PK on Bergevin: a lot of people gotta lay off of him now

[Bourne Endeavor]

My point is that you are being critical without factual basis, spinning the sequence of events to fit your fantasy scenario. How can you be critical of the process if you have none of the facts concerning the negotiations? It's useless drivel as far as I am concerned - that's what I am calling you out on.

No, I am critical of how things were handled, from the bridge deal up to arbitration. The fact it got to that point is how I can be critical. No other team had their star players take them to arbitration.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Where did I say he's angry? He just made 72m I'm sure he's ecstatic.

We didn't gain 8 years, he said from day 1 he wants to spend his whole career in Montreal. Or are you saying we can't take his word on that?

I didn't say you did say he was angry. My position was, based on his own words is that the entire lowball/disrespect argument is usless.....as he himself, not some random poster, not a TV or twitter "insider", he himself put it to rest by saying it didn't happen.

And, we did gain 8 years....it might have been 3,4,5,6, or 7, but we gained 8yrs, you know, because that was the contract he negotiated. There was no Machiavelian reasoning in there. It is a simple fact that he signed for 8yrs, so yes, we gained 8 yrs.

And, so, to argue against my position that we should be using Subban's word is to argue that I don't? Uhm, ok. Did you take a class in ridiculous counter-arguments 101?

 

[nickd767]

it seems like every time MB makes a decision everyone questions it or says its a bad move....but than half way through the season or later we all go back and say how much of a god MB is.

That being said i would have loved him to sign Subban a month ago!

 

[Megustaelhockey]

Please refrain from misquoting other users. Thanks.

 

[Lebowski]

it seems like every time MB makes a decision everyone questions it or says its a bad move....but than half way through the season or later we all go back and say how much of a god MB is.

That being said i would have loved him to sign Subban a month ago!

I for one am simply glad this is over, that PK is locked up for 8 years at a fair salary, and that we can all move on knowing our star player is with us for good.

What I find were bad moves, and will keep argue as bad moves since I think we should look at the process of the negotiations rather than isolating the end result and calling it a day. Bergevin risked a lot and made what should have been an easy settlement into a tedious trench fight that started two years ago when he shoveled that bridge contract down Subban's throat. The irony of it is that the same people calling Subban overpaid and being a nuisance to our salary cap situation later on are the same that said the bridge contract was the right move, when the two events are in direct relation.

The bottom line is that what PK says to the media should be interpreted as nothing more than sugar-coated bland statements. PK is a smart guy and he knows how to handle the medias. It would be downright moronic for him to come out and say anything that would paint Bergevin in a negative light following him being granted a 72M contract.

Plus, there's good reasons to believe Molson is actually the one that stepped in and forced Bergevin's hand in the Subban matter, but considering the lack of proofs this is nothing more than a wild guess from my part at this point...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The hyperbole on both sides drives me nuts. No, of course not, it's not "Genius" to sign your star dman. The bridge deal wasn't "Stupid". Subban was never "Screwed" nor "Disrespected".

I would say "stupid" was an appropriate way to describe how we handled the bridge negotiations. Sub 3 mil for two years and we say "take it or leave it" with a guy we're looking to build our team around?

Yeah, that was stupid.

You want to argue the merits of a bridge policy. Okay... Personally, I don't understand that logic but reasonable people can disagree. But there's absolutely no way to justify a sub 3 mil sticking position where you risk losing your best young skater in a Mexican standoff. That was ridiculous. I don't think its hyperbole at all to describe the way we handled things as being 'stupid.'

Problem on this forum though is that when you say the word 'stupid' in regards to how management handles something, some posters interpret it as if it's being said that the GM is a stupid man and will be stupid about everything. Then we hear "you're a hater" and crap like that.

Truth is after a rough start I think MB has been a pretty good GM. We've seen good moves this year and this offseason and it's great that he signed Subban (forgetting about the circumstances.) Overall, I'd say he's done a good job but I'm not going to sit here and say that our GM handled this right. Even if we assume the absolute best in this final negotiation, there's no way to justify that first move with the lowball bridge. THAT was brutal. At the very least if you're going to bridge the guy, don't do it for peanuts.

