View Single Post
07-22-2013, 11:56 AM
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,395
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
amazing how some get so caught up in "being right" that they can't even glimpse the other side of the argument.

either way you viewed it at the outset/time of the deal, at this point it's pretty hard to make a case that Subban on a multi-year deal under 6M$ (let alone closer to 5M$, which was entirely possible) would be better for the team than the likely 7-8M$ he will cost as of next season.

with the make-up of our current roster, the next 2-4 years would have been an ideal time to have a norris-caliber dman locked up for well below market value. The added cap space coming from Markov-Gionta + the benefit of Galch-Gallagher-Tinordi-Beaulieu all on ELC's, combined with a 2-3M$ savings on our best player, would have been a perfect situation to aggressively pursue the right UFA/trade fit even in having to "overpay" to get it.

losing that 2-3M$ in flexibility, that was right there for the taking, isn't a disaster, it's just a lost opportunity. One that many around here suggested AT THE TIME of the contract... BEFORE Subban went out and played at a certifiable Norris-level.

some of us saw that he was moving quickly to that level, and would have gambled on him in a positive way vs. gambling on a conservative way as our GM did.

you win some, you lose some... but worse than losing is denial, which some posters seem caught up in for whatever reason.
Even if he didn't move that way, he was already well worth 5 million just based on how he was already playing. The fact that there was huge upside as well is what made it a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Nobody was lowballed and everything turned out well.
2.8 for PK Subban isn't lowballing????? Okay...

As for everything turning out well... sure, we'll be paying 2-3 million dollars more per year for no reason. I guess everything turned out great.

Unless of course you mean that he didn't demand a trade. If that's your standard for "everything turning out well" then you and I have different standards as to what this actually means.

Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Meehan is a shark and that is why there was a holdout. Lets stop overreacting and creating hysteria over future trade demands without any evidence to substantiate these bold predictions of impending doom.
Meehan IS a shark. But that's not why there was a holdout here. There was a holdout because we lowballed a guy who's now arguably our best player. We're paying him less than 3 million a year dude. You don't see this as a reason for him to holdout? If you can't understand this, it's no wonder you don't see why this was such a brutal move.

There is absolutely no way to justify paying Subban less than 3 million a year. None.

We're lucky Subban is a Hab fan and was willing to take it on the chin for us. 99% of other players out there would've told MB to take a jump in the lake. Bob Mackenzie thought that this was going to result in a trade.

Think about this for a second. PK is our best blueliner since Chris Chelios and our GM is sitting there playing chicken with him so that he can lowball him for 2.8 mil a year? Why? How on God's green earth does this make any sense whatsoever? Nevermind the fact that we'll now have to pay significantly more going forward. The fact that he played chicken on this is mind-blowingly dumb.

And you want him to do this again with Galchenyuk? Really?
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
IMO Bergevin has done a great job and has laid an impressive foundation on the ice and at the negotiating table. The team has structure and a plan that does not make room for individuals who don't put the team first. This battle was an investment in the resolve of the franchise to see their plan through to fruition.

So Subban asking for 5 million a year is putting himself first? Dude, you do understand that he's actually worth more than that right? And with the way he was playing it wasn't hard to see that he'd be conservatively around a 5 million dollar man already let alone for the future. Yes he's an RFA so there'd be a discount but his widely reported demands were extremely reasonable. At 5 for 25 the discount would ALREADY be factored in.

Putting the team first? So we screw over our best player and pay him less than three million to put the team first? You realize that a team is a collection of individuals right? When you screw one guy over you aren't doing it for the team. You are hurting the team. Esp when this guy bears the bulk of the responsibility on the back end.

I want you for a second to consider something... Consider if PK had actually told MB to **** off. Imagine if he demanded a trade (something a lot of analysts were expecting to happen) and we were forced to move him. Would it have been worth it? The cap savings (that mean almost nothing to us right now) for this year and next would justify us pissing off our star 22 year old blueliner to the point of demanding a trade makes this worthwhile? How is this a good risk/reward strategy?

Think about that for a second because if it happens again with Galchenyuk that could very well be the scenario. Nevermind the additional cost that we'll have to bear as we will with PK. Pissing off your best players is not a good strategy dude.

Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 07-22-2013 at 12:23 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline