News Article: Andre Savard interview

[DAChampion]

When you look at it objectively, Gainey's plan for a cup run in 2008-2009 was good. We won the East in 2008 and made some additions (Tanguay) and could count on younger players getting better (Kostytsin bros, Price etc.) while the vets (Koivu, Markov, Kovalev) weren't too old. I guess anybody here would have said, come October 2009: good plan.

It went down the drain for totally random reasons - i.e. untimely injuries (Price, Markov), off-ice issues getting too much attention and good players apparently not getting along very well when it mattered.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Gainey was pissed because he realized come trade deadline that the best course was to blow it up and trade all our vets for picks and prospects. But he knew he couldn't do that because centenary and all. Knee-jerk reaction following summer: he let all the guys go and tries something else.

That's not what happened though. Gainey did very much want to keep Kovalev and Komisarek, he did offerthem contracts.

 

[Brainiac]

That's not what happened though. Gainey did very much want to keep Kovalev and Komisarek, he did offerthem contracts.

I agree to a certain extent. The centenary, and associated plan that became so big that we had to deal with some of the side effects. I'm pretty sure Gainey himself was pissed that this was 2009, and not 2004. Or, inversly, he was pissed that the Habs didn't see the day in 1904 instead of 1909.

You could sort of read it in his face at some point, really.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Price was not rushed, unless you're talking about being rushed back from injury. His first season was great. His second season was even better... until he got injured. He got hurt, came back too early and got smoked. Up until then he was awesome.

We've got arguably the best goalie in the league now. He's pressure tested in the toughest environment in pro sports and he's able to handle the pressure. Rask hasn't had the same experience in the same amount of time and he seems to allow his emotions to get the best of him sometimes.

I wouldn't do a damn thing differently with Price and I don't know why anyone would. He's got a ton of experience and he's among the best in the league. How can you not be happy with this? How can you think that he'd be any better now without the experiences he's gone through?

It's been done to death on many threads so this will be my only post on this matter in this thread, but I still don't get why you guys keep thinking the way you do on this subject.

 

[Sorinth]

He became a starter at 20 that year we traded Huet, and crashed and burned in the playoffs against Philly. Could not stop a beach ball. Then actually cried about it in the locker room and had a mini meltdown. Many were extremely worried that he had been thrown in the fire.

Then he followed it up with much inconsistency. The next two years were off years actually. Partied quite a bit. Stared down his dmen after mistakes. Raised his arms in the air a la Patrick Roy.

The team as a whole sucked against Philly not just Price. In 3 of the 4 losses the team scored 2 goals, your not going to win many games if you only score 2 goals. Huet wasn't going to change that and mini meltdown is a pretty big exageration and it doesn't seem to have hurt his development in any way as he's considered one of the top goalies in the league.

The year after he was fantastic until he got injured. When he came back the whole team fell apart.

You can look at this and say that this was the proper way to develop a goalie in Montreal of all places but I think the whole process was extremely painful for both us the fans and him as a player.

Look no further than Rask and the bruins for how it should be done. They're virtually the same player with the same pedigree, same age... One got rushed, and the other did not.

And is Rask really considered a better goalie then Price? Has this so called rushing stunted Price's development in any way? If Price was struggling then maybe you'd have a point but he's a top-goalie in the league so they must have done something right.

Some players take time and others don't. It usually takes years for a defenceman to hit his prime. Should we have held back Subban because it would be "better" for his development?

 

[Sorinth]

Pretty good start. AS far as development, well then I'd say that his Junior coach when he goes back to his team....the AHL coach if he goes there, and the NHL coaching staff has a whole lot more to say in his development than the GM. 'Cause I also believe that bringing him early or late is something intangible you can't talk about. Some say Price has become great because he was brought in early. And I could say he would have become better earlier if he would have brought in a little later.

All I'm saying is there are tons of factors, many not under control of Timmins so giving him sole credit is not right. The GM has the responsibility so he gets the credit/blmae. Doesn't mean we can't recoginize or appreciate the tremendous work a guy like Timmins does.

And if we are playing the what if game, maybe had we been slower with Price then he wouldn't have matured as quickly. Price became better through adversity, had he not faced that adversity he might not be as good now. Price has become what he was expected to be, there's not much point in second guessing.

Houle deserves all the blame. Actually Corey deserves even more of the blame since he appointed Houle,a guy who couldn't say no but should have. But you don't need to convince me how that management was bad....it was awful. My point was mostly that people who used the fact that we looked better than the Houle era isn't exactly saying that we looked great.

