Has Sweeney gained your trust?

headly

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2006
149
Central MA
This has been arguably the craziest start to an offseason in franchise history.  Given the Hamilton fiasco, McQuaid re-signing and Rinaldo trades, have the other moves taken you off the edge at all?
 
Everything regarding the Lucic trade seems to be coming up Bruins.  The Zboril pick looks to be the most level of all first rounders.  Miller is borderline NHL talent, and if anything, upgrades and replaces everything Bartkowski.  The San Jose pick has a better chance to be in the lottery than ours as things stand.   And a big, fast center lottery ticket.  Great trade.
 
The other draft picks besides Zboril?  Honestly the last 3 drafts looks pretty solid for us, I'm willing to give the scouting team the benefit of the doubt here.  I think they saw something in DeBrusk/Senyshyn while scouting for 14/37 going into the draft and decided to stick to their guys.  The 2012 draft gave us Subban, who does still have decent value same as Grzelcyk.  2013 has Arnesson and Blidh under ELC's, with Celharik looking to have some value as well.  2014 obviously has Pastrnak.  Heinen was second in NCAA freshman scoring behind Eichel.  Drafting might suddenly be a strong suit of this team.  It sucks to lose out of potential blue chippers like Barzal and Connor, but they might have thought DeBrusk and Senyshyn were NHL talent enough to play it safe.
 
Smith + Savard (3.4  + 4.0).  Belesky + Hayes (3.8 + RFA)  Pretty clear win here, I don't know how else to put it.
 
There is still a lot of work to do, but there is suddenly a lot of money and prospect talent to get it done. 
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,065
Somerville, MA
No he's not gained my trust at all. But he's gained my respect by clearly having a huge pair of metaphorical balls. I'm terrified and excited about the next 5 years for this team under this regime. The approach works if you're a genius like Belichick. It fails miserably if you're not. Seems like the latter. But I'm willing to wait and see
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,137
Falmouth
No.
 
McQuaid and Rinaldo are killing me. I can be reasonable on everything else (I'm bullish on several things in fact), but those two deals are crushing. McQuaid b/c it's a terrible deal, and rinaldo because its a shitty deal AND I don't ever want to root for him.
 

BigMike

Dope
Dope
Sep 26, 2000
22,198
Has he earned my trust, no.  Am I as convinced he is a fool as I was earlier in the week, no.
 
I like the draft picks,  but it was a great draft and they had a lot of early picks. they could have picked almost any 6 guys and we'd all be happy.  We will see in 3-4 years if he outperformed the market
 
LOVE he Lucic deal, got even better with the Jones deal
 
Today.  I think they downgraded the talent level  of the team going from Smith to Hayes,  but I guess Hayes fits what they want to do more
 
Belesky. I guess we'll see. On the plus side He signed for less than I feared.  On the downside, 3.8 million per is a whole lot for a guy I suspect will average 25 points a season on his contract
 
Honestly the move that as of today scares me he most.  The Jeremy Smith contract .  This team basically played without a backup from January on, and it cost them at least 5-7 points.  If jeremy Smith is their solution to that, then it is an F in that area
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
26,254
Cambridge, MA
The Lucic trade was a home run twice-over IMO.
 
The initial return of #13 (Zboril), Jones, and Colin Miller was more than we were expecting, especially in light of the #15, #45, and #52 return for Hamilton. I'm pretty bullish on Miller - at age 22, he put up 52 points in 70 AHL games. Providence Bruins defensemen who have put up 52 or more points - or had 0.75+ PPG in 30+ games - in the past 20 years:
 
Johnny Boychuk - 65 (2008-09)
Rich Brennan - 32 in 41 (2002-03)
Brandon Smith - 62 (1998-99)
Terry Virtue - 56 (1998-99)
 
Needless to say, it's not too common, particularly at age 22. His upside seems to be a more defensively-competent version of Dennis Wideman. After the Lucic deal, Sweeney manages to move an RFA goalie in Jones - who admittedly has high-end talent, but is coming off a less-than-scintillating return from injury this year - for a high-potential '16 first rounder and a legitimate line 2-3 prospect in Kuraly.
 
To come away with Zboril and Miller alone would have been acceptable for Lucic's remaining 1 year, especially considering the return Toronto got on the Kessel deal. To wrangle a solid first rounder and Kuraly out of it in the end is a great net transaction.
 
Today's Beleskey signing, along with trading Smith and Savard for Hayes, would have made for a very successful summer combined with the overall Lucic deal.
 
Now for the bad news - the Hamilton trade was not inspiring in the least bit. This is taking into account the notion/potential spin that Hamilton did not want to be here. By all accounts, much like the Thornton deal there were better packages to be had. If there were offers outside the division to be had that were stronger than 15/45/52 (and it certainly seems like there were), this is a poor decision at very best. Unfortunately, we also had to have the McQuaid and Rinaldo transactions. There are way too many negative things to say about these individually within one post.
 
After the Hamilton trade and McQuaid re-signing, I was at F-----. Taking into account the Lucic trade and the subsequent Rinaldo deal, that got me to an F/D-. The Jones trade, the Smith trade, and the Beleskey signing were all surprisingly favorable. Assuming Hayes signs for <$3.5m, that puts me at a solid C to C+ for this offseason. Sweeney came back from what I still think is one of the worst trades/trade returns in the team's history with Hamilton, and I didn't think he'd be able to do that while still having some cap flexibility. 
 
If he can add a top-4 defender and sign Connolly/Hayes, it wouldn't be a bad net offseason. The return on Hamilton will really sting though, at least until Senyshyn, Karlsson, and Lauzon's fates are clearer. 
 
Tl;dr: I don't know if Sweeney will ever earn my trust. TFP pointed out that there hasn't been a middle ground to any of his deals, and that's not a great thing.
 

RedSox040713

Banned
Jun 8, 2015
120
Depends. What percentage of deals/trades do you expect your GM to realistically hit on. Because I'm looking at Sweeney's moves and I split them up into:

Good: Lucic trade, Beleskey signing, Hayes trade, Spooner extension, Jones trade
Bad: McQuaid resigning, Hamilton fiasco, Rinaldo trade, Draft (at least thus far)

I would prefer my GM to hit on about 75%-90% of his trades so this would not apply to Sweeney as he is around 50%. However if he is able to make more moves that prove to be successful (or at least look like it on the surface) I will trust him a bit more
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,137
Falmouth
RedSox040713 said:
Depends. What percentage of deals/trades do you expect your GM to realistically hit on. Because I'm looking at Sweeney's moves and I split them up into:

Good: Lucic trade, Beleskey signing, Hayes trade, Spooner extension, Jones trade
Bad: McQuaid resigning, Hamilton fiasco, Rinaldo trade, Draft (at least thus far)

I would prefer my GM to hit on about 75%-90% of his trades so this would not apply to Sweeney as he is around 50%. However if he is able to make more moves that prove to be successful (or at least look like it on the surface) I will trust him a bit more
 
If the draft is going to be anywhere, it should be with good. Really it should probably be with ?
 

TheRealness

Don't make him go all Lucic on your ash
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,385
The Dirty Shire
veritas said:
No he's not gained my trust at all. But he's gained my respect by clearly having a huge pair of metaphorical balls. I'm terrified and excited about the next 5 years for this team under this regime. The approach works if you're a genius like Belichick. It fails miserably if you're not. Seems like the latter. But I'm willing to wait and see
 
This is where I'm at. I respect the balls he has in making these moves, but am skeptical of the overall plan after moves like Rinaldo and McQuaid. 
 
I am more optimistic that they took home run swings at the draft, which I like. I'd rather they take big swings on guys they love then go chalk, which didn't work for Chiarelli. 
 
After the Lucic deal, Belesky signing and Hayes trade, I'm much more in a "wait and see" mode than "sharpen my pitchfork" which is where I was after the Hamilton trade and McQuaid signing. 
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
Boston traded its 5th-round pick in the 2015 NHL Draft (135th overall) to Minnesota for Minnesota's 5th-round pick in 2016.
 
 
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=772519
 
I believe 99% of GM moves should pass the basic smell test.
 
This move is indefensible. It could not be made by someone who has even a rudimentary understanding of how draft pick value works. 
 
I could not trust a GM who made a decision like that. If I had a middle manager at my company who made a decision like that, I would at minimum put restrictions on their decisionmaking capacity for the near term future so that they couldn't hurt the company. 
 
Past that he clearly was able to win the Lucic deal by taking on 3M. Smart move. 
 
I think he bungled the Hamilton deal, but I believe that was mostly due to an organizational decision that they wanted to make 2015 picks. I do not believe Don Sweeney made that decision, I believe Cam Neely did. The only reason they rushed the move IMO was that they didn't want to deal Hamilton off the current roster for future picks. I think the return was mediocre but thats why you don't rush decisions.
 
I think someone told them Senyshyn would be gone in the 20s and they made the pick. I don't get worked up about that stuff. There are so many misses I'd almost rather a GM rely on their own scouting than the stock list. 
 
Rinaldo for a third is an atrocious waste of a draft pick as well as money for a 4th liner. Again, I believe indefensible. The move does not pass the smell test.
 
McQuaid is tougher for me - they obviously like the player and believe that he is a part of the core they want - I don't think that the contract hamstrings the team, and sometimes you overpay a bit to keep guys who believe add value. I personally wouldn't have done it, but ultimately I don't see that contract being crippling to the team. Just annoying. I think it barely passes the smell test but it can be defended.
 
