In the lead up to the NHL trade deadline this past Monday, Marc Bergevin moved Dale Weise and Tomas Fleischmann, both on expiring contracts, and then Devante Smith-Pelly on deadline day. In return the Habs received Phillip Danault, Stefan Matteau and Chicago’s second-round pick in 2018. Today we ask our panel, now that we’ve had some time to process the trades properly, are we happy with the Bergevin’s work?

Kyle (@kyleroussel) – I liked that he didn’t buy, and I like that he got pretty good value for Weise, Fleischmann, and DSP. I don’t know what the purpose of the Mike Brown pick up is but I won’t devote much energy to that at all. I think a lot of the outrage aimed at him in the last 24 hours comes from the lunatic fringe who either want blood, or change (for the sake of change), or both. They wanted Bergevin to sell off spare parts, dump core players, bring in stars, tank, and win all at the same time. I give him a passing grade for this deadline.

All that being said, his work this year, and as a whole since being hired in 2012 is now under serious scrutiny with good reason. Petry aside, he has not added one key player on a long term deal and it’s not a reach to say he is riding Pierre Gauthier’s coattails. Pierre friggin Gauthier! From the moment the season ends for the Habs (i.e. after game 82), until camp opens in September, Bergevin had better place his stamp on this team by replacing the coach and plugging the holes in the top 6. I’ll be deeply disappointed if, at the season post-mortem he doubles down (again) on Therrien and blames this season’s failure on Price’s injury. I won’t buy it, and neither should anyone else.

Sean (@TheONeillFactor) – I went into the weekend thinking Bergevin needed to make a big move – not so much for the sake of shaking things up, but because this lost season at least seemed like an opportunity to clear out some cap space, get a couple of draft picks, and shed some dead weight (Markov, Eller, Desharnais).

On paper, then, I’m a little disappointed that he wasn’t able to do more, although I do like the returns on Weise, Fleischmann and DSP. However, given how quiet the deadline was league-wide, it does seem as if this was really a buyers market and there wasn’t much space for Bergevin to make any deals of note.

That being said, it’s pretty obvious that the roster as currently constructed is extremely flawed. Yes, they are missing their best player but, as CTV’s Brian Wilde pointed out, if you need .934 goaltending to play anything better than .300 hockey, you’re in a lot of trouble. Bergevin is patient to a fault – we know this – but if he goes this entire off-season without making some major changes, I’m going to be worried.

Ian (@ihabs1995) – Maybe I had low expectations for the trade deadline, but I can’t bring myself to be too upset about Marc Bergevin’s actions (or lack thereof) at the deadline. Moving Devante Smith-Pelly for Stefan Matteau is a marginal move, but DSP never really performed the way everyone hoped he would when he was acquired for Jiri Sekac. At the end of the day, the only moves Bergevin – and the other GMs across the league for that matter – felt comfortable making were those for expiring contracts. To that end, I would say Bergevin did a good job, as getting Phillip Danault and a 2018 2nd round pick for Dale Weise and Tomas Fleischmann was a fantastic deal. Weise was only going to command a 2nd round pick, so getting a solid, young third line player is just a bonus.

As far as moving players with term (Markov, Eller, Desharnais), Bergevin might have missed the mark, but deals like that are more suited for the offseason. Plus, Bergevin couldn’t trade a healthy Desharnais, what makes you think he could trade an injured Desharnais? I’m fairly certain a bad contract will be on the way out in the offseason. Bergevin has moved bad contracts every summer he’s had in Montreal. Scott Gomez was bought out, Gorges was traded, Briere was traded and Prust was traded. I’ll let this one slide for now, but a deal has to happen over the summer to free up cap space occupied by declining players.

I understand the team has a dire need for top-six scoring, and Bergevin has to know this as well, but selling teams do not acquire somewhat permanent help at scoring at the trade deadline. Bergevin has been consistent in saying that the best way to improve your team is through (or at least at) the draft, and he’s right. The trade deadline, and free agency for that matter, involve teams overpaying for players.

So Bergevin has stalled for now. He will need to acquire offense in the future, but at first glance, I’ll give Bergevin a passing grade at the deadline.

Pat (@a_carl1n) – There clearly wasn’t much demand for big moves at the deadline, so I’d agree with everyone else that the return was decent. At the very least, we’ll now see how some of our prospects match up to NHL-calibre talent.

