Marc Bergevin -'The answer is in that room'- Edition

[Harry22]

ESPN 2?

For people that didn't get the reference.

 

[justafan22]

Gotta love it.
Used to be "if he doesn't get a center this summer and we start the season with 8M cap space, he needs to go". Then the goalposts shifted to November(?), the deadline... and now it's next off-season lol. Bless.

People were this critical 3 years ago and it was shrugged off.

 

[Lshap]

The trade did nothing to put us in a win mode IMO.
It was done as a means to an end.
Some of us were calling out the front office indeed the entire organization when the campaign to tarnish Subban started.
I'm talking about their use of the Media (french in particular) to forward their agenda. It was evidently prep work to some of us in advance of Subban's dumping. I actually used the term trial balloon at the time. Besides MB doesn't understand or believe in win mode or windows and said as much. Fans assumed the trade was to put us in a win mode and or perceived that we were forced into a win now situation. We missed our win mode window after our ECF as far as I'm concerned. The subban deal was a flat-liner for the Habs.

The notion of a secret management conspiracy to tarnish Subban is ridiculous. It's make-believe, without a shred of evidence. The biggest names in hockey were traded without any attempts to tarnish them. Esposito, Roy, Lafleur, Gretzky, etc., including Shea Weber himself -- where were the smear campaigns against them? Teams trade big names and hope the news fades and fans move on quickly. The LAST thing they want is more news coverage shining a spotlight on a controversial move.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I gathered some additional stats (pts by prospects and pts/game). And yes, it's the same years. 2008-2011 vs 2012-2017. I'm going to do 2000-2007 draft years at some point but this takes up a lot of time to gather. For now, my focus is how we are doing (good or bad) with Bergevin. This whole drafting and developing and how bad we are at it just has no legs to stand on. It's propaganda without any stats to back it up and when compared to the rest of the league under the same time frame, it looks foolish.

2008-2011:
- 25 total picks (ranks 21st)
- 8 top 100 picks (ranks 26th)
- 795 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 30th)
- 296 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 28th)
- 0.372 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 16th)

2012-2017
- 39 total picks (ranks 17th)
- 23 top 100 picks (ranks 4th)
- 842 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 12th)
- 374 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 9th)
- 0.444 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 7th)

We are clearly turning the corner with our drafting and developing. Those 2008-2011 years had ripple effects and we are only now starting to overcome this. Stay tune for more updates on future years as we have more prospects make our roster. Bergevin is trying to build through the draft! Evidence is there. Problem is we need elite level prospects. I was surprised that our pgs/game over the last 5 drafts ranked 7th though.

 

[waffledave]

I gathered some additional stats (pts by prospects and pts/game). And yes, it's the same years. 2008-2011 vs 2012-2016. I'm going to do 2000-2007 draft years at some point but this takes up a lot of time to gather. For now, my focus is how we are doing (good or bad) with Bergevin. This whole drafting and developing and how bad we are at it just has no legs to stand on. It's propaganda without any stats to back it up and when compared to the rest of the league under the same time frame, it looks foolish.

2008-2011:
- 25 total picks (ranks 21st)
- 8 top 100 picks (ranks 26th)
- 795 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 30th)
- 296 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 28th)
- 0.372 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 16th)

2012-2016
- 39 total picks (ranks 17th)
- 23 top 100 picks (ranks 4th)
- 842 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 12th)
- 374 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 9th)
- 0.444 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 7th)

We are clearly turning the corner with our drafting and developing. Those 2008-2011 years had ripple effects and we are only now starting to overcome this. Stay tune for more updates on future years as we have more prospects make our roster. Bergevin is trying to build through the draft! Evidence is there. Problem is we need elite level prospects. I was surprised that our pgs/game over the last 5 drafts ranked 7th though.

Where are you getting these timeframes from?

2008-2011 is 4 years... 08, 09, 10, 11
2012-2016 is 5 years... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Why not include 2007 in the first set?

 

[CauZuki]

I gathered some additional stats (pts by prospects and pts/game). And yes, it's the same years. 2008-2011 vs 2012-2016. I'm going to do 2000-2007 draft years at some point but this takes up a lot of time to gather. For now, my focus is how we are doing (good or bad) with Bergevin. This whole drafting and developing and how bad we are at it just has not legs to stand on. It's propaganda without any stats to back it up and when compared to the rest of the league under the same time frame, it looks foolish.

