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
01-05-2014, 02:02 AM
  #426
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsquanch9 View Post
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
Why sign him at 5x5? Because it gives us a very cheap deal for a Norris player, and you don't have to worry about signing him, Markov, Emelin (at the time un-extended), and Eller. We also don't worry about needing cash to find a replacement for Gionta and go after pricey free agents.

The bridge deal didn't ''guarantee'' anything. If PK wants to hit the open market, then he can sign a deal now that bring him to it.

Enough of this so-called guarantee.

And again, there's a big difference between a bridge deal and having a dispute boiling onto the season.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 08:55 AM
  #427
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
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?
Far from arguing the opposite, one of the basis of the rational of the bridge contract was to pay Subban less while the cap was going down. Both comments are cap related, including keeping the guy under contract with the Habs for as long as possible.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:20 PM
  #428
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 41,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
Literally have the quotes you have attributed to me aren't mine.
Whoops, sorry. Must've happened when I was editing multiple quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
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?
What's the problem? The problem is in how we handled this. It shouldn't happen again. We handled this very badly and we were lucky this didn't turn out a lot worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsquanch9 View Post
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
The bridge deal didn't guarantee anything any more than a five year deal would've... except we guaranteed that we'll pay more over the next three years than we otherwise would've.

Not sure why folks keep thinking that a bridge somehow guarantees that a player will stay but a five year deal won't. Neither will guarantee anything from that perspective.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:25 PM
  #429
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
What's the problem? The problem is in how we handled this. It shouldn't happen again. We handled this very badly and we were lucky this didn't turn out a lot worse.
How should it have been handled according to YOU as you keep repeating the same thing over and over again? There is no "luck" there, as pointed out by shutehinside. It's business and players know that.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:27 PM
  #430
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 17,275
vCash: 500
8 yrs, 60.8M which is a 7.6M cap hit...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:39 PM
  #431
deandebean
Registered User
 
deandebean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gatineau
Country: uriname
Posts: 14,507
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.
MB did not blow it with PK. His boss asked him to fix a salary structure that was deficient and he did. By holding off, he told the rest of the rooks that the way to go with the Habs for a RFA was that way, and the only way. he did good. And it won't cost more money to the Habs if you do the average over the bridge-full contract. And that's the argument PK's agent probably told his client during the negociations; in the long-haul, nobody loses money. But MB and Geoff (he's part of the equation, as he's the one paying at the end of this all) want to put in place a system. And rightly so. As a business man, I understand that 100%.

UFAs and RFAs get different treatment regarding the contracts and it's absolutely normal. That's how the business has been built.

PK will get his 8M per and that's fine by me. Teams don't look at the money anymore; they look at the burden on the cap (percentage-wise). And PK's 8M will be about 10% of the salary cap in about 2 years from now. Which is nothing for your best player. No other talent will come close to PK in the near future. I mean, he's the most talented player this organisation has. Montreal ain't close to signing a Sidney Crosby, let's just say that.

deandebean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:51 PM
  #432
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
How should it have been handled according to YOU as you keep repeating the same thing over and over again? There is no "luck" there, as pointed out by shutehinside. It's business and players know that.
So 'if' it's a business and the players 'know' it's a business why didn't 'businessman' PK Subban sign an offer sheet because that's what a smart 'businessman' would do?

You're logic only works if PK agrees to be hosed and not behave as a businessman should.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:54 PM
  #433
bjac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
So 'if' it's a business and the players 'know' it's a business why didn't 'businessman' PK Subban sign an offer sheet because that's what a smart 'businessman' would do?

You're logic only works if PK agrees to be hosed and not behave as a businessman should.
Probably because he wants to play in Montreal, something that MB knows... And PK knew that he would get a huge contract if he preformed, something that MB knew... Both sides understood what they were getting into.

bjac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:55 PM
  #434
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 41,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
So 'if' it's a business and the players 'know' it's a business why didn't 'businessman' PK Subban sign an offer sheet because that's what a smart 'businessman' would do?

You're logic only works if PK agrees to be hosed and not behave as a businessman should.
Pretty much this.

Folks saying that "this is how business works" probably have never brokered a deal in their life. This was not 'business as usual', if it was there never would've been a standoff. I can't think of anyone who thinks that Subban was a sub 3 million dollar player either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjac View Post
Probably because he wants to play in Montreal, something that MB knows... And PK knew that he would get a huge contract if he preformed, something that MB knew... Both sides understood what they were getting into.
So then why the standoff?

Again, its not so much the philosophy of a bridge that I have a problem with, its how we handled this. Esp in light of the fact that he was willing to do 5 x 5, I don't see the need to have a bridge to begin with. That's not Doughty or Webber money... pretty reasonable actually. But again, if we have the bridge why did we have to be so cheap about this?

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:57 PM
  #435
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
So 'if' it's a business and the players 'know' it's a business why didn't 'businessman' PK Subban sign an offer sheet because that's what a smart 'businessman' would do?

You're logic only works if PK agrees to be hosed and not behave as a businessman should.
A few of you claim that Subban got hosed and could have been (or should be) pissed off. Speculations at best but yet, that's the entire foundation of your argument. Far, far from a solid base.

But I really want to hear from LG about what HE would have handled the situation that was, in his opinion, so mishandled, as he keeps on saying that.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 12:59 PM
  #436
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Pretty much this.

Folks saying that "this is how business works" probably have never brokered a deal in their life. This was not 'business as usual', if it was there never would've been a standoff. I can't think of anyone who thinks that Subban was a sub 3 million dollar player either.

So then why the standoff?
Really? Explain to me the last 3 lockouts. I'm curious...

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 01:02 PM
  #437
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 41,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
MB did not blow it with PK. His boss asked him to fix a salary structure that was deficient and he did. By holding off, he told the rest of the rooks that the way to go with the Habs for a RFA was that way, and the only way.
First, this ignores the small amount we stuck to. Again, want to stick to a bridge... fine.

Second, why have a bridge policy to begin with? And why not make exceptions for exceptional players. Just because we have a policy it doesn't make it right (see Gainey's 'I won't negotiate contracts during the season because it's our policy.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
he did good. And it won't cost more money to the Habs if you do the average over the bridge-full contract.
Why should we care about this though? We care about the cap and we needed the space over the next three years not the two previous...

Doesn't matter if the money comes out the same overall. Esp when we forced a standoff with our best young player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
And that's the argument PK's agent probably told his client during the negociations; in the long-haul, nobody loses money. But MB and Geoff (he's part of the equation, as he's the one paying at the end of this all) want to put in place a system. And rightly so. As a business man, I understand that 100%.

UFAs and RFAs get different treatment regarding the contracts and it's absolutely normal. That's how the business has been built.

PK will get his 8M per and that's fine by me. Teams don't look at the money anymore; they look at the burden on the cap (percentage-wise). And PK's 8M will be about 10% of the salary cap in about 2 years from now. Which is nothing for your best player. No other talent will come close to PK in the near future. I mean, he's the most talented player this organisation has. Montreal ain't close to signing a Sidney Crosby, let's just say that.
UFAs and RFAs do get different treatment. So do good players and bad players. Except in Montreal...

Look, you seem to think that the bridge is the way to go for us. I don't really agree but okay... not the worst policy in the world. I just hate the way we went about this. And yes, I think it was mangled and could've been disastrous for us.

Your theory of his agent telling him "it would be better in the long run" doesn't make sense. No agent (least of all Meehan) would encourage a player to sign for less than he's worth (bridge or not) - the only reason Subban signed it was because he was willing to be lowballed to stay a Montreal Canadien. Yes, the RFA system exists to control salaries and ensure younger players stay with their clubs for longer... but that doesn't mean that you force an offer of less than 3 mil down the throat of a player of Subban's caliber. Then he watches as DD gets four years at 3.5? Just doesn't make sense...