So you have 2 completely indefensible moves as well as a trade negotiation of arguably the team's top asset that was (in the most benefit of the doubt to Sweeney) managed poorly. 
 
So while I doubt he cares about my trust, I would not and could not give someone with that record of decisionmaking any significant power in an organization. And I believe no competent businessman would. To me, Charlie idolizes Cam and loves having him as a drinking buddy and is blinded by the stars. Because they are not evaluating these moves in a vacuum and critically evaluating them.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,531
39.932N, -85.848W
Dummy Hoy said:
No.
 
McQuaid and Rinaldo are killing me. I can be reasonable on everything else (I'm bullish on several things in fact), but those two deals are crushing. McQuaid b/c it's a terrible deal, and rinaldo because its a shitty deal AND I don't ever want to root for him.
 
headly said:
Everything regarding the Lucic trade seems to be coming up Bruins.  The Zboril pick looks to be the most level of all first rounders.  Miller is borderline NHL talent, and if anything, upgrades and replaces everything Bartkowski.  The San Jose pick has a better chance to be in the lottery than ours as things stand.   And a big, fast center lottery ticket.  Great trade.
 
Smith + Savard (3.4  + 4.0).  Belesky + Hayes (3.8 + RFA)  Pretty clear win here, I don't know how else to put it.
 
There is still a lot of work to do, but there is suddenly a lot of money and prospect talent to get it done. 
 
N. O.
 
I'll be Debbie Downer.
 
McQuaid, Rinaldo, even Hayes suggests a desire for meathead hockey, despite the obvious trend in the other direction in the league.
 
Still a gaping hole on D... is there a single reliable defenseman that can actually play D at this point besides an ossifying Z?
 
Hayes and Beleskey arrive on seemingly "good value" deals... but they are both coming off career years.  The offensive production of newcomers to Clode's system doesn't usually increase... it is flat or decreasing.  Expect an offensive dropoff for these two, if prior team history is predictive of the future.
 
So $3.8M for 13-15 goals for Beleskey?  Is that really a great deal?  13-15 goals from Hayes once he signs a deal?  That's slightly less than the departing two players, and doesn't include Yeti's output (which I assume will be replaced by Spooner).
 
Outside of Pasta and Spooner (maybe Noseface?), they are still a slow, ponderous team.  They have massive holes on the backline defensively.
 
The return on the Lucic trade was very good, and the draft haul seems more productive than the Chia years, but there will be no help from the noobs for a couple of years at the least.
 
I like the cap relief.
 
So... a lot of treading water, with a downtick in talent and a frustrating love affair with having a Hanson Brothers persona.  
 
Two steps forward, two steps backwards...
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,548
306, row 14
Minor quibble, but I wouldn't put Jimmy Hayes in the meathead category. 20 PIM's in 72 games last year. He's a monster size wise but plays more like a Blake Wheeler than a Milan Lucic. He's not here to pound in faces, he's here to work the front of the net and be good along the boards. He's got some skill, and a good wrist shot.

As for Dandy Don....for me it is too early to judge. I do feel a lot better today than I did on Friday. There have been good moves and poor moves. He's cleared up the salary cap, re-stocked the farm, and set the team up well for the future. In the short term, the 15/16 team is probably worse. They need to address the D. Once he does that, we'll have a more complete picture to work with.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
31,732
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Not yet, not by a long shot. His moves since draft day have been alright, but the Hamilton deal and draft night were such a debacle that I feel he's merely treading water now by making good moves after that day. And trading for Rinaldo is a legit sign of a crazy person.
 
We'll see.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,028
I am cautiously optimistic as well.  I've also learned that we need to hear the full story before judging.  The Dougie trade kills me.  The Rinaldo trade as well, but it seems obvious to me that Sweeney actually does have a plan here and I didn't feel that way at the draft.  
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,771
02130
I mostly agree with Dick Pole Upside. Beleskey is not only coming off a career year but that year was also largely based on a high shooting percentage. That they signed for less AAV than was rumored should not be a plus considering UFA signings on day 1 are almost always crazy (and also that the B's are closer to the cap than most teams who make those signings). Signing him shows a misunderstanding of not just shooting% but also how players age (25-27 tends to be a player's peak). If they are just getting the guy with a previous high of 11 goals, who has never played in more than 69 games in a season? Not so great.
 
Hayes seems solid, but Smith's numbers were pretty comparable (I know they play different styles) -- I guess they save some money there because Smith's contract wasn't particularly good. Given Savard is only owed $1.1m in actual money I don't think it would have been difficult to shed that deal to any number of teams, so that's a win but not a huge one. 
 
Lucic trade seems good. I'll be really curious to see what his next contract is but it wasn't likely to be here. No real complaints.
 
Hamilton, Rinaldo, McQuaid, all awful moves (or series of moves). In Hamilton's case, they admitted that they weren't able to move into the top 5 to get the D prospect they wanted...had they known that you may as well have qualified Dougie and waited to deal him later. That's a failure on multiple levels -- allowing Dougie to go in the first place, not shopping him around enough, dealing him for only picks, and then not even being able to use those picks to get the building block you really wanted.
 
Overall team outlook doesn't seem to have changed much from last year. Instead of building around Dougie and using the new cap space to change the direction of the team, they let Dougie go and added players that fit the same mold. That mold isn't a terrible one, but they haven't fixed any of the big issues that the team had last year -- nor were they able to move into the top of a very good draft to get new pieces to build around. Minus Dougie and Lucic and plus Hayes, Smith, etc is at best a slight downgrade. They are a borderline playoff team if the core stays healthy
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,236
South Boston
That's where I am, too. I think the Dougie trade couple with the McQuaid signing are near unforgivable unless Hamilton put his balls on the conference room table.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
While I wasn't happy with the Dougie trade, I've calmed down about it a little. Yes, I feel like they could have gotten more back (and news reports saying there were teams who didn't know he was on the block are disconcerting), but I can see wanting assets for this year's draft and not wanting to have to wait. Also, if they allowed Dougie to leave via offer sheet and he got a similar contract to the one he signed, the return wouldn't really have been a lot higher. I do still think there's something to this franchise not being able to keep young talent though and Sweeney hasn't made me feel differently.

The Lucic trade (and the subsequent Jones trade), Spooner signing, and gaining many draft assets while at least treading water cap-wise I would say are wins. So at least he got my attention there. I give an incomplete on the players he actually drafted, the Beleskey pickup, and Jones.

HOWEVER, the trade of this years 5th for next year's, resigning McQuaid, and trading anything for Zac Rinaldo are dumpster fires. So while he might have done a few smart things that show promise, those three things make me question his sanity.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,548
306, row 14
The only thing I can think of for the 5th for a 5th trade is the Bruins were the ones wanting to move it out. It could have had something to do with the # of picks they made and needing contract space down the road. The 6th first and 2nd rounders will likely all sign at some point. That's more than a normal draft haul, so maybe they just wanted to shove that pick back a year. Minnesota mau have just liked a kid this year and were OK with it.

That's all I got though.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,236
South Boston
They're not the only ones who made that kind of move IIRC. I thought I saw a nearly identical one on the list.

Maybe it was just listed twice, once for each team.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,065
Somerville, MA
I hate the Hamilton and McQuaid transactions as much as anyone and don't trust Sweeney one bit. Agree with cshea though, can't see why anyone cares about the 5th rounder. Trading a 1st rounder for a 1st rounder next year would be inexcusable. But 5th rounders in the NHL have minimal value and they'd already drafted 8 players. Maybe they guys they were targeting at that spot got picked right ahead of them. Maybe they just didn't feel strongly about anyone at the time. Whatever the reasoning, the trade is completely inconsequential. I'd rather them punt the pick down the road than draft someone they didn't feel strongly about.
 

gingerbreadmann

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
742
Let me preface this by saying I really don't know what Don Sweeney himself has brought to the table here vs. what Don Sweeney the puppet has done. But as for the composite "Don Sweeney," no, he has done the opposite of gain trust.

The Lucic trade was pretty shrewd all around no matter how you slice it. That kind of foresight and cap management, IMO, is exactly what we were looking for when hiring someone to replace Chia. Kudos to him for that. The Hayes deal was also good money-wise.

Everything else, though, I fucking hate. We can speculate on why Hamilton was traded but the only fact that matters is that a week ago we had a 22 year old top-end talent on defense as an RFA and today we do not have anything that comes close to that. I really don't know how any of you can get past this. This franchise is allergic to talent and it's fucking infuriating. Beleskey and Hayes are being praised around here but these aren't 30-goal players by any stretch. If I read another scouting report about a Bruins acquisition that says "works hard along the boards" I'm going to fucking puke. Same shit with their draft picks this year save Zboril. It's too early to judge any of them, of course, but it's the philosophy that really bugs me. Like the "Patriot Way" except the front office takes it seriously, and it doesn't even exist. McQuaid and Rinaldo just epitomize this. Not much that hasn't been said about those but I really see that arrogant line of thinking behind every one of these moves save for Lucic.

To win in today's NHL you really need some high end talent. I don't know how else to stress that. We incubate talent until it becomes too much for us to handle, then we throw it the fuck away like a hot potato. For what? Toughness? Sweet. We may lose a few games, but damn if we'll lose any fights (either hand to hand or along the god damn boards).

