HFBoards

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

Possible Goalie Coach

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-11-2009, 10:58 PM
  #151
Freaky Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Freaky Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New-Brunswick
Posts: 9,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
Maybe because he was still under contract? Maybe Gainey was waiting for his contract to expire? Or maybe Gainey knew that he needs a goalie coach who can teach the hybrid for Price?
Maybe Allaire just wasn't that interested in returning to Montreal. Or maybe Montreal wasn't that much interested...

Because if both parties were interested, Allaire would have said no to Burke and waited to get a contract with the Habs. I know you can't negotiate, but I can't see how it's impossible to say "hey, I'm François Allaire and I'll leave the Ducks...are you interested in my services? Because I really want to work in Montreal again" "Sure, you're what we want, lets talk later"...if not directly like that, it could have been made by someone close from Allaire.

Anyways, I'm sure the Habs have someone in mind...

Freaky Habs Fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 12:21 AM
  #152
Mr. Hab
Registered User
 
Mr. Hab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
A goalie coach for our Price and Halak??!!



How about Anthony Robbins instead?!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...nthony+robbins

Mr. Hab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 04:13 PM
  #153
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Sorry folks, but I had to reply to this. Its a long one (anarmandaleb, beat your heart out).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
so we're at the "i know you are but what am i stage now... how fun...
Oh brother. Stop playing innocent. Its as if you are unaware of your own attitude, yet point that out of others as if you're hollier than thou, yet you resort to more childish behaviours than I ever did as proven by your first reply to me on this thread. Deal with it, and stop trying to twist things.


Quote:
do what with gainey...
Jeeze, you can't read?? I wrote it clearly. You talk in absolutes. It's clear to see, and I can prove it anytime you want. All I need is too look through your old posts, as it is the exact reason why I didn't tolerate your BS in the first place, these absolutes. Absolutes that aren't based on tangible facts. Whereas you accuse me of using absolutes, using as an example my argumentation about the lack of precedence in clubs who can win the cup after only 5 years of rebuild, which is a fact, as I've shown examples with clear differences to other clubs, but similar circumstances to the Habs, while you haven't even tried to find examples that can relate to the Habs and show it can be done under five years. You accuse this as being an absolute when it isn't, in fact, this is yet another cope-out, because if it was so prevelant (the same situation as the Habs, done under five years), you wouldn't have a hard time to find examples.

Quote:
i comment about the things i don't like that he does, as with the things i do like... did i miss something or is this not a message board where FANS come to TALK about the team they love.
And yet you blame me of using absolutisms, but you its okay because its a message board? Quite the double standard there. My comment was not about what you like or don't like, its the absolutes you have used yourself. Also, if this is indeed a message board, am I not also allowed to show the fallacies in your 'logical' deductions to things you don't like, when you do obvious exagerations, absolutisms based on speculations, and other stuff like that?



Quote:
who said you had to agree with everything the players/coach/management does, and how does criticizing them equate to being "little children"?
You might need some reading classes. Maybe you should pick up some books, start reading novels. It is childish when its based on speculation, when one uses simplistic arguments related to one particular thing, without looking at the whole mechanic, the whole process, when looked under more scrutiny, like anyone with intellectual honesty would do, proves the simplistic argument to be only an exageration, or something put out of context, and as I've read your entire text beforehand replying, I will show examples of these that you have done, and will also show your use of true absolutisms.

Quote:
do you know what it means to insult someone? do you really want me to dig up your recent posting to show you all the times you talk down to other posters... calling them childish, immature, ignorant, devoid of logic/rationality etc etc... it's a daily thing with you for some reason, but in your mind it always seems to be "the other guy" that starts it.
What is it I am "pretending to be? let me know and then I can stop.
Actually, here's one proof of what I was saying just before. As instead of looking at the whole picture, you use you're relative small sample of my posts to make it the norm. A lot of posters I don't agree with, yet I respect and never talk down. That's because they do not exagerate, they do not use absolutisms, they don't use speculation as fact, they acknowledge my arguments as I do theirs. That's the majority of my replies to most people. There are a handful of posters who do not act like this. If they do not have the courtesy to do the opposite of these things I've mentioned, why should I respect them? These actions in themselves are already a lack of respect and why can't I call out when a spade is a spade, and other knowledgable posters think the same (as I'm far from alone, and strangely, they are also the ones to give the most arguments, the ones that seem to have proper deduction skills, as they are able to do the opposite of all those things I've mentioned just above.).




Quote:
I see, because at the mid point in the season, when the pens were spiraling out of control, you knew they were right on track to being a win away from the cup final... right? I guess you also had it pegged that we would finish first in the conference last season, and then struggle to 8th this year... If you know your "FACTS" so well, and are so versed in the "logic" of building a winning team, why waste your time working in front of a computer? why don't you get yourself into a hockey organization and work your way to the top to show everyone your superior hockey logic and insight... the avs just hired a 30 something year old guy as GM who started off in their concession shop, you could be running the habs in no time with your skills.
What the hell does this have to do with what I said. You asked me a question about Philly, saying it was a rebuild, whereas, as I've showed you, they were not in rebuild and are far from having the same circumstances than the Habs have as a comparison for finding examples that show that teams that have through a true rebuild have won the cup under five years. What the hell does that have to do with predictions?????? So again, this is one more proof for what I said before. Instead of acknowledging the arguments I brought foward, valid arguments, or even try to counter it, you use a strawman argument. And not only one strawman argument, but TWO, as instead of staying on the point at hand, you rather try to avoid what we were arguing over, by saying I should become a GM... another cope-out and further proof of why I don't see when I could ever have respect for someone like you. You see, you might think that I believe I know everything, and again, its just a cope-out. If I were such, I would make blank statements using an authorative stance, without relying on scrutiny of the facts and without using proper logical deductions. What you seem to rather don't like, as I can see by your ever so constant lack of staying on point to the debate, is that I do bring valid arguments, and your inability to defend your own POV seems to frustrate you more than anything else. This is quite evident when you use such tactics as the one about me quitting my job to become GM.


Quote:
no team in particular, just the general point that very rarely do franchises follow some sort of "logical" linear path from "rebuild" to contender. or is that point really to confusing for you to understand (perhaps not logical enough?)
Yet again another proof that you either don't read what I say, or just ignore and pass over any argumentation you can't handle. You don't acknowledge a lot of what I say, because otherwise you would understand that I clearly showed the difference between what you imply I was saying and what I was truly saying. I never said there is a linear logical path. I said there are no precendence to teams being in the same situation as the Habs and yet win the cup under five years. But there is precendence of teams being in the same situation as the Habs and reaching promise land in several years more than five years. Those are not linear paths, they are PRECEDENCE. I already said this before. But you rather twist it into something it is not. And the whole point of these examples of precendence was to show how your own absolutisms (in the other thread where this started a long time ago) were fallacies.



Quote:
question? how many players from the 04 cup run team remain with the current calgary flames? that team was a game away (and arguably a blown call away) from winning the cup in a year no one expected them to make the playoffs in. since then they have consistently been near the top of the conference, and despite the string of 1st round playoff losses, are a team that year in year out most people in the hockey world view as a team that could go deep in the playoffs...
...
to save you time, the answer is 5, though two of them (conroy and leopold) were moved and only recently brought back.
over the span of 3-4 years, A LOT of teams go through major roster upheavals, successful and struggling ones alike.
consider this:
03-04 flames- 5 ligthing- 2 players
05-06 oilers- 6 canes 8 (3 who were let go and then recently brought back)

roster turnover happens with many teams, it's part of the professional sports business model, and not always the result of or resulting in a "rebuild"
Yet none of them were starting a rebuild. All your examples are teams that have reached the finals. What does that relate to the Habs? In this era it is entirely natural for teams that go through a drive close to succes to then lose a lot of players from their core. I'm not talking of roster turnovers. You see again, you use only one specific item of my description of teams that can be compared to the Habs, and yet forget or avoid all the other comparative items. So again, instead of acknoledge the all the items TOGETHER, of the description of a comparable to the Habs, a thing that you've asked me to specify, you nitpick one and stray from the point at hand. No **** Sherlock, most teams change most of their rosters in five years, yet the core remains, as is with most of the examples you've given. All examples that only have this in common with the Habs when it comes to comparables to similar situations of rebuild.

Quote:
on another note, in talking about that Stars team gainey built through the draft, is it just irony or coincidence that the conn smythe winner on his cup team was a guy he TRADED a high first round pick to get? not too mention Hull, Zubov, Sydor, Verbeek, Belfour... all acquired by trade/signing, then Modano (who was there when Gainey took over) and Hatcher who were drafted by the team before he became GM, then guys like Ludwig, Carbo, Reid, Skrudland, Hogue... all acquired, not drafted...

And yet you forget to mention all the players of the cup winning team he did draft. I will spell the list out... just after the next part of the quote, just to show how not 'owned' i was. Funny though, you finnaly find something you 'think' you can show I am wrong with, a first actually as usually you cope-out or try to redirect the debate towards something else, and you proclaim "victory" by using a lack of facts.


Quote:
You know what man, I hope right here, with this point YOU JUST MADE:
"... including the Stars that Gainey took over in 1992. All these teams have put the draft as a priority, a rebuild through the draft. Whereas teams like Philly and Anaheim have had much or part of their succes linked to UFA signings and lucky trades (like Pronger).
you can finally see were your so-called "LOGIC" is no more than opinion, and as this cases plainly shows, CAN BE WRONG!!! the cup winning stars team was a team built almost entirely via trades/signings... aside from langenbruner, none of the key players on that team were drafted by Gainey...
i believe they call that being owned...
Hmmm, no especially when you mention ONE player among many.

Langenbrunner is one... but,

Yeah Gainey didn't draft Jere Lehtinen. (he was actually, in Gainey's first ever draft)
Yeah Gainey didn't draft Brendan Morrow.
Yeah Gainey didn't draft Jarome Iginla, which gave him the Cup MVP
Yeah Gainey didn't draft Rick Mrozik, who was traded with Tinordi for Kevin Hatcher who was later traded for Zubov one-on-one.
Yeah Gainey didn't draft Todd Harvey and use a 4th pick (Boyd Kane) as part of the deal to get both Skrudland and Mike keane
Yeah Gainey didn't use his 3rd round choice (Robert Schnabel) in 97 to get Brad Lukovich
Yeah Gainey didn't acquire Neal Broten through Waiver draft, which he later traded one on one for Carbonneau
Yeah Gainey didn't use one of the players drafted before he came to trade for Sydor, in Doug Zmolek

How is this any different than Gainey using picks or players drafted to get Lang, Tanguay, Kovalev and Schneider? How is it any different from him trying to get his hands on Hossa through a trade by using our prospects and picks, same with Lecavalier. Plekanec, Higgins, Subban and Chipchura were all mentioned in the trade talks officially, which are all players that were drafted by the team. The difference is the cap era.

Building through the draft doesn't mean you'll keep everyone from the draft. The difference is that today, Gainey doesn't have the same luxury as with the non-cap era where teams were less restrained to make trades. The point was that from the start in Minnesota, Gainey wanted to build through the draft and traded a lot of these drafted players to get other players, just like he is doing in Montreal.

Remember what I said about having more scrutiny when looking at facts?

So I got owned, right?

Well like I said before, you have to look at all the facts. All teams trade and draft, but you won't find this extent of prospects and drafted players traded by Philly or Anaheim in the comparative years, especially Anaheim. Also, the high number of trades were a regular happening in those years, compared to today, it still doesn't mean he didn't build through the draft while keeping a core from the draft, and its not because he didn't draft the players while the team did, that they are not part of the process of building through the draft (Modano, Hatcher, Matvitchuk, Lehtinen, Ludwig, Langenbrunner were all important to the cup run).

There are many many similarities between the process in Dallas and the one he is doing with the Habs, just less draft picks or drafted players traded, because of the present system. Gainey still built that team using the draft, whether it was previously drafted players like Modano, Matvitchuk, Hatcher and Ludwig, comparable to Higgins, Plekanec, Komisarek and Markov, players that were drafted not long before he came in. Its still part of the process of building through the draft, no matter if they were drafted before or after. You are the one who made it sound as if I was talking of only players Gainey drafted, which is not even the case with Montreal when you consider the four players I named above from the Habs.

Also, while we're at it, let's not forget to consider that the UFA age was much higher at that time, and that also gave teams more luxury with picks and prospects, whereas today, even average RFAs recieve a lot more money.

And then while we're talking of Dallas, you can't have it both ways either, as I already used the example of hsi trades and signing in Dallas as proof of his competence. The only difference is that he's not in the same situation in Montreal as he was in Dallas when it comes to UFAs, and not the same situation when it comes to trades because of the cap. Yet this you avoided previously when I mentioned it.

As I said before, the point was to find comparables, and Philly and Anaheim are far from being similar to the Habs situation as it was for Gainey when he started and did start by building through the draft in MInnesota, even though the end line doesn't show more than 8 players from their previous drafts (although core players), and even though they traded more than 8 players they drafted to upgrade the team, this result happened in 99, after 7 full seasons. Who's to say the Habs won't trade many of their prospects and picks to get better players, as Gainey has tried that many times before, its still using the draft as a means to an end, whereas Philly and Anaheim were in a process of continuity. Its the long process of it all, whereas you are comparing Philly and Anaheim through about 1-2 seasons, where the average of trades and free agent signings were more for them, if you consider that the 8 or so players Gainey acquired for the core was on a span of 7 seasons, not 1-2 seasons, not in the same system to deal with either.

Also if you consider the core, and Morrow should be part of that as he was in the SC finals the year after they won, its 8 players out of 16 that were drafted by the organization. A little nitpicking on my part, but I will indulge in it as you often do that. To be more precise, look at the 16 most important players on the team, about 16 of them, half were from their drafts. The core should be even less as a number, and yet I could still name half that were through their drafts (Modano, Hatcher, Matvitchuk, Lehtinen, Ludwig, Langenbrunner, Morrow, Sloan (not drafted, but signed, yet wasn't owned by any team and is the same as building through the draft as the process is about getting young talent to develop, but you'll probably ignore that fact and use the semantic of the word draft, as it is the case with someone's who's position is weak in a debate)). While most of the entire core, except for Belfour and Hull, were either drafted by Dallas, or players acquired with their own drafted players. How is that not building throught the draft? Now many prospects and picks Philly and Anaheim traded to get their players? How many major UFAs signed (Dallas had 2 in 7 years, Hull and Belfour), whereas both Anaheim and Philly signed at least 3 or more in the span of 1-2 seasons. That's a much bigger average and shows a distinct difference between Dallas and those two teams.

