Bergevin Discussion - Episode VII - The Force Awakens

[417]

Until another defenseman hits 9M, I don't think it's reasonable to consider such a number. You know what? I'll bet you that 2 years from now he has exactly as many Norris trophies and nominations as he has right now. And he still won't be worth 13% of our cap, imo.

I don't know how we can bet that, you think that he's not worth 13% of our cap and that's completely a subjective point of view. I happen to think he IS worth that.

I don't think neither of us is wrong in having our opinion on the matter. So agree to disagree here.

But it has to happen within the next two years to suit your point, right? Cheaper but still "fair" would still have been "better" in the meantime.

Just like I finished responding to KrissE...pay him big now or later. It doesn't matter, Subban was going to get his payday regardless.

Well... this is where we just agree to disagree, and are unlikely to find middle ground if your benchmark for PK places his level of play and value at "moon".

Not sure what you mean here...perhaps you could elaborate, not being a jack ***. Just honestly don't know why you're saying that. Do you mean to tell me that Subban isn't in the same stratosphere are Shea Weber?

But, see, some people (including myself) don't even think he earned the highest cap hit among defensemen. And if paying people more than they're worth wasn't an issue in general, there wouldn't be an entire section of the CBA devoted to buyouts

Again, that's a matter of opinion and i'm NOT telling you you're wrong for thinking this way. I think he's earned, and then some, the highest cap hit among defenseman. Hence why I think what I think.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Agreed...who cares, the difference can be completely negligible, we agree on that.

I certainly won't agree with that. I think he could/should have been given as much as a $6M average for whatever term was legal at the time he required a new contract. That means $15M difference over the past 3 years and the 2 to follow. That $3M/year average is not negligible in my books. Even if he deserved to jump into the top 3 cap hits (as a top 3 defenseman), that puts him at $7M/year, or a $10M difference over the 5 years we're comparing to. That's a roster player for sure, and 5 chances in 5 years to find one that fits. Again, not insignificant to me.

Until someone else hits the $9M cap hit among defensemen, I think it's entirely unreasonable to imagine ANY scenario in which PK commands a $12M cap hit starting just two years from now.

 

[417]

It's his fourth summer.
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16

It's his fourth summer and about to start the 4th season under his management.
Not sure what's so wrong with saying "close to 4 years".

Do you think it's fair to say that his 1st summer as the GM of the team shouldn't really count as he had to evaluate what he had, then came the lockout and he couldn't do anything until January/February of 2013.

The Habs at that point were coming off a year where they finished 3rd worst, he made some depth signings, added some character to a team that was sorely lacking some and they won their division.

So IMO, it's unfair to count the summer of 12-13 in your evaluation of his work thus far. And if you actually do, then he should be getting a positive mark all things considered.

Don't get me wrong, I get some of the criticism towards Bergevin but for the most part, he's done a great job. I think we have a very astute GM, it baffles me how some can't appreciate that.

The same people knocking him for not doing anything an 'inheriting' jewels from the previous regime, were the same people burning Gauthier and the previous regime at the stake before Bergevin got here.

 

[DAChampion]

Bergevin wanted to save money on Subban in the two years after the ELC, when Subban was playing for a cap hit ~4 million below his worth.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Do you mean to tell me that Subban isn't in the same stratosphere are Shea Weber?

I think he's close, with slightly less of a proven track record - regardless of the Norris trophy count being 1-0. But if you're asking me if $7.X million in cap investment is more in line with what I think Subban's value is, the answer is yes. If you're asking me if I think he earned 8 years of commitment at such an investment, the answer is no.

But if the cap hits north of $100 million within the span of his current contract, the egg will definitely be on my face...

 

[417]

Until someone else hits the $9M cap hit among defensemen, I think it's entirely unreasonable to imagine ANY scenario in which PK commands a $12M cap hit starting just two years from now.

I certainly won't agree with that. I think he could/should have been given as much as a $6M average for whatever term was legal at the time he required a new contract. That means $15M difference over the past 3 years and the 2 to follow. That $3M/year average is not negligible in my books. Even if he deserved to jump into the top 3 cap hits (as a top 3 defenseman), that puts him at $7M/year, or a $10M difference over the 5 years we're comparing to. That's a roster player for sure, and 5 chances in 5 years to find one that fits. Again, not insignificant to me.

