View Single Post
07-22-2013, 11:35 AM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,393
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Actually, i'd argue that it's almost as closed to guaranteed that it turns out to be meaningless.

Which makes the whole debate about his salary, as i've been saying from the beginning, completely arbitrary.
relativist thinking has it's place, though makes holding an opinion on either side of the equation a bit pointless (so then why even contribute?)

impossible for it to be meaningless, since every single roster/contract decision afterward is by default affected (since the remaining cap space to work with influences every other contract signing or player target).

how meaningful it is will be difficult -near impossible, to determine. anticipating Subban's cap hit for next year undoubtably has already influenced UFA, trade & internal contract decisions, & will impact contract negotiations with impending RFA's/UFA's.

how much different/impact it will have compared to if Subban was on contract for another 2-4 years at a known cap hit is pretty impossible to know, even for MB himself...

Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Value of 'good signings'

That's often quite A might think a contract is good value, fan B might think the player is overpaid

Neither is right and in the end, neither really matters.

There are many reasons why a team wins a Cup, the salary renumeration of their players ranks somewhere near the bottom
of course it's subjective... I'd argue "always".

nothing "really" matters, but again, relativism doesn't have much place here.

in a cap system, salary implications play a HUGE role in a teams ability to win a cup, that much is hard to argue i would think...

deadline additions are completely constrained and guided by both immediate and future cap implications, which massively changes/influences the make-up of teams going into the playoffs.

ditto the offseason impact of playoff performances. every year teams with deep playoff runs end up losing a guy or 2 that had a great playoffs which pushed his UFA market value outside of their cap limitations. Salary factors greatly affect the ability for teams to keep rosters intact & force them into calculated short vs. long term roster decisions which have, i would suggest, a greater impact on their competitive ability than any other single factor.

could not disagree with you more in this instance.

Originally Posted by 417 View Post
The irony here is too good to ignore lol

Gainey has been vilified on this board for just handing out money like candy

Now we've got MB who's doing the opposite (at least in relation to Subban) and he's ben knocked for it

Like I been guys are just looking for something, anything to complain.

There will always be a segment of the fanbase who think they know best and the guy running the show is clueless.
or perhaps, it's that some of us don't view situations as black/white?

it isn't "always" a good decision to give out big long contracts, just like is isn't "always" a good decision to play it conservative with contracts.

Gainey was more vilified for the players he chose to throw money at, and how poorly his cap-spending team was assembled, than for the sheer fact that he spent money.

the 09 summer of blunder was a problem not because he spent a lot of money, it was a problem because he tied up ~19M$ for long-term on 3 players who were all of the same diminutive physical stature, and none of which where at an elite, or even all-star, level of performance.

Don't think anyone would have complained or critiqued (at least not beyond the first glimpse of performance) had he spent that same ~19M$ on Chara/Gaborik/Hossa (not implying he could have landed them, we know he tried on Hossa, just using those three as an example of ~19M$ spent by other teams during his tenure that would have been applauded here as opposed to the, justifiably, ridiculed Cammy-Gomez-Gionta trio we ended up with for the same price).

of course the fan base will always have opposing view points... GM's & other hockey "experts" across the league disagree just as much. No surprise there I would think?

Where MB went "policy/conservative" with Subban, he went "aggressive" with DD... and this in the span of 2-3 months.

THAT is far more concerning imo. If you're going to gamble a bit, and throw around some money to lock someone up long-term, you do it with the asset that has been both more consistent & gives you a greater bang for your buck potential.

Subban was, pre-norris, on a very clear and disctinct upward trajectory performance-wise. For all the overblown media coverage of his "issues" with teammates, a little digging from the fan side easily and quickly revealed that there was just as much, if not more, evidence that he has been a well-liked teammate on every successful team he's been on... and more importantly, his character reputation away from the rink is absolutely impeccable.

was an EASY target to gamble on, MB decided otherwise... hindsight shows he made a mistake.

Originally Posted by 417 View Post
This is the point that some people keep ignoring...

The window that teams can control salaries are so small these days. They only have that control with entry-level contracts and sometimes, depending on team philosophy, the 2nd contract.

The precedent has been set with Price, Pacioretty, Eller and'll be the same for Galchenyuk, Gallagher and whoever else will be in the same situation.
it's not that people are ignoring it...

it's that some people argue that the "bridge/RFA" contract leverage a team has to work with is a tool that needs to be used strategically, as opposed to wielded like a sledghammer in one black/white direction.

FYI, neither Toews nor Kane (he of the cab & frat off-ice issues) signed a "bridge" deal. They both jumped from ELC to longer term big money contracts...

ditto Kopitar, Doughty & Voynov

Bruins gave Lucic/Krecj 3 year deals @ 3.5-4M$, somewhat of a middle ground approach

none of those 3 organizations have an issue using the bridge deal, when appropriate, but all 3 seem ok with gambling on young players they, correctly, target as key franchise pieces worth a greater commitment/investment in, regardless of their leverage advantage.

If MB is indeed taking the 'Gainey-esque' "POLICY" approach to RFA contracts, then I definitely criticize him for that.

managing a pro sports team is a fluid, ever changing, endeavour. Having a plan, having guidelines, committing to a degree of organizational consistency, is all fine and good... but doing so without the wisdom/flexibility to know when to make calculated gambles is absolutely idiotic.

otherwise, who needs a GM at all? Just hire a good contract negotiator, and stick to advance statistics following whatever narrow metrics/policies you decide on, and let a computer do all the work.

Miller Time is offline