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

Yes am going there: Is Gauthier a bit vindicated?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-08-2013, 09:09 AM
  #126
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,089
vCash: 500
Some of Bergevin's best acquisitions aren't on the ice:

Head coach: Therrien
Assistants: Gallant, Daigneault
Player Development Coach: Brisebois
Assistant GM: Dudley

It's too soon to compare Gauthier and Bergevin's player acquisitions, but the entire organization supporting them has changed. That's very meaningful.

Lshap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 09:21 AM
  #127
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
 
habs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,407
vCash: 500
Issue for me to really judge Gauthier is how do you judge him as being an Ast GM?

Not in all cases do GM and Ast GM agree on things, so its really hard to judge what Gauthier might have been in favour off, and not, example, if he is blamed for Gomez, does he get credit for the Gorges for Rivet trade? And in regards to ppl saying Gainey was slowly giving up his duties, its hard to believe, first the only thing about this I've seen is an artice by the edmonton journal, and say the reason for it is because of the work load Gainey had as GM and dealing with the death of his daughter. My problem with that, if it was already too much work, why would Gainey fire Carbo and take on more duties as coach just 2 months before making the Gomez deal?

Also it seems like no one in the orgnazation felt like that, because I remember in the press conference of Gainey stepping down, Pierre Boivin said at the time, that the topic came up only because he offered Gainey a contract extension.

habs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 09:43 AM
  #128
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 36,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
He saw where the team was headed with the anchors from Gainey and set the team for a quick turnaround. Like I said before MB will benefit from Gauthiers moves for years, he was left with an excellent core, pile of draft picks and had a chance to bring in all of his own people. Gauthier took the fall and the ignorant rage of the fanbase.
He didn't see Jack ****. He was positive Markov would be healthy and when he wasn't he saddled us with Kaberle. A series of reactionary trades to try to get 8th but you'd have us believe he tried to tank.

Just give it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Should he get "credit" for not throwing away prospects? No, but how many people here claimed Pacioretty was a bust and wanted him gone. How many other GMs would have traded him after his "I'd rather play in Hamilton" comments? Gauthier deserves some credit for sticking with him, just like he deserves some credit for sticking with Markov and for not letting Plekanec hit UFA.
I don't remember thinking he was a bust. He was frustrated but that's par for the course with prospects. Silly to give him credit for not trading away Max.

And actually the only GM that I can think of who would punish a player for saying something like that is Guathier himself. I'm actually surprised he wasn't dealt...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andros777 View Post
How can signing Cole and tanking the season both be good moves at the same time? Those moves work in opposite directions. It looks even worse considering we JUST dumped Cole because he sucks. Thank goodness we were ABLE to.

Gauthier only "threw in the towel" when it was clear that no power on heaven or earth could get this team into the playoffs. He had been acquiring players like Kaberle and Nokelainen for that purpose and he only started dumping guys at the last minute. Luckily the team sucked enough to bottom out completely no matter what Gauthier did. The guy did not know if he was coming or going and honestly I wish he was here right now so I could throw a boot at him.
Right up to the very end with the Cammy deal... and even that one was a had scratcher since Bourque was STILL suspended. PG tells us that he waited because he was suspended but we needed wins, then he tells us he couldn't wait any longer because there was a deal there.... and pulls Cammy out mid game.

Circus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
This. Was keeping Price over Halak really that difficult of a decision? Anyone with a mind picked Price.
I still give him props. He deserves it for that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Gauthier surely made the right pick. And even if Price struggles, I will NEVER put that on Gauthier. But totally on Gainey for not taking his time with this kid. To have send everybody around him away, to have not even permit him to learn during 1 full season in the AHL with the ups and downs of a season, to wonder then why the hell would people's expectations would be so high is just a sad sad decision.
Still don't get what you're saying here or why you say this.

Price was great in his first year and he was even better in his second season. Problem was that he had an injury mid way through the year and when he came back he was awful. I think he just came back too early that's all.

The following season our team was horrific but Price still put up at least respectable numbers. I don't think he was rushed unless you're talking about brining him back from the DL too soon in his 2nd year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
Even before we get to evaluating the trade history, the guy constantly plugged holes on the team with 1-year rentals (in exchange for picks nonetheless), which he either replaced with lesser players or didn't at all. That's the sign of a massive failure to begin with.
Yup. Patchwork was the story with this guy, no real vision. And I'm still upset we didn't get a first for Cammy. Forget Patrick Holland... get the 1st!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Cammalleri is the player he always was, offence only. His line is the WORST in plus-minus on the Flames. Considering they do indeed score fairly often, it means they are giving up a TON of goals. In my opinion, Cammy does not have the speed to play Therrien's system, he is even slower than Desharnais, and far less combative. Great PP sniper though. All in all, it is not just about Cammy vs Bourque, it is also about Holland and the 2nd round pick AND the saving of $2.7M per year on cap. I call better than average trade here.
It was a blown opportunity. Calgary's 1st was there for the taking. They hated Bourque and we took him off their hands and got a player who the Flames loved. Calgary was shooting for the playoffs and were desperate.

It's not just the return you should look at it's opportunity cost. No way some team doesn't give us a first for him and Calgary in all likelyhood would've done it had we had a GM with some skill.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 09:45 AM
  #129
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Conspiracy theory?

Gauthier was the Assistant GM and Gainey was ready to step down.

It would be a conspiracy theory to think that Gauthier and Gainey did not discuss who was going to be hired as the next coach working under Gauthier.

You do realize that in the real world, GM's and assistant GM's talk all of the time to discuss the operations of their teams.

But in your mind, only in Montreal would that not happen. Naive.
Unless you can tell me the details of what they discussed then I don't see how you can lay the responsibility at Gauthier's feet. He might have been against it, he might have preferred someone else. Unless you have actual proof that Gauthier was the one who pushed for Martin then you are just making things up. It was Gainey's responsibility to pick the coach so he gets the blame/credit.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 10:03 AM
  #130
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,617
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Conspiracy theory?

Gauthier was the Assistant GM and Gainey was ready to step down.

It would be a conspiracy theory to think that Gauthier and Gainey did not discuss who was going to be hired as the next coach working under Gauthier.

You do realize that in the real world, GM's and assistant GM's talk all of the time to discuss the operations of their teams.

But in your mind, only in Montreal would that not happen. Naive.
Seriously, wasn't Gainey at the press conference endorsing how well he thinks Gauthier will do and that he trusts him and such? He was even on the team as 'adviser' and was with Gauthier for the trade deadline. Gainey officially actually left the team the moment Gauthier was canned.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 10:21 AM
  #131
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,617
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Should he get "credit" for not throwing away prospects? No, but how many people here claimed Pacioretty was a bust and wanted him gone. How many other GMs would have traded him after his "I'd rather play in Hamilton" comments? Gauthier deserves some credit for sticking with him, just like he deserves some credit for sticking with Markov and for not letting Plekanec hit UFA.
An reactionary armchair GM would have traded a 2nd year pro recent 1st rounder for those comments and throw him away thinking he's a bust. Leblanc is in a similar situation right now, I'm sure there are quite a few out there willing to trade him for nothing...no credit will go to Bergevin if he doesn't trade him. The bar shouldn't be that low. Even if Leblanc ends up busting, you can't throw away a recent high rated prospect who showed NHL flashes of upside so soon.

Credit is deserved when you do something beyond the expected minimum. Hate is deserved when you do something below that expected minimum. Re-signing your #1 C, re-signing your #1 D, being patient with one of your top prospects after not making the NHL full time at 22, is all part of the expected minimum. If the bar is so low that the expected minimum from any GM is deemed commendable, then yes Gauthier deserves some credit.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 11:51 AM
  #132
MasterDecoy
Lo Pan's lovechild
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 14,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Why the hell does this even need to be brought up?

The man was an absolute failure. His first act of failure was hiring Jacques Martin and it went downhill very quickly after that.

One of the worst GMs in history.
so ECF, game 7 first round and last year are "went downhill very quickly after that"?

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 12:14 PM
  #133
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Seriously, wasn't Gainey at the press conference endorsing how well he thinks Gauthier will do and that he trusts him and such? He was even on the team as 'adviser' and was with Gauthier for the trade deadline. Gainey officially actually left the team the moment Gauthier was canned.
"I'm leaving the team I love the most in the hands of the man I trust the most"

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 12:31 PM
  #134
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,133
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
With the cap going down Cammalleri's 6 mil cap hit would have put us in a bind next year.

I agree we needed the culture change, but people lay wayyy too much blame on Gauthier.
We have well over ten million in available cap space once Kaberle is bought out and with the possible exception of Ryder, practically no one to re-sign. We could afford Cammalleri without even blinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
I am not here wishing for a return of Gauthier, I do indeed think his organization-leader skills were atrocious. But I do want to interject on a couple of points that go too far.

Cammalleri is the player he always was, offence only. His line is the WORST in plus-minus on the Flames. Considering they do indeed score fairly often, it means they are giving up a TON of goals. In my opinion, Cammy does not have the speed to play Therrien's system, he is even slower than Desharnais, and far less combative. Great PP sniper though. All in all, it is not just about Cammy vs Bourque, it is also about Holland and the 2nd round pick AND the saving of $2.7M per year on cap. I call better than average trade here.
You are mistaken, Cammalleri may not be a speed dynamo, but he still considerably quick on his strides and would outpace Desharnais in more than one category. Furthermore, Calgary has suffered from borderline inept goaltending this season. It is disingenuous to fault Cammalleri's defensive game when Kipper has been bloody atrocious all year. That isn't to say I believe the contrary - Cammalleri is good defensively. He is not, however he is better than his current statistics advertise. Holland is a nothing prospect, although I will give you the second since Ramo had no future here. Nevertheless, I disagree. Cammalleri was the best player traded and people forget just how offensively gifted he was.

Quote:
Your reasoning on the Halak trade is suspect. It's almost like you assume that Gauthier didn't know what he was doing, so it becomes a "surprise" that Eller has progressed. That's just not fair. Eller was a first round pick who had ONE pro year under his belt (like, say Tinordi or Beaulieu now). His brief cup of coffee with St. Louis meant nothing negative, same as the guys I just mentioned who did little - SO FAR - in the NHL. Bottom line is Gauthier made the trade, he would be the one accountable if it did not work out, but it did work out, so good on him - for this one.
I do make that assumption, partly at least. It was widely considered an undervalued trade and that had Gauthier chosen to shop Halak in lieu of rushing to trade him, we might have gotten more. While that is largely conjecture and benefit of the hereafter, St. Louis seemed to dedicate the trade more we did. Eller was the one piece they were willing to say was expendable. While the trade worked out in the long run, my analysis focuses on when it happened. And I believe the rumors we could have got more.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 01:05 PM
  #135
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
We have well over ten million in available cap space once Kaberle is bought out and with the possible exception of Ryder, practically no one to re-sign. We could afford Cammalleri without even blinking.



You are mistaken, Cammalleri may not be a speed dynamo, but he still considerably quick on his strides and would outpace Desharnais in more than one category. Furthermore, Calgary has suffered from borderline inept goaltending this season. It is disingenuous to fault Cammalleri's defensive game when Kipper has been bloody atrocious all year. That isn't to say I believe the contrary - Cammalleri is good defensively. He is not, however he is better than his current statistics advertise. Holland is a nothing prospect, although I will give you the second since Ramo had no future here. Nevertheless, I disagree. Cammalleri was the best player traded and people forget just how offensively gifted he was.



I do make that assumption, partly at least. It was widely considered an undervalued trade and that had Gauthier chosen to shop Halak in lieu of rushing to trade him, we might have gotten more. While that is largely conjecture and benefit of the hereafter, St. Louis seemed to dedicate the trade more we did. Eller was the one piece they were willing to say was expendable. While the trade worked out in the long run, my analysis focuses on when it happened. And I believe the rumors we could have got more.
Your assumption on Eller is completly wrong

Quote:
Indeed, Blues GM Doug Armstrong said he tried to steer Gauthier away from Eller, who had two goals in seven NHL games last season and scored 18 goals and 39 assists in 70 AHL games, but that the Habs wouldn't relent.

"It's not like we viewed [Eller]as expendable," Armstrong said. "It may be difficult for some of the fans in Montreal, but once they see him play, they'll understand."
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

As for Cammalleri, he was the best player in the trade without a doubt but he was small/soft player on a team that was generally viewed as too soft/small so making a trade to get bigger up front makes a lot of sense. His production was also dropping significantly.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 01:23 PM
  #136
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
An reactionary armchair GM would have traded a 2nd year pro recent 1st rounder for those comments and throw him away thinking he's a bust. Leblanc is in a similar situation right now, I'm sure there are quite a few out there willing to trade him for nothing...no credit will go to Bergevin if he doesn't trade him. The bar shouldn't be that low. Even if Leblanc ends up busting, you can't throw away a recent high rated prospect who showed NHL flashes of upside so soon.

Credit is deserved when you do something beyond the expected minimum. Hate is deserved when you do something below that expected minimum. Re-signing your #1 C, re-signing your #1 D, being patient with one of your top prospects after not making the NHL full time at 22, is all part of the expected minimum. If the bar is so low that the expected minimum from any GM is deemed commendable, then yes Gauthier deserves some credit.
People tend to assume we are the only team in the universe that trades away "problem" players. The fact is it's very common, after Pacioretty made those comments other GMs came calling hoping Max was available.

Well it seems like you're expected minimum is 0 mistakes which is unrealistic. A GM deserves credit for sticking with players during the trying times if that player rebounds. He also deserves some credit for signing his top players preventing them from hitting the open market, especially if he can do it for below market value.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 01:31 PM
  #137
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
It's funny how so much of the Gauthier hate is about things are pure speculation.

He was responsible for getting Gomez
He could've gotten more for Halak & Cammalleri
He didn't shop people around
He didn't even try to re-sign our UFAs

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:15 PM
  #138
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,617
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
People tend to assume we are the only team in the universe that trades away "problem" players. The fact is it's very common, after Pacioretty made those comments other GMs came calling hoping Max was available.

Well it seems like you're expected minimum is 0 mistakes which is unrealistic. A GM deserves credit for sticking with players during the trying times if that player rebounds. He also deserves some credit for signing his top players preventing them from hitting the open market, especially if he can do it for below market value.
Media made him a 'problem' player. Media mad Price a 'problem' player. Media is also trying to make Subban a 'problem' player. This is nothing new in big market teams. Not many players develop without some bumps on the road.

Where did I say I expect 0 mistakes as the expected minimum? Recognizing that it isn't wise to throw away a high pick who's still on his ELC, in this case who's also dominating the AHL, just because he hasn't panned out right away in the NHL and made comments about being in the AHL is helping his game more than the NHL is something any GM should be able to do and do all the time. Is Garth Snow deserving of credit because he hasn't thrown away Nino Niederreiter? Burke deserving of credit for not throwing away Kadri? Sherman for not throwing away Duchene after last season and Landeskog this season? Bergevin deserving of credit for not throwing away Leblanc?

What's unrealistic is lowering the bar for what's positive for a GM so low that not throwing away your top players/prospects is actually deserving of credit. It should be a given. This isn't a small market budget team where GMs have little resources and players want to leave the first chance they get to get paid. There should never be issues keeping top players - especially those who've been with the team as long as Markov and Plekanec have been.

My minimum expectations for a GM is that:
- Recognizes he has to re-sign his best players when their contracts are up
- Won't throw away top prospects at the first sign of a slump...recognizes the concept of growing pains and can actually evaluate the prospect as a prospect/upside instead of his play that particular moment
- Has foresight when it comes to contract length, cap hit, and age of the players he has and acquires (ie. not to add/have a full team of old players on long term deals/a ton of big cap hits/recognizing huge cap hits have negative-lower value/doesn't go over the cap/recognizes that some players may need raises soon and allocates cap space for them/etc).
- Knowing when to sell and buy (ie. don't trade your 1st when you are low in the standings/don't trade top prospect if you have a bubble team with little in the cupboard/etc).

Probably more. Maybe it's just me, but doing any of the above wouldn't get my praise because IMO it's required. If the above can't be met, for me they aren't worthy of being a GM.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:20 PM
  #139
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
It's funny how so much of the Gauthier hate is about things are pure speculation.

He was responsible for getting Gomez
He could've gotten more for Halak & Cammalleri
He didn't shop people around
He didn't even try to re-sign our UFAs
I don't know how much input he had on the Gomez deal, but Gainey said his pro scouting had given him reports on Niinimaa being a top 4 defenseman. That doesn't say much in itself, but it hints largely towards one figure.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:25 PM
  #140
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,617
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
I don't know how much input he had on the Gomez deal, but Gainey said his pro scouting had given him reports on Niinimaa being a top 4 defenseman. That doesn't say much in itself, but it hints largely towards one figure.
In before 'How do you know the head pro scout didn't disagree with the other pro-scouts and Gainey didn't listen to him?'

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:29 PM
  #141
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,133
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Your assumption on Eller is completly wrong



http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

As for Cammalleri, he was the best player in the trade without a doubt but he was small/soft player on a team that was generally viewed as too soft/small so making a trade to get bigger up front makes a lot of sense. His production was also dropping significantly.
I stand corrected with regards to Eller. Granted, I do believe we could have gotten more, however I admit that is speculative.

Cammalleri was having an off season. If he can produce in Calgary, he could recature his glory here. Pair him up with Galchenyuk and Gallagher and the trio would be absolutely vicious. For that reason I disagree it made sense and found the trade reactionary to comments he made in the media.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:40 PM
  #142
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,133
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It was a blown opportunity. Calgary's 1st was there for the taking. They hated Bourque and we took him off their hands and got a player who the Flames loved. Calgary was shooting for the playoffs and were desperate.

It's not just the return you should look at it's opportunity cost. No way some team doesn't give us a first for him and Calgary in all likelyhood would've done it had we had a GM with some skill.
This is an excellent point I hadn't touched on as much. Gauthier had a habit of selling low and taking the first available deal offered. Trading Cammalleri was always going to be a possibility and had Calgary attempted to force our hand, we could have told them no and waited for the deadline. Odds are likely they would have came around on a first or another team would.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:48 PM
  #143
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 31,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Because Gauthier had a track record of dumping players that didn't quietly fall in line.
Well, he kept Price who had become quite the bad reputation, and lost the #1 spot to Halak.

I have a hard time believing they would have traded away PK.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:50 PM
  #144
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Media made him a 'problem' player. Media mad Price a 'problem' player. Media is also trying to make Subban a 'problem' player. This is nothing new in big market teams. Not many players develop without some bumps on the road.

Where did I say I expect 0 mistakes as the expected minimum? Recognizing that it isn't wise to throw away a high pick who's still on his ELC, in this case who's also dominating the AHL, just because he hasn't panned out right away in the NHL and made comments about being in the AHL is helping his game more than the NHL is something any GM should be able to do and do all the time. Is Garth Snow deserving of credit because he hasn't thrown away Nino Niederreiter? Burke deserving of credit for not throwing away Kadri? Sherman for not throwing away Duchene after last season and Landeskog this season? Bergevin deserving of credit for not throwing away Leblanc?

What's unrealistic is lowering the bar for what's positive for a GM so low that not throwing away your top players/prospects is actually deserving of credit. It should be a given. This isn't a small market budget team where GMs have little resources and players want to leave the first chance they get to get paid. There should never be issues keeping top players - especially those who've been with the team as long as Markov and Plekanec have been.

My minimum expectations for a GM is that:
- Recognizes he has to re-sign his best players when their contracts are up
- Won't throw away top prospects at the first sign of a slump...recognizes the concept of growing pains and can actually evaluate the prospect as a prospect/upside instead of his play that particular moment
- Has foresight when it comes to contract length, cap hit, and age of the players he has and acquires (ie. not to add/have a full team of old players on long term deals/a ton of big cap hits/recognizing huge cap hits have negative-lower value/doesn't go over the cap/recognizes that some players may need raises soon and allocates cap space for them/etc).
- Knowing when to sell and buy (ie. don't trade your 1st when you are low in the standings/don't trade top prospect if you have a bubble team with little in the cupboard/etc).

Probably more. Maybe it's just me, but doing any of the above wouldn't get my praise because IMO it's required. If the above can't be met, for me they aren't worthy of being a GM.
Pacioretty had 8 goals and 40 points in 55 AHL games at the time of his comments. I don't consider that tearing it up.

At 27 players can choose to leave and the GM can't do anything about it. And when you factor in the salary cap it's not a given that you can always re-sign your top players. Is Lou Lammorello not "worthy of being a GM" because Parise wanted to test the market and left?

Can you name a GM that's never lost a good player to free agency, never trades away a slumping prospect who later rebound, has never handed out a bad contract, and knows when to buy/sell?

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:52 PM
  #145
ryanwb
Registered User
 
ryanwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
The way he handled the whole Cunneyworth fiasco is enough to show that he was not ready/competent for the GM job...

ryanwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:57 PM
  #146
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Pacioretty had 8 goals and 40 points in 55 AHL games at the time of his comments. I don't consider that tearing it up.

At 27 players can choose to leave and the GM can't do anything about it. And when you factor in the salary cap it's not a given that you can always re-sign your top players. Is Lou Lammorello not "worthy of being a GM" because Parise wanted to test the market and left?

Can you name a GM that's never lost a good player to free agency, never trades away a slumping prospect who later rebound, has never handed out a bad contract, and knows when to buy/sell?
Lou Lam has lost more than just Parise. Over the past few years he's let Gomez, Gionta, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Paul Martin. The last three d-men were high quality defenders.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 02:59 PM
  #147
68*
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,022
vCash: 500
I'm just gonna say this: Gauthier hurt us less than Gainey.

68* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 03:03 PM
  #148
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
I stand corrected with regards to Eller. Granted, I do believe we could have gotten more, however I admit that is speculative.

Cammalleri was having an off season. If he can produce in Calgary, he could recature his glory here. Pair him up with Galchenyuk and Gallagher and the trio would be absolutely vicious. For that reason I disagree it made sense and found the trade reactionary to comments he made in the media.
The season before he had been struggling as well although not quite as badly. It's easy to think he would recapture his glory under MT but it's far from a guarantee and your proposed line would a train wreck in the defensive zone, not too mention we would be paying 6m for him to play on the 3rd line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
This is an excellent point I hadn't touched on as much. Gauthier had a habit of selling low and taking the first available deal offered. Trading Cammalleri was always going to be a possibility and had Calgary attempted to force our hand, we could have told them no and waited for the deadline. Odds are likely they would have came around on a first or another team would.
He had been working on trading Cammlleri for a couple months before the trade so it's not really a case of taking the first available offer. I highly doubt Calgary's 1st was attainable and so Gauthier settled for a 2nd in 2013 and a meh prospect. Cammy's value was dropping every game he played with us, he was not producing and causing waves in the media/room. Could we have gotten a 1st at the deadline, maybe, but Calgary's 2nd round pick is going to be basically a late 1st anyways.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 03:06 PM
  #149
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Lou Lam has lost more than just Parise. Over the past few years he's let Gomez, Gionta, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Paul Martin. The last three d-men were high quality defenders.
Exactly and he's considered a good GM. The minimum expectations Watsatheo has for a GM are unrealistic.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2013, 03:10 PM
  #150
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,617
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Pacioretty had 8 goals and 40 points in 55 AHL games at the time of his comments. I don't consider that tearing it up.

At 27 players can choose to leave and the GM can't do anything about it. And when you factor in the salary cap it's not a given that you can always re-sign your top players. Is Lou Lammorello not "worthy of being a GM" because Parise wanted to test the market and left?

Can you name a GM that's never lost a good player to free agency, never trades away a slumping prospect who later rebound, has never handed out a bad contract, and knows when to buy/sell?
40 points in 55 is good numbers and he had 25 points in 86 NHL games before the season. His comments came after he was ripping it up in the AHL (link. It's typical big market make something out of nothing BS.)

You ignore context and my mention of big market team (check the post you quoted). I'm talking more specific to a big market like the Habs. Smaller market teams will always have issues retaining their players (Perry/Getzlaf who a lot thought the Ducks couldn't re-sign and were going to hit market to a big market team that'll pay them). To quote myself:

Quote:
What's unrealistic is lowering the bar for what's positive for a GM so low that not throwing away your top players/prospects is actually deserving of credit. It should be a given. This isn't a small market budget team where GMs have little resources and players want to leave the first chance they get to get paid. There should never be issues keeping top players - especially those who've been with the team as long as Markov and Plekanec have been.
As for your question, it strays away from what you are arguing. From what I understand, you feel that a GM for NOT trading an arm chair GM assessment of 'slumping' top prospect is deemed worthy of praise. My stance is that this should be expected from all GMs (even provided relevant examples of 'slumping' players during an ELC where the GM would receive no praise for keeping).

Watsatheo 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 11:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.