|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 9, 2007 18:22:05 GMT -5
I don't know or care about Brunet's journalistic integrity. The subject of the news itself, true or false or anywhere in between, ain't sport information to me but just futile gossiping. What I want to know: will they win or will they lose, did they win or did they lose, was the game or that player any good, etc. The rest falls in the "I don't give a crap" category, just like these information about what's that politician's dog name or the latest Hollywood trend. Let the season starts now! Your statement is exactly what has gone wrong with this team. It seems myred in how it looks rarther then what it does. From the owner downward, they are defending what they have NOT done rather then what they have done. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 9, 2007 23:00:57 GMT -5
Bélanger was worried about the possibility of being used as defensive forward... Briere was being offered $50 millions to be an offensive player... Do you want to compare apples and oranges PTH? All I'm saying is that the same agent, the same summer, is known to have asked a question once, and is suspected of having asked it once again. Yes, in different circumstances, but it goes to show that asking about a players linemates isn't a complete fabrication, ie, something that that agent would never do. We know he's capable of doing it, he's done it before, and the source couldn't be more solid for that. ---- What's really interesting here is that Tremblay and HA see this as an attack on Gainey's credibility, whereas I see this as a good reason not to get Brière - I want a topline player who's going to make his line the #1 line, regardless of his linemates. And frankly, if Brière isn't productive and has a 50 million dollar contract, Carbonneau's head would be on a platter by the end of the season, and the new coach wouldn't make the same mistakes, so I don't see why Brière should've been asking this question, not in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 9, 2007 23:26:56 GMT -5
What's really interesting here is that Tremblay and HA see this as an attack on Gainey's credibility, PTH, I think you chose the wrong word here. It's not an attack on his credibility, not at all. But rather a concern about his ability to sign FA's. As much as I loath mercenaries, there is no other way to add huge assets to a team. If you are not trading for them and not signing them, then what? Waiting for the farm system to flourish while fighting free agency at 26-27? By the time the juniors are productive, they are ready and demanding the big money. I believe that you and I are on the same page as to how important it is to control and manipulate assets. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 10, 2007 6:34:22 GMT -5
I don't think Boivin's argument is hoqwash. If their offer to Briere makes him the highest paid player on the team by far along with a long term committment, then Briere should conclude that he will be playing & playing a lot. Sergei Samsonov was offered alot of money ... third highest paid forward I believe. Was he played alot? Boivin seems to infer, although we all know it isn't possible, that the highest paid forward will get the most ice time and chance to succeed. So why wouldn't that arguement continue down the line with the second and third highest paid forwards (who were bounced around all last year). If Briere was following the Habs even remotely last year (Does Brisson represent any Habs?) than he would have saw Montreal over-react really quickly to Samsonov's under-productivity, and Samsonov declare on national TV that he was "guaranteed" to play .... remember that little sound bite: "why did they bring me in here for, if they are not going to play me?" So what happens if Briere is signed and after the first month the "first line" is struggling and they want to put Koivu back with Higgins and Ryder and "demote" Briere? I know some people views lines as more of 1a and 1b than 1 and 2 .... but does Briere? Maybe he didn't want Montreal to pull a Samsonov on him at the first sign of trouble. I mean even though Sergei was struggling he was providing a couple of things that no other forward was doing ... a good plus minus and even strength scoring. Like I said ... it is not hard to make this view point fit .... I am just not prepared to dismiss it entirely yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 10, 2007 7:26:28 GMT -5
Just want to throw my 2 cents in:
Brunet has shown in the past that he gets article out the door a bit too promptly and most certainly should take better care of how he cites people....
That being said.
It is absolutely common for high profile free agents to want to know what their role will be and who they're going to play with. It is usually part of how a team sells itself to a player "come here you'll play with such and such". Anyone who try to tell you that such subject is unimportant or not even part of the discussion is lying for sure. That should be especially true for Montreal where, as Skilly outlined, some high profile free agents often claimed they were not used to their potential or used in roles that did not fit their profile.
Number 2, as PTH outlined, GG said that something went wrong at the very end of the discussons. Obviously a sticking point occured.
