Jump to content

Gainey: Genius?


ForumGhost

Recommended Posts

Jeez, some people are really "touchy" when it comes to Price. I like the Kid. I do believe he will bring us to the promised land ( at some point in his career) but everyone is going nuts just cause I said he had a "good" season.

I can just imagine how much sh.it would have hit the fan had I said he had an ordinary season?? ;):D:rolleyes::clap: :lool:

Similarly, I think Carey Price exceeded all realistic expectations last season, which to me makes his season worthy of the term "excellent"

Had he not been sent down to Hamilton midway through the season I would have agreed with you.

Moreover, his statistics since being recalled from Hamilton were as good any anyone else's, and superior to what most Vezina recipients needed to win the prestigious trophy.

You said it yourself, he played well for 1/2 a season (about 20 games). To win a vezina trophy, you need to be great MOST of the time during the entire year.

When Don Cherry says that a member of the Montreal Canadiens was robbed out of winning a trophy like the Vezina, you know that player was great

Since when does Don Cherry's opinion count for anything? ;) The guy only watches 5 or 6 Habs games a year, and that's only when they play his Leaves.

OK, this is the last I'll say about this topic, cause it's just gettin' ridiculous! I think the kid had a good season last year. Not great, but good. I am NOT saying that he sucked. I am not saying that he wasn't impressive on SOME nights. What I AM saying is that he could have been better (even though he was only 20 years old)

I'm not knocking the guy, i'm just looking at it without my pink coloured habs fan glasses on. I'm trying to be objective on this.

Edited by Habsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jeez, some people are really "touchy" when it comes to Price. I like the Kid. I do believe he will bring us to the promised land ( at some point in his career) but everyone is going nuts just cause I said he had a "good" season.

I can just imagine how much sh.it would have hit the fan had I said he had an ordinary season?? ;):D:rolleyes::clap: :lool:

I think he is underappreciated already.

In a city that when polled wanted "Red Light" Racicot to replace Roy after game one of the 93 playoffs, I can already see the same shit happening.

From the expectations of a Cup last season to the screams to replace him after Game 3 to the blame for the loss after losing to Philly.

He will be blamed and praised by half the faithful just like Roy was, just like Theo was. So get used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, some people are really "touchy" when it comes to Price. I like the Kid. I do believe he will bring us to the promised land ( at some point in his career) but everyone is going nuts just cause I said he had a "good" season.

I can just imagine how much sh.it would have hit the fan had I said he had an ordinary season?? ;):D:rolleyes::clap: :lool:

Had he not been sent down to Hamilton midway through the season I would have agreed with you.

You said it yourself, he played well for 1/2 a season (about 20 games). To win a vezina trophy, you need to be great MOST of the time during the entire year.

Since when does Don Cherry's opinion count for anything? ;) The guy only watches 5 or 6 Habs games a year, and that's only when they play his Leaves.

OK, this is the last I'll say about this topic, cause it's just gettin' ridiculous! I think the kid had a good season last year. Not great, but good. I am NOT saying that he sucked. I am not saying that he wasn't impressive on SOME nights. What I AM saying is that he could have been better (even though he was only 20 years old)

I'm not knocking the guy, i'm just looking at it without my pink coloured habs fan glasses on. I'm trying to be objective on this.

Like I said. If you think he played good,

1. what exactly were you expecting from him?

2. What in the history of the game suggested to you that he could play better than 24-12-3, 2.56 GAA, .920 SV% and 5 playoff wins?

3. What would excellent have been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. what exactly were you expecting from him?

About what he gave us.

2. What in the history of the game suggested to you that he could play better than 24-12-3, 2.56 GAA, .920 SV% and 5 playoff wins?

I don'T know. I'm not blaming the kid. I'm not saying he had a bad year. I'm just saying that he had a good year.

3. What would excellent have been?

Excellent would have been to start 50 games, win 30 of them get a G.A.A. of under 2.50 and a save percentage above .925...and maybe get 8 wins in the playoffs. Now THAT, would have been an excellent season.

He will be blamed and praised by half the faithful just like Roy was, just like Theo was. So get used to it.

Like I said earlier, it's still too soon to make my final judgement call on the kid. After next season, we will have a WAY better Idea of what the kid is really made of. But that doesn't mean the we should give up on him after next season. Just like I was patient with my boy Komisa-REX and just like I'm being patient now with Ti-Gui, i will be patient with Carey. It's obvious the kid has talent. But we all know that talent isn't enough to have a great a career...he will need to be solid in between the ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent would have been to start 50 games, win 30 of them get a G.A.A. of under 2.50 and a save percentage above .925...and maybe get 8 wins in the playoffs. Now THAT, would have been an excellent season.

and could you tell us any goalie who has ever accomplished that at the age of 20 and gone on to a long and successful career, btw when I said Some people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground I was making a more general statement about some habs fans who tend to be very negative about the team, I am sorry that you thought I referred to you specifically as that was not the case. i think you have a lot of good comments but I also think you are being a little harsh on young mr price. :hockey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and could you tell us any goalie who has ever accomplished that at the age of 20 and gone on to a long and successful career

Of course I can't, because the league has become soooo defensive. Back in the 70's and 80's any goalie with a GAA of under 3.00 was considered to be excellent. Today, if you have a GAA under 3.00 you are considered mediocre. Same goes for the save%. 20 or 30 years ago, to have a save% above .900 was considered good, today, if your save% isn't above .900, you won't play in the NHL.

I am sorry that you thought I referred to you specifically as that was not the case. i think you have a lot of good comments

No problem! ;)

but I also think you are being a little harsh on young mr price.

That's the thing...i'm not being harsh on the kid. I said he had a good year. I didn't say he sucked. I didn't say that he was the reason why the Habs got bounced in the 2nd round. I didn't say he was a choker. I'm just trying to remain objective until i can definitely make up my mind about this kid. Like I said before, it's obvious that he's got talent, but there have been multiple cases of players who had lots of talent who ended up losing their spots in the NHL at a young age (Alex Daigle, Jim Carey just to name a few).

Edited by Habsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I can't, because the league has become soooo defensive. Back in the 70's and 80's any goalie with a GAA of under 3.00 was considered to be excellent. Today, if you have a GAA under 3.00 you are considered mediocre. Same goes for the save%. 20 or 30 years ago, to have a save% above .900 was considered good, today, if your save% isn't above .900, you won't play in the NHL.

No problem! ;)

That's the thing...i'm not being harsh on the kid. I said he had a good year. I didn't say he sucked. I didn't say that he was the reason why the Habs got bounced in the 2nd round. I didn't say he was a choker. I'm just trying to remain objective until i can definitely make up my mind about this kid. Like I said before, it's obvious that he's got talent, but there have been multiple cases of players who had lots of talent who ended up losing their spots in the NHL at a young age (Alex Daigle, Jim Carey just to name a few).

I personally was only commenting on his performance as a rookie, I agree we'll have to wait to see how he performs as a regular number 1 in the NHL. However, his performances in the second half of the season - especially once he was given the number 1 job - gave lots to be optimistic about.

One thing is for sure: Montreal is lucky to have two young goaltenders of the quality of Price and Halak, who have both been dominant everywhere they've been, and who are again showing great things at the NHL level. Some teams, like the Senators, would probably give up a lot to be in our situation :P

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some teams, like the Senators, would probably give up a lot to be in our situation

No kidding!! ;) The Hens have not had a decent goalie in over 10 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I can't, because the league has become soooo defensive. Back in the 70's and 80's any goalie with a GAA of under 3.00 was considered to be excellent. Today, if you have a GAA under 3.00 you are considered mediocre. Same goes for the save%. 20 or 30 years ago, to have a save% above .900 was considered good, today, if your save% isn't above .900, you won't play in the NHL.

4 goalies have won a playoff series at 20 or under. That has nothing to do with Save Percentage or Goals Against Average.

2 goalies have won more than Price's 24 games at 20 or under.

He also had a 0.920 percentage, not like he was scraping by at 0.901. That 0.920 ranked him alongside

Brodeur and Backstrom and ahead of All-Stars Luongo and Lundqvist. 5 players had a better Save Percentage

than Price. So he ranked high among his contemporaries as well.

