Bruins Fire Cassidy

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Considering the other option is trading a quarter for nothing, I usually prefer the 2 pennies and a nickel. But sure, let's pretend we're trading Pasta for Zach Hyman's contract.
We've seen the Bruins pull off the $100 bill for a couple of nickels type trades with both Seguin (half of Kane for a tenth of Kane) and Thornton, where in both cases the GM took the very first deal that came along because he felt that he had no choice but to make the trade immediately.

Yeah, I get it, Sweeney did not make either trade. But if all Sweeney can get for Pasta is a Jakub Zboril, a Colin Miller, a Sean Kuraly, and a Trent Frederic, the Bruins would actually be better letting him walk for nothing.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,089
Tuukka's refugee camp
In addition to being previous GMs, neither trade is remotely analogous to the Pasta hypothetical.

And if that’s all he gets he should be fired but I also think you’re being willfully ignorant if you think that’s all he would get.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
In addition to being previous GMs, neither trade is remotely analogous to the Pasta hypothetical.

And if that’s all he gets he should be fired but I also think you’re being willfully ignorant if you think that’s all he would get.
Joe Thornton was already in the conversation as league MVP and Art Ross candidate when he was traded. And he was already signed long term, so no rental discount applied. If the view is that Pasta has to be traded no matter what, then Sweeney is going to have his work cut out for him if he decides to pursue a trade.

Agree that it's highly unlikely that the return will be as bad as the Lucic trade, which was hurt by some god-awful drafting and a rushed Martin Jones trade. But I'm not being willfully ignorant by being very concerned about a return from a hypothetical Pastrnak trade.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Wait…what?
Not sure what the "wait...what?" is referring to. The return for Lucic was Colin Miller, Martin Jones, and the pick that become Zboril. Jones was quickly flipped for Kuraly and a pick that became Trent Frederic, a terrible return all around.

EDIT: And, yes, I understand that the Fluto article, which seems to be mostly speculation, does state that the return from a Pastrnak trade would certainly be much higher. Still doesn't mean we can be confident that the assets Sweeney gets back will be anywhere close to what he will be trading away.
 
Last edited:

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
Trading Lucic for 2 first rounders and 2 prospects was an incredible trade. The draft picks not working out doesn’t change that.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Trading Lucic for 2 first rounders and 2 prospects was an incredible trade. The draft picks not working out doesn’t change that.
When a GM trades a player for draft picks and prospects, and subsequently makes those picks, then it's absolutely fair to judge the trade on how well the prospects and draft picks turn out. Sweeney did indeed get fair value in the Lucic trade, but neither the prospects nor the picks panned out, and so that is why it's fair to say the return sucked.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,164
Cambridge, MA
Idk I thought the return on Lucic was great for a guy with 1 year left… I don’t think it’s a fair evaluation of that isolated trade to assess how the picks netted out
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
I don’t want to pile on here but if Sweeney traded say, Pasta, and got a 22 yo data favorable rhd with good wheels and a great shot, a second tier prospect and two first round picks, I’d be bummed but I’d probably say that was a pretty good trade.

sure, none of those players turned into stars but they got 4 legit nhl players for one year of lucic. You have to evaluate process over results on these things or you’re doomed. Trading a ufa to be for that kind of asset haul seems really good. You’d want to repeat that. Separately you can talk about your pro scouting evaluation of Miller and kuraly and your amateur scouting evaluation of zboril and Frederic, but those are separate problems.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,232
Falmouth
The dourness in this thread is painful to read and more reminiscent of a game thread when they go down 2-1 in a playoff series. Note, that is not an endorsement of Sweeney but I don't think he's turning them into the Harold Ballard era Maple Leafs that some are resigning the Bruins to.
I'll second both points.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
When a GM trades a player for draft picks and prospects, and subsequently makes those picks, then it's absolutely fair to judge the trade on how well the prospects and draft picks turn out. Sweeney did indeed get fair value in the Lucic trade, but neither the prospects nor the picks panned out, and so that is why it's fair to say the return sucked.
Kuraly alone has been a better NHL player than Lucic since the trade.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
When a GM trades a player for draft picks and prospects, and subsequently makes those picks, then it's absolutely fair to judge the trade on how well the prospects and draft picks turn out. Sweeney did indeed get fair value in the Lucic trade, but neither the prospects nor the picks panned out, and so that is why it's fair to say the return sucked.
It depends on whether you’re grading the trade or the GM, right? You’re conflating the two.

