Haggerty on Jacobs

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

    Re: Haggerty on Jacobs

    In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs : Posted by Mike O'Connell's cousin[/QUOTE].  Really?  This again? Do you pull this out once a year to see if it is any better received?  Sinden was nobody's puppet, MOC was an idiot (other teams lined up to snag this awesome GM because he was unjustly let go in Boston), Chiarelli was second choice, only because #1 choice Shero went to Pittsburgh (can't say I blame  him for making that choice).  PC signed with Boston the day after Shero signed with Pittsburgh.  How deep in the candidate choices did they have to go for that one?  Crazy talk.
    Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE]


    "Sinden was nobodys puppet, MOC was an idiot".........
    Posted by Cliff Clavin.

    Usually, someones second choice gets hired because the first choice went somewhere else.  I don't mean to surprise you, but most adults already get that.

    No one said MOC was unjustly let go.  You made that up.  What was implied, was that JJ insisted on letting free agents walk leading up to the lock out, not the GM.  Hardly unsubstantiated opinion.

    Some day, if you get training wheels on that Scooter, you may learn enough to discuss things logically and objectively.
    You may even learn to comprehend some fairly basic stuff. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Haggerty on Jacobs

    In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs : .  Really?  This again? Do you pull this out once a year to see if it is any better received?  Sinden was nobody's puppet, MOC was an idiot (other teams lined up to snag this awesome GM because he was unjustly let go in Boston), Chiarelli was second choice, only because #1 choice Shero went to Pittsburgh (can't say I blame  him for making that choice).  PC signed with Boston the day after Shero signed with Pittsburgh.  How deep in the candidate choices did they have to go for that one?  Crazy talk. Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE] "Sinden was nobodys puppet, MOC was an idiot"......... Posted by Cliff Clavin. Usually, someones second choice gets hired because the first choice went somewhere else.  I don't mean to surprise you, but most adults already get that. No one said MOC was unjustly let go.  You made that up.  What was implied, was that JJ insisted on letting free agents walk leading up to the lock out, not the GM.  Hardly unsubstantiated opinion. Some day, if you get training wheels on that Scooter, you may learn enough to discuss things logically and objectively. You may even learn to comprehend some fairly basic stuff. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    "JJ threw MOC under a bus, when his own meddling screwed the team post lockout." 
    Does that sound justified to you?


    "Remember too, PC wasn't anywhere close to ownerships first choice to run the show."
    Second is kinda close to first, isn't it?

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

    Re: Haggerty on Jacobs

    In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs : "Sinden was nobodys puppet, MOC was an idiot"......... Posted by Cliff Clavin. Usually, someones second choice gets hired because the first choice went somewhere else.  I don't mean to surprise you, but most adults already get that. No one said MOC was unjustly let go.  You made that up.  What was implied, was that JJ insisted on letting free agents walk leading up to the lock out, not the GM.  Hardly unsubstantiated opinion. Some day, if you get training wheels on that Scooter, you may learn enough to discuss things logically and objectively. You may even learn to comprehend some fairly basic stuff.  Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE] "JJ threw MOC under a bus, when his own meddling screwed the team post lockout."  Does that sound justified to you? "Remember too, PC wasn't anywhere close to ownerships first choice to run the show." Second is kinda close to first, isn't it? Next.
    Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE]



    1.  Yes, it's quite justified.  When an owner makes hockey decisions that profoundly affect the on ice product in a negative way, it impale's the managers ability to manage.....and to prosper.  Whether he's a good manager, or a bad, it doesn't matter.  It has the same effect on both, and there's nothing good about it.
    Many would agree....that's throwing someone under a bus.

    You've stretched my comments to suggest MOC and Sinden were reduced to "puppets".  My point is, they were in a totally different work environment in those days.  One that was not manager friendly.  A work environment that didn't give Bruin GM's nearly the autonomy they now have.  They didn't have a competitive amount of money to work with, so that defined their existance.  Because there was no monetary base line, ownership was always in the middle of hockey ops, making decisions that inflenced the on ice product.
    Most people agree JJ was a meddling owner in those days, and that reduces the contribution(good or bad) of the GM.
    That has changed, not because JJ changed, but because his baby(the cap), changed the whole dynamic.
    He's wisely taken himself out of the equation.  The cap brought the big dogs spending down to his comfort level, Not the other way around.  He's not spending more these days, just that the big boys are spending less.
    Therefore, there is no real reason for him to get involved with player salaries any more.  He pretty much "has" to spend to the cap, so increasing profits now, dictates a shift in what he focuses on.
    Many would agree with that opinion, and that elevates Boston's perception amoung would be NHL GM's.
    You seem to disagree.  That's ok, but don't delude yourself into thinking I'm the only one in the world who disagrees. 

    #2.  In the Boston Marathon, second is pretty close to first.  When hiring an NHL GM, the second choice could be the last choice, so in this instance, NO... second is a long, long way from first. 
    That's pretty basic.
    Considering the fact that the Shero hire, was made public(and the resulting embarassement of him publicly declinig the job) only makes this picture more clear.  JJ wanted Shero.  He didn't want PC.  JJ made his decision when he thought he had all of his options, and it wasn't PC. 

