Make Me Feel Better About the Bruins

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:

Even though both the Celts and the Bruins had short springs, there seems to be a bit more optimism for the green. And I think that a lot of that has to do with the guy signing the checks: Danny Ainge. Is Don Sweeney that bad of a GM? Has Cam Neely been wildly overrated? Is there any optimism for the 2016 offseason and the upcoming season?

The winter sucks when the hockey is bad, what are some positives for the future?

Click to expand...

Sweeney and Neely are pretty bad. All signs are that they overvalue the way the game was played when they were players, which leads to them overpaying for guys like Kevan Miller and Adam McQuaid and lots of other poor decisions. Sweeney also seemed to really mess up at last year's draft, when he was trying to get into the top 5 and had assets to do so, but ended up making some weird panicky trades and having three picks in a row (and taking a guy that he probably could have had later).

They have made changes to the scouting team (I think) so maybe there will be some success with the recent draft picks and trades. Jury's still out. A problem is that they have guys like Miller and McQuaid locked into the starting lineup so it's unclear when the young guys will get a shot.

They are also in a purgatory position where they have enough talent to be on the playoff bubble and a very good-great goalie, so they're unlikely to completely bottom out (and get a top 3 pick which could change the future). They have injected some youth to the team and they have some cap space finally, but until Sweeney and Neely show that they can make smart moves, most are going to assume they can't. If the youth gets good quickly, they have a shot, but otherwise they're probably going to stay mediocre until Sweeney is fired and then maybe they do a full rebuild.

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:

Let me start off this thread with this admission: I like hockey a lot, but because of a lot of reasons I'm not quite as into the Bruins as I was even 10 years ago. So while I have a pretty good idea of who's good on the Bruins' roster and who kinda sucks, I don't have the knowledge depth to understand who's kicking ass in Providence or on some juniors team.

Every time I read about the B's or hear an expert talk about them, it sounds like that their future is pretty terrible. And for the last two years, they have been bad to mediocre. From my understanding, the reasons are: guys have gotten old quickly (Chara), terrible trades were made (Seguin), rookies haven't progressed and third/fourth line guys were given big contracts. That all adds up to more years of mediocrity and bad hockey.

Even though both the Celts and the Bruins had short springs, there seems to be a bit more optimism for the green. And I think that a lot of that has to do with the guy signing the checks: Danny Ainge. Is Don Sweeney that bad of a GM? Has Cam Neely been wildly overrated? Is there any optimism for the 2016 offseason and the upcoming season?

The winter sucks when the hockey is bad, what are some positives for the future?

Click to expand...

I'll start off by saying that the past two years the Bruins have not been bad to mediocre, it's more complicated than that. They have run the gamut of good to average to unlucky - so don't listen to anyone who says they have been bad, because that's just not the case. They finished the past 2 seasons with 96 and 93 points which in other seasons could have easily gotten them into the playoffs while both years finishing with a positive goal differential. They weren't a powerhouse team, but they were good enough to make the playoffs both years and then... who knows.

Having said that, there has been some mismanagement over the last 3-4 seasons that has driven them down from one of the top teams in the east to struggling to make the playoffs and the things you listed above are some of the reasons. Just 3 seasons ago we were gushing about how positive the future outlook of the team was, with solid veterans, a great coach and some great young players mixed in - the roster has been badly mismanaged from that point.

There IS optimism for this team, but it is going to take a lot of creativity that I think is lacking in the current front office. There are some very valuable assets on the team that can be leveraged to fortify weak areas and the team has a sizable amount of cap space. This summer is a turning point for the franchise - if they make the right moves, they will set the team up for a run of success, but there is also the opportunity to set the team back for a decade. We'll see what happens.

Toe Nash said:

Sweeney and Neely are pretty bad. All signs are that they overvalue the way the game was played when they were players, which leads to them overpaying for guys like Kevan Miller and Adam McQuaid and lots of other poor decisions. Sweeney also seemed to really mess up at last year's draft, when he was trying to get into the top 5 and had assets to do so, but ended up making some weird panicky trades and having three picks in a row (and taking a guy that he probably could have had later).

They have made changes to the scouting team (I think) so maybe there will be some success with the recent draft picks and trades. Jury's still out. A problem is that they have guys like Miller and McQuaid locked into the starting lineup so it's unclear when the young guys will get a shot.

They are also in a purgatory position where they have enough talent to be on the playoff bubble and a very good-great goalie, so they're unlikely to completely bottom out (and get a top 3 pick which could change the future). They have injected some youth to the team and they have some cap space finally, but until Sweeney and Neely show that they can make smart moves, most are going to assume they can't. If the youth gets good quickly, they have a shot, but otherwise they're probably going to stay mediocre until Sweeney is fired and then maybe they do a full rebuild.

Click to expand...

Luckily, I don't think Rask is a great goalie, so at least they have that going for them?

They scored the 3rd most goals in the East last year. But they gave up 4th most goals and are losing their 3rd best forward. The defense won't be better and could be worse. The offense could be as good if Vatrano or Pastrnak improve, or if they add a free agent.

They really need a top 4 RD but it looks like they won't get it. They've amassed a lot of prospects which are good for the future but they likely won't contribute until 17-18' and be key players until 18-19'. Also, while they have a many prospects, none are blue chips.

It is all about your perspective. If you're still holding on to the cup contender status they held a few years ago, there isn't a ton that will make you optimistic. They've made some bad decisions in asset management, they seem to have made some bad deals where they didn't get enough in return for core players, and its difficult to trust the front office at this point.

If you've accepted that they will be a mid-level team until some of their contracts clear and younger players mature, its not nearly as bleak. What the Bruins system lacks in top tier talent, they make up for in depth. They are flush with defensive prospects and a fair amount of them should be NHLers in the future. I think its pretty reasonable to say they have the prospect depth to guarantee 3 D and 6 forwards that will play for entry level deals in the next 4-5 years. That provides the team with tremendous flexibility to make trades, sign UFA's, and improve the team in general. Most of that has come from aggressive pursuit of college free agents and a really good scouting team that they revamped 3 years ago.

This team likely has a bit more of that 6-10 in the East level performance because their best players are still very very good, but if they can accelerate the development of their prospects and add to the aging corp in the interim, they could trend up pretty quickly.

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:

You guys both make some great points, but I wanted to pull this quote out because at the end of the last Cup run (which saw them lose to Chicago), I thought that the Bruins were poised for a strong future. I know that the Seguin deal wasn't great (to put it mildly -- I hated it from day one, but like I said I might be completely missing something on that) but it seems that the Boychuk deal affected them even more. And I know that rarely can you point to one or two things that can sink a franchise, but these seem to be the biggest ones.

Am I reading this correctly?

Click to expand...

Not completely. While the Seguin trade can definitely be pointed to as a turning point, it wasn't a completely egregious trade as Loui was a very valuable asset for the team. It was the combination of losing Seguin and his future value, losing Dougie and his future value, losing Boychuk and his current value and giving out some weird contracts to replaceable players while trading away valuable assets for others (Rinaldo).

We could have lived with the Seguin trade if everything else had come out roses - it's been the combination of mismanagement that has trickled down to form the current roster that is not as good as it should be.

The problem is there are 27 other teams chasing defense. Top end defenseman are really, really hard to come by. I personally think that in the short term, the Boychuk deal has hurt more than the Seguin deal. Blew a hole in the back end that they've yet to address. They then compounded that by moving Hamilton last offseason. So here we are 2 years later looking to acquire a Boychuk and a Hamilton.

And really I think that's the crux of the issue and why most people have a negative view on the team right now - given where they were and where they are now, they should be a lot better than they are. They squandered a good opportunity and leveled the playing field. It was completely self inflicted.

