|
Post by Lord Bebop on Jul 2, 2015 16:44:49 GMT -5
This next thought is not directed as a criticism of Berg, but it is a valid point. Andrew Berkshire, who is indeed critical of management, points out that of the 8 players you can class as the core of the team, 7 of them originate from the Gainey/gauthier era. I believe he classes Petry as the core player added by Berg. Obviously part of that is because the drafts since he's taken over haven't matured yet. Berkshire classes galchy as a Gauthier pick since we sucked under Gauthier. Berg has yet to make that definitive move that makes this team his. Hopefully it comes this year. Well i think Berkshire left out that we went from 3rd last to 2nd best in 3 seasons. gotten to the semi and quater finals. we are no doubt missing some pieces but we are closer to being a contender then we have been in 20 some years. I dont think you have to look hard at improvement. maybe its just my Habs fan glasses but i like the moves hes made....gotten us a little bigger which may have been our biggest flaw...Hes gotten our defense alittle sounder.... he came outta the deadline the last couple of years with a big acquisition without selling the farm..... he gotten outta a few big contracts for cap flexablity. Kassian has some maturing to do and i think it was Seventeen, who has watched his progression in BC and mentioned he hasnt shown much. I agree but i think John Tortorella, Jim Benning and Trevor Linden was in this guy's head too much.. they thought MMA classes where going to make him a better Hockey player for the love of god They got beat by a bruins team in the finals, fell in love with Lucic and aquired Kassian to mold the kid into something hes not. Perhaps Kasian wasnt all to blame there. Well rant over... i hope Kassian figured it out and we get a big talented RW(plus a 5th) for a fourth liner(who i will miss but....)
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 2, 2015 16:48:30 GMT -5
This next thought is not directed as a criticism of Berg, but it is a valid point. Andrew Berkshire, who is indeed critical of management, points out that of the 8 players you can class as the core of the team, 7 of them originate from the Gainey/gauthier era. I believe he classes Petry as the core player added by Berg. Obviously part of that is because the drafts since he's taken over haven't matured yet. Berkshire classes galchy as a Gauthier pick since we sucked under Gauthier. Berg has yet to make that definitive move that makes this team his. Hopefully it comes this year. I think Berkshire is in part blinded by red mist. While the 3rd overall is a result Gauthier's tenure, there's no way that pick can be attributed to him. Maybe it's all Timmins' core, but Bergevin has a lot more to do with the pick of Galchenyuk than Gauthier.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 2, 2015 17:01:23 GMT -5
I think what he's saying is that the core of the team is the same. Those guys are better than they were 3 years ago and that's a fact. That's the reason we hit 110 points. If we had Carey from 3 years ago do we have 110 points? Unlikely. So I think the observation is valid. I think Petry's a great addition, at a very low cost. Berg may not yet be done. If the price falls on Sharp or Malkin, he can make a move.
Berg hasn't had either the opportunity or the desire to dramatically change the core, but if we're going to be grading this and past management, to this point, Gainey and Gauthier have to be given a fair amount of credit. Not everyone wanted to draft a goalie as high as 5th (me and BC included). Patches and PK were picked under Gainey. Markov was here from ages ago (Houle) and Gally was also a Gauthier choice. Timmins obviously deserves a lot of credit. I'm just going by GM tenure.