    I'm not writing this to bash JJ.  I've clearly stated otherwise.  Not taking anything away from PC either.  He's certainly won me over.

    My point here is to consider balance.  For decades, a fickle fan base makes JJ out to be pure evil.  I do, and always have, disagreed with that notion.
    Now, that same fan base wants to throw around all kinds of accolades, not deservedly so, but only cuz the B's win the cup.  I disagree with that too, and crediting  JJ with the PC hire, is creating a new high water mark in drawing misguided conclusions.

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

    Re: Haggerty on Jacobs

    I can't say I've ever seen someone shower accolades on JJ.  I've read many times that he spends to the cap, or, more accurately, he allows his GM and President to manage within the construct that the NHL has created.  If that's praise, then what came before must have involved fire and pitchforks to the groin.

    I don't think the Bruin management philosophy was either Harry or JJ - I think that it was based on a fundamental principle they shared, and that's why the Cryptkeeper basically staying in the mausoleum of Western NY for most of Harry's tenure.  I think it was as simple as the belief that overpaying players didn't make you more competitive, it just drove the cost of players up, so it hurt the business and the league as a whole.  You never know what might have been had they done things differently at various points in the history, but I don't know that money kept them from beating the Shabs in the 70s, and the Isles or Oilers in the 80s.  Even when they made the finals, I can't think back to one or two decisions where they went cheap on a player who could have made difference.

    Mid to late 90s, they were so depleted in terms of home-grown talent and so burned on the Kevin Stevens experiment that they'd have had to spend like the Yankees to avoid '97.  The decisions on Allison, Kristich and others look prudent in hindsight - Allison never again scored the way he did in Boston, Kristich was brutal in Toronto.  Dafoe was a disaster in Atlanta.

    The rep for cheapness was possibly more damaging to the organization than the actual decisions they made.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Haggerty on Jacobs

    In Response to Re: Haggerty on Jacobs:
    [QUOTE]I can't say I've ever seen someone shower accolades on JJ.  I've read many times that he spends to the cap, or, more accurately, he allows his GM and President to manage within the construct that the NHL has created.  If that's praise, then what came before must have involved fire and pitchforks to the groin. I don't think the Bruin management philosophy was either Harry or JJ - I think that it was based on a fundamental principle they shared, and that's why the Cryptkeeper basically staying in the mausoleum of Western NY for most of Harry's tenure.  I think it was as simple as the belief that overpaying players didn't make you more competitive, it just drove the cost of players up, so it hurt the business and the league as a whole.  You never know what might have been had they done things differently at various points in the history, but I don't know that money kept them from beating the Shabs in the 70s, and the Isles or Oilers in the 80s.  Even when they made the finals, I can't think back to one or two decisions where they went cheap on a player who could have made difference. Mid to late 90s, they were so depleted in terms of home-grown talent and so burned on the Kevin Stevens experiment that they'd have had to spend like the Yankees to avoid '97.  The decisions on Allison, Kristich and others look prudent in hindsight - Allison never again scored the way he did in Boston, Kristich was brutal in Toronto.  Dafoe was a disaster in Atlanta. The rep for cheapness was possibly more damaging to the organization than the actual decisions they made.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Your last paragraph makes an interesting point Book.  I agree with your above noted examples of prudent fiscal management.  Another one was allowing Guerin to walk.  Dallas had to be nuts on that one.  I can't think of much over the years where they erred in letting players walk.  They never appeared though, to be in on any of the really big things either.  I remember getting Nylander and Gonchar leading up to the lockout,(thought that was the most talented B's team since 72)and thought, Gee, I don't ever remember seeing this go for it attitude ever.  It seemed to suggest a new philosophy.   
    Although I agree that there was a shared principle in the folly of "overpaying" players, the most reckless spenders would also agree to that too.  Nobody wants to overpay. Ever.
    It's all opinion and semantics, but my sense is that Harry was the consumate old school hockey guy, much more than the bean counting corporate suit.  He lived to win, but his desire to be a valued employee, pay the bills, and enjoy some stability, tempered that a bit.
    Nothing wrong with that.  Most of us have needed to adapt a bit for our employer.
    I remember seeing him drenched in sweat, just standing behind the B's bench
    when he coached, and in even worse shape when he subbed in during later years.  It appeared that each loss, was literally killing him.  I remember his association with Team Canada 72.  This is a guy who bled hockey for decades.  One who disliked losing every bit as much as Cam Neely, despite the figures on any balance sheet.
    For these reasons, I don't see the hockey parallel to JJ.

    On kind of an unrelated note, I've not read a word from old "give em hell" since the Bruins won the cup.
    Have I missed something?
    Of all that's been printed and spoken since June, what could be any more entertaining, shocking, maddening, refreshing, unique and different, than an interview with this guy.  I'm surprised the media hasn't been all over it, and I'd be surprised if Harry didn't have some serious zingers to share, unless he's being paid a royalty to say nothing.  Either way, that's the kind of drama the media is usually all over.
     

Share