That's fair and I apologize for the lumping.
As for Bergevin, he certainly hires people that he knows and can depend on, as most people do in close circles like the NHL, but it's not like he only hires his best friends. That said, he's not above making some wrong choices either, nor does it mean that he can only make wrong choices by hiring friends.
I work closely with friends that aren't yes men and with whom I get into arguments about how things should be done. In the end, the project, or the goal, comes first and we get over it. If everybody agreed all the time, we'd overlook important components of a problem that might negatively affect the outcome of what we are trying to accomplish and the whole department would get the boot.
We surround ourselves with friends because of the hours we devote to our work (I don't work 9-5 and it is hard to leave work behind at the office). It doesn't mean that our friends are incompetent because they are our friends, nor that they always think identically. If someone can't dissociate friendship from always being in agreement, they might find themselves negotiating life and relationships at a severe disadvantage.
A manager is stronger from the different views that surround him and, more importantly, from his/her ability to evaluate those views rationally. Who is to say that things don't work that way between Bergevin and his 'friends'.
I get that people hate him and think that he sucks. I'm not saying that I disagree with those who think that he's been less than successful in achieving the goal we had set out for him and the team when he first arrived ((in our minds).
Why is it that people insist on being 300% right about Bergevin being horrendous, to the point that, if he saved a baby boy from burning building, some would desperately try and blame him for setting the fire?
Thanks for your response.
Bergevin is working with several handicaps -- some come with the job and most of them are self-inflicted.
Of course, he's being held to a high standard since it's a fishbowl job unlike the job you claim you're working at, which isn't being watched and analyzed with the same level of scrutiny as his job. So there are precautions and responsibilities that fall to him and where he fails at them, he'll readily be called on them, rightly or wrongly.
Outside of the very public nature of the job, there are events that have haunted him.
He's made multiple statements, several of a substantive nature, that he has not followed up with sustained and dedicated action. I'm not going to recapitulate them, they are a known quantity and have been repeated
ad nauseam here. They have begun with how he was going to build through the draft, how he was going to draft and sign more Quebec-born players, how he wasn't looking to trade PK and he admitted that he had planned to trade him earlier than he had let on and a multitude of other inconsistencies and misinformation, such as with the Radulov and Markov negotiations and so one.
He's made several dubious hiring decisions (anyone can make mistakes), however, he has not intervened in a timely fashion to correct his mistakes. He's mostly doubled down and shown arrogance. He showed an uncanny loyalty to a coach like Michel Therrien, who was hired from a TV sports show. Therrien had done nothing to merit another opportunity, had refused to take coaching assignments in the minors or elsewhere, in order to build his way back up to the NHL. And there were other reasons Therrien had been unemployed, until Bergevin decided otherwise.
Bergevin doubled down on Lefebvre as well when he did not have the track record of development that was needed for the AHL job -- he kept extending his contract. Even when Lefebvre wanted to interview for an NHL job (he only managed one interview and it was only garnered on account of Lefebvre and Phil Housley sharing the same agent), Lefebvre wasn't hired but his AHL job was safe. Bergevin saved it for him for 2 months, telling him not to worry, if he didn't land an NHL job, he could always get his AHL stint back. And predictably, Bergevin gifted Lefebvre a 2 year deal, where he contributed to the disastrous season the Rocket went through this year.
The failure by MB to show contrition has created mistrust and resentment for some fans. It's OK to make mistakes, however, not acting upon them and on top of that resorting to abstract disculpatory sources, is easily viewed as an insult to the average person's intelligence. Repeat this over a 6 year span and it becomes virtually impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt. It becomes an easy source of satire.
You make a good point when you say that just because you surround yourself with friends at work doesn't mean they're incompetent. However, we have seen time and again instances where Bergevin's friends are involved in pro scouting and development, who are not producing positive tangible results. Even amongst the friends that work with you, I am certain that you all hold each other to stringent professional standards and that you are all subject to authoritative performance reviews that are actionable. Looking at how Bergevin manages the team, a large contingent of posters here do not get the impression that Bergevin espouses such standards.
Bergevin has not not fired anyone in the last 6 years, outside of Lefebvre who had another year to go on his contract. Others that have been let go before Lefebvre were allowed to complete their year but did not see their contracts renewed (example: Craig Ramsay, Pfeiffer the analytics guy who advocated against trading Subban). Not only have none of Bergevin's high ranking management staffers been fired during the past 6 years, but as reported last summer, several of them received promotions, raises and/or contract extensions. This is not the Chicago Black Hawks rewarding a management team that presided over multiple Cup wins -- the Habs have not made the finals or semi-finals during MB's tenure and have only had one playoff series in the past 3 years.
How is it possible with the track record that Bergevin has produced, that none of his appointees have been upgraded? How is it possible that he is allowed to continue as he has, by essentially being able to trust the same individuals that have produced the results we have now? The ownership group speaking through Geoff Molson, has affirmed repeatedly that the results of this past season are unacceptable, that widespread changes will be implemented -- and yet, it's perfectly acceptable to let the GM who brought us these results, to continue staying in control into a 7th off-season?
How is it possible that a high revenue team like the Habs, do not take full advantage of their cash flow and economic advantage to attract the best talent and even to poach it from other organizations, by essentially using money that is not constrained by the cap? This falls on MB. He's assembled a large staff and yet has been trumped by other clubs with smaller staffs who have better personnel and who are run more efficiently. Heading into a 7th off season, did anyone conduct an audit or was one conducted just now, as Geoff Molson is claiming changes are needed only now?
How is it possible that a cap team like the Habs, ends up with so much cap room to start the season? Worse, how could there not have been a Plan B when MB played hardball with Markov and Radulov? How could he as supposedly a great evaluator of talent, agree to sign a player with so much mileage and so ill-suited to play in a top 4 role like Alzner, to a long-term deal? Who counseled him to sign Alzner? Who recommended Ott, King, Martinsen, Benn, Hemsky, Streit? Who failed to stand up to Bergevin when he gutted the whole left side of his D within a few weeks from the expansion draft? How does that individual or those individuals who recommended Alzner and these other courses of action, still have a job?
Do we really care that Bergevin has hired close friends to fill key positions within his management team? Not
per se, but where there is no record of success and progress, no ascertainable plan, 6 off seasons having passed leading to the current outcome, where the GM has acquired players who were overvalued, not suited to the way the game is currently played, are not a fit on the roster -- and the same mistakes are repeated consistently over a 2-3 year period, then yes, it is fair game to question Bergevin's methods, hiring policies, performance reviews, contractual fallouts etc.
If Bergevin's friends are not doing the job, then he needs better friends or more importantly, candidates who are more competent, whether they are friends of his or not. The fact that Bergevin's close friends have had a significant role to play in the team's current fortunes makes them fair game even if the whole friends thing has become a source of hyperbole -- there is an undeniable truth at the base of it that can't be denied.
