News Article: Andre Savard interview

[Fish on The Sand]

I still don't see any evidence. That article references some hockeyforum.com site on the 'player names have slipped out' as being included in the deal, and that thread consisted of a lot of speculation and no facts.

By 2001, Garon was no longer the better prospect. That thinking was already in decline by 99-00.

I'm not so sure. It was apparent to me by then Theodore was better because of his NHL success, but this is a guy who was continually put behind Hackett despite outplaying him. He outplayed him in 99/00 but Hackett got all the starts down the stretch, in 00/01 once again Hackett got the bulk of the playing time, and I bet that had Hackett not gotten injured in 01/02 that Theodore would have once again be shafted.

While Theodore's play should have indicated that he was the better player, management and coaching had very little respect for his abilities, so it isn't a stretch to say that other team's didn't either. You also have to remember, we are still talking about the era where players were evaluated by size first and ability second, the era that produced guys like Chad Kilger in the top 5 of the draft because he was really big. Even when we finally gave up on Garon a few years later we got an inexplicably good return for him because he was a large goalie and teams still saw him as a hotshot prospect.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

No, the rules were the same for all 30 teams and Gainey should have been aware of the rules.

It was either keep him in the minors for the rest of the season, or not call him up and play with 4 dmen. We got screwed over.

 

[DAChampion]

It was either keep him in the minors for the rest of the season, or not call him up and play with 4 dmen. We got screwed over.

No, Gainey chose to give Hainsey up to waivers.

They could have left him in the minors in that case, or start the season with him.

And what about Beauchemin? Were the rules unfair there as well?

Stop crying about the rules.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

No, Gainey chose to give him up to waivers.

They could have left him in the minors in that case, or start the season with him.

And what about Beauchemin? Were the rules unfair there as well?

Beauchemin was a case of poor judgement, however at the time nobody could have honestly expected he would go on to have any sort of decent career. That's one that only looks bad with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[DAChampion]

Beauchemin was a case of poor judgement, however at the time nobody could have honestly expected he would go on to have any sort of decent career. That's one that only looks bad with the benefit of hindsight.

Each of Hainsey, Beauchemin, Streit, Sourray, and McDonagh look back with the benefit of hindsight, and I bet people realised they were bad at the time. They were all cases of bad judgment.

Gainey simply didn't understand asset management. He had dumb "rules" like not negotiating during the season, and always filling up the support roles on the team with mediocre free agents like Brian Smolinski and Karl Dykhuis, rather than giving a shot to youngsters.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Each of Hainsey, Beauchemin, Streit, Sourray, and McDonagh look back with the benefit of hindsight, and I bet people realised they were bad at the time. They were all cases of bad judgment.

Gainey simply didn't understand asset management. He had dumb "rules" like not negotiating during the season, and always filling up the support roles on the team with mediocre free agents like Brian Smolinski and Karl Dykhuis, rather than giving a shot to youngsters.

Dykhuis was not a Gainey pick up, nor was he a free agent pick up and we had no choice but to try and call up Hainsey. We lost 3 dmen in a single game, we needed to call him up and lost him. The rule has been changed in large part because of that travesty.

Losing Souray also wasn't bad management. I realize that you would rather us roll over and lose, but trading away your MVP while you are making a charge for the playoffs is never a good idea.

Trading away McDonagh was bad, there's no getting around that fact, but it is clear that you have an agenda. If Gainey's asset management was so poor, how come the vast majority of our current core are Gainey players?

 

[Mike8]

I'm not so sure. It was apparent to me by then Theodore was better because of his NHL success, but this is a guy who was continually put behind Hackett despite outplaying him. He outplayed him in 99/00 but Hackett got all the starts down the stretch, in 00/01 once again Hackett got the bulk of the playing time, and I bet that had Hackett not gotten injured in 01/02 that Theodore would have once again be shafted.

While Theodore's play should have indicated that he was the better player, management and coaching had very little respect for his abilities, so it isn't a stretch to say that other team's didn't either. You also have to remember, we are still talking about the era where players were evaluated by size first and ability second, the era that produced guys like Chad Kilger in the top 5 of the draft because he was really big. Even when we finally gave up on Garon a few years later we got an inexplicably good return for him because he was a large goalie and teams still saw him as a hotshot prospect.

In 2000-01, Theodore took over as the #1 and played 59 games, posting a .909 save % to Hackett's .897. (Garon also posted .897) That was good enough for 14th in the NHL among starters (if gp = 40+ means starter)

Garon had played poorly in 99-00 and so the team brought in Eric Fichaud to split AHL duties. Fichaud then played more in the AHL than Garon in 00-01.

You're right in what you're saying, but I think the timeline is off. Management changed its view on Theodore in '99. In fact, Theodore looked great in training camp in '98 and had already out-shone Garon there.

As I recall, the team got a good return for Garon because he posted really solid #s in a backup role and was still viewed as a fundamentally sound, big goalie that was stuck behind a Vezina winner. But that return wasn't exceptional, given the optics at the time: Huet had put up poor #s in a backup role in LA, and Bonk had just been acquired for a 3rd rounder.

Think of that kind of deal today: a below avg backup + 3rd for a young backup that posted a .921 save % and good GAA on a bad team. I think it was more than just size; it was the performance in a backup role + youth that was appealing.

...

Anyway, all to say that I'd be incredibly surprised if Waddell was valuing Garon over Theodore. Garon's stock had been on a decline since his poor AHL season in '99 and being outshone in camp in '98. Theodore had already been a better than avg starter in 2000-01 in Hackett's injury season.

Thanks for bringing this up though. Nice to have had to jog my memory on all this.

 

[Mike8]

Beauchemin was a case of poor judgement, however at the time nobody could have honestly expected he would go on to have any sort of decent career. That's one that only looks bad with the benefit of hindsight.

Hate to disagree with you again, but I loved Beauchemin. At the time, I thought he was quite similar to Weinrich -- both in stature and in abilities. And he's had a similar career. For all intents and purposes, you're right though ... he wasn't considered a can't-miss-prospect.

 

[DAChampion]

Losing Souray also wasn't bad management. I realize that you would rather us roll over and lose,

That's what Bob Gainey did. They kept Sourray, rolled over, and lost.

ETA: Think about it man, if we had tanked in 2007, we could have drafted a really good player that year ... ;-)

Trading away McDonagh was bad, there's no getting around that fact, but it is clear that you have an agenda.

Agenda?



I defended Gainey for years, I was one of those people who argued "In Bob I Trust", but looking back in hindsight there is no denying that he sucked at asset management.

If Gainey's asset management was so poor, how come the vast majority of our current core are Gainey players?

Bournival, Bourque, Eller, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Malhotra, Parenteau, Prust, Sekac, Weise, Beaulieu, Gilbert, Tinordi, Weaver, Tokarski comprise 65% of the active roster. Those are all players brought in during the post-Gainey era.

Within the "core", Desharnais was brought in because of Carbonneau, Markov was already here in 2003, Plekanec was drafted by Savard, Galchenyuk was drafted by Bergevin, Gallagher was drafted by Gauthier, ... Price, Subban, Pacioretty don't constitute "the vast majority".

Anyway it's not hard to understand, given how good the drafting has been in Montreal (because of Andre Savard and Trevor Timmins), the Habs would be a much stronger team if not for Gainey's ineptitude. McDonagh for Gomez might be the worst trade in the NHL of the post-lockout era.

McDonagh, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Sourray, Streit, all lost for nothing. Don't forget Komisarek who still had some value at the 2009 trade deadline.

 

[25get]

Dykhuis was not a Gainey pick up, nor was he a free agent pick up and we had no choice but to try and call up Hainsey. We lost 3 dmen in a single game, we needed to call him up and lost him. The rule has been changed in large part because of that travesty.

Losing Souray also wasn't bad management. I realize that you would rather us roll over and lose, but trading away your MVP while you are making a charge for the playoffs is never a good idea.

Trading away McDonagh was bad, there's no getting around that fact, but it is clear that you have an agenda. If Gainey's asset management was so poor, how come the vast majority of our current core are Gainey players?

it is clear that you have an agenda...

How come the vast majority of our current core are Trevor Timmins's players?

Savard and Gauthier did more for this team in the little time they had than Gainey.
Now if you want to say that Gainey is responsible for all picks during his era...

 

[Whitesnake]

When Gainey ask Timmins "Are you sure" just prior to a pick, something tells me he had NO clue and not a whole lot of power as far as who we are picking. Reason why I will always talk about the head scout as far as draft picks are concerned. Not GM's. Yep, they might give "directions", but they won't pick particular players....Your job is to name the guys that will do that for you. And in the end, it's Savard who named Timmins. If you absolutely want to give credit to Gainey, credit him for "keeping" Timmins....Good job Bob.

I prefer analysing a GM's job through his trades, UFA's, players he acquired and let go. Drafting...it's the head scout job. 'Cause if you start playing with draft picks, this can go very far. Gainey is credited for 2 great trades. The Rivet one and the Kovalev one. Well fine, who did they trade to get Kovalev? Josef Balej. Which administration drafted Balej? The Savard one. But even better.....which pick did they use to get Balej? A pick they had acquired when they traded their 2nd round pick to Anaheim for a 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounder....Mind you, Anaheim selected Bryzgalov with that 2nd rounder (good pick by their head scout), while we drafted Balej, Ouellet (they traded that pick) and Glenn.....not exactly incredible. After the Boudrias debacle, and while Dorion did give the Habs an incredible 1998 draft (can't imagine how even better it would have been with Gagné instead of Chouinard), Savard went with Madden who gave him in 2 years Pleks, Higgins, Komi and Perez. Not bad....but Savard though Timmins woudl be able to do more. And I think he did.....yet, in 2 years what Madden wasn't too bad as Pleks is still, to this day, a Habs.

Though, I think that you do have to congratulate a GM when he acquires a pick...you can't say he acquired Pacioretty. Doesn't work this way. Why? 'Cause getting Gorges and a 1st for Rivet was, in itself, brillant. But let say Timmins gets Patrick White instead of Pacioretty.....can we then say that finally, Gainey wasn't that good 'cause all he got was White? Nope...he STILL got us a 1st round pick. But what becomes of that 1st round pick is going through the head scout. Works both ways. Not going to praise a GM for the particular players we pick....but not going to fault him either because we missed on this or that player.

Gainey had an awful asset management. And whether it was because of the tragedy that struck him, he had to recognize that he couldn't deal with the job he was doing for the good of the team. Others had to see it too but again, that's under Pierre Boivin, who was mostly great at building a brand than building a hockey team.

 

[Sorinth]

Bournival, Bourque, Eller, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Malhotra, Parenteau, Prust, Sekac, Weise, Beaulieu, Gilbert, Tinordi, Weaver, Tokarski comprise 65% of the active roster. Those are all players brought in during the post-Gainey era.

Within the "core", Desharnais was brought in because of Carbonneau, Markov was already here in 2003, Plekanec was drafted by Savard, Galchenyuk was drafted by Bergevin, Gallagher was drafted by Gauthier, ... Price, Subban, Pacioretty don't constitute "the vast majority".

Price, Subban, Pacioretty might not be the majority but they are without question our top-3 players. You could have 50 Souray, Streits, and Hainsey's it's not equal to a single Subban. It doesn't matter all that much how many average assets you lose for nothing because they are easy to replace. What's hard to get is elite players. And Gainey acquired three of the four we have (I count Galchenyuk).

Hell if you make a list of the 7/8 most important players on the team the vast majority are either acquired under Gainey or were pre-Gainey players (i.e assets Gainey had to manage). It's rare for depth players to stay with the same team for more than a few years so looking at them is irrelevant.

 

[Sorinth]

When Gainey ask Timmins "Are you sure" just prior to a pick, something tells me he had NO clue and not a whole lot of power as far as who we are picking. Reason why I will always talk about the head scout as far as draft picks are concerned. Not GM's. Yep, they might give "directions", but they won't pick particular players....Your job is to name the guys that will do that for you. And in the end, it's Savard who named Timmins. If you absolutely want to give credit to Gainey, credit him for "keeping" Timmins....Good job Bob.

I prefer analysing a GM's job through his trades, UFA's, players he acquired and let go. Drafting...it's the head scout job. 'Cause if you start playing with draft picks, this can go very far. Gainey is credited for 2 great trades. The Rivet one and the Kovalev one. Well fine, who did they trade to get Kovalev? Josef Balej. Which administration drafted Balej? The Savard one. But even better.....which pick did they use to get Balej? A pick they had acquired when they traded their 2nd round pick to Anaheim for a 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounder....Mind you, Anaheim selected Bryzgalov with that 2nd rounder (good pick by their head scout), while we drafted Balej, Ouellet (they traded that pick) and Glenn.....not exactly incredible. After the Boudrias debacle, and while Dorion did give the Habs an incredible 1998 draft (can't imagine how even better it would have been with Gagné instead of Chouinard), Savard went with Madden who gave him in 2 years Pleks, Higgins, Komi and Perez. Not bad....but Savard though Timmins woudl be able to do more. And I think he did.....yet, in 2 years what Madden wasn't too bad as Pleks is still, to this day, a Habs.

Though, I think that you do have to congratulate a GM when he acquires a pick...you can't say he acquired Pacioretty. Doesn't work this way. Why? 'Cause getting Gorges and a 1st for Rivet was, in itself, brillant. But let say Timmins gets Patrick White instead of Pacioretty.....can we then say that finally, Gainey wasn't that good 'cause all he got was White? Nope...he STILL got us a 1st round pick. But what becomes of that 1st round pick is going through the head scout. Works both ways. Not going to praise a GM for the particular players we pick....but not going to fault him either because we missed on this or that player.

Gainey had an awful asset management. And whether it was because of the tragedy that struck him, he had to recognize that he couldn't deal with the job he was doing for the good of the team. Others had to see it too but again, that's under Pierre Boivin, who was mostly great at building a brand than building a hockey team.

Not that I disagree with the overall sentiment but the bottom line is the GM is the one in charge that's why he gets credit/blame. Part of his job is delegating responsibility to capable people. If the team's scouting was terrible then the GM would deservedly get some of the blame even though he wasn't making the picks because his job was to get good people and put them in an environment to succeed. Timmins isn't alone, there's a whole team of scouts under him, should we start crediting individual scouts instead of Timmins? Who was the WHL scout when we drafted Gallagher, does he deserve more credit then Timmins?

Then there's the whole development aspect especially at the NHL level. Shouldn't the GM get some credit for building a team that can ease players into the NHL properly rather than throwing them into the fire on day one?

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Then there's the whole development aspect especially at the NHL level. Shouldn't the GM get some credit for building a team that can ease players into the NHL properly rather than throwing them into the fire on day one?

You mean like what Gainey did with Pacioretty and Price ?

EDIT: I realize I'm being unfair to your post, that's not really the point you were making but if I wasn't disingenuous I'd tell you that Gainey didn't assemble a cup contender either. It was a decent team but not great either..So it's not like our prospects were stepping into Detroit's locker room. And he did rush Pacioretty and Price.. and he did let Price, Higgins, Kost bros, etc party non-stop with little supervision.

 

[Sorinth]

You mean like what Gainey did with Pacioretty and Price ?

