View Single Post
07-22-2013, 11:24 AM
Registered User
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,031
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
That's the thing, I never stated that one strategy is better than the other.

I have examples of very successful teams that follow this strategy.

I have no examples of a very successful team employing the "bridge contract for everyone" strategy.

That's why I can't agree that it's 'the way to build a perennial contender'.

Personally I think every contract should be looked at on a player-by-player basis.

An all encompassing policy that doesn't account for talent level is really silly.

It's a great concept, but the application itself gets sketchy when discussing top tier talent. If you piss off your best players by ignoring their talent level and forcing them to adhere to a team policy that's completely unproven, you may end up having much tougher negotiations down the road.

I guess we'll see how the negotiations go this time around, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Subban camp is unwilling to compromise like they did last time around.
My stance has more to do with playing hardball in contract negotiations than an absolute strategy. Unlike other sports, in the NHL the cap is extremely structured and there is little wiggle room and no forgiveness for bad contracts. With the ability to hide money in the AHL gone it is more important than ever to be prudent with long term signings. Bergevin's plan may very well become the standard before too long as previous management methods may be too risky for the rigidity of the current CBA. Asking me to site previous examples of this method is kind of misleading as the landscape has just recently changed....let's give teams some time to see if this isn't considered "best practice" moving forward.

Estimated_Prophet is offline