So it's happened, the axe has fallen and the Canadiens have relieved Pierre Gauthier of his duties.
The criticism about strange timing is strange in itself. Who cares? The team has nothing left to play for and the GM had nothing left to do. Better that a lame duck be replaced than not.
The team will be rudderless (especially if you consider it's Molson in charge) for the next few days and then will hopefully be applying all their effort to finding excellent personnel to fill the important role of GM and whatever else is left open by a shuffle.
As the surprise move shows, no one really has any idea on how and when the Canadiens might act in this search. As such, I thought I'd provide open speculation on all the candidates for the GM job that I could think of before my fingers got tired.
Key people within the organization
Bob Gainey
Needs no introduction. He ceded the reins before for lack of passion/interest/whatever, but then never really left the team. Not sure how active he has been in his advisor role, but in terms of hockey people within the upper echelon of the organization's structure, he's top at this point. I don't think his return would be well received this time, however, so my prediction is that if he remains it will be in the shadows.
Trevor Timmins
Montreal fans are notoriously demanding and continue to rue every draft pick that goes wrong. All this despite the fact, the Habs have been pretty much the best by a few measures of drafting since Timmins was brought in. There's more to being a GM than drafting and scouting. What's more, it may not be wise to mess with a successful formula just because he's the most deserving candidate at first glance.
Frank Jay
This guy is reputed to be a talented scout, and so he should stay. He's got experience and could probably pull off the job. Like Timmins, I like him in a full scouting role if he's the star his backers say he is, because the Habs are in a rebuild.
Larry Carriere
He benefits from a few key points on his resume. First, he's new and so not associated or in anyway responsible for the more disastrous moves (Gomez) the organization has made recently. Second, he's been a GM (briefly) and an assistant GM in Buffalo. Third, he can communicate to both streams of media. He's not a sexy choice given his association with the recent coaching of the team. But we're not suggesting he be considered for the coaching job.
Patrick Boivin
Nepotism. How much of it figured in this hiring? I really know nothing of this guy other than he had a father with clout. He's currently occupying a top-level role with the team, so he's worth a mention.
Key people outside the organization
Jacques Martin
Former coach. Former GM. "Speaks" French and English. Knows hockey. He's on all the lists for sure. But again, he may not exactly represent a sexy choice or a departure from the stagnant old ways of doing things. Personally, I think the way he thinks about hockey is right and suits this group of players. I'd accept this choice.
Pierre McGuire
Someone help us. If you want to know what happens when someone spends more energy concerning himself with public image than team composition, look no further than the GM of the team with the longest playoffless and Cupless streak in the league. McGuire strikes me as the same type of person. He is stubborn in arguing his point of view to the point that it seems to get all consuming. I'm not sure a GM in a city with a million opinions will find the time to do much team building when defending his positions night and day.
Jim Nill
This is Detroit's next in line. What he would bring might be an instant improvement in the way the team looks at development. If Timmins got some development gurus to work with, the team might take off. I don't know if Nill fits the bill, but he'd surely know some people to hire.
Pierre Lacroix
On the list of Quebecois who sued to be GMs. I don't look at Lacroix's record with the same rose-glasses as many others do. He inherited a team poised to be champions and he didn't mess it up. Kudos for taking advantage of a green GM trading a superstar goalie, but otherwise show me why he's up to building challenge.
Julien BriseBois
The team's former capologist is a hot candidate. But this isn't about capology, and this isn't Hamilton or Tampa we're talking about. It may make more sense to bring him back into the fold in a slightly more sheltered role.
Serge Savard
In retrospect, our complaints about Savard were a bit like our complaints about Timmins. A spoiled group of fans unwilling to accept that 15 more teams meant less frequent Cups. Savard was a good GM. Sure he made bad moves, but evidence might show he was less than free to do otherwise (Corey). The real question with Serge is why would he want to take this on? He certainly knows what the job entails.
Marc Bergevin
If you want to believe Bruce Garrioch (from which day, you say?), then Marc Bergevin is a candadate here. He's a Quebecois holding an assistant GM post on a success story, so I guess he just connected the same dots we all did. But he's very fresh to the assistant GM role, so I wonder why he'd even be ahead of BriseBois.
Don Maloney
This one's from me. Look Phoenix is done as a hockey destination, aren't they? The man who built the groundwork of a perennial challenger from basically nothing should be mooving to the province one way or the other. As an ambitious young GM, why wouldn't his ears perk up with the news of an opening? There are manay reasons why he wouldn't be the right candidate, but anyone that can egt David Rundblad for Kyle Turris has a fan in me. Perhaps competition from Edmonton here though.
Chuck Fletcher
Another one from me. I don't know if he's in trouble with the Wild. They probably aren't too thrilled with their standing either. Either way, Current GMs are free to explore their opportunities aren't they? Maybe not. Anyway, my point being he is a Montrealer, in charge of scouting for Anaheim in the much ballyhooed draft of 2003 where they were clear winners, apprenticed in Pittsburgh under Shero. He's got pedigree.
Vincent Damphousse
This one is making the rounds. Credibility from being a union rep? I hope not. I mean if he's to be judged from his on air opinions, I'd be afraid of the future with him at the rudder.
Patrick Roy
Oh the romanticism. Not sure what qualifies him to be a GM, but it'd be fun to hear a trade going down between Roy and Burke wouldn't it? He's a proven winner, for sure. But would he cede enough responsibility to the right people as a GM must?
Key requirements
We talk about people. But this opportunity really allows for the team to seek out candidates (known or unknown to them) who fill the characteristics they now recognize have been missing for years:
Expertise in pro scouting
Come on, it's about time someone that knows NHL talent when he sees it has some clout.
Expertise in development
Someone that can hire the right people and oversee a more efficient farm system. Maybe one that doesn't sap the life out of goalscorers before they lace up in Montreal?
Willingness to work
The Habs have suffered greatly because of the throw-away player attitude they have taken. The next GM will be a star if he can take the Mike Ribeiros he picks and outlasts the immature months.
This should be some fun guys. Go Oilers Go.
Showing posts with label fired. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fired. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, December 19, 2011
What Just Happened?
The Canadiens Recalibration Project
Jacques Martin was released on Saturday, hours before a game, days before Xmas. The team is still mired in the battle for a bottom playoff spot, but it was also coming off a long series of games in which points were gathered and sometimes hard-earned.
As coaching changes go, this was one was strange. primarily in its timing.
Because it is strange, I think it is important that we step back and ask ourselves some questions.
In our traditional view of things there are several reasons why one would fire a coach:
1) The team's results don't match their potential
2) The players have asked for a change
3) There is a better candidate
4) The GM is grasping at one last straw
The answer to all these questions in this case are slightly unclear.
No one can dispute that the Canadiens are sitting near the bottom of the standings and behind some important benchmark peers. However, all but the blindly optimistic thought there would be periods of sitting outside the playoff list as the team battles to get in. In effect, the team is matching those expectations, and is merely battling back from a slump that happened to occur at the beginning rather than in the midst of a season. Taking into account injuries to some key players over these months, the expectation are even more in line with what reasonable people would expect from this list of talent at the stages they are all in in their careers.
As for the players, I think the core buy what Martin is selling. Any reasonable member still skating from the 2010 playoff team will know that they made a playoff run because of his strategies built to suit their talent deficit. I'm relatively certain that they can still see there's no Lidstrom or Crosby in their midst and are happy to go with the pragmatic approach that Martin employs. I don't think they asked for this move.
Better candidate? Perhaps. But he's not been installed. That alone undercuts this argument.
GM panic? From what I've been hearing and reading, this is the position of most who've run through the other possibilities. It's possible, but I have another set of questions first.
A few weeks ago I read an article by Michael Farber about Louis Leblanc that delved much deeper than that. If you look back at it, it is like a harbinger that signalled the end of Martin and perhaps even Gauthier.
Farber starts predictably enough down the line of francophone vs. other on the team, in the organization. But as his thesis develops, he hones in on something else.
Montreal as a city may or may not have given birth to hockey, but it certainly gave it its upbringing. The earliest hockey leagues were at their most relevant when Montreal teams were involved. Montreal was the home of the Stanley Cup in the beginning and the league's (and game's) decision makers. The rules were written in Montreal and apart from the cosmetic surgery that has been taking place the past few seasons, the rules were perfected there as well. And it's not only been the administration of the game that has mattered. The Montreal teams through the years, and the Canadiens in particular have shaped the game in so many ways. There aren't many rules originating from the problems posed by the New York Rangers, for the Canadiens there have been.
But it's the Canadiens in particular on which the city has settled. And not just the Canadiens come what may. Rather the Canadiens cast as Flying Frenchmen.
In the early years of the franchise, the "Flying Frenchmen" tag was more of a marketing tag than a comment on the hockey. But at some point, the brand infused the team. The Flying Frenchmen became a philosophy. And later still, I think the brand was adopted by this city.
There are those whose constant gaze is fixed on the word Frenchmen, and this is where Farber started. But then he lands on short examination of what I would call the Flying half of this couplet:
I thought this was an insight at time. Maybe an insight I would write about later. But later is now when people are looking for possible answers to "why?" and "why now?"
Isn't it indeed the "Flying" that defines our love affair with this team?
From rough and tumble beginnings from which a modern Don Cherry might have shielded his view, the Canadiens emerged with Howie Morenz to change hockey with this attacking mentality. The heritage was passed next to the teams of the 50s, 60s and 70s, even 80s -- al the while emblazoning itself on the hearts and minds of its followers.
When Farber notes:
he suggests the answer could be Louis Leblanc. Perhaps.
But if someone were really asking this question (someone like say Geoff Molson), would his recalibration begin and end with a 20 year-old already comfortable in the ways of deferring to defensive assignment for the win?
I wouldn't have thought so. He might start by identifying the roots of the alienation that has been occuring between once adoring fan and the "Flying Frenchman" brand. He might overhear all the begrudging admissions that Jacques Martin is successful , but somehow just not right; that playing the percentages is sound statistically, but ever so tedious a spectacle.
Clear your minds of preconceived notions for a minute:
- Maybe this firing is not about the Candiens wins and losses of a partial season
- Maybe this has nothing to do with Randy-on-the-spot Cunneyworth (I'll bet money it doesn't)
- Maybe there isn't a hero in the wings
Maybe what we are seeing is some recognition at long last that Montreal so loves not hockey, but their hockey; winning, but not at any cost (not at this cost); that the city if not able to boast about strings of Stanley Cups (and most are realistic to know those days are past) would at least wish to look down their noses on the adherent of trapping and negative tacttics as their team skates for goals.
Maybe what we are seeing is a deep recalibration, not just a superficial one, ten times tried in 20 years.
For me, this is the line of questioning that leads to the best answers. And for that reason, if no other, it's worth asking.
As coaching changes go, this was one was strange. primarily in its timing.
Because it is strange, I think it is important that we step back and ask ourselves some questions.
In our traditional view of things there are several reasons why one would fire a coach:
1) The team's results don't match their potential
2) The players have asked for a change
3) There is a better candidate
4) The GM is grasping at one last straw
The answer to all these questions in this case are slightly unclear.
No one can dispute that the Canadiens are sitting near the bottom of the standings and behind some important benchmark peers. However, all but the blindly optimistic thought there would be periods of sitting outside the playoff list as the team battles to get in. In effect, the team is matching those expectations, and is merely battling back from a slump that happened to occur at the beginning rather than in the midst of a season. Taking into account injuries to some key players over these months, the expectation are even more in line with what reasonable people would expect from this list of talent at the stages they are all in in their careers.
As for the players, I think the core buy what Martin is selling. Any reasonable member still skating from the 2010 playoff team will know that they made a playoff run because of his strategies built to suit their talent deficit. I'm relatively certain that they can still see there's no Lidstrom or Crosby in their midst and are happy to go with the pragmatic approach that Martin employs. I don't think they asked for this move.
Better candidate? Perhaps. But he's not been installed. That alone undercuts this argument.
GM panic? From what I've been hearing and reading, this is the position of most who've run through the other possibilities. It's possible, but I have another set of questions first.
A few weeks ago I read an article by Michael Farber about Louis Leblanc that delved much deeper than that. If you look back at it, it is like a harbinger that signalled the end of Martin and perhaps even Gauthier.
Farber starts predictably enough down the line of francophone vs. other on the team, in the organization. But as his thesis develops, he hones in on something else.
Montreal as a city may or may not have given birth to hockey, but it certainly gave it its upbringing. The earliest hockey leagues were at their most relevant when Montreal teams were involved. Montreal was the home of the Stanley Cup in the beginning and the league's (and game's) decision makers. The rules were written in Montreal and apart from the cosmetic surgery that has been taking place the past few seasons, the rules were perfected there as well. And it's not only been the administration of the game that has mattered. The Montreal teams through the years, and the Canadiens in particular have shaped the game in so many ways. There aren't many rules originating from the problems posed by the New York Rangers, for the Canadiens there have been.
But it's the Canadiens in particular on which the city has settled. And not just the Canadiens come what may. Rather the Canadiens cast as Flying Frenchmen.
In the early years of the franchise, the "Flying Frenchmen" tag was more of a marketing tag than a comment on the hockey. But at some point, the brand infused the team. The Flying Frenchmen became a philosophy. And later still, I think the brand was adopted by this city.
There are those whose constant gaze is fixed on the word Frenchmen, and this is where Farber started. But then he lands on short examination of what I would call the Flying half of this couplet:
The Canadiens' failure is not one of falling short of some mythical quota, but one of imagination.
The players who have most touched the city in recent seasons were not French Canadians but the problematic Alexei Kovalev, an artiste in style and temperament, and defenseman P.K. Subban, whose game is layered with curlicues. Indeed when Martin scratched Subban last season, there was general outrage about his efforts to stifle the player rather than applause that the team, with its dandy rookie exiled to the press box, actually won a few games in a row.
I thought this was an insight at time. Maybe an insight I would write about later. But later is now when people are looking for possible answers to "why?" and "why now?"
Isn't it indeed the "Flying" that defines our love affair with this team?
From rough and tumble beginnings from which a modern Don Cherry might have shielded his view, the Canadiens emerged with Howie Morenz to change hockey with this attacking mentality. The heritage was passed next to the teams of the 50s, 60s and 70s, even 80s -- al the while emblazoning itself on the hearts and minds of its followers.
When Farber notes:
This current iteration of the Canadiens, lagging even the rebuilding Ottawa Senators in the Northeast Division, has not made many new friends and might be in the process of temporarily alienating some old ones.
he suggests the answer could be Louis Leblanc. Perhaps.
But if someone were really asking this question (someone like say Geoff Molson), would his recalibration begin and end with a 20 year-old already comfortable in the ways of deferring to defensive assignment for the win?
I wouldn't have thought so. He might start by identifying the roots of the alienation that has been occuring between once adoring fan and the "Flying Frenchman" brand. He might overhear all the begrudging admissions that Jacques Martin is successful , but somehow just not right; that playing the percentages is sound statistically, but ever so tedious a spectacle.
Clear your minds of preconceived notions for a minute:
- Maybe this firing is not about the Candiens wins and losses of a partial season
- Maybe this has nothing to do with Randy-on-the-spot Cunneyworth (I'll bet money it doesn't)
- Maybe there isn't a hero in the wings
Maybe what we are seeing is some recognition at long last that Montreal so loves not hockey, but their hockey; winning, but not at any cost (not at this cost); that the city if not able to boast about strings of Stanley Cups (and most are realistic to know those days are past) would at least wish to look down their noses on the adherent of trapping and negative tacttics as their team skates for goals.
