Re: Haggerty on Jacobs
posted at 10/12/2011 1:43 PM EDT
In Response to 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.
Posted by Bookboy007
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.