xXx..CK..xXx

We also lost Perry and Staal. One was more valuable than the other but just saying.... There’s even Paul Byron. It’s not like he wore an “A” or anything...

Roy certainly will.

No thank you when it comes to trading Price.

I’m going to say this half way through the game. Isn’t Toffoli supposed to be a force against the Canucks?

Okay, understood. Sorry about that. It’s all good to reminisce though. Especially considering he just got fired. And you definitely made your point that he certainly wasn’t the worst gm in the world, as many had liked to portray throughout his tenure.

As my thoughts continue.... My general sentiment is that on either end of the spectrum, there is and has been too much emphasis and focus placed on Marc Bergevin. The team’s successes and failures are much bigger than him. Of course the general manager plays an important role in the composition of the lineup however when I look at the top and see teams like Pittsburgh and Washington, I think of Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin. These are players who have been on their respective teams for 15+ years. Pittsburgh and Washington have been through multiple GMs in that timespan. Furthermore, there was nothing in Bergevin’s power that could be done to prevent Pittsburgh and Washington from having those type of players. This is simply my point, in that there are a large amount of factors that are being overlooked with this data. Who has been the player who gives our team the main perceived recipe for success? Carey Price. Also here for 15+ years and longer than our GM’s tenure. Had Carey Price maintained a super human level at any point, the Habs may have a cup and it would have had little to do with Bergevin. This can obviously only be said in retrospect considering we did not win, and I understand that. On the other end of the spectrum, having Carey Price, our best player on the team, has nothing to do with Bergevin, so how does he deserve credit or angst for his performance? I apologize that it comes off as attacking the hard work put in, as it is not intended that way. It is true, however that the tables were started with an agenda in mind and while I am on the same side of the fence that Bergevin was an average GM, rather than the worst GM in the league, I think that the debate is still up in the air and basically anyone can have their own opinion on the topic.

Confused about your last line. Who’s getting worked up? And why should we move on? He was just fired. Seems reasonable to discuss the topic.

I was asked yesterday whether Bergevin was a good or bad GM. After a slight pause, I came to the conclusion in my own head that Bergevin was just about an average GM. I don’t think that just because Montreal would be 12 or 13th out of ~30 teams on these tables, it would mean Bergevin was without a doubt an “above average” GM. There are too many factors which can be overlooked. Including the fact that based on those statistics he likely inherited an above average team. There are also injuries (to our team and others), unforseen circumstances, exceeding expectations, underachieving, global pandemics, etc. etc. etc. Long story short, the Habs may have been a slightly above average team under his tenure but similar to the fact that I never placed disastrous play from our team solely on Bergevin’s shoulders, I wouldn’t be able to state that he is 100% the reason for the team’s statistical output. The players and coaches’ actions and efforts on any given day are simply out of Bergevin’s hands, despite him being the one at the helm. This is coming from someone who defended Bergevin much more than attacked him, so I have no agenda here. With all that being said, we’re not far off. You see him as an above average GM, and I have him just about average. Not the end of the world, nor nothing to throw arms up in a fit about.

Well, that’s a decade in the record books.

Yes, until we land the 4th pick and draft someone worthy of being a late first rounder.

I’m not as big on the draft as other people until it is actually happening. Then of course I want the Habs to have access to every elite prospect. It’s not something within my personality that can be changed, nor do I really care to. Even if all the smartest talking heads will always repeat that tanking is a better option, I will always be one that enjoys the entertainment value of every single game, and winning is more entertaining. I also disagree with tanking in general and especially this early in the season. It’s been said ad nauseum but tanking ensures nothing, including actually getting access to the first overall pick, and with our recent high end picks leading to literally nothing in more than one circumstance, it’s simply never worth putting myself through the agony of defeat in order to think about the potential, albeit unlikely benefits that losing will provide for us in the future.

All I know is that I will never hope for a loss.

Poehling > Danault

It’s one thing to lose. It’s another to let in 5 goals against on a consistent basis.

Just a random observation that this is how life without Price feels to those who have always wanted to trade him. Because the 1 or 2 elite players or prospects we would have (perhaps) received in return aint stopping the puck.