Jump to content

Ron Hainsey versus Mark Streit


Recommended Posts

Okay, lots of people feel we should forget about Hainsey since he is no longer with the Habs and so there is no point worrying about how good he is.

I agree, except that sending Hainsey down and then risking recalling him last year was a move that many here criticized Gainey for doing. The question of Hainsey versus Streit is one interesting decision of Gainey's we can start to evaluate now.

Even if you don't agree with that, its still fun to compare the 2 defencemen.

With that intro here are their stats this year to date:

Stat Streit Hainsey

games 10 12

goals 0 1

assists 4 4

points 4 5

+/- +1 -6

PIM 12 6 (all minors for both guys)

icetime 16:14 23:45

giveaways 4 5

takeaways 7 2

hits 9 6

blocked shots 9 22

missed shots 2 7

While it is early in the season and statistics certainly don't tell the whole story, I think these numbers vindicate Gainey's decision to go with Streit. In particular, I don't think the numebrs support the view that Hainsey is much better than Streit. Maybe we should have sent Streit down since he would not have had to clear recall waivers but maybe that would have hurt his development.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the entire Columbus team is brutal. Gallant is an awful coach and doesn't have the team playing anywhere near its potential. I will say that last season Hainsey led the team in +/- with a +13, and that was on a team that gave up many more goals than it scored.

Anyways, these kinds of threads are silly. There is no sense dwelling on the past. The team felt Streit would be more valuable to the team than Hainsey and sent him down knowing full well they might lose him if they were forced to try and recall him. Call it a gamble if you will, but it had to be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the entire Columbus team is brutal. Gallant is an awful coach and doesn't have the team playing anywhere near its potential. I will say that last season Hainsey led the team in +/- with a +13, and that was on a team that gave up many more goals than it scored.

Anyways, these kinds of threads are silly. There is no sense dwelling on the past. The team felt Streit would be more valuable to the team than Hainsey and sent him down knowing full well they might lose him if they were forced to try and recall him. Call it a gamble if you will, but it had to be done.

Didn't streit have something in his contract stating he couldn't be sent to the minors?

And ya dumb thread. I'm going to start a thread that's about........"What if we kept Tomas Voukon and signed Arnott. Maby we trade for Kariya? Could we be the Nashville Predators?"

What do you guys think? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't really like the thread.

And besides, for the sake of argument Ron Hainsey is playing 24 minutes a night and has blocked 22 shots so far. That's good. His numbers aren't much better, but for the most part they are better.

But this is a moot argument, Streit's on Montreal. Hainsey isn't. For whatever reason Hainsey never really got it going in the Canadiens organization, the organization was tired of him and he was tired of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hainsey fits in the same category as François Beauchemin. That is to say, they never did the job in the Montreal organization, so it does no real good to lament their loss. And Hainsey's case if even more like that than Beauchemin's. Beauchemin was an under-the-radar guy who had to play his way into the team's reckoning (he did not); Hainsey merely had to avoid playing his way OUT of the rotation. He couldn't even do that. How many chances did he have to become a regular in Montreal? I mean, Patrick Traverse beat him out for a job in 02-03. PATRICK TRAVERSE!

I treat Hainsey like he was never even in our organization. If he does well in Columbus or elsewhere, good for him. But it certainly won't make me lament his loss, because a Ron Hainsey who succeeds in Columbus is simply not the same Ron Hainsey who we saw waste chance after chance in Montreal. For whatever reason.

Edited by option+
Link to post
Share on other sites

ya, it was a bad idea sending him down and recalling him, but i think streit is a decent replacement.

Sure he looks good for Columbus, but it's still columbus

Link to post
Share on other sites

It never occured to you that perhaps BG or Claude Julien or the Team for that matter didnt want nor like Hainsey (personally speaking) and even Mr Gillet said screw those 450 k GEt rid of that Arse Hole!!!

we coud have at least gotten a 6 th pick for him easily while sending Streit down for one week! But that would have been cheap

Remember we are The Few.... the Proud.... the GLORIEUX!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The discussion is interesting and that's why I don't think it's a dumb thread. It's a GOOD thread.

Agreed. Just because the topic doesn't interest someone, doesn't mean that it isn't interesting for someone else.

Since Day 1 until now, I've preferred Streit over Hainsey. Sure we've suffered through Streit's defensive lapses... more painful last season, of course... but no one ever mentions the sheer boneheaded plays that defined Hainsey's tenure as a habs. I always felt he had great potential... but he was too busy thinking about said potential to do his job properly.

Streit is still learning the North American game, and I for one would prefer to see him as the 7th D, rather than in the press box when Dandy returns.

Again. Good thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread is stupid or dumb why are you reading and posting in it?

Mods should know better than to call someones threads stupid.

Of course Hainsey is better than Streit. Hainey plays more than Streit and for a worse team. Hes the better player. He's also younger and has more to learn...theoretically anyways.

Yes Gainey made a stupid mistake by losing him on waivers.

