I understand you're not defending him but I always felt it was the easy part to get rid of a player and you get 3-4-5 offers and simply picked the best one which was 95% of Bergevin trades overall. I think the real value is in those trades he targeted a player, and yes like Petry trade which was obviously one of the good one (But Armia was not a player he targeted)
But when you look at Bergevin's record in those kind of trades, he was pretty terrible
I'd argue that Armia was a player he targeted or else he wouldn't be here for this long.
I mean if trades for Kulak and Armia are considered wins because we got an ok depth player for what is basically nothing then shouldn't trades like Tokarski, Kassian be considered losses because those two went on to provide ok depth careers but we got nothing in return.
Kulak ended up returning a 2nd not long after Bergevin left. So if you think a 2nd rounder is equivalent to a Max Friberg who played two AHL seasons with us before leaving, then you obviously can which is what makes it subjective. I personally think a depth trade that ended up as a win but ultimately doesn't mean anything was getting Torrey Mitchell as a solid 4th line center for a couple of years for a 7th.
Comparing Armia and Kulak to Tokarski and Kassian is outrageously disingenuous.
I only see 3 trades I would consider wins, your top-3.
If that's the case then the only bad trade you can even mention is the Sergachev one because a late 1st and some 2nds shouldn't be something that is costly according to your own criteria. That would still mean he's won more than he's lost.
I can see the case for Vanek being a win but if 18 good regular season games is all it takes to be considered a win then trades like Andrighetto would be a loss because he put up 16 points in 19 games post trade.
Ignoring the awful comparison between Vanek who was a PPG player at the time of the trade and Andrighetto who spent half the time in the minors in the year he got traded, you can't have it both ways. Either you need to consider the rest of my list by acknowledging that getting good value for a rental, or you acknowledge that the price paid for a PPG player as a rental was a good one. I didn't even mention the Plekanec trade since I believed it to be a "whatever" trade.
It feels like you change the value of a 2nd round pick to suit your needs
Lol and you aren't? You are ignoring a lot of context to try and fit your contradictory narrative but it's not working.
if getting 18 NHL games from two 2nd round picks is good value then a trade like Gorges or Scandella isn't really good value for only returning 2nd round picks as they provided their teams with much more then 18 regular season games.
So you must think every rental trade in NHL history where the player acquired didn't end up being a contributor on the Stanley Cup Winning team was a bad trade right? Or can you acknowledge that adding a PPG player for a playoff push for a disappointing prospect and a 2nd is a good price to pay for a rental when many were giving up that price for a bottom 6 rental.
I also like that Collberg was considered a 2nd rounder when his play had completely fallen off a cliff since being drafted, but of course you don't mention that for some reason.
Like if trading Shaw for a 2nd round pick (Mysak) is a win because hey at least we got out of his terrible contract
So you'd rather keep the player with a bad contract for multiple years who could only play 40 games in two seasons due to serious injuries as opposed to a free 2nd?
then surely Domi for Anderson is a loss because we would be better off with having kept Domi and lost him for nothing as a UFA.
Anderson didn't retire after 40 games across two seasons like Shaw. In fact, he was essentially a 20 goalscorer or 3 seasons before last year while not a single team wants Domi longterm. Anderson was highly coveted before this year. More importantly, we are strictly discussing trade value here, not contracts.
