Jump to content

Time for Gainey to go


jackp

Recommended Posts

What a dumb thread. Anybody supporting this should become a Leaf fan. Every GM makes mistakes. I don't think Bob has made many...

Ribero....not a team player..he had to go,

Streit...Is he worth that money? Not!

Ryder.... 4 Mil. Not?

Begin....Twilight of his career. Bob honored his request.

Komisarek...Boy does he look good for the leafs...Not.

Souray...Is he worth that money? Maybe.

Kovalev, Koivu, Tanguay...for Gomex, Gionta, Camallieri? Way to go Bob.

Price.... Maybe someday but rest assured he's better than the other options..remember Huet.

Now the major mistake was getting rid of Julien and being loyal to an inexperienced coach like Carbo. If kovalev would have been sent packing earlier the coach of the year would have belonged to the habs not to the team theat embarrassed us 12 games last year.

Overall...Good job Bob and hope you're hear till the end.

I have to say that I disagree with every single thing you said here. You might be happy to stick up with a very mediocre team, year after every f---ing year, but I'm not. And sure, things were easy for us in the 50's and 60's because we had the rights to the best Quebec players, but Pollock won in the 70's without those advantages, and even Savard won 2 Cups. Gainey's had 6 years and we're wondering if we're even going to make the bleeping playoffs. If I jumped the gun early and said he had to go, I meant by the end of this season if this team does nothing *again.* He's had his chance and though some here are happy with the job he's done, I'm NOT.

Football players have a saying when the losing team is trash talking them. "Scoreboard, baby, scoreboard." Well, that's what I'm saying about Gainey, "Scoreboard, baby, scoreboard." I'm sick and tired of all the rationalizations, empty promises, and misquided leadership. We want *the Cup,* pure and simple, and with Gainey at the helm, we're not even close!

One final thing... you called this a dumb thread. Have you ever considered that *not* questioning a

6-year non-performing team, might be considered even dumber in some circles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you have Grundman at 4 and Savard at 7 I no longer need to read this thread..... it was all explained right there

Perhaps you would deign to expound on your reasoning? The Habs won 2 Cups and played in an additinal losing final under Savard's tenure as gm. More significantly, they were almost always a force in the league. Our expectations (as fans) during his time was that we always felt we had a legitimate shot at the Cup. Perhaps you have some *facts* to discount this claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that some people simply dismiss the mere idea of Gainey's job being in question shows how Bob's work can be divisive.

For some, the Ribeiro trade is a blunder because we got nothing for him, to others just getting rid of Ribs was a good move. People forget that Bob could have still moved Ribeiro but at least get something worthwhile in return.

Same could be said about a lot of other moves Bob did. I think one of Bob's main strength is his focus, he knows where he wants to go and he's not scared to take the tough decisions needed to get in the direction he wants to take. He has follow-through, he doesnt go into a direction half-assed.

My main problem with Gainey is that he GMs the same way he played. Gainey was playing with abandon, he sacrificed his body. A GM needs to be greedier than that. Gainey wastes too many assets, and in the end it's does become detrimental to the organization. Hainsey, Beauchemin, Ribeiro, Souray, Streit, Ryder, Begin, Theodore, Garon/Huet, Perezhogin, Ivanans, Danis, Zednik, Komisarek, etc. The amount of assets that Bob lost or downgraded to nil is staggering. Might not mean a lot to fans who only live in the here and now; or people who'll find all sorts of justifications for each and every move; but the bottom line doesnt lie. In the grand scheme of thing, this is simply bad assets management. In the long run it hurts any franchise, especially when the opposite (getting something for nothing or upgrading through trades) happened so rarely.

Comparing Gainey to Houle is pointless and brings nothing to the discussion. Gainey came in a situation where André Savard had stockpiled prospects and picks and the team was rebuilding. Gainey has to be judged on the potential of the team he was given, which can never really be a fair judgement because potential is just speculation. But given that the team he was given in 2003 had missed the playoffs 4 seasons out of the 5 last, missing them only once in the past 5 years is an improvement. Question is: should the team have done better than only winning 1 game past the 1st round in those 4 playoffs years? I think the answer is yes. So for that part, Gainey's teams have underachieved. This is also where the combined net loss of all those wasted assets hurts. Gainey was wise enough to realize himself that his 5-year plan was a failure and he adjusted accordingly.

I think Bob at least deserved a chance to conduct his new plan to it's full completion. However, with a second chance comes more severe judgment. I'd give him this one last season to at least show that the team improved, so the success marker should be a good 2nd round showing. Anything less should be deemed a failure and only then should Gainey's departure realistically be put up for debate.

Really good post. Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew the underlying factors you'd be in favor of Ribs going for nothing, not even Niinimaa. But you don't and yet you still call on this like it was Gretzky who was traded for future considerations.

Last year the Habs had the same types of distractions in the dressing room, and just like the Ribs trade, those players are now gone. If you hate the moves, then so what, I'll take the opinion of a real GM over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm anytime.

You must be very young. Your posts are quite insulting. You can make your point without insulting people. Kozed's reasoning was sound, and did not deserve: "... over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm."

Neither did the thread I started deserve your put-down: "stupid thread." So far, we have 3 screenfuls of responses on the topic, some of them quite good. Anything that encourages spirited debate (even if I don't agree with all the responses) is by it's very nature helpful and informative. Perhaps you should take a look at JS Mill's essay, "On Liberty," especially the parts dealing with how one gains an informed opinion, as opposed to a prejudice. I'm certain you would find it quite helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good post. Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly.

Oh yee of little faith, you keep bringing up all the old arguments that we have rehashed many times, Guys get a life, those were the best moves he could make at the time. So respectfully or maybe not so respectfully I disagree

with both of you and probably always will, and wish you would both learn to grow up a little. what is done is done on to the next problem. I mean apparently Bob has never done anything that you guys agree with. Are you sure you are Habs fans? of course you are, we habs fans like to eat our young. Guys i have watched this team for 45 years and I think Bob has done a good job, we just haven't gotten the results we wanted. But that doesn't mean we should shoot everyone in the front office. hasn't there been enough change for a while? how about we shut up and watch what happens? 5 games don't make a season. :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ribs was hurting the team simply by being on it. Keeping him was not an option. I'm glad Gainey shipped him out. I applaud him for it.

We (at least those who havent drank the Kool-Aid) know now that it was a bunch of crock. Theo, Dag and Ribs together were trouble. Ironically, the same type of trouble a whole bunch of kids were last season: partying late and hard, arriving late or hung over to practices, ties to shady underground people, on-ice inconsistency, etc. Dont you find it somewhat mind-boggling that Gainey should be applauded for shipping those guys out, but a couple years later still wound up with the same problems from players who are, to this day, still on the team? That's a whole different can of worms though...

Theodore was hurting the team because of the non-stop off-ice troubles, huge contract, inability to adapt to the new rules post-lockout and ego. A real hurt. Dagenais was hurting the team just because he couldnt play. But Ribs had neither the off-ice non-stop distractions of Theodore nor the on-ice limitations of Dagenais. He was just cocky and easily influenced. Only a fool can still think that it was better to sacrifice his top-notch offensive skills just to get him off the team. I'd bet my bottom dollar even Gainey doesnt still believe that and would take that trade back. Because once isolated and cut off from Theo and Dag, Ribs could have easily been broken down and rebuilt into a top C. He was still just 25.

But that couldnt be done because the 3, 4 guys Gainey mistakenly thought would be his trusted core leaders, ie. Koivu, Rivet, Souray, just couldnt stand Ribeiro. Joé Juneau spilled the beans when he retired: Theo-Ribs and Koivu-Rivet (and those who gravitated around each side) had started hating each other as far back as 2002. So Gainey sided with the "leaders" and sent Ribeiro away. Ironically, all three of those guys failed Gainey so miserably he let two of them walk without as much as a second thought (Souray, Koivu) and traded Rivet after became a team distraction.

That's some cruel irony for you, compounded by the fact that the sacrifice of Ribs was ultimately in vain. Not only has he became the point-per-game C it always had been foreseeable he would become eventually; but he did so after getting traded for spare parts, to please guys who choked (Habs did better without them than with them), and at their turn were let go for nothing. All Gainey has to show now for the whole lot of them is Gorges and Pacioretty.

Again, if you look it from the strict angle of assets management -- rather than to keep deluding yourself with narrow-minded and childish players partisanship -- and add it to all the others: it gives a clear negative "balance sheet".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be very young. Your posts are quite insulting. You can make your point without insulting people. Kozed's reasoning was sound, and did not deserve: "... over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm."

