Marc Bergevin: Draft? Edition (XIV)

[Habs Halifax]

Chara was 41 years old when he finally was offered a performance contract. Why Markov should settle for a performance contract when at the time he was 37 years old?

Chara had a salary of 5m + 1,25m if he played 10 games.

Markov for all we know got a pretty insulting low ball offer.

I’m pretty sure he would have settled for a Chara like contract if the numbers were correct. He was never greedy for money during his tenure with us, I don’t quite understand why he would start getting greedy at the end of his career.

People forget but a washed up Markov was the 2nd leading point scorer among defensemen around 25 games into his last season with us.

Why should he settle for a performance contract that was likely a low ball offer from Bergevin when he wasn’t even 40 years old and was still producing points like a #1 defensemen?

I’m sure he has some regrets alright, he should have bitch slap Bergevin when he came with that contract.

Timing of when Chara ended his contract vs Markov. It's not exactly the same. Chara took the base plus performance contract in 18/19 when his contract expired. It don't mean that if his contract expired at the same point of Markov, he wouldn't have taken a base plus performance.

Markov had a hard time playing a full season and he clearly was out of gas in that playoffs. It was time for him to be a bit humbled and take the base plus performance contract. If he was as good as he and our fans think... then he easily gets his $6M. Hate Bergevin all you want... he was not wrong with offering $4M plus $2M in performance bonuses (as an example).

Markov went from 50 pts, 44 pts, and 36. Still was effective in his later 30's but heading into his age 38/39 season when he had 3 years in a row of production drop off.

 

[the]

Timing of when Chara ended his contract vs Markov. It's not exactly the same. Chara took the base plus performance contract in 18/19 when his contract expired. It don't mean that if his contract expired at the same point of Markov, he wouldn't have taken a base plus performance.

Markov had a hard time playing a full season and he clearly was out of gas in that playoffs. It was time for him to be a bit humbled and take the base plus performance contract. If he was as good as he and our fans think... then he easily gets his $6M. Hate Bergevin all you want... he was not wrong with offering $4M plus $2M in performance bonuses (as an example).

Markov went from 50 pts, 44 pts, and 36. Still was effective in his later 30's but heading into his age 38/39 season when he had 3 years in a row of production drop off.

Chara got 5m + 1.2m if he played 10 games...I don’t call this much of a performance bonus.

Give this contract to Markov and I’m sure he would have signed with us.

Again why should Markov be getting dicked around and treated like a rookie that needs to prove himself when he was pretty much outproducing the likes of Weber and Subban during his last season.

If he wasn’t injured, he probably would have gotten 45 points. So last 3 seasons 50 points, 44 points, 45 points. His numbers were pretty consistent if you ask me, I don’t see a huge production dropoff.

Sure he did slow down and defensively he wasn’t the same. A decline was inevitable but when Bergevin goes and offer a scrub like Karl Alzner 4.6m, I think Markov had all the reason in the world to demand 6m.

This is 100% on Bergevin. There’s no way that anybody is going to convince me that a loyal player like Markov was being unreasonable here.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Chara got 5m + 1.2m if he played 10 games...I don’t call this much of a performance bonus.

Give this contract to Markov and I’m sure he would have signed with us.

Again why should Markov be getting dicked around and treated like a rookie that needs to prove himself when he was pretty much outproducing the likes of Weber and Subban during his last season.

If he wasn’t injured, he probably would have gotten 45 points. So last 3 seasons 50 points, 44 points, 45 points. His numbers were pretty consistent if you ask me, I don’t see a huge production dropoff.

Sure he did slow down and defensively he wasn’t the same. A decline was inevitable but when Bergevin goes and offer a scrub like Karl Alzner 4.6m, I think Markov had all the reason in the world to demand 6m.

This is 100% on Bergevin. There’s no way that anybody is going to convince me that a loyal player like Markov was being unreasonable here.

This is not 100% on Bergevin. Markov could have taken $4M and $2M in performance bonuses for his age 38/39 season... especially with drops in production and games played from his age 36/37 and 37/38 seasons

You are going to have to give me something I don't know to change my mind and I am fully aware of the details of that horrible 2017 off season

 

[Runner77]

- Sergachev was underperforming as a prospect at the time, and he might not have turned out as good if developed by the Habs;

Would Sergachev not have benefited from the likes of Bouchard and Ducharme? I can't get myself to accept this line of thought as "what if" scenarios are fraught with a host of assumptions. Ultimately, you have to look at the player, his character, his talent and that's what prevails.

Look at Suzuki -- did the Habs current staff prevent him from evolving? Same staff would have been coaching Sergachev, so I'll be on the side of those who believe it's a not a prevailing factor.

 

[Runner77]

This is not 100% on Bergevin.

Nothing rarely ever is on one party alone.

95%?

 

[Habs Halifax]

Nothing rarely ever is on one party alone.

95%?

50/50 fault IMO lol... on the Markov situation anyways. With Radulov, he let him walk over $1M AAV and he had the cap space. I don't believe Bergevin was wrong by trying to push the base plus performance contract for the 38 year old who had slipped in numbers and games played

 

[Runner77]

50/50 fault IMO lol... on the Markov situation anyways. With Radulov, he let him walk over $1M AAV and he had the cap space. I don't believe Bergevin was wrong by trying to push the base plus performance contract for the 38 year old who had slipped in numbers and games played

I think you're being quite generous with Bergevin.

He massively mishandled Markov and Radulov. He called them out and berated them in public -- negotiations should never come to that when you're looking to sow good will.

Since we're not losing Bergevin any time soon, the only remnant from those failed outcomes is experience and hoping he doesn't resort to those tactics again. Ultimately, he is who he is, I'm not convinced he's capable of adapting extensively.

 

[the]

This is not 100% on Bergevin. Markov could have taken $4M and $2M in performance bonuses for his age 38/39 season... especially with drops in production and games played from his age 36/37 and 37/38 seasons

You are going to have to give me something I don't know to change my mind and I am fully aware of the details of that horrible 2017 off season

The issue here is what would be does performance bonus? Is it a performance bonus like Chara? Play 10 games and here’s your money? This is not much of a performance bonus in my book and if it was the case I think Markov would have taken that contract.

Bergevin in my opinion offered Markov a lowball offer, Markov told him to shove it and rightfully so.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think you're being quite generous with Bergevin.

He massively mishandled Markov and Radulov. He called them out and berated them in public -- negotiations should never come to that when you're looking for sow good will.

Since we're not losing Bergevin any time soon, the only remnant from those failed outcomes is experience and hoping he doesn't resort to those tactics again. Ultimately, he is who he is, I'm not convinced he's capable of adapting extensively.

In Markov's case no. In Radulov's case yes. I also don't like the Alzner signing and giving Price whatever he wanted. Protecting Benn?

I'm willing to look at the context of each case and that 2017 off season was a disaster. I just don't see Bergevin wrong at trying to push the base plus performance bonuses on the 38/39 year old Markov. What I don't like is he signed Alzner to 5 year term and probably avoided talking to Markov afterwards. I can see Bergevin doing that to him which was wrong

 

[1909]

I'll said it again.

The worst thing was to give 2 x 2nd for Shaw when Teravainen and Bickell (cap dump) were traded for a 2nd and 3rd.

I see to recall that Timmins was high on Teravainen and he was only 21 years old...

Those two second-rounders could had been DeBrincat and Girard.... OUCH !

 

[DAChampion]

Would Sergachev not have benefited from the likes of Bouchard and Ducharme? I can't get myself to accept this line of thought as "what if" scenarios are fraught with a host of assumptions. Ultimately, you have to look at the player, his character, his talent and that's what prevails.

Look at Suzuki -- did the Habs current staff prevent him from evolving? Same staff would have been coaching Sergachev, so I'll be on the side of those who believe it's a not a prevailing factor.

We don't know that Sergachev would have gone through Bouchard.

Mete didn't.

 

[Runner77]

The issue here is what would be does performance bonus? Is it a performance bonus like Chara? Play 10 games and here’s your money? This is not much of a performance bonus in my book and if it was the case I think Markov would have taken that contract.

Bergevin in my opinion offered Markov a lowball offer, Markov told him to shove it and rightfully so.

Bergevin used the same hardball approach with Radulov at the time, so it's quite plausible. He also pitted both players against each other in a cheap, public stunt.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The issue here is what would be does performance bonus? Is it a performance bonus like Chara? Play 10 games and here’s your money? This is not much of a performance bonus in my book and if it was the case I think Markov would have taken that contract.

Bergevin in my opinion offered Markov a lowball offer, Markov told him to shove it and rightfully so.

Hard to say. All we know is the base plus performance was offered. I believe Bergevin said that to the media and it makes sense. It was probably games played and pts.

Lets say Bergevin gives him $6M for one year and Markov plays less games and has more drop in production in his age 38/39 season? What do Habs fans say then? Bergevein was an idiot for giving into Markov's demands? I don't believe Bergevin was wrong for pushing the base plus performance but you brought up a good point about what is the performance targets. We can't debate that cause we don't know?

 

[Runner77]

We don't know that Sergachev would have gone through Bouchard.

Mete didn't.

We don't know that he wouldn't, either. I think talent of that caliber normally rises to the top. This whole idea that if he were developed as a Hab would not have inhibited his talent and natural ability.

Suzuki didn't go through Bouchard. How is that turning out?

 

[Habs Halifax]

Those two second-rounders could had been DeBrincat and Girard.... OUCH !

Bergevin is guilty of being aggressive trying to find a RW when we had to use Weise in our top 6 RW in previous seasons remember? I think we even tried Weise on our PP back when. Pretty sure most remember this

The idea of trading two 2nd's was not wrong. What was wrong was picking Shaw over Eller and not DD. He thought he could exchange two 2nd's and walk out the same after the Eller trade. It back fired on him

 

[DAChampion]

We don't know that he wouldn't, either. I think talent of that caliber normally rises to the top. This whole idea that if he were developed as a Hab would not have inhibited his talent and natural ability.

Suzuki didn't go through Bouchard. How is that turning out?

Suzuki got two full years of junior and was more ready.

Sergachev needed to be sheltered at first in Tampa.

 

[Runner77]

In Markov's case no. In Radulov's case yes. I also don't like the Alzner signing and giving Price whatever he wanted. Protecting Benn?

I'm willing to look at the context of each case and that 2017 off season was a disaster. I just don't see Bergevin wrong at trying to push the base plus performance bonuses on the 38/39 year old Markov. What I don't like is he signed Alzner to 5 year term and probably avoided talking to Markov afterwards. I can see Bergevin doing that to him which was wrong

I think Bergevin's mistake about Markov happened at the start of his tenure. He had several years to plan for a replacement and didn't. There is no way he should have been playing hardball when he lacked a Plan B on first pairing D. Markov was fairly advanced in age by the time he was due for a new deal and not as effective -- but, Bergevin still had no one in tow, no one to groom, no one to take his place. We still don't have that bona fide first pairing D on the left side. It's a gross mismanagement of assets.

It was so badly mismanaged that Bergevin, in a panic move, rushed to sign Alzner and as I recall, he largely negotiated against himself by offered more than he needed to, in order to sign him. Alzner jumped early for a reason. If Bergevin had been paying attention to the way Alzner had been used in the season prior to becoming a UFA, he would have found out how much the player had slowed and he was thought of so little, that he was benched during several games of the playoffs.

 

[Runner77]

Suzuki got two full years of junior and was more ready.

Sergachev needed to be sheltered at first in Tampa.

Again, no one knows how he might have developed here. I just can't buy into these suppositions as the only prevailing aspects that are a constant, are the talent and character of the player -- I believe those types of attributes play well anywhere and cream always rises to the top.

 

[Runner77]

We don't know that Sergachev would have gone through Bouchard.

Mete didn't.

Mete is irrelevant. He's nowhere close to Sergachev in terms of talent and ceiling. Mete is a third pairing D, has limited offensive ability and is not physical.

Sergachev is in a whole other class.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think Bergevin's mistake about Markov happened at the start of his tenure. He had several years to plan for a replacement and didn't. There is no way he should have been playing hardball when he lacked a Plan B on first pairing D. Markov was fairly advanced in age by the time he was due for a new deal and not as effective -- but, Bergevin still had no one in tow, no one to groom, no one to take his place. We still don't have that bona fide first pairing D on the left side. It's a gross mismanagement of assets.

It was so badly mismanaged that Bergevin, in a panic move, rushed to sign Alzner and as I recall, he largely negotiated against himself by offered more than he needed to, in order to sign him. Alzner jumped early for a reason. If Bergevin had been paying attention to the way Alzner had been used in the season prior to becoming a UFA, he would have found out how much the player had slowed and he was thought of so little, that he was benched during several games of the playoffs.

Beaulieu and Tinordi busting is Bergevin's mistake? Nah... I think Bergevin's mistake was not doing a proper rebuild in 2012 and selling on Markov and Pleky and building around Price, Subban, Patch, 3rd OA (busted yes but not a bad plan). We would have had a 5 year span with more top 10 picks and a better prospect pool (Markov and Pleky returns) vs division wins and 15+ 1st round picks cause we kept Markov and Pleky. Moving Markov and Pleky back when would have been much easier than moving Price and Weber today.

Bergevin made lots of mistakes and he trended low in the middle span years of his 8 year tenure. But not every signal decision he made was horrible. Pushing for a base plus performance contract on Markov when he was 38/39 heading into his next contract and he had drops in both games played and production was not a bad decision or strategy. Markov should have hired an agent to keep the relationship from going sour. Maybe Bergevin should have given him more respect after he signed Alzner. Markov probably takes his deal if they stayed in contact all summer but they didn't. Markov is on record saying it. Lots of blame to go around there and a part of it is Markov being his own agent

 

[Runner77]

Beaulieu and Tinordi busting is Bergevin's mistake? Nah... I think Bergevin's mistake was not doing a proper rebuild in 2012 and selling on Markov and Pleky and building around Price, Subban, Patch, 3rd OA (busted yes but not a bad plan). We would have had a 5 year span with more top 10 picks and a better prospect pool (Markov and Pleky returns) vs division wins and 15+ 1st round picks cause we kept Markov and Pleky. Moving Markov and Pleky back when would have been much easier than moving Price and Weber today.

