Jump to content

Time for Gainey to go


jackp

Recommended Posts

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.

??

1984 - 75 pts lost in the Conference Finals 4-2

1985 - 94 pts (6th overall, division title) lost in the 2nd round 4-3 Game 7 OT

1986 - 87 pts WON THE STANLEY CUP

1987 - 92 pts (5th overall) lost in the Conference Finals 4-2

1988 - 103 pts (2nd overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-1

1989 - 116 pts (2nd overall) lost in the Stanley Cup Final 4-2

1990 - 93 pts (4th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-1

1991 - 89 pts (6th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-3

1992 - 93 pts (5th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-0

1993 - 102 pts (6th overall) WON THE STANLEY CUP

1994 - 96 pts (9th overall) lost in the 1st round 4-3

1995 - 43 pts (17th overall) missed the playoffs

I see ONE poor season, his final one. He won two Stanley Cups, two trips to the Conference Finals and a loss in the Stanley Cup Finals.

They won a round 10 straight seasons and finished with 90+ points 8 times in 12 seasons during a time where 90 points meant something.

Add that he drafted Roy, Corson, Richer, Leclair, Desjardins, Schneider, Koivu, Vokoun and Theodore.

Good, not great? Who today has a better resume than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

??

1984 - 75 pts lost in the Conference Finals 4-2

1985 - 94 pts (6th overall, division title) lost in the 2nd round 4-3 Game 7 OT

1986 - 87 pts WON THE STANLEY CUP

1987 - 92 pts (5th overall) lost in the Conference Finals 4-2

1988 - 103 pts (2nd overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-1

1989 - 116 pts (2nd overall) lost in the Stanley Cup Final 4-2

1990 - 93 pts (4th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-1

1991 - 89 pts (6th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-3

1992 - 93 pts (5th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-0

1993 - 102 pts (6th overall) WON THE STANLEY CUP

1994 - 96 pts (9th overall) lost in the 1st round 4-3

1995 - 43 pts (17th overall) missed the playoffs

I see ONE poor season, his final one. He won two Stanley Cups, two trips to the Conference Finals and a loss in the Stanley Cup Finals.

They won a round 10 straight seasons and finished with 90+ points 8 times in 12 seasons during a time where 90 points meant something.

Add that he drafted Roy, Corson, Richer, Leclair, Desjardins, Schneider, Koivu, Vokoun and Theodore.

Good, not great? Who today has a better resume than that?

Hear hear! Savard's tenure has been sadly underrated by Habs fans. The guy had us a contender every single year except 1995, when his first line got old overnight. I guess Serge gets too little respect because of two high-profile disastrous trades (the Recchi deal and the Chelios deal), both of which were likely the result of ownership pressure (certainly, the Chelios deal was). Or maybe more likely, fans in the Savard era had been so spoiled by the dynasty years that they confused mere excellence with mediocrity. Anyway, I still miss the Serge Savard days. The Habs were then what New Jersey has been for the last decade, a perennial danger to go deep and a team the rest of the league hated to play against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

That's what I said about an eon ago, on the first page of this neverending thread. What are all the Gainey bashers going to do if we win the home opener?

Everyone agreed the team needs time to gel--losing Markov and the largely ignored loss of O'byrne who seemed on the verge of starting to become the player we all imagined- lenghtened that adjustment period not shortened it.

Take a deep breath, and lets wait and see how the season unfolds. Then we can judge Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hear hear! Savard's tenure has been sadly underrated by Habs fans. The guy had us a contender every single year except 1995, when his first line got old overnight. I guess Serge gets too little respect because of two high-profile disastrous trades (the Recchi deal and the Chelios deal), both of which were likely the result of ownership pressure (certainly, the Chelios deal was). Or maybe more likely, fans in the Savard era had been so spoiled by the dynasty years that they confused mere excellence with mediocrity. Anyway, I still miss the Serge Savard days. The Habs were then what New Jersey has been for the last decade, a perennial danger to go deep and a team the rest of the league hated to play against.

