HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Does Bergevin have to sign PK Subban before the season start ?

View Poll Results: should bergy sign PK before the season start ?
yes 76 32.20%
no 67 28.39%
it doesn't matter 93 39.41%
Voters: 236. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-18-2013, 11:14 PM
  #426
MTLSandman*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
Don't worry guys, Subban is gonna take a bit of a discount because the organisation is going to offer him the captaincy, since Gio will be gone...

8 years/ 6.75 mil AAV

MTLSandman* is offline  
Old
07-18-2013, 11:26 PM
  #427
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
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  
Old
07-18-2013, 11:43 PM
  #428
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Perhaps you "haven't heard" because I couldn't "tell you" as we're writing.
Yes, very clever... I can't stop laughing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
But I did however wrote a 1,300 word article just for you so that I could explain in length what what I'm thinking. The fact that you don't agree and want to discredit my point doesn't mean that I didn't explain it. Putting your head in the sand doesn't mean we can't see you.
I read it.

Nowhere in there do I read anything about how he's worth less than Gorges. Nowhere in there do I see any kind of rationale for paying him 2.8 million. MB wanted to see more from him before signing him long term? Okay... still think it's a dumb decision but whatever. Paying him 2.8 though makes absolutely no sense at all and your article doesn't come close to explaining this.

And again, I like the way you completely sidestepped the meat of what I wrote above. The position that a GM can't be assailed by fans because he's in fact a GM is ludicrous on it's face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
No worries though, I respectfully disagree with your theory as well. I've brought forward more facts than you did, yet they don't count as they go against your opinion. That's fine, I won't lose sleep over it. I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagreeing, you know. I know that I won't convince you otherwise and I sure know that the opposite is just as true.
What facts have you brought to the table? I've seen your unsubstantiated conjecture that he would be motivated to play better without a long term contract. A highly debatable position that is about a million years away from being a fact.

How is PK worth substantially less than Gorges? Please explain this explicitly so we can all understand your position on this?

You want some real facts?

We were 15th in the East in 2012.
PK wanted a long term deal.
Pretty much every credible analyst pegged the deal that PK was seeking at approx 5 for 25.
PK sat out in a contract dispute.
PK was paid approx 2.8 million last year and is only locked up one more year.
PK is being paid less than Josh Gorges or David Desharnais.
PK has more career points than DD.
PK won the Norris this year.
Don Meehan is his agent.

Those are the facts. And when you add them up, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try to justify us not having paid the guy 5 for 25. We didn't need the cap space last year and won't need it this year. And like I said, MB probably is wishing he did it now too. Because now PK has a Norris behind him and Don Meehan is going to take us for all he can. And this contract will come in years where we actually will (hopefully) have a contending team and will be more likely to need the cap space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
So in the one hand, you're saying that I lose credibility for not agreeing with your theories and on the other, you're calling Bergevin an idiot. I see... :nod
I'm saying you lose credibility because what the critics said back then has come true. PK would have a good year and his worth would shoot up. The guy won the Norris... this is exactly what's happened. So now, rather than admit that folks were right about this, you need to somehow justify your position. Now PK stands to make a hell of a lot more money in the long run. And yes, I think you sitting there with this "incentive" argument is a load of hogwash. Esp when you factor in the stupidly low money we signed PK for.

As for calling Bergevin an idiot, I did no such thing. I said that I was hopeful that he'd be a good GM but found some of his moves puzzling. What I did say though was that some GMs were idiots and its very clear that being a GM isnt necessarily a sign of intellect.

Rejean Houle for example was an idiotic GM. So were slews of others. There were tons of idiots who won the job so the argument that "He's a GM and you're not" is a ludicrous one to make. The guy is a GM, great... doesn't put him beyond criticism any more than it put Gainey, Houle ,JFJ, Stellick or any other guy beyond it.

So please don't make this very weak, desperate and tired argument because it carries zero weight with anyone.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
07-18-2013, 11:44 PM
  #429
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
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.
You forgot one important Fact: Bergevin is never going to admit what he did was idiotic and neither are his supporters / end of thread.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 12:03 AM
  #430
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
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
Uh no... that's not what was said.

