The line to apologize to Marc Bergevin starts here ---->

[SpeedyPotato]

big moves should last more than 20 games. This makes the team better for the short term but if it detracts from addressing the long existant deficiencies, its eye candy for fools.

Can rental players be the difference, sure provided they have the right foundation. The habs dont have this base.

I disagree with you. That being said, I have to admit that I was for the habs moving Markov for assets yesterday, as I never thought Bergevin would be able to get the kind of player we needed without paying a premium price, which we all know he wasn't gonna be willing to pay. That being said, the Habs do have one of the deepest bottom 6 in the league now, thanks to some unspectacular but effective moves made earlier. I think we also have some pretty strong top 6 players in Pacioretty and Gallagher... and whether or not some of us like it, Desharnais has been really good for 40 games now.

The addition of Vanek, especially at that ridiculous price, is a gamble worth taking IMO. Even if this ends up going south in the worst kind of way, Bergevin did his job yesterday. He addressed to need to add skill and size to our top 6 without crippling the future in the likely event Vanek walks out on us this summer. Geez, we all know the east is up for grabs!! We have Subban and Markov, who are probably a top 5 1-2 punch in this league. We have capable NHL depth on both D and forward now and we have a top 3 goalie... Why not us?

BTW, the Habs didn't only get their hands on a top 6 forward, they obtained a sure fire top 3 forward, a first liner, that scores pretty goals but also ugly ones, that stands in front of the goalie and is big, tough to move, and talented.

Maybe this doesn't work out. Maybe we lose in the first round and Vanek walks and we lose on Collberg and that 2nd rounder, but in this situation, Bergevin made the absolute best move he could in my opinion. Yes the Habs are somewhat still small up front, but now they don't have to play two of these small forward on the same line anymore. The 3rd line becomes even better with a Gionta or Galchenyuk on it. The power play is gonna benefit from this too. The guys seemed so pumped yesterday in Anaheim, we can't undermine the positive effect on the player's morale this deal had, you could see it on the bench during the shootouts!!

We never saw it coming, but I think MB did exactly what he promised... that is that if a good hockey deal is available to improve his team right away, he's doing it. I know I can live with the risk of this not working out and I'm sure the players on this team now feel more than ever that this management team will be willing to do what it takes to win when the opportunity comes along, and I think that's a big plus for us in the future.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I'm not bitter, I just dont get as easily fooled by slight of hand as some.

so the plan is to keep the same problems as we always have and then sign the flavor of the month for 1/4 of a season and hope that it works out ? and when the same issues end up being the cause of out downfall, hide behind " we signed flavor X, what else do you want us to do?"

I'm patient, I'm down for the long haul. if it takes a while to get the team to a position where adding one player could put us over the top, I'll be there with bells on. We are not there now, and pretending that we are, that Vanek somehow makes us a legit contender, is perhaps the most egregious example of homer rose colored glasses I've ever seen on HFboarfds ( which says alot). If that's your goal, mission accomplished.

actually, what you're saying is "I'm a negative nancy, my mind is set on the Habs and MB, so no matter what I'll work hard to make sure to always have something negative to say about what happened"


very few are saying we're real contenders now, most are smart enough to get that the east is so weak that adding a 50, 60 or 70 points player can make a huge difference... too bad you arent.

 

[Habaneros]

10 YEARS AGO

March 22 2004.... 20 days after Habs acquired him.

When the Habs acquired Kovalev from the New York Rangers prior to the trading deadline, the assumption was he was the prototypical rent-a-player. The Canadiens could afford to absorb what was left of his $6.6-million (U.S.) salary for this season, but wouldn't be able to fit him into next season's budget.

However, Kovalev said he's comfortable in a Canadiens uniform.

"Right now, I'm doing whatever I can to help this team," he said. "We'll see what happens in the future. I know that I will be playing somewhere,

Kovy made no commitment when asked even 20 days after coming to Montreal ,when asked if he'd resign in Montreal."We'll see what happens in the future."
Habs made him an offer...he went UFA right,tested market? Then signs with Habs.


Why ?Late Aug after Boston series.

The veteran clearly affirmed that he would like to return to Montreal, mainly because of the fans, who were marvelous during the playoffs.

"Montreal would constitute my first choice. I think back on the enthusiasm of the fans in the playoffs, on the way in which I was treated by the organization, there are many more reasons which encourage me to play again for the Canadiens. I really want to return."

"Never will I forget the reception that the crowd gave me when I stepped on the ice for my first game at the Bell Centre in March.

So that's why i say same with Vanek...
He plays 30 games with Habs he gets a taste,and fans are wild for him,the question is do you want the rock star life or not....

 

[417]

You love every move? What in the? Every move?

I meant the deadline deals...outside of the Brière deal, i'm not sure what he deserves criticisim for though.

 

[sandysan]

actually, what you're saying is "I'm a negative nancy, my mind is set on the Habs and MB, so no matter what I'll work hard to make sure to always have something negative to say about what happened"


very few are saying we're real contenders now, most are smart enough to get that the east is so weak that adding a 50, 60 or 70 points player can make a huge difference... too bad you arent.

I'm not a negative nancy, I can objectively look at the habs strengths and weaknesses and even if I like the Vanek acquisition ( and I do) unless we plan to double shift him on defense or triple shift him to make up for our shortcomings in the top 6 the goal is still not attainable.

And if I'm a negative nancy, then you are a duped fool. He's going to be here for a couple of months at best and to simply take all of the good parts of potential and think that this is a panacea for all that ails this team means one thing and one thing only, more early exits in the playoffs. We were NEVER one player away from a contender, and on the absolute outside chance we were, that players aint Vanek for two months.

Here look at the granite counter tops, man are they shiny. dont pay any mind to the cracks in the foundation, if the countertops fail for some reason ( even if it was not predicted) we will tear them out, put in laminate for another 10 months and then put in some newer granite. and then you get to pine for the two months you didnt have laminate, but you have never addressed the cracks.

I like the habs, if you want to argue this is a good extremely short term addition, fine by me. But if the long term plan is to do whatever the hell you like for 10 months and then make a one time push for the other 2, I'm not sure that is a long term plan at all.

This team had problems before vanek. Vanek does not address ALL of these problems, arguing that Vanek is the cure to all that ails the habs can only be made on a basis of profound ignorance.

 

[CupInSIX]

I meant the deadline deals...outside of the Brière deal, i'm not sure what he deserves criticisim for though.

Sad to see clutch playoff legend Briere still getting **** on when he's heating up before the post season.

 

[sandysan]

I meant the deadline deals...outside of the Brière deal, i'm not sure what he deserves criticisim for though.

extending Deharnais and extending Emelin coming right after an injury ?

are these all wiped off the board with a two month rental of vanek and the signing of a slightly more proficent drewiske ? According to many, if MB punched their mothers in the face, that would have been forgiven by signing Vanek. I'm nor so sure.

He might have closed the gap between good and bad, I'm not convinced he's reversed fortunes.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

extending Deharnais and extending Emelin coming right after an injury ?

are these all wiped off the board with a two month rental of vanek and the signing of a slightly more proficent drewiske ? According to many, if MB punched their mothers in the face, that would have been forgiven by signing Vanek. I'm nor so sure.

He might have closed the gap between good and bad, I'm not convinced he's reversed fortunes.

Seems like it. Habs fans did the same with Gauthier and Gainey. Gauthier got so much love on here when he made the odd good move...people even backed up his "leaky roof" excuse after not being able to do what Bergy did at the deadline. Bergie redeemed himself with this move for many. But I'm still not sold on him. Hopefully he comes through in the offseason.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Vanek will sign with Minnesota. The guy played in Buffalo for how long? I'm not so sure that he's dead set to go to Minnesota. Montreal isn't that far of a plane ride anyways. If he enjoys playing for us and his family enjoys the city, I don't see an issue. The only thing working against us is a) he's a low key guy and Montreal is not for low key players. b) Therrien is not a likeable guy and his system may not mesh with Vanek.

We shall see.

 

[Agnostic]

Cart before horse. Let's see how he plays . I have a feeling Bergevin is not going to want to give this guy an 8 year deal at the end of the day. Right now it is what it is a rental.

 

[sandysan]

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Vanek will sign with Minnesota. The guy played in Buffalo for how long? I'm not so sure that he's dead set to go to Minnesota. Montreal isn't that far of a plane ride anyways. If he enjoys playing for us and his family enjoys the city, I don't see an issue. The only thing working against us is a) he's a low key guy and Montreal is not for low key players. b) Therrien is not a likeable guy and his system may not mesh with Vanek.

We shall see.

If signing a rental is the "big deal" that some are crowing, if he resigns it will have the be the greatest acquisition in the history of all sports hfboards will crash under all of the congratulatory back slapping.

The signing could be part of the solution, provided he sticks around to see the other shoes drop ( if they ever do)

 

[ECWHSWI]

I'm not a negative nancy, I can objectively look at the habs strengths and weaknesses and even if I like the Vanek acquisition ( and I do) unless we plan to double shift him on defense or triple shift him to make up for our shortcomings in the top 6 the goal is still not attainable.

