Hainsey to Columbus

[MC Habber]

mrbozo said:

there wasn't much to choose from in Hamilton.

Isn't that something that should have been addressed during the summer? Maybe they could have signed a defenseman instead of the redundant Vandermeer.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

machabby said:

mrbozo said:

there wasn't much to choose from in Hamilton.

Isn't that something that should have been addressed during the summer? Maybe they could have signed a defenseman instead of the redundant Vandermeer.

Maybe they just didn't look at the roster. Maybe they could care less. Maybe there wasn't much available to sign. Maybe a deal or two fell through.

[Bobs_HABit]

habsaddict said:

mrbozo said:

What's stupid about attempting to sneak a guy through waivers who cleared waivers on the way down? A calculated risk IMO. Obviously there wasn't much to choose from in Hamilton.

How can it possibly be "sneaky" when EVERY OTHER GM is informed about it? There was no way in hell Hainsey would clear waivers. NONE. The fact is that he was picked up by the VERY FIRST team that could. Calculated risk on the obvious?

Now we are EVEN WEAKER defensively in Hamilton and we have NOTHING to show for loosing an asset. NOTHING. At the VERY LEAST, leave him in Hamilton to finish the year. It's not like we have defenseman coming out of the woodwork.

Anyway.....

I'm just royally pissed off right now. And I thought that it was only Houle the Dummy who would pull crap like this......

Houle would not have demoted Hainsey to start with. I love all the revisionist history around here. Hainsey had his chances??? Excuse me...did I miss them.

After a GREAT rookie season with Quebec in 01-02 where he leads the team in d-man scoring, he is arguably among our top 3 prospects.

In 02-03 (his SECOND pro season) he gets 21 games where most nights he gets 4 minutes of ice time and this is back in the Traverse era where a GOOD play is banking it high off the glass. That was your only job as a d-man on the Habs that season. This is when the attitude questions start. Ya, lets take a puck carrying, offensive d-man and make him a Bouillon clone. You're darn right, he had attitude problems. Made it easy to keep Traverse up instead of Ron.

In 03-04 he starts the season with the big club and opening night is arguably our best d-man. Go back and check the game threads, I'm not making that up. By about game 4 of the season, Frankie B replaces him in the lineup. Fot the next few weeks, he plays 1 game, sits 1, plays 1, sits 1. Ends up being demoted and replaced by Komi. Final stats 11 games, 2 points. Most of the games he gets about 5 minutes of ice time. I was LIVID at the time.

Those were his great opportunities in the NHL. WOW.
Didn't play even 1 game in the NHL over the age of 22. Well, he will now. Columbus says thanks.

[PTH]

mrbozo said:

Patience is another key to success.

And it seems to be the Gainey way - in Dallas he didn't make all that many trades, and his habit was to keep kids as long as possible (the exception is Iggy, but that was to get Nieuwendyk, a key piece)

[Cranky]

bobshabit said:

Houle would not have demoted Hainsey to start with. I love all the revisionist history around here. Hainsey had his chances??? Excuse me...did I miss them.

After a GREAT rookie season with Quebec in 01-02 where he leads the team in d-man scoring, he is arguably among our top 3 prospects.

In 02-03 (his SECOND pro season) he gets 21 games where most nights he gets 4 minutes of ice time and this is back in the Traverse era where a GOOD play is banking it high off the glass. That was your only job as a d-man on the Habs that season. This is when the attitude questions start. Ya, lets take a puck carrying, offensive d-man and make him a Bouillon clone. You're darn right, he had attitude problems. Made it easy to keep Traverse up instead of Ron.

In 03-04 he starts the season with the big club and opening night is arguably our best d-man. Go back and check the game threads, I'm not making that up. By about game 4 of the season, Frankie B replaces him in the lineup. Fot the next few weeks, he plays 1 game, sits 1, plays 1, sits 1. Ends up being demoted and replaced by Komi. Final stats 11 games, 2 points. Most of the games he gets about 5 minutes of ice time. I was LIVID at the time.

Those were his great opportunities in the NHL. WOW.
Didn't play even 1 game in the NHL over the age of 22. Well, he will now. Columbus says thanks.

I remember that very well. I also remember how Quintal stunk up the joint and yet he was put in for game after game, meanwhile if the rookies made a mistake, it's off to the gallows. If I was a rookie, the LAST place I would want to play was in Montreal. It seems that management plays favorites....even today.

As for my Houle comment, he presided over the dismantling of the team to make it profitable to sell. I don't care if he was a company man or not, he sold out the Habs. For that, I will NEVER forgive or forget.

