Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
REV-G

Don't wait for spring.....do it now!

Recommended Posts

Gone from an ECF finalist to a 1st rd. KO to last in the east.That's not progress.He dumped alot of big players last year,and now he's trying to get bigger?Other than a vocal minority on some blogs,there isn't one former player/analyst or scout that doesn't think he's done a horrific job.And wouldn't a 4th for Steckel be better than the "brilliant" move in picking up Betts.That was a joke that still hurts us,not having a key faceoff guy or adequate 4th line ctr. ;)

Betts was the right move by the Goat how could he know Betts as fubar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betts was the right move by the Goat how could he know Betts as fubar.

We also didn't lose a damn thing by claiming him. For those who said they didn't do their due diligence, what was Gauthier supposed to do? The Flyers said he was healthy, because if he wasn't healthy it is against the rules to put him on waivers. They couldn't examine him before claiming him because that would be tampering. They examined him as soon as he was claimed, saw he wasn't healthy and sent him back to Philly, losing no cap space or money on the claim. I don't know what more people wanted out of Gauthier in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also didn't lose a damn thing by claiming him. For those who said they didn't do their due diligence, what was Gauthier supposed to do? The Flyers said he was healthy, because if he wasn't healthy it is against the rules to put him on waivers. They couldn't examine him before claiming him because that would be tampering. They examined him as soon as he was claimed, saw he wasn't healthy and sent him back to Philly, losing no cap space or money on the claim. I don't know what more people wanted out of Gauthier in this situation.

Clearly after comments from Gauthier and Markov and now Gauthier and Betts, they want Gauthier to have a medical degree so he can properly analyze players with injuries. You know, the same medical degree 29 other GMs have and like 50 GM candidates? Gosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tricky bit about adding size relates to team identity. Ferraro was on Vancouver radio this morning and his critique of the Habs was that they have absolutely no team identity at the moment. I found that interesting, because whatever we think of the team gainey assembled, it certainly had an identity: small, fast, feisty group build around great goaltending, team D, special teams and a counterpunching approach to offence. In removing JM we knocked out the foundation for the last three elements and in trading Cammy we have removed the centrpiece of the 'small, fiesty counterpunch' identity, to be replaced by a middling forward with size.

I certainly see the argument for balance.Cole was a great addition in part because he brought such speed that he merely enhanced our identity while adding size. Bourque doesn't do that - he's a player in a totally different mold, and illustrates that no matter how much 'size' we add it's not going to be big enough or good enough to, say, trump Boston. At least the other way we were clearly the anti-Boston (and that may be one reason why we gave the Bruins so much trouble -we played the opposite of their game),

So in terms of 'adding size' my worry is that we lose speed and that special kind of feistiness you get from small NHLers. In other words, we obscure an identity that kinda worked for us, replacing it with something decidedly generic.

In any case, this isn't my main argument against Gauthier. I just think it's an interesting point to keep in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tricky bit about adding size relates to team identity. Ferraro was on Vancouver radio this morning and his critique of the Habs was that they have absolutely no team identity at the moment. I found that interesting, because whatever we think of the team gainey assembled, it certainly had an identity: small, fast, feisty group build around great goaltending, team D, special teams and a counterpunching approach to offence. In removing JM we knocked out the foundation for the last three elements and in trading Cammy we have removed the centrpiece of the 'small, fiesty counterpunch' identity, to be replaced by a middling forward with size.

I certainly see the argument for balance.Cole was a great addition in part because he brought such speed that he merely enhanced our identity while adding size. Bourque doesn't do that - he's a player in a totally different mold, and illustrates that no matter how much 'size' we add it's not going to be big enough or good enough to, say, trump Boston. At least the other way we were clearly the anti-Boston (and that may be one reason why we gave the Bruins so much trouble -we played the opposite of their game),

So in terms of 'adding size' my worry is that we lose speed and that special kind of feistiness you get from small NHLers. In other words, we obscure an identity that kinda worked for us, replacing it with something decidedly generic.

