|
Post by bookboy007 on May 20, 2015 22:19:18 GMT
Seconds into the press conference NESN's ticker at the bottom states: The Boston Bruins have named Bob Sweeney....... Ha! I was waiting for something like that. "After Don Sweeney was announced as Bruins GM, the team announced that Bob Sweeney had been hired as Ontario Scout, Tim Sweeney as Director of Player development, and former Royals 1B Mike Sweeney special consultant on multi-sport promotion and community development...."
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 20, 2015 22:23:26 GMT
Not that the rest of your points are wrong, but who gives a fuck if fans are excited over the hiring a suit? If the firing wasn't over PR, what was it? The confusion that Fletcher is talking about isn't just with Bruins fans, the rest of hockey is wondering what the heck is going on with the Bruins. The firing and now the hiring of Sweeney make zero sense, that's why all of these "Neely vs Chiarelli" narratives that are more suited for a Gore Vidal historical fiction novel are springing up. What's the logic here? There's a few scenarios: A) Chiarelli cost the team a playoff berth with his trades and cap management, so he was fired as a punishment. The team likes the direction the franchise was headed in with Chiarelli, minus a few mistakes, so they hire his understudy. B) Neely didn't get along with Chiarelli and hired Don Sweeney, not to change the arc or philosophy of the organization, but to have a more "pliable Chiarelli." C) The Jacobs' were furious about lost playoff revenue and bad PR and fired Chiarelli to appease the fans who are unhappy with the organizations' direction. Don Sweeney is hired because______? D) The Bruins made a terrible knee jerk reaction by firing Chiarelli, and hired Don Sweeney because it fixes half of a mistake, since they had the chance to hire other candidates who would drastically change the organization and did not. My guess is D. And again, I don't give a fuck about the questions re: why Chiarelli was fired etc. etc. so long as Sweeney is the right man for the job. Everything else is fluffernutter. For the record, I think there's a version of a and b that sort of works from an internal consistency point of view. I think they fired Chiarelli because he made or didn't make certain moves against the advice of others, and that didn't endear him to the rest of the team, especially when they blew up on him. I don't think it was "punishment" because that makes no sense, and I don't think it was a comment on his competency. I think they asked him to go in a different direction and his vision said no, so he did his own thing. They lost a bit of faith in that vision; they like Sweeney's vision better even if he came up under Chiarelli.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on May 20, 2015 22:24:37 GMT
Seconds into the press conference NESN's ticker at the bottom states: The Boston Bruins have named Bob Sweeney....... So they fired Don already? That was quick.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 20, 2015 22:29:04 GMT
If the firing wasn't over PR, what was it? The confusion that Fletcher is talking about isn't just with Bruins fans, the rest of hockey is wondering what the heck is going on with the Bruins. The firing and now the hiring of Sweeney make zero sense, that's why all of these "Neely vs Chiarelli" narratives that are more suited for a Gore Vidal historical fiction novel are springing up. What's the logic here? There's a few scenarios: A) Chiarelli cost the team a playoff berth with his trades and cap management, so he was fired as a punishment. The team likes the direction the franchise was headed in with Chiarelli, minus a few mistakes, so they hire his understudy. B) Neely didn't get along with Chiarelli and hired Don Sweeney, not to change the arc or philosophy of the organization, but to have a more "pliable Chiarelli." C) The Jacobs' were furious about lost playoff revenue and bad PR and fired Chiarelli to appease the fans who are unhappy with the organizations' direction. Don Sweeney is hired because______? D) The Bruins made a terrible knee jerk reaction by firing Chiarelli, and hired Don Sweeney because it fixes half of a mistake, since they had the chance to hire other candidates who would drastically change the organization and did not. My guess is D. And again, I don't give a fuck about the questions re: why Chiarelli was fired etc. etc. so long as Sweeney is the right man for the job. Everything else is fluffernutter. For the record, I think there's a version of a and b that sort of works from an internal consistency point of view. I think they fired Chiarelli because he made or didn't make certain moves against the advice of others, and that didn't endear him to the rest of the team, especially when they blew up on him. I don't think it was "punishment" because that makes no sense, and I don't think it was a comment on his competency. I think they asked him to go in a different direction and his vision said no, so he did his own thing. They lost a bit of faith in that vision; they like Sweeney's vision better even if he came up under Chiarelli. Its no different than the Scabs hiring Marc Bergevin,what was he,asst GM in Chicago? I mean i think the most important asset listed on his resume was that he spoke french,if i'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on May 20, 2015 22:29:38 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 20, 2015 22:33:03 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival. In all my time at BDc,and in the early days at BruinsNation this is the absolute first time i've seen this useful word used! Kudos to you Nas!!
