|
Post by chappy28 on Jun 6, 2023 13:48:17 GMT
Pastrnak,MacAvoy,Lindholm,Swayman,Marchand,Zacha,Coyle and Hall...I'm not blowing that up. I might have to trade one or two pieces to address the top 2 centers, but certainly not blowing it up. Let me re-orgainze that for you Pasta-McAvoy-Sway-Lindholm - ---- young core Marchand -- last of the old guard and probably our most valuable trade chip Coyle -- over-rated, over-paid 3rd line center. Let's not get carried away. A nice player, but not somebody who you base your future on. We brought him in thinking he could be a top 6 center and every chance he gets he fails. He's a luxury item as a 3rd liner producing 40+ points Hall -- inconsistent, getting older, expensive, played 3rd line for us all year at 6M. Another luxury item Zacha -- great first year. Wish he would shoot the puck. Good contract. Still not convinced he's a top 6 center on a cup contending team, but that doesn't mean he can't get there. So as opposed to the 8 guys you mention, I'd cut it to 4 core players, 1 aging vet that still brings huge value here or in trade, 2 luxury items that play below their cap hit but are good players, and a guy who seems to be breaking out. A bit of a different story. Also worth noting that there's a chance that a couple of those guys are gone by next season just due to the current cap situation.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Jun 6, 2023 14:15:56 GMT
Anybody else look over at Chicago every now and again and get a little jealous? Chicago and Boston rose at the same time and aged at the same time but we are seeing two completely different strategies from the GM's. While Chicago looked at it's aging stars and decided to start the rebuild, each of the last two seasons we all sit on the edge of our seats waiting to hear whether our two aging stars want to come back for yet another run after disappointing playoff attempts. There's merit to both strategies as we just had one of, if not the best regular season in the history of the league before falling apart at the worst time to an admittedly very hot team. Chicago on the other had, just won the draft lottery for the "best player since McJesus", has a strong pipeline, and on top of all that has another first round pick, and SIX 2nd round picks in what is supposed to be a very deep and talented draft. We wait in agony, waiting for the other shoe to drop and Bergy to retire and leave us without a legit #1C, and Chicago took two down years to hit the bottom and get the arrow pointing back upwards. Only time will tell how it all pans out, but you can't help but think what if......I plan to be a Bruins fan forever, but I've got to admit, it looks pretty fun to be a Chicago fan right now. I don't think it looks fun to be a Chicago fan. I think it looks difficult and potentially tiresome. Chicago didn't look at its aging stars and make a difficult decision to move them; they waited until they had played out contracts that they couldn't move. They kept Kane and Toews and tried to build round them and...sucked. DeBrincat, Schmaltz, Saad, Boqvist, Jokiharju, Dach, Strome...they tried to rebuild. After 7 years of suckitude, they finally realized they had exhausted all of their resources. But mostly, I have very little faith in their rebuild strategy. Their entire strategy seems to have been to suck as hard as possible and hope for Bedard. And while the kid is super talented, he's 5'10" and 185 and doesn't have McDavid wheels to compensate for a lack of size. They traded DeBrincat for a WHL offensive defenseman who was second pairing for Canada at the WJHC last year. They traded a former #3 overall in Dach for #13, a 5'10" C playing for Michigan with Beecher like scoring numbers as a freshman. I don't think either player looks especially exciting for Chicago's future. They have very little in the system already. Lukas Reichel got a taste last year and looked like a decent player, but his Rockford numbers are Studnicka-esque. Rockford is fully of 26 yr old AHL veterans and former 5th round picks. There is no burst of talent from the later rounds like they got in 2009-10. I'm not sure where you see a strong pipeline, to be honest. It's not like they graduated players to the NHL and that's why the cupboard is bare, either. Bedard, if he goes straight to the NHL, is going to have a miserable time. They don't have a goalie and their D is Seth Jones and Nobody. The returning forwards are uninspiring - if he is instantly the #1C, he'd play with Raddysh and either Reichel or Kachouk based on last year's scoring. They have the most cap space of any team in the league, though, so maybe they can do something more inspiring that way, but it isn't an inspiring FA class. I could see them being players for Lucic to defend Bedard, Drouin to serve as a cautionary tale, JVR to help him rack up PP points, and Dumba to help build that D. But that assumes that Lucic or Dumba isn't offered a deal with a team that can win now. JVR and Drouin might be looking for rehab opportunities. If Chicago gets it right at this draft - after taking Bedard - and then again in 2024 and 2025 where they have 2 1st per year - I think they could still be DNQ in 2026-2027. They are as bad or worse than Edmonton was when they got Hall. Edmonton missed the playoffs in 9 of 10 years after drafting Taylor Hall (losing in the Q round counts as a DNQ here). That's 4 of the first 5 years of the McDavid era. Prior to this year, Connor McDavid has won 3 playoff rounds. Like the Oilers, Chicago has no goaltending and no defense. Bedard doesn't play those positions, and as good as Jones is, he's on an island out there. He's -75 over the last two seasons. Chicago is going to continue to suck for a very long time. 4 years at best, and it's probably 5-6 before they are really relevant unless they make a series of smart moves above and beyond picking players in the draft. Like Sabre fans after Eichel, they have a long, painful and likely boring wait before they see playoff hockey again. So no...I am not envious of Hawks fans at all. As kel points out, I think this Bruins team built around Pastrnak, McAvoy, Lindholm, Carlo, Ullmark, Swayman, and Zacha is going to do more to compete for playoff victories in the next 5 years, with Marchand and Hall and Coyle and Debrusk rounding out the roster for the next 2 or more. In the end time will tell. To me it's more about assessing your team. The Bruins wasted Ray Bourque's career by being good enough to make the playoffs but never good enough to win for 20 or so years. It took the Jumbo Joe trade and some big moves to bring in Chara and Savard, pick up 2nd and third round gems in Bergy, March, DK, and Lucic to build the core that won the cup and carried us for the last 15 years. To me, the difference between the Bruins and Chicago from a management perspective is that Chicago was more aggressive in their "window" and the result was more cups, but also a steeper decline. While Sweeney toyed around the edges with his cheaper under-the-radar type signings at the deadline, Chicago was more decisive in putting their group over the top. A few years ago, they looked at their aging (or already retired stars) in Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa that carried them to glory and realized that while still good players, likely couldn't carry the team to a cup. So the GM quickly and decisively went into rebuild mode and accepted that they weren't going to win for at least a few years. The result certainly worked in their favor winning the Bedard sweepstakes and their GM was successful in stockpiling an incredible amount of pipeline talent and draft capital in a few years --- and he did that by cutting lose good players knowing it wouldn't make the team better in the short term. Sweeney on the other hand has been watching Bergy, DK, and Marchand slowly age out all while trading 1st rounders for mid level players who were never going to be stars. Think about who we got for our 1st rounders. Kase? Backes? Bertuzzi (as a rental), Orlov (as a rental), Nash (aging). Guys were either under the radar, or aging vets. He's been successful in keeping us in the hunt, and much of that is due to Bergy, Marchand, and DK aging like fine wines. But the thing that makes me think twice about a strategy of winning the cup with greybeards is the fact that they rarely actually make it though the grind of the season to be their best when it counts. It was an issue for what I would call the last 3-4 years of Chara's career. He simply wasn't his best in the playoffs when we needed him as a 38 year old man playing close to 100 games a season. Just like Bergy-DK, Marchand have each had their breakdowns in the playoffs over the past few years. They aren't the young horses they once were and unfortunately it doesn't really show until we need them the most. So now here we are, Sweeney finally went for it with everything he got and traded a TON of draft capital to supplement a team that was unbeatable all year, but to me that means the end is near. We don't have the pipeline to replace the guys who are aging out and that's not just this year, it's