Gagne not happy with Flyers (article)

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin  Unless Gagne was told his contract would come out of the LTIR money, right?

 

Yeah, but no one has indicated that.  It's possible but to assume that is making assumptions based on things not entered into evidence.

 

All we have is the record of what went on over the summer with the team's signings;  Gagne's saying they "hinted" (again, really not a strong word), and the Flyers saying nothing was offered or discussed.   You would *think* (now *I"m* making assumptions) that if "wait until LTIR" was discussed, they would have had some parameters regarding money and length but wink wink, wait until LTIR.   That doesn't *seem* to be the case.

[SwedeFly]

@ruxpin  Unless Gagne was told his contract would come out of the LTIR money, right?

This is what I think may be the 'hint' here from Gagne's perspective... Then he finds out homer is hooking up with Cleary on the side and hinting the same thing to him.

Cleary is a solid player, but he's not the bimbo you want to cheat with over your long time girlfriend is home waiting for some action.

[ruxpin]

@jammer2

 

Have a question for you:

 

We've both agreed that Clarke is a bastard personally and,therefore, in business dealings

The Gagne thing aside, we can probably agree on Holmgren as well (to a lesser extent than Clarke if we're not going to agree on Gagne but still a bastard)

 

So here's the question:  Is it coincidence that they both behave that way or 1) Holmgren is that way because he was taught by Clarke or 2) Are they both that way because that is the way they were BOTH taught by Snider?

[ruxpin]

This is what I think may be the 'hint' here from Gagne's perspective... Then he finds out homer is hooking up with Cleary on the side and hinting the same thing to him.

Cleary is a solid player, but he's not the bimbo you want to cheat with over your long time girlfriend is home waiting for some action.

 

Possibly.  But honestly, that's not a "hint" to me.  If that's what went on, Gagne is choosing a really strange word.  I mean, I realize he may not have planned his statement so that's simply the word that came out or because for some reason Gagne was trying to mitigate the accusation.  That's possible.  But all we have in the end is the word "hint."

 

All I can really go by is a season of moves that made it clear they weren't going to sign him, Gagne's "hint" thing, and Flyer denials of offering him anything.  It's still the whole offseason of moves that leaves me wondering what in the world Gagne was thinking--if not for the fact that I think he was thinking (accurately):  "The Flyers are my ONLY option."

[murraycraven]

Without writing a novel about this I have to admit that I am in the Rux / Canoli camp here...   If Gagne told his agent not to discuss anything w/ other Teams I put it all on Gagne and his camp.  Nothing is guaranteed so always have a Plan B.

 

I love Gagne and agree this was handled poorly but the Flyers did not offer him a contract at any point.  I think Gagne is coming across like he was entitled to be on the Flyers.   Homer's job is to put the best Team on the ice and Gagne,as much as I love him, does not make this Team better.  I think we will be well served by adding some of our youth this season and it will be more cap friendly. 

 

Like I said in previous posts I think Hexy has seen Gagne's play more than anyone as of late and had to have a say in this whole thing.  If Homer offered him a handshake deal and went back on it then I think Flyers were classless.  But nothing leads me to believe there was any deal other than a "we'll see" type conversation.  

 

I get the nostalgia factor with Gagne... I truly do but a younger option is a better plan IMO.  

Edited September 16, 2013 by murraycraven

[aziz]

You know what I really respect, the Habs, how they cherish their stars, how they pass the torch, how one generation builds on the other, to teach it greatness and what it means to be a Hab.

 

well, wait.  for every jaques plante, there is a patrick roy.  what torch has been passed by le habitants over the last, say, 20 years?  chelios was traded, carbonneau was traded.  look at that '92-93 cup winning roster and tell me who is being particularly honored in montreal.  yeah, their old old days players have hymns sung about them, but beyond ancient history, i'd say there are more roy-esque stories than anything else.

 

 

 

Sound familiar, yeah, it should, Barber, Lindros, Gagne. Slowly but surely we are eroding the base on which to pass the torch. What greats will teach the young Flyers what "Flyer hockey" is all about? Yeah, we have Clarkie there, one of the most morally corrupt guys (as much as I love the guy, it's so true) in recent hockey history.

 

 

hold on.  is the story line that the flyers are far too enamored with their own history and refuse to move on from the old boys clubs of teams past (how many ex-players are in management/coaching/scouting for this team at this point?)....or is it that the flyers are far too enamored with the next thing and refuse to establish hiring/retention criteria for aging and/or former players outside of their actual value at their job?

 

this fan base manages to complain that the flyers care too much about their past players and past success...and not care enough about their past players and transferring the legacy.  kind of amazing, when you think about it.

 

look.  homer was ruthless with gagne.  he played the situation to his advantage, and to gagne's detriment.  no doubt.  it wasn't the worst thing in the entire universe, but it was way way more cold business calculation than consideration of the well being of people who trusted him.  yes.  it was more cold business than i like to see, i'd like to see gagne -if he has to go (and he probably does)- leave understanding why and having no hard feelings over how it went down.  but.  holmgren didn't murder gagne's family or blackball him from organized sports.  he let gagne dangle, let gagne's mind fill in happy blanks, and then cut him loose when he was certain he had no further use for the player.  ruthlessly.  cold heartedly.  but it is only so big of a deal.

Edited September 16, 2013 by aziz

[ruxpin]

@aziz

 

You know we've reached the edge of the apocalypse when you, me, and @canoli pretty much agree. 

[radoran]

Door number three is most likely:   Gagne has NO OPTIONS (now or all summer) and is now whining because he's out in the cold.  The bold face above next most likely.

 

Now, I'm with you in the "Gagne's fault" line of thinking, but I would disagree that he is "out of options" at 33.

 

If his agent had done his freaking job and protected his client, I think there's a very good chance Simon Gagne would be signed somewhere. Top Six? No. And he wasn't getting that in Philly, either.

 

I just think this is the weakest part of your argument, given that there was apparently no effort made to drum up interest from other teams and they are all pretty much set with the ridiculous $64M cap.

 

Just an aside, no worries.

[radoran]

@aziz

 

You know we've reached the edge of the apocalypse when you, me, and @canoli pretty much agree. 

 

I think you need a fourth horseman... I'll volunteer. 

[ruxpin]

Now, I'm with you in the "Gagne's fault" line of thinking, but I would disagree that he is "out of options" at 33.

 

If his agent had done his freaking job and protected his client, I think there's a very good chance Simon Gagne would be signed somewhere. Top Six? No. And he wasn't getting that in Philly, either.

 

I just think this is the weakest part of your argument, given that there was apparently no effort made to drum up interest from other teams and they are all pretty much set with the ridiculous $64M cap.

 

Just an aside, no worries.

 

Yeah, I'm fine with that.  Just giving the "poor Gagne" group a fig leaf to grab on to besides "Gagne was stupid."  (I know, weird choice, huh?)

 

From where I stand, Gagne is either stupid or out of options.   I just don't see a big deal from the club's standpoint.

[ruxpin]

I think you need a fourth horseman... I'll volunteer. 

 

I actually thought of including you originally, but given that we're the same person I thought that would be a bit self-serving.

[jammer2]

 @aziz  "well, wait.  for every jaques plante, there is a patrick roy.  what torch has been passed by le habitants over the last, say, 20 years?  chelios was traded, carbonneau was traded.  look at that '92-93 cup winning roster and tell me who is being particularly honored in montreal.  yeah, their old old days players have hymns sung about them, but beyond ancient history, i'd say there are more roy-esque stories than anything else.

 

 I get what you are saying, but I did say the following.....

 

 

 

 

 

 " Also, was talking in terms of generalities, I would venture to guess people can research stuff and find instances where the Habs treated so and so badly, but it was not widespread. Respect and honour the greats, don't string them along as an emergency fall back option."

 

 

 I suspect the Habs are such an old franchise, that a few owners have come and gone, when the big money of the Molson brothers came into play, they sadly seemed to veer from the respect factor and did indeed treat some players badly, I was talking in generalities. The Roy incident seemed like the straw that broke the camels back, not a singular incident like leaving him in to long against the Wings. Plus, Roy was/is a stubborn hot head, so there is that. Leaving your superstar cup winning goalie in the net for goals #10 and #11 seemed outrageous, and I don't know many teams that would have pulled that stunt. All we have ever known is Ed, and he has failed at showing basic human compassion to many of our former stars.

 

"hold on.  is the story line that the flyers are far too enamored with their own history and refuse to move on from the old boys clubs of teams past (how many ex-players are in management/coaching/scouting for this team at this point?)....or is it that the flyers are far too enamored with the next thing and refuse to establish hiring/retention criteria for aging and/or former players outside of their actual value at their job?"

 

 The real story is a team that continually calls itself a family, but contradicts itself with it's actions. First off, just because a guy is a former player should mean he has a job for life, or they should be retained over other more suitable applicants. That is widespread over the Flyers org, and I think it's wrong. The cronyism has hurt this franchise much more than it has helped. I'm just talking about treating former stars with a bit of fairness and letting them part ways with the franchise so neither party feels like they have been used or betrayed.

look.  homer was ruthless with gagne.  he played the situation to his advantage, and to gagne's detriment.  no doubt.  it wasn't the worst thing in the entire universe, but it was way way more cold business calculation than consideration of the well being of people who trusted him.  yes.  it was more cold business than i like to see, i'd like to see gagne -if he has to go (and he probably does)- leave understanding why and having no hard feelings over how it went down."

 

 That's all I've really been trying to say.

[jammer2]

@murraycraven  "Like I said in previous posts I think Hexy has seen Gagne's play more than anyone as of late and had to have a say in this whole thing. "

 

  Hextall got hired on July 15th. If he had pertinent information about Gagne and his play, why did it take over a month to declare "we are moving on"?

[jammer2]

@jammer2

 

Have a question for you:

 

We've both agreed that Clarke is a bastard personally and,therefore, in business dealings

The Gagne thing aside, we can probably agree on Holmgren as well (to a lesser extent than Clarke if we're not going to agree on Gagne but still a bastard)

 

So here's the question:  Is it coincidence that they both behave that way or 1) Holmgren is that way because he was taught by Clarke or 2) Are they both that way because that is the way they were BOTH taught by Snider?

 

 

 It's hard to say, but from the outside looking in, I'd say both Homer and Clarke are naturally pricks, but Clarke is much worse and far more disrespectful in his dealings with people.

 

 I do think Snider fostered an environment where being ruthless was acceptable, and part of that rubbed off on both of them. Some of the former players were kind of like a teachers pet type of thing, were backstabbing teammates and other organizational assets was encouraged and rewarded with jobs and praise. Case in point, Chris Pronger. He was specifically brought in not only for his on ice skill set, but the blind loyalty he has shown other orgs and his no nonsense approach to team building. They knew he would do their bidding and encouraged this type of behavior. 

[jammer2]

  Your Clarke story brought back some memories. In 1980 Windsor hosted the Memorial Cup, Clarke was there to watch Grant Fuhr, Dale Hawerchuck etc compete for the right to be called Canada's top jr team. I was 15 years old. When I  saw he was there, I hopped in a cab, went home to get my trusty autograph book, took a cab back and went to the section he was seated.

 

 I waited until there was a stoppage in play, and politely asked Clarke for his autograph. I was obviously a Flyers fan wearing a hat, jersey and coat etc. I was so nervous I was shaking, here was my hero, the guy I had idolized since I could remember, sitting in my presence. I will never forget his first words, he looked up at me and in a very disapproving voice said "I'm trying to watch the game here!"  Very mean and a short tempered outburst to say the least. He grabbed my autograph book, scribbled his name and handed it back without making eye contact. It was crushing to me. My hero had not only been mean, but pubically admonished me for my interaction with him. What a prick!!! Never forgot that!!

[SwedeFly]

My hero had not only been mean, but pubically admonished me for my interaction with him. What a prick!!! Never forgot that!!

Pricks are good at 'pubically' admonishing others

[Mad Dog]

Well, OK, as I said, I am not absolving Gagne for buying this line, hook and sinker. He should have exercised his own judgment.
 

But there is no doubt in my mind the Flyers were NOT planning to bring him back all along. Think about it for second... The season ended on a sad note. The Flyers, being true to themselves, made a decision very quickly that they were going to bring as many high-priced free agents and do what they do best (trying to buy the Cup). So followed Bryz and Briere buyouts, followed by bringing in Vinny and Streit. I bet you they knew, right at *that* point Gagne was not in their plans. The simple question is why not being straightforward with the guy? Why all this "hinting"?

