HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

How long does Gauthier have to win the Cup?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2011, 12:02 PM
  #76
pine*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post


I said it first
Two roasts are always better than one

pine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 12:05 PM
  #77
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
And while beer doesn't kill you per se, many people have died because of the drunks who lack the faculties to drive a motorized vehicule properly.

Ain't that much better then drinking spiked Kool-aid if you ask me.
Regardless I find it hilarious that the people whining about our GM not making us a top contender after a season or two are the same people telling others to go drink their koolaid. As if it's far more logical and level headed to go on a bash fest of a general manager who has only been in power 2 years than it is to remain patient, calm, and realize we've actually only played 4 games

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 12:39 PM
  #78
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Regardless I find it hilarious that the people whining about our GM not making us a top contender after a season or two are the same people telling others to go drink their koolaid. As if it's far more logical and level headed to go on a bash fest of a general manager who has only been in power 2 years than it is to remain patient, calm, and realize we've actually only played 4 games
By my count there are 3 apologists in this discussion . I realize that too is a label but how else can you describe a person who supports unconditionally every move being made, to the point of making absurd statements attempting to defend the indefensible.

Instead of quibbling over MolsonCoors brands maybe someone should take a crack at SouthernHabs question - when exactly should we expect success?

Ask the apologists and the answer is the same every season- "not this year".

The answer of the Redwings fan - "every year".

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 12:54 PM
  #79
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
By my count there are 3 apologists in this discussion . I realize that too is a label but how else can you describe a person who supports unconditionally every move being made, to the point of making absurd statements attempting to defend the indefensible.

Instead of quibbling over MolsonCoors brands maybe someone should take a crack at SouthernHabs question - when exactly should we expect success?

Ask the apologists and the answer is the same every season- "not this year".

The answer of the Redwings fan - "every year".
not a good example at all.

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 01:07 PM
  #80
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
By my count there are 3 apologists in this discussion . I realize that too is a label but how else can you describe a person who supports unconditionally every move being made, to the point of making absurd statements attempting to defend the indefensible.

Instead of quibbling over MolsonCoors brands maybe someone should take a crack at SouthernHabs question - when exactly should we expect success?

Ask the apologists and the answer is the same every season- "not this year".

The answer of the Redwings fan - "every year".
And what do you say?

Gros Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 01:22 PM
  #81
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
By my count there are 3 apologists in this discussion . I realize that too is a label but how else can you describe a person who supports unconditionally every move being made, to the point of making absurd statements attempting to defend the indefensible.

Instead of quibbling over MolsonCoors brands maybe someone should take a crack at SouthernHabs question - when exactly should we expect success?

Ask the apologists and the answer is the same every season- "not this year".

The answer of the Redwings fan - "every year".
That's the biggest problem here. Not one of your so-called apologists here unconditionally supports management.
We criticize Martin for his boring style, for his line changes, and other decisions he may take during the games. Don't you ever read the GDT?..You will find the same guys that, according to you, are apologists, question and criticize certain moves.
We criticize Gauthier for certain decisions as well, re-signing Gill over Hammer, not going after a top 4D, trading certain assets.
There are numerous examples of these apologists criticizing management, but that's overlooked, because when you disagree with someone that seems to criticize management for everything (SouthernHab), then you're drinking kool-aid. And God forbid you don't think having an enforcer is a necessity, that's just blasphemy to their ears.

It's not because one disagrees with you that Gauthier should have built a contender by year 2 that they unconditionally support management. Thinking that way is ridiculous. It's like when you tell your girlfriend you won't be able to make plans finally and she goes off on saying you don't love her anymore. Sounds crazy right? Well...

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 01:30 PM
  #82
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
By my count there are 3 apologists in this discussion . I realize that too is a label but how else can you describe a person who supports unconditionally every move being made, to the point of making absurd statements attempting to defend the indefensible.

Instead of quibbling over MolsonCoors brands maybe someone should take a crack at SouthernHabs question - when exactly should we expect success?

Ask the apologists and the answer is the same every season- "not this year".

The answer of the Redwings fan - "every year".
Personally I would say his time isn't based on X amount of years but rather how well he does in his time here. He hasn't made any glaringly huge errors so far but he's made some good moves as well. He hasn't made any huge moves yet but that doesn't mean he can't or won't.

I'd say 4-5 years would be a time frame of sorts if I had to choose an X amount. If by 4 or 5 years the team isn't better off then I'd move on. If the team clearly has been better but is in a situation like San Jose where they simply haven't won yet I'd keep him on board for now.

But ultimately there's no actual time frame in my mind, the time frame is largely dependent on what Gauthier does. If he makes an inexcusable mistake... fire him. If he makes us a worse team and it keeps getting worse fire him. If he isn't doing anything glaringly awful I can't really put a time frame on it. If the team improves then the team improves, but aside from Markov I can't really blame Gauthier for people getting injured which is basically what a lot of people are doing.

We're 4 games into the season and have had some injury troubles, it isn't the end of the world like people are making it out to be.

So there's your answer. Call me an apologist or a Koolaid drinker or any other immature dim-witted comment you can come up with. At the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that I'm a passionate fan who does disagree with certain things management does, I just choose not to be a sour puss over it and cry all the time. Plus I'm not here to fit in with a bunch of nerds and power tripping teenagers, I'm just here to discuss hockey. Call me an apologist or whatever it is that makes you feel better if you want but my opinion is what it is and believe me it has nothing to do with drinking Koolaid, beer, or any other type of drink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's the biggest problem here. Not one of your so-called apologists here unconditionally supports management.
We criticize Martin for his boring style, for his line changes, and other decisions he may take during the games. Don't you ever read the GDT?..You will find the same guys that, according to you, are apologists, question and criticize certain moves.
We criticize Gauthier for certain decisions as well, re-signing Gill over Hammer, not going after a top 4D, trading certain assets.
There are numerous examples of these apologists criticizing management, but that's overlooked, because when you disagree with someone that seems to criticize management for everything (SouthernHab), then you're drinking kool-aid. And God forbid you don't think having an enforcer is a necessity, that's just blasphemy to their ears.

It's not because one disagrees with you that Gauthier should have built a contender by year 2 that they unconditionally support management. Thinking that way is ridiculous. It's like when you tell your girlfriend you won't be able to make plans finally and she goes off on saying you don't love her anymore. Sounds crazy right? Well...
This, but don't worry Kriss E, it's much easier to form an argument based on lies, insults and complete speculation than to actually base it on facts, the truth and comments that aren't petty low brow insults.

I criticize management often enough but just because I'm not a complete and total hater who goes on a bash fest 24/7 I'm considered to be an apologist.


Last edited by Habsfan18: 10-18-2011 at 01:35 PM. Reason: merge
neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 01:41 PM
  #83
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill View Post
And what do you say?
Success is a Stanley Cup, let's begin there. There are no consolation prizes or moral victories for losing to the eventual SC winner, or scraping into the playoffs with a myriad of excuses why the team didn't do better. The modus operandi of the team should not be to hopefully upset a better team but to be the better team.

Fans should expect their team build to a point of being very strong in all important aspects of the game. Offense, defense, special teams, strong situational goaltending. Then create a reliable stream of hockey players to replace the accomplished ones over time. When this appears to not be happening the GM should be sacked and a better one hired.

The Habs did this in 6 , 8 , 12,14 , 16, 17, 18, and 21 team leagues, there is no reason to believe the formula has changed or that it can't be accomplished in a 30 team league.
It just requires committment to excellence and good management, of which Montreal has little.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 01:55 PM
  #84
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Success is a Stanley Cup, let's begin there. There are no consolation prizes or moral victories for losing to the eventual SC winner, or scraping into the playoffs with a myriad of excuses why the team didn't do better. The modus operandi of the team should not be to hopefully upset a better team but to be the better team.

Fans should expect their team build to a point of being very strong in all important aspects of the game. Offense, defense, special teams, strong situational goaltending. Then create a reliable stream of hockey players to replace the accomplished ones over time. When this appears to not be happening the GM should be sacked and a better one hired.

The Habs did this in 6 , 8 , 12,14 , 16, 17, 18, and 21 team leagues, there is no reason to believe the formula has changed or that it can't be accomplished in a 30 team league.
It just requires committment to excellence and good management, of which Montreal has little.
You make it sound as if Gauthier is responsible for Gainey or the GM's prior to him and that 2 seasons is plenty of time to become a top contender. That's ridiculous and this is what Kriss E has been saying all along. It isn't that he doesn't expect excellence from our team or GM but it's been 2 seasons not 8. Give the guy a bit of time to actually you know... manage the team a little bit.. before ya know... making baseless assumptions about how he can't bring the team any success.