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 20, 2015 22:53:58 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival. I like Sweeney. I hope he does incredibly well. I hope the B's win the Cup every year from now to eternity. B What do you mean..what executive doesn't want more power? He's the flippin boss already. Most great leaders don't need more control over subordninates. They know they already have it. There's plenty ...fekin plenty, to support the notion that they want a bit of a yes man.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on May 20, 2015 22:57:50 GMT
Cam backed off that statement in the press conference if you noticed. Saying it was about communication. And he stresses the bit about communication. And Cam talked about there being a lot of great hockey minds in the organization. So putting the pieces together, sounds like PC made a move that wasn't met with approval? The Reilly Smith signing maybe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 23:07:43 GMT
If CJ was going to be part of the plan, would he have been sitting at the table today as well?
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 20, 2015 23:14:09 GMT
Cam backed off that statement in the press conference if you noticed. Saying it was about communication. And he stresses the bit about communication. And Cam talked about there being a lot of great hockey minds in the organization. So putting the pieces together, sounds like PC made a move that wasn't met with approval? The Reilly Smith signing maybe? But the industry says this thing has been going on for quite a while...maybe even more than a year. Anyway, it doesn't matter. As long as the Bruins come out of the gate strong...no problem. If they don't....I'm thinkin Sweeney gets cut some slack, but everyone else in the organization gets a lot of public criticism. I expect this team to be a contender. I think what happened this year was a fluke. A perfect storm. This is still a really good team, and I expect them to perform like that. They didn't this year. Unfortunately, a new GM has shifted where some of that shame and responsibility really needed to go.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 20, 2015 23:14:45 GMT
If CJ was going to be part of the plan, would he have been sitting at the table today as well? Not necessarily, who knows if he was even in Boston. That being said,i'm not sure that Sweeney is 100% sure if CJ will be brought back or not. My guess is that he will, but you never know.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 20, 2015 23:22:30 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival. We have a nice new catch word! PS. PC was not a GM until he came to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on May 20, 2015 23:49:47 GMT
Sweeney on during the Red Sox game again says Claude is the coach today. Then he stated how they will talk, see if they share the same vision etc...Not sure what to make of that.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on May 20, 2015 23:55:40 GMT
I'm glad he's getting a shot. He knows the inner workings of the organization as well as anybody. I haven't seen his press conference yet but I'd imagine he and Neely share the same mental image and philosophiies of how they think the Bruins should manifest themselves. Still think he resembles Rob Lowe.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on May 20, 2015 23:57:38 GMT
Sweeney on during the Red Sox game again says Claude is the coach today. Then he stated how they will talk, see if they share the same vision etc...Not sure what to make of that. To see if they share the same vision? Has Don been watching any Boston Bruins games in the last 5 years or so? I have a hard time believing that he hasn't already made up his mind. Plus - they already told Claude he was free to talk to other teams.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on May 21, 2015 0:00:02 GMT
Sweeney on during the Red Sox game again says Claude is the coach today. Then he stated how they will talk, see if they share the same vision etc...Not sure what to make of that. The reassessment of Julien continues - as it should.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on May 21, 2015 0:00:26 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival. Spell check is tell me that word is Dmitri.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on May 21, 2015 0:04:57 GMT
Sweeney on during the Red Sox game again says Claude is the coach today. Then he stated how they will talk, see if they share the same vision etc...Not sure what to make of that. To see if they share the same vision? Has Don been watching any Boston Bruins games in the last 5 years or so? I have a hard time believing that he hasn't already made up his mind. Plus - they already told Claude he was free to talk to other teams. If they've already told him he was free to negotiate elsewhere, doesn't that spell the end of him as coach of the bruins, BH?
