Jeremy Jacobs sells Bruins to his 6 children

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
25,245
Cambridge, MA
Got unreasonably excited when I saw the first four words in the thread preview.

Maybe we can have horse jumping between periods
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
25,468
Will Charlie be running it or will he share responsibilities with his siblings?
 

Cotillion

lurker
Jun 11, 2019
316
Sell seems poor wording as most of these are now setup to pass through trusts and stuff to put off realizing capital gains and other stuff for long periods.

And as tight fisted as Jacobs is, I have to believe the guy did it in the most tax advantaged way possible.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,796
Id imagine that at the least he’s first among equals, given that he’s been actively involved with the team for 15 years or so.
After almost never seeing or hearing from old Monty when he first owned the team, Charlie did move to Boston and has been decently present as the face of ownership. I would imagine that continues, with the other siblings taking care of other Delaware North/Family concerns. After all, do you really expect the rest of them to leave balmy metropolitan Buffalo?
 

BigMike

Dope
Dope
Sep 26, 2000
21,972
Never fully got the hate for Jacobs.

He was an easy target to blame, but I have no doubt Harry Sinden had full control in his years as GM, and Jacobs let him run things. And since Harry has left the Bruins have spent up to or over the cap every year

And then he went out and build the new arena on his own dime, even paying the massive extortion fees Boston, and the state put on him

I get the criticism of him that he lives in Buffalo, and isn't there cheering every night, but I always thought it was silly for example that he gets booed whenever he is there
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,883
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Yeah, I thought the antipathy towards Jacobs had mellowed a bit over the years. A Stanley Cup and two more Finals appearances will do that to a fanbase. Certainly the other main complaint ("they're cheap") is no longer true either as they've spent to the cap most years and in fact fans are pissed because they think Rask and Krejci make too much money.

Charlie's been involved with the team for many years now and has generally kept a low yet professional profile. Yes, his showing up at equestrian events as a competitor does nothing to endear him to the usual fanbase but at the end of the day, who cares? The Jacobs are no longer the faces of the team, Cam Neely and Don Sweeney and Butch are.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The only two things an ownership group needs to do are (1) spend as much money on the team as possible, and (2) put competent people in charge of running the club and give them space to do their jobs. Since the 2004-05 strike, it seems to me Bruins’ ownership has done those two things. So I’m inclined to say it’s a good thing that the franchise is staying in the family.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,796
Never fully got the hate for Jacobs.

He was an easy target to blame, but I have no doubt Harry Sinden had full control in his years as GM, and Jacobs let him run things. And since Harry has left the Bruins have spent up to or over the cap every year

And then he went out and build the new arena on his own dime, even paying the massive extortion fees Boston, and the state put on him

I get the criticism of him that he lives in Buffalo, and isn't there cheering every night, but I always thought it was silly for example that he gets booed whenever he is there
It really is a generational thing. It was a team that was winning championships, then he bought it in 75, and they promptly stopped doing so. And didn't win one again for almost 40 years. They always made the playoffs, but never seemed to spend for that last player that would put them over the top in the years when they had a real chance at a cup. He was a billionaire who lived out of town, had no real connection to Boston other than buying the team, you never saw, and was the one making all the money off the exorbitantly priced hot dog you bought at the game between owning the team, the building, and the food service company. When your team keeps falling just short, it was easy to say it was because he just didn't care enough to try to win it all. He just liked having the team on his spreadsheet of assets.

But yeah, that changed. Charlie is here and more active. The team won a championship. They spend to the cap. They've been more aggressive about making front office moves. There is less you can blame him for now.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
25,245
Cambridge, MA
He's militantly anti-labor, and squandered decades of potentially great teams in the interest of making the playoffs and getting 2-4 home gates as cheaply as possible.

I'm not willing to give him a whole lot of credit just because he's been willing to spend to the cap that he got implemented. Bill Wirtz or Eugene Melnyk he is not, but he wasted a lot of good teams that had the potential to be great.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
5,722
South of North
He's militantly anti-labor, and squandered decades of potentially great teams in the interest of making the playoffs and getting 2-4 home gates as cheaply as possible.

