We covered this 'ad nauseum'...scroll back....it was all said time and time again...
Pretty obvious you just want to argue, when others here just want to discuss.
This is your response to a very simple, honest question which did nothing but ask you for your opinion.
Someone honestly asks you what your opinion is, no strings attached, and you come back with this smart-ass nothingness. It's evident that you just want to be angry, and fume at the "other-side." As if there were even two sides to begin with.
Brisson's one I would have been Ok with. In spite what you think me beliefs are.
Well, he was not my preferred choice but I would be OK with him. I think Brisebois is the one that should get the job. He is an ex-habs, he is from here and has been an assistant GM and a GM in he AHL. A young guy with lots of energies. A great candidate. Short of Holland who is not available, this (Brisebois) is the guy I would like to have.
I will act like the last 20 years of my life never happened, okay?
might as well cause you obviously did not get much of that experience. All you have to do is dial in on radio talk shows, go on French discussions sites, go where the Habs fans are in order to 'get their preferences'. They are loud, they are clear and they are on all channels. They are not shy about their opinions, if you would have tried, you would have got the picture.
You know what? I just give up. I was going to respond to posts individually, but this thread is exhausting, and it's just so ****ing typical Montreal. Everything is so polarized and extreme. You can't possibly want the best candidate available UNLESS you are an anti-french oppressor. Any position that is not "hire the french guy at all costs" is automatically disregarded and instead you are presented with irrelevant, invented facts that actually do not describe the Habs fanbase in the least.
God forbid you want the best guy available. Not only is it apparently a greivous sin to ask that the position be open to any and all qualified candidates, it is actually borderline racist for you to even suggest that the best candidate may not be bilingual.
And somehow, a valid rebuttle to this is "well, how do you know that the bilingual guy isn't the best?" That's a really good question isn't it? I don't know, and we will never know if we refuse to accept anyone who doesn't speak french.
I honestly, sincerely never thought that the simple concept of weighing all qualified candidates for the position of Manager of a hockey team would come with so much resistance. It's mind-boggling, and honestly a little bit depressing.
I truly don't give a flying **** what language the GM speaks. I just want them to do a proper search and not limit themselves to criteria that has no impact on how the team is run. I'm sick of the old boys club, the random ex-Habs with poor credentials and no experience running the team. If you can't see that the self-imposed criteria we've had to deal with over the last 20 years has hurt the team, well, I'm sorry, but you just aren't a true fan.
I don't know why people insist on making this political. We finally have the opportunity to hire a REAL GM, a guy with vision, experience, a proven winner, a GM that is up to date with today's NHL and that will take the team out of the 20 year funk we've been in. If we **** it up, there is a very good chance that none of us will see a cup win again in our lifetime.
That might be ok for you, but it's not worth taking the chance for me.
That's easy for you to say since all the GMs the habs will ever hire will always speak English, your first language is English and English is everywhere so I'm sure you don't give a crap if the GM doesn't speak French. But here's news for you, and hopefully you don't take this personal, but we also don't care that you don't care.
The problem in all of this with you guys discourse is that You all get too wrapped up in the too simplistic theory that to have a winning team the habs must hire the best GM regardless of language.
It's too simplistic because :
1.From all the lists of possible available candidates I've seen, only one good one doesn't speak french (Nill). It's not like guys like Holmgren, Shero or Holland are available. So why go on crazy rants and get mad over something that isn't even relevant. Not like the habs are pissing on Sam Pollock V2.0 because he doesn't speak French.
2.You assume that the best GM is infinitely better than the 2nd best GM available, or 3rd best GM. Maybe the difference is so minuscule it wouldn't make much of a difference.
3.You seem to fail to consider the impact that actually speaking french has and you seem to think it holds zero value. The job of GM is not to simply make trades and sign players.
4.You also act like all GM have some secret accurate rating where one has 93 rating and the other 94, so the one with 94 is the obvious choice. Fact of the matter is that 2 different people can see different things in multiple candidates and may not agree on who is exactly the best for the job, and whoever they both think might the best could be the wrong choice.
Honestly, as I said before, you just get too wrapped up in a philosophy that's entirely too simple.
Until Sam Pollock comes along and the habs reject him despite the fact they know he's the best because he can't speak french AND they hire a candidate that is clearly worse, then this whole argument of yours is pointless hypothetical BS.
For the record ? I don't really mind if we hire an uni-lingual anglophone GM. He better be damn ****ing good though. None of this replacing Jacques Martin with Randy Cunneyworth crap.
But I also don't have a problem with the habs putting a certain weight on whether the candidate speaks french or not. I think it certainly should be a quality that is desirable amongst other desirable qualities. Because contrarily to what many on this board may think, speaking multiple languages is absolutely a good thing, even if that language is French, oui oui.
Quote:
I'm sick of the old boys club, the random ex-Habs with poor credentials and no experience running the team. If you can't see that the self-imposed criteria we've had to deal with over the last 20 years has hurt the team, well, I'm sorry, but you just aren't a true fan.
Wasn't Gainey the best possible candidate ? Weren't you jumping for joy when he was hired despite the fact he had taken a break from hockey for a while ? Going on a different tangent here but I find it fascinating that Savard is received with such animosity especially considering the fact that he is not even gonna be GM. The man has an extremely similar career path to Gainey. Both were players for the greatest habs team and won multiple cups. Both were GMs and won a cup as GM (2 for Savard + one finals). Why was Gainey revered by so many people even after his debacle as GM of the habs, and why is Savard vilified even before he has done anything by a certain portion of the population ? I ask these questions and I think they merit that people on these boards think about the reasons why they think that way.
Personally I was ecstatic about Gainey's hire, and I gave him a chance and he stomped on my fan's heart. Now it's Savard who is going to help pick the next GM and I'm going to give him a chance because he has the same credentials as Gainey, if not better. And you just have to give a chance to guys like that. If the habs end up hiring Joey Joey Chabadoux the peanut vendor when Ken Holland was available then I'll rant with you.
might as well cause you obviously did not get much of that experience. All you have to do is dial in on radio talk shows, go on French discussions sites, go where the Habs fans are in order to 'get their preferences'. They are loud, they are clear and they are on all channels. They are not shy about their opinions, if you would have tried, you would have got the picture.
I'll tell my pure laine coworker who studies at UQAM to go on those site and explain why language isn't an issue when it comes to winning hockey games. He might know the "experience" better than me.
__________________
"Our priority is finding the best possible person to help us win." - Geoff Molson
Well, he was not my preferred choice but I would be OK with him. I think Brisebois is the one that should get the job. He is an ex-habs, he is from here and has been an assistant GM and a GM in he AHL. A young guy with lots of energies. A great candidate. Short of Holland who is not available, this (Brisebois) is the guy I would like to have.
Honestly, the Ex Hab thing about Brisebois is the reason I'd rather try a Nill. I see an organization(Detroit) that is what we should be & IMO Brisebois is still from that Gainey Regime. What I've seen from Brisebois resume is that he's a capologist, basically a lawyer, not a hockey guy.
Honestly, the Ex Hab thing about Brisebois is the reason I'd rather try a Nill. I see an organization(Detroit) that is what we should be & IMO Brisebois is still from that Gainey Regime. What I've seen from Brisebois resume is that he's a capologist, basically a lawyer, not a hockey guy.
See we can have intelligent debates.
What is the DRW model really though ? Because drafting a top 5 best dman of all time in the 3rd round and have him be healthy and play in 98% of all your games for 20 years isn't really a repeatable model. And I don't care how good Nill is, but if he's not bringing a 20 year old Lidstrom with him, I wonder how much he can really do to copy the DRW model.
Yzerman sure is showing us that vaunted DRW model over in TB.
Honestly, the Ex Hab thing about Brisebois is the reason I'd rather try a Nill. I see an organization(Detroit) that is what we should be & IMO Brisebois is still from that Gainey Regime. What I've seen from Brisebois resume is that he's a capologist, basically a lawyer, not a hockey guy.
See we can have intelligent debates.
Thing is, I do not care much for Bergevin and Loiselle. We have tried experience folks and that got us nowhere. Maybe a young energetic kid can do the job with common sense and get unanimity from the fans over time?
What is the DRW model really though ? Because drafting a top 5 best dman of all time in the 3rd round and have him be healthy and play in 98% of all your games for 20 years isn't really a repeatable model. And I don't care how good Nill is, but if he's not bringing a 20 year old Lidstrom with him, I wonder how much he can really do to copy the DRW model.
Yzerman sure is showing us that vaunted DRW model over in TB.
You can't expect miracles overnight. Would be nice, but it's un-realistic in a Cap era 30-team league. 5 Years has become the Norm to turn a franchise into someting. Burke's 5 is coming to an end in Toronto, ask them that!
Guys, as somewhat of a Franco-hybrid (immigrant, studied and raised in (French) Quebec culture, watched TV and spoke English at home, went to college and University in English), I can say that the majority of the French speaking population want a Quebec native at the head of the CH. If they can't get that, they'll settle for a French speaking person. The word they like to use is "bilingual".
Now, the other portion of francophone Quebecois that don't care are also the ones that actually follow the team 82 games a year, and then some.
What I'm trying to get is that, when people like to presume that "fans" want a francophone GM/coach, that's false. Fans want the best candidate, the people *****ing about the language issue are those that are politically motivated or don't even care about the team and just want to argue.
/rant
I've grossly generalize a lot in my post, but my argument still stands.
not only that, but you happened to be wrong on pretty much every count.
Sargent Pepper: back to the Selke farm system/Habs getting first-hop at Quebec-born players.
If what Maguire wrote is actually untrue (and he knows this) why would he have (re-)published it on his website on February 12, as well as provide additional information and clarification in the comment section of that piece up until a month ago?
You've said that Maguire knows what he wrote to be untrue, yet he recently published his account again. Why would he do so with the reputation risk of someone doing their own research, writing about the "true story", and proving most of Maguire's account to be incorrect. Wouldn't "No other team was actually allowed to take Quebec-born players" be just as good of a story, especially if he found new information that disproves what he has written previously. "I was wrong, but I found these new historical facts" would be more likely to keep his reputation intact than the chance that someone else leaves it in tatters.
We can either believe you that Maguire publishes stuff in bad faith, that you just happen to be drinking buddies with him where he tells you what he publishes is completely untrue, and that the research he provided in his pieces is false or we can believe he wrote what he did because it's the truth as best as he can tell. The latter explanation is a lot simpler and a lot more rational from Maguire's point of view.
Sargent Pepper: back to the Selke farm system/Habs getting first-hop at Quebec-born players.
If what Maguire wrote is actually untrue (and he knows this) why would he have (re-)published it on his website on February 12, as well as provide additional information and clarification in the comment section of that piece up until a month ago?
You've said that Maguire knows what he wrote to be untrue, yet he recently published his account again. Why would he do so with the reputation risk of someone doing their own research, writing about the "true story", and proving most of Maguire's account to be incorrect. Wouldn't "No other team was actually allowed to take Quebec-born players" be just as good of a story, especially if he found new information that disproves what he has written previously. "I was wrong, but I found these new historical facts" would be more likely to keep his reputation intact than the chance that someone else leaves it in tatters.
We can either believe you that Maguire publishes stuff in bad faith, that you just happen to be drinking buddies with him where he tells you what he publishes is completely untrue, and that the research he provided in his pieces is false or we can believe he wrote what he did because it's the truth as best as he can tell. The latter explanation is a lot simpler and a lot more rational from Maguire's point of view.
His point is not that it is not true, his point is that it mostly never impacted the lineup. although there is some truth to the latter, the former is incorrect because a lot of those guys were used as trade bait and help generating a very large chest of draft picks once the draft was formalized....thus directly impacting the lineup....eventually...
What is the DRW model really though ? Because drafting a top 5 best dman of all time in the 3rd round and have him be healthy and play in 98% of all your games for 20 years isn't really a repeatable model. And I don't care how good Nill is, but if he's not bringing a 20 year old Lidstrom with him, I wonder how much he can really do to copy the DRW model.
Yzerman sure is showing us that vaunted DRW model over in TB.
I guess we can attest Serge Savard's GM success to drafting a top 3 best goalie of all time in the 3rd round and have him immediately come in and shine.
In reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Say what you want about Yzerman, but he and our former golden boy Boucher still have more success in 2 years with the Bolts than the Habs have had in 20 years.
You can't expect miracles overnight. Would be nice, but it's un-realistic in a Cap era 30-team league. 5 Years has become the Norm to turn a franchise into someting. Burke's 5 is coming to an end in Toronto, ask them that!
The chair got pulled-yaked out from under & it needs to be re-done, this time correctly. Better be! Hey it sucks Toronto's chair is also gonna get yanked soon enough, but we're only concerned about ourselves & unfortunately Boston has been making the right choices lately, Our Arch Enemy...
The year before, the first year of the draft In 1963, the French Canadian rule was brought back for the Montreal Canadiens. The Habs negotiated for it and were successful in getting it back on the books but it provided little help.
I interviewed the late Sam Pollock for this story. “We never drafted one player under this rule allowance until 1968,” stated Sam Pollock. “All sorts of French players had been signing with other NHL teams for years. Marcel Pronovost with Detroit, Camille Henry and Edgar Laprade with the Rangers. Jean Ratelle and Rod Gilbert with the Rangers, Bernie Parent with Boston, even Toronto took Dave Keon from Rouyn-Noranda,” Pollock said.
I interviewed Marcel Pronovost for this story at the NHL draft in Florida in 2001. “Montreal only came to talk to me after I signed with Detroit,” said Marcel Pronovost. “I was happy to be a Red Wing and later a Toronto Maple Leaf,” stated Mr. Pronovost. For those of you with internet access you may want to check out this site; http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1963/63facts.html
Information on the draft year 1963 and subsequent draft years including Montreal’s priority protections can all be found here. This site which is extremely well done and organized will show that Montreal’s first priority pick under the French Canadian rule was Michel Plasse in 1968. In 1969, it was determined that this would be the final year of the draft in this manner and the sponsorship of Junior A teams would cease to be. All players were to be 20 years of age or older and they would be eligible for a Universal Amateur Draft. Montreal was given one final kick at the French Canadian can and they made the most of it by selecting Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif. That was it for the French rule. By then Sam Pollock or Trader Sam as he was known, was working magic year in and year out on draft day by flipping players in Montreal’s farm system that had been so expertly set up years before by Mr. Selke and ran by Pollock, for draft picks. Players like Guy Lafleur, Steve Shutt and Mario Tremblay were selected with picks that Pollock acquired through trades.
His point is not that it is not true, his point is that it mostly never impacted the lineup. although there is some truth to the latter, the former is incorrect because a lot of those guys were used as trade bait and help generating a very large chest of draft picks once the draft was formalized....thus directly impacting the lineup....eventually...
According to Maguire The original "pick-2 Quebec players" draft was came out of the Habs being in trouble in 1935 because of the depression, happened 7 times according to Maguire (I presume over the next 7 years... so until 1942... Maguire doesn't mention the years). The NHL amateur draft didn't start up until 1963 (21 years later) so most of the players taken in the special draft would be at least 35 (assuming they are drafted at 14 which is being conservative on my part). None of those guys played in the NHL (according to Maguire), I doubt they garnered draft picks being 35+ year-old minor leaguers.
Then you have the 1963-1969 (1963 being the first year of a league-wide amateur draft). swindling Pollock managed in expansion where the Habs were allowed to give up their first and second round picks to draft quebec players, which the Habs didn't use until 1968. The Habs took these players using that rule:
1968 - Michel Plasse, later exchanged (twice, first from and then to) St. Louis for Cash.
1969 - Rejean Houle -played for the Habs, left for Quebec of WHA, returned to the Habs.
1969 - Marc Tardif - played for Habs, moved to Quebec of WHA, retired when Quebec joined the NHL.
As far as I can tell the Habs garnered a grand total of 0 draft picks for the special exemption they got to take the Quebec-born players.
Furthermore, in his piece Maguire refers to the farm system and Pollock:
Quote:
By then Sam Pollock or Trader Sam as he was known, was working magic year in and year out on draft day by flipping players in Montreal’s farm system that had been so expertly set up years before by Mr. Selke and ran by Pollock, for draft picks. Players like Guy Lafleur, Steve Shutt and Mario Tremblay were selected with picks that Pollock acquired through trades.
Do you have any evidence (actually published would be nice) other than anecdotes from your supposed drinking buddy that explicitly contradict what he published less than 2 months ago?
I guess we can attest Serge Savard's GM success to drafting a top 3 best goalie of all time in the 3rd round and have him immediately come in and shine.
What does that have to do with the repeatability of the DRW model ?
Did I claim there was a 80-90ies habs model that Savard was coming in as GM to put in place ?
But if you really wanna go there... Savard hired the scouting staff who drafted Roy while Nill joined the DRW 5 years after they had drafted Lidstrom. The two aren't comparable in any way. But I guess Nill is awesome, and Savard = Fletcher am I right ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo
Say what you want about Yzerman, but he and our former golden boy Boucher still have more success in 2 years with the Bolts than the Habs have had in 20 years.
20 years ago the habs won the cup, so that's wrong.
Also, if you compare them to us, I think it speaks more to the fact the habs have been mismanaged terribly for the past 15 years than anything else.
What does that have to do with the repeatability of the DRW model ?
Did I claim there was a 80-90ies habs model that Savard was coming in as GM to put in place ?
But if you really wanna go there... Savard hired the scouting staff who drafted Roy while Nill joined the DRW 5 years after they had drafted Lidstrom. The two aren't comparable in any way. But I guess Nill is awesome, and Savard = Fletcher am I right ?
The DRW model is very good, and Nill has been presiding over it for some time now. There was a good article on it with the DRWs slovak scout some time back, detailing the system. Essentially no pick gets drafted by detroit unless all head scouts from all regions have seen him in person. The picks are compiled, and voted upon to form rankings. They then draft the best available from their ranking of who's left.
Just looking at last year's draft, they did very well without a first round pick. Sproul, Jurco, Ouellet, Tvrdon, and Marchenko is a very strong draft. They've found some other 'diamonds in the rough.' In recent years, they've continued their plundering of the euro leagues with picks like Tatar, Jarnkrok, and Pulkkinen. So, really, it's nothing to scoff at. It's a very good system, grounded both in reason, and results.
I want that kind of perspective at the helm of our organization: an obsessive and thorough push towards the draft and young talent. Nill has that. If Brisebois has it too, then hey, great.
I guess we can attest Serge Savard's GM success to drafting a top 3 best goalie of all time in the 3rd round and have him immediately come in and shine.
In reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Say what you want about Yzerman, but he and our former golden boy Boucher still have more success in 2 years with the Bolts than the Habs have had in 20 years.
The DRW model is very good, and Nill has been presiding over it for some time now. There was a good article on it with the DRWs slovak scout some time back, detailing the system. Essentially no pick gets drafted by detroit unless all head scouts from all regions have seen him in person. The picks are compiled, and voted upon to form rankings. They then draft the best available from their ranking of who's left.
Just looking at last year's draft, they did very well without a first round pick. Sproul, Jurco, Ouellet, Tvrdon, and Marchenko is a very strong draft. They've found some other 'diamonds in the rough.' In recent years, they've continued their plundering of the euro leagues with picks like Tatar, Jarnkrok, and Pulkkinen. So, really, it's nothing to scoff at. It's a very good system, grounded both in reason, and results.
I want that kind of perspective at the helm of our organization: an obsessive and thorough push towards the draft and young talent. Nill has that. If Brisebois has it too, then hey, great.
