Will the Habs bring Saku back in some capacity?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I loved, loved, loved Kovalev for the sheer entertainment value he brought to the game. Even on his "off" seasons, the psychodrama was still delicious. But there is no question that to try to build a team around that flake was sheer folly - a symptom of the weakness of the hand Bob inherited, such that this was really the only big UFA he could land. Kovalev was best utilized as a "bonus" player added to an already-strong team; we tried to use him as a core piece.

As for Koivu, I never understood the negativity around him. Blaming him for "not being a #1 C" is a classic bit of misdirected frustration, a tiny bit like all the people who blame Brisebois because he was miscast as a #1 defenceman. The problem wasn't Saks, it was a team that had exactly zero quality centreman after him. (And in fact, even with the garbage linemates he had, Koivu did very well for about 60 games per season. I broke it down game-by-game one time and was amazed by the recurring pattern: he'd be a PPG C for about 3/4 of every season, but would also suffer these long slumps where he'd get about zero points - and that's why his numbers were never elite after his knee blow-out).

[hab29RETIRED]

I loved, loved, loved Kovalev for the sheer entertainment value he brought to the game. Even on his "off" seasons, the psychodrama was still delicious. But there is no question that to try to build a team around that flake was sheer folly - a symptom of the weakness of the hand Bob inherited, such that this was really the only big UFA he could land. Kovalev was best utilized as a "bonus" player added to an already-strong team; we tried to use him as a core piece.

As for Koivu, I never understood the negativity around him. Blaming him for "not being a #1 C" is a classic bit of misdirected frustration, a tiny bit like all the people who blame Brisebois because he was miscast as a #1 defenceman. The problem wasn't Saks, it was a team that had exactly zero quality centreman after him. (And in fact, even with the garbage linemates he had, Koivu did very well for about 60 games per season. I broke it down game-by-game one time and was amazed by the recurring pattern: he'd be a PPG C for about 3/4 of every season, but would also suffer these long slumps where he'd get about zero points - and that's why his numbers were never elite after his knee blow-out).

Agreed, Koivu wasn't the same player after blowing out his knee, but i think if Koivu played had at least one bona-fide 1st line winger, he would have been a PPG player. He still performed like a #1C when he played internationally with true first line wingers.

I also will NEVER forgive Gainey for offering Kovalev a contract and casting Koivu off. He than proceeded to replace Koivu with Gomer Pyle, who outside of one outlier year, had very similar numbers than Koivu prior to joining the canadiens and Koivu subsequently outscored him after the gainey purge - despite Koivu being a 3rd liner in anaheim and Gomez being a top liner getting prime PP time.

Even if you don't factor in losing McDonough and Higgins (who has been a solid 3rd liner in Vancouver and was a 1st liner with Koivu!!!!!!), a trade of Koviu for Gomez would still have been a bad one.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Well...without defending the Gomez trade - in retrospect an absolute disaster, of course - Gainey was trying to fundamentally reboot the franchise in what still ranks as the single most dramatic act of GMing I've ever seen. A couple of the UFAs he signed in 2009 did say that the Gomez trade showed that the Habs were "serious" about winning. Strange as it sounds to us now, the dumping of Koivu seems to have been calculated in part as a rebranding exercise for UFAs, and it appears to have been successful in that respect. (It helps to remember here that Montreal was widely regarded as a "loser" franchise, a rep Bob needed to change in order to make us an attractive UFA destination). He also wanted a new leadership core...not unreasonably, since the old one yielded horrendously bad results; and he probably figured the transition would be a lot easier without the dominant, quasi-legendary Alpha Male Koivu in the room. Conversely, he probably saw in Kovalev something impossible to replace, i.e., game-changing raw talent.

The other thing about Koivu was that his speed had dropped off markedly in 2009. I think Bob saw a guy whose days as #1C were done. This was arguably a correct assessment. The problem was that he invested heavily in a guy (Gomer Pyle) who only had one more good year left in the tank despite his relatively young age.

