Props when props is due

[PricePkPatch*]

I like the Vanek move but it doesnt mean Bergevin becomes a saint

Oh man. I totally misread the thread title, I actually thought it was written "Bergevin is a saint now", instead of it being "Props when props is due"

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

That Emelin signing looked rough at first, but ever since the Olympic break he's been playing awesome. Glad he was able to get over that tough knee injury and now he's even adding some offense to his game with 6 points in his last 8 games and back to playing more physical like he did in the past.

 

[That Habs Fan]

That Emelin signing looked rough at first, but ever since the Olympic break he's been playing awesome. Glad he was able to get over that tough knee injury and now he's even adding some offense to his game with 6 points in his last 8 games and back to playing more physical like he did in the past.

Yeah if Therrien doesn't keep using him on the powerplay he is even more blind than we all thought. Emelin definitely has some untapped (in the NHL) offensive potential.

 

[Devourers]

Just like it was always way too early to judge his poor moves, it's still way too early to judge his seemingly good ones.

Weaver is old, Wiese is injured and Vanek may not re-sign.

Also Collberg may turn out to be a nothing prospect, same with the 2nd rounder, but the guy was a late 1st for a lot of GM's and scouts. To act like MB got Vanek for free, especially when we may not even re-sign him is a bit disingenuous.

For the record I'm happy we landed Vanek, I just hope and pray we keep him. He's a missing piece we could really use and when you land the holy grail of missing pieces (a 1st line deflection artist with size is EXACTLY the type of player this team needs) you do everything in your power to keep him.

That being said, I just see a bunch of signings and trades ranging anywhere from useless to terrible, with a few OK's (Parros) and a few goodies (Weaver, Wiese) mixed in with a big time maybe (Vanek).

If he can sign Vanek and Subban to lucrative deals this offseason, ones that benefit the team, I'll change my tune. I'm not willing to give MB the benefit of the doubt just yet though, even though he did at least target a player who fits us like a glove.

I was one of the few who although didn't like the Briere signing felt he could be useful, for the most part I still do and feel MT is misusing him, however the signing was a bit of a head scratcher.

 

[Habs]

Since we are not locked in a loser mentality like you, we are actually WAITING to see the results of Round 1 before starting throw eggs or pre-emptively sell the farm.

Do you have any more cliche's you can throw out?

 

[PricePkPatch*]

Do you have any more cliche's you can throw out?

Plenty. I tried to be gentle, as you have clearly been traumatized into thinking there's nothing our team can ever do to become winners.

 

[Lshap]

Just like it was always way too early to judge his poor moves, it's still way too early to judge his seemingly good ones.

Weaver is old, Wiese is injured and Vanek may not re-sign.

Also Collberg may turn out to be a nothing prospect, same with the 2nd rounder, but the guy was a late 1st for a lot of GM's and scouts. To act like MB got Vanek for free, especially when we may not even re-sign him is a bit disingenuous.

For the record I'm happy we landed Vanek, I just hope and pray we keep him. He's a missing piece we could really use and when you land the holy grail of missing pieces (a 1st line deflection artist with size is EXACTLY the type of player this team needs) you do everything in your power to keep him.

That being said, I just see a bunch of signings and trades ranging anywhere from useless to terrible, with a few OK's (Parros) and a few goodies (Weaver, Wiese) mixed in with a big time maybe (Vanek).

If he can sign Vanek and Subban to lucrative deals this offseason, ones that benefit the team, I'll change my tune. I'm not willing to give MB the benefit of the doubt just yet though, even though he did at least target a player who fits us like a glove.

I was one of the few who although didn't like the Briere signing felt he could be useful, for the most part I still do and feel MT is misusing him, however the signing was a bit of a head scratcher.

The Vanek deal shows that Bergevin can be aggressive and jump on an opportunity. Obviously there's a risk that he may not re-sign while Collberg goes on to become a valuable player, but you can't build a winner without risk. Bergevin had already established himself as cautious; now we know he also has balls.

For whatever it's worth, Bergevin has stocked the team with talent and depth to make a serious run NOW. Vanek, Weaver and Weise make us much better built for the playoffs -- in fact, the Habs probably jumped up higher in the food chain than any other team thanks to our last month of moves. I'm as surprised as anyone to see him going all-in this season, but the reality is it cost us practically nothing. If it doesn't work, we haven't lost players or cap space. If we DO get far in the playoffs, it'll be a major coup for Bergevin.

 

[FrontierPsyCHiatrist*]

Just like it was always way too early to judge his poor moves, it's still way too early to judge his seemingly good ones.

Weaver is old, Wiese is injured and Vanek may not re-sign.

Also Collberg may turn out to be a nothing prospect, same with the 2nd rounder, but the guy was a late 1st for a lot of GM's and scouts. To act like MB got Vanek for free, especially when we may not even re-sign him is a bit disingenuous.

For the record I'm happy we landed Vanek, I just hope and pray we keep him. He's a missing piece we could really use and when you land the holy grail of missing pieces (a 1st line deflection artist with size is EXACTLY the type of player this team needs) you do everything in your power to keep him.

That being said, I just see a bunch of signings and trades ranging anywhere from useless to terrible, with a few OK's (Parros) and a few goodies (Weaver, Wiese) mixed in with a big time maybe (Vanek).

If he can sign Vanek and Subban to lucrative deals this offseason, ones that benefit the team, I'll change my tune. I'm not willing to give MB the benefit of the doubt just yet though, even though he did at least target a player who fits us like a glove.

I was one of the few who although didn't like the Briere signing felt he could be useful, for the most part I still do and feel MT is misusing him, however the signing was a bit of a head scratcher.

This. There's still some holes to fill, the team can still get better, and if it somehow get worse during the off-season, then MB won't have me convinced.

But still, something tells me that MB knows what he's doing, and the over used sentence 'wait a couples of years and...' is actually true for the first time with the Habs. 2 years from now and we might be the best team in the NHL if nobody screws up.

 

[Habs]

Plenty. I tried to be gentle, as you have clearly been traumatized into thinking there's nothing our team can ever do to become winners.

You mean a failed rebuilding plan every 5 years? Overpaying of players and free agents? Getting bullied on the ice the last 20 years? Torch passing ceremonies whenever possible?

Yeah, it's been a good couple decades to be a fan, nothing but promise from here on in with MB leading the charge.

 

[PricePkPatch*]

You mean a failed rebuilding plan every 5 years? Overpaying of players and free agents? Getting bullied on the ice the last 20 years? Torch passing ceremonies whenever possible?

Yeah, it's been a good couple decades to be a fan, nothing but promise from here on in with MB leading the charge.

Like I said, you clearly have some deep-seated trauma.

Some of us haven't bought into this whole "loser culture" yet.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

OK, but given the title of this thread, can we have some mea culpas from the hockey "experts" here who lamented how STUPID Michel Therrien was being playing Vanek on the RIGHT wing (oh my God), some even going so far as saying that this one incompetent move would cost us any chance at re-signing the guy because he hates playing RW so much.

I don't know if he will re-sign, but honestly don't see from his body language how he hates the right wing.

Anyone ready to man up on this one?

I'm still not sure its a good idea. Yes, the line's on fire but its the only line scoring. I'm not a huge fan of being a one line team.

If the other lines can get going I guess it makes sense but the coach can't play the Plecs and Eller/Briere lines in checking roles and expect to get points. The offense has to be spread around better than its been.

And MT is still an idiot as far as I'm concerned. Vanek has improved our team's chances tremendously but MT really would've lost his job if not for our goalies already.

 

[the jpageman]

I to have to make an apologie. Yes i was one to doubt and got my bells rung with the Vanek trade.
Amazing how one player changes the whole dynamic of this team.

Kuddos MB keep it up

 

[G0bias]

Yeah if Therrien doesn't keep using him on the powerplay he is even more blind than we all thought. Emelin definitely has some untapped (in the NHL) offensive potential.

Man, I've been thinking and saying this since Emelin first got here and it was driving me nuts seeing him on the bench when the 2nd wave was on the ice. He always had good offensive instincts, but never had the chance to showcase it.
MT finally sees what everyone else was seeing. But holy **** did it take a while.

 

[Quagmier]

I posted the message below back in October when the Habs were struggling out of the gate and people were calling for Bergevin's head. While I am loathe to dig up old posts that make me seem wise or prophetic (mostly because for one of those, there are likely 900 posts that do quite the opposite) I feel like the argument i made then still rings true right now. My basic point? You can evaluate a GM's decision at the moment they are made based on the evidence you have in front of you...but you can't evaluate a GM's tenure without significantly more context than the present day allows for.

I'm trying to think of a way to comment on this thread without coming off as a bitter and jaded curmudgeon...but frankly I am having trouble finding a way.