In any case, this isn't my main argument against Gauthier. I just think it's an interesting point to keep in mind.

I agree with almost everything you are saying here.  You can't just add size, you need to find the right player with size to add, and based on this uptempo team, its size and speed.  This is the reason that Latendresse looked so bad when the new group came in, he just can't skate fast enough to keep up, and where Eller, Patches and Cole who have great speed to go along with their size have fit our lineup well.

The only thing I'm not sure of is Bourque.  I haven't seen enough of him to say that he is not fast enough to fit with the rest of the team.  It might be true, but I'll need a little more.  His first game with us he was downright fast, other games he seems more middling like you said.  I wonder if this is the symptoms of the inconsistent play that had Calgary very happy to get rid of him.

You might very well be right on the Bourque point too, he might not fit with the surrounding pieces and the team's identity. I've gotta see more of him to be sure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff. To me, Bourque looks like a Bruin/Flyer. He'd fit right in with either of those teams. He might be another one of those generic pieces, but he'd make them that much tougher to beat. That's why I like the trade. If he brings his A game when playing the Bruins, at least it gives them something to think about. In the long run, our small feisty players can't get over the hump anyway. They came close in 2009, sure. We still have Plex, Desharnais and Brendan Gallagher in the pipeline, to maintain that style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly after comments from Gauthier and Markov and now Gauthier and Betts, they want Gauthier to have a medical degree so he can properly analyze players with injuries. You know, the same medical degree 29 other GMs have and like 50 GM candidates? Gosh.

The Betts thing I can agree on but the apologies being made for Gauthier are ridiculous...Markov's signing is fully on Gauthier. The argument he depends on the doctors advice and its a doctors fault is simply an apologists excuse. No one expects him to have a doctors degree...he certainly should have known to exhaust multiple opinions on a player with a injury like this, especially before giving out millions of dollars to him. As for an insured salary...well, the organization pays a lot in premiums for this stuff and they're surely paying a lot more now because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Betts thing I can agree on but the apologies being made for Gauthier are ridiculous...Markov's signing is fully on Gauthier. The argument he depends on the doctors advice and its a doctors fault is simply an apologists excuse. No one expects him to have a doctors degree...he certainly should have known to exhaust multiple opinions on a player with a injury like this, especially before giving out millions of dollars to him. As for an insured salary...well, the organization pays a lot in premiums for this stuff and they're surely paying a lot more now because of this.

The issue wasn't the price or the term or Markov. The issue was that Gauthier thought Campoli could bring what Wiz and Schneider have brought before. That was the mistake. But people always focus on contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an important point, especially with what you argue later about Bournival.

They traded the 50th Overall pick for Wiz.... 50th overall.... the very definition of a prospect that "may or may not turn out".

So you argue out of both sides of your mouth here. The 50th overall pick was important, and asset not to be given away lightly... but Bournival is a guy who may or may not turn out and is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't get how you've come to this conclusion.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the Habs don't make the playoffs without Wiz. For a team that finished 6th in the conference his rejuvenation of a dying PP, and his ability to suck up 20+ minutes per game at the defensive end were absolutely invaluable. I don't need a crystal ball to see the value he had on this team, and the effect he produced in getting us to the playoffs. And I guarantee that the vast majority of posters here agree with me, that without Wiz, we would have missed the playoffs last season.

As I stated, Bournival, who has 21 goals in 22 games this season and was good enough to play for the WJC team, is a very good prospect.

Is he a sure thing? Of course not, but no less so than the 50th overall pick who was traded away.

So absolutely he's relevant to the discussion.

Thats not what I said.

1) Cammy got fair value for what he was worth on the day he was traded.

2) Cammy should never have been traded on the day he was traded, because he was traded on a day where his value was at absolute rock bottom during his stay in Montreal.

If you don't see the subtlety here. You should perhaps read it again.

We don't know this.

All we know is that one anonymous GM said he wasn't aware Cammy was available, and he didn't get a chance to put in an offer.

Firstly we don't know that this GM is being truthful, it might just be an excuse to make himself look good for not going after Cammy.

Secondly, Cammy had a limited NTC where there were 7 teams he could not be traded to. We don't know that this GM wasn't the GM of one of those 7 teams.

This is entirely based on speculation that there were no other bids. As pointed out above, we don't know this to be the case.

Sure, Ramo and Holland both have limited value.

However a 2nd is certainly more value than a 5th, wouldn't you agree?

Sure they do.... But there is a big difference when its a scout, or a coach, or hockey personnel that is under Gauthier's expertise, and he should be monitoring and should catch their mistakes as they are happening.

When we are talking about a doctor, in a totally different field than the manager, well then that person gets the opportunity to screw up completely, before they are replaced by someone more competent, and before it gets labelled the incompetence of a GM.

Kaberle was a piece that Canes didn't want... I agree. However, what did we give up to get him? A 38 year old defenceman with a contract nearly as high, who sucked when he played last season, and who hasn't played much this season because he'd been through a ton of injuries. So it wasn't like we gave up anything of value for Kaberle.

On top of that... since arriving... Kaberle has 11 pts in 19 games and is an even +/- rating.

Meanwhile another puck moving defenceman who has 15 pts in 36 games and is a -6 (on a much better team) just signed an 18.4 million dollar deal for 4 years today.

Kaberle may be older, but his contract is also shorter than Goligoski.

And 4.25 million as a cap hit, is fair market value for the points he's producing and the level of play he brings.

As for What Kaberle did in the playoffs... He was bostons leading producer on the PP, and scored more pts than any defenceman on their team in the playoffs last year (including Zdeno Chara).

Gomez's 7 million for 40 pts of production is bad value... no one disputes this.

Markov can sit on LTIR if injured.

Kaberle is fair market value for his production.

I don't see how they are comparable.

For all the picks traded away.... Gauthier also acquired

A 1st round pick (Lars Eller)

A 2nd round pick (Aaron Palushaj)

Third round picks (Bournival and Shultz)

and had

Desharnais and Diaz both emerge as legit NHLers despite being undrafted.

for guys who had no place in montreal. However these assets added to the system are never taken into account when we talk about the GM duties in Montreal.

Its all whining about the 2nd round pick traded for Wiz, but the prospect added in the O'Byrne deal is irrelevant for some reason, a reason that still hasn't been explained in a logical manner.

Bournival is years away and OByrne is also still developing, It's a pointless part of the debate and could go either way. Trading for Wiz was a waste because we gave up an asset that have been controllable for years for a 6 month rental... That's not team building. OByrnes deal is a different debate around which will benefit the team more long term...no one can say yet. It's irrelevant to debate a deal like this since who knows how it pans out...is Bournival going to be better? Maybe...is he a better prospect then OByrne was? Arguably yes but still some debate could be had...OByrne was a fair prospect at the same age as Bournival albeit a very different player.

Cammy's value the day he was traded? But his value was at rock bottom? Again you are effectively saying it was a bad deal...just come out and say it without the spin of a PG apologist. His value is more then a couple days, months performance obviously. Bad timing of the deal leading to less then ideal return. If it was a 1st rounder and better prospect with Bourque then I'd say it was a fair return...we got less in a rushed, poorly timed deal. I can't believe it's been defended.

As I said a moment ago, PG should have known to have multiple opinions on Markov's injury before giving always a contract like that. It is 100% PG's responsibility as the GM. The apologist spin coming from you again.

Those assets he added largely came at the expense of other assets...the measure of performance is on return not looking soley at what came in. He has overpaid, acquired overpaid and lost asset value on many deals. Most deals keep the team listless instead of with a vision and direction. His leadership is in question around the timing of trades, firings, hirings and support of his staff. He is not walking the plank...he's halfway to the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue wasn't the price or the term or Markov. The issue was that Gauthier thought Campoli could bring what Wiz and Schneider have brought before. That was the mistake. But people always focus on contracts.

