The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I wonder when Martin parlays this team into a lottery pick, will Habs fans realize that his strategy doesn't work. I wonder when Martin parlays this team into a lottery pick, will Habs fans realize that his strategy doesn't work. Martin is here for a good long time, if Gainey is. Get used to it. And the idea that he is a bumbling bozo is, frankly, implausible. He may not be the greatest coach in the world, but he has loads of NHL experience and credibility. All those UFAs, including Cup-winning character veterans like Gionta and Moen, came here in full knowledge of who the coach would be, and presumably were and are fully confident in him. In the Rangers game Spacek said they lost because they got away from 'the system,' which also suggests that this savvy vet at least doesn't see the coach as the problem. Meanwhile, the guys Martin's butted heads with are whiny dorks like Lats and S. Kostitsyn and marginalia like Laraque, which probably says more about those guys (and perhaps the culture and habits they picked up under the old regime) than Martin. Coaching is not our principal problem. This team is just too thin talent-wise. One key player not playing to potential, or one significant injury - now it's the one to Kostitsyn - and it drops to being a .500 team or worse. It also has a defence corps with many useful players but not the right mix of players (mainly because Spacek has failed to serve as the effective #2a defenceman he was signed to be). None of this is Martin's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJP Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Martin is here for a good long time, if Gainey is. Get used to it. And the idea that he is a bumbling bozo is, frankly, implausible. He may not be the greatest coach in the world, but he has loads of NHL experience and credibility. All those UFAs, including Cup-winning character veterans like Gionta and Moen, came here in full knowledge of who the coach would be, and presumably were and are fully confident in him. In the Rangers game Spacek said they lost because they got away from 'the system,' which also suggests that this savvy vet at least doesn't see the coach as the problem. Meanwhile, the guys Martin's butted heads with are whiny dorks like Lats and S. Kostitsyn and marginalia like Laraque, which probably says more about those guys (and perhaps the culture and habits they picked up under the old regime) than Martin. Coaching is not our principal problem. This team is just too thin talent-wise. One key player not playing to potential, or one significant injury - now it's the one to Kostitsyn - and it drops to being a .500 team or worse. It also has a defence corps with many useful players but not the right mix of players (mainly because Spacek has failed to serve as the effective #2a defenceman he was signed to be). None of this is Martin's fault. Sorry, disagree with you here. Take a poll, see what type of coach the majority want and I don't mean a poll of this board, the opinions here are not reflective. What people don't comprehend is that the mistakes being made on the ice are between the ears and that's where you need a coach to correct DURING THE GAME. Martin cannot get players to reform within the 60 minutes of play, but that's his personality, I assume Gainey wanted someone just like himself to be coach. What really intrigues me though, is that Muller has not been the inspiration I thought he would be behind the bench for a guy with his personality. Look at Philly, their #1 goalie goes down, in comes a personality like Laviolette and guess what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redondo Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well, just found out about this, not much more to add beyond what people had to say. Two things about Gainey from me though: 1. People make mistakes - one of the measures of a man is how quickly he can get beyond his ego, realize, and then correct that mistake. I know the majority of this board was extremely excited after Gainey followed up on the beatdown by the Flyers to sign Laraque. I was too, always thought the contract was way generous, but IF Laraque has brought what he was expected to (here and elsewhere) to the table, it wasn't an outrageous concept. As far as Gainey is concerned, the initial contract for Georges obviously was a mistake, but dumping him now is a way to correct it. Dumping him over the summer would have been even better though, and logical too, so that's two strikes against one positive in my book. 2. I said it this summer, and I still believe that Gainey's mission after last season wasn't as much to drastically improve the team on the ice to be an "instant contender" as it was to fundamentally change for good the attitude and spirit in the dressing room, and organization in general. The kind of player he was, it is obvious what went down last year must have sickened him. The kind of man he is, I think it is infinitely more important to him that once he's done with his tenure here (which I think will be sooner than later, but on his own terms) he leaves in place a good fundation, and an atmosphere as close to the one the dynasty teams had in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as can be possible given the different era and circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Fanpuck...you're wrong. He played in games where they may have needed a fighter...so his Fights per GP are obviously going to appear higher. He was not required in other games because he's a liability in every other way. You are pulling the stat of fights/gp out of context. The team did not need to ask him about his own personal code...that's total and utter BS. His job as an enforcer, by the standard of every hockey person I know, is to protect your teammates and respond to any unwarranted infringement on their well-being. ESPECIALLY where you skill players are concerned. It does not matter WHO goes after your teammate...you respond to THAT player specifically. Laraque is a bum. It's clear that he felt his role is one of "entertainer"...one who would fight other teams goons in what are essentially pre-staged fights for the purposes of entertaining the crowd. The team shouldn't have to ask what he thinks the role of enforcer is...it's bloody obvious. Maybe Laraque and Twist can have a boxing match now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Sorry, disagree with you here. Take a poll, see what type of coach the majority want and I don't mean a poll of this board, the opinions here are not reflective. What people don't comprehend is that the mistakes being made on the ice are between the ears and that's where you need a coach to correct DURING THE GAME. Martin cannot get players to reform within the 60 minutes of play, but that's his personality, I assume Gainey wanted someone just like himself to be coach. What really intrigues me though, is that Muller has not been the inspiration I thought he would be behind the bench for a guy with his personality. Look at Philly, their #1 goalie goes down, in comes a personality like Laviolette and guess what? Take a poll?? That's ridiculous. Who cares what fans and media think? That's not how you hire a coach, evaluate players, conduct business. And then you assume Gainey wanted what? a coach like him. Then you proceed to tell us all what we don't comprehend, sorry, you're just way off base, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) Fanpuck...you're wrong. He played in games where they may have needed a fighter...so his Fights per GP are obviously going to appear higher. He was not required in other games because he's a liability in every other way. You are pulling the stat of fights/gp out of context. The team did not need to ask him about his own personal code...that's total and utter BS. His job as an enforcer, by the standard of every hockey person I know, is to protect your teammates and respond to any unwarranted infringement on their well-being. ESPECIALLY where you skill players are concerned. It does not matter WHO goes after your teammate...you respond to THAT player specifically. Laraque is a bum. It's clear that he felt his role is one of "entertainer"...one who would fight other teams goons in what are essentially pre-staged fights for the purposes of entertaining the crowd. The team shouldn't have to ask what he thinks the role of enforcer is...it's bloody obvious. Maybe Laraque and Twist can have a boxing match now... It appears obvious to me that the team did not do proper research before signing him. Like me and many others, Bob just assumed that because of his reputation as one of the tougher guys in the league, that he would be a true enforcer - a guy who would make people pay for messing with his teammates, no matter what. Now that I've looked at his career more closely, it is clear to me that he has never been that kind of player. He hasn't taken an instigator since 2001. He never fights guys who are not fighters themselves. If you're thinking about signing a guy to stand up for your team and you come across facts like those, how can you not ask him about it? Bob's quote that he has no idea what Georges' code is just tells me he neither researched Georges' career nor talked to him about exactly what role they wanted him to serve. It is abundantly obvious that Bob and Georges have completely different ideas about what an enforcer is and that is something that should have been discovered before signing him to a fat deal. I'm not trying to defend Georges here. I find his code to be ridiculous. If someone messes with your team, you damn well should make them pay for it. I see no use for Georges on this team and have no problem with him not being a part of the team anymore. All I'm saying is that management is more to blame than Georges is. They could have saved themselves a lot of hassle and a lot of money had they simply done better research when thinking about bringing him into the fold. We've all been to job interviews. Employers have to make sure that they are on the same page as their employees and do their best to bring in such people. That often means asking a bunch of seemingly stupid questions, such as "what do you think the role of an enforcer is?" in this case. That one question could have saved us all this mess. Of course, with such a fat contract on the line, it's obviously a possibility Laraque could have lied and said he was willing to do things that he hadn't done in the past. Edited January 23, 2010 by Fanpuck33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 It appears obvious to me that the team did not do proper research before signing him. Like me and many others, Bob just assumed that because of his reputation as one of the tougher guys in the league, that he would be a true enforcer - a guy who would make people pay for messing with his teammates, no matter what. Now that I've looked at his career more closely, it is clear to me that he has never been that kind of player. He hasn't taken an instigator since 2001. He never fights guys who are not fighters themselves. If you're thinking about signing a guy to stand up for your team and you come across facts like those, how can you not ask him about it? Bob's quote that he has no idea what Georges' code is just tells me he neither researched Georges' career nor talked to him about exactly what role they wanted him to serve. It is abundantly obvious that Bob and Georges have completely different ideas about what an enforcer is and that is something that should have been discovered before signing him to a fat deal. I'm not trying to defend Georges here. I find his code to be ridiculous. If someone messes with your team, you damn well should make them pay for it. I see no use for Georges on this team and have no problem with him not being a part of the team anymore. All I'm saying is that management is more to blame than Georges is. They could have saved themselves a lot of hassle and a lot of money had they simply done better research when thinking about bringing him into the fold. We've all been to job interviews. Employers have to make sure that they are on the same page as their employees and do their best to bring in such people. That often means asking a bunch of seemingly stupid questions, such as "what do you think the role of an enforcer is?" in this case. That one question could have saved us all this mess. Of course, with such a fat contract on the line, it's obviously a possibility Laraque could have lied and said he was willing to do things that he hadn't done in the past. As bad as the money was, it was the terms of the contract that really pissed me off. Back when the signed him, I posted here that who the hell gives a NTC to a 4th line goon???? At that time everyone was in glee of picking up a heavyweight and kept saying it's only $1.5M. There simply is no room for errors like that in a cap system!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataclaw Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Don't know what to say about all this... I liked Laraque. Well, let me rephrase that: As a person, i liked him. As a hockey player, not so much. I wish you the best, Georges! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 He has more time to beat the meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 He has more time to beat the meat. I can't believe you went there Colin. Very clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 He has more time to beat the meat. Yeah! And masturbate! ... what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Of course, with such a fat contract on the line, it's obviously a possibility Laraque could have lied and said he was willing to do things that he hadn't done in the past. True. Maybe he was lying, but maybe he just couldn't do the job or what was expected. Such contradiction. Look, even in his last days: He was repeatedly saying to the media (in french).. "it's frustrating being benched and see our little guys getting beated up" "I wish I was there.. it's the 2nd half and things get physical.. I wish I was out there.. Martin knows I want to play..etc" but when he played and did nothing... "I can't do anything if I play only 3 minutes" "How can you judged me (for not doing anything vs the Rangers).. I played only 4 shifts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 I can't believe you went there Colin. Very clever. I call 3 yeas old scotch. He would never say that on 5+ years old scotch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redondo Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) Looks like our boy Georges may be going to Sweden..... Well, one for the road then.... Edited January 26, 2010 by redondo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Looks like our boy Georges may be going to Sweden..... Well, one for the road then.... Does that mean his salary and roster spot for this year will be of the books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Laraque will appear in studio on Tuesday evening with Bob McCown on Primetime Sports, show starts at 5:30 pm/ET. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Does that mean his salary and roster spot for this year will be of the books? Laraque will have to waive his NMC and be subjected to waivers before being able to go to Sweden. Accordingly, his salary will not longer count against the cap and his roster spot can be filled. Montreal will still pay him the rest of his salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Laraque will have to waive his NMC and be subjected to waivers before being able to go to Sweden. Accordingly, his salary will not longer count against the cap and his roster spot can be filled. Montreal will still pay him the rest of his salary. That is good news! My question is: if he's assigned to a new team after waiving his NMC, will his salary count against the cap next season? Or would he have to be waived again? Because if Laraque came to an agreement with BG saying something like "I'll play in Sweden again next year, just waive me." BGL would make his full salary, Montreal would have to pay 1.5M instead of 1M but would save the two years of cap space and the roster spot. So can this agreement work for another full year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafikz Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 If he goes to Sweden, he has to be careful with commercials. You don't mess with feminists in Scandinavian countries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Apparently, the league is blocking Georges move to Sweden for the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 The refs have missed 293 penalties against the Habs so far this season, so the league is stepping in to make sure we get penalized in some fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.