Let's just say this imaginary player(s) is for real...do you think he even comes close to a guarantee as PK Subban is?

PK Subban is a money player, he's a guarantee, you can question his cap hit relative to his peers or to the teams cap, but barring some injury, PK Subban will be our most important skater next year, the year after that, etc. He will lead or come close to leading our team in scoring, he will be one of the very best, if not THE best 2 way Dmen in the NHL, he will play tons of minutes, meaningful minutes no less.

Can you guarantee that from this imaginary player(s) the Habs may or may not have had the chance to sign/trade for in your scenario?

The habs could have used that money on a total flop...you have no idea.

You don't see a problem with the premise that...

Had we signed PK Subban to a 6yr deal in the 7M per year range, we could of gotten said hypothetical players and they would of, of course, worked out perfectly?

Since PK Subban signed his deal, the Habs have been to an ECF, finished 2nd overall and have what I believe to be the 3rd or 4th most playoff wins in the NHL during that time.

So what exactly are you saying? That that hypothetical player(s) would of guaranteed a Stanley Cup?

 

[417]

I think he's close, with slightly less of a proven track record - regardless of the Norris trophy count being 1-0. But if you're asking me if $7.X million in cap investment is more in line with what I think Subban's value is, the answer is yes. If you're asking me if I think he earned 8 years of commitment at such an investment, the answer is no.

But if the cap hits north of $100 million within the span of his current contract, the egg will definitely be on my face...

To each his own I guess...I happen to think that Shea Weber is the NHL's most overrated player. There's a lot more separating PK Subban and Shea Weber and just a Norris Trophy, if Shea Weber played in a larger market, the holes in his game would be exposed a lot more than they currently are. Right now, he's a 'good ol' Western Canadian boy', who's big, tough and has a big shot...so he's a bit of a mythical figure playing in Nashville. I get that, however...

I wouldn't trade Subban for him in any world. In fact, there's a handful of Dmen I would take before I would Shea Weber, but that's another topic all together

Like I said, we have differing views on Subban's value, so we'll never be on the same page.

I'm good with that

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Let's just say this imaginary player(s) is for real...do you think he even comes close to a guarantee as PK Subban is?

Uh, he doesn't have to, because in this scenario we already HAVE PK, and we're talking about fleshing out the rest of the roster around him...

That's actually hard to do, and why having flexibility and multiple possible attempts isn't as insignificant to me as it seems to be to you.

 

[DAChampion]

It's interesting how failed signings can be good for a team.

A few years ago, Bergevin offeres a good contract to Lecavalier, which he turned down, good.

A few years before that, Gainey offered really good contracts, as in 6 or 7 years, to Ryan Smythe and Daniel Briere, they turned down the Habs. Good.

I think there was a great offer made to Brad Richards at some point.

 

[Kriss E]

Agreed...who cares, the difference can be completely negligible, we agree on that.

So why do people keep rehashing it like Bergevin 'screwed up' and didn't forsee Subban getting paid like he ended up getting paid?

But just for arguments, sake, how do you know he wouldn't command a salary in the 12M range 2 years from now? We have no idea what salaries will look like then, i'm sure they will top off at one point, but even if they top off at Subban's current level, he's paid what he should be earning.



As we've both agreed, had he done that or gone the route he did end up going...its likely that the difference is negligible. So time to put this to rest.

PK Subban's contract, as it stands right now, is not the difference between the Habs winning the Cup or not.

Well because I think Subban is one of the best Dmen in the league already and I doubt the salaries raise by 3m in 2 years, especially with the CAN $.

The difference between his current hit and the one he could have gotten 2 years ago is negligeable, because he's already getting a huge amount.
Had he signed a bigger contract off ELC, THAT would have made a significant difference compared to his current hit.

Would it be the difference between winning and losing? Thats a pretty silly way of looking at it. There's so much that goes into winning. Would it have given us more dollars to throw at someone who could make a difference? Absolutely. That person could end up being injured and completely irrelevant. Or he could have made a big difference.
Thrown an extra million+ at Williams, who won the Conn Smythe just a year ago, could that have helped? Sure.

And there's always a risk when you negotiate.

 

[Kriss E]

Do you think it's fair to say that his 1st summer as the GM of the team shouldn't really count as he had to evaluate what he had, then came the lockout and he couldn't do anything until January/February of 2013.

The Habs at that point were coming off a year where they finished 3rd worst, he made some depth signings, added some character to a team that was sorely lacking some and they won their division.

So IMO, it's unfair to count the summer of 12-13 in your evaluation of his work thus far. And if you actually do, then he should be getting a positive mark all things considered.

Don't get me wrong, I get some of the criticism towards Bergevin but for the most part, he's done a great job. I think we have a very astute GM, it baffles me how some can't appreciate that.

The same people knocking him for not doing anything an 'inheriting' jewels from the previous regime, were the same people burning Gauthier and the previous regime at the stake before Bergevin got here.

Why would it be unfair when people applaud him for his compliance buy outs..his letting go of terrible free agents like Campoli??
It's also the summer he hired the coach, and started revamping the organization. He didn't sit on his ass doing nothing. He made decisions. Just because it was an evaluation year, doesn't make it a pass. He got props for Prust, Armstrong and Bouillon were crap, but hey..eval year so let's forget about it?
No.

He could have signed better players and definitely do not like the coaching staff he hired.

 

[417]

Uh, he doesn't have to, because in this scenario we already HAVE PK, and we're talking about fleshing out the rest of the roster around him...

That's actually hard to do, and why having flexibility and multiple possible attempts isn't as insignificant to me as it seems to be to you.

You missed the point...

What I meant was how do you know if they sign this hypothetical player, that he doesn't end up being a complete bust. Who knows, maybe if Bergevin signs Subban to that 6yr 42M deal that you proposed 2 years ago, that he turns around and signs Ryan Clowe (or whatever failed UFA was available then)?

Then we've come full circle.

As for your comment about flexibility, It's not insignificant to me, I just don't think one player can affect one's teams ability to be flexible on his own. I find it ridiculous to think that PK Subban's contract is handcuffing this team, handcuffing it form what exactly?

But if you choose to believe that wives tale...by all means

 

[optimus2861]

Fair enough...I think this teams goal, and ever successful teams goal, is to be a contender year in, year out. This idea that teams only have a certain window is loser talk if you ask me.

When you draft well, develop well, make astute trades (see Chicago Blackhawks), your window is always open. It doesn't guarantee that you will win every year, but you'll at least be competitive year in, year out.

I think this is a bit optimistic to naive. You can't be a legitimate Stanley Cup contender indefinitely. Except for rare cases, in a 30-team salary-capped league, you can't even be a contender for more than a window of 3-5 seasons. You may be an up-and-coming team on the "left" side of that window, and a declining but still strong team on the "right" side of that window, but your chances to win the Cup will always be strongest within your core's window of prime/peak ability.

The Hawks window probably has ~3 years left in it, then will start to close as Hossa retires, Keith declines, and Kane & Toews just edge past their peak. They'll still be a strong playoff team and may even squeak out one more Cup, but they won't quite be the fearsome bunch they are today.

It should be acknowledged that this Blackhawks team is kind of like "version 2"; version 1 won their first Cup in 2010, then had to be overhauled over the next couple of years due to salary cup crunch, before (re)emerging as the current Hawks in 2013. That's impressive, but most teams can't pull that off.

My take anyway.

 

[417]

Why would it be unfair when people applaud him for his compliance buy outs..his letting go of terrible free agents like Campoli??It's also the summer he hired the coach, and started revamping the organization. He didn't sit on his ass doing nothing. He made decisions. Just because it was an evaluation year, doesn't make it a pass. He got props for Prust, Armstrong and Bouillon were crap, but hey..eval year so let's forget about it?
No.

He could have signed better players and definitely do not like the coaching staff he hired.