Who says he isn't committed? If anything the only one who isn't committed here is you. You aren't committed to a thing called reality, you don't turn a franchise around over night. You just assume Gauthier doesn't care and that he sucks based on 2 seasons? That's pretty damn ridiculous and to me makes you look like a reactionary fan. Where were you guys before the preseason? But because we had a bad preseason and started off 1-2-1 of course the world is now coming to an end

You make it sound like if you were in charge the team would be better and no doubt that is one of the most laughable implications I've heard on HF in a really long time. I mean naturally cause you whine about the management so much you must be able to do a better job. You tell us to answer the questions well here's a question for you, how would you do better? If you couldn't do better who would you hire that would do better? What makes you think you're smarter than Pierre Gauthier or better than he is?

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 02:02 PM
  #85
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
It just requires committment to excellence and good management, of which Montreal has little.
You do realize that this is opinion and not a fact right and that you have no way of knowing that there goal is not excellence.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 02:26 PM
  #86
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Success is a Stanley Cup, let's begin there.
Sadly, it isn't as simple as this. The bar set for the Bruins is not the same one as the Islanders. You cannot keep every team at the same level. Doing so is very, very narrow, and quite frankly, unrealistic.
If the Islanders make the POs but lose in round 1, it's still success. Might not be success if you're talking about the Capitals, but for the Islanders? It definitely is.
A #1 division finish as well as an ECF appearance for Mtl would definitely be a successful year.
From there on out, you make the proper adjustments and solidify your team for the next season, where ''success'' will no longer just be an ECF appearance, but a SCF one.
Saying the only way for a team to have a successful year is to win the SC is just not a fair analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
There are no consolation prizes or moral victories for losing to the eventual SC winner, or scraping into the playoffs with a myriad of excuses why the team didn't do better. The modus operandi of the team should not be to hopefully upset a better team but to be the better team.
It has nothing to do with consolation prizes or moral victories, it's called an analysis.
Whether you want to call them excuses, or reasons, they are very real. Takeaway Chara and Thomas from the Bruins, you think they win the cup? Take away Keith and Toews, Datsyuk and Zetterberg, Malkin and Crosby, Pronger and Niedermayer, Ward and Staal, shall I go on???
You can tell yourself these are excuses, that injuries are part of the game, yes they are. In no way does this mean they won't affect you.
So, when you go into the POs without your #1 D, without your best shutdown D, without your hottest scorer, and still manage to push the highly favored team to 3OT including one in Game 7, then hey, you have to realize that it's a commendable job. It is encouraging, as opposed to getting sweep in 4 games without having much of a chance in any games.
But if you have the narrow way of thinking that the SC is the only recognizable measure for success, then you're unable of bringing forth a decent analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Fans should expect their team build to a point of being very strong in all important aspects of the game. Offense, defense, special teams, strong situational goaltending. Then create a reliable stream of hockey players to replace the accomplished ones over time. When this appears to not be happening the GM should be sacked and a better one hired.
Fans should also realize that this takes time, and that the new GM is not responsible for the old one's decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
The Habs did this in 6 , 8 , 12,14 , 16, 17, 18, and 21 team leagues, there is no reason to believe the formula has changed or that it can't be accomplished in a 30 team league.
It just requires committment to excellence and good management, of which Montreal has little.
How would you know where Mtl's commitment lies exactly?
There is this fairy tell going around sent out by posters like yourself that if management has a different view than yours as to how to build their team, then they simply are satisfied with mediocrity and aren't committed to excellence. It is the dumbest comment I've ever read on these boards, and it's not like dumb comments are tough to find here so it should tell you just how retarded that sounds.
Do you think building a SC winning team is an easy task? Certainly sounds like you think that. Again, you're simply not being realistic.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 02:44 PM
  #87
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
You make it sound as if Gauthier is responsible for Gainey or the GM's prior to him and that 2 seasons is plenty of time to become a top contender. That's ridiculous and this is what Kriss E has been saying all along. It isn't that he doesn't expect excellence from our team or GM but it's been 2 seasons not 8. Give the guy a bit of time to actually you know... manage the team a little bit.. before ya know... making baseless assumptions about how he can't bring the team any success.

Who says he isn't committed? If anything the only one who isn't committed here is you. You aren't committed to a thing called reality, you don't turn a franchise around over night. You just assume Gauthier doesn't care and that he sucks based on 2 seasons? That's pretty damn ridiculous and to me makes you look like a reactionary fan. Where were you guys before the preseason? But because we had a bad preseason and started off 1-2-1 of course the world is now coming to an end

You make it sound like if you were in charge the team would be better and no doubt that is one of the most laughable implications I've heard on HF in a really long time. I mean naturally cause you whine about the management so much you must be able to do a better job. You tell us to answer the questions well here's a question for you, how would you do better? If you couldn't do better who would you hire that would do better? What makes you think you're smarter than Pierre Gauthier or better than he is?
Your problem is that you are not mature or experienced enough to be in this conversation. When people talk about excellence your eyes glaze over and you revert back to your infamous name calling and childishness. People having discussions aren't whiners but I don't expect anything less than that from you.

And as I read your response again I can't believe the lack of comprehension. I didn't say Gauthier is a know nothing and I have the answers I pointed out the criteria that should be used to evaluate success and Gauthier's performance in achieving it. Anyone being paid millions of dollars to be a professional sports manager should be evaluated continuously.

So according to you Gauthier cannot be evaluated over 2 years because he inherited from Gainey, Gainey cannot be evaluated because he inherited from Savard, I suppose Savard took on Houle's mess and Houle inherited Serge Savard's problems. So, after 18 years of not winning we are just to proclaim that accountability is so muddled that we should just clean the slate again and keep being patient. Bzzzt.

After 18 years of no success what is lacking? Committment or execution? It seems to me you are saying that the team is lacking in neither of these areas, so where is the success? Coming next year? lol.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 02:50 PM
  #88
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Your problem is that you are not mature or experienced enough to be in this conversation. When people talk about excellence your eyes glaze over and you revert back to your infamous name calling and childishness. People having discussions aren't whiners but I don't expect anything less than that from you.

And as I read your response again I can't believe the lack of comprehension. I didn't say Gauthier is a know nothing and I have the answers I pointed out the criteria that should be used to evaluate success and Gauthier's performance in achieving it. Anyone being paid millions of dollars to be a professional sports manager should be evaluated continuously.

So according to you Gauthier cannot be evaluated over 2 years because he inherited from Gainey, Gainey cannot be evaluated because he inherited from Savard, I suppose Savard took on Houle's mess and Houle inherited Serge Savard's problems. So, after 18 years of not winning we are just to proclaim that accountability is so muddled that we should just clean the slate again and keep being patient. Bzzzt.

After 18 years of no success what is lacking? Committment or execution? It seems to me you are saying that the team is lacking in neither of these areas, so where is the success? Coming next year? lol.
That's not what he said at all. You read-in a bunch of stuff that weren't there in his argument in the first place.

He said it's only Gauthier 2nd full season as a GM, way to early to be claiming the sky is falling.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 02:57 PM
  #89
PhysicX
Registered User
 
PhysicX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,496
vCash: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
And while beer doesn't kill you per se, many people have died because of the drunks who lack the faculties to drive a motorized vehicule properly.

Ain't that much better then drinking spiked Kool-aid if you ask me.
You guys don't know much about beer do you

http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/healthy-beer

PhysicX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:08 PM
  #90
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
There's something called ''progression''. Are the Panthers supposed to be a contending team? Are the rest of the NHL teams too?
We finished 8th two years ago, 6th last year. This despite major injuries. Some changes were made, but now key injuries are still present. We will see where this leads us. If by next season, we aren't solidified, and still rocking around the 6th-8th position, then you can start wondering. This is the 2nd year for Gauthier. I don't know anybody that inherited a PO bubble team and was expected to turn them into contenders 2years into it, in a cap world.




http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/Index.aspx

You just proved you know as much about beer as you do about hockey.
Damn. I didnt know that about Coors. Thanks for filling me in on that. Guess its Bud Light for me now.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:10 PM
  #91
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Sadly, it isn't as simple as this. The bar set for the Bruins is not the same one as the Islanders. You cannot keep every team at the same level. Doing so is very, very narrow, and quite frankly, unrealistic.
If the Islanders make the POs but lose in round 1, it's still success. Might not be success if you're talking about the Capitals, but for the Islanders? It definitely is.
A #1 division finish as well as an ECF appearance for Mtl would definitely be a successful year.
From there on out, you make the proper adjustments and solidify your team for the next season, where ''success'' will no longer just be an ECF appearance, but a SCF one.
Saying the only way for a team to have a successful year is to win the SC is just not a fair analysis.



It has nothing to do with consolation prizes or moral victories, it's called an analysis.
Whether you want to call them excuses, or reasons, they are very real. Takeaway Chara and Thomas from the Bruins, you think they win the cup? Take away Keith and Toews, Datsyuk and Zetterberg, Malkin and Crosby, Pronger and Niedermayer, Ward and Staal, shall I go on???
You can tell yourself these are excuses, that injuries are part of the game, yes they are. In no way does this mean they won't affect you.
So, when you go into the POs without your #1 D, without your best shutdown D, without your hottest scorer, and still manage to push the highly favored team to 3OT including one in Game 7, then hey, you have to realize that it's a commendable job. It is encouraging, as opposed to getting sweep in 4 games without having much of a chance in any games.
But if you have the narrow way of thinking that the SC is the only recognizable measure for success, then you're unable of bringing forth a decent analysis.

Fans should also realize that this takes time, and that the new GM is not responsible for the old one's decisions.



How would you know where Mtl's commitment lies exactly?
There is this fairy tell going around sent out by posters like yourself that if management has a different view than yours as to how to build their team, then they simply are satisfied with mediocrity and aren't committed to excellence. It is the dumbest comment I've ever read on these boards, and it's not like dumb comments are tough to find here so it should tell you just how retarded that sounds.
Do you think building a SC winning team is an easy task? Certainly sounds like you think that. Again, you're simply not being realistic.
Stanley Cups are the only measure of success for a fan, if that can't be agreed upon then there isn't much common ground here.

I wonder if Apple executives would now tolerate being 14th best in a market of 30 device makers, or make bilingualism a part of their hiring criteria. More likely they hire the best and brightest, and create a culture that innnovates and wows their customers. That's fully committed.

What the Habs do is make a profit, there's nothing innovative or different about them and the culture of winning has long left the organization.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:10 PM
  #92
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFpineapple View Post
Boom roasted.

SouthernHab, you just got served.

Yep. Guess I did. Oh well, I will lose sleep tonight for not knowing that.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:18 PM
  #93
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Stanley Cups are the only measure of success for a fan, if that can't be agreed upon then there isn't much common ground here.
So does that mean every team aside from the bruins is not committed to winning and instead aim only at making a profit?

Also, if the Stanley Cup is the only measure of success, then shouldn't we wait until june before whining about this year's version of the team since the success cannot be measures until then? Wouldn't that mean that any whining now is premature. This is what your logic indicates. Cups are the only measure of success...so last season 29 teams failed equally, none were better or worse than the other and none more successful. That would also mean that we should not be talking about any successes or failures for this years team until the stanley cup is awarded since it is only that can we determine success. Therefore, all current whining is premature.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:26 PM
  #94
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,053
vCash: 500
Gaudier has until Molson can find another French Canadian GM with a better track record. If not in the next year or so, he'll be renewed until such time as they can find one.

It's Montreal and French gm's are hard to find. It might be awhile unless Scotty Bowman wants a shot at it!

shutehinside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:29 PM
  #95
LyleOdelein
Registered User
 
LyleOdelein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Renfrew
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Stanley Cups are the only measure of success for a fan, if that can't be agreed upon then there isn't much common ground here.
I'm not trying to trap you or anything, I'm just highly intrigued by how vastly your perspective differs from mine. Would you mind answering a couple questions just to clarify your stance on things?

Do you think the Blue Jackets have been just as successful over the last 10 years as the Flyers, Capitals, Sharks and Canucks?

Are the Wings an unsuccessful team now that they've lost two years in a row in the 2nd round?

Does making the Stanley Cup Final and losing count for anything?

Are the Hawks, Pens, Canes and Lightning still considered successful teams? Or more simply, at what point does a team's success stemming from a Cup win expire?

Does the best team in the league win the Stanley Cup every year, or do you believe that there are some varying factors (like player inconsistency, injuries, etc.) that contribute to a championship run?

LyleOdelein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:44 PM
  #96
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
So does that mean every team aside from the bruins is not committed to winning and instead aim only at making a profit?
Bruins were near the top in offense, near the top in defense, at the top in goaltending and are well positioned to replace those players when the need arises. That used to be the way Montreal operated.

As for your question, some teams will win, the rest will lose, not all have winning as their primary objective.

Question for you: If you had to bet a large sum of money, who would you pick as most likely to have their name engraved on the Stanley Cup one, two, or maybe even 3 more times.