EDIT: I realize I'm being unfair to your post, that's not really the point you were making but if I wasn't disingenuous I'd tell you that Gainey didn't assemble a cup contender either. It was a decent team but not great either..So it's not like our prospects were stepping into Detroit's locker room. And he did rush Pacioretty and Price.. and he did let Price, Higgins, Kost bros, etc party non-stop with little supervision.

Pacioretty was rushed, I'm not so sure Price was. Like Subban, Price could handle a big load right away. But I was contrasting more the Oilers, Islanders, their young guys come in and are leaned on to be the top guys right away. If they struggle no one can step in and take some of the load off. That wasn't really the case with any of our guys. Subban was almost instantly put in the number 1 slot, but we he earned it and we had players who could step in and cover for him if ever he struggled. The same happened with Price, he earned the number 1 spot, and when he struggled we had someone ready to take over until he could find himself again.

In any case the stated reason for blowing up the team and getting Gomez, Gionta, and company was that the young guys like Higgins, Komisarek, Kostitsyn x2 would come to the NHL show some good things but then stop developing. So the issue was arguably addressed anyways.

 

[OnTheRun]

You mean like what Gainey did with Pacioretty and Price ?

EDIT: I realize I'm being unfair to your post, that's not really the point you were making but if I wasn't disingenuous I'd tell you that Gainey didn't assemble a cup contender either. It was a decent team but not great either..So it's not like our prospects were stepping into Detroit's locker room. And he did rush Pacioretty and Price.. and he did let Price, Higgins, Kost bros, etc party non-stop with little supervision.

Well that's a good example of GMs getting credits/blames by proxy because they sit at the top of the hockey operations.

Technically it's not the GMs job to babysit prospects, Habs have people in charge of prospects development and the entire coaching staffs (in MTL and HAM) is closer to the issue than the GM. But their failure/success will be tied to the GM.

It's also not the GM job to do amateur/pro scouting, they have peoples paid to do that. And in the Gainey era you can find Gauthier's fingerprint on pretty much every trades/UFAs signing the team have done. But ultimately the GM is the one taking credit or the fall.

 

[tinyzombies]

OMG he could have had the first pick overall for Theodore??? The year Theo won the MVP, he had a very mediocre first half. Iginla should have won that award. The 2003 draft was an amazing draft. And we also took a Euro who can't skate with our first pick... Kostitsyn. We could have had two stud Canadians out of that draft. Not only that but Gainey allowed himself to be outbid by Jersey for the 17th pick (Parise). We could have had three studs out of that draft and would have been winning Cups. What a fiasco.

 

[Whitesnake]

Not that I disagree with the overall sentiment but the bottom line is the GM is the one in charge that's why he gets credit/blame. Part of his job is delegating responsibility to capable people. If the team's scouting was terrible then the GM would deservedly get some of the blame even though he wasn't making the picks because his job was to get good people and put them in an environment to succeed. Timmins isn't alone, there's a whole team of scouts under him, should we start crediting individual scouts instead of Timmins? Who was the WHL scout when we drafted Gallagher, does he deserve more credit then Timmins?

Then there's the whole development aspect especially at the NHL level. Shouldn't the GM get some credit for building a team that can ease players into the NHL properly rather than throwing them into the fire on day one?

And again, who put Timmins in charge? Not Gainey? And in the end, no matter who the individual scouts are, the head scout has the last word AND goes to see the players that the individual scouts feel strongly about. If the head scout doesn't agree at all with an individual scout....I would bet that he doesn't pick the players.

As far as the whole development aspect, well we can't say. 'Cause some players couldn't care less like a Patrice Bergeron for example, and some others needs longer development. The day you start going at that extent, you'll have to review each GM's analysis even the ones you think that eventually sucked. Was Houle and MIlbury that bad? Were they victims of tons of things that were otu of their control? In the end, you analyse whoever based on things that are easier to judge. And like I keep saying, a GM's job is often judged way past his time as a GM. I think everything is fairly well judged that way. But then again, it's by people like us who have not a whole lot of idea of how things worked. Means so much, but the day that we only accept hockey forums filled with hockey people....well we'd close all forums...

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Bournival, Bourque, Eller, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Malhotra, Parenteau, Prust, Sekac, Weise, Beaulieu, Gilbert, Tinordi, Weaver, Tokarski comprise 65% of the active roster. Those are all players brought in during the post-Gainey era.

0 of those players are part of our core.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Well that's a good example of GMs getting credits/blames by proxy because they sit at the top of the hockey operations.

The GM's job is to hire the right people in the right spots to make sure that everything is done right. He doesn't do much himself. But he needs to be capable of assessing everyone. If Gainey had hired Timmins, then I'd give him a large part of the credit for the players Timmins drafted.

Technically it's not the GMs job to babysit prospects, Habs have people in charge of prospects development and the entire coaching staffs (in MTL and HAM) is closer to the issue than the GM. But their failure/success will be tied to the GM.

The GM's job is to hire the right person to take care of the prospects. If our kids in Hamilton falter and regress when they play there. It will be on Bergevin for hiring Lefebvre and keeping him there. If the kids party all day in Montreal, it's MB's fault for not making sure someone in the org is monitoring them closely.

It's also not the GM job to do amateur/pro scouting, they have peoples paid to do that. And in the Gainey era you can find Gauthier's fingerprint on pretty much every trades/UFAs signing the team have done. But ultimately the GM is the one taking credit or the fall.

In the pro scouting department, Gainey's job would have been to hire someone better than Gauthier. It's Gainey who got him, so it's 100% his fault if he got bad info from the guy he put in charge.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Pacioretty was rushed, I'm not so sure Price was. Like Subban, Price could handle a big load right away. But I was contrasting more the Oilers, Islanders, their young guys come in and are leaned on to be the top guys right away. If they struggle no one can step in and take some of the load off. That wasn't really the case with any of our guys. Subban was almost instantly put in the number 1 slot, but we he earned it and we had players who could step in and cover for him if ever he struggled. The same happened with Price, he earned the number 1 spot, and when he struggled we had someone ready to take over until he could find himself again.

They gave him everything on a silver platter. He never had to earn anything.

He was given the starter spot with Hamilton in the playoffs despite the fact Halak got goalie of the year in the AHL that year. You can't just push players who are performing aside like this. It's not right. It gives a player the wrong idea that they're entitled to things. But then he went ahead and had a great playoffs so they couldn't keep him there and have him play a full season in the AHL like they should have.

Then, he had a good rookie year sharing duties with Huet so ... they traded the #1 goalie at the deadline and made him start in the playoffs without a safety net... again the spot was handed to him on a silver platter. Predictably, crap hit the fan and it became obvious Price had been thrown in the fire against Philly. Instead of slowly building his confidence with a capable semi-starter to back him up, he was given the #1 spot and struggled quite a bit, got injured.. partied a bit much.. had attitude issues... he wasn't ready. He was clearly rushed IMO.

Look at Rask in Boston for how things should be done.

 

[OnTheRun]

The GM's job is to hire the right people in the right spots to make sure that everything is done right. He doesn't do much himself. But he needs to be capable of assessing everyone. If Gainey had hired Timmins, then I'd give him a large part of the credit for the players Timmins drafted.



The GM's job is to hire the right person to take care of the prospects. If our kids in Hamilton falter and regress when they play there. It will be on Bergevin for hiring Lefebvre and keeping him there. If the kids party all day in Montreal, it's MB's fault for not making sure someone in the org is monitoring them closely.



In the pro scouting department, Gainey's job would have been to hire someone better than Gauthier. It's Gainey who got him, so it's 100% his fault if he got bad info from the guy he put in charge.

Yet what happened to Gauthier?

He got promoted to GM while retaining his job as head scout (pro) and ultimately lost his job not because he was awful at pro scouting but because he hired Conneyworth.

GM take decisions based on the information they get from peoples working under them and the decisions need to be inline with the directives they get from above (President/Ownership).

I mean; Gainey stepped down, he wasn't fired. Then Gauthier was promoted, so someone was happy with the job they were doing at the time. This turn of events kinda validate Gainey's decision to not fire Gauthier, because Gauthier was appreciated enough within the organisation to become the next GM.

So yeah it's not that black and white and it's even more blurry when the events are still unfolding.

It's easy however to look back at history and say: "this and that should have been done there and then."

 

[LaP]

More than anything, Carbo killed Perezhogin.

Nobody killed Perezhogin. From what i can remember he wanted x millions and we did not want to give him those x millions so he went to the khl.

He wa sfar from bad. he had 34 points in 128 games with +16 (playing for a team where most guys where in the minus 10-20). All this with few ice time.

It was actually a promising debut.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Yet what happened to Gauthier?

He got promoted to GM while retaining his job as head scout (pro) and ultimately lost his job not because he was awful at pro scouting but because he hired Conneyworth.

GM take decisions based on the information they get from peoples working under them and the decisions need to be inline with the directives they get from above (President/Ownership).

I mean; Gainey stepped down, he wasn't fired. Then Gauthier was promoted, so someone was happy with the job they were doing at the time. This turn of events kinda validate Gainey's decision to not fire Gauthier, because Gauthier was appreciated enough within the organisation to become the next GM.

Gainey wasn't fired simply because he had accumulated a ton of goodwill and respect in previous capacities as captain of the habs and GM of a cup winning Dallas team. Boivin simply didn't have the knowledge and experience to understand that Gainey had become incompetent in this new NHL in a GM capacity. Boivin just wasn't a hockey guy.

When Gainey stepped down, he appointed Gauthier as his successor. It's not "someone" who was happy with Gauthier's job. It's not like Gauthier got promoted to GM because he had done such a wonderful job. He got promoted because Gainey decided so and because Gainey was incompetent. Also, Gauthier was not fired solely because he hired Cunneyworth. He got fired because he was terrible for the job in most respects. The hiring of Cunneyworth was simply the final straw which showed everyone how in over his head he was.

 

[Sorinth]

And again, who put Timmins in charge? Not Gainey? And in the end, no matter who the individual scouts are, the head scout has the last word AND goes to see the players that the individual scouts feel strongly about. If the head scout doesn't agree at all with an individual scout....I would bet that he doesn't pick the players.

The GM has last word. Gainey may not have hired Timmins but chances are he hired a number of scouts that surround Timmins. Gainey hired whatever player development staff there was with Mtl/Hamilton, I'm sure he also extended Timmins at least once probably more. He didn't start from scratch but he still build the scouting department and so deserves some credit for that.

As far as the whole development aspect, well we can't say. 'Cause some players couldn't care less like a Patrice Bergeron for example, and some others needs longer development. The day you start going at that extent, you'll have to review each GM's analysis even the ones you think that eventually sucked. Was Houle and MIlbury that bad? Were they victims of tons of things that were otu of their control? In the end, you analyse whoever based on things that are easier to judge. And like I keep saying, a GM's job is often judged way past his time as a GM. I think everything is fairly well judged that way. But then again, it's by people like us who have not a whole lot of idea of how things worked. Means so much, but the day that we only accept hockey forums filled with hockey people....well we'd close all forums...

Your right we will never know for sure. But to then say let's judge a GM based on trades/signings is dumb. Things like trades are such a small part of what it takes to be successful that limiting ourselves to that aspect is a terrible way of making judgment.

Overall Gainey took a team that was consistently out of the playoffs and turned it into one that was consistently in the playoffs. He took a team that most top players didn't want to play for and left it one where top UFAs do want to play for. If you look at the team before/after Gainey's tenure it's night and day, could things have been better sure they always can.

Granted Savard started the turn around, and given time he MAY have been able to accomplish the same turnaround but it's far from a guarantee.