More to the point, you evaluate a move based on its then expected value, not the several degrees removed, noisier real world outcome. Hitting a hard 13 against a dealer’s king isn’t a bad move just because you knock over your drink and soak the table so they have to reshuffle the shoe and then you pull a queen.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
Like, Bergeron’s and Marchand’s relatively team friendly contracts have been good moves, notwithstanding the fact that Sweeney likes to use his savings to overpay for bottom six stiffs. The latter does not negate the former.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
I think it’s mostly conjecture based on Pastrnak’s contract status and the state of the team. I adore Pasta, he is one of my favorite players of all time. 50-goal scored, great personality and ambassador for the sport, league and team. I’d love nothing more than to sign him to an 8-year, $88 million extension. But if they approach him and he’s hesitant to commit or tells them he wants to leave, they have to have trade conversations for him.
Sweeeney should approach him before the July draft/beginning of free agency, and the team should be prepared with its asks from teams who might have interest before the draft.


But if all Sweeney can get for Pasta is a Jakub Zboril, a Colin Miller, a Sean Kuraly, and a Trent Frederic, the Bruins would actually be better letting him walk for nothing.
And when he walks for nothing, you'll be the poster screaming that Sweeney was an idiot for not trading him, amirite?
 

changer591

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
964
Shrewsbury, MA
When a GM trades a player for draft picks and prospects, and subsequently makes those picks, then it's absolutely fair to judge the trade on how well the prospects and draft picks turn out. Sweeney did indeed get fair value in the Lucic trade, but neither the prospects nor the picks panned out, and so that is why it's fair to say the return sucked.
I'm not sure you will get too many people to agree that you can say "the return sucked". You can certainly claim that Sweeney misused the assets he got in return, but you are essentially saying that if he traded Lucic for the #1 draft pick, and that draft pick got hurt and never panned out, that ultimately the trade was "bad". Not sure that is a legitimate gripe.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,196
Who the hell knows whether this is at all reliable, but it looks like Bergeron may not have given Cassidy a full-throated endorsement after his firing: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/bruins/patrice-bergeron-reacts-bruins-firing-head-coach-bruce-cassidy?cid=sm_npd_rsn_bos_fb_mn&fbclid=IwAR2ruegol5unAWNfmu-H4ceihPBWa578IYXT26av_mHP1I9sWog8F0N3fA0#l44yheo05uf5hh2ywf3

I suppose they could have cherry-picked the quotes, etc.
I'm not sure I'm reading the same thing you are? Here are his quotes in that article:

"In the NHL, when you don't achieve your goals as a team, these are things that can happen, unfortunately," Bergeron said in comments translated from French to English using Google Translate. "As a player, it's disappointing because you always have a role to play in this. There is a sense of responsibility, that's clear."


Bergeron also was quick to shoot down any speculation that he had anything to do with Cassidy's firing.

"It's completely unfounded, so I won't put any energy into it," Bergeron told Cadorette, again translated from French to English by Google. "It's a waste of time and it's really stupid speculation."


Sweeney said at a press conference Tuesday that, "In my conversations with (Bergeron) yesterday, I did not ask whether (firing Cassidy) impacts his decision. It’s Bergy’s decision and his timeline."
What am I missing?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
We've seen the Bruins pull off the $100 bill for a couple of nickels type trades with both Seguin (half of Kane for a tenth of Kane) and Thornton, where in both cases the GM took the very first deal that came along because he felt that he had no choice but to make the trade immediately.

Yeah, I get it, Sweeney did not make either trade. But if all Sweeney can get for Pasta is a Jakub Zboril, a Colin Miller, a Sean Kuraly, and a Trent Frederic, the Bruins would actually be better letting him walk for nothing.
They certainly aren't letting him walk for nothing. That would be epically stupid and irresponsible.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
That's stupid asset management.

The dourness in this thread is painful to read and more reminiscent of a game thread when they go down 2-1 in a playoff series. Note, that is not an endorsement of Sweeney but I don't think he's turning them into the Harold Ballard era Maple Leafs that some are resigning the Bruins to.
I don't think the sourness is unwarranted. But, Sweeney is the main reason why they are where they are for the long-term. He did not draft particularly well and the majority of his free agent signings were bad. He had to try to overpay for bottom 6 players because he didn't draft/develop enough young, cheap NHL talent. He has swung some good trades however.

