Hainsey to Columbus

[jkr]

mic said:

mrbozo said:

"We waited to have a need.."

Sounds rather blasé to me.

It's the second time Gainey lose defensive depth on waivers. The Habs lost two defensmen in the process. on the blue

Who was the other player lost on waivers?

[jkr]

skilly said:

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.

I don't know Skilly. As my post above stated, he was a -10 in Hamilton. That would really concern me about his play at the NHL level - especially with a team as bad as Columbus.

[Bobs_HABit]

jkr said:

skilly said:

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.

I don't know Skilly. As my post above stated, he was a -10 in Hamilton. That would really concern me about his play at the NHL level - especially with a team as bad as Columbus.

Ya, he was -10 which is awful but he was also 2nd on the team in points, 4th in the league in d-man scoring and despite his defensive shortcomings, could have walked into the Hab lineup last night and been one of our best skating d-man, one of our best puck-handling d-man and our best power play d-man. If he sucks, what does that say about the other guys?

[blny]

It tells me that he's been on the ice for ten more goals against than for. If he can't produce decent numbers in the AHL at this point, and be AT LEAST a zero for +/-, then you have to wonder. I know Hamilton has a lot of young forwards, and that may be contributing to his lack of a decent +/-, but at his age and experience he should be leading that team. Does it hurt to lose an asset for nothing? Of course. Does Ron have a future in the NHL? Perhaps, but he really hasn't done anything in his tenure with the club to prove himself.

[Cranky]

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.

We lose a player here, a player there and pretty soon we wonder why there isn't any depth. Maybe we're wrong, maybe Gainey has a storehouse of minor league talent but hasn't found the key yet.

Do you see anyone left in Hamilton who has a reasonable potential as a top four? I don't.

[blny]

At this point, who is Hainsey gonna be a top 4 guy for?

[Cranky]

blny said:

At this point, who is Hainsey gonna be a top 4 guy for?

He has a high potential of becoming a top four guy.

We had Scott Thornton and no one considered him anything more then a third liner. He scored 26 goals for the Sharks. We had Vokoun, who was considered nothing more then a back-up. Look at him now. What about Garon? who even slipped through waivers. Ask LA about him now. Sean Hill was considered a AHL'er for life. No one makes that mistake now.

Hainsey has ALL the tool but he got the short end of the stick with the Hab's. Can he develop to a top four? Even MORE then that. With complete tool belt players like him, "high maintence" coaching and enviroment are far more important then anothe 5 mph on his slap shot.

We will NEVER find out what the future holds for him as a Hab.

And one more point.....

It is very conceivable that he feels that he Hab's are no longer his future. Let's not forget that Hainsey was subjected to MThead and Rick Greens trough system and "meritocracy" system. If Quintal could be a defensive buffoon and still play while if you made even ONE mistake, you were riding the bench, how would you feel?

[Bobs_HABit]

habsaddict said:

blny said:

At this point, who is Hainsey gonna be a top 4 guy for?

He has a high potential of becoming a top four guy.

We had Scott Thornton and no one considered him anything more then a third liner. He scored 26 goals for the Sharks. We had Vokoun, who was considered nothing more then a back-up. Look at him now. What about Garon? who even slipped through waivers. Ask LA about him now. Sean Hill was considered a AHL'er for life. No one makes that mistake now.

Hainsey has ALL the tool but he got the short end of the stick with the Hab's. Can he develop to a top four? Even MORE then that. With complete tool belt players like him, "high maintence" coaching and enviroment are far more important then anothe 5 mph on his slap shot.

We will NEVER find out what the future holds for him as a Hab.

And one more point.....

It is very conceivable that he feels that he Hab's are no longer his future. Let's not forget that Hainsey was subjected to MThead and Rick Greens trough system and "meritocracy" system. If Quintal could be a defensive buffoon and still play while if you made even ONE mistake, you were riding the bench, how would you feel?

Great point HA and kinda what i was getting at last night in talking about the many great chances he had with the Habs. I'm sure he was fed up with the organization. I know I would be, in his skates. Guess I have that same bad attitude.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

We had Vokoun, who was considered nothing more then a back-up. Look at him now. What about Garon? who even slipped through waivers. Ask LA about him now.

Vokoun and Garon are moot points -- not because they are no longer with us, but because the decision had been made that Theo was to be the man. It was an either-or proposition: Theo or . . .

Not to dredge up old and useless memories, but I thought that they should have traded Theo that one month that he was on the top of his game and would have commanded more than knoB Bonk.

[Doc Holliday]

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.”

...The mistake was to return him in the first place. There was no way to win after that point. If Hainsey plays bad we don't resign him next year and he's gone for nothing. If Hainsey plays good we can't call him back because we lose him on waivers...

...cuting Latendresse, trading Hossa for a bag of pucks, signing Dagenais and Vandermeet to one way deals and keeping Streit over Hainsey are all very strange decisions... Nothing severely bad (a la Houle) but a bunch of questionable moves for sure that makes you go ...mmmmm!

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

docholliday said:

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.”

...The mistake was to return him in the first place. There was no way to win after that point. If Hainsey plays bad we don't resign him next year and he's gone for nothing. If Hainsey plays good we can't call him back because we lose him on waivers...

...cuting Latendresse, trading Hossa for a bag of pucks, signing Dagenais and Vandermeet to one way deals and keeping Streit over Hainsey are all very strange decisions... Nothing severely bad (a la Houle) but a bunch of questionable moves for sure that makes you go ...mmmmm!

You are right with one notable exception. We trust Gainey. He goes to the practices, talks to the players, has access to coaches, trainers, towel boys. He hears and sees things that we have no idea about. He played the game and knows the other GM's, coaches and players. Even though I don't understand everything that happens (anything that happens), I believe that Gainey knows more about hockey and player development than I do, he is intelligent, fair and cautious.
Whereas I dreamed of the Hab's in two years with Hainsey, Komisarek, Markov and Souray on the first and second all-star teams, Gainey has a different judgement of the development of Hainsey and Hossa and their contribution/detraction to the team. I won't pretend to answer your very reasonable questions, because I don't know all of Gaineys rationale, but any team with Theodore, Danis and Price in nets, Latendresse and Chipchura powering the forwards, Pleks, Perez and Higgins speed, Ryder scoring, Markov, Komisarek and Souray on D can't be all bad. In addition, I believe there is more to come.
If Boston dumped Thornton in what must be a cap dump, I'm sure there will be more available soon to the prudent Mr. Gainey.
;D
Smile, it gets better.

[Cranky]

Managing a hockey team is not rocket science or brain surgery. There are obvious and necessary moves that any intellegent hockey person would make.

What most of us expect/demand from Gainey is the above and beyond which he has yet to show. In fact, some of the moves (as Doc mentions) are "below expectations".

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsaddict said:

Managing a hockey team is not rocket science or brain surgery. There are obvious and necessary moves that any intellegent hockey person would make.

What most of us expect/demand from Gainey is the above and beyond which he has yet to show. In fact, some of the moves (as Doc mentions) are "below expectations".

Since we are not privy to all the variables, positive and negative, which Gainey must deal with when managing the club, I can only examine the balance sheet to date.

What that indicates is that since he assumed control the club has experienced a steady and continual improvement both in terms of immediate succes and long-term outlook. There is no evidence to suggest that it won't continue to do so. Bumps in the road? That's business, that's life. As long as one has a solid plan, and adjusts for contingencies along the way, chances of hitting one's goal are much higher than when giving in to knee-jerk reactions and relying heavily on band-aid solutions.

Far too early to bemoan the departures of Hossa and Hainsey as msitakes. Let's see how they pan out. Remember Jozef Balej? As Boston_Habs pointed out, there's more to a useful hockey player than hockey skill.

Oh yeah, I emailed Bob about the organizational weakness at the defense position. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention and says that he will look into it ASAP. Said that when he mentioned it to Savard, Gauthier, Timmins, Jarvis, Julien, and Lever, they all were surprised as well.

[Cranky]

mrbozo said:

Oh yeah, I emailed Bob about the organizational weakness at the defense position. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention and says that he will look into it ASAP. Said that when he mentioned it to Savard, Gauthier, Timmins, Jarvis, Julien, and Lever, they all were surprised as well.

You e-mailed him? And he thanked you? Hell, I've got hemorrhoids from sending him all those telepathic e-mails and he has yet to thank me for a single one.

As for the brain assemblage. Well, all teams have a load of professional on their rosters including Bruins, Blues, etc. And where are they? To state the obvious, the GM is the pivot spot.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsaddict said:

mrbozo said:

Oh yeah, I emailed Bob about the organizational weakness at the defense position. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention and says that he will look into it ASAP. Said that when he mentioned it to Savard, Gauthier, Timmins, Jarvis, Julien, and Lever, they all were surprised as well.

You e-mailed him? And he thanked you? Hell, I've got hemorrhoids from sending him all those telepathic e-mails and he has yet to thank me for a single one.

As for the brain assemblage. Well, all teams have a load of professional on their rosters including Bruins, Blues, etc. And where are they? To state the obvious, the GM is the pivot spot.

Said that he was working 23/7 on improving the club in all aspects, and that it was sometimes a thankless job because things don't always move as one anticipates—broken deals, low market values for players, slow or nonexistent development by players, salary cap considerations both present and future, etc.

Told me not to get down, that he's surrounded himself with very good hockey minds, that despite having had to play a bit of a shell game with the resources he inherited he's been over all quite satisfied with the club's activity in the area of asset acquisition. His closing words were, "There's always room for improvement, but you know, you can't just throw in the towel the moment something doesn't go your way. Losers do that, winners stay the course—sometimes it's short-term pain for long-term gain."

I'll take the pain of a 14-7-4 start to the season as a sign of better things to come.

[Skilly]

jkr said:

I don't know Skilly. As my post above stated, he was a -10 in Hamilton. That would really concern me about his play at the NHL level - especially with a team as bad as Columbus.

Could it be that he has the most points and the worst +/- because he has the most ice time?

The Dogs are not the Habs. Hainsey should never have been sent down. (I guess there is no such beast as the emergency call-up anymore as in years past?) On the Habs he could have had superior d-man partners, superior goaltenders, and superior coaching. He didn't look out of place in the pre-season one bit.

I would like to see that +/- stat broken down and compared to ice-time. Benoit is -7, Roy is -7, Archer was +1 in almost half the games and Cote is -2 in almost half the games ...... on a bad team the more you play the worse your +/- is going to be, and the fact he is probably played the most shows that they viewed him as their next guy on the depth chart.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

skilly said:

jkr said:

I don't know Skilly. As my post above stated, he was a -10 in Hamilton. That would really concern me about his play at the NHL level - especially with a team as bad as Columbus.

Could it be that he has the most points and the worst +/- because he has the most ice time?

The Dogs are not the Habs. Hainsey should never have been sent down. (I guess there is no such beast as the emergency call-up anymore as in years past?) On the Habs he could have had superior d-man partners, superior goaltenders, and superior coaching. He didn't look out of place in the pre-season one bit.

I would like to see that +/- stat broken down and compared to ice-time. Benoit is -7, Roy is -7, Archer was +1 in almost half the games and Cote is -2 in almost half the games ...... on a bad team the more you play the worse your +/- is going to be, and the fact he is probably played the most shows that they viewed him as their next guy on the depth chart.

The +/- that ended Hainsey's tenure with the Habs organization wasn't just the one in the stats sheets.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

habsaddict said:

Managing a hockey team is not rocket science or brain surgery. There are obvious and necessary moves that any intellegent hockey person would make.

What most of us expect/demand from Gainey is the above and beyond which he has yet to show. In fact, some of the moves (as Doc mentions) are "below expectations".

Since we are not privy to all the variables, positive and negative, which Gainey must deal with when managing the club, I can only examine the balance sheet to date.

