Gainey's hope
Marty
here, and all these deals do rely on one hope.
Gainey traded for a guy with 16 goals and 58 points last season, and signed
a guy who had 20 goals and 60 points. Gainey got these two clearly with the
hope and belief that there was a good chance of getting more out of them.
Gainey wants, hopes, believes and/or wishes that Gomez will take his game
to another level, a level he did for one season in Jersey, but failed to
maintain. He hopes Gionta can score in the 30-40 goal range again, and is
not really peaked at 20 goals. He hopes that the two can partner and
rediscover some old magic.
It's a hope and believe that probably isn't entirely likely, but I do
believe it is possible. By signing Cammy, he also gives them a winger that
can produce, so he's set them up for success. We'll see if the gamble
works.
Marty
Chuck
I think Gainey is trying to give Martin top lines that will not be
shutdown just because 1 key player goes into a funk. The forwards they
picked up are not "pass the puck, shoot when its perfect" type
players. All three have over 248 shots on goal or more, I doubt
Montreal will see a repeat of last season when their top lines would
end games with 2/3s of a line ending up with no, or just one shot on
goal. I think they will have a positive impact on the team's puck
possession times, and help the team escape the bottom of the shots on
goal against stats.
Mike
like the changes and lets face it, changes were required.
foamy
>Put me in the "hopeful" group Marty. Probably mislead as usual but I
>like the changes and lets face it, changes were required.
How about my conspiracy theory, Gainey knew there was nothing he
could do to dramatically fix the team for next year, he's had his 5 years
and realized he's toast with the Molson boys coming in with their friend
Savard poised to take his job, and he threw Serge an anchor with the
contracts to Gomez, Gionta and Cammalleri ?
And yes, there was a puff of smoke from the grassy knoll.
Jim)
.
Gerry
goals than either of them and doesn't seem to have been looking for
even Gionta-money. For example. It's a question of odds. For more
than $12M plus giving up Higgins and McDonagh, Gainey doesn't seem to
have picked the horse with the best odds. Maybe some of the horses
wouldn't run for him, so it's kind of hard to say he should have just
signed Havlat or Gaborik or Hossa instead. We don't know what the
breaking point in those negotiations was, what the health story really
is on a couple of them, etc. But when even the rickety old
disappointing incumbents had comparable odds... welllllll...
I don't see why people aren't a bit more skeptical about these moves.
Or maybe I'm just misreading things and most people *are* skeptical.
Non-Habs fans whose opinions I've read are almost universally
skeptical. Habs fans seem less so. Which baffles me a bit, because
I'm used to being the optimist in a field of skeptics. But
skepticism is warranted, IMHO. Not bleak pessimism... as I keep
saying, at least we got something relatively lateral-looking, at least
for the short term, and it could have been a lot worse. And there's
always the potential that we'll either beat the odds or the other
factors at play with the team will make the lateral-looking UFA factor
irrelevant.
l8r,
Gerry
optimus2861
> I don't see why people aren't a bit more skeptical about these moves.
> Or maybe I'm just misreading things and most people *are* skeptical.
> Non-Habs fans whose opinions I've read are almost universally
> skeptical. Habs fans seem less so.
I'm certainly skeptical. While I was expecting a chunk of turnover, I
wasn't expecting a thorough nuking, nor was I expecting the nuking
being in favor of MORE SMURFS! We're stuck watching a small team get
out muscled for several more years now, not to mention the whopper of
Gomez's contract (seriously.. WT effing F? Why in blazes did we do the
Rangers that big a favor?).
Predictions are impossible at this stage. The team is a crapshoot, and
undoubtedly Gainey's last kick at the can. This squad is either a
solid top 6 team for the first 2 months of the season, or he'll be
cannonballed out the door by the new owners, methinks.
-Ian
Marty
7c345b...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
ointing incumbents had comparable odds... welllllll...
>
> I don't see why people aren't a bit more skeptical about these moves.
> Or maybe I'm just misreading things and most people *are* skeptical.
