Player Discussion What is the Legacy of this Bruins Core?

[Spooner st]

For the record, the Big Bad Boston Bruins with Bobby Orr also were underachievers. It doesn't mean I hate them to say this. It doesn't mean I root against them. It simply means they didn't win enough cups despite the insane amount of talent they had on their rosters at that point. Growing up and seeing this team over the years, you can easily say the 70s era didn't win enough because they had enough talent. The 80s and 90s era with Bourque and Neely didn't have enough talent to get past the talent laden rosters of the Islanders, the Oilers, and the Penguins. So I can't call them underachievers. They overachieved, in fact. The 2000s era the team sucked. The 2010 through now simply haven't achieved enough. They should have won at least one more cup, and arguably 2. That's their legacy. They did it and they need to own it. It's well deserved.

Excellent post.

Unfortunately some fans don't get the difference between saying the truth and hating the team.

 

[trenton1]

1971, 1979, 1990, 2019 all fall in the "should have won" camp.

1969, 1974, 1991, 2012-14, 2020 in the "could have won" bucket.

Put 1983 in the second category. That was the best Bruins team of the 1980's. The 1988 team did the job in Montreal and remain the favorite, but 1983 was an excellent team.

Ran into the back end of the Islanders dynasty and might have actually won if not for a couple of doses of misfortune. Taz caught his skate in a rut, destroyed his knee and missed most of the season including playoffs and then of course Leveille was also unable to finish the year as well.

Great, unheralded, Bruins team that gave a good underdog fight to one of the best teams ever. All while shorthanded.

 

[Oates2Neely]

For the record, the Big Bad Boston Bruins with Bobby Orr also were underachievers. It doesn't mean I hate them to say this. It doesn't mean I root against them. It simply means they didn't win enough cups despite the insane amount of talent they had on their rosters at that point. Growing up and seeing this team over the years, you can easily say the 70s era didn't win enough because they had enough talent. The 80s and 90s era with Bourque and Neely didn't have enough talent to get past the talent laden rosters of the Islanders, the Oilers, and the Penguins. So I can't call them underachievers. They overachieved, in fact. The 2000s era the team sucked. The 2010 through now simply haven't achieved enough. They should have won at least one more cup, and arguably 2. That's their legacy. They did it and they need to own it. It's well deserved.

How can anyone dislike Bergeron Marchand era. It’s been fun to watch. Came close twice. However in the end, one Cup. Some blame falls on front office, some falls on the players. 2013 Bergeron rib injury did them in imo. 2019 the top line just folded during game 7. Either way, short one or 2 Cups, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a pleasure rooting for them. With that said I miss Tim Thomas

 

[BMC]

The day everything changed:

Bruins sign sought-after free agents Chara, Savard

The Boston Bruins signed two of the top free agents on the market Saturday, inking 6-foot-9 defenseman Zdeno Chara and center Marc Savard.

www.espn.com

Bruins sign sought-after free agents Chara, Savard​

Jul 1, 2006

BOSTON -- The Boston Bruins signed two of the top free
agents on the market Saturday, inking 6-foot-9 defenseman Zdeno Chara and center Marc Savard.
Chara got a five-year deal worth $37.5 million dollars, and
there is also a no-trade clause in the contract. Savard left
Atlanta to sign a four-year deal worth $20 million with Boston.
"We were really aggressive out of the gate," interim general
manager Jeff Gorton said on a conference call. "It made it much
easier to sign Savard after Chara signed with us. He could see how
serious we were about winning."

...The Bruins are overhauling their entire organization after
finishing out of the playoffs and in last place in the Northeast
Division last season with a 29-37-16 record for 74 points.
The team fired general manager Mike O'Connell late last season
and hired Ottawa assistant GM Peter Chiarelli to replace him last
month. One of Chiarelli's first moves was to fire coach Mike
Sullivan and replace him with former Detroit Red Wings coach Dave
Lewis.

Per the agreement between Boston and Ottawa, Chiarelli -- who
does not officially take over the Bruins until July 15 -- wasn't
allowed to advise Boston about any of the Senators free agents.

I remember staring at the TV open mouthed when Chara & Savard were introduced. I was stunned- not 1 but 2 great players actually signed with the Bruins of their own accord?? Wow.

 

[LSCII]

How can anyone dislike Bergeron Marchand era. It’s been fun to watch. Came close twice. However in the end, one Cup. Some blame falls on front office, some falls on the players. 2013 Bergeron rib injury did them in imo. 2019 the top line just folded during game 7. Either way, short one or 2 Cups, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a pleasure rooting for them. With that said I miss Tim Thomas

Absolutely. I've loved watching this team and this core over the years. They've blessed us fans with some truly great moments to cherish forever. Could have and should have been a few more, but I'll happily accept what they've given without a question.

 

[Trizz617]

For the sake of my argument, I define this era of Bruins hockey as starting in 07-08. new coach, new jerseys, and a new culture all came into play that year, so it's a clean break point.

While we would have like to have seen at least one more cup, this has been a very successful era in my opinion. Playoffs every year except two where they were alive going into the final game of the season. In other words, the Bruins have not played a game knowing they wouldn't be in the playoffs in this "era".

I was born in 1981, and have been a fan since age 3, however I really came of age as fan in the 90's during. bourque/moog/oates/neely days. The late 90's early 2000's were a weird time, because they had some decent teams but it seemed like the city didn't really care.

07-08 you could tell something special was percolating, and something popped with that game 6 against MTL. The city got behind this team and been behind it (for the most part) ever since. This is the legacy that I think this core will leave behind. They put the bruins and hockey back on the map and hopefully it's there to stay.

Game 6 against Montreal in 2008....goosebumps to this very day. The Garden was on fire that night and put the B's back on the map in this city.

 

[PatriceBergeron]

Hall of fame players who should have won more but were let down by their management group.

 

[Trizz617]

Their legacy? I’d say one that the majority of the league would love to have.
I feel they should have had one more Cup. But I felt the same way in the 70s too.

But all in all most years I felt they stood a shot. A tweak here, some luck there, but at least a shot. I wish it had been better but I know it could have been a lot, lot worse.

100% Wally! We haven't been chopped liver. And we certainly haven't been the TML or Coyotes during this run neither...lol. Perspective matters.

 

[LSCII]

Hall of fame players who should have won more but were let down by their management group.

Welcome to the prime Harry era 80s teams. Sinful that he's still an advisor and the front office is still coming up with inherently flawed rosters that the players need to cover for.

 

[McGarnagle]

Game 6 against Montreal in 2008....goosebumps to this very day. The Garden was on fire that night and put the B's back on the map in this city.

Game 6 made Boston a Bruins town again. Game 3 is what woke them up from the long post-Bourque slumber. This goal by Savard changed the entire landscape and showed we were done being punching bags for Montreal.

 

[Trizz617]

Game 6 made Boston a Bruins town again. Game 3 is what woke them up from the long post-Bourque slumber. This goal by Savard changed the entire landscape and showed we were done being punching bags for Montreal.

Yessss! Damn near got out of my seat just now!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Put 1983 in the second category. That was the best Bruins team of the 1980's. The 1988 team did the job in Montreal and remain the favorite, but 1983 was an excellent team.

Ran into the back end of the Islanders dynasty and might have actually won if not for a couple of doses of misfortune. Taz caught his skate in a rut, destroyed his knee and missed most of the season including playoffs and then of course Leveille was also unable to finish the year as well.

Great, unheralded, Bruins team that gave a good underdog fight to one of the best teams ever. All while shorthanded.

My favorite non-Cup team.

But the islanders were too much for them. Pete Peters couldn't stop a balloon in that series.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Welcome to the prime Harry era 80s teams. Sinful that he's still an advisor and the front office is still coming up with inherently flawed rosters that the players need to cover for.

Classic revisionist history.

80's teams were not going to beat the Islanders or Oilers.

Win percentage of .590, 4th in the league behind Edmonton, Montreal and Philly.

 

[RoccoF14]

1971, 1979, 1990, 2019 all fall in the "should have won" camp.

1969, 1974, 1991, 2012-14, 2020 in the "could have won" bucket.

I noticed you omitted that 92-93 Bruins team......Can't say I blame you. I've been trying to blot them out of my memory for 30 years. I'm still pissed about them getting swept in the first round against Buffalo. That team definitely falls into the "should have won" list.. Uncharacteristically, Bourque had a stinker of a series. Mogilny absolutely murdered us....

The Habs beating LA to win the Cup that year was salt in the wound......

 

[Bs1011]

Oates never played for the Bruins in the 80's.

And lackey Sinden made 3 great deals to acquire those 3 players.

Ok Oates didn’t play in the 80s I meant the Neely Bourque era. For every good trade Sinden made it was countered by his incessant penny pinching in a time that there was no cap. He could have had great teams with his trades and some free agent signings. Every year we knew they would never go after any great players. That’s my opinion.

 

[BTO]

Atlanta Braves of the '90s. They were really good, but they only won a single title when they absolutely should have won more.

Yeah but the Braves were better. But starting pitching doesn't win world series: bullpen and clutch hitting do.

As for the Bruins, hard not to give them an A since they won a Cup, but as others have said, they really should have won more. This is especially true given that LA won two and then fell of a cliff and that while Chicago won three, Boston has been better for longer. In any case, I'd have been happy with two.

The other thing is that we have to remember that they won The Cup without Marc Savard. When you think of it, it's remarkable that they lost their #1 centre but then their #2 and #3 centres themselves turned into #1 and #2 (or 1a and 1b) centres. Imagine this team with Savard, Krejci and Bergy down the middle (not to mention Kessel on RW)? To me it was f***ing matt cooke that ended Boston's dynasty hopes. After losing Savard (and Kessel - even though they don't beat TB without Seguin in 2011) they were always a piece or two short and always playing catch-up.

 

[chizzler]

Atlanta Braves of the '90s. They were really good, but they only won a single title when they absolutely should have won more.

Yup but I have been entertained. That’s what it’s all about. I’ll take the cup and run. All this morning and groaning for what? To fester on it? 2011 and 2019 were great.

 

[BTO]

I second this. 2013 would have been a miracle to beat the Hawks. I’m good with that. 2019 was there for the taking and so was 2014 IMO. That team was good enough to go all the way. Should have had one more Cup over the past decade.

I disagree with the whole "Hawks were better" narrative. First of all, if Dogman sweeps the puck into an empty net we're up 3-1 in the series. Secondly, if Tory Krug doesn't put the puck directly onto Andrew Shaw's stick coming off of the bench midway through the 3rd then Boston wins game 1 (which they, eventually, lost in triple OT). I still haven't forgiven Krug for that (I know, I know, "butterfly effect"). Most importantly, the Lucic/Krejci/Horton line was by far the best and most dominant line in the playoffs that year. But, thanks to Boston having to go to OT, Nathan Horton's shoulder popped-out and he was never the same after. That's why they lost. (And then there was also the ending of game 6. Grrrrr.) Remember they swept Pittsburgh in the ECF and allowed all of two goals. Dominant. Boston was easily as good as the Hawks, if not better. Indeed, I've re-watched that series and Chicago outplayed Boston for all of 2 periods. Other than that Boston was better or they were equal. Boston wins that and they're the dynasty, not Chicago. Anyway, just sayin'.

 

[UncleRico]

I think I'd include Lucic as well in terms of the core group if we're including Thomas.

The Bruins are the 4th most successful franchise of the post-lockout era.

TB, Pittsburgh and Chicago are above them. I don't think that is debatable anymore.

The Kings for me are not even 5th but 7th behind Washington and St. Louis. Outside of a 3 year run the Kings have either missed the playoffs or been 1st round fodder. Haven't won a single round since 2014. They've missed 5 out of the last 8 seasons. Matter of fact outside of that 2012-14 run, they've won exactly zero playoff rounds since 2001.

Outside a 2 year stretch the Caps have been consistently in the mix. The Blues have been consistently better than LA since 2005.

Would you rather be the bruins or kings right now.

2 cups in the last decade for the kings and one of the best of not the best farm system in the NHL

1 cup for the bruins and one of the worst farm systems in the league.

I’ll take the kings two cups and sell off into a rebuild where they’ll be set up going forward than the bruins one cup and yearly failed “retool”.

Might be different for me though because it’s Stanley cup or bust. No different to me if they are the runner up or first pick. A loser is a loser. Especially when the bruins appear to be at the end of their time and the Kings look like they are a team on the rise.

 

[NDiesel]

For my lifetime this is the only relevant era of Bruins hockey. I grew up with Bourque as my favourite player but was really too young to remember lots of those years.

This core let me see 3 cup finals and a lot of exciting runs. As others have said though their legacy is probably won a cup or two less than they should have. That's the beauty of the game, it isn't easy and nothing is guaranteed.

That said I wouldn't trade this cores run for Kings, however I'd easily accept a decade of garbage for two more cup wins

 

[Gordoff]

The day everything changed:

Bruins sign sought-after free agents Chara, Savard

The Boston Bruins signed two of the top free agents on the market Saturday, inking 6-foot-9 defenseman Zdeno Chara and center Marc Savard.

www.espn.com

Bruins sign sought-after free agents Chara, Savard​

Jul 1, 2006

BOSTON -- The Boston Bruins signed two of the top free
agents on the market Saturday, inking 6-foot-9 defenseman Zdeno Chara and center Marc Savard.
Chara got a five-year deal worth $37.5 million dollars, and
there is also a no-trade clause in the contract. Savard left
Atlanta to sign a four-year deal worth $20 million with Boston.
"We were really aggressive out of the gate," interim general
manager Jeff Gorton said on a conference call. "It made it much
easier to sign Savard after Chara signed with us. He could see how
serious we were about winning."

...The Bruins are overhauling their entire organization after
finishing out of the playoffs and in last place in the Northeast
Division last season with a 29-37-16 record for 74 points.
The team fired general manager Mike O'Connell late last season
and hired Ottawa assistant GM Peter Chiarelli to replace him last
month. One of Chiarelli's first moves was to fire coach Mike
Sullivan and replace him with former Detroit Red Wings coach Dave
Lewis.

Per the agreement between Boston and Ottawa, Chiarelli -- who
does not officially take over the Bruins until July 15 -- wasn't
allowed to advise Boston about any of the Senators free agents.

I wonder if we would've had 2 Cups if Chiarelli didn't pull a boner on day one when he fired Sullivan for the comatose Dave F*****ing Lewis?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ok Oates didn’t play in the 80s I meant the Neely Bourque era. For every good trade Sinden made it was countered by his incessant penny pinching in a time that there was no cap. He could have had great teams with his trades and some free agent signings. Every year we knew they would never go after any great players. That’s my opinion.

There was no unrestricted free agency in the NHL until 1995.

 

[RoccoF14]

Might be different for me though because it’s Stanley cup or bust. No different to me if they are the runner up or first pick. A loser is a loser. Especially when the bruins appear to be at the end of their time and the Kings look like they are a team on the rise.

You believe what you believe and nobody can argue with you about that. However if your philosophy is "nothing but a championship matters", all I can say is get ready for a lifetime of lots of disappointment.

Boston sports fans have been spoiled over the last 20 years, and in my opinion, a lot of the younger generation's expectations are a little out of whack.

 

[RoccoF14]

For my lifetime this is the only relevant era of Bruins hockey. I grew up with Bourque as my favourite player but was really too young to remember lots of those years.

This core let me see 3 cup finals and a lot of exciting runs. As others have said though their legacy is probably won a cup or two less than they should have. That's the beauty of the game, it isn't easy and nothing is guaranteed.

That said I wouldn't trade this cores run for Kings, however I'd easily accept a decade of garbage for two more cup wins

As a professional athlete, if you've won a championship, then you are playing with the house money. The Krejci/Bergy/Chara era accomplished way more than the Bourque/Neely era did.

Could they have won another Cup or 2? Sure. But like you said, its isn't easy and nothing is guaranteed in hockey. It also doesn't diminish the fact that they got one, and as far as I'm concerned, they earned their paychecks.

 

[UncleRico]

You believe what you believe and nobody can argue with you about that. However if your philosophy is "nothing but a championship matters", all I can say is get ready for a lifetime of lots of disappointment.

Boston sports fans have been spoiled over the last 20 years, and in my opinion, a lot of the younger generation's expectations are a little out of whack.

It’s a little different when for example say the situation the Celtics are in with a young and upcoming team, as opposed to the bruins who are clinging onto life as an old team who refuses to sell off pieces to accelerate the inevitable rebuild that is coming their way.

Just watching the cup final and he’ll, even the conference finals it’s so apparent how far behind the bruins are from the top teams. They need an overhaul.