Sweeney won't turn them into a lottery team because there is too much talent on the team to do that. They have a very good chance of being in the worst position possible: not bad enough to bottom out and get a top 5 pick and not good enough to contend for a championship. I don't see a quick fix to get the roster back to where it needs to be. You'd have to attach picks to some players you'd want to move to get salary relief and they are in no position to do that. They have $25 million cap space next offseason but they need to see what the deal is with Pasta. If they re-sign Pasta, nearly half that space goes away and you still have 5 forward spots to fill.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
I'm not sure I'm reading the same thing you are? Here are his quotes in that article:



What am I missing?
None of the, “Butch was a huge part of our success while he was here, we accomplished a lot together, great coach, etc.” stuff is all. Didn’t say much about the guy at all.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
I re-read my prior post and it sounded like I was going for a litotes—adding emphasis by denying the opposite (“That Bergeron guy’s not bad at hockey.”). Totally wasn’t my intention to imply that Bergeron scalded him on the way out the door, just that I found the absence of any praise a bit conspicuous, given the source.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,534
right here
well, the absence of praise in the article at least. we don't know what was said that wasn't reported right?
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,534
right here
This was in the original French article but not the linked one fwiw:

Il y a toujours un effet de choc. On établit des relations professionnelles, mais après six ans comme avec Bruce, il y a aussi une relation plus personnelle qui se développe
There is always a shock effect. We build professional relationships, but after six years like with Bruce, there is also a more personal relationship that develops.

So there's already at least 1 line that was removed in translation. And potentially more in the original interview in French. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,089
Tuukka's refugee camp
I don't think the sourness is unwarranted. But, Sweeney is the main reason why they are where they are for the long-term. He did not draft particularly well and the majority of his free agent signings were bad. He had to try to overpay for bottom 6 players because he didn't draft/develop enough young, cheap NHL talent. He has swung some good trades however.

Sweeney won't turn them into a lottery team because there is too much talent on the team to do that. They have a very good chance of being in the worst position possible: not bad enough to bottom out and get a top 5 pick and not good enough to contend for a championship. I don't see a quick fix to get the roster back to where it needs to be. You'd have to attach picks to some players you'd want to move to get salary relief and they are in no position to do that. They have $25 million cap space next offseason but they need to see what the deal is with Pasta. If they re-sign Pasta, nearly half that space goes away and you still have 5 forward spots to fill.
The degree of dourness is unwarranted IMO. The pessimism, negative interpretation of his quotes, and blatant misrepresentation of reality makes the last couple pages unreadable. That's both posts and the media. GTFO with saying Josh Brown was inserted as a sparkplug last playoffs and not a "break glass in emergency" due to injury move.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,428
None of the, “Butch was a huge part of our success while he was here, we accomplished a lot together, great coach, etc.” stuff is all. Didn’t say much about the guy at all.
I think Butch Cassidy was long gone at the start of the NHL
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
The degree of dourness is unwarranted IMO. The pessimism, negative interpretation of his quotes, and blatant misrepresentation of reality makes the last couple pages unreadable. That's both posts and the media. GTFO with saying Josh Brown was inserted as a sparkplug last playoffs and not a "break glass in emergency" due to injury move.
What's the misrepresentation of reality though? Sweeney's job performance is not good. Look at the article Ty Anderson wrote that outlines all of his missteps. If you're referring to some posts that are talking about returns for Pasta, I agree with you.

Who is possibly saying Josh Brown was any kind of sparkplug? If that's being said, that's really dumb.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,196
None of the, “Butch was a huge part of our success while he was here, we accomplished a lot together, great coach, etc.” stuff is all. Didn’t say much about the guy at all.
I re-read my prior post and it sounded like I was going for a litotes—adding emphasis by denying the opposite (“That Bergeron guy’s not bad at hockey.”). Totally wasn’t my intention to imply that Bergeron scalded him on the way out the door, just that I found the absence of any praise a bit conspicuous, given the source.
well, the absence of praise in the article at least. we don't know what was said that wasn't reported right?

Thanks, I see what you're saying now.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,089
Tuukka's refugee camp
What's the misrepresentation of reality though? Sweeney's job performance is not good. Look at the article Ty Anderson wrote that outlines all of his missteps. If you're referring to some posts that are talking about returns for Pasta, I agree with you.