> Non-Habs fans whose opinions I've read are almost universally
> skeptical. Habs fans seem less so. Which baffles me a bit, because
> I'm used to being the optimist in a field of skeptics. But
> skepticism is warranted, IMHO. Not bleak pessimism... as I keep
> saying, at least we got something relatively lateral-looking, at least
> for the short term, and it could have been a lot worse. And there's
> always the potential that we'll either beat the odds or the other
> factors at play with the team will make the lateral-looking UFA factor
> irrelevant.
>
Well, uhh, err....were to begin.
OK. I'll say this. A part of me thinks that there is potential here for
the most exciting first line we've seen in 20+ years. Yes, 20. You put
together two guys who had their best season in their last year together,
and complemented them with a PPG guy. There is some wild upside potential
there. I also think that I'm not the only guy who sees this, but Gomez
and Gionta see it as well. I'm a big believer in psychology, and Gainey
has offered these guys a new start and one has to suspect they will be
excited all off-season, be working out and really gung-ho to start the
season with the belief that they can repeat their past success. That
positive mindset and a desire to prove themselves in a new enviroment may
yield big success.
Then again, it may not.
I really don't know. As stated, it's a wild experiment. A break from the
past. A wild mixing of chemicals to see what results.
That said, I do see a flaw in your thinking.
If there is a problem with these moves, it is that the biggest sins was
the prospects given up. However, that really doesn't impact the coming
season. The cap-lock scenario impacts more the next season. For the
upcoming season, there is reason to believe the team is in good shape. I
do believe that Gionta, Cammy, and Gomez is a better #1 line than
Kovalev, Koivu and Tanguay. I also suspect that when they score goals,
one of them won't turn and skate away from the other, which is something
I saw more than once with the KKT line! A more positive atmosphere should
be helpful.
So, well, I'm hard pressed to give clear opinion. I guess I fall in
between the outside skeptics who see overpriced contracts and emphaisize
the worst about the Hab signings (i.e. focus on goals and pretends
assists don't count), and those who dream of the upside. I can see both
the upside and the downside, and frankly I think I'd be doing nothing
more than pulling a predicition out of my ass to try and prediction
theese guys fit together under a new coach. With this much change, my
true opinion is reserved for when the season starts. However, if I look
at the glass half-full, I do see an upside I don't think this team had
before.
Marty
Billy
Oh, definitely also skeptical. Look at the numbers on these guys, and
it's clearly - as Gerry says - a lateral move. You could probably make
the case that, as a unit, Gomez, Gionta, and Cammaleri are less
productive than Koivu, Higgins, and Kovalev. So clearly, it's not
about the numbers, and more about changing the room ... change for
change's sake.
If Hab fans are less skeptical than non-Hab fans, it's because Hab
fans suffered badly through the second half of the season and were
open for suggestions. Non-Hab fans couldn't care less.
I have no idea how this will pan out, but I am at least sure of the
following: Higgins will rebound with another 25 goal season; Gomez and
Koivu will have virtually identical seasons; Cammaleri and Kovalev
will score roughly the same amount of goals; Gionta will score 20
goals, 50 points; Komisarek will disappoint Leaf fans; Hal Gill will
be a whipping boy by game two; and finally, unless Price picks up his
game big time, people will eventually remember that goaltending - not
the top forwards - was the team's biggest problem in the second half.
Bill
Marty
Marty
ed8931...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 2, 10:51�pm, optimus2861 <ian.merrit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:41�pm, Gerry <gerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see why people aren't a bit more skeptical about these
moves.
>> > Or maybe I'm just misreading things and most people *are* skeptical.
>> > Non-Habs fans whose opinions I've read are almost universally
>> > skeptical. �Habs fans seem less so. �
>>
>> I'm certainly skeptical. While I was expecting a chunk of turnover, I
>> wasn't expecting a thorough nuking, nor was I expecting the nuking
>> being in favor of MORE SMURFS! We're stuck watching a small team get
>> out muscled for several more years now, not to mention the whopper of
>> Gomez's contract (seriously.. WT effing F? Why in blazes did we do the
>> Rangers that big a favor?).
>>
>> Predictions are impossible at this stage. The team is a crapshoot, and
>> undoubtedly Gainey's last kick at the can. This squad is either a
>> solid top 6 team for the first 2 months of the season, or he'll be
>> cannonballed out the door by the new owners, methinks.
>>
>> -Ian
>
> Oh, definitely also skeptical. Look at the numbers on these guys, and
> it's clearly - as Gerry says - a lateral move. You could probably make
> the case that, as a unit, Gomez, Gionta, and Cammaleri are less
> productive than Koivu, Higgins, and Kovalev. So clearly, it's not
> about the numbers, and more about changing the room ... change for
> change's sake.
>
Err, well, that could be true, but that would be a hard argument. Last
season KKT scored combined for 16+16+26=58 goals. Points 65+50+41=156.
GGC combined for 16+20+39=75 goals. Points 60+82+58=200.
I know there is a LOT of factors in there, but IMO the first line clearly
looks better.
> If Hab fans are less skeptical than non-Hab fans, it's because Hab
> fans suffered badly through the second half of the season and were
> open for suggestions. Non-Hab fans couldn't care less.
>
Well, non-Hab fans are as biased as Hab fans. Surely, we all know that!
This is the ultimate love-or-hate team. I mean, I still have to listen to
arguments the Habs didn't deserve to win the Cup in 1993, like the did
something different than all the teams before them or since. Apparently,
great goaltending, a terrific top-4 defence and balanced scoring is a
terrible way to win the Cup.
> I have no idea how this will pan out, but I am at least sure of the
> following: Higgins will rebound with another 25 goal season; Gomez and
> Koivu will have virtually identical seasons; Cammaleri and Kovalev
> will score roughly the same amount of goals; Gionta will score 20
> goals, 50 points; Komisarek will disappoint Leaf fans; Hal Gill will
> be a whipping boy by game two; and finally, unless Price picks up his
> game big time, people will eventually remember that goaltending - not
> the top forwards - was the team's biggest problem in the second half.
Well Kreskin, I hope you're wrong in some of those, and I think there is
a decent chance you will be. You've made the "safest" predictions, but I
don't consider stating that you are "sure" of something should mean that
you've picked the marginally most likely scenario. In fact, I could pick
out the Cammy/Kovalev scenario and argue you haven't pick the most likey
outcome. Predicting Gionta will score at a lower rate than he has since
2004 seems a little unfair too. Anyway, whatever. I'm of the opinion that
predicitions are for suckers at this point. This team, with a new coach,
is a complete unknown.
Billy
> Billy <magiz...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3527e41f-bb44-4634-80c9-
> ed893116e...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
20 goals/50 points is basically what Gionta scored in 2007/2008, and
MORE than he scored in 2006/2007. So no, I don't think that's an
unfair prediction at all. His big year was a definite abberation for
him ... not knocking him, really, just that he's more of a 20 goal/50
point guy based on every season he's played except for one.
There is a "decent chance" I am wrong about some of those, but the
only one I'm really iffy about is the Komisarek prediction: he could
easily bounce back. On the other hand, I would bet Gainey some serious
money that Higgins outscores Gomez this year.
Bill
Marty
news:c7ad0e4c-3afa-40ff...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
No. He scored 60 points, not 50 in 2008. You CANNOT round off 60 points
to 50!
He scored 53 in 2007, his lowest PPG in the lat 4 season. You can't use
that as the referecne point that you boil all his other stats down too.
> His big year was a definite abberation for
> him ...
Possibly, likely, yes.
> not knocking him, really, just that he's more of a 20 goal/50
> point guy based on every season he's played except for one.
>
Yeah, maybe. But he hasn't played with Gomez since. Well, until the
upcoming season! See, there is a potential here. :)
> There is a "decent chance" I am wrong about some of those, but the
> only one I'm really iffy about is the Komisarek prediction: he could
> easily bounce back. On the other hand, I would bet Gainey some serious
> money that Higgins outscores Gomez this year.
OK. Fuck, I'm tired of comparing wingers to centres.
I will make this wildly BOLD statement right now.
If Gomez scores 20 goals and 70 assists, I will consider him a more
valuable player than a winger who scores 21 goals and 20 assists!
Apperently, this makes me a weirdo, because TV commentators and numerous
people in this group suddenly only count goals when it comes to offensive
production. Personally, I still value centres that are excellent set-up
men, but perhaps not great finishers. Seemingly, all those players are
doucebags, but I still thing they have value.
Marty
Mike
One thing is for sure. Gainey sure has kept this group alive and well
during the off season.
I think many people have not given Gainey credit for his vision here.
1. He grabs a coach known for his defensive awareness and defensive
systems. This was after all a team with no idea what to do with the puck
in their own end.
2. He then goes out and gets a #1 center (yes a #1 center) who THRIVES
under that system. What's he do next?
3. Goes and gets him a winger who also thrives under the very same
system and who has played with the aforementioned #1 center and won 2
Stanley Cups with him. Everyone seems to forget these guys have been
through the war and come out the other side TWICE but they're too small
now for some reason.
4. Rounds out the top line with Camerelli who is coming off a 39 goal
season.
5. Fixes the holes on D with Gill and Spacek
6. Addresses the pp with Spacek who will surely have a career year
feeding off those beautiful Markov passes on the pp.
Gerry
> I think many people have not given Gainey credit for his vision here.
>
> 1. He grabs a coach known for his defensive awareness and defensive
> systems. This was after all a team with no idea what to do with the puck
> in their own end.
> 2. He then goes out and gets a #1 center (yes a #1 center) who THRIVES
> under that system. What's he do next?
Thrives? Well, I guess it depends on your definition. I get the
sense that Renney didn't always like the way he played it. Holik and
Madden and guys like that were the main thrivers up the middle in NJ.
I drafted Gomez back in '98, so I've had a tendency to follow his
exploits more closely than I do the typical non-Hab, non-divisional
rival. He helped me win some Cups in my FHL too. I think he's
certainly had an adequate level of defensive responsibility instilled
in him. But "thrives" is hardly the word I'd choose. Might better
even to say he has "suffered under" it, and hope he'll put a few more
points on the board if the Habs can afford to give him more freedom.
But looking at our centers, we probably can't. And it's not like the
Rangers didn't keep trying to roll him out there and produce either.
He always got tons of ice-time.
> 3. Goes and gets him a winger who also thrives under the very same
> system and who has played with the aforementioned #1 center and won 2
> Stanley Cups with him. Everyone seems to forget these guys have been
> through the war and come out the other side TWICE but they're too small
> now for some reason.
Gionta wasn't on the 2000 team. He scored a goal in the 2003
playoffs, though. One. Along for the ride, basically.
> 4. Rounds out the top line with Camerelli who is coming off a 39 goal
> season.
Personally, I think Cammalleri is the best of the bunch by a decent
stretch, and the only one who represents a reasonable upgrade and
positive acquisition at his pricetag.
> 5. Fixes the holes on D with Gill and Spacek
> 6. Addresses the pp with Spacek who will surely have a career year
> feeding off those beautiful Markov passes on the pp.
I guess we'll see. I think Spacek is an overall upgrade on Schneider,
although I don't believe he really has the PP presence that Schneider
does. Gill is clearly a step down from Komisarek. It's a decent
patch job, but I don't see it as much of a step forward. We really
needed two top-4 guys in order to step forward, we got one. There
were better bargains on the market than Gill for the depth spot.
l8r,
Gerry
Marty
news:4a4e05bb$0$23753$9a56...@news.aliant.net:
> One thing is for sure. Gainey sure has kept this group alive and well
> during the off season.
>
> I think many people have not given Gainey credit for his vision here.
>
> 1. He grabs a coach known for his defensive awareness and defensive
> systems. This was after all a team with no idea what to do with the
> puck in their own end.
> 2. He then goes out and gets a #1 center (yes a #1 center) who THRIVES
> under that system. What's he do next?
> 3. Goes and gets him a winger who also thrives under the very same
> system and who has played with the aforementioned #1 center and won 2
> Stanley Cups with him. Everyone seems to forget these guys have been
> through the war and come out the other side TWICE but they're too
> small now for some reason.
I think you give too much credit though for that being all part of a master
"plan". IMO, he traded for Gomez because he was available. Vinny was his
first target, remember? He tried to re-sign Kovalev before turing his
attention to Gionta. Now, I do believe by the time Gainey turned his
attention to Gionta he probably then felt motivation based partly on the
above factors. At that point, after having missed other targets Gainey
probably says to himself "Well, these guys used to work magic together, and
did it for a defensive team. What the hell?" and then threw an insano
contract Gionta's way. Anyway, the result indeed may work out, but the
players Gainey assembled were largely based on who would take his money, or
what team was willing to trade with him.
Billy
Just to eliminate any ambiguity about Gionta's numbers:
2009 - 60pts
2008 - 53pts
2007 - 45pts
2006 - 89pts
2004 - 29pts
2003 - 25pts
So I'm ball-parking 50pts for what would be a likely expectation.
Okay, so it could be 60, if you want to be optimistic, but I'm just
trying to put out a reasonable estimate. His career numbers don't
suggest he'll do anything really impressive stats-wise, would you at
least agree with that?
> > His big year was a definite abberation for
> > him ...
>
> Possibly, likely, yes.
>
> > not knocking him, really, just that he's more of a 20 goal/50
> > point guy based on every season he's played except for one.
>
> Yeah, maybe. But he hasn't played with Gomez since. Well, until the
> upcoming season! See, there is a potential here. :)
LOL, there is always potential, I can't argue with that!
> > There is a "decent chance" I am wrong about some of those, but the
> > only one I'm really iffy about is the Komisarek prediction: he could
> > easily bounce back. On the other hand, I would bet Gainey some serious
> > money that Higgins outscores Gomez this year.
>
> OK. Fuck, I'm tired of comparing wingers to centres.
Really? You don't like comparing centers and wingers? I saw in another
thread where you compared a center with Markov :)
> I will make this wildly BOLD statement right now.
>
> If Gomez scores 20 goals and 70 assists, I will consider him a more
> valuable player than a winger who scores 21 goals and 20 assists!
> Apperently, this makes me a weirdo, because TV commentators and numerous
> people in this group suddenly only count goals when it comes to offensive
> production. Personally, I still value centres that are excellent set-up
> men, but perhaps not great finishers. Seemingly, all those players are
> doucebags, but I still thing they have value.
Okay, well, IF Gomez gets 20 goals and 70 assists, I will definitely
consider him more valuable than a winger who gets 21 goals and 20
assists, because It would be hard to argue that a 90 point player is
not worth more than a 41 points player! But why would you think Gomez
is going to come close to 70 assists? He got 70 assists once ... in
the ECHL during the lockout year. He's only scored more than 70 points
in the NHL once, and that was a career year four seasons ago. In
the ;ast three years he's been healthy and he's averaged about 15
goals and 63 points a year.
Bill
Marty
news:495b8a3c-fd14-490d...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> If Gomez scores 20 goals and 70 assists, I will consider him a more
>> valuable player than a winger who scores 21 goals and 20 assists!
>> Apperently, this makes me a weirdo, because TV commentators and
>> numerous people in this group suddenly only count goals when it comes
>> to offensive production. Personally, I still value centres that are
>> excellent set-up men, but perhaps not great finishers. Seemingly, all
>> those players are doucebags, but I still thing they have value.
>
> Okay, well, IF Gomez gets 20 goals and 70 assists, I will definitely
> consider him more valuable than a winger who gets 21 goals and 20
> assists, because It would be hard to argue that a 90 point player is
> not worth more than a 41 points player! But why would you think Gomez
> is going to come close to 70 assists? He got 70 assists once ... in
> the ECHL during the lockout year. He's only scored more than 70 points
> in the NHL once, and that was a career year four seasons ago. In
> the ;ast three years he's been healthy and he's averaged about 15
> goals and 63 points a year.
I wasn't predicting Gomez would get 70 assists. I was just making the point
that people should stop cherry picking numbers to make their point, like
when they compare a wingers goal totals to a centre, when most centres job
is to focus on setting up wingers. Or seeing someone equate one player as
equal to another based on identical 20 goal seasons, without reference to
the fact one had 60 points and the other had 48.
I agree that Gionta may be a huge bust in terms of value. Then again, he
did score 48 goals once, and was one pace for in the 30's the next season
before injury. He has potential, and he showed his higest potential when
playing with Gomez.
Marty
Mike
not. All the speculation in the world and drumming up stats means dick
all. Gainey either successfully jumped horses mid-stride or he'll be
gone by February if its a bust.