View Single Post
02-13-2012, 10:03 AM
Ozymandias's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
So basically, Gainey would've gladly burned this team to the ground for any type of short term gain?
Present term imperative is not Gainey's prerogative, nor Gauthier's, it's the owners.

But that's besides the point.
No it's not. It's called pragmatism.

The point was, at the time of the deal, everyone knew Gomez was like a hot potato for the Rangers. We ended up paying what would be either the best or second-best defenseman on this team right now. At 22 years old.
A hot potato who had garnered the most points in the playoffs for them in the few seasons he spent there. Who had the 2nd most points on the team in those few seasons. That hot potato had 50 points in his last 50 playoff games when he got traded (most of which were with the Rangers).

'People like you'. Seriously man, you're trying to justify a bad deal the time it was time, to a horrific monstrosity that's going to scar this franchise for quite some time.
Stop being overdramatic and exagerating to try and make a point. It just shows you base your opinion on emotions rather than fact and that you feel your arguments don't have the weight you wish they had so you need to add fiction to them.

If you could just get it into the little fuzzy head of yours that I'm not trying to justify anything. What I do is look at everything there is to look at to analyze a situation, and the facts disagree with a lot of what you said.

The fact remains that Gainey was pursuing a centerman, as he wanted to replace Koivu. No matter your outlook on at, the only clue you have about that decision is that Gainey wanted to change the leadership core and that meant letting go of the captain, as he said so himself. That captain was also a top 2 centerman, so you needed to had leadership, but also needed to replace Koivu as a centerman, leadership and centerman not being mutually exclusive. Once you get to this point, there were two choices; UFA market, or trade market. The former had huge limitations because there weren't any prime centerman with experience and with FA you're never sure if you'll be able to sign the player you're looking for, if that player is there to start with. The latter offered more solutions, but at a cost. The true and only cost was McD, who wasn't our best prospect at the time. As for the leadership, there were more choices on the UFA market, because leadership isn't exclusive to one position.

Did I ever say I like the trade? No. But I don't react to it like other people do. Most Pro GMs are pragmatic by nature. There's a whole series of questions and steps of logic they pass through before they make decisions, and the decision to change Koivu wasn't bad at all

And that contract will not 'scar' this franchise. The two years remaining to Gomez's contract will be tradeable and then there's the matter of the new CBA, who knows what that is going to entail, but one certainty is, the NHL will not further shackle the teams that CAN spend for players. Since you like to go into huge leaps of logic, here's one for you : Without Gomez leading our team in points between January and April 2010, there wouldn't be any playoffs that year, and that means Halak's stock wouldn't have rose to that level, making him less desirable on the market, hence not being able to fetch us Eller who will do the complete opposite of 'scaring' our franchise.

The point of that is, in the model used by the Habs (playoffs imperative) they need to constantly have measures of success so they can have a turnaround/upgrade of their players. Without a proper centerman for that season, you don't get that big of a result for key players you want to use to upgrade your team. To have that measure of success, you need to fill in key positions, no matter if it costs you a little more than you'd like.

Last edited by Ozymandias: 02-13-2012 at 10:19 AM.
Ozymandias is offline