Whoever bumped this needs to stop being so spiteful.
Rubbing salt in an open wound isn't cool.
Nope it's about assessing things for what they are..not how we like them to be. I haven't followed this team for 25 years to put my head in the sand and massage people's fragile sensitivities...
Nope it's about assessing things for what they are..not how we like them to be. I haven't followed this team for 25 years to put my head in the sand and massage people's fragile sensitivities...
I still wouldn't have dealt for him last summer... can ignore the hip surgery and 35+ deal all you want, those are realities that were part of the equation then.
I still wouldn't have dealt for him last summer... can ignore the hip surgery and 35+ deal all you want, those are realities that were part of the equation then.
Nope it's about assessing things for what they are..not how we like them to be. I haven't followed this team for 25 years to put my head in the sand and massage people's fragile sensitivities...
Fair enough. I myself am pretty insensitive to the mess that this team played themselves into, they got what they deserved. You don't play hard as a team, you lose. I understand that your just assessing the turnout of things but my initial reaction was someone just wanted to be a downer.
Regardless, It still doesn't mean much to me since highsight is always 20/20.
Seeing into the future would make life alot easier. Sadly no one has that power.
At the time, trading for Thomas who got uprooted by a rookie, and looked pretty average, wasnt really in the equation.
It's not about being Nostradamus it's about assessing risk properly...sure Thomas was a risk but it was overblown that was my contention from the beginning. The whole league passed on him..true...but everybody was wrong ultimately. The bigger risk was going into the reg season and playoffs with Boucher and Leighton as your 1 and 2. Bob covered up some of that but ultimately it was a horrible decision. Also risky was blowing millions on Leighton, Walker, Shelley and Zherdev...also can throw Carcillo in there. So again let's look at all the risk that we actually took and weigh it against getting Thomas....
It's not about being Nostradamus it's about assessing risk properly...sure Thomas was a risk but it was overblown that was my contention from the beginning. The whole league passed on him..true...but everybody was wrong ultimately. The bigger risk was going into the reg season and playoffs with Boucher and Leighton as your 1 and 2. Bob covered up some of that but ultimately it was a horrible decision. Also risky was blowing millions on Leighton, Walker, Shelley and Zherdev...also can throw Carcillo in there. So again let's look at all the risk that we actually took and weigh it against getting Thomas....
Tim Thomas has a 5M, 35+ contract and was coming of hip surgery (no matter how trivial you may think it is, cutting someone open and operating on them is a big deal... and hips are a BIG deal to goalies). Seriously, look at the lengths they go to avoid using the knife on guys. I honestly believe Emery's necrosis was a byproduct of his injury/surgery.
The big risk wasn't going into this year sans Tim Thomas. The risk was acquiring a 5M cap hit for 3 years that may not be worth anything close to a 5M cap hit and CRIPPLING the team for 3 years. If it had been 1 year? Sure, I would have been a fan of it... but you're talking about MASSIVE risk.
Boston has Rask as a backup plan so they are assessing RISK properly. We are the dumb ones with our risk assessment...
Along with many other teams in the league.
Look, it doesn't take much to get me to criticize Holmgren. He was, however, completely right not to deal for Tim Thomas last summer. There isn't a single position in the sport I'd want to trade for a mid 30s player coming off surgery at, but goalie is at the top of the pecking order to avoid after that statement.
You're assessment of risk in this situation is entirely based on you pooh-poohing the surgery he had.
Tim Thomas has a 5M, 35+ contract and was coming of hip surgery (no matter how trivial you may think it is, cutting someone open and operating on them is a big deal... and hips are a BIG deal to goalies). Seriously, look at the lengths they go to avoid using the knife on guys. I honestly believe Emery's necrosis was a byproduct of his injury/surgery.
The big risk wasn't going into this year sans Tim Thomas. The risk was acquiring a 5M cap hit for 3 years that may not be worth anything close to a 5M cap hit and CRIPPLING the team for 3 years. If it had been 1 year? Sure, I would have been a fan of it... but you're talking about MASSIVE risk.
It doesn't matter b/c the risk has proven itself not to be a risk...period! Are you actually defending Holmgren. Again weigh all the risk that he actually took against acquiring Thomas.....it doesn't even compare especially given what has transpired.
Look, it doesn't take much to get me to criticize Holmgren. He was, however, completely right not to deal for Tim Thomas last summer. There isn't a single position in the sport I'd want to trade for a mid 30s player coming off surgery at, but goalie is at the top of the pecking order to avoid after that statemetn.
So we were stupid along with everybody else.....that is your argument? Those that follow never come in first....
Can't wait to see Holmgren now make moves to compete with Boston only to lose to a team that forges a different path and style....
It doesn't matter b/c the risk has proven itself not to be a risk...period! Are you actually defending Holmgren. Again weigh all the risk that he actually took against acquiring Thomas.....it doesn't even compare especially given what has transpired.
And, right there, you've officially moved into making hindsight judgment. Meaning your evaluation of the decision in front of Holmgren last June/July isn't fair to him... at all.
No, seriously dude. The assessment you are making is based on YOUR (no one else's) assessment of the severity of his injury.
What the **** do you know about orthopedic surgery and the risks involved? I don't know much, but I do know they don't casually perform surgery on people.
