The Bruins announced today that they have fired Peter Chiarelli. I think Charlie Jacobs and Cam Neely are complete idiots for doing so. And look out Cam, because you aren't likely going to be around much longer yourself.
It is extremely difficult to build a strong cup contender, much less win a cup. Just ask the fans in San Jose, Ottawa, Buffalo, etc. Peter Chiarelli did it, and he did it in a way that lived up to the traditions of Bruins hockey. I am very grateful that he was hired and that we got these last nine years--years that will be remembered as some of the best in Bruins history.
The most difficult thing to do in the modern cap era is to maintain a team once it reaches the highest levels. Just ask the fans in Detroit, Anaheim, and Los Angeles. Cup winning players become elite players and they demand high prices. Fans complain bitterly when their elite players are traded away or not re-signed. Just ask the fans of Tyler Seguin. Somehow a GM has to tear down his team, because he can't afford to keep it, while simultaneously building it back up again. You don't get to pick high in the draft when you win the President's trophy. Keeping a great team going used to be a simple matter of keeping the big money flowing from the owner. But today it is more easily said than done, and very few of the sports writers or bloggers seem to get it. It's a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and whine about how the GM paid too much for (insert any player name here) or let Tyler Seguin go or didn't draft well enough (despite Tory Krug and Dougie Hamilton). That's bad enough, but when the man in charge takes that approach the team is doomed.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd have rather seen them let go every player on the roster than fire Chiarelli. I think that much of him, and I think he was that indispensable.
The last nine years have been an extraordinary time for us Bruins fans. We have enjoyed things that we hadn't seen in decades: consistently great/good goaltending, consistently good coaching, and a culture where players were treated with respect by management. I believe that most of that will now pass into history. But it sure was great while it lasted!
My fellow Bruins fans, you may be looking forward to new faces, a new style, and new players--and you will surely get them. But I fear that the Bruins will now sink back to what they were in the late 90s--a team with it's best years behind it. Given how stupid I believe this decision to have been by Charlie Jacobs, I suspect we will now see a never-ending cycle of complaining in the media, new coaches, and new GMs. In short, my Bruins will likely become the Toronto Maple Leafs. How fun.
I am probably done here too. So long Peter, you deserved better, and thanks for the great times and Lord Stanley's Cup!
I'll see you in Timmy's bunker.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Friday, April 10, 2015
Either Way, It's Over
The Bruins lost their biggest game of the season to the Floria Panthers and they may not make it to the playoffs because of it. Even if they do, it is difficult to see how this team could win a playoff series they way they are currently playing. So I'm calling it. Turn off the defibrillator and call the time of death. This team is done.
This was the season of disappointments. That statement might seem obvious, but I'm not the sort who is easily disappointed in my team; I try to have realistic expectations. I certainly don't expect them to win the cup every year. At the end of the season my expectations are simple: I expect the Bruins to play big, play hard, and to maintain a certain excellence of play. If there are better teams out there, then so be it.
Watching the Bruins lose badly to the Florida Panthers in a must win scenario was hard. That goes without saying. But what really left me cold was the way they played. No team that is worthy of the name Bruins takes the second period off in a big game. I expect better than that. I expect the defense to stand up at the blue line rather than back off, giving the other team too much room as they enter the zone. I expect them to take the man first, rather than try to poke the puck away. I expect the Bruins to overpower the other team in the offensive zone corners, rather than try to skate little circles around them.
The worst part of the loss to the Panthers is that I hardly recognized my team. Like so many games this year, the Bruins looked like they were trying to out-skate the other team, and all they accomplished was to tire themselves out. I believe that so much emphasis has been put on getting the puck quickly up the ice, that the Bruins are no longer playing Bruins hockey. It's more like watching a quick-paced Junior game than the NHL. This has been going on all season. When they stopped trying to play the quick game, and went back to playing Bruins hockey, more often than not they won. But look out if they got a few days to prepare for a game. They'd come back with that quick style and start losing again.
The Bruins are at a major turning point as this season ends. Someone has decided that they need to change their game. I don't know if that's coming from management or the coaching staff, or both. It looks to me like the team isn't built for the type of game they are now trying to play. In the off season they must decided whether they will once again play like Bruins or make some major changes.
This was the season of disappointments. That statement might seem obvious, but I'm not the sort who is easily disappointed in my team; I try to have realistic expectations. I certainly don't expect them to win the cup every year. At the end of the season my expectations are simple: I expect the Bruins to play big, play hard, and to maintain a certain excellence of play. If there are better teams out there, then so be it.
Watching the Bruins lose badly to the Florida Panthers in a must win scenario was hard. That goes without saying. But what really left me cold was the way they played. No team that is worthy of the name Bruins takes the second period off in a big game. I expect better than that. I expect the defense to stand up at the blue line rather than back off, giving the other team too much room as they enter the zone. I expect them to take the man first, rather than try to poke the puck away. I expect the Bruins to overpower the other team in the offensive zone corners, rather than try to skate little circles around them.
The worst part of the loss to the Panthers is that I hardly recognized my team. Like so many games this year, the Bruins looked like they were trying to out-skate the other team, and all they accomplished was to tire themselves out. I believe that so much emphasis has been put on getting the puck quickly up the ice, that the Bruins are no longer playing Bruins hockey. It's more like watching a quick-paced Junior game than the NHL. This has been going on all season. When they stopped trying to play the quick game, and went back to playing Bruins hockey, more often than not they won. But look out if they got a few days to prepare for a game. They'd come back with that quick style and start losing again.
The Bruins are at a major turning point as this season ends. Someone has decided that they need to change their game. I don't know if that's coming from management or the coaching staff, or both. It looks to me like the team isn't built for the type of game they are now trying to play. In the off season they must decided whether they will once again play like Bruins or make some major changes.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Reason for Hope at the Trade Deadline
Many people have forgotten, but there were struggles in the 2010-2011 cup season and Peter Chiarelli made a lot of roster moves.
In June of 2010 the Bruins traded one of their top 4 defenseman for an under-performing winger and a 4th line forward.
In December they dumped one of their star forwards for nothing more than "future considerations."
In January the team lost its best offensive player to an injury that he would not return from.
The team was inconsistent, had a terrible power play, and had a young budding superstar who was not performing to expectations. Prior to the trade deadline they had lost every game against the Habs and were unable to beat Detroit and San Jose, even when they brought their best effort.