Like I said, you seem to have a misconception of what "building through the draft" actually means.

Here since all the details might be too complicated for you, I'll put it more simply :

Modano, Hatcher, Matvitchuk, Lehtinen, Ludwig, Langenbrunner, Morrow, Sloan were all part of the core. That's 8 players drafted and kept.

Niewendyk, Carbonneau, Skrudland, Zubov, Keane, Lukovich and Sydor were all part of the core. That's 7 players that are by-products of prospects (young players) and picks traded.

So that's about 15 players out of 20-22. And he didn't build through the draft (player development)?

Get a clue.

Also, to make it simpler, Philly, in one season, where Holmgrem became GM, where the team went from ECF finalist to bottom feeder, his plan wasn't to build through the draft, as seen by 3 UFA signings and one trade. That's in one season. Gainey did 2 major UFA signings in 7 seasons. Yet you find this comparable? But yeah you're gonna harp on trades (even though those trades are products of player development and draft picks mostly), even though I mentionned both. If you consider both, Philly and Anaheim have used UFAs and trades much more (relative average on the span of 1-2 seasons compared to 7 seasons).

Anaheim traded at lot in two seasons (used picks, but also a lot of players acquired previously that they didn't want), and signed 3 UFAs in Niedermayer, Selanne and MacDonald (and I'm sure I'm forgetting 2 or 3 UFA signings), still, 3 UFAs in the span of 2 seasons, is a lot more than 2 in the span of 7 seasons. And as Holmgrem, Burke didn't need to rely on the draft that much. His plan was obviously to build through several trades and signings. That's the difference, and examplyfies my comment of Philly and Anaheim building way more through UFAs and trade than Gainey did.

Don't choke on your own foot.

Quote:
what absolutes?
Millertime ""The five-year plan was a disaster/failure""

Yeah, that isn't an absolute...

And also, you didn't acknowledge once again, the rest of that post, that disproved your comment about me making absolutisms.

Quote:
i think gainey has made a series of mistakes (WHAT GM HASN'T ASIDE FROM HOLLAND?) when managing the NHL assets of our team. Not ALL of his trades/signings have been bad, just too many for my taste, and in my opinion, had he done a better job of handling the quality players he inherited/drafted, we'd be in a much better situation right now (as opposed to having great young talent/prospects, but a huge hole when it comes to veteran talent/leadership
Whom besides Ribeiro?

Beauchemin was a product of Doug MacLean breaking concensus with other GMs.

So who else from our prospects did he mishandle and lose?

Hainsey? We had Souray and Markov at the time. Did we really need another shooter? And most people will tell you that Hainsey was the kind of player you didn't want on your team because of his attitude. Similar to Ribeiro. We already had Plekanec and Koivu and the one who had attitude problems was Ribeiro.

You might wanna check other teams that you 'cherish' because every team has mishandled some prospects through the years.. the only exception probably being Detroit.

And also, if you compare the number of players/prospects we do have with the ones you will say he mishandled, the ones he mishandled are a very small minority.


Its not that it is fact that they need a set amount of years. The fact is that NO team with a full rebuild without drafting high over several seasons have ever been able to pull it off in a lesser amount of years. You are completely missing the point, and probably on purpose because it proved you wrong on your constant repetition of the "failed 5 year plan". That's exactly WHEN you left the other thread. But yeah, I have to buy your BS, your cope-out excuses.

Quote:
if getting swept in the first round, and not winning more than a first round series over 5 seasons is anything but a failure, I guess we have different expectations.
You see, Strawman AGAIN. I was talking of my argument that no team starting with what Gainey did ever did much better in under five years, yet you twist this back to one playoff series in five seasons! They won TWO BTW. We do have different expectations. I want to win the cup, but I know the path to get there is not linear, and is not easy. You are expecting the same thing, yet base it on an ideal that it seems so easy to build a contender. You don't consider the team he started with, you don't consider the clear improvement on the 5 five seasons before Gainey came in, you don't consider the system he has to work with, you don't consider how the draft is mostly based on luck, you don't consider the UFAs who are much harder to attract in Montreal than anywhere else.

See how you use an absolute to identify his "5 year plan", yet the 5 year plan, you created the wanted outcome, whereas the plan was to make the team competitive (as was said many times before yet you keep ignoring this). I've already spelled out the differences between the 5 seasons before he came and the 5 seasons after. 11 more wins per seasons in average, close to 20 points more per seasons in average, 4 playoff appearance in 5 seasons, whereas the Habs only made it once in 5 seasons before Gainey came (and that was because of ONE player). That is a clear improvement, not a failure. Could the Habs have done better, sure. But they could've done a lot worst, but just the fact that there is improvement shows that it is not a failure and shows your use of absolutisms, which you hypocritically claim I do, while doing it yourself. It also shows your lack of reasoning skills and that your complaint is based on irrealistic expectations. That's the huge difference.

Also, you mention being swept in the first round. So hilarious, as this too shows your lack of reasoning. Show me ONE team that won in the first round without its MVP/best Dmen, without one of its two best wingers, without its biggest (and best in the regular season) centerman? Irrealistic expectations. Anyone with half a brain knew the Habs would lose if Markov wasn't there. Now add Schneider, Lang and Tanguay for the most part of the series.


Quote:
I'm fine with you feeling that it's ok, why is it so hard for you to accept that some of us don't feel like our post season mediocrity is good enough?
That's not even the point... just look at your double standard later on... your bias is obvious like snow in winter.

Quote:
A LOT of teams have made playoff runs without relying on high draft picks... you say that i avoid topics/arguments, but please, explain to me how the Red Wings picking Yzerman 1st overall 20 years ago has ANYTHING to do with the team that is about to win a back to back stanley cup in the cap era??? How many of the Current red wings were drafted High?
let me tell you..
dan cleary... 3rd overall, picked up off the scrap heap without giving up any assets, let alone a big contract.
Brad Stuart... 3rd overall, acquired via deadline deal
THAT"S IT...
so please explain to me how you can conveniently forget about the red wings when making the "logical" argument that no team without drafting high can build of championship caliber team?
and the "UFA's like to sign there argument is moot... the bulk of there key contributors were drafted, with LOW PICKs, developed in house, and then re-signed at sweetheart deals because they know they can win in that city... you think anyone signs in Detroit for the city itself? you ever been there? (cheap shot at detroit... my bad to any detroiters out there...)
Holy crap. You're absolutely ridiculous. First, you can't compare the Wings of today with the Habs of today. There is still Lidstrom there, and Yzerman was the one to have Datsyuk under his wing. If you want to compare the Wings, compare them when they restarted their rebuild. They had ONE high draft pick, like the Habs with Price. All the arguments you used are consequences of when they first started to rebuild between 87 and 89.

Quote:
so please explain to me how you can conveniently forget about the red wings when making the "logical" argument that no team without drafting high can build of championship caliber team?
I'm gonna quote this back again, because it is far too hilarious. First, I never said that no team was able to build a contender when not picking first. I would like you to find ONE quote where I say this. In fact, it is my point when comparing Detroit when they started the rebuild with Montreal when they started the rebuild. The point was that it took Detroit over 9 years before they won their first cup. They had many upsets before 97, and fans like you in Detroit were probably saying the same thing as you are right now. Both teams didn't have more than ONE true high pick making an impact. What I said is that there are teams that build with several years of picking high. It doesn't mean I believe the opposite can't be done, when in actuality, the teams I've compared the Habs to in evolution from the start of the rebuild are mostly all teams that had ONE high pick develop into a Franchise player. Jersey, Niedermayer. Detroit, Yzerman.

The Wings of the new millenium cannot be used as a comparison for so many reasons, it is even ridiculous to state why. People with half a brain can figure out that the team that is there is part of a continuity of success.


Quote:
What absolutes have i used about Gainey?
I showed it just above. And I can find you many examples from your previous posts in previous threads.

Quote:
i think what happens is that you like to lump anyone who disagrees with you together, the "gainey bashers" as you like to call us, and then you get confused about who said what, or maybe it's just easier to generalize and condescend if you don't bother considering what arguments a specific poster is making.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? I'm not the one avoiding your arguments, I stay on point every friggin time. Am I the one to use strawman arguments? No, you are. I've proven your use of absolutes. yet you still haven't proven that I was using an absolute. You rather tried to twist what I was saying about teams with similar situations taking more than five years to get to promised land, and you twisted it to make it an absolute, whereas, it was to show precedents. And when push came to shove, for you to show precedents of teams with similar situations doing it under five seasons, you still haven't found one.

Also about generalizing... don't you also do that? You generalize my postings with you and a few other posters as the norm of my posts, yet I've already explained this, and if you had any decency about truth and honesty, you'd look up my posts and see that its only a minority of posts, and I've already stipulated why I do so. Using strawman arguments, not staying on point, avoiding strong arguments, are all huge lack of respect to the person you are talking too. I don't get insulted by name calling towards me (you might be), as I know full well who I am and what I am capable of, I'm not insecure to the point of being offended by some nobody calling me names over the internet, like you seem to be (oh NOES mommy, the bad guy called me a bad name!!!). I don't care, people could do it all they can. What I find insulting is what I mentioned above. Dishonesty in debate. I don't respect anyone who does this, and that includes you. So really, I don't lump anyone together. Like I said before, there are many posters I don't agree with, yet we all remain civilized, because these posters do NOT use dihonest debate tactics, they acknowledge each other's points.


