Bruins Off-Season Thread

[YanksHater213]

I wanted TT back, but the years and amount irked me. If they signed it on the assumption that he's going to be the same goalie as last year for the duration of the contract, it's fine with me providing he plays that part. If he slips and regresses, it wouldn't surprise me one bit, and it's a bad signing.

 

I like Timmy, and don't blame him for getting that much. Instead of hating on the signing I'll sit here and hope he can play worth the value of his contract.

[Dojji]

I find it funny people are still defending the TT signing.

 

I find it funny anyone has a problem with it.

[TheKilo]

I find it funny anyone has a problem with it.

 

What's the upside to it?

[Dojji]

A cup.

[Cityofchampions33]

I'm with Dojji on this one. You build from the net out, which is why I wouldn't have been surprised at the Kessel for Kabs trade, or if we sacrifice Kessel for a puck moving defenseman. As much as I'm psyched for Rask, Thomas is a much more stable and proven tender to lead this team in it's cup aspirations, and can help be the team's backbone as we ease Rask into his future starting role. You say you want Clemmenson, he was more than likely a product of the terrific NJ trap system. Habby only saves you a mill, and you pay for that mill in a lesser talent and less consistency. Also, if we had Habby, you probably play Rask a bit more, and guess what? That probably gives him a better chance to reach his bonuses, so then you save less than a mill.

[TheKilo]

You don't build from the net out. Ask the Red Wings if they build from the net out.

[Dutchy]

You don't build from the net out. Ask the Red Wings if they build from the net out.

 

Tim Thomas is God.

[Cityofchampions33]

You don't build from the net out. Ask the Red Wings if they build from the net out.

 

Ask the Red Wings if they won this year. But even still, Lidstrom? Rafalski? Chelios? Kronwall? Please even I'd do decently as that team's goalie.

 

Fluery, Giguere, Ward, Habby, Brodeur, Hasek, Roy. Those are the other goalies besides Osgood to win a Cup in recent years, YOU NEED GREAT GOALTENDING.

[Dutchy]

Ask the Red Wings if they won this year. But even still, Lidstrom? Rafalski? Chelios? Kronwall? Please even I'd do decently as that team's goalie.

 

Fluery, Giguere, Ward, Habby, Brodeur, Hasek, Roy. Those are the other goalies besides Osgood to win a Cup in recent years, YOU NEED GREAT GOALTENDING.

 

Yeah, trying to win without good goaltending is like trying to win without good starting pitching. It's possible your that team plays well and steals the series but it makes things a lot more difficult.

[Dojji]

Indeed, and I'd like to think we've learned our lesson from Raycroft and Toivonen.

 

To recap that lesson: a stud goaltender and a stud goaltending prospect are not the same thing

 

See: Price, Carey.

[Dutchy]

Indeed, and I'd like to think we've learned our lesson from Raycroft and Toivonen.

 

To recap that lesson: a stud goaltender and a stud goaltending prospect are not the same thing

 

See: Price, Carey.

 

:lol:

 

What a mental midget.

[Dojji]

Point is we've had enough trouble finding a decent goaltender that once we have one dropped in our laps by little more than dumb luck, no one should be in too much of a hurry to throw ourselves back into the lap of chance.

[Dutchy]

Point is we've had enough trouble finding a decent goaltender that once we have one dropped in our laps by little more than dumb luck' date=' no one should be in too much of a hurry to throw ourselves back into the lap of chance.[/quote']

 

I agree. We had the best goaltender in hockey last year. What are the chances, even the best of goaltending prospects would be able to do that?

[Dojji]

Not too bloody great, Duchy. Not too bloody great. We're lucky as heck that Tim Thomas decided to be aonce-a-generation story on this team and that he got the chance to do it -- remember at the stard of the 2006 season everyone was presuming Toivonen's career in Boston would stretch well into the next decade. And in fact, it's only AFTER he wins the Vezina that he'll start his first year secure in his position as the starting goaltender.

