Why is Boston such a good organization?

[conFABulator]

no, you're making the incorrect assumption that everyone here has the same definition and interpretation as you that "good organization" = "very successful" = "lots of championships".

That's a fair point.

I am making that assumption. It's a reasonable one since it always seems to be about championships for people.

Even in your counterpoints you discounted my two examples of teams with great runs, but NO championships.

 

[Kegs]

 

[Bruins4Lifer]

Even in your counterpoints you discounted my two examples of teams with great runs, but NO championships.

I just questioned why you would equivalate them with teams that by your definition had zero success (no championships), when they did actually have some success (won a Cup). Thought there were better comparables out there to use, which you acknowledged.

Whatever your definition of "success" is, I think there's about 25 fanbases out there that would trade their own teams lack of success over the last 15 years for Boston's.

 

[TheNewEra]

need to find the interview where ullmark said it but when he came to boston he said the level the team practices at is different

there are years where people (myself included) have thought oh boston has lost too much skill and will take a step back/miss the playoffs.

The organization seems to be good at having the next man up mentality and identifying players that fit that mentality.

They are going to have a random prospect break out or somehow be able to allow geekie to break out. As a fan of a team in their division its annoying but you have to respect it

 

[BFLO]

Bruins of the 2000's to 2020's have some similarities to the Red Wings of the 90's-2010's. +20ish year dynasty, except they only won 1 cup to Detroit's 4. It took 7 years from DRW's last cup appearance for them to slowly decline and start missing the playoffs. Detroit's decline was more noticeable in the playoffs than in the regular season. Failing to make it out of the 2nd round every year after that cup appearance. Boston has also similarly failed to advance past the 2nd round since their last cup appearance.

Boston is entering year 6 since their last cup appearance. So maybe we're in the final 2 years of Boston Dominance?

 

[BostonBob]

Boston is entering year 6 since their last cup appearance. So maybe we're in the final 2 years of Boston Dominance?

 

[conFABulator]

I just questioned why you would equivalate them with teams that by your definition had zero success (no championships), when they did actually have some success (won a Cup). Thought there were better comparables out there to use, which you acknowledged.

Whatever your definition of "success" is, I think there's about 25 fanbases out there that would trade their own teams lack of success over the last 15 years for Boston's.

You know what? We agree that at least 25 fanbases should envious of the Bruins' past 15 years.

You have also been patient and actually hear me out. I am not bashing the B's, I just wondered what puts them above a small handful of others. A few teams have won more cups than them in the last decade and a half. Many have won more than them in the past 50 years.

I understand that Boston is never terrible (though they have missed the playoffs a couple times in this era) and almost always pretty good. I just didn't know many on here considered that to be success.

 

[the_fan]

Because they sign players like Mitchell Miller

 

[mattyboy]

Huh? Bruins have one of the youngest rosters in the league.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1811449037008027807

Not sure what overall age has anything to do with my previous statement.

Bruins depth is lacking
Great goalie tandem is now split up
Prospect pool one of the worst in the NHL

Clearer now big guy?

 

[Gee Wally]

Not sure what overall age has anything to do with my previous statement.

Bruins depth is lacking
Great goalie tandem is now split up
Prospect pool one of the worst in the NHL

Clearer now big guy?

And I quote, little dude:

“Nothing in the pipeline of any real substance (No, Letourneau isn’t a top prospect), ageing players.”

 

[PullHard]

Sorry I know I’m super late to this thread but I’m not sure I understand. What is the thesis for this argument or reason for the thread? Boston is a consistent franchise overall but did I miss something? They’ve won a cup and lost two other finals series in my life time. And I’m not very young.

 

[mattyboy]

And I quote, little dude:

“Nothing in the pipeline of any real substance (No, Letourneau isn’t a top prospect), ageing players.”

Ouff someone’s projecting.
Must’ve been really difficult to completely ignore the first part.
But sure. Boston has the best future lol

Oh, being middle of the pack in terms of average age isn’t “one of the youngest teams in the league”

 

[BlueBaron]

The answer is very simple. To piss off Habs and Leaf fans.

 

[I am Bettman]

Ouff someone’s projecting.
Must’ve been really difficult to completely ignore the first part.
But sure. Boston has the best future lol

Oh, being middle of the pack in terms of average age isn’t “one of the youngest teams in the league”

Elite prospects has them at 7th in the league for 24-25 without taking into consideration players like Lysell and Swayman. Yes, they are one of the youngest teams in the league. They fixed their top six center hole, and now they just need 1-2 capable top six wingers to make them a powerhouse again. There are no holes anywhere in the lineup besides 1-2 wing spots in the top six.

 

[BlueSeal]

The Bruins are a team with integrity.

 

[mattyboy]

Elite prospects has them at 7th in the league for 24-25 without taking into consideration players like Lysell and Swayman. Yes, they are one of the youngest teams in the league. They fixed their top six center hole, and now they just need 1-2 capable top six wingers to make them a powerhouse again. There are no holes anywhere in the lineup besides 1-2 wing spots in the top six.

