2015-16 Bruins Post Mortem

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,928
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Using this season as the example of "Claude won't play young players" is absolutely absurd and immediately disqualifies your point of view on anything in my mind.

Spooner, Vatrano, Pastrnak, Ferraro, Connolly (who's younger than Spooner), Acciari....all got significant playing time, and at the expense of veterans. Those guys showed flashes of talent but also disappeared for long stretches and proved they weren't enough to get them to where they need to go, yet.

On defense, Morrow and Trotman have proven they are not NHL caliber defensemen (right now) and the organization, not Claude, decided to bury Colin Miller in the AHL.

This isn't like he went down with the ship riding the likes of Paille, Campbell, and Thornton. He played the young guys. And the team scored a lot of goals, couldn't defend worth shit, and showed minimal leadership and consistency throughout the season.

This team desperately missed Chris Kelly, and I'm not joking. He would have given you more than Spooner did in the last month and at least tried to not let them sleepwalk through these games. The fact that people are still staying "MOAR YOUNG KIDS" without realizing that playing them comes at a cost doesn't make sense to me.

All that said, Seidenberg, K Miller, and McQuaid gotta go and they gotta find replacements for them that aren't in the system now. It's 3 bottom pairing defensemen getting top 4 mins.
Great post.

This is the only reason I think there's a chance that Julien keeps his job. If Cam/Sweeney are halfway competent they realize that Claude was strapped with a shitty defense and a lot of kids and was one game away from the playoffs.

They failed to improve the team at the deadline when they were clearly in need of some help and well within the playoff picture. This falls squarely on Sweeney and Cam. Julien deserves recognition, not scorn.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,091
Rhode Island
If we trade Krejci, who is the 2C next year?

It is rearranging the deck chairs. Solves the back end problem, opens up a big hole down the middle.
Agree 100%.

I would rather explore trading Rask and buying out Seids. Free up some cash to make some moves.
I think it will come out at some point, but the biggest problem with this team probably is in the locker room. They finished with a positive goal differential so placing all the blame on an inadequate D doesn't explain it. They missed out because they came out flat too many times in the season. If they had taken care of a few of the games against lesser opponents they should have had they're coasting in. It veers into hot take territory, but Krejci appears to be the biggest culprit of inconsistent effort. I have no idea of their credibility, but it's been rumored that he isn't well liked in the room. There isn't enough cap room to do anything with the D without a major move. If they can get Loui back, Spooner can move to 2C. Loui covers enough of Spooner's warts to make it work. Czarnik looks to me to be a very capable 3rd line center. Him along with Belesky and maybe Connolly would be a high energy line that could compete well against other 3rd lines. None of that is ideal, but neither is treading water hoping for a few breaks to end up as the #8 seed.

I was all for buying out Seids after last season and still think that needs to happen, but the cap relief is minor. Trading Rask leaves a huge hole. Subban and McIntyre are not full time NHL goalies. You can't afford to whiff on the goalie position. Rask's salary would cover 1 top pair D, so you would still have a leaky D in front of an inferior Goalie. I saw this team struggle to find a number 1 goalie for too long to want to go back to the pre-Thomas days.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,795
Melrose, MA
They failed to improve the team at the deadline when they were clearly in need of some help and well within the playoff picture. This falls squarely on Sweeney and Cam. Julien deserves recognition, not scorn.
There's nothing they reasonably could have done to build anything more than a team that got its ass kicked in round 1.

I think it is good that they didn't mortgage the future any more than has already been done. This is still Chiarelli's mess, not Claude's and not Sweeney/Neely's.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,557
The Island
Wait. Colin Miller was sent down over Claude's objection?
Who knows, but it's telling that when he was recalled this week, he immediately played over Trotman and Morrow.

This all could have been headed off last summer by Sweeney and/or Neely by scaling back expectations. I know you never want to admit that your team isn't likely to compete for the top of its league before the season even starts, but if they point out that Chiarelli's reckless spending to get Chara one more ring put the team in a real cap bind, so this season is about resetting the cap and fielding a slightly less talented team with an eye on restocking the prospect cupboard and being a top team in the East in 2016-17/2017-18, no one freaks out when they hit the tail end of that tough stretch everyone saw coming and they faltered down the stretch. It'd also insulate Claude from the criticism of a rough season that wasn't nearly his fault as the thin roster. Instead, the intimation was that they could be competitive in the East (which they were, but outside of Washington and Pittsburgh, that's not really strong praise) and maybe surprise their way into an ECF appearance.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,091
Rhode Island
So your entire basis for trading Krejci is because maybe you heard he wasn't well liked in the locker room?

We've been down this road before and it's ugly, let's not do it again.
Snap reaction much? Not even close to "entire basis". I know you have better reading comprehension than that. He provides the least production for the level of cap space he takes up. Given the choice of resigning Loui and any level of D upgrade versus keeping Krejci, I'd go with the trade. Either way you don't trade him on locker room issues alone, I'm not saying it would be an addition by subtraction. They need to figure out the locker room and who isn't prepared to play on a nightly basis. Maybe that's Krejci, maybe not.
 
Last edited:

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,114
Chelmsford, MA
The problem I have with the Claude isn't at fault stuff, aside from the general handling of C. Miller is sort of like the fundamental problem I have with Rask at times. If he's a defensive coach who plays a defensive system then why is it that the coach and system can't elevate some of these poor defensemen. Theoretically, they should have more help and be put in a better position to succeed. If we were playing wide open suicidal stuff and then left the young D exposed I would better understand the sentiment but this team values two way players who do their job in their own end. Maybe the scary thought is that the coach and system did actually elevate the dmen and their true talent level is just incredibly bad.

I've said it before but I think the same line of thought applies to Rask. If he's a 7 mil goalie then he has to make his defense better. It wasn't his strongest season and he really only put together a few glimpses of being that kind of goalie this year.

I think moving Krejci and Rask has to at least be on the table. Normally Chara as well but they really need D so badly that they probably can't afford to move him. I mean, we can go on and on about youth and the depth players but this team is where it is because the players it has chosen to pay a significant portion of their cap to haven't been consistent night in night out superstars. They're all probably only marginally overpaid but you combine that with one or two bad moves and you find yourself without the money to do things like have a competent 2nd pairing defenseman.

To the above, even if trading Krejci for Shattenkirk does create a hole at C I'd probably do it. Maybe it is just reacting to the last thing you saw but I feel much better about scrambling to fill a forward role, even top 6, than I do about filling top pairing D.

Final thought, it's amazing how much the Dougie thing impacted this team. Not the player himself, but I think the idea that they had a future heir to Chara permeated the organization so much that the eventual departure left them so bare.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,911
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Never mind Hamilton, the team kinda went to shit when Boychuk was traded, although of course that was Chia's trade.

The Hamilton thing hurts as you say because he was supposed to be the stud young defenseman for the future. I still wonder exactly what precipitated his trade.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,911
Deep inside Muppet Labs
And teddy, you don't improve a team by trading your franchise goalie. Rask has shown he can carry a team, and we've seen that it took the Bruins YEARS to find a decent goalie after churning through endless retreads (Ranford, Dafoe, Casey, Shields, Potvin) and flame-outs and never-weres (Lacher, Raycroft, Carey, Toivinen). I don't want to live through those years again, thinking that Petr Fucking Skudra was going to help the team somehow.

Rask isn't the problem.
 

BoSoxFink

Stripes
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
7,662
South Park
They need to find away to get out from Seidenberg's contract and see if they can move any other salary if at all possible. If they can free up enough cap space they need to try to find a way to trade for Shattenkirk and another young d man if possible. It won't be easy to do, but that's exactly the route they need to take.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,238
I don't really blame Julien, and I'm OK if he's back next season. We can quibble with some of his tactical moves around playing time, but every coach is going to have their quirks when it comes to doling out minutes. I can also see why he might get fired; it's the easiest "quick fix" to make after a late season collapse that saw the team go from first in the division to out of the playoffs altogether. My first fear about such a move is that I'd hate to see it as the one key move to make this offseason. The roster needs to improve, significantly in some areas, or the coach will not matter. My 2nd concern is that there are a number of coaching candidates that would turn out far, far worse than Julien on his worst days. Anyone remember Steve Bleepin' Kasper and Dave Lewis?

Thoughts on other names mentioned in this thread:

Krejci: I am firmly in the "trade him" camp. The only problem is that there are rumors he needs surgery, and so may be perceived as damaged goods around the league.

Chara: The problem is that he was still the team's best blue liner this past season. And there was still a pretty big drop off to 2nd best. As this is the post-mortem thread, I don't feel the need to suggest solutions to this problem, because I freely admit I honestly have no idea what to do here.

Rask: I don't see the need to invest $7M in a goaltender. The problem is that they would need to find a replacement if they did trade him.

Pastrnak: I consider him untouchable. I would hate seeing a roster that doesn't have Pastrnak but has Connolly and Hayes and another bottom pairing defenseman and checking forward.

Seidenberg: Has to go, just to keep Julien or his replacement from giving him playing time over Colin Miller next season.

Krug: An enigma. The possession stats love him, and so his 4 goals could be a case of some bad BABIP luck (shot percentage was way down). At the same time, he often seemed to be getting exposed defensively. I am definitely concerned what it will take to resign him, and how far the B's will be willing to go to do so.

Neely: He's going nowhere, so there's no point in arguing whether he should be fired. And to be fair, he's only made a couple of team decisions: fired Chiarelli (widely applauded around these parts), hired Sweeney (probably the right move at the time), and let Sweeney decide Julien's fate.

Sweeney: He seems to have caught a case of the Cherington Curse where every move he made seemed to have worked out for the worse. I still maintain that there was nothing feasible for him to do at the trade deadline without damaging the team further, and they should be able to recover from the Stempniak and Lilles deals. The Hamilton situation was badly bungled, and I hate the McQuaid contract and the acquisition of Rinaldo, but I'm still hopeful those will not be representative of the moves he makes this offseason. Like or not, I don't see Neely firing his GM after 1 season, especially as his hands were partially tied by the moves Chiarelli made or refused to make.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,479
They need to find away to get out from Seidenberg's contract and see if they can move any other salary if at all possible. If they can free up enough cap space they need to try to find a way to trade for Shattenkirk and another young d man if possible. It won't be easy to do, but that's exactly the route they need to take.
Its my understanding that Seid's NTC is as big of an issue as finding a suitor. To my knowledge, this team has twice tried to move him. The last time, this offseason, there was an agreement in place and he blocked the deal.

I think people are going to have to stomach him being on the team for the duration of his contract.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,238
And, I realize that this is the wrong thread, and scoring wasn't the Bruins biggest problem this year. But did anyone take note of the fact that Joe Thornton's 82 points would have led the team in point totals this year?

#IHateMikeO'Connell
#StopMillbury
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,238
Its my understanding that Seid's NTC is as big of an issue as finding a suitor. To my knowledge, this team has twice tried to move him. The last time, this offseason, there was an agreement in place and he blocked the deal.

I think people are going to have to stomach him being on the team for the duration of his contract.
Why not buy him out instead? Or stash him in Providence?

The fundamental problem is that if he's on the team, he gets ice time.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,479
Why not buy him out instead? Or stash him in Providence?

The fundamental problem is that if he's on the team, he gets ice time.
I think stashing him upstairs or in Providence may be the only way to get him to agree to a trade to a non-contender (purely speculative).
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,557
The Island
A few things about the reactions to what happened:

-I went to the Hockey's Future board, expecting the worst. I was pleasantly surprised by the thorough and near-unanimous thrashing the Bruins board gave Dan Shaughnessy for his predictable post-season Bruins column calling for Julien's firing, so hopefully that can manifest in some enlightenment in the Bruins front office when doing exit interviews.

-That said, there are still a lot of prominent voices saying the same thing: Julien will be fired, but not because he should be. Even then, there's some hindsight criticism of how Julien handled the game, including this gem from TSN's Dave Hodge:

“Thumbs down” to Boston’s failure to stay active. Place the blame where you think it belongs. Start with Saturday and, just for fun, dwell on Julien’s decision to lift goalie Jonas Gustavsson with the score 4-1 and 9:26 remaining. Ottawa made it 5-1 a minute later with the first of two empty netters.

Here’s the fun. What if Julien had pulled the same desperate move, down 4-1 to Toronto, halfway through the third period of “that” seventh game in 2013?

But he didn’t.
Well Dave, how about the biggest difference being that Nathan Horton scored with more than 10 minutes left to get back within two, preventing the need for such a desperate tact?
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Rask contract is overblown. If he were a UFA he would get far better than 5y/35 that he's due and 4y/28 will look like a steal next off season when Bishop gets $8 for 6 years and Prices resigns around $9.

Regarding Seidenberg, he was quoted a year or so ago that he would waive if the team didn't want him. If he won't waive at the draft, I buy him out. His roster spot and cap relief would help more than he does.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,091
Rhode Island
While Shattenkirk would be at the top of my wish list, Krejci is not the centerpiece that will land him. STL is already at the cap and Krejci's hit is $3M more. You want Shattenkirk, be prepared to start with Pastrnak or Vatrano. It's going to have to be a young player making less than Shattenkirk.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,238
What's the downside to a Seidenberg buyout? It seems like such a no-brainer type of move.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,169
Cambridge, MA
What's the downside to a Seidenberg buyout? It seems like such a no-brainer type of move.
He stays on the cap for 4 years if he's bought out - trading while retaining max salary gives you 2 years commitment at a max of $2m AAV.

If there is a cap floor team that could use him and he won't wave his NMC, threaten him with waivers. If he doesn't blink, a buyout is the only way to go. There's a fringe outside chance that an expansion team would want him, but that eligibility depends on how the league and PA interpret the CBA, and he'd be here another year anyhow so it's moot.

Bottom line, which I think we all agree on - his days as a functional NHL defenseman are long gone. At a $600k 7th d-man salary some teams would find him useful, but he stunk so hard and loud this year that I'm resigned to the impending buyout.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
9,031
Brookline
Well, yeah, but the thing is Neely and Sweeney are the ones tasked with making the team better. If I had to guess, they aren't going to hold a presser on Tuesday, sit down, and tell the media that they screwed up, greatly overestimated the abilities of McQuaid/K. Miller/Trotman/Morrow/Seidenberg, and that Claude really should be up for the Jack Adams. The team missed the playoffs the last two seasons, and it's not often that the head coach misses the guillotine's blade. It's even rarer that he'd miss it twice.
Everything you say is true, alas. Shit rolls down hill and all that. The most likely Neely/Sweeney approach would be "Claude is wonderful, but we're looking for someone to take rage team in a new direction...."

Hard to imagine this conversation:

NEELY: Don, it's been obvious since October this team desperately needed blue-line help and the best you could do was rent John-Michael Liles.
SWEENEY: Cam, you traded a third-round pick for 25 games of Zac Rinaldo.
NEELY: You're right. The only option for us us to fire each other.
SWEENEY: I'll alert the media.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,911
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Requiem for the 2016 Bruins
As always, Kirk is a must read.
His criticism of Rask for getting sick yesterday is bullshit, though. Really surprised at that hot take, he's usually not one to walk that road:

He certainly didn’t mean to get sick and life happens- especially when you have a toddler (read: germ factory) at home, but is this what $7M buys you these days? The do-or-die game of the season after other mediocre showings sprinkled throughout the year in the worst statistical performance of his career, and Rask wasn’t even there to attempt to be the difference maker.
This is a Felger argument and it's total nonsense. He later goes into "body language" arguments against him. That's not the Kirk I've read over the years.

Trading a yet to be 30 franchise goalie at a low point of his value would be stupid. Yet that's what Kirk's advocating. I'm shocked.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,699
right here
Yeah, he kind of whiffs on the Tuukka thing and I'm not sure I get that - as you say it's normally not his style
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,169
Cambridge, MA
There is precedent for a franchise goalie battling these types of ailments and still suiting up. Luongo missed part of OT in Vancouver's 2-1 double OT loss to Anaheim in '07, but still played regulation and came back in during OT. I don't agree whole-heartedly with Kirk, and I'm not for moving Rask just for the sake of moving him, but I don't think it's an indefensible position (Felger-esque as some will make it out to be).

What I disagreed with strongly was this:

Bergeron will be 31 in May…he’s the team’s heart, soul and most productive player. But he’s not above criticism either- where was he yesterday? Nobody (least of all TSP) is blaming Bergeron for what happened, but if we want to have an honest discussion about what went wrong in Boston, we can’t completely fence off certain players while pointing the finger at others who are more convenient targets. Bergeron could have led by example and even in a loss, created some signature moments. He, like the rest of his mates, did not, so nobody is off-limits in the discussion of the team’s issues.
Bergeron didn't pot the second goal off of Marchand's feed early in the 2nd, but for me he played an outstanding game and was one of the few B's playing with urgency all game. Marchand, Pastrnak, and Beleskey were the others that showed up IMO.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,557
The Island
I get the feeling that Kirk's like a lot of us: dismayed at the decay of this team and scared at what the next steps will entail. He goes after Tuukka because he's never won a Cup as the primary goaltender. He includes Bergeron in the criticism because he didn't show up on the box score yesterday, even though he led the club with nearly 70 points and has been by far their most important player since the 2010 offseason. He brings up the ghosts of 2010, 2012, and 2014, conveniently glossing over 2011 and 2013. I get that it's easy to rush to the keyboard and worry about just what comes next. I mean, we all did that in real-time yesterday. But, to paraphrase the man himself, none of us are getting paid to opine about the Bruins, and he is.

Also, the obsession with yesterday being a total microcosm of the season is odd. It's the same as believing the Red Wings game two nights earlier was an example of how this team should have played over 82 games. It'd be nice to get that kind of play every game, but ultimately unrealistic.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,555
There's nothing they reasonably could have done to build anything more than a team that got its ass kicked in round 1.

I think it is good that they didn't mortgage the future any more than has already been done. This is still Chiarelli's mess, not Claude's and not Sweeney/Neely's.
How does Neely keep skating on this? Was he not above Chiarelli on the masthead the last half of Chiarellis' tenure? This tack reminds me so much of the Lucchino/Epstein relationship. Once Lucchino/Neely established(in Lucchinos' case re-established) power, the organizations started pulling in different directions. Then they started sliding. Then the GMs left and every decision that didn't work out got left at their feet (Theo signed Crawford! Peter traded for Connolly!) ,as though the team president that had more power wasn't involved in those decisions. I think anyone that doesn't think Neely is heavily involved, if not directly responsible, for this mess is dead wrong.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,648
Gallows Hill
How does Neely keep skating on this? Was he not above Chiarelli on the masthead the last half of Chiarellis' tenure? This tack reminds me so much of the Lucchino/Epstein relationship. Once Lucchino/Neely established(in Lucchinos' case re-established) power, the organizations started pulling in different directions. Then they started sliding. Then the GMs left and every decision that didn't work out got left at their feet (Theo signed Crawford! Peter traded for Connolly!) ,as though the team president that had more power wasn't involved in those decisions. I think anyone that doesn't think Neely is heavily involved, if not directly responsible, for this mess is dead wrong.
Chiarelli had roster control until he was fired. It was in his contract. I'm still not confident that Neely can run an NHL team effectively, but I'm not blaming him for Chiarelli's roster decisions. Sweeney works for Neely. So any criticism of the front office from last offseason on starts with Neely.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,795
Melrose, MA
How does Neely keep skating on this? Was he not above Chiarelli on the masthead the last half of Chiarellis' tenure? This tack reminds me so much of the Lucchino/Epstein relationship. Once Lucchino/Neely established(in Lucchinos' case re-established) power, the organizations started pulling in different directions. Then they started sliding. Then the GMs left and every decision that didn't work out got left at their feet (Theo signed Crawford! Peter traded for Connolly!) ,as though the team president that had more power wasn't involved in those decisions. I think anyone that doesn't think Neely is heavily involved, if not directly responsible, for this mess is dead wrong.
Fair point.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,555
Chiarelli had roster control until he was fired. It was in his contract. I'm still not confident that Neely can run an NHL team effectively, but I'm not blaming him for Chiarelli's roster decisions. Sweeney works for Neely. So any criticism of the front office from last offseason on starts with Neely.
I don't believe this. Neely himself said at last trade deadline he told Chiarelli not to trade their first round draft pick. Neely had influence on the roster, because he had influence on Chiarelli the day he became president. At that point, Neely was the guy who decided whether Chiarelli keeps his job or not. Neely was president when Chiarelli was extended in 2013. What do people think Neely has been doing as president? He just shows up at work like Cosmo Kramer with saltines in his briefcase, sits in his office with his feet on his desk and the GM just comes in once in a while and tells him the moves he's already made?
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,648
Gallows Hill
I don't believe this. Neely himself said at last trade deadline he told Chiarelli not to trade their first round draft pick. Neely had influence on the roster, because he had influence on Chiarelli the day he became president. At that point, Neely was the guy who decided whether Chiarelli keeps his job or not. Neely was president when Chiarelli was extended in 2013. What do people think Neely has been doing as president? He just shows up at work like Cosmo Kramer with saltines in his briefcase, sits in his office with his feet on his desk and the GM just comes in once in a while and tells him the moves he's already made?
Ownership backed Neely and told Chiarelli he couldn't make the trade that he wanted to make at last year's deadline. I believe that's when he knew he was getting fired. I got this from hanging out at Ristuccia too much and talking to certain reporters and others off the record. It sucks for me that they're moving to Allston.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,699
right here

DJ Bean ‏@DJ_Bean 5m5 minutes ago
Breakup day email doesn't mention avail for coach/management. Reached out to team to confirm whether they're available, waiting to hear back

DJ Bean ‏@DJ_Bean 6m6 minutes ago
Bruins media relations says "only confirmed media availability for tomorrow is the availability listed." That means players. No Julien, mgmt

What's that mean? Who knows, maybe nothing. (I'm just reread that and realized I'm channeling my inner Cafardo)
 
Last edited:

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,238
When Chiarelli was hired, he was given complete control of the roster. That did not change when Neely was named Team President. Neely was certainly kept in the loop, and I'm sure provided his input. But from all accounts, Chiarelli orchestrated trades, negotiated contracts, and generally was the final say on roster construction.

Keep in mind that 12 months after Neely was named Chiarelli's boss, the Bruins won the Cup. That was followed by a 1st round Cup hangover exit, a trip to the Finals during a lockout shortened season, and a President's Trophy. There wasn't much chance for Neely to wrest control of the roster until things started to go south last season.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,252
306, row 14
Break up day is about to get underway. Should be a doozy.

Fwiw, last year break up day was a Monday too. Julien/Chiarelli spoke at a press conference. Chiarelli was then fired on Wednesday.
 

RoyalOrange

New Member
Jul 24, 2009
172
Sorry if this belabors the point again, but dammit it is depressing to think about how we traded away Seguin and especially Dougie.

I completely get the point about Loui's concussion right off the bat, his play this year takes the sting out of the Seguin trade a bit. I really do think Seguin was a shithead, maybe a young shithead that could have matured, but still a shithead. Just wish both sides could have found a way to make that work.

Going back to what SJH said further up, have we really still never heard a solid reason for trading Dougie? After 6-7 months of everybody bitching about how much our defense sucks, it makes that trade look worse and worse. I certainly still don't understand it. Coupled with the Seidenberg and McQuaid contracts + the Boychuk thing, I'm in the camp for Clode as well, what the fuck was he supposed to do with his defense?

Again, I apologize if I just rehashed what has been said on here all year. I just started really following the Bs on a daily basis after the Kessel trade in '09 as a college sophomore in Tennessee. Not much hockey talk down here, but being able to read some actual discussion on this board, watching the Leafs suck, netting us Seguin and Dougie, combined with the Bruins coming together and eventually winning the Cup was just phenomenal. Probably spoiled me as a fan to be able to witness that right off the bat. Even though Seguin played a role in winning it all, it does feel like all of that Toronto shittiness is worth nothing now.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,911
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I don't think anyone knows the reasons why Hamilton supposedly asked out, or why he was dealt. No one's talking.

Claude is an excellent coach, but he's never going to be the guy to bring along young shitheads like Seguin and Hamilton and Kessel, all of whom were young and talented with obvious flaws in their games and/or maturity issues. Claude preaches a defensive, responsible game; young shitheads often don't pay a lot of attention to the defensive part of the game. He certainly will play young players, but they have to have their act together, and obviously not every player is like that as a young guy. Krug was getting top 4 minutes from pretty much the moment he got here, for example.

It's been pointed out over and over again that many younger players have done well under Claude, but these 3 above might be described as "mercurial" and their presence was no longer wanted after a while. I wish they could have found a way to work with Seguin and Dougie, but who the hell knows what was really going on.
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,331
Between here and everywhere.
I mean - Claude basically explained his whole process dealing with younger kids a couple of weeks ago. He said (paraphrasing) the NHL is not the place for development.

If a player can come right up, and play a mature, sound game - he'll get minutes, and he'll be counted on.

If a player has a lot of flaws to their game, or their personality - it's not on Claude to develop them. They won't play unless he has no other options.

Whether that's right or wrong I guess depends on how you feel the player development process works, and whether or not you feel the team is a contender. But he's pretty up front with how he feels, and he's fairly consistent with it.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,911
Deep inside Muppet Labs
True enough. I guess the question is whether that's what the team wants or should want. Not every young guy is going to be Bergeron right off the bat.

And the problem is that with that philosophy, it works when the team is a perennial contender, like they were just a couple of years ago. But now the team is on a decline: from SC Finalist or 2nd round flameout to missing the playoffs in each of the last two seasons. So Claude hasn't developed the young players because the team was supposedly trying to go all out to win the Cup, and yet they didn't even make the playoffs lately. So it's a lose-lose there.

OBVIOUSLY Claude has used this philosophy to great success for the most part. But the composition of the team has changed and the results are shitty. I don't expect him to change because he's been a success with that approach, but it's worth wondering if he's right for this team next year if there's a full rebuild that has to take place. If he goes it won't be the first time he's been canned unfairly (the NJ thing was so utterly bizarre I wonder if Claude banged Lamo's wife) but that's a coach's life at this level.

EDIT: I guess I'm saying I'm not sure Claude's the problem here, or if he is he's not the biggest one. I have a DEEP distrust about Cam and Donnie's decision-making abilities in building a team: some of the things they've done and some of the things they've said have made my heart quail in despair. It's hard to be real optimistic about the future with those two. Maybe they'll change my POV this summer, but so far I'm not entirely sure they know that they're doing.
 
Last edited:

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,252
306, row 14
Krejci is having hip surgery.

Apparently it is something that started bugging him last year. Been dealing with it for 18 months.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,238
In 2008-09, Kessel led all wingers in average ice time, trailing only the 3 centers, all of whom would play on the PK from time to time (Kessel did not normally appear on the PK). By all accounts, Kessel was a model citizen his final year here, and Julien never once complained about him after he left.

In 2012-13, Seguin was 3rd among forwards in average ice time, trailing only Krejci and Bergeron, and had marginally more playing time than Marchand.

In 2014-15, Hamilton was 3rd among defensemen. He understandably trailed Chara, and was slightly behind Seidenberg.

So, I don't agree the departures of the first 2 young and upcoming players had anything to do with Julien. They got their playing time. Kessel became an RFA at the same time as Krejci, and the Leafs had managed to acquire enough assets to sign Kessel to an offer sheet that Chiarelli was simply not going to match. And those assets seemed to become very valuable to the Bruins. Seguin was traded at the behest of the Chia/Neely/Sweeney trio, and, unlike the other 2 players, threw some idiotic shots at his teammates (but not his coach) on the way out of town.

The circumstances of Hamilton's departure remain a mystery. Maybe he hated Julien's system. Maybe he hated the city or some of his teammates. Maybe he felt he should be the #1 blue liner no matter what. Noone's talking, so just assuming that Julien is at fault seems to be a stretch. Again, Julien had nothing to do with the departures of the other 2 players.

It may be that Julien may not be the best coach for this team going forward. That's an understandable and defensible position; it's also one that is arguable. But finding fault with Julien for FO screw ups is stretching the bounds of reasonable argument, IMO.