HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
07-23-2013, 12:10 PM
  #676
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
Same way Bettman didn't force a lock out with his initial offer?
Pk received a 'better' bridge deal than both Price and Pacioretty...there was nothing insulting about that offer

He signed it didn't he?

BTW - you can't be serious about that Bettman comment. BOTH sides knew they were headed towards a lockout anyways. That's not what 'forced' a lockout

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:14 PM
  #677
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Pk received a 'better' bridge deal than both Price and Pacioretty...there was nothing insulting about that offer
I should hope so.

Price was fighting for the starter job, and Pacioretty was fresh from the AHL, whereas Subban had been performing for 2 years (and then some....)

I think most of us can admit he was above those two if we're comparing their development at the time of the bridge contract.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:17 PM
  #678
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
I should hope so.

Price was fighting for the starter job, and Pacioretty was fresh from the AHL, whereas Subban had been performing for 2 years (and then some....)

I think most of us can admit he was above those two if we're comparing their development at the time of the bridge contract.
Absolutely, and the contract offer reflected that (even though we all understand it was well below his value).

BTW - for argument's sake, it can be argued that Price had proven more than Subban had when he signed his bridge deal. Yes he had had his struggles, but he had also had quite a bit of success as well.

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:19 PM
  #679
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
You could. However if my memory serves me correctly he had just split his 2nd year with Halak, and been outplayed quite handily.

Not that I disagree with what Gainey did, but he was basically gifted the starter role as opposed to winning it outright.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:21 PM
  #680
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Pk received a 'better' bridge deal than both Price and Pacioretty...there was nothing insulting about that offer

He signed it didn't he?

BTW - you can't be serious about that Bettman comment. BOTH sides knew they were headed towards a lockout anyways. That's not what 'forced' a lockout
What resolved the lock out? negotiations, compromise on both sides. So, what caused lockout? no negotiations and no compromises obviously... What caused PK sittout out? no negotiations and no compromises by MB... obviously.

Yea he signed, because he saw MB wasn't going to budge, and PK being who he is just took it, realizing there were no "talks" and only demands, on one side, and that wasn't going to change... i mean, put yourself in PK's shoes for once, and imagine you just finished a terrific campaign, obvious #1 Dman in ALL situations, and you go into negotiations and boss is like "Yo sorry what u did in past means nothing, so heres minimum wage +1, that's the rules LOL "

uiCk is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:27 PM
  #681
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
What resolved the lock out? negotiations, compromise on both sides. So, what caused lockout? no negotiations and no compromises obviously... What caused PK sittout out? no negotiations and no compromises by MB... obviously.

Yea he signed, because he saw MB wasn't going to budge, and PK being who he is just took it, realizing there were no "talks" and only demands, on one side, and that wasn't going to change... i mean, put yourself in PK's shoes for once, and imagine you just finished a terrific campaign, obvious #1 Dman in ALL situations, and you go into negotiations and boss is like "Yo sorry what u did in past means nothing, so heres minimum wage +1, that's the rules LOL "
This is ridiculous...minimum wage +1?

Dear God...look, i'm a HUGE fan of PK Subban, i've spent countless hours defending him on this board with the ridiculous character assasinations he's received throughout the years

But you and other have put him on a ridiculous pedestal where he's above reproach in everything.

The holdout, whether it's PK/MB or the NHL/NHLPA is NEVER a 1 person affair...it takes 2 people to reach that point.

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:28 PM
  #682
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
POINT is, that current management values "Rules, Principles, Philosophies and "Character" " more then they value skills and actual DATA. This type of behavior encourages A$$ kissing behaviors instead of encouraging actual skill/performances/quantifiable data, AKA Bouillon and DD.

uiCk is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:33 PM
  #683
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
This is ridiculous...minimum wage +1?

Dear God...look, i'm a HUGE fan of PK Subban, i've spent countless hours defending him on this board with the ridiculous character assasinations he's received throughout the years

But you and other have put him on a ridiculous pedestal where he's above reproach in everything.

The holdout, whether it's PK/MB or the NHL/NHLPA is NEVER a 1 person affair...it takes 2 people to reach that point.
Yea well if you read properly an not concentrate on exaggerated comments like "min wage +1" you would notice that what i wrote is EXACTLY that. MB and PK subban affair WAS a 1 person affair, MB made offer and didn't budge. He obviously didn't give to craps of what PK was worth and was ready to let him sit out entire season if necessary to prove his "principles", he was and didn't listen nor care of what that 2nd person in a 2 people affair had to think.

uiCk is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:45 PM
  #684
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Absolutely, and the contract offer reflected that (even though we all understand it was well below his value).

BTW - for argument's sake, it can be argued that Price had proven more than Subban had when he signed his bridge deal. Yes he had had his struggles, but he had also had quite a bit of success as well.
If you agree it was well below his value, then you can understand why he'd be hesitent to sign such a deal.

Also, I'm pretty sure we can agree that during negotiations, usually, both sides start at their extremes. So PK starts with high demands, MB starts with a low offer, and from there they work out their differences. So, if we believe this is what happened, I have to wonder, what was Bergevin's initial offer?

In any event, it's clear they indirectly made PK lock out because they offered him a well below value contract.

Btw, not everybody seem to understand it was below value. Some are trying to make an argument it was fair.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:46 PM
  #685
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
You could. However if my memory serves me correctly he had just split his 2nd year with Halak, and been outplayed quite handily.

Not that I disagree with what Gainey did, but he was basically gifted the starter role as opposed to winning it outright.
He also made the all-rookie team if i'm not mistaken and was also an all-star, had won a playoff series and led the Habs to 1st place overall

Not like he hadn't done anything here...he had as much, if not more leverage

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:47 PM
  #686
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
Yea well if you read properly an not concentrate on exaggerated comments like "min wage +1" you would notice that what i wrote is EXACTLY that. MB and PK subban affair WAS a 1 person affair, MB made offer and didn't budge. He obviously didn't give to craps of what PK was worth and was ready to let him sit out entire season if necessary to prove his "principles", he was and didn't listen nor care of what that 2nd person in a 2 people affair had to think.
Well he didn't have too...that's the luxury of having players as RFA's.

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:50 PM
  #687
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If you agree it was well below his value, then you can understand why he'd be hesitent to sign such a deal.

Also, I'm pretty sure we can agree that during negotiations, usually, both sides start at their extremes. So PK starts with high demands, MB starts with a low offer, and from there they work out their differences. So, if we believe this is what happened, I have to wonder, what was Bergevin's initial offer?

In any event, it's clear they indirectly made PK lock out because they offered him a well below value contract.

Btw, not everybody seem to understand it was below value. Some are trying to make an argument it was fair.
Sure...But in the end, it will end up working out better for Subban. So knowing that now, was it worth him holding out?

Also, I understand that it was below value...but GM's and teams aren't forced to pay RFA's at market value. They can pay them what they think is equitable for their situation.

Sucks for the player, but that's the difference between being an RFA & being a UFA.

Seems to me we're losing what the term RESTRICTED FREE AGENT means. It means the teams are holding the hammer, PK signed the bridge deal and now he's the one holding the hammer.

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 12:57 PM
  #688
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
You can disagree all you want. It wasn't a hate post, it was an attempt to show you how you react. If you took it as a hate post, then how were your other posts then?

I've been saying all along that there are pros and cons to both sides and both sides have solid arguments. You disagree with that. That's fine, I'm truly fine with that but I won't agree.

I will however never agree with you and LG that there is no solid argument(s) for Bergevin's decision in this case. Why? Because it isn't true, no matter if you two get blue in the face debating. For that reason and that reason alone, as I won't change your opinion (not that I was trying to) and you won't change mine, I will stop debating this. At some point, someone has to take the high road.
You haven't got any solid arguments. You don't. I have yet to see one from you.

I've heard you say that MB wants to institute a manditory policy on the bridge... well okay, but you don't explain why. This policy (as many people have shown) makes no sense to begin with.

I've heard you say that others would've followed in Subban's footsteps had they 'given into him' but again... there's no indication from you as to why this would be bad.

You tried to say that the cap would go down... but this would only strengthen our argument that it was silly not to pay PK less over the long haul.

The only real tangible argument that you have actually made is that PK was motivated by being lowballed. And this is something that is completely unsupported.

Most debates have some things going for each side but you've been pretty much smoked across the board here dude. I had said my piece but when you come back and say that I've "moved the goalposts" and been unfair with your arguments, I'm inclined to come back here. If you feel that I've been unfair... SHOW ME. Show me where I have ducked anything you've tried to argue. Otherwise, leave my name out of it.

As for taking the high road, it's pretty clear from what E=CH wrote above that this isn't the case either. And it's really ironic because you've been so badly beaten in this thread that it's shocking that you would actually refer to other posters here as idiots.

If I don't see any reply (and I really don't see what you can reply with) from you I'll assume we're done. And unless you're going to call me on something specific, keep my name out of these posts.

Have a nice day!


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 07-23-2013 at 02:42 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:01 PM
  #689
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Sure...But in the end, it will end up working out better for Subban. So knowing that now, was it worth him holding out?

Also, I understand that it was below value...but GM's and teams aren't forced to pay RFA's at market value. They can pay them what they think is equitable for their situation.

Sucks for the player, but that's the difference between being an RFA & being a UFA.

Seems to me we're losing what the term RESTRICTED FREE AGENT means. It means the teams are holding the hammer, PK signed the bridge deal and now he's the one holding the hammer.
Sure, it'll be better for PK so long that he doesn't suffer any huge injury before signing his extension.

As for us not having to pay full market value, that's the whole point. Some of us wanted MB to sign him long term so we can have him below market value for a number of years, not just 1 1/2. That's the whole point of the argument.
Hey, if Bergevin was able to lock PK up at 2.8M for 5 years I would have been ecstatic.
This isn't about what's best for PK, this is about what's best for our team. It's not the end of the world as I've said countless times, but it's pretty obvious to me that having PK below his market value for longer is better.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:05 PM
  #690
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Sure, it'll be better for PK so long that he doesn't suffer any huge injury before signing his extension.

As for us not having to pay full market value, that's the whole point. Some of us wanted MB to sign him long term so we can have him below market value for a number of years, not just 1 1/2. That's the whole point of the argument.
Hey, if Bergevin was able to lock PK up at 2.8M for 5 years I would have been ecstatic.
This isn't about what's best for PK, this is about what's best for our team. It's not the end of the world as I've said countless times, but it's pretty obvious to me that having PK below his market value for longer is better.
There's risk/reward to either situation...do you honestly think that today Subban regrets signing that bridge deal?

Do you honestly believe the Habs and MB are losing sleep over the fact they'll have to compensate their Norris trophy winning dman like one of the best at his positions because he earned it?

The Habs have had Subban at under market value since he's been in the league...who cares really.

417 is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:06 PM
  #691
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,023
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Sure...But in the end, it will end up working out better for Subban. So knowing that now, was it worth him holding out?

Also, I understand that it was below value...but GM's and teams aren't forced to pay RFA's at market value. They can pay them what they think is equitable for their situation.

Sucks for the player, but that's the difference between being an RFA & being a UFA.

Seems to me we're losing what the term RESTRICTED FREE AGENT means. It means the teams are holding the hammer, PK signed the bridge deal and now he's the one holding the hammer.
No GM is losing the bargaining advantage of the RFA status. You can see all over the league, teams are signing RFAs to deals that are appropriate. The thing you keep forgetting is that Subban is in a league of his own here. Not many players had good reason to ask for a long term contract coming out of their ELC contract. Subban had every right and showed it by winning the Norris.

One player is not the rule.

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:17 PM
  #692
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
There's risk/reward to either situation...do you honestly think that today Subban regrets signing that bridge deal?

Do you honestly believe the Habs and MB are losing sleep over the fact they'll have to compensate their Norris trophy winning dman like one of the best at his positions because he earned it?

The Habs have had Subban at under market value since he's been in the league...who cares really.
Well you obviously don't care. I do. I want the most cap space saved whenever it can be so that we have more of it whenever you go after UFA.

It's not about if PK regrets signing the deal or not, it never was. Not sure why you're bringing this up. This has always been about management and what's better for us long term.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:19 PM
  #693
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
What resolved the lock out? negotiations, compromise on both sides. So, what caused lockout? no negotiations and no compromises obviously... What caused PK sittout out? no negotiations and no compromises by MB... obviously.

Yea he signed, because he saw MB wasn't going to budge, and PK being who he is just took it, realizing there were no "talks" and only demands, on one side, and that wasn't going to change... i mean, put yourself in PK's shoes for once, and imagine you just finished a terrific campaign, obvious #1 Dman in ALL situations, and you go into negotiations and boss is like "Yo sorry what u did in past means nothing, so heres minimum wage +1, that's the rules LOL "
This is a perfect example of people having blinders, blaming Bergevin without even knowing the facts. Period. And that's all we've heard from the people having temper tantrums about Subban's bridging deal. My way or the highway, whether it's speculations or facts.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:26 PM
  #694
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Well you obviously don't care. I do. I want the most cap space saved whenever it can be so that we have more of it whenever you go after UFA.

