Tyler Myers

[Weave]

It was the first step in changing the direction of the franchise.

 

This is the key phrase right here.

 

I'm not suggesting that moving Myers is the kind of change that this franchise might need to put them over the top, but sometimes even elite level players get moved because the direction of the franchise needs to be changed. If we could get an elite level forward (especially center) and needed to move Myers to do it, I don't think it would be a bad move. Do I want them to move Myers? Of course not. But if that's what it took to bring in the next Pat LaFontaine, and you have defensive depth and talent, you make the move.

 

And keep in mind, Myers is not elite level yet. And it is certainly possible that he may never become elite level. If you have the chance to obtain an elite level player but you have to give up a player with the potential to be elite, it makes sense to roll the dice and make the trade. Myers appears to be headed towards a long and successful career, but elite level play isn't a given for him. At least not yet. Depending upon the cercumstances (of course), an exchange of him for an elite level player may very well be a good exchange.

[Andrew Amerk]

I think you are wrong yet again.

 

Good teams build around a star or superstar (however you define those terms). Washington: Ovechkin Pittsburgh: Crosby Detroit: Datsyuk/Lidstrom Vancouver: Sedins/Kesler San Jose: Thornton LA: Kopitar/Doughty Tampa: Stamkos

 

These players are not for sale and for a good reason.

 

When the Sabres came into the NHL Imlach knew they needed a rock upon which to build their team. He traded for Crozier to provide that stability. By the time Crozier was ready to retire Perreault was the star and centerpiece of the team.

 

Good teams don't trade their centerpiece stars. None of the above players are or will be available in the near future. They build around them instead. So no, everyone on the Sabres should not be trade bait. The last time I recall a centerpiece player being traded was Thornton from Boston to SJ and Boston immediately felt the impact of that mistake.

 

Right now the biggest star we have is Miller. We need to build around him, not consider him trade bait for yet another Dman, even if it is Weber. He is our rock and we need to cultivate future stars around him. We can build our future teams around those stars. But now we're still in the building stage and need to proceed cautiously until we see exactly how the pieces we have fit together as a team.

 

Future construction of a Stanley Cup Champion can begin from that assessment.

 

This is mostly true, except for the fact that Gretzky was traded. If he can be traded, anyone can. Shortly after him, messier was traded. Patrick Roy was traded.

 

The Sabres were trying to build around Turgeon, and traded him for Lafontaine.

[SabresFan526]

Trading Tyler Myers is not in and of itself a bad thing depending on the return you get. For example, if the trade is a blockbuster and involves a guy like Stamkos, Duchene, Tavares, Kopitar, or some other elite centerman in the NHL, then you do the trade. If you are trading Tyler Myers for the sake of trading him because you hope it will return something (e.g. salary cap space or a bunch of mediocre players/picks), then it's a trade that makes no sense.

 

As it relates to Thornton, let's establish that the trade in and of itself was absolutely horrible. The trade was done by Mike O'Connell who was subsequently fired. While O'Connell drafted Bergeron and Krejci who were important parts of the Bruins team that won the Cup, Peter Chiarelli basically put this entire team together not O'Connell. O'Connell brought Tim Thomas to the U.S., but Chiarelli re-signed him and kept him to be the key cog. Chiarelli signed Chara (whom he had known when they were both in Ottawa). While Chiarelli was not allowed to join the Bruins for the draft, it was not O'Connell's administration that drafted Milan Lucic nor Brad Marchand. Chiarelli brought Chara, Savard (little impact on the Cup Team), Recchi, Seidenberg, McQuaid, Horton, Paille, Campbell, Seguin (through the Phil Kessel trade he made), Ryder, Peverley (in the Blake Wheeler deal he made), Chris Kelly, Kaberle, Boychuk, Ference, Shawn Thornton, and even Tuuka Rask. Out of a standard 20-23 man roster, Chiarelli brought 16 of the players to the current Stanley Cup Champion Bruins. So, let's not pretend that the Thornton trade or the GM who made the Thornton trade in any way shape or form had any impact on this Bruins team that won the Cup. This is especially the case when you consider two of the major pieces involved in the trade for Joe Thornton were Brad Stuart and Wayne Primeau and both of whom were later traded to Calgary to get Chuck Kobasew and Andrew Ference. So, the net of the Thornton trade got them Andrew Ference, Marco Sturm who had no impact on the Bruins team, and Chuck Kobasew who left as a free agent. Peter Chiarelli put this team together and won this Stanley Cup, not the Thornton trade and none of the remnants of the Thornton trade aside from Andrew Ference had any impact on this Bruins team winning the Stanley Cup.