My last post on this (at least for a while) now I swear.

 

[Rozz]

I'll see your challenge and cite you the same. Where is the direct evidence it was necessary? Neither of us will ever have quantifiable proof because that information never becomes available to the public. What we do know is every other team in the last while has managed to sign their star players without arbitration. Even Doughty, who threatened to hold out on LA, eventually got a contract close to his demands. Furthermore, there is nothing to insinuate Subban was gunning for 11M, but the bridge deal prior does suggest Bergevin preferred a lower amount.

In the end, this is all just theory based on a more likely than not scenario. You are welcome to your opinion as I am mine.

As for Subban's word. Yes, because hockey players are known for their blunt honesty to the media. That's why we never hear anything about hockey cliches.

Well I just gotta point out that since a deal was finally reach in the hours after the arbitration hearing ending proved that filing for arbitration worked... as far as it set a dead line and since both sides were negotiating the hard way already this could have gone on all summer .. instead once the hearing ended both sides knew they were in the true 11th hour and had to reach a deal or have some one else dictate what each side gets .. and really that has a huge down side for both party's .. so they signed. and because it set a deadline both sides had to respect, arbitration played a fundamental role in getting this current deal done and when it got done . So as I've said before .. the proof is In the puddin'.

As far as Subban's word .. some don't believe him... in this instance I do as do other... i guess we'll have to agree to disagree si e there will never be any proof on that

 

[Agnostic]

People shouldn't be afraid to say it - Bergevin is doing a great job.

 

[68*]

People shouldn't be afraid to say it - Bergevin is doing a great job.

Yes he is. I was afraid we would lose Subban because that would mean we would lose Bergevin too. Losing either of those guys would suck so much, they are both important.

 

[Hemlor]

No, I am critical of how things were handled, from the bridge deal up to arbitration. The fact it got to that point is how I can be critical. No other team had their star players take them to arbitration.

The issue is you don't know how much was initially asked by PK. What if it was $11m AAV? How can you be critical of a process and negotiation that you know little about? The media did a poor job of being objective through the whole process so all the facts we received were biased. MB had to do what he did, and if it saved the Habs $1m AAV on the contract then it was worth it IMO

 

[Lshap]

I would say "stupid" was an appropriate way to describe how we handled the bridge negotiations. Sub 3 mil for two years and we say "take it or leave it" with a guy we're looking to build our team around?

Yeah, that was stupid.

You want to argue the merits of a bridge policy. Okay... Personally, I don't understand that logic but reasonable people can disagree. But there's absolutely no way to justify a sub 3 mil sticking position where you risk losing your best young skater in a Mexican standoff. That was ridiculous. I don't think its hyperbole at all to describe the way we handled things as being 'stupid.'

Problem on this forum though is that when you say the word 'stupid' in regards to how management handles something, some posters interpret it as if it's being said that the GM is a stupid man and will be stupid about everything. Then we hear "you're a hater" and crap like that.

Truth is after a rough start I think MB has been a pretty good GM. We've seen good moves this year and this offseason and it's great that he signed Subban (forgetting about the circumstances.) Overall, I'd say he's done a good job but I'm not going to sit here and say that our GM handled this right. Even if we assume the absolute best in this final negotiation, there's no way to justify that first move with the lowball bridge. THAT was brutal. At the very least if you're going to bridge the guy, don't do it for peanuts.

My last post on this (at least for a while) now I swear.

I doubt the bridge contract was negotiated as a stand-alone deal. Back in 2013, Bergevin almost certainly explained that the bridge was Part-One of a two-part deal, which would compensate Subban fully in 2014. Give us wiggle room now, you'll get a rich long-term contract later. Subban & Meehan agreed to less in 2013 not because they were bullied, but because they knew they would be getting more in 2014. Yeah, there was a holdout, but that was because there was seven whole days between the reboot of negotiations post-strike and the start of the season. Business as usual for Meehan.

In the end, both parties ended up happy with the result because both parties wanted the same thing -- for Subban to remain a Hab for life -- and they both agreed on a path to take them there. Every bit of evidence supports Subban being perfectly content with the bridge contract because he knew the follow-up would compensate him.

But even though I think the bridge was good on balance, it wasn't a slam dunk. We're stuck paying about $3M extra for the next three seasons than if we'd long-termed him back then. But it was a reasonable risk for Bergevin to take. We all knew Subban was terrific, but nobody expected a Norris-winning season, followed by an Olympic appearance and an amazing 2014 playoffs. Since the bridge deal, Subban became a superstar and Bergevin had to pay even more than expected to fulfill Part-Two of his negotiations. He had to pay a premium for Subban's premium performance, but I can't blame Bergevin for taking that gamble as a rookie GM in 2013.

But there's a definite plus-side to that gamble -- our cap hit will be less from 2017-on, thanks to the bridge deal, because we'll avoid renegotiating with Subban as a UFA. If $9M is the price-tag for a RFA in 2014, imagine what the price-tag will be for a UFA in 2017. Sure, Subban would still want to remain a Hab in 2017 even as a UFA, but we'd have to pay for that status, as we did now. As we've seen, there are no favours with Darth Meehan. Luckily, we now don't have to worry about UFA Subban in 2017, or any year until 20-frikkin-22, which is great.

So on balance, we lose cap space early, we gain cap space later on. Overall, I give Bergevin a passing grade for the sum total of the Subban affair.

EDIT: Lucky for me that was your very last post on the subject, because I was thisclose to caving and admitting I was totally wrong. I even wrote a few paragraphs explaining how much I learned from you in this debate and how your opinion on Subban has become a metaphor for my life. Good thing I won't have to actually post it. Thanks for giving me the last word and making people think I've won.

 

[Hemlor]

I would say "stupid" was an appropriate way to describe how we handled the bridge negotiations. Sub 3 mil for two years and we say "take it or leave it" with a guy we're looking to build our team around?

Yeah, that was stupid.

You want to argue the merits of a bridge policy. Okay... Personally, I don't understand that logic but reasonable people can disagree. But there's absolutely no way to justify a sub 3 mil sticking position where you risk losing your best young skater in a Mexican standoff. That was ridiculous. I don't think its hyperbole at all to describe the way we handled things as being 'stupid.'

Problem on this forum though is that when you say the word 'stupid' in regards to how management handles something, some posters interpret it as if it's being said that the GM is a stupid man and will be stupid about everything. Then we hear "you're a hater" and crap like that.

Truth is after a rough start I think MB has been a pretty good GM. We've seen good moves this year and this offseason and it's great that he signed Subban (forgetting about the circumstances.) Overall, I'd say he's done a good job but I'm not going to sit here and say that our GM handled this right. Even if we assume the absolute best in this final negotiation, there's no way to justify that first move with the lowball bridge. THAT was brutal. At the very least if you're going to bridge the guy, don't do it for peanuts.

My last post on this (at least for a while) now I swear.

If you do the math with the bridge contract it actually makes sense and did not cost the Habs any more money (in fact it can be argued they saved money) over PK's career. Quite simply the Habs did not know what PK was 2 years ago, and MB took a stand, a stand he is taking with all his young players up until now. It was not a lowball bridge at all, it was fair value. Would you rather have a GM that gives out long term deals to players that have not earned it? Banking on the hope the player will fulfill it?

 

[Frozenice]

If you do the math with the bridge contract it actually makes sense and did not cost the Habs any more money (in fact it can be argued they saved money) over PK's career. Quite simply the Habs did not know what PK was 2 years ago, and MB took a stand, a stand he is taking with all his young players up until now. It was not a lowball bridge at all, it was fair value. Would you rather have a GM that gives out long term deals to players that have not earned it? Banking on the hope the player will fulfill it?

I think you're confusing 'choosing to live in a fictional world' with 'taking a stand' in regards to PK's bridge contract. If you took a comparable view of what other players were worth and getting and paid PK what he was worth he should of got more then $4 million a year (we can debate how much more). Besides, if he wanted to see what he had in PK why not sign him to a 1 year deal instead?

How can you honestly argue we saved any money? Do you not think a year ago PK would of signed an extension for $7.6 to 8.0 million a year?