As for PK being lowballed, I guess technically it is opinion. But it's a very well supported opinion one that's on the same level of saying that dealing Ovechkin for Chris Neil is a bad trade. You can say it's opinion all you want but it's very easy to back up. There's no way that anyone who knows anything about hockey would agree that PK is a 2.8 million dollar player. So sure, put it under the opinion category but it's as close to fact as you'll ever get.

Nobody said he didn't have issues. Nobody said there's no risk. There's risk in EVERY contract. What we've said is that it's a pretty smart risk to take. He'd already shown himself to be a number one blueliner and even at that level was well worth 5 mil.

And the FACT is that he won the Norris. There is no conjecture about this. You can try to spin this however you wish but that burden is on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Side A's facts:
  • PK will make more now that he's won the Norris
Please see my list of facts in my post above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
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
This is conjecture. Unlike our position that is backed up by fact (PK actually winning the Norris) you have the burden of spinning this conjecture to suit your position. There is NO foundation for this opinion at all. It is purely speculative.

Do you not see this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
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.
- Why?

- Why? If Galchenyuk proves himself as PK did, why not learn from this and give him 5 for 25? If Gally plays well and he pulls this crap with him, Galchenyuk might demand a trade. And he'd be justified doing it too... We're lucky it didn't happen with PK.

- Possibly. But this is all the more reason to lock down players for longer at lower amounts like we suggested. And we're now going to pay PK more money so how the hell does this support Side B? If the cap goes down, this supports Side A.

- So what? What does Gionta or Markov have to do with anything here? They are irrelevant to this discussion.

- Subban's "issues" are not fact, it's speculative. And even if it's true, how does lowballing him change this at all?

- Hockey is a business and feelings come second? WTF does this even mean?

- Its nice that MB doesn't have a problem with it. Good to know that he doesn't mind paying 3 million more per season when it was totally unnecessary.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 07-19-2013 at 12:20 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
07-19-2013, 12:13 AM
  #431
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
The amount is speculative. No one could know exact values of things that didnt happen and/or to happen in the future.

What we do know is PK Subbans value is higher today than it was in January 2013. For a GM to not see that they had a player of this caliber right under their nose is... Another story. Using deductive reasoning you can see that having Subban at a reduced price for 1 year isn't worth anything close to having him at a reduced price for 3,4, even five years under a long term deal given in January 2013. That is fact that MB missed the boat (missed the boat on having Subban at a lower cap hit with a January 2013 long-term contract compared to the one he gets starting in 2014-2015)

This is all because Subbans value has never been higher and now gets to negotiate a new contract. Another fact.
OK, let me get this straight, you start by saying no one knows, and end by stating a FACT about Subban's value ?

really ?


ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 12:21 AM
  #432
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Uh no... that's not what was said.

As for PK being lowballed, I guess technically it is opinion. But it's a very well supported opinion one that's on the same level of saying that dealing Ovechkin for Chris Neil is a bad trade. You can say it's opinion all you want but it's very easy to back up. There's no way that anyone who knows anything about hockey would agree that PK is a 2.8 million dollar player. So sure, put it under the opinion category but it's as close to fact as you'll ever get.

Nobody said he didn't have issues. Nobody said there's no risk. There's risk in EVERY contract. What we've said is that it's a pretty smart risk to take. He'd already shown himself to be a number one blueliner and even at that level was well worth 5 mil.

And the FACT is that he won the Norris. There is no conjecture about this. You can try to spin this however you wish but that burden is on you.
Please see my list of facts in my post above.


This is conjecture. Unlike our position that is backed up by fact (PK actually winning the Norris) you have the burden of spinning this conjecture to suit your position. There is NO foundation for this opinion at all. It is purely speculative.

Do you not see this?


- Why?

- Why? If Galchenyuk proves himself as PK did, why not learn from this and give him 5 for 25? If Gally plays well and he pulls this crap with him, Galchenyuk might demand a trade. And he'd be justified doing it too... We're lucky it didn't happen with PK.

- Possibly. But this is all the more reason to lock down players for longer at lower amounts like we suggested. And we're now going to pay PK more money so how the hell does this support Side B?

- So what? What does Gionta or Markov have to do with anything here? They are irrelevant to this discussion.

- Subban's "issues" are not fact, it's speculative. And even if it's true, how does lowballing him change this at all?

- Hockey is a business and feelings come second? WTF does this even mean?

- Its nice that MB doesn't have a problem with it. Good to know that he doesn't mind paying 3 million more per season when it was totally unnecessary.
guess someone needs a new dictionary

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 12:28 AM
  #433
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
 
habs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,427
vCash: 500
IMO


I'm a strong believe in bridge deals, specially with franchise players, it allows you to control the player for a lot longer.

The issue I would have had with signing PK to a 5 year 25M deal is that when it was up he would be able to walk as a UFA at the age of 27-28, and even if he re-signed the following years are going to be REAL expensive, since you are only buying UFA years . With a bridge deal, it also you to eat atleast 2-3 RFA years on that 3rd contract to lower the average.

Yes had Bergevin given Subban a 5 year 25M it would have cheaper longterm, but it really isnt LONGTERM he really only buys 3 years of Subban at a decent price, but pays him more in the first 2 years...but he'll end paying for it when Subban deal comes up after that 5 year deal.

If there was ever a case where you really really a player and want to skip the bridge contract, it should be for a max deal, not a 5 year deal, taking Subban into his mid 20's and eating only 1 UFA year.

habs03 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 08:43 AM
  #434
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Nowhere in there do I read anything about how he's worth less than Gorges. Nowhere in there do I see any kind of rationale for paying him 2.8 million. MB wanted to see more from him before signing him long term? Okay... still think it's a dumb decision but whatever. Paying him 2.8 though makes absolutely no sense at all and your article doesn't come close to explaining this.
Georges singed a one-year contract prior to signing his long term deal, and was becoming a UFA. I know that you (conveniently) refuse to see the difference between a second contract and a player entitled to become UFA, but it doesn't make this key factor in negotiations disappear. You keep the rights to a RFA unless he signs an offer-sheet, but even then you get compensation and you can match that offer (see Weber). You just lose a UFA. Another fact.

You keep reverting back to the $2.875M Subban is getting, qualifying it as low-ball. Looking at what Subban had done at that time, it's a bit higher than what Del Zotto received in New York. Kris Letang signed a bridging contract ($3.5M) and he was a key contributor to two Stanley Cup finals including a win over Detroit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
What facts have you brought to the table? I've seen your unsubstantiated conjecture that he would be motivated to play better without a long term contract. A highly debatable position that is about a million years away from being a fact.
  • 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.
Those are unsubstantiated conjecture? Really?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We didn't need the cap space last year and won't need it this year.
Says who? Last year is hindsight. Bergevin was trying to add to the team at the trade deadline but he said that the asking price was too high and he wasn't willing to jeopardize the future for a short term solution. Fans should embrace that as it's so refreshing compared to the 1st/2nd round picks traded for the likes of Moore, Lang, Wizniewsky and company of the past... And who's to say that he won't need it or use it this year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And like I said, MB probably is wishing he did it now too. Because now PK has a Norris behind him and Don Meehan is going to take us for all he can. And this contract will come in years where we actually will (hopefully) have a contending team and will be more likely to need the cap space.
Saying that Bergevin is wishing he did it now is speculative and/or wishful thinking at best. He made a decision at the time that made sense to him and many others, even if some disagree(d) with him. He has even said at the time that he'll have no problem paying Subban his true value for his next contract so yes, Meehan and Subban will have their pay day but it will be fully deserved, even more so now than two years prior. Nothing wrong with paying a Norris caliber Subban his true value as opposed to paying in hope that he keeps on progressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm saying you lose credibility because what the critics said back then has come true. PK would have a good year and his worth would shoot up. The guy won the Norris... this is exactly what's happened. So now, rather than admit that folks were right about this, you need to somehow justify your position. Now PK stands to make a hell of a lot more money in the long run. And yes, I think you sitting there with this "incentive" argument is a load of hogwash.
Where you're wrong (and perhaps making things up) is when you assume that I'm wrong. I was one of the ones defending Subban saying that he had Norris potential (go read the countless Subban vs McDonaugh threads on the main board). The fact and the matter is that he wasn't a Norris caliber player when he signed his bridging contract... yet. He had the talent to get there, but he had a lot of things to work out, including his attitude and team relationships. You saying that my argument is hogwash is... well... just as hogwash. It's speculative in both case. The difference is that I've been admitting it all along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
As for calling Bergevin an idiot, I did no such thing. I said that I was hopeful that he'd be a good GM but found some of his moves puzzling. What I did say though was that some GMs were idiots and its very clear that being a GM isnt necessarily a sign of intellect.
Come on. We weren't born yesterday. The fact that you're bringing it up in this topic (Subban's bridging contract, Bergevin's decision), isn't about Gainey, Gauthier or Houle, let's face it. But it's irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So please don't make this very weak, desperate and tired argument because it carries zero weight with anyone.
Funny, that's how I feel about yours to. Who's right? Mmmm... I'd say it's a matter of opinion and not facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Why? If Galchenyuk proves himself as PK did, why not learn from this and give him 5 for 25? If Gally plays well and he pulls this crap with him, Galchenyuk might demand a trade. And he'd be justified doing it too... We're lucky it didn't happen with PK.
Speculative. Fact is that a trend is being instated with the organization: ELC, followed by a bridging contract, then your big bucks. Pacioretty, Price, then Subban did it. Agents (including Meehan) will know it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Possibly. But this is all the more reason to lock down players for longer at lower amounts like we suggested. And we're now going to pay PK more money so how the hell does this support Side B? If the cap goes down, this supports Side A.
So $5M+ when the cap goes down is better than $2.875M? Is that what you're saying? Remember... the cap is said to going back up by the time Subban's contract expires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So what? What does Gionta or Markov have to do with anything here? They are irrelevant to this discussion.
You really don't want to admit it, do you? $11M off the books for both of them (if not re-signed) by the time PK's new contract kicks in. Cap going up $6M. PK's $3M. That's close to $20M to pay PK and others. Still irrelevant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Subban's "issues" are not fact, it's speculative.
Denying even video evidence and coaches' comments. Head in the sand syndrome.

