ottawa
Avatar of the Year*
Saw that. Didn't mean to attribute it to you. I guess my attempt at a joke failed.
Wouldn't be the first time.
I saw and understood your vCash joke, I just didn't laugh case I'm broke. It's a touchy subject
Confirmed with Link: 6 more years for Gallagher
- Thread starter Clumsyhab
- Start date
I saw and understood your vCash joke, I just didn't laugh case I'm broke. It's a touchy subject
- Jun 24, 2012
- 83,875
- 151,083
We've had so many posts questioning the judgment of maim board posters. I would rather discount them completely, good or bad, and leave it for our fan base to arrive at their own conclusion -- looks like we are overwhelmingly approving of the contract and of Bergevin's gameplan and that's good enough for me.
- Jun 24, 2012
- 83,875
- 151,083
I saw and understood your vCash joke, I just didn't laugh case I'm broke. It's a touchy subject
Oops. So sorry about that. Didn't mean to touch a nerve as I don't know what happened.
My VCash joke wasn't worth the VCash I own. Even though I don't even know what VCash is for.
Scintillating10
Registered User
He's not close to UFA. Another 4 years. Risk losing incentive with long term deals.
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
- Jun 11, 2011
- 12,150
- 6
Remember all the people who were waving the bridge deal flag? How the organization's philosophy of bridge deals no matter what was great business? Remember those guys?
Well, this is the type of deal Subban SHOULD have gotten. Such a dumb rule.
Good deal.
Well, this is the type of deal Subban SHOULD have gotten. Such a dumb rule.
Good deal.
These types of deals are dangerous. When Josh Gorges was on his bridge contract at a cap hit of $1.1M (call it 1.8M today) he was a darling of the public. Viewed as a hustler who gives it his all and who is a relative bargain, allowing the team to get and pay others to improve.
Same with David Desharnais when he was playing on his own bridge contract at $850k. People thought of the little guy as an over-achiever.
Give these same guys comfortable long-term deals and not only is it possible the comfort affects their willingness to hustle every last second, but it completely changes the expectations on the player.
Personally, I don't see Gallagher as the kind of guy we needed to give a 6-year deal to. He could have had a 2 or 3-year bridge deal, and there is little risk that the next contract would break the bank.
With a 2-year bridge, I am almost 100% sure that he would continue to hustle, no matter what line he ends up on at any point in time, and I am almost as sure that the public would be virtually all in love with him throughout the two years.
Now, I am not so sure of either.
Plus there is a good chance that over the six year contract, either he gets hurt continuing to play his abrasive style, or he tones down the style, which could significantly diminish his effectiveness.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,426
- 36,748
It's a great deal. But it means 2 things. Either they just do not believe in Subban and would have never give that contract if not forced to do it or....Bergevin learned his lesson with that Subban story and didn't want to relive it again. Is there a no-trade clause in there? 'Cause while it seemed easier to ink him, Galchenyuk is the key here out of the 2. At one point, I even thought Gallagher could be the odd man out if we'd needed to add a good piece in a trade.
Anyway, the deal in itself? Very good deal. Good job Bergevin.
Anyway, the deal in itself? Very good deal. Good job Bergevin.
NyreLy
Monsieur.
Perhaps Subban was an exception to the general proposition that bridge deals are the best way for a club to manage the salary cap in an RFA/UFA world as the rules exist today. I say perhaps, because personally I did not think so. But many did, I grant you.
However, Gallagher is NOT the type of player that is so exceptional. He is no better than Price, Pacioretty, Plekanec or Markov were. And that is an understatement.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,426
- 36,748
They weren't too sure about PK. And frankly looking at him now...they probalby still aren't. But because of how dumb they were in that whole bridge stupidity, they were forced to give MUCH MUCH more to a guy they finally were and still are not too sure about.....Anyway, this whole PK mess WAS a big mistake. Yet....this Gallagher deal isn't. But then, it also shows how big the PK mistake was....
Or Gallagher's contract doesn't have anything to do with PK's contract and therefore doesn't show anything about it at all.
Can't really get why people think all players are the same and must therefore be given exactly the same kind of contract structure.
If you disagree with PK's contract, then fine (I disagree because I think we've had two years of paying him less than we would have got followed by three years paying him more than we would have under the alternative route followed by five years where he gets paid less than he would if he was hitting UFA at that point (and arguably could have had trouble retaining him at all) but Gallagher's contract doesn't say anything about how PK could or should have been dealt with.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,426
- 36,748
Ok....so all the players aren't the same? No ****. So what is the point of giving big contracts? It's because you like a player, believes in him, think the risk is worth it and think he's worth that money and the return will be great. Why did Gallagher received that contract? That's because in the end, Habs believe in him, Gallagher was fine with giving some money for years, and Habs believe Gallagher was worth it and will prove his worth. Yet....why can't it have happened for Subban? Why couldn't he received that 5M per for 6 years back then? The ONLY reason why you could say that it was not the same, is only if we choose to believe that PK ALWAYS wanted top money like he's having now, that he ALWAYS was too expensive and Bergevin HAD to wait before giving him so much money. But everything else is the same, no matter if it's PK or Gallagher. Did the Habs believed in PK? Did they thought he was worth that money even if it was rumored to be "only" 5M$ or 6M$? Did they thought he was going to prove his worth? How about you listen to Bergevin in his press conference, listen to what he said about GAllagher and replace his name by PK and try to think why the same words could not have been for PK back then? Doesn't PK play hard? Doesn't PK love Montreal and the fans? And on top of that, PK has this superior talent that Brendan wished he'd have. PK's mess WAS a mistake. That Gallagher one isn't. Let's hope he also recognises the special talent that Alex has....I have no doubt that he will now.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,049
- 5,543
Granted but Gallagher doesn't have a long history of producing at the NHL before the regression. He had half a season, so saying he'll bounce back is a huge question mark. It's quite possible that this is the best Gallagher will be offensively and he's not underachieving at all.
The worst case is he gets injured comes back and isn't the same player anymore.
Like I said at 3.75 I'd swallow my concerns and sign the deal because it's a very good cap hit. But 6 years is a big risk for the team and was far from a no-brainer.
OldCraig71
Registered User
Molson stepped in and signed Subban and Bergevin offered him 7 million and no more.I believe Bergevin wanted to trade him and the decision was not his to make.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,426
- 36,748
Possible. Scenario I just think, based on what we know which is not so much, is that they gave him the bridge contract 'cause they were REALLY not too sure about him. And wanted more time to evaluate. And that, I just totally disagree. Yep, he has his problems and mistakes, but you have to recognize a special talent when you see one. But they decided not to. And probably misjudged the pressure coming from fans and others as he thought that at the end ot his bridge, 5M$ or 6M$ per 6 years would have been enough. He totally misjudged that. Happens to the best I guess.
You make it sound like each contract represents how much the organization 'believes' in the player, but do you seriously think Bergevin believed in Gallagher more than Subban? That's plainly ridiculous. The reality is you can't give every player long-term deals, just like you can't bridge everyone. It's long-term cap management.
If Bergevin plans to make a major move in the next two years, he'll need as much cap room as possible, which means Galchenyuk may be the next bridge deal. It won't be because of a lack of belief.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,426
- 36,748
And tell me how the heck is having Subban at 9M$ in the cap great for "needing as much cap room as possible"? And yes it's all about believing.....but like I also said, based on the money figure. For 3,75 cap hit, Bergevin believes Gallagher is worthy of that money. But didn't believe Subban was worth 5M$ or 6M$ 3 years ago. And I'm extremely certain he doesn't believe Subban is worth 9M$ now. So money for beliefs, he LOVES the Gallagher deal. He's okay with the Subban one. That's my point.
And yes....giving a contract to a guy has to be build based on how much you believe in a guy. You give a guy a 1-year contract because you need to know if he deserves more. Or you believe that he only has 1 great year to give for you. When exactly do you give a long contract to a guy you don't believe in?
Subban is an exceptional case with an exceptional contract. He's a long-term franchise investment. Habs were either going to pay sooner or later -- with or without that bridge deal there were no cheap options.
My point was that Gallagher's deal is great and affordable, but Bergevin couldn't copy-paste it onto every contract even if the players agreed. There's no room for too many long-term deals, even if they're relatively good deals. Right now, Habs have $11.6M cap space next year, and we need to sign 7 or 8 players for 2015/16: Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Bournival, replace at least one of the older defensemen who'll be leaving, plus another forward. It's do-able, but we either have to rely heavily on rookies and prospects to stay within budget, or we bridge Galchenyuk to open space for a trade/UFA.
Last edited:
OldCraig71
Registered User
The decision was taken from Bergevins hands by Molson, it was as much a marketing decision as it was a hockey decision. Let's not forget that hockey is more about business than just sport. That's why it dragged on like it did, in the end Bergevin offered him 7 million and Molson gave him 9 million.
Habs76
Registered User
OldCraig71
Registered User
Not rumor according to my source, but I do realize that posting without credible links is not permitted. My source is a personal one and no I am not making it up.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,184
- 45,015
Pretty sure he's learned his lesson.
Everyone talks about how Max has a great deal and we'd have said the same if he got PK at 5 x 5. Everyone can see the Subban thing was mishandled at this point.
The man has learned from his mistakes and that's great to see. Because I know we've had GMs in the past who would've dug their heels in and clung to the whole "bridge deals are team policy" standard. Good for MB.
