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

Subban's next contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2013, 08:11 PM
  #351
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
OMG - FFS there was no one else. Markov was injured for two years - Emelin was not there - who was his competition? Spacek? Hamrlik?

Subban always had the talent, but his game was not Elite. He's still learning.
He was effectively shutting top lines buddy. He was also putting up points.
His game wasn't elite then, true, but so what? It was still very good and he was still a top 30 Dman in the NHL.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2013, 09:31 PM
  #352
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
He was effectively shutting top lines buddy. He was also putting up points.
His game wasn't elite then, true, but so what? It was still very good and he was still a top 30 Dman in the NHL.
So what? I was answering Andy that said he was a #1D. #1D on a crappy team with crappy defenseman does not make you a number 1D nor automatically entitle you to a long term big money contract. Smart GM's never make that move - they make their players earn their contract. Do you think it helped the Oilers to sign Hall, NH and Eberle to elite level contracts without truly earning them? All three still have flaws in their games and who knows if they would not be further ahead if they had to fight for their big deal. Basically you are telling players that are still developing that they have arrived.

I think Burke said it one year while negotiating with Domenic Moore - who put up points playing on the #1 line and wanted a big payday. Burke told him to take a hike - just because he was the #1 C with the Leafs - it didn't make him a #1 C.

Subban - at the end of the 2012 season was very good prospect, with incredible physical and technical skills, but an incomplete game. Sure he could dominate in stretches because of his physical skills, but sooner or later in the NHL , that is not enough. You have got to learn to play, think and react to become an elite player. He certainly had the foundation though.

Habnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2013, 10:23 PM
  #353
Macbeth
Registered User
 
Macbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Petite-Patrie, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Strong rebuttal man.
I know, I really gave that one my all.

I was wondering how I'd approach it and what angle I should take to get the full effect.

Glad it worked out that way because this is a message board and that's how one message boards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Good work.
Thanks dude.

Macbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2013, 10:35 PM
  #354
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
So give it a rest. Don't play dumb. You're fully aware that PK signed a deal well below his value. Argue that he was a RFA with no arbitration right therefore, no negotiating power, so he had to agree to whatever deal they gave him. But don't pretend like he got what he deserved, that he was holding out for that little cash. If that's what he was holding out for, then what was the Canadiens offering him? Bouillon's contract???

Stop playing dumb.
I happen to think that you're the one playing dumb, by ignoring the evidence I've presented over and over again. Who's right? I guess you are, right?

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 12:12 AM
  #355
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I happen to think that you're the one playing dumb, by ignoring the evidence I've presented over and over again. Who's right? I guess you are, right?
...
Maybe I'm giving you too much credit..

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 12:38 AM
  #356
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
So what? I was answering Andy that said he was a #1D. #1D on a crappy team with crappy defenseman does not make you a number 1D nor automatically entitle you to a long term big money contract. Smart GM's never make that move - they make their players earn their contract. Do you think it helped the Oilers to sign Hall, NH and Eberle to elite level contracts without truly earning them? All three still have flaws in their games and who knows if they would not be further ahead if they had to fight for their big deal. Basically you are telling players that are still developing that they have arrived.

I think Burke said it one year while negotiating with Domenic Moore - who put up points playing on the #1 line and wanted a big payday. Burke told him to take a hike - just because he was the #1 C with the Leafs - it didn't make him a #1 C.

Subban - at the end of the 2012 season was very good prospect, with incredible physical and technical skills, but an incomplete game. Sure he could dominate in stretches because of his physical skills, but sooner or later in the NHL , that is not enough. You have got to learn to play, think and react to become an elite player. He certainly had the foundation though.
Hmmm...I see this Oilers example brought up constantly. Hall is averaging 1ppg, Eberle and RNH (he's not even on his extension yet) are close to it too. They're all on 6M cap hits, one million more than Gionta. Really, I don't see what the big fuss is. 7 year extensions is a little much, but it's not like they aren't playing well.
The problem isn't them in Edmonton, the problem is the rest. They had to sign freaking Bryzgalov because they're so desperate for a goalie. Their defense is horrible too. Their team is a zoo. But the contracts given to the youngsters are really not that big of an issue.
But even if they were, why is it people only bring up the supposed bad signings? Why don't you talk about the guys that signed deals off their ELC and do well??
I mean, shall we look at UFA and say never sign any of them because there's countless examples of players not living up to their contracts?..That would be rather dishonest and flawed right? Well same thing here. Sometimes it's worth it to give a longer extension off the ELC, sometimes it isn't. For PK, you can certainly make a case that he was already well worth the investment.

