Gainey vs Bergevin

Who is / was a better GM?


  • Total voters
    141

SOLR

Registered User
Jun 4, 2006
12,558
6,001
Toronto / North York
That ''Price willed us single-handedly to 100 pt seasons'' myth has to die. How you gonna say that Price did it all on his own when in his god-mode season he was playing behind 110 pts of first pairing D production, and career years from Pacioretty? It's just silly.

I agree. Price has never been a workhorse like Ron Tugnutt, Patrick or Curtis Joseph. He's not going to put a team on his shoulder.

Price is an intimidating factor when a team is already good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotProkofievian

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
25,087
14,270
Montreal, QC
That whole fiction of Gainey being bad after his daughted passed needs to die it's rightful death. He had plenty of good deals afterwards and Gainey essentially became terrible in 2009, 2 years after the death of his daughter. The Rivet deal, Lang pick-up, Tanguay trade and Hamrlik signing for example were all done after tragedy struck.
 

PaulD

Time for a new GM !
Feb 4, 2016
28,755
15,808
Dundas
I was a big Serge fan too.

Acquired and drafted the likes of Bobby Smith, Brian Bellows, Kirk Muller, John Leclair, Saku Koivu, Shane Corson, Patrick Roy, Peter Svoboda, Stephan Richer, Claude Lemieux,, Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland, Eric Deshardins, Vince Damphouse, Russ Courtnall, Matt Schnieder, Lyle Odelyne, Sylvian Turgeon, Pat Burns, Jauque Demers (was about to trade Roy for Nolan when he was terminated)

Habs were a stanley cup contender and a team to be reckoned with from 84 season to 95 season under his watch.

Went to finals 3 times and won 2 cups.
 
Last edited:

buddahsmoka1

Registered User
Nov 15, 2006
27,197
2,633
Will have to disagree there. It really depends on where the team is at. If you are in a serious position to compete, fine, go for it. If you haven't made the POs in a long time, then again, fine, I get it. But sometimes, you definitely need to look at what is best for the team on a longer term.
That last year of Koivu, Kovalev, Komisarek...We really clinged onto making the POs. We fired Carbo, Gainey stepped in, and they refused to see the obvious...this team was going nowhere. We ended up getting swept by Boston. That was more embarrassing than had we missed the POs.
Like the Blues this year, they were still fighting for a POs spot but they said **** it and traded Stastny. Completely the right move for them as even if they made it to the first round, they would have lost. So what's the point?

That year, we had made the POs pretty regularly now. We had made them 3/4 years, we were not desperate for PO attendance and Koivu-Kovalev-Komisarek, those are three very big pieces at the time that we should have traded for future assets.

You start out with a general proposition, yet don't meet it in your argument.

There's a few factors that were at play here that you don't include:

1) It was the centennial year. Gainey's latitude of decision-making was severely constrained. The statement 'it really depends where the team is at' would suggest that if any year was the year not to trade away assets it was that year.

2) The team sputtered throughout the second half, yet on paper, it was one of the best in over a decade. The center depth - Koivu, Plekanec, Lang - was actually excellent, as was the winger depth. There was no reason to not expect the team to do well. It became obvious towards the end of the season that it was not likely to do well in the playoffs, but that was far from obvious at the trade deadline even.

3) People overestimate how much of a haul those assets would have gotten us. Koivu's career was almost over at that point. Kovalev still had some value, Komisarek I doubt had really that much value ever - he wasn't the prototypical defenseman that got you a decent haul at the deadline. You're looking at most maybe a first rounder, a couple of picks, or a decent prospect. Would those have helped the team down the road? Sure...but I doubt it's also quite likely it would have not been consequential at all.

Gainey put all the marbles on the table that season, and the one before. It didn't work out. He saw some of the issues with many of our young players and prospects not meshing well with the internal leadership of the team (the gap was too big). He then made some moves to bring in a leadership that narrowed that gap. It worked. We reached the conference finals the next year for the first time in over a decade and a half. The mentorship that was brought in also helped develop younger players like Pacioretty, Subban, Price, ect. that would also be instrumental in reaching the conference finals not too far down the line.

And that's the fundamental difference between Gainey and someone like Bergevin. The development and drafting was excellent, and Gainey was able to envision the ebbs and flows of the development of the team and make moves to augment and push the direction towards building something cohesive. And this is why I don't agree with the notion that Gainey was good before, and bad after, his 'family issues.' Because even in that era - despite going against popular notions like 'asset management' - he still operated in a way in which the direction of the team was constructed cohesively in a manner which often brought quite a bit of overall team and playoff success.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
You start out with a general proposition, yet don't meet it in your argument.

There's a few factors that were at play here that you don't include:

1) It was the centennial year. Gainey's latitude of decision-making was severely constrained. The statement 'it really depends where the team is at' would suggest that if any year was the year not to trade away assets it was that year.

2) The team sputtered throughout the second half, yet on paper, it was one of the best in over a decade. The center depth - Koivu, Plekanec, Lang - was actually excellent, as was the winger depth. There was no reason to not expect the team to do well. It became obvious towards the end of the season that it was not likely to do well in the playoffs, but that was far from obvious at the trade deadline even.

3) People overestimate how much of a haul those assets would have gotten us. Koivu's career was almost over at that point. Kovalev still had some value, Komisarek I doubt had really that much value ever - he wasn't the prototypical defenseman that got you a decent haul at the deadline. You're looking at most maybe a first rounder, a couple of picks, or a decent prospect. Would those have helped the team down the road? Sure...but I doubt it's also quite likely it would have not been consequential at all.

Gainey put all the marbles on the table that season, and the one before. It didn't work out. He saw some of the issues with many of our young players and prospects not meshing well with the internal leadership of the team (the gap was too big). He then made some moves to bring in a leadership that narrowed that gap. It worked. We reached the conference finals the next year for the first time in over a decade and a half. The mentorship that was brought in also helped develop younger players like Pacioretty, Subban, Price, ect. that would also be instrumental in reaching the conference finals not too far down the line.

And that's the fundamental difference between Gainey and someone like Bergevin. The development and drafting was excellent, and Gainey was able to envision the ebbs and flows of the development of the team and make moves to augment and push the direction towards building something cohesive. And this is why I don't agree with the notion that Gainey was good before, and bad after, his 'family issues.' Because even in that era - despite going against popular notions like 'asset management' - he still operated in a way in which the direction of the team was constructed cohesively in a manner which often brought quite a bit of overall team and playoff success.

1) Yes, I get that and agree it most likely played a part. Still, there were too many holes and issues with this team and it's his job to know when to pull the plug. If the owner and president are against that, he should sell them on it. Because continuing forward was utterly pointless and we knew it wasn't going to end well.

2) I agree again. I think we had a terrific roster. It's unfortunate we were decimated by injuries. We were better than 07-08. Lang-Kost broz as a 3rd pair? That line would have been our first one this year. Koivu, Kovalev, Tanguay as well. Solid. Unfortunately we got screwed. Also, I think Gainey got screwed up by not bringing in a veteran goalie presence.

3) Maybe..still, adding a few picks would have been better. We are not talking about a Habs team that had their shit together. It was a mess. It was pretty pointless to continue and that was clear back then.
Now to be fair, it seems Gainey had some interest in re-sigining Kovalev and Komisarek, but those guys wanted to hit the free market. Koivu he decided to move away from. In any event, it is his job as a manager, and those are three big assets he let go for nothing. Whether we could have gotten one first rounder or two, is irrelevant really. Point is we could have grabbed a few assets.

To be clear, I am not trying to argue against Gainey. I think he mismanaged assets like the ones mentioned here. But he is world's apart from Bergevin. I would gladly welcome Gainey back if it meant Bergevin GTFO.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Damn straight.

MB best season was with the team Bob built.
I'd say MB's only two successful years were his first two. Not so coincidentally, those were the years where he had his least amount of fingerprints on.
Starting his year 3, it all went downhill. He took for granted the contribution of a guy like Gionta, choosing not to replace him at all. Even if those guys were done, Bourque, Gionta, Briere, they still played key roles for us in the POs. Bourque got a last burst of life into his game and put up 8 goals. Briere scored a few timely goals from the 4th line, and although not scoring much of anything, Gionta was a good shutdown guy and still put up about .5 ppg.
Bergevin's genius coup was getting Vanek that year. That was game changer for us even if he didn't excel as we had hoped, he was still a top skilled guy we added. Unfortunately Therrien was too stupid to know how to use him, but he still made us better.

Bergevin's idea on how to improve on those guys was...........PA Parenteau. That's it. At the deadline, he went for Devonte..
At the time, because the same size was small and there were some good things done, I understand how people were willing to be more patient. I was as well, for another year, then it became quiet clear that this wasn't a one off but more a man that has no vision, structure, or understanding.
Looking back today, it's also clear the man was incompetent from the start but managed to do a few good moves and benefited from inheriting a group of players that were good enough to be somewhat competitive. That bought him time. His firing is long overdue at this point.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->