I am not one of those people...I just think it's unfair to really knock him for year 1, there were special circumstances (I know that comes off as an excuse, but it's not, it's the reality) surrounding his 1st year as GM.

You can knock Bergevin for certain things, but I have trouble buying the notion that his tenure so far, isn't anything but a success. We can differ on the degree of success and that's fine, I'll concede that. But overall, this organization is in good hands IMO. Still some things to tweak though.

 

[jaffy27]

Why would it be unfair when people applaud him for his compliance buy outs..his letting go of terrible free agents like Campoli??
It's also the summer he hired the coach, and started revamping the organization. He didn't sit on his ass doing nothing. He made decisions. Just because it was an evaluation year, doesn't make it a pass. He got props for Prust, Armstrong and Bouillon were crap, but hey..eval year so let's forget about it?
No.

He could have signed better players and definitely do not like the coaching staff he hired.

Yet since he's been in the league, his teams are in either in top spots, making the playoffs or going to conference finals.......EVERY GM will have good signings and bad ones, his bad signings are not CAP CRIPPLING....it's evident, Habs are NEVER in cap trouble...EVER!!!

 

[417]

I think this is a bit optimistic to naive. You can't be a legitimate Stanley Cup contender indefinitely. Except for rare cases, in a 30-team salary-capped league, you can't even be a contender for more than a window of 3-5 seasons. You may be an up-and-coming team on the "left" side of that window, and a declining but still strong team on the "right" side of that window, but your chances to win the Cup will always be strongest within your core's window of prime/peak ability.

The Hawks window probably has ~3 years left in it, then will start to close as Hossa retires, Keith declines, and Kane & Toews just edge past their peak. They'll still be a strong playoff team and may even squeak out one more Cup, but they won't quite be the fearsome bunch they are today.

It should be acknowledged that this Blackhawks team is kind of like "version 2"; version 1 won their first Cup in 2010, then had to be overhauled over the next couple of years due to salary cup crunch, before (re)emerging as the current Hawks in 2013. That's impressive, but most teams can't pull that off.

My take anyway.

P.S. - I specifically stated that there's no guarantee that you win the Cup every year, only that you're competitive. Which should be the bare minimum goal every year.

Kane & Toews are a long way off from their peak...the Hawks will continue to be competitive for a long time because they continue to find ways to reinvent themselves. I think the Brandon Saad trade was brilliant, I think Teravainen is going to be a star in this league for a long time. We'll see what happens with Keith/Seabrook, but I don't expect them to fall of a cliff anytime soon.

 

[Kriss E]

I am not one of those people...I just think it's unfair to really knock him for year 1, there were special circumstances (I know that comes off as an excuse, but it's not, it's the reality) surrounding his 1st year as GM.

You can knock Bergevin for certain things, but I have trouble buying the notion that his tenure so far, isn't anything but a success. We can differ on the degree of success and that's fine, I'll concede that. But overall, this organization is in good hands IMO. Still some things to tweak though.

It's his fourth summer no matter how anybody tries to spin it.
You can't just erase his first summer here because it was mostly an evaluation year. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Kriss E]

Yet since he's been in the league, his teams are in either in top spots, making the playoffs or going to conference finals.......EVERY GM will have good signings and bad ones, his bad signings are not CAP CRIPPLING....it's evident, Habs are NEVER in cap trouble...EVER!!!

Not sure what this has to do with what I was discussing..

 

[417]

It's his fourth summer no matter how anybody tries to spin it.
You can't just erase his first summer here because it was mostly an evaluation year. Doesn't work that way.

I guess not if you're working under the premise that the summer he took over the team, in May of 2012, after they finished with the 3rd worst record overall, he should of turned them into Stanley Cup winners the year following...

Then yeah, I guess you're right

Instead of signing Brandon Prust, Colby Armtrong & Francis Bouillon...what he should have done is get ahead of the Minnesota Wild and get Zack Parise & Ryan Suter. Never mind they wanted to go back home to Minny, the obvious play was to sign for the Montreal Canadiens, a team that had finished witht he 3rd worst record in the league, had a new GM/coach, etc.

Then yeah, I guess you're right

It's totally fair to knock Bergevin for taking the time to evaluate a roster that eventually won the division in his 1st year as GM, It's totally fair to knock him for year 1 even though he was a finalist and eventually finished 2nd for GM of the year. I mean, forget all of that, year 1 for Bergevin was a complete and utter disaster.

Totally fair KrissE...you're right.

 

[FormerLurker]

It's his fourth summer.
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16

It's his fourth summer and about to start the 4th season under his management.
Not sure what's so wrong with saying "close to 4 years".

Well, three years and three months is much closer to three years than it is to four. Saying "just over three years" would be more accurate than saying "close to four years", but it doesn't support the argument nearly as well.

People tend to exaggerate when the facts themselves don't support their conclusions.

 

[Nynja*]

The offence wasnt a problem after 2013, this is his second summer fixing the top 6.

 

[optimus2861]

P.S. - I specifically stated that there's no guarantee that you win the Cup every year, only that you're competitive. Which should be the bare minimum goal every year.

Not necessarily. You can hang on too long on your downward slide from your peak, and then despite being "competitive", you can neither win a Cup, nor effectively assemble a strong enough up-and-coming roster to get back to Cup contention in your next window.

That way mediocrity lies. A decades-long string of making the playoffs, winning a round, sometimes two, but never getting over the hump to win the whole thing.

I don't want the Canadiens next two decades to look like those of the Sharks or Blues. I want those Cup banners in the rafters when we get the chance, and that chance, that time, is now, while Price, Pacioretty, and Subban are all at their best.

Kane & Toews are a long way off from their peak...

Kane's probably at or very close to his peak as a goal-scorer. They tend to start declining once they hit 30'ish, sometimes before. Toews's offensive output can also be expected to start declining around then, though he'll continue to be a solid two-way player for years.

We'll see what happens with Keith/Seabrook, but I don't expect them to fall of a cliff anytime soon.

No, I don't expect them to fall off a cliff either. Just decline, slightly at first, then a little more noticeably, and then they're not quite a top-flight team any more. Still solid, still can beat you if you're not at your best, but not quite a Cup favourite any more.

 

[Rapala]

The offence wasnt a problem after 2013, this is his second summer fixing the top 6.

The offense did suffer post season that year.
Granted our playoffs were short-lived but the results kind of go hand in hand.
So if you consider a debrief likely occurs after the season post or otherwise.
It isn't hard to imagine that many of the sore spots were identified even then.
MB's boldest move to date has yet to be made. It involves removing a highly contested individual who seems to be gumming up the works. Does MB have what it takes to admit to himself we've gone as far as we can down that path? Because nothing will advance until MT doesn't have that option when he looks down his bench. All this to say MB has had three post seasons on which to assess his team.
In my mind these performances trump all until we are no longer perennial playoff contenders.

 

[waffledave]

The offense did suffer post season that year.
Granted our playoffs were short-lived but the results kind of go hand in hand.
So if you consider a debrief likely occurs after the season post or otherwise.
It isn't hard to imagine that many of the sore spots were identified even then.
MB's boldest move to date has yet to be made. It involves removing a highly contested individual who seems to be gumming up the works. Does MB have what it takes to admit to himself we've gone as far as we can down that path? Because nothing will advance until MT doesn't have that option when he looks down his bench. All this to say MB has had three post seasons on which to assess his team.
In my mind these performances trump all until we are no longer perennial playoff contenders.

Or maybe MB doesn't see Desharnais as a problem. Maybe he sees him as part of the solution.

Which is scary.

 

[Sorinth]

Do you think it's fair to say that his 1st summer as the GM of the team shouldn't really count as he had to evaluate what he had, then came the lockout and he couldn't do anything until January/February of 2013.

I get what your saying but it's very much a job where you have to hit the ground running. So it's not really a good excuse. Also if you don't want to count that 1st summer, then you don't count some of his best moves (Signing Price, Pacioretty).

As for the lockout, it should've have given him plenty of time to evaluate what he had, so even if he didn't have the summer, he should have known exactly what he had, yet several mis-evaluations (Subban, Desharnais) were made right after having months of free time to evaluate his players.