 

Aside from that, like I said before, if a trade for Myers is there to improve the team, you look at it. But, let's not think the Joe Thornton trade in any way shape or form impacted the Bruins team that won the Stanley Cup because the GMs were two different guys and the current GM brought about 16-17 of the 23 players that were on the Boston Bruins team that won the Stanley Cup.

[Bullwinkle]

Pittsburgh, Detroit and Vancouver are built around one star or superstar? Have you seen their rosters?

 

Did you also say that Perreault was handed the mantle of "star and centerpiece of the team" from Roger Crozier? Perreault was the "centerpiece" and "star" of the franchise once Clarence Campbell finally confirmed the results of "The Spin of The Wheel."

 

The Bruins traded Thornton then picked up Chara in the off-season! :doh: I say that roster move worked out pretty damn well.

 

We'll see about Miller this season. No excuses!

 

All you're doing is proving my point.

 

You begin with a centerpiece, build around it, and soon you have many stars. IOW a Stanley Cup team. Detroit has many stars, so does Vancouver and Pittsburgh. They all followed the model I outlined.

 

Perreault was a young kid with star potential when he came into the league. He quickly proved his worth since he was older than the kids of the entry draft today. So yes, Crozier was the linchpin of the team and in short order Perreault became the major star. Imlach knew you had to build from the goalie out.

 

Letting go of Thornton was a mistake - I believe even Boston fans will admit that. Chara is not part of this discussion since he was not the centerpiece of Ottawa's team when traded. "duh"

[Bullwinkle]

That "mistake" turned out so bad for the Bruins that they hoisted the Stanley Cup this year.

 

San Jose has been a consistently underachieving playoff performer w/ said centerpiece player.

 

Now, which team made the mistake?

 

Boston made the mistake. SJ has been on the verge of a Cup for a few years now. They just can't put the ball over the goal line to use a football analogy. But they've come damned close. And as a team they have outperformed Boston these past few seasons, and with the exception of this year, in the playoffs too.

 

Boston is one of the weakest teams in recent times to win the Cup. They came within one OT goal of getting eliminated in the 1st round. You're not going to claim that letting go of Thornton enabled them to win the Cup this year, are you?

 

BTW, look for SJ to win it this coming season.

[Bullwinkle]

It was the first step in changing the direction of the franchise.

 

How much "pain" did they really feel?

 

Missed playoffs in 2006-07.

 

Made the playoffs and lost in game 7 against the Habs in 2007-08.

 

Won the Conference and lost in the second round in game seven against the Canes in 2008-09.

 

Made the playoffs and lost to the Flyers in seven games in the 2009-10 second round.

 

2010-11 they won the Stanley Cup.

 

One year of missed playoffs and a Stanley Cup since they dumped Thornton and picked up Chara. I'm not seeing a lot of pain there.

 

Here is the point: They HAD to restructure the team and its direction BECAUSE OF the Thornton trade. I don't believe they traded him thinking that they had to overhaul the team and trading their top player was the first step in doing that. That makes no sense at all.

 

What happened after the trade wasn't because of the trade, but despite it.

[Bullwinkle]

This is mostly true, except for the fact that Gretzky was traded. If he can be traded, anyone can. Shortly after him, messier was traded. Patrick Roy was traded.

 

The Sabres were trying to build around Turgeon, and traded him for Lafontaine.

 

The Gretzky trade is another case in point. What happened to Edmonton following that? Of course I know that Messier was also traded along with Fuhr, etc. So they lost all of their top stars and faded into obscurity.

 

The Sabres were trying to build around Turgeon (IMO they should have taken Shanahan in the draft instead), but it soon became obvious that Turgeon wasn't going to be the second incarnation of Perreault so they made a smart move in trading him for a proven superstar. Trading one centerpiece for another works too.

[Taro T]

This is the key phrase right here.

 

I'm not suggesting that moving Myers is the kind of change that this franchise might need to put them over the top, but sometimes even elite level players get moved because the direction of the franchise needs to be changed. If we could get an elite level forward (especially center) and needed to move Myers to do it, I don't think it would be a bad move. Do I want them to move Myers? Of course not. But if that's what it took to bring in the next Pat LaFontaine, and you have defensive depth and talent, you make the move.

 

And keep in mind, Myers is not elite level yet. And it is certainly possible that he may never become elite level. If you have the chance to obtain an elite level player but you have to give up a player with the potential to be elite, it makes sense to roll the dice and make the trade. Myers appears to be headed towards a long and successful career, but elite level play isn't a given for him. At least not yet. Depending upon the cercumstances (of course), an exchange of him for an elite level player may very well be a good exchange.

IIRC, the Isles traded an up and coming D-man (plus a couple of other assets) for an 'elite' Hart candidate center. How'd that work out?

 

Please don't take this as a post stating that the Sabres absolutely should not trade Myers away; if the right deal is there, I'm all for it. But there are trades available that will look great on paper (to those that don't pay attention to intangibles - and I am not even remotely implying that you are one of those) but in reality will set the team back several year. There are only a handful of players that I'd be happy seeing Myers leaving the Sabres for.

 

Boston made the mistake. SJ has been on the verge of a Cup for a few years now. They just can't put the ball over the goal line to use a football analogy. But they've come damned close. And as a team they have outperformed Boston these past few seasons, and with the exception of this year, in the playoffs too.

 

Boston is one of the weakest teams in recent times to win the Cup. They came within one OT goal of getting eliminated in the 1st round. You're not going to claim that letting go of Thornton enabled them to win the Cup this year, are you?

 

BTW, look for SJ to win it this coming season.

Joe Thornton's Bruins got their butts handed to them by a much weaker Habs squad. Captain Joe scored a grand total of ZERO points in that series and was a mere -6. (OK, it took 7 games for Moe-ray-all to win, but that's still embarassing.) But, but, he was injured. OK, fine, he was injured, what's his excuse the last 7 years?

 

The Snarks had had 3 of 4 seasons with at least 95 points prior to bringing the wonderful Joe T to town, and had been in the Semi-finals the season prior to bringing him in. You know, the year that Joe's Bruins finished 2nd in the east and lost to a bad Habs squad in the 1st round. How much better have they fared, when it counts in the playoffs, since then?

 

If you honestly believe the Snarks will win it all this year, I've got a signature bridge to Canada to sell you.

 

And had the Sabres been allowed to finish Game 6 in the last playoff game played in the 1900's, there was a D*MN good chance that they'd have been THE weakest team to win a Stanley Cup in the last 40 years. (Well, arguably 2nd weakest, the Bolts did win right before the lockout. :doh:) You know what, I'd have still been bawling my eyes out at the parade. Try to tell a Bruin fan that their win doesn't measure up to a 'real' winner. They'll tell you to fauk y'self. And they'd be right.

[Andrew Amerk]

The Gretzky trade is another case in point. What happened to Edmonton following that? Of course I know that Messier was also traded along with Fuhr, etc. So they lost all of their top stars and faded into obscurity.

 

The Sabres were trying to build around Turgeon (IMO they should have taken Shanahan in the draft instead), but it soon became obvious that Turgeon wasn't going to be the second incarnation of Perreault so they made a smart move in trading him for a proven superstar. Trading one centerpiece for another works too.

 

Turgeon was a solid pick. Definately a good trade for Patty later on. Sakic is the one they missed out on though.

 

I think Theo Fleury was a low pick in that draft too, something like 7th round?

[Taro T]

The Gretzky trade is another case in point. What happened to Edmonton following that? Of course I know that Messier was also traded along with Fuhr, etc. So they lost all of their top stars and faded into obscurity.

 

The Sabres were trying to build around Turgeon (IMO they should have taken Shanahan in the draft instead), but it soon became obvious that Turgeon wasn't going to be the second incarnation of Perreault so they made a smart move in trading him for a proven superstar. Trading one centerpiece for another works too.

They won the ###### Stanley Cup.

 

That's why Messier has his name on the Stanley Cup 6 times (5 w/ Edmonton and 1 w/ the Strangers) and Gretzky only has his name on it 4 times.

 

And if you were honestly suggesting they should have taken Shanny rather than Stinky Pete, you are a savant, as EVERYBODY had Pete as the consensus #1 that year. (Similar to the year Lindros came out. I suppose you were advocating for the Nords grabbing Neidermeyer that year as well. <_< )

[Andrew Amerk]

They won the ###### Stanley Cup.

 

That's why Messier has his name on the Stanley Cup 6 times (5 w/ Edmonton and 1 w/ the Strangers) and Gretzky only has his name on it 4 times.

 

And if you were honestly suggesting they should have taken Shanny rather than Stinky Pete, you are a savant, as EVERYBODY had Pete as the consensus #1 that year. (Similar to the year Lindros came out. I suppose you were advocating for the Nords grabbing Neidermeyer that year as well. <_< )

 

It is interesting that the Oilers got Carson from the Gretzky trade then flipped him to Detroit. THOSE moves are what got Messier his 5th cup.

[SabresFan526]

That "mistake" turned out so bad for the Bruins that they hoisted the Stanley Cup this year.

 

 

It was the first step in changing the direction of the franchise.

 

 

Joe Thornton's Bruins got their butts handed to them by a much weaker Habs squad. Captain Joe scored a grand total of ZERO points in that series and was a mere -6. (OK, it took 7 games for Moe-ray-all to win, but that's still embarassing.) But, but, he was injured. OK, fine, he was injured, what's his excuse the last 7 years?

 

The Snarks had had 3 of 4 seasons with at least 95 points prior to bringing the wonderful Joe T to town, and had been in the Semi-finals the season prior to bringing him in. You know, the year that Joe's Bruins finished 2nd in the east and lost to a bad Habs squad in the 1st round. How much better have they fared, when it counts in the playoffs, since then?

 

If you honestly believe the Snarks will win it all this year, I've got a signature bridge to Canada to sell you.

 

There are quite a few flaws in the logic here and some facts seem to be overlooked in this discussion about Joe Thornton. The notion that the trade of Joe Thornton somehow turned the Bruins into a Stanley Cup Champion is completely flawed. Implicit in that thought process is that series of events caused by the Joe Thornton trade led to this phenomenon. If that were the case, that would imply that the GM who originally made the trade of Joe Thornton had a plan in place, knew exactly what he was doing, and fully anticipated he would put a Stanley Cup Contender together in exactly 5 years. The problem with this logic is that the GM that made the Joe Thornton trade was fired at the end of the season and had absolutely nothing to do with the team that won the Stanley Cup five years later.

 

Mike O'Connell traded away Joe Thornton, NOT Peter Chiarelli, the GM of the Bruins from 2006-present. Yes, the very same Mike O'Connell that was unable to re-sign Michael Nylander, Sergei Gonchar, Brian Rolston, Mike Knuble, Sean O'Donnell, all of whom were very important players in the team that lost the series against Montreal. The same Mike O'Connell who let Bill Guerin walk to Dallas in free agency.

 

Peter Chiarelli put this team together and was involved in the acquisition of 16-17 of the 20-23 players that were part of this Boston team that won the Stanley Cup. The fundamental change in the direction of the Boston Bruins took place the day they hired Peter Chiarelli as their GM. It had absolutely nothing to do with the trade of Joe Thornton. Especially when you consider the fact the players involved in the Joe Thornton trade were subsequently traded, left via free agency, or had absolutely no impact on this past season's Boston Bruins.

