Marc Bergevin and staff 2017-18

[BigTed3]

No matter how badly you think MB has done,

1. It would not have made sense to sign Radulov for 5 years.

2. Markov, while an upgrade, would not single-handedly be making a huge difference in team success.

3. It was Price long-term or Price probably would have been traded or walked. Carey wasn't taking 5 or 6 years.

 

There are a lot of mistakes that MB has made in the past two years... Shaw, Alzner, Subban, Andrighetto, King, holding on to Therrien for too long, etc., but I won't fault him for the above three to the degree that I will for others.

 

[eldag]

15 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

No matter how badly you think MB has done,

1. It would not have made sense to sign Radulov for 5 years.

2. Markov, while an upgrade, would not single-handedly be making a huge difference in team success.

3. It was Price long-term or Price probably would have been traded or walked. Carey wasn't taking 5 or 6 years.

 

There are a lot of mistakes that MB has made in the past two years... Shaw, Alzner, Subban, Andrighetto, King, holding on to Therrien for too long, etc., but I won't fault him for the above three to the degree that I will for others.

 

I agree completely with statements 1 and 2. As for #3,  Price should have been traded as I have advocated for the last year because I knew we would end up with what we have now which is a disaster. The point is Bergevin has committed so many blunders, any one of which should have been reasons for dismissal and yet he remains on a long term contract with an owner who maintains silence. The sad part is that there remain fans deluded in the belief that this team has any hope of remaining competitive when the soul mission of the club appears to be seen as politically correct for the French media  while operating under Cap as a small market team in order to maximize profitability. As long as the Bell Centre is full for the games and people continue to buy merchandise ..... nothing substantive will be changed.  

[BigTed3]

2 hours ago, eldag said:

I agree completely with statements 1 and 2. As for #3,  Price should have been traded as I have advocated for the last year because I knew we would end up with what we have now which is a disaster. The point is Bergevin has committed so many blunders, any one of which should have been reasons for dismissal and yet he remains on a long term contract with an owner who maintains silence. The sad part is that there remain fans deluded in the belief that this team has any hope of remaining competitive when the soul mission of the club appears to be seen as politically correct for the French media  while operating under Cap as a small market team in order to maximize profitability. As long as the Bell Centre is full for the games and people continue to buy merchandise ..... nothing substantive will be changed.  

Point 3 wasn't a commentary on whether I would or would not have traded Price instead of the long-term deal. I was only saying that those who say we should have signed Price to a shorter deal are talking about an option that probably didn't exist for MB. Price had all the collateral (a hole MB dug for himself) and he had no reason to accept a 2-year or 5-year deal. So it's great to talk about trading Price, but the question is what teams would have given up for an impending UFA last season, and one who has had serious injury problems in the past, knowing you'd have to give him 7 years at over 10M per season if you did acquire him (or risk losing him yourself in the off-season). We wouldn't get the same return as we would if Price had, for example, 4 years left on his deal. Same reason most teams don't want to bite on Duchene, because they don't know whether he'll be there past next season and they don't want to pay Sakic's price with that risk. So yes, I absolutely agree a good GM would have explored the market for Price to see what was out there, but I don't think there's a guarantee we would have found as good a deal as some might like.

[eldag]

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Point 3 wasn't a commentary on whether I would or would not have traded Price instead of the long-term deal. I was only saying that those who say we should have signed Price to a shorter deal are talking about an option that probably didn't exist for MB. Price had all the collateral (a hole MB dug for himself) and he had no reason to accept a 2-year or 5-year deal. So it's great to talk about trading Price, but the question is what teams would have given up for an impending UFA last season, and one who has had serious injury problems in the past, knowing you'd have to give him 7 years at over 10M per season if you did acquire him (or risk losing him yourself in the off-season). We wouldn't get the same return as we would if Price had, for example, 4 years left on his deal. Same reason most teams don't want to bite on Duchene, because they don't know whether he'll be there past next season and they don't want to pay Sakic's price with that risk. So yes, I absolutely agree a good GM would have explored the market for Price to see what was out there, but I don't think there's a guarantee we would have found as good a deal as some might like.

Almost any deal would have been better than what we are faced with now, don't you think?

[RuudNuij]

19 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

No matter how badly you think MB has done,

1. It would not have made sense to sign Radulov for 5 years.

it would have been expensive perhaps, but not completely senseless in my view, he made not only Galchenyuk play better, and brought atmosphere and creativity to the canadiens game, boosting everyone around him, obvious that he too wanted to sing it out in Montreal with a longer contract, .. 

 

but the 3 points you make do have all to do with caps and salaries, what to hold on to, what to let go, .. and I agree with too many others, he (MB) overspends on reserve 4th line players, or overaged 3rd line defensemen.

he should have been plotting ahead and seen something like this coming.

just the hard part of his job, and he did not do this well.

[BigTed3]

3 minutes ago, RuudNuij said:

it would have been expensive perhaps, but not completely senseless in my view, he made not only Galchenyuk play better, and brought atmosphere and creativity to the canadiens game, boosting everyone around him, obvious that he too wanted to sing it out in Montreal with a longer contract, .. 

 

but the 3 points you make do have all to do with caps and salaries, what to hold on to, what to let go, .. and I agree with too many others, he (MB) overspends on reserve 4th line players, or overaged 3rd line defensemen.

he should have been plotting ahead and seen something like this coming.

just the hard part of his job, and he did not do this well.

Right. No need to spend AND give term to role players. It's happened way too often under MB. If he hadn't paid Shaw + Alzner, we could have kept Radulov and played a guy like Gelinas in Alzner's spot and been far better off IMO.

[Habs=stanleycup]

7 minutes ago, RuudNuij said:

it would have been expensive perhaps, but not completely senseless in my view, he made not only Galchenyuk play better, and brought atmosphere and creativity to the canadiens game, boosting everyone around him, obvious that he too wanted to sing it out in Montreal with a longer contract, .. 

 

but the 3 points you make do have all to do with caps and salaries, what to hold on to, what to let go, .. and I agree with too many others, he (MB) overspends on reserve 4th line players, or overaged 3rd line defensemen.

he should have been plotting ahead and seen something like this coming.

just the hard part of his job, and he did not do this well.

The loss of Radulov AND Subban were MB's biggest mistakes IMO.

Not to mention the addition of the under-performing players we currently have.

As a result our pop-gun offence is dysfunctional, our defense is mediocre and our goalie is WAY overpaid.

[RuudNuij]

50 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

If he hadn't paid Shaw + Alzner, we could have kept Radulov and played a guy like Gelinas in Alzner's spot and been far better off IMO.

good example.

[RuudNuij]

50 minutes ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

pop-gun offence

 you might be on to something there .. 

[BigTed3]

Look at the end of Bergevin's 2016-17 season:

- Nesterov: awful and now gone

- King: awful, now out of NHL, and a waste of a 4th round pick

- Ott: not useful, now retired, and a waste of a 6th round pick

- Martinsen: awful, now traded, and cost us a skill prospect who is currently having success elsewhere

- Benn: played well last year but has been bad this year and older than the player we gave up. Probably a wash of a trade.

- Davidson: got rid of the DD contract but this is a 3rd pairing/7th D man

 

And his 2017 off-season:

- Markov lost for nothing; refused to come to terms on the 1-year deal Markov agreed to accept

- Radulov: lost for nothing, even though I agree term requested was too long

- Beaulieu: traded for a 3rd round pick, which is a low probability of becoming a regular NHLer

- Schlemko: perhaps a good deal but injured and yet to make an impact

- Morrow: low-risk signing but with minimal upside

- Gelinas: low-risk signing, possibly the best of the lot but not even signed to an NHL deal

- Alzner: perhaps the worst of the signings, overpaid on term and money for a guy whose numbers suggest he's a 3rd pairing D man

- Streit: so bad that he was cut just a handful of games into the season

- Hemsky: looks washed up and perhaps headed the way of Streit

- Drouin for Sergachev and pick: I like the deal, but this is high risk, high reward. Either team could end up winning the trade. Sergachev has started the year strong and looks like an NHL player. Drouin could be a star. But odd to deal your best prospect from an area of weakness and not figure out a way to replace the loss and losing your other two puck-moving lefties too.

- Cap room: and ultimately, at the end of all this, MB is left with 8M in cap space when the music stopped, which isn't a useful asset to have unless you have a plan to spend it. Otherwise, it's merely lost opportunity, especially for one of the league's biggest-revenue teams.

 

So ultimately, a lot of moves but not a lot to show for most of them. Most of the players acquired are fringe NHLers, many of whom are out of the league already now. Only Drouin appears to be an impact player, and the outcome of that trade has the potential to be as bad as it does good. Many of the team's current best current assets are past their prime (Price, Pacioretty, Weber, Petry, Plekanec, maybe Shaw and Gallagher with their styles of play and injury history) and even though we upgraded our head coach, our assistant coach pool and AHL coaching staff remain areas of concern. There really isn't anything that Bergevin has done in the past 8-9 months that suggests he has an understanding of the needs of the team nor shows any direction. One can argue whether this year or last year's team is better but the team is not ready to compete for a Cup and the window has essentially closed on our current core after wasting prime years on Therrien and trading away one of the two best pieces in Subban. So I think it's fair to say there has been an absence of progress towards a Cup and less hope for the future than there was a few years ago.

[habs1952]

Hmmm...he's still here.......not a good sign. 

[Habs=stanleycup]

4 hours ago, habs1952 said:

Hmmm...he's still here.......not a good sign. 

Molson says everything is cool

[jwlk]

as long as the money rolls in who cares what the score is, it can't just be bad luck, this team just sucks, i mean they really are a bad team

[Andreas42]

Bergevin should be fired only because of thoughts that Streit could replace Markov and Hemsky could replace Radulov. And I'm not talking about Subban right now...

[Ravadak]

This GM has no idea that in todays game you need a backend that can get to the puck in a hurry and open up the ice by being able to carry it out of the zone once in awhile. 

We have a pathetic defense who's main objective is to bang it off the boards and collapse down low

How much better would this team be right now with, Subban, Sergachev, Markov and Beulieu ...

We have kids that have not developed because this GM chose to add old well beyond their years players to fills holes that kids could have played in to get NHL experience.

This team that had a nice core just a few short years ago needs to be dismantled in a hurry. And they need to start with Bergevin

 

[kinot-2]

54 minutes ago, Ravadak said:

This GM has no idea that in todays game you need a backend that can get to the puck in a hurry and open up the ice by being able to carry it out of the zone once in awhile. 

We have a pathetic defense who's main objective is to bang it off the boards and collapse down low

How much better would this team be right now with, Subban, Sergachev, Markov and Beulieu ...

We have kids that have not developed because this GM chose to add old well beyond their years players to fills holes that kids could have played in to get NHL experience.

This team that had a nice core just a few short years ago needs to be dismantled in a hurry. And they need to start with Bergevin

 

Add Radulov to that list

[jeff33]

[Noob616]

On 10/18/2017 at 8:12 PM, BigTed3 said:

No matter how badly you think MB has done,

1. It would not have made sense to sign Radulov for 5 years.

2. Markov, while an upgrade, would not single-handedly be making a huge difference in team success.

1. It makes sense if you've committed to going all in on Price/Weber/Pacioretty/Petry. the 3-5 year outlook of the team is pretty grim and I don't think a signed Radulov makes it appreciably worse, but a signed Radulov makes the 1-2 year outlook of the team a lot better than 8 million in dead money. This summer the choice should have been either go all in with the current core or start to explore a retool. I think we should have gone all in this season because the Price/Pacioretty/Weber in the hand is worth two in the bush, and there's no guarantee those guys age gracefully. 

Now my opinion's changed and I support a retool but that's because the circumstances have changed. My fundamental view of the Habs core isn't really changed, I still think the team's core would be good enough to make a run if they get a competent #4 defenseman (De Haan?) and a deadline rental forward. I just think the hole is probably too deep to make the playoffs this year and next year is too late, but I also think this team minus Alzner and plus Radulov and Markov doesn't start the year 1-6-1 and doom their playoff chances before Halloween. 

2. Markov in and Alzner out is enough to make the D at least good enough, Markov-Petry and Mete-Weber is a perfectly serviceable top 4 and would drastically improve the transition issues. 

Point 1 is really my biggest thing and the inconsistency is so frustrating. He clearly gets it's all-in time. He fired Therrien, traded a top prospect for immediate forward help, and while the Alzner signing was dumb he did it because he perceived Alzner as a rock solid #4 to round out what he saw as a contending D corps. That's why the Markov-Radulov stuff is so frustrating, he traded Subban for Weber, signed Price for 8 years, signed Alzner, traded for Drouin, and traded for + signed Shaw, he's made tons of moves in the past two years that are clearly "win now"/all-in kinds of moves, but for some reason he balked at signing Radulov and Markov. 

[Regis22]

29 minutes ago, Noob616 said:

, I still think the team's core would be good enough to make a run if they get a competent #4 defenseman (De Haan?) and a deadline rental forward. 

IMO they need ALOT more than that

The D is bad .

The hole they[ve dug themselves in after 7 games is big too.

[jennifer_rocket]

Who makes the decision on MB's tenure in Montreal? Is it Molson exclusively or are there other people involved?

[southernhabfan]

17 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Who makes the decision on MB's tenure in Montreal? Is it Molson exclusively or are there other people involved?

You and I sure don't...sigh. This is amazing that we have waited so long since we could say..the Habs are a very good team...not even great but very good. It can't all fall on one person but MB looks like he should have a painful butt...don't let the door hit you... SIGH!

[maas_art]

18 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Who makes the decision on MB's tenure in Montreal? Is it Molson exclusively or are there other people involved?

I believe the BOG has a say.  I dont know if they would (or could) go above Molson but Im pretty sure he takes their opinion  into consideration.  The caveat is that one of the governors is Bergevin (which is often the case around the league) so it would probably take the rest of the group to gang up on him to step in. 

Governor - Geoff Molson
Alternate governors - Kevin Gilmore, Fred Steer, Michael Andlauer, Andrew Molson, Marc Bergevin

[jennifer_rocket]

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

I believe the BOG has a say.  I dont know if they would (or could) go above Molson but Im pretty sure he takes their opinion  into consideration.  The caveat is that one of the governors is Bergevin (which is often the case around the league) so it would probably take the rest of the group to gang up on him to step in. 

Governor - Geoff Molson
Alternate governors - Kevin Gilmore, Fred Steer, Michael Andlauer, Andrew Molson, Marc Bergevin

Thanks for that maas_art. I appreciate you letting us all know!

[Habs=stanleycup]

Six years into his five-year plan, this is Bergevin’s team from top to bottom because he has had more than enough time to keep the players he wanted and get rid of the ones he didn’t — and he has already fired one coach. Right now, this is a broken team.

Badly broken.

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/stu-cowan-time-for-canadiens-gm-marc-bergevin-to-look-in-the-mirror

[Habs_Hockey_Nutz]

"His recent transactions improved the team's positioning... He added a draft pick, shed salary, and addressed organizational depth while bolstering the NHL roster. How often can you say that about a GM’s weekend?"

Would be nice to read this about our GM... eh?