Thread: Confirmed with Link: No more triple low five
View Single Post
02-01-2013, 11:29 PM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,258
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
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.
that would definitely be the "best case scenario"...

but then, the question that comes up is: Why go public with it in a press conference?

if MT is media saavy, then he'd have to know that going public about the triple-low-5 ban would reflect negatively on Subban (essentially calling it out as an excessive/individualistic antic), at a time where there is a swirling media vibe around the young player AND at a time when he's coming off of a hold-out situation.

why not just make the decision internally, and if/when the media starts asking questions (which would happen post game), downplay it and easily move on to another immediate subject (i.e "tonight's win".)

by bringing up the ban in a press conference, on a non-game day, while the kid is still the #1 topic b/c he just signed and hasn't played yet, MT is either media-blind, or, more likely, knew exactly what he was doing...

and the reaction right here to the announcement says it all... skepticism about how the team views him.

so if you're right, and MT is media saavy, then the decision pretty much reaffirms that he/MB are trying to win some power perceived power stuggle and "put the player in his place".

if you're wrong, MT made a pretty silly media blunder, which then brings up the question of wether he actually did mature since his first stint, or is he just as overly emotional and stubborn as he was when we last fired him.

either way, not a good sign imo... should have just kept it internal.

I want badly for this new leadership to be the solution to our 20 year problem, and some signs are good... but the way they are handling this situation is pointing to a very dubious mentality... it's really not that hard. Collect talent, manage it well, make the most of every asset...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote