|Mike Emrick on D&H: Close eye on Daniel Carcillo||05.05.10 at 12:21 pm ET|
Daniel Carcillo has become enemy No. 1 to Bruins fans, and Mike Emrick, of NBC Sports and Versus, said the Flyers tough guy will have extra attention from the officials as the series continues Wednesday night in Philadelphia.
“Carcillo with the various fake moves and all of that is starting to draw attention of the entire staff,” Emrick said to Dale & Holley on Wednesday. “I don’t think it’s going to play to well as the series goes on and you can probably see that he is not going to get a fair shake on some of these things if he had been probably the model player. I have a feeling that there is going to be some rank among the staff and they’ll keep a eye closer on him than they will someone else.”
Emrick said Game 3 probably will be the most “aggressive” of the series, and that the physical players like Carcillo or a Milan Lucic have always been fan favorites, especially in Boston and Philly.
“The Jesse James guys are really good, and we really don’t have too many guys who are difficult to deal with in the sport, but they are the best guys,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s just because they have a fairly humble roll to take on and they’ve agreed to do it. … But the one thing is they are the most likeable creatures that there are.”
The voice of the NHL on NBC said he he didn’t know why Bruins made such a turnaround in these playoffs, but he said they can be contenders going forward.
“Whatever it was they ought to bottle it up and Claude Julien can open a stand and sell it,” he said. “Whatever it is it’s worked. There are all kinds of radical turns that occur at playoff time.”
Emrick said it all started with winning at home.
“They started playing better at home at that point,” Emrick said, referring to a late-season win against the Rangers. “They’d only won one game at home since Fenway. That made it two and they built on it from there and got much better. I’m not sure what it was. I’m not sure if someone said something in the room or if it was one of those spontaneous things where they got confidence. … Whatever it is, they’ve done it really well and it’s a thrilling thing for their fans to see.”
|Bruins glad to be home||04.18.10 at 8:35 pm ET|
The Bruins got what they needed in Buffalo.
Two wins would have been nice, but a split on the road is a nice consolation prize, and Bruins coach Claude Julien knows that Sunday’s 5-3 victory was a big one.
“Anytime you start off on the road you want to come back with at least a split,” Julien said after Bruins practice on Sunday afternoon. “We’ve done that, and now it’s our job to kind of maintain that home-ice advantage that we’ve acquired.”
Michael Ryder, who registered two goals in Sunday’s win, agreed.
“It’s definitely good to come back with the split up there in Buffalo, but it’s still a long series and we got to take advantage of that win and make sure we use our home-ice to our advantage,” said Ryder. “We know the fans are going to be behind us and it’s going to be pretty loud.”
Now, it’s up to the B’s to take advantage of the TD Garden ice, something that has been easier said than done this season. The Bruins were 18-17-6 this season on Causeway Street, but showed enough signs towards the end of the season that home woes may be a thing of the past.
“We won the last couple games, but the other games before that we lost we were dominant,” Julien said. “It’s not that we’ve played terrible here, it’s that we weren’t getting results here for a while. I think our team feels pretty confident in our home building.”
Another thing the Bruins should feel confident about is their ability to knock a few past Ryan Miller in Game 2. The possible Vezina Trophy winner only allowed four or more goals seven times in 69 games played this season, and a big reason why the Bruins had success was Ryder.
Ryder was a constant nuisance for Miller in front of the net, and his first goal was a direct result of traffic in front of the net. Ryder said the Bruins need to keep blocking Miller’s vision and causing havoc in front of the net to keep getting on the board.
“I don’t think we are going to score four goals on him too often, but we got to keep doing the same things,” said Ryder. “We got to keep throwing pucks at the net in traffic. When he sees that first puck he usually makes that first save. We just got to make sure we limit him to coming out and challenging and trying to take his vision away. If he sees the puck, he’s going to save it and we did a good job of getting traffic and using screens to our advantage.”
The Bruins’ winger was scoreless in his previous 12 games before putting home a pair on Saturday, and Julien said when Ryder scores, the rest of his game starts to pick up.
“It’s like all goal scorers, when you get a couple of goals you get your confidence back,” Julien said. “When he gets going and he gets his confidence other things come out of his game.”
Ryder added: “Sometimes when I hit or get my feet moving to the net and get a little more physical towards the game things tend to happen a little better. That’s what I’ve been trying to do the last few games and it seems to be working.”
|Colin Campbell on D&C: Complete transcript||03.12.10 at 12:59 pm ET|
After no suspension was given to Matt Cooke for his hit on Marc Savard ' which may have ended the center’s season ' Colin Campbell, the league’s vice president and director of hockey operations, spoke with Dennis & Callahan on Friday to discuss the process of giving out suspensions in the NHL.
Bruins fans have been up in arms about the decision not to suspend Cooke, and Campbell gave a response.
'You think I like what happened to Marc Savard?' Campbell said. 'I coached him. I was his first coach for the New York Rangers when Marc broke in. I didn't like what happened to Marc Savard, no one likes what happened. You would like to do something to the player who did it. You have to stay consistent and I can't make up a rule for a play.'
Campbell also discussed the new rule changes next season that would aim to curb hits to the head and warned what could happen if things got ugly in the next Penguins-Bruins matchup.
Read below for the transcript. To listen to the interview, click here.
Would it be a shock to you to know that you are not a fan favorite in Boston?
Really, you think?
We thought you would suspend Cooke so he wouldn't be on the ice on Thursday? So that's good that he will play.
You have to be careful, though. I understand that you want to exact justice. We had a hit a few years ago in Colorado and Vancouver, and they didn't feel that the right thing was done. They thought they would take justice into their own hands, and next thing you know you got a real mess on your hands when [Todd] Bertuzzi broke [Steve] Moore's neck. You have to be careful how it's done.
Explain your logic that the hit on Savard was not a cheap shot that may have ended his season?
I can understand by the tone and what your question is that you don't agree, but it's not my line of thinking. We meet regularly with the general managers. We have a criteria we use on these hits. Cheap shots or head shots are elbows and sticks. In hockey, shoulder checks are allowed. I've suspended people before when they hit players in the head late and we have criteria for late, this wasn't late. We have criteria for the players who jump and he didn't leave his feet. We have criteria when it is unsuspecting, maybe when a player dumps the puck in and his heading to the bench and isn't expecting to get hit. Marc had just shot the puck and he was in the slot area, so he shouldn't have been unsuspecting, and we've had examples of that before. It certainly wasn't the popular decision, but you can't do this job and be the good guys or popular guy all the time. You have to use criteria and be consistent and thinking it was the right thing and not the popular one for sure.
Was Savard not blindsided? Was he not vulnerable? He didn't see it coming.
Neither did a lot of players that Scott Stevens hit. I'm sure I can pull a few Boston hits where players weren't suspecting because they didn't think they were going to be hit, but they were. Unsuspecting is if you are not driving through the hockey area. Marc just shot the puck. We have two other plays where [Jeff] Carter from Philadelphia hit [Ansi] Samela from New Jersey when he just shot the puck and scored. Same sort of play. Probably the most similar play, [Duncan] Keith from Chicago a pretty good player was hit by [Drew] Stafford from Buffalo, in almost the same kind of play where Keith is shooting on off side as Marc was. He was hit just after he released the puck late, in our estimation of late, and Keith missed four games to a concussion. We looked at it and we said we are not in the area where we are penalizing blows to the head by shoulders and that's what we went into this meeting before the Savard-Cooke situation. We went into this meeting with the general managers to say I guess it's time with the speed we generate, with the size of our players that we have to look at this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you watched this hit in a room with eight people for an hour and a half?
No. We went into the meeting before the Savard hit with this in mind to address shoulder hits to heads. They took this hit into consideration. When we added it to our 150 hits over the past four or five years to address this. WIth my own staff, I have a staff of about seven people that watch games every night. We watched this hit for say an hour.
Did everyone come to a consensus that this hit was clean?
Our staff agreed it was a consensus, even though we didn't like it. We don't like Cooke. We don't like the way he plays or some of the things he does, but we couldn't find criteria that was consistent with suspending him.
How late is late?
How late do you think it was?
How late do you think it was?
You mean like split-second? I'm asking you. You are the guy that knows the precedence. How late does it have to be to be late in your mind?
We've had two hits in the past five or six years that have been more than a second that we suspended, and they were both by the same player, Cam Janssen who is now with St. Louis. I don't know if you can remember Scott Stevens hit on Paul Kariya in the finals. That was half-a-second late. On our machines you can have 30 clips, for lack of a better term, which adds up to a second. This one was 18. Thirty is one second. When people see this hit, you see it in fast motion, but slow motion looks like three or four seconds late. This one was 18. A little bit over a half-a-second.
That's not qualified as late?
Not through the criteria we've used. We've debated this with general managers time and time again. Darcy Regier had the situation where [Chris] Neil hit [Chris] Drury about three or four years ago when Drury was playing for Buffalo, and he was about 21, which would be maybe three quarters of a second, in that area. They still didn't determine that as late.
Would what happened to Savard be illegal and suspendable next year
Why can't they just change the rule instantly?
We are in the midst of trying to do that. The process normally when you make a rule change is the general managers agree at this meeting we have in February or March. It then goes to the competition committee that was established in the last CBA, which has five players on it. We give the competition committe, made up of four general managers and owners, our recommendation on what we would like to do. We need a seven out of 10 in votes, and we need two players of that committee to vote with the general managers. If we don't then we can't take it to the board of governor's to get it ratified. I've talked to some people at the PA, and it's a little bit crazy if we have this hit again, we are going to look a little bit foolish as a league if we are going to have to wait because there is a process in place. If everyone agrees, then we need to address it right now because we don't want players like Marc Savard or anybody laying at home with concussion syndromes and headaches, etc.
Didn't you change the rule immediately when Sean Avery did the thing with the stick?
No. We didn't change the rule. Don Van Massenhoven was doing the game, he skated over to the Rangers bench and said, 'This is an unsportsmanlike penalty. You can't do that.' Of course the competitiveness of our coaches I got three or four calls the next morning can we do this is this legal. We said no that it is not. So we sent out a memo saying that this play is not legal. They are calling this play unsportsmanlike. The referee in the game went over and said if it persists it is an unsportsmanlike penalty and the players association grieved our process saying we can't do that we have to call up the competition committee. I said, 'I can't call up five players in the middle of a playoff.' Our teams are playing right now and this is not a rule change, this is interpreting this for you. It wasn't a rule change in the middle of a game or a season.
Do you worry about somebody taking out a superstar in a playoff series?
I worry about any player, not just the superstar. I understand what you mean from the competitive aspect, but I worry about any player being hurt with a check like this, and I worried all along about this. I think every time you make a rule change you are not sure exactly what is going to come into play. When we changed the rules during the lockout, we took the red line out. We took away hooking, holding and interference. We generated a lot of speed in the game and for example the Washington vs. Pittsburgh series was maybe one of the best series, if not the best in a long time. The finals was great. Having said that, the speed we generated, the contact, the hits that are happening out there now, this is what you have and now we have to address that. On a lot of these plays you have no alternative but to use a body check. You can't use your stick. You can't reach out and grab a guy because you will get a penalty. It's so competitive now that players don't want to take penalties. They have to use their bodies to stop people and this is what the result is.
A body check to the shoulder or chest is much different to the head.
Exactly. It wasn't illegal before to use your shoulder to hit a players head. Elbows yes, jumping yes, but not shoulders. What you will get when we change this rule eventually, hopefully sooner than later, you'll get some players embellishing that they got hit in the head to draw a penalty. They will lay down. We got that when we put the hitting from behind in. Players will jump their feet up, go against the boards and lay dow for a while to try and extract the penalty to win the game. That's another yin for yang when you make these rule changes.
What if Michael Ryder decided to go after Cooke and got revenge immediately? Would he be subject to fines from your office?
It depends what he did. If he did something illegal, yes.
Couldn't you suspend Cooke if you wanted to?
You think I like what happened to Marc Savard? I coached him. I was his first coach for the New York Rangers when Marc broke in. I didn't like what happened to Marc Savard, no one likes what happened. You would like to do something to the player who did it. You have to stay consistent and I can't make up a rule for a play. In this case I couldn't make it up because something is going to happen. The way it works out if something happens in two days and we don't like the guy, let's make something up and sit him down. We don't like him, even though we think it wasn't OK, he didn't have to do what he did. When he said intent to injure, it's got to be for a match penalty for elbowing. A match penalty for intent to injure cross checking. A match penalty for intent to injure for kneeing, for biting, for a sucker shot on a punch after the fight is over. You have to have a reason to match the intent to injure to something.
Sometimes the elbow is part of the upper arm?
I know, but this wasn't an elbow, it was a shoulder. We looked at everything. Normally we have to make the decision between 10:30 at night and 11 the next morning because our policy is to make a decision before the team plays its next game. In this case, we had from Sunday until Thursday, a rarity for a team not to play that long. We had lots of times to make up things, but we couldn't make up anything. I wish I could have but we couldn't.
Does Cooke's track record not give you more leeway to do something?
Only when we find that the act he did is wrong, then we can jump on him hard. But we have to find out that he was wrong in what he did.
Will you be on high alert when the Penguins and Bruins meet again?
You blew by my first statment. What happens is not good. Having Marc Savard or any player injured, you don't like those things. That was our main thrust, concussions. We have to reduce concussions Even though we have a lot of games and we have 50,000 to 60,000 registered hits a year, there is probably 10 to 15 we don't like. We want to reduce the concussions. Having said that, what happened with Moore and Bertuzzi and the ensuing court cases that are still ongoing, the lawsuits are huge, a $35 million law suit has been registered, ownership, managers, coaches, players have been brought into court. You have to be careful when you get into a situation like this, because it can become a lot bigger than what we have now.
|Transcript of Mike Milbury on D&H||03.10.10 at 2:41 pm ET|
Was the Matt Cooke hit on Mark Savard intent to injure?
I was traveling when the game was on so I didn't see it live, and I've seen it three or four times since then and I really want to slow it down. The word predatory does come to mind. And you know, I don't have any trouble with that. When you're playing hockey, you're supposed to finish your checks. I don't think he meant to give him a Grade 2 concussion. That's Matt Cooke's game. He's supposed to be a guy that finishes his checks, that agitates a little bit, that can play a little bit of hockey. He's not a slug, But he's no Sidney Crosby. His job is to make sure he punishes people when he gets the opportunity. Intent to injure? I don't know. That's a hard one to pin on anybody. Certainly, ready to finish his check with authority.
Do you think he should be suspended?
I want to get another look at this thing because it looks to me on the Mike Richards hit earlier in the year. It was almost in the exact same spot on the ice, it was a very similar situation. I think given the rules of the today, I don't think it's a suspendable offense. Having said that, the GMs are meeting in Florida and they've set up a committee specifically to study head shots, a lot of that has to do with bigger guys, harder shells on the shoulder pads and the frequency with which guys seem to be going down with head shots. There's tremendous sensitivity to it. GMs have heard the call. They have a committee of eight general managers who will spearhead it and look at all the various types to see if and what they should do to make things a little bit easier on the players.
Did you think a response should have come from the Bruins players?
I think we got caught up here in Grapes [Don Cherry] mania. Like, you've got to die in order to satisfy the blood lust in the stands. That's not my shtick. If your whole attack during the course of pregame is to find out who is the most dangerous people on the ice, make sure you negate them. Part of negating them is physical play. You want to go after their best players, that doesn't mean you want to separate his head from his neck. But you want to plaster him in the boards. You want to tire him out. You want him to maybe rush his passes. Remember when Pittsburgh came in here last year and Andrew Ference got Sidney Crosby so upset that Crosby dropped the gloves and went at it? That's the kind of attack you want to have, the approach you want to have through the course of the day.
When this incident happened, because it was a questionable hit, a lot of the guys on the bench aren't paying attention as closely as you would think. They are sucking wind and getting some water and probably 50 percent of the bench didn't have a clear view of what was going on. Clearly, guys on the ice didn't have a clear view of what was going on, guys who were ahead of Savard or maybe some guys that were changing. However, your best offensive player goes down with a resounding check ' borderline check under any circumstances, maybe cheap, maybe intentional. It requires a direct response immediately.
This is where my shorts got twisted listening to yahoos on many different outlets who said we should have gone right after Crosby and broken his legs and made sure he never played again. That's just ridiculous. Are we that demented? Is that the way we have to approach this sport? I don't think so. You should have gone into that game ready to be physical on their best players because that's the way you stop them from being affective. You limit their time in you space, you make them take a physical price, tire them out and in the meantime you hope you get through a game when they are not as affective as they could possibly be.
To say that because your best player went down you have to immediately turn around and go after vigilante justice is Neanderthal. We've got to get past that. A good hit does not necessarily merit an immediate response with a fight. That's silly, too. I think they should have had a quick and immediate response, especially to go after Cooke and then continue to play the damn game with the kind of authority that they should have gone into the game playing with. That's my point. But to think we have to go back to, “They hurt one of our best players, so now we're going to go take out Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby by giving them cheap shots in the back of the head,” that's Philadelphia Flyers hockey in the '70s. We're past that. We should be past that, and if we ever revert to that, it's the day I stop watching the damn game. Because that isn't right. It's just not right.
I love physical hockey. I love it when people get wired and play tough hockey, but I don't want somebody running somebody up against the end boards when their face is up against the glass. I can't stand that stuff. That's cheap-shot punk stuff that needs to be punished immediately by the league, if not by the team.
I heard people say, 'We didn't respond. It was a 2-1 game we needed the points.' I can tell you about a time we were playing in New York against the Islanders, we were three games from the end of the season and we desperately needed the points. John Wensink with Jean Ratelle and it was a tight game. Gerry Hart just jammed Ratelle into the end boards. Wensink didn't hesitate. He grabbed Gerry Hart, slammed him into the boards, pounded his head a little bit because it was a cheap shot. He retaliated against the perpetrator of that. On the bench I was like, 'Not now John, not now.' And Grapes, who was still a little nervous about it, too, told the penalty-killers, “You’ve got to kill this one for us.” This is the way we lived, by these rules. If somebody goes after our best players with a cheap shot ' fortunately it worked out well. We killed the penalty, won the game, won the division. That's the way the response should have gone in this instance. The consequences be damned at that point, because you got to stick by your best players. That's the kind of play where the players can police the game.
Who do you blame the most for the lack of response?
I blame the players who were on the ice at that time. You have to take accountability for the guys who are on the ice. You can't clear the benches anymore. You can't have somebody on the bench jumping off. The guys that are there have to recognize that there's been a code violation, if you will. The code changes all the time by the way. You have to recognize there has been a violation. Your best offensive player, who by the way if he is out for any length of time is going to make it very problematic because they don't have that many weapons in this popcorn offense right now. They should have gone right after the perpetrator or even gone after anyone else that was on the ice to rattle the cage. You can't be taken advantage of that way. The players on the ice have to look in the mirror after this is over and say, “Dammit, we should have done something. We should have done it right away.” And the coach has to back them up on that.
It was disappointing to see the Bruins as a team not respond later in the game.
Not going to disagree with you there. You can have a response after the fact. It's never nearly as affective. These things I believe should be spontaneous combustion. Not a planned attack to find a way to seek vengeance. That's not the way it should play out. It does sometimes but usually it's not satisfying in terms of the viewerhsip. It's not even satisfying in terms of getting revenge. Because if somebody like Cooke does that thing, then he knows that people are out to get him. He's going to be aware of what's going on the ice and be heads up all the time and should be. You can still get your pound of flesh, but do it then and suffer whatever consequences there are and you can look in the mirror and say, 'We stick together as a team. We win as a team. We are going to go down as a team.'
Do you think Zdeno Chara should be more physical?
We drafted him in New York. We drafted him on two showings of tape, and he wasn't even playing he was doing drills on the ice. I met him for the first time, he was a quiet, shy kid and a peach of a young man, who came from difficult circumstances. This is not a guy that relishes the role of being physical. It's not a role that comes particularly natural to him. He certainly can defend himself. I asked him in our draft interview if he could fight. He said, 'Better not to mess with me.' That's true of Zdeno.
Because he's 6-foot-8, we're asking him to be 30 minutes a game, fight, physical ' we're asking a lot of this guy. And last year he delivered. But it doesn't come naturally to him. He's got to force it. But the team needs him to be more physical, yes. They need him to occasionally fight. They need him to step in when Lucic, who got smoked by Colton Orr, which may have broken his nose. The kid has been whacked around pretty good the last couple of years in search of a victory for his team. He needed someone to come in on the next shift and say, 'Big Daddy's home. OK, you took on Lucic, my turn.' That would have been the response I would have appreciated from Big Z.
Will somebody do that [Tuesday night] against Colton Orr?