The fact this has continued into Sweeney's tenure leads one to believe it is coming from up top to some extent. That's probably the scariest thing of all.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,028
That is all well and good, but you have to realize that only 15 players scored 30 goals last year.  The thinking that "they haven't acquired a 30 goal scorer!" therefore the moves are a failure, is fundamentally flawed.  The Hamilton trade doesn't appear to be about toughness, but more about the player wanting a prohibitive amount of money to stay here.  The return is terrible and I hate it, but the evidence points to him not wanting to be here.  You can fault the execution of the trade, but it's difficult to ascribe some kind of organizational philosophy to them hating talent.   All you have to do is look at the way Torey Krug is revered by the front office.  He sucks defensively, he is a high end offensive player and they love him.  
 
I can understand hating the return on the Dougie trade, I do as well.  I can also understand hating the Rinaldo and McQuaid deals, I'm with you.  That said, the "they hate talent" dialogue sounds like Michael Felger short sitedness.  There isn't an organization in hockey that doesn't say good things about players that battle along the boards.  It is a huge part of this game.  There are about 10 players in the league who can float in the offensive zone and still be offensively effective and most of the players that scored 30 goals last year will win a puck battle.  For example, if they had an opportunity to acquire a guy like Jaime Benn or Steve Stamkos, I don't think the front office would say "We'll pass, we hate talent." 
 
To answer the thread's question, I at least see a plan here.  I don't know if I trust them to execute that play, but it is clearly there.  I was alarmed a week ago because it certainly felt like their wasn't.  
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,771
02130
burstnbloom said:
That is all well and good, but you have to realize that only 15 players scored 30 goals last year.  The thinking that "they haven't acquired a 30 goal scorer!" therefore the moves are a failure, is fundamentally flawed.  The Hamilton trade doesn't appear to be about toughness, but more about the player wanting a prohibitive amount of money to stay here.  The return is terrible and I hate it, but the evidence points to him not wanting to be here.  You can fault the execution of the trade, but it's difficult to ascribe some kind of organizational philosophy to them hating talent.   All you have to do is look at the way Torey Krug is revered by the front office.  He sucks defensively, he is a high end offensive player and they love him.  
 
I can understand hating the return on the Dougie trade, I do as well.  I can also understand hating the Rinaldo and McQuaid deals, I'm with you.  That said, the "they hate talent" dialogue sounds like Michael Felger short sitedness.  There isn't an organization in hockey that doesn't say good things about players that battle along the boards.  It is a huge part of this game.  There are about 10 players in the league who can float in the offensive zone and still be offensively effective and most of the players that scored 30 goals last year will win a puck battle.  For example, if they had an opportunity to acquire a guy like Jaime Benn or Steve Stamkos, I don't think the front office would say "We'll pass, we hate talent." 
 
To answer the thread's question, I at least see a plan here.  I don't know if I trust them to execute that play, but it is clearly there.  I was alarmed a week ago because it certainly felt like their wasn't.  
Few things:
- Pointing out that only 15 players scored 30 goals 1. misses the point, which is that Beleskey and Hayes aren't likely to even get 20 goals...I don't think he's saying that the moves are a failure because they're not going to get a ton of points, but rather that they're uninspiring because they are the same grinder players with limited offensive upside that we've seen this team play for years, 2. misses the allusion to Benning dismissing Seguin as "just a 30-goal guy--" they had one of those elusive 30-goal guys signed to a great contract and they dealt him. 
 
- If Hamilton wanted "too much" to be here, 1. He may actually be worth that much and 2. The team needs to look very hard at themselves to figure out where they went wrong. Calgary hasn't had success in forever and is a smaller city than Boston. I don't know what Dougie wants in life, but most players say they want to win--why did Hamilton sign with them for less than he was asking for here? Is it because Julien benched him for Meszaros and he held the grudge? Is it because Neely gave him shit behind the scenes while Seidenberg and Campbell sucked and were praised? Was it just a negotiating ploy and if they had waited he wuld have eventually signed here for a reasonable amount? We certainly don't know -- maybe he just doesn't like lobster rolls and thinks he looks good in red, but maybe there is something the org did wrong to alienate their young superstar. Considering there is some smoke pointing that way and they did similar things with their other young superstar (who actually may have deserved it some).
 
-You're right that the focus on grinding is a league-wide thing and a ton of teams will talk up guys who do that. But I said it in other threads; maybe there is an opportunity for a smart team to exploit inefficiencies here.
 
- What is the plan, actually? They are better than they were on draft day, but they still don't have a defense and them being any good is banking on a bunch of prospects working out. They still have an aging high-priced core who probably only has a few years left, but they have enough holes that they're not likely to make much noise in that time unless their prospects come on very quickly. They're incredibly slow on defense outside of Krug. If someone can articulate the plan I'm interested, but I'm not really seeing it. At least trading Rask or Chara or something would be a rebuild and I would understand what was going on.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,236
South Boston
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Gingers look awful in red.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
30,659
Melrose, MA
Mixed emotions:
 
1. Hamilton.  I hated this deal, but it was partly the result of Hamilton's desire to leave, the Bruins' salary cap situation, and their weak overall depth in the system.  Sweeney's realistic alternatives were to pay him a LOT more than he ultimately signed for or to play contract hardball and force Dougie to hold out or sign an offer sheet. Instead he picked up a first and two seconds in a deep draft. It still stinks but it wasn't the horror show it first appeared to be, given Sweeney's limited options. I think I would have played hardball and matched an offer sheet, but that has its disadvantages.
 
2. Lucic.  This (and the Jones deal, which was basically part of it) was just a fantastic deal.  For 1 year of Lucic and $3 million, Sweeney landed 2 first round picks, a good defense prospect who may be NHL ready, and a lesser prospect.  I think I would have tried to address the salary cap situation by rolling with Jones and trying to deal Rask for value, but that probably would have been dumb.
 
3. McQuaid. Yuck. I can't look at this as anything other than an unforced error.  If he had to be signed, I'd rather have gone with a slightly higher AAV instead of locking him up for four years.  Ugh.  Even now I'm not convinced that he is one of their best 6 defensemen under contract. I suppose that if he really is healthy there is some potential upside here - McQuaid is only 27 and is coming off two lost years due to injuries - but I don't see it.
 
4. Rinaldo. Ugh.  I could see them bringing in a player like this - if he wasn't a dirty player signed for two years at more than the minimum and costing a 3rd round pick.  As it stands, there's nothing to like about this move.  I'd really rather have seen Brian Ferlin get a look on the 4th line - I thought Ferlin did pretty well in his limited opportunity last year and has the kind of game that could fit on a decent 4th line.
 
5. The draft picks.  I've got no issue here.  A lot of depth and speed was just added to the system - something the Bruins needed.  I don't care about the 5th round pick thing.  
 
6. Beleskey and Hayes.  I'm not sold on either one, and I liked Reilly Smith, but not at Smith's current price.  I don't really know either player well enough to offer any judgment, but from the numbers I am skeptical about whether either one is a legit top 6 guy, and Beleskey's deal seems a little rich for a 3rd liner.  
 
If Beleskey and Hayes turn out to be good, top 6 caliber players, then on balance Sweeney gets a positive grade.  If they are busts it is a negative grade. If they fall somewhere in between, then it is too early to judge. I don't see either having the offensive ability of Erikson or Marchand or the potential of Connolly or Pastrnak.  
 

Reardons Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,472
Cambridge
He has my trust until he loses it. It's Don Sweeney, St. Paul's to Harvard, longtime Bruin.
 
If he isn't part of our tribe I'm not sure who is.
 
Strengths
 
1. Great Lucic trade, and I expect Miller to pan out nicely.
2. Superb move of Smith. Got size back and another Bostonian that I hope will play more physical.
3. Time will tell on Beleskey but I do love the numbers for the moment.
4. Brilliant move of the Savard contract.
5. Space. They have some to shore up the defense, which they need to do.
 
Critiques
 
1. Would have liked to see a top 4 d-man come back in the Hamilton move, one that can play right now.
 
Gray Areas
 
1. I'm not sure Rinaldo is the answer for playing with more energy and intensity as a team, but I'm willing to wait and see.
2. I would have liked to see Yeti stay or bring in a Patrick Sharp/TJ Oshie, and move Chris Kelly but this is one of my less realistic views. 
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
cshea said:
The only thing I can think of for the 5th for a 5th trade is the Bruins were the ones wanting to move it out. It could have had something to do with the # of picks they made and needing contract space down the road. The 6th first and 2nd rounders will likely all sign at some point. That's more than a normal draft haul, so maybe they just wanted to shove that pick back a year. Minnesota mau have just liked a kid this year and were OK with it.

That's all I got though.
The offer should have been laughed at. You don't trade a 5th in one year for a 5th the next. If Minnesota wanted a 5th, they give up a 4th next year. Honestly, this is like Grady Little level stupidity, there's nothing to defend. It shows a complete lack of basic understanding of draft pick value. It was dumber than a third for Rinaldo which is saying something. 
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,540
DS needs to get a top 4 defensemen now, ideally Shattenkirk or Seabrook if St. Louis or Chicago is pressed up against the cap, Oduya as a 3rd option.
 

Reardons Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,472
Cambridge
Maximus said:
DS needs to get a top 4 defensemen now, ideally Shattenkirk or Seabrook if St. Louis or Chicago is pressed up against the cap, Oduya as a 3rd option.
 
I'm not sure there is much I wouldn't move to get Shattenkirk in a Bruins uniform, beyond the real core. Seabrook I'd give up a lot, but Shattenkirk is the guy in my book.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,144
Reardons Beard said:
He has my trust until he loses it. It's Don Sweeney, St. Paul's to Harvard, longtime Bruin.
 
If he isn't part of our tribe I'm not sure who is.
People like Myt1 and Rev are of our "tribe" and I wouldn't trust them with string, let alone a hockey team.

(I might trust Myt1 with the string under adult supervision.)


But I think that, for the moment, Sweeney (or rather the amalgamation of Sweeney, Cam Neely, and, probably, Charlie Jacobs) seems like he/they can at least tie his/their own shoes without a calamity. It's absolutely unacceptable how they handled Hamilton--if your pre-prime, star defenseman wants out, that's on you in literally every case--McQuaid, and our new fourth-line turd, but the other moves show that at least somebody's brain is working there.
 

slidingsideways

knows when to say when
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2004
740
Boston
I don't trust Sweeney any further than I could throw him.
 
Anyone on the fence about Rinaldo hasn't watched enough hockey. The guy is so dirty that I don't even want him sitting in our press box as a healthy scratch. He's spent his career going out of his way to injure other players and he doesn't belong in the league.
 
I've wanted Seabrook in a spoked B for years. If Sweeney can pull that off, I'll toss him a peanut.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,771
02130
Reardons Beard said:
He has my trust until he loses it. It's Don Sweeney, St. Paul's to Harvard, longtime Bruin.
 
If he isn't part of our tribe I'm not sure who is.
 
That's not necessarily a good thing as it seems to lead to prizing "team identity" and toughness over things like talent. Or being too loyal to certain players. You want your leadership to be objective.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
30,659
Melrose, MA
4 6 3 DP said:
The offer should have been laughed at. You don't trade a 5th in one year for a 5th the next. If Minnesota wanted a 5th, they give up a 4th next year. Honestly, this is like Grady Little level stupidity, there's nothing to defend. It shows a complete lack of basic understanding of draft pick value. It was dumber than a third for Rinaldo which is saying something. 
It's not Grady Little level stupidity.  There's no legitimate comparison between a completely inconsequential decision on the one hand (a 5th round pick is basically a lottery ticket with an expected value of near zero) and an obvious and season-ending decision on the other.
 
Sweeney obviously didn't want to pick there so he took what he could get.  Not a great return, but if the potential picks he was looking at there didn't thrill him there was no real harm in deferring the pick for a year.
 
Deals like this aren't unheard of, either.
 
The Kings traded a 2013 seventh for a 2015 seventh. 
 
The Islanders traded a 2014 third for a 2015 third.  
 
Nashville traded a 2013 4th for a 2013 7th and a 2014 4th.  
 
Just a few examples.   
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
I appreciate the research you did to show other examples of brain dead decisionmaking (which was my Grady point - not related to one particular decision). Seriously. It doesn't change that its illogical and insane, but it does weaken my point.
 
Anyways, I'm with the can't be trusted crowd. Too much "Yay -they like us, they want to be Bruins!!!!" and Rinaldo and this draft pick crap for me to feel like they can critically and properly make decisions. 
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,065
Somerville, MA
4 6 3 DP said:
I appreciate the research you did to show other examples of brain dead decisionmaking (which was my Grady point - not related to one particular decision). Seriously. It doesn't change that its illogical and insane, but it does weaken my point.
 
Anyways, I'm with the can't be trusted crowd. Too much "Yay -they like us, they want to be Bruins!!!!" and Rinaldo and this draft pick crap for me to feel like they can critically and properly make decisions. 
 
You haven't made a coherent argument to why it's illogical and insane. Others have made valid arguments why it's logical and sane.
 
I'm on team "Sweeney is insane". But the 5th round trade has nothing to do with it.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,966
Tuukka's refugee camp
I don't think anyone has made a logical and sane argument for it outside of EJ's examples of other teams doing it, a vague reference to contract limit (which isn't something you take into account for a 5th) and conjecture about lottery tickets. None of which are particularly strong.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
30,659
Melrose, MA
kenneycb said:
I don't think anyone has made a logical and sane argument for it outside of EJ's examples of other teams doing it, a vague reference to contract limit (which isn't something you take into account for a 5th) and conjecture about lottery tickets. None of which are particularly strong.
There's no strong argument against either - or at least none that has been raised in this thread.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
You go to the bank and borrow $100. The bank says, "OK" - you can have $100, but you have to pay me interest and then the $100 back".
 
There is a time value of "borrowing" that pick. It's the interest on getting to use the pick this year instead of a future year.
 
If that pick is below pick number 135, the Bruins paid Minnesota "negative interest" to borrow their pick this year. The Bruins didn't guarantee that pick would be better than 135. It could be worse.
 
It makes no sense. 
 
With that, we care more about the Bruins fifth round pick this year than the General Manager of the Bruins, so probably best to call it a day on this one. 
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
10,098
Multivac
That's a good explanation with one caveat. If the draft they got the pick for is deeper than this draft, even getting a lower pick could be a good investment.

It's like if you borrowed 100 GBP but had to pay back 150 USD. You could end up having been given more than you have to pay back if the rates work in your favor.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
30,659
Melrose, MA
4 6 3 DP said:
You go to the bank and borrow $100. The bank says, "OK" - you can have $100, but you have to pay me interest and then the $100 back".
 
There is a time value of "borrowing" that pick. It's the interest on getting to use the pick this year instead of a future year.
 
If that pick is below pick number 135, the Bruins paid Minnesota "negative interest" to borrow their pick this year. The Bruins didn't guarantee that pick would be better than 135. It could be worse.
 
It makes no sense. 
 
With that, we care more about the Bruins fifth round pick this year than the General Manager of the Bruins, so probably best to call it a day on this one. 
 
Negative interest rate loans (ie borrowing and then paying back less than you borrowed) are actually not so unusual anymore.  
 
But the real issue is this: the actual value of pick #135 in the 2015 draft to the Bruins was the rights to whatever player they would have taken.  If they didn't especially like their options at that pick, then why not trade it for a pick next year?  My guess would be that the Bruins had a list of guys they liked at 5, none of them slid, so they figured maybe next year someone they like there will slide to them.  They have done this before, maybe there is usually someone they want in round 5 and this year there wasn't.  
 
There's no set trade value to any particular draft pick. Look at trades of draft picks, and they are all over the map.  During the draft, picks don't have some sort of generic commodity value, their value is equal to the draft rights of the best player available, and every team's draft board is different. 
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
I just think unless it was a pick higher than 135 you don't give up the time value. I think it's braindead and many of you don't. I think it's a negative EV play in the longterm. 
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
10,098
Multivac
I don't disagree with your principle - if you are going to trade, your goal should be to get equal or better value.

It's the "mathematical" details of that calculation that are really at issue. It is not possible to say with the kind of precision you are (135th pick) what "equal value" means in this context. EJ has given you some good reasons why.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
Look - he could have dealt it for a 4th next year and next year could be a lousy draft and there could be no good 4th rounders and the deal could be bad.
 
Or he could deal it for a 6th next year and it could be a stacked 6th round. I can't do it with precision and neither can Sweeney. I have set that "mathematical" value at getting a pick at least as high in the next year as the one dealt in the current year - as it's the only method of value I can use (too much is unknown). If you prefer set a lower bar, that's fine.
 
Would people here be OK with dealing a 5 this year for a 7 next year, given that it's not possible to say what equal value is? Ultimately we all pick a spot. Mine is ensuring at least the 135th next year. 
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,236
South Boston
Blacken said:
People like Myt1 and Rev are of our "tribe" and I wouldn't trust them with string, let alone a hockey team.

(I might trust Myt1 with the string under adult supervision.)


But I think that, for the moment, Sweeney (or rather the amalgamation of Sweeney, Cam Neely, and, probably, Charlie Jacobs) seems like he/they can at least tie his/their own shoes without a calamity. It's absolutely unacceptable how they handled Hamilton--if your pre-prime, star defenseman wants out, that's on you in literally every case--McQuaid, and our new fourth-line turd, but the other moves show that at least somebody's brain is working there.
Ehhhhhhh . . . how long of a string?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
All the 5th round discussion really shows is that hockey should probably strip back to a 3 or 4 round draft and have more unrestricted amateur signing.
 
Trading anything of real value in year one for the same value in year two is an obviously bad play.  The fact that you can justify this not being a bad play shows how little value there is to the 5th round pick.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,603
When Sweeney was younger I bet he only played with fat and average players, no skinny players on his team.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
12,356
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
smastroyin said:
All the 5th round discussion really shows is that hockey should probably strip back to a 3 or 4 round draft and have more unrestricted amateur signing.
 
Trading anything of real value in year one for the same value in year two is an obviously bad play.  The fact that you can justify this not being a bad play shows how little value there is to the 5th round pick.
Exactly. If you're dinging Sweeney on this, then it tells me you're concentrating on the wrong things. This is the least significant move he has made.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,032
We all have things in our lives that are utterly irrelevant that tweak us. That trade is one of those things for me. 
 
I suspect if I knew more about Zac Rinaldo I'd be apoplectic about that move but I don't know the player well enough.