Regarding Gainey

[Colin]

A depressing time to be a Habs fan. I cling to my theory that Gainey is working on a rebuild in disguise - it's all I can base any hope on at this point.

You've been talking about this for a while; I think it's obvious. What else is there?

He started out with a 5-year plan which he stated clearly from the beginning would be centred around great drafting and development of youth within the system. For all the 'what-have-you-done-for-me-lately' thinking, we did end up as the top seed in year number four. Up to that point, Gainey's plan was perfectly good and there was no reason to make any fundamental changes. Even the kids who we're panning regularly today looked back then like they were improving.

Last year comes around and you have the confluence of horrible events that surrounds the team. Off-ice shenanigans. Backwards progression of the kids and, to be frank, a large step back from the established core either through over-confidence, laziness, or advancing age; probably a combination of all three with a large emphasis on the latter.

The summer previous, Bob did what any GM would do if he felt his team was on the cusp of taking that step to legit Cup contenders, he dealt away youth and picks to patch those holes deemed necessary for a Cup run. There was nothing he did out of the ordinary and commentary otherwise is really nothing more than 20/20 hindsight. During the season he kept with his plan because he figured that, when the injury plague ended, the team had a legit shot with everyone healthy and geared for a Cup run. There was no reason not to believe that. Sure, Carey was struggling, but he'd showed what he could do early in the season, so why not believe that he could recapture that down the stretch.

He didn't, the team failed, and Bob gets to the summer - with a planned mass of UFA's. Do people reallly think those UFA's were coincidental at that time? End of 5-year plan: re-evaluation. Which Bob did. I don't like my core, we need a change of mentality.

So he makes a trade which everyone questions consistently: Gomez. Was it a risky trade? Absolutely. But we know Bob had tried to acquire other centres but was unsuccessful. Did he overpay for Gomez? Perhaps, but he wasn't willing to risk the franchise being uncompetitive for an extended period to get Lecavalier into the fold. The Montreal market WILL NOT accept repeated failure, so that option was closed when Tampa asked for too much. Instead, just before the UFA period Bob acquired a highly talented if overpaid Gomez knowing full well that with that asset, he could probably lure other high talent assets (and if you doubt this, then you really do doubt Bob's intelligence).

Bob then goes out and gets Gionta and Cammalleri, among others. Small? Yes, but these were bonified attacking players who showed up every night. (And we have yet to be proven wrong on this count.) What Gainey was counting on was that the purge of the old mentality and the influx of new talent would create a competitive and energized atmosphere which would lift the games of the kids who had struggled.

Plekanec has found new life. He's not modelling his game on the laziest player on the planet anymore - he's working again. The rest of the kids? Questionable so far. Pacioretty has been the most pleasant surprise so far and White has certainly shown that same work ethic in his short time here. Where, though, are the Kosty's and the rest of the secondary scoring?

There are so many comments about what Bob *should* have done or *could* have done. What he did, though, was perfectly logical considering the circumstances and the market. And yes, it's been disappointing as of the 20-game mark, but there have been more than a few teams who have made the playoffs after a lousy start to the season. Despite all the down-trodden faces and rampant negativity, the team is still only two games under .500 and has shown, at times, that it can compete with the best in the league.

And they've done that with a brutal patchwork defense that is incapable of sustaining any kind of offensive threat through a consistent transition game.

Should we be disappointed? Absolutely. Should we give up, pray for Bob to blow it up, then go around whinging like Leaf fans? I don't believe so. This team has a lot of potential, as I see it. We need a healthier defense and someone - anyone - to step up on the second line to make a difference. Short of that, I suspect Bob is exploring every option towards making a move to shore up those areas where we're obviously weak.

The problem is, that's not really possible considering our injury system, combined with the cap issues, and the current climate in the NHL. This is not a trade environment. Fans should be more than aware by now that after the holiday break is when things *start* to heat up, and the trading doesn't really get going until February.

Too late for the Canadiens this year? No. They're just under .500 - let me put that in perspective: a short two-game winning streak puts this team at .500... two games... two - and they're just now starting to get healthy. While they've had their share of poor outings, they've also suffered from bad luck to a degree, and they've been oh-so-close many other times. While many have poo-poo'd Martin's system recently, there was little doubt about its effectiveness a couple of weeks ago when our shots against were down into the 20's on a fairly regular basis.

