Confirmed with Link: Bergevin named finalist for GM of the Year award

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
11,104
5,608
I'll just put every move Bergevin did since he first came in as a GM. People have been fairly critical of him over the months, but here are the roster moves he did;

Signings:
Signing Armstrong to a 1 year, 1M deal (1M/yr)
Signing Bouillon to a 1 year, 1.5M deal (1.5M/yr, later resigned to the same contract)
Signing Prust to a 4 years, 10M deal (2.5M/yr)
Trading Cedrick Desjardins for Dustin Tokarski
Trading Erik Cole for Michael Ryder (UFA) and a 3rd round pick in 2013 (Connor Crisp)
Claiming Jeff Halpern off waivers (UFA)
Trading a 2013 5th round pick for Davis Drewiske (RFA, re-signed 2 years @ league min.)
Trading Danny Kristo for Christian Thomas
Signing Briere to a 2 years, 8M deal (4M/yr)
Trading a 7th round pick in 2014 for George Parros
Signing Murray to a 1 year, 1.5M deal (1.5M/yr)
Trading Rafael Diaz for Dale Weise
Trading a 5th round pick in 2014 for Mike Weaver
Trading Sebastian Collberg and a 2nd round pick in 2014 for Thomas Vanek and a 5th round pick in 2014

Inner roster moves:
Signing Travis Moen to a 4 years, 7.2M deal (1.8M/yr)
Signing Max Pacioretty to a 6 years, 27M deal (4.5M/yr)
Signing Carey Price to a 6 years, 39M deal (6.5M/yr)
Signing PK Subban to a 2 years, 5.75M deal (2.875M/yr)
Signing David Desharnais to a 4 years, 14M deal (3.5M/yr)
Signing Alexei Emelin to a 4 years, 16.4M deal (4.1M/yr)

Like pretty much every GM most moves are just rearranging lawn chairs.

I'd say his big moves were:
Cole->Ryder->Briere
Subban bridge deal
Vanek trade

His medium impact moves were:
Prust
Desharnais
Emelin
Diaz

I don't see much to write home about. There's also a clear trend of overpaying on guys. Only Pacioretty was a good signing, Price was around market value and the rest got overpaid.

Our healthy playoff line has 5.75m sitting in the pressbox (Bouillon, Murray, Moen, Parros), and over 6.5m on the 4th line (Prust, Briere). That's not great asset management.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
11,104
5,608
I know that it is actually the scouting staff who do most of the work but it is the GM who makes the draft selections.

In Bergeron's first two drafts he has drafted:

2012:
Alex Galchenyuk
Sebastien Collberg (traded to NYI)
Dalton Thrower
Tim Bozon
Brady Vail
Charles Hudon
Erik Nystrom

2013:
Michael McCarron
Jacob De La Rose
Zach Fucale
Artturi Lehkonen
Connor Crisp
Sven Andreghetto
Martin Reway
Jeremy Gregoire


I know that I am a homer so I am biased but those two drafts look really good on paper.

Thanks Bergy.

They do look like good drafts but there are 3 high second rounders so you'd expect it to be a lot better than normal. If you take out Thrower, DLR, and Fucale they suddenly look a lot more average with only the 3rd overall and a few potential late round gems being noteworthy. But it's still way too early to judge.
 

Darth Joker

Registered User
Dec 12, 2009
1,802
0
Canada
Bergevin may have had the best trade deadline of any GM in the league, getting Vanek for a couple mid-tier futures and Weaver for a 5th round pick. Throw in Diaz for Weise, and his in-season trade activity was excellent. It's unlikely that the Habs are in the Final 4 right now if not for Bergevin's in-season trades. He's a worthy finalist for the GM of the Year award.


Our healthy playoff line has 5.75m sitting in the pressbox (Bouillon, Murray, Moen, Parros),

Bouillon, Murray, and Parros were all either signed to one-year deals or aquired with only one year left on their existing deal. We had plenty of cap space for this past year, so Bergevin added some depth and toughness/enforcers to the roster. It makes sense to me, especially given the size/toughness criticisms this team faces almost constantly. Would you have preferred it if we had went big-game hunting like some other teams did? Most of the teams that did that probably regret it now. So I don't see any problem at all here. In a relatively weak 2013 UFA class, Bergevin decided to focus more on depth, toughness, and past playoff success. It looks to me like he probably made the right decision there. And we had enough cap space left to add Vanek without forcing the Islanders to eat salary or take a big contract back (and by all reports, that was a key reason why the Islanders dealt Vanek to us). So it's not like adding these guys crippled our cap situation or prevented us from making key in-season trades. So their cap hits are honestly inconsequential. It never hindered management whatsoever during the season, and their cap hits are all off the books after this season is over.