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:

Okay that seems reasonable. If they have this much depth, why can't they make a trade for someone that can help them now? Are these guys also not that good?

Click to expand...

Basically, yes. They already have 6 NHL defensemen under contract and 4 of them are best played on the bottom pairing. Their assets can't get the top pairing D they need because none of them are good enough right now. They could trade 3 or 4 of them but then the prospect depth is gone. Pastrnak+ may be able to net them a D but he's their top young forward.

FL4WL3SS said:

And really I think that's the crux of the issue and why most people have a negative view on the team right now - given where they were and where they are now, they should be a lot better than they are. They squandered a good opportunity and leveled the playing field. It was completely self inflicted.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why it's very difficult for me, at least, to have tons of hope, they continually shoot themselves in the foot. The management competence of the front office is presently, dreadful. For example, there is nothing wrong with targeting guys to fill bottom six roles at F in the draft...it's exactly the thing that has hamstrung them since say, 2011. It's entirely another thing to burn a first round pick on such a player while openly admitting he has a low ceiling - right fit, wrong price. It's the same brand of asset mismanagement that saw them give a third for Rinaldo - wrong fit, wrong price. You just don't know what they will misread next and their message is so inconsistent vis a vis their actions.

They essentially went all in trying to maximize the short term window. The biggest mistake in my opinion remains valuing Seidenberg over Boychuk. Seidenberg had a great run playing along side Chara and it never stood to reason that he would continue that level. Boychuk has since leveled off, but was definitely on an upward projection at the time. The calculus that Chara would age much better than others due to his superb conditioning and work ethic wasn't really questioned by many. That obviously couldn't have been more wrong once he hurt his knee and has never come close to being what he was. Mishandling Hamilton and at the least not getting a present day equal value for him is a very, very close second. Given the state of the D, they had to create a market for him that would bring back a top 4 D man plus some futures. It was definitely handled like amateurs.

We'll be debating it for 100 years, but the Seguin trade wasn't "terrible" (not to be confused with a great or even good trade). Eriksson was unarguably a better all around player and a better fit for what they wanted to do. They unloaded an albatross of a contract with Peverly and gained what appeared to be some valuable futures / rotation players.

Looking forward, they still have a better than average group of forwards even projecting the loss of Loui. The biggest factor in this is assuming that post surgery Krejci gets back to being near what he was. Bergy and Marchand will do their thing. Pastrnak will get better. Vatrano should be a solid contributor all year and they will be faster in the bottom six with a full year of Accari and the probable addition of Czarnik. Signing Vesey is the big wildcard. The D will be awful this year, but Carlo has a chance to play his way into the mix by the second half. O'Gara and Grzelcyk are both 22 and 4 year college players so they shouldn't need too much seasoning before they can help. Tuukka is still a top tier goaltender. Claude is one of the best. They have the offense to be a playoff team. The D will probably hold them back, but if they can get decent play out of C Miller and one of the rookies steps up they could go for a Dallas style offense and be a fringe playoff team by winning the 5-4 games. It's not good, but it's not dire.

I think the biggest problem will remain the leadership team. If there is a vision for the team, it seems to be the wrong one. Sweeney and Neely don't inspire any confidence that they can develop a plan to position the team to be a contender in 3 or 4 years and stick with it. I'm afraid that they'll perpetually linger in the high lottery zone.

So far after reading all of the above, not feeling better.

Well, they did trade Stanley Cup Final starting goalie Martin Jones for Trent Frederic.

Jones played more games (as a rookie), had more wins, a higher save percentage, a lower GAA, and had 14 more playoff wins than the $8 million AAV in the Bruins net.

So there's that.

FL4WL3SS said:

Not completely. While the Seguin trade can definitely be pointed to as a turning point, it wasn't a completely egregious trade as Loui was a very valuable asset for the team. It was the combination of losing Seguin and his future value, losing Dougie and his future value, losing Boychuk and his current value and giving out some weird contracts to replaceable players while trading away valuable assets for others (Rinaldo).