As for the Hainsey loss, I saw the kid play live several times and I alwys thought that if he had a mentor, he could actually amount to a something special. Correct me if I'm srong, but we still have the illustrious Rick Green as a defensive coach. Yeah, this is the same Rick Green and the "trough-hockey".

I'm desperatly trying to see the positive side of this but right now I feel cheated. I feel cheated that MY HAB'S, the Hab's that I love for over 40 years are regressing rather then moving forward.

[Cranky]

pth said:

mrbozo said:

Patience is another key to success.

And it seems to be the Gainey way - in Dallas he didn't make all that many trades, and his habit was to keep kids as long as possible (the exception is Iggy, but that was to get Nieuwendyk, a key piece)

Bahhh, don't worry, we have another 5 year plan to supplement that last 5 year plan.....

Let's wait until we have enough pieces to make a real team. NOT......NOT....NOT! This CBA does NOT allow you a lot of time to develop the youngsters. By the time they are 23, they are either making it or they have to be dumped. The ONLY GM's that are going to be successful are the ones who manage their assets the best.....and make the most of them. Hainsey for nothing, Hossa for used hockey tape. GREAT handling of assets alright......

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Dissolve the franchise and sell the fixtures.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

mrbozo said:

Dissolve the franchise and sell the fixtures.

Hainsey to Columbus is the biggest mistake since we traded Roy or Leclair. NOT

Hainsey was a mistake. Losing him means little since he didn't play anyways. He was a long term project and didn't pan out the way we dreamed in technicolor. He had his chances and his attitudde blew it. Right now we have injuries, personal commitments and a suspension that hurt our D. This too will pass.
We are not as good as Ottawa is. Neither is the rest of the league. We are going through a series of tough games and our ranks are depleted.

We are still a lot better than we were two years ago and going in the right direction.

Playing without Hainsey on D is like going to war in Iraq without France as an ally or having a Saperlipopette without an appendix. We don't need them. Things will get better.

[jkr]

I can't understand why people are so upset about this.

Hainsey was sent down on waivers at the beginning of the season and not one team picked him up - not one. And what is his salary - around 450K. The reason Columbus picked him up is because Foote is on IR. Otherwise they may have let him pass.

Some of the posts in this thread are the typical overreaction & I should be used to it. But once Hainsey was sent down this year, the new waiver rules indicated that he was done with the Habs.

[jkr]

habsaddict said:

pth said:

And it seems to be the Gainey way - in Dallas he didn't make all that many trades, and his habit was to keep kids as long as possible (the exception is Iggy, but that was to get Nieuwendyk, a key piece)

Bahhh, don't worry, we have another 5 year plan to supplement that last 5 year plan.....

Let's wait until we have enough pieces to make a real team. NOT......NOT....NOT! This CBA does NOT allow you a lot of time to develop the youngsters. By the time they are 23, they are either making it or they have to be dumped. The ONLY GM's that are going to be successful are the ones who manage their assets the best.....and make the most of them. Hainsey for nothing, Hossa for used hockey tape. GREAT handling of assets alright......

How do you handle assets like Hainsey & Hossa that have little value?

You can complain all you want about how these guys were handled but the truth is they don't have much value. The fact the Hainsey cleared waivers once should have told you that.

[Skilly]

I have a feeling this isn't the end of the Hainsey saga for the Habs.

Losing Hainsey doesn't cost the Habs $225,000 or whatever is the exact number .... it costs the Habs $1150 every day he is on Columbus' roster. It also costs Columbus $1150 dollar to keep him there. Gainey and MacLean might have something worked out, where a conditional pick or Hainsey will be placed back on waivers this week. They recall Aaron Johnson from the minors this week also, so just maybe, once the roster spot is filled (hopefully sooner than we think) than Hainsey comes our way without having to go through 29 other teams.

[blny]

Foote is on IR I believe, so Hainsey will likely be around for a little bit anyways.

[BadCompany]

Too much is being made of the "he already cleared waivers once" thing. Mathieu Garon cleared waivers once too, and nobody seems to think he's a lousy player. Remind me how we got Steve Begin?

Hainsey was a last minute cut, when teams all around the league were finalizing their rosters. I may be mistaken, but I don't think one single player was claimed off of waivers during that time, despite dozens of them being available. It just wasn't "the time."

I also think too much is being made of "Hainsey's chances." We forget that there was a lockout last year, and that chances are he would have played with us then. He was, to quote management, the best Hamilton defenseman down the stretch last year (and this included Komisarek). So really, Hainsey's "chances" came when he was a 21-22 year old defenceman. And this training camp, when most people thought he was at least as good as Mark Streit (or bad, depending on how you viewed their pre-seasons).

I said for months before the season started that we should have kept 8 defensemen on the roster to start the year, for this very reason. Is it going to kill us in the long run? Probably not. No more than losing Stephane Robidas or Francois Beauchemin did. But we still lost a serviceable asset for nothing. We played with 5 defencemen last night, because we had literally nobody else available. If people think that's "good" asset management, then so be it.

[clear observer]

They dropped the ball on this one, for sure.


sigh,
CO

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

09-11-2004

Mathias Brunet
La Presse

...With anything other than a big break, like a major injury to a Canadiens center, Plekanec will pursue his career in the NHL with another team a few years from now. Besides, he formed part of a small group of prospects offered to the Rangers at the trade deadline last spring in order to obtain the services of Alex Kovalev. The Rangers chose Jozef Balej over Plekanec, Hainsey and Hossa....

- tinyurl.com/88tgo

[Toronthab]

habsfaninla said:

mrbozo said:

Dissolve the franchise and sell the fixtures.

Hainsey to Columbus is the biggest mistake since we traded Roy or Leclair. NOT

Hainsey was a mistake. Losing him means little since he didn't play anyways. He was a long term project and didn't pan out the way we dreamed in technicolor. He had his chances and his attitudde blew it. Right now we have injuries, personal commitments and a suspension that hurt our D. This too will pass.
We are not as good as Ottawa is. Neither is the rest of the league. We are going through a series of tough games and our ranks are depleted.

We are still a lot better than we were two years ago and going in the right direction.

Playing without Hainsey on D is like going to war in Iraq without France as an ally or having a Saperlipopette without an appendix. We don't need them. Things will get better.

HHAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Great post ! And I don't have a crystal ball as to how the Hainsey thing will end up, no matter how leclairly I try to look at it, but the other post stating that he was done back when sent down (and clearing waivers ) rings true.

So ...on another note, ...my problem is not apendicitis, but rather that I am simply full of ship...I can see leclairly now.



(But we do have a Crystobal don't we?)


(except for the France bit)

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

toronthab said:

habsfaninla said:

Hainsey to Columbus is the biggest mistake since we traded Roy or Leclair. NOT

Hainsey was a mistake. Losing him means little since he didn't play anyways. He was a long term project and didn't pan out the way we dreamed in technicolor. He had his chances and his attitudde blew it. Right now we have injuries, personal commitments and a suspension that hurt our D. This too will pass.
We are not as good as Ottawa is. Neither is the rest of the league. We are going through a series of tough games and our ranks are depleted.

We are still a lot better than we were two years ago and going in the right direction.

Playing without Hainsey on D is like going to war in Iraq without France as an ally or having a Saperlipopette without an appendix. We don't need them. Things will get better.

HHAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Great post ! And I don't have a crystal ball as to how the Hainsey thing will end up, no matter how leclairly I try to look at it, but the other post stating that he was done back when sent down (and clearing waivers ) rings true.

So ...on another note, ...my problem is not apendicitis, but rather that I am simply full of ship...I can see leclairly now.



(But we do have a Crystobal don't we?)


(except for the France bit)

Goodbuy Columbus?

[The Habitual Fan]

I guess the only way we see if Gainey had much interest in keeping Hainsey is if the Blue jackets decide to later send him down, then the Habs get first crack at picking him up.
I'm thinking for what he has shown so far, Gainey would let him slide.
The mistake wasn't losing this guy on waivers, it was picking him the first round and having fans think he should become a top 4 player. If he had been a third round pick with the same history then no one would care.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

From Brunet in today's La Presse:

Gainey, lui, n'avait pas grand-chose à dire sur la perte de Hainsey. «Est-ce que je suis surpris? Pas vraiment. Nous ne savions pas à quoi nous attendre. Nous avons vraiment attendu d'avoir besoin de lui avec le Canadien avant de prendre le risque de le soumettre au ballottage et nous l'avons perdu. Nous devons vivre avec les règlements.»

---

Gainey didn't have much to say about losing Hainsey. "Am I surprised? Not really. We didn't know what to expect. We really waited to have a need for him on the Canadiens before taking the risk of putting him on waivers, and we lost. We have to live by the rules."

- www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20051130/CPSPORTS01/511300528/5128/CPSPORTS01

Is that a disappointed, bitter, heartbroken GM or what?

[BadCompany]

Sounds like a GM who admits to making a mistake to me. “We’re not surprised (that somebody took him)... We needed him... We took a risk and lost.”

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

badcompany said:

Sounds like a GM who admits to making a mistake to me. “We’re not surprised (that somebody took him)... We needed him... We took a risk and lost.”

He admitted to taking a gamble, not to making a mistake.

"We waited to have a need.."

Sounds rather blasé to me.

Onward and forward.

[mic]

mrbozo said:

"We waited to have a need.."

Sounds rather blasé to me.

Waited to have a need, because we didn't want to lose him for nothing? Too vague to be interpreted.

Losing Hainsey for nothing hurts (a little bit). Perhaps he never will make it in the NHL, perhaps he has issue problems (although I never saw any reliable source for that), but he was our best defensman not playing in the NHL. Add to that that he was the only one with some potential, exept perhaps for O'Byrne (who'll never make it as the next Niedermeyer according to reports). The Habs now don't have 6 capable NHL defensman (and I count Streit in it).

Does it matter in the long run? Perhaps not. But I think Hainsey was still worth something, for two reasons. First, he has the tools, he only needs somebody to show him how it works. He still does mistakes, but imagine if he could developp next to Bourque or such kind of player. The second reason is that you can always find a taker. Perhaps you'll need to take somebody's headache, or perhaps you'll find a GM who wants to cut some salary (remember, Beauchemin gets you Fedorov). Or a conditionnal pick? The other GM would have a prospect for no risk. But any way, that would have been marginal.

The simple fact that Hainsey now plays for Colombus isn't really important. But that move was made because the defensive part of the team was too thin, and that was known since the beginning of the season. Gainey gambled with that and he lost. Now, he lost Hainsey because of that. It's the second time Gainey lose defensive depth on waivers. The Habs lost two defensmen in the process. And it's not like they had any depth at this position. I would to see this issue considered carefully. Hainsey is only a small part of an overall more worrying issue, the lack of talent on the blue line.

[Toronthab]

habsfaninla said:

toronthab said:

HHAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Great post ! And I don't have a crystal ball as to how the Hainsey thing will end up, no matter how leclairly I try to look at it, but the other post stating that he was done back when sent down (and clearing waivers ) rings true.

So ...on another note, ...my problem is not apendicitis, but rather that I am simply full of ship...I can see leclairly now.



(But we do have a Crystobal don't we?)


(except for the France bit)

Goodbuy Columbus?

Excellent!

[HabbaDasher]

Ron Hainsey, people.
The talented kid who couldn't stick after how manytraining camps?
We lost a marginal player on waivers.
Whoop-de-doo.
We can always pick him up again when he's demoted by Columbus.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

habbadasher said:

Ron Hainsey, people.
The talented kid who couldn't stick after how manytraining camps?
We lost a marginal player on waivers.
Whoop-de-doo.
We can always pick him up again when he's demoted by Columbus.

That would make him "Goodbye Columbust."

[jkr]

Hainsey wasn't doiing all that well in Hamilton. This CNNsi story points out that depite his 17 points he was a -10 in Hamilton. That kind of number doesn't bode well for success in the NHL.

Here's the link. You have to read through the story a bit to get to the Hainsey stuff.

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/allan_muir/11/30/inside.nhl/1.html

[jkr]

badcompany said:

Too much is being made of the "he already cleared waivers once" thing. Mathieu Garon cleared waivers once too, and nobody seems to think he's a lousy player. Remind me how we got Steve Begin?

That's true but waiver successes like Begin are rare.

[Toronthab]

habsfaninla said:

habbadasher said:

Ron Hainsey, people.
The talented kid who couldn't stick after how manytraining camps?
We lost a marginal player on waivers.
Whoop-de-doo.
We can always pick him up again when he's demoted by Columbus.

That would make him "Goodbye Columbust."

Thanks a lot HFLA. It's not easy rolling around on the floor of my car holding my belly!

[ForgottenRebel]

Colton Orr was waived today as well, he would have looked good as our new goon

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

Too much is being made of the "he already cleared waivers once" thing. Mathieu Garon cleared waivers once too, and nobody seems to think he's a lousy player. Remind me how we got Steve Begin?

Hainsey was a last minute cut, when teams all around the league were finalizing their rosters. I may be mistaken, but I don't think one single player was claimed off of waivers during that time, despite dozens of them being available. It just wasn't "the time."

I also think too much is being made of "Hainsey's chances." We forget that there was a lockout last year, and that chances are he would have played with us then. He was, to quote management, the best Hamilton defenseman down the stretch last year (and this included Komisarek). So really, Hainsey's "chances" came when he was a 21-22 year old defenceman. And this training camp, when most people thought he was at least as good as Mark Streit (or bad, depending on how you viewed their pre-seasons).

I said for months before the season started that we should have kept 8 defensemen on the roster to start the year, for this very reason. Is it going to kill us in the long run? Probably not. No more than losing Stephane Robidas or Francois Beauchemin did. But we still lost a serviceable asset for nothing. We played with 5 defencemen last night, because we had literally nobody else available. If people think that's "good" asset management, then so be it.

What you said ....

I am in the Hainsey fan club. I do not think he was ever given a fair chance to show what he could do at the NHL level.