Peter Chiarelli fired; Claude and coaching staff stays

[mcpickl]

The whole "gave out too many NMC's to marginal players" is way overplayed.  Not all NMC's are the same.  Most are modified that still give the team some ability to move the player.   Typically, they'll have a full NMC for the 1st season or two and then be reduced to having the player submit a list of 6-8 teams they won't accept a trade to.  I don't know of any case where they had something on the table and the player voided the deal.  Maybe it's happened and been kept in house, but I doubt it.   
 
Going into this year, 8 players had NMC's.  Bergeron, Lucic, Marchand, Kelly, Krejci, Chara, Seidenberg and possibly Eriksson (if it wasn't voided during the trade).  Chara is the only one who appears to have a full NMC with Bergeron's in force until the last 2 years of his deal.  If there were deals to be had, they would find a way.  

YES!
 
Can anyone name one player the Bruins have been stuck with because of a NMC?
 
Even a rumor of a guy they tried to move but the player was unwilling to waive a NMC?
 
Can't think of one instance, yet the caterwauling from the fans/Felgers on them is incessant.
 
If they aren't complete non-issues, they're damn close.
 
I get kicking Chiarelli for drafts, the Seguin trade, but the NMCs I will never understand.
 
Wish they gave Chiarelli another year, but looks like his fate was cast with Jacobs earlier comments.
 
Thanks for the Cup Peter! Flags fly forever.

 

[Granite Sox]

I'll first say that Cam Neely was one of my all-time favorite players regardless of sport.  If I had a second son, I'd have named him Cam.  I think he's been a good tone setter for the organization and definitely drives a winning attitude.  That being said, him expanding his power base and creating a full organization in his image is not something I have a lot of confidence in.

This is kind of where I am. I think it was discussed somewhere on RMPS previously, but I am not sure what Neely brings at all to the or-gan-eye-zation in terms of the type of talent assessment and team-building required in today's NHL. It's all "grit", "sandpaper", "tough to play against", "will", "physical", "good stick" bullshit that doesn't really mean anything.  "Better at transitioning"... I mean what the fuck is that? I get that you can't have a roster half-staffed with Tin Men, but rolling four lines of plucky, gritty, below-average skaters/passers/scorers ain't exactly inspiring, either, which is what he sounds like he's looking for sometimes.

 

 

[kenneycb]

Better at transitioning is a very easy thing to define.  They want to be able to get up the ice more quickly with cleaner zone entries and more speed through the neutral zone.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Neely's comment regarding the young D makes the Boychuck trade even more dumb than it already looked.  If you were surprised none of your young D progressed more than why did you go and trade quality away?  It makes no sense.

Eh, Boychuck was gone regardless, and the Bruins weren't going anywhere with him. Having the picks is probably for the best at this point.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

This is kind of where I am. I think it was discussed somewhere on RMPS previously, but I am not sure what Neely brings at all to the or-gan-eye-zation in terms of the type of talent assessment and team-building required in today's NHL. It's all "grit", "sandpaper", "tough to play against", "will", "physical", "good stick" bullshit that doesn't really mean anything.  "Better at transitioning"... I mean what the fuck is that? I get that you can't have a roster half-staffed with Tin Men, but rolling four lines of plucky, gritty, below-average skaters/passers/scorers ain't exactly inspiring, either, which is what he sounds like he's looking for sometimes.

 

I don't know, it seems to have worked pretty well over the last 7 years.

 

[veritas]

This is kind of where I am. I think it was discussed somewhere on RMPS previously, but I am not sure what Neely brings at all to the or-gan-eye-zation in terms of the type of talent assessment and team-building required in today's NHL. It's all "grit", "sandpaper", "tough to play against", "will", "physical", "good stick" bullshit that doesn't really mean anything.  "Better at transitioning"... I mean what the fuck is that? I get that you can't have a roster half-staffed with Tin Men, but rolling four lines of plucky, gritty, below-average skaters/passers/scorers ain't exactly inspiring, either, which is what he sounds like he's looking for sometimes.

 

 
Neely as a manager (in the corporate sense) is sort of an enigmatic guy. He fully understands that you need a balance of toughness and skill. His best season in the NHL was playing on a line with Adam Oates and Joe Juneau. And he had a lot of success playing with other pure skill players like Janney. He knows he wouldn't have scored 50 in 47 playing on a line with 2 clones of himself. He's not trying to build a team of Lucices (Lucici? Lucic's?).
 
The Fluto article is pretty enlightening. It seems like he's talked about developing talent and playing a more open, attacking style and improving their transition as much as he's talked about getting tougher. And it sounds like he wanted to fire Claude over his conservative style of coaching but wasn't allowed to.
 
Did you not watch the games this year though? Their breakout was a disaster, not sure why you're getting flustered about them talking about improving their transition game.

 

[jsinger121]

Eh, Boychuck was gone regardless, and the Bruins weren't going anywhere with him. Having the picks is probably for the best at this point.

Except they dealt 2 of them for Brett Connolly

 

[lexrageorge]

To clarify, it appears Neely told Julien that their 1st round pick was off limits.  Makes sense, given the situation the team was in, and the inordinately high prices for rental players at the deadline.  Trading a couple of 2nds for Connolly is more defensible; can't blame Chia for the guy getting hurt in his first practice with the team. 
 
I'm not sure how much stock I put into single sentence comments in a press conference. 

 

[Granite Sox]

I don't know, it seems to have worked pretty well over the last 7 years.

 
I know that my post was an emotional overreaction, and the composite results have been very good for the team, but I would also argue that over the course of the last two seasons (end of last year, this entire campaign) that several other teams have developed or emerged with talent and systems that can successfully attack the B's defense-to-offense, strong forecheck/cycle/jam the net approach.  Over the past two years, there has been a loss of talent (Seguin, Boychuk, Inginla,et al) that hasn't been sufficiently replaced in terms of the high-end skill(s) that those players brought.
 
Perhaps Neely/Jacobs asked Chiarelli for his solution, Chiarelli indicated "more of the same, just better", and Neely/Jacobs said, "not gonna cut it."  If so, I'd be more heartened.  However, the impression that Neely makes on me with respect to his player vision is more regressive than progressive.  I'm hope I'm way off on this.
 

Neely as a manager (in the corporate sense) is sort of an enigmatic guy. He fully understands that you need a balance of toughness and skill. His best season in the NHL was playing on a line with Adam Oates and Joe Juneau. And he had a lot of success playing with other pure skill players like Janney. He knows he wouldn't have scored 50 in 47 playing on a line with 2 clones of himself. He's not trying to build a team of Lucices (Lucici? Lucic's?).
 
The Fluto article is pretty enlightening. It seems like he's talked about developing talent and playing a more open, attacking style and improving their transition as much as he's talked about getting tougher. And it sounds like he wanted to fire Claude over his conservative style of coaching but wasn't allowed to.
 
Did you not watch the games this year though? Their breakout was a disaster, not sure why you're getting flustered about them talking about improving their transition game.

 
I do understand what 'better transitioning' means in a literal sense (as kenneycb articulated); my issue with Neely is that (imo) it's all cliches and platitudes ("It's called Bruins"), and while he at least says he'll leave his GM alone, I'm still grasping to understand what his plan is.

 

[Steve Dillard]

This is kind of where I am. I think it was discussed somewhere on RMPS previously, but I am not sure what Neely brings at all to the or-gan-eye-zation in terms of the type of talent assessment and team-building required in today's NHL. It's all "grit", "sandpaper", "tough to play against", "will", "physical", "good stick" bullshit that doesn't really mean anything.  "Better at transitioning"... I mean what the fuck is that? I get that you can't have a roster half-staffed with Tin Men, but rolling four lines of plucky, gritty, below-average skaters/passers/scorers ain't exactly inspiring, either, which is what he sounds like he's looking for sometimes.

 
I'm going to join that sentiment.  As I stated in the "you are the gm" thread, a lot of the failures identified here (Seguin trade/drafts/NM clauses to "own guys") all derive from a core philosophy that Dick Pole aptly describes.  I love Cam and at times he seems like he could be enlightened, but I think at his core he is a western Canadian guy who sees the game in his own rough and tumble 80s era prism.  I thought Chiarelli from Harvard might have a different perspective, but he didn't, perhaps based on his own experience as a 4th liner.  Don Sweeney was a finesse guy, so I will wait and see how he asserts himself now that he has the tiller.  If I recall from Inside the Bs, Cam was a big proponent of trading Seguin, so I have to think his stewardship may not vary much from that of Chia.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

 
I know that my post was an emotional overreaction, and the composite results have been very good for the team, but I would also argue that over the course of the last two seasons (end of last year, this entire campaign) that several other teams have developed or emerged with talent and systems that can successfully attack the B's defense-to-offense, strong forecheck/cycle/jam the net approach.  Over the past two years, there has been a loss of talent (Seguin, Boychuk, Inginla,et al) that hasn't been sufficiently replaced in terms of the high-end skill(s) that those players brought.
 
 

The loss of talent is absolutely an issue, but that has nothing to do with their style of play. The system that Julien employs is a very effective way to play and I don't agree at all that teams have figured it out to the degree that you're saying. I think, as you point out, they didn't have the horses to pull it off this year. Julien's system requires a strong roster from top to bottom and for guys to play well in their own end.
 
There's a reason the GM was fired and not the coach (yet anyway). The problem was with roster construction, not the style of play.

 

[cshea]

Shinzawa piece today:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/15/cam-neely-makes-power-move-bruins-begin-reshaping-for-future/234InOfuBUfSTqdVjKRHRL/story.html#

I don't think there is any chance Julien is back. Neely wanted to fire him after the Carolina debacle, but didn't have the authority. He does now. They're just angling for some compensation with Julien.

Cam is certainly consolidating his power. I hope he knows what he is doing. It's all on him now.

 

[TFP]

 
 Don Sweeney was a finesse guy

This one statement invalidates any opinion you may have in the rest of the post. I can't believe someone typed this as a serious statement.

 

[Steve Dillard]

Perhaps finesse is not the apt word, but an undersized defenseman who earned a spot because he was an above average skater, especially early in his career.  You are probably thinking of his later years, in the 30s, when he stopped that.  He also had puck skills, and was a good puck mover, unlike the kevan miller/McQuaid (or, in that era, Kyle McLaren, Allen Pedersen) types.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What does Sweeney's style of play as a player have anything to do with his view of building a hockey team?

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Shinzawa piece today:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/15/cam-neely-makes-power-move-bruins-begin-reshaping-for-future/234InOfuBUfSTqdVjKRHRL/story.html#

I don't think there is any chance Julien is back. Neely wanted to fire him after the Carolina debacle, but didn't have the authority. He does now. They're just angling for some compensation with Julien.

Cam is certainly consolidating his power. I hope he knows what he is doing. It's all on him now.

Fluto makes a lot of bold statements that he doesn't necessarily back up. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The loss of talent is absolutely an issue, but that has nothing to do with their style of play. The system that Julien employs is a very effective way to play and I don't agree at all that teams have figured it out to the degree that you're saying. I think, as you point out, they didn't have the horses to pull it off this year. Julien's system requires a strong roster from top to bottom and for guys to play well in their own end.
 
There's a reason the GM was fired and not the coach (yet anyway). The problem was with roster construction, not the style of play.

I think there is some merit to the "style of play" critique. Even in the best of times, the Bruins, when they struggle, tend to get bottled up in their own end (and to sometimes to collapse down to the front of their net and not contest possession).

That alone doesn't mean the system has to change (every team is going to have ways that it struggles), but I think part of the issue with Claude is that he's going to win or lose with that system regardless of whether it is the best use of the talent he has on hand. "Have a look at the roster" was his response to a question about why the team wasn't stepping up in big games as it had in years past.

He's not a Bill Belichick or a Brad Stevens type who will tailor his approach to the strengths and weaknesses of the team. He's not completely rigid and inflexible - for example he realized that a Tyler Seguin type could fit in on a line with one of the game's best two way centers - but at the end of the day I'm not sure that he is the best coach going forward and I don't think his system is so good that it makes sense to rule out any other style of play.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

I think there is some merit to the "style of play" critique. Even in the best of times, the Bruins, when they struggle, tend to get bottled up in their own end (and to sometimes to collapse down to the front of their net and not contest possession).

That alone doesn't mean the system has to change (every team is going to have ways that it struggles), but I think part of the issue with Claude is that he's going to win or lose with that system regardless of whether it is the best use of the talent he has on hand. "Have a look at the roster" was his response to a question about why the team wasn't stepping up in big games as it had in years past.

He's not a Bill Belichick or a Brad Stevens type who will tailor his approach to the strengths and weaknesses of the team. He's not completely rigid and inflexible - for example he realized that a Tyler Seguin type could fit in on a line with one of the game's best two way centers - but at the end of the day I'm not sure that he is the best coach going forward and I don't think his system is so good that it makes sense to rule out any other style of play.

When he's had the players, they've scored and scored a lot. In the years when Chiarelli hasn't provided him that skill, they've struggled. Claude has done more with less than any other coach in the league, IMO. He's had a team in the top 5 in scoring 3 of the last 5 years and been in the top half of the league in scoring in 4 of the last 5.
 
By g/gm:
2015: 22nd
2014: 3rd
2013: 13th
2012: 3rd
2011: 5th
 
Claude has coached some of the most well-rounded teams. We've had problems with the PP, but everything else has been pretty spot on. Roster construction has been an issue, not the coaching.
 
I'm going to bat for this guy because, outside of a handful of coaches, there isn't a better alternative. I think he's wildly underrated here and there is a huge misconception in regards to his coaching style. He's been able to adapt to every roster that Chiarelli has handed him and dealt with devastating losses (the Savard and Bergeron concussions come to mind).

 

[Toe Nash]

I don't know, it seems to have worked pretty well over the last 7 years.

During which they had the best defensive center in the game, a hall of fame d-man, and pretty much always top-3 goaltending...and for much of it, those guys were underpaid.
 
I'm not saying that they didn't do a good job coaching, or filling out the rest of the team -- they usually did -- but it's silly to point to their record. They had a big head start, and we also don't know how the team would have done under a different coach / GM. I guess we have nothing better, but the evaluation should be deeper.
 
In 2010-11, Thomas had 46 goals saved above average according to hockey-reference. The team scored 246 goals and allowed 195. Pythagorean expectation isn't perfect in hockey, but that's an expected point total of 113 (which they under-performed). Replacing Thomas' performance with an average goalie brings them to 246 goals scored / 241 allowed, or an expected point total of 94. 
 
Other seasons weren't quite as extreme, but not really having to worry about your goalie is a huge head start. We saw what happened this year when they had to worry about their backup goalie.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

It's silly to point to their record of success?
 
Haha ok.

 

[Toe Nash]

It's silly to point to their record of success?
 
Haha ok.

Well, Chia was fired for missing the playoffs by a point, so I guess you have company.
 
It's silly to point to that as defense of their team philosophy and give no further evaluation, yes. It's lazy analysis and ignores the huge role that luck can play, or having one great player, etc.
 
Any coach would put Thomas / Rask out there for 65 games and let them do their thing. Any coach would play Bergeron and Chara in the most important situations. Did the focus on toughness and grit help that? I have no idea. Thomas and Rask being amazing certainly helped, though.
 
I don't have the answers. I'm just noting that it's really tough to evaluate and I HOPE that Neely and Jacobs are looking at everything with a detached, analytical eye.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Is the team good because of the goalie or is the goalie good because of the team?
 
You can point to how good Thomas and Rask are all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Julien's system has done wonders for both of them as well. It's a lot easier when the defense is forcing guys to take shots from the outside with bad angles.

 

[timlinin8th]

Is the team good because of the goalie or is the goalie good because of the team?
 
You can point to how good Thomas and Rask are all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Julien's system has done wonders for both of them as well. It's a lot easier when the defense is forcing guys to take shots from the outside with bad angles.

I think this season answered that question - Rask still managed to be pretty decent in spite of the fact that the D in front of him was an absolute atrocity on ice.

 

[BoSoxFink]

I think this season answered that question - Rask still managed to be pretty decent in spite of the fact that the D in front of him was an absolute atrocity on ice.

Aldo, Svedberg was pretty bad when he was in there with that defense in front of him. So there is no doubt Rask is elite no matter wha defense is in front of him.

 

[lexrageorge]

Dave Lewis was given a roster that had Zdeno Chara and Tim Thomas.  Chara would go on to have his worst +/- by far since his early years with the Islanders.  The team gave up the 2nd most goals in the league.
 
The following season, with their top defensive center missing the entire season, the Bruins improved to 4th best in the Eastern Conference in goals allowed.  So coaching is not so slam dunk obvious as simply putting Chara and Bergeron on the ice. 
 
Yes, Julien had a good roster to work with (at least until this year).  But he also got a lot out of that roster; the team consistently produced year after year, despite the usual assortment of injuries, turnover, etc.  There are far worse coaching candidates than Julien.  His system may not be flashy, but it undoubtedly worked with the teams he had.  Julien wasn't the one on Behind the B clamoring for Seguin to be traded. 
 
I do think, rightly or wrongly, that Julien's chances of being back are about 20%, and the only reason they are that high is due to the contract extension he just signed.  Julien was right to criticize the roster he had to work with; whether that criticism was also a shot at Chiarelli, Neely, or both remains to be seen.  

 

[RIFan]

I think this season answered that question - Rask still managed to be pretty decent in spite of the fact that the D in front of him was an absolute atrocity on ice.

And Chad Johnson reverted back to a pumpkin away from the Bruins. Rask is elite, but he benefits from the system. The reality is the system and the goalie are symbiotic. Neither works without a level of competence from the other.

 

[TheRealness]

YES!
 
Can anyone name one player the Bruins have been stuck with because of a NMC?
 
Even a rumor of a guy they tried to move but the player was unwilling to waive a NMC?
 
Can't think of one instance, yet the caterwauling from the fans/Felgers on them is incessant.
 
If they aren't complete non-issues, they're damn close.
 
I get kicking Chiarelli for drafts, the Seguin trade, but the NMCs I will never understand.
 
Wish they gave Chiarelli another year, but looks like his fate was cast with Jacobs earlier comments.
 
Thanks for the Cup Peter! Flags fly forever.

 
Chris Kelly is your answer to the first two questions. Kelly also forced them to trade Boychuk instead of him (they were making similar money), because what is essentially at best a 3rd line checker got a NMC. Look, Kelly has value, but in no universe should someone like that get any semblance of a NMC. 
 
Seidenberg indicated he'd be willing to waive his NMC, at least I recall that being the story, but by and large the NMC issue is tied directly to Kelly. Being able to move him when you had fairly redundant players on the roster (Paille, Campbell, etc.) was a large component of being forced to trade Boychuck. If Seidenberg didn't have a NMC, they might have been able to deal him, although I would expect the return on that would be... lacking.
 
As an aside, most of the Lucic to Edmonton talk for Hall was scuttled because there is no universe where Lucic is waiving his NMC to go to Edmonton. 
 
Also, I would be very interested to learn how many NMCs per team there are. I would expect the Bruins number of 8 (if that's an accurate number) would be in the top percentage of the league. Unfortunately, there isn't a very viable source for tracking other team's NMCs that I am aware of. 

 

[kenneycb]

And Chad Johnson reverted back to a pumpkin away from the Bruins. Rask is elite, but he benefits from the system. The reality is the system and the goalie are symbiotic. Neither works without a level of competence from the other.

Alex Auld was a competent goalie for the B's.  Alex Auld.

 

[TeddyBallgame'sDirtbagSon]

Svedberg was poop but the team in front of him this season wasn't as good of a possession team as in years past. The relative success of Chad Johnson and Khudobin make a good case for giving credit to the system.

 

[kenneycb]

 
Chris Kelly is your answer to the first two questions. Kelly also forced them to trade Boychuk instead of him (they were making similar money), because what is essentially at best a 3rd line checker got a NMC. Look, Kelly has value, but in no universe should someone like that get any semblance of a NMC. 
 
Seidenberg indicated he'd be willing to waive his NMC, at least I recall that being the story, but by and large the NMC issue is tied directly to Kelly. Being able to move him when you had fairly redundant players on the roster (Paille, Campbell, etc.) was a large component of being forced to trade Boychuck. If Seidenberg didn't have a NMC, they might have been able to deal him, although I would expect the return on that would be... lacking.
 
As an aside, most of the Lucic to Edmonton talk for Hall was scuttled because there is no universe where Lucic is waiving his NMC to go to Edmonton. 
 
Also, I would be very interested to learn how many NMCs per team there are. I would expect the Bruins number of 8 (if that's an accurate number) would be in the top percentage of the league. Unfortunately, there isn't a very viable source for tracking other team's NMCs that I am aware of. 

Not sure the accuracy but here's a listing of NMC's and NTC's.  By cursory glance, B's look to be in the middle to high end, with more NMCs than most.
 
http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html

 

[Red Right Ankle]

 
Chris Kelly is your answer to the first two questions. Kelly also forced them to trade Boychuk instead of him (they were making similar money), because what is essentially at best a 3rd line checker got a NMC. Look, Kelly has value, but in no universe should someone like that get any semblance of a NMC. 
 
Seidenberg indicated he'd be willing to waive his NMC, at least I recall that being the story, but by and large the NMC issue is tied directly to Kelly. Being able to move him when you had fairly redundant players on the roster (Paille, Campbell, etc.) was a large component of being forced to trade Boychuck. If Seidenberg didn't have a NMC, they might have been able to deal him, although I would expect the return on that would be... lacking.
 
As an aside, most of the Lucic to Edmonton talk for Hall was scuttled because there is no universe where Lucic is waiving his NMC to go to Edmonton. 
 
Also, I would be very interested to learn how many NMCs per team there are. I would expect the Bruins number of 8 (if that's an accurate number) would be in the top percentage of the league. Unfortunately, there isn't a very viable source for tracking other team's NMCs that I am aware of. 

From the Post Mortem thread:
 

 
 
Just to follow up on this, the average number of players with NTCs/NMCs per team is 6 for the 2014-15 season.  The Bs have 9.  They are on the higher end, but not wildly so.  The teams with an above average number besides Boston are a varied bunch, some good, some bad: CHI, ANA, PHI, PIT, VAN, MIN, SJ, WAS, DAL, NYR, FLA.  

Source was the link Kenney posted.

 

[kenneycb]

I feel bad for the Fightin' Mike Fords knowing they have Ruutuu and Clowe on NMC.  Well, not really.  But I find it funny that they do,

 

[RIFan]

 
Chris Kelly is your answer to the first two questions. Kelly also forced them to trade Boychuk instead of him (they were making similar money), because what is essentially at best a 3rd line checker got a NMC. Look, Kelly has value, but in no universe should someone like that get any semblance of a NMC. 
 
Seidenberg indicated he'd be willing to waive his NMC, at least I recall that being the story, but by and large the NMC issue is tied directly to Kelly. Being able to move him when you had fairly redundant players on the roster (Paille, Campbell, etc.) was a large component of being forced to trade Boychuck. If Seidenberg didn't have a NMC, they might have been able to deal him, although I would expect the return on that would be... lacking.
 
As an aside, most of the Lucic to Edmonton talk for Hall was scuttled because there is no universe where Lucic is waiving his NMC to go to Edmonton. 
 
Also, I would be very interested to learn how many NMCs per team there are. I would expect the Bruins number of 8 (if that's an accurate number) would be in the top percentage of the league. Unfortunately, there isn't a very viable source for tracking other team's NMCs that I am aware of. 

For the record, Boychuk also had an NTC through the start of last season.

Kelly's NMC was for a list of 8 teams of his choosing. He could have submitted that on June 1st or within 24 hours of being requested so by the Bruins. The NMC did not stop the Bruins from moving him. Boychuk undoubtedly had more value in a trade and the fact they would not have been able to retain him after the season were much more the factors in him getting moved than Kelly's salary.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 

Adam Jones ‏@adamjones985  22s23 seconds ago
Via Stephen Harris, Rangers Asst. GM -- and former B's interim GM -- Jeff Gorton joins Sweeney and Shero as possible Chiarelli replacements.
 

 

[TheRealness]

For the record, Boychuk also had an NTC through the start of last season.

Kelly's NMC was for a list of 8 teams of his choosing. He could have submitted that on June 1st or within 24 hours of being requested so by the Bruins. The NMC did not stop the Bruins from moving him. Boychuk undoubtedly had more value in a trade and the fact they would not have been able to retain him after the season were much more the factors in him getting moved than Kelly's salary.

 
Boychuk having more value is the point. He also had more value to the Bruins, as this epic disaster of a season demonstrated. Boychuk may not have returned due to the inflated salary he would have got as a UFA, but this season demonstrated trading him prior to the season was, IMO, a mistake. 
 
Do you think the Bruins would have missed Kelly more than Boychuk? Because that is insane to me. 
 
And I disagree the NMC stopped the Bruins from moving Kelly. We will never know whether he was asked to waive anything, or whether the interest on him was from one of those 8 teams, who were likely lower cap teams who could have fit a role player at Kelly's salary in the system. 
 
IMO, because that is all we are arguing about at this point, opinions, the Kelly NMC forced them to have to look elsewhere to get cap relief when he was the exact guy they should have dealt to get that relief and hang on to Boychuk. 

 

[catomatic]

Boychuk was definitely more valuable to the team than Kelly—not many dispute that, but my own opinion is the brass was guilty of way overestimating Kevan Miller's ability to fill Johnny's shoes. I think they thought they might have a redundancy there and, injuries aside, I think they were wrong.

 

[kenneycb]

Boychuk was definitely more valuable to the team than Kelly—not many dispute that, but my own opinion is the brass was guilty of way overestimating Kevan Miller's ability to fill Johnny's shoes. I think they thought they might have a redundancy there and, injuries aside, I think they were wrong.

My guess is that's what Cam's quote about the young D not stepping up in camp alluded to.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Boychuk having more value is the point. He also had more value to the Bruins, as this epic disaster of a season demonstrated. Boychuk may not have returned due to the inflated salary he would have got as a UFA, but this season demonstrated trading him prior to the season was, IMO, a mistake. 
 
Do you think the Bruins would have missed Kelly more than Boychuk? Because that is insane to me. 
 
And I disagree the NMC stopped the Bruins from moving Kelly. We will never know whether he was asked to waive anything, or whether the interest on him was from one of those 8 teams, who were likely lower cap teams who could have fit a role player at Kelly's salary in the system. 
 
IMO, because that is all we are arguing about at this point, opinions, the Kelly NMC forced them to have to look elsewhere to get cap relief when he was the exact guy they should have dealt to get that relief and hang on to Boychuk. 

There were a number of factors that went into the Boychuk trade that went well beyond Kelly's limited NMC.  
 
For example, Boychuk was able to net the Bruins a 2nd round pick, an asset that Chiarelli figured he could use at the trade deadline.  Chris Kelly:  the pick would likely have been a much later round.  
 
The Bruins also assumed that Hamilton and Krug would continue to develop (a correct assumption), that Chara would be healthy (incorrect), and that they had decent depth in Providence that could help them (unfortunately, mostly incorrect).  Kelly certainly would have been more easily replaced, but I believe they figured they could weather the loss of Boychuk better than they did. 
 
We really don't know how much a factor, if any, Kelly's NMC was.  But Kelly's contract is hardly the albatross it's being made to be. 

 

[burstnbloom]

Shinzawa piece today:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/15/cam-neely-makes-power-move-bruins-begin-reshaping-for-future/234InOfuBUfSTqdVjKRHRL/story.html#

I don't think there is any chance Julien is back. Neely wanted to fire him after the Carolina debacle, but didn't have the authority. He does now. They're just angling for some compensation with Julien.

Cam is certainly consolidating his power. I hope he knows what he is doing. It's all on him now.

 
Fluto, in my opinion, is not one to just throw crap against the wall and hope it sticks, so this article is a little alarming to me.  I hope Neely knows what he is doing here.  

 

[RIFan]

 
Boychuk having more value is the point. He also had more value to the Bruins, as this epic disaster of a season demonstrated. Boychuk may not have returned due to the inflated salary he would have got as a UFA, but this season demonstrated trading him prior to the season was, IMO, a mistake. 
 
Do you think the Bruins would have missed Kelly more than Boychuk? Because that is insane to me. 
 
And I disagree the NMC stopped the Bruins from moving Kelly. We will never know whether he was asked to waive anything, or whether the interest on him was from one of those 8 teams, who were likely lower cap teams who could have fit a role player at Kelly's salary in the system. 
 
IMO, because that is all we are arguing about at this point, opinions, the Kelly NMC forced them to have to look elsewhere to get cap relief when he was the exact guy they should have dealt to get that relief and hang on to Boychuk. 

 
 

Boychuk was definitely more valuable to the team than Kelly—not many dispute that, but my own opinion is the brass was guilty of way overestimating Kevan Miller's ability to fill Johnny's shoes. I think they thought they might have a redundancy there and, injuries aside, I think they were wrong.

 
 

My guess is that's what Cam's quote about the young D not stepping up in camp alluded to.

Agree with both.  Considering that Chia was up against the clock to move salary, 2 seconds and a third were a very good haul for Boychuk.  For all we know, he had other options to clear salary but the combo of the return plus the (misguided) faith that the D was deep and stable enough to offset the loss of Boychuk.  There wasn't an awful lot of dissenting opinion that the B's had the deepest group of defensemen in years.  The prior few seasons they had always been able to plug in guys when necessary and get a decent level of performance from them.     Defensively, the loss of Boychuk wasn't even one of the top reasons for what happened this year.  The injury to Chara, the failure of Seidenburg to come close to prior form and the drop in defensive play from the forwards all killed them more than the Boychuk / Miller "swap". 
 
Like all trades for future's the jury's still out. Maybe they pull a Bergeron out of this or maybe it's a Knight.  Time will tell.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

I think this season answered that question - Rask still managed to be pretty decent in spite of the fact that the D in front of him was an absolute atrocity on ice.

Really? Because Rask was dogshit for the first half of the season.

 

[Reardon's Beard]

Make no mistake this is Cam Neely's team from here on out. From the body language and the terrible answers from the owner, all I got out of that press conference was that Jacobs has saddled Neely and he's the horse from now on, for better or for worse.

 

[McDrew]

Really? Because Rask was dogshit for the first half of the season.

 
Until Chara got back and got into rhythm, Rask was behind defenders who were generally one slot too high.  Anyone know where I can go to find corsi/fenwick stats for parts of seasons?  I'd love to see the numbers overall for the bruins pre-Chara's return, the month following, and the rest of the season.

 

[mcpickl]

 
Chris Kelly is your answer to the first two questions. Kelly also forced them to trade Boychuk instead of him (they were making similar money), because what is essentially at best a 3rd line checker got a NMC. Look, Kelly has value, but in no universe should someone like that get any semblance of a NMC. 
 
Seidenberg indicated he'd be willing to waive his NMC, at least I recall that being the story, but by and large the NMC issue is tied directly to Kelly. Being able to move him when you had fairly redundant players on the roster (Paille, Campbell, etc.) was a large component of being forced to trade Boychuck. If Seidenberg didn't have a NMC, they might have been able to deal him, although I would expect the return on that would be... lacking.
 
As an aside, most of the Lucic to Edmonton talk for Hall was scuttled because there is no universe where Lucic is waiving his NMC to go to Edmonton. 
 
Also, I would be very interested to learn how many NMCs per team there are. I would expect the Bruins number of 8 (if that's an accurate number) would be in the top percentage of the league. Unfortunately, there isn't a very viable source for tracking other team's NMCs that I am aware of. 

Unless you have some evidence of a team attempting to trade for Chris Kelly and him being unwilling to waive his NMC, this is just straight up false.
 
No one is arguing that Kelly had more value to the Bruins than Boychuck, but considerably more goes into deciding who to move than who is the better player.
 
Kelly finished the 2013-14 season injured. He had back surgery last spring. To expect anyone to trade for him, NMC or not, seems unrealistic. He could not be bought out.
 
Boychuck had enough value to net you two valuable picks, was sure to walk after the season, and with four right shot defensemen on your roster in Boychuck, Hamilton, McQuaid and Miller one was going to have to go anyway. Hamilton wasn't leaving, McQuaid and Miller wouldn't have saved much cap space or returned much value in a trade, McQuaid no return because he was coming off an injury as well.
 
I think Boychuck was always going to have to be the one to go.

 

[sjaustin77]

 
Until Chara got back and got into rhythm, Rask was behind defenders who were generally one slot too high.  Anyone know where I can go to find corsi/fenwick stats for parts of seasons?  I'd love to see the numbers overall for the bruins pre-Chara's return, the month following, and the rest of the season.

http://war-on-ice.com/
 
Go to the team dropdown for what you are looking for.
 
That site is great for having everything all on one page for either teams, or players. It lets you do any situation, Home/Away, include playoffs, sortable by dates, season, etc. Has graphics or tables that are downloadable. 
 
I checked the first 41 games vs the last 41 and the Bruins had better possession numbers in the first half. Rask had a .913 in the first half and .931 in the 2nd half behind a worse team. 
 
I think Rask has shown this season overall with a .9224 SVPct, especially in the last half that he doesn't rely on any certain system or need a great team in front of him. The rest of his career shows it too across a variety of teams and leagues. He is around mid .925 every place he has played. His total numbers combining playoffs and regular season are; .924 in Finland, .925 in Czech, .927 in NHL, .938 in the last Olympics. His lowest in any significant sample size is .914 in the AHL as a young player, but the last season was .915 and then .930 in the playoffs. 

 

[sjaustin77]

As for Chiarelli; I thought he deserved another year based on the past success, but don't have the necessary information what his strategy was going forward or how he use analytics. I don't think he uses them as much as I would like. I think the worst move was trading Boychuk. Not that they didn't get enough, but that they needed exactly what he provides - mainly possession, but also hitting, blocked shots, size, toughness, heart & character. They really turned 1 year of control of an almost 31 year old upcoming free agent getting big money into Connolly, who I think will be a good acquisition. 
 
Injuries and under performance were the biggest problems this year. Krejci, Chara, Bergeron, Lucic & Smith scored 41 less goals this year. If they were healthy and performed close to normal the Bruins would still be playing. Going forward they need a better Defense that drives possession, which will help the forwards tremendously. 

 

[mcpickl]

The loss of talent is absolutely an issue, but that has nothing to do with their style of play. The system that Julien employs is a very effective way to play and I don't agree at all that teams have figured it out to the degree that you're saying. I think, as you point out, they didn't have the horses to pull it off this year. Julien's system requires a strong roster from top to bottom and for guys to play well in their own end.
 
There's a reason the GM was fired and not the coach (yet anyway). The problem was with roster construction, not the style of play.

Agreed.
 
It's frustrating how much crap the media flings at Claude that fans just take as gospel.
 
Three in particular aggravate me.
 
1. That Claude can't develop young players. I believe that to be false based on all the young players he's played here, but that's subjective.
 
The other two can be proven false just by taking a small amount of time to look at stats.
 
2. Claude holds back his players from scoring goals.
3. Claude plays his fourth line more than other coaches.
 
A quick look at goals scored/ice time stats just prove those two statements false. Yet they get said constantly.

 

[TheRealness]

Unless you have some evidence of a team attempting to trade for Chris Kelly and him being unwilling to waive his NMC, this is just straight up false.
 
No one is arguing that Kelly had more value to the Bruins than Boychuck, but considerably more goes into deciding who to move than who is the better player.
 
Kelly finished the 2013-14 season injured. He had back surgery last spring. To expect anyone to trade for him, NMC or not, seems unrealistic. He could not be bought out.
 
Boychuck had enough value to net you two valuable picks, was sure to walk after the season, and with four right shot defensemen on your roster in Boychuck, Hamilton, McQuaid and Miller one was going to have to go anyway. Hamilton wasn't leaving, McQuaid and Miller wouldn't have saved much cap space or returned much value in a trade, McQuaid no return because he was coming off an injury as well.
 
I think Boychuck was always going to have to be the one to go.

I have the same amount of evidence to say he was asked if he would waive it, as you do that he wasn't. The problem is the fact he even has to ask in the first place when Kelly is a third line role player who is very much replaceable. He should have been able to deal him for flotsam if it helped them keep Boychuk for one more year. They were a Stanley Cup contending team, and they dealt their second best defenseman before the season because he was an impending free agent, and they were up against the cap. At the time I certainly hoped their other defenseman would step up, but their completely failure to do so is just one more part of the problem. The fact remains they should have never been forced to deal him in the first place. You don't trade your second best defenseman for cap space. Teams would have at least wanted to add a guy like Kelly, even if they didn't want to pay anything of worth to get him, and trading him would have alleviated the cap burden that caused Boychuk to be dealt.

I see your point in looking at the NMC numbers around the NHL that the Bruins issues with them can be overblown, but in this situation I absolutely believed it played a role in the Boychuk bungling.

 

[mcpickl]

I have the same amount of evidence to say he was asked if he would waive it, as you do that he wasn't. The problem is the fact he even has to ask in the first place when Kelly is a third line role player who is very much replaceable. He should have been able to deal him for flotsam if it helped them keep Boychuk for one more year. They were a Stanley Cup contending team, and they dealt their second best defenseman before the season because he was an impending free agent, and they were up against the cap. At the time I certainly hoped their other defenseman would step up, but their completely failure to do so is just one more part of the problem. The fact remains they should have never been forced to deal him in the first place. You don't trade your second best defenseman for cap space. Teams would have at least wanted to add a guy like Kelly, even if they didn't want to pay anything of worth to get him, and trading him would have alleviated the cap burden that caused Boychuk to be dealt.

I see your point in looking at the NMC numbers around the NHL that the Bruins issues with them can be overblown, but in this situation I absolutely believed it played a role in the Boychuk bungling.

Except you don't.
 
I have as evidence that his NMC wasn't an issue in dealing him is that with the piles of rumor mongerers covering the NHL not one has even reported a single rumor that Kelly was asked to waive it. For further evidence, Kelly does not have a full NMC. It's limited. Not sure the exact amount of teams, but he can be traded without consent to a certain amount. So it's impossible his NMC is the only thing blocking a trade as you theorize. The next player the Bruins, or any other team in the NHL, is stuck with due to a NMC will be the first. It's never happened.
 
Your evidence he has been asked to move his NMC?

 

[TheRealness]

Except you don't.
 
I have as evidence that his NMC wasn't an issue in dealing him is that with the piles of rumor mongerers covering the NHL not one has even reported a single rumor that Kelly was asked to waive it. For further evidence, Kelly does not have a full NMC. It's limited. Not sure the exact amount of teams, but he can be traded without consent to a certain amount. So it's impossible his NMC is the only thing blocking a trade as you theorize. The next player the Bruins, or any other team in the NHL, is stuck with due to a NMC will be the first. It's never happened.
 
Your evidence he has been asked to move his NMC?

So we should take rumor mongerers like Eklund as our primary source of truth? The fact they didn't report he was asked isn't evidence it wasn't an issue in the Boychuk deal. You have sourced literally nothing in your post other than repeating he had a limited NMC. And it's impossible to know who was interested and who was not without getting Chiarelli to talk, and whether the interested teams were on that list that even you don't know who is on.

And do you really think players negotiate for NMCs just so they can waive them whenever they are politely asked? That's completely counter intuitive to the purpose of having a NMC.