Maybe what we are seeing is a deep recalibration, not just a superficial one, ten times tried in 20 years.
For me, this is the line of questioning that leads to the best answers. And for that reason, if no other, it's worth asking.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Stirring The Habs-Bruins Rivalry
If you follow my thoughts from day to day, you will note my total revulsion for all things coming from the hockey curiosity south of Montreal that is Boston.
To describe Bruins fans as arrogant would be a dis-service to arrogant people all over. So as a public service to all of you I attempt to keep an eye on the Boston media and expose you to stories of their pin-wheel dreams gone berserk.
In July, I found a new thorn in my side in James Murphy of Murphy's Law. Back then he was writing about how the suddenly useful Bruins would undoubtedly conquer all opponents this year in an 82-game synopsis that makes a Halak for Lecavalier and Hedman trade look like good sense talking. With the subtlety of a hammer and the insight of a constipated gnat, Murphy irritated me then.
Well, never one to lie down on the job, James has produced another piece to rile the rah-rah masses of Beantown, with some directed jabs at rivals like us (I'd never do such a thing). So again, for my piece of mind and your amusement, I share with you his piece: Bruins Show Claude Julien the Faith He Always Deserved
Now look, I don't disagree with offering a contract extension to the coach who just won the conference and the Jack Adams trophy. But do we really need to pretend that Julien is the first coach to win those plaudits? Nor would he be the first Adams trophy defender and once-can't-do-no-wrong coach to get fired if things go wrong for him – despite said extension.
The thing that riled me up is the length at which Mr. Murphy criticises the Canadiens organization for their mistreatment of Claude Julien – once again insinuating that he was somehow mistreated in his firing.
It's a myth.
Murphy provides me the ammunition himself:
7 wins in 25 games!?! That's horrible enough. If you remember the time well, you'll recall there were other issues like the Theodore saga, as well as some other problems with ice time and employing the right players. Montreal fans had been baying for Julien's head for some time without hesitation, simply because he was a rookie coach going wrong. His solutions weren't well thought out. His AHL experiences weren't translating to the NHL for him.
When you consider that Claude had only been allowed to stay on after Bob Gainey's hiring on a temporary basis to begin with and you can see that.
The team was faltering. Players were faltering. Julien, on extended job interview, was not doing great in Montreal – not when you consider the expectations post-lockout were high. His firing was a very run-of-the-mill NHL firing – one employed to give a boost to the team in question – nothing more. No raw deal here.
Julien's other raw deal
For me, Claude Julien's other raw deal is the more telling. As Murphy reminds us, Claude was fired again on April 3, 2007, with his team 47-24-8, holding onto first place in the Atlantic Division and second in the Eastern Conference.
At the time, this was a first for me. This was a winning coach during a winning patch. It seemed to defy logic.
Defy logic, indeed. But was it a raw deal?
Well, that certainly depends on your outlook. While players are quick to hide behind bad coaching when things go bad, so too coach apologists prefer to blame sour culture and bad play throughout. Interesting then that this firing left no one anywhere to hide. All it was was a GM reviewing the performance of his employee and deeming that it was not up to scratch. Is that unfair?
It is if you think that a GM should only use a single season of experience in making judgments. But, if you allow a manager with Lamoriello's resume to draw on a longer period of observation, then it gets blurrier. After all, if Lou Lamoriello deems that his team will fail with Julien at the helm in the first playoff hurdle, who am I to say he was wrong? Indeed who is Peter Chiarelli?
Bruins immune to a fall?
I think I've made it clear that I side with Gainey and Lamoriello on their decisions of the past. I see 2 experienced GMs making 2 hard choices to release a coach with lots of long-term potential, but in each instance what they deemed to be too little immediate pay-out.
Murphy sees it differently – he calls each move a raw deal. He would have seen Julien last longer in each position, I suppose.
When it comes to the Canadiens of 2005-06, he prefers to blame the entire roster, even the wider organization:
I think I could go on about this, but I don't think it necessary. Only to remind the Bruins again that they are not the first team to lead the conference in points. Perhaps they might check the last page of their history book.
