Player Discussion Zdeno Chara

[TheReal13Linseman]

If in dismantling your core you trade Chara for nothing or for fuitures, yeah, you have a point.

If you trade him for a significant return in a current NHL player, or players, then might be worth it as you cna serve the future and the present.

The deal would have to be right, I'll grant that. But NOT considering moving him it at all because he's some alleged stud that will perform at the 2011/2012 level until he is 42 always seemed overly optimistic to me.

Dude, give it up; some people will never be convinced.

Too late, anyway. Window for dumping Chara is now painted shut.

He and Seids are our Twin Albatrosses.

Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.

 

[PsychoDad]

If in dismantling your core you trade Chara for nothing or for fuitures, yeah, you have a point.

If you trade him for a significant return in a current NHL player, or players, then might be worth it as you cna serve the future and the present.

The deal would have to be right, I'll grant that. But NOT considering moving him it at all because he's some alleged stud that will perform at the 2011/2012 level until he is 42 always seemed overly optimistic to me.

Look what Kessel was traded for, even with salary remained. Phaneuf on a similar contract seems unmovable. What gives you the idea that we would've gotten anything worthy for Chara, based on his contract? Cap relief would be the one thing, and who would we've used it on? Boychuk would be the only answer. Now I like him, but to drop Chara just to keep Boychuk and some questionable assets, while still having a real shot at 2014 cup.. well, I doubt Chia made a mistake there.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

True or false, the Bruins won a Stanley Cup with Chara as captain during the contract you thought was a mistake to sign?

Once again side stepping the point. I didn't like the length of the contract. Yes, they won a Cup with him, and he was one of the key points to that Cup; that doesn't mean I have to like the contract extending into his 40's. I don't care how jacked the guy is; he's 6'9", 260 and plays a contact sport. Would have rather tossed in even a little more dough to not have to give him those last two years (though, that cap hit would not have been so pleasant, either).

From the very beginning, I hated the term, expressed it, predicted I was right two years ago, am being proven right currently, and yet I'm still "wrong" because they won a Cup while he was under that particular contract (which I have acknowledged was fair at the time they won the Cup). Not sure why I'm still receiving **** from anyone. It's maybe the single point I've made on the board which I feel I shouldn't even have to defend; the signs are right in front of everyone. And, at least until recently, looks like the majority of the board could not come to grips with that.

 

[PsychoDad]

You have to defend yourself because you don't understand the reality of the new NHL. You only get a chance at the cup if you manage to bring a core group together all in their primes, at all costs. If the cost is a retirement contract - you swallow it. Otherwise you become a transition team for the time being. We won a cup for the first time since 40 years. If Charas contract was the only way to do it - all good.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

You have to defend yourself because you don't understand the reality of the new NHL. You only get a chance at the cup if you manage to bring a core group together all in their primes, at all costs. If the cost is a retirement contract - you swallow it. Otherwise you become a transition team for the time being. We won a cup for the first time since 40 years. If Charas contract was the only way to do it - all good.

I don't trust Chiarelli got the best deal for the team with that contract; that's my concern. Given some of the contracts he gave out while here to his "loyal players" (the others of whom were not nearly as important as Chara), I don't doubt he could have got something that wasn't as backloaded (i.e. into his 40s).

It's not the fact that Chara was signed here that I don't like. We don't win a Cup without Chara...so convenient that this is constantly reverted back to as if I'm arguing that point at all. What I'm saying is the contract had trouble written all over it from the start. I pointed it out. Pretty much no one else wanted to hear it. While it should have been obvious, it is now, of course, being proven true.

What was/has been insane is people slotting Chara in as our #1 D-man all the way to the end of his contract. That irks me more than the contract itself. It goes completely contrary to logic and any historical knowledge gained from understanding the realities of the sport of hockey. There are "loyal" Chara fans around here who have minds so disproportionately and hopelessly clouded when it comes to how the sport works and how any 6'9", 260 lb. human being playing hockey will regress. But, up until recently, even hinting at what is a blaring reality has been completely TABOO amongst the fanbase. Sorry, I'm just being real about the entire thing. And, as time goes on, my position is being proven more and more right. I just don't understand how people can keep fooling themselves day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

 

[PsychoDad]

Your position is based only on assumption that Chara could've been had on a better deal. Fact is - you don't know it. The term Chara signed for caused his cap hit to actually drop in comparison to the prior deal, made in 2006 btw... when cap was 45mil. So here is that for the start.

After the deal was done and we had further success, at what point do we trade him and for what? Before it is too late? You know what is the thing with dealing players at the "right time" - you never get your own teams right time back. People like you want to see constant rebuild, with veterans dealt when they are still bringing value. Dealt to other contenders btw., because no rebuilding team needs a guy like that. So how are we supposed to compete if we always give up players when the time is right?

