Gainey dangling Hossa and Hainsey as trade bait

[Yeti]

That's from Stevenson of the Ottawa Sun:

SPECULATIONS: Talk is Montreal Canadiens general manager Bob Gainey, given his club's unexpected success, will be looking to bolster the team to make sure it doesn't blow a chance to make the playoffs. He's dangling prospects Marcel Hossa and Ron Hainsey as trade bait

www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2004/02/08/339839.html

Should we be dealing youth for a short-term fix? I say no if the player received is over 30. Are we really going to give up on two players under 23 after seing the emergence of Ryder and Ribeiro as 23 years old?

[jkr]

I don't see this a Gainey type of move. It's just speculation by a reporter that frankly, I expect more of.

I know there are almost 30 games left but they have a good lead over the the number 8 spot and don't look like they are going to "blow" their playoff position. If BG makes a move I believe it won't be a big one. It will be more along the lines of a change to help the team deal with the opponent they are likely to face in the playoffs.

BTW - I read the entire article and found Brodeur's comments about Dagenais interesting. Sheppard was similar - a sniper that bounced around a bit bacause of other limitations in his game.

PS - someone should tell this reporter that the Expos didn't trade Vlad Guererro - he was a free agent. I hate it when reporters don't do their homework. A small, lazy error like that brings the entire article into question.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

It remains to be seen what degree of patience the club will exercise with Hollywood Hainsey. It certainly doesn't seem to be a lack of innate talent that's holding him back from sticking with the Habs.

[Yeti]

O'Neil, 27, is probably the only player on the market that I would trade youth for...But his shooting %, for what it's worth, has dropped from 17 to 11 to 9 to 6% this year... But he's durable and can play LW and RW (Koivu with O'Neil and Ryder does not sound too bad).

I would prefer to lose Hainsey than Hossa. Ds are less likely to make you look really bad. Hossa is an enigma to me. He sometimes look like Turner Stevenson with a bit more skills and then he looks like a potential 25-30 goals scorer???

[mic]

Yeti said:

I would prefer to lose Hainsey than Hossa. Ds are less likely to make you look really bad. Hossa is an enigma to me. He sometimes look like Turner Stevenson with a bit more skills and then he looks like a potential 25-30 goals scorer???

Nah, if I had to move somebody, I would rather keep Hainsey. Of course, we all remember the Leclair trade, but given our situation, and given what kind of player Hainsey could be, I would trade Hossa first. Good offense d-man with good size are always nice to have. Furthermore, our defense depth ain't that great. Beauchemin ? Korneev ? Linhart ? We are thin, especially on offensive defensmen. So, I would definitly try to keep Hainsey.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Hossa could become a great player, perhaps better (or less worse) than Hainsey. But the fact that we have a decent depth in the offensive department, and the fact that Hossa keeps strugling in the AHL (unlike Hainsey who has good stats and seems to be next to dominating) makes me think that if we had to trade somebody, Hossa would be ahead of Hainsey on my list.

[PTH]

For starters, Stevenson isn't much of a reporter.

To me, this just speculation from a reporter putting 2 and 2 together.

That being said, I'd move Hossa first. Defensemen take longer to develop, and Hainsey seems closer to being a useful player than Hossa, and also our depth up front is much better.

Of course, it all depends on what we get back - I wouldn't want anyone exclusively for this year if the cost will be that high.

Let me dream, and wish we could get a Ryan Smyth type for the top line, for both those kids and more if needed.

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not worried about missing out on Hossa becoming something special in Montreal. Aside from a handfull of games last year where he scored a couple of nice goals with a hard an accurate shot, I've never seen anything special from him. He's one of many enigmatic good European skater who possess what was felt, at a time, was great offensive potential unfortunately wraped in an apparent unwilingness to play with character or at least some degree of poise. This organization is, IMO, filled with the kind and losing Hossa wouldn't set us back in any way. The guy CAN have an NHL career but it would take an organization that will look at him from a different angle. "Hossa the left-wing sniper" doesn't work. Given that he rots in the AHL, I don't believe his trade value is much high though...

On the other hand, Hainsey has already shown me that he could play in the NHL and learn from there. Ron seems to be in the zone where he can't do or say anything right enough for the organization. His situation reminds me of where Ribeiro has been for so long before this year... His devellopment will be long and tough... I would NOT want to deal Hainsey for short time help but would certainly consider moving him in a team building move.