PK was a #1 Dman. He was a top 30 Dman after 2012. Sure, maybe he would have been a #2 if he played in Boston behind Chara, but that's not because of his skills it would have been because Chara is this established top D. Markov is averaging more ice time than PK right now, are you going to argue that PK is a #2 Dman?? Just like Malkin is centering the 2nd line in Pittsburgh, but he's not a 2nd center.
PK was our #1 Dman, and he would have been a #1 on the majority of the teams in the NHL.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 02:02 PM
  #357
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Hmmm...I see this Oilers example brought up constantly. Hall is averaging 1ppg, Eberle and RNH (he's not even on his extension yet) are close to it too. They're all on 6M cap hits, one million more than Gionta. Really, I don't see what the big fuss is. 7 year extensions is a little much, but it's not like they aren't playing well.
The problem isn't them in Edmonton, the problem is the rest. They had to sign freaking Bryzgalov because they're so desperate for a goalie. Their defense is horrible too. Their team is a zoo. But the contracts given to the youngsters are really not that big of an issue.
Do you even watch Edmonton play? I watch them constantly on Center Ice - and while they are putting up points (you had to work hard to get those stats, right?) they are not ready to lead the team anywhere close to the playoffs - and at the money they are being paid, they need to not only put up points but also play hard minutes. Especially Eberle and RNH still play a very soft game in their own end. But why do they need to grow their game? Edmonton already validated their game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But even if they were, why is it people only bring up the supposed bad signings? Why don't you talk about the guys that signed deals off their ELC and do well??
I mean, shall we look at UFA and say never sign any of them because there's countless examples of players not living up to their contracts?..That would be rather dishonest and flawed right? Well same thing here. Sometimes it's worth it to give a longer extension off the ELC, sometimes it isn't. For PK, you can certainly make a case that he was already well worth the investment.
Like who Toews - who's won 2 SC's and was captain at 20? Landesdok, who is also captain and plays like a 28 year old vet? You see the pattern? Talent is not enough, to be considered and paid in Elite company, your game has to be at Elite level. Subban WAS NOT at this level 2 years ago - his game is nearly there now. Notice how the better he plays, the less points he gets -. That's the sign the his game has arrived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
PK was a #1 Dman. He was a top 30 Dman after 2012. Sure, maybe he would have been a #2 if he played in Boston behind Chara, but that's not because of his skills it would have been because Chara is this established top D. Markov is averaging more ice time than PK right now, are you going to argue that PK is a #2 Dman?? Just like Malkin is centering the 2nd line in Pittsburgh, but he's not a 2nd center.
PK was our #1 Dman, and he would have been a #1 on the majority of the teams in the NHL.
This is just plain ignorant

Habnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 06:33 PM
  #358
Team_Spirit
Gangsta Pleks
 
Team_Spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,543
vCash: 50
Another week pass by. Still no deal for PK.

Team_Spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 11:39 PM
  #359
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Just thought I'd bump this thread to illustrate the cost-comparisons of Subban's bridge deal v. the 5-year deal he could have/should have signed. The chart shows two cost-comparisons -- the first at the end of the five-year deal many hoped he'd sign, the second at the end of the eight-year deal we're hoping he'll sign.

These numbers are estimates, naturally, but assuming they're close, the total cost is almost the same for both scenarios. Whether Subban was locked into a five-year deal back in January, or whether he's about to be offered a big new contract for the maximum term starting next season, there's barely a difference to the Habs revenue when played out over that span of 10 years. Of course, that assumes we intend to offer Subban a long contract and that he ends up accepting.



Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:11 AM
  #360
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Just thought I'd bump this thread to illustrate the cost-comparisons of Subban's bridge deal v. the 5-year deal he could have/should have signed. The chart shows two cost-comparisons -- the first at the end of the five-year deal many hoped he'd sign, the second at the end of the eight-year deal we're hoping he'll sign.

These numbers are estimates, naturally, but assuming they're close, the total cost is almost the same for both scenarios. Whether Subban was locked into a five-year deal back in January, or whether he's about to be offered a big new contract for the maximum term starting next season, there's barely a difference to the Habs revenue when played out over that span of 10 years. Of course, that assumes we intend to offer Subban a long contract and that he ends up accepting.

The above picture showing 2 very specific scenarios is about money. Money concerns Molson. As fans, we're concerned about cap space. And not just cap space at any point in time added up but cap space when we'll need it when we're a contender (if ever). We did not need the cap space afforded by the bridge deal in 2013 and 2013-14. We did nothing of note with the cap space other than signing Briere.

Although, ultimately, cap space might not matter that much with the big increases in cap space coming in the next few years. But I'm always of the opinion that if it doesn't matter it's because we don't have enough good elements and aren't in position to attract big players which means we're still an average team. Ultimately if that's the case then it doesn't matter what we did with Subban's contract, nothing really matters but I try to be optimistic and think that we'll have enough good players demanding enough high salaries that it will matter.

More importantly. The above picture is 1 scenario. Another scenario would be that we could have signed Subban to a 10 year deal worth 5M/per. Not to mention we could have frontloaded the **** out of the deal and offered any amount or any length really in an effort to save more cap space... The old CBA was still in effect early in the summer and there were many many more options than the 2 scenarios presented above. EDIT: Please let's not argue over the actual figures because we have no clue and unless you plan on calculating values in dollars of today and front loading, then the entire exercise is pointless and I don't care nearly enough to create hypothetical scenarios.

Not to mention that the 2nd deal in the no bridge scenario where Subban signs for 9M ignores one of the main objective of extending trust to a player by inking them early on to a long term deal. Since the player has never been shafted out of his real value like how Subban is right now, then players are a lot more open to signing deals to benefit the team (if they're happy where they are and want to remain). Case in point Martin Brodeur and others who took cuts because they had always been treated fairly contract wise by their organization and did not mind helping making the team more competitive in a cap world. Like when Sakic, Roy and I believe it was Forsberg ? negotiated their deals together and many other examples that don't come to mind at the moment. Players will sometimes do that. The chance of that happening is zero now that we played hardball with our best player. Subban will rightfully insist on getting every dime that he can squeeze out of the habs now and in the future because that is how he's been told it worked.

Ultimately, this might all be much ado about nothing. Or not. We shall see. But it's a lot more complicated than what is shown above even if we assume Subban is still willing to sign a long term deal right now.


Last edited by Des Louise: 01-04-2014 at 12:23 AM.
Des Louise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:16 AM
  #361
sammy d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Do you see the difference in these deals??? Sign Subban until he is 27 and he can bolt as as UFA if he wants or sign him until he's 32. Big difference here, Bergevin did the right thing.

sammy d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:20 AM
  #362
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy d View Post
Do you see the difference in these deals??? Sign Subban until he is 27 and he can bolt as as UFA if he wants or sign him until he's 32. Big difference here, Bergevin did the right thing.
Sigh. Gotta love people putting the blinders on and not considering any options but those presented to them.

And now everyone will look at the picture and assume that those were the only 2 possibilities offered to us when the truth is that we could have signed Subban to a front loaded deal for any length time under the old CBA.

Des Louise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:22 AM
  #363
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Just thought I'd bump this thread to illustrate the cost-comparisons of Subban's bridge deal v. the 5-year deal he could have/should have signed. The chart shows two cost-comparisons -- the first at the end of the five-year deal many hoped he'd sign, the second at the end of the eight-year deal we're hoping he'll sign.

These numbers are estimates, naturally, but assuming they're close, the total cost is almost the same for both scenarios. Whether Subban was locked into a five-year deal back in January, or whether he's about to be offered a big new contract for the maximum term starting next season, there's barely a difference to the Habs revenue when played out over that span of 10 years. Of course, that assumes we intend to offer Subban a long contract and that he ends up accepting.

good job, but if you think facts ever deterred someone from talking nonsense...

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:22 AM
  #364
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,915
vCash: 500
Sometimes, a longer term deal means complacency, even if the player does not intentionally take his foot off the gas pedal. However, I think subban is driven enough that this will not be the case.

One thing I will say about pk, its never boring when he's out there... For better or worse.... The hope is that he gets even better at picking his spots (he still gets caught making mistakes in the defensive zone too often for my liking). I can't wait to see the polished product down the road.

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:29 AM
  #365
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
good job, but if you think facts ever deterred someone from talking nonsense...
What's the cap space look like in 14/15, 15/16 and 16/17, using this scenario?

CrAzYNiNe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:29 AM
  #366
JayKing
Go Habs Go
 
JayKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,973
vCash: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Just thought I'd bump this thread to illustrate the cost-comparisons of Subban's bridge deal v. the 5-year deal he could have/should have signed. The chart shows two cost-comparisons -- the first at the end of the five-year deal many hoped he'd sign, the second at the end of the eight-year deal we're hoping he'll sign.

These numbers are estimates, naturally, but assuming they're close, the total cost is almost the same for both scenarios. Whether Subban was locked into a five-year deal back in January, or whether he's about to be offered a big new contract for the maximum term starting next season, there's barely a difference to the Habs revenue when played out over that span of 10 years. Of course, that assumes we intend to offer Subban a long contract and that he ends up accepting.

Weren't the rumors saying Subban was looking for 6+ years?

JayKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:30 AM
  #367
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Sigh. Gotta love people putting the blinders on and not considering any options but those presented to them.

And now everyone will look at the picture and assume that those were the only 2 possibilities offered to us when the truth is that we could have signed Subban to a front loaded deal for any length time under the old CBA.
yes, MB could have tried to sign subban to a ridiculous front loaded contract, but subban has to accept it so instead of dealing with imaginary hypotheticals (my imaginary hypothetical is why didnt MB dign him for 20 years at 3???), you deal with that we know, and that is that subban wanted 5 for 5, bringing him straight to UFA.

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:31 AM
  #368
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayKing View Post
Weren't the rumors saying Subban was looking for 6+ years?
The rumors are a false premise.

No matter what Subban was seeking, we could have aimed for something different. Something longer in term. If this had been presented to Subban, he might have listened, he probably would have if it were the right offer for both teams.

The rumors are irrelevant.

Des Louise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:31 AM
  #369
Corncob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
The above picture is 1 scenario. Another scenario would be that we could have signed Subban to a 10 year deal worth 5M/per. Not to mention we could have frontloaded the **** out of the deal and offered any amount or any length really in an effort to save more cap space... The old CBA was still in effect early in the summer and there were many many more options than the 2 scenarios presented above. EDIT: Please let's not argue over the actual figures because we have no clue and unless you plan on calculating values in dollars of today and front loading, then the entire exercise is pointless and I don't care nearly enough to create hypothetical scenarios.
Lol, putting in italics and underlining 'lets not argue over the actual figures' straight after posting an argument over the actual figures doesn't really work. Who says we could have signed Subban to a 10 year 5 million contract? Still have never seen any actual argument for the 5x5 one other than 'Bob McKenzie said so, so it must be true. But then McKenzie also said he thought Subban would be traded....

Corncob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:33 AM
  #370
sammy d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Sigh. Gotta love people putting the blinders on and not considering any options but those presented to them.

And now everyone will look at the picture and assume that those were the only 2 possibilities offered to us when the truth is that we could have signed Subban to a front loaded deal for any length time under the old CBA.
Subban did not prove himself before the bridge deal was signed, he was an unproven quantity, Bergevin did not know if he was a flash in the pan offensive player who could not play defense or whether he would turn out to be the player he is now. GM's will not pay for potential, they pay for performance, once you prove you can perform at an elite level then you get the big contract. At the time of the contract Bergevin was unsure, a lot of players have had one good season and then flamed out. Bridge deal is safe and makes the player show he deserves big money, most teams are doing this now.

sammy d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:33 AM
  #371
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Just thought I'd bump this thread to illustrate the cost-comparisons of Subban's bridge deal v. the 5-year deal he could have/should have signed. The chart shows two cost-comparisons -- the first at the end of the five-year deal many hoped he'd sign, the second at the end of the eight-year deal we're hoping he'll sign.