One thing to have a 'bridge policy' but there's no way we should insist on this AND lowball guys at the same time because it is a bad way to do business and it will eventually bite you in the ass.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 01-05-2014 at 01:08 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 01:10 PM
  #438
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Second, why have a bridge policy to begin with? And why not make exceptions for exceptional players. Just because we have a policy it doesn't make it right (see Gainey's 'I won't negotiate contracts during the season because it's our policy.)
Where do you draw the line of you don't have such policy? How good must a player be to "get the preferred treatment"? As skills and value is not a tangible asset, it's extremely difficult to draw the line. If you have a policy, you then only have to deal with dollars, making negotiations a bit easier. That's why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Why should we care about this though? We care about the cap and we needed the space over the next three years not the two previous...
You claim it wasn't needed, in retrospect hindsight being 20-20 but the fact is that the cap was going down by 6-7 million and Bergevin knew this. The time to save was then, not the future as the cap would dictate his "new" value after the bridge deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
One thing to have a 'bridge policy' but there's no way we should insist on this AND lowball guys at the same time because it is a bad way to do business and it will eventually bite you in the ass.
Here we go with the lowballing again and the speculations. Weak foundations to base an argument I tell you.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 01:33 PM
  #439
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
MB did not blow it with PK. His boss asked him to fix a salary structure that was deficient and he did. By holding off, he told the rest of the rooks that the way to go with the Habs for a RFA was that way, and the only way. he did good. And it won't cost more money to the Habs if you do the average over the bridge-full contract. And that's the argument PK's agent probably told his client during the negociations; in the long-haul, nobody loses money. But MB and Geoff (he's part of the equation, as he's the one paying at the end of this all) want to put in place a system. And rightly so. As a business man, I understand that 100%.

UFAs and RFAs get different treatment regarding the contracts and it's absolutely normal. That's how the business has been built.

PK will get his 8M per and that's fine by me. Teams don't look at the money anymore; they look at the burden on the cap (percentage-wise). And PK's 8M will be about 10% of the salary cap in about 2 years from now. Which is nothing for your best player. No other talent will come close to PK in the near future. I mean, he's the most talented player this organisation has. Montreal ain't close to signing a Sidney Crosby, let's just say that.
As a business man, don't you assess risk? Don't you look at every possible scenario and take decisions based on risk management??

So, how in the world do you come up with the conclusion that PK signed to a way under value is better?
What were the risks that PK regresses had we signed him to a 5y deal? I don't understand how anybody that followed PK's career could actually believe this guy would become complacent and halt his development, especially not to the point of regression. That's crazy.

So in the end, what's the point? Save room on the cap last year and this one? Great, except we didn't really need it.

Salary structure?? Fine, I get that. You want to tell your kids that no matter how great you are, you will have to go through the bridge deal. Okay. But that doesn't explain getting into a dispute that boils onto the season where you want to lock up your best player to a seriously under value deal.
Also, based on his UFA dealings, I have a hard time believing Bergevin has any kind of salary structure.

As well, the market is unpredictable. The cap will be going up a lot over the next couple of years. So that 8M deal everybody assumes he'll get (around 8x8) could be nothing more than a figment of their imagination. If you know that the cap will be going up big time, you think PK and his agent don't?
So maybe what he'll want after all is a shorter deal, and then hit the big jackpot. Maybe he sees MaxPac, that was eager to sign an extension and now is locked for another 5years at a cheap price, when he could easily be making about 1M (maybe even 2) more per year had he waited simply waited. Even further, imagine if MaxPac would have signed a deal setting him up in his UFA years? How much money would he get if a guy like Clarkson got that much???

This is without mentioning that at the end of the bridge deal, you also have other key players coming off their contracts, where every single one of them will get raises.

Oh, and I forgot, no matter how close, in the end, you're likely to pay more for PK. And, you don't consider the fact that you are hoping to be close to being a contender about 3 years into your tenure as a GM, and those are the years you want PK at a discount.

Finally, as a business man, you also know that the more you negotiate fairly, the more you build strong relationships. Getting into a dispute is never actually good when having to deal again with that person. Sometimes it doesn't change much, but some other times it actually does. In the end, no good really comes out of it.

How does anybody in business actually views this bridge deal like the smarter decision is a mystery to me. PK was well worth the risk.


All these so called reasons people come up with in order to justify this decision is really funny. There's only one reason why they signed him to a bridge deal, both Bergevin and Therrien said it themselves, it's because they wanted to see more from PK. They just weren't sold on him completely. As simple as that.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 01:44 PM
  #440
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
You claim it wasn't needed, in retrospect hindsight being 20-20 but the fact is that the cap was going down by 6-7 million and Bergevin knew this. The time to save was then, not the future as the cap would dictate his "new" value after the bridge deal.
It wasn't. We weren't missing cap space.
It's shortsighted. The most important time to skim off the cap is when you are entering in a contender position. That way you can throw a lot of money to UFAs and make those 1 or 2 key signings because you know you will have to overpay on the open market.
Saving cap space in a transitional year doesn't really change anything. We could have afforded PK at about 2M more.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 02:09 PM
  #441
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It wasn't. We weren't missing cap space.
It's shortsighted. The most important time to skim off the cap is when you are entering in a contender position. That way you can throw a lot of money to UFAs and make those 1 or 2 key signings because you know you will have to overpay on the open market.
Saving cap space in a transitional year doesn't really change anything. We could have afforded PK at about 2M more.
It was a transitional year in your opinion, but don't go tell that to Bergevin and his team as they edged Boston for first place in the division... unless you use the playoffs' results which then becomes... hindsight.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 02:21 PM
  #442
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
As a business man, don't you assess risk? Don't you look at every possible scenario and take decisions based on risk management??

