Marc Bergevin - More Excuses Needed... Edition Pt 2

[Habs Halifax]

Lots of people were hyping the Kings in 2012.

They were a great team that underperformed in the regular season, and then they added Jeff Carter.

Blues added ROR. Same type of hype between the Blues today and the Kings back when.

 

[417]

because it's a message board... so if you make ridiculous posts, you shouldn't be surprised to have them called out and exposed for what they are.


Again, you seem incapable of getting your mind around very simple ideas...

Gainey was not a great GM.

He was superior to MB in every way.

One of those ways, was his ability to address roster issues and replace lost players/roles at least adequately.

You posted a list of players in a completely failed attempt at contradicting that very evident reality. I pointed out, player for player, just how wrong you were.

Whether or not the transactions to address those roster issues were good, bad or somewhere in between as far as asset management, is a completely separate argument. Your point had zero merit, and was exposed as such. Try again.

Thank you for showering me with you infinite and divine wisdom.

 

[417]

And "average" is light years ahead of what MB's tenure has been.

I don't see Bergevin and Gainey's tenure drastically different, they both did some good, both did some bad and both have failed in getting ultimate results, I'm not even talking about a Stanley Cup

just establishing this team as a perennial contender.

You want to prop up Gainey because you dislike Bergevin...go ahead, I really don't care.

Why you feel like my opinion needs to align with yours, I have no clue.

But once more, I'm good.

 

[the valiant effort]

I don't see Bergevin and Gainey's tenure drastically different, they both did some good, both did some bad and both have failed in getting ultimate results, I'm not even talking about a Stanley Cup

just establishing this team as a perennial contender.

You want to prop up Gainey because you dislike Bergevin...go ahead, I really don't care.

I think Gainey's biggest failing was having a half dozen or more promising under-25 players turn into pumpkins overnight. Should he have shored up the veteran core with more than just Kovalev and Koivu (Brisebois/Hamrlik, etc lmao)? Definitely...but goddamn that was some bad luck.

 

[Pickles]

I don't believe they could go far this year either, not arguing that. Unless, of course, they go on an unexpected cinderella run. But who exactly is elite with the Islanders? That's a well coached team, but on paper, they are worse than Montreal. Speaking of Cinderella teams, this could be one if they reach the 3rd round.

Barzal, if he's not elite now he's damn close. Yeah the Islanders could be the Cinderella story in this year's playoffs for sure.

 

[DAChampion]

Most of the Cinderella teams that have been discussed were not true Cinderella teams. Sone teams underperform in the regular season due to injuries. Other teams are actually quite weak and then beef up at the deadline.

The Habs, as they finished the season, were a weak team. They might have won one round, but they would not have been contenders. However, it us certainly the case that a strategic addition of mark stone or matt duchene might have made a big difference. However, Bergevin added Weal abd Weise.

I think that what the Habs most need is a puck carrying D, so if they sign Karlsson this off-season, they can switch to contending. I will not blame Bergevin if he fails to sign EK, but he needs to put in a real effort, as in offering 7x12. It is ok if Bergevin tries and fails, but if he gives a cheap offer and starts talking about dogs, that will be too bad.

There is an element of luck to the playoffs. Injuries happen. Referees miss misss. Pucks bounce the wrong way. When the Habs lost to Boston in 2011, that was due to bad luck. However, the initial position there was that the Habs and Bruins were comparable teams. It is because the teams were comparable that luck could make a difference. As a contrast, no amount of luck could have helped the Habs beat the Bruins in 2009.

 

[417]

I think Gainey's biggest failing was having a half dozen or more promising under-25 players turn into pumpkins overnight. Should he have shored up the veteran core with more than just Kovalev and Koivu (Brisebois/Hamrlik, etc lmao)? Definitely...but goddamn that was some bad luck.

Gainey, like Gauthier and Bergevin after him...have all struggled with the same thing.

Finding a way to add elite level talent, especially up front.

 

[DAChampion]

I don't see Bergevin and Gainey's tenure drastically different, they both did some good, both did some bad and both have failed in getting ultimate results, I'm not even talking about a Stanley Cup

just establishing this team as a perennial contender.

You want to prop up Gainey because you dislike Bergevin...go ahead, I really don't care.

Why you feel like my opinion needs to align with yours, I have no clue.

But once more, I'm good.

Gainey had a genuine contender assembled in 2008.

And, he gave the best offers for Mats Sundin and for Marian Hossa. Sundin decided to screw over his boss, and Hossa was traded for an inferior package because the Atlanta GM was inept. With those trades, the Habs might have won.

In fairness, we don't know how often Bergevin made great trade offers that fell through due to no fault if he's own.

 

[Deluded Puck]

LA Kings 2012 were such a Cinderella team that they fired their coach mid season for their overachievement.?

 

[417]

Most of the Cinderella teams that have been discussed were not true Cinderella teams. Sone teams underperform in the regular season due to injuries. Other teams are actually quite weak and then beef up at the deadline.

The Habs, as they finished the season, were a weak team. They might have won one round, but they would not have been contenders. However, it us certainly the case that a strategic addition of mark stone or matt duchene might have made a big difference. However, Bergevin added Weal abd Weise.

I think that what the Habs most need is a puck carrying D, so if they sign Karlsson this off-season, they can switch to contending. I will not blame Bergevin if he fails to sign EK, but he needs to put in a real effort, as in offering 7x12. It is ok if Bergevin tries and fails, but if he gives a cheap offer and starts talking about dogs, that will be too bad.

There is an element of luck to the playoffs. Injuries happen. Referees miss misss. Pucks bounce the wrong way. When the Habs lost to Boston in 2011, that was due to bad luck. However, the initial position there was that the Habs and Bruins were comparable teams. It is because the teams were comparable that luck could make a difference. As a contrast, no amount of luck could have helped the Habs beat the Bruins in 2009.

Trading for Mark Stone or Matt Duchene would not have turned this team from what you describe as a "weak team" to a Cup contender this year

And at this point, the Habs are FINALLY accumulating assets, the timing wasn't right at this deadline to start sacrificing them IMO.

Might be different this coming year, I think another strong draft like the Habs have had the last 2yrs could really provide them with the type of asset base to be more aggressive targeting players through trades.

 

[Deluded Puck]

Barzal, if he's not elite now he's damn close. Yeah the Islanders could be the Cinderella story in this year's playoffs for sure.

Similar to Vegas last year, their regular season performance indicate that they are not Cinderella.

The last genuine Cinderella team was the 2010 Habs. And reality hit them hard in the ECF.

 

[417]

Gainey had a genuine contender assembled in 2008.

I don't agree they were a genuine contender...but probably better than any team assembled since, sure.

And, he gave the best offers for Mats Sundin and for Marian Hossa. Sundin decided to screw over his boss, and Hossa was traded for an inferior package because the Atlanta GM was inept. With those trades, the Habs might have won.

Agreed...they needed that type of trade and it never materialized.

In fairness, we don't know how often Bergevin made great trade offers that fell through due to no fault if he's own.

I don't think Bergevin's ever had the assets to even be in the conversation to acquire one of the many impact players who have been traded the last 7-8yrs.

I think, today, he might finally be heading towards that direction but that still remains to be seen.

I still maintain, what he's done the last 14 months, is what he should have done the day he became GM.

 

[LaP]

Barzal, if he's not elite now he's damn close. Yeah the Islanders could be the Cinderella story in this year's playoffs for sure.

NYI finished 5th in the league. That's not what a Cinderella team is. They are actually a legit contender as long as their goalie plays in playoffs like he did in the regular season.

 

[Sorinth]

He let Souray walk as a UFA, while he was having a career year, during a season where the Habs missed the playoffs.

