HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bergevin named finalist for GM of the Year award

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-29-2014, 09:57 AM
  #151
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,632
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by le_sean View Post
Yes, he did unload Craig Rivet for a ransom, but he also failed to unload 26 goal scorer Sheldon Souray even though the team was terrible. Then we proceeded to lose him for nothing. Imagine the haul for that guy.
We were very much in the hunt for a playoff spot at the deadline that year. Yeah we weren't really a good team, but you try convincing your owner to sell off one of the stars of your team in the thick of a playoff hunt. Doesn't go down very often.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 10:01 AM
  #152
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,690
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs03 View Post
-No one is saying Gauthier doesn't deserve blame, but some ppl just take it overboard,with stuff like saying how he was really behind it all, and Gainey was not even really the GM etc.

-There is no way Gainey didn't know what he was getting with Gomez, Gomez before the last while in Mtl has always been the same, a 50-60 centre.

-Other than some insiders telling us, no one knows who wanted who, I mean in 07 when Gainey traded Rivet for Gorges and a 1st (Pacioretty), are we going to give only Gauthier the credit for that trade, since he was scouting and saw Gorges talent? I remember the Ducks wanted Rivet at that tradeline, maybe Gauthier said to take that deal but Gainey wanted Gorges....

-The only info that ever came out of the Gomez deal was in Elliote Fiedmen 30 thoughts a couple years ago. It said that once the Rangers knew the Habs could get Vinny from Tampa, they offered them Gomez for Mdg and it a done deal fast..

-So Gainey who was heavy into the Vinny deal, remember him being upset at the Brain Lawton for putting out players name that were rumoured all of sudden didn't know how Gomez is and how he was playing..
You're completely missing my point...I'm saying they worked as a team and should share the blame, including whatever credit from that regime. You say no one is saying Gauthier doesn't deserve blame then go on to insinuate Gainey made all the bad moves himself. It's actually more speculative to assume that regime wasn't a team effort because there are many examples throughout the league that suggest that the people in the key executive positions work as a team. There's even inside the draft and trade deadline type videos out there nowadays on youtube showing this team effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
How exactly has he done more? The only top-9 forward/top-4 defenceman he's added is a rental in Vanek and maybe Prust if you consider him top-9.

Bergevin/Gauthier have both had two offseasons to shape the roster, Bergevin also had the benefit of two compliance buyouts. Not too mention a 3rd overall pick, additional 3 high second round picks in the next 2 drafts. Oh and Bergevin never had to deal with an injured Markov, whereas Gauthier pretty much never had Markov. Do you need someone to dig out the record with and without Markov?

And how the hell can you claim Timmins gave them the same core? Firstoff Timmins came in at the same time as Gainey so he didn't give him anything to start with. Second it's laughable that you think Timmins gave both teams the same core, not only did Begrevin get an extra 2 top-9 arguably top-6 players in the Gallys, but getting a 20 year old Subban who had never played a game in the NHL is not the same as getting a 23 year old Subban who had already established himself as a top-pairing defenceman and was posied for a Norris win.
Timmins similarly provided them all their best assets and Bergevin brought the best out of it by adding the most complementing pieces. Where other GMs ruined the prospects brought up, Bergevin's regime seems to be better at surrounding it to optimize success. The core of the team has been Timmins build for most of the recent years. Logically I'm not referring to pre-Timmins era or early Gainey. Who knows how Subban/Gallys develop under Gainey/Gauthier. Certainly not rare to see young players ruined and thrown away when they were GM. Bergevin has one quality neither Gainey/Gauthier ever showed, he hasn't sold low and rather wait for a player to bounce back. He doesn't throw away players as easily. Another one I recently appreciated is improved pro-scouting. Weise/Weaver cost next to nothing and they have been big support to the rest of the team. Another type of move neither Gainey/Gauthier shown (I guess aside from Gorges).

What has Gauthier done the by that same token? Some of his greatest feats are literally choosing to re-sign players, choosing to sell at the deadline as a lottery pick team, and choosing not to trade the lottery pick.