the next few years. My "Blow it Up" title was hyperbole, but to me it seems that it's inevitable that at some point this team needs to take it's medicine and pay for the capital they leveraged to "win now". We can slowly ride into mediocrity on the backs of Pasta and McAvoy or we can take our medicine, get some draft capital and do our best to find some gems to again build the team into a legit contender. Yes, Pasta and McAvoy are both world class players but not without their own flaws (Pasta being a turn-over machine, and McAvoy having very little natural scoring ability), but the fact remains that rarely does a team win a cup without a star level top line center in his prime. You could take it a step further and say that rarely does a team win the cup without one or two top 5 picks in their core (the B's have been an exception to this rule). Pittsburg (Crosby/Malkin), Chicago (Toews/Kane), Tampa etc were all built on elite offensive and defensive players in their prime. No team manages to pull it off with 35+ year old stars. So sure we can hope to be the outlier who somehow manages to win a cup on the backs of an all star winger with a so-so top line center, and a great 1-2 punch on defense but to me the odds just aren't in our favor and every year we stretch this out is another year we don't get a legit shot at finding that star forward of the future. I'm not saying we need to tank for the first overall pick. I am saying I wouldn't be overly disappointed to see some major changes that are more about three years from now than they are about trying to build around a 38 year old Bergy for one last run ----- a narrative that has been going on for over three years now.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Jun 6, 2023 14:25:43 GMT
Gryz's playoff history is that of a guy who isn't that good...Clifton was basically benched, and I think despite maybe some rough play, he was a better option. Lauko once he had the first bad penalty, that was on Monty to keep sending him out (Cassidy would have sat him on the bench rest of game). I really thought AJ Greer was playing as well as anyone the last 5 games of the season, engaged, doing a lot of really good things to be that enforcer type and yet still make some big plays on his line. To not even try him and to go with Lauko over Greer was head-scratching. My point on Bergy was what sizz said, there was definitely some weird mojo that left the B's by just coming back into lineup, and yes there were a number of poor plays throughout the series by many players. OK, say there was some weird mojo. Whose fault is that? Do you not play your best players if they're healthy enough to play because you're afraid of "mojo"? Can you imagine that press conference? "Monty, tough loss tonight. Do you think Bergeron would have helped? Maybe if you're Captain's out there, he bails out that gaffe by Bertuzzi?" "Yeah, Kevin, you know Bergie's always a positive, and you'd never really say he couldn't have made a defensive play - even one like that - because his anticipation and awareness are so good." "And did you choose not to dress him because the back just wasn't ready?" "No, I just didn't want to mess with our mojo." If what you and sizz are saying is true then yes, blow it the fuck up because the legendary "culture" of this era of the Bruins is dead. You are basically saying that the players who were doing well in Bergeron's absence decided, deliberately or not, that they didn't have to work as hard or play with the same intensity and commitment because Bergeron will take care of it. If you really believe that, put a for sale sign on every player you think is guilty of that thinking. It's also a sign that the legendary "leadership in the room" took a hit somewhere, and that I would believe because I think they brought in way too many players at the deadline and promoted them ahead of guys who were fully bought into the way of bear. But it's a locker room leadership failure if what you're saying is true. Bergeron or Marchand or McAvoy of Foligno should have stepped up at the first period intermission and said you are accountable for your own play. Do you jobs whether Bergeron is on the bench or not. Point fingers if necessary. None of this is a problem with putting one of your best players back in, especially when he pretty much did his job and proved he was a better option than anyone else you had. I think the most interesting to think of in terms of the lost "mojo" is whether we needed to make as many moves as Sweeney made in the first place. We were an absolute juggernaut all year WITHOUT Bertuzzi, Orlov and Hathaway. Bringing those guys on arguably made us a sexier team, but not a better one. Hockey is about chemistry as much as anything else and what Sweeney did looked great on paper, but results wise obviously doesn't live up to the hype. There's an argument that we could have stood pat and had a better result and if it didn't work out we'd still have first round picks the next two years --- this year especially would have gotten us a shot at a future top 6 center. The guys who played SO well all season --- Gryz, Cliffy, Foligno, etc were all of the sudden on the bench or in and out of the line-up and I really do think that effects their confidence and their play on the ice. It also puts Monty in a tough spot, now choosing to sit the guys who got them to such a historic season because the GM brought in guys who were objectively better players than the ones who sat, but again, produced worse results. Basically, the path we took was all or nothing. Either we won, or there was going to be a lot of blame and questioning to go around. We loved Bertuzzi, but he was careless with the puck at key moments that cost us Hathaway was a "playoff" kind of player, but he killed us with some dumb penalties and didn't really move the needle vs what we had all season Orlov is a great, aggressive defenseman, but he was new to our system and to me it showed in the playoffs These are all good hockey players but integrating them into a winning team and winning culture in a matter of 6 weeks doesn't always work out the way you want.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jun 6, 2023 16:44:18 GMT
I don't think it looks fun to be a Chicago fan. I think it looks difficult and potentially tiresome. Chicago didn't look at its aging stars and make a difficult decision to move them; they waited until they had played out contracts that they couldn't move. They kept Kane and Toews and tried to build round them and...sucked. DeBrincat, Schmaltz, Saad, Boqvist, Jokiharju, Dach, Strome...they tried to rebuild. After 7 years of suckitude, they finally realized they had exhausted all of their resources. But mostly, I have very little faith in their rebuild strategy. Their entire strategy seems to have been to suck as hard as possible and hope for Bedard. And while the kid is super talented, he's 5'10" and 185 and doesn't have McDavid wheels to compensate for a lack of size. They traded DeBrincat for a WHL offensive defenseman who was second pairing for Canada at the WJHC last year. They traded a former #3 overall in Dach for #13, a 5'10" C playing for Michigan with Beecher like scoring numbers as a freshman. I don't think either player looks especially exciting for Chicago's future. They have very little in the system already. Lukas Reichel got a taste last year and looked like a decent player, but his Rockford numbers are Studnicka-esque. Rockford is fully of 26 yr old AHL veterans and former 5th round picks. There is no burst of talent from the later rounds like they got in 2009-10. I'm not sure where you see a strong pipeline, to be honest. It's not like they graduated players to the NHL and that's why the cupboard is bare, either. Bedard, if he goes straight to the NHL, is going to have a miserable time. They don't have a goalie and their D is Seth Jones and Nobody. The returning forwards are uninspiring - if he is instantly the #1C, he'd play with Raddysh and either Reichel or Kachouk based on last year's scoring. They have the most cap space of any team in the league, though, so maybe they can do something more inspiring that way, but it isn't an inspiring FA class. I could see them being players for Lucic to defend Bedard, Drouin to serve as a cautionary tale, JVR to help him rack up PP points, and Dumba to help build that D. But that assumes that Lucic or Dumba isn't offered a deal with a team that can win now. JVR and Drouin might be looking for rehab opportunities. If Chicago gets it right at this draft - after taking Bedard - and then again in 2024 and 2025 where they have 2 1st per year - I think they could still be DNQ in 2026-2027. They are as bad or worse than Edmonton was when they got Hall. Edmonton missed the playoffs in 9 of 10 years after drafting Taylor Hall (losing in the Q round counts as a DNQ here). That's 4 of the first 5 years of the McDavid era. Prior to this year, Connor McDavid has won 3 playoff rounds. Like the Oilers, Chicago has no goaltending and no defense. Bedard doesn't play those positions, and as good as Jones is, he's on an island out there. He's -75 over the last two seasons. Chicago is going to continue to suck for a very long time. 4 years at best, and it's probably 5-6 before they are really relevant unless they make a series of smart moves above and beyond picking players in the draft. Like Sabre fans after Eichel, they have a long, painful and likely boring wait before they see playoff hockey again. So no...I am not envious of Hawks fans at all. As kel points out, I think this Bruins team built around Pastrnak, McAvoy, Lindholm, Carlo, Ullmark, Swayman, and Zacha is going to do more to compete for playoff victories in the next 5 years, with Marchand and Hall and Coyle and Debrusk rounding out the roster for the next 2 or more. In the end time will tell. To me it's more about assessing your team. The Bruins wasted Ray Bourque's career by being good enough to make the playoffs but never good enough to win for 20 or so years. It took the Jumbo Joe trade and some big moves to bring in Chara and Savard, pick up 2nd and third round gems in Bergy, March, DK, and Lucic to build the core that won the cup and carried us for the last 15 years. To me, the difference between the Bruins and Chicago from a management perspective is that Chicago was more aggressive in their "window" and the result was more cups, but also a steeper decline. While Sweeney toyed around the edges with his cheaper under-the-radar type signings at the deadline, Chicago was more decisive in putting their group over the top. A few years ago, they looked at their aging (or already retired stars) in Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa that carried them to glory and realized that while still good players, likely couldn't carry the team to a cup. So the GM quickly and decisively went into rebuild mode and accepted that they weren't going to win for at least a few years. The result certainly worked in their favor winning the Bedard sweepstakes and their GM was successful in stockpiling an incredible amount of pipeline talent and draft capital in a few years --- and he did that by cutting lose good players knowing it wouldn't make the team better in the short term. Sweeney on the other hand has been watching Bergy, DK, and Marchand slowly age out all while trading 1st rounders for mid level players who were never going to be stars. Think about who we got for our 1st rounders. Kase? Backes? Bertuzzi (as a rental), Orlov (as a rental), Nash (aging). Guys were either under the radar, or aging vets. He's been successful in keeping us in the hunt, and much of that is due to Bergy, Marchand, and DK aging like fine wines. But the thing that makes me think twice about a strategy of winning the cup with greybeards is the fact that they rarely actually make it though the grind of the season to be their best when it counts. It was an issue for what I would call the last 3-4 years of Chara's career. He simply wasn't his best in the playoffs when we needed him as a 38 year old man playing close to 100 games a season. Just like Bergy-DK, Marchand have each had their breakdowns in the playoffs over the past few years. They aren't the young horses they once were and unfortunately it doesn't really show until we need them the most. So now here we are, Sweeney finally went for it with everything he got and traded a TON of draft capital to supplement a team that was unbeatable all year, but to me that means the end is near. We don't have the pipeline to replace the guys who are aging out and that's not just this year, it's the next few years. My "Blow it Up" title was hyperbole, but to me it seems that it's inevitable that at some point this team needs to take it's medicine and pay for the capital they leveraged to "win now". We can slowly ride into mediocrity on the backs of Pasta and McAvoy or we can take our medicine, get some draft capital and do our best to find some gems to again build the team into a legit contender. Yes, Pasta and McAvoy are both world class players but not without their own flaws (Pasta being a turn-over machine, and McAvoy having very little natural scoring ability), but the fact remains that rarely does a team win a cup without a star level top line center in his prime. You could take it a step further and say that rarely does a team win the cup without one or two top 5 picks in their core (the B's have been an exception to this rule). Pittsburg (Crosby/Malkin), Chicago (Toews/Kane), Tampa etc were all built on elite offensive and defensive players in their prime. No team manages to pull it off with 35+ year old stars. So sure we can hope to be the outlier who somehow manages to win a cup on the backs of an all star winger with a so-so top line center, and a great 1-2 punch on defense but to me the odds just aren't in our favor and every year we stretch this out is another year we don't get a legit shot at finding that star forward of the future. I'm not saying we need to tank for the first overall pick. I am saying I wouldn't be overly disappointed to see some major changes that are more about three years from now than they are about trying to build around a 38 year old Bergy for one last run ----- a narrative that has been going on for over three years now. I don't think your timeline on Chicago's decision-making is accurate. As recently as July 2021, they were acquiring Marc-Andre Fleury, Tyler Johnson and Seth Jones. Their most notable moves to chase Bedard involved trading away Brandon Hagel (30G in Tampa this year) and Debrincat while they were still RFAs because they don't expect the Bedard generation to mature in time for them to be helpful. They really only stripped it down in the last year+ and that was 5 years after even NAS knew Chicago was going to suck. They continued to chuck resources at rentals to try to get another run from Kane and Toews, but it didn't happen. That's partly why their cupboard is so bare. I agree about not going hard to get another cup for Bergeron and Krejci, but if they do come back, I also don't think there's a lot of value in blowing anything up. The draft picks all belong to someone else, and so the return on that would be small. They are best served by positioning themselves to get into the playoffs, and try to run the gauntlet tactically the way Montreal did in the COVID divisions: get full buy in on an all or nothing on-ice strategy whether that's constant pressure or impenetrable defense and goaltending, and then try to ride the formula combined with timely goals from Pastrnak. The benefit in three years will be that you haven't made your trade partners a lot stronger, you'll be back on par in terms of picks, and possibly build up some tradeable assets if you do need to think about a strategic step back.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Jun 7, 2023 12:36:51 GMT
In the end time will tell. To me it's more about assessing your team. The Bruins wasted Ray Bourque's career by being good enough to make the playoffs but never good enough to win for 20 or so years. It took the Jumbo Joe trade and some big moves to bring in Chara and Savard, pick up 2nd and third round gems in Bergy, March, DK, and Lucic to build the core that won the cup and carried us for the last 15 years. To me, the difference between the Bruins and Chicago from a management perspective is that Chicago was more aggressive in their "window" and the result was more cups, but also a steeper decline. While Sweeney toyed around the edges with his cheaper under-the-radar type signings at the deadline, Chicago was more decisive in putting their group over the top. A few years ago, they looked at their aging (or already retired stars) in Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa that carried them to glory and realized that while still good players, likely couldn't carry the team to a cup. So the GM quickly and decisively went into rebuild mode and accepted that they weren't going to win for at least a few years. The result certainly worked in their favor winning the Bedard sweepstakes and their GM was successful in stockpiling an incredible amount of pipeline talent and draft capital in a few years --- and he did that by cutting lose good players knowing it wouldn't make the team better in the short term. Sweeney on the other hand has been watching Bergy, DK, and Marchand slowly age out all while trading 1st rounders for mid level players who were never going to be stars. Think about who we got for our 1st rounders. Kase? Backes? Bertuzzi (as a rental), Orlov (as a rental), Nash (aging). Guys were either under the radar, or aging vets. He's been successful in keeping us in the hunt, and much of that is due to Bergy, Marchand, and DK aging like fine wines. But the thing that makes me think twice about a strategy of winning the cup with greybeards is the fact that they rarely actually make it though the grind of the season to be their best when it counts. It was an issue for what I would call the last 3-4 years of Chara's career. He simply wasn't his best in the playoffs when we needed him as a 38 year old man playing close to 100 games a season. Just like Bergy-DK, Marchand have each had their breakdowns in the playoffs over the past few years. They aren't the young horses they once were and unfortunately it doesn't really show until we need them the most. So now here we are, Sweeney finally went for it with everything he got and traded a TON of draft capital to supplement a team that was unbeatable all year, but to me that means the end is near. We don't have the pipeline to replace the guys who are aging out and that's not just this year, it's the next few years. My "Blow it Up" title was hyperbole, but to me it seems that it's inevitable that at some point this team needs to take it's medicine and pay for the capital they leveraged to "win now". We can slowly ride into mediocrity on the backs of Pasta and McAvoy or we can take our medicine, get some draft capital and do our best to find some gems to again build the team into a legit contender. Yes, Pasta and McAvoy are both world class players but not without their own flaws (Pasta being a turn-over machine, and McAvoy having very little natural scoring ability), but the fact remains that rarely does a team win a cup without a star level top line center in his prime. You could take it a step further and say that rarely does a team win the cup without one or two top 5 picks in their core (the B's have been an exception to this rule). Pittsburg (Crosby/Malkin), Chicago (Toews/Kane), Tampa etc were all built on elite offensive and defensive players in their prime. No team manages to pull it off with 35+ year old stars. So sure we can hope to be the outlier who somehow manages to win a cup on the backs of an all star winger with a so-so top line center, and a great 1-2 punch on defense but to me the odds just aren't in our favor and every year we stretch this out is another year we don't get a legit shot at finding that star forward of the future. I'm not saying we need to tank for the first overall pick. I am saying I wouldn't be overly disappointed to see some major changes that are more about three years from now than they are about trying to build around a 38 year old Bergy for one last run ----- a narrative that has been going on for over three years now. I don't think your timeline on Chicago's decision-making is accurate. As recently as July 2021, they were acquiring Marc-Andre Fleury, Tyler Johnson and Seth Jones. Their most notable moves to chase Bedard involved trading away Brandon Hagel (30G in Tampa this year) and Debrincat while they were still RFAs because they don't expect the Bedard generation to mature in time for them to be helpful. They really only stripped it down in the last year+ and that was 5 years after even NAS knew Chicago was going to suck. They continued to chuck resources at rentals to try to get another run from Kane and Toews, but it didn't happen. That's partly why their cupboard is so bare. I agree about not going hard to get another cup for Bergeron and Krejci, but if they do come back, I also don't think there's a lot of value in blowing anything up. The draft picks all belong to someone else, and so the return on that would be small. They are best served by positioning themselves to get into the playoffs, and try to run the gauntlet tactically the way Montreal did in the COVID divisions: get full buy in on an all or nothing on-ice strategy whether that's constant pressure or impenetrable defense and goaltending, and then try to ride the formula combined with timely goals from Pastrnak. The benefit in three years will be that you haven't made your trade partners a lot stronger, you'll be back on par in terms of picks, and possibly build up some tradeable assets if you do need to think about a strategic step back. Well in that case, it sounds even more like the B's, and gives hope for a quick turnaround. Hagel = Debrusk, Marchand = Kane. We have lots of guys on our roster that could bring back value if we chose to clear house and restock. The thing that Chicago had was timing. They did this just in time for the best draft class since 2015, AND they won the lottery. Two first rounders and six 2nd rounders in a great draft is unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jun 7, 2023 15:36:43 GMT
I don't think your timeline on Chicago's decision-making is accurate. As recently as July 2021, they were acquiring Marc-Andre Fleury, Tyler Johnson and Seth Jones. Their most notable moves to chase Bedard involved trading away Brandon Hagel (30G in Tampa this year) and Debrincat while they were still RFAs because they don't expect the Bedard generation to mature in time for them to be helpful. They really only stripped it down in the last year+ and that was 5 years after even NAS knew Chicago was going to suck. They continued to chuck resources at rentals to try to get another run from Kane and Toews, but it didn't happen. That's partly why their cupboard is so bare. I agree about not going hard to get another cup for Bergeron and Krejci, but if they do come back, I also don't think there's a lot of value in blowing anything up. The draft picks all belong to someone else, and so the return on that would be small. They are best served by positioning themselves to get into the playoffs, and try to run the gauntlet tactically the way Montreal did in the COVID divisions: get full buy in on an all or nothing on-ice strategy whether that's constant pressure or impenetrable defense and goaltending, and then try to ride the formula combined with timely goals from Pastrnak. The benefit in three years will be that you haven't made your trade partners a lot stronger, you'll be back on par in terms of picks, and possibly build up some tradeable assets if you do need to think about a strategic step back. Well in that case, it sounds even more like the B's, and gives hope for a quick turnaround. Hagel = Debrusk, Marchand = Kane. We have lots of guys on our roster that could bring back value if we chose to clear house and restock. The thing that Chicago had was timing. They did this just in time for the best draft class since 2015, AND they won the lottery. Two first rounders and six 2nd rounders in a great draft is unbelievable. But it guarantees nothing, and Boston has infinitely better talent for the next few years. A lot in Chicago will depend on how quickly they can rebuild a team around the one player they sold out to get. They have no team other than Seth Jones. Bedard is the sure thing (though you just never know...) but the next first rounder is #19, and we know that 19th overall picks are not sure things to become NHL players without additional seasoning...if ever. And even if they hit at 19 and get two rookies who play big roles next year, that team is ugly. They need 4D and about 4 top six F to be competitive, plus a goalie or two. Even if they were to hit on an historic number of those picks this year, I think they are probably 3 years away at a minimum from being competitive. I think the Bruins have the core pieces in place to remain competitive over the next three years. They're the opposite of the Hawks in that they have three really solid, proven, and relatively young NHL D. The top 3 are signed for three years and beyond. They also have an abundance of goaltending which Chicago doesn't and has been the anchor for many other teams that choose to tank and rebuild. No goalie and it doesn't matter how many points your treasured #1 overall gets - ask Edmonton or Toronto or Colorado who only won once they got a viable starter then went back to losing in the first round when he left. The Bruins have enough scoring even as we wonder who will play the other top 2 C postion, assuming one of those roles is Zacha's to lose. Marchand - ?? - DeBrusk Hall-Zacha-Pastrnak Frederic - Coyle - ?? Greer - ?? - Lauko. That's got holes but it's a lot farther along than the Hawks and I'd bet donuts that the Bruins score significantly more than Chicago as a team next year. That lineup or the main components of it are likely not changing for a few years. The only top six role up for debate other than the other C is what to do with Jake. This isn't framing up the structure in Boston. It's also not just a coat of paint. They have some work to do to be a real contender, but they've got a playoff team base to work with for the next three years and because they've traded so many picks, there's no benefit to be had from sucking for a higher draft pick. They are better served making the roster as strong as possible. I would then say after about 3 years, it's 50/50 whether Chicago will be better than Boston. They will run into the problem Edmonton and Toronto had. All of those potentially great talents they draft this year will be coming off their ELCs and looking for big dollars. Then they better have a goalie and a D in place or they will, like Toronto and Edmonton, be perennially chasing the what if we had a goalie dream even if Bedard is of the same caliber as McDavid and Matthews, and even if they do manage to draft a Marner or Draisaitl complementary piece.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jun 13, 2023 12:57:28 GMT
In the "Blow it up" or Dare to Dream context, I wonder what it would take take to acquire a lottery pick this year.
