Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jackp

Time for Gainey to go

Recommended Posts

Gainey trial is way too soon, i agree they should make it at the end

of the year but this is going nowhere. He was hired to act as GM by

past an new owners.

Before even thinking of conducting a Gainey trial,

this team has to loose way more games than that. There are some players

who will have deceived so much that their contracts or draft will be in question.

There will be a coach unable to consolidate a group of players in a team system

in one year.

On my list, the first round picks, second Jacques Martin system, third

defense...way after that Gainey. Cuz if there is some damage the damage is already done,

can't be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said that most of the players we lost could be explained for, but that the combination of them all meant that Gainey was wasting a lot of assets.

Ribeiro didn't just fake an injury. He caused trouble and was involved in numerous bad news stories for his entire tenure with the team. All of it adds up. He fakes an injury one day, he fights with the Captain the next day, then the next day he tells some journalist that "if Ryder had buried half the chances I set up for him..." then he has the reputation for always being on his cell phone at practice, being a pretty boy, etc..... Then there's the way he played IN the games. Lazy, soft, inconsistent.

The guy was nothing but trouble. He was never going to amount to anything in Montreal.

The behavior issues is undebatable, but the idea that it couldnt be fixed and/or justified moving him at all costs is anything but that certain.

I remember writing a lengthy post about Ribs about a month before he got traded. It was basically foreshadowing what happened to Ribs in Dallas. Nothing for me to brag about, because it was just that obvious.

The bottom line is that the situation was handled poorly, as other situations with others players were handled poorly later. I think Gainey grossly underestimated Ribeiro's base talent or he wouldnt have dumped him for as low as an old banged-up defenseman; and nobody in the organization knew Ribeiro's career progression well enough to counsel Gainey properly on the offensive upside and overall potential value that asset really had.

Same basic internal miss-evaluation of the assets on hands that lead to the stupid loss of Hainsey and Beauchemin. Every time you let a point-per-game center on the verge of a breakout go and really have nothing to show for it, it's a significant net loss, attitude or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assessments of how a player plays after a trade is just that, unless a player is traded to a parody of the exact team he came from you cannot say the same thing would have happened had he not been traded. It's silly for us to use those as examples, in trades you can only look at the value of a player at the time of the trade.

Why bring up the negatives of Gainey without the positives, every situation has it's negatives, it you want to make a real argument, talk about the things Gainey has done well, bringing in Kovy, the Rivet trade which netted us a first and Gorges, Huet being a throwaway in a trade who turned into a competent netminder.

No GM is perfect, but I FEEL more confortable with the team as of now than I have in a long time, no one in the world could reliable predict the meltdown that was last season. There's an issue in Montreal I notice is the severe reluctance to throw up the white flag at the deadline and give in by trading players for prospects and picks when we're on the fringe of the playoffs. There's a catch 22 in Montreal, miss the playoffs and get the heat, that would have likely happened more than it had, had we done as suggested and trading away Souray, Ryder, etc.

One last thing, people always say "he should have gotten more for so and so", unless you have some insider information we do not, how do you know there's a market for said player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last thing, people always say "he should have gotten more for so and so", unless you have some insider information we do not, how do you know there's a market for said player?
The same can be said about the possible opposite -- maybe there was a better market for Ribs that Gainey willingly ignored because he had his eyes set on a veteran defenseman -- but one way or another it no obstacle to a realistic appraisal of the trade itself. 

I remember making a sort of balance sheet after the Habs elimination of all the players the Habs had added/loss under Gainey (draft excluded except for picks added/won through trades) and it wasnt looking good on the trade side. But let's do it that way too.

Garon for Bonk and Huet. 3 better years from Huet than what it would have been from Garon, 2 forgettable years from Bonk and 27 games from Matt Schneider. Bonk was let go to free agency, Huet traded for a 2nd rounder later traded for Schneider... and it all ends there. Garon has always struggled to control his lateral movements in the pros which is why he failed to get a permanent starting job, so it's a small, short but decent net win there.

Picking Begin off waivers from Buffalo was a good net gain. But later it was downgraded to Janik, later downgraded in the Gomez trade for what amounts to Busto. Still something for nothing at least.

