Marc Bergevin: At the End o'da Day

Status
Not open for further replies.

Runner77

**********************************************
Sponsor
Jun 24, 2012
83,292
148,954
I reject the conspiracy theory that Molson is keeping Bergevin to save 5 million a year.

So do I cause it wouldn't just be the $5 million but all the parasites that Bergevin has granted contract extensions and raises, like a drunken sailor -- and who would likely not be retained by a new GM that would typically bring his own trusted circle within the org.

If it were only $5 million, it would barely make a dent.
 

Bryson

#EugeneMolson
Jun 25, 2008
7,113
4,321
Thanks. I agree completely that Molson's totally unqualified to make hockey decisions. That's precisely why it doesn't compute that he's involved in the transactions. I mean... jokes aside here... no owner is dumb enough to treat his billion-dollar organization like a vanity project. The scientists who designed the Space Shuttle let the pilots take them into space; the guys who build medical equipment let the surgeons perform heart surgery. Yeah, the stakes aren't quite as high for a hockey trade, but each wrong move costs millions.

Molson sits on a board of very rich people who take the Montreal Canadiens very seriously -- I can imagine the expressions around the table as he explains how he stepped in, made trades, and neogitated contracts.

You say doesn't compute as it equates to rationality. What part of this organization makes you think it's being run rationally after everything we've seen?

Molson is more than just the owner, he's also the President and CEO. He basically holds the same position as Brendan Shanahan. One of these things is not like that other. Molson does not know the value of money or what it takes to build a billion dollar empire... he inherited it... just like Bergevin doesn't know how to build a team evidenced by the team having gotten worse since the day he inherited it. Regardless of whether Molson is making day to day decisions, he is not qualified to evaluate whether Bergevin is doing a good job or not. The Dunning-Kruger effect is basically when people are too stupid to know that they are too stupid. Both Molson and bergevin are way in over their heads, and if it wasn't clear from day 1 that this would be the case with two individuals with zero experience trying to lead an Empire, then it should be clear as day now.

I can't take you seriously when you say that Molson is on a board of very rich people who take the Montreal Canadiens very seriously, yet on the outside it looks like the franchise is being run like a circus. I wonder how the board of directors feels knowing that Bergevin is running the institution like a retirement home for his buddies and trading the team's best players for pennies on the dollar. It's the equivalent of scolding a child for not doing his homework or cleaning his room but taking him out for ice cream anyways. Where is the accountability?
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
35,310
32,163
Hockey Mecca
For anyone who still doubts how bad Bergevin is, should look at these numbers:

Since everybody always focus on the mistakes done by the GMs, and usually just focus on this, rather than see the full picture, yes yes, we know, all the GMs we've had commited huge mistakes, Serge Savard included.

So what I wanted to know is which GM was the best at acquiring talent, whether through the draft, trades or free agency. Since both Gauthier and Savard did less than 3 years and Houle, Gainey and Bergevin all had more than 6 years, I compiled a top 5 for the formers and a top 10 of the latters of all their best offensive acquisitions and their production with the team.

The number of top 5 and top 10 picks in brackets after the GM's PPG is based on what (drafted by the team) picks were needed to acquire those players.

In italic are players who went on to subsequent Habs management while the bolded are players drafted by the team.

In the last part, you will find total player points and games, both from regular season and the playoffs. After that are listed the assets that were needed to acquire those players through trades.


Houle 0,56 (o top 10 picks)
Souray 168/353
Markov 604/1079
Ryder 215/335
Ribeiro 158/294
Rucinski 300/447
Kovalenko 34/57
Corson 146/257
Richer 55/82
Weinrich 72/203
Zubrus 74/139

1826/3246

Total assets cost : Roy, Keane, Turgeon, Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Odelein, Brown, Mason, Recchi, 1st 1999, Malakhov



Savard 0,58 (0 top 10 picks)
Zednik 199/276
Gilmour 60/143
Plekanec 654/1068
Higgins 162/304
Bulis 138/315

