Joe Thornton: Why was he traded in his prime?

[Jets4Life]

That's the part I suppose it's hard to know especially without being directly involved with the team. Ultimately if there's a clash of players/management sometimes there's addition by subtraction even if the player in question is better than who replaces him. I also wonder if to some degree the trade wasn't the motivation Thornton needed to reach his potential. He wasn't really lighting it up that year as it was until after. Ultimately trading him might have been the best thing, Though the return could have been better/possibly helped win more than they did

1. After Thornton was traded, the Bruins stunk for two years. They finally recovered, and made the playoffs as a #8 seed in 2008, so it wasn't addition by subtraction unless the Bruins started to improve once the trade was made, which did not happen.

2. Not sure why you thin "Thornton wasn't really lighting it up" for Boston in the 2005-06 season. He had 33 points in 23 games, that was far better than anyone else on the Bruins, and good enough to be in the top 10 for scoring.

 

[Brodeur]

Obviously all lead up, the cop, the 04 playoffs, even being beaten out of his power forward game, that's all there...the Bruins played the Devils on what some would call national TV that night (OLN, now NBCSN)...I think it was 11/26/05 or thereabouts...there's less than a minute left in a tie game, John Madden beats Thornton clean on a faceoff in JT's defensive zone...the puck goes back to Rafalski (?) and gets snapped right into the net...Bruins lose. Bruins management snaps, they start calling anyone that ever asked about Thornton and make a deal out of anger...they get not **** for him at 11 pm one weekday night...they call Joe and tell him at dinner he has been traded...the next day, about half of the league's GMs say "boy...had I known he was available, I would have given up way more for him..."

Travis Green (usually one of the top faceoff guys in the NHL) got tossed out and Thornton had to take the draw. Madden won it clean to Mogilny who wristed the game winner in one of his few highlights during his second stint with the Devils.

I was watching with my roommate who was a Sharks fan. Next Sharks game a couple nights later, the Thornton trade goes down. So he always associated that faceoff play against the Devils with Thornton becoming a Shark.

 

[Regal]

1. After Thornton was traded, the Bruins stunk for two years. They finally recovered, and made the playoffs as a #8 seed in 2008, so it wasn't addition by subtraction unless the Bruins started to improve once the trade was made, which did not happen.

2. Not sure why you thin "Thornton wasn't really lighting it up" for Boston in the 2005-06 season. He had 33 points in 23 games, that was far better than anyone else on the Bruins, and good enough to be in the top 10 for scoring.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. They weren't immediately better without him but ultimately the franchise may have needed to move on to become better in the long run. At least that's a sentiment that tends to get thrown around. If your best players aren't fitting the direction you want to go in, It's going to be tough to have success. People thought similarly about moving out Kessel on the Leafs.

33 in 23 was good, but still decently behind his pace after the trade. Points also don't tell the whole story. He wasn't dominating games to the extent he did after.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

1. After Thornton was traded, the Bruins stunk for two years. They finally recovered, and made the playoffs as a #8 seed in 2008, so it wasn't addition by subtraction unless the Bruins started to improve once the trade was made, which did not happen.

2. Not sure why you thin "Thornton wasn't really lighting it up" for Boston in the 2005-06 season. He had 33 points in 23 games, that was far better than anyone else on the Bruins, and good enough to be in the top 10 for scoring.

Boston has a cup, Thornton and San Jose doesn't.

That's the single most important thing here. A good player doesn't equal a good team.

 

[seventieslord]

Boston has a cup, Thornton and San Jose doesn't.

That's the single most important thing here. A good player doesn't equal a good team.

While I agree in principle, the fact remains that the entire hockey world seems to agree that the return on this deal was awful. If he had to go, he had to go, but they could/should have gotten more back.

 

[Big Phil]

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. They weren't immediately better without him but ultimately the franchise may have needed to move on to become better in the long run. At least that's a sentiment that tends to get thrown around. If your best players aren't fitting the direction you want to go in, It's going to be tough to have success. People thought similarly about moving out Kessel on the Leafs.

33 in 23 was good, but still decently behind his pace after the trade. Points also don't tell the whole story. He wasn't dominating games to the extent he did after.

