Dave from Vancouver

option+ : I never said Gainey was a "moron", I said he was "average". Big difference. Secondly, that's great that Bonk averaged 57.4 points over 5 seasons, but past production doesn't guarantee future performance. In the new NHL, Bonk has struggled, and the elite GMs (ie. in Ottawa) saw this coming. My point remains: there must be a reason Ottawa was willing to give up Bonk for nothing. Besides, if Bonk was acquired to provide defense, points shouldn't be the first barometer. Also, it was well-documented that Laperriere had desires to join the Habs, and passion is so important in this game. Dave

CoRvInA: The post wasn't directed as a comparison between Bonk and Turgeon, but even if it was: Last NHL Season: Bonk 44pts, +2, 2pts in 7 playoff games Turgeon 40pts, +17, 4pts in 5 playoff games When you consider that Bonk cost one million more plus Garon, I don't think it checks out. That being said, I loved your positive attitude, its always better to be optimistic! Haboholic: I can't argue with you there, it is certainly easier said than done. For instance, who knows, maybe Laperriere would have crumbled under the Montreal spotlight. But two things: 1. Analyzing past moves is what being a fan is all about. 2. Its hard to say Gainey was showing smart predictive behaviour (ie. the institution of cap) by trading for a 3rd line center making 2.3 mil.

...and it has nothing to do with this Ron Hainey fiasco, as it appears his days with the Habs were numbered. Simply put, there is overwhelming evidence against his performance so far in the "New NHL" and it is certainly hurting the team. 1. Trading for Radek Bonk First, this guy is making 2.394 million! That would be bad on its own, but we also gave up Garon in the three way deal! Compare Bonk's productivity and heart (or lack thereof) just even to the pickups of one other team, the Colorado Avalanche: Ian Laperriere - he wanted to come to Montreal - is a defensive forward (like Bonk is supposed to be) - 17 points! - 17 points!! - +10 - making 1.14 million dollars! So, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that signing Laperriere, putting him on the 3rd line, and trading Garon, for well, anybody else, would have worked out better. Colorado also picked up Turgeon, another Montreal native, for only 1.5 million, and he's kicked in 25 points! I think he could have helped that second line... Also, if Bonk wasn't good enough for Ottawa (they dumped him for peanuts), why should he be good enough for Les Glorieux? I will admit that hindsight is 20/20. However, Gainey's decision to trade for Bonk wasn't just bad, it was hideous. It prevented the team from acquiring guys like Laperriere, guys who would actually wear the CH with pride. 2. Hoping (wishing?) that our D would hold up in the NHL, new or old. A smart GM wouldn't go into the season with such obvious holes on D. And it's not as though he could point to prospects in the farm and just ask fans to be patient. If he thought Brisebois couldn't do the job, fine, but at 1.5 million, he's paid off so far for the Avs (14 pts, +4). Since when has a team gone far in the playoffs without a true #1 dman? Markov is the closest, but he has to be considered at #2 at best, he's not even in sniffing range of the leaders in stats across the NHL. 3. Poor Faceoff % Was this even considered? I guess I got spoiled watched Perrault the last few years. I could say a lot more, but that's probably enough. Thinking rationally, no, Gainey is not the worst GM in the NHL, not even close. But he's been average at best. And things have gone steadily downhill. And that's disappointing. Thank you, Dave :ghg:

This will be even tougher to prove, but I think the reason it feels like the opposition always scores when Koivu's in the box, is because there have been a couple of instances where the team scored a second or two after the penalty expired. Dave