Dunno what people have with the Recchi deal. He's been the best player we've ever had but Roy and Markov since Lafleur retired...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno what people have with the Recchi deal. He's been the best player we've ever had but Roy and Markov since Lafleur retired...

Mats Naslund, Bobby Smith, Chris Chelios, Stephane Richer, Vincent Damphousse. In their respective primes, all vastly superior to Recchi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

??

1984 - 75 pts lost in the Conference Finals 4-2

1985 - 94 pts (6th overall, division title) lost in the 2nd round 4-3 Game 7 OT

1986 - 87 pts WON THE STANLEY CUP

1987 - 92 pts (5th overall) lost in the Conference Finals 4-2

1988 - 103 pts (2nd overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-1

1989 - 116 pts (2nd overall) lost in the Stanley Cup Final 4-2

1990 - 93 pts (4th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-1

1991 - 89 pts (6th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-3

1992 - 93 pts (5th overall) lost in the 2nd round 4-0

1993 - 102 pts (6th overall) WON THE STANLEY CUP

1994 - 96 pts (9th overall) lost in the 1st round 4-3

1995 - 43 pts (17th overall) missed the playoffs

I see ONE poor season, his final one. He won two Stanley Cups, two trips to the Conference Finals and a loss in the Stanley Cup Finals.

They won a round 10 straight seasons and finished with 90+ points 8 times in 12 seasons during a time where 90 points meant something.

Add that he drafted Roy, Corson, Richer, Leclair, Desjardins, Schneider, Koivu, Vokoun and Theodore.

Good, not great? Who today has a better resume than that?

It's easy to look back and say Savard accomplished this.... but he inherited a good team already with some very young stars already here.

Chelios 21, Claude Lemieux 19, Mats Naslund 23, Carbonneau 23, Bobby Smith 25, Mark Hunter 20, Mike McPhee 23, Rick Natress 20, Momesso 20, Penny 22, Rick Wamsley 24, Craig Ludwig 22.

Then add in the vets, Gainey 29, Lafleur 31, Shutt 31, Robinson 32, Rick Green 27, Tremblay 27.

It's already a solid teaam with a defined rookie crop already playing in the NHL. After a start like that how much of it is just maintenance?

The '84 draft was fantastic for the Habs with 4 stars being selected..... then again the tip of the hat goes to the scouting director. With 2 top 8 picks, and 3 picks in the first 29 picks overall, would it really be that hard to pick good players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"Scoreboard!" 2 Cups, 1 losing Final, always a good team (until the year he was fired). We NEVER worried about making the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephane Richer

Ah. Kovalev 0.8. lol Oh, but with suicidal tendencies!

"Scoreboard!" 2 Cups, 1 losing Final, always a good team (until the year he was fired). We NEVER worried about making the playoffs.

Fair enough. But I do think he took greatness and dumbed it down. Not nearly to the extent of Houle, but still.

Link to comment
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.

Riberio drove me nuts in his last year. All he lacked on ice was a beer and a convertible.

Ryder was the most incompetent player I have seen in his last year. He utterly dragged down the first line: any pass to him ended the attack. He couldn't take a pass or give one, dump it in, or dump it out, deke or stop a deke. He was awful and I was thrilled to see him go. I am glad both he and Ribeiro smartened up and are apparently playing hockey again.

Souray and Kovalev were offered deals. THey had their weaknesses, but I loved having them both on the team. They were natural leaders, and on a bad night for Kovalev he was still seven times better than most players on the ice, scoring or not.

Uncle Bob has done a wonderful job with this team and thank God, pulled this truly storied franchise out of the deep doldrums we were wallowing in. As was observed by an earlier poster, he absolutely HAD to go for it when the chance was there and made moves that can't be called back to accomplish the mission. THat was the right move. THat it didn't pay off is quite beside th point.

Long may you reign Mr G, and thanks so much for coming home to the Habs. :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great discussion boys!

Like I said earlier, I think it might be alittle too early to call for gainey's head...but if this team misses the playoffs...I'm certain he will not be back next year...and with good reason!

But we've only played 5 games, and they were all on the road...let's see how thye do witha few games at home!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riberio drove me nuts in his last year. All he lacked on ice was a beer and a convertible.

Ryder was the most incompetent player I have seen in his last year. He utterly dragged down the first line: any pass to him ended the attack. He couldn't take a pass or give one, dump it in, or dump it out, deke or stop a deke. He was awful and I was thrilled to see him go. I am glad both he and Ribeiro smartened up and are apparently playing hockey again.

Souray and Kovalev were offered deals. THey had their weaknesses, but I loved having them both on the team. They were natural leaders, and on a bad night for Kovalev he was still seven times better than most players on the ice, scoring or not.

Uncle Bob has done a wonderful job with this team and thank God, pulled this truly storied franchise out of the deep doldrums we were wallowing in. As was observed by an earlier poster, he absolutely HAD to go for it when the chance was there and made moves that can't be called back to accomplish the mission. THat was the right move. THat it didn't pay off is quite beside th point.

Long may you reign Mr G, and thanks so much for coming home to the Habs. :clap:

watch out. I hear the kool aid comment coming. Nice to see a positive post. :lol::clap: :hlogo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Kovalev 0.8. lol Oh, but with suicidal tendencies!

Probably a more lethal goal-scorer than Kovalev when he was on. Two 50 goals seasons within Pat Burns' smothering defensive system , the second one with nobody around him. That slapshot was feared by every goalie in the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a more lethal goal-scorer than Kovalev when he was on. Two 50 goals seasons within Pat Burns' smothering defensive system , the second one with nobody around him. That slapshot was feared by every goalie in the league. 

No doubt. And I recall the interview with him saying that those were the two seasons he cared. The other years, he had trouble waking up in the morning, let alone caring.

Agreed whole-heartedly about him being more lethal than Kovy in terms of goal-scoring. More lethal by far. If Richer could have figgered it out, his number would be in the rafters. He had THAT much talent.

For more on players who could have dominated but didn't care, see: Malakhov, Vladimir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to look back and say Savard accomplished this.... but he inherited a good team already with some very young stars already here.

Chelios 21, Claude Lemieux 19, Mats Naslund 23, Carbonneau 23, Bobby Smith 25, Mark Hunter 20, Mike McPhee 23, Rick Natress 20, Momesso 20, Penny 22, Rick Wamsley 24, Craig Ludwig 22.

Then add in the vets, Gainey 29, Lafleur 31, Shutt 31, Robinson 32, Rick Green 27, Tremblay 27.

It's already a solid teaam with a defined rookie crop already playing in the NHL. After a start like that how much of it is just maintenance?

The '84 draft was fantastic for the Habs with 4 stars being selected..... then again the tip of the hat goes to the scouting director. With 2 top 8 picks, and 3 picks in the first 29 picks overall, would it really be that hard to pick good players?

Fair enough. But I do think he took greatness and dumbed it down. Not nearly to the extent of Houle, but still.

First off, it's Savard that traded for Bobby Smith.

Second of all, the team Serge Savard acquired in 83 was far, far, far gone from the greatness of the 70's. It had long been dumbed down and deconstructed. The Habs hadnt made it past the 1st round in the 3 years prior. They had suffered an ugly self-destruction under the horrible watch of Bob Berry and Irving "Bowling Hall" Grundman. Most of the 70's stars had retired, and the rest of the vets were on a steep decline. Shutt was finished by 83, Nattress was never the same after his arrest, Lafleur hadnt scored over 27 goals for 3 years and was always injured, Robinson was a shadow of his former self, only Mario Tremblay actually had improved.

It's true Savard inherited Chelios, Naslund, Carbo, Ludwig, McPhee, Gainey. But Hunter, Penney, Wamsley, Momesso? That's like saying Bob Gainey had it all made out for him by inheriting Fichaud, Ward, Balej and Hossa. Marginal generic players who never amounted to anything in Montreal.