It really matters not, he had one of the best seasons of a 20 year old of all-time, believe it or not

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
he'll be a genius when he will have won the cup for us. for now he's an above average GM.

We're in a pretty competitive era of the sport; winning a Cup will always be the end goal, but maintaining a high standard over a long period is probably a better indicator of 'brilliance' in managing. Remember, all it takes is Steve Smith banking one into his own net for a barely above average Canadiens team to win a Cup. But it takes a Lou Lamoriello to consistently keep his team at or near the top over a long period of time.

In addition, it takes a certain kind of 'genius' (let's call it) to take a floundering club and turn them upside down. Again, Lou comes to mind. The Red Wings brain-trust (including Holland) is another great example. Brian Burke is another I'd point out (Vancouver wasn't nearly as complete before he got there). I would certainly place Gainey with those names after receiving a Montreal franchise in almost complete disarray. (As much as I liked Savard, his patient plan just wasn't the same as what Gainey has brought.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he'll be a genius when he will have won the cup for us. for now he's an above average GM.

How does this statement make any sense at all? If you're a genius, you're a genius. If we win the Cup, will he suddenly gain 20 IQ points over night?

If by genius, you're thinking "great GM" then which GMs do you think are better than him? What Gainey's done in Montreal so far has been far more impressive than the GMing work it took to build the majority of Cup winners. Otherwise, Jay Feaster would be a better GM than Bob Gainey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition, it takes a certain kind of 'genius' (let's call it) to take a floundering club and turn them upside down. Again, Lou comes to mind. The Red Wings brain-trust (including Holland) is another great example. Brian Burke is another I'd point out (Vancouver wasn't nearly as complete before he got there). I would certainly place Gainey with those names after receiving a Montreal franchise in almost complete disarray. (As much as I liked Savard, his patient plan just wasn't the same as what Gainey has brought.)

That's the thing, many people say that, but it's just not true. Andre Savard is the one is received a franchise that was at the bottom, and at the worst point of it's history. Savard started the rebuilding process, adding to the few quality players he had inherited, and then turned things over to another GM when he became obvious that being a GM wasn't his thing (he was especially awful at contract negociations).

Bob Gainey inherited some pretty good players, and Trevor Timmins provided him with more great young players, while making sure that our young players developped properly. Let's look at our lineup by the end of last season:

A.Kostsitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev

Higgins-Koivu-S.Kostistsyn

Latendresse-Lapierre-Streit

Begin-Smolinski-Kostopoulos

Markov-Komisarek

Hamrlik-O'Byrne

Bouillon-Gorges

Price

Halak

Plekanec, Higgins, Koivu, Markov, Komisarek, and Bouillon were all already in the organization before Bob Gainey took, and most of them are strong core players today. Also, Trevor Timmins brought in the Kostsitsyn brothers, Price, Streit, Latendresse, Lapierre, O'Byrne, and Halak.

The players brought in by Bob Gainey were Kovalev (who finally paid off after 2 disappointing seasons, and who still is an unknown), Hamrlik (even though we first offered Souray a contract, and tried signing Rafalski and perhaps other defensemen), Gorges (althought he traded Craig Rivet, a quality veteran defenseman who was here before Gainey), and a couple of decent 4th liners in Begin and Kostopoulos.

All this without mentionning that Bob Gainey also inherited Jose Theodore, Sheldon Souray, Mike Ribeiro, Michael Ryder, Mathieu Garon, Richard Zednik, Patrice Brisebois, Yanik Perreault, and a few other players who have contrinuted to the Habs, and have (or could have) been used as trade material.

I'm not saying Bob Gainey is a mediocre GM, or that he doesn't deserve any credit... but it is obvisouly false to say that he inherited a team in ruins just because we had a few mediocre temporary solutions such as Juneau, Sundstrom, McKay, or Dwyer on the team. It is also false that he rebuilt it all by himself, and I would even say that Timmins deserves a big chunck of that credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, many people say that, but it's just not true. Andre Savard is the one is received a franchise that was at the bottom, and at the worst point of it's history. Savard started the rebuilding process, adding to the few quality players he had inherited, and then turned things over to another GM when he became obvious that being a GM wasn't his thing (he was especially awful at contract negociations).

Bob Gainey inherited some pretty good players, and Trevor Timmins provided him with more great young players, while making sure that our young players developped properly. Let's look at our lineup by the end of last season:

A.Kostsitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev

Higgins-Koivu-S.Kostistsyn

Latendresse-Lapierre-Streit

Begin-Smolinski-Kostopoulos

Markov-Komisarek

Hamrlik-O'Byrne

Bouillon-Gorges

Price

Halak

Plekanec, Higgins, Koivu, Markov, Komisarek, and Bouillon were all already in the organization before Bob Gainey took, and most of them are strong core players today. Also, Trevor Timmins brought in the Kostsitsyn brothers, Price, Streit, Latendresse, Lapierre, O'Byrne, and Halak.

The players brought in by Bob Gainey were Kovalev (who finally paid off after 2 disappointing seasons, and who still is an unknown), Hamrlik (even though we first offered Souray a contract, and tried signing Rafalski and perhaps other defensemen), Gorges (althought he traded Craig Rivet, a quality veteran defenseman who was here before Gainey), and a couple of decent 4th liners in Begin and Kostopoulos.

All this without mentionning that Bob Gainey also inherited Jose Theodore, Sheldon Souray, Mike Ribeiro, Michael Ryder, Mathieu Garon, Richard Zednik, Patrice Brisebois, Yanik Perreault, and a few other players who have contrinuted to the Habs, and have (or could have) been used as trade material.

I'm not saying Bob Gainey is a mediocre GM, or that he doesn't deserve any credit... but it is obvisouly false to say that he inherited a team in ruins just because we had a few mediocre temporary solutions such as Juneau, Sundstrom, McKay, or Dwyer on the team. It is also false that he rebuilt it all by himself, and I would even say that Timmins deserves a big chunck of that credit.

Timmons boss is Bob Gainey. Therefore the guys that Timmons brings in are approved by Bob Gainey, therefore credit for

those players should go to Bob Gainey. Is Ken Holland not responsible for Zetterberg, Datysuk, Franzen etc?

Gainey brought a calm to a situation that was messy. He brought an organized approach with a plan and a goal which he has

almost reached. He did not destroy the cap situation like many others have and has spent his money very wisely. When he has

made a mistake he has not blindly backed it on ego, but tidily cleaned it up and admitted the mistake.

He could have easily taken the easy route and resigned Huet (like many on this board wanted), resigned Souray, resigned Ryder

before last year and stuck the team with big $$ and little return. But he did not.

Luck, competence, I care not what you call it. I see before me a team with a ton of young prospects, a ton of youth at the NHL level and

cap flexibilty coming off their best season in 15 years. He has made very few mistakes during his tenure.

I don't care if he is a genius or not, but the guy knows how to manage and build a hockey team. Better than the vast majority

of his peers. If you take a fine tooth comb to everybody's resume, there are no great GMs.

We can credit Hakan Andersson instead of Ken Holland, we can criticize Lamierello for Mogilny, Malakhov, we can rip Burke

for his brutal drafting record. Nobody is perfect. Gainey has now taken two teams who were struggling and created a contender.

That my friend is good enough for me.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timmons boss is Bob Gainey. Therefore the guys that Timmons brings in are approved by Bob Gainey, therefore credit for

those players should go to Bob Gainey.

Gainey brought a calm to a situation that was messy. He brought an organized approach with a plan and a goal which he has

almost reached. He did not destroy the cap situation like many others have and has spent his money very wisely. When he has

made a mistake he has not blindly backed it on ego, but tidily cleaned it up and admitted the mistake.

He could have easily taken the easy route and resigned Huet (like many on this board wanted), resigned Souray, resigned Ryder

before last year and stuck the team with big $$ and little return. But he did not.

Luck, competence, I care not what you call it. I see before me a team with a ton of young prospects, a ton of youth at the NHL level and

cap flexibilty coming off their best season in 15 years. He has made very few mistakes during his tenure.

I don't care if he is a genius or not, but the guy knows how to manage and build a hockey team. Better than the vast majority

of his peers. If you take a fine tooth comb to everybody's resume, there are no great GMs.

We can credit Hakan Andersson instead of Ken Holland, we can criticize Lamierello for Mogilny, Malakhov, we can rip Burke

for his brutal drafting record. Nobody is perfect. Gainey has now taken two teams who were struggling and created a contender.

That my friend is good enough for me.

I agree that the GM must get the good and bad credit for the staff reporting to them BUT some of those draft picks occured before Gainey was brought in as GM. I believe that was the point being made...

Gainey has made some good decisions, some were risky. I agreed with MOST of his decisions at the time they were made...hindsight is a luxury no one has so it's not worth discussing on the merits of that ability many media member harp on.

However, I don't think Gainey has been a "genius". He's made some good moves but he has missed out on many of his FA attempts...which is all about his abilities first and foremost. Sundin is just the latest in a long line of big name FA misses. He has had the luxury of a great staff (kudos to him for keeping them around)...but I refuse to apply the genius tag to someone who was simply intelligent enough to rely on, and recognize the talent of, a great scouting staff. Without the Habs youth, some of whom were drafted before Gainey, the Habs would be no where. This is by no means an indictment of Gainey and I don't think anyone is suggesting he be replaced...far from it in my opinion. I'd rather say he's done a good job and leave it at that. The tag of genius is one that has belongs to VERY few people over the decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savard had no grand plan, though, and was winging it - and he knew it, which is why he stepped down in favour of Gainey. Yes, he improved the situation on the ice somewhat, but it was Gainey who revamped the off-ice personnel, implemented a plan of action for the club, and has followed it through with dignity and class.

No doubt Savard was a huge improvement on previous management, but it was Gainey, in my opinion, who really turned the ship around. Savard took a broken car and put on four tires. Gainey stripped it down and turned it into a collector's classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the GM must get the good and bad credit for the staff reporting to them BUT some of those draft picks occured before Gainey was brought in as GM. I believe that was the point being made...

Gainey has made some good decisions, some were risky. I agreed with MOST of his decisions at the time they were made...hindsight is a luxury no one has so it's not worth discussing on the merits of that ability many media member harp on.

However, I don't think Gainey has been a "genius". He's made some good moves but he has missed out on many of his FA attempts...which is all about his abilities first and foremost. Sundin is just the latest in a long line of big name FA misses. He has had the luxury of a great staff (kudos to him for keeping them around)...but I refuse to apply the genius tag to someone who was simply intelligent enough to rely on, and recognize the talent of, a great scouting staff. Without the Habs youth, some of whom were drafted before Gainey, the Habs would be no where. This is by no means an indictment of Gainey and I don't think anyone is suggesting he be replaced...far from it in my opinion. I'd rather say he's done a good job and leave it at that. The tag of genius is one that has belongs to VERY few people over the decades.

I am not responding directly to that email. Cerebus has made plenty of posts in this discussion.

I think there has been one GM who is a genius in the modern NHL and his name is Sam Pollock.

The NHL is filled with incompetent boobs who make the upper echelon of GMs look like geniuses. Holland is not

a genius. He is a very smart manager who surrounds himself with good people and allows those people to do their

job. He trusts his team and allows them to influence his decisions.

Nobody can do it on their own, and sadly with the egos of GMs in the NHL, very few understand that. Gainey is

one of the ones who does. He allowed Timmons to pick Price when a less confident GM would have went with

Brule to appease the media. He has continually allowed Timmons the freedom to make his choices because the

guy has proven succesful again and again.

He has no agenda outside of winning and creating a strong classy professional organization.

He is not angling for unrelated glory like a guy like Burke. Burke wins a Cup and spends a year and a half of sound bites

screaming LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. He is not trying to build his resume to get another job, he is not using the position

to employ as many friends as possible, he is not an old man looking for his last shot at glory and he is not managing day to

day to keep his job. When he steps down he will not whore himself out to any media outlet that will take him like Mike Milbury

or Doug Maclean.

He is an elite level GM, and I am happy to have him :)

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timmons boss is Bob Gainey. Therefore the guys that Timmons brings in are approved by Bob Gainey, therefore credit for

those players should go to Bob Gainey. Is Ken Holland not responsible for Zetterberg, Datysuk, Franzen etc?

Gainey brought a calm to a situation that was messy. He brought an organized approach with a plan and a goal which he has

almost reached. He did not destroy the cap situation like many others have and has spent his money very wisely. When he has

made a mistake he has not blindly backed it on ego, but tidily cleaned it up and admitted the mistake.

He could have easily taken the easy route and resigned Huet (like many on this board wanted), resigned Souray, resigned Ryder

before last year and stuck the team with big $$ and little return. But he did not.

Luck, competence, I care not what you call it. I see before me a team with a ton of young prospects, a ton of youth at the NHL level and

cap flexibilty coming off their best season in 15 years. He has made very few mistakes during his tenure.

I don't care if he is a genius or not, but the guy knows how to manage and build a hockey team. Better than the vast majority

of his peers. If you take a fine tooth comb to everybody's resume, there are no great GMs.

We can credit Hakan Andersson instead of Ken Holland, we can criticize Lamierello for Mogilny, Malakhov, we can rip Burke

for his brutal drafting record. Nobody is perfect. Gainey has now taken two teams who were struggling and created a contender.

That my friend is good enough for me.

I'm quite sure Trevor Timmins has carte blanche when it comes to drafting, in fact I think I remember Bob Gainey saying that himself (although maybe not that clearly). We can give credit to Bob Gainey for surrounding himself with quality people, which is a great trait of any great manager, however we should not take any credit away from Timmins who's doing a phenomenal job both in terms of scouting and player development.

Also we're again giving Gainey a lot of credit for his failures, especially when it comes to his "calmness" and how well he manages his budget... the fact is that Gainey did try to offer ridiculous contracts to some players, notably Daniel Briere, Patrick Elais, Brian Rafalski, Sheldon Souray (he was offered Hamrlik's contract), and I'm sure a few others. Tell me those signings could have been beneficial or anything like that, but don't tell me Gainey is a great general manger because he's doesn't play the "long term, big money" game because he does, and so far he's failed miserably at it... which luckily probably allowed us to be in a much stronger situation both today and for the near future.

You may not, but I personally do I care how we got where we are today. Blindly say that Gainey is God because the team finished first last season just isn't my type. With that said, my goal wasn't to critize Bob Gainey, just ti point out the fact that the situation really wasn't all dark when he got here, that we had good players in the organization, that the rebuilding process was already well in the way, that scouting director gave him quality youngp players, and that mostly his job was to complete that rebuilding process. In a way, his "calmness" made it the right man for the job since mostly we needed to wait things out, and plug-in a few new players.

I see two high quality members of the Habs management today, Pierre Boivin and Trevor Timmins; both are doing a spectacular job. As for Bob Gainey, the results are there, but I'm just not convinced. He's without a doubt a capable general manager, I'm just not sure he's got what it takes to ensure the long term success of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not angling for unrelated glory like a guy like Burke. Burke wins a Cup and spends a year and a half of sound bites

screaming LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. He is not trying to build his resume to get another job, he is not using the position

to employ as many friends as possible, he is not an old man looking for his last shot at glory and he is not managing day to

day to keep his job. When he steps down he will not whore himself out to any media outlet that will take him like Mike Milbury

or Doug Maclean.

Mostly the problem with Brian Burke is that he builds a winner, and then leaves. He's great to rebuild a team quickly, however I wouldn't trust him to build a long-term winning franchise like Lamouriello has done in New Jersey... he's never done it before.

On paper, I agree that Gainey seems to be the kind of GM who can build a winning franchise, however so far his actions have not proven that to me. With that said, I love what I'm seing from Gainey thus far this summer, for the first time I see a general manger with a plan who's making smart strategic decisions. Regardless of what the team will do this season, I think Gainey has done a great job preparing the team for the upcoming season; if this is what we see from him from this point on, I'll get on the bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite sure Trevor Timmins has carte blanche when it comes to drafting, in fact I think I remember Bob Gainey saying that himself (although maybe not that clearly). We can give credit to Bob Gainey for surrounding himself with quality people, which is a great trait of any great manager, however we should not take any credit away from Timmins who's doing a phenomenal job both in terms of scouting and player development.