You are no prophet, believe me. Everyone and their mother knew that Chara won't be his best self at the age of 39. Chia knew it, Neely knew it. This is the only way to go now - a contending team for 5 years at best and a pile of crap for another 7. Nobody will escape this fate.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Your position is based only on assumption that Chara could've been had on a better deal. Fact is - you don't know it. The term Chara signed for caused his cap hit to actually drop in comparison to the prior deal, made in 2006 btw... when cap was 45mil. So here is that for the start.

After the deal was done and we had further success, at what point do we trade him and for what? Before it is too late? You know what is the thing with dealing players at the "right time" - you never get your own teams right time back. People like you want to see constant rebuild, with veterans dealt when they are still bringing value. Dealt to other contenders btw., because no rebuilding team needs a guy like that. So how are we supposed to compete if we always give up players when the time is right?

You are no prophet, believe me. Everyone and their mother knew that Chara won't be his best self at the age of 39. Chia knew it, Neely knew it. This is the only way to go now - a contending team for 5 years at best and a pile of crap for another 7. Nobody will escape this fate.

Well, I don't believe for a second Neely, Chia, even Claude (who has referred to someone else getting the captaincy only when Chara RETIRES...not traded or anything) thought Chara wouldn't be a God at 39. The loyalty this organization has for Chara is at Bourque level; only difference is Chara is not on a cap-friendly deal (yes, I know there was no cap when Bourque was here, but he always took deals way below market value).

You're right, I don't know they could have gotten something better. But, I would bet they could have. Chara was in the driver's seat and told the team he wouldn't negotiate during the season. Almost immediately after, a deal was signed. The FO was fawning (at least partially justifiable, at the time) over him at the time, and offered him a deal to the age of 42. What I've said is I would have been more satisfied with a higher cap hit at shorter term....don't know if the FO tried that, but that's what I wanted. A contract for a 6'9" D-man until age 42 (a contract which is basically immovable with three years remaining...don't really get why that's 'A-OK' with some of you) is a bad idea. Bad idea then, bad idea now. I didn't like it from the beginning.

It would be one thing if people were arguing from the beginning that "welp, you got to sacrifice some years on the back end for success now", but that wasn't it. People genuinely were (and some still are) penciling Chara in for the #1 D-spot in 2018. That's what really concerns me. We've become so complacent, habitual, and obsessed with one player's past contributions, as a fanbase, that plenty of people don't even want to evaluate the realities of his game. There is no other player in the history of my being a fan (granted, I've only been a fan for about 20 years) that has gotten so many passes and excuses. People seem to be genuinely afraid of admitting what is obvious and moving on. And I, for one, really don't want to suffer through three more years of the same old excuse-making, ignorant comments that we've listened to for the past 2+ years.

 

[Banded Peak]

I think people penciling Chara in as the number one guy has more to do with the sorry state of the teams blue line than any commentary on his ability to this point. Broken down or not he's still the best all around defenseman we have. That's an unfortunate fact. Who's better? Krug? Please.

You see these deals all the time for big ticket players. It's an unfortunate part of doing business. You also have to remember Chara has a full no move clause and was finally on a team that was a perennial cup favorite. No general manager in the NHL trades a player like that in the middle of a cup window. Like it or not.

Unproductive years on the backend of a retirement deal is the cost of doing business in this league. The writings on the wall now and most people are coming to terms with it. It is what it is.

Edit clarification

 

[PsychoDad]

Well, I don't believe for a second Neely, Chia, even Claude (who has referred to someone else getting the captaincy only when Chara RETIRES...not traded or anything) thought Chara wouldn't be a God at 39. The loyalty this organization has for Chara is at Bourque level; only difference is Chara is not on a cap-friendly deal (yes, I know there was no cap when Bourque was here, but he always took deals way below market value).

You're right, I don't know they could have gotten something better. But, I would bet they could have. Chara was in the driver's seat and told the team he wouldn't negotiate during the season. Almost immediately after, a deal was signed. The FO was fawning (at least partially justifiable, at the time) over him at the time, and offered him a deal to the age of 42. What I've said is I would have been more satisfied with a higher cap hit at shorter term....don't know if the FO tried that, but that's what I wanted. A contract for a 6'9" D-man until age 42 (a contract which is basically immovable with three years remaining...don't really get why that's 'A-OK' with some of you) is a bad idea. Bad idea then, bad idea now. I didn't like it from the beginning.

It would be one thing if people were arguing from the beginning that "welp, you got to sacrifice some years on the back end for success now", but that wasn't it. People genuinely were (and some still are) penciling Chara in for the #1 D-spot in 2018. That's what really concerns me. We've become so complacent, habitual, and obsessed with one player's past contributions, as a fanbase, that plenty of people don't even want to evaluate the realities of his game. There is no other player in the history of my being a fan (granted, I've only been a fan for about 20 years) that has gotten so many passes and excuses. People seem to be genuinely afraid of admitting what is obvious and moving on. And I, for one, really don't want to suffer through three more years of the same old excuse-making, ignorant comments that we've listened to for the past 2+ years.

I don't know who these people you mentioned are, with Chara being 1D in 2018 and all.
For what it's worth - it's 2016 and he is our 1D and I see no signs of anyone taking over in 2017.
Hamilton is gone - he wanted to go, he was the only option. Boychuk still is not a better defender than Chara, himself already on a 6M deal till he is 38.

Everything else is based on assumptions. Fact is - we enjoyed the most successful phase of our franchise in 40 years. Have mistakes been made? Absolutely. But if the cost for the success was creating the family atmosphere with no so tough contract negotiations - this was the price to pay. Look over to Chicago with the Seabrook deal. Do they really think they need him this long and for this price? No, but their cup window is closing in 2-3 years, and for these years they need to keep the team chemistry intact at all costs.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Your position is based only on assumption that Chara could've been had on a better deal. Fact is - you don't know it. The term Chara signed for caused his cap hit to actually drop in comparison to the prior deal, made in 2006 btw... when cap was 45mil. So here is that for the start.

After the deal was done and we had further success, at what point do we trade him and for what? Before it is too late? You know what is the thing with dealing players at the "right time" - you never get your own teams right time back. People like you want to see constant rebuild, with veterans dealt when they are still bringing value. Dealt to other contenders btw., because no rebuilding team needs a guy like that. So how are we supposed to compete if we always give up players when the time is right?

You are no prophet, believe me. Everyone and their mother knew that Chara won't be his best self at the age of 39. Chia knew it, Neely knew it. This is the only way to go now - a contending team for 5 years at best and a pile of crap for another 7. Nobody will escape this fate.

This should be Chara's last year.

However to get him to sign a contract 2 years shorter we would have to pay him 1-2 mil a year more on average.


But yeah act more like Chicago and tell a guy like Kelly to get lost around the time of the Chara extension in favor of more ice to Paille or a kid getting a shot and you can pull it off. HIs cap hit was fine when he was resigned but it was too long.


We have some great young talent coming up through the blue line we will be OK even next year or the year after with Seids and Z being disastrous black holes.


I think Z will play OK this year assuming Claude keeps him off the PP and lessens his role.

 

[JOKER 192]

True or false, the Bruins won a Stanley Cup with Chara as captain during the contract you thought was a mistake to sign?

Pretty certain that is false. Chara was on the last year of his contract when the Bruins won the cup. He was extended in October of the winning cup year but that contract didn't kick in until 2011/2012. It can be argued that that contract was necessary to give him the right incentive to preform as well as he did but the contract he is currently on is not the one we won a cup with.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Pretty certain that is false. Chara was on the last year of his contract when the Bruins won the cup. He was extended in October of the winning cup year but that contract didn't kick in until 2011/2012. It can be argued that that contract was necessary to give him the right incentive to preform as well as he did but the contract he is currently on is not the one we won a cup with.

Correct.


Resigning him after the Cup would have been ugly and near impossible to get something good done. The deal would have been worse than this one same length more money.



But he was so good at that point that a higher cap hit would have been OK he was a unique talent the last years of the deal were the problem and Chara knew it his hit drops to 4 mil the final year he wanted maximum term.

 

[JOKER 192]

For those saying a bad contract is something all teams do to retain an elite player during their cup window, while there is some truth in that, can you show me which other team was stupid enough to sign said elite player into his 40's at the age of 35? Referencing the Seabrook deal, it is a very different thing to sign a player when he's 26 as opposed to 35. Seabrook had at least 10 good years on him while Chara had maybe 3. One or two bad years may be a fair price to pay but 4 is to many IMO.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

For those saying a bad contract is something all teams do to retain an elite player during their cup window, while there is some truth in that, can you show me which other team was stupid enough to sign said elite player into his 40's at the age of 35? Referencing the Seabrook deal, it is a very different thing to sign a player when he's 26 as opposed to 35. Seabrook had at least 10 good years on him while Chara had maybe 3. One or two bad years may be a fair price to pay but 4 is to many IMO.

Seabrook is 30, not 26. And they just signed him until he's 38

 

[PsychoDad]

For those saying a bad contract is something all teams do to retain an elite player during their cup window, while there is some truth in that, can you show me which other team was stupid enough to sign said elite player into his 40's at the age of 35? Referencing the Seabrook deal, it is a very different thing to sign a player when he's 26 as opposed to 35. Seabrook had at least 10 good years on him while Chara had maybe 3.

Seabrook is 30 and no, he is already at best worth the money right now and probably will be for 3 more years max.

You want an example of a stud D signed for 7 years when he was 35? Flyers signed Pronger for the exact same term, the contract kicked in when he was 35, so it's an overage contract unlike Charas, who was 33 when he signed it, and 34 when it kicked in.

 

[kdog82]

Not sure what the debate is about Chara? The man is a legend and as far as I'm concerned can see out his contract in Boston if he so chooses.

Have people no appreciation for what he has done in a Bruins jersey? One that will be hanging from the rafters shortly after he retires.

 

[JOKER 192]

Seabrook is 30 and no, he is already at best worth the money right now and probably will be for 3 more years max.

You want an example of a stud D signed for 7 years when he was 35? Flyers signed Pronger for the exact same term, the contract kicked in when he was 35, so it's an overage contract unlike Charas, who was 33 when he signed it, and 34 when it kicked in.

Great example, another albatross contract. The Flyers have been one of the worst run teams in the Homer years so you'll excuse me if I don't want to emulate them.

Chara's birthday is on March 18 so he was actually closer to 35 than 34 when he started his contract.

 

[JOKER 192]

Seabrook is 30, not 26. And they just signed him until he's 38

I stand corrected but there is still a big difference.

 

[OutspokenMinority*]

Not sure what the debate is about Chara? The man is a legend and as far as I'm concerned can see out his contract in Boston if he so chooses.

Have people no appreciation for what he has done in a Bruins jersey? One that will be hanging from the rafters shortly after he retires.

put me on record as being vehemently opposed to this mindset in any sport.

"he stinks now but he was good once so show some respect" = tread water until you drown

also, i owe him nothing. he perhaps owes me for some of the horrible performances of the past few years, particularly in the playoffs. other than that, the dude made more money every year of his contract than i will make in my life. you may not think that evens up the score but that's cuz you're wrong about stuff.

 

[JOKER 192]

Not sure what the debate is about Chara? The man is a legend and as far as I'm concerned can see out his contract in Boston if he so chooses.

Have people no appreciation for what he has done in a Bruins jersey? One that will be hanging from the rafters shortly after he retires.

No one can deny what Chara has brought to the Bruins but you can't fall in love with your players. By that standard we'll be signing a lot of bad contracts going forward.

I'd rather he played out his contract elsewhere but don't lose any sleep over that one , no one is taking him of your hands at this point.

 

[kdog82]

put me on record as being vehemently opposed to this mindset in any sport.

"he stinks now but he was good once so show some respect" = tread water until you drown

also, i owe him nothing. he perhaps owes me for some of the horrible performances of the past few years, particularly in the playoffs. other than that, the dude made more money every year of his contract than i will make in my life. you may not think that evens up the score but that's cuz you're wrong about stuff.

Sorry but Chara does not stink.

 

[PsychoDad]

Great example, another albatross contract. The Flyers have been one of the worst run teams in the Homer years so you'll excuse me if I don't want to emulate them.

Chara's birthday is on March 18 so he was actually closer to 35 than 34 when he started his contract.

You wanted an example, I gave you an example. By the way - Flyers made it to the SC finals. Holmgren is a strange case and he made a lot of head scratching move, but he sure did have some success too. Shouldn't you like him? He shipped out Richards contract. LA won 2 cups with him before he went to ****, but hey, who needs a cup if you can trade your captain when you can.

 

[JOKER 192]

You wanted an example, I gave you an example. By the way - Flyers made it to the SC finals. Holmgren is a strange case and he made a lot of head scratching move, but he sure did have some success too. Shouldn't you like him? He shipped out Richards contract. LA won 2 cups with him before he went to ****, but hey, who needs a cup if you can trade your captain when you can.

Normally we give examples to fortify our argument not to further disprove it.

I think we would have won the cup regardless of the contract but nobody can say one way or the other. I was one of the few who said from the start this contract would be a huge mistake, all that remains to be seen is how huge at this point.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Seabrook is 30 and no, he is already at best worth the money right now and probably will be for 3 more years max.

You want an example of a stud D signed for 7 years when he was 35? Flyers signed Pronger for the exact same term, the contract kicked in when he was 35, so it's an overage contract unlike Charas, who was 33 when he signed it, and 34 when it kicked in.

Said contract was put together by Paul Holmgren who has made some of the most idiotic moves as far as doling out undeserved contracts. Don't see that as a very good "defense".

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Not sure what the debate is about Chara? The man is a legend and as far as I'm concerned can see out his contract in Boston if he so chooses.

Have people no appreciation for what he has done in a Bruins jersey? One that will be hanging from the rafters shortly after he retires.

Oh, the "legacy", the "memories", the "glory days".

Give it up. It's a ****ing hockey team in 2015. This need to make it some sappy, emotional, rhetorical monologue is so old and stupid.

You know what...**** it. He's a legend. Let's resign him for another ten years to show our appreciation for all he has done. Good Lord, it's just so petty.