As for Moen, his sitting says more about the team's forward depth than it does about Moen. On the majority of NHL teams, Moen isn't in the press box.


and over 6.5m on the 4th line (Prust, Briere). That's not great asset management.

A big part of the reason for our playoff success this year is our forward depth, which means we can roll 4 good lines. Having a clutch playoff performer like Briere on our 4th line is a real luxury, and it's definitely helped in this year's playoffs.

Also, given that Ryder and Cole didn't exactly have great years with their respective teams, I'm fine with the switch to Briere. Ryder has often struggled in the playoffs, so I'd much rather have Briere right now than Ryder.

So I think you're completely off-base here. It's good asset management by Bergevin.
 
Last edited:

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,334
20,288
Jeddah
What rebuild? The entire core is exactly the same.

Subban, Price, Paccioretty, Pleks etc were already all here. He brought in Vanek but I don't think that makes him GM of the year. Here we go down the "I trust in BOB" road again, let the fan boys in to start salivating.

I don't disagree, just meant rebuild as in shaping the team to his liking. No doubt, he had a good group coming in. He didn't have to do a whole lot.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
75,648
45,821
Why the **** do you guys always have to bring up Gauthier and Gainey every damn time our GM is mentioned. Bergy got the nom, let's be happy for him, and move the **** on.

Get over it.
Makes sense to look at the situation MB walked into if we're going to evaluate him.
 

ChemiseBleuHonnete

Registered User
Oct 28, 2002
9,674
0
I'll just put every move Bergevin did since he first came in as a GM. People have been fairly critical of him over the months, but here are the roster moves he did;

Not that I want to be critical, but he hasn't done anything really. The core and 95% of what makes this team great was already here when he came here. Not much else to say TBH.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
11,104
5,608
Bergevin may have had the best trade deadline of any GM in the league, getting Vanek for a couple mid-tier futures and Weaver for a 5th round pick. Throw in Diaz for Weise, and his in-season trade activity was excellent. It's unlikely that the Habs are in the Final 4 right now if not for Bergevin's in-season trades. He's a worthy finalist for the GM of the Year award.




Bouillon, Murray, and Parros were all either signed to one-year deals or aquired with only one year left on their existing deal. We had plenty of cap space for this past year, so Bergevin added some depth and toughness/enforcers to the roster. It makes sense to me, especially given the size/toughness criticisms this team faces almost constantly. Would you have preferred it if we had went big-game hunting like some other teams did? Most of the teams that did that probably regret it now. So I don't see any problem at all here. In a relatively weak 2013 UFA class, Bergevin decided to focus more on depth, toughness, and past playoff success. It looks to me like he probably made the right decision there. And we had enough cap space left to add Vanek without forcing the Islanders to eat salary or take a big contract back (and by all reports, that was a key reason why the Islanders dealt Vanek to us). So it's not like adding these guys crippled our cap situation or prevented us from making key in-season trades. So their cap hits are honestly inconsequential. It never hindered management whatsoever during the season, and their cap hits are all off the books after this season is over.

As for Moen, his sitting says more about the team's forward depth than it does about Moen. On the majority of NHL teams, Moen isn't in the press box.




A big part of the reason for our playoff success this year is our forward depth, which means we can roll 4 good lines. Having a clutch playoff performer like Briere on our 4th line is a real luxury, and it's definitely helped in this year's playoffs.

Also, given that Ryder and Cole didn't exactly have great years with their respective teams, I'm fine with the switch to Briere. Ryder has often struggled in the playoffs, so I'd much rather have Briere right now than Ryder.

So I think you're completely off-base here. It's good asset management by Bergevin.

It's a question of what's the best use of those 11m dollars. Is it guys who are in/out of the lineup and a bit of quality depth or is it a high end forward and young cheap guys like Bournival/White/Tinordi/Beaulieu?

There's obviously a happy medium between having veteran/young depth players, we went too heavy on vets. It's not the end of the world and it's good that most of our depth are on expiring contracts but there's a definite trend of overpaying for players to go along with missing out on getting Subban on a 5m.