2008-2011:
- 25 total picks (ranks 21st)
- 8 top 100 picks (ranks 26th)
- 795 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 30th)
- 296 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 28th)
- 0.372 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 16th)

2012-2016
- 39 total picks (ranks 17th)
- 23 top 100 picks (ranks 4th)
- 842 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 12th)
- 374 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 9th)
- 0.444 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 7th)

We are clearly turning the corner with our drafting and developing. Those 2008-2011 years had ripple effects and we are only now starting to overcome this. Stay tune for more updates on future years as we have more prospects make our roster. Bergevin is trying to build through the draft! Evidence is there. Problem is we need elite level prospects. I was surprised that our pgs/game over the last 5 drafts ranked 7th though.

This assessment holds little to no value unfortunately, since it doesn't take into account other factors like margin of error (in terms of evaluating two different periods and correlating the data) while also not factoring how different personel changes (or lack there of) can impact draft performance and output. Bergevin did not really change much in terms of drafting we still have the same issues today we've had before his tenure. Our AHL team is still middle of the pack and is a poor environment for rookie development. Drafting is only part of the story, the environment has to foster a winning culture and catering to succeess in today's NHL.

The point being, why are you working so hard to give merit to a GM that has simply not done a good job. He is not among the worst necessarily but he is a far cry from being a top GM in this league. The fact that this is acceptable to you worries me, it tells me you think Bergevin has the potential to become one of the better GMs. Unless of course you don't want the Habs to have an elite GM with a modern vision and the ability to give this franchise the tools to win the Stanley cup?

 

[Habs Halifax]

Where are you getting these timeframes from?

2008-2011 is 4 years... 08, 09, 10, 11
2012-2016 is 5 years... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Why not include 2007 in the first set?

It was a typo. The Spreadsheet shows 2012-2017. It was not suppose to be 2016. It's now fixed. Thanks for picking this up

Everybody knows how good our 2007 draft was. I would put that up against any other draft year. The reason I started in 2008 is to show how bad those years were for us and how this affected our ability to add to our roster moving forward. I'm not saying Bergevin is a genius but his hands were tied in this department.

The 2012-2017 draft years is an evaluation against other teams under the exact time frame. Not trying to get into another argument but the lack of drafting and developing propaganda is just that and it's likely do to ripple effects from the 2008-2011 draft years.

 

[Habs Halifax]

That is a simplistic assessment that holds little to no value unfortunately, since it doesn't take into account other factors like margin of error (in terms of evaluating two different periods and correlating the data) while also not factoring how different personel change and some stay the same. Bergevin did not really change much in terms of drafting we still have the same issues today we've had before his tenure. Our AHL team is still middle of the pack and is a poor environment for rookie development. Drafting is only part of the story, the environment has to foster a winning culture and catering to succeeding in today's NHL.

The point being, why are you working so hard to give merit to a GM that has simply not done a good job. He is not among the worst necessarily but he is a far cry from being a top GM in this league. The fact that this is acceptable to you worries me, it tells me you think Bergevin has the potential to become one of the better GMs. Unless of course you don't want the Habs to have an elite GM with a modern vision and the ability to give this franchise the tools to win the Stanley cup?

It's a direct comparison against all other teams under the same time frame. Same time frame, same rules. Use the data as you see fit. The only cheery picking is I started in 2007 but once again. Same time frame and same rules for each and every team.

I'm evaluating the draft and learning a few things along the way. Like I said, I don't think Bergevin is a genius GM like you think I do. I'm tracking real hard core data to come up with my opinions of him and the job he is doing. I am not the type to follow people like sheep but I do acknowledged there is a disconnect between our GM and a large % of our fan base. It's Montreal, we are thirsty for cups.

 

[EdAVSfan]

Until the habs properly address the nucleus of the team, they're just treading water.

Top 2 centers, top 3 D who are properly slotted, and a serviceable goaltender.

If you're missing 2 or more of these pieces, there's no hope of turning the corner, obviously if the higher end of those pieces are missing.

Waiting for a 1C to somehow fall into your lap, and for the stars to align that you will be the team that will get him is the exact reason why the habs are now 6 years later, still trying to address that issue.

And without a blue-chip prospect, since he was traded, the hope is to internally develop one. As of now, I see one hopeful. And he's likely years away from actually playing like a 1C calibre player.

The foundation has cracks and holes, and the management is still putting up picture frames on the second floor.

 

[waffledave]

It was a typo. The Spreadsheet shows 2012-2017. It was not suppose to be 2016. It's now fixed. Thanks for picking this up

Everybody knows how good our 2007 draft was. I would put that up against any other draft year. The reason I started in 2008 is to show how bad those years were for us and how this affected our ability to add to our roster moving forward. I'm not saying Bergevin is a genius but his hands were tied in this department.