Zednik for WSH 3rd rounder (Olivier Fortier). Seeing as 3 yrs later Zednik isnt even in the NHL anymore, it can be considered a win. 

2005 draft swap of picks with NYR to draft Latendresse is probably the best trade Gainey has done up to now. Lats has the 4th most NHL games, 4th most goals and 6th most points of all players draft that year. Nothing but win. 

2006 draft, trading down from #16 to #20 (Fischer) and #53 (Carle) could be considered a good move. #53 added Carle which is a small but decent net gain, adding a rare right-handed D who is progressing fine and doesnt look too far from the NHL. Remains to be seen if it offsets the possible loss the Habs might have made by passing- on Lewis, Stewart or Mitera by trading down. Same draft Gainey upgraded his 79th and 109th pick into the 66th (Ryan White) which looks alright. 

Rivet for Gorges and #22 pick (Pacioretty) trade was good just because they got a prospect with good upside in Pacioretty. Gorges isnt much better than Rivet so everything hinges on Pacioretty being better than next in line for his roster spot.

Metropolit off waivers showed very fortunate thanks to Metro being a fairly good at his role and even playing above his head in the playoffs.

That's it. It would sum up what can be considered the "good" additions made through trades by Gainey that we can at least give some judgement on right now, which is stretching it because most of them involve prospects. Gorges and Gomez are the only roster players aquired straight from trades, Metro was picked off waivers and Latendresse drafted.

Looking at UFAs, you have: Hamrlik, Laraque, Gionta, Cammalleri, Spacek, Gill and Moen. Balance the additions with the guys we let walk as UFAs after drafting or giving something to acquire them: Bulis, Souray, Streit, Ivanans, Aebischer, Bonk, Niinimaa, Ryder, Danis, Johnson, Perezhogin, Koivu, Kovalev, Komisarek, Bouillon, Tanguay, Lang and Schneider. 7 vs 18.  :huh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gainey sucks, this years team sucks. Oh what haYo I'm sorry NYHabsFan, I'm really happy for you, but Beckham was one of the best trolls of all times!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it. It would sum up what can be considered the "good" additions made through trades by Gainey that we can at least give some judgement on right now, which is stretching it because most of them involve prospects. Gorges and Gomez are the only roster players aquired straight from trades, Metro was picked off waivers and Latendresse drafted.

Looking at UFAs, you have: Hamrlik, Laraque, Gionta, Cammalleri, Spacek, Gill and Moen. Balance the additions with the guys we let walk as UFAs after drafting or giving something to acquire them: Bulis, Souray, Streit, Ivanans, Aebischer, Bonk, Niinimaa, Ryder, Danis, Johnson, Perezhogin, Koivu, Kovalev, Komisarek, Bouillon, Tanguay, Lang and Schneider. 7 vs 18.  :huh:

 

You can't look at the net gain, you have to take into account what the players did before they left, e.g. Kovy was gotten for practically nothing, and had a good couple years here. That would be a 'win' more than a loss.

Of your list there is not many desireables there that you can honestly make a case for keeping. Like I mentioned before, if we dump players for drafts/prospects at the deadline because 'we may lose them for nothing' is silly logic. I cannot see many GMs wanting to toss in the white flag like that.

I guess we all have a different stance on this, there may be a case that Gainey will be let go at the end of the season, it seems his fate is tied to the 1st line and Price, as they go, he goes so to speak. I believe he has done a lot more good than harm here, and after the recent string of suck that Montreal's GMs have done, he hasn't done a terrible job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't look at the net gain, you have to take into account what the players did before they left, e.g. Kovy was gotten for practically nothing, and had a good couple years here. That would be a 'win' more than a loss.

Of your list there is not many desireables there that you can honestly make a case for keeping. Like I mentioned before, if we dump players for drafts/prospects at the deadline because 'we may lose them for nothing' is silly logic. I cannot see many GMs wanting to toss in the white flag like that.

How many times have the case for trading Kovy came up? It's not like he was a superstar who quit on us. He would have been much easier to trade than a guy like Koivu who could have been expected to finish his career here.

You also forget one thing: lot of those guys were lost to free agency because Gainey simply refused to re-sign them during the season. Might not be a big loss in some cases, but if you dont intend to make a big pitch for Souray or dont really want to risk losing Komisarek, why wait until they can leave you empty-handed? And if you're just going to rent Tanguay or Lang for one season, why waste something as goof as a 1st and a 2nd round pick? It's like throwing money out the window. Weither or not the trade itself was justified or not based on the prospects of winning the Stanley Cup is an entire different debate: you still wasted assets. Maybe a small loss, but in Gainey's case all those small losses added to a lot of assets lost for nothing. 

That was my entire point. Gainey wastes lots of assets, he gambled and lost more than he and he raked in. All GMs gambles, so you should always expect some losses. I didnt say Gainey should go because of all that, I said now he's on a 2nd chance and needs to make up for all those losses with some playoffs success. Our prospects depth has slimmed down considerably. We've already dug into our economies. So there's really some urgency to start making playoffs noise this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough with your post, but I think this discussion should happen at seasons end not less than 10 games into a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough with your post, but I think this discussion should happen at seasons end not less than 10 games into a season.

Granted, we shouldnt judge based on this season. Though we've already had 5 seasons of Gainey, so we can at least judge that

We can also set some definitive criteria for "success" now. I say we should set the bar (no pun intended) at a strong 2nd round showing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it too much to ask to keep personal comments out of discussion? Just because a person doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he deserves to be personally insulted.

exactly how is that a personal attack? everytime the habs lose we here this shite. it is getting a little tiresome. arguing about things that were done 3 or 4 years ago is pointless. And I am tired of everyone who has a different opinion is labelled as "drinking the koolaid" That is a personal attack and should be stopped. If your argument is the other person is stupid YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh my name was punned.

What are realistic goals, 2nd round of playoffs, stanely cup finals or bust?

Realistically I would call this season a success if Price plays up to his potential, and we win a series or two.

My expectations have dipped a little with the injury to Markov, although I real do believe a 4,th 5th in the conference is within possibility. Even finishing first in the division is not out of the realm of possibility, Boston got weaker this season, and so far this year Price has out played Thomas, will the big contract haunt Thomas, he's been playing without pressure his entire career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even finishing first in the division is not out of the realm of possibility, Boston got weaker this season, and so far this year Price has out played Thomas, will the big contract haunt Thomas, he's been playing without pressure his entire career.

very true he has been playing in the minors most of his career. I have always had it in the back of my mind that he is not as good as he appears, and I keep waiting for the real thomas to show up. so far not so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly how is that a personal attack? everytime the habs lose we here this shite. it is getting a little tiresome. arguing about things that were done 3 or 4 years ago is pointless. And I am tired of everyone who has a different opinion is labelled as "drinking the koolaid" That is a personal attack and should be stopped. If your argument is the other person is stupid YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Very confusing reply... I did not make the koolaid comment, nor did I make the "stupid" comment.

As to examining what was done 3 or 4 years ago... how else do you evaluate a gm's performance???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as per TSN ice chips, Weber was sent back to Hamilton. So there's someone who had to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like KoZed's general outlook on this. His question of how you set criteria is a good one. He demands a second-round showing. Fair enough, but what if the team happens to be rocked with injuries like it was last season? Do we then fire Bob? Or what if the team has a horrible first half and then puts on a terrific second half charge, only to fall a point or two short of the playoffs? Couldn't you argue that the second half - when presumably the team has gelled and Markov is back - is the truer indicator of the team Bob has assembled? Would it make sense to fire a GM under those circumstances, with a team that seems ready to take the big leap?

If we fail to make the playoffs, firing Bob will be defensible, but even then, depending on the situation, I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it. While he has been guilty of questionable asset management and his player development has been pretty bad, he has taken very clear steps to improve in the latter area and he *does* bring stability, respect, and general competence to the organization, and he is impervious to media and fan influence - huge pluses in this pathological hockey environment.

In the end, then, I think you have to look at the context and not just impose a fixed 'target' that Bob must meet in order to keep his job. Personally, what I really want coming out of this season is some sense that the team is, if not a contender, then on the cusp of contending - kinda the feeling I had at the end of 2008. If we exit 2009-10 feeling that this is a so-so team and a so-so organization highly unlikely to have a serious at winning within the next 2-3 years, then that'll mean Bob has locked us into a non-championship-calibre core with minimal cap flexibility for improvement in the forseeable future and few can't-miss prospects in the system.

The moment we conclude this definitively, we have no choice but to conclude that he should go. He'll have condemned us to mediocrity for another generation.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it too much to ask to keep personal comments out of discussion? Just because a person doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he deserves to be personally insulted.

this IS your post I answered it where is the confusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how people now bring up how Gainey let Kovy walk. Like everyone didn't want him gone all the time when he was here. Talk about revisionist history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like KoZed's general outlook on this. His question of how you set criteria is a good one. He demands a second-round showing. Fair enough, but what if the team happens to be rocked with injuries like it was last season? Do we then fire Bob? Or what if the team has a horrible first half and then puts on a terrific second half charge, only to fall a point or two short of the playoffs? Couldn't you argue that the second half - when presumably the team has gelled and Markov is back - is the truer indicator of the team Bob has assembled? Would it make sense to fire a GM under those circumstances, with a team that seems ready to take the big leap?

If we fail to make the playoffs, firing Bob will be defensible, but even then, depending on the situation, I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it. While he has been guilty of questionable asset management and his player development has been pretty bad, he has taken very clear steps to improve in the latter area and he *does* bring stability, respect, and general competence to the organization, and he is impervious to media and fan influence - huge pluses in this pathological hockey environment.

In the end, then, I think you have to look at the context and not just impose a fixed 'target' that Bob must meet in order to keep his job. Personally, what I really want coming out of this season is some sense that the team is, if not a contender, then on the cusp of contending - kinda the feeling I had at the end of 2008. If we exit 2009-10 feeling that this is a so-so team and a so-so organization highly unlikely to have a serious at winning within the next 2-3 years, then that'll mean Bob has locked us into a non-championship-calibre core with minimal cap flexibility for improvement in the forseeable future and few can't-miss prospects in the system.

The moment we conclude this definitively, we have no choice but to conclude that he should go. He'll have condemned us to mediocrity for another generation.

Of course the context has a role, but it's also too easy to use context as an excuse.

You also need to put some objective up for yourself as a team. I said a good 2nd round showing because for Bob's team the 2nd round has always been the ultimate barrier. Gotta break that ceiling now. There has to be some improvement. If they lose to the Pens in the 2nd round, alright, it's respectable; but at least make it look like you could compete with them, win at least 2 games.

I think that one of the reasons for the loser mentality that has plagued the Habs in past years came from the "satisfaction" of simply making the playoffs. When you set objectives so low, no wonder you never get to nurture a winning culture in your locker-room.

We have to set our aim higher than just making it to the prom. Gotta tell ourselves that not only we'll get to the prom and dance, but we'll also at least get to second base!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many times have the case for trading Kovy came up? It's not like he was a superstar who quit on us. He would have been much easier to trade than a guy like Koivu who could have been expected to finish his career here.

You also forget one thing: lot of those guys were lost to free agency because Gainey simply refused to re-sign them during the season. Might not be a big loss in some cases, but if you dont intend to make a big pitch for Souray or dont really want to risk losing Komisarek, why wait until they can leave you empty-handed? And if you're just going to rent Tanguay or Lang for one season, why waste something as goof as a 1st and a 2nd round pick? It's like throwing money out the window. Weither or not the trade itself was justified or not based on the prospects of winning the Stanley Cup is an entire different debate: you still wasted assets. Maybe a small loss, but in Gainey's case all those small losses added to a lot of assets lost for nothing. 

That was my entire point. Gainey wastes lots of assets, he gambled and lost more than he and he raked in. All GMs gambles, so you should always expect some losses. I didnt say Gainey should go because of all that, I said now he's on a 2nd chance and needs to make up for all those losses with some playoffs success. Our prospects depth has slimmed down considerably. We've already dug into our economies. So there's really some urgency to start making playoffs noise this year.

Not to beat a long dead horse here but again, there are factors you never thought of that just didn't happen. You're smarter than this Koz, think about what "could" have happened with both of these guys and you won't be far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I only take issue with 2 of Gainey's trades...one was Ribeiro...and don't get me wrong, I think Ribeiro HAD to go. The return was poor, even with Ribeiro's questionable attitude. It was not enough to truly bother me at the time because I didn't think our "return" had degraded as far as he had. I also think Gainey was proving a point in that deal...this was HIS team and the players needed to shape up.