I was responding to your comments were about Gauthier needing to be a doctor...and not needing to bear responsibility for signing an injured player. Contracts in a salary cap world an critical...especially with young talent like Subban, Price, MaxPac, etc...tough when your labelled with Gomez, Kaberle, injured Markov, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was responding to your comments were about Gauthier needing to be a doctor...and not needing to bear responsibility for signing an injured player. Contracts in a salary cap world an critical...especially with young talent like Subban, Price, MaxPac, etc...tough when your labelled with Gomez, Kaberle, injured Markov, etc...

He also signed another injured player named Josh Gorges. He signed Markov for the same amount he made when he was one of the best defencemen in the league.

Contracts in the salary cap world are critical but GMs who can't manuever around the cap are worthless GMs. Philly has never, ever had a problem with the cap. Chicago had to pay for a previous GMs sins and got through it. A good GM can get around anything. Only short-sighted armchair GMs sweat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bournival is years away and OByrne is also still developing, It's a pointless part of the debate and could go either way. Trading for Wiz was a waste because we gave up an asset that have been controllable for years for a 6 month rental... That's not team building. OByrnes deal is a different debate around which will benefit the team more long term...no one can say yet. It's irrelevant to debate a deal like this since who knows how it pans out...is Bournival going to be better? Maybe...is he a better prospect then OByrne was? Arguably yes but still some debate could be had...OByrne was a fair prospect at the same age as Bournival albeit a very different player.

O'Byrne is 27 years old and has 5 years of NHL experience. He is what he is.

Cammy's value the day he was traded? But his value was at rock bottom? Again you are effectively saying it was a bad deal...just come out and say it without the spin of a PG apologist. His value is more then a couple days, months performance obviously. Bad timing of the deal leading to less then ideal return. If it was a 1st rounder and better prospect with Bourque then I'd say it was a fair return...we got less in a rushed, poorly timed deal. I can't believe it's been defended.

He was a struggling player making 6 million with 9 goals in 38 games and a -6. He had just popped off to the media. The return was a guy who has scored just as many goals over the last three seasons, a flip of marginal prospects, and gaining a 2nd for a 5th. Not too bad actually.

The timing was off though because I do believe Cammy would have eventually got hot and increased his numbers and value.

As I said a moment ago, PG should have known to have multiple opinions on Markov's injury before giving always a contract like that. It is 100% PG's responsibility as the GM. The apologist spin coming from you again.

Why assume that there wasn't multiple opinions? I don't know how we are supposed to know what doctors were consulted, how many, and what they said here.

Those assets he added largely came at the expense of other assets...the measure of performance is on return not looking soley at what came in. He has overpaid, acquired overpaid and lost asset value on many deals. Most deals keep the team listless instead of with a vision and direction. His leadership is in question around the timing of trades, firings, hirings and support of his staff. He is not walking the plank...he's halfway to the water.

Which deals did he overpay on.

Individually, the only bad trades I can see that he has made are Max Lapierre, and Sergei Kostitsyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Betts thing I can agree on but the apologies being made for Gauthier are ridiculous...Markov's signing is fully on Gauthier. The argument he depends on the doctors advice and its a doctors fault is simply an apologists excuse. No one expects him to have a doctors degree...he certainly should have known to exhaust multiple opinions on a player with a injury like this, especially before giving out millions of dollars to him. As for an insured salary...well, the organization pays a lot in premiums for this stuff and they're surely paying a lot more now because of this.

There's nothing wrong with being an apologist for something you believe in.

