Jump to content

Bob Gainey is an Idiot


hab29RETIRED

Recommended Posts

I know I'm going to get flamed by all of the "In Bob we Trust" posters, but before the flaming starts, I'd like to say I LOVED Bob Gainey the player, was thrilled when he came back to Montreal and was even more thrilled when he took over the GM title.

I gave him the question of the doubt after he overpaid guys, didnn't get enough of a return for guys (Ribero - IMO he had to go), lost guys for nothing - Souray, Streit), and basically blundering by calling up guys that he should have known he was going to lose on waivers (Hainsey after he already made the same stupid mistake with Beauchiman).

But this year was just absolutely stupidity. If i managed my assets at work the way Bob Gainey has, I PROBABLY would have been fired before this years. If I lost as many assets for nothing and overpaid for similar or arguably similar asset value as he did this year I definitely WOULD have been fired on July 2.

Those Gainey fans can go on saying how Bob Gainey has forgotten more about hockey then a lifelong habs fan like me will ever know - to that I say he must have forgotten everything he had seen under Sam Pollack, because this year he looks more like he learned from Gord Stellick and possibly may have done the habs more damage then Rejean Houle.

Gainey lost the following in the span of a year for nothing:

Komi, Kovy, Koivu, Tangauy (+ 1st and second for Tangauy), Bouillon, Schneider (+draft pick given up for Schneider). At least the first 4 should have been signed and then moved later if necessary, but there is no excuse for not signing your top assets. Especially when you spent more on replacements that are not necessarily better and may not even be as good as the guys given up.

Is Gomez worth more then double then Koivu?????? I think Koivu will end up with around the same amount of points as Gomez - possibly more. If we were going to take Gomez's ridicoulous salary, Sather should have had to sweeten the pot, NOT have Gainey give up Higgins and two good defensive prospects!!!!???

Is Gionta better then Kovy??? Given Giontta's size and having fellow smurfs Cammelleri and Gomez, I'd take Kovy. Gionnta is not worth more then $4M tops, personally, i wouldn't spend more then $3.5M.

I'd take Komi over Spacek or Gill anyday - even at $5M and I'd definatley would have tried to get Beauchiman - who actually expressed an interest to play for Montreal then either of the guys that Gainey signed.

Cammelleri is a good signing, but NOT at $6M - Not worth it more then $5M.

As far as Tangauy goes, i criticized the trade last year, seeing first hand in Calgary how useless the guy was in key situations. Yes if healthy he should have gotten 70-75 points, but he is a SOFT perimeter player who couldn't even have checked Steve Bégin and would have ended up as a minus player if he was asked to cover a non-scorer like Begin. But becuase he is french, most loved the signing. But Gainey should have made an effort to sign him to a lower contract, if only to be trade him and get some return back for the two draft picks given up.

Even if Gainey was going to spend the obsene money he did on his 5 free agent signed on July 1, Koivu should have been brought back. I think we could have gotten him for $6M to $6.5M for two years. I would much rather have had Gomez, Koivu, Pleks and Lapierre as centres. As it is, who knows if Pleks will get more in arbitration then what Koivu signed for. having three small centers (Gomez, Pleks, Metropolit) is abosute stupidity!!! And I don't think Chips is a viable option.

Seeing that Koivu signed for $3.25M make me sicker then seeing Komi goto the Make beliefs for $4.5M.

I can't think of any recent GM that has mismanaged his assets as badly as Gainey has with the exception of Milbury. This is going to be a HARD season to watch and if I didn't bleed the habs colors I'd take my wife's advice and find a new team. As it is, I told her, I'd get a new wife before I get a new team :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perhaps tactfully changing the title of this thread to "Bob Severely Mismanages Assets" would help keep everything from blowing up here...

Edited by Trizzak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bob was an "idiot" last year for NOT DOING ANYTHING...............Damed if he does damed if he doesn't.

How about we wait and see the new on ice product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bob was an "idiot" last year for NOT DOING ANYTHING...............Damed if he does damed if he doesn't.

How about we wait and see the new on ice product?

No. ###### it. We don't wait and we judge right away. It is so Habsy...

Nevermind, I will never understand why we call this loosing assets for nothing. We just replaced the 32+yo assets by 27 to 29 yo assets without paying anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the use of the word "idiot" in the title but otherwise yeah Gainey went his own way, we trusted him, pretty well gave him free reign to implement his 5-year plan, and it failed miserably. If you are going to maintain a unique management style and business strategy, it had better eventually pay dividends. Gainey did but it didn't. So what's next? Fire him? Would the new owners step in and do that anyone think? I reckon with the flurry of UFA signings Gainey bought himself about a six-month grace period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being from Toronto I used to have a ton of fun at the expense of Leafs fans for attitudes like this. I had an epiphany over the last few weeks reading many posts on this board.

We are no different then they are.

Bob Gainey makes no moves = fans are furious

Bob Gainey makes minor moves = fans are furious

Bob Gainey resigns current roster players = fans are furious

Bob Gainey make aggressive moves to reshape the roster = fans are furious

Dare I say that we're more diluted than Leafs fans.... Boy I sure hope not....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never understand why we call this loosing assets for nothing. We just replaced the 32+yo assets by 27 to 29 yo assets without paying anything.

In my opinion, losing assets is principally not negotiating extensions. Eg., one year ago, sign Komisarek to a new contract (but this is a practice which Bob famously "does not do"). Now, if we don't want Komisarek anymore, we trade him for something else. He was a top-ten pick just coming into his prime that is a solid asset, Gainey screwed up big time with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being from Toronto I used to have a ton of fun at the expense of Leafs fans for attitudes like this. I had an epiphany over the last few weeks reading many posts on this board.

We are no different then they are.

Bob Gainey makes no moves = fans are furious

Bob Gainey makes minor moves = fans are furious

Bob Gainey resigns current roster players = fans are furious

Bob Gainey make aggressive moves to reshape the roster = fans are furious

Dare I say that we're more diluted than Leafs fans.... Boy I sure hope not....

As much as everyone doesn't want to hear it, you are 100% correct!

Canadiens fans had a sense of entitlement that the Leafs lacked, but just take a look at Red Sox Nation since they

began to win. They became as insufferable as Yankee fans.

ALL FANS ARE THE SAME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, losing assets is principally not negotiating extensions. Eg., one year ago, sign Komisarek to a new contract (but this is a practice which Bob famously "does not do"). Now, if we don't want Komisarek anymore, we trade him for something else. He was a top-ten pick just coming into his prime that is a solid asset, Gainey screwed up big time with that.

again can someone tell me how they know that Komi would have signed last year? He has a shark for an agent who sees ufa coming up and he sez let's sign with Montreal right now cause if you have a banner year we could get 6 million but f that lets sign for 3 now. :wacko: yeah I can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the new forwards(Gomez, Cams, Gionta) are automatically better than the players they replace:

Younger, faster, less injury prone, and they're in their primes.

Which is why they're paid as much as they are. How much would you pay for a younger Kovalev(say 5-6 years ago)? At that age, he was producing at more or less Cammelleri's/Gomez' level.

Btw, sign and trades don't happen, anymore. That is pretty much the most classless thing a GM can do to a player.

Edited by fromage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet if Gainey had just signed all of our ufa's and stayed with the same team as last year, we would have the same people bitching and moaning about how Gainey has done nothing to better the hockey team. I for one am happy that Gainey was finally able to attract some free agents. Yes they are undersized, but I think they can really work together and put up some great numbers. I guess time will tell.

And just to add one more thing on losing Komi. 2 things he's good at. Block shots and hits. With the way he plays, all it takes is to get hit a certain way or take a slap shot off the leg and boom... he's gone for a month or two. I guess now we get to see what kind of defenseman he is without Markov bailing him out. Look how well he did when Markov was out for the last couple of games and the playoffs

Personally, I think we should get rid of Markov. He makes his defensive partner look too good and we end up losing them. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, losing assets is principally not negotiating extensions. Eg., one year ago, sign Komisarek to a new contract (but this is a practice which Bob famously "does not do"). Now, if we don't want Komisarek anymore, we trade him for something else. He was a top-ten pick just coming into his prime that is a solid asset, Gainey screwed up big time with that.

