There has been a lot of consternation over the last couple of outings and even more talk about "Let's go get _____." So do we as Bruins fans (most of us) trust Chiarelli to make the right move?

Three examples of his trading style (imo) show a definite ability to add by subtracting, a tendency to find the right "smaller piece" but less so a willingness/ability to go get "the big name".

1. Adding by subtracting: Kessel is the prime example, Kobesew for Fallstrom, Weller (to FLA for Seidenberg) and a pick (Koko).

2. The smaller piece: Recchi, Kelly, Seidenberg, (Peverley?)

3. The big name: *wince* Kaberle, Horton  for Wideman and a #1(mixed review personally)

So do you trust him? Does he get a good grade as a "trading GM"?

Let's start by naming someone better and list all their deals and how it all ended up for them.

I trust PC 100% as far as trading goes, and I trust PC 90% as far as drafting goes.

I think he's made some great moves, and made some not great ones.  I truly hope he tries to address the scoring and d problems this year.  Overall, I deifnitely trust him.  All GM's make mistakes, in my opinion as far as trading goes, PC has made only a few.

In response to DaveyN's comment:

True, like most general managers he has some hits and misses. I trust he'll make a deal that will improve the team as it currently stands without compromising the future. The Kaberle deal, even looking back, I agree with it, and i don't care what anyone says, he helped that team win a cup.

The only thing with trades this year, is who will be available and for what price? If PC does not make a deal, or doesnt get the sexy player us fans drool over, might have more to do with the situation than with him.

 

It's not that simple to go out and make moves. Before they won the cup he had more trading partners, after he himself said it , hard to trade with Stanley cup champions.  That's a comment he made last season .

I'm sure he's been trying now for weeks without touching his top6 forwards or top5 D and I think the 2 reasons nothing has happened is the price is high and not many teams willing just to trade for some picks and pucks.  Not many sellers and if it remains that way even on trade deadline th asking price for trades will be high.

BTW KomisareK is on waivers and with McQuaid hurt I wouldn't have minded BUT he has 2 years left on that 4.5m conract. I doubt anyone picks him up with that baggage.

In response to BsLegion's comment:

Well said BS, and I would take Komiserek also if not for the contract. This year there will be limited players on the trade market and chances are you'll overpay for them.

There is always a problem with analyzing a GM's trading performance.  You can look at the trades he has done and evaluate them for sure, but we will likely never know what offers he made, refused, had refused, etc. 

I'd say he hasn't made any trades that clearly hurt the team, and he's had several work out quite nicely.  Beyond that, well, we probably have no choice but to trust the decisions he's made.

BTW KomisareK is on waivers and with McQuaid hurt I wouldn't have minded BUT he has 2 years left on that 4.5m conract. I doubt anyone picks him up with that baggage.

Why not claim him, keep him for the remainder of the year and then buy him out before next season??

In response to Sportsnutty's comment:

hey mr instant gratification, check your twitter account.

This post has been removed.

In response to inflamedcolon's comment:

Pick up Sarich via trade. 

absolutely. Time and again he has proven his smarts in management. One of his challenges is getting buy-in from Claude. Yes he could just do it, but, as we've heard, player changes require agreement from scouts/team/advisors and Management. Plus the 2014 cap is also a factor since it will be lower than 2013. Also, any change compares what "might be" with what allready exists. As long as they are willing to dress Thornton, any improvement will be selective. Pandolfo could sit because this schedule is more than he , or the Bruins,  expected as the injuries have impacted playing time and line formations. Also, there is still what might be called a "laziness' or "lack of consistent effort" with key players like Lucic and Horton. Peter's challenge is not a small one.

DrCC - We'll never know that Colorado once called and proposed Ryan O'Reilly for Vladimir Sobotka straight up and PC said no.  That's entirely true.  Or if the Oilers offered their next two #1 picks for Seguin so they'd have both Seguin and Hall.  Makes me wonder what deals people have proposed that died because they didn't fit Chiarelli's plan. 

