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
07-22-2013, 09:49 AM
  #551
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Option 1:
Chuckie for 2 years @ 4 million, then 8 years @ 8.0 million.

Option 2:
Chuckie for 8 years @ 6 million, no bridge contract

The advantage of option #2 is that we show trust in a young player, and we save ~2.0 million/year for six years.
Don't know about Galchenyuk yet as he has to prove himself. I certainly get where you're coming from though. Substitute the 5 for 25 vs the 5 for 40 (or longer) that it will be for Subban and your point is made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
Go back to your video game
Right back at you.

There's no reason not to pay a player what he's already shown he's worth. Subban had already shown himself to be a 5 million dollar player. Odds were he'd keep improving but even if he didn't 5 for 25 was more than fair. Absolutely no reason not to lock him down.

And at the end of the day we WILL pay significantly more. And we'll have done this for no reason whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
He will do the same thing with Galchenyuk.....as he should. There is clearly a team philosophy of making players earn their contracts while under team control. That is exactly how it should be. This is how a perennial contender is maintained as the youngsters are kept at a low cap hit for as long as possible while the vets make their money. When the youngster approaches a veteran leadership role on the team he bumps out a high priced vet and another youngster signs a bridge contract behind him.

Perpetual success and cap harmony are the intended goals and this is exactly how it is done.
And if he does, he deserves to be ripped to shreds.

If Galchenyuk plays the way Subban did, he'll be well worth the 5 for 25 extension. There's no reason not to pay a guy what he's already shown himself to be worth. And if he lowballs him and Galchenyuk demands a trade (which most people expected to happen with Subban) then MB should not only be fired, he should be hung up by his buster browns, killed, then shot twice and pissed on.

Absolutely no way that Galchenyuk should be lowballed the way PK was. We were extremely lucky not to have lost PK the last time around.

The good news is that I doubt MB will be this stupid again. He'll learn from this. If he doesn't then we're in real trouble.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:49 AM
  #552
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
I was disrespectful? How exactly?

If I was, wasn't intentional...apologies if something was lost in translation.

Now, if you're not saying that giving out long term contracts off the ELC is the absolute way to go

Then what are you arguing against exactly?

That the Habs aren't following the trend of most teams??
You didn't understand what I was saying to that poster, and you ended it with a snarky comment "what a simplistic way of looking at it!"

Listen, if you want to chime in that's fine, but perhaps look up the post I was responding to before completing a confusing response that addresses something that was never said.

But again, I am disputing the idea that the way to build a perennial contender is to force players to take bridge contracts.

I can't think of any constant contenders that follow this practice.

Does it mean it won't work? Not necessarily. But again, I never said it would fail.

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

That's often quite subjective...fan 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 remuneration of their players ranks somewhere near the bottom


Can you quantify that?

lol

But seriously, not interested in a semantics filed debate about your statement. It's subjective and impossible to prove.

However, every single GM will state the importance of managing the cap properly.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:51 AM
  #553
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Managing the cap is part of the equation. Do it well, and it gives you an advantage. Just like everything else, every little bit counts. Ultimately, it might not make the difference, or it might.

I've said this before but it bears repeating.. I think we should have signed Subban to a long term deal. I think Subban was as close as it comes to a sure bet that there is. But it's not the end of the world. We can sign him to a long term deal still. It's just a missed opportunity in what I felt was a no brainer situation. Ultimately, it's entirely possible that it turns out to be meaningless. I don't think anyone think it's a big deal really. It just has become a big deal because people have been arguing about it but I don't believe anyone think this is a major. It's one of those relatively minor thing that everyone loves to talk about endlessly it seems like.
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.

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:55 AM
  #554
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
I am arguing the idea that the best teams follow this model, as was stated.
You have been getting annoyed with people misquoting you yet you do the same to me?

I never stated any such thing......I simply stated my opinion of how I think it should be done. Like I said it is more hypothetical than historical.

Chalk it up to miscommunication I suppose....

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:55 AM
  #555
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
And that's basically the root of all disagreements you have with most people. The GM doesn't capitulate. He comes to terms on a long term deal with a player whose value is only going to go up. It's a mutually beneficial agreement if the player is indeed on his way up. The player capitulates as much as the GM here because he relinquishes more money for more security.

The fact you do not even understand this basic principle makes any cap hit discussion with you entirely pointless. You're a good poster but on this issue I'll never understand the way you think.
exactly...
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.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:57 AM
  #556
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
You have been getting annoyed with people misquoting you yet you do the same to me?

I never stated any such thing......I simply stated my opinion of how I think it should be done. Like I said it is more hypothetical than historical.

Chalk it up to miscommunication I suppose....
Quote:
He will do the same thing with Galchenyuk.....as he should. There is clearly a team philosophy of making players earn their contracts while under team control. That is exactly how it should be. This is how a perennial contender is maintained as the youngsters are kept at a low cap hit for as long as possible while the vets make their money.
Perpetual success and cap harmony are the intended goals and this is exactly how it is done.
Were you honestly not talking about bridge contracts and their link to building a perennial contender?