Number 3, it is really easy for Boivin to say that they wanted to spend a lot of money but the reality is that they'll spend less than last year but will increase ticket price nonetheless. Talk is cheap. Brunet is most certainly stretching a story but Boivin is a two-faced liar in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 10, 2007 8:06:14 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that the same agent, the same summer, is known to have asked a question once, and is suspected of having asked it once again. Yes, in different circumstances, but it goes to show that asking about a players linemates isn't a complete fabrication, ie, something that that agent would never do. We know he's capable of doing it, he's done it before, and the source couldn't be more solid for that. Asking the question and basing your decision on the response are two completely different things, though. For sure I would expect Briere (through his agent) to ask the question; when we interview for a new job, do we not ask who we would be working with? But unless the answer was "Garth Murray and Mark Streit, no ifs, ands, or buts", I find it extremely unlikely that Briere would base his signing decision solely on that. Briere knows nothing about Ryder, nor Higgins, and neither one of them has the cachet of say, a Sakic, or a Crosby, or an Ovechkin - in other words I doubt players around the league are thinking to themselves "if only I could go to Montreal, and play with Michael Ryder and Chris Higgins." Ask the question, sure. But a deal-breaker? I find that really hard to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Habfaith on Sept 10, 2007 9:25:26 GMT -5
If Briere was following the Habs even remotely last year (Does Brisson represent any Habs?) than he would have saw Montreal over-react really quickly to Samsonov's under-productivity, and Samsonov declare on national TV that he was "guaranteed" to play .... remember that little sound bite: "why did they bring me in here for, if they are not going to play me?" I know this is straying from the topic, but I thought the Habs were painfully patient with Samsonov. That quote came long after he showed us he was wasting space on the top lines. Samsonov was a horrible disappointment, but I don't think its fair to pin that on Carbo. SS had no one to blame but himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 10, 2007 9:40:10 GMT -5
If Briere was following the Habs even remotely last year (Does Brisson represent any Habs?) than he would have saw Montreal over-react really quickly to Samsonov's under-productivity, and Samsonov declare on national TV that he was "guaranteed" to play .... remember that little sound bite: "why did they bring me in here for, if they are not going to play me?" I know this is straying from the topic, but I thought the Habs were painfully patient with Samsonov. That quote came long after he showed us he was wasting space on the top lines. Samsonov was a horrible disappointment, but I don't think its fair to pin that on Carbo. SS had no one to blame but himself. The only thing Carbo failed to do was separate him from Kovalev. But, I wholeheartedly agree with you in that Samsonov could have helped his own cause. I only know the surface of this situation but on the surface anyway, Samsonov asked for a trade as soon as his wishes weren't met. He was only in Montreal for a couple of months and wanted out as soon as things went the way they did for him. Skilly, I don't know if Briere really cared at all about this scenario. He was too busy racking up points in Buffalo. But, again, whose to say ... just an outsider looking in. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Sept 10, 2007 10:15:44 GMT -5
I don't know or care about Brunet's journalistic integrity. The subject of the news itself, true or false or anywhere in between, ain't sport information to me but just futile gossiping. What I want to know: will they win or will they lose, did they win or did they lose, was the game or that player any good, etc. The rest falls in the "I don't give a crap" category, just like these information about what's that politician's dog name or the latest Hollywood trend. Let the season starts now! Your statement is exactly what has gone wrong with this team. It seems myred in how it looks rarther then what it does. From the owner downward, they are defending what they have NOT done rather then what they have done. Exactly. I would simply add that that mexican soap opera is also well fed by the "journalists" side. Sportainment must be a profitable industry. Too bad there seems to be less and less sport in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 10, 2007 12:17:35 GMT -5
Your statement is exactly what has gone wrong with this team. It seems myred in how it looks rarther then what it does. From the owner downward, they are defending what they have NOT done rather then what they have done. Exactly. I would simply add that that mexican soap opera is also well fed by the "journalists" side. Sportainment must be a profitable industry. Too bad there seems to be less and less sport in it. ...the only real value for this organization right now is its entertainment value. Sports wise it's been mediocre for over a decade. Boivin set the summer expectations really high when he declared (in order to make the HABS fans swallow the raise they shove down our throats) that the HABS had the money to sign a superstar... When they ignored picking Esposito on draft day, they knew they would alienate a great portion of the local fan base and so when they missed out on Briere, the organization found himself in a position where the summer produced nothing exciting to tell the fan base following a highly disappointing season... Even worst, Souray, a fan favorite and one of the very few high profile player on the team, walks away and points at management for the reason why he's gone... To top the sundae, Koivu says that management ignored his offer to help and says that the Stanley Cup is out of reach... ...from a PR and fan-charming perspective, the summer is a huge failure... the vultures (Brunet) are starting to smell something... The fans need a candy to massively rally behind the team and that is not something they seem to realize or be concerned with. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 10, 2007 12:44:59 GMT -5