1213/2106

Total assets cost : Linden, Zubrus, 2nd 2001



Gainey 0.64 (1 top 10 picks)
Subban 314/489
Pacioretty 467/664
Cammalleri 148/196
Kovalev 295/347
Streit 113/217
Desharnais 263/473
Tanguay 42/52
Gionta 201/348
Gomez 126/222
Kostitsyn 210/379

2179/3387

Total assets cost : Rivet, Balej, 1st 2008, 2nd 2009 McDonagh, Higgins, Valentenko



Gauthier 0,50 (0 top 10 picks)
Eller 172/472
Cole 67/101
Gallagher 260/446
Wisniewski 32/49
Kaberle 25/52

556/1120

Total assets cost : Halak, Spacek, 2nd 2011



Bergevin 0,51 (1 top3 pick, 1 top 10 pick)
Weber 61/110
Drouin 46/77
Radulov 62/82
Danault 72/161
Galchenyuk 268/446
Weise 69/181
Shaw 49/126
Byron 97/231
Vanek 25/35
Ryder 23/32

837/1636

Total assets cost : Subban, Sergachev, Cole, 2nd 2016, 2nd 2016, 2nd 2014, Weise, Fleishman



Now I know that as far as Bergevin is concerned, more than half of his drafts have not finished their development yet, but we can already see that he has a lot of ground to cover to catch-up on others on the list, and if he does so, chances are it will be because of high draft picks.
 
Last edited:

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
The public wrath that has ensued in the last three years has made it such that ownership can't simply trust Bergevin to take the critical decisions without verifying more closely, asking more questions, resorting to outside sources for validation (eg last year, Geoff was spotted in a restaurant with once at least with someone from the hockey world) .

It's not a matter of dictating but of ensuring that what is being promised, is getting done. How else do you explain that Geoff promised a thorough personnel review that led to some very close personnel to Bergevin getting canned and it got done vs. when Bergevin was asked what would happen in the off season, he said it would just be an annual review "as usual". You will concur that what happened this summer is nothing like what happened in the prior off seasons under Bergevin.

So I'm led to believe that Geoff has input in the decision-making -- if he wants a "no stones left unturned" personnel review, then he's going to get one.

Now, as to why Geoff is doing this, my theory is simple. There is too much term left in Bergevin's contract and ownership doesn't want to eat it. So ownership is punting it forward, perhaps hoping to burn off another year before making a move. Just my opinion.
I disagree. I don't think he's having much influence. Personnel change, yea, that was obviously coming.
You miss the POs 2/3 years. Your AHL guys made the POs once, only thanks to the change of PO format. Someone needs to go.
Couple years ago it was Therrien. It wasn't going to be Julien this year. Not Bergevin either....so who else? Well, change of assistant here and the staff in the A.

Molson has input...sure. A GM won't give 84M contracts away without the approval of the president/owner.
But Bergey has the trust of Molson, otherwise he's the one that would have been fired.
Again, makes no sense for Molson to sabotage his own business just to save 5m over next couple season.
If that wasn't obvious enough, we also have proof Molson is totally fine eating salary as he's done it with Therrien, Sly.
So really there is no reason for anybody to believe Molson is keeping him around because he doesn't want to buy him out.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
So do I cause it wouldn't just be the $5 million but all the parasites that Bergevin has granted contract extensions and raises, like a drunken sailor -- and who would likely not be retained by a new GM that would typically bring his own trusted circle within the org.

If it were only $5 million, it would barely make a dent.
Not necessarily, and really, how much is Marty Lapointe or the likes making?
Also, if Molson is keeping him around because cost of changing is too high, why does he let him bring in New coaches that maybe the eventual new GM would not be for.
It doesn't stick mate. Molson still believes in Bergevin.
 

LyricalLyricist

Registered User
Aug 21, 2007
37,909
5,814
Montreal
Bergevin is Molson's puppet, that's why he's not fired. How can you fire a guy for doing what you ask?

MB is big time CYOA and he gets everyone involved in a decision, Molson included. This way when the decision is made Molson knew and agreed from the start.

This doesn't include minor stuff but big stuff I'm sure Molson was well aware and gave the go.
 

Runner77

**********************************************
Sponsor
Jun 24, 2012
83,292
148,954
Not necessarily, and really, how much is Marty Lapointe or the likes making?
Also, if Molson is keeping him around because cost of changing is too high, why does he let him bring in New coaches that maybe the eventual new GM would not be for.
It doesn't stick mate. Molson still believes in Bergevin.

Last summer, Bergevin showered several high management types with promotions, raises and extensions. All of these individuals would have to be sacked if the GM is fired. It's a commitment that goes well beyond $5M. While I don't buy the argument that "Molson is cheap", I do think that from a business perspective, there is a breaking point and I'm not sure that ownership is willing to embark on that route just yet. Again, just my take. I'm speculating like everyone else.
 
Last edited:

Habs

We should have drafted Michkov
Feb 28, 2002
20,946
14,144
Its obvious the people here don't reflect the feeling of the average Hab fan. The rink will still be full, and the concessions packed.

They aren't getting my money this year, I wish the fans would get together and boycott a couple games, until little Goeffy gets the message. Let the team go 5 home games with 60% capacity, even the head dunce can't ignore it.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Last summer, Bergevin showered several high management types with promotions, raises and extensions. All of these individuals would have to be sacked if the GM is fired. It's a commitment that goes well beyond $5M. While I don't buy the argument that "Molson is cheap", I do think that from a business perspective, there is a breaking point and I'm not sure that ownership is willing to embark on that route just yet. Again, just my take. I'm speculating like everyone else.

I think it's a stretch, a big one. Molson isn't going to keep someone he deems as an incompetent GM just because he might have to fire guys like Lapointe, Carriere, couple scouts, and whatnot if he hired someone new.
The reprecussions of keeping Bergevin and letting him do trades like Drouin for Serge, Domi for Galch, Subban for Weber, and leading your team into 2/3 missed POs and very likely heading towards a 3rd in 4 years are incredibly more damaging than having to fire a bunch of staff. Not to mention, you are letting him bring in new staff again. Why in the hell would you do that if you don't trust him and are just waiting for his contract to end so you can bring a new guy in?
Really doesn't add up to me.

If Molson does not trust Bergevin, then he would fire him, or at the very least, he would hire someone he does have faith in to surpervise Bergevin.
The fact we still just have a Molson-Bergevin tandem and still see moves like trading a goal scorer for one who just put up 9g, one that has Bergevin written all over it, shows me Bergevin is still very much in charge and has Molson's backing.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Its obvious the people here don't reflect the feeling of the average Hab fan. The rink will still be full, and the concessions packed.

They aren't getting my money this year, I wish the fans would get together and boycott a couple games, until little Goeffy gets the message. Let the team go 5 home games with 60% capacity, even the head dunce can't ignore it.
I don't think the rink will be full. I think you'll see a lot of empty seats as you did last season.
I mean...60% capacity...You're talking Panthers or Arizona territory. That will never happen as we are talking about Montreal here. An 80% attendance in Montreal is what would be considered bad.
I think Molson already noticed and can't ignore. If things don't improve next season, I think he'll do a restructure.
 

Runner77

**********************************************
Sponsor
Jun 24, 2012
83,292
148,954
I think it's a stretch, a big one. Molson isn't going to keep someone he deems as an incompetent GM just because he might have to fire guys like Lapointe, Carriere, couple scouts, and whatnot if he hired someone new.
The reprecussions of keeping Bergevin and letting him do trades like Drouin for Serge, Domi for Galch, Subban for Weber, and leading your team into 2/3 missed POs and very likely heading towards a 3rd in 4 years are incredibly more damaging than having to fire a bunch of staff. Not to mention, you are letting him bring in new staff again. Why in the hell would you do that if you don't trust him and are just waiting for his contract to end so you can bring a new guy in?
Really doesn't add up to me.

If Molson does not trust Bergevin, then he would fire him, or at the very least, he would hire someone he does have faith in to surpervise Bergevin.
The fact we still just have a Molson-Bergevin tandem and still see moves like trading a goal scorer for one who just put up 9g, one that has Bergevin written all over it, shows me Bergevin is still very much in charge and has Molson's backing.

I don't think it's a stretch. I heard a pundit say that it would cost in the neighborhood of $45 million for the Habs to clean house on their management. That's no drop in the bucket.

My contention had to do with how the firings of this off season are very clearly consistent with what Geoff Molson has promised and not the routine annual review that Bergevin downplayed. Ducharme and Bouchard are not typical Bergevin hirings when you look at Bergevin's track record and the type of individuals he tends to surround himself with (players that played with him or in his era). Given the foregoing, it doesn't look to me that Bergevin brought in new staff on his own. Plus, Bergevin never fired anyone in the prior 5 off seasons.

I don't know what prompted the Galchenyuk trade but would not be surprised if ownership obtained outside feedback, just like businessmen typically do in the corporate world during difficult times. I think Bergevin's leash got a lot shorter since last season and there appears to me that ownership has been more hands-on since, both by their declarations via Geoff Molson which have been the most far-reaching in 6 years and by the actual personnel moves that were made this off season.
 

Bryson

#EugeneMolson
Jun 25, 2008
7,113
4,321
I couldn't believe it either. Wish I had the breakdown.

I mean there has to be a reason why Bergevin is still employed and that's about a good a reason as I have heard. It's can't be just because of 5 million or because Molson still trusts him out of some undisclosed loyalty, no sane person could actually believe that Bergevin is actually doing a good job. But 45 big ones? Yep that'll do it. There has to be a cost ratio where firing Bergevin is deemed more expensive than keeping him. Molson is probably looking to ride out some bad years while drafting high, while also eating away a few more years of bergevin's contract before bringing in new management. I guess Molson doesn't see the benefit of bringing in new management during a rebuilding phase if they are going to lose anyways.

"Follow the money" is a catchphrase popularized by the 1976 drama-documentary motion picture All The President's Men, which suggests a money trail or corruption scheme within high (often political) office and has been the mantra for possible political and big business shenanigans .
 
Last edited:

justafan22

Registered User
Jun 22, 2014
11,629
6,249
I mean there has to be a reason why Bergevin is still employed and that's about a good a reason as I have heard. It's can't be just because of 5 million or because Molson still trusts him out of some undisclosed loyalty, no sane person could actually believe that Bergevin is actually doing a good job. But 45 big ones? Yep that'll do it. There has to be a cost ratio where firing Bergevin is deemed more expensive than keeping him. Molson is probably looking to ride out some bad years while drafting high, while also eating away a few more years of bergevin's contract before bringing in new management. I guess Molson doesn't see the benefit of bringing in new management during a rebuilding phase if they are going to lose anyways.

All those purple pants cost that much eh?
 

Lshap

Hardline Moderate
Jun 6, 2011
27,274
24,845
Montreal
You say doesn't compute as it equates to rationality. What part of this organization makes you think it's being run rationally after everything we've seen?
Believe it or not, lots of completely rational people are bad at their jobs.

Molson is more than just the owner, he's also the President and CEO. He basically holds the same position as Brendan Shanahan. One of these things is not like that other. Molson does not know the value of money or what it takes to build a billion dollar empire... he inherited it... just like Bergevin doesn't know how to build a team evidenced by the team having gotten worse since the day he inherited it. Regardless of whether Molson is making day to day decisions, he is not qualified to evaluate whether Bergevin is doing a good job or not. The Dunning-Kruger effect is basically when people are too stupid to know that they are too stupid. Both Molson and bergevin are way in over their heads, and if it wasn't clear from day 1 that this would be the case with two individuals with zero experience trying to lead an Empire, then it should be clear as day now.

