Confirmed with Link: PK Subban signed - 8y x 9M$ - Part II Meehan Strikes Back

[Cole Caulifield]

Don't think so. I think Subban at 9 is slightly overpaid but not a big deal. It's my borderline though.

It's like me saying Nonis caved to fan pressure to get Phaneuf signed for 7 mil. Seems ridiculous isn't it? Many people hate phaneuf in leafs land and he still got a lofty settlement(I think he's a very good player as well, not bashing him). Subban was worth about 8-8.5 and got 9.

Phaneuf's deal looked ridiculous until we saw Orpik get 5.5M ... now that was crazy.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

True we would have less in year 6+. Depends when we expect to contend for the cup the most.

As for deadline acquisitions, Vanek cost us 1.18M in cap space last year.

http://capgeek.com/canadiens/archive/?year_id=2013



Sharp is already signed to a 5.9M deal until 2017. Simmonds signed to a 4M deal until 2019.

I mentionned them because flyers and hawks are in trouble with the cap at the moment. They're 2-3M over it. And it won't get better when Toews and Kane's contracts kick in.

There's an opportunity to acquire these guys for less than they're worth IMO.

Bold: Doubtful. At 5.9 mil per the market will be fierce regardless. People won't lowball just because. Someone will bid higher and that contract and player are too attractive to play the fool with.

He's a great player and the market will be there and they will get fair price.

 

[CPrice]

IF there's one thing I've learned from the Subban Sega, it's that people don't understand financials. The comparisons to Doughty, Phaneuf, Keith, Karlsson are ludicrous and in different eras.

You can't simply compare skills/talent vs. salary.

Bridge deals, age, location (Montreal taxes), salary cap, remaining RFA years must also all be considered.

Subban got paid what he should have based on the factors above.

 

[Brainiac]

Bold: Doubtful. At 5.9 mil per the market will be fierce regardless. People won't lowball just because. Someone will bid higher and that contract and player are too attractive to play the fool with.

He's a great player and the market will be there and they will get fair price.

Agreed. In fact, I don't even understand why everybody think the Hawks will move Sharp or Hossa. They're on great contracts for the next few years and that's exactly when the Hawks need it because of Kane and Toews extensions kicking in.

Hawks will trade Bickell long before Sharp or Hossa.

 

[Habsfan18]

@renlavoietva: PK Subban will get $25.5M of his $72M contract in signing bonus. #canadiens #tvasports

 

[Andy]

Agreed. In fact, I don't even understand why everybody think the Hawks will move Sharp or Hossa. They're on great contracts for the next few years and that's exactly when the Hawks need it because of Kane and Toews extensions kicking in.

Hawks will trade Bickell long before Sharp or Hossa.

Pretty much. They're not pressed to move those guys and they will probably be coveted for another few years.

Being so close to the cup last year, I think the Hawks will try to keep what they have in tact, including the overpaid Bickell.

Look for them to try and move Versteeg and Rozsival who make a combined 4.4 million. They really don't need Versteeg.

 

[Whitesnake]

Obviously, I guess that we can give that to Bergevin. He knows PK. Knows that he wouldn't be the guy that would take offense in the process. And he knew that PK had just 1 option....to come back to Montreal. So he had no problem "treating" him the way he did as he only saw it as the only way to get him at the lowest price possible (didn't exactly worked...but maybe it did a little...) and he knew that PK would signed and would move on.

I just hope and wish that his way of doing business is not going to be exactly the same for everybody. 'Cause one day, he will probably meet somebody who won't like it and won't mind moving on....but elsewhere.

One thing is sure though. He is saying to the world that in Montreal, you will go through a bridge deal no matter who you are. Or he better be at this point even if I disagree 'cause if not, then it would be real hard to understand.....

 

[Andy]

One thing is sure though. He is saying to the world that in Montreal, you will go through a bridge deal no matter who you are. Or he better be at this point even if I disagree 'cause if not, then it would be real hard to understand.....

I don't think it will be possible in the event that the Canadiens draft a prospect who scored 80 points in his first three seasons or a prospect D who wins the Norris two times during his ELC. There are exceptions to everything. In Subban's case, I still think the bridge deal had less to with setting a precedent and cost control than to give MB time to evaluate Subban's game.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Obviously, I guess that we can give that to Bergevin. He knows PK. Knows that he wouldn't be the guy that would take offense in the process. And he knew that PK had just 1 option....to come back to Montreal. So he had no problem "treating" him the way he did as he only saw it as the only way to get him at the lowest price possible (didn't exactly worked...but maybe it did a little...) and he knew that PK would signed and would move on.

I just hope and wish that his way of doing business is not going to be exactly the same for everybody. 'Cause one day, he will probably meet somebody who won't like it and won't mind moving on....but elsewhere.

One thing is sure though. He is saying to the world that in Montreal, you will go through a bridge deal no matter who you are. Or he better be at this point even if I disagree 'cause if not, then it would be real hard to understand.....

Bold: He never said that. If galchenyuk takes 7 years at 1 mil, why would he say no?

What matters is young star players expecting big dollar and then you say the risk is high here, let's wait a bit. For guys with limited potential it may be different.

Subban played first year in AHL so had 2 years NHL experience. Someone like Galchenyuk will have 3. It always depends but yes the general idea he's giving off is we're not going to pay top dollar long term ASAP.

 

[Whitesnake]

I don't think it will be possible in the event that the Canadiens draft a prospect who scored 80 points in his first three seasons or a prospect D who wins the Norris two times during his ELC. There are exceptions to everything. In Subban's case, I still think the bridge deal had less to with setting a precedent and cost control than to give MB time to evaluate Subban's game.

Well I choose the cost control theory 'cause a Subban evaluation for me prooves a lack of proactivity and a lack of talent in evaluation. So I will choose, based on what I'm seeing from Team Bergevin, to think that it's not an evaluation problem.

Bold: He never said that. If galchenyuk takes 7 years at 1 mil, why would he say no?

What matters is young star players expecting big dollar and then you say the risk is high here, let's wait a bit. For guys with limited potential it may be different.

Subban played first year in AHL so had 2 years NHL experience. Someone like Galchenyuk will have 3. It always depends but yes the general idea he's giving off is we're not going to pay top dollar long term ASAP.

Because Galchy would NEVER take 7 years at 1 mil? Subban is as close as a surefire star that we've had for us. Safer than Pacioretty and clearly safer than Price, who happens to be a goalie and tougher to predict. Most of us knew where Subban was going. Tons of people had already penciled Subban where he is now, and the money he was given though, maybe slighly overpaid as of today. But there should never be a question about his potential. I don't see it.

Habs are going at an extremely slow pace with their prospects. We don't benefit from top 5 picks often, and when we do, Galchy, in his last year of his ELC, will probably NOT be playing at his regular position. Will probably not be put in a full situation to succeed and even if he does...that's just one season. So the scenario is clearly written so that a bridge contract will be issued. And that's for a top 3 pick. If it happens again and we pick up McDavid and he ends up scoring 80 points in his first 3 seasons...yep...a bridge contract will look awfully stupid. But can't wait for that to happen. And we all know that McDavid or Matthews or whoever....chances are it won't happen. And if it does, it won't be the norm. So what Bergevin is indeed saying is that unless you are an incredible player, even moreso than a top Norris candidate, but a McDavid of this world....you WILL get a bridge contract.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Because Galchy would NEVER take 7 years at 1 mil? Subban is as close as a surefire star that we've had for us. Safer than Pacioretty and clearly safer than Price, who happens to be a goalie and tougher to predict. Most of us knew where Subban was going. Tons of people had already penciled Subban where he is now, and the money he was given though, maybe slighly overpaid as of today. But there should never be a question about his potential. I don't see it.