We could have lived with the Seguin trade if everything else had come out roses - it's been the combination of mismanagement that has trickled down to form the current roster that is not as good as it should be.

Click to expand...

I know this is basically a Bruins' front office tradition at this point, but it's criminal to have made the Seguin/Hamilton trades without acquiring a single blue-chipper as part of either deal. But that's what happens when you back yourself into a corner with the idea that "Player X MUST be traded" instead of "Let's make the best deal possible with Player X."

The front office is a dog perpetually chasing a car with the license plate TFN355. Sometimes they catch the car, but it's a DeLorean headed for a long-since bygone era. The other corner they have backed themselves into (a corner they seem to relish) is they don't want to win unless it meets a certain standard of BRUINS HOCKEY GODDAMMIT.

The only positive point I can make right now is that the hood is still open and the parts slated to go back into the car are either on the floor or in boxes. We'll have a lot more clarity about this team's future in about 2 to 4 weeks.

I didn't see any quick fixes coming in pre-draft trades, so I'm glad that Sweeney decided to hold on to his picks and build for the future. OK, that's 2 positives, except for the fact that they went out and spent a first round pick on a guy they could have and should have drafted much later. And that move reinforced a fear that I have, a fear that grew when I saw a roster filled with redundant and fungible players like Zach Rinaldo, Jimmy Hayes, Max Talbot, and Brett Connolly. A fear that was further reinforced by the Kevan Miller signing. That Neely and Sweeney overvalue certain traits that were helpful when they were players, but are almost useless in today's NHL.

I'm willing to admit I could be wrong. The possession stats show that Miller was one of the better blue liners on the team last season. And both Colin Miller and Joe Morrow could improve; C. Miller is intriguing, actually.

Carmine Hose said:

Well, they did trade Stanley Cup Final starting goalie Martin Jones for Trent Frederic.

Jones played more games (as a rookie), had more wins, a higher save percentage, a lower GAA, and had 14 more playoff wins than the $8 million AAV in the Bruins net.

So there's that.

Click to expand...

On a team with actual top pairing defensemen.

Carmine Hose said:

Well, they did trade Stanley Cup Final starting goalie Martin Jones for Trent Frederic.

Jones played more games (as a rookie), had more wins, a higher save percentage, a lower GAA, and had 14 more playoff wins than the $8 million AAV in the Bruins net.

So there's that.

Click to expand...

Kenny said it first, but his team had people playing defense that were still alive. Also his cap hit is $7mil.

My neighbors are huge Bruins fans and I've asked them a similar question. They seem convinced that the Boychuk deal was the worst. And that Seguin had to be traded because teammates had issues with him dating their wives or something like that.

The big issues on defense were created by "choosing" Seidenberg over Boychuk. That hurt on the ice, and the locker room where Boychuk was one of the most well-liked players. The Seguin trade was horrible management of a player with a questionable attitude off the ice. This is consistent with them overvaluing "grit" and "toughness" over skill, and it's killed them. Those are the two worst decisions that are, by and large, why they are where they are.

I don't mind the Hamilton deal as much. Sure, he would have likely made them a bottom run playoff team, but he doesn't play physical defense despite being huge, and was being shopped by Calgary at the draft pretty actively (even though they denied it). At the time, I didn't like it, but as time has moved on I am fine with it.

Moving forward, they are going to be poor to mediocre (finishing anywhere from 7th to 10th next year) next year, and possibly the year after that if they can't add any pieces. Optimistically, they are really only a top 4 defenseman away from being a solid playoff team, but I don't expect them to be able to add a piece like that.

In terms of young players, Pastrnak is a stud. He's quick, smart, and he's a 1st line winger. No doubt in my mind there. They also have Bergeron/Krejci still up the middle, and they each have probably 3-5 years left at their current play levels. Marchand is a stud, and I love him. He should be extended long term. Vatrano was king of soft and doughy, and once he signed out of college he hit the gym hard. He became much more solid, quicker and faster, and that translated to his absolutely ridiculous goal-per-game pace in the AHL (seriously, it was ridiculous). He appears to be a top 6 player, although he may be a year or two away from really hitting that goal. They also have Danton Heinen as a potential third line center/LW, who was one of the best college hockey forwards last year. They have Senyshyn, who could be a real find, but he's about 2-3 years away. The kid they just drafted, Charlie McAvoy, I am very high on. He has the potential to be a #1 defenseman. Lindberg, their 2nd round pick, also has top 4 potential. The Bruins also have Austin Czarnik (sp?) who while not flashy, is a guy who could be a really effective and solid 3rd line Center with 2nd line upside. I like him a lot, he's feisty. On defense, the cupboard is as full as it has ever been in terms of prospects. Jeremy Lauzon was a 2nd rounder last year who was sensational before having a nasty skate cut injury. Brandon Carlo is a big kid (6'5") who is a fluid skater, and has solid speed. He's also a physical defender, and there is a real chance he breaks with the big club this year. Zboril was their highest pick last year and has a ton of talent and snarl, but probably 2-3 years away. McAvoy and Lindberg add even more depth. Then you have recent grads like Rob O'Gara (Yale) a bit 6'4" 215lb defenseman with a simple straight forward game. He's going to be a really effective 4-5. Gryzlyk out of BU is a lot like Krug, with probably more playmaking ability but less strength and intangibles. He's got a ton of talent. They also have two solid goalie prospects in Subban (ultra talented) and McIntyre (work in progress). Subban is developing slowly, but he's got a supreme amount of talent if he can put it together.

All in all, I like where they are headed, but it may be a few years until they get there. Once there. if they are handled correctly (i.e. they avoid this "play like the 80's Bruins teams" bullshit) and focus more on developing speed and skill, then they should be solid contenders for a long time.

As for Sweeney, in free agency and trades, he is... not good so far. Drafting and player development he appears to be much more effective, but that may just be the scouting department. If they can just stop with the gritty toughness bullshit and focus on the skill they have in the pipeline, they should be good. Just be patient.

I also forgot to mention Ryan Donato, who in the NCAAs appeared to stand out more to me than Vesey. Then Forsbacka-Karlson at BU, who could push Krejci out the door for good when he's ready. Plays a lot like 37, and has talent. To be fair, if he develops he's still probably 2-3 years away. There is also Ryan FitzGerald of BC who took a huge step forward last year, Jesse Grabrielle who lit up juniors and plays on the edge like Marchand, Jake DeBrusk who had a slow year but refined a lot of his two way game this past year, and other unheralded talents like Peter Cehlarik (in Providence this year), and Anderson Bjork who had a breakout year at Notre Dame.

Not to revisit the Seguin trade, but the more I rumors I hear about some of his antics, the more I understand why he was traded. He may have done some things that definitely crossed the line. My problem is that the return was such they could be in a situation where they have nothing to show for it next year.

The Hamilton trade was poorly executed. They could have and should have gotten more than what they got.

The Boychuk trade is on Chiarelli, not on Sweeney, and probably not on Neely either. Technically, so was the Seguin trade, but Sweeney was clearly in favor of trading him.

Even if you believe Seguin had to be traded, which I don't, why on Earth would you trash him through the last half of the playoffs and through the draft? It was like Chiarelli was purposely trying to drive down the asset he felt needed to go, which is the last thing you should be doing.