It's probably more risky, but from the outside I think I prefer Brisebois to Nill. From what I understand (and I could be out to lunch) Nill's primarily involved in the amateur scouting/player development side for Detroit and provided the Habs keep Timmins they already have a great perspective there. Brisebois offers something different, with his great educational/career acumen as well as being on the professional side of the business for his hockey front-office career.
The DRW model is very good, and Nill has been presiding over it for some time now. There was a good article on it with the DRWs slovak scout some time back, detailing the system. Essentially no pick gets drafted by detroit unless all head scouts from all regions have seen him in person. The picks are compiled, and voted upon to form rankings. They then draft the best available from their ranking of who's left.
Just looking at last year's draft, they did very well without a first round pick. Sproul, Jurco, Ouellet, Tvrdon, and Marchenko is a very strong draft. They've found some other 'diamonds in the rough.' In recent years, they've continued their plundering of the euro leagues with picks like Tatar, Jarnkrok, and Pulkkinen. So, really, it's nothing to scoff at. It's a very good system, grounded both in reason, and results.
I want that kind of perspective at the helm of our organization: an obsessive and thorough push towards the draft and young talent. Nill has that. If Brisebois has it too, then hey, great.
Without the picks of 15+ years ago (Zed, Datsyuk, Holmstrom, Lidstrom), approx, they'd be a below average team...
Lets wait for those picks to play ONE nhl game before qualifying it as a strong draft for them.
Without the picks of 15+ years ago (Zed, Datsyuk, Holmstrom, Lidstrom), approx, they'd be a below average team...
They did make those picks though. And Nill may not have been responsible for them, but he's learned from, and dealt with some of the best in the business of recruiting great hockey players.
To suggest that this is nothing worth noting is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI
Lets wait for those picks to play ONE nhl game before qualifying it as a strong draft for them.
We can compare this draft to other drafts of teams who have no players playing in the NHL to establish relative strength. So far, it's looking pretty good for the wings. Not bad at all.
But the system itself seems like a great idea: very well organized.
It's probably more risky, but from the outside I think I prefer Brisebois to Nill. From what I understand (and I could be out to lunch) Nill's primarily involved in the amateur scouting/player development side for Detroit and provided the Habs keep Timmins they already have a great perspective there. Brisebois offers something different, with his great educational/career acumen as well as being on the professional side of the business for his hockey front-office career.
I actually don't mind Brisebois so far. He does seem to know the CBA and cap inside out, which is not only good but necessary.
I really hope he has a real long term vision for the team if in fact he becomes our guy.
The DRW model is very good, and Nill has been presiding over it for some time now. There was a good article on it with the DRWs slovak scout some time back, detailing the system. Essentially no pick gets drafted by detroit unless all head scouts from all regions have seen him in person. The picks are compiled, and voted upon to form rankings. They then draft the best available from their ranking of who's left.
Just looking at last year's draft, they did very well without a first round pick. Sproul, Jurco, Ouellet, Tvrdon, and Marchenko is a very strong draft. They've found some other 'diamonds in the rough.' In recent years, they've continued their plundering of the euro leagues with picks like Tatar, Jarnkrok, and Pulkkinen. So, really, it's nothing to scoff at. It's a very good system, grounded both in reason, and results.
I want that kind of perspective at the helm of our organization: an obsessive and thorough push towards the draft and young talent. Nill has that. If Brisebois has it too, then hey, great.
While I'm not qualified or informed enough to pass judgement on these players, as far as I'm concerned, it's just way too early to use drafts done in 09, 10 and 11 as proof that the system they use is grounded in results.
Besides, our amateur scouts are doing fine, actually better than that of the DRW. I don't know what system they use, I assume all teams validate scouting reports to some extent by having multiple scouts watch players they have more interest in although maybe not to the same extent the wings are. Seems like basic stuff unless I'm missing something.
Anyway, I'm sure Nill would be a good addition to the organization. But I'd hope the next GM, whoever he is, would be able to recognize that the current amateur scouting headed by Timmins is doing a really good job and that it is sometimes best not to change a good thing.
