Gainey vs Bergevin

Who is / was a better GM?


  • Total voters
    141

Natey

GOATS
Aug 2, 2005
62,294
8,429
I haven't seen a worse GM than Bergevin.

Gainey did some good and bad things. But more good, especially early. After his daughter passed, he was awful. But I mean.. I don't blame him for that. As a fan, I wish he resigned earlier. As a human, I completely understand what he was going through.

Gauthier wasn't really that bad until he started to panic. He wasn't anything special, but he was an average GM. When he started to panic, he was like any normal human and made rash decisions. Unlucky for him, they didn't pan out. A lot of Bergevin's early success is because of Gauthier.

Bergevin inherited a really good team. He's also made good and bad moves. The biggest problem is that his good moves or potentially good moves are followed by awful moves or no moves at all. I'll never understand trading Subban and then doing what he did. He doesn't bring back Radulov. He doesn't bring back Markov. He trades a lot for Drouin. He trades for Weber and signs Price to a crazy deal. It's like he as half going for the Cup and half going for a long term rebuild. It made no sense. If Weber and Price are healthy, and we keep Radulov and Markov, while acquiring Drouin.. We're a contender. Instead, we leave our team short and then we can't overcome injuries because we have nothing. He took a very good team us made us bad. And we're going to be screwed on flexibility for awhile with some of the contracts he gives out. He just doesn't understand the game as it is today.
 

Bouboumaster

Registered User
Jul 4, 2014
9,498
7,258
Gomez for McDonagh is a legendary bad trade and a stain on what was otherwise an ok tenure by Uncle Bob.

Bergevin will be remembered, I think, for 4 things:
- Carey Price's contract, which could turns out to be the worst contract ever given in the NHL;
- Last summer offseason, which was a disaster like I've ever seen (how can you manage to loose both your best forward and your best d-man??);
- Subban for Weber, which look already super bad, and won't get better with time;
- Drouin for Sergatchev. Now it's too early to tell what will happen with this one, but it has the potentiel to be this generation's Gomez For McDonagh.


Plus, Uncle Bob was secretive, but a man of class and courage.
Bergevin is secretive too, but also an asshole, a man into nepotism and generally a shitty human being.
 

habsfan909

Registered User
Feb 20, 2018
964
959
I haven't seen a worse GM than Bergevin.

Gainey did some good and bad things. But more good, especially early. After his daughter passed, he was awful. But I mean.. I don't blame him for that. As a fan, I wish he resigned earlier. As a human, I completely understand what he was going through.

Gauthier wasn't really that bad until he started to panic. He wasn't anything special, but he was an average GM. When he started to panic, he was like any normal human and made rash decisions. Unlucky for him, they didn't pan out. A lot of Bergevin's early success is because of Gauthier.

Bergevin inherited a really good team. He's also made good and bad moves. The biggest problem is that his good moves or potentially good moves are followed by awful moves or no moves at all. I'll never understand trading Subban and then doing what he did. He doesn't bring back Radulov. He doesn't bring back Markov. He trades a lot for Drouin. He trades for Weber and signs Price to a crazy deal. It's like he as half going for the Cup and half going for a long term rebuild. It made no sense. If Weber and Price are healthy, and we keep Radulov and Markov, while acquiring Drouin.. We're a contender. Instead, we leave our team short and then we can't overcome injuries because we have nothing. He took a very good team us made us bad. And we're going to be screwed on flexibility for awhile with some of the contracts he gives out. He just doesn't understand the game as it is today.

But Real Madrid didn't even manage to separate from Spain - become it's own country - and then proceed to qualify for the World Cup. So how can this be Bergevin's fault?
 