And, right there, you've officially moved into making hindsight judgment. Meaning your evaluation of the decision in front of Holmgren last June/July isn't fair to him... at all.
No because I'm judging Holmgren not solely on that non-move..just on the fact he can't think and chew gum at the same time. He crapped the bed once again and for a team with goalie problems it's amazing how he just treats it as an afterthought
No, seriously dude. The assessment you are making is based on YOUR (no one else's) assessment of the severity of his injury.
What the **** do you know about orthopedic surgery and the risks involved? I don't know much, but I do know they don't casually perform surgery on people.
Let me ask you this...could Holmgren have asked for a physical to assess risk properly to make the deal or in your world this was an impossibility?
No because I'm judging Holmgren not solely on that non-move..just on the fact he can't think and chew gum at the same time. He crapped the bed once again and for a team with goalie problems it's amazing how he just treats it as an afterthought
Suggesting that a known risk last summer proved not to be the risk it was perceived to be at the time... and that is a justification for then critiquing the deal... yeah, sorry to tell you, that's the definition of hindsight judgment.
As should be abundantly clear, I agree that the handling of the goalie situation is a joke. Not dealing for Thomas, however, is perfectly understandable and justified. Would it have been inspired if he'd cut the deal? Yeah, it would have. It would have been an extremely risky deal, however... so chastising him for it isn't really dwelling in reality on that one.
Let me ask you this...could Holmgren have asked for a physical to assess risk properly to make the deal or in your world this was an impossibility?
You think a physical last summer is going to determine whether or not Thomas' hip was going to hold up to the rigors of the NHL season (and playoffs)? Hip problems tend to be chronic and get worse in goalies once they start... not the other way around. I'm sure he would (and did) pass a physical last summer -- that being said, he was probably still recovering at the time.
Suggesting that a known risk last summer proved not to be the risk it was perceived to be at the time... and that is a justification for then critiquing the deal... yeah, sorry to tell you, that's the definition of hindsight judgment.
As should be abundantly clear, I agree that the handling of the goalie situation is a joke. Not dealing for Thomas, however, is perfectly understandable and justified. Would it have been inspired if he'd cut the deal? Yeah, it would have. It would have been an extremely risky deal, however... so chastising him for it isn't really dwelling in reality on that one.
Answer my question? If it was such a risk and given how much of a risk it was to go with our goaltending situation not knowing what Bob could do...could Holmgren have asked for a physical? Think out of the box ..god knows Holmgren can't as we saw with Leighton and his back.
Answer my question? If it was such a risk and given how much of a risk it was to go with our goaltending situation not knowing what Bob could do...could Holmgren have asked for a physical? Think out of the box ..god knows Holmgren can't as we saw with Leighton and his back.
Ah, he absolutely could have asked for the physical... I don't think that would resolve questions concerning a hip that just had surgery holding up under the stress of playing goal in the NHL. Look at Leino, he had hip problems last year, surgery was performed, and they've cropped back up again this year.
We already discussed the bolded part....it could have been a controlled leak but we don't know if those sources were internal or not. This was the best info to go by from our standpoint and I'm sure Holmgren with his ties that everybody claims he has when he tries to pass people through waivers could have corroborated it and checked into it with due dilligence and then followed it up with a physical. Whether or not this could have all confirmed whether he was a legit risk to take is ancillary if Holmgren didn't even attempt to do this given our goaltending situation..maybe he did..but somehow I doubt it. This is basically my argument
Quote:
BOSTON -- While there have been several different trade rumors involving the Bruins that have bubbled up over the last couple of days, sources indicated to CSNNE.com that Boston's top trade priority heading into the draft is unloading veteran goalie Tim Thomas and his $5 million salary cap hit.
Thomas lost his starting job to rookie Tuukka Rask last season and is seeking to become a No. 1 goaltender elsewhere. It’s apparent he's willing to waive his no-trade clause in order to do so.
Sources also indicated both the San Jose Sharks and Tampa Bay Lightning are in the mix in discussions with the Bruins for Thomas, and the Philadelphia Flyers are also a potential suitor if they can shed some salary cap baggage leading up to the July 1 free agent deadline.
"They've got to move the salary," one source with knowledge of the situation told CSNNE.com. "They don’t have a whole lot of choice. The challenge is finding a place willing to take him and the salary that goes along with him."
There was some question about whether teams would be scared away by the hip surgery Thomas underwent after the season was over, and there was uncertainty about whether Thomas would be willing to waive the no-trade clause he owns in two of the three remaining years on his deal.
But several sources indicated Thomas' surgery was minor in nature and general manager Peter Chiarelli said last week Thomas would be ready at the start of training camp. A second source indicated the likelihood is that Thomas will waive the no-trade if the right kind of deal comes along after putting up a perfectly serviceable 2.56 goals-against average and .915 save percentage along with five shutouts last season.
"He's a goalie and he wants to play. He's a competitive guy and the most important thing for him at this point in his career is to go to a player where he can play,” said a second source. "He's not going to be happy if he’s sitting."
So, Boston, who was trying to deal him, is floating out there that the surgery was "minor" and that he'd be ready by training camp (notice, not ready now)?
Yeah, that's convincing... I mean, what reasons would Boston have to minimize his injury?