We have no reason to believe that Gauthier didn't get multiple opinions on Markov's health. We have no reason to assume that he was in any way more ignorant of Markov's condition than he should (as in could) have been. Recovery time is never foreseen with total accuracy, doctors are always dealing with probabilities. Suppose the doctors said a player in this state, recovering from this injury, after this much recovery time, etc, etc, will have a 85% chance of being ready to play NHL hockey by November if he follows X workout regimen. In this situation, signing Markov long term and (merely) bringing in Campoli to QB the PP until that time seems reasonable. There is a 85% chance that it will pay off. Of course, if that which has a 15% probability happens, we'll undoubtedly have people that claim the result was inevitable and that Gauthier should have seen it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with being an apologist for something you believe in.

We have no reason to believe that Gauthier didn't get multiple opinions on Markov's health. We have no reason to assume that he was in any way more ignorant of Markov's condition than he should (as in could) have been. Recovery time is never foreseen with total accuracy, doctors are always dealing with probabilities. Suppose the doctors said a player in this state, recovering from this injury, after this much recovery time, etc, etc, will have a 85% chance of being ready to play NHL hockey by November if he follows X workout regimen. In this situation, signing Markov long term and (merely) bringing in Campoli to QB the PP until that time seems reasonable. There is a 85% chance that it will pay off. Of course, if that which has a 15% probability happens, we'll undoubtedly have people that claim the result was inevitable and that Gauthier should have seen it coming.

It doesn't matter your or my opinions of PG which is 180 degrees different. the bottom line is he took a gamble,was wrong,and that is ONE,not the only,contributing factor of this lousy season.A big factor. Campoli was a weak signing,weak player.Betts was a small gamble,but another mistake,since we could have done much better than Enquist/Nokie. Not having a good 4th line is another contributor to this season.if we were 2 pts out of 1st instead of last,I wouldn't hate PG as much,but I blame him,BG and basically the whole management. You have to be held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a question. At one time you could not trade anybody that was hurt. Since that time i have seen a couple of moves where you would wonder how they could be moved. Gionta is on IR. Can he be moved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a question. At one time you could not trade anybody that was hurt. Since that time i have seen a couple of moves where you would wonder how they could be moved. Gionta is on IR. Can he be moved?

Yep. Jose Theodore was dealt on IR years ago, making me look like a complete idiot in the process having just posted my deadline preview a day or two earlier. As long as the acquiring team waives the right to a physical it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Byrne is 27 years old and has 5 years of NHL experience. He is what he is.

He was a struggling player making 6 million with 9 goals in 38 games and a -6. He had just popped off to the media. The return was a guy who has scored just as many goals over the last three seasons, a flip of marginal prospects, and gaining a 2nd for a 5th. Not too bad actually.

The timing was off though because I do believe Cammy would have eventually got hot and increased his numbers and value.

Why assume that there wasn't multiple opinions? I don't know how we are supposed to know what doctors were consulted, how many, and what they said here.

Which deals did he overpay on.

Individually, the only bad trades I can see that he has made are Max Lapierre, and Sergei Kostitsyn.

O'Byrne is/was a late bloomer...I think he has more upside still. JMHO though.

If you think Cammy would have got hot and upped his value it implies he has more upside. I fail to see the pick swap as being anywhere near enough to cover that proven upside. You keep saying it sideways but refuse to admit it was a less then stellar deal...whatever...I won't debate it anymore.

As for PG and medical opinions...senior management MUST be accountable. Period. Any business run without that in mind is in big trouble.

You name 2 bad deals...I've given my thoughts on Cammy's deal (bad return), the Gomez deal (OVERPAY), the Kaberle deal (salary implications), signing an injured Markov, lack of leadership, lack of vision, etc. You may not agree with my take on the deals but there is enough smoke around them for various reasons that PG needs to be held accountable for the fire. The fact we fired a coach (which I'm okay with as I was no JM fan either) and around other recents as Cammy's deal, mis-handled PR, picked up Kaberle's salary, etc are all indicative of a desparate GM who was trying to blame his coach and buy time. Instead he's digging a deeper hole. Does anyone really want this guy involved in deadline deals? Especially if they might involve a core young player like Subban? Crazy times if he's allowed to do that...