By next year, if McCarron and Scherbak contribute, we may be adding their names to the core. It takes time, but we have to admit the major contributors to the 110 points were not Berg guys.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jul 2, 2015 17:05:58 GMT -5
I think what he's saying is that the core ode the team is the same. Those guys are better than they were 3 years ago and that's a fact. That's the reason we hit 110 points. If we had Carey from 3 years ago do we have 110 points? Unlikely. So I think the observation is valid. I think Petry's a great addition, at a very low cost. Berg may not yet be done. If the price falls on Sharp or Malkin, he can make a move. Berg hasn't had either the opportunity or the desire to dramatically change the core, but if we're going to be grading this and past management, to this point, Gainey and Gauthier have to be given a fair amount of credit. Not everyone wanted to draft a goalie as high as 5th (me and BC included). Patches and PK were picked under Gainey. Markov was here from ages ago (Houle) and Gally was also a Gauthier choice. Timmin obviously deserves a lot of credit. I'm just going by GM tenure. By next year, if McCarron and Scherbak contribute, we may be adding their names to the core. It takes time, but we have to admit the major contributors to the 110 points were not Berg guys. iirc McDonagh was drafted during Gaineys tenure as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Jul 2, 2015 17:14:06 GMT -5
Agreed... Can't begin to compare bergerons drafting to pass management groups. Especially considering there was no way any draft picks from berg's time would of broke into the lineup seeing they would of been 18 and 19 year olds. And I think drafting is Timmins job so more of a moot point IMO
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 2, 2015 18:00:30 GMT -5
The trade doesn't address the scoring issue in any way. I guess that depends on how you want to address the scoring issue. No, he probably isn't a 30 goal scorer, but consider that Montreal finished 20th in the league last year with 214 goals. Kassian scored 10, which is 6 more than Prust's 4. They played pretty much the same role, bouncing up and down the lineup, with almost the same amount of ice time. I'll ignore that Kassian played 40 less games. Six extra goals gives us 220 on the year, moving us up from 20th to 17th, in a tie with Chicago (and ahead of Pittsburgh). Add Mitchell's 5 goals extra (over Malhotra's 1) and we're up to 15th in the league, ahead of San Jose! Throw in Petry instead of Weaver and we're an actual top 10 team in scoring! I'm being a bit facetious of course, but only a bit. One way to score more goals is to get guys who score more goals. Sometime they come in one fell swoop, like a 30 goal scorer, but sometimes they're spread out throughout the lineup. There is no doubt that Petry will score more than Weaver, or that Mitchell will score more than Malhotra. Odds are pretty good that Kassian will score more than 4 goals, even if he does stink here. So Bergevin has addressed the scoring issue, just not with the big gesture. I don't know if it will be enough - too many other variables come into play for that to be an accurate prediction - but the central point remains; if you want to score more goals, you have to get guys who score more goals. That's what Bergevin did, and in the case of Prust he sacrificed a guy from a position of strength; leadership, of which Prust, while having a lot of it, was not considered to be part of the core leadership group. We shall see whether the room can survive his loss, but no trade comes risk-free. Facetious or not, for this to be true, every other acquisition by every other team would have to not improve their teams one bit, and only ours do .... Kessel isn't going to outscore Kapanen on Pittsburgh? That's just one example. On a player by player basis, we increased by about 15 goals assuming every other player on the team doesn't regress. But we had Petry and Mitchell from the deadline until we were eliminated, and our goal production dropped, our PP was worse, .... In essence there is no increase there overall. It's been nagging on me that we marginally improve the team on paper with these Mickey Mouse moves, but the paper results don't materialize on the ice ... value village shopping might appear to make us better, but we won't be having any parades that way. Bergevin is trying to El Cheapo his way to a championship. Sometimes I wonder if he goes off the board like this time and time again to try and show people how much smarter he is
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 2, 2015 20:45:18 GMT -5
This next thought is not directed as a criticism of Berg, but it is a valid point. Andrew Berkshire, who is indeed critical of management, points out that of the 8 players you can class as the core of the team, 7 of them originate from the Gainey/gauthier era. I believe he classes Petry as the core player added by Berg. Obviously part of that is because the drafts since he's taken over haven't matured yet. Berkshire classes galchy as a Gauthier pick since we sucked under Gauthier. Berg has yet to make that definitive move that makes this team his. Hopefully it comes this year. I think Berkshire is in part blinded by red mist. While the 3rd overall is a result Gauthier's tenure, there's no way that pick can be attributed to him. Maybe it's all Timmins' core, but Bergevin has a lot more to do with the pick of Galchenyuk than Gauthier. Berkshire has such an obvious agenda these days that it's not worth reading him. Giving Gauthier credit for Galchenyuk is just absurd reaching to make a point - something I find the writers and commenters on that website tend to do. How far back does he go? Does a previous GM always get credit for the picks that his successor makes? If that was the case Dale Tallon would be getting a Cup ring for the Hawks for the guys he drafted.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 2, 2015 20:46:05 GMT -5
