In Response to Re: great hockey:


That's where the mistake is made.   You cannot determine who is one of the best passers due to assist stats.  This would be determined by actually *gasp* watching the games. 

Of course Savard's assist stats are going to be through the roof.  He's a very good passer, and has been playing with all-star/superstar wingers for quite a while.

   If the bruins expected Savard to be a true #1 center,they would have offered him 7 or 8M per year.
Instead, Boston has a top 20 scorer at a salary that ranks him 36th among centers, and 120th overall.
Seems like a good deal to me.
Of course, people used to complain about Tim Thomas when he was a top 5 goalie, making 900,000 a year.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


Because there is more to being considered one of the best than assists.    You should try watching a few games, then we'll talk about it.

interesting to read comments that are not consistent with what coaches look for and evaluate. After Kessel they tried Ryder with Savard [oops] no chemistry?? Then it was Sturm [oops] no real chemistry; then some of the bigger 4th liners[ oops] nada??? Meanwhile Lucic is on left wing and is not producing very well. Must be the whole team is out of synch, but, not Savard ??? As stated before, Savard has some valued skills. His passes land flat and easy to shoot; he has good vision; or is he a gambler with long right wing passes? He has been the highest point producing center, but, that does not make him the no.1 center. It does make him useful as long as others can mesh their skills with his like kessel's speed and shot. BUt, he is only mediocre on defense and this adds a burden to his wings. Let's accept him for what he does bring to the team, but do not canonize him. Both kreji and Bergeron are much better all around centers, and it is possible that Seguin could develop into a skilled NHL center, with the emphasis on " develop". Which is why IMO, Horton will produce more on Kreji's wing. Since CJ will keep Recchi on Bergie's wing that leaves Ryder[ oops], Wheeler[ maybe] or Seguin [possible] for Savard's right wing. Now how do you allocate the left wings?  Lucic with Savard for protection and production; Wheeler with Kreji/Horton for size, scoring and overall play; Ryder with Bergeron/Recchi at least until Sturm returns or Ryder fails totally and is replaced by Caron. Interesting that Paille/Campbell/Thornton remain on 4th line unless someone gets hurt.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


I love when you use arguments based on things you yourself have used to give a "speak to the hand" response to other posters who don't share your views. How many times have we seen you pull out the tired old "you don't know me so don't say X Y or Z" excuse AND YET when it suits YOUR purposes, it's just fine.

Of course you have NO IDEA how many Bruins games I watch (and I watch virtually every one), so saying "you should try watching a few games" is a pretty, pretty, pretty WEAK argument.

You also like to use stats when they suit your purposes, but Savard's excellent assist numbers? Oh, those are an exception. It's not really relevant. You have to WATCH the games, and you'll see that all those set-ups that result in goals were, um.....lucky? All based on the skill of the guy who received the pass--every time??? Something, though.....definitely NOT Savard's natural talent and ability.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


Actually, Savard's salary is 7M per year. However, it's a frontloaded long-term contract which makes his cap hit only 4M.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


You are 100% correct that I have no idea how many B's games you watch.  I have had many hockey discussions in my life, and you opinions ring out similar to those who haven't watched many games lately.  My mistake.

I do use stats often, but assists have never been a stat I've relied upon.  The NHL should join the KHL in assigning only one assist per goal.  The secondary assist is often times subjective.  It's no as bad as it used to be (they say Mario got a few assists while sitting on the bench), but still bad. 

As I have stated before, on many occasion, I believe Marc Savard is a very good hockey player. I believe he is a very good passer of the puck.  I believe his stats are inflate due to extraordinary wingers and secondary assists.

I do not believe he is an elite center, or a superstar center.  These terms are reserved for players like Crosby, Sedin, Backstrom and others like them.  I'm sure you wouldn't put Savard on a list of top players with those guys, right?

In Response to Re: great hockey:



You have succeeded in changing my opinion of Savard (not that I would have ever put him in the category of 'elite').  (Oh - and where would you put Thornton?  Joe - that is).

However, I would say his stats 'inflate' because of the players around him, that makes him sound like Kevin Stevens who rode the coat tails of Lemieux for his 100+ point seasons.  Savard can stand on his own, his numbers are respectable if he has no one around him that can score.  The more scorers he has around him, the more effective he can be.  It sounds like a subtle difference or just playing with semantics, but there's a big difference between getting a pass from Mario and putting away the easy tap-in compared to giving the puck to Kovalchuk for a relatively easy goal.  One player is just taking advantage of the situation the players around him put him in, and the other actually contributes. There's a difference.

Yeah, I missed the letter D on "inflated".  Thanks for pointing out that typo.

Can you name any average wingers who have put up above average numbers while playing with Savard?  I can't.  The B's always cite "no chemistry" when a winger fails on his line.

I'm not sure Savard could stand on his own without a stud winger.  Well, I'm sure he'd put up average numbers.  He is a good hockey player.  I'm just not sure he would be a point per game guy.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


I don't think you're not hearing what I'm saying.  Agreed, his wings don't put up better numbers because of him.  Agreed his numbers are better when he has better go to guys.  Again, it's a lot different than a guy like Kevin Stevens who gets his assists because Mario picked up his rebounds, rather than Marc who is passing the puck to someone like Kovalchuk who then scores.

I'm saying in that talent pool of players like Savard - whose numbers go up with the talent he plays with - Savard is actually a contributor.  Guys like Stevens and a ton of others got a lot of garbage goals and assists.  Savard actually does the work to get the numbers he gets.

Standing on his own with nobody to pass the puck to?  Wouldn't you say last year was one of those years?  And each year except Kessel's last year with the Bruins.  I'm talking Bruins years only.

I think in principle we're pretty much of the same opnion, although I think Savard has a bit more value than you're giving him credit for.  It's a subtle difference, but one that matters.  One player doesn't hurt you and the other contributes so that he doesn't hurt you.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


You are right in assuming I would not put Savard at the same talent level as Crosby, Sedin, Backstrom or say, even a Stamkos (altho' he's still young and has yet to prove himself worthy over time). Yes, I would trade any of those players for Savvy straight up and not look back.

My point on Savard's worth to the Bruins has to do with the fact that he is AT LEAST the next level down from those EXCELLENT players you mentioned and therefore has great value to the Bruins, given that none of those other players are skating thru the door to replace him.

The Bruins need Savard in the absence of anyone of the same position of equal value coming over, and given his contract status and the number of teams who would hang on to those players they have who may be as good or better, why run down Savard when the Bruins clearly NEED his talent?

What we DO KNOW about Savard is that w/out him, the Bruins PP is almost non-existent; that Krejci is an excellent center but why not have the B's be deeper by having him the #2 guy, w/Savvy up top?; that Bergeron is a great 2way player who excels on face offs, but does not have Savvy's offensive skill set....and that Savard is a PPGame player who can light it up when healthy AND has the potential of having a stud of a young forward to pass to in Horton. Maybe they'll click and maybe they won't,but don't you at least want to give them the chance?

The Bruins have an opportunity in keeping Savard of having 3 lines that can score. Given that they had the league's most anemic offense last year (in no small part due to Savard's games missed) why are we spending so much time arguing about a player that is clearly VERY good (if not Crosby level), and simply makes the bruins better by being in the line up rather than out of it?

Now, if you can get me Crosby or Stamkos or Sedin to take Savvy's place--great, I'm on board. Til then, I'm more than happy to have him as the team's #1 Center.

Average wingers like Ryder and Sturm won't and don't perform well with any centers. I don't consider 27, 30, 31 season totals goals better than average or even average. Marco and Michael couldn't finish with Savard nor Krejci.

I'd argue all day long with someone that says Kevin Stevens (his totals dropped  after leaving Pittsburgh because crack really does kill) was only good because of Mario WRONG! The winger still has to put the biscuit in the bucket after the sweet tape to tape pass. Sturm and Ryder are mediocre finishers even after Savard and Krejci put great passes on the tape of their sticks.

Surround Savard with talent his numbers go up. Put mediocrity with Savard downward spiral in numbers very simple solution.

