- Status
You can argue the money pad out in bridge vs no bridge deal, but the Habs got 10 years control starting in 12-13, and signing him for 4-5-6 years would have potentially put PK as a UFA afterthat contrat 4-5-6 years earlier.
Meehan is smarter than that, at 7 years the Habs would have had to pay huge dollars at the back end and the cap hit would have been around 7-7.5 mil
But Suter and Weber's contracts were not designed to be played until the end. That's why they circumvent the cap and why they have been legislated out. They will both have the option of 'retiring' around the age of 36/37 and leaving only around NHL minimum salary on the table. They may also have the opportunity of 'retiring' a la Kovalchuk and going to another league for a last big money cash in.
From a subjective stand point, bridge contract profits most of the time to the club. The idea of 'prove it' while getting pay lower than the market present a lot more risks to the players. It remains a team sport and players don't have complete control over their performance.
Two seasons go by quickly. A couple of injuries, a bad season or even half season, you don't get along with line mates, your coach or simply your team sucks as a whole during that period and your negotiation leverage on the next contract vanish along.
I am sure players and agents know this. Most of the time, players simply don't have the power to negotiate much that deal. It doesn't mean it's something they're happy with. It's always to have a 20 M contract for 4-5 years and your financial security is set vs a 5 M 2 years deal with a lot of question marks.
For sure, from an organisation stand point, it's an excellent tool to keep things under control. It has everything to do with risk management, salary control than employee motivation, development process. Those specific CBAs rules are there to help the teams, not the players.
The Habs are doing a usual management strategy: telling the world this is the way we do thing because it's within the rule book and we want our players to thrive and prove their worth. It's a nice marketing strategy to fans. The team concept, nothing above.
From players and agents, they're doing their best to keep the pay as low as possible and minimum risk. They do it with leverage based on the rules and most of the time, you can't do much against it.
It depends on who you agree with on principle. It remains a dog eats dog world where entity and individuals use anything available to get the better of any argument.
Two seasons go by quickly. A couple of injuries, a bad season or even half season, you don't get along with line mates, your coach or simply your team sucks as a whole during that period and your negotiation leverage on the next contract vanish along.
I am sure players and agents know this. Most of the time, players simply don't have the power to negotiate much that deal. It doesn't mean it's something they're happy with. It's always to have a 20 M contract for 4-5 years and your financial security is set vs a 5 M 2 years deal with a lot of question marks.
For sure, from an organisation stand point, it's an excellent tool to keep things under control. It has everything to do with risk management, salary control than employee motivation, development process. Those specific CBAs rules are there to help the teams, not the players.
The Habs are doing a usual management strategy: telling the world this is the way we do thing because it's within the rule book and we want our players to thrive and prove their worth. It's a nice marketing strategy to fans. The team concept, nothing above.
From players and agents, they're doing their best to keep the pay as low as possible and minimum risk. They do it with leverage based on the rules and most of the time, you can't do much against it.
It depends on who you agree with on principle. It remains a dog eats dog world where entity and individuals use anything available to get the better of any argument.
- Jun 24, 2012
- 83,924
- 151,222
- Jun 24, 2012
- 83,924
- 151,222
Well, not all players are represented by Meehan. See MaxPac. A player's subjective fears or conservatism can play into the equation. It's a case by case situation.
If it were up to PK, the Habs could have had control of him for 20 years.
This ''control'' argument is crap. PK wants to play his entire career here if he can.
We only have control of a player over his RFA years. That's it. If a player has it in his mind to become an UFA, then he will not sign 8 year deals.
If him becoming an UFA after a 5 year deal is what you're afraid of, negotiate the deal down to 4 years.
Locking him up to 2 years only ensured we would pay more for PK earlier. That's all it did.
He probably gets a bulk part of $ faster. For all I know, $ brings $ so he could in theory makes more $ out of it.
Yup. From what I understand (based on retweets from some of the main hockey guys out there) the contract is structured as it is in order to
- Have less salary in the first two years because it is believed escrow will be higher over that time than in the future. From year 3 on the contract structure salary-wise is what you'd normally expect to see, i.e. starts high and decreases.
- Protect against buyouts near the end of the contract, as bonus money is guaranteed (12 of the 16 million dollars due to Subban in the final 2 years is in bonus money).
That is completely irrelevant. Every player signed a bridge deal because no player (except for PK) had proved in 2-3 years that they were already very good players with the potential to be part of the elite.