What that indicates is that since he assumed control the club has experienced a steady and continual improvement both in terms of immediate succes and long-term outlook. There is no evidence to suggest that it won't continue to do so. Bumps in the road? That's business, that's life. As long as one has a solid plan, and adjusts for contingencies along the way, chances of hitting one's goal are much higher than when giving in to knee-jerk reactions and relying heavily on band-aid solutions.

Far too early to bemoan the departures of Hossa and Hainsey as msitakes. Let's see how they pan out. Remember Jozef Balej? As Boston_Habs pointed out, there's more to a useful hockey player than hockey skill.

Oh yeah, I emailed Bob about the organizational weakness at the defense position. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention and says that he will look into it ASAP. Said that when he mentioned it to Savard, Gauthier, Timmins, Jarvis, Julien, and Lever, they all were surprised as well.

HHHAAAAAHAAAHAA! ;D

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

mrbozo said:

habsaddict said:

Managing a hockey team is not rocket science or brain surgery. There are obvious and necessary moves that any intellegent hockey person would make.

What most of us expect/demand from Gainey is the above and beyond which he has yet to show. In fact, some of the moves (as Doc mentions) are "below expectations".

Since we are not privy to all the variables, positive and negative, which Gainey must deal with when managing the club, I can only examine the balance sheet to date.

What that indicates is that since he assumed control the club has experienced a steady and continual improvement both in terms of immediate succes and long-term outlook. There is no evidence to suggest that it won't continue to do so. Bumps in the road? That's business, that's life. As long as one has a solid plan, and adjusts for contingencies along the way, chances of hitting one's goal are much higher than when giving in to knee-jerk reactions and relying heavily on band-aid solutions.

Far too early to bemoan the departures of Hossa and Hainsey as msitakes. Let's see how they pan out. Remember Jozef Balej? As Boston_Habs pointed out, there's more to a useful hockey player than hockey skill.

Oh yeah, I emailed Bob about the organizational weakness at the defense position. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention and says that he will look into it ASAP. Said that when he mentioned it to Savard, Gauthier, Timmins, Jarvis, Julien, and Lever, they all were surprised as well.

Well said Einstein!
The unifying theory.

[NWTHabsFan]

Hainsey had his chances. He was up against a 27 year old Swiss guy who failed in the ECHL years ago. He did not earn his spot in this year, one that we all proclaimed his "make it or break it" season. As much as it is good to sit back and figure out a guy from behind a TV screen or keyboard, the management must see much, much more. Gainey knew it was a calculated risk. He was even quoted saying so. He also fished both Hossa and Hainsey around early on and got nary a nibble, only to get Murray after the fact.

It is a tough new NHL, and lots of players will change hands for what can only be seen as salary dumps or pure folly. The value of prospects as seen by the fanatics will never transpire in future transactions. The value of trade bait will be based more on draft picks and salary saved, rather than assets gained. Welcome to the new NHL.

By the by, as much as that 2000 draft is really frustrating, we must move on. Management has, now it us our turn.

[jkr]

nwthabsfan said:

Hainsey had his chances. He was up against a 27 year old Swiss guy who failed in the ECHL years ago. He did not earn his spot in this year, one that we all proclaimed his "make it or break it" season. As much as it is good to sit back and figure out a guy from behind a TV screen or keyboard, the management must see much, much more. Gainey knew it was a calculated risk. He was even quoted saying so. He also fished both Hossa and Hainsey around early on and got nary a nibble, only to get Murray after the fact.

It is a tough new NHL, and lots of players will change hands for what can only be seen as salary dumps or pure folly. The value of prospects as seen by the fanatics will never transpire in future transactions. The value of trade bait will be based more on draft picks and salary saved, rather than assets gained. Welcome to the new NHL.

By the by, as much as that 2000 draft is really frustrating, we must move on. Management has, now it us our turn.

Agreed.

I don't remember how much opposition there was to sending Hainsey down in October - can't remember that far back.

But once he was down under these new waiver rules we all new he wasn't coming back this year.

[mic]

jkr said:

mic said:

It's the second time Gainey lose defensive depth on waivers. The Habs lost two defensmen in the process. on the blue

Who was the other player lost on waivers?

