The Solution

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Solution

    In Response to Re: The Solution:
    if it doesn't affect you why do you continually bring it up(flyers)? it's obviously something that affected your life, if your still talking about it a year later.you are bipolar my friend. if i remember correctly a week or two ago you had plenty of positive things to say about the bruins(they won 7 in a row). now that they lost a few, this team and the coaches are terrible. thats called being a fair weather fan. i am no homer, just someone that enjoys watching nhl hockey, and the bruins are the team i'm pulling for. by the way of the 3 pro sports teams i root for none have won in my time being a fan....i am 36 years old and not at all bitter because of it. why? it's entertainment- and it has zero affect on my life- take a lesson    
    Posted by adkbeesfan



    Come on Adk....first of all, aren't we all Bruins fans here? (save for the obvious trolls.) But you can't have it both ways, i.e.  accusing BB of letting the Bruins losing affect his life, etc., when the question could then be asked: why are YOU so bent out of shape about what HE THINKS of the Bruins? If you take watching the Bruins to be nothing more than "entertainment", as you claim, then why would you bother getting steamed about what another fan thinks or posts on a forum? Why read what's on this forum at all?

    Bottom line is BB is expressing as a fan some criticisms of the Bruins, and you can either agree or disagree with those assessments--that's what forums like this are for...but what's not fair is to just tell people who express a negative point of view to get lost or get over it or claim that they're not "real fans" because of it.

    Being a real fan means following the team and hoping (cheering) they do well until the last whistle blows....but calling out the franchise for having not won a Cup in 40 years, and closer to the point, having not gotten out of round 2 since 1992...hey, that's just asking for improvement from those in charge and those WHO CHARGE quite a bit of money to see the team (both in person and via your cable bill should you choose to get NESN).

    yes, in the end there is no real intrinsic value to cheering for a winning hockey team vs. a losing one. In fact, there's no intrinsic value in watching sports at all...and while my life (what's important in it anyway) is not directly affected by the firtunes of the Bruins, the games are more pleasing--and thus valuable on some level--to watch if the team is doing well and striving toward the ultimate goal: the Stanley Cup. Otherwise, whu keep score or even HAVE the playoffs?

    Give those of us who are critical of this franchise a break. We want to see them win, but that doesn't mean we should be slammed every time we complain about their efforts and ability to do so.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: The Solution

    nothing positive has ever been achieved by being negative. that's my point. if something affected my life so negatively...i would change it.  to say you'll start rooting for the team when they make the finals is not being "a fan"- it's being a "fair weather fan".... period. i'm out on this one, some are happier when they are unhappy. nothing can change that  

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

    Re: The Solution

    In Response to Re: The Solution:
    nothing positive has ever been achieved by being negative. that's my point. if something affected my life so negatively...i would change it.  to say you'll start rooting for the team when they make the finals is not being "a fan"- it's being a "fair weather fan".... period. i'm out on this one, some are happier when they are unhappy. nothing can change that  
    Posted by adkbeesfan


    OK, look, I don't want to beat the dead horse either, but at least speaking for myself--I am NOT saying I'll "start rooting for the team only when they win the Cup"....I root for them every year and have since I was 5, no matter how heartbreaking the losses.

    and if nothing positive ever came from being negative, why would you post such negative and nasty exchanges w/BB or anyone else? Your comments to him have not exactly been glowing w/sunshine. (Altho' i should let him speak for himself, so I'll step aside at this point as well.)

    I'll just say Go Bruins! To sign off, and here's to hoping they can break the losing skid tonight.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: The Solution

    right on... go B's
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: The Solution

    In Response to Re: The Solution:
    Finally, for the fans who think cap leagues and their ideologies vary so much they can't be compared, you are flat out incorrect. I already mentioned basketball being easier, the NFL being the most difficult. But, that means the NHL is somewhere in between. You need a goalie, a #1 D Man and a #1 Center. From there, you fill in the roster and they main key is the allocation of funds. Clearly, this is vital. Not debatable.   The allocation of the money is absolutely crucial and this is the connection between ANY cap league, especially ones with larger rosters like the NFL and the NHL.Posted by BBReigns


    Incorrect cap ceilings different, farm systems different, scouting different, players associations different, collective bargaining agreements different, drafting different, waivers (how it's constituted different) etc. too many to list VERY DEBATABLE.

