Jump to content

Gainey: Genius?


ForumGhost
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Actually, I just used them as examples that it is not true that Gainey would never give a huge amount of money for a ridiculous number of years to an unrestricted free agent. I've seen people criticize Paul Holmgren for signing Briere, and at the same time praise Bob Gainey for never doing anything like that... that's what I call giving Gainey credit for his failures.

That's all I'm trying to explain... I'm not digging for flaws, and I wasn't even critizing Gainey for anything.

Similarly, my other point is that it is untrue that Gainey took a team in ruins, and rebuilt from sractch into a contender. The fact is that many of our core players were already with the team at that time (and others who have since left), but people only focus on the fact that we had a few guys like McKay, Dwyer, Wards, Sundtrom ... in the lineup.

As you mentionned, it's ok to disagree. From my point of view, Gainey hasn't proven to me yet through his actions that he his one of the great general managers in hockey today, but that doesn't mean he won't in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No doutb about it. Bob is among the league's best GM's. Off the top of my head, I only count 2 other GM's who I would consider better, and those are the guys in N-J (Lamoriello) and Detroit (Holland). Burke is also good, but like someone else mentionned earlier, I get the impression that Burke is good to build winners in teh short term, whereas in the long run, he hasn't really proven anything just yet!

Edited by Habsfan
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.

LMAO about the analogy

I do tend to agree about your opinion on Savard... However, to be fair with the guy, he was only GM for 2 years and to be even more fair with him, we greatly improved during that 2 years span.

However, projecting his moves in the future, speculating on what moves he'd have done instead of Gainey, I'm pretty confident that Gainey is 1000 X better.

Here are hints :

AS denied that size was important.

Gainey's main priority is to get the roster bigger while not giving away speed (or too much of it).

Savard was a real bad contract negotiator, we didn't have any bargain under him... and we even had to trade guys like Savage b/c Savard couldn't get him to ask UNDER 5M (lmao... but it's true!) and did atrocities like signing Brisebois to 4M while letting Robidas go...

Yes Gainey has made bad moves (e.g. letting Beauch go and signing Sammy) however, he didn't go at Czerkawski, Berezin, Mckay, Sundstrum, Dackell, etc... all at once or within 2 years... :P he arguably made 1 blunder per year... (and he has yet to make one this year! :P)

Gainey's drafting team is more focused on NA. I wont start a debate, but I will say this : to me, that's a good thing.

AS drafting team did a good job... But top of the list was always european guys. IMO, drafting NA guys = meshes better in the system, in the team, with the fan, etc. Creates a better team to have a bigger NA team base... Although many euro players are better than many NA players... it's just an adaptation and team spirit thing.

etc.

IMO, AS should have stayed as director of scouting in the first place and someone like Gainey should have been hired at that time... However from another p.o.v. you can say that AS prepared the ground to make it more attractive to Gainey?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doutb about it. Bob is among the league's best GM's. Off the top of my head, I only count 2 other GM's who I would consider better, and those are the guys in N-J (Lamoriello) and Detroit (Holland). Burke is also good, but like someone else mentionned earlier, I get the impression that Burke is good to build winners in teh short term, whereas in the long run, he hasn't really proven anything just yet!

Burke has a very mediocre draft record. He was handed the 2nd overall pick in the Crosby draft and I highly

doubt in 10 years that Bobby Ryan will be the 2nd best player in that draft.

I would expect Johson, Price, Kopitar, Staal, Stastny and Letang to all have superior careers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The only thing I want to know is when the hell did Burke ever BUILD a winner? Anahiem was pretty good when he got there. He got lucky getting 2 of the major defencemen in the league Pronger and Nieds one cause his wife didn't want to see his girl friend anymore and the other cause he wanted to play with his brother. In Vancouver he accomplished nothing. When the hell did he become this great gm? when he signed bert for way too much money? His club is over the cap and in trouble and he is a great gm? I don't get it.

Bob is a genius .period .

:clap::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I want to know is when the hell did Burke ever BUILD a winner? Anahiem was pretty good when he got there. He got lucky getting 2 of the major defencemen in the league Pronger and Nieds one cause his wife didn't want to see his girl friend anymore and the other cause he wanted to play with his brother. In Vancouver he accomplished nothing. When the hell did he become this great gm? when he signed bert for way too much money? His club is over the cap and in trouble and he is a great gm? I don't get it.

Bob is a genius .period .

:clap::lol:

I agree. I hope he goes to Toronto. The biggest PR machine hyping Brian Burke is Brian Burke!!

He has yet to build a team through the draft and his poor draft record shows that. He has generally entered great situations with

emerging talent and has added Free Agents and made some solid trades. Toronto is a full rebuild, I hope him and his big mouth

get to complain about everything to the ######ed media in the Mecca of Hockey :rolleyes:

The Hartford Whaler era cannot be analyzed properly as he was only afforded a year as the GM before being fired. His first and only draft for the Whalers yielded the following players:

Robert Petrovicky , Andrei Nikolishin , Litvinov Chemopetrol, Ken Belanger, Konstantin Korotkov, Greg Zwakman, Steve Halko and Joakim Esbjors

Hardly an impressive crop of NHL caliber players, but seeing as he was a rookie and was not really afforded a real opportunity his results are really inconclusive. If anything the poor performance on the ice allowed the Whalers to manoeuvre into a position to draft Chris Pronger.

Burke has been widely credited with turning around the Vancouver Canucks from doormat into Stanley Cup contender. I believe that Pat Quinn and MIke Keenan’s contribution’s were just as important in the ascendence of the Canucks in the early 2000s.

When Burke arrived in Vancouver he had a core of Markus Naslund, Todd Bertuzzi, Pavel Bure, Alexander Mogilny, Adrian Aucoin, Brett Hedican, Matthias Ohlund, and Garth Snow. Along with Quinn draft picks Brett Hedican, Peter Schaefer and Brent Sopel.

Burke allowed Messier to become a Free Agent, traded Pavel Bure for Ed Jovanovski and Alexander Mogilny for Brendan Morrison. Both trades worked well for the Canucks as Bure coming off 58 and 59 goal seasons hurt his knee in Florida and could never recapture the explosiveness that made him the best goal scorer in the league. Mogilny was just beginning the descent and he acquired the centre piece for what would become the league’s most dangerous line.

He also reacquired Trevor Linden as a Free Agent, traded for Felix Potvin, traded Adrian Aucoin for Dan Cloutier and Sami Salo for Peter Schaefer.

Although his draft results netted him the Sedin Twins, his 6 drafts (1998-2003) in Vancouver yielded very little NHL talent

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr000039.html

The Canucks under Brian Burke had a combined record of 209-181-68-24

and made the playoffs 4 of 6 seasons winning 1 round in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Burke benefited greatly from a youthful nucleus provided by Quinn and tradeable assets in Mogilny and Bure. Although he had strong regular season success he never addressed the secondary scoring problems and the Canucks were hampered by average goaltending. Burke left the Canucks with very little in their farm system and an aging fading core of Bertuzzi, Naslund, Jovanovski and Cloutier.

Burke the smart man he is, leaped to a situation with great possibilities created by his successor Bryan Murray. The Ducks had lots of cap space and had restocked their minor league system with elite level prospects Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf , Dustin Penner and Joffrey Lupul. He inherited a franchise goalie in JS Giguere and an elite backup in Ilya Bryzgalov.

Burke made a shrewd move of dumping Sergei Fedorov’s salary and acquiring Francois Beauchemin. With a strong young core and tons of cap space he signed the crown jewel of the Stanley Cup champion New Jersey Devils, Scott Niedermayer. Burke then came within a hair of landing Sydney Crosby and settled for Bobby Ryan passing on Jack Johnson, Carey Price, Anze Kopitar, Marc Staal, Luc Bourdon, Tuuka Rask and Andrew Cogliano.

He then used a combination of the youth he inherited and his ample cap space to acquire Chris Pronger from the Ducks for Lupul, two first rounders and a 2nd round pick.

Although his draft record cannot be acurately judged after only 3 seasons, their system is not overflowing with elite young talent anymore.

http://ducks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pag...ge&id=17374

Burke helped to change the face of the Ducks in 2 seasons and did a strong job in doing so. But he bailed on a franchise that was ailing from the Bertuzzi fiasco and jumped in bed with a franchise in great position for the future.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are being unfair to Brian Burke, and very biased when comparing what Burke and Gainey have accomplished.

You're giving all the credit to Bob Gainey, calling him an elite GM, for building a team that finished first last year (regardless of how he got there, Wamsley I think you even admitted that yourself), but taking all the credit away from Brian Burke when he also built top contenders in Vancouver and Anaheim. Just like the Canadiens, these teams weren't going anywhere, and he made them highly competitive.

In Anaheim, Burke had a plan and a vision, he named a coach that fit that style of play, he made key acquisitions (would they have won the Cup without Niedermayer, Pronger, Beauchemin, and Selanne?), he integrated his best youngsters to his roster, and he made some choices (ex. letting go of Salei, Fedorov, Sykora, ...). If you are going to praise Gainey for what he did, I don't see why you would discredit Burke's achievements.

As for scouting, Burke is a general manager, not a head scout. He didn't inherit two of the best amateur scouts out there in Savard and Timmins, and he probably does need to better surround himself on that area. Besides, without a Timmins in Dallas, Gainey wasn't exactly the draft master during his 10 years there; besides a trio of excellent picks (Iginla, Morrow, and Turco), he only drafted Langenbrunner, Jussi Jokinen, Niko Kapanen, and a whole bunch of nobodies.

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are being unfair to Brian Burke, and very biased when comparing what Burke and Gainey have accomplished.

You're giving all the credit to Bob Gainey, calling him an elite GM, for building a team that finished first last year (regardless of how he got there, Wamsley I think you even admitted that yourself), but taking all the credit away from Brian Burke when he also built top contenders in Vancouver and Anaheim. Just like the Canadiens, these teams weren't going anywhere, and he made them highly competitive.