I'm not willing to give him a whole lot of credit just because he's been willing to spend to the cap that he got implemented. Bill Wirtz or Eugene Melnyk he is not, but he wasted a lot of good teams that had the potential to be great.
That's...not a take I've heard before. Was there any wasted opportunity last year for example? No snark intended BTW.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
8,499
Some fancy town in CT
To be fair, they also had the misfortune of running into legendary Islanders, Oilers and Penguins teams for over a decade.

As an aside, those teams could always beat Roy - it's the shit like Penney and Theodore that kept messing them up. Go figure.
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
3,902
Pasadena, CA
That's...not a take I've heard before. Was there any wasted opportunity last year for example? No snark intended BTW.
As Pedro said, it's generational. That was exactly his rep in the 80s, that he was more interested in selling concessions than winning. At least, that was the general narrative from the Globe and Herald sports section. So, of course, it was probably wrong.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,582
Jeremy Jacobs legacy is definitely mixed, as it did seem as if the team in the '70's and '80's had fiscal constraints that other prime market hockey teams did not. Sinden was the loyal soldier who kept the budget in line, but it was clear that Jacobs held the purse strings. His relationship with the Celtics almost caused his primary Garden tenant to move in the late 1970's (yeah, it was more than just Jacobs, but multiple Celtics owners complained about the onerous lease terms they had with the Garden, which was controlled by Jacobs). And it was his decisions that prevented the Bruins from signing any players in advance of the season long lockout, which set up the team for a disastrous scramble to fill a roster with flotsam and jetsam once play resumed in 2005. Which, in turn, indirectly led to the disastrous Thornton trade. I don't care at all about his political views or any other personal foibles; sports team owners are seldom angels.

At the same time, for the most part he has let his management team run the team. It's clear that Sinden, Millbury, O'Connell, Chiarelli, and Neely/Sweeney all have had a large amount of autonomy, but with still enough accountability so that guys that needed to go (O'Clownell, Chia) were shown the door at the right time. I do think Charlie Jacobs has been running things at the ownership level for quite some time, and he is at least more approachable to the fans and media, and seems to again let the hockey people run the hockey club. And since the salary cap era, I cannot point to any problem that Jacobs caused. Boston still seems to be a desirable destination for many players. Fans certainly cannot blame Jacobs for last season's Game 7 loss, or for the team's 2nd round exit to Tampa the prior season.

Of course, the last time a Boston team had a father-to-son transition resulted in Thanks Dad! Gaston ruining the Celtics (and the team's reputation among players) for multiple decades.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
25,245
Cambridge, MA
That's...not a take I've heard before. Was there any wasted opportunity last year for example? No snark intended BTW.
Completely different legacy in the Cap environment as others have said. Fact is though that he fought hard for the cap, and was a leading force of the lost '04-'05 season as a result. 12 years of spending to the cap doesn't wipe out 30 years of relative avarice and a nearly complete waste of Ray Bourque's career IMO
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,488
And then there is the mystery beating inside the Jacobs home 40 years ago.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,883
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Completely different legacy in the Cap environment as others have said. Fact is though that he fought hard for the cap, and was a leading force of the lost '04-'05 season as a result. 12 years of spending to the cap doesn't wipe out 30 years of relative avarice and a nearly complete waste of Ray Bourque's career IMO
Bourque played in two SC Finals and reached the semis a few other times as well prior to 1994, which is not in any way a waste of his career. They ran into the Isles and the Oilers. Shit happens.

The real waste of his career came once the old Garden closed and Harry Sinden continued to build teams as if they played half their games on an antiquated smaller ice surface. They also went forever without finding a decent goalie for any stretch of time. So 1994 onwards was a waste for sure. Whether that was due to Jacobs or Sinden is an exercise left to to the reader.

2004-05 was awful but that's also a long time ago. He also gave the go-ahead to shitcan Dave Lewis after one year, which showed a willingness or understanding to eat costs if it would make the team better. And frankly there's no arguing with the results beginning around 2008 or so with the Cup win and two more Final appearances. Fuck man, they should have won it this goddamn year and I'm still not over it. That's not on Jacobs.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,883
Deep inside Muppet Labs
It really is a generational thing. It was a team that was winning championships, then he bought it in 75, and they promptly stopped doing so. And didn't win one again for almost 40 years. They always made the playoffs, but never seemed to spend for that last player that would put them over the top in the years when they had a real chance at a cup. He was a billionaire who lived out of town, had no real connection to Boston other than buying the team, you never saw, and was the one making all the money off the exorbitantly priced hot dog you bought at the game between owning the team, the building, and the food service company. When your team keeps falling just short, it was easy to say it was because he just didn't care enough to try to win it all. He just liked having the team on his spreadsheet of assets.

But yeah, that changed. Charlie is here and more active. The team won a championship. They spend to the cap. They've been more aggressive about making front office moves. There is less you can blame him for now.
They stopped winning Cups because the WHA gutted them, Orr's knees turned to putty, and they kept coming up just short. They also did the same in '71 with the best team in the league getting bounced by the fucking Habs in the first round, so why suddenly that was all Jacobs' fault eludes me at the moment.

They also lost Orr to the Blackhawks but as Russ Conway proved, the Bruins offered him an 18% ownership stake through his agent, Alan Eagleson, but Eagleson never informed Orr of the offer and steered him to Chicago. Eagleson later went to jail for this and many other malfeasances and Orr disowned him.

Jacobs is not a likable character in any way and his public persona is cold, to say the least. But I think a lot of things said and written about him over the years have been inaccurate or misleading. I don't love the guy, but a lot of his supposed sins have been vastly overblown IMO.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,872
Completely different legacy in the Cap environment as others have said. Fact is though that he fought hard for the cap, and was a leading force of the lost '04-'05 season as a result. 12 years of spending to the cap doesn't wipe out 30 years of relative avarice and a nearly complete waste of Ray Bourque's career IMO
At least there is some sort of moral (or immoral) consistency to fighting hard for the cap and then spending right up to it annually. It's the ones who fight for the cap and then keep close to the floor that should get the Eddie LeBec treatment.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,582
Completely different legacy in the Cap environment as others have said. Fact is though that he fought hard for the cap, and was a leading force of the lost '04-'05 season as a result. 12 years of spending to the cap doesn't wipe out 30 years of relative avarice and a nearly complete waste of Ray Bourque's career IMO
Even the bolded requires some context. Jacobs bought the team when many of the Big Bad Bruins had either left, retired, or were aging. Bobby Orr's knees did the rest. Meanwhile the NHL was dealing with free agency, the WHA, and rapid expansion. Free agency was essentially a new invention in professional sports, and it's not surprising that most owners of that era had difficulty adjusting to the new realities. Despite horrible draft position and mostly horrible drafting, and Montreal fielding one of the greatest teams in hockey history, the Bruins were still able to rebuild into a very good team that probably would have won a Cup in 1979 had they not botched a routine line change against Montreal. Now, there were areas where the Bruins were frugal if not stingy, something about which Don Cherry would rant, said rantings that would eventually sour his relationship with Sinden to the point they would communicate by notes delivered by a 3rd party.

From 1984 to 1992, the Bruins always appeared to be a player or two short when matched against the Islanders, Oilers, and Penguins. But it wasn't necessarily from a lack of trying to compete. The Bruins were among the league's upper tier of spending, and did everything in their power to retain their own free agents in Bourque and Neely. Signing other team's free agents was difficult, but the Bruins did make trades for players like Ken Linseman, Bobby Carpenter, Adam Oates, Dave Poulin, Brian Propp, Andy Moog, and Al Iafrate in GFIN type moves during that period. And that 1993 Bruins team may have made more noise in the playoffs had they not had Brian Sutter as their coach.

The subsequent years were painful, but it was Sinden himself who joyfully pointed out articles that had quotes from anonymous GM's complaining about the Bruins rookie contract offer to one Joe Thornton.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,796
They stopped winning Cups because the WHA gutted them, Orr's knees turned to putty, and they kept coming up just short. They also did the same in '71 with the best team in the league getting bounced by the fucking Habs in the first round, so why suddenly that was all Jacobs' fault eludes me at the moment.

They also lost Orr to the Blackhawks but as Russ Conway proved, the Bruins offered him an 18% ownership stake through his agent, Alan Eagleson, but Eagleson never informed Orr of the offer and steered him to Chicago. Eagleson later went to jail for this and many other malfeasances and Orr disowned him.

Jacobs is not a likable character in any way and his public persona is cold, to say the least. But I think a lot of things said and written about him over the years have been inaccurate or misleading. I don't love the guy, but a lot of his supposed sins have been vastly overblown IMO.
Not saying they're right. Saying I understand.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,883
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Now, there were areas where the Bruins were frugal if not stingy, something about which Don Cherry would rant, said rantings that would eventually sour his relationship with Sinden to the point they would communicate by notes delivered by a 3rd party.
It also bears noting that Don Cherry was a terrible, awful no good very bad coach. And a publicity hound to boot.

Jacob's real sin was in not ushering Sinden to the door earlier. Harry was a fossil by 1994 and really hamstrung the team because he was building for a different era. I have been told by a few folks in the know that another sin that could be laid at Jacobs' door is that their scouting and data filing procedures were WOEFULLY inadequate for many years after other teams had modernized those areas. So he should take blame for that too.

Maybe that's why they drafted Jeff Lazaro and Zack Fucking Hamill. Gah.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,883
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Rob Cimetta then. Shayne Stevenson. YOU GET THE IDEA.

You want to prove to me Jacobs was cheap? Find me something that says or reports that the Bruins drafted Kluzak over Bellows at #1 overall because he'd be cheaper over the long run. I don't think that's the case, I think Sinden really thought Kluzak was the better player (Spoiler: he was wrong) but if there's something showing that was a monetary consideration pick I'd be willing to listen.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,796
It also bears noting that Don Cherry was a terrible, awful no good very bad coach. And a publicity hound to boot.

Jacob's real sin was in not ushering Sinden to the door earlier. Harry was a fossil by 1994 and really hamstrung the team because he was building for a different era. I have been told by a few folks in the know that another sin that could be laid at Jacobs' door is that their scouting and data filing procedures were WOEFULLY inadequate for many years after other teams had modernized those areas. So he should take blame for that too.

Maybe that's why they drafted Jeff Lazaro and Zack Fucking Hamill. Gah.
When a team has one GM who has complete control for 30 years under an owner, and never wins a championship, that is definitely something you can blame the owner for.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,023
Tuukka's refugee camp
Rob Cimetta then. Shayne Stevenson. YOU GET THE IDEA.

You want to prove to me Jacobs was cheap? Find me something that says or reports that the Bruins drafted Kluzak over Bellows at #1 overall because he'd be cheaper over the long run. I don't think that's the case, I think Sinden really thought Kluzak was the better player (Spoiler: he was wrong) but if there's something showing that was a monetary consideration pick I'd be willing to listen.
I just wanted to give you shit. But that was fun.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
23,707
Melrose, MA
Yes, his showing up at equestrian events as a competitor does nothing to endear him to the usual fanbase but at the end of the day, who cares?
In the interests of being fair and balanced, I’ll just note that he plays (or played) ice hockey in addition to equestrian sports, which seems appropriate for NHL team owner.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,582
It also bears noting that Don Cherry was a terrible, awful no good very bad coach. And a publicity hound to boot.

Jacob's real sin was in not ushering Sinden to the door earlier. Harry was a fossil by 1994 and really hamstrung the team because he was building for a different era. I have been told by a few folks in the know that another sin that could be laid at Jacobs' door is that their scouting and data filing procedures were WOEFULLY inadequate for many years after other teams had modernized those areas. So he should take blame for that too.

Maybe that's why they drafted Jeff Lazaro and Zack Fucking Hamill. Gah.
In 1987, the Bruins took the obvious pick having the third pick in a 2-star (Turgeon and Shanahan) draft. Glen Wesley, one of the fruits of the Neely/Pederson trade, was the most highly rated defenseman in that draft. Of course, later in the round they picked Quintal one slot ahead of Joe Sakic.

1988: Rob Cimetta was a terrible pick, but so were numerous players taken late that first round and into the second round that same draft. There were some mid-to-late round gems (Mark Recchi), but I tend to give teams a pass for missing such players, as they were overlooked by many teams multiple times.

1989: Almost the same situation as 1988, although 2nd round was much more fruitful. Still, Shayne Stevenson - ugh.

1990: As the draft was seeded by regular season record, the Bruins had the bottom pick of each round, and no 2nd rounder (traded for Brian Propp). Bryan Smolinski was a decent pick, and they even got some value from Cam Stewart (3rd round).

1991: Drafted Murray, Stumpel and Czerkawski. Of course, Murray and Smolinksi were ditched in the horrific Kevin Stevens trade, Stumpel was traded for Dafoe and Kristich, and Czerkawski was traded for Bill Ranford. Lots of tail chasing.

1992: For some reason, Sinden traded the 2nd rounder for Petri Skriko. This was the Russian draft: Dmitri Kvartalnov and Sergei Zholtok were the team's top 2 choices.

1993: Kevyn Adams wasn't a bad pick for the draft slot they had. Problem was that Sinden didn't sign him and he ended up signing with Toronto. A waste in that there were players Sinden should have liked that were on the board in Jay Pandolfo and Jamie Langenbrunner. They did get Hal Gill in a later round.

1994: Horrible draft for them, with useful players on the board when they drafted a Russian goalie that never suited up in the NHL (Jose Theodore was available), which was followed by a 2nd round whiff as well.

1995: Glen Wesley got expensive, so he was traded. Kyle McLaren wasn't the worst pick at the position, but Iginla and Giguire were both available. They badly missed with their own first rounder (Sean Brown). But they did find PJ Axelsson in a late round.

1996: They had the 9th pick in an overall horrible draft year. But they couldn't have done any worse than Jonathan Aitken. Yuck.

1997: Thornton was the obvious pick in this one. And Samsanov was a nice draft as well, even with Marian Hossa still on the table. But they got nothing from the later rounds.

1998: Their first rounder was traded for the Lost Twins. Their 4th rounder was part of the Byron Dafoe trade. And none of their lottery tickets scratched off.

1999: There wasn't a ton of talent at their draft slot (#21), so Nick Boynton was a solid pick. OK, there was Zetterberg, but everyone missed on him.

2000: To be fair, they did have the 7th pick in a 6 player draft. But they missed big again with Lars Jonsson and Martin Samuelsson (from the Ray Bourque trade).

2001: Another empty crate, although Shoane Morrisonn did eventually net them Sergei Gonchar.

2002: Hannu Toivonen was decent for a couple of seasons, and did net them Rask Soderberg. But they again got nothing out of the later rounds.

2003: Trading back in that draft cost them a shot at Parise or Getzlaf. And they left some players on the board when they picked up Mark Stuart. But Bergy saves this draft for them.

2004: They traded their first and second rounders to get Gonchar on a team that had Cup aspirations. But trading up to get Krejci in the 2nd round again forgives some sins. Too bad they gave up on Versteeg.

2005: Matt Lashoff and Petr Kalus did nothing useful. Another miss.

I believe O'Connell was now gone, and Sinden was basically kicked into a ceremonial role.

2006: Phil Kessel was the obvious pick, but they also got Lucic and Marchand.

2007: Hammil. And PK Subban was on the board when the Bruins selected defenseman Tommy Cross. A complete wipe-out.

So, out of the final 19 drafts of the Sinden/Millbury/O'Connell era, the Bruins had 22 first rounders. Of those, they got nothing at all out of 10 of them. Zilch. Of the remaining 12, they had their share of successes and guys that probably were at least OK for a period (Hannu, McLaren, Boynton, Quintal, even Stuart). But most of their successful players were very high picks where they should have done well (Wesley, Thornton, Samsanov). And some of their finds in the latter part of the first round (Smolinski, Murray) were traded away for less value. Seems like their scouting improved a bit in the 2002-04 timeframe, but the 2005 draft was another disaster.

Of the Bruins first round picks since Chiarelli and then Sweeney, we have:

Wins: Kessel (#5), Seguin (#2), Hamilton (#9), Pastrnak (#25), Debrusk (#14), McAvoy (#14)

Meh: Colborne (#16, a few washouts during his slot in a crappy draft overall, and he did net us Kaberle, which wasn't his fault)

Losses: Caron (#25), Subban (#24), Hammil (#8)

TBD: Zboril (13), Shenyshyn (15), Frederic (29), Vaakanainen (18), Beecher (30)

No first rounders: 2013 (Jagr), 2018 (Nash)
 
Last edited:

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,800
Gallows Hill
I can’t really fault Jacobs for anything before 1994. He buys the team in ‘75, gives control to Harry Sinden, who swings a great trade that gets them back to the finals in ‘77 and ‘78, then the semis in 79 and 83, and the finals again in ‘88 and ‘90. Most owners aren’t going to fire a GM that does that over 15 years. Unfortunately after ‘94 and the ‘95 CBA, he lost the ability to evaluate talent according to the dollars of that time. That’s when he should’ve been gone. So I blame Jacobs for ‘94-‘04 but that’s it.
 

TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
9,027
Multivac
Rob Cimetta then. Shayne Stevenson. YOU GET THE IDEA.

You want to prove to me Jacobs was cheap? Find me something that says or reports that the Bruins drafted Kluzak over Bellows at #1 overall because he'd be cheaper over the long run. I don't think that's the case, I think Sinden really thought Kluzak was the better player (Spoiler: he was wrong) but if there's something showing that was a monetary consideration pick I'd be willing to listen.
Besides, how can you possibly say a guy who has SIX kids doesn't spend?
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,488
Who are Max & Helen Jacobs in relation to Jeremy?
Max, Jeremy's brother, was an unindicted co-conspirator when the family business, then called Emprise, was subject of a racketeering conviction. Long ago there were rumors of Mafia ties and an Arizona reporter looking into them was murdered. You can read all about it.

Was Jeremy in Max's house that night? Who knows? The entire incident is shrouded in mystery.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
6,312
Falmouth
It also bears noting that Don Cherry was a terrible, awful no good very bad coach. And a publicity hound to boot.
do you have some reason for saying this? I was always under the impression that winning a Jack Adams and making two cup finals (losing to one of the great teams ever each time) with a squad that didn’t overwhelm talentwise was at least a respectable showing.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,582
do you have some reason for saying this? I was always under the impression that winning a Jack Adams and making two cup finals (losing to one of the great teams ever each time) with a squad that didn’t overwhelm talentwise was at least a respectable showing.
+1. Don Cherry wasn't the problem. Stan Jonathan and John Wensink each scored 27 goals in a season playing for Cherry. The 77-78 team romped through the regular season and playoffs until reaching the Montreal juggernaut.
 

Rook05

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
2,640
Boulder, CO
It really is a generational thing. It was a team that was winning championships, then he bought it in 75, and they promptly stopped doing so. And didn't win one again for almost 40 years. They always made the playoffs, but never seemed to spend for that last player that would put them over the top in the years when they had a real chance at a cup. He was a billionaire who lived out of town, had no real connection to Boston other than buying the team, you never saw, and was the one making all the money off the exorbitantly priced hot dog you bought at the game between owning the team, the building, and the food service company. When your team keeps falling just short, it was easy to say it was because he just didn't care enough to try to win it all. He just liked having the team on his spreadsheet of assets.

But yeah, that changed. Charlie is here and more active. The team won a championship. They spend to the cap. They've been more aggressive about making front office moves. There is less you can blame him for now.
This. The Bruins are the only team I’ve felt compelled to disown. I was in college so it felt permanent, but I hated him and Sinden for never getting that extra piece for Bourque a la Pierre Lacroix.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,883
Deep inside Muppet Labs
do you have some reason for saying this? I was always under the impression that winning a Jack Adams and making two cup finals (losing to one of the great teams ever each time) with a squad that didn’t overwhelm talentwise was at least a respectable showing.
Hot take: that squad had a shitload of talent and Cherry coasted on it while fostering a divide between the players and front office. And then he screwed up the Conference Final in Montreal, and then went to Colorado where he had a team with much less talent and had one of the worst seasons in NHL history.

Cherry was a lousy coach. I would recommend reading George Plimpton's book Open Net for a closer look at him. He was a useless fucking blowhard.