 

Thomas had every excuse to fail, except he didn't, and a good thing for Boston -- If he hadn't become the dominator between the pipes he is today, we don't make the playoffs in 07 and we suire as heck aren't the first seed last year.

 

Rask won't suffer from a few years behind the big guy picking up the lessons Thomas had to work to earn that will come far more naturally to the Finn. I'm no judge of hockey talent, but it seems to me that having an amazing worker like Thomas mentoring an amazing talent like Rask can only be a good thing for Rask's development.

[TheKilo]

Ask the Red Wings if they won this year. But even still, Lidstrom? Rafalski? Chelios? Kronwall? Please even I'd do decently as that team's goalie.

 

Fluery, Giguere, Ward, Habby, Brodeur, Hasek, Roy. Those are the other goalies besides Osgood to win a Cup in recent years, YOU NEED GREAT GOALTENDING.

 

You don't need great goaltending. You need to be above average in all facets of the game to win it all.

 

Fleury is not a great goaltender. He's above average and just so happened to have two of the best offensive players in the game play on the same team as he did.

 

Ward is not a great goaltender - Carolina's style of play is what brought them their success. Ditto the Red Wings - they are the deepest team in hockey and their puck possession style of play makes them successful regardless of who is in net.

 

I'm not knocking Thomas, though I don't see how you can call him a GREAT goaltender - he's a good goalie who's being paid like a great one. He's getting older and his style of play will not age well.

 

When the cap goes down in a few years Bruins fans are going to regret spending over 10% of the cap on Timmy. The wasted space his contract takes up will kill our depth, which we can all agree was our strong point this season.

 

Chiarelli better hope some of these prospects pan out.

[TheKilo]

I agree. We had the best goaltender in hockey last year. What are the chances' date=' even the best of goaltending prospects would be able to do that?[/quote']

 

How much credit goes to Thomas and how much credit goes to the defensive depth of this team (having the Norris winner in front of you doesn't hurt either)

 

Not too bloody great' date=' Duchy. Not too bloody great. We're lucky as heck that Tim Thomas decided to be aonce-a-generation story on this team and that he got the chance to do it -- remember at the stard of the 2006 season everyone was presuming Toivonen's career in Boston would stretch well into the next decade. And in fact, it's only AFTER he wins the Vezina that he'll start his first year secure in his position as the starting goaltender.[/quote']

 

Toivonen was never the same after his ankle injury.

 

Thomas had every excuse to fail, except he didn't, and a good thing for Boston -- If he hadn't become the dominator between the pipes he is today, we don't make the playoffs in 07 and we suire as heck aren't the first seed last year.

 

Um, what? What round did the Bruins lose in this season?

 

Seems like a failure to me.

 

Rask won't suffer from a few years behind the big guy picking up the lessons Thomas had to work to earn that will come far more naturally to the Finn. I'm no judge of hockey talent, but it seems to me that having an amazing worker like Thomas mentoring an amazing talent like Rask can only be a good thing for Rask's development.

 

And having a guy who makes excuse after excuse won't be good for Rask's development.

 

Rask is ready to take over. By giving Timmy four more years as the starting goalie, the Bruins have hamstrung the team's cap space as well as Rask's development.

[Dojji]

How much credit goes to Thomas and how much credit goes to the defensive depth of this team (having the Norris winner in front of you doesn't hurt either)

 

Quite a bit, but not all. We've had enough goaltenders who simply couldn't do the job that we should appreciate the guys that do.

 

You could also ask whether Thomas in net helped the defense, too, allowing them to play more within themselves and trust that most of what gets past them will be stopped. You don't win a Vezina without more than enough talent of your own, regardless of what the defense does.

 

 

 

 

 

Toivonen was never the same after his ankle injury.

 

Even if I give you this, which is probably the case, there's nothing sacred about Rask's ankle, and we have no depth at goaltender. One more reason to keep TT around. if it can be avoided with a little planning I'd like to not have our season imperiled by one lone injury.

 

 

Um, what? What round did the Bruins lose in this season?