Now we have Carey Price (and to a lesser degree Jaro Halak) seeming to turn the corner on their respective seasons.

I'm quite sure that all of your mothers have said the following: patience is a virtue. There's no need to panic. It's still VERY early in the season; there are 62 games to play! I believe Bob's second rebuild is going quite well considering it's in it's infancy. And despite the last build's failure, one can point to almost every other GM in the league as failing as well. How many of them had division winning season's, though?

I know there's plenty of talk about the cap and how this edition of the Canadiens will do within it over a period of time. Well, even if it goes down a little for next season, there's no reason to believe it will stay down, but will probably rise once again. Which means we'll have room again in a couple of seasons. And Armageddon part II is on it's way shortly when this CBA runs out. Perhaps Gainey is putting together his team with insider knowledge on what's expected then.

Bottom line, all this panic talk about Gainey's leadership is, in my opinion, bunk. If you logically follow his moves, they're consistent and are, by and large, successful in guiding this team forward. Are they all perfect? Hell no, or we'd be dancing on top of the division after having won our Cup in year five.

I find it amusing that there are so many pronouncements on the Habs fate after 20 games.... after a complete overhaul and philosophy change. I understand that Habs fans feel entitled to *more* and *better*, but really, I think we're doing just fine this early.

Just my opinion.

[matsnaslundsuperfn]

I like all of what you've said... It's too easy to look in the rear view mirror and think things could have been better if we had of kept this guy or that. I'm excited about what's happening actually. To get really good is to go through the bad. Better for the bad to happen at the beginning of the season then at the end of it.

[habs rule]

Colin, you have hit the nail on the head, some of us have been saying these things for quire a while but you have put it all together in one great post. Hopefully the Blow it all up and start over guys will read it and pay attention to it. We can't fire everyone and send all the guys to minors. We work with what we have and try to progress to a Cup. Great post.

[Fanpuck33]

I commented on Gainey in another thread, but it didn't seem to generate anything, so I'll repost it here, in a more appropriate place.

The thing is, Bob has essentially admitted that his first five years were a total failure. His five year plan ended with an 8 seed and a first round sweep. He then completely blew up the team. What he did wasn't "gearing up again." That would have meant keeping the core together and triying to improve upon it. Instead, he dismantled the core of the team and is now starting over with half a new team.

The only way Bob's first five years can be deemed anything other than a failure is if a whole bunch of prospects become excellent players. His first netted Grabovski and Streit, who are both gone, and Chipchura. Nothing helping us there. 2005 netted Price, Latendresse, D'Agostini, and SKost, none of whom have established themselves yet as difference makers. Price obviously has shown signs of being a difference maker, but not consistently. 2006 and on is really too soon to say anything, as the guys who have played have barely done so. The likes of Price, Latendresse, Subban, Pacioretty, Fischer, Weber, Carle, LeBlanc, etc. are going to need to come up big in the future for those first 5 years not to have been a total waste.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Great read Colin.

I totally believe that little, big three are here only to keep the Habs competitive, they have no long term significance to this team. If this weren't Montreal I doubt Gainey would have signed any of those guys. Gainey will use the next five years to draft and groom a new crop of young players. I would not be against trading some of our younger players (including Plekanec) for reasonable draft picks (by that I mean not trading say Latendresse for a fifth rounder).

As for this season, we will wait and see when our injured come back. We have some very serious injuries to very key players. Look at last year's pre and post Gonchar Penguins.

Bob can't call it a rebuild but that is what it is.

[KEEP26]

i think his more on a short term rebuild..3 years..i think bob got 3 guys he what and over the 2 next year sign a couple good second liners or trade for them..with the guys we got this season it should make it easyer for bob to get ufa to come here..

[Colin]

The thing is, Bob has essentially admitted that his first five years were a total failure.

But they weren't and Bob hasn't admitted that at all. They were a resounding success until year five: continual progress in house and up the standings. That things fell apart in year five is brutal and lamentable, but doesn't discount the entire five-year process. What he's done now is retool for the next segment of his tenure - and I would agree that it's probably more like a three-year process rather than five. Retooling this season, next season grow together, and compete for the Cup by year three. Makes complete sense.

[Fanpuck33]

But they weren't and Bob hasn't admitted that at all. They were a resounding success until year five: continual progress in house and up the standings. That things fell apart in year five is brutal and lamentable, but doesn't discount the entire five-year process. What he's done now is retool for the next segment of his tenure - and I would agree that it's probably more like a three-year process rather than five. Retooling this season, next season grow together, and compete for the Cup by year three. Makes complete sense.

The whole point of the original 5 year plan was to have a team that could contend for the Cup for a few seasons by the 5th season. Instead, the 5th year resulted in completely blowing up the team. They wouldn't need a new 3 year plan if the original 5 year plan hadn't been a failure. The last 5 years were a waste unless a bunch of the guys he's drafted become more than average NHLers.

[Habitforming]

The whole point of the original 5 year plan was to have a team that could contend for the Cup for a few seasons by the 5th season. Instead, the 5th year resulted in completely blowing up the team. They wouldn't need a new 3 year plan if the original 5 year plan hadn't been a failure. The last 5 years were a waste unless a bunch of the guys he's drafted become more than average NHLers.

You can argue this both ways. The team was a first seed, then came in well under expectations with all but the same team in the final year. That year wasn't a bad year, it was a bad half year and that is all. You can blame the 100th anniversary or the young party boys or the Russian mob, or a few NYC jagoffs, whatever, the point is that something happened there that is a truely uncommon event and that would have been year two of contention. There is no way you start a seaon off like they did and completely melt down any other way.

[The Saint]

Colin,

You have reinforced my belief that you are a smart cookie and one of my favourite posters, for what it is worth. In this world of fandom, emotions generally overtake reason and the game threads prove this on a game by game basis.

One of the other angles that I think supports your perspective re: a potential 3 year plan after the first 5 year plan fell just short is that the core of this team got younger without losing and likely gaining point production for at least the next few seasons.

I am decidedly patient, and by that I mean this team has made me realize that small gains over the long term is all i can truly expect and not go right off the emotional deep end after each game. Having said that, I am fortunate to have a group of brothers who get to hear my emotional rants, where we bring each other back off the precipice when need be.

Over all however, I am pleased with the effort and heart, except for the odd obvious stinker and the clear lack of dangerous offensive skill right now, possibly due to lack of a transition game or simply a lack of passing skill or vision or all of the above.

Nice post - one of many I might add.

I for one am keeping the faith, freaking out in private from time to time ('cause come on - who doesn't) and looking forward to an exciting if slightly frustrating season with a brand new team.

[Fanpuck33]

You can argue this both ways. The team was a first seed, then came in well under expectations with all but the same team in the final year. That year wasn't a bad year, it was a bad half year and that is all. You can blame the 100th anniversary or the young party boys or the Russian mob, or a few NYC jagoffs, whatever, the point is that something happened there that is a truely uncommon event and that would have been year two of contention. There is no way you start a seaon off like they did and completely melt down any other way.

Yeah, but if the team was simply the victim of poor circumstances (injuries, 100th anniversary pressure, outside distractions), then Gainey wouldn't have blown the team apart. If Gainey thought that team still had potential, he would have kept it together and tried to recapture the 2007-08 success.

[The Saint]

Yeah, but if the team was simply the victim of poor circumstances (injuries, 100th anniversary pressure, outside distractions), then Gainey wouldn't have blown the team apart. If Gainey thought that team still had potential, he would have kept it together and tried to recapture the 2007-08 success.

See my comments above specificaly regarding age and compare the former cores (roughly Koivu, Kovy and Tanguay - Cammi, Gomes and Gionta) points with this year's...

[lazy26]

Great post, Colin. You paint a good whole-view perspective, and the result is optimism... a commodity we've been short of recently. After the overhaul this past summer, I fully expected there to be growing pains, although I overestimated my ability to deal with some of the tough times, that is what we've seen. The fact is, we still haven't seen the ultimate result of the team Gainey has assembled... and we won't likely for at least another 20 games. Until then, I think we should strongly consider what Colin has stated. It does no good to push the panic button at this point.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

But they weren't and Bob hasn't admitted that at all. They were a resounding success until year five: continual progress in house and up the standings. That things fell apart in year five is brutal and lamentable, but doesn't discount the entire five-year process. What he's done now is retool for the next segment of his tenure - and I would agree that it's probably more like a three-year process rather than five. Retooling this season, next season grow together, and compete for the Cup by year three. Makes complete sense.

Oh, the rebuild was very definitely a failure. Not only did we in fact fail to show any 'continual progress' in the standings - apart from the 104-point 2008 finish, we ended with 93, 93, 90, and 93 points - and not only did we fail to seriously contend for the Cup at any point, but the development of almost every young player ended up disappointingly, yielding hardly any top-6 forwards or top-4 defencemen. We were patently unable to replace Koivu and Kovalev with cheaper young players from within. Which is why Bob had to go out and acquire overpriced contracts.

Those contracts in turn limit our flexibility as far as your 'three year plan' idea goes, because the *only* way we can ever contend is by the emergence of one or maybe two of our current young guys into major players within that span. I can imagine A. Kostitsyn growing into an elite player within three years (although it puts some strain on the brain and will also entail quite a cap hit); maybe Pacioretty or Lats or O'Bryne can step up (my money's on Pacioretty); but defencemen usually take about five years to hit their prime and the next crop isn't even in the league yet. In short, for the three year scenario to work we'd need to be seeing a significant number of promising young players on the team right now, already well into their development. Maybe if Subban and Weber force their way onto the roster next year, I'll be a little more convinced. For now I think a 5-year-window is more realistic, which means the current core is purely a transitional one to mask the fact of the rebuild. Hope I'm wrong, though.

[sakiqc]

Is this Habs team better than it was before the initial 5-year plan? I found our edition very similar to the Habs of 2001-2002 that finished 8th in the East.

Perreault = Plekanec

Zednik = Cammalleri

Petrov = Gionta

Gilmour = Gomez

Juneau = Metropolit

Dackell = Lapierre

Brisebois = Bergeron

Savage = A. Kostitsyn

Rivet = Hamrlik

Markov = Spacek

Kilger = Latendresse

Bulis = Pacioretty

Ribeiro = D'Agostini

Quintal = Mara

Van Allen = Chipchura

Dykhuis = Gill

Robidas = Gorges

Berezin = S. Kostitsyn

Asham = Moen

Odjick = Laraque

Traverse = O'byrne

Koivu = Markov (our all-star that miss all season)

Theodore = Price

Hackett = Halak

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues...0000452002.html

[JoeLassister]

I'd answer yes. I'd take the guy on the right before the guy on the left on almost every pair you created, especially the first 4 pairs.

[Toronthab]

You've been talking about this for a while; I think it's obvious. What else is there?

He started out with a 5-year plan which he stated clearly from the beginning would be centred around great drafting and development of youth within the system. For all the 'what-have-you-done-for-me-lately' thinking, we did end up as the top seed in year number four. Up to that point, Gainey's plan was perfectly good and there was no reason to make any fundamental changes. Even the kids who we're panning regularly today looked back then like they were improving.

Last year comes around and you have the confluence of horrible events that surrounds the team. Off-ice shenanigans. Backwards progression of the kids and, to be frank, a large step back from the established core either through over-confidence, laziness, or advancing age; probably a combination of all three with a large emphasis on the latter.

The summer previous, Bob did what any GM would do if he felt his team was on the cusp of taking that step to legit Cup contenders, he dealt away youth and picks to patch those holes deemed necessary for a Cup run. There was nothing he did out of the ordinary and commentary otherwise is really nothing more than 20/20 hindsight. During the season he kept with his plan because he figured that, when the injury plague ended, the team had a legit shot with everyone healthy and geared for a Cup run. There was no reason not to believe that. Sure, Carey was struggling, but he'd showed what he could do early in the season, so why not believe that he could recapture that down the stretch.

He didn't, the team failed, and Bob gets to the summer - with a planned mass of UFA's. Do people reallly think those UFA's were coincidental at that time? End of 5-year plan: re-evaluation. Which Bob did. I don't like my core, we need a change of mentality.

So he makes a trade which everyone questions consistently: Gomez. Was it a risky trade? Absolutely. But we know Bob had tried to acquire other centres but was unsuccessful. Did he overpay for Gomez? Perhaps, but he wasn't willing to risk the franchise being uncompetitive for an extended period to get Lecavalier into the fold. The Montreal market WILL NOT accept repeated failure, so that option was closed when Tampa asked for too much. Instead, just before the UFA period Bob acquired a highly talented if overpaid Gomez knowing full well that with that asset, he could probably lure other high talent assets (and if you doubt this, then you really do doubt Bob's intelligence).

Bob then goes out and gets Gionta and Cammalleri, among others. Small? Yes, but these were bonified attacking players who showed up every night. (And we have yet to be proven wrong on this count.) What Gainey was counting on was that the purge of the old mentality and the influx of new talent would create a competitive and energized atmosphere which would lift the games of the kids who had struggled.

Plekanec has found new life. He's not modelling his game on the laziest player on the planet anymore - he's working again. The rest of the kids? Questionable so far. Pacioretty has been the most pleasant surprise so far and White has certainly shown that same work ethic in his short time here. Where, though, are the Kosty's and the rest of the secondary scoring?

There are so many comments about what Bob *should* have done or *could* have done. What he did, though, was perfectly logical considering the circumstances and the market. And yes, it's been disappointing as of the 20-game mark, but there have been more than a few teams who have made the playoffs after a lousy start to the season. Despite all the down-trodden faces and rampant negativity, the team is still only two games under .500 and has shown, at times, that it can compete with the best in the league.

And they've done that with a brutal patchwork defense that is incapable of sustaining any kind of offensive threat through a consistent transition game.

Should we be disappointed? Absolutely. Should we give up, pray for Bob to blow it up, then go around whinging like Leaf fans? I don't believe so. This team has a lot of potential, as I see it. We need a healthier defense and someone - anyone - to step up on the second line to make a difference. Short of that, I suspect Bob is exploring every option towards making a move to shore up those areas where we're obviously weak.

The problem is, that's not really possible considering our injury system, combined with the cap issues, and the current climate in the NHL. This is not a trade environment. Fans should be more than aware by now that after the holiday break is when things *start* to heat up, and the trading doesn't really get going until February.

Too late for the Canadiens this year? No. They're just under .500 - let me put that in perspective: a short two-game winning streak puts this team at .500... two games... two - and they're just now starting to get healthy. While they've had their share of poor outings, they've also suffered from bad luck to a degree, and they've been oh-so-close many other times. While many have poo-poo'd Martin's system recently, there was little doubt about its effectiveness a couple of weeks ago when our shots against were down into the 20's on a fairly regular basis.

Now we have Carey Price (and to a lesser degree Jaro Halak) seeming to turn the corner on their respective seasons.

I'm quite sure that all of your mothers have said the following: patience is a virtue. There's no need to panic. It's still VERY early in the season; there are 62 games to play! I believe Bob's second rebuild is going quite well considering it's in it's infancy. And despite the last build's failure, one can point to almost every other GM in the league as failing as well. How many of them had division winning season's, though?

I know there's plenty of talk about the cap and how this edition of the Canadiens will do within it over a period of time. Well, even if it goes down a little for next season, there's no reason to believe it will stay down, but will probably rise once again. Which means we'll have room again in a couple of seasons. And Armageddon part II is on it's way shortly when this CBA runs out. Perhaps Gainey is putting together his team with insider knowledge on what's expected then.

Bottom line, all this panic talk about Gainey's leadership is, in my opinion, bunk. If you logically follow his moves, they're consistent and are, by and large, successful in guiding this team forward. Are they all perfect? Hell no, or we'd be dancing on top of the division after having won our Cup in year five.

I find it amusing that there are so many pronouncements on the Habs fate after 20 games.... after a complete overhaul and philosophy change. I understand that Habs fans feel entitled to *more* and *better*, but really, I think we're doing just fine this early.

Just my opinion.

Boy ; that was great Colin. You have expressed my view completely and I think it solid as can be. Mr G has been managing this team beautifully and with large cojones to boot. I have, like everyone, always admired this great man, but I think when our fan-tastic expectations arise for the tearm he helped make legendary, we can get a little short-sighted vis-a-vis, the real world in all its undocumentable complexity.

Thank God for Uncle Bob!