The 2nd deal that really irks me is the Gomez deal. I think it was a brutal deal for an overpaid, underacheiver.

I will never understand why McDonagh had to be included. Considering the salaries I think the Habs only needed to include a 2nd round pick with Higgins.

Beyond that, I think his deals have been positive when viewed in context.

My bigger issue with Gainey is his management of player development...this is a management/structure issue as well as a timing issue. Do the Habs have the right people developing players? Do they mis-handle the speed/timing at which players are promoted?

The Red Wings are touted with great draft picks in mid-rounds...in reality, they draft BPA and have GREAT development programs. They also rarely call players up too early.

The Habs have either thrown, or are ready to throw: Latendresse, Price, Higgins, Weber, Subban, Pacioretty, O'Byrne into the fire. Lats should have stayed in the QMJHL and then 2 years in the AHL. Price should have spent 2 full seasons in the AHL before platooning in the NHL. etc, etc.

The further result would be that the Habs would have players under reasonable contracts into their prime...just like Detroit.

THAT is Gainey's failure. It's not that they draft poorly. It's not that he generally makes bad trades. We can all live with a bad deal, a bad pick...those are not routinely bad issues for Gainey. It's that he has allowed poor prospect development for an extended period of time...which gives the illusion of mediocre drafting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest, I only take issue with 2 of Gainey's trades...one was Ribeiro...and don't get me wrong, I think Ribeiro HAD to go. The return was poor, even with Ribeiro's questionable attitude. It was not enough to truly bother me at the time because I didn't think our "return" had degraded as far as he had. I also think Gainey was proving a point in that deal...this was HIS team and the players needed to shape up.

The 2nd deal that really irks me is the Gomez deal. I think it was a brutal deal for an overpaid, underacheiver.

I will never understand why McDonagh had to be included. Considering the salaries I think the Habs only needed to include a 2nd round pick with Higgins.

Beyond that, I think his deals have been positive when viewed in context.

My bigger issue with Gainey is his management of player development...this is a management/structure issue as well as a timing issue. Do the Habs have the right people developing players? Do they mis-handle the speed/timing at which players are promoted?

The Red Wings are touted with great draft picks in mid-rounds...in reality, they draft BPA and have GREAT development programs. They also rarely call players up too early.

The Habs have either thrown, or are ready to throw: Latendresse, Price, Higgins, Weber, Subban, Pacioretty, O'Byrne into the fire. Lats should have stayed in the QMJHL and then 2 years in the AHL. Price should have spent 2 full seasons in the AHL before platooning in the NHL. etc, etc.

The further result would be that the Habs would have players under reasonable contracts into their prime...just like Detroit.

THAT is Gainey's failure. It's not that they draft poorly. It's not that he generally makes bad trades. We can all live with a bad deal, a bad pick...those are not routinely bad issues for Gainey. It's that he has allowed poor prospect development for an extended period of time...which gives the illusion of mediocre drafting.

Good points, all in all. I especially like your reference to the Red Wings. Now THERE is a well-managed team. Even before they starting to win those Cups, they were always top contenders (for the last 15 years, at least). Another team that comes to mind is New Jersey. Lou does a great job there. The team has almost completely turned over from the early Lemaire years and they're still a top-notch club, year after year. We used to be the same during the Savard years. No more. To think that management panicked, and got rid of Savard for Rejean Houle. Oh - my = god!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points, all in all. I especially like your reference to the Red Wings. Now THERE is a well-managed team. Even before they starting to win those Cups, they were always top contenders (for the last 15 years, at least). Another team that comes to mind is New Jersey. Lou does a great job there. The team has almost completely turned over from the early Lemaire years and they're still a top-notch club, year after year. We used to be the same during the Savard years. No more. To think that management panicked, and got rid of Savard for Rejean Houle. Oh - my = god!!!

Bit of rosy coloured glasses, IMO. They ranged from very good to on the poor side of mediocre with Savard. He was a good GM, but not great. Yes, infinitely better than the years after that until the second Savard. But between Gainey and Savard? Tough call. Different styles, but more importantly, different times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is time for Gainey to go. If he needs to go #1 or #2, he should be able to do so!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...