Really good discussion here folks.  First, the trade, and other perceived MOC gaffes. My sense is that the MOC era, has been ridiculously misunderstood.  First, blowing up that great pre lockout team, wasn't a MOC thing.  That was Jacobs.   The Thornton thing wasn't on MOC's terms, but Harry's.   If anyone was paying attention, MOC was never the Bruin GM.  He just had the title, and the joy of taking it on the chin, every time something didn't go as planned.  Based on what I saw, I can't really comment on what kind of GM he was, or could have been....because he really never did the job.  He was ownerships poodle.   Along comes Shero, and that disaster only seemed to validate my thoughts.  Me thinks Shero turned things down because he felt the hierarchy was hopelessly commited to running the show, and he wasn't interested in being a puppet.  It also seems to me that Neely was never interested in anything more than dipping his toe in the water, untill corporate philosophy changed. Fortunately for us,  the Shero thing really embarrassed the company(JJ), and it gave a really short list of people interested in working for the Bruins....some leverage.  What would have happenned if PC publicly turned it down too?  I believe PC knew that, and saw the opportunity to forcefully put forth his demands.  "If you guys want to run the team, you don't need a GM to insulate yourselves from your bad decision making.  Hire a student that wants a temporary title".    If you want me...fine, but I run the hockey operations, no one else".  The day PC arrived, was the watershed moment.  Because that was the beginning of a new way of doing things.  Since day one, this has been PC's team.  Not JJ's or Harry's or both.  MOC never had the privledge of working in that environment.  How he would have responded is anyones guess.  It's my belief that no one has ever been given the autonomy EVER....to manage that team....from the day JJ bought it...right up until the day PC was hired. Just my thoughts. And, the Thornton leadership thing........I feel Thornton was totally mismanaged from the day he got here....til the day he left.  He was coddled and protected his first couple of years(which would suggest the type of outcome, management harped about in later years), he was given a captaincy, he probably didn't even want, but more obviously, didn't earn, or posess the qualities to find success in.  To me...really dumb.  Round pegs fit much better in round holes. Then we get into the type of player JT was(and is).  Whether you "build" around him.(another dumb thought).  You build around several things, and rule one is.....you build around what you know to be strength, not weakness. Management also ruthlessly used that kid as a marketing "cure all".  If he was anything less than a Mario Lemieux, we felt ripped off.  That seems to go with a much ballyhoo'd first round pick.  Anyway, JT's cap hit is 7mil.  Savard made the same this year.  Savard, in my books has never been in Joe's category, even without the concussion issues.  Both good players...which one do you build a team around.  Neither, in fact rarely do you build a team around anyone.  It's ridiculous.  Who is this team "built" around?  Many would say Chara.  Right now...many may say TT.  What about Bergeron...isn't he the quintessential Bruin.  How about Julian?  It's reasonable to suggest the team is built around his system.  There are even those that would suggest that the mojo surrounding this Stanley Cup winner is the direct result of Sean Thorton's insertion in the lineup well into the Vancouver series.  I guess to those folks, the last few games of the year....the team was built around him.  It's all ridiculous.  When you look at great teams, it becomes difficult to tell who the team is built around.  It becomes very debateable. The fact is though, great teams are the result of "team dynamics", not individual ones. That knock on any player is dumb.  The whole concept is dumb.  Throwing all that on Joe Thorntons doorstep is dumb. I moved on from that trade a long time ago.  but, like it or not, Joe Thornton is one of the better players in the league.  Like any of those guys, we can pick away at them, zero in on the negatives, but it doesn't change things.
Posted by stevegm

PC told Jeff Gorton and Don Sweeny to sign Chara and Savard.  When talking to the players, Sweeny put Neely on the phone as a former player to help sway them.  Chara said it had an impact on signing with the Bruins. In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? :Posted by OatesCam

Really good discussion here folks.  First, the trade, and other perceived MOC gaffes. My sense is that the MOC era, has been ridiculously misunderstood.  First, blowing up that great pre lockout team, wasn't a MOC thing.  That was Jacobs.   The Thornton thing wasn't on MOC's terms, but Harry's.   If anyone was paying attention, MOC was never the Bruin GM.  He just had the title, and the joy of taking it on the chin, every time something didn't go as planned.  Based on what I saw, I can't really comment on what kind of GM he was, or could have been....because he really never did the job.  He was ownerships poodle.   Posted by stevegm

PC told Jeff Gorton and Don Sweeny to sign Chara and Savard.  When talking to the players, Sweeny put Neely on the phone as a former player to help sway them.  Chara said it had an impact on signing with the Bruins. In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? :
Posted by OatesCam

Without MOC, we don't have Thomas. Hehe
Posted by RidingWithTheKing

I was disappointed when Gorton was let go, it surprises me he isn't managing somewhere. I loved the image of him and Sweeny high-fiving after Savard signed to follow Chara.Posted by OatesCam

Really good discussion here folks.  First, the trade, and other perceived MOC gaffes. My sense is that the MOC era, has been ridiculously misunderstood.  First, blowing up that great pre lockout team, wasn't a MOC thing.  That was Jacobs.   The Thornton thing wasn't on MOC's terms, but Harry's.   If anyone was paying attention, MOC was never the Bruin GM.  He just had the title, and the joy of taking it on the chin, every time something didn't go as planned.  Based on what I saw, I can't really comment on what kind of GM he was, or could have been....because he really never did the job.  He was ownerships poodle.   Along comes Shero, and that disaster only seemed to validate my thoughts.  Me thinks Shero turned things down because he felt the hierarchy was hopelessly commited to running the show, and he wasn't interested in being a puppet.  It also seems to me that Neely was never interested in anything more than dipping his toe in the water, untill corporate philosophy changed. Fortunately for us,  the Shero thing really embarrassed the company(JJ), and it gave a really short list of people interested in working for the Bruins....some leverage.  What would have happenned if PC publicly turned it down too?  I believe PC knew that, and saw the opportunity to forcefully put forth his demands.  "If you guys want to run the team, you don't need a GM to insulate yourselves from your bad decision making.  Hire a student that wants a temporary title".    If you want me...fine, but I run the hockey operations, no one else".  The day PC arrived, was the watershed moment.  Because that was the beginning of a new way of doing things.  Since day one, this has been PC's team.  Not JJ's or Harry's or both.  MOC never had the privledge of working in that environment.  How he would have responded is anyones guess.  It's my belief that no one has ever been given the autonomy EVER....to manage that team....from the day JJ bought it...right up until the day PC was hired. Just my thoughts. And, the Thornton leadership thing........I feel Thornton was totally mismanaged from the day he got here....til the day he left.  He was coddled and protected his first couple of years(which would suggest the type of outcome, management harped about in later years), he was given a captaincy, he probably didn't even want, but more obviously, didn't earn, or posess the qualities to find success in.  To me...really dumb.  Round pegs fit much better in round holes. Then we get into the type of player JT was(and is).  Whether you "build" around him.(another dumb thought).  You build around several things, and rule one is.....you build around what you know to be strength, not weakness. Management also ruthlessly used that kid as a marketing "cure all".  If he was anything less than a Mario Lemieux, we felt ripped off.  That seems to go with a much ballyhoo'd first round pick.  Anyway, JT's cap hit is 7mil.  Savard made the same this year.  Savard, in my books has never been in Joe's category, even without the concussion issues.  Both good players...which one do you build a team around.  Neither, in fact rarely do you build a team around anyone.  It's ridiculous.  Who is this team "built" around?  Many would say Chara.  Right now...many may say TT.  What about Bergeron...isn't he the quintessential Bruin.  How about Julian?  It's reasonable to suggest the team is built around his system.  There are even those that would suggest that the mojo surrounding this Stanley Cup winner is the direct result of Sean Thorton's insertion in the lineup well into the Vancouver series.  I guess to those folks, the last few games of the year....the team was built around him.  It's all ridiculous.  When you look at great teams, it becomes difficult to tell who the team is built around.  It becomes very debateable. The fact is though, great teams are the result of "team dynamics", not individual ones. That knock on any player is dumb.  The whole concept is dumb.  Throwing all that on Joe Thorntons doorstep is dumb. I moved on from that trade a long time ago.  but, like it or not, Joe Thornton is one of the better players in the league.  Like any of those guys, we can pick away at them, zero in on the negatives, but it doesn't change things.
Posted by stevegm

Really good discussion here folks.  First, the trade, and other perceived MOC gaffes. My sense is that the MOC era, has been ridiculously misunderstood.  First, blowing up that great pre lockout team, wasn't a MOC thing.  That was Jacobs.   The Thornton thing wasn't on MOC's terms, but Harry's.   If anyone was paying attention, MOC was never the Bruin GM.  He just had the title, and the joy of taking it on the chin, every time something didn't go as planned.  Based on what I saw, I can't really comment on what kind of GM he was, or could have been....because he really never did the job.  He was ownerships poodle.   Along comes Shero, and that disaster only seemed to validate my thoughts.  Me thinks Shero turned things down because he felt the hierarchy was hopelessly commited to running the show, and he wasn't interested in being a puppet.  It also seems to me that Neely was never interested in anything more than dipping his toe in the water, untill corporate philosophy changed. Fortunately for us,  the Shero thing really embarrassed the company(JJ), and it gave a really short list of people interested in working for the Bruins....some leverage.  What would have happenned if PC publicly turned it down too?  I believe PC knew that, and saw the opportunity to forcefully put forth his demands.  "If you guys want to run the team, you don't need a GM to insulate yourselves from your bad decision making.  Hire a student that wants a temporary title".    If you want me...fine, but I run the hockey operations, no one else".  The day PC arrived, was the watershed moment.  Because that was the beginning of a new way of doing things.  Since day one, this has been PC's team.  Not JJ's or Harry's or both.  MOC never had the privledge of working in that environment.  How he would have responded is anyones guess.  It's my belief that no one has ever been given the autonomy EVER....to manage that team....from the day JJ bought it...right up until the day PC was hired. Just my thoughts. And, the Thornton leadership thing........I feel Thornton was totally mismanaged from the day he got here....til the day he left.  He was coddled and protected his first couple of years(which would suggest the type of outcome, management harped about in later years), he was given a captaincy, he probably didn't even want, but more obviously, didn't earn, or posess the qualities to find success in.  To me...really dumb.  Round pegs fit much better in round holes. Then we get into the type of player JT was(and is).  Whether you "build" around him.(another dumb thought).  You build around several things, and rule one is.....you build around what you know to be strength, not weakness. Management also ruthlessly used that kid as a marketing "cure all".  If he was anything less than a Mario Lemieux, we felt ripped off.  That seems to go with a much ballyhoo'd first round pick.  Anyway, JT's cap hit is 7mil.  Savard made the same this year.  Savard, in my books has never been in Joe's category, even without the concussion issues.  Both good players...which one do you build a team around.  Neither, in fact rarely do you build a team around anyone.  It's ridiculous.  Who is this team "built" around?  Many would say Chara.  Right now...many may say TT.  What about Bergeron...isn't he the quintessential Bruin.  How about Julian?  It's reasonable to suggest the team is built around his system.  There are even those that would suggest that the mojo surrounding this Stanley Cup winner is the direct result of Sean Thorton's insertion in the lineup well into the Vancouver series.  I guess to those folks, the last few games of the year....the team was built around him.  It's all ridiculous.  When you look at great teams, it becomes difficult to tell who the team is built around.  It becomes very debateable. The fact is though, great teams are the result of "team dynamics", not individual ones. That knock on any player is dumb.  The whole concept is dumb.  Throwing all that on Joe Thorntons doorstep is dumb. I moved on from that trade a long time ago.  but, like it or not, Joe Thornton is one of the better players in the league.  Like any of those guys, we can pick away at them, zero in on the negatives, but it doesn't change things.
Posted by stevegm

