they sunk over 40 million and two 2nd rounders and a 3rd into Markov....
I mean i like Markov, but what could have two 2nd rounders a 3rd and 40 million bought us in the UFA market to replace him?
Mistake of huge proportions.
Second how do you sink near 2 million into a guy (Campoli) to have him scratched ?
Gave up a seond for Wiz
Gave up a 2nd and 3rd for Matt Schneider
Gave up 1st round selection in 2008 and a 2nd round selection in 2009 for Alex Tanguay
Gave up Ryan McDonagh for Gomez
Gave up Sergei K for ZERO
Gave up Saku for ZERO
Gave up RIBS for ZERO
Gave up Grabovski for a 2nd rounder.
Gave up a 2nd round pick for Robert Lang
Oh Cmon, which one the following trades was "mortgaging the future"?
And I used such a gross exagerration... where exactly? I said that the net result of all the moves I've seen him make suggest lack of vision/perspective, and ability to evaluate talent moving forward beyond what current "popular opinion" on a player is. In fact, one could argue that he failed at every one of the major judgment calls he has been a part of (from the Koivu/Cammy/Gio/Gomer changing of the guard, to signing Markov instead of Wizniewski, to letting multiple promising coaches leave the organization just to hire another even less established rookie coach, players who were let go versus those brought in/signed, etc, etc), and so perhaps his "filler moves" (2nd for a rental here, prospect for a prospect there) aren't enough to sway confidence back in his favour over all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin
Are we chatting about Gauthier or Gainey?
We all know that they were intrinsically linked through the time frame laid out in the post you replied to, so again... no playing dumb please.
No you didn't use those terms but what else can be inferred from the following?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu
youth thrown away as throw ins/peanuts, etc. Now, "all of a sudden", Gauthier finds himself having to rebuild as the result of all his moves, and finds himself with few players and draft picks available to help him do it.
What youth "thrown away" for "quick fixes" would be the difference between being a bubble team and a cup contender?
Also if we're going to play the guilt by association thing between Gainey and Gauthier, then using your logic, I don't think it will be bad to have Gauthier here as a seller, since the only selling move the habs ever made ended up being highly successful given that the Habs got Gorges and a 1st(pacioretty) for Rivet. That is of course using your logic.
We all know that they were intrinsically linked through the time frame laid out in the post you replied to, so again... no playing dumb please.
It's crazy how much crap is said and repeated, and suddenly is becomes fact. Absolutely nobody knows the input Gauthier had when Gainey was the GM, and criticising the moves of the latter on the former is simply bad faith.
You guys are doing the exam same mistake with Gauthier that you did with JM: you are bashing the guy continuously, without an once of rationality, and it's only when he'll be gone that you'll suddenly realize the situation wasn't as black and white as you made yourself believe.
Gauthier didn't have confidence in Martin or Pearn...yet here we got both as our scouts ,ready to sell our players...LOL
un natural disaster ahead...
The Ribeiro trade has nothing to do with scouting. It was a player causing a rift in the room and with off ice issues and everybody knew about it so his value was very low. Same as SK pretty much.
We all know that they were intrinsically linked through the time frame laid out in the post you replied to, so again... no playing dumb please.
GMs have the final word; you can't blame Gauthier for Gainey's brain dead moves imo. Who was the pro scout, main counselor during Réjean Houle's tenure? Should we blame him for the Roy fiasco?
Btw, in case you missed it the first time: Wisniewski for a 2nd round pick was a solid trade for us. Do you have other examples of "... all the draft picks shipped out on rentals of players.." and/or "... youth thrown away as throw ins/peanuts..."?
It's crazy how much crap is said and repeated, and suddenly is becomes fact. Absolutely nobody knows the input Gauthier had when Gainey was the GM, and criticising the moves of the latter on the former is simply bad faith.
You guys are doing the exam same mistake with Gauthier that you did with JM: you are bashing the guy continuously, without an once of rationality, and it's only when he'll be gone that you'll suddenly realize the situation wasn't as black and white as you made yourself believe.
Chiarelli must be an idiot because he was in Ottawa with Gauthier and Martin
No you didn't use those terms but what else can be inferred from the following?
What youth "thrown away" for "quick fixes" would be the difference between being a bubble team and a cup contender?
Also if we're going to play the guilt by association thing between Gainey and Gauthier, then using your logic, I don't think it will be bad to have Gauthier here as a seller, since the only selling move the habs ever made ended up being Gorges and a 1st(pacioretty) for Rivet. That is of course using your logic.
What can be "inferred"? That return wasn't maximized on youth that was allowed to leave the system, the veterans brought in to right the ship ultimately failed to move the team forward overall, and the team lost a lot of assets building the team into its current form. It's not "mortgaging the future" as much as making lots of moves designed to impact the present at the expense of the future that ultimately failed.
And there's no "playing" guilt by association. I think it's well established that these guys are so intrinsically linked that one cannot escape the other when sharing any "blame". GM Gainey steps down when assistant GM PG steps up, and yet Gainey remains an advisor. That's all you have to know about that situation anyway, but we know even more specifics than that, so stop making it sound like a game people are playing.
And apparently you haven't followed my "logic" at all, if you're talking about anything I've said as hinting towards whether PG being a seller would automatically be a good thing or a bad thing. There are deals that make sense, and deals that don't, and I evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, not just what was done and who did it. Dealing the 2nd for Moore would have made sense if he was kept on for another year. And in fact, we know that he remains an impact bottom 6 player (playoffs, too) at a reasonable price to this day, and we lack solid NHL level 2-way play with offensive possibilities in our bottom 6, so if that happened and worked out I'd probably be giving PG his due praise. That's just one example, not necessarily one that needs particular dwelling on.
The Ribeiro trade has nothing to do with scouting. It was a player causing a rift in the room and with off ice issues and everybody knew about it so his value was very low. Same as SK pretty much.
I don't care what the problem is,he scouted NIMINIAAA
Absolutely nobody knows the input Gauthier had when Gainey was the GM
Wasn't Gauthier the assistant GM? Who else had more input, or opportunity to shape the GM's perspective of the worth of his assets. GMs ultimately end up finalizing/approving the contracts, but you should know that it's typically based mostly on the recommendations of the assistant GM working with the head of talent/scouting. Without knowing, sure we can't harp on particulars of motivations behind Deal A or Move B, but don't be foolish enough to submit that it's best to treat them as separately/individually operating members throughout the process.
What can be "inferred"? That return wasn't maximized on youth that was allowed to leave the system,
What youth was moved? Are you referring to D'agostini, Sergei, Lapierre and O'byrne? Which of these guys would be the difference maker today. The Sergei trade sucked, but we're not even close to knowing whether or not the return in the D'agotini or O'byrne trade has been maximized. You said later in the post that you judge on a case by case basis, as of right now two of the "youth" trades under Gauthier can't even be fully evaluated.
Quote:
the veterans brought in to right the ship ultimately failed to move the team forward overall,
Wisniewski and Moore performed their duties exceptionally well. They were two very sucessful rentals.
Quote:
and the team lost a lot of assets building the team into its current form.
Aside from the two 2nds for rentals, which assets did we lose that would change the entire make up this team into a more positive image?
Quote:
It's not "mortgaging the future" as much as making lots of moves designed to impact the present at the expense of the future that ultimately failed.
Isn't that what mortgaging the future is? Selling potential long-term gains for short-term ones? That is exactly what your post implied.
Quote:
And there's no "playing" guilt by association. I think it's well established that these guys are so intrinsically linked that one cannot escape the other when sharing any "blame".
How has it been well established? This is pure speculation.
Quote:
GM Gainey steps down when assistant GM PG steps up, and yet Gainey remains an advisor. That's all you have to know about that situation anyway, but we know even more specifics than that, so stop making it sound like a game people are playing.
That's all I need to know about the situation, but we have no proof other than speculation that the ones is directly influencing the latter. If that is the case, then how can we blame Gauthier for these trades if he isn't the man behind them at all.
Also it is guilt by association. You are assuming that because one worked under the other that they must have agreed in regards to the moves made. You are assuming that the two cannot disagree and are lumping the moves made by one on the other. There are stories that Andre Savard under Gainey wanted Carter instead of AK and Kopitar instead of Price. Here are two instances where someone working under another can disagree with the moves made. So it's a fallacy to say that they "agreed on all moves", you don't know that, it's pure speculation.