The only bad thing about Gainey is the fact that he doesn't sign players during the season. Other than that, It is not that we didn't want Komi back so there was no point to trade him before the playoffs. How could we know that Markov would get injured badly ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is people complaining about everything Gainey does. It was so obvious from last year that this team did not have a good room atmosphere. Gainey and I bet the organization itself was fed up with it all. So, the most logical thing to do is get rid of most if not all of the players that you can and start over. When you look at it the only real core players we lost were Komisarek (UFA) and Higgins (trade) plus one prospect that still hasn't left college yet. The loss of Koivu is hard yes because he was all heart but has been replaced by a younger more potential points player (yes highly paid but that is sometimes the price you have to pay to get better). Plus Gomez is only signed for 5 more years which is a heck of a lot better than the 11 years that Lecavalier would have brought. I bet though if Gainey actually did trade two prospects a pick and a couple of roster players for him no one would be complaining. Except think about it we would be exactly where we are now. Gainey made the better choice in my opinion because he did not salvage the future.

Ah the future, look at the spots that are open for the number 2 ranked farm system in the league. There is potential for 5 or 6 rookies or second year players to make the team and most of them are ready. In order to make room for all those top prospects Gainey had to clear spots for them to compete for. To me that is the number one reason that all the UFA's were not signed and at least one trade has been made so far. When you have 4 or 5 forwards and at least 2 or 3 defensemen knocking on the door hard you need to give them the chance. This is their chance.

Plus, these prospects and new players get a chance to play under a solid system of puck possession. Martin, believe it or not is all about puck possession. The more time you have the puck the less chances the opposition has to score. Less chances to score and Price will shine. Oh and wait, what did Gainey do, he went out and got defensemen that know how to clear the puck from the front of the net. How many times last year did you scream at the TV to most of our d-men to clear the puck when it was in their feet only to see it go to the back of the net from someones stick or what not not being tied up. It was frustrating as hell.

All in all, I think Gainey has done exactly what he had planned to do after the first 5 years. The organization 5 years ago had hardly any talent knocking hard on the door. Today we have plenty and more are to come. It may take couple of real game situations to get their legs and used to each other but this team is going to be dynamic to watch.

I am looking forward to seeing the Habs compete every night and not every 3rd game.

Takabru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the use of the word "idiot" in the title but otherwise yeah Gainey went his own way, we trusted him, pretty well gave him free reign to implement his 5-year plan, and it failed miserably. If you are going to maintain a unique management style and business strategy, it had better eventually pay dividends. Gainey did but it didn't. So what's next? Fire him? Would the new owners step in and do that anyone think? I reckon with the flurry of UFA signings Gainey bought himself about a six-month grace period.

I would disagree.

Seriously, though. Why is everyone saying his 5-year plan failed miserably? I don't understand that. In year four we were the number one team in the East. Coming into year five, Montreal was considered a legit Cup contender. We then had injuries and some of the players who were supposed to step up decided to step out (with the mafia, etc, etc) and the club took a step back. Is that failing miserably? Or is that just an unfortunate blip which, inconveniently, happened at the five-year mark after four years of consistent progress?

This just strikes me as more "what have you done for me lately" thinking which tunnels vision into whatever short timespan necessary to make negative judgements look wholly applicable. Now people look at the changes and seem to believe that they were required because the five-year plan was an epic failure. Is that the case, or was the core around which the five-year plan put together all at the end of contract thus affording Gainey the chance to re-create the upper echelons of the team somewhat? After year four, was there any reason to believe he hadn't put together a squad capable of competing?

If there's a case for real argument in Gainey's plan, it's sticking with rookie coaches too long. Carbo will be a great coach one day, but Gainey hired him to champion his five-year plan, obviously assuming that the learning curve for Guy would be easy. Then, despite the fact that it was horribly obvious we were at times quite poor in our own end, he waited and waited to make the change that was ultimately required. If Gainey had one bad decision, it was not inserting an experienced winner behind the bench when he instead chose Carbo. No shot at Carbs, he just wasn't ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought habs29RETIRED's last two lines were very good. Other than that, Takabru has done a great rebuttal job.

