Leaderboard

Yes, I also knew that without the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet shows without a doubt that the CH is clearly above average in the regular season but not as good in the playoffs A pet peace of mine is when someone claims something is true based on their opinion where data shows otherwise (e.g. climate change)

Fair enough, opinion + evidence is better than opinion alone

Sure, I agree - the offseason isn't over. But if the appropriate response to what we've seen so far probably should not be panic and hysteria, nor should it be complacency, let alone praise for Bergevin (whose track record does little to inspire confidence). Instead it should probably be a degree of unease or restlessness: when/how is he going to make this team better?? So far, crickets...and let's keep in mind what a lot of folks on this site seem to forget, which is that the status quo (a non-playoff team) is utterly unacceptable.

The Devils have done quite a bit to improve this off season. I have not seen a lot of Gusev, but seems to be low return to VGK, petty much what the Habs got for Shaw.

I still think there is a 4th line NHLer there, but dude is gonna need a perfect season to get there.

ok, here is the spreadsheet analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/102S-AKuH81-COsCjTgT6Tg-Q5imkCvcH/view?usp=sharing [fixed spreadsheet. Thanks Commandant!] Based on total points for Marc Bergevin teams (2012-2019) the CH is above average 669.62 points, over the 625.96 average or the 648.13 median Based on the total point multiplied by (1+ playoff-winning-percentage) the CH is above average 839.25 over the 781.13 average or the 779.73 median The last two seasons have moved them lower on the rankings, but it seems to have retooled them to move up for another push for the cup. Overall, a decent (above average) job by the GM

Is the offseason over? Didnt a team just make a trade today? Didnt we make a trade in mid-September last year? Is jake gardiner signed with someone, anyone? Mitch Marner? Patrick Laine? Kyle Connor? Is preseason over? Who made the team? Who didnt? Let's wait til october before we make pronouncements about what the front office did or didnt do.

In terms of the Habs' moves so far - not just the Aho farce - this seems like a fair analysis: https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/analysis/2019/7/13/20686892/montreal-canadiens-front-office-made-quite-few-moves-this-off-season-but-will-they-pay-off-analysis I guess the folks who are Jim Dandy with the Bergevin regime trust that we will receive considerable improvement from within, as guys like KoKo and Meat (and even Drouin) have more experience, and we can add a Poehling or Suzuki to the mix. (They also assume, I guess, that these rookies will fit right in and have strong overall seasons; that there will be no "sophomore slump" from KoKo; etc.; in other words, that everything with our young players will go right). Therefore, it's perfectly OK that the summer moves were classic Bergevin, i.e., "lateral" moves that leave the team no better than it was before. For the grouchier types like myself, it's all a bit head-scratching. Isn't the whole point to improve the team - ? Why is standing pat OK when your team missed the dance last year? I don't really get the complacency. Here we have a GM who has not made a failed team discernably better (at least so far). And the fans are happy as clams. I wonder if the hyperbole of some of MB's critics ("worst GM since Milbury" etc.) has not pushed others into excessive optimism about his merits.

No GM in the 60s or earlier missed the playoffs because were only 6 teams, a # which has been increasing since then and every GM now misses playoffs. Bergevin has exact same amount of cups as vast majority of todays GMs. Bowman, Holland, Tallon, Armstrong is it isn't it? Also, who is best to replace Bergevin? Mcguire, or Roy...any other options?

Right. Does your data show what the average point totals were earlier in MB’s reign as GM, when he still had the core he inherited vs the performance after he put more of his stamp on the team? Does it show the difference in the playoff performance in the first half of his reign vs when he changed the core. Raw data without context is crap. To come to the conclusion that his an above average GM bases on a overly simplistic analysis is crap as well.