Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: Bruins Squander Late Lead: Senators 6 Bruins 5 SO; B’s now outside playoff structure

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Dr Quincy said:
I can't imagine that the reason for the benching is contract related.

First of all, on top of everything else, Brad has been a company guy. Not only has he taken less at times, he's publicly supported management against teammates during negotiations (Pasta and Swayman). That can cut either way, good or bad, depending on your POV of what's best for the team (supporting teammates an building morale or looking out for cap management because it would help the team win). But there's no indication that Marchand would be anything but flexible and accommodating when it comes to negotiations.

In my mind there's basically 3 explanations for the benching:

1) Sacco thought Marchand's play warranted it and he'd do the same to anyone else
2) Sacco thought Marchand's play warranted it, and while he might let it go, he wanted to make an example "If I can do this to your leader for lackadaisical play, I can do it to any of you less important guys" (the Brady Treatment)
3) Sacco thinks there is another issue beyond play that warranted it. Either between coach and player, player and player or just player in general.

It could also be a combo of some of these and a coach just trying to pull strings.. which would say something that 2 coaches this season have felt the need to try and go for some sort of shock value to get the team's attention.
Click to expand...
Good points.
Just if a guy is having a crappy game but is a known guy to come thru in OT...you play him in OT.
Make amends.

Coaching has its place and Sacco can do what he wants.
You bench your captain and win...your Scotty Bowman.
You lose....your Steve Kasper.
This team is in shambles. Period.

If we have to sacrifice the next few years of shedding some fat to become competitive again....I'm all for that.
Tired of the soap opera that's following this team around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffy
I'll just say this: Sacco has known Brad for a huge chunk of Brad's time with Bruins. I am guessing he knows him as well as anyone, and thought he could do what he did and it would be okay. I can't believe he would be that dense otherwise. There's a lot that gets said and communicated otherwise on benches and we just don't know what transpired prior to the benching.

Then again, maybe Sacco is that dense :dunno:
 
Dr Quincy said:
As a fan that's fine, as a GM that's terrible. Missing out on a player who can help the team win for the next 10 years out of some warm fuzzy feelings would be a mistake. It's up to the GM to decide if a player should stay or goes. That's how it has to be.
Click to expand...

I understand that. From a purely cold business point of view every player is tradeable if it's the right thing for the team. But I still think there are certain very select players who have earned the right to decide such things on their terms. For me this is something where ethics, or simply doing what's right or honorable, trumps logic and pragmatism.

I would also argue that it makes your franchise more attractive to other players and potential FAs etc. Players like teams that are seen to do right by their talent, and especially their stars/vets. So there can be potential benefits to giving your franchise players some control over their own destinies, much as they might be hard to quantify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KillerMillerTime and Zillah
NeelyDan said:
Funny you should say this, been thinking about swapping profile pic but still can’t seem to make myself
Click to expand...
Don’t. Not now. Too soon for me, let alone you.

Your boy was bigger than mine, but I think the same “I’d like this space you’re in right now — but I’m not worried about sharing” approach to life. God, I miss that boy. Five years on now.
 
Dr Hook said:
I'll just say this: Sacco has known Brad for a huge chunk of Brad's time with Bruins. I am guessing he knows him as well as anyone, and thought he could do what he did and it would be okay. I can't believe he would be that dense otherwise. There's a lot that gets said and communicated otherwise on benches and we just don't know what transpired prior to the benching.

Then again, maybe Sacco is that dense :dunno:
Click to expand...
“I gotta start building relationships with these guys.”- Joe Sacco after 10 years on the job
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Sevendust, TCB, BruinsFanMike82 and 1 other person
nORRis8 said:
Good points.
Just if a guy is having a crappy game but is a known guy to come thru in OT...you play him in OT.
Make amends.

Coaching has its place and Sacco can do what he wants.
You bench your captain and win...your Scotty Bowman.
You lose....your Steve Kasper.
This team is in shambles. Period.

If we have to sacrifice the next few years of shedding some fat to become competitive again....I'm all for that.
Tired of the soap opera that's following this team around.
Click to expand...
Those of us in New England saw a coach bench a starter in the Super Bowl for the whole game to prove a point. Not playing a guy in a for OT in a January game is nothing.
 
Aussie Bruin said:
I understand that. From a purely cold business point of view every player is tradeable if it's the right thing for the team. But I still think there are certain very select players who have earned the right to decide such things on their terms. For me this is something where ethics, or simply doing what's right or honorable, trumps logic and pragmatism.