I'm not even that big of a fan of Bergevin, he's done quite a few things that I disagreed with and still do. That said, what has Gauthier done to suggest Bergevin hasn't done more? Even if you ignore regular season success and current playoff run, what exactly did Gauthier accomplish? I guess there's the injuries, what could have been if it weren't for the injuries. He added couple buyout candidates in Cole and Kaberle. Aside from the playoffs, Bourque has been 4th line level and will likely return to it next season. Cap management is not something he showed any care to and Gauthier would have had more seconds in his tenure if he didn't trade them all for stop gaps that he didn't try to keep.

Just so I'm clear, you think Gauthier was a good GM correct?

Quote:
So besides 4th liner's what big forwards did Gainey acquire? Hell in 07-08 our best season under him we had ONE top-6 player above 6' and that was Kovalev. Gainey stated numerous times size wasn't that important and things like speed/skill/character were more important. Gauthier said the exact opposite and that we need size in the top-6 and then went out and followed through.
http://www.eliteprospects.com/teampl...te.php?team=64

Context would be necessary since Habs were actually not small before 2009. Only 2 players (Koivu/Plekanec) under 6'0'' in top 9. So Gauthier acquired Kaberle's bad contract and signed Cole to one, does this mean Gauthier's philosophy of not being shy of bad contracts was in effect in the Gomez trade? How about all the players Gauthier let go without return, Gainey did same thing...same philosophy? Both are equally far fetched ways of (dis)connecting GM philosophy. There is no evidence showing that if Gainey was GM he wouldn't have tried to add size to the 2010 team's top 6. I'm not sure why Gauthier defenders (an existence that is a discussion within itself) are keep making it seem like people are saying all bad moves during Gainey's GM tenure is Gauthier's fault. I'm saying it's a team effort and Gauthier had a hand in making the mess. There doesn't need to be evidence for this argument since based on the general impact of the role he held. What needs evidence is absolving him from bad moves under Gainey or fully blaming him for moves under Gainey. I am doing neither.

Quote:
Higgins's career was about go off a cliff, they made the right decision to move him while he still had value.

They were expecting Gomez to play on the 1st line and provide 60-65pts. He basically did that his first season, his play then falling off a cliff the way it did was not predictable and is what really made it a bad trade. He went from being overpaid but good to overpaid and bad. Had he continued producing his 60pts and McDonagh wasn't part of the deal then it would have been a decent trade.

In the 5 seasons since the trade we made the playoffs 4 times, went to the ECF twice. Yet somehow it's such a bad deal it nearly crippled us
If McDonagh bust, Higgins never bounced back, Gomez returned to Devils form and wasn't one of the worst contracts in hockey, it'd even be a great trade. The decision to acquire Gomez for anything of value was never 'decent' because it was a cap world. He was already regressing at the time of the trade. He was a ~70 point player who had his first ~60 point season production rate. You can suggest this was all Gainey's decision but at the end of the day all we know is their roles. Based on their roles, this was most definitely a dumb management team effort in retooling on the fly. Gauthier was part of this team and realistically had a hand in it based on the job titles. No proof of all the bad moves being a solo effort that Gauthier wasn't on board with and help build along with Gainey.

Not realistic to assume Subban back then would have become Norris caliber and good enough to carry team's on him back. He was good prospect, but this was beyond expectations. Same for Pacioretty producing at 65-70 point rate from the age of 23. This saved the franchise from another Houle type dark ages.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 10:04 AM
  #153
le_sean
Registered User
 
le_sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 17,014
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
We were very much in the hunt for a playoff spot at the deadline that year. Yeah we weren't really a good team, but you try convincing your owner to sell off one of the stars of your team in the thick of a playoff hunt. Doesn't go down very often.
Yes obviously in hindsight it's easy to judge. Though I do remember Burke being upset that Rivet wasn't offered to the Ducks. He had no idea that he was available. I would believe the smart thing to do would be to say Souray and Rivet can be acquired, and then wait for offers. This did not seem like Gainey's style.

