Marc Bergevin: Our fearless leader? - Part XVII

[Milhouse40]

Went on Facebook this morning and surprise, surprise, there are still people actually praising Bergevin:
"Show me one bad move and I show you five good"
"He took over a crap team"
"But Anderson, Toffoli, Edmundson, Suzuki, Petry, Allen, Chiarot", one guy even mentioned Vanek....

I mean, imagine winning your trades 5-1 and still unable to build a contender, let alone a perennial playoff team.

Of course, they won't blame him....they never blamed him. He's been sold every day as a great GM with nothing to back it up with only some trade in a nutshell. And that's why we can't be a better team.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Lets get Jack Eichel

 

[WG]

exactly, he had the chance to build a strong contender team and what did he did ? Sign Prust Bouillon and Armstrong ...

And this is the answer to all those 'he inherited the third worst team in the NHL' zingers. The team did finish at the bottom, but their GF/GA suggested they were a lot better than that and of course that team was missing Markov. So when MB took all of the players who were already there, added Markov, a couple of rookies and his collection of 4th liner UFAs the team finished 1st in the division in year 1.

Thinking the team was going to still be bad and only adding character/plugger types in year 1 wasn't indefensible mind you. There was some sense behind it. But it definitely counters the argument that he somehow had nothing to work with when he started.

 

[WG]

To me, Bergevin's future comes to 2 very simple things.

1) "We want to build through the draft". We've got the worst record since he became GM and the amount of drafted players on the team is pathetic. This has failed miserably and largely relates to the 2nd point.

2)"The goal is to make the playoffs". May seem contradictory to the first point, but good teams have drafted well later (Anaheim and Tampa for example). Our last playoff series win was in 2015 and have beaten ONE team that played their starter in all the games. It's a horrible record and a couple of surprise performances shouldn't negate how they have been awful with the same issues for decades now.

First one is simple with hindsight. Bergevin came from the Chicago organization. They were bad for years, then they were *really* bad, picked up two HHOF players with top 3 picks, added them to the other young players they were amassing, and profit.

When MB was going on about 'building through the draft', I have no doubt now that he figured he was coming in to a 3rd OV pick, the team was going to continue to suck and he'd get 1 or two more high picks, and then away we go.

So basically, his plan was the same as you'd get from listening to a call in show. Where it ultimately failed was that the team wasn't as bad as he thought, so there weren't any more high picks to leech off of. And since he had filled the foxhole with incompetents, 'build through the draft' meant picking 25th and handing the prospects over to Sly and JJ and Therrible for development. What could go wrong?

And in the early years of the MB/Timmins era, we know the drafting and/or development was putrid.

Between Galchenyuk (3rd OV in 2012) and Sergachev (9th OV in 2016), the Habs drafted 25 players through the 2012-13-14-15 drafts. Of those 25, the best 5 were:

Lekhonen, 337 GP, 120 PTS
Andrighetto, 216 GP, 83 PTS
Hudon, 125 GP, 41 PTS
Evans, 59 GP, 16 PTS
De La Rose, 242 GP, 38 PTS

That's a pretty sad list for 4 years worth of drafting.

 

[Doc McKenna]

First one is simple with hindsight. Bergevin came from the Chicago organization. They were bad for years, then they were *really* bad, picked up two HHOF players with top 3 picks, added them to the other young players they were amassing, and profit.

When MB was going on about 'building through the draft', I have no doubt now that he figured he was coming in to a 3rd OV pick, the team was going to continue to suck and he'd get 1 or two more high picks, and then away we go.

So basically, his plan was the same as you'd get from listening to a call in show. Where it ultimately failed was that the team wasn't as bad as he thought, so there weren't any more high picks to leech off of. And since he had filled the foxhole with incompetents, 'build through the draft' meant picking 25th and handing the prospects over to Sly and JJ and Therrible for development. What could go wrong?

And in the early years of the MB/Timmins era, we know the drafting and/or development was putrid.

Between Galchenyuk (3rd OV in 2012) and Sergachev (9th OV in 2016), the Habs drafted 25 players through the 2012-13-14-15 drafts. Of those 25, the best 5 were:

Lekhonen, 337 GP, 120 PTS
Andrighetto, 216 GP, 83 PTS
Hudon, 125 GP, 41 PTS
Evans, 59 GP, 16 PTS
De La Rose, 242 GP, 38 PTS

That's a pretty sad list for 4 years worth of drafting.

