I know how you feel.Got unreasonably excited when I saw the first four words in the thread preview.
Maybe we can have horse jumping between periods
This is great. I've always made this comparison. I just wish it didn't stay in the familyI know how you feel.
Farewell to our own Monty Burns.
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.Will Charlie be running it or will he share responsibilities with his siblings?
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?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.
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.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
That's...not a take I've heard before. Was there any wasted opportunity last year for example? No snark intended BTW.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.
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.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 IMOThat's...not a take I've heard before. Was there any wasted opportunity last year for example? No snark intended BTW.
Who are Max & Helen Jacobs in relation to Jeremy?And then there is the mystery beating inside the Jacobs home 40 years ago.
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.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
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.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.
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.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
I heard he's a Penguin now.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.
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.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
Not saying they're right. Saying I understand.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.
It also bears noting that Don Cherry was a terrible, awful no good very bad coach. And a publicity hound to boot.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.
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.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.
I just wanted to give you shit. But that was fun.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.
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.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 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.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.
Good post but Hannu netted Yeti. Razor netted Rask.2002: Hannu Toivonen was decent for a couple of seasons, and did net them Rask. But they again got nothing out of the later rounds.
Besides, how can you possibly say a guy who has SIX kids doesn't spend?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.
Chicken, meet egg, perhaps?Besides, how can you possibly say a guy who has SIX kids doesn't spend?
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.Who are Max & Helen Jacobs in relation to Jeremy?
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.It also bears noting that Don Cherry was a terrible, awful no good very bad coach. And a publicity hound to boot.
+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.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.
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.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.
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.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.