Joe Thornton: Why was he traded in his prime?

[K Fleur]

Actually, Mr. Jacobs has always been known as a "hands off" owner.

Until it's time to negotiate a new CBA.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually, Mr. Jacobs has always been known as a "hands off" owner.

This article came out only eight days prior to the Joe Thornton trade, http://archive.boston.com/sports/articles/2005/11/22/jacobs_isnt_happy/?page=full

It was an uphill battle to rebuild the fan base, given the lost year and the Bruins' lack of playoff success for more than a decade, and Jacobs felt a winning product would bolster that effort. Without it, the club is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the paying customers, and that would give any owner a migraine. In Jacobs's case, it's even worse because he owns the building and the concessions.

''It's scary, isn't it?" he said of the prospect of fans losing interest. ''That's what concerns me more than anything else."

Jacobs acknowledged that the front office took a calculated risk in blowing up the 2003-04 roster and letting players such as Mike Knuble walk in unrestricted free agency.

''What we didn't anticipate was the framework it took," he said. ''We never thought the players would walk in and offer a 24 percent reduction. I think if we knew that, we probably would've signed Joe Thornton earlier because he would've been a lot less than we wound up paying him. We would've kept some of the [other] people. If you had a $4 million guy, he became a $3 million guy, and that's what happened.

''Yeah, it was calculated on one hand. On the other hand, I was led to believe that what we got as replacements [were] every bit as good as what we didn't keep. The jury's out on that.

''There's no rhyme or reason for where we are except that these guys aren't working as hard as the guys they're playing against. No matter what nice things we might have to say about each game -- we did well here or there -- the other guys at the end of the day have produced better than we have."

He rejected the notion that injuries are to blame, saying every team has to deal with injuries.

''Everybody is shorthanded," he said. ''Nobody will ever play with a complete roster with no injuries. That's the nature of the game."

The Bruins already have made one trade -- center Dave Scatchard for defenseman David Tanabe -- and Jacobs said the club certainly would consider more if it was in its best interests.

When asked how patient he could afford to be, Jacobs said, ''I don't think that as an organization we can sit even now without considering all the alternatives. We're not happy with what we have right now, with where we stand, and if we have to change to get it done, then we have to change to get it done."

When asked about individual players and their performances, Jacobs didn't give any rave reviews -- quite the contrary. He believes the Bruins, ironically, are one of the least effective teams under the new rules.

''I think we have to weigh in on the way the game is being played," he said. ''I think we've done a very bad transition job in trying to play the way the game is being played today. I haven't seen anybody that I'm real impressed with.

''I've liked [goalie Hannu] Toivonen. I like [goalie Andrew Raycroft] from time to time, but I haven't liked either one a whole lot throughout the season. I do like our goaltending rotation. I said that early on, I thought that was the real strength this team had, two young goaltenders who looked like they were real players. There are a lot of incompletes."

When asked whom he'd guess would be the person most likely to blow a gasket over this situation, he said it would be president Harry Sinden. Jacobs referred to himself as more of a pragmatist.

''I look for competent management and I expect it to react," he said. ''Harry has been here and he's not going to sit on something indefinitely. He's much more reactionary than I am. That's the guy who I think in the final analysis is going to be more reactionary than any of us."

A "hands off" owner doesn't sound off like that, a "hands off" owner wouldn't be heard from like that and put his team on blast days before their captain is moved for three spare parts.

I'm sure Sinden played a significant role as well, but they overrode the GM at the time in O'Connell and didn't shop Joe Thornton around to attract better offers. They moved him out of spite.

It's unlike the Kessel trade where you could justify the return as they added future building blocks from moving Kessel. Of course they'd blow that all up as well by getting rid of both Seguin and Hamilton.

 

[Fenway]

This article came out only eight days prior to the Joe Thornton trade, http://archive.boston.com/sports/articles/2005/11/22/jacobs_isnt_happy/?page=full



A "hands off" owner doesn't sound off like that, a "hands off" owner wouldn't be heard from like that and put his team on blast days before their captain is moved for three spare parts.

I'm sure Sinden played a significant role as well, but they overrode the GM at the time in O'Connell and didn't shop Joe Thornton around to attract better offers. They moved him out of spite.

It's unlike the Kessel trade where you could justify the return as they added future building blocks from moving Kessel. Of course they'd blow that all up as well by getting rid of both Seguin and Hamilton.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread there was major upheaval brewing at Delaware North Boston when that trade was done. Charlie Jacobs was now in Boston fulltime and he did not like what he saw with Sinden and his cronies running the team.

The lost season of 2004-05 made the Bruins a footnote in Boston as that year the Red Sox finally won the World Series and the Patriots were in the process of winning back to back Super Bowls. Corporate money had dried up and the Celtics were also lackluster which made selling the luxury seats harder for Jacobs who controls them for both teams.

It was about to get worse....much worse

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2007/11/charlie-in-charge/

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Until it's time to negotiate a new CBA.

True.

Jacobs has always been much more involved in league issues than in actual hockey issue.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This article came out only eight days prior to the Joe Thornton trade, http://archive.boston.com/sports/articles/2005/11/22/jacobs_isnt_happy/?page=full



A "hands off" owner doesn't sound off like that, a "hands off" owner wouldn't be heard from like that and put his team on blast days before their captain is moved for three spare parts.

I'm sure Sinden played a significant role as well, but they overrode the GM at the time in O'Connell and didn't shop Joe Thornton around to attract better offers. They moved him out of spite.

It's unlike the Kessel trade where you could justify the return as they added future building blocks from moving Kessel. Of course they'd blow that all up as well by getting rid of both Seguin and Hamilton.

Giving an interview does not constitute a "Hands on" owner. I really don't see anything in this article that shows Jacob's interfering in any way with decisions on the team itself. I would think any owner of a team that was not perceived as well prepared for the current playing conditions would call out his management team. Remember, for 30 some odd years prior to this Jacobs was barely heard from on matters of hockey.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread there was major upheaval brewing at Delaware North Boston when that trade was done. Charlie Jacobs was now in Boston fulltime and he did not like what he saw with Sinden and his cronies running the team.

The lost season of 2004-05 made the Bruins a footnote in Boston as that year the Red Sox finally won the World Series and the Patriots were in the process of winning back to back Super Bowls. Corporate money had dried up and the Celtics were also lackluster which made selling the luxury seats harder for Jacobs who controls them for both teams.

It was about to get worse....much worse

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2007/11/charlie-in-charge/

In the article it mentions trading "fan favorite" Joe Thornton.

I didn't get the sense that Joe was a fan favorite at that point (perhaps because I'm a fan). To me fan favorites have very few detracts. Not being close to the situation as you were, did you consider him a fan favorite at that point?

 

[Fenway]

In the article it mentions trading "fan favorite" Joe Thornton.

I didn't get the sense that Joe was a fan favorite at that point (perhaps because I'm a fan). To me fan favorites have very few detracts. Not being close to the situation as you were, did you consider him a fan favorite at that point?

He was respected by the fans but certainly not beloved like Bergeron is today.

 

[BLNY]

I think his performance in the 2004 playoffs was the beginning of the end for him in Boston. He went pointless in 7 games, and the team was upset in the first round. Whether it was fair to put the blame on him was debatable as he was playing through a rib injury, but the perception of him being a playoff choker was born.

Who knows what else was going on behind the scenes, but Thornton doesn't seem like a Boston Bruin type of guy in retrospect. I mean, he's a big guy, but he might have had expectations to be more a cam neely type over there when he is in reality one of the most gifted playmakers the game has ever seen.

Agreed. The 02 and 04 playoff losses led to the feeling that Joe wasn't the player, or person, to lead them to a Cup. Man, they got a horrible return from the Sharks.

Sturm
W. Primeau
Stuart

 

[Fenway]

Agreed. The 02 and 04 playoff losses led to the feeling that Joe wasn't the player, or person, to lead them to a Cup. Man, they got a horrible return from the Sharks.

Sturm
W. Primeau
Stuart

The media was harsh with Thornton. Even playing injured wasn't a valid excuse. Michael Holley wrote in the Boston Globe after Game 7.

At least we do have some context for Joe Thornton's one-punch, no- point series. The captain went down in a heap late in the regular season against Washington and basically disappeared. Sullivan revealed last night that the captain's upper-body injury was actually torn rib cartilage. The team said it should have taken six months to heal and Thornton returned in a week.

"Most players I know wouldn't have played under those conditions," Sullivan said. "I thought Joe had his best game tonight."

No one will forget the injury. And no one will forget Thornton's penalties, his punch, and his pointlessness.

There are lots of memories and questions. Like: What will happen to general manager Mike O'Connell? He did a good job of assembling the team, from placing his trust in Andrew Raycroft to selecting Sullivan to coach.