I would also argue that it makes your franchise more attractive to other players and potential FAs etc. Players like teams that are seen to do right by their talent, and especially their stars/vets. So there can be potential benefits to giving your franchise players some control over their own destinies, much as they might be hard to quantify.
Click to expand...
Have you seen any indication that players are choosing to sign in CBJ (did not trade Bobrovsky or Panarin when they were UFAs) instead of Vegas (noted meanies)?

Most people here didn't have a problem with ethics or honorable when Ullmark said that he wanted to stay here and the B's traded him anyway. That's fine. They knew if they waited he'd have more say to block a deal so they did what's best for the team. I have no problems with players using every bit of leverage they have to do what's right for themselves, or for teams using every bit of leverage they have.

The only "right" a player has to decide if/where they are traded is if they have it in writing.

BTW, I also stood behind Tim Thomas when he took a year off and people here were saying that he owed the team to retire instead. That actually WAS his right under the CBA and I supported it. I just don't support fuzzy "rights" that are really just personal preferences, not rights at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC
Mad-Marcus said:
Which is surprising based on how pissed off they were in the 2nd period. That 2nd period team would be hard to play against, even losing. No intestinal fortitude and that's poor locker room leadership, more than coaching. At this level is winning isn't everything, it's on the players. Coaches show how, player have to know "why". If it's just for a paycheck, you don't win anything.
Click to expand...
Loved what we saw in the 2d period. It was like we were two different teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC and duffy
bobbyorr04 said:
..and Coyle looking up at the clock waiting for the Sens to score, instead of checking the shit outta them to get the puck out of the zone made me mad

..out of all the Bruins yesterday, Coyle pissed me off the most

Bruins were 12 seconds away from a gutsy win
Click to expand...
He pissed me off yesterday more than any time before. He was shameful and cowardly and stupid. Get him out of town.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobbyorr04
Ottawa just beat the Devils 2-1 so they move up 2 more points and game in hand on Bruins. Boston currently sitting in 10 th place in the conference
 
Ladyfan said:
If the coach benched Brad and Brad wasn't injured I say BYE BYE to the coach.

NO ONE works harder than Brad Marchand.

Terrible message to send.
Click to expand...
Big Brad fan but he was a big reason they lost. Cant have your Captain mailing it in and stop with his injured excuse people. He was Lazy and couldn't keep up with the pace of the game.

Its not his fault he is 37 yo. Its time he start taking on a smaller roll in games. No PK and second unit PP time.
 
Dr Quincy said:
Have you seen any indication that players are choosing to sign in CBJ (did not trade Bobrovsky or Panarin when they were UFAs) instead of Vegas (noted meanies)?

Most people here didn't have a problem with ethics or honorable when Ullmark said that he wanted to stay here and the B's traded him anyway. That's fine. They knew if they waited he'd have more say to block a deal so they did what's best for the team. I have no problems with players using every bit of leverage they have to do what's right for themselves, or for teams using every bit of leverage they have.

The only "right" a player has to decide if/where they are traded is if they have it in writing.

BTW, I also stood behind Tim Thomas when he took a year off and people here were saying that he owed the team to retire instead. That actually WAS his right under the CBA and I supported it. I just don't support fuzzy "rights" that are really just personal preferences, not rights at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what makes Vegas 'mean', as such. But regardless there are definitely 'destination' teams that are more attractive than others, for a whole host of reasons. I do think player treatment is one of them, but then there are others - performance, tax, history, location etc. - so it's just one piece of the puzzle.

I respect your point of view on this - it's logical and, in the vast majority of cases at least probably the most effective. I just think there are a very small handful of players, who on account of time served, performance, loyalty, extracurriculars etc. - earn a say in their fate that goes beyond mere contractual rights. It's not a 'right' as such, just some special consideration that's hard-earned. Probably not entirely sensible but that's how I see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lopey and KillerMillerTime
Hookslide said:
I am going double talk here. You build from the back out, but I said it when they signed Swayman, who in my eyes was unproven that he could handle the load, he was over paid, 6 -6.5 was a fair deal. Now because of bad negotiations they had to pay him more. You cannot have a weak team in front of any goalie, 40 + shots is a weak team. There is some good players on this team, but not good enough, they need some help, but unfortunately the cupboard is bare cap wise. Signing Lindholm on top of it compounded the problem. Trading McAvoy or Pasta does not help the situation, because what are the chances you are upgrading your talent over those two. Trading a Lindholm because some also on top of giving him a lucrative contract, was also given an NTC, unless he wants out, but who would want him and his contract. So that leaves the goaltender to get some cap relief, you have little over a year window, before his protection kicks in, my suggestion is move him, not tomorrow, not at the TDL, but today, and then start working on getting this team back to where it should be.........Has anyone seen our GM?
Click to expand...
Swayman at his age is as proven as you are finding. Sweeney made unforced errors in both Swayman negotiations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom