This is a great point that will likely be overlooked by the team.cshea said:Don't see what there is to love about Don Sweeney. He's been a player development guy under Chiarelli, and player devopment has been one of Chiarelli's weakest areas.
This is a great point that will likely be overlooked by the team.cshea said:Don't see what there is to love about Don Sweeney. He's been a player development guy under Chiarelli, and player devopment has been one of Chiarelli's weakest areas.
PedroSpecialK said:
I don't get the mass disdain around the prospect of Sweeney taking over. As he's internal, I don't see this as a sea change in the way the organization operates on a high level.
Sweeney up top opens the door for guys in Providence to fill those bottom-6 roster spots cheaply, and should be a departure from Kelly/Smith-type contracts that put a squeeze on the top of the roster and result in guys like Boychuk being sacrificed.
The signing of character overagers like Hickman, Cave, and Czarnik tells me they are getting ready to make this method of breaking young players into the roster the organization's new norm. Not coincidentally, this revamping of the fourth line with additional speed and offensive prowess was arguably Chiarelli's biggest oversight this past season, as he did nothing of the sort and ended up sending down the only player (Ferlin) who showed he could contribute there.
Additionally, one of the reasons Providence hasn't been as much of a feeder to the Bruins until this season (when Sweeney was promoted to GM of Providence) is Bruce Cassidy. Much like Claude, Cassidy relies on his vets (relatively speaking - in reality, 24-25 year olds like Cherniwchan/Lindblad/Carey) to get the bulk of the ice time, particularly in close games. Cassidy and Chiarelli were tied at the hip, as there was every reason both in terms of Providence's performance and the player development therein to let Cassidy go earlier. Also, Cassidy is currently only on a one-year extension after this season - it would not surprise me at all to see a more developmentally-minded coach replace him as the B's for more NHL-ready depth forwards reaches critical mass.
For me, Sweeney gives the youth movement a chance, and mitigates the risk of falling in love with bottom 6ers. His trade and contract negotiation skills are obviously yet to be determined, but for me there's a lot to like here.
Sweeney's appointment would tell me the club recognized where Chiarelli fell short and, while they don't want to blow it up and start from scratch, they are addressing those shortcomings and want to keep the culture and style of play they've established.
As far as external candidates, no effin thank you to Ray Shero. He won 1 Cup while having Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin handed to him - and he did so while they were still on a combined ~$12m AAV. He'd be an upgrade as far as talent evaluation in trades goes, but overall, a thousand times: no.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Unless, of course, that Neely hasn't been in full agreement with Chia's moves and wants someone in the GM's seat more in line with his own thinking.
You mean the organizational issues that brought us a Stanley Cup and 7 straight playoff appearances?burstnbloom said:
I still feel like you guys are belaboring the point. The point is that Chia has not been acting alone. It's not like hes running around saying "I'll do what I want, screw you guys!" Promoting from within doesn't fix the organizational issues.
burstnbloom said:
But is that believable? If you're a manager do you allow your staff to make franchise altering moves that you disagree with? I don't believe that.
Look, I'm blaming them for something that hasn't happened yet, but I worry that this isn't about bettering the franchise and more about appeasing the masses. I think hiring an insider makes that seem more likely and I hope they go outside of the organization if they really want a change.
Eddie Jurak said:One bad year out of 8 is not enough to justify a firing.
On the other hand, the Seguin deal alone is more than enough to justify it. Dealing an elite player for a less than elite return should be a firing offense.
See, I thought he deserved the ax simply for that Behind the B episode where he was dismayed to lose out on Horton.Eddie Jurak said:One bad year out of 8 is not enough to justify a firing.
On the other hand, the Seguin deal alone is more than enough to justify it. Dealing an elite player for a less than elite return should be a firing offense.
PedroSpecialK said:
There's the rub though: does the FO/ownership (and fans) really want a massive change, or are tweaks on shortcomings within Chiarelli's performance - many of which were glaringly obvious to anybody paying attention - the best way to maintain what they've built and adapt to the changes league-wide? Considering the fact that they have kept everybody in the organization aside from Chiarelli, Paille, and Campbell thus far, I have to believe it's the latter.
For me, that raises another question as to why Neely signed off on a lot of these moves. Was it to give himself a basis for firing Chiarelli and getting 'his guy' into the GM's chair? Fucked up as that may be, it was clear they were not always best buddies.
FL4WL3SS said:You mean the organizational issues that brought us a Stanley Cup and 7 straight playoff appearances?
Scoops Bolling said:What exactly would be the rationale behind promoting Sweeney? Is there any part of the position that he's particularly competent in? He has no experience negotiating trades or contracts, no experience dealing with a salary cap, and has been working in a player development program that isn't particularly effective. Why is that a person you want to put in charge of the organization?
That would worry me most of all. Jeremy might have tight with the wallet, but he didn't get involved beyond that.BigMike said:I think it is a terrible decision, but not the least bit surprising, as I think Charlie boy wants a seat at the table and Chiarelli wouldn't go there.
I think you're misunderstanding some of the roles here.burstnbloom said:
But is that believable? If you're a manager do you allow your staff to make franchise altering moves that you disagree with? I don't believe that.
Look, I'm blaming them for something that hasn't happened yet, but I worry that this isn't about bettering the franchise and more about appeasing the masses. I think hiring an insider makes that seem more likely and I hope they go outside of the organization if they really want a change.
BigMike said:By the way, I don;t believe this is news to Chiarelli today. He knew it was coming.
As I said a the time, I don't think Chiarelli was given an option on how to handle assets at the trade deadline. I think he had limited assets he was allowed to deal, and yet was also given a mandate to try and make the postseason and that selling wasn't an option
TheRealness said:
Where do you get that he had limited assets to trade? I have not seen any source for that anywhere. Is that just your 'gut feeling'? Or do you have something more specific to add?
Additionally, where do you get the notion that Charlie wants a seat at the table? It's the first time I've heard anything relative to Charlie wanting to make any decision vis-a-vis players and player development.
TheRealness said:Additionally, where do you get the notion that Charlie wants a seat at the table? It's the first time I've heard anything relative to Charlie wanting to make any decision vis-a-vis players and player development.
http://bruins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=763495Boston, MA - Boston Bruins President Cam Neely, announced today, Wednesday April 15, that Amateur Scouts Mike Chiarelli & Denis Leblanc, and European Head Scout Jukka Holtari, have been relieved of their scouting duties with the Boston Bruins.
Mike Chiarelli spent seven seasons with the Bruins based out of Ottawa and was responsible for scouting prospects in Ontario.
Leblanc, based out of Quebec, spent the previous eight seasons in the Bruins organization.
Holtari, responsible for scouting efforts in Europe, was based in Finland. 2014-15 marked his eighth season with Boston.
PedroSpecialK said:
Presser on now
- Ongoing dialogue, decided last night that Chiarelli would go
- Chiarelli was not handcuffed by ultimatum to not trade 1st rounder at deadline, simply was told not to trade the future for rentals
- Claude staying with the club remains with the incoming GM
Yikes, when pressed, CJ drops a "Cam, can ya help me out with this one"
I love the joke cause I give my Pitt friends shit all the time. But MAF (2003 #1), Malkin (2004 #2), and Crosby (2005 #1) were under the previous GM. Shero's first draft was 2006 which was J Staal (#2). Still, who did the Pens pay off for those 4 years.kenneycb said:If they hire Shero do their lottery odds go up?
They want to go back to being tough too.Titoschew said:Very mixed bag by Jacobs and Neely. Does seem like they're setting up an internal hire to keep Claude or holding on to Claude to entice a pick or two out of someone. Doesn't seem likely any outside hire GM will want to keep him.
McBride11 said:I love the joke cause I give my Pitt friends shit all the time. But MAF (2003 #1), Malkin (2004 #2), and Crosby (2005 #1) were under the previous GM. Shero's first draft was 2006 which was J Staal (#2). Still, who did the Pens pay off for those 4 years.
Could be holding Claude because they are on the hook for the difference between what they are paying him and his current contract. So another team could hire him at minimum wage and let the Bruins pay him. If he is their property and another team wants him the Bruins can maybe get out from under his deal. (That seems more likely than draft pick compensation).Titoschew said:Very mixed bag by Jacobs and Neely. Does seem like they're setting up an internal hire to keep Claude or holding on to Claude to entice a pick or two out of someone. Doesn't seem likely any outside hire GM will want to keep him.
Plus the guys they drafted range from good to mediocre because their didn't happen to be a generational talent in the draft. Regardless I don't like you ruining my joke with your so called "facts" and "reason" and "logic".Greg29fan said:
Well they were terrible those years, so where were they supposed to draft, 17th? Edmonton had three #1 picks in a row and might have four in six years, but I don't see anybody getting the vapors over that, I guess b/c they're still terrible.
BTW Fleury they traded up from 3 to 1 for and Malkin they had the worst record in the league and lost the lottery to the Capitals.