Marc Bergevin: The Polygraph Edition

[SirClintonPortis]

MB has had more than one chance... he's been given four years and hasn't done anything of note with it. If we had won the cup this year for example... how much credit would you have given him for having Price carry us to a cup? The core has come from previous regimes and almost entirely through the draft. If you want to credit somebody for this team, credit Trevor Timmins because he's the one who built it.

This team has contender written all over it and our GM has saddled us with a horrific coaching group and done nothing substantial to help this team despite glaring holes on the wing. Jeff Petry and a bunch of grinders isn't good enough.

And if that isn't bad enough, how about what he's said? Trades are hard. We can't draft impact players in the draft when we're picking low. We can't sign free agents... He's said he wants to build through the draft but hires a coach who plays vets over kids. He doesn't trade up in drafts. Doesn't really have any marquee prospects to show for himself and he hasn't added anything because according to him: "this isn't playstation." Sorry but that's not good enough. We should've fired him along with the coaching staff here and in the AHL and started over.

This guy is operating under a simple biconditional. GM X is a good GM(statement P) iff his team's regular season record while he is employed by his team is good(statement Q).

Biconditionals are true if both statements in it are true or if both statements in it are false. The counterexample is when one of the statements false and the other true.

Since a biconditional is the as saying both
If P, then Q
If Q, then P

are true. If either of these conditionals have even one instance where it is false, the biconditional is also false. Has there even been one case in which a currently employed GM suffered many losing seasons but was still "good"? Has there even been one case in which the team's regular season record over some period of time was good but the GM was bad? If there is for either of these scenarios, the bi-conditional is false and hence one cannot define a GM's performance solely by the team's performance while he is currently employed.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

ECF, 6 play off rounds, 3 100 point seasons, 2nd in the NHL, MB has done a lot in his 4 years here. No matter how many trades, drafts, or siginings you make, if the team does not win it does not matter. He didn't need his chance before, so he has not had more than one chance.

What does this even mean?

The core of those teams were built by other GMs. Moreover, they didn't play well in front of Price. We used a dump and chase system and were bottom third everywhere that didn't include goaltending. There's no reason to credit the GM for those seasons. As for him not having a chance... that doesn't make any sense either. He had every opportunity to improve the club and didn't do so.

Now we're on year four and have huge holes on the wing. That didn't happen overnight... it happened over the past three years of him not doing anything.

Are you saying Molson should of fired MB after the team finished 2nd in the NHL? 3 years into his tenure? Last summer, because you said he had many chances.

No, I wouldn't have fired him last summer. But by the time last summer came around I was already upset with the guy. And he didn't do anything to change my mind with his offseason moves. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited to see how Kassian and Semin would do... they both failed.

So would I have fired him then? No. Would I fire him now? Absolutely. Why? Because he just presided over the biggest disaster this team has seen in decades. It was a collosal failure and he blaimed it entirely on the injury to one player. He did absolutely nothing while this team tanked. He kept the worst coach in the league. He did nothing to improve the management in the AHL. It was absolutely brutal. He's done nothing for four years and we're squandering the peak of HOF caliber players. Then he repeated that trades are hard and it's hard to get guys through the free agency and that he'd look for 3rd liners who might be able to score.

He's SHOWN us that he's not up for the job and that's reason enough to fire the guy.

I would give him the exact credit that he deserves, which is a Stanley cup ring and being acknowledged as the GM who brought a cup back to Montreal. Would you give him the same credit? Because I didn't say anything that wouldn't be true or a fact.

No, I wouldn't have given him much credit. He didn't build the team.

Why should I give Timmins any credit then? I am sure there was someone under him who actually scouted all the players and told him which ones to draft, just as he told his boss. This way only that one specific person should get credit. Or since Timmins is in charge he gets the credit and the blame, Just like MB.

Why should you credit Timmins? I'll give you several reasons:

Price, McDonnaugh (don't blame him for his getting traded), Subban, Max, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Beaulieu... The best players on our team were drafted by this guy. Hell, we'd have been better off not even having GM moves because they traded picks and prospects away while adding nothing to the core. We'd still have McDonnaugh and that's a hell of a lot better than having Petry.

 

[scrubadam]

What does this even mean?

The core of those teams were built by other GMs. Moreover, they didn't play well in front of Price. We used a dump and chase system and were bottom third everywhere that didn't include goaltending. There's no reason to credit the GM for those seasons. As for him not having a chance... that doesn't make any sense either. He had every opportunity to improve the club and didn't do so.

Now we're on year four and have huge holes on the wing. That didn't happen overnight... it happened over the past three years of him not doing anything.


No, I wouldn't have fired him last summer. But by the time last summer came around I was already upset with the guy. And he didn't do anything to change my mind with his offseason moves. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited to see how Kassian and Semin would do... they both failed.

So would I have fired him then? No. Would I fire him now? Absolutely. Why? Because he just presided over the biggest disaster this team has seen in decades. It was a collosal failure and he blaimed it entirely on the injury to one player. He did absolutely nothing while this team tanked. He kept the worst coach in the league. He did nothing to improve the management in the AHL. It was absolutely brutal. He's done nothing for four years and we're squandering the peak of HOF caliber players. Then he repeated that trades are hard and it's hard to get guys through the free agency and that he'd look for 3rd liners who might be able to score.

He's SHOWN us that he's not up for the job and that's reason enough to fire the guy.

No, I wouldn't have given him much credit. He didn't build the team.

Why should you credit Timmins? I'll give you several reasons:

Price, McDonnaugh (don't blame him for his getting traded), Subban, Max, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Beaulieu... The best players on our team were drafted by this guy. Hell, we'd have been better off not even having GM moves because they traded picks and prospects away while adding nothing to the core. We'd still have McDonnaugh and that's a hell of a lot better than having Petry.

Looks like we just have different opinons. You dont think Bergevin had any hand in the teams succsess. I will say its fair that you think he burnt his chance this year because the team missed the playoffs. We just differ here in that I think he should have one more year, while you think you have seen enough.

I disagree that he didn't build the team. You are years removed from the past regimes, its not fair to say its still their team. There were plenty of players from the Gainey/Gauthier era that are still not here that Bergevin could of kept instead. Thats why I look at the results of today. Otherwise might as well bring back Gainey because he built this team that had good results (before this season).

I also disagree that he has not added to the core. He does not need to add another core piece to the core, just complimentary pieces. He added a lot of those even if they were a rotating cast, and even though not all of them were LONG TERM solutions. Ryder, Vanek, Brier, PAP, Petry, Weise, Malhotra, Mitchell, Byron, etc... All complimentary pieces that scored big goals or made big plays for the team at one time or another. I wont argue that MB should not try to add another top 6. He def should get one and I want to give him this summer to do so.

My point about Timmins is you say the best players were drafterd by him. Just because he was the head scout he gets the credit. Did he really draft every single one of those players? He studied and new all of them? Or did he have scouts under him telling him what he needs to know about the players and then made a decision. Which he told his GM. Just like MB. Your judging Timmins on his results just like a judge MB on the results.

 

[Patccmoi]

Why should you credit Timmins? I'll give you several reasons:

Price, McDonnaugh (don't blame him for his getting traded), Subban, Max, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Beaulieu... The best players on our team were drafted by this guy. Hell, we'd have been better off not even having GM moves because they traded picks and prospects away while adding nothing to the core. We'd still have McDonnaugh and that's a hell of a lot better than having Petry.

You know, never really looked at it this way but I wonder how many teams can say that (I really don't know, is that common or not, my instinct says no but I'm not sure).

How many teams would actually be BETTER off if no trade had been done whatsoever for them in the last 5-8 years? It's crazy when you think about the fact that none of our last 3 GM did anything that ended up adding/improving our core other than drafts and contracts.

They might've improved the support cast a bit but big deal really. The trade of McDonaugh alone is worse than any improvement we could find anywhere else on the roster, and it seems to me that drafted players that we have in the minor (Hudon/Andrighetto/etc) would not have made that big of a difference compared to what we got through trades/UFA for support roles.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Looks like we just have different opinons. You dont think Bergevin had any hand in the teams succsess. I will say its fair that you think he burnt his chance this year because the team missed the playoffs. We just differ here in that I think he should have one more year, while you think you have seen enough.

Why should we give him one more year when he's done next to nothing for the past four, saddled us with a terrible coaching staff and told us there's nothing he can do about fixing the team?

We have different opinions? Okay. But I'd like to hear some more reasoning from you as to why we should stick with the guy while we have a limited window to win a cup with this core and he's done next to nothing to help us.

I disagree that he didn't build the team. You are years removed from the past regimes, its not fair to say its still their team. There were plenty of players from the Gainey/Gauthier era that are still not here that Bergevin could of kept instead. Thats why I look at the results of today. Otherwise might as well bring back Gainey because he built this team that had good results (before this season).

So we should credit him for not trading Price? How much credit do I have to give him for not trading Pacciorretty?

And while we're on the subject, he's very lucky Subban didn't bolt when we lowballed the hell out of him when he was RFA and even luckier that Molson stepped in to save his ass during the standoff last year or else he'd be down there with Houle fighting for the title of worst Montreal GM ever vs Houle.

I also disagree that he has not added to the core. He does not need to add another core piece to the core, just complimentary pieces. He added a lot of those even if they were a rotating cast, and even though not all of them were LONG TERM solutions. Ryder, Vanek, Brier, PAP, Petry, Weise, Malhotra, Mitchell, Byron, etc... All complimentary pieces that scored big goals or made big plays for the team at one time or another. I wont argue that MB should not try to add another top 6. He def should get one and I want to give him this summer to do so.

What has he added to our core? He's added Petry, that's it.

And why should we give him another summer? He hasn't earned it. We are trying to win a cup NOW and he's squandered the past four years doing next to nothing while backing a horrible coach who's set us backwards and he's (unbelievably) doubled down with this coach AGAIN.

My point about Timmins is you say the best players were drafterd by him. Just because he was the head scout he gets the credit. Did he really draft every single one of those players? He studied and new all of them? Or did he have scouts under him telling him what he needs to know about the players and then made a decision. Which he told his GM. Just like MB. Your judging Timmins on his results just like a judge MB on the results.

He's the head scout and he's the guy they rely on to draft the players. Yes, he's the guy who deserves the credit for our core. It's just too bad we've had idiot GMs for the past decade who haven't been able to help add to it.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You know, never really looked at it this way but I wonder how many teams can say that (I really don't know, is that common or not, my instinct says no but I'm not sure).

How many teams would actually be BETTER off if no trade had been done whatsoever for them in the last 5-8 years? It's crazy when you think about the fact that none of our last 3 GM did anything that ended up adding/improving our core other than drafts and contracts.

They might've improved the support cast a bit but big deal really. The trade of McDonaugh alone is worse than any improvement we could find anywhere else on the roster, and it seems to me that drafted players that we have in the minor (Hudon/Andrighetto/etc) would not have made that big of a difference compared to what we got through trades/UFA for support roles.

The only trade that you could point to that has somewhat helped us was the Eller/Halak trade and even there I felt like we should've gotten more. Apart from that? Seriously even Plek and Markov were drafted by us - not by Timmins but still... this whole team has been built through the draft. How the hell is it that our GM can't find us a couple of 2nd line wingers to help out?

 

[Kriss E]

Ya right!!!...... every time you respond to my posts it's ALWAYS negative, I've yet to ever see you respond with the words "I agree with you" which logic states that you're just looking to pick fights so don't give me this I've had it with you crap!!

Btw, I think you meant Talbot....yes, he's a number #1 goalie in the league and he was playing behind a very healthy lineup...how can you ignore this??.....Condon was a rookie goalie who had been playing in the ECHL a few years back, you can't even compare the two and you know it!

Still, the Rangers have been a very healthy team in the last 2yrs which 100% helps with their success.....if we switch our man games lost this year with theirs, we make the playoffs and they don't.

Okay so a team can do well if whoever steps in after injuries plays well, great, my point exactly.
So maybe ask why Bergevin decided to get Scrivens. He doesn't get a pass because later in the season, half the team got injured. Bergevin let December and January happen.

 

[habalifeok]

Okay so a team can do well if whoever steps in after injuries plays well, great, my point exactly.
So maybe ask why Bergevin decided to get Scrivens. He doesn't get a pass because later in the season, half the team got injured. Bergevin let December and January happen.