[Colin]

Oh, the rebuild was very definitely a failure. Not only did we in fact fail to show any 'continual progress' in the standings - apart from the 104-point 2008 finish, we ended with 93, 93, 90, and 93 points - and not only did we fail to seriously contend for the Cup at any point, but the development of almost every young player ended up disappointingly, yielding hardly any top-6 forwards or top-4 defencemen. We were patently unable to replace Koivu and Kovalev with cheaper young players from within. Which is why Bob had to go out and acquire overpriced contracts. [/b]

But I disagree on both points. We took untried kids and turned them into at least serviceable NHLers. Komi was in and out of the lineup, for instance, and he turned into someone who got multi-million on the UFA market. Kostitsyn had one excellent year and then took a step back. Does that mean he's a complete failure? I don't think so. Rather, I choose to believe that he took a step back last season when guys like Kovalev - and their lazy attitude - ruled the roost and were the role models.

Now, that Bob made an offer to Kovalev is, for me, a disappointment, but every GM has his emotions involved with a player or three. I consider Kovy to be one of Bob's mulligans.

You say the plan was a complete failure because we failed to improve? I think we got better every year. You look solely at the statistics of the situation while I'm going by what I saw on the ice. The team Bob inherited was brutal and he revamped it. In the meantime, he got a couple of lucky seasons with no injuries, then the team took off. 104 points and the division title when healthy and playing well. Did things explode after that, yes. Doesn't mean the entire thing was a disaster.

I agree with you completely on the development of the players, mind you. I believe the single biggest issue with Gainey's management has been behind the bench. Hiring Carbo, while laudable in certain respects, was always going to be a major risk. He'd never been the head coach. Never. Now Bob wanted him to learn on the go in the hardest market in hockey. For one year Carbo had the players ears, then he lost it all. Calamitously. Wherever one chooses to point the blame on the ice, ultimately the coach couldn't collect all his players together and push them in the right direction in year two. Bob made himself look weak by publically stating Carbo was the best decision he'd made. I firmly believe Bob was playing a political game with that statement, and nothing more. He was telling his players, very firmly, that they'd best shut up and listen.

When Carbo throws up his hands a few weeks later.... Hey, Carbo WILL be an excellent coach one day. But Bob chose poorly there. With a more competent coach, I think Montreal does one heckuva lot better in year five.

Those contracts in turn limit our flexibility as far as your 'three year plan' idea goes, because the *only* way we can ever contend is by the emergence of one or maybe two of our current young guys into major players within that span. I can imagine A. Kostitsyn growing into an elite player within three years (although it puts some strain on the brain and will also entail quite a cap hit); maybe Pacioretty or Lats or O'Bryne can step up (my money's on Pacioretty); but defencemen usually take about five years to hit their prime and the next crop isn't even in the league yet. In short, for the three year scenario to work we'd need to be seeing a significant number of promising young players on the team right now, already well into their development. Maybe if Subban and Weber force their way onto the roster next year, I'll be a little more convinced. For now I think a 5-year-window is more realistic, which means the current core is purely a transitional one to mask the fact of the rebuild. Hope I'm wrong, though.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Yes, it does look harsh against the cap, but Gainey knows more about the cap than any of us do. He knows the numbers behind the situation and knows where things are going. Sure, he's probably relying on a kid or two to step up, but there's no reason not to believe that might happen. Again, 20 games. Yes, struggles all round, but 20 games! MaxPax has improved exponentially this season. And while Kosty has looked brutal for long stretches, I think if you go back and watch his season as a whole, he's trending upwards. Does that mean he's going to hit his potential? Honestly, I doubt it, but that doesn't mean he won't at least play himself into a tradeable position. And let's be very, very honest. Bob isn't a GM because he's stupid. All these things that you or I see he sees too. I'm positive that Kosty sr (and jr for that matter) are front and centre on his list of things to take care of.

You mention O'Byrne. Wasn't it just last season when his name on these boards was O'Burned? When virtually every poster thought he was a complete lost cause? Isn't almost everyone here counting the days until his return? I daresay his improvement from last year to this has been nothing short of incredible.

