News Article: Bruins Front Office ranked top 5

[LouJersey]

One could also argue you don't have McAvoy with those forwards taken, and thus have a hole at 1RD instead of 2RW.

It's like playing "what if" we kept Thornton and saying they'd have both Chara and Savard still, doesn't work like that

none of those guys would have contributed in 2016 so it would not have changed anything.

 

[NDiesel]

none of those guys would have contributed in 2016 so it would not have changed anything.

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.

 

[NDiesel]

When someone is given a layup and decided to pass on it because they think they are smarter then everyone else, then it had better work out. If it doesn’t they should absolutely be fired; that’s how the world works everywhere except for the bruins front office.


Well it cost us 1 cup for sure and probably 2; so yes I would say yes that easy

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]

Still amazes me how much Don Sweeney's GM reputation owes to Nazem Kadri specifically.

 

[NDiesel]

Still amazes me how much Don Sweeney's GM reputation owes to Nazem Kadri specifically.

Because him being an idiot is a big reason we beat Toronto in 2019 is what you're getting at right?

 

[LouJersey]

Because him being an idiot is a big reason we beat Toronto in 2019 is what you're getting at right?

Pretty sure he got booted the year before as well.

 

[LouJersey]

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.

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.

 

[JoeIsAStud]

One can argue not taking one of those forwards cost them the 2019 cuo, since they were a top 6 forward short. One can also argue messing up pick 15 (Jake and Jake imo made sense that year) wasn't that big of a deal since they got to game 7 at home SCF four years later.

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]

Because him being an idiot is a big reason we beat Toronto in 2019 is what you're getting at right?

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]

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?

What would it look like if Covid never happened?

 

[PlayMakers]

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?

 

[NDiesel]

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.

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]

I love multiverse analysis of sports.

 

[LouJersey]

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 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

 

[NDiesel]

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 dont feel Sweeney and the front office are bad, but to spur some discussion I'll share my thoughts.

What is the time period the article uses since its paywalled? Ill go back to when Sweeney took over i guess in 2015.

I'd say the top "tier" are teams that have multiple cup wins like:

Bolts
Pens

Next is the one cup winners

Avs
Vegas
Panthers
Blues
Caps

Bruins are probably on the top of next tier of teams who have made the cup and lost, but also enjoy being competitive over a longer period:

Bruins
Stars
Oilers

So top 10 for sure. Not sure you can call that bad, maybe disappointing is the right wording, although they did start this era with a retool as a bubble team.

I think where this discussion is very interesting is if you go back to 2010-present. I think there is a good debate to be had between if you'd rather have the Hawks, Kings, Bruins.

I know lots would take the cups, but the on-ice product for the Hawks has been miserable since their last cup. I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy that extra cup if you then basically have no joy watching the team the following decade. On the other hand I've taken a lot of joy in watching 2 more cup appearances even if they ended in pain at the end, they were a fun journey either way.

 

[EverettMike]

What would it look like if Covid never happened?

LOL

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Championships are the ultimate accomplishment for an organization.

But it's not an accomplishment for us, the fans. We don't earn anything when the Bruins win a Cup.

So, I'm not as "bottom line" as many here. Doesn't mean winning the Cup isn't the most enjoyable ride.

 

[PlayMakers]

I dont feel Sweeney and the front office are bad, but to spur some discussion I'll share my thoughts.

What is the time period the article uses since its paywalled? Ill go back to when Sweeney took over i guess in 2015.

I'd say the top "tier" are teams that have multiple cup wins like:

Bolts
Pens

Next is the one cup winners

Avs
Vegas
Panthers
Blues
Caps

Bruins are probably on the top of next tier of teams who have made the cup and lost, but also enjoy being competitive over a longer period:

Bruins
Stars
Oilers

So top 10 for sure. Not sure you can call that bad, maybe disappointing is the right wording, although they did start this era with a retool as a bubble team.

I think where this discussion is very interesting is if you go back to 2010-present. I think there is a good debate to be had between if you'd rather have the Hawks, Kings, Bruins.

I know lots would take the cups, but the on-ice product for the Hawks has been miserable since their last cup. I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy that extra cup if you then basically have no joy watching the team the following decade. On the other hand I've taken a lot of joy in watching 2 more cup appearances even if they ended in pain at the end, they were a fun journey either way.

Good list, though I think the Pens are a few managers removed from their Cup days.

 

[Pia8988]

Does Sweeney get another job?

 

[NDiesel]

Does Sweeney get another job?

Love him or hate him he for sure would, much worse GMs than him have gotten 2nd and 3rd jobs