Marc Bergevin: At the End o'da Day

[Habs Halifax]

How did they not implode from 4 years of bad drafting before their cup win?

Cause they had the best hockey player in the world with a solid supporting cast. Are you really trying to compare the Habs core to the Pens core?

 

[Habs Halifax]

I get that. How much additional money is the team losing with Bergevin as GM? Substantially more then his contract value, I'd wager.

I'm guessing nobody knows how much Bergevin makes cause I ask as an inquiry a few times now?

As far as losing more money with Bergevin? Not sure but I think the annual revenue is likely very healthy. However, this coming season might be different. The disgruntled fan base is growing by the year. With this result is less people in the seats and loss of ticket sales? Were going to find out very soon. What I do know is where one person gives up their seats, there is several others looking for that seat.

 

[Andy]

Cause they had the best hockey player in the world with a solid supporting cast. Are you really trying to compare the Habs core to the Pens core?

So you are admitting that factors other than a bad 4 year draft sequence can offset those bad results?

 

[Habs Halifax]

So you are admitting that factors other than a bad 4 year draft sequence can offset those bad results?

Offset? Sure. I already admitted it. Where have you been? Oh wait, you are too focused at the Pro-Bergevin vs against Bergevin line in the sand. Here is the difference between you and me. I already told you the 2007 draft year was very good. Arguably one of our best draft years. But you don't seem to think that the 4 years following this have any affect on our ability to improve from 2012 forward.

Once you remove yourself from your Bergevin hate, you should understand my point. But I'm not holding my breath

 

[Kriss E]

Fair post. I do acknowledge that there is miss management in various cases and I have talked about this for a while now. However, saying the 4 years in drafting directly before Bergevin started as GM don't have a factor is nonsense. He has tools to work with but he was not working with much after Price, Subban, Patch, Gallagher. Beaulieu, Leblanc, Tinordi were good prospects who failed in the end but quantity was lacking as well behind them.

Nobody ever said that. They say they do not excuse his shortcomings.
You are failing to understand the points people make because you've held a "I will defend Bergevin" attitude for a while. You've cut back from that now that you realize how terrible he's been, but you still missed the point people made about those draft years.
Of course drafting Subban is much better than drafting Tinordi, so whether you had a good draft vs bad can have an influence.
But you look at the bigger picture, which is what Andy is attempting to do with you, then those bad years do not excuse the terrible job Bergevin has done. Why? Partly because if you add adjacent draft years, well he actually quite a good amount of talent., and partly because drafting is only one of three ways to add talent.

I'm not failing in my conclusion. I'm talking about one point and people who hate Bergevin always will hate him and say he had everything in the world to work with and was terrible at everything he did. Sorry, I choose to have another GM at this point but I'm not on the hate bandwagon

Yes you are failing in your conclusion, you're just too stubborn to admit it, so you resort to silly strawman like you just did now.
I think Bergevin trading for Vanek was great. I think him signing Radulov was great too. I think him getting Bouchard is also...great. So there you go. I have been one of the most vocal Bergevin critics over the years and I think he is terrible, yet I can easily point to good moves.

Whether you hate, dislike, disapprove, disagree with Bergevin. It's semantics at this point.

 

[Andy]

Offset? Sure. I already admitted it. Where have you been? Oh wait, you are too focused at the Pro-Bergevin vs against Bergevin line in the sand. Here is the difference between you and me. I already told you the 2007 draft year was very good. Arguably one of our best draft years. But you don't seem to think that the 4 years following this have any affect on our ability to improve from 2012 forward.

Once you remove yourself from your Bergevin hate, you should understand my point. But I'm not holding my breath

No I don't. I don't think it affected MB's ability to improve the team at all. He had enough assets to package to fill in holes instead of waiting for said assets to fully demonstrate that they would not develop any further and then off-loading them for peanuts.

I also don't think he was prevented form improving the team considering the number of second round picks he inherited. He could have easily moved Beaulieu, Tinordi, Leblanc in packages while their value was still high as green 1st rounders.

MB's inability to improve the club stemmed from his unwillingness to make anything more than lateral moves, his inability to create trade packages to acquire talent he needed and by having a poor development program that resulted in almost 0 players drafted from 2012-2016 making an impact on the club.

And yes, the drafting in 2008-2011 was offset by the fact that the Habs drafted Pacioretty and Subban the year prior, traded for Eller and acquired Pateryn.

Not to mention that when MB arrived, he had Bournival, Leblanc, Beaulieu, Tinordi and Nygren in the pipeline that he could have easily used as trade bait, plus several second rounders.

 

[groovejuice]

I'm guessing nobody knows how much Bergevin makes cause I ask as an inquiry a few times now?

As far as losing more money with Bergevin? Not sure but I think the annual revenue is likely very healthy. However, this coming season might be different. The disgruntled fan base is growing by the year. With this result is less people in the seats and loss of ticket sales? Were going to find out very soon. What I do know is where one person gives up their seats, there is several others looking for that seat.

Losing money isn't the right way to look at it. Reduced profit is. It wasn't that long ago when the Habs had a record run of sellouts. Now there are a noticeable number of empty seats which also equate with less spent at concessions, parking, bars, merch, etc.

Other NHL teams now have a proportionally higher increase annually to their value according to Forbes. Hits to your reputation and a very poor product are not things to aspire to in business.

 

[417]

No I don't. I don't think it affected MB's ability to improve the team at all. He had enough assets to package to fill in holes instead of waiting for said assets to fully demonstrate that they would not develop any further and then off-loading them for peanuts.

I also don't think he was prevented form improving the team considering the number of second round picks he inherited. He could have easily moved Beaulieu, Tinordi, Leblanc in packages while their value was still high as green 1st rounders.

MB's inability to improve the club stemmed from his unwillingness to make anything more than lateral moves, his inability to create trade packages to acquire talent he needed and by having a poor development program that resulted in almost 0 players drafted from 2012-2016 making an impact on the club.

And yes, the drafting in 2008-2011 was offset by the fact that the Habs drafted Pacioretty and Subban the year prior, traded for Eller and acquired Pateryn.

Not to mention that when MB arrived, he had Bournival, Leblanc, Beaulieu, Tinordi and Nygren in the pipeline that he could have easily used as trade bait, plus several second rounders.

I agree with your post overall - but not the bolded part.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that 4 CONSECUTIVE bad years of drafting that yield 2 NHL players (and one of them being Nathan Beaulieu) can be offset by anything.

What @TooLegitToQuit is referring too is a real thing, it does NOT excuse Bergevin...but it also can't be brushed aside like it doesn't matter simply because 2007 was very good.

There was obviously going to be some future reverberations from 2008-2011...I mean, we're going through it right now, the players we drafted those year as supposed to be important players on today's roster, like Brendan Gallagher is.

But again, I want to reiterate, that pointing this out doesn't wipe Bergevin's slate clean...like you said, he's done nothing to improve this team through means that aren't lateral trades or striking gold on the waiver wire.

 

[bryan1966]

I'm guessing nobody knows how much Bergevin makes cause I ask as an inquiry a few times now?

As far as losing more money with Bergevin? Not sure but I think the annual revenue is likely very healthy. However, this coming season might be different. The disgruntled fan base is growing by the year. With this result is less people in the seats and loss of ticket sales? Were going to find out very soon. What I do know is where one person gives up their seats, there is several others looking for that seat.

Salaries of Michel Therrien, Marc Bergevin Revealed

 

[Lshap]

I don't agree. Bergevin was perfectly willing to go to arbitration and all that that entails, and give Subban an iron clad path to UFA in 2 years. He was playing hardball for the second time with Subban and this time was after a ******** Norris. This is typical Bergevin behavior with players he doesn't like personally, regardless of their value to the team.

Sure. Not debating the obvious results. I'm simply suggesting that Molson and Bergevin were on the exact same page. Subban's contract was the major signing that season. Molson and Bergevin probably met dozens of times to discuss what, when, how much, etc. It was summer. What the hell else did they have to discuss? There is no way that at the 11th hour Bergevin went off script and went rogue on Molson. It makes zero sense. The whole mise-en-scene was a typical Jack Todd hysterical misrepresentation.

 

[Lshap]

Personally, I think Molson simply still believes Bergevin can turn this around.

Agreed. The day he stops delegating authority to Bergevin is the day he fires Bergevin.

 

[Bryson]

I agree with your post overall - but not the bolded part.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that 4 CONSECUTIVE bad years of drafting that yield 2 NHL players (and one of them being Nathan Beaulieu) can be offset by anything.

What @TooLegitToQuit is referring too is a real thing, it does NOT excuse Bergevin...but it also can't be brushed aside like it doesn't matter simply because 2007 was very good.

There was obviously going to be some future reverberations from 2008-2011...I mean, we're going through it right now, the players we drafted those year as supposed to be important players on today's roster, like Brendan Gallagher is.

But again, I want to reiterate, that pointing this out doesn't wipe Bergevin's slate clean...like you said, he's done nothing to improve this team through means that aren't lateral trades or striking gold on the waiver wire.