In Anaheim, Burke had a plan and a vision, he named a coach that fit that style of play, he made key acquisitions (would they have won the Cup without Niedermayer, Pronger, Beauchemin, and Selanne?), he integrated his best youngsters to his roster, and he made some choices (ex. letting go of Salei, Fedorov, Sykora, ...). If you are going to praise Gainey for what he did, I don't see why you would discredit Burke's achievements.

As for scouting, Burke is a general manager, not a head scout. He didn't inherit two of the best amateur scouts out there in Savard and Timmins, and he probably does need to better surround himself on that area. Besides, without a Timmins in Dallas, Gainey wasn't exactly the draft master during his 10 years there; besides a trio of excellent picks (Iginla, Morrow, and Turco), he only drafted Langenbrunner, Jussi Jokinen, Niko Kapanen, and a whole bunch of nobodies.

I gave Burke credit for doing a solid job in Anaheim, but he was named BEST GM in the NHL in the Hockey News.

That is overrated

Gainey took a Stars team and created a perennial contender. A team that has put up 100+ points 10-11 times since the mid 90s.

The Stars low point being a season where they finished in the low 90s. His draft record is not fantastic in Dallas but he drafted Jere Lehtinen, Iginla (flipped for Conn Smythe winner Nieuwendyk), Turco, Morrow, Langenbrunner and has a strong record in Montreal. Regardless of wether you FEEL it is ok to give him credit for Timmons work.

In Montreal he has taken a floundering 80-90 point team and made them a Cup contender. And are poised with their youth to be an elite contender for the forseeable future.

Burke left the Canucks in shambles, Gainey left the Stars with a core that has continued to be succesful. Burke has created a salary cap fiasco in Anaheim in which he needed two players to miss half a season to keep them among the elite. He is poised to jump ship leaving them with a poor cap situation and two core players on their last legs searching for somebody to take Matt Schneiders contract off their hands.

Am I looking at it under a biased eye? More than likely. But I know I would rather have Burke dropped into the dysfunctional situation in Toronto and watch him create enemies with his abrasive style in a very poisonous environment than a guy like

Gainey who would walk in and most likely create a much more cohesive environment.

I prefer Gainey's record and style over Burke's ANYDAY.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savard was a good GM who did indeed set us back on the course to credibility. The worst thing that happened to him was that he picked Gainey's pocket for Donald Audette, who promptly got his arm cut off, which destroyed him as a top-6 forward. We desperately needed that player at that time, as the organization simply had no depth. Really bad luck there.

What Gainey's done that Savard didn't do is provide the ultimate steady hand in captaining the ship. Gainey brought an underlying sense of confidence and stability to the entire organization, and we are now getting a rep for being an organization that does all the little things right, including treating players and everyone else in the organization with class. It's not clear that Savard could have brought that sense of a positive and winning "Montreal Canadiens culture" to the table. (I remember him going all the way down to ice level to scream at the refs one game - not exactly the "calm, steady hand" that inspires confidence).

As for the hockey decisions, Bob's been lucky (Souray, Briere) and unlucky (Samsonov, Bonk); but the key has been Bob's patience and fidelity to his vision. Never, not once, did Bob seriously consider dealing away key young players for quick fixes. (Maybe Ribeiro is the exception, but I increasingly think the issue there was character. One of Gainey's hallmarks is that he thinks in terms of people and character, rather than stats or reputation). Would Savard have been as disciplined? Perhaps, but when you consider that as recently as summer, 2007 even Gainey was coming under sustained attack in media and fan circles because the young guns had not yet delivered, you really have to wonder. The key to Gainey is that he is one of the only people in all of hockey whose credibility is such, in Montreal, that he can get away with completely ignoring the baying of the fans and media jackals. Indeed, he may be the ONLY person who could have rigorously stuck to the path of rebuilding from within in this environment. That unique combination of respect and discipline is what makes Gainey the absolute best GM for us. Whether he's a genius or not is kind of irrelevant.

Incidentally, Kovalev had two, not one, strong seasons for us. He was a PPG player in 2005-06.

And also incidentally, Brian Burke is grossly overrated as a GM. His tenure in Vancouver was absymal (absolutely ZERO playoff success, and he left a team so bereft of talent that it got his successor fired, for chrissakes). He deserves credit for the job in Anaheim, but really, all he did was add a couple of pieces to an already strong foundation. He's a classic case of a decent steak dressed up with lots of sizzle. I rate Bob vastly ahead of him, especially for the unique Montreal environment.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savard was a good GM who did indeed set us back on the course to credibility. The worst thing that happened to him was that he picked Gainey's pocket for Donald Audette, who promptly got his arm cut off, which destroyed him as a top-6 forward. We desperately needed that player at that time, as the organization simply had no depth. Really bad luck there.

What Gainey's done that Savard didn't do is provide the ultimate steady hand in captaining the ship. Gainey brought an underlying sense of confidence and stability to the entire organization, and we are now getting a rep for being an organization that does all the little things right, including treating players and everyone else in the organization with class. It's not clear that Savard could have brought that sense of a positive and winning "Montreal Canadiens culture" to the table. (I remember him going all the way down to ice level to scream at the refs one game - not exactly the "calm, steady hand" that inspires confidence).

As for the hockey decisions, Bob's been lucky (Souray, Briere) and unlucky (Samsonov, Bonk); but the key has been Bob's patience and fidelity to his vision. Never, not once, did Bob seriously consider dealing away key young players for quick fixes. (Maybe Ribeiro is the exception, but I increasingly think the issue there was character. One of Gainey's hallmarks is that he thinks in terms of people and character, rather than stats or reputation). Would Savard have been as disciplined? Perhaps, but when you consider that as recently as summer, 2007 even Gainey was coming under sustained attack in media and fan circles because the young guns had not yet delivered, you really have to wonder. The key to Gainey is that he is one of the only people in all of hockey whose credibility is such, in Montreal, that he can get away with completely ignoring the baying of the fans and media jackals. Indeed, he may be the ONLY person who could have rigorously stuck to the path of rebuilding from within in this environment. That unique combination of respect and discipline is what makes Gainey the absolute best GM for us. Whether he's a genius or not is kind of irrelevant.

Incidentally, Kovalev had two, not one, strong seasons for us. He was a PPG player in 2005-06.

And also incidentally, Brian Burke is grossly overrated as a GM. His tenure in Vancouver was absymal (absolutely ZERO playoff success, and he left a team so bereft of talent that it got his successor fired, for chrissakes). He deserves credit for the job in Anaheim, but really, all he did was add a couple of pieces to an already strong foundation. He's a classic case of a decent steak dressed up with lots of sizzle. I rate Bob vastly ahead of him, especially for the unique Montreal environment.

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both of you bring up some excellent points.

I would definitely place Gainey above Burke. Like I said i a previous post. The only GM's I consider to be better than Bob are Lamoriello and Holland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savard was a good GM who did indeed set us back on the course to credibility. The worst thing that happened to him was that he picked Gainey's pocket for Donald Audette, who promptly got his arm cut off, which destroyed him as a top-6 forward. We desperately needed that player at that time, as the organization simply had no depth. Really bad luck there.

What Gainey's done that Savard didn't do is provide the ultimate steady hand in captaining the ship. Gainey brought an underlying sense of confidence and stability to the entire organization, and we are now getting a rep for being an organization that does all the little things right, including treating players and everyone else in the organization with class. It's not clear that Savard could have brought that sense of a positive and winning "Montreal Canadiens culture" to the table. (I remember him going all the way down to ice level to scream at the refs one game - not exactly the "calm, steady hand" that inspires confidence).

As for the hockey decisions, Bob's been lucky (Souray, Briere) and unlucky (Samsonov, Bonk); but the key has been Bob's patience and fidelity to his vision. Never, not once, did Bob seriously consider dealing away key young players for quick fixes. (Maybe Ribeiro is the exception, but I increasingly think the issue there was character. One of Gainey's hallmarks is that he thinks in terms of people and character, rather than stats or reputation). Would Savard have been as disciplined? Perhaps, but when you consider that as recently as summer, 2007 even Gainey was coming under sustained attack in media and fan circles because the young guns had not yet delivered, you really have to wonder. The key to Gainey is that he is one of the only people in all of hockey whose credibility is such, in Montreal, that he can get away with completely ignoring the baying of the fans and media jackals. Indeed, he may be the ONLY person who could have rigorously stuck to the path of rebuilding from within in this environment. That unique combination of respect and discipline is what makes Gainey the absolute best GM for us. Whether he's a genius or not is kind of irrelevant.

Incidentally, Kovalev had two, not one, strong seasons for us. He was a PPG player in 2005-06.

And also incidentally, Brian Burke is grossly overrated as a GM. His tenure in Vancouver was absymal (absolutely ZERO playoff success, and he left a team so bereft of talent that it got his successor fired, for chrissakes). He deserves credit for the job in Anaheim, but really, all he did was add a couple of pieces to an already strong foundation. He's a classic case of a decent steak dressed up with lots of sizzle. I rate Bob vastly ahead of him, especially for the unique Montreal environment.

:clap: , I second Wamsley01.

Concerning Savard, he started the ball rolling, but he was NO match

for the Montreal pressure cooker. I wish him well.

Concerning Burke, I think Kevin Lowe hit the nail on the head. :lol:

Gainey, might not be a genius, but damn he's making me think

he's the right man for the job. :clap:

Can't wait for the season to start :hlogo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Genius" is a pretty big epiteth, and as good as Gainey is I dont think it applies to him.

Gainey owes alot to his long experience (as a player, captain, coach and GM) and he's definitely a smart man. But a "genius" wouldn't have got fleeced like Bob did in the Ribeiro-Niinimaa trade. Or let Beauchemin go for nothing, etc. Inversely, Bob made few really lopsided trades in Montreal's favor but managed.

Getting the best out of trades or finding hidden gems is not really Gainey's forte anyway. Gainey's strength is in knowing what a team needs to win and how to put those elements together. That's what separates him from most of the GMs in the League. In that respect, Bob is a great personnel manager. He knows who to put in what role so a team can succeed. Seems like a no-brainer, but in reality lot of GMs suck at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Genius" is a pretty big epiteth, and as good as Gainey is I dont think it applies to him.

Gainey owes alot to his long experience (as a player, captain, coach and GM) and he's definitely a smart man. But a "genius" wouldn't have got fleeced like Bob did in the Ribeiro-Niinimaa trade. Or let Beauchemin go for nothing, etc. Inversely, Bob made few really lopsided trades in Montreal's favor but managed.

Getting the best out of trades or finding hidden gems is not really Gainey's forte anyway. Gainey's strength is in knowing what a team needs to win and how to put those elements together. That's what separates him from most of the GMs in the League. In that respect, Bob is a great personnel manager. He knows who to put in what role so a team can succeed. Seems like a no-brainer, but in reality lot of GMs suck at it.

Also, I just realized from HW's list of Habs contracts that Brisebois now has a ridiculous cap space of 1.5 million! That's a very steep cap hit considering that we only needed a 7th defenseman, that we have a few players who could have filled that role, that Brisebois had no discussions with any other team, that he has practically no chance of reaching any performance bonus, that he admitted he only wanted to play for the Canadiens, and basically that we had all the bargaining power.

We have over 6.1 millions locked in reserve players like Brisebois and Dandeneault as well as in marginal depth players like Begin and Bouillon... that's a whole lot of cap space for players who could all easily be replaced with the players we currently have for less than 2.5 millions combined. In that sense, Gainey is lucky at this point to have such a great scouting and player development that provides him with cheap quality young players, starting with a very cheap duo of goaltenders in Price and Halak which probably is the envy of many GMs around the NHL.

Overpaying for a bunch of reserve and depth players is not exactly genius-like. Also, it's not like these guys didn't live up to expectations (ex. Kovalev last season), they bring us exactly what they should be expected to, if not even more.

The results were there last season, and therefore Gainey at least deserves the benefit of the doubt; I don't think anyone is saying that he's a mediocre genereal manager. All I'm saying is that because of a few things like that (overpaying depth players, bringing-in players like Samsonov who obviously did not fill our needs, being very lucky quite a few times, the fact that for the most part all he had to do is wait, etc), I have very little to proclaim him one of the best in the NHL, even less a genius.

Again I'm not really criticizing Gainey, and he's done nothing that would make me consider him a bad general manager... I just don't see greatest yet. He showed patience in a rebuilding process... big deal, an answering machine could have done that... and has done well in a context of very low expectations. Now let's see over the next few years if he can keep the ball rolling, and make sure the Canadiens are competitive year after year. The easy part is done, now tough decisions will have to made every year, and the expectations will from now on be very high (he can no more afford to have a bunch of veteran under-achievers like Bonk, Samsonov, and Kovalev at the same time on the roster, and the media and fans won't be so forgiving if the Canadiens miss the playoffs even by one point).

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I just realized from HW's list of Habs contracts that Brisebois now has a ridiculous cap space of 1.5 million! That's a very steep cap hit considering that we only needed a 7th defenseman, that we have a few players who could have filled that role, that Brisebois had no discussions with any other team, that he has practically no chance of reaching any performance bonus, that he admitted he only wanted to play for the Canadiens, and basically that we had all the bargaining power.

We have over 6.1 millions locked in reserve players like Brisebois and Dandeneault as well as in marginal depth players like Begin and Bouillon... that's a whole lot of cap space for players who could all easily be replaced with the players we currently have for less than 2.5 millions combined. In that sense, Gainey is lucky at this point to have such a great scouting and player development that provides him with cheap quality young players, starting with a very cheap duo of goaltenders in Price and Halak which probably is the envy of many GMs around the NHL.

Overpaying for a bunch of reserve and depth players is not exactly genius-like. Also, it's not like these guys didn't live up to expectations (ex. Kovalev last season), they bring us exactly what they should be expected to, if not even more.

The results were there last season, and therefore Gainey at least deserves the benefit of the doubt; I don't think anyone is saying that he's a mediocre genereal manager. All I'm saying is that because of a few things like that (overpaying depth players, bringing-in players like Samsonov who obviously did not fill our needs, being very lucky quite a few times, the fact that for the most part all he had to do is wait, etc), I have very little to proclaim him one of the best in the NHL, even less a genius.

Again I'm not really criticizing Gainey, and he's done nothing that would make me consider him a bad general manager... I just don't see greatest yet. He showed patience in a rebuilding process... big deal, an answering machine could have done that... and has done well in a context of very low expectations. Now let's see over the next few years if he can keep the ball rolling, and make sure the Canadiens are competitive year after year. The easy part is done, now tough decisions will have to made every year, and the expectations will from now on be very high (he can no more afford to have a bunch of veteran under-achievers like Bonk, Samsonov, and Kovalev at the same time on the roster, and the media and fans won't be so forgiving if the Canadiens miss the playoffs even by one point).

I really don"t understand the pessimism.

Go look at the Stars. That IS his resume.

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/display_sta...gs.php?tmi=5404

Slow start establishing his system, creating his core and ironing out weaknesses. Some initial

struggles followed by 11 straight 90+ point years and 8 100+ point years and 10 playoff berths.

Two Finals appearances, One Stanley Cup, a Conference Final loss. The core of the Stars

remains from his days.

So now he has taken the Canadiens who had a high water mark of 90 points in the previous 9 years

(a mark the Stars have not dipped below in 12 years) to 104 points, a youthful core, no cap problems

and a Stanley Cup contender and this is not good enough for you because you want to credit Timmins

with the youth and Boivin for straightening out the organization. And that any patient man could have sat

by the phone and accomplished the same thing with the lowered expectation of the fan base. Is that right?

The guy has PROVEN to be a winner in junior, the NHL and now as an NHL GM and you still begrudgingly

at best give him credit?

He has proven to me enough through his resume and the success with his new job that I would not micromanage

what he does. He is not making deterimental moves towards their immediate cup run or future cup runs, so

I don't understand why a man with his resume is under such a skeptical eye.

He is not a Genius, but he is one of only 7 GMs with a cup on his resume in the NHL right now.

You look for something negative and you will find something negative. I don't really know what level of GM

you are looking for, but I am happy with who we have. I believe you are in the minority on this one my friend.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He showed patience in a rebuilding process... big deal, an answering machine could have done that...

Sorry dude, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one! To be a GM in Montreal is to be a GM in the TOUGHEST hockey market in the world (all right, all right! Toronto is pretty nasty too! ;) ). Not only do you have the fans who exepct you to pull rabbits out of your ass every year, but you've got the media hounding you at every turn. Asking you "when are we gonna see results of your 5 year plan?".

To ignore the fact that Gainey wasn't rattled by all the pressure he had to deal with in Montreal is simply ignoring the facts. Not many GM's have the patience to do what he did, and many of them would have made deals for the sake of making deals, and it would have slown down the teams overall progress!

Edited by Habsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don"t understand the pessimism.

Go look at the Stars. That IS his resume.

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/display_sta...gs.php?tmi=5404

Slow start establishing his system, creating his core and ironing out weaknesses. Some initial

struggles followed by 11 straight 90+ point years and 8 100+ point years and 10 playoff berths.

Two Finals appearances, One Stanley Cup, a Conference Final loss. The core of the Stars

remains from his days.

So now he has taken the Canadiens who had a high water mark of 90 points in the previous 9 years

(a mark the Stars have not dipped below in 12 years) to 104 points, a youthful core, no cap problems

and a Stanley Cup contender and this is not good enough for you because you want to credit Timmins

with the youth and Boivin for straightening out the organization. And that any patient man could have sat

by the phone and accomplished the same thing with the lowered expectation of the fan base. Is that right?

The guy has PROVEN to be a winner in junior, the NHL and now as an NHL GM and you still begrudgingly

at best give him credit?

He has proven to me enough through his resume and the success with his new job that I would not micromanage

what he does. He is not making deterimental moves towards their immediate cup run or future cup runs, so

I don't understand why a man with his resume is under such a skeptical eye.

He is not a Genius, but he is one of only 7 GMs with a cup on his resume in the NHL right now.

You look for something negative and you will find something negative. I don't really know what level of GM

you are looking for, but I am happy with who we have. I believe you are in the minority on this one my friend.

There's a difference between skeptimism and looking for faults, which really I'm not trying to do, and simply respecting the work of Bob Gainey as general manager without calling for genius. I think he's done a good job so far, although taking the easy long term route and being quite lucky at times (not that even the best don't get lucky every once in a while), but I don't think he's anything that remarkable since 2003 that another good general manager could not have done.

The fact is that most of our core players were already in the Canadiens organization when Bob Gainey came here; of course we can call him a genius for not trading away Mike Komisarek, Chris Higgins, and Tomas Plekanec for a bunch of ordinary veteran players or at best some rental players... personally I call that not being a complete moron, especially when trying to complete a rebuilding process. And still, it appears that Bob Gainey did try to trade away at least Chris Higgins (and probably more) to rent Marian Hossa, which I think would have been idiotic since we were nowhere near ready to make a serious run at the Stanley Cup.

Also, most of our great depth came from the efforts of Trevor Timmins and his scouting staff. Now, you can take the credit away from Timmins all you want, to me he's fully in charge of scouting, and I think he deserves all the credit because he's really the one making the final decisions. Similarly, if Alex Tanguay is a great asset for the Canadiens this season, I'll give all the credit to Bob Gainey... and not his boss Pierre Boivin, who in theory probably also made the final approval (just like Gainey with Timmins), but really doesn't get involved with trades. Besides, once again, I'm not about to call Gainey a mastermind for not being a complete moron, and trading away all our best prospects for very little in return.

Bob Gainey has been a good general manager, nothing more, nothing less. Overall, he didn't do anything completely stupid that cost us severely, but then again he didn't anything remarkable that made a huge difference. Mostly, he waited for goog youngsters to fill the lineup, and acquired a couple of players to fill in the void, like any decent GM would have done when his mandate was to take 5 years to complete a rebuilding process.

Now the rebuilding process is over, and Gainey must lead the Canadiens to years of being competitive. The teams looks great now, and he has prospects base to prosper; however some key decisions are ahead, and this is where we'll see how good he really is, especially since unlike his Dallas days, he won't be able the just throw money at his problems, or be able to afford trading away many good picks and prospects; the NHL has changed a lot since then, and Gainey must now deal with a salary cap and a league that has achieved great parity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry dude, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one! To be a GM in Montreal is to be a GM in the TOUGHEST hockey market in the world (all right, all right! Toronto is pretty nasty too! ;) ). Not only do you have the fans who exepct you to pull rabbits out of your ass every year, but you've got the media hounding you at every turn. Asking you "when are we gonna see results of your 5 year plan?".

To ignore the fact that Gainey wasn't rattled by all the pressure he had to deal with in Montreal is simply ignoring the facts. Not many GM's have the patience to do what he did, and many of them would have made deals for the sake of making deals, and it would have slown down the teams overall progress!

I'm quite sure Gainey was hired with the mandate to complete the rebuilding process, and not risk it all for ego or short term glory. Also, although there was unfair criticism from some of the fans and media, most people had very low expectations every year, which has all changed now. We've seen last season that at the first sight of winning, Gainey was reading to give away young players like Higgins for a playoff rental, even though in my opinion we just weren't ready.

However making a similar deal this summer for a top player would have made sense... thankfully, and Gainey deserves credit for that, he managed to add Tanguay, Lang, and Laraque without giving away a roster player. This is even better, and again I've said several times that I feel Gainey did a great job over the summer. My only minor criticism would be that he wasted 1.5 million of cap sapce on Brisebois, but that's not really a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, patience is the easiest thing to have, because you have to do nothing. In reality (and especially if that reality is being the GM of the Montreal Canadiens) that's not the case. Not when it involves such high stakes, and where a critical mass of mistakes gets you fired, even if your name is Bob Gainey.

To me, a genius is not a person who doesn't make mistakes (and I agree that Gainey's been particularly generous to some marginal depth players), that person would be called infallable. Nobody is that. But you have to admit that in the majority of cases, he's been quick to address his mistakes and cut his losses (Theodore, Samsonov, Audette, etc.) where many a GM would stick to his guns afraid to admit he was wrong. That is what i love about Gainey, that he absolutely takes the ego and the emotion out of the equation, and judges based on what he sees. Is he always right? No, but neither is Holland, and neither was Pollock, who WAS a genius.

We got the perfect man for the job, i think in that most of us agree on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I forgot to mention that I do think people are often unfair to Andre Savard and tend to belittle his accomplishments. For someone who didn't have the experience that Gainey had coming onto the job, he did a good job solidifying the prospects list, getting the team on the road to respectability, and ultimately being honest with himself and the franchise about his own limitations and HELPING bring back his replacement. Don't know about the rest of you, but in a similar situation, I'm not 100% sure that I'd have the wisdom to do the same. I also believe that if he hadn't laid down the first steps, Gainey NEVER would have agreed to come on board, because as much as he loves the Habs, he has a reputation to uphold as well.

I thought it was a great loss when he went to Pittsburgh, and even though I don't know the whole back story on that, I can't help but think perhaps the Canadiens could/should have done more to involve him and keep an asset like him around.

Edited by redondo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between skeptimism and looking for faults, which really I'm not trying to do, and simply respecting the work of Bob Gainey as general manager without calling for genius. I think he's done a good job so far, although taking the easy long term route and being quite lucky at times (not that even the best don't get lucky every once in a while), but I don't think he's anything that remarkable since 2003 that another good general manager could not have done.

The fact is that most of our core players were already in the Canadiens organization when Bob Gainey came here; of course we can call him a genius for not trading away Mike Komisarek, Chris Higgins, and Tomas Plekanec for a bunch of ordinary veteran players or at best some rental players... personally I call that not being a complete moron, especially when trying to complete a rebuilding process. And still, it appears that Bob Gainey did try to trade away at least Chris Higgins (and probably more) to rent Marian Hossa, which I think would have been idiotic since we were nowhere near ready to make a serious run at the Stanley Cup.

Also, most of our great depth came from the efforts of Trevor Timmins and his scouting staff. Now, you can take the credit away from Timmins all you want, to me he's fully in charge of scouting, and I think he deserves all the credit because he's really the one making the final decisions. Similarly, if Alex Tanguay is a great asset for the Canadiens this season, I'll give all the credit to Bob Gainey... and not his boss Pierre Boivin, who in theory probably also made the final approval (just like Gainey with Timmins), but really doesn't get involved with trades. Besides, once again, I'm not about to call Gainey a mastermind for not being a complete moron, and trading away all our best prospects for very little in return.

Bob Gainey has been a good general manager, nothing more, nothing less. Overall, he didn't do anything completely stupid that cost us severely, but then again he didn't anything remarkable that made a huge difference. Mostly, he waited for goog youngsters to fill the lineup, and acquired a couple of players to fill in the void, like any decent GM would have done when his mandate was to take 5 years to complete a rebuilding process.

Now the rebuilding process is over, and Gainey must lead the Canadiens to years of being competitive. The teams looks great now, and he has prospects base to prosper; however some key decisions are ahead, and this is where we'll see how good he really is, especially since unlike his Dallas days, he won't be able the just throw money at his problems, or be able to afford trading away many good picks and prospects; the NHL has changed a lot since then, and Gainey must now deal with a salary cap and a league that has achieved great parity.

First off, you cannot judge Gainey's decisions based on a report from Steve Simmons suggesting it was a done deal

to include Higgins in a deal for Marian Hossa.

As for being a complete moron. Hindsight is 20/20. Trading Plekanec when he was 22 years old would hardly have been like

dealing an elite prospect, and nobody would have batted an eye at the time. If he was included in the Kovalev deal instead of Balej

as has been rumoured, NOBODY would have been up in arms. Luck? smart? Call it what you want.

As for your analagy, with Timmins being the head of scouting why don't you credit him for the Tanguay deal if it is succesful

and blame Gainey if it does not work.

Being a GM is not all about player moves. And if scouting is responsible for the player moves (because Gainey ASKED

Trevor Timmins about Tanguay, Ribiero, Laraque etc I am sure) then what exactly is Gainey's job? The Habs don't need him,

just elevate Timmins and move on from there.

A player can score 130 pts and be the best player on the team and it does not make him a leader. Same with a scout.

A great GM needs to be a strong leader, somebody who can navigate landmines in the media, one that can earn the trust of

ownership, coach, players and fanbase, negotiate contracts, negotiate trades, deal with marketing the franchise, make major

decisions in the direction of the Canadiens. The Canadiens are a special entity and Gainey KNOWS how to run the team properly.

You gloss over more than half the job and minimize player moves as a product of his head scout. No wonder he has yet to gain your trust.

I expect nothing less than a Holland/Lamierello level resume will earn that respect.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that Gainey was the one who told the Boo-Birds to quit booing Brisebois for no-reason. He called them cowards, and other stuff that I don't remember, but I can tell you that had it not been Gainey, the Media would be asking for his head!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, you cannot judge Gainey's decisions based on a report from Steve Simmons suggesting it was a done deal

to include Higgins in a deal for Marian Hossa.

As for being a complete moron. Hindsight is 20/20. Trading Plekanec when he was 22 years old would hardly have been like

dealing an elite prospect and nobody would have batted an eye at the time. If he was included in the Kovalev deal instead of Balej

as has been rumoured NOBODY would have been up in arms. Luck, smart, call it what you want.

As for your analagy, with Timmins being the head of scouting why don't you credit him for the Tanguay deal if it is succesful

and blame Gainey if it does not work.

Being a GM is not all about player moves. And if scouting is responsible for the player moves (because Gainey ASKED

Trevor Timmins about Tanguay, Ribiero, Laraque etc I am sure) then what exactly is Gainey's job? The Habs don't need him,

just elevate Timmins and move on from there.

A player can score 130 pts and be the best player on the team and it does not make him a leader. Same with a scout.

A great GM needs to be a strong leader, somebody who can navigate landmines in the media, one that can earn the trust of

ownership, coach, players and fanbase, negotiate contracts, negotiate trades, deal with marketing the franchise, make major

decisions in the direction of the Canadiens. The Canadiens are a special entity and Gainey KNOWS how to run the team properly.

You gloss over more than half the job and minimize player moves as a product of his head scout. No wonder he has yet to gain your trust.

I expect nothing less than a Holland/Lamierello level resume will earn that respect.

In the midst of a rebuilding process, it is only normal to focus on amateur scouting. After all, at least half our regulars this season are products of the scouting efforts of Andre Savard and Trevor Timmins, and most of them will play key roles on the team's success.

We should give credit to Bob Gainey for recognizing the scouting skills of Trevor Timmins, and naming him director of player recruitment and development; a good manager knows to surround himself with quality people. However when it comes to scouting and player development, Timmins is doing a superb job, and the numerous quality young players we have in Montreal, Hamilton, and other leagues are a testament to the quality of his work; Bob Gainey probably didn't even know who Ryan McDonagh and Max Pacioretty until Timmins said "these are the guys I want".

And you're right, it looks today that Bob Gainey was the right man for the rebuilding process; Pierre Boivin needed an experienced and highly respected individual, both throughout the NHL and more specifically in Montreal, someone who could stand up to the media, and not crack under the pressure. These are more good traits of a good general manager, and also shows just how great Pierre Boivin is in role as President (he's doing a fantastic job in terms in marketing, giving the Canadiens back the respectability they once had, and instauring a Canadiens culture throughout the entire organization, similar to what they have built in Detroit).

This makes him a good general manager who was at the right place and time.. not a genius yet. Like I said, we'll see over the next few years whether Bob Gainey is an exceptional general manager because most of the focus is now shifting to him, and now the real general managing begins, not a simple rebuilding mandate in a can't-really-do-any-worse situation.

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.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...