Quote:
And apparently you haven't followed my "logic" at all, if you're talking about anything I've said as hinting towards whether PG being a seller would automatically be a good thing or a bad thing. There are deals that make sense, and deals that don't, and I evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, not just what was done and who did it
You say you follow trades and transactions on a case by case basis yet you take things out of context. You just on the other page spoke negatively about the Moore trade, but failed to take into account that as a rental(which is a common occurence in the nhl) that the Moore trade was highly successful. As was the Wisniewski trade as a rental.
I don't think Gauthier has been excellent by any means, but negativity has been a gross exaggeration. He's been average and I don't think there is any one move or combination of moves that are enough to warrant a firing.
GMs have the final word; you can't blame Gauthier for Gainey's brain dead moves imo. Who was the pro scout, main counselor during Réjean Houle's tenure? Should we blame him for the Roy fiasco?
Btw, in case you missed it the first time: Wisniewski for a 2nd round pick was a solid trade for us. Do you have other examples of "... all the draft picks shipped out on rentals of players.." and/or "... youth thrown away as throw ins/peanuts..."?
And while it's a tiny detail, it's Wisniewski for a 2nd and 5th, not just a 2nd. Also, wtf are you talking about with the Roy situation? First of all, that was about 3 changes in league-wise asset management philosophies and CBAs ago, and secondly, how does the GM at the time fit into our conversation about Gauthier currently?
Chiarelli must be an idiot because he was in Ottawa with Gauthier and Martin
was Chiarelli really there way back when Gauthier was still in town? Just looked it up and there was no overlap. Gauthier left Ottawa in 1998, and Chiarelli joined Ottawa in 1999.
was Chiarelli really there way back when Gauthier was still in town? Just looked it up and there was no overlap. Gauthier left Ottawa in 1998, and Chiarelli joined Ottawa in 1999.
Nope Gauthier left Ottawa during the 97-98 season and Chiarelli was hired by Ottawa in 99
Gauthier
From 1993 to 1995, he was the Assistant general manager for the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. He left this position in 1995 to become the third general manager of the Ottawa Senators, signing a five-year contract. His time with Ottawa coincided with a turnaround in the team's fortunes. After the 1997–98 season he left his contract early, citing family issues, saying he would take time off to explore life away from hockey. Seventeen days later he was re-hired by the Ducks where he served as president and general manager.[2][1] He was sacked in 2002 after Anaheim missed the playoffs for three consecutive seasons.
Who else had more input, or opportunity to shape the GM's perspective of the worth of his assets.
Not a lot of people, but this says nothing. Maybe Gauthier was against Gainey decision most of the time. Good managers hire people who can challenge them and have different point of views - maybe that's what Gainey did by hiring Gauthier. We don't know. That's the entire point.
Also, shouldn't we fire Gauthier assistant instead? Since he's the one with the most input on Gauthier?it's typically based mostly on the recommendations of the assistant GM working with the head of talent/scouting.
Quote:
GMs ultimately end up finalizing/approving the contracts, but you should know that
Again, that's all speculative theory. It could have happened this way, or couldn't, for each trade. We don't know. Gainey owns his decision. Gauthier owns his too. That's how it works.
Quote:
Without knowing, sure we can't harp on particulars of motivations behind Deal A or Move B, but don't be foolish enough to submit that it's best to treat them as separately/individually operating members throughout the process.
Why not? Especially since they have clear differences in their style. Gauthier is (IMHO) a much better GM than Gainey, way more of a micro-manager. He's much better at fixing his team holes too. He's also quicker to react than Gainey. Gainey on the other hand had more presence, was the better leader, and managed to sign a top UFA in a time where nobody of importance wanted to have anything to do with us; something Gauthier would have had more trouble with in my opinion.
Btw, has anyone thought about the fact that Gauthier (nor Gainey) have ever been (since joining the habs) in the situation we are right now? In other words, we are sellers for the first time since god knows when. This is a completely different dynamic than trying to make a transaction in order to get the team better (which has been the goal of most moves in the last few years). That's why looking at Gauthier past transactions (and I'm not even talking about Gainey) isn't the best idea.
people hate gautheri so much, they put gainey's moves on him. jesus christ, to hear you guys talk about gauthier you'd think he was houle.
"it like being in a car with a drunk driver"? are you serious? if gauthier has proved anything during his tenure, is that he is very, very conservative with his moves. come on, it's not like he does huuuuuuge blockbusters involving top players.