As the trade deadline approached Chiarelli was under pressure to go for that big blockbuster trade for a "name" player. Instead he made a sweeping mid-level trade consisting of three players going out in return for three coming back. He gave up a promising NHL forward and defenseman, plus a promising prospect, for a veteran puck moving D-man and a speedy 3rd or 4th line center. They also traded a draft pick for another speedy 4th line forward who possessed strong two way play.
After the trades the team was energized and went on a winning streak. They even beat the Habs in their last meeting 7-0. They ended up with a 46–25–11 record, winning their division and finishing third in the conference.
Even though they had the least effective power play ever, and went down 0-2 with home ice to start the Cup Final, the Bruins somehow managed to win a record three game seven's and the Stanley Cup.
Of course, the parallels between this season and 2010-2011 aren't perfect. Overall the Bruins played better up to this same point in the season and they did not suffer from the same kind inconsistent play that we have seen. On the other hand, the criticism of the GM is much closer. Many of his trades were met with criticism and he was called incompetent more than once.
The main takeaway is that Chiarelli found small ways to improve the team by moving mid-level players while staying under the cap. He pulled it off before, so perhaps he can do it again. After all, we know that this team is much better than they have been generally playing this season. Just look at the game against the Hawks.
In June of 2010 the Bruins traded one of their top 4 defenseman for an under-performing winger and a 4th line forward.
In December they dumped one of their star forwards for nothing more than "future considerations."
In January the team lost its best offensive player to an injury that he would not return from.
The team was inconsistent, had a terrible power play, and had a young budding superstar who was not performing to expectations. Prior to the trade deadline they had lost every game against the Habs and were unable to beat Detroit and San Jose, even when they brought their best effort.
As the trade deadline approached Chiarelli was under pressure to go for that big blockbuster trade for a "name" player. Instead he made a sweeping mid-level trade consisting of three players going out in return for three coming back. He gave up a promising NHL forward and defenseman, plus a promising prospect, for a veteran puck moving D-man and a speedy 3rd or 4th line center. They also traded a draft pick for another speedy 4th line forward who possessed strong two way play.
After the trades the team was energized and went on a winning streak. They even beat the Habs in their last meeting 7-0. They ended up with a 46–25–11 record, winning their division and finishing third in the conference.
Even though they had the least effective power play ever, and went down 0-2 with home ice to start the Cup Final, the Bruins somehow managed to win a record three game seven's and the Stanley Cup.
Of course, the parallels between this season and 2010-2011 aren't perfect. Overall the Bruins played better up to this same point in the season and they did not suffer from the same kind inconsistent play that we have seen. On the other hand, the criticism of the GM is much closer. Many of his trades were met with criticism and he was called incompetent more than once.
The main takeaway is that Chiarelli found small ways to improve the team by moving mid-level players while staying under the cap. He pulled it off before, so perhaps he can do it again. After all, we know that this team is much better than they have been generally playing this season. Just look at the game against the Hawks.
Friday, February 20, 2015
A Very Bad Day
Some games will always stay with us. Sadly, tonight's game against the Saint Louis Blues may be one of them. The Bruins finally came out and played their game, and played it well. The first period was textbook Bruins hockey. They skated hard, hit hard, made good decisions, and dominated in a way I cannot recall this season. It seemed so natural. Everything seemed back to normal and all was good. It looked right. Even Bartkowski seemed to be having a career night. In the interview after the period Marchand seemed relaxed and confident like I had not seen him in months.
Then came the inevitable collapse in the second right? No! In fact there was no collapse. We have come to expect the second period to be where the Bruins don't show up, but that's not what happened. Despite giving up three goals the Bruins played very well. In a minor tragedy, Malcolm Subban, the promising 21-year-old goaltender playing in his first NHL game, turned out not to be ready to play in the NHL. In quick succession he let in three soft goals, each softer than the next. Somewhere in there Davd Krejci decided to make a big open ice hit, with the result that he went down the tunnel and did not return. With Rask back, a questionable penalty led to a good bounce and a power play goal. Just like that it was 4-1 Saint Louis.
This was a hole the Bruins could not climb out of--not against a good team like the Blues. It's tempting to say that they didn't deserve to lose; after all they were playing so well. It was simple bad luck. Maybe that would have played in December, but not this late in the season, and not after so many poorly played games. The Bruins deserved this loss not because of the way they played tonight, but because of the way they have played all year.
In the end, this game may be seen as a turning point. With the trade deadline right around the corner Chiarelli has to make a decision, and the outcome of this game may have sealed the deal.
As an aside, last time I wrote that the Bruins appeared to be changing their game, and I'm not quite ready to give up on that yet. They really did seem to be playing differently, and it makes me wonder. Is it possible that they adjusted their playing style in an attempt to play a quicker game against those Western Conference teams? Coach Julien often changes up his lines only to go back to the way they were before, and somehow the team plays better when the lines are restored. I wonder if what we saw was something like that, only with the way the players were told to play. It's either that, or they had lost their way to the point where they were no longer willing to go into the corners and hit. I'm finding the latter to be difficult to swallow.
Then came the inevitable collapse in the second right? No! In fact there was no collapse. We have come to expect the second period to be where the Bruins don't show up, but that's not what happened. Despite giving up three goals the Bruins played very well. In a minor tragedy, Malcolm Subban, the promising 21-year-old goaltender playing in his first NHL game, turned out not to be ready to play in the NHL. In quick succession he let in three soft goals, each softer than the next. Somewhere in there Davd Krejci decided to make a big open ice hit, with the result that he went down the tunnel and did not return. With Rask back, a questionable penalty led to a good bounce and a power play goal. Just like that it was 4-1 Saint Louis.
This was a hole the Bruins could not climb out of--not against a good team like the Blues. It's tempting to say that they didn't deserve to lose; after all they were playing so well. It was simple bad luck. Maybe that would have played in December, but not this late in the season, and not after so many poorly played games. The Bruins deserved this loss not because of the way they played tonight, but because of the way they have played all year.
In the end, this game may be seen as a turning point. With the trade deadline right around the corner Chiarelli has to make a decision, and the outcome of this game may have sealed the deal.
As an aside, last time I wrote that the Bruins appeared to be changing their game, and I'm not quite ready to give up on that yet. They really did seem to be playing differently, and it makes me wonder. Is it possible that they adjusted their playing style in an attempt to play a quicker game against those Western Conference teams? Coach Julien often changes up his lines only to go back to the way they were before, and somehow the team plays better when the lines are restored. I wonder if what we saw was something like that, only with the way the players were told to play. It's either that, or they had lost their way to the point where they were no longer willing to go into the corners and hit. I'm finding the latter to be difficult to swallow.