I mean, are we supposed to bypass the bridge deal for Beaulieu and Tinordi? Guys that barely played in the NHL?
The bridge is completely normal. It is something you do 99% of the time. PK should have been that 1%.
Capgeek now has the details. Man, that's a whole bunch of money in bonuses.
I know the cap hit remains the same, but what does that mean, actually? Does he get a huge check at the beginning of the year and he's then paid the rest as salary?
Anyways, good for him. Probably got a 5M check yesterday. Man, the face the cashier makes at the bank when you arrive with a 5M check.
Disappearing Semin
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2012
- 1,810
- 0
I honestly thought after arbitration that he was going to UFA in 2 years and he and JT would pull a Parise-Suter.
Which would be subject to massive cap penalty if they do.
http://www.capgeek.com/faq/how-does-cap-advantage-recapture-work
Of course a lot of TO fans were drooling over a combination Subban/Stamkos/Tavares going back home. Won't happen for a bunch of reasons.
Bad team, bad management, though market. Not much fun in that. At least we do get some respect now.
And the best part: even if these top players wanted to go home, TOR can't even pay them because they are way too tight against the cap.
If anyone here think we'll have trouble with the cap, go check TOR. They have 42M commited to 8 players in 2017-18.
MB's policy will always rest on bridge contracts and didnt want that to have exceptions. It gives the young players time to adapt to the NHL and management to better asess the players worth and potential. Subban passed the test in flying colors and got rewarded.
Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 37,770
- 17,698
It probably would have been more like 6-6.5. There is a pretty good group of comparables about Subban's age that signed long term deals right out of an ELC.
Doughty got 7M x 8 years
Karlsson got 6.5 x 7
Pietroangelo got 6.5 x 7
OEL got 5.5 x 6
McDonagh got 4.7 x 6
Hedman got 4 x 5
One of the more important factors being how many UFA years that got bought in each case (every year past year 4)
Subban at 7 years probably most comparable to Karlsson or Pietroangelo at 6.5, but I would figure that he would have gotten less than that because he signed during the cap-crunch year. He probably also isn't in a position to demand as much of a premium as a player as the very top of this list either.
When its all said and done years from now, I'd guess that Karlsson, Pietroangelo and Doughty all end up taking up more cap hit than Subban over the 10 post ELC years they play, but Montreal is certainly paying a premimium on the cap over the next 4 years or so for the big benefit they got from only paying him 2.875 over the last 2 years and avoiding having Subban as a UFA in his 20s.
You and many others just don't understand the logic of the bridge contract (as a concept, not specifically the cheapskate one MB forced on PK).
The CBA does not give the players UFA status until 7 pro seasons, by and large. Until then, they are restricted, which greatly reduces their leverage because teams wishing to acquire them must also give up other assets, thus reducing the salary they might offer.
Furthermore, the very first contract after the Entry-Level Contract (ELC) comes without arbitration rights. Only an offer sheet can give the player any leverage, and as I said above, offer sheets come with dampened salaries due to the draft picks a team will have to give up to get the player, as opposed to getting an unrestricted free agent who can be signed free and clear.
In economic terms, the producer's surplus belongs to the team with RFAs, except to the extent an arbitrator might rule otherwise. However, the arbitrators are bound to use as comparables only other RFAs, so the system is pretty tight, and in the teams' favour until 7 accrued seasons (or age 27). An RFA can try to hold out, but even one who was as promising as Subban did not gain money from holding out, because the club's leverage trumped his.
A "bridge contract" is specifically designed to cover RFA years only, so that the club can get another contract negotiation with the player BEFORE he is an UNRESTRICTED free agent. So, for example, in the situation this year with PK Subban, while the UFA years loomed in the horizon and affected the negotiations regarding the later years of the deal, it was still a "monopsony" situation. In practice, only the Habs could effectively negotiate with PK; even if another team wanted to give him a contract, they would have to pay off the Habs first. Plus the Habs could match the offer, further discouraging teams from even trying this route.