Habs are going at an extremely slow pace with their prospects. We don't benefit from top 5 picks often, and when we do, Galchy, in his last year of his ELC, will probably NOT be playing at his regular position. Will probably not be put in a full situation to succeed and even if he does...that's just one season. So the scenario is clearly written so that a bridge contract will be issued. And that's for a top 3 pick. If it happens again and we pick up McDavid and he ends up scoring 80 points in his first 3 seasons...yep...a bridge contract will look awfully stupid. But can't wait for that to happen. And we all know that McDavid or Matthews or whoever....chances are it won't happen. And if it does, it won't be the norm. So what Bergevin is indeed saying is that unless you are an incredible player, even moreso than a top Norris candidate, but a McDavid of this world....you WILL get a bridge contract.

I don't disagree that bridge deal is most likely case but there's a difference between a player saying "pay me on potential" and "pay me for what I am". If Gallagher says 3.5-4.5 mil on 4-5 year deal, I'd say yes. If he says "look, I'm going to get better, I want 6 now" i'll say "prove it"

It entirely depends. I'll admit the Subban situation was weird but generally speaking I don't think it's a rule all the time. If someone takes a deal that management will say "the risk is minimal, he's easily going to earn that deal and we don't have to worry about him leaving as UFA" or wtv, then yeah I think they'd go longer term.

Historically however, the habs don't give long term deals. When we we're allowed to make 20 year deals we gave Price and Max 6 years. Subban for 8 years is groundbreaking for the organization. They aren't into long term deals foolishly, regardless of how established the player is.

 

[BaseballCoach]

One thing is sure though. He is saying to the world that in Montreal, you will go through a bridge deal no matter who you are. Or he better be at this point even if I disagree 'cause if not, then it would be real hard to understand.....

Every single player since the 2004 lockout has signed a bridge deal after his ELC. Not one player signed a 4+ year contract right after his ELC expired.

This is not a new policy for the Habs. It is simple CBA logic.

The problem in 2012 with Subban was the level that Bergevin was shooting for, not the concept of a bridge deal.

 

[Runner77]

You misspelt whiners.

You "striked" back.

 

[Runner77]

I doubt this very much.

I agree, nobody caved. It was a business-minded decision where all parties involved continued to work at attempting a deal, since it was all in their best interest to do so. Molson doesn't capriciously hand out money, nor does Bergevin take the easiest path to a deal just cause it would make his life easier. People here continuing to look for winners and losers without knowing anything about the behind-the-scenes strategies and interactions, is just a sad continuation of what we've been seeing in all of these Subban threads. Let's enjoy the end-result.

 

[417]

Every single player since the 2004 lockout has signed a bridge deal after his ELC. Not one player signed a 4+ year contract right after his ELC expired.

This is not a new policy for the Habs. It is simple CBA logic.

The problem in 2012 with Subban was the level that Bergevin was shooting for, not the concept of a bridge deal.

Question... Do you think if Bergevin had given Subban a more lucrative bridge deal in January 2013, that current negotiations would of gone more smoothly?

 

[Runner77]

We can debate the merits of the bridge deal all day, there are obviously pros and cons to any contractual approach

This particular one with Subban, while not without its share of drama, worked out pretty well for the Habs

But the purpose of the bridge deal for any team is to control the salary of players while they are RFA's... Because that's the only time teams really control that process.

Biggest issue with bridge deals is the risk a team takes when elite-type players are involved. Seems to me, teams would be better off applying a different set of rules to franchise-type players and lock them in longer term at the first opportunity, rather than putting yourself into a situation where leverage shifts in favor of a player who could be in potentially high demand as soon as his RFA years are up.

 

[highstick14*]

PK took a huge hometown discount. PK's the best defenseman in the league, while Weber is making 14M next year.

PK could've easily, EASILY, got 12M per year for 8 years.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Question... Do you think if Bergevin had given Subban a more lucrative bridge deal in January 2013, that current negotiations would of gone more smoothly?

Maybe, maybe not. But I think had the bridge deal been more fair, PK would not have held out.

 

[Whitesnake]

Every single player since the 2004 lockout has signed a bridge deal after his ELC. Not one player signed a 4+ year contract right after his ELC expired.