Are the Bruins Fundamentally Changing Their Playing Style?
Everyone seems to have their own pet theory for why the Bruins are under performing this season. So far none of the ones I have read are based on inside information, nor are they all that compelling.
I think it's safe to say that the problem with this team isn't age. It's not speed. It's not Chiarelli mismanaging the cap. I think the problem with this team is that they no longer play like Bruins. They no longer beat people down. They no longer intimidate. They seldom make the big bone-crunching hit that makes the crowd roar and the other guy sore.
I've really been struck by this in watching the games from the recent road trip. We've seen evidence that the Bruins are playing differently staring us in the face all season, but it was easy to write off due to changes in personnel and injuries. Now that they are healthy and things have settled down, it is becoming difficult to ignore.
People have often complained that the Bruis are slow, and big Z is sort of their poster child. But as a team, they aren't that much slower than others. What makes them appear slow is their playing style, which has traditionally been heavy body checking. In past years Bruins would go into the corner and take the man, often blowing the player off the puck. But watch carefully what happens now when they meet in the corners. The Bruins appear to be trying to play a much quicker game, where stick play takes the place of body checking. Rather than hit the other player hard, they try to take the puck away and then quickly move it up the ice.
The reason why they might change their style is fairly obvious. This team, as previously configured, was no longer able to beat Chicago, and more importantly, Montreal. People say that these teams use their speed, and they do, but it seems to me that what they really do is play a quicker game. If the guy Lucic is about to hit has ducked away or already gotten rid of the puck, then the hit no longer has the same impact, if you will.
If this is really the case, if someone in upper management has decided that the Bruins need to change their style to keep pace with the changes to the game, then there are no doubt going to be serious repercussions, particularly given how poorly this transition is going so far. More on this next time...
I think it's safe to say that the problem with this team isn't age. It's not speed. It's not Chiarelli mismanaging the cap. I think the problem with this team is that they no longer play like Bruins. They no longer beat people down. They no longer intimidate. They seldom make the big bone-crunching hit that makes the crowd roar and the other guy sore.
I've really been struck by this in watching the games from the recent road trip. We've seen evidence that the Bruins are playing differently staring us in the face all season, but it was easy to write off due to changes in personnel and injuries. Now that they are healthy and things have settled down, it is becoming difficult to ignore.
People have often complained that the Bruis are slow, and big Z is sort of their poster child. But as a team, they aren't that much slower than others. What makes them appear slow is their playing style, which has traditionally been heavy body checking. In past years Bruins would go into the corner and take the man, often blowing the player off the puck. But watch carefully what happens now when they meet in the corners. The Bruins appear to be trying to play a much quicker game, where stick play takes the place of body checking. Rather than hit the other player hard, they try to take the puck away and then quickly move it up the ice.
The reason why they might change their style is fairly obvious. This team, as previously configured, was no longer able to beat Chicago, and more importantly, Montreal. People say that these teams use their speed, and they do, but it seems to me that what they really do is play a quicker game. If the guy Lucic is about to hit has ducked away or already gotten rid of the puck, then the hit no longer has the same impact, if you will.
If this is really the case, if someone in upper management has decided that the Bruins need to change their style to keep pace with the changes to the game, then there are no doubt going to be serious repercussions, particularly given how poorly this transition is going so far. More on this next time...
Friday, January 9, 2015
The Bruins Woes (Part 3)
Does this team have the
talent to win another cup, or even make the playoffs?
Even with the poor play this season, there are many individual players who still get high marks, even players who give their all on every shift. I watch all of the games, so ignoring stats, what follows is my assessment of individual effort.
Brad Marchand is having his best year ever, and is often the best player on the ice. Milan Lucic still brings it the way he always has--a little inconsistent--but overall a big plus for the team. David Krejci spent much of the season injured, but he is coming back strong. Zdeno Chara has also been injured and has struggled somewhat getting back up to speed, but he still plays big and mean and he was sorely missed. Patrice Bergeron was somewhat invisible on the ice early in the season but this is changing. He is winning faceoffs like a monster. Dougie Hamilton stepped into Chara's shoes with ease, and has played extremely well given his relative inexperience. Rask has been as competent and reliable as ever, and if you look past the statistics, I think he may be having his best year yet. He's no Tim Thomas when it comes to stealing games or winning shootouts, but who is? He is still one of the best goaltenders in the game today.
All of these players seem to be playing well individually, but they often seem to be out of step with the others. For example, Bergeron isn't connecting with Marchand like he used to. Krejki is back, but he isn't yet connecting with Lucic. When these guys are skating with the puck they often seem alone out there.
Perhaps the biggest frustration is with the young forwards: Spooner, Griffith, Caron, and Cunningham. They have been given tons of ice time, but not one of them have been able to break out. Add Fraser to that list, even though he was lost to waivers. Every one of them is on the negative side of the ±. Pastrnak has great potential, but at 18, he's simply not ready yet, and it would be a mistake to let him play enough games to count as a full season against free agency.
On the blue line, McQuaid has looked ok, when he has played. They have definitely missed his size and grit. Krug and Miller have been solid, and even Bartkowski is looking fairly competent. Seidenberg has yet to return to his form from last season. He plays hard, but makes mental errors, and overall he's -2 -- the only defenseman below zero.
Most of the individual pieces seem to be doing well. For a team that's not winning, they have a lot of guys on the plus side of the +/-.
This means that it must be a team problem. The Bruins have stopped playing at times, particularly in the last minutes of a period, or after a penalty kill. There is no killer instinct on the power play. Overall they have suffered from poor second periods. When they get the lead, they don't keep it. All this comes down to inconsistent effort.
And here's the thing: it's not new. In game seven against Montreal last year the Bruins came out flat in the first period. In game seven! In the 2013 playoffs this same team allowed the Leafs to get a three-goal lead in the 3rd period in yet another game seven. It was a monumental come back when they won that game, but really, WTF? In game six of the 2013 cup final, the Bruins were leading by a goal in the second period and were handed a power play. Rather than bring it and try to put the game away, they looked like they were on vacation. In the cup final. Again, WTF?
Inconsistent effort, inability to put the game away, loss of focus; these are failures of the mind; failures of leadership. Whether the problem be the leaders on the ice or behind the bench, I don't know, although it does seem clear that they are truly missing Shawn Thornton.
Maybe they will get their butts in gear and make the playoffs, perhaps even going deep. Like the series against the Leafs, it will all be forgiven and forgotten. But I fear that this slump is merely a distraction from the real question.
