|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 27, 2007 10:32:15 GMT -5
That scapegoat is now Gainey. It's far too easy to forget the mess he inhierited and easier to forget that some of that mess was Savard's doing as well. And now he's clearing that rubble away and re-building from the foundation up. He wouldn't have had to if there were a solid foundation in place to begin with. Exactly. And let's not forget how hard it is to trade for good players if you don't have a lot of good prospects. We are finally, closely getting to the point where we've re-stocked the cupboard with enough depth, so that we can start packaging some young prospects for established players. It's no secret that years of poor drafting under Serge Savard and Houle decimated this franchise for over a decade. Andre Savard started to correct this and Gainey has continued the trend. Gainey inherits a mess that resulted from 15 years of poor GM work and some fans expect him to fix it and turn the Habs into a Cup contender in three seasons?? That's preposterous. A big reason why Gainey's predecessors failed was because they continuously gave into fan and media pressure. Serge Savard, Houle and Andre Savard, all seemed afraid of the wrath of the fans and media and made some of their decisions accordingly. In almost all those cases, it usually resulted in a bad move. Where did that get the team? Nowhere. Finally we have a GM who makes decisions that are good for the team and not what is good to appease the media and fickle fans, but apparently, that's not good enough. According to some on this board, the fans should be the ones that dictate who gets drafted/signed/traded for. If Gainey doesn't do what they say, then he's a bum. A worthless GM. Gainey came back to Montreal because he wanted to. If he leaves, I doubt any good, NHL-experienced GM would want to come here. Who would, with all the politics involved with this team, it's media and it's fan base? The same problems that face the Habs in attracting free agent players would be the same problems that would cause them difficulties in getting another good GM if Gainey leaves. And when that GM struggles in his first year the fans and media lynch him and it's on to the next GM... and the next... and the next. We finally have the right man for the job and we're ready to run him out of town. Based on what? Because he didn't draft Angelo Esposito? Because he hasn't swung a trade for Lecavalier yet? Because he hasn't traded a 1st rounder to Buffalo so that he could start negotiations with Daniel Briere? And you're also right Dis, in that Gainey's the scapegoat right now. The Habs missed the playoffs and he should get a lot of the blame, that's for sure. Not ALL of the blame, but a good portion of it. But there's enough blame to go around; from the GM all the way down to the underachieving players. On paper, this team was good enough to make the playoffs. Gainey did not build an ECHL-level team that some are making the Habs out to be. Most people here thought so too. At the start of this past season, most fans thought that the Habs, on paper, had a team good enough to be top 4 in the East. Yet all of a sudden, now, they're garbage and the GM is a dud. So I have to ask, why does our head coach not get bashed the way our GM is? Why is Carbo not being bashed on every other post for the mistakes he made? Why is it all Gainey's fault? |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 27, 2007 10:38:16 GMT -5
...not sure why you keep singling me out on almost every post I make.... must be that new cologn... Look FG, you feel all is well and good and going according to plan. Fine. You think Gainey can do no wrong fine. Fine. You think every players Gainey traded are bad. Fine. You feel every players we did not draft are bad. Fine again. You feel every successful teams are lucky and Gainey is just plain unlucky and after 4 years on board is still suffering from errors made by Houle. OK. Let's just leave it at that and avoid the personnal attacks. I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I just didn't appreciate the way that someone is being made fun of because their name is hard to pronounce. With you being a Mod, and the board being the respecful place that is, I found that to be disrespectful that's all. It would be the same if I typed "Latendresdkfkj" or "Kostitdjkltz" on purpose. I know that our board is above that kind of stuff. That's why I brought it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 27, 2007 10:57:33 GMT -5
I don't think it's all Gainey's fault and I think he is doing what needs to be done in terms of drafting well and restocking the talent base. I also think Carbo deserves his share of the blame for the fact that we didn't make the playoffs and slumped badly for a good two months last year.
But like it or not, Gainey inherited a team that has been painfully mediocre for too long and he's going to have to do something meaningful in order for us to move up in the standings. Maybe it's a simple buy and hold strategy and the guys we have now and what's in the pipleline will blossom into a Cup contender and perennial 100 point team with little or no outside talent. Or maybe it's just a matter of smart, selective acquisitions and signings like Radek Bonk and Mike Johnson to put us over the top. In the words of Dr. Phil - "how's that working for you?"