Beauchemin. While not necessarily an NHL defensman, he still was one of the few players that Gainey could have used now.

[clear observer]

Souray on D can't be all bad.

Yes...yes it can.


CO

[jkr]

mic said:

jkr said:

Who was the other player lost on waivers?

Beauchemin. While not necessarily an NHL defensman, he still was one of the few players that Gainey could have used now.

The same guy Mclean used to get Fedorov?

[mic]

jkr said:

mic said:

Beauchemin. While not necessarily an NHL defensman, he still was one of the few players that Gainey could have used now.

The same guy Mclean used to get Fedorov?

Yes.

[Cranky]

jkr said:

I don't remember how much opposition there was to sending Hainsey down in October - can't remember that far back.

.

I think that the reason many, maybe most people did not know the rules. I follow hockey pretty closely and yet I was caught by suprise with the "up-waiver" rule. I didn't know this up to a couple of weeks ago.

Had I known, I would of thrown a fit. Keeping Dags over Hainsey? Please......

[jkr]

habsaddict said:

jkr said:

I don't remember how much opposition there was to sending Hainsey down in October - can't remember that far back.

.

I think that the reason many, maybe most people did not know the rules. I follow hockey pretty closely and yet I was caught by suprise with the "up-waiver" rule. I didn't know this up to a couple of weeks ago.

Had I known, I would of thrown a fit. Keeping Dags over Hainsey? Please......

I had heard of the rule and how it applied to players making a certain dollar amount. Once I saw Hainsey clear waivers I did not expect him back.

[Cranky]

jkr said:

habsaddict said:

I think that the reason many, maybe most people did not know the rules. I follow hockey pretty closely and yet I was caught by suprise with the "up-waiver" rule. I didn't know this up to a couple of weeks ago.

Had I known, I would of thrown a fit. Keeping Dags over Hainsey? Please......

I had heard of the rule and how it applied to players making a certain dollar amount. Once I saw Hainsey clear waivers I did not expect him back.

It's obvious now that if you make over a certain amount, doing well will reward you with nothing. How's that for defeating the whole reason for doing well? Negative meritocracy? Wow, it's hard to find that in our society and yet the NHL/NHLPA institutionalized it through the CBA.Yup, and I can see how that will block players making a better living even if they deserve it.

It's a stupid rule and it need modifying. Hopefully, the courts will strike it down.

[Doc Holliday]

jkr said:

I don't remember how much opposition there was to sending Hainsey down in October - can't remember that far back.

But once he was down under these new waiver rules we all new he wasn't coming back this year.

I was against it and I recall being in minority. I wanted Streit to familiarize himself with North American hockey in the AHL (nice way of saying I didn't want him anywhere near the main team ). BC was certainly against it too as he wanted to keep 8 dmen.

A vast majority a people wouldn't give Hainey the time of day up until this week when we lost him. He was no good, a waste, a bust, no character, no desire, a cancer with a bad attitude, etc... Now that he's gone people rip their shirt off and want the head of Gainey for it... Puh-lease...! Gainey tried to trade him and there was no takers. He tried to waive him and there was takers... Calls him back and now he's picked. What are you gonna do. Really if the only way this guy interests someone is if he's picked for nothing AND he cost only half of the minimum league salary, than so be it.

I remember people freakin right out when Gainey traded Balej for Kovy. They wanted his head back then too for trading a Pavel Bure in the making for a guy we had no hope of keeping...

Cyber valium anyone ?

[Cranky]

docholliday said:

I was against it and I recall being in minority. I wanted Streit to familiarize himself with North American hockey in the AHL (nice way of saying I didn't want him anywhere near the main team ). BC was certainly against it too as he wanted to keep 8 dmen.

Had I known...or at least payed more attention to the rules. Mehh....you know me, I'm not one to raise hell......

I think it was a time of too much hope. At the beginning of the season, all of us are brimming with hope and we may look the other way with somthing that clearly does not make sense. Same thing with Gui. I wasn't going to say too much until I saw him play. Well, I DID and now I wonder what the hell was Mr. Average GM thinking because he DID SEE HIM PLAY.