Yesterday’s papers had some interesting Joe Thornton fallout/insights.
Larry Brooks says any players screwed by the Bruins deserve whatever they get since owner Jeremy Jacobs made no secret of his contempt for players during the lockout (login info.).
I don’t know. It sounds pretty harsh to me. Players have got to play somewhere. It’s not like there are hundreds of NHL teams.
Kevin Paul Dupont from the Boston Globe had some interesting comments on the trade in an online chat. Apparently he wasn’t a big fan of Thornton’s play:
Q:Do you think the Joe Thornton trade will help the Bruins long-term?
KPD:I’d put it this way–it won’t be a step backward. They weren’t going anywhere with Thornton as the franchise centerpiece…So, I have no problem jettisoning Thornton. His play was soft, often shapeless. There was no team definition.
Robin Brownlee rendered a similar verdict (login info.).
Obviously, Thornton’s play in Boston wasn’t perfect. But isn’t it a coach’s job to instill intensity and focus? The big burn on Thornton was that he wasn’t shooting enough. But did anyone talk to him about this? Did coach Mike Sullivan tell him to shoot more? Did Sullivan bench him when he wasn’t shooting enough? If every NHL player instinctively knew how to execute and play, why would they need coaches at all?
Also, Dupont also wonders if San Jose is going to soon send for Thornton linemate Glen Murray. Why wouldn’t the Bruins? They never met an uneven trade into which they wouldn’t leap.