and by the way, 3 cup wins in my lifetime... who has more?}

Again, we agree to disagree.

All clubs seek to win the Cup; most fail, some achieve.

My problem with Bruins ownership and mangement under Sinden/MOC, and under the Stokholm brothers, is that they don't know, or don't care, how to run a hockey club.

They know how to run a profitable business, however.

What you will see, I guarentee, is smart money mangement and little else.

These two are duds. Duds.

They don't know what they're doing. And if they do, they're wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC and chrisab123

chrisab123

Registered User
Feb 9, 2013
2,280
1,773
Again, we agree to disagree.

All clubs seek to win the Cup; most fail, some achieve.

My problem with Bruins ownership and mangement under Sinden/MOC, and under the Stokholm brothers, is that they don't know, or don't care, how to run a hockey club.

They know how to run a profitable business, however.

What you will see, I guarentee, is smart money mangement and little else.

These two are duds. Duds.

They don't know what they're doing. And if they do, they're wrong.

As a life long Boston fan I never thought I'd say these words. George Steinbrenner in the 90s was probably the GOAT owner. Or pretty damn close. He put the product on the field above all else. Pretty much the anti Jacobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC and HockeyMomx2

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,377
15,747
Watertown, Massachusetts
As a life long Boston fan I never thought I'd say these words. George Steinbrenner in the 90s was probably the GOAT owner. Or pretty damn close. He put the product on the field above all else. Pretty much the anti Jacobs.

Perhaps his heart was in the right place, not that I was ever a fan.

Got JJ beat on that one. Mr. Burns wouldn't qualify for a paceamker. No there, there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
if we use this same revisionist history to x-ray any other team... how many will pass your test?

is the problem really the teams themselves... or fans crazy expectations?

truth is... in any singular season... there are 6-7-8 teams entering the playoffs with a 'realistic' chance to win it all if things bounce their way {and only 1 team will win}

this means that quite frankly there were at least 5 teams that did a pretty good job getting close enough and simply fell short because of bounces and ref calls and injuries and hot goalies etc etc etc

if it was really so easy to say 1 team was going to win the cup... you, me, and joe would all take our life savings and bet vegas... but no... sorry... playoffs are a crapshoot and the 'best team' wont necessarily win. betting even for genius like you and i {joe aint no genius} is a risky business

so... 5-6-7 teams are good enough to win... and dont... that means 7 teams could all get their 6 years in a row and by pure math 1 of them is going to end up with no cups

how many times in that 20 year or 10 year period of time were the bruins one of those 7 teams? has there ever been a decade where the bruins werent a vegas favorite at least 3 out of the 10 times?

what other franchise can boast this level of success?

i was born in 68... which other team has been to the finals more often than boston in those 52 years? or if you want to get rid of the orr factor... the last 40 years? how many of the 21 teams in existence in 1979 when bourque and gretzky joined us have been to the finals more than we have?

is there 1 team better? or 2? or none?

sure... if winning the cup is the ONLY MATRIX OF SUCCESS then stick to your guns. tell me tampa sucked 3 of the last 4 years... that vegas has sucked since entering the league... that toronto has sucked my entire lifetime... sure... if thats your method of success analysis i wouldnt even pick a favorite team for a year until late june

for other people who can cheer effort... and entertainment... i suggest boston is as good as it gets for a favorite team. i know i have never regretted my support

go bruins go {and by the way, 3 cup wins in my lifetime... who has more?}

What do you mean "pass my test"? What are you talking about? How is this revisionist history? This is a recollection of how I viewed those teams during those particular times. I thought is was a very fair assessment. I've never said winning cups is the ONLY MATRIX OF SUCCESS (Whatever that is). My post had nothing to do with "success" vs. "not being successful". Just an evaluation on a year-to-year basis of what I thought of each of those Bruins teams. Heck I even called one Playoff DNQ team decent while a few teams that did make the playoffs I thought were bad and flawed. If cups wins was my MATRIX OF SUCCESS, then all twelve teams failed.
 

Kalus

Registered User
Sep 27, 2003
1,931
1,247
Florida
With some rumors of Chara perhaps signing with the Bruins soon, what do you all think his contract will look like?

I don't think we are going to see a selfless contract like Thornton signed. I'll go with $2.5M structured with very achievable bonuses.
 

Bearcrap

Registered User
Jan 29, 2004
520
566
Pembroke
With some rumors of Chara perhaps signing with the Bruins soon, what do you all think his contract will look like?

I don't think we are going to see a selfless contract like Thornton signed. I'll go with $2.5M structured with very achievable bonuses.
Didn't he only make 2M last season. At his age I don't think he's expecting a raise. I'd say 1.5-1.75M range.
 

elMatador

Registered User
Feb 20, 2008
1,223
1,419
With some rumors of Chara perhaps signing with the Bruins soon, what do you all think his contract will look like?

I don't think we are going to see a selfless contract like Thornton signed. I'll go with $2.5M structured with very achievable bonuses.

It seems like Bruins have $2,98M in the cap space however up to $2m could be eaten up by the performance bonuses of Halak and Miller. Unless Bruins find a way to trade Moore with a small/no retention the only way to sign Chara is for less than $1M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->