HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

What if Thornton had not been traded?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2006, 09:08 AM
  #1
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
What if Thornton had not been traded?

This is from a comment MB made in another thread...

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeisterBruinmaker View Post
You still have to question why O'C traded a top-flight center in Thornton for three guys that were set to be UFAs in 1.5 yrs, especially considering how far the Bruins were from being a legit contender. It's flawed logic in my mind.

Interestingly, the Bruins are in a much better position to compete now that they've cleaned house of O'Connell and his mistakes. Likewise, Sturm, Stuart and Primeau are now in a much better position to influence the team's success.
They would have a very different team right now without that deal.

Instead of $5.325 million on these three players:

Sturm $2.05
Stuart $2.15
Primeau $1.125

They'd be spending $7.57:

Thornton $6.67
Forward $0.45
Defenseman $0.45

-----------------------
Let's assume that the Bruins would have stunk and drafted Kessel even if Thornton had stayed. Two of the three players the Bruins (Stuart and Sturm) picked up played huge roles for the team after the deal, and some of the void left by Joe's departure was filled by Bergeron and Boyes. So, assume Kessel is here either way, along with Murray, Bergeron, Boyes, Axelsson. Assume also that the Bruins signed Bergeron for two years instead of five, at a much lower cap hit. So, the 2006-07 cost of Stuart, Sturm, Primeau, and Bergeron would be almost exactly the same as the cost of Thornton, Bergeron (signed to a shorter, cheaper deal), and 2 minimum salary guys at forward and defense. (Signing Bergeron to the smaller deal would amount to short term gain in exchange for longer term pain, so I count his deal as sort of a fringe benefit to making the trade.)

Look at the forwards first. I'll list the 2006-07 team without Thornton, and then use parentheses to list the guys who'd be here instead, had there been no Thornton trade:

Marc Savard (Joe Thornton)
Glen Murray
Phil Kessel
Patrice Bergeron
Brad Boyes
Marco Sturm (????)
PJ Axelsson
Shean Donovan
Wayne Primeau (????)
Petr Kalus
Mark Mowers
Yan Stastny
Wade Brookbank

Had the deal not been made, the Bruins still could have signed Donovan, Mowers, and Brookbank. Stastny's here becasue I assumed that the Samsonov trade still happened. I also put Petr Kalus on the team, although he could go back to junior with his spot taken by a Hoggan or a Tenkrat. Let's hope not...

On defense:

Zdeno Chara
Brad Stuart (????)
Paul Mara
Andrew Alberts
Milan Jurcina
Jason York
Nathan Dempsey
Mark Stuart*

Even with Thornton on board, the money would still have been there for signing the big guy (although he would have had no shot at the C). So, assume he's locked in for the same amount. The Nick Boynton/Paul Mara trade is basically a wash in terms of money, so figure that it would have happened either way.

As far as money goes... if Thornton had stayed, the Marc Savard signing would never have happened. Since Savard's cap number is $5 million, that is the amount of money the Bruins would have had to replace the three Thornton-trade guys in the lineup. A #2 defenseman, a top 6 forward who played like a first line guy after we got him, and a plugger. Getting by without Primeau would not have been too difficult, but $5 million would not go far in replacing Stuart and Sturm. The Bruins could have brought in a top FA replacement for one of the two, and relied on a cheap veteran or kid to fill the other slot.

In the longer term, they would be facing difficult renegotiations with Thornton, Bergeron, and Boyes instead of Stuart, Sturm, and Boyes.

Would they be better off in 2006-07 having never made the deal? What about the long term?

Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 09:46 AM
  #2
tape-2-tape
Registered User
 
tape-2-tape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NH
Country: United States
Posts: 573
vCash: 500
Joe is now........ history. Is it possible to make threads such as this, history as well?

No disrespect intended but, this is really getting old fast.


Last edited by tape-2-tape: 09-24-2006 at 09:52 AM.
tape-2-tape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 09:48 AM
  #3
don
Registered User
 
don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nashua, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
He was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let it die.

don is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 09:49 AM
  #4
Waltah*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Upstate NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape-2-tape View Post
Joe is now........ history. Is is possible to make threads, such as this history as well?

No, disrespect intended but, this is really getting old fast.
this got old last season, what happened to the joe thread?

Waltah* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 09:54 AM
  #5
Sakaarnis
Registered User
 
Sakaarnis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bay of smokes
Country: Iceland
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC UL8R1990 View Post
this got old last season, what happened to the joe thread?
I think it was moved to Sharks boards

Sakaarnis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 09:56 AM
  #6
hubofhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,936
vCash: 500
Don't want to ender the trade/no trade debate, in full, but something to consider if this is to be analyzed as sheer math (never a good idea, but)....