Gainey and many, many others felt that the core was rotten. So he ripped it out. He got guys who put up points, play hard, and are durable. If we hadn't paid what we did, we wouldn't have got them and be looking at essentially the same team minus Koivu and Higgins, with Kovy as Captain. Komisarek was not going to sign here. He no longer fits, I'm not upset at all, we got a better on-the-puck d-man in Spacek. When he, Hamrlik and Gill are gone the youth will be coming in steadily - all guys who can play with the puck and skate.

I have no idea if it will work. But I'm excited about the new team, and I admire Gainey for being very, very bold. You have money against the cap? Spend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is people complaining about everything Gainey does. It was so obvious from last year that this team did not have a good room atmosphere. Gainey and I bet the organization itself was fed up with it all. So, the most logical thing to do is get rid of most if not all of the players that you can and start over. When you look at it the only real core players we lost were Komisarek (UFA) and Higgins (trade) plus one prospect that still hasn't left college yet. The loss of Koivu is hard yes because he was all heart but has been replaced by a younger more potential points player (yes highly paid but that is sometimes the price you have to pay to get better). Plus Gomez is only signed for 5 more years which is a heck of a lot better than the 11 years that Lecavalier would have brought. I bet though if Gainey actually did trade two prospects a pick and a couple of roster players for him no one would be complaining. Except think about it we would be exactly where we are now. Gainey made the better choice in my opinion because he did not salvage the future.

Ah the future, look at the spots that are open for the number 2 ranked farm system in the league. There is potential for 5 or 6 rookies or second year players to make the team and most of them are ready. In order to make room for all those top prospects Gainey had to clear spots for them to compete for. To me that is the number one reason that all the UFA's were not signed and at least one trade has been made so far. When you have 4 or 5 forwards and at least 2 or 3 defensemen knocking on the door hard you need to give them the chance. This is their chance.

Plus, these prospects and new players get a chance to play under a solid system of puck possession. Martin, believe it or not is all about puck possession. The more time you have the puck the less chances the opposition has to score. Less chances to score and Price will shine. Oh and wait, what did Gainey do, he went out and got defensemen that know how to clear the puck from the front of the net. How many times last year did you scream at the TV to most of our d-men to clear the puck when it was in their feet only to see it go to the back of the net from someones stick or what not not being tied up. It was frustrating as hell.

All in all, I think Gainey has done exactly what he had planned to do after the first 5 years. The organization 5 years ago had hardly any talent knocking hard on the door. Today we have plenty and more are to come. It may take couple of real game situations to get their legs and used to each other but this team is going to be dynamic to watch.

I am looking forward to seeing the Habs compete every night and not every 3rd game.

Takabru

exactly correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again can someone tell me how they know that Komi would have signed last year? He has a shark for an agent who sees ufa coming up and he sez let's sign with Montreal right now cause if you have a banner year we could get 6 million but f that lets sign for 3 now. :wacko: yeah I can see that.

Don't get me wrong I don't like Komisarek so much. But it was at least possible he would have signed an extension if he'd been approached during his last year. Agents like to take their cut when they can, if there's money on the table they will sit down and negotiate. I dunno about $3m, that seems low, but I expect he would have signed for about what he's worth now. Then at the very least we could have picked up something in return if/when we traded him. Keeping the rights to a young player is important business management, and IMO that is probably the biggest thing that Gainey has failed at.

Also, I'm a freelancer, and tell the truth I feel anxious when I don't know if a contract will be renewed or not. That sort of uncertainty went through much of the Habs roster last season, so no surprise we didn't see the boys playing as a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the use of the word "idiot" in the title but otherwise yeah Gainey went his own way, we trusted him, pretty well gave him free reign to implement his 5-year plan, and it failed miserably. If you are going to maintain a unique management style and business strategy, it had better eventually pay dividends. Gainey did but it didn't. So what's next? Fire him? Would the new owners step in and do that anyone think? I reckon with the flurry of UFA signings Gainey bought himself about a six-month grace period.