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on May 21, 2015 1:18:41 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival. In all my time at BDc,and in the early days at BruinsNation this is the absolute first time i've seen this useful word used! Kudos to you Nas!! one knows the word if one is the word. Hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 1:20:31 GMT
And again, I don't give a fuck about the questions re: why Chiarelli was fired etc. etc. so long as Sweeney is the right man for the job. Everything else is fluffernutter. I mean i think the most important asset listed on his resume was that he spoke french,if i'm not mistaken. As opposed to be being a stereotypical Boston Bag Lapper like Mike Milbury or Steve Kaspar.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on May 21, 2015 1:22:13 GMT
I find the calls that Sweeney is going to be nothing more than a yes-man just plain dimwittery. Yes, dimwittery. There is nothing to support it, no insider info, zero. "But Neely said he wanted more control". What executive doesn't? Then again, if we believe that Neely got Chiarelli fired because he didn't like him, the calls of Neely the Figurehead are dead on arrival. I just like any rebuttal with dimwittery in it twice.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on May 21, 2015 1:25:22 GMT
To see if they share the same vision? Has Don been watching any Boston Bruins games in the last 5 years or so? I have a hard time believing that he hasn't already made up his mind. Plus - they already told Claude he was free to talk to other teams. If they've already told him he was free to negotiate elsewhere, doesn't that spell the end of him as coach of the bruins, BH? That says yes to me. Plus, about that same vision - it was inferred by Cam that the on ice issues were not a shared vision. So it sounds to me like that says that he will approach Claude and ask him to change his system, about not being a defense first team, but a little more of the best defense is a good offense, or a better way to play d is to transition out of your own zone better, words to that effect. Can Claude change his spots? Is it fair to ask a coach to change his approach? That's what it sounds like to me. And I don't know the answer to that if that's what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on May 21, 2015 1:30:34 GMT
I think Julien is going to say "if you don't like my vision and methods, fire me", like Chiarelli did.
I can't see a guy like that saying to Sweeney "tell what you want and I'll try to do it."
It should be pretty cut and dry. There is no mystery what Julien's style and vision is and if Sweeney doesn't know what that is...well, he's lying, he does know.
Make a decision son.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 21, 2015 1:37:31 GMT
Sweeney on during the Red Sox game again says Claude is the coach today. Then he stated how they will talk, see if they share the same vision etc...Not sure what to make of that. "Coach you're going to work in 3 to 4 rookies this season" Don "Ahh what about players like Pandawful and Daugvins...responsible ?" Clode "Coach have you ever thought about being an NFL defensive coordinator ?" Don
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 1:43:25 GMT
I dunno you guys know more than me, I remember in 2011-2012, Julien BriesBois interviewed for the Habs, and he's interviewed for most of the open GM positions since. He's been in charge of two AHL teams that have been transformed and built into winners before the age of 40. When you look at the profile of AGMs who make the jump, they have similar resumes.
To answer 50Belows question, Bergevin was hired for his work under two Cup winning GMs, his command of the salary cap, but also his experience among the players and his status as one of the most popular people in hockey. After Pierre Gauthier there were legitimate concerns about the Habs image, especially among free agents and with other GMs in trades.
As for Don Sweeney, what does he bring to the table? He's interviewed with zero clubs outside the Bruins, and before Chiarelli was fired, no one even heard of him. It would appear that he was a third banana after Jim Benning before this year.
He was in charge of Providence. Has Providence been that impressive? How many prospects from Providence are coming up and making an impact? Seems only guys that aren't "Bruins players" like Ryan Spooner and Pastarnak have many any noise in the past three years. Which only makes the hire more confusing.
I can appreciate the optimistic fans over the bums that want to fire anyone and everyone, but find me an article in the next week from the media outside of Boston praising this hire and I'll Paypal you 20$.
|
|