2015-16 Bruins Post Mortem

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,280
Between here and everywhere.
Which goes right back to what T4P said about the team missing Kelly. Odd and telling that there was no one else to help pick up the slack in that regard.
On a team with Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, McQuaid, etc....it's really disappointing to hear that there wasn't enough leadership. Those guys have all been here long enough that losing one player shouldn't create that significant of a void.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Agreed. In the same vein I'm not buying that Rask's stomach flu on Saturday should have caused the team to collapse, especially because we had seen Gus steal a game in Tampa this season and there was no reason to tank at home against a shitty Ottawa team with nothing to play for, just because the backup's in the crease.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,528
The Island
On a team with Chara, Bergeron, Krejci, McQuaid, etc....it's really disappointing to hear that there wasn't enough leadership. Those guys have all been here long enough that losing one player shouldn't create that significant of a void.
I think we've wildly overestimated this team's mental strength. That's two years in a row Marchand's said that.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
They've always talked about Kelly being a really important guy in the locker room. I remember hearing/reading an interview that said he as the guy most likely to stand up and give a motivational speech type "let's go boys" thing.

But to me that's missing the forest for the trees. Maybe that type of thing would have helped in a game or two and I understand that that is the margin they failed by, but realistically this team didn't falter because of the lack of a rah rah 3rd/4th liner.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
Saturday's loss had little to do with Rask. They just weren't that good of a team this year. They had some runs where Rask/Gus (the December run and that Florida trip in March) got hot and masked the numerous underlying problems.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
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.
And yet in this forum (and others) we have people who still shout others down when we say that Claude doesn't develop the kids. Oy.

Here is my practical take on Claude:
1) If I was a GM with a mature/veteran, balanced talent-wise offense/defense, talented team or heading in that direction I would want Claude on the bench in a heart beat. If I had that same team with a couple of young players who seemed intent on kicking the door in to get on the NHL roster (Lucic, Marchand style), I'd want Claude coaching the team. Unfortunately teams in a cap league, cannot easily stay in this state.
2) If I am long term building a team from scratch (like Edmonton has tried to do) and am filling it with players from the AHL/draft and trying to evaluate on the fly, this is not strength of Claude. He doesn't believe in it, and therefore it isn't a good fit organizationally. The Bruins aren't here at the moment (at least I don't think so).
3) If I have what I believe is a core of players that are cup tested/worthy and am trying to sustain the team and keep the window open with a trickle of young players I think Claude would be fine - with the right players (and we saw that with this team). I don't believe the Bruins are here any longer either - they were, and then the cap/Chiarelli decision making quickly painted them into a corner where they needed more than a trickle they needed an infusion.
4) If I have a team with some talent and it needs a solid infusion of youthful talent then Claude is not the man. I do not know who is, but it isn't him. He is either not interested or not capable of it. He is more interested in today's win, than tomorrow's win (which is fine as long as the organization is in sync with this feeling). This team needs a lot of pieces - as has been well discussed. Details of which/where the changes are made to the roster there is no doubt that some age needs to be replaced by younger bodies. Veteran replacements or AHL replacedments is the question - and with the cap situation (in general) I think it is reasonable to believe much of it is coming from Providence. Why endure the pain of shoving Claude this right guy/wrong time square peg into the organizational round hole any longer? It wouldn't make sense for the team needs, or his own personal desires. It should be an amicable parting if everyone is honest about the situation. Claude will be employed in a good situation before the ink is dry on the press release if he chooses.

Organizationally, I don't like Claude's view that the NHL coach shouldn't be developing talent. I think we are seeing across all sports that the coaches that develop talent, or can properly help the young talent integrate and grow are the ones who have the most successful organizations year over year. The cap prevents one from simply buying or retaining talent without an eye to fiscal juggling. We only got one year of Iginlia, cap aside we'd have kept him for much longer (or he never would have been available to begin with). We lost Boychuk solely due to finances. We can look at the troika of Kessel, Seguin, Hamilton and ask if a different coach would have made a difference in them still being in a Boston uniform (I'm not - only saying the question can/should be asked). Down the road in Foxboro, BB develops talent - because it is inevitable that injuries will create a demand. It is easy to say he has a roster of 53 players for 22 spots, no minor league, etc. But the reality of today's NHL is that during and between seasons there is a constant exodus of talent - either through injuries, finances, or age. If you give everyone a salary raise and a NMC (gross exaggeration) at the first hint of success you are soon painted into a corner with a revolving door of player movement. The Bruins lost two significant players in Boychuk and Hamilton which took away a talent/age combination and amplified the problems. I think it is imperative that an NHL coach be a teacher or at least have a skill with bringing out the best in young players. In all sports there are coaches that get a reputation of getting the best out of young players. The Bruins need to find one, and I don't mean a coach that is merely successful with young elite talent, I mean a coach that gets the most out of all his young talent. I guess I'm looking for the Brad Stevens choice. When your team is in the doldrums of the 60th game, having the energy of youth to provide a spark might save a 2-4 points over the course of a season. 2-4 points would look pretty nice today.

I hope the organization returns to one of the strengths of the Bruins of the cup year and the year after. They had 4 lines that were tough to play against. They ground other teams down with their ability to pressure them every moment Part of that is simply evaluation of talent - which they either can or can't do. But to me it is as much financial intelligence as talent evaluation. Again down in Foxboro there is the philosophy of a large (financially speaking) middle class. Very few high paid or overpaid stars, with a better quality middle - which helps withstand injuries. Good coaching to get the youth ready to contribute as quickly as possible. I want to see the Bruins pursue this approach as they remake the roster. Guys on the 4th line can't be getting paid premiums, they need to part of the middle class. I personally want the team to be competitive long term and perpetually - versus a cycle of up and down with cap jail. I think Chiarelli missed the boat here in a big way - I'm hoping Sweeney breaks that trend.

tldr: Claude no longer is the fit for where this team is. Organizational approach needs to change to focus on continuous youth development/integration for the long term.

Edit: typos
 
Last edited:

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
And yet in this forum (and others) we have people who still shout others down when we say that Claude doesn't develop the kids. Oy.

.
I don't think what you're saying and what get shouted down are the same though. The hot take sports radio opinion is simply "CLODE DOESNT PLAY THE KIDZ" which has been proven false many many times over. What you're saying has more shades of gray and is probably closer to the truth. He doesn't have the patience to work with kids who aren't ready to play the full length of the ice on a competing team which goes to your point that he's not the best coach for a complete rebuild. You're going to have a bunch of those players on a roster that's bottoming out. Usually the priority of those teams is to throw kids out there to make mistakes and learn from them. Claude's priority since he's been here is to win now.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
And yet in this forum (and others) we have people who still shout others down when we say that Claude doesn't develop the kids. Oy.

Here is my practical take on Claude:
1) If I was a GM with a mature/veteran, balanced talent-wise offense/defense, talented team or heading in that direction I would want Claude on the bench in a heart beat. If I had that same team with a couple of young players who seemed intent on kicking the door in to get on the NHL roster (Lucic, Marchand style), I'd want Claude coaching the team. Unfortunately teams in a cap league, cannot easily stay in this state.
Your post is a perfect example of why posters 'shout' down others when they say Claude doesn't develop kids.
Marchand's 20 YO 1st AHL season 18 - 41 -59 in 79 games. 21 YO 2nd Season AHL 13 - 19 - 32 in 34 games NHL 0 -1 -1 in 20 games.
Lucic 18 YO WHL Season 7 -12 -19 in 22 games (ONLY 26 PIMS). 19 YO NHL 8 -19 -27 in 77 games.

They weren't exactly kicking the door in to get on an NHL roster. No one was expecting them to be top line forwards their 1st couple of years. Both were targeted by most to be bottom 6 forwards in agitating and enforcing roles. The main reason posters get shouted down is they use selective reasoning on the "kids" argument. If they were good it was talent and their individual effort. When it doesn't work out, it was Claude's failure to develop them. It's completely intellectually dishonest.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Your point is well taken, but to be fair you'd have to look at minutes played to get a better idea about those rookie scoring lines.

The kidz thing comes mostly, I think, from the departures of Kessel, Seguin and Dougie and watching the first two thrive elsewhere. (Obviously we don't get Seguin without trading Kessel, so it's not a zero-sum game here). It's understandably frustrating to see Seguin get 84, 77, and 73 points in the last three years and wonder if it could have worked here. Or seeing Reilly Smith have a good season this year while we got a lousy one from Jimmy Hayes in return.

It's easy to focus on a few guys who have played well since leaving Boston and to overlook the younger players who have stayed here and also played well.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Said it before, will say it again: Kessel, Krejci, Lucic, Marchand, Matt Hunwick, Mark Stuart, Blake Wheeler, Johnny Boychuk, and Marchand all got gobs of playing time when they were young. Seguin as well. They did not all get that playing time their first NHL season, but they did in their 2nd or 3rd seasons. And all those players developed under Claude's watch.

The other issue is that Neely is on record as saying that missing the playoffs is unacceptable. So Claude is not being asked to "develop younger players"; instead, he is indeed being asked to win today's game. So, under those circumstances, Claude, or any other NHL coach, is going to play the guys that he feels are ready. Blaming Julien for this emphasis on winning now is therefore wrong. The pressure is coming from above.

If there was a group of younger players that were never getting playing time under Claude, and then went on to develop into superstars elsewhere, then I would say one has an argument against Claude. But I haven't seen that collection of players.

And, another item worth repeating: Kessel left because he was about to be signed to an offer sheet that Chiarelli had no desire to match. That one is on the GM, not the coach.

The kidz thing comes mostly, I think, from the departures of Kessel, Seguin and Dougie and watching the first two thrive elsewhere. (Obviously we don't get Seguin without trading Kessel, so it's not a zero-sum game here). It's understandably frustrating to see Seguin get 84, 77, and 73 points in the last three years and wonder if it could have worked here. Or seeing Reilly Smith have a good season this year while we got a lousy one from Jimmy Hayes in return.
Neither Reilly Smith nor Tyler Seguin's departure had anything at all to do with Julien. Seguin was traded at Neely's behest. Reilly Smith had a terrible year despite playing alongside Marchand and Bergeron, and had a huge contract extension about to kick in. None of those situations, expect possibly Hamilton, can be pinned on the coach.

tldr: Claude no longer is the fit for where this team is. Organizational approach needs to change to focus on continuous youth development/integration for the long term.
While I disagree with the "Claude doesn't play the kids" hot takez, your position is certainly defensible and worthy of discussion. Your sentence above is key, however, if you feel the team is in a transition period: the "organizational approach" needs to change. Bring in a new coach and tell him to qualify for the playoffs or else, and you'll get the same results unless the roster is changed over significantly from where it is today.
 
Last edited:

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,528
The Island
And, another item worth repeating: Kessel left because he was about to be signed to an offer sheet that Chiarelli had no desire to match. That one is on the GM, not the coach.
Except that one should've been a case of good GMing. Toronto paid for that deal with fewer development opportunities and, along with Phaneuf, a mistaken idea that Phil was the kind of player to build a young, up-and-coming team around. Had either Seguin or Hamilton remained with the Bruins and hit their projected ceilings, that's an excellent trade.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
And yet in this forum (and others) we have people who still shout others down when we say that Claude doesn't develop the kids. Oy.

Here is my practical take on Claude:
1) If I was a GM with a mature/veteran, balanced talent-wise offense/defense, talented team or heading in that direction I would want Claude on the bench in a heart beat. If I had that same team with a couple of young players who seemed intent on kicking the door in to get on the NHL roster (Lucic, Marchand style), I'd want Claude coaching the team. Unfortunately teams in a cap league, cannot easily stay in this state.
2) If I am long term building a team from scratch (like Edmonton has tried to do) and am filling it with players from the AHL/draft and trying to evaluate on the fly, this is not strength of Claude. He doesn't believe in it, and therefore it isn't a good fit organizationally. The Bruins aren't here at the moment (at least I don't think so).
3) If I have what I believe is a core of players that are cup tested/worthy and am trying to sustain the team and keep the window open with a trickle of young players I think Claude would be fine - with the right players (and we saw that with this team). I don't believe the Bruins are here any longer either - they were, and then the cap/Chiarelli decision making quickly painted them into a corner where they needed more than a trickle they needed an infusion.
4) If I have a team with some talent and it needs a solid infusion of youthful talent then Claude is not the man. I do not know who is, but it isn't him. He is either not interested or not capable of it. He is more interested in today's win, than tomorrow's win (which is fine as long as the organization is in sync with this feeling). This team needs a lot of pieces - as has been well discussed. Details of which/where the changes are made to the roster there is no doubt that some age needs to be replaced by younger bodies. Veteran replacements or AHL replacedments is the question - and with the cap situation (in general) I think it is reasonable to believe much of it is coming from Providence. Why endure the pain of shoving Claude this right guy/wrong time square peg into the organizational round hole any longer? It wouldn't make sense for the team needs, or his own personal desires. It should be an amicable parting if everyone is honest about the situation. Claude will be employed in a good situation before the ink is dry on the press release if he chooses.

Organizationally, I don't like Claude's view that the NHL coach shouldn't be developing talent. I think we are seeing across all sports that the coaches that develop talent, or can properly help the young talent integrate and grow are the ones who have the most successful organizations year over year. The cap prevents one from simply buying or retaining talent without an eye to fiscal juggling. We only got one year of Iginlia, cap aside we'd have kept him for much longer (or he never would have been available to begin with). We lost Boychuk solely due to finances. We can look at the troika of Kessel, Seguin, Hamilton and ask if a different coach would have made a difference in them still being in a Boston uniform (I'm not - only saying the question can/should be asked). Down the road in Foxboro, BB develops talent - because it is inevitable that injuries will create a demand. It is easy to say he has a roster of 53 players for 22 spots, no minor league, etc. But the reality of today's NHL is that during and between seasons there is a constant exodus of talent - either through injuries, finances, or age. If you give everyone a salary raise and a NMC (gross exaggeration) at the first hint of success you are soon painted into a corner with a revolving door of player movement. The Bruins lost two significant players in Boychuk and Hamilton which took away a talent/age combination and amplified the problems. I think it is imperative that an NHL coach be a teacher or at least have a skill with bringing out the best in young players. In all sports there are coaches that get a reputation of getting the best out of young players. The Bruins need to find one, and I don't mean a coach that is merely successful with young elite talent, I mean a coach that gets the most out of all his young talent. I guess I'm looking for the Brad Stevens choice. When your team is in the doldrums of the 60th game, having the energy of youth to provide a spark might save a 2-4 points over the course of a season. 2-4 points would look pretty nice today.

I hope the organization returns to one of the strengths of the Bruins of the cup year and the year after. They had 4 lines that were tough to play against. They ground other teams down with their ability to pressure them every moment Part of that is simply evaluation of talent - which they either can or can't do. But to me it is as much financial intelligence as talent evaluation. Again down in Foxboro there is the philosophy of a large (financially speaking) middle class. Very few high paid or overpaid stars, with a better quality middle - which helps withstand injuries. Good coaching to get the youth ready to contribute as quickly as possible. I want to see the Bruins pursue this approach as they remake the roster. Guys on the 4th line can't be getting paid premiums, they need to part of the middle class. I personally want the team to be competitive long term and perpetually - versus a cycle of up and down with cap jail. I think Chiarelli missed the boat here in a big way - I'm hoping Sweeney breaks that trend.

tldr: Claude no longer is the fit for where this team is. Organizational approach needs to change to focus on continuous youth development/integration for the long term.

Edit: typos
Basically, you're saying that because Claude coached a bunch of veteran-heavy teams one way to great success for a number of years, he's not the right coach to coach this rebuilding team now, because he didn't coach those veteran-heavy teams as if they were rebuilding. And something players who developed well under him something.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
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.
Everyone remembers every goal Pastrnak scores and forgets every time a forward with half his speed beat him trailing the play for a goal as he weakly swung at them with his stick from behind. I think he's going to be a good NHL player, but this team, this season, should have been the straw that finally broke the back of the, "BUT KIDZ!!! GOALZ!!!" tendencies.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Your post is a perfect example of why posters 'shout' down others when they say Claude doesn't develop kids.
Marchand's 20 YO 1st AHL season 18 - 41 -59 in 79 games. 21 YO 2nd Season AHL 13 - 19 - 32 in 34 games NHL 0 -1 -1 in 20 games.
Lucic 18 YO WHL Season 7 -12 -19 in 22 games (ONLY 26 PIMS). 19 YO NHL 8 -19 -27 in 77 games.

They weren't exactly kicking the door in to get on an NHL roster. No one was expecting them to be top line forwards their 1st couple of years. Both were targeted by most to be bottom 6 forwards in agitating and enforcing roles. The main reason posters get shouted down is they use selective reasoning on the "kids" argument. If they were good it was talent and their individual effort. When it doesn't work out, it was Claude's failure to develop them. It's completely intellectually dishonest.
My recall (faulty in the best of times) is that Marchand and Lucic forced themselves onto the roster with their training camp performance. Simply saying they didn't have 'kicking down the doors' numbers based on the numbers of previous year is dishonest. They forced themselves onto the roster, and played in a way that allowed Claude to leave them on the ice. That's great. But there is a lot more talent that requires something other than "sink or swim kid!" and if they don't get it right the first shift they don't see the ice again (exaggeration). There is a middle ground - and that isn't where Claude is or wants to be.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Is it possible to retain Claude, re-up Kelly for wicked cheap, get a Marchand extension done, and then fill-in with 1-year deals for the other pending FAs and/or veteran FA options?

Seeing what a problem the Seidenberg contract is, and the way the smart fans talk about the McQuaid deal, etc., I'm most afraid of the Bruins trying to get out over their skis in the next 2-3 seasons while the yutes mature and begin taking significant roles. It seems that proper cap management is more important than respectable finishes or contending for the 8th playoff spot.

So - is it plausible to be rooting for "no bad contracts" and a time machine?
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
In my post I didn't blame Claude for anything. I was doing a post-mortem. I think going forward, he isn't the right coach for where this team is, and is likely to be for the nest 2-3 years. I like him as a coach in many respects, just not a fit going forward.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,528
The Island
Is it possible to retain Claude, re-up Kelly for wicked cheap, get a Marchand extension done, and then fill-in with 1-year deals for the other pending FAs and/or veteran FA options?

Seeing what a problem the Seidenberg contract is, and the way the smart fans talk about the McQuaid deal, etc., I'm most afraid of the Bruins trying to get out over their skis in the next 2-3 seasons while the yutes mature and begin taking significant roles. It seems that proper cap management is more important than respectable finishes or contending for the 8th playoff spot.

So - is it plausible to be rooting for "no bad contracts" and a time machine?
You're pretty much right on, but the big difference between us and Sweeney/Neely is they felt this team should make the playoffs. As I said earlier, they aren't going to scold themselves, so Julien will almost certainly be the scapegoat for everyone else's sins.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
You're pretty much right on, but the big difference between us and Sweeney/Neely is they felt this team should make the playoffs. As I said earlier, they aren't going to scold themselves, so Julien will almost certainly be the scapegoat for everyone else's sins.
I don't see why Claude sticks around if "tread water" is the organizational plan. Isn't he better than that?

I guess I'm wondering if the best plan for the organization isn't at odds with the best possible outcomes for the team?
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I really think there is some perspective being missed here. I mean, do folks really think the last two seasons were utter disasters? They missed the playoffs by a combined, what, 1 point in two years?

Sure they were fighting for the 8th spot had they gotten in, but the roster is closer to the #3 seed than the #1 pick in the draft. There needs to be some upgrades to the roster, sure, but I don't think wholesale changes need to be made. Lets see how some of the kids make the leap in years 2-3 and upgrade the defense and go from there. I'd explore upgrading the defense through trades (ala Rask), but outside of that I don't think a big roster shakeup is needed.

How different would this team have looked with a guy like Shattenkirk on the blueline for a full season? I think it's pretty much as simple as that.

If the season hadn't ended on such a stinker, then I think this is a completely different discussion.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
I really think there is some perspective being missed here. I mean, do folks really think the last two seasons were utter disasters? They missed the playoffs by a combined, what, 1 point in two years?

Sure they were fighting for the 8th spot had they gotten in, but the roster is closer to the #3 seed than the #1 pick in the draft. There needs to be some upgrades to the roster, sure, but I don't think wholesale changes need to be made. Lets see how some of the kids make the leap in years 2-3 and upgrade the defense and go from there. I'd explore upgrading the defense through trades (ala Rask), but outside of that I don't think a big roster shakeup is needed.

How different would this team have looked with a guy like Shattenkirk on the blueline for a full season? I think it's pretty much as simple as that.

If the season hadn't ended on such a stinker, then I think this is a completely different discussion.
Haggerty has the totally opposite (hot) take. (Which means you are absolutely right). He's not worth giving clicks to, so go to CSNNE.com if you really want to punish yourself.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Not gonna do that.

The nature of the miss this year is tough to swallow, Flawless. They had to win on Saturday and lost 6-1. A talentless team playing hard and coming up short? I can deal with that. Not even showing up in a game of that magnitude, against a poor opponent, is a different story. Yeah, the talent isn't elite, but when the talent's not elite the effort has to be and too often this year it wasn't. That may not be Claude's fault; if the loss of a Chris Kelly can depress these guys enough that they can't overcome the locker room void then there's no helping them, honestly.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
One thing I thought about but haven't seen talked about because obviously there are much bigger issues with the team and it is not the reason they missed the playoffs. So let me start with the disclaimer THIS IS NOT WHINING OR EXCUSE MAKING. They had some much bigger issues being discussed here and probably didn't deserve to make it after that collapse, especially Saturday's game against a half AHL Ottawa with nothing to play for which bothers me the most.

Having said that the Bruins were the victim of some terrible officiating this season. There was that chart from a few weeks ago that they had far and away the biggest penalty differential in the league (there's no updated one I can find but I can't imagine it improved much). It was beyond even being on the bad end of an average.

Then there was the goal reviews which in the beginning of the season was highlighted by goalie interference being terribly defined and seemingly going against the Bruins whichever way it happened. Then it peaked in the Rangers-Panthers back to back disallowed goals a couple weeks ago. Both games ended up being multiple goal losses but the calls came at crucial points in the game and they unraveled after.

Again, not making excuses and it's mostly subjective so it's impossible to know for certain how it affected them. However, with as close as they were to getting in and the potential ramifications of them missing out on the playoffs, hard not to think what might be if even a handful of calls go another way.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Not gonna do that.

The nature of the miss this year is tough to swallow, Flawless. They had to win on Saturday and lost 6-1. A talentless team playing hard and coming up short? I can deal with that. Not even showing up in a game of that magnitude, against a poor opponent, is a different story. Yeah, the talent isn't elite, but when the talent's not elite the effort has to be and too often this year it wasn't. That may not be Claude's fault; if the loss of a Chris Kelly can depress these guys enough that they can't overcome the locker room void then there's no helping them, honestly.
I think you said the exact same thing after the collapse in 2010. Shit happens, I think they'll be fine if they don't overreact.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
One thing I thought about but haven't seen talked about because obviously there are much bigger issues with the team and it is not the reason they missed the playoffs. So let me start with the disclaimer THIS IS NOT WHINING OR EXCUSE MAKING. They had some much bigger issues being discussed here and probably didn't deserve to make it after that collapse, especially Saturday's game against a half AHL Ottawa with nothing to play for which bothers me the most.

Having said that the Bruins were the victim of some terrible officiating this season. There was that chart from a few weeks ago that they had far and away the biggest penalty differential in the league (there's no updated one I can find but I can't imagine it improved much). It was beyond even being on the bad end of an average.

Then there was the goal reviews which in the beginning of the season was highlighted by goalie interference being terribly defined and seemingly going against the Bruins whichever way it happened. Then it peaked in the Rangers-Panthers back to back disallowed goals a couple weeks ago. Both games ended up being multiple goal losses but the calls came at crucial points in the game and they unraveled after.

Again, not making excuses and it's mostly subjective so it's impossible to know for certain how it affected them. However, with as close as they were to getting in and the potential ramifications of them missing out on the playoffs, hard not to think what might be if even a handful of calls go another way.
There's probably some math that could be done to calculate the number of goals this cost the Bruins over the course of the season (if they had gotten even an average number of calls) and how many extra wins that would have translated to. If it's greater than 0.5 wins (which it probably was), then I don't think this is whining at all. The margin for error on the season was that thin.

EDIT: The Bruins finished 7th in PP%, so they relied more heavily on the PP this year than most, so the lack of calls definitely cost them this season.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I really think there is some perspective being missed here. I mean, do folks really think the last two seasons were utter disasters? They missed the playoffs by a combined, what, 1 point in two years?

Sure they were fighting for the 8th spot had they gotten in, but the roster is closer to the #3 seed than the #1 pick in the draft. There needs to be some upgrades to the roster, sure, but I don't think wholesale changes need to be made. Lets see how some of the kids make the leap in years 2-3 and upgrade the defense and go from there. I'd explore upgrading the defense through trades (ala Rask), but outside of that I don't think a big roster shakeup is needed.

How different would this team have looked with a guy like Shattenkirk on the blueline for a full season? I think it's pretty much as simple as that.

If the season hadn't ended on such a stinker, then I think this is a completely different discussion.
There are a couple of reasons for pessimism:

1.) The defense really needs a rebuild. Chara is declining. Despite that decline, he was still the best blue liner on the team, sometimes by a wide margin. After Chara, you have Krug (RFA), and a bunch of guys that really are no better than bottom pairing defensemen. Seidenberg and McQuaid are not going to get better next year; in fact, both will likely be worse. Finally, to quibble, I would consider trading Rask a pretty big shakeup.

2.) While we have limited data set, the early returns on the Neely/Sweeney regime are less than positive. Hayes/Rinaldo/Connolly are not the players you use when building a quality NHL roster. None were worth anywhere close to the cost it took to acquire them.

3.) The Krejci injury situation is worrisome.

4.) The contract situations are also worrisome. Eriksson may get a 7/49 offer to play elsewhere, in which case it's bye-bye Loui. They need money for Marchand's new deal. And I'm not confident they will get rid of Seidenberg's salary that easily.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I think you said the exact same thing after the collapse in 2010. Shit happens, I think they'll be fine if they don't overreact.
Meh, that was a different team and a different challenge. That team had a lot of talent but suffered a horrific collapse. This team has nowhere near that level of skill. Not really applicable here.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
Meh, that was a different team and a different challenge. That team had a lot of talent but suffered a horrific collapse. This team has nowhere near that level of skill. Not really applicable here.
Wait what? That 2010 team was awful. Go look at that game 7 lineup against Philly again. This team would have wiped the floor with them.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Eh, take a look again. That team had Matt Hunwick playing 17 minutes per game and I think this year's team had a lot more talent up front and in net.

This year's team was more talented on the front end.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
Wait what? That 2010 team was awful. Go look at that game 7 lineup against Philly again. This team would have wiped the floor with them.
Satan - Savard - Ryder
Lucic - Bergeron - Recchi
Paille - Sobotka - Wheeler
Begin - Whitfield - Thornton

Chara - Wideman
Ference - Boychuk
Hunwick - Stuart


Egads.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Whitfield was only playing because of injuries though. You can't say that team was awful when they built a 3-0 lead in the second round of the playoffs in the first place, beating a higher seeded Buffalo team along the way.

And the top 4 D of that 2010 team is a lot better than this year's. Rask had a 1.97 GAA/.931 % year behind that D.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
There are a couple of reasons for pessimism:


2.) While we have limited data set, the early returns on the Neely/Sweeney regime are less than positive. Hayes/Rinaldo/Connolly are not the players you use when building a quality NHL roster. None were worth anywhere close to the cost it took to acquire them.
Minor nitpick, Connolly was a Chia deal.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
Whitfield was only playing because of injuries though. You can't say that team was awful when they built a 3-0 lead in the second round of the playoffs in the first place, beating a higher seeded Buffalo team along the way.

And the top 4 D of that 2010 team is a lot better than this year's. Rask had a 1.97 GAA/.931 % year behind that D.
And they had 91 points in the regular season. ;)
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Question for the crowd: anyone thing that Vesey might be swayed on signing here if Claude is here? It might be a 'hot take' but given that his family has connections in the league - could there be a hesitance given the way Kessel, Seguin and Hamilton are no longer here? Is it relevant?

Edit: Not saying he is responsible for ANY of the 3 leaving, only that he is part of the environment.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
8,962
Brookline
I just don't understand the criticism of Julien for not developing players. It's not his job. He's a head coach in the NHL whose job it is to win games.

Is it his job to take a borderline NHL player -- Vatrano, say -- coach him in practice and give him game minutes so the team can figure out if he's capable of consistently performing at NHL level? Yes. If he can, he stays. If he can't, he goes back to Providence for more development.

The coach's job is to prepare the team and put the best players on the ice for any given game. GMs are paid to think long-term; coaches are paid to win games.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
I'm just going to look forward, because looking back on those assholes playing Ottawa with both hands wrapped around their throats makes me inch closer to a stroke every time.

As noted throughout everywhere on everything Bruins this season, their defense needs a massive rebuild. They can't afford to sink money into Loui, and will have to hope their young players step up in top 9 roles. If they sign Vesey (and who really knows on that), then maybe he can slot in somewhere there as well for depth purposes. I do not trust Sweeney to make a deal for a legitimate top 4 defenseman, so they will have to explore the free agency route. There are a few solid names out there, but nothing spectacular. I assume they will have Chara/McQuaid/Krug back, and they will probably sign Kevan Miller for a eleventy billion dollars and my head will explode. Assuming that doesn't happen, I would like to see them bring up Colin Miller and give him a permanent role on the 5/6 slot. That leaves two slots to fill. Some sample defenseman free agents out there are Goligosky, Yandle, L. Schenn who are all around the age of 30. These guys would be signed to long term deals at some pretty solid money. I could see them going after Yandle, but not sure where his priorities will be and how much that cost will run. There are a few older guys that they could try to sign to bridge the gap to their younger prospects (Gryzlyck, O'Gara, Lauzon, Zobril, etc.), like B. Campbell or D. Boyle, but the rest of the crop is pretty underwhelming. As much as they need a top tier defenseman, I just don't know who fits out there for what they need. Chara's decline, combined with their massive lack of depth, is just going to continue to kill them next season, so they have to get creative and do something. They have to address their defense. They do not have a choice here. If they do not, next season will be much of the same.

There is no universe where I trade Rask. When he has competent people in front of him, he's one of the best in the world. Trading him would be the mistake of all mistakes, and they will pay for that more than any other bad trade they have ever paid. No no no no no. Do not be fucking stupid, Don. I have lived a long time between Lemelin/Moog and then Rask, and I do not want to live through the eras SJH mentioned above again because he got sick on a bad day. Let's just not talk about this again.

At forward, I see them with Bergeron and Marchand solidifying their line. I am hopeful for Pastrnak's improvement, but he needs to play a full season and has a lot to learn. The talent is certainly there, and I am hopeful on the two way game. He was... not good with that this year, but I can see he knows how to play defense he just actually needs to do it consistently. Spooner is signed at a reasonable deal for next year, but if I can package him in a deal to get a top 4 defenseman with picks/prospects, etc. I do it in a heart beat. Otherwise, he's reasonably priced and you hope he comes back ready to play the type of two way game NHL centers need to have. Vatrano will get a spot, and I expect big things out of him. If he continues to bust his ass, I think we will all love what he is able to do. He's got learning to do, but I loved that he was wiling to throw his body around when he was up last. I would assume he slots in the top 6 somewhere. I would also be perfectly fine if they brought back Kelly for the 4th line role. They just need to sign him at a small deal. They need to fire Rinaldo into the sun, but they are probably stuck with Connolly and Hayes. If they buyout Seidenberg, I would hope they could afford a defenseman with a pulse. I enjoyed my first year of Matt Belesky, even if he didn't put up many points. He might be slightly over-payed, but I liked what he gave them.

This would likely give them a roster next year of:

Marchand-Bergeron-Pastrnak
Belesky-Krejci-Vatrano
Vesey? Griffith? Koko?-Spooner-Connolly/Hayes
Hayes- Kelly-Acciari,etc.

So, I think they are fine at FW, and I don't think there is any way they can re-sign Eriksson. They have to allocate their entire attention to repairing that dumpster fire of a defense if they have any hope of making the playoffs. I am pretty comfortable with the teams depth otherwise. Given my druthers, I would look to see if I could fix the defense problem by moving K. Miller/McQuaid with Subban/Spooner/picks, etc. for help, but I really question where that is feasible given how valuable solid NHL ready mid-20s defenseman are.