The short answer to the thread's original question is "no". Bergevin is NOT the new Houle and the comparison is so laughable that it seems absurd to me that this thread has gone beyond 2 pages. After reading the thread briefly, it seems clear that the question has shifted to an even more absurd dichotomy of "is Bergevin perfect?" vs. "has bergevin ever done anything wrong ever".

I guess that's just the nature of sports fandom in 2013. We have so much information and time that the only arguments left to make are about such non-consequential minutia that anything resembling rational and thoughtful discourse has absolutely no chance of seeing the light of day. Granted, that is a bitter, bitter sentence written by someone who is clearly not speaking rationaly, but i mean, come on people how nitpicky are fans going to get before it dawns on them that the trees they are busy arguing about actually do make a forest when observed from a standpoint greater than 0.0003mm away?

Is Mark Bergevin the new Rejean Houle? Are the Desharnais extension, briere signing, Bouillon and Drewiskie signings enough to put him in the same elite company as arguably the worst GM in franchise history? Is that the basic premise of the argument?

Let's see...under Serge Savard's tenure as GM the Habs made the playoffs every year (save for his last), winning the cup twice and winning less than 40 games only twice (once when they won 39 in 1991 and the other in 1995 when they won 18 in the lockout shortened season, missed the playoffs and saw Savard get fired the following year). After Houle took over, the Habs won 40 games in his first year as GM, and then NEVER won 40 games again, missed the playoffs 4 times in 6 years under him and only made it out of round 1 once. He traded away one of the best players in Habs history for reasons that at the time seemed petty and unprofessional and have only become more puzzling since, gutted the team's (already paltry) farm system and let go of marquee player after marquee player for decreasingly attractive returns. It took nearly 10 years for the Habs to recover from the mess Houle made and its arguable they are still feeling the effects of his mismanagement (though its more fair to say the Houle days are dead and gone).

Mark Bergevin inhereted a team that finished last in the conference, and in his first year as GM the Habs won two less games than they had the season prior despite it being a lockout shortened season, won their division and finished 2nd in the eastern conference. Currently the Habs sit 6th in the conference despite a rash of injuries and a tough western canadian road trip to start the season. The team has a promising future and has played fairly well in the present term despite being a young and undersized group. Keep in mind that last year the Habs put up their best winning percentage in over 20 years (granted in a smaller sample size with skewed point allocation).

To me, that should be the end of the argument, but apparently GMs (well, competent GMs anyways) are not allowed to make any mistakes or take any risks that are not 100% guaranteed to pay off in the long run.

Desharnais has sucked, Briere has looked sluggish and our banged up defensive corps has looked shaky at best early into this season. That much is true. Parros got concussed on a freak play, Prust is injured, Moen is out and Murray has yet to play a game for the Habs so the team looks as soft as it has (on paper) in quite some time. These facts are also not in question.

I would just like to point out that the Chicago Blackhawks management (the one largely responsible for two cups in the past four years) once gave Brian Campbell an 8 year contract and Cristobal Huet a deal worth 5.6m a year (he was out of the NHL within 2 years). Ray Shero once traded away Jordan Staal for Brandon Sutter and a 1st rounder, only to draft Derrick Pouliot instead of Jacob Trouba, who is emerging as one of the best prospects on the planet. Peter Chiarelli traded away an emerging superstar because he worried that the 21 year old had "maturity issues". On the flipside, Scott Howson once traded for a vezina trophy winner without giving up ANYTHING of worth. Jay Feaster signed Jiri Hudler to a 4 year deal and he sits in the top ten scoring leaders.

Point being, if you chose to evaluate GMs based on individual moves rather than the entire body and context of their work, you are going to be able to skew your argument either way you like. All gms make good and bad trades/signings/decisions, and Bergevin is not immune to that reality. Clearly i think he's done a better job than most on these boards, but to suggest his body of work to date resembles the resume of one of the Canadiens' worst GMs of all time is not only insulting to the man, but is a suggestion that is both incredibly premature and without merit.

And to be clear, this isnt one of those "it will take 5 years before we can know how good he is" type arguments where the rebuttal is always "what else are we supposed to talk about?". I am saying there has been absolutely NO indication thusfar that Bergevin is prone to the type of short term, knee-jerk, impulsive decision making that has plagued the Habs franchise for most of the 90s and 00s. The balance of his body of work, to me, suggests that Bergevin has a long term vision of the team, and while not prone to make big moves to shake up the foundation of the team long term, does not seem averse to taking small (literally) risks in the short term to win now. While his success in the short term has been spotty, the team's future looks the brightest its been in years, and until Bergevin does something to screw that up, i find little merit in calling his tenure a failure.