It certainly is worse than just picking poorly. If our 7th rounder Evans looks decent, it says more about our development strategy. No way do you miss on all your players. I mean you would expect at the least he happened across 3rd and 4th guys. We barely drafted enough badness to form a 4th line on a bad team.

 

[dcyhabs]

It certainly is worse than just picking poorly. If our 7th rounder Evans looks decent, it says more about our development strategy. No way do you miss on all your players. I mean you would expect at the least he happened across 3rd and 4th guys. We barely drafted enough badness to form a 4th line on a bad team.

Combination of weak drafts, bad picks, and bad development. Galchenyuk wasn't a bad pick, Forsberg might have been better, or one of the many D. The 2012 consensus top 4 disappointed.

McCarron was a reach going for a big forward in a draft that did not have any. Whoever insisted on the reach messed up. McCarron would have been fine in the 3rd round. Late pick.

Scherbak didn't work out, but he wasn't helped by development and it's not like following picks were way better. Point was 2 rounds later. Late pick.

Juulsen was maybe too conservative, but a decent pick. Career derailed by injuries and his ceiling wasn't really high. Aho or Beauvillier would have been better, but then Montreal was trying to get bigger. I'm surprised they didn't take Carlo for his size, but then he probably would not have developed with the habs. Late pick.

With late first round picks one would expect 50-60% chance of 100 games; Juulsen and McCarron may well get there. Problem is most analyses go with games played so as to compare F/D/G. I'd be more interested in the chance to get a player who makes a difference, top 6 F, top 4 D, starting/1b G, but I haven't found that.

It's a bad result from 4 years of drafting, but it's an acceptable (not excellent, acceptable) result for the picks they had. The problems are:
-Trying to get things from the draft that aren't there.
-Not developing and improving players. AHL coaching is better, but geez, get the top picks coaching and development help year round, skill improvement, not just "how you doin', you eating healthy and hitting the gym?" stuff.
-Not acquiring higher picks (hard to do, but if MB had assessed the team better he would have been selling and not buying, his assessment at the beginning of this year was a problem as well. It's one thing for fans to think the team is great for beating the Canucks, quite another for the GM to think so).

 

[badfish]

When people go first round by first round and point out there wasn't great picks after the Habs I find it a bit similar to when people say Bergevin is a good GM because he does good signings and trades. The Bergevin antagonists like to point out that those moves in a vacuum are good but they don't show up in the standings. Evaluating Timmins round by round is living in a vacuum. The reality is the scouting department he has led for 20 years has only maybe found 4 good offensive talents (Patches, Gallagher, maybe KK, maybe CC). Most other teams have found either more or better offensive players than that over the same period. Timmins weakness is forwards and for decades now that's held this team back. It's time for a change.

 

[BargainBinSpecial]

Lets get Jack Eichel

With what? Suzuki, KK and Caufield? Sell sell sell!!! Honestly, if you can land Eichel with KK and a slew of first round picks, I say pull the trigger. However, the Sabres will be quite greedy.

 

[salbutera]

It certainly is worse than just picking poorly. If our 7th rounder Evans looks decent, it says more about our development strategy. No way do you miss on all your players. I mean you would expect at the least he happened across 3rd and 4th guys. We barely drafted enough badness to form a 4th line on a bad team.

Why not? What is probability a player makes the NHL round to round?

MB has had 9-drafts during his tenure:

1st round: 3-of-9 players have 99GP+ (Galchenyuk, Sergachev, KK) in NHL, w McCarron at 75GP and Poehling, Guhle expected to achieve that goal. 33% presently could be 44% next season (McCarron 24GP), and 67% in 3-4 seasons

2nd round: 14-picks during MBs tenure without any 2nds for 3-drafts 2014 - 2016. At present 2-players have 99GP+ (Lekhonen & JDLR) or 14% vs 17% league avg, however, Romanov should surpass 99GP next season and the last few drafts should yield additional assets who do as well.