Obviously, the top three spots are unreachable. But, what would it take to get to #5 and have a shot at Will Smith, who could become a franchise center too? Is there a Lysell, Debrusk, + picks package that could ever get that done?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jun 13, 2023 15:37:47 GMT
In the "Blow it up" or Dare to Dream context, I wonder what it would take take to acquire a lottery pick this year. Obviously, the top three spots are unreachable. But, what would it take to get to #5 and have a shot at Will Smith, who could become a franchise center too? Is there a Lysell, Debrusk, + picks package that could ever get that done? According to Kevin Durant, it's possible. One of the things I would say, though, is it's got almost nothing to do with who the Bruins could offer and everything to do with a potential trade partner feeling pressure to accelerate their progress to playoffs/contender status. That's what happened with the Senators last year when they traded #7 overall plus a second and a third for DeBrincat. Obviously, the Hawks had to have a young star they were willing to part with, so it's got more than nothing to do with you offer, but you get the point. There has to be a motivated seller because otherwise the risk of trading out of a position to draft a franchise player for a couple of good players is too high for most GMs. The team that could fit that bill is Columbus. They're paying Johnny CabbagePatch and Patrik Laine $19M combined for the next 3 years. They've just bolstered their D with Severson and Provorov, adding over $10M in salary and two talented players to the returning Werenski and his $9M+ salary. They hope Elvis lives with his $5.4M deal, and with two new D in front and Babcock behind the bench, maybe his life gets easier? (Such a missed opportunity to trade him to Vegas). That's not a team that wants to wait for a new toy to mature. They have Johnson, Sillinger, Foudy, and Chinakov already in the mix. They're in a better position than Ottawa was, in my opinion. Question is whether they think Leo Carlsson will contribute immediately or not. Kid had pretty solid numbers playing against men last year, and he's already 6'3" and close to 200lbs. Do you trade away a possible Forsberg, even if you're certain DeBrusk gives you a 30 goal 2LW and that Lysell is future top six RW type of prospect? MyNHLDraft has the Sharts taking Smith at 4. Sharts are stripping it down, so no partner. Similar with Montreal, Arizona and Philly. There's no reason for them to move. Maybe you could get Washington at 8, Detroit's pick at 9, but I would be cautious about Yzerman fleecing you, and StL at 10 might make a mistake trying to rebound quickly and make the most of their younger core players next year. But is 8, 9 or 10 early enough? Benson, Moore, Danielson and Yager are all slated for that part of the draft as C, but they're mostly smaller Cs. I think the only move that would make sense here would be a Swayman and Debrusk package for #3. Swayman is already better than Elvis without the sub-.900 season on his resume, and DeBrusk's ability to score on his off-wing means they can play him with CabbagePatch or Laine, and they are weak on the right side. That's probably not enough, though; a draft pick sweetener might help but they just don't have one.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jun 13, 2023 17:51:11 GMT
In the "Blow it up" or Dare to Dream context, I wonder what it would take take to acquire a lottery pick this year. Obviously, the top three spots are unreachable. But, what would it take to get to #5 and have a shot at Will Smith, who could become a franchise center too? Is there a Lysell, Debrusk, + picks package that could ever get that done? I just don't get the draft fantasy, as it pertains to our Bruins. I really don't, Foundationally, the draft is "hope" for those that really don't have much to be hopeful about. Secondly, it's the neccessary pipeline for the continuation of life.' Using the absolute rarest, most valuable currency of all, great players, simply for a lottery ticket, only makes sense, when it's obvious you can't win enough games to be relevant. That regularly applies to plenty of teams, but it's been decades, since it applied to the Bruins. Since when has a plethora of unearned picks made a substantial difference in the Bruins ability to be relevant?
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jun 13, 2023 21:58:54 GMT
In the "Blow it up" or Dare to Dream context, I wonder what it would take take to acquire a lottery pick this year. Obviously, the top three spots are unreachable. But, what would it take to get to #5 and have a shot at Will Smith, who could become a franchise center too? Is there a Lysell, Debrusk, + picks package that could ever get that done? I just don't get the draft fantasy, as it pertains to our Bruins. I really don't, Foundationally, the draft is "hope" for those that really don't have much to be hopeful about. Secondly, it's the neccessary pipeline for the continuation of life.' Using the absolute rarest, most valuable currency of all, great players, simply for a lottery ticket, only makes sense, when it's obvious you can't win enough games to be relevant. That regularly applies to plenty of teams, but it's been decades, since it applied to the Bruins. Since when has a plethora of unearned picks made a substantial difference in the Bruins ability to be relevant? I don't often agree with stevegm, but when I do like this post, I drink Russian Standard...stay thirsty my friends. My first and only words to negate any idea that draft picks will make the B's---Jack...Studnicka
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jun 14, 2023 15:45:59 GMT
In the "Blow it up" or Dare to Dream context, I wonder what it would take take to acquire a lottery pick this year. Obviously, the top three spots are unreachable. But, what would it take to get to #5 and have a shot at Will Smith, who could become a franchise center too? Is there a Lysell, Debrusk, + picks package that could ever get that done? I just don't get the draft fantasy, as it pertains to our Bruins. I really don't, Foundationally, the draft is "hope" for those that really don't have much to be hopeful about. Secondly, it's the neccessary pipeline for the continuation of life.' Using the absolute rarest, most valuable currency of all, great players, simply for a lottery ticket, only makes sense, when it's obvious you can't win enough games to be relevant. That regularly applies to plenty of teams, but it's been decades, since it applied to the Bruins. Since when has a plethora of unearned picks made a substantial difference in the Bruins ability to be relevant? Yeah, I know, and I'm starting with the context of us going down the Blow it up/Dreamer rabbit hole here. It doesn't strike me as the most practical or realistic strategy either, but it's summer, and everything's on the table. It's not so different than the Sweeney 2015 strategy, although that will largely be regarded as a swing and a miss in drafting potential. The reason I give any thought goes back to the center thing. The Bruins have tried and failed to develop and keep a high end center for close to 20 years now, post Bergeron/Krejci draft picks. I don't see anyone coming up to change that. The FA market for quality centers is very thin and unappealing. So, how do you get one and avoid the rebuild? Maybe the lottery pick is one way. They're relatively deep at wing and other areas by comparison. A dubious strategy, but still a possible option.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jun 14, 2023 15:55:40 GMT
The only time I was happy to see a change of scenery, a kind of roster re-boot was post Lewis-O'Connell--getting Julien, signing Chara, getting Savard...and yes, B's had some really good young guys coming on to the roster--Marchand, Lucic, McQuaid, Sobotka, Axelsson, Krejci, Rask, Boychuk, and a few others--but the key, the real key was they had a leader in Chara, Savard too--or star power...this wasn't all kids, all blown up...Bergeron also a young lad with a few seasons under his belt...the team had some key components to build into the 2010-2014 juggernaut....The Lewis season was resonating to me. It's like the 23 Red Sox...bad team, bad outlook, and tough to watch and say hey this is fun...it wasn't then, and isn't now...the B's any way you slice it, bad in playoffs, or unlucky in postseason for a many years now since '11, they are a good team every year and a team worth following/watching and experiencing...I don't see that for Hawks fans, or Dead Wings fans, or all those Canadian based teams.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jun 14, 2023 17:11:10 GMT