But when your team does this, someone has to be the scapegoat. The goat is unlikely to be Jacobs or the next powerful man on Jacobs's (Corporate) Ladder. That would be Harry Sinden. Harry isn't going anywhere. O'Connell is next on deck.

If O'Connell goes, he'll be able to talk a long time about the night that did him in. He'll remember that it was one of those tight games where one goal was obviously going to win it.

It was scoreless after two periods, and scoreless after 50 minutes. Then there was Richard Zednik scoring with about nine minutes to play. Everyone in the building, from Nomar Garciaparra and his teammates to fans in the cheapest seats, probably knew Zednik's goal was trouble.

When the Canadiens scored on a late empty-netter, beer and popcorn flew from the upper deck. Angry fans bolted from their seats, shocked that yet another Bruins team got stuck on the first- round treadmill.

It was a sad way to end a wonderful season. It was a sad and unforgettable way to end what had begun as a wonderful day.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think a guy like Thornton is always gonna have a problem with a market like Boston. Let's face it, Boston loves the guys who get stuck in and fight hard, work hard. If thing don't work out in a market like that, a guy like Thornton - big but not exactly known as a warrior - will be the first scapegoat for sure.

I don't think he was hated - yet - at the time of the trade but it was clear he wasn't exactly beloved. As a big-time scorer, he obviously was going to command some respect but that's about it.

I actually respect Boston for saying "you know what, I don't think this is gonna work" rather than just sticking with a star player for good even if it ain't taking them anywhere.

San Jose probably suited him better anyway as a non-traditional market with less notions of how hockey should look.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

That's actually not true.

This may be deleted by the mods because I cannot attribute the source for this information, but here it goes:

Phaneuf was extensively shopped around the league on multiple occasions.

Darryl Sutter was extremely frustrated with Phaneuf because he felt that he had every single tool required to be a top notch defensemen but he refused to put them together.

The coaching staff, and many teammates, felt Phaneuf was a selfish player and he routinely took himself out of position to land massive hits, often at the expense of team defense. Phaneuf was well known of watching TSN hilites in the dressing room and calling over teammates to see his hits. This led to an uncomfortable confrontation in the locker room with Iginla and Daymond Langkow telling him that a particular hit led to a 2-on-1 because not only did he take himself out of position on the hit, but he also "stood over" the guy after like "Muhammad Ali." He was told, in no uncertain terms, to cut it out.

Darryl Sutter, when he coached the Flames, grew very frustrated with Phaneuf's refusal to grasp the basics of positioning and to play within his limitations (he didn't have the skating skills to get back in position when he intentionally took himself out of position.) A large mandate for the hiring of Mike Keenan was to get Phaneuf to play defense and his history with Chris Pronger was a huge part of the hire.

Very early in Keenan's tenure as the coach of the Flames, he went to Sutter and recommended that Sutter trade Phaneuf and said the kid "had a ten cent head." Sutter didn't listen and friction began to grow between the two because Sutter insisted that Phaneuf "learn on the job" and not have his ice time cut. There's a lot more stuff with Keenan/Sutter/Phaneuf, but that is a whole other can of worms. Ultimately, Keenan asked a few times for Phaneuf to be dealt and felt he was an issue on the ice but also very unpopular in the room. As far as I know, Sutter never even entertained the idea.

Later that same season Todd Bertuzzi got into with him during a game because he returned to the bench bragging about a hit and Bertuzzi told him that he abandoned his position to land the hit and that he needed to start playing for the guys on the bench instead of "the guys at TSN."

Darryl Sutter ultimately fired Keenan and hired his brother Brent to coach and again tasked him with getting Phaneuf to play defense. Brent came back, during the pre-season with the same response as Keenan, that the Flames would be a better team without Dion then they were with him because he was much more interested in his stats and his hilight reel hits than he was in playing defense. By this point, Darryl had given Phaneuf a large contract but realized that perhaps he had gone all in on the wrong hand. During the preseason, for the first time, he shopped Phaneuf around the league and was shocked to find only two teams were interested in him (in terms of a trade, there were a handful of other clubs willing to dump a contract and essentially saddle the Flames with another even less appetizing problem.) The two clubs were the LA Kings and the Toronto Maple Leafs, but the Kings offer involved a player that Sutter was very wary of taking on (not sure who it was.) Sutter wanted to give his brother more time to fix the issues because he didn't like the trade options.