It's not about if PK regrets signing the deal or not, it never was. Not sure why you're bringing this up. This has always been about management and what's better for us long term.
More BS. How is it better long term? Going on you guys' assumption that the deal offered was for 5 years...

$2.875M + $2.875M * + $8M * + $8M + $8M

vs

$5.5M + $5.5M * + $8M * + $5.5M + $5.5M

We'll agree for the sake of this argument that the salary will be the same beyond that 5 year period.

Please explain.

* 2013-14 when the cap goes down to $34M
* 2014-15 when cap goes back to $70M+ and other big contracts get off the books

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:26 PM
  #695
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
This is a perfect example of people having blinders, blaming Bergevin without even knowing the facts. Period. And that's all we've heard from the people having temper tantrums about Subban's bridging deal. My way or the highway, whether it's speculations or facts.
so what you are saying is that i should consider that MB started at 700k, then moved up to under 3 mil... oh didn't consider that, how generous of him if that's the case.

And sit out was just so that PK can fully understand the benefits of being paid WAY below value.. makes sense. Stupid me, speculating when everything was right in front of me.


Last edited by uiCk: 07-23-2013 at 01:32 PM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:30 PM
  #696
Lozela
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Sure...But in the end, it will end up working out better for Subban. So knowing that now, was it worth him holding out?

Also, I understand that it was below value...but GM's and teams aren't forced to pay RFA's at market value. They can pay them what they think is equitable for their situation.

Sucks for the player, but that's the difference between being an RFA & being a UFA.

Seems to me we're losing what the term RESTRICTED FREE AGENT means. It means the teams are holding the hammer, PK signed the bridge deal and now he's the one holding the hammer.
I don't get your point.

Bergevin didn't show good faith in the negociation. He knew that PK wanted to remain a Hab and he took advantage of it. O'Reiley got an offersheet at one point and you can bet that PK would've signed to another team if he really wanted to.

Lozela is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:32 PM
  #697
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
so what you are saying is that i should consider that MB started at 700k, then moved up to under 3 mil... oh didn't consider that, how generous of him if that's the case.
No. What you (and your friends here) forget, is that both side have been on record saying that the hitch was NOT money, but the length of the contract. It was philosophical, not monetary. Not me saying that, it's them.

Subban wanted long term. Can't blame him, others before him in other organizations have done it. Bergevin wanted short term. I also can't blame him, in spite of the smoke screens thrown by those opposed in this thread.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:36 PM
  #698
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
No. What you (and your friends here) forget, is that both side have been on record saying that the hitch was NOT money, but the length of the contract. It was philosophical, not monetary. Not me saying that, it's them.

Subban wanted long term. Can't blame him, others before him in other organizations have done it. Bergevin wanted short term. I also can't blame him, in spite of the smoke screens thrown by those opposed in this thread.
So what you are saying now is that PK wanted to play @ under 3 mil for 5+ years, but MB only wanted 2 years @ under 3 mil. oh ok, got it, money wasn't involved, it was just term.. yea... you make so much sense

uiCk is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 01:38 PM
  #699
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
More BS. How is it better long term? Going on you guys' assumption that the deal offered was for 5 years...

$2.875M + $2.875M * + $8M * + $8M + $8M

vs

$5.5M + $5.5M * + $8M * + $5.5M + $5.5M

We'll agree for the sake of this argument that the salary will be the same beyond that 5 year period.

Please explain.

* 2013-14 when the cap goes down to $34M
* 2014-15 when cap goes back to $70M+ and other big contracts get off the books
First off, number should be 5M, not 5.5M, but let's leave it at that.
Second, I don't get your 8M in year three. It's 5.5M all the way through.

The difference is a 2.5M extra cap space available to us in year 3-4-5.

As for the cap dropping (and I'm assuming you meant 64M not 34) it's irrelevant because we're talking about an extra 2.7M which we had more than enough money for. Two compliance buyouts were already confirmed. So we had enough space confirmed for him even with a cap reduction.

Btw, this has already been explained to you more than once and by more than one poster.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-23-2013, 02:20 PM
  #700
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Well you obviously don't care. I do. I want the most cap space saved whenever it can be so that we have more of it whenever you go after UFA.

It's not about if PK regrets signing the deal or not, it never was. Not sure why you're bringing this up. [B]This has always been about management and what's better for us long term[/B].
Agreed...and in the long term, it an be argued that the course of action taken by MB was the best option to take.

Not saying the alternative wouldn't have been either

There doesn't have to be a wrong answer...which is something you keep ignoring.

The possibility that you may not actually be 100% right

417 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 02:25 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.