I wonder how much of the rumoured locker room rift is in fact true? Maybe that could set the stage for a major shake up in the offseason?

Antoine (@HabsoluteTruth) – First off, I agree with Kyle that this summer will be crucial for Marc Bergevin to establish his mark as GM of this team. Personally, I would give Bergevin a B for his work at the deadline. I’m glad that we were sellers since it  was the most logical thing to do. The return we got for Dale Weise was pretty good and somewhat along the lines of what I expected. The 2018 date for the pick was definitely puzzling at first, but considering that the Flyers hold the Hawks’ 2016 pick and that the Hawks are hosting the draft in 2017 and want to keep some of their picks, it makes sense that we got their second round pick from two years from now. Now there’s a couple ways of looking at it: a) that pick could turn out to be in a better spot for us since it could be possible that the Hawks regress with their top guns getting two years old. I know it’s a long shot but eh, anything works. b) That pick, logically speaking, should be used as a trade chip rather than being used to select a player. If we go by pure logic and facts, that pick won’t have an impact until 2020 (best case scenario). Considering how historically good the returns have been for us when trading second round picks (Vanek & Petry, or Lang and Kovalev if we go way back), I wouldn’t hesitate for one second to move that pick.

Now as far as Danault is concerned, it appears that Marc Bergevin is very fond of the kid (was obviously part of the management that drafted him in 2011). Reports have hinted that, for MB, Danault had to be part of the deal. That would likely mean that in his eyes, Danault was worth more than the second. I’ve liked Danault’s game. He reminds me of Louis Leblanc during his first stint in the NHL. A smart player who’s good along the boards and good at doing the little things. I’m sure he will only get better with time and experience. That being said, I’m very curious as to what MB and the rest of the management have in mind in terms of our bottom six and the plethora of players we have in that capacity. I mean, it’s never bad to have depth, but we could practically ice a full line-up of bottom sixers. A great shutdown third line can make a difference for teams (see the Ducks from 2007) and if that’s the vision that MB and co. have when drafting or acquiring talents like DLR & Danault, I can get behind that idea. But at some point we’re going to need to acquire players who can score goals instead of these third and fourth liners.

Those that are disappointed that Bergevin didn’t do anything else after trading Weise and Flash (well he traded DSP, but that’s not much of an accomplishment honestly, considering the return) might have suffered from a wild imagination and wishful thinking. There was no way that the team was going to trade one of it’s important vets like Tomas Plekanec or Andrei Markov, for a variety of reasons. Given our status and expectations for this year it was hard to imagine us going through some sort of rebuild, even after the year we had. The uncertainty surrounding the economy and it’s potential impact on the cap made it hard for any player at a high cap hit who’s contracts weren’t expiring this year to be a hot commodity.

Emelin is one player who could have been shipped out, but considering that he has a NTC during this season, it was hard to imagine that the Russian defender would have been open to a trade. There were also rumors surrounding Lars Eller being on the market. Eller is an interesting case: he’s a solid third line center and his play has been solid since being moved back to centre, but if dealing him means getting a player like Nail Yakupov, I’d be open to trading the Danish forward.

Finally, the Mike Brown claim was a bit random, but I can somewhat understand the move. We won’t keep him beyond this year and he can drop the gloves instead of a fairly raw Michael McCarron, who could be an easy pray with his size and willingness to make on impression on the coaching staff (as we saw on Wednesday night). As previously mentioned, I don’t care much about Matteau. I wasn’t a huge fan of DSP, but unlike some, I didn’t mind what he brought to the table. I believe he has his place in the NHL, although the writing was definitely on the wall for him given our surplus of players who can play his role.

Matteau has some potential, but the Devils (especially Lou Lamoriallo) have really derailed the kid’s career. He was foolishly rushed to the NHL for all the wrong reasons (the Devils needed to reach the cap so they kept him, kind of like the Islanders with Niederreiter back in the day) when he should have finished his career in junior and spent one or two seasons in the minors. Instead he’s played only 21 game this year despite being healthy and can’t be sent to the minors because he’s no longer waiver exempt. Seems like Montreal isn’t the only organization who can mess up some of their first rounders’ development (see Tinordi). Matteau is still young, so I can’t write him off totally yet, but I don’t hold out much hope for the kid. If he ever becomes a regular for us, I can easily say he will have surpassed my expectations for him.