Brent then tried to get through to Phaneuf. In particular, Sutter told him that a "great game" would be a game where nobody noticed him at all because he was just doing his job. This didn't sit well with Phaneuf at all because he felt he was being "held back." He also suggested that his teammates were jealous of his success (to Sutter, not to them) and Brent said the only success anybody cares about is winning a Stanley Cup, and told Dion he was nowhere near achieving that. By Christmas, the situation had become worse, his teammates at this point essentially ignored him and Brent had told Darryl (who wanted Phaneuf to get steady ice time) that he was in awkward position where he would discipline and limit ice time for other guys for bad play and he was being asked not to do that with Dion. Over the Christmas break, Darryl agreed to finally move Dion. He once again shopped him around the league and now Los Angeles was no longer interested in making a move. Sutter found this situation was now worse, a handful of teams kicked the tires but wanted the Flames to eat money and/or take on money. Brian Burke was the only General Manager willing to actually trade for him in a "hockey deal." Sutter pulled the trigger and internally considered the move addition by subtraction. When Phaneuf came and grabbed his personal effects from the locker room there was reportedly a round of applause when he left the room (something he clearly could hear from outside the door.) When the Leafs immediately announced that he would be named captain of the team many of the Flames were reduced to fits of hysterical laughter because they couldn't believe such a selfish player could be handed the C, let aloe a player that had never even suited up for the team.

This situation repeated itself when the Maple Leafs ultimately moved him. He was shopped around the league and from what I understand only two teams expressed any interest in him and in both cases the Leafs would end up with a lot of dead contracts. Ottawa's offer was the least troubling one.

Great write up for sure, it is funny how Dion has seemed to mellow out a bit and has now become a big piece of another Canadian team in Ottawa.

I also find the note about the Flames laughing at Dion being captain quite funny since it is well known about their poor leadership problems over there.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think a guy like Thornton is always gonna have a problem with a market like Boston. Let's face it, Boston loves the guys who get stuck in and fight hard, work hard. If thing don't work out in a market like that, a guy like Thornton - big but not exactly known as a warrior - will be the first scapegoat for sure.

I don't think he was hated - yet - at the time of the trade but it was clear he wasn't exactly beloved. As a big-time scorer, he obviously was going to command some respect but that's about it.

I actually respect Boston for saying "you know what, I don't think this is gonna work" rather than just sticking with a star player for good even if it ain't taking them anywhere.

San Jose probably suited him better anyway as a non-traditional market with less notions of how hockey should look.

All true.

The fact that Thornton did show he could be the type of player the Bruins fans loved is also a factor. Raised expectations.

 

[LeafsNation75]

The media was harsh with Thornton. Even playing injured wasn't a valid excuse. Michael Holley wrote in the Boston Globe after Game 7.

How come the Boston media didn't make more a story about how the Bruins blew a 3-1 series lead? From what I remember their attention was all on Thornton which I didn't think was fair.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Joe Thornton: Why was he traded in his prime?

That's what the Boston Bruins do.

 

[VanJack]

Thornton had a couple of well-publicized 'no-shows' in the playoffs with Beantown, and was perceived as a guy who'd score in the regular season but disappear in the playoffs...so they dealt him early, much like they did with Tyler Seguin.

Kind of ironic really, because the Bruins acquired Cam Neely from the Canucks when they gave up on him too early......there's a lesson there somewhere.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

Most people don't realize he HAS had many good postseasons. In fact he is as dominant or more in the postseason as he is in the regular season. He has often put up dominant numbers in games that end up losses because the Sharks have for most of his career been deficient defensively and depthwise. In the playoffs, those areas get exploited. One could argue that his presence at the top of the roster puts some squeeze on the cap that might affect that, but other cup winners have had large salaries on the books (granted many if not most of them circumvented the cap to win the cup).

But as a team, san jose has other issues, such as being a destination that free agents pretty much do not ever consider. So they have always had to trade assets away.

Oh come on? Is San Jose going to get a pass for being a team full of chokers? They had all the talent in the world assembled on that team in the late 00's and they choked, who was the leader? Joe Thornton.

I get that you guys are fans of his but come on, Joe Thornton might be good at putting up points, but he's not one to win the team needed games or be a good leader. Just like a russian named Alexander Ovechkin.

San Jose got nobody else to blame but themselves for not being succesful. You don't win the cup on excuses.

 

[Jets4Life]

Thornton is the greatest playoff choker in the history of the NHL.