So let's say that O'Byrne becomes a legit top-four next season and MaxPax continues this upward trending to become a power forward-type on the second line. Then either the Kosty boys put up, or they're traded as a pair for another piece of second line help. If these three things happen in the next 365 days, we're looking at two lines that can cause a LOT of havok. And I haven't even spoken about the potential of Latendresse, who's mentally lost the plot, but who has skills a-plenty.

Look, I'm not trying to say things are rosy and peachy, but I do believe that Bob is sticking to a plan that he had when he took over. 5 years. If that brings a Cup: great, if not, then we have to do a rebuild based on the age of those vets. We're on page two now. We're replaced our old core with three newer and more competitive players who all come to play every shift. Other than Koivu, we couldn't say that about the old core. Is Bob on some shaky ground? Absolutely: this is Montreal. But I still firmly believe that things are fairly well in hand and that this is a plan designed to make the team competitive in the shorter-term.

Is this Habs team better than it was before the initial 5-year plan? I found our edition very similar to the Habs of 2001-2002 that finished 8th in the East.

With respect, infinitely better.

[Colin]

Boy ; that was great Colin. You have expressed my view completely and I think it solid as can be. Mr G has been managing this team beautifully and with large cojones to boot. I have, like everyone, always admired this great man, but I think when our fan-tastic expectations arise for the tearm he helped make legendary, we can get a little short-sighted vis-a-vis, the real world in all its undocumentable complexity.

Thank God for Uncle Bob!

Thanks. But I don't want to get carried away in the opposite direction either. While I do think things are better than the doom and gloom that seems to be rampant amongst Habs fans, I don't think things are brilliantly rosy.

I think Bob has managed the team with a very definite plan and he's stuck to it almost too closely. Towards the deadline, I don't think very many would hve been disappointed if he decided that it wasn't the team to go deep, and therefore get rid of assets. That he stayed the course is very admirable, but I believe - as you state - that it took one helluva lot of cohones.

Has he managed the team beautifully? No. I disagree with a couple of moves he's made. In particular, I think his decisions for bench boss have been poor up until the Martin hiring. I think his decision not to negotiate during the season is a very risky one - high risk, high reward.... and high failure. With Komy, it looks so far that he made the right decision. But would Streit look good here at the rumoured $2M per that Streit thought reasonable at the time? What about the Plex question?

~~

I'm not trying to contradict myself with this response, just trying to paint what I see as a more realistic picture than the either purely beatific responses or the abject negative ones. Bob is a GM who set himself a path and has followed it almost religiously. I don't think there have been many deviations at all from where he intended to go when he took over. This is just phase two.

I mean, if we'd won the Cup with Koivu, Kovalev et al, do you think we'd still be competitive with them as they near middle age? No, this is a business and it's time to move on, win or lose, to younger players who can help the team compete today.

Who better than Habs fans understand that what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude?

[Toronthab]

Thanks. But I don't want to get carried away in the opposite direction either. While I do think things are better than the doom and gloom that seems to be rampant amongst Habs fans, I don't think things are brilliantly rosy.

I think Bob has managed the team with a very definite plan and he's stuck to it almost too closely. Towards the deadline, I don't think very many would hve been disappointed if he decided that it wasn't the team to go deep, and therefore get rid of assets. That he stayed the course is very admirable, but I believe - as you state - that it took one helluva lot of cohones.

Has he managed the team beautifully? No. I disagree with a couple of moves he's made. In particular, I think his decisions for bench boss have been poor up until the Martin hiring. I think his decision not to negotiate during the season is a very risky one - high risk, high reward.... and high failure. With Komy, it looks so far that he made the right decision. But would Streit look good here at the rumoured $2M per that Streit thought reasonable at the time? What about the Plex question?

~~

I'm not trying to contradict myself with this response, just trying to paint what I see as a more realistic picture than the either purely beatific responses or the abject negative ones. Bob is a GM who set himself a path and has followed it almost religiously. I don't think there have been many deviations at all from where he intended to go when he took over. This is just phase two.

I mean, if we'd won the Cup with Koivu, Kovalev et al, do you think we'd still be competitive with them as they near middle age? No, this is a business and it's time to move on, win or lose, to younger players who can help the team compete today.

Who better than Habs fans understand that what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude?

