Player Discussion Kirby Dach: Welcome to Montreal

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously, what is even the point of the sentence in bold? Evidently if we had had a GM with a bit of talent our rebuild or our club would have probably been better (depending on who you hire). But the question was did Bergevin leave us in a good position for a rebuild. I didn't say yes outrightly, because I don't believe he left us in a good position, but when you look at the past certain teams who've started their rebuilds and became contenders were worse off than we were. Honestly, I don't get why you felt the need to write out such a long post when most of the things you bring up are obvious mistakes on Bergevin's part and salient reasons why he was fired. I disagree with none of your points nor does anything you bring up counter my original post. The only thing I wanted to bring up was that Hughes and Gorton at least had something to work with. Could it have been better, well, for sure. He (Bergevin) was a bad GM, and if it would have been better he's probably still there managing the club. How the f*** that was not an objective analysis eludes me, just because he was horrendous at his job doesn't mean there weren't players of value to trade and a potential foundation. There was. I don't even understand why you felt the need to write such a long post. Bergevin didn't leave us with assets thanks to his competence and acumen as a GM; he left us with assets despite his being horrible.
In essence you said that the team had assets left to it. But every team has assets at all times — it’s a bit of a “the sky is blue” kind of statement.

Bergevin received a much better asset value position than he left for his successor.

It will take a long time until Hughes assembles a team that can win playoff rounds.
 
Last edited:
In essence you said that the team had assets left to it. But every team has assets at all times — it’s a bit of a “the sky is blue” kind of statement.

Bergevin received a much better asset value position than he left for his successor.

It will take a long time until Hughes assembles a team that can win playoff rounds.
That's not what I said, we had assets with value left. I said compared to some teams who rebuilded in the past, the players left by Bergevin were superior and had higher value than many perennial gutter clubs such as Toronto and Edmonton had when their GM's inherited their respective clubs. That's all, and you responded with all the mistakes that Bergevin made. Like that had any pertinence where my post was concerned. The point was that even though he was bad at his job, the team that he left had far better potential to reboot the system than many bottom-faring teams in the past. I think the players he left combined with a savvy GM à la Hughes made for a good combination to catalyze the rebuild. Again, this doesn't even compliment Bergevin. We would have been in deep shit had he tried to rebuild the team himself (which he probably wouldn't have).
 
That's not what I said, we had assets with value left. I said compared to some teams who rebuilded in the past, the players left by Bergevin were superior and had higher value than many perennial gutter clubs such as Toronto and Edmonton had when their GM's inherited their respective clubs. That's all, and you responded with all the mistakes that Bergevin made. Like that had any pertinence where my post was concerned. The point was that even though he was bad at his job, the team that he left had far better potential to reboot the system than many bottom-faring teams in the past. I think the players he left combined with a savvy GM à la Hughes made for a good combination to catalyze the rebuild. Again, this doesn't even compliment Bergevin. We would have been in deep shit had he tried to rebuild the team himself (which he probably wouldn't have).
I think he benefited by inflated values due to the Finals run. But sure, he left a handful of assets with value for his successor. Far less than he received when he got the job however.

I don’t think EDM and TOR had nothing at all to start with though either. Depends from when you start counting.
 
That's not what I said, we had assets with value left. I said compared to some teams who rebuilded in the past, the players left by Bergevin were superior and had higher value than many perennial gutter clubs such as Toronto and Edmonton had when their GM's inherited their respective clubs. That's all, and you responded with all the mistakes that Bergevin made. Like that had any pertinence where my post was concerned. The point was that even though he was bad at his job, the team that he left had far better potential to reboot the system than many bottom-faring teams in the past. I think the players he left combined with a savvy GM à la Hughes made for a good combination to catalyze the rebuild. Again, this doesn't even compliment Bergevin. We would have been in deep shit had he tried to rebuild the team himself (which he probably wouldn't have).
Bergevin held on to 10 million in cap space for years, which was likely a bad decision at the time.

But in hindsight, it was a good decision. With the COVID cap freeze, it allowed the Habs to sign Anderson and Toffoli. Toffoli was in turn sold by Hughes for prime assets. Anderson gives the team.a lot of flexibility, either for roster construction or trades.

I think he benefited by inflated values due to the Finals run. But sure, he left a handful of assets with value for his successor. Far less than he received when he got the job however.

I don’t think EDM and TOR had nothing at all to start with though either. Depends from when you start counting.
Is it fair to say that those assets are inflated by the Cup run given that they contributed to the Cup run?

Sakic surely knew that Lehkonen was a playoff warrior.
 
I agree. Careful though, he's a legend already around here, you will be attacked.
No problem. I am used to it.

Spending 6M $ on a broken player is not wise even if Habs will get some kind of first rounder sometimes in the future. Habs needed and still needs cap space to breath. Monahan won't bring anything that actual healthy players cannot.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Habs and dasahgah
I think he benefited by inflated values due to the Finals run. But sure, he left a handful of assets with value for his successor. Far less than he received when he got the job however.

I don’t think EDM and TOR had nothing at all to start with though either. Depends from when you start counting.

Why wouldn't those players value have gone up because of the Cup run? It would have been weird if they had not.
 
No problem. I am used to it.

Spending 6M $ on a broken player is not wise even if Habs will get some kind of first rounder sometimes in the future. Habs needed and still needs cap space to breath. Monahan won't bring anything that actual healthy players cannot.

No, the Habs need future assets. They are capable in their current cap situation to field a full NHL team.

They will clear 20m in salary at the end of the year, including Monahan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoelWarlord
No problem. I am used to it.

Spending 6M $ on a broken player is not wise even if Habs will get some kind of first rounder sometimes in the future. Habs needed and still needs cap space to breath. Monahan won't bring anything that actual healthy players cannot.

The only way to get an extra 1st round pick out of healthy players is to trade them away.
So yeah accepting Monahan brought us something that healthy players on our roster cannot bring.
 
I see a lot of Eric Stall. I know, still early, hate comparisons. But he's a efficient cycle guy, he's good picking up loose pucks on the boards and close to the slot, he's a very good passer, and is calm. I see a lot of 21 in him. Never flashy, but he's got wheels too.
 
I see a lot of Eric Stall. I know, still early, hate comparisons. But he's a efficient cycle guy, he's good picking up loose pucks on the boards and close to the slot, he's a very good passer, and is calm. I see a lot of 21 in him. Never flashy, but he's got wheels too.
Staal was more a goal scorer though and Dach is more a playmaker
 
Two thumbs up concerning Dach so far, still need to see what he will do against a full opposition lineup when the season gets underway but the positives are pretty obvious in his game. as much as I like his smooth passing I would like him at times to be a little more selfish and shoot in certain situations but at least he is looking aggressive in wanting the puck and he is making nice, smart plays when he gets it...........a good sign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad