So is trading a quarter for 2 pennies and a nickelThat's stupid asset management.
So is trading a quarter for 2 pennies and a nickelThat's stupid asset management.
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.So is trading a quarter for 2 pennies and a nickel
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.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.
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.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.
Wait…what?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
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.Wait…what?
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.Trading Lucic for 2 first rounders and 2 prospects was an incredible trade. The draft picks not working out doesn’t change that.
I'll second both points.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.
Kuraly alone has been a better NHL player than Lucic since the trade.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.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.
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.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.
And when he walks for nothing, you'll be the poster screaming that Sweeney was an idiot for not trading him, amirite?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.
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.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 I'm reading the same thing you are? Here are his quotes in that article: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.
What am I missing?"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."
They certainly aren't letting him walk for nothing. That would be epically stupid and irresponsible.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.
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.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.
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'm not sure I'm reading the same thing you are? Here are his quotes in that article:
What am I missing?
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 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.
I think Butch Cassidy was long gone at the start of the NHLNone 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.
Yeah. Hence the huge motherfucking caveat when I posted it, yeah?well, the absence of praise in the article at least. we don't know what was said that wasn't reported right?
I swear, that one wasn’t unintentional. Isn’t Butch his sometime nickname?I think Butch Cassidy was long gone at the start of the NHL
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.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.
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?
tl;drYeah. Hence the huge motherfucking caveat when I posted it, yeah?
Again, I'm not endorsing Sweeney. But he's not the worst GM in the league that people are making him out to be.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.
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.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There have been some amazingly embarrassing takes in this thread.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.
AlwaysI swear, that one wasn’t unintentional. Isn’t Butch his sometime nickname?
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.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.
Jajaja! Donnie knew where I stood on that. I saved his text to me from the morning he signed Backes, just for posterity sakeFris, if only you had tackled Donnie before he concluded the Backes deal!
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?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.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.Thanks, I see what you're saying now.
Thanks for nothing, fucker.tl;dr
Thanks. I hadn’t taken my crazy pills yet, this morning and got worried it was creeping in.Always
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.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 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.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?
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.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.
And Cassidy did a great job working around the mistakes Sweeney made. This paragraph from Ty Anderson's article says it all: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.
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.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.
Thanks!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.