But whats done is done and its time to move on. Lets just hope he doesn't win a Norris Trophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting, recent article about Ron Hainsey, from the Hamilton Spectator:

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs...d=1112274690688

A couple of things stood out for me. The writer comments on how Hainsey has matured since he started his pro career in the Montreal organization. When he arrived in Columbus, the coaches gave him a clean slate. He decided to keep his game simple instead of going for riskier opportunities on the ice. He's been rewarded with more ice time and deemed a go-to player in key situations with the Blue Jackets.

Ultimately, I'm sure the Habs had hoped he would have developed into the same type of player in Montreal. It's still debatable whether he blew his chance himself or whether he wasn't developed/nurtured well enough. Montreal is obviously a high-pressure hockey organization, something that Columbus is not, so that too is another factor to consider in this comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year it was Yanic Perreault and Francois Beacuhemin. This year it is Hainsey, and I know we'll see Bulis and Zednik threads of the same nature as soon as those guys have a few good games in a row. We've already had comments about Ribeiro to this effect.

The fact is, they are pointless. These are guys who did not excel in Montreal, wore out their welcome, and had no value left to the team. Perrault was a horrible fit for the team. Good for him for having a nice season in Nashville last year. Beauchemin exploded in Anaheim. Good for him, but he never showed any of that in Montreal or Hamilton. Hainsey was horrible while with the organization. Good for him that a change of scenery was what he needed to jump start his career.

The fact of the matter is that it is useless to whine about the past. What's done is done. If Gainey continually made moves that made the team worse, like previous regimes, then we could have room to complain about a pattern of poor moves. But that isn't the case. This is is better than they were when Gainey took over. Sometimes you have to lose good players for nothing. It's part of expansion era hockey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares... both these guys are extra defenceman at best. But if I had to pick one, i would pick Streit because the pressure of failure to live up to expectations would have made Hainsey even worse than he is. It's not easy being a first round pick for the Montreal Canadiens.

Edited by Topgun19
Link to post
Share on other sites
Last year it was Yanic Perreault and Francois Beacuhemin. This year it is Hainsey, and I know we'll see Bulis and Zednik threads of the same nature as soon as those guys have a few good games in a row. We've already had comments about Ribeiro to this effect.

The fact is, they are pointless. These are guys who did not excel in Montreal, wore out their welcome, and had no value left to the team. Perrault was a horrible fit for the team. Good for him for having a nice season in Nashville last year. Beauchemin exploded in Anaheim. Good for him, but he never showed any of that in Montreal or Hamilton. Hainsey was horrible while with the organization. Good for him that a change of scenery was what he needed to jump start his career.

The fact of the matter is that it is useless to whine about the past. What's done is done. If Gainey continually made moves that made the team worse, like previous regimes, then we could have room to complain about a pattern of poor moves. But that isn't the case. This is is better than they were when Gainey took over. Sometimes you have to lose good players for nothing. It's part of expansion era hockey.

The blinders should be taken off. Hainsey was never given a real chance in Montreal. He was shuffled back to the farm after trainning camp every year. Also the waiver rule was pretty lame last year, and is the real culprit for losing Hainsey.

I think if Hainsey hadn't been claimed he would be playing in Montreal right now. His time was right, he was doing well in Hamilton when he was claimed, and Streit has a clause in his contract .... lots of factors conspired for this to happen. It was a loss. But when life gives you a lemon make lemonad.

He may have done well here, but we'll never know. Life goes on. Hope he does well. Yadda yadda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if Hainsey hadn't been claimed he would be playing in Montreal right now. His time was right, he was doing well in Hamilton when he was claimed, and Streit has a clause in his contract .... lots of factors conspired for this to happen. It was a loss. But when life gives you a lemon make lemonade.

I didn't get to see any Bulldogs games, but the people I talked to who did see him all said that he didn't even look AHL worthy most nights, and that other guys deserved that call up more than Hainsey did. If you are going to be an NHLer, you need to be one of the best guys on the ice for your team in the AHL, and that wasn't happening. His heart was just never in it while in the Habs' organization. I think getting claimed on waivers finally jolted him into realizing his chance to be an NHLer was fading and that he needed to start doublnig his effort. Sometimes it takes a change of scenery to jump start a career.

Who cares... both these guys are extra defenceman at best.

Watch a Jackets game if that is what you think. Hainsey has become much more than a spare d-man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The blinders should be taken off. Hainsey was never given a real chance in Montreal. He was shuffled back to the farm after trainning camp every year. Also the waiver rule was pretty lame last year, and is the real culprit for losing Hainsey.

I think if Hainsey hadn't been claimed he would be playing in Montreal right now. His time was right, he was doing well in Hamilton when he was claimed, and Streit has a clause in his contract .... lots of factors conspired for this to happen. It was a loss. But when life gives you a lemon make lemonad.

He may have done well here, but we'll never know. Life goes on. Hope he does well. Yadda yadda.

Not true. Hainsey played 21 games in 2002-03. Considering the shambolic state of our D that year (Patrick Traverse played 65 games), all Hainsey had to do was be average... hell, even being slightly below average would have been good enough to play the whole of that year in Montreal. Hainsey was horrible, and was demoted. Hainsey had a good Calder Cup playoffs in 2003 and was, once again, gift-wrapped a chance to crack the rotation in training camp for 03-04. This was back when Bouillon's size was still a major issue, and, once again, Hainsey only had to play half-decently to win a job on the Habs blueline. He failed, once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When people call you Ron "Hollywood" Hainsey, you know something's wrong...

A. Hainsey has no heart and was a flake. Latter day Bryan Fogarty. Talent and no drive.

B. Streit is too small overmatched on most nights and I play with guys in pickup leagues that have a better shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that the topic of "what if" is out there, What if the habs would have drafted Simon Gagne instead of Jason Ward???? haha..... I always like that one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. Hainsey played 21 games in 2002-03. Considering the shambolic state of our D that year (Patrick Traverse played 65 games), all Hainsey had to do was be average... hell, even being slightly below average would have been good enough to play the whole of that year in Montreal. Hainsey was horrible, and was demoted. Hainsey had a good Calder Cup playoffs in 2003 and was, once again, gift-wrapped a chance to crack the rotation in training camp for 03-04. This was back when Bouillon's size was still a major issue, and, once again, Hainsey only had to play half-decently to win a job on the Habs blueline. He failed, once again.

Yes, but there was no season in 2004-2005, and in 2005-2006 he got no real chance. I would say that between 2002-3 and 2005-6 he had about three years of maturing that may have helped him out quite a bit. So, maybe he was given 21 games earlier on ... but so what ... Latendress has been given 13 so far and hasn't done much. People need time to develope. Perhaps he may have needed a change of scene, or maybe he needed more time. Sufficient to say that in Hamilton he was doing well during 2004-6, and that is why he was being called up. Had he been given a longer chance, a la Streit, he probably would have done well. IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Hainsey didn't get a chance with the Habs 2004-05 because there was no NHL that year. He did, however get a chance to strut his stuff in Hamilton... and was so good that they signed Streit to replace him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Hainsey didn't get a chance with the Habs 2004-05 because there was no NHL that year. He did, however get a chance to strut his stuff in Hamilton... and was so good that they signed Streit to replace him.

Where is your source on them getting Streit specifically to replace Hainsey? I heard that they were just impressed with Streits play at the Olympics.

Streit needed time to develop too.

BTW, I'm not getting all bent out of shape here. I just recognize this loss as a mistake. Que sera sera. Mistakes happen. I'm sure that the Habs admin aren't crying over it, but at the same time if they could have blocked the pick from waivers I'm sure they would have. They didn't want to lose him, and for good reason ... which he is showing now.

He took a while to adjust ... isn't the first, and won't be the last.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My "source" on Streit being signed to replace Hainsey is common sense. The Habs had Souray, Markov, Rivet, Bouillon, Komisarek and Hainsey on the roster. Dandenault was signed in August 2005. That gave them 7 guys who were projected to be Top 6 D-men. Streit was signed after after Dandenault. And remember, Streit was at the time projected as being NHL-ready from the get-go; he wouldn't have left Europe just to "develop" in the AHL (he was quite clear about that in training camp, having played in the AHL in 99-00 and hating it). So that's 8 guys projected to be Top 6 D-men.

I highly doubt Streit would have been signed (or would have agreed to sign) unless he was expected to take somebody else's job. Markov, Dandy, Rivet, Souray and Komi's jobs were guaranteed. That leaves either Bouillon or Hainsey on the chopping block. And when it became clear that Bouillon, despite his size, was going to be a big asset in the "new NHL", that left Hainsey as the #8 guy.

To be honest, I thought Hainsey outplayed Streit in last year's camp. But I think the decision had already been made after 3 years of underachieving that Hainsey no longer had a future with the Habs and that Streit would, in effect, take his place on the depth chart.

Edited by option+
Link to post
Share on other sites
My "source" on Streit being signed to replace Hainsey is common sense. The Habs had Souray, Markov, Rivet, Bouillon, Komisarek and Hainsey on the roster. Dandenault was signed in August 2005. That gave them 7 guys who were projected to be Top 6 D-men. Streit was signed after after Dandenault. And remember, Streit was at the time projected as being NHL-ready from the get-go; he wouldn't have left Europe just to "develop" in the AHL (he was quite clear about that in training camp, having played in the AHL in 99-00 and hating it). So that's 8 guys projected to be Top 6 D-men.

I highly doubt Streit would have been signed (or would have agreed to sign) unless he was expected to take somebody else's job. Markov, Dandy, Rivet, Souray and Komi's jobs were guaranteed. That leaves either Bouillon or Hainsey on the chopping block. And when it became clear that Bouillon, despite his size, was going to be a big asset in the "new NHL", that left Hainsey as the #8 guy.

To be honest, I thought Hainsey outplayed Streit in last year's camp. But I think the decision had already been made after 3 years of underachieving that Hainsey no longer had a future with the Habs and that Streit would, in effect, take his place on the depth chart.

I agree with your last paragraph. There was likely only so much that the team management was willing to accept with regards to Hainsey and he had gone past that point.

GO :hlogo: GO!

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.

×
×
  • Create New...