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

List of candidates for GM and Coach Part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2012, 10:18 PM
  #726
Whitesnake
Steel your Habs away
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,866
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
Are you serious? That's not a Whitesnake calibre post.
What does that mean? I want Gainey OUT just as much and maybe more that I want Gauthier out. It is common knowledge that Brisebois thinks the world out of Gainey. Why would he not want to retain Gainey? If so, I will be pissed. And I think we don't need Brisebois as much so that we'd be stick with Gainey yet again. If Brisebois comes in and starts all over with new people, so be it. But my guess would be that he won't. Reason why I don't want him.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 08:32 AM
  #727
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloumeister View Post
OK, here's a little 'Reading 101' lesson, since you seem to so badly need it:

Bylsma was exactly in the same position that Vigneault and Julien were in when they got their first NHL head coach job.

They were all rookie coaches when they got their first coaching job in the NHL. Didn't say they - Vigneault, Julien, or Bylsma - were good or bad, nor "okay", just freshly-appointed to the big league.

There was no assessment of any of these coaches in my post. Read it again... and again... and again... The "learning to become good coaches" part came from you. You're the one lamenting that Montréal hired coaches with no experience:



A rookie coach with a stacked team does not equal a good coach. Or a bad one. Lucky to "have a complete set of tools", maybe, but "rookie coach" means nothing else than "rookie coach".

So let me sum up the lesson:

rookie = rookie

good= good

bad = bad

great = great


And so on.

You're the one comparing a rookie Bylsma to a veteran Vigneault, BTW. You seem to enjoy the 'bait-and-switch' technique whenener you post... or maybe truly you dyslexic are

Trying to read your comments and make sense of it feels like watching a train derail in slow motion. You're all over the place, distorting everyone's comments and replies, but you don't seem to comprehend what you read... Are you even reading the comments, or just conditioned to react whenever a bell rings?



Either that, or you're the most elaborate, trying-too-hard troll on this board.



Most sensible thing you posted all week.

I hope you're a man of your word

So let's be clear here. I replied to Whitesnake:

Now take that to the next level and what you end up is the Habs hiring very qualified junior coaches such as Vigneault, Julien etc who end up cutting there teeth and learning now to become good coached ini Montreal but aren't experienced enough yet to get to the next level until they go to another team and start winning.


And your brilliant retort to this was:

"Bylsma was exactly in the same position that Vigneault and Julien were in when they got their first NHL head coach job... but somehow "cutting your teeth" and "learning how to become good coaches" with a mature, stacked team makes the job a whole lot easier."
which you later changed to this:

"Bylsma was exactly in the same position that Vigneault and Julien were in when they got their first NHL head coach job.
They were all rookie coaches when they got their first coaching job in the NHL. Didn't say they - Vigneault, Julien, or Bylsma - were good or bad, nor "okay", just freshly-appointed to the big league
.

There was no assessment of any of these coaches in my post. Read it again... and again... and again... The "learning to become good coaches" part came from you. You're the one lamenting that Montréal hired coaches with no experience:"



How many things are wrong with this statement. Let's see!

1) Bylasma was NOT in the EXACT same position as Julien or Vigneault. Bylasma was a ROOKIE coach when he won the the cup where as Vigneault and Julien had years of NHL experience. Bylsma cut his teeth by winning the Cup, something his experienced predessor couldn't do previously.

Where as when Vignealut and Julien started, they started by coaching the Habs who were not Stanley Cup contenders. Once they learned the tricks of the trade after several years of experience, they took their new skill set to more talented teams and made them that much better.

In both situations comparing Bylsma to either Julien or Vigneault is apples to oranges.

2) If you're saying, and I quote "They were all rookie coaches when they got their first coaching job in the NHL" then all I have to say is wow. So they're the same because when they first started coaching they were all rookie coaches!? That's the most brilliant deductive reasoning I've ever seen. You must work with the CIA, FBI or be a decendant of Sherlock Holmes. They were all rookie coaches when they first started coaching! I NEVER would have known that. It must be a very unique situation in the NHL. Thank you for pointing out this anomoly. I mean who ever would have thought that when coaches all start coaching that they're all rookies. Incredible!

3) A rookie coach on a stacked team does not mean he will succeed just because he's on a stacked team. I think you seriously unrate the importance of a coach in the NHL. St. Louis would not be were they are if not for Hitchcock coming in an changing them. Where would Buffalo be without Ruff or Nashville without Trotz? If you're looking for the difference a rookie coach can make, look at Ottawa, Florida and Carolina. All these teams are playing way over expectation once a new coach was installed. Look in the past to Anaheim who couldn't take it to the next level until they brought in a rookie coach names Randy Carlisle or Bruce Beaudreu in Washington. All these teams I would argue are better than they were due to good coaching. It's not an anomoly that that well coached teams do better than poorly coached teams. That's a ridiculous staement. If that was the case, then no one would care who the coach was, they'd hire a minor leaguer ever year and save millions in salary which good caoches are paid.

If you think all you need is a stacked team to be competative I give you the New York Rangers pre lock out, and the Toronto Maple Leafs now. Spend millions of dollars with **** all results. New York hires Torts and all of a sudden they turn it around and lead the NHL in points. Coincidance, I think not.

Whether a rookie or not, coaches make a difference, a big difference. A good rookie coach can be just as effective as one who may need some years to develop their own systems. I see them as prospects. Some can make the jump right away, and others need years of seasoning.

So in the end I would contend that neither Vigneault not Julien would have taken their teams to the Cup Finals last year had they both been rookie coaches. Bylsma did, so comparing him the the other two makes no sense, hence it's a poor assesment of his talent to say he's just like them as he's a VERY good coach.

To relay this back to my original point, a guy like Bylasma would never had a sniff in Montreal because he doesn't speak French. That is sad.

shutehinside is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 08:47 AM
  #728
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
The Habs are limiting their pool of candidates by making language a priority (not THE priority, but amongst the priorities). True. Did I say they weren't? No. Now, to stay on the main point, you're saying that NO other teams limit their pool based on language OR NO OTHER REASON. I prove, whether it's Team Canada or any other teams' in the league that THIS IS NOT TRUE. Friends go with friends. They THEN limit their own pool. Why is it that hard to admit it? So everybody is limiting their own pool. Now whether you believe that our reason is weaker than the other reasons, that was NOT your main point. 'Cause again, your main point was to say that we LIMIT OURSELVES, while the others didn't. And again, that is not true. Everybody does. Yet they have their own criterias. Some are more obvious than others. You single out the language. Yet, we can all see and look that TONS of teams have wasted A LOT OF TIME by going with their friends instead of talent. Whether it was for the GM position, the head coach position or the head scout position.

So I am just answering your post DIRECTLY. Yet, you are talking about noise. So be it. I guess you don't like being answered to.
So now it's a debate over how big a factor French is when deciding on who to hire? Fine, I'll bite. Judging by Molson saying it's "VERY IMPORTANT" and PG apologizing for hiring an Anglo, I'd say it's pretty damn important. I won't say to what degree, but I'd say it's a guarentee that the next coach will speak French. So let's say it's 99.99% of their decision. I'd be surprised if they even seriously interviewed an English only candidate. I'm sure you would be surprised as well.

As for other teams limiting their pool, I agree with you to a certain extent. Nepotism and cronyism is something that happens all the time and someone is more inclined to work with people they know then ones they don't. Hence the saying "You prefer to deal with the devil you know then the one you don't."

The big difference is that Language will prevent a potentially great candidate from getting a chance with the Habs, where as that barrier is not there when it comes to other teams. No way any team in the NHL would ever not interview a coach because he spoke French. Further to that, even if Management of a team has worked with others in the past, it doesn't close the door to a truly exceptional candidate. Kirk Muller has no ties with Nashville or Carolina, yet they saw something they liked in him and went for it. They didn't automatically hire a coach they worked with in the past. They sought out the best available candidate and got him. If there's no one stand out then it's normal a team would go with a guy they had a good expereince with, but I don't think you'd see a team hire a buddy over a guy they thought was a better candidate. That would just lead to them eventually losing their job and I think that's more impotant to them in the end than hiring their friend.

So many great candidates that are availble or can be made available and they won't ever get a chance. I don't care what anyone sayd, the pool of French speaking candidates is significantly smaller than of ALL the candidates. So I hope they can find a real gem out there, whether he be a rookie or seasoned coach. If not, it may be another really long year and I'm tired of losing.

shutehinside is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 09:05 AM
  #729
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
 
habs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
I'm starting to like the Patrick Roy, Julien Brisebois combo.

And now that I think of it, I could see how Molson would hire Roy as coach first before getting a GM, because I think if that is what ends up happening, I think Roy is actually going to have a huge role in player personal, trades etc, and Brisebois is a guy that does most of the leg work.

habs03 is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 09:09 AM
  #730
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
What does that mean? I want Gainey OUT just as much and maybe more that I want Gauthier out. It is common knowledge that Brisebois thinks the world out of Gainey. Why would he not want to retain Gainey? If so, I will be pissed. And I think we don't need Brisebois as much so that we'd be stick with Gainey yet again. If Brisebois comes in and starts all over with new people, so be it. But my guess would be that he won't. Reason why I don't want him.
So did Bob Gainey really become that stupid overnight? Yeah, the Gomez trade was an awful trade and turned into a disaster with Gomez's lack of production but did anyone really see Gomez's game bottoming out like it did? Gainey made a helluva lot of good moves too. I know he gets bashed relentlessly on this board but that speaks more about the current state of posters on here than anything.

FYI, Julien Brisebois isn't the only hockey executive who thinks the world of Gainey.