Because we finished 1st in the east in year 4, got better for year 5 and happen to struggle with injuries and sophomore slumps and finished with...

Wait for it....

9 points less?

Bad years happen. We had one last year. I wish everyone would stop thinking it defined Bob's 5 year plan. He obviously was on the right track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, sign and trades don't happen, anymore. That is pretty much the most classless thing a GM can do to a player.

So Bob is hamstrung by class hehehe. Anyway I recall when Komisarek's mother passed away, George G and the organization put Mike on a private jet to fly home, the club gave him time to deal with his grief, I think that was class, that was good. But contracts are another matter, they are about keeping the rights to a player you drafted and developed for years and years. You know hockey is a business, do we want to win by approaching it as such or are we satisfied to lose with class? And I don't think many posters are bitching about "everything" Bob Gainey does, I for one am very focused in my criticism of his policies. He's just another part of the team I've loved for years and years, he's not infallible, certainly not above reproach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being from Toronto I used to have a ton of fun at the expense of Leafs fans for attitudes like this. I had an epiphany over the last few weeks reading many posts on this board.

We are no different then they are.

Bob Gainey makes no moves = fans are furious

Bob Gainey makes minor moves = fans are furious

Bob Gainey resigns current roster players = fans are furious

Bob Gainey make aggressive moves to reshape the roster = fans are furious

Dare I say that we're more diluted than Leafs fans.... Boy I sure hope not....

I have no issues with Bob Gainey reshaping the team. What I have an issue with is getting nothing in return for his assets. Had he signed Tangauy, Komi and Kovy mid-year, he could have moved them at the end of the year. Komi's agent had approached Gainey when he was hurt and at the start of the new year and was rebuked. That was the time to sign him - when he was hurt and would have been concerned about getting his next contract. Same thing with Kovy and Tanguay.

Burke managed to move Kubina and looked like he was going to get Kessel for Kaberle. Had Gainey signed him, he could have got a return on his players.

Gainey could also have been more creative in front loading Gionta's and Cammeleri's contracts with more money in return for less of an annual cap hit. You can't overpay three guys - two of them having bad years in the hope that they will turn it around. It is also ridicolous how much was thrown into the Gomez deal.

Having three players signed to long-term deals at ridiclous rates is going to cripple the habs in two years when they need to re-sign A. Kostitsyn and Pleks.

As far as other comments posters have made about them getting younger - what about at the blue line?? Yeah they have a lot of young prospects, but they could have signed a guy like beauchimin for less money then Spacek - If he was signed for about $500k less and for two years, I wouldn't have as much of an issue. But why the hell would you sign the human pylon Hal Gill. Yeah he didn't look bad with the pens, but do the habs have three dominant centres like the pens do to help the tranistion game???? Two of whom (Stall and Malkin) that are also solid defensve players.

I like Gomez, but come on, that is probably the second worse contract in the league and probably the worst one in terms of annual cap hit given Gomez's production!!!!

Lastly, why doesn't Gainey sign young players like Higgens, Komi, A. Kostitysn to longer term deals and give them more money in the earlier year, so over the life of the contract, it is still cheaper then signing them long term.

The three guys I really hate losing are Koivu, Komi and Higgins. Kovy, it would have been nice to sign him mid-year and trade him in the summer.

I wouldn't be surprised if Higgins finally does break out this year. He is not a centre (at least not at the NHL level), but I see a lot of similarities with him and Jordan Stall - solid two way players who work hard every night. Yeah he was snake bit, but so was Leclair before he went to Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong I don't like Komisarek so much. But it was at least possible he would have signed an extension if he'd been approached during his last year. Agents like to take their cut when they can, if there's money on the table they will sit down and negotiate. I dunno about $3m, that seems low, but I expect he would have signed for about what he's worth now. Then at the very least we could have picked up something in return if/when we traded him. Keeping the rights to a young player is important business management, and IMO that is probably the biggest thing that Gainey has failed at.

Also, I'm a freelancer, and tell the truth I feel anxious when I don't know if a contract will be renewed or not. That sort of uncertainty went through much of the Habs roster last season, so no surprise we didn't see the boys playing as a team.

well we disagree, but my point is that you nor anyone else knows if gainey approached komi last summer nor do you anybody else know that he could have been signed.

As to the insane argument that is constantly brought up that the guys were anxious cause they did not know where they were going to be next year and played badly because of it. These guys make millions of dollars, they have millions of dollars. We will not be holding any red tag days for them. Whether they were going to be in montreal or not they were going to be somewhere and they are going to make millions, I know that would freak me out. So tell me since you are free lance, when a contract is expiring and you do not know if it will be renewed do you try extra hard to please the client or do you dog it and say to hell with him he has not renewed yet? I'm thinking you try extra hard to please the client cause you want to have a renewal. These guys didn't. They crapped the bed and that is why they were not renewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say that for whatever reason it wasn't working with us for Higgins, one of my favourite Habs and I guy I openly championed as our next captain last season. He's not snake-bit, he can't score. that's all. But he found his niche on the lower lines, I bet he becomes an excellent 2-way winger on the third line. Maybe with us next year? "Kiss kiss, all is forgiven Chris, by the way we rented an apartment for you and your Mom, just like the Expos did with Mrs. Guerrero and her boys..." ^_^

No objection that Bob overpaid for Gomez and will now overpay him on his insane contract. But he was available, and I think Mathias Brunet pointed out in an article that it isn't necessarily a bad thing to get a guy still young, two years removed from great success, plays hard all the time, good wheels, to come into a system-oriented team like Martin will make us. Maybe it will work, and Bob sees it as a gamble much better than Vinny would have been. No argument either about not frontloading contracts, in particular Gionta making 5 million at 35 years old is worrisome.

Plex is dead meat. Jury still out on both Kosts, though A has the makings of a fine sniper and S looks to have the total skill set.

If we had signed Tanguay while injured to a healthy long-term contract I feel it would have been nearly impossible to move him. Everyone would want to see him put in a full season healthy. Thus the reason that I think Bob replaced him with Cammalleri - more durable, in addition to younger and not that much more expensive. If Bob had tried to undercut Tanguay significantly, he would have just waited for UFA status anyway. Bob really went for healthy players in a big way.

The D will be younger, two of our guys look ready now, one on the brink, a potential stud in Russia, a high-draft NCAA kid, along with Gorges and an in-prime Markov...the guys we signed will be gone as the kids start coming through the ranks. Couldn't believe that Bob didn't go for Beauchemin, but he got guys who don't miss much time at all.

One point about Bob losing all his assets for little or nothing: he can't tank, he can't give up on a playoff appearance while there is still a chance. This isn't Nashville, trading away Souray might have cost him his job, giving up last year on the playoffs during our 100th year shenanigans was political suicide. Signing then dealing Kovalev is a nice idea, but who knows what would have happened on the team had he been here? Or if he would have even been trade-able? We had one serious drama with #27 last year, when Bob saw a chance to replace him one-up with Gionta he didn't hesitate. Character over talent, I guess (not that I disliked Kovalev at all).

Edited by tokyohabs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gainey lost the following in the span of a year for nothing:

Komi, Kovy, Koivu, Tangauy (+ 1st and second for Tangauy), Bouillon, Schneider (+draft pick given up for Schneider). At least the first 4 should have been signed and then moved later if necessary, but there is no excuse for not signing your top assets. Especially when you spent more on replacements that are not necessarily better and may not even be as good as the guys given up.

By the same token, he picked up the following in 2 days for nothing:

Cammalleri, Gionta, Spacek , and Gill. (Plus you have conveniently forgotten the draft pick we got in the deal for Schneider).

As for signing and moving Kovalev, Koivu and Tanguay. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Firstly this is a very good way to discourage future UFAs from signing in Montreal. More significantly, do you see teams lining up to trade for any of these guys? The best of the lot, Tanguay still hasn't been picked up by any team and he is free.

Is Gomez worth more then double then Koivu?????? I think Koivu will end up with around the same amount of points as Gomez - possibly more. If we were going to take Gomez's ridicoulous salary, Sather should have had to sweeten the pot, NOT have Gainey give up Higgins and two good defensive prospects!!!!???

Yes we overpaid to get Gomez. But its pretty clear that we had to. Virtually everyone has said for years that we need a #1 centre. We know Gainey has been working for months trying to get one and that he approached at least 5 teams looking for a trade. The trade with NYR was the best available deal. I agree it seems like we had to give up too much, but its clear that it must have been the best of the options. If he doesn't make this deal we don't get any #1 centre and we don't sign Cammalleri nor Gionta. Then we're back with the same core as last year and they're all 1 year older. For those who are critical of the 5 year plan, that's not a good outcome.

Is Gionta better then Kovy??? Given Giontta's size and having fellow smurfs Cammelleri and Gomez, I'd take Kovy. Gionnta is not worth more then $4M tops, personally, i wouldn't spend more then $3.5M.

Kovy is certainly better on some nights than Gionta. But on most nights Gionta is better. Plus he's much younger. At the end of his 5 year contract he'll still be 2 years younger than Kovalev is now. (I think Ottawa is in for a shock. With the way Kovalev was idolized here and still dogged it he will be coasting all year in Ottawa - except for the 6 games against us).

I'd take Komi over Spacek or Gill anyday - even at $5M and I'd definatley would have tried to get Beauchiman - who actually expressed an interest to play for Montreal then either of the guys that Gainey signed.

I think you are underrating Spacek here. He is certainly much better than the Komisarek we saw last year. I expect Komisarek will rebound but I am not sure he will every reach the level of 2 years ago again. Anyhow, Gainey tried to resign him and he took the same money to go elsewhere. What does that tell you?

Cammelleri is a good signing, but NOT at $6M - Not worth it more then $5M.

Okay so you don't think he is worth more than $5M. If we offer him $5M then he signs with the leafs. We save the $6M and who do you want to get at forward with the savings? There is no one available for $5M anywhere near as good (except maybe Tanguay).

As far as Tangauy goes, i criticized the trade last year, seeing first hand in Calgary how useless the guy was in key situations. Yes if healthy he should have gotten 70-75 points, but he is a SOFT perimeter player who couldn't even have checked Steve Bégin and would have ended up as a minus player if he was asked to cover a non-scorer like Begin. But becuase he is french, most loved the signing. But Gainey should have made an effort to sign him to a lower contract, if only to be trade him and get some return back for the two draft picks given up.

So you don't like Tanguay yet you criticize Gainey for not resigning him. I would have liked to retain Tanguay myself. As I said above, the idea of a sign and trade sounds nice but it isn't realistic.

Even if Gainey was going to spend the obsene money he did on his 5 free agent signed on July 1, Koivu should have been brought back. I think we could have gotten him for $6M to $6.5M for two years. I would much rather have had Gomez, Koivu, Pleks and Lapierre as centres. As it is, who knows if Pleks will get more in arbitration then what Koivu signed for. having three small centers (Gomez, Pleks, Metropolit) is abosute stupidity!!! And I don't think Chips is a viable option.

Above you refered to Gomez as a smurf but you want Koivu back?

I can't think of any recent GM that has mismanaged his assets as badly as Gainey has with the exception of Milbury. This is going to be a HARD season to watch and if I didn't bleed the habs colors I'd take my wife's advice and find a new team. As it is, I told her, I'd get a new wife before I get a new team :wacko:

When Gainey arrived we had one of the worst teams in the league and one of the worst farm systems. In the short time he has been here we have become a respectable team and have one of the best group of prospects. How this can be cpnsidered a failure is beyond me.

Edited by Peter Puck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, he picked up the following in 2 days for nothing:

Cammalleri, Gionta, Spacek , and Gill. (Plus you have conveniently forgotten the draft pick we got in the deal for Schneider).

As for signing and moving Kovalev, Koivu and Tanguay. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Firstly this is a very good way to discourage future UFAs from signing in Montreal. More significantly, do you see teams lining up to trade for any of these guys? The best of the lot, Tanguay still hasn't been picked up by any team and he is free.

Yes we overpaid to get Gomez. But its pretty clear that we had to. Virtually everyone has said for years that we need a #1 centre. We know Gainey has been working for months trying to get one and that he approached at least 5 teams looking for a trade. The trade with NYR was the best available deal. I agree it seems like we had to give up too much, but its clear that it must have been the best of the options. If he doesn't make this deal we don't get any #1 centre and we don't sign Cammalleri nor Gionta. Then we're back with the same core as last year and they're all 1 year older. For those who are critical of the 5 year plan, that's not a good outcome.

Kovy is certainly better on some nights than Gionta. But on most nights Gionta is better. Plus he's much younger. At the end of his 5 year contract he'll still be 2 years younger than Kovalev is now. (I think Ottawa is in for a shock. With the way Kovalev was idolized here and still dogged it he will be coasting all year in Ottawa - except for the 6 games against us).

I think you are underrating Spacek here. He is certainly much better than the Komisarek we saw last year. I expect Komisarek will rebound but I am not sure he will every reach the level of 2 years ago again. Anyhow, Gainey tried to resign him and he took the same money to go elsewhere. What does that tell you?

Okay so you don't think he is worth more than $5M. If we offer him $5M then he signs with the leafs. We save the $6M and who do you want to get at forward with the savings? There is no one available for $5M anywhere near as good (except maybe Tanguay).

So you don't like Tanguay yet you criticize Gainey for not resigning him. I would have liked to retain Tanguay myself. As I said above, the idea of a sign and trade sounds nice but it isn't realistic.

Above you refered to Gomez as a smurf but you want Koivu back?

When Gainey arrived we had one of the worst teams in the league and one of the worst farm systems. In the short time he has been here we have become a respectable team and have one of the best group of prospects. How this can be cpnsidered a failure is beyond me.

Teams have been signing and trading players for years if they don't work out - look at Toronto they are poster boys for stupid signings and then dumping their mistakes on others. They still have had no issues signing players. This year i really like Burkes pickups on defence - if they can pickup 2-3 decent forwards, as much as it hurts to even think about it, I think they could finish ahead of the habs.

I would not sign and trade Koivu. I think the habs should have signed him for another two years, or at least one more year. Koivu was one of the only habs who gives it his all when it counts. I can't believe he the crap he had to put up with during his time in Montreal, especially when he was asked to be the number 1 centre, which he clearly was not fitted for that role after all his injuries. IMO, he would have been the perfect #2 centre. I think we replaced a guy who was a perfect #2 centre, with another #2 centre and will also be asking him to be a #1 centre. Gomez has not shown that he is a #1 centre. He has done nothing with the NYR to prove that he is a #1 centre, so I don't buy this arguement that Gainey has filled the long filling hole of missing a #1 centre.

With respect to Gomez and Gionta they had career years playing with a big clutch player in Elias. Now they are playing with Cammelleri. Had Cammellari had a good playoff he would have been resigned by Calgary.

What I find VERY frustrating is that we constantly go after other teams rejects - Tanguay was run out of town and picked up by Calgary, Gomez and his contract were called untradeable and an anchorwould sink any team in the salary cap era and Gainey picks him up. Gionta is a good two way player, but NOBODY in their right mind would have come even close to the $5M that the habs offered.

Hal Gill is a pylon that was run out of toronto. At least he wasn't signed to the stupid deal toronto had signed him to, but still, he is a pylon. Yeah he is big, but he moves like a log. As I said before, he won a cup, but so what, Gary Leeman won a cup in Montreal. Does that make him a winner or a guy you would want on your team??? Why, why, why wouldn't you at least TRY and sign Beauchiman, a guy who had said he would be interested in going back to Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Bob is not an idiot,

On the forum i heard many say Bob is a genius, the bob is in session.

It's always like this, a prospects-player-coach-manager in Montreal are over rated, a good streak they are

up to superstar level, a bad streak they are garbage.

If we have to learn something from all that is that Bob is human he takes good and bad decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...