Bourque placed on waivers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    I don't think he'll get claimed. I don't know what's next for him, though - the Bruins gave him an honest shot on a line with two pretty solid pros and also gave him some time on the PP. The results weren't there.

    Those who have been blaming the third line's struggles on him won't be able to much longer. We'll have a period of "well, it's not like Pandolfo..." and then maybe "Caron was never..." but eventually Kelly and Peverley have to figure it out.  They're the veterans.  Can't blame the rookie and the old guy forever.

    PAULICA, like they say about firing the coach, you can only replace so many players....  And Kelly and Peverley can point to much better track records in the past to suggest that this is a slump, not proof that they aren't NHL players.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Those who have been blaming the third line's struggles on him won't be able to much longer. We'll have a period of "well, it's not like Pandolfo..." and then maybe "Caron was never..." but eventually Kelly and Peverley have to figure it out.  They're the veterans.  Can't blame the rookie and the old guy forever.

     



    I guess we will find out soon enough, once PC picks up whoever he is going to in the next couple of days....

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    Waive Pandolfo and keep Bourque would've been my move, if you want to bring Caron or Spooner up. No way does he make it through waivers , AHL teams needing a point per game playmaker will snap him up.




    No way, San. Bourque isn't a player who can sit on the 9th floor for 5-6 games in a row and then just get plugged into a utility role. Pandolfo can. Pandolfo is the better option for the role required (13th forward/4th line/PK)

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    I don't think he'll get claimed. I don't know what's next for him, though - the Bruins gave him an honest shot on a line with two pretty solid pros and also gave him some time on the PP. The results weren't there.

    Those who have been blaming the third line's struggles on him won't be able to much longer. We'll have a period of "well, it's not like Pandolfo..." and then maybe "Caron was never..." but eventually Kelly and Peverley have to figure it out.  They're the veterans.  Can't blame the rookie and the old guy forever.

    PAULICA, like they say about firing the coach, you can only replace so many players....  And Kelly and Peverley can point to much better track records in the past to suggest that this is a slump, not proof that they aren't NHL players.



    Which gives them the luxury of CJ cutting them some slack, something which Bourque hadn't earned or wasn't afforded. The slack is tightening on Kelly & Peverly though.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rufus604. Show Rufus604's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Making room for Clowe, Iginla or Ryan Smyth?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Rufus604's comment:

    Making room for Clowe, Iginla or Ryan Smyth?




    No, making room for Pandolpho. At least in the short run. Defensively responsible, blah blah blah.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Seems like the right move.

    That said, anyone else scratching their heads about how this kid just went from the top PP unit to waivers in about a game or two?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Not really.  He was given a chance to find a role as a PP specialist.  He was okay, but not good enough to be considered part of the PP solution (side note: the Bruins PP% has jumped considerably in the last week - and they've lost the last two).  It wasn't like he was there because he was so good Julien had to put him on the PP.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Not really.  He was given a chance to find a role as a PP specialist.  He was okay, but not good enough to be considered part of the PP solution (side note: the Bruins PP% has jumped considerably in the last week - and they've lost the last two).  It wasn't like he was there because he was so good Julien had to put him on the PP.




    Seems a little too guardrail to guardrail to me.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Just think of it as Bourque pulling off to the left shoulder - it happens that way sometimes.  Give him one last, best chance to show what he can do witth the best offensive conditions and if he doesn't convince you he can make a differernce, then there's no point in easing him back down and out.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Just think of it as Bourque pulling off to the left shoulder - it happens that way sometimes.  Give him one last, best chance to show what he can do witth the best offensive conditions and if he doesn't convince you he can make a differernce, then there's no point in easing him back down and out.



    Exactly Book. This way CJ knows he gave Bourque every possible chance to succeed under the most favourable of conditions. This way gives him and PC the peace of mind of knowing that it's unlikely they are making a mistake.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    I don't think he'll get claimed. I don't know what's next for him, though - the Bruins gave him an honest shot on a line with two pretty solid pros and also gave him some time on the PP. The results weren't there.

    Those who have been blaming the third line's struggles on him won't be able to much longer. We'll have a period of "well, it's not like Pandolfo..." and then maybe "Caron was never..." but eventually Kelly and Peverley have to figure it out.  They're the veterans.  Can't blame the rookie and the old guy forever.

    PAULICA, like they say about firing the coach, you can only replace so many players....  And Kelly and Peverley can point to much better track records in the past to suggest that this is a slump, not proof that they aren't NHL players.




    He's not going to get claimed.

    If he can't make it here, he won't make it anywhere.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    San- I thought if he was claimed on waivers he had to play in the show ?



    Book, thinking of his baseball fantasy draft, got it right, Chris would have to go through re-entry waivers by the team claiming him. If he does not get claimed Providence powerplay looks all the better again.

    LoL@OrrtheBest

    You could say the same about Burlington product sitting too much SE but he is kinda used to it. Julien loves his "Whitfield-esque" to be ready. Snark

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Seems like it should be about putting the team in the best position to be successful over giving a career AHL'r a prime chance to succeed. 

    So was CB on the PP because he was the best guy for the job or because they wanted afford him every opportunity?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Seems like it should be about putting the team in the best position to be successful over giving a career AHL'r a prime chance to succeed. 

    So was CB on the PP because he was the best guy for the job or because they wanted afford him every opportunity?




    I think it was a combination Crowls. Bourque was a PP guy in the minors so they hoped it would translate to the NHL. I've no doubt that Bourque looked better at it in practice than he did when we were unlucky enough to see him at game speed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kitchener. Show kitchener's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    Waive Pandolfo and keep Bourque would've been my move, if you want to bring Caron or Spooner up. No way does he make it through waivers , AHL teams needing a point per game playmaker will snap him up.



    If your not going to play him ,then it's not fair to him to be sitting in the press box watching,just don't think he is an NHL Player,but does well in AHL,hopefully he won't get claimed,so he can play in Providence,I agree Pandolfo isn't the answer,Bruins don't need another defensive forward

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    If he gets hot in Prov, he would have to pass through "re-entry" waivers to be called up again?

    Correct?

    I dont like that rule.  It would disadvantge Bourque for no reason.  Every team passed (when he was sent down), therefore, the Bruins should be able to call him up without concern.

    I dont know the purpose of that rule, but I would submit that it hurts the player it is supposed to be protecting.  He may not get called up due to it.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from kitchener. Show kitchener's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    If he gets hot in Prov, he would have to pass through "re-entry" waivers to be called up again?

    Correct?

    I dont like that rule.  It would disadvantge Bourque for no reason.  Every team passed (when he was sent down), therefore, the Bruins should be able to call him up without concern.

    I dont know the purpose of that rule, but I would submit that it hurts the player it is supposed to be protecting.  He may not get called up due to it.



    Yeah it seems kind of stupid to me to

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Not to worry, he will never be called back up anyway....

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

    Seems like it should be about putting the team in the best position to be successful over giving a career AHL'r a prime chance to succeed. 

    So was CB on the PP because he was the best guy for the job or because they wanted afford him every opportunity?

     




    I think it was a combination Crowls. Bourque was a PP guy in the minors so they hoped it would translate to the NHL. I've no doubt that Bourque looked better at it in practice than he did when we were unlucky enough to see him at game speed.

     



    Fair enough.  Speaks volumes to the state of the Bruins approach on the PP.  Disarray.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    What a cheeky comment.  Hehe.  The third line is not the problem if the first line is scoring regularly.  The defense is another subject, like if you cannot score then defend....yup CJ is looking correct here.  Thanks Chris for all the hard work, ya just not cutting it.  

    In response to PAULICAS1975's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

     

    Bourque was not producing, tough break

     



    If Bourques wasnt producing and it cost him to go on waivers. Shouldnt the whole 3rd line be on waivers?

     




     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    Not to worry, he will never be called back up anyway....



    100% correct. You'll see Caron or Spooner first.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    If he gets hot in Prov, he would have to pass through "re-entry" waivers to be called up again?

    Correct?

    I dont like that rule.  It would disadvantge Bourque for no reason.  Every team passed (when he was sent down), therefore, the Bruins should be able to call him up without concern.

    I dont know the purpose of that rule, but I would submit that it hurts the player it is supposed to be protecting.  He may not get called up due to it.

     




    The new CBA eliminated re-entry waivers. Drew, I thought of you when I saw CB was waived. I distinctly remembered you asking how I could even dare to suggest that Bourque be exposed on the wire. I think his 1 way deal for next season makes him less attractive as a pickup. He had his chances. Time for someone else to get a look. I sincerely wish him well regardless of whether or not he stays in the organization.

     http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/nhl-waiver-rules-explained/

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    Why waive him?  Couldn't they have sent him and a second round pick to Ottawa for Alfredsson?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Bourque placed on waivers

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Why waive him?  Couldn't they have sent him and a second round pick to Ottawa for Alfredsson?



    Lol

     

Share