If Briere was following the Habs even remotely last year (Does Brisson represent any Habs?) than he would have saw Montreal over-react really quickly to Samsonov's under-productivity, and Samsonov declare on national TV that he was "guaranteed" to play .... remember that little sound bite: "why did they bring me in here for, if they are not going to play me?" I know this is straying from the topic, but I thought the Habs were painfully patient with Samsonov. That quote came long after he showed us he was wasting space on the top lines. Samsonov was a horrible disappointment, but I don't think its fair to pin that on Carbo. SS had no one to blame but himself. A long time? I believe it happened in November. I also believe he mentioned that Montreal gave him every indication that he was going to be a major part of the team. On November 30, Samsonov has 12 points in 24 games and was a -1. Over the course of the season that would have been 41 points. (Plekanec and Kovalev had 47) ... I may be wrong here ... but I believe he made the statement on Nov. 18th when he was benched and only played 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Sept 10, 2007 14:14:35 GMT -5
The fans need a candy to massively rally behind the team and that is not something they seem to realize or be concerned with. Living in Toronto, I can tell you that it sounds a lot like what the Leafs would do.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 10, 2007 14:47:51 GMT -5
The fans need a candy to massively rally behind the team and that is not something they seem to realize or be concerned with. Living in Toronto, I can tell you that it sounds a lot like what the Leafs would do..... ...well, over the last 10 years, they've been a much better hockey team... |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Sept 10, 2007 15:44:26 GMT -5
Living in Toronto, I can tell you that it sounds a lot like what the Leafs would do..... ...well, over the last 10 years, they've been a much better hockey team... ahem, maybe more regular season points, and a few more rounds of playoffs, but imo they do not build teams to win cups, they build teams to make the playoffs and satisfy the suits with "name" free agents. the suits don't follow hockey closely enough to realize that the free agents they sign are always way past their prime. some pan out, most don't. i'd rather a gainey type approach, no matter how much its testing your patience. |
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Sept 10, 2007 19:31:54 GMT -5
As a previous poster said, It's not the GM's job to make up the lines. That's Carbo's job, and I think Gainey was just saying, It's not up to me but rather the coaching staff decide where you play. Any GM would be a fool to make that kind of a guarantee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where does it state or imply that he has no intentions of improving the team to be a contender ? In the article Gainey said that he was not going to sign any more FA's. From Brier's point of view, that means that Gainey is going with what he has. And clearly, even the most optimistic fan can see that what we already have if far from being a contender. I am not Brier fan. I think of him as a more polished Ribiero whinner and God knows how much vitriol I have for that. On the other hand, I don't buy into all of the "it's the taxes stupid" defense that I hear lately. There HAS to be something more then just taxes for player not choosing to sign in Montreal particularly since the Hab's are willing to pay a bit more. Factors like......coaching.....GM's signing attitude. After all, didn't Gainey say something to the effect that players must want to sign for us or else? Not a fan of curling either!  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 11, 2007 6:48:33 GMT -5
realize that the free agents they sign are always way past their prime. some pan out, most don't. How is that different from Bob signing Samsonov, Theodore, Brisebois, Hamrlick, Smolinski, etc... bunch of free agents either past their prime and many that don't work... Gainey's approach is not one of "patience" like many say, it's one of failures and missed opportunities. This summer he wanted to get Briere, he wanted to get Souray... But did not deliver. He will only send kids out there because he failed to get the players he knew he needed. Patching the obvious holes in your lineup with what's available in your farm doesn't require a great hockey mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 11, 2007 6:58:35 GMT -5
realize that the free agents they sign are always way past their prime. some pan out, most don't. How is that different from Bob signing Samsonov, Theodore, Brisebois, Hamrlick, Smolinski, etc... bunch of free agents either past their prime and many that don't work... Gainey's approach is not one of "patience" like many say, it's one of failures and missed opportunities. This summer he wanted to get Briere, he wanted to get Souray... But did not deliver. He will only send kids out there because he failed to get the players he knew he needed. Patching the obvious holes in your lineup with what's available in your farm doesn't require a great hockey mind. This is the thing though, Doc. Gainey made fair offers to those two players and it was they, not anything Gainey did or didn't do, who made their choices. And, to me at least, on the surface I don't think either player really seriously entertained coming to Montreal regardless what was printed. Briere kept his family in an American enviornment and Souray went to his "dream team" the highest bidder. I can't fault Gainey on either deal buds. He made competative offers and they just chose to go elsewhere. Mind you if he had overpaid for these guys he'd be getting the same negative comments anyway. In short, Gainey can do no right regardless what he does. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 11, 2007 7:58:02 GMT -5
In short, Gainey can do no right regardless what he does. That's not how it works in my book Dis. Gainey did good in signing Markov and I outlined it when it happened. Gainey's trade to acquire Latendresse could prove to be one the best trade done in a long time and I said so. When he hired Carbo I felt it was a good move too and I still stand by that. I think I call the good and I call the bad. But to some Gainey can do no wrong and the simple fact of not succeeding at getting the players he needed is turned either into "..wow, Gainey is a genius because he will plug holes with his farm players...". or "...it's not Gainey's fault, it's all due to external factors...". To this I say, wait a minute. Gainey is the guy in charge, he's at the top of the pyramid, when we look at reasons why certain acquisitions really did not work or why we're struggling at getting free agents, the boss has to take some responsabilities. One of the key element that was outlined when Gainey came over was how HIS league-wide recognized experience would instantly bring back credibility to this organization and allow us to attract players. Obviously it hasn't worked out that way. Did Gainey do all he could and put all the rights elements in place to attract free agents? I have strong doubts. There are shady elements around the failiure to sign both Souray and Briere that outlines how Gainey's approach is "my-way or the highway".. It's a competitive market out there and every summer you have 30 salesmen doing all they can to grab the handful of very strong free agents available. Only the best salesmen, with the best pitch wins. |
|
|
|
Post by Habfaith on Sept 11, 2007 10:34:43 GMT -5
A long time? I believe it happened in November. I also believe he mentioned that Montreal gave him every indication that he was going to be a major part of the team. On November 30, Samsonov has 12 points in 24 games and was a -1. Over the course of the season that would have been 41 points. (Plekanec and Kovalev had 47) ... I may be wrong here ... but I believe he made the statement on Nov. 18th when he was benched and only played 10 minutes. You could be right about the time of the quote, I'm not sure when that happened exactly, I just remember thinking "you floating puke, you play like you have and then have the audacity to complain??" I was already fed up with him, maybe I wasn't patient enough either I don't know, but 41 points from Samsonov WAS a bitter disappointment at $3.5 mill. Plekanec was an infinitely better return on investment and I'd take him over what we got from Samsonov any day. He played with jump and desire, while SS floated and played the perimeter. As for Kovalev well, not a whole lot better was he...I think all of us can agree that he has been a disappointment as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 11, 2007 11:48:43 GMT -5
A long time? I believe it happened in November. I also believe he mentioned that Montreal gave him every indication that he was going to be a major part of the team. On November 30, Samsonov has 12 points in 24 games and was a -1. Over the course of the season that would have been 41 points. (Plekanec and Kovalev had 47) ... I may be wrong here ... but I believe he made the statement on Nov. 18th when he was benched and only played 10 minutes. You could be right about the time of the quote, I'm not sure when that happened exactly, I just remember thinking "you floating puke, you play like you have and then have the audacity to complain??" I was already fed up with him, maybe I wasn't patient enough either I don't know, but 41 points from Samsonov WAS a bitter disappointment at $3.5 mill. Plekanec was an infinitely better return on investment and I'd take him over what we got from Samsonov any day. He played with jump and desire, while SS floated and played the perimeter. As for Kovalev well, not a whole lot better was he...I think all of us can agree that he has been a disappointment as well. Totally agree .... they were both bitter disappointments. But both were also, IMO, misused and not put in opportunities to succeed. Which is why I think it is plausible that Briere asked for a guaratee that he'd be playing with the top line ... at leas to start the season. He saw high-priced players in Montreal complain about ice-time and how they were used .... to me it is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Habfaith on Sept 11, 2007 12:08:59 GMT -5