Can this team, when healthy and playing at its best, beat Montreal or Chicago in the playoffs? Now that -- that's the real question.
Even with the poor play this season, there are many individual players who still get high marks, even players who give their all on every shift. I watch all of the games, so ignoring stats, what follows is my assessment of individual effort.
Brad Marchand is having his best year ever, and is often the best player on the ice. Milan Lucic still brings it the way he always has--a little inconsistent--but overall a big plus for the team. David Krejci spent much of the season injured, but he is coming back strong. Zdeno Chara has also been injured and has struggled somewhat getting back up to speed, but he still plays big and mean and he was sorely missed. Patrice Bergeron was somewhat invisible on the ice early in the season but this is changing. He is winning faceoffs like a monster. Dougie Hamilton stepped into Chara's shoes with ease, and has played extremely well given his relative inexperience. Rask has been as competent and reliable as ever, and if you look past the statistics, I think he may be having his best year yet. He's no Tim Thomas when it comes to stealing games or winning shootouts, but who is? He is still one of the best goaltenders in the game today.
All of these players seem to be playing well individually, but they often seem to be out of step with the others. For example, Bergeron isn't connecting with Marchand like he used to. Krejki is back, but he isn't yet connecting with Lucic. When these guys are skating with the puck they often seem alone out there.
Perhaps the biggest frustration is with the young forwards: Spooner, Griffith, Caron, and Cunningham. They have been given tons of ice time, but not one of them have been able to break out. Add Fraser to that list, even though he was lost to waivers. Every one of them is on the negative side of the ±. Pastrnak has great potential, but at 18, he's simply not ready yet, and it would be a mistake to let him play enough games to count as a full season against free agency.
On the blue line, McQuaid has looked ok, when he has played. They have definitely missed his size and grit. Krug and Miller have been solid, and even Bartkowski is looking fairly competent. Seidenberg has yet to return to his form from last season. He plays hard, but makes mental errors, and overall he's -2 -- the only defenseman below zero.
Most of the individual pieces seem to be doing well. For a team that's not winning, they have a lot of guys on the plus side of the +/-.
This means that it must be a team problem. The Bruins have stopped playing at times, particularly in the last minutes of a period, or after a penalty kill. There is no killer instinct on the power play. Overall they have suffered from poor second periods. When they get the lead, they don't keep it. All this comes down to inconsistent effort.
And here's the thing: it's not new. In game seven against Montreal last year the Bruins came out flat in the first period. In game seven! In the 2013 playoffs this same team allowed the Leafs to get a three-goal lead in the 3rd period in yet another game seven. It was a monumental come back when they won that game, but really, WTF? In game six of the 2013 cup final, the Bruins were leading by a goal in the second period and were handed a power play. Rather than bring it and try to put the game away, they looked like they were on vacation. In the cup final. Again, WTF?
Inconsistent effort, inability to put the game away, loss of focus; these are failures of the mind; failures of leadership. Whether the problem be the leaders on the ice or behind the bench, I don't know, although it does seem clear that they are truly missing Shawn Thornton.
Maybe they will get their butts in gear and make the playoffs, perhaps even going deep. Like the series against the Leafs, it will all be forgiven and forgotten. But I fear that this slump is merely a distraction from the real question.
Can this team, when healthy and playing at its best, beat Montreal or Chicago in the playoffs? Now that -- that's the real question.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
The Bruins Woes: Mismanagement? (Part 2)
Some have suggested that the current Bruins woes are due to
mismanagement by Peter Chiarelli. Complaints range from overpaying
individual players to being unprepared for changes in the cap.
Sadly, capgeek.com has ceased operation, so salary data is no longer available. Fortunately I did a preliminary analysis before they closed; the figures below are based on those numbers.
Let's look at how the Bruins stack up to two undeniably successful teams: the Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings.
Starting from the top, the Bruins have one player making over $7 million this season: Tuukka Rask. LA also has one (Doughty) and Chicago has none.
In the $6-7 million range the Bruins have 3 players: Bergeron, Chara, and Lucic. Chicago also has three, and LA has only one.
In the $5-6 million bracket the Bruins have one player: Krejci. Both Chicago and LA have four.
In the $4-5 million bracket the Bruins have three players: Marchand, Eriksson, and Seidenberg.
The only player the Bruins have in the $2-4 million bracket is Kelly. The Kings have four and Chicago has five.
The Bruins have a whopping 16 players with a salary under a million dollars. LA has 12, and Chicago has 8.
Let's look at just players with salaries over $5 million. The Bruins have 5, LA has 6, and Chicago has 7. Of these three teams, the Bruins have the least total salary for players above $5 million this season. Based on this comparison, the Bruins are not top heavy in salary.
Let's take a detailed look at the Bruins players in the $5+ million salary range. Rask is expensive, but he is also tied-up long term. His cap hit will look better with each passing year. He is a solid, extremely reliable goalie, and last year's Vezina winner. Goaltending is the foundation of a winning team. I think the case can be made that this is not a contract that is killing the team, particularly in light of the comparison to LA and Chicago.
Bergeron is the best two-way player in the league, and it would be difficult to make a reasonable case that he is overpaid. Players like him are not a dime a dozen.
Chara is the very foundation that the team was built on, and after he retires I expect his jersey to end up in the rafters. He is a unique player who has made a living out of shutting down the top forwards in the league. Again, it is difficult to make the case that he is overpaid.
At under $6 million David Krejci is a steal. He has developed into one of the top forwards in the game. Krejci was always smart and creative, with great hands, but in recent years he has added grit and strong three-zone play to his resume.
That leaves us with Milan Lucic. "Looch" is one of the players who people either love or hate, so he has many detractors. He can disappear at times, only to charge the net like a rabid rhino on the next shift. When he does charge the net, or make a big hit on the boards, he can change the game. Players who can do that are rare and priceless. Like Chara, Lucic is a unique player. He is one of a kind, and a Bruin's Bruin. I find it hard to believe the Bs would be better off without him.
Ok, then, so what about the Seguin trade? In return for Seguin the Bruins got Eriksson and Smith. The impact of Eriksson is difficult to measure because he spent most of last season injured or recovering. So far he has not lived up to expectations, although he is doing much better this season. Of course, there was no way for Chiarelli to know about his injury ahead of time. Smith has played surprisingly well. Seguin is a superstar for sure, but he did not fit the mold of a Bruin. It was probably just a matter of time before they traded him. The Bruins prize heavy-hitting two-way players who are willing to go to the dirty areas. The difference in salary against the cap is a wash for this deal, and I think that's the key. For the $5.7 million they would be paying Seguin this season, they got two good players in return. If they had not traded Seguin, they would have had to give up Rask, Chara, Bergeron, or Lucic in order to stay under the cap, and they would be looking at filling two roster spots rather than one. While some might think it more fun to watch Seguin play than Bergeron or Lucic, it seems to me that their chances of winning another cup are better without him. Teams with all their talent in a few players are too easy to shut down in the playoffs.
