Confirmed with Link: Armia sign with Habs (1 year, $1.85M)
- Thread starter darknife2311
- Start date
Channelcat
Unhinged user
Shoulda got him long term if possible. He's primed for a breakout imho. Love that guy.
Seriously.. what would you have done that would have been better than what Bergevin just did here? I’d love to hear it because you seem to think this is a horrible deal and I tend to think this is what the player, agent and GM wanted. Why would the player sign for more than a year if he thinks he’s worth more than his numbers suggest? At best, he’d agree to a 2 year deal to get to UFA and then we get nothing much out of him. He would never agree to longer term than 2 unless he overpaid which would make the signing look dumb since he’s unproven. With a 1 year deal, he gets to show us what he can do and then we gauge his value for the next contract. If he does really well, we give him a decent contract to buy some UFA years. If he does poorly, we give him less money or cut ties if we see no value for the future.
Still, what do you think you could have done differently?
I’ll agree that Plekanec / Gorges / Subban were dumb moves because we knew what we had in those players and the GM screwed it up with a ‘prove it’ deal. I disagree that Armia fits that mold. First, Armia wouldn’t want to sign long term because he doesn’t want to undervalue himself. Second, the Habs have no idea what he’s truly worth because he wasn’t really proving himself much in Winnipeg but seemed to have good potential. So for once, a ‘prove it’ deal makes sense for both sides. If he sucks, we aren’t stuck with him long term on a dumb deal. If he takes off, we can decide what to do next year. Either give him another prove it deal ir buy some UFA years based on what both parties deem reasonable.
Perfect! Now put yourself in Armia’s shoes. You just said he’s primed for a breakout. He agrees with you so why would he sign longer term unless he feels the contract will reflect the production he’s about to show? So if Bergevin wants to sign Armia longer term, what is a reasonable amount per year that Armia will accept and that the fanbase will accept for a guy who is unproven but is primed for a breakout?
Why must people post something this ridiculous?
Armia isn't getting 3.15, his cap is not related to the buyout caphit, stop.
There's no win situation for this GM on this board. It's pretty clear.
Sign longterm= WTF!? The guy is an unproven 4th liner!
One year deal=WTF!? The guy is gonna explode next year and break the bank!
Molson was willing to pay that for Armia, a 4th and a 7th. So why would you not ask for it?
It doesn't matter, the money came out for 1 year of Armia + those low picks. If you look at the contract history under Molson there's a lot of over-payments. Agents know it, this is no exception. At least they didn't get him on a Flynn-like contract and cut down term to a logical figure.
And I'm not saying Armia isn't worth his 1.85 share, I'm saying it's a lot of investment for 1 year of someone who's unproven from the books perspective.
Sorry but your logic is wrong.
They were able to use their cap space to acquire an asset, Armia's salary is Armia's salary it has nothing to do with Masson's salary.
And who said Armia will not be here for the next 10 years? Why is this a 1-year investment?
It is 1 year right now, anything beyond is conjecture. Well actually we're paying that buyout for 2 years right?
Not my beans to count though, so we'll see.
If the player and his agent are absolutely intransigent and insist on a 1 year deal at all costs, then sure, there's nothing to be done. But I don't really think a player with a career high of 29 points is going to turn down a longer contract. Why do I prefer contracts with term? Because you give yourself a chance to ''win.''
Just read the bolded: where's the win here? You're never getting value for your money in any of these situations. This has been a constant feature of Bergevin's tenure, starting with the Subban bridge deal, going all the way to Radulov's 1 year deal. It's risk aversion instead of payoff seeking.
admiralcadillac
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2017
- 7,493
- 6,727
Agreed. Pretty much everyone here is in agreement that the trade to acquire Armia was shrewd with the potential for a substantial payoff. Now a lot of the same people who share that opinion are happy that we only locked him up for one year? Doesn't make sense. We should be following through on the bet.
The win is that the player is signed for a reasonable contract that doesn’t handcuff the team. This isn’t a Plekanec / Subban / Gorges deal where you know what you have but fail to capitalize on a long term deal. This player is new to the organization and is primed for a breakout as most have said. If he thinks the same way as most on the board do, he’ll want more money than what the fanbase would be willing to accept as a long term deal.
Also, I believe Bergevin was the one who signed Pacioretty to his ridiculously low contract for 6 years. We basically got one of the league’s top snipers for the past 6 years at a fraction of his true value. I wish we had done the same for Subban, Gorges and Plekanec. However, when he signs Alzner, Price and Shaw to long term contracts, everyone says it’s stupid (I agree). Bergevin might just be prone to making mistakes in player evaluations and often strikes out on the type of the deal to offer based on expected future production. He’ll hit one home run for every 5 strike outs.
WG
Registered User
- Sep 9, 2008
- 1,699
- 1,498
What contract would you have been comfortable signing? Someone else proposed 5 X 3M which I thought was crazy for a guy with such a thin resume.
Dude is 25. Maybe there's more he can show us, but there's a decent chance that he is what he is. For this coming year, maybe he gives us something similar, where he scores 10-15 goals and about 30 points. Let's say he grows into a legit top 6 role partway through the year and he gets to 40-ish points. At that point you can see a medium term extension but it won't be some colossal deal, the team can argue that Armia's had one decent year. and you look at a deal something like 3 x 3 or thereabouts. And between Armia's history and the poor roster Bergevin has built
But give him a long term deal now, what if all he is is a 30 point player, then it's just another overpriced contract to a mediocre guy a la Alzner and Shawzie.
LaP
Registered User
We just gave 1.3 millions to a guy who played 20 games in career and is in the middle of his 20ies .... i don't see how giving between 2.5 and 3 millions to Armia would have been more ridiculous.
Handcuffed? Wtf are you worrying about being handcuffed for when we ought to be unloading Pacioretty and Byron for futures?
Please, explain to me how a deal like, say, 3x2.5 would ''handcuff'' the Montreal Canadiens?
It's a pathological thing for him. He's so afraid of being left holding the bag that he'll not even try to get a value signing. The Pacioretty contract seems to be the lone counter example. I guess the Shaw contract counts but...yeah that's just bad.
montreal
Go Habs Go
to me a one year is fine, no issues with it. I believe in the bridge deals because I want my players to be happy with their contracts. So a one year deal is really the best way to go here, 2 years and you risk losing him to UFA, 3 years and you have to buy a UFA year and then you might lose him at 28 to UFA. This way if he fits in well, does a good job, lock him up to a 5 year deal or so and give him a fair wage since we won't really need the cap space any time soon and you get a player that should be happy to be here since he's being paid what he feels he's earned. Granted it's not always going to work but I just don't have any issue with the 1 year deal here.
BehindTheTimes
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2018
- 7,101
- 9,378
Too risk adverse imo, you know you got a 3rd liner at least with some pretty good upside. I would have liked a 4 or 5 year deal. Now if Armia does breakout we will end having to pay market value. I like Armia enough to bet on him improving in a spot where he should get greater opportunity.
How does this work? The HF poster knows Armia will break out, but the player himself is behind the times and will allow a 4-5 year contract at a discount?
