This illustrates exactly what I'm saying perfectly. The Bruins have more mid-tier talent than most teams. They lack the top end of it, but don't have the bottom feeders that a lot of teams do to. It's a philosophy that I'm okay with, but with the amount of money they had available this year (in terms of cap space and Savard's LITR), could have been augmented to make things easier on themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII
It's been years since they've had an elite scorer. Regardless where the team ended up scoring wise, they're relying on everyone to contribute and if they don't have everyone hitting on all cylinders, they struggle to score.
I fully agree about Seguin looking like he's going to become one, but again that doesn't help for this year. It's just disappointing that they left so much cap room on the table and didn't do more to make their cup defense easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII
The time on ice is an interesting point. But while you point to it as a reason why our top 6 forwards don't score more, I look at it as a reason why the bottom 6 forwards do.
Fact is, despite the spin about the rest of the league, other teams have players with elite finish. I'm not saying the B's don't have decent players or that they can't win without it, just that it makes things harder. That fact is what is bothering me, because they had the dough to get someone this year if they so chose.
For record, the next time Seguin and Marchand break 30 goals, it will be their first, so you cannot call them 30 goal scorers no matter how close they got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII
Winning a cup is great. Blowing a window to win multiple cups isn't. I think the margin for error is greater if you have a top end scorer to balance out the depth they have. Just a difference of opinion with you, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII
Once every 39 years makes you very thirsty in between drinks, doesn't it?
There's more than one way to skin a cat, I just would like to see them add to this core and make it easier to be a legitimate cup contender for the long haul.
Take a spin back through the recent cup champs of the past and see how many didn't have elite forward talent. Hawks? Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Kane. Penguins? None there, right? Wings? Zetterberg, Datsyuk? Elite? Nah. Carolina the year they won it had Staal get 45 and 3 other dudes hit 30. Tampa Bay? St. Louis, Richards, Lecavilier? I could go on if you'd like.
If anything, history has shown that while some teams win it from time to time with a scoring by committee approach, far more often the teams with elite talent win it all. Just the facts there.
How many of these teams had an elite Chara?
How many had an elite Thomas?
Also, your argument is quite flawed cause you say ''what if 6-8 20-30 goals guy all come cold at the same time'' refering to the Bruins. You're talking about fiction right? cause the last couple years, the Bruins are atop of the league for goal scoring. ..
But what happens if your 2-3 elite are shut down by the opposing team, say by a Chara, what happens when the rest of your lineup is not filled with great scoring depth? Then you have a 1-0 win by the Bruins.
I Rather have 6-8 20-30goals scorer than a couple of elite and scoring crap down the lineup.
I also rather have great 2 way players like Bergy, who by the way IS elite, than unidimensionnal scorers.
Also, your point about elite scoring is moot cause Chara IS our elite scorer. He may not score 40-50, but he shuts down every other teams 'elite scorer' so that's a wash and then it's our great depth against their weaker one.
Keep fighting this battle (absolutely needing an elite scorer and that is a weakness...) tough. Fun to read. Even if inacurrate...
Also, your argument is quite flawed cause you say ''what if 6-8 20-30 goals guy all come cold at the same time'' refering to the Bruins. You're talking about fiction right? cause the last couple years, the Bruins are atop of the league for goal scoring. ..
But what happens if your 2-3 elite are shut down by the opposing team, say by a Chara, what happens when the rest of your lineup is not filled with great scoring depth? Then you have a 1-0 win by the Bruins.
I Rather have 6-8 20-30goals scorer than a couple of elite and scoring crap down the lineup.
I also rather have great 2 way players like Bergy, who by the way IS elite, than unidimensionnal scorers.
Also, your point about elite scoring is moot cause Chara IS our elite scorer. He may not score 40-50, but he shuts down every other teams 'elite scorer' so that's a wash and then it's our great depth against their weaker one.
