Why is Boston such a good organization?
- Thread starter WarriorofTime
- Start date
Bet you they would be a hell of a lot more proud of their team if they weren’t the bridesmaid in almost all of those years.
DS7
Registered User
Since 2006.
1 Norris
3 Jennings
4 Vezinas
6 Selkes
3 Prince of Wales Trophies
1 Cup
Hate the Bruins as much as the next guy, but their hardware shelf isnt empty at all. It wasn't just a good core, it was a core that aged like fine wine. Which is frankly unfair.
Never said it was empty. But to start a thread like this you would expect that they exceeded teams to the extent that it deserved a singular thread to call it out how “good” they have been.
And comparative to others, they really haven’t when it comes to winning.
Last edited:
Matty Sundin
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2006
- 4,227
- 4,513
Zdeno Chara created a culture that persists to this day
Sheppy
Registered User
MrKabukiman
Ne pas plonger!
You forgot Top-three in the United States for:
Education
And
Health care
Makes a huge difference if you have a family.
Suntouchable13
Registered User
I am a Leafs fan and I wish they were as good as the Bruins. I'd take all those deep runs, and one cup in a heartbeat.
Yeah I am not going to touch this comment with a ten foot pole.
Like no shit a Leafs fan would want their success. Thats easy to say when they have been arguably a top 3 least successful team in the NHL since the 60’s.
Suntouchable13
Registered User
All I am saying is that Boston has a great thing going, and many fanbases in the NHL would love to be them.
Okay. I guess it’s just a difference of opinion.
I simply don’t agree with it that “they have a great thing going”.
I understand that they have a decently good team to always be in contention. That’s a positive.
But isn’t the point to actually win?
Yeah they won in 2011, but other teams have been much more successful.
At this point it’s just a matter of opinion on what people deem as being successful. To some it’s being good enough to make the playoffs and be in contention. To others, it’s winning Stanley cups.
It boils down to what your definition of “successful” and “good” is.
Grasshopperking
Registered User
This is such an underrated comment. His guidance is responsible for much of our consistent success at goaltending
Mickey Redmond
Registered User
- Oct 8, 2019
- 98
- 74
They have won 1 cup in like the last 50 years
Chuck Norris Trophy
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2015
- 2,929
- 3,155
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,493
- 20,542
You good? I know Pittsburgh got some generational centers and won more Cups. I wasn’t dissing them…
RJMA
Registered User
- Feb 15, 2023
- 449
- 616
They're the Miami Heat of the NHL. It's all about culture buy in when you come aboard. Like the Heat, they are never mistaken for the most talented squad, but they are always tough, always prioritize defense, never miss the playoffs and get the absolute most out of their talent. It also doesn't hurt that Montgomery is quite the hockey mind. Such a joke that Dallas didn't stick by him.
"Good" organizations don't get swept by a Wild Card team in the first round after winning the President's Trophy.
bearcountry17
Registered User
The Bruins actually lost in 7 games. You must be thinking of that terrible organization in Tampa
- Aug 24, 2011
- 28,755
- 13,763
Lots of 1st and 2nd round exits for them the last decade or so. Impressive regular season team but they don’t have what it takes to win in the playoffs. Still can’t believe they lost to the Blues. What a let down.
Gotta give credit where it’s due however, they’re looking great two years in a row after fans wrote them off. I firmly believe in the “winning culture” argument. They’ve got that going for them in spades for sure. With a franchise talent I think they’d get over the hump.
Gotta give credit where it’s due however, they’re looking great two years in a row after fans wrote them off. I firmly believe in the “winning culture” argument. They’ve got that going for them in spades for sure. With a franchise talent I think they’d get over the hump.
PainForShane
formerly surfshop
- Dec 24, 2019
- 2,854
- 3,290
Everyone is talking about culture, but also remember their front office is at least a little responsible for this because they made a few big bets and the biggest ones I can remember paid off. As a neutral fan, 3 in particular stand out to me (probably there are more).
1) Trading an elite Joe Thornton during his Hart year for not very much. At the time I couldn't believe how little they got in return, mgmt had Bergeron in the wings and didn't think the team would win with Jumbo as their captain / dressing room leader, in hindsight they were 100% right.
2) Trading 2nd year goaltender (fmr rookie of the year) Andrew Raycroft to Toronto for the rights to Tuukka who was at the time a 1st round pick that was off playing in Finland and hadn't seen an NHL game. Sorry Leafs fans
3) Speaking of Finland, they brought over Tim Thomas and gave him the chance to play / eventually start as a 32 year old, he was a guy who was drafted in the 9th round (217th overall) about ten years before his first NHL cup of coffee. Interestingly enough, the draft now only has 7 rounds, and just as interestingly, Thomas Vokoun, Evgeny Nobokov, and Steve Sullivan were both drafted after Tim Thomas in that same 9th round. Probably the best 9th round in NHL draft history though I haven't poked around on this.
***
But yeah, culture is a big part of the reason, but that front office had some balls and made a few calls that few. if any, would've made at the time. As for the 3 points listed above, you can make the argument the Raycroft trade wasn't unexpected (he really struggled in his second year), but re: the other two points it's hard to imagine many teams trading a superstar during his Hart year or giving a 32 year old his first ever starting gig and then watching him win 2 Vezinas, one at age 34 and another at 36. Has anything like this ever happened before? I honestly can't think of a similar situation. There are probably some other front office wins too, maybe a Bruins fan can add something to this.
Of course the front office isn't perfect (Mitch Miller, 2015 draft, etc), but imo they hit enough to still be a key reason for B's continuing to be good / have success, whatever you want to call it
1) Trading an elite Joe Thornton during his Hart year for not very much. At the time I couldn't believe how little they got in return, mgmt had Bergeron in the wings and didn't think the team would win with Jumbo as their captain / dressing room leader, in hindsight they were 100% right.
2) Trading 2nd year goaltender (fmr rookie of the year) Andrew Raycroft to Toronto for the rights to Tuukka who was at the time a 1st round pick that was off playing in Finland and hadn't seen an NHL game. Sorry Leafs fans
3) Speaking of Finland, they brought over Tim Thomas and gave him the chance to play / eventually start as a 32 year old, he was a guy who was drafted in the 9th round (217th overall) about ten years before his first NHL cup of coffee. Interestingly enough, the draft now only has 7 rounds, and just as interestingly, Thomas Vokoun, Evgeny Nobokov, and Steve Sullivan were both drafted after Tim Thomas in that same 9th round. Probably the best 9th round in NHL draft history though I haven't poked around on this.
***
But yeah, culture is a big part of the reason, but that front office had some balls and made a few calls that few. if any, would've made at the time. As for the 3 points listed above, you can make the argument the Raycroft trade wasn't unexpected (he really struggled in his second year), but re: the other two points it's hard to imagine many teams trading a superstar during his Hart year or giving a 32 year old his first ever starting gig and then watching him win 2 Vezinas, one at age 34 and another at 36. Has anything like this ever happened before? I honestly can't think of a similar situation. There are probably some other front office wins too, maybe a Bruins fan can add something to this.
Of course the front office isn't perfect (Mitch Miller, 2015 draft, etc), but imo they hit enough to still be a key reason for B's continuing to be good / have success, whatever you want to call it
