You're completely missing my point...I'm saying they worked as a team and should share the blame, including whatever credit from that regime. You say no one is saying Gauthier doesn't deserve blame then go on to insinuate Gainey made all the bad moves himself. It's actually more speculative to assume that regime wasn't a team effort because there are many examples throughout the league that suggest that the people in the key executive positions work as a team. There's even inside the draft and trade deadline type videos out there nowadays on youtube showing this team effort.
Gauthier know doubt made some mistakes, some Gainey probably agreed with, some he probably overruled. He also probably made good recommendations that also got overruled. But you can't take a specific trade like the Gomez trade and blame Gauthier for it, since that specific trade we have no idea what Gauthier reccomended. The whole body of work, sure he deserves some credit/blame for it. And the whole body of work is taking a team that was consistently missing the playoffs and a bare prospects cupboard to a team that consistently makes the playoffs and was poised to enter contender status.
Timmins similarly provided them all their best assets and Bergevin brought the best out of it by adding the most complementing pieces. Where other GMs ruined the prospects brought up, Bergevin's regime seems to be better at surrounding it to optimize success. The core of the team has been Timmins build for most of the recent years. Logically I'm not referring to pre-Timmins era or early Gainey. Who knows how Subban/Gallys develop under Gainey/Gauthier. Certainly not rare to see young players ruined and thrown away when they were GM. Bergevin has one quality neither Gainey/Gauthier ever showed, he hasn't sold low and rather wait for a player to bounce back. He doesn't throw away players as easily. Another one I recently appreciated is improved pro-scouting. Weise/Weaver cost next to nothing and they have been big support to the rest of the team. Another type of move neither Gainey/Gauthier shown (I guess aside from Gorges).
The quality of players Timmins provided is not nearly the same. Our recent crop of young players is so much better than what Gainey/Gauthier got. Gainey/Gauthier never got a defenceman capable of winning the Norris. Bergevin did. They never got a player with Galchenyuk's potential, hell besides Pacioretty who they both got they arguably didn't even get a Gallagher level player.
Subban didn't develop under Bergevin he developed under Gainey/Gauthier. Same with Pacioretty, Price. Those are without question our 3 best players. Gauthier got those three when they were still developing and learning the pro-game. Bergevin got them when they were in their primes. That's a huge difference.
Who did Gainey/Gauthier get that's equivalent to Subban/Price/Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher these past 2 years?
In the early years our prospects tended to plateau once they made the NHL and their development stalled. That was a big reason for the team being blown up and going after cup winners like Gomez, Gionta, Gill. Since that change our prospects have developed much better and it's nothing to do with Bergevin.
What has Gauthier done the by that same token? Some of his greatest feats are literally choosing to re-sign players, choosing to sell at the deadline as a lottery pick team, and choosing not to trade the lottery pick.
I agree Gauthier didn't do a whole lot as GM, he had two offseasons just like Bergevin. But he was able to sign a 6'2 PWF who would score 35 goals for us (Cole). He was able to get a 6'2 top-4 D (Emelin), he was able to acquire a young 6'2 center with top-6 upside (Eller).
I'm not even that big of a fan of Bergevin, he's done quite a few things that I disagreed with and still do. That said, what has Gauthier done to suggest Bergevin hasn't done more? Even if you ignore regular season success and current playoff run, what exactly did Gauthier accomplish? I guess there's the injuries, what could have been if it weren't for the injuries. He added couple buyout candidates in Cole and Kaberle. Aside from the playoffs, Bourque has been 4th line level and will likely return to it next season. Cap management is not something he showed any care to and Gauthier would have had more seconds in his tenure if he didn't trade them all for stop gaps that he didn't try to keep.
Just so I'm clear, you think Gauthier was a good GM correct?
Gauthier acquired more core players. Bergevin has pretty much only acquired depth players (Apart from Vanek). That's why I think Gauthier did more. And for the record I think Gauthier is an average GM and Bergevin is still an unknown.
http://www.eliteprospects.com/teamplugin_teamdata_complete.php?team=64
Context would be necessary since Habs were actually not small before 2009. Only 2 players (Koivu/Plekanec) under 6'0'' in top 9. So Gauthier acquired Kaberle's bad contract and signed Cole to one, does this mean Gauthier's philosophy of not being shy of bad contracts was in effect in the Gomez trade? How about all the players Gauthier let go without return, Gainey did same thing...same philosophy? Both are equally far fetched ways of (dis)connecting GM philosophy. There is no evidence showing that if Gainey was GM he wouldn't have tried to add size to the 2010 team's top 6. I'm not sure why Gauthier defenders (an existence that is a discussion within itself) are keep making it seem like people are saying all bad moves during Gainey's GM tenure is Gauthier's fault. I'm saying it's a team effort and Gauthier had a hand in making the mess. There doesn't need to be evidence for this argument since based on the general impact of the role he held. What needs evidence is absolving him from bad moves under Gainey or fully blaming him for moves under Gainey. I am doing neither.
Average size isn't that important. It's size in the top-6/top-4 that matter. For instance Tinordi will increase the team's average size, but if he only plays 10min a night it doesn't address our size issue.
How many players in our top-6 had good size had good size?
If McDonagh bust, Higgins never bounced back, Gomez returned to Devils form and wasn't one of the worst contracts in hockey, it'd even be a great trade. The decision to acquire Gomez for anything of value was never 'decent' because it was a cap world. He was already regressing at the time of the trade. He was a ~70 point player who had his first ~60 point season production rate. You can suggest this was all Gainey's decision but at the end of the day all we know is their roles. Based on their roles, this was most definitely a dumb management team effort in retooling on the fly. Gauthier was part of this team and realistically had a hand in it based on the job titles. No proof of all the bad moves being a solo effort that Gauthier wasn't on board with and help build along with Gainey.
Prospects busting or developing doesn't really make a trade good/bad. Regardless of whether it was McDonagh or Fisher, giving up a recent 1st round pick for Gomez was bad.
I have no doubt that Gauthier was consulted on Gomez, but did Gauthier say Gomez was worth a 1st round pick, did he say he would rebound to his 70pt form, or did he say Gomez will continue to decline and we'll have to buy him out eventually? We don't know. And like I said at the top of this post, you can give Gauthier some credit/blame for the overall work but you can't point out a specific move and say he deserves some blame for that. If you want to look at a specific trade then it's the GM and no one else unless you have actual evidence.
Not realistic to assume Subban back then would have become Norris caliber and good enough to carry team's on him back. He was good prospect, but this was beyond expectations. Same for Pacioretty producing at 65-70 point rate from the age of 23. This saved the franchise from another Houle type dark ages.
In the summer of 2009 we probably don't know Subban would turn out great, though he was still our #3 prospect. And 65-70 points from Pacioretty was certainly his potential at that time. But I don't understand the point you are trying to make. If our top prospects don't develop then we will suck regardless of whether we acquire Gomez or not.