To think the Bruins are immune to a fall from grace is to ignore the lessons that have unrolled in their very own division over the past two years. Indeed, it is to ignore what has happened in Julien's and many another coach's career as well.
I'm sure we all wish the best for Claude Julien the minute he moves on from the Bruins, but until then I know I can count on many of you to join me in toasting the Bruins this autumn:
"Here's to their fall."
To describe Bruins fans as arrogant would be a dis-service to arrogant people all over. So as a public service to all of you I attempt to keep an eye on the Boston media and expose you to stories of their pin-wheel dreams gone berserk.
In July, I found a new thorn in my side in James Murphy of Murphy's Law. Back then he was writing about how the suddenly useful Bruins would undoubtedly conquer all opponents this year in an 82-game synopsis that makes a Halak for Lecavalier and Hedman trade look like good sense talking. With the subtlety of a hammer and the insight of a constipated gnat, Murphy irritated me then.
Well, never one to lie down on the job, James has produced another piece to rile the rah-rah masses of Beantown, with some directed jabs at rivals like us (I'd never do such a thing). So again, for my piece of mind and your amusement, I share with you his piece: Bruins Show Claude Julien the Faith He Always Deserved
Now look, I don't disagree with offering a contract extension to the coach who just won the conference and the Jack Adams trophy. But do we really need to pretend that Julien is the first coach to win those plaudits? Nor would he be the first Adams trophy defender and once-can't-do-no-wrong coach to get fired if things go wrong for him – despite said extension.
The thing that riled me up is the length at which Mr. Murphy criticises the Canadiens organization for their mistreatment of Claude Julien – once again insinuating that he was somehow mistreated in his firing.
It's a myth.
Murphy provides me the ammunition himself:
The Canadiens got off to a strong 12-3 start under Julien that season, before winning just seven of their next 25 games.
7 wins in 25 games!?! That's horrible enough. If you remember the time well, you'll recall there were other issues like the Theodore saga, as well as some other problems with ice time and employing the right players. Montreal fans had been baying for Julien's head for some time without hesitation, simply because he was a rookie coach going wrong. His solutions weren't well thought out. His AHL experiences weren't translating to the NHL for him.
When you consider that Claude had only been allowed to stay on after Bob Gainey's hiring on a temporary basis to begin with and you can see that.
The team was faltering. Players were faltering. Julien, on extended job interview, was not doing great in Montreal – not when you consider the expectations post-lockout were high. His firing was a very run-of-the-mill NHL firing – one employed to give a boost to the team in question – nothing more. No raw deal here.
Julien's other raw deal
For me, Claude Julien's other raw deal is the more telling. As Murphy reminds us, Claude was fired again on April 3, 2007, with his team 47-24-8, holding onto first place in the Atlantic Division and second in the Eastern Conference.
At the time, this was a first for me. This was a winning coach during a winning patch. It seemed to defy logic.
Defy logic, indeed. But was it a raw deal?
Well, that certainly depends on your outlook. While players are quick to hide behind bad coaching when things go bad, so too coach apologists prefer to blame sour culture and bad play throughout. Interesting then that this firing left no one anywhere to hide. All it was was a GM reviewing the performance of his employee and deeming that it was not up to scratch. Is that unfair?
Lamoriello told the Canadian Press, "I did not feel that we were going in the right direction, both mentally and hockey(-wise), going into the playoffs, for a variety of reasons." He went on to say that we were not privy to the inner realities of the club.
It is if you think that a GM should only use a single season of experience in making judgments. But, if you allow a manager with Lamoriello's resume to draw on a longer period of observation, then it gets blurrier. After all, if Lou Lamoriello deems that his team will fail with Julien at the helm in the first playoff hurdle, who am I to say he was wrong? Indeed who is Peter Chiarelli?
Bruins immune to a fall?
I think I've made it clear that I side with Gainey and Lamoriello on their decisions of the past. I see 2 experienced GMs making 2 hard choices to release a coach with lots of long-term potential, but in each instance what they deemed to be too little immediate pay-out.
Murphy sees it differently – he calls each move a raw deal. He would have seen Julien last longer in each position, I suppose.
When it comes to the Canadiens of 2005-06, he prefers to blame the entire roster, even the wider organization:
But if you ask most players from that Canadiens squad -- or any players who played under Julien -- the team’s struggles were more a result of the players on the roster and the culture that dominated the Habs’ dressing room for the next three seasons.
I think I could go on about this, but I don't think it necessary. Only to remind the Bruins again that they are not the first team to lead the conference in points. Perhaps they might check the last page of their history book.
To think the Bruins are immune to a fall from grace is to ignore the lessons that have unrolled in their very own division over the past two years. Indeed, it is to ignore what has happened in Julien's and many another coach's career as well.
I'm sure we all wish the best for Claude Julien the minute he moves on from the Bruins, but until then I know I can count on many of you to join me in toasting the Bruins this autumn:
"Here's to their fall."
Monday, March 09, 2009
Carbo Fired
GM's Late Act Smells Of Management
Guy Carbonneau has been let go from the Canadiens. This according to RDS.
I am stunned by the move really, as I think we all thought Carbonneau had escaped. I will go out on a limb here (with pure wild speculation) and propose that it could have something to do with one of three possible issues:
1) Carey Price and Jaroslav Halak
Carbonneau and Gainey are known to have disagreed about Halak and Price in the first place. Halak was finally playing, and then suddenly (boom) Golden Glove is back in. I don't know if it was the coach's decision (I'm guessing not) or the GM's. I suspect we will find out when the starter for the Edmonton game is announced. Is this enough for dismissal. If the rift has been going on ever since it started, and the GM is tired - then quite possibly, yes.
2) Alexei Kovalev
I say Kovalev because we all know he and Gainey had a heart to heart. It is known that Gainey respects Alex and vice versa. In my imaginary world, it is possible that a player of his stature would be listened to on matters of coaching and even strategy. After all, Alex has well over 1000 games experience as a player just as Carbo did. This could equally be Saku. Or Hamrlik. Or even Gainey's best friend Jarvis for that matter. Anyone or group. If you don't think so, ask Lou Lamoriello or the Devils core players who ousted Claude Julien for his total lack of tactical nous on the eve of the playoffs.
3) His communication in these or other cases
I think we all know this to be a factor. His handling of Kovalev was an embarassment. I can't imagine he's doing better with the goalies. Problems doon't suit him. Nor it seems do problem children. Gainey, on the other hand has tried to build a team and knows (from as recently as a week ago) that you can't overhaul a group of players quickly. Communication in sport is tantamount to success. Communication on the ice, communication off it. Communication outside of the job is a bonus, but one that pays big dividends too. Carbo stunk at communication.
What have we lost?
We've lost (for the second time) a heck of a man. A heck of a Canadien. Probably the best of those not in the rafters.
But, we haven't lost much of a coach. I've been lamenting his lack of imagination, his lack of adaptability, his lack of tactical awareness. He stumbles onto lines, but can't seem to predict or even recognise chemistry.
I say not much of a coach -- that is misleading. Carbonneau is qualified to coach 25 of the teams in the NHL, just like Michel Therrien and Claude Julien, but he has nothing in his coaching that would help put a team over the top, so to speak. No new ideas, just a re-tread of the trap. No new system for a pretty unique group of players assembled.
This was probably the end of Carbonneau. His press conferences lately were laughable, and a worthy precursor to dismissal. How can a serious coach be baffled by what happened on the ice? How can he declare that to a press corps that runs 10 stories on the same soundclip? It's not permissable. The coach must be analysing and planning for the next round. He never seemed to be willing or able to do just that.