Keep fighting this battle (absolutely needing an elite scorer and that is a weakness...) tough. Fun to read. Even if inacurrate...
Again, this isn't an either or scenario. They could have their complimentary players and core that they do now and still have an elite scorer. Pretty clear that I've said this from the start. I'm not advocating ditching the team for a couple of high end talents, but if you have a chance to add a guy like Parise for nothing in the coming off season, tell me how that roster wouldn't be better than this current one?
Again, this isn't an either or scenario. They could have their complimentary players and core that they do now and still have an elite scorer. Pretty clear that I've said this from the start. I'm not advocating ditching the team for a couple of high end talents, but if you have a chance to add a guy like Parise for nothing in the coming off season, tell me how that roster wouldn't be better than this current one?
Nobody's going to be upset if the Bruins add Parise. But it's a salary cap world, and if the price of adding Parise is getting rid of a boatload of "less than elite" guys, I don't think it would work.
The Bruins' m.o. has been to go "elite" on the defensive side rather than the offensive, and it appears to my kool-aid-skewed eyes that such an approach has been and will continue to be effective.
Not to mention that if you just wait a year or so, the guy wearing #19 will probably become your elite sniper.
Nobody's going to be upset if the Bruins add Parise. But it's a salary cap world, and if the price of adding Parise is getting rid of a boatload of "less than elite" guys, I don't think it would work.
The Bruins' m.o. has been to go "elite" on the defensive side rather than the offensive, and it appears to my kool-aid-skewed eyes that such an approach has been and will continue to be effective.
Not to mention that if you just wait a year or so, the guy wearing #19 will probably become your elite sniper.
You wait another year and you burn another season of Chara's dominance. He's 35 and not getting any younger. Can the team afford to take a wait and see approach and be careless with this window?
Nobody's going to be upset if the Bruins add Parise. But it's a salary cap world, and if the price of adding Parise is getting rid of a boatload of "less than elite" guys, I don't think it would work.
The Bruins' m.o. has been to go "elite" on the defensive side rather than the offensive, and it appears to my kool-aid-skewed eyes that such an approach has been and will continue to be effective.
Not to mention that if you just wait a year or so, the guy wearing #19 will probably become your elite sniper.
We have the cap to add a player like Parise. Dumping Corvo is 2.25 right there, keeping Savard on LTIR is another 4 million. 6.25 is about what Parise makes right now. If the Bruins were to part ways with Kelly then theres another 2.0 million. That's not even counting what will happen with Horton or if we decide to explore a trade for Thomas.
If you can add a player of Parise's caliber, you do it. Especially not knowing the situation with Horton and how he will end up. Chia should be thinking about making the team better, not keeping it the same every year with role players.
This would be the ideal lineup for me IMO. Parise signed for a fair amount of 6.5-6.8. per.
Again, this isn't an either or scenario. They could have their complimentary players and core that they do now and still have an elite scorer. Pretty clear that I've said this from the start. I'm not advocating ditching the team for a couple of high end talents, but if you have a chance to add a guy like Parise for nothing in the coming off season, tell me how that roster wouldn't be better than this current one?
Every teams would want a Stamkos, OV, Crosby, Malkin and every other high end player. But you either have to draft them (Seguin may end up that) or sign them at an expensive number as UFA cause to trade for one, you need to give one back...
I agree that the Bruins would be better if you add a high end offensive player or like you call them, an elite scorer. But I don't agree that not having one is a weakness like you imply.
Nobody's going to be upset if the Bruins add Parise. But it's a salary cap world, and if the price of adding Parise is getting rid of a boatload of "less than elite" guys, I don't think it would work.
The Bruins' m.o. has been to go "elite" on the defensive side rather than the offensive, and it appears to my kool-aid-skewed eyes that such an approach has been and will continue to be effective.
Not to mention that if you just wait a year or so, the guy wearing #19 will probably become your elite sniper.