I just don't get the draft fantasy, as it pertains to our Bruins. I really don't, Foundationally, the draft is "hope" for those that really don't have much to be hopeful about. Secondly, it's the neccessary pipeline for the continuation of life.' Using the absolute rarest, most valuable currency of all, great players, simply for a lottery ticket, only makes sense, when it's obvious you can't win enough games to be relevant. That regularly applies to plenty of teams, but it's been decades, since it applied to the Bruins. Since when has a plethora of unearned picks made a substantial difference in the Bruins ability to be relevant? Yeah, I know, and I'm starting with the context of us going down the Blow it up/Dreamer rabbit hole here. It doesn't strike me as the most practical or realistic strategy either, but it's summer, and everything's on the table. It's not so different than the Sweeney 2015 strategy, although that will largely be regarded as a swing and a miss in drafting potential. The reason I give any thought goes back to the center thing. The Bruins have tried and failed to develop and keep a high end center for close to 20 years now, post Bergeron/Krejci draft picks. I don't see anyone coming up to change that. The FA market for quality centers is very thin and unappealing. So, how do you get one and avoid the rebuild? Maybe the lottery pick is one way. They're relatively deep at wing and other areas by comparison. A dubious strategy, but still a possible option. I think we've gone down this rabbit hole in the past, but I think the bold is a bit misleading, partly because I think most of us take it on faith that drafting and developing (or even just developing, but that seems a lot harder if you aren't starting with the draft...) a potential top line C is very difficult to do. The question is really how hard have they tried? I don't feel like they've really made it a priority. Since 2005, they've only draft a few guys who really had a realistic shot to be that player. In 2007, they took Hamill at #8. Supposed to be a great playmaker with a two way game forged by former NHL trap lover coach Constantine. Hamill was the only C they took in that draft. 2008, Colborne at 16, Sauve at 47. Colborne was a project with high end upside who was staying Junior B to maintain NCAA eligibility. Questions about how badly he wanted to be an NHL star - oil family - from day 1. Sauve was a point/game player in the Q. 2009, Caron at 25. Draft year was his best year in junior. Didn't play much C beyond junior. 2010 - Segzy at 2, Spooner at 45. 2011 - Khokho at 40. 2012 - no Cs in rd 1-3. 2013 - no Cs rd 1-3. 2014 - Donato 56. 2015 - JFK at 45. 2016 - Freddy at 29. 2017 - Studs at 53. 2018 Lauko in the third. 2019 Beecher at 30. 2021 - Harrison in the third. last year, Poitras at 54. 15 Cs drafted in 18 years in the top three rounds, with only Segzy, Hamill and Colborne in the top 24 picks and only six total first rounders. Hamill and Colborne were busts, one due to injury in part and the other ultimately for the foreseeable reasons. Caron had a brief stint on the wing with Bergeron, but was never really developed to play C. The Segzy and Spooner stories are well-known, and while Spooner showed flashes, he never had the frame to do more than attack from the perimeter. Khokho went home before he fully developed, but his two way game was non-existant. Donato, like Caron, didn't play C in the NHL. JFK quit and went home, but was largely a bust. Freddy has been largely a wing but wasn't expected to be a top six C. Studs was and was given the chance to develop as a C but the pandemic really killed his development because he didn't play. Scored 49 points as a rookie in Providence then plays just 31 games the next year, mostly in a 4th line role in terms of TOI. 56 the next year, mostly in Providence, but a lot of popcorn row in Boston. Lauko's a wing now, Beecher's just finished his first year in Providence, Harrison and Poitras are still unknowns, but Harrison's not likely a C as a pro. I would categorize like this: Drafted as potential top line C: 3 (Segzy, Hamill, Colborne) Drafted at C; Pro Wing: 6 (Caron, Sauve, Donato, Freddy, Lauko, Harrison) Project or depth C: 6 (Spooner, Khokho, JFK, Studs, Beecher, Poitras) To me, that's not really trying to develop a top line C, but it does reflect where the Bruins have been in the window you cited. In 2007, the Bruins were still struggling. They had added Savard and had Bergeron at C, but Krejci had played 6 games with 0 points and went -3. Savard was already pushing 30. They needed scoring help and a potential replacement for Savard. Draft a high potential C. Similar the next year, but with the spectre of Bergeron never being the same player after his concussion. Krejci finally scored a goal, but was by no means a sure thing to become what he became. Draft Centres with the top two picks. Next year, you're looking pretty solid at C and have other needs. Take the big body Caron as a winger. Segzy falls into your lap. Spooner falls in the draft and you have extra picks to take a chance. Other priorities in 2011 but you take a flier on a Russian kid with a lot of skill. 2012, you have Bergeron and Krejci in their primes and Segzy is your leading scorer playing wing. No room at the inn. Two years of that. Legacy boy after you've moved on from Segzy. 2015 and 2016 are interesting. All those picks in the top two rounds and they go D, W, W, D, C, D. Barzal, Eriksson Ek, White, and Roslovic still on the board, as was Sebastien Aho - the good one that plays C. Two NTDP players in that group - good American boys for the part of Bruins management that seems to like that. 2016 they go D with the mid-rounder and leave Freddy for late first round. And to be honest...good thing. The Cs taken between Frederic and McAvoy were Kunin (106 points but far from impactful), Rubtsov (4 NHL games), Borgstrom (26 points), and Howden (82 points). Oh, and Tage. So there was one. The last several years, the need for a C has been clear, but they haven't had the draft capital. Studnicka was bottom of the second round; there isn't an impactful C drafted after him that year. Lauko was late third. They took Beecher over Pinto and Pinto has shown some touch, but the only other C taken later than Beecher to look like he can score in the NHL at this point was Parissenen or whatever who went in the 7th round to Nashville. Too early to know if there was a C they should have taken ahead of Lohrei at 58, but they could have chosen Wyatt Johnston over Lysell two years ago, and they might be kicking themselves for not doing so. Whether that was a sign that they were going best player or what, it does suggest they didn't give Johnston a premium for being a C. All that suggests to me that they might think you don't chase top C in the draft. Too expensive a la JT Superstar or Segzy when it goes right or Hamill when it goes wrong. Get good hockey players who don't have that dominant skill set yet in the mid rounds and hope? Look for the next Jason Allison? In any event, they don't have the luxury of rolling back 37 and 46 forever any more. That might change the strategy.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jun 14, 2023 20:10:55 GMT
