View Single Post
07-18-2013, 11:26 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Side A's opinion:
  • PK was lowballed
  • PK would have won the Norris even had he signed long term
  • Bergevin made a mistake in not signing him long term regardless of everything
  • PK had no issues to work on
  • There was no risk in signing him long term

Side A's facts:
  • PK will make more now that he's won the Norris

Side B's opinion:
  • PK could potentially have had a drop in production (Myers & Skinner)
  • PK might have used this bridging contract as additinal motivation to prove the Habs wrong

Side B's facts:
  • Bergevin wants to instate a way of doing business with the bridging contract
  • He knows that others will follow suit, including Galchenyuk, and he'll now be able to say "Even PK had to take a bridging contract"
  • The cap will go down to a little over $60M next year, down from $70M+
  • By the time Subban's contract is up, Gionta and Markov's contracts will be done
  • Subban had issues in the dressing room, even fighting with teammates in practice
  • Hockey is a business and feelings come second. Players and management know that.
  • Now that he's proving himself and has improved, including winning the Norris, PK will be getting his big contract, something Bergevin has said not having a problem with.

Habsterix* is offline