Sunday, October 5, 2014

Boychuck Trade Hard to Swallow

It seems I spoke too soon in my last post. It seemed reasonable to assume that the Bruins were done making major changes, given that they were under the salary cap (assuming Savard is once again placed on long-term injured reserve). My assumption was that the Bruins would shake out their best younger defensemen and either let the ones that didn't make the cut go, or find some clever way to keep them around.

Boychuck was not some last-minute pick-up who filled in on the third D pair. He was mostly a  product of the Bruins organization, he had come to fully understand the system, and he wanted to be a Bruin. Last season, with Siedenberg and McQuaid out, he was the second best defenseman on the team--a role he took on in the playoffs with enormous heart.

So not only are the Bruins a worse team without him, but they gave up one of our own. And for what? Why? That's the big question. I'm not going to presume to know the answer. Maybe Savard is planning to take a coaching job or something, and placing him on IR was iffy. Maybe capgeek simply has their numbers wrong and Chiarelli was still over the cap. We can only hope that there is some clever reason, rather than this being the result of Chiarelli putting himself into a corner.

I watched the press briefing one more time and Chiarelli did appear to explain why he made the trade; it was just in his usual understated style, which can easily be mistaken for being intentionally vague. It seems that Boychuck was traded because his contract was up at the end of the season and Chiarelli didn't want him to walk away to a big payday with the Bruins getting nothing in return. This, after all, something that Chiarelli has been criticized for in the past. There are a lot of players to sign at the end of this season, including Campbell, Paille, Soderberg, McQuiad and Bartkowski. I think his mention of making other moves will likely involve several of these players.

This is a new era with new and different challenges for Chiarelli. He showed that he could build a Stanley Cup team. Now he has to figure out the tricky balancing act between high-quality veterans, who are expensive, and the young inexperienced players who are coming up through the system.He has to do this, not only from the cold perspective of balance sheets, but with the understanding that the respect he shows players has an effect on how they play as a team.

Whatever the reason, it is difficult to swallow. I'm going to miss Boychuck and I can't help but feel that the Bruins chances for another cup just got longer.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Thank You Peter Chiarelli

This has been a tough summer to be a Bruins fan, unless you managed not to read any articles or blog posts about the team. It started when the salary cap numbers were released for this year and they were a lot less than some had hoped for. Anyone looking at the numbers knew that Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli was "between a rock and a hab place" (sorry). Ahem.

There was little chance that the entire roster could be retained, and many fans wanted to see superstar Jarome Iginla, who was at the end of a one-year deal, continue with the team. A vocal minority of fans seemed prepared to see much of the rest of the team gutted in order to do so.

The first move came when Chiarelli announced that the Bruins were not going to re-sign tough guy Shawn Thornton. This was sad, given the important role he has played for the team, and how he has put his health on the line time and again by being willing to fight. Bruins fans love a guy like that, and it would have seemed almost unimaginable for the Bruins to turn him loose just a year ago. But that was before he embarrassed the Bruins with his antics in the playoffs against Montreal, squirting his water bottle at PK Subban from the bench and then grinning like a fool. If these antics had worked and gotten under the Hab's skin, that would have been one thing, but the way it happened just made Thornton look  childish and stupid. It was poor judgement, just like earlier in the season when he embarrassed the entire league by taking down Brooks Orpik from behind and beating him senseless. It should have come as no surprise to anyone that he'd be let go, particularly when there are so many young players looking to break into the lineup.

The tension mounted as we got closer to Free Agency. Would Iginla choose to take a discount to stay with the Bruins, where he had fit in so well, and where he might win another cup? Or would he take the big bucks behind door number 12? In the end, Chiarelli would have had to give up one or two established players or young prospects, like Tory Krug, to keep him, and he seemed reluctant to do so. Iginla ended up signing a three-year contract with the Avalanche worth $16 million.

Even with Iginla out of the picture Chiarelli was still in a huge bind. It seemed to many that he had a clear choice: keep his veterans like Boychuk and McQuaid, or keep his promising upstarts like Krug, Miller and Spooner. Surely he couldn't keep them all; there simply was not enough room under the cap. Some vocal fans called for the Bruins to give up on long term project Jordan Caron, or even Chris Kelly, whose importance as a penalty killer seemed to have been forgotten. At this point I have to say that the state of sports "journalism" today is really quite pathetic. All summer I kept seeing stories from bloggers on sites such as  Bleacher Report  or Causeway Crowd, with misleading headlines that promised actual news, but delivered only uninformed speculation by amateur writers. Many of these guys seem to have forgotten that they are neither journalists nor experienced hockey experts. To make matters worse, the Boston Globe seems to have decided to try to beat these idiots at their own game by hiring sports writers with similarly big heads, such as  Eric Wilbur, who thinks he knows more about the game and Ryan Spooner than an NHL coach who has won a Frakin' Stanley Cup. At one time he wrote that the reason the Bruins lost to the Habs in the playoffs was that the Bruins, who had the third most goals in the regular season, have no scoring touch.  He also went on to expound that the main reason the Bruins won the cup in 2011 was Tyler Seguin. Like I said, it's been a long summer. (note: to their credit they seem to have taken the original story down and replaced it with a slightly less idiotic video).

And yeah, I blog about the Bruins too, and have opinions, but I try never to pretend to know better than the guys who are paid to run the team. Even if they totally sucked as GMs and coaches, and ran the team into the ground, they'd still know far more about the game than I do.

Anyhow, with the recent signing of holdouts Krug and Smith, Peter Chiarelli has somehow managed to pull a rabbit out of his hat and keep everyone. Not only that, but along the way he tied up David Krejci for the next 6 years. Pretty Impressive. From the fans point of view this is great news. Sure, Krug and Smith got screwed. They bore the brunt of keeping the team together and Chiarelli squeezed them hard. It may be that one or the other or both might resent the way they have been treated enough to end up playing somewhere else one day, but it also may be forgotten in the long run, particularly if Chiarelli makes it up to them in a future contract.

Next time: why I think the Bruins have an even better chance of winning the cup this time around.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

The Morning After

Ok, so it's not exactly the morning after the Bruins loss to the Habs in game 7. But that morning, I didn't really feel like thinking about hockey at all, much less writing about the Bruins. This loss hurt more than any in recent memory.

But I did just finish watching the final episode of Behind the B, so what I would have said at the time has all come rushing back.

I believe the Bruins lost their composure during this series, and in game 7 in particular. In the final episode of Behind the B Claude Julien is overheard yelling from behind the bench early in the series. "Come on! Have they got under your skin?" he asked. In the end, I think they did.

It's also pretty clear that the Habs wanted very badly to beat the Bruins. In a certain emotional sense, it seemed they wanted to beat the Bruins more than even win the Cup, and I am sure that by now they are taking some solace in their defeat of the Bs after their Conference Final loss to the Rangers. That's the problem with everyone expecting you to win the cup; the battles along the way are just that. For the Habs, who have been somewhat humiliated by the Bruins in recent years, this series meant a lot more than just another step toward the Cup.

I think the Habs did get under their skin. It showed in the Bruins' play, whether it be the missed opportunities in the offensive zone or the break downs in front of their own net. As an example, it's a very fine line between blocking a shot and screening your goaltender, and the Bruins crossed this line rather uncharacteristically. On one goal, even Big Z was caught standing right in front of Rask, something he hasn't done since the start of the 2013 season. Even worse, how else do you explain the Bruins coming out flat in the first period of game 7, at home, in front of a roaring crowd? Something was clearly wrong in their psyche.

I think the key moment to the Habs victory in the series came off the ice, when Suban was asked about the racist tweets after game one, and he responded with so much class that even Bobby Orr would have stood up and applauded. But while that was going on off the ice, the usual shenanigans were occurring on it. I am sure that every Bruin felt that the Habs were the guys wearing the black hats in this series, but it seemed like the world -- and the referees -- saw it the other way around. This even continued after the game, when Weise took potshots at the Bruins for Lucic's unsportsmanlike behavior in the hand shake line. Lucic had every right to be angry at Weise for those comments. Weise should have laughed it off, been a good winner, and moved on. But he got away with it. It was Lucic who was ultimately seen as the guy in the black hat. Now, I'm not condoning what Lucic did. I'm just pointing out how thoroughly the Bruins lost the upper hand in the good guy vs. bad guy department. Some Penguin and Hab fans may be astonished at the idea, but despite the whole "Big Bad" thing, the Bruins are used to seeing themselves as the good guys. When they start to question this, somewhere in the back of their heads, that's when the other team has gotten under their skin.

Another aspect of this whole PR thing is the bizarre behavior of the referees, particularly in game 7. I'm not going to claim that the officiating lost the Bruins the series, because a great team will rise up to the challenge, kill off the penalty, or simply not be in a position for a penalty kill to end their season. But that said, the officiating in this game was the most influential I have ever seen in all my 43 years of being a fan. Given the way the series had gone, everyone who was paying attention knew that the first goal was going to be huge, particularly if the Habs scored it. So when Markov cross checked Marchand into Price early in the first period, it was monumental when the referee Dave Jackson called Marchand for goaltender interference. Watching the replay from any angle, it is wholly inexcusable that he did so. You could not watch that play, see the interference, yet not see the push. If anyone should have gone to the box, it should have been Markov. When the Habs scored on the ensuing power play, the Bruins very quickly had a hole to climb out of, and it also appeared that Marchand was thrown off his game by the incident.

After that the Bruins had to play catch up. Fast forward to the third period with 4:31 to go. The Bruins are down by a goal and swarming the Habs net. They had come back in this situation before earlier in the series; the game had opened up, and the momentum appeared to be moving in their direction. Yet again, at precisely the critical moment, Dave Jackson made an inexplicable call, this time on Johnny Boychuck. This was late in game seven, people. Every ref knows that they only call the big obvious game-changing penalties under these circumstances. Yet when Bournival chipped the puck past Boychuck and then skated into him, interference was called. With just over 4 minutes left, the Bruins were put in a deep hole, and it was one they could not get out of. You can claim that the Bruins didn't deserve to win this game, but that does not excuse the referee determining the outcome! By doing so he took something away from us fans. Now we will never know if the Bruins could have evened the game, and possibly won the series.

By the way, I'm not the only one who feels this way about how the game was officiated. After writing the above, I did a Google search and discovered that long-time referee Kerry Fraser was also very critical of the officiating.

Anyhow, this loss hurt. It hurt because the Bruins were good enough to win the Cup. It hurt because it was the Habs. It hurt because the poor officiating took away their chance to tie the game late. It hurt because a Conference Final against the Rangers would have been epic. It hurt because the Habs got under our skin a little too, and our team didn't always seem like the good guys, no matter how much we wanted them to be. But it was not due to any one player or coach. Rather, it was one of those human intangibles that affected the whole team, and I doubt it is something we will see repeated next season. So if you want to blame someone for the loss, don't blame Marchand, or Lucic, or Rask, or Krejci, or Bartkowski, or even Dave Jackson. There is one person more responsible than anyone else for this loss, and it was Malcolm Suban. Not only was he the best player on the ice, but he was also a class act off it. In the end, that combination simply proved to be a bit too much.

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Bruins Fate Lies Out in Front of Their Net

How did the Bruins lose in the cup final last year? Yes, I know they were really banged up, but that's why they lost. The question is, how? What I saw happening was this: the Hawks threw pucks at the net, creating rebounds, and then beat the Bruins to the puck. It was that simple.

The regular season is a whole different game. In order to win in the playoffs, the Bruins are going to have to stop this from happening again. This is why the loss of Seidenberg and McQaid is such a big concern. They are two big guys who can clear the front of the net. Let's call clearing the front of the net "plan A.' Chara can't do it by himself. Without those two big guys, the Bruins are going to have to go with plan "B". Success is going to require strong back checking and Rask will need to limit his rebounds. That, and they will need to score a lot of goals, because they are going to be scored against.

Fortunately there is some reason for optimism. Remember that long winning streak the B's went on recently? It started with a game that was stolen by Rask. I think Rask is an excellent goaltender, but he has not stolen a lot of games in his NHL career. He's consistent and strong, but there aren't many times when you think, "this team should have lost, except for the amazing goaltending." In the game he stole, the puck kept ending up loose in front of the net, and the other team kept getting to it first. But Tuukka stood on his head and none of them went in. In the games that followed, this same thing happened again and again. After watching a few gazillion games you start to get a sixth sense about when a goal is going to be scored. Mine kept going off when there was a scramble in front of the net, yet time and time again the puck didn't go in. It seemed like some sort of magic. After a while it started to feel like the Bruins were invincible, and I think the guys on the ice felt that too. With a streak like this comes confidence, and with confidence comes strong, consistent, and resilient play.

The question now is, has the magic worn off? And if so, can Rask steal a game or two in the playoffs? Regardless, I think the Bruins fate lies out in front of their net.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

No Harm No Foul will Destroy the NHL

The ramifications of what happened in the Bruins-Penguins game are going to be felt for a long time. I think people are only just now starting to see how bad a day this really was for the future of the NHL.

Joe Haggerty has some chilling thoughts in, Thornton's penalty a green light to NHL predators. Everyone should read it.

To my way of thinking, what Haggerty is warning us of is the result of the absurd way that justice is handed out by the NHL. Too much attention is paid to the result (injury) and not enough attention is paid to the act itself. The idea seems to be that it is ok to violate a rule that was designed to improve player safety until someone gets hurt. Only then is the act usually considered an infraction. The "intent to injure" is another mistaken aspect of all this. Somehow the NHL department of player safety is supposed to look at the circumstances of a hit and infer the intentions of the players involved. Unless they have a way to read minds, this is simply not a practical approach.

An example of this was when Brad Marchand of the Bruins injured Sami Salo of the Canucks with a low check in 2012. Because Marchand had gone looking for Salo after an incident, the NHL deemed this an intentional hit meant to cause injury. The problem with this, is that players are always trying to hurt each other. It's part of the game. Shawn Thornton wanted to hurt Brooks Orpik. But he surely didn't intend to send him to the hospital (if for no other reason than he'd end up suspended). Whether it be sending a message with a big hit into the boards or a facewash in front of the net, they are trying to hurt each other. How do you tell if they are trying to actually injure someone seriously? There simply is no way to do that. So this "intent to injure" idea is just plain crazy. The NHL can't know what was going through a players mind. The result of this approach to discipline that the NHL uses looks haphazard and leaves people complaining of bias, undermining confidence and leaving the fate of players to the whim of chance.

But it's worse than that. The inconsistent way these suspensions are handed out, often with no serious call by the on-ice official, is hurting the game. If you don't punish the hits to the head or checks from behind, you are ensuring that someone is going to eventually be injured. It's a statistical certainty. And when the player is suspended for doing the same thing he's gotten away with repeatedly, he and his fans are going to rightly feel a long suspension is unjustified. For these reasons the NHL must start punishing the infractions that are in their rule book universally, not just when someone is injured or when they think the player had an intent to injure.

It should start with a major penalty called on the ice. The major penalty is a tool that is seldom used today, but it should be the first line of defense when it comes to player safety. All they need to do to make the game safer is to start calling the rules that are already in the book.

As an example, recently Brad Marchand checked Sean Monahan of the Flames into the boards from behind. It was a textbook example of a reckless hit that could result in injury, particularly because Monahan was facing the boards. Yet Marchand was only given 2 minutes for boarding. After the game his coach defended him, saying,

“I look at that hit and it’s a two-minute penalty. And I don’t think he was going in there looking to injure the guy,” Julien said. “He was going to hit and the guy turned and how he got him deserved a two-minute penalty but that’s as much as it is."

Here is the important part of the text of rule 43:
43.3 Major Penalty – Any player or goalkeeper who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface.
As a hockey fan first, and a Bruins fan second, I would have liked to have seen the major penalty called. It was reckless, no matter how the other player ended up turning or the intent of Marchand. I'd prefer this to seeing Bergeron or Krejci taken off the ice on a backboard, or for that matter, any other player.

It's time the NHL woke up to the enormous error they are making. If they don't, players are going to continue suffering preventable head injuries, and in turn that is going to mean that in ten years time we aren't going to recognize the game. 

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Punish the Act, Not the Result

Shawn Thornton was suspended 15 games by the NHL for his actions in the game against the Penguins, the longest suspension handed out by the league in a very long time.

As most people know, the incident was most unfortunate. Many people who didn't see the game have been led to believe that Thornton more or less jumped Brooks Orpik unprovoked, like an assault on the street. While it doesn't excuse Thornton's actions, if you think there is a problem in the NHL, and you truly want to understand it, understanding the circumstances is critical. In fact Shawn Thornton was provoked. The Penguins were playing very recklessly. Early in the game Orpik had hit Eriksson of the Bruins, who had already suffered a concussion earlier this season. It was an open ice hit of the sort that many hockey fans feel should not be penalized because it would take away from the physicality of the game. If you watch the replay, Orpik clearly drives his shoulder into Eriksson's head. You could claim that the initial point of contact was shoulder to shoulder or that Eriksson had his head down, etc. But I can't explain why nobody at the NHL has even questioned the legality of this hit. At the very least it should have been a roughing call on the ice, particularly given the fact that Eriksson had not yet touched the puck. With Eriksson injured in full view of the bench, and no penalty called, it put a lot of pressure on Thornton to take some sort of action. That's what he is paid to do. He tried to fight Orpik, but Orpik refused. Later in the game Brad Marchand was tripped by Sydney Crosby, and while on is knees on the ice James Neal skated by and struck him on the side of the head with his knee. This was in full view of the bench and Thornton. The tripping penalty had not been called, and neither had the hit to the head. In a cowardly manner, Neal had immediately skated off the ice. When Thornton saw the tussle at center ice involving Orpik he saw his chance to take some sort of action. He took Orpik down from behind and hit him several times on his face/helmet with gloves on.

Here's the thing that bugs me about all this. Had Orpik stood up afterward, what do you think would have happened? Would Thornton have been suspended at all? True, he went after someone who had not agreed to fight, but in a scrum, players hit one another all of the time, without there being a fight. In fact, by not dropping his gloves, Thornton's actions could be seen as just another pounding in a scrum, albeit a nasty one. If you look at the replay closely, you see that Orpik's head never hits the ice, even as Thornton hits him while lying on his back. One wonders just how hard those hits could have been. The worst thing Thornton did was take Orpik down from behind. So again, I ask, had Orpik skated off afterward, would there have been a suspension? I think not. But the sight of Orpik being taken off the ice on a backboard upset everyone. The way this injury happened was embarrasing for the league and hockey fans everywhere. That's the real reason they threw the book at Thornton.

And what of Neal? He was given a 5 game suspension prior to Thornton's hearing. But I doubt he'd have been suspended either, had Orpik not been carried off the ice. Even though this was a clear-cut hit to the head, was behind the play, and clearly malicious, Brad Marchand was not injured. Under Shanahan's system of justice, it is almost always injuries that are punished, not actions, and I think this is a mistake.

Prior to all this, Douggie Hamilton, the Bruins young defenseman, shoved an opposing player into the boards head first with a cross check right on the numbers. Thankfully the other player got up. Play resumed; even though this was a clear violation of rule 43, there was no penalty handed out and no hearing. Why? Because the other player survived this reckless hit. Had he been taken off the ice on a backboard Hamilton would have been fined, if not suspended. This is not an effective way to administer justice. It's too capricious. Take two identical situations like Hamilton's hit. In the first case the other player gets his hands up just in time to keep from hitting his head on the boards. In the second case, he doesn't. You can't have a system of justice that only punishes the second case. Doing it this way invites criticism and ridicule and ultimately undermines everyone's confidence in the system. For the players, it creates a random chance that they could be severely punished for doing something they have not even been criticized or warned about doing previously, all because the other player landed differently or was unable to get his hands up in time to protect himself.

Rather than wait for someone to get hurt, I believe that every player should be punished who drives his shoulder into someone's head, or pushes a player from behind into the boards, or knocks a player down and hits him repeatedly without first consenting to a fight. That's how you get these plays out of the game, with major penalties on the ice, and fines or suspensions off it. Stop the problem before someone get's hurt, rather than overreact after it happens.

At the Day's of Y'Orr blog,Greg Ezell wrote,
The sad thing is that if Thornton lined Orpik up and elbowed him in the head or went knee-on-knee his suspension would have been much, much less than it is now. That's where the hypocrisy in all this lies. A concussion is a concussion is a concussion, but the way it's delivered is the only issue. 

He's exactly right. Shanahan and the NHL are much more worried about how things appear rather than protecting the player's safety. They aren't even being consistent with their usual handing out of suspensions when people get hurt. That's because they are only doing what they think will make the league look good. No injury and nobody cares = no suspension. People are upset = big suspension.

For me, the scariest part of the NHL's perverse justice system was revealed in the Thornton mess. What's going to happen when a guy gets carted off the ice on a backboard after a fight? Are they going to suspend the other player for punching? And if they hand out no punishment at all, how is this going to play for those in Canada who want to ban fighting altogether?

Lastly, if the league is really serious about stopping head injuries, then it's time to get rid of the armored shoulder pads. These pads are doing a great job protecting shoulders, but it is coming at the price of much more serious head injuries. If the league was truly interested in player safety, first and foremost, this should have been their first move.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Penguins Win 2-1 in Boston in Final Regular Season Meeting

The scoring started early in the first when Brooks Orpik drove his shoulder into the head of Louis Erickson, who was not in possession of the puck, for a concussion. Later in the first the Penguins almost went up 2-0 when James Neal took a shot at the wide open head of Brad Marchand, but somehow failed to score. The Bruin's Shawn Thornton responded to tie it up soon afterward with a beatdown of Orpik that resulted in Orpik being carried off the ice on a backboard.

The game remained tied until Pascal Dupuis scored the game winner with a two-handed slash on Chris Kelly, breaking his leg. There was quite a bit of other action in this memorable effort, with the puck entering the net on several occaisions, resulting in stoppages in play, particularly late in the game.

But in all seriousness, once again the Pittsburgh organization has shown it is willing to consider injuring opposing players as part of their game. After all, this is the same team that continued to employ Matt Cooke after he put a blindside elbow to the head of Marc Savard, ending his career. In 2011 Cooke once again put an elbow to the head of Ryan McDonagh. These were not simply hard hits that got up high by accident. Not only did the Penguins organization continue to employ him, but they even had the unmitigated gall to nominate him for the Masterton Trophy last season because he had supposedly changed his ways. The Masterton trophy is awarded to the player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey.

Did Shawn Thornton intend to injure Brooks Orpic when he knocked him to the ice after the play and pounded him with his fists? I doubt it. But can the same be said for Cooke's elbows to the head or Neal's knee to Marchand's skull? I doubt that as well, and there's the rub. Shawn Thornton is likely going to be suspended for a long time and become the poster boy across Canada for those who want to ban fighting. But I believe the real villain in this story is a club with a culture that confuses intentionally harming players on the other team with playing hard physically.

This was an ugly game that was not fun to watch, except perhaps in the last few minutes if you were rooting for the Bruins. Where was that entertainment factor? Watching a player taken off the ice on a backboard? I'm sorry, but these cheap shots are not hockey. It's about time the Penguins learned how to play the game.