What would it take?

[DON]

Habfans still bring up Chelios trade, so cause or not Gainly wont be forgiven anytime soon.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Habfans still bring up Chelios trade, so cause or not Gainly wont be forgiven anytime soon.

True. Speaking rationally, though, there's a difference between the Chelios and McDonagh disasters, because you can only keep so many $5.5-million defencemen in a cap system. If we'd kept McDonagh, no way would we have signed Petry. This zero-sum logic doesn't apply to the Chelios trade, which was in the pre-cap era, when you could load up on as many expensive players as possible at a single position. Therefore, a RATIONAL fan will look at the situation and say that, in the long run, we lost McDonagh but added Petry - not quite a lateral move, but close enough that it's not worth getting all aggravated about. So it's not just fatigue with the whole thing that justifies turning the page on McDonagh; it's a recognition that we've more or less replaced what we lost in that trade, organizationally speaking.

But yeh, fans will continue to rend their garments, no matter what 'rational analysis' might suggest.

[habs rule]

True. Speaking rationally, though, there's a difference between the Chelios and McDonagh disasters, because you can only keep so many $5.5-million defencemen in a cap system. If we'd kept McDonagh, no way would we have signed Petry. This zero-sum logic doesn't apply to the Chelios trade, which was in the pre-cap era, when you could load up on as many expensive players as possible at a single position. Therefore, a RATIONAL fan will look at the situation and say that, in the long run, we lost McDonagh but added Petry - not quite a lateral move, but close enough that it's not worth getting all aggravated about. So it's not just fatigue with the whole thing that justifies turning the page on McDonagh; it's a recognition that we've more or less replaced what we lost in that trade, organizationally speaking.

But yeh, fans will continue to rend their garments, no matter what 'rational analysis' might suggest.

The McDonough trade turned out to be a disaster, however when he was traded he wasn't making the team, so it could have gone either way. In hindsight yup I really wish that Big Bob was not so enamoured with Gomez, but he had a plan and followed through on it. Unfortunately Gomez turned into a piece of ca ca ca crap. That was unforseen and could not have been predicted, except from the geniuses I am probably going to hear from now.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

The McDonough trade turned out to be a disaster, however when he was traded he wasn't making the team, so it could have gone either way. In hindsight yup I really wish that Big Bob was not so enamoured with Gomez, but he had a plan and followed through on it. Unfortunately Gomez turned into a piece of ca ca ca crap. That was unforseen and could not have been predicted, except from the geniuses I am probably going to hear from now.

Well, I wasn't trying to exhume this old debate - more pointing out that it is no longer relevant, since in the long run we would either have signed McDonagh or Petry, but not both; and that Petry is a damned solid consolation prize.

But yes, you're right. Gainey can (and was) reasonably be criticized for trading away a player who turned out to be a #1-2 defenceman in exchange for an overpaid 60-point playmaking C. But he could not reasonably have been expected to know that Gomez would completely evaporate as a top-6 hockey player within two years of the trade. Nobody could have seen that coming. It was the hockey equivalent of an Act of God, and it's silly to "blame Gainey" for it, or (worse) talk as though Gainey knowingly traded McDonagh for THAT Gomez.

Anyway: water under the bridge. We've substituted Petry for McDonagh. That's a satisfactory resolution. End of story.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Anyway: water under the bridge. We've substituted Petry for McDonagh. That's a satisfactory resolution. End of story.

I like Petry but I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with that being the resolution to the 'Gomez trade debacle'. Mainly because It's 6 years later after all. I think in reality, we got players like Gionta, Cammalleri and Gill to join the team as free agents when they never would have otherwise (Gomez trade). That core took us on a few good runs and on a personal note it was just about enough to justify the trade for Gomez. I think acquiring a player like Gomez, with a contract as large as his was almost necessary in order for such a huge shakeup to be possible as well as for Montreal to be an attractive place for free agents to sign. What would have been great in hindsight would have been for basically anyone but McDonagh to be the player who went the other way, unfortunately.

Saying we have Petry now in the long run instead of McDonagh just does not sit quite well with me because too much has happened since the trade. There have already been some other success stories as well as failures in our system that probably happened as a direct result of losing McDonagh. I guess what I'm saying is that we should have had a Petry-like replacement for McDonagh sooner if anything; not that he's not a fit player to fill such a role.It could maybe even be argued that we were able to offer Subban such a luxurious contract because we didn't have to sign both he and McDonagh to rich contracts.

[habs rule]

You guys are far too reasonable, here I am trying to inject a little controversy and discussion and you gotta go all " it's ok " on me. Will non hockey season never end?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Yeah, the board understandably goes pretty fallow after the UFA stuff is resolved. But sometimes a theme will pop up that holds one's interest. This is one of 'em, for me, just because the 'Petry-replaces-McDonagh' argument seems like a new twist on the old debate over that trade.

xXx, the McDonagh trade is still relevant because he could have been part of the young core that is now rounding into maturity. Judging from the contract he accepted with NY, we could have locked him up and still had the coin to sign PK. So the claim that 'too much time has gone by' for the discussion to be relevant fails to consider this longer organizational view. The question I'm asking, then, is: has the organization filled the hole left by McDonagh? And my answer is: with Petry, the answer is more or less a 'yes.' Structurally, we are now roughly where we would be had we kept McDonagh. I find that a consoling thought, and it's the best reason for (finally) putting that festering sore behind us.

[hab29RETIRED]

McDonough is cheaper and better than Petry - by a wide margin. Mcdonough is the captain of his time and unquestionably a top pairing dman. Petry is a good offensive dman that is marginal as a top pairing dman. there is no comparison between the two. Petry being a replacement f0r McDonough is about as accurate as Odelin being solid replacement for Chelios.

I still don't get the "who knew Gomez would fall of in his production", or "who knew he would be so useless" comments. NYR were desperate to get rid of him, because he clearly was NOT a $7M player. The entire friggin league knew it. I said it at the time and still feel that way now, At the time of the trade, I posted here that I would not have traded Higgins straight up for Gomez because how bad Gomez's contract was - let alone "throw in" McDonough. This was just a horrible trade and easily goes down as one of the top 3 or 4 worst trades in Habs history - IMO just as bad as the Roy, Chelios and Leclair/Desjardins trades. But for some reason since it was the great Bob Gainey who made this trade, we get rationalization about how necessary the deal was to change the culture of the team, or to bring in Gionta, Cammalleri and Hall friggin Gill.

The deal was horrible at the time and seems even more horrible now.

Yeah, the board understandably goes pretty fallow after the UFA stuff is resolved. But sometimes a theme will pop up that holds one's interest. This is one of 'em, for me, just because the 'Petry-replaces-McDonagh' argument seems like a new twist on the old debate over that trade.

xXx, the McDonagh trade is still relevant because he could have been part of the young core that is now rounding into maturity. Judging from the contract he accepted with NY, we could have locked him up and still had the coin to sign PK. So the claim that 'too much time has gone by' for the discussion to be relevant fails to consider this longer organizational view. The question I'm asking, then, is: has the organization filled the hole left by McDonagh? And my answer is: with Petry, the answer is more or less a 'yes.' Structurally, we are now roughly where we would be had we kept McDonagh. I find that a consoling thought, and it's the best reason for (finally) putting that festering sore behind us.

[DON]

At least seems most are very pleased with 76,79, 26,28 as top 4 quality d-men going into this season with 74-77 also capable of playing 20+ minutes.

Comparing Petry to McDonagh is like comparing McDonagh to Subban.

But who said Petry -McDonagh were equals?

Petry was just signed till 2021, McDonagh is going into 3rd year of his deal, so $800,000/yr isn't a wide margin and was a different market back when he was signed.

Habs weakness for past few years has been lack of offense from forward group and if that can improve should be a darn good year for Habs.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

McDonagh would not be cheaper than Petry once we factor in the tax differential. That was part of my original hypothesis. But yes, if I am wildly over-rating Petry, or hugely under-estimating McDonagh, then the claim that Petry 'more or less' makes up for the organizational hole left by the trade doesn't stand up. I do agree (as my posts on this have consistently said) that McD is a better overall player, but on the other hand, the Odelein-Chelios analogy seems pretty hyperbolic.

And none of this is to say the McDonagh trade was other than terrible. The question I was asking is whether we've made good the gap, generally speaking.

[Neech]

McDonagh is a top 10-15 D-man in the league, on one of the 5 best contracts to boot. He seems like he would be the PERFECT complement to PK, forming by far the best pairing in the league if they were together. I'm inclined to think that we'd be a juggernaut with those two on the blueline in front of Carey. Petry isn't in the same class.

habs29RETIRED is completely correct in saying that we should have been able to land Gomez for a lot less, given his awful contract and the Rangers' cap issues at the time. In no way should we have thrown in one of our top prospects. But we were unlucky that that prospect turned out to be so good - otherwise the trade is dismissed as a minor loss.

There's a somewhat similar situation with Sekac in Anaheim - I doubt he'll turn into a frontline player like McDonagh, but I had hopes for him as a bona fide top-6er. Now all we can do is hope his career tanks...?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Oh, well. It was a nice consolation while it lasted

I'm not too worried about Sekac - I don't think it pays to panic every time you trade a prospect - although obviously, nothing is a sure thing at this stage.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The tax thing is overblown to be honest. The study that came out a few years back tried to make a huge deal out of 57% of free agents going to tax friendly cities. If you think about it, 1) that's still pretty even and 2) there's only so many teams to sign for and for the past few years, a lot of the tax friendly cities have had a lot of cap space open due to being rebuilding clubs.

Habs paid 53.9% tax rate in 13-14. That's the highest in the league. But New York pays 52.1%. Players signing in New York instead of Montreal and claim it's for tax reasons are just giving an excuse nobody looks into. There's also no real "premium" especially when all three California teams have the highest tax rates in the U.S. and they are not paying any extra for their players.

The cheapest tax rates in the NHL are not in some southern hockey city. It's Calgary and Edmonton. Edmonton has historically had to pay a premium to players to come play for them and their tax rate is 38.3%. You have to be a real penny pinching libertarian to care about your tax rate when you're making millions per year.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/taxes-and-hockey-new-report-suggests-that-canadiens-184035416.html

[Guest Stogey24]

Good post ^

[hab29RETIRED]

Cost of living in Manhattan is also insane.

The tax thing is overblown to be honest. The study that came out a few years back tried to make a huge deal out of 57% of free agents going to tax friendly cities. If you think about it, 1) that's still pretty even and 2) there's only so many teams to sign for and for the past few years, a lot of the tax friendly cities have had a lot of cap space open due to being rebuilding clubs.

Habs paid 53.9% tax rate in 13-14. That's the highest in the league. But New York pays 52.1%. Players signing in New York instead of Montreal and claim it's for tax reasons are just giving an excuse nobody looks into. There's also no real "premium" especially when all three California teams have the highest tax rates in the U.S. and they are not paying any extra for their players.

The cheapest tax rates in the NHL are not in some southern hockey city. It's Calgary and Edmonton. Edmonton has historically had to pay a premium to players to come play for them and their tax rate is 38.3%. You have to be a real penny pinching libertarian to care about your tax rate when you're making millions per year.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/taxes-and-hockey-new-report-suggests-that-canadiens-184035416.html

[habs rule]

Glad to see that Habs 29 jumped in and provided the other side of the coin, for a minute there I thought I was losing my touch. But let's not elevate McDonagh to top 10 defence in the league for crying out loud. 1st of all he has 136 points in 317 gms pretty good. Petry has 81 in 314 PLAYING in Edmonton, the scrap pile of the league. How many points would Mcd have in edmonton? 80? sounds about right. He is good but not PK Subban good, not Markov good. No I think CC is right Petry fills that gap. Top 10? no way. Top 25 oh yeah. Let's get it on. By the way I will defend Bob all the time. He turned this franchise around and made it respectable when all was lost. Make mistakes yup, but what did they do to the last guy who was perfect? Are you perfect? Never taken a chance? Come on.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't defend Bob uncritically by any means. He did some things well, but his player development was awful - he had an 18-year-old Carey Price, fresh from Anahim Lake, living alone in a condo in Old Montreal, for heaven's sake! - and the McDonagh trade worked out to be an all-time howler. Even if Gainey could not possibly have known that Gomez would dissolve as an elite playmaker, GMs are ultimately judged based on results, whether that's fair or not.

The thing with McDonagh as some kind of superstar is that he doesn't quarterback the PP. To my mind, that moves him a significant notch below the true #1 defencemen in the league. My suggestion would be that McDonagh is a really excellent #2 defenceman. Petry is a good #3. There's a significant gap between them, no question, but I don't see it as quite as cavernous as Habs29 suggests.

[DON]

Most are still 'pining' often it seems for Bergevin to still make blockbuster trade (instead of just bargin bin stuff as some say). Seemingly ignoring fact that they all don't work out well (and the fact it might cost a McDonagh-type prospect to get big #1 centre and not just Eller & Tinordi + other middling stuff) and even a simple prospect trade is beat to a pulp over and over as a big mistake or possible big mistake long before anyone really has a clue how will play out.

(I still would feel better to place blame of Gomer trade on Gauthier though.)

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Most are still 'pining' often it seems for Bergevin to still make blockbuster trade (instead of just bargin bin stuff as some say). Seemingly ignoring fact that they all don't work out well (and the fact it might cost a McDonagh-type prospect to get big #1 centre and not just Eller & Tinordi + other middling stuff) and even a simple prospect trade is beat to a pulp over and over as a big mistake or possible big mistake long before anyone really has a clue how will play out.

(I still would feel better to place blame of Gomer trade on Gauthier though.)

The argument that Bergevin has to swing a blockbuster deal in order to 'put his stamp' on the team is quite fundamentally dumb IMHO.

You make such a deal if it clearly will make your team better. Otherwise you don't. 'Putting your stamp' on things is just egotism. It's the opposite of responsible leadership.

I'm reasonably confident that IF there is a huge deal to be made, and IF it will clearly take our team to that elusive 'next level,' Bergevin will do it. But if he goes about trying to do one for its own sake, then he is a fool, and we're in big trouble in the long run.

[Neech]

I'd guess that roughly 100% of neutral observers would take McDonagh over Markov. His point production is somewhat lacking, but he has a stronger positional and mental game than PK, who is still inclined to be a bonehead at times. His possession numbers are excellent. I couldn't name 15 defenders in the league who are better than him. He hasn't got much flash, but it's precisely his solidity and reliability that would have made him such a perfect partner for PK. Plus, he's a team captain at the same age.

As for Bergevin's 'stamp' on the team, I'd say that happened pretty quickly when he let Gorges and Gionta go. There was significant roster turnover in the first two offseasons, and problem pieces like Cole were promptly dealt.

[habs rule]

Most are still 'pining' often it seems for Bergevin to still make blockbuster trade (instead of just bargin bin stuff as some say). Seemingly ignoring fact that they all don't work out well (and the fact it might cost a McDonagh-type prospect to get big #1 centre and not just Eller & Tinordi + other middling stuff) and even a simple prospect trade is beat to a pulp over and over as a big mistake or possible big mistake long before anyone really has a clue how will play out.

(I still would feel better to place blame of Gomer trade on Gauthier though.)

I like your thinking. Let's blame Gauthier, I am all for that. I also agee with the rest of your post. GM'ing is not done in the rear view mirror, you have to look ahead and that involves educated guessing, some right, some wrong.

[habs rule]

I don't defend Bob uncritically by any means. He did some things well, but his player development was awful - he had an 18-year-old Carey Price, fresh from Anahim Lake, living alone in a condo in Old Montreal, for heaven's sake! - and the McDonagh trade worked out to be an all-time howler. Even if Gainey could not possibly have known that Gomez would dissolve as an elite playmaker, GMs are ultimately judged based on results, whether that's fair or not.

The thing with McDonagh as some kind of superstar is that he doesn't quarterback the PP. To my mind, that moves him a significant notch below the true #1 defencemen in the league. My suggestion would be that McDonagh is a really excellent #2 defenceman. Petry is a good #3. There's a significant gap between them, no question, but I don't see it as quite as cavernous as Habs29 suggests.

And my point would be look at the whole body of work. I have never been able to argue the player development thing cuase I have no facts, I don't believe anyne else does either. It is just one of those things he has been tarred with cause he got rid of a lot of deadwood. Let's remember what this organisation looked like before Bob took over, we were te laughing stock of the league and had about as much hope of a cup as I have of winning the lottery. Bob put this franchise back on the hockey map. You don't have to agree with everyting he did but he did get results.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Stan Bowman never made a big trade for the Blackhawks. All of his trades were having to get rid of young talent he couldn't afford anymore. His big free agency move was getting Hossa. Everything else was smart drafting, keeping the right guys and never allowing a lost trade or a bad acquisition slow the team Down.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

And my point would be look at the whole body of work. I have never been able to argue the player development thing cuase I have no facts, I don't believe anyne else does either. It is just one of those things he has been tarred with cause he got rid of a lot of deadwood. Let's remember what this organisation looked like before Bob took over, we were te laughing stock of the league and had about as much hope of a cup as I have of winning the lottery. Bob put this franchise back on the hockey map. You don't have to agree with everyting he did but he did get results.

habs rule, it's an old argument...but what the heck, we've got nothing much else to natter about right now!

Just looking at the big picture, not specific decisions, Bob's 'results' were mixed. Yes, building on Savard's foundation, he did restore the Habs to relevance, and he did construct an entertaining team that had one great season (2008) before completely melting down. His first rebuild has to be judged a failure; it never went beyond Round Two and most of its key players turned out to be garbage (Pleks and Price excepted). Gainey himself agreed with this analysis, since he firebombed the entire team, all the way down to the Hamilton coaching staff, in the summer of 2009, and 'rebuilt' with UFAs instead. That he was able to run the table on that summer's UFAs was a measure of how far the organization had come in terms of perception. That he had to do it in the first place was a measure of how far the first rebuild ended in disaster.

Rebuild 2.0 gave us a veteran team that was fundamentally stronger than its predecessor, yielding a Semi-Final appearance and a Game Seven OT appearance against the eventual Cup champ. But it too melted down under the blaring incompetence of Gainey's hand-chosen successor, who seemed to have learned nothing about managing human beings from his mentor.

The UFA rebuild was, I argued at the time and still maintain, a deliberate attempt to buy time while the 'next wave' (Subban, Patches, etc.) graduated into being core pieces. In this it was successful. We only had to endure one bona-fide horrendous year (2013) instead of three or four. But it does have to be said that if McDonagh had been part of that 'next wave' we might already have made the Finals.

So: he got results in terms making us a respected, competitive organization. But at the end of the day there were too many failures in Bob's tenure as GM for me to be anything other than respectfully ambivalent about it.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Gainey should have tanked the team after the lockout. Traded Koivu, no deal for Kovalev, trade every asset, etc. and let the team be terrible for a few years. Instead he believed in the prospect pool and the fan sentimentality, plus gave into pressure on trying to win a Cup in the decade.

That said, he took what had become one of the most dysfunctional franchises of the 90s and and gave them something to be proud of. That goes a long way.