I think with Kessel there is a big difference. He is not the type of player you build around. Kessel is like a secondary part. He fits perfect on Pittsburgh. He did not fit that way on Toronto. He's a private guy in a fishbowl environment like Toronto and was saddled with a lousy team, untalented forwards and yet he still racked up a lot of points. Thornton is a player you build around.

Now, were the Bruins better by getting rid of him? Let's not kid ourselves, someone like Mike O'Connell is going to pretend he knew what he was doing all along. He didn't. He was fired at the end of the year for the simple reason that no matter how you slice it if you trade the Hart and Art Ross winner midseason and he dominates with his new team it looks bad. So that should give you the idea of what the Bruins brass thought of O'Connell.

The fact that the Bruins picked up other pieces to make two nice Cup runs in 2011 and 2013 has very little to do with Thornton I think. They also became the 3rd team in NHL history to blow a 3-0 series lead in 2010. So I don't think the Bruins "knew what they were doing" in 2005.

It worked out well for Thornton, and the Bruins eventually regrouped and through the draft and such picked up some important pieces for that Cup run in 2011. Lucic and Marchand weren't even drafted at the time of the trade. No one had a clue that Tim Thomas would step up like that. Bergeron was already with the team, Krejci was still a junior aged player and even someone like Recchi was a piece to the puzzle that had nothing to do with Thornton. I just don't see how Thornton being gone led to the 2011 Cup win.

 

[Big Phil]

Here is another thing. In January 2004 was the time he got clocked in that fight with Lindros. Even though Lindros was old he could still throw him and Thornton - a somewhat frequent fighter - didn't fight a whole lot after that. I remember a younger Thornton being a little more tenacious I thought, but that's just me. I think this is when he focused on being an even better playmaker than he already was. So I don't know, did that play into the Bruins' decision? In hindsight we might think it did but how could it at that time? In 2004 he still had a good year and was hurt in the playoffs. Then he played very well for Canada in the 2004 World Cup. Then the lockout, then a 33 point performance in 23 games which is good for a 117 point year.

Bottom line is, there is no way the Bruins thought they had things figured out with Thornton by then. His mediocre postseasons are known more in San Jose. There is much more of a sample size than with Boston where you might have thought he could eventually work it out. It was just simply a bad trade and it was impossible to know that Thornton would have playoff struggles his whole career at that point in time.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Travis Green (usually one of the top faceoff guys in the NHL) got tossed out and Thornton had to take the draw. Madden won it clean to Mogilny who wristed the game winner in one of his few highlights during his second stint with the Devils.

I was watching with my roommate who was a Sharks fan. Next Sharks game a couple nights later, the Thornton trade goes down. So he always associated that faceoff play against the Devils with Thornton becoming a Shark.

If this is true, then it needs to be focused in on more.

How big of an idiot do you have to be to trade a talent like Thornton over a lost defensive zone draw? He could have been the worst defensive zone faceoff center in the league and it wouldn't have justified trading him.

 

[seventieslord]

I think with Kessel there is a big difference. He is not the type of player you build around. Kessel is like a secondary part. He fits perfect on Pittsburgh. He did not fit that way on Toronto. He's a private guy in a fishbowl environment like Toronto and was saddled with a lousy team, untalented forwards and yet he still racked up a lot of points. Thornton is a player you build around.

I don't think Kessel is quite the player he was when he was top-10 in points three seasons in a row for Toronto (the only player in the league who was), but back then, I think if he's a team's best forward they could win the cup.

Obviously not if it's a Leafs-like situation where he's their best player on the entire roster by an embarrassingly wide margin, but if it's a situation where he's the top forward, and the team has an elite defenseman and an elite goalie, he could be the 3rd, or maybe even 2nd, most important part of a cup winning team.

The Pittsburgh situation is, for the most part, proving that, although in a different way. He's currently their 3rd best player AND their 3rd best forward... strange way to build a team but it's working so far.

 

[Sens Rule]

At the end of the day, it was a snap decision after a lot of lead up...my recollection of it, that I am not fact checking right away, but I think I recall the jist of it...

Obviously all lead up, the cop, the 04 playoffs, even being beaten out of his power forward game, that's all there...the Bruins played the Devils on what some would call national TV that night (OLN, now NBCSN)...I think it was 11/26/05 or thereabouts...there's less than a minute left in a tie game, John Madden beats Thornton clean on a faceoff in JT's defensive zone...the puck goes back to Rafalski (?) and gets snapped right into the net...Bruins lose. Bruins management snaps, they start calling anyone that ever asked about Thornton and make a deal out of anger...they get not **** for him at 11 pm one weekday night...they call Joe and tell him at dinner he has been traded...the next day, about half of the league's GMs say "boy...had I known he was available, I would have given up way more for him..."

Pretty much. It was an incredibly stupid trade made on emotion. For that reason and the dismal return it is one of the worst trades in NHL history.

If they had spent just one week taking offers from all teams they would have got a massively better return.

Still a head scratcher.

The big issue is the Bruins always wanted Thornton to be a huge power forward goal scorer like Cam Neely. Not the player he actually was... the best playmaker in the NHL. This too was monumentally stupid because you have this huge young naturally talented superstar you got first overall and you try to force the square peg in a round hole and after seeing how well he could play in the style he wanted to play and was likely best suited to play... they still wanted him to be a goal scoring power forward.

I mean it would be like having a young Ovechkin and keep trying to force him and coach him to be a playmaking 2-way centre... I mean you try that for a bit and you see that is not his game and you play him to his strengths... but not the Bruins apparently.

 

[Sens Rule]

Man that Phaneuf post is golden to read right now, after that superb penalty he just took in Game 7 of the 2017 EC Finals.

When Kessel clearly dove? Sorry that penalty is not a demerit to Phaneuf whatsoever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

While I agree in principle, the fact remains that the entire hockey world seems to agree that the return on this deal was awful. If he had to go, he had to go, but they could/should have gotten more back.

You are absolutely correct.

He had to go and the return was awful.

 

[Sens Rule]

That's the part I suppose it's hard to know especially without being directly involved with the team. Ultimately if there's a clash of players/management sometimes there's addition by subtraction even if the player in question is better than who replaces him. I also wonder if to some degree the trade wasn't the motivation Thornton needed to reach his potential. He wasn't really lighting it up that year as it was until after. Ultimately trading him might have been the best thing, Though the return could have been better/possibly helped win more than they did

Thorton had 1.43 ppg in Boston before he was traded. Which was better than any season in his career except 05/06 in San Jose. He had 24 assists in 23 games.

He was playing the best hockey of his career in 05/06 in Boston before the trade. Was even better in San Jose after the trade.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't think Kessel is quite the player he was when he was top-10 in points three seasons in a row for Toronto (the only player in the league who was), but back then, I think if he's a team's best forward they could win the cup.

Obviously not if it's a Leafs-like situation where he's their best player on the entire roster by an embarrassingly wide margin, but if it's a situation where he's the top forward, and the team has an elite defenseman and an elite goalie, he could be the 3rd, or maybe even 2nd, most important part of a cup winning team.

The Pittsburgh situation is, for the most part, proving that, although in a different way. He's currently their 3rd best player AND their 3rd best forward... strange way to build a team but it's working so far.

I think it could only work if you have a Chicago-like situation, where you have a fairly strong two-way center that can go power vs. power in a deep playoff run, with Kessel being the best offensive player and the poison that kills you offensively, just like Kane was back in the days before he turned into a legit Top 5 player.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Here is another thing. In January 2004 was the time he got clocked in that fight with Lindros. Even though Lindros was old he could still throw him and Thornton - a somewhat frequent fighter - didn't fight a whole lot after that. I remember a younger Thornton being a little more tenacious I thought, but that's just me. I think this is when he focused on being an even better playmaker than he already was. So I don't know, did that play into the Bruins' decision? In hindsight we might think it did but how could it at that time? In 2004 he still had a good year and was hurt in the playoffs. Then he played very well for Canada in the 2004 World Cup. Then the lockout, then a 33 point performance in 23 games which is good for a 117 point year.

Bottom line is, there is no way the Bruins thought they had things figured out with Thornton by then. His mediocre postseasons are known more in San Jose. There is much more of a sample size than with Boston where you might have thought he could eventually work it out. It was just simply a bad trade and it was impossible to know that Thornton would have playoff struggles his whole career at that point in time.

Some good points.

Bruins definitely wanted Thornton to be a tough, 2-way center. Fight and score goals. Joe tried. In his 4th season he had 37 goals, 34 assists and 107 PIM. That was what the Bruins wanted.