1) Ken Holland
2) Lou Lamoriello
3) Pierre Gauthier

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:47 PM
  #97
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Bruins were near the top in offense, near the top in defense, at the top in goaltending and are well positioned to replace those players when the need arises. That used to be the way Montreal operated.

As for your question, some teams will win, the rest will lose, not all have winning as their primary objective.

Question for you: If you had to bet a large sum of money, who would you pick as most likely to have their name engraved on the Stanley Cup one, two, or maybe even 3 more times.

1) Ken Holland
2) Lou Lamoriello
3) Pierre Gauthier
You didn't answer my question.

If the cup is the only measure of success, then did 29 teams and GMs last year including Holland and the Red Wings fail?

Or are you now conceding that other factors are used to determine a team success, thus contradicting your previous claim.

Also just an interesting note, of those three categories the habs were also at the top in defense and goaltending.


Last edited by Andy: 10-18-2011 at 03:54 PM.
Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:54 PM
  #98
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Bruins were near the top in offense, near the top in defense, at the top in goaltending and are well positioned to replace those players when the need arises. That used to be the way Montreal operated.

As for your question, some teams will win, the rest will lose, not all have winning as their primary objective.

Question for you: If you had to bet a large sum of money, who would you pick as most likely to have their name engraved on the Stanley Cup one, two, or maybe even 3 more times.

1) Ken Holland
2) Lou Lamoriello
3) Pierre Gauthier
great argument there, the other 29 teams didnt win cause they didnt want it badly enough...

Good thing then, otherwise everyone would have their own little cup

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 03:59 PM
  #99
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Stanley Cups are the only measure of success for a fan, if that can't be agreed upon then there isn't much common ground here.

I wonder if Apple executives would now tolerate being 14th best in a market of 30 device makers, or make bilingualism a part of their hiring criteria. More likely they hire the best and brightest, and create a culture that innnovates and wows their customers. That's fully committed.

What the Habs do is make a profit, there's nothing innovative or different about them and the culture of winning has long left the organization.
If all the Habs do is make profit, then going to the SC and winning it would make them a huge amount of money, more so than making the POs and exiting in the first round.
If all they wanted was to make money, then they wouldn't spend to the cap now would it? What would be the purpose of putting forth on purposely keeping a PO bubble team to the cap limit?? It makes no sense.

You still haven't answered a very important question.

If you think Stanley Cup is the only measurable success, then does this mean you put the Islanders on the same level as you do Detroit, Columbus, Boston, Winnipeg, St-Louis, and every other team that doesn't win it?
How can you actually think that and feel you're giving out a fair analysis?? It makes no sense whatsoever.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Bruins were near the top in offense, near the top in defense, at the top in goaltending and are well positioned to replace those players when the need arises. That used to be the way Montreal operated.

As for your question, some teams will win, the rest will lose, not all have winning as their primary objective.

Question for you: If you had to bet a large sum of money, who would you pick as most likely to have their name engraved on the Stanley Cup one, two, or maybe even 3 more times.

1) Ken Holland
2) Lou Lamoriello
3) Pierre Gauthier
So Detroit has the better team today...Awesome. What terrific argument.

Lou Lamoriello, seriously, what has this guy done since the lockout??? Give Kovalchuk a 46 year contract? Fire his coach that lead them to a 2nd place finish a couple games before the POs only to lose in the first round?? Where is Brodeur's replacement?? Hedberg?? Ya, I'm sure our fans would be very fond of this here.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2011, 04:11 PM
  #100
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Question for you: If you had to bet a large sum of money, who would you pick as most likely to have their name engraved on the Stanley Cup one, two, or maybe even 3 more times.

1) Ken Holland
2) Lou Lamoriello
3) Pierre Gauthier
If succes is so important to you, then why don't you go cheer for Ken Holland's team then? The reality is, PG is going to be the GM for Montreal for the next couple of years.

Guess what, there's a very large percentage chance he won't win the Stanley Cup. I'd say like 95%. Guess what, his likely replacement chances of winning the cup are probably below 50%.

With such terrible odds, why do you cheer for such a low percentage team to likely to have success? You must make irrational decisions. I'm not following any logic you try to make because you've proven to make terrible decisions that don't pay off.


That being said, I'm a fan of the Montreal Canadiens, I'm not particularly fond of PG but I don't see any better alternatives out there. Ken Holland and LL are not available options, so mentioning them is pointless.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:46 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.