P.K. Subban Thread - 5.0 - The "Doughty Money Vs. Lowball Bridge" Edition
View Single Post
01-24-2013, 01:41 AM
Join Date: Jun 2009
Originally Posted by
You can not treat every player the same way. Is it worth it to lose one of your best defenseman over "principle". If Galchenyuk will be execellent the next 2 years, would you trade him because he will ask for a long term contract instead of a bridge contract? If you have traded away PK, then you will have to trade Galchenyuk too for "principle" reason?
This actually might be where we are at, and the Habs are very principled. The Habs have historically walked the walk on the idea no player is above the team (and that you do not disgrace the C) . See Roy, though he apologized for his actions he was gone, out of principle. So yes, MB could take the view that its Habs policy for always a bridge contract and it must be accepted by every player as , from his viewpoint, it is in the Habs interests .
Personally I see this as a disaster if it comes to a trade. While by the numbers there have to be 30 number one d-men in the league, guys who actually are elite and can affect the outcome of a game are fewer, ala Markov or Chelios. PK isnt there yet, but he absolutely has that potential and he is the only one in our system with that potential. That kind of player may be the rarest to find in hockey and we could be set for 6-10 years with PK in that role. We will not make out well on a trade. On a one for one we wouldnt get back another young, d-man with number one potential , so wed get something other, which wouldnt fill this top need, or wed get lesser pieces, which means we gave up the best asset. I get principle, but I hate it at times.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by yianik