Who is possibly saying Josh Brown was any kind of sparkplug? If that's being said, that's really dumb.
Again, I'm not endorsing Sweeney. But he's not the worst GM in the league that people are making him out to be.

Sweeney would never take Gaudreau (Lysell).
The dump and chase discussion
Trading talent for enforcer
Hiring of Trotz, Torts, or some other retread (may be wrong here but doesn't look like it's trending that way)
Pretty much any interpretation of his press conference yesterday - most of those answers fall into the "what else should he say" category

Here's the Josh Brown reference. That paragraph is a whole lot of stupid and not a lot of context. Re-reading I think I misinterpreted the point (Cassidy had limited tools to deal with) but the Josh Brown point stuck in my craw.
I mean, when Cassidy’s team was on the ropes in the 2019 Stanley Cup Final, Karson Kuhlman was deemed the best available bullet in his chamber. The 2019 Kuhlman Experiment was sandwiched around concussion-derailed and costly runs with Rick Nash and Ondrej Kase. The 2022 postseason saw Chris Wagner and Josh Brown utilized as momentum shifters, and the move back to Trent Frederic late in that first-round series felt a bit like playing violin with half the Titanic in the Atlantic.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
The degree of dourness is unwarranted IMO. The pessimism, negative interpretation of his quotes, and blatant misrepresentation of reality makes the last couple pages unreadable. That's both posts and the media. GTFO with saying Josh Brown was inserted as a sparkplug last playoffs and not a "break glass in emergency" due to injury move.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There have been some amazingly embarrassing takes in this thread.

I am biased re: Don Sweeney. I loved working with him, and have the ultimate respect for him. Did I agree with everything he did? No. Was he perfect? Hell no. But he did take over a team that missed the playoffs 2 seasons in a row and was in salary cap hell, and within a few short years had one team 60 minutes away from a Stanley Cup, and he led another team to the President's Trophy for the best record in the NHL.

But I digress. What I really want to talk about is how Butch changed his offensive strategy over the years. As some of you will remember, Claude was fired in large part because his teams were too conservative in the offensive zone. In his last (partial) season with the Bruins (2016-17), the team was 1st in 5 on 5 shot attempts, but bottom 5 in percentage of shots from the slot. This is obviously not an effective shooting strategy. Butch came in and changed that. For his first 2+ seasons with the team, the Bruins attempted an above average number of shots, with a right around league average percent coming from the slot. This changed drastically, however, and during the last 2 seasons the Bruins have ranked 2nd and 3rd in shot attempts, but a lowly 29th and 30th in percentage from the slot. Effectively, they were right back where they were with Claude in the OZ, and seemingly unwilling to change.

I'm not saying this is why Butchie was let go. Hell, I'm not even saying he should have been let go. But this change to a more risk averse shooting scheme is troubling and ineffective. An aside, but I suspect most NHL long term coaches become more conservative over time. This would be an interesting project for someone (but not for me!).
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Again, I'm not endorsing Sweeney. But he's not the worst GM in the league that people are making him out to be.

Sweeney would never take Gaudreau (Lysell).
The dump and chase discussion
Trading talent for enforcer
Hiring of Trotz, Torts, or some other retread (may be wrong here but doesn't look like it's trending that way)
Pretty much any interpretation of his press conference yesterday - most of those answers fall into the "what else should he say" category

Here's the Josh Brown reference. That paragraph is a whole lot of stupid and not a lot of context. Re-reading I think I misinterpreted the point (Cassidy had limited tools to deal with) but the Josh Brown point stuck in my craw.
Yeah I don't think he's the worst GM in the league either. He has made a good number of moves over the years that have worked. I just think that the misses in the draft compounded by the picks traded away for deadline deals have put them in a bad position. Also, the misses in free agency have really had a negative impact on the cap. The successes Fris alludes to IMO are much more tied to the job performance of Cassidy getting the absolute most out of an imperfect roster than it is tied to Sweeney.

As I've said in previous posts, he's had to take big swings at bottom 6 guys for bigger money because there was not enough young talent to fill out those spots. If Bergy leaves and they shift to whatever version of a rebuild allowed by the Jacobs, I don't think Sweeney's strengths as a GM are in this area.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
Yeah I don't think he's the worst GM in the league either. He has made a good number of moves over the years that have worked. I just think that the misses in the draft compounded by the picks traded away for deadline deals have put them in a bad position. Also, the misses in free agency have really had a negative impact on the cap. The successes Fris alludes to IMO are much more tied to the job performance of Cassidy getting the absolute most out of an imperfect roster than it is tied to Sweeney.

