O'Connell was just part of the problem in Boston

	Trading Joe Thornton was not a bad move, but could Mike O'Connell have received more in return if he had opened up the bidding to all 29 teams? Noah Graham/Getty Images
	WHO'S THE NEXT BRUINS GM? Allan Muir has four names who could replace ousted GM Mike O'Connell Jim Nill: Red Wings assistant GM -- and former Bruins player -- is widely regarded as one of the best young minds in the game. He was the GM for Team Canada at the 2004 World Championships. John Weisbrod: Former Orlando Magic GM was so desperate to re-establish himself in hockey that he took a job as a pro scout with the Stars. Smart guy, but he needs to prove he knows the game. Dean Lombardi: Former architect of the Sharks is high on the recyclables list. Charlie Jacobs: The owner's son could be brought in to handle the business side of things while interim GM Jeff Gorton handles hockey matters. Given how this would be the worst possible move, it's also the one most likely to take place.

Two years ago, right around this time, Mike O'Connell looked like a pretty smart guy.

After years of foisting a fair-to-spare product on local fans at the behest of his miserly masters Jeremy Jacobs and Harry Sinden, O'Connell had built a legitimate Cup contender in Boston.

The Bruins headed into the 2004 playoffs as a 104-point juggernaut, bolstered by the bold, and un-Bruinslike, late-season acquisitions of Sergei Gonchar and Mikael Nylander. Even those who'd lost faith in the franchise dared to believe that maybe, just maybe, this time would be different.

Then came the familiar feeling of a crushing first-round loss to the hated Canadiens. And as bad as that was, it was just the beginning of the nightmare for Boston fans.

A fatally flawed approach to the lockout followed, including the ousting of key free agents Mike Knuble, Brian Rolston and Nylander, leaving the Bruins with just three players under contract when the labor stalemate ended.

O'Connell misjudged the quantity and quality of players that would be available to bolster his roster at the end of the lockout, and he quickly found himself backed into a corner. His inability to attract quality free agents led to several Plan C signings (Brian Leetch, Alexei Zhamnov), and his penny-wise, pound-foolish contract haggling with Calder winner Andrew Raycroft and key blueliner Nick Boynton embittered the room and led to a rocky start to 2005-06.

Hey, it's called Bruins.

The team continued to struggle, and as O'Connell scrambled to save the season, and his job, he dealt franchise cornerstones Joe Thornton and Sergei Samsonov.

Instead of turning things around, it was a case of compounding mistakes. And so O'Connell, justifiably, was turfed yesterday to the sound of loud huzzahs from the Bruins nation.

The goal of a GM is pretty simple: put guys on the ice who will win you hockey games. Mike O'Connell failed to identify players capable of doing that. He had to go.

But in spite of the widely-held perception of incompetence, O'Connell's tenure in Boston wasn't entirely a Clouseau-esque farce.

His revamp of the amateur scouting department turned it from one of the league's worst (where are you now, Ray Podloski and Dave Pasin?) to one of the most fruitful.

He made a few smart deals, too, moving the empty-headed Jeff Jillson for outstanding prospect Brad Boyes, and holdout Anson Carter for Bill Guerin.

But this year was a disaster, and there's no way around that.

Whether he becomes the league's leading scorer or not, moving Thornton was the right decision, and the return (Marco Sturm, Brad Stuart and Wayne Primeau) wasn't bad. But you have to think that the Bruins could have done better if O'Connell had opened up the bidding to all 29 teams -- and that includes divisional opponents Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa -- to try to up the ante.

The Dave Scatchard for David Tanable trade may have done the impossible -- made Boston an even less desirable option for UFAs. And while other GMs cleaned up at the deadline, the deal for Samsonov netted little of value for the Bruins. Failure after failure after failure.