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:58 AM
  #557
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
[/B]

Can you quantify that?
lol

But seriously, not interested in a semantics filed debate about your statement. It's subjective and impossible to prove.

However, every single GM will state the importance of managing the cap properly.
Of course...

The Hawks won the Cup this year and twice in the last 4 years because they've done a solid job drafting & developing (look at all the players they've drafted themselves who were on their last 2 Cup winning teams) and because they've made some astute trades, they've had excellent coaching.

These elements have proved to be a lot more important then the management of their salary cap.

I agree though, every GM states the importance of managing the cap properly...I won't deny that. But they also state the importance of drafting and developing players as well. I happen to think that's WAY more important.

The managing of a salary cap is the easy part...the rest is what's the real challenge.

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:00 AM
  #558
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Fantastic post!!

There is no point in me posting now......it would look like I plagiarised your work. I have to commend you on your patience as it truly is remarkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
... damn it, now you make me respect you as a writer again.

You will pay for this!!!
Thank you both. I know that I'm not alone thinking that way but for some (odd) reason, it's perceived by some as garbage. Not so sure why but hey, it's a free world I guess.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:00 AM
  #559
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Of course...

The Hawks won the Cup this year and twice in the last 4 years because they've done a solid job drafting & developing (look at all the players they've drafted themselves who were on their last 2 Cup winning teams) and because they've made some astute trades, they've had excellent coaching.
And because they identified their high end talent, and signed them to long term deals off their ELCs. Right?

Right?

C'mon, you know you want to say it.

It's just the idea that everyone must adhere to a system that is not proven, that sounds weird to me.

If you have elite talent you lock it up. Forcing everyone to take a bridge contract may work, but we have no proof of it's effectiveness. We do however have examples of successful teams that identified their top end talent, and signed them long term off their ELC.

I'm not going to say one is better than the other, but I sure do know what has worked in the past.

Maybe Bergevin is starting a new trend that will sweep the NHL world. Who knows.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:02 AM
  #560
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And if he does, he deserves to be ripped to shreds.

If Galchenyuk plays the way Subban did, he'll be well worth the 5 for 25 extension. There's no reason not to pay a guy what he's already shown himself to be worth. And if he lowballs him and Galchenyuk demands a trade (which most people expected to happen with Subban) then MB should not only be fired, he should be hung up by his buster browns, killed, then shot twice and pissed on.

Absolutely no way that Galchenyuk should be lowballed the way PK was. We were extremely lucky not to have lost PK the last time around.

The good news is that I doubt MB will be this stupid again. He'll learn from this. If he doesn't then we're in real trouble.
Nobody was lowballed and everything turned out well. 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.

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.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:03 AM
  #561
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Thank you both. I know that I'm not alone thinking that way but for some (odd) reason, it's perceived by some as garbage. Not so sure why but hey, it's a free world I guess.
It was very well written...

There are two schools of thought to this debate. I don't personally think either is necessarily wrong.

But those who are against the 'bridge deal' are absolutely convinced that it is wrong and really, that's the part I disagree with.

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:05 AM
  #562
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
And because they identified their high end talent, and signed them to long term deals off their ELCs. Right?

Right?


C'mon, you know you want to say it.

It's just the idea that everyone must adhere to a system that is not proven, that sounds weird to me.

If you have elite talent you lock it up. Forcing everyone to take a bridge contract may work, but we have no proof of it's effectiveness. We do however have examples of successful teams that identified their top end talent, and signed them long term off their ELC.

I'm not going to say one is better than the other, but I sure do know what has worked in the past.

Maybe Bergevin is starting a new trend that will sweep the NHL world. Who knows.
Are you saying that if they had signed them to bridge deals and then signed them to long term contracts, the result would of been different?

I agree, at least in part, with what you're saying

If you have elite talent, you lock it up...

But Subban will be locked up...so what's the issue???

That he'll be locked up at 2 to 3M more then he would have? Well i'll argue that he'll be locked up for longer and the Habs will save more money in the years where it's most needed (this coming year).

Neither avenues are necessarily wrong...they are just different.

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:05 AM
  #563
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
Were you honestly not talking about bridge contracts and their link to building a perennial contender?
Their hypothetical link. I never even mentioned Jersey at that point in time.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:05 AM
  #564
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
It was very well written...

There are two schools of thought to this debate. I don't personally think either is necessarily wrong.

But those who are against the 'bridge deal' are absolutely convinced that it is wrong and really, that's the part I disagree with.
To be fair that rehashed post seems to be trying to convey the point that the other side is wrong. I disagree with that as well.

And you are right, there is no right or wrong right now. We won't know for several years what was the best strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Are you saying that if they had signed them to bridge deals and then signed them to long term contracts, the result would of been different?

I agree, at least in part, with what you're saying

If you have elite talent, you lock it up...

But Subban will be locked up...so what's the issue???
Not sure about the 1st part, it's impossible to prove so it's a moot point.

I hope he'll be locked up long term. I hope he doesn't force Bergevin to sign a contract that brings him right up to UFA status.

