Habs facing Huge summer

[hab29RETIRED]

The habs really need to get a couple of big guys who ACTUALLY drive to the net. They made Leighton look like a hall of famer, by taking a lot of shots from the outside and not having any traffic. He looked more like the Leighton we knew he was last night.

sad thing is all of the habs offensive prospects with the exception of MaxPax and Kristo are all small as well and MaxPax at this stage does not look like he will be a power forward.

Edited May 30, 2010 by hab29RETIRED

[JacksonJ]

Raffi Torres could be high up on PGs list. Especially after his crappy showing with the Sabres, because he might be willing to settle for a lower price.a

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Of course Streit is much better than MAB. The analogy lies in the fact that most people saw Streit as a one-dimensional player who could not play D at all, and a beneficiary of, rather than a key contributor to, our league-leading PP at the time. It is hypocritical of such people to now condemn the Habs for failing to lock up Streit. That was my point.

You can talk all you want about shipping Komi out at the deadline, it was not going to happen in that season. The organization clearly made a decision that it was going to go for broke that year. Period. Did it work? Of course not. What I'm saying is that any individual in Gainey's situation would have done the same thing and not blow up the core, because of the overall fan and ownership context. (Also, if the Habs hold a fire-sale, do we then lure Cammy and the other UFAs? One thing to consider is that perception of your team as a 'playoff team' is important in being deemed an attractive destination on the UFA market).

Anyway, again, I'm not saying everything Gainey did on this front was great, just that his record with UFAs and RFAs defies facile condemnation or fawning applause.

[Wamsley01]

Well, I wouldn't argue that Gainey's asset management was above reproach. I thought the case of Souray was understandable because we were in a playoff race, but I still supported trading him at the deadline because that team, even if it had made the playoffs, had no reasonable chance of doing any damage at all. Better to move Souray and reclaim assets. Komisarek would have been ridiculous to trade because there was NO WAY any GM could have blown up a team for the stretch drive during the Habs' 100th anniversary. Tanking simply was not an option that year, no matter what happened. However, Wamsley is correct that in hindsight it would have been wise of Bob to lock up Komi long term when he was RFA.

With Streit, the error was not in failing to trade him; in fact we had a real chance of going all the way that year, so trading him would have been irresponsible (just as trading Huet that year was irresponsible and arguably cost us the series against Philly). No, the error with Streit was in failing to lock him up as an RFA and then compounding the mistake by not signing him as a UFA. However, it's worth remembering that there was near-unanimity on this board and elsewhere that Streit was terrible defensively and not worth signing, sort of an early version of MAB. Anyone can be a genius (and criticize others) with hindsight.

Gainey's failing may have been an unduly rigid approach to RFA signings. He did seem to have a philosophy of not locking up RFAs. This was a reasonable, principled philosophy, because if you sign a player too soon in his career, you risk getting burned by paying for potential that never materializes (Higgins, the Kostitsyns, Ryder and even Komisarek are all object lessons here); and the player risks locking for the long term below value (Kesler). Nonetheless, you also need to make exceptions where warranted. Had we locked up Streit as an RFA we'd now be laughing our heads off.

It's a mixed record, but that's why anybody who makes blanket declarations that Gainey was either a genius or an idiot in managing RFA/UFA assets is off-target. Whether Bob did more good than harm in this respect is a complicated question calling for balanced judgement.

My problem is not that he didn't lock up players that never panned out or failing to lock up the ones they did.

When you scout a 17-18 year old, draft him, watch him develop in college/junior, then the AHL and then a season

or two on the NHL level, why can you not figure out who is going to develop the way YOU WANT for your team.

4-6 years of watching a player intimately and you are still guessing at their NHL potential in their RFA years?

Jesus, I can make watch the games on TV with zero insight into their character, work ethic etc and make a determination

after 7 years watching the player. What type of skill is that? Timmins, Gainey, Gauthier should know which players

have red flags, which players should be dangled and which players to build your team around. 50/50 is not good enough

with that type of information because they could have the same success rate with a coin flip.

This is why the Habs are ALWAYS around the middle of the pack. They have wasted way to many young assets with

this method.

It is also interesting to see you note that dealing Huet was irresponsible and it killed the Cup run when the current

saviour was then a 22 year old backup who couldn't handle the job in Game 4 against Philly. Amazing how much a 22 year old can improve in 2 years isn't it.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

My problem is not that he didn't lock up players that never panned out or failing to lock up the ones they did.

When you scout a 17-18 year old, draft him, watch him develop in college/junior, then the AHL and then a season

or two on the NHL level, why can you not figure out who is going to develop the way YOU WANT for your team.

4-6 years of watching a player intimately and you are still guessing at their NHL potential in their RFA years?

Jesus, I can make watch the games on TV with zero insight into their character, work ethic etc and make a determination

after 7 years watching the player. What type of skill is that? Timmins, Gainey, Gauthier should know which players

have red flags, which players should be dangled and which players to build your team around. 50/50 is not good enough

with that type of information because they could have the same success rate with a coin flip.

This is why the Habs are ALWAYS around the middle of the pack. They have wasted way to many young assets with

this method.

It is also interesting to see you note that dealing Huet was irresponsible and it killed the Cup run when the current

saviour was then a 22 year old backup who couldn't handle the job in Game 4 against Philly. Amazing how much a 22 year old can improve in 2 years isn't it.

Yeah, you certainly have a valid point here. All I would want to do is soften your point a bit by suggesting

1. there remains an inescapable element of uncertainty in dealing with most young players; no matter how much you watch them, it is impossible to determine whether they will fully realize their potential, fail to realize it, or exceed it (who imagined that Halak would put together a season like this one?) - let alone whether they will become injury prone or fall into any of the innumerable traps facing them. I don't find this all that surprising. In the milieu in which I work, one sees a lot of young people training for careers in a demanding field with few opportunities. Some look brilliant early but fade out. Others have all the tools but end up losing the will as they get older (they get distracted by family or whatever). Some are plodders but manage to succeed on sheer determination and work ethic. Some start out average yet later blossom. A few are superstars from the get-go. But no matter how much you track most of them over 4-5 years, their ultimate tragectory always has that uncertainty to it. It's likely the same in the NHL.

Consider Komi. A stud, heavy-hitting shut-down D-man his entire career, his 'toughness' was arguably exposed as fraudulent by Milan Lucic and now he is emerging as injury-prone. I seriously doubt there was any way of anticipating this based on his career up to the moment of that Lucic fight and the subsequent injuries. He had to rise to the level he did before these weaknesses were exposed. Had you locked him in as a near-elite bruising shutdown defenceman to anchor your D for the next decade, you might well have faced a nasty surprise.

2. To lock up an RFA, the player and the team have to agree on his likely potential. Higgins saw himself as a future 40-40 man. Good luck locking him up with that self-image. (Higgins is also a nice example of the uncertainty principle. He always had the profile of a blood-and-guts natural leader, a captain in the making, he seems to have fallen off the rails. Who knew?)

3. It remains possible that Bob never locked up his RFAs because he in fact was aware of their limitations and was just not convinced. Those who reply that he should have locked them up and then traded them need to consider point (2) above, and also the desirability of carrying a bunch of Higginses and Ryders at $4-5 million for 6 years and how tradable they would be. Note that of all the young guys of Gainey Rebuild 1.0, the only one who was clearly a disastrous mistake NOT to lock up was Streit. It's not like there is this huge pile of great players he allowed to leave. Few of us miss any of them.

As for your Halak comment, well, throwing him to the lions in Game 4 of that series was a bit much. We unquestionably needed Huet for that playoff run. But I always liked Halak and thought the Habs treated him shabbily - although I certainly never expected Halak to dominate like he did this season.

Edited May 31, 2010 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Wamsley01]

Yeah, you certainly have a valid point here. All I would want to do is soften your point a bit by suggesting

1. there remains an inescapable element of uncertainty in dealing with most young players; no matter how much you watch them, it is impossible to determine whether they will fully realize their potential, fail to realize it, or exceed it (who imagined that Halak would put together a season like this one?) - let alone whether they will become injury prone or fall into any of the innumerable traps facing them. I don't find this all that surprising. In the milieu in which I work, one sees a lot of young people training for careers in a demanding field with few opportunities. Some look brilliant early but fade out. Others have all the tools but end up losing the will as they get older (they get distracted by family or whatever). Some are plodders but manage to succeed on sheer determination and work ethic. Some start out average yet later blossom. A few are superstars from the get-go. But no matter how much you track most of them over 4-5 years, their ultimate tragectory always has that uncertainty to it. It's likely the same in the NHL.

Consider Komi. A stud, heavy-hitting shut-down D-man his entire career, his 'toughness' was arguably exposed as fraudulent by Milan Lucic and now he is emerging as injury-prone. I seriously doubt there was any way of anticipating this based on his career up to the moment of that Lucic fight and the subsequent injuries. He had to rise to the level he did before these weaknesses were exposed. Had you locked him in as a near-elite bruising shutdown defenceman to anchor your D for the next decade, you might well have faced a nasty surprise.

2. To lock up an RFA, the player and the team have to agree on his likely potential. Higgins saw himself as a future 40-40 man. Good luck locking him up with that self-image. (Higgins is also a nice example of the uncertainty principle. He always had the profile of a blood-and-guts natural leader, a captain in the making, he seems to have fallen off the rails. Who knew?)

3. It remains possible that Bob never locked up his RFAs because he in fact was aware of their limitations and was just not convinced. Those who reply that he should have locked them up and then traded them need to consider point (2) above, and also the desirability of carrying a bunch of Higginses and Ryders at $4-5 million for 6 years and how tradable they would be. Note that of all the young guys of Gainey Rebuild 1.0, the only one who was clearly a disastrous mistake NOT to lock up was Streit. It's not like there is this huge pile of great players he allowed to leave. Few of us miss any of them.

As for your Halak comment, well, throwing him to the lions in Game 4 of that series was a bit much. We unquestionably needed Huet for that playoff run. But I always liked Halak and thought the Habs treated him shabbily - although I certainly never expected Halak to dominate like he did this season.

I am not saying they should have signed them then traded them, I am saying that they should have made

decisions on these players and committed to them or maximized on their potential when other teams were not

privy to their inside information.

These guys get paid millions of dollars to show their expertise in this field, not play it safe. THere is an element of

luck to anything. You never know when a lightbulb will appear over a guys head and he understands what it will

take to get to the next level, but the elite GMs seemingly know who to gamble on and who to cut loose the majority

of the time.

I am 100% accepting of mistakes investing in a player like a Phaneuf, you can't judge how fame can

hurt development or alter a mindset into that of entitlement. I am not accepting of mistakes made by

GMs like Ferguson (timid and manipulated) or Milbury (stupid and egocentric).

I think that there were opportunities that arose that could have resulted in discounted contracts.

Take a look at Plekanec last season. He was 27 years old. The Habs had 8 YEARS to assess his career.

He was coming off a terrible season, the 8 years were not enough for the Habs to step up and say

here is a 4 year 4M deal? We know you had a bad season, but after your AHL career and all the

responsibility you have on this team we feel that you are worth this. We have faith in you after

your worst season to offer you a 120% raise.

In the absolute worst case scenario they are overpaying a 3rd line center by 1M or 1.5M per season. In the

best case scenario you lock up a career Canadien at the their worst depth position in the organization

for a major discount.

Instead you are faced with a situation where you may lose him for nothing and have Gomez, Lapierre,

Moore and Maxwell as your centers.

This scenario plays itself out OVER AND OVER AND OVER in Montreal and now the Habs are between a rock

and a hard place with Halak as well. The glut of free agents hitting the market disappeared because most

GMs are identifying their assets and investing in them, yet the Canadiens have invested longterm in only

ONE player from the generation of superstars we were sold in 2004.

Like I said before, what skill is there in waiting for players to emerge before giving them money? None.

The Halak comment was just to show how much a goaltender can improve between 22 and 24. Nothing

more, nothing less.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Wamsley01

[hab29RETIRED]

I am not saying they should have signed them then traded them, I am saying that they should have made

decisions on these players and committed to them or maximized on their potential when other teams were not

privy to their inside information.

These guys get paid millions of dollars to show their expertise in this field, not play it safe. THere is an element of

luck to anything. You never know when a lightbulb will appear over a guys head and he understands what it will

take to get to the next level, but the elite GMs seemingly know who to gamble on and who to cut loose the majority

of the time.

I am 100% accepting of mistakes investing in a player like a Phaneuf, you can't judge how fame can

hurt development or alter a mindset into that of entitlement. I am not accepting of mistakes made by

GMs like Ferguson (timid and manipulated) or Milbury (stupid and egocentric).

I think that there were opportunities that arose that could have resulted in discounted contracts.

Take a look at Plekanec last season. He was 27 years old. The Habs had 8 YEARS to assess his career.

He was coming off a terrible season, the 8 years were not enough for the Habs to step up and say

here is a 4 year 4M deal? We know you had a bad season, but after your AHL career and all the

responsibility you have on this team we feel that you are worth this. We have faith in you after

your worst season to offer you a 120% raise.

In the absolute worst case scenario they are overpaying a 3rd line center by 1M or 1.5M per season. In the

best case scenario you lock up a career Canadien at the their worst depth position in the organization

for a major discount.

Instead you are faced with a situation where you may lose him for nothing and have Gomez, Lapierre,

Moore and Maxwell as your centers.

This scenario plays itself out OVER AND OVER AND OVER in Montreal and now the Habs are between a rock

and a hard place with Halak as well. The glut of free agents hitting the market disappeared because most

GMs are identifying their assets and investing in them, yet the Canadiens have invested longterm in only

ONE player from the generation of superstars we were sold in 2004.

Like I said before, what skill is there in waiting for players to emerge before giving them money? None.

The Halak comment was just to show how much a goaltender can improve between 22 and 24. Nothing

more, nothing less.

This is the point I have been making for the past 2 years. However, I think if Bob had tried to lock up Pleks last summer he would have been able to lock him up for less then the $4M/yr. Similarly, how many times did it take to see Ryder disappear for long stretches and only use his size for one our of every 20 or 30 games. WHy he wasn't moved prior to his UFA year is beyond me. Higgins had be baffled. I think he was a guy that the habs messed up. He was a character guy who should have been and I think still can be a solid 25 goal guy who nets you 4-5 SH goals and kills penalties with tenacity. He was miscast into a potential first liner, simply because the habs didn't have a true first line winger.

Komi could have been signed to a $3.5M longer term deal, 3 years ago, but as usual, Bob played it conservative and signed him to a two year deal and got nothing when he walked. The only solid trade and signing of Gainey's that was astute was the Gorges trade and signing.

I'm hoping that they try and sign Price to a two year deal, so that he will still have 2 yrs left before he hits UFA, but knowing the habs, they will probably sign him for a 1 yr deal or even worse move him for a borderline top six player, who will probably end up being a 3rd liner.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

This is the point I have been making for the past 2 years. However, I think if Bob had tried to lock up Pleks last summer he would have been able to lock him up for less then the $4M/yr. Similarly, how many times did it take to see Ryder disappear for long stretches and only use his size for one our of every 20 or 30 games. WHy he wasn't moved prior to his UFA year is beyond me. Higgins had be baffled. I think he was a guy that the habs messed up. He was a character guy who should have been and I think still can be a solid 25 goal guy who nets you 4-5 SH goals and kills penalties with tenacity. He was miscast into a potential first liner, simply because the habs didn't have a true first line winger.

Komi could have been signed to a $3.5M longer term deal, 3 years ago, but as usual, Bob played it conservative and signed him to a two year deal and got nothing when he walked. The only solid trade and signing of Gainey's that was astute was the Gorges trade and signing.

I'm hoping that they try and sign Price to a two year deal, so that he will still have 2 yrs left before he hits UFA, but knowing the habs, they will probably sign him for a 1 yr deal or even worse move him for a borderline top six player, who will probably end up being a 3rd liner.

Yeah...again...I'm not denying that the Habs might have managed some of this better. Streit to me is the main exhibit in terms of failing to lock up UFASs/RFAs. But I just don't see it as this cut and dried. You assert that Pleks 'would have been' locked up for under $4 mil after last season. What's that based on? WHY would Pleks agree to a long-term contract after he had had a disastrous season? If you're Pleks, wouldn't you want a short-term deal so you can pad your numbers instead? Komisarek at $3.5...is there *evidence* that Komi was willing to lock up for years at that rate? Or is there just a mystical belief that young players who KNOW (or believe) that they're still getting better will be willing to lock themselves up at below-market value, and that if they don't it's the Habs' fault? (For that matter, how do we know that guys like Higgins and Komi didn't plan to go UFA all along?)

There's a certain underlying pattern of thought to your post here, which is: the Habs are always wrong. It's like your comment about Higgins: it's not that he turned out to be a turd, oh heavens no!! It's that the Habs 'ruined' him. Sure...they ruined him by putting him with our best players and giving him a lot of ice time (Just like they are 'ruining O'Byrne by NOT putting him with our best players and giving him lots of ice time - right?) Face it, on your model he'd be locked up for 6 years at (say) $4 mil. Ditto Andrei Kostitsyn and probably Ryder too (your retroactive devaluation aside, Ryder looked pretty damned good his first two seasons). So, yes, the Habs could have done better is some cases, but they also did well in others. Like I keep saying: not cut and dried.

[BTH]

Yeah...again...I'm not denying that the Habs might have managed some of this better. Streit to me is the main exhibit in terms of failing to lock up UFASs/RFAs. But I just don't see it as this cut and dried. You assert that Pleks 'would have been' locked up for under $4 mil after last season. What's that based on? WHY would Pleks agree to a long-term contract after he had had a disastrous season? If you're Pleks, wouldn't you want a short-term deal so you can pad your numbers instead? Komisarek at $3.5...is there *evidence* that Komi was willing to lock up for years at that rate? Or is there just a mystical belief that young players who KNOW (or believe) that they're still getting better will be willing to lock themselves up at below-market value, and that if they don't it's the Habs' fault? (For that matter, how do we know that guys like Higgins and Komi didn't plan to go UFA all along?)

There's a certain underlying pattern of thought to your post here, which is: the Habs are always wrong. It's like your comment about Higgins: it's not that he turned out to be a turd, oh heavens no!! It's that the Habs 'ruined' him. Sure...they ruined him by putting him with our best players and giving him a lot of ice time (Just like they are 'ruining O'Byrne by NOT putting him with our best players and giving him lots of ice time - right?) Face it, on your model he'd be locked up for 6 years at (say) $4 mil. Ditto Andrei Kostitsyn and probably Ryder too (your retroactive devaluation aside, Ryder looked pretty damned good his first two seasons). So, yes, the Habs could have done better is some cases, but they also did well in others. Like I keep saying: not cut and dried.

I think all of the complaining comes from the fact that the core of this team has been a revolving door for several seasons now. Maybe it's just because we follow the Canadiens more closely than we do any other team but it doesn't seem to me like other teams have lost and then replaced core players as often as we have.

The List: Garon, Theodore, Huet, Ryder, Souray, Streit, Komisarek, Higgins, Koivu, Kovalev, Tanguay, Lang, Schneider now we're looking at possibly losing Plekanec.... I can understand the bottom six forwards and bottom three defencemen going through a revolving door (Kostopoulos leaves, Pyatt takes his place; Bouillon leaves, Mara takes his place) but these are core players that we - at some point - considered the future of our club. The length of that list is staggering. How many core players has the average team shed for free since the lockout? Not this many.

Had someone showed me a list of those players a few years ago, I would have thought we'd be competing for the Cup by now with a powerhouse line up of:

Higgins (40-40 guy) - Koivu - Ryder (30-30 guy)

Tanguay - Lang - Kovalev

Markov - Komisarek (elite shutdown D)

Souray (20g d-man) - Streit (60 pt d-man)

Huet (high-end starting G)

Price (franchise G)

Every year a key player leaves and we find somebody new to replace him. Meanwhile, a new player emerges as a key contributor and is going to need a raise in the off-season which we won't give him. Teams that remain consistently good like Detroit choose their stars (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Larionov, Holstrom, Franzen, Datsyuk, Zetterberg), invest in them and keep the same core together for years. When's the last time Montreal has gone back-to-back seasons without having at least one significant departure and one significant addition?

This summer we risk losing Plekanec, are probably going to buy out Hamrlik (as we did with core player Samsonov, by the way), may give away the Kostitsyns for whatever we can get, already traded away once-somewhat-promising prospects D'Agostini, Chipchura, McDonagh and Valentenko, may not sign 1st round pick David Fischer, may need to trade one of our goaltenders, once-promising Ryan O'Byrne is on the outside looking in, once-hyped Alexander Perezhogin has left the team, once-hyped Emelin still hasn't come to North America, once-hyped Guillaume Latendresse has been traded, once-hyped Mike Ribeiro was given away........

After the lock out, we all got excited because our team featured six promising rookies, including Higgins, Plekanec, Perezhogin and Andrei Kostitsyn. Throw in Ryder in his second season and we had one of the youngest teams in the NHL and had the #2 ranked prospect pool on Hockey's Future (okay, maybe not the most credible source, but our prospect pool was certainly acclaimed). What happened to that group of young players that we once called the future?

We seem to have corrected the instability problem at the management level but there is still not much stability on our roster from season to season.

[Chris]

There is stabilty now on the roster now. I'm not sure sure what consider to be a core player but the habs core as i see them today is Gomez, Gionta, Cammi, Gorges, Subban and Markov. These were also the only players who showed up every night in the playoffs.

I don't see Pleks as a core guy, i would rather they sign Moore and look internally or externally for a center. I think Pleks is a good player but when the going gets tough he vanishes.

Pyatt, Moore, lapierre did well in the playoffs, Pouliot probably gets one more year.

There will be open roster spots, we will see what kind of teams and players PG wants.

[huzer]

What happened to that group of young players that we once called the future?

We seem to have corrected the instability problem at the management level but there is still not much stability on our roster from season to season.

Other than the massive turnover last season, it hasn't been quite the revolving door you suggest. Regardless, the players mentioned are (mostly) hardly tearing it up on whatever team they now reside. I'd say that portion of your debate should go to the thread on Drafting/Development more than on roster turnover. Geez, even listing Tangs, Lang, and Schneider? None of them even played a full season. Lang and Schneider are each 200 years old, expecting to retain them would have been an error in judgment by any fan. Tanguay, I could at least see since we gave up a quality pick for him. Koivu, Kovy, aging veterans on the decline. Anyone proclaiming 40-40 from Higgins, well...ha. There are the unreal expectations creeping in. I'd have maxed him out as a 50 pt player during a good year.

It seems some of the same people preaching stability are the same ones lamenting trade deadline day and UFA day inactivity.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Other than the massive turnover last season, it hasn't been quite the revolving door you suggest. Regardless, the players mentioned are (mostly) hardly tearing it up on whatever team they now reside. I'd say that portion of your debate should go to the thread on Drafting/Development more than on roster turnover. Geez, even listing Tangs, Lang, and Schneider? None of them even played a full season. Lang and Schneider are each 200 years old, expecting to retain them would have been an error in judgment by any fan. Tanguay, I could at least see since we gave up a quality pick for him. Koivu, Kovy, aging veterans on the decline. Anyone proclaiming 40-40 from Higgins, well...ha. There are the unreal expectations creeping in. I'd have maxed him out as a 50 pt player during a good year.

It seems some of the same people preaching stability are the same ones lamenting trade deadline day and UFA day inactivity.

Exactly. The root problem of the entire organization has been the inadequacy of the young talent developed during the Gainey rebuild. This is quite a different problem from Gainey's supposed lassitude or incompetence in 'not locking up RFAs/UFAs.' Much of that 'core' turned out to be (more or less) garbage that you wouldn't WANT to see locked in for years to come anyway.

And this root problem is why there's been so much turnover in the core. Bluntly put, the core sucked. Now, however, at least, in my opinion, the core is at least adequate and I don't expect it to be the revolving door it's been in the past. Certainly the lengths of the contracts Gainey signed in the summer suggest 3-4 years of stability in key positions.

[BTH]

There is stabilty now on the roster now. I'm not sure sure what consider to be a core player but the habs core as i see them today is Gomez, Gionta, Cammi, Gorges, Subban and Markov. These were also the only players who showed up every night in the playoffs.

I don't see Pleks as a core guy, i would rather they sign Moore and look internally or externally for a center. I think Pleks is a good player but when the going gets tough he vanishes.

Pyatt, Moore, lapierre did well in the playoffs, Pouliot probably gets one more year.

There will be open roster spots, we will see what kind of teams and players PG wants.

How is your leading point getting not a core player? Who also kills penalties...

Other than the massive turnover last season, it hasn't been quite the revolving door you suggest. Regardless, the players mentioned are (mostly) hardly tearing it up on whatever team they now reside. I'd say that portion of your debate should go to the thread on Drafting/Development more than on roster turnover. Geez, even listing Tangs, Lang, and Schneider? None of them even played a full season. Lang and Schneider are each 200 years old, expecting to retain them would have been an error in judgment by any fan. Tanguay, I could at least see since we gave up a quality pick for him. Koivu, Kovy, aging veterans on the decline. Anyone proclaiming 40-40 from Higgins, well...ha. There are the unreal expectations creeping in. I'd have maxed him out as a 50 pt player during a good year.

It seems some of the same people preaching stability are the same ones lamenting trade deadline day and UFA day inactivity.

I didn't say that Montreal should have retained all of these players. Just that they were all either top 6 forwards, top 3 defencemen or starting goalies who left the team for free - and it is an insanely long list. Draw whatever conclusions you like from it.

It makes little difference that some of them played less than a season here. They were assets that we chose to let go of. You can't expect them to retain everyone... but they need to retain some. I wonder what's the percentage of Canadiens who were set to become UFA and re-signed with us (under Gainey) - I'd guess it's somewhere between 10 and 25% which seems extraordinarily low. You could form a serviceable NHL team out of Habs players that we gave away for minimal return since the lockout. Not many other teams, if any, could say the same.

My point was that the yearly transfiguration of our core, if not always as thorough as it was last year, is what causes the illusion of the Habs having the most horrible asset management in the history of hockey.

I do think, though, that that was one of the greatest weaknesses of the Gainey tenure. Rewind to five years ago. Look at that average roster and look at the promising prospect pool we had. Out of those 50+ players what's left just five years later? Markov. Plekanec (for the moment). Halak (for the moment). Andrei Kostitsyn (for the moment).

Obviously, we have new players to replace the old but that's abnormal. It could have been avoided by signing young players instead of letting them take one or two year deals and then hit free agency.

[BTH]

Exactly. The root problem of the entire organization has been the inadequacy of the young talent developed during the Gainey rebuild. This is quite a different problem from Gainey's supposed lassitude or incompetence in 'not locking up RFAs/UFAs.' Much of that 'core' turned out to be (more or less) garbage that you wouldn't WANT to see locked in for years to come anyway.

And this root problem is why there's been so much turnover in the core. Bluntly put, the core sucked. Now, however, at least, in my opinion, the core is at least adequate and I don't expect it to be the revolving door it's been in the past. Certainly the lengths of the contracts Gainey signed in the summer suggest 3-4 years of stability in key positions.

Part of developing young players is showing confidence in them. Each young player had a unique situation, but I think you can universally say that signing players long-term is parting of showing confidence in them. Signing Ryder, Higgins, Komisarek and Plekanec to one and two year deals probably contributed to their decline. Gainey himself said that having so many expiring contracts was counter productive.

I don't see 3-4 years of stability with this core when a goalie trade seems likely, our #2 d-man (#1 to start the season) is likely leaving, we may have a vacancy at the #1 center position and we need to add or replace one or two of our top wingers. There are still big changes on the horizon.

If you mean 3-4 years out of Gomez, Gionta and Cammalleri then I agree because they're all signed for 4+ years, but it takes a hell of a lot more than those three to win and nobody else is signed for that long.

[JacksonJ]

How is your leading point getting not a core player? Who also kills penalties...

I didn't say that Montreal should have retained all of these players. Just that they were all either top 6 forwards, top 3 defencemen or starting goalies who left the team for free - and it is an insanely long list. Draw whatever conclusions you like from it.

It makes little difference that some of them played less than a season here. They were assets that we chose to let go of. You can't expect them to retain everyone... but they need to retain some. I wonder what's the percentage of Canadiens who were set to become UFA and re-signed with us (under Gainey) - I'd guess it's somewhere between 10 and 25% which seems extraordinarily low. You could form a serviceable NHL team out of Habs players that we gave away for minimal return since the lockout. Not many other teams, if any, could say the same.

My point was that the yearly transfiguration of our core, if not always as thorough as it was last year, is what causes the illusion of the Habs having the most horrible asset management in the history of hockey.

I do think, though, that that was one of the greatest weaknesses of the Gainey tenure. Rewind to five years ago. Look at that average roster and look at the promising prospect pool we had. Out of those 50+ players what's left just five years later? Markov. Plekanec (for the moment). Halak (for the moment). Andrei Kostitsyn (for the moment).

Obviously, we have new players to replace the old but that's abnormal. It could have been avoided by signing young players instead of letting them take one or two year deals and then hit free agency.

So your point is you think we would be better off with last year's roster again?

Other than at the end of last year we never really a "yearly transfiguration of our core" as you seem to suggest. The only reason we kept everyone last year was we couldn't miss the playoffs in our centennial year, and then we cut the dead weight after our humiliating playoff performance. What would we even have gotten in trading our core? Probably other teams leftovers.

So my question is who do you want back from the old guard?

[BTH]

So your point is you think we would be better off with last year's roster again?

Other than at the end of last year we never really a "yearly transfiguration of our core" as you seem to suggest. The only reason we kept everyone last year was we couldn't miss the playoffs in our centennial year, and then we cut the dead weight after our humiliating playoff performance. What would we even have gotten in trading our core? Probably other teams leftovers.

So my question is who do you want back from the old guard?

I don't know how to answer the first question because it has nothing to do with any of my earlier posts. But to answer your final question, could we afford them under the cap (which we can't), I would love to have Streit, Tanguay, Lang, Perezhogin ...actually most of them could still be useful to us if we were allowed an unlimited payroll.

Again, I understand that the cap forces you to make tough decisions. But have we made any? The Habs have for the most part taken the safest decisions possible and have gone par for the course as a result. At some point you need to invest in your young players. For five years, young players have emerged as core players before being locked up to long-term contracts and the Canadiens have lost many assets as a result.

Like I said, an entire organization full of players and prospects evaporated in just five years. That is most definitely abnormal. Whether you think that's due to overhypage from the fans and media, poor developing and coaching, or bad asset management, or some combination of them all is for you to decide. But don't deny that there is a "situation" on our hands.

Anyway, my point, which you ignored by bolding the first half of the sentence and skipping over the second half is that: "the yearly changes to our core, if not always as thorough as they were last year, are what cause the illusion of the Habs having the most horrible asset management in the history of hockey." Key word: illusion. I explicitly said that I didn't think they should have kept all of those players (though at the time, I think I wanted Streit, Souray, Komisarek, Kovalev and Lang) - but some justification needs to be given for the length of our Assets Lost list.

[Toronthab]

I'm still waiting for them to nominate Higgins as our captain. My hopes are fading just a little these days however....

[Toronthab]

Of course Streit is much better than MAB. The analogy lies in the fact that most people saw Streit as a one-dimensional player who could not play D at all, and a beneficiary of, rather than a key contributor to, our league-leading PP at the time. It is hypocritical of such people to now condemn the Habs for failing to lock up Streit. That was my point.

You can talk all you want about shipping Komi out at the deadline, it was not going to happen in that season. The organization clearly made a decision that it was going to go for broke that year. Period. Did it work? Of course not. What I'm saying is that any individual in Gainey's situation would have done the same thing and not blow up the core, because of the overall fan and ownership context. (Also, if the Habs hold a fire-sale, do we then lure Cammy and the other UFAs? One thing to consider is that perception of your team as a 'playoff team' is important in being deemed an attractive destination on the UFA market).

Anyway, again, I'm not saying everything Gainey did on this front was great, just that his record with UFAs and RFAs defies facile condemnation or fawning applause.

Asset management isn't hockey. Gainey I think is a person who chose to respect the fans , the sport, the players the game and the team. No way he could give up on the year and trade Souray. No way to fail to try. I do not think his objective was to win the Stanley cup every year. He stated that he wanted to build a team that could compete year after year. I am no great judge of GM's but I generally think that he made a heck of a lot of good, wise decisions. I think the key is to make the right decision, not necessarily the one that works out to be the most successful. Streit was perhaps not the best decision, but I don't know the variables being considered at the time, and many harped on Streits inability to play well enough defensively.

I think the key to Gainey is what I said above. He did not have the luxury of a team with fans who don't mind blowing it up and racing for the bottom to get assets. Gainey is a sportsman, a great sportsman and a great man.

[BlueKross]

Asset management isn't hockey. Gainey I think is a person who chose to respect the fans , the sport, the players the game and the team. No way he could give up on the year and trade Souray. No way to fail to try. I do not think his objective was to win the Stanley cup every year. He stated that he wanted to build a team that could compete year after year. I am no great judge of GM's but I generally think that he made a heck of a lot of good, wise decisions. I think the key is to make the right decision, not necessarily the one that works out to be the most successful. Streit was perhaps not the best decision, but I don't know the variables being considered at the time, and many harped on Streits inability to play well enough defensively.

I think the key to Gainey is what I said above. He did not have the luxury of a team with fans who don't mind blowing it up and racing for the bottom to get assets. Gainey is a sportsman, a great sportsman and a great man.

I been bellyaching for years that Montreal has wasted assets constantly and the scouting department has been suspect to say the least. I am grateful somebody is finally getting it. Keep it up boys!

[JacksonJ]

I don't know how to answer the first question because it has nothing to do with any of my earlier posts. But to answer your final question, could we afford them under the cap (which we can't), I would love to have Streit, Tanguay, Lang, Perezhogin ...actually most of them could still be useful to us if we were allowed an unlimited payroll.

Again, I understand that the cap forces you to make tough decisions. But have we made any? The Habs have for the most part taken the safest decisions possible and have gone par for the course as a result. At some point you need to invest in your young players. For five years, young players have emerged as core players before being locked up to long-term contracts and the Canadiens have lost many assets as a result.

Like I said, an entire organization full of players and prospects evaporated in just five years. That is most definitely abnormal. Whether you think that's due to overhypage from the fans and media, poor developing and coaching, or bad asset management, or some combination of them all is for you to decide. But don't deny that there is a "situation" on our hands.

Anyway, my point, which you ignored by bolding the first half of the sentence and skipping over the second half is that: "the yearly changes to our core, if not always as thorough as they were last year, are what cause the illusion of the Habs having the most horrible asset management in the history of hockey." Key word: illusion. I explicitly said that I didn't think they should have kept all of those players (though at the time, I think I wanted Streit, Souray, Komisarek, Kovalev and Lang) - but some justification needs to be given for the length of our Assets Lost list.

Thing is it doesn't matter how great your prospects look if they don't pan out. Guys like Higgins put BG in a no-win situation: resign him and have the fans and media complain, or trade/dump him and have the fans media complain. If you don't want to keep a player and you don't want to move him what do you want done?

Of the four players you mentioned only two were prospects, everyone agrees in hindsight we should have signed Streit, and with Perezhogin... well I'm hazy on details with him but it didn't look like BG was in a good situation. When you refer to us losing assets who is that anyway? Most guys were lost for attitude/effort reasons the only one we failed to sign I would want back is Streit.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Thing is it doesn't matter how great your prospects look if they don't pan out. Guys like Higgins put BG in a no-win situation: resign him and have the fans and media complain, or trade/dump him and have the fans media complain. If you don't want to keep a player and you don't want to move him what do you want done?

Of the four players you mentioned only two were prospects, everyone agrees in hindsight we should have signed Streit, and with Perezhogin... well I'm hazy on details with him but it didn't look like BG was in a good situation. When you refer to us losing assets who is that anyway? Most guys were lost for attitude/effort reasons the only one we failed to sign I would want back is Streit.

You've captured succinctly the point I've been trying to make, so thanks. However, I think Wamsley's original claim was that guys like Higgins should have been traded if we weren't going to lock them up. Fair enough, I suppose, although return would always be an issue.

[JacksonJ]

I agree if you aren't going to resign a player you might as well trade them, but because we are on the bubble every year it is very hard for us to trade our dead weight without it looking like we gave up (ex: Souray). Even though we didn't resign Streit we couldn't trade him that year because it looked like we had a shot to go deep. And of course it would have been a PR sh*t storm if we tried to trade our top scorers in the Centennial season. So it has been a series of strange events that have lead to us getting nothing for some promising prospects.

[Toronthab]

I agree if you aren't going to resign a player you might as well trade them, but because we are on the bubble every year it is very hard for us to trade our dead weight without it looking like we gave up (ex: Souray). Even though we didn't resign Streit we couldn't trade him that year because it looked like we had a shot to go deep. And of course it would have been a PR sh*t storm if we tried to trade our top scorers in the Centennial season. So it has been a series of strange events that have lead to us getting nothing for some promising prospects.

I think people just miss this element of dealling with players and contracts. Quite often, getting the best return at the end is just one of the variables to be considered. I have been and continue to be a big fan of Mr G, because I think he understands the daunting challenges of being a GM in Montreal. Often , the right thing to do at decision time is not what is going to look the best down the road. But it was still the right thing to do.

[BTH]

Thing is it doesn't matter how great your prospects look if they don't pan out. Guys like Higgins put BG in a no-win situation: resign him and have the fans and media complain, or trade/dump him and have the fans media complain. If you don't want to keep a player and you don't want to move him what do you want done?

Of the four players you mentioned only two were prospects, everyone agrees in hindsight we should have signed Streit, and with Perezhogin... well I'm hazy on details with him but it didn't look like BG was in a good situation. When you refer to us losing assets who is that anyway? Most guys were lost for attitude/effort reasons the only one we failed to sign I would want back is Streit.

I listed a bunch of players earlier.

I wasn't saying that Gainey should have done X or should have done Y, I only commented that perhaps the really long list of important players lost gives us the impression that the Habs are losing more key assets than they really are.

But I do think that Gainey should have signed younger players to longer-term contracts. When's the last time the team's had a young player that everyone knew would be on the team for years to come? Other teams are signing their key young players to 4+ year deals.

[BlueKross]

I listed a bunch of players earlier.

I wasn't saying that Gainey should have done X or should have done Y, I only commented that perhaps the really long list of important players lost gives us the impression that the Habs are losing more key assets than they really are.

But I do think that Gainey should have signed younger players to longer-term contracts. When's the last time the team's had a young player that everyone knew would be on the team for years to come? Other teams are signing their key young players to 4+ year deals.

I do have a long list of players who were let go for basically nothing, each of which will have a story line why we couldn't do anything with them at the time. I am not going to bring out that list again. I would say that Komo would have signed for the money he was offered from us or less had he been offered to secure his future previous to his contract running out. The Gainey rule that you can't negotiate in the last year of the contract effectively hurts both parties. I don't mind taking a late pick or what ever but get something for the guy. Obviously he was worth something to the Leafs at 5m per.