The 2012-2017 draft years is an evaluation against other teams under the exact time frame. Not trying to get into another argument but the lack of drafting and developing propaganda is just that and it's likely do to ripple effects from the 2008-2011 draft years.

You can't get leave out 2007 because it was really good though. These kind of things even out over the long term. If you are comparing our worst 4 year period that you specifically cherry picked because it was bad, then your argument holds little merit. You should be comparing 5 year blocks, and thus including 2007. It's not as if Bergevin did not benefit from players drafted in 2007... They formed a huge part of the core he inherited.

 

[RickP]

The notion of a secret management conspiracy to tarnish Subban is ridiculous. It's make-believe, without a shred of evidence. The biggest names in hockey were traded without any attempts to tarnish them. Esposito, Roy, Lafleur, Gretzky, etc., including Shea Weber himself -- where were the smear campaigns against them? Teams trade big names and hope the news fades and fans move on quickly. The LAST thing they want is more news coverage shining a spotlight on a controversial move.

I get your point, but those situations aren't the same at all. Roy asked for a trade, Gretzky was traded for financial reasons, Lafleur wasn't traded, he was forced into retirement by the management/coaches. I'm not sure there was a secret conspiracy, but it was clear RDS tried to tarnish Subban's reputation. It's pretty well known most of the "experts" are friends with Therrien and Bergevin. Maybe they were just tough on Subban because they (RDS and the Habs management) share the same views. But I get why some people think the management wanted some media to tarnish Subban's reputation.

 

[Lshap]

This assessment holds little to no value unfortunately, since it doesn't take into account other factors like margin of error (in terms of evaluating two different periods and correlating the data) while also not factoring how different personel changes (or lack there of) can impact draft performance and output. Bergevin did not really change much in terms of drafting we still have the same issues today we've had before his tenure. Our AHL team is still middle of the pack and is a poor environment for rookie development. Drafting is only part of the story, the environment has to foster a winning culture and catering to succeeding in today's NHL.

The point being, why are you working so hard to give merit to a GM that has simply not done a good job. He is not among the worst necessarily but he is a far cry from being a top GM in this league. The fact that this is acceptable to you worries me, it tells me you think Bergevin has the potential to become one of the better GMs. Unless of course you don't want the Habs to have an elite GM with a modern vision and the ability to give this franchise the tools to win the Stanley cup?

Unless you're claiming the data is wrong, it has value. The numbers show our recent drafts have produced better results than most. That information has value, even if it contradicts what I expected. The chart isn't measuring overall success of the team, its trades, or the GM. It's just a summary of the last few years of prospects. On that score I admit it looks like we're better than I thought.

 

[Habs Halifax]

You can't get leave out 2007 because it was really good though. These kind of things even out over the long term. If you are comparing our worst 4 year period that you specifically cherry picked because it was bad, then your argument holds little merit. You should be comparing 5 year blocks, and thus including 2007. It's not as if Bergevin did not benefit from players drafted in 2007... They formed a huge part of the core he inherited.

I understand what you mean and I plan on doing the 2000-2007 draft years in future months. This is very time consuming. Adding the 2007 year no doubt make the rankings better but the purpose of doing this was to see how bad of a 4 year stretch we had and it just so happens to be the 4 years before Bergevin took the GM job. And how this compares to the rest of the league.

Same time frame for all teams, same rules. Yeah, we had a wicket draft in 2007 but we followed that up with one of the worse 4 year spans of drafting after it. So yeah, Bergevin started with Price, Subban, Patch but the prospect pool did not help us at that point. We only have Gallagher to show for 4 years of drafting.

 

[Electricity]

The notion of a secret management conspiracy to tarnish Subban is ridiculous. It's make-believe, without a shred of evidence. The biggest names in hockey were traded without any attempts to tarnish them. Esposito, Roy, Lafleur, Gretzky, etc., including Shea Weber himself -- where were the smear campaigns against them? Teams trade big names and hope the news fades and fans move on quickly. The LAST thing they want is more news coverage shining a spotlight on a controversial move.

I don't know if a conspiracy existed or not but it's a whole lot easier for a management to sell getting rid of an immensely popular player when there are questions about that player's desire and ability to be a good teammate. Especially when people were never really given a good reason why it happened.

With no apparent reason for the deal(other than spite?), from an outsider, there has to be some sort of mysterious locker room issue, either real or fabricated.

Good trades are understood by fans and accepted. Bad trades are usually figured pretty quickly too, unless there are shady unknowns involved. Gives a nervous front office more time...

 

[Habs Halifax]

Unless you're claiming the data is wrong, it has value. The numbers show our recent drafts have produced better results than most. That information has value, even if it contradicts what I expected. The chart isn't measuring overall success of the team, its trades, or the GM. It's just a summary of the last few years of prospects. On that score I admit it looks like we're better than I thought.

To be honest... I was expecting middle of the pack or something like 15-20 range. Even I was surprised.

Anybody want to check my work? My fingers are sore!

Edit: Something else that people with catch onto is this is direct drafting. So Sergachev factors in but I see this as a lateral movement in stats and minimal effect. Drouin=Sergachev in both games played and points so far (close to it anyways)

 

[CauZuki]

It's a direct comparison against all other teams under the same time frame. Same time frame, same rules. Use the data as you see fit.

The data presented is fine and I commend you for taking the time in compiling this information. It holds value in a context when interpreted properly.

That being said, I plainly disagree with the conclusions drawn, since you can't really absolve our GM by looking at the final outcome. There are factors that put this data in perspective.

- Your data shows we had less picks which is true as Gainey/Gauthier liked to make trades that involved picks for depth players. The main issue I have is you are comparing 3 years vs 4 which can make a big difference when accounting for statistical anomalies.
- You are quantifying top 100 picks which doesn't make sense since that would only mean that a team was worse during that span and there was more opportunity to draft in the top 100. Since the bottom 7 teams had their 4th rounders in the top 100. Mostly means Bergevin hoarded picks when he could have been loading up the team...Or are we making a case that our team was built through the draft?

I suppose my main point would be (once again), that the results speak for themselves and at this point why work so hard to try to polish a turd? No need to hate blindly (I certainly don't attack Bergevin for sneezing, it's more like he won't stop fueling my fire.) but at one point you can say you fought the good fight and it's time to start discussing what a new GM could do with this team. Rather than bickering of whether or not Bergevin is really as bad as some make it seem. There is no need for a truth avenger, all most want is reasonable debate and general hockey discussion.(that's my opinion anyways)

 

[Lshap]

I get your point, but those situations aren't the same at all. Roy asked for a trade, Gretzky was traded for financial reasons, Lafleur wasn't traded, he was forced into retirement by the management/coaches. I'm not sure there was a secret conspiracy, but it was clear RDS tried to tarnish Subban's reputation. It's pretty well known most of the "experts" are friends with Therrien and Bergevin. Maybe they were just tough on Subban because they (RDS and the Habs management) share the same views. But I get why some people think the management wanted some media to tarnish Subban's reputation.

Fact remains that stars get traded. Almost none have baggage trailing behind them. The ones who do bear a lot of the responsibility themselves.

To be crystal clear: While management may have had zero to do with the media storm around Subban, I do think better leadership from coach and players could've smoothed over the internal tensions before they became toxic. In particular, I have no problem believing Therrien's bullying made things worse for everyone in the locker.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The data presented is fine and I commend you for taking the time in compiling this information. It holds value in a context when interpreted properly.

That being said, I plainly disagree with the conclusions drawn, since you can't really absolve our GM by looking at the final outcome. There are factors that put this data in perspective.

- Your data shows we had less picks which is true as Gainey/Gauthier liked to make trades that involved picks for depth players. The main issue I have is you are comparing 3 years vs 4 which can make a big difference when accounting for statistical anomalies.
- You are quantifying top 100 picks which doesn't make sense since that would only mean that are team was worse during that span and there was more opportunity to draft in the top 100. Since the bottom 7 teams had their 4th rounders in the top 100. Also means Bergevin hoarded picks when he could have been loading up the team...Or are we making a case that our team was built through the draft?

I suppose my main point would be (once again), that the results speak for themselves and at this point why work so hard to try to polish a turd? No need to hate blindly (I certainly don't attack Bergevin for sneezing, it's more like he won't stop fueling my fire.) but at one point you can say you fought the good fight and it's time to start discussing what a new GM could do with this team. Rather than bickering of whether or not Bergevin is really as bad as some make it seem. There is no need for a truth avenger, all most want is reasonable debate and general hockey discussion.(that's my opinion anyways)

My data is about drafting and how we rank vs other teams under the same time frame. You really do need to be careful with how you use stats. Just like the (+/-) stat. Use as you see fit and I am very curious if we drop in rankings, stay the same, or rise in the coming years. There is many factors at play with the 2012-2017 draft years and many prospects to come.

I have a few other ides but going to wait to present. It's in beta mode and the min I post it, you are all over me

 

[CauZuki]

Unless you're claiming the data is wrong, it has value. The numbers show our recent drafts have produced better results than most. That information has value, even if it contradicts what I expected. The chart isn't measuring overall success of the team, its trades, or the GM. It's just a summary of the last few years of prospects. On that score I admit it looks like we're better than I thought.