Also we're again giving Gainey a lot of credit for his failures, especially when it comes to his "calmness" and how well he manages his budget... the fact is that Gainey did try to offer ridiculous contracts to some players, notably Daniel Briere, Patrick Elais, Brian Rafalski, Sheldon Souray (he was offered Hamrlik's contract), and I'm sure a few others. Tell me those signings could have been beneficial or anything like that, but don't tell me Gainey is a great general manger because he's doesn't play the "long term, big money" game because he does, and so far he's failed miserably at it... which luckily probably allowed us to be in a much stronger situation both today and for the near future.

You may not, but I personally do I care how we got where we are today. Blindly say that Gainey is God because the team finished first last season just isn't my type. With that said, my goal wasn't to critize Bob Gainey, just ti point out the fact that the situation really wasn't all dark when he got here, that we had good players in the organization, that the rebuilding process was already well in the way, that scouting director gave him quality youngp players, and that mostly his job was to complete that rebuilding process. In a way, his "calmness" made it the right man for the job since mostly we needed to wait things out, and plug-in a few new players.

I see two high quality members of the Habs management today, Pierre Boivin and Trevor Timmins; both are doing a spectacular job. As for Bob Gainey, the results are there, but I'm just not convinced. He's without a doubt a capable general manager, I'm just not sure he's got what it takes to ensure the long term success of the team.

Gainey GAVE HIM carte blanche. To look at Gainey's mistakes under a microscope could also lead you to do the same thing with

Timmons. If Pouliot was not selected by Minnesota guess who would not be on the habs? Carey Price. That was LUCK for Timmons.

We can also go over his record and look at all the guys he missed with his picks or relay stories of guys he wanted to take but

did not. If you want to rank a guy by going over his supposed moves he did not make, then I think you should probably do that

with the rest of the leagues GMs as well.

Sometimes the best moves you make, are the ones you don't.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gainey GAVE HIM carte blanche. To look at Gainey's mistakes under a microscope could also lead you to do the same thing with

Timmons. If Pouliot was not selected by Minnesota guess who would not be a habs? Carey Price. That was LUCK for Timmons.

We can also go over his record and look at all the guys he missed with his picks or relay stories of guys he wanted to take but

did not. If you want to rank a guy by going over his supposed moves he did not make, then I think you should probably do that

with the rest of the leagues GMs as well.

Sometimes the best moves you make, are the ones you don't.

I didn't mention any specific moves, Gainey has done his share of good and bad moves just like any other GM. All I was saying is that don't tell me that Gainey is great because he rebuilt a team from nothing, which is completely false, or because he would never sign players to ridiculous contracts because he tried to, but luckily we dodged a couple of bullets.

There are enough positive arguments regarding Bob Gainey without making things up.

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mention any specific moves, Gainey has done his share of good and bad moves just like any other GM. All I was saying is that don't tell me that Gainey is great because he rebuilt a team from nothing, which is completely false, or because he would never sign players to ridiculous contracts because he tried to, but luckily we dodged a couple of bullets.

There are enough positive arguments regarding Bob Gainey without making things up.

You use him offering Souray and Briere a contract to make your point and that he would not have the type

of flexibilty should they have accepted. That his flexibility is not all his doing and that he made mistakes that

he was lucky to avoid. I am saying that Timmons "who you praised" would not hold under the same scrutiny.

I am not making anything up

He rebuilt a team that was going NOWHERE. Wether or not he did it from scratch is irrelevant.

If you dig for flaws, you will find them. The results show a definitive improvement under his leadership,

the team is in a better situation cap wise, player development, burgeoning stars than probably any team

in the league. I am looking at what has happened, how he is sitting right now and the future looks bright.

He is among the league's best in my opinion. You are entitled to yours, I just disagree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there has been one GM who is a genius in the modern NHL and his name is Sam Pollock.

The NHL is filled with incompetent boobs ...

Talk about someone surrounded with incompetent boobs! Pollock managed to rip off virtually every GM out there. That wasn't genius so much as preparedness. He did his homework where others didn't. Dedication as opposed to fly-by-night.

Anyhow, not to knock Pollock down, just pointing out the parallels in your argument. ;)

And now, back to Bob!

<cue the music>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...