Bergevin on bridge deals

[ottawahabs]

On l'antichambre tonight, when asked about how he would deal with the end of entry level contracts of the young guys, Bergevin claimed that he wasn't opposed to bypassing a bridge deal in favour of a long term deal, it just depended on the money being asked for and the situation of the player in question. Given the speculation on the subject with regards to Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Tinordi and Beaulieu's deals expiring this season, I imagine many here will find this information interesting.

Click to read more...

 

[Kriss E]

That's good news actually. Thinking every player needs to go on a bridge deal regardless of how advanced they are in their progression is not something I agreed with. Good on Bergevin, and I guess that exclude the "precedent" theory.

 

[Whitesnake]

That's good news actually. Thinking every player needs to go on a bridge deal regardless of how advanced they are in their progression is not something I agreed with. Good on Bergevin, and I guess that exclude the "precedent" theory.

Not sure I'd look at it this way. We had no problem giving PK from 5M$ to 6M$ and CLEARLY Bergevin thought it was too much money. So for me is that it only means that if the guys aren't ready to go much lower than they should, they will be "bridged". I'm still expecting a bridge for Gally and Galchy.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

That's good news actually. Thinking every player needs to go on a bridge deal regardless of how advanced they are in their progression is not something I agreed with. Good on Bergevin, and I guess that exclude the "precedent" theory.

Not sure I'd look at it this way. We had no problem giving PK from 5M$ to 6M$ and CLEARLY Bergevin thought it was too much money. So for me is that it only means that if the guys aren't ready to go much lower than they should, they will be "bridged". I'm still expecting a bridge for Gally and Galchy.

But he wasn't willing to give PK 5m? That means either he's learned from his mistakes or that he didn't think PK was worth 5m two years ago...

 

[Whitesnake]

But he wasn't willing to give PK 5m? That means either he's learned from his mistakes or that he didn't think PK was worth 5m two years ago...

I'd go with the latter. Seeing that it came to the last second for them to realize what PK was Worth now, it's not too far fetched to think that 2 years ago, they didn't think he was Worth 5M$.

P.S Is there any reasons why the "W" of any word that begins with a W always puts itself as a capital letter......New Logitech keyboard....

 

[25get]

But he wasn't willing to give PK 5m? That means either he's learned from his mistakes or that he didn't think PK was worth 5m two years ago...

Any source for PK asking for 5M x 6?
Only info I heard was that he was looking for Doughty kind of deal.

Just look at the contract he signed.
Obviously 8M X 8 was not enough for him.

To resume, 2 X 3M + 8 X 9M = 78M vs 6 X 7M + 4 X 12M = 90M...

BTW, who predicted a Norris for PK back in September 2012?
Hindsight is 20/20...

 

[Brainiac]

Called it quite a while ago. The bridge deal "policy" was aimed specifically at one player... and it backfired.

I could totally see Bergevin handing out 5-6 years deals to the Gallys. And they have shown much less than PK had at the time.

The best part is that we'll have a bunch of management apologists saying that MB is a genius or something.

 

[Pierre Dagenais]

Called it quite a while ago. The bridge deal "policy" was aimed specifically at one player... and it backfired.

I could totally see Bergevin handing out 5-6 years deals to the Gallys. And they have shown much less than PK had at the time.

The best part is that we'll have a bunch of management apologists saying that MB is a genius or something.

Eller got a bridge deal too... didn't backfire at all.

 

[Brainiac]

Eller got a bridge deal too... didn't backfire at all.

That's not the point. The point is that the argument for bridging PK was that it was a management "policy". Which means you bridge everyone, no matter what.

Quite sure Eller was happy with a bridge deal, as were Price and Patches back in the days (previous management).

The thing is, some players do show a lot during their ELC and Subban was one of these.

 

[Pierre Dagenais]

That's not the point. The point is that the argument for bridging PK was that it was a management "policy". Which means you bridge everyone, no matter what.

Quite sure Eller was happy with a bridge deal, as were Price and Patches back in the days (previous management).

The thing is, some players do show a lot during their ELC and Subban was one of these.