The argument is exactly the same for keeping Iginla. Which of the top Bruins players would you have given up? Who would Iginla have played with? And would that have really made the team better, particularly in the long run? They might have afforded Iggy by giving up Marchand (easily the best Bruins forward this season) along with Eriksson, Seidenberg, or Kelly (pick two). But again, such a team would lack the depth needed to go far in the playoffs.
Should the Bruins trade one of their top players for a talent like Taylor Hall? As much as I'd love to have him on the team, or for that matter, Seguin or Iginla, it would mean too much talent (and salary) in one "basket." If the Bruins made such a trade it would mean they were no longer intent on winning a cup.
Finally, we have the matter of the extra $4.8 million charged against the cap this season for Iggy's bonuses last season. With that $4.8 million and a little maneuvering they might have kept Boychuk and found that solid top line forward with a right handed shot. This is how Peter Chiarelli went all-in on a cup last season. It is easy to claim that was a mistake in hindsight. But ask yourself if you really want a GM who is unwilling to do what it takes to win another cup. I find it difficult to fault Chiarelli. This was a gamble worth taking and if he has the chance to do it again, I hope he does.
So if there is mismanagement here, I don't see it. On paper, the Bruins have a strong core of proven players who are not significantly overpaid.
In part three I will look at reasons the team is doing poorly. Can we blame it all on injuries? Daniel Paille? Young defensemen? Or is it a team problem?
Sadly, capgeek.com has ceased operation, so salary data is no longer available. Fortunately I did a preliminary analysis before they closed; the figures below are based on those numbers.
Let's look at how the Bruins stack up to two undeniably successful teams: the Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings.
Starting from the top, the Bruins have one player making over $7 million this season: Tuukka Rask. LA also has one (Doughty) and Chicago has none.
In the $6-7 million range the Bruins have 3 players: Bergeron, Chara, and Lucic. Chicago also has three, and LA has only one.
In the $5-6 million bracket the Bruins have one player: Krejci. Both Chicago and LA have four.
In the $4-5 million bracket the Bruins have three players: Marchand, Eriksson, and Seidenberg.
The only player the Bruins have in the $2-4 million bracket is Kelly. The Kings have four and Chicago has five.
The Bruins have a whopping 16 players with a salary under a million dollars. LA has 12, and Chicago has 8.
Let's look at just players with salaries over $5 million. The Bruins have 5, LA has 6, and Chicago has 7. Of these three teams, the Bruins have the least total salary for players above $5 million this season. Based on this comparison, the Bruins are not top heavy in salary.
Let's take a detailed look at the Bruins players in the $5+ million salary range. Rask is expensive, but he is also tied-up long term. His cap hit will look better with each passing year. He is a solid, extremely reliable goalie, and last year's Vezina winner. Goaltending is the foundation of a winning team. I think the case can be made that this is not a contract that is killing the team, particularly in light of the comparison to LA and Chicago.
Bergeron is the best two-way player in the league, and it would be difficult to make a reasonable case that he is overpaid. Players like him are not a dime a dozen.
Chara is the very foundation that the team was built on, and after he retires I expect his jersey to end up in the rafters. He is a unique player who has made a living out of shutting down the top forwards in the league. Again, it is difficult to make the case that he is overpaid.
At under $6 million David Krejci is a steal. He has developed into one of the top forwards in the game. Krejci was always smart and creative, with great hands, but in recent years he has added grit and strong three-zone play to his resume.
That leaves us with Milan Lucic. "Looch" is one of the players who people either love or hate, so he has many detractors. He can disappear at times, only to charge the net like a rabid rhino on the next shift. When he does charge the net, or make a big hit on the boards, he can change the game. Players who can do that are rare and priceless. Like Chara, Lucic is a unique player. He is one of a kind, and a Bruin's Bruin. I find it hard to believe the Bs would be better off without him.
Ok, then, so what about the Seguin trade? In return for Seguin the Bruins got Eriksson and Smith. The impact of Eriksson is difficult to measure because he spent most of last season injured or recovering. So far he has not lived up to expectations, although he is doing much better this season. Of course, there was no way for Chiarelli to know about his injury ahead of time. Smith has played surprisingly well. Seguin is a superstar for sure, but he did not fit the mold of a Bruin. It was probably just a matter of time before they traded him. The Bruins prize heavy-hitting two-way players who are willing to go to the dirty areas. The difference in salary against the cap is a wash for this deal, and I think that's the key. For the $5.7 million they would be paying Seguin this season, they got two good players in return. If they had not traded Seguin, they would have had to give up Rask, Chara, Bergeron, or Lucic in order to stay under the cap, and they would be looking at filling two roster spots rather than one. While some might think it more fun to watch Seguin play than Bergeron or Lucic, it seems to me that their chances of winning another cup are better without him. Teams with all their talent in a few players are too easy to shut down in the playoffs.
The argument is exactly the same for keeping Iginla. Which of the top Bruins players would you have given up? Who would Iginla have played with? And would that have really made the team better, particularly in the long run? They might have afforded Iggy by giving up Marchand (easily the best Bruins forward this season) along with Eriksson, Seidenberg, or Kelly (pick two). But again, such a team would lack the depth needed to go far in the playoffs.
Should the Bruins trade one of their top players for a talent like Taylor Hall? As much as I'd love to have him on the team, or for that matter, Seguin or Iginla, it would mean too much talent (and salary) in one "basket." If the Bruins made such a trade it would mean they were no longer intent on winning a cup.
Finally, we have the matter of the extra $4.8 million charged against the cap this season for Iggy's bonuses last season. With that $4.8 million and a little maneuvering they might have kept Boychuk and found that solid top line forward with a right handed shot. This is how Peter Chiarelli went all-in on a cup last season. It is easy to claim that was a mistake in hindsight. But ask yourself if you really want a GM who is unwilling to do what it takes to win another cup. I find it difficult to fault Chiarelli. This was a gamble worth taking and if he has the chance to do it again, I hope he does.
So if there is mismanagement here, I don't see it. On paper, the Bruins have a strong core of proven players who are not significantly overpaid.