In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? : And you know this how? Sounds like somebody who was sitting around the boardroom table.  Jeremy Jacobs is a very successful businessman and has been for decades.  Do you really think he, a man who admittedly knows little about hockey, would stand up and tell his hockey opps staff how they should structure the team post lockout?  Ridiculous. Harry Sinden's influence is more understandable.  a good lesson on showing somebody the door when they leave a role.  If not, the influence can have a negative effect.  Likely MOC gave  too much weight to Harry's opinions.   But a puppet?  Hardly.
Posted by scooter244

In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? : OK, but I'm still going to give the Chara signing to PC.  without PC we don't have Chara.
Posted by scooter244

In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? : TTBI, like I said, it's probably unfair that Joe is judged on team results but it is the way it is.Chara's compete level and will to win was routinely questioned  throughout his stay in Boston.Fair or not,team captains are expected to lead their teams to Cup wins and,to be honest, every guy you've mentioned ended up retiring with the stigma of never having won the big prize.
Posted by dezaruchi

I always enjoy your posts Oates...and I agree Chara is the cornerstone.....but...I kinda disagree.  It's a really subjective debate.  Chara is without question ...one of the best d men in the league...one of the most "coveted players" in the league.  It's really easy and convenient to pigeon hole any elite player in that slot.  2 years ago though, when the B's were the league's highest scoring team...it didn't make much sense that Chara was the key.  Last year, when they were at about the bottom in scoring...it made great sense.  This year I don't know. It's a theoretical argument at best....and it doesn't matter who is right...if anyone is right. If I buy your theory, then I go a bit deeper.  We only won the cup this year.  We've had Chara for a while now.    My question is....of what meaningful, stastistical, significance, is who any team is built around.  AND...does that prognostification not become more difficult when a team is elite(please note...most independant hockey experts did not see the Bruins as being "elite" as late as March 11))  
Posted by stevegm

In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? : scooter totally agree with the influence chiarelli had in acquiring chara but i also think money played a huge role. its never come out but i bet its important for chara to be the highest payed defenseman in the nhl. on the jacobs post. i think he has a bigger hand in the operations then we all may believe. it may not be day to day and maybe even more hands off with the job now that management(chiarelli,neely,benning and sweeney) has done since neely jumped on board. the reason i believe that is that when thornton was moved he was on that day on weei and u could hear the anger in his voice along with breaking down thornton's short comings like ability to win faceoffs. so with that being said the trade of thornton to san jose at the time seemed to be rushed reaction, i mean i never heard another team mentioned or other players. so i think oc was doing jacobs dirty work at the time or the both of them agreed to get jumbo out of town asap no matter what they got back(which 2day the trade is still unbelievably loap-sided. what do u think? ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Posted by LoyalBlackNGold

scooter i only ask because thornton was and still is a top level player. so when i heard the package from san jose i was like thats it! and i didnt hear any other players or any other teams! thats why it seemed knee jerk to me.
Posted by LoyalBlackNGold

In Response to Re: Anyone Remember One Of O'Connell's Comments After Trading Thornton? : Does  Bourgue deserve a failing grade cuz he didn't win the big prize?  How about Fernie Flaman, Rick Middleton.   Does the big prize shadow the efforts of Leo Boivan, who played most of his career in the outhouse of the NHL.  I'd have to argue that.  Just way too simplistic. Is Wayne Cashman's contribution void of comparison to Lionel Hitchman's simply because they both won a cup? I've been a Bruin fan a long, long time and I don't recall any like minded fans ever questioning any of Eddie Sandford's real or conceived weaknesses.....based on the fact he never won a cup.
Posted by stevegm

scooter i only ask because thornton was and still is a top level player. so when i heard the package from san jose i was like thats it! and i didnt hear any other players or any other teams! thats why it seemed knee jerk to me.
Posted by LoyalBlackNGold