View Single Post
06-11-2013, 03:33 PM
Andy's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,296
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ezpz View Post
Subban wanted a deal that took him right to UFA with possibly buying up one year. Now we get him for two years + 8 more when he signs an extension avoiding a Komisarek situation.
If that is the case, then yes, I understand Bergevin's position. However, when Bergevin spoke of the bridge contract he didn't speak in those terms. Instead he spoke about how one needs to prove that they deserve the contract, that PK first needs to learn how to be a better man and team player. That he still needs to prove himself in the league, which suggests that Bergevin didn't know what he had in PK an chose to wait rather than him thinking about the UFA years.

Where the controversy arises (though I don't think it's a huge one, we're just discussing an option that was available that some think should have been take and seen more as a blip than a blunder) is that many thought PK had already proven enough and were certain that he can only get better. In other words, they knew what we had in PK. They saw PK and his agent's term as underpaying for what PK had already shown and even more so, for what he still had left to show, which many were confident he would do. This was seen as a missed opportunity to sign a player who is already good now, for much lower than what he was worth. In cap world, that is only a positive.

Of course, we are all happy PK got the Norris and of course he deserves the money he will be getting and that there is nothing wrong with paying a player what he is worth. It doesn't change the fact that we missed an opportunity to sign a player less then what he was worth. Sort of how like many on these boards hold against Gainey the fact that he could have signed him for 2.9 million a year during the season had he not had his "stupid no-during-the-season-negotiations" rule.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote