I have lost all faith in Bob Gainey...

[Dave from Vancouver]

...and it has nothing to do with this Ron Hainey fiasco, as it appears his days with the Habs were numbered.

Simply put, there is overwhelming evidence against his performance so far in the "New NHL" and it is certainly hurting the team.

1. Trading for Radek Bonk

First, this guy is making 2.394 million! That would be bad on its own, but we also gave up Garon in the three way deal! Compare Bonk's productivity and heart (or lack thereof) just even to the pickups of one other team, the Colorado Avalanche:

Ian Laperriere

- he wanted to come to Montreal

- is a defensive forward (like Bonk is supposed to be)

- 17 points!

- 17 points!!

- +10

- making 1.14 million dollars!

So, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that signing Laperriere, putting him on the 3rd line, and trading Garon, for well, anybody else, would have worked out better.

Colorado also picked up Turgeon, another Montreal native, for only 1.5 million, and he's kicked in 25 points! I think he could have helped that second line...

Also, if Bonk wasn't good enough for Ottawa (they dumped him for peanuts), why should he be good enough for Les Glorieux?

I will admit that hindsight is 20/20. However, Gainey's decision to trade for Bonk wasn't just bad, it was hideous. It prevented the team from acquiring guys like Laperriere, guys who would actually wear the CH with pride.

2. Hoping (wishing?) that our D would hold up in the NHL, new or old.

A smart GM wouldn't go into the season with such obvious holes on D. And it's not as though he could point to prospects in the farm and just ask fans to be patient. If he thought Brisebois couldn't do the job, fine, but at 1.5 million, he's paid off so far for the Avs (14 pts, +4). Since when has a team gone far in the playoffs without a true #1 dman? Markov is the closest, but he has to be considered at #2 at best, he's not even in sniffing range of the leaders in stats across the NHL.

3. Poor Faceoff %

Was this even considered? I guess I got spoiled watched Perrault the last few years.

I could say a lot more, but that's probably enough. Thinking rationally, no, Gainey is not the worst GM in the NHL, not even close. But he's been average at best. And things have gone steadily downhill. And that's disappointing.

Thank you,

Dave

:ghg:

[Mont Royale]

Some of your points are valid (although with the benefit if hindsight, as you say), but how do you figure things have "gone steadily downhill"? Do you remember where we were before? If we were downhill, we'd be the Florida Panthers!

Gainey will make mistakes, as will everyone who is a GM. I think he's caused a net improvement to the team, which we've seen in the standings and quality of play.

[CoRvInA]

come on Bonk's numbers were much better than turgeon.. the fact that he hasnt woken up yet... I think more pressure on him is good ... benching him last game GOOD! remember Kovy had a troubled start too! Bonk is doing his job... We want and need more from him... still were stuck with him for the season I think unless we put him on waivers... He's bound to wake up I know it!

[Haboholic]

Dave all i gotta say is... its easier said then done...

hell, if anyone could tell the future, they would be genius GM's... but from what i know, no one can predict the future. so therefore gainey is human like everyone else!

u think everyone knew how turgeon and laperiere would do this season? also consider there on a different team, what they do on there team, doesnt mean theyd be doing the same on our team. maybe bonk would have 30 points with colorado? WHO KNOWS!

[bebehabs]

oh yeah? as for me, gainey still have my 100% support~

[Makh2o]

Originally posted by Mont Royale

Some of your points are valid (although with the benefit if hindsight, as you say), but how do you figure things have "gone steadily downhill"?  Do you remember where we were before?  If we were downhill, we'd be the Florida Panthers!

Gainey will make mistakes, as will everyone who is a GM.  I think he's caused a net improvement to the team, which we've seen in the standings and quality of play.

Gonna have to agree, although he's made some questionable moves (keeping Hossa over Dagenais is the most recent that bothered me), I think he's done quite well so far...

[bookworm]

preliminary rambling:

i think we have to wait until we see what happens in the playoffs to judge bonk and that trade, although i was one of the first to criticize bonk's play after just a few games this year. the only player we have who i don't think belongs in the league is streit.

to the point:

i am quite happy with bob gainey. in fact i am thrilled with bob gainey. i only hope he doesn't mind working in such a judgmental atmosphere that unfortunately the media and "us" (the fans) in montreal create sometimes. we are headed overall in the right direction and it's not fair to say this guy has 25 points for X amount of dollars and that guy is plus whatever for that amount of dollars and pick out best stats and think that would be the same here. sorry i guess i am still rambling but the point is bob gainey is our best gm since sam pollock and arguably our best hockey mind since scotty bowman.

by the way, if we had signed scotty as gm and coach instead of insisting he remain just as coach and signing irving grundman which caused scotty to leave to buffalo we probably would have won at least five or six more stanley cups than we have. at least if scotty had remained all those years.

[Dave from Vancouver]

CoRvInA:

The post wasn't directed as a comparison between Bonk and Turgeon, but even if it was:

Last NHL Season:

Bonk

44pts, +2, 2pts in 7 playoff games

Turgeon

40pts, +17, 4pts in 5 playoff games

When you consider that Bonk cost one million more plus Garon, I don't think it checks out.

That being said, I loved your positive attitude, its always better to be optimistic!

Haboholic:

I can't argue with you there, it is certainly easier said than done. For instance, who knows, maybe Laperriere would have crumbled under the Montreal spotlight. But two things:

1. Analyzing past moves is what being a fan is all about.

2. Its hard to say Gainey was showing smart predictive behaviour (ie. the institution of cap) by trading for a 3rd line center making 2.3 mil.

[option+]

Yes, surely Gainey should have known that Laperriere, who's previous season high was 24 points, was going to tear it up this year while Bonk, who AVERAGED 57.4 points over his last 5 NHL years would struggle. I can't believe Gainey didn't pick up on that! It was so obvious! What a moron.

Come on Dave, you can't possibly blame Gainey for taking Bonk over Laperriere. Every GM in the NHL, if they had an opening at 3rd line center, would have taken Bonk over Laperriere. A few still might...

[Rooster]

I'd say the jury is still out. I had a very positive bias towards BG, which has been dented somewhat. I feel he has made a few minor mistakes (Hossa, Hainsey, not shoring up the D) and has not made any real significant positive moves. Kovalev was a very good move, but an evident one. I would think he was not the first forward on the wish list this summer, but the one who wanted to sign in Montreal. Many GM's in that situation would have done that (sign the best forward willing to sign). Bonk, I don't consider a mistake. Can't judge with hindsight, gotta place yourself at the time the move was made. The Garon/Bonk trade was pre lockout and looked good at the time it was made.

[Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

Losing in faith in Gainey at this early stage is preposterous. How about acquiring Kovalev? Was that also stupid?

It's also too soon to give up on Bonk, a PROVEN veteran performer in this league, like it or not; too soon to anoint Garon a self-evident success as a starting goalie (certainly LA has had trouble convincing itself); too soon to wring our hands over the loss of supposed superstar Hossa, who has already shown signs of evaporating in NY; too soon to flip over the departure of that lunkhead Hainsey; too soon to accuse him of doing nothing with our D; etc..

The bottom line is that the Habs are a much more stable, well-run franchise, a significantly better hockey team, than they were three years ago---thanks in significant part to Bob.

[Dave from Vancouver]

option+ :

I never said Gainey was a "moron", I said he was "average". Big difference.

Secondly, that's great that Bonk averaged 57.4 points over 5 seasons, but past production doesn't guarantee future performance. In the new NHL, Bonk has struggled, and the elite GMs (ie. in Ottawa) saw this coming. My point remains: there must be a reason Ottawa was willing to give up Bonk for nothing.

Besides, if Bonk was acquired to provide defense, points shouldn't be the first barometer.

Also, it was well-documented that Laperriere had desires to join the Habs, and passion is so important in this game.

Dave

[Roo-AH! Roo-AH!]

One other thing about Bonk---Gainey wasn't ONLY looking for a 3rd line checking centre. He wanted a 3rd liner who could step in and succeed as the 2nd line centreman if Ribiero, an unproven commodity, flamed out. Bonk's profile was perfect for this role. Whether Bonk actually works out is another matter, but there was nothing wrong with Gainey's reasoning.

Ottawa dumped Bonk because Spezza was ready to take his spot. If he was so bad, how come they spent several seasons honestly expecting to win the Cup with him as their #1 centreman?

[Rooster]

Originally posted by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!

One other thing about Bonk---Gainey wasn't ONLY looking for a 3rd line checking centre. He wanted a 3rd liner who could step in and succeed as the 2nd line centreman if Ribiero, an unproven commodity, flamed out. Bonk's profile was perfect for this role. Whether Bonk actually works out is another matter, but there was nothing wrong with Gainey's reasoning.

Ottawa dumped Bonk because Spezza was ready to take his spot. If he was so bad, how come they spent several seasons honestly expecting to win the Cup with him as their #1 centreman?

Exactly. That's why this looked like a great pre lockout trade.

[GoHabs2002]

Gainey is not average, period.

Whether its as a hockey man, a general manager or a coach.

Gainey took control of this team when no one seemed capable nor knew how and he gradually built up the franchise. His presence immediately adds credibilty and respect to the team.

Comparing Bonk with Turgeon is very inaccurate. Bonk was brought in for size and his defensive awareness, two things Turgeon is not known for. Secondly, Bonk's primary role is to provide a big, centerpiece to a defensive line that can chip in temporarily, ala Bulis. Is he getting paid a bit high, perhaps, but fans have to start looking at the relevant stats and facts in arguements and not just mention the ones that are to their own benefits.

Perreault? He didnt want to stay in Montreal, regardless whether Gainey wanted his face-off talents or not. Perreault wanted a bigger offensive role, more icetime and a bigger presence on the teams (same reasons why he left T.O. for Mtl). He didn't percieve we could offer him that so he left.

Paths taken by an NHL team in not always a result of a GM decision, other people have an influence.

Gainey has been great for this franchise in more ways then the on-ice personnel we see 3-4 times a week.

That being said, he does have to start to be a bit more creative with the waiver system as we are seeing our organizational depth reaching its limits for this season.

[Fanpuck33_]

Originally posted by Dave from Vancouver

In the new NHL, Bonk has struggled, and the elite GMs (ie. in Ottawa) saw this coming.  My point remains: there must be a reason  Ottawa was willing to give up Bonk for nothing.

That is an asinine comment. Ottawa traded Bonk long before the "new NHL" was formed. They traded him under the old rules and the old CBA. Who knew that the changes under the CBA would be as dramatic as they were? Nobody. Heck, if the lockout hadn't wiped out a whole season, a lot of these changes likely would not have been made.

[BTH]

You can't criticise Gainey for not resigning Brisebois. Breezer absolutely wanted to get out of here. It's obvious why.

[Capt.Crunch]

I still trust Bob Gainey.

However, I understand the points given and I agree with some of them.

1) The case for Bonk

I completely agree that Laperrière would fit better on the 3rd line than Bonk. Just having Bégin and Laperriere on the same line would be a dream come true.

I think we miss a bit of grit and character on our team and Lappy would be part of the solution. Bonk does not bring the grit a good 3rd/4th line player should have in my books.

However, we have to understand that Bonk was seen as a capable 2nd line backup in case Ribs became injured or did not perform up to par with his last season.

Of course, playing on ottawa's 1st line will have the effect of boosting your numbers but it was surely greatly part of the equation.

Bonk was, at the time, a 2nd/3rd candidate. Laperriere was 3rd/4th. 2nd/3rd won.

2) The D

I don't believe Brisebois would have stayed in montreal. He made it quite clear that he was fed up with his negative experience and wanted to get some fresher air somewhere else.

That being said, our D is still weak. I agree that we should have traded Garon for a D instead of a 3rd line center.

-Markov was a nice surprise

-Keeping Rivet was a great decision (I would have traded him after 2002-2003's season)

-Kovy will turn out good enough

-Bouillon is solid and steady

-I like Dandy's speed

-Souray got Rivet's last season braincramp bug

-Streit might not cut it

-The jury is still out on Hollywood Ron (past habs)

Yes... we miss,at least some dept there. Our Hamilton cupboard looks quite empty.

3)Turgeon

I don't agree with bringing back Turgeon. I don't believe in bringing back relics.

All in all, I think we have a better team than last year. The most problematic part of the team IMO is not the players in the organisation but the lack of faith in youth.

All around the league you see great young addition to other teams. Prospects who are getting quality ice time as a reward for hard work and the liberty of making mistakes, as long as they show they learned from them.

We seem to be taking a more Darwinian approach in MTL. At that rate, we will end up with a lot of panicky 2 way forward type who don't take the body much (for fear of being out of posiiton), who don't take chances (because they never took such thing) and who are not used to finishing...

A bleak prospect to say the least

[Fanpuck33_]

Originally posted by Bulis_the_Habbie

You can't criticise Gainey for not resigning Brisebois. Breezer absolutely wanted to get out of here. It's obvious why.

For sure. When Colorado visited Columbus, the announcers were talking about how he was so stressed in Montreal that his mother cried because she hated seeing him so down on himself. If anyone is to blame for Breezer leaving, it is the fans. It was their constant harrassment that drove him away. He was the last player left from the '93 Cup team too.

[Rooster]

Originally posted by Capt.Crunch

All around the league you see great young addition to other teams. Prospects who are getting quality ice time as a reward for hard work and the liberty of making mistakes, as long as they show they learned from them.

We seem to be taking a more Darwinian approach in MTL. At that rate, we will end up with a lot of panicky 2 way forward type who don't take the body much (for fear of being out of posiiton), who don't take chances (because they never took such thing) and who are not used to finishing...

Good observation Capt. This seems to plague all Habs administrations (albeit this one seems more -but not enough- open to making room for the kids). Good, cheap, young players are SOOOOOO important in a cap world.

[Howie_Morenz]

Dave's thread does have some good points. Bonk is way overpaid. I was jumping for joy when Montreal obtained his services. Now I am just glad, not overjoyed.

Defense is a sore spot with Montreal as the team is ok most games, not every game.

Laps and Turgeon would not be getting this many points in Montreal. Look who they play with in Colorado....:)

[Edited on 2005/11/29 by Howie_Morenz]

[simonus]

should be noted that brisebois was not a FA, the habs bought out his contract.

Not that I particularly was pro keeping him. Don't forget that if montreal had kept him it would have been at that very high salary.

[Rooster]

Originally posted by simonus

should be noted that brisebois was not a FA, the habs bought out his contract.

Not that I particularly was pro keeping him.  Don't forget that if montreal had kept him it would have been at that very high salary.

Think he had a team's option on his contract which the Habs simply didn't pick up....making him a UFA. Picking up that option would have been at a salary around $4M.

[simonus]

Originally posted by Rooster

Originally posted by simonus

should be noted that brisebois was not a FA, the habs bought out his contract.

Not that I particularly was pro keeping him.  Don't forget that if montreal had kept him it would have been at that very high salary.

Think he had a team's option on his contract which the Habs simply didn't pick up....making him a UFA. Picking up that option would have been at a salary around $4M.

correct. Still, very different for colorado to sign him than for us to sign him.

[guizz]

its extremely easy to blame someone after the facts.