Jump to content

Time for Gainey to go


jackp

Recommended Posts

2002-2003 Montreal Canadiens

  • 11 Saku Koivu
  • 20 Richard Zednik
  • 94 Yanic Perreault
  • 38 Jan Bulis
  • 79 Andrei Markov
  • 93 Doug Gilmour ToTor
  • 43 Patrice Brisebois
  • 24 Andreas Dackell
  • 82 Donald Audette
  • 14 Oleg Petrov ToNas
  • 52 Craig Rivet
  • 90 Joe Juneau
  • 21 Randy McKay
  • 71 Mike Ribeiro
  • 25 Chad Kilger
  • 37 Niklas Sundstrom FrmSJ
  • 27 Mariusz Czerkawski
  • 81 Marcel Hossa
  • 54 Patrick Traverse
  • 5 Stephane Quintal
  • 17 Jason Ward
  • 28 Karl Dykhuis
  • 51 Francis Bouillon FrmNas
  • 22 Bill Lindsay
  • 60 Jose Theodore
  • 8 Mike Komisarek
  • 36 Francois Beauchemin
  • 30 Mathieu Garon
  • 32 Gordie Dwyer FrmNYR
  • 53 Sylvain Blouin FrmMin
  • 31 Jeff Hackett ToBos
  • 65 Ron Hainsey

I'm curious about the theory that Gainey inherited better than he's giving us now. There's the team he inherited. Those are the 32 players that skated for the Habs at one time or another that season - the final under Andre Savard. For comparison's sake, here therefore is the roster that Houle left us with (he was fired five games into next season, I believe, so these would be the guys he put together).

  • 26 Martin Rucinsky
  • 15 Dainius Zubrus
  • 34 Sergei Zholtok
  • 43 Patrice Brisebois
  • 14 Trevor Linden
  • 49 Brian Savage
  • 17 Benoit Brunet
  • 22 Eric Weinrich
  • 27 Shayne Corson
  • 32 Oleg Petrov
  • 23 Turner Stevenson
  • 11 Saku Koivu
  • 28 Karl Dykhuis From Philadelphia
  • 63 Craig Darby
  • 52 Craig Rivet
  • 51 Francis Bouillon
  • 37 Patrick Poulin
  • 40 Jesse Belanger
  • 29 Jim Cummins
  • 45 Arron Asham
  • 55 Igor Ulanov To Edmonton
  • 20 Scott Lachance
  • 24 Scott Thornton From Dallas
  • 44 Sheldon Souray From New Jersey
  • 61 Jason Ward
  • 47 Juha Lind From Dallas
  • 48 Miloslav Guren
  • 71 Mike Ribeiro
  • 24 Christian Laflamme From Edmonton
  • 21 Barry Richter
  • 46 Matt Higgins
  • 6 Trent McCleary
  • 36 Dave Morissette
  • 44 Stephane Robidas
  • 35 Andre Bashkirov
  • Vladimir Malakhov To New Jersey
  • 60 Jose Theodore
  • 31 Jeff Hackett

You have the final Houle lineup, the final Savard lineup, and today's lineup from Gainey. Now, is Houle arguably better than Gainey? Well, he did have Darby, Lind and Ward (a former fan pick for ultimate first liner). And Savard? Bulis, Dackell, and Traverse. Now, I'm not saying there aren't duds on the Habs of today - not by a longshot. But Houle better than Gainey? That's like saying the Leafs have won ten Cups in the last 15 years. Savard better than Gainey? I suppose there's more room for interpretation, but I still believe we're miles and miles ahead. Just my opinion, though. You see the names, you be the judge.

Edited by Colin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2002-2003 Montreal Canadiens

You have the final Houle lineup, the final Savard lineup, and today's lineup from Gainey. Now, is Houle arguably better than Gainey? Well, he did have Darby, Lind and Ward (a former fan pick for ultimate first liner). And Savard? Bulis, Dackell, and Traverse. Now, I'm not saying there aren't duds on the Habs of today - not by a longshot. But Houle better than Gainey? That's like saying the Leafs have won ten Cups in the last 15 years. Savard better than Gainey? I suppose there's more room for interpretation, but I still believe we're miles and miles ahead. Just my opinion, though. You see the names, you be the judge.

Read my post carefully... I did not say Houle (our all-time worst gm) was better than Gainey. I just said that he wasn't as far ahead of him as most people here believe. Just to clarify further, I'd give Houle a 2 out of 10, and Gainey a 5.

Just for interests sake... Pollock gets a 10, Selke gets a 9, Grundman gets a 4, Serge Savard a 7. Any others out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lobbying to get a GM fired in his sixth season isn't trolling. But - who's out there that could replace Gainey? It's easy to say "fire Carbo! fire Gainey! trade Price!" but then who is going to be our replacement? I don't see anyone available who I'd prefer.

I also think your choice of things to complain about, jackp, shows some bias. I mean, Begin and Ryder? They played their ways off the team! How can Gainey be blamed for not offering a second liner coming off of a horrid season more than 4 million dollars a year? There are enough arguments out there to make a case against Gainey without ever mentioning Begin and Ryder.

Ryder was a perrenial 30 goal scorer *who had a bad year.* You don't give up on a guy for one bad year!!!

(And I do admit that Begin was more of a filler. Maybe I should have left him out but I just don't see the upside of letting him go. He was cheap, he was intense, he was a banger, and he always gave you 100%. A team needs guys like that.)

As far as the next gm is concerned... bring back Serge Savard!!! (And I'm not kidding!)

Edited by jackp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryder was a perrenial 30 goal scorer *who had a bad year.* You don't give up on a guy for one bad year!!!

(And I do admit that Begin was more of a filler. Maybe I should have left him out but I just don't see the upside of letting him go. He was cheap, he was intense, he was a banger, and he always gave you 100%. A team needs guys like that.)

As far as the next gm is concerned... bring back Serge Savard!!! (And I'm not kidding!)

Giving up on a guy who's constantly taking you to arbitrage for more money that he's worth and who finish the season in the press box cuz he sucks that much is fair enough IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2002-2003 Montreal Canadiens

Read my post carefully... I did not say Houle (our all-time worst gm) was better than Gainey. I just said that he wasn't as far ahead of him as most people here believe. Just to clarify further, I'd give Houle a 2 out of 10, and Gainey a 5.

Just for interests sake... Pollock gets a 10, Selke gets a 9, Grundman gets a 4, Serge Savard a 7. Any others out there?

If you have Grundman at 4 and Savard at 7 I no longer need to read this thread..... it was all explained right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss Kovalev.

I beleive all 3 new additions have more points then he does.

Time will tell, BG has done a decent job IMO, he only had 1 top 10 pick, Price, the rest is a crap shoot.

My 2 big problems with his moves are not moving Souray for a number 1. Trading a #1 for Tanguay. That's not hindsight, i don't like the idea of giving up #1's. Ask Burk, he just gave away 2 of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss Kovalev.

I beleive all 3 new additions have more points then he does.

Time will tell, BG has done a decent job IMO, he only had 1 top 10 pick, Price, the rest is a crap shoot.

My 2 big problems with his moves are not moving Souray for a number 1. Trading a #1 for Tanguay. That's not hindsight, i don't like the idea of giving up #1's. Ask Burk, he just gave away 2 of them.

All the moves from summer 2008 look bad because Bob was 'going for it.' He had reason to think his team was close to being a contender and made a series of excellent moves to try to put it over the top. Didn't work, and I certainly respect your blanket opposition to surrendering first-rounders, but I really think Bob made the right decision with the info he had. That's the trouble with 'going for it' - it usually fails to work out; but you have to try, surely. And unlike the average numbskull fan I'm not going to condemn the GM retroactively for it.

Souray was a mistake and I said it at the time. Good call, Chris. Komisarek also should have been moved at the deadline, but realistically in Year 100 Gainey HAD to keep him for the stretch drive/playoff run even though they were lost causes.

As for Ryder, he lost his job to Kostitsyn. Gainey had the choice of paying $4 mil for a guy when he had a cheaper and apparently better alternative already on the team. That decision only looks questionable because Kosty has regressed. This wasn't something Bob could anticipate.

IF Gainey had developed a couple of elite forwards from within the system and a couple of bona-fide top-4 d-men, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. All these 'lost players' wouldn't matter much at all because they'd have been replaced by comparable or superior talent from within. So I come back to my original point. THE reason for firing Gainey is poor player development. The other stuff is beside the point.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, Martin can take over GM and Guy Boucher can come up an Coach. :P

I still prefer things as they are though.

WOW. That's the logical next step!! I like that...When and only when Bob want's to step down.

Edited by Habsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(And I do admit that Begin was more of a filler. Maybe I should have left him out but I just don't see the upside of letting him go. He was cheap, he was intense, he was a banger, and he always gave you 100%. A team needs guys like that.)

Begin wanted to play, and he wasn't getting the ice time with the team we had last year, so I forget if he demanded a trade or if Gainey told him if he wants ice time, he'll be traded.

