1. If Roy wants Coach and GM or assistant GM, then he's a fool for over reaching. That alone disqualifies him for me as a coach or GM.
2. Then, if he wants coach and GM, and you only take him as coach, he'll be pissed off and counterproductive, undermining the GM, waiting for his chance.
Conclusion: If Roy asks for more than coach, don't go near him. If Molson is smart, he will not hire Roy as coach if Roy is asking for Coach and more. End of.
The idea of being a GM for Roy surely means that he wants the final say on any moves that are being made. Yes, chances are his GM will talk to him about what he thinks and all, in the end though, it's possible that GM use his veto to do whatever which is probaby what Roy don't want, hence being a GM as well where he'll have the final say. So that's why having some guys around might actually do some of the job he doesn't care that much which is the screening and all. Yet in the end, if it's just a question of final say...I don't see what is the problem.
As far as Robinson goes....I don't see the guy as a natural born head coach. An awesome and a MUST for defencemen but head coach? Don't see it.
WS I respect your knowledge for sure, but your thinking on this thing is really muddled.
There can be no debate, the GM runs the team, and should not have to ask Patrick if he can go for a pee. The first time Roy as coach disagrees with the GM on a major decision, the Habs are dead.
You cannot run an organization without absolutely clear roles, and blurring of those roles. Cannot be done, it is a disaster to think you can.
If Roy cannot accept being JUST the coach, he is disqualified from consideration immediately. End of.
I am right in this, and you will never convince me otherwise.
WS I respect your knowledge for sure, but your thinking on this thing is really muddled.
There can be no debate, the GM runs the team, and should not have to ask Patrick if he can go for a pee. The first time Roy as coach disagrees with the GM on a major decision, the Habs are dead.
You cannot run an organization without absolutely clear roles, and blurring of those roles. Cannot be done, it is a disaster to think you can.
If Roy cannot accept being JUST the coach, he is disqualified from consideration immediately. End of.
I am right in this, and you will never convince me otherwise.
Well first, it's not about what I think. It's about the "rumor" that Roy would want both jobs. Now, if true, we need to figure out or have an opinion whether we will be better as a team to have him around doing both jobs, or just have 2 guys OTHER than him doing it. What people just forget to think is that we do not have the right to choose ANY other 2 guys....we need to go with who is available. So for GM's, there seems to be a few candidates. But for coach, and who is bilingual, who is out there? Would people feel THAT much better with a combination of Loiselle-Hartley than with Roy doing both jobs? A Roy that WOULD be surrounded by other experienced guys that would help him down the road? Sorry, whether you think you are RIGHT, there's actually nobody who is right 'cause we have no idea how it could play out. We might think we know. But I would know it more if I would interview those guys. I would know more if I talk to Roy and ask him his plans and find out how he thinks he'll be able to work both jobs while being a rookie at it. And then, I'd have a better idea about it.
And no reason to go to the extreme, 'cause in the end hockey decisions are indeed talked amongst the coach and his GM. But if Roy wants the final say....he'll have to be the GM for it. I know that what is important to find out is that Roy needs to open for help. If he solely wants to be a dictator, it wouldn't work for me. Yet, having said all of that, people should wake up and understand that there are no GREAT AND SUREFIRE candidates that are available out there. And frankly, both jobs, you'll never know whether you did right till you look back on it 2 or 3 years down the road....
I'm surprised by the lack of info since this all started... what I think we have now: Lebrun confirmed that Bergevin and Loiselle were asked to interview. It is also confirmed that Brisson and Damphousse are not candidates. There was a somewhat sketchy rumour that Brisebois doesn't want the job. Anything else? Any info/rumours on whether Mackasey, McGuire, Martin or anyone else was invited to interview?
I'm surprised by the lack of info since this all started... what I think we have now: Lebrun confirmed that Bergevin and Loiselle were asked to interview. It is also confirmed that Brisson and Damphousse are not candidates. There was a somewhat sketchy rumour that Brisebois doesn't want the job. Anything else? Any info/rumours on whether Mackasey, McGuire, Martin or anyone else was invited to interview?
I don't think they have interviewed anybody yet ...
Things will start picking up now that our season is over and some other team's season as well.
I'm surprised by the lack of info since this all started... what I think we have now: Lebrun confirmed that Bergevin and Loiselle were asked to interview. It is also confirmed that Brisson and Damphousse are not candidates. There was a somewhat sketchy rumour that Brisebois doesn't want the job. Anything else? Any info/rumours on whether Mackasey, McGuire, Martin or anyone else was invited to interview?
If in the end it comes down to Bergevin vs Loiselle, you sure as hell hope that Bergevin gets the job. Tough to think that a guy who is raised in a winning team wouldn't know how to approach things compared to a guy who has no idea what winning means..... Yet, the recipe for winning by the Hawks cannot apply the same for the Habs. So we'd see if Bergevin can be versatile enough.
One thing that scares me though....if Bergevin is the GM.....does he made Denis Savard the coach? Do not want.
Well first, it's not about what I think. It's about the "rumor" that Roy would want both jobs. Now, if true, we need to figure out or have an opinion whether we will be better as a team to have him around doing both jobs, or just have 2 guys OTHER than him doing it. What people just forget to think is that we do not have the right to choose ANY other 2 guys....we need to go with who is available. So for GM's, there seems to be a few candidates. But for coach, and who is bilingual, who is out there? Would people feel THAT much better with a combination of Loiselle-Hartley than with Roy doing both jobs? A Roy that WOULD be surrounded by other experienced guys that would help him down the road? Sorry, whether you think you are RIGHT, there's actually nobody who is right 'cause we have no idea how it could play out. We might think we know. But I would know it more if I would interview those guys. I would know more if I talk to Roy and ask him his plans and find out how he thinks he'll be able to work both jobs while being a rookie at it. And then, I'd have a better idea about it.
And no reason to go to the extreme, 'cause in the end hockey decisions are indeed talked amongst the coach and his GM. But if Roy wants the final say....he'll have to be the GM for it. I know that what is important to find out is that Roy needs to open for help. If he solely wants to be a dictator, it wouldn't work for me. Yet, having said all of that, people should wake up and understand that there are no GREAT AND SUREFIRE candidates that are available out there. And frankly, both jobs, you'll never know whether you did right till you look back on it 2 or 3 years down the road....
Good points here .. I am not concerned about the GM job, the list is extensive and filled with candidates that you can make a case for ... really you could pick 6-7 people who could be named GM and you would have a good case that they deserved the job.
For coach, that is where I am concerned. There don't seem to be a lot of good experienced french speaking candidates out there.
If Julien or Vigneault get fired, I would jump on that right away, otherwise who other than Roy is out there are legitimate coaching candidate for head coach? I don't see more than 3-4 names really.
When you limit yourself to such a small pool because of a requirement, it is kind of hard to get the best candidate.
But then when you don't limit yourselves, and you see that the only name's that is being talked about is Jim Nill and yet the guy is probably not going anywhere....what really are you missing? Yes, I have Jim Benning on my list. How is Benning though that much better than Bergevin? Who else are we missing? Yes, there are surely unknown guys from our side that we are missing....but who says there are not unknown bilingual guys we are missing as well?
If his team doesnt reach the final if he will get fired for sure
I would. He's a good coach. He's a much better coach than he was in Montreal, and even then he wasn't bad. He just had some really really ****** teams.
He's been with the Canucks for 6 years. If they don't get to the Cup finals this year Gillis may decide it's time for a change (i.e. new voice) especially if Dave Tippett becomes available.
We just need to wait until the Stanley Cup playoffs are over, and we need to see what happens with Phoenix. There's no rush to hire a coach. It can wait until after the draft.
I'm surprised by the lack of info since this all started... what I think we have now: Lebrun confirmed that Bergevin and Loiselle were asked to interview. It is also confirmed that Brisson and Damphousse are not candidates. There was a somewhat sketchy rumour that Brisebois doesn't want the job. Anything else? Any info/rumours on whether Mackasey, McGuire, Martin or anyone else was invited to interview?
No news is good news.
Let them work and choose the guy they feel is the best for this organization and this hockey environement.
Any one know of a site that has contract information for GMs and their assistants? I'd like to know if there are any of them at the end of their contracts..
There are 29 other GMs and I'm assuming 29 assistant GMs. If they are in the final year of their contract they would be the first to be looked at in my opinion.
Any one know of a site that has contract information for GMs and their assistants? I'd like to know if there are any of them at the end of their contracts..
There are 29 other GMs and I'm assuming 29 assistant GMs. If they are in the final year of their contract they would be the first to be looked at in my opinion.
But where to look???
Usually, organizations allow their assistant-GM's and assistant coaches to pursue their carreer elsewhere if the are offered a GM or headcoaching job. Contracts are made to be broken if it can accomodate the future of a guy.
But then when you don't limit yourselves, and you see that the only name's that is being talked about is Jim Nill and yet the guy is probably not going anywhere....what really are you missing? Yes, I have Jim Benning on my list. How is Benning though that much better than Bergevin? Who else are we missing? Yes, there are surely unknown guys from our side that we are missing....but who says there are not unknown bilingual guys we are missing as well?
Fenton comes to mind. As does the assistant GM Jason Botterill (assuming he'd want to move) of the Pens who have made some great acquisitions over the years with both UFA signings and trades(Dupuis, Hossa, Neal, Michalek, Martin, Kunitz, Sullivan). Botterill was a pro-scout during the Kunitz and Hossa acquisitons and retained those responsibilities upon his promotion to assistant GM in 2009.
How will you ever know if guys like Fenton, Nill, Botterill and Fenning are worse than the francophone candidates revealed so far if you never even offer them an interview?
The habs are doing themselves a dis-service by not even extending an interview to non-bilingual candidates. The only way to know if they do not fit the bill in terms of actual hockey management is to actually interview them and listen to their vision.
You ask how is Benning better than Bergevin. The way to find this out is by interviewing both, but because of a non-hockey requirement, one of these candidates is immediately disqualified from the hiring process. So we would never know if Benning is a better candidate since he isn't even being offered a chance to express to habs management why he would better than the limited pool they are looking at.
But then when you don't limit yourselves, and you see that the only name's that is being talked about is Jim Nill and yet the guy is probably not going anywhere....what really are you missing? Yes, I have Jim Benning on my list. How is Benning though that much better than Bergevin? Who else are we missing? Yes, there are surely unknown guys from our side that we are missing....but who says there are not unknown bilingual guys we are missing as well?
Since I don't think Nill is possible anymore, the guy I hope they interview is Fenton. He's been assitant GM for years with David Poile and is supposed to be highly regarded around the league. I got to admit, I do believe that they will miss on some good candidates if they stick to the french factor, and I hope that this time they do it right opposed to the last time when they just promoted Gauthier. I'd just like the best man for the job, regardless of some outside reasons.
BTW, the guy I would be surprised the less if he was named GM of the Habs is Brisebois, and I would not be very thrilled by that. Anyway I think it's going to be an interesting race, assuming we get some info to speculate on all day long haha.
Fenton comes to mind. As does the assistant GM Jason Botterill (assuming he'd want to move) of the Pens who have made some great acquisitions over the years with both UFA signings and trades(Hossa, Neal, Michalek, Martin, Kunitz, Sullivan).
How will you ever know if guys like Fenton, Nill, Botterill and Fenning are worse than the francophone candidates revealed so far if you never even offer them an interview?
The habs are doing themselves a dis-service by not even extending an interview to non-bilingual candidates. The only way to know if they do not fit the bill in terms of actual hockey management is to actually interview them and listen to their vision.
You ask how is Benning better than Bergevin. The way to find this out is by interviewing both, but because of a non-hockey requirement, one of these candidates is immediately disqualified from the hiring process. So we would never know if Benning is a better candidate since he isn't even being offered a chance to express to habs management why he would better than the limited pool they are looking at.
And like I keep saying, other teams keeps limiting their pool as well based on the fact that it's a lot about friendship and that francophones were surely not interviewed so other teams missed on a few candidates as well. Thing is, we will never know who were interviewed or not. People will then assume, if a franco is hire, that we didn't go after the best guy. 'Cause that's always what's about around here.
And like I keep saying, other teams keeps limiting their pool as well based on the fact that it's a lot about friendship and that francophones were surely not interviewed so other teams missed on a few candidates as well. Thing is, we will never know who were interviewed or not. People will then assume, if a franco is hire, that we didn't go after the best guy. 'Cause that's always what's about around here.
Considering that the only names that have been released by insiders are francophones(not even people that are bilingual), I would say that the habs as of right now are limiting their pool and not necessarily going after the best guy. They are going after the best candidate in a pool of francophone candidates.
Saying that the habs should go for the best candidate is not equivalent to saying that the habs should hire a non-francophone. It means that everyone should have an equal chance at an interview, french or not, bilingual or not. If after that an entire process the best-candidate is french, you hire him. If it's an anglo, you hire him. But you'll only know if you extend interviews to all of them! It's a very simple concept.
Considering that the only names that have been released by insiders are francophones(not even people that are bilingual), I would say that the habs as of right now are limiting their pool and not necessarily going after the best guy. They are going after the best candidate in a pool of francophone candidates.
Saying that the habs should go for the best candidate is not equivalent to saying that the habs should hire a non-francophone. It means that everyone should have an equal chance at an interview, french or not, bilingual or not. If after that an entire process the best-candidate is french, you hire him. If it's an anglo, you hire him. But you'll only know if you extend interviews to all of them! It's a very simple concept.
Insiders don't always have exactly what is going on. For a team like Montreal, it is absolutely possible that some candidates ask that their name will not be revealed. Not sure why we keep bashing journalists for their false infos and suddenly find them extremely accurate in all their infos. Add to the fact that the process is probably not done yet.
As far as going franco, well again, we are hammering on a subject as if we'd be against the sun rising. That's the market in Montreal. That is it. They've tried doing it with Cunneyworth, see the result as far as distraction. I keep hearing people saying that we can't win the cup every year anymore. Well so to have the leverage to build a strong team, you need time. And you will have it by going with competent people that ends up speaking the language of the majority. Again, yes, you limit the pool. Everybody does in their own way. I guess our fault is that it's pretty obvious. Others by going with friends seems to be able to hide it more. Now, we limit our pool by do we settle for average candidates compared to extremely competent ones? Unless we wouldn't go for a available Ken Holland.....my answer is no.
See, yes it is simple. The larger your pool, the better chance of a great candidate you could have. Yet, this is like saying that at the draft, you should NEVER draft for needs and always BPA 'cause by going with needs, you CLEARLY limit your pool. Well the greatest head scout in the league had already admitted that he went for NEEDS in 2006, 2007 and 2009.
The point whitesnake is that you won't know who is better if you do not extend an interview to all the candidates. I want the best of all possible candidates, not the best from a limited pool. It may very well be that the one from the limited pool is the best of all, but you would only know so by interviewing all. Molson says he wants to return to excellence, but if he wants to do so, he better look at all possible options and not just a specific range of options amongst all possible.
If he doesn't look at Fenton, Nill, Benning and Botterill, Molson would have failed in this portion of team building in my eyes.
The habs need to look at all candiates; bilingual or not!
Yet, the recipe for winning by the Hawks cannot apply the same for the Habs. So we'd see if Bergevin can be versatile enough.
