HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The Out of Town Thread part XLVI All talk from around the league here

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-11-2013, 09:04 AM
  #801
DenverHabsFan
Registered User
 
DenverHabsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBuddy View Post
So you think Gainey wasn't deserved of jersey retirement ?

I am willing to bet, you didn't even see one game played by BG !

Habs fans ...
Completely agree. He can't be judged on goals and assists. I don't think I've seen such intensity from a player since Gainey. You basically had a tenth of a second to make a play if he was near you before he took the puck away or crushed you in the boards.

I remember a PK during the '86 run where he killed the entire two minutes skating around the rink with the puck to a standing ovation. I had never seen that. He deserves the greatest respect.

DenverHabsFan is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:16 AM
  #802
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,277
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Which means he wasn't a good GM. You can't live with one philosophy and then contradict yourself and go against it. And living with the philosophy of the draft...well it can also be called "Not having enough confidence in my abilities of trading so I'd stick with Timmins".....'Cause you can give away a 2nd rounder of Dominic Moore.....or can give away a 2nd rounder for Chris Kelly. 1 has gave some good hockey to the Habs....for 1/2 season. The other is still giving good hockey to the Bruins, winning a cup as well on top of it. You can trade whatever you want. You can get whatever pick you want. It's what you do with the whole thing that is important. I'm an obviously big lover of the draft, but if you send away all those picks we have and automatically become a force to be reckon with for the next 10 years...who cares about the draft. And who cares about building through the draft. But if you send your picks away, or if you lose 10 players for nothing and not improve by it...then you suck as a GM. Gainey will positively solely be remembered for his Rivet and Kovalev trade. Yet, that's the same Gainey who, in the Kovalev trade, offered the choices to the Rags between Hossa, Plekanec and Balej. Thank god the Rangers chose poorly....but then got it back in the Gomez trade. And the Rivet trade looks so awfully good based on Timmins pick, a Timmins appointed by Savard. Thank god Pacioretty was chosen and not Patrick White.

The best feature of Gainey was to bring some legitimacy to the Habs logo after the Houle fiasco. Savard was slowly starting to do it as well but he didn't have the name that Gainey had. THAT's the best Gainey feature....his name, thank god to his incredible hockey career. But the GM? Mediocre to average at the very best.
Like I said.. after his daughter died.. he seemed to lose his philosophies and made some really stupid moves. Dominic Moore was a Gauthier move, however. I begin to wonder how much of the bad deals were Gauthier under the guise of Gainey.

WeThreeKings is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:22 AM
  #803
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
Like I said.. after his daughter died.. he seemed to lose his philosophies and made some really stupid moves. Dominic Moore was a Gauthier move, however. I begin to wonder how much of the bad deals were Gauthier under the guise of Gainey.
I know that Moore was Gauthier, was just using that example to say that you could trade whatever 1st or 2nd rounder that you want, but with the idea that you'll benefit from it long term. We trade our 1st and 2nd for a Tanguay that played 1 season with us. See, while Tanguay was not a favorite of mine, he still had 41 points in 50 games. So maybe if we surround him well, he happens to play a key role for years to come and then, giving up a 1st and 2nd, is not that bad.

And the only reason why nobody talks about his deal as of now is because Nemisz and Elliot, haven't started to shine yet if they ever will. Thank god for that though, was never a Nemisz fan to begin with while I still believe in Elliott but chances are it won't be a Rivet for Gorges and Pacioretty against us. Thank god the Flames didn't pick Carlson though...

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:23 AM
  #804
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Is anyone else as curious as i am to se the the Bruins sans Thomas ? It seemed to me that he was a huge thorn in the side of the Habs and other teams when playing the Bruins.

PunkinDrublic* is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:25 AM
  #805
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBuddy View Post
Is anyone else as curious as i am to se the the Bruins sans Thomas ? It seemed to me that he was a huge thorn in the side of the Habs and other teams when playing the Bruins.
Rask is a competent goalie. Though, for the first time, he will have to face being THE goalie. I think he'll manage it....but it does remain to be seen. Yet, I don't think it will be THAT detrimental to their team. The day they have to play sans Chara.....THAT would be the real test.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:34 AM
  #806
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Which means he wasn't a good GM. You can't live with one philosophy and then contradict yourself and go against it. And living with the philosophy of the draft...well it can also be called "Not having enough confidence in my abilities of trading so I'd stick with Timmins".....'Cause you can give away a 2nd rounder of Dominic Moore.....or can give away a 2nd rounder for Chris Kelly. 1 has gave some good hockey to the Habs....for 1/2 season. The other is still giving good hockey to the Bruins, winning a cup as well on top of it. You can trade whatever you want. You can get whatever pick you want. It's what you do with the whole thing that is important. I'm an obviously big lover of the draft, but if you send away all those picks we have and automatically become a force to be reckon with for the next 10 years...who cares about the draft. And who cares about building through the draft. But if you send your picks away, or if you lose 10 players for nothing and not improve by it...then you suck as a GM. Gainey will positively solely be remembered for his Rivet and Kovalev trade. Yet, that's the same Gainey who, in the Kovalev trade, offered the choices to the Rags between Hossa, Plekanec and Balej. Thank god the Rangers chose poorly....but then got it back in the Gomez trade. And the Rivet trade looks so awfully good based on Timmins pick, a Timmins appointed by Savard. Thank god Pacioretty was chosen and not Patrick White.

The best feature of Gainey was to bring some legitimacy to the Habs logo after the Houle fiasco. Savard was slowly starting to do it as well but he didn't have the name that Gainey had. THAT's the best Gainey feature....his name, thank god to his incredible hockey career. But the GM? Mediocre to average at the very best.
The reason Bob Gainey switched from building within the draft to trading picks in 2008 is because the team became a contender. It was a legitimate decision to trade for players like Alex Tanguay, Robert Lang, etc. Overall the 2008-09 team was the most stacked Habs team of the decade, it merely broke down due to injuries and a bad coach and a strange decision to blame Kovalev for everything.

The problem were not his trades/drafting, but his signings. He let countless players walk for nothing. It's that horrible asset management that did the team in.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:24 AM
  #807
Habs 4 Life
No Excuses
 
Habs 4 Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Italy
Posts: 32,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Rask is a competent goalie. Though, for the first time, he will have to face being THE goalie. I think he'll manage it....but it does remain to be seen. Yet, I don't think it will be THAT detrimental to their team. The day they have to play sans Chara.....THAT would be the real test.
Rask get's injured often too, always had groin problems. If i'm the GM i'd look for a veteran backup

Habs 4 Life is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:24 AM
  #808
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The reason Bob Gainey switched from building within the draft to trading picks in 2008 is because the team became a contender. It was a legitimate decision to trade for players like Alex Tanguay, Robert Lang, etc. Overall the 2008-09 team was the most stacked Habs team of the decade, it merely broke down due to injuries and a bad coach and a strange decision to blame Kovalev for everything.