I'm in the vast minority that didn't have an issue with the Boychuck trade. He's the kind of guy a successful, veteran team has to peel off once you have to start paying your guys. I wouldn't want to be sitting on his 6M per for 6 more years through age 38. I think we'd be going crazy with that contract on the books as well. I think trading the heading into his prime Dougie Hamilton was the disatrous move. You can't let both of your top 4 RD leave for draft picks within a calendar year. Especially if you're expecting to replace them with third pair types. Will never get the rush to take that Calgary offer. Because they were afraid of an Edmonton offer sheet? If it came in that pricey, sit back and collect those juicy Edmonton picks. Maybe Hamilton would've improved them some, but unlikely that return would be worse than SweeNeely accepted.

mcpickl said:

I'm in the vast minority that didn't have an issue with the Boychuck trade. He's the kind of guy a successful, veteran team has to peel off once you have to start paying your guys. I wouldn't want to be sitting on his 6M per for 6 more years through age 38. I think we'd be going crazy with that contract on the books as well. I think trading the heading into his prime Dougie Hamilton was the disatrous move. You can't let both of your top 4 RD leave for draft picks within a calendar year. Especially if you're expecting to replace them with third pair types. Will never get the rush to take that Calgary offer. Because they were afraid of an Edmonton offer sheet? If it came in that pricey, sit back and collect those juicy Edmonton picks. Maybe Hamilton would've improved them some, but unlikely that return would be worse than SweeNeely accepted.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Boychuk trade it had to happen because they extended Seidenberg. Had they made the correct choice of extending Boychuk, they probably wouldn't have had to pay him much more or for longer term than what they gave Seidenberg. Once Seidenberg was extended there was no chance of keeping Boychuk.

RIFan said:

The problem with the Boychuk trade it had to happen because they extended Seidenberg. Had they made the correct choice of extending Boychuk, they probably wouldn't have had to pay him much more or for longer term than what they gave Seidenberg. Once Seidenberg was extended there was no chance of keeping Boychuk.

Click to expand...

I loved the Seidenberg extension. Pretty sure I was in the majority on that one at the time, don't remember too many complaints when he signed. 4/16 for him was a real good number for Seidenbergs age 33-36 seasons. He just happened to get hurt before the ink was dry. I think they chose the right guy, just didn't work out. Or maybe, it wouldn't have worked out either way. Let's see how Boychuck looks going forward.

Yeah the vast majority was in favor of the Seidenberg extension at the time. You can't predict NHL ACL injuries unfortunately and safe to say Seids was not an injury risk at the time of the extension. He probably would have provided adequate value had he not torn his ACL.

Seids is a very smart player and could afford to lose a 1/2 step and still be an asset defensively, unfortunately he lost 2 steps largely due to fluke injury.

mcpickl said:

I loved the Seidenberg extension. Pretty sure I was in the majority on that one at the time, don't remember too many complaints when he signed. 4/16 for him was a real good number for Seidenbergs age 33-36 seasons. He just happened to get hurt before the ink was dry. I think they chose the right guy, just didn't work out. Or maybe, it wouldn't have worked out either way. Let's see how Boychuck looks going forward.

Click to expand...

His possession stats cratered before he got hurt and before they signed the extension. It wasn't just the injuries. Guys who aren't superstars tend to not last through their mid-30s.

RIFan said:

The problem with the Boychuk trade it had to happen because they extended Seidenberg. Had they made the correct choice of extending Boychuk, they probably wouldn't have had to pay him much more or for longer term than what they gave Seidenberg. Once Seidenberg was extended there was no chance of keeping Boychuk.

Click to expand...

The Boychuck trade happened because Chia went GFIN in the 13-14 season and signed Iginla to a bonus-structured deal that allowed Iginla to get paid with 14-15 money. That cap hit was why we had to trade Boychuck in the preseason.

AMcGhie said:

The Boychuck trade happened because Chia went GFIN in the 13-14 season and signed Iginla to a bonus-structured deal that allowed Iginla to get paid with 14-15 money. That cap hit was why we had to trade Boychuck in the preseason.

Click to expand...

Both are true. Seidenberg's contract was up after the 13-14 season. They extended him at the start of that season. Had they not extended him they could have let him walk and kept Boychuk.