I'm not berating Bergevin's tactics. I have my doubts, but he might be on the right track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Their hypothetical link. I never even mentioned Jersey at that point in time.
Aye, and I disagree with your opinion that bridge contracts for everyone is how you build a perennial winner. I think we're all caught up here.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:06 AM
  #565
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
exactly...
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.
Explain something to me, as I'm not that great apparently at seeing things or I'm too caught up at being in denial...

$2.875M + $2.875M + $8M + $8M + $8M = $29.75M
$5.5M + $5.5M + $5.5M + $5.5M + $5.5M = $27.5M

So you have a difference of about $2M total over the length of the 5 years and yet, you save the dollars when the cap will be at its tightest, next season.

Am I missing something here?

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:06 AM
  #566
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Nobody was lowballed and everything turned out well. 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.

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.
Well said...

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:10 AM
  #567
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
And because they identified their high end talent, and signed them to long term deals off their ELCs. Right?

Right?

C'mon, you know you want to say it.

It's just the idea that everyone must adhere to a system that is not proven, that sounds weird to me.

If you have elite talent you lock it up. Forcing everyone to take a bridge contract may work, but we have no proof of it's effectiveness. We do however have examples of successful teams that identified their top end talent, and signed them long term off their ELC.

I'm not going to say one is better than the other, but I sure do know what has worked in the past.

Maybe Bergevin is starting a new trend that will sweep the NHL world. Who knows.
You seem to be dancing around the fact that the vast majority of teams that employ this method of negotiating enjoy very little success. It is almost like saying part of the reason the Hawks won the Cup is because they use hockey equipment.....it applies to everyone so it isn't relevant.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:10 AM
  #568
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Explain something to me, as I'm not that great apparently at seeing things or I'm too caught up at being in denial...

$2.875M + $2.875M + $8M + $8M + $8M = $29.75M
$5.5M + $5.5M + $5.5M + $5.5M + $5.5M = $27.5M

So you have a difference of about $2M total over the length of the 5 years and yet, you save the dollars when the cap will be at its tightest, next season.

Am I missing something here?
it's the cap hit...that's the issue here

Some people are convinced that because he will be at a cap hit of 7.5M or 8M instead of 5.5M

That the Habs are doomed and won't be able to sign some hypothetical player or players.

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:12 AM
  #569
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
You seem to be dancing around the fact that the vast majority of teams that employ this method of negotiating enjoy very little success.
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.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:16 AM
  #570
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
To be fair that rehashed post seems to be trying to convey the point that the other side is wrong. I disagree with that as well.
Speaking of rehashing, I've been saying all along that there are solid arguments on both side. I'm concluding with my opinion, nothing more, nothing less, that the bridging contract was my preference, all along respecting that others may think differently. As 417 is saying, we don't see that from the other side where it's an attack saying that whoever thinks differently brings garbage to the debate, which is obviously NOT the case, but they can't (in most part) see and recognize that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
it's the cap hit...that's the issue here

Some people are convinced that because he will be at a cap hit of 7.5M or 8M instead of 5.5M

That the Habs are doomed and won't be able to sign some hypothetical player or players.
I understand that. But one must recognize the savings on the cap hit for last year and mostly, mostly next year, when the cap goes down drastically. This pretty much evens the playing field, no?

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:18 AM
  #571
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
You can't ignore all other factors and just focus on this one commonality though...that's a bit disingenuous.

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:18 AM
  #572
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Speaking of rehashing, I've been saying all along that there are solid arguments on both side. I'm concluding with my opinion, nothing more, nothing less, that the bridging contract was my preference, all along respecting that others may think differently. As 417 is saying, we don't see that from the other side where it's an attack saying that whoever thinks differently brings garbage to the debate, which is obviously NOT the case, but they can't (in most part) see and recognize that.

Oh god, can we please just drop the morale authority claims in here? We already have enough empty rhetoric going on.

Both sides are doing just fine and presenting good arguments, no need to try and debate who is debating better than the other. It's pointless and won't lead to any good.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:19 AM
  #573
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
You can't ignore all other factors and just focus on this one commonality though...that's a bit disingenuous.
Sure I can, especially in this case, because the post I originally responded to was focusing on this one commonality. (Contract control)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

I'm open to discussing the other factors, but that wasn't the subject at hand.

I still think salary structure is fairly important for winning teams, which you seem to disagree with (IIRC), but I think that's probably a good subject for another thread.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:20 AM
  #574
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Speaking of rehashing, I've been saying all along that there are solid arguments on both side. I'm concluding with my opinion, nothing more, nothing less, that the bridging contract was my preference, all along respecting that others may think differently. As 417 is saying, we don't see that from the other side where it's an attack saying that whoever thinks differently brings garbage to the debate, which is obviously NOT the case, but they can't (in most part) see and recognize that.


I understand that. But one must recognize the savings on the cap hit for last year and mostly, mostly next year, when the cap goes down drastically. This pretty much evens the playing field, no?
Oh agreed...

And furthermore, as i've continually said...cap savings does not automatically mean the money saved will be well invested. (see Ryder/Cole trade and subsequent Desharnais contract a few weeks later).

417 is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 10:24 AM
  #575
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
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  
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 10:58 PM.

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.