Listen, I'll leave you the last word. Not because I don't think I have a point, but because we're going in circle and mostly, I won't convince you (not that I was trying, I respect your opinion, even if you take it as factual), and you sure won't make me change mine either. So keep debating, it's won't go anywhere.

In my opinion, the bridge deal was the thing to do, even in hindsight. It's worth paying PK more with more flexibility on the cap and now that he's matured to who he is becoming. I truly believe that Bergevin and Therrien's actions have had a huge impact on who he has become. He has changed and while he still has some work to do (see the Pacioretty incident in the playoffs), I'm fully confident that he'll get there, possibly as soon as this year. Then he can sign for top dollars and he will have become a sure bet.


Last edited by Habsterix*: 07-19-2013 at 08:52 AM.
Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:04 AM
  #435
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
Yeah, and both have their likelihoods: a fact you didn't consider in your argument. It's not inconsequential either, when you're predicting a value which is already sky high to be even higher 5 years from now.

Every scenario has a risk and a reward associated with it. The risk of the bridge contract was that Subban was going to put up a retarded season and break the bank. That much is absolutely going to happen. Bergevin's wager didn't hit. This is also completely ignoring the other factors that went into this negotiation which may influence Subban's decision to sign an offer sheet. Yeah yeah, nothing personal, just business. We'll see. Business seemed to have a different meaning for Desharnais than it did Subban.

This point has nothing to do with you, but I thought I'd bring it up: some people have made the argument that this deal will be cheaper in the long run positing much the same scenario as you just did. Some of those people in turn have made the argument that the low-ball offer caused Subban to go super srs and win a Norris trophy. The implication is that this wouldn't have happened if we gave him a contract resembling his contribution to the team to date. However, this is never factored into the analysis. Subban always ends up signing an 8 million dollar contract just to make the argument work. It's ********.
I don't think the bridge deal influenced the season Subban had in any way really. Maybe a little. I don't know how anyone can really define that. All I know is that Subban is a self-motivated player and the season he had this year is just a natural progression from a player who's grown by leaps and bounds every year since he was drafted. If the Norris trophy wasn't coming this year, it wouldn't be too far behind.

Either way, I think the point i'm trying to make is that I don't think the money Subban will make will impact anything. I don't equate salary renumeration with performance on the ice.

I couldn't careless what Subban makes as a salary. I don't think it impacts a damn thing on the ice.

417 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:10 AM
  #436
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post

Side B's facts:[LIST][*]Bergevin wants to instate a way of doing business with the 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
Those are the only facts you presented (only relevant ones at least), and again I don't see why that proves that Bergevin did the right thing giving him the bridge contract.

In your opinion it is, I would say the majority thinks otherwise. Now, that's called an argumentum ad populum, and it's a logical fallacy, so it really doesn't carry much weight.

You tried to present it objectively, but ladled it with subjective 'facts'. You proved absolutely nothing.

Just agree to disagree, you think it was a good move, a lot of people don't. But posting opinions as facts is not going to convince anyone otherwise.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:20 AM
  #437
dreamingofdrouin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs03 View Post
IMO


I'm a strong believe in bridge deals, specially with franchise players, it allows you to control the player for a lot longer.

The issue I would have had with signing PK to a 5 year 25M deal is that when it was up he would be able to walk as a UFA at the age of 27-28, and even if he re-signed the following years are going to be REAL expensive, since you are only buying UFA years . With a bridge deal, it also you to eat atleast 2-3 RFA years on that 3rd contract to lower the average.

Yes had Bergevin given Subban a 5 year 25M it would have cheaper longterm, but it really isnt LONGTERM he really only buys 3 years of Subban at a decent price, but pays him more in the first 2 years...but he'll end paying for it when Subban deal comes up after that 5 year deal.

If there was ever a case where you really really a player and want to skip the bridge contract, it should be for a max deal, not a 5 year deal, taking Subban into his mid 20's and eating only 1 UFA year.

very true. well said

dreamingofdrouin is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:23 AM
  #438
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Sometimes you guys can't make up your minds...

You go haywire every year because owners spend crazy amounts of money on players and wonder why there was ever a lockout in the first place (a common theme every July during UFA signing period)

Then we finally have a team and a GM who actually takes advantage of the control he has over a player, something that's only possible during a player's ELC and USUALLY the 2nd contract, and now you all want to burn him at the stake.

There's just no pleasing people...honestly and with all due respect, this just seems like a lot of whining just for the sake of it.

417 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:28 AM
  #439
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Sometimes you guys can't make up your minds...

You go haywire every year because owners spend crazy amounts of money on players and wonder why there was ever a lockout in the first place (a common theme every July during UFA signing period)

Then we finally have a team and a GM who actually takes advantage of the control he has over a player, something that's only possible during a player's ELC and USUALLY the 2nd contract, and now you all want to burn him at the stake.

There's just no pleasing people...honestly and with all due respect, this just seems like a lot of whining just for the sake of it.
Careful with the hyperbole use there, 417. Pretty soon 'us guys' will go haywire and burn you at the stake.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:35 AM
  #440
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
Careful with the hyperbole use there, 417. Pretty soon 'us guys' will go haywire and burn you at the stake.
Not trying to loop everyone in together...but again, GM's/Owners have a limited window in which they can control player salaries. What's wrong with taking advantage of that?

I like the thought of the Habs eating most of Subban's prime UFA years with his upcoming deal. While the long term contract so many are in favor of that could of been offered last January seems like good practice on the surface. I really don't think it's the best thing for the team in terms of controlling the salary costs.

But again, this is just my opinion...I really don't know enough about the salary cap and the ins and outs of it to really say for sure and I don't think any of us really do.

417 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:40 AM
  #441
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Not trying to loop everyone in together...but again, GM's/Owners have a limited window in which they can control player salaries. What's wrong with taking advantage of that?

I like the thought of the Habs eating most of Subban's prime UFA years with his upcoming deal. While the long term contract so many are in favor of that could of been offered last January seems like good practice on the surface. I really don't think it's the best thing for the team in terms of controlling the salary costs.

But again, this is just my opinion...I really don't know enough about the salary cap and the ins and outs of it to really say for sure and I don't think any of us really do.
Nothing wrong with it, it's just that historically bridge contracts have not been great for the Habs. Other than Pacioretty (who I honestly think took a legitimate 'home town' discount), the others ended up costing us more long term (Price, Gorges, Plekanec )

Not a huge discrepancy in price, but obviously there's an advantage to signing lower term deals when the situation arises.

There are many more examples of a long term contract coming out of an ELC working (Kane, Toews for example) than it not working (Myers). Personally I put Subban with the Kane's and Toews' of the world, and not the Myers. There was really no "risk" in terms of his on ice production, I think we all knew Subban was a top tier d-man, even before his Norris campaign. The numbers prove it.

Controlling their UFA years is also a big deal, but it's not as if the option to extend Subban disappeared. If he would have signed that long term contract coming off his ELC, we would still have a great chance to extend him, kinda like most teams do with their star UFA's.

And of course this is all our opinion. It goes without saying.

99% of what has been said in this thread is based purely on opinions, and there's obviously nothing wrong with opining about a Habs player, especially on a Habs board.

It's good that most of us are not speaking in absolutes.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 09:55 AM
  #442
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
Nothing wrong with it, it's just that historically bridge contracts have not been great for the Habs. Other than Pacioretty (who I honestly think took a legitimate 'home town' discount), the others ended up costing us more long term (Price, Gorges, Plekanec )

Not a huge discrepancy in price, but obviously there's an advantage to signing lower term deals when the situation arises.

There are many more examples of a long term contract coming out of an ELC working (Kane, Toews for example) than it not working (Myers). Personally I put Subban with the Kane's and Toews' of the world, and not the Myers. There was really no "risk" in terms of his on ice production, I think we all knew Subban was a top tier d-man, even before his Norris campaign. The numbers prove it.

Controlling their UFA years is also a big deal, but it's not as if the option to extend Subban disappeared. If he would have signed that long term contract coming off his ELC, we would still have a great chance to extend him, kinda like most teams do with their star UFA's.

And of course this is all our opinion. It goes without saying.

99% of what has been said in this thread is based purely on opinions, and there's obviously nothing wrong with opining about a Habs player, especially on a Habs board.

It's good that most of us are not speaking in absolutes.
Good post...but this goes back to what i've been trying to say.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a bad decision, there are different options. Different teams use differernt methods.

But in the end, it's really not the difference between winning and losing.

417 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 10:03 AM
  #443
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
And to be fair, we can't speak about what was the absolute right or wrong move, until a few years down the road.

It's debatable in the mean time, but at the moment there is no right answer.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 10:20 AM
  #444
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
And to be fair, we can't speak about what was the absolute right or wrong move, until a few years down the road.

It's debatable in the mean time, but at the moment there is no right answer.
Well most people seemed convinced it was the wrong decision given Subban won the Norris...

I don't think it has anything to do with anything.

417 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 10:30 AM
  #445
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
See, that's not debatable, since all the factors are easy to weigh and are final.

He deserved the Norris due to all the statistical facts that support it.

The bridge contract on the other hand is definitely debatable and still open ended.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 10:38 AM
  #446
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,894
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
OK, let me get this straight, you start by saying no one knows, and end by stating a FACT about Subban's value ?

really ?

Wow are you ever a boring conversationalist.

Let me repeat again, because I sure hope you are only acting stupid...

No one knows the exact value (4.5, 5, 5.5, etc.) before he won the Norris. Now that he won the Norris, he will have to be signed for more than he would of in January 2013.

If you can't understand this simple logic, please refrain from posting.

Thank you.

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 11:10 AM
  #447
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Well most people seemed convinced it was the wrong decision given Subban won the Norris...

I don't think it has anything to do with anything.
Not true, most people think it was the wrong decision because he was a #1 D at the time. The Norris is just irrefutable proof of that.

Sorinth is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 11:44 AM
  #448
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 13,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Well most people seemed convinced it was the wrong decision given Subban won the Norris...

I don't think it has anything to do with anything.
I thought it was a wrong decision at the time. PK winning the Norris only proved (EDIT: to me) beyond doubt that it was. If PK hadn't won the Norris it still would have been a terrible decision unless PK had faltered big time which I didn't really envision and there were no reason to either.


Last edited by E = CH²: 07-19-2013 at 11:50 AM.
E = CH² is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 11:51 AM
  #449
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
I thought it was a wrong decision at the time. PK winning the Norris only proved beyond doubt that it was. If PK hadn't won the Norris it still would have been a terrible decision unless PK had faltered big time which I didn't really envision and there were no reason to either.
I don't agree with that part...

417 is offline  
Old
07-19-2013, 11:52 AM
  #450
hogtownhabsfan
Registered User
 
hogtownhabsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,685
vCash: 500
I understand the mentality of not wanting to buy high, sign Subban after his Norris win, but I think he's just on the up and up and his value is as low as it is ever going to be right now. Him dominating the Olympics could just further elevate his salary into the 8 million territory.

To think we could have locked him up for half that.

hogtownhabsfan is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.