3rd round: total cluster 0-12, TBD if any of the recent picks will make it

4th round: 1-for-6 17% (Mete) vs 11%

5th round: 1-for-10 10% (Hudon) vs 7.5%

6th round: 0-for-7

7th round: 1-for-7 14% (Evans), with potentially Primeau & RHP

During MBs tenure Habs have been well above league avg of drafting NHL players per round - with 3rd and 6th rounds being outliers of poor draft performance

The org hasn’t hit many grandslams in a short period of time: 2007 wasn’t followed up with another successful draft or home run pick till 2016, whereas TBay was built on a very successful 2011-2015 drafts (Kucherov, Vasilevsky, Point, Cirelli) to complement 2-generational talents, and a successful pick here & there from previous regimes

 

[BLONG7]

Lets get Jack Eichel

Would love to, but that injury scares me...

 

[Doc McKenna]

Why not? What is probability a player makes the NHL round to round?

View attachment 434064

MB has had 9-drafts during his tenure:

1st round: 3-of-9 players have 99GP+ (Galchenyuk, Sergachev, KK) in NHL, w McCarron at 75GP and Poehling, Guhle expected to achieve that goal. 33% presently could be 44% next season (McCarron 24GP), and 67% in 3-4 seasons

2nd round: 14-picks during MBs tenure without any 2nds for 3-drafts 2014 - 2016. At present 2-players have 99GP+ (Lekhonen & JDLR) or 14% vs 17% league avg, however, Romanov should surpass 99GP next season and the last few drafts should yield additional assets who do as well.

3rd round: total cluster 0-12, TBD if any of the recent picks will make it

4th round: 1-for-6 17% (Mete) vs 11%

5th round: 1-for-10 10% (Hudon) vs 7.5%

6th round: 0-for-7

7th round: 1-for-7 14% (Evans), with potentially Primeau & RHP

During MBs tenure Habs have been well above league avg of drafting NHL players per round - with 3rd and 6th rounds being outliers of poor draft performance

The org hasn’t hit many grandslams in a short period of time: 2007 wasn’t followed up with another successful draft or home run pick till 2016, whereas TBay was built on a very successful 2011-2015 drafts (Kucherov, Vasilevsky, Point, Cirelli) to complement 2-generational talents, and a successful pick here & there from previous regimes

tl:dr its still development problems that our draftees are barely capable of making the NHL including 1st and seconds rounders.

 

[Doc McKenna]

When people go first round by first round and point out there wasn't great picks after the Habs I find it a bit similar to when people say Bergevin is a good GM because he does good signings and trades. The Bergevin antagonists like to point out that those moves in a vacuum are good but they don't show up in the standings. Evaluating Timmins round by round is living in a vacuum. The reality is the scouting department he has led for 20 years has only maybe found 4 good offensive talents (Patches, Gallagher, maybe KK, maybe CC). Most other teams have found either more or better offensive players than that over the same period. Timmins weakness is forwards and for decades now that's held this team back. It's time for a change.

go ahead, but development plays as important a role.

 

[badfish]

go ahead, but development plays as important a role.

Couldn't agree more! But Timmins body of work with the Canadiens extends over 20 years and there's been multiple different development regimes, yet still the results are not there for offensive talent.

And look at the picks thru the years. It's not like Scherbak, or Ben Maxwell, or Tim Bozon were destroying their junior leagues and hit the AHL and fizzled away. Go through Timmins drafts. It's not like any offensive forward picked in those years would go on to be a ppg forward under a good AHL development system if they weren't destroying their junior leagues. Then look at players like Nick Suzuki or Brayden Point, putting up or pacing for over 100 points without being an overager.

I think for me, the results aren't there with finding offensive players and since Habs have a tough time attracting UFAs that's where you have to find them. Maybe Timmins is good at defense and goalies but that doesn't line up well with the Habs organization needs. It's been 20 years the Habs have been trying new development systems. Surely it's time to consider new scouting leadership next if the results aren't there.

 

[salbutera]

tl:dr its still development problems that our draftees are barely capable of making the NHL including 1st and seconds rounders.

Data states, Habs are significantly above NHL avg for finding NHL caliber talent, in about every round except 3rd & 6th.

 

[salbutera]

Couldn't agree more! But Timmins body of work with the Canadiens extends over 20 years and there's been multiple different development regimes, yet still the results are not there for offensive talent.

And look at the picks thru the years. It's not like Scherbak, or Ben Maxwell, or Tim Bozon were destroying their junior leagues and hit the AHL and fizzled away. Go through Timmins drafts. It's not like any offensive forward picked in those years would go on to be a ppg forward under a good AHL development system if they weren't destroying their junior leagues. Then look at players like Nick Suzuki or Brayden Point, putting up or pacing for over 100 points without being an overager.

I think for me, the results aren't there with finding offensive players and since Habs have a tough time attracting UFAs that's where you have to find them. Maybe Timmins is good at defense and goalies but that doesn't line up well with the Habs organization needs. It's been 20 years the Habs have been trying new development systems. Surely it's time to consider new scouting leadership next if the results aren't there.

There’s also Habs style of play, when offensive players enter an up tempo offensive system their outputs naturally are higher vs a system that demands 200-ft responsibility...

It’s assumed offensive players can learn to play defensive when they need to, but that’s not accurate.

 

[Doc McKenna]

Data states, Habs are significantly above NHL avg for finding NHL caliber talent, in about every round except 3rd & 6th.

WRONG, it says they found NHL players. 4th liners that play for 100 games and stop playing is not the same as long term 3rd liners+

 

[salbutera]

WRONG, it says they found NHL players. 4th liners that play for 100 games and stop playing is not the same.

Who’s stopped playing? Every one of those players are still playing and most have accumulated over 200GP already

 

[Whitesnake]

Don't f***ing lose Joel Bouchard.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

It certainly is worse than just picking poorly. If our 7th rounder Evans looks decent, it says more about our development strategy. No way do you miss on all your players. I mean you would expect at the least he happened across 3rd and 4th guys. We barely drafted enough badness to form a 4th line on a bad team.

We are a bad team.

 

[Roadhouse]

What do the Habs use instead of former Gold medalists as head of development, and instead of this all-star trainer @ Belfry Hockey as head of technical development?

The all-encompassing answer: Rob mother****ing Ramage.

 

[Miller Time]

What do the Habs use instead of former Gold medalists as head of development, and instead of this all-star trainer @ Belfry Hockey as head of technical development?

The all-encompassing answer: Rob mother****ing Ramage.

They are a well run organization with leadership committed to excellence ever since Shanny took over.

Dubas, Wick, Goyette... They are hiring for talent instead of the revolving door of old boys.

And.

Lou, Babcock... They aren't afraid to both hire & move on from established staff with track records of success.

That's what merit & results focused organizations look like.

Our organization, under MB, is the exact opposite. Sad.

 

[Runner77]

What do the Habs use instead of former Gold medalists as head of development, and instead of this all-star trainer @ Belfry Hockey as head of technical development?

The all-encompassing answer: Rob mother****ing Ramage.

Habs use the « who does Bergy know from his playing days » method.

 

[Roadhouse]

They are a well run organization with leadership committed to excellence ever since Shanny took over.

Dubas, Wick, Goyette... They are hiring for talent instead of the revolving door of old boys.

And.

Lou, Babcock... They aren't afraid to both hire & move on from established staff with track records of success.

That's what merit & results focused organizations look like.

Our organization, under MB, is the exact opposite. Sad.

Yeah well, look at the wallets involved. Toronto wants glory and has the Rogers machine to back them up. Montreal wants steady revenues and a minimum of angry fans. And great hot-dogs.

 

[Runner77]

Yeah well, look at the wallets involved. Toronto wants glory and has the Rogers machine to back them up. Montreal wants steady revenues and a minimum of angry fans. And great hot-dogs.

Except Montreal can afford to invest massively in non-cap restricted resources. In non-pandemic times, they’ve notched the third highest NHL revenue team spot regularly, over a significant time as per Forbes magazine.

They have money and revenues, it’s either poorly spent and/or not sufficiently.

 

[Roadhouse]

Except Montreal can afford to invest massively in non-cap restricted resources. In non-pandemic times, they’ve notched the third highest NHL revenue team spot regularly, over a significant time as per Forbes magazine.

They have money and revenues, it’s either poorly spent and/or not sufficiently.

Exactly right. And it's all on Groupe CH for stinking up the internal joint there. No desire to be great.