    So again for anyone to say that Chiarelli should be having the same success as Ainge, Belichick and Epstien need to come again. Ainge inherited Pierce, Belichick had all the great drafting already done by Parcells and Theo had Pedro, Manny, Varitek, Nomar and Lowe in house when he got the BoSox I say again can't compare to Chiarelli starting from scratch.

    As you said the mess Sinden and MOC left PC was much worse than your comparisons. You say Sweet Lou took 7 years but are giving Chiarelli 5 years double standards at it's best.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: The Solution

    I like the pieces Chiarelli has assembled in short order.  It wasn't that long ago the Bruins were a rag-tag team and organization that would test even the most staunch supporter's faith. 

    Clearly, winning the Cup is bloody tough and I'd like to think under PC's guidance, they'll continue to make strides towards winning it.  I have no idea what a reasonable mandate is for the tenure of Bruin management in building a championship club.  When they win it, then we'll know. 
     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Solution

    Doesn't the NFL lack guaranteed contracts?  Or has that changed?  I think that contract restructuring is a huge get-out-of-jail card that the NHL lacks, that makes it more difficult to deal with its cap.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: The Solution

    I'll agree with with you that Chiarelli is on the hot seat next season if the Bs are one n done or the Bruins blow a lead in the 2nd round without injuries.

    You have to admit BB that PC has done real good considering what he was left with in your comparisons to Ainge, Belichick's and Theos successes. Having your team in the top three in the conference and maintaining a top ten pick TOs and the Wild's 2nd rounder for the draft is pretty impressive No ?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Solution

    I'd prefer Chiarelli get the Bruins a cup in 2011 a 5 year plan but can we at least agree that PC should be given as many years as Lou Lam ?
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Solution

    In Response to Re: The Solution:
    In Response to Re: The Solution : why would you only count the original 6?  besides the leafs, the kings, stars, blues, sabres, and canucks have all had a longer stanley cup drought than the b's. i don't know what being an original 6 team has to do with it.
    Posted by goodnewsbears


    What ipot means is of the original six core clubs that comprised the old six team NHL, pre-1967 expansion, only the Leafs have gone longer than the Bruins in winning a championship.  He's right.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Solution

    In Response to Re: The Solution:
    In Response to Re: The Solution : i know what he meant.  but the other teams have still had a longer cup drought than the b's. it's not like being an original 6 team entitles you to more cup wins. there are 30 teams now and of those 30, six have had a longer cup drought than the b's.
    Posted by goodnewsbears


    True enough in your facts on those clubs mentioned having gone longer than the Bruins in winning in that they've yet to win one.  It makes me wonder how the Leaf and Bruin organizations can rationalize the likes of the Pens, Anaheim, Canes, TB, Avs, NJ, the Flames, Edmonton, the Isles dynasty and Philly, all entering the league years after them yet having won in the meantime. 

    Absolutely, there is no entitlement (perhaps outside of Montreal) that designates an original six team having more titles but as ipot said //After the Leafs, there's the Bs in droughts, just counting The Original Six//  Cheers!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TryToBearIt. Show TryToBearIt's posts

    Re: The Solution

    In Response to Re: The Solution:
    In Response to Re: The Solution : TTBI - It's pointless and useless to debate with these people.  I completely get where you're coming from.  The real debate is about the psychology of fandom and the various types of "fans" that exist.  There are: 1. those who exist to be critical of the team because they LOVE the team and 2.  those who exist to simply be critical of "those who are critical of the team." See?  it's a no win proposition.  You want a Cup.  I want a Cup. Just one.  I have very very vague memories of '72.  I was a tyke.  So, I simply want to see a Cup raised in my lifetime in which I'm old enough to truly appreciate it. After the Leafs, there's the Bs in droughts, just counting The Original Six.
    Posted by ipot


    Couldn't agree more, Ipot.