If Houle deserves the blame then had things been better why wouldn't he deserve the credit. It's hypocritical to say if the scouting sucks it's the GMs fault, if the scouting is great it's the scouts and the GM doesn't deserve any credit.

And again, Savard didn't come up with the names you mentioned. His head scout did. Savard was GM for 2 1/2 years (though to know who was responsible for the 2003.....) and had Madden for 2000 and 2001. You're talking about samples...well chances are you have 2 years to analyse Savard's work compared to 7-8 years of Gainey. And once Savard gave the job to Timmins, it suddenly started to look better, though, again, not without mistakes.

If things started to look up once Timmins came on board then that means they started to look up when Gainey came on board since they started at virtually the same time. So your saying we changed GMs things started to look up but none of that was because of the GM.

Okay missed that one. Thanks. Yet, why were we suppose to lose him to UFA? Of course, maybe not talking contracts during the season, which was Gainey's motto, was also a problem 'cause guys at the end of a season, might as well see what's out there....But anyway, wasn't there a chance we'd re-sign him?

Well of course, seeing how Gainey treated this whole file, he couldn't care less about Huet, it was Price's team at that point so yep...he wanted a pick. Fine since it was his decision, at least he got a pick out of him. Yet...it wasn't the right decision at all.

Huet was looking for and got a big money long term deal. Do you honestly think that signing Huet for what Chicago did would have been the better decision then going with Price?

I personally would've kept Huet even if it meant losing him for nothing, but I'm not sure you can say it was the wrong decision. Huet was no longer in the long term plans, Gainey got an asset for him. That's the exact thing people claim Gainey didn't do.

 

[Sorinth]

You're assigning credit to Gainey for him not being a failure across the board.

"We may have lost Hainsey, Beauchemin, Streit, Sourray, Komisarek, Mcdonagh for nothing ... but we didn't lose Plekanec, Markov, Pacioretty and Subban."

If you want to look at asset management then you have to look at the ones he managed well as well as the ones he squandered.

Middle of the pack teams have a lot of trouble getting elite talent. We managed to acquire 3 elite players. Not many other teams in our situation can claim similar success. Just because it wasn't perfect doesn't mean it wasn't good.

 

[Whitesnake]

All I'm saying is there are tons of factors, many not under control of Timmins so giving him sole credit is not right. The GM has the responsibility so he gets the credit/blmae. Doesn't mean we can't recoginize or appreciate the tremendous work a guy like Timmins does.

Well that's how I go with things, so let's agree to disagree. For me, picks are a head scout matter. Trades, UFA's and things like that are for the GM. Yes, I know, it's not "sole" and they all do tons of things together....Yet, it doesn't change the fact that it's to each their own. And like I keep saying I won't be blaming the GM for draft pick that was a wrong pick. But won't praise him for the Pacioretty pick either.

If Houle deserves the blame then had things been better why wouldn't he deserve the credit. It's hypocritical to say if the scouting sucks it's the GMs fault, if the scouting is great it's the scouts and the GM doesn't deserve any credit.

No idea what you're talking about. I always say that when the scouting is great, it's the scouts. But when it's bad it's them. What are you referring to? When I say Houle's management is bad, I'm not talking about picks. Talking about the rest....the Roy trade and so on.

If things started to look up once Timmins came on board then that means they started to look up when Gainey came on board since they started at virtually the same time. So your saying we changed GMs things started to look up but none of that was because of the GM.

Didn't say that. I said the scouting looked better but I'm attributing that to Timmins. As I keep saying, I separate the head scout job to the GM job. As far as Gainey is concerned, he was better than Houle. He did an adequate job. Actually, his aura probably did a better job than the actual job he did 'cause his name only made that team more respectable since it was coming from a clown era with Houle. Savard started to make that team more respectable, Gainey improved it. Nowhere did I state that Gainey was bad. Just saying that to prove that he was great, you need MUCH more than to say that he was better than Houle and he "improved" the team. Yes he did....but I don't think at that extent that he could have and in the end was never capable of making that team reach the other level. Actually, I think he succeeded in screwing himself over by losing the players he did, the McDonagh trade....he sabotaged his own work....All great to get #1 rounder out of trade. Very good. But it's another to trade actual players and be able to assess who will make it, who won't and you can you get rid of, and who is untouchable. For a GM point of view, his Gomez trade, unfortunately for him, will just tarnish his record and it's a great reason why. You cannot lose franchise players. Ever. It gives other opponents an advantage and put your team back a whole lot of years. What did Gainey won in a trade that was significant? Kovalev....and Gorges. Yes, the pick that became Pacioretty...yet thank god for the pick, but thank god Timmins for the player. But as far as evaluations of actual players....Kovalev and Gorges. And I'm probably more impressed with Gorges. And unknown kid and Gainey saw in him a potential that not a lot of people had seen. Yet....and while I am a Kovy fan....we're not talking about the magnitude of losing McDo and the implications of it. And this whole 10 guys going UFA for nothing...that was awful asset management 101.

Huet was looking for and got a big money long term deal. Do you honestly think that signing Huet for what Chicago did would have been the better decision then going with Price?

I personally would've kept Huet even if it meant losing him for nothing, but I'm not sure you can say it was the wrong decision. Huet was no longer in the long term plans, Gainey got an asset for him. That's the exact thing people claim Gainey didn't do.

We lost 10 guys for nothing. And what if keeping Huet means going much further than what we did when we kept Price? What if that year would have been our year? We lost 10 guys for nothing at one point while we should have been able to manage something but in a tight great season when we had a real chance of succeeding, we decided to move a vet goalie and go with the rookie. Sorry, don't see the great move. If there was a time to lose an asset for nothing....that was it. Wasn't the case later on...

 

[Cole Caulifield]

And is Rask really considered a better goalie then Price? Has this so called rushing stunted Price's development in any way? If Price was struggling then maybe you'd have a point but he's a top-goalie in the league so they must have done something right.

Some players take time and others don't. It usually takes years for a defenceman to hit his prime. Should we have held back Subban because it would be "better" for his development?

It is true that each player has to be considered on an individual basis. But also, each position has to be considered differently. Goalies take the longest to develop. Dmen the 2nd longest. Centers the 3rd longest. Wingers are the easiest.

You bring up Subban and it's the worst example you could bring to argue your point.

Subban was clearly ready for the NHL after juniors. He played 2 games against Philly and looked like our best player in the 2 losses. Then he followed it up by playing tremendous hockey in the playoffs that same year. If he could play in the playoffs, he was ready to play in the regular season too. Yet... management decided to take it slowly with him and gave him a full year in the AHL. For a position that is actually easier to play than goalie and for a player who was even more ready than Price was.

Price didn't even get to have a full season in the AHL. And he didn't even have a full year as backup in the NHL before he was annointed the #1 starting goalie of the Montreal Canadiens.. at 20-21. He was good, but not that good that we could skip so many steps with him. At least, he should have been more closely monitored and supported if we were going to do that, especially considering that we were a bubble team.

We can argue this at length, but Price partied extensively, stared down his dmen, raised his arms in the air a la Patrick Roy and had crappy playoffs as starter and followed it up with 2 crappy seasons. So much so, that the crowd was booing him in preseason after the Halak trade. Hell, nearly 1 year ago, Price was complaining still about how hard life in Montreal was and how he couldn't get out and had to live as a hobbit. Are those the signs of a goalie who was ready to handle the pressure and responsibility of being the #1 starter in Montreal behind average teams ?

He was rushed. The fact that he turned out good anyway is a testament to his talent, and to MB's shrewdness for bringing in a top goalie coach who was able to put Price back on the right track.

There is no comparison with Subban. At no point in Subban's career did people think he was rushed, or that he wasn't ready. The position is different. The players are different.

I bring up Rask because he is actually a good comparable. He has talent similar to Price, and the circumstances are similar. Way more than... Crosby ? Subban ? The bruins could have given the job to Rask earlier. Many actually wondered why they didn't. Then Thomas turned out to be elite. And it became obvious why.

 

[Sorinth]

It is true that each player has to be considered on an individual basis. But also, each position has to be considered differently. Goalies take the longest to develop. Dmen the 2nd longest. Centers the 3rd longest. Wingers are the easiest.

You bring up Subban and it's the worst example you could bring to argue your point.

Subban was clearly ready for the NHL after juniors. He played 2 games against Philly and looked like our best player in the 2 losses. Then he followed it up by playing tremendous hockey in the playoffs that same year. If he could play in the playoffs, he was ready to play in the regular season too. Yet... management decided to take it slowly with him and gave him a full year in the AHL. For a position that is actually easier to play than goalie and for a player who was even more ready than Price was.

One year in the AHL is taking it slowly? Asking him to shut down Ovie, Crosby, and Malkin with a grand total of 2 regular season NHL games under his belt is taking it slow? What world do you live in?

Subban came in and instantly played great, just like Price. They both earned their top spot by being that good.

By the way Price played 34 AHL games, Subban played 84. That's not exactly a big difference especially since the majority of Price's were playoff games.

Price didn't even get to have a full season in the AHL. And he didn't even have a full year as backup in the NHL before he was annointed the #1 starting goalie of the Montreal Canadiens.. at 20-21. He was good, but not that good that we could skip so many steps with him. At least, he should have been more closely monitored and supported if we were going to do that, especially considering that we were a bubble team.

Well we weren't a bubble team, we were 1st in the East. But in the end the question is what has skipping those steps cost Price? Can you honestly say that had we taken it slowly that he'd be a better goalie right now?

We can argue this at length, but Price partied extensively, stared down his dmen, raised his arms in the air a la Patrick Roy and had crappy playoffs as starter and followed it up with 2 crappy seasons. So much so, that the crowd was booing him in preseason after the Halak trade. Hell, nearly 1 year ago, Price was complaining still about how hard life in Montreal was and how he couldn't get out and had to live as a hobbit. Are those the signs of a goalie who was ready to handle the pressure and responsibility of being the #1 starter in Montreal behind average teams ?

He was rushed. The fact that he turned out good anyway is a testament to his talent, and to MB's shrewdness for bringing in a top goalie coach who was able to put Price back on the right track.

Price lacked some maturity, and he only changed after Halak's run when for the first time in his career he had to face real adversity. Had we taken a slower approach he wouldn't have faced that adversity and would quite likely not be as mature as he is now. Just because there were bumps along the road doesn't mean he couldn't handle it because he did handle it and that's why he is where he is right now.

There is no comparison with Subban. At no point in Subban's career did people think he was rushed, or that he wasn't ready. The position is different. The players are different.

I bring up Rask because he is actually a good comparable. He has talent similar to Price, and the circumstances are similar. Way more than... Crosby ? Subban ? The bruins could have given the job to Rask earlier. Many actually wondered why they didn't. Then Thomas turned out to be elite. And it became obvious why.

So Subban never had incidents similar to Price raising his arms or staring at his defenceman? Please.

If Rask has similar talent, and they are right now producing similar results why is the path Rask took clearly better then the one Price took?

 

[Cole Caulifield]

If Rask has similar talent, and they are right now producing similar results why is the path Rask took clearly better then the one Price took?

You say Price is better than Rask. How come Rask has a vezina and Price has never been nominated ? You can say because of the bruins, but Brobovsky won it with a crappier team.

Who knows where Price would be now if he hadn't been rushed? Perhaps he'd be better. Perhaps he would have been more consistent earlier. Perhaps he wouldn't have injured himself 3 times already ? Who knows ? Perhaps he'd be the exact same. A player can be rushed and still turn out fine in the end. One thing is for sure though, we got at least 2 regular seasons and 1 playoffs of terrible hockey as a result of this decision.

You say that he wasn't rushed, I brought arguments as to why I think he was. You seem to dispute anything that could cast Gainey in a poor light. It's like he can do no wrong. The only thing you will admit is the most obvious of obvious (McDo trade). I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Scintillating10]

Savard started the club's turn around from the Houle era. Habs were in dire straits by end of Houle, when Gillette purchased the club. Savard restored credibility back to the CH. Made them playoff club overnight. Gainey bought back the history, retiring all those jerseys, Robinson, Dryden, etc... Started the sellout streak which is up around 11 years now I believe. Gainey got the draft and all-star game, 100th anniversary year. He had a couple of deep playoff runs, semi-finals in 2010. But could not put club in cup contention.

Now it is up to Bergevin to put finishing touch on team to keep them in cup contention for long term. He inherited the pieces from hard work of two previous regimes, ie. Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Plekanec, Gallagher, etc...

 

[Tyson]

A really interesting, but in french, article about what André Savard thought of his years as GM. Clearly, you can see that he just hated the way it ended and still don't feel he's appreciated as he should be. Don't have time to translate, so somebody feel free to do it if you have time to.....Let just say that the most important thing in there are:

•He feels that he's the one who put the Habs on the right track, on-ice and off the ice.
•Was working as a QMJHL scout for Pittsburgh but selling those players to them was a hard job. Wanted Pittsburgh to draft Mantha but they thought he lacked character.
•Was tougher back in the days as the UFA age was at 31, and they got Gilmour because it was a choice between Habs and Sens and he made Therrien promise Gilmour that he'd be playing as a centerman
•Savard had to compensate with old vets as the Ryan, Buturlin, Chouinard and Co weren't able to make the NHL
•Could have traded Theo and others for Thrashers first pick but decided not to...that was the year when we won against Boston and Theo won his Hart and Vezina
•During the Gainey era, kids lacked support and maturity wasn't there, especially for a guy like Higgins.
•Biggest deception for Savard? Perezhogin, who was dominant in the AHL level but was not the same guy after his suspension
•Komisarek? Couldn't handle the after-hooking era.

My personal opinion? I keep saying how he was totally underrated and I believe would have been a better GM in the long run than Gainey. But that's something we will never know. Can't believe Gauthier and Gainey are working for teams and not him.....It keeps solidifying my opinion of it's not what you know but who you know....

I personally thought he was getting the Habs on the right track. He inherited a seriously bare cupboard. He did not have a full roster of NHL players. He was a better GM than Bob Gainey without a doubt.
Looking back I can say that I liked Andre Savard as a GM and it is too bad he did not get a chance of seeing his plan through.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Honestly if he had the opportunity to finish what he started I'm pretty sure he would have done a better job than Bob Gainey.Bob Gainey came here as a big name with a big reputation but he never deserved it as a manager.His "presence" or "Big boss" type of charisma managed to buy him a lot of time as being seen as a great GM, but in the end he wasn't.What leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth is that after his 5-year plan didn't work, he basically panicked and destroyed the club for a couple of years, not to mention throwing Ryan McDonagh as some kind of chip in a trade that he should have had New York on theirt knees to get rid of Gomez.His legacy is that.If his reign finished affter the 08-09 season I would have seen Gainey as decent, nothing more nothing else.Now he's horrible.I know he had some family tragedy but if you can't do your job just step down.

The only reason the club got better anyway is because of Trevor Timmins.

 

[Scintillating10]

Honestly if he had the opportunity to finish what he started I'm pretty sure he would have done a better job than Bob Gainey.Bob Gainey came here as a big name with a big reputation but he never deserved it as a manager.His "presence" or "Big boss" type of charisma managed to buy him a lot of time as being seen as a great GM, but in the end he wasn't.What leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth is that after his 5-year plan didn't work, he basically panicked and destroyed the club for a couple of years, not to mention throwing Ryan McDonagh as some kind of chip in a trade that he should have had New York on theirt knees to get rid of Gomez.His legacy is that.If his reign finished affter the 08-09 season I would have seen Gainey as decent, nothing more nothing else.Now he's horrible.I know he had some family tragedy but if you can't do your job just step down.

The only reason the club got better anyway is because of Trevor Timmins.

Gainey was doing alright until his daughter was killed. After that he was a changed man. Left Gauthier in charge who ran team down again. Gainey tried hard to get Sundin, then Hossa, if he could had we would been cup contender from '08-10.

 

[Athletique_Canadien]

Gainey was doing alright until his daughter was killed. After that he was a changed man. Left Gauthier in charge who ran team down again. Gainey tried hard to get Sundin, then Hossa, if he could had we would been cup contender from '08-10.

Agreed. Sometime I get confused by the criticisms of BOb. He did after all draft Price, Subban & Pacioretty...but the haters will no doubt point out that Timmins did it all & Gainey was a figure head.

Please! I have to laugh at the haters who point out all the bad while not giving the man even a miniscule amount of credit. They're right, the rest of the universe is wrong

I like what Savard did. His 1st move was to load the draft & Pleks, Komi, Higgins & company were a part of that new nucleus

 

[Pompeius Magnus]

Gainey deserves a lot of credit for continuing the back to respectability process that Savard started. Just the fact that he took the job while he was a very sought-after executive who could have gone anyplace else gave some credibility back the the club. I DO blame him for some of his antiquated notions ( The whole no contract during the season thing, having a skeleton crew to handle all of the front office and player development/scouting, some of his cap management decision, etc) tough he was a man of his time on some of those obviously. I agree that he can't be blamed for the post family tragedy stuff, he was understandably a very broken man at that point.