The game that kills me from that series was game 1. Out shot Montreal 51-33, out attempted them 98-58 (89-47!!! at even strength). They win that game and they win the series and then roll through the Rangers.

The Four Peters said:

I'm not implying that you said this, more jumping off from this post, but this exact same argument could be applied to Boychuk. You don't give a guy a 6 year deal at $6M AAV until he's 38.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd agree here. The Boychuk trade wasn't that bad though if they had the cap space they probably should have just held onto him and let him go to FA. But they didn't as SJH pointed out.

My only issue is with saying they "dumped" these guys. They didn't dump any of them. Now, I'm not saying they should have traded them (except Smith, fuck him), but in a vacuum they aren't as terrible as you think. I also find it interesting that you say they "dump" the young talented guys but they didn't "dump" guys like Boychuk, Lucic, etc.

• Seguin - I don't want to revisit the trade, but they sure didn't "dump" him. They traded him for a very good 2 way 30 goal scoring forward. That guy just happened to get knocked into next week by John Scott and Brooks Orpik in his first season. If we got the Loui of the last 2 years out of the gate, this trade is looked at entirely differently. They also got a guy that was good enough that you accused them of "dumping" right after. The trade didn't work out, but this wasn't Thornton for Sturm, Stuart, Primeau.

Click to expand...

Eh, this was a dump. Seguin has an incredible contract. He's still signed for three more years (and the Loui deal is now over) and the cap hit is minimal. Even if he hadn't gotten much better he'd be worth it. That's what was bad about it -- he might have the best post-ELC contract in hockey. You got a nice player for a good deal but now he's gone, and some prospects.

And their actions before and after the deal made it feel like a dump. What was the rush to make that deal, then?

The Four Peters said:

That 13-14 team was the best of this era. That team was a wagon, I still think they win the Cup if they get past Montreal.

Click to expand...

That one killed me. It would have been an epic battle with the Kings for the Cup. Sigh.

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:

Or (and this is admittedly biased by my own personal experience) if Rask doesn't have a kid right in the middle of the series. He was shit when he came back after the birth. Can't really blame him, I've been shit for 6 solid years since!

That team was awesome, and losing that series was a huge missed opportunity.

Click to expand...

Oh who are you kidding?

You were shit before, too.

With regards to the Reilly Smith trade, we should note that it was Chiarelli that extended his contract at a rather ridiculous AAV while he was in the middle of a terrible season despite playing on the same line as Bergeron and Marchand. And the Smith trade did allow the B's to dump the Savard contract, which was truly hindering them in the FA market. I don't blame Sweeney for deciding to "dump" Smith. The problem is that they got back Jimmy Hayes, whom they promptly extended with yet another albatross contract.

EDIT: as to JMOH's point, another issue is that one of their draft picks from last year (Zboril) is already heading toward bust status after a very bad season this past year.

Click to expand...

Zboril turned 19 just last February. I think we need a lot more than one season, one which incidentally was followed by a decent playoff showing, before we decide that Sweeney drafted a bust.

They didn't just trade a top-three defenseman for an aging boat anchor.

"Fredric might not be a top two line player, but he has some jam"- Bruins. So we have that going for us, which is nice.

Blacken said:

They didn't just trade a top-three defenseman for an aging boat anchor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, by doing nothing so far except make his draft picks, Sweeney has improved to at worst the 3rd-worst GM in the league.

An amazing thing about yesterday is that I really thought the league was getting smarter and the dinosaurs were on their way out with all the influx of analytics. And that the Bruins were stuck in the old days. Not the case -- unfortunately, a smart FO could really clean up and improve quickly, and it doesn't look like they're going to do that either.

I'd say 4th worst, what with Jim Benning still doing Jim Benning things.

Edit: And I don't think you needed an analytics bent to realize the lopsidedness of the two trades.