Joe had 2 1/2 years reamaining on his deal (rough numbers here for sake of discussion).

The Three SJ's each had 1 1/2 years remaining on their deals.

Ergo....Joe: 2 1/2; The three SJ's: 4 1/2.

The deal can be analyzed in a million-and-one ways (I much prefer the kind of talent swap the Oil got for Pronger). But from strictly that ``years remaining'' perspective, it's basically Ryder Cup math....4 1/2 beats 2 1/2 night and day, no????


-hub

hubofhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:00 AM
  #7
Bruinster*
 
Bruinster*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind the enemy lin
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Bruinster*
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape-2-tape View Post
Joe is now........ history. Is it possible to make threads such as this, history as well?

No disrespect intended but, this is really getting old fast.
Why read thread with a title who explain exactly what you'll read if you click on

Bruinster* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:00 AM
  #8
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,606
vCash: 500
I also doubt the B's would have signed Chara if they still had Thornton's contract.
Isn't there already a thread for this kind of talk?

nmbr_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:20 AM
  #9
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey View Post
Don't want to ender the trade/no trade debate, in full, but something to consider if this is to be analyzed as sheer math (never a good idea, but)....
I don't want to go back to last year's trade/no trade talk, either.

But I think it is interesting to figure where the team would be, now, had it not happened.

I was in favor of the deal when it happened, and I have no regrets.

But I think a good case can be made on either side about whether the team would be better now with or without that deal. For me, it hinges on Marc Savard's performance.

If Savard has a #1 center type season, like the season he had last year, then the Bruins come out way, way ahead with Stuart and Sturm factored into the mix. On the other hand, if Savard has a Jozef Stumpel 2001-02 type season, the Bruins are probably worse off.

I don't really know what to expect from Savard, because of his checkered reputation and his short track record as an elite player. But I think the type of year Savard has will determine the fate of this season's Bruins.

Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:23 AM
  #10
tape-2-tape
Registered User
 
tape-2-tape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NH
Country: United States
Posts: 573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruinster View Post
Why read thread with a title who explain exactly what you'll read if you click on
I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. I always do more reading of these posts than responding but after seeing another Joe....What would happen/Why'd they do it/What if......thread, I couldn't resist.

I thought this toothache may have went away but......no. This would be best merged in the Thornton thread....wherever that went?

tape-2-tape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:32 AM
  #11
Zikky
Registered User
 
Zikky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,863
vCash: 500
bergeron and Boyes would have less ice-time if Joe have stayed, so less money for them now.

stuart was practicing in SJ with sharks players just before the veteran camp began, and live in SJ most of the time hes not with boston.

There is a serious possibility that he might return to SJ as an ufa next summer

Zikky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:39 AM
  #12
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,144
vCash: 500

Who farking cares. Get over it.

ranold26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 10:40 AM
  #13
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 25,917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
If Thornton doesn't get traded everything changes- players are in different places and the odds of Zhamonov being in that exact position in that exact game and getting hurt are a ZILLION to one. Anyone who plays this What if game needs to put Zhamnov on the team...you can say he might have got hurt someplace else but we all know better.

DKH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 11:05 AM
  #14
TwineTickler
TheUltimateBruin
 
TwineTickler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandy Hook, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 21,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape-2-tape View Post
Joe is now........ history. Is it possible to make threads such as this, history as well?

No disrespect intended but, this is really getting old fast.
when I saw this thread I almost vomitted, in other words I'm sick of talking about it, hearing about it, seeing anyone else talk about it. I'm happy he's no longer here and looking forward to watching players that are on our team play this year.

TwineTickler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:03 PM
  #15
NCHarleyHardtail
Registered User
 
NCHarleyHardtail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Clyde,NC/Rye,NH
Country: United States
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NCHarleyHardtail Send a message via MSN to NCHarleyHardtail Send a message via Yahoo to NCHarleyHardtail
[QUOTE=Mike B.;6565156]This is from a comment MB made in another thread...

Let's assume that the Bruins would have stunk and drafted Kessel even if Thornton had stayed. Two of the three players the Bruins (Stuart and Sturm) picked up played huge roles for the team after the deal, and some of the void left by Joe's departure was filled by Bergeron and Boyes. So, assume Kessel is here either way, along with Murray, Bergeron, Boyes, Axelsson. Assume also that the Bruins signed Bergeron for two years instead of five, at a much lower cap hit. So, the 2006-07 cost of Stuart, Sturm, Primeau, and Bergeron would be almost exactly the same as the cost of Thornton, Bergeron (signed to a shorter, cheaper deal), and 2 minimum salary guys at forward and defense. (Signing Bergeron to the smaller deal would amount to short term gain in exchange for longer term pain, so I count his deal as sort of a fringe benefit to making the trade.)

Look at the forwards first. I'll list the 2006-07 team without Thornton, and then use parentheses to list the guys who'd be here instead, had there been no Thornton trade:

Marc Savard (Joe Thornton)
Glen Murray
Phil Kessel
Patrice Bergeron
Brad Boyes
Marco Sturm (????)
PJ Axelsson
Shean Donovan
Wayne Primeau (????)
Petr Kalus
Mark Mowers
Yan Stastny
Wade Brookbank

Had the deal not been made, the Bruins still could have signed Donovan, Mowers, and Brookbank. Stastny's here becasue I assumed that the Samsonov trade still happened. I also put Petr Kalus on the team, although he could go back to junior with his spot taken by a Hoggan or a Tenkrat. Let's hope not...

On defense:

Zdeno Chara
Brad Stuart (????)
Paul Mara
Andrew Alberts
Milan Jurcina
Jason York
Nathan Dempsey
Mark Stuart*

Even with Thornton on board, the money would still have been there for signing the big guy (although he would have had no shot at the C). So, assume he's locked in for the same amount. The Nick Boynton/Paul Mara trade is basically a wash in terms of money, so figure that it would have happened either way.

As far as money goes... if Thornton had stayed, the Marc Savard signing would never have happened. Since Savard's cap number is $5 million, that is the amount of money the Bruins would have had to replace the three Thornton-trade guys in the lineup. A #2 defenseman, a top 6 forward who played like a first line guy after we got him, and a plugger. Getting by without Primeau would not have been too difficult, but $5 million would not go far in replacing Stuart and Sturm. The Bruins could have brought in a top FA replacement for one of the two, and relied on a cheap veteran or kid to fill the other slot.

In the longer term, they would be facing difficult renegotiations with Thornton, Bergeron, and Boyes instead of Stuart, Sturm, and Boyes.

Would they be better off in 2006-07 having never made the deal? What about the long term?[/QUOTE
YAWNNNNNN!!! and what if the sun refused to shine. Bottom line to all this is everything happens for a reason! now let's stop dwelling on the past. I say this respectufully. thank you

NCHarleyHardtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:18 PM
  #16
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
LOL...I -JUST- posted this on the Habs board, then this was the next post I looked at but it fits in here also...

Softness is one issue, softness from your big $$$ players is another. I agree with you 100%. I'm a Bruins fan and nice to see someone bring up the topic. Thornton was playing soft as heck for the B's last year...and the team followed suit. I'm sure alot of guys were thinking in the back on their minds "This guy is getting 7 million and dont throw a check. For 1.2 million, why the heck should I?"

By contrast, Chara got a real bad ankle bruise blocking a Souray shot in one of our preseason games. Dave Lewis said following that, something along the lines of "What Chara did there is send a message to the team. If he's willing to injure himself in a meaningless game, then other players on the team better take note. He just set the bar for everyone else in the lineup."

To add to a cliche..."Your best players need to be your best players AND set a example to the rest of the team while doing so."

In retrospect...No matter what line Kovalev or Samsonov are playing on they need to show passion and lead by example.

Gary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:21 PM
  #17
Bruinaholic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Central CT
Country: United States
Posts: 5,333
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bruinaholic
The ideal situation IMO would have been trading Samsonov for Stuart which was a rumor that was out there(im sure the B's would send a pick or something)
I doubt the B's would have ended up w/ Kessel but could definitly have afforded Chara and would obviously pass on Savard if JT was here
So it comes down to what would u pick
Option A Thornton-Chara-Stuart-Mystery 06 1st pick
Option B Savard-Chara-Stuart-Kessel-Sturm-Primeau

Having Thornton and Chara on the same team would be scary but i think depth wise we are definitly better off with what we have, now hopefully Stuart and Sturm arent deemed to expensive and Kessel turns out to be a worthy top 5 pick

Bruinaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:22 PM
  #18
FutureConsiderations
Registered User
 
FutureConsiderations's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Brookline, MA
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Remember that NESN show "What If...?"

FutureConsiderations is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:33 PM
  #19
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruinster View Post
Why read thread with a title who explain exactly what you'll read if you click on
LOL, good one Bruinster.