As I've said in previous posts, he's had to take big swings at bottom 6 guys for bigger money because there was not enough young talent to fill out those spots. If Bergy leaves and they shift to whatever version of a rebuild allowed by the Jacobs, I don't think Sweeney's strengths as a GM are in this area.
I probably shouldn't even bother, but can you please expand on why you think Butch deserves all the credit for the team successes and Sweeney none?
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,190
But I digress. What I really want to talk about is how Butch changed his offensive strategy over the years. As some of you will remember, Claude was fired in large part because his teams were too conservative in the offensive zone. In his last (partial) season with the Bruins (2016-17), the team was 1st in 5 on 5 shot attempts, but bottom 5 in percentage of shots from the slot. This is obviously not an effective shooting strategy. Butch came in and changed that. For his first 2+ seasons with the team, the Bruins attempted an above average number of shots, with a right around league average percent coming from the slot. This changed drastically, however, and during the last 2 seasons the Bruins have ranked 2nd and 3rd in shot attempts, but a lowly 29th and 30th in percentage from the slot. Effectively, they were right back where they were with Claude in the OZ, and seemingly unwilling to change.
In regards to the above, how much would you put on Cassidy changing his system to be more stagnant and how much would you put on the quality of the roster to execute more shots in the slot? It seems like if it were working so well Butch would keep doing it.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
I probably shouldn't even bother, but can you please expand on why you think Butch deserves all the credit for the team successes and Sweeney none?
I did not say Sweeney doesn't deserve any credit for them being good. Of course he does. I just think Butch did a great job of making the necessary adjustments and tinkering with lines at times during his time to get the most out of a flawed roster.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
The successes Fris alludes to IMO are much more tied to the job performance of Cassidy getting the absolute most out of an imperfect roster than it is tied to Sweeney.

As I've said in previous posts, he's had to take big swings at bottom 6 guys for bigger money because there was not enough young talent to fill out those spots.
As I said in previous posts, I strongly disagree here. I don’t understand how people can say with a straight face that this team has not had loads of talent. It’s impossible to build a perfect roster in the cap era, especially when you’re good every year and never have any good draft picks. Every team has roster weaknesses. It’s the coach’s job to work around that.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
They've always had talent. The problem has been the depth. They have not been able to properly augment the talented core.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
As I said in previous posts, I strongly disagree here. I don’t understand how people can say with a straight face that this team has not had loads of talent. It’s impossible to build a perfect roster in the cap era, especially when you’re good every year and never have any good draft picks. Every team has roster weaknesses. It’s the coach’s job to work around that.
And Cassidy did a great job working around the mistakes Sweeney made. This paragraph from Ty Anderson's article says it all:

"Six months before promoting Cassidy, the Bruins threw a $30 million bag at David Backes. That was a year after throwing a bag at Matt Beleskey, and trading (highly affordable) top-six right wing Reilly Smith with his value at its absolute lowest. And during Cassidy’s tenure, the Bruins dropped a combined $84 million on a free agent group that included John Moore, Brett Ritchie, Craig Smith, Mike Reilly, Derek Forbort, Tomas Nosek, Linus Ullmark, Erik Haula, and Nick Foligno."

That's a lot of weakness to work around.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
In regards to the above, how much would you put on Cassidy changing his system to be more stagnant and how much would you put on the quality of the roster to execute more shots in the slot? It seems like if it were working so well Butch would keep doing it.
Based on the data I have and internal discussions I was privy to, I firmly believe Butch became more conservative in his OZ schemes over the past few years. I really can’t say more, and probably have shared too much already. But as I wrote in that post, I think becoming more risk averse is probably common among coaches who have been with a team for a number of years.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,164
Cambridge, MA
The shortcomings of the Sweeney era to date are an accumulation of paper cuts (to my eyes), especially more recently. Sorry for the re-litigation of some of these moves as I had another post earlier this summer going through his record to date, but I've been a fan of Sweeney on the whole until this past calendar year.

He started off about as well as one could hope for with the Lucic, Hamilton, and Jones trades in context - taking advantage of a team that was enamored with a player (Jones) but who couldn't pry him from a rival, and leveraging this to extract an extra 1st rounder out of the equation, is his signature trade IMO (up there with the mid-season acquisitions of Coyle and Lindholm). If Hamilton wasn't going to sign, IDK how much more Sweeney could have gotten or done. Got good assets back when dealt a bad hand.

In fact, the only blemishes I can see in the first handful of years were:
  • Rinaldo for a 3rd (reeks of Neely)
  • Backes as UFA for 5/$30m (reeks of Neely)
  • Stempniak deadline acquisition for 2nd and 4th despite having him on a PTO in training camp
  • The big kahuna: passing on Barzal and Connor in selecting Zboril, DeBrusk, and Senyshyn
    • The rumor around draft day was that a trade for Noah Hanifin was lined up, but fell through. We'll never know for sure, but it's clear they did not get the talent out of that draft that they should have

Through the end of the 2020-21 season, I'd still argue that Sweeney had one of the best GMing records to date league-wide since he took over, even including the fallout of the 2015 draft, by virtue of how strong his in-season trades were, and how well he fared at retaining elite talent at below-market contracts. Sure, some of the latter is due to the culture organizationally instilled by Chara, Bergeron, Krejci etc, but good management identifies that and fosters it. Additionally, the Bruins don't make the 2019 Cup run without the in-season acquisitions of Coyle, Johansson, the emergence of Clifton as an unsigned senior FA acquisition, etc.

Yes, by this point, he'd added to some bad UFA signings by securing John Moore for 5 years at $2.75m AAV, re-upping Wagner for 3 years unprompted, trading Heinen for Ritchie... but again, paper cuts that didn't hamstring the team long-term, and got them to July 1 with loads of cap space, admittedly with question marks looming around Krejci's return. Last summer was when things started to take a turn (for me) from "very positive" to "boy I hope they know what they're doing".

First, giving credit for the good:
  • He again retained two players in Hall (4 years, $6m AAV) and Reilly (3 years, $3m AAV) that represented less than either player would get on the open market, and at that point reflected good business, deference to Forbort over Reilly notwithstanding
    • Reilly ending up in the press box speaks to a misalignment (to me) between the FO and coach - there's no $3m player signed the same year that should be in the press box, full stop.
  • The signings of Haula and Nosek were also at or below market rates, with Haula's remaining year at $2.375m AAV arguably the B's most attractive trade chip not named Pastrnak.
    • If they're out of it this year, I bet Nosek returns a 3rd+5th or some such combo from a contender
  • He followed this up by retaining McAvoy mid-season for an 8 year, $9.5m AAV
Outnumbering the good, however, was the volume and cap commitment of the bad:
  • Re-signing Carlo fresh off of 2-3 concussions in a 3 month span - 6 year, $4.1m AAV deal that to me represents the big boy version of the Moore signing. Paying market rate (at best) at a long term for a known quantity is not the way to operate in the cap world.
  • Foligno - 2 years, $3.8m AAV. He has signed two respected veteran forwards in his tenure to outsized AAVs relative to their contribution. They have both been pissed when Cassidy rightly played them in a reduced role (they suck).
    • Getting this wrong twice represents either a misalignment between the FO and the coach in terms of what the team needs, or a misjudgment on the character of these players. Either way, both the Foligno and Backes signings get a gigantic F from me, with the added bonus of Backes costing a 1st round pick just to get out form under him
  • Forbort - 3 years, $3m AAV. Who was he bidding against? Forbort owes his agent ~25% minimum from this
  • Ullmark - 4 years, $5m AAV. I get the idea here in that you needed Swayman insurance, but this is a lot of term and AAV commitment to a guy that isn't much beyond an average goalie. There's value in that, but not at this term IMO.

The above four players represent $15.9m in AAV. That's acceptable if you're getting two top-four D, a middle-six winger, and a tandem starter in net. For a guy who's stretched on the second pair these days, a 6/7 D, a 4LW, and a backup G, that is a criminal usage of cap space, and should (IMO) have sealed the deal for Sweeney.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,190
Based on the data I have and internal discussions I was privy to, I firmly believe Butch became more conservative in his OZ schemes over the past few years. I really can’t say more, and probably have shared too much already. But as I wrote in that post, I think becoming more risk averse is probably common among coaches who have been with a team for a number of years.
Thanks!