These numbers are estimates, naturally, but assuming they're close, the total cost is almost the same for both scenarios. Whether Subban was locked into a five-year deal back in January, or whether he's about to be offered a big new contract for the maximum term starting next season, there's barely a difference to the Habs revenue when played out over that span of 10 years. Of course, that assumes we intend to offer Subban a long contract and that he ends up accepting.

Nice chart. Good job.

shutehinside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:35 AM
  #372
BLASPHEMOUS
**** THE KING
 
BLASPHEMOUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sherbrooke
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoteshot View Post
Sell that to Gallagher and Galchenyuk please, but not Eller
Don't sell that to Bouillon

BLASPHEMOUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:39 AM
  #373
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Sigh. Gotta love people putting the blinders on and not considering any options but those presented to them.

And now everyone will look at the picture and assume that those were the only 2 possibilities offered to us when the truth is that we could have signed Subban to a front loaded deal for any length time under the old CBA.
As you said, a 10-year deal is the OLD CBA. That no longer exists under the new agreement. Easy to say the Habs should've guessed the window for insanely long contracts was about to close, but I don't think it's fair to criticize them for not timing that stock exactly. Besides, the chart isn't an editorial, it's a "What-if" illustration in response to people who thought the bridge deal would cost more in the long run. It probably won't. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a chart to measure the psychological effect of the bridge on Subban, or when the Habs will be a contender.

Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:44 AM
  #374
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
yes, MB could have tried to sign subban to a ridiculous front loaded contract, but subban has to accept it so instead of dealing with imaginary hypotheticals (my imaginary hypothetical is why didnt MB dign him for 20 years at 3???), you deal with that we know, and that is that subban wanted 5 for 5, bringing him straight to UFA.
First, all scenarios that are not what happened are imaginary hypothetical ones. We absolutely do not know that Subban wanted 5 for 5. We can guess based on reports. And even then, even if the reports are true, we could have offered something different to Subban and negotiated from there. It absolutely did not have to be 5 for 5. The 5 for 5 deal is not even a good one for the habs.

Secondly, front loaded deals are to the advantage of the player and the team. Both parties gain from it, that's why they were so widely used. Player gets the same deal as one with a higher average because money has a value in time. Team gets cap space. Front loading a deal is only ridiculous if the money is ridiculous. It could have been any amount/length but I don't want to argue on that because that's another can of worms and that's precisely why it's ridiculous to only consider 2 scenarios.

The 2 scenarios presented by Lshap means starting with a false premise. Any conclusion derived from it is meaningless other than 5M for 5 years was not a good deal for the habs. And you didn't need the above picture to realize that.

Des Louise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 12:46 AM
  #375
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
As you said, a 10-year deal is the OLD CBA. That no longer exists under the new agreement. Easy to say the Habs should've guessed the window for insanely long contracts was about to close, but I don't think it's fair to criticize them for not timing that stock exactly. Besides, the chart isn't an editorial, it's a "What-if" illustration in response to people who thought the bridge deal would cost more in the long run. It probably won't. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a chart to measure the psychological effect of the bridge on Subban, or when the Habs will be a contender.
Sarcasm aside, the bolded part is why these exercises are pointless. Sorry to say. But yes, I agree with you that the 5M for 5 years deal was not a good one for the habs.

EDIT:

As for the part where you say it's not fair to criticize them for not timing that stock exactly. It is fair. It is their job to make these choices. Players were signed right before the old CBA ended. Some GMs didn't wait around for the new CBA. And also, leading up to the lockout, there were HUGE flags that the league wanted to kill these long frontloaded deals. It was definitely on the agenda and I believe Bergevin knew full well that this was happening. Not that this matters because he never had any intention of doing that with Subban.

Des Louise is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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.