Regarding Gainey

[saskhab]

I guess monitor could be the proper term! Like I was saying, we need to keep an eye on our good young prospects. Put all the chances on their side so they can succeed!

I think that very well might be Gainey's greatest error. Especially considering he was a young guy in Montreal once, too, and had the "Three Amigos" problem in his first year. He failed to utilize the veterans he had to their fullest, and unify a team that ended up divided. Rivet could have housed Komisarek. Koivu could have housed Higgins. Kovalev and Markov could have housed the Kostitsyns.

We've talked a lot about asset management. This is simply another form of it.

[KoZed]

I think that very well might be Gainey's greatest error. Especially considering he was a young guy in Montreal once, too, and had the "Three Amigos" problem in his first year. He failed to utilize the veterans he had to their fullest, and unify a team that ended up divided. Rivet could have housed Komisarek. Koivu could have housed Higgins. Kovalev and Markov could have housed the Kostitsyns.

We've talked a lot about asset management. This is simply another form of it.

Well Gainey & Carbo were victim of their own experience has players. They both played in eras where the Habs players were pretty wild off the ice... because they were consummate pros on the ice. An era where their top star Lafleur was drinking and smoking like a rockstar but was on the ice an hour before everyone before practice. Neither of them ever saw the need to monitor the kids because back when they were players they never needed any monitoring. It was ingrained in the team philosophy that you could do what you wanted off the ice as long as you showed up when the puck dropped.

Anyways, I think Don Lever and the staff in Hamilton deserve a bigger part of the blame for the kids. Mathieu Carle said when he was called up that he learned more in 2 weeks under Boucher's crew than in 2 years under Lever. Says something about the lackadaisical tutoring our kids had down on the farm there.

[Colin]

Anyways, I think Don Lever and the staff in Hamilton deserve a bigger part of the blame for the kids. Mathieu Carle said when he was called up that he learned more in 2 weeks under Boucher's crew than in 2 years under Lever. Says something about the lackadaisical tutoring our kids had down on the farm there.

Perhaps the most damnable statement there is. Many have postulated, but is this the first evidence of a useless developmental machine before this season?

[saskhab]

Well Gainey & Carbo were victim of their own experience has players. They both played in eras where the Habs players were pretty wild off the ice... because they were consummate pros on the ice. An era where their top star Lafleur was drinking and smoking like a rockstar but was on the ice an hour before everyone before practice. Neither of them ever saw the need to monitor the kids because back when they were players they never needed any monitoring. It was ingrained in the team philosophy that you could do what you wanted off the ice as long as you showed up when the puck dropped.

Anyways, I think Don Lever and the staff in Hamilton deserve a bigger part of the blame for the kids. Mathieu Carle said when he was called up that he learned more in 2 weeks under Boucher's crew than in 2 years under Lever. Says something about the lackadaisical tutoring our kids had down on the farm there.

I somehow doubt that the Hitchcock/Tippett combo Gainey (and Carbo, as a player) had in Dallas had that philosophy. It seems like they would have known from their own experiences post-Montreal that there were certain professional expectations on players that were not there when they were players in the 1970s and 1980s.

Gainey didn't quit learning everything he knew about the NHL back when he retired in 1989. It's a problem he should have forseen. A lot of other people who have been in the league as long as Gainey has saw it.

[JoeLassister]

Well Gainey & Carbo were victim of their own experience has players. They both played in eras where the Habs players were pretty wild off the ice... because they were consummate pros on the ice. An era where their top star Lafleur was drinking and smoking like a rockstar but was on the ice an hour before everyone before practice. Neither of them ever saw the need to monitor the kids because back when they were players they never needed any monitoring. It was ingrained in the team philosophy that you could do what you wanted off the ice as long as you showed up when the puck dropped.

Anyways, I think Don Lever and the staff in Hamilton deserve a bigger part of the blame for the kids. Mathieu Carle said when he was called up that he learned more in 2 weeks under Boucher's crew than in 2 years under Lever. Says something about the lackadaisical tutoring our kids had down on the farm there.

I heard that Guy Boucher teaches a style of play of his own, something NOBODY else is teaching.

[Seb]

Well Gainey & Carbo were victim of their own experience has players. They both played in eras where the Habs players were pretty wild off the ice... because they were consummate pros on the ice. An era where their top star Lafleur was drinking and smoking like a rockstar but was on the ice an hour before everyone before practice. Neither of them ever saw the need to monitor the kids because back when they were players they never needed any monitoring. It was ingrained in the team philosophy that you could do what you wanted off the ice as long as you showed up when the puck dropped.

Anyways, I think Don Lever and the staff in Hamilton deserve a bigger part of the blame for the kids. Mathieu Carle said when he was called up that he learned more in 2 weeks under Boucher's crew than in 2 years under Lever. Says something about the lackadaisical tutoring our kids had down on the farm there.

Therein may be Gainey's greatest failure as GM. Someone mentioned that Gainey wanted (or was close to or something) to fire the entire Bulldogs coaching staff in 2007 in another thread. Gainey may have seen it coming but someone from above told him not to? Or he chose not to? Obviously he was aware something was amiss, and since he spent the last part of last season behind the bench giving himself a closer look at the players, he also called Lever from Hamilton and saw first hand what kind of coach Lever really was. It's clear he wasn't satisfied with him, as (someone's gotta back me up here) he didn't pick up the option on Lever's contract (or was it simply not renewed? I'm not sure.)

Either way, I think what happened at the end of last season/off-season was this, from Gainey's standpoint (beginning with the decision to fire Carbo) based on the way organizations of this structure operate:

1. A terrible season on and off the ice prompts Gainey to take a closer look at his Coach and players. After carefully analyzing the situation, Gainey realizes Carbonneau does not have control of his team and is clearly not doing the job Gainey thought he was doing. With Ownership's blessing, he relieves Carbo of his duties and steps behind the bench. Considering slow development of the players in Hamilton, Gainey calls up Lever as sort of a "performance review".

2. Gainey finishes out the year, and we all know what happens on the ice.

3. Following the disappointing finish to the centennial season, Gainey reports to management that changes need to be made. He recommends the areas of the organization that require full audits and suggests a timeline for himself to perform these top-to-bottom evaluations and report back with a plan. Ownership, being in limbo with the sale and all, agrees. At some point, Geoff Molson gives the go ahead for Gainey's plan to continue.

4. First, Gainey looks at the NHL team and its players. With the taste of a disappointing season still in his mouth, Gainey decides it best to wipe the slate clean and start over with his veteran core. We all know what happened there.

5. Second, Gainey looks at his prospects and the recent bad developments of certain players coming through the system (S. Kostitsyn, O'Byrne, Grabovsky, Chipchura) and with the newly acquired first hand knowledge of Lever's methods, he decides Lever is no longer the right man to develop these kids. Lever and his staff are out.

6. I guarantee Gainey also looked over the scouting department. Were the players simply no good? Was there something fundamentally wrong with them? He obviously decided that the problem with the players in the system was somewhere after they were drafted, and not before. This reinforces his need for a coach who can better develop the players, both at the NHL and AHL levels.

7. Gainey draws up his criteria for the new NHL and AHL coaches he will hire, and builds of list of candidates.

8. At this point, Gainey hasn't done anything beyond firing Carbo, and returns to ownership with his list of recommendations. He explains the details of his plan to ownership, which includes his plan for free-agency (the need to acquire a top centerman before July 1st to help attract other top UFAs), the type of coach he believes his teams (MTL & HAM) need and the list he has compiled, his spending strategy in terms of cap proximity and his desire to not offer contracts to all but two of his free agents. He also outlines the expected results of this plan, and how it will unfold in future seasons. This is important, as I guarantee he didn't promise ownership a cup in the next season.

9. Ownership (Gillett/Molson) approves this, but more importantly understands and accepts the following points:

-The plan will not make a contender overnight.

-The old core was rotten, and that the organization had a chance to move forward with a younger, more optimistic core through free agency.

-This core would cost more than the old core, as everyone knows free agents get overpaid.

-There was a fundamental problem with the development of prospects which did not become evident until the last season or two. This was a problem that could be rectified with new coaches.

And finally,

-That Gainey would continue building his team from within, with the exception of the veterans he signs on July 1st. This plan was followed previously with mild success (1st in the east) until the downfall of certain parts of the organization. He believes through a full makeover that the team can return to that form within a couple of seasons, and that he was more than capable leading the team in this direction.

Obviously, management has faith in Gainey, otherwise I would assume they would not have allowed him to be the one to remodel the entire team. IMO, had Molson or Gillett had a desire to fire Gainey, they would have demanded that he at least most of the old core and eventually fired him. Now that this team is Gainey's baby, management will likely stick it out with him as the boss. With that being said, following the events of the last calendar year, it seems Gainey's job is far less untouchable than it previously was. I think if this team fails miserably with no improvement in sight, Gainey's out. Or if Gainey allows Pleks to walk and cannot sufficiently replace him, Gainey's out.

I have faith in Gainey. I think he knows what he's doing, but we also all need to be aware of the state of the team right now: wholesale off-season change, coupled with the loss of our best player in the 1st game of the season means there will be some very difficult times. Everyone talks about the 20 game mark, and that's fine, but 20 games does not make an entire season and, once this team finds its identity, it will steadily improve throughout the year, and maybe even into next season. And I'm fine with that, because we're not as bad as many seem to think. We just need to give it time.

[rafikz]

When I see all those young players performing elsewhere (like at ...ahem... Colorado), it raises question about the Habs' youth development

[KoZed]

I heard that Guy Boucher teaches a style of play of his own, something NOBODY else is teaching.

Read an article about it from the Canadian Press (edit: you can find a copy here: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=504959 )

Boucher has bachelor degrees in biosystems engineering and history and a masters in sports psychology. Surely that gives him a totally different perspective on what and how to teach. 

[Chris]

Rafikz, those young colorado players came right out of JR'sthis year if you meant O'Reilly and Dueshene. That was great drafting and giving the oung guys a chance to win a spot. Traditionally the habs don't do that.

1 year on Pacioretty, Price after an AHL championship run, Lats, he had 2 greatr pre seasons. Other then that i don't recall any young players given a shot.

If you meant guys like Hejduk, Wolkski, etc, they all played a few years in Hershey which was there minor league affiliate at the time.

So i totally agree there.

[Habsfan]

I don't want to sound the alarm, but if the Habs hope to make it to the playoffs (Ie: 94 points) they are gonna have to play .575 hockey til the end of the season. In other words, they will have to win at least 35 of the remaining 62 games, and get at least 5 or 6 OT losses.

A 5 or 6 game winning streak could go a long way to help us out!

[saskhab]

I don't want to sound the alarm, but if the Habs hope to make it to the playoffs (Ie: 94 points) they are gonna have to play .575 hockey til the end of the season. In other words, they will have to win at least 35 of the remaining 62 games, and get at least 5 or 6 OT losses.

A 5 or 6 game winning streak could go a long way to help us out!

Yep, they'll need a good winning streak, and no prolonged losing streaks to reach 93-95 points.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Therein may be Gainey's greatest failure as GM. Someone mentioned that Gainey wanted (or was close to or something) to fire the entire Bulldogs coaching staff in 2007 in another thread. Gainey may have seen it coming but someone from above told him not to? Or he chose not to? Obviously he was aware something was amiss, and since he spent the last part of last season behind the bench giving himself a closer look at the players, he also called Lever from Hamilton and saw first hand what kind of coach Lever really was. It's clear he wasn't satisfied with him, as (someone's gotta back me up here) he didn't pick up the option on Lever's contract (or was it simply not renewed? I'm not sure.)

Either way, I think what happened at the end of last season/off-season was this, from Gainey's standpoint (beginning with the decision to fire Carbo) based on the way organizations of this structure operate:

1. A terrible season on and off the ice prompts Gainey to take a closer look at his Coach and players. After carefully analyzing the situation, Gainey realizes Carbonneau does not have control of his team and is clearly not doing the job Gainey thought he was doing. With Ownership's blessing, he relieves Carbo of his duties and steps behind the bench. Considering slow development of the players in Hamilton, Gainey calls up Lever as sort of a "performance review".

2. Gainey finishes out the year, and we all know what happens on the ice.

3. Following the disappointing finish to the centennial season, Gainey reports to management that changes need to be made. He recommends the areas of the organization that require full audits and suggests a timeline for himself to perform these top-to-bottom evaluations and report back with a plan. Ownership, being in limbo with the sale and all, agrees. At some point, Geoff Molson gives the go ahead for Gainey's plan to continue.

4. First, Gainey looks at the NHL team and its players. With the taste of a disappointing season still in his mouth, Gainey decides it best to wipe the slate clean and start over with his veteran core. We all know what happened there.

5. Second, Gainey looks at his prospects and the recent bad developments of certain players coming through the system (S. Kostitsyn, O'Byrne, Grabovsky, Chipchura) and with the newly acquired first hand knowledge of Lever's methods, he decides Lever is no longer the right man to develop these kids. Lever and his staff are out.

6. I guarantee Gainey also looked over the scouting department. Were the players simply no good? Was there something fundamentally wrong with them? He obviously decided that the problem with the players in the system was somewhere after they were drafted, and not before. This reinforces his need for a coach who can better develop the players, both at the NHL and AHL levels.

7. Gainey draws up his criteria for the new NHL and AHL coaches he will hire, and builds of list of candidates.

8. At this point, Gainey hasn't done anything beyond firing Carbo, and returns to ownership with his list of recommendations. He explains the details of his plan to ownership, which includes his plan for free-agency (the need to acquire a top centerman before July 1st to help attract other top UFAs), the type of coach he believes his teams (MTL & HAM) need and the list he has compiled, his spending strategy in terms of cap proximity and his desire to not offer contracts to all but two of his free agents. He also outlines the expected results of this plan, and how it will unfold in future seasons. This is important, as I guarantee he didn't promise ownership a cup in the next season.

9. Ownership (Gillett/Molson) approves this, but more importantly understands and accepts the following points:

-The plan will not make a contender overnight.

-The old core was rotten, and that the organization had a chance to move forward with a younger, more optimistic core through free agency.

-This core would cost more than the old core, as everyone knows free agents get overpaid.

-There was a fundamental problem with the development of prospects which did not become evident until the last season or two. This was a problem that could be rectified with new coaches.

And finally,

-That Gainey would continue building his team from within, with the exception of the veterans he signs on July 1st. This plan was followed previously with mild success (1st in the east) until the downfall of certain parts of the organization. He believes through a full makeover that the team can return to that form within a couple of seasons, and that he was more than capable leading the team in this direction.

Obviously, management has faith in Gainey, otherwise I would assume they would not have allowed him to be the one to remodel the entire team. IMO, had Molson or Gillett had a desire to fire Gainey, they would have demanded that he at least most of the old core and eventually fired him. Now that this team is Gainey's baby, management will likely stick it out with him as the boss. With that being said, following the events of the last calendar year, it seems Gainey's job is far less untouchable than it previously was. I think if this team fails miserably with no improvement in sight, Gainey's out. Or if Gainey allows Pleks to walk and cannot sufficiently replace him, Gainey's out.

I have faith in Gainey. I think he knows what he's doing, but we also all need to be aware of the state of the team right now: wholesale off-season change, coupled with the loss of our best player in the 1st game of the season means there will be some very difficult times. Everyone talks about the 20 game mark, and that's fine, but 20 games does not make an entire season and, once this team finds its identity, it will steadily improve throughout the year, and maybe even into next season. And I'm fine with that, because we're not as bad as many seem to think. We just need to give it time.

Nice post. It's hard to do a better job of articulating the argument that Bob continues to have a tenable and well-developed vision for the team (short of falling into the 'Bob is always right' logic). I don't know if things unfolded quite as systematically as you present them, but I will continue to believe that something along these lines is accurate, unless and until I see Gainey dealing away young assets and picks for short-term help.

[saskhab]

Of course, any discussion about Gainey blowing up the old core has to include the caveat that he wished to retain both Komisarek and Kovalev going forward. He didn't completely write off the old core, but he had a plan in place in case they didn't sign back on.

[Sir_Boagalott]

Yeah, this gets back to something I said in the Predators thread...there's really no MATERIAL on this team for a fire sale. Only Hamrlik is both expensive and obviously someone with a limited future with us. I could *see* moving Gionta, I guess, but he seems like a great guy to have around for a rebuild, just the right kind of example for young players. Cammy you keep because he's an elite player - also you don't want to sign high-profile UFAs and then ship 'em out of town, not a good signal to send for the future - and Gomez is unmoveable. Pleks is, really, PART of a rebuild, a rare case of a successfully developed young player. So there's only Hamrlik. Don't expect a firesale.

Gainey wants to keep his job. I doubt he is prepared to completely repudiate his vision in order to do it. The real question is not whether he is just a crass careerist - we owe it to Bob Gainey to give him more credit than that. It is what his vision IS. Is it a patchwork attempt to win now by flying by the seat of his pants and crossing his fingers? Or is it a 'rebuild in disguise?' For me, the hope lies in the latter. By season's end, based on his moves, we'll know.

And BTH you don't need to hit rock bottom to build a strong team. See New Jersey, Philly, Anaheim, Vancouver, etc.. You can build a strong team just by drafting well and developing properly.

What is the difference between signing high-profile UFAs and then ship 'em out of town vs trading every soon to be UFA at the trade deadline? Hehehe.

Personally I would prefer being signed and then traded before the season started. You would never play with the team, get to know anybody, or even have to move there. Imagine Gill with a wife and kids worrying where he will end up in the last year of his contract. I doubt any of them would have singed with the Habs if Bob had traded all the guys "he lost for nothing" that most people bitch aboot.

You are right that dont need to hit rock bottom to have a good team. However the Habs arent doing the things that the teams who are competitive every year are doing to be able to pull it off with prolonged suckage. Until Bob starts doing several of the things I repeatedly say the only way they can win is like Pitts, Wash, Chi, St Loius, by sucking hard and getting numerous top 5 picks,.

The Habs simply arentdoing the things the Wings etc do like smart drafting (low amount of off to college for 4 freaking years), signing guys who want to play for you for way under their market value, and smart asset management (signing guys who want to stay for cheap right when they say it).

Gomez is unmoveable

umm didnt everybody say that last year? The further he goes into his contract the better and easier it becomes to move.

[hab29RETIRED]

What is the difference between signing high-profile UFAs and then ship 'em out of town vs trading every soon to be UFA at the trade deadline? Hehehe.

Personally I would prefer being signed and then traded before the season started. You would never play with the team, get to know anybody, or even have to move there. Imagine Gill with a wife and kids worrying where he will end up in the last year of his contract. I doubt any of them would have singed with the Habs if Bob had traded all the guys "he lost for nothing" that most people bitch aboot.

You are right that dont need to hit rock bottom to have a good team. However the Habs arent doing the things that the teams who are competitive every year are doing to be able to pull it off with prolonged suckage. Until Bob starts doing several of the things I repeatedly say the only way they can win is like Pitts, Wash, Chi, St Loius, by sucking hard and getting numerous top 5 picks,.

The Habs simply arentdoing the things the Wings etc do like smart drafting (low amount of off to college for 4 freaking years), signing guys who want to play for you for way under their market value, and smart asset management (signing guys who want to stay for cheap right when they say it).

umm didnt everybody say that last year? The further he goes into his contract the better and easier it becomes to move.

Thats assuming someone has a brain cramp like Gainey did, or if Mike Milbury gets hired as a GM somewhere. Otherwise, the only option would be to dump him in Hamilton.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Well, Gomez is a better player than he's showing at present.

[Colin]

Well, Gomez is a better player than he's showing at present.

SH! These are Habs fans. You aren't allowed to say that. NEGATIVE or SHUT UP!

[MK1]

Well, Gomez is a better player than he's showing at present.

Seems to me Gomez is producing this year at the same pace he has over his most recent couple of years. On pace for 55-65pts if I am not mistaken, so approx $110k per point. I guess Plex is in for a raise come April.

[Chris]

He also plays very solid defensively, and is currently the only forward who can skate the puck out of the D zone, he is a great passer, if Gionta and Cammy finished more chances he'd have more points. He plays a good all around game, yes he's over paid but he is probably one of the more complete players on the team.

[Habsfan]

On pace for 55-65pts if I am not mistaken, so approx $110k per point.

Actually, Gomez is on pace for 43 points. (11 points in 21 games)

Obviously, Gomez is better than what we have seen up til now. I just hope he can turn it around, before the crowd gets on his back...cause that'll make things even harder for him!

[saskhab]

The PP is killing his production. He's been MIA on that unit all year.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I seem to recall Gomez struggling mightily when he was traded to New York, and then catching fire and lighting it up. He could just be a player who takes a while to settle into a new environment.

His real weakness in my opinion is along the boards. He seems to lose so many battles. Nonetheless, it is only reasonable to assume that his production will pick up eventually; whatever he is, he's not a 43-point player.

[MK1]

The PP is killing his production. He's been MIA on that unit all year.

When this team was really dangerous last year and the year prior was when the PP was firing on all cylinders and was tops in the league. Even during that 2007 season the team still struggled to score 5v5, and last year that was exacerbated by the fact that the PP success was down significantly.

Looking at this year's team, once again the PP success is below expectations, the team still has trouble scoring 5v5, hence their record in regulation (thank God for OT pts). We like to look at Carey v Jaro, and all of the rest of that hot air people like to blow, when the reality is when you are averaging barely 2G/game (48G in 21GP so far) you are not going to win very many hockey games in the new NHL regardless of who is in net.

Until this team can consistently score 5v5 it is going to be a bumpy ride of .500 hockey, give or take short periods of greatness or weakness. It should also be noted that this trend has continued across both recent coaches and both locker room make-ups.