By the way Briere isn't a luxury he was brought in to play a top-6 role and failed at it. As a consequence the GM had to go out and spend assets to get another top-6 player. It's great that Briere managed to find another role where he can contribute to the team's success but it was a bad move.
 

Wats

Error 520
Mar 8, 2006
42,037
6,726
What rebuild? The entire core is exactly the same.

Subban, Price, Paccioretty, Pleks etc were already all here. He brought in Vanek but I don't think that makes him GM of the year. Here we go down the "I trust in BOB" road again, let the fan boys in to start salivating.

He's already done more than Gauthier yet his fan-boys still salivate over his 'work'. He took the same core Timmins gave Gauthier/Gainey and managed to surround it with enough supporting cast to succeed be it management or depth. Who knows what happens longterm but he's already accomplished more in 2 years than Gainey/Gauthier regime did in 10. This is coming from someone who doesn't even like half the things Bergevin did.


It is far fetched to think they agreed on every move though. Even in terms of philosophy there was a clear break between Gauthier/Gainey with respect to the importance of size up front.

At the end of the day the Gomez trade was bad because we lost McDonagh not because we acquired Gomez. If Gainey deemed McDonagh expendable, that's on him not Gauthier.

Actually it's far fetched to assume that they didn't have similar philosophy and didn't agree on every move considering they worked together for almost 10 years. They obviously have differences, especially evident in the way they handled personnel, but it's dishonest to absolve Gauthier of any responsibility due to there being no proof he didn't try to stop Gainey from transactions or something hypothetical as that. Realistically, based on how power Assistant GMs/Director of Pro Scouting hold, this was something that was a team effort and decision. The role has high level responsibility as many other teams have revealed over the years. I used Nonis as example because the situation is somewhat similar and living in Toronto I follow media enough to remember specific situations.

You are forgetting that the Habs weren't always smurfs under Gainey. Habs from 2003-2009 has size/grit on D and bunch of washed up goons for 'toughness'. 2009 offseason, Habs went crazy and went for quick makeover, Gainey gave Gauthier the job only few months later. Aside from that crazy offseason, there was no clear break. Gauthier signed Cole longterm despite his age, acquired Kaberle despite his term, and to lesser extent acquired Bourque despite term. Neither showed much importance to cap longterm which can further explain why they felt so good about Gomez. Both traded 2nd round picks for D that they eventually let go. Both traded 2nds for quick fix C. Actually, both regularly let go players for nothing while acquiring rentals with picks. If there was a new philosophy, Gainey wouldn't have stayed or introduced Gauthier as GM, there would have been a lot of changes in management as we saw when Bergevin joined.

Disagree, at the end of the day it was bad because Habs thought it was sane to acquire Gomez's contract for Higgins...it was almost franchise crippling that management was incompetent enough to agree they need to add McDonagh.

I know that it is actually the scouting staff who do most of the work but it is the GM who makes the draft selections.

In Bergeron's first two drafts he has drafted:

2012:
Alex Galchenyuk
Sebastien Collberg (traded to NYI)
Dalton Thrower
Tim Bozon
Brady Vail
Charles Hudon
Erik Nystrom

2013:
Michael McCarron
Jacob De La Rose
Zach Fucale
Artturi Lehkonen
Connor Crisp
Sven Andreghetto
Martin Reway
Jeremy Gregoire


I know that I am a homer so I am biased but those two drafts look really good on paper.

Thanks Bergy.

Why thank him, if Bergevin had a significant say in the draft decision, I think he'd be the one announcing it not Timmins. His entire job is to oversee the amateur drafting and he's had success through 3 different GMs.
 
Last edited:

habs03

Subban #Thoroughbred
Jun 21, 2010
5,999
141
Carriere was on the bench as assistant coach half of Gauthier's tenure, have no idea what his role is with the team but that doesn't resemble anything like normal assistant GMs. He was pro scout with Sabres so perhaps he's internal scouting based on him being chosen as assistant coach. He was coaching during the time Gauthier made Kaberle/Spacek trade.

IMO both Gainey/Gauthier are a duo, there's a reason Gainey stayed with the team in a senior advisor role after personally handing GM job to him. Both deserve the blame. To me it's ridiculous how people treat Gauthier as some victim to Gainey as if he wouldn't have had major input on the franchise hurting moves that were made from 2008 onwards. Someone that is Assistant GM/Director of Pro Scouting would have a huge say in how everything is run. When judging Gauthier's tenure with the Habs, so many people just remove that part of history from Gauthier as if he had no part of it. This defense of him is something I fail to understand.