But it wasn't just a policy "aimed at one player". Bergevin has given bridge deals to all RFAs so far. Of course, he's not going to say that he's going to give a bridge deal to every single player, that would be stupid.

What he says publicly and what he really thinks are probably two complete different things.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

"Logic, rational post"
Answer: "THAT'S NOT THE POINT!"

 

[CrAzYNiNe]

Any source for PK asking for 5M x 6?
Only info I heard was that he was looking for Doughty kind of deal.

Just look at the contract he signed.
Obviously 8M X 8 was not enough for him.

To resume, 2 X 3M + 8 X 9M = 78M vs 6 X 7M + 4 X 12M = 90M...

BTW, who predicted a Norris for PK back in September 2012?
Hindsight is 20/20...

I did. Look at my posts prior to 2013 season.

And to note, the value you are indicating is baseless as they have no base to be compared too. Maybe 12M in X years from now is only 9% of the cap, where today 9M is 13% of the cap today. Who knows.

 

[Kriss E]

Any source for PK asking for 5M x 6?
Only info I heard was that he was looking for Doughty kind of deal.

Just look at the contract he signed.
Obviously 8M X 8 was not enough for him.

To resume, 2 X 3M + 8 X 9M = 78M vs 6 X 7M + 4 X 12M = 90M...

BTW, who predicted a Norris for PK back in September 2012?
Hindsight is 20/20...

PK asking for around 5x5M came out of the same source you heard mention Doughty money except later in negotiations. You can do a pretty quick google search and you'll find your links.
There also was about 10 links posted on previous PK threads about it. Some like to completely ignore this because it doesn't fit their narrative. So they come up with ridiculous things like ''it didn't come from PK's mouth!'' in order to ignore it. But if you have an ounce of logic and rationale in you, it's pretty obvious he was open to sign a deal around 5x5.

As for the Norris, quite a few people envisioned PK winning it. Maybe not that year, but certainly in the coming ones. Pretty much everybody also agreed PK would get a huge increase after the bridge.

You didn't need hindsight for PK. There was very little risk involved.

 

[Kriss E]

But it wasn't just a policy "aimed at one player". Bergevin has given bridge deals to all RFAs so far. Of course, he's not going to say that he's going to give a bridge deal to every single player, that would be stupid.

What he says publicly and what he really thinks are probably two complete different things.

If Gallagher has another good year and breaks the 50+pt barrier, or even better the 60 pt one, I bet Bergevin is going to offer him a 4-5 year deal. Why wouldn't he?

Bergevin signed PK to a bridge deal because he didn't know him well enough. He said so himself.

 

[habs03]

If you want to lock up a young player long term after their ELC, it has to be for the max 8 year deal. Eat up as many UFA years as possible.

Signing a player to a 5 year deal after their ELC is stupid, it eats up 1 UFA year, and the player can become a UFA at the age of 27-28.

In Subban case, rumours was one side waned a 2 yer deal and the other a 5 year deal. A really long term deal was never rumoured.

Again if you want to sign someone long term after their ELC, it has to be for the max 8 years.

 

[Sorinth]

Called it quite a while ago. The bridge deal "policy" was aimed specifically at one player... and it backfired.

I could totally see Bergevin handing out 5-6 years deals to the Gallys. And they have shown much less than PK had at the time.

The best part is that we'll have a bunch of management apologists saying that MB is a genius or something.

It's also possible that it was going to be a team policy, and that the Subban negotiations "educated" him on why a one size fit all policy isn't a good idea.

It will be interesting to see if the posters who defended the bridge deal will change their tune if one of the young guys gets a long term deal. So far none of our young guys have really earned one, though depending on the money it could still be a smart risk to take even if they haven't earned it.

 

[Lshap]

It's also possible that it was going to be a team policy, and that the Subban negotiations "educated" him on why a one size fit all policy isn't a good idea.

It will be interesting to see if the posters who defended the bridge deal will change their tune if one of the young guys gets a long term deal. So far none of our young guys have really earned one, though depending on the money it could still be a smart risk to take even if they haven't earned it.

Why would a long-term contract for player-X have any reflection on a bridge deal for player-Y? Without rehashing the up & downsides for Subban's contracts, he was a unique talent who required unique negotiations. There is no young player on our team who comes close to Subban's level of impact. Likewise, there's no valid comparison between his contract juggling and anyone else's upcoming contract. Galchenyuk's our hopeful #1C, but even he isn't anywhere near Subban.

It's a safe bet that some of our young players will get long-term contracts, provided Bergevin can sign them for a low enough amount. Also, he can't hand out bridges to everyone, since then he'd be stuck with a bunch of long-term contracts all coming due simultaneously. It's a juggling act and a bridge deal is a tool for keeping a team together within the cap. It really isn't about a bridge deal being 'good' or 'bad' -- it all depends on what the follow-up contract is after the bridge, and how the team balances its present and future payroll.

 

[Sorinth]

Why would a long-term contract for player-X have any reflection on a bridge deal for player-Y? Without rehashing the up & downsides for Subban's contracts, he was a unique talent who required unique negotiations. There is no young player on our team who comes close to Subban's level of impact. Likewise, there's no valid comparison between his contract juggling and anyone else's upcoming contract. Galchenyuk's our hopeful #1C, but even he isn't anywhere near Subban.

It's a safe bet that some of our young players will get long-term contracts, provided Bergevin can sign them for a low enough amount. Also, he can't hand out bridges to everyone, since then he'd be stuck with a bunch of long-term contracts all coming due simultaneously. It's a juggling act and a bridge deal is a tool for keeping a team together within the cap. It really isn't about a bridge deal being 'good' or 'bad' -- it all depends on what the follow-up contract is after the bridge, and how the team balances its present and future payroll.

It's not a reflection on player-y, I just get the feeling that the reasons used to justify it Subban's bridge deal will suddenly no longer apply. A common one with Subban was the bridge deal gave us 10 years instead of 5. If Galchenyuk signs a 5 year deal, will they say it's a mistake because now we have him for less years? I have my doubts.

 

[Andy]

Like I said in like the 10th edition of the Subban signing thread the bridge deal in Subban's case was never about cost or length control, it was all about getting to know the player, and that for me was a big problem considering how talented Subban was. It suggested that the team didn't do their homework. Nothing in Subban's game indicated that his development would stop any time soon.

Subban and his agent showed us how easy it is to get to FA even with a bridge deal. If the player's intention is to get to FA, he will force it. Mb and his staff underestimated Subban, forced him into an absurdly low deal and missed out on a pretty good opportunity for some real savings in a stretch where the habs will probably at their most competitive.

 

[Hackett]

Pardon my ignorance but do we have the iron clad evidence that subban was looking for 5mil at the time of the bridge deal, and how many years?

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Pardon my ignorance but do we have the iron clad evidence that subban was looking for 5mil at the time of the bridge deal, and how many years?

No, everything is speculation. Like people speculating Bergevin signed Subban to a deal because he didn't know how talented he was, when in fact, he and his crew probably knew really well how talented he was, but didn't think it was worth committing to a long-term deal at this point given the amount of money he asked for.

 

[Frozenice]

Pardon my ignorance but do we have the iron clad evidence that subban was looking for 5mil at the time of the bridge deal, and how many years?

At the time PK said he wanted to get a deal similar to what the other young stars were getting and most of them were around $5 million to $6 million on a 6 year deal, so $5 million on a 5 year deal was in the right ballpark.

 

[Andy]

At the time PK said he wanted to get a deal similar to what the other young stars were getting and most of them were around $5 million to $6 million on a 6 year deal, so $5 million on a 5 year deal was in the right ballpark.

Dreger and McKenzie also mentioned it many times on tsn 690 at the time.

 

[MrNasty]

It would have been pretty stupid of MB to sign Subban to a 5 year deal. They would have had to pay even more than the 9 million per that he is getting on this contract if they had to negotiate with him as a UFA. I much prefer signing him to the bridge and getiing 10 years out of the guy instead of 5.

 

[Brainiac]

It's also possible that it was going to be a team policy, and that the Subban negotiations "educated" him on why a one size fit all policy isn't a good idea.

Ding-ding-ding!!

You sir, apparently got the right answer! It was an educational process for everyone involved, after all.