Schooner Guy is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 09:19 AM
  #731
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
 
habs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
So did Bob Gainey really become that stupid overnight? Yeah, the Gomez trade was an awful trade and turned into a disaster with Gomez's lack of production but did anyone really see Gomez's game bottoming out like it did? Gainey made a helluva lot of good moves too. I know he gets bashed relentlessly on this board but that speaks more about the current state of posters on here than anything.

FYI, Julien Brisebois isn't the only hockey executive who thinks the world of Gainey.
Same here, Don't get me wrong, the Gomez trade was horrible, but to me the Rivet for Gorges and 1st (Pacioretty), somewhat makes up for that. Seeing how up until this point Gomez contract hasn't affected us, I call it better than even seeing how Gorges Patches> McDonagh.

I'm not a huge fan of Gainey but he gets too much hate, other than the Gomez deal, and I think the Ribeiro trade, he did a good job.

habs03 is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 11:22 AM
  #732
Whitesnake
Steel your Habs away
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,866
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
So did Bob Gainey really become that stupid overnight? Yeah, the Gomez trade was an awful trade and turned into a disaster with Gomez's lack of production but did anyone really see Gomez's game bottoming out like it did? Gainey made a helluva lot of good moves too. I know he gets bashed relentlessly on this board but that speaks more about the current state of posters on here than anything.

FYI, Julien Brisebois isn't the only hockey executive who thinks the world of Gainey.
I believe it's time to move on. Gainey did not make permit to us to reach the other level. It's not about being stupid or anything, just take Gainey's words himself who when he left admitted that he was not up to par anymore with what was going on and he was not talking solely about the tragedy the happened to his family.

As far as Brisebois not being the only one, well great. That will mean that the day we let him go, he'll find a job in a no time elsewhere. Seems a great guy, definately one of the best Habs players of all-time, I just believe he was an average GM to say the least. We are past the average now. We need a new management with new ideas. For me, Gainey is a man of the past.

As far as Gomez, well everybody AND his mother agreed that it was a terrible trade. Geez, I'm not Gainey's biggest fan, and clearly hated that trade, YET, I found a way to give that trade some time UNLESS Gomez was going to underachieve and McDonagh become the players we once thought he'd be. So it happened. A trade like that when you knew the team wanted to get rid of him because of the salary and thinking he had given his best years already, and you gave your #2 prospect on D at the time?

By the way, surely we didn't think that Gomez would bottom out like that. Nobody did. And I'm SURE that Gainey didn't know it would end up that way. Yet, while I don't compare both guys, I'm also sure that terrible Milbury didn't think most of trades would be awful as well. Even Milbury isn't stupid enough to do a trade knowing full well it would come back to haunt him. Yet, going back to Gainey, that trade was awful then and after. He did make some good moves, just like EVERY GM that ends up being fired. I mean, even the awful coaches and GM's have their moment of brillance. Thing is, you need to recognize when it's time to let go, to change the philosophy, to change the face of the franchise so that at the very least, you have an APPEARANCE of better things to come. At this point, both Gainey and Gauthier are seen, whether you think it's justified or not, as guys that have to go. That this team that had no choice but to go up after the Houle era, didn't go as high as expected based on how experience those guys were and now that it's going downhill again, mind you surely not for a long period of time, people associate those guys with unsatisfying results.

And going back again as far as Gainey still being respected by others in the league, well of course he is. And if I'd be a fan of another team, chances are I would give him a chance to see what he can do with my team......just like tons of coaches and GM's that are being let go. Again, moving on is not necessarily a sign of how terrible you are. 'Cause most of those guys that go one day, mostly come back the other day. People thought Boudreau was finally a terrible coach for not being able to bring the Caps to the other level.....but then finds a job sooner than anybody would have expected and does a better job than expected in Anaheim.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 11:32 AM
  #733
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
 
habs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
@Whitesnake:

How much of an impact do you think Gainey still has, I mean even under PG who Gainey is very close with has been minimal it seems. I remember an interview where Gainey said that he tries to caught as many Bulldog games as possible and that is pretty much it.

I believe also during the playoff he would attend Habs games, and that this year I think he came in after the JM firing, maybe to just be a helping hand for RC for advice or something.

I don't see why it would be an issue for a possible GM like Brisebois to have Gainey by his side, and it might not be about hockey evaluation, but just about being a GM and leader.

I never got to see him Gainey play, but I do appreciate what he did as a player and as a GM as a leader, I remember standing up for Price and Patrice Brisebois while they getting it from the media.

habs03 is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 11:52 AM
  #734
Whitesnake
Steel your Habs away
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,866
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
So now it's a debate over how big a factor French is when deciding on who to hire? Fine, I'll bite. Judging by Molson saying it's "VERY IMPORTANT" and PG apologizing for hiring an Anglo, I'd say it's pretty damn important. I won't say to what degree, but I'd say it's a guarentee that the next coach will speak French. So let's say it's 99.99% of their decision. I'd be surprised if they even seriously interviewed an English only candidate. I'm sure you would be surprised as well.

As for other teams limiting their pool, I agree with you to a certain extent. Nepotism and cronyism is something that happens all the time and someone is more inclined to work with people they know then ones they don't. Hence the saying "You prefer to deal with the devil you know then the one you don't."

The big difference is that Language will prevent a potentially great candidate from getting a chance with the Habs, where as that barrier is not there when it comes to other teams. No way any team in the NHL would ever not interview a coach because he spoke French. Further to that, even if Management of a team has worked with others in the past, it doesn't close the door to a truly exceptional candidate. Kirk Muller has no ties with Nashville or Carolina, yet they saw something they liked in him and went for it. They didn't automatically hire a coach they worked with in the past. They sought out the best available candidate and got him. If there's no one stand out then it's normal a team would go with a guy they had a good expereince with, but I don't think you'd see a team hire a buddy over a guy they thought was a better candidate. That would just lead to them eventually losing their job and I think that's more impotant to them in the end than hiring their friend.

So many great candidates that are availble or can be made available and they won't ever get a chance. I don't care what anyone sayd, the pool of French speaking candidates is significantly smaller than of ALL the candidates. So I hope they can find a real gem out there, whether he be a rookie or seasoned coach. If not, it may be another really long year and I'm tired of losing.
Welcome to the reality that this market is NOT a market like any other markets. Brings different type of challenges, we don't have to work too hard to have a full building, we have to work EXTRA hard to attract franco players based on the few players already here and the pressure on them etc. We have our strengths as a market. We have our weaknesses. The way we are limiting our pool is a challenge. Others are limiting their pools in different ways. You are talking about Muller, I can talk about a dozen more who, unfortunately, like you are saying, ended up being fired at one point. You are saying we are limiting our pool which does not permit us to get the best man available. I'm saying that the fact we are limiting our pool is not THAT detrimental based on the fact that there's no such thing as an obvious best man possible. Most GM's who have hired their coaches all thought their coaches were the best man possible and ended up firing them 3 years after. Gainey said that Carbo was his best move, and fired him 2 months after. Coaches wins awards or are nominated and are fired 1 year after. So yes, OTHER criterias come into play. Us, it's language. Not a good reason for you. And you probably don't think having more locals in players isn't important as well. I think differently though NO NAMES JUST FOR NAMES BUT TALENT AS WELL. Yet, it's not about me or you. It's about the market in its majority. And even if you and me believe that in the end, the people wouldn't mind having an anglophone coach, well this market loves to follow what the medias are thinking. And those medias don't want an anglo coaching the team. So this market is made of different things. People who just follows what the medias is preaching. Or people who by their own decision, loves to see their province being represented since most of this team's tradition was based on local talent. That when you have to build your team of all time, you come with names with Plante, Roy, Lafleur, Béliveau, Richard and Serge Savard amongst your top 10. With Henri Richard being the most decorated player of all-time. And add Doug Harvey as a montrealer. Which other market can say that most of their "heroes" (some teams have a shorter history than others....I know, just saying how different the market is) are coming from their own backyard? And then there are the others who couldn't care less. Yet, they are not the most vocal ones. In this board, they are. This board does not represent the majority, unfortunately some will say. But this is the market we have. I'd personnally go with an anglo GM based on the fact that we don't see the guy that much and his job is more important in my eyes. But how Gauthier conducted this fiasco this year makes me believe that my thinking won't happen real soon. Yes, winning is more important. But before you win, you build. So, if we are patient enough so we'd build a team filled with anglos and deal with the whining TILL we win, fine. Just think that it won't happen based on the fact that you can't never guarantee a win. So they'll buy time. By giving what people wants. Some local representation. THAT'S OUR MARKET. Yes, it's tougher that way. Though, even then, we have the ability to spend to the cap. We have the possibility to give to players an interesting city to live in. Though we have the taxes and so on......No cities are perfect, no organization is perfect aside from the Wings....well perfect in his own way. They don't win the cup every year, but did win more than others and are always in the mix. Others have challenges to deal with. And personnally, I also believe that we are making up some of those challenges. All this stupidity about ALL the players having to speak french when it was never true. All this stupidity about players having ALL the pressure in the world when it's not true and all.

In the end, no I'm not exactly responding to your post. Just saying that we totally disagree on the subject which is prett obvious now. And that in the end, it's a question of understanding the market you are in.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 12:54 PM
  #735
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Welcome to the reality that this market is NOT a market like any other markets. Brings different type of challenges, we don't have to work too hard to have a full building, we have to work EXTRA hard to attract franco players based on the few players already here and the pressure on them etc. We have our strengths as a market. We have our weaknesses. The way we are limiting our pool is a challenge. Others are limiting their pools in different ways. You are talking about Muller, I can talk about a dozen more who, unfortunately, like you are saying, ended up being fired at one point. You are saying we are limiting our pool which does not permit us to get the best man available. I'm saying that the fact we are limiting our pool is not THAT detrimental based on the fact that there's no such thing as an obvious best man possible. Most GM's who have hired their coaches all thought their coaches were the best man possible and ended up firing them 3 years after. Gainey said that Carbo was his best move, and fired him 2 months after. Coaches wins awards or are nominated and are fired 1 year after. So yes, OTHER criterias come into play. Us, it's language. Not a good reason for you. And you probably don't think having more locals in players isn't important as well. I think differently though NO NAMES JUST FOR NAMES BUT TALENT AS WELL. Yet, it's not about me or you. It's about the market in its majority. And even if you and me believe that in the end, the people wouldn't mind having an anglophone coach, well this market loves to follow what the medias are thinking. And those medias don't want an anglo coaching the team. So this market is made of different things. People who just follows what the medias is preaching. Or people who by their own decision, loves to see their province being represented since most of this team's tradition was based on local talent. That when you have to build your team of all time, you come with names with Plante, Roy, Lafleur, Béliveau, Richard and Serge Savard amongst your top 10. With Henri Richard being the most decorated player of all-time. And add Doug Harvey as a montrealer. Which other market can say that most of their "heroes" (some teams have a shorter history than others....I know, just saying how different the market is) are coming from their own backyard? And then there are the others who couldn't care less. Yet, they are not the most vocal ones. In this board, they are. This board does not represent the majority, unfortunately some will say. But this is the market we have. I'd personnally go with an anglo GM based on the fact that we don't see the guy that much and his job is more important in my eyes. But how Gauthier conducted this fiasco this year makes me believe that my thinking won't happen real soon. Yes, winning is more important. But before you win, you build. So, if we are patient enough so we'd build a team filled with anglos and deal with the whining TILL we win, fine. Just think that it won't happen based on the fact that you can't never guarantee a win. So they'll buy time. By giving what people wants. Some local representation. THAT'S OUR MARKET. Yes, it's tougher that way. Though, even then, we have the ability to spend to the cap. We have the possibility to give to players an interesting city to live in. Though we have the taxes and so on......No cities are perfect, no organization is perfect aside from the Wings....well perfect in his own way. They don't win the cup every year, but did win more than others and are always in the mix. Others have challenges to deal with. And personnally, I also believe that we are making up some of those challenges. All this stupidity about ALL the players having to speak french when it was never true. All this stupidity about players having ALL the pressure in the world when it's not true and all.

In the end, no I'm not exactly responding to your post. Just saying that we totally disagree on the subject which is prett obvious now. And that in the end, it's a question of understanding the market you are in.
Congratulations to have spend so much time answering that poster. Your last line says it all. But I really doubt he can understand this basic fact.


Last edited by habitue*: 03-28-2012 at 01:01 PM.
habitue* is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 03:11 PM
  #736
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
So did Bob Gainey really become that stupid overnight? Yeah, the Gomez trade was an awful trade and turned into a disaster with Gomez's lack of production but did anyone really see Gomez's game bottoming out like it did? Gainey made a helluva lot of good moves too. I know he gets bashed relentlessly on this board but that speaks more about the current state of posters on here than anything.

FYI, Julien Brisebois isn't the only hockey executive who thinks the world of Gainey.
People around here like to pretend they know. But they don't. When Gainey acquired Gomer, he did not expect Andrei Markov to miss +170 games of the next three seasons. One cannot dissassociate this from what happened to both Gomer and the Habs. It skews the perception as the intended results needed the #1 D to do his thing. It as if, suddenly, GMs don't build teams around their best player. That's what Gainey tried to do, and by all accounts, it did work wonders when they were both there in the latter half of the 09-10 season. Does this excuse Gomez's performances, or lackthereof? Absolutely not. But to chasticize Gainey for getting a piece that did work inside the complete puzzle, is just amateurish.

WS better be prepared to be pissed, because contrarily to him, Molson is fully aware of the train of thought and pragmatic approach behind Gainey's acquisitions. Knows that a great part of the hardship of the last season has been a snowball effect of Markov's absence, no matter how you wanna slice it.

I also want Roy. Him and Carbo would make a great duo behind the bench. And Julien Brisebois is the obvious choice to replace Goats if he's gone.

But those expecting Gainey to be gone shoudn't hold their breath. Ok well, some of them should. They'll better prepare the color of their skin for when they learn he's still there.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 03:19 PM
  #737
Kjell Dahlin
Registered User
 
Kjell Dahlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Québec, Québec
Posts: 2,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
People around here like to pretend they know. But they don't. When Gainey acquired Gomer, he did not expect Andrei Markov to miss +170 games of the next three seasons. One cannot dissassociate this from what happened to both Gomer and the Habs. It skews the perception as the intended results needed the #1 D to do his thing. It as if, suddenly, GMs don't build teams around their best player. That's what Gainey tried to do, and by all accounts, it did work wonders when they were both there in the latter half of the 09-10 season. Does this excuse Gomez's performances, or lackthereof? Absolutely not. But to chasticize Gainey for getting a piece that did work inside the complete puzzle, is just amateurish.

WS better be prepared to be pissed, because contrarily to him, Molson is fully aware of the train of thought and pragmatic approach behind Gainey's acquisitions. Knows that a great part of the hardship of the last season has been a snowball effect of Markov's absence, no matter how you wanna slice it.

I also want Roy. Him and Carbo would make a great duo behind the bench. And Julien Brisebois is the obvious choice to replace Goats if he's gone.

But those expecting Gainey to be gone shoudn't hold their breath. Ok well, some of them should. They'll better prepare the color of their skin for when they learn he's still there.
Gainey gave away McDonagh to replace Koivu by Gomez!

It was a brain dead move (Milbury category) and there is nothing "amateurish" ("...But to chasticize Gainey for getting a piece that did work inside the complete puzzle, is just amateurish...") in saying so.

Kjell Dahlin is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 03:35 PM
  #738
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin View Post
Gainey gave away McDonagh to replace Koivu by Gomez!

It was a brain dead move (Milbury category) and there is nothing "amateurish" ("...But to chasticize Gainey for getting a piece that did work inside the complete puzzle, is just amateurish...") in saying so.
Shrug. Yes it is amateurish. Just the fact you use Koivu in this shows how little you understand about the situation at that moment. The fact you bring McDonagh as an argument further shows this. We already had a much more complete D in our prospect pool, and McD's value was low at the time as he was not reaching expectations at the time. The fact you use hindsight as an argument tells me that, as always, I shouldn't even read your responses, a waste of time, repeating obvious facts which I shouldn't even have to repeat. You can repeat your 'Milbury' 'koivu' and 'McD' arguments all you want, you're the one seeing only ONE side of the issue.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 03:57 PM
  #739
charlie
Registered User
 
charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Shrug. Yes it is amateurish. Just the fact you use Koivu in this shows how little you understand about the situation at that moment. The fact you bring McDonagh as an argument further shows this. We already had a much more complete D in our prospect pool, and McD's value was low at the time as he was not reaching expectations at the time. The fact you use hindsight as an argument tells me that, as always, I shouldn't even read your responses, a waste of time, repeating obvious facts which I shouldn't even have to repeat. You can repeat your 'Milbury' 'koivu' and 'McD' arguments all you want, you're the one seeing only ONE side of the issue.
I still dont believe that the trade for Gomez made Cammy, Gionta, Gill and Moen sign here...........and when all is said and done it was fun but I would take McD over all of that and more

charlie is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 04:15 PM
  #740
Whitesnake
Steel your Habs away
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,866
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Shrug. Yes it is amateurish. Just the fact you use Koivu in this shows how little you understand about the situation at that moment. The fact you bring McDonagh as an argument further shows this. We already had a much more complete D in our prospect pool, and McD's value was low at the time as he was not reaching expectations at the time. The fact you use hindsight as an argument tells me that, as always, I shouldn't even read your responses, a waste of time, repeating obvious facts which I shouldn't even have to repeat. You can repeat your 'Milbury' 'koivu' and 'McD' arguments all you want, you're the one seeing only ONE side of the issue.
Geez Ozy, you're just falling in the trap I fell in and in the trap this organization keeps falling for such a long time and never learned from it.....how McDonagh's value was LOW and wasn't reaching expectations? It was his 2nd year in College, he had a little more points offensively yet, he wasn't playing with an offensive juggernaut as a team AND was asked to play way more defensively by the look of his game which he tried to do but wasn't that prepare to do so. And he had an average WJC.....but you justify that trade with that? And whether you find we have a deep pool, he was still # as far as the D's are concerned based on his ordinairy season and Subban's great improvement. But you don't give up on a guy like that after naming him, 2 seasons before, one of the most complete d-man that will end up in the 1st pairing and so on. And trading him for a guy everybody knew was on his way out of the Rags thanks to the ratio value/contract and the fact the Rags prefered an injury prone guy like Gaborik to him. And I don't know what's so wrong in bringing Koivu in that equation. Gainey thought it was time to move on. So we had to replace him with a centerman.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 04:22 PM
  #741
Hugo Sham
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 10,801
vCash: 500
bottom line after the tragic death of his daughter gainey went AWOL..he was asked to take leave by Gillette, he didn't and handed over a lot of his work to Gauthier who dropped the ball over and over again as a pro scout...
melnick's blog a couple of months ago was telling when he relayed a story from Pierre Maguire who called him and told him to reach out to Bob Gainey and tell him he (Maguire) was available to give feedback on pro players...because he thought habs brass had lost its mind on that trade - which they did

Hugo Sham is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 04:28 PM
  #742
Kjell Dahlin
Registered User
 
Kjell Dahlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Québec, Québec
Posts: 2,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Shrug. Yes it is amateurish. Just the fact you use Koivu in this shows how little you understand about the situation at that moment. The fact you bring McDonagh as an argument further shows this. We already had a much more complete D in our prospect pool, and McD's value was low at the time as he was not reaching expectations at the time. The fact you use hindsight as an argument tells me that, as always, I shouldn't even read your responses, a waste of time, repeating obvious facts which I shouldn't even have to repeat. You can repeat your 'Milbury' 'koivu' and 'McD' arguments all you want, you're the one seeing only ONE side of the issue.
Hindsight? From day one this trade had brain dead written all over it.

Btw... sad to see that you consider my responses as a waste of time; from my part I will always read your posts: I SO miss your weird posts related to spreading the seeds of knowledge, enlightenment, opening our eyes, the system must be changed... they were GOLD!

Posts of the year nominees!

Kjell Dahlin is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 04:39 PM
  #743
bcv
My french sucks.
 
bcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,003
vCash: 500
I'd like Molson to step down as President, or to name some with experience to make the hockey decisions. I'm not really comfortable him hiring GMs and whatnot. He doesn't have any experience, and I doubt he has full knowledge of what to do.

bcv is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 05:11 PM
  #744
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Welcome to the reality that this market is NOT a market like any other markets. Brings different type of challenges, we don't have to work too hard to have a full building, we have to work EXTRA hard to attract franco players based on the few players already here and the pressure on them etc. We have our strengths as a market. We have our weaknesses. The way we are limiting our pool is a challenge. Others are limiting their pools in different ways. You are talking about Muller, I can talk about a dozen more who, unfortunately, like you are saying, ended up being fired at one point. You are saying we are limiting our pool which does not permit us to get the best man available. I'm saying that the fact we are limiting our pool is not THAT detrimental based on the fact that there's no such thing as an obvious best man possible. Most GM's who have hired their coaches all thought their coaches were the best man possible and ended up firing them 3 years after. Gainey said that Carbo was his best move, and fired him 2 months after. Coaches wins awards or are nominated and are fired 1 year after. So yes, OTHER criterias come into play. Us, it's language. Not a good reason for you. And you probably don't think having more locals in players isn't important as well. I think differently though NO NAMES JUST FOR NAMES BUT TALENT AS WELL. Yet, it's not about me or you. It's about the market in its majority. And even if you and me believe that in the end, the people wouldn't mind having an anglophone coach, well this market loves to follow what the medias are thinking. And those medias don't want an anglo coaching the team. So this market is made of different things. People who just follows what the medias is preaching. Or people who by their own decision, loves to see their province being represented since most of this team's tradition was based on local talent. That when you have to build your team of all time, you come with names with Plante, Roy, Lafleur, Béliveau, Richard and Serge Savard amongst your top 10. With Henri Richard being the most decorated player of all-time. And add Doug Harvey as a montrealer. Which other market can say that most of their "heroes" (some teams have a shorter history than others....I know, just saying how different the market is) are coming from their own backyard? And then there are the others who couldn't care less. Yet, they are not the most vocal ones. In this board, they are. This board does not represent the majority, unfortunately some will say. But this is the market we have. I'd personnally go with an anglo GM based on the fact that we don't see the guy that much and his job is more important in my eyes. But how Gauthier conducted this fiasco this year makes me believe that my thinking won't happen real soon. Yes, winning is more important. But before you win, you build. So, if we are patient enough so we'd build a team filled with anglos and deal with the whining TILL we win, fine. Just think that it won't happen based on the fact that you can't never guarantee a win. So they'll buy time. By giving what people wants. Some local representation. THAT'S OUR MARKET. Yes, it's tougher that way. Though, even then, we have the ability to spend to the cap. We have the possibility to give to players an interesting city to live in. Though we have the taxes and so on......No cities are perfect, no organization is perfect aside from the Wings....well perfect in his own way. They don't win the cup every year, but did win more than others and are always in the mix. Others have challenges to deal with. And personnally, I also believe that we are making up some of those challenges. All this stupidity about ALL the players having to speak french when it was never true. All this stupidity about players having ALL the pressure in the world when it's not true and all.

In the end, no I'm not exactly responding to your post. Just saying that we totally disagree on the subject which is prett obvious now. And that in the end, it's a question of understanding the market you are in.
That's exactly what I've said. We're in a different market, one that has its own particular issues. There's no doubt about it. All I've said from the very beginning is that it's a ridiculous proposition to handcuff yourself even further than you already are by not putting yourself in the best possible position to bring in excellence at every level.

For some posters here, I do absolutely know the market Montreal is in. I lived there for nearly 3 decades and know it well. That doesn't change the fact it's still wrong to HAVE to choose a coach who speaks French just to appease the media. Don't kid yourselves, it has nothing at all to do with the fans. We could have an Indian speaking, British Earl as head coach, GM and president who also played back up goalie if that meant we'de be consistent Cup contenders and not a single "FAN" would say boo. They media types would be pissed they'd have to break out their pocket translators.

At the end of the day, winning cures all, unites everyone and makes everything and anything ok. Anyone who wants to argue with that can gfo. So if we know winning is everything, in any market, than why not go for the best we can get at every level so we can have the best chance of winning?l

I know the market wants a French coach at any cost, I'm not that easy. I want the best coach so that we can start winning again. If he's French, English, Portuguese, I care not. I want to win, and so should all react fans. Getting the best available candidate helps everyone, except people who have a separate agenda.If anyone can't understand that, then I feel sorry for. You've probably become to accustomed to mediocrity to care anymore.

shutehinside is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 07:02 PM
  #745
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
That's exactly what I've said. We're in a different market, one that has its own particular issues. There's no doubt about it. All I've said from the very beginning is that it's a ridiculous proposition to handcuff yourself even further than you already are by not putting yourself in the best possible position to bring in excellence at every level.

For some posters here, I do absolutely know the market Montreal is in. I lived there for nearly 3 decades and know it well. That doesn't change the fact it's still wrong to HAVE to choose a coach who speaks French just to appease the media. Don't kid yourselves, it has nothing at all to do with the fans. We could have an Indian speaking, British Earl as head coach, GM and president who also played back up goalie if that meant we'de be consistent Cup contenders and not a single "FAN" would say boo. They media types would be pissed they'd have to break out their pocket translators.

At the end of the day, winning cures all, unites everyone and makes everything and anything ok. Anyone who wants to argue with that can gfo. So if we know winning is everything, in any market, than why not go for the best we can get at every level so we can have the best chance of winning?l

I know the market wants a French coach at any cost, I'm not that easy. I want the best coach so that we can start winning again. If he's French, English, Portuguese, I care not. I want to win, and so should all react fans. Getting the best available candidate helps everyone, except people who have a separate agenda.If anyone can't understand that, then I feel sorry for. You've probably become to accustomed to mediocrity to care anymore.
1- You keep using the word "French" while fans would be happy with a BILINGUAL coach, a guy willing to learn a bit of the language. By the way you're thinkink,, it seems no Anglophones can or want to learn a second language.

2- You never came up with a list of available, experienced NHL coaches who could be available next Summer

3- Are Vigneault, Julien, Martin, Boucher, mediocre coaches ?

habitue* is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 07:05 PM
  #746
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,210
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
1- You keep using the word "French" while fans would be happy with a BILINGUAL coach, a guy willing to learn a bit of the language. By the way you're thinkink,, it seems no Anglophones can or want to learn a second language.

2- You never came up with a list of available, experienced NHL coaches who could be available next Summer
Sure all us Anglos in Montreal can speck French almost fluenty, well 90% on good days . But sometimes the best guy is from somwhere else, we can't expect the best guy to speak French! We want to win here, correct? I want him to concentrate on Hockey not French class?

Player 61 is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 07:08 PM
  #747
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,142
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=MaxPac67;46881777]Sure all us Anglos in Montreal can speck French almost fluenty, well 90% on good days . But sometimes the best guy is from somwhere else, we can't expect the best guy to speak French! We want to win here, correct? I want him to concentrate on Hockey not French class?[/QUOTE]

These headcoaches are way more intelligent and able to learn than you think. 3 to 5 hours of lessons per week won't ruin their season.

And where in hell is that best AVAILABLE guy ?

habitue* is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 07:10 PM
  #748
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,210
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
[QUOTE=habitue;46881975]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPac67 View Post
Sure all us Anglos in Montreal can speck French almost fluenty, well 90% on good days . But sometimes the best guy is from somwhere else, we can't expect the best guy to speak French! We want to win here, correct? I want him to concentrate on Hockey not French class?[/QUOTE]

These headcoaches are way more intelligent and able to learn than you think. 3 to 5 hours of lessons per week won't ruin their season.

And whre the hell is that best AVAILABLE guy ?
Well if it's SO! IMPORTANT! I guess. This is Hockey, not the National Assembly.

Player 61 is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 07:14 PM
  #749
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,142
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=MaxPac67;46882125]
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post

Well if it's SO! IMPORTANT! I guess. This is Hockey, not the National Assembly.
Please read the long Whitesnake reply few post above.

maybe you will FINALLY understand.

habitue* is offline  
Old
03-28-2012, 11:48 PM
  #750
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Shrug. Yes it is amateurish. Just the fact you use Koivu in this shows how little you understand about the situation at that moment. The fact you bring McDonagh as an argument further shows this. We already had a much more complete D in our prospect pool, and McD's value was low at the time as he was not reaching expectations at the time. The fact you use hindsight as an argument tells me that, as always, I shouldn't even read your responses, a waste of time, repeating obvious facts which I shouldn't even have to repeat. You can repeat your 'Milbury' 'koivu' and 'McD' arguments all you want, you're the one seeing only ONE side of the issue.
When was the Habs ever deep enough at the D position to trade prospects?

Kimota 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 10:12 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.