Natey

GOATS
Aug 2, 2005
62,294
8,429
The real debate is Bergevin v. Houle for worst in franchise history
Houle made some horrible, horrible trades. I actually think the Roy trade was one of his better ones (of the infamous bad trades). But man, at least when I listen to him talk I don't just want to punch his face in. He was also thrown into the GM spot in the middle of the season, we actually interviewed at length for Bergevin. The guy is one of the most smug, arrogant, inconsiderate people I've ever seen and he made it through a lengthy interview process as the best candidate.

They're both bad. As I've grown up and entered the health care field, I've become a generally calm person who has quite a lot of patience even in the most tiring situations. Bergevin still makes my blood boil. Listening to him speak is so frustrating, tiring, and downright annoying.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Easily Gainey.Not his biggest fan, but he did bring Kovalev.

Kovalev did more for the habs than anyone else in the organization at every level since the 90s.I miss watching him play greatly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Beer and Chips

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
That's hardly a mess. He left the team competitive and we'll primed for the future. The current squad is neither.

Incorrect, Gainey did leave us a mess by signing three core players that locked us into a non-contending core (I dont care about the Halak run).

But before he started losing it, Gainey was pretty good, up to 08.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miller Time

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Gainey ****ed up so many things but you have to admit that the team was ****ing fun and exciting to watch for almost the entire time he was here.

It has never been this way under Bergevin. Even when the team was winning it was torture to watch.

Yeah, but that was mostly because of Kovalev, Markov and Souray.So mostly about our PP.It was indeed a fun team to watch.Miss it.
 

Price is Wright

Registered User
Feb 5, 2010
12,494
5,571
essex
The real debate is Bergevin v. Houle for worst in franchise history

Houle had a president that forced his hand.

Bergevin has a president that enables him.

I at least sympathize with Houle and understand he thought the right thing to do was say yes to the job and not no i'm not qualified. Bergevin is an independent actor. This is his doing. The only decision anyone has said wasn't his to make was the Subban extension and he erased that quick.
 

JianYang

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
17,753
16,115
Easily Gainey.Not his biggest fan, but he did bring Kovalev.

Kovalev did more for the habs than anyone else in the organization at every level since the 90s.I miss watching him play greatly.

We got 5 years out of kovalev for a prospect that never panned out. That was a great trade.

Although, if I recall correctly, the rangers had their choice between plekanec and balej at the time..... They made up for that mistake in 2009.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beer and Chips

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
I think its somewhat even, with Price's contract being the downfall. How about who is more disapointing in not winning a cup with what they "inherited"? To me its BG.

Look at what he came in with. Koivu/Ribs/Pleks. That is a very very strong C group, the best the habs would of had in decades. Markov/Beau/Souray/Hainsey/Komi probably the best D core since the glory days. Ryder and Higgins 2 solid wingers. 10th OV pick in one of the greatest drafts in history where mulitple franchise altering players were selected.

MB inherited Price/PK/Max/Galley and 3rd OV in a pretty bad draft. He also had out of their prime Markov and Pleks.

I think the first group is a bigger waster of not winning a cup then the 2nd group. At least though Gainey brought in Kovalev and Tanguy to try and win it all.

So which group is a bigger disappointment for not winning a cup in everyone's opinion?
 

Price is Wright

Registered User
Feb 5, 2010
12,494
5,571
essex
So which group is a bigger disappointment for not winning a cup in everyone's opinion?

Gainey went for it and everything went wrong. He at least went for it. And then he completely changed the club with new players and went for it again, and got further than he did previously. I'll take try and fail.

Bergevin had a club that just made the ECF and in the summers of 2014 and 2015 did next to nothing to improve the club or put them over the top. He was fine with Price carrying them and bragging about regular season results. That's embarrassing. With all we say to mock the Capitals every summer they are trying to bring in new players to change their destiny. Montreal added Tom Gilbert and Manny Malhotra in the summer of 2014 and spent a whole season acting like they didn't need anything else to prepare for the playoffs except add Jeff Petry. When you win 50 games with the 20th best goal scoring you don't rest on your laurels.
 

Brainiac

Registered Offender
Feb 17, 2013
12,709
610
Montreal
Gainey went for it and everything went wrong. He at least went for it. And then he completely changed the club with new players and went for it again, and got further than he did previously. I'll take try and fail.

That. You can whine all you want about Gainey, but at least he went for it a couple of times.

Bergevin is flip-floping all the time. We never know if we're going for it (like, getting Vanek and a whole other bunch of vets) or if we're rebuilding (going into the season as a cap floor team and terrible defense).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaperi Spacey

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
Gainey went for it and everything went wrong. He at least went for it. And then he completely changed the club with new players and went for it again, and got further than he did previously. I'll take try and fail.

Bergevin had a club that just made the ECF and in the summers of 2014 and 2015 did next to nothing to improve the club or put them over the top. He was fine with Price carrying them and bragging about regular season results. That's embarrassing. With all we say to mock the Capitals every summer they are trying to bring in new players to change their destiny. Montreal added Tom Gilbert and Manny Malhotra in the summer of 2014 and spent a whole season acting like they didn't need anything else to prepare for the playoffs except add Jeff Petry. When you win 50 games with the 20th best goal scoring you don't rest on your laurels.

I don't disagree with your post, but the question was which was a bigger disappointment. I recognize Gainey went for it with Kovalev and Tanguay moves.

But which group is a bigger disappointment for not winning a cup. Basically which group of players was closer to a cup regardless of who was added to the team?
 

Price is Wright

Registered User
Feb 5, 2010
12,494
5,571
essex
I don't disagree with your post, but the question was which was a bigger disappointment. I recognize Gainey went for it with Kovalev and Tanguay moves.

But which group is a bigger disappointment for not winning a cup. Basically which group of players was closer to a cup regardless of who was added to the team?

Maybe I wasn't clear so I apologize but I'll always be more disappointed with someone who could improve their team to go for it but won't compared to a team that did try to improve but failed.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
Maybe I wasn't clear so I apologize but I'll always be more disappointed with someone who could improve their team to go for it but won't compared to a team that did try to improve but failed.

It is more disapointing that MB didn't go the extra step to push the team over the edge, while Gainey tried to set the team up during its 100th season.

But I think Gainey's team was better equiped to win a cup and to me its more disappointing that they didn't then what MB had to work with.

and seems like both will end up drastically altering their original teams. Gainey lost his UFA's and replaced them with Cammy/Gomez/Gionta/Spacek. While MB will probably lose Max and lost PK. Both turned over a new leaf and for one it was the end and for the other well we don't know yet (but it should of been the end).
 

Price is Wright

Registered User
Feb 5, 2010
12,494
5,571
essex
It is more disapointing that MB didn't go the extra step to push the team over the edge, while Gainey tried to set the team up during its 100th season.

But I think Gainey's team was better equiped to win a cup and to me its more disappointing that they didn't then what MB had to work with.

and seems like both will end up drastically altering their original teams. Gainey lost his UFA's and replaced them with Cammy/Gomez/Gionta/Spacek. While MB will probably lose Max and lost PK. Both turned over a new leaf and for one it was the end and for the other well we don't know yet (but it should of been the end).

According to the CHIP history chart (cap hit of injured players) Montreal was Top 10 (Top 10 meaning lots of injuries) from 08-09 to 11-12, with 11-12 being one of the worst CHIP seasons of all time. 12-13 to 14-15 they were Bottom 10 with 14-15 they were the healthiest team in the league save for the LA Kings. In 15-16 and 17-18 they were some of the most injured teams in the league while being middle of the pack in 16-17.

Gainey might have had Markov in his prime (and stupidly attached him to Komisarek) but in 09-10 (the all in year) and 10-11 (the erase and replace year) he had his #1 defenceman for a combined total of 52 regular season games and 8 playoff games. He played 20 more games in two seasons. Bergevin had Markov for four seasons completely healthy with only games missed in 16-17. At least Gainey had the excuse of injuries, especially to his best defenceman. Bergevin had some extremely healthy teams and did nothing to capitalize on it.

So I agree with your premise but if 2009-2010 had 2014-15's health streak, they might have won the Cup.
 

MtlBoxFan

Registered User
Jun 19, 2014
795
300
I liked Gainey for his "gutless cowards" moment more than his actual work as a GM. It seemed like he was willing to break some reporters noses if he felt like his team was being disrespected. Bergevin hides behind plants...
 

MtlBoxFan

Registered User
Jun 19, 2014
795
300
It is more disapointing that MB didn't go the extra step to push the team over the edge, while Gainey tried to set the team up during its 100th season.

But I think Gainey's team was better equiped to win a cup and to me its more disappointing that they didn't then what MB had to work with.

and seems like both will end up drastically altering their original teams. Gainey lost his UFA's and replaced them with Cammy/Gomez/Gionta/Spacek. While MB will probably lose Max and lost PK. Both turned over a new leaf and for one it was the end and for the other well we don't know yet (but it should of been the end).
Gainey was also victimized by Gomez' career just imploding. Camaleri was a good pickup, Gionta was acceptable, Subban, Gallagher, Price, all good stuff.
Gainey's biggest mark against him is McDonaugh....and Bergy said "Hold my beer" and traded Subban.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
Gainey was also victimized by Gomez' career just imploding. Camaleri was a good pickup, Gionta was acceptable, Subban, Gallagher, Price, all good stuff.
Gainey's biggest mark against him is McDonaugh....and Bergy said "Hold my beer" and traded Subban.

I think you can add in Ribs for Ninnema to the list. Losing Beau and Hainsey for nothing also. Also losing all those UFA's. Sure you can't trade all/resign all of em but at least 1 or 2 get something in return.

Cammy/Gionta were decent players, but the wrong players for this team and stamped the SMURF stereotype that took years to get away from.

They are both similar. Both inherited good cores (allthough BG's to me was better) both had early sucsess, and then both seem to lose it. both will be haunted by horrible trades. MB gets a bigger negative because he may have signed one of the worst contracts in the cap era to Price.

But I look back and think that BG had the better pieces to make a cup run so its more disapointing to me. Not saying it makes BG worse, just that I think his team could of gone farther. Nothing will match the hype that was going into the 100th season as it really seemed like the Habs were going to finally challange for a cup again.
 

scrubadam

Registered User
Apr 10, 2016
12,438
1,904
According to the CHIP history chart (cap hit of injured players) Montreal was Top 10 (Top 10 meaning lots of injuries) from 08-09 to 11-12, with 11-12 being one of the worst CHIP seasons of all time. 12-13 to 14-15 they were Bottom 10 with 14-15 they were the healthiest team in the league save for the LA Kings. In 15-16 and 17-18 they were some of the most injured teams in the league while being middle of the pack in 16-17.

Gainey might have had Markov in his prime (and stupidly attached him to Komisarek) but in 09-10 (the all in year) and 10-11 (the erase and replace year) he had his #1 defenceman for a combined total of 52 regular season games and 8 playoff games. He played 20 more games in two seasons. Bergevin had Markov for four seasons completely healthy with only games missed in 16-17. At least Gainey had the excuse of injuries, especially to his best defenceman. Bergevin had some extremely healthy teams and did nothing to capitalize on it.

So I agree with your premise but if 2009-2010 had 2014-15's health streak, they might have won the Cup.

Which is why I think Gainey's lack of cup is more disapointing. Again not blaming BG. Just that his team seemed to have better pieces to win a cup. You said it yourself if Markov was around (and maybe Ribs not traded) this team could very well have challanged for a cup.

Interesting that BG lost Markov for so many games those few years his best player and the curse seems to be following MB now with Price and his injury troubles. No excuse for MB but will Price be healthy again next year or decide to only play 25% of the year once again.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->