Leaderboard

You guys sound like a couple of jive turkeys. "Yoyoyo, it's your boy Louis."

So according to this article you've provided, we traded a tier 1 player for a tier 4 player. Are you seeing the light yet?

-Price didn't win the Vezina till Stephane Waite was hired by Bergevin -Subban won the Norris under Bergevin -Galchenyuk was selected by Bergevin and made the NHL his first eligible year -Gallagher was a Calder trophy candidate under Bergevin -Pacioretty was sniping when Bergevin got hired and he still is -Markov is Markov So that is the core that he inherited. He gets no credit for the success of those players and all of the blame for others that didn't succeed under his watch. It's as if those players were destined to be good NHLers and he was just along for the ride. And anyone else would have been stars if not for how incompetent he is

Well, arguing over the merits and demerits of various specific moves is fun. But I don't think it's the right way to frame the issue of his overall performance. For that, we need to 'zoom out' and observe overall patterns. When we do, we see the following: 1. A good team that, when it has Price, has strong regular seasons and is a reliable playoff club. 2. A team that has not been able to improve on the above since 2014. So, four years of treading water, never getting any better. 3. An organization that has zero blue-chip prospects and a dismal track record of drafting and development. MB's defenders focus on (1), take the view that once you make the playoffs 'anything can happen,' and that, therefore, (2) is good enough. As for (3), well, they just cross their fingers that somehow things will get better. MB's critics focus on (2) and (3). The point of (2) is that MB inherited a strong hand and has not been able to make it stronger. His team is not a true, top-tier contender and none of his many moves have changed that. The point of (3) is that this franchise is heading for disaster in the medium term. This makes it harder to be sanguine about (2) because there is no 'next wave' to be optimistic about.

sign some 4th liners a a couple of 35+ defencemen?

For Molson: Trade Carey Price to bring back Ben Scrivens in the middle of a game.

Last I checked the image of Smashville is alive and kicking but here I am thinking it's because everyone gets "smashed" in Nashville and not from hitting hard... seems you have all the excuses for everyone but MB... the fact remains poile has had 20 years... and his only real success as a GM came with solid goaltending from Riine and a defensive backbone of Suter and weber and then weber Josi Ekholm and now Josi ekholm subban Ellis. The move of jones for Johansen was huge as they were a team struggling to score as well. Also the emergence of the sophomore arrvidson as well as forsberg has really contributed. In the end though, if riine plays like he did the first 25 games rather then his last... Nashville doesn't stand a chance! speaking of rhetoric... MB has said multiple multiple times he would not mortgage the future for short term gain and he hasn't thus far. This is why you see low risk trades with outside chances of success in the interm of guys at the tail end of their careers. The biggest problem is the habs haven't made any really good on any picks in the last little while. This I believe is the true reason of the teams stalling progression to the next level. Lehkonan could very well be the first impact draft pick since Gallagher and Galchenyuk! Adding Drouin helps although losing sergachev hurts... (we will just have to hope juulsen, mete and 1 or 2 of the 5 defence drafted this year really pan out to help with that loss. Meantime we gain one of the most dynamic young forwards on hockey.

Or... We ran into a veteran goalie who got very hot, coupled with our lacking finish and declining confidence in our ability to finish as the series progressed, forcing us to bow out in the first round because we couldn't bury a few timely goals. Said veteran goalie then looked like a shell of himself from the first round, as was noted by many articles in NY media, and made the Ottawa offence look more potent than it was. Had this veteran goalie played in our series the way he played in the Ottawa series, we likely would have put home an extra few goals on him which would have likely made the difference. Because lets not forget, our Goalie was actually boasting some very solid .937 SV% type of numbers during that series, a couple goals would have been enough to see us through. I'd also love to see the article where Bergevin proclaims that this coming season, this team makes it or breaks it on the shoulders of one Tomas Plekanec and his ability to bounce back. Wait! let me guess, just more presumptuous rhetoric...

Oh boy are we reaching now, you think a few million bucks is the difference between competitive and contender? Jesus..

Nashville was a contender. Obviously. Montreal was not. Obviously. The playoffs have a wonderful way of separating the pretenders from the contenders and clarifying who is and isn't the real deal. Nashville built that with Habs'-like draft position. Which shows it can be done. But not by MB. Too 'tough' for him. (Incidentally, I'm surprised no one mentions the Rags, another team that's consistently done better than us despite a similar drafting position history).

Injury decimated. And in the Finals, even with their #1 C out, they still went seven games. Everyone forgets that the 2017 Habs were massively healthy going into the playoffs. Still couldn't do a damned thing, despite all that Leadership

One thread is enough, you don't need to start one for every episode. And if you're going to post these, you should at least try to participate in other non-podcast discussions. Accounts created for the sole purpose of promoting content from elsewhere is in direct violation of our Terms of Use.

I hesitate to post this lest this turn into version 24638 of Subban vs Weber but that is one single person's metric (and for what it's worth, a very, very arrogant stat guy). I'll give you another for comparison - point shares, a stat that has been around for quite a while now. Weber: 10.1 Subban: 6.1 That stat says Weber was a lot more impactful than Subban this past season (and has been in the past for the most part as well) so shouldn't he be in a higher tier in those rankings? The moral of the story is you can cherry pick some of these newer metrics to fit the narrative to side with your opinion on the trade, be it for or against (note that 'your' is a general statement here, I'm not referring to you specifically).

Nashville has bluechips. Their drafting position has been similar to ours. So tired of endless excuses for a management group that is mediocrity personified. And a GM who decimates the development pipeline does not DESERVE to decade-plus of general managing that you seem to feel is required (of course Serge Savard won a Cup and went to another Final within five years of taking over, but whatever, apparently five-year plans when you inherit a strong bunch of core pieces are now impossible).

2012-13: 1st in their Division(63 pts) || Goals For 3rd of 30 || Goals Against 13th of 30 || Playoffs: 1st Round 2013-14: 3rd in the Division(100 pts) || Goals For 21st of 30 || Goals Against 6th of 30 || Playoffs: Conference Final 2014-15: 1st in the Division(110 pts) || Goals for 18th of 30 || Goals Against 1st of 30 || Playoffs: 2nd Round 2015 -16: 6th in the Divison(82 pts) || Goals for 16th of 30 || Goals Against 21st of 30 || Playoffs: None 2016-17: 1st in the Division(103 pts) || Goals For 15th of 30 || Goals Against 3rd of 30 || Playoffs: 1st Round Does that look like a 5 year resume worthy of a firing to you? If you were in the GM chair, and this was your results of the past 5 years, would you be ok with being fired? or would you find it unfair to not be given a chance to continue to build a successful team that could break into contendership status in the near future. So to answer your question, in my opinion, he would need to do much worse than winning 3 division titles, three 100 point seasons, and a conference final on his resume. And i'd Challenge anyone to find me a GM who has recently been fired with similar results in his seasons leading up to his Firing. You guys just sound like a bunch of squabbling Seagulls at times, calling for someone's head just for the sake of change without any real merit, pitch forks in the air, predicting doomsday fall offs in the coming days. And you keepseeing the same whining and grumbling behind the reasoning "Oh but he traded away my favorite player! Get rid of him he'll never get another damn thing right!", "Why can't he just build a winner in a few years like everyone else does, GOD!", "We have been stuck at pretty good team status for a few years why can't we take the next step, it seems so easy for every other team in the league!". Is it starting to sound as ridiculous to you guys as it does to me? His resume is far from perfect, it has its mistakes, but it certainly boasts enough positive results to allow him to continue trying build what he is building, and until those results start turning ugly, I'm not lighting the guy on fire. That doesn't make me Bergevin fan boy, it simply means, when I look at that resume at first glance, the thought of this GM should be fired does not cross my mind, and it shouldn't to anyone looking at it through reasonable eyes. He isn't all doom and gloom, or about as sharp as a bowling ball, he is also not flawless by any means. But somewhere in the middle of all that nonsense, lies his true abilities, his true evaluation, and it doesn't scream Fire Him to me.

This is the Montreal Canadiens. Not an expansion team from Tennessee.

The point of the Nashville example is that it shows that you can build a contender from a draft position similar to the Habs'. For years, I've said - and so has anyone else who thinks about it - that the key to pulling this off is top-notch drafting and player development. Nashville was able to do that. We weren't. You're quite right that it is hard to do; achieving it requires real excellence, because your organization has to be better than others at this. Nashville is the 'exception' because they've gotten exceptional results. Aww, poor baby Bergevin, can't be expected to be exceptional at his job, now can he? I just don't see it as acceptable to say, 'well, MB can't be expected to be the class of the league in the crucial area that will determine whether the Habs become contenders.' If he can't be the class of the league ('exceptional!') in this respect, then he should be out on his expensively-suited arse. (In fact, Bergevin is far below average in player development, but why quibble about that). The management of the Pollock and Selke eras was exceptional; that's why it won so many Cups. To hear fans arguing that we can't now expect our organization to be exceptional is a real sign of how far the Habs's crest has fallen. As for the Weber thing, everyone keeps going in circles on it, including me, so I'll just quickly summarize: the team with Weber and Price (2017) did marginally worse than the team with Subban and Price (2015) while manifesting the same basic weaknesses (including lack of scoring and being 'fragile' according to the GM). The supposedly all-important variable of Weber's Dear Leadership, in other words, achieved exactly diddly-squat in terms of results.

Of course, because Weber came here an had a horrible season, it is obvious any negative situation this team suffered last season can be directly related to the Subban for Weber swap. His leadership was useless, his reliability was unnoticeable, his PP goals and presence did not make our PP any better than the previous year. Heck we had exactly 0 locker room incidents or rumored locker room incidents between players, pure luck, nothing to do with Weber being there, or someone else not being there In fact his 5th runner up spot for the Norris trophy this season should not put him in Tier 1 for year-end award candidates. Unlike his 7th runner up and 8th runner up fellow defenseman, Mark Giordano and Dougie Hamilton who were ranked as Tier 1. There is nothing wrong with this ranking system at all, that is just a minor observational error on their part which has no bearing because, well ultimately Weber isn't very good. Sarcasm aside, take a looks at the Tier rankings for the Dmen in that article, and if at first glance you don't notice some SERIOUS flaws with that system then its best to just close the browser and switch sports.

Not my point at all. The comment I made is that Bergevin has said on multiple occasions "the goal is to make the playoffs." I can link two examples, one in 2014 and 2017, if needed. I didn't argue that he should say the goal is to win the Stanley Cup. My point was that we can only take him at face value. I view Bergevin's move through the prism of failure because he's a failed GM. I don't think he has a job for more than three years without the core he inherited, and I put him in the same class of Canadian Old Boys that Suck at GMing. The other members are Dave Nonis, Craig McTavish, Cheveldisaster, and Jim Benning.

You have completely side stepped my entire point. Should He or Should he not claim this team should win a cup before the season, when they are not even contenders in anyone's eyes? If you answer that with logic and reason, you will quickly see you were just looking for an unfounded reason to attack him for what he is saying. Quickly throwing you into the category I already pegged you and many others in, Because Bergevin traded Subban, he will always speak in "Fart" to you, not anything he does will be good and everything including breathing will be a terrible idea with no vision. You actually named off some good points against him, he has sat back too long and allowed this player development staff to accomplish nothing, Patrice Brisebois likely should never have had an NHL job. However to expect a team who has consistently picked 18th or higher in the past 10 years to have bluechips is highly unrealistic, the only teams who have that to show for are generally teams who continue to miss the playoffs, and if their long term and continuing lack of success is any indication, having a ton of blue chips is hardly a guaranteed method to winning championships. Every Blue chip we have picked up over the years made the team fairly quickly, from Price to Galchenyuk, you expect us to pick a blue chip every year or something? even when we are picking late in the 1st round? Find me a team who has done that in the last 10 years, find me a team picking in the back half of the 1st round who keeps plugging in blue chip after blue chip and has had more success than us. This is exactly what I am talking about, stop putting ridiculous claims of what we should have or be doing without first seeing if it isn't a norm around the league. with an exception here and there. Otherwise you are just asking this team to do what barely anyone other team is doing, and that is the very meaning behind unreasonable and lofty expectations. My expectations are just as high as anyone who is a through and through fan of this team, though they are also realistic expectations. I want to see us win championships, I also like to use logic and reason to determine it is Rare that any GM builds a winner in 5 years, no one has an easy time building championships. Many GMs can't even replicate a winning formula they had while on a different team ever again in their careers. Yet because this is Montreal and we are all so impatient we expect championships because, well, we just want them? Everyone wants them, they are extremely difficult to get, and if this team can remain competitive while it figures out a way to do it, then i'm alright with that. Many teams embarrass themselves for years and years and still have just as many cup finals as we do in the past 15 years. Some of the very best GMs in this league have spent nearly a decade or more trying to win a championship. Heck the GM of the year, David Poile, spent nearly 20 years trying to make Nashville a legitimate Contender, and this year, they were still not considered one going into the playoffs, they reached their first cup final during his long reign. If he were GM in Montreal, we would have been calling for his head for the past 11 years with results like that, successful teams who make the playoffs but aren't considered contenders are not things to take for granted. They can turn a corner at any moment, get hot at the right time. They are also not painful to watch for most of the season, and their place in the standings make it so you don't have to put a paper bag over your head when you go into work. Those are things I can appreciate, if you cannot, then it is your right to kick and stomp your feet each and every day we aren't considered a contender, just don't expect me to agree with it. I understand that being competitive, is a step you must take before becoming a contender, sometimes you remain their for longer than you would like, but it still does not mean you won't ever achieve the next step. Forgive me if I am not close to throwing in the towel on this teams chance to turn a corner in the coming years.

Hey guys !! Sending blessings to all ! If you have some free time Hab A Listen The Podcast Ep 3 is out ! soundcloud.com/user-340014974 GO Habs GO and let's fast forward to October Already !

we can't mention the Rangers, it would show that we lost to a very formidable opponent in a close hard fought series in the 1st round, thus dissolving the rhetoric some of you have been preaching about how terrible we are for being eliminated in the 1st round.

We lost to a team with an aging goaltender who stoned our crappy offence and was exposed against the senators. That team traded away their #1 centre this year and always find ways to either dump or buyout bad contracts and washed out has beens, because they weren't satisfied with how the season went. We have a GM who is hanging on to the hope that a washout like Pleks will find his legs.

Pacioretty, Price, Shaw, Petry, Gallagher, Subban, Alzner dont count?