Habs vs Sens...

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Souray was a mistake, but Bob was trying to get his team into the playoffs - possibly with an eye to attracting future UFAs. I'm with BTH on that. Komisarek could not have been dealt. Gainey simply could NOT throw in the towel on Year 100, no matter what. He had to make the dance and not a human being alive would have done differently in his shoes.

Wamsley, we DO have to bear in mind that all moves relating to Lang and Tanguay had to do with going for broke in a season when practically everyone involved with hockey predicted that the Habs would contend. Under the circumstances, Bob did what most people probably would support, in principle: sacrifice picks and problematic young assets (Grabs) in order to upgrade for a realistic Cup run.

That it didn't work isn't really Bob's fault, and those moves should be discounted in terms of assessing his 'long term vision.' What happened there was that he was shifting paradigms - going from builder to the logic of 'win now' - which is something that every GM needs to do sooner or later. Again, didn't work, but it doesn't mean he is or was confused.

You're right about the Streit/Huet inconsistency - I said at the time that dealing Huet was dumb - but I guess Bob figured he could re-sign Streit, or else that Huet was redundant given Price's strong performance. I don't know, to me these are specific decisions, more or less defensible given the facts at the time (well, not Huet), more than indicators of long-term vision or lack thereof. Bob probably figured that Streit was a moderately useful guy to keep for a Cup run given his versatility, while Huet had been decisively supplanted by Price. Alas, another wrong decision. But not necessarily a sign of confusion.

Having said that, I remain ennervated by the Gainey regime's inability to develop elite talent, period. Long-term vision is utlimately useless if your young players are mediocre: that has become the basic tragedy of the Gainey regime, and explains our present situation much more than managerial confusion or lack of vision.

In any case: Bergeron could be that extra little ingredient from the blueline that gets us a couple of PP goals and edges us over into the W column. Lots to be said for staying cool for a bit longer.

Edited October 18, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Nilan25]

What truly puzzles me is Dagostini and Max Pac in all this. They have regressed, remember when they first came up?

[Wamsley01]

Wamsley, we DO have to bear in mind that all moves relating to Lang and Tanguay had to do with going for broke in a season when practically everyone involved with hockey predicted that the Habs would contend. Under the circumstances, Bob did what most people probably would support, in principle: sacrifice picks and problematic young assets (Grabs) in order to upgrade for a realistic Cup run.

That it didn't work isn't really Bob's fault, and those moves should be discounted in terms of assessing his 'long term vision.'

You're right about the Streit/Huet inconsistency - I said at the time that dealing Huet was dumb - but I guess Bob figured he could re-sign Streit, or else that Huet was redundant given Price's strong performance. I don't know, to me these are specific decisions, more or less defensible given the facts at the time (well, not Huet), more than indicators of long-term vision or lack thereof. Bob probably figured that Streit was a moderately useful guy to keep for a Cup run given his versatility, while Huet had been decisively supplanted by Price.

Having said that, I remain ennervated by the Gainey regime's inability to develop elite talent, period. Long-term vision is utlimately useless if your young players are mediocre: that has become the basic tragedy of the Gainey regime.

Lang, yes. I didn't believe that Tanguay was a rental when they got him, did you?

And if it was a go for broke season, why did he not deal more young assets at the deadline? Instead he was conservative

and made a small move for Schneider. Why didn't he try to remake the roster by dealing Komisarek or Higgins, McDonagh

and Valentenko?

THIS is my problem with the recently inconsistent vision. 12 months earlier with a legit cup run in sight he deals a veteran

backup goalie for a pick and takes a shot with two inexperienced goaltenders. But will not part with Higgins for Hossa because

he is a cornerstone piece. Where was the go for broke attitude then?

All of these moves lack consistency, where the previous five seasons was marked by consistent decisions.

I supported the decision to keep Higgins and not go after Hossa because I believed in the vision, but somewhere when the vision

changed it splintered the consistent thinking and brought upon contradictions in the construction.

[BTH]

Lang, yes. I didn't believe that Tanguay was a rental when they got him, did you?