So, y'know, we can look back on it and attack the moves, but there was a logic there. Bob wasn't just off acting nuts. However, it's all academic now and all part of Bob's very mixed GMing legacy.

[habs rule]

Well...without defending the Gomez trade - in retrospect an absolute disaster, of course - Gainey was trying to fundamentally reboot the franchise in what still ranks as the single most dramatic act of GMing I've ever seen. A couple of the UFAs he signed in 2009 did say that the Gomez trade showed that the Habs were "serious" about winning. Strange as it sounds to us now, the dumping of Koivu seems to have been calculated in part as a rebranding exercise for UFAs, and it appears to have been successful in that respect. (It helps to remember here that Montreal was widely regarded as a "loser" franchise, a rep Bob needed to change in order to make us an attractive UFA destination). He also wanted a new leadership core...not unreasonably, since the old one yielded horrendously bad results; and he probably figured the transition would be a lot easier without the dominant, quasi-legendary Alpha Male Koivu in the room. Conversely, he probably saw in Kovalev something impossible to replace, i.e., game-changing raw talent.

The other thing about Koivu was that his speed had dropped off markedly in 2009. I think Bob saw a guy whose days as #1C were done. This was arguably a correct assessment. The problem was that he invested heavily in a guy (Gomer Pyle) who only had one more good year left in the tank despite his relatively young age.

So, y'know, we can look back on it and attack the moves, but there was a logic there. Bob wasn't just off acting nuts. However, it's all academic now and all part of Bob's very mixed GMing legacy.

I agree with every word you said, but I still have a soft spot for Kovalev. When he chose to show us the talent he had, it was out of this world. He just wouldn't do it enough. But boy there were times he was absolutely amazing to watch.

[hab29RETIRED]

Well...without defending the Gomez trade - in retrospect an absolute disaster, of course - Gainey was trying to fundamentally reboot the franchise in what still ranks as the single most dramatic act of GMing I've ever seen. A couple of the UFAs he signed in 2009 did say that the Gomez trade showed that the Habs were "serious" about winning. Strange as it sounds to us now, the dumping of Koivu seems to have been calculated in part as a rebranding exercise for UFAs, and it appears to have been successful in that respect. (It helps to remember here that Montreal was widely regarded as a "loser" franchise, a rep Bob needed to change in order to make us an attractive UFA destination). He also wanted a new leadership core...not unreasonably, since the old one yielded horrendously bad results; and he probably figured the transition would be a lot easier without the dominant, quasi-legendary Alpha Male Koivu in the room. Conversely, he probably saw in Kovalev something impossible to replace, i.e., game-changing raw talent.

The other thing about Koivu was that his speed had dropped off markedly in 2009. I think Bob saw a guy whose days as #1C were done. This was arguably a correct assessment. The problem was that he invested heavily in a guy (Gomer Pyle) who only had one more good year left in the tank despite his relatively young age.

So, y'know, we can look back on it and attack the moves, but there was a logic there. Bob wasn't just off acting nuts. However, it's all academic now and all part of Bob's very mixed GMing legacy.

I don't think that Gainey's assessment or plan was the right course. He needed to add a new REAL #1 centre, but there was no need to dump Koivu. Gainey's "bold" move was a horrible assessment.

First of all, the guy he targetted wasn't a true #1 centre - Gomez already proved that during his time with the NYR. Koivu was not the problem with the culture.

Secondly, as skiled as Kovolev was, he was a horrible example for young players and the culture of the team. The way he kept getting coddled by Gainey, was an example of the rot of the Gainey regime in providing examples to young players on how to be professionals. Yet, Gainey chose Kovelev over Koivu - who ALWAYS gave it his all. That was the Gainey's second mistake. He had a blood and guts guy in Higgins who was a 20+ goal scorer BECAUSE of Koivu and developed an inflated ego and lost his way. Was Koivu the reason?? Doubt it. Watching how Kovelev was a supposed leader, but never held accountable, probably had more to do with it.

Thirdly, Gainey was a horrible assessor of talent. He had already repeatedly tried to trade for Lecavalier - the great french hope, who was clearly on the decline and even a moron GM like Lawton was desparate to move him. Lucky for us his owners blocked the deal. I don't care who was going to be move - the Pleks-Higgins+ prospects (Lawton), or Subban+MaxPac+ other prospects (as claimed by other sources). Bottom line was that it was clear that Vinny was no longer an elite player that was locked in a stupid contract. He ruined the great work done by Timmins in dumping McDonough. He also foolishly let Hainsey and Beachiman unprotected and lost them for nothing. Three 1st rounder dmen under Gainey's regime were wasted. McDonough - should never have been traded (and this is not hindsight speaking - if you recall at the time of the trade, I was up in arms how we could trade our top D prospect for an overpaid 2nd line center), Hainsey - lost for nothing. Leblanc a stupid pick to appease the fans in a draft in Montreal (Kreider the BIG guy with size that we have needed for ever was the next pick), David Fischer - was a reach off the table pick which didn't make sense in the 1st round and ended up being a bust. Chipchura - a grinder taken in the first round. I'll give him a pass for AK46 over Getzlaf (who i wanted), or Parise (who my brother wanted), becuase it was his first draft). He also had too many addition by subtraction deals (Ribeiro for a totally washed up Lumme). Even with Price and MaxPac, the way Price and MaxPac were thrown in the fire it is a wonder how well they turned out - testament to both of their resolve, as others rushed in like Fattendresse flamed out. I can't say how much of a role Timmins had in the lousy picks, he has to share blame for misses like Fischer, but with the exception of 2008 (when Gainey traded away our 1st rounder for a declining Tangauy), from 2007 onward, he has done a pretty exceptional job.

Gainey IMO made even worse decisions than the Sens, who Fxcked up by choosing Redden over Chara and trading Hossa (after signing him long-term), for a flake like Heatley.

I loved Gainey the player, but I absolutely hate Gainey the GM. The fact that he was an improvmenet over his predecessors does not mean anyting. Houle, had no business being hired - that is all on Ronald Corey.

Anyway, the fact that Gainey felt he had to purge the team of Koivu (who was really one of the only bright light for the habs after Ronald Corey made them worse than the leafs), and wanted to keep a flake like Kovolev, shows that Gainey may have been a great character player but is a horrible assessor of character.

[hab29RETIRED]

I agree with every word you said, but I still have a soft spot for Kovalev. When he chose to show us the talent he had, it was out of this world. He just wouldn't do it enough. But boy there were times he was absolutely amazing to watch.

I loved a lot of the key goals he scored and how great he seemed to rise up aginst the bruins. Growing up watching Lafleur, Kovolev, was the closest we had to the flying frenchman type of elite skill/talent in the 20+ years since Lafleur retired. But Kovy for the most part was a wasted talent. Lafleur wasted the last couple of years of his career - don't know if it was conditioning/smoking, but as much as I idolized him, he just seemed to lost that desire to be the best, or it could have been the knee injury in the north stars series. But Lafleur was a professional who gave it his all and was an elite player fthat was among the top 2 or 3 in the league, for 6 or 7 consecutive years. Kovy had the talent, but didn't have the desire.

Anyway, the point is, if Gainey wanted to blew up the team, choosing a flake like Kovolev over the character and never quit attitude of Koviu was ludicrous. I also think that a lot of the reasons for the rot of our young players during that era, can be attributed to the hall pass Kovy got from Gainey, despite his coach killer attitude and lazy/moodiness of deciding whether to show up on any given night.

[habs rule]

I don't think that Gainey's assessment or plan was the right course. He needed to add a new REAL #1 centre, but there was no need to dump Koivu. Gainey's "bold" move was a horrible assessment.

First of all, the guy he targetted wasn't a true #1 centre - Gomez already proved that during his time with the NYR. Koivu was not the problem with the culture.

Secondly, as skiled as Kovolev was, he was a horrible example for young players and the culture of the team. The way he kept getting coddled by Gainey, was an example of the rot of the Gainey regime in providing examples to young players on how to be professionals. Yet, Gainey chose Kovelev over Koivu - who ALWAYS gave it his all. That was the Gainey's second mistake. He had a blood and guts guy in Higgins who was a 20+ goal scorer BECAUSE of Koivu and developed an inflated ego and lost his way. Was Koivu the reason?? Doubt it. Watching how Kovelev was a supposed leader, but never held accountable, probably had more to do with it.

Thirdly, Gainey was a horrible assessor of talent. He had already repeatedly tried to trade for Lecavalier - the great french hope, who was clearly on the decline and even a moron GM like Lawton was desparate to move him. Lucky for us his owners blocked the deal. I don't care who was going to be move - the Pleks-Higgins+ prospects (Lawton), or Subban+MaxPac+ other prospects (as claimed by other sources). Bottom line was that it was clear that Vinny was no longer an elite player that was locked in a stupid contract. He ruined the great work done by Timmins in dumping McDonough. He also foolishly let Hainsey and Beachiman unprotected and lost them for nothing. Three 1st rounder dmen under Gainey's regime were wasted. McDonough - should never have been traded (and this is not hindsight speaking - if you recall at the time of the trade, I was up in arms how we could trade our top D prospect for an overpaid 2nd line center), Hainsey - lost for nothing. Leblanc a stupid pick to appease the fans in a draft in Montreal (Kreider the BIG guy with size that we have needed for ever was the next pick), David Fischer - was a reach off the table pick which didn't make sense in the 1st round and ended up being a bust. Chipchura - a grinder taken in the first round. I'll give him a pass for AK46 over Getzlaf (who i wanted), or Parise (who my brother wanted), becuase it was his first draft). He also had too many addition by subtraction deals (Ribeiro for a totally washed up Lumme). Even with Price and MaxPac, the way Price and MaxPac were thrown in the fire it is a wonder how well they turned out - testament to both of their resolve, as others rushed in like Fattendresse flamed out. I can't say how much of a role Timmins had in the lousy picks, he has to share blame for misses like Fischer, but with the exception of 2008 (when Gainey traded away our 1st rounder for a declining Tangauy), from 2007 onward, he has done a pretty exceptional job.

Gainey IMO made even worse decisions than the Sens, who Fxcked up by choosing Redden over Chara and trading Hossa (after signing him long-term), for a flake like Heatley.

I loved Gainey the player, but I absolutely hate Gainey the GM. The fact that he was an improvmenet over his predecessors does not mean anyting. Houle, had no business being hired - that is all on Ronald Corey.

Anyway, the fact that Gainey felt he had to purge the team of Koivu (who was really one of the only bright light for the habs after Ronald Corey made them worse than the leafs), and wanted to keep a flake like Kovolev, shows that Gainey may have been a great character player but is a horrible assessor of character.

You forget a couple of little things. Gainey fired Carbo because of Koivu, Gainey took over as coach and found out, it weren't the coach. Carbo and Gainey were really good friends. Hence THE PURGE. The Purge had been set up long before, that is why the contracts all expired at the same time. When Koivu left he had very little left in the the tank. He had one decent year in anahiem and downhill after that. Had we kept him we would have been paying him 5-6 million dollars. He simply was not worth that salary. A decision had to be made. I liked Koivu but I was not a fan of his being Captain. Any more than I would have been if Kovalev was. When Kovalev tried to bargain with Bob and stay in Montreal Bob said too late good bye. I don't think that Bob was choosing Kovalev over Koivu. I actually think he was happy to be rid of them both and organized it that way. This is all just my opinion, there is no proof.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Habs29 makes a good, strong critique of the Gainey era. I agree with a lot of it - although reading that, you'd swear the Gainey years were an unmitigated disaster, even though the teams he built did give us some good times (2008, 2010). That's why I see his legacy as 'very mixed.' And habs rule's points are also good. What I called the 'most dramatic act of GMing I'd ever seen' was not letting Koivu walk, it was rebuilding the entire roster overnight via free agency. Nothing like The Purge has happened before or since, to my knowledge.

I always thought it telling that rumours said there was a contract negotiated between Bob and Koivu pretty much ready to be inked - until Bob fired Carbo and took over as coach in 2009. Like habs rule, I believe that that was when Gainey realized how catastrophic and systemic the culture problem was in that dressing room. Watching Saks up close, I think, also made Bob realize that he was done as a top-liner. And that's when The Purge became an inevitability.

To me, if Bob replaces Koivu with a legitimate #1 C rather than Gomez, the whole business of letting Koivu go actually starts to look like a typical, cap-era hockey decision.

That said: player development was the Achilles Heel of the first Gainey rebuild, and it's interesting to ask whether Gainey's mollycoddling of Kovalev was a factor in contaminating the kids. It's possible - although I suspect the issue was deeper than that. For sure, though, having moody Kovy as a big shot in the room could not have helped.

[hab29RETIRED]

You forget a couple of little things. Gainey fired Carbo because of Koivu, Gainey took over as coach and found out, it weren't the coach. Carbo and Gainey were really good friends. Hence THE PURGE. The Purge had been set up long before, that is why the contracts all expired at the same time. When Koivu left he had very little left in the the tank. He had one decent year in anahiem and downhill after that. Had we kept him we would have been paying him 5-6 million dollars. He simply was not worth that salary. A decision had to be made. I liked Koivu but I was not a fan of his being Captain. Any more than I would have been if Kovalev was. When Kovalev tried to bargain with Bob and stay in Montreal Bob said too late good bye. I don't think that Bob was choosing Kovalev over Koivu. I actually think he was happy to be rid of them both and organized it that way. This is all just my opinion, there is no proof.

I think Carbo should have been fired and Gainey shouldn't have needed Koivu to tell him that anyways. The ENTIRE team had said that Carbo was a lousy communicator after he was let go. I think Carbo is a great technical coach, but was a lousy communicator in today's NHL - hence why he hasn't even been considered for an NHL coaching job since. He also was a failure as a coach of his junior team. The guy Gainey replaced to hire Carbo (julien seems to be a much better coach). Carbo also failed with as a coach of Canada's junior team (under 18??) if i recall. He did well in his first year in Montreal, but than even Mario (the name that should never be uttered unless it is in vain) Tremblay even had a winning record in his first year in Montreal.

With respect to retaining Koivu - there was no reason to retain Koivu at $5-6M. I'd be the first to say he was no longer a $5-6M player and he got around half that from Anaheim. I would much rather have signed Koivu for 2 yrs/$6m total than trade for a second line centre making $7M.

Kovolev should never have received an offer in the first place. We would have been much better off, if the Gainey was purged.

[hab29RETIRED]

Habs29 makes a good, strong critique of the Gainey era. I agree with a lot of it - although reading that, you'd swear the Gainey years were an unmitigated disaster, even though the teams he built did give us some good times (2008, 2010). That's why I see his legacy as 'very mixed.' And habs rule's points are also good. What I called the 'most dramatic act of GMing I'd ever seen' was not letting Koivu walk, it was rebuilding the entire roster overnight via free agency. Nothing like The Purge has happened before or since, to my knowledge.

I always thought it telling that rumours said there was a contract negotiated between Bob and Koivu pretty much ready to be inked - until Bob fired Carbo and took over as coach in 2009. Like habs rule, I believe that that was when Gainey realized how catastrophic and systemic the culture problem was in that dressing room. Watching Saks up close, I think, also made Bob realize that he was done as a top-liner. And that's when The Purge became an inevitability.

To me, if Bob replaces Koivu with a legitimate #1 C rather than Gomez, the whole business of letting Koivu go actually starts to look like a typical, cap-era hockey decision.

That said: player development was the Achilles Heel of the first Gainey rebuild, and it's interesting to ask whether Gainey's mollycoddling of Kovalev was a factor in contaminating the kids. It's possible - although I suspect the issue was deeper than that. For sure, though, having moody Kovy as a big shot in the room could not have helped.

The habs mgmt was reason for the culture rot. It started with the way the three amigos were coddled by management, IMO, because they were french players.

Gainey also rushed too many young players into the lineup during his regime. a skinny ribeiro had skill, but should have been sent back to junior. Despite his size, Lats was in lousy shape during most of his time in Montreal and should have been sent down and held accountable for not training like a pro. While i personally hated drafting Leblanc, once he was drafted, mgmt pushed him to go the junior route. He was a guy better served to go the college route to fill out his frame. Gainey rushed the kids, without any real support (i.e. Player development coaches), to turn them into pros (what i like the best about what MB did when he came in).

The reason what Gainey tried, has never been done since, is free agency is NOT the way to build a team. The guy who twice tried it - Tallon - throw stupid money at players to fast track a rebuild (first in Chicago) than in Florida failed. The fact that Chicago did well, was because they were able to draft Kane, Toews, Seabrook, keith, despite throwing stupid money at Campbell, Huet, et el.

Florida is another team that Tallon is messing up by trying to reach the cap floor by signing has been's to stupid deals. Despite that, they should become good, because of the number of top 5 picks they had in recent years.

Teams that are successful, improve by drafting, good old fashioned hockey trades and shrewd free agent signings and having a stucture in place to develop young players. You have to play top 5 type picks elite young players, as well as have a process to develop them in a cap system. You don't build a team via free agency in a cap world that is a recipe for disaster, because you always overpay for your players.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Habs29, would it be impertinent to ask whether you're entirely consistent on player development? On the one hand, you're flaming Habs' management for rushing Fattendresse, Ribeiro, etc., and saying it's a miracle Price and Patches survived being rushed; on the other, aren't you also among the 'let Beaulieu and Tinordi learn from their mistakes in the NHL' crowd?

I agree completely with you on team-building. But the 2009 UFA frenzy was still very interesting, because - as I observed at the time - it was never intended to be the end-point. Rather it was a move to disguise the need for a second, genuine rebuild given Bob's complete and dramatic demolition of the first team he built. The 'Gionta' team was meant to bridge the 'Higgins/Komisarek' and 'Pacioretty/Subban' eras. And for the most part, it did that, until the team collapsed under the combination of terrible luck (Markov's repeated injuries), the rebellion against Martin, and Gauthier's toxic management style. Bob knew what he was doing, strategically-speaking: first, blow up Rebuild 1.0; second, sign a team of UFAs to last 3-4 years; third, use those 3-4 years to bring along the next generation. The alternatives were either to sign the duds from Rebuild 1.0 to expensive long term deals, or accept a few seasons of being absolute bottom-feeders. Put that way, Gainey had no choice.

I've always wondered what it was like to be Bob Gainey in that final year. Forced to fire his protégé and friend; confronting the fact that the team he had patiently constructed was filled with losers who have to be comprehensively purged; observing the decline of his core player (Koivu); left standing alone in the wreckage of the 100th Anniversary season, the season that was supposed to be when the rebuilt Habs made a Cup run. If memory serves, he was standing to the side looking almost forlorn during the big 100th celebration. It cannot have been easy to confront the hard realities of his own failure. He did what he had to do thereafter, and left - unsurprisingly.

[hab29RETIRED]

There's a huge difference between rushing an 18 or 19 year old ribeiro, latendresse, versus players 21 to 24. Beaulieu and Tinordi need to learn to cope with NHL speed. That's not going to happen in Hamilton.

In spite of MB's great moved to improve player development, he hired a guy who is not getting the job done in Lefebve. They wasted the opportunity window for when Tinordi and Beaulieu should have been developed in Hamilton, by having a lousy coach there. For those two, it's too late. They are at the stage now that they should be facing NHL competition. Dmen take longer to develop, so if we had quality Dmen ahead of Tinordi and Beaulieu AND a better coach in Hamilton, I wouldn't be averse to have them spend another year in Hamilton. However, given that we have been playing pylons like Murray and Allan, or has beens like Bouillon, I'd much rather have the kids play. If MT wasn't an insecure buffoon and had opted for Robinson as his assistant, those two kids would be much further ahead in their development.

As a GM Gainey should have looked at his situation with his player personal and not cared about the 100th anniversary. Komi should have been moved at the deadline. The whole policy if not negotiating during the year was stupid. Selecting PG to succeed him was stupid - particularly since he was in charge of pro scouting. There is very little to like of Gainey the GM, outside of the rivet trade and the initial move to bring Kovelev.

Don't forget, that his "stealth" rebuild was plan B. Initially he was going to strip the team of its young prospects for an aging lecavalier. We got lucky that McDonough was the only grade A prospect we lost.

Habs29, would it be impertinent to ask whether you're entirely consistent on player development? On the one hand, you're flaming Habs' management for rushing Fattendresse, Ribeiro, etc., and saying it's a miracle Price and Patches survived being rushed; on the other, aren't you also among the 'let Beaulieu and Tinordi learn from their mistakes in the NHL' crowd?

I agree completely with you on team-building. But the 2009 UFA frenzy was still very interesting, because - as I observed at the time - it was never to be the end-point. Rather it was a move to disguise the need for a second, genuine rebuild given Bob's complete and dramatic demolition of the first team he built. The 'Gionta' team was meant to bridge the 'Higgins/Komisarek' and 'Pacioretty/Subban' eras. And for the most part, it did that, until the team collapsed under the combination of terrible luck (Markov's repeated injuries), the rebellion against Martin, and Gauthier's toxic management style. Bob knew what he was doing, strategically-speaking: first, blow up Rebuild 1.0; second, sign a team of UFAs to last 3-4 years; third, use those 3-4 years to bring along the next generation. The alternatives were either to sign the duds from Rebuild 1.0 to expensive long term deals, or accept a few seasons of being absolute bottom-feeders. Put that way, Gainey had no choice.

I've always wondered what it was like to be Bob Gainey in that final year. Forced to fire his protégé and friend; confronting the fact that the team he had patiently constructed was filled with losers who have to be comprehensively purged; observing the decline of his core player (Koivu); left standing alone in the wreckage of the 100th Anniversary season, the season that was supposed to be when the rebuilt Habs made a Cup run. It cannot have been easy to confront the hard realities of his own failure. He did what he had to do thereafter, and left - unsurprisingly.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I've always wondered what it was like to be Bob Gainey in that final year. Forced to fire his protégé and friend; confronting the fact that the team he had patiently constructed was filled with losers who have to be comprehensively purged; observing the decline of his core player (Koivu); left standing alone in the wreckage of the 100th Anniversary season, the season that was supposed to be when the rebuilt Habs made a Cup run. If memory serves, he was standing to the side looking almost forlorn during the big 100th celebration. It cannot have been easy to confront the hard realities of his own failure. He did what he had to do thereafter, and left - unsurprisingly.

Don't forget that his daughter died.

I believe that was before his final year, that had to be a big weight on his shoulders on top of the complete collapse of a team he promised to bring a Cup to in five years. Many fans, my teenage self included, believed that.

As for what he actually felt like? I don't know, you would have to ask:

-Nero watching the Great Fire of Rome

-Fidel Castro looking at a picture of 1950's Havana

-John Lennon after a recording session with Yoko Ono

-Kevin Lowe or Craig MacTavish as they fired a likely weeping Dallas Eakins.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Eakins was probably weeping for joy at his own euthanasia.

It's tempting to conclude that there was a real drop-off in the quality of Gainey's decision-making after the terrible, tragic death of his daughter. I don't believe that it's possible ever to fully recover from a blow like that; and although he did take some time away, you have to wonder whether Bob - the quintessential, stoic, 'strong silent type' - got the counselling he needed, or took the kind of time away that one would really need in order to be able to return to a fully-functioning state. It may well have been a very damaged man forced to oversee the destruction of everything he built in Montreal. A genuinely sad state of affairs when you think about it.

[Habs30/31]

Well...without defending the Gomez trade - in retrospect an absolute disaster, of course - Gainey was trying to fundamentally reboot the franchise in what still ranks as the single most dramatic act of GMing I've ever seen. A couple of the UFAs he signed in 2009 did say that the Gomez trade showed that the Habs were "serious" about winning. Strange as it sounds to us now, the dumping of Koivu seems to have been calculated in part as a rebranding exercise for UFAs, and it appears to have been successful in that respect. (It helps to remember here that Montreal was widely regarded as a "loser" franchise, a rep Bob needed to change in order to make us an attractive UFA destination). He also wanted a new leadership core...not unreasonably, since the old one yielded horrendously bad results; and he probably figured the transition would be a lot easier without the dominant, quasi-legendary Alpha Male Koivu in the room. Conversely, he probably saw in Kovalev something impossible to replace, i.e., game-changing raw talent.

The other thing about Koivu was that his speed had dropped off markedly in 2009. I think Bob saw a guy whose days as #1C were done. This was arguably a correct assessment. The problem was that he invested heavily in a guy (Gomer Pyle) who only had one more good year left in the tank despite his relatively young age.

So, y'know, we can look back on it and attack the moves, but there was a logic there. Bob wasn't just off acting nuts. However, it's all academic now and all part of Bob's very mixed GMing legacy.

Really liked the way you summed all that up. Very accurate description of that time.

Eakins was probably weeping for joy at his own euthanasia.

It's tempting to conclude that there was a real drop-off in the quality of Gainey's decision-making after the terrible, tragic death of his daughter. I don't believe that it's possible ever to fully recover from a blow like that; and although he did take some time away, you have to wonder whether Bob - the quintessential, stoic, 'strong silent type' - got the counselling he needed, or took the kind of time away that one would really need in order to be able to return to a fully-functioning state. It may well have been a very damaged man forced to oversee the destruction of everything he built in Montreal. A genuinely sad state of affairs when you think about it.

Most certainly. Again, well said.

[IN THE HEARTS OF MEN]

Habs29 makes a good, strong critique of the Gainey era. I agree with a lot of it - although reading that, you'd swear the Gainey years were an unmitigated disaster, even though the teams he built did give us some good times (2008, 2010). That's why I see his legacy as 'very mixed.' And habs rule's points are also good. What I called the 'most dramatic act of GMing I'd ever seen' was not letting Koivu walk, it was rebuilding the entire roster overnight via free agency. Nothing like The Purge has happened before or since, to my knowledge.

I always thought it telling that rumours said there was a contract negotiated between Bob and Koivu pretty much ready to be inked - until Bob fired Carbo and took over as coach in 2009. Like habs rule, I believe that that was when Gainey realized how catastrophic and systemic the culture problem was in that dressing room. Watching Saks up close, I think, also made Bob realize that he was done as a top-liner. And that's when The Purge became an inevitability.

To me, if Bob replaces Koivu with a legitimate #1 C rather than Gomez, the whole business of letting Koivu go actually starts to look like a typical, cap-era hockey decision.

That said: player development was the Achilles Heel of the first Gainey rebuild, and it's interesting to ask whether Gainey's mollycoddling of Kovalev was a factor in contaminating the kids. It's possible - although I suspect the issue was deeper than that. For sure, though, having moody Kovy as a big shot in the room could not have helped.

the islanders this season with garth snow are very similar and reaping rewards as well.. halak, johnson, leddy, boychuk, grabovski and kulimen to name a few