Peter Chiarelli fired; Claude and coaching staff stays

[mcpickl]

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.

No. I think they have them to have a say in where they get traded, since picking a team to go to is what they gave up when they were willing to forgo unrestricted free agency. Probably in some cases, it's deciding when they get traded as well. I'd imagine some guys with families might not want to uproot their lives mid-season.
 
Not so they can just say I'm staying on this team whether you want me or not, because I love staying in a place that doesn't want me anymore. I think that sounds absurd.
 
You can ignore all the rumor mongerers if you wish. So I'll ask a different way. If these NMCs are such anchors that you'd have me believe, shouldn't we be able to name one guy a team has been stuck with that wouldn't leave? Just one. If there is a guy a team is desperately trying to move, but the guy won't go, you don't think anyone from his team would leak that out? There aren't Larry Lucchinos' in the NHL? What would they have to lose by leaking that info if they desperately don't want the guy and the only thing stopping a move is the NMC? Is it really reasonable that there are guys who fit that criteria and we've never heard anything? Ever? On any guy?

 

[kenneycb]

Wrong thread. I like the cut of your jib mckpickl.

 

[kenneycb]

See above.  All hail Sheriff Shane Hnidy

 

[TheRealness]

No. I think they have them to have a say in where they get traded, since picking a team to go to is what they gave up when they were willing to forgo unrestricted free agency. Probably in some cases, it's deciding when they get traded as well. I'd imagine some guys with families might not want to uproot their lives mid-season.
 
Not so they can just say I'm staying on this team whether you want me or not, because I love staying in a place that doesn't want me anymore. I think that sounds absurd.
 
You can ignore all the rumor mongerers if you wish. So I'll ask a different way. If these NMCs are such anchors that you'd have me believe, shouldn't we be able to name one guy a team has been stuck with that wouldn't leave? Just one. If there is a guy a team is desperately trying to move, but the guy won't go, you don't think anyone from his team would leak that out? There aren't Larry Lucchinos' in the NHL? What would they have to lose by leaking that info if they desperately don't want the guy and the only thing stopping a move is the NMC? Is it really reasonable that there are guys who fit that criteria and we've never heard anything? Ever? On any guy?

I think it's absurd to think that a NMC is negotiated for just so it can be waived whenever it is convenient for the club. It's precisely negotiated so a player like Chris Kelly can stay in the city he wants. If players just kowtowed to whatever the GM of a team wants because it's more convenient for them to trade the player, then why negotiate for the NMC to begin with? It's ridiculous to assign no value or importance to the NMC.

 

[jsinger121]

NMC should only be given out to elite and upper tier players. Playes like Chris Kelly should never get NMC and if they ask for it in negotiations the organization should tell them to F off.

 

[jk333]

I think the Bruins decided they had too many defensemen. They overrated Bartkowski/Miller and decided they couldn't have them in Providence to begin the year. Boychuk provided the best return and then most cap relief of the dmen.
 
We know how that turned out. In retrospect, they should have looked to deal Kelly/Campbell and one of the D above. My question is, why wait so long to trade Boychuk? If there's a cap crunch, other GMs must know and your position doesn't get better as the deadline approaches. It was the opposite of the Smith/Krug signings where they did not need to make a move.

 

[RIFan]

I think the Bruins decided they had too many defensemen. They overrated Bartkowski/Miller and decided they couldn't have them in Providence to begin the year. Boychuk provided the best return and then most cap relief of the dmen.
 
We know how that turned out. In retrospect, they should have looked to deal Kelly/Campbell and one of the D above. My question is, why wait so long to trade Boychuk? If there's a cap crunch, other GMs must know and your position doesn't get better as the deadline approaches. It was the opposite of the Smith/Krug signings where they did not need to make a move.

I think it's highly likely that they were shopping other players in addition to Boychuk. If they didn't get an acceptable offer for anyone they would have assigned a contract to Prov to create space. The return for Boychuk was inarguably good. If they didn't get that level of return with the expectation of backfilling him at close to his production level the deal most likely doesn't go down. I've been a big Boychuk fanboy, but let's not act like he was ever a shut down D and Norris trophy candidate.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I think the Bruins decided they had too many defensemen. They overrated Bartkowski/Miller and decided they couldn't have them in Providence to begin the year. Boychuk provided the best return and then most cap relief of the dmen.
 
We know how that turned out. In retrospect, they should have looked to deal Kelly/Campbell and one of the D above. My question is, why wait so long to trade Boychuk? If there's a cap crunch, other GMs must know and your position doesn't get better as the deadline approaches. It was the opposite of the Smith/Krug signings where they did not need to make a move.

This is an aside, but one thing that struck me is the value Boychuk would have commanded at the deadline - he was clearly worth more than a 1st round pick. That's neither here nor there - it's hard to envision a scenario where the Bruins would have both kept Boychuk in September and then dealt him at the deadline.

The other thing the Boychuk situation tells us, though, is that Chiarelli put down a huge bet on the wrong horse - Boychuk is the guy that should have been extended instead of Seidenberg.

That could just be they way things turned out in hindsight or it could be a case of poor evaluation of the talent they had on hand. I know some people had concerns about the length and term of the Seidenberg deal when it happened, before his ACL.

The "only missed the playoffs once in 8 years" may be a more fair statement about Julien than Chiarelli. In Peter's case, there's an argument that he built one excellent team core but botched the transition to the next one. In a sense, getting fired now may be the best thing that happened to Chiarelli because all he has to "own" now is one near playoff miss.

Also, anyone think Chiarelli could be gone now because Neely/Bruins wanted a change in coach and Chiarelli stuck by his "of he goes, I go" statement?

 

[jk333]

I think it's highly likely that they were shopping other players in addition to Boychuk. If they didn't get an acceptable offer for anyone they would have assigned a contract to Prov to create space. The return for Boychuk was inarguably good. If they didn't get that level of return with the expectation of backfilling him at close to his production level the deal most likely doesn't go down. I've been a big Boychuk fanboy, but let's not act like he was ever a shut down D and Norris trophy candidate.

 
This sounds correct; the return was good but the move hurt the roster of this year's team more than could be expected. It does lead toward Eddie's point below.
 
 

The other thing the Boychuk situation tells us, though, is that Chiarelli put down a huge bet on the wrong horse - Boychuk is the guy that should have been extended instead of Seidenberg.

That could just be they way things turned out in hindsight or it could be a case of poor evaluation of the talent they had on hand. I know some people had concerns about the length and term of the Seidenberg deal when it happened, before his ACL.

Also, anyone think Chiarelli could be gone now because Neely/Bruins wanted a change in coach and Chiarelli stuck by his "of he goes, I go" statement?

The bolded is very important. The advanced stats like Boychuk better than Seidenberg. He was also a couple years younger but commanded a longer contract. It's impossible to know if Chiarelli tried to sign Boychuk first and then went for a shorter contract with Seidenberg or if they preferred Seidenberg. On the scouting/projection side of things, Seidenberg and McQuaids regression have hurt.

 

[lexrageorge]

I think we need to consider the fact that when Kelly was resigned, he was either in the middle of or just coming off a 20 goal season in which he collected votes for the Selke trophy.  $3M seemed very reasonable at the time for that level of production, and if the NMC only contained 8 teams, it's hard to see how that made him untradeable last summer.  As noted above by multiple posters, the choice likely came down to either Boychuk for 2nd rounder, and either Kelly or Kelly+prospect for low round pick.  
 
Also, it is still likely that Boychuk is going to be highly overpaid by some GM this coming offseason, so the chances of his staying with Boston past this season were essentially nil.  
 
If there is a criticism to be had, it's that Chiarelli kept a couple of players around too long.  Some of that, however, was directly influenced by the team's "win now" strategy, especially after their 2011 title.  And Jacobs comments in January made it very clear that the "win now" was an organizational decision from the very top.  Finally, if you going to criticize Chiarelli for keeping players too long, you cannot criticize him for letting Michael Ryder walk.  
 

Also, anyone think Chiarelli could be gone now because Neely/Bruins wanted a change in coach and Chiarelli stuck by his "of he goes, I go" statement? 

 
I doubt this for 2 reasons.  One is that by their comments at the end of the season, it's not clear Julien and Chiarelli were on the same page.  The other is that Julien would be gone by now if that was the case.  

 

[TSC]

 
 
Also, it is still likely that Boychuk is going to be highly overpaid by some GM this coming offseason, 

 
I'll put $10 on you being wrong here.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I'll put $10 on you being wrong here.

Woops, my bad.  It's already happened.  
 
7 years?  Given that the NHL salary cap seems stagnant for both the near and distant future, that contract has just as much of a chance of becoming an albatross as Seidenberg's did a couple years back.  

 

[McDrew]

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. 

 
Thank you for proving me wrong with facts, as well as giving me the place you were able to do it.  My criticism will be more factual going forward. 

 

[Red Right Ankle]

The team was basically the same by Fenwick (which doesn't count blocked shots and so is probably a little better indication of how difficult Rask (and Svedberg had it) first half to second half - 50.9% and 50.5% respectively.  Also, the difference in Corsi that sjaustin cites as meaning they were a worse team from the 1st half to the second was 1.5%.  That's not as marginal as it seems at first glance (the difference between the best and worst teams is only about 18%) but it's not massive either.  So, at best, there's mixed returns on whether the team was truly "worse" on the possession front from the 1st to the 2nd half especially vis a vis Rask's performance.  
 
There is little doubt in my mind about sjaustin's concluding paragraph though.  Rask had a bad first half and a very good second and ended up about where he usually is.  Perhaps if he had been more consistent this year they'd be in the playoffs, but when you miss by very little, there are lots of little nits to pick.

 

[j44thor]

No. I think they have them to have a say in where they get traded, since picking a team to go to is what they gave up when they were willing to forgo unrestricted free agency. Probably in some cases, it's deciding when they get traded as well. I'd imagine some guys with families might not want to uproot their lives mid-season.
 
Not so they can just say I'm staying on this team whether you want me or not, because I love staying in a place that doesn't want me anymore. I think that sounds absurd.
 
You can ignore all the rumor mongerers if you wish. So I'll ask a different way. If these NMCs are such anchors that you'd have me believe, shouldn't we be able to name one guy a team has been stuck with that wouldn't leave? Just one. If there is a guy a team is desperately trying to move, but the guy won't go, you don't think anyone from his team would leak that out? There aren't Larry Lucchinos' in the NHL? What would they have to lose by leaking that info if they desperately don't want the guy and the only thing stopping a move is the NMC? Is it really reasonable that there are guys who fit that criteria and we've never heard anything? Ever? On any guy?

 
Google can be useful.
Jason Spezza at the draft last year refused a trade to Nashville.

 

[RIFan]

 
Google can be useful.
Jason Spezza at the draft last year refused a trade to Nashville.

I get that you were responding to a specific challenge, but they were ultimately able to trade him to Dallas a week later.  You also have to keep the whole thing in context.  It was public knowledge that Spezza wanted out of Ottawa.  The public airing of the failed trade helped show that the team was trying to accommodate him and get good value back.  

 

[j44thor]

I get that you were responding to a specific challenge, but they were ultimately able to trade him to Dallas a week later.  You also have to keep the whole thing in context.  It was public knowledge that Spezza wanted out of Ottawa.  The public airing of the failed trade helped show that the team was trying to accommodate him and get good value back.  

 
Well sure but since he refused the initial trade I'm going to assume OTT probably settled for a bit less from Dallas otherwise why accept the NAS package?
 
The point is players don't waive a NMC out of the goodness of their heart.  They waive it to go to a better situation.  If you are already on a contending Bruins team, how many other teams are you going to accept a trade to that also have the cap space?  Does anyone think Boychuk would have waived a NMC if he had one to go to NYI?  

 

[NickEsasky]

I think we need to consider the fact that when Kelly was resigned, he was either in the middle of or just coming off a 20 goal season in which he collected votes for the Selke trophy.  $3M seemed very reasonable at the time for that level of production, and if the NMC only contained 8 teams, it's hard to see how that made him untradeable last summer.
 

I think this is part of the problem with Chia. A guy would have a career year and he would pay them like that was the new baseline usually a year before he had to. See also' Lucic, and Smith as other examples. 

 

[RIFan]

 
Well sure but since he refused the initial trade I'm going to assume OTT probably settled for a bit less from Dallas otherwise why accept the NAS package?
 
The point is players don't waive a NMC out of the goodness of their heart.  They waive it to go to a better situation.  If you are already on a contending Bruins team, how many other teams are you going to accept a trade to that also have the cap space?  Does anyone think Boychuk would have waived a NMC if he had one to go to NYI?  

The premise was that an NMC isn't the level of barrier to moving a player that some are making it out to be. You might not be able to extract the best deal, but if the primary goal is to move the player it can be done. A bag of pucks might be an acceptable return if cap space is the primary motive. There is no question that the NMC has value to a player. They don't get it for free, it's a deal closer that probably cost them some level of salary.

 

[RIFan]

I think this is part of the problem with Chia. A guy would have a career year and he would pay them like that was the new baseline usually a year before he had to. See also' Lucic, and Smith as other examples. 

Agree on Kelly. Lucic isn't a good example. He bought up a few years of UFA for a guy who's salary trajectory was heading north of $6m. At his age you would definitely be paying for future performance. The contract wasn't a bargain, but given the scarcity of power forwards he would have exceeded $6m if he reached UFA (see O'Reilly, Ryan). Smith, I have no idea.

 

[lexrageorge]

Lucic had a pretty good year last year, and followed that up by scoring 4 goals against the Red Wings in the opening playoff series.  His contract looked bad this past season, but that's because he looked really bad.  His regression at age 26 was not expected by anyone.  Why it happened is still a mystery, but I refuse to pin that one on Chiarelli.  

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Lucic had a pretty good year last year, and followed that up by scoring 4 goals against the Red Wings in the opening playoff series.  His contract looked bad this past season, but that's because he looked really bad.  His regression at age 26 was not expected by anyone.  Why it happened is still a mystery, but I refuse to pin that one on Chiarelli.  

He's been trick or treat though for years. He's played 8 seasons and has been a big disappointment in 3 of them.

 

[DJnVa]

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

 
 
 
I think it was more a bad month of December than the first half of the season. He wasn't bad in Oct/Nov but struggled in December (4-4, 2.98 GAA, .896 save percentage).
 
Then from Jan on his save percentage would have been second in the NHL.

 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I believe Lucic is a guy who needs to be 100% physically right in order to be an on-ice stud. That's not a shot at his mental strength at all: Lucic plays a heavy, physical hard-hitting game. He's not fast afoot, not the best skater, not the smoothest shooter. To be effective he needs to get dirty and hit and grind and camp out in front of the net and pick up the trash. If he's battling various ailments, I don't think he's able to be nearly as effective because his game is so physical, and he's never going to be able to create his own space by skating away from or around defenders.
 
So my guess is that in his down years he's been fighting moderate injuries.

 

[lexrageorge]

One of those "down" years occurred when he was 21 and was battling injury most of the season.  Another one happened during the lockout year, which for the most part should be thrown out, and some of that was due to variation in shot percentage.  But he was good in the post season that year.  
 
I agree with SJH for the most part; Lucic does need to be healthy to be effective, and staying healthy is a risk for him given his style of game.  But this past season he did seem healthy, so it's still a mystery.  But I don't think anyone can really blame Chiarelli for extending Lucic; had he left as a free agent, this board would have burned down. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

One of those "down" years occurred when he was 21 and was battling injury most of the season.  Another one happened during the lockout year, which for the most part should be thrown out, and some of that was due to variation in shot percentage. 

In other words, "I like the guy so let's explain away his failings"?

 

[veritas]

The team was basically the same by Fenwick (which doesn't count blocked shots and so is probably a little better indication of how difficult Rask (and Svedberg had it) first half to second half - 50.9% and 50.5% respectively.  Also, the difference in Corsi that sjaustin cites as meaning they were a worse team from the 1st half to the second was 1.5%.  That's not as marginal as it seems at first glance (the difference between the best and worst teams is only about 18%) but it's not massive either.  So, at best, there's mixed returns on whether the team was truly "worse" on the possession front from the 1st to the 2nd half especially vis a vis Rask's performance.  
 
There is little doubt in my mind about sjaustin's concluding paragraph though.  Rask had a bad first half and a very good second and ended up about where he usually is.  Perhaps if he had been more consistent this year they'd be in the playoffs, but when you miss by very little, there are lots of little nits to pick.

 
I wonder if any of that difference is due to Chara having a significant effect on shot quality against.
 
It's a really difficult thing to quantify, but doing some quick math, Tuukka's goals allowed per shot attempt was 0.040 with Chara on the ice, and 0.038 without him. Which is very slightly worse with Chara. But when you factor in Chara's QoC which is generally among the highest in the league (don't have time to look it up at the moment), and the trickle down effect that has on the defense as a whole, there may be something to that.
 
edit: those numbers are 5v5 only

 

[lexrageorge]

In other words, "I like the guy so let's explain away his failings"?

No, I was explaining why his contract was extended for 3 years at roughly $6M AAV, and why that was a very reasonable course of action at the time.  I made that point fairly obvious in my posts. 
 
And I certainly am not defending Lucic for his 18 goals this past season; that level of production from a guy like Lucic is inexcusable if he was healthy (and I haven't heard anything to the contrary). 

 

[FelixMantilla]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/bruins-fire-chiarelli-to-bring-in-another--more-pliable-chiarelli--trending-topics-194126741.html
 
Ryan Lambert with a hatchet job on Neely.

 

[SawxSince67]

Respectfully, Ryan Lambert is a troll in the guise of a hockey blogger. I believe, and I am biased, his agenda against the Bruins has been obvious for years.

 

[lexrageorge]

Yeah, I mean criticizing Neely for the players that the yet to be hired GM has yet to bring in is absurd.  

 

[sjaustin77]

 
Thank you for proving me wrong with facts, as well as giving me the place you were able to do it.  My criticism will be more factual going forward. 

I mainly quoted you to give you a website to find the information. Most of my post was geared to those who think Rask needs a certain system or great team to be a great goalie. 
 
I don't think you were wrong on the D playing above where they should be slotted. It is possible that they gave up less quality chances with Chara vs without, or in the 2nd half vs the first. I don't think that really changed after Chara got back though. They never replaced Boychuk and always needed another #2/3 defenseman to pair with Seidenberg. Everyone except Chara was playing too high all year. That was Chiarelli's biggest failure for this year to not keep or replace Boychuk. I think before this career year Boychuk would have signed in Boston for less years and money than he ended up getting.
 
I personally would have dumped Campbell and McQuaid instead of Boychuk. Now they are left looking for another Boychuk or better which will cost similar money. The options are pretty limited barring a major trade for a younger guy. They are looking at Sekera, Franson, Martin types who will command $5 million plus. If they can bring in 2 good possession/2 way defenseman instead of Seidenberg & Mcquaid and stay under the cap; then maybe it was worth trading Boychuk and getting Connolly for basically the same assets, but it certainly hurt their chances a lot for this year. 
 