I'm not in the locker room. I don't know. It's now back in Toronto, in the hockey mecca, it would be a good time. At this point the moment is gone and now we are talking about setting something up. If Colton Orr is banging on Lucic or banging on anyone else that's not likely to be a fighter in the situation, then it's up to Chara or [Shawn] Thornton or [Steve] Begin, whoever you want to put in the physical category to step up. Right now that's being questioned about their team. Their willingness to stick together under duress, nobody wants that question. It's a question of macho and manhood.
Is this Bruins team too soft?
Yes. I'll put this in context of the Bruins team of last year, where all the principals are still in place. They played a much more physical game last year up and down the roster. And I think when they do find their way back to it, they'll be a better team offensively.
What do you think of Colin Campbell as a disciplinarian?
The guys in the office have the toughest job in hockey. They never win a game and they never get it right by everybody's sightings. I think there are certain set of parameters that he works under, and not always do I agree with them. But he doesn't make a decision randomly. He doesn't make a decision without looking at all the tape in the past history, discussing with a lot of different people. He's got a mindset, agree or disagree with, but I think he does an honest job. I know he does an honest job. I think he might carry a little bit of his own prejudices, biases or influences into the decision. He likes the game played in a certain way and you have to be careful with that. He's not responsible for the way the game should be played. He's responsible for making sure the rules are followed.
If you're a Bruins fan don't you think Campbell has it out for your team a little bit?
Don't confuse me with every Boston Bruins fan. I didn't think the Patrice Bergeron hit by [Randy] Jones merited that suspension that everyone else was talking about. I talked about the way Patrice turned back. It was an unfortunate situation and two games was plenty, in my mind, for that situation. He put himself in a vulnerable situation, and I know you disagree with that. But the [Scott Walker] hit on Aaron Ward should have been punishable. It was a wicked cheap shot and he should have got a game for that at least, maybe two.
This one, I need a little more time with it. That's how difficult it is for these guys to do the job. It happens in real time, the officials make the call and all of a sudden you go back and see it five or six times from different angles. It makes for a whole different dynamic. I want to see this one again. I want to see if it's the shoulder or the elbow on a follow through. I'm not sure how he's going to handle it. But I guarantee you this, they are grappling with it, they are struggling with it. They are stitting there with surrounded by GMs, many of whom are on a committee for head shots, and they’ve got to make the call. They'll do whatever they can to make their honest and best judgment on it.
|Peter Chiarelli on D&H: Not trading high pick||02.01.10 at 2:54 pm ET|
Since the Bruins’ stunning win over Philadelphia in the Winter Classic, 2010 has not been kind to the B’s. General manager Peter Chiarelli was on with Dale & Holley Monday to talk about potential moves that could be made to kick start a Bruins playoff run.
Chiarelli voiced his displeasure with the overall performance of the team but said there is no way he parts with the valuable pick that he received from Toronto in the Phil Kessel trade.
'I'm not going to trade the pick that we received from Toronto for this year,' he stated. 'I've said that before on other conversations, and I have had other conversations regarding everything else.'
The GM said the players need to step up, including No. 1 goaltender Tim Thomas, to right the ship on Causeway Street. He said that he has seen some improvements over the last couple of games, but under no circumstance would Chiarelli give away secrets to the show.
'I'd like to tell you exactly what I'm doing, but I'm not going to,' he said.
Here is a transcript of the interview, to hear the interview click here.
What do you make of all the moves and trades that the Toronto Maple Leafs made this weekend?
This isn't a comment on those trades, but if we are going to make something it has to be the right deal and it's not for lack of trying right now. I'm not beating the bushes so to speak. It has to be the right deal if we are going to do something. Those deals, I think Calgary was trying to shake things up and I think Toronto was building for the future.
Would you shake things up here in Boston?
It's not easy to make a trade, and that's where we are at right now.
Have you received or presented a deal with the draft picks you have from Toronto?
I'm not going to trade the pick that we received from Toronto for this year. I've said that before on other conversations, and I have had other conversations regarding everything else. If it is picks to players I'm all ears.
- Fresh Links: Czechmate Edition
- Wednesday Morning Skate: Iggy! Iggy! Iggy!
- Bruins vs. Flames Recap: Huge third period and a 2-1 win on Iginla Night
- Public Skate Third Period: Bruins 0 Flames 1
- Public Skate: Bruins at Flames, 9:30 pm
- Bruins PR memo leaked
- In and Out Burger: Flame-Broiled Bruins: Injury Updates, Who's playing...