View Single Post
03-18-2013, 10:12 AM
Registered User
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,348
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by otto bond View Post
Those are great opinion by you and crazynine. I still like bridge deal and shorter terms contract and IMO I would say it keeps players and the game more honest. I have seen it so many time, players signing big deals and falling flat with there performance.
I also beleive that big contract should be handed to players who have been there done that over the years, not to young budding stars, but that's me.
I watched a lot of football and played Madden in those early years of the cap (late 90s). The thing the NFL has in non-guaranteed contracts, which means before a certain date you can cut a player and his cap hit is removed. Add to that, signing bonuses are very important in the NFL to give the player some security that if he does end up getting cut, he signed and received 20 million the day he put his name to paper, and it will be averaged out like in the NHL. Anyways the NFL cap is more tricky and circumvention is technically allowed.

Back to hockey and my point. I understand that giving players money when they have proven themselves is a safe way of thinking. The problem is, it doesn't change the fact that it's a risk. Without getting into too much detail, Scott Gomez is a great example. He came off a career high in goals and points 2 years before his deal. He was paid by the Rangers for what he did, not what he was going to do (That was and will always be his best year of his career, so it was his highest year in his prime). The Rangers gave him that much money for several reasons. The first was to lure him away from a divisional rival. The second was he was a center they desperately needed. Third, he won a Stanley Cup. What the Rangers did was give a Salary reacting to what he did on the ice, which is the safer way of doing things, unless you sign Scott Gomez.

Rest assured I understand I used a UFA and not an RFA, they are not identical in the way a GM would approach a negotiation.

Now we have PK Subban. He has yet to prove that he is that dominant, #1, scoring defensemen that 30 NHL teams salivate for. Is it that unlikely that a 23 year old, by the time he enters his prime (lets set it's between 27-33) he will not be worth 5.5 million dollars? The top 30 D in the league make at least 4.5 million and that guy is Ron Hainsey. Looking at the list today and even in January, PK is better than a lot of them. (Yes a lot of factors come in to play in a good portion of those players contracts, like UFA status, MVP to their team and maybe not on another, etc.) But at the end of the day, we watch PK play and we know he has all the tools to be that #1 D who scores and shuts down other opponents top lines. He showed flashes of his D talent against Crosby in the playoff as a rookie, he has shown incredible desire to improve. A lot of us, myself included made fun of his shot because it was a dead giveaway, now he seems to of modified it, made his wind up a lot shorter and added a nice fake and move which catches the goalie and player off guard. He is not afraid of criticism, he wants to be the best that he can be.

I believe in Subban, just because I am ready to offer PK Subban a 6 year contract (I like how a 6 year from this year would of brought him into his prime and than we can offer him a 7-8 year deal, starting high and going low), doesn't mean I would do this for any other player. Like I said in another post, AK had a lot of skill, but we questioned his work ethic, his desire, his compete. I was a big fan of his, but I can honestly say that even if he did work hard on the ice (a large misconception that he was a lazy player), it didn't seem to translate into success as he was missing something. Subban is nothing like him, year after year we watch him progress.

I, personally see Subban as a player Montreal needs to keep for his entire career. He seems to fit the mold of the type of player Montreal Canadiens need and that fans love. The pressure doesn't bother him, not like some other players. I think Subban will command 7+ million when this contract is up. If MB can get him on a long term at around 5.5 when this contract is up, he did no harm in my eyes. If he does win the Norris, which could be a long shot, but not an impossibility, he will of earned his high salary.

I could say that Subban at 5.5 for the next 6 years is something I could live with. Even if he isn't the Norris candidate that a lot of us see in him, 5.5 isn't top 3 salary. I just don't seem him faltering. Even if he does make 7, I won't use the argument "What if he declines" because that is counter productive of me saying he will earn it.

I think a player like Subban is worth the risk of going long term early in his career. Not every player can be considered.

Last edited by CrAzYNiNe: 03-18-2013 at 10:25 AM.
CrAzYNiNe is offline   Reply With Quote