Streit would look awful good back there alright. What a terrific player and there is no doubt that it was time for a leadership change. I was surprised by Kovy choosing another pad however, even one not too far from Montreal :-). I really admired the relationship that had built up between the two of them. And as to Carbs, he was another ballsy decision, one that didn't look too bad at some times, and quite frankly I don't have the competence to judge much at all about coaching changes but also noted a twenty shots against game here and there.

One further critical element is the gel factor. No, not Souray's hair, but the big turnover...no not Timi Horton's ..but the third of the team that blew into town to pick up new linemates in a new system with a new coach.

So, I will agree, with some effort, not to call the pope to begin beatification investigations, and I'd have to come up with two miraculous events to confirm it in any case. If we win the cup this year, the first one's in the hockey bag! I'd take a Gomez revitalization as a controversial second.

If the 'new' atheists like Richard Dawkins are right however, then all is just mindless matter in motion which must include our hopes and thoughts in a purposeless universe. Being just acausal quantum events rooted in the Big Bang and nullifying even the possibility of free will and subsequent responsibility, this would let uncle Bob off the hook entirely.

[bar]

My thing is, in a perfect non-injury world is what GMs plan for. You cannot plan for injuries to a major cog (Markov). When the goal was puck possession, and a major cog in that system goes down can we hold the team accountable to the same standards? Is it fair to judge the team when all the parts are not here?

Markov, Rhino, Gill are important parts, Gill and Rhino may not be the best players but they were to fulfill a role.

I feel like this team when healthy can be a well oiled a machine, and maybe if the injuries happened near the middle of the season things may have been fine, but you add in a massive rebuild, then take away parts the machine is gonna break down as we've seen.

The fantasy talk of 'sign x player, trade z player' is just that fantasy. So much more goes into trades than trying to match salaries and stats. It's arrogant of us to claim we could do better.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Interesting perspective Colin on the whole failure thing. I agree that the moves that Bob made were reasonable at the time and the fact they didn't work out is not Bob's failure.

The failure is the overall outcome. We are still in the same place as when we stared. We used to be a small speedy team that couldn't compete every night and we are still a small, speedy team that can't compete every night. This is why I believe Gomez, Gionta and Cammalleri are stop gaps while Bob rebuilds.

[Chris]

I think the habs are back to having 4 4th lines.

What's all this Lats stuff? Did he do or say something? Or it's just because he sucks? He is the anti Lucic, Everything Lucic is, is what Lats should be. Unfortunately he doesn't have the heart, skill or desire to become a noticable player. I mean for 2 coaches, 3 years they have said go to the net, you would figure by now he would know where the net is. It doesn't move around.

[Habsfan]

What's all this Lats stuff? Did he do or say something?

I'm not sure. I was listening to the Team 990 this morning, and the guys were talking with Bob Mackenzie about Lats...and what they were saying wasn't very nice..but I missed the beginning of their conversation, so i wasn't sure of what exactly they were talking baout.

I think they made a big fuss over the fact that when Jacques Martin Called Gui at 6:30 saturday to tell him that he was going to play, Gui was sleeping in his hotel room....instead of being at the rink with the rest of the team.(Gui was supposed to miss the game originally)!

Or it's just because he sucks? He is the anti Lucic, Everything Lucic is, is what Lats should be. Unfortunately he doesn't have the heart, skill or desire to become a noticable player. I mean for 2 coaches, 3 years they have said go to the net, you would figure by now he would know where the net is. It doesn't move around.

As much as I like Guillaume (He seems like a good kid, isn't a cancer in the dressing room, and DOES have some potential) I am also starting to lose patience with him. I know that I have said in the past that we need to be patient with big "power-forwards"...especially when they're young. We do NOT want to end up with another John Leclair scoreing 40 goals for another team...but Guillaume hasn't done anything in 20 games this year. IF his progression was headed in the right direction, I think we would all have an easier time of being patient with him, but it ain't the case this year!

Hopefully by the time game no. 40 comes along, Guillaume will have 10 or 11 goals...cause anything less would be disappointing!

Edited November 16, 2009 by Habsfan

[Colin]

I think the habs are back to having 4 4th lines.

I think you've gone way too far there. I think every team in the league thinks our first line has exceptional players. Would they be first liners on other teams? Depends on the team. But fourth liners? That smacks as knee-jerk emotional talk to me.