If I had these types of problems in my division I'd be fired because I'm accountable to decisions I make as well as those of my team and their recommendations. What is PG measured on if it's not performance of the club this year and expected performance in years to come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Byrne is/was a late bloomer...I think he has more upside still. JMHO though.

He's not showing it in Colorado where he is the 6th most used defenceman on one of the worst defensive squads in the NHL.

In fact I'd argue that when O'Byrne came up with Montreal in 07-08 he showed a lot of promise, the problem is that he's shown next to nothing in terms of improvement in the last 5 years.

If you think Cammy would have got hot and upped his value it implies he has more upside. I fail to see the pick swap as being anywhere near enough to cover that proven upside. You keep saying it sideways but refuse to admit it was a less then stellar deal...whatever...I won't debate it anymore.

I don't know how to explain any differently that the move was fine for the day it was made, but they should have kept him longer and gotten more later. I think we are arguing the same thing.

The hockey move taken in a vacuum is fine, but the way the management game is being played is wrong.

As for PG and medical opinions...senior management MUST be accountable. Period. Any business run without that in mind is in big trouble.

Sure they are accountable. Senior management is accountable if there are repeated mistakes.

This was the first mistake by the medical personnel. If they are repeated then senior managemen must pay a price.

While its true that the buck must stop at senior management, any organization that fires a manager after merely one mistake, in an area that they have no expertise in, and was caused by bad advice by an expert.... would be a business organization that is very, very poorly run, and would be in just as big trouble.

If the mistakes continue, sure.... but based on this alone, not a fireable offence.

You name 2 bad deals...I've given my thoughts on Cammy's deal (bad return), the Gomez deal (OVERPAY),

Gomez is Gainey's deal.

the Kaberle deal (salary implications)

4.25 million for a 45-50 pt defenceman (13 pts in 20 games, +2 as a Hab).

Seems to be about market value.

, signing an injured Markov,

see above

lack of leadership, lack of vision, etc. You may not agree with my take on the deals but there is enough smoke around them for various reasons that PG needs to be held accountable for the fire. The fact we fired a coach (which I'm okay with as I was no JM fan either) and around other recents as Cammy's deal, mis-handled PR, picked up Kaberle's salary, etc are all indicative of a desparate GM who was trying to blame his coach and buy time. Instead he's digging a deeper hole. Does anyone really want this guy involved in deadline deals? Especially if they might involve a core young player like Subban? Crazy times if he's allowed to do that...

I've already said he should be fired for the bolded reasons.

That said I want the best possble replacement and the best replacements won't be available before June.

As such, you let PG handle the deadline.... with clear instructions that he is not to trade future assets for rentals, and he should merely be selling the UFAs.

If I had these types of problems in my division I'd be fired because I'm accountable to decisions I make as well as those of my team and their recommendations. What is PG measured on if it's not performance of the club this year and expected performance in years to come?

If you had no leadership and vision you'd deserve to be fired and PG deserves to be fired.

But neither you, nor your team, nor any person is perfect... and blaming PG for the first error by medical staff isn't the way a proper business is run either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's clear I don't think he's made one error worth being fired for...

You can't have it both ways on Cammy. You can't look at Cammy in the vacuum of "current value" of the day and then argue Kaberle's value relative to salary because he's now rebounding. It was widely criticized as a terrible deal salary wise when it was made. I outlined numerous mistakes that I think are clear...you don't have to agree, that's fine...but don't imply that I said one issue with the Markov signing is why he should be fired. I'm providing many legit reasons where that one is also glaring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue wasn't the price or the term or Markov. The issue was that Gauthier thought Campoli could bring what Wiz and Schneider have brought before. That was the mistake. But people always focus on contracts.

Correct big time even if Campoli were healthy he would not be able to provied the offensive punch missing on the Habs abysmal pp.

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...