Yeah, I know, and I'm starting with the context of us going down the Blow it up/Dreamer rabbit hole here. It doesn't strike me as the most practical or realistic strategy either, but it's summer, and everything's on the table. It's not so different than the Sweeney 2015 strategy, although that will largely be regarded as a swing and a miss in drafting potential. The reason I give any thought goes back to the center thing. The Bruins have tried and failed to develop and keep a high end center for close to 20 years now, post Bergeron/Krejci draft picks. I don't see anyone coming up to change that. The FA market for quality centers is very thin and unappealing. So, how do you get one and avoid the rebuild? Maybe the lottery pick is one way. They're relatively deep at wing and other areas by comparison. A dubious strategy, but still a possible option. I think we've gone down this rabbit hole in the past, but I think the bold is a bit misleading, partly because I think most of us take it on faith that drafting and developing (or even just developing, but that seems a lot harder if you aren't starting with the draft...) a potential top line C is very difficult to do. The question is really how hard have they tried? I don't feel like they've really made it a priority. Since 2005, they've only draft a few guys who really had a realistic shot to be that player. In 2007, they took Hamill at #8. Supposed to be a great playmaker with a two way game forged by former NHL trap lover coach Constantine. Hamill was the only C they took in that draft. 2008, Colborne at 16, Sauve at 47. Colborne was a project with high end upside who was staying Junior B to maintain NCAA eligibility. Questions about how badly he wanted to be an NHL star - oil family - from day 1. Sauve was a point/game player in the Q. 2009, Caron at 25. Draft year was his best year in junior. Didn't play much C beyond junior. 2010 - Segzy at 2, Spooner at 45. 2011 - Khokho at 40. 2012 - no Cs in rd 1-3. 2013 - no Cs rd 1-3. 2014 - Donato 56. 2015 - JFK at 45. 2016 - Freddy at 29. 2017 - Studs at 53. 2018 Lauko in the third. 2019 Beecher at 30. 2021 - Harrison in the third. last year, Poitras at 54. 15 Cs drafted in 18 years in the top three rounds, with only Segzy, Hamill and Colborne in the top 24 picks and only six total first rounders. Hamill and Colborne were busts, one due to injury in part and the other ultimately for the foreseeable reasons. Caron had a brief stint on the wing with Bergeron, but was never really developed to play C. The Segzy and Spooner stories are well-known, and while Spooner showed flashes, he never had the frame to do more than attack from the perimeter. Khokho went home before he fully developed, but his two way game was non-existant. Donato, like Caron, didn't play C in the NHL. JFK quit and went home, but was largely a bust. Freddy has been largely a wing but wasn't expected to be a top six C. Studs was and was given the chance to develop as a C but the pandemic really killed his development because he didn't play. Scored 49 points as a rookie in Providence then plays just 31 games the next year, mostly in a 4th line role in terms of TOI. 56 the next year, mostly in Providence, but a lot of popcorn row in Boston. Lauko's a wing now, Beecher's just finished his first year in Providence, Harrison and Poitras are still unknowns, but Harrison's not likely a C as a pro. I would categorize like this: Drafted as potential top line C: 3 (Segzy, Hamill, Colborne) Drafted at C; Pro Wing: 6 (Caron, Sauve, Donato, Freddy, Lauko, Harrison) Project or depth C: 6 (Spooner, Khokho, JFK, Studs, Beecher, Poitras) To me, that's not really trying to develop a top line C, but it does reflect where the Bruins have been in the window you cited. In 2007, the Bruins were still struggling. They had added Savard and had Bergeron at C, but Krejci had played 6 games with 0 points and went -3. Savard was already pushing 30. They needed scoring help and a potential replacement for Savard. Draft a high potential C. Similar the next year, but with the spectre of Bergeron never being the same player after his concussion. Krejci finally scored a goal, but was by no means a sure thing to become what he became. Draft Centres with the top two picks. Next year, you're looking pretty solid at C and have other needs. Take the big body Caron as a winger. Segzy falls into your lap. Spooner falls in the draft and you have extra picks to take a chance. Other priorities in 2011 but you take a flier on a Russian kid with a lot of skill. 2012, you have Bergeron and Krejci in their primes and Segzy is your leading scorer playing wing. No room at the inn. Two years of that. Legacy boy after you've moved on from Segzy. 2015 and 2016 are interesting. All those picks in the top two rounds and they go D, W, W, D, C, D. Barzal, Eriksson Ek, White, and Roslovic still on the board, as was Sebastien Aho - the good one that plays C. Two NTDP players in that group - good American boys for the part of Bruins management that seems to like that. 2016 they go D with the mid-rounder and leave Freddy for late first round. And to be honest...good thing. The Cs taken between Frederic and McAvoy were Kunin (106 points but far from impactful), Rubtsov (4 NHL games), Borgstrom (26 points), and Howden (82 points). Oh, and Tage. So there was one. The last several years, the need for a C has been clear, but they haven't had the draft capital. Studnicka was bottom of the second round; there isn't an impactful C drafted after him that year. Lauko was late third. They took Beecher over Pinto and Pinto has shown some touch, but the only other C taken later than Beecher to look like he can score in the NHL at this point was Parissenen or whatever who went in the 7th round to Nashville. Too early to know if there was a C they should have taken ahead of Lohrei at 58, but they could have chosen Wyatt Johnston over Lysell two years ago, and they might be kicking themselves for not doing so. Whether that was a sign that they were going best player or what, it does suggest they didn't give Johnston a premium for being a C. All that suggests to me that they might think you don't chase top C in the draft. Too expensive a la JT Superstar or Segzy when it goes right or Hamill when it goes wrong. Get good hockey players who don't have that dominant skill set yet in the mid rounds and hope? Look for the next Jason Allison? In any event, they don't have the luxury of rolling back 37 and 46 forever any more. That might change the strategy. Nice analysis Book. A quick and not thought out interjection to the discussion is along the lines that the focus is about Bergeron drafted 45th and Krejci at 63 in their respective drafts. First point is those two centers were higher picks, have the Bs had good drafting since in the later rounds seeking a center? Secondly, does the fact those two centers were the top two since 2009 indicate no real need to find another center?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jun 15, 2023 0:00:56 GMT
Nice analysis Book. A quick and not thought out interjection to the discussion is along the lines that the focus is about Bergeron drafted 45th and Krejci at 63 in their respective drafts. First point is those two centers were higher picks, have the Bs had good drafting since in the later rounds seeking a center? Secondly, does the fact those two centers were the top two since 2009 indicate no real need to find another center? Well, first question - no. There is only one player drafted as a C not on that list who had any kind of NHL career after being drafted beyond the third round by the Bruins - Vladdy Sobotka. Looking at that question even farther back shows just what an utter fluke the Bergeron and Krejci picks were. Other than when they had the first overall pick in 1997, the Bruins have not picked centres often or well. The top Cs they drafted going back to 1990 (outside of the top of the first round) are Smolinski, Stumpel and Shawn Bates. Really, outside of the 1980s from Pederson and Fergus to Janney, Juneau...the Bruins Cs have come from away. But again, there's little evidence of them really prioritizing the position or the need in a way that would make you say they're bad a centres. They just don't seem to really. Which is the second question, I guess. I think the need has been there for a few years. You're not likely to draft a rookie C where the Bruins will draft who will replace Krejci if he retires; you'd rather have a guy from two years ago who got a taste last year and is ready for more. They need to do something about the lack of C talent. I would say yeah, they figured they were set for a long time at 1A and 1B so it wasn't a priority, and may even have been a little burned about the Seguin situation where they had 3 #1C on the roster and couldn't really make something special happen. So don't recreate that. But I also think it's a combo of best player available drafting and a change of GMs. I think PC was looking. I think Sweeney decided there were other fish.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jun 15, 2023 11:58:00 GMT
"Drafted as potential top line C: 3 (Segzy, Hamill, Colborne) Drafted at C; Pro Wing: 6 (Caron, Sauve, Donato, Freddy, Lauko, Harrison) Project or depth C: 6 (Spooner, Khokho, JFK, Studs, Beecher, Poitras"
Definitely think Bruins brass were/are trying to develop Spooner, Beecher, Poitras, Studnicka and KoKo as more than depth. Really hope Beecher and Poitras can turn the past around.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jun 15, 2023 14:27:22 GMT
Nice analysis Book. A quick and not thought out interjection to the discussion is along the lines that the focus is about Bergeron drafted 45th and Krejci at 63 in their respective drafts. First point is those two centers were higher picks, have the Bs had good drafting since in the later rounds seeking a center? Secondly, does the fact those two centers were the top two since 2009 indicate no real need to find another center? Well, first question - no. There is only one player drafted as a C not on that list who had any kind of NHL career after being drafted beyond the third round by the Bruins - Vladdy Sobotka. Looking at that question even farther back shows just what an utter fluke the Bergeron and Krejci picks were. Other than when they had the first overall pick in 1997, the Bruins have not picked centres often or well. The top Cs they drafted going back to 1990 (outside of the top of the first round) are Smolinski, Stumpel and Shawn Bates. Really, outside of the 1980s from Pederson and Fergus to Janney, Juneau...the Bruins Cs have come from away. But again, there's little evidence of them really prioritizing the position or the need in a way that would make you say they're bad a centres. They just don't seem to really. Which is the second question, I guess. I think the need has been there for a few years. You're not likely to draft a rookie C where the Bruins will draft who will replace Krejci if he retires; you'd rather have a guy from two years ago who got a taste last year and is ready for more. They need to do something about the lack of C talent. I would say yeah, they figured they were set for a long time at 1A and 1B so it wasn't a priority, and may even have been a little burned about the Seguin situation where they had 3 #1C on the roster and couldn't really make something special happen. So don't recreate that. But I also think it's a combo of best player available drafting and a change of GMs. I think PC was looking. I think Sweeney decided there were other fish. Looking back to the 1980 draft, Pederson was drafted 18 overall and Fergus 60th. That represents the best in forty some years to compare to Bergeron and Krejci. I discount Seguin as a draft candidate. I continue to think the Bs preferred Taylor rather than Tyler. Looking back once again in humor, the debate on who was to go first was rather a sensational media coverage only. A quick note on Joe Thornton, I like many Bs fans had hope he was tough up the middle. The draft bios then referred to his prowess up front. Several years of development was convincing enough a trade was needed, albeit a poor time of the year to do so. Nonetheless, it is amazing the Bs have been an above average team with brilliance in several of those years after drafting Bergeron and Krejci. A drafting tribute to the Bs. Bergeron is now number one in most redrafts as a point of refernce. If the Bs did well in the 80s and 25 years later, I tend to think the trend is set for better drafting. Lastly, I always liked the signings of Chara and Savard. Chara was a defensive beast, and Savard was all offense at forward. FAs though are generally bad. A trade is the way to change the direction of the current team. No blow up. I wish there was a good read on the character of Pierre-Luc as a teammate.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jun 15, 2023 15:30:35 GMT
"Drafted as potential top line C: 3 (Segzy, Hamill, Colborne) Drafted at C; Pro Wing: 6 (Caron, Sauve, Donato, Freddy, Lauko, Harrison) Project or depth C: 6 (Spooner, Khokho, JFK, Studs, Beecher, Poitras" Definitely think Bruins brass were/are trying to develop Spooner, Beecher, Poitras, Studnicka and KoKo as more than depth. Really hope Beecher and Poitras can turn the past around. I don't think any of them was expected to be a top line C based on their draft position. To go back to the idea that the Bruins were trying and failing to develop a #1C, I think it's fair to say that each of those players had some good attributes when drafted, but also some questions that explain why they were drafted in the second round or very late in the first in Beecher's case. There was a brief period of time where Studnicka seemed to be the lottery ticket, and Spooner had some short term success when the team was a bubble team, but neither could sustain it. Beecher has never seen his offense really emerge, and that was the question on him. When I call them project or depth, I mean they were looking to develop them to a level above their draft status and maybe if they were successful, one of them would go the Bergeron/Krejci route, but if none did, I think they saw all of them as possible contributors as a 3C or something.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jun 15, 2023 19:14:35 GMT
Don't think any I mentioned were drafted as support or project players.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jun 16, 2023 22:05:11 GMT
Everytime I view this thread title I think of Jeff Beck.
|
|
|
Post by dezaruchi on Jul 12, 2023 22:41:34 GMT
Anybody else look over at Chicago every now and again and get a little jealous? Chicago and Boston rose at the same time and aged at the same time but we are seeing two completely different strategies from the GM's. While Chicago looked at it's aging stars and decided to start the rebuild, each of the last two seasons we all sit on the edge of our seats waiting to hear whether our two aging stars want to come back for yet another run after disappointing playoff attempts. There's merit to both strategies as we just had one of, if not the best regular season in the history of the league before falling apart at the worst time to an admittedly very hot team. Chicago on the other had, just won the draft lottery for the "best player since McJesus", has a strong pipeline, and on top of all that has another first round pick, and SIX 2nd round picks in what is supposed to be a very deep and talented draft. We wait in agony, waiting for the other shoe to drop and Bergy to retire and leave us without a legit #1C, and Chicago took two down years to hit the bottom and get the arrow pointing back upwards. Only time will tell how it all pans out, but you can't help but think what if......I plan to be a Bruins fan forever, but I've got to admit, it looks pretty fun to be a Chicago fan right now. I think you're mistaking strategy/philosophy, with the realities that come from winning/losing. what have we got to show for our last 6 second rounders? our last first? you can't tank your way to a franchise player. you have to tank, then win the lottery, and hope a cornerstone player is head and heels over all the rest. that ain't much of a strategy. it's sittin on your ass, feeling entitled to "watch your ship come in". Recent Lafreniere trade rumors only reinforces the entire process being nowhere near a guarantee of success.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 12, 2023 22:56:13 GMT
I think you're mistaking strategy/philosophy, with the realities that come from winning/losing. what have we got to show for our last 6 second rounders? our last first? you can't tank your way to a franchise player. you have to tank, then win the lottery, and hope a cornerstone player is head and heels over all the rest. that ain't much of a strategy. it's sittin on your ass, feeling entitled to "watch your ship come in". Recent Lafreniere trade rumors only reinforces the entire process being nowhere near a guarantee of success. Yup. Just the latest example of a team picking who they're supposed to pick at the very top of the draft two years running and having very little to show for it.
|
|