Gainey is the man

wright · Veteran Member

Gainey is the man

barry33 · Guru

Tough to compare the records of 03-04 to the points total this year. As I recall in '03-'04 you di dnot get a point for an OT loss nor did you get 2 points for a shootout win. As well, '03'04 was pre-cap time. Montreal was one of the teams expected to improve under the new salary cap system and they have. Conversely, Toronto was expected to struggle under the cap and they have. Has Gainey done alot of things right? Of course he has. Has he done alot of things wrong? You bet. The things he has done right and wrong have been well documented on this site and elsewhere so I will not rehash it. I still strongly feel that people on this site, and in the Montreal Media would have been much harder on Gainey if he was not a Habs Icon for his contributions as a player. Regardless of what Gainey did in Dallas, do you think he would have been given the relatively soft ride in Montreal this year had he not been a habs legend? Having said that, time and only time will be the true indicator of whether he is a success in habland as a GM. I am on Bob;s side. But I am not ready to have a hug in just yet.

plouf · Guru

barry33 wrote:

Tough to compare the records of 03-04 to the points total this year. As I recall in '03-'04 you di dnot get a point for an OT loss nor did you get 2 points for a shootout win. As well, '03'04 was pre-cap time. Montreal was one of the teams expected to improve under the new salary cap system and they have. Conversely, Toronto was expected to struggle under the cap and they have. Has Gainey done alot of things right? Of course he has. Has he done alot of things wrong? You bet. The things he has done right and wrong have been well documented on this site and elsewhere so I will not rehash it. I still strongly feel that people on this site, and in the Montreal Media would have been much harder on Gainey if he was not a Habs Icon for his contributions as a player. Regardless of what Gainey did in Dallas, do you think he would have been given the relatively soft ride in Montreal this year had he not been a habs legend? Having said that, time and only time will be the true indicator of whether he is a success in habland as a GM. I am on Bob;s side. But I am not ready to have a hug in just yet.

You have to give Gainey some credit for being on the ball with respect to the cap, since a lot of people knew it was quite possibly coming. In any case, maybe some people thought Montreal would improve while Toronto got worse, but The Sporting News, for example, picked Montreal to be comfortably out of the playoffs, with Toronto in. (Not that they didn't point out that Montreal had a good future while Toronto would struggle. The reason why Montreal will improve is that they've focused on youth rather than quick fixes for some time now, and finally it's paying off. Part of that is because Andre S. is a good talent scout, part of it's because of what Gainey has been doing.)

[Actually they did have that points system in 03-04. I think it that was the first season they had it.]

On the topic of a "soft ride"...it sure hasn't been a soft ride on this site. And this is where the opinions that matter are found (who cares what the media say? we fans are experts too, right?).

But seriously, a couple years of soft ride in the media may be just what the doctor ordered for any GM of this particular organization to turn the team around. What we need is some freakin' continuity. It's not like Bob has hurt this team. I like what I see compared to two seasons ago, that's for damned sure. Also I think Bob's icon status is one of his biggest assets, since the respect he gets around the league is restoring respectability to what was becoming a joke franchise. Some good players are probably interested in coming here now, working under Carbonneau, etc...So Bob's arguably made a couple of mistakes. Big deal. The way some people would have it that's all he's done. Not jumping the gun to get a headache forward (as wright pointed out so well) is probably going to be a good thing in the long run. Rome was not (re-)built in a day either....

-- Edited by plouf at 19:48, 2006-04-18

barry33 · Guru

plouf wrote:

barry33 wrote: Tough to compare the records of 03-04 to the points total this year. As I recall in '03-'04 you di dnot get a point for an OT loss nor did you get 2 points for a shootout win. As well, '03'04 was pre-cap time. Montreal was one of the teams expected to improve under the new salary cap system and they have. Conversely, Toronto was expected to struggle under the cap and they have. Has Gainey done alot of things right? Of course he has. Has he done alot of things wrong? You bet. The things he has done right and wrong have been well documented on this site and elsewhere so I will not rehash it. I still strongly feel that people on this site, and in the Montreal Media would have been much harder on Gainey if he was not a Habs Icon for his contributions as a player. Regardless of what Gainey did in Dallas, do you think he would have been given the relatively soft ride in Montreal this year had he not been a habs legend? Having said that, time and only time will be the true indicator of whether he is a success in habland as a GM. I am on Bob;s side. But I am not ready to have a hug in just yet. [Actually they did. I think it that was the first season they had that points system.] On the topic of a "soft ride"...it sure hasn't been a soft ride on this site. And this is where the opinions that matter are found (who cares what the media say? the fans are experts too, right?). But a couple years of soft ride in the media may be just what the doctor ordered for any GM of this organization to turn the team around. What we need is some freakin' continuity. It's not like Bob has hurt this team. I like what I see compared to two seasons ago, that's for damned sure. Also I think Bob's icon status is one of his biggest assets, since the respect he gets around the league is restoring respectability to what was becoming a joke franchise. Some good players are probably interested in coming here now, working under Carbonneau, etc...

Plouf- I agree..but how about some continuity in the coaching ranks?!?? I would like to see the revolving door replaced in the coach's office in the Bell Center. It is time that the GM says "Ok...we have players who have been her ethrough 6 coaches..either YOU change or you are BEING changed" and let the coach stay. Look at Buffalo with Lindy Ruff. 'Nuff said

Habtastic · Guru

Yup, Gainey has positioned himself very well this summer to make his definitve mark. I give him props for his work up until now, but it is what he does this summer that will truly influence my views about him. You've got lots of money and lots of pretty things in the window... make the right choices!

Habtastic

plouf · Guru

Well Barry, I agree with you there. The problem was that going with Bob meant taking on someone who had enough of a profile that he had the power and desire to put his own guys in place. So there was always going to be some bloodletting at the start of the regime change. Sadly this was at the expense of a guy who (if given proper support by management) could probably have turned the team around.

-- Edited by plouf at 19:53, 2006-04-18

AB Habman · Guru

wright wrote:

Canadiens will finish with almost identical point record this year as they had in 03-04, which was Gainey's first year as gm. Gainey inherited a team that was old, had missed the playoffs in 4 of the past 5 seasons and the future did not look that appealing. Regardless of how the Habs do in this year's playoffs the future looks encouraging, and yet Gainey's critics claim he is average to below average as a gm. The record would indicate that is inaccurate. With the lockout last season, Gainey has had exactly two years as gm. He cleared out the likes of Quintal,Brisboise,Dackell,Langdon to make room for kids with good upside: Plekanec,Perezhogin,Higgins,Komisarek. A total of 11 players that were on the 04 playoff roster are gone, and the current team has more upside. Gainey acquired Kovalev for virtually nothing, picked up Begin off waivers, added Murray,Downey for next to nothing. The team is tougher with those moves. He was proactive enough to try and change the team chemistry, by getting rid of Dagenais, and making a statement by signing Koviu long term. When the team tuned out Julien, Gainey moved in. The work ethic of the team improved. Gainey has an eye for talent. In Dallas he drafted Iginla,Turco, Leithenen, and made great trades for Sydor and Hatcher. To that end he elevated Higgins to the number one line after he was buried on the fourth line. Has every move by Gainey worked out, by no means, but tell me what GM is perfect? The critics say the Habs have regressed, if you use that arguement then Lamierillo would have been fired in Jersey after failing to make the playoffs a year after winning the cup. Critics say the salary cap is a new era, and Gainey's record in Dallas is not relevant. i don't agree, but regardless Gainey has reduced the payroll to 31 million and will have money to make moves in the off season. Critics say he did nothing to upgrade the team at the trade deadline. What was available? Reechi? He is a minus 1o since joing Carolina. Do you want a floater like Kavsha? Would Boston trade Samsanov to Montreal, not likely. The reality was not much on the table to upgrade the team without trading away good prospects, so he stood pat. One short term trade to mortgage the future was not the right thing to do. In two seasons, Gainey has upgraded this team and positioned it for better things in the future. To all of Gainey's critics I would ask, who could have done a better job in the short term? I do find Gainey's reluctance to firmly endorse Huet as the number one goalie, perplexing, but he knows a lot more about personnel and abilites than I will ever know and so far most of the moves he has made have worked. Let's see what he does in the offseason before passing total judgement on him, this team with its pipeline of good prospects is moving in the right direction.

Three years Wrong or I mean wright

Remember there was activity in the lockout year.

wright · Veteran Member

There was no activity during the lockout. Teams were not allowed to trade, sign or draft players. As for the comment about three years wrong, perhaps you could elaborate on the things that Gainey has done wrong. Still beleive that on balance Gainey has made more correct decisions that incorrect moves.

Jonny G · Senior Member

Wright and Plouf: excellent discussion. I totally agree with your posts.

AB Habman · Guru

wright wrote:

There was no activity during the lockout. Teams were not allowed to trade, sign or draft players. As for the comment about three years wrong, perhaps you could elaborate on the things that Gainey has done wrong. Still beleive that on balance Gainey has made more correct decisions that incorrect moves.

You're wrong...there's was activity during the lockout year. The off season before and the off season after. Remember the Bonk trade and then after the lockout...the Kovy signing. All GM's were active during this time. Are you saying we had no one at the helm for that full year and every team in the NHL made transactions without anyone in control? Teams like Rangers were busy almost exclusively during this time.

Gainey has been at the helm three seasons now and was active in all three. Whether it was releasing players, signing players or trading players.

wright · Veteran Member

AB Habman wrote:

wright wrote: There was no activity during the lockout. Teams were not allowed to trade, sign or draft players. As for the comment about three years wrong, perhaps you could elaborate on the things that Gainey has done wrong. Still beleive that on balance Gainey has made more correct decisions that incorrect moves. You're wrong...there's was activity during the lockout year. The off season before and the off season after. Remember the Bonk trade and then after the lockout...the Kovy signing. All GM's were active during this time. Are you saying we had no one at the helm for that full year and every team in the NHL made transactions without anyone in control? Teams like Rangers were busy almost exclusively during this time. Gainey has been at the helm three seasons now and was active in all three. Whether it was releasing players, signing players or trading players.

I really did not want to concentrate on what is a side issue, but it bothers me when incorrect statements are passed off as fact. To be precise, the NHL was in a lockout for a total of 301 days, from September 15 2004 to July 13 2006. During that time as quoted by Gary Bettman "there was a cessation of operations by the NHL". No trade, no draft, no activity at all by any NHL club without a CBA in place. Last time I checked, 301 days is virtually the equivalent of an entire year. Gainey was the gm during this time but he could not make any personnel moves, so in fact he has been the active GM of the Habs for two years. Really, the purpose of this post was to debate the merits of Gainey as a gm, but in fairness he has been an active gm for two not three years. AB Habman if you can show me the facts that the NHL was active during the lockout I will be happy to apologize.

AB Habman · Guru

wright wrote:

AB Habman wrote: wright wrote: There was no activity during the lockout. Teams were not allowed to trade, sign or draft players. As for the comment about three years wrong, perhaps you could elaborate on the things that Gainey has done wrong. Still beleive that on balance Gainey has made more correct decisions that incorrect moves. You're wrong...there's was activity during the lockout year. The off season before and the off season after. Remember the Bonk trade and then after the lockout...the Kovy signing. All GM's were active during this time. Are you saying we had no one at the helm for that full year and every team in the NHL made transactions without anyone in control? Teams like Rangers were busy almost exclusively during this time. Gainey has been at the helm three seasons now and was active in all three. Whether it was releasing players, signing players or trading players. I really did not want to concentrate on what is a side issue, but it bothers me when incorrect statements are passed off as fact. To be precise, the NHL was in a lockout for a total of 301 days, from September 15 2004 to July 13 2006. During that time as quoted by Gary Bettman "there was a cessation of operations by the NHL". No trade, no draft, no activity at all by any NHL club without a CBA in place. Last time I checked, 301 days is virtually the equivalent of an entire year. Gainey was the gm during this time but he could not make any personnel moves, so in fact he has been the active GM of the Habs for two years. Really, the purpose of this post was to debate the merits of Gainey as a gm, but in fairness he has been an active gm for two not three years. AB Habman if you can show me the facts that the NHL was active during the lockout I will be happy to apologize.

My point is all teams had GMs during the lockout including ours. Gainey had been our GM now for three seasons. Even though there was inactivity during that specific time, he was still doing his duties whether it was strategizing or preparing for this season. It's not like he planned or thought three years ago.."well, I think there will be a lockout in a couple years so I'll divide my 6 six plan to two plans to split the lockout and go to Florida for a holiday"...there was still continuity at that position.

Actually you could say Gainey made his biggest trade in the off season before that actual lockout as he acquired Bonk and then right after the lockout, he signed Kovy. Take away that year and we don't have Huet, Bonk and Kovy on our team.

Gainey has worked on improving this team for three seasons now. Until you get this fact straight, it's hard to buy into your opening thread. You're complimenting him on acquisitions he made during the last three seasons including the lockout year and then in the same breath saying he only did it in the last two. You're contradicting yourself.

JohnM · Guru

Gotta agree with wright, it's two hockey seasons.

AB Habman · Guru

JohnM wrote:

Gotta agree with wright, it's two hockey seasons.

Wow, big surprise there!

Don't bother trying to justify it. You'll sound as silly as your friend Wright....the man who says Gainey has done great things that factually happened over all three seasons during his tenure but lets just say he did it in two to make him sound even better.

Actually, it's not like you justify much...you just like playing the big bitter brute

JohnM · Guru

If you say so, just trying to go by actual facts.

plouf · Guru

AB Habman wrote:

JohnM wrote: Gotta agree with wright, it's two hockey seasons. Wow, big surprise there! Don't bother trying to justify it. You'll sound as silly as your friend Wright....the man who says Gainey has done great things that factually happened over all three seasons during his tenure but lets just say he did it in two to make him sound even better. Actually, it's not like you justify much...you just like playing the big bitter brute

AB, sounds nitpicky to disagree based on whether it was 3 seasons or 2. Who really cares? I don't think it was that crucial to wright's point.

AB Habman · Guru

JohnM wrote:

If you say so, just trying to go by actual facts.

No you're not and you know it...what facts...I already stated mine and I'm not repeating them.

This is just another attempt to dissagree or hinder. I'm just waiting on your friend Mulsy to back you up now.

AB Habman · Guru

plouf wrote:

AB Habman wrote: JohnM wrote: Gotta agree with wright, it's two hockey seasons. Wow, big surprise there! Don't bother trying to justify it. You'll sound as silly as your friend Wright....the man who says Gainey has done great things that factually happened over all three seasons during his tenure but lets just say he did it in two to make him sound even better. Actually, it's not like you justify much...you just like playing the big bitter brute AB, sounds nitpicky to disagree based on whether it was 3 seasons or 2. Who really cares? I don't think it was that crucial to wright's point.

Well, Plouf...it's just that Wright is contridicting himself. He is taking away a year to make Gainey sound even greater while crediting him for player activity over his whole tenure. It comes off sounding like another subjective Gainey post.

I always get flack for not being factual and now it's OK because the pretty formated post is in regards to the great GM.

Until he gets his facts in order..why even bother with a rebutal on Gainey's position as GM?

mdmrules · Member

AB Habman wrote:

plouf wrote: AB Habman wrote: JohnM wrote: Gotta agree with wright, it's two hockey seasons. Wow, big surprise there! Don't bother trying to justify it. You'll sound as silly as your friend Wright....the man who says Gainey has done great things that factually happened over all three seasons during his tenure but lets just say he did it in two to make him sound even better. Actually, it's not like you justify much...you just like playing the big bitter brute AB, sounds nitpicky to disagree based on whether it was 3 seasons or 2. Who really cares? I don't think it was that crucial to wright's point. Well, Plouf...it's just that Wright is contridicting himself. He is taking away a year to make Gainey sound even greater while crediting him for player activity over his whole tenure. It comes off sounding like another subjective Gainey post. I always get flack for not being factual and now it's OK because the pretty formated post is in regards to the great GM. Until he gets his facts in order..why even bother with a rebutal on Gainey's position as GM?

AB have some self respect and stop the nonsense things you clog the board with. You act like a child when called to task on backing up the things you say.

I read the other day that someone noted how this boards posts have gone downhill lately... and that couldn't be truer with what this thread turned into. This board isn't your own personal punching bag to get out pointless hate towards the greatest franchise in sports.

This was a quality thread with some quality responses until you decided to split hairs about how long he has been GM. It has been stated before how long he has been with the club... the league was inactive for 301 days... there was no league or team to manage... Gainey might as well have been in a coma for that period of time... Would that have been a good enough excuse? Because even while in a coma he would still technically be the GM.

barry33 · Guru

This was a quality thread with some quality responses until you decided to split hairs about how long he has been GM- We cannot be splittikng Gaineys' hair here..he does not have much to split lol. Th eother question I have is....how can both Koivu and Gainey be "the man"?

JohnM · Guru

How bout The Men.

wright · Veteran Member

mdmrules wrote:

AB Habman wrote: plouf wrote: AB Habman wrote: JohnM wrote: Gotta agree with wright, it's two hockey seasons. Wow, big surprise there! Don't bother trying to justify it. You'll sound as silly as your friend Wright....the man who says Gainey has done great things that factually happened over all three seasons during his tenure but lets just say he did it in two to make him sound even better. Actually, it's not like you justify much...you just like playing the big bitter brute AB, sounds nitpicky to disagree based on whether it was 3 seasons or 2. Who really cares? I don't think it was that crucial to wright's point. Well, Plouf...it's just that Wright is contridicting himself. He is taking away a year to make Gainey sound even greater while crediting him for player activity over his whole tenure. It comes off sounding like another subjective Gainey post. I always get flack for not being factual and now it's OK because the pretty formated post is in regards to the great GM. Until he gets his facts in order..why even bother with a rebutal on Gainey's position as GM? AB have some self respect and stop the nonsense things you clog the board with. You act like a child when called to task on backing up the things you say. I read the other day that someone noted how this boards posts have gone downhill lately... and that couldn't be truer with what this thread turned into. This board isn't your own personal punching bag to get out pointless hate towards the greatest franchise in sports. This was a quality thread with some quality responses until you decided to split hairs about how long he has been GM. It has been stated before how long he has been with the club... the league was inactive for 301 days... there was no league or team to manage... Gainey might as well have been in a coma for that period of time... Would that have been a good enough excuse? Because even while in a coma he would still technically be the GM.

As I have stated, the intent of this post was to debate the merits of Gainey as a gm. Whether Gainey was actually an active gm for two or three years was not the main theme of the thread. Although I stand by my perception of Gainey's tenure as gm, for debating purposes lets say he has been the gm for the past three years, debate his record on that basis.

As for a biased perspective, in my initial post I did indicate that Gainey's record was not perfect. There are things that he has done that I do not agree with, such as the conservative system the team uses, instead of a more aggressive puck pursuit system. Critical of his draft selection of picking Price in the first round of the draft. My thoughts were that on balance Gainey has done a solid job thus far, and at present is the best suited for the job.

This is not the first time that AB Habman you have taken one sentence out of one of my posts to attack me, and I suppose that is your right. I was under the impression that this board was to debate different issues, and I would much prefer if that was true.

JohnM · Guru

C'mon wright, you should know better. AB uses this board to bash Gainey, Koivu, Ryder, Downey and others when he feels like. He seemed to get a lot more frustrated after the Leafs were eliminated from the playoffs for some reason.

Nil d · Guru

AB Habman wrote:

I always get flack for not being factual and now it's OK because the pretty formated post is in regards to the great GM. Until he gets his facts in order..why even bother with a rebutal on Gainey's position as GM?

That comment was uncalled for, AB.

AB Habman · Guru

wright wrote:

As I have stated, the intent of this post was to debate the merits of Gainey as a gm. Whether Gainey was actually an active gm for two or three years was not the main theme of the thread. Although I stand by my perception of Gainey's tenure as gm, for debating purposes lets say he has been the gm for the past three years, debate his record on that basis. As for a biased perspective, in my initial post I did indicate that Gainey's record was not perfect. There are things that he has done that I do not agree with, such as the conservative system the team uses, instead of a more aggressive puck pursuit system. Critical of his draft selection of picking Price in the first round of the draft. My thoughts were that on balance Gainey has done a solid job thus far, and at present is the best suited for the job. This is not the first time that AB Habman you have taken one sentence out of one of my posts to attack me, and I suppose that is your right. I was under the impression that this board was to debate different issues, and I would much prefer if that was true.

OK, I can accept debating your post on the three years but now I've totally lost interest because it was such a struggle. You're officially off the hook. I will not respond to anymore contridictions or bashing from your friends.

BTW..I never responded to your post before or if I have...not many.

JohnM · Guru

It's ok to admit you are wrong AB, it's the first step.