There's a reason so many Assistant GMs get hired for GM positions, this wouldn't be the case unless they are highly involved in hockey operations. It's actually common for Assistant GMs to conduct contract discussion, trades, UFAs. Burke always mentioned at press conferences whenever Nonis did most of the work. If I'm not mistaken, at the deadline Dudley was the one acting on behalf of Bergevin while he was at a funeral.

-The reason why Carrierre went behind the bench after Martin was fired was because both Randy's were in the AHL the year before, and Carrierre being an Ast GM had more knowledge of other teams, so it was to help them.

-Also your wrong about the Spacek, Kaberle trade, the trade happined a week before Martin was fired. So Carrierre was not behind the bench.

-If you listen to Burke, or even Bergevin talk, they give their ast GM a ton of credit for the work they put in, but you always hear them say that, they are the ones that have the final say.

-No one is saying Gauthier doesn't deserve blame, but some ppl just take it overboard,with stuff like saying how he was really behind it all, and Gainey was not even really the GM etc.

-There is no way Gainey didn't know what he was getting with Gomez, Gomez before the last while in Mtl has always been the same, a 50-60 centre.

-Other than some insiders telling us, no one knows who wanted who, I mean in 07 when Gainey traded Rivet for Gorges and a 1st (Pacioretty), are we going to give only Gauthier the credit for that trade, since he was scouting and saw Gorges talent? I remember the Ducks wanted Rivet at that tradeline, maybe Gauthier said to take that deal but Gainey wanted Gorges....

-The only info that ever came out of the Gomez deal was in Elliote Fiedmen 30 thoughts a couple years ago. It said that once the Rangers knew the Habs could get Vinny from Tampa, they offered them Gomez for Mdg and it a done deal fast..

-So Gainey who was heavy into the Vinny deal, remember him being upset at the Brain Lawton for putting out players name that were rumoured all of sudden didn't know how Gomez is and how he was playing..
 
Last edited:

habs03

Subban #Thoroughbred
Jun 21, 2010
5,999
141
As for Bergevin, best part is that the other GM are voting, that shows a lot of respect for a guy that really has been only a GM for 2 years, and 1 year as Ast GM before that.

Some of his moves are paying off even for the Hawks still, before he was hired, Tsn radio had a few insiders come in and talk about him, many said he was the one that asked for Shaw to be drafted, and wanted Oduya from the Jets, two underrated players.
 

Agnostic

11 Stanley Cups
Jun 24, 2007
8,409
2
As for Bergevin, best part is that the other GM are voting, that shows a lot of respect for a guy that really has been only a GM for 2 years, and 1 year as Ast GM before that.

Some of his moves are paying off even for the Hawks still, before he was hired, Tsn radio had a few insiders come in and talk about him, many said he was the one that asked for Shaw to be drafted, and wanted Oduya from the Jets, two underrated players.

Yeah, the bottom line is that Bergie gets respect from his peers, we can speculate on that all we want. They deal with the man, see his results, and have a uniquely intimate knowledge of the challenges of the position.
 

Habitants

Registered User
Oct 25, 2003
3,184
0
Montreal
Visit site
It is nice to be recognized, i think he has done a pretty good job so far.

I am just confused at the lack of signing Vail and Thrower, he has one week left to get it done so it is still possible. I mean even if you do not want to keep them they have to at least be worth something in trade? they are decent players who are still young. loosing them for nothing would not be wise. they at least deserve a chance to prove themselves.
 

Maliki2

Registered User
Mar 31, 2005
15,673
2,165
Saint Albans, VT
Greiving you daughter's death doesn't change who Gomez is and his contract. Blaming Gauthioer for Gainey's moves is ridiculous.

As much as I loved Gainey as a player he was an absolute ****** GM. Him and Goats and Houle were all absolute messes when it came to running the team. How anyone let them get in that position for this franchise still has me frazzled!

They have set this organization back 10+ years!
 

overlords

#DefundCBC
Aug 16, 2008
31,829
9,469
The City
Hated a few of the summer moves and last year's moves. I got really concerned about him being another dud. The weaver, and vanek trades restored some of my faith and while I didn't like losing diaz considering who we were playing on our back-end, Weise has come through for us these playoffs.

Also gotta give credit to bergevin for getting waite to come over. That's probably his best move yet.
 

Andy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2008
31,806
15,592
Montreal
As much as I loved Gainey as a player he was an absolute ****** GM. Him and Goats and Houle were all absolute messes when it came to running the team. How anyone let them get in that position for this franchise still has me frazzled!

They have set this organization back 10+ years!

10 years? Just two years after the departure of Gauthier the Habs are in the conference finals with good depth a pretty good prospect pool. Hell all it took was one season of having the core healthy again to get back into a playoff spot. What a gross exaggeration.
 

Cole Caulifield

Registered User
Apr 22, 2004
27,967
2,465
10 years? Just two years after the departure of Gauthier the Habs are in the conference finals with good depth a pretty good prospect pool. Hell all it took was one season of having the core healthy again to get back into a playoff spot. What a gross exaggeration.

Markov is from the Houle days. Timmins drafted Subban, Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher. Timmins was hired by André Savard. Plekanec was drafted by André Savard as well. Looks like all of our best players have not much to do with Gainey/Gauthier.

Gainey lost us Beauchemin for nothing, Robidas for nothing, Ribeiro for nothing, McDo for nothing (ie Gomez) EDIT: Souray, Streit as well. Very few if any homeruns in return. Kovalev deadline deal was alright but Kovalev had one good year and one bad year in alternance. Gorges doesn't compensate for what he lost us.
 
Last edited:

Andy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2008
31,806
15,592
Montreal
Markov is from the Houle days. Timmins drafted Subban, Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher. Timmins was hired by André Savard. Plekanec was drafted by André Savard as well. Looks like all of our best players have not much to do with Gainey/Gauthier.

Gainey lost us Beauchemin for nothing, Robidas for nothing, Ribeiro for nothing, McDo for nothing (ie Gomez) EDIT: Souray, Streit as well. Very few if any homeruns in return. Kovalev deadline deal was alright but Kovalev had one good year and one bad year in alternance. Gorges doesn't compensate for what he lost us.

You totally overlooked what my post was responding to and decided to post something against something I never claimed. The poster abve me claimed that the team was set back 10 years, yet the very next season after Gauthier was fired the team was back in a playoff spot simply by adding a couple of depth players. The year after that they are in the conference final with a similar core found in the Gauthier era, regardless of where that core originated. So no, the team wasn't set back 10 years. Also, leaving behind a core and good prospects doesn't mean that I am saying they were acquired by one general manager.

Also what you wrote above would imply that much of the success enjoyed by Bergevin now shouldn't be given credit to him since his core was brought in by his predecessors. It's faulty logic.

That means all of Bergevin's success is owed exclusively to Timmins, Andre Savard and Houle since the core is composed of players gathered by those three individuals?

I really don't get what your post is trying to achieve. You could apply the same logic to any team in the league. Chicago's best players were drafted by their head scout, not their GM. Most of their core was acquired before Bowman was hired as GM, so I guess he doesn't deserve any credit? Also, if a GM can be faulted for losing players, is he not to be credited for retaining players? Gauthier could have very well shipped off Price, not re-signed Plekanec and Markov. But he didn't, he retained all three and they are all significant parts of the team's core. And no, I'm not trying to apologize for Gauthier here, just showing the faulty logic of your post. I guess Bergevin doesn't deserve any credit since his core came from the same source as Gauthier and Gainey's core?

Markov = Houle
Plekanec = Savard
Desharnas = Gainey
Eller = Gauthier
Gorges = Gainey
Pacioretty, Subban, Price, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, Emelin = Timmins

That being said, MB did a great job at the deadline to compliment his core and deserves full props.
 
Last edited:

TeamlessWatcher

Registered User
Mar 13, 2008
3,684
36
I didn't like all of them when they happened but in hindsight I can say I like 95% of those trades/signings.

Good job Mr Bergevin, there's a reason you're GM and I'm a random dude on a forum.
 

Habnot

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
3,383
508
Visit site
The previous regime was a bloody gong show - and it wasn't only the player movement. From 2003 to 2012 - I will call it the Gainey / Gauthier era, had no plan, did not read the tendencies of the league, and completely mismanaged player assets.

From a disconnected to absentee GM to a one man micro manager (down to controlling the amount of Diet Cokes were available in the press box) they managed to nearly destroy the flagship franchise of the NHL.

The lowlights for me:
- Letting so many players get to UFA without getting anything in return
- Patching by trading 2nd rounders which lead to years of small draft classes
- Possibly worst Pro Scouting team
- Going small when the league was going the other way
- Bizarre behavior, such as trading Cammy between periods, firing asst. coach before a game, etc - players did not want to come to Montreal

Sure the core is from the previous regime, it has to be..MB has only been in place 2 years. But let's not fool ourselves - all our core players are home grown and drafted by Timmins. Not one important core player was acquired (Price, Subban, Markov, Emelin, Patches, Pleks, Gallagher, Galchenyuk) from a trade or UFA status. GM's have little to do in the player selection, other than acquiring additional picks.
 

Andy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2008
31,806
15,592
Montreal
all our core players are home grown and drafted by Timmins.

Does that mean we can't give credit to Bergevin since the core is not composed of anyone he traded for or signed? Does the credit belong exclusively with Timmins? After all, not a single core player was acquired by Bergevin.

Heading down that path just leads to really faulty implications.

Scouts draft players, but GMs choose to retain certain players to fill holes on the team. Bergevin gets credit for using and retaining a certain set of players to structure the skeleton of the team. Ironically, most of the skeleton he has retained to constitute the structure of his team is very much the same skeleton of the previous regime. Bergevin gets extra credit for complimenting that skeleton better than his predecessor.
 

Habnot

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
3,383
508
Visit site
Does that mean we can't give credit to Bergevin since the core is not composed of anyone he traded for or signed? Does the credit belong exclusively with Timmins? After all, not a single core player was acquired by Bergevin.

Heading down that path just leads to really faulty implications.

Scouts draft players, but GMs choose to retain certain players to fill holes on the team. Bergevin gets credit for using and retaining a certain set of players to structure the skeleton of the team. Ironically, most of the skeleton he has retained to constitute the structure of his team is very much the same skeleton of the previous regime. Bergevin gets extra credit for complimenting that skeleton better than his predecessor.

Your being disingenuous - MB started with a lock out, and this year he traded for Vanek - so he has already done more than the previous regime. And if after 5 years he would have nothing to show, I would do the same. MB has added important complementary pieces - you cannot say he has not been active.
 

Andy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2008
31,806
15,592
Montreal
Your being disingenuous - MB started with a lock out, and this year he traded for Vanek - so he has already done more than the previous regime. And if after 5 years he would have nothing to show, I would do the same. MB has added important complementary pieces - you cannot say he has not been active.

Disingenuous is refusing to give credit to the previous regime by saying that the players that constitute the core of the team came from elsewhere. The same exact argument can be made to Bergevin if we want to retain that logic.

I never said he wasn't active, in the post you quoted I specifically say he deserves credit for the complimentary pieces. At the same time, what Bergevin identified as a core of players to be retained is almost exactly the same as what his predecessor thought should be retained. Yes those players orginated from other sources, but they were still consciously retained to fill key positions by the GM, they could have been shipped out but didn't.

Anyway, this is not even to say Gauthier was awesome, but that the logic of "x doesn't deserve credit because y was drafted or acquired by T" is faulty, can be applied to any successful GM even the one we're praising right now.

Bergevin deserves all the credit because unlike his predecessor, he has actually complimented the core in way that has made it better.

Admittedly, at first I didn't feel like any credit was owed to Bergevin because most of the success came almost exclusively of the previous core, but the current success comes from a balance between his current acquisitions and the core he acquired and decided to retain. For consciously keeping a good core and complimenting it with good depth players, Bergevin deserves credit. However, the fact that the core is already good is the reason I cannot agree with those who claim that the previous regime set the team back 10 years. It's false, they weren't even set back a year because the core it retained and left for Bergevin was a pretty good core.
 
Last edited:

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,258
1,973
Canada
I'd have preferred Emelin get a little less money, and possibly DD, but Bergevin has made it quite clear that if he wants you on the team he is willing to pay you to make it happen. Yes, surely it is going to bite us one day, but as much success as Gainey brought us over the years, the one thing that really stopped us from taking the next step was his unwillingness to make a huge splash to put us over the top.

This year's team I compare to the 08 team.

This year it was obvious we had a strong team capable of going far in the playoffs, so Bergevin got the best player available to help achieve that goal.

In 2008, Gainey had that chance with Hossa and wouldn't pull the trigger. Maybe if we get Hossa we finish off the Bs in 5 and don't have to play 7 games, and maybe we get past Philly as a better, rested team. Its all guesswork, but picking up Vanek is a huge move and I'm not sure Gainey would have had the willingness to pull it off.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad