[cferneyh]

Since the Thornton for a bunch o crap trade:

Thornton: 55GP, 19G, 67A, 86PTS, +28 and the Sharks are in the playoffs.

Sturm: 49GP, 22G, 19A, 41PTS, +12
Primeau: 50GP, 6G, 8A, 14PTS, -10
Stuart: 53GP, 10G, 21A, 31PTS, -5
NET: 152GP, 38G, 48A, 86PTS, -3

That's right folks! Rather than have one player who can produce 86 points in 55 games, why not get three who can also produce 86 points.......in 152 games!

Seriously, is being a GM in this league really that complicated?!?

I see your point and still wonder what O' Connell was on when he made that trade.
However, having said that, in this day and age (new NHL) you have to include the salaries of the players involved. Sturm, Primeau, and Stuart together are making $1.1 million dollars less than what Thornton gets this year. You're also talking about obtaining more depth when you get 3 NHL caliber players for 1, albeit that 1 is probably at least 3x the player of any of the 3.
Finally, that 152 GP total is the net amount but it's misleading when you say that the 3 current Bruins produced 86 points in 152 games. You make it sound like they've played nearly two full seasons, when it's more like around 53 actual games.

But what does any of that matter when the Sharks can afford Thornton under the cap and two other players to fill the spots of the departed players (which, quite obviously, makes those three players more productive than the three players in Boston), and then watch Thornton lead them into the playoffs, guaranteeing the Sharks at least two home playoff dates and all of the gravy revenue that comes with it?

Depth? If the Bruins got more depth then something tells me they'd be doing a little better in the standings.

And how is saying that the 3 players the Bruins received have 86 points in 152 games misleading? That's exactly what they have. I don't "make it sound" like anything. If you can't interpret the numbers correctly, that's your prob.