At least Gainey respected his players and defended them when needed. Bergevin just throws them under the bus like a coward.
Gainey vs Bergevin
- Thread starter LeHab
- Start date
I think Gainey was a great GM, even after the so called 'rebuild.'
The difference between Gainey and someone like Bergevin is that Gainey at least had vision on putting together a cohesive team. He had a certain direction he wanted to go to, and wasn't afraid to make the moves required to get there. Sure, it didn't always work out; but the fact that he brought the team from a complete disaster to a highly competitive and deep team was impressive. The drafting was better. The coaching was better. The on-ice product and entertainment side was better. Of course one variable in this is I think Gillette was an excellent owner, which is more important than a lot of people allude to.
Bergevin lacks any significant degree of vision. When you look at his trades in isolation they aren't actually that bad. But he has no vision for where the team is going, nor can put together the multiple-step process to actually get there.
I will defend/support Gainey any day. I'd also take the Gomez, Camalleri, and Gionta era over the team now without question. I've also not ever been big on the whole 'asset management' shtick. Who cares whether Koivu, Kovalev, Souray, 'left for nothing' when they are replaced.
The difference between Gainey and someone like Bergevin is that Gainey at least had vision on putting together a cohesive team. He had a certain direction he wanted to go to, and wasn't afraid to make the moves required to get there. Sure, it didn't always work out; but the fact that he brought the team from a complete disaster to a highly competitive and deep team was impressive. The drafting was better. The coaching was better. The on-ice product and entertainment side was better. Of course one variable in this is I think Gillette was an excellent owner, which is more important than a lot of people allude to.
Bergevin lacks any significant degree of vision. When you look at his trades in isolation they aren't actually that bad. But he has no vision for where the team is going, nor can put together the multiple-step process to actually get there.
I will defend/support Gainey any day. I'd also take the Gomez, Camalleri, and Gionta era over the team now without question. I've also not ever been big on the whole 'asset management' shtick. Who cares whether Koivu, Kovalev, Souray, 'left for nothing' when they are replaced.
This is a silly argument. Theodore fell off a cliff within a season of Gainey taking over the team.
Theo was actually pretty decent BG's first season. It was after the lockout that he fell off a cliff.
If MB can get knocked for ruining the players he inherited well then the same should hold for BG.
BG turned a Vezna/Hart goalie who posted a .919 into Abeischeir.
Theo's last half season here .881 and 3.46 GAA
Price this season 3.11 and .900.
Lets hope and pray Price can turn back to form but maybe we are seeing that same cliff we saw with Theo?
Like I said, within a season of Gainey taking over the team Theodore fell off a cliff. No one wanted him because he was brutal and his contract was ridiculous. Gainey was able to pretty quickly replace Theodore with Huet, who was good for a while.
There is no knock on Gainey for his ability to develop/fill the goaltending slots. He was always able to meet this need and he played a huge role in developing and putting faith into Price who would become one of the best goalies in the league.
Theodore falling off a cliff has this has nothing to do with Gainey. And the argument that Bergevin gets 'knocked for ruining the players he inherited' is a strawman.
LaP
Registered User
Gainey/Gauthier (the two headed hydra) made two mistakes. Niiiiniiiiiiimaaaaaaaaaa and Gomez. Two very big ones. But the rest was solid specially like you said drafting and development.
Interesting that Theo got what at the time was one of the richest contracts in habs history (laughable now if you look at salaries LOL) and Price also got the richest contracts in habs history. History repeating itself.
Anyways I don't want to put anything at the feet of BG but I just don't like that people write Theo off because he fell off a cliff. Bottom line is guy won a heart and Vezna and BG had him on his roster when he took over. Every player is susceptible to having their career turn around at any moment. Yes Theo proved in the end he was a flash in the pan but at the time BG took over he was still a good goalie and gave BG a solid year his first year he was with the team. I won't say he inherited a HOF legendary goalie but BG came onto the team with a guy with hardware in between the pipes, thats nothing to sneeze at.
Price is/was better than Theo, but only after MB took over and only after Waite came on board. Until then he was still an overy hyped player living off his 5th OVA pedigree. I mean at one point the city was split on Halak vs Price and fans even today can drudge up that argument.
But the similarties with Price/Theo are starting to add up, someone should check if Price is using Propecia
ProspectsFanatic
Registered User
- Nov 13, 2012
- 3,699
- 2,428
It is a close one for me, I voted Gainey, but I am more bitter about the Gomez trade coupled with letting Koivu walk away than the Subban trade. He also traded a 1st rounder for Tanguay and didn't even made him an offer once free agency came the following year.
Grate n Colorful Oz
Hutson Hawk
Laurentide
Registered User
When a player is "done", either with hockey or at least as a member of your team, then whether you get anything in return for them is irrelevant. Either you trade them for something (usually something insignificant by the time you're getting rid of them) or they walk for nothing and you gain cap space; it's addition by subtraction. When I am done with a player I don't really care what I get back or if I get anything back. I just want them gone. I didn't care if we got nothing in return for DD or Pleks or a half dozen other useless humps who we needed to be rid of. I just wanted rid of them. I have never supported the idea of keeping a cancer hanging around while you wait on a deal of some sort. Just get rid of them FFS!
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,011
- 5,501
It's sad how bad/convoluted the arguments become to support Bergevin.
Has anyone ever claimed that Bergevin ruined non-prospects? I mean I've yet to hear the argument that Bergevin ruined Erik Cole, turning a 35 goal scorer to a 20 goal scorer. And to compare Price to Theodore is just dumb.
Grate n Colorful Oz
Hutson Hawk
SOLR
Registered User
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,317
- 2,850
That actually got Julien fired the first time. BG wanted him to run with Huet who was winning but he wanted to stick to Theo.
Good point. Shows that it wasn't all on Prices shoulders those seasons and even he needed a lot of help to put up the numbers he did.
Lets talk next season. If Price puts up another season like this one then the comparison will be pretty good.
For now we have 2 goalies both got the richest contracts in habs history at the time, both won Harts and Vezna's, and both's career's started to go off a cliff after winning awards.
If Price bounces back then the comparison can end. If he stinks next year then check him for some propecia.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,011
- 5,501
Price could be an AHL level goalie for the rest of his contract and he'll still have had a better career with us then Theodore. Theodore had two seasons where he had more wins then losses for us and was only considered for the Vezina once. Compare that to Price who consistently put up winning seasons and had Vezina votes in 6 years (And 4 times had Hart votes).
Non Player Canadiens
Registered User
signing the munchkin squad that one big summer (Gomez, Cammaleri, Gionta) didn't do nearly as much damage to the team as trading Subban :/
Price obvisouly had the better career.
But they are looking a little similar to me. Award winning goalies, getting huge contracts. Theo's contract at the time was the biggest in habs history (which looking back to day is hilarious) and both started to slide.
Won't debate anymore if you see it different. Price had the better career and for now will be remembered more fondly. But if he pulls a Theo over the rest of his contract everyone is going to remember 10.5 x 8 and that is going to weigh his legacy down A LOT.
Up to Price to turn it around.
And it did send us to a conference final, the subban trade sent us to a lottery pick
NORiculous
Registered User
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Well this isn't true. Price had already received Hart and Vezina consideration as early as the 2011 season. That was Subban's rookie season and a season Markov only played 7 games in. Then there was of course last season where there was no Subban but still saw Price at an all world level.
That ''Price willed us single-handedly to 100 pt seasons'' myth has to die. How you gonna say that Price did it all on his own when in his god-mode season he was playing behind 110 pts of first pairing D production, and career years from Pacioretty? It's just silly.
Will have to disagree there. It really depends on where the team is at. If you are in a serious position to compete, fine, go for it. If you haven't made the POs in a long time, then again, fine, I get it. But sometimes, you definitely need to look at what is best for the team on a longer term.
That last year of Koivu, Kovalev, Komisarek...We really clinged onto making the POs. We fired Carbo, Gainey stepped in, and they refused to see the obvious...this team was going nowhere. We ended up getting swept by Boston. That was more embarrassing than had we missed the POs.
Like the Blues this year, they were still fighting for a POs spot but they said f*** it and traded Stastny. Completely the right move for them as even if they made it to the first round, they would have lost. So what's the point?
That year, we had made the POs pretty regularly now. We had made them 3/4 years, we were not desperate for PO attendance and Koivu-Kovalev-Komisarek, those are three very big pieces at the time that we should have traded for future assets.