Alright, we know that Savard can put the numbers. But, can we win the Cup with him with the number 1 centre? That is the real question.

Sure he adds dimension to the team and makes it more interesting. That's fine for the regular season. Then what? The real good teams start playing after the regular season.

Can the Bruins win a Cup with Savard as the number 1 centre? My opinion is no.

As the number 2 centre? Now we may get there. Until Seguin or Bergeron or Krejci take on the number 1 role we will have just a very good team, at best.

"Until Seguin or Bergeron or Krejci take on the number 1 role we will have just a very good team, at best." Without Savard worse than good!

Thank you for answering my question and argument "Unitil" that is not now. Seguin, Krejci and Bergeron cannot help to carry this team now. the three air apparent cannot QB the PP like Savard can take that away form the Bruins you're right Boston goes back to mediocre Seguin, Krejci and Bergeron ain't got it yet. Patrice has been on the PP with an average performance IMO.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


You come really close to making a good point here, but you've got it backwards.

Can the Bruins win the cup w/Savvy as their #1 center? I believe the answer is "yes" simply b/c while he is not a SUPERSTAR player, his presence in the line-up gives the Bruins two VERY VERY GOOD centers in the #2 and 3 slots in Krejci and Bergeron, and thus, they become a 3-line depth team instead of a 2 or 1 line team, which has been their M.O in so many failed campaigns in the past.

It is just wrong to say that Krejci is a better center than Savard. For one thing, he hasn't been playing long enough to warrant a fair statistical analysis, and while Krejci has all the skills to be a #1 center, he's not there yet. Bergeron? As I said before--great 2way player, excellent defensively, great checker, helluva face off guy--NOT NEARLY as skilled offensively as Savard.

If you want a template for a Stanley Cup winning team that the Bruins could resemble if they keep Savard, see the 1990 Oilers. They were sans Gretzky, but what they had instead was a team that had 3 quality depth lines that could hurt you in a number of ways, anchored by excellent goaltending in Bill Ranford.

The Bruins could be that team with 3 excellent lines anchored by Savvy, Krejci and Bergy, and contributions from Seguin here and there as he learns the game at the NHL level, and Rask manning the pipes.

But you NEED the depth--you NEED the 3 lines. Without Savard, you're taking a huge step backwards, and I for one am sick of the Bruins constantly shedding great players and breaking up the chemistry of great temas (see: 2004 squad), and telling fans to keep waiting til next year. 38 years is way past due.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


   Actuall...FYI...When I say yearly salary, I am talking about the cap hit.
That is the only number that matters.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


   Chicago just won the cup with Jonathan Toews as their #1 center.
His career high is 69 points, set 2 years ago. He finised the playoffs with just 7 goals, and was a -1 on a cup winning team.
So, to answer your question. Yes, I think the bruins can win the cup with Savard as the #1 center. 

I'm standing in awe of the concept that quality wings actually finish off more feeds from their center than non-quality wings. What a revelation.

As TTBI points out (and as many other of us fans and hockey observers, including Jack Edwards, have noted), part of Savard's value, in addition to his playmaking and PP quarterbacking, lies in the fact that he is part of the tremendous depth at center that is a key for this team. I can never understand why anyone would want to delibearately weaken a strength. Why would a baseball team with, say, three excellent starting pitchers, want to trade one?

Adding to that contribution, of course, is that other teams are forced to play their top checkers against Savard's line, leaving space for David Krejci to move more freely. Krejci can be a better center because he has Savard (and Bergeron, who plays against the other team's top guys) shouldering their respective burdens.

In Response to Re: great hockey:


So, therefore, just scoring lots of points will not win you the Stanley Cup. I get it; always did.

Would you take Toews for Savard? I would.

   No, I would not take Toews for Savard. He is a 2.7M bigger cap hit than Savard.
There is not enough cap space on the bruins, and I don't think he is a better value at 6.7M, than Savard at 4M.
The Savard for Toews thing was kind of off-topic.
I was just tying to point out that a team can win without the 100+ point stud center, and I think you agreed with me :)