What exactly did Scrivens have to do with Dec-Jan. Condon lost a series of 10or 11games by1 goal. All on the anemic offense led by the 9 million dollar man. Oh ya, "hes not paid to score goals". Come on back down to earth.

 

[Halakitlikethat]

What exactly did Scrivens have to do with Dec-Jan. Condon lost a series of 10or 11games by1 goal. All on the anemic offense led by the 9 million dollar man. Oh ya, "hes not paid to score goals". Come on back down to earth.

You know pk is a defenceman right? He was already our leading scorer until he got hurt...he was by far our best player this year not sure he should take the blame for our crap offense

 

[Miller Time]

Interesting point, just a what if for you. What if we make the playoffs next year and win the cup the following year? is 1 year of bad greater than 5 years of good? Sustained excellence? how can you sustain anything if the first sign of trouble the solution is start all over again? Bring in a new GM habs miss the playoffs 2 years from now fire him and start again. Should the GM have only 1 chance? If they make 1 mistake then start a new?

I don't understand how you can say the record is not reflective of the GM. Thats how they should be judged. Every GM and every team will have unique situations but the only thing that is equal is the record. If the Hawks did not win 3 cups would Bowman be seen as a great GM? Look how many players he has lost over the years, look at their cap situation. But guess what he won those cups so he is looked at one of the best.

I guess we just have a different view of this team. It seems like you think only Price and PK are good players on this team. I guess you would support tanking for the next few years? This should of been your dream season then. I think that most of the players are good enough to get this team to 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs. What MB needs to do is add a piece or two to get us over that hump. Year 2 and 3 of his tenure saw that happen, year 4, while we know how that went.

Jean Perron won a cup.
If MB/MT win a cup, they'll have just as much leverage as Perron.


I actually think we have a solid core, thanks to the drafting excellence and luck that brought us guys like Gallagher, patches, Galch, PK, price... None of which MB had much to do with.

It's unfortunate that the core he inherited didn't get the benefit of competent coaching the past 3 years... We could be scary good right now had our young talent been led by an elite coaching staff (both NHL/ahl)... Any 1/2 decent GM makes that a huge priority, since it's one of the few variables he has complete control over.

MT getting a massive extension, and then keeping his job after total failure this year... Those two decisions alone warrant the axe for MB, let alone his ahl buddy club or his inability to address glaring roster needs.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

What exactly did Scrivens have to do with Dec-Jan. Condon lost a series of 10or 11games by1 goal. All on the anemic offense led by the 9 million dollar man. Oh ya, "hes not paid to score goals". Come on back down to earth.

Yeah, let's blame one of the few guys who actually showed up all year. He was obviously the problem...

It obviously had nothing to do with making David freaking Desharnais our number one center and watching him go 20 games with two points and THIRTY games without a PP point despite averaging over two minutes a game with the man advantage.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

What exactly did Scrivens have to do with Dec-Jan. Condon lost a series of 10or 11games by1 goal. All on the anemic offense led by the 9 million dollar man. Oh ya, "hes not paid to score goals". Come on back down to earth.

Because he lacked goal support. Imagine, the Rangers had to deal with Cam Talbot allowing 34 goals in 12 games during last February...and they went 8-2-2. The first 8 games, he had .895 save percentage and 28 goals allowed in 9 games and he went 6-1-2. It wouldn't be until March that Talbot would become a brick wall.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I don't understand why your trying to prove I have an opposite point of what I am saying because its my "logic".

Not every view has to be black or white, or a zero sum game. Can I not say I want Therrien fired but still want to keep MB? Why is that a conflict? DD and Chucky are on the same team, so by your logic we should trade both because DD sucks? does that make sense lol?

I have plenty of excuses for both MB and MT. I can defend or bash both of them because they both deserve defending and bashing.

I will explain my POV. MB and MT had 3 very successful years here. Top 5 team in the NHL. Regular season and playoff record show that. This year the team stunk. There are a million reasons and everyone deserves some blame. MB, MT, and especially the PLAYERS.

Does that mean I have to take an extremist view and call for MB to be fired and think he is the worst GM in the league who is bumbling idiot? I think MB has done a good job, he missed out last off season on getting extra scoring help and the team collapsed this year due to some factors in his control and some outside his control.

Now he has one more year to fix it or else he will have 2 years of bad results and that is not acceptable. I don't think the solution is the first time something goes wrong to fire everyone. If you do that you wont be able to succeed or move forward because you will keep on restarting.

You just seem so blinded by your anti MB/MT agenda that even if I agree with you you still have to argue against me somehow.

DD and Galchenyuk did not have the same results (stats in their case since they're players), MT and MB do have the same record.




you think Bergevin should keep his job since the previous 3 years he had a good record...

you'd be OK with replacing Therrien even though he has the same record as Bergevin...

I mean, you think Therrien is a bad coach ? if so, why ?

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

What exactly did Scrivens have to do with Dec-Jan. Condon lost a series of 10or 11games by1 goal. All on the anemic offense led by the 9 million dollar man. Oh ya, "hes not paid to score goals". Come on back down to earth.

Subban was one of the lead leaders for goals scored when he was on the ice. The offense he was in a position to lead was literally elite. Goals from defensemen is a pretty stupid way of tracking their offensive contribution, its not what they do. Subban's quarterbacking of the offense in Montreal was so effective they were scoring even more frequently at even strength than the Stars were with Klingberg, who was riding shutgun on the Star's absurd top six, on the ice. The only defenseman who is reliably in Subban's class for generating team offense is Erik Karlsson.

If there were weaknesses to Montreal's offense, it was largely when Subban wasn't on the ice.

You are right the biggest single reason Montreal did poorly was that on top of losing the advantage Price gave them over the typical team, the Condon lead goaltending was pretty much at the bottom of league. Its not really fair to blame Condon himself for that though, you can't really expect better from an unherald rookie. The blame more rightly belongs to the people who put him in the situation where he'd have to play as the starter for an NHL team with playoff ambitions.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Subban was one of the lead leaders for goals scored when he was on the ice. The offense he was in a position to lead was literally elite. Goals from defensemen is a pretty stupid way of tracking their offensive contribution, its not what they do.

If there were weaknesses to Montreal's offense, it was largely when Subban wasn't on the ice.

You are right the biggest single reason Montreal did poorly was that on top of losing the advantage Price gave them over the typical team, the Condon lead goaltending was pretty much at the bottom of league. Its not really fair to blame Condon himself for that though, you can't really expect better from an unherald rookie. The blame more rightly belongs to the people who put him in the situation where he'd have to play as the starter for an NHL team with playoff ambitions.

We lost a lot of close games though and we couldn't score for our lives. No doubt that goaltending was poor/mediocre but we didn't do ourselves any favours. With even an average coach we'd have made the postseason.

Not only did DD fail to put up points himself, he also dragged down Paccioretty to useless levels. Meanwhile Galchenyuk was our best forward and got limited minutes followed by being moved to DD's wing... where he promptly tanked just like Max did.

There's no way we should've missed the playoffs this year with the lead we had. It took a special kind of stupid from our coach to be able to achieve that miss.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

We lost a lot of close games though and we couldn't score for our lives. No doubt that goaltending was poor/mediocre but we didn't do ourselves any favours. With even an average coach we'd have made the postseason.

Not only did DD fail to put up points himself, he also dragged down Paccioretty to useless levels. Meanwhile Galchenyuk was our best forward and got limited minutes followed by being moved to DD's wing... where he promptly tanked just like Max did.

There's no way we should've missed the playoffs this year with the lead we had. It took a special kind of stupid from our coach to be able to achieve that miss.

Its no question that the December-January swoon was combination of an epic lack of finish (they generated a ton of chances over that period but couldn't buy a goal) poor goaltending and an inability to win close games.

Thing is, that's the huge combination of things that have to go wrong simulatneously in order for a team to lose as much as they did over that stretch. Its actually pretty hard to lose that much just by being bad in the modern NHL, you still have also be unlucky.

On the other hand, it was also clear that the coaching staff had no idea how to adjust to fix the problems they had, which goes a lot to my assessment of the current coaching staff. They are at times capable of putting together successful tactics over the short run, but they apparently have no ability to adapt on the fly and end up regressing to an ineffective comfort zone. One of the great examples is that dump out strategy they came up with against the Bruins in the playoffs. It worked pretty well against the Bruins specifically because their slow defense had difficulty playing against it, but the faster Ranger took one look at it and immediately came up with a counter-strategy to put their guys were they knew Montreal would dump the puck. But Habs coaching staff seemed too wedded to one of their few good ideas to understand that they needed to change it when it wasn't working.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Its no question that the December-January swoon was combination of an epic lack of finish (they generated a ton of chances over that period but couldn't buy a goal) poor goaltending and an inability to win close games.

Thing is, that's the huge combination of things that have to go wrong simulatneously in order for a team to lose as much as they did over that stretch. Its actually pretty hard to lose that much just by being bad in the modern NHL, you still have also be unlucky.

On the other hand, it was also clear that the coaching staff had no idea how to adjust to fix the problems they had, which goes a lot to my assessment of the current coaching staff. They are at times capable of putting together successful tactics over the short run, but they apparently have no ability to adapt on the fly and end up regressing to an ineffective comfort zone. One of the great examples is that dump out strategy they came up with against the Bruins in the playoffs. It worked pretty well against the Bruins specifically because their slow defense had difficulty playing against it, but the faster Ranger took one look at it and immediately came up with a counter-strategy to put their guys were they knew Montreal would dump the puck. But Habs coaching staff seemed too wedded to one of their few good ideas to understand that they needed to change it when it wasn't working.

I agree we played better than our record showed but when you're starving for goals you play your best players. When you play inferior players and then try to blame it on luck, you should get fired. If he'd played our best players and we were still unlucky? Then he'd get a pass. But that's not what happened.

And I tend to think we'd have been much "luckier" if we'd played Galchenyuk with Max.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

I agree we played better than our record showed but when you're starving for goals you play your best players. When you play inferior players and then try to blame it on luck, you should get fired. If he'd played our best players and we were still unlucky? Then he'd get a pass. But that's not what happened.

And I tend to think we'd have been much "luckier" if we'd played Galchenyuk with Max.

That's fair. Its an emminently sensible thing to try when your offense runs dry and is indicative of larger issues. I'd also say though that even if that approach worked decently well it might not have been enough to save what was a widespread catastrophe.

In other words, I don't think an infatuation with Desharnais and undervaluing of Galchenyuk was a major factor in the disaster happening. Its just a notable aspect of the coaching staffs ineffectualness in getting out of the disaster once it happened.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Looks like we just have different opinons. You dont think Bergevin had any hand in the teams succsess. I will say its fair that you think he burnt his chance this year because the team missed the playoffs. We just differ here in that I think he should have one more year, while you think you have seen enough.

See, I might have agreed, if Bergevin showed some degree of proactivity. Instead, he watched our entire season burn without making any adjustment. I'm not necessarily referring to trades either. He could have instilled a youth movement and force Therrien to play Galchenyuk at center, give Tinordi actual ice time and etc. Short of that, he could (and should) have fired Therrien.

He did literally nothing.

I disagree that he didn't build the team. You are years removed from the past regimes, its not fair to say its still their team. There were plenty of players from the Gainey/Gauthier era that are still not here that Bergevin could of kept instead. Thats why I look at the results of today. Otherwise might as well bring back Gainey because he built this team that had good results (before this season).

So he did the bare minimum expected of him? Bergevin walked into this organization with a budding franchise goaltender, a future Norris caliber defense, a near 40 goal and the 3rd overall pick. All of them were under twenty five. What exactly did he build? He nearly cost us the aforementioned Norris defenseman with an absurdly stupid bridge deal he didn't force on Emelin or Desharnais.

GMs must be evaluated on the moves they made, not their predecessors.

I also disagree that he has not added to the core. He does not need to add another core piece to the core, just complimentary pieces. He added a lot of those even if they were a rotating cast, and even though not all of them were LONG TERM solutions. Ryder, Vanek, Brier, PAP, Petry, Weise, Malhotra, Mitchell, Byron, etc... All complimentary pieces that scored big goals or made big plays for the team at one time or another. I wont argue that MB should not try to add another top 6. He def should get one and I want to give him this summer to do so.

Our primary need is a top six goal scorer, preferably two. Throughout his tenure, the only player to fit that description, and wasn't a reclamation project, was Vanek. And we only got him because Long Island insisted on no salary retention. Sure, Petry was a good acquisition, however if that is your most noteworthy trade in four years, you've failed.

You know who makes "big players?" Hossa, Carter and Richards. They all won cups. Kessel, Sharp, Oshie and Williams are also impact players we watched go elsewhere.

My point about Timmins is you say the best players were drafterd by him. Just because he was the head scout he gets the credit. Did he really draft every single one of those players? He studied and new all of them? Or did he have scouts under him telling him what he needs to know about the players and then made a decision. Which he told his GM. Just like MB. Your judging Timmins on his results just like a judge MB on the results.[/QUOTE]

What difference does it make? Timmins has brought results while Bergevin hasn't.

 

[Kriss E]

What exactly did Scrivens have to do with Dec-Jan. Condon lost a series of 10or 11games by1 goal. All on the anemic offense led by the 9 million dollar man. Oh ya, "hes not paid to score goals". Come on back down to earth.

Hmm..Bergevin saw the terrible performance from Condon in December, traded for Scrivens at end of December, he played 3 games in January allowing 4 goals in each of them. He was so bad he couldn't outplay another terrible goalie.
That's not on Condon or Scrivens, it's on Bergevin.

Also, I don't think you understood Subban. It was evident at the time what he meant to say by ''I'm not paid to score goals''. His point was that scoring an assist or a goal is irrelevant, what he's paid to do is generate offense, which is something he had been doing well despite his 1 goal. You're totally right, our offense was anemic, except that was mostly when Subban was off the ice.
Subban was the 3rd Dman who generated the most offense while on ice this year, among those who played 1000+min. He was 17th if you include forwards, just .02pts behind Crosby and Kane.
THAT was PK's point.
Subban always drives the play forward, this shouldn't even be discussed anymore quite frankly. It's been proven time and time again. When PK is on the ice, your team will get offensive opportunities and production.
Our problem was that when he wasn't on, we had nothing going on.

You can blame Bergevin for that again.

 

[jaffy27]

Okay so a team can do well if whoever steps in after injuries plays well, great, my point exactly.
So maybe ask why Bergevin decided to get Scrivens. He doesn't get a pass because later in the season, half the team got injured. Bergevin let December and January happen.

The Scrivens aquisition was bad, he tried to snatch lightning in a bottle and it didn't work, does this trade define who Bergevin is?

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

The Scrivens aquisition was bad, he tried to snatch lightning in a bottle and it didn't work, does this trade define who Bergevin is?

Let's see...

- Semin; reclamation project after being bought out by Carolina
- Kassian; reclamation project after being unceremoniously kicked of Vancouver for substance abuse
- Weise; a fourth line frequently utilized in the top six
- Briere; signed at the twilight of his career
- Parenteau; one-dimensional 'scorer' who hadn't put up 20 goals in three years

I dunno. Seems rather defining to me. Practically every move Bergevin makes seems to be him hoping to "snatch lighting in a bottle."

 

[Habs4ev*]

The Scrivens aquisition was bad, he tried to snatch lightning in a bottle and it didn't work, does this trade define who Bergevin is?

yes,

the problem is, he is always expecting a high return without giving anything up, its not going to happen, he should have learned that by now,

look at the Semin signing, sure it was little risk, but how can a competent GM expect a player like Semin to solve the top six issue? A player that nobody in the entire league wanted,

i just dont know what he is thinking sometimes,

 

[Odelein24]

And I tend to think we'd have been much "luckier" if we'd played Galchenyuk with Max.

"I let dem play together 2 games, dey don't have any chemistry."

Still insane that this excuse was paraded around, not just by the idiot coach, but also by that whiney brat Gallow on 690. Absolutely shameful.

 

[Whitesnake]

And again, the day that you decide to not anything 'cause it won't matter, as your best player is gone....is the day you have to decide to DO something to benefit from a lost season. Bergevin moving in that regard was to...get Danault and a 2nd. That's it. So he chose status quo for his beloved stability. I guess that one day, we will know that it was a stupid idea. But then....this organization as a whole is always in "TRANSITION". It's incredible how people accept everything. We got rid of most of our vets....we were giving this team to our young vets and then at the press conference we learned that this team lacked....leadership.

I guess they are right after....transition till we get somebody REALLY better....