I can't take you seriously when you say that Molson is on a board of very rich people who take the Montreal Canadiens very seriously, yet on the outside it looks like the franchise is being run like a circus. I wonder how the board of directors feels knowing that Bergevin is running the institution like a retirement home for his buddies and trading the team's best players for pennies on the dollar. It's the equivalent of scolding a child for not doing his homework or cleaning his room but taking him out for ice cream anyways. Where is the accountability?
Do you think the board of directors is sitting around fuming over player trades? They don't give a damn about PK Subban, Alex Galchenyuk, etc. Their job is ensuring the profitability of the organization, not playing armchair GM. Goals, assists and wins count only to the extent they translate to gate and licensing. Yeah, a better team equals better revenues. No kidding. But the (mostly) guys around the big table understand the ebbs and flows of pro sports teams. Yes, ultimately Molson will be held accountable, but not for the micro-dramas we discuss on this board.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,157
25,911
East Coast
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.

So in 2012 we had an average drafting results from the 5 years prior? I thought you were on the bandwagon where Bergevin inherited a great core? Where was the centers? The point about the 2007 draft vs the 4 after is one draft year don't give you an excuse or pass for the next 4 years. The results from those 4 years are huge holes in our line-up today and in the past 5 or 6 seasons. Pretty sure we agree that there are missing holes in our lineup right?

Now you can criticize Bergevin for his ability to make trades or sign UFA players to fill those holes. However, we know today that after Price, Subban, Patch, Gallagher, the young core in 2012 was terrible after that. It has a lot to do with only 8 top 100 picks in those 4 previous years as well and combined with two 1st round busts. It was a disaster 4 year span and blame whoever you want. My point is just looking at the actual circumstances. it's not an attempt to defend Bergevin, it's looking at it fairly. I loved Gainey as our GM but I have no problem talking about both the positives and negatives of his tenure.

Now go ahead and focus on me cherry picking and not realizing the point again cause you hate Bergevin and there is nothing anybody can say except negative things about him.
 
Last edited:

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,463
Ottawa
Lmao brings up Gallagher... continues to claim habs had 4 CONSECUTIVE bad drafts... ok.
ONE player making it out of 25 is NOT GOOD

it's shocking to me that this has to be explained to you.

No 1st in 2008 because Gainey, the city, the team and us fans went all-in in 2008 for the centennial and for all intents and purposes Habs could have done some damage if not for injuries.
This probably marks around the time you were allowed to start watching hockey...

That's great and all, they didn't have a 1st round pick in 2008...it's not an excuse for not drafting ONE SINGLE PLAYER out of that 2008 draft.

Kristo, Qualier, Missiaen, Trunev and Johnson.

You wouldn't accept it if I was making excuses for Bergevin...stop making excuses for other GM's because you like them better.

Beaulieu, Tinordi, Pateryn, Nygren were all traded or lost for scraps and that doesn't include the complete botch job of trading a Norris Trophy defenseman but somehow we are led to believe that some hypothetical draft picks from 2008-2011 were supposed to be the cornerstone of this franchise and kept them from completely sucking LMAO!! You actually believe this nonsense?
No, actually I don't...this is just another one of those 417 fantasies you've dreamed up

The only thing extra daft picks/prospects would have done is give Bergevin more cannon fodder to throw down the drain in the ol' proverbial garbage disposal.
I didn't talk about acquiring extra draft picks...

I just talked about hitting on more than 1 draft pick out of 25 drafted players.

What's next? You're just one step away from blaming Bergevin's failed 7 year tenure on the loss of McDonagh. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
You just don't get it eh?

It doesn't matter how many times I explain to you that this is NOT about making excuses for Bergevin...the 2008-2011 drafts are NOT excuses for Marc Bergevin not succeeding at his job.

Do you understand those words? Read them slowly....

But to completely dismiss that as a factor for where the organization is at today, is just plain dumb. It has nothing to do with the identity of the General Manager.

The Montreal Canadiens performance at the draft table between 2008-2011 was TERRIBLE...and that FACT can remain completely independent of Marc Bergevin's performance as a GM in the subsequent years.

Stop trying to make a link between both and then trying to pass it off as my doing. Those 2 things are completely independent from each other for me.

Grow the **** up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->