But after Lindros broke Joe's face, he appeared to give up trying to be that player. He got lazy too. Though he scored 32 points in 23 games for Boston, that was the season where everyone started out getting 8-10 power players a night because of the tightening of the rules. Hw was 11th in the league at that point and really wasn't playing hard. I think most Bruins fans knew he'd go to San Jose with something to prove and he did. No surprise that was the best season of his career.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thorton had 1.43 ppg in Boston before he was traded. Which was better than any season in his career except 05/06 in San Jose. He had 24 assists in 23 games.

He was playing the best hockey of his career in 05/06 in Boston before the trade. Was even better in San Jose after the trade.

Not true.

Numbers were the product of the tightening of the obstruction rules at the beginning of that season. Thornton was not really play that well.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Some good points.

Bruins definitely wanted Thornton to be a tough, 2-way center. Fight and score goals. Joe tried. In his 4th season he had 37 goals, 34 assists and 107 PIM. That was what the Bruins wanted.

But after Lindros broke Joe's face, he appeared to give up trying to be that player. He got lazy too. Though he scored 32 points in 23 games for Boston, that was the season where everyone started out getting 8-10 power players a night because of the tightening of the rules. Hw was 11th in the league at that point and really wasn't playing hard. I think most Bruins fans knew he'd go to San Jose with something to prove and he did. No surprise that was the best season of his career.

Its worth pointing out that Thornton appears to have been completely right about how he should play. Thornton the superstar was as a big playmaking center, not as the smash mouth powerforward Boston wanted him to be.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Its worth pointing out that Thornton appears to have been completely right about how he should play. Thornton the superstar was as a big playmaking center, not as the smash mouth powerforward Boston wanted him to be.

Perhaps.

But in 2002-2003 he had 36 goals, 65 assists and 109 PIM for Boston. 2nd team all-star at center and 4th in Hart trophy voting. Superstar season for sure.

 

[LeafsNation75]

But yes, the big catalyst for the 2010 collapse was Krejci going down. They were decimated by injuries at that point, and an overachieving team ran out of gas.

If I remember correctly Krejci got hurt Game 3 which the Bruins still won and lead the series 3-0. I know in Game 4 the Bruins tied the game late in the 3rd period at the 19:28 mark when I look up the stats. So all the Bruins needed was just 1 goal in the resulting overtime to eliminate the Flyers, which we all know never happened. Plus in Game 7 the Bruins were up 3-0 through most the 1st period. Maybe in the end Krejci would have been the difference, however when you look at it like that I think using Krejci injury as the reason is stretching it.

 

[Regal]

Thorton had 1.43 ppg in Boston before he was traded. Which was better than any season in his career except 05/06 in San Jose. He had 24 assists in 23 games.

He was playing the best hockey of his career in 05/06 in Boston before the trade. Was even better in San Jose after the trade.

As Dennis Bonvie said he definitely was not playing the best hockey of his career. Scoring started out high that year as players had to get used to the crackdown on obstruction and it took time for teams to figure out which defensemen were no longer viable. He was pacing for 117 points but was still 'only' 11th in scoring, and then took that pace to 130 in San Jose despite scoring tapering off. The stats also don't tell the full story. He simply wasn't playing with the same level of dominance.

 

[Regal]

I think with Kessel there is a big difference. He is not the type of player you build around. Kessel is like a secondary part. He fits perfect on Pittsburgh. He did not fit that way on Toronto. He's a private guy in a fishbowl environment like Toronto and was saddled with a lousy team, untalented forwards and yet he still racked up a lot of points. Thornton is a player you build around.

Now, were the Bruins better by getting rid of him? Let's not kid ourselves, someone like Mike O'Connell is going to pretend he knew what he was doing all along. He didn't. He was fired at the end of the year for the simple reason that no matter how you slice it if you trade the Hart and Art Ross winner midseason and he dominates with his new team it looks bad. So that should give you the idea of what the Bruins brass thought of O'Connell.

The fact that the Bruins picked up other pieces to make two nice Cup runs in 2011 and 2013 has very little to do with Thornton I think. They also became the 3rd team in NHL history to blow a 3-0 series lead in 2010. So I don't think the Bruins "knew what they were doing" in 2005.

