Bergevin on bridge deals

[Agnostic]

I just had a deja vu.

All over again.

 

[Lshap]

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.

Well, we did sign Subban for ten years. Does that mean bridge + LTC is the correct recipe for every player? Obviously not. First of all - as I said - a roster is a balance between short and long-term contracts. Even if a bridge deal is desirable, it may not be possible if you have too many of them coming due in two years.

Second, Subban is an exception. No other Hab whose contract is due is close to him as a player. The quality he brings on the ice and his franchise presence off the ice make him a unique commodity, and his high-stakes negotiations reflect that. Galchenyuk's contract won't cost the Habs the same money, time or press.

To answer your question: The only mistake Bergevin could make with Galchenyuk would be an overpriced long-term contract. Signing him long-term for a discount (a real one, not a rumoured discount) is fine. A bridge deal is also fine, provided the Habs aren't stuck renegotiating five separate long-terms in two years. It's all about cap balance.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

With that comment from MB, all those who said bridge deal was the philosophy of the management, and a smart thing to do all the time look pretty stupid now.

Glad that he said it, because bridge deal was really dumb in Subban's case. And it could possibly be dumb as well for other players.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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.

Good. It should be done on a case by case basis. There shouldn't be some policy in place that you have to do a bridge. Good to see that we've learned something here.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Wait, you mean the PK bridge wasn't the precedent setting move that many claimed it to be. The if "PK does a bridge, they'll all have to do a bridge" BS isn't being discussed anymore. This was suppose to be a league wide precedent setting deal, all GM's were suppose to follow the blueprint created by MB, how could this be?

MB showed GM's what not to do. Hopefully he learned from it. I'm sure others have.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Wait, you mean the PK bridge wasn't the precedent setting move that many claimed it to be. The if "PK does a bridge, they'll all have to do a bridge" BS isn't being discussed anymore. This was suppose to be a league wide precedent setting deal, all GM's were suppose to follow the blueprint created by MB, how could this be?

MB showed GM's what not to do. Hopefully he learned from it. I'm sure others have.

To an extent, I think that's true. The Subban situation is not something anyone wants to replicate. However, I look at the situation in Columbus where Johanson wants a king's ransom. In that case, I think mgmt has no choice but to offer a bridge. I certainly support Davidson in that case.

A bridge contract can make sense sometimes and not others. Having it as a policy for everyone though? Yeah, I don't think teams will be lining up to emulate what we did with Subban. That was shortsighted.

 

[habsfanatics*]

To an extent, I think that's true. The Subban situation is not something anyone wants to replicate. However, I look at the situation in Columbus where Johanson wants a king's ransom. In that case, I think mgmt has no choice but to offer a bridge. I certainly support Davidson in that case.

A bridge contract can make sense sometimes and not others. Having it as a policy for everyone though? Yeah, I don't think teams will be lining up to emulate what we did with Subban. That was shortsighted.

I was never against bridge deals on their own, I am still not, sometimes they make sense, this wasn't one of those times. GM's won't be following anything MB did during these negotiations.

 

[Sorinth]

Well, we did sign Subban for ten years. Does that mean bridge + LTC is the correct recipe for every player? Obviously not. First of all - as I said - a roster is a balance between short and long-term contracts. Even if a bridge deal is desirable, it may not be possible if you have too many of them coming due in two years.

Second, Subban is an exception. No other Hab whose contract is due is close to him as a player. The quality he brings on the ice and his franchise presence off the ice make him a unique commodity, and his high-stakes negotiations reflect that. Galchenyuk's contract won't cost the Habs the same money, time or press.

To answer your question: The only mistake Bergevin could make with Galchenyuk would be an overpriced long-term contract. Signing him long-term for a discount (a real one, not a rumoured discount) is fine. A bridge deal is also fine, provided the Habs aren't stuck renegotiating five separate long-terms in two years. It's all about cap balance.

There were a number of reasons given for why the bridge deal was the right move (I thought most were BS). I fully expect some poster who espoused those reasons to conveniently forget them or claim they don't apply to a future long term deal and that Subban was completely different. Only time will tell.

 

[Habs100]

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.

The Bridge deals policy was a disaster from a salary cap perspective. We saved 2.5 million per year the last 2 years on PK's deal. But now we'll pay 4 million more for the next 6. We could have had him for 8 years 5 million per. Big mistake and everyone knew it at the time deep down.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

The Bridge deals policy was a disaster from a salary cap perspective. We saved 2.5 million per year the last 2 years on PK's deal. But now we'll pay 4 million more for the next 6. We could have had him for 8 years 5 million per. Big mistake and everyone knew it at the time deep down.

Many are still in denial.

 

[Kriss E]

To an extent, I think that's true. The Subban situation is not something anyone wants to replicate. However, I look at the situation in Columbus where Johanson wants a king's ransom. In that case, I think mgmt has no choice but to offer a bridge. I certainly support Davidson in that case.

A bridge contract can make sense sometimes and not others. Having it as a policy for everyone though? Yeah, I don't think teams will be lining up to emulate what we did with Subban. That was shortsighted.

I don't think GMs needed the PK situation to happen to know you're better off signing those star players to reasonable long deals right off their ELC.
This summer it's really easy to contrast the two different path. Do you prefer going through the PK route, or the McDonagh one? Answer is pretty simple.

It's good to hear Bergevin say he's not against bypassing the bridge deals if need be.

 

[ECWHSWI]

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.

there's better... people thinking that your best player signed till his mid 30 is considered backfiring

 

[ECWHSWI]

The Bridge deals policy was a disaster from a salary cap perspective. We saved 2.5 million per year the last 2 years on PK's deal. But now we'll pay 4 million more for the next 6. We could have had him for 8 years 5 million per. Big mistake and everyone knew it at the time deep down.

anything to backup your idea that PK was willing to sign for 8 years two seasons ago ??

or you're just making that up ??

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

To an extent, I think that's true. The Subban situation is not something anyone wants to replicate. However, I look at the situation in Columbus where Johanson wants a king's ransom. In that case, I think mgmt has no choice but to offer a bridge. I certainly support Davidson in that case.

A bridge contract can make sense sometimes and not others. Having it as a policy for everyone though? Yeah, I don't think teams will be lining up to emulate what we did with Subban. That was shortsighted.

Actually, Davidson apparently said they turned down a 4.5M/2yr deal. Adjusted for inflation under the new CBA, and I'd say that was a reasonable offer from Johanson's side.

 

[macavoy]

With that comment from MB, all those who said bridge deal was the philosophy of the management, and a smart thing to do all the time look pretty stupid now.

Glad that he said it, because bridge deal was really dumb in Subban's case. And it could possibly be dumb as well for other players.

I think you missed the forest for the trees because I basically read that all the upcoming players are going to get a bridge deal unless they prove they are exceptional and play out of their minds, then, we can make an exeption.

I guess, it all depends on how you look at things.

 

[habsfanatics*]

I think you missed the forest for the trees because I basically read that all the upcoming players are going to get a bridge deal unless they prove they are exceptional and play out of their minds, then, we can make an exeption.

I guess, it all depends on how you look at things.

I guess PK wasn't good enough?

 

[ECWHSWI]

I think you missed the forest for the trees because I basically read that all the upcoming players are going to get a bridge deal unless they prove they are exceptional and play out of their minds, then, we can make an exeption.

I guess, it all depends on how you look at things.

actually, since the max years on contract is now 8, it totally makes sense to try to get a bridge deal for your better players... your 3rd liners ? who cares, you'll find a new one when they'll leave... your superstar or franchise player ? unlikely... in the end, better pay more than not have any superstar on your team.

the days of signing your player till they're in their mid 30 when they're in their early 20 are over (see Richards, Carter).

 

[Miller Time]

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.

The Good: if he's being truthful, at least it means there isn't intact a "policy" to deal with this (am i wrong in vaguely remembering that during the PK bridge fiasco, management at some point stated it was indeed a policy?)

The Bad: reflects, i'd say definitively, poorly on MB's player evaluation early in his stint as GM. Hopefully the PK experience opened his eyes a bit, but that he couldn't see that PK was clearly worth the longer term deal in the 5.5M$ range that was rumoured (and validated informally by numerous sources), is a real bad sign.
PK is who we thought he was, yet MB is STILL talking about how much he "matured" in the past 2 years (stated in his press conference a few days ago... and utter nonsense since PK's on and off ice behaviour has changed little in that exact timeframe. Kid was mature beyond his years from the time we drafted him, MB just couldn't see it.

 

[VL55]

I don't get the big deal either way.

Let's say we had signed him 5M/5 Years. Just sepculation and a bit cheap if he wanted Drew Doughty Money.

That's 25M for the first 5 years. After that, he's UFA and what's the market like in three years? He might get something like 11M per year for more than 5 years at that point.

Instead we signed him for less than 6M for the forst 2 years and then 72 for the next 8 so he cost 78M for 10 years.

Vs and hypothetical 10 years cost of 25M + 55M = 80M or something similar.

What the hell foes it matter in the end? We have him for 8 more years and I doubt there is a very substantial diffefference in how much it will cost the Habs VS how much it would have cost if they'd offered a longer term deal earlier. All it affects is at what point the contract is more Cap friendly.

 

[Miller Time]

I don't get the big deal either way.

Let's say we had signed him 5M/5 Years. Just sepculation and a bit cheap if he wanted Drew Doughty Money.

That's 25M for the first 5 years. After that, he's UFA and what's the market like in three years? He might get something like 11M per year for more than 5 years at that point.

Instead we signed him for less than 6M for the forst 2 years and then 72 for the next 8 so he cost 78M for 10 years.

Vs and hypothetical 10 years cost of 25M + 55M = 80M or something similar.

What the hell foes it matter in the end? We have him for 8 more years and I doubt there is a very substantial diffefference in how much it will cost the Habs VS how much it would have cost if they'd offered a longer term deal earlier. All it affects is at what point the contract is more Cap friendly.

it's been beaten to death…

but the cap affect is, arguably, very important.

difference is having PK @ 3-4M$ less for the next 3-4 seasons… that extra 3-4M$ in cap space, over that time, would coincide with:
- MaxPac on a great cap hit throughout
- Eller on a sub-4M$ cap hit throughout
- Pleks/Markov on deals that, relatively speaking, are good value
- Gally & Galch on elc & RFA deals
- Tinordi/Beaulieu on elc & 1st RFA deals

from a cap management, talent accumulation, UFA/Trade deadline flexibility pov, the next 2-4 seasons would've been optimal time to take advantage of Timmins recent draft success & our strong nucleus of young talent.

not the end of the world either way, just a question of how effective management was, or wasn't, at maximizing the timing of their asset/contract management.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Actually, Davidson apparently said they turned down a 4.5M/2yr deal. Adjusted for inflation under the new CBA, and I'd say that was a reasonable offer from Johanson's side.

4.5 is still pretty steep. Esp when you consider that Johanson's only had one real productive year in the NHL. I think Davidson's probably also already pissed off with this agent which also doesn't help things.

If Johanson had a couple of years showing what he was made of, I'd have agreed at the 4.5 but one year? I can't say I blame Davidson. Just my opinion.

 

[VL55]

it's been beaten to death…
from a cap management, talent accumulation, UFA/Trade deadline flexibility pov, the next 2-4 seasons would've been optimal time to take advantage of Timmins recent draft success & our strong nucleus of young talent.

not the end of the world either way, just a question of how effective management was, or wasn't, at maximizing the timing of their asset/contract management.

Yeah, and 3+ years from now when Subban's Cap will be better than it otherwise would have been and we need to sign Scherbak and whoever, what do we say then?

These things even out.

 

[macavoy]

I guess PK wasn't good enough?

winner
winner
chicken
dinner

 

[habsfanatics*]

Yeah right

 

[Big Lurk]

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...

Its not about how much you pay the guy, for a team like MTL, its about how long you can have a guy at a manageable cap-hit, Imo at least. But we've been there done that all summer. Please let it go.