The value of a Hart Trophy...

[Dennis Bonvie]

Originally Posted by Big Phil

To be fair, Esposito was 33 years old at that time and was starting a slow decline. I'd still say Orr would have been their "franchise" at that time. They didn't know that he'd practically be out all year and never play there again.

I also think that while the 2004 playoffs may have still stuck with Bruins management it is important to note that Thornton played that series with broken ribs did he not? It's one thing to trade a guy away because he mailed it in during the playoffs and another thing to trade him after he went pointless but was battling a critical injury that makes it hard to breathe.

To be fair, Espo had 127 points the season before, 2nd in the league and had 61 goals, easily leading the league.

The Bruins didn't trade Thornton because of the 2004 playoffs, they traded him because of his performance that season.

[Dennis Bonvie]

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123

Seriously though that pace in Boston is good for 117 points over a whole season which is 11 more than the number 3 scorer that year.
There is too much "Thorton was the entire problem in Boston" going on in some minds here IMO.



And how many players that ever finished in top 10 Hart voting got traded during the season?

I don't have to look it up to know that it is less than a dozen, probably quite a bit less, that trade says more about the management in Boston at the time than Joe.

Doesn't it tell you anything that pro-rating over the whole season he goes from 11th at the time to 3rd in scoring? Don't you think there is a reason none of the other guys in front of him at the time kept up that pace?

Anyway, its kind of funny that here in the History section we have people making an argument based strictly on points scored.

[Czech Your Math]

Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie

Doesn't it tell you anything that pro-rating over the whole season he goes from 11th at the time to 3rd in scoring? Don't you think there is a reason none of the other guys in front of him at the time kept up that pace?

Some of that is likely due to variance over a small sample, but your point still may have some truth.

Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie

Anyway, its kind of funny that here in the History section we have people making an argument based strictly on points scored.

Wasn't team quality and performance being discussed as well? So were the values of goals vs. assists. They were basically even in ES points (although Jagr tied Cheechoo in ES goals and elevated Nylander to #3 in ES points). Jagr had a better ES GF/GA ratio, but Thornton's off-ice comparison was weaker. What else should be considered?

[Dennis Bonvie]

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math

Some of that is likely due to variance over a small sample, but your point still may have some truth.



Wasn't team quality and performance being discussed as well? So were the values of goals vs. assists. They were basically even in ES points (although Jagr tied Cheechoo in ES goals and elevated Nylander to #3 in ES points). Jagr had a better ES GF/GA ratio, but Thornton's off-ice comparison was weaker. What else should be considered?

Sorry if I was unclear.

I was speaking about the comparison of Thonton's play for Boston compared to San Jose that season.

He scored 33 points, he must have been great. That's the argument. Having watched every Bruins game that year and as many San Jose games as I could (have Center Ice) there was no comparison in the level of play and it was switched on instantly after the trade.