Marc Bergevin wants his contractual situation to no longer be a public issue. Sorry, that won’t happen. Quite simply because the situation is bizarre for the Canadian.
Against all odds, the team made it to the last Stanley Cup final. His journey thrilled fans. The game on June 24, when CH eliminated the Vegas Golden Knights, was a unique moment of celebration.
These successes have boosted the CH brand image. Bergevin should normally be rewarded for it. In November 2015, Geoff Molson extended his agreement for 5 years – 18 months before his initial contract expired – despite less impactful results. The owner-president then praised his merits at every opportunity.
Six years later, the atmosphere is more subdued. Molson locks himself in silence about the future of his CEO, who suddenly seems more worried. Last week he publicly expressed his desire to continue his work. Last July, during his post-season review, he was much more reserved on this subject. In a dry tone, without a hint of a smile, he had simply said that he intended to “honor” the last year of his contract.
Did this unenthusiastic reaction disappoint Molson? After all, one would have expected Bergevin to proclaim loud and clear his desire to stay in Montreal. The emergence of promising young players heralds an interesting future for the team.
After coming so close to winning a Stanley Cup, it would have been normal for the GM to mention his desire to see the matter through.
Three months later, Bergevin affirms that, in “an ideal world”, he wishes to remain in office.
The notion of “ideal world” is difficult to define. Molson and he may not have the same idea. The “ideal world” of a vice president is not necessarily that of his president. The length of the contract, the salary paid, the level of autonomy, the vision of development, the philosophy of the organization, all this can represent sources of irritation between the two parties.
***
Beyond these issues, the fundamental question remains: why is Molson hesitant to extend Bergevin’s contract, which remains popular with many fans?
Here are four hypotheses:
1 – Sawtooth results
Before reaching the Stanley Cup final last summer, the Canadiens disappointed in previous seasons. From 2016 to 2019, the team only made the playoffs once, eliminating in the first round.
In 2020, things were bad when the pandemic hit. When activities resumed, CH were invited to the post-season tournament despite their 24e place in the general classification.
A year later, the worrying performances of the CH prompted Bergevin to fire Claude Julien, Kirk Muller and Stéphane Waite. He obviously smelled of hot soup. The sequel was beyond expectations, but is it enough to make Molson forget the failures of the past?
2 – The terms of the next contract
Since joining the Canadiens, Bergevin has secured two five-year contracts. Instead, many CEOs sign three-year agreements. Does Molson want to commit again for five years to Bergevin, or does he want a shorter term?
Molson might prefer to wait for the results of this season before deciding on the future of his GM, which would be a little unfair. Yes, the season promises to be difficult. But we still cannot hold Bergevin responsible for the absence of Carey Price and Shea Weber.
3 – Quebec talent
In the draft and on the autonomy market, Bergevin has had his fill of Quebec players in recent months. But it is impossible to forget that, on May 10, under his leadership, the CH did not align any Quebecers. It was a dark moment for the organization and a heartbreaking first in its history.
Some would say that the absences of Jonathan Drouin and Phillip Danault led to this situation. The reality is heavier: if the CH had selected and hired more players from here in previous years, we would have avoided this black eye. You had to think about it before. It hasn’t been done. The lack of a plan on such a sensitive subject is a gray area in the DG’s record.
4 – The Logan Mailloux affair
The selection of this young man tarnished the image of the Canadian. Gary Bettman even said the choice “stunned” him. So one can believe that Molson received an angry call from the commissioner and that the influence of CH in NHL affairs may not be optimal these days.
Although Molson endorsed the decision, it was Bergevin who ultimately judged the risk to be worth it. This error in judgment prompted CH business partners to express their dismay. Molson had a lot of jars to pick up over the next few days. Did this affair tarnish the relationship between Bergevin and him? In my opinion, to ask the question is to answer it.
***
Will Bergevin be back in office next season? Difficult to answer this question. The names of potential successors fuel the conversations of amateurs (Patrick Roy, Mathieu Darche, Martin Madden Jr., Vincent Damphousse, Stéphane Quintal, others still …), but all this is only guesswork. And let’s not forget that Bergevin made some successes, especially in the area of transactions.
So, what future for Bergevin? It’s up to Molson to tell the story.