Gainey: Genius?

[ForumGhost]

Everyone is growing anxious about the whole Sundin ordeal right now, even more so when his agent revealed that Gainey has yet to make an offer. When I first had that, I almost dropped my coffee. But upon further reflection, the situation begins to reveal itself in a new light. What if Gainey was banking on Sundin's hesitation? While almost every other team in the league has basically thrown all it's money away, money that could have been spent on SUndin, Gainey is still sitting pretty on top of his free-agency piggy bank.

[JoeLassister]

Everyone is growing anxious about the whole Sundin ordeal right now, even more so when his agent revealed that Gainey has yet to make an offer. When I first had that, I almost dropped my coffee. But upon further reflection, the situation begins to reveal itself in a new light. What if Gainey was banking on Sundin's hesitation? While almost every other team in the league has basically thrown all it's money away, money that could have been spent on SUndin, Gainey is still sitting pretty on top of his free-agency piggy bank.

Gainey is a genius. Contracts allowed to Markov and Hamrlik now look like the biggest steal of the league ! I like him a lot !

[JMMR]

Gainey will deliever a Cup.

[habs rule]

I have been saying for several years now that Bob knows what he is doing. Yes he is a genius possibly the reincarnation of sammy pollack. He will lead us to the cup. Nice to see some you now want to come along for the ride.lol :ghg: :ghg: :hlogo:

[simonus]

I have been saying for several years now that Bob knows what he is doing. Yes he is a genius possibly the reincarnation of sammy pollack. He will lead us to the cup. Nice to see some you now want to come along for the ride.lol :ghg: :ghg: :hlogo:

umm... there have been a small number of posters who haven't always been keen on BG, but most of us have been pretty consistently ecstatic to have him running the show.

[KoZed]

Genius? That's a big word.

I think some fans are still feeling the side-effects of Rejean Houle so any GM with some sense looks like a Genius to them.

The comparison with Sam Pollock is way stretched. Pollock was head and shoulders above and years in advance on any other GMs in the league.

Most of the youth gathered in recent years can be attributed to Andre Savard and Timmins (who Savard plucked from Ottawa). On the trade front, Gainey pulled some good and some bad deals. Kovy and Tanguay were pretty good deals, but we've lost some players for next to nothing in return (Ribs, Beauchemin, etc.)

Gainey's biggest strength is that he rarely has knee-jerk reactions and never wanders off course.

[fromage]

Gainey is still sitting pretty on top of his free-agency piggy bank.

which does us absolutely no good if we don't actually sign anyone...again.

[KoZed]

which does us absolutely no good if we don't actually sign anyone...again.

He did got Hamrlik last summer, which was a very smart move that really helped stabilize the D.

Thing is, now with all the depth we've got Gainey's only "need" targets are the big fishes Montreal never gets.

[fromage]

But Hamrlik isn't the perennial superstar every team is searching for.

For some reason, we always get the shaft when it comes to getting that superstar. Elias, Shanahan, Briere, among a lot others.

[JoeLassister]

But Hamrlik isn't the perennial superstar every team is searching for.

For some reason, we always get the shaft when it comes to getting that superstar. Elias, Shanahan, Briere, among a lot others.

I think you just don't understand that we offered the big money to them, even sometimes more money, but they all said NO. How is this Gainey's fault ?

[Mont Royale]

Everyone is growing anxious about the whole Sundin ordeal right now, even more so when his agent revealed that Gainey has yet to make an offer. When I first had that, I almost dropped my coffee. But upon further reflection, the situation begins to reveal itself in a new light. What if Gainey was banking on Sundin's hesitation? While almost every other team in the league has basically thrown all it's money away, money that could have been spent on SUndin, Gainey is still sitting pretty on top of his free-agency piggy bank.

Gainey as 'genius' is a bit of a stretch, but I agree he has been very prudent in how he's handled the situation. He knows what the team needs, and has tried to address it through a UFA. Unlike other GMs, he doesn't feel the $8 million burning a hole in his pocket, so he didn't make a serious run at someone else who DIDN'T meet the need. (Or at least, this is the sense I get, not knowing what he's actually been up to).

I also think his approach to Sundin has been very respectful of the player, which will hopefully pay off once he makes up his mind. Other teams (Vancouver, anyway) are trying to tempt Sundin by throwing around big numbers. Gainey realizes that first Sundin has to make his mind up about playing again, and seems to have tried a soft-sell approach based on how he will fit into the team, living in Montreal, etc., while giving him the time and space to come to a decision (e.g. not rushing over to Sweden to get in his face when Sundin was apparently ambivalent). I almost think that Sundin would feel somewhat put off by the Vancouver offer (although flattered at the same time), just because it implies that he's holding out for more money, or that it's all about the money - when the reality is, he doesn't need the money, and needs to decide if he still has the desire to play.

[SAKS-AVENUE]

Not Yet.

[CerebusClone]

There's a difference between being a genuis and simply not being an idiot. On July 1st, following the trade for Alex Tanguay, there was only one player that could truly make a difference in Montreal, and is name is Mats Sundin. We're set at the wing position with 9 talentented players for our top three lines, we're got plenty of skills, and we're currently a contender.

We don't need another good player, another forward we have to surround well for him to produce; we need an impact player, an offensive leader on the ice, a guy that will make our good players better ... a guy that will make us a top contender for the Cup.

How many impact centers were available this summer? Just one, and he's still available.

Also, concerning Hamrlik, I kept mentionning before we signed that he was the best defenseman available last summer for our needs, we needed a solid veteran presence to stabilize our defense. However, let's not forget that he was at least Gainey's 3rd option, after Souray and Rafalski, not of whom I believe would have had the same positive impact. Also, let's not forget that we were "lucky" that Gainey failed to sign some of the players he was after (like Briere at a very high cost) because we would be in trouble...

Althought he's looking good right now, I'm not convinced about Gainey...

Edited July 3, 2008 by CerebusClone

[Habsfan]

CerebusCLone brings up some very good points.

I was never a big fan of the "Brière to Montreal" or "Shanahan to Montreal" attempts. Briere si too small and Shanahan is too old. In the end, i am very happy that none of these players signed here for the big bucks that they signed elsewhere.

As far as calling Gainey A genius, I thikn it's still a little too early. He did make some mistakes and did make some great moves. But to call him a genius would be a littel too premature.

Bring us a couple of Cups and make a few steals and then you can call him a genius.

[Habsfan84]

Bob Knows Best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I woudn't say he's a genius. Frankly, I can't think of a hockey manager who qualifies. Pollock, maybe, but even he suffered a raft of crummy drafts toward the end of his tenure, and you can argue that he profited by the sheer, manifest idiocy of his competitors in a dismal expansion era.

What I know about Gainey suggests that he incarnates is less "genius" than certain very distinct virtues: rigour, focus, calm, clarity of purpose, courage, patience, profound integrity, and deliberate thoughtfulness. Underlying it all - as we saw during his playing days - is an iron determination and will to win. Pull it together, and it's not a flashy package, but it is one that is likely to be immensely successful over time.

[Wamsley01]

I woudn't say he's a genius. Frankly, I can't think of a hockey manager who qualifies. Pollock, maybe, but even he suffered a raft of crummy drafts toward the end of his tenure, and you can argue that he profited by the sheer, manifest idiocy of his competitors in a dismal expansion era.

What I know about Gainey suggests that he incarnates is less "genius" than certain very distinct virtues: rigour, focus, calm, clarity of purpose, courage, patience, profound integrity, and deliberate thoughtfulness. Underlying it all - as we saw during his playing days - is an iron determination and will to win. Pull it together, and it's not a flashy package, but it is one that is likely to be immensely successful over time.

I guess it is hard to determine genius if you are just the smartest idiot in a room full of idiots.

But Pollock was seeing things years ahead and predicting the future landscape. For that I would tag him a genius.

The Lafleur move was visionary and the Backstrom trade to assure the desired result was as well.

Gainey is no genius. He is all the things you labelled him, but he has made his share of blunders. But all GMs do.

It is the ones that limit the damage of those blunders that are ultimately succesful. He also is a very patient man,

and in a league full of idiots trying to make their name immediately, it pays off.

People are so quick to credit Timmons for the success, but Gainey has recognized his talent and has not micromanaged

him. He has not dealt away the prospects Timmons accrued in short sighted deals that could have put Montreal into 5th place instead of 9th,

he has managed the cap brilliantly and has done a pretty good job of recognizing the limitations of his overachievers. I still think the

Ribeiro trade was the right move at the time because of his immaturity and involvement in the Three Amigos. That deal was not made

with his on ice skills in mind. He has also shown a lack of ego in realizing a mistake and not compounding it by more deals to justify

the decision, instead he jettison's the mistake (Theo, Samsonov).

He is a top 5 GM in the NHL and it is no coincidence that the Habs return to the upper echelon's of the NHL coincides with his return.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Wamsley01

[CerebusClone]

We'll, let's just say that our context when we hired Gainey was perfect to make him look good. He's a very patient man, and we needed to wait for young players to establish themselves as NHL players. However, an answering machine could have managed that part of the rebuilding process...

What worries me more is the more "direct" actions taken by Bob Gainey, and too many in my opinion we're either bad, and ended good mostly by luck. For exemple, signing Sergei Samsonov made no sense at all in our context, as he did not fit at all in our roster; giving him that much money for more than a single season was a horrible decision.

Also, I still believe building a team around Alex Kovalev is the equivalent of building a house on quick sand. Sure, he pulled a great season last year, but was inconsistent for the previous two, and also was ineffective during the playoffs. You just cannot count on Kovalev, and signing a guy with such a reputation for four years was also a mistake.

The Bonk trade ended up being great, but Radek Bonk was the man Gainey wanted, and he was a bust. As for Huet, Gainey admitted himself he knew absolutely nothing about him, and he was just a thrown-in. If I remember, Huet already had plans to return to Europe at the end of that season.

Signing a marginal player like Dandeneault for 4 years was another blunder, and it prevented us from giving either Beauchemin or Hainsey a true shot at playing regularly in the NHL.

We're also giving Gainey a lot of credit for playing the kids, and giving them room to grow and emerge as quality NHL players, however I also remember that Gainey has done everything he could to fill the roster with average/marginal veteran players. Guys like the Kostsitsyn brothers, Halak, O'Byrne, and even Streit only got a real shot after injuries or after those veterans failed to deliver, heck even Dandeneault, Begin and Kostopulos played on the first two lines before Andrei Kostsitsyn got his shot.

Besides, it's not like the Habs had much a choice in recent years to play the younger guys likePlekanec, Higgins, Komisarek, ...

Anyway, my point is not to bash Bob Gainey, but simply that I'm not convinced by his actions. I think we got the "easy" part done, which was to let prospects emerge and become core players, now Bob Gainey begins the true test of finishing the job, and making us a genuine top contender. Unfortunately for him, I don't think players in the farm system will make that happen so he'll have to acquire the last missing elements through trades or FA signings.

[Habsfan]

Also, I still believe building a team around Alex Kovalev is the equivalent of building a house on quick sand. Sure, he pulled a great season last year, but was inconsistent for the previous two, and also was ineffective during the playoffs. You just cannot count on Kovalev, and signing a guy with such a reputation for four years was also a mistake.

Dude you are way off on this one.

in his first full season in Montreal Kovalev had 65 points in 68 games played(which is almost 1 point per game.) IN the Playoffs that year, he had 7 points in 6 games.

IN his second season, we can all agree that he really sucked!

IN his 3rd season he got 84 points in 82 GP. IN the playoffs he had 11 points in 12 games.

and let's not forget that in the 2003-2004 playoffs, Kovalev was one of the main reasons why the Habs were able to come back from a 1-3 deficit vs. the Bruins. He finished the playoffs that year with 10 points in 11 games.

If anything, Kovalev has proven that he is an important player when the playoffs roll along. As far as the regular season is concerned, he had one really bad season in 3 years, not 2 bad seasons. His first year he had almost 1 point per game, which was still pretty good.

Signing a marginal player like Dandeneault for 4 years was another blunder, and it prevented us from giving either Beauchemin or Hainsey a true shot at playing regularly in the NHL.

At that time, we needed an experienced NHLer on defence. Hainsey was a hothead and was shown the door (à la Ribeiro) for his numerous blunders(on and off the ice). Beauchemin was a mistake, they should never have left him go!

Besides, it's not like the Habs had much a choice in recent years to play the younger guys likePlekanec, Higgins, Komisarek, ...

Not true. Claude Julien did not want to Use Komisarek. IT was only after Julien was fired that Gainey put Komisarek in the line-up on a more regular basis!

Edited July 3, 2008 by Habsfan

[thib46]

Dude you are way off on this one.

in his first full season in Montreal Kovalev had 65 points in 68 games played(which is almost 1 point per game.) IN the Playoffs that year, he had 7 points in 6 games.

IN his second season, we can all agree that he really sucked!

IN his 3rd season he got 84 points in 82 GP. IN the playoffs he had 11 points in 12 games.

and let's not forget that in the 2003-2004 playoffs, Kovalev was one of the main reasons why the Habs were able to come back from a 1-3 deficit vs. the Bruins. He finished the playoffs that year with 10 points in 11 games.

If anything, Kovalev has proven that he is an important player when the playoffs roll along. As far as the regular season is concerned, he had one really bad season in 3 years, not 2 bad seasons. His first year he had almost 1 point per game, which was still pretty good.

At that time, we needed an experienced NHLer on defence. Hainsey was a hothead and was shown the door (à la Ribeiro) for his numerous blunders(on and off the ice). Beauchemin was a mistake, they should never have left him go!

Not true. Claude Julien did not want to Use Komisarek. IT was only after Julien was fired that Gainey put Komisarek in the line-up on a more regular basis!

I suppose Gainey would be appreciated if he made all the trades that fans on this board and the media experts say he should make. When the trades or free agent hires did not work out the fans and media could call for his head. I just like the fact Gainey does not panic and does not make decisions because of talk shows and fan forums.

I do enjoy this forum and read it every day but sometimes we seem to get carried away. With that said keep the ideas coming.

[CerebusClone]

in his first full season in Montreal Kovalev had 65 points in 68 games played(which is almost 1 point per game.) IN the Playoffs that year, he had 7 points in 6 games.

IN his second season, we can all agree that he really sucked!

IN his 3rd season he got 84 points in 82 GP. IN the playoffs he had 11 points in 12 games.

and let's not forget that in the 2003-2004 playoffs, Kovalev was one of the main reasons why the Habs were able to come back from a 1-3 deficit vs. the Bruins. He finished the playoffs that year with 10 points in 11 games.

I don't care about number of poins, they are often misleading. Looking merely at statistics often lead to terrible decisions, like thinking that Sheldon Souray is a top offensive defensive deserving of 5-6 millions per season for many years. Or that Micheal Ryder is a genuine quality sniper because of consecutive 30-goal seasons.

During his first season in Montreal, Kovalev may have produced well on paper, but lacked consistancy, and was too often not a factor in games. Same for this year's playoffs, where although he got 11 points in 12 games, he was nearly invisible on the ice except for a few moments (including 2 keys moments where he gave priority to ego instead of the good of the team), and overall was a non-factor.

I agree that he was great in the playoffs in 2004, but only after being invisible for the first couple of games, and nearly costing us the series again because of his ego, not only faking a wrist injusry, and giving up on the play with no one behind him, but also carelessly taking Souray down with him who was trying to fix his terrible selfish blunder. And it's notl like it was his first time, doing something similar on a Joe Sakic play (he was lucky the goal was disallowed).

Again... quick sand... sure Kovalev is great at times, including a wonderful complete season where he was great from game 1 to game 82... but then nothing, we even had to haste Koivu's return who generated more offense playing hurt in his first game back than Kovalev had since the beginning of the series.

Kovalev can be a good asset, but not as a building block. He was successful early in New York and in Pittsburg playing a support role to great leaders and better players such as Graves, Leetch, Lemieux, Jagr...

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Yeah, I think the most important single move Gainey has made was firing Julien and getting behind the bench himself.

He immediately put Higgins, who had been languishing in a 4th-line/checking role, with Koivu on the first line. Higs responded with 20 goals in 40 games. He also put Komisarek, who had been relegated to 6th defenceman status and looking terrible, with Markov. Hey presto, the Komisarek we now know and love was on his way to emerging.

Imagine how our rebuild would look if that had never happened. Higgins might still be regarded as little more than a Steve Begin type, and Komi might be elsewhere.

He also got rid of Theodore and soon thereafter, Ribeiro, in order to give ice time to Plekanec.

What coaching the team did, I believe, is give Gainey a very detailed read on which players were leaders, which had potential, and which weren't championship stuff. And I think much of his subsequent patience and decision-making has been informed by the lessons he learned there.

As for BTH's assertion that it took no skill to let the young players develop - au contraire. Very few if ANY GMs would have had the combination of credibility and patience to be able to wait it out the way Gainey did, in a high-pressure market like Montreal. Most would have traded Higgins by now for a "quick fix" and gotten caught up in the UFA frenzy, handcuffing the organization for years to come with stupid contracts. Beyond that, he has assembled a quality organization, creating an institutional culture (from scratch) that does things the right way. That's not easy.

I agree that he dodged a bullet on Briere. But Bonk was a very good player in his second season with us (in year one, he was ruined by a groin problem). I'm tired of people saying that trade was no good because Bonk had a serious injury in one season. As for "building around" Kovalev, sheesh - first Bob gets attacked for not signing UFAs, then he gets attacked for signing a guy who has been a PPG player for us in two out of three seasons. It's all context. At the time, we had nobody - Kovy was an enormous talent upgrade. Dandeault and Bouillon were also effective signings given the comparative weakness of the team at the time.

Does he make mistakes? Sure. Beauchemin is a glaring one. He should have gotten more back for Ribeiro (although given Ribs's rep at the time, I don't think we could have gotten too much more). Offering huge dough to Briere was another. Not trading Souray at deadline, maaaybe. Not keeping Huet, maaaaybe. I'd include the big offer to Souray too, although you have to wonder whether Gainey pretty much knew that wouldn't fly. That's not exactly a track record of massive blunders.

[Habsfan]

I don't care about number of poins, they are often misleading. Looking merely at statistics often lead to terrible decisions, like thinking that Sheldon Souray is a top offensive defensive deserving of 5-6 millions per season for many years. Or that Micheal Ryder is a genuine quality sniper because of consecutive 30-goal seasons.

During his first season in Montreal, Kovalev may have produced well on paper, but lacked consistancy, and was too often not a factor in games. Same for this year's playoffs, where although he got 11 points in 12 games, he was nearly invisible on the ice except for a few moments (including 2 keys moments where he gave priority to ego instead of the good of the team), and overall was a non-factor.

I agree that he was great in the playoffs in 2004, but only after being invisible for the first couple of games, and nearly costing us the series again because of his ego, not only faking a wrist injusry, and giving up on the play with no one behind him, but also carelessly taking Souray down with him who was trying to fix his terrible selfish blunder. And it's notl like it was his first time, doing something similar on a Joe Sakic play (he was lucky the goal was disallowed).

Again... quick sand... sure Kovalev is great at times, including a wonderful complete season where he was great from game 1 to game 82... but then nothing, we even had to haste Koivu's return who generated more offense playing hurt in his first game back than Kovalev had since the beginning of the series.

Kovalev can be a good asset, but not as a building block. He was successful early in New York and in Pittsburg playing a support role to great leaders and better players such as Graves, Leetch, Lemieux, Jagr...

You say you don'T care about teh number of points, but that's what really matters...especially for an offensive forward.

[CerebusClone]

As for BTH's assertion that it took no skill to let the young players develop - au contraire. Very few if ANY GMs would have had the combination of credibility and patience to be able to wait it out the way Gainey did, in a high-pressure market like Montreal. Most would have traded Higgins by now for a "quick fix" and gotten caught up in the UFA frenzy, handcuffing the organization for years to come with stupid contracts. Beyond that, he has assembled a quality organization, creating an institutional culture (from scratch) that does things the right way. That's not easy.

This I completely agree with, and is what I love about the current Habs management. It seems to me we are building a strong franchise for years to come, and creating a Habs culture the way the Red Wings have (and we see the results). This begins from the year young prospects are deafted with the rookie training camp where players get to bond, appreciate the quality of this organization, and take pride in wearing the Habs jersey.

Does he make mistakes? Sure. Beauchemin is a glaring one. He should have gotten more back for Ribeiro (although given Ribs's rep at the time, I don't think we could have gotten too much more). Offering huge dough to Briere was another. Not trading Souray at deadline, maaaybe. Not keeping Huet, maaaaybe. I'd include the big offer to Souray too, although you have to wonder whether Gainey pretty much knew that wouldn't fly. That's not exactly a track record of massive blunders.

I don't really blame Gainey for Beauchemin and Ribeiro. Beauchemin wasn't exactly a great player in the AHL, and never forced the coaching staff to make room for him. Although I would have prefered giving a chance to Beauchemin and/or Hainsey instead of offering a marginal 6th/7th defenseman a guaranteed spot, no one really could foresee that Beauchemin would become a top 4 defenseman on a Stanley Cup champion team.

As for Mike Ribeiro, he was given every possible chance to establish himself as a quality NHLer in Montreal, but never delivered (in fact, I still wouldn't want him on my team after what I've seen of the new Ribeiro in the last playoffs... same old player, he just had longer hot streaks). Also, I don't think he fit in that new Habs culture we're trying to implement. Besides, we got nothing gor his services because he was worth virtually nothing... getting a good return would have been luck.

Anyway, again, I'm not trying to bash Bob Gainey, but not having a terrible track record doesn't make him a great GM. His true test is still to come, and pretty much starts this summer. Can Bob Gainey take the abs to the next level... maybe... but he hasn't convinced me yet.

[CerebusClone]

You say you don'T care about teh number of points, but that's what really matters...especially for an offensive forward.

This I completely disagree with... otherwise Mariusz Czerkawski and Sergei Berezin would still be in the NHL today. Scoring 35 and 37 goals respectively didn't make them quality offensive players in the NHL.

Also, Mark Streit would be making a lot more than Dion Phaneuf right now. Also, Derek Roy just produced nearly as much as guys luike Getzlaf and E. Staal, and more than Mats Sundin; do you feel he's got the same impact on the ice as these players? Similarly, do you feel that Zach Parise and Kristian Huselius are in the same category because they produced the same?

I don't really want to get into this right now, but there is so much more that makes a player a quality player...