Confirmed with Link: Toffoli to CGY for Emil Heineman, Tyler Pitlick + Picks (Part 2)

[Habs Halifax]

Bergevin's vision was blurred behind his tears for Gallagher after giving him a 6year 6.5M, limited NTC contract.

He was too loyal to a fault. Personally, I think the emotions that came out after the Gallagher signing indicated that he tried to play hard ball and failed/cracked and just gave into what both Petry and Gallagher wanted and tried to play hard ball on Danault where he let him walk.

Paying people in their 30's for what they did in their 20's is bad business. The rebuild should have started years ago but Covid came along and gave us a chance where we showed some "upset" potential and we did get a cup finals out of it.

It's all lead to this and I said it years ago. The rebuild is coming but it's a little later than you might expect. Weber on LTIR, Price dealing with an injury, Danault walking has forced us to make the management change and do the rebuild.

 

[dcyhabs]

He was too loyal to a fault. Personally, I think the emotions that came out after the Gallagher signing indicated that he tried to play hard ball and failed/cracked and just gave into what both Petry and Gallagher wanted and tried to play hard ball on Danault where he let him walk.

Paying people in their 30's for what they did in their 20's is bad business. The rebuild should have started years ago but Covid came along and gave us a chance where we showed some "upset" potential and we did get a cup finals out of it.

It's all lead to this and I said it years ago. The rebuild is coming but it's a little later than you might expect. Weber on LTIR, Price dealing with an injury, Danault walking has forced us to make the management change and do the rebuild.

He was loyal to the wrong people in many cases. Well, he correctly got rid of some of the guys he traded, but Bergevin showed a lot of loyalty and generosity to guys like Gallagher, Byron, Alzner, and less to Radulov, Danault, KK, and others. Why play Staal in the playoffs after he showed he was done in the regular season? I mean it worked out for a few key games, but what was the decision making process? Where was the loyalty to Markov? He was very loyal to Lefebvre, Daigneault, and Therrien, less so to Julien.

I found it mostly came down to keeping people who, like Gallagher, always say good things about the coach and GM, relatively silent guys, and foxhole buddies who would never criticize the GM or threaten to advance in the organization. I got the impression that he decided not to keep Danault when he did his pizza thing on TV, got laughs, and didn't explicitly praise Bergevin. Similarly with Subban when he got media attention and didn't say much about Bergevin he went. Many of his contract negotiations, KK, Radulov, Markov, Danault, included reputation attacks, media leaks, and personality conflicts.

Weber is great, but I think Bergevin appreciated his taciturn nature as much as his play on the ice. I expect it contributed to dumping Domi as well, though that worked out well. While MB was in town there wasn't room for another big CH ego or media presence.

It wasn't all bad, but it was pretty random. I think Bergevin's ego prevented him from doing what he would have needed to do to build a coherent team. He couldn't just acquire players based on talent and fit and fade into the background, he had to be front and center with no one blocking any of his camera angles.

I'm not exclusively bashing Bergevin, he made some good moves, but I think vanity was his tragic flaw.

 

[Habs]

What's the standard you're working from?

Or, what would have been a good (& reasonable/realistic) return in your mind?

Value-wise, it seems very much within the range we've seen in recent memory for non-elite vets dealt in deals returning a 1st+...

the pk trade was for sure a contract swap, I actually love Webs and was happy with it. I assumed at the time PK's value was pretty high and there could have been a first involved as well if they really put out the feelers. Maybe not though. Again, love Webs so that trade doesn't bother me at all

 

[dcyhabs]

I found the comments really interesting. MB did really well in trades, certainly overall, with just one significant fail that I can think of. He was good at it.

However, on a big picture basis you are right , he was often questioned here about his strategic thinking. Sergachev for Drouin ( would be the real bad trade to which I was referring ). Ended up being a bad trade value wise, but strategically was a bad move, winger for our best D prospect when we really needed D and Cs with top line/ pair potential.

Hopefully Hughes and Gorton have that strategic view.

There may have been other considerations or pressure for Sergachev/Drouin. The habs undervalued him as they undervalued McDonagh so there may be some pro scouting issues long term, plus the search for a hometown star.

I take issue more with the players he decided not to keep, Subban, Radulov, Markov, Danault, KK, and some of the players he signed, like Alzner, Savard, Hoffman, the many third pairing D who passed through, and the veteran scrubs acquired at various trade deadlines who got too much ice time.

 

[Miller Time]

the pk trade was for sure a contract swap, I actually love Webs and was happy with it. I assumed at the time PK's value was pretty high and there could have been a first involved as well if they really put out the feelers. Maybe not though. Again, love Webs so that trade doesn't bother me at all

My bad... I thought you were talking about the TT trade.

The Weber/PK trade isn't very relevant to this one as far as value comparisons imo.

1st & a prospect the team is high on + 4th strikes me as solid value for Toffoli.

I can see ppl not viewing Heineman as adequate if they don't see his value, but as always, prospects value is all about eye of the beholder.... & Hughes was pretty clear that the team values Heineman as a future nhler that fits the style they are trying to build.

 

[Burke the Legend]

It wasn't all bad, but it was pretty random. I think Bergevin's ego prevented him from doing what he would have needed to do to build a coherent team.

This is lazy analysis. MB did build a coherent team, built from net out, with large, tough D-men to protect middle of ice + punish down low, and upfront since there isn't any game breaking superstars, it was 4-line depth to bring high tempo, gritty play against opponents to outskate them and wear them down. This is a very coherent identity, and it was the identity of the 2019 Blues also who won the cup.

It all came together last year but where Bergevin failed was that he took too long to complete his plan. He needed to put this together 5-6 years ago when Price & Weber had more good years in front of them. I think building the D up took longer than expected, partially because of setbacks like the Alzner signing. Also another major problem was the lack of talent coming in through the draft because of decade of failure since 2007, so all roster holes had to be filled by pro-level acquisition. Especially not so easy to trade for prime age, high quality centers either. He had to acquire both Danault and Suzuki as prospects.

 

[EquabaleAce]

This is lazy analysis. MB did build a coherent team, built from net out, with large, tough D-men to protect middle of ice + punish down low, and upfront since there isn't any game breaking superstars, it was 4-line depth to bring high tempo, gritty play against opponents to outskate them and wear them down. This is a very coherent identity, and it was the identity of the 2019 Blues also who won the cup.

It all came together last year but where Bergevin failed was that he took too long to complete his plan. He needed to put this together 5-6 years ago when Price & Weber had more good years in front of them. I think building the D up took longer than expected, partially because of setbacks like the Alzner signing. Also another major problem was the lack of talent coming in through the draft because of decade of failure since 2007, so all roster holes had to be filled by pro-level acquisition. Especially not so easy to trade for prime age, high quality centers either. He had to acquire both Danault and Suzuki as prospects.

I just want to say, this is probably one of the best, most level headed posts I’ve read in the 20 years I’ve been coming to HFBoards.

 

[billy piton]

Oh I completely forgot about the 10% rule in the offseason. If that s the driver for a fire sale, this is bad… it means this franchise is f***ed until Price s contract is over.

Now you see why I want Price GONE. OUT. Enough with dark places and other PR bs to shut down criticism.

Play or retire.

we can buy weber out at minimal cost. or tade him to arizona or nashville.

 

[dcyhabs]

This is lazy analysis. MB did build a coherent team, built from net out, with large, tough D-men to protect middle of ice + punish down low, and upfront since there isn't any game breaking superstars, it was 4-line depth to bring high tempo, gritty play against opponents to outskate them and wear them down. This is a very coherent identity, and it was the identity of the 2019 Blues also who won the cup.

It all came together last year but where Bergevin failed was that he took too long to complete his plan. He needed to put this together 5-6 years ago when Price & Weber had more good years in front of them. I think building the D up took longer than expected, partially because of setbacks like the Alzner signing. Also another major problem was the lack of talent coming in through the draft because of decade of failure since 2007, so all roster holes had to be filled by pro-level acquisition. Especially not so easy to trade for prime age, high quality centers either. He had to acquire both Danault and Suzuki as prospects.

He chose to go with big D-men last year, and most of his moves worked out for the playoffs last year, but they only made it in by a point in a weak covid division. Chiarot, Petry and Edmundson were good pickups. Getting Suzuki and Danault was good. Letting Danault walk was not good. Destroying the relationship with KK was not good. Overpaying guys who look done wasn't good.

The problem is that he went in circles before last year, he signed a lot of D who didn't work out at all before he got his four guys last year. He never really managed the cap, either. The cap space he carried eventually worked out, and he was able to sign a bunch of guys during the crunch, but there is not really a way to keep them now, either, because they can't work out the cap. Last year they probably could have had an easier time and been ready for the playoffs but they cut things so close they couldn't use some guys on the team.

I'm certainly not saying Bergevin was only bad. He made some good transactions. I think his problems were vision and ego. He didn't really plan how the cap hits should work out, this offseason he certainly didn't think about how his acquisitions would fit, or realize the team would be really bad. He really couldn't re-sign players, either. I link a lot of the problems to his ego, and I don't know him at all, so I could be wrong, but I'm certainly not the only one to do so.

I don't think Bergevin was a terrible GM, and he certainly had some talents, but, overall his impact was negative and he was, at best, adequate. I don't think the habs should hire people who are just adequate, they should be aiming for excellence. At least he had one good cup run, it's better than his recent predecessors.

 

[First Line]

This is lazy analysis. MB did build a coherent team, built from net out, with large, tough D-men to protect middle of ice + punish down low, and upfront since there isn't any game breaking superstars, it was 4-line depth to bring high tempo, gritty play against opponents to outskate them and wear them down. This is a very coherent identity, and it was the identity of the 2019 Blues also who won the cup.

It all came together last year but where Bergevin failed was that he took too long to complete his plan. He needed to put this together 5-6 years ago when Price & Weber had more good years in front of them. I think building the D up took longer than expected, partially because of setbacks like the Alzner signing. Also another major problem was the lack of talent coming in through the draft because of decade of failure since 2007, so all roster holes had to be filled by pro-level acquisition. Especially not so easy to trade for prime age, high quality centers either. He had to acquire both Danault and Suzuki as prospects.

Let's be honest, I'm not a fan of Bergevin but I find the criticism overly harsh. That being said I agree with your take on his team building too bad he only put it together at the last minute.

He recognized that we couldn't get a star so the approach of having 4 line depth was good. He didn't achieve it at the center position but I could hardly blame him as no GM before was ever able to do it either.
The appearance of a lack of cohesion comes from having players that just didn't seem to be in the right roles or in roles they weren't ready for, young centers, too many right wingers.
Also , the depth was only skin deep, we had 4 NHL lines but nothing in the pipeline as you have noted.

It still worked out as he built a good (I can even say great) top-4 defence perfect for the playoffs. That was after having Mete on the first pairing for a few seasons.

Of course the blame of drafting and development needs to fall on the VP of hockey Ops/GM who should oversee all of that. There are as many failures as there are sucesses in his tenure but his legacy will always be the 2021-2022 season and the state he left the team in, which is a little bit sad for him.

 

[LaP]

This is lazy analysis. MB did build a coherent team, built from net out, with large, tough D-men to protect middle of ice + punish down low, and upfront since there isn't any game breaking superstars, it was 4-line depth to bring high tempo, gritty play against opponents to outskate them and wear them down. This is a very coherent identity, and it was the identity of the 2019 Blues also who won the cup.

You are using an exception to confirm a rule though. Historically rolling 4 lines doesn't work to win a cup. There's a few exceptions here and there but that's not how a team should be built to win a cup. Blues had Tarasenko on the top line though. Also while ROR is primarily a defensive players he is a Selke level player. I know a lot of people love Danault but he's not on the same level as Bergeron and ROR offensively. ROR is basically Koivu with size and better defense. Danault is basically Carbo but not as good defensively speaking. That team was still lacking a proper 1st line center and with Weber and Petry both aging did not have a 1st dman for long. I'd easily argue it was a very poorly built team with an aging defense and no real first line center until Suzuki develops as one.

It all came together last year but where Bergevin failed was that he took too long to complete his plan. He needed to put this together 5-6 years ago when Price & Weber had more good years in front of them. I think building the D up took longer than expected, partially because of setbacks like the Alzner signing. Also another major problem was the lack of talent coming in through the draft because of decade of failure since 2007, so all roster holes had to be filled by pro-level acquisition. Especially not so easy to trade for prime age, high quality centers either. He had to acquire both Danault and Suzuki as prospects.

I'd agree with that. If Weber, Petry and Price would all be 5 years younger the team he built could make sense providing Suzuki keeps improving but the age of the defensive core would give enough time to do that. But MB stood pat for way too long blaming the players for not carrying DD to a cup. At the point he started to add to the team it was already too late. Guys like Edmundson, Anderson, Suzuki and Toffoli should have been added when Price, Subban, Petry and Patch were in their prime and Markov, Plekanec still able to help then it would have made much more sense. But at that time MB was busy adding over the hill Douglas Murray type of players to the team.

 

[Heffyhoof]

My two cents to the giant paragraphs is that Begervin never had a coherent team identity idea. "He made them like the Blues!" Yup. And before that Montreal was a high speed counter attack team that had been modelled after previous Cup winners. Does no one remember we were one of the fastest teams on the ice just a few short years ago? Bergevin's idea of building a team identity was to scrap together a semblance of a team that had recently won the Cup.

 

[LaP]

He was too loyal to a fault. Personally, I think the emotions that came out after the Gallagher signing indicated that he tried to play hard ball and failed/cracked and just gave into what both Petry and Gallagher wanted and tried to play hard ball on Danault where he let him walk.

Paying people in their 30's for what they did in their 20's is bad business. The rebuild should have started years ago but Covid came along and gave us a chance where we showed some "upset" potential and we did get a cup finals out of it.

It's all lead to this and I said it years ago. The rebuild is coming but it's a little later than you might expect. Weber on LTIR, Price dealing with an injury, Danault walking has forced us to make the management change and do the rebuild.

MB definitely came out as an emotional guy. Many of his moves did look fueled by emotion and did not make much sense strategically speaking. Giving 8 millions to Suzuki was very atypical of him and came right after losing JK to an offer sheet. Overpaying for Dvorak after losing JK. Acquiring Drouin for one of the best d prospect in the league after losing Radulov to a take it or leave it offer. Overpaying for Alzner after losing Markov to a take it or leave it offer. Replacing Eller for Shaw and Subban for Weber after the team collapsed because of [an injury to Price] a "lack of lidrship" (according to him). Many of MB worst moves can be tied to something happening earlier and looked like reactionary and emotional moves.

 

[Habnot]

Let's be honest, I'm not a fan of Bergevin but I find the criticism overly harsh. That being said I agree with your take on his team building too bad he only put it together at the last minute.

He recognized that we couldn't get a star so the approach of having 4 line depth was good. He didn't achieve it at the center position but I could hardly blame him as no GM before was ever able to do it either.
The appearance of a lack of cohesion comes from having players that just didn't seem to be in the right roles or in roles they weren't ready for, young centers, too many right wingers.
Also , the depth was only skin deep, we had 4 NHL lines but nothing in the pipeline as you have noted.

It still worked out as he built a good (I can even say great) top-4 defence perfect for the playoffs. That was after having Mete on the first pairing for a few seasons.

Of course the blame of drafting and development needs to fall on the VP of hockey Ops/GM who should oversee all of that. There are as many failures as there are sucesses in his tenure but his legacy will always be the 2021-2022 season and the state he left the team in, which is a little bit sad for him.

Bergevin was very good at aspects of his job, like trading or re-tooling - but if you don't draft and develop - you wind up where we are. I remember his presser when he was hired, you build through the draft...and that plan go shelved right away because they were in 1st place coming out of the lock out.

He also didn't use his true advantage - the deep pockets of the organization. Amateur scouting, development, data science, hockey ops were not at the level that they should of been. All seem under or poorly staffed and in the end, this is what got him fired. His plan came down like a house of cards because the foundation that I mentioned above was not there.

 

[Archijerej]

My two cents to the giant paragraphs is that Begervin never had a coherent team identity idea. "He made them like the Blues!" Yup. And before that Montreal was a high speed counter attack team that had been modelled after previous Cup winners. Does no one remember we were one of the fastest teams on the ice just a few short years ago? Bergevin's idea of building a team identity was to scrap together a semblance of a team that had recently won the Cup.

Yeah, it was the last year's heavy team that did it for me when it comes to Bergevin. They had a great run, but the regular season exposed them pretty badly. The 2018-19 team, while weaker, was much more coherent. I thought this was the direction we're going to be heading.

Can't take seriously someone who changes course every two years.

 

[Habs]

My bad... I thought you were talking about the TT trade.

The Weber/PK trade isn't very relevant to this one as far as value comparisons imo.

1st & a prospect the team is high on + 4th strikes me as solid value for Toffoli.

I can see ppl not viewing Heineman as adequate if they don't see his value, but as always, prospects value is all about eye of the beholder.... & Hughes was pretty clear that the team values Heineman as a future nhler that fits the style they are trying to build.

I think they just took what was offered, and are playing it off as 'he's the guy we wanted' .. when you know who we should have asked for and held strong on till the deadline. Calgary have some fine prospects, we did not get one in this trade

 

[Runner77]

I think they just took what was offered, and are playing it off as 'he's the guy we wanted' .. when you know who we should have asked for and held strong on till the deadline. Calgary have some fine prospects, we did not get one in this trade

You believe they really had a shot at one of Calgary’s top prospects by trading an average top 6 twenty goal scorer who is slow as molasses? Our guys are expert negotiators and couldn’t land that.

But they did get that first rounder they were after and more. Playing it as you suggest and without access to all the variables as they had, that first rounder might not have been around at the deadline anymore.

 

[Heffyhoof]

You believe they really had a shot at one of Calgary’s top prospects by trading an average top 6 twenty goal scorer who is slow as molasses? Our guys are expert negotiators and couldn’t land that.

Yeah, Toffoli is likely one of those players who sees a boost in points by being on of the top 2 go to players for offense on a bottom team. It's happened many a time where these players get traded and revert to career norms when they aren't force fed offensive zone opportunities and GMs are smart enough to recognize that.

 

[dcyhabs]

You are using an exception to confirm a rule though. Historically rolling 4 lines doesn't work to win a cup. There's a few exceptions here and there but that's not how a team should be built to win a cup. Blues had Tarasenko on the top line though. Also while ROR is primarily a defensive players he is a Selke level player. I know a lot of people love Danault but he's not on the same level as Bergeron and ROR offensively. ROR is basically Koivu with size and better defense. Danault is basically Carbo but not as good defensively speaking. That team was still lacking a proper 1st line center and with Weber and Petry both aging did not have a 1st dman for long. I'd easily argue it was a very poorly built team with an aging defense and no real first line center until Suzuki develops as one.



I'd agree with that. If Weber, Petry and Price would all be 5 years younger the team he built could make sense providing Suzuki keeps improving but the age of the defensive core would give enough time to do that. But MB stood pat for way too long blaming the players for not carrying DD to a cup. At the point he started to add to the team it was already too late. Guys like Edmundson, Anderson, Suzuki and Toffoli should have been added when Price, Subban, Petry and Patch were in their prime and Markov, Plekanec still able to help then it would have made much more sense. But at that time MB was busy adding over the hill Douglas Murray type of players to the team.

Murray at least brought something the habs were lacking, and would have been fine if the coach hadn't overplayed him. He would have been great playing third pairing minutes every few games when they needed a tough guy. Rushing Mete, rushing and losing Kotkaniemi, going through Schlemko, Folin, Alzner, Reilly, Merril, Gustaffson, Morrow, Davidson, Nesterov, Redmond, Barberio, and probably others didn't show a lot of planning. Any of those D would have been fine for a 6th or 7th guy but they were all expected to come in an play second pairing minutes. That's not planning, it's trying every easily available player and hoping one of them exceeds expectations. It's almost surprising that they succeeded in not actually finding someone serviceable.

Danault wasn't a star but the team didn't have a good replacement when he left. Evans is fine, but he doesn't replace Danault. Same with Kotkaniemi, not a great player, at least not yet, but he had size and skills that are just about diametrically opposite to Hoffman or Dvorak, and lacking in anyone still with the habs. The team wouldn't be a contender with Danault and KK while without Weber, Edmundson and Price, but they'd be far from last place. Less picks but less needs. Many of the guys MB did retain or obtain, Gallagher, Byron, Dvorak, Hoffman, Armia, Anderson, are, or were, good players but on generous, hard to move contracts while the habs have a cap crunch.

 

[Miller Time]

I think they just took what was offered, and are playing it off as 'he's the guy we wanted' .. when you know who we should have asked for and held strong on till the deadline. Calgary have some fine prospects, we did not get one in this trade

Disagree on your assessment of the prospect...

Waiting until the deadline vs pulling the trigger when you are getting the desired value (or specific target) is debatable... can't ignore injury risk and the possibility of getting less value... remember Vanek? We got him for much less than the isles paid for him a few months earlier. It's not a guarantee that return goes up the longer you wait.

So all in all, imo the only thing that really matters is that they got solid value for the asset.

1st + solid prospect + 4th... was TT worth more than that... I don't think so, and i think it a stretch to suggest there was a considerably better out there to be had.

 

[Habs]

You believe they really had a shot at one of Calgary’s top prospects by trading an average top 6 twenty goal scorer who is slow as molasses? Our guys are expert negotiators and couldn’t land that.

But they did get that first rounder they were after and more. Playing it as you suggest and without access to all the variables as they had, that first rounder might not have been around at the deadline anymore.

I think its worth the risk at this point, and worst case we trade TT in the off season. I know I'm in the small minority here, I'm certain if we are rebuilding we had assets to move with TT to get the prospect they really wanted. Just seems to early to move TT, give it some time teams are going to get really desperate soon.

 

[Habs]

Disagree on your assessment of the prospect...

Waiting until the deadline vs pulling the trigger when you are getting the desired value (or specific target) is debatable... can't ignore injury risk and the possibility of getting less value... remember Vanek? We got him for much less than the isles paid for him a few months earlier. It's not a guarantee that return goes up the longer you wait.

So all in all, imo the only thing that really matters is that they got solid value for the asset.

1st + solid prospect + 4th... was TT worth more than that... I don't think so, and i think it a stretch to suggest there was a considerably better out there to be had.

Yeah, I mean I respect your thoughts for sure. If this was closer to the deadline I guess we would all more proof what the best return was, right?

 

[ahmedou]

 

[wildD]

Btw any news on Tyler Pitlick? is he in Montreal yet, or is he still with his wife that gave birth to a child?

 

[Bacchus1]

Btw any news on Tyler Pitlick? is he in Montreal yet, or is he still with his wife that gave birth to a child?

He has another wife that did not give birth to a child? (<Grammar Geek>: “I like apples that are sweet” implies that you only like sweet apples and not tart ones. “I like apples, which are sweet” implies that all apples are sweet. So, “Is he still with his wife, who gave birth to a child?”) lol </grammar geek>

I’m looking forward to more news on Tyler, too!