On the plus side, they have two first round draft picks, some really good prospects, and an apparent scouting program that doesn't have their heads up their asses. Long term, I am optimistic. Next year, I just hope they don't nut punch me like this again. Throwing up all over themselves like they did on Saturday is really hard to take. It's one game, but they need something to stop themselves from doing that again. In the words of Magic Johnson, I'm cis-cerned guys.
 

RoyalOrange

New Member
Jul 24, 2009
172
I really think there is some perspective being missed here. I mean, do folks really think the last two seasons were utter disasters? They missed the playoffs by a combined, what, 1 point in two years?

Sure they were fighting for the 8th spot had they gotten in, but the roster is closer to the #3 seed than the #1 pick in the draft. There needs to be some upgrades to the roster, sure, but I don't think wholesale changes need to be made. Lets see how some of the kids make the leap in years 2-3 and upgrade the defense and go from there. I'd explore upgrading the defense through trades (ala Rask), but outside of that I don't think a big roster shakeup is needed.

How different would this team have looked with a guy like Shattenkirk on the blueline for a full season? I think it's pretty much as simple as that.

If the season hadn't ended on such a stinker, then I think this is a completely different discussion.
I don't think there's quite as much perspective being missed. The last two seasons weren't utter disasters, but if you told me after the 2013 Cup that this is how the 2015 and 2016 seasons would be, I probably would not have believed it. Hindsight is definitely 20/20, Seidenberg's injury was shitty luck after his extension, but at the time each of these happened: everybody and their mother hated the McQuaid signing and the Dougie trade, most didn't like scrapping Boychuk, and I would say the overall feeling was leery at best about the Seguin trade. Management has been dogshit for the last three years. I remember still being psyched as hell after getting over the 2013 loss because our core was so stout and the future looked so bright.

I don't think anyone's been asking for a tank job. I agree we are definitely closer to the 3 seed than the #1 pick. I also agree the discussion would be different if the last two seasons had ended differently, but they didn't. We can't replay the endings of the last two seasons just like we can't replay all of the signings and trades of the last 3 years. If management had not shit their pants since we lost to Chicago, making the playoffs wouldn't even be an issue.

The worst part is that there's not much that can be done now to the roster, it seems. Finding guys like Seguin and Dougie on the trade market sure as shit isn't easy. Hell, it's hard to find guys like Boychuck. We always knew a cap crunch was coming, but it sucks to watch competent organizations like the Kings and Blackhawks continue to compete for titles when the Bruins have no reason to not be in that group. The second worst part is that while I also don't put much of this on Clode (the guy thrived with the personnel this team should have had the last 6 years), I concur with some others that it probably isn't his kind of team anymore. Please don't trade Rask. Sign Marchand. Hand the C to Bergeron. See how Krejci looks after surgery. Groom Pasta. The rest of the roster, I have no idea.
 
Last edited:

Boston Boxer

New Member
Sep 22, 2006
5
Edwards AFB CA
And yet in this forum (and others) we have people who still shout others down when we say that Claude doesn't develop the kids. Oy.

Here is my practical take on Claude:
1) If I was a GM with a mature/veteran, balanced talent-wise offense/defense, talented team or heading in that direction I would want Claude on the bench in a heart beat. If I had that same team with a couple of young players who seemed intent on kicking the door in to get on the NHL roster (Lucic, Marchand style), I'd want Claude coaching the team. Unfortunately teams in a cap league, cannot easily stay in this state.
2) If I am long term building a team from scratch (like Edmonton has tried to do) and am filling it with players from the AHL/draft and trying to evaluate on the fly, this is not strength of Claude. He doesn't believe in it, and therefore it isn't a good fit organizationally. The Bruins aren't here at the moment (at least I don't think so).
3) If I have what I believe is a core of players that are cup tested/worthy and am trying to sustain the team and keep the window open with a trickle of young players I think Claude would be fine - with the right players (and we saw that with this team). I don't believe the Bruins are here any longer either - they were, and then the cap/Chiarelli decision making quickly painted them into a corner where they needed more than a trickle they needed an infusion.
4) If I have a team with some talent and it needs a solid infusion of youthful talent then Claude is not the man. I do not know who is, but it isn't him. He is either not interested or not capable of it. He is more interested in today's win, than tomorrow's win (which is fine as long as the organization is in sync with this feeling). This team needs a lot of pieces - as has been well discussed. Details of which/where the changes are made to the roster there is no doubt that some age needs to be replaced by younger bodies. Veteran replacements or AHL replacedments is the question - and with the cap situation (in general) I think it is reasonable to believe much of it is coming from Providence. Why endure the pain of shoving Claude this right guy/wrong time square peg into the organizational round hole any longer? It wouldn't make sense for the team needs, or his own personal desires. It should be an amicable parting if everyone is honest about the situation. Claude will be employed in a good situation before the ink is dry on the press release if he chooses.

Organizationally, I don't like Claude's view that the NHL coach shouldn't be developing talent. I think we are seeing across all sports that the coaches that develop talent, or can properly help the young talent integrate and grow are the ones who have the most successful organizations year over year. The cap prevents one from simply buying or retaining talent without an eye to fiscal juggling. We only got one year of Iginlia, cap aside we'd have kept him for much longer (or he never would have been available to begin with). We lost Boychuk solely due to finances. We can look at the troika of Kessel, Seguin, Hamilton and ask if a different coach would have made a difference in them still being in a Boston uniform (I'm not - only saying the question can/should be asked). Down the road in Foxboro, BB develops talent - because it is inevitable that injuries will create a demand. It is easy to say he has a roster of 53 players for 22 spots, no minor league, etc. But the reality of today's NHL is that during and between seasons there is a constant exodus of talent - either through injuries, finances, or age. If you give everyone a salary raise and a NMC (gross exaggeration) at the first hint of success you are soon painted into a corner with a revolving door of player movement. The Bruins lost two significant players in Boychuk and Hamilton which took away a talent/age combination and amplified the problems. I think it is imperative that an NHL coach be a teacher or at least have a skill with bringing out the best in young players. In all sports there are coaches that get a reputation of getting the best out of young players. The Bruins need to find one, and I don't mean a coach that is merely successful with young elite talent, I mean a coach that gets the most out of all his young talent. I guess I'm looking for the Brad Stevens choice. When your team is in the doldrums of the 60th game, having the energy of youth to provide a spark might save a 2-4 points over the course of a season. 2-4 points would look pretty nice today.

I hope the organization returns to one of the strengths of the Bruins of the cup year and the year after. They had 4 lines that were tough to play against. They ground other teams down with their ability to pressure them every moment Part of that is simply evaluation of talent - which they either can or can't do. But to me it is as much financial intelligence as talent evaluation. Again down in Foxboro there is the philosophy of a large (financially speaking) middle class. Very few high paid or overpaid stars, with a better quality middle - which helps withstand injuries. Good coaching to get the youth ready to contribute as quickly as possible. I want to see the Bruins pursue this approach as they remake the roster. Guys on the 4th line can't be getting paid premiums, they need to part of the middle class. I personally want the team to be competitive long term and perpetually - versus a cycle of up and down with cap jail. I think Chiarelli missed the boat here in a big way - I'm hoping Sweeney breaks that trend.

tldr: Claude no longer is the fit for where this team is. Organizational approach needs to change to focus on continuous youth development/integration for the long term.

Edit: typos
excellent post...spot on
 

gingerbreadmann

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
750
The worst part is that there's not much that can be done now to the roster, it seems. Finding guys like Seguin and Dougie on the trade market sure as shit isn't easy. Hell, it's hard to find guys like Boychuck. We always knew a cap crunch was coming, but it sucks to watch competent organizations like the Kings and Blackhawks continue to compete for titles when the Bruins have no reason to not be in that group. The second worst part is that while I also don't put much of this on Clode (the guy thrived with the personnel this team should have had the last 6 years), I concur with some others that it probably isn't his kind of team anymore. Please don't trade Rask. Sign Marchand. Hand the C to Bergeron. See how Krejci looks after surgery. Groom Pasta. The rest of the roster, I have no idea.
Your whole post is a breath of fresh air, and this part is what I can especially relate to. I have a lot of respect for the people who are on both sides of the spectrum here: those who see this (and last) year's collapse as a total disaster, as well as those who see it as an unlucky outcome of a pretty solid team with plenty of hope going forward. I really do. I got suckered into excitement for a playoff run and was subsequently let down just like everyone else, but in the big picture, I find it impossible to immerse myself in the present when the team should and so easily could be competing for the Cup year in and year out. Debating the true cause behind narrowly missing out on the 8th seed in consecutive years and whether Claude should be fired as a result is a total red herring when gross mismanagement has so clearly lowered the entire organization to this level to begin with.

Simultaneously, it of course does no good to dwell on the past when evaluating the present and aligning for the future, but I think if there is a place where it's appropriate it would be in a post-mortem thread. It's tough to swallow how far this franchise has been set back in the last few seasons, and worst of all, from a position of ridiculous strength. Plenty of bad luck has been sprinkled in throughout this run, but most of the organizational damage has been self-inflicted.

I think it will take a lot more time before I am less numb to the on-ice successes and (mostly) failures of this team, and I'm glad I am not the one tasked with getting us back to the top of the league. Every personnel suggestion I want to make evokes a similar player that we have avoidably gotten rid of, and for me that's the part that really sucks. I think the basic moves outlined in the quoted post are the only clear ones in the immediate future. Trading Rask would only add another chapter to this sob story. With or (most likely) without Claude, there is still enough here for another several years of, at the very least, being in the playoff race until the last day of the season. Perhaps we'll get lucky with some prospects or a trade and have a couple more years with deep playoff runs before the sun sets on Bergeron's career.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go look for whatever breakfast cereal people are eating who have already disregarded the recent past and genuinely feel optimistic about the future of the Bruins.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
PC with Sweeney and Claude tomorrow at 10. Gotta think Claude being there is good news as far as keeping him goes....
 

Titoschew

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2006
3,283
Chip Woolley's Trailer
Didn't Chia have a media avail before he got shown the door? He's either staying or they haven't made up their minds yet, if it's the latter that is another troubling sign for this FO.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
Chiarelli did his end of year press conference last year and then they fired him two days later. So who knows.

The first question asked tomorrow will be the Julien question. Going to be a tad awkward if it is anything but a vote of confidence/announcement he's back.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,164
Cambridge, MA
The optics of doing that twice in about one calendar year are so poor that I'm gonna interpret it as a good sign for Claude's future.

If this FO is so ass-backwards that they will trot out the two people most responsible for the '11 Cup win and '13 Cup Finals appearance, then fire them each a day or two later a year apart, they deserve all of the ire.
 

BoSoxFink

Stripes
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
7,646
South Park
Does anyone think this a joint press conference to announce a mutual parting of ways so they don't have to actually say "he's fired"? Similar to what the sox did with Francona?
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
He'd be giving up his contract if he did that, no? Of course he'll be hired in a cocaine heartbeat so...