Neither did the thread I started deserve your put-down: "stupid thread." So far, we have 3 screenfuls of responses on the topic, some of them quite good. Anything that encourages spirited debate (even if I don't agree with all the responses) is by it's very nature helpful and informative. Perhaps you should take a look at JS Mill's essay, "On Liberty," especially the parts dealing with how one gains an informed opinion, as opposed to a prejudice. I'm certain you would find it quite helpful.

Maybe pay attention because I didn't say that. :huh:

As for the other, it wasn't aimed at Koz, it was vague and included you.

Edited by Habitforming
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think he's just implying that Ribs was a locker room cancer, which we all know to be fact.

And how do we know this? I certainly heard all the *rumours* about "the three amigos," but I don't accept rumours as facts.

I personally *think* (as opposed to *know*) that Gainey got rid of Ribs because he believed him to be too soft a player. Hard-nosed grinders like Gainey was as a player, often have a hard time appreciating the "artistes" (french spelling intentional) of the game. Believe it or not, some people used to criticize the way Beliveau played, for god's sake. They would probably deny it now, but I was there and remember the criticism quite well. (Some called him lazy and not using his size effectively, especially in the latter part of his career.)

Having lived in Mississauga for the last 25 years, I used to shudder in disbelief to hear people criticizing Gretzky's "soft" play. Burke is proving this year that you don't win with all grinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackp, maybe you can explain to me the following comments of yours:

A.

While I realize it's still very early in the year, I think it's time for Gainey to go. The litany of mistakes has snowballed to the point where we look like we're gonna have a very bad team this year. Let's examine some facts:

The Carey Price saga. I don't mind that Gainey picked him as our number 5 pick. First round picks are never guaranteed. I DO mind that he stubbornly insists on proving that his pick was a good one by costing us an embarassing playoff loss, and game after game after game. Last night, the Oilers had 3 goals on 10 shots. Anyone who has ever played at any level, knows what it does to a team when your goalie is simply not there. The team starts to play badly so that by the end of the game, you can say it was the team's fault and not the goalie's. We outshot them 13-5 in the first and were down 1-0. And this is not a new phenomenon. Check last year's playoff stats against the Bruins. We outplayed them in the first periods more times than you would expect.

I was hopeful about this kid in the beginning of the season. Sure, most of the shots were hitting him and he was giving up rebounds on easy shots, but I thought, maybe that was his style - be big in the nets. Unfortunately, he's reverted back to form. This is not to say I think Halak is the solution. I'm just saying we have a big problem in goaltending and this is entirely Gainey's fault.

B.

Ryder was a perrenial 30 goal scorer *who had a bad year.* You don't give up on a guy for one bad year!!!

We should have kept Ryder at $4 million per year even though he had an abysmal season. Maybe it was his 3 goals and 5 assists in 21 playoff games?

Price on the other hand had a pretty bad half season. But he's only 22 so its time to move on?

Edited by Peter Puck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe pay attention because I didn't say that. :huh:

As for the other, it wasn't aimed at Koz, it was vague and included you.

Okay, I get it. Lost cause. Adversarial and personal in all debate. And "vague" is an understatement. Last reply from me to your posts.

PS Post #45 *did* come from you.

Edited by jackp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kozed the cool aid thing again? How about something original? Btw what is it you have in your koolaid cause this "depressed everything is black" attitude does not become you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, all three of those guys failed Gainey so miserably he let two of them walk without as much as a second thought (Souray, Koivu)

Not to nitpick but Souray was offered a contract. Bob offered him Hammer's contract, and one of the reason's Souray rejected the contract was because he didn't like that Bob basically said take it or leave it.

I believe he even signed for less in Edmonton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackp, maybe you can explain to me the following comments of yours:

We should have kept Ryder at $4 million per year even though he had an abysmal season. Maybe it was his 3 goals and 5 assists in 21 playoff games?

Price on the other hand had a pretty bad half season. But he's only 22 so its time to move on?

RYDER: It was *one* season - his *only* bad season. How often have you seen a guy play poorly one year and turn it around the next? (Can you say Alex Kovalev? Played great 2 years ago after a year when everyone was calling for his head.)

PRICE: I don't think it's time to move on for Price. *BUT,* why is he playing when he's not doing the job. Isn't *HAMILTON* where future prospects are supposed to develop? Since when has his development become more important than the team?!!

Price supporters like to say last half season was his only poor showing, conveniently forgetting the implosion against Philly in the playoffs 2 years ago. Price was the main reason why we lost that series (just as he was the most important reason why we beat Boston the series before). Even Red Fisher said that Halak deserved the starting job coming into the playoffs, but Gainey thought it more important for Price to get playoff experience than winning that damn series. Have you ever seen a goalie playing so poorly *NOT* being replaced during a series? I haven't. Contrast that with Boudreau in Washington pulling Theo after *one* bad game.

No, the Price fiasco is the straw that broke the camel's back as far as my attitude toward Gainey is concerned. And just how many years are *you* prepared to sacrifice to "develop* Price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be very young. Your posts are quite insulting. You can make your point without insulting people. Kozed's reasoning was sound, and did not deserve: "... over some fanatical ravings of an armchair gm."

Neither did the thread I started deserve your put-down: "stupid thread." So far, we have 3 screenfuls of responses on the topic, some of them quite good. Anything that encourages spirited debate (even if I don't agree with all the responses) is by it's very nature helpful and informative. Perhaps you should take a look at JS Mill's essay, "On Liberty," especially the parts dealing with how one gains an informed opinion, as opposed to a prejudice. I'm certain you would find it quite helpful.

:clap:

I'm not surprised your thread got those kind of replies jackp.

There's certain dogmatic ideas that float around in the Habs fandom. The idea that Ribeiro was a rotten apple and that trading him was addition by subtraction is one of those dogmas. Questionning Gainey is another. There's a whole bunch of them around.

Those dogmas easily get supporters. It's easy to just adopt some pre-existing, emanating opinion than to for your own. It usually instantly make you belong to a group of people who agree with you, since they've taken the same shortcut and adopted the same beliefs floating around.

Trying to think by yourself and come up with your own opinion, perspective and judgment on things is harder, takes more time and there's not guarantee anyone will agree with you. It actually pretty much guarantees that you'll get dismissed or accused of heresy by those who just skipped the whole "using your brain" part and went straight to expressing and defending "their" opinion.

It's for everything: politics, religion, philosophy and definitely also true for hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kozed the cool aid thing again? How about something original? Btw what is it you have in your koolaid cause this "depressed everything is black" attitude does not become you.

Is it too much to ask to keep personal comments out of discussion? Just because a person doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he deserves to be personally insulted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:clap:

I'm not surprised your thread got those kind of replies jackp.

There's certain dogmatic ideas that float around in the Habs fandom. The idea that Ribeiro was a rotten apple and that trading him was addition by subtraction is one of those dogmas. Questionning Gainey is another. There's a whole bunch of them around.

Those dogmas easily get supporters. It's easy to just adopt some pre-existing, emanating opinion than to for your own. It usually instantly make you belong to a group of people who agree with you, since they've taken the same shortcut and adopted the same beliefs floating around.

Trying to think by yourself and come up with your own opinion, perspective and judgment on things is harder, takes more time and there's not guarantee anyone will agree with you. It actually pretty much guarantees that you'll get dismissed or accused of heresy by those who just skipped the whole "using your brain" part and went straight to expressing and defending "their" opinion.

It's for everything: politics, religion, philosophy and definitely also true for hockey.

Yet, I do enjoy the discourse and have learned some things from some of the disagreeing opinions. I just get somewhat uncomfortable with the personal insults though (and not just those directed at me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to nitpick but Souray was offered a contract. Bob offered him Hammer's contract, and one of the reason's Souray rejected the contract was because he didn't like that Bob basically said take it or leave it.

I believe he even signed for less in Edmonton.

If I recall correctly, Bob offered less to Souray than what he gave Hamrlik. I remember the whole -28 was part of the reason why Gainey didnt tried really hard to keep Shelly.

I think this season Souray makes around 6.5M, not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I get it. Lost cause. Adversarial and personal in all debate. And "vague" is an understatement. Last reply from me to your posts.

PS Post #45 *did* come from you.

I made the point in question bold. Maybe that wasn't clear enough?

I never said this was a "Stupid thread"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kozed the cool aid thing again? How about something original? Btw what is it you have in your koolaid cause this "depressed everything is black" attitude does not become you.

It's prob the first time ever I use the expression "Kool Aid" so I dont know why you say "again"... But it expressed the idea I just expanded that there's a bunch of preconceived ideas floating around that nobody can second-guess without being treated like a heaten and burned at the stake.

The whole Ribeiro saga is one of them. Every time his names comes up, you'll always get the same broken record repeating the same old tired lines. "Ribs was bad he needed to go... Ribs was bad he needed to go... Ribs was bad he needed to go..." Trying to debate such topics sometimes feels like Leo Ryan must have felt investigating Jonestown in 78. Lonely, dangerous and hopeless. So I dont think "Kool Aid" is such a far-fetched reference here...

As for the tone of my post, it should come off as negative as it was. Redemption is as simple as a good 2nd round showing. But seeing that 5 years have gone by, all those players lost for nothing and no ground won doesnt look good. I dont think it's depressing, and not everything is black, but it does looks wasteful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, I do enjoy the discourse and have learned some things from some of the disagreeing opinions. I just get somewhat uncomfortable with the personal insults though (and not just those directed at me).

Annoying because it's distracting and it's easy to get suckered into subjectively personalizing the debate rather than sticking to the object of the argument, but it's part of the game I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annoying because it's distracting and it's easy to get suckered into subjectively personalizing the debate rather than sticking to the object of the argument, but it's part of the game I guess.

Way too easy, I'll leave that one for a rainy day ^_^

As far as the personal stuff, I disagree. I never specified anything to any individual, it was a vague statement to all the people that think thier ideals for the team is the best option. If it's easier to accept, consider it a reminder why you are on a forum and not signing the dotted line in an NHL gm's office on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see...

Riberio - dumb trade. He was not that bad, but more importantly, the timing and return was a joke.

Price - I don't want to see him traded, but Gainey has to get over the man crush and start treating him as a young goalie who should earn his ice time.

Kovalev - I like the guy, but I don't miss him that much.

The new first line - I like them. I think they are better then koivu, Tanguay, and Kovalev. They also work hard, which is something we need.

Komi - Not worth the money.. I don't miss him.

Gainey? Well I think this is his last chance. I am not crazy about our team right now, but I will give him 20 more games to see how they gel. The real issue is that our prospects are not breaking out. If a couple of our D and forward prospects would breakout and become rising stars in the league, this team would be great. Unfortunately, our young guys are not getting the job done. The first line can't win us every game themselves.

Oh.. while Carbo might not have been a great coach, he was not the problem. Gainey did even worse with those clowns last year and our new experienced coach is making some of the same kind of calls as Carbo. You can change the coaches as much as you want, but until you get a group of players to pull together and play better as a whole then as individuals, you are not winning the cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it's funny that people keep bringing up the Riberio trade and saying it was bad. It's like they completely deleted the image in their head of him rolling around on the ice as if he had been shot. Only to get up laugh and wink at the other team.

Edited by Hab4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it's funny that people keep bringing up the Riberio trade and saying it was bad. It's like they completely deleted the image in their head of him rolling around on the ice as if he had been shot. Only to get up laugh and wink at the other team.

I also have the image of a certain Raymond Bourque in the playoffs of 91, laying on the ice for 10 minutes as if he had his neck broke, drawing a penalty to the Habs only to pop up on his skates and wink at his bench once he had got the rest he wanted.

So talk about something blown out of proportion. More telling about Ribs' detractors and Ribeiro himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have the image of a certain Raymond Bourque in the playoffs of 91, laying on the ice for 10 minutes as if he had his neck broke, drawing a penalty to the Habs only to pop up on his skates and wink at his bench once he had got the rest he wanted.

So talk about something blown out of proportion. More telling about Ribs' detractors and Ribeiro himself. 

You said that most of the players we lost could be explained for, but that the combination of them all meant that Gainey was wasting a lot of assets.

Ribeiro didn't just fake an injury. He caused trouble and was involved in numerous bad news stories for his entire tenure with the team. All of it adds up. He fakes an injury one day, he fights with the Captain the next day, then the next day he tells some journalist that "if Ryder had buried half the chances I set up for him..." then he has the reputation for always being on his cell phone at practice, being a pretty boy, etc..... Then there's the way he played IN the games. Lazy, soft, inconsistent.

The guy was nothing but trouble. He was never going to amount to anything in Montreal.

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...