 

If, as someone suggested, they wanted to give Laughton more ice time, don’t tell me they made this decision just NOW.

 

Look at the timeline one more time. Are you telling me this has just happened because somehow in September, the Flyers suddenly realized Gagne was not fitting into their plans? They knew *exactly* what they were doing from the day the regular season ended. If they had given Gagne at least some indication they were not interested in him, I am sure Suave would pursue other options back in July-August.  Why, on the contrary, would Suave persuade Gagne not to talk to other teams?  Is it possible that the Flyers have given Gagne’s camp at least some assurance? Some indication he would be back? Call it a hint; call it whatever you want, but there HAD to be something signposted by Homer to make Gagne feel he would be back.

 

And don't tell me that in 33, a two-way player, who has shown toward the end of the season that he can still be quite effectife, cannot contribute anymore.... not even on a 3rd line.

 

Look, I am not suggesting Gagne should be getting preferential treatment or should have a sense of entitlement. I am not suggesting the Flyers should have gone to bet for him or given him some nice increase to his salary. But just be frank with the player who has been drafted by you, who spent 10 years with the franchise, who happened to score some huge goals, and who had several 40+ goals seasons. I think at the very least a player with this resume has earned THAT much.

 

There are just unspoken rules. While there is no wrong-doing or impropriety here, there is definitely a lousy, disrespectful treatment. I am sure Gagne is at least semi-respected by his peers in the league. How do you think the players would feel when they read his interview?  And as Jammer said, for the team who *claims* to be treating their players like a family, their track record sure doesn’t show it.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Mad Dog

[jammer2]

@Mad Dog  If we mud wrestled the Pro-Homer contingent, we would kick their butts!!  LOL!

[aziz]

 " Also, was talking in terms of generalities, I would venture to guess people can research stuff and find instances where the Habs treated so and so badly, but it was not widespread. Respect and honour the greats, don't string them along as an emergency fall back option."

 

ok, but who have the canadiens shown any particular deference to post-1967?  even jaques plante was traded after management turned against him.

 

what you are talking about doesn't really exist in professional sports.  certainly not in the modern era, and only here and there historically.  

 

holmgren handled things very impersonally, putting his team above his players.  which...i'm not sure how upset that really makes me.  it's about the crest on the front, not the name on the back, right?

 

i dunno, man.  i get what you are saying, but A)montreal is a bad example, and B)gagne can take his $2.5mil salary from last season and find some way to not feel like the world is out to get him.  i wish things had gone more amicably, but holmgren didn't exactly have gagne taken out back and both of his knees broken.

[aziz]

But there is no doubt in my mind the Flyers were NOT planning to bring him back all along. Think about it for second... The season ended on a sad note. The Flyers, being true to themselves, made a decision very quickly that they were going to bring as many high-priced free agents and do what they do best (trying to buy the Cup). So followed Bryz and Briere buyouts, followed by bringing in Vinny and Streit. I bet you they knew, right at *that* point Gagne was not in their plans. The simple question is why not being straightforward with the guy? Why all this "hinting"?

 

bottom line is that holmgren wanted to keep every possible option open as long as he could.  he made some moves, i'm sure considered others, weighed some signings, and finally decided on a final camp roster.  

 

there are two possible reasons.  one, holmgren is a jackass who enjoys screwing with people, or two, holmgren wanted to make sure he could put the best roster together possible.  i don't believe the former, and i can't be upset with the latter.

[mojo1917]

Your Clarke story brought back some memories. In 1980 Windsor hosted the Memorial Cup, Clarke was there to watch Grant Fuhr, Dale Hawerchuck etc compete for the right to be called Canada's top jr team. I was 15 years old. When I  saw he was there, I hopped in a cab, went home to get my trusty autograph book, took a cab back and went to the section he was seated.

 

 I waited until there was a stoppage in play, and politely asked Clarke for his autograph. I was obviously a Flyers fan wearing a hat, jersey and coat etc. I was so nervous I was shaking, here was my hero, the guy I had idolized since I could remember, sitting in my presence. I will never forget his first words, he looked up at me and in a very disapproving voice said "I'm trying to watch the game here!"  Very mean and a short tempered outburst to say the least. He grabbed my autograph book, scribbled his name and handed it back without making eye contact. It was crushing to me. My hero had not only been mean, but pubically admonished me for my interaction with him. What a prick!!! Never forgot that!!

Had a similar incident with REC in Hershey, I get that he was "working" I didn't even ask for an autograph though, just wanted to say "hi, I'm a big fan" . He could have been more of a dick if he'd thrown a beer in my face but that's all the slack I can give him. He doesn't seem to be a naturally kind person. It sucks when people you admire from afar don't live up to your idea of them.

[jammer2]

@aziz  Well, when the Habs have a big alumni event, you see Savard, Lapointe, Robinson, Gainey (yeah, he was fired, but it was done so both sides still respected the other), Lafleur, Shutt, all the big stars are on good terms with Montreal, Mondeau, Lemaire, it goes on and on. All Habs at heart and very active at Alumni events.  I've seen Denis Savard, who was not even a lifetime Hab at those events.

 

 Like I said, I didn't even want Homer to bring back Gagne, didn't think it fit the teams needs. I just thought he deserved to be treated better. He is a guy we drafted, developed and watched him become a star. He deserved to be told the truth, straight up, you should look for work elsewhere or don't put all your eggs in our basket, there might not be a job here for you. Anything like that would have worked for me.

[Mad Dog]

bottom line is that holmgren wanted to keep every possible option open as long as he could. 

Perfectly fine and totally understandable.  But then say that to the player right to his face and let him explore some outisde options.  Like I said, he gave Suave a directive not to negotiate with other teams and his is attributing this to the Flyers' giving him an indicaiton he would be back... which is something that we have been reading all summer long, as well.  I vividly remember the columns with headers reading something like "The Flyers Want To Bring Gagne Back".  Where was it coming from when, in relaity, there *was* no such a desire.

[murraycraven]

@murraycraven "Like I said in previous posts I think Hexy has seen Gagne's play more than anyone as of late and had to have a say in this whole thing. "

Hextall got hired on July 15th. If he had pertinent information about Gagne and his play, why did it take over a month to declare "we are moving on"?

Jammer... That is a perfectly valid question and not a single one of us knows the answer - the true answer. Maybe hexy and homer talked and both agreed that going with the youth is better served. Maybe Hextall swayed homers thought process during talks.

My point here is that I find it hard to believe that homer promised anything more than a" we'll see." To me Gagne and camp did a disservice to himself/themsleves by telling his agent to not talk to anyone else - he admitted to doing so...

Does it make it right? Of course not but by doing so he put himself in a bad position. Again, my point is that Homer did not promise anything so nothing was a given in terms of a contract.

I love Gagne but I think he was naive at best during the whole process. Running g a hockey team is about putting the best product on the ice and not about favors or handshake deals. It is a fluid situation and as opportunities present themselves thinking and strategies have to change.

I think once Cleary was invited Gagne should have known he had a long shot to get an invite. To say that Homer was "hinting" that he would get a contract or an invite tells me that Homer was playing both sides of the coin - as a GM I find it funny that people get upset with this but to me it is strictly business.

I hope the best for Gagne and I find it odd that he publicly recanted some of his comments. I don't fault Homer for making tough decisions in the best interest of the club. Whether they are the right decisions is a different storyB-)

With that said I hate how the whole thing played out... A good soldier like Gagne should go out with nothing but class. I think the Flyers should have handled better but I think Gagne could have handled the situation better as well.

Last, having a young kid play will be better for the team and better for the cap. I just don't see Gagne helping this team at the cost he will demand.

[aziz]

Perfectly fine and totally understandable.  But then say that to the player right to his face and let him explore some outisde options.

 

but then you are limiting an option.  if holmgren spent the summer trying to decide if gagne was a piece he wanted on the team -and we have no reason to think otherwise- then telling gagne to go ahead and check whatever out reduces gagne was a possibility.  i'm not saying it was a nice guy thing to do, it was cold and business-like to keep all of his cards that close to the chest..but i can see why he'd play it like that.

 

Where was it coming from when, in relaity, there *was* no such a desire.

 

correction:  all we know is there was no desire in the end.  you make it sound like from day one holmgren knew full well he wasn't going to have gagne back, in which case the entire point was to screw with one specific player to no benefit to the team.  that makes no sense, and doesn't track with what we know of holmgren.  holmgren is dispassionate and calculating, not malicious and evil.