In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : well im gonna tell yea, that Mr. Jacobs was sooooo cheap, that when cleaning the ice, rather then using a zambonie, he used a BLANK.....
Posted by kylequinn

Poulin had 25 points in 32 games for the B's that season. Propp had 12 points in 14 games for the B's that season.  In the previous 10 seasons, Propp had failed to record at least 30 goals only two times (26 and 27). Christian came over on the heels of two 30+ goals seasons and was terrific on the checking line for Boston. These players weren't quality acquisitions because I say so, they are quality acquistions because their play said so. Sure, Edmonton was deeper, but that's not the point.  You said the B's refused to make any moves to improve the team.  Propp, Poulin and Christian are here to dispute that. I'm not sure what Adam Oates has to do with the team in 1990.  He wasn't a Bruin then.
Posted by Not-A-Shot

To those who are focused on one detail, Jacobs is so cheap, well he was.  The players mentioned Prop and Poulin were brought in to help the Bruins win the Cup.  Yet outside of Poulin the players were not kept for a longer period of time. Investing in winning the Cup is not investing long term to build a team to win the Cup on a consistent manner like the Pens or Oilers.  The fact of the matter JJ did not surround Ray Bourque with players to win the Cup in the 90s.  Looking at the top salaries in the 90s it is not surprising that Bourque was not in the top five for most of the 90s.  What is noticed is the number of Pens and Oilers!  This was a period where salaries escalated beyond belief, yet, JJ did not keep up with the competition.   Jacobs was cheap.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_player_salaries_in_the_NHL#1997.E2.80.9398_season
Posted by islamorada

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : Finally--someone who gets it. Also appreciate the fact check to back up my points. The Bruins did just enough to get by in the 90's...not enough to win it all, and that's why the Poulin/Propp/Christian acquisitions--while good--were never going to be enough to win it all. The larger point islamorada makes here is the one I failed to--that the Bruins might bring in a player or 2 for a season or so (think: Gionchar, Knuble--really most of the 2004 team--Guerin, Allison, and on and on), but never would allow those players to stick around for long enough to gel and create an identity and winning formula. Why? Because that would cost MONEY...money that both JJ and Harry Sinden were loathe to pay b/c they thought players should be soooooo honored to wear the spoked B that they should take whatever money was offered and shut up....and maybe that's a fine viewpoint to have...very "old school", but totally out of touch w/the way the game and sports in general had changed by th 90's. Who paid the price? Bruins fans. And the point about Oates was not 1990 (when someone knows they are in a corner they change the subject--I never said oates was on th '90 squad, and in fact the 1990 team was merely a small example I gave from the broader point about what the Bruins have done since their last Cup appearance)....but that Oates nailed the Bruins' un-willingness to bring in the best players to augment what they had when he was so unceremoniously sent packing in the mid-90s. Harry and JJ couldn't stomach Oates speaking the truth and so let their pride get in the way of the greater good--letting one of the best-ever playmakers go (one wonders if Savard will be next?) just to show how "tough" they were. After Oates left the truly horrible spate of cheap, ugly, stupid Bruins teams reared their ugly heads and from about 1994 til 2004 the B's were one of the very worst teams in hockey, but apparently to many "fans", it had nothing to do with the owner. Maybe the facts should just speak for themselves: No Stanley Cup since 1972. (Only Toronto has gone longer since their last one.) 2 advances past round 1 of the playoffs in the past 11 years. Again--and for the last time will I mention this--it IS worthless to complain about Jacobs spending habits now--he's already won by fighting for and getting the Cap in place that allows him to spend up to it, save money over what he would have had to pay w/out it--and dupe fans into thinking that makes him a caring owner. JJ fought for the cap. He got it. Spending up to it--as nearly every team that can afford to does--does NOT Make him a good or caring owner...it just makes him a shrewd businessman, and that is not the same thing.
Posted by TryToBearIt

after the Seguin signing, the Bruins are # 1 in payroll!  capgeek.com
Posted by ocram

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : yes, Go Brooonz.,....but are you actually proud of the fact that the B's are #1 in payroll given Thomas' terrible contract...Ryder's terrible contract...and the fact that they are up against the cap and now looking at trading one of their best players (Savard) to get some relief? Again: Spending to a cap that one of the richest teams and owners in the NHL can easily afford is NOT the same as paying for the best players in an open market. It looks good on paper (except when you analyze the actual moves) but it's an artificial measuring stick for being an engaged and caring owner. You may not like the way the Red Sox and Yankees buy the best talent to win, but they put all the money they have back into the team to make them winners. JJ keeps jacking up ticket prices without having won a cup since he bought the team, and lets his GM spend to a cap he knows is far less than he'd have to pay in an open market.
Posted by TryToBearIt

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : yes, Go Brooonz.,....but are you actually proud of the fact that the B's are #1 in payroll given Thomas' terrible contract...Ryder's terrible contract...and the fact that they are up against the cap and now looking at trading one of their best players (Savard) to get some relief? Again: Spending to a cap that one of the richest teams and owners in the NHL can easily afford is NOT the same as paying for the best players in an open market. It looks good on paper (except when you analyze the actual moves) but it's an artificial measuring stick for being an engaged and caring owner. You may not like the way the Red Sox and Yankees buy the best talent to win, but they put all the money they have back into the team to make them winners. JJ keeps jacking up ticket prices without having won a cup since he bought the team, and lets his GM spend to a cap he knows is far less than he'd have to pay in an open market.
Posted by TryToBearIt

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : Having a salary cap is what the league and owners decided what to do to make it an even playing field. If you think that an open market is what you'd like then I don't suggest choosing a different team ( as NAS has ) , I suggest choosing a different sport or hockey league because that is what the NHL has in place. Blame JJ for the salary cap ? Try blaming the NHL and all the owners if you don't like it.
Posted by Chowdahkid-

NHL's list of top influences is done on a yearly basis. What happened 5 years ago ( salary cap ) has no outcome on THN's list since then . Jacob's makes the list because of being the chairman of the NHL's board of governor's and being the longest tenured owner. Being cleared of being cheap in the 90's is not what was intended at all. Calling him cheap in the present is what is being discussed. And you're right Issy the CBA has far too many holes . Still don't agree with the pied piper theory . The other owners were smart enough on their own to figure out that a cap was needed without Jacobs or any other owner leading the way. It just happened that some owners were more front and center during the lockout as some players were on the NHLPA's side. Bottom line the salary system had to be changed and I for one am glad it did. I think it has put an emphasis back on drafting and developing your own players ( and trades ) like it used to be rather then who spends the most money. Spending the most money to become a winner is not what sports should be all about IMO.
Posted by Chowdahkid-

NHL's list of top influences is done on a yearly basis. What happened 5 years ago ( salary cap ) has no outcome on THN's list since then . Jacob's makes the list because of being the chairman of the NHL's board of governor's and being the longest tenured owner. Being cleared of being cheap in the 90's is not what was intended at all. Calling him cheap in the present is what is being discussed. And you're right Issy the CBA has far too many holes . Still don't agree with the pied piper theory . The other owners were smart enough on their own to figure out that a cap was needed without Jacobs or any other owner leading the way. It just happened that some owners were more front and center during the lockout as some players were on the NHLPA's side. Bottom line the salary system had to be changed and I for one am glad it did. I think it has put an emphasis back on drafting and developing your own players ( and trades ) like it used to be rather then who spends the most money. Spending the most money to become a winner is not what sports should be all about IMO.
Posted by Chowdahkid-

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : The Bruins did just enough to get by in the 90's...not enough to win it all, and that's why the Poulin/Propp/Christian acquisitions--while good--were never going to be enough to win it all. 

Again--and for the last time will I mention this--it IS worthless to complain about Jacobs spending habits now--he's already won by fighting for and getting the Cap in place that allows him to spend up to it, save money over what he would have had to pay w/out it--and dupe fans into thinking that makes him a caring owner. JJ fought for the cap.

He got it. Spending up to it--as nearly every team that can afford to does--does NOT Make him a good or caring owner...it just makes him a shrewd businessman, and that is not the same thing. Posted by TryToBearIt

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : TTB, You've gone back to "complaining just to complain" again here. If PC didn't resign Thomas or grab Ryder during free agency you'd complain that the Bruins are cheap. You've also suggested that the 1990 Oilers were not a good team as any NHL fan knows they were still a great team without Gretzky, Moog, Coffey and Fuhr. That Sinden was too cheap to make moves to improve the team this was not the case either. The 1990 and 1991 had the best PP and PK in the league but Harry still tried to go out and attempt to make the Bruins better with good moves. Ppulin, Propp and Christian weren't good moves ? Lost credibility on that one You've thrown in GMs bad moves as being cheap or that JJ had something to do with the Bruins not performing on the ice in 88' and 90' you're way off here. You're all over the place as a frustrated Red Sox fan looking for something and someone to whale on. Get your facts straight as another poster suggested is somewhere you should start.
Posted by SanDogBrewin

In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... :

The MAIN POINT I wanted to make--and shame on me, I guess, for not pointing it out clearly enough, is that the Bruins M.O. over the past 20 + years has been to acquire good players, jettison them as soon as they want more money or complain about not having enough support to win it all (Oates' point), and there really can be no argument about the results we've seen up until about 2004.

I'm as hopeful as any Bruins fan that this will be the year they finally win a Cup....but the facts are on my side: The Bruins have gone longer without a Stanley Cup than every single team but one. The owner has to take some responsibility for that, cuz it can't all be because of too many men on the ice. 
Posted by TryToBearIt