Chiarelli's last stand?

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

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand? : You expected a much greater return(Horton/Campbell) for Wideman and the 19th pick?
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    For 4 million on Horton and the sell job from Chiarelli, yes.  I didn't expect Lucic and Marchand to be potting more goals.

    The deal itself was fine. 

    I was more talking about Horton.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand? : No, no. I am talking about the year before when they backed into the 8th spot and showed promise for the 2008/2009 season when they eventually ran roughshod, again, mostly because of Thomas's Vezina play.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    I'll say that everyone played up to their potential that year(rather than overachieved).I'm a glass half-full kind of guy.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]BB, it's a shame that nobody agrees with you here, but what's more, nobody has the time or patience to go back and forth with you over the same simple stuff. We've both said our piece and this has gone on way longer than it should have.  See ya.  Go B's.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    Umm, the only ones going back and forth are the ones with the homer goggles on.

    I didn't ask for you to agree or pretend what I have written here is somehow not accurate.

    Agree to disagree. You and others are the ones who don't like saying the facts written on the board, apparently.

    I asked this before, but I'll ask you directly since I don't think you answered it the other day (if you did, my mistake):

    How much time are you going to Chia/Julien?   2012?  2015? 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand? : I'll say that everyone played up to their potential that year(rather than overachieved).I'm a glass half-full kind of guy.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    When they got the 8th seed?  I guess. I chalked it up to a lack of talent, but more heart trying to qualify.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand? : Umm, the only ones going back and forth are the ones with the homer goggles on. I didn't ask for you to agree or pretend what I have written here is somehow not accurate. Agree to disagree. You and others are the ones who don't like saying the facts written on the board, apparently. I asked this before, but I'll ask you directly since I don't think you answered it the other day (if you did, my mistake): How much time are you going to Chia/Julien?   2012?  2015? 
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    I'm willing to give both as much time as it takes for a more viable option to come along.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    Well, at least you answered it.  

    I give them until next season, and if no Cup, one of them goes, most likely Julien first.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand? : Not true. I said he's been better than O'Connell.  I think his drafts are very spotty, if not questionable. It's a good thing he fleeced Burke on the Kessel botch, because just a year later he was telling us how great his draft pick was. Someone posted a thread here recently showing the return he got on trades and I agree he has done well there. Very well. But, you can't do it in just on area. It all has to be good (drafts, trades and allocation of funds). He's good at one of these things, in my opinion. I am not enamored with Ryder, Ference or the return on Horton so far. I feel he's overpaid or overrated these players, which then causes him to scramble around every year trying to patch the holes. Part of the issue is how bad it was. O'Connell was so bad out of the Lock Out, anything better than that seems great.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    How long have you been reading posts in this forum?  I ask, because in my case I don't view those as overpayments anymore due to Bookboy.  Consider Ference, for instance.  I thought it was too much for him, too, but if you actually look at contracts around the league (which Bookboy did and posted) rather than go by what you think players are worth, you find that he was given pretty much the going rate for a player of Ference's background.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    Ok, fair point.  I get that, but it's the GM's job to not follow a market trend like a Ference type and then pay off of that, but not necessarily match another team's Ference type.

    I mean, Ference is a 5th defenseman. Do we agree there?

    The player is worth what you think he is worth based on the system, maybe someone who is close enough to being as good as a Ference, but you can't just cave in either.  This is where I sort of think his player agent days get in the way.

    You pay going forward in a cap league, not back.

    I am not saying Ference's contract is so awful, but wouldn't you rather have Mark Stuart here over Ference?

    In other words, they could have walked away from Ference and now still had Stuart. 

    It's not like Ference brings much more than McQuaid or Boychuk. Kampfer was a nice add.

    Just one example.

    Then, the other two examples are obviously Ryder and then Horton. Can you imagine if Thomas wasn't playing lights out this year for some reason?

    That would be another elephant in the room on top of Ryder and Horton. 

    It's great TT has gotten better as he's gotten older, but that was still a dangerous contract for a goalie that old.

    Good move, but a risk.
     
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    Everything is about risk.  I think the justification (at least in his head) that Chiarelli had with both Ryder and Horton is that they looked like they should be good matches for Savard.  Ryder, for whatever reason, didn't work out.  That was a big risk that never panned, but if Ryder had been really awful he could have been sent to the AHL.  Sadly, we may never find out if Savard and Horton would have worked out.

    As for Stuart vs Ference, straight-up I would take Ference.  I think, overall, he brings more to the table.  For Ference at $2.25M or Stuart at $1.675M, I think it is a toss-up.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:[QUOTE] There is nothing cliched about the importance of the GM in the cap era. Nothing. What Theo Epstein does with an easier playing field, Danny Ainge having success or someone like Belichick who understands value and hot allocate funding correctly, drafting, etc, Chiarelli hasn't proven this yet in this town. In other words, we haven't seen the results.  Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    So Epstien won with Dan Duquette's talent, Belichick (your spelling not mine) won with Parcell's drafting and Ainge won with Pitino's talent. You certainly don't understand the caps are different from league to league and you did wonder over from another board(s).

    Typical....bring up the Thornton trade, bring up the last cup in 1972, bring up how cheap Jacobs is, how ornery Sinden was, compare the other GMs in Boston to Chiarelli apples and oranges cliche wonderer of other boards on this site.

    Go Yets!, Go Yets!, Go Yets!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    That's how you spell Belichick, dude.

    1. Belichick won with some of Bobby Grier's draft picks. Sure. All the veterans that were still in NE in 2000 that stayed on board were Grier's.

    A few were probably Parcells, but make no mistake, Belichick has mastered the art of balancing a payroll under a cap.  I'd compare him to a Holland or Lamiorello in the NHL.

    2. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, Belichick had his own great drafts which helped complement the rest of the roster.  He was executive of the year in one of those seasons, if i am not mistaken.

    As for Duqutte/Esptein, the FA signing of Pedro and Manny and ther fleece job of Seattle when he dealt Slocumb for Derek Lowe and Varitek were great.

    But, short of that, the smaller moves and draft picks proved to seal the deal when Theo arrived.

    But, that's not a cap situation. I was more pointing to the methodical approach with salary allocation

    His worst moves were Rentaria, Lugo and to some degree Drew and also Matsuzaka in terms of overpaying, but again, no cap. He has some wiggle room.


    My point with Epstein is he's calculating, knows what he wants and is aggressive.  Chia doesn't show he knows what he wants outside of his odd love affair with Kaberle. We'll see if he's right there.

    Ainge was unique in that he duped people into thinking his chips were legit, so he got lucky and showed he'd take the risk of putting the pressure on himself for those moves.  I give credit for Chiarelli getting back good return on his trades, so we'll see if he's cashed them in well here or not.

    You could equate the Kaberle move to Ainge getting Ray Allen. It's that kind of a potential impact here. We'll see.

    And admittedly it's easier to build an NBA team than it is an NHL team under a cap.  Yes.

    All I am saying is, some will need to put Chia on the spot because he's the guy who has had the car keys here.  No one else.

    I don't want to see the usually inevitable Lucic or Horton dealt headline because "they just didn't fit for our future" lines in the upcoming seasons.

    I think you are incredbily shortsighted thinking the GM is irrelevant in a cap league.

    Also, not sure what the "go Yets" line means.  I hate the Jets and I am making fun of their 4th overall pick in the 2009 draft.

    That should have been pretty clear considering the hilarity of this photo.

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

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]Everything is about risk.  I think the justification (at least in his head) that Chiarelli had with both Ryder and Horton is that they looked like they should be good matches for Savard.  Ryder, for whatever reason, didn't work out.  That was a big risk that never panned, but if Ryder had been really awful he could have been sent to the AHL.  Sadly, we may never find out if Savard and Horton would have worked out. As for Stuart vs Ference, straight-up I would take Ference.  I think, overall, he brings more to the table.  For Ference at $2.25M or Stuart at $1.675M, I think it is a toss-up.  
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]

    That's cool. We just disagree on that one.

    I would have preferred Stuart based on invested time, him being younger and more phsyical and cheaper.




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

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]At least I know what a paragraph is. When you converse with someone off this board, do you just rattle off a few words or do you use sentences and breaks in between each topic with a paragraph? Quite frankly, I could care less who agrees with me or not. It's my opinion. There is nothing cliched about the importance of the GM in the cap era. Nothing. What Theo Epstein does with an easier playing field, Danny Ainge having success or someone like Belichick who understands value and hot allocate funding correctly, drafting, etc, Chiarelli hasn't proven this yet in this town. In other words, we haven't seen the results. According to fans like you, it's a can't miss recipe, right? There, 6 paragraphs, 7 if you count this sentence.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    What? Please don't compare leagues. Each has different caps (Baseball non existent) and revenue streams. If you consider the facts, the Boston Bruins have been spending to the limit each year since the advent of the new CBA. 

    The Delaware North organization has built a garden without public support unlike many other NHL organizations in North America.  The Celtics are tenants.  So, if Jacobs decides not to send a player like Schaeffer to the minors and do a buy out, he was just being prudent.  

    The current management team has made choices including the coaching staff to build the Boston Bruins into contenders. Look at the number of teams who have reached the second round of the playoffs in the past 5 years.  This year the Bs are legitimate Stanley Cup contenders with the recent trades.

    The team still has a number of excellent young players on the Bs and in the pipeline from the AHL, Canadian juniors and US colleges and universities.  Up until recently most publications rate their young prospects as tops in the NHL by comparison to other teams.

    Many have written to make you understand that your argument is not valid.  The Boston Bruins are contenders in a time of parity and no real dynasties. The jury is not out on Chiarelli any more.  He has made his mark.  The Stanley Cup would be the best of congratulations. 

    Lastly, writing in a paragraphs keeps the topic under one thought.  The topic sentence is the first sentence.  The following sentences are supportive sentences. The last sentence if necessary is either a conclusion or it is a transition to the next paragraph.  If one was to have a conversation in a public area on these subjects one of two things would happen. One the conversation would not be long for yes people don't usually speak in length on one subject unless at work. Two people will have a long conversation that fully explains their point of view like one would write a well constructed paragraph. So writing in long paragraphs is to make a point.  Spaces between sentences only makes the reading easier.

    You seem like a good fan.  Why do you think many are bothering to spell out their views here?  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]The Boston Bruins are contenders in a time of parity and no real dynasties. The jury is not out on Chiarelli any more.  He has made his mark.  The Stanley Cup would be the best of congratulations.   
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]

    The dynasties are/were Det and NJ.  There is parity, but it's also more difficult to build a winner.

    Hence, why my premise was formed.  A top notch GM is needed to win.  Chiarelli is not a winner. Not yet anyway.

    I find it awfully bizarre that you are more interested in the Bruins farm system or recent trade reactions v.s the result of seeing a Cup in Boston again. I don't get it. It's like you are more interested in other team's accolades of some good trades that MAY bring a Cup here, but actually seeing it happen is irrelevant.

    In my opinion, Chia has parred some holes, but he needs to have these moves justified as birdies, in order to win the round. 

    That's about as close to a metaphor as I can get. You are sold, I am not.


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

    Re: Chiarelli's last stand?

    In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chiarelli's last stand? : The dynasties are/were Det and NJ.  There is parity, but it's also more difficult to build a winner. Hence, why my premise was formed.  A top notch GM is needed to win.  Chiarelli is not a winner. Not yet anyway. I find it awfully bizarre that you are more interested in the Bruins farm system or recent trade reactions v.s the result of seeing a Cup in Boston again. I don't get it. It's like you are more interested in other team's accolades of some good trades that MAY bring a Cup here, but actually seeing it happen is irrelevant. In my opinion, Chia has parred some holes, but he needs to have these moves justified as birdies, in order to win the round.  That's about as close to a metaphor as I can get. You are sold, I am not.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    I will agree to disagree, just remember there are degrees in the two poles of thinking regarding Chiarelli. I think they are a lot more closer this year.  You want proof like winning a Cup. We are not far off in thinking me thinks. 

    As for the farm system etc., the only way to stay cap compliant in the New NHL is to have an influx of young players who are considered to be top notch hockey players.  Chiarelli is exceling at that while building a team. Detriot is the only team that has been really been able to do that in the last several years.  It is not bizarre to think that is a positive.  I had for a motto under my avatar for quite a while labeled, "Give me the Cup".  I would like to see Patrice Bergeron skate around the ice with it in his hands.  

    Oh btw, I dislike the ownership immensely, I dislike CJ's adherence to postional defensive hockey, Ryder is getting on my nerves like Wideman and imo Neely needs to be a force in the front office.   Constructive criticsim means one has to think of deficencies in the team play and yes negativity.  

    Keep posting.  Cheers!  Go Bruins! 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share