And IMO it's a better way to spend your money cause a Chara play 30min and shut down any other teams 'elite scorers' so a double win for us.
We have the cap to add a player like Parise. Dumping Corvo is 2.25 right there, keeping Savard on LTIR is another 4 million. 6.25 is about what Parise makes right now. If the Bruins were to part ways with Kelly then theres another 2.0 million. That's not even counting what will happen with Horton or if we decide to explore a trade for Thomas.
If you can add a player of Parise's caliber, you do it. Especially not knowing the situation with Horton and how he will end up. Chia should be thinking about making the team better, not keeping it the same every year with role players.
This would be the ideal lineup for me IMO. Parise signed for a fair amount of 6.5-6.8. per.
Chiarelli is always thinking of making the team better. That's his job, and he's damn good at it.
Perhaps you're a capologist, and if so, I tip my cap to you. Personally, I have no idea of the ramifications of the upcoming CBA, or of Chiarelli's 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, etc. plans. The only thing I know is that he knows one hell of a lot more about that than I do.
Chiarelli is always thinking of making the team better. That's his job, and he's damn good at it.
Perhaps you're a capologist, and if so, I tip my cap to you. Personally, I have no idea of the ramifications of the upcoming CBA, or of Chiarelli's 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, etc. plans. The only thing I know is that he knows one hell of a lot more about that than I do.
He knows about 99.9% more than 100% of us here when it comes to not just Cap space, but targeting the quality personel to fit within that cap space too, totally agree with you
That upcoming CBA is a real spanner in the works. If Chia is smart he'll keep his commitments modest until we know what's going on with that. It's not like we don't have young players who can fill in.
It was said a couple weeks ago that the last time a team won the Cup with a 50-goal scorer on the team was when Colorado won it in 2001 - Sakic had 54 goals that year.
There was then a debate over whether it is more prudent for a team to be built around 6 20 goal scorers or 1 60 goal scorer?
The Bruins proved that a deep team, built around strong defense and goaltending, despite superstar forwards can win it all. Maybe that's why Philly ditched their two stars in Richards and Carter to bring in Simmonds, Voracek, Jagr, Read to go along with Cotourier and Schenn and oh yeah, they spent large money on Brysgalov.
With Pitt and Van (two teams that rely on elite talent) on the brink of a possible 1st round exit, it seems to me that things are a changing,
Take a spin back through the recent cup champs of the past and see how many didn't have elite forward talent. Hawks? Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Kane. Penguins? None there, right? Wings? Zetterberg, Datsyuk? Elite? Nah. Carolina the year they won it had Staal get 45 and 3 other dudes hit 30. Tampa Bay? St. Louis, Richards, Lecavilier? I could go on if you'd like.
If anything, history has shown that while some teams win it from time to time with a scoring by committee approach, far more often the teams with elite talent win it all. Just the facts there.
I'll be honest, LSCII - you kind of lost me with the bolded examples.
Carolina won primarily because of Ward - without him playing the way he did, Carolina's not winning the Cup that season, regardless of Staal's production.
And with both Carolina and Tampa: both teams have been as likely to miss the playoffs outright than be a Cup contender (Carolina's made the playoffs just once since they won the Cup, with three straight DNQs) ... seems to me that their "elite" talent hasn't helped them enough to warrant inclusion with Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.
Especially with the Kings and Blues ascendent in the West
We could be looking at a broadly applied new model of democratic scoring leaguewide.
That's an intriguing thought. One of the disadvantages of putting all your scoring eggs in one "elite" basket is that any injury to that one player can throw a serious wrench in the works, whereas the "spread-out scoring" model gives you more insurance against injury. With today's increased knowledge about the effects of concussions (and the consequences of premature return to play), this disadvantage has become even greater. It's all too easy to lose the star player for a whole season, or more.
Okie Dokie, this one has drifted far away from the actual game that the thread specifies and admittedly, I`ve contributed, time to shut er down and move on