So, how in the world do you come up with the conclusion that PK signed to a way under value is better?
What were the risks that PK regresses had we signed him to a 5y deal? I don't understand how anybody that followed PK's career could actually believe this guy would become complacent and halt his development, especially not to the point of regression. That's crazy.

So in the end, what's the point? Save room on the cap last year and this one? Great, except we didn't really need it.

Salary structure?? Fine, I get that. You want to tell your kids that no matter how great you are, you will have to go through the bridge deal. Okay. But that doesn't explain getting into a dispute that boils onto the season where you want to lock up your best player to a seriously under value deal.
Also, based on his UFA dealings, I have a hard time believing Bergevin has any kind of salary structure.

As well, the market is unpredictable. The cap will be going up a lot over the next couple of years. So that 8M deal everybody assumes he'll get (around 8x8) could be nothing more than a figment of their imagination. If you know that the cap will be going up big time, you think PK and his agent don't?
So maybe what he'll want after all is a shorter deal, and then hit the big jackpot. Maybe he sees MaxPac, that was eager to sign an extension and now is locked for another 5years at a cheap price, when he could easily be making about 1M (maybe even 2) more per year had he waited simply waited. Even further, imagine if MaxPac would have signed a deal setting him up in his UFA years? How much money would he get if a guy like Clarkson got that much???

This is without mentioning that at the end of the bridge deal, you also have other key players coming off their contracts, where every single one of them will get raises.

Oh, and I forgot, no matter how close, in the end, you're likely to pay more for PK. And, you don't consider the fact that you are hoping to be close to being a contender about 3 years into your tenure as a GM, and those are the years you want PK at a discount.

Finally, as a business man, you also know that the more you negotiate fairly, the more you build strong relationships. Getting into a dispute is never actually good when having to deal again with that person. Sometimes it doesn't change much, but some other times it actually does. In the end, no good really comes out of it.

How does anybody in business actually views this bridge deal like the smarter decision is a mystery to me. PK was well worth the risk.


All these so called reasons people come up with in order to justify this decision is really funny. There's only one reason why they signed him to a bridge deal, both Bergevin and Therrien said it themselves, it's because they wanted to see more from PK. They just weren't sold on him completely. As simple as that.
Let's just stick to the facts and forget about all your fantasy scenarios

1 - There was no risk / Subban was an RFA without even arbitration rights. He either played in Montreal or stayed home.

2 - Subban was being counselled by the best in the business - if Meehan thought that Subban was getting hosed - trust me he wouldn't of signed

3 - Cap wise, Habs save and buy - depending on term - 2-4 years of UFA status which is massive - this is indisputable

That's the net result - there rest is conjecture

Habnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 03:06 PM
  #443
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
It was a transitional year in your opinion, but don't go tell that to Bergevin and his team as they edged Boston for first place in the division... unless you use the playoffs' results which then becomes... hindsight.


New owner, new GM, new coach, new assistant coaches, a big amount of added administrative positions to surround the GM and players.

Seriously, do you just want to argue with everything I say regardless of how simple, logical and obvious it is??

Using hindsight is what you're doing btw, looking at where we finished at the end of the year.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 03:13 PM
  #444
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Let's just stick to the facts and forget about all your fantasy scenarios

1 - There was no risk / Subban was an RFA without even arbitration rights. He either played in Montreal or stayed home.

2 - Subban was being counselled by the best in the business - if Meehan thought that Subban was getting hosed - trust me he wouldn't of signed

3 - Cap wise, Habs save and buy - depending on term - 2-4 years of UFA status which is massive - this is indisputable

That's the net result - there rest is conjecture
1- By risk I meant, if signed longer, there's this risk that he might not live up to his contract. That's one of the reason that was mentioned as to why the bridge deal was good. To which I responded.

2- And yet there was a hold out. Why would that have happened if they didn't think they were being ''hosed'' down?? There was a dispute, one side caved as they had little negotiation power and every minute away from the team meant creating a rift between them and the team. I mean, you can argue for a bridge deal, I have no issues with that, but arguing PK wasn't hosed down is just stupid.

3- Actually, PK hasn't been signed yet. So this is very easily disputable. You say stick to facts, well PK remains unsigned past this year. So listen to yourself, stick to the facts.

As for the rest, I was responding to someone's else point.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 03:36 PM
  #445
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
1- By risk I meant, if signed longer, there's this risk that he might not live up to his contract. That's one of the reason that was mentioned as to why the bridge deal was good. To which I responded.
That risk is valid for any contract signed in the NHL - not relevant specifically to Subban. I do believe that MB wanted more time to evaluate PK, but not because he didn't believe his talent, but if he was a fit in his team concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
2- And yet there was a hold out. Why would that have happened if they didn't think they were being ''hosed'' down?? There was a dispute, one side caved as they had little negotiation power and every minute away from the team meant creating a rift between them and the team. I mean, you can argue for a bridge deal, I have no issues with that, but arguing PK wasn't hosed down is just stupid.
Please let's factor in the small window MB had to sign PK because of the impending lock out. He took care of Price and Patches first - probably just ran out of time.

Yet you make it sound that Subban got taken to the woodshed - believe me Meehan would not be a top agent very long if he didn't believe his client was being well treated.

Tell you what, can we agree if Subban thought he got hosed and harbored resentment he will only sign a short term deal with the Habs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
3- Actually, PK hasn't been signed yet. So this is very easily disputable. You say stick to facts, well PK remains unsigned past this year. So listen to yourself, stick to the facts.

As for the rest, I was responding to someone's else point.
If you want to delay you eat crow - sure why not.

Habnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 03:37 PM
  #446
Lozela
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
Will see how it goes with Galchenyuk and Gallagher.

Lozela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 04:35 PM
  #447
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
That risk is valid for any contract signed in the NHL - not relevant specifically to Subban. I do believe that MB wanted more time to evaluate PK, but not because he didn't believe his talent, but if he was a fit in his team concept.
Whatever the reason. Bergevin said he needed to see more from him.
But it's funny to hear people talk about PK as if he was this trouble player incapable of being a team player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Please let's factor in the small window MB had to sign PK because of the impending lock out. He took care of Price and Patches first - probably just ran out of time.

Yet you make it sound that Subban got taken to the woodshed - believe me Meehan would not be a top agent very long if he didn't believe his client was being well treated.

Tell you what, can we agree if Subban thought he got hosed and harbored resentment he will only sign a short term deal with the Habs?
He had plenty of time to get it done before the lockout. He had plenty of time to get it done after it too.

Dude, both sides held out. This isn't an opinion, that's a fact. You say you want to rely solely on facts and then speculate what Meehan (a person you know literally jack crap about) felt about the deal. Actually, you're making it seem like you've never negotiated a thing in your life.

There was a dispute, where both sides held out, and it went into the season. One point caved in. To assume all went down smooth with everybody seeing eye to eye is just flat out wrong, and innocent.

I have no idea of PK has resentment. I never hinted towards it. But he did get a below value deal, one he seemingly didn't want (considering he held out to start the year) and if you can't even admit that, then you live in a land where we don't have anything to discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
If you want to delay you eat crow - sure why not.
I have no crow to eat. You say let's just talk facts and then speculate on a contract. Can you at least follow your words?
You're also assuming we wouldn't have been able to lock PK through his prime if we didn't bridge him. Something you pulled straight out of your ass.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 05:00 PM
  #448
Pricef*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
He will be signed for 7 years at 8 mil (56 total). Book it.

Pricef* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 05:05 PM
  #449
Habsterix*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
Let's just stick to the facts and forget about all your fantasy scenarios
You're expecting too much.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 05:17 PM
  #450
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 14,062
vCash: 500
If Subban is signed for 6 million a year or less, the Bergevin defenders will be vindicated. If he signs for more than 6 million, than the Bergevin defenders should eat crow.

DAChampion 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 06:46 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.