 

Seems like a failure to me.

 

That's because you're a spoiled, spoiled fan.

 

 

And having a guy who makes excuse after excuse won't be good for Rask's development.

 

The devil are you talking about? I'm not even sure which particular brand of lunacy this is so I can't respond to it properly.

 

Rask is ready to take over.

 

So the 5 NHL games he's played count as convincing evidence of this to you? Remember, Price had much more than that, and so did Toivonen and Raycroft. I refer you to the lesson a couple posts back. A stud goaltending prospect and a stud goaltender are not the same thing.

 

We're in the running for a cup for at least next year and probably the year after. We'd be insane to pin our cup hopes on an unproven rookie when we have a reasonable alternative.

By giving Timmy four more years as the starting goalie, the Bruins have hamstrung the team's cap space as well as Rask's development.

 

Cap space I could buy as an argument, except the Bruins so far have had little trouble getting the players they want. I doubt they'd have much trouble making room for Kessel once his price comes down far enough to suit them either. The problem here is that if you get really optimistic here and you make Rask the starter and he dominates, he also reaches his bonus incentives so you're really only saving about 1.6M or so of cap hit. that's not enough to be worth taking the risk on the single most important position in hockey.

 

As for development, this is actually developmentally ideal for a young goaltender. Takes all the pressure off him, and when Thomas goes he'll be what, 26? I'm not convinced playing second fiddle to guy who's learned some lessons Rask could stand to benefit from is anything but a very, very good thing for his development. And besides, you know Thomas' usage patterns as well as I do. Rask will be getting about one start in 3

[TheKilo]

How many times do I have to say it?

 

Thomas earned his money, the Bruins shouldn't have paid him because it will hamstring their depth.

 

As for the spoiled fan comment, any season in whcih you are the top seed in your conference and you lose a Game 7 on home ice to a clearly inferior team is a failure.

 

Sugarcoat it however you want. the Bruins failed last season.

[Dojji]

So finishing first in a season when everyone pegged them to finish 4th or lower, and sweeping the Habs in their centennial year, these mean nothing?

 

Spoiled.

[BoSox21]

Prospects are never a sure thing but the chances of Rask taking the puck and running with it are probably greater than the chances of Thomas being effective and living up to his salary for the next four years.

 

sweeping the Habs in their centennial year

 

trust me, that's far from an accomplishment

[Cityofchampions33]

You don't need great goaltending. You need to be above average in all facets of the game to win it all.

 

Fleury is not a great goaltender. He's above average and just so happened to have two of the best offensive players in the game play on the same team as he did.

 

Ward is not a great goaltender - Carolina's style of play is what brought them their success. Ditto the Red Wings - they are the deepest team in hockey and their puck possession style of play makes them successful regardless of who is in net.

 

I'm not knocking Thomas, though I don't see how you can call him a GREAT goaltender - he's a good goalie who's being paid like a great one. He's getting older and his style of play will not age well.

 

When the cap goes down in a few years Bruins fans are going to regret spending over 10% of the cap on Timmy. The wasted space his contract takes up will kill our depth, which we can all agree was our strong point this season.

 

Chiarelli better hope some of these prospects pan out.

You're speaking the obvious when you say you need to be 'above-average in all facets of the game', that's a pretty basic point if you want to contend. But you are more likely to succeed with better goaltending and defense than a stellar offense, though it helps.

Fleury, while I understand is overrated, is still a very very good goalie, and is only going to improve at his age. And if you're suggesting getting the two best superstars on the planet instead of a great goaltender is a better cup formula all teams should follow, then yes I agree, but something tells me that's not easy to come by.

Ward I like even better, and you can't credit that to their style of play, because they're not that great defensively to begin with. He stole a few games in the Bs series, Devils series and already stood on his head during their Cup winning run, not to mention I'm just a sucker for his smooth style of play.