And if it was a go for broke season, why did he not deal more young assets at the deadline? Instead he was conservative

and made a small move for Schneider. Why didn't he try to remake the roster by dealing Komisarek or Higgins, McDonagh

and Valentenko?

THIS is my problem with the recently inconsistent vision. 12 months earlier with a legit cup run in sight he deals a veteran

backup goalie for a pick and takes a shot with two inexperienced goaltenders. But will not part with Higgins for Hossa because

he is a cornerstone piece. Where was the go for broke attitude then?

All of these moves lack consistency, where the previous five seasons was marked by consistent decisions.

I supported the decision to keep Higgins and not go after Hossa because I believed in the vision, but somewhere when the vision

changed it splintered the consistent thinking and brought upon contradictions in the construction.

The reason was precisely because he had already made those moves at the start of the season. He had spent our cap space and young assets on hauling in Lang, Tanguay and Laraque. Mid-season, our PP was struggling so he traded picks for Schneider.

All season he was going for it.

There weren't many opportunities there for us at the deadline. We had our team, it just wasn't healthy.

Why not deal Higgins, Komisarek or McDonagh? Because at the time, these players were in our future plans. He did not know that Komisarek would hold out for a higher offer. The mistake there was not signing him sooner, not keeping him.

But Higgins and McDonagh were traded just a few months later? Well, for Higgins, you've gotta factor in the fact that he stagnated. He appeared to be a core piece at the time of the Hossa rumours. After last season, he appeared to be a third line forward. McDonagh should not have been traded period.

[BCHabnut]

habs suck.

that is all

[Wamsley01]

The reason was precisely because he had already made those moves at the start of the season. He had spent our cap space and young assets on hauling in Lang, Tanguay and Laraque. Mid-season, our PP was struggling so he traded picks for Schneider.

All season he was going for it.

There weren't many opportunities there for us at the deadline. We had our team, it just wasn't healthy.

Why not deal Higgins, Komisarek or McDonagh? Because at the time, these players were in our future plans. He did not know that Komisarek would hold out for a higher offer. The mistake there was not signing him sooner, not keeping him.

But Higgins and McDonagh were traded just a few months later? Well, for Higgins, you've gotta factor in the fact that he stagnated. He appeared to be a core piece at the time of the Hossa rumours. After last season, he appeared to be a third line forward. McDonagh should not have been traded period.

You just said that HE HAD HIS TEAM and it wasn't healthy.

Isn't that in stark contrast to what he did 4 months later? How do you make the assessment that your team needs no changes

and then gut it? How can you say that he assessed that injuries were a factor, then not make that assesment when you play

the four playoff games without Markov and Tanguay?

So I am supposed to believe that he soured on the core over the final 20-25 games SO BADLY that he blew it up, but refused

to do so at the deadline?

I am not buying it, sorry. It wreaks of panic, because if he methodically had decided that this team was not up to par, then he

doesn't fire Carbo because it isn't his fault (remember he had just proclaimed him his best move), it was the shitty core he ejected.

Massive inconsistency from a man who was consistent for the majority of his career.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Lang, yes. I didn't believe that Tanguay was a rental when they got him, did you?

And if it was a go for broke season, why did he not deal more young assets at the deadline? Instead he was conservative

and made a small move for Schneider. Why didn't he try to remake the roster by dealing Komisarek or Higgins, McDonagh

and Valentenko?

THIS is my problem with the recently inconsistent vision. 12 months earlier with a legit cup run in sight he deals a veteran

backup goalie for a pick and takes a shot with two inexperienced goaltenders. But will not part with Higgins for Hossa because

he is a cornerstone piece. Where was the go for broke attitude then?

All of these moves lack consistency, where the previous five seasons was marked by consistent decisions.

I supported the decision to keep Higgins and not go after Hossa because I believed in the vision, but somewhere when the vision

changed it splintered the consistent thinking and brought upon contradictions in the construction.

Higgins for Hossa...yeah, but that would have been moving a (perceived) BIG young piece for a short-term rental. It woud have been defensible; but I don't see it as self-evident.

We agree that moving Huet was mistake, but obviously Bob truly believed that Price was the Golden Child. He was wrong. But again, that doesn't speak to confused vision.

Tanguay was a long-term move, but I believe that once the decision was made to change the core, Tanguay no longer looked like a fit. He's too much like Gomez. We were better off with a scorer, i.e., Cammalleri.

Here's the real difference between us on this. I don't see 'vision' as an all or nothing proposition. 'Going for broke' doesn't necessarily mean decimating the team's young core for two months of short-term help. It means moving selected assets and picks for targeted players who address specific weaknesses. For Year 100 Bob brought in a #2 C, a proven scoring winger, and the league's most feared enforcer, each move designed to relieve specific problems. Meanwhile, he retained the Komisareks, Plekanecs, and Higgins of the world. Seemed like pretty coherent thinking to me.

The *problem* - the awful, shattering problem - is that when Year 100 went bust, he could not do what normal logic would have required, which was moving out a lot of those impending UFAs for assets. That has nothing to do with Gainey and everything to do with the specific, bizarre circumstances of the Montreal Canadiens as an organization at that particular historical moment. No GM could have blown it all up in midstream last year. It would have meant missing the playoffs and therefore career suicide. If there is confused vision here, it's not Gainey's, but rather the collective reality of all things :hlogo:

I saw all this at the time. And that was one reason why last year's collapse made me so sick to my stomach. It meant the end of the Gainey Rebuild with almost nothing to show for it.

But again I'm not convinced it speaks to confusion on the GMs part. It's more a mix of a few questionable decisions and bad luck, and - mostly - bad player development. Execution has been the problem more than vision IMHO. Not that it makes a difference, we're still in the same old crapper.

[BTH]

You just said that HE HAD HIS TEAM and it wasn't healthy.

Isn't that in stark contrast to what he did 4 months later? How do you make the assessment that your team needs no changes

and then gut it? How can you say that he assessed that injuries were a factor, then not make that assesment when you play

the four playoff games without Markov and Tanguay?

So I am supposed to believe that he soured on the core over the final 20-25 games SO BADLY that he blew it up, but refused

to do so at the deadline?

I am not buying it, sorry. It wreaks of panic, because if he methodically had decided that this team was not up to par, then he

doesn't fire Carbo because it isn't his fault (remember he had just proclaimed him his best move), it was the shitty core he ejected.

Massive inconsistency from a man who was consistent for the majority of his career.

These moves were to save his own job. Just like the move he'll make any month now involving our 1st rounder for Patrick Sharp is to save his own job.

Nothing since the Carbonneau firing can be judged as moves made by the same man. The guy is desperate.

[Wamsley01]

Higgins for Hossa...yeah, but that would have been moving a (perceived) BIG young piece for a short-term rental. It woud have been defensible; but I don't see it as self-evident.

We agree that moving Huet was mistake, but obviously Bob truly believed that Price was the Golden Child. He was wrong. But again, that doesn't speak to confused vision.

Tanguay was a long-term move, but I believe that once the decision was made to change the core, Tanguay no longer looked like a fit. He's too much like Gomez. We were better off with a scorer, i.e., Cammalleri.

Here's the real difference between us on this. I don't see 'vision' as an all or nothing proposition. 'Going for broke' doesn't necessarily mean decimating the team's young core for two months of short-term help. It means moving selected assets and picks for targeted players who address specific weaknesses. For Year 100 Bob brought in a #2 C, a proven scoring winger, and the league's most feared enforcer, each move designed to relieve specific problems. Meanwhile, he retained the Komisareks, Plekanecs, and Higgins of the world. Seemed like pretty coherent thinking to me.

The *problem* - the awful, shattering problem - is that when Year 100 went bust, he could not do what normal logic would have required, which was moving out a lot of those impending UFAs for assets. That has nothing to do with Gainey and everything to do with the specific, bizarre circumstances of the Montreal Canadiens as an organization at that particular historical moment. No GM could have blown it all up in midstream last year. It would have meant missing the playoffs and therefore career suicide. If there is confused vision here, it's not Gainey's, but rather the collective reality of all things :hlogo:

I saw all this at the time. And that was one reason why last year's collapse made me so sick to my stomach. It meant the end of the Gainey Rebuild with almost nothing to show for it.

But again I'm not convinced it speaks to confusion on the GMs part. It's more a mix of a few questionable decisions and bad luck, and - mostly - bad player development. Execution has been the problem more than vision IMHO. Not that it makes a difference, we're still in the same old crapper.

To me that is short term thinking. It does not matter why he did what he did, or if it is justifiable or not.

He hindered the future development of the franchise for ONE SEASON. He fired a good friend, he held onto players he had no

interest in keeping all because he was afraid to get fired? Well, that thinking may get him fired anyway. So what is the point?

Now if he gets fired he has handcuffed the incoming GM. I expected Gainey was stronger than that. Your theory would imply that

he was willing to ruin his reputation to keep his job. That is JFJ, corporate ass kissing management, and if you are right, this team

is toast! I live in Toronto, and the minute jersey sales, ticket sales and appeasing the media and the fanbase begin, all hope is lost.

I pray to god that this team finds its groove and Gainey made the right personnel decisions, because if they don't being a Habs fan

will not be enjoyable for the next 5 seasons.

These moves were to save his own job. Just like the move he'll make any month now involving our 1st rounder for Patrick Sharp is to save his own job.

Nothing since the Carbonneau firing can be judged as moves made by the same man. The guy is desperate.

THEN HE NEEDS TO GO NOW! I was disturbed by the Carbo firing at the time, it didn't seem like a Gainey move, and everything

has digressed from then into mass confusion on my part.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Wamsley01

[BTH]

THEN HE NEEDS TO GO NOW!

Maybe. Certainly a GM is not able to function when he is thinking about his own success instead of the team's.

But who will replace him? Should we fire him first and look for a candidate second? Is DemonGainey worse than whoever's out there that could fill the post?

[Wamsley01]

Maybe. Certainly a GM is not able to function when he is thinking about his own success instead of the team's.

But who will replace him? Should we fire him first and look for a candidate second? Is DemonGainey worse than whoever's out there that could fill the post?

In all honesty, if the GM is going to bend to the corporate will of the team, it is of ZERO importance who the GM is.

So I have to pray that you are wrong, but the only thing that makes sense is that conclusion.

[BTH]

In all honesty, if the GM is going to bend to the corporate will of the team, it is of ZERO importance who the GM is.

So I have to pray that you are wrong, but the only thing that makes sense is that conclusion.

I used to trust him. He has the respect of almost everyone that has dealt with him.

But I no longer trust him. I'm CONVINCED that we're just weeks away from a trade of something like Sergei Kostitsyn, Pacioretty and a 1st for Sharp or Frolov. After seeing McDonagh get traded, I wouldn't be surprised to see him move Subban either.

The only one that is safe is Price.

[Habsy]

These moves were to save his own job. Just like the move he'll make any month now involving our 1st rounder for Patrick Sharp is to save his own job.

Nothing since the Carbonneau firing can be judged as moves made by the same man. The guy is desperate.

I don't believe that for a second. The recent sale of the team gave Bob and Pierre Boivin several million dollars each in bonuses. Bob has the cake to simply walk away from the team. He can retire comfortably, or look to new challenges like a job for the league in New York.

[bar]

Woooa here boys, you're putting the horse before the cart you're speculating what Gainey is thinking based on what BTH THINKS..no offense to you BTH, but there's a reason he's a GM and you're not. It's easy to assume we know what he should have done, when we really do not know what he tried. These wild speculations are getting out of hands in the era of fantasy GMs.

Edited October 18, 2009 by bar

[Wamsley01]

I used to trust him. He has the respect of almost everyone that has dealt with him.

But I no longer trust him. I'm CONVINCED that we're just weeks away from a trade of something like Sergei Kostitsyn, Pacioretty and a 1st for Sharp or Frolov. After seeing McDonagh get traded, I wouldn't be surprised to see him move Subban either.

The only one that is safe is Price.

If that happens I will throw up my arms and return to the apathy I followed them with in 2000.

I watched every game, but didn't give a shit what the final score was because the only hope I had was

for 2005-2010. The only problem is that I have now seen that fall apart.

So I am praying that this team figures shit out over the next 2-3 weeks. I don't want to comprehend

anything else.

[Wamsley01]

Woooa here boys, you're putting the horse before the cart you're speculating what Gainey is thinking based on what BTH THINKS..no offense to you BTH, but there's a reason he's a GM and you're not. It's easy to assume we know what he should have done, when we really do not know what he tried. These wild speculations are getting out of hands in the era of fantasy GMs.

I am not saying what he is saying is 100% true, but I have a ton of questions that I have posed over the last 4 months that

have not been answered and would be answered with his explanation.

There are TWO answers.

1. BTH's explanation

2. Gainey is crazy like a fox and this group of players is a really good team.

I am praying like hell for 2, because 1 is too depressing.

[BTH]

I don't believe that for a second. The recent sale of the team gave Bob and Pierre Boivin several million dollars each in bonuses. Bob has the cake to simply walk away from the team. He can retire comfortably, or look to new challenges like a job for the league in New York.

1) There's no such thing as too much money.

2) Maybe he loves his job.

3) Some people hate to get fired. Mike Keenan said recently on OTR that it was the worst experience, and he never got used to it.

4) Maybe he's become attached to the team he's built and wants to stick around to finish the job he started.

etc....

I think that we can agree that Gainey does not want to be fired. He will do what is in his power to avoid being fired.

All GMs are well-off, yet we've seen this story before.

[Habsy]

1) There's no such thing as too much money.

2) Maybe he loves his job.

3) Some people hate to get fired. Mike Keenan said recently on OTR that it was the worst experience, and he never got used to it.

4) Maybe he's become attached to the team he's built and wants to stick around to finish the job he started.

etc....

I think that we can agree that Gainey does not want to be fired. He will do what is in his power to avoid being fired.

All GMs are well-off, yet we've seen this story before.

Then we've come full circle, because that's the nature of the business. GM's and coaches, hired to be fired.

[bar]

Or the one thing that happened this season was Markov going down in the first game, and he was the lynch pin to gaineys vision and the house of cards come tumbling down.

I'm not one to go with the trade a player before the deadline cause he's gonna leave as a FA. You play to win the game...we've all heard that fantastic quote now a billion times but it's true, when you punch your ticket to the playoffs anything can happen. I for one, respect a GM that's not willing to trade a player 'just to get value'.

[BTH]

Woooa here boys, you're putting the horse before the cart you're speculating what Gainey is thinking based on what BTH THINKS..no offense to you BTH, but there's a reason he's a GM and you're not. It's easy to assume we know what he should have done, when we really do not know what he tried. These wild speculations are getting out of hands in the era of fantasy GMs.

I don't have any hockey problems with his decisions. There were valid reasons for firing Carbo and valid reasons for replacing the core.

But as Wamsley said:

*The Carbo firing came soon after Gainey called bringing in Guy his best move.

*He intended to compete for the Stanley Cup with our core, and held onto our 10 free agents at the deadline in order to make a run, yet ditched them all a few months later. ("We do not know what he tried..." We KNOW that he did not try to bring back Koivu or Tanguay, that he took his offer to Kovalev off the table after a couple of hours, and that he did not make offers to any of out other free agents except Komisarek. My point is that he had no intention of bringing back the core going into free agency.)

That is inconsistent and the conclusion that I have come to it that - once we saw that his 5-year plan was collapsing around him, he made moves out of panic to buy him some time.

Gainey seems to have done a complete 180 in his philosophy since his Cup contending team bombed. It is speculation, for sure. Not "wild."

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

OK. Has Gainey been more-or-less coherent in his thinking? That's the fascinating question Wamsley raises.

Until 2008, he was building with youth. Specific mistakes (not trading Huet and Souray) are explicable as compromises with the basic vision, based on specific calculations at the time, rather than out-and-out contradictions or confusions. After all, there ARE short-term goals as well. Bottom line is, the plot seemed pretty coherent until 2008.

After 07-08, he changed visions. The team looking like a contender, in the summer of 08 he made a series of moves designed to bolster specific weaknesses. Again: no real confusion, no real contradiction. That's how it's done. At some point, building stops and 'going for it' begins.

In 08-09 he saw his new vision through to the bitter end by acquiring Schneider and hoping the team could get healthy and get its psychology in order. That's not confusion, it's consistency. It was also disastrous, and Wamsley can say it makes Gainey a corporate peon, but Gainey isn't God. He works in the real world. In the real world, the Habs could not simply throw in the towel in February of Year 100 . Period. I understand Wamsley's disappointment, but I don't believe that anybody would have done differently.

Firing Carbo was also in no way inconsistent. It made sense given the short-term objectives of 2008-09 - the team had by all accounts quit on Carbo. So they needed a change to have any chance. It also made sense according to the longer-term developmental logic. Yes, the original vision was that the young players would become 'Carbo's team' and blossom under his tutelage. Unfortunately almost every young player of the Carbo-Gainey era turned out to be a disappointment, so clearly something was awry on that front. No inconsistency at all, then. In fact, the Martin-Boucher structure seems deliberately designed to address the abysmal failings of the previous coaching regimes on this front. This amounts to correcting mistakes, not 'inconsistency.'

There have been a LOT of mistakes. Carbo. Ribeiro. Souray. Huet. Not negotiating with RFAs. Etc. But that's a problem of execution, not vision.

Wamsley points out that IF the 08-09 team really was a contender on paper, then Bob should have kept it together; doing otherwise was, again, inconsistent. But I say no. Gainey may simply, and quite reasonably, have concluded that the window for that particular core - Koivu in particular - was closed or due to close. There is NO inconsistency in saying, 'these players can do it this year,' while also saying, 'if they don't win, they are too old to re-sign for another 2-3 years.' Players change and decline. This may be why Bob talked so much about getting younger when he signed all those UFAs. 2008-09 was Saku Koivu's last chance.

Once you replace your #1 C, you can reasonably change other parts to fit. Which is what happened. No real inconsistency there either.

The difficulty is in discerning the vision for the 2009-10 season and going forward. Are we built to 'win now?' Or is Bob quietly trying another rebuild, this time with the new core in place of the old one, with Pacioretty, D'agostini, Weber, Subaan, etc., supposed to play the roles of Higgins, Pleks, Komisarek, etc.? This is the first time in the Gainey era that there does not seem to be a very compelling vision either way. This team could only 'win now' if everything went right (which it already hasn't). And the young talent seems far too weak to represent any sort of convincing 'rebuild.' But if there is confusion here it's of very recent vintage. And in fact, I don't think there *is* confusion. What there is, is a strained attempt to paper over the complete and utter failure of the first rebuild in terms of developing elite talent.

The real issue is that neither of the earlier visions worked. The pre-2008 vision failed to yield real elite players. The 2008-09 vision failed to yield a winner. So now what?

I agree that NOW Bob may be flying by the seat of his pants. But it's not through lack of vision. It's through the failure of those visions and the limited hand that he's been left to play as a result.

Small difference, but interesting to ponder.

As for Bob's motives? Come on. The guy wants to win and believes he can: that's why we stays on. I don't believe for one instant that that attribute of Gainey's personality has changed one iota.

Edited October 18, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Sir_Boagalott]

wow, PJ Stock almost made me puke with what he just said on After Hours: "going back to last year including the playoffs, Price has won 2 of his last 13 starts. :puke:

[Wamsley01]

OK. Has Gainey been more-or-less coherent in his thinking? That's the fascinating question Wamsley raises.

Until 2008, he was building with youth. Specific mistakes (not trading Huet and Souray) are explicable as compromises with the basic vision, based on specific calculations at the time, rather than out-and-out contradictions or confusions. After all, there ARE short-term goals as well. Bottom line is, the plot seemed pretty coherent until 2008.

After 07-08, he changed visions. The team looking like a contender, in the summer of 08 he made a series of moves designed to bolster specific weaknesses. Again: no real confusion, no real contradiction. That's how it's done. At some point, building stops and 'going for it' begins.

In 08-09 he saw his new vision through to the bitter end by acquiring Schneider and hoping the team could get healthy and get its psychology in order. That's not confusion, it's consistency. It was also disastrous, and Wamsley can say it makes Gainey a corporate peon, but Gainey isn't God. He works in the real world. In the real world, the Habs could not simply throw in the towel in February of Year 100 . Period. I understand Wamsley's disappointment, but I don't believe that anybody would have done differently.

Firing Carbo was also in no way inconsistent. It made sense given the short-term objectives of 2008-09 - the team had by all accounts quit on Carbo. So they needed a change to have any chance. It also made sense according to the longer-term developmental logic. Yes, the original vision was that the young players would become 'Carbo's team' and blossom under his tutelage. Unfortunately almost every young player of the Carbo-Gainey era turned out to be a disappointment, so clearly something was awry on that front. No inconsistency at all, then. In fact, the Martin-Boucher structure seems deliberately designed to address the abysmal failings of the previous coaching regimes on this front. This amounts to correcting mistakes, not 'inconsistency.'

There have been a LOT of mistakes. Carbo. Ribeiro. Souray. Huet. Not negotiating with RFAs. Etc. But that's a problem of execution, not vision.

Wamsley points out that IF the 08-09 team really was a contender on paper, then Bob should have kept it together; doing otherwise was, again, inconsistent. But I say no. Gainey may simply, and quite reasonably, have concluded that the window for that particular core - Koivu in particular - was closed or due to close. There is NO inconsistency in saying, 'these players can do it this year,' while also saying, 'if they don't win, they are too old to re-sign for another 2-3 years.' Players change and decline. This may be why Bob talked so much about getting younger when he signed all those UFAs. 2008-09 was Saku Koivu's last chance.

Once you replace your #1 C, you can reasonably change other parts to fit. Which is what happened. No real inconsistency there either.

The difficulty is in discerning the vision for the 2009-10 season and going forward. Are we built to 'win now?' Or is Bob quietly trying another rebuild, this time with the new core in place of the old one, with Pacioretty, D'agostini, Weber, Subaan, etc., supposed to play the roles of Higgins, Pleks, Komisarek, etc.? This is the first time in the Gainey era that there does not seem to be a very compelling vision either way. This team could only 'win now' if everything went right (which it already hasn't). And the young talent seems far too weak to represent any sort of convincing 'rebuild.' But if there is confusion here it's of very recent vintage. And in fact, I don't think there *is* confusion. What there is, is a strained attempt to paper over the complete and utter failure of the first rebuild in terms of developing elite talent.

The real issue is that neither of the earlier visions worked. The pre-2008 vision failed to yield real elite players. The 2008-09 vision failed to yield a winner. So now what?

I agree that NOW Bob may be flying by the seat of his pants. But it's not through lack of vision. It's through the failure of those visions and the limited hand that he's been left to play as a result.

Small difference, but interesting to ponder.

As for Bob's motives? Come on. The guy wants to win and believes he can: that's why we stays on. I don't believe for one instant that that attribute of Gainey's personality has changed one iota.

100th year should have NOTHING to do with your plans. It is a celebration, not a goal.

You do not compromise your future for short term goals, regardless of the circumstance. If he made all these moves in year

98 or 103 they would be illogical.

Why not deal Komisarek, Higgins, McDonagh and Valentenko for an impact player at the deadline. You can still maintain your playoff

aspirations, shit, they may have improved. Komisarek was playing like shit and McDonagh and Valentenko were not making an immediate

impact anyways.

If they altered course because the franchise needed to save face and scrape into the playoffs JUST BECAUSE it is the 100th anniversary

then that is a disgrace. I appreciate your viewpoint, but I disagree.

[ForumGhost]

YAWN.

Positives: we largely outplayed the Sens. Like the last couple of games, it could have gone either way. I didn't see the Kovy goal, but I know the first 2 were not Price's fault in the least. Just good plays no goalie should be expected to stop. It's not like we have been losing because we've been playing bad. We've been playing pretty good actually. At this point in the season, I'm not worried at all.

[Natural Mystic]

YAWN.

Positives: we largely outplayed the Sens. Like the last couple of games, it could have gone either way. I didn't see the Kovy goal, but I know the first 2 were not Price's fault in the least. Just good plays no goalie should be expected to stop. It's not like we have been losing because we've been playing bad. We've been playing pretty good actually. At this point in the season, I'm not worried at all.

It has been exciting thus far...and seeing most of the games i like the way the team looks