It's like you didn't even read any of the posts proving this argument wrong.

2007-2011 produced Subban, Pacioretty, Gallagher as top level NHL players. That's 3 top level players in 5 years without tanking. Now I don't know how that compares to other teams in the league but I'd say that's at least above average, at worst it's average. Good drafting, developing, good trades and signing players like Radulov would have offset the difference. Bergevin squandering assets has had far greater negative impact on this team's current standing than the 2008-2011 draft especially when you factor in current regime has the worst drafting and development track record in the league. What if Leblanc, Beaulieu, Pateryn and Nygren had panned out and what part of the blame does current management have in their failures? You can't just blame the 2008-2011 draft and simultaneously excusing the current managemen's piss poor development of said players. Do you not see how disingenuous that is?

Bergevin has not added any assets to the core he inherited since 2012 unlike Boston which has allowed them to turn their team around rather quickly. Gainey acquired a 1st round pick for an aging Craig Rivet. Bergevin 7 years and counting and not a single 1st round pick acquired.

 

[417]

It's like you didn't even read any of the posts proving this argument wrong.

I assure you I read it....I agreed with most of it, excepted the bolded part.

Remember that thing called "opinions" that a few weeks ago you told me everyone is allowed to have....yeah....

2007-2011 produced Subban, Pacioretty, Gallagher as top level NHL players. That's 3 top level players in 5 years without tanking. Now I don't know how that compares to other teams in the league but I'd say that's at least above average, at worst it's average. Good drafting, developing, good trades and signing players like Radulov would have offset the difference. Bergevin squandering assets has had far greater negative impact on this team's current standing than the 2008-2011 draft especially when you factor in current regime has the worst drafting and development track record in the league.

Over a 5 year period?

That's really not good...especially when 2 of those players (Subban & Pacioretty) come from the same draft (2007)....

Yes, good drafting (which is what i'm referring to here), development, good trades & signings would of mitigated or even eliminated the disaster that was the drafting between 2008 to 2011.

But that didn't happen

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here?

If it makes you feel better and stabilizes your triggers...i'll add that the 2012 draft wasn't stellar for the Habs either

Bergevin has not added any assets to the core he inherited since 2012 unlike Boston which has allowed them to turn their team around rather quickly. Gainey acquired a 1st round pick for an aging Craig Rivet. Bergevin 7 years and counting and not a single 1st round pick acquired.

That's correct...hence why in the very post you quoted from me, I agreed with @Andy about how the poor drafting results before he came on board, do not excuse the poor decisions he's made.

I made sure to point that out TWICE in that post, I even bolded it...and you STILL missed it.

The most ironic part is how you opened your post telling me that I "didn't read his post".

 

[justafan22]

Fun fact; if Bergevin doesn't get fired by next April, he will pass Gainey in terms of tenure for a habs gm and only behind Selke/Pollock/Savard for modern habs GM tenure.

 

[Censored Toad]

Fun fact; if Bergevin doesn't get fired by next April, he will pass Gainey in terms of tenure for a habs gm and only behind Selke/Pollock/Savard for modern habs GM tenure.

Go Go Marc!!!! Set more records!

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Fun fact; if Bergevin doesn't get fired by next April, he will pass Gainey in terms of tenure for a habs gm and only behind Selke/Pollock/Savard for modern habs GM tenure.

I think im gonna be sick

 

[Bryson]

I assure you I read it....I agreed with most of it, excepted the bolded part.

Remember that thing called "opinions" that a few weeks ago you told me everyone is allowed to have....yeah....


Over a 5 year period?

That's really not good...especially when 2 of those players (Subban & Pacioretty) come from the same draft (2007)....

Yes, good drafting (which is what i'm referring to here), development, good trades & signings would of mitigated or even eliminated the disaster that was the drafting between 2008 to 2011.

But that didn't happen

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here?

If it makes you feel better and stabilizes your triggers...i'll add that the 2012 draft wasn't stellar for the Habs either


That's correct...hence why in the very post you quoted from me, I agreed with @Andy about how the poor drafting results before he came on board, do not excuse the poor decisions he's made.

I made sure to point that out TWICE in that post, I even bolded it...and you STILL missed it.

The most ironic part is how you opened your post telling me that I "didn't read his post".

You wrote in bold that 2008-2011 does not excuse Bergevin... to which I agree. But you also said that it was inevitable that it would have reverberating effect on the team to which I disagree. Pick any combination of cherry picked years you want from Gainey/Gauthier... I don't care. They were better at drafting and developing players than MB. What does that say about Bergevin that the best player on the team is still from another regime? If 2008-2011 is terrible what do you call 20012-2017?

I was one of the first ones to predict the inevitable demise of the great Montreal Canadiens Empire and it was not difficult to predict. He did nothing to add to the team except ride the coattails of his predecessor basically shifting deck chairs around and poor player development meant the team was going to get no help or influx of talent of any kind. It's like a bank account. if you keep withdrawing money without adding any, you are at a net loss and will eventually be left with nothing.

Think about how Poile built his team. He traded an older Erat for a young promising Forsberg, traded an old washed up Weber for a younger Norris defenseman. He needed centers, he went out and got 3. Had we had a better GM we wouldn't even be talking about 2008-2011 right now.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Losing money isn't the right way to look at it. Reduced profit is. It wasn't that long ago when the Habs had a record run of sellouts. Now there are a noticeable number of empty seats which also equate with less spent at concessions, parking, bars, merch, etc.

Other NHL teams now have a proportionally higher increase annually to their value according to Forbes. Hits to your reputation and a very poor product are not things to aspire to in business.

Bergevin is probably not the only one on a short leash. Molson is getting pressure from his brothers and the investment group.

The expected blowouts against the Leafs will be legendary. Saturday night at the bell center, poor record and then the Leafs blow us 10-0.



Holy ****, I just checked the schedule for the first time. Did the league help the Habs knowing Weber would be out for the first 50 games? Oddly enough we only go up against the Leafs in the season opener and then not until the 56th game, when Weber will probably be back.

 

[417]

You wrote in bold that 2008-2011 does not excuse Bergevin... to which I agree. But you also said that it was inevitable that it would have reverberating effect on the team to which I disagree. Pick any combination of cherry picked years you want from Gainey/Gauthier... I don't care. They were better at drafting and developing players than MB. What does that say about Bergevin that the best player on the team is still from another regime? If 2008-2011 is terrible what do you call 20012-2017?

I'm not comparing Bergevin to Gainey/Gauthier...so i'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote.

You're making a connection between a fact (bad drafting for 4 CONSECUTIVE YEARS having reverberating effects down the line) and it being an excuse for Bergeving.

I made sure to point out that it's not - but it remains a fact nonetheless.

I was one of the first ones to predict the inevitable demise of the great Montreal Canadiens Empire and it was not difficult to predict. He did nothing to add to the team except ride the coattails of his predecessor basically shifting deck chairs around and poor player development meant the team was going to get no help or influx of talent of any kind. It's like a bank account. if you keep withdrawing money without adding any, you are at a net loss and will eventually be left with nothing.

I been watching the Montreal Canadiens for more than 30 years...to me, their demise as a great franchise started way before Marc Bergevin ever became GM.

He's just continued a long standing tradition of bad decisions as GM of this team.

Think about how Poile built his team. He traded an older Erat for a young promising Forsberg, traded an old washed up Weber for a younger Norris defenseman. He needed centers, he went out and got 3. Had we had a better GM we wouldn't even be talking about 2008-2011 right now.

Meh...David Poile made that Erat for Forsberg deal 16yrs after being named General Manager of the Nashville Predators.

I don't need to compare both GM's, we're talking about a guy whose been on the job for as an executive since the mid-80's if i'm not mistaken.

But I totally disagree that if he had a "better GM" we wouldn't even be talking about the 2008-2011 entry drafts...

The entry draft is the lifeline of EVERY team, to go 4 consecutive years with so little NHL talent sourced from a draft is going to have ripple effects on the team down the line.

Trust me - if the only player that ends up being an NHL player from our 2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 draft is say....

Jacob Olofsson...

We are going to be feeling the pain of this in subsequent years

 

[Laurentide]

Nobody should be permitted to use David Poile as an example for others to follow without getting smacked down. The guy is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle yet his newly minted disciples (basically the Subban fanboys club who barely knew who Poile was) are going to anoint him like he's some kind of genius now? Sorry, but Poile's biggest achievement in life was being smart enough to work for franchises that had zero expectations in markets where hockey is largely irrelevant to the local population. When your expectations are low it doesn't take much in the way of actual achievement for people to be pleased with your performance. But we all know that if Poile had ever worked for a franchise that matters, a franchise with actual fans who have actual expectations he'd have been fired after maybe 3 or 4 years max.

 

[Bryson]

I'm not comparing Bergevin to Gainey/Gauthier...so i'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote.

You're making a connection between a fact (bad drafting for 4 CONSECUTIVE YEARS having reverberating effects down the line) and it being an excuse for Bergeving.

