BG's doubters once again defeated... (NOT)

[Wamsley01]

Gainey has done nothing to impress me looking back. He wasn't behind the Huet trade, signed a disaster like Kovalev, got rid of Theodore but honestly I think Colorado would have taken him even if he lost both legs in a car accident.

Now that he didn't move Souray I think he is below average. Just because he sits on his hands and seems to be too scared to make a move doesn't mean he is some omnipotent GM. When he addresses the same problems plaguing this team for years then things will look up but so far he has just tossed in some filler players.

Cerebrus makes alot of sense.

Gainey is not perfect. But neither is Lou "I traded Souray for Malakhov" Lamierello, or Ken "I gave Cujo big bucks" Holland. But can anybody argue that the Habs are not in a better position today than the day he was hired?

Before Gainey

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues...0000452003.html

After Gainey

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/teams/mon/stats

Yes I know Andre Savard, the Markov draft..blah blah blah. This team is better now and it will be better next year. Gainey has not dealt the youth for overpriced talent (see Toronto Maple Leafs), he knows the goal is the Cup and he is slowly putting together the core that will have a 3-5 year run...Not a One and Done (see Edmonton Oilers)

The plan has always been to build from within, and that is what we are watching right now. How many of you freaked when Gainey passed on Brule for Price? And if everybody says that you never wanted Brule and liked Price all along you are full of it!! How do you feel about that decision now? Good decision eh

What about that same draft when we moved up to take a kid whose stock was falling by the name of Latendresse? Not a bad move either.

Dumping a $5 Million a year goalie performing like a $500K goalie. No credit for that?

Getting Bonk and Huet for Garon? People were tripping out like Garon was the next Roy and Gainey was a fool then. Would LA make that trade now? But of course we must minimize this move by saying that Gainey got lucky with Huet. The fact is Bonk for Garon is a steal in itself based on the last 2 years. Garon has hardly lit up the NHL since moving to LA

It is all revisionist history. If you were not railing at these moves when they were made then you have no leg to stand on. The fact remains that this team is in a better position for future success than it was 3 years ago. THAT IS THE PLAN! Would it have been nice to hit a couple of Free Agent HRs..YES, but once again most of the signings he made were met with approval on this board.

How many GMs take a team with a limited Minor league system and turn them into perennial contenders in 3 years? Buffalo had a stacked system, as does Anaheim, New Jersey did not get good overnight, Ottawa was a long struggle, Detroit's success was a strong mix of Free Agents and late impact draft picks.

What are the expectations here?

If Huet does not get hurt and we win 3 more games over the last 6 weeks the Habs are sitting in 6th right now does that change the perception?

This year was a dissappointment, but the future remains bright in Montreal. This is not a sprint, it is a marathon.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Wamsley01

[CerebusClone]

Samsonov was not Gainey's first choice and sure it looks like he was a mistake. Bonk has helped the team a lot this year, although I do not believe he will be back next year.

I wouldn't exactly Bonk helped a lot, but at least he didn't hurt us. I would expect a lot more offense for a guy playing his role.

However, wouldn't you say that we could do A LOT better for 2.4 millions? Again, every GM makes mistakes when it comes to overpaying players however it's just that Gainey has made so many of them; we are currelty investing a lot of money in many non-essential players, and in the meantime we don't have any real impact player. Just one impact forward or defenseman could have really made a difference this season.

[Wamsley01]

I wouldn't exactly Bonk helped a lot, but at least he didn't hurt us. I would expect a lot more offense for a guy playing his role.

However, wouldn't you say that we could do A LOT better for 2.4 millions? Again, every GM makes mistakes when it comes to overpaying players however it's just that Gainey has made so many of them; we are currelty investing a lot of money in many non-essential players, and in the meantime we don't have any real impact player. Just one impact forward or defenseman could have really made a difference this season.

Gainey has made mistakes. He overpaid Koivu and Kovalev Big Time.

Bonk may be overpaid, but he can let him walk this summer if he chooses. But he has been a substantial contributor to the team this season.

But I will render my judgement this summer. We will see what he does with Souray and if he can bring in any help through Free Agency.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Wamsley01

[JMMR]

I wouldn't exactly Bonk helped a lot, but at least he didn't hurt us. I would expect a lot more offense for a guy playing his role.

However, wouldn't you say that we could do A LOT better for 2.4 millions? Again, every GM makes mistakes when it comes to overpaying players however it's just that Gainey has made so many of them; we are currelty investing a lot of money in many non-essential players, and in the meantime we don't have any real impact player. Just one impact forward or defenseman could have really made a difference this season.

Well Gainey did the Bonk deal before the cap I believe.

[CerebusClone]

What about that same draft when we moved up to take a kid whose stock was falling by the name of Latendresse? Not a bad move either.

Dumping a $5 Million a year goalie performing like a $500K goalie. No credit for that?

Getting Bonk and Huet for Garon? People were tripping out like Garon was the next Roy and Gainey was a fool then. Would LA make that trade now? But of course we must minimize this move by saying that Gainey got lucky with Huet. The fact is Bonk for Garon is a steal in itself based on the last 2 years.

I gave credit to Gainey for surrounding himself with a good scouting staff. However, most of the credit still goes to Timmins and Savard.

Sure, getting rid of Theodore seems great, but who gave that huge contract to Theodore in the first place? Unlike many I feel Theodore always gave us good goaltending before the lockout, but it's still another signing bust for Gainey. I also think that we should have traded him after his huge season, where his value skyrocketed, or at least during one of the seasons after that. We were reconstructing, Theodore could have landed us a quality return, and we still had Garon to take over.

As for trading Garon, Gainey made a blind trade, and admitted himself he didn't know Huet, who already had a deal to return to Europe after the season ended. It was all luck.

Besides, if it weren't for that lucky trade, chances are we would have missed the playoffs last year, thus making Bob Gainey look even worse...

[BTH]

We don't have the same definition of "great" then. Even if we concentrate on this season alone, Bonk has played decent defense, but has shown pratially no offence. To me, a defensive center who hardly produces 20 points despite playing over 16 minutes per game is not a good 3rd liner. Plus he's a little soft, and I don't exactly trust him when games get tough and physical.

You severely underrate this guy. Decent defence? Name me 3 forwards who've been better defensively this season. It'll be tough of even think of one. Soft? He's as strong on the puck as anyone on the team. Weak offensively? He doesn't put up big numbers, that's for sure. But he creates plays by driving to the net and winning battles along the boards. He's virtually impossible to stop unless you gide him behnd the net where the team has plenty of time to set up. Also, he's a good guy, definitely not lazy, and an experienced leader. He's shutdown all of the best payers in the East without much recognition. He also takes our key faceoffs (and wins them often). An upper-echelon PKer as well. His slapshot is also a good one and it was responsible for a few of his 12 goals his season (which is a completely respectable total for a thirdliner and a guy who's specialty is in his own zone).

Begin is a AHLer? You underestimate what heart and effort can do for a team. He is THE ideal fourthliner. Finishes checkes, blocks shots, leads by example, plays center, plays the wing, forechecks, backchecks, crashes the net, plays with intensity, never stops working and would do anything to help the team win. It's true that 1M$ might be a tad too much but I'd much rather have Begin for a million dollars than no Begin for free.

[Wamsley01]

I gave credit to Gainey for surrounding himself with a good scouting staff. However, most of the credit still goes to Timmins and Savard.

Sure, getting rid of Theodore seems great, but who gave that huge contract to Theodore in the first place? Unlike many I feel Theodore always gave us good goaltending before the lockout, but it's still another signing bust for Gainey. I also think that we should have traded him after his huge season, where his value skyrocketed, or at least during one of the seasons after that. We were reconstructing, Theodore could have landed us a quality return, and we still had Garon to take over.

As for trading Garon, Gainey made a blind trade, and admitted himself he didn't know Huet, who already had a deal to return to Europe after the season ended. It was all luck.

Besides, if it weren't for that lucky trade, chances are we would have missed the playoffs last year, thus making Bob Gainey look even worse...

Personally I posted on this board that we deal Theo for Pronger after we got killed by Tampa. And people told me I was nuts! Mind you I also thought Garon could carry the ball

http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=1302&hl=

Take a look at all the NO WAY YOU ARE CRAZY POSTS.

But nobody could forsee Theo's total collapse, anymore than we could see Huet making the All-Star team.

I am willing to call that an even up in terms of luck.

Luck is part of being a GM, sometimes the deal's you do not make turn into the best ones.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Wamsley01

[Quebecois]

I wasn't exactly refering to those guys, whom I never liked by the way. I was talking more in terms of the prospects drafted by Andre Savard. With a good prospects base as well as Koivu, Markov, Rivet, Souray, and a very few others, I think Gainey could have built something much better so far.

I think you just ruined your point.

You point to the fact that he inherited Koivu, Markov, Rivet and Souray as a solid base. Well most people here think that Koivu is a second line centre, that Markov is a 1B dman, that Rivet was a #5 or 6 D man at best, and that Souray is an average NHL dman, ie: a number 3-4 (great on the PP, average at best defensively).

Bottom line is, this team had sucked for 5 seasons prior to him arriving. Yeah we had a nice little run in 02 thanks to Theodore, but those teams were garbage. 2004 saw a little bit of more improvement as Ryder challenged for ROY, Ribs put up 65 points and Gainey made a nice deal for Kovy. If you take a look at that roster, theres not one player i regret losing.

2005-2006 came and we started to see the development of some of those prospects. Higgins and Plekanec in particular turned it on at various points of the season, but neither were consistent throughout. Komi in particular started to play really well towards the end of the year.

2006-2007, and theres been even more positive steps towards being a solid team. Higgins and Plekanec are continuing to improve, Kosty has shown flashes of the player he will become, Komisarek has been very solid in his role, Lapierre and Latendresse as well. Price dominated the world juniors, Kosty Jr. has dominated the O, Grabs and even Milroy (who i never thought would go anywhere) have played well with the Dogs.

Prospects take time. Gainey came here and undoubedly saw a good set of prospects to build a team around. What he did not see was a current set of NHLers that could do much of anything. He kept a few players that he thought would be a part of a good team in a few years (Koivu, Markov, Souray) and got rid of most of the rest. Gainey was clearly right about liking our group of young kids, and i think you can at least agree that many of them have shown what they can do, and will only continue to get better.

The team we had in 2002-2003 didnt look like it was going to compete for anything but a lottery pick, and who would have thought that this would be a potential playoff team given a complete collapse by our former MVP in Theodore? Maybe the results havent quite shown, but i can assure you there will be results soon enough, and even still i am extremely pleased with where this team has come from the dark days of 98/99 to 2002/2003.

[CerebusClone]

Mostly I think this city has forgotten what good hockey hockey is... and I'm not even that old. I really started watching hockey in the early 90's, so I haven't witnessed the great years when our third liners could still get 40-60 points in a season. Even in '93 we were considered almost ordinary even though we had 2 guys with nearly 100 points, one 40+ goal scorer, as well as quality defenseman such as DesJardins and Schneider.

When I see people being so impressed with a marginal player like Steve Begin, or talking about Radek Bonk as being such a great checking line center, it makes me a little sad

[Wamsley01]

Mostly I think this city has forgotten what good hockey hockey is... and I'm not even that old. I really started watching hockey in the early 90's, so I haven't witnessed the great years when our third liners could still get 40-60 points in a season. Even in '93 we were considered almost ordinary even though we had 2 guys with nearly 100 points, one 40+ goal scorer, as well as quality defenseman such as DesJardins and Schneider.

When I see people being so impressed with a marginal player like Steve Begin, or talking about Radek Bonk as being such a great checking line center, it makes me a little sad

Bonk is a great checking line center. He is just overpaid.

[CerebusClone]

I think you just ruined your point.

You point to the fact that he inherited Koivu, Markov, Rivet and Souray as a solid base. Well most people here think that Koivu is a second line centre, that Markov is a 1B dman, that Rivet was a #5 or 6 D man at best, and that Souray is an average NHL dman, ie: a number 3-4 (great on the PP, average at best defensively).

I said a good base, not a great core. All of these guys can be part of a great team, and none of them were making big money until last year. For exemple, if you plug in a Lecavalier (again that's just an exemple), then you end up with one the best duo of centers in the NHL. If you add a good top-2 defenseman, and push Rivet to #5, you end up with a great group of defensemen.

Also, Gainey could have chosen to trade any of these guys; I'm sure Koivu could have landed us a nice return in the last couple years, there was probably a big market for either Markov or Souray (especially considering we got a 1st rounder for Rivet).

As I said, Gainey inherited some good young prospects, some good roster players, and has had the maximum allowed budget for the last 2 season. I personally think another GM could have made a much better job so far... but to be fair an even worse GM could also have destroyed this organization's future by getting rid of quality young talent for veteran busts.

[Wamsley01]

I said a good base, not a great core. All of these guys can be part of a great team, and none of them were making big money until last year. For exemple, if you plug in a Lecavalier (again that's just an exemple), then you end up with one the best duo of centers in the NHL. If you add a good top-2 defenseman, and push Rivet to #5, you end up with a great group of defensemen.

Also, Gainey could have chosen to trade any of these guys; I'm sure Koivu could have landed us a nice return in the last couple years, there was probably a big market for either Markov or Souray (especially considering we got a 1st rounder for Rivet).

As I said, Gainey inherited some good young prospects, some good roster players, and has had the maximum allowed budget for the last 2 season. I personally think another GM could have made a much better job so far... but to be fair an even worse GM could also have destroyed this organization's future by getting rid of quality young talent for veteran busts.

But not being great does not constitute being awful which you suggested in your first post.

He has not taken an average farm system and stripped it for a quick fix, he has improved upon it.

He has not taken any big risks, but then again why would you if your eye is on 2008 or 2009.

Which is what led to my frustration at not dealing Souray.

I still trust Gainey though!

[revin5]

We don't have the same definition of "great" then. Even if we concentrate on this season alone, Bonk has played decent defense, but has shown pratially no offence. To me, a defensive center who hardly produces 20 points despite playing over 16 minutes per game is not a good 3rd liner. Plus he's a little soft, and I don't exactly trust him when games get tough and physical.

I'd rather have a guy like Chris Gratton, who's big, physical, and will give you 35-45 points in a full season. He makes 1.5M this year, which I think is appropriate for a good third line center. Or even a guy like Eric Belanger (even if we forget his current production level playing with Hossa and Kozlov).

Plekanec could make a good third line center next season, provided we find a good offensive center, or get a big surprise season from a guy like Grabovsky.

Blame Carbo then.. not Bonk. A proper lineup would either feature Bonk as THE shut-down center that shadows the top line or would mix him with some good offense to counter the top line. We've seen a few games of Begin-Bonk-Johnson, which worked extremely well, but we haven't seen Bonk-Kovalev (who would play best against an opposing top line). Bonk is a great passer, has a decent slap shot, and is unbeatable along the boards. He can also do tip-ins pretty effectively. All year, Carbo has been playing Kovalev with speed-based players, he needed someone like Bonk. Bonk has done exactly what was asked of him.. put Kovalev on his wing and he'll do what you want of him.

One other thing... If you want to truly appreciate what Bonk does for this team (something he's done all this year as well as all last year), watch him when he doesn't have the puck. That's a skill that Begin has as well.. (Pleks also, but Pleks has the speed and moves to be do everything)

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Gainey is not superman. What he does is take reasonably well-calculated risks when necessary. But risks don't always work out - by definition. Niniima, calculated risk. Kovalev and Samsonov, calculated risks. My point is just that these were REASONABLE moves given the lack of a crystal ball.

Samsonov is a proven performer. It was reasonable to expect decent numbers from him (and frankly I think the problem has as much to do with Carbo's misuse of him as anything else). I think it's premature to declare the Kovalev signing a disaster. This SEASON is a disaster, just like Bonk was a disaster last season. But LAST year Kovalev was very effective for us, a difference maker in several games and a constant threat, a PPG player - just as Bonk is THIS year a very good player for us. For that matter, does it make sense to revile Bob for not signing Arnott? What happens when Arnott struggles through an injury-plagued disaster of a season or ends up in year 5 of his contract, getting 10 goals and skating like a broken down tractor? Is Bob still a dope, then?

You can say you always knew that Theodore would melt down. Fair enough. But I knew a lot of people who never thought much of Patrick Roy, either. What are you gonna do? You've got a goalie widely respected as a top-5 NHL netminder, former MVP, several good-to-great seasons under his belt. You sign him at market rate. A reasonable calculation.

Reasonable gambles. A top-10 talent with a Cup ring and a penchant for mental 'issues' - signed at what was then market rate - a reasonable gamble for a team in dire need of a talent upgrade. An 8-year veteran with a proven offensive track record - a reasonable gamble. A former near all-star defenceman, still young, who had lost his way, in exchange for a mediocre 2nd-line C, for a team in serious need of depth at D - a reasonable gamble.

What I ask from a GM is that they make well-informed, reasonable calculations based on the available information and the options before them. Demanding that their moves always work out seems a little much.

Over time, a GM who proceeds this way will have a good team.

[CerebusClone]

You can say you always knew that Theodore would melt down. Fair enough. But I knew a lot of people who never thought much of Patrick Roy, either. What are you gonna do? You've got a goalie widely respected as a top-5 NHL netminder, former MVP, several good-to-great seasons under his belt. You sign him at market rate. A reasonable calculation.

I didn't say I predcited Theodore would melt down, on the contrary, I thought he's been a very good goalie with a mediocre team in front of him. People just expected way too much out of him; there's really only so much he could have done.

However, I always said we should have traded Theodore after his MVP season. A that point, he was a goldmine that could have fetched us almost anything we wanted; a young talented goaltender who had just won the Hart and the Vezina means a lot of market value. Besides, Theodore wanted to play hardball with the organization, even threatening to skip training camp after his first big season.

We were still reconstructing and nowhere near being a decent team, so there really was no point in having a star goaltender, especially with a young Mathieu Garon who was showing as much potential as Theodore, and a good veteran im Jeff Hackett to support him.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I didn't say I predcited Theodore would melt down, on the contrary, I thought he's been a very good goalie with a mediocre team in front of him. People just expected way too much out of him; there's really only so much he could have done.

However, I always said we should have traded Theodore after his MVP season. A that point, he was a goldmine that could have fetched us almost anything we wanted; a young talented goaltender who had just won the Hart and the Vezina means a lot of market value. Besides, Theodore wanted to play hardball with the organization, even threatening to skip training camp after his first big season.

We were still reconstructing and nowhere near being a decent team, so there really was no point in having a star goaltender, especially with a young Mathieu Garon who was showing as much potential as Theodore, and a good veteran im Jeff Hackett to support him.

Interesting logic. I see what you're saying, but disagree. Garon's 'potential' was NOT equivalent to Theo's at the time: Garon was pure speculation, while Theo had PROVEN that he could be a superstar. Furthermore, a goalie of the calibre of Theo during his MVP year is an invaluable asset - the kind of guy who can carry a mediocre team into the playoffs and an average team to the Cup (just look what Luongo's doing with Vancouver's sad-sack lineup, a team probably less talented than the current Habs). Never trade a superstar goalie.

[CerebusClone]

All this to say Bob Gainey hasn't done anything that positive since he became GM. The emergence of young players like Higgins, Plekanec, and Komisarek as well as Markov are pretty much the only events that have made this team better since then, and these guys were all here before Gainey took over. Other than that, most of Gainey's "direct" actions (signings, trades, ...) have been busts and/or deceptions.

Am I too harsh on him? Perhaps... however giving so much credit to Gainey who has done very little is also ridiculous. As for as I know, we were a team struggling to make that playoffs before Gainey got here, and several years later, we're still in 11th place with good chances to miss them. Is that what you guys call a major improvement? If Los Angeles didn't want to thrown in Huet in the Garon trade, whom Gainey knew nothing of, would we even had qualified?

At best, until I'm proven otherwise, I can only say that Gainey didn't yet destroy this organization like Rejean Houle did. However, I can't really say he's turned it around either.

In my opinion, the rebuilding process ended with the lockout, and we should have seen significant progress since then. You can praise Radek Bonk and Steve Begin all you want, they're not really improvements over Joe Juneau and Andres Dackell who were also very good defensively and sadly actually better offensively.

[BTH]

In my opinion, the rebuilding process ended with the lockout, and we should have seen significant progress since then. You can praise Radek Bonk and Steve Begin all you want, they're not really improvements over Joe Juneau and Andres Dackell who were also very good defensively and sadly actually better offensively.

Still a big difference between them when you consider all factors. Bonk will ge 2.5-3M next season from whatever team he sgns with (hopefully us) and he'll be worth it. If the Selke were actually given for defence and not the best combination of both offence and defence, Bonk would be a prime candidate this season.

From the posts I read in this thread, Gainey hasn't made any trades you don't like, he just overpays free agents and lost Beauchemin and Hainsey to waivers. If a guy can run a team for 4 (?) years, almost swap every player on the roster and do that without making a single bad trade, that sounds like a pretty good GM to me.

He turned the team around in the way that we were in horrid position when he took over and now we're in fantastic position (when you consider our current roster, incredible prospect depth and our 2nd first rounder this draft) for the years to come. He also brought in certain core players suh as Kovalev, Huet and we'll see if Bonk stays. Bonk & Johnson, our two most consistant forwads all year long were Gainey acquisitions in trades.

Not to mention that saying "Gainey hs done NOTHING positive for the orgnization" is either a foolish comment or an exaggeration. He has ceary brought some positives to the organization. If nothing else, h has brought stability and credibility.

[alexstream]

Gainey is not perfect. But neither is Lou "I traded Souray for Malakhov" Lamierello, or Ken "I gave Cujo big bucks" Holland. But can anybody argue that the Habs are not in a better position today than the day he was hired?

Before Gainey

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues...0000452003.html

After Gainey

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/teams/mon/stats

Yes I know Andre Savard, the Markov draft..blah blah blah. This team is better now and it will be better next year. Gainey has not dealt the youth for overpriced talent (see Toronto Maple Leafs), he knows the goal is the Cup and he is slowly putting together the core that will have a 3-5 year run...Not a One and Done (see Edmonton Oilers)

The plan has always been to build from within, and that is what we are watching right now. How many of you freaked when Gainey passed on Brule for Price? And if everybody says that you never wanted Brule and liked Price all along you are full of it!! How do you feel about that decision now? Good decision eh

What about that same draft when we moved up to take a kid whose stock was falling by the name of Latendresse? Not a bad move either.

Dumping a $5 Million a year goalie performing like a $500K goalie. No credit for that?

Getting Bonk and Huet for Garon? People were tripping out like Garon was the next Roy and Gainey was a fool then. Would LA make that trade now? But of course we must minimize this move by saying that Gainey got lucky with Huet. The fact is Bonk for Garon is a steal in itself based on the last 2 years. Garon has hardly lit up the NHL since moving to LA

It is all revisionist history. If you were not railing at these moves when they were made then you have no leg to stand on. The fact remains that this team is in a better position for future success than it was 3 years ago. THAT IS THE PLAN! Would it have been nice to hit a couple of Free Agent HRs..YES, but once again most of the signings he made were met with approval on this board.

How many GMs take a team with a limited Minor league system and turn them into perennial contenders in 3 years? Buffalo had a stacked system, as does Anaheim, New Jersey did not get good overnight, Ottawa was a long struggle, Detroit's success was a strong mix of Free Agents and late impact draft picks.

What are the expectations here?

If Huet does not get hurt and we win 3 more games over the last 6 weeks the Habs are sitting in 6th right now does that change the perception?

This year was a dissappointment, but the future remains bright in Montreal. This is not a sprint, it is a marathon.

:bow:

[alexstream]

I gave credit to Gainey for surrounding himself with a good scouting staff. However, most of the credit still goes to Timmins and Savard.

Sure, getting rid of Theodore seems great, but who gave that huge contract to Theodore in the first place? Unlike many I feel Theodore always gave us good goaltending before the lockout, but it's still another signing bust for Gainey. I also think that we should have traded him after his huge season, where his value skyrocketed, or at least during one of the seasons after that. We were reconstructing, Theodore could have landed us a quality return, and we still had Garon to take over.

As for trading Garon, Gainey made a blind trade, and admitted himself he didn't know Huet, who already had a deal to return to Europe after the season ended. It was all luck.

Besides, if it weren't for that lucky trade, chances are we would have missed the playoffs last year, thus making Bob Gainey look even worse...

*yawn* it's getting boring, look ahead man. your hindsight shit is really getting on my nerves. Every GM is a bad GM with hindsight.

Lou Lamoriello signed Mogilny, McGillis and Malakhov to BIG contracts (total of nearly 10M I believe) but wouldn't extend the money to keep Scott Niedermayer...

Based on that decision, Lou Lamoriello is so bad that he should die.

I gave credit to Gainey for surrounding himself with a good scouting staff. However, most of the credit still goes to Timmins and Savard.

signs of the greatest manager is their supporting staff.

No GM can look good if they don't have a good staff.

[CerebusClone]

Sure, Lou made some mistakes, and he fixed them. And while Mogilny, McGillis, and Malakhov are all gone, the Devils are once again one of the best teams in the East. He lost 2 great defensemen in Niedermayer and Stevens, but his team is still a powerhouse.

I don't understand this blind faith in Bob Gainey, who's best moves are acquiring third liners that get 20-30 points a season and not making huge mistakes. He sure isn't doing anything great either.

How long are we supposed to wait for the Montreal Canadiens not to be a bottom feeding team anymore? We were struggling to make the playoffs in 2003, and we are still today pretty much in the EXACT same position: ordinary to sometimes mediocre today, but at least with some prospects to give us hope for 2-3 years from now.

Meanwhile, one of the pillars of this team (Kovalev) still has to be taugh lessons by playing on the third line. Our biggest free agent signing is miserable and not even playing. Our experienced backup goalie can't stop a beach ball, and the team is putting all its faith in a 21 year-old rookie goaltender who was almost sent to Hamilton last week. Our captain is playing the worst hockey of his career. Our highest paid defenseman wasn't even good enough to be a benchwarmer this season, and we're so pleased that he's not awful right now. This team if just awful in 5 on 5 situations, and our rookie coach has been unable to make the proper adjustements. We still don't have a single reliable impact player.

Question: since our entire future once again resides in patience and in our prospects, what happens if the top ones don't turn out to be nearly as good as hoped? What happens if Latendresse plateaus next season, if Kostsitsyn is an NHL-bust , if Carey Price doesn't quite cut it in pro-hockey... What then? Are we just going to wait yet another 3-4 years?

[alexstream]

Sure, Lou made some mistakes, and he fixed them. And while Mogilny, McGillis, and Malakhov are all gone, the Devils are once again one of the best teams in the East. He lost 2 great defensemen in Niedermayer and Stevens, but his team is still a powerhouse.

Lou is great for losing Niedermayer, but using the same reasoning, you will bash Gainey for losing Souray... Your arguments make less and less sense...

This issue has nothing to do with us, it's personal between you and Gainey...

And from what I understand of your 2nd paragraph, you now blame Gainey for the outstanding youth that is piled up... but you were patting Savard and Timmens in the back just yesterday...

So now, you would have wanted Gainey to trade Chipchura, Lapierre and our 1st rounder to Edmonton for Ryan Smyth (NYISL might miss the playoffs and might not retain Smyth)

Not only that, I believe that it's totally useless to PAY NOW for a team loaded with rookies that might only be productive and consistent in 2 years. At least wait for Price...

Did you also bash Gainey for not signing Aucoin two summers ago?

It's not blind faith. Gainey has made "some" errors. No GM is perfect. All GMs make mistake. IMO, Gainey's managing team has nothing to envy to Serge Savard's former managing team.

Sammy is one of them, but seriously, beside you Mr. I know it all cause I'm really hindsightful, beside you, who would have known that Samsonov would be a bust???

Beauchemin is a terrible mistake, and Bob deserve his share of slap in the face because of that... However, and you won't agree with that... He also grabbed Begin and Bouillon on waivers... so the positives outset the negatives... Moreover, Beauchemin looks "great"... but is playing with Mr. Norris # 1 and Mr. Norris # 2. Even Traverse would look good with these guys. Beauchemin was no better than JP Coté when we lost him.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Niinimma is playing well and Gainey gets the kudos at long last.

I don't understand this blind faith in Bob Gainey.

OK, don't trust in Gainey. Fine. Trust in who then? Youppi?

Edited March 21, 2007 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN

[Wamsley01]

Sure, Lou made some mistakes, and he fixed them. And while Mogilny, McGillis, and Malakhov are all gone, the Devils are once again one of the best teams in the East. He lost 2 great defensemen in Niedermayer and Stevens, but his team is still a powerhouse.

I don't understand this blind faith in Bob Gainey, who's best moves are acquiring third liners that get 20-30 points a season and not making huge mistakes. He sure isn't doing anything great either.

How long are we supposed to wait for the Montreal Canadiens not to be a bottom feeding team anymore? We were struggling to make the playoffs in 2003, and we are still today pretty much in the EXACT same position: ordinary to sometimes mediocre today, but at least with some prospects to give us hope for 2-3 years from now.

Meanwhile, one of the pillars of this team (Kovalev) still has to be taugh lessons by playing on the third line. Our biggest free agent signing is miserable and not even playing. Our experienced backup goalie can't stop a beach ball, and the team is putting all its faith in a 21 year-old rookie goaltender who was almost sent to Hamilton last week. Our captain is playing the worst hockey of his career. Our highest paid defenseman wasn't even good enough to be a benchwarmer this season, and we're so pleased that he's not awful right now. This team if just awful in 5 on 5 situations, and our rookie coach has been unable to make the proper adjustements. We still don't have a single reliable impact player.

Question: since our entire future once again resides in patience and in our prospects, what happens if the top ones don't turn out to be nearly as good as hoped? What happens if Latendresse plateaus next season, if Kostsitsyn is an NHL-bust , if Carey Price doesn't quite cut it in pro-hockey... What then? Are we just going to wait yet another 3-4 years?

Well, I am convinced it does not really matter to you. You are just going to wait til Price, Latendresse, Kostitsyn "plateau" at 19/20/22 and then you will once again look back in hindsight and tell us how dumb Gainey is.

If Montreal held that attitude with Patrick Roy and believed he plateaued in 86 and dealt him when he was totally average in 87 how would the last 20 years have looked.

What indicator has shown you that they will all plateau? The inside out move Lats pulled before he roofed it last night? The behind the back pass Big #### made against the Isles or the subtle drag and quick shot that Raycroft still has not seen? Or the World Junior MVP that Price just won?

As long as you search for negatives you will continue to find them. ######.... this season you do not have to search deep for them. You can think Gainey is a fool, but it is his team and he is not going anywhere

[Oleg Petrov]

I'm with Chicoutimi Cucumber on how to evaluate a GM - it has to be done by virtue of the information available at the time. Signing Samsonov was a good move, and I was ecstatic when it happened, as was everyone I talked to. If he had had even an average season, the 3.5 would have been well worth it. The fact that he sucks does not make it a bad move in retrospect.

As for Theodore, the notion of not signing Theodore following what most people forget was his second all-star season would have been absolutely ludicrous. He was the only habs to have a Hart in his trophy case since Guy Lafleur, and he was an All-Star goalie. Gainey would not have been fired; he would have been ASSASSINATED. Seriously, he would be dead. To suggest that the normal dynamics of trade value or market value could even come into play for a Montreal-area francophone rumoured to suffer from bouts of stigmata is to completely ignore the parameters within which a Montreal GM cannot choose but to operate. That Gainey was able to sign him for the amount he did was impressive in itself - he could have gotten more elsewhere, I'm sure, and it was likely only Theodore's knowledge that playing in Montreal would promise more advertising and endorsement revenue than, say, anywhere that kept him here. It must have taken one blister of a poker face to stare down Theo's agent and make him forget that Gainey's hands were essentially tied.

A couple of other points:

1. Gainey realizes that every trade has a transaction cost, an intangible loss that has to enter into the calculation. Unless you think you're going to win by a sizeable margin in a trade, you shouldn't make it. Why not? Unlike in NHL 2007, players care about their teammates being traded. Sometimes, it's because the player traded away was a good friend, but even if they don't like the guy, the trading of a player who they feel had no real cause for leaving mines their sense of security and confidence.

Imagine you have a house in Nun's Island with a gas-guzzling SUV that you drive to the Bell Centre every morning, two of your buddies live down the street, your kids are set up in daycare on the corner, etc. You don't want to have to worry every morning that you'll show up to practice and find out you've been traded to some U.S. city with a high crime rate that you can't imagine moving your family to (St. Louis...Atlanta...Dallas...), where you don't know anybody, etc. It doesn't matter that you make 3 million and that some fans on a discussion board somewhere say that you should suck it up because it's part of the job - the simple fact is that you feel better not having to think about that kind of thing. And when some dude in your dressing room gets the Vaudeville hook out of the blue and disappears in the night like the SS came for him, you don't sleep as well in your Nun's Island mansion. So unless the trade's benefit to your team is greater than the cost in terms of what it will do to the other players on the team, you're better off not doing it.

Gainey negotiates personal reassurances as part of his contracts, and that's why he has the respect of the players. They trust him as a man of his word.

2. Over and over, people complain that Gainey doesn't deserve credit for the crop of prospects that represent a bright future for the team because he inherited them. IMO, this position fails to consider what it's like to have 2 million rabid fans screaming at you twelve months of the year to trade for dire needs.

Scan this board in the months of November and December and count the number of times people whined about how ridiculous it was that Gainey has not yet taken the obvious step of trading Plekanec. Look at how low Perezhogin's stock is among Montreal fans now, and file it away to compare with what we'll all be saying in January 08. To get the experienced goaltender everyone was saying a week ago that Gainey absolutely should have gotten at the deadline - before Halak had a couple of decent games and everyone forgot - he would have had to give up a first-round pick (Belfour) or, I'm sure, one of the Habs' sparkling prospects (Cujo). To NOT make such an idiotic move when 2 million people are screaming at you to make it is a serious talent, and one that few GMs have to the degree necessary to do what Gainey has done in Montreal. If Rejean Houle inherited what Gainey had in 2003, we would not have this team today. Kostitsyn would be in Calgary, Perezhogin would be in Anaheim, Lapierre would be in Atlanta and Chuck Kobasew, Todd Marchant, and Bobby Holik would be cleaning egg off the windows of their houses in Kirkland, because every Montreal fan screamed for trades to bring them here.