Because then people couldn't get all sanctimonious about what topics are allowed to be discussed.

Hey, it's a free world and if people are still interested in this topic, post away. It is okay to talk about how great the Neely trade was but it is maybe not okay to talk about the Thornton trade. ? I think Bruinster has it right, let the thread title be your guide.

DOGSTARMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:35 PM
  #20
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 25,917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
If you have Thornton add Zhamnov, subtract Stuart, Sturm, Chara, Savard.

We have talked this over amongst ourselves just messing around and all of us agreed with Thornton, you have Zhamnov never hurt and a waste at $4 mil....that adds up to over $11 mil- no way they can afford without feeling queezy Chara and Zhamnov like it or not is your second line center and Savard never comes here. Who knows what about Boyes? and Bergeron is a RW on Zhamnovs line. It's a not so Wonderful Bruins Life.

What if the Germans got the bomb first

DKH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:37 PM
  #21
Jim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Rochester NY
Country: United States
Posts: 773
vCash: 500
Mike B., for posting whats on your mind and not worrying about whether or not it will cause somebody a "toothache".

God forbid you discuss history.....because there aren't plenty of Bruins fans who sit in the stands and remember the "good old days" and wonder allowed to their buddies as each sips a luke warm beer, "Could you imagine what might have been if Cam Neely wasn't injured......if Bobby Orr's knees gave him a few more years......if both Orr and Bourque manned our blueline in their primes?"

Unfortunately, this thread will probably be closed by the mods, because those who hate it won't be able to stay away and let it die down with the other posts that have become obsolete. They will rant and rave...and eventually, someone will feel self-righteous enough to ensure your comments will do no further harm.

As for the answer to your question.....though I still question the actual return we got for Thornton, I wonder if this team would have actually been better with him here. I think with him here, Chara wouldn't be here...regardless of whether or not the money was available for both. And if they did get both, one of two things would have happened: 1.) Chara wouldn't have been able to take the leadership role because Joe would still have it, and the team would still be lazy.....or, 2.) The team would follow Chara, or maybe the locker room would have split....but one way or another, Joe would have probably felt underminded and that's never good for a team.

Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:38 PM
  #22
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 25,917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
[QUOTE=NCHarleyHardtail;6565973]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B. View Post
This is from a comment MB made in another thread...

Let's assume that the Bruins would have stunk and drafted Kessel even if Thornton had stayed. Two of the three players the Bruins (Stuart and Sturm) picked up played huge roles for the team after the deal, and some of the void left by Joe's departure was filled by Bergeron and Boyes. So, assume Kessel is here either way, along with Murray, Bergeron, Boyes, Axelsson. Assume also that the Bruins signed Bergeron for two years instead of five, at a much lower cap hit. So, the 2006-07 cost of Stuart, Sturm, Primeau, and Bergeron would be almost exactly the same as the cost of Thornton, Bergeron (signed to a shorter, cheaper deal), and 2 minimum salary guys at forward and defense. (Signing Bergeron to the smaller deal would amount to short term gain in exchange for longer term pain, so I count his deal as sort of a fringe benefit to making the trade.)

Look at the forwards first. I'll list the 2006-07 team without Thornton, and then use parentheses to list the guys who'd be here instead, had there been no Thornton trade:

Marc Savard (Joe Thornton)
Glen Murray
Phil Kessel
Patrice Bergeron
Brad Boyes
Marco Sturm (????)
PJ Axelsson
Shean Donovan
Wayne Primeau (????)
Petr Kalus
Mark Mowers
Yan Stastny
Wade Brookbank

Had the deal not been made, the Bruins still could have signed Donovan, Mowers, and Brookbank. Stastny's here becasue I assumed that the Samsonov trade still happened. I also put Petr Kalus on the team, although he could go back to junior with his spot taken by a Hoggan or a Tenkrat. Let's hope not...

On defense:

Zdeno Chara
Brad Stuart (????)
Paul Mara
Andrew Alberts
Milan Jurcina
Jason York
Nathan Dempsey
Mark Stuart*

Even with Thornton on board, the money would still have been there for signing the big guy (although he would have had no shot at the C). So, assume he's locked in for the same amount. The Nick Boynton/Paul Mara trade is basically a wash in terms of money, so figure that it would have happened either way.