I made sure to point out that it's not - but it remains a fact nonetheless.

Because 2008-2011 happened under Gainey/Gauthier's tenure which is what we are comparing. And whether you like it or not, drafting goes hand in hand with development. What you do with those players after you draft them matters...

How does drafting Gallagher in 2010 equate to 4 CONSECUTIVE YEARS of bad drafting? Can you not count or something?

I been watching the Montreal Canadiens for more than 30 years...to me, their demise as a great franchise started way before Marc Bergevin ever became GM.

He's just continued a long standing tradition of bad decisions as GM of this team.

The team was trending upwards under the leadership of Gainey. Gauthier, Gillett and Boivin. Darkest day in Habs history was the day the team was sold back to the Molsons because the team was on the cusp of being a contender.

Meh...David Poile made that Erat for Forsberg deal 16yrs after being named General Manager of the Nashville Predators.

I don't need to compare both GM's, we're talking about a guy whose been on the job for as an executive since the mid-80's if i'm not mistaken.

But I totally disagree that if he had a "better GM" we wouldn't even be talking about the 2008-2011 entry drafts...

The entry draft is the lifeline of EVERY team, to go 4 consecutive years with so little NHL talent sourced from a draft is going to have ripple effects on the team down the line.

Trust me - if the only player that ends up being an NHL player from our 2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 draft is say....

Jacob Olofsson...

We are going to be feeling the pain of this in subsequent years

Yes Poile has been a GM for a long time. It's called experience. When an employer looks at resumes he picks the candidate with the most experience, not least for a reason.

Why are you moving the goalposts to 2017-2020? Why not compare the more palpable 2012-17? What do we have to show for those draft years?

 

[groovejuice]

Sure. Not debating the obvious results. I'm simply suggesting that Molson and Bergevin were on the exact same page. Subban's contract was the major signing that season. Molson and Bergevin probably met dozens of times to discuss what, when, how much, etc. It was summer. What the hell else did they have to discuss? There is no way that at the 11th hour Bergevin went off script and went rogue on Molson. It makes zero sense. The whole mise-en-scene was a typical Jack Todd hysterical misrepresentation.

I have my doubts that Molson was a co-conspirator in trying to hardball Subban after his Norris win. He's a guy who makes decisions based on business, not personal agendas.

There was hardly any positive response, if any, from Bergevin /Therrien after the Norris. They did give the opening night torch to Daniel ******* Briere though. Nice touch.

I think Molson was still delusionally supportive and trusting in Bergevin, but I can't abide by the idea that he was instrumental in the parade of folly and disrespect that emanated from the 2 Stooges.

 

[groovejuice]

Bergevin is probably not the only one on a short leash. Molson is getting pressure from his brothers and the investment group.

The expected blowouts against the Leafs will be legendary. Saturday night at the bell center, poor record and then the Leafs blow us 10-0.



Holy ****, I just checked the schedule for the first time. Did the league help the Habs knowing Weber would be out for the first 50 games? Oddly enough we only go up against the Leafs in the season opener and then not until the 56th game, when Weber will probably be back.

Having Weber back won't change the fortunes of this garbage team, I'm afraid.

I too believe that the ownership group must be pushing Molson. To what degree, we won't know for a while.

 

[Lshap]

I have my doubts that Molson was a co-conspirator in trying to hardball Subban after his Norris win. He's a guy who makes decisions based on business, but personal agendas.

There was hardly any positive response, if any, from Bergevin /Therrien after the Norris. They did give the opening night torch to Daniel ******* Briere though. Nice touch.

I think Molson was still delusionally supportive and trusting in Bergevin, but I can't abide by the idea that he was instrumental in the parade of folly and disrespect that emanated from the 2 Stooges.

Man... this is what it's come to. We're debating which side of the Hindenburg caught fire first.

 

[Bryson]

I have my doubts that Molson was a co-conspirator in trying to hardball Subban after his Norris win. He's a guy who makes decisions based on business, but personal agendas.

There was hardly any positive response, if any, from Bergevin /Therrien after the Norris. They did give the opening night torch to Daniel ******* Briere though. Nice touch.

I think Molson was still delusionally supportive and trusting in Bergevin, but I can't abide by the idea that he was instrumental in the parade of folly and disrespect that emanated from the 2 Stooges.

That was embarrassing! The great francophone hero/savior and elusive #1C that escaped even the clutches of Gainey. What a coup by Bergevin! Thank God they gave the torch to a guy that was gone after one years. At least Subban lasted 4 years under the current regime.