As for the rest...none of these "replacements" were upgrades. I give Gainey a ton of credit for bringing back respectability to the Habs.

But I'm not going to give him credit for rearranging deck chairs.


I never said Bergevin was or is any better, my whole point is they've both been average at best as GMs of this team.


I don't think he adequately replaced anyone.

The crown jewel of his remodeling plan was bought out a few years later, Cammalleri was traded during a game, Gionta was/is arguably the most forgettable and non-descript captain this organization has ever had.

It's irrelevant whether Souray had a career year or not, or whether players were later traded. The fact remains he replaced them his losses with quality NHL players. And the proof is in the success the team had. We lost Souray, signed Hamrlik and we had our best season we had had since the early 90s.

We blew up the team in 09 and went on to the ECF twice in the 5 years after.

The Habs had an 11-22 record in the playoffs...that the end of the story.

There's no need to dress it up any other way just to spite Bergevin. You're trying too hard man.

You should be able to evaluate Bergevin's performance as a GM without having to gloss over or prop up some of the terrible moves Gainey made before stepping down.

Gainey's tenure as a GM isn't very difficult to dissect.

Pre-trajedy? He was great...

Post-trajedy? He was awful...

The sum of these 2 things is a very average tenure as GM of this team.

Even if we use your assesment (Which I don't agree with), then it just goes to show how Gainey was a much better GM then Bergevin because Bergevin has never been great, he's been awful the whole time. So what are you arguing here? Nobody claimed Gainey was amazing, all they've said is that he's much better then Bergevin.

 

[Habs]

Blues added ROR. Same type of hype between the Blues today and the Kings back when.

The same ROR the awesome armchair GM's on HF said was washed up, not worth the money, and should never play in Montreal because he sucked? I remember him. Yeah, we wouldn't want that bum on this team when we have Weal and Peca.

 

[Whitesnake]

I don't see Bergevin and Gainey's tenure drastically different, they both did some good, both did some bad and both have failed in getting ultimate results, I'm not even talking about a Stanley Cup

just establishing this team as a perennial contender.

You want to prop up Gainey because you dislike Bergevin...go ahead, I really don't care.

Why you feel like my opinion needs to align with yours, I have no clue.

But once more, I'm good.

You don't think Gainey started with way less than Bergevin? And yet was able to make us way more relevant in his years than Bergevin does while he started with a better team?

 

[417]

It's irrelevant whether Souray had a career year or not, or whether players were later traded. The fact remains he replaced them his losses with quality NHL players. And the proof is in the success the team had. We lost Souray, signed Hamrlik and we had our best season we had had since the early 90s.

We blew up the team in 09 and went on to the ECF twice in the 5 years after.




Even if we use your assesment (Which I don't agree with), then it just goes to show how Gainey was a much better GM then Bergevin because Bergevin has never been great, he's been awful the whole time. So what are you arguing here? Nobody claimed Gainey was amazing, all they've said is that he's much better then Bergevin.

Pretty clear...I don't know how much more obvious I can make it.

This team under Gainey, Gauthier and Bergevin has been average.

You can split heirs over the degrees of average all you want to make sure Gainey's propped up and Bergevin shown to be the worst GM ever all you want.

Let's leave Gauthier out of the discussion because I think he was the worst by far...but both Gainey and Bergevin have had varying degrees of moderate success.

An Eastern Conference Final appearance more for Gainey doesn't set the bar for me. All I've been reading from downtrodden Habs fans on this forum is how low the bar has now been set where we're celebrating missing the playoffs.

Yet here you are extoiling the virtues of an 11-22 playoff record.

Hard pass for me.

 

[Habs Halifax]

NYI finished 5th in the league. That's not what a Cinderella team is. They are actually a legit contender as long as their goalie plays in playoffs like he did in the regular season.

You need to do what the Islanders have done this year for several years to be considered a contender IMO.

 

[417]

You don't think Gainey started with way less than Bergevin?

I gave Gainey credit for bringing back respectability to this franchise, so yes, I do think he started with less and I'll repeat again.

Gainey pre-trajedy was great ...

Gainey post-trajedy was a disaster and that includes his time as Special Advisor to the Master of Disaster Pierre Gauthier.

And yet was able to make us way more relevant in his years than Bergevin does while he started with a better team?

I'm not sure how much more relevant Gainey's teams have been compared to Bergevin.

Again, I don't care to split heirs over 2 guys who I think were average at best.

Neither of them achieved any sustained success.

Gainey established a strong foundation for this team to build upon, Price, Subban, Pacioretty...those were some pillars.

But he spoiled all of that with some awful trades/signings.

Meanwhile I don't think Bergevin has done any trade or signing even close to how bad some of Gainey's trades or signings were...

But unlike Gainey, he has never established a solid foundation to build upon, we're just now starting to see the imprint of his work as GM on this team...

In the end, I repeat, both of them have ultimately failed. Singular runs to the ECF don't move the needle for me.

The way I measure success for a GM is a sustained presence as a contender.

Neither of them have even come close to providing that.

I'm just not quite sure why some people are so quick to set the bar for Bergevin so high...

Yet with hindsight, they're doing the opposite with Gainey to the point where some are actually trying to make the acquisition of Scott Gomez look good.

Like how much is one willing to morally bankrupt themselves purely out of spite? Lol (not saying you).

I remember the temperature of this board during Gainey's last few years....it's EXACTLY the way it is now.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Hire Gainey to be our President (Molson can be CEO to make him happy with a title). Gainey can monitor Bergevin's last two years of his term and decide what to do next.

Habs need to prepare for the massive decisions we need to make in the 21 off season now! Come on Molson, we want a cup contender and lets make smart management decisions. Bring back Gainey. I trust he will make the right decisions based on what we have in the system and how our core looks.

 

[417]

Hire Gainey to be our President (Molson can be CEO to make him happy with a title). Gainey can monitor Bergevin's last two years of his term and decide what to do next.

Habs need to prepare for the massive decisions we need to make in the 21 off season now! Come on Molson, we want a cup contender and lets make smart management decisions. Bring back Gainey. I trust he will make the right decisions based on what we have in the system and how our core looks.

Dear God...please no.

This is Edmonton Oilers territory

 

[Habs Halifax]

Dear God...please no.

This is Edmonton Oilers territory

I respect Gainey as our President a heck of a lot more than Molson. Easy decision for me. This has nothing to do with the old boys club. Gainey has literally no ties to the Habs current management team. Not the same as the Oilers

 

[the valiant effort]

I don't think there's a single Habs alumnus left that I would trust in the GM or president's seat.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I don't think there's a single Habs alumnus left that I would trust in the GM or president's seat.

Over Molson?

 

[Sorinth]

Pretty clear...I don't know how much more obvious I can make it.

This team under Gainey, Gauthier and Bergevin has been average.

You can split heirs over the degrees of average all you want to make sure Gainey's propped up and Bergevin shown to be the worst GM ever all you want.

Let's leave Gauthier out of the discussion because I think he was the worst by far...but both Gainey and Bergevin have had varying degrees of moderate success.

An Eastern Conference Final appearance more for Gainey doesn't set the bar for me. All I've been reading from downtrodden Habs fans on this forum is how low the bar has now been set where we're celebrating missing the playoffs.

Yet here you are extoiling the virtues of an 11-22 playoff record.

Hard pass for me.

What success has Bergevin had? Virtually all the team success that occurred while he was GM was a result of the team Gainey/Gauthier built. Bergevin hardly touched the team in the early years, and then once he started making moves the team started to get worse.

And for the record the Gainey/Gauthier team had a playoff record of 23-36. So it's pretty hypocritical to claim I'm trying splitting hairs to prop up Gainey when you are doing the exact opposite to make him look bad.