As far as money goes... if Thornton had stayed, the Marc Savard signing would never have happened. Since Savard's cap number is $5 million, that is the amount of money the Bruins would have had to replace the three Thornton-trade guys in the lineup. A #2 defenseman, a top 6 forward who played like a first line guy after we got him, and a plugger. Getting by without Primeau would not have been too difficult, but $5 million would not go far in replacing Stuart and Sturm. The Bruins could have brought in a top FA replacement for one of the two, and relied on a cheap veteran or kid to fill the other slot.

In the longer term, they would be facing difficult renegotiations with Thornton, Bergeron, and Boyes instead of Stuart, Sturm, and Boyes.

Would they be better off in 2006-07 having never made the deal? What about the long term?[/QUOTE
YAWNNNNNN!!! and what if the sun refused to shine. Bottom line to all this is everything happens for a reason! now let's stop dwelling on the past. I say this respectufully. thank you
where is Zhamnov here

DKH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:42 PM
  #23
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 25,917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
The Thornton trade in the end will be for the best because without it we don't have all the changes. Joe is a super player and I wish him the best but right now this organization has not looked better for 25 years imo. When the board is so unsure of what to complain about they have to start critiquing the concessions I'd say the Bruins are doing some positive things.

DKH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:54 PM
  #24
trenton1
Paille Good
 
trenton1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Loge 31 Row 10
Country: Belize
Posts: 6,381
vCash: 500
The "loss" of Thornton coupled with the ditching of MOC and Sinden was part and parcel it turns out-- of the "new direction" and complete attitude change. It could be argued that it was less a trade and more of a "let go, with good compensation" situation.
A team lead by Joe Thornton alone as the Bruins were from 2002-2004 is one that got complacent and underachieved. The complete attitude and intensity change that comes in by putting Chara and Bergeron in the Bourque/Neely roles is exactly what this organization and city needed, IMO.
I understand there are dollars and other numbers to this issue too (and that's largely why the thread was started), but to have the team going in the direction it's going to go in for the next 5 years with Bergeron and Chara at the helm and not Thornton is going to help get more out of everyone on the ship, IMO. And having at least one year of Brad Stuart in this Bergeron/Chara era (along with Sturm and Primeau) plus first crack at resigning Brad, is worth the loss of that top flight playmaker.
If Joe stays, he stays captain and the Chara (if still signed) and Bergeron influence gets diluted more than it needs to, IMO.

In the end I believe MOC blundered by getting 3 established older players because he wanted to not lose the deal too badly in the court of public opinion (which he did anyway for the most part). He really should have made sure at least one young (5 years of RFA) player was involved. Stuart with either Bernier or Michalek and a pick likely would have been a better deal--but it is what it is. Other than the uneasiness I feel about Savard's deal to replace Joe's assists, everything is as it should be right now, IMO. If they use their small advantage to get Stuart locked up this year than I'm delighted.

trenton1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 01:11 PM
  #25
Bruinster*
 
Bruinster*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind the enemy lin
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Bruinster*
Quote:
Originally Posted by trenton1 View Post
The "loss" of Thornton coupled with the ditching of MOC and Sinden was part and parcel it turns out-- of the "new direction" and complete attitude change. It could be argued that it was less a trade and more of a "let go, with good compensation" situation.
A team lead by Joe Thornton alone as the Bruins were from 2002-2004 is one that got complacent and underachieved. The complete attitude and intensity change that comes in by putting Chara and Bergeron in the Bourque/Neely roles is exactly what this organization and city needed, IMO.
I understand there are dollars and other numbers to this issue too (and that's largely why the thread was started), but to have the team going in the direction it's going to go in for the next 5 years with Bergeron and Chara at the helm and not Thornton is going to help get more out of everyone on the ship, IMO. And having at least one year of Brad Stuart in this Bergeron/Chara era (along with Sturm and Primeau) plus first crack at resigning Brad, is worth the loss of that top flight playmaker.
If Joe stays, he stays captain and the Chara (if still signed) and Bergeron influence gets diluted more than it needs to, IMO.

In the end I believe MOC blundered by getting 3 established older players because he wanted to not lose the deal too badly in the court of public opinion (which he did anyway for the most part). He really should have made sure at least one young (5 years of RFA) player was involved. Stuart with either Bernier or Michalek and a pick likely would have been a better deal--but it is what it is. Other than the uneasiness I feel about Savard's deal to replace Joe's assists, everything is as it should be right now, IMO. If they use their small advantage to get Stuart locked up this year than I'm delighted.
I don't want to piss on your parade, but What Chara ever win with a team load of superb talent ? If Thornton Bruins was complacent and underachieved, How can you call the Chara's Senators ?

Bruinster* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.