Totally agree .... they were both bitter disappointments. But both were also, IMO, misused and not put in opportunities to succeed. Which is why I think it is plausible that Briere asked for a guaratee that he'd be playing with the top line ... at leas to start the season. He saw high-priced players in Montreal complain about ice-time and how they were used .... to me it is possible. I would concede that the perception out there could be that Samsonov didn't get a fair shake, but from where I was sitting, Samsonov had loads of ice time on the second line with none other than Kovalev. He had every opportunity to perform, and did nothing with the opportunity given to him. He didn't earn more time, and if Briere was afraid he would have to earn his ice time and that is what kept him from signing, then it was a good non-signing IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 11, 2007 13:46:11 GMT -5
Totally agree .... they were both bitter disappointments. But both were also, IMO, misused and not put in opportunities to succeed. Which is why I think it is plausible that Briere asked for a guaratee that he'd be playing with the top line ... at leas to start the season. He saw high-priced players in Montreal complain about ice-time and how they were used .... to me it is possible. I would concede that the perception out there could be that Samsonov didn't get a fair shake, but from where I was sitting, Samsonov had loads of ice time on the second line with none other than Kovalev. He had every opportunity to perform, and did nothing with the opportunity given to him. He didn't earn more time, and if Briere was afraid he would have to earn his ice time and that is what kept him from signing, then it was a good non-signing IMO. IMO you are never, ever going to attract a top free agents if you do not sell him on what his role will be and who he'll play with. No matter what Brisson, Gainey and Boivin might say today, I am 100% certain that this subject was raised and discussed... What was said and how it was perceived and how much weight it but I find it really, really odd that they would claim such subject was not even discussed... |
|
|
|
Post by Habfaith on Sept 11, 2007 15:28:35 GMT -5
IMO you are never, ever going to attract a top free agents if you do not sell him on what his role will be and who he'll play with. No matter what Brisson, Gainey and Boivin might say today, I am 100% certain that this subject was raised and discussed... What was said and how it was perceived and how much weight it but I find it really, really odd that they would claim such subject was not even discussed... I really have a hard time believing that Briere was concerned what his role would be coming to Montreal. The guy had 95 points last year, a full 20 points higher than Koivu, our leader, and he had concerns about ice time? He was worried he wouldn't be on the top power play? He was worried that he wouldn't be on a line with 2 of our top 4 wingers? He had concerns that he wouldn't be one of our go-to guys? As several guys suggested here, I believe Briere pulled a Marty Lapointe on us, plain and simple. He milked the Habs to fuel better counter offers and when he got that ludicrous offer from Holmgren he pounced on it like any mercenary would. |
|
|
|
Post by The Habsome One on Sept 11, 2007 17:35:23 GMT -5
A long time? I believe it happened in November. I also believe he mentioned that Montreal gave him every indication that he was going to be a major part of the team. On November 30, Samsonov has 12 points in 24 games and was a -1. Over the course of the season that would have been 41 points. (Plekanec and Kovalev had 47) ... I may be wrong here ... but I believe he made the statement on Nov. 18th when he was benched and only played 10 minutes. You could be right about the time of the quote, I'm not sure when that happened exactly, I just remember thinking "you floating puke, you play like you have and then have the audacity to complain??" I was already fed up with him, maybe I wasn't patient enough either I don't know, but 41 points from Samsonov WAS a bitter disappointment at $3.5 mill. Plekanec was an infinitely better return on investment and I'd take him over what we got from Samsonov any day. He played with jump and desire, while SS floated and played the perimeter. As for Kovalev well, not a whole lot better was he...I think all of us can agree that he has been a disappointment as well. Wasn't it revealed sometime later that Samsonov arrived at camp overweight or something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 11, 2007 19:26:24 GMT -5
IMO you are never, ever going to attract a top free agents if you do not sell him on what his role will be and who he'll play with. No matter what Brisson, Gainey and Boivin might say today, I am 100% certain that this subject was raised and discussed... What was said and how it was perceived and how much weight it but I find it really, really odd that they would claim such subject was not even discussed... I really have a hard time believing that Briere was concerned what his role would be coming to Montreal. The guy had 95 points last year, a full 20 points higher than Koivu, our leader, and he had concerns about ice time? He was worried he wouldn't be on the top power play? He was worried that he wouldn't be on a line with 2 of our top 4 wingers? He had concerns that he wouldn't be one of our go-to guys? I don't have such a hard time believing it .... Briere has been even more injury prone over his career than Koivu. In fact they are mirror images of each other. Briere: 483 GP .... 162 G .... 214 A ..... 376 pts Avg/season: 54GP .... 18 G ....24 A .... 42 pts points/82 games ..... 28 G ..... 36 A ..... 64 pts Koivu: 650 GP ...... 159 G ..... 376 A ..... 535 pts Avg/season: 59 GP ..... 14G ..... 34 A .... 