We actually did Begin a favour in sending him to Dallas because it gave him an opportunity to finish the season suited up playing for an NHL team to showcase his ability so he could actually earn a new contract for the coming season(s). It worked out because Boston gobbled him up, but I'm sure they remember his play over the last few years we played against them as well.

Either way, Gainey moving Begin was in Begin's best interest. He didn't have a spot with us anymore as we decided to go with younger guys, and eventually brought in Metropolit who is proving his keep and is a bit of a better skater.

Begin was my favourite player though, so seeing him go sucked... especially no that he's on the Bruins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Begin wanted to play, and he wasn't getting the ice time with the team we had last year, so I forget if he demanded a trade or if Gainey told him if he wants ice time, he'll be traded.

We actually did Begin a favour in sending him to Dallas because it gave him an opportunity to finish the season suited up playing for an NHL team to showcase his ability so he could actually earn a new contract for the coming season(s). It worked out because Boston gobbled him up, but I'm sure they remember his play over the last few years we played against them as well.

Either way, Gainey moving Begin was in Begin's best interest. He didn't have a spot with us anymore as we decided to go with younger guys, and eventually brought in Metropolit who is proving his keep and is a bit of a better skater.

Begin was my favourite player though, so seeing him go sucked... especially no that he's on the Bruins.

He went to Gainey and I think unofficially asked for a trade. Like you said, he wasn't happy with the ice time he was getting and wanted to be somewhere where he could play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about Begin anyway? The lamentations over Begin have little to do with hockey and everything to do with ethnic self-assertion. Otherwise put, if he was English he'd have been forgotten by now. The guy is an often-injured quality fourth liner, in no way a difference-maker. It's all silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the moves from summer 2008 look bad because Bob was 'going for it.' He had reason to think his team was close to being a contender and made a series of excellent moves to try to put it over the top. Didn't work, and I certainly respect your blanket opposition to surrendering first-rounders, but I really think Bob made the right decision with the info he had. That's the trouble with 'going for it' - it usually fails to work out; but you have to try, surely. And unlike the average numbskull fan I'm not going to condemn the GM retroactively for it.

Souray was a mistake and I said it at the time. Good call, Chris. Komisarek also should have been moved at the deadline, but realistically in Year 100 Gainey HAD to keep him for the stretch drive/playoff run even though they were lost causes.

As for Ryder, he lost his job to Kostitsyn. Gainey had the choice of paying $4 mil for a guy when he had a cheaper and apparently better alternative already on the team. That decision only looks questionable because Kosty has regressed. This wasn't something Bob could anticipate.

IF Gainey had developed a couple of elite forwards from within the system and a couple of bona-fide top-4 d-men, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. All these 'lost players' wouldn't matter much at all because they'd have been replaced by comparable or superior talent from within. So I come back to my original point. THE reason for firing Gainey is poor player development. The other stuff is beside the point.

its wasnt bob that cause ryder to loses his job, it was the coach....guy..he made the lines..he put ryder on the four line with no one to play with and didnt play him alot of games..ryder would of been crazy to come back and play for guy..ryder was a 25-30 goal score that need guys to play with..and guy didnt like him or didnt know how to use him for what he was a goal score..you think ryder pick boston just for the money..NO..LOOK WHO IS COACHING THEM..

i think bob bigs mistake was putting to much faith in guy and that turn out to be our down far..a gm listen to his coach and what he as to say about the players..and i dont think guy add a clue what the f**k was going on..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its wasnt bob that cause ryder to loses his job, it was the coach....guy..he made the lines..he put ryder on the four line with no one to play with and didnt play him alot of games..ryder would of been crazy to come back and play for guy..ryder was a 25-30 goal score that need guys to play with..and guy didnt like him or didnt know how to use him for what he was a goal score..you think ryder pick boston just for the money..NO..LOOK WHO IS COACHING THEM..

i think bob bigs mistake was putting to much faith in guy and that turn out to be our down far..a gm listen to his coach and what he as to say about the players..and i dont think guy add a clue what the f**k was going on..

Ryder played his way onto the fourth line. He was horrible on the first line, horrible on the second line, horrible on the third line and had absolutely no use on a fourth line. So he winded up in the pressbox. When he returned to the line up, he didn't do much. It's no one's fault but Ryder's.

His last season on the team was just like Samsonov's, but worse... at least when Samsonov returned to the line up, he seemed to be working hard. There was reason to sympathize with him.