Also putting things back in perspective, the early 80's drafts weren't the same as now. You had ONE talent pool: Canada and sometimes if you were lucky you could get a decent American to play in the NHL. Europe was, as whole, what Slovenia and Switzerland now: risky underdeveloped drafting grounds. 2 top 8 and 3 top 29 picks back then was as "safe" as 2 top 30 and 3 top 90 picks now.

Not to mention that all the draft picks would have been for nil if they hadnt develop them well. Seems that the team under Gainey just can't get the kids to breakout.

Gainey inherited a team that had Koivu, Markov (top 5 D in the league now?), Theodore (Hart and Vezina a year prior), Ribeiro, Plekanec, Higgins, Komisarek, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Ryder, Kostitsyn, Lapierre, O'Byrne, Halak, Balej, Hossa, Perezhogin in the system. Team in shambles? Ok, the Habs been through Hell for a bunch of years when Gainey too over. But since Gainey took over, never have won as many 2nd round games in 5 years combined than the Habs did under André Savard in 2002 alone.

I mean, after the first 6 years Serge Savard's record was:

1983–84     80     35     40     5     —     286     295     75     1371     4th, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 3–0 (Bruins)
Won in Division Finals, 4–2 (Nordiques)
Lost in Conference Finals, 2–4 (Islanders)
1984–85     80     41     27     12     —     309     262     94     1464     1st, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 3–2 (Bruins)
Lost in Division Finals, 3–4 (Nordiques)
1985–86     80     40     33     7     —     330     280     87     1372     2nd, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 3–0 (Bruins)
Won in Division Finals, 4–3 (Whalers)
Won in Conference Finals, 4–1 (Rangers)
Stanley Cup Champions, 4–1 (Flames)
1986–87     80     41     29     10     —     277     241     92     1802     2nd, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 4–0 (Bruins)
Won in Division Finals, 4–3 (Nordiques)
Lost in Conference Finals, 2–4 (Flyers)
1987–88     80     45     22     13     —     298     238     103     1830     1st, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 4–2 (Whalers)
Lost in Division Finals, 1–4 (Bruins)
1988–89     80     53     18     9     —     315     218     115     1537     1st, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 4–0 (Whalers)
Won in Division Finals, 4–1 (Bruins)
Won in Conference Finals, 4–2 (Flyers)
Lost in Finals, 2–4 (Flames)

Bob Gainey's first 6 years:

2003–04     82     41     30     7     4     208     192     93     1039     4th, Northeast     Won in Conference Quarter-finals, 4–3 (Bruins)
Lost in Conference Semi-finals, 0–4 (Lightning)
2004–05     Season cancelled due to 2004–05 NHL lockout
2005–063     82     42     31     —     9     243     247     93     1312     3rd, Northeast     Lost in Conference Quarter-finals, 2–4 (Hurricanes)
2006–07     82     42     34     —     6     245     256     90     1119     4th, Northeast     Did not qualify
2007–08     82     47     25     —     10     262     222     104     1162     1st, Northeast     Won in Conference Quarter-finals, 4–3 (Bruins)
Lost in Conference Semi-finals, 1–4 (Flyers)
2008–09     82     41     30     —     11     249     247     93     1223     2nd, Northeast     Lost in Conference Quarter-finals, 0–4 (Bruins)

So far Gainey hasn't achieve an ounce of what Serge Savard had in the same period of time. He's getting a lot of credit for very little actual results. One, O-N-E win in the 2nd round in 5 seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richer was suididal??

That explains a lot. He was easily the most talented Canadien since Guy Lafleur, rivalled only by Koivu before his knee injury in 1996 (*that* Koivu probably was top-5 in the NHL) and Kovalev on his good nights. But I came to hate his guts because he was so erratic, without the redeeming charm of Kovalev. In fact, no trade by Reggie Fool aggravated me as much as the Odelein for Richer deal, which got rid of our only tough defenceman and a team leader in favour of a soft, one-dimensional head-case on a team that already had decent offence. Oh well, sh*t under the bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt. And I recall the interview with him saying that those were the two seasons he cared. The other years, he had trouble waking up in the morning, let alone caring.

Agreed whole-heartedly about him being more lethal than Kovy in terms of goal-scoring. More lethal by far. If Richer could have figgered it out, his number would be in the rafters. He had THAT much talent.

For more on players who could have dominated but didn't care, see: Malakhov, Vladimir.

Yeah Richer definitely had mental issues. I remember in his rookie year he got into a much publicized fight with Chris Nilan in practice (Richer wasnt only loaded with talent, he was a mean southpaw fighter). Then in his 2nd season he was demoted and instead he just vanished and threatened to retire. 3rd season: BAM, 50 goals. To this day, that is still the most exciting season I've seen from a Habs player not a goalie. I remember his hat-trick and 2-goal games in a back-to-back against Buffalo.

In the 88-89 preseason, the Habs played the Pens in Le Colisée de Rimouski. I was there. Mario scored 3 goals but Habs won. Anyway, midway through the game, I'm seating in the stands behind the Pens net. Richer comes down the right wing and unleashes a rocket. It's deflected almost as soon as he released it and the puck went up over the stands... and made a dent in the concrete wall, taking a chip off. That's how crazy his slapshot was. Almost as feared as MacInnis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mats Naslund, Bobby Smith, Chris Chelios, Stephane Richer, Vincent Damphousse. In their respective primes, all vastly superior to Recchi.

I wouldn't say Naslund and Smith were better than Recchi. MAYBE Chelios, MAYBE Richer and DEFINITELY NOT Damphousse aka Mr. Stupid Penalties himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say Naslund and Smith were better than Recchi. MAYBE Chelios, MAYBE Richer and DEFINITELY NOT Damphousse aka Mr. Stupid Penalties himself.

Recchi was simply not nearly as good as you, or S.Sarvard, rate him

Chelios was infinitely superior, nuff said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, it's Savard that traded for Bobby Smith.

Second of all, the team Serge Savard acquired in 83 was far, far, far gone from the greatness of the 70's. It had long been dumbed down and deconstructed. The Habs hadnt made it past the 1st round in the 3 years prior. They had suffered an ugly self-destruction under the horrible watch of Bob Berry and Irving "Bowling Hall" Grundman. Most of the 70's stars had retired, and the rest of the vets were on a steep decline. Shutt was finished by 83, Nattress was never the same after his arrest, Lafleur hadnt scored over 27 goals for 3 years and was always injured, Robinson was a shadow of his former self, only Mario Tremblay actually had improved.

It's true Savard inherited Chelios, Naslund, Carbo, Ludwig, McPhee, Gainey. But Hunter, Penney, Wamsley, Momesso? That's like saying Bob Gainey had it all made out for him by inheriting Fichaud, Ward, Balej and Hossa. Marginal generic players who never amounted to anything in Montreal.

Also putting things back in perspective, the early 80's drafts weren't the same as now. You had ONE talent pool: Canada and sometimes if you were lucky you could get a decent American to play in the NHL. Europe was, as whole, what Slovenia and Switzerland now: risky underdeveloped drafting grounds. 2 top 8 and 3 top 29 picks back then was as "safe" as 2 top 30 and 3 top 90 picks now.

Not to mention that all the draft picks would have been for nil if they hadnt develop them well. Seems that the team under Gainey just can't get the kids to breakout.

Gainey inherited a team that had Koivu, Markov (top 5 D in the league now?), Theodore (Hart and Vezina a year prior), Ribeiro, Plekanec, Higgins, Komisarek, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Ryder, Kostitsyn, Lapierre, O'Byrne, Halak, Balej, Hossa, Perezhogin in the system. Team in shambles? Ok, the Habs been through Hell for a bunch of years when Gainey too over. But since Gainey took over, never have won as many 2nd round games in 5 years combined than the Habs did under André Savard in 2002 alone.