Compare this with the frenzied situation that would occur if all 30 teams could negotiate with Don Meehan and PK Subban. Look at the overpayments often made on July 1st each year. Look at how guys like Scott Gomez and Wade Redden and Brad Richards and Brooks Orpik and many other non-superstars made out on July 1st, and imagine having that frenzy feeding into Don Meehan's office working their best for PK. Look at what Brad Richards got!!! Dallas liked Richards but could not hold on to him in the face of the unbelievable offers being thrown about. Now imagine if Bergevin had listened to those who said to give PK 5 years at around $5.5M two years ago. Picture the competitive pressure on Bergevin with Subban being a free agent at age 28 instead of age 33, which is when the new deal will expire. The inevitable result would have been either losing Subban, as he would be wooed by up to 30 clubs, or paying much more to hold onto him and hear him say that he always wanted to stay here.
That is where the short bridge contract reveals its worth. It keeps the situation cleaner with your 25-year-old restricted free agent.
Of course, clubs don't want to say publicly that the CBA allows them to take advantage of players under 27. So they make nice-sounding statements about how the player "has to prove himself", but it is BS. The Subban case reveals the BS, since he had already proved himself, but the club had to fib and many fans bought the fib, thus coming to the conclusion that MB was disrespecting PK.
PK said openly that he never felt that way. Don Meehan is a top agent and he was able to explain the business aspects to a smart guy like PK.
Too bad a lot of the fans can't benefit from having Don Meehan explaining things to them.
You and many others just don't understand the logic of the bridge contract (as a concept, not specifically the cheapskate one MB forced on PK).
The CBA does not give the players UFA status until 7 pro seasons, by and large. Until then, they are restricted, which greatly reduces their leverage because teams wishing to acquire them must also give up other assets, thus reducing the salary they might offer.
Furthermore, the very first contract after the Entry-Level Contract (ELC) comes without arbitration rights. Only an offer sheet can give the player any leverage, and as I said above, offer sheets come with dampened salaries due to the draft picks a team will have to give up to get the player, as opposed to getting an unrestricted free agent who can be signed free and clear.
In economic terms, the producer's surplus belongs to the team with RFAs, except to the extent an arbitrator might rule otherwise. However, the arbitrators are bound to use as comparables only other RFAs, so the system is pretty tight, and in the teams' favour until 7 accrued seasons (or age 27). An RFA can try to hold out, but even one who was as promising as Subban did not gain money from holding out, because the club's leverage trumped his.
A "bridge contract" is specifically designed to cover RFA years only, so that the club can get another contract negotiation with the player BEFORE he is an UNRESTRICTED free agent. So, for example, in the situation this year with PK Subban, while the UFA years loomed in the horizon and affected the negotiations regarding the later years of the deal, it was still a "monopsony" situation. In practice, only the Habs could effectively negotiate with PK; even if another team wanted to give him a contract, they would have to pay off the Habs first. Plus the Habs could match the offer, further discouraging teams from even trying this route.
Compare this with the frenzied situation that would occur if all 30 teams could negotiate with Don Meehan and PK Subban. Look at the overpayments often made on July 1st each year. Look at how guys like Scott Gomez and Wade Redden and Brad Richards and Brooks Orpik and many other non-superstars made out on July 1st, and imagine having that frenzy feeding into Don Meehan's office working their best for PK. Look at what Brad Richards got!!! Dallas liked Richards but could not hold on to him in the face of the unbelievable offers being thrown about. Now imagine if Bergevin had listened to those who said to give PK 5 years at around $5.5M two years ago. Picture the competitive pressure on Bergevin with Subban being a free agent at age 28 instead of age 33, which is when the new deal will expire. The inevitable result would have been either losing Subban, as he would be wooed by up to 30 clubs, or paying much more to hold onto him and hear him say that he always wanted to stay here.
That is where the short bridge contract reveals its worth. It keeps the situation cleaner with your 25-year-old restricted free agent.
Of course, clubs don't want to say publicly that the CBA allows them to take advantage of players under 27. So they make nice-sounding statements about how the player "has to prove himself", but it is BS. The Subban case reveals the BS, since he had already proved himself, but the club had to fib and many fans bought the fib, thus coming to the conclusion that MB was disrespecting PK.
PK said openly that he never felt that way. Don Meehan is a top agent and he was able to explain the business aspects to a smart guy like PK.
Too bad a lot of the fans can't benefit from having Don Meehan explaining things to them.
Coach........this post was so awesome it cured my hangover, instantly. Bravo.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Whimsical Stakes (Gr. 3) - WOODBINE RACE 8Wagers: 2Staked: $108.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Ruffian Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT AT THE BIG A - RACE 10Wagers: 3Staked: $350.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
-