To quote Kriss E
" Both are garbage, if you think Houle is worse, I mean, I'm not going to argue against that.
I give the edge to Bergevin because he has no reason to suck. He can hire whoever he wants, spend as much as he wants outside the cap, spend to the cap (and even more with buyouts), has complete support from his owner with a lot of patience, there is really no reason for him not to succeed outside incompetence.
Houle had his hands tied a bit more. That doesn't mean he had to trade Roy for that return, so no, he isn't getting a pass. I just think Bergevin is worse given his environment and conditions.
Not to mention, the overall attitude of Bergevin also helps the scale tilt his way"
basically its how I feel too, Houle was worse when you look at trade for trade, but when you consider the situations... Bergie has no real reason to have done this poorly. He shouldn't be able to even be in a discussion about who is worse... yet here we are.
Also please give consideration to the fact that hockey has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years with respect to analytics, stats, scouting etc. Bergie has this tool( yet he chooses to not follow it) vs. Houle, the internet was just starting out to the masses.
Bergie has a slight advantage over Houle