LouJersey
Registered User
none of those guys would have contributed in 2016 so it would not have changed anything.
News Article: Bruins Front Office ranked top 5
- Thread starter DKH
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
Surely they could have used one of those guys over trading for Stampniak to play in the top 6 or giving Hayes/Connolly a chance? You think there is no chance they impress in camp at all in this alternate universe?
Maybe they even feel they can afford to trade their 1st at the deadline because of those guys in the pipeline and the hole at RW.
Sorry but complete BS to say with any amount of certainty nothing would change.
Last edited:
I just can't agree that better picks guarantees you anything other than a better longterm outlook, and I'm not really sure how anyone can believe a cup is guaranteed for any reason after watching the historic season choke that we saw.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
Because him being an idiot is a big reason we beat Toronto in 2019 is what you're getting at right?
LouJersey
Registered User
LouJersey
Registered User
I mean they didn't deal any of the 3 first rounder they made for instant help plus the team sucked. I don't think any of those guys played for two years... maybe Connor IIRC, but to say someone drafted in that draft would have affected the 15-16 season to me is more of a reach than what I was saying.
The Bruins ere the better team and should have won in 2019. Maybe 1 more forward would have helped, but who knows. They should have won and didn't .
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
Him being an idiot is why they beat Toronto in the playoffs twice!
Obviously 2019 is the bigger one, because what would Sweeney's tenure look like without the Final run?
MarchysNoseKnows
Big Hat No Cattle
- Feb 14, 2018
- 9,731
- 19,574
PlayMakers
Registered User
At the end of the day, it's a "ranking." So how do people rank them? As in 1-10.
I'm curious if all this arguing is semantics. Like, you can say having the most regular season wins over the last 5 years and no cup is a failure! And that's fine, but you still wouldn't rank them 32nd out of 32 teams would you? There are a dozen teams who can't even get their acts together enough to make the playoffs consistently.
So for the folks who feel strongly that Sweeney and the front office are bad, where would you actually rank them?
I'm curious if all this arguing is semantics. Like, you can say having the most regular season wins over the last 5 years and no cup is a failure! And that's fine, but you still wouldn't rank them 32nd out of 32 teams would you? There are a dozen teams who can't even get their acts together enough to make the playoffs consistently.
So for the folks who feel strongly that Sweeney and the front office are bad, where would you actually rank them?
Fair enough Lou, but my mistake I did think a couple of those guys made their teams right away originally but upon looking it was at least a season for all of them
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
LouJersey
Registered User
I think you need to figure out what these teams are trying to do. Half the league doesn’t even seem to be competing, so results wise those gms stink. Building a team wise I guess it’s TBD. Teams like the top 8 or whatever are in it to win it every year so the system is less of a bearing on the ranking. Regular season wins are good, always being competitive is obviously good. Dallas, Boston, Carolina and the Rangers have not won a cup even though that’s what they are trying to do year after year. They have fallen short. I think you can be a very good organization and have a lot of regular season success and some playoff success as well and be lauded for that up to a point. Championships however are the true indicator most times. Seems like for a bunch of people though it’s the trip and not the destination? At some point being competitive and in the playoffs isn’t good enough IMO. The Bruins that started in 07-08 were able to win. The new era from 15-16 have not