P.S. Here are some other sites with plenty of information, some of it different and more advanced than others. I know that data is out there for shot locations, and quality, rush shots, one timers, rebounds, etc., but I'm not sure where to find it publically to easily compare goalies or the in season splits. 
 
http://www.somekindofninja.com/nhl/
behindthenet.ca
stats.hockeyanalysis.com
leftwinglock.com
hockey-reference.com
hockeydb.com
nhl.com has lots of extra stat categories now too.

 

[sjaustin77]

Here is what I want in a new GM/possible new coach. 
 
1. Better use of analytics, and more TOI for the best players. 
2. Fair but tough negotiator. Someone who can be creative with trades to open up cap space. I think Chia was fair with his contracts, but not quite tough enough with some guys that he had control over. I also think there are/were ways to trade Seidenberg, Kelly, Campbell, Paille, McQuaid if they wanted to. 
3. Identify the players he wants/wants to keep and sign them as early as the CBA allows. The longer you wait, the more players price themselves out of where you want, and/or the next stupid contract given out by a dumb or desperate GM drives up the price. 
4. Large analytics and scouting departments. A team that wants to compete every year will have less picks at a worse average draft position. They need to be able to draft well, identify and sign college and international UFA's, and make smart trades for young cheap players to stay cap compliant. 
 
I think the Bruins management certainly does a lot of this already, but can tweak things to be even better. They have certainly been one of the best teams over Chia's tenure and made some good trades, and college UFA signings. I think Bergeron, Chara, Rask/Thomas have made them look better as a team than where they should be though. Obviously taking the best 3 players off any team would change things, but most teams haven't consistently had a Selke, Norris and Vezina contender/winner all at the same time. Most teams only have 2 of those, if that and often don't have the goaltending which I think is most important. 
 
Lastly while Chia/Julien have their flaws and made mistakes; I think the players have let them down. I believe they had teams built to win over the previous 3 years. Injuries and under performance in the playoffs have possibly cost them 1 more cup, and I think at least a finals appearance last year, and the playoffs this year. A GM and coach can only do so much and it is up to the players to perform. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/bruins-fire-chiarelli-to-bring-in-another--more-pliable-chiarelli--trending-topics-194126741.html
 
Ryan Lambert with a hatchet job on Neely.

It jumps to conclusions a bit about Neely - we won't know what he really meant until we see what happens - but otherwise it is pretty spot on.  

 

[mcpickl]

 
Google can be useful.
Jason Spezza at the draft last year refused a trade to Nashville.

Never said no player has ever exercised his no trade clause. Said no team has ever been stuck with a player who refused to be dealt anywhere.
 
Said all along players want the NMC to have a say in where, and sometimes when, they're traded. Not so they will just force you to keep them on a team they're not wanted. A player would have to be a real maniac to force a team to keep him when there's another team(s) that does want him.

 

[Myt1]

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. 

If the claim is that the NMC had a substantial effect, don't you think the person claiming it has the burden of persuasion? "Prove this didn't happen," is kinda a weird place to be, isn't it?

 

[kenneycb]

If only someone posted about the NMCs/NTCs per team and then requoted it. Man life would be great and I wouldn't even have to do drunkenly talk with myself like I did last night.

Edit: We also have legitimately zero knowledge on if the NMC affected anything. But they should've bought him out except for Jacobs..

 

[Eddie Jurak]

NMCs aside, I think it's fair to say that Chiarelli put them in a bad place with the salary cap.  Yes, he may have expected the cap to go up more, but that's not an excuse - it's an error in judgment.  If he had erred in the other direction (left too much cap room available) he could always have looked ways to spend it later.  
 
The bad Seguin deal will go down as one of Chiarelli's worst mistakes as a GM.  It was driven in part by Chiarelli's decision to give him a huge extension the year before, a year earlier than was necessary. In the end, part of the "value" Chiarelli get back for one of the game's elite young talents was cap flexibility - but the lack of flexibility was a self-inflected wound. Sure, if the let the Seguin ELC expire they might have had another Kessel scenario on their hands.  So what?  The return for Kessel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the return for Sequin.
 
A key part of the Chiarelli/Julien philosophy was investing heavily (in a relative sense) in mid-level/bottom 6 forwards - guys like Kelly, Campbell, Paille, Peverley.  The alternative approach would have been to sign fewer  of those guys and try to fill those holes through player development.   That wasn't something the Bruins ever made a serious effort to do.  Their approach worked like a charm in 2011.  But it also meant that waiver wire fodder (Kaspars Daugavins) had to dress for 4 of the most important games the team has played in the past 40 years. 
 
I think this firing could be the best thing that ever happened to Chiarelli because he left the organization in a bad place. He chose to hang on to the aging core rather than rebuild on the fly, he made key trades that shipped out more talent than they brought back, he left the team without cap flexibility and maybe without prospect depth that could help upgrade the talent available to a capped out team. But whatever problems the new regime has cleaning up his mess, Chirelli won't have to own them. 

 

[Blacken]

Respectfully, Ryan Lambert is a troll in the guise of a hockey blogger. I believe, and I am biased, his agenda against the Bruins has been obvious for years.

I think that, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Lambert is a Bruins fan.
 
Though that can be generalized to "if you have to screech about bias you are almost always wrong."

 

[TheRealness]

If the claim is that the NMC had a substantial effect, don't you think the person claiming it has the burden of persuasion? "Prove this didn't happen," is kinda a weird place to be, isn't it?

Not on an Internet message board. The burden of the affirmer has no place here.

 

[scotian1]

HNIC saying if Julien is let go rumours have Milbury's name being tossed around. Better commentator than coach?

 

[RetractableRoof]

HNIC saying if Julien is let go rumours have Milbury's name being tossed around. Better commentator than coach?

Maybe Footjoy could become the "official shoe of the Boston Bruins coaching staff"?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

HNIC saying if Julien is let go rumours have Milbury's name being tossed around. Better commentator than coach?

Why not Milt Schmidt if we're going to go the "former coach of the Bruins" route? Sure he's 97 years old but he'd probably do a better job than Milbury.

 

[kenneycb]

I think that, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Lambert is a Bruins fan.
 
Though that can be generalized to "if you have to screech about bias you are almost always wrong."

I've read enough of his stuff to know he stinks and he sucks and he stinks. I don't care if he's a B's fan or that he's a huge fan of BC's program. I think he's a shitty writer that trolls. Three or four years of reading, well skimming, his work won't change that. I hope he gets catfished or whatever similar comparison again. I loved when he got pissy by Wysh basically doing a Comic Book Guy impression on the podcast.

 

[soxfan121]

Why not Milt Schmidt if we're going to go the "former coach of the Bruins" route? Sure he's 97 years old but he'd probably do a better job than Milbury.

 
#grapesageintofinewine #bringbackcherry

 

[j44thor]

Milbury chatter apparently heating up, this can't be serious can it?

 

[jsinger121]

Milbury chatter apparently heating up, this can't be serious can it?

Possibly depending on how tight him and Cam were back in the early 90's. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Milbury chatter apparently heating up, this can't be serious can it?

Heating up where?

And I doubt it is for coach or they would have fired CJ when they fired Chia.

If they hire Milbury as GM, that would be a huge step backwards for this org.

 

[MiracleOfO2704]

Heating up where?

And I doubt it is for coach or they would have fired CJ when they fired Chia.

If they hire Milbury as GM, that would be a huge step backwards for this org.

 
If they hire Milbury for anything other than the drunk uncle that talks about "the good ol' days, before you crazy kids and your gadgets," it's a distressing sign for the organization. Milbury's on par with Melrose for being a full-time commentator on the game yet being completely out of touch with it.

 

[Salem's Lot]

Milbury chatter apparently heating up, this can't be serious can it?

Milbury may be generating his own chatter behind the scenes with his current co workers for all we know. I agree it would be an epic mistake if he was actually hired as GM.