If it ain't Price and it ain't Kovalev, I can smell the meddling from above here. Boivin? Possibly. Gillett? Maybe -- he's a known meddler from the Premiership. Management meddling in hockey is something we haven't seen in a while. It would be a promise broken from George. But broken promises are nothing to the man, ask Anfield supporters about that. Missing the playoffs not an option? Of course to us fans, we'd always say that. but then we'd say not winning the Cup is not an option. When a man in position to mandate that order says it, people get fired. Credit crunch, crushing debt, how does loss of $4 million easy money sound?
And Gainey?
Unless Gainey has been hiding something during all his other campaigns, I don't see that he is the tactical genius that will take us over the top either. I like to believe he'll at least try something more.
I suppose on that issue we will see.
Farewell Carbo. Will you be there for Breezer whose 1000th you staked your reputation?
I am stunned by the move really, as I think we all thought Carbonneau had escaped. I will go out on a limb here (with pure wild speculation) and propose that it could have something to do with one of three possible issues:
1) Carey Price and Jaroslav Halak
Carbonneau and Gainey are known to have disagreed about Halak and Price in the first place. Halak was finally playing, and then suddenly (boom) Golden Glove is back in. I don't know if it was the coach's decision (I'm guessing not) or the GM's. I suspect we will find out when the starter for the Edmonton game is announced. Is this enough for dismissal. If the rift has been going on ever since it started, and the GM is tired - then quite possibly, yes.
2) Alexei Kovalev
I say Kovalev because we all know he and Gainey had a heart to heart. It is known that Gainey respects Alex and vice versa. In my imaginary world, it is possible that a player of his stature would be listened to on matters of coaching and even strategy. After all, Alex has well over 1000 games experience as a player just as Carbo did. This could equally be Saku. Or Hamrlik. Or even Gainey's best friend Jarvis for that matter. Anyone or group. If you don't think so, ask Lou Lamoriello or the Devils core players who ousted Claude Julien for his total lack of tactical nous on the eve of the playoffs.
3) His communication in these or other cases
I think we all know this to be a factor. His handling of Kovalev was an embarassment. I can't imagine he's doing better with the goalies. Problems doon't suit him. Nor it seems do problem children. Gainey, on the other hand has tried to build a team and knows (from as recently as a week ago) that you can't overhaul a group of players quickly. Communication in sport is tantamount to success. Communication on the ice, communication off it. Communication outside of the job is a bonus, but one that pays big dividends too. Carbo stunk at communication.
What have we lost?
We've lost (for the second time) a heck of a man. A heck of a Canadien. Probably the best of those not in the rafters.
But, we haven't lost much of a coach. I've been lamenting his lack of imagination, his lack of adaptability, his lack of tactical awareness. He stumbles onto lines, but can't seem to predict or even recognise chemistry.
I say not much of a coach -- that is misleading. Carbonneau is qualified to coach 25 of the teams in the NHL, just like Michel Therrien and Claude Julien, but he has nothing in his coaching that would help put a team over the top, so to speak. No new ideas, just a re-tread of the trap. No new system for a pretty unique group of players assembled.
This was probably the end of Carbonneau. His press conferences lately were laughable, and a worthy precursor to dismissal. How can a serious coach be baffled by what happened on the ice? How can he declare that to a press corps that runs 10 stories on the same soundclip? It's not permissable. The coach must be analysing and planning for the next round. He never seemed to be willing or able to do just that.
If it ain't Price and it ain't Kovalev, I can smell the meddling from above here. Boivin? Possibly. Gillett? Maybe -- he's a known meddler from the Premiership. Management meddling in hockey is something we haven't seen in a while. It would be a promise broken from George. But broken promises are nothing to the man, ask Anfield supporters about that. Missing the playoffs not an option? Of course to us fans, we'd always say that. but then we'd say not winning the Cup is not an option. When a man in position to mandate that order says it, people get fired. Credit crunch, crushing debt, how does loss of $4 million easy money sound?
And Gainey?
Unless Gainey has been hiding something during all his other campaigns, I don't see that he is the tactical genius that will take us over the top either. I like to believe he'll at least try something more.
I suppose on that issue we will see.
Farewell Carbo. Will you be there for Breezer whose 1000th you staked your reputation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)