Ryder loves playing for Julien, yes, but Boston chose him more than he chose them. Julien coached Ryder through Juniors, the AHL and on to the big team. He convinced Chiarelli to throw money at him. Anybody in Ryder's situation would have accepted 4 million per, no matter who it was coming from. But yeah, I bet he was happy it was coming from Julien's team. I doubt he was anything against Carbo though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a dumb thread. Anybody supporting this should become a Leaf fan. Every GM makes mistakes. I don't think Bob has made many...

Ribero....not a team player..he had to go,

Streit...Is he worth that money? Not!

Ryder.... 4 Mil. Not?

Begin....Twilight of his career. Bob honored his request.

Komisarek...Boy does he look good for the leafs...Not.

Souray...Is he worth that money? Maybe.

Kovalev, Koivu, Tanguay...for Gomex, Gionta, Camallieri? Way to go Bob.

Price.... Maybe someday but rest assured he's better than the other options..remember Huet.

Now the major mistake was getting rid of Julien and being loyal to an inexperienced coach like Carbo. If kovalev would have been sent packing earlier the coach of the year would have belonged to the habs not to the team theat embarrassed us 12 games last year.

Overall...Good job Bob and hope you're hear till the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post with the rosters, Colin. It really drives it home. I really think Bob's greatest asset is the ability to push along with his programme and stay relatively on-course thru incessant "advice" from media, fans, etc. The one time that he didn't (and it made sense at the time) which was last summer, he paid the price. Many of his decisions I don't agree with in hindsight, many I didn't at the time, but there is a logic you can understand behind them, you feel like there's a plan.

Only one thing truly worries me.... This team has had some bad luck, bad injuries, and straight up freak injuries over the past few years. I'm really not comfortable with a team that's so new, with so many pieces that have to fit together, being this close to the cap and this close to maxing out the contracts for the season. Bob's severely limiting what I think is one his biggest assets - he's proven in the past that he can go out and get the logical missing player if his team needs it (Kovalev, Schneider). Now, we're depending on not just one, but probably 2-3 prospects and young players taking a step forward if this is really going to work. It's not a crazy thing to expect, it's just playing it a little close to the edge for my taste.

Gainey is a cautious man, so you have to wonder what would have him do this. I may get flayed for saying this, but it really seems obvious to me that for him the results on the ice THIS year are secondary to establishing a proper work ethic and reverence/respect towards wearing CH that players used to have. I think his disgust with the last year's collapse has given him great motivation to purge this club before leaving, and also think he will leave on his own once he feels he did that, whether we have won the Cup at that point or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that some people simply dismiss the mere idea of Gainey's job being in question shows how Bob's work can be divisive.

For some, the Ribeiro trade is a blunder because we got nothing for him, to others just getting rid of Ribs was a good move. People forget that Bob could have still moved Ribeiro but at least get something worthwhile in return.

Same could be said about a lot of other moves Bob did. I think one of Bob's main strength is his focus, he knows where he wants to go and he's not scared to take the tough decisions needed to get in the direction he wants to take. He has follow-through, he doesnt go into a direction half-assed.

My main problem with Gainey is that he GMs the same way he played. Gainey was playing with abandon, he sacrificed his body. A GM needs to be greedier than that. Gainey wastes too many assets, and in the end it's does become detrimental to the organization. Hainsey, Beauchemin, Ribeiro, Souray, Streit, Ryder, Begin, Theodore, Garon/Huet, Perezhogin, Ivanans, Danis, Zednik, Komisarek, etc. The amount of assets that Bob lost or downgraded to nil is staggering. Might not mean a lot to fans who only live in the here and now; or people who'll find all sorts of justifications for each and every move; but the bottom line doesnt lie. In the grand scheme of thing, this is simply bad assets management. In the long run it hurts any franchise, especially when the opposite (getting something for nothing or upgrading through trades) happened so rarely.

Comparing Gainey to Houle is pointless and brings nothing to the discussion. Gainey came in a situation where André Savard had stockpiled prospects and picks and the team was rebuilding. Gainey has to be judged on the potential of the team he was given, which can never really be a fair judgement because potential is just speculation. But given that the team he was given in 2003 had missed the playoffs 4 seasons out of the 5 last, missing them only once in the past 5 years is an improvement. Question is: should the team have done better than only winning 1 game past the 1st round in those 4 playoffs years? I think the answer is yes. So for that part, Gainey's teams have underachieved. This is also where the combined net loss of all those wasted assets hurts. Gainey was wise enough to realize himself that his 5-year plan was a failure and he adjusted accordingly.

