Marc Bergevin Press Conference 1 PM

[417]

I'd changed the word ''always'' with ''most of the time''


To simple for you to believe even if most of the coach in the NHL would agree with it, ya.......sometimes things are that simple

I just responded to what you posted.

But sorry, I really don't buy this narrative that "most of the time" a player controls his own destiny.

Coaches have a philosophy of how they want to play and a lot of times, certain players despite their best efforts, don't fit that philosophy.

Kotkaniemi is a good example of that.

Both CJ and Ducharme clearly didn't trust him beyond playing a tertiary role and whether that's warranted or not, to expect more production or regularity in those circumstances is as @Belial would say "nonsensical".

 

[smcgreg]

So why didn't they result in increased responsibilities in year 2?

Oh yes...he had a bad camp.

So year 1...he had a good camp, let's bring
him to the NHL at 18.

Year 2...he has a bad camp...let's leave him on the 3rd line playing the same role until be proves he can handle more.

All of these are bad decisions that are just thinking of the short term.

It's a series of these bad decisions that have led to this.

I brought this example earlier...

But Jack Hughes year 1 wasn't good...he finished 7th among Devils forwards in playing time.

Year 2...he finished 1st among Devils forwards in playing time.

That's typically what happens with high picks.

Yes it is, but high picks typically progress and move into that role. I haven't really gotten into the KK arguments that much, but the assertion that he deserved 1st or even 2nd line minutes,.... because..... seems silly to me. If he's the stud he's supposed to be, he should improve relative to where he's been and that forces the issue. I personally think he should have been in the AHL or Euro league at 18 rather than the NHL. Take Hughes for example.... he dominated every level he was at before coming to the NHL. He showed a clear underlying progression in the NHL and really the only developmental weakness he had was his strength. He was easily manhandled, but his skating fundamentals were excellent... his shot and stick handling were excellent. As with CC, you could see that he would "figure it out" because all of the fundamentals were in place and if he got stronger or not, he would still make it work.

KK on the other hand never, ever, ever looked like he was developed in any aspect. He was AND still is, weak for his size, bad skater and poor shooting fundamentals. Why in the world is somebody with sooooo many weaknesses being put into a situation where he can't develop those weaknesses. Further, he never really dominated at previous levels.

So, in the end, it's on the organization that they put him in that position, but it's also on the player that he never really improved at the level he was at to warrant being placed at a higher level.

Did anything he ever did make you look at him and go "wow... he should be on the 1st line"? That's never something I said to myself, that's for sure. Don't get me wrong , there are lots of guys who are successful in spite of bad fundamentals, but they are usually successful and force the issue. They also usually need to demonstrate that success at a lower level, be it the AHL or whatever.

I dunno, ... that ship has sailed, but I just don't see the argument people make that he should have gotten more time and responsibilities. I could see the argument he should play over Stall in the playoffs, but also understand what the coaches liked in the vet line.

In the end, we can now watch and see what happens with his development on someone else's dime. I find it hard to imagine he will ever be anything more than a 2C and the Habs got a 2C that should be solid. So, all is good if you ask me.

 

[Habs Halifax]

If Dvorak is a good solid #2 behind Suzuki, and will put up 45-55 points, then I think our C is better than last year.

Last year, KK was still in development faze and had futures value that hadn’t been realized. He played mainly 3rd C.

Danault was frustrating because he found it challenging to score (and was disappointed by contract negotiations).

Staal was only signed late in the season, and Evans hadn’t had his playoffs coming out party yet, though he started to show promise near the end of the season.

Now we have a host of options for 3/4 C , and Poehling a wildcard who could seize an opportunity for success.

If the Team does well, we might pick up another veteran C for the playoffs if needed, but I hope that it isn’t necessary.

I’m more excited about our center lineup than last year, for sure.

