Marc Bergevin: Even a broken clock is right twice a day Edition

[Kriss E]

Yet oddly enough - between you and I, you're the only who has qualified that negotiation as an unmitigated disaster from Bergevin's point of view.

So which is?

On one hand, you've stated several times Bergevin is to blame...

On the other, you said no one has any idea of what was said during negotiations (which I agree with, hence why i've SPECULATED).

So of course you're not going to play the speculation game, until it's convenient for your argument. When it's not, you tell me to stop speculating.

Shocking stuff.

Exhibit A of what I was just referring too...you don't want to play the speculation game.

Until it's convenient and it's always convenient to throw shade at the GM isn't it?


I'm speculating based on the information I have available - just like you did.

Why are you allowed to work under different rules than I?

I also haven't made a "bunch" of speculations...I made exactly ONE.

That a player who publicly stated he felt disrespected, MAY have felt so because he negotiated the deal himself. This is what I think may have transpired, I never stated it is a fact, it's what I think based on the information I have.

I don't see what's so outlandish about that. It seems like a reasonable conclusion (which doesn't indicate it is fact btw) based on his comments.

Honestly - you could have saved us both a lot of time by just saying.

You're allowed to speculate and i'm not.

You didn't answer my question.
What do you think Bergevin said to Markov that hurt his feelings so much he didn't sign his contract that could have been avoided were he to have an agent.
Can you give me something here? What's this terribly insulting argument used that an agent would have prevented Markov from hearing?

Shouldn't you be asking YOURSELF that question since you're the one who has contended that Bergevin ****ed up negotiations because Markov felt disrespected?

I didn't contend that, Markov is the one who said that. He said he felt disrespected.
Bergevin publicly stated Radu and Markov need to race for a contract.
You say that, live on TV, about a career long Habs. Can't even lock him up for 2 years but you sign Alzner on day one and guarantee him more offer than to Markov?..loll...
So to me, it's quite obvious that Bergevin acted like an ass clown, hearing him on TV was more than enough proof.
Not to you though...for you...you think Markov not having an agent is what caused Markov's feelings to get hurt. So I ask you...what do you think was said in the meetings that hurt Markov so much he'd walk away from Mtl.

It's clear to pretty much everyone here that Bergevin screwed up Markov negos. It's almost unanimous. This isn't just me.

 

[Kriss E]

I find the 'dumb luck' argument unconvincing. The obvious rebuttal: if Bergevin's good moves are due to dumb luck, then his bad moves can be dismissed as bad luck. Fairer to say it was the same evaluation process that chose well with Domi, Tatar, Radulov, etc. just as they blew it with Alzner, Hemsky, Semin, etc. Credit -- and blame -- where it's due.

The less obvious rebuttal: do we know which UFAs were approached by which GM? Of course not. Every GM had a list of UFAs to pursue. We just have no idea who was on those lists. So what makes the Radulov/Lucic negotiations any different or luckier than the hundreds of other UFA talks going on behind the scenes?

Dumb luck comes from a player becoming way player than they expected. A guy like Drouin, you know they expected him to do quite well seeing how they locked him up longterm right away.
Domi...they cheaply bridged him. They had no clue he'd be as good.

 

[Whitesnake]

Dumb luck comes from a player becoming way player than they expected. A guy like Drouin, you know they expected him to do quite well seeing how they locked him up longterm right away.
Domi...they cheaply bridged him. They had no clue he'd be as good.

I think it's more fair to praise good moves and blame bad ones. No matter how lucky we think it was. 'Cause in the end, he still made it. He still thought he was getting the upper hand. That much? Surely not. But it was safe to think that he would do better than what he did in Arizona.

In the end though, Bergevin is still a bad GM with more worst than good. But not giving him his good, is like the ones who just couldn't admit he was wrong.

 

[Kriss E]

I think it's more fair to praise good moves and blame bad ones. No matter how lucky we think it was. 'Cause in the end, he still made it. He still thought he was getting the upper hand. That much? Surely not. But it was safe to think that he would do better than what he did in Arizona.

In the end though, Bergevin is still a bad GM with more worst than good. But not giving him his good, is like the ones who just couldn't admit he was wrong.

I agree..they still targeted Domi and made the deal. Just saying, we know they had their doubts as to how good he'd become due to the bridge deal. We know Bergevin skipped bridge deals on guys he was sold on, Gallagher and Drouin are two examples.

 

[BLONG7]

I think it's more fair to praise good moves and blame bad ones. No matter how lucky we think it was. 'Cause in the end, he still made it. He still thought he was getting the upper hand. That much? Surely not. But it was safe to think that he would do better than what he did in Arizona.

In the end though, Bergevin is still a bad GM with more worst than good. But not giving him his good, is like the ones who just couldn't admit he was wrong.

The biggest issue here is, it is beyond bad, on how MB has made so many poor errors in judgements, that yes he is going to get some right now and then, but so many bad ones that he does not deserve to stay there, and continue this poor performance, on future deals/judgments. As the thread says........broken clock syndrome. It is beyond frustrating and tiresome.

 

[Rapala]

16-17 - If you're a fan of Weber trade + getting Radu, then Yes.

The Subban for Weber straight up has to be a loss regardless of Weber's play either way. Getting Radu and then not understanding he had attributes we hadn't seen in decades here and not signing him long before he became UFA was a monumental fail. How is it possible to give Plek a deal the year previous like candy from Daddy and not offer Radu something similar given what he brought us most nights is still a head shaker.

 

[Rapala]

Shouldn't you be asking YOURSELF that question since you're the one who has contended that Bergevin ****ed up negotiations because Markov felt disrespected?

So did you approve of the contract he handed out to Plek two months into his show me year?

Not giving Markov a bone KNOWING that he gave us more than Plek ever did and KNOWING he was just shy of his 1000 games was pure unadulterated shit. That my friend is disrespect in it's highest form.

 

[Kriss E]

So did you approve of the contract he handed out to Plek two months into his show me year?

Not giving Markov a bone KNOWING that he gave us more than Plek ever did and KNOWING he was just shy of his 1000 games was pure unadulterated ****. That my friend is disrespect in it's highest form.

417 wanted Plek gone for a long while, he definitely wasn't for that contract.

 

[Rapala]

417 wanted Plek gone for a long while, he definitely wasn't for that contract.

Which is why I commented on it.

 

[HockeyF3ind]

Wow some people still defend MB.....hilarious.

 

[Whitesnake]

The biggest issue here is, it is beyond bad, on how MB has made so many poor errors in judgements, that yes he is going to get some right now and then, but so many bad ones that he does not deserve to stay there, and continue this poor performance, on future deals/judgments. As the thread says........broken clock syndrome. It is beyond frustrating and tiresome.

I totally agree. In the end, if this team is still an 8th place team with an early 1st round exit, there are no wins that should hide his incompetence to build a great TEAM. Winning deals when that's all you win says a lot about your entire body of work.

 

[ZUKI]

Wow some people still defend MB.....hilarious.

Agree !
Habs lost 1-7 yesterday against the Wild , so everything he has done is bad

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

brainwashed bergevin fans lel

 

[ECWHSWI]

Yes..well I don't consider that summer to be a good one because I dislike the Subban vs Weber trade, but for those that do like it, I can see how they'd give him a thumbs up for that summer.

I dont, Even if one thinks 2nd round Weber is better, #1RD was NOT a position of weakness, it did not need to be upgraded, and it did not help in any other areas that needed to be upgraded. The only reasons there's people literally in awe is a) nostalgic, missing times when big punishing D were a thing b) sheep, following the Habs management mentality where the one we had already was selfish and al'

 

[Censored Toad]

Yes..well I don't consider that summer to be a good one because I dislike the Subban vs Weber trade, but for those that do like it, I can see how they'd give him a thumbs up for that summer.

Id say even if you liked the subban trade (which I do not , much like you) AT BEST... its a break even. You likely downgraded on subban given it was a 1 for 1 and the player we got is 4 years older and then dummy got lucky that his boy toy lucic wanted to play with mcjesus instead of his old pal gally and thus we got a glimpse of rads.

we then let him walk for Marcs ego

 

[Miller Time]

I find the 'dumb luck' argument unconvincing. The obvious rebuttal: if Bergevin's good moves are due to dumb luck, then his bad moves can be dismissed as bad luck. Fairer to say it was the same evaluation process that chose well with Domi, Tatar, Radulov, etc. just as they blew it with Alzner, Hemsky, Semin, etc. Credit -- and blame -- where it's due.

The less obvious rebuttal: do we know which UFAs were approached by which GM? Of course not. Every GM had a list of UFAs to pursue. We just have no idea who was on those lists. So what makes the Radulov/Lucic negotiations any different or luckier than the hundreds of other UFA talks going on behind the scenes?

Not at all...

If a GM targets a player with X amount of cap space (Lucic), fails to land the player, then pivots to option B-C-D (who knows?), the clear intention/plan was to land the first player. That Lucic ended up being a disaster (which many people with hockey/sport insight predicted), and Radulov ended up being a big success (again, which many people with insight predicted), isn't just a matter of hindsight being 20/20... MB's decision making that summer was poor. By luck, his intended decision did not work out, and his fall back option proved infinitely better than his chosen option.

Conversely, what the Briere, Weber, Paros, Parenteau, Desharnais, Shaw, Eller, Alzner, Benn et. et. moves all share is that they were his intended decisions... All of which proved poor. That isn't just "bad luck", it's bad decision making. Bad luck would be making a good decision (let's say keeping PK or Eller), and subsequently having said player suffer a catastrophic/career-altering injury that diminished their impact/value.

It's not a matter of "bad luck" when you suffer from terrible player and roster evaluation. Alzner, for example, hasn't regressed significantly from his last year in Washington... he was never worth what MB offered him, and worse, MB seemed to truly believe that his defensive group heading into 17-18 was "improved"... It wasn't bad luck that he was wrong, it was bad judgement.

He's made some good moves that I also wouldn't ascribe to "luck"... Danault has proven to be a very good "buy-low" addition... Byron was a great waiver pick-up... Petry has proven far more valuable than what the Oilers valued him at... He landed Vanek at a great price (and that would be a good example of a move that ultimately didn't pan out... Vanek didn't help us come playoff time... but his regression and MT's inability to use him effectively + the injury setback after his collision with PK could be chalked up to "bad luck").

So let's stay clear of the gross generalizations... I didn't say that all of his successful moves were the result of "good luck" and all of his bad moves the result of incompetence. I do feel, however, that when we look at his body of work as a whole, it is very hard to see anything more than a very incompetent manager who seldomly makes good decisions and frequently makes very poor decisions. The net result is pretty bad, but not as bad as it could (or should, based on the level of incompetence) be by virtue of some pretty fortunate circumstances (inheriting Norris/Vezina players in their prime, having league leading roster health through his first 4 seasons as GM, working with 2x top 3 picks in 7 seasons...)

 

[Miller Time]

I find the 'dumb luck' argument unconvincing. The obvious rebuttal: if Bergevin's good moves are due to dumb luck, then his bad moves can be dismissed as bad luck. Fairer to say it was the same evaluation process that chose well with Domi, Tatar, Radulov, etc. just as they blew it with Alzner, Hemsky, Semin, etc. Credit -- and blame -- where it's due.

The less obvious rebuttal: do we know which UFAs were approached by which GM? Of course not. Every GM had a list of UFAs to pursue. We just have no idea who was on those lists. So what makes the Radulov/Lucic negotiations any different or luckier than the hundreds of other UFA talks going on behind the scenes?

regarding the UFA market as a whole... obviously GM's regularly miss out on their primary (and secondary, and...) targets... but that's irrelevant to the question in hand, imo. That summer Bergevin clearly targeted Lucic, aggressively. Chiarelli is, rightfully so, chided for that and other boneheaded decisions. It's luck that we don't have that additional blunder on MB's resume. Had he had his way, Radulov would never have played here and we'd have lucic long term (which, incidentally, i'd gladly take him on our roster now, provided that we also got a wealth of assets in the deal to compensate for taking his bloated cap hit on).

and let's face it, the Radulov signing stands out as one of MB's top 2-3 moves as GM of the team during his tenure... so i think it very apt to point out that it was a move made in response to not getting the player he wanted, not a targeted and focused plan (nevermind how badly he messed up the extension process and that we ultimately lost his best UFA move after just 1 season).

UFA market is tough for all GM's. Overall, MB has been one of the worst at navigating it since arriving in Montreal from the top-4/to-6 perspective. and his "success" with depth players on UFA deals is overstated imo... considering our cap/cash situation, he's been free to spend aggressively in the bargainbin, and most of his moves in that space have failed. That he's had the occasional hit is more law of averages than astute talent evaluation, imo.

 

[Kriss E]

I dont, Even if one thinks 2nd round Weber is better, #1RD was NOT a position of weakness, it did not need to be upgraded, and it did not help in any other areas that needed to be upgraded. The only reasons there's people literally in awe is a) nostalgic, missing times when big punishing D were a thing b) sheep, following the Habs management mentality where the one we had already was selfish and al'

That's fine. I agree.
My point was more that even if we want to be generous in our rating of Bergevin's summers, he, at best, only had 2 good ones.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Not at all...

If a GM targets a player with X amount of cap space (Lucic), fails to land the player, then pivots to option B-C-D (who knows?), the clear intention/plan was to land the first player. That Lucic ended up being a disaster (which many people with hockey/sport insight predicted), and Radulov ended up being a big success (again, which many people with insight predicted), isn't just a matter of hindsight being 20/20... MB's decision making that summer was poor. By luck, his intended decision did not work out, and his fall back option proved infinitely better than his chosen option.

Conversely, what the Briere, Weber, Paros, Parenteau, Desharnais, Shaw, Eller, Alzner, Benn et. et. moves all share is that they were his intended decisions... All of which proved poor. That isn't just "bad luck", it's bad decision making. Bad luck would be making a good decision (let's say keeping PK or Eller), and subsequently having said player suffer a catastrophic/career-altering injury that diminished their impact/value.

It's not a matter of "bad luck" when you suffer from terrible player and roster evaluation. Alzner, for example, hasn't regressed significantly from his last year in Washington... he was never worth what MB offered him, and worse, MB seemed to truly believe that his defensive group heading into 17-18 was "improved"... It wasn't bad luck that he was wrong, it was bad judgement.

He's made some good moves that I also wouldn't ascribe to "luck"... Danault has proven to be a very good "buy-low" addition... Byron was a great waiver pick-up... Petry has proven far more valuable than what the Oilers valued him at... He landed Vanek at a great price (and that would be a good example of a move that ultimately didn't pan out... Vanek didn't help us come playoff time... but his regression and MT's inability to use him effectively + the injury setback after his collision with PK could be chalked up to "bad luck").

So let's stay clear of the gross generalizations... I didn't say that all of his successful moves were the result of "good luck" and all of his bad moves the result of incompetence. I do feel, however, that when we look at his body of work as a whole, it is very hard to see anything more than a very incompetent manager who seldomly makes good decisions and frequently makes very poor decisions. The net result is pretty bad, but not as bad as it could (or should, based on the level of incompetence) be by virtue of some pretty fortunate circumstances (inheriting Norris/Vezina players in their prime, having league leading roster health through his first 4 seasons as GM, working with 2x top 3 picks in 7 seasons...)

another example of dumb luck : Tomas Tatar

Bergevin intentions were to trade Pacioretty to L.A., but Pacioretty decided to nix the trade and force Bergevin to deal him to another deal, Bergevin finds a taker in Vegas, Bergevin ends up with Tatar as a cap dump, Tatar who was bad enough to barely play in the PO, healthy scratch for the most part...

now with the Habs, Tatar is one of the most productive Habs.

the ONLY reason Tatar is with the Habs now ? Pacioretty saying NO to L.A.

 

[Kriss E]

another example of dumb luck : Tomas Tatar

Bergevin intentions were to trade Pacioretty to L.A., but Pacioretty decided to nix the trade and force Bergevin to deal him to another deal, Bergevin finds a taker in Vegas, Bergevin ends up with Tatar as a cap dump, Tatar who was bad enough to barely play in the PO, healthy scratch for the most part...

now with the Habs, Tatar is one of the most productive Habs.

the ONLY reason Tatar is with the Habs now ? Pacioretty saying NO to L.A.

To be fair, we don't know what the return from LA would have been. Maybe it would have worked our just as well.

 

[ECWHSWI]

That's fine. I agree.
My point was more that even if we want to be generous in our rating of Bergevin's summers, he, at best, only had 2 good ones.

agreed, but Habs are having a decent season so people are back to "he's not the worst in history of the league therefore I'm OK with him as GM".

 

[ECWHSWI]

To be fair, we don't know what the return from LA would have been. Maybe it would have worked our just as well.

Tatar's on pace for what, 60 - 70 pts ?

for a cap dump, that's f***ing amazing production, and looking at LA roster... nah.

 

[Kriss E]

agreed, but Habs are having a decent season so people are back to "he's not the worst in history of the league therefore I'm OK with him as GM".

Yes, and to hear some speak about the team, you'd think we'd borderline be contenders already.

Tatar's on pace for what, 60 - 70 pts ?

for a cap dump, that's ****ing amazing production, and looking at LA roster... nah.

Maybe he wasn't a cap dump..but I do think he's going to regress. If not this year, then the next.
Same with Domi, who's playing way above expectations. Hopefully they make it their new norms though.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Our prospect pool in 2012 was pretty good. We were named the biggest winners of that draft. People were excited man. Galch-Collberg-Thrower-Bozon-Vail-Hudon-Nystrom....people were all super excited about those picks.
Right now, I'd say our pool is better, namely because of Suzuki. The rest of our prospects...I'm not particularly excited over. All this excitement over Ryan Poe...the guy only has three goals this year so far, in freaking college hockey. Doesn't mean I think he'll flop, but maybe people should hold back a bit.
I was hoping Mete becomes our version of Krug...he's very far from that. I hope they keep him in the AHL all year, hopefully it's not too late for him.

I'm not as high on our pool as many people here seem to be. I like Suzuki...after him, Poe and Mete are our best ones and they have a lot of work to do.

I disagree about our prospect pool being pretty good in 2012. The measure of any good prospect pool is draft +1 and +2 years of development. People were excited but it was hope that didn't turn into anything. A little different than were we are at today. We have a good idea of 2017 now and that was a good one. It's early yet for 2018 but I would agree it's sort of the same hope as 2012 (at this stage anyways). So add the 2017 draft and Suzuki and its night and day difference. Not banking on the 2018 draft turning into the 2012 draft either.

I feel much more confident in our prospect pool today vs what we had in 2012. I remember disagreeing with several Habs fans back when. I wanted the Habs to stay at the bottom just like I do today. A lot of comparisons between then and now but the prospect pool is night and day difference.

Galchenyuk = Kotkaniemi
Beaulieu = Juulsen
Gallagher = Poehling
Tinordi = Lernout
Leblanc = McCarron
Thrower = Fleury
Collberg = Ikonen
Bozon = Olofsson
Hudon = Hillis
Nygren = Harris
Vail = McShane

Who from 2012 compares to: Suzuki, Brook, Mete, Ylonen, Romanov, Olofsson, Primeau, etc? I bet your reply is cherry picking later round picks that we also have on top of what I showed you today. It would be a wash.

The picks before and after 2012 have one distinct difference. Quantity of lower round picks, better grade A prospects, and more grade B prospects.

It's not the same. We could of easily had 9 prospects make the U20 tournament this year. Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Brook, Poehling, Primeau, Ylonen, Romanov, Olofsson, Ikonen. Looks like we will have 7 cause Ikonen is hurt and Kotkaniemi likely will stay with the Habs.

 

[Lshap]

regarding the UFA market as a whole... obviously GM's regularly miss out on their primary (and secondary, and...) targets... but that's irrelevant to the question in hand, imo. That summer Bergevin clearly targeted Lucic, aggressively. Chiarelli is, rightfully so, chided for that and other boneheaded decisions. It's luck that we don't have that additional blunder on MB's resume. Had he had his way, Radulov would never have played here and we'd have lucic long term (which, incidentally, i'd gladly take him on our roster now, provided that we also got a wealth of assets in the deal to compensate for taking his bloated cap hit on).

and let's face it, the Radulov signing stands out as one of MB's top 2-3 moves as GM of the team during his tenure... so i think it very apt to point out that it was a move made in response to not getting the player he wanted, not a targeted and focused plan (nevermind how badly he messed up the extension process and that we ultimately lost his best UFA move after just 1 season).

UFA market is tough for all GM's. Overall, MB has been one of the worst at navigating it since arriving in Montreal from the top-4/to-6 perspective. and his "success" with depth players on UFA deals is overstated imo... considering our cap/cash situation, he's been free to spend aggressively in the bargainbin, and most of his moves in that space have failed. That he's had the occasional hit is more law of averages than astute talent evaluation, imo.

Again, we have no idea which UFA was on which GM's list, and in what order. Lucic and Radulov were undoubtedly pursued by other GMs, as were other UFAs in whatever order and priority. Which other GM swung and missed at Lucic, or Radulov, or any of them? What is the point of judging any GM based on who they might have/could have/should have signed? Especially since -- aside from our GM -- we have no clue which players were on any GM's list. We can't rank Bergevin in isolation from every other GM, all of whom are juggling multiple negotiations each summer during free-agent frenzy. Is Bergevin's UFA radar better or worse than the other 30 GMs? There's no way to know.

The only thing that counts is who signs, not who doesn't. Bergevin gets credit for Radulov because he signed him. Why wasn't Radulov signed by any other team while Bergevin was pursuing Lucic? Either every other GM was blind, or Montreal had already opened negotiations with him at the same time as they were chasing Lucic, and possibly one or two other players. That's the problem I have with this 'what-if' exercise -- it forces us to fill in too many blank spaces.