View Single Post
Old
07-18-2013, 02:05 PM
  #369
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 24,069
vCash: 500
I don't see what's wrong with trying to control the costs of a players salary when you have most of the negotiation leverage. These days, money is being given to players too soon IMO. It's throwing the salary structure way out of whack.

Now I somewhat agree that Subban is a different case...but I like the approach of using the same template of negotiations for all of our players. As long as the GM is consistent with his approach, that's all I can ask for.

For years we've all complained about Gainey/Gauthier's penchant for dishing out cash like it was candy, without any plan. Now we finally have a GM who is showing a bit of restraint (though I wish he would of shown the same restraint with Desharnais/Bouillon) and we want it to be the other way?

Given the fact we're just coming off a lockout, and next year the cap is going down...I think it was smart to take a prudent approach to understand the financial landscape of the NHL, especially as a new GM.

I completely disagreed with MB's hard stance and I still don't understand why it needed a holdout to get done...but now, looking back. I absolutely think it was the right thing to do.

I don't personally have an issue with a Norris caliber dman being paid like one of the top Dmen in the league. I have way more of an issue with a borderline NHL player like Bouillon making 1.5M per year, I think those types of deals are the real 'cap killers'.

ELC's and 2nd contracts are the only time where teams are the one's holding the hammer, I don't blame them for wanting to take advantage of it. Yes Subban had to swallow a bitter pill, but I think he finally came around to understanding that from a financial standpoint, he would make out way better by taking a bridge deal now. Just like i'm sure MB was well aware that in the end, it may cost him more. But it's a bet I don't think he could lose.

417 is online now