Discussion in 'Montreal Canadiens' started by ahmedou, Nov 27, 2018.
Yes. There is no valid reason why.
So I cant/don't even take them seriously anymore.
It's about other GMs because that's the premise of the entire UFA market -- you're talking to everyone. You can't discuss only one GM's pursuit of a UFA, because that pursuit is being leveraged against all the other pursuits from other GMs.
The dumb-luck argument just doesn't work. It's a storyline we invent based on what we think we know from tidbits and soundbites. If Bergevin pursued Lucic first and Radulov only afterwards, why was Radulov still available? Why was he waiting around for Bergevin to finish his other business? Why didn't another GM sign him while Bergevin was preoccupied with Lucic? Obviously, UFA negotiations are more complex than Plan-A/Plan-B. Calling it 'dumb-luck' sounds like these guys throw darts at a board.
If Bergevin had dumb luck in 2016 when he pursued Lucic and failed, then he had bad luck in 2017 year when he pursued Radulov and failed. In both cases he pursued a player and came up short. If 'dumb luck' diminishes the credit he gets for signing Radulov, then 'bad luck' gives him a pass for not re-signing him.
Of course I don't believe either case. Remove luck -- it's meaningless because we don't know who anyone talks to, what's really said, and when. All we know is results. Bergevin signed a good player in 2016, and then he lost that good player a year later.
Because he's a decent GM
so the Habs knew Tatar would be a 60+ pts player... they asked for a 60+ pts player PLUS Suzuki PLUS a 2nd round pick for Pacioretty, who's never reached 70 pts ?
why did they wanted to trade Pacioretty to L.A. first then ?? why didnt they try to trade Pacioretty to Vegas right away if they knew ??
Sure, but we can say we dodged a bullet with Lucic. We weren't so lucky with Alzner.
doesnt matter. It does not change anything from the fact Bergevin WANTED Lucic on the Habs, he FAILED to sign him, lucky for him/us.
you defend him for being... decent ? that's it ? decent ?
Again, you seem to be bringing in some other discussion that has little to do with bergevin...
But, to your last point, the result of the 2016 summer is that we were a lottery team with a near franchise worst season the following year.... Results speak rather loudly I'd say.
Yep, I'm not going to pretend he's the best in the league. His summer was definitely very good though and I'm hoping that continues.
Seems you lack an understanding of timing, and opportunity.
So, your thing is to give absolutely no argument whatsoever and then tell people they don't understand.
oh no! not true! your thing is to act as if Bergevin is some sort of strategic mastermind who can spot oppportunities on the fly and crush his trade opponents with his amazing timing ability...
the guy used L.A. as a diversion, he has no intentions at all to trade Pacioretty to them, the plan was to offer Pacioretty to a team he know he wouldnt want to sign for so he can fleece Vegas...
You do understand that in any business transaction, the situation is always fluid, and one opportunity might be present or not is dependent on circumstances.
It is very possible that vegas had no interest in max at moment A but became a player in moment B.
As for La, we dont know the pieces, thus we cant judge .
I am not a fan of MB, and my writing on this board show it, however, i was on record to say he had a great offseason,. And this trade was a key trade in thiss offseason.
Decent? Barely decent..............the Habs deserve way better.
I mean, if we're talking about UFAs it has to do with how Bergevin negotiates compared to his competition -- other GMs. They're all pursuing the same players. Is he a better negotiator than other GMs? Worse? Too many factors to get into here. The bottom line is he didn't finish building the team in 2016/17, even with Radulov, and then he let the team collapse in 2017/18.
So we agree, the overall results for Bergevin before this summer looked like crap. His individual moves are one thing -- a lot of them look fine in isolation -- but in the bigger context they lacked vision and a clear direction. As I've said a few times, this past summer and this season has me cautiously hopeful, but I can still see him falling back off the wagon in pursuit of a cheap playoff fix.
Completely agree with this very worried they go for the cheap playoff fix instead of staying the course as they should
Yeah, I agree, in retrospect we were lucky to dodge that bullet. But supposedly Bergevin pursued Tavares this past summer. Looking at our team this year, that might've been a huge move. Was Bergevin unlucky that Tavares grew up in Toronto?
That's why I dislike the "Luck" game. It makes it sound like Bergevin did something good only by accident. How many GMs signed one player because another player was signed? Which players were pursued by other GMs and NOT signed? Because all those moves are connected. Sure, some moves work out, others don't, but all 31 GMs are involved in the same UFA roulette wheel every year. There was nothing unusually 'lucky' about Radulov or Lucic. The only thing that counts is where they ended up.
Every GM in the NHL of all the stanley cup champions and 100 point contenders believe in tanking,they all believe in going for it at the trade deadline and mortgaging part of their future....Bergevin believes in neither.....which philosophy is better....teams that have evidence of winning or Bergevin's way which is to not commit to either direction.
seriously ? that's stuff crossing your mind when you think of luck ?
what a ****in waste of time
I'm not thinking of luck. You and others are. "Luck" a pointless argument because we're basing that judgment on our personal perceptions and biases, without knowing what happened beneath the surface. The only fact we have is the end result. That's the only thing we can judge with any precision.
because you think it is does not make it so.
Sure, close the boards then, you're pretty much telling anyone here it's pointless to even come here. I mean, 99% of what is being said here is based on biases and perceptions.
but hey! thanks for the 25¢ "philosophy" lesson I guess.
to be fair, at that time, no one knew for sure if markov ever had feelings. how was bergevin supposed to know?
curious to see who will bite on that
I have no idea what you're talking about. Close the boards? Pointless to come here? What...?
Separate names with a comma.