Quote:
no, every "past encounter" is the same gibbirish.. you ranting about logic and delusions... not wanting to "bother" repeating yourself again (even if you haven't actually responded to the points made", and then going on and on about "posters like you blah blah blah"... I'd do the same, but there isn't another poster on this entire board that behaves the way you do.
I did very well so in many threads (stay on point), and you know this quite well, but you would rather ignore this fact and keep repeating this falsehood. I stayed on point everytime here. Same gibberish... again, who's the one lumping, when in fact you're the one unable to stay on point, show many times here. Do you mean there isn't another poster calling a spade as one? I could name you a boatload of them and they too have a short temper for dishonesty and stupidity. Just the fact that you say I'm the only one shows once again your lack of honesty, and your use of exagerations.

Oh and once again, you skipped over some arguments here, took only what you wanted to talk about. Do I need to quote back what you were replying to, to prove it?


Quote:
clearly you haven't, or else you wouldn't have jammed your foot, calf, thigh and nut sack down your throat so blatantly as I pointed out earlier... stars built through the draft.. .
LMAO. yeah, with your usual lack of scrutiny, you thought you could use something out of context. Did they not have 15 players who were product of drafts or byproducts? Yes they were. What's your favorite condiment? You might wanna put some on your foot next time. It will make it taste a little better.

Quote:
the nucks that Burke assembled did quite well imo... were it not for that goal from half that pretty much shattered cloutier's entire career, the nucks might very well have won a cup (or at least made the finals) with the very good and consistent squad he put together over there.
Quite well?

1999, out of playoffs
2000, out of playoffs
2001, lost in first round
2002, lost in first round
2003, lost in round 2
2004, lost in first round

Yeah it was all Cloutier's fault. See the double-standard I was talking about earlier? Not only in terms of results, which are comparable, yet you feel Burke did a good job, and you don't think Gainey did a good job with the Habs..., but also in your use of the Cloutier excuse. So its all right to use excuses for Burke, but not for Gainey? Oh yeah, and Gainey had 5 seasons, not 6 like Burke, and Gainey's Habs won two playoff series.

The Nucks under Burke only won ONE playoff round in 6 seasons. How is winning no more than a first round series over 6 seasons anything but a failure, again??? That was your own words.

So now you have your two feet stuck in your mouth. At least I hope you have athlete's foot, as the saliva from your mouth might soothe the burning sensation, or else there's just no point for you to keep putting your feet into your mouth.

Here I will requote my previous post, that talked about your double-standards, and yet you went on to make even more ridiculous double-standards as I will show next, even though I pointed it out... do you actually read what I say? Because if you did, you wouldn't be making such obvious double-standards as what follows, when I clearly accused you of doing so... you walked right into a trap that you created yourself.

My quote :

Quote:
What I would agree with is that you are an alarmist, who when sees positive points about the Habs and Gainey's job, relegates them to luck, overperforming or simply makes them smaller than what they are, and when it comes to negative points, you extrapolate them, making yourself an alarmist "will stay mediocre for the foreseeable future and blah blah blah". But when it comes to the Leafs and Burke, its the other way around. You should go read some of the opnions by Leafs fans on their board. Also, you should read other teams's fans opinions of Gainey... This might open your eyes... a bit.

YOu :

Quote:
I think you might have to give the nucks a little more time.
LMAO, so let's give them a little more time, after 6 years of "failure" (which fit your own prerequisites LMAO) under Burke, and 4 more years after, and the Nucks still haven't went further than the second round, we still have to be patient, yet when it comes to Gainey, who has done more strides with a weaker club to start with in about 5 seasons, we can't be patient. We're cheerleaders if we are patient with Gainey, right? Your double-standards are sooooo laughable and blatant, and show just how much you're a Gainey hater, and not someone with clear logical deductions based on facts and reality.


Quote:
as of right now, both the stars and the ducks have 1 cup, so it's a bit of a stretch to say the work gainey did with the stars was much better...
Well, Gainey started off with a lot less than either Holmgrem and Burke did in Anaheim and Philly.

But I wouldn't trust your "great" mind to try and balance the differences. You might end-up using too many double-standards.

Quote:
not too mention that the cap era changes things in a big way, the stars gainey assembled were consistently one of the top payroll teams in the league, burke didn't have that luxury...
can't believe im defending burke... i actually hate the guy... though he is a pretty good gm.
Yet let's not consider these differences when it comes to comparing Gainey in Dallas and Gainey in Montreal. Yet more double-standards. Gainey didn't have Pronger's wife wanting to move to a sunny place, and Niedermayer wanting to be with his brother. So give and get. Yet, the fact remains that Burke had a lot more to work with when he came to Anaheim than Gainey in Minnesota. One thing I would agree on, is that Burke did a better job in Anaheim than Holmgrem in Philly, as Burke is the one fortunate to have drafted some of their young prospects, whereas Clarke is the one who drafted Richards and Carter in Philly.




Quote:
i see many positives with the team... but i also acknowledge the mistakes I THINK have been made. Alarmist???
Well, you will see. I mean, your double standard and all... you ask of patience of a team that hasn't made more strides than the Habs, in about twice the number of seasons, and you act cool when it comes to that, yet when its the Habs... CAUSE OF CONCERN CAUSE OF CONCERN!!!!


Quote:
did the disaster that was this past season not alarm you at all?
We had injuries, a boatload of them. A coach that lost its lockeroom. A media that created **** around the team. Oh but wait, those are excuses... like Cloutier and his poor goaltending, right? But let's be patient with Vancouver, but be very very concerned with the Habs.

Quote:
does the fact that as of today 4 of our top 6 forwards are UFA, our most physical dman is a UFA, despite the cap flexibility it gives us, there aren't many quality realistic UFA options in key need areas available this offseason? It's alarming I'd say.
Not really. First of all, we haven't lost any of those players yet. Why not be..... patient! and see who signs back before being alarmists. I mean, you are able to do that with Super Burke and his vancouver playoff chokers, why not Gainey?

Quote:
What I like about Burke is that he comes in to an organization and immediately sets a tone, getting rid of players he doesnt want and bringing in the type of players he wants...
Well didn't Gainey get rid of a lot of players he didn't want right off the bat? He did. And as to getting players... its not the same when you're in Montreal than anywhere else.

Quote:
agree or disagree with that style, I'd say the approach (know what you want and stubbornly make it happen) is a good one. What I don't like about the Habs under Gainey, is that when you look at his player movement, it's hard to really say what kind of team he wants to build...
Hm, no its actually rather easy. Build throught the draft, a defensive minded team. The process is long from over and only starting. What happens is that Gainey doesn't have the luxury he had in Dallas, or Burke in Anaheim, or Holmgrem in Philly, of easily attracting UFAs, so he has to do the best he can to fill the veterans' slots.

Quote:
it makes many of the moves look like desperation or last minute signings, and it leaves us where we are today, in an offseason where no one (fans, media, players) can really predict what direction the team is heading in for the near future.
I'm not the lease worried about that. Most posters I know here who are cool headed and patient about hockey management are also of this opinion. Yet we don't live with huge double-standards when it comes to compare management of teams. We understand the specifics of the environment, the different variables that make it harder here to attract UFAs. And the direction is still the same. Build and develop young players while trying to complement them with what is available to us through the market. And its not like Gainey hasn't tried to do that through trades.

Quote:
I don't really care what other teams fans think about the habs management, why would I?
LMAO. Because people from the outside usually don't have a bias, negative and positive, when it comes to analysing other team's management. I thought this part of the logic of the request was obvious. And if you do look at many comments from other team's fans, they think Gainey is doing a good job. They understand the process.

Quote:
I don't formulate my opinion based on what "other people think is cool"...
That's not the point. You seem unable to actually discern points that are being made. The point is to see that people who have a positive opinion of Gainey is not because they are biased towards him, but rather because they analyse his work for what it is, and that most of them don't use ****, obvious and dishonest double-standards.

Quote:
they may be right, i may be wrong, that's the beauty of opinion, and boards like these are to stimulate debate of differing opinions... not to sift through garbage rants about how everyone else is delusional or devoid of logic... get over yourself dude
LMAO. Yes, and I'm the one who lumps things, huh? And I'm the one generalizing. Garbage rants? Really?

So what's not garbage then? Using double-standards? Strawman arguments? Dishonesty? Not staying on point?

Get over myself? Well using double-standards is pretty much on par with being devoid of logic, wouldn't you agree? Isn't it delusional to praise someone who has done less in one place, and then to be extremely demanding of someone who has done better in another place. When I talk of lack of logic and delusions, I back it up with strong arguments (which you usually casually avoid of talking about).

Quote:
call it intuition then, or call it putting too much stock in past performance... he's only been on the job for 6 months, not enough time to say FOR SURE wether or not he will succeed in his plan, but sometimes the power of persuasion is enough... sort of like how people were so in awe of the "calming presence" gainey had on the team when he arrived. Burke has set the tone in a much more forceful way that the leafs are going to play a certain way, and has already been busy drawing lines in the sand with players that other gm's might not be so quick to cut ties with... it's risky, but it makes expectations very clear...
It still is no proof of improvement whatsoever. Its based on speculation... and might I add... based on the nature of your opinion, which is filled with double-standards. Huge bias.

Quote:
wow that's tiring... and it's why i tend to give up in these "encounters"... too much effort and too little purpose. you clearly have no intention of behaving respectfully, i don't know why I bother

Behaving respectfully? When have ever done that? Your debating repertoire is filled with dishonest tactics. What is clear is that in your last sentence, you are trying to create an escape route for my next reply.


Last edited by Ozymandias: 06-12-2009 at 04:26 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 04:18 PM
  #154
the vinyl version
Registered User
 
the vinyl version's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
....
Epic.

the vinyl version is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 04:25 PM
  #155
Garo
Registered User
 
Garo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montréal
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Sorry folks, but I had to reply to this. Its a long one.
I don't know what you're talking about

Garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 04:30 PM
  #156
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Black View Post
Epic.
You have to admit its highly hilarious when someone says Gainey's tenure in Montreal is a failure because they only won two rounds of playoffs in five seasons, yet says Burke did a good job in Vancouver while they won only ONE playoff round in 6 seasons.

You have to assume that person has a huge negative bias towards Gainey. You also have to assume that this poster cannot be trusted to analyse anything.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 04:37 PM
  #157
Freaky Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Freaky Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New-Brunswick
Posts: 9,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
You have to admit its highly hilarious when someone says Gainey's tenure in Montreal is a failure because they only won two rounds of playoffs in five seasons, yet says Burke did a good job in Vancouver while they won only ONE playoff round in 6 seasons.

You have to assume that person has a huge negative bias towards Gainey. You also have to assume that this poster cannot be trusted to analyse anything.
I didn't red your post at all but how long did it took you to write it?

Freaky Habs Fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 04:39 PM
  #158
68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
...
Holy **** that's one of the longest posts I've ever seen on HF!

68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 05:10 PM
  #159
Playmaker09
Valar Morghulis
 
Playmaker09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
...
LOL PWND

MT is ur ******* bleeding... cause there's a pile of blood right where you were just sitting.

Playmaker09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 05:29 PM
  #160
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freaky Habs Fan View Post
I didn't red your post at all but how long did it took you to write it?
3-4 times where I spent a quarter of an hour on it since yesterday... So about an hour... I had a lot of stuff to do in the last few days, so I pasted his reply on a notepad, and added to it whenever I could. Its not like I spent an entire hour doing it in one shot... it was fairly not time consuming doing it this way... and I JUST HAD to reply to him, given that he supposedly owned me....

Quote:
Originally Posted by 68 View Post
Holy **** that's one of the longest posts I've ever seen on HF!
Tell me about it... although I did see some posts that were pretty close or even longer... they come every once in awhile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs0492 View Post
LOL PWND

MT is ur ******* bleeding... cause there's a pile of blood right where you were just sitting.
At least, unlike Millertime, I don't need to proclaim having pwned him, others will do it for me. thkx

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2009, 10:10 PM
  #161
Shaun Daigle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Sure. But then he's just Tomas Vokoun and Craig ANderson's coach and they haven't done too badly either.
I think you may be giving the guy too much credit, especially when it comes to his impact on Vokoun's play.

Shaun Daigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2009, 12:23 AM
  #162
peperebougon*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,151
vCash: 500
Can we ban all the idiots that come in a thread with the GAINEY IS SLEEPING one liner??? This is soooo annoying... Thank god for the ignore list...

Since I joined, the quality of posts/posters went downhill... Maybe I started a new trend of crappy posters... I was one of the worst posters here and worked hard to keep the title. Now I almost look like I know stuff...

peperebougon* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2009, 10:29 AM
  #163
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peperebougon View Post
Can we ban all the idiots that come in a thread with the GAINEY IS SLEEPING one liner??? This is soooo annoying... Thank god for the ignore list...

Since I joined, the quality of posts/posters went downhill... Maybe I started a new trend of crappy posters... I was one of the worst posters here and worked hard to keep the title. Now I almost look like I know stuff...
I never thought you were that bad. In fact, you were pretty mild in comparison to some of the _________ going around in here.

Worst around here is those who seemingly have a brain, yet try to defend those who have said those stupid oneliners of "Gainey is sleeping" as you can see by the outcome just several posts before yours.

Oh yeah, and he also had the temerity of saying I'm the only one who talks down on others because of their opinion. Yet as I told him before, I'm far from being the only one to talk them down as proven by your post on those of others on this thread.

We all do it, because its just plain to see : saying Gainey is sleeping is just what it is, stupid.

Unfortunetly, it seems stupidity is not grounds for a ban. At least, talking down to them isn't either.


Ozymandias 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 12:21 PM.

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

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