Scott Wheeler has Boston’s prospect Pool ranked at 30th.
He gave them a C+ as their post draft rating.
Prospecting has Boston dead last in NHL prospect Pool rankings.
Lindholm contract is awful. Guy hasn’t been “good” since 21-22 season when he had Tkachuk and Gaudreau on his wings.
He’s not a 1C and stats show his best years are behind him.
Jim Montgomery has never won 2 rounds and has a losing record in the playoffs.
Marchand only getting older and will leave a gaping hole once he’s gone. A hole your prospects can’t fill evidently.
Can you possibly address those issues via trade or FA? Sure. But they’ll eventually be a team with pasta swayman and Charlie surrounded by very average players.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Scott Wheeler has Boston’s prospect Pool ranked at 30th.
He gave them a C+ as their post draft rating.
Prospecting has Boston dead last in NHL prospect Pool rankings.
Lindholm contract is awful. Guy hasn’t been “good” since 21-22 season when he had Tkachuk and Gaudreau on his wings.
He’s not a 1C and stats show his best years are behind him.
Jim Montgomery has never won 2 rounds and has a losing record in the playoffs.
Marchand only getting older and will leave a gaping hole once he’s gone. A hole your prospects can’t fill evidently.
Can you possibly address those issues via trade or FA? Sure. But they’ll eventually be a team with pasta swayman and Charlie surrounded by very average players.

Still got decent rookie contributions last year.

Boston hit on Pasternak and McAvoy late in the first when the wheels probably should have come off from the title team. We’ve had about 10 straight years of being exactly the 5th or 6th best team in the league.

 

[mattyboy]

Still got decent rookie contributions last year.

Boston hit on Pasternak and McAvoy late in the first when the wheels probably should have come off from the title team. We’ve had about 10 straight years of being exactly the 5th or 6th best team in the league.

I’m not arguing against Pasta/McAvoy. They’re amazing players and can carry a team through a round on their own.
that’s not the point I’m trying to make here.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Clock is ticking for bruins.
Nothing in the pipeline of any real substance (No, Letourneau isn’t a top prospect), ageing players. Sus centre depth. Take away Pasta and Ouff, they’re super mid.
Swayman being young an essentially a top 5 goalie will keep them afloat for years (2012-2021 habs fans can relate) but bruins are on borrowed time to being “a top team”.
I can see them as a consistent wild card team but since their run in 2019, they haven’t won two rounds since.

These exact words have been said since like 2013 lol

 

[nbwingsfan]

Making the playoffs and having a shot at the cup every year is the gold standard for successful franchise? The Sharks? The Leafs? Carolina? The Senators?

Every one of these teams is considered a failure by most fanbases because they got close but couldn't put it over the line. Why such a different tune for the Bruins? Because they have Lohrie and Carlo? I don't get it.

Boston hasn’t bottomed out like all of those teams have done yet make the post season every year, often in a divisional spot.

One cup win and two other finals, greatest regular season team of all time (then blew it, but that’s still a meaningful title).

They’re not remotely comparable to the teams you just listed and you know that

 

[nbwingsfan]

A point that was never made? Isn't it the point of this thread?

"Why is Boston such a good organization?"

Your example might be better than the Bills and Sharks, but there is a statute of limitations on this too, isn't there? This franchise won a cup 13 years ago and seemed to have the pieces to do it again in Bergeron, Krejci, Chara, Marchand and Rask. To me, they have almost been a disappointment, a lost opportunity.

Anyway, solid organization and I am not bashing them. This thread seems to have them at a higher level than other teams and I don't get that. It seems we agree on that.

The bolded is the entire point of this thread

All of those guys outside of an aging Marchand are gone, and yet they’re still a top team in the league.

No other franchise has avoided falling off and bottoming out at some point the same way that the Bruins have since like 2008.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Still got decent rookie contributions last year.

Boston hit on Pasternak and McAvoy late in the first when the wheels probably should have come off from the title team. We’ve had about 10 straight years of being exactly the 5th or 6th best team in the league.

Minor quibble but McAvoy was drafted 14OA so can't really call that late 1st round by definition. Point still stands that they got him at a lower draft position than what he has turned into.

 

[I am Bettman]

Scott Wheeler has Boston’s prospect Pool ranked at 30th.
He gave them a C+ as their post draft rating.
Prospecting has Boston dead last in NHL prospect Pool rankings.
Lindholm contract is awful. Guy hasn’t been “good” since 21-22 season when he had Tkachuk and Gaudreau on his wings.
He’s not a 1C and stats show his best years are behind him.
Jim Montgomery has never won 2 rounds and has a losing record in the playoffs.
Marchand only getting older and will leave a gaping hole once he’s gone. A hole your prospects can’t fill evidently.
Can you possibly address those issues via trade or FA? Sure. But they’ll eventually be a team with pasta swayman and Charlie surrounded by very average players.

How can it be possible for the Bruins to have the worst prospect pool for the last 5 years despite producing Lohrei, Poitras, and Beecher? Lindholm contract is risky, but at worst he just becomes an overpaid 2C. How about basing your opinions on what you actually think instead of just what other people’s lists and grades say.

 

[conFABulator]

The bolded is the entire point of this thread

All of those guys outside of an aging Marchand are gone, and yet they’re still a top team in the league.

No other franchise has avoided falling off and bottoming out at some point the same way that the Bruins have since like 2008.

I absolutely agree that not falling off a cliff is impressive and I find the Bruins impressive.

I also find it interesting that in many other discussions there seems to be a binary definition of success in team sports -- championships.

My question was, before we discuss WHY they have been so successful, should we fist define SUCCESS in this context.

Would Pittsburgh apply? They (barely) missed the playoffs twice now, but the Bruins did a couple of years ago too. The Penguins have more cups.

Now, we could argue that the Pens tanked and drafted high, won and are now about to bottom out and that would be a fair position, but it needs to start with an agreed upon definition of success.

So, what is it? Making the playoffs regularly? Being a "contender" (however that is defined)? Not being terrible ever?

 

[Kegs]

Not sure what overall age has anything to do with my previous statement.

Bruins depth is lacking
Great goalie tandem is now split up
Prospect pool one of the worst in the NHL

Clearer now big guy?

Deepest defence in the east bud