And if I'm a negative nancy, then you are a duped fool. He's going to be here for a couple of months at best and to simply take all of the good parts of potential and think that this is a panacea for all that ails this team means one thing and one thing only, more early exits in the playoffs. We were NEVER one player away from a contender, and on the absolute outside chance we were, that players aint Vanek for two months.

Here look at the granite counter tops, man are they shiny. dont pay any mind to the cracks in the foundation, if the countertops fail for some reason ( even if it was not predicted) we will tear them out, put in laminate for another 10 months and then put in some newer granite. and then you get to pine for the two months you didnt have laminate, but you have never addressed the cracks.

I like the habs, if you want to argue this is a good extremely short term addition, fine by me. But if the long term plan is to do whatever the hell you like for 10 months and then make a one time push for the other 2, I'm not sure that is a long term plan at all.

This team had problems before vanek. Vanek does not address ALL of these problems, arguing that Vanek is the cure to all that ails the habs can only be made on a basis of profound ignorance.

cause I understand that, contrary to the West where there's 4 or 5 teams with a legit shot at the Cup final, the east have two at most ?

yeah! I must be a fool !



No, the real ignorance is thinking that anyone see Vanek as a solution to every issue... and that's exactly what you're showing here, ignorance.

Keep whining though, keep being negative, it's OK you're allowed to be... just dont ******** us trying to pretend you're not though.

 

[jeangauthier]

This line should be a long one.........gladly I don`t have to stand in it............we`re in the second year of the Begervin era and I can wait for the five year promise...........

 

[jeangauthier]

Every team has issues......... well except for the 77,78 and 79 Habs

 

[sandysan]

cause I understand that, contrary to the West where there's 4 or 5 teams with a legit shot at the Cup final, the east have two at most ?

yeah! I must be a fool !



No, the real ignorance is thinking that anyone see Vanek as a solution to every issue... and that's exactly what you're showing here, ignorance.

Keep whining though, keep being negative, it's OK you're allowed to be... just dont ******** us trying to pretend you're not though.

so before we signed vanek, what did you think were the habs deficiencies? What parts of the game did the Habs needto improve on. Go get a pencil and make a list.

Now we have vanek, great. Cross off all of the liabilities the team no longer has because we now have a rental for about 2 months.

done yet ? How many things have still not been crossed out ? If we get bounced because of one of those, why didnt vanek cure everything ?

We are a better team than two days ago but we are still FAR from a good team and depsite being bter at some aspects, some of the troubling aspects that existed PRIOR to vanek havent changed one iota.

But go ahead, focus only on the shiny new bead and dont touble your pretty little head about the deficiencies that vanek does not address and just presume because we might score more 5/5 that out porous defense aside from the top pairing is just going to magically cure itself in the glowing light of a player who will likely never full unpack his suitcase.

 

[Whitesnake]

Just believe that apologizing because of one move is just as relevant as wanted him fired because of 1 move....Let's praise him for that move. The move in itself is a great move. No matter how it ends. But it's all about the end-result. We all know that there will still be a difference in acknowledgment based on if Vanek does well and re-sign, of if the Habs lose in the 1st round and Vanek walks. Yet, while I'm not his #1 fan, we should acknowledge the move he made period.

 

[ECWHSWI]

so before we signed vanek, what did you think were the habs deficiencies? What parts of the game did the Habs needto improve on. Go get a pencil and make a list.

Now we have vanek, great. Cross off all of the liabilities the team no longer has because we now have a rental for about 2 months.

done yet ? How many things have still not been crossed out ? If we get bounced because of one of those, why didnt vanek cure everything ?

We are a better team than two days ago but we are still FAR from a good team and depsite being bter at some aspects, some of the troubling aspects that existed PRIOR to vanek havent changed one iota.

But go ahead, focus only on the shiny new bead and dont touble your pretty little head about the deficiencies that vanek does not address and just presume because we might score more 5/5 that out porous defense aside from the top pairing is just going to magically cure itself in the glowing light of a player who will likely never full unpack his suitcase.

maybe if you werent so focused on your bullcrap negative stuff, you'd see how Pejorative Slured the comments in bold are...

care to show a single post that says Vanek will fix everything ? a single post saying we have the best D corp in the league ? a single one saying we have the best forward group in the league ? a single one saying we're the biggest team in the league ?

dont bother, you wont find any of this, you just make stuff up cause you need to **** on the trade, negative nancy.

 

[SB164]

Montreal GM Marc Bergevin got high marks from his peers for getting Vanek at a discount rate from the New York Islanders, while Minnesota GM Chuck Fletcher got praise for his industrious few days.

"Bergevin did a really good job on Vanek," said a Western Conference GM in a comment that was repeated by many.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/29488/gms-praise-moves-by-blues-habs-wild

 

[Smokey Thompson]

Just believe that apologizing because of one move is just as relevant as wanted him fired because of 1 move....Let's praise him for that move. The move in itself is a great move. No matter how it ends. But it's all about the end-result. We all know that there will still be a difference in acknowledgment based on if Vanek does well and re-sign, of if the Habs lose in the 1st round and Vanek walks. Yet, while I'm not his #1 fan, we should acknowledge the move he made period.

What is even more impressive is the immaculate cap management since Bergy's arrival that allowed for the trade.

Only reason we got Vanek for next to nothing is that no other buyer had nearly enough cap space to fit him under the cap.

 

[poetryinmotion]

Grabs a rental and all of a sudden we're supposed to apologize? I think I'll wait and see how this turns out.

Still a great trade though, I have to admit. Kinda feel bad for the Isles... heh.

 

[sandysan]

Just believe that apologizing because of one move is just as relevant as wanted him fired because of 1 move....Let's praise him for that move. The move in itself is a great move. No matter how it ends. But it's all about the end-result. We all know that there will still be a difference in acknowledgment based on if Vanek does well and re-sign, of if the Habs lose in the 1st round and Vanek walks. Yet, while I'm not his #1 fan, we should acknowledge the move he made period.

I've YET to see anyone saying that signing Vanek is not a good move. I think its unanimous that it is. The real question is how do you evaluate a GM ? Do you focus exclusively on this last moves ? his most unexpected moves ?

Or do you look at all of the moves and make a determination whether in aggregate the gains accomplished by the good moves exceed those lost by the bad.

I have no problem saying that the signing of vanek improves MB's stock, but if you want to say he's a good ( or bad) GM I think you have to look at things in aggregate.

Being, in my opinion demonstrably less bad is not synonymous with being good, apparently it does for some.

 

[Saintpatrick*]

I'll wait and see how he handles my boy PK's contract before apologizing. That was a fantastic steal of a trade though I'll give him kudos for that.

 

[Grant McCagg]

Not sure why we have to be either apologizing or vilifying him after each move.

People poke fun of his "five year-plan' yet many fall off the edge after a "five-day plan."

You always have to remember that a move isn't always black and white or cut and dried, We are not in the GM's position, and there are countless variables. Family reasons, salaries, conflicts, off-ice problems, chemistry, the numbers game....

Whitesnake is right. One should never overreact to an individual move such as ...say..a prospect like Danny Kristo being traded.....mind you this can be easier said than done.

 

[sandysan]

maybe if you werent so focused on your bullcrap negative stuff, you'd see how Pejorative Slured the comments in bold are...

care to show a single post that says Vanek will fix everything ? a single post saying we have the best D corp in the league ? a single one saying we have the best forward group in the league ? a single one saying we're the biggest team in the league ?

dont bother, you wont find any of this, you just make stuff up cause you need to **** on the trade, negative nancy.

before the vanek signing no one said the habs were contenders, now there are like 5 threads " asking " the same question. Is it because of vanek or vaney and a slightly better but shorter drewiske ?

you should look into the differences between " better" and "good", it would be informative.

So if mike milbury had pulled one trade out of his.........hat that worked out, then all of the crappy myopic and franchise destroying choices he made get wiped off the table ?

Now imagine someone arguing that milbury is a good GM if the last acquisition he made was for a good two month rental.

of I forgot, if you dont think that EVERY trade the GM makes is the greatest of all possible options, you are a negative nancy.

thanks champ, but the problems ( aside from those addressed by vanek) dont go away if you ignore them.

 

[Goldthorpe]

I've YET to see anyone saying that signing Vanek is not a good move. I think its unanimous that it is. The real question is how do you evaluate a GM ? Do you focus exclusively on this last moves ? his most unexpected moves ?

Or do you look at all of the moves and make a determination whether in aggregate the gains accomplished by the good moves exceed those lost by the bad.

I have no problem saying that the signing of vanek improves MB's stock, but if you want to say he's a good ( or bad) GM I think you have to look at things in aggregate.

Being, in my opinion demonstrably less bad is not synonymous with being good, apparently it does for some.

Sure, you can do that. But then you need a way, way bigger observation window than two seasons, especially for a rookie GM.

It would be a shame to only evaluate him on his first two years, decide that he must be replaced because overall he made more bad moves than good (which is arguable, but that's not my point) and see him flourish somewhere else, having now two years of experience under his belt and being way better at his job...

For the POV of Molson, considering what MB did in the last two years and the results of the team, I would wait some more years before even considering replacing him.