: Confirmed with Link:
No more triple low five
View Single Post
02-01-2013, 03:39 PM
Join Date: Jun 2011
Originally Posted by
I can be absolutely wrong, but I have a different view of the matter.
It falls in line with the reasoning behind insisting on a short term/low cash contract they signed PK to.
To me, the bridge deal made no sense whatsoever based on talent and potential. Everybody here can pretty much agree that PK is a very good young player, and that he will remain at the very least good with the potential of being excellent. So I have a hard time believing management doesn't see it that way either.
So, if we look at that only, bridge contract makes no sense. Might as well lock him up now for a smaller cap as we know he's a good player, arguably our best.
If we go by what PK said, we also know that Bergevin apparently didn't disagree with the comparable Meehan brought forth. That means they agreed on the value of PK.
If we also consider what PK said about pressure, that they talked about the pressure but PK doesn't feel he can have even more pressure than in the two years he played here, then we know they want to be careful with how they use PK.
That small contract then starts to make sense. They actually want to take their time with PK. Not necessarily put him in the toughest situations right off the bat, let him get comfortable and absolutely dominate weaker opposition. You can't put a player on a 2nd pairing, or even 3rd, but pay him 5M. Also, at that high price, the slightest cold streak and the media would be all over PK.
So I think the idea behind really sticking with a small term contract was to somewhat protect PK and take a step back so they can take two forward. Take the time with him, give him easier minutes, perfect his game, make him dominate.
I think this 3-low five ban follows this train of thought. Michel Therrien worked in the media for quite a bit of time. He knows exactly what the media thinks of PK for having been there behind the scene, where these so called analysts actually say what they think. I think management is just trying to change the image of PK, this over the top flamboyancy. I believe they want him to be more low key and focus on the game more, be on the highlight reel because of the plays you made, not the celebration or trash talk.
So I think, as with the bridge contract, they're actually trying to protect their asset.
That's my take. But, as I said, I can be completely wrong and we might have two bozos running the show.
Interesting take. It's not foolish to assume that MB and MT look at Subban and see someone who's biggest enemy might just be himself. I, for one, like his brashness and the trash talking, etc., but from another point of view, these antics may cloud the primary objective: becoming one of the best defencemen in the league.
I like the camaraderie of the TL5, but it's banning might play a small part in the maturation of PK. Along with the bridge contract, putting him on the 2nd PP unit to start, the other players not wanting to answer questions about his return; this might all be MB's strategy for protecting his asset.
I hate it when MGMT try to squeeze the fun out of sports, but it might be the best thing for PK in the long run. Time will tell...
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by jwolf