It worked out well for Thornton, and the Bruins eventually regrouped and through the draft and such picked up some important pieces for that Cup run in 2011. Lucic and Marchand weren't even drafted at the time of the trade. No one had a clue that Tim Thomas would step up like that. Bergeron was already with the team, Krejci was still a junior aged player and even someone like Recchi was a piece to the puzzle that had nothing to do with Thornton. I just don't see how Thornton being gone led to the 2011 Cup win.

I agree it's a different situation as Thornton was a real franchise player, but if there was problems there between him and management and a cloud hanging over the room, it might have been a situation where that would always bring the team down unless he was dealt. As I said in my initial post, I don't buy into the narrative that the trade was a good deal because of the events after he was traded that led to the cup. It was a poor return for one of the most valuable assets in the league. They absolutely should have got more for him. But that doesn't necessarily mean trading him wasn't the right move. Just that the deal they made was bad.

 

[c9777666]

How much do you think the '04 playoff loss to Montreal played a role in the trade?

Like, let's say Boston doesn't blow that series, they have a good second round showing vs. the Flyers and lose in 6 games, Thornton's a bit healthier and doesn't go pointless.

Do they still make the trade without that defining moment of a pointless series with the bad ribs and all?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

That's a fair assessment.

At the end of the day, things between Thornton and the Bruins circa 2005 were tense. So much happened with the Bruins between November '05 and October '07 that it's not entirely fair to try and say who ended up on the better end of the trade. That's not to say that SJ didn't make out like bandits in the trade, because they absolutely got the better end of that deal. But in the 11 1/2 years since the trade, one of the franchises added a Stanley Cup.

And the other reached the finals, with the actual player involved in the trade.

Boston could have probably won multiple cups if they kept Thornton over Savard.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Perhaps.

But in 2002-2003 he had 36 goals, 65 assists and 109 PIM for Boston. 2nd team all-star at center and 4th in Hart trophy voting. Superstar season for sure.

But it's not a sustainable style of play. Changing his style of play has led to great longevity. He could play for at least 5 more years if he wants to, while guys like Neely and Lindros were done by 30.

Thornton was traded because of the team's lack of playoff success and the fact he didn't want to be the next Cam Neely, he wanted to be Joe Thornton.

 

[Fenway]

Mike O'Connell was trying to save his job and knew that the Jacobs' were not exactly huge fans of Joe Thornton on a personal level for various reasons I won't get into here. O'Connell was Harry Sinden's guy and protected as the Jacobs trust Harry above all else. Hence they didn't veto the trade. About the only great piece we got out of it was Andy Ference (if you follow the trade of Stuart and Primeau to Calgary.) Marco Sturm wasn't that bad for the Bruins, but got hurt and ended up not being part of the cup team.

There's no doubt O'Connell went all in on his job when he traded Thornton and when it didn't work out he fell on the sword.

The afternoon the trade was announced, WEEI's Glenn Ordway got Jeremy Jacobs on the phone in what was Jacobs FIRST interview on Boston radio ever ( and he had been owner for 30 years at this point ) and it was clear HE ordered the trade and MOC got the best deal he could.

Boston Globe - Boston, Mass.
Subjects: Coaches & managers; Professional hockey -- Boston Bruins
Author: Dupont, Kevin Paul
Date: Dec 2, 2005
Start Page: E.1
Section: Sports
Document Text
ON HOCKEY

Mike O'Connell rode the high road yesterday, saying he liked everything about Joe Thornton, and how difficult it was for him to send the Bruins' captain packing for San Jose.

Which begs the obvious question: If Thornton was all that great, why did the Bruins' general manager rip the face of the franchise off the front of the building and fling it 3,000 miles west?

"The essence of my job," said O'Connell, "is to try to make the team better." The deal wasn't about what Thornton did or didn't offer, the GM emphasized, but rather about the GM's need to revive a team that flatlined, with Thornton its centerpiece, over the first two months of the new NHL season.

And round and round it went yesterday on Causeway Street. Everyone was politically correct in the wake of Thornton getting the boot. The GM didn't point fingers. Coach Mike Sullivan was in lockstep, too, praising Thornton's talent and contributions under his watch.

Heck, had Thornton not been headed off to Buffalo to meet his new teammates for their game tonight, the three might have posed for a farewell group hug on that humongous spoked-B painted at center ice. You betcha.

Let's face it, folks, Thornton is gone because the management and coaching staff had enough of his game. Fed up, they ditched him for three respectable NHLers Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm, and Wayne Primeau who will have to provide the lineup one heck of a defibrillating jolt to: 1) break the team's festering funk, and 2) make the wounded Bruins fandom forgive the front office for dealing one of the city's all-time favorite sons.

Last night, with Stuart, Sturm, and Primeau in their new threads, we got our first taste of life after Jumbo, and it played pretty well on the palate. It took the speedy, darting Sturm all of 77 seconds to poke home his first goal as a Bruin, providing a doorstep redirect of a Brad Boyes relay. A little more than seven minutes later, Sturm and Stuart assisted on a Patrice Bergeron power-play strike that made it 2-0. Stuart's setup was a dandy, a slap pass from above the right circle that Bergeron converted with a one-time slap shot from the left circle. All in all, a bold play with some style, some purpose, and a little bit of dazzle.

Keep in mind here, GMs don't ditch franchise players unless they are disgusted with their play and/or are only a step or two from getting knocked off the jobs themselves. In this case, it's the "and" rather than the "or." O'Connell is gone if this deal doesn't work out.

"Absolutely. Absolutely," said O'Connell, acknowledging the position he's in now, and where it puts him in reference to the firing squad. "That's the job." O'Connell at his best. Matter-of- fact as ever.

If O'Connell goes, then Sullivan will be gone, too. The time frame here could be as short as 2-3 weeks. There are still some parts that could be traded away, but the dealing is done. If the franchise center can't be swapped for something/someone to get the product headed in the right direction, then sending Sergei Samsonov or Glen Murray to parts unknown won't be the magic elixir. O'Connell played his ace in the hole, and now all he can do is hold his breath, watch, and hope.

The easiest job in the city right now is to harpoon O'Connell, and link his recent bad decisions with the string of bonehead personnel acquisitions/hires that have been made over these last dozen or so years. Kevin Stevens. Paul Coffey. Marty Lapointe. O'Connell didn't make those moves all by himself. Harry Sinden helped him with a few, and Sinden, without question, had input on the decision to jettison Jumbo Joe.

If the Thornton move ends up backfiring like some of the aforementioned five-star clunkers, then team owner Jeremy Jacobs will have no choice but to order the first front office overhaul of his thirty-something years of ownership. Even if owning an NHL team is essentially a monopoly, there are only so many expensive boo- boos even a monopoly can withstand.

But too easily forgotten here is that Jacobs is at least equally at fault for the mess that has played out here in the Hub of Hockey for two months. Headed into the ugly, protracted lockout that began in September 2004, Jacobs oversaw a business plan that had O'Connell burn the roster down to near Building 19 proportions. The owner was convinced that the new collective bargaining agreement, when finally struck, would leave his Bruins in perfect position to capture prime talent at cut-rate prices. Great idea, but the theory proved to be horribly wrong.

"Maybe our strategy was flawed not signing players," O'Connell finally acknowledged yesterday, amid the aftermath of his Thornton deal. "We had to react quickly to a market. We didn't have many players signed. And the [on-ice] rules changed you have to add that into it."

Had Jacobs given the OK, pre-lockout, O'Connell could have signed Mike Knuble and Michael Nylander, both of whom have been key contributors with their new clubs. Knuble, doing business as the Flyers' No. 1 left wing, likely would have kept the 700-Pound Line intact, which would still have Thornton in Boston, Murray on his right wing. Nylander, often feeding Jaromir Jagr these days with the Rangers, was one of O'Connell's best acquisitions, along with Sergei Gonchar, in the spring of 2004. All back in the day when O'Connell finally had found his groove.

"I said our strategy was flawed," said O'Connell, when asked again about the roster blunders, post-lockout, that also contributed to Thornton's departure. "I bear all the responsibility."

All of which was O'Connell's second trip to the high road for the day. Jacobs shared at least equal responsibility in the failed business plan. When the lockout ended, O'Connell, following the schematic, had to assemble a roster, a Cup-contending roster , in a matter of about one month. Mission maniacal, made virtually impossible because it was a seller's market, driving up prices that led to off-kilter purchases such as Alexei Zhamnov (three years, $12 million-plus).

