View Single Post
01-27-2013, 02:12 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,510
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I think the offer is true and it doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

1. If Bergevin wants a bridge deal, the main purpose would be for cost control. If he's willing to go to 4-5million on a bridge deal then the idea is stupid, because PK will most definitely get a significant raise after the deal is up like 99% of all players get.

2. If he had offered fair value, PK would be signed. He said himself he doesn't prefer a bridge deal, but in the end he just wants fair value.

3. It makes no sense to offer a bridge deal unless you're uncertain of the players ability and need to evaluate further (if this is the case, we're in trouble) or you want to restrict costs. PK will end up with more money in the end by accepting a bridge deal, however, security is often more important to a young man with his entire career ahead of him.
Well, to be fair to MB (and I DO think he looks like someone who has stuck to an overly greedy position way too long), there is a logical reason to want to sign a bridge contract.

The reason is to avoid having to sign an 8-year contract, and still have the player until age 31. If you are against deals longer than 6 years, then you do a bridge, followed by a 6 year deal, exactly the route taken with Price and Pacioretty, who are the other two core players the team identified.

Signing a bridge contract for 2 years eats up 1 year of arbitration rights, but still leaves you two years shy of UFA, so that trading a player not in your long-term plans is easier than if you are in the final year before the age 27 deadline.

So, as I said, I understand the idea of a bridge contract if you want to keep a guy until 31 rather than 29 (on a six-year deal) or want to avoid 8-year deals. BUT......... a competent GM has to get the deal done, at a reasonable not piggish number, by the time training camp starts.

BaseballCoach is online now