I am wondering how the team D and team Offense ends up. Dvorak is an upgrade offensively over Danault but not defensively. Will be interesting to see how Dvorak does with the Habs with better wingers than what he had with the Coyotes. We are picking him up at a good age and his last 100 games are a sign he has reached maturity. But lets look at our offense/defense stats last year. If we have the 17th best offense and the 18th best defense with a meh special teams again, I agree with many others that we don't make the playoffs. I feel we need to play like we did in the playoffs and ensure we are a top 10 team D at a min. Then we make other teams pay with a good counter attack when we they make a mistakes. Can we do this without Danault and Weber? Not sure and depends on how the team responds to Ducharme's system

Offense (20/21 regular season):
* 2.82 GF/game (ranked 17th)
* 19.2 PP% (ranked 17th)

Defense (20/21 regular season):
* 2.95 GA/Game (ranked 18th)
* 78.5 PK% (ranked 23rd)

Offense (20/21 Playoffs):
* 2.32 GF/game (ranked 12th)
* 18.9 PP% (ranked 8th)

Defense (20/21 Playoffs):
* 2.45 GA/Game (ranked 4th)
* 91.8 PK% (ranked 1st)

I would say holding leads and a shitty PK during the regular season last year was the reasons why we barely snuck in the playoffs. Improve that and we will be tough to beat

 

[417]

Yes it is, but high picks typically progress and move into that role. I haven't really gotten into the KK arguments that much, but the assertion that he deserved 1st or even 2nd line minutes,.... because..... seems silly to me. If he's the stud he's supposed to be, he should improve relative to where he's been and that forces the issue. I personally think he should have been in the AHL or Euro league at 18 rather than the NHL. Take Hughes for example.... he dominated every level he was at before coming to the NHL. He showed a clear underlying progression in the NHL and really the only developmental weakness he had was his strength. He was easily manhandled, but his skating fundamentals were excellent... his shot and stick handling were excellent. As with CC, you could see that he would "figure it out" because all of the fundamentals were in place and if he got stronger or not, he would still make it work.

Hmm...I never specifically said he deserved 1st or 2nd line minutes.

Another poster asserted that he had a very good rookie year, so I asked why that didn't result in increased responsibilities the following year.

KK on the other hand never, ever, ever looked like he was developed in any aspect. He was AND still is, weak for his size, bad skater and poor shooting fundamentals. Why in the world is somebody with sooooo many weaknesses being put into a situation where he can't develop those weaknesses. Further, he never really dominated at previous levels.

So, in the end, it's on the organization that they put him in that position, but it's also on the player that he never really improved at the level he was at to warrant being placed at a higher level.

So basically what i've been saying.

Did anything he ever did make you look at him and go "wow... he should be on the 1st line"? That's never something I said to myself, that's for sure. Don't get me wrong , there are lots of guys who are successful in spite of bad fundamentals, but they are usually successful and force the issue. They also usually need to demonstrate that success at a lower level, be it the AHL or whatever.

I dunno, ... that ship has sailed, but I just don't see the argument people make that he should have gotten more time and responsibilities. I could see the argument he should play over Stall in the playoffs, but also understand what the coaches liked in the vet line.

In the end, we can now watch and see what happens with his development on someone else's dime. I find it hard to imagine he will ever be anything more than a 2C and the Habs got a 2C that should be solid. So, all is good if you ask me.

Once more, i've never advocated from him to be on the 1st line.

But to answer your question, there was nothing that made me go "wow...that Philipp Danault needs to play 1st line with Radulov and Pacioretty either".

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I have a feeling Habs were still high on KK at the start of the season but they changed their tune when they saw no real improvement this year. That's how I feel anyway.

No real improvement, yet he went from 0.11 ppg to 0.36 ppg. That's 3 times better, while getting bigger defensive responsibilities than in his rookie season.

Also scored 9 goals in 29 playoff games.

Nope, no improvement!

 

[smcgreg]

Hmm...I never specifically said he deserved 1st or 2nd line minutes.

Another poster asserted that he had a very good rookie year, so I asked why that didn't result in increased responsibilities the following year.


So basically what i've been saying.


Once more, i've never advocated from him to be on the 1st line.

But to answer your question, there was nothing that made me go "wow...that Philipp Danault needs to play 1st line with Radulov and Pacioretty either".

Haha..... touche..... To be honest, like I said, I haven't gotten into the KK arguments too much, so, I apologize if I mischaracterized your point of view. That being said, PD got the bigger minutes since he got the top lines. That typically goes with the better wingers. Radulov and Patches haven't been with the org for a while, so, that's a bit of a red herring. Granted, I get your point.

I find it hard to believe anybody would argue that KK should have gotten the top line match ups that PD did. Then, from a devo perspective, NS has always looked to me to be on a trajectory to warrant the next place in line. That leaves KK in 3rd spot. What do you do, give the 3rd C the best wingers? When I look at NS, I go... "Wow,... I can see that guy on the 1st line.... someday". I've never really done that with KK. Who knows what they were grooming him for, maybe a PD replacement in a defensive role? Hard to say, but I don't see where you force him higher in the lineup or give him better wingers given the C situation the past two years.

So, we probably both agree he really should have been left in a lower league to begin with. Since he was on the 3rd line though, he needed to show he at least belonged there or above to be placed above. That may have been the plan this year, but the Canes decided to throw a wrench in the works for that plan and, quite honestly, the team is probably better for it for the next 2-3 years. Given the contract and what I've seen from Dvorak to this point, I'm hard pressed to think that anybody will regret losing KK in 2 or even 3 years.

 

[sampollock]

During his presser on Monday, Canadiens' general manager Marc Bergevin did not hold back and told it like it is when it comes to Kotkaniemi.
He's just not even close to being worth $6.1million.
"The amount of money on a one year deal for a player that should be making a lot less, could affect our future,"
"I think in the hockey world there's no one that will tell you that this is an offer, on a one year deal for a young player at this stage of his career, that he deserves. My first reaction was 'wow'."

 

[Habby4Life]

No real improvement, yet he went from 0.11 ppg to 0.36 ppg. That's 3 times better, while getting bigger defensive responsibilities than in his rookie season.

Also scored 9 goals in 29 playoff games.

Nope, no improvement!

What are talking about. He was .43 ppg in his rookie season and last year .35ppg.

YEAH no improvement

 

[417]

Haha..... touche..... To be honest, like I said, I haven't gotten into the KK arguments too much, so, I apologize if I mischaracterized your point of view. That being said, PD got the bigger minutes since he got the top lines. That typically goes with the better wingers. Radulov and Patches haven't been with the org for a while, so, that's a bit of a red herring. Granted, I get your point.

Fair - but I was just trying to illustrate that we need to stop thinking that opportunities are always born from meritocracy.

Danault played well on a 4th line for a few weeks and then found himself on a top line not because he set the world on fire, but because the Habs really had nothing else down the middle.

But to his credit - he seized that opportunity, i'm sure the confidence that the coaching staff showed in him when not too long before he was toiling away in the AHL on the Chicago Wolves went a long way.

I find it hard to believe anybody would argue that KK should have gotten the top line match ups that PD did. Then, from a devo perspective, NS has always looked to me to be on a trajectory to warrant the next place in line. That leaves KK in 3rd spot. What do you do, give the 3rd C the best wingers? When I look at NS, I go... "Wow,... I can see that guy on the 1st line.... someday". I've never really done that with KK. Who knows what they were grooming him for, maybe a PD replacement in a defensive role? Hard to say, but I don't see where you force him higher in the lineup or give him better wingers given the C situation the past two years.

No definitely not, I never argued that...but it would have been fruitful, IMO, the last 3 years when the team struggled and especially when a guy like Danault struggled, to have seen more experiments even in the short term in order to expose KK to different responsibilities.

Once more...confidence and faith from the coaching staff can go a long way.

So, we probably both agree he really should have been left in a lower league to begin with. Since he was on the 3rd line though, he needed to show he at least belonged there or above to be placed above. That may have been the plan this year, but the Canes decided to throw a wrench in the works for that plan and, quite honestly, the team is probably better for it for the next 2-3 years. Given the contract and what I've seen from Dvorak to this point, I'm hard pressed to think that anybody will regret losing KK in 2 or even 3 years.

That's the thing though...he did.

Both his raw stats and his underlying statistics showed that despite very unfavorable deployment, he more than held his own.

 

[Sorinth]

They might have wanted the player, but not for the price of compensation. It would add to the argument that, once we rejected the trade, the ultimate offer sheet was merely designed to mess up our cap and that the Hurricanes hoped we would match.

They for sure weren't ready to give Bergevin what he wanted in a trade. But that in no means they made the offer sheet hoping it would get matched. They made the offer sheet to get the player, thinking they hoped we would match is pure fantasy.

 

[Sorinth]

During his presser on Monday, Canadiens' general manager Marc Bergevin did not hold back and told it like it is when it comes to Kotkaniemi.
He's just not even close to being worth $6.1million.
"The amount of money on a one year deal for a player that should be making a lot less, could affect our future,"
"I think in the hockey world there's no one that will tell you that this is an offer, on a one year deal for a young player at this stage of his career, that he deserves. My first reaction was 'wow'."

If Carolina had made an offer based on what KK had shown he was already worth then there would be no reason not to match the offer and Carolina wouldn't get the player. Is it so hard for people to understand that the only way to acquire a player via offersheet is to overpay them?

 

[BLONG7]

If Carolina had made an offer based on what KK had shown he was already worth then there would be no reason not to match the offer and Carolina wouldn't get the player. Is it so hard for people to understand that the only way to acquire a player via offersheet is to overpay them?

Not a fan on how it got to this.............that being said, totally agree withMB to not overpay this summer, to KK or Danault.....both can be replaced with lower salary players, and have been.

 

[jaffy27]

Not a fan on how it got to this.............that being said, totally agree withMB to not overpay this summer, to KK or Danault.....both can be replaced with lower salary players, and have been.

Half the price

KK+Danault = 11.6m$ and 10 goals
Evans+Dvorak =5.5m$ and 22 goals

So half the price and twice the goal production

 

[Bacchus1]

I am wondering how the team D and team Offense ends up. Dvorak is an upgrade offensively over Danault but not defensively. Will be interesting to see how Dvorak does with the Habs with better wingers than what he had with the Coyotes. We are picking him up at a good age and his last 100 games are a sign he has reached maturity. But lets look at our offense/defense stats last year. If we have the 17th best offense and the 18th best defense with a meh special teams again, I agree with many others that we don't make the playoffs. I feel we need to play like we did in the playoffs and ensure we are a top 10 team D at a min. Then we make other teams pay with a good counter attack when we they make a mistakes. Can we do this without Danault and Weber? Not sure and depends on how the team responds to Ducharme's system

Offense (20/21 regular season):
* 2.82 GF/game (ranked 17th)
* 19.2 PP% (ranked 17th)

Defense (20/21 regular season):
* 2.95 GA/Game (ranked 18th)
* 78.5 PK% (ranked 23rd)

Offense (20/21 Playoffs):
* 2.32 GF/game (ranked 12th)
* 18.9 PP% (ranked 8th)

Defense (20/21 Playoffs):
* 2.45 GA/Game (ranked 4th)
* 91.8 PK% (ranked 1st)

I would say holding leads and a shitty PK during the regular season last year was the reasons why we barely snuck in the playoffs. Improve that and we will be tough to beat

I think this will be a whole new year in the stats department. Last year Weber was clearly hurt and was playing like a dumpster fire during the regular season. Danault seemed to have lost focus, and was not controlling the game. Byron was injured or not playing up to snuff. And we were still under Julien’s system.

For some reason, I feel we will improve on D and offense this year. I don’t think we will be as much of a bubble team.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think this will be a whole new year in the stats department. Last year Weber was clearly hurt and was playing like a dumpster fire during the regular season. Danault seemed to have lost focus, and was not controlling the game. Byron was injured or not playing up to snuff. And we were still under Julien’s system.

For some reason, I feel we will improve on D and offense this year. I don’t think we will be as much of a bubble team.

I can see many different outcomes. A lot of roster turnover that could be better than we expect or worse.

 

[smcgreg]

Fair - but I was just trying to illustrate that we need to stop thinking that opportunities are always born from meritocracy.

Danault played well on a 4th line for a few weeks and then found himself on a top line not because he set the world on fire, but because the Habs really had nothing else down the middle.

But to his credit - he seized that opportunity, i'm sure the confidence that the coaching staff showed in him when not too long before he was toiling away in the AHL on the Chicago Wolves went a long way.


No definitely not, I never argued that...but it would have been fruitful, IMO, the last 3 years when the team struggled and especially when a guy like Danault struggled, to have seen more experiments even in the short term in order to expose KK to different responsibilities.

Once more...confidence and faith from the coaching staff can go a long way.


That's the thing though...he did.

Both his raw stats and his underlying statistics showed that despite very unfavorable deployment, he more than held his own.

OK, I think we really aren't far off. I need to move on, but I'll leave with this... 1) There is a case to be made that KK could have been used differently, but a big part of that was just the weakness at C in the organization. PD was a very good defensive C, so, they took very good "something" and ran with it. 2) The previous coaching regime was unlikely to look at underlying stats (at least that's my guess). I give DD some slack because he came into a downward spriral and was just trying to pull out of the nosedive. Development is the last thing on your mind at that point. 3) MTL is really not a good place to develop in the big club. In other less focused markets it might be fine, but the org needs to learn that they don't have the luxury of developing in the NHL due to the pressure to be at least good all the time. So, they should just make an organizational decision not to do that. It's hard to know if Galch would have developed differently on a different path, I doubt it and the weakness at C has been a factor for so long, they've been grasping at straws. Still, if you pick a prospect you know is a long term project, don't "develop" him in the NHL. We can probably both agree on that.

thanks,

 

[Bacchus1]

''due to his play'' meanwhile Danault had the best winger all regular season while being absolute dogshit. But I guess its only good for KK.

KK was handled like shit for 3 years , straight fact. This team had preferences but gladly most of those players are gone now.

I wouldn't say that Danault was playing super good, either. But, when those players played with Suzuki, everyone was getting points. Remember, Danault was going through a contract negotiation, and those negotiations were leaked to the press, and it apparently weighed on his mind.

 

[Cookie007]

yes.. Carolina really wanted the player to pay him 6.1M for 1 year.. to play 3rd line LW

he's signed for 1 year.. not 4-5 (not yet anyways), do you think on a cup contender like Carolina he will over take Aho, Trocheck or Staal this year? 6.1M could've solidify the Canes to grab a top tier defenseman at the deadline.

And what if KK does amazing this year.. they QO at 5-6 mill or whatever.. where is the money for Necas? and others that need to be resigned later on?

Carolina did not expected this. heck for 6.1M and if they wanted a C, they could've got Dvorak for their first (even perhaps 2x2nd and a prospect, since no one was offering a first until bargain bin came along) at 4.5 and still add a defenseman at the deadline for 3-4M.. and they would be a legit contender

 

[HostileCapSpace]

No real improvement, yet he went from 0.11 ppg to 0.36 ppg. That's 3 times better, while getting bigger defensive responsibilities than in his rookie season.

Also scored 9 goals in 29 playoff games.

Nope, no improvement!

If you're going to quote stats, get it right.

Season 1: 0.43
Season 2: 0.22
Season 3: 0.36

So overall he's regressed since his rookie year. Yeah, I guess he improved from season 2 to season 3 but then anyone can improve when you start from that low. I guess if he had 1 goal than 2 the next year you'd be saying: "See, his goal production doubled!" Media are masters with those clickbait titles with misleading numbers.

Also, his career shooting percentage average in the regular season is 8% and in the playoffs it's 23%. You can make a case he can improve his regular season shooting percentage a little but there's no way that 23% is sustainable, small sample and all that. For the record the league leader had a 22% shooting percentage last year. Ovechkin has a regular career average of 12. Gretzky 17. So yeah, pretty safe to assume KK won't stay at 23% for long unless his sample size stays very low.

Anything else? I'll end my post with an explanation point like you to make it more badass!

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

If you're going to quote stats, get it right.

Season 1: 0.43
Season 2: 0.22
Season 3: 0.36

So overall he's regressed since his rookie year. Yeah, I guess he improved from season 2 to season 3 but then anyone can improve when you start from that low. I guess if he had 1 goal than 2 the next year you'd be saying: "See, his goal production doubled!" Media are masters with those clickbait titles with misleading numbers.

Also, his career shooting percentage average in the regular season is 8% and in the playoffs it's 23%. You can make a case he can improve his regular season shooting percentage a little but there's no way that 23% is sustainable, small sample and all that. For the record the league leader had a 22% shooting percentage last year. Ovechkin has a regular career average of 12. Gretzky 17. So yeah, pretty safe to assume KK won't stay at 23% for long unless his sample size stays very low.

Anything else? I'll end my post with an explanation point like you to make it more badass!

In his rookie season, his minutes were a lot softer than last season.

You said NO IMPROVEMENT. Don't act like a child.

 

[HostileCapSpace]

In his rookie season, his minutes were a lot softer than last season.

You said NO IMPROVEMENT. Don't act like a child.

Child. Okay. Facts matters, and now that you're faced with them you retort to insults. Conversation over. I thought I was dealing with a mature person. Guess not.

Here, for future reference. Very useful:

Jesperi Kotkaniemi Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

I guess you'll retort I'm a MB shill or Habs PR bot or some nonsense like that.

 

[Habby4Life]

If you're going to quote stats, get it right.

Season 1: 0.43
Season 2: 0.22
Season 3: 0.36

So overall he's regressed since his rookie year. Yeah, I guess he improved from season 2 to season 3 but then anyone can improve when you start from that low. I guess if he had 1 goal than 2 the next year you'd be saying: "See, his goal production doubled!" Media are masters with those clickbait titles with misleading numbers.

Also, his career shooting percentage average in the regular season is 8% and in the playoffs it's 23%. You can make a case he can improve his regular season shooting percentage a little but there's no way that 23% is sustainable, small sample and all that. For the record the league leader had a 22% shooting percentage last year. Ovechkin has a regular career average of 12. Gretzky 17. So yeah, pretty safe to assume KK won't stay at 23% for long unless his sample size stays very low.

Anything else? I'll end my post with an explanation point like you to make it more badass!

I think he was providing ALTERNATIVE STATS - haha

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Child. Okay. Facts matters, and now that you're faced with them you retort to insults. Conversation over. I thought I was dealing with a mature person. Guess not.

Here, for future reference. Very useful:

Jesperi Kotkaniemi Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

I guess you'll retort I'm a MB shill or Habs PR bot or some nonsense like that.

Yes a child.

You said no improvements. I showed othetwise. Than you use his rookie year without the context of softer minutes. Those are all facts, but you childishly hold on to that narrative.

It wasn't an insult. You ARE acting very juvenile.



Buhbye kiddo

 

[Forsead]

Losing a player like this is just embarassing. There is no other way to say it, even if you didn't like Kotkaniemi as a player or his potential.

This happened due to a mix of factors, but pretty much all is on Bergevin shoulders :
- He did and botched the Aho offer.
- He rushed Kotkaniemi (unable to find centers).
- He kept Timmins (if you think Kotkaniemi was a flop as a player).
- I suspect he has problem showing some of his players due respect (Radulov, Markov, Danault, now Kotkaniemi), I mean when you're 21 years old, was drafted, raised and developped by an organization and you have fun playing and just got to the Stanley Cup finals, you don't sign an HUMILATING offer if you feel appreciated and RESPECTED.
- He has a pretty underwhelming player development team.

I like Dvorak, but that add would have made so much more sense WITH Kotkaniemi. Now, they will have a pretty bad center line, unless there are not finished. Also, if you get Dvorak while keeping Kotkaniemi, you could at least trade Kotkaniemi (if you don't like him) to get a puck moving D.

Now there's a hole at center and there's a never ending hole (getting to black hole level IMO) at the puck moving D role.

 

[Bacchus1]

Don’t forget about acquiring a former 3rd overall who isn’t panning out.

A 26 year old with nearly 400 games played and 232 points (so, scoring at higher than 0.5 ppg) is not panning out? 33 playoff games with 21 points (0.64 ppg).

This included being asked to play a position he hadn't played since junior ...

People seem to think that if you are drafted in the first round, you should be a Crosby, a McDavid, or a McKinnen.

Drouin is already a success. Yes, we wanted him to be the next Lafleur ... but perhaps our expectations were too high, and perhaps we are jumping the gun. I personally think that Drouin will likely have a good season. Don't know what was up with him this year, but if it is behind him, I could see him playing well on one of the top two lines.