I don't care how he does it (although personally I think we need to swing a big trade and/or sign an established UFA) but if we're sitting here again a year from now after a 90+ point season and no playoffs, will you be saying the same thing? At some point it needs to show up on the ice. This is year 4 of the Gainey era coming up. Shouldn't we be seeing some signs of progress at the NHL level, instead of praising him for all these great draft picks who may or may not pan out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 27, 2007 11:16:57 GMT -5
A big reason why Gainey's predecessors failed was because they continuously gave into fan and media pressure. Serge Savard, Houle and Andre Savard, all seemed afraid of the wrath of the fans and media and made some of their decisions accordingly. In almost all those cases, it usually resulted in a bad move. Where did that get the team? Nowhere. Finally we have a GM who makes decisions that are good for the team and not what is good to appease the media and fickle fans, but apparently, that's not good enough. According to some on this board, the fans should be the ones that dictate who gets drafted/signed/traded for. If Gainey doesn't do what they say, then he's a bum. A worthless GM. Thanks FG. Yet, my opinion here differs slightly. Savard won two Cups during his tenure. The '86 Cup win still had a solid core built on players Irving Grundman brought in, but at the same time the club had 10 rookies in the lineup here and there as well. And Savard did bring in Bobby Smith. The '93 Cup winner was all Savard. However, this is where I agree with you in that Savard flinched a bit. He let go Guy Carbonneau and that was the beginning of the end, IMHO. There seemed to be a comedy act going on at one point and the team slowly started distancing itself from their coach, Jacques Demers. I think Houle was in over head from the get-go. He really didn't have all the good a grip on the management aspect of the game. He was basically handed a team that needed only a bit of tweaking to turn the page and failed to make it better. In fact, it went in the opposite direction at one point. Houle would trade for veteran players rather than promote some youth to give them a crack at the show and that may have cost him in that some of this youth lost confidence. I think I remember Mrs4um once saying that Houle lacked a vision for the club. Well, near the end he was well on his way to rebuilding the club properly, but time had run out. As for Andre Savard, I have to on record as saying that I was one of those who felt Savard was the right man for the job. I thought this guy was going to pull us out of our funk. He had done a fabulous job in Ottawa and one of the first things he did was bring in Bulis and Zednik from Washington. These were skilled players that made a difference right away; I mean, heck, how many skilled players did we have at that point. But what I forgot was that Savard was coming in directly behind Houle. And he was never a GM. When he left I felt a bit disappointed because I thought we had the best of both worlds in he and Gainey. However, there can only be one Alpha Male I guess. And because he wants to make a difference. If Gainey decides to leave on his own accord you can bet it will be because he's had enough of the constant unappreciativeness the Montreal media is showing. They have a job to do, granted, but it will be the same media who will label him as a quitter or never having the CH burned into his chest. This was brought out on the board around the time the Habs went into their slump. But, the players who quit on Julien, are the same core who quit on Carbonneau. IMHO, Gainey removed several players to try and turn this around; most recently Rivet. And is Rivet playing better in SJ? It's arguable. Well, Carbonneau has admitted his mistakes and that's cool. But, as you say, there's plenty of blame to go around. Can some of that go onto Gainey? Sure ... but he's more of the solution than the problem. IMHO of course. Thanks again. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 27, 2007 11:40:09 GMT -5
Thanks FG. Yet, my opinion here differs slightly. Savard won two Cups during his tenure. The '86 Cup win still had a solid core built on players Irving Grundman brought in, but at the same time the club had 10 rookies in the lineup here and there as well. And Savard did bring in Bobby Smith. Sorry Dis, I should've been more specific... I was referring to Serge Savard's drafting in the 90s, not his work in the 80s. And I too think that he was a great GM. Three appearances in the finals and two Cups. On top of that, Savard's teams made the playoffs in every year of his tenure except one and in all those years, only once did they not make it past the 1st round (1994). But Savard's drafting in the 90s is what set back Houle and Houle's drafting (particularly with 1st rd. picks) is what set back Andre Savard. Serge's drafting in the 80s was great. In particular, the 1984 and '87 drafts are legendary. Unfortunately, near the end of his tenure, Savard was putting more interest into his real estate holdings than with the Habs. That's where the chain started to get unravelled. But you're right that he did benefit from having a strong core which was passed down from Grundman. The current GM always looks better when we are able to see the good work done by the previous GM. Brian Burke is a great GM. One of the best in the league. But there is no way he would've won a Cup in Anaheim without the great work that Brian Murray did before him. In Montreal, Savard started to clean up the mess of the 90s and it's up to Gainey to finish the job. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 27, 2007 11:53:11 GMT -5
...It would be the same if I typed "Latendresdkfkj" or "Kostitdjkltz" on purpose. I know that our board is above that kind of stuff. ...I'm not the first guy here to make a little humour with a guy's name, not even the first mod. Should I dig all the posts calling Ribs Gullum? Did you single out HA each and every time? wast it below this board's standard as well? Of course not. everyone and anyone knows that HA is kidding around... It just so happens that when it's me doing it, it rubs you the wrong way and you jump on on your high horses... I'm starting to recognize the pattern... Anyhoo, back to hockey. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 27, 2007 12:04:21 GMT -5
That scapegoat is now Gainey. It's far too easy to forget the mess he inhierited and easier to forget that some of that mess was Savard's doing as well. And now he's clearing that rubble away and re-building from the foundation up. He wouldn't have had to if there were a solid foundation in place to begin with. Cheers. IMO Savard had the same problem that Gainey has now and that is an inability to regularely complete solid acquisitions to go with the good drafting/devellopment that is happening in the background. Unlike what many people think, relying soleley on drafting will not make this team competitive. Not now, not in 3 years, not in 5 either. We need solid asset management and solid acquisitions. Gainey was not brought over to look over prospects and drafting. Savard and Timmins were already on board and were doing a great job at that. Gainey was brought because of his league-wide respectability and contacts that we all thought would translate into good trades and signings. And this is where the problem is. I'm not making him the scapegoat Dis, but he needs to deliver nonetheless. Past mistakes, after 3years, can no longer be used as an excuse in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 27, 2007 12:06:06 GMT -5
...I'm not the first guy here to make a little humour with a guy's name, not even the first mod. Should I dig all the posts calling Ribs Gullum? Did you single out HA each and every time? wast it below this board's standard as well? Of course not. everyone and anyone knows that HA is kidding around... It just so happens that when it's me doing it, it rubs you the wrong way and you jump on on your high horses... I'm starting to recognize the pattern... Anyhoo, back to hockey. That's totally different because he didn't make fun of the difficulty, or spelling, of Ribeiro's last name. Making fun of someone's last name is similar to making fun of their background or heritage. I only said something because there may be a user (or users) on this board who's last name is Salmelainen and they would probably get offended. There could even be Finnish people on this board who get offended if a Finnish last name is made fun of because it's difficult to pronounce. It's not out of the realm of possibility that this could happen, seeing as how this board attracts people from all over the world. Anyways, that's the only reason I wanted to comment on what you typed. I just wanted to make that clear. Like you said... back to hockey. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 27, 2007 12:44:57 GMT -5
IMO Savard had the same problem that Gainey has now and that is an inability to regularely complete solid acquisitions to go with the good drafting/devellopment that is happening in the background. Unlike what many people think, relying soleley on drafting will not make this team competitive. Not now, not in 3 years, not in 5 either. We need solid asset management and solid acquisitions. Gainey was not brought over to look over prospects and drafting. Savard and Timmins were already on board and were doing a great job at that. Gainey was brought because of his league-wide respectability and contacts that we all thought would translate into good trades and signings. And this is where the problem is. I'm not making him the scapegoat Dis, but he needs to deliver nonetheless. Past mistakes, after 3years, can no longer be used as an excuse in my opinion. Well, said, Doc. It's the same point I made with Muckler. He provided the toughness while Savard provided the finesse. I think we're at a disagreement as to how long it takes to rebuild the foundation. Like you were saying, both GMs have had difficulties, but IMHO, Gainey has had the tougher time of the two. They were close against Carolina, granted, but at the same time that foundation wasn't all the firm. Gainey is re-establishing it now. And if he can bring in the right experience that process will hasten itself. But, again, who wants to play in Montreal these days? I think that's out of Gainey's control. Could be why he wants to trade up rather than rely on the UFA market. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 27, 2007 13:47:27 GMT -5
This is year 4 of the Gainey era coming up. Shouldn't we be seeing some signs of progress at the NHL level, instead of praising him for all these great draft picks who may or may not pan out? Past mistakes, after 3years, can no longer be used as an excuse in my opinion. I have nothing much more to add. When BG signed on I saw [another, yet realisitc] five-year time span to definite competitiveness: two years to sort things out before a steady climb starting the third year. Last year was a disappointing setback. It seems we are all agreed that now is the time for him to step up and do something solid. The team isn't good enough as it is. Bringing in a rookie or two isn't going to put us over the top (more likely it'll be another slide into -- or out of -- 8th place). Nope, he has to do something either with free agency or swing a trade. NOW. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 27, 2007 14:23:14 GMT -5
When BG signed on I saw [another, yet realisitc] five-year time span to definite competitiveness. Me too. But with the new CBA setup and UFA age dropping, things are not the same. You no longer have the luxury to simply wait for a few years for prospects to take over because before you know it, they could be gone. 2 years from now all of Koivu, Kovalev, Begin, Komisarek, Higgins, Plekanec, Bouillon, Dandy will be at or near free agency, Ryder could be long gone and the cycle could start again... Look at Pittsburg. Their window is what? 2-3 years max before most of their kids become too expensive to be kept together? Tampa Bay peaked for 1 year than had to pay through the nose to keep their Stars and rid the team of its depth by doind so... Last year, at the start of the year, we were one of the best team in the league and if we could have benefited from a little timely trade and/or tweaking when everything was starting to tailspin, who knows how far we could have went... Nowadays, every team have a chance to build itself every summer. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 27, 2007 14:47:39 GMT -5
When BG signed on I saw [another, yet realisitc] five-year time span to definite competitiveness. Me too. But with the new CBA setup and UFA age dropping, things are not the same. You no longer have the luxury to simply wait for a few years for prospects to take over because before you know it, they could be gone. 2 years from now all of Koivu, Kovalev, Begin, Komisarek, Higgins, Plekanec, Bouillon, Dandy will be at or near free agency, Ryder could be long gone and the cycle could start again... Yup. It's one thing to say "we're drafting great and we have a great future", but every year the future is now. Bob's gotta use "the future". All those picks, great as they may be, will not play on the big club, trade a couple smaller pieces of the puzzle for one good one. Not suggesting that he pull a JFJ and trade 'em all, but at least some of them. Don't mind that he lost Beauchemin as he did (whoda known he'd turn out a player?), but he can't let 'em all get away. And he has to sign a guy. Not just a stop-gap guy (a la Samsanov), but his guy. Ya . . . but it seems to have been more than a little tweaking, seeing as the guys we counted on disappeared those last two games. I know, two games would have given a bit more false hope (and a little less angst), but if everyone decides to sleep on the ice you aren't going to go very far. Mistakes were made. Hopefully management learned frof the mistakes. So Bob . . . rebuild! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 28, 2007 7:22:59 GMT -5
Last year was a disappointing setback. Let's review Gainey's three years. Year#1 ... at the deadline brings in Kovalev. Round 2 elimination. Year #2 .... acquires Bonk in offseason ... round 1 elimination Year #3 ..... does nothing ... no playoffs. I see a pattern and it is going in the opposite direction then what a 5 yr plan should. Tje simple fact is that waiting for all these prsopects to pan out is not a 5 yr plan , it is going to be a perpetuity plan. They all aren't going to make the Habs, identify the untouchables, and trade the one whose value might be at its highest now for what we need. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 28, 2007 9:40:20 GMT -5
Last year was a disappointing setback. They all aren't going to make the Habs, identify the untouchables, and trade the one whose value might be at its highest now for what we need. Isn't that what I said? ;D Must be the weather . . . I'm starting to agree with too many people. It's one thing to say "we're drafting great and we have a great future", but every year the future is now. Bob's gotta use "the future". All those picks, great as they may be, will not play on the big club, trade a couple smaller pieces of the puzzle for one good one. Not suggesting that he pull a JFJ and trade 'em all, but at least some of them. So Bob . . . rebuild! |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jun 28, 2007 9:46:18 GMT -5
They all aren't going to make the Habs, identify the untouchables, and trade the one whose value might be at its highest now for what we need. You mean somethin' like, "sell high...buy low" ? |
|
