Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....
posted at 8/5/2010 10:11 AM EDT
In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : TTB, You've gone back to "complaining just to complain" again here. If PC didn't resign Thomas or grab Ryder during free agency you'd complain that the Bruins are cheap. You've also suggested that the 1990 Oilers were not a good team as any NHL fan knows they were still a great team without Gretzky, Moog, Coffey and Fuhr. That Sinden was too cheap to make moves to improve the team this was not the case either. The 1990 and 1991 had the best PP and PK in the league but Harry still tried to go out and attempt to make the Bruins better with good moves. Ppulin, Propp and Christian weren't good moves ? Lost credibility on that one You've thrown in GMs bad moves as being cheap or that JJ had something to do with the Bruins not performing on the ice in 88' and 90' you're way off here. You're all over the place as a frustrated Red Sox fan looking for something and someone to whale on. Get your facts straight as another poster suggested is somewhere you should start.
Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
This is like a bad game of "telephone". First: Never did I suggest the 1990 Oilers were not a good team. In fact, they were a great team even w/out Gretzky, b/c they were 3 lines deep and a complete team. Very well put together.
if you go back and read my original point on how the Bruins have done in recent years under JJ you'll see that I wrote "The Bruins have 2 Stanley Cup appearances since the last one they won (1988 and 1990) as opposed to 6 for the Flyers, when I was pointing out and challenging NAS' assertion of "how does the love for his hockey team work out for Snider in Philly?"....Better, I wrote, than JJ's "love" for his hockey team in Boston, and then mentioned those 2 apperances vs. Philly's 6.
My overall point is NOT that the Bruins didn't have a good team in 1990===clearly, they did! Did they go far enough, IMO, to put together the BEST team to win it all? No. And you can argue the Poulin/Propp?chistian thing as opposed to Messier, Anderson, et al, ad nauseum. Throw in Glen Wesley's gacker if you want,too.
The MAIN POINT I wanted to make--and shame on me, I guess, for not pointing it out clearly enough, is that the Bruins M.O. over the past 20 + years has been to acquire good players, jettison them as soon as they want more money or complain about not having enough support to win it all (Oates' point), and there really can be no argument about the results we've seen up until about 2004.
The 1994-2004 Bruins were a sad sack of you know what, and we had to watch in frustration as players from Allison to Guerin to Thornton were let go for the "next" player who would fill their roles...a revolving door of talent that never was allowedd to gel into a team with an identity and especially the overall talent to bring a Cup to Boston, which should be JJ's ONLY priority as a CARING OWNER of a sports franchise. Saying he's a good business man is not the same thing.
Finally, I would like it to be at least acknowledged that I did not start a "JJ s*ks" thread...I was instead responding to a "JJ's just fine" thread based on a premise I still and always will reject: That spending to a cap HE HELPED CREATE AND FOUGHT FOR....knowing full well it would SAVE HIM MONEY compared to how it would be in a true free market system does NOT make him an owner to fawn over.
I'm straight on those facts, and don't mind getting beat up for those minority views. I'm as hopeful as any Bruins fan that this will be the year they finally win a Cup....but the facts are on my side: The Bruins have gone longer without a Stanley Cup than every single team but one.
The owner has to take some responsibility for that, cuz it can't all be because of too many men on the ice.