le_sean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 11:23 AM
  #154
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
You're completely missing my point...I'm saying they worked as a team and should share the blame, including whatever credit from that regime. You say no one is saying Gauthier doesn't deserve blame then go on to insinuate Gainey made all the bad moves himself. It's actually more speculative to assume that regime wasn't a team effort because there are many examples throughout the league that suggest that the people in the key executive positions work as a team. There's even inside the draft and trade deadline type videos out there nowadays on youtube showing this team effort.
Gauthier know doubt made some mistakes, some Gainey probably agreed with, some he probably overruled. He also probably made good recommendations that also got overruled. But you can't take a specific trade like the Gomez trade and blame Gauthier for it, since that specific trade we have no idea what Gauthier reccomended. The whole body of work, sure he deserves some credit/blame for it. And the whole body of work is taking a team that was consistently missing the playoffs and a bare prospects cupboard to a team that consistently makes the playoffs and was poised to enter contender status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Timmins similarly provided them all their best assets and Bergevin brought the best out of it by adding the most complementing pieces. Where other GMs ruined the prospects brought up, Bergevin's regime seems to be better at surrounding it to optimize success. The core of the team has been Timmins build for most of the recent years. Logically I'm not referring to pre-Timmins era or early Gainey. Who knows how Subban/Gallys develop under Gainey/Gauthier. Certainly not rare to see young players ruined and thrown away when they were GM. Bergevin has one quality neither Gainey/Gauthier ever showed, he hasn't sold low and rather wait for a player to bounce back. He doesn't throw away players as easily. Another one I recently appreciated is improved pro-scouting. Weise/Weaver cost next to nothing and they have been big support to the rest of the team. Another type of move neither Gainey/Gauthier shown (I guess aside from Gorges).
The quality of players Timmins provided is not nearly the same. Our recent crop of young players is so much better than what Gainey/Gauthier got. Gainey/Gauthier never got a defenceman capable of winning the Norris. Bergevin did. They never got a player with Galchenyuk's potential, hell besides Pacioretty who they both got they arguably didn't even get a Gallagher level player.

Subban didn't develop under Bergevin he developed under Gainey/Gauthier. Same with Pacioretty, Price. Those are without question our 3 best players. Gauthier got those three when they were still developing and learning the pro-game. Bergevin got them when they were in their primes. That's a huge difference.

Who did Gainey/Gauthier get that's equivalent to Subban/Price/Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher these past 2 years?

In the early years our prospects tended to plateau once they made the NHL and their development stalled. That was a big reason for the team being blown up and going after cup winners like Gomez, Gionta, Gill. Since that change our prospects have developed much better and it's nothing to do with Bergevin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
What has Gauthier done the by that same token? Some of his greatest feats are literally choosing to re-sign players, choosing to sell at the deadline as a lottery pick team, and choosing not to trade the lottery pick.
I agree Gauthier didn't do a whole lot as GM, he had two offseasons just like Bergevin. But he was able to sign a 6'2 PWF who would score 35 goals for us (Cole). He was able to get a 6'2 top-4 D (Emelin), he was able to acquire a young 6'2 center with top-6 upside (Eller).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
I'm not even that big of a fan of Bergevin, he's done quite a few things that I disagreed with and still do. That said, what has Gauthier done to suggest Bergevin hasn't done more? Even if you ignore regular season success and current playoff run, what exactly did Gauthier accomplish? I guess there's the injuries, what could have been if it weren't for the injuries. He added couple buyout candidates in Cole and Kaberle. Aside from the playoffs, Bourque has been 4th line level and will likely return to it next season. Cap management is not something he showed any care to and Gauthier would have had more seconds in his tenure if he didn't trade them all for stop gaps that he didn't try to keep.

Just so I'm clear, you think Gauthier was a good GM correct?
Gauthier acquired more core players. Bergevin has pretty much only acquired depth players (Apart from Vanek). That's why I think Gauthier did more. And for the record I think Gauthier is an average GM and Bergevin is still an unknown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
http://www.eliteprospects.com/teampl...te.php?team=64

Context would be necessary since Habs were actually not small before 2009. Only 2 players (Koivu/Plekanec) under 6'0'' in top 9. So Gauthier acquired Kaberle's bad contract and signed Cole to one, does this mean Gauthier's philosophy of not being shy of bad contracts was in effect in the Gomez trade? How about all the players Gauthier let go without return, Gainey did same thing...same philosophy? Both are equally far fetched ways of (dis)connecting GM philosophy. There is no evidence showing that if Gainey was GM he wouldn't have tried to add size to the 2010 team's top 6. I'm not sure why Gauthier defenders (an existence that is a discussion within itself) are keep making it seem like people are saying all bad moves during Gainey's GM tenure is Gauthier's fault. I'm saying it's a team effort and Gauthier had a hand in making the mess. There doesn't need to be evidence for this argument since based on the general impact of the role he held. What needs evidence is absolving him from bad moves under Gainey or fully blaming him for moves under Gainey. I am doing neither.
Average size isn't that important. It's size in the top-6/top-4 that matter. For instance Tinordi will increase the team's average size, but if he only plays 10min a night it doesn't address our size issue.

How many players in our top-6 had good size had good size?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
If McDonagh bust, Higgins never bounced back, Gomez returned to Devils form and wasn't one of the worst contracts in hockey, it'd even be a great trade. The decision to acquire Gomez for anything of value was never 'decent' because it was a cap world. He was already regressing at the time of the trade. He was a ~70 point player who had his first ~60 point season production rate. You can suggest this was all Gainey's decision but at the end of the day all we know is their roles. Based on their roles, this was most definitely a dumb management team effort in retooling on the fly. Gauthier was part of this team and realistically had a hand in it based on the job titles. No proof of all the bad moves being a solo effort that Gauthier wasn't on board with and help build along with Gainey.
Prospects busting or developing doesn't really make a trade good/bad. Regardless of whether it was McDonagh or Fisher, giving up a recent 1st round pick for Gomez was bad.

I have no doubt that Gauthier was consulted on Gomez, but did Gauthier say Gomez was worth a 1st round pick, did he say he would rebound to his 70pt form, or did he say Gomez will continue to decline and we'll have to buy him out eventually? We don't know. And like I said at the top of this post, you can give Gauthier some credit/blame for the overall work but you can't point out a specific move and say he deserves some blame for that. If you want to look at a specific trade then it's the GM and no one else unless you have actual evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Not realistic to assume Subban back then would have become Norris caliber and good enough to carry team's on him back. He was good prospect, but this was beyond expectations. Same for Pacioretty producing at 65-70 point rate from the age of 23. This saved the franchise from another Houle type dark ages.
In the summer of 2009 we probably don't know Subban would turn out great, though he was still our #3 prospect. And 65-70 points from Pacioretty was certainly his potential at that time. But I don't understand the point you are trying to make. If our top prospects don't develop then we will suck regardless of whether we acquire Gomez or not.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 12:17 PM
  #155
JayKing
Go Habs Go
 
JayKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,219
vCash: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Other than Alex Galchenyuk, we have no idea if the 2012 and 2013 draft classes were any good. I remember when people were excited about each of Nicklas Torp, Michael Cichy, Ben Maxwell, Mathieu Carle, etc.

Maxim Trunev was said to be a steal.
the 2013 definitely doesn't look as sexy as it did last year. 3 picks look they won't even get signed.

JayKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 01:44 PM
  #156
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 36,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
We were very much in the hunt for a playoff spot at the deadline that year. Yeah we weren't really a good team, but you try convincing your owner to sell off one of the stars of your team in the thick of a playoff hunt. Doesn't go down very often.
Don't forget we had just lost our starting goalie...

It was the wrong gamble to take. I expect my GM to look at what's best both in the long and short term. We had no vision there at all. I said it was wrong then and I think it was wrong now. Sometimes you have to take a step back to go two steps forward and to me we really missed the boat that year.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 04:47 PM
  #157
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Bergy really hasn't made any moves of significance really. Not on the level of getting top GM accolades IMO. However, he did do a good job of adding low end depth... I'm not sure how difficult that is, but it's still something the previous regime struggled at. I think Bergy benefits here based on just how ****** Gauthier and Gainey were before him. They were downright incompetent. Bergy isn't. I think we'll really get a gauge on him after this offseason.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 04:55 PM
  #158
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Like pretty much every GM most moves are just rearranging lawn chairs.

I'd say his big moves were:
Cole->Ryder->Briere
Subban bridge deal
Vanek trade

His medium impact moves were:
Prust
Desharnais
Emelin
Diaz

I don't see much to write home about. There's also a clear trend of overpaying on guys. Only Pacioretty was a good signing, Price was around market value and the rest got overpaid.

Our healthy playoff line has 5.75m sitting in the pressbox (Bouillon, Murray, Moen, Parros), and over 6.5m on the 4th line (Prust, Briere). That's not great asset management.
Agree here. I think Bergie gets a bit overrated on here due to just how bad Gauthier and co were. People give him credit for drafting...but that's Timmins. Need to see more from him IMO. A lot of perimeter moves. If Vanekwalks...the trade doesn't look that great anymore...seeing as he's been a no-show this playoffs...and we let a good prospect go. Flipside is he helped us get into the playoffs.

We'll see how good of a GM he is when he actually has to make difficult decisions and build the team instead of stockpiling 4th line and 3rd pairing guys. That's where good GMs make a name for themselves. The deals for top 6 and top 4 players.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 05:32 PM
  #159
habsfanatics*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Jagr was the obvious choice. Ryder played well for us so re-signing him would have been fine as well. I was a fan of going after MacArthur as a backup plan. Iginla/Horton/Filppula/Raymond would all have been better. But honestly it's a bit unfair to look back now and say who would've been better. I thought Briere was a bad move at the time because he was not only declining rapidly but he was a poor fit for us.

And yes if there are no players that fit you save the money and wait for a trade or sign a cheap guy looking for a rebound. Was the Ryan deal that much more costly then the Vanek deal?



The evidence is that they are healthy scratches.



Is tolerable really the goal? Like I said it's not a big deal but there is a definite trend it's not just one player. Even Price was overpaid at the time of the signing (Though Bergevin had no leverage so I don't blame him). As for fair deals did we get fair value on the 3m spent on Murray/Bouillon? Did we get fair value on the 4m we spent on Briere?

If you go around the league and add up the cost of the 4th line, bottom pair, and healthy scratches I'd bet we are at or near the top of the league.




4m for 25pts in the regular season and 7pts in 15 playoff games is bad. Why spend 8m over 2 years with a NTC on a hope? If you're spending money on a hope you should get some kind of discount, we didn't.
For anyone who watched Briere at all prior to the signing there was never any hope he was a Top 6er. He was window dressing in a year MB expected to be more of an evaluation year than competing to be in Cup final. He under-estimated his own club, but I'm fine with it now. He threw a bone to the fans in signing a once high-profile French Canadian, good on him.

The signings that didn't make any sense were Murray, he provides nothing except possession to any line he faces. Emelin, although I don't hate Emelin, there was no rush to lock him up after a major injury. The handling of Subban was borderline Houle like and other than that he's been pretty good.

He recognized his short falls and made up for them pre-deadline, Weaver was the best acquisition of any.

habsfanatics* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 05:34 PM
  #160
habsfanatics*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
Bergy really hasn't made any moves of significance really. Not on the level of getting top GM accolades IMO. However, he did do a good job of adding low end depth... I'm not sure how difficult that is, but it's still something the previous regime struggled at. I think Bergy benefits here based on just how ****** Gauthier and Gainey were before him. They were downright incompetent. Bergy isn't. I think we'll really get a gauge on him after this offseason.
Agreed with this, most of his acquisitions are 4th liners/bottom 6 dman or healthy scratches. Weaver was a steal though.

habsfanatics* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 05:36 PM
  #161
PricePkPatch*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
Agree here. I think Bergie gets a bit overrated on here due to just how bad Gauthier and co were. People give him credit for drafting...but that's Timmins. Need to see more from him IMO. A lot of perimeter moves. If Vanekwalks...the trade doesn't look that great anymore...seeing as he's been a no-show this playoffs...and we let a good prospect go. Flipside is he helped us get into the playoffs.

We'll see how good of a GM he is when he actually has to make difficult decisions and build the team instead of stockpiling 4th line and 3rd pairing guys. That's where good GMs make a name for themselves. The deals for top 6 and top 4 players.
You still talk bullcrap..

PricePkPatch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2014, 05:41 PM
  #162
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Agreed with this, most of his acquisitions are 4th liners/bottom 6 dman or healthy scratches. Weaver was a steal though.
Yes. Weaver was a good deal. I think that was his best deal since coming to Montreal.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.