|
Post by The OC on Aug 20, 2015 0:00:34 GMT
I'm not worried about Seidenberg at all, he was excellent at the end, as good as ever. And he's only 34. Chara I'm nervous about. But if he sucks they can't replace him anyway, so it's nothing to pay much thought to. Just hope for the best.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 0:06:04 GMT
I'm not worried about Seidenberg at all, he was excellent at the end, as good as ever. And he's only 34. Chara I'm nervous about. But if he sucks they can't replace him anyway, so it's nothing to pay much thought to. Just hope for the best. I don't have any concerns about Seidenberg's age ,34 isn't ancient for a defenceman ,just didn't like what I saw from him last year , poor decision making at times . Let's hope he is fully recovered.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 20, 2015 1:25:51 GMT
With Seidenberg, it isn't his recovery from his injury, he was about back to normal at the end of the season, but the mental mistakes. They just seemed to be so uncharacteristic for him, almost like the demon Bart inhabited his body. Maybe because he didn't have confidence physically to know he could be in
position in time, i don't know, but his head seemed to be somewhere else a lot last season. I'm hoping the old Seids will return though, and i really think he will. As has been mentioned, 34 yrs old isn't pasture time quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 1:42:21 GMT
With Seidenberg, it isn't his recovery from his injury, he was about back to normal at the end of the season, but the mental mistakes. They just seemed to be so uncharacteristic for him, almost like the demon Bart inhabited his body. Maybe because he didn't have confidence physically to know he could be in position in time, i don't know, but his head seemed to be somewhere else a lot last season. I'm hoping the old Seids will return though, and i really think he will. As has been mentioned, 34 yrs old isn't pasture time quite yet. I think a lot of it will depend on who he plays with . I would like to see him play with someone who happens to be better than he is ,not sure who that is . Krug- Seidenberg might be a good pair or one that we will have to hold our breath when they are on the ice .
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 20, 2015 1:48:38 GMT
I'd like to see Chara and Seidenberg pair up to face top lines. Although a Chara-Kevan Seidenberg-Colin Krug-McQuaid set would be fun, assuming Smiller makes the team.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 4:30:11 GMT
I'd like to see Chara and Seidenberg pair up to face top lines. Although a Chara-Kevan Seidenberg-Colin Krug-McQuaid set would be fun, assuming Smiller makes the team. I am not sure Chara and Seidenberg are up to the task of facing the opposition's top lines night in and night out .
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 20, 2015 12:28:04 GMT
I'd like to see Chara and Seidenberg pair up to face top lines. Although a Chara-Kevan Seidenberg-Colin Krug-McQuaid set would be fun, assuming Smiller makes the team. I am not sure Chara and Seidenberg are up to the task of facing the opposition's top lines night in and night out . If Chara and Seidenberg can't handle top lines, it's time to give up now.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 20, 2015 13:55:39 GMT
Since you asked.
I think the Bruins were a championship contender last year, and figured there was still a small window left despite missing the show. I didn't think anything was a result of a flawed roster, rather an inexplainable funk. Certainly there were flaws, but I felt the logical option was a new coach to shake things up, and the usual tweaks. I would have been more Lombardian in my approach for 2015. I see this year as a major re-tooling, and I would have put that off for a year. Every playoff team was happy they didn't have the Bruins or Kings to worry about. Using the kind of logic you regularly present regarding the last GM, I'd have kept Lucic, and brought in Kopitar, and had LA eat 2.8 mil of his salary instead. I would have gladly signed Hamilton for what he got, and am fairly certain I could have leveraged a trade that would bring back significant pieces that could not only potentially help the future...but definitely aid the chase for another Cup this year. Like Chicago, I'd do what I had to, to become compliant, which may include parting with a few pieces for cheaper ones. To me, Hamilton should've got both a Belesky and a Hayes type. Maybe I'd have only kept one, and since I had both Lucic and Kopitar that money would have gone to the D. I probably would have traded Smith, as I think that was an excellent move. I agree a little heavier is good, but not at the expense of anything. I'd commit to big change next year, if it didn't work now, simply because my core is past it's best before date, yet still has good value. Belesky, to me, is a great example of what's already out there if you're a good shopper. IMO, Marchand and Louis, even though I love them, aren't core players. Core players to me...are the ones nearly impossible to get. I don't see the 8 million dollar value in a guy like Bergeron, unless you have something pretty special to start with. Something to protect. He could still bring back a ton next year, and I wouldn't keep him, if I'm going rebuild. I fully believe Chara will bounce back, and next year a contender would do back flips to get him. I think LA sees Lucic like a "rental", and I do to. I'd have kept him for this big run, but I wouldn't have given him much term going forward, so I would've got zero come spring, and I'd be prepared to live with that, because of my plan. Basically, when I see really good players go for mostly picks...I see rebuild. I think the fact that the conversation has abrubtly turned from Cup contender to Playoff contender throughout the industry gives that thought some credence. I think the premise behind the overall mission moving forward, was a bit knee-jerk, and I think the odds of regressing, are better than improvement. I also don't feel there would be a huge drop off, in potential return,,,if the team waited another year to start stockpiling picks. I don't think improvement is impossible though, so I'm waiting til I see a good sample of the new product before I'm willing to go against my gut and proclaim everythings good. If all goes well, and the Bruins do better than 96 points, I'll gladly admit I've been shown a better way. I've already stated, that record, coupled with all the picks should be considered an outstanding achievement for our 1st year GM. As stated before, what happens in LA and Chicago hugely affects how I interpret things too. If LA doesn't do well, getting Lucic, while giving up picks backfires considerably. If Chicago regresses, it's also a reasonable sign the cap is working the way it's supposed to, and that the Bruins, are, in fact, way ahead of the curve.
Thanks for answering. A couple of thoughts. - Amid the PC vs Cam/Charlie/ DS debate, CJ has skated by without that much criticism. I agree that axing him should have been on the table for consideration. Also, think he is the next lever that gets pulled if they get off to a bad start. That said, I think PC was in an equally tough spot given the roster and cap pressure.
- Think the Kopitar example is good satire, but isn't realistic. There was no cap space to absorb $3M of Kopitar. In the end, there were no real options to improve the roster and take on money, saying otherwise is not factual. Unless, part of the discussion was to move salary. Even PC understood this, see trading JB for picks.
- Seems like you agree that the "big changes" were eminent, but you wanted 1 more run with this group? That certainly was an option, guess the Cam/Charlie group didn't agree.
- The Cup Contender vs Playoff Contender statement seems way off. After getting bounced by Montreal and missing the playoffs last year, I don't recall their being much analysis indicating the Bruins were Cup Contenders.
- Hate when you say things like "throughout the industry". You seem to use this approach to squash an opposing point of view. I share my view, because it's mine. Saying that "the industry is unanimous" about a topic looks to stifle debate. It also cannot be proven. I respect your point of view and am much more interested in that than what Darren Dreger or Fluto says about it. We are Bruins fans, they are not.
- Not sure why LA success/failure defines the validity of the Bruins approach? LA is going for it. Bruins already tried that with Iginla. I don't think LA is wrong to try with Lucic because it didn't work for the Bruins with Iginla. Different situations, would expect different outcomes. Part of the LA impact may be felt in the years to come following the "go for it" approach. Similar to the Bruins, so it might be worth extending the window.
Either way, there isn't much in your explanation that I would strongly disagree with. I think axing CJ and sticking it out with PC was an option, and not an unreasonable one. I have stated that before and think I have been pretty consistent in that thinking. Hate the way this team played last year, no life and no fight. Think DS is right to try to address that, and that's not measured by fighting majors. It's about how they play, think that gets lost when talking about coming up short with 96 points.
In the end, I think PC was a very good GM, I just don't like the way he handled contracts. I think that critique is fair, and is not intended to take away from his accomplishments. Ultimately, I think it cost him his job.
Anyway, thanks for the reply and the read.
1. Nothing to debate there. I'm in full agreement that CJ is that next "lever", and that bugs me. It's so predictable, it's almost like an executive "back up' plan. It was the obvious move imo, and now it's like a "card" to hang onto, til it's more palatable. I know die hard loyalists bristle at any criticism that isn't there's, but I feel strongly that way. They told him he was free to look around. When was the last time we saw something like that in the NHL. Keeping Julien is economic and political. Nothing more imo, and my interest in the game, and the team, is generally "the game" aspect,... escapism from that kind of horseshit. Over 50 years of being a staunch Bruin fan, I can't ever remember being bombarded with so many disgusting, inconsistent, circular executive statements, than I have in the last 6 months. Regardless, how great the team performs, that doesn't change. I'll get over it, but I don't need the security of pretending it didn't happen.
2. The Kopitar example, is meant to be more than satire. Rather, the "type" of move I'd have considered. There is Cap space to do that kind of thing. There always is. One just makes the necessary decisions to comply. That's why I always hate Cap Space "per se" conversations. Right now, we have about 5 mil in space. Belesky is a wash for Lucic, so we could have Lucic back, plus Kopitar, for 3 mil. That leaves 2 mil left, with 1 more forward than necessary. Depending on who goes, it's easy to save enough for a real good D, and a backup. Not trying to further any point about the "example", only pointing out the indisputable fact, there is "actual" cap space to do it. Chicago is going to do it, and "space' has no bearing. Success depends on allocation, not availability.
3. I'm always open to changes, but like anyone else, I'm only keen on those I believe to be positive. I have no problem stating my thoughts, because I think about them first, and have no problem publicly updating them if hindsight proves me wrong. If I could hang my hat on one single thing to come out of Cam or Charlies mouth lately...my tone would be more enthusiastic. I'm also less keen than most over 1st round picks outside the top 3 or 4. I get the importance of "feeders", but high draft picks seem to be ranked on an element of sizzle. For as long as I can remember, that doesn't seem to fit within the Bruin philosophy over the long haul. More a propaganda routine
4. and 5. Maybe I'm mistaken Cup vs Playoffs, but I don't think so. Pretty easy to call it, if you want to do the work I guess(I didn't, because I didn't feel it was a polarizing statement by any means.) Vegas was giving the Bruins top 5 odds of winning it all going into last year. They were the favorite going into the 14 playoffs. If you get most of your information here, even soothsayers like Oates...as late as March of this year, was proclaiming this years team was solidly built for the big prize. Which leads me to#5. I don't use "throughout the industry" to quash debate. I use it to avoid detailed explanation of the obvious. I don't consider this place to be industry. There are very few people here, imo, with the objectivity to discuss both sides of a Bruin subject. I'm generally referring to the Dregers, Hockey News's, media stuff. Especially out of market media. We all have scribes we respect more than others, and of course no story is going to be completely unanimous. In the 2 most recent times I remember using this term, it was regarding the above, and the GM firing. In both cases, the media in general, as well as accredited hockey professionals were all , largely going in one direction. That's all I mean. Lots we can discuss and debate about the Bruins. Arguing, the obvious generic makes no sense. Arguing exactly what the majority are "saying", is fair ball.
5. And since we're cleansing our souls, this is something I hate coming from you(despite being one of my favorites here). You twist things to create a debate that isn't there. And this is so easy to "prove". There is no way a guy as well spoken and articulate as you, interprets the very clear language above, to mean what happens in LA "defines" the Bruins approach. There's miles of real estate between "hugely affects', and "defines". I said LA "and" Chicago. You're conveniently leaving out 50% of the content, and you're using a descriptor that clearly exaggerates what I wrote. For the last several years, Boston, LA and Chicago have been the league heavyweights. They've all had moments of failure, but they've been the big 3, so an element of comparison is reasonable. Only the Bruins...so far, have chosen to place emphasis on leveraging the upper end of their roster for futures. It's explained in detail above, and it's really, a vanilla conclusion. Especially after I admit the strategy could prove to be brilliant. If you want to debate it...debate what I said, not something you're making up.
Finally, we have totally different interpretations of the way the former GM handled contracts. I never argue opinions. I argue the basis of those opinions. I had several criticisms of PC over the years, and like you, I figured he was plenty competent. I just strongly disagree with the contract stuff. Overall, I think that was a generic "whose to blame" card, that turned into conventional wisdom. No one has been able to point out enough reasonable examples of this...to make it stick. Sure Kelly fits. Now it looks like Paille does, but the crème de la crème will always have a couple of those guys a few hundred grand upside down. Krejki could be the example that actually does fit, but it's pickin fly shit out of pepper to bring him up, at this stage. I've gone up and down that roster since this stuff surfaced(about 2 years ago) and I can't think of one player that should be hard to leverage because of his salary, except Kelly. There have been some that may have appeared that way, then the premise gets blown out of the water(see Reilly Smith). Then there's the idea that he should have been able to shave a few hundred grand off a bunch of contracts, which would add up to a lot. That's nuts. It's nuts, because there is absolutely zero, to base that assumption on. It's an opinion that could not possibly be based on less logic. I most strongly disagree this is why he lost his job, and in the past I've given other specific reasons I feel are more fitting. Doesn't mean I'm right.. just playing along.
And I very much appreciate your thoughts and contributions as well. Don't ever think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 20, 2015 14:51:38 GMT
re: CJ. I wonder. I really do. If the Bruins realize he's hit his expiration date with the Bruins, but they don't want to let him go because given a new deck of cards to play with on another team it is likely that CJ will turn some other ship around. And maybe in their own division. So maybe they are thinking it is kind of a new set of cards in Boston, CJ might be able to take off with it. And if not, at least it will be a little more difficult for another team to grab him when he gets fired mid season sometime. After all that has happened, hopefully they have the next coach dead in their sites, if not, I'll be pretty disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 20, 2015 15:54:02 GMT
re: CJ. I wonder. I really do. If the Bruins realize he's hit his expiration date with the Bruins, but they don't want to let him go because given a new deck of cards to play with on another team it is likely that CJ will turn some other ship around. And maybe in their own division. So maybe they are thinking it is kind of a new set of cards in Boston, CJ might be able to take off with it. And if not, at least it will be a little more difficult for another team to grab him when he gets fired mid season sometime. After all that has happened, hopefully they have the next coach dead in their sites, if not, I'll be pretty disappointed. only thing is, if they were worried about the division, or the conference, or a new set of cards, or somebody else grabbing him.......why did they cut him loose in April? Cuz that's what they did. In a world where contractual minutia rules, the difference between "you're gone", and "you can go", is merely semantics.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 20, 2015 16:03:00 GMT
re: CJ. I wonder. I really do. If the Bruins realize he's hit his expiration date with the Bruins, but they don't want to let him go because given a new deck of cards to play with on another team it is likely that CJ will turn some other ship around. And maybe in their own division. So maybe they are thinking it is kind of a new set of cards in Boston, CJ might be able to take off with it. And if not, at least it will be a little more difficult for another team to grab him when he gets fired mid season sometime. After all that has happened, hopefully they have the next coach dead in their sites, if not, I'll be pretty disappointed. only thing is, if they were worried about the division, or the conference, or a new set of cards, or somebody else grabbing him.......why did they cut him loose in April? Cuz that's what they did. In a world where contractual minutia rules, the difference between "you're gone", and "you can go", is merely semantics.
You mean PC? CJ's still here.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 16:22:05 GMT
I am not sure Chara and Seidenberg are up to the task of facing the opposition's top lines night in and night out . If Chara and Seidenberg can't handle top lines, it's time to give up now. Both struggled last year and are another year older .