[sergejean]

I think that will be listening very carefuly at any possible trade likely to improve the team for a playoff run. Trading away prospects for one or two players that can make an impact when it counts, in the playoffs is never a bad thing. Of course the player you get has to be a quality player.

Bob Gainey is patient but don't forget tha he did trade Jarome Iginla for Joe Nieuwendyk. Today it may sounds like he got robbed but Nieuwendyk was a big factor in the Stars Stanley Cup victory.

I am expecting Bob Gainey to make a move. He knows that we're likely to face the Laffs and he've seen how bad we were outplayed last time we faced them. At least, we've shown some grit against Boston and Philly; not againt the Laffs... We seem to be lacking confidence when we play them. So I think the possibility of being humiliated will trigger some decision and I don't think it's a bad idea at all!

[Skilly]

I have to disagree that we ahve shown no grit against the Laffs ...... a more accurate statement would be no killer instinct.

In the last 5 games against them we are 1-4 ..... they one 3 of those games by 1 goal. 2 of those 1 goal games the winning goal was scored in the final minute of play, 1 of those games they dominated us ...... and one of those games we dominated them.

Yes we need grit ..... but let's get real ..... even if they are trying to beat us up ..... it isn't working against us as it does against Ottawa.

[blaise]

Yeti said:

I would prefer to lose Hainsey than Hossa. Ds are less likely to make you look really bad. Hossa is an enigma to me. He sometimes look like Turner Stevenson with a bit more skills and then he looks like a potential 25-30 goals scorer???

Ds are less likely to make you look really bad.

Turner Stevenson may not be a skilled player (he has said he wished he had been born with hands) but he has about 14.3 times the intensity of Marcel Hossa.

Is that so? Next to goaltenders, Ds are precisely the ones who can make you look really bad.

[sergejean]

I know we had a good game against the Laffs in T.O earlier this season but I was at the Bell Centre for the last game and we couldn't keep up. As soon as the Laffs started finishing their checks and playing bigger we collapsed. One thing that could be misleading however is that flu bug thas was affecting the team that week-end... well, we'll have to wait and see but I'm pretty sure Bob Gainey is very active right now...

[HFTO]

Rumour or not I wouldn't be surprised at either moving.
IMO Hossa is gone and as far as Hainsey goes if he gets us a significant player back i could see him moved just for the fact ther is a greater potential for him to be a good NHL'er.
After seeing the Bulldogs on Sunday and the performances of Hainsey and Hossa you could easily see them being moved because of their indifferent and scattered play.If I had a choice its Hossa but I can't see him brining anything back of significance on his own.
The Habs either this year or next are going to have to go the trade route and short of trading one of our front liner are only assests are some of our stock piled prospects.
HFTO

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I'm just wondering if Hossa is dogging it so as to eventually wind up, in a round-about sort of way, in Ottawa with his brother. I'm not suggesting it, but we've seen it before.

It was only a few years ago when Andre Savard noted that Hainsey was our system's best prospect. If Gainey is to land a big-name, bonafide player, he's going to have to give up someone of note. Hainsey fits that bill IMHO.

Hossa? Well, if he ends up moving elsewhere and plays with top-notch linemates, people will say we were fleeced. But, if he doesn't, he may end up like a Gilbert Dionne of sorts.

I'd move them if the right deal came along.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

Doc_Holliday said:

On the other hand, Hainsey has already shown me that he could play in the NHL and learn from there. Ron seems to be in the zone where he can't do or say anything right enough for the organization. His situation reminds me of where Ribeiro has been for so long before this year... His devellopment will be long and tough... I would NOT want to deal Hainsey for short time help but would certainly consider moving him in a team building move.

Its funny how guys end up with these "bad attitude" labels. For years and years, Ribeiro carried a "poor work" ethic tag with him, despite the fact that he always worked extremely hard in the off-season, and always met every team goal assigned to him. They asked him to put on weight, he did. They asked him to take it off, to increase speed, he did. They asked him to put it back on, he did. Lets not forget, Ribeiro has gone through (I think) 3 different athletic trainers in Montreal, each of whom probably had a different work-out plan for him. Every year people said he never worked out in the off season, and yet every year Ribeiro would show up to camp and light it up in the pre-season and early going. Never seemed like a guy who was "out of shape" to me.

Hainsey seems to be stuck in the same boat. Even though his "troubles", such as the rental thing, have largely proven to be baseless, people think he's a head case. He beat Mike Komisarek fair and square for a job coming out of pre-season (and who would have predicted that before the year started?), he took his demotion in stride and said all the right things, and now he is one of, if not the best AHL defenseman in Hamilton. He has been working on his defense (leads in +/-), he kills penalties, he quarterbacks the powerplay, and he does everything asked of him. And yet, he's a cancer.

I don't get it.

[Boston_Habs]

Agree. It's like the flavor of the month, only a bad flavor. Right now Hossa and Hainsey are the "bad prospects" and the only reason people are willing to deal them is because they perceive no downside in trading them. But even if Hossa and Hainsey look like busted picks, then do you think we are the only ones smart enough to figure that out?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

BadCompany said:

Its funny how guys end up with these "bad attitude" labels. For years and years, Ribeiro carried a "poor work" ethic tag with him, despite the fact that he always worked extremely hard in the off-season, and always met every team goal assigned to him. They asked him to put on weight, he did. They asked him to take it off, to increase speed, he did. They asked him to put it back on, he did. Lets not forget, Ribeiro has gone through (I think) 3 different athletic trainers in Montreal, each of whom probably had a different work-out plan for him. Every year people said he never worked out in the off season, and yet every year Ribeiro would show up to camp and light it up in the pre-season and early going. Never seemed like a guy who was "out of shape" to me.

Hainsey seems to be stuck in the same boat. Even though his "troubles", such as the rental thing, have largely proven to be baseless, people think he's a head case. He beat Mike Komisarek fair and square for a job coming out of pre-season (and who would have predicted that before the year started?), he took his demotion in stride and said all the right things, and now he is one of, if not the best AHL defenseman in Hamilton. He has been working on his defense (leads in +/-), he kills penalties, he quarterbacks the powerplay, and he does everything asked of him. And yet, he's a cancer.

I don't get it.

Gainey, Julien, Savard, Jarvis and Green obviously have their reasons for keeping Hainsey on the farm.

Did you catch his interview on Sportsnet a month ago? Generally came across as a smug prick. When asked why he was sent down to Hamilton, answered, "I don't know." This after we have it on good word from Habs players that if Julien takes you out of the lineup he sits down with you and explains in detail why he has done so.

Hainsey spent a number of games in the press box with Gainey before being demoted. Obviously it didn't dawn on Bo to point out to Ron why he was enjoying his company.

It may not be hockey-related (or it may be), but there seems to be something about Ron that's keeping him from his "rightful" place.

[AH]

BadCompany said:

he took his demotion in stride and said all the right things

No he didn't. He was interviewed by the Sportsnet crew a couple of weeks back during the intermission. He said he doesn't know why he was sent down. He said he was playing well and deserved to stay in Montreal.

I really did not like the tone in his voice. Shows lack of character and someone who thinks things should be handed to him. That's not to say I am giving up on the kid, but I do think he needs to grow up.

[BadCompany]

Mr. said:

Gainey, Julien, Savard, Jarvis and Green obviously have their reasons for keeping Hainsey on the farm.

Did you catch his interview on Sportsnet a month ago? Generally came across as a smug prick. When asked why he was sent down to Hamilton, answered, "I don't know." This after we have it on good word from Habs players that if Julien takes you out of the lineup he sits down with you and explains in detail why he has done so.

Hainsey spent a number of games in the press box with Gainey before being demoted. Obviously it didn't dawn on Bo to point out to Ron why he was enjoying his company.

It may not be hockey-related (or it may be), but there seems to be something about Ron that's keeping him from his "rightful" place.

AH said:

No he didn't. He was interviewed by the Sportsnet crew a couple of weeks back during the intermission. He said he doesn't know why he was sent down. He said he was playing well and deserved to stay in Montreal.

I really did not like the tone in his voice. Shows lack of character and someone who thinks things should be handed to him. That's not to say I am giving up on the kid, but I do think he needs to grow up.

First of all, I always advise people against using a quote to infer anything. Sure, some quotes can be pretty direct (“I will now read from my carefully prepared statement – I hate Bob Gainey.”) but for the most part they are fairly useless. Especially in print. As I showed with that Andrei Markov interview, where I made him out to be the biggest whiner this side of Sheila Copps, a quote can be twisted to mean anything.

The second thing people show keep in mind, when listening to an interview, is that giving an interview is something that has to be learned. Like cutting hair, its actually not as easy as it sounds. I have interviewed people before, and you can always tell who has, and who hasn’t done it before. Ever wonder why all hockey quotes sound the same? If somebody asks you “how did the game go?” most people will answer “fine.” But if you are giving an interview you have to talk. And that’s not easy. You have to say “I think it went fine, in the first period we played our game, stuck to the system, and Tony the goalie made some big stops, but in the second… blah, blah, blah…have to play 60 minutes.” That’s not how people talk in real life. You have to fill the air with words. Most of the time, people will rarely say more than one or two sentences at a time, then let the other person reply; “How are you doing? … I am fine, you? … Great! Catch the game? … Yeah, pretty good one, eh?” But in an interview, you have to talk and talk and talk, off the cuff, with no give-and take repartee. Its very, very different. Its usually the first words that come to their mind. When Jeff Hackett said he though Mathieu Garon was the best Montreal prospect, he said it because somebody asked him about Mathieu Garon, and he was trying to fill up a sound bite. He wasn’t trying to slight “arch-rival” Jose Theodore.

Just for grins and giggles, the next time somebody asks you a mundane, throw-away question, try to answer it like you were answering a TV interview, and see how unnatural it really is.

Now, unlike a lot of people who have weighed in on the “Pouty Hainsey slams Gainey” interview over the last little while, I actually saw the bit. Yes, I have no life and I watch AHL hockey. Keeps me out of the arcades and malls. Hainsey was asked “Ron, what do you have to do to get back to the NHL?” and his exact words were “Gee, I wish I could answer that.” Not, “I have no idea” or “ask Bob” or “nothing, I’m changing my name to Rod Smart”. He THEN went on to talk about how he has to work hard, and how good Doug Jarvis has been, and not give up, and all that usual blather. Like everything else said during the interview, it was mindless dribble.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Body language, facial expression and tone of voice also come into play when judging the meaning of person's comments. Hainsey created, not just for me, a negative impression.

As for your Markov interview interpretation, it was a clever exercise. But in no way does it prove that Markov was misquoted or quoted out of context.

So, is Hainsey being kept down because there are such glaring weaknesses in his game that they get him passed over in favour of Komisarek, Bouillon and even Dykhuis? Perhaps.

However a +15 ranking and 16 points in a mere 29 games seem to indicate a pretty solid player. But maybe not, since we know how meaningless stats are.

Since it appears that it isn't his attitude that's holding him back, perhaps it's just spite and/or lack of talent assessment on behalf of messrs. Gainey, Julien, Savard, Green and Jarvis.

It looks like the Habs are detrmined to ruin Hainsey, just like they did Markov.

[Doc Holliday]

BadCompany said:

First of all, I always advise people against using a quote to infer anything. Sure, some quotes can be pretty direct (“I will now read from my carefully prepared statement – I hate Bob Gainey.”) but for the most part they are fairly useless. Especially in print. As I showed with that Andrei Markov interview, where I made him out to be the biggest whiner this side of Sheila Copps, a quote can be twisted to mean anything.

The second thing people show keep in mind, when listening to an interview, is that giving an interview is something that has to be learned. Like cutting hair, its actually not as easy as it sounds. I have interviewed people before, and you can always tell who has, and who hasn’t done it before. Ever wonder why all hockey quotes sound the same? If somebody asks you “how did the game go?” most people will answer “fine.” But if you are giving an interview you have to talk. And that’s not easy. You have to say “I think it went fine, in the first period we played our game, stuck to the system, and Tony the goalie made some big stops, but in the second… blah, blah, blah…have to play 60 minutes.” That’s not how people talk in real life. You have to fill the air with words. Most of the time, people will rarely say more than one or two sentences at a time, then let the other person reply; “How are you doing? … I am fine, you? … Great! Catch the game? … Yeah, pretty good one, eh?” But in an interview, you have to talk and talk and talk, off the cuff, with no give-and take repartee. Its very, very different. Its usually the first words that come to their mind. When Jeff Hackett said he though Mathieu Garon was the best Montreal prospect, he said it because somebody asked him about Mathieu Garon, and he was trying to fill up a sound bite. He wasn’t trying to slight “arch-rival” Jose Theodore.

Just for grins and giggles, the next time somebody asks you a mundane, throw-away question, try to answer it like you were answering a TV interview, and see how unnatural it really is.

Now, unlike a lot of people who have weighed in on the “Pouty Hainsey slams Gainey” interview over the last little while, I actually saw the bit. Yes, I have no life and I watch AHL hockey. Keeps me out of the arcades and malls. Hainsey was asked “Ron, what do you have to do to get back to the NHL?” and his exact words were “Gee, I wish I could answer that.” Not, “I have no idea” or “ask Bob” or “nothing, I’m changing my name to Rod Smart”. He THEN went on to talk about how he has to work hard, and how good Doug Jarvis has been, and not give up, and all that usual blather. Like everything else said during the interview, it was mindless dribble.

Frankly I don't give much thoughts about that one sentence in an interview that got fans condemning him as a head case. What I saw from Ron is a very good hockey player that's extremely tentative. One mistake and his game goes to the dumpsters, not only for that game but for the next few as well... It could be that he's just not consistent yet (normal at that age) but could I it could be that he's not too strong mentally at this point and just maybe the organization wants him to gain tremendous confidence in Hamilton by playing mega minutes there, in a prime role where he could even devellop some leadership. The Jason Ward scenario. But Ward had to carry for years the tag of a no good bust while rounding up his game...

...There is no room for Hainsey anyways (I do believe Komo is ahead of him in terms of NHL readiness) so there is no point in calling him up.

...but then again when will there room for him...?

[BadCompany]

Mr. said:

Body language, facial expression and tone of voice also come into play when judging the meaning of person's comments. Hainsey created, not just for me, a negative impression.

Perception, as you know, is highly influenced by pre-conceived notions. We all see what we want to see. Given the numerous questions you have raised about Hainsey’s character, and your obvious dislike of him as a person/prospect, you saw the interview in a negative light. Given the numerous times I have praised Hainsey as a prospect, and the hope I have for him for the future, I saw the exact same interview in an ambivalent light. Perception. Inner-city kids will report a quarter as being larger than it actually is. Andre Savard says Jason Ward is a good AHLer, Bob Gainey says he is a good 3rd or 4th liner, le gaspesien says he would make a pretty good winger for Saku Koivu. The real answer, as they say, is blowing in the wind.

Mr. said:

As for your Markov interview interpretation, it was a clever exercise. But in no way does it prove that Markov was misquoted or quoted out of context.

But it also doesn't prove he was properly quoted, either. It merely proves that one quote, any quote, can mean just about anything.

Mr. said:

So, is Hainsey being kept down because there are such glaring weaknesses in his game that they get him passed over in favour of Komisarek, Bouillon and even Dykhuis? Perhaps.

However a +15 ranking and 16 points in a mere 29 games seem to indicate a pretty solid player. But maybe not, since we know how meaningless stats are.

Since it appears that it isn't his attitude that's holding him back, perhaps it's just spite and/or lack of talent assessment on behalf of messrs. Gainey, Julien, Savard, Green and Jarvis.

It looks like the Habs are detrmined to ruin Hainsey, just like they did Markov.

Not sure what you are trying to say by implying that the Habs are trying to ruin Hainsey, like they did Markov, as I don’t recall saying that this year. My biggest complaint about them not playing Hainsey last year, was because I wanted them to break in Komisarek this year, and I knew they wouldn’t be breaking in two rookies on the blueline. But even that’s not really the case – last year there was no meritocracy, and it didn’t matter how well a player played, in certain cases they just weren’t going to get a chance (see, Ward, Jason). This year, for the most part, when a player earns a call-up AND there is room for them, they get the call-up. In my opinion, Hainsey has earned the call-up, but there just isn’t any room for him:

* Bouillon has been extremely steady this year, in his #6 role. He has beaten out both Komisarek and Hainsey. Good for him.

* Komisarek is playing minor minutes, so obviously the coaching staff doesn’t think he is ready to play on a regular basis. If both he and Hainsey are with the team, who would play?

*Dykhuis, geez, the guy spent a day and a half with the team, and was only there in case somebody took a puck off the ankle in practice (did Dykhuis even practice with the team?). There was never any plan to play him, just as there wouldn’t have been any plan to play Hainsey, should they have called him up. Means nothing. If Dykhuis had subsequently played 10 straight games, then yeah, I would wonder, but called up to sit in the press box for an hour or two? They could have called up Sylvain Blouin for all I cared. And even if they played Dykhuis, I STILL wouldn’t think it meant much, as Dykhuis, by ALL accounts has been extremely good down there. Now Traverse, on the other hand…

* Souray, Rivet, Brisebois, Markov – Hainsey wasn’t going to beat any of them out.

* Quintal, some people (not you) think Quintal is living on borrowed time as it is.

So the only two people who have beaten Hainsey out, are Bouillon and Komisarek. And considering the whole, “two rookie” thing, I’m not even sure about Bouillon. So really, Hainsey was fighting with Komisarek for the right to be the regular healthy scratch in the press box. And losing out to Komisarek is no badge of shame, in my opinion…

[HFTO]

Has Hainsey been labelled a cancer?I haven't heard that but unfortunately he does fit the bill of being able to bring a bigger return than Hossa on his own.
Everything is just speculation but if were discussing it Hainsey looks like the odd man out as you guys said this month.I'd love for him to stay if possible because he does have tremendous upside offesively.This past Sunday I would say was one of his poorer efforts but one game certainly doesn't make a career.
As far as Hossa goes he shouldn't be that invisible in the AHL yet you don't even notice him.Five goals is IMO not acceptable.
I can't explain what has happened but he needs to stop sulking and put his talent to good use or he'll end up somewhere else,so maybe Dis is right maybe he wants out to see if he could play with his brother?It seems odd that he has taken two steps back so fast.
HFTO

[seventeen]

I saw the interview too, and I didn't get the impression Hainsey was pouting. Without being able to get inside his mind I can't be sure, but I felt like he really didn't accept the fact he had been beaten out by others. And he may have a point there, as I have witnessed many gaffes by others on the big club. Trouble is, as BC has mentioned, that those guys aren't going to get demoted, so it was Hainsey vs Bouillon and Komi. I wonder if Hainsey is just bothered by the fact he's been caught in a numbers game rather than an ability contest.

Having said that, I'm beginning to feel I wouldn't be disappointed if he was traded, if the return was good. I just wasn't that impressed the last two games I've watched him play. He's been fine, but I expect a guy who is knocking on the door to be better than fine. I wanted to see him make a great defensive play or two, join the rush and get back in time, move the puck quickly and precisely on the PP. He's done some of those, but not much. I wonder if he's not supposed to rush? He has decent, though not great top speed, and I'd like to see him move up a lot more than he does. And I also wanted to see almost no giveaways, and instead, there's been more of those than I feel comfortable with. It's almost like he's bored...who knows, maybe he realizes he's toast with the Canadiens and is just waiting for a new home before really putting out.

[Skilly]

Err I am a bit in the dark here ....

what exactly is the "rental thing"?

[BadCompany]

Skilly said:

Err I am a bit in the dark here ....

what exactly is the "rental thing"?

Last year, TQS “broke” a story that claimed Ron Hainsey had skipped out on his rent payments while living in Quebec City and playing for the Citadelles. The landlord took Hainsey to court, and they made it seem like Hainsey had trashed the place, refused to pay rent, and generally just acted like a spoiled teenage brat. They even included some line about the poor, down-trodden landlord being forced to call Hainsey’s dad, to get the money.

Turns out the story wasn’t quite so morose. Hainsey had signed a two-year lease with the landlord, but in the second year the Citadelles moved to Hamilton, so of course Hainsey no longer needed his Quebec City apartment. I guess Hainsey tried to get out of the second year of the lease, but the landlord wouldn’t let him, or something like that. Anyways, Hainsey paid his rent for every month that he lived there, but didn’t pay for the second year, when he wasn't living there. The Habs hired him a lawyer, and they reached a continuance in the case, which I think will be heard later this spring.

Anyways, it appears the landlord tried to pull a fast one, to get the rich NHLer to pay for an apartment he wasn’t using. Ideal situation, really, getting money for nothing. As Yeti put it, legally the landlord was within his rights, but…

[Doc Holliday]

BadCompany said:

getting money for nothing

..and chicks for free ?