 

Even though San Jose has done nothing and never has done anything in their history of a franchise in the playoffs before or after the Joe Thornton trade does not mean the trade worked out well for Boston. What worked out well for Boston was firing Mike O'Connell, the GM that traded Joe Thornton away, and hiring Peter Chiarelli to be their GM and who put a team together that won the Stanley Cup in 5 years since beginning his tenure as GM. The analogy here is like saying (not to jinx the hockey gods), if the Sabres were to win the Stanley Cup this year, it was because they were smart enough not to re-sign Chris Drury and Daniel Briere as July 1, 2007 was the day in which the franchise changed directions and since that time Chris Drury has retired from the NHL after 4 subpar years with the Rangers and Daniel Briere has been to the Stanley Cup finals with Philly, but has not won it. By the way, it would also be the same 5 years that it took for Peter Chiarelli to complete rebuild the franchise if Darcy were successful in 2012 (not to say it will happen, but I think you get the point). The point here being, making a bad deal or a poor personnel decision is not causally related to success or failure later on with a different GM, different coach, different set of players, or different ownership group (as in the Sabres example).

[Taro T]

It is interesting that the Oilers got Carson from the Gretzky trade then flipped him to Detroit. THOSE moves are what got Messier his 5th cup.

Eh, call me crazy, but I think Messier had a little bit to do w/ it. ;)

 

And while Klima did score the OT winner that set the tone for the rest of the finals; in fairness, had Carson had his butt glued to the bench during regulation, he might have scored that goal as well. (Yes, yes, I know Murphy was actually useful to the Oilers, but still ...)

[Andrew Amerk]

Eh, call me crazy, but I think Messier had a little bit to do w/ it. ;)

 

And while Klima did score the OT winner that set the tone for the rest of the finals; in fairness, had Carson had his butt glued to the bench during regulation, he might have scored that goal as well. (Yes, yes, I know Murphy was actually useful to the Oilers, but still ...)

 

Sorry, just not a Messier fan. He seems like a dick.

[Taro T]

There are quite a few flaws in the logic here and some facts seem to be overlooked in this discussion about Joe Thornton. The notion that the trade of Joe Thornton somehow turned the Bruins into a Stanley Cup Champion is completely flawed. Implicit in that thought process is that series of events caused by the Joe Thornton trade led to this phenomenon. If that were the case, that would imply that the GM who originally made the trade of Joe Thornton had a plan in place, knew exactly what he was doing, and fully anticipated he would put a Stanley Cup Contender together in exactly 5 years. The problem with this logic is that the GM that made the Joe Thornton trade was fired at the end of the season and had absolutely nothing to do with the team that won the Stanley Cup five years later.

 

Mike O'Connell traded away Joe Thornton, NOT Peter Chiarelli, the GM of the Bruins from 2006-present. Yes, the very same Mike O'Connell that was unable to re-sign Michael Nylander, Sergei Gonchar, Brian Rolston, Mike Knuble, Sean O'Donnell, all of whom were very important players in the team that lost the 7 game series against Montreal. The same Mike O'Connell who let Bill Guerin walk to Dallas in free agency.

 

Peter Chiarelli put this team together and was involved in the acquisition of 16-17 of the 20-23 players that were part of this Boston team that won the Stanley Cup. The fundamental change in the direction of the Boston Bruins took place the day they hired Peter Chiarelli as their GM. It had absolutely nothing to do with the trade of Joe Thornton. Especially when you consider the fact the players involved in the Joe Thornton trade were subsequently traded, left via free agency, or had absolutely no impact on this past season's Boston Bruins.

 

Even though San Jose has done nothing and never has done anything in their history of a franchise in the playoffs before or after the Joe Thornton trade does not mean the trade worked out well for Boston. What worked out well for Boston was firing Mike O'Connell, the GM that traded Joe Thornton away, and hiring Peter Chiarelli to be their GM and who put a team together that won the Stanley Cup in 5 years since beginning his tenure as GM. The analogy here is like saying (not to jinx the hockey gods), if the Sabres were to win the Stanley Cup this year, it was because they were smart enough not to re-sign Chris Drury and Daniel Briere as July 1, 2007 was the day in which the franchise changed directions and since that time Chris Drury has retired from the NHL after 4 subpar years with the Rangers and Daniel Briere has been to the Stanley Cup finals with Philly, but has not won it. By the way, it would also be the same 5 years that it took for Peter Chiarelli to complete rebuild the franchise if Darcy were successful in 2012 (not to say it will happen, but I think you get the point). The point here being, making a bad deal or a poor personnel decision is not causally related to success or failure later on with a different GM, different coach, different set of players, or different ownership group (as in the Sabres example).

Um, actually, you are making 1 reading comprehension / logic flaw. I never claimed that getting rid of Thornton, in and of itself, put the B's over the top. I have claimed, contrary to Rocky's best bud, that Thornton won't put the Snarks over the top. I would state, though, that had Thornton still been w/ the B's that they would NOT have won the SC (this year or any other that he was on the roster). Thornton will not win the Stanley Cup if he has a 1st line center role. Not having Thornton does not in and of itself make another team a Stanley Cup winner. But, it does give them a shot.

 

And you are making 1 other flaw in identifying the key player in the Bruins heirarchy. Harry Sinden is and has been a major player in all their decisions. If you think that he doesn't buy off on ALL moves, I've got a 5 year $5.3MM/ year deal for you to endorse for Captain Courageous.

 

Sorry, just not a Messier fan. He seems like a dick.

He quite likely is. And he earns the lion's share of ruining the chant '1940, 1940, 1940, ... .'

 

I'd suggest he owns a lion's share of that 5th engraving as well.

[Andrew Amerk]

Um, actually, you are making 1 reading comprehension / logic flaw. I never claimed that getting rid of Thornton, in and of itself, put the B's over the top. I have claimed, contrary to Rocky's best bud, that Thornton won't put the Snarks over the top. I would state, though, that had Thornton still been w/ the B's that they would NOT have won the SC (this year or any other that he was on the roster). Thornton will not win the Stanley Cup if he has a 1st line center role. Not having Thornton does not in and of itself make another team a Stanley Cup winner. But, it does give them a shot.

 

And you are making 1 other flaw in identifying the key player in the Bruins heirarchy. Harry Sinden is and has been a major player in all their decisions. If you think that he doesn't buy off on ALL moves, I've got a 5 year $5.3MM/ year deal for you to endorse for Captain Courageous.

 

 

He quite likely is. And he earns the lion's share of ruining the chant '1940, 1940, 1940, ... .'

 

I'd suggest he owns a lion's share of that 5th engraving as well.

 

I guess what I will say, for the hope of inspiring arguments, is that those Oilers and Rangers would have won the Cups without him. (messier)

[Taro T]

I guess what I will say, for the hope of inspiring arguments, is that those Oilers and Rangers would have won the Cups without him.

The Eulers, possibly. I doubt it, but it is possible.

 

The Strangers, no ###### way they win without him. They don't even get past the Devils without him. And my favorite sports chant of all time lives on to this day in that case. ;)

[Andrew Amerk]

The Eulers, possibly. I doubt it, but it is possible.

 

The Strangers, no ###### way they win without him. They don't even get past the Devils without him. And my favorite sports chant of all time lives on to this day in that case. ;)

 

It's debatable. Those rangers were led in offense by Zubov that year, and Leetch was in the top 4 of scoring. I think their D is what got them past Nj and got the cup. Messier was obviously a factor, but I dont think he is what put them over the top. Richter was.

[SabresFan526]

Um, actually, you are making 1 reading comprehension / logic flaw. I never claimed that getting rid of Thornton, in and of itself, put the B's over the top. I have claimed, contrary to Rocky's best bud, that Thornton won't put the Snarks over the top. I would state, though, that had Thornton still been w/ the B's that they would NOT have won the SC (this year or any other that he was on the roster). Thornton will not win the Stanley Cup if he has a 1st line center role. Not having Thornton does not in and of itself make another team a Stanley Cup winner. But, it does give them a shot.

 

And you are making 1 other flaw in identifying the key player in the Bruins heirarchy. Harry Sinden is and has been a major player in all their decisions. If you think that he doesn't buy off on ALL moves, I've got a 5 year $5.3MM/ year deal for you to endorse for Captain Courageous.

That's fine, and I don't take issue with any of this, especially what you say about Thornton as a player (in fact I agree). My issue is with saying that trading Thornton wasn't a mistake. It was a bad trade no matter how you look at it. The result of winning the Stanley Cup with a different GM and President (Cam Neely) does not justify the trade being a good one. When Chiarelli turns over 75% of the roster within 5 years, he's basically starting from scratch and anything the previous regime did had no impact on his strategy at that point.

 

As for the players in the organization, it appears to me from what I am reading that Sinden is an Advisor to the owner. I have no idea what that means, but I don't really believe he's all that involved in personnel decisions anymore. I would imagine Chiarelli with the sign off of Cam Neely is really in charge of all personnel decisions right now. If you are referring to Sinden's involvement during the O'Connell era and the trade of Joe Thornton, I would not dispute that claim.

 

Again, if the Sabres were to win a Stanley Cup this upcoming season (not to jinx the hockey gods), it does not mean that it was not a mistake to let Drury and Briere go. It was still a mistake just like the trade of Thornton and what they received in that trade was a bad trade in and of itself.

[Taro T]

It's debatable. Those rangers were led in offense by Zubov that year, and Leetch was in the top 4 of scoring. I think their D is what got them past Nj and got the cup. Messier was obviously a factor, but I dont think he is what put them over the top. Richter was.

What's debatable? Strangers down 3 games to 2 and appearing to pull their typical choke job. Messier guarantees a win in game 6 and nets a hat trick in a game the Strangers were losing before he took over.

 

Eh, you're probably right, Richter was the real leader of that team. <_<

 

That's fine, and I don't take issue with any of this, especially what you say about Thornton as a player (in fact I agree). My issue is with saying that trading Thornton wasn't a mistake. It was a bad trade no matter how you look at it. The result of winning the Stanley Cup with a different GM and President (Cam Neely) does not justify the trade being a good one. When Chiarelli turns over 75% of the roster within 5 years, he's basically starting from scratch and anything the previous regime did had no impact on his strategy at that point.

 

As for the players in the organization, it appears to me from what I am reading that Sinden is an Advisor to the owner. I have no idea what that means, but I don't really believe he's all that involved in personnel decisions anymore. I would imagine Chiarelli with the sign off of Cam Neely is really in charge of all personnel decisions right now. If you are referring to Sinden's involvement during the O'Connell era and the trade of Joe Thornton, I would not dispute that claim.

 

Again, if the Sabres were to win a Stanley Cup this upcoming season (not to jinx the hockey gods), it does not mean that it was not a mistake to let Drury and Briere go. It was still a mistake just like the trade of Thornton and what they received in that trade was a bad trade in and of itself.

I doubt anyone would state that losing BOTH Briere and Drury was anything remotely good. That does not have any relevance to the Boston Thornton situation. (An argument COULD be made that Danny's situation was similar, but I would argue it wasn't and Chris' situation was nothing like Thornton's.) But that Bruins team was NEVER going to win anything w/ Thornton leading it. And they were going to have to expend serious $'s to re-sign him. After the Moe-ray-all series, they realized that they would need a minor miracle to win anything in the post-season w/ Joe on board.

 

Could the B's have gotten a better return by putting him on the 'open' market? Probably. But what would that have done to the team (and Joe) while they were publicly shopping him?

 

Normally the team getting the 'best' player in a trade is the winner. That's not always the case. I'd argue the Isles lost the Chara - Yashin trade, even though they got the best player at the time in the deal and I'd argue that the Snarks lost the Thornton trade. They were on the verge of a Stanley Cup w/out him. They have consistently stepped back since he showed up.

 

Losing Joe didn't win the Stanley Cup for the B's, but it made it possible. For that reason alone, it was a good trade. Even though they 'technically' lost the trade. And remember, the trade was made in the salary cap era. They didn't just trade for Sturm and a couple of stiffs, they traded away a massive cap hit in the next year and several successive ones as well for Sturm and a couple of stiffs. And they traded that cap space for Chara. He might have had a bit of a role on last year's squad.

[mudberry]

So in principle I agree with you. However, if Buffalo ever wants to go to the next level, they are going to need to make some progress on the offensive side as well. If you are going to trade, trade from your strength. Amazingly right now, that appears to be defense. Without the off season moves, this move isn't thinkable. With the off season moves, you can at least entertain it.

 

IMO there are only three players on the Sabres that could be traded straight up for a first line center, they are: Miller, Vanek and Myers.

 

With Myers contract coming up, this may just be the time to consider him as bait.

 

I honestly don't expect the Sabres to do it, but it is fun contemplating it.

Maybe if Myers were pushing 30, but not when he's this young and showing this much promise. If we could get a top center or one with incredible potential that is under 25 then I would definitely listen to offers.

[deluca67]

Here is the point: They HAD to restructure the team and its direction BECAUSE OF the Thornton trade. I don't believe they traded him thinking that they had to overhaul the team and trading their top player was the first step in doing that. That makes no sense at all.

 

What happened after the trade wasn't because of the trade, but despite it.

Trading Thornton put Boston in a position to pick up Chara, to try and act like the moves are not directly related is ridiculous. The Bruins made a conscience decision to reallocate their assets.

[SwampD]

Trading Thornton put Boston in a position to pick up Chara, to try and act like the moves are not directly related is ridiculous. The Bruins made a conscience decision to reallocate their assets.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems that if trading Thorton was a conscious decision, they wouldn't have fired the guy that did it.

[nfreeman]

The Gretzky trade is another case in point. What happened to Edmonton following that? Of course I know that Messier was also traded along with Fuhr, etc. So they lost all of their top stars and faded into obscurity.

 

The Sabres were trying to build around Turgeon (IMO they should have taken Shanahan in the draft instead), but it soon became obvious that Turgeon wasn't going to be the second incarnation of Perreault so they made a smart move in trading him for a proven superstar. Trading one centerpiece for another works too.

Hmmmmmmm. Moving the goalposts again so you can claim you were right all along again?

 

In any case, as 526 very thoroughly and correctly pointed out, you are more or less correct that the Bruins' SC didn't really result from the Thornton trade. You were incorrect about Chara being traded -- he was let go as a UFA, when Ottawa made the idiotic move of keeping Redden instead of Chara. And, as Taro notes, you missed the boat on Edmonton and Gretzky.

[SabresFan526]

I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems that if trading Thorton was a conscious decision, they wouldn't have fired the guy that did it.

+100000000000000000000

 

This was my point all along. The Thornton trade and the Stanley Cup win are not causally related because the GM who made the Thornton trade was a completely different guy than the GM that put together the Stanley Cup winning team. The only pieces that Chiarelli inherited that were part of the SC Winning team were Bergeron, Krejci, and Tim Thomas. That's it. Every other player that was on the roster for this Cup Win was brought in by Chiarelli, not Mike O'Connell who made the Joe Thornton trade. The only person who could have consciously made this decision was Jeremy Jacobs having the foresight to know that by trading Joe Thornton, it allowed him to fire Mike O'Connell and coincidentally see Harry Sinden retire to become his personal advisor, so that he could hire Cam Neely as President and Peter Chiarelli as GM so that they could bring in Chara with the available salary cap space made by the Thornton trade. Jeremy Jacobs is the only person in this scenario who could have had this foresight, and I seriously doubt that he had that much foresight to consciously make these decisions at the time of the Thornton trade.

 

Also, the salary cap argument is a bit of a red herring. Remember, the offseason in which Chiarelli came on board, he signed Chara and Marc Savard (a.k.a. Joe Thornton's replacement - a playmaking center with tremendous passing skills). The net salary cap difference between Savard and Joe Thornton was about $1.7 million, so in theory, the Bruins likely could have kept Thornton and signed Chara by making moves of $1.7 million to offset the difference between Thornton's cap hit and Savard's cap hit.

 

Also, I will not dispute any claims about whether the Bruins would have won the Stanley Cup if Thornton were still there. Based on his choking in the playoffs, I don't believe they would have won with Thornton. However, the trade that was made in and of itself was not a good trade and did not lead to the Stanley Cup win 5 years later. Based on Chiarelli's trade profile in the last 5 years, if he had Thornton, I personally do not believe he would have made the same trade that O'Connell made to San Jose, and I do believe he would have traded Thornton and gotten a much better return like multiple first round picks (see Kessel, Phil) and potentially helped them win a Stanley Cup sooner. This was my point the entire time. I apologize if it was not clear, but this has been what I was trying to say all along.