Rather that success and failure of the moves he's made, I look at the approach, and I really like the approach.  He paid nothing for Rolston, Zanon and Mottau last year.  Look at the list of guys who were acquired and ask youself how many were better depth pickups than what Rolston gave the Bruins, or Zanon?  Did Chicago get farther than the Bruins for picking up Oduya?  Boychuk for Hendricks when both were AHLers was thinking ahead of the game.  He tried the same thing with McQuaid for a 5th and the only highsight on that deal is the 5th eventually became Jamie Benn.  Getting Recchi and a 2nd for two failed prospects just because the prospects were a first and second.  Then, there's getting Kelly, who was a name in the wind, and Peverley, who wasn't being talked about, when both guys still had a year on their deals.  Wheeler and Stuart were stagnant in Boston - if they weren't, then they wouldn't have needed to acquire Peverley.  And Kaberle was a high risk move that led to a high reward in spite of the play of TK.  Sometimes you make a move that reason tells you should be good and it falls dead. Horton and Campbell for Wideman and a first?  I'd do that again in a second.  Wideman hasn't been able to stick with three other teams since then.

What PC hasn't done is the cookie cutter move: identify big budget impending UFA.  Break bank to outbid others.  Pray it works.

PC has made some good trades and has not sold out the team to get big name players, but he sometimes misses the boat on some players like Rider because he is either to slow or not sure of the asking price for such players. Some of the Bruins players on their radar have been lost because of this and I have admit who are the Bruins willing to trade to upgrade this team.

 A player like Ignla could help us and the Bruins can afford a 1st round pick this season becuase of their standing and a propect is no problem but who on the roster could they give and where would Iggy play with the top 6 in tacked.

PC knows we have improve the PP and injuries prove a good D man would help the depth, but PC has some difficult decisions to make because timely scoring has also been a problem lately and the 3rd line has been down on production. This team needs a jump start and I hope PC can fix these things or we may be done sooner than later in the playoffs. The Bruins have not been playing the way they can and the 3rd line has alot to do with this because the Bruins are no longer rolling 4 good lines. PC HELP.

In response to shuperman's comment:

Two reasons why:

1- I like this guy also

2- to shut you up !!

I think Chiarelli is the best GM in the league.  He obviously has had some misses too, most notably in his drafting (you could put that on the scouts too...).  But his approach seems to take a lot of the risk out of being a GM.  It never seems like a boom or bust scenario with him.  

Compare the Bruins consistency to divisional rivals since PC has had the job -- Montreal, NYR, Philly, Toronto, Buffalo -- all of them have been up and down in a major way.  Since PC came on the job, the Bruins have been very good each year.  No rebuilds, no blockbuster gambles, no flameouts, and no missing the playoffs.  I think a GM's job is to get the team to the playoffs and prepare them for a run at the Cup.  What happens in the playoffs is largely out of their hands.  PC gets them there every year.  He keeps key veterans around and continues to infuse young talent.  It's reasonable to assume that the Bruins will continue to be a contender in the coming years.

They don't miss the playoffs, they don't rebuild, and they don't change the strategy every year.  They stay the course.  It has been a steady hand of effectiveness during his entire tenure.  He's been great.

 

For me it comes down to one question - is there a current GM that I think would be a better steward of the Bruins, given their style and culture, than PC?

For me the awnser is no.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

Made some really nice trades, but I'd have to see more out of the drafting to call him the best G.M in the league. I know it scouts play a big role in it, and they have a lesser roll in trades as well, but it ultimately falls on him.  I'd say his drafting is sub par up to this point.

In response to kelvana33's comment:

 

Made some really nice trades, but I'd have to see more out of the drafting to call him the best G.M in the league. I know it scouts play a big role in it, and they have a lesser roll in trades as well, but it ultimately falls on him.  I'd say his drafting is sub par up to this point.

 

 

Sub par ?