Ovechkin plays hard in the playoffs, but you can tell he is mentally weak. In that Pittsburgh series, he was defeated in Game 1.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thornton had a couple of well-publicized 'no-shows' in the playoffs with Beantown, and was perceived as a guy who'd score in the regular season but disappear in the playoffs...so they dealt him early, much like they did with Tyler Seguin.

Kind of ironic really, because the Bruins acquired Cam Neely from the Canucks when they gave up on him too early......there's a lesson there somewhere.

Thornton was in his 8th season with Boston when they traded him. Can't really call that early.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thornton is the greatest playoff choker in the history of the NHL.

Ovechkin plays hard in the playoffs, but you can tell he is mentally weak. In that Pittsburgh series, he was defeated in Game 1.

Yet he somehow managed to have a higher points per game average in the playoffs over some players who people tend to consider to be "clutch" performers...

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-players-all-time-playoff-points-per-game-leaders.html

Thornton's 121st in overall points per game in the post season, a PPG of .769, 123 points in 160 playoff games.

That's a higher PPG than players like Hossa, Shanahan, Pavelski, Nieuwendyk, Mullen, Leach, Clark, Datsyuk, B. Richards, Lecavalier.

I guess the fact that teams win Cups, not players, still escapes select individuals.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Oh come on? Is San Jose going to get a pass for being a team full of chokers? They had all the talent in the world assembled on that team in the late 00's and they choked, who was the leader? Joe Thornton.

I get that you guys are fans of his but come on, Joe Thornton might be good at putting up points, but he's not one to win the team needed games or be a good leader. Just like a russian named Alexander Ovechkin.

San Jose got nobody else to blame but themselves for not being succesful. You don't win the cup on excuses.

Anyone who actually follows San Jose will tell you they didn't have a well-rounded roster with depth until last year. and what a shock, he scored a ppg on the way to the finals.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Yet he somehow managed to have a higher points per game average in the playoffs over some players who people tend to consider to be "clutch" performers...

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-players-all-time-playoff-points-per-game-leaders.html

Thornton's 121st in overall points per game in the post season, a PPG of .769, 123 points in 160 playoff games.

That's a higher PPG than players like Hossa, Shanahan, Pavelski, Nieuwendyk, Mullen, Leach, Clark, Datsyuk, B. Richards, Lecavalier.

I guess the fact that teams win Cups, not players, still escapes select individuals.

People need their narratives, man.

 

[DaveG]

None of it as far as I know. It's fairly well known within the hockey community, but I've never seen it in the public domain. I first heard the story during the Winter Olympics, but I've subsequently heard little chunks of it many times since, so it's definitely out there. The one part I am personally a little skeptical about is the "round of applause" in the dressing room portion when he walks out, though I've heard that part of the story more than any other part.



You are correct. The part about the laughter in the dressing room and the part about him being named captain and them being shocked to hear it were both not part of the original story I was told at the Olympics. (Also the Todd Bertuzzi part was also related to me later.) Maybe they mixed up the C with the A, though honestly it seems like an extreme response to hearing he was given an A, especially considering he had worn an "A" with the Flames too.

The applause thing actually doesn't surprise me that much if he was that reviled by his teammates, in fact it's one of the more believable parts of it. Something similar happened in Carolina around the same time period where apparently the guys in the locker room were high fiving eachother when they found out that Eric Belanger was traded away and the team was getting Josef Vasicek back.

 

[Theokritos]

Something similar happened in Carolina around the same time period where apparently the guys in the locker room were high fiving eachother when they found out that Steve Belanger was traded away and the team was getting Josef Vasicek back.

Considering the context (Dion Phaneuf/Calgary), I assume that was more an anti Belanger reaction than a pro Vašíček thing?

 

[DaveG]

Considering the context (Dion Phaneuf/Calgary), I assume that was more an anti Belanger reaction than a pro VašÃ­ček thing?

Yep. Belanger quickly wore out his welcome here in Raleigh. The guy basically from day one was complaining about his ice time and usage (when 1-2 were Staal and Brind'Amour in their primes) and basically just flat out gave up and was visibly lethargic at best on the ice.

I'm sure some was on the reacquisition of a popular player in Vasicek, but from having known a few of the guys on the team at that time I can flat out tell you they loathed Belanger. As much as that group had a very "country club" type atmosphere, they had no time for players that weren't going to even attempt out on the ice.

Reportedly Belanger was similarly reviled in his time in Edmonton.

 

[seventieslord]

Ohhhhh, ERIC Belanger. I get it now. I was confused.