Boston Bruins 2023-24 Roster and Salary Cap Discussion IX

[Over the volcano]

Not fair to the players.

Or the kids getting drafted into the war.

 

[CDJ]

Alex Tuch! is the guy bruins should target! $4.75 expires 25-26.

He’s a hometown kid they traded their franchise player for, I don’t think he’s going anywhere

 

[Over the volcano]

Historically Canadiens have absolutely owned the "tougher" Bruins come playoff time. Just saying....more than one way to build a winning team, I don't buy its toughness or nothing.

Totally agree. But at the same time I cant see a 4th line of Heinen, Boqvist and Steen being much of a benefit come playoff time.

 

[Fenian24]

Historically Canadiens have absolutely owned the "tougher" Bruins come playoff time. Just saying....more than one way to build a winning team, I don't buy its toughness or nothing.

Neither do I but you need some toughness, the Bruins have none. And those Canadien teams that owned the Bruins in the playoffs had guys like Nilan, Kordic, Chelios, and before that Bouchard, Lupien, Tremblay, Fergusson. They had multiple Hall of Famers backed by toughness.

For all the credit the 76 Canadiens got for stopping the Flyers it was Robinson's physical play as much as anything (along with a ton of Flyer injuries) that won that series. That team could skate with the Red Army and brawl with the Flyers and Bruins.

For today you don't win without some toughness and supporting your teammates, the Bruins are sadly, sadly lacking in this, even in today's watered down league

 

[Dr Quincy]

We are so lucky to have a DOM...dude knows his stuff ... such a good sports writer. I also enjoy his dry sense of humour on here. Love the DOM.

Hope the Russian kid makes the right decision and joins the Bruins! Sounds promising.

Except Dom's prediction that Russia would be reinstated was wrong. IIHF keeping Russia and Belarus out of the World Championships. (not calling him out, just pointing out that the reason for Tysplakov not signing is now not an issue)

So sounds like the clause may not be invoked after all.

 

[Over the volcano]

Except Dom's prediction that Russia would be reinstated was wrong. IIHF keeping Russia and Belarus out of the World Championships. (not calling him out, just pointing out that the reason for Tysplakov not signing is now not an issue)

So sounds like the clause may not be invoked after all.

What I love most about Dom's stuff is that he generally stays away of predictions and just brings good info and insight to understand how pieces fit together.

We wouldn't even know about the clause and the implications of the IIHF's decision if he didn't write about it. That's why we're lucky to have his stuff.

 

[TCB]

Historically Canadiens have absolutely owned the "tougher" Bruins come playoff time. Just saying....more than one way to build a winning team, I don't buy its toughness or nothing.

Those Bruins teams were nearly as dominant as any team and were an absolute joy to watch. Unfortunately those Canadien teams were some of the best ever established, and plenty tough on top of that, and then didn't the Islanders come around with a great dynasty. I think it is toughness along with heart and Grit, there needs to be a mix, love my Bruins, but this team since Sweeney has taken over has truly lacked that nastiness, that edge, that toughness to put fear and hesitation in the opposition. To make someone pay, make them think twice about where to go on the ice. That goes along way, a Little bit of a hesitation from an opponent when they know a McQuaid/Miller/boychuck a big Z are on the ice waiting for U once you enter the bruins zone or a Neely/O'Rielly/Looch is barring down on you on a forecheck, those who hesitate are lost, even if its just for a second, that fear, that hesitation could be the deciding factor in a series.

 

[RoccoF14]

For today you don't win without some toughness and supporting your teammates, the Bruins are sadly, sadly lacking in this, even in today's watered down league

So how do you measure "toughness" on a roster? Short of people's "eye test" and opinion, what exactly is the measure you, me, or any NHL GM should use to determine whether or not a player/roster is tough enough?

Not trying to turn this into an analytics thing (I'm not a fan), however there has to be SOME way to determine whether your roster is tough enough, that's better than watching the NHL highlights and forming an opinion?

 

[Blowfish]

He’s a hometown kid they traded their franchise player for, I don’t think he’s going anywhere

A contender near home might work...he would be a good fit.

 

[Son of Donegal]

Folks are so blinded by their Sweeney hate to the point they forget...a lot of this is on Milan Lucic. You want to get mad at someone, get mad at him.

No matter what you think of Sweeney and his Harvard pedigree, this team would have an entirely different identity if Lucic hadn't been such an idiot. Add in a remotely healthy Forbort plus a bit of help from Freddy, McAvoy, Carlo, Marchand, Lauko, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Take a look around the league. There simply aren't many NHL-level tough guys who can play the game. The fact we are even entertaining the idea of picking up Zack McEwen just shows how few options there are.

Despite this, Sweeney will probably go out and add a guy who can help. Doubtful he'll get the credit he deserves, though. This one isn't on the GM, folks.

 

[Blowfish]

So how do you measure "toughness" on a roster? Short of people's "eye test" and opinion, what exactly is the measure you, me, or any NHL GM should use to determine whether or not a player/roster is tough enough?

Not trying to turn this into an analytics thing (I'm not a fan), however there has to be SOME way to determine whether your roster is tough enough, that's better than watching the NHL highlights and forming an opinion?

Tough "for some folk here" means over 10 ft tall and 300 lbs...as opposed to Brad Marchand a shrimp who doesn't play tough.

IMO tough to play against...ie. all heart, energy, passion, team first, ability to keep up with play, and willing to do what it takes to win. Guy Carbonneau was a guy I hated but loved his work ethic! He was 5 '11' and 186lbs. Dude was tough to play against.

You do need strength and skill...for example, unfortunately for Poitras he lacked Strength but had everything else needed to be tough to play against (simply too young / needs to develop).

 

[PB37]

gasp, but how, they had the best PP

Which Team Has The Highest Power Play Percentage In 2011 Playoffs | StatMuse

The Anaheim Ducks had the best power-play percentage by a team in the 2011 playoffs, at 36.4 percent.

www.statmuse.com

Maybe for the same reasons as to why the Bruins would lose to less physical teams in the playoffs despite being the toughest team in the league at the time.

 

[Fenian24]

So how do you measure "toughness" on a roster? Short of people's "eye test" and opinion, what exactly is the measure you, me, or any NHL GM should use to determine whether or not a player/roster is tough enough?

Not trying to turn this into an analytics thing (I'm not a fan), however there has to be SOME way to determine whether your roster is tough enough, that's better than watching the NHL highlights and forming an opinion?

I think it is a pure eye test, but from watching whole games all season not just highlights. My biggest problem with analytics is they do not have any positive score for "toughness" or push back. They do not look at hits (which is purely based on the objectivity of an off ice official that varies from rink to rink) as a positive stat.

When your goalies have to defend themselves, when your best players are being targeted with no response, when your young players are targeted, when players allow themselves to be pushed out of scrums without response, when you take the borderline hit or slash in a 5-0 game to get the power play instead of responding physically, all that is how I would measure toughness, on top of basics like taking a hit to make a play, going to the net, winning puck battles, screening. This team lacks almost all of these qualities.

Folks are so blinded by their Sweeney hate to the point they forget...a lot of this is on Milan Lucic. You want to get mad at someone, get mad at him.

No matter what you think of Sweeney and his Harvard pedigree, this team would have an entirely different identity if Lucic hadn't been such an idiot. Add in a remotely healthy Forbort plus a bit of help from Freddy, McAvoy, Carlo, Marchand, Lauko, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Take a look around the league. There simply aren't many NHL-level tough guys who can play the game. The fact we are even entertaining the idea of picking up Zack McEwen just shows how few options there are.

Despite this, Sweeney will probably go out and add a guy who can help. Doubtful he'll get the credit he deserves, though. This one isn't on the GM, folks.

Lucic and Greer would have made a huge difference. Lucic's off ice stupidity has been a huge disappointment. I disagree that a good portion of this is not on Sweeney, not all but a good portion.

Brian Burke is from Harvard and I would still take him as GM.

 

[RoccoF14]

I think it is a pure eye test, but from watching whole games all season not just highlights. My biggest problem with analytics is they do not have any positive score for "toughness" or push back. They do not look at hits (which is purely based on the objectivity of an off ice official that varies from rink to rink) as a positive stat.

When your goalies have to defend themselves, when your best players are being targeted with no response, when your young players are targeted, when players allow themselves to be pushed out of scrums without response, when you take the borderline hit or slash in a 5-0 game to get the power play instead of responding physically, all that is how I would measure toughness, on top of basics like taking a hit to make a play, going to the net, winning puck battles, screening. This team lacks almost all of these qualities.

I think the bolded part above is exactly the problem then. We all have different "eye tests", and while I agree with you that this team could use a little more spine, what exactly we should do about it, and whether or not it will solve the problem, is the hard part, especially in a cap environment where you need to construct a balanced roster.

 

[BlackFrancis]

So how do you measure "toughness" on a roster? Short of people's "eye test" and opinion, what exactly is the measure you, me, or any NHL GM should use to determine whether or not a player/roster is tough enough?

Not trying to turn this into an analytics thing (I'm not a fan), however there has to be SOME way to determine whether your roster is tough enough, that's better than watching the NHL highlights and forming an opinion?

A poster on the main board did a quick and dirty attempt using hits given, hits taken and blocked shots:

Top 100 is a bit of pain to export as i am not on my computer. Here's the top 47 "softest" though. The metric is not perfect, ideally you'd wanna take size into account and expect more from players who are bigger (a huge guy like Burns showing up at 11 is much worse than a small player like Skinner at 9) but I don't have the time at the moment.

View attachment 808228


Here's also the top 47 "toughest" by this same metric

View attachment 808229

It looks decent to me. Goes heavy on effective forecheckers. If you take into account size and PIMs, it might get more accurate. Factor in xG% or actual goal percentage and it might ferret out underrated guys worth looking at.

 

[Fenian24]

Tough "for some folk here" means over 10 ft tall and 300 lbs...as opposed to Brad Marchand a shrimp who doesn't play tough.

IMO tough to play against...ie. all heart, energy, passion, team first, ability to keep up with play, and willing to do what it takes to win. Guy Carbonneau was a guy I hated but loved his work ethic! He was 5 '11' and 186lbs. Dude was tough as heck!

You do need strength and skill...for example, unfortunately for Poitras he lacked Strength but had everything else needed to be tough to play against (simply too young / needs to develop).

Nice to see you back and I agree that a smaller player can bring what this team needs. Pat Verbeek or PJ Stock would stick out on this team because of the way they played liked sore thumbs. Two of my all time favorite Bruins are Nevin Makwart and Ken Linseman, not big men at all but both played on the edge with heart, grit and toughness.

 

[RoccoF14]

A poster on the main board did a quick and dirty attempt using hits given, hits taken and blocked shots:

It looks decent to me. Goes heavy on effective forecheckers. If you take into account size and PIMs, it might get more accurate. Factor in xG% or actual goal percentage and it might ferret out underrated guys worth looking at.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

I think coaching philosophy has a lot to do with it as well. You can use Edmonton as a good example. The culture of that team changed dramatically once Woodcroft got canned. Tortorella is another guy who injects instant shot blocking into a team. If you don't play physical and block shots, you don't play for him. That hasn't necessarily translated to results and Cup wins, however.

 

[22Brad Park]

Neither do I but you need some toughness, the Bruins have none. And those Canadien teams that owned the Bruins in the playoffs had guys like Nilan, Kordic, Chelios, and before that Bouchard, Lupien, Tremblay, Fergusson. They had multiple Hall of Famers backed by toughness.

For all the credit the 76 Canadiens got for stopping the Flyers it was Robinson's physical play as much as anything (along with a ton of Flyer injuries) that won that series. That team could skate with the Red Army and brawl with the Flyers and Bruins.

For today you don't win without some toughness and supporting your teammates, the Bruins are sadly, sadly lacking in this, even in today's watered down league

Don't forget the Big Bird, Larry Robinson.I watched him demolish a few players

 

[sarge88]

Unfortunately he’s dealing with heart issues.

Sorry to hear that.

Get well soon Dom.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

A poster on the main board did a quick and dirty attempt using hits given, hits taken and blocked shots:

It looks decent to me. Goes heavy on effective forecheckers. If you take into account size and PIMs, it might get more accurate. Factor in xG% or actual goal percentage and it might ferret out underrated guys worth looking at.

The difference in player quality between the lists is kind of hilarious.

 

[BlackFrancis]

Thanks, I'll check that out.

I think coaching philosophy has a lot to do with it as well. You can use Edmonton as a good example. The culture of that team changed dramatically once Woodcroft got canned. Tortorella is another guy who injects instant shot blocking into a team. If you don't play physical and block shots, you don't play for him. That hasn't necessarily translated to results and Cup wins, however.

I thought Edmonton was probably the toughest team the Bruins played last season, especially that game in Edmonton. They looked like cupcakes the first couple months this season, but I'm not entirely sure that was on the head coach.

 

[ON3M4N]

So how do you measure "toughness" on a roster? Short of people's "eye test" and opinion, what exactly is the measure you, me, or any NHL GM should use to determine whether or not a player/roster is tough enough?

Not trying to turn this into an analytics thing (I'm not a fan), however there has to be SOME way to determine whether your roster is tough enough, that's better than watching the NHL highlights and forming an opinion?

Honestly I don't think there is. I know many like to use hits as a gauge, which on the surface would seem to make sense. Funny thing is though, the big discussion around the Bruins is their toughness. If you look at hits this year, the Bruins have a 3rd most hits in the NHL.

I actually posed a similar question to Dom in our DM's maybe a year or so ago and he essentially said there was not set of metrics that would determine toughness.

@Gee Wally - Sad to hear Dom is still dealing with issues. Next time you talk with him, tell him I said hello and I'm thinking about it.

 

[BlackFrancis]

The difference in player quality between the lists is kind of hilarious.

Funny, true point.

Begs the question, though, if we can identify toughness easily, how does it correlate with regular season wins or playoff wins. We all know playoff wins is going to show random bullshit, but the 82 game sample might say something worth listening to.

 

[NDiesel]

Totally agree. But at the same time I cant see a 4th line of Heinen, Boqvist and Steen being much of a benefit come playoff time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that 4th line whatsover and i see the need for toughness. I just thought it was funny that Fenian (and Bs fan in general) chirp the Canadiens as divers/soft and consider the Bruins a tough franchise, but it's never really meant more success to be the toughest team, yet we yearn for it.

I think any fan could agree though that a good balance of everything is really the way to go. We really just argue and disagree over what the best balance is.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Neither do I but you need some toughness, the Bruins have none. And those Canadien teams that owned the Bruins in the playoffs had guys like Nilan, Kordic, Chelios, and before that Bouchard, Lupien, Tremblay, Fergusson. They had multiple Hall of Famers backed by toughness.
For all the credit the 76 Canadiens got for stopping the Flyers it was Robinson's physical play as much as anything (along with a ton of Flyer injuries) that won that series. That team could skate with the Red Army and brawl with the Flyers and Bruins.
For today you don't win without some toughness and supporting your teammates, the Bruins are sadly, sadly lacking in this, even in today's watered down league

How tough were the Avs that beat Tampa in 2022?