The Senators, beaten here last night, 3-0, are perhaps the game's best collection of talent. They took years to build, and endured much pain during the construction. It took a lot of bad regular- season finishes, and some shrewd trading, that led to the prime first-round picks that dot the Ottawa roster. One good trade can take a month to construct. Build a contender in a month? Insane.

It remains to be seen if the BruSharks can get back in the game and make a run at the playoffs. As for O'Connell, he is already on the run. If fair, he would be entered in that race with Jacobs at his side, the two tied together in a three-legged sprint.

What nobody knew at the time was Charlie Jacobs was taking over and the Sinden people were being shown the door. This happened a week after the trade.

TD BANKNORTH GARDEN CHIEF KREZWICK RESIGNS POST ABRUPTLY
[THIRD Edition]
Boston Globe - Boston, Mass.
Subjects: United States; Chief executive officers; Arts, entertainment & recreation
Author: Sasha Talcott Globe Staff
Date: Dec 9, 2005
Start Page: D.1
Section: Business
Document Text
Richard Krezwick, a vocal supporter of Boston's bid to host the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and the man who negotiated a lucrative naming rights deal to rename the FleetCenter the TD Banknorth Garden, is out as the arena's chief executive.

Krezwick's abrupt resignation, made public late yesterday, comes as the arena is bouncing back from a hockey lockout that ended the Bruins' season last year. Delaware North Cos., which owns the Garden, yesterday appointed John Wentzell, general manager of the Garden, to take Krezwick's place as interim chief "effective immediately," but said Krezwick would stay on until next month.

"We reached an agreement today that I would move on," Krezwick said. "I offered notice that I'd be happy to help out until the end of the year and beyond if I can be any help."

Charlie Jacobs, a Delaware North executive vice president, described the decision as mutual and said Krezwick left voluntarily. "We ended on a very amicable basis," he said. "If there is such a thing as a good breakup, this is it."

But the breakup may not have been as amicable as both parties suggested. Two sports executives briefed on the situation, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Krezwick has sparred on and off with Jacobs, and that Krezwick did not want to leave his job. Jacobs, son of Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, has been widely viewed as the heir apparent to run the arena and the Boston Bruins since disclosing his move to Boston in 2002. That put Krezwick's role, and his autonomy, into question.

In 2003, Krezwick told The Boston Globe that he was worried about his job at the arena, and that Delaware North had been interviewing other people for his spot. Krezwick wound up staying, the Globe reported at the time, after Boston Bruins president Harry Sinden fought hard to keep him. Jacobs said yesterday, "We've always had a pretty good relationship."

In Krezwick's 10 years at the helm of the arena, which was known as the FleetCenter until it was renamed this year, he was known for pushing hard to bring high-profile events to Boston.

He and other tourism officials flew to Idaho to lobby to bring college basketball's Women's Final Four tournament to the Garden in 2006.

He also joined with Mayor Thomas M. Menino and US Senator Edward M. Kennedy to bring the DNC to the arena despite the fact that the Delaware North would have to forgo revenue from other events to do it.

"He was central to that bid," said Patrick B. Moscaritolo, president of the Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau. "He was the first one out of the box in terms of supporting this when many people thought Boston couldn't host an event like that."

Krezwick also is involved in early plans to bid for the 2008 US gymnastic trials and the US figure skating championships for Boston, said Don Stirling, chief executive of the Massachusetts Sports & Entertainment Commission, where Krezwick serves on the board.

"He loves Boston," Stirling said. "He loves that building, and he was its greatest ambassador."

Earlier this year, Krezwick persuaded TD Banknorth, a Maine bank, to pay one of the highest prices in the country for naming rights to the building. The deal, worth about $6 million a year, is triple what FleetBoston Financial Corp. previously had paid.

At the same time, Krezwick talked Fleet, which was acquired by Bank of America Corp. and wanted to give up its naming rights, into paying several million dollars to get out of the con- tract.

"Rich was an extraordinary operator, well respected in the industry," said Larry Moulter, former chairman of the FleetCenter. "He had a great deal of progressive thoughts when it came to the changing world of arena management."

Wentzell said he learned of his new role from Delaware North's management late yesterday morning. He said there will be a search for a permanent successor, but he has not given any thought to whether he will apply. In any case, Wentzell said, he does not expect a permanent chief executive to be chosen for months.

"It's exciting," he said. "It's a great challenge."

< Sasha Talcott can be reached at [email protected].