Joe Thornton a Shark

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Kekkonen

He disses Aki Berg, my hometown boy. Ouch.

The brother of a friend of mine was Aki's teacher when Aki was studying plumbing in a vocational school before he was drafted. When he heard that Aki went 3rd overall, his comment was "Too bad. He's got everything it takes to be a great plumber -- big, strong, and none too bright."

(This with due apologies to plumbers everywhere. In sharp contrast to Berg, you make crap go away.)

Can you tell that guy to phone Aki and try to convince him to go back to plumbing school!

[Teddyballgame]

I'm not entirely sure on any level how this makes sense for the Bruins. The Jacobs are looking for a scapegoat (check the mirror Jeremy!) and they picked the wrong guy. And didn't get a whole bunch in return. Are you telling me that if they were insistent on trading Joe (which is stupid) that they couldn't construct something better than this? What horse****.

[Long_Long_Name]

By the way, the Bruins save a whopping 1.5mil with this deal.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

By the way, the Bruins save a whopping 1.5mil with this deal.

They were really close to the cap, or so I heard, and added two extras players... saying they only saved $1.5 Mil isn't the entire story.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

By the way, the Bruins save a whopping 1.5mil with this deal.

In the new salary cap NHL, $1.5M is whopping.

[Bluenoser]

I always find somewhat amusing how trades get judged immediately based on the potential/talent of the players involved.

Myself I like to give it due time first, due time being at least one month.

If the Bruins turn it around and start winning and the Sharks stay stagnant like thay have been, most Bruins fans will be saying this was a great move. Sharks fans won't lament much because they won't be any worse off than they were before the trade.

If the both the Bruins and the Sharks turn it around, then Bruins and Sharks fans will say this was a great move.

If the Bruins stay stagnant like thay have been and the Sharks take off, then Bruin fans will continue to scream bloody murder as they are now and Shark fans will be saying it's a great trade.

It's a no lose situation for the Sharks. For the Bruins it could be a win, it could be a loss, or it could be a no change.

Bottom line is, time is the only one who will really tell us who this was a good deal for.

My philosophy - never judge a trade on face value, wait and see what/who benfits first.

I've seen lots of trades in Pro sports where a fringe player suddenly becomes a somebody and a star suddely becomes a so so. Many things to be considered. Team chemistry, coach, coahing style, how the player and his family adapt to their new surroundings. There's a lot more to a trade than just face value.

[boilermaker]

Well the first night with the new guys seemed to work out pretty well for Boston.

Really, Stuart/Boynton as a defensive pairing is something to get excited about, if you ask me.

Ultimately, I guess Sturm will probably be filling in for Samsonov, who I guess everyone thinks is on his way out.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I've seen lots of trades in Pro sports where a fringe player suddenly becomes a somebody and a star suddely becomes a so so.

Yes, and I have a chance of hitting the lottery and becoming a millionaire. It's just not a very good one so I work for a living, which has a much higher probability of feeding and clothing me. There's no way to evaluate trades but by considering the value of the players involved, especially when a superstar like Thornton is involved. Those players are extremely rare commodities and cannot be replaced by "throw feces at the wall and see what sticks" methods of talent acquisition. If you're going to give up a player like that you need to be 100% sure that you're going to be either a) better in the meantime or b) better down the road.

The move is at best lateral in the short term for the Bruins. Given that they're a marginal playoff team at best, making a lateral short term move makes no sense. Stuart is a good defenseman that will upgrade the Bruins on that side of the puck (though you also have to consider that Thornton's unique combination of size, physicality, and athleticism allowed him to contribute more defensively than your average center so the true upgrade in that phase of the game may be less than at first glance). Sturm is a decent forward. Primeau is trash. The Bruins certainly took a huge knock offensively. Bergeron is now forced into the #1 center slot, something he's clearly not ready for.

The move is most likely disastrous in the long term. The players the Bruins got were all Thornton's age or older. If you're convinced that trading Thornton was a good idea because he never met your idea of what his potential is, then you're admitting he could get better. Stuart could get a bit better but isn't as good now and never will be as good as Thornton. Sturm is what he is. Primeau will still be trash in the future. Given that the move is lateral in the short-term, the Bruins should have at least received first round picks in the deal to get fair value.

There is no doubt in my mind that if they were convinced that Thornton was more valuable to someone else than he was to the Bruins that a more beneficial deal could have been found. The Bruins got an itchy trigger finger and dealt their biggest asset for a couple trinkets. Not only did they make an already bad team worse, they also took away their fanbase's hope for a more competitive future.

[Jestor]

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

Yes, and I have a chance of hitting the lottery and becoming a millionaire. It's just not a very good one so I work for a living, which has a much higher probability of feeding and clothing me. There's no way to evaluate trades but by considering the value of the players involved, especially when a superstar like Thornton is involved. Those players are extremely rare commodities and cannot be replaced by "throw feces at the wall and see what sticks" methods of talent acquisition. If you're going to give up a player like that you need to be 100% sure that you're going to be either a) better in the meantime or b) better down the road.

The move is at best lateral in the short term for the Bruins. Given that they're a marginal playoff team at best, making a lateral short term move makes no sense. Stuart is a good defenseman that will upgrade the Bruins on that side of the puck (though you also have to consider that Thornton's unique combination of size, physicality, and athleticism allowed him to contribute more defensively than your average center so the true upgrade in that phase of the game may be less than at first glance). Sturm is a decent forward. Primeau is trash. The Bruins certainly took a huge knock offensively. Bergeron is now forced into the #1 center slot, something he's clearly not ready for.

The move is most likely disastrous in the long term. The players the Bruins got were all Thornton's age or older. If you're convinced that trading Thornton was a good idea because he never met your idea of what his potential is, then you're admitting he could get better. Stuart could get a bit better but isn't as good now and never will be as good as Thornton. Sturm is what he is. Primeau will still be trash in the future. Given that the move is lateral in the short-term, the Bruins should have at least received first round picks in the deal to get fair value.

There is no doubt in my mind that if they were convinced that Thornton was more valuable to someone else than he was to the Bruins that a more beneficial deal could have been found. The Bruins got an itchy trigger finger and dealt their biggest asset for a couple trinkets. Not only did they make an already bad team worse, they also took away their fanbase's hope for a more competitive future.

I agree with everything in this post except the already bad team part. To me they were an average team and are now less than that.