Does Zane McIntyre's decision make a difference in the Bruins offseason? I think it does. If he signs with Boston, then I think that makes Subban expendable and opens him up to be used in a trade.
Bruins: post mortem
- Thread starter BoSoxFink
- Start date
I think it's a minor point in the off season rebuilding. It's not like they would expect him to jump right from college to the NHL even as a 4 year player. It's just about unheard of for a goalie to skip at least a year of seasoning in the AHL. Subban should be trade bait regardless. He's blocked by Tuukka and still projects to be a #1 in the AHL. The backup can be a journeyman or Jeremy Smith which would allow McIntyre to carry the load in Providence.RedOctober3829 said:
Scoops Bolling said:
Actually why don't you show your work that they are so talented. We have pretty demonstrable proof they aren't anymore, you know since they couldn't even make the playoffs in a league where anything resembling a middling team does. So compared to who are they talented? Who do you take this team over in the east? Or the west for that matter. Blaming injuries is lazy and stupid. Every team get's injuries and the Bruin's didn't have as many as plenty of teams this year. I know it hurt's to say but they aren't that talented for today's game. They are slow, have no game changing goal scorer's who are reliable, aren't the "physical" team they were and at this point are a mediocre to bad defensive team. It is what it is. I hope Chia or whoever they get as a GM doesn't look at this team like some of the delusional people on this forum. You complain about the voices of dissent on this forum when it's a 6 man circle jerk around here and anyone who isn't part of the group think gets pig piled on.
NHbeau said:
This is dumb and full of your own issues. This team was 4th in the league in scoring just a year ago. They don't need an elite goal scorer, they just need to replace the scoring depth they had before the penalty hit. There is plenty of talent on this roster, but the fringes of it have regressed pretty badly. The Bruins have been great because their depth outworked and outplayed everyone else's. This cast cant do that. They could use another top 4 D and a top 6 winger, but if they get that and shore up the bottom of the roster, they could easily contend next year. To my previous point though, that's going to take an aggressiveness that I'm not sure it'll happen that fast.
Myt1 said:
This is exactly where I am.
Claude & Chiarelli have made mistakes this year, sure. However, there's a much greater chance of getting worse at either position than them not be able to fix what's not working.
The core is older but still very capable. Firing either man would be the biggest mistake Neely & Co. will make this off-season.
They should trade Subban regardless if they get a good offer; Rask is signed forever and he's very good.RedOctober3829 said:
But, smart teams will look around the league and see how many goalies have been found who were not heralded prospects and realize that their development is very unpredictable and their performance is very volatile outside of the very top few (Rask being one).
The leaders in EV SV% this year were (min 1000 minutes):
Mason (great rookie year, then mediocre, traded, and bad last year)
Price
Hammond (undrafted)
Anderson (Journeyman for a long time)
Rinne (8th round pick)
Dubnyk (high pick, but no better than an average starter for a while and at times worse)
Schneider
Luongo
Rask
Mrazek (4th round pick)
Talbot (Undrafted)
Crawford (2nd round pick)
Pavelec (Probably the worst consistent starter in the NHL before this year)
It seems like you have as much chance of drafting a goalie late or pulling a gem off the scrap heap when another team gives up on him as you do of drafting one in the first round and having him pan out for you before he hits free agency. So, Subban's pedigree really doesn't mean much.
The Bruins are probably better off holding onto Subban and hoping he has a solid season as a backup, then dealing him to a desperate team.
Drafting Subban was a huge unforced error, for just that reason. I hope Wayne Smith was the guy pushing for him and that is part of why he's gone. It it just not obvious that Subban will be a better pro than Zane McIntyre, who was a 6th round pickup. Subban could be another Rask, but the odds are strongly against it. (The same for McIntyre, but 6th round picks aren't supposed to be wirth much).
I don't think the Subban pick was an error. Considering:
- the remaining talent available at that draft slot
- Subban had slipped at least a half-dozen spots past where many predicted he'd go
- the best player to go after Subban for the proceeding ~30 picks was Tanner Pearson at #30 overall
The next player to go after Pearson that was really enticing was Jimmy Vesey, and he went at 66.
If they move Subban for a solid return, no reason to think the pick was an unforced error.
- the remaining talent available at that draft slot
- Subban had slipped at least a half-dozen spots past where many predicted he'd go
- the best player to go after Subban for the proceeding ~30 picks was Tanner Pearson at #30 overall
The next player to go after Pearson that was really enticing was Jimmy Vesey, and he went at 66.
If they move Subban for a solid return, no reason to think the pick was an unforced error.
McBride11 said:
I added Khokhlachev, Ferlin, Griffith and Miller into four open spots (leaving the three RFA and backup goalie) and came up with $66.95mm.
Million+ (12, $60.25mm total) - $7.25 (Krejci), $7 (Rask), $6.9 (Chara), $6.5 (Bergeron), $6 (Lucic), $4.5 (Marchand), $4.25 (Eriksson), $4.025 (Savard LTIR), $4 (Seidenberg), $3.425 (Smith), $3.4 (Krug), $3 (Kelly)
Sub-million (8, $6.70mm total) - $925k (Pastrnak), $900k x2(Morrow/Griffith), $875k x2(Talbot/Ferlin), $800 x2(Khokhlachev/Miller), $625k (Trotman)
Getting Savard off the cap seems to be a priority in order to build out some cap room. The next priority is signing the three RFAs. Then, I would start looking at some trades to upgrade the top 4 on defense.
They signed Seidenberg to the extension in Oct 2013 and they tried to move him before his injury in Dec 2013?Kenny F'ing Powers said:
That doesn't make much sense.
Off to another point that keeps popping up in this forum, the hand wringing over NMCs. Why is this such an issue for people? It's not a Chiarelli thing, it's league wide. You're signing a guy within a year of him being able to test unrestricted free agency, seems reasonable that since they're giving up that option, they should have some say over where they'll be traded. Does anyone really think if you go to a guy with a NMC saying you want to move him, he'll just say no, I'm going to stay right here where I'm not wanted? That seems like an extreme longshot to me. Maybe a guy will prefer to go to a certain city, but I'd be stunned if it were just a flat no. Maybe once in a great while, you have to take 99 cents back when you could've got a dollar without a NMC. Not even close to worthy of all the complaints the NMCs raise here.
Eddie Jurak said:
Because you got lucky and drafted a great goalie prospect in the 6th round (who can become a UFA right now and sign with anyone, btw), that makes a 1st round pick an error? Subban is only 21 and has been great in the AHL for 2 seasons. He's a very good prospect right now with tremendous potential and you got him late in the first round. Half of the goalies on the list you're referring to are 1st round picks, you can cherry pick numbers all you want but players drafted in the first round are much more likely to become impact players, at any position, including goalie.
The best thing about this season is how everyone who has been wrong for half a decade straight now feels vindicated by a season in which the team's most productive offensive forward and best defensive defenseman missed a substantial amount of time.
You people are out of your fucking minds.
You people are out of your fucking minds.
For the rest of the response to the opening post, I'd let all of the UFAs walk except Spooner. None are worth much of a bump except Soderberg, and he's not really all that great.
I'd dangle Lucic and Krecji, but would expect to get many worthwhile offers as their values are probably lower than their actual skill levels. The price hit on both is excessive though.
I'd dangle Lucic and Krecji, but would expect to get many worthwhile offers as their values are probably lower than their actual skill levels. The price hit on both is excessive though.
No. Because the track record for goalies in general, and first round drafted goalies in particular, is not that good. Many first round goalies are busts, many late round or undrafted goalies excel.veritas said:
burstnbloom said:
Nothing last year has anything to do with this year and going forward. Hang all the praise you want on the 2011 team or the "presidents" trophy from last year. They mean literally fuck all now. Not sure what more proof anyone needs than to simply watch this years team and weigh the results for the season. And you can call it dumb and my issue all you want but it's plain as looking at the end of season standing's and stats.
So the standings from 2 years ago deserve to be mocked in quotes, but this year's standings tell the true story. 8 years of evidence is out the window because THIS is the real truth that validates your opinions that have been wrong for so many years. By the way, this year's team is much better and more talented than the 2010 team, and we all now how horrendous that season ended and how well the next one ended up.
If you don't like being "pig piled" on for making dumb comments, go post somewhere else. There are a ton of people on who are critical of the Bruins, some more intelligently and well-reasoned than others. If you think this is a positivity echo chamber here, then I'd say you haven't been paying attention. Then again, based on your anlysis, I'd say the same about the actual games themselves.
If you don't like being "pig piled" on for making dumb comments, go post somewhere else. There are a ton of people on who are critical of the Bruins, some more intelligently and well-reasoned than others. If you think this is a positivity echo chamber here, then I'd say you haven't been paying attention. Then again, based on your anlysis, I'd say the same about the actual games themselves.
NHbeau said:
Who are the 6 people who are jerking each other off and sharing group think? Are you just crying in the wilderness or are you actually onto something? Don't be shy.
I think the only time that I see group think around here is when everyone picks the B's to win the Cup every year since 2011. I usually think that's pretty silly, but it's probably not quite as silly as you and some others thinking 8 years means fuck all when the last thing you see means everything. I'm more than happy to have a different opinion from you, but at least be willing to meet halfway.
Edit: Not trying to pile on you here...or am I?
Funny thing about an entire season. By the end of it teams generally end up where they deserve to be. 2 years ago they were a great team. This year not even close. Given the roster has changed, other teams roster has changed I'm not sure why this is a news flash to anyone. What's dumb is pretending it's the same team or somehow will magically make this team better next year. Everyone can keep pretending this is the team that won it all in 2011 or last years team or a team from 5 years ago all they want. They demonstrably are not and have shown you all season. As for the strawman about my opinions from some bygone era where I've been consistently critical of the bruins and the front office feel free to post them.The Four Peters said:
On the flip side, who has posted that they are the same team? I think people that aren't quite as doom and gloom as you see a track record in place and key pieces that have been used well by the current administration. I think everyone agrees that changes need to occur, but some aren't taking the last 82 games as proof that the apocalypse is nigh.
What do you propose doing then? Who are you getting rid of? Who is coming in to make this vast improvement that you say they need? It's easy to just blindly shit on them and say fire eveybody/get rid of everybody. I think everybody on this forum can admit that they need to make some changes, but if you think they need a major overhaul to the roster you are being delusional. 1 bad year out of 8. It happens. Changes will be made and they should be but probably to your dismay they aren't getting rid of most of the core. It's on the players that come back to have better years. The core is good enough to be a Cup contender. Hopefully, the necessary depth will be put around it to make it so.NHbeau said:
Myt1 said:
I think I remember a time where you called me a "fucking moron" or something similar for proposing this.
VICTORY TASTES SO GOOD.
(just kidding don't hurt me)
Dummy Hoy said:
Fair enough. I took things like "unlucky with injuries" and the "8 year track record" and intimated to much out of it. My bad. For the record the hat hanging on presidents trophies and such reminds me of the Jet's back to back AFC championship bullshit. I get snarky about things like that and probably shouldn't. Teams can be good then not good. It happens unless you're the patriots. Also the fact the Bruins were less "injured" than the league average drives me nuts when it's used as a crutch.
I started it in the other thread about what I would do. I also made some suggestions in this thread about what I would do. Funnily enough I mentioned maybe getting rid of Chia but seeing the logic to giving him a chance to straighten it out. I also purposely didn't mention Julien as I don't think he should be removed. If you give an NHL coach who's job it is to win games guys like Campbell and Paille he's going to play them over younger guys. The devil you know and all. The mistake was having them as an option and not forcing his hand into playing Spooner and some more AHL kids in the bottom 6 roles.RedOctober3829 said:
What's a major overhaul? You can make a decent argument for replacing one third of the top 6, and half the bottom 6 and the defense. That's fairly major in my view.
How are you measuring that the Bruins were less injured than everyone else? I think having your top 2 Dmen be hindered by injury essentially all year and your top scoring center be out or ineffective for much of the season would weigh more than say 6 random injuries. The timing of the Dougie thing was tough too. I bet they steal a few points down the stretch with him on board.
I think injuries were just one of many reason why this team only got 96 points.
I think injuries were just one of many reason why this team only got 96 points.
Well, where to start. They have one of the Top 5 or so goalies in the league, with Price, Rinne, and Lundqvuist the only goalies whose team would likely keep them over swapping with Rask. Add in Subban and potentially McIntyre, and the Bruins may have the best goalie talent in the NHL. On defense, the team has an aging #1 in Chara, but one the advanced stats still have in the Top 30 or so defenders league wide. They've also got a very young defender who may well have leapfrogged him as the best defender on the team, and who ranks among the ten most valuable young defenders in the NHL (along with guys like Subban, Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Eckman-Larsson, etc). The rest of the talent after those two and Krug isn't as impressive, but as a 3 piece core, I'd say its competitive as the best defensive core in the NHL. The top two centers can compete with any other top center pairing in the NHL. The wing collection doesn't have that kind of elite talent (although Pasta could develop to that level), but at least now boasts enough talent that the team doesn't have to resort to guys like Brad Isbister or Peter Schaefer in top 9 roles the way it did in the past.NHbeau said:
There are clearly places where the roster needs help. The second half of the defense needs improvement, the fourth line was a disaster, and Lucic needs to play to his salary level. But compared to where this team was in the mid to late 2000s...worlds better. There is a clear contending core in place, its the periphery that needs to be improved.
They were less injured by pure games lost. Who comprised those games lost is obviously a much more tricky calculation, so maybe NHbeau can take his own advice and show his work in proving that the Bruins' elite talent lost to injury was as below average as he's claimed.Dummy Hoy said:
SpacemanzGerbil said:
You can start here at the quoted post in this thread. Is it fool proof? No. Like any stat it certainly has flaws. That said it's a pretty decent look into not just what the Bruins had to endure but the league as a whole. Remove Savard LTIR and the bruins were the 26th most injured team.Dummy Hoy said:
i'd love to but i am fairly sure we will disagree on just what "elite" talent entails so what's the point. I will disagree on Krejci being "elite" and after Chara I don't see any elite talent that got injured. in fact you can argue the best player on the team (Rask) got worked to much. Some would argue far to much in an effort to make up for the shortcomings of the rest of the roster.Scoops Bolling said:
NHbeau said:
A healthy 46 is absolutely an elite player in this system and has a tremendous impact on the rest of the lines.
Why are you acting like the Bruins are the Leafs or the Oilers? They did finish with 96 points which I think is the most points for a non play off team in history. Your post is full of extreme hyperoble. Hopefully you were kidding. If you think this board is full of Black and Gold teamers to paraphase a Felgerism then you have not been paying attention. Thoughtful posters such as Salem's Lot and Dummy Hoy have heaped criticism on the team when it is called for. The bolded is uncalled for and untrue to say the least.NHbeau said:
NHBeau, you're looking for an arch-nemesis in a room full of minor adversaries. No one is saying the team is perfect as is and that Chiarelli and Julien should be nominated for Executive of the Year and Jack Adams, respectively. What we're saying is a 96-point team (and since someone brought up 2009-10, 96 points would've yielded the 5th seed in the East that year) is a lot closer to competitive than not. A lot of us have identified the back four on defense and a forward line as the biggest thing to improve. Clearly, you think it's nearly the entire defense, at least another forward line. So, how do they get out of it?
And I mentioned this with regard to the Penguins, a team that, had they not faced Buffalo, would have been in the Bruins position today: if you're intent on cleaning out management at ice level and beyond, who's coming in to improve on what they have? In other words, who's missing the playoffs only once or less per decade and regularly in a position to contend for the Stanley Cup? The Bowmans, Hollands, and Yzermans of the league don't grow on trees, and picking on what is literally the outlier is a great way to end up closer to Edmonton than the top.
And I mentioned this with regard to the Penguins, a team that, had they not faced Buffalo, would have been in the Bruins position today: if you're intent on cleaning out management at ice level and beyond, who's coming in to improve on what they have? In other words, who's missing the playoffs only once or less per decade and regularly in a position to contend for the Stanley Cup? The Bowmans, Hollands, and Yzermans of the league don't grow on trees, and picking on what is literally the outlier is a great way to end up closer to Edmonton than the top.
Reardons Beard said:
I posted the results a few days ago but don't have them at the moment, the team's record is dramatically improved with Krejci in the lineup than without. Of course they did have him in the lineup over the last 3 games and lost all of them to lose out on a playoff spot, but overall the evidence is that for this year's team, as Krejci goes so does the team. Does that make him elite? No idea, elite's a high carrier to reach. But he's crucial to the club. Is he worth $7 million or whatever? No idea.
I'm all for moving Lucic if at all reasonable in the return.
You guys are in a rough spot with that roster in that you've got a #1 goalie and a group of forwards in their primes and a D corps that's either young (Hamilton, Krug) or old/broken (Chara/Seidenberg). I'd explore dangling Lucic for a top-2 D if possible. They're too good to just blow it up.
I feel like Chiarelli is probably out, but from what I understand Cam Neely was on board with Chia's biggest mistake IMO (the Seguin deal) so I'm not sure canning him is really justified.
I like Julien as a coach but I assume a new GM will want to hire his own coach.
I feel like Chiarelli is probably out, but from what I understand Cam Neely was on board with Chia's biggest mistake IMO (the Seguin deal) so I'm not sure canning him is really justified.
I like Julien as a coach but I assume a new GM will want to hire his own coach.
Are we sure this is an outlier? I'm not convinced that the bill hasn't come due for poor development and some bad contracts/trades. In a salary cap league you can only swallow so many of those before it really effects the team. Chris Kelly and his 3.5m NMC contract is a pretty good match with what Boychuck made this year. Sadly the useful player had to be moved. Sure Boychuck walks next year but in the mean time you get a top 4 dmen who can play serious minutes and be leaned on when Chara is hurt and Seidenberg sucks. There is value in that. And why so many people get riled up about these NMC's. Has Chris Kelly ever been a player you can't replace if he gets all buggered about the lack of a NMC?MiracleOfO2704 said:
How do you get out of it? I'm not sure you can just walk away from choices that have been made. You start by deciding what level of "contending" you can accept the next couple years. Then you start shopping what assets you have. Subban, Lucic, Krejci, Seidenberg etc. It takes two to tango obviously and maybe you just can't find a good deal for any of those players. You have to try though. Personally I think one of the worst things that could have happened was the Bruins making the playoffs. A lot less hard questions get asked and the same cycle repeats with even worse results next year.
Reasonable people can disagree over this year being an outlier or the beginning of a decline phase. I just tend to think it's a decline with how this roster is built and how the game in general is trending.
I don't think the first half of this is true. I think a healthy #2 center has a tremendous impact on the rest of the lines but you could say that about any team. But it doesn't have to be Krejci and they don't have to spend their highest cap hit on that player.Reardons Beard said:
Krejci should be doing better than 50th-60th in point rate among forwards, considering offense is his main strength.
Is that really tweet-able Joe? Internal discussions probably have been going on for months.soxhop411 said:
And I'd argue that he's a 4th line player with penalty kill duties and isn't someone that should be part of a salary cap problem. He should be getting pushed by younger (cheaper) players and never should have been given a NMC - and if he priced himself out of town during negotiations so be it. The leverage in negotiations is that if he wants to take significantly less to remain part of the group great, otherwise the team needs to be cheap on the 4th line - to afford that top 6 winger.mcpickl said:
IMO a GM should never put himself in a position where a Boychuck is lost because 4th liners have squeezed the cap (or part of the squeeze) - that is where younger players cut their teeth. During the cup year, having veterans making money on the 4th line was ok, a luxury they could afford because they hadn't paid the championship tax yet on the wave of contracts that came due. Once the Marchand/Lucic deals came in, my expectation was that Kelly/Campbell/Paille/Thornton were on their way out as a consequence. Not all at once of course, but I've been shocked at the losses (Iginlia, Boychuck) they've accepted while allowing the 4th line to remain intact. And I know that all the Boychuck money can't be found on the 4th line - but it's a pattern I've not understood.
I understand that Julien wants dependable veterans on the 3rd and 4th line. But it's a finite pie, and I think the prioritization was wrong.
What's the league average of injury and why would you use that? Please tell me you're not using games lost to injury and then claiming that other people are using a crutch.NHbeau said:
No one is hat hanging on a President's trophy. People are pointing to it as a reason to have not blown the team up last year, to refute a really silly question about what the Bruins have done over the past two years to warrant giving the current management team a chance to straighten things out, and as a piece of evidence as to the true "talent level" of the front office, to go along with all of the other information that we currently have.
Bad news for those in the "Fire Clode and Chia" camp - Shank is on your side:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/12/time-for-bruins-peter-chiarelli-coach-claude-julien-move/6Fg7CnhsSeDbbHJzNtqazL/story.html
More seriously: I do believe that reasonable folks (which excludes CHB) can disagree as to whether Chiarelli and Julien should be given a mulligan and allowed to start the retooling process. I think some folks here are discounting the impact that the Iginla overage had on Chiarelli's ability to maneuver this offseason. I admit that this season's roster was flawed going in; I also think the empty drafts had a lot to do with the team's current predicament. Krejci is not as fungible as some here think, and without any good options coming up through the system, Chiarelli had little choice but to extend him. I'm also not convinced that the Bruins are any more generous with NMC contract than other teams.
However, all that aside, my biggest fear with using the broom is the expectations that are behind the changes. Look at Pittsburgh: after a successful regular season last year, the Stanley Cup winning coach and GM were forced out after the Pens lost a tough, 7 game, 2nd round series to their nemesis Rangers (sound familiar?). New coach, new GM, and the Penguins had to rely on the good fortune of the Bruins collapse to squeak by with the 8th seed.
So, if the Bruins bring in a new GM, will he be expected to go for broke in an attempt to make the playoffs in 2015-16, potentially putting the long term needs of the team at risk? Will the coach be under pressure to play the vets and as a result staple the promising yet developing young players to the bench? Or will the new team be allowed to make the necessary changes, changes that may take some time to bear fruit? Chiarelli already make a big change to the scouting department, and the last draft looks far more promising than their prior drafts. So, are you comfortable with a new GM firing Gretzky to bring in his guy to run scouting? More importantly, how do we think Jacobs Jr and Neely feel about these questions?
I'm sure there are GM and coaching candidates that are as good as Chiarelli and Julien. I also understand that some of the folks here clamoring for change don't necessarily want "better", but instead are looking for a change in the overall approach, or fresh blood. However, keep in mind that Mike O'Connell was a bad GM, and Steve Kasper and Dave Lewis were both terrible, terrible coaches (and noone can put forth a logical argument to contrary). And there are likely more O'Connell's and Kasper's out there than there are Chiarelli's and Julien's.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/12/time-for-bruins-peter-chiarelli-coach-claude-julien-move/6Fg7CnhsSeDbbHJzNtqazL/story.html
More seriously: I do believe that reasonable folks (which excludes CHB) can disagree as to whether Chiarelli and Julien should be given a mulligan and allowed to start the retooling process. I think some folks here are discounting the impact that the Iginla overage had on Chiarelli's ability to maneuver this offseason. I admit that this season's roster was flawed going in; I also think the empty drafts had a lot to do with the team's current predicament. Krejci is not as fungible as some here think, and without any good options coming up through the system, Chiarelli had little choice but to extend him. I'm also not convinced that the Bruins are any more generous with NMC contract than other teams.
However, all that aside, my biggest fear with using the broom is the expectations that are behind the changes. Look at Pittsburgh: after a successful regular season last year, the Stanley Cup winning coach and GM were forced out after the Pens lost a tough, 7 game, 2nd round series to their nemesis Rangers (sound familiar?). New coach, new GM, and the Penguins had to rely on the good fortune of the Bruins collapse to squeak by with the 8th seed.
So, if the Bruins bring in a new GM, will he be expected to go for broke in an attempt to make the playoffs in 2015-16, potentially putting the long term needs of the team at risk? Will the coach be under pressure to play the vets and as a result staple the promising yet developing young players to the bench? Or will the new team be allowed to make the necessary changes, changes that may take some time to bear fruit? Chiarelli already make a big change to the scouting department, and the last draft looks far more promising than their prior drafts. So, are you comfortable with a new GM firing Gretzky to bring in his guy to run scouting? More importantly, how do we think Jacobs Jr and Neely feel about these questions?
I'm sure there are GM and coaching candidates that are as good as Chiarelli and Julien. I also understand that some of the folks here clamoring for change don't necessarily want "better", but instead are looking for a change in the overall approach, or fresh blood. However, keep in mind that Mike O'Connell was a bad GM, and Steve Kasper and Dave Lewis were both terrible, terrible coaches (and noone can put forth a logical argument to contrary). And there are likely more O'Connell's and Kasper's out there than there are Chiarelli's and Julien's.
Break-up day today. Julien and Chiarelli are both supposed to speak, should be a grand old time.
Great points, and that's part of why I am not whole-heartedly in either camp. I can see reasons for both leaving, but the replacement simply can't be a Rutherford-type castoff, or a promotion of Cassidy from Providence.
Fun fact, and to your point about there being many, many more poor options to replace Julien/Chiarelli than good ones: Steve Kasper was serving as Toronto's Director of Pro Scouting and got (rightly) canned along with 18 scouts total. He also said this previously when asked whether the Leafs use "anything other than eyeballs" to evaluate talent:
Fun fact, and to your point about there being many, many more poor options to replace Julien/Chiarelli than good ones: Steve Kasper was serving as Toronto's Director of Pro Scouting and got (rightly) canned along with 18 scouts total. He also said this previously when asked whether the Leafs use "anything other than eyeballs" to evaluate talent:
Lots to be wary of.
Another cautionary tale comes from Pittsburgh, who canned everyone and are now likely in a worst spot.
http://triblive.com/mobile/8138395-96/penguins-rutherford-shero
After mulling it over, I think I bring Chiarelli and Julien both back for 1 more year, unless their relationship has fractured and is beyond repair.
http://triblive.com/mobile/8138395-96/penguins-rutherford-shero
After mulling it over, I think I bring Chiarelli and Julien both back for 1 more year, unless their relationship has fractured and is beyond repair.
You would need to have a really good reason for firing them, and "missed playoffs for first time in 8 years" isn't a really good reason.
One of the major points that has only been lightly touched on is that the "cap hell" situation that they're in is in large part to poor forecasting on where the cap would be at this point. I would imagine most calculation had the cap rising above $75M by now. Chicago must have certainly figured that would happen. They have 60% of their cap tied up in only 6 players. Toews is an elite player but is he worth 4M more AAV than Bergeron? You can't throw out put out that the cap has been mismanaged by using the Kelly's and Campbell contracts as examples without recognizing the value contract of Bergeron, Chara, and Marchand. Even at his reduced level of play, Chara at $6.9M the next 2 years and $4.0M in 17-18 is a relative steal given the contracts out there. The cap situation is largely a byproduct of having a succesful team and attempting to squeeze out as many deep playoff runs as possible combined with lower than expected cap growth. It might not have been perfectly managed, but it's far from being mismanaged.
I also think it's useful to revisit threads when some players were signed. There was not much (any?) condemnation of the Kelly & Campbell signings when they occurred. http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/72699-chris-kelly-412-and-greg-campbell-348-re-sign/page-2
I'll also add that the NMC that Kelly holds is a non-issue. The NMC was only in full for the 1st two seasons. The NMC is now only for 8 teams of his choosing. It's not a barrier in the least to moving him if they decided to. I believe that most of the NMC's they have given are structured similarly.
I also think it's useful to revisit threads when some players were signed. There was not much (any?) condemnation of the Kelly & Campbell signings when they occurred. http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/72699-chris-kelly-412-and-greg-campbell-348-re-sign/page-2
I'll also add that the NMC that Kelly holds is a non-issue. The NMC was only in full for the 1st two seasons. The NMC is now only for 8 teams of his choosing. It's not a barrier in the least to moving him if they decided to. I believe that most of the NMC's they have given are structured similarly.