The problem were not his trades/drafting, but his signings. He let countless players walk for nothing. It's that horrible asset management that did the team in.
So the team become a contender and then 1 year after they're not anymore hence letting Tanguay go? That great GM that decided to be the coach with all the success he ended up having.....

And 2007-2008 we were also a contender....hence we decided to trade a vet goalie to entirely put our faith in a rookie one and an unproven other.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:33 AM
  #809
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
So the team become a contender and then 1 year after they're not anymore hence letting Tanguay go? That great GM that decided to be the coach with all the success he ended up having.....

And 2007-2008 we were also a contender....hence we decided to trade a vet goalie to entirely put our faith in a rookie one and an unproven other.
a bunch of contracts ended, the team imploded, problems in the dressing room. You don't need to look far as to why the team unloaded everything.

DAChampion is right, the team was stacked.

Andrei Plekanec Kovalev
Higgins Koivu Tanguay
Latendresse Lang Sergei
Lapierre Metropolit Begin/Laraque/Kostopoulos

Markov Komisarek
Hamrlik Gorges
Boullion Dandenault/ O'byrne/ Brisebois

The team just completely imploded for whatever reason. The Price off-ice issues. Lang, Latendresse getting injured in the same game. Boullion, Markov, Tanguay and Schnieder all injured by playoff time. The Hamlrik + Kostitsyn brothers **** show. Firing of Carbo. Plekanec looking just plain awful. Komisarek getting injured and embaressed by Lucic. Then Koivu, Kovalev, Kostopoulos, Lang, Tanguay, Boullion, Dandenault, Schneider were all UFAs. Tanguay refusing to play slightly injured because he didn't want to hurt his chances at signing a contract (and didn't get a contract until late summer).

There was never a team so stacked as that one in recent times and it failed spectacularly. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

The team came off a first place finish and was criticized for being a PP team and one which lacked a big centre. Lang and Tanguay were both good players at ES and Lang played great here until he went down. The problem of the year before was identified, but for some reason the team just didn't gel at all.


Last edited by Andy: 01-11-2013 at 11:10 AM.
Andy is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:36 AM
  #810
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,616
vCash: 500
It's amazing how the only forward we have left from that team is Plekanec.

Et le But is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:50 AM
  #811
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
a bunch of contracts ended, the team imploded, problems in the dressing room. You don't need to look far as to why the team unloaded everything.

DAChampion is right, the team was stacked.

Andrei Plekanec Kovalev
Higgins Koivu Tanguay
Latendresse Lang Sergei
Lapierre Metropolit Begin/Laraque/Kostopoulos

Markov Komisarek
Hamrlik Gorges
Boullion Dandenault/ O'byrne/ Brisebois

The team just completely imploded for whatever reason. The price off-ice issues. Lang, Latendresse getting injured in the same game. Boullion, Markov, Tanguay and Schnieder all injured by playoff time. The Hamlrik + Kostitsyn brothers **** show. Firing of Carbo. Plekanec looking just plain awful. Komisarek getting injured and embaressed by Lucic. The Koivu, Kovalev, Kostopoulos, Lang, Tanguay, Boullion, Dandenault, Schneider were all UFAs. Tanguay refusing to play slightly because he didn't want to hurt his chances at signing a contract (and didn't get a contract until late summer).

There was never a team so stacked as that one in recent times and it failed spectacularly. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

The team came off a first place finish and was criticized for being a PP team and one which lacked a big centre. Lang and Tanguay were both good players at ES and Lang played great here until he went down. The problem of the year before was identified, but for some reason the team just didn't gel at all.
It was a great team and it dominated early season. However, each of Lang, Koivu, Laraque, Tanguay, Higgins, Latendresse, schneider, komisarek, lost significant playing time due to injuries. That's why the team imploded, and that's why I laugh at myopic fans who say that 2011-2012 was an "anomaly" where everything that could go wrong went wrong.

I genuinely believe, however, that had Mats Sundin been acquired for Higgins, Grabovski, and a 1st we could have won a cup in 2007-08.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 04:49 PM
  #812
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
a bunch of contracts ended, the team imploded, problems in the dressing room. You don't need to look far as to why the team unloaded everything.

DAChampion is right, the team was stacked.

Andrei Plekanec Kovalev
Higgins Koivu Tanguay
Latendresse Lang Sergei
Lapierre Metropolit Begin/Laraque/Kostopoulos

Markov Komisarek
Hamrlik Gorges
Boullion Dandenault/ O'byrne/ Brisebois

The team just completely imploded for whatever reason. The Price off-ice issues. Lang, Latendresse getting injured in the same game. Boullion, Markov, Tanguay and Schnieder all injured by playoff time. The Hamlrik + Kostitsyn brothers **** show. Firing of Carbo. Plekanec looking just plain awful. Komisarek getting injured and embaressed by Lucic. Then Koivu, Kovalev, Kostopoulos, Lang, Tanguay, Boullion, Dandenault, Schneider were all UFAs. Tanguay refusing to play slightly injured because he didn't want to hurt his chances at signing a contract (and didn't get a contract until late summer).

There was never a team so stacked as that one in recent times and it failed spectacularly. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

The team came off a first place finish and was criticized for being a PP team and one which lacked a big centre. Lang and Tanguay were both good players at ES and Lang played great here until he went down. The problem of the year before was identified, but for some reason the team just didn't gel at all.
But with all due respect, this argument makes no sense. DaChampion explains Gainey's philosophy change because we went from bad team in need of great picks, to a contender able to win it all. Why the heck would it only count for that 1 year? Why the need to blow it up immediately in the summer of that "contending" year? How's a bunch of contracts ending a reason? Why weren't we able to re-sign them? And a team isn't stacked to win it all if everything imploded and there were problems in the dressing room. To be winning team, you need to be great on and off the ice. If there are cliques everywhere, the team was stacked on paper....not on reality. Yeah, we had the points we had, yet, didn't show anything in the playoffs. I love how people keeps dissing everybody in the league because they don't show up when it count the most but we don't do it for our own team?

The team was stacked but then the team was awful. If Gainey decided to let go everybody, it had to be because it was not so great to begin with....unless he's dumb. I vote for a little bit of both....

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 05:05 PM
  #813
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
If Gainey decided to let go everybody, it had to be because it was not so great to begin with
It was the same team as the year before which played great for the most part. They added two pieces which theoretically should have improved the team. On paper they looked great.

Quote:
But with all due respect, this argument makes no sense. DaChampion explains Gainey's philosophy change because we went from bad team in need of great picks, to a contender able to win it all.
The team was a contender at that time. You can't deny this. Everyone put us in a contending position that year. Most media pundits and even non-habs fans on this board. Gainey loaded up for possible contention like every other team does when they feel it's comi.


Quote:
Why the heck would it only count for that 1 year? Why the need to blow it up immediately in the summer of that "contending" year? How's a bunch of contracts ending a reason? Why weren't we able to re-sign them?
A bunch of contracts ending leaves your team in limbo. For instances the Habs did offer Kovalev AND Komisarek deals. Both players refused to go for literally 500k to an extra 1 million elsewhere. This is what we know from the outside looking in, but from all accounts, the room wasn't stable. Higgins, Price, Sergei, Andrei etc all partying it up etc etc. Kovalev vs Koivu.

Quote:
And a team isn't stacked to win it all if everything imploded and there were problems in the dressing room.
On paper they were stacked, not sure how you can deny this. They added two scoring forwards to a team which was one of the higher scoring teams the year prior. They brought in two ES players to balance the reliance on PP scoring the year before.


Quote:
To be winning team, you need to be great on and off the ice. If there are cliques everywhere, the team was stacked on paper....not on reality.
I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here, but yes there were problems in the room. Kostopoulos admitted this. It's probably the reason why the UFA guys were let go and a new core was sought.

Quote:
Yeah, we had the points we had, yet, didn't show anything in the playoffs.
Which year was this? In 07-08 the team looked pretty darn good and they lost against Philly pretty much because of Price's lackluster play. You can blame this on Gainey for throwing him to the wolves I guess. Also, just because you are a contending team, doesn't mean you are guarenteed to win the playoffs. Similarly, just because you don't do well in the playoffs doesn't mean you are not a contending team. See the Flyers who are contending every year but haven't been that successful as they ought to be.

Quote:
I love how people keeps dissing everybody in the league because they don't show up when it count the most but we don't do it for our own team?
Not sure what you are saying here.

Look WS. The team finished first in 07-08. They weren't perfect, but the discourse around the team that they were a contending team if they could rely less on the PP and if they could get a big centre. This lead to the Sundin saga, we eventually acquired Lang and Tanguay, both of which were good even strength scorers.

The team had a lot of UFAs. A lot of injuries. Locker room problems. Off-ice problems. That's what happened during and post-season. But prior to the season, when all the moves were actually made, the team was considered a contender and moves were made to "fix" the holes the team had the year before in order to improve on what was already a successful season. The team imploded, and many many many things went wrong; no one could have guessed this. The core was dismantled subsequently for reasons we will never truly know, though they do appear quite obvious. Was it the right moves in the end? No, hindsight helps with that. As for the moves made between those two seasons, they made absolute sense.

Andy is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 08:46 PM
  #814
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
But with all due respect, this argument makes no sense. DaChampion explains Gainey's philosophy change because we went from bad team in need of great picks, to a contender able to win it all. Why the heck would it only count for that 1 year? Why the need to blow it up immediately in the summer of that "contending" year? How's a bunch of contracts ending a reason? Why weren't we able to re-sign them? And a team isn't stacked to win it all if everything imploded and there were problems in the dressing room. To be winning team, you need to be great on and off the ice. If there are cliques everywhere, the team was stacked on paper....not on reality. Yeah, we had the points we had, yet, didn't show anything in the playoffs. I love how people keeps dissing everybody in the league because they don't show up when it count the most but we don't do it for our own team?

The team was stacked but then the team was awful. If Gainey decided to let go everybody, it had to be because it was not so great to begin with....unless he's dumb. I vote for a little bit of both....
Gainey's foolishness was in:

1) Placing Carbonneau as coach, which made it harder for the team to succeed as he lacked knowledge of the game.

2) His failure to respond to the 2008-09 collapse. He made the right move in building the 2008-09 team, which was good on paper, and he made the right move in dismantling it, as it was bade in the locker room. But he should have seen the writing on the wall and sold the players at the deadline.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:47 PM
  #815
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
It was the same team as the year before which played great for the most part. They added two pieces which theoretically should have improved the team. On paper they looked great.
Yet, they let it go in the same summer....how do you explain that this contending team, that was great the year before, and that year, was let go right after? Are you not supposed to be a contending team more than 2 years in a row? Or is contending that way a fluke?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The team was a contender at that time. You can't deny this. Everyone put us in a contending position that year. Most media pundits and even non-habs fans on this board. Gainey loaded up for possible contention like every other team does when they feel it's comi.
But what kind of management is that? So you build through draft picks, but then, you have a "contending" teams for 2 years and then blow it all up and start from scratch? Who does that? If you suck and build through draft, shouldn't you be able to pick it up and start a whole era of greatness, especially with a guy like Timmins in charge of those drafts? And with the help of your GM, how did we only became a 2-year contending team?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
A bunch of contracts ending leaves your team in limbo. For instances the Habs did offer Kovalev AND Komisarek deals. Both players refused to go for literally 500k to an extra 1 million elsewhere. This is what we know from the outside looking in, but from all accounts, the room wasn't stable. Higgins, Price, Sergei, Andrei etc all partying it up etc etc. Kovalev vs Koivu.
But where does it say that you can't re-sign them if they are so great? We overpay in Montreal...why not for some of those players who were part of this great contending team? So the room wasn't stable...okay. Yet, again, some of you keeps mentioning how great this team was....How great really is it when you actually have some off-ice issues?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
On paper they were stacked, not sure how you can deny this. They added two scoring forwards to a team which was one of the higher scoring teams the year prior. They brought in two ES players to balance the reliance on PP scoring the year before.
Not sure I deny it. I do mention though that IN REALITY, they might not have been that great.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here, but yes there were problems in the room. Kostopoulos admitted this. It's probably the reason why the UFA guys were let go and a new core was sought.
'Cause again, at one point you and DC mention how great this team was, that we were a contending team, that every move was necessary but then, strangely, we needed to dissolve that team 'cause of how problematic it was on the inside. Which makes me believe that in reality, this team was not that great to begin with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Which year was this? In 07-08 the team looked pretty darn good and they lost against Philly pretty much because of Price's lackluster play. You can blame this on Gainey for throwing him to the wolves I guess. Also, just because you are a contending team, doesn't mean you are guarenteed to win the playoffs. Similarly, just because you don't do well in the playoffs doesn't mean you are not a contending team. See the Flyers who are contending every year but haven't been that successful as they ought to be.
Yes, I totally blame Gainey for that. Did that when it happened and will do it again. True that contending doesn't necessarily mean winning it all every team, there are always a few contending team and only 1 cup. But at one point, you wish that your organizaiton would "contend" for more than 2 years in a row. You wish that if you start from scratch you see some continuity where you will be able to be the Wings of your time and contend by either dominating the regular season, winning cups, going to the Finals or be a real contending team. In the span of Gainey and Gauthier era, those 2 years were not what we were about unfortunately. And I'll go as far as to think that the only year where we were taken seriously was indeed the 07-08 team. The 08-09 team was good but there were way more others in play that were more highly considered than we were. And even the 07-08 team, while very good, people still forget that the 8th place team that was Boston, finished only with 10 points less than us. Compare it to the year after and the 23-point differential between us and Boston.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Not sure what you are saying here.

Look WS. The team finished first in 07-08. They weren't perfect, but the discourse around the team that they were a contending team if they could rely less on the PP and if they could get a big centre. This lead to the Sundin saga, we eventually acquired Lang and Tanguay, both of which were good even strength scorers.
My point is that at one point a contending team, a real one, needs to prevail. And needs to make it work where it counts the most, in the playoffs. Philly is a contender, though some will always say that they aren't really till they find a goalie. San Jose became the laughing stock of the league for being so "contending" during the regular season to then came out flat every freakin series. But at least, they were giving some hope to their fans for a whole lot of years based on how dominating they were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The team had a lot of UFAs. A lot of injuries. Locker room problems. Off-ice problems. That's what happened during and post-season. But prior to the season, when all the moves were actually made, the team was considered a contender and moves were made to "fix" the holes the team had the year before in order to improve on what was already a successful season. The team imploded, and many many many things went wrong; no one could have guessed this. The core was dismantled subsequently for reasons we will never truly know, though they do appear quite obvious. Was it the right moves in the end? No, hindsight helps with that. As for the moves made between those two seasons, they made absolute sense.
My point is that the move that made the Tanguay trade was fine. And Tanguay did prevail with his 41 points. Yet...why the heck would you get rid of him then? We were a contending team. We needed a guy like him? Why didn't we need him after? Why would we not need some of the guys we had when we were a contender? That's my point. You can't go from a superb core that was a contending team, to a full bunch of fools you needed to get rid of for nothing. Something ended up being very wrong. Which other team in the league had such a variance in their "contending" meter? You either have the really bad teams with no vision and no drafting talents. Or you have the great teams that are great since quite a few years now. Or the poor teams that drafted well so that they were indeed building a contending team and should stay strong for quite a few years. Maybe we can that the Canes had a similar route. Yet....they freakin won a Cup. I would have an easier time to accept my GM's mistakes if I had a Cup to show for. Or maybe even a Cup Final.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 09:53 PM
  #816
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Yet, they let it go in the same summer....how do you explain that this contending team, that was great the year before, and that year, was let go right after? Are you not supposed to be a contending team more than 2 years in a row? Or is contending that way a fluke?
The 2007-08 team was a contender because:

1) There were no injuries, except to Streit in the postseason at which point the power play died. Injuries returned with a vengeance in 2008-09.
2) Kovalev had a career year. There's a huge difference between an 84 point player and a 65 point player. The former can win several additional games for the team himself as well as make the rest of the lineup live an easier life through easier matchups.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:00 PM
  #817
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The 2007-08 team was a contender because:

1) There were no injuries, except to Streit in the postseason at which point the power play died. Injuries returned with a vengeance in 2008-09.
2) Kovalev had a career year. There's a huge difference between an 84 point player and a 65 point player. The former can win several additional games for the team himself as well as make the rest of the lineup live an easier life through easier matchups.
Like I said, fine, let say 2007-2008 was legit and we were a contending team. Just sucks that immediately after, we started not to. We were a great contending team 1 year in a row. Then injuries kicked in in 08-09 not permitting us to be THAT great, but then that was enough to blow up the team? It is that that I'm against. You don't blow up a team you are contending with. You remove and add a few pieces but you keep your core. The team has off-ice issues...who cares you were a contending team with the same issues. Be a leader, fix those issues, but not by sending everybody home and almost start from scratch. You gave a freakin 1st and 2nd draft picks for a guy you keep for 1 season? People these are not regular draft picks. These are draft picks you substract to maybe the best in the business. I mean, Calgary could throw away the next 10 1st rounders if they want, they suck so much at drafting that they probably would be better drafting through trades....but us? We suck at trades. But we have the best in the business at draft. If you send your picks away, just be sure you either get a real quality player that will in the end make you reach something you never reached....or be sure you'll keep the said player for more than half or just 1 season.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:11 PM
  #818
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,616
vCash: 500
The 2007-08 team was a power play monster. There's nothing wrong with winning that way but without better 5 on 5 play success does tend to be short lived..

Et le But is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 10:16 PM
  #819
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
The 2007-08 team was a power play monster. There's nothing wrong with winning that way but without better 5 on 5 play success does tend to be short lived..
Agreed, you need to have an adaptable game plan to be a perennial contender.

Myron Gaines* is offline  
Old
01-11-2013, 11:02 PM
  #820
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post

And the only reason why nobody talks about his deal as of now is because Nemisz and Elliot, haven't started to shine yet if they ever will. Thank god for that though, was never a Nemisz fan to begin with while I still believe in Elliott but chances are it won't be a Rivet for Gorges and Pacioretty against us. Thank god the Flames didn't pick Carlson though...
thing is that the with Timmins effectiveness at the draft game (which some would argue should equate to credit in Gainey's favor... debatable, but fair enough), it's quite likely that we don't end up with Nemisz/Elliot.

bottom line is that it was an ok trade, even arguably a good trade (as Tanguay did fit some needs), but taken as a whole, the asset transfer was terrible.

Trading for Tanguay, and then making no effort to re-sign him, despite a productive year in the role he was brought to fill, because you decide he's too soft (or whatever other problem Gainey had with the player... contract demands clearly weren't the issue since he didn't even offer him one, and Tanguay eventually signed for peanuts), shows again some terrible pro scouting.

Tanguay was very much the same player he had been in Calgary, and they moved him for the same type of reason but with the added pressure of his large contract & the incentive of 2 high picks... we jettisoned him for nothing after paying him the money and wasting the picks...

exactly the kind of negative asset management that leads a team into the league basement... despite having an excellent draft record and spending as much or more than every other team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The reason Bob Gainey switched from building within the draft to trading picks in 2008 is because the team became a contender. It was a legitimate decision to trade for players like Alex Tanguay, Robert Lang, etc. Overall the 2008-09 team was the most stacked Habs team of the decade, it merely broke down due to injuries and a bad coach and a strange decision to blame Kovalev for everything.

The problem were not his trades/drafting, but his signings. He let countless players walk for nothing. It's that horrible asset management that did the team in.
individually, his trade record was decent (then again, factor in the Gomez trade, which was one of the worst in decades, and it's hard for the sum to not be considered below average) but I'd argue that when taken as a whole, and the trades are measured up against the context they were made in and the immediate results, and even many of the even/slightly ahead trades we made under his tenure amounted to negative results.

His asset/roster management was terrible, polluted by a pretty clear lack of identifiable vision and willingness to build toward a long-term goal objective (other than the pie-in-the-sky "win a cup").

At no point during his tenure did we have much of a consistent identity (other than the "smurf" one, sadly), and that is precisely what top organizations are able to do in building long term, sustained, repeatable success.

such identity is sometimes more in essence and intention than it is in measurable statistical analysis, which is where those who rely too heavily on subjectively interpreted/assembled numbers miss the bigger picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
a bunch of contracts ended, the team imploded, problems in the dressing room. You don't need to look far as to why the team unloaded everything.

DAChampion is right, the team was stacked.

Andrei Plekanec Kovalev
Higgins Koivu Tanguay
Latendresse Lang Sergei
Lapierre Metropolit Begin/Laraque/Kostopoulos

Markov Komisarek
Hamrlik Gorges
Boullion Dandenault/ O'byrne/ Brisebois
of the "stacked" team you speak of from 2008-09, in just 3 seasons, the bolded players became:

Gomez, Bournival, 2nd round pick 2013, 5th round pick 2013.

Think about that for a second...
19 of 22 players on a "stacked" team (your words, not mine) translate into 1 nhl player (who happens to have one of the worst contracts in the league... an offensive player who went a calendar year without a goal), 1 bottom-6 NHL prospect (likely a solid one, but still), and 2 draft picks.

19 assets, turning into 4, in 3 years. Even with retirements and inevitable expiring contracts replaced with other players, how that can be viewed as anything but absolutely abysmal management is beyond me.

and let's not forget that the 3 year outcome of transitioning beyond that "stacked" team, was one of the worst seasons in franchise history.

Gauthier's also accountable for that massive failure, but as Gainey's self-appointed next in line, whom he continued to "advise", hard to absolve him of this complete and total failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post

The team came off a first place finish and was criticized for being a PP team and one which lacked a big centre. Lang and Tanguay were both good players at ES and Lang played great here until he went down. The problem of the year before was identified, but for some reason the team just didn't gel at all.
disagree...

many around here, myself included, felt that the 07 team (which overachieved thanks largely to a miraculously injury free season), suffered from a serious lack of team toughness and gritty play/personalities.
Some have used superficial stats from the flyers series to argue that we "outhit then therefore toughness was not the problem", but anyone who watched that series game-for-game could see the physical & leadership elements that the flyers had over our roster.

Gainey addresses this by picking up two players known for being soft-ish, at times critisized by previous coaches for lack of commitment and not known for being vocal leaders... and a pure goon who had worn out previous welcomes for his outsized ego and desire to be taken for more than what he was.


the other issue was that our 07 upstart team did so in no small part to the large roles/contributions many young forwards had (A & S.kost, lats, higgins, lapierre), by adding 2 top-9 fwds, he was basically telling those players that their success wasn't to be relied on... don't get me wrong, you improve your team when you can and competition is part of the deal, but at the same time bringing in less than elite, or even top-line, players to take minutes away from up-and-coming players who just stepped up big time to help the team to it's best finish in years... and doing so with guys who aren't known for their work ethic/leadership... that's a pretty good recipe for brewing tension & surprise surprise, all 5 of those young guys turned into "attitude" problems before they left town.

from a team building/needs filling point of view, it was apparent to some during that summer that we had not addressed the right needs, and that our big summer moves were in fact counter-productive.

from my pov, Lang actually outdid my expectations, and played like a guy wanting to make sure he got another contract... which was great.
And I was optimistic that Laraque would give us the kind of precense that S.Thorton is for the bruins... what a disaster he turned into.

Tanguay? he delivered pretty much as expected, and then we didn't even bother to offer him a contract when 1/2 of what we paid him would have easily kept him in town.

and then there's the whole Streit issue... don't think anyone would argue that the solution to being a team too reliant on the PP, is to give up your most dangerous PP player for nothing?
that is unless you have the vision and foresight of a B.Gainey

Miller Time is offline  
Old
01-12-2013, 12:43 AM
  #821
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
of the "stacked" team you speak of from 2008-09, in just 3 seasons, the bolded players became:

Gomez, Bournival, 2nd round pick 2013, 5th round pick 2013.

Think about that for a second...
19 of 22 players on a "stacked" team (your words, not mine) translate into 1 nhl player (who happens to have one of the worst contracts in the league... an offensive player who went a calendar year without a goal), 1 bottom-6 NHL prospect (likely a solid one, but still), and 2 draft picks.

19 assets, turning into 4, in 3 years. Even with retirements and inevitable expiring contracts replaced with other players, how that can be viewed as anything but absolutely abysmal management is beyond me.
Considering that from the get-go it was clear that management's goal was to make the playoffs, regardless of whether it is 1st or 8th, those 19 assets get reduced to a much smaller number rather quickly considering that the majority of those were UFAs. I have yet to see a team in a playoff spot come, deadline time, unload all their pending UFAs for futures even though they know their chances at a cup are slim. It just doesn't happen. HF would definitely love for this to happen, but it doesn't. That's why teams like NJ lose guys like Parise, Rafalski, Gionta, Gomez, Niedermayer (actually now that I think of it, that is quite the list) or Buffalo with players Campbell, Briere, Drury, Lydman, Tallinder etc etc and get absolutely nothing in return. It's the nature of having a particular goal, i.e, make the playoffs and hope for the best. So those 19 assets get reduced to about 6 or 7 assets of which as you pointed out, we got little in return.

The getting nothing in return for UFAs doesn't bother me as much, like I said, I don't expect teams in a playoff of spot to unload no matter how small the chance at a cup is as we don't see this happen often, if it all. Though trades like Sergei, Lapierre, McDonagh, Higgins were bad. Latendresse, well no one benefited from that trade in the end, neither player plays with that team anymore and neither got an asset beyond what they acquired in the trade. Andrei, well we still don't know. Nashville did exactly what we don't like, giving up a 2nd for 20 games of a player who no longer plays for their team or even in the nhl for that matter. We'll see how that trade plays out.

Sure you could say that the whole "wanting to make the playoffs" is just Gainey's love of mediocrity etc etc, but unfortunately that was his game plan. It might not be appealing to hardcore fans to just want to make the playoffs, but it is what it is. It's happened and done with.



Quote:
disagree...

many around here, myself included, felt that the 07 team (which overachieved thanks largely to a miraculously injury free season), suffered from a serious lack of team toughness and gritty play/personalities.
Some have used superficial stats from the flyers series to argue that we "outhit then therefore toughness was not the problem", but anyone who watched that series game-for-game could see the physical & leadership elements that the flyers had over our roster.
I watched this series this past summer on the nhl network. Toughness didn't have anything to with the outcome. Biron players great (with the help of his goal posts) while Price played like crap. The Habs were the better team in that series, Price couldn't keep the habs in the game if his life depended on it.

As for toughness being the real need of the team, when your powerplay stops working, toughness won't make up the goals. It was a need, but ES scoring was desperately required after how much the team scored on the PP that year. Not surprisingly, Lang and Tanguay were good ES players that were brought in.

Quote:
Gainey addresses this by picking up two players known for being soft-ish, at times critisized by previous coaches for lack of commitment and not known for being vocal leaders... and a pure goon who had worn out previous welcomes for his outsized ego and desire to be taken for more than what he was.
Laraque was crap. Lang and Tanguay played great while they were here and filled their role quite well. If I recall correctly, Tanguay was the team's leading scorer until he got hurt. Moreover, they were never brought in to carry the team anyway. Tanguay came in to fill a 2nd line winger spot next to Koivu and Lang came in to play the 3rd line centreman role. Both were seen as upgrades to Ryder and Smolinski respectively. The moves made sense.

Quote:
he other issue was that our 07 upstart team did so in no small part to the large roles/contributions many young forwards had (A & S.kost, lats, higgins, lapierre), by adding 2 top-9 fwds, he was basically telling those players that their success wasn't to be relied on... don't get me wrong, you improve your team when you can and competition is part of the deal, but at the same time bringing in less than elite, or even top-line, players to take minutes away from up-and-coming players who just stepped up big time to help the team to it's best finish in years... and doing so with guys who aren't known for their work ethic/leadership... that's a pretty good recipe for brewing tension & surprise surprise, all 5 of those young guys turned into "attitude" problems before they left town.
This explanation would actual make sense if the players would have actually lost their ice-time. But the roles of Andrei, Higgins, Plekanec and Sergei didn't change much with the acquisition of Lang and Tanguay, neither did their ice time. They all began the year in the same roles they played the season prior. Tanguay took Ryder's ice-time and Lang replaced Smolinski's ice time. Andrei began the year in the same spot as the year before, so did Higgins, Plekanec and Tanguay.

Kostopoulos explained that the problems in the locker room was clique based. He said the Quebecers stayed with each other and the Euros stayed with each other and no one spoke much beyond their groups.

I also don't recall saying attitude issues were a problem. Off-ice issues were, both off-ice issues doesn't necessarily entail attitude issues. There were no stories that season of anyone mouthing off the coach etc etc. The only ever player described as having an attitude problem was Sergei and this characterization of him was made by the media in the subsequent season.

Quote:
from a team building/needs filling point of view, it was apparent to some during that summer that we had not addressed the right needs, and that our big summer moves were in fact counter-productive.
This is excellent to say in hindsight, but this was not the discourse of both fans, media and hockey experts when both players were acquired unfortunately. The team played okay actually until the injuries began though, which started around the all-star break: losing Komisarek, Lang and Latendresse in a single game. Tanguay was injured for a good stretch during the season as well. Price getting injured and struggling to get back to form. Eventually losing Markov, Boullion, Schneider, Tanguay as well. Hard to pinpoint the lack of success of that year on those particular moves when so much was going on.

In fact, the team was 27-11-6 as of January 17th and on pace to have an 112 pts season (8 pts better than 07-08). So it's hard to say that the moves were counter-productive when the team was doing okay. I say okay because they weren't really dominating games.

They also had scored 141 goals and were on pace for 263 goals (same pace as 07-08)

07-08 had very few injured, 08-09 had more than what I would consider average.

Quote:
from my pov, Lang actually outdid my expectations, and played like a guy wanting to make sure he got another contract... which was great.
And I was optimistic that Laraque would give us the kind of precense that S.Thorton is for the bruins... what a disaster he turned into.

Tanguay? he delivered pretty much as expected, and then we didn't even bother to offer him a contract when 1/2 of what we paid him would have easily kept him in town.
If I recall didn't Tanguay say he wouldn't sign here after the team asked him to play injured in the playoffs? Also, we have no idea if 1/2 of what we did pay him would have kept him in town. This is great to say in hindsight, but Tanguay wasn't signed until late in FA period, August 30th to be exact.


Last edited by Andy: 01-12-2013 at 12:58 AM.
Andy is offline  
Old
01-12-2013, 03:37 AM
  #822
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post

Sure you could say that the whole "wanting to make the playoffs" is just Gainey's love of mediocrity etc etc, but unfortunately that was his game plan. It might not be appealing to hardcore fans to just want to make the playoffs, but it is what it is. It's happened and done with.
phoenix and nashville have made the playoffs multiple times in the same timeframe, while spending a fraction of what we did...

no merit to the argument that
gomez/cammy/gionta

was a better group to "just make the playoffs" than:

Koivu/kovalev/tanguay (not too mention whatever quality players you could have also added with the 8M$ in savings compared to the trio Gainey purchased).

"making the playoffs" as a focus wasn't the issue, how that management team decided to go about it very much is, and ive yet to see any convincing argument to the contrary.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
watched this series this past summer on the nhl network. Toughness didn't have anything to with the outcome. Biron players great (with the help of his goal posts) while Price played like crap. The Habs were the better team in that series, Price couldn't keep the habs in the game if his life depended on it.
so maybe the GM shouldn't have traded the veteran starter, who had been having a career year, at the deadline?

so much for prioritizing "playoffs" as a strategy...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
for toughness being the real need of the team, when your powerplay stops working, toughness won't make up the goals. It was a need, but ES scoring was desperately required after how much the team scored on the PP that year. Not surprisingly, Lang and Tanguay were good ES players that were brought in.
funny, talk to just about any person with experience playing/coaching hockey about how to get out of a scoring slump (individually or as a team), and the answer inevitably includes reference to "getting to the dirty areas of the ice", " crashing or getting traffic in front of the net", " getting implicated physically"... all things that require a degree of toughness to commit to.

what is it that you think "toughness" contributes to?

or do you think that labels like ES, PK, PP somehow exist in a vacuum and are reflections of individual player ratings as if in a computerized EA model?


feeling confident enough to play aggresively on the boards and in front of the net so obviously contributes to ES efficiency it's a waste of bandwidth to type it.

part of what helped Biron "shine", was how much space and how comfortable he was in the net, and conversely, Price (as a young guy no less), didn't do so well with the constant traffic & post whistle incidents he faced... usually with a few of our players standing around doing nothing in the process.

all aspects of the game are related to each other, you can't just selectively poach this or that stat and interpret it without the broader context. it's not how team sports work.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
was crap. Lang and Tanguay played great while they were here and filled their role quite well. If I recall correctly, Tanguay was the team's leading scorer until he got hurt. Moreover, they were never brought in to carry the team anyway. Tanguay came in to fill a 2nd line winger spot next to Koivu and Lang came in to play the 3rd line centreman role. Both were seen as upgrades to Ryder and Smolinski respectively. The moves made sense.
ok, so if I agree with you, does that not then support my point... namely that it was foolish to then jettison Tanguay, without even a contract offer?

If he played so great, and delivered so well, why not bring him back (at a bargain no less), instead of being stuck with a revolving door in our top-6 the next year?