Okay, so that's two goalies on the list of seven that I named, and I take that since you didn't critique the rest of them, you don't exactly mind them. There's a reason you hear of a goalie stealing a series, and not just one player. The Goaltender position is the most important in hockey, so don't you think you should have your best player at that position?

 

I do understand what you're saying, it is a handcuffing contract, especially since the cap hit stays no matter if we buy him out. But who's to say we don't trade him after 2 years or even after this year and let Rask take over? I think that's the only way this deal makes sense, unless we don't think Rask can cut it, because we can't expect him to sit and play backup for 4 years. Bottom line is one of them has to go within the next two years, and my money's on Thomas. But for now, we have once again one of the best tandems in hockey. Because Thomas is an elite NHL goaltender, you can say maybe in 4 years he won't be, but you cannot deny that about this year, and especially last year.

[Dojji]

I don't think that contract will be difficult to move when Rask is more definitely ready. It's roughly market value for an above average goaltender, and by the time we're ready to move him there'll only be a year or two left on the deal.

[BoSox21]

I don't think that contract will be difficult to move when Rask is more definitely ready. It's roughly market value for an above average goaltender' date=' and by the time we're ready to move him there'll only be a year or two left on the deal.[/quote']

 

then you clearly aren't aware at how much the salary cap will drop next season

[rician blast]

I've read conflicting reports regarding a buyout option in Thomas' contract.

 

Apparently the B's can buy him out at any time and cut their $ commitment by one-third, spreading those payments over the remainign term of the deal.

 

One report I read indicated that the cap hit would be reduced if the buyout happens. However a more recent article I read indicates Thomas contract is considered a 35+ contract and that the B's are saddled with his cap hit even if Thomas retires or is bought out.

 

If there is a significant potential cap savings by way of buyout (which was my initial understanding) I like the deal. If not? Very questionable.

 

The brief article that concerns me:

http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2009/4/5/824026/tim-thomas-new-deal-will-be

[schillingouttheks]

So finishing first in a season when everyone pegged them to finish 4th or lower, and sweeping the Habs in their centennial year, these mean nothing?

 

Spoiled.

 

lol, how the hell can a Bruins fan of our age POSSIBLY be spoiled? The Bruins had a team capable of winning the cup, and they didn't. Failure.

 

He's spoiled because he's upset that Boston, who hasn't won a cup since 1972, had one of the best teams in hockey last year, was the 1st seed in the Eastern Conference, and lost in the 2nd round to the Carolina f***in' Hurricanes?

 

Doesn't sound spoiled to me. It's great they finished 1st and took out the Habs... that's all microscopic compared to what the Bruins should have accomplished.

[Dojji]

then you clearly aren't aware at how much the salary cap will drop next season

 

Neither are you. everything we hear is speculation up until the cap is actually set. everyone thought the cap was going down THIS year too, it's just something we hear that gets leaked out regularly by the owners to scare players into taking smaller contracts.

 

I highly doubt the players union is ever going to permit the cap to ACTUALLY go down significantly. Personally I think the whole cap structure is doomed anyway, too many important franchises to the NHL have already been screwed over by it.

[BoSox21]

even if the cap stays the same, its a bad contract that limits payroll flexibility

[Dojji]

Because payroll flexibility is more important than stability between the pipes. Got it.

[BoSox21]

you are not gonna get stability between the pipes from a guy who's gonna make 5 mil until he's 40. you're gonna get groin injuries and declining performance. you're also gonna stifle the development of one of hockey's top goaltending prospects

[Dojji]

How exactly does sharing time with Thomas stifle Rask's development? I see this line thrown out by a lot of people who hate the contract but everyone who does, throws that out as if it's a given. I mean, does anyone here REALLY think that they signed Thomas with no regard for Rask's development? Really?

 

Rask is not a typical backup who might play once a week. He'll get into the lineup on a pretty regular basis as long as he's performing reasonably well, and instead of slowing down and getting hurt more often, I'm pretty sure this team just plans to rest Thomas more and let Rask play more as the contract goes on. It'll probably play out that rask gets playing time as he earns it.