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
01-04-2014, 02:16 PM
  #401
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Except the fact that there's NO WAY he would have had ONLY 9M$ in 2017. With the cap going up and up and up, what's important is the percentage based on the salary cap. Get your Subban's numbers with the Weber contract. Weber has around 14% of the whole salary cap. So in the end, 9M$ might actually be what Subban could have....now. Imagine in 2017.
Exactly. Guessing 9M? I Guess it will be 11M under a cap of 78M. So how does it look now? Looks like the Bridge was cheaper.

I can make a table proving my guesses too.

Halifaxhab* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 02:19 PM
  #402
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,020
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifaxhab View Post
Exactly. Guessing 9M? I Guess it will be 11M under a cap of 78M. So how does it look now? Looks like the Bridge was cheaper.

I can make a table proving my guesses too.
IF he signs long term this off-season.

CrAzYNiNe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 02:28 PM
  #403
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
IF he signs long term this off-season.
That's kind of my point. We're guessing he signs long term. And the whole comparison was the rumoured 5yr5M per he was looking for instead of his current deal.

So. If he signs long term (and my guess is he does) how much? 8M? Maybe?

The table guessed that in the alternate universe of the none bridge deal, he'd resign after the 5yrs for 9M. I say 11. who's right? Who cares

The bridge deal worked, only if Subban signs an 8yr deal, in that it buys his prime years and 5yrs of his UFA years.

Halifaxhab* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 02:34 PM
  #404
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
IF he signs long term this off-season.
If he doesn't that would sure ruin the bridge brigade's narrative.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 02:42 PM
  #405
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
If he doesn't that would sure ruin the bridge brigade's narrative.
Well, yeah. I'd guess it was Bergevin's narrative, too. It's a safe bet he only offered the bridge deal after assuring PK that he'd get his big payday immediately afterwards.

Look, this whole Subban contract thing is a mountain of guesses. None of us know a damn thing until it's settled one way or another.

Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 02:50 PM
  #406
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Except the fact that there's NO WAY he would have had ONLY 9M$ in 2017. With the cap going up and up and up, what's important is the percentage based on the salary cap. Get your Subban's numbers with the Weber contract. Weber has around 14% of the whole salary cap. So in the end, 9M$ might actually be what Subban could have....now. Imagine in 2017.
If that's the case, so be it. If the cap goes up that much and the market dictates it, what's wrong with paying Subban his worth? Others will.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 03:03 PM
  #407
Team_Spirit
Tinordi-Subban
 
Team_Spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 20,466
vCash: 700
Any news?

Team_Spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 03:06 PM
  #408
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Even when people are proven wrong in their stances, you still can't drop it.

The bridge deal was an excellent managerial decision. It saved the Habs money when they were up against the cap and now with the cap scheduled to skyrocket in the next 10 years of the CBA - it will allow the to tie up Subban years into his prime at a cap friendly number. This will allow more flexibility.

As for your assertion that we are luck Subban didn't leave, poppycock. He has no mobility for three more years - were the **** can go? Plus, Subban has always asserted this is where he wants to play. This is a figment of your imagination.

Of course no need to debate with you that the bridge contract and the tough love have made Subban a better pro.
That's the only premise you cling onto. That this bridge deal allows us to lock up PK during his prime.

1- PK hasn't signed a deal yet, so who knows what he's looking for now.
2- Why wouldn't we have been able to lock him up long term had we signed him for 5 years?

Teams retain their players you know. It's not uncommon.


And of course, Norris winners win it because they get a tough love approach..
PK is a better human being now because he was signed to an undervalue deal. That totally makes sense.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 03:13 PM
  #409
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's the only premise you cling onto. That this bridge deal allows us to lock up PK during his prime.

1- PK hasn't signed a deal yet, so who knows what he's looking for now.
2- Why wouldn't we have been able to lock him up long term had we signed him for 5 years?

Teams retain their players you know. It's not uncommon.


And of course, Norris winners win it because they get a tough love approach..
PK is a better human being now because he was signed to an undervalue deal. That totally makes sense.
And you know he would sign after the 5 year deal? And that the bridge deal didn't motivate him?

His argument is just as valid and based on the same thing yours is. Opinion.

Halifaxhab* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 03:23 PM
  #410
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
How did the Habs "rip off" PK exactly? He's making almost the exact same amount of money in both scenarios and more in the current one.
We gave him a scenario way below what he was worth and said "take it or leave it"... we were fortunate he was a Hab fan growing up and he took it. That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do and if we were to do this again it could very well result in us losing the player. I didn't like it then and don't like it as a future tactic either.

Like I said, I understand the bridge contract mentality and depending on the situation, it might make sense. I actually initally supported the idea of a bridge until Subban's demands were put out there by every newsource as being in the neighbourhood of 5 x 5. At that point, there's no need for a bridge. And there certainly wasn't a need to underpay him the way we did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
These players aren't shrinking violets. They're professional athletes, getting paid millions in a business. By not bending over and giving in to a 22 y.o. is good business and the players understand. PK was so upset over it that he went on to win the Norris. Doesn't sound like someone who had lost his love of the game or felt screwed to me.

His agent tried to test a rookie GM and it didn't work. PK will get his on this contract and be a Hab for a long time. How is this a bad thing exactly?
Does it have to be one or the other? I mean seriously dude, even if I agree with you that we should always bridge players (I don't) then make the contract offers at least fair.

Yes, Subban signed. Yes we got it done. But it could have gone the other way and at one point Mackenzie felt that it was going to lead to a trade.

Ask yourself this question: Would it have been worth it to lose Subban over this? Given the choice, wouldn't you rather just pony up 5 x 5 for him? Or how about this? Stick to your guns on the bridge but give him 4 mil per year so that he doesn't sit out.

And its a stupid strawman to say that we're arguing that he might "lose his love of the game"... What we're saying is that we could've lost him instead of getting him signed. And it would've been the worst thing to happen to this team since losing Roy. And what for? So we could save an extra million on a player who was clearly worth more?

Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Even when people are proven wrong in their stances, you still can't drop it.

The bridge deal was an excellent managerial decision. It saved the Habs money when they were up against the cap and now with the cap scheduled to skyrocket in the next 10 years of the CBA - it will allow the to tie up Subban years into his prime at a cap friendly number. This will allow more flexibility.
Again, its not so much the bridge deal as it is the way we handled it. And it looks esp dumb considering the alternative was 5 x 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
As for your assertion that we are luck Subban didn't leave, poppycock. He has no mobility for three more years - were the **** can go? Plus, Subban has always asserted this is where he wants to play. This is a figment of your imagination.
BS. A player can demand a trade and force one. You know it, so does everyone else here. He can also go to arbitration if we pull that ********* offer on him again.

As for him wanting to be here... never said otherwise. That's all the more reason to have given him the 5 x 5 in the first place. He was well worth the cash, we get him at a discount in future years and he's locked up for five years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
Of course no need to debate with you that the bridge contract and the tough love have made Subban a better pro.
Zero reason to believe this given his talent and the way he'd already been improving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
That's the big concern: What's the Cap hit going to be, and how long can we hang onto PK? The bridge will end up being a smart move even at $8.5M if Subban signs long-term. But if the deal collapses because of bad will or incompatible dollar figures, Habs will have blown it big-time. Until further notice, I remain optimistic Bergevin will get it done.
By what measure? If its by the measure of total dollars spent it doesn't look bad. But if its looking at the extra cap hit over the next three years it sucks. It also doesn't factor in the way this whole thing was done.

Again I ask you, do you think this should be our strategy going forward? Do we lowball players on the bridge and say take it or leave it every time? Is that our policy now? Would you support another standoff situation with Galchenyuk or is there another way to do this?

Again, I think a bridge makes sense sometimes but to make it a policy regardless of who you're dealing with and what their demands are is silly.

And he blew it big time regardless. If he gets Subban at 8 years times 5 million, I'll praise him, if he gets him at 8 x 10, I won't. But no matter what happens on THIS deal, the way he handled the other one was dead wrong. And what happens now is entirely up to PK. If he wants short term, then he'll get it. He can go to arbitration if we want to play hardball and he'll kick our ass there. So we kind of have to play ball with him and his agent now. MB has painted himself into a corner and if he doesn't get this guy locked down he should lose his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Well, yeah. I'd guess it was Bergevin's narrative, too. It's a safe bet he only offered the bridge deal after assuring PK that he'd get his big payday immediately afterwards.