This is not a new policy for the Habs. It is simple CBA logic.

The problem in 2012 with Subban was the level that Bergevin was shooting for, not the concept of a bridge deal.

Well let's define bridge contract then. 'Cause I don't consider Getzlaf and Perry signing a bridge contract. A 5-year contract of 5,3 cap hit is not a bridge contract even if he ends up getting more after that. Subban got a 2-year contract at 2.8. If the bridge is synonym with "let's wait and see what you really can do"....you then issue a 2-year contract. Not a 5-year when at year 2, you could come to the conclusion that he's finally not worth it. And not at a 5,3 cap hit. And there's surely other players like that...Toews...Kane etc.

People that were against bridge contracts had no problem giving 5 years at 5M$ to PK....that sounds to me like a Perry/Getzlaf type of contract...

 

[Brainiac]

Question... Do you think if Bergevin had given Subban a more lucrative bridge deal in January 2013, that current negotiations would of gone more smoothly?

Maybe, who knows? Let's say you give Subban 4.5M on a bridge deal and you negotiate with him last summer. Would he have been willing to sign for 8x8M?

 

[BaseballCoach]

Biggest issue with bridge deals is the risk a team takes when elite-type players are involved. Seems to me, teams would be better off applying a different set of rules to franchise-type players and lock them in longer term at the first opportunity, rather than putting yourself into a situation where leverage shifts in favor of a player who could be in potentially high demand as soon as his RFA years are up.

I think rather the opposite. A 2-year bridge after an ELC expires, say for Galchenyuk whose contract will be up at 21 years old, would take him to 23, then an 8-year deal while he is still RFA for 2 more years would take him to 31, past the prime for a forward.

A five-year deal after next year (8 years would be very risky in this case since he has not proved much) would make Galchenyuk a UFA at age 26. That is a much bigger risk.

 

[oberan1]

Can't compare PK's contract to others - read below

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Ryan-Wilson/New-Contracts-For-A-New-Era/177/61616

 

[417]

Biggest issue with bridge deals is the risk a team takes when elite-type players are involved. Seems to me, team sub would be better off applying a different set of rules to franchise-type players and lock them in longer term at the first opportunity, rather than putting yourself into a situation where leverage shifts in favor of a player who could be in potentially high demand as soon as his RFA years are up.

Well the risk IMO... Is having to re-sign a franchise player right in the middle of his prime

A few years from now teams like the Sens, and Kings are going to be looking at paying guys like Karlsson and Doughty tons of money, money that's going to make the deals that Koran, Toews and subban look like bargains...

The habs are really in a great situation... They've got some of their best players locked up through the prime of their careers

 

[Runner77]

I think rather the opposite. A 2-year bridge after an ELC expires, say for Galchenyuk whose contract will be up at 21 years old, would take him to 23, then an 8-year deal while he is still RFA for 2 more years would take him to 31, past the prime for a forward.

A five-year deal after next year (8 years would be very risky in this case since he has not proved much) would make Galchenyuk a UFA at age 26. That is a much bigger risk.

Galchenyuk has not proven to be in Subban's class yet, when you compare both players (although this is in a bit of vacuum since Galchenyuk's ELC is not up yet). You lock up a Subban for 5 plus years at the first opportunity, you offer a bridge deal to anyone who has not clearly demonstrated his level of potential.

Just because Bergevin was able to muster a long-term deal with 2 years away from Subban becoming a UFA, does not mean he should be putting himself in that position with every player.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Ryan-Wilson/New-Contracts-For-A-New-Era/177/61616

I don't agree whatsoever. I skimmed through but if subban will take peanuts after his 8 years are up then I agree.

Suter got 98 mil over 13 years.

Subban got 72 over 8.

That means Subban would need to take 26/5 years to match. Will he? That's 5.2...

Weber got 110 over 14.

Subban will need to take 38/6. Will subban take 6.3333?

It's possible he does and it's possible he can command to get paid big dollar once more. The difference is the other guys have committed to a lower salary later on and Subban may or may not do the same.