48 pts points/82 games ..... 20 G ....... 47 A ..... 67 pts He looks at the team and sees that we don't have the firepower he had in Buffalo, that he may be looked upon as the "offensive star" (which he isnt ... look at the numbers, one season a star does not make) .... you bet your booty he wants to play on the top line. This wasn't Wayne Gretzky we were getting ... it was Daniel Briere, a guy who outscored Koivu in 3 years. Last year, 2003/04 he outscored him by 10 points and then the year Koivu had cancer .... Briere knew that Koivu is a better player for the top line, he has been doing it with crap on his line for so long, and Briere has yet to be relied upon when working with crap. I can see that he didn't want to have a first year like Bonk and Kovalev (expected to perform to lofty heights from lower lines and given nothing to succeed with) I feel Briere was probably the first genuine francophone interested in joining the Habs in a long time ... he wanted assurances that were not going to be given. Now, I personally was against getting Briere, but no matter how I look at this story (and trust me I looked from every angle I could think of) it just has an aspect of truth to it IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 11, 2007 22:12:01 GMT -5
Ask the question, sure. But a deal-breaker? I find that really hard to believe. Well, in a high-pressure type of negotiation, where Brière might be feeling the pressure to sign in Montreal yet has some reservations and isn't 100% sure he wants to come here, and then the GM isn't willing to promise top linemates or even to keep on trying to improve the team.... well, that might not be the deal breaker per se, but it might be the straw that broke the camels back. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 11, 2007 22:13:02 GMT -5
What's really interesting here is that Tremblay and HA see this as an attack on Gainey's credibility, PTH, I think you chose the wrong word here. It's not an attack on his credibility, not at all. But rather a concern about his ability to sign FA's. Well, I meant "credibility as a GM" - which reflects his ability to sign FAs and improve the team by being taken seriously all-around. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 11, 2007 23:53:26 GMT -5
Ask the question, sure. But a deal-breaker? I find that really hard to believe. Well, in a high-pressure type of negotiation, where Brière might be feeling the pressure to sign in Montreal yet has some reservations and isn't 100% sure he wants to come here, and then the GM isn't willing to promise top linemates or even to keep on trying to improve the team.... well, that might not be the deal breaker per se, but it might be the straw that broke the camels back. Need I say that I fully agree with this? PTH, I think you chose the wrong word here. It's not an attack on his credibility, not at all. But rather a concern about his ability to sign FA's. Well, I meant "credibility as a GM" - which reflects his ability to sign FAs and improve the team by being taken seriously all-around. I have been taken to task for "disrespecting" Gainey because of my heavy criticism. To me, criticizing what he does as a GM has nothing to do with what he did as a player. That is why I posted a "clarification". BTW, I am pleading with a well known proctology practising scribber ("reporter" in plain Engrish ) to post on our site under his real name. He wants to post under an alias, which of course does nothing for spirited discussions. The other thing is that he fears that he will be constantly attacked. I assured him that we do not do that here. Maybe I should tie him down and do a Clockwork Orange on him unitl he posts.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 12, 2007 0:52:57 GMT -5
BTW, I am pleading with a well known proctology practising scribber ("reporter" in plain Engrish ) to post on our site under his real name. He wants to post under an alias, which of course does nothing for spirited discussions. The other thing is that he fears that he will be constantly attacked. I assured him that we do not do that here. Maybe I should tie him down and do a Clockwork Orange on him unitl he posts. As a clear example of how he can expect to be treated no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Habfaith on Sept 12, 2007 8:31:28 GMT -5
I don't have such a hard time believing it .... Briere has been even more injury prone over his career than Koivu. In fact they are mirror images of each other. I feel Briere was probably the first genuine francophone interested in joining the Habs in a long time ... he wanted assurances that were not going to be given. Now, I personally was against getting Briere, but no matter how I look at this story (and trust me I looked from every angle I could think of) it just has an aspect of truth to it IMO. Where is the big drop off in ice time or skill from our first line wingers to our second line wingers? You don't need to convince me that Koivu is the better man, but none of us can know how confident Birere is. Nor can any of us know how genuine his interest was in playing with Montreal. The guy took the bigger, longer contract offer and the chance to play with a winger in Gagner that is better than anything we could offer at the moment. That seems to me to be the more likely of the two scenarios. Anyway, I am more concerned with the fact that we did offer so much for so long to a guy who, like you said has one big year under his belt. So I guess we're in disagreement as to the why, but probably on the same page as far as not being heartbroken that we didn't land Briere for that big and long a contract. |
|