[blaise]

Somehow I don't get misty eyed about saving the souls (and NHL careers) of wayward prospects as though they were orphaned whales.

[HabbaDasher]

BadCompany said:

Anyways, it appears the landlord tried to pull a fast one, to get the rich NHLer to pay for an apartment he wasn’t using. Ideal situation, really, getting money for nothing. As Yeti put it, legally the landlord was within his rights, but…

A lease is a two-way contract.
The resposible thing for him to do would have been to find someone to sub-let the apartment until the lease expired.
Skipping out without paying is essentially breaking your word.
It shows that Hainsey either does not always pay attention to what he agrees to, or he chooses to ignore it.

[Skilly]

Well I think the courts are going to rule in Hainsey's favour for 2 reasons.

1) If Hainsey in fact skipped out on his lease, it is the landlord's responsibility to try to limit the losses. This is in fact true. If he justs rests on his laurels and says ... I don't need to rent it because I will get Hainsey's money from the court .... the court will rule against him. But if he makes a contented effort to re-rent the apartment then Hainsey may be on the hook for the difference in rent ... depending on if he needed to lower the rent because he really needed the money ASAP ... and any lost months.

2) It appears to me that the landlord wanted Hainsey's money and also re-rent the aprtment .... that is fraud.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

Well I think the courts are going to rule in Hainsey's favour for 2 reasons.

1) If Hainsey in fact skipped out on his lease, it is the landlord's responsibility to try to limit the losses. This is in fact true. If he justs rests on his laurels and says ... I don't need to rent it because I will get Hainsey's money from the court .... the court will rule against him. But if he makes a contented effort to re-rent the apartment then Hainsey may be on the hook for the difference in rent ... depending on if he needed to lower the rent because he really needed the money ASAP ... and any lost months.

2) It appears to me that the landlord wanted Hainsey's money and also re-rent the aprtment .... that is fraud.

A couple of older Hainsey Hyperlinks:

Re: Hainsey owes $11,000 in back rent
« Reply #17 on: Aug 13th, 2003, 09:08am » <br>

blair320 said:

This is a true story. I saw it on Judge Judy.

So I guess the only question now is what are we going to get in return for Hainsey?

Judge Judy is a real judge, as is the one Hainsey failed to appear in front of in a Québec City court when required to answer his ex-landlord's claim for rent owing.

Better to wait at least until 20 games into the season to see if Green, Julien and Gainey aren't forced to arrive at the same decision that Green, Therrien and Savard were almost drawn and quartered for at the beginning of last season, before starting trade talk. Some kids just take longer than others to grow up and realize on which side their bread is buttered. Then again, some never do.

*

Followed up by the Régie du logement

Ron Hainsey owes $11,000 rent

Katia Bussière - Journal de Montreal

Businessman Claude Thibodeau addressed himself to the Régie du logement in order to obtain the $11,000 of unpaid rent which Canadiens defenseman Ron Hainsey owes him.

The defenseman would have accumulated this debt when he played with the Quebec Citadelles during the 2001-2002 season.

According to what TQS learned, Ron Hainsey lived in a top-of-the-line lodging located at 115 rue Lockquell, in Quebec, which he rented for $1900 a month.

Again, according to TQS, Hainsey ignored the many notices of lease renewal and left Quebec without paying, also leaving the apartment in a lamentable state. "The cleaning lady found used condoms on the floor", said Mr. Thibodeau, owner of the building and a Saint-Georges de Beauce businessman.

In April 2002, Hainsey gave an $1850 rubber check to the owner. "It bounced. I called his father, who said to me that the problem would be solved. I haven't heard anything since. That's more than a year ago and I was never paid", added Mr. Thibodeau, on TQS.

Yesterday, in front of the Régie du logement, Hainsey was represented by Jacques Blanchard, a lawyer for the Canadiens. The case was deferred to next month. Hainsey was said to be unaware the situation, according to TQS.

There could be an amicable setlement in the next few days, according to the television network.

Last June, Hainsey signed a $700,000US contract with the Canadiens.

- habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=general&thread=1060734423&action=display&start=0

***

habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&n=1&thread=8606