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 20, 2015 16:26:15 GMT
If Chara and Seidenberg can't handle top lines, it's time to give up now. Both struggled last year and are another year older . Agreed - and I think they are better split up for a number of reasons, first is I'd like to see older paired with younger, I think there is a lot to gain with 'youth' seeing experience up close, and it would pair faster defensemen with slower ones, and I think more offensive defensemen with more defensive minded ones. What I would do if I were an NHL coach, but I'm not, and can't even pretend to be one on an internet forum.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 20, 2015 16:37:34 GMT
If Chara and Seidenberg can't handle top lines, it's time to give up now. Both struggled last year and are another year older . Both players keep themselves in great shape during the off-season and are coming into camp healthy compared to last season. So age means nothing to either player because of there off-season workout program. Funny how much everyone on the outside looking in on the Bruins, especially on HFboards, keep trying to bring up age on these two players. You are following a pattern made blazed by Loaf and Hab fans.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 16:41:24 GMT
Both struggled last year and are another year older . Both players keep themselves in great shape during the off-season and are coming into camp healthy compared to last season. So age means nothing to either player because of there off-season workout program. Funny how much everyone on the outside looking in on the Bruins, especially on HFboards, keep trying to bring up age on these two players. You are following a pattern made blazed by Loaf and Hab fans. Just about every NHL player comes into camp in great shape ,to suggest an off season conditioning program totally negates the affects of aging isn't correct in my book .
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Aug 20, 2015 17:09:00 GMT
And let's not forget the fact that both are coming off major surgeries. Chara's PCL is 10% attached --- does that sound like he will be "good as new" when the next year starts? Seids absolutely blew out his entire knee at over 30 years old.
When you factor in the age, and the injuries it is VERY tough to make the case that either can be the same player they were pre-injury. There are guys in the NFL that blow their knees out at 22-25 years old and never return to form. Not that they aren't able to rehab and get back into acceptable playing shape, but that they lose that 1/4 step that made them as effective as they once were. These are great athletes competing against other great athletes so everything is on a thin margin. Granted, in my opinion, hockey has a much greater mental element than a sport like football but to make the case that Seidenberg at 34 coming of MCL/ACL tear and Chara at 37 with his PCL 10% attached are going to be the same players they were 2-3 years ago is ridiculous --- and that is ignoring the fact that Chara hasn't been able to make it through the playoffs without breaking down in 4 or so years..
Best case scenario is that we get some surprises from the young guys that puts Seids as or 4th-5th best defenseman. Not because Seids sucks, but because somebody stepped up. This team is short on top 4 D. I think Chara is still top pairing, but Seids is getting to the point where top 4 isn't even really where he belongs. I hope they both prove me wrong, or I hope CMiller/Morrow, Trotman and Krug all step up in a big way this year
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Aug 20, 2015 17:19:16 GMT
All this talk about the defense got me thinking...
Maybe it is time for CJ to go. Not because he isn't a good coach, but because his system is based on good stay at home defense and we no longer have the personal to thrive in that system.
Look at our best shutdown guys over the years --- Seids, Chara and Boychuck:
Seids -- steadily declining the past 3 years with a major knee injury in there Boychuck -- traded for picks Chara -- 37 years old, major knee injury that will never be the same (10% attached)
Look at our up-and-coming defense:
Krug -- offensive dynamo, but size puts a ceiling on his defensive effectiveness Morrow -- puck mover with top 4 potential, known for defense more than offense CMiller -- fast and can shoot, like Morrow more offense than defense Grzelcyk -- like Krug, small but gifted Trotman -- our only true "stay at home" defenseman with size, but a late round pick so upside is undetermined
Even look at our FA target Fransen -- known for his offense more than his defense despite his size
Not only are our top shut down defense getting old or traded, the pipeline is stocked with varying degrees of puck-movers who yes, can play D, but are better known for their offensive acumen.
I would say that the greatest challenge for a coach is figuring out how best to utilize the players you are given. Claude has ALWAYS been a defense first, pack it in type of coach no matter who his team was. We let teams shoot from the outside, counting on our tough stay at home D to pick up their man and clear the crease/rebounds. That is simply not the strength of this D group
Probably a new thread all together, but figured I'd throw it out there
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 20, 2015 17:23:24 GMT
And let's not forget the fact that both are coming off major surgeries. Chara's PCL is 10% attached --- does that sound like he will be "good as new" when the next year starts? Seids absolutely blew out his entire knee at over 30 years old. When you factor in the age, and the injuries it is VERY tough to make the case that either can be the same player they were pre-injury. There are guys in the NFL that blow their knees out at 22-25 years old and never return to form. Not that they aren't able to rehab and get back into acceptable playing shape, but that they lose that 1/4 step that made them as effective as they once were. These are great athletes competing against other great athletes so everything is on a thin margin. Granted, in my opinion, hockey has a much greater mental element than a sport like football but to make the case that Seidenberg at 34 coming of MCL/ACL tear and Chara at 37 with his PCL 10% attached are going to be the same players they were 2-3 years ago is ridiculous --- and that is ignoring the fact that Chara hasn't been able to make it through the playoffs without breaking down in 4 or so years.. Best case scenario is that we get some surprises from the young guys that puts Seids as or 4th-5th best defenseman. Not because Seids sucks, but because somebody stepped up. This team is short on top 4 D. I think Chara is still top pairing, but Seids is getting to the point where top 4 isn't even really where he belongs. I hope they both prove me wrong, or I hope CMiller/Morrow, Trotman and Krug all step up in a big way this year Seidenberg is over a yr removed from his surgery, i think he has recovered. If this news of Chara's PCL being only 10% attached, why didn't he have surgery? Has this been confirmed from someone other than Haggs? I'm not questioning whether you heard about this 10% attached news, just wondered where it came from.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 20, 2015 17:28:11 GMT
I just read up on Chara's PCL tear, according to Cedfano himself its %100 and is a self healing injury and didn't require surgery. Whether he returns to form remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Aug 20, 2015 17:36:16 GMT
I just read up on Chara's PCL tear, according to Cedfano himself its %100 and is a self healing injury and didn't require surgery. Whether he returns to form remains to be seen. At this point in his career, I'd rather a Doughty, Weber,Keith etc...But I still think he's valuable to the team. I think we see a bit of a rebound year from him.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 20, 2015 17:40:02 GMT
Both players keep themselves in great shape during the off-season and are coming into camp healthy compared to last season. So age means nothing to either player because of there off-season workout program. Funny how much everyone on the outside looking in on the Bruins, especially on HFboards, keep trying to bring up age on these two players. You are following a pattern made blazed by Loaf and Hab fans. Just about every NHL player comes into camp in great shape ,to suggest an off season conditioning program totally negates the affects of aging isn't correct in my book . However - these 2 guys in particular are fitness fanatics, their off season conditioning is more significant than most of the rest of the NHL. But having said that, I agree with you that conditioning does not negate age, but more importantly speed. Neither were particularly fast even in their youth, that's why I think pair them with younger faster players instead of each other.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 18:30:49 GMT
I just read up on Chara's PCL tear, according to Cedfano himself its %100 and is a self healing injury and didn't require surgery. Whether he returns to form remains to be seen. So Chara is completely recovered from that injury ? I had heard it would never be at 100 % again.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 20, 2015 18:35:15 GMT
I just read up on Chara's PCL tear, according to Cedfano himself its %100 and is a self healing injury and didn't require surgery. Whether he returns to form remains to be seen. So Chara is completely recovered from that injury ? I had heard it would never be at 100 % again. Just going on what i read. This coming from an interview with him posted by Haggs. Basically said the injury will heal itself, won't need surgery and he will be %100. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by caperbruins on Aug 20, 2015 18:42:46 GMT
So Chara is completely recovered from that injury ? I had heard it would never be at 100 % again. Just going on what i read. This coming from an interview with him posted by Haggs. Basically said the injury will heal itself, won't need surgery and he will be %100. We'll see. I wonder if he means full range of movement ? That would be great news if it is true .
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 20, 2015 19:05:23 GMT
Just going on what i read. This coming from an interview with him posted by Haggs. Basically said the injury will heal itself, won't need surgery and he will be %100. We'll see. I wonder if he means full range of movement ? That would be great news if it is true . Well if Chara says its %100, i have no resin to doubt him. If it was going to pose problems, i would have assumed he would have had surgery to fix it last April. Its not like its an ACL/MCL total tear. Like i say, the proof will be in the eye test come training camp and the regular season.
|
|