Look, this whole Subban contract thing is a mountain of guesses.
None of us know a damn thing until it's settled one way or another.
Of course it is.

But folks here are trying to pin what happens now on the last deal... "If he signs for 8 x 8 the bridge will have been a good decision..." It's not. No matter what happens here the way we handled it last time was stupid. I don't care what happens now, it is independent of what happened before. And I don't want to see what happened before happen again with future negotiations. Because not everyone grew up a Hab fan and one of these days the player is going to tell us to **** off and he'll be right to do so.

And again, people keep thinking in terms of total dollars... it doesn't matter. What matters is two things:

1. Not ****ing our players the way we did and making it a policy.
2. Having the cap space when you need it. We didn't need it then we need it going forward.

Only thing we know for sure is that we'll be paying a hell of a lot more for him in the next three years than we otherwise would've. And any chance that he'd give us a discount after five years is reduced because of how we treated him. You don't lowball the players you are looking to build with.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 01-04-2014 at 03:43 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 03:59 PM
  #411
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,688
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.
Subban can still bolt/ refuse to sign any deal he wants. Bergiven did nothing to ensure PK is here longer. Every report stated PK wanted to be signed long term. There is nothing to suggest we would have lost PK earlier if this scenario played out (No bridge deal). Instead we risked losing him forever, by lowballing him. PK's character and desire to wear the CH is the reason he's still a hab and didn't demand a trade.

People are completely underestimating how close this thing was to becoming a complete Houle like disaster. PK sat down at the last minute with his entire family to decide if getting lowballed and staying in Montreal was worth it. Fortunately for us, Bergevin and Molson, he decided that being a hab was most important.

This idea that Bergein made some masterful play to guarantee PK is here longer is BS. He risked losing him for next to nothing, no Norris at this time, no position of power if PK said trade me. We unnecessarily played chicken with a top fligt player who wanted to be ehre long term. Luckily it worked out, however, it was very close to being one of the worst blunders in habs history, in a history where there have been many. All for what?, so that we could throw 4 million a year down the ******* on Danny Briere, please, this negotiation was blatantly supid on the part of MB. There is no defending it.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:02 PM
  #412
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,020
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
If that's the case, so be it. If the cap goes up that much and the market dictates it, what's wrong with paying Subban his worth? Others will.
And yet you argue the opposite when discussing the bridge deal. Subban was worth way more than 2.875. Why didn't they pay him his worth then?

CrAzYNiNe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:02 PM
  #413
E = CH˛
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
Using a conservative estimate for interest rates, the two scenarios outlined in that chart are a wash over the 10 year time frame. More realistic assumptions favour the non-bridge deal from Molson's standpoint (speaking strictly about dollars and cents paid), not that we as fans should really care about that.

What we should care about is the window squandered by the bridge contract. Once Subban is making 8-9M/year, and especially with where the cap is heading, the two contracts are essentially equivalent (roughly a 1% difference in portion of cap space he accounts for). Obviously if you had the choice you would opt for the one that saves you $1M, but the cap will be hovering around $85M (projected) by then, if we were to use the pay scheme outlined in the chart.

The real saving was to be had between next year and 2017. Three seasons in which you'd be saving about 4% in cap space compared to the bridge scenario. I imagine the Habs are envisioning being competitive over that horizon, and an extra $3M to spend gets you some solid depth for a playoff push.

Bridge deals are mostly beneficial to teams that are already competitive. Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh... It would make a lot of sense for those teams to give a young player a bridge deal because they can use the money saved to exploit their current window while underpaying an essential player. And even then, if a longer deal could be worked out at under market value of course they should go for it. Montreal wasn't really in this situation. As it is, the extra savings they made during the 2 year bridge contract were squandered, unless they go on a deep run this year.

All that being said, when the deal was initially negotiated I was hoping for a 5-6 year contract because I expected the Habs to be competing for a championship by year 3, giving them 2-3 years to benefit from having a Norris trophy threat a low cost. I have my doubts about that now and I think at the end of the day this team won't be competing for the Cup in that imaginary window anyway. So I guess it's inconsequential.
Best post in this thread.

E = CH˛ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:05 PM
  #414
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's the only premise you cling onto. That this bridge deal allows us to lock up PK during his prime.

1- PK hasn't signed a deal yet, so who knows what he's looking for now.
2- Why wouldn't we have been able to lock him up long term had we signed him for 5 years?

Teams retain their players you know. It's not uncommon.


And of course, Norris winners win it because they get a tough love approach..
PK is a better human being now because he was signed to an undervalue deal. That totally makes sense.
Yes - the only premise I cling to is the most important aspect of asset and contract management. Let assume we are in the 7-8 year range for this deal -(all indications are that it will be a long term deal) tying up an elite player through his most productive years (27-32) to a cap friendly contract (given the 10 year CBA and expecting skyrocketing of the cap) without the elite player not having access to UFA - IS A BIG DEAL

And, the tough love contract and coaching has made him a better player and teammate. If you don't see the difference with Subban today -you are being blinded by your obtuseness.

Habnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:18 PM
  #415
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Yes - the only premise I cling to is the most important aspect of asset and contract management. Let assume we are in the 7-8 year range for this deal -(all indications are that it will be a long term deal) tying up an elite player through his most productive years (27-32) to a cap friendly contract (given the 10 year CBA and expecting skyrocketing of the cap) without the elite player not having access to UFA - IS A BIG DEAL

And, the tough love contract and coaching has made him a better player and teammate. If you don't see the difference with Subban today -you are being blinded by your obtuseness.
So the most important factor was having him for longer (which this bridge didn't do btw) but you're okay with us having risked him demanding a trade?

Again, if (for whatever reason) we absolutely HAD to have this guy do a bridge contract, what's wrong with giving him at least 4 mil? We gave 3.5 to DD. We just gave 4 mil plus to Emelin... So what's the problem with giving this guy 4 mil and try to avoid the standoff?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:18 PM
  #416
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Subban can still bolt/ refuse to sign any deal he wants. Bergiven did nothing to ensure PK is here longer. Every report stated PK wanted to be signed long term. There is nothing to suggest we would have lost PK earlier if this scenario played out (No bridge deal). Instead we risked losing him forever, by lowballing him. PK's character and desire to wear the CH is the reason he's still a hab and didn't demand a trade.

People are completely underestimating how close this thing was to becoming a complete Houle like disaster. PK sat down at the last minute with his entire family to decide if getting lowballed and staying in Montreal was worth it. Fortunately for us, Bergevin and Molson, he decided that being a hab was most important.

This idea that Bergein made some masterful play to guarantee PK is here longer is BS. He risked losing him for next to nothing, no Norris at this time, no position of power if PK said trade me. We unnecessarily played chicken with a top fligt player who wanted to be ehre long term. Luckily it worked out, however, it was very close to being one of the worst blunders in habs history, in a history where there have been many. All for what?, so that we could throw 4 million a year down the ******* on Danny Briere, please, this negotiation was blatantly supid on the part of MB. There is no defending it.
Other then I'm of the opinion we'd get reasonable return in trade, this is more or less how I feel.

What surprises me are fans who really, really want him to stay and be happy as a Hab think the way he was treated was okay.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:19 PM
  #417
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Yes - the only premise I cling to is the most important aspect of asset and contract management. Let assume we are in the 7-8 year range for this deal -(all indications are that it will be a long term deal) tying up an elite player through his most productive years (27-32) to a cap friendly contract (given the 10 year CBA and expecting skyrocketing of the cap) without the elite player not having access to UFA - IS A BIG DEAL

And, the tough love contract and coaching has made him a better player and teammate. If you don't see the difference with Subban today -you are being blinded by your obtuseness.
You've assumed everything remains positive, and that everything would be the knightmare scenario if no bridge was signed. PK wanted to be here for a long time, it's what he was negotiating for from the onset. There was no inclination whatsoever that PK would bolt. The only time we EVER risked losing PK was when we lowballed him and forced him to sit out. Looks fine now that he signed, but PK still holds the cards here. He can goto arbitration if he wants, sign a one year deal, and then another one after that. Of course it's unlikely and doomsday, because PK always wanted to remain a hab, the only time this was ever in jeopardy is when we forced him to sit out over a couple million per year in a time when we didn't need the damn money.

PK's gonna sign here, longterm, most likely, but not because of MB's master plan, but because this is always what he wanted. Except now, we'll just have to pay him more.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:20 PM
  #418
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
Other then I'm of the opinion we'd get reasonable return in trade, this is more or less how I feel.

What surprises me are fans who really, really want him to stay and be happy as a Hab think the way he was treated was okay.
Of course, we still would have gotten some value for him, but him demanding a trade vs us willingly moving him drastically reduces his value. This would of have taken plenty of leverage away from MB, all for no reason at all.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 04:21 PM
  #419
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,382
vCash: 500
How about changing the title of this thread for "Subban's contract" 'cause as of now...there's no indication that it's coming "soon".

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 05:17 PM
  #420
Lions999
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
According to Richard Labbé (La Presse):

http://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey...long-terme.php

-Should be for 6 years or more
-Probably around 8M/y
-Team doesn't want to go to arbitration (well, duh!)

Get it done!
It's only his opinion, mine 8 yrs at 7.5

Lions999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 05:21 PM
  #421
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We gave him a scenario way below what he was worth and said "take it or leave it"... we were fortunate he was a Hab fan growing up and he took it. That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do and if we were to do this again it could very well result in us losing the player. I didn't like it then and don't like it as a future tactic either.

Like I said, I understand the bridge contract mentality and depending on the situation, it might make sense. I actually initally supported the idea of a bridge until Subban's demands were put out there by every newsource as being in the neighbourhood of 5 x 5. At that point, there's no need for a bridge. And there certainly wasn't a need to underpay him the way we did.

Does it have to be one or the other? I mean seriously dude, even if I agree with you that we should always bridge players (I don't) then make the contract offers at least fair.

Yes, Subban signed. Yes we got it done. But it could have gone the other way and at one point Mackenzie felt that it was going to lead to a trade.

Ask yourself this question: Would it have been worth it to lose Subban over this? Given the choice, wouldn't you rather just pony up 5 x 5 for him? Or how about this? Stick to your guns on the bridge but give him 4 mil per year so that he doesn't sit out.

And its a stupid strawman to say that we're arguing that he might "lose his love of the game"... What we're saying is that we could've lost him instead of getting him signed. And it would've been the worst thing to happen to this team since losing Roy. And what for? So we could save an extra million on a player who was clearly worth more?

Why?

Again, its not so much the bridge deal as it is the way we handled it. And it looks esp dumb considering the alternative was 5 x 5.

BS. A player can demand a trade and force one. You know it, so does everyone else here. He can also go to arbitration if we pull that ********* offer on him again.

As for him wanting to be here... never said otherwise. That's all the more reason to have given him the 5 x 5 in the first place. He was well worth the cash, we get him at a discount in future years and he's locked up for five years.

Zero reason to believe this given his talent and the way he'd already been improving.

By what measure? If its by the measure of total dollars spent it doesn't look bad. But if its looking at the extra cap hit over the next three years it sucks. It also doesn't factor in the way this whole thing was done.

Again I ask you, do you think this should be our strategy going forward? Do we lowball players on the bridge and say take it or leave it every time? Is that our policy now? Would you support another standoff situation with Galchenyuk or is there another way to do this?

Again, I think a bridge makes sense sometimes but to make it a policy regardless of who you're dealing with and what their demands are is silly.

And he blew it big time regardless. If he gets Subban at 8 years times 5 million, I'll praise him, if he gets him at 8 x 10, I won't. But no matter what happens on THIS deal, the way he handled the other one was dead wrong. And what happens now is entirely up to PK. If he wants short term, then he'll get it. He can go to arbitration if we want to play hardball and he'll kick our ass there. So we kind of have to play ball with him and his agent now. MB has painted himself into a corner and if he doesn't get this guy locked down he should lose his job.