I mean, after the first 6 years Serge Savard's record was:

1983–84     80     35     40     5     —     286     295     75     1371     4th, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 3–0 (Bruins)
Won in Division Finals, 4–2 (Nordiques)
Lost in Conference Finals, 2–4 (Islanders)
1984–85     80     41     27     12     —     309     262     94     1464     1st, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 3–2 (Bruins)
Lost in Division Finals, 3–4 (Nordiques)
1985–86     80     40     33     7     —     330     280     87     1372     2nd, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 3–0 (Bruins)
Won in Division Finals, 4–3 (Whalers)
Won in Conference Finals, 4–1 (Rangers)
Stanley Cup Champions, 4–1 (Flames)
1986–87     80     41     29     10     —     277     241     92     1802     2nd, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 4–0 (Bruins)
Won in Division Finals, 4–3 (Nordiques)
Lost in Conference Finals, 2–4 (Flyers)
1987–88     80     45     22     13     —     298     238     103     1830     1st, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 4–2 (Whalers)
Lost in Division Finals, 1–4 (Bruins)
1988–89     80     53     18     9     —     315     218     115     1537     1st, Adams     Won in Division Semi-finals, 4–0 (Whalers)
Won in Division Finals, 4–1 (Bruins)
Won in Conference Finals, 4–2 (Flyers)
Lost in Finals, 2–4 (Flames)

Bob Gainey's first 6 years:

2003–04     82     41     30     7     4     208     192     93     1039     4th, Northeast     Won in Conference Quarter-finals, 4–3 (Bruins)
Lost in Conference Semi-finals, 0–4 (Lightning)
2004–05     Season cancelled due to 2004–05 NHL lockout
2005–063     82     42     31     —     9     243     247     93     1312     3rd, Northeast     Lost in Conference Quarter-finals, 2–4 (Hurricanes)
2006–07     82     42     34     —     6     245     256     90     1119     4th, Northeast     Did not qualify
2007–08     82     47     25     —     10     262     222     104     1162     1st, Northeast     Won in Conference Quarter-finals, 4–3 (Bruins)
Lost in Conference Semi-finals, 1–4 (Flyers)
2008–09     82     41     30     —     11     249     247     93     1223     2nd, Northeast     Lost in Conference Quarter-finals, 0–4 (Bruins)

So far Gainey hasn't achieve an ounce of what Serge Savard had in the same period of time. He's getting a lot of credit for very little actual results. One, O-N-E win in the 2nd round in 5 seasons.

Very well documented, Kozed. The facts speak for themselves, don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well documented, Kozed. The facts speak for themselves, don't they?

The playoffs records do because the format hasnt changed much. One could argue that the 1st round now is harder than back then, but I dont really think so. Intra-division rivalries made those series as dangerous, if not more, and the risks of 1st round upsets were the same. Ditto for 2nd round. After that its pretty much the same. But the overall eras are different. There's more teams, a wider talent pool and more parity now, more players movement, higher salaries, etc.

However the basics for consistent successes arent changed much: drafting, players development, organizational philosophy, etc. They just need to be applied differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind the fact that Gainey inherited a team that didn't even make the playoffs in 4 of the previous 5 seasons. And prior to Savard taking the reigns, when was the last time the team missed the playoffs? Of course back then 16 of 21 teams also made the playoffs...it took a serious effort to miss the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well documented, Kozed. The facts speak for themselves, don't they?

not really. you are comparing 2 completely different eras in hockey. I thought Serge did a good job as a gm, however there were only 5 teams that would NOT make the playoffs so it was a heck of a lot easier. Also since the lockout the game has changed dramatically and there is parity in the league, the best team is not that far from the worst team. So no I don't think you can really compare these 2 eras and say bob must be fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno what people have with the Recchi deal. He's been the best player we've ever had but Roy and Markov since Lafleur retired...

Here's a player we had who was just about as good in his prime as Recchi: John LeClair.

Of course we missed out on most of his prime.

This is why people are unhappy with the Recchi trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind the fact that Gainey inherited a team that didn't even make the playoffs in 4 of the previous 5 seasons. And prior to Savard taking the reigns, when was the last time the team missed the playoffs?

Eliminated in the 1st round 3 years in a row. Swept by the baby-faced expansion Oilers in 81, eliminated by the other expansion team and divisional rivals Nords in 82, then swept again by the Buffalo Sabres in 83. For a team had won 4 Cups in a row just a couple years before, it was a clear sign of abject failure. Like missing the playoffs.

It wasnt really that the 80-83 Habs were bad and depleted of talent; I'll grant you that. However that they couldnt manage the transition from the 70's Dynasty, were full of unhappy guys, had no direction and no bluechip prospects. Wickenheiser was supposed to replace Lafleur (and extend Lafleur's career as his C) but he was an epic bust, so was Napier (chosen over Mike Bossy in 77) despite two 40 goals season; Dryden had still not been replace with a legit #1 goalie, Ryan Walter bombed after coming as hyped offensive forward from Washington, lot of players couldnt stand Bob Berry, etc. Vets on the decline, always injured; kids not filling the role they were expected to, problems in goals, bad mojo in the room, unhappy players, very harsh critics from the medias. 80-83 was basically last season multiplied by 3. Not at all hunky-dory.

Sure, Savard came in a situation where he might have more, better to work with. He also had more to lose. Gainey came in with a team who couldnt do worse and had already loaded up on prospects and picks and expectations were at an all-time low. Nowhere to go but up.

Could we have got higher, that's the real question thats needs answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I dont blame Bob exclusively for his lack of success, but he definitely has his part to do with the problem.

I strongly beleive that its Timmins who should be fired. After all its Timmins Bob listens to when he drafts players. Sure Timmins is great at drafting gems late in the draft. However wake up people, the 8th and 9th rounds no longer exist, so no more Halaks, Striets, S Kosts, etc. In the 1st 2 rnds Timmins hasnt really drafted anybody of significance.

Interesting question: How many NCAA guys the Habs drafted are on the Habs roster now? Basically 0. Sure you can argue that Patch and OB played NCAA, but they never said "I'm thinking beyond my pro hockey career and my priority is to go to school and get a degree". Patches and OB only played in the NCAA for a in the meantime so they didnt have to play ECHL or be put into the log jam that is the Bulldogs. Their priorities were always hockey. Any prospect who says their priority is school should be skipped. Seriously, its just dumb, and Timmins blatantly wastes over 50% of the Habs picks on prospects whos priority is to get a degree. Not a damn one of these "I'm going to college" picks is anywhere ready to play for the Habs. Wake up, the experiment was a complete failure, figure it out now.

I think its absolutely hilarious that people are mad over the Gomez trade. McDoughnut was drafted in 07 and still has 2 years of NCAA left and then he'll be in the AHL for at least 1 year, possibly longer. I doubt we will see him in the NHL before he's 24, so the Rags will only have him for 2 maybe 3 years at best before he's a UFA.

Now consider how Bob is with handling contracts. i.e. If Habs still had McDontknow Bob would do the usual thing and sign him to a 1-2 year entry deal during which McD would say "gee, I like it here, I want to sign long term", to which Bob would say, "no no, lets wait till the off season", and in the summer McD's agent would say "lets wait and sign next year", in his 1st UFA eligible year, in which McDough would want to be shown the money and the Habs loose him.

This phenomenon I can only explain as a vicious circle of stupidity. :rolleyes:

Lots of people here said in the SK wants a trade thread to never draft any more Russians, but I swear theres more Russians that have played more games for the Habs than all of their wasted NCAA picks and people still cheer when Bob drafts even more NCAA picks. After all theres at least 1 Russian on the Habs that actually worked out and lasted beyond his 1st UFA opportunity.

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...