He does but that doesn't mean it should be automatically criticized. Bergy's inability to deliver any big moves or trades to improve the top 6 should rightly be criticized but 4th line signings are a minor thing that every GM takes care of and they happen frequently because they are the easiest to do. It doesn't make them bad to do.
Hate is like fog, it clouds judgement and the ability to make clear arguments. I don't agree with what mangement has done over this terrible stretch but to pick out minor stuff like this signing and complain about it is pushing it.
I hear ya....I'm a huge Bergevin fan but I can admit that this year has not been a good year...the Plekanec extension I didn't agree, but 2 years is manageable. The Therrien vote of confidence was not good, the Flynn signing I didn't like, the Semin signing was meh...at least he left himself an out on the one.
It's easy to criticize someone during a rough patch, hell, I can find something to complain about when it comes to the POPE if I dissect his every move.
My biggest disappointment would to see Therrien still at the helm and DD still manning the first line...lets see how things unfold.
A club can't trade a player they claimed off waivers until after the playoffs unless they first offer him on the same terms to any other club who had made a waiver claim on him at the time he was originally made available.
So does MB resign DSP and Lessio as well? How do they fit 5 4th liners on the roster?
usually easily, just that this year they carried 8 D when most years you carry 7. With 7D that leaves you 2 spare forwards, or 5 4th liners. Not saying Lessio makes it, but he does have to clear waivers next year and he should at least be in the running for a spot I would think.
Judging the contract alone, I like the deal. Money and term is pretty sweet. He's exactly what Montreal needs in their bottom six - good defensively, fast, can kill penalties and score goals from time to time.
Of course the Habs need top-six scoring, and I am hoping it happens in the off-season, but I am thrilled to see small moves like this too, especially when they improve the defensive side of the team and keep the depth alive.
To me it shows a manager who is out to lunch, whose ego is so outsized he can't see that his organization is in turmoil.
3 years is too long ... and there was probably was no need to go that long.
Right now there is an urgency to give as much ice time as possible to Hudon, Ellis, Ghetto, Pateryn, Barberio, right now. I don't believe that will happen, and this signing shows things are going to continue as they have been .. badly.
Byron is probably my favourite 4th liner this year, this is a good deal.
You don't need this many 4th liners under long term contract. Players like this should be fighting for contracts regularly. I hate to complain about a good move but this is all Bergevin ever does.
Or it means that we have no confidence for everyone of our kids ready to step up that could play in that kind of role. What's happening to Ghetto? Is he a 2nd line player or he's gone? What about Carr? What about Hudon next year? Could we think of having McCarron play on the 4th next year? Lessio...shouldn't he has a role on this team next year?
Ghetto and Lessio are waiver material aren't they next year? What happens to those players? Where's the room? Are we going to ship them for nothing Tinordi style?
It's like... He loves, LOVES, living up to the BargainBin moniker.
Three years for another undersized, 4th liner?!
I can't even... I simply can't understand this lunatic.
Doesn't seem bad to me. It's actually pretty hard to find a useful NHL player (i.e., not prospect on entry level deal) at 1M -ish. There's a lot of garbage out there costing more than that.
It just depends on his usage. As a specialty PK guy who is otherwise an 11th/12th forward, this is a good signing.
More generally, I think there is merit to the philosophy of building solidly around the edges. If you can find value in your 16th to 23rd roster spots, and have cost certainty over a number of years, then it gives you freedom to go after a Big Contract.
The alternative is that you first pay large for a guy who, however good he is, can't play 60 minutes unless he's a goalie. And then you fall into the trap of overpaying for karactere or role players at the rental deadline or July 1st to complete your team. Because those guys are essential to winning. You can't win 16 playoff games without contribution from your 16th to 23rd roster players, assuming you even make the playoffs.
In a way, this actually reminds me of Gainey's time with Dallas, but in reverse. There, without a cap or an internal budget, he was able to pick up veteran role players every year to round out his roster -- useful veterans with specialties like Carbonneau, Muller, Keane, Hogue. With the cap, I don't think that it's possible to do that anymore, or at least not without the same ease. So, you have to reverse the order somewhat and get those role players first, shrewdly, and then use what's left on the cap to get the Expensive Prize.
Anyway, what I am saying is that low cost certainty over a number of years for the bottom of the roster is a good thing if it means that the team can then focus on investment at the top end. But the other risk of course is using that gained space to over-compensate the middle players.
We need to see what the roster looks like after the deadline, after the draft and after UFA period starts before really saying much of anything about this deal. Because in isolation it hardly matters.
The contract isn't bad in of itself, but the ill-conceived strategy of giving term to 4th liners continues.
Depth players are meant to be disposable, they aren't long term assets.
Goes to show they didn't learn any lessons from signing Moen and Prust to long term deals.
Originally Posted by habsterr
1 year too long, its awful to sign 4th liners to longer term deals. terrible decision
Originally Posted by Habs8517
Ugh another fail. Just give a kid a chance on the fourth line.
Originally Posted by Harpo
I really like Byron, but 3 years? Bergevin is a troll.
Originally Posted by Whitesnake
3 years to Mitchell, 2 years to Flynn, 3 years to Byron....too many years on fillers that can easily be replaced. I will not get that.
Originally Posted by shawdowmaker
Byron is a good guy I like him. As a GM not sure I agree with the 3 years but whatever happy for the guy honest player whatever that means lol
Originally Posted by Pacioretty67
Don't like the length. 4th liners should be disposable rather than long term investments. At least the money is reasonable.
Originally Posted by Lebowski
Three years for a 4th liner?
Originally Posted by The Nightman
3 years, really?
Originally Posted by optimus2861
BargainBin strikes again. There's no need to sign easily replaceable 4th liners to 3-year contracts, even if they are cheap.
Oh well. Hardly matters, I guess. We're not winning squat with this management team in place, so the makeup of the roster is almost irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Team_Spirit
Teams were calling?
Why hold him? Dumont/Lessio could do the job until the end of the season.
Originally Posted by EXPOS123
Guys like Byron are a dime a dozen and the fact that teams were actually willing to give us something to get him after we picked him up for free would have been like discovering plutonium by accident buttttt nooooooooo, we had to sign another midget to another long term contract. Honestly, this fascination with signing soft middling third and forth line midgets is beyond baffling, it is downright asinine. FOR GOD"S SAKE BERGEVIN WE NEED CENTERS WITH SIZE AND SKILL!!! STOP WASTING YOUR TIME WITH BOTTOM FEEDERS!!
Originally Posted by smarties 1
Why another smurf for the next 3 years!
Flynn Mitchell Byron Andriguetto, Hudon, Desharnais Gallagher!!!!
Are you serious!
Originally Posted by NobleSix
Meh, whatever. I don't mind the signing. Would rather it be 2 years.
The Bergevin special. Can't do anything than sign and trade for bottom 6ers so why expect anything else guys.
Like him as a one-year proposition but beyond that, keep options open. Fourth liners can always be had, I don't get the fascination. Plus, already have diminutives like Flynn and Mitchell as bottom liners, why do this.
Mitchell and Byron can get 3 years no problem, but Subban couldn't get a 5 year contract and had to take a bridge deal when he was already top 2 if not #1 on this team.
Big difference between signing UFA's to be vs a young player coming off his ELC as an RFA. Take Byron, if teams were calling about him, there's no way his agent would agree on a 1 year deal, they know they have options and now is the time to try and get the most he can. Perhaps for more money they could have gotten him for 2 years but to me it makes more sense for cap reasons to have him longer and cheaper the next 2 years as that's when the cap could go down and then we'll need to find the money for Price's likely massive contract.
So 8 goals and 3SH is not good enough for you? You'd do what, trade him for a 3rd pick that MAY become something in 6 years?
It's called asset management ..do we really need Byron for three more years given that we already have physically challenged 3rd and fourth liners....no...do we need big skilled centers that can score...yes, and if you can stockpile picks and then use those picks in a trade to get one, then that's what you do.