Of course it is.

But folks here are trying to pin what happens now on the last deal... "If he signs for 8 x 8 the bridge will have been a good decision..." It's not. No matter what happens here the way we handled it last time was stupid. I don't care what happens now, it is independent of what happened before. And I don't want to see what happened before happen again with future negotiations. Because not everyone grew up a Hab fan and one of these days the player is going to tell us to **** off and he'll be right to do so.

And again, people keep thinking in terms of total dollars... it doesn't matter. What matters is two things:

1. Not ****ing our players the way we did and making it a policy.
2. Having the cap space when you need it. We didn't need it then we need it going forward.

Only thing we know for sure is that we'll be paying a hell of a lot more for him in the next three years than we otherwise would've. And any chance that he'd give us a discount after five years is reduced because of how we treated him. You don't lowball the players you are looking to build with.
Literally have the quotes you have attributed to me aren't mine.

The other two I stand by and don't know why you're arguing. PK will be a Hab for a long time. He's halt here and the Habs are happy to have him. What's the problem?

You mention coulda shoulda scenarios. That's business. That's negotiations. Should every team give Their players exactly what they want for fear their players will be upset? What BS is that?

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 05:30 PM
  #422
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Subban can still bolt/ refuse to sign any deal he wants. Bergiven did nothing to ensure PK is here longer. Every report stated PK wanted to be signed long term. There is nothing to suggest we would have lost PK earlier if this scenario played out (No bridge deal). Instead we risked losing him forever, by lowballing him. PK's character and desire to wear the CH is the reason he's still a hab and didn't demand a trade.

People are completely underestimating how close this thing was to becoming a complete Houle like disaster. PK sat down at the last minute with his entire family to decide if getting lowballed and staying in Montreal was worth it. Fortunately for us, Bergevin and Molson, he decided that being a hab was most important.

This idea that Bergein made some masterful play to guarantee PK is here longer is BS. He risked losing him for next to nothing, no Norris at this time, no position of power if PK said trade me. We unnecessarily played chicken with a top fligt player who wanted to be ehre long term. Luckily it worked out, however, it was very close to being one of the worst blunders in habs history, in a history where there have been many. All for what?, so that we could throw 4 million a year down the ******* on Danny Briere, please, this negotiation was blatantly supid on the part of MB. There is no defending it.
Exactly. We played a game of chicken and just because we didn't crash and burn some people think it was a good idea to play chicken. It boggles the mind.

Sorinth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 05:39 PM
  #423
samsquanch9*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,796
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's the only premise you cling onto. That this bridge deal allows us to lock up PK during his prime.

1- PK hasn't signed a deal yet, so who knows what he's looking for now.
2- Why wouldn't we have been able to lock him up long term had we signed him for 5 years?

Teams retain their players you know. It's not uncommon.


And of course, Norris winners win it because they get a tough love approach..
PK is a better human being now because he was signed to an undervalue deal. That totally makes sense.
We save money and guarantee we keep our player. You make no sense I don't even understand your argument. Why sign him to 5 for 5? At least he did have a reason (PKs prime years). Your only reason is "maybe he would've signed anyways, it's not uncommon" right suter? Well the bridge deal guaranteed it and also saved money

samsquanch9* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2014, 05:52 PM
  #424
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Of course, we still would have gotten some value for him, but him demanding a trade vs us willingly moving him drastically reduces his value. This would of have taken plenty of leverage away from MB, all for no reason at all.
Toronto and Philadelphia would pay top price in trade for him and it doesn't matter to them why Montreal screwed up in their dealings with PK.

I listen to Hockeycentral at noon a couple of times a week and it seems the only player they care about on the Habs is PK and that 'PK is their guy'. Rogers owns Sportsnet, so I feel it's safe to say that feeling goes way up the food chain.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 01:55 AM
  #425
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifaxhab View Post
And you know he would sign after the 5 year deal? And that the bridge deal didn't motivate him?

His argument is just as valid and based on the same thing yours is. Opinion.
Exactly. We don't know. But I'm not the one making claims.

Kriss E is offline   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 11:53 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.