With that off my chest, now I'm going to yell at kids trick or treating to get off my lawn.

 

[dreamingofdrouin*]

I posted the message below back in October when the Habs were struggling out of the gate and people were calling for Bergevin's head. While I am loathe to dig up old posts that make me seem wise or prophetic (mostly because for one of those, there are likely 900 posts that do quite the opposite) I feel like the argument i made then still rings true right now. My basic point? You can evaluate a GM's decision at the moment they are made based on the evidence you have in front of you...but you can't evaluate a GM's tenure without significantly more context than the present day allows for.

that was an awesome post..the one in october. it's mind boggling the pandemonium that went on....2nd year and gm and people wanting him fired...ridiculous....he's doing what he needs to do...be patient and make the most of opportunity but without doing anything crazy to try and speed up the process....this is exactly what we've needed for so long...somebody who is not going to give into the fans that demand a cup tmr.

 

[Fazkovsky]

not only bergevin proved me wrong but mt too, he is making good use of everyone.

 

[SB164]

What do you guys think about this Eastern Conference team?

• a young elite Norris Trophy-winning defenseman
  
• an elite gold-medal winning goaltender entering his prime
  
• a savvy top defensemen, one of the best PP QBs, with high hockey IQ and experience
  
• big, strong, and highly skilled, one of the best wingers in the NHL: he can snipe it, tip it, pass it, and take abuse in front of the net.
  
• one of the best young goalscorers in the NHL, he has size, breakaway speed, and a lethal wrister, also becoming defensively responsible
  
• one of the best shot blocking defensemen, also has leadership qualities
  
• an underrated veteran defensive defenseman, a perfect #5/#6
  
• a hard hitting defenseman with offensive upside
  
• a veteran Stanley Cup-winning leader with tremendous speed and acceleration, also very responsible defensively
  
• an underrated centre who can shutdown top lines, with high hockey IQ, deceptive offensive capabilities, and speed to burn
  
• a heart and soul role player willing to drop the gloves
  
• a fearless skilled pest who drives hard to the net
  
• a young up and coming forward with all the makings of a star player
  
• one of the most clutch playoff performers in NHL history, with 109 points in 108 playoff games, including 50 goals

 

[Kriss E]

Just like it was always way too early to judge his poor moves, it's still way too early to judge his seemingly good ones.

Weaver is old, Wiese is injured and Vanek may not re-sign.

Also Collberg may turn out to be a nothing prospect, same with the 2nd rounder, but the guy was a late 1st for a lot of GM's and scouts. To act like MB got Vanek for free, especially when we may not even re-sign him is a bit disingenuous.

For the record I'm happy we landed Vanek, I just hope and pray we keep him. He's a missing piece we could really use and when you land the holy grail of missing pieces (a 1st line deflection artist with size is EXACTLY the type of player this team needs) you do everything in your power to keep him.

That being said, I just see a bunch of signings and trades ranging anywhere from useless to terrible, with a few OK's (Parros) and a few goodies (Weaver, Wiese) mixed in with a big time maybe (Vanek).

If he can sign Vanek and Subban to lucrative deals this offseason, ones that benefit the team, I'll change my tune. I'm not willing to give MB the benefit of the doubt just yet though, even though he did at least target a player who fits us like a glove.

I was one of the few who although didn't like the Briere signing felt he could be useful, for the most part I still do and feel MT is misusing him, however the signing was a bit of a head scratcher.

Some moves don't need time to be judged.
The Vanek deal is great even if he doesn't re-sign. To get such a great talent at the deadline for the price we paid is a very good move. It's a move anybody and everybody would do 10 times out of 10. We don't need to wait for Colberg or see what that pick pans out to be. It was a steal from us. It's an aggressive deadline move in order to bring us some much needed elite scoring for the POs.
It was a great decision.

Weaver is old, but he's a solid veteran. Personally would have preferred Gilbert, but he likely would have cost more. In any event, Weaver was a smart cheap add for depth.

The Weise move I'm pretty indifferent to, but with the way Therrien had rendered Diaz, might as well add depth. I am rather pleased with the way Weise has played. Can't complain there.

I made this thread just to give some props for these good moves because people, including myself, have no issues commenting on the bad moves. I have not liked any of the moves he's made since extending DD. That was quite a string of bad moves and I was starting to lose some faith. I was still giving him until this upcoming summer to really put a stamp on how I feel about him, but it didn't look good and I was vocal about it.
Now these past few moves have been good, so it's good to see.