I really don't get it? You're essentially making my point for me, just without the ability to relate the roster issue with the person responsible for the roster decisions?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
explanation would actual make sense if the players would have actually lost their ice-time. But the roles of Andrei, Higgins, Plekanec and Sergei didn't change much with the acquisition of Lang and Tanguay, neither did their ice time. They all began the year in the same roles they played the season prior. Tanguay took Ryder's ice-time and Lang replaced Smolinski's ice time. Andrei began the year in the same spot as the year before, so did Higgins, Plekanec and Tanguay.
here's the thing with being a young, improving player... if you're "standing still", then that feels like you're moving backwards (and it pretty much is). None of those guys were playing as many minutes as they wanted to even in 07-08, and after the team/individual success, to expect them to not feel poorly with getting the same (or in Higgins/S.Kost case, less) ice time/pp time, is to not understand what the psychology and mind set of elite athletes is like.

the ego that got them to their level is the same ego that makes them overrate themselves, the same ego that takes a hit when their boss elects to find someone else to take up extra time in the roles they envision themselves being capable of filling.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
also don't recall saying attitude issues were a problem. Off-ice issues were, both off-ice issues doesn't necessarily entail attitude issues. There were no stories that season of anyone mouthing off the coach etc etc. The only ever player described as having an attitude problem was Sergei and this characterization of him was made by the media in the subsequent season.
lapierre, lats, higgins, S.kost... all of them eventually left town under the cloud of behavioral/attitude issues.
No hint of that in the summer of 07, but by the summer of 08 the smoke started to become visible.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
is excellent to say in hindsight, but this was not the discourse of both fans, media and hockey experts when both players were acquired unfortunately.
not true. I wasn't on an island, there were others both around here, and stuff in the media that reflected a similar view point... even if the concensus felt that they were overwhelmingly positive moves (since when is general concencus an indication of accurate opinion?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
team played okay actually until the injuries began though, which started around the all-star break: losing Komisarek, Lang and Latendresse in a single game. Tanguay was injured for a good stretch during the season as well. Price getting injured and struggling to get back to form. Eventually losing Markov, Boullion, Schneider, Tanguay as well. Hard to pinpoint the lack of success of that year on those particular moves when so much was going on.
i don't recall making any comments indicating that the struggles that year were because of the moves?

we overachieved in the previous season, and I do think that we failed to significantly (or perhaps better put, adequately) improve the team with the moves that were made.

Nevertheless, even with a more normal rash of injuries, we squeaked into the playoffs, much like we did througout the gainey/gauthier tenure.

hard to be a team that drafts as well as we have the past decade, and outspend more than 1/2 of the league, and NOT ice a playoff worthy team, wouldn't you think?

but beyond all that, the main point i'm making, is that we were poorly managed.

why would a team that "played okay actually" require the complete and expensive overhaul that Gainey put us on the following summer?

It didn't. He screwed up, made a bad judgement call, and we've spent the past 3 seasons watching that mistake play itself out.

hindsight or not, the results do speak for themselves... rather loudly I'd say (but thankfully the silver lining to the Gainey/Gauthier dark cloud is named Galchenyuk, and he looks to be the ray of sunshine we've needed around here since before Gainey took over!)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
fact, the team was 27-11-6 as of January 17th and on pace to have an 112 pts season (8 pts better than 07-08). So it's hard to say that the moves were counter-productive when the team was doing okay. I say okay because they weren't really dominating games.
trading valuable assets and using up cap space on 2 veterans that end up being "one and done" is very much counter productive to any kind of legitimate long-term plan.

the swift 08 summer overhaul would indicate that the 07 summer moves were made with a pretty clear short term vision in mind. If Gainey thought that adding Lang/Tanguay/Laraque was going to push our overachieving 08 team into consistent contender territory, then yes, it was counter-productive and faulty judgement.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I recall didn't Tanguay say he wouldn't sign here after the team asked him to play injured in the playoffs? Also, we have no idea if 1/2 of what we did pay him would have kept him in town. This is great to say in hindsight, but Tanguay wasn't signed until late in FA period, August 30th to be exact.
i don't recall hearing anything of the nature... but i did hear him talk about that summer after he signed in calgary... it's his word vs nothing from the gainey camp, but a year later you could still hear the hurt in his voice over the fact that the habs made no effort to keep him in town (no contract offer, no communication period... which in itself is pretty amateur imo).

maybe gainey knew he could only offer him a small deal and respected him so much he didn't want to lowball him?

of course, that faulty logic ignores how much worse it evidently was to completely shun the guy with the silent treatment.

No offer & no communication seems pretty solid evidence that Gainey simply didn't want him back. pretty tough to defend given, as you described above, that Tanguay more or less delivered as expected.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
01-12-2013, 05:05 AM
  #823
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time

part of what helped Biron "shine", was how much space and how comfortable he was in the net, and conversely, Price (as a young guy no less), didn't do so well with the constant traffic & post whistle incidents he faced... usually with a few of our players standing around doing nothing in the process.
I'm curious how much video of the 07-08 2nd series have you watched?

Because while I can't speak authoritatively on post whistle shenanigans, during that series the habs weren't just owning the puck but also getting far more chances to score from the dirty areas of the ice and with traffic around the net then than Philly did. Pleks and the two Kostitsyns in particular were putting on a clinic those 5 games. Philadelphia's offense was based disproportionately on seeing eye shots and bounces from middle distances. Price wasn't at his best but misfortune was a larger factor than sucking for the goals against. Biron on the other hand was having all the flukes go his way. It was a puck luck series, pure and simple. It happens in the playoffs, as we saw in 2010 the other way with Washington, and it's why all being good gets you is a shot at winning it all in a parity league.


On the other hand, the Habs of 08 shouldn't be too proud of the accomplishment. That iteration of the flyers was totally inept on ES defense that year. At center Richards and Carter weren't yet the two-way studs they'd become and Briere has pretty much always been a defensive liability. On D they had a solid 1 in Timonen but past that the blueline was filled with guys that couldnt skate. Just like the Habs, they were a special teams and goaltending squad that year, coming off finishing last the year before, not yet the all round terrors they became in their Pronger era. It was a good year for that kind of squad in the east, Therrien's Penguins that made the finals were essentially were an elite version off the same thing, weaknesses concealed by Crosby and Malkin's special talents.

This was before the stepdecline in penalties called transformed the NHL to where the 5 on 5 game is king and the rest secondary. A stark example of how rapidly things changed is comparing 0708 to 0910. Not a large difference in goaltending, special teams and 5 on 5 play, huge difference in standings position.

Talks to Goalposts is offline  
Old
01-12-2013, 06:51 AM
  #824
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Like I said, fine, let say 2007-2008 was legit and we were a contending team. Just sucks that immediately after, we started not to. We were a great contending team 1 year in a row. Then injuries kicked in in 08-09 not permitting us to be THAT great, but then that was enough to blow up the team? It is that that I'm against. You don't blow up a team you are contending with. You remove and add a few pieces but you keep your core. The team has off-ice issues...who cares you were a contending team with the same issues. Be a leader, fix those issues, but not by sending everybody home and almost start from scratch. You gave a freakin 1st and 2nd draft picks for a guy you keep for 1 season? People these are not regular draft picks. These are draft picks you substract to maybe the best in the business. I mean, Calgary could throw away the next 10 1st rounders if they want, they suck so much at drafting that they probably would be better drafting through trades....but us? We suck at trades. But we have the best in the business at draft. If you send your picks away, just be sure you either get a real quality player that will in the end make you reach something you never reached....or be sure you'll keep the said player for more than half or just 1 season.
It is no big deal. Some teams have long contending windows due mainly to excellent management, drafting and development, like the Wings, and some have one or two year windows due to the development of a couple of good draft picks, combined with short term UFA performance and a good trade or two, like the Cup winning Canes, and the 07-09 Habs.

The split on this board is I think is often between those who want a cup now, and damn the future, and those who want to be always be a contender for at least 5 years, with say a maximum two year rebuild period in between, for most of your life as a fan of the team.

And you have to accept short term rebuilds to be in the second camp. If you cannot accept tanking for picks over one or two years, you are not in this camp. We have been through this, and I won't go on about it.

I am in the second camp. Why?

1. I am ashamed that the Habs are bad, and have been bad for the last 15 years. I love the team too much to see them not at least contend decently most years, as they did for the first half of my life. I can live with a two year rebuild every 7 years but not constant suckitude for a straight 20 years.

Let's see how Wings fans react to the coming rebuild there. If they whine about, they are idiots. They have been managed to at least contend for the last 15 years. Their fans should be ecstatic about that. That is one fifth of most fan's lives.

2. Constant contending builds a tradition of winning, and knowledge that can be passed down to new management, and coaching, with no catastrophic disconnects, which is what has happened, tragically, to the Habs. It is what I am saddest about in fact, for the Habs.

3. The Canes short term window method depends on good luck, in just a one or two year chance, as did the Habs in 07-09. Whereas if you are a strong contender over 5-7 years, you will assuredly find the one year that works in your favour, due to bad luck to the other contenders.

4. The only team I have ever seen continually rebuild without tanking while winning cups was the 70's Habs. I do not think it is possible to do this any more in the NHL. The reasons are obvious and I won't list them.

In summary, I could be wrong, but I believe that bad luck over a season to any given team is much more prevalent than good luck over a season to any given team in pro sports, especially in relation to injuries and unexpected bad performances.

Therefore, always build your team to be a contender over a long window, live with the bad luck you are going to have most years, and then take advantage of other contender's bad luck, the year you finally have good luck.

Then again, maybe I'm full of sh-it. I have no idea.


Last edited by bsl: 01-12-2013 at 07:05 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
01-12-2013, 07:18 AM
  #825
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
thing is that the with Timmins effectiveness at the draft game (which some would argue should equate to credit in Gainey's favor... debatable, but fair enough), it's quite likely that we don't end up with Nemisz/Elliot.

bottom line is that it was an ok trade, even arguably a good trade (as Tanguay did fit some needs), but taken as a whole, the asset transfer was terrible.

Trading for Tanguay, and then making no effort to re-sign him, despite a productive year in the role he was brought to fill, because you decide he's too soft (or whatever other problem Gainey had with the player... contract demands clearly weren't the issue since he didn't even offer him one, and Tanguay eventually signed for peanuts), shows again some terrible pro scouting.

Tanguay was very much the same player he had been in Calgary, and they moved him for the same type of reason but with the added pressure of his large contract & the incentive of 2 high picks... we jettisoned him for nothing after paying him the money and wasting the picks...

exactly the kind of negative asset management that leads a team into the league basement... despite having an excellent draft record and spending as much or more than every other team.



individually, his trade record was decent (then again, factor in the Gomez trade, which was one of the worst in decades, and it's hard for the sum to not be considered below average) but I'd argue that when taken as a whole, and the trades are measured up against the context they were made in and the immediate results, and even many of the even/slightly ahead trades we made under his tenure amounted to negative results.

His asset/roster management was terrible, polluted by a pretty clear lack of identifiable vision and willingness to build toward a long-term goal objective (other than the pie-in-the-sky "win a cup").

At no point during his tenure did we have much of a consistent identity (other than the "smurf" one, sadly), and that is precisely what top organizations are able to do in building long term, sustained, repeatable success.

such identity is sometimes more in essence and intention than it is in measurable statistical analysis, which is where those who rely too heavily on subjectively interpreted/assembled numbers miss the bigger picture.



of the "stacked" team you speak of from 2008-09, in just 3 seasons, the bolded players became:

Gomez, Bournival, 2nd round pick 2013, 5th round pick 2013.

Think about that for a second...
19 of 22 players on a "stacked" team (your words, not mine) translate into 1 nhl player (who happens to have one of the worst contracts in the league... an offensive player who went a calendar year without a goal), 1 bottom-6 NHL prospect (likely a solid one, but still), and 2 draft picks.

19 assets, turning into 4, in 3 years. Even with retirements and inevitable expiring contracts replaced with other players, how that can be viewed as anything but absolutely abysmal management is beyond me.

and let's not forget that the 3 year outcome of transitioning beyond that "stacked" team, was one of the worst seasons in franchise history.

Gauthier's also accountable for that massive failure, but as Gainey's self-appointed next in line, whom he continued to "advise", hard to absolve him of this complete and total failure.



disagree...

many around here, myself included, felt that the 07 team (which overachieved thanks largely to a miraculously injury free season), suffered from a serious lack of team toughness and gritty play/personalities.
Some have used superficial stats from the flyers series to argue that we "outhit then therefore toughness was not the problem", but anyone who watched that series game-for-game could see the physical & leadership elements that the flyers had over our roster.

Gainey addresses this by picking up two players known for being soft-ish, at times critisized by previous coaches for lack of commitment and not known for being vocal leaders... and a pure goon who had worn out previous welcomes for his outsized ego and desire to be taken for more than what he was.


the other issue was that our 07 upstart team did so in no small part to the large roles/contributions many young forwards had (A & S.kost, lats, higgins, lapierre), by adding 2 top-9 fwds, he was basically telling those players that their success wasn't to be relied on... don't get me wrong, you improve your team when you can and competition is part of the deal, but at the same time bringing in less than elite, or even top-line, players to take minutes away from up-and-coming players who just stepped up big time to help the team to it's best finish in years... and doing so with guys who aren't known for their work ethic/leadership... that's a pretty good recipe for brewing tension & surprise surprise, all 5 of those young guys turned into "attitude" problems before they left town.

from a team building/needs filling point of view, it was apparent to some during that summer that we had not addressed the right needs, and that our big summer moves were in fact counter-productive.

from my pov, Lang actually outdid my expectations, and played like a guy wanting to make sure he got another contract... which was great.
And I was optimistic that Laraque would give us the kind of precense that S.Thorton is for the bruins... what a disaster he turned into.

Tanguay? he delivered pretty much as expected, and then we didn't even bother to offer him a contract when 1/2 of what we paid him would have easily kept him in town.

and then there's the whole Streit issue... don't think anyone would argue that the solution to being a team too reliant on the PP, is to give up your most dangerous PP player for nothing?
that is unless you have the vision and foresight of a B.Gainey
Stunning post. This especially: "At no point during his tenure did we have much of a consistent identity (other than the "smurf" one, sadly), and that is precisely what top organizations are able to do in building long term, sustained, repeatable success."

I'm going back to read your post again. I may quote more of it.

bsl is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.