Bergevin made lots of mistakes and he trended low in the middle span years of his 8 year tenure. But not every signal decision he made was horrible. Pushing for a base plus performance contract on Markov when he was 38/39 heading into his next contract and he had drops in both games played and production was not a bad decision or strategy. Markov should have hired an agent to keep the relationship from going sour. Maybe Bergevin should have given him more respect after he signed Alzner. Markov probably takes his deal if they stayed in contact all summer but they didn't. Markov is on record saying it. Lots of blame to go around there and a part of it is Markov being his own agent

I think Beaulieu and Tinordi were misevaluated. Markov could have been had, he confirmed that Bergevin had made the negotiations personal to such an extent that even when Markov told him he'd accept a one-year deal, Bergevin said no.

Of course not every decision Bergevin made was horrible -- it's par for the course when you make a lot of moves, percentages say you will win some. I just don't think Bergevin was very apt at setting up a viable plan, too much improvisation, surrounded himself with too many incompetents, held on to them for too long, every one of his cronies received extensions, promotions and/or raises. For what exactly? Was there an objective assessment of performance? How many key assets did he poach from other organizations?

Just look at what Bergevin keeps spewing -- he wants to build through the draft on one side of his mouth while proclaiming that he wants to vye for the playoffs at the same time, with the other. And he adds "anything can happen" for good measure. How are we better off now with this kind of thinking?

Markov was just an example of how Bergevin operates. Get on his bad side and he'll hunt you down. Unfortunately, this type of stuff mostly happens with his better players. We're not better off with Bergevin still at the helm and continuing to make several of the same mistakes that he has since the start of his tenure, all thanks to a very complacent and irrational ownership group. It's the perfect storm of ineptitude and there is no sign of breaking away from it while these same actors remain in place.

Anyhow, I already know I won't convince you of anything so I won't even try, I'm just stating my opinion and will leave it at that. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think Beaulieu and Tinordi were misevaluated. Markov could have been had, he confirmed that Bergevin had made the negotiations personal to such an extent that even when Markov told him he'd accept a one-year deal, Bergevin said no.

Of course not every decision Bergevin made was horrible -- it's par for the course when you make a lot of moves, percentages say you will win some. I just don't think Bergevin was very apt at setting up a viable plan, too much improvisation, surrounded himself with too many incompetents, held on to them for too long, every one of his cronies received extensions, promotions and/or raises. For what exactly? Was there an objective assessment of performance? How many key assets did he poach from other organizations?

Just look at what Bergevin keeps spewing -- he wants to build through the draft on one side of his mouth while proclaiming that he wants to vye for the playoffs at the same time, with the other. And he adds "anything can happen" for good measure. How are we better off now with this kind of thinking?

Markov was just an example of how Bergevin operates. Get on his bad side and he'll hunt you down. Unfortunately, this type of stuff mostly happens with his better players. We're not better off with Bergevin still at the helm and continuing to make several of the same mistakes that he has since the start of his tenure, all thanks to a very complacent and irrational ownership group. It's the perfect storm of ineptitude and there is no sign of breaking away from it while these same actors remain in place.

Anyhow, I already know I won't convince you of anything so I won't even try, I'm just stating my opinion and will leave it at that. We'll agree to disagree.

It's all good. We both see things similar and different. We are just not on the exact same page as to all the good and bad moves.

 

[WeThreeKings]

When all your prospects look worse after spending time with your AHL development team, it's on the GM.

He held no one accountable for that stretch for 7 years. That is all blood on his hands. He clearly didnt have an issue with their performance at the scouting table or in the AHL.

 

[Runner77]

When all your prospects look worse after spending time with your AHL development team, it's on the GM.

He held no one accountable for that stretch for 7 years. That is all blood on his hands. He clearly didnt have an issue with their performance at the scouting table or in the AHL.

Biggest farce was when Geoff made announcements during that season where Price was hurt that no stone would be left unturned and how there would be a complete evaluation of every position in the organization. And he stated emphatically, how all of it was "unacceptable."

Once the off season came, we found out that even if the results were unacceptable, it was nonetheless acceptable to ownership that the architect of the failures that led to that disastrous season, would be the one who would be put in charge of turning over the stones and replacing some of the deadwood while at no time being at risk to lose his job. This is how Geoff deals with failure. And so it continues until his next pseudo outburst for the cameras.

 

[DAChampion]

Again, no one knows how he might have developed here. I just can't buy into these suppositions as the only prevailing aspects that are a constant, are the talent and character of the player -- I believe those types of attributes play well anywhere and cream always rises to the top.

Talent and certainly character are not constants, and the cream only rarely rises to the top.