I think Bob at least deserved a chance to conduct his new plan to it's full completion. However, with a second chance comes more severe judgment. I'd give him this one last season to at least show that the team improved, so the success marker should be a good 2nd round showing. Anything less should be deemed a failure and only then should Gainey's departure realistically be put up for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some, the Ribeiro trade is a blunder because we got nothing for him, to others just getting rid of Ribs was a good move. People forget that Bob could have still moved Ribeiro but at least get something worthwhile in return.

I call BS here. It's not like Gainey said: "Well, I have to trade him. My options are to get nothing or to get something. I think I'll take nothing." GMs look at all of their options before they make a move. If there was really a better offer for Ribs on the table. obviously he would have taken it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call BS here. It's not like Gainey said: "Well, I have to trade him. My options are to get nothing or to get something. I think I'll take nothing." GMs look at all of their options before they make a move. If there was really a better offer for Ribs on the table. obviously he would have taken it.

I call BS there.

Keeping Ribs would have been better than moving him for a D who had known injury history and had been on a steep decline for years. Or at least a draft pick, or a prospect. As for the Habs needing a D at time: that need would never have existed had the Habs not lost Hainsey and Beauchemin for nothing years before.

As I said, you can try to debate each of those move, but all put together it amounts to a big, continuous stream of quality assets being lost for nothing, not even for team succes (no better playoff record), not even a better team spirit (still had locker-room issues last season). You can't debate that type of negative bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call BS there.

Keeping Ribs would have been better than moving him for a D who had known injury history and had been on a steep decline for years. Or at least a draft pick, or a prospect. As for the Habs needing a D at time: that need would never have existed had the Habs not lost Hainsey and Beauchemin for nothing years before.

As I said, you can try to debate each of those move, but all put together it amounts to a big, continuous stream of quality assets being lost for nothing, not even for team succes (no better playoff record), not even a better team spirit (still had locker-room issues last season). You can't debate that type of negative bottom line.

If you knew the underlying factors you'd be in favor of Ribs going for nothing, not even Niinimaa. But you don't and yet you still call on this like it was Gretzky who was traded for future considerations.

Last year the Habs had the same types of distractions in the dressing room, and just like the Ribs trade, those players are now gone. If you hate the moves, then so what, I'll take the opinion of a real GM over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm anytime.

Edited by Habitforming
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew the underlying factors you'd be in favor of Ribs going for nothing, not even Niinimaa. But you don't and yet you still call on this like it was Gretzky who was traded for future considerations.

Last year the Habs had the same types of distractions in the dressing room, and just like the Ribs trade, those players are now gone. If you hate the moves, then so what, I'll take the opinion of a real GM over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm anytime.

I don't think KoZed's comments meet the criteria of fanatical ravings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew the underlying factors you'd be in favor of Ribs going for nothing, not even Niinimaa. But you don't and yet you still call on this like it was Gretzky who was traded for future considerations.

Last year the Habs had the same types of distractions in the dressing room, and just like the Ribs trade, those players are now gone. If you hate the moves, then so what, I'll take the opinion of a real GM over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm anytime.

lol I hate it when you do this. You imply that you have inside information but then never say what it is. It makes me curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main problem with Gainey is that he GMs the same way he played. Gainey was playing with abandon, he sacrificed his body. A GM needs to be greedier than that. Gainey wastes too many assets, and in the end it's does become detrimental to the organization. Hainsey, Beauchemin, Ribeiro, Souray, Streit, Ryder, Begin, Theodore, Garon/Huet, Perezhogin, Ivanans, Danis, Zednik, Komisarek, etc. The amount of assets that Bob lost or downgraded to nil is staggering.

Just unloading Theo's contract was a plus. Ivanans? Danis? Begin? Garon? Zhog? Seriously, you're listing those guys? Zhog left the team, just as Valentenko and Emelin (basically) have done. Garon was traded... dealt for Huet/Bonk. Sure they're no longer with the team, but it's not like Garon was "dumped" for nothing. Why not lament the loss of Cullimore and Salmelainen, bought out after the Samsonov trade? I'll give you Ribs, although I wasn't exactly upset that he was traded. Doesn't seem like many here were too upset with Ryder leaving, especially with the contract he was given, until he played decently in Bean town. Hainsey was always regarded by many as a lazy, egotistical partier, and I don't recall many being upset until, yet again, he had what can be called modest success elsewhere. Zed was traded for a 2nd rounder. Huet was dealt for a 2nd rounder.

That leaves Beauchemin (career year playing with a loaded D in Anaheim), Souray (I wished he would have been dealt), Komi, Streit (kinda wished he would've been re-signed but had an abysmal playoff season in his UFA year).

I'm not saying Gainey hasn't mismanaged some assets, but some of the names being tossed about in this thread leave me scratching my head.

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...