Slegr is playing some horrbile hockey of late. Another bad positioning leaves him at center ice as there's a 2 on 1 resulting in a Vancouver goal. 4-2 Canucks for now.

Welp, what can you say.

Hannu put together a highlight tape tonight... to bad he was peppered all night. Damn, another goal. 5-2.

15 to 2 SOG in the 3rd period!

Funny how 1 bad bounce can dictate the rest of the game. Morrison's goal goes in off Stuart, and the Canucks take over from there. Bruins looked lifeless in the third.

They looked OK in the third until Izzy's double minor and the bad bounce off Stuart. After that they kind of fell apart, especially with the Slegr/Gill penalties.

Also, this was game 2 of a back to back, on the West Coast, they were without Sergei Samsonov (and with a rusty Murray), and they lost Nick Boynton to a knee bruise early in the first period. All in all, this would have been a tough game to win.

I am pissed, pissed, pissed at Mike O'Connell's recent stupid roster moves, though. Eric Nickulas gave the team a shot in the arm a couple of weeks ago, played great on the 4th line, and struggled to contribute on higher lines. For that, they send him back down and give his spot to Blatny.

Much worse was O'Connell's absolutely freaking moronic decision to give Kevin Dallman away. This was bad for a couple of reasons:

1. Stupid to think he is worse than Slegr and Gill.
2. Sullivan's extra guys don't play, they sit in the pressbox. Dallman can sit in the press box every bit as well as Jurcina can.

Now that we've lost Boynton, and Slegr and Gill still suck, it would be good to have Kevin Dallman around, and he was given up for no good reason at all. None.

Agreed. I'm still rather pissed that we tried to send him down as opposed to get rid of somebody else. I'm also sure there was a way where we could have had somebody else sent down.

But with the new acquisitions, Dallman was shunted pretty far down the depth chart:

Stuart, Boynton, Leetch, Gill, Slegr, Tanabe, Jurcina are all ahead of him.

Plus Alberts was likely ahead of him as well.

So you either keep him with Boston and not dress him (and potentially watch him rot away in the press box), or you risk sending him down to Providence where he'll get some playing time.

It was a risk and the Bruins lost it, but I'm not sure it was a terrible decision to do so.

There was no need to send him down at all. Basically, it was a decision to have Jurcina go on the road trip as 7th defenseman (to play only in emergencies) instead of Dallman. Simple as that, and they got rid of Dallman as a result. Dumb, dumb, uomb...

The other thing is... I feel like the Bruins were, traditionally, an organization that valued effort and hard work. In recent years they have gotten away from that.

Eric Nickulas should have been rewarded for what he did for the team. They called him up, put him on the 4th line, and he played with heart and grit. He helped to give the team a real shot in the arm when they badly needed it. The aggressive play of the 4th line helped get the team going for its only win in the 10 games prior to the Thornton trade. Then when Murray got hurt, Nickulas moved up and played some on the first, second, and third lines, where he got more ice time and was less effective. Instead of putting him back in the 4th line role, they send him to Providence and brought in LaCouture and Blatny for the 4th line. Why?

To me, the difference between Blatny and Nickulas for 3-4 minutes of ice time (even if Blatny is better, which I have yet to see) is not the point; the point is that for a short time, Nickulas filled an important role on the team and he should have been rewarded for it.

The same with Dallman. This unheralded guy came in as a rookie and did a very good job under difficult circumstances - team as a whole playing bad, lack of depth and quality on the blue line, injury to Leetch, Boynton holdout, etc.. Then they pick up Tanabe, get Leetch back, and suddenly Dallman is an afterthought. Then they pick up Stuart and give him away for nothing.

Part of pulling together as a team is rewarding guys for a job well done. This Bruin team seems to reward guys with big contracts whether or not they do their job well and shit all over "no name" guys who do work hard.

Tied 1-1 with 12 minutes left in the 2nd. 2 things:

1. I love Brad Boyes. He threaded the needle on a saucer pass to Sturm across 3 lines really to set up the GTG with < 1 minute left in the 1st.

2. MOC deserves some credit for the Tanabe for Scatchard deal. I think we'd be in much worse shape if we didn't have Tanabe on this club - solid addition, and he brings a lot to the table.

edit: and a stupid fuck pass by leetch leads to Tanguay all alone in front. Jack shit that Raycroft could do, 2-1 Avs.

Raycroft looked a little squishy on that third goal.

Has there ever been a team as lame as this one in getting the puck out of their zone? Just a totally anemic second period. I haven't felt this hopeless when watching the B's since the year the playoff streak ended.

Edit: And now Boynton's out for 4-6 weeks with a fractured kneecap. Whoosh.

So sick of this.

Wasting Toivonen's spectacular efforts really SUCKS.

Shots On Goal
Phoenix 7 - 15 - 9 - 1 32
Boston 6 - 6 - 7 - 0 19

Hannu played well, but I thought he was the one who blew the goal in the 3rd. He should have covered up there.

I was at the game tonight. Really dull game. Bruins had no attack the whole night, and even though Phoenix had a few more shots they didn't do a whole lot most of the game either

Does anyone even care about this team anymore?

Not anymore now that joes not here

R.I.P. JOE 11/30/05 WE WILL NEVAR FORGET

LOOK AT HIS GRIT NEVER FORGET JOE WE LUV YOU FOREVER

I have a hard time getting up for Bruins games right now when they can't even do it. Continue getting beat by the dregs of the league, watch Raycroft get dumped for a couple of jobbers, and we'll still finish outside the bottom five in a less stellar draft year than the past two. Thorough misunderstanding of your circumstances...THAT'S the Bruins.

I didn't even see tonight's game, but I'm sure I have a summary based on the little bit of info I gathered: come out gangbusters in the first, coast through the rest of the game, and get caught skating around mindlessly in the defensive zone. At this point, I'm turning into hockey's Tony D'Amato..."If you're gonna make mistakes, make them big, I won't eat your lunch for that."

Was at the game last night. Phoenix was in the B's end a fair amount of the B's power plays in the 2nd and 3rd. Tough game to watch. Both bad teams, neither of which could shoot a puck into the ocean from the shore. The Bruins are not good defensively and can't score. Not exactly a recipe for success. Will be interesting to see if either of the Mikes survive

Living in the Bay Area and, seeing the change in the Sharks, makes me conclude that this was a DISASTROUS deal for the B's. There's no way to clean it up. Thornton was the franchise player and we should have been augmenting his talent rather than taking it away. It's too bad Sully's going to get whacked but there's no there there anymore. Thornton was the heart and soul of this B's squad - even if we all agree that he never should have been named captain - and the results in San Jose are painful to watch. And I get it every day right in my mug.

It's Jacobs, Jacobs, Jacobs. He's our Bill Bidwell and anyone who buys a ticket to help pay his mortgage is a fool, as he provided the dynamite, the match, and the fuse to the decently talented team of 2003-4. Instead of giving his team a foundation of essential players, he let everyone fly off, thus ensuring that the B's would be way behind the scramble. MOC gets a lot of the blame too. Aren't the B's privvy to any of the league's rule changes? Couldn't they see that speed would rule? A fatal miscalculation. Now we're old and slow. No Rolston, no Nylander, all that cap room and no offer to Forsberg - what the hell's the point?

If anyone should have been traded it should have been Samsonov (a complimentary player at best who'll be a FA next year). Thornton, the one player who made the others around him better, should have been untouchable save for a knock 'em dead offer. A top four defenseman, a quick, but inconsistent forward, and a mudder doesn't get it done. Instead of giving up Thornton, why weren't we going for Marleau? That's all you need to know...

I actually posted that shortly after the trade on another board and got flamed for not knowing anything about hockey, I summed it up that it wasn't thorton it was the rest of the team that had the problem, I don't care who you are if you are surrounded by old men and castoffs you aren't going to win, Sidney says hi from Pitts.

Meanwhile San Jose has yet to lose since joe has joined the team, he has set a San Jose record with points in 5 straight games including his 1g 3a game the other night when he was involved in all 4 of san jose's goals resulting in a win.

Fuck the bruins. Cafe Press anyone?

Of course, San Jose has had the benefit of a much easier schedule since the trade, but why mention that when it is easier to just bash the Bruins.

The bruins haven't exactly been playing the elite teams and they still suck, but what's the point of bringing that up. A win is a win and another 4 game losing streak is .. well the bruins.

>>>Of course, San Jose has had the benefit of a much easier schedule since the trade, but why mention that when it is easier to just bash the Bruins.

While it is easier to bash the Bruins, EJ, I do think the numbers speak for themselves. Bruins are 2-3 since the trade, getting outscored 15 to 12 while the Sharks are 5-0 outscoring their opponents 25-12. And the disparity in the opponents record is not as great as you seem to imply. While the Bruins' opponents are a scorching 88-48, the Sharks opponents are 73-57 - not too shabby. I think the trade highlights just how valuable Thornton is to his teammates. The Sharks had a pretty decent core to begin with - like the B's in 2003-04 and now they've built on it, adding a final piece. I'm depressed about the trade and it takes a lot to do that (check the Celts thread, as I'm giddy over the team's youth while staring at a season that might be a big comedown from last year - and that wasn't too great to begin with).

Is it possible to win the Stanley Cup w/out a superstar? NJ ground out a lot of wins, but they still had Stevens and Brodeur. Who plays that role on the B's? Bergeron? I do like him a lot, but that seems a reach. Joe was that guy and it was careless of MOC to let him go for so little (unless he's got a plan to replace that production). I just don't see it.

How many teams as good as Ottawa have the Sharks faced? How many home games against below .500 clubs have the Bruins played? Zero, and zero.

In 10 games before the trade, the Bruins had 3 points. In five games after the trade, the Bruins have 5 points.

There's no denying Joe's talent, but it speaks very poorly of him that it required a trade to San Jose to inspire him to use it more often.

>>>How many teams as good as Ottawa have the Sharks faced? How many home games against below .500 clubs have the Bruins played? Zero, and zero.

While this is true, it is also true that it's just not that big a difference from 88-48 to 73-57 - which is my original point. Neither team was facing a line of tomato cans. That 3-0 win over the Sens by the B's was a jaw-dropper (it gave me pause).

>>>There's no denying Joe's talent, but it speaks very poorly of him that it required a trade to San Jose to inspire him to use it more often.

I don't think this at all. Of course, there's a natural bump the player gets from a move - witness Sturm - but I'd say this is a direct reflection of the talent placed around Thornton. Check me on this, but I believe all his points, save for either one or two goals, have come from assists. Same old Joe.

The Bruins, pre-trade, made short work of Florida. Twice. In the midst of an awful season. The Sharks beating them easily after the trade does not impress me.

The Sharks beat Toronto 5-4. In four games, the Bruins, pre trade, split with Toronto and outscored them by a goal. On their way to 21 points in 26 games.

Meanwhile, Ottawa has been quite a bit better than Carolina, the best team the SHarks have faced since the trade.

If the Sharks are so good now, how is it that they were so bad before the deal, winless in 10 even with Stuart, Sturm, and Primeau?

We're going to have to agree to disagree as I think there's not a big difference between 88-48 to 73-57 and you do (and I do acknowledge that the Sens are the best team either team has faced). Since that 3-0 win against the Sens came in the first game after the trade, w/ the team's adrenaline at full throttle, how do you think the B's would do now?

>>>If the Sharks are so good now, how is it that they were so bad before the deal, winless in 10 even with Stuart, Sturm, and Primeau?

Well, the smart ass answer would be that Stuart, Sturm, and Primeau simply aren't that good and Joe is. But it's never that simple. Stuart, Sturm, and Primeau are good players and would have been a fantastic addition for just about anyone on the roster except Joe. I'd say the Sharks' problems pre-trade are very similar to the B's' troubles in recent years. An imbalance on offense w/ one great center and dominant line, w/ a huge drop off to the other lines' centers. Thornton to SJ no longer allows an opposing team to put its top line up against Marleau - now they have to pick their poison.

If you look at those 10 winless games pre-trade for the Sharks, one (Minnesota) was against a losing squad, and they also played Colorado, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Detroit (the West's Ottawa), and Vancouver and Dallas twice each. The collective record for those teams is 176-96 - almost exactly the winning percentage for the Bruins' opponents the last five games, w/ double the sample size. Tough competition for both the Bruins post-trade, and the Sharks pre-trade. Yet the Sharks hung tough in those games. Adding an elite player like Thornton at such minimal cost has had the presumed effect. Again, it's a shame we weren't the ones adding an elite player.

First of all, what do the overall record have to do with single home games against Atlanta and Florida. Those are two woeful, below .500 teams no matter how you look at it. Not including their losses to the Sharks, those two teams have a combined winning percentage of .402, which works out to 66 points over a full season. Are you honestly saying that playing two home games against teams that bad (versus not playing anyone below .500) doesn't make a difference?

Second, I think the difference in overall record is more significant than you make it sound. By my calculations, Sharks opponents since the trade have a winning percentage of .543 (this does not include the five losses to the Sharks, BTW, or it would be even lower). That works out to an 89 point season, which works out to about a 9th seed (i.e. non-playoff team). The Bruins opponents, not including the five games against the Bruins since the trade, have a winning percentage of .630. That works out to a 103 point season - roughly a #3 seeded playoff team. I'd say there's a pretty big difference in quality between a #3 seed and a #9.

I still think the Sharks have played better since the trade but not by as wide a gap as the records suggest. I think the differences in schedule strength will narrow as the season goes on, but for now they are significant.

Bite Me.

The Thrashers won't be woeful when they play the Bruins.

Bruins suck.



Bruins suck.



Bruins suck.



Jacobs sucks.




Bruins suck.




You suck.

>>>Are you honestly saying that playing two home games against teams that bad (versus not playing anyone below .500) doesn't make a difference?

Of course it makes a difference, but, to begin with, Atlanta is not that bad. Sure, they're below .500, but they've got some serious talent. Secondly, if those two teams are that bad, then the overall won-loss record of the Sharks' opponents is all the more impressive. You've got Carolina at 18-9 and Buffalo at 19-10 - yeah, it's the Canes and Sabres, but they're not your older brother's Canes and Sabres.

>>>I'd say there's a pretty big difference in quality between a #3 seed and a #9.

There is? What seed was that Canadiens team that took out #1 seed Boston in the last playoffs?

While it is true that the the Sharks' opponents have been weaker than the Bruins' since the trade, I think the larger point still holds, as the Shark's opponents have not been the pushovers that was originally suggested - and correct me if that impression is wrong, as you wrote, "Of course, San Jose has had the benefit of a much easier schedule since the trade."

Again, check out the Sharks' sched pre-trade (it was brutal in that 10 game winless period), yet they were competitive. Thornton has put them over the top. The Bruins, sadly, are less over the top.

Re the Sharks/Thrashers game.

For Atlanta, it was the 3rd game in 4 days and the second night of a back-to-back, AND for all intents and purposes Atlanta is only playing one goalie these days, so he's carrying the whole load

Bruins fall behind 1-0 in first. A bad goal allowed by Raycroft; very weak effort on that one.

Thankfully, tied up by Bergeron on Fernandez' bad bounce. Good play the rest of the 1st by the B's, and Raycroft was oh so screened on the 1st goal.

Honestly, who didn't see THAT coming?

Raycroft has played great tonight, the blame cannot be placed on him. The stooge known as Hal Gill has at least 4 times just aimlessly wrapped the puck around the boards with no pressure on him only for it to get picked off by a Minnesota player. Thankfully, none of those have lead to goals. Slegr (hurt?) as a scratch is a good move as well, he's been playing very poorly.

I'm not blaming Raycroft at all. I just expected the Wild to score as soon as the Power Play began. Why? Because the Bruins didn't do anything during their man advantage and missed several scoring opportunities before being unable to get the puck out of their own end.

It was a foregone conclusion in my mind that Minny would tie it up before the whistle.

FUCK.YEAH.

Nice win over a FAST Minnesota team that has always given the Bruins fits.

3-2-1 since Big Joe left town.

Finally, a well-earned win against a team as EJ mentions the Bruins have never played well against. Jacques Lemaire should really have the decency to curl up and die in shame over what he's done to the game over the past 12 years or so.

All the B's goals were ugly, but against the Wild that's the way to win the games. Raycroft despite the bad first goal IMHO played his best game of the season and held the Bruins in the game.

PSK nailed it with Gill though. His passes within his own zone go to no one, and his clearing passes also go to no one. Incredibly frustrating.

I like Sturm, he's starting to grow on me. He's fast and skilled and resonably talented.

Leading scorers since the trade (6 games):

Brad Boyes 2-5-7
Marco Sturm 4-2-6
Patrice Bergeron 3-3-6
Brian Leetch 1-4-5
David Tanabe 1-2-3

On the downside:

Sergei Samsonov 2-0-2
Alexei Zhamnov 0-2-2
Glen Murray 0-1-1

The Bruins only have 15 goals since the trade. Nine of those are from Bergeron's line, two are from Samsonov, and two more are from defensemen.

If the Bruins are going to win, they need Samsonov and Murray to stay healthy and Zhamnov to keep playing the way he did tonight.

Did Zhamnov play well? I didn't see the game and his signing hasn't really gone well until now. Hopefully, this will get him going and give the squad some balance.

I thought it was his best game of the year. Murray, Zhamnov, and Samsonov weren't quite clicking, but they were still effective in both zones. Zhamnov did more backchecking last night than certain former Bruins did all season long.

Other things of note:

Patrice Bergeron was a team worst -11 when Thornton was dealt. Since the trade his is +6 in 6 games.

Brad Boyes was even before the trade and is +4 since. He had 14 points in 26 games before the deal, and has 7 points in the 6 games since the deal.

Brian Leetch was -4 before the trade and +4 since the trade.

Those are the three Bruins who have most stepped it up after the deal.

Leetch, to me, seems like a completely changed player. He seems to hustle an incredible amount now, and for somebody his age to be able to do that for 25-28 minutes a night is huge. It seems that he's thriving on the leadership role he's assumed since Thornton's been gone.

Well they look spectacular tonight. I wonder how long O'Connell has left.

Ray.. oh im sorry "Razor" is playing the game of his life, too bad it's for Calgary .. . bahahaha

How can Raycroft go from Rookie of the Year to Raw Sewage?

Is it a sophmore jinx, is the defense "that" bad around him or just does he just blow goats? He's on a pace for 30 losses this year.

The Bruins are just awful at moving the puck in both the defensive and neutral zones. Just terrible at it, and they've been awful at it all season long.

< sarcasm >I blame him. < / sarcasm>

We all know how much of a powerhouse the Caps are too - amazing when any team can beat a top line that has worldbeater Jeff Halpern in it. The Bruins just played a team that has Brian Marchment as their #6 defenseman on top of having a top 3 goalie and probably the quickest group of skaters in the league. Call me when the Caps stop putting Brendan Witt on their top defensive pairing.

Raycroft played fine tonight other than the 1st goal to Phaneuf (who played a hell of a game - the next Adam Foote w/ more offensive capability if you ask me). We had our chances, but Kiprusoff stoned us, and we still can't get the puck out of our fucking zone. I'd imagine not playing Gill and Slegr may help remedy that problem.

Any other year, and Phaneuf is the man to beat for ROY (although I thought his goal tonight would have been given to someone else after the fact).

How long until we can just judge the Sharks vs. the B's after the trade, w/o people harping on the schedule? I'm seriously asking, not being facetious. I'm not saying you have to go out and beat Calgary on the road because they're a great team, but they were out of it 5 minutes in and weren't even competitive.

But do we judge the Sharks versus the B's after the trade.

or do we judge the B's versus the B's after the trade.

Honestly I wish Joe well. I liked the guy. Maybe he'll make SJ a great team. But the question becomes how does the trade affect the Bruins in both the short and long term. So far it is impossible to judge.

Joe's successes in SJ become a lot like the success Clemens had after he left Boston. I have no reason to believe for either man they would have happened if they had stayed in Boston