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

[Andy]

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.

If I recall, it was Atlanta who chose instead to take the Pittsburgh package, which in hindsight was inferior. Also, that Hossa deal would have included Hedberg to back up Price. It was the reason he traded Huet for a second because the second was to be flipped in the Hossa deal.

It was reported back then that the Habs offered Lapierre, Higgins, Grabovski and a 2nd for Hedberg and Hossa. Waddell chose Christiansen, Armstrong and Esposito (who was the deal breaker)

 

[Agnostic]

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.

I don't like that the thread has turned into a Gainey/Gauthier revisited thread, but man is this post bang on.

I remember sounding the alarm bells here when players like Ryder and Streit were being let go and expensive draft picks were being spent on the likes of Tanguay, Lang, Moore, Schneider, etc. it was a maddening downward spiral that made the organization look like some expansion team. There's a long list of **** ups, and some of them are epic, and some of them are to this day supported by people here, but in the end that was the worst era of mismanagement we have witnessed in this team's history. It's simply personal preference and splitting of hairs of which of Gainey or Gauthier was dumb or dumber.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

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.

Gainey deserves a lot of credit for Pacioretty because he traded for that pick. Great scouting job by Timmins obviously (I remember hating it at the time) but Gainey deserves a lot of credit for acquiring the pick in the first place.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

If I recall, it was Atlanta who chose instead to take the Pittsburgh package, which in hindsight was inferior. Also, that Hossa deal would have included Hedberg to back up Price. It was the reason he traded Huet for a second because the second was to be flipped in the Hossa deal.

It was reported back then that the Habs offered Lapierre, Higgins, Grabovski and a 2nd for Hedberg and Hossa. Waddell chose Christiansen, Armstrong and Esposito (who was the deal breaker)

I can't see us having offered that kind of package. Higgins was only 24 at the time and was a proven 20 goal scorer. It seems really strange we would offer up an established top 6 guy for what most likely would have been a rental, and it seems even more unlikely that Atlanta would refuse that. Of course that was the last good year that Higgins would have in his career as he fell off the face of the earth after that, but no way Waddell or anybody could have predicted that.

 

[MDN]

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

He got the nom for what he did this season.

 

[Whitesnake]

Gainey deserves a lot of credit for Pacioretty because he traded for that pick. Great scouting job by Timmins obviously (I remember hating it at the time) but Gainey deserves a lot of credit for acquiring the pick in the first place.

True but there is a difference. Great job for acquiring a 1st. But he didn't get Pacioretty. 'Cause it works both ways. If Gainey acquires a 1st and Gorges for Rivet it's an awesome deal...even if Timmins screws up and get Patrick White instead of Pacioretty. It will not make the deal worst...Gainey did his job. So if so, it has to work the other way around. Getting a 1st was very good. But it's not better because it ended up to be Pacioretty.

Trades are GM's. Picks are Head scout's. Yes....it's pure generalization, as we don't know exactly what's going on. Not my fault....if they don't tell their stories to us...we have, as fans to go with what we THINK we know. And in the end, you have to believe that the ultimate decision for trades goes to the GM. And so will the ultimate decision for picks. I mean, compare the time that the GM as to evaluate kids to the head scout, and it can't be equivalent. GM might dress the guidelines, but even if Bergerin or anybody want A BIG GUY, if Timmins has no confidence in them, you won't have any big guys coming.

 

[Sorinth]

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.

How exactly has he done more? The only top-9 forward/top-4 defenceman he's added is a rental in Vanek and maybe Prust if you consider him top-9.

Bergevin/Gauthier have both had two offseasons to shape the roster, Bergevin also had the benefit of two compliance buyouts. Not too mention a 3rd overall pick, additional 3 high second round picks in the next 2 drafts. Oh and Bergevin never had to deal with an injured Markov, whereas Gauthier pretty much never had Markov. Do you need someone to dig out the record with and without Markov?

And how the hell can you claim Timmins gave them the same core? Firstoff Timmins came in at the same time as Gainey so he didn't give him anything to start with. Second it's laughable that you think Timmins gave both teams the same core, not only did Begrevin get an extra 2 top-9 arguably top-6 players in the Gallys, but getting a 20 year old Subban who had never played a game in the NHL is not the same as getting a 23 year old Subban who had already established himself as a top-pairing defenceman and was posied for a Norris win.

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.

So besides 4th liner's what big forwards did Gainey acquire? Hell in 07-08 our best season under him we had ONE top-6 player above 6' and that was Kovalev. Gainey stated numerous times size wasn't that important and things like speed/skill/character were more important. Gauthier said the exact opposite and that we need size in the top-6 and then went out and followed through.

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.

Higgins's career was about go off a cliff, they made the right decision to move him while he still had value.

They were expecting Gomez to play on the 1st line and provide 60-65pts. He basically did that his first season, his play then falling off a cliff the way it did was not predictable and is what really made it a bad trade. He went from being overpaid but good to overpaid and bad. Had he continued producing his 60pts and McDonagh wasn't part of the deal then it would have been a decent trade.

In the 5 seasons since the trade we made the playoffs 4 times, went to the ECF twice. Yet somehow it's such a bad deal it nearly crippled us.

 

[JAVO16]

I don't like that the thread has turned into a Gainey/Gauthier revisited thread, but man is this post bang on.

I remember sounding the alarm bells here when players like Ryder and Streit were being let go and expensive draft picks were being spent on the likes of Tanguay, Lang, Moore, Schneider, etc. it was a maddening downward spiral that made the organization look like some expansion team. There's a long list of **** ups, and some of them are epic, and some of them are to this day supported by people here, but in the end that was the worst era of mismanagement we have witnessed in this team's history. It's simply personal preference and splitting of hairs of which of Gainey or Gauthier was dumb or dumber.

Common man, Houle was much, much worse.

 

[JAVO16]

If I recall, it was Atlanta who chose instead to take the Pittsburgh package, which in hindsight was inferior. Also, that Hossa deal would have included Hedberg to back up Price. It was the reason he traded Huet for a second because the second was to be flipped in the Hossa deal.

It was reported back then that the Habs offered Lapierre, Higgins, Grabovski and a 2nd for Hedberg and Hossa. Waddell chose Christiansen, Armstrong and Esposito (who was the deal breaker)

Higgins was actually the dealbreaker here. Gainey refused to add him to the package and Atlanta then chose Pittsburgh's package over ours.

 

[OneSharpMarble]

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.

So Bergy is head scout now? Here I thought Timmins was.

 

[Roulin]

Bergevin has done a good job adding depth. Weise, Weaver and Tokarski were really good additions. Vanek helped, given how little it cost to acquire him. I don't think that's enough to compete for this kind of award though. Jim Nill, for example, added Seguin. Stan Bowman made bold, unpopular moves to steer the Hawks through their cap crisis, and they have paid off. This is a strange award, as GM'ing seems difficult to evaluate on a one year at a time basis... but I'd pick Nill over Bergevin, given how drastically his July trade turned the Dallas franchise around.

 

[Darth Joker]

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?

Like I wrote, the 2013 UFA class was weak at the high-end.

Which "high end forward" from that UFA class would you want us to add?

Those who favored Jagr were right, but then there's always a risk when you're talking about guys over 40. Jagr was coming off a goalless playoff performance on a Cup finalist Bruins team, so there was question as to whether age was finally catching up to him.

Aside from Jagr, I don't see the obvious 2013 UFA class "high end forward" that we should have added. And if you're getting a "high end forward" through trade, you're typically paying a lot more (in assets) than what we did for Vanek.

There's obviously a happy medium between having veteran/young depth players, we went too heavy on vets.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever. In fact, the evidence is much the contrary, given that the Habs are enjoying their best season in over 20 years.

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

I disagree. I think that most of Bergevin's re-signings were fair value.

The Subban bridge contract was a bad call, but it's one mistake, and as long as its not compounded with another mistake, the situation is tolerable.

By the way Briere isn't a luxury he was brought in to play a top-6 role and failed at it.

Briere was signed for less than almost all of the other higher profile UFA forwards of 2013 (and that was in a weak class at that). There was hope that he could still be a Top-6 player, but I think the main idea with Briere was to add somebody who could deliver come playoff time. He's done that reasonably well in this year's playoffs, so I don't think this is necessarily a bad move.

 

[HTTP 400]

A GM's job is not only to trade and sign players. They also play a big part in a team's identity and creating the atmosphere around the team.

We shouldn't judge Bergevin's achievement by the players he traded, drafted or bought out, but by the way he succeeded in creating a real team with the players already there. This team became Bergevin's team not because he himself got the player, but because he made everyone part of it and believe in it.

That's why he's finalist, and that's why the Habs are too.

 

[DAChampion]

I think Briere was brought in as injury insurance, but we had an exceptionally healthy season.

 

[DAChampion]

Other than Alex Galchenyuk, we have no idea if the 2012 and 2013 draft classes were any good. I remember when people were excited about each of Nicklas Torp, Michael Cichy, Ben Maxwell, Mathieu Carle, etc.

Maxim Trunev was said to be a steal.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

He got the nom for what he did this season.

And I don't get how he'd be nominated based on looking at what he did by the end of the season before the playoffs. With the postseason run and Weaver/Weiss/Tokarski playing well I can see it. But it seems to be a bit of a stretch for him to be 'GM of the year' this season. The Vanek move was awesome (despite the inconsistent playoff run) but other than that...

I think Bergevin is held in very high respect around the league. Every person who's played with him has said he was the funniest guy they ever played with and there's a general feeling of goodwill towards him. But I think his offseason moves coming into this year were poor. I think he had the trade of the deadline by getting the player everyone wanted the most and he made some smaller trades that have panned out (in some cases hugely) in the playoffs.

And to be honest - GM of the Year is a weird award. How the hell can you evaluate based on one year?

Anyways, my grade for MB after the offseason was a C- or something like that. With the moves he's made since though, he's definitely deserving of an A. I'm happy for the most part with him as a GM so far and he's eons ahead of where I thought Gauthier ever was. This offseason is going to be interesting.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

And to be honest - GM of the Year is a weird award. How the hell can you evaluate based on one year?

The biggest perceived difference in a team from one year to the next that can be attributed to the GM, and the degree to which a team may have exceeded expectations (possibly as a result of roster moves), and asset management in general, are far from impossible to evaluate over the time frame of one season. But don't be fooled. Previous seasons leading up are used as context for this award in particular, no doubt.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The biggest perceived difference in a team from one year to the next that can be attributed to the GM, and the degree to which a team may have exceeded expectations (possibly as a result of roster moves), and asset management in general, are far from impossible to evaluate over the time frame of one season. But don't be fooled. Previous seasons leading up are used as context for this award in particular, no doubt.

I guess.... just seems like a weird award to have.

 

[hototogisu]

I guess.... just seems like a weird award to have.

I agree, it's not something I would put a whole lot of stock into. GMs usually have such short shelf lives that many teams are the combined work of multiple GMs.

Look at us and use Price as an example...do you credit Gainey because he was drafted under him? Gauthier for not trading him? Or Bergevin for hiring Waite who seems to have elevated Price to another level? Probably all 3 deserve to share in the credit in some way. Same goes for many players on a team and, by extension, the team itself.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I agree, it's not something I would put a whole lot of stock into. GMs usually have such short shelf lives that many teams are the combined work of multiple GMs.

Look at us and use Price as an example...do you credit Gainey because he was drafted under him? Gauthier for not trading him? Or Bergevin for hiring Waite who seems to have elevated Price to another level? Probably all 3 deserve to share in the credit in some way. Same goes for many players on a team and, by extension, the team itself.

The key is not getting bunged up in the minutia. In the specific example above, for example, I think it would/could be distilled down to giving Bergevin credit for bringing Waite on board, simple as that - i.e. a key personnel move that seems to have benefited a franchise player.

 

[Agnostic]

Bergevin has raised expectations in successive years, he needs to put finishing touches on this team. His job is much more easy now that strengths are showing and weaknesses are fewer, makes the job of managing manageable.

Goaltending - check
Top defenseman - check
Defense depth - check
Bottom 6 depth - check

To get this team over the top Bergevin has to find some effective new combinations on the top 2 lines. That's his responsibility now. Window open. Get 'er done. Win GM of the Year and a Cup.

 

[Sorinth]

Like I wrote, the 2013 UFA class was weak at the high-end.

Which "high end forward" from that UFA class would you want us to add?

Those who favored Jagr were right, but then there's always a risk when you're talking about guys over 40. Jagr was coming off a goalless playoff performance on a Cup finalist Bruins team, so there was question as to whether age was finally catching up to him.

Aside from Jagr, I don't see the obvious 2013 UFA class "high end forward" that we should have added. And if you're getting a "high end forward" through trade, you're typically paying a lot more (in assets) than what we did for Vanek.

Jagr was the obvious choice. Ryder played well for us so re-signing him would have been fine as well. I was a fan of going after MacArthur as a backup plan. Iginla/Horton/Filppula/Raymond would all have been better. But honestly it's a bit unfair to look back now and say who would've been better. I thought Briere was a bad move at the time because he was not only declining rapidly but he was a poor fit for us.

And yes if there are no players that fit you save the money and wait for a trade or sign a cheap guy looking for a rebound. Was the Ryan deal that much more costly then the Vanek deal?

There's no evidence of this whatsoever. In fact, the evidence is much the contrary, given that the Habs are enjoying their best season in over 20 years.

The evidence is that they are healthy scratches.

I disagree. I think that most of Bergevin's re-signings were fair value.

The Subban bridge contract was a bad call, but it's one mistake, and as long as its not compounded with another mistake, the situation is tolerable.

Is tolerable really the goal? Like I said it's not a big deal but there is a definite trend it's not just one player. Even Price was overpaid at the time of the signing (Though Bergevin had no leverage so I don't blame him). As for fair deals did we get fair value on the 3m spent on Murray/Bouillon? Did we get fair value on the 4m we spent on Briere?

If you go around the league and add up the cost of the 4th line, bottom pair, and healthy scratches I'd bet we are at or near the top of the league.

Briere was signed for less than almost all of the other higher profile UFA forwards of 2013 (and that was in a weak class at that). There was hope that he could still be a Top-6 player, but I think the main idea with Briere was to add somebody who could deliver come playoff time. He's done that reasonably well in this year's playoffs, so I don't think this is necessarily a bad move.

4m for 25pts in the regular season and 7pts in 15 playoff games is bad. Why spend 8m over 2 years with a NTC on a hope? If you're spending money on a hope you should get some kind of discount, we didn't.

 

[le_sean]

Gainey deserves a lot of credit for Pacioretty because he traded for that pick. Great scouting job by Timmins obviously (I remember hating it at the time) but Gainey deserves a lot of credit for acquiring the pick in the first place.

Yes, he did unload Craig Rivet for a ransom, but he also failed to unload 26 goal scorer Sheldon Souray even though the team was terrible. Then we proceeded to lose him for nothing. Imagine the haul for that guy.

 

[PricePkPatch*]

Yes, he did unload Craig Rivet for a ransom, but he also failed to unload 26 goal scorer Sheldon Souray even though the team was terrible. Then we proceeded to lose him for nothing. Imagine the haul for that guy.

I blame him more for losing Streit, personally.

 

[le_sean]

I blame him more for losing Streit, personally.

This is true. 62 points and willing to sign at around $3.5 IIRC. He ended up with the Isles at about $4.2 million a year and was named their captain.