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
- 9,749
- 19,599
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
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
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
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
Registered User
Good list, though I think the Pens are a few managers removed from their Cup days.
Love him or hate him he for sure would, much worse GMs than him have gotten 2nd and 3rd jobs
Boston Bruins
First-place vote from a GM: “(Zdeno) Chara and (Patrice) Bergeron set the standard that the team has been held to.”First-place vote from a GM: “Year in and year out, they’ve been at the top of the league since (GM Don Sweeney) took over.”
Second-place vote from an assistant GM: “It’s a longstanding thing. They probably don’t get enough credit for what they’ve done with the market they’re in.”
Third-place vote from a senior adviser to the GM: “Have done well to keep a strong core, signed solid contracts and even though they fired (ex-coach Bruce) Cassidy, (got a) solid replacement in (Jim) Montgomery. Big year for him behind the bench.”
Fourth-place vote from a GM: “Always in the mix all the time. They’ve never had the high draft picks and always in the playoffs.”
Fourth-place vote from a senior adviser to the GM: “Stable, demanding ownership. Only two GMs since 2006. Have arguably created the best team culture in the NHL over the past 15 seasons. Consistently competitive and well-managed. Made playoffs 15 of past 17 seasons (with) three Cup appearances and one win.”
Fifth-place vote from an assistant GM: “Boston is sort of like the Atlanta Braves. They probably should have won more Stanley Cups than they did during that window, but they’ve always been competitive.”
Fifth-place vote from a senior adviser to the GM: “The consistency they’ve had to be one of the top teams — I look at the overall consistency despite the cap.”
Fifth-place vote from an assistant GM: “It’s probably the length of what they’ve done and the consistency to retool. They’ve had some good contracts.”
2010 to present, its Hawks over B's IMO. 1 Cup, 2 straight DNQ's and 2 massive PO chokes is harder to stomach than 3 Cups (including beating Boston in SCF) and 8
straight DNQ's. Ultimately I take 2 more Cups over 6 DNQ' s every single time.
BigGoalBrad
Registered User
- Jun 3, 2012
- 10,628
- 3,344
The Bruins got a ridiculously easy path in 2019 and still choked. Who's to say we beat Washington that year or Tampa?
St Louis was a bigger gift than Columbus or Carolina and we still blew it.
Rask couldn't beat Corey Crawford or billington when it mattered and skipped a do or die game to make the playoffs because he had the runs.
2010 was a similarly fluky playoffs top 4 lost first round we were 6 seed and about to host Montreal in the ECFs they were awful that year but Rask gonna Rask.
I don't agree AT ALL about STL being a bigger gift than CLB or CAR. STL beat a good Winnipeg team and better SJ squad. CLB wasn't as good as STL down the middle or
on D. Bob was better than Binnington but that was the only area they were better.
Carolina was too young at that point and their goaltending was suspect.
People seem to forget that STL had the best record in the WC as defending SC Champs when Covid hit. That was absolutely a better STL team than jaded Bruins fan
will admit to.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Post-Game Talk: Hab no blues tonight. Canadiens win in Montreal.- Latest: Skip Bayless
-
-
AHL: Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins: '24-'25 The Players Sully Hates- Latest: Malkinstheman