I think what he's saying is that the core ode the team is the same. Those guys are better than they were 3 years ago and that's a fact. That's the reason we hit 110 points. If we had Carey from 3 years ago do we have 110 points? Unlikely. So I think the observation is valid. I think Petry's a great addition, at a very low cost. Berg may not yet be done. If the price falls on Sharp or Malkin, he can make a move. Berg hasn't had either the opportunity or the desire to dramatically change the core, but if we're going to be grading this and past management, to this point, Gainey and Gauthier have to be given a fair amount of credit. Not everyone wanted to draft a goalie as high as 5th (me and BC included). Patches and PK were picked under Gainey. Markov was here from ages ago (Houle) and Gally was also a Gauthier choice. Timmin obviously deserves a lot of credit. I'm just going by GM tenure. By next year, if McCarron and Scherbak contribute, we may be adding their names to the core. It takes time, but we have to admit the major contributors to the 110 points were not Berg guys. iirc McDonagh was drafted during Gaineys tenure as well. And given away by Gainey as well.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jul 3, 2015 0:12:13 GMT -5
Not impressed Prust provided grit, intensity, character, leadership, good pk presence... Prust wouldn't think twice about defending a teammate or stiring up the pot... how many times have we said in the past that this team badly needed such a player... and really Prust just turned 31 March, not 36... ...and for what? A player with good tools but who at 24 has already had 2 organizations gave up on him. Questionable work ethic and back problems... A guy who's not cut to be a good bottom 6 player, so the only way this works is if he can manage to become a top 6 player in Montreal, the chances of that hapenning are incredibly slim. We traded a huge chunk of our team's character for a suspect experiment... In my mind the potential of this deal turning out to be a substaction more than an addition is way higher. Not the move of a GM trying to reach next level. Have to disagree. The simple move was for MB to hang on to an aging crowd favourite who will not assist us to win a Cup. If this teams success depended on the play and leadership of Prust then we were very far from any Cup. The guy averaged 5 goals his last 4 years, was very ineffective this past year. sure he's et in the odd fight, lost most of them and don't remember too many games this season when his truculence changed the game. In fact most of his fights were when the game's result was no longer in question. He never was nor would he be a top 6. He's was a good role player. Easy to love because he gave his all but in my mind, at his age, easy to replace. For as many times as we've said we need someone to stir up the pot we have said we need a big forward for our top 6 because the current crew is too small. Kassian may be a bust but he was drafted 13th overall for his offensive skill and size which is what we have always wanted. He has shown signs of brilliance and can dominate a game. He is entering the years when a player of his tool set figures it out. John Lecalir didn't get over 20 goals until he was 26 and then he had 50 goals for a number of years. Is he likely to turn into LeClair, probably not. But he's got a good chance of being more valuable to this team than Prust.I like MB's thinking. Very little risk as Prust's best years are behind him. Huge reward if Kassian turns into a top 6 and gives 20+ goals. I would not rule out 30 goals.
|
|
|
Post by HMI on Jul 3, 2015 0:26:11 GMT -5
This next thought is not directed as a criticism of Berg, but it is a valid point. Andrew Berkshire, who is indeed critical of management, points out that of the 8 players you can class as the core of the team, 7 of them originate from the Gainey/gauthier era. I believe he classes Petry as the core player added by Berg. Obviously part of that is because the drafts since he's taken over haven't matured yet. Berkshire classes galchy as a Gauthier pick since we sucked under Gauthier. Berg has yet to make that definitive move that makes this team his. Hopefully it comes this year. For Bergevin to not be the recipient of Berkshire's ire, how many core players would he have needed to acquire in 4 years while retaining the ones he has ? Core players don't fall from the sky. Drafting still is the primary source of core talent. How fair is it to judge MB on the acquisition of core talent when his drafts are 0-1-2-3 year old ? One has to assume that the 8 core players are : Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Pacioretty, Plekanec, Markov, Petry, Subban and Price. Now, let's keep in mind that Plekanec and Markov were not drafted under Gainey/Gauthier. Let's also keep in mind that Gainey/Gauthier let the following talent slip through their fingers for almost no return : Ribeiro Beauchemin Streit McDonagh Souray Koivu Higgins Ryder All of whom were excellent assets that should have been retained, or for which we should have gotten some value back. Perhaps not all of them were core players but some of them were core players on other teams, and could have been with us as well. Outside of the draft, Gainey/Gauthier have not acquired any core players still on the team today. The GM does deserve some credit for the talent drafted under his watch, but it's not like he's the one going out there and scouting the players. He's merely acting on the recommendations of the scouts. So yes, acquiring talent is an important part of it, but so is retaining talent and that is where the previous regime failed us. We could be a much better team if only we had gotten assets for that talent or kept these players. We also had a tendency to trade draft picks at the deadline as if we were contenders, which most of the time we were not. But I guess we had no choice on that point since Montreal is expected to do everything it can to win all the time. Another part is enabling the talent that you have. We say that Gainey/Gauthier/Timmins gifted MB with Price and Subban. That is true, but they blossomed under the team, system and coach that Bergevin assembled. If we look back 2 years ago after the loss to the senators, Price had his head down facing the medias, seemed very unhappy, lacking in confidence. He spoke of not being able to buy his groceries and feeling like a hobbit. Bergevin in the end of season presser said (paraphrased) we will help him achieve his potential, I'll go pick up his groceries if needed. What did he do ? Fired Price's good friend acting as goalie coach and poached the best in the business in Waite and he has worked on the defense since then. Everyone looks at Price's 4 trophies and say that he saved the habs butt this season and it's true but he was also enabled by other moves that led to this result. Waite really had a big impact on Price. To me it's night and day how Price is playing now versus before Waite. More importantly, his attitude is way better. Pacioretty has developped his 2-way game and is now an excellent PKer. Subban won a Norris because he was used in a purely offensive manner (2min PP each PP, little to no PK time, not pitched against the other team's best elements at 5v5), and they're slowly but surely molding him into a system player instead of someone who just improvise whenever he feels like it. These things happened under Bergevin, sometimes because of the moves he has made. Unless one believes that all of these players would have played the same way in any other environments and with different coaches ? Also, if we look at how things stand today only 11 players are remnants of the Gainey/Gauthier era. And that is including Gallagher, Beaulieu, Emelin, Pateryn who have all blossomed under Bergevin's regime. We can say that he has put his stamp on that team. Ultimately, Gainey/Gauthier were fed a lot of quality assets by Timmins and his scouting staff, and they failed to make the most out of it. They also failed to acquire real core players via trade or signings. I find it difficult to celebrate their work today without thinking of the big mistakes they made which offset any and all good they did. If they had done a good job we would maybe have another Stanley Cup now (think of us with McDo+Subban on the backend against the rangers last year... ), or at the very least a cup finals. Bergevin is the same, he's being fed a lot of talent, but he seems to manage the assets he is given way better. He's not giving away picks for no reason, he's not losing quality prospects, he often gets back picks where we should not expect any (the Kassian trade being a good example), gets the most out of his assets and we can say he has added one core player already for the next 6 years in Petry. Contracts wise he's been mostly very good (Price+Patch+Gallagher are huge steals, Subban a missed occasion). I like our current management. Now the Kassian move doesn't solve the habs biggest issues : 1st line center and RW. But I like the move on its own. Every little bit helps. Low risk, high reward type move.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 3, 2015 1:06:21 GMT -5
Whoa, HMI, we agree on a lot of things. Firstly I'm not sure Berkshire is really criticizing Bergevin. When you look at some of the things that Treliving and Chiarelli have done this year, one can say that they've made substantial changes in a very short period of time. Will they work out? I don't know and we can't judge for a few years yet. I'd say They've changed the face of their teams more in a month than Berg has done in 3 years. What Berkshire said, and I quote, "The only player that could be construed as a core guy that Bergevin brought into the fold is Jeff Petry, and while he's a great player, he's only one player.
This isn't to say that Bergevin has been sitting on his hands, he has still signed Brendan Gallagher, Max Pacioretty, Carey Price, P.K. Subban, and Nathan Beaulieu to new contracts, with Alex Galchenyuk surely on the way. He made choices to not move those players at crucial times, and Nikita Scherbak may end up being a core player as well.
However, for the most part, Bergevin's additions to the team have been around the margins, along with adding prospects. Bergevin also had a hand in several additions I'm counting for the Gainey/Gainey regime, such as Galchenyuk, Charles Hudon, Jacob de la Rose, Zachary Fucale, and Tim Bozon, but those picks were acquired by the previous group, and he admittedly had little involvement in the 2012 draft as a rookie GM.So he hasn't made dramatic changes. Hard to argue that this observation is incorrect. Does that mean he should have made drastic changes? Hardly. He's let that core progress and helped out a lot in Price's case with Waite's hiring. I pointed out in my original post that his drafts really haven't had a chance to prove themselves or to improve the team. They're still too young. But really, any average GM would have done what he's done. You sign your core guys, you let your top notch head scout pick the right guys. I've said many times in the past I like the way he's built the management side of the organization. We're better at pro scouting and at development than we ever were under Gainey or Gauthier. Berg is not afraid to make a move, (He's certainly made a lot of them), but he is afraid to make a significant move. Perhaps not afraid, but certainly cautious of being wrong. He wants a lot of margin of error before he makes a big trade. Fair enough. I think his biggest weakness is his choice of coaches, an area that has a huge impact on the team. Therrien has proven to be adept at developing a good culture and environment around the team but, IMO, woefully inadequate in his systems and the proper use of players. Not that Bergevin has given him all-stars, but he leans very heavily toward the defensive side yet has produced a surprisingly weak defensive system. The advanced stats had us at 20th in many defensive categories last year. I agree that Bergevin made a superior move in hiring Stephane Waite, because if not for his work with Carey, and Price's subsequent improvement, we probably don't make the playoffs this past year. We can't defend and we can't score. Thank god for Carey. Our talent level is higher than that, so that's one of my few criticisms of Berg. His loyalty to Therrien and Lefebvre especially is unfounded. You wonder if they're personal friends because he's proven himself to be quite cutthroat with his players. Just not so with the coaches. I like Bergevin, despite being troubled by the coaching issue. But that doesn't stop me from making observations about him, even if they're not complimentary. I'll credit him when its due and criticise him when he deserves that as well. Like I've always said, if you can be right 60% of the time, that's pretty darn good. You don't have to be perfect to be pretty darn good. Just because I point out the 40% of the time he's not right, doesn't mean I want him replaced. Now the coaches.... BTW. Good Post.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 3, 2015 7:14:25 GMT -5
It's easy to say that Galchenyuk fell into Bergevin's lap, and in a way it's true. Just like Carey Price fell into Gainey's lap. After all, were it not for Houle and Savard's teams sucking so much we wouldn't have had so many balls in the lottery, right?
But by the same token, you still gotta make that pick. The Price pick was very heavily criticized, including by me (I wanted Marc Staal), and yet Gainey made it and deserves all the credit for doing so. By the same token, it's easy to say "well picking Galchenyuk was a no-brainer" except... it was not. He could have taken Grigorenko for example. Or Matthew Dumba. Or traded the pick, along with Subban, for Yakupov, as Pierre McGuire suggested. But he didn't.
If you're going to crucify a GM for making bad picks, then you gotta praise him for making the good picks. Even if they are "easy" picks to make, or if we all know it's really Timmins, or if the picks fell into his lap from somewhere else.
Having said that, that article is right in that Bergevin has largely focused on cleaning up the off-ice stuff, and building up a base and walls first. Which needed to be done, no doubt about it. Sure, he hasn't touched the core, the foundation if you will, but the walls and flooring on that foundation were rotten to the max. Don't make me post that lineup from Gauthier's last game as GM again. Bergevin has done a fine job of shoring that up too. Now he just needs to make that final step.
We're in what? The fourth year of the five year plan? So this year and next year are Bergevin's "go for it" years.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 3, 2015 7:26:50 GMT -5
Facetious or not, for this to be true, every other acquisition by every other team would have to not improve their teams one bit, and only ours do .... Kessel isn't going to outscore Kapanen on Pittsburgh? That's just one example. On a player by player basis, we increased by about 15 goals assuming every other player on the team doesn't regress. Sure, you'd have to add Kessel's goals. And subtract Lucic's, Hamilton's and Smith's goals from Boston (but add Hayes), Green's from Washington (but wait, how many did Oshie score? Brouwer?), and Condra's from Ottawa. Which according to Murray will be pretty easy to replace. You'd have to go through every team, add their added goals, then subtract their subtracted goals, have a stiff drink, toss your calculator in the garbage and go fishing. In the end they just have to play the games. If stats alone could tell you who was going to win the predictive analytic guys would be cleaning up in Vegas instead of complaining about GMs in their blogs. But they don't, because while you try to assemble a good team on paper in the end the game is played on the ice. There are only a couple of ways to increase the scoring in your lineup. One way is to have the guys you currently have score more goals (as a collective) than they did the year before. The other way is to add guys who will score more goals than the guys who departed. That's really the only two ways, right? So that's what Bergevin did in this trade; he added a guy who will almost certainly score more goals than the guy who departed. Now whether the collective scores more goals remains to be seen (on the ice).
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 3, 2015 7:44:31 GMT -5
It's easy to say that Galchenyuk fell into Bergevin's lap, and in a way it's true. Just like Carey Price fell into Gainey's lap. After all, were it not for Houle and Savard's teams sucking so much we wouldn't have had so many balls in the lottery, right? But by the same token, you still gotta make that pick. The Price pick was very heavily criticized, including by me (I wanted Marc Staal), and yet Gainey made it and deserves all the credit for doing so. By the same token, it's easy to say "well picking Galchenyuk was a no-brainer" except... it was not. He could have taken Grigorenko for example. Or Matthew Dumba. Or traded the pick, along with Subban, for Yakupov, as Pierre McGuire suggested. But he didn't. If you're going to crucify a GM for making bad picks, then you gotta praise him for making the good picks. Even if they are "easy" picks to make, or if we all know it's really Timmins, or if the picks fell into his lap from somewhere else. Having said that, that article is right in that Bergevin has largely focused on cleaning up the off-ice stuff, and building up a base and walls first. Which needed to be done, no doubt about it. Sure, he hasn't touched the core, the foundation if you will, but the walls and flooring on that foundation were rotten to the max. Don't make me post that lineup from Gauthier's last game as GM again. Bergevin has done a fine job of shoring that up too. Now he just needs to make that final step. We're in what? The fourth year of the five year plan? So this year and next year are Bergevin's "go for it" years. Just be glad he didn't pick Brule, Skille, or Setoguchi. I liked Kopitar.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 3, 2015 7:45:08 GMT -5
Facetious or not, for this to be true, every other acquisition by every other team would have to not improve their teams one bit, and only ours do .... Kessel isn't going to outscore Kapanen on Pittsburgh? That's just one example. On a player by player basis, we increased by about 15 goals assuming every other player on the team doesn't regress. Sure, you'd have to add Kessel's goals. And subtract Lucic's, Hamilton's and Smith's goals from Boston (but add Hayes), Green's from Washington (but wait, how many did Oshie score? Brouwer?), and Condra's from Ottawa. Which according to Murray will be pretty easy to replace. You'd have to go through every team, add their added goals, then subtract their subtracted goals, have a stiff drink, toss your calculator in the garbage and go fishing. let me add that we should also subtract the goals that are going to be scored on a team (or is it add them? I don't know. whatever. you know what I mean. even if I don't know what I mean) anyway . . . Pittsburgh adds goals with Kessel but loses goals with a weak d. for example. like your solution to the problem, BC. at least the second part.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 3, 2015 8:35:24 GMT -5
It's easy to say that Galchenyuk fell into Bergevin's lap, and in a way it's true. Just like Carey Price fell into Gainey's lap. After all, were it not for Houle and Savard's teams sucking so much we wouldn't have had so many balls in the lottery, right? But by the same token, you still gotta make that pick. The Price pick was very heavily criticized, including by me (I wanted Marc Staal), and yet Gainey made it and deserves all the credit for doing so. By the same token, it's easy to say "well picking Galchenyuk was a no-brainer" except... it was not. He could have taken Grigorenko for example. Or Matthew Dumba. Or traded the pick, along with Subban, for Yakupov, as Pierre McGuire suggested. But he didn't. If you're going to crucify a GM for making bad picks, then you gotta praise him for making the good picks. Even if they are "easy" picks to make, or if we all know it's really Timmins, or if the picks fell into his lap from somewhere else. Having said that, that article is right in that Bergevin has largely focused on cleaning up the off-ice stuff, and building up a base and walls first. Which needed to be done, no doubt about it. Sure, he hasn't touched the core, the foundation if you will, but the walls and flooring on that foundation were rotten to the max. Don't make me post that lineup from Gauthier's last game as GM again. Bergevin has done a fine job of shoring that up too. Now he just needs to make that final step. We're in what? The fourth year of the five year plan? So this year and next year are Bergevin's "go for it" years. I agree that Bergevin has to be given some credit for taking Galchenyuk. He was coming off an injury and all the reports about him were saying that he was benefiting from Yakupov, and in his final year benefiting from Serault. I'm not so sure though I am ready to give credit to Gainey for the Price selection though. I've mentioned this many times before, but after the 2005 draft Gainey was here in St. John's. He gave a talk to the first 50 people who showed up, and I happened to be one of those few. In this intimate discussion, someone asked him why he drafted a goalie, when Theodore was 2 seasons removed from a Vezina/Hart and the team struggled to score goals the previous three seasons, always being among the bottom teams in the conference, squeaking into the playoffs even during the Hart/Vezina season. Gainey's answer was surprising. Surprising in its honesty for one, and surprising in how he/they had their draft board. Gainey told us, that Price was not the player they wanted to choose at #5, they had Price #3 on their draft board. If Minnesota had not chosen Benoit Pouliot at #4, that was who the Habs were preparing to select. When Pouliot was selected, they conferred, to decide if they were going to keep to their draft board or select a forward anyway (presumably Brule, but he never said). In the end, he deferred to the scouts rankings. But, that all being said ... the pick was made under Gainey, and I guess he does deserve credit for not blocking the selection.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 3, 2015 10:26:40 GMT -5
It's easy to say that Galchenyuk fell into Bergevin's lap, and in a way it's true. Just like Carey Price fell into Gainey's lap. After all, were it not for Houle and Savard's teams sucking so much we wouldn't have had so many balls in the lottery, right? But by the same token, you still gotta make that pick. The Price pick was very heavily criticized, including by me (I wanted Marc Staal), and yet Gainey made it and deserves all the credit for doing so. By the same token, it's easy to say "well picking Galchenyuk was a no-brainer" except... it was not. He could have taken Grigorenko for example. Or Matthew Dumba. Or traded the pick, along with Subban, for Yakupov, as Pierre McGuire suggested. But he didn't. If you're going to crucify a GM for making bad picks, then you gotta praise him for making the good picks. Even if they are "easy" picks to make, or if we all know it's really Timmins, or if the picks fell into his lap from somewhere else. Having said that, that article is right in that Bergevin has largely focused on cleaning up the off-ice stuff, and building up a base and walls first. Which needed to be done, no doubt about it. Sure, he hasn't touched the core, the foundation if you will, but the walls and flooring on that foundation were rotten to the max. Don't make me post that lineup from Gauthier's last game as GM again. Bergevin has done a fine job of shoring that up too. Now he just needs to make that final step. We're in what? The fourth year of the five year plan? So this year and next year are Bergevin's "go for it" years. I agree that Bergevin has to be given some credit for taking Galchenyuk. He was coming off an injury and all the reports about him were saying that he was benefiting from Yakupov, and in his final year benefiting from Serault. I'm not so sure though I am ready to give credit to Gainey for the Price selection though. I've mentioned this many times before, but after the 2005 draft Gainey was here in St. John's. He gave a talk to the first 50 people who showed up, and I happened to be one of those few. In this intimate discussion, someone asked him why he drafted a goalie, when Theodore was 2 seasons removed from a Vezina/Hart and the team struggled to score goals the previous three seasons, always being among the bottom teams in the conference, squeaking into the playoffs even during the Hart/Vezina season. Gainey's answer was surprising. Surprising in its honesty for one, and surprising in how he/they had their draft board. Gainey told us, that Price was not the player they wanted to choose at #5, they had Price #3 on their draft board. If Minnesota had not chosen Benoit Pouliot at #4, that was who the Habs were preparing to select. When Pouliot was selected, they conferred, to decide if they were going to keep to their draft board or select a forward anyway (presumably Brule, but he never said). In the end, he deferred to the scouts rankings. But, that all being said ... the pick was made under Gainey, and I guess he does deserve credit for not blocking the selection. I remember the scenario ... they really wanted Benoit Pouliot but when he was selected they opted for Carey Price ... the 2005 NHL Entry Draft was an interesting one (very deep) ... the Kings picked up two players that pretty much became part of their core; Anze Kopitar and Jonathan Quick ... Guillaume Latendresse should have been a safe pick, but he eventually fizzled out ... the Canucks selected Mason Raymond a few selections later and he's still playing ... so is Kristopher Letang (3rd round), for that matter ... take a look at the draft when you have time ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 3, 2015 11:08:31 GMT -5
05 was a good draft as far as netting a large number of long term players. Second round success was pretty high too.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 3, 2015 12:58:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 3, 2015 13:09:17 GMT -5
Well, if the players don't know it by now, Marc Bergevin is all business ... he's very professional about it, but he has no problem at all in moving established leaders out of Montreal ... Brian Gionta, Josh Gorges, Brandon Prust ... almost like he's following a Game of Thrones script ... my question to him would be, who's next ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 3, 2015 13:14:25 GMT -5
I realize it's a business, but stories like that always bring the humanity back into the picture...something we should always keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 3, 2015 13:27:10 GMT -5
On holiday, celebrating an engagement, is a tough way to find out you've been traded.
|
|
|
Post by habsburgher on Jul 3, 2015 21:15:13 GMT -5
This is the kind of trade good GM's make. I like Prust but he is a declining asset and Kassian has upside with little risk. Good work in my opinion. Nice to see you back. Thanks so much
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jul 3, 2015 23:39:36 GMT -5
I thought that Prust would make a small impact in the playoffs, he didn't, at least in my eyes.
I like Prust a lot. He embodies the warrior spirit...and lacks the talent. On the other hand, Kassian has all the tools to be Leclair Lite and if actually does get there, THAT alone can take us over the top. High reward with little lost. A Leclair Lite is those extra 10-15 goals in the playoffs that land us a cup.
I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Jul 4, 2015 7:50:46 GMT -5
Bergevin trades an aging 4th line player who was the slowest forward on the team for a younger player with potential to be either a home run or a one year cheap try out.
Countless Power Forwards did not "Get it" until their mid 20's. How frustrated were we with a young Pacioretty? How about the Isles with Bertuzzi, David Backes in St Louis and Blake Wheeler with the Jets?
Call me an optimist or just plain old hopefull. But I think this was another steal. No Risk, posibility of great reward.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jul 4, 2015 9:37:02 GMT -5
A couple of articles written from the Vancouver perspective on this trade. Some common themes: the Nucks have lost a kid with potential, they did not use him right, and Kassian is more of a big, skilled guy than a PF grinder. Now, MT is not what I would call an innovator behind the bench, but the Habs did turn Weise into a lot more than either the Rags or Nucks had been able to do. I am hoping Kassian gets to play with some talented line mates, to see what he can do. Prust's offense had all but dried up. www.theprovince.com/sports/story.html?id=11180363thehockeywriters.com/the-mistake-of-trading-zack-kassian/
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jul 4, 2015 12:38:18 GMT -5
A couple of articles written from the Vancouver perspective on this trade. Some common themes: the Nucks have lost a kid with potential, they did not use him right, and Kassian is more of a big, skilled guy than a PF grinder. Now, MT is not what I would call an innovator behind the bench, but the Habs did turn Weise into a lot more than either the Rags or Nucks had been able to do. I am hoping Kassian gets to play with some talented line mates, to see what he can do. Prust's offense had all but dried up. www.theprovince.com/sports/story.html?id=11180363thehockeywriters.com/the-mistake-of-trading-zack-kassian/Good finds! Both articles are clearly lamenting the Canucks loss and failure. I note some of the commentaries indicate Kas has a coke problem. In some respects i hope that is the issue and Kas and the team can focus on addressing it. In other respects he may be doomed.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 4, 2015 16:40:33 GMT -5
A couple of articles written from the Vancouver perspective on this trade. Some common themes: the Nucks have lost a kid with potential, they did not use him right, and Kassian is more of a big, skilled guy than a PF grinder. Now, MT is not what I would call an innovator behind the bench, but the Habs did turn Weise into a lot more than either the Rags or Nucks had been able to do. I am hoping Kassian gets to play with some talented line mates, to see what he can do. Prust's offense had all but dried up. www.theprovince.com/sports/story.html?id=11180363thehockeywriters.com/the-mistake-of-trading-zack-kassian/Good finds! Both articles are clearly lamenting the Canucks loss and failure. I note some of the commentaries indicate Kas has a coke problem. In some respects i hope that is the issue and Kas and the team can focus on addressing it. In other respects he may be doomed. The problem better not be cocaine. Hope that is just the usual, anonymous speculation that goes on at those sites.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Jul 5, 2015 10:25:10 GMT -5
It's easy to say that Galchenyuk fell into Bergevin's lap, and in a way it's true. Just like Carey Price fell into Gainey's lap. After all, were it not for Houle and Savard's teams sucking so much we wouldn't have had so many balls in the lottery, right? But by the same token, you still gotta make that pick. The Price pick was very heavily criticized, including by me (I wanted Marc Staal), and yet Gainey made it and deserves all the credit for doing so. By the same token, it's easy to say "well picking Galchenyuk was a no-brainer" except... it was not. He could have taken Grigorenko for example. Or Matthew Dumba. Or traded the pick, along with Subban, for Yakupov, as Pierre McGuire suggested. But he didn't. If you're going to crucify a GM for making bad picks, then you gotta praise him for making the good picks. Even if they are "easy" picks to make, or if we all know it's really Timmins, or if the picks fell into his lap from somewhere else. Having said that, that article is right in that Bergevin has largely focused on cleaning up the off-ice stuff, and building up a base and walls first. Which needed to be done, no doubt about it. Sure, he hasn't touched the core, the foundation if you will, but the walls and flooring on that foundation were rotten to the max. Don't make me post that lineup from Gauthier's last game as GM again. Bergevin has done a fine job of shoring that up too. Now he just needs to make that final step. We're in what? The fourth year of the five year plan? So this year and next year are Bergevin's "go for it" years. Just be glad he didn't pick Brule, Skille, or Setoguchi. I liked Kopitar. I remember being overjoyed when we had a shot at Brule...Then we picked Price... I was so upset lol ...I was convinced we missed out on the next Gilmour
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 5, 2015 11:04:30 GMT -5
Just be glad he didn't pick Brule, Skille, or Setoguchi. I liked Kopitar. I remember being overjoyed when we had a shot at Brule...Then we picked Price... I was so upset lol ...I was convinced we missed out on the next Gilmour To be fair, some of his failings may have come from being rushed into the NHL. He should have been allowed to develop by playing another year of junior at least.
|
|