Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comparing Bergevin to his predecessors
#1
The Hockey Writers launch a new four-part series.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...-gauthier/

In this first installment of a four-part series comparing Montreal Canadiens general manager Marc Bergevin to his four immediate predecessors, we take a look at Pierre Gauthier.



To spare you some of the suspense:

"So, it turns out, Bergevin and Gauthier have at least one thing in common: They both failed spectacularly… just in different ways. Gauthier burned out in a short period of time. Bergevin’s taking his time fading away.

"As evidenced by how quickly the Habs rebounded following Gauthier’s dismissal with minimal damage having been done, his legacy may not end up quite as tarnished as Bergevin’s when all is said and done."
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
(2018-08-10, 11:39 AM)Habituated Wrote: The Hockey Writers launch a new four-part series.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...-gauthier/

In this first installment of a four-part series comparing Montreal Canadiens general manager Marc Bergevin to his four immediate predecessors, we take a look at Pierre Gauthier.



To spare you some of the suspense:

"So, it turns out, Bergevin and Gauthier have at least one thing in common: They both failed spectacularly… just in different ways. Gauthier burned out in a short period of time. Bergevin’s taking his time fading away.

"As evidenced by how quickly the Habs rebounded following Gauthier’s dismissal with minimal damage having been done, his legacy may not end up quite as tarnished as Bergevin’s when all is said and done."

This is a bit of comparing apples to oranges.

Like you say, the main difference is the length of their tenures.

I'd hazard a guess that if PG got the same length of rope to hang himself with, he might do even worse than MB.  MB was in fact blessed with inheriting a pretty good core, with some very young pieces too (PK, Max, Chucky, Gally, Lars).  

While it may have been a blessing for MB, it was a bit of a curse for Habs fans, as this capable core masked MB's shortcomings long enough for Molson to give him his latest contract, and buy into some of the moves that have hobbled this team for years to come.

So while it's good "fun" to compare GM's, I'd say MB's continual bumbling is really a sad commentary on Molson's ability as owner and president of our Habs.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
(2018-08-10, 11:39 AM)Habituated Wrote: The Hockey Writers launch a new four-part series.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...-gauthier/

In this first installment of a four-part series comparing Montreal Canadiens general manager Marc Bergevin to his four immediate predecessors, we take a look at Pierre Gauthier.



To spare you some of the suspense:

"So, it turns out, Bergevin and Gauthier have at least one thing in common: They both failed spectacularly… just in different ways. Gauthier burned out in a short period of time. Bergevin’s taking his time fading away.

"As evidenced by how quickly the Habs rebounded following Gauthier’s dismissal with minimal damage having been done, his legacy may not end up quite as tarnished as Bergevin’s when all is said and done."

Sporzer really isn't worth reading any more than Brendan Kelly. At least he's trying to be a bit more balanced, but is not really a hockey mind (IMO).
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
(2018-08-10, 11:52 AM)on2ndthought Wrote:
(2018-08-10, 11:39 AM)Habituated Wrote: The Hockey Writers launch a new four-part series.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...-gauthier/

In this first installment of a four-part series comparing Montreal Canadiens general manager Marc Bergevin to his four immediate predecessors, we take a look at Pierre Gauthier.



To spare you some of the suspense:

"So, it turns out, Bergevin and Gauthier have at least one thing in common: They both failed spectacularly… just in different ways. Gauthier burned out in a short period of time. Bergevin’s taking his time fading away.

"As evidenced by how quickly the Habs rebounded following Gauthier’s dismissal with minimal damage having been done, his legacy may not end up quite as tarnished as Bergevin’s when all is said and done."

Sporzer really isn't worth reading any more than Brendan Kelly. At least he's trying to be a bit more balanced, but is not really a hockey mind (IMO).

Just some food for thought, not an endorsement of the piece per se.

Stuff like this is dead-of-summer filler and, because it involves the Habs, a certain amount of clickbait.

Still, this place can do with the occasional bit of anti-Bergevin material, just for a change.  Wink
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
Gauthier ran this team like a mafia boss whereas Bergevin runs this team like an episode of the Benny Hill show running off in random directions. Who's to say which was better
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
(2018-08-10, 04:28 PM)mada7 Wrote: Gauthier ran this team like a mafia boss whereas Bergevin runs this team like an episode of the Benny Hill show running off in random directions. Who's to say which was better

Have you really ever seen an episode of Benny Hill? Just an aside. I was simply wondering (given your age). I was just thrown by the reference. Nothing to do with what you said outside of that.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
(2018-08-10, 07:01 PM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2018-08-10, 04:28 PM)mada7 Wrote: Gauthier ran this team like a mafia boss whereas Bergevin runs this team like an episode of the Benny Hill show running off in random directions. Who's to say which was better

Have you really ever seen an episode of Benny Hill? Just an aside. I was simply wondering (given your age). I was just thrown by the reference. Nothing to do with what you said outside of that.

Not while it was being aired. I know it more by reputation and parodies of it
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
Remember when Andre Savard lost his mind and went postal on the idiot referee, running down to ice level maniacally waving the rule book in hand in New Jersey? Can we get him back? Wait....Mariusz Czerkawski ....Randy McKay....nevermind.
C'est quoi le maudit plan?!!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(2018-08-10, 08:04 PM)mada7 Wrote:
(2018-08-10, 07:01 PM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2018-08-10, 04:28 PM)mada7 Wrote: Gauthier ran this team like a mafia boss whereas Bergevin runs this team like an episode of the Benny Hill show running off in random directions. Who's to say which was better

Have you really ever seen an episode of Benny Hill? Just an aside. I was simply wondering (given your age). I was just thrown by the reference. Nothing to do with what you said outside of that.

Not while it was being aired. I know it more by reputation and parodies of it
The irony was that the womanizing, dirty sex hound, Benny Hill, was gay.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
What do Bergevin and his predecessors all have in common? They have all stopped helping the Habs become a better team.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
(2018-08-11, 02:27 PM)GloryYrs70s Wrote: What do Bergevin and his predecessors all have in common?  They have all stopped helping the Habs become a better team.

After the great Pollack, the pickings have been slim, Savard has some decent years, not much beyond that.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
(2018-08-11, 03:40 PM)Habcertain Wrote:
(2018-08-11, 02:27 PM)GloryYrs70s Wrote: What do Bergevin and his predecessors all have in common?  They have all stopped helping the Habs become a better team.

After the great Pollack, the pickings have been slim, Savard has some decent years, not much beyond that.

It is unconscionable that this organization has not honoured its greatest GM in some meaningful way.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
(2018-08-10, 11:39 AM)Habituated Wrote: The Hockey Writers launch a new four-part series.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...-gauthier/

In this first installment of a four-part series comparing Montreal Canadiens general manager Marc Bergevin to his four immediate predecessors, we take a look at Pierre Gauthier.



To spare you some of the suspense:

"So, it turns out, Bergevin and Gauthier have at least one thing in common: They both failed spectacularly… just in different ways. Gauthier burned out in a short period of time. Bergevin’s taking his time fading away.

"As evidenced by how quickly the Habs rebounded following Gauthier’s dismissal with minimal damage having been done, his legacy may not end up quite as tarnished as Bergevin’s when all is said and done."

or will it. I mean MB doesn't seem to be going anywhere and who knows maybe Kokt and Poehling and a few other picks end up being real gems that set us up for a long time.

But in reality, it's the GMs that are present when players make it...that fans associate together. Not so much the one who drafted the players. I am seeing this with the Jays. Ppl wanted AA head. Well he is gone. The new guys is even worse, but the new guy will get he kudos when the prospect pool AA drafted start to shine. It may end up being the same here. If the kids he has recently picked up work out....he prob won't get the kudos for it.

But to say MB's rep will be more tarnished, at this point, is silly cause MB isn't done yet...we dont know yet how it all turns out. Can always be good when all is said and done
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
Part two is Bergevin vs. Gainey.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...in-gainey/


"What’s definitely a coincidence is Gainey lasted seven years as Habs GM and Bergevin is entering his seventh as we speak. Will the latter get the chance to pass the Canadiens great? Does he deserve to? The two are probably closer in terms of their success as GM than many Bergevin detractors would be willing to admit.

"Case in point, when Bergevin gets let go, his successor will be able to heed much the same lessons from Gainey’s mistakes (even if Bergevin hasn’t). For example, short-term gains aren’t worth long-term losses. Sacrificing McDonagh to acquire a center already on the decline hasn’t done the team any good beyond that first season. And now the Habs are without anyone to play with Weber (or a No. 1 center, still)."
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
(2018-08-13, 02:14 PM)Habituated Wrote: Part two is Bergevin vs. Gainey.
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...in-gainey/


"What’s definitely a coincidence is Gainey lasted seven years as Habs GM and Bergevin is entering his seventh as we speak. Will the latter get the chance to pass the Canadiens great? Does he deserve to? The two are probably closer in terms of their success as GM than many Bergevin detractors would be willing to admit.

"Case in point, when Bergevin gets let go, his successor will be able to heed much the same lessons from Gainey’s mistakes (even if Bergevin hasn’t). For example, short-term gains aren’t worth long-term losses. Sacrificing McDonagh to acquire a center already on the decline hasn’t done the team any good beyond that first season. And now the Habs are without anyone to play with Weber (or a No. 1 center, still)."
They're a little harsh there don't you think? They jump forward as far as 2014 with the results of Gainey's work yet they aren't looking at 2022 and judging Bergevin's work from an even vantage point. They talk about draft choices and ignore Sergachev, and of course ignore the last two drafts but count them for Gainey, yet when he left the GM position neither Subban nor McDonough were game changers. Now neither even plays for the team involved.

I'd say that when the team is winning Bergevin looks really smart and when it is losing people look to him for answers. I'd also say this is totally unfair except for his personality which is to blame every player around when something he wanted to work didn't. Bergevin was a journeyman defenseman from junior to the end of his playing days. He stuck in the NHL for a phenomenal 1191 games, a notable achievement. He picked up a scoring point maybe once every 10 games - most things he tried as a player didn't work all that great, but sometimes it worked ok. He was noted as easy going, a good guy to have on your team. He might not be helping you a lot, but he wasn't hurting you either, and a coach likes that.

As GM he can't be easy going, or a good guy with the players. Unfortunately those were his strengths as a player. 

People can change and grow into a job. But I'm not sure you can just ignore the employees you are upset with. Kovalev needed a walk and talk, he needed Koivu hurt and to be the acting Captain, and he needed to shut Carbonneau's big yap. Bergevin isn't the type to try that with a player, just drop them to the fourth line, the same treatment a journeyman gets from his team. 

Things like that are Bergevin's weak areas. The team is younger and has more depth than it has had for years. The development shows signs of being weak but they have changed Laval and hired Ducharme and Richardson. 

I can't believe I'm defending the guy....
Reply
Thanks given by:
#16
Part three is Bergevin vs. Savard (not that Savard).
https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...in-savard/

Perhaps not surprisingly, even not-Serge gets kinder treatment than ol' MB, for the most part.

"There’s no denying that, superficially speaking, Bergevin’s tenure has been more successful based on the sheer numbers. Delve deeper though. It becomes clear Bergevin should take a page out of his predecessor’s book. Savard’s may have been relatively short and anti-climactic, but it’s definitely worth a nostalgic re-read, if only for the moral of the story: It’s arguably not where you start or finish that counts, but how you run the race instead.
"Savard’s tenure could have gone smoother, but, ultimately, he left the Habs in better shape for the long term than when he had been hired. All things being equal, maybe in better shape than any other GM in this series, Gainey (and Bergevin) included."
Reply
Thanks given by:
#17
The big difference between Bergevin and his equally predecessors during this tarnished era is that Bergevin has been given the time to get his work done. Savard only lasted 3 years He came in during a time when the team was as weak as it is now, and he improved it to the point where they were at least a possible playoff contender each year for some time. But he really wasn't given enough time to do anything. Gainey was given that opportunity, and, while he made some good moves, was ultimately forever tarnished by the Gomez trade and the loss of many free agents for nothing. Now Bergevin is being given more opportunity than any of them. The problem is only partly how he inherited a strong core and squandered it, the results of which we can now see, but also that he doesn't seem to have any game plan, his priorities as mercurial as his fashion. I guess if there is one priority that seems consistent, it's that he likes players who aren't very big on talent but supposedly big on heart, and likes to trade talented players for them. This has resulted in steadily declining offensive production and, presumably, a lot of sad faces in the dressing room after most games
Reply
Thanks given by:
#18
I don't see much difference between Bergevin and the three GMs who preceded him. We can sit all day chatting about building a farm, selling a farm, developing, paying for assets, selling assets, upgrades, downgrades. But ultimately we come down to winning that Cup. You want entertainment, watch the juniors and see a team enter the third down 4-0 and win 7-5.

Bergevin's modest goal for the organization is to make the playoffs and then anything can happen. Half the NHL makes the playoffs. So he wants to be in the half of the teams that make the playoffs. In the last 24 seasons, divided by 6 (Bergevin's tour) the Habs record is:
                             Missed Playoffs  Lost 1st Round  Lost 2nd Round  Lost Conference final  Appeared Final
2012-Present                2                        2                     1                      1                             0
2011-12 to 2006-7         2                        2                     1                      1                             0
2005-06 to 1999-00        3                        1                     2                      0                            0
1998-99 to 1993-94        2                        3                     1                      0                            0

The trouble with stats is you can break them down all sorts of ways. What Bergevin has built might do really well over the next six seasons and someone else might get the credit.

Mainly the Habs miss the playoffs or are knocked out in the very first round. Only twice did they manage to win 8 or more playoff games (out of a possible 21), and in both cases were promptly dismissed by the opponents, it wasn't even close.

I think this is the key to the Habs, rather than who exactly takes the blame. The revenue stream is solidly top of the League. The results are solidly middle tier of the League. The NHL prospers when teams which made less ascend, new arena deals, broadcast deals, while the Habs do well anyway. I am sure the owners would luv to win but there is no pressure on them to win. The ship will sail on nicely without victory. 

So the Habs can focus on not being embarrassed on the scoresheet or in player actions. We argue about what is wrong with this guy or that guy, whether Kotkaniemi will light it up and when, where the problem is during bad years, who is a living god in the good ones, but really we are no different from Buffalo except to almost match the Habs record over those 24 seasons the Sabres had to go on a run of missing the playoffs seven straight seasons now.

None of the GMs swung some magic game changing deal for the Habs. McDonough and Sergachev for 16-17 minute offensive players? Ok, sure, lets see how that works out. But none of it changes anything for the Habs. 

The team is participating on the ice but financially is perennially in the top three. The GM position could be filled by a magic 8 ball.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#19
(2018-08-16, 11:20 AM)New Wrote: I don't see much difference between Bergevin and the three GMs who preceded him. We can sit all day chatting about building a farm, selling a farm, developing, paying for assets, selling assets, upgrades, downgrades. But ultimately we come down to winning that Cup. You want entertainment, watch the juniors and see a team enter the third down 4-0 and win 7-5.

Bergevin's modest goal for the organization is to make the playoffs and then anything can happen. Half the NHL makes the playoffs. So he wants to be in the half of the teams that make the playoffs. In the last 24 seasons, divided by 6 (Bergevin's tour) the Habs record is:
                             Missed Playoffs  Lost 1st Round  Lost 2nd Round  Lost Conference final  Appeared Final
2012-Present                2                        2                     1                      1                             0
2011-12 to 2006-7         2                        2                     1                      1                             0
2005-06 to 1999-00        3                        1                     2                      0                            0
1998-99 to 1993-94        2                        3                     1                      0                            0

The trouble with stats is you can break them down all sorts of ways. What Bergevin has built might do really well over the next six seasons and someone else might get the credit.

Mainly the Habs miss the playoffs or are knocked out in the very first round. Only twice did they manage to win 8 or more playoff games (out of a possible 21), and in both cases were promptly dismissed by the opponents, it wasn't even close.

I think this is the key to the Habs, rather than who exactly takes the blame. The revenue stream is solidly top of the League. The results are solidly middle tier of the League. The NHL prospers when teams which made less ascend, new arena deals, broadcast deals, while the Habs do well anyway. I am sure the owners would luv to win but there is no pressure on them to win. The ship will sail on nicely without victory. 

So the Habs can focus on not being embarrassed on the scoresheet or in player actions. We argue about what is wrong with this guy or that guy, whether Kotkaniemi will light it up and when, where the problem is during bad years, who is a living god in the good ones, but really we are no different from Buffalo except to almost match the Habs record over those 24 seasons the Sabres had to go on a run of missing the playoffs seven straight seasons now.

None of the GMs swung some magic game changing deal for the Habs. McDonough and Sergachev for 16-17 minute offensive players? Ok, sure, lets see how that works out. But none of it changes anything for the Habs. 

The team is participating on the ice but financially is perennially in the top three. The GM position could be filled by a magic 8 ball.

the record may be similar to others before, but the trend is decidedly down.  This will probably reflect in revenue from here on out, until at least they have an exciting group of losers
Reply
Thanks given by:
#20
The fourth and final installment has Bergevin vs. Houle.
It'st the one comparison that favours Bergevin, which is probably the definition of being damned with faint praise.

https://thehockeywriters.com/canadiens-g...-vs-houle/

"Despite his perceived shortcomings, the current GM is not Rejean Houle. When he traded Subban he received one of the top NHL defensemen in return, not a series of marginal players. In attempting to address the Habs’ lack of talent at centre, he risked losing promising defenseman Mikail Segachev for Jonathan Drouin, who is still young enough to develop into a quality player at that position."
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)