    I want to see the Bruins win ONE Stanley Cup....that's all I need, b/c a) I know how hard it is in hockey to do it at all and b) this franchise for whatever reason has become Red Sox-ian (pre 2004) in its ability to grab defeat from the jaws of victory and c) I was all of 5 years old in 1972 and I really didn't know the significance of what winning the Cup meant (altho' I did already have a #4 T-shirt that I wore every time the older kids on the block let me play street hockey with them).

    I just don't see how being critical of your team makes you any less of a fan as long as you follow them and watch regardless. A bandwagon fan is one who never pays attention and couldn't tell you who half the players on the roster are until they're in the Finals and suddenly they're waving towels around. I can't stand people like that, but I aint one of them and I know you're not either.

    The burden of proof is still on this organization, and I totally get what you mean about the Original 6 thing. Much as I wanted the Hawks to beat the Flyers last year (b/c I hate only the Habs more than the Flyers), I was a little bummed as well b/c it meant Chicago was eliminated from its position as the #1 Original 6 franchise to have gone longest w/out a Cup (1961). Now only the Leafs            (1967) stand in Boston's way of that dubious dishonor.

    This is why I never buy it when people say "Oh, what about Buffalo and Vancouver and Washington and the Sharks--they've NEVER won a Cup. So F---ing what? Those teams don't have a legacy dating back to the 1920's to uphold. The Bruins do. It's supposed to mean something more to play for the franchise that ince employed Eddie Shore and Dit Clapper and Milt Schmidt and #4 and Espo and Bourque and Neely.

    The Bruins have but 5 Cups in their long history. It's time for another, and it doesn't make you any less of a fan to say you;re sick of waiting.

    Go Bruins!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The Solution

    Comparative capology:  I don't think the NHL has enough history under the cap for us to really know for sure, but I think it's tougher to manage than the NFL's.  BBR suggests it's tougher because there are more players to sign to a roster, but some of the guys on the roster are buried on the bench.  You'll go more than a few games without those players having any impact on a game.  You want them to have some ability, because they're your injury replacements and special teamers, but how much does player 34-54 really make to play six plays a game?  If that.  Every player but the backup goalie on an NHL teams Cap plays enough to have an impact - positive or negative - on every game.  You can try to skimp on the third D pairing or hire a cheap backup goalie who will play the Oilers, Islanders, and Senators, but that will eventually bite you in the arz.

    The NFL has get out of stupid cards.  Yes, some players are guaranteed money, and when that's the case, the penalty for buying them out is onerous, but contracts can also be restructured and players can be cut summarily if the money isn't guaranteed.  There are outs on bad deals.  The NHL gives you some relief, but not much in the general scheme of things.

    The NFL drafts men.  The NHL drafts boys.  In both leagues, you have to draft well to manage the cap.  The NFL does itself no favours with the rookie pay scale, but if you can draft contributors from round 2 on, you can manage your cap.  The NHL does itself no favours with its rookie bonus system that lets you carry a rookie's bonus over to the next year's cap, especially when that bonus is as much as 3x the base salary of the player.  In the NHL, one or two players a year from rounds 3 on will be impact contributors at some point of their careers.  In the NFL, good teams get contributions from rounds 3-5 out of the box.

    In the NFL, trades are very very rare because the parts are less important than the cohesion of whole units.  Free Agents are busts as often as not as a Haynesworth struggles in a new situation, so lead weight contracts are getting pretty rare - except Jawalrus Russell style rookie deals.

    I think it's true that the NFL is the harder league to build a dynasty, and yeah, that's where a guy like Belichick really earns his rep.  In the NHL, you can carry a team founded on Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, etc. for years on end, but the turnover in the NFL won't let you get away with that.  Guys drafted at 23 start to see the end by 30.  But overall, I think the NHL's cap is more difficult to manage.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Solution

    Does anyone really read all the stuff that guy writes? ^^^^^
     
Sections
Shortcuts