I said the assement of the data held little value , as you can see above I think the data is very meaningful and I'm glad someone took the time to compile it.

 

[Lshap]

I said the assement of the data held little value , as you can see above I think the data is very meaningful and I'm glad someone took the time to compile it.

Agreed. At the very least, it helps diagnose where the problem may NOT be.

 

[waffledave]

I understand what you mean and I plan on doing the 2000-2007 draft years in future months. This is very time consuming. Adding the 2007 year no doubt make the rankings better but the purpose of doing this was to see how bad of a 4 year stretch we had and it just so happens to be the 4 years before Bergevin took the GM job. And how this compares to the rest of the league.

Same time frame for all teams, same rules. Yeah, we had a wicket draft in 2007 but we followed that up with one of the worse 4 year spans of drafting after it. So yeah, Bergevin started with Price, Subban, Patch but the prospect pool did not help us at that point. We only have Gallagher to show for 4 years of drafting.

I understand what you're saying but I think this analysis is extremely biased so that it produces a certain result. You yourself admit that you chose this 4 year sample because it was a particularly bad stretch for drafting, and you purposely excluded 2007 because it was a good year and would change the results.

I mean, that is... almost literally the definitely of bias.

If you're going to compare drafts, the least you could do is compare the same block of years. You're just picking arbitrary dates that you chose, on purpose, to support your argument.

Why don't we remove the 2012 draft and just look at 2013-2016?

 

[Roke]

Any statistical analysis of drafting has to take draft position into account. Simply counting up the number of picks isn't good enough.

 

[WG]

I gathered some additional stats (pts by prospects and pts/game). And yes, it's the same years. 2008-2011 vs 2012-2017. I'm going to do 2000-2007 draft years at some point but this takes up a lot of time to gather. For now, my focus is how we are doing (good or bad) with Bergevin. This whole drafting and developing and how bad we are at it just has no legs to stand on. It's propaganda without any stats to back it up and when compared to the rest of the league under the same time frame, it looks foolish.

2008-2011:
- 25 total picks (ranks 21st)
- 8 top 100 picks (ranks 26th)
- 795 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 30th)
- 296 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 28th)
- 0.372 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 16th)

2012-2017
- 39 total picks (ranks 17th)
- 23 top 100 picks (ranks 4th)
- 842 games played by Prospects in the NHL (ranks 12th)
- 374 pts by prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 9th)
- 0.444 pts/game by Prospects playing games in the NHL (ranks 7th)

We are clearly turning the corner with our drafting and developing. Those 2008-2011 years had ripple effects and we are only now starting to overcome this. Stay tune for more updates on future years as we have more prospects make our roster. Bergevin is trying to build through the draft! Evidence is there. Problem is we need elite level prospects. I was surprised that our pgs/game over the last 5 drafts ranked 7th though.

I have seen you push this factoid over and over, for reasons I assume you feel shine a positive light on the current regime.

One quibble. Bergevin came in just before the draft and while the draft picks are sort-of his, he had no bearing on acquiring them. The team cratered in 2011-12 so Gauthier added a 2nd for the 2012 draft and didn't trade picks away. If we were to ascribe the 2012 draft to the prior regime,

2008-12 ( 5 drafts): 32 picks, 13 top 100 (2012 draft had 5 top 100 picks that Bergy walked in to)
2013-2017 (5 drafts): 32 picks, 18 top 100 picks. And don't forget that two of those top 100 were second rounders left behind by Gauthier in the Cammy trade to Calgary and in the Nashville trade.

This approach to the draft data doesn't really say much about Bergy's supposed commitment to drafting and I don't think it's unfair to break it up this way.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I understand what you're saying but I think this analysis is extremely biased so that it produces a certain result. You yourself admit that you chose this 4 year sample because it was a particularly bad stretch for drafting, and you purposely excluded 2007 because it was a good year and would change the results.

I mean, that is... almost literally the definitely of bias.

If you're going to compare drafts, the least you could do is compare the same block of years. You're just picking arbitrary dates that you chose, on purpose, to support your argument.

Why don't we remove the 2012 draft and just look at 2013-2016?

Why don’t you do your own homework and provide your own 10 year span of drafting? Go check it out for yourself?

 

[Habs Halifax]

Any statistical analysis of drafting has to take draft position into account. Simply counting up the number of picks isn't good enough.

Yes that’s why there is many other stats provided. Analyze how you see fit and how it compares to other teams