The principle is the same: Squeezing maximum talent through a finite budget. Like Billy Beane, Bergevin is forced to look for hidden bargains to assemble a roster within an unforgiving salary cap. It's not the Habs that are the Oakland A's, it's all 30 NHL teams.
I Think I Figured Out Marc Bergevin's Strategy...
- Thread starter Habby Gilmore
- Start date
The principle is the same: Squeezing maximum talent through a finite budget. Like Billy Beane, Bergevin is forced to look for hidden bargains to assemble a roster within an unforgiving salary cap. It's not the Habs that are the Oakland A's, it's all 30 NHL teams.
Andrei79
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2013
- 15,244
- 27,206
It's hilarious to me that poster you quoted mentioned an administration/finance/mangement degrees, a worthless degree which has little bearing on managing success, much less of a hockey team. I'm impressed you took the time to answer to that BS. That post stinks of arrogance.
Bergevin did what most succesfull people do. He started from bottom in his field and worked his way up. His hockey resume is excellent and looks exactly like what you'd expect from a manager in a multi-million dollar business.
Last edited:
Ginu
Registered User
Scintillating10
Registered User
I think the comparsion is, for me anyway, Bergs is limited what he can spend by salary cap. There is no advantage there. His advantage is employing a deep and skilled front office staff. Beane's advantage was first to use OBP and other statistics.
Interestingly, since the original post of this thread almost a year ago, Bergevin seems to have made a 180-degree turn on analytics, or rather on the attributes and processes favored by analytics) -- he ditched the guys he acquired last offseason, made moves like swapping Gorges for a cheaper-and-better Gilbert. He's set up his D so that the top-4 is now all skill, he's arranging for an all-skill fourth-line, and he's been working on eliminating the remaining dead weight.
His team still has some serious systemic issues, but he's definitely headed in a better direction roster-wise, and his cap management moves have been pretty amazing. Heck, the team's possession is still mediocre, but it still improved by over three percentage points purely on the strength of the roster changes, and that's rather a lot.
His 2013 offseason was a complete disaster, but to his credit none of those mistakes were long-term and I think he learned quite a few lessons from that. I think we're still at least one year away from the crucial changes that will give the Habs a shot at being a genuine contender though.
His team still has some serious systemic issues, but he's definitely headed in a better direction roster-wise, and his cap management moves have been pretty amazing. Heck, the team's possession is still mediocre, but it still improved by over three percentage points purely on the strength of the roster changes, and that's rather a lot.
His 2013 offseason was a complete disaster, but to his credit none of those mistakes were long-term and I think he learned quite a few lessons from that. I think we're still at least one year away from the crucial changes that will give the Habs a shot at being a genuine contender though.
MathMan, every other "contender" has flaws of their own. If w'ere talking about the Habs being a Hawks style team who show they can contend year in and out for half decade + I agree they aren't there yet...that takes time to show as being true.
But this year, they're as genuine of a contender as any other team in the league. No team is without glaring weaknesses.
Nashville is weak down the middle and putting a lot of stock into a 20 year old rookie being able to produce into the playoffs.
LA has struggled immensely this year, and has played a ridiculous amount of hockey in the last few years.
Chicago has a great deal of uncertainty becuase of the cap and they also have played quite a lot of hockey in the last few years.
Boston has taken a huge step back from 2013.
Pittsburgh has their own question marks on defence, and Marc Andre Fleury has become a bit of a question mark.
Rangers look good, but their center depth isn't spectacular and they are putting a lot of pressure on St. Louis and Boyle to play big important minutes in the playoffs, and they have some cap issues moving forward too.
Lightning look great, but I'm not convinced they're certainly better than the Habs over a 7 game series. I still like Price vs. Bishop there.
Will be fun to see where this team goes over the next 2-4 years, the wya they're trending right now they look like they could be LA around 2009/2010 right now.
But this year, they're as genuine of a contender as any other team in the league. No team is without glaring weaknesses.
Nashville is weak down the middle and putting a lot of stock into a 20 year old rookie being able to produce into the playoffs.
LA has struggled immensely this year, and has played a ridiculous amount of hockey in the last few years.
Chicago has a great deal of uncertainty becuase of the cap and they also have played quite a lot of hockey in the last few years.
Boston has taken a huge step back from 2013.
Pittsburgh has their own question marks on defence, and Marc Andre Fleury has become a bit of a question mark.
Rangers look good, but their center depth isn't spectacular and they are putting a lot of pressure on St. Louis and Boyle to play big important minutes in the playoffs, and they have some cap issues moving forward too.
Lightning look great, but I'm not convinced they're certainly better than the Habs over a 7 game series. I still like Price vs. Bishop there.
Will be fun to see where this team goes over the next 2-4 years, the wya they're trending right now they look like they could be LA around 2009/2010 right now.
Why was his Summer 2013 a disaster? Briere move was bad, but what other stuff did he do?
I thought he was just fairly quiet??
I thought he was just fairly quiet??
It was the Summer of Overreaction. Briere addressed the need for local marketing, Murray addressed the need for a net bodyguard, and Parros addressed the need to pound the other team. None of those moves worked. Luckily, none of them cost us a lot.
Not with those possession numbers, they're not. Unless Price can actually steal four straight series, they're a paper tiger.
I think they have the horses to be a contender-level team, but right now, it isn't happening, and they're just a mediocre team riding the PDO wave. Which annoys me to no end, I should add, because I think the team is eminently fixable.
Yep -- every move was bad and a direct downgrade, and every one was made for the wrong reasons.
Bergevin learned fast though -- he basically re-addressed every issue at the trade deadline, finding a winger to replace Briere, a depth defenseman to replace Murray, and an empty chair in the press box to stuff Parros in.
Captain Mountain
Formerly Captain Wolverine
- Jun 6, 2010
- 20,437
- 14,013
I said then and I said now, the best move he made that summer was stealing Waite from Chicago.
Bergy has done a great job cleaning up errors, both his own (Briere) and Gauthier's. He's demonstrated that he can recognize his own errors and correct them. Ego can be an asset in the NHL, but also a weakness. I think Bergevin has a good balance.
Bergevin's strength has been the ability to self-correct and surround himself with superior talent. Both demonstrate how he values team over his own ego. He'd rather get it right than be right.
I think his best moves are his support staff. As mentioned, Waite has been stellar, and Dudley's nose for pro talent has put the Habs on the right side of recent trades. The revolving door on our D makes it hard to evaluate Daigneault and I don't know enough about Lacroix or Ramage to judge.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,041
- 5,535
It's pretty hard to judge simply because we don't know who recommends who. Maybe Dudley was the one who recommended we go after Briere. Maybe he wanted us to match the Philly's offer for Lecavalier but Bergevin nixed it. Or maybe he's been great and put Weise on our radar. We have no idea, therefore Bergevin gets all the credit/blame just like Timmins gets the credit/blame for all draft picks and the scouts under him are afterthoughts.
He has confidence, but isn't full of himself. That makes all the difference.
He also understands his weaknesses and hires people that can do what he can't. Seriously, high management is the least of our worries with this team.
The point is the overall decision-making has improved, which is a reflection of the decision-makers. That reflects most of all upon the person who hired those decision-makers. It doesn't matter which percentage of which decision is attributed to which individual.
But FYI, it was generally known that Dudley had a great reputation for scouting. I don't think it's a coincidence that we've had better results on trades since he's been here.
Didn't Murray sign fairly late in the Summer though? Or am I misremembering?
Seemed more like a quiet off season than any sort of disaster.
Briere was a bad signing, but I can never get mad at any signing of length shorter than 3 years personally.
Seemed more like a quiet off season than any sort of disaster.
Briere was a bad signing, but I can never get mad at any signing of length shorter than 3 years personally.
http://theleafsnation.com/2012/5/8/dudley-do-wrong
I am not convinced he is the right guy for the Habs, but doesn't seem to be doing harm (anymore?)
That was an article so full of assumptions about what Dudley did do and what he didn't do that it is hard to take it seriously. Who is Danny Gray?
As stated above, the article is conjecture with no substance. Besides (and I should've been clearer in my last post) Dudley was hired for his pro-scouting ability, not for draft picks.