In part three I will look at reasons the team is doing poorly. Can we blame it all on injuries? Daniel Paille? Young defensemen? Or is it a team problem?
Monday, January 5, 2015
The Bruins Woes (Part 1 of 3)
The poor play of the Bruins this season is becoming difficult to watch. I have always said that I expected only one thing from my team: heart. If they lose every game, so be it, but they must play with heart on every shift of every period in every game. I'm not some wannabe sports writer or GM, I am a Bruins fan, and I will never be ashamed of that, no matter how many games they lose, as long as they hit hard, skate hard, and play hard. They can lose 10-0, but I expect the other team to be bruised and bloody. If you can't score, you can still hit! In short, I expect this team to play like Bruins.
Sadly, as of January 2015, this team is no longer playing with the heart that I have come to expect. Whether it be the lackluster first period against Carolina, or for that matter the lackluster play in nearly any second period, or the keystone cops routine that led to their loss in OT against the Senators, something is seriously wrong.
Perhaps even more painful than watching the games (and yes, I do still watch every one, as I have since 2005-2006) is reading articles, blog posts, and comments. There are always those malcontents out there who have been biding their time, waiting for the team to falter so they can air their anger. Many are still angry about Seguin being traded away. Others have always hated coach Julien--I had to laugh when I read that he wasn't playing the young players enough this season! Others simply don't like the Bruins style of play. They want a higher-scoring team that puts less emphasis on defense. Still others think the Bruins need to get rid of (insert any current Bruin here) or trade for Taylor Hall to solve all their troubles.
Many wannabe GMs like to claim that the current ills are the result of Chiarelli's poor player management. In some circles these claims are so often repeated that some take their truth for granted. But I have not seen any facts or actual analysis to back up these claims. In the next part of this three-part series I am going to investigate the Bruins salary structure and player quality to see if their woes really lie in player management or personnel.
Sadly, as of January 2015, this team is no longer playing with the heart that I have come to expect. Whether it be the lackluster first period against Carolina, or for that matter the lackluster play in nearly any second period, or the keystone cops routine that led to their loss in OT against the Senators, something is seriously wrong.
Perhaps even more painful than watching the games (and yes, I do still watch every one, as I have since 2005-2006) is reading articles, blog posts, and comments. There are always those malcontents out there who have been biding their time, waiting for the team to falter so they can air their anger. Many are still angry about Seguin being traded away. Others have always hated coach Julien--I had to laugh when I read that he wasn't playing the young players enough this season! Others simply don't like the Bruins style of play. They want a higher-scoring team that puts less emphasis on defense. Still others think the Bruins need to get rid of (insert any current Bruin here) or trade for Taylor Hall to solve all their troubles.
Many wannabe GMs like to claim that the current ills are the result of Chiarelli's poor player management. In some circles these claims are so often repeated that some take their truth for granted. But I have not seen any facts or actual analysis to back up these claims. In the next part of this three-part series I am going to investigate the Bruins salary structure and player quality to see if their woes really lie in player management or personnel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Bruins Lose in OT to the Stars
It was a bit hard to watch the Bruins lose to Dallas in the shootout last night. It's too bad because I thought overall they had a good game, or at least a better one than their previous outing. Their defense was better and they got more help from the forwards, who showed a lot of hustle on the back check.
But late in the 3rd I realized that should this game go to the shootout the Bruins would likely end up losing. Rask was not on top of his game, giving up two bad goals. Getting beat so cleanly on the penalty shot late in the 3rd did not bode well.
The shootout started well with a goal by Bergeron right off the bat. But when I saw Seguin line up at center ice I knew he was going to score. I wonder how many people there had the same feeling. But it was when Pevs lined up that I knew we were done! I miss that guy more than Seguin.
Speaking of Seguin, can we please be done with him now? With all the attention his return was getting, I couldn't help but feel like I'd rather hear about people who actually play for the Bruins, such Erickson and Reilly Smith. I hate it when the news media "goes off" on a story line like this. Sure, Seguin is interesting, but hell, Smith seems to be having a breakout year, and he and Erickson were playing against their former team too.
But late in the 3rd I realized that should this game go to the shootout the Bruins would likely end up losing. Rask was not on top of his game, giving up two bad goals. Getting beat so cleanly on the penalty shot late in the 3rd did not bode well.
The shootout started well with a goal by Bergeron right off the bat. But when I saw Seguin line up at center ice I knew he was going to score. I wonder how many people there had the same feeling. But it was when Pevs lined up that I knew we were done! I miss that guy more than Seguin.
Speaking of Seguin, can we please be done with him now? With all the attention his return was getting, I couldn't help but feel like I'd rather hear about people who actually play for the Bruins, such Erickson and Reilly Smith. I hate it when the news media "goes off" on a story line like this. Sure, Seguin is interesting, but hell, Smith seems to be having a breakout year, and he and Erickson were playing against their former team too.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Dear NHL: How Not to Treat Fans
I'm excited about the new season, as always. For the past several years I've subscribed to NHL Center Ice via DirecTV, but I decided to try something different this year. I started a subscription to NHL Game Center instead. The idea was to watch the games on the TV via XBox.
There is a lot to like about Game Center, but there was one deal breaker for me. I'm often away from home during game time so I record the games to my DVR and watch them later. Unfortunately the way Game Center works I'd have to wait 48 hours to view a game. So I decided to return to Center Ice and cancel my Game Center subscription.
Looking around their web site I saw no way to unsubscribe. This is where things started to go downhill. Eventually I discovered a FAQ with instructions to unsubscribe. They said I could unsubscribe within five days, and it had only been one. Ok.
But it turned out that even though I subscribed with a click of the button, I was going to have to call a phone number to unsubscribe. This is the old trick pioneered by AOL to maximize profits at the expense of their customers. Make it as difficult as possible to unsubscribe and many customers will just give up and keep right on paying. This is the tactic of a business who is willing to screw their customers to maximize their profits. Sure, all businesses are trying to make a profit. But many successful businesses treat their customers with respect, assuming that in doing so they will create good will, which in turn will lead to profit. The NHL claims to be one of these businesses.
I called the number and it took me several minutes to get through the button presses. Then this truly awful sounding music began playing. After 15 minutes on hold I started running out of things I could do at my desk while I waited. I just happened to be looking at my PayPal account and noticed the payment I had made for Game Center. There was a link to dispute the payment. So I decided that turnabout was fair play. If they were going to be assholes, then I'd return the favor. I figured it would take me five minutes to fill out the forms to dispute the payment, and if they hadn't answered my call by then (20 minutes after I had started) I'd go ahead and dispute it. Sure enough, I had the forms filled out and I'd been waiting twenty minutes, so I disconnected the phone and with the words, "Fuck you too, NHL" pressed the button. By doing so I initiated a chargeback, which is a black mark on their credit record, albeit a small one. My money was returned the next day.
This is a hell of a way to treat fans. Money grubbing assholes! They screwed the players last year and continue to screw their fans. Perhaps if more people spoke up about this sort of thing they'd stop.
There is a lot to like about Game Center, but there was one deal breaker for me. I'm often away from home during game time so I record the games to my DVR and watch them later. Unfortunately the way Game Center works I'd have to wait 48 hours to view a game. So I decided to return to Center Ice and cancel my Game Center subscription.
Looking around their web site I saw no way to unsubscribe. This is where things started to go downhill. Eventually I discovered a FAQ with instructions to unsubscribe. They said I could unsubscribe within five days, and it had only been one. Ok.
But it turned out that even though I subscribed with a click of the button, I was going to have to call a phone number to unsubscribe. This is the old trick pioneered by AOL to maximize profits at the expense of their customers. Make it as difficult as possible to unsubscribe and many customers will just give up and keep right on paying. This is the tactic of a business who is willing to screw their customers to maximize their profits. Sure, all businesses are trying to make a profit. But many successful businesses treat their customers with respect, assuming that in doing so they will create good will, which in turn will lead to profit. The NHL claims to be one of these businesses.
I called the number and it took me several minutes to get through the button presses. Then this truly awful sounding music began playing. After 15 minutes on hold I started running out of things I could do at my desk while I waited. I just happened to be looking at my PayPal account and noticed the payment I had made for Game Center. There was a link to dispute the payment. So I decided that turnabout was fair play. If they were going to be assholes, then I'd return the favor. I figured it would take me five minutes to fill out the forms to dispute the payment, and if they hadn't answered my call by then (20 minutes after I had started) I'd go ahead and dispute it. Sure enough, I had the forms filled out and I'd been waiting twenty minutes, so I disconnected the phone and with the words, "Fuck you too, NHL" pressed the button. By doing so I initiated a chargeback, which is a black mark on their credit record, albeit a small one. My money was returned the next day.
This is a hell of a way to treat fans. Money grubbing assholes! They screwed the players last year and continue to screw their fans. Perhaps if more people spoke up about this sort of thing they'd stop.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Observations of the Cup Final and Tuukka Rask
It's been a whirlwind since those two goals went into the Bruins net a mere twelve seconds apart, bringing their Cup run to an end. I hadn't had the chance to comment until now and it seems like ancient history. Nonetheless I do have some observations about that final game, the series, and the play of Tuukka Rask that I think are worth setting down.
I presume most people, like me, thought that the Bruins had game 6 in the bag. That is, after all, the back and forth of how playoff series usually go. With reasonably solid play and the lead in the third, everything looked set for a game 7. However, I had an uneasy feeling. Although they had dominated much of the play, the Bruins seemed worn down and tired compared to the Hawks. I sensed that they were running out of gas and I was preparing myself to see them lose in game 7. Then those two quick goals came and it was all over.
In my opinion game 6 was not only lost in those 12 seconds. It was also lost in the second period on a Bruins power play. Up to that point the Bruins had completely dominated. They had the only goal in the game. Then at 2:24 of the second period the Hawk's Andrew Shaw took a 2-minute roughing penalty. Everyone had to be thinking the same thing -- go out and get another goal! But the Bruins came out like it was an opportunity for a vacation. They fumbled the puck in their own zone, and I have an image stuck in my head of Chara skating through the neutral zone with the puck like it was radioactive. I went ballistic, yelling at the TV as I had so often done this season when the Bruins lost their focus. I recall yelling, "Nobody want's the puck!" Sure enough, just as the power play ended the Hawks took advantage of the Bs Keystone Cops routine and tied it up. This sort of thing should seldom happen to a good team during the regular season. It should never happen during the playoffs. For them to fold up like this during game six of the Cup Final? Are you kidding me? Whether it was that lapse in the second period or the collapse in the third, in the end, the inconsistency that plagued the team throughout the season finally caught up with them.
Even though the Bruins did not play consistently enough to deserve to win the series, they still could have won it. It was very close and several of the games could have gone the other way. Some people aren't going to want to hear this, but there is no doubt in my mind that had Tim Thomas been in goal the Bruins would have won their second cup in three years. Rask played well overall -- just look at his stats! -- but he failed to steal the series. For whatever reason Rask got rattled. It started in game 4. The way to tell if Rask is on his game is simple. When playing at his best he looks like a statue, always in the right spot waiting for the puck in order to swallow it up or send it harmlessly to the corner. When in the zone his play appears effortless. But in game 4 we saw those cat-like reflexes of his on display and while he still made the first save, he started giving up rebounds. It was those rebounds that the Hawks pounced upon, first to take the lead in the third, and later to win the game in OT. In game 5 we saw more of the same, right from the start, and again, I believe it was the key difference in the outcome.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Rask was the better goaltender in the series and I think he is one of the top goaltenders in the NHL. I am happy the Bruins appear on the verge of signing him long term. The Hawks earned their rebound goals by overwhelming the Bruins defense. But, at his best Tim Thomas would have found a way to win those games, because popular to say or not, Tim Thomas was more than just a very good goaltender. Tim Thomas was one of the all-time greats.
In the end I can take solace in this thought: at least the Canucks did not win the cup in 2011. I can handle losing to the Hawks. They are such a classy organization, and other than those sole-less eyes of Toews, there is very little to hate about them. But the thought of those whiners in Vancouver winning the cup... that's unbearable.
I presume most people, like me, thought that the Bruins had game 6 in the bag. That is, after all, the back and forth of how playoff series usually go. With reasonably solid play and the lead in the third, everything looked set for a game 7. However, I had an uneasy feeling. Although they had dominated much of the play, the Bruins seemed worn down and tired compared to the Hawks. I sensed that they were running out of gas and I was preparing myself to see them lose in game 7. Then those two quick goals came and it was all over.
In my opinion game 6 was not only lost in those 12 seconds. It was also lost in the second period on a Bruins power play. Up to that point the Bruins had completely dominated. They had the only goal in the game. Then at 2:24 of the second period the Hawk's Andrew Shaw took a 2-minute roughing penalty. Everyone had to be thinking the same thing -- go out and get another goal! But the Bruins came out like it was an opportunity for a vacation. They fumbled the puck in their own zone, and I have an image stuck in my head of Chara skating through the neutral zone with the puck like it was radioactive. I went ballistic, yelling at the TV as I had so often done this season when the Bruins lost their focus. I recall yelling, "Nobody want's the puck!" Sure enough, just as the power play ended the Hawks took advantage of the Bs Keystone Cops routine and tied it up. This sort of thing should seldom happen to a good team during the regular season. It should never happen during the playoffs. For them to fold up like this during game six of the Cup Final? Are you kidding me? Whether it was that lapse in the second period or the collapse in the third, in the end, the inconsistency that plagued the team throughout the season finally caught up with them.
Even though the Bruins did not play consistently enough to deserve to win the series, they still could have won it. It was very close and several of the games could have gone the other way. Some people aren't going to want to hear this, but there is no doubt in my mind that had Tim Thomas been in goal the Bruins would have won their second cup in three years. Rask played well overall -- just look at his stats! -- but he failed to steal the series. For whatever reason Rask got rattled. It started in game 4. The way to tell if Rask is on his game is simple. When playing at his best he looks like a statue, always in the right spot waiting for the puck in order to swallow it up or send it harmlessly to the corner. When in the zone his play appears effortless. But in game 4 we saw those cat-like reflexes of his on display and while he still made the first save, he started giving up rebounds. It was those rebounds that the Hawks pounced upon, first to take the lead in the third, and later to win the game in OT. In game 5 we saw more of the same, right from the start, and again, I believe it was the key difference in the outcome.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Rask was the better goaltender in the series and I think he is one of the top goaltenders in the NHL. I am happy the Bruins appear on the verge of signing him long term. The Hawks earned their rebound goals by overwhelming the Bruins defense. But, at his best Tim Thomas would have found a way to win those games, because popular to say or not, Tim Thomas was more than just a very good goaltender. Tim Thomas was one of the all-time greats.
In the end I can take solace in this thought: at least the Canucks did not win the cup in 2011. I can handle losing to the Hawks. They are such a classy organization, and other than those sole-less eyes of Toews, there is very little to hate about them. But the thought of those whiners in Vancouver winning the cup... that's unbearable.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Jekyll and Hyde Bruins
The most difficult thing about being a hockey fan is truly understanding what's happening on the ice. Sure, a lot of people think they know what's going on, and that includes me sometimes, but the truth is that sometimes truly understanding why things are happening requires NHL experience and a time consuming break down of post-game video. For that reason I'm not going to try to analyze why the Bruins are facing elimination against the Hawks. But I can make some observations based on what we've seen so far.
All season long the Bruins have had a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality, sometimes playing a strong defensive game that frustrates opponents, combined with a quick break out, razor sharp passing, and a deadly ability to cash in on mistakes.
At other times they have played like little old ladies. They turn the puck over in their zone, the forwards fail to get back quickly to back check, and their rushes come to nothing. This gets us back to why this happens. If your team plays badly, is it because they didn't show up to play or is it because the other team is taking away time and space? I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that during the regular season much of the poor play of the Bruins was not the result of pressure from the opposing teams. The Bruins simply didn't play at their best. Whether or not the Bruins brought their best in game 5 is up for debate. My feeling is that they did not, but like I said, I can't be sure.
On a related note, for whatever reason the Bruins have not been able to shutdown the Hawks with their layered defense in the same way they did the Penguins. Whether that is due to the speed of the Hawks, the players not "playing their game," or as an intentional strategy of Julien's, I'm not going to pretend to know. It is entirely possible that we will see the Bruins shut the Hawks down in game 6. If so, then the Bruins have a very good chance of winning the series. Otherwise the Bruins will have to beat the Hawks at their own game, and while I believe they can, a Bruins Cup win is somewhat less assured.
I do know that the Bruins can play with much more desperation! Bruins fans can hope that game 5 was a momentary lapse of focus and determination in a long post season and the Bruins will be back in game 6, with or without Bergeron.
All season long the Bruins have had a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality, sometimes playing a strong defensive game that frustrates opponents, combined with a quick break out, razor sharp passing, and a deadly ability to cash in on mistakes.
At other times they have played like little old ladies. They turn the puck over in their zone, the forwards fail to get back quickly to back check, and their rushes come to nothing. This gets us back to why this happens. If your team plays badly, is it because they didn't show up to play or is it because the other team is taking away time and space? I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that during the regular season much of the poor play of the Bruins was not the result of pressure from the opposing teams. The Bruins simply didn't play at their best. Whether or not the Bruins brought their best in game 5 is up for debate. My feeling is that they did not, but like I said, I can't be sure.
On a related note, for whatever reason the Bruins have not been able to shutdown the Hawks with their layered defense in the same way they did the Penguins. Whether that is due to the speed of the Hawks, the players not "playing their game," or as an intentional strategy of Julien's, I'm not going to pretend to know. It is entirely possible that we will see the Bruins shut the Hawks down in game 6. If so, then the Bruins have a very good chance of winning the series. Otherwise the Bruins will have to beat the Hawks at their own game, and while I believe they can, a Bruins Cup win is somewhat less assured.
I do know that the Bruins can play with much more desperation! Bruins fans can hope that game 5 was a momentary lapse of focus and determination in a long post season and the Bruins will be back in game 6, with or without Bergeron.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
The Moment the Penguins Lost the Series
First off... wow. I mean, wow. Who would have predicted that the Bruins would sweep the Penguins, outscoring them 12 to 2 over the series? In a word, it was impressive.
In a recent Boston.com Bruins Blog they asked, "When did you realize the series with the Penguins was over?" Well I knew the series was over at 1:32 of the second period of game 1. That was the moment when Matt Cooke checked Adam McQuaid on the numbers into the boards. I was so angry I had to leave the room to hit something. When I eventually returned I told my kids that the series was over, and the the Bruins would not only defeat the Penguins but they would humiliate them in the process.
When you've seen these guys play as many games as I have you start to see what makes them tick. The one thing that stands out above all else is that the Bruins will not be intimidated. All hockey players are proud, and for this bunch their pride is rooted in standing up for one another. Sure, McQuaid got back up. But don't think for a minute that they don't remember Cooke's dirty hit on Savard (that ended his career) -- even those guys who weren't part of the team yet. The boys were already primed for payback over the Iginla trade, regardless of what they may have said publicly, and that hit was exactly what they needed to bring out their very best, and there is no better. So thanks to you Jerome, and thanks to you Matt; our Bruins are in the Cup Final!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