I'm waiting to see how some of the latest picks turn out before considering giving him a below average grade. 

 

In response to kelvana33's comment:

Yeah, I think there are a few ways to look at this.  I mean he's drafted some excellent players but for those of us who are watching closely, the best picks were kind of no-brainers like Seguin and Hamilton.  More recently, there is optimism that picks for Spooner, Camara, or Griffith could be big scores.  He's obviously struggled to draft useful defensmen, besides Hamilton.  I think his drafting has been a mixed bag, but it has the potential to look a lot better if a few guys continue to develop.  The Bruins are producing some homegrown talent.

I just think that his overall performance as GM is so good compared to his peers, that either his drafting isn't bad enough to hurt them, or his success in other areas is so strong that it doesn't matter.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

Yeah, I think there are a few ways to look at this.  I mean he's drafted some excellent players but for those of us who are watching closely, the best picks were kind of no-brainers like Seguin and Hamilton.  More recently, there is optimism that picks for Spooner, Camara, or Griffith could be big scores.  He's obviously struggled to draft useful defensmen, besides Hamilton.  I think his drafting has been a mixed bag, but it has the potential to look a lot better if a few guys continue to develop.  The Bruins are producing some homegrown talent.

 

I just think that his overall performance as GM is so good compared to his peers, that either his drafting isn't bad enough to hurt them, or his success in other areas is so strong that it doesn't matter.

[/QUOTE]

No brainers or not, the pick still had to be made. Should he be not given credit for picking the right player.

P.S. Not all BDC posters wanted Hamilton. A case of no-brained opinions ? 

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

 

In response to kelvana33's comment:

 

Made some really nice trades, but I'd have to see more out of the drafting to call him the best G.M in the league. I know it scouts play a big role in it, and they have a lesser roll in trades as well, but it ultimately falls on him.  I'd say his drafting is sub par up to this point.

 

 

Sub par ?

I'm waiting to see how some of the latest picks turn out before considering giving him a below average grade. 

 

 

I hear what your saying Chowda, but what about these picks?

 

 2007:Hamill, Cross, Reul, Goulet, Ostrcil, Knackstedt

2008: Colborne,Sauve, Hutchinson, Arniel,Tremblay,Goggin

2009: Caron,Button,MacDermid, Randall,Sexton..

Thats his draft picks from over 5 years ago. How many of those are you confident will be ready to contribute at the NHL level soon? I'm not judging him from 2010 on, but thats 17 picks from 3 consecutive drafts., I think there should have been some return by now. You?

In response to BsLegion's comment:

Yes...its win win. 

One of my first contributions to this board was to express concern with the way Chiarelli was drafting - I think it was when they picked Colborne.  It was approach that bugged me coupled with Chiarelli cleaning the scouting staff out to bring in his guys.  The guys he cleaned out had been responsible for, or at least contributed to, drafting Bergeron, Stuart, Lucic, Krecji and Marchand. 

What was the approach?  I dunno.  I think they took Hamill because he led the WHL in scoring while playing for a very D-first coach.  I think they took Caron because he was a safe, responsible player.  Then they throw caution to the winds and take a guy from the AJHL who everyone says isn't mentally tough enough to make the most of his talents.  (Colborne and Hamill are in a dead heat in AHL scoring - Hamill is 16-22-38 for two teams, Colborne 12-27-29 after one more game than Hamill).  Safe-safe-highrisk! 

Now, I agree with Chowdah (it happens).  The 2010 second rounders and the 2011 second and third rounders are a bit of a bellweather.  If Knight or Spooner contribute next year, tick the black column.  If Khokhlachev can score at the AHL level, tick the black column.  If Camara is a power winger in the AHL, tick the black.  If they all settle into .7ppg AHL careers, tick the red and tell Chiarelli it's time to roll over the scouting staff.  But firing Chiarelli for things not working out in the draft is a baby and bathwater situation. 

In response to shuperman's comment:

good sport .