I certainly have different ideas of why MB did what he did then others here but there isn't much of an argument that MB should of handled this file better.

 

[Naoned]

I doubt the bridge contract was negotiated as a stand-alone deal. Back in 2013, Bergevin almost certainly explained that the bridge was Part-One of a two-part deal, which would compensate Subban fully in 2014. Give us wiggle room now, you'll get a rich long-term contract later. Subban & Meehan agreed to less in 2013 not because they were bullied, but because they knew they would be getting more in 2014. Yeah, there was a holdout, but that was because there was seven whole days between the reboot of negotiations post-strike and the start of the season. Business as usual for Meehan.

In the end, both parties ended up happy with the result because both parties wanted the same thing -- for Subban to remain a Hab for life -- and they both agreed on a path to take them there. Every bit of evidence supports Subban being perfectly content with the bridge contract because he knew the follow-up would compensate him.

But even though I think the bridge was good on balance, it wasn't a slam dunk. We're stuck paying about $3M extra for the next three seasons than if we'd long-termed him back then. But it was a reasonable risk for Bergevin to take. We all knew Subban was terrific, but nobody expected a Norris-winning season, followed by an Olympic appearance and an amazing 2014 playoffs. Since the bridge deal, Subban became a superstar and Bergevin had to pay even more than expected to fulfill Part-Two of his negotiations. He had to pay a premium for Subban's premium performance, but I can't blame Bergevin for taking that gamble as a rookie GM in 2013.

But there's a definite plus-side to that gamble -- our cap hit will be less from 2017-on, thanks to the bridge deal, because we'll avoid renegotiating with Subban as a UFA. If $9M is the price-tag for a RFA in 2014, imagine what the price-tag will be for a UFA in 2017. Sure, Subban would still want to remain a Hab in 2017 even as a UFA, but we'd have to pay for that status, as we did now. As we've seen, there are no favours with Darth Meehan. Luckily, we now don't have to worry about UFA Subban in 2017, or any year until 20-frikkin-22, which is great.

So on balance, we lose cap space early, we gain cap space later on. Overall, I give Bergevin a passing grade for the sum total of the Subban affair.

EDIT: Lucky for me that was your very last post on the subject, because I was thisclose to caving and admitting I was totally wrong. I even wrote a few paragraphs explaining how much I learned from you in this debate and how your opinion on Subban has become a metaphor for my life. Good thing I won't have to actually post it. Thanks for giving me the last word and making people think I've won.

Agreed on all accounts. And this bridge deal sets a precedent which will be useful with our other homegrown talents.

 

[Sorinth]

Agreed on all accounts. And this bridge deal sets a precedent which will be useful with our other homegrown talents.

So if Galchenyuk takes the #1 center spot this year and puts up ppg numbers you want to go through this whole process again with him?

 

[Naoned]

So if Galchenyuk takes the #1 center spot this year and puts up ppg numbers you want to go through this whole process again with him?

Do you think Ryan Johansen will make 9M$ next year?
To me, it's indeed the right thing to do. If Galchenyuk breaks out, give him Patches money for two year. Then, within two year, he'll hit the jackpot. I'm really not confortable handing a young player a mega deal, especially after one good season.
That's too much of a gamble to me.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

I doubt the bridge contract was negotiated as a stand-alone deal. Back in 2013, Bergevin almost certainly explained that the bridge was Part-One of a two-part deal, which would compensate Subban fully in 2014. Give us wiggle room now, you'll get a rich long-term contract later. Subban & Meehan agreed to less in 2013 not because they were bullied, but because they knew they would be getting more in 2014. Yeah, there was a holdout, but that was because there was seven whole days between the reboot of negotiations post-strike and the start of the season. Business as usual for Meehan.

In the end, both parties ended up happy with the result because both parties wanted the same thing -- for Subban to remain a Hab for life -- and they both agreed on a path to take them there. Every bit of evidence supports Subban being perfectly content with the bridge contract because he knew the follow-up would compensate him.

But even though I think the bridge was good on balance, it wasn't a slam dunk. We're stuck paying about $3M extra for the next three seasons than if we'd long-termed him back then. But it was a reasonable risk for Bergevin to take. We all knew Subban was terrific, but nobody expected a Norris-winning season, followed by an Olympic appearance and an amazing 2014 playoffs. Since the bridge deal, Subban became a superstar and Bergevin had to pay even more than expected to fulfill Part-Two of his negotiations. He had to pay a premium for Subban's premium performance, but I can't blame Bergevin for taking that gamble as a rookie GM in 2013.

But there's a definite plus-side to that gamble -- our cap hit will be less from 2017-on, thanks to the bridge deal, because we'll avoid renegotiating with Subban as a UFA. If $9M is the price-tag for a RFA in 2014, imagine what the price-tag will be for a UFA in 2017. Sure, Subban would still want to remain a Hab in 2017 even as a UFA, but we'd have to pay for that status, as we did now. As we've seen, there are no favours with Darth Meehan. Luckily, we now don't have to worry about UFA Subban in 2017, or any year until 20-frikkin-22, which is great.

So on balance, we lose cap space early, we gain cap space later on. Overall, I give Bergevin a passing grade for the sum total of the Subban affair.

EDIT: Lucky for me that was your very last post on the subject, because I was thisclose to caving and admitting I was totally wrong. I even wrote a few paragraphs explaining how much I learned from you in this debate and how your opinion on Subban has become a metaphor for my life. Good thing I won't have to actually post it. Thanks for giving me the last word and making people think I've won.

You sir are the Copernicus to his Subban.

So if Galchenyuk takes the #1 center spot this year and puts up ppg numbers you want to go through this whole process again with him?

Johansen is going to get a bridge deal. He had a breakout year and stepped into their #1. And if we can do it to our top pair All-star D (he had an all-star apperance by the bridge), we can easily do it to Galchenyuk

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

I doubt the bridge contract was negotiated as a stand-alone deal. ...
So on balance, we lose cap space early, we gain cap space later on. Overall, I give Bergevin a passing grade for the sum total of the Subban affair.

Mostly I agree with you, but I think that Bergevin was lucky on two counts. 1) And I have no evidence for this claim, I feel that Molson had a stabilizing effect on these negotiations. With an owner who is more hands-off or less diplomatic, MB might have had a disastrous outcome. 2) After MB let the negotiations degrade to the point that arbitration was needed, a lot of hockey players would have taken it personally and taken the 8-year option off the table, leaving just the RFA years. He is lucky that PK didn't. PK is both exceptionally mature and exceptionally enamored with his current team.

My viewpoint is somewhere between the two poles of Lshap and LGuy. As in poker, it helps to combine luck with strategy.

 

[Frozenice]

Do you think Ryan Johansen will make 9M$ next year?
To me, it's indeed the right thing to do. If Galchenyuk breaks out, give him Patches money for two year. Then, within two year, he'll hit the jackpot. I'm really not confortable handing a young player a mega deal, especially after one good season.
That's too much of a gamble to me.

If Galchenyuk's ELC numbers are similar to Pacioretty's ELC numbers you should pay him similar to what Pacioretty got. Galchenyuk already has more points in the NHL then Pacioretty did and there was a lockout in Galchenyuk's first year.

 

[Sorinth]

Do you think Ryan Johansen will make 9M$ next year?
To me, it's indeed the right thing to do. If Galchenyuk breaks out, give him Patches money for two year. Then, within two year, he'll hit the jackpot. I'm really not confortable handing a young player a mega deal, especially after one good season.
That's too much of a gamble to me.

Johansen is going to get a bridge deal. He had a breakout year and stepped into their #1. And if we can do it to our top pair All-star D (he had an all-star apperance by the bridge), we can easily do it to Galchenyuk

Johansen has already said he's been insulted by the offer, so there's a very good chance he bolts as soon as he's able, and would it surprise anyone if he demanded a trade or signed an offer sheet?

O'Reilly decided that after the bridge deal he no longer wanted that long term deal with Colorado and will now hit UFA earlier then if they had given him a long term deal in the first place and it would've have been cheaper as well.

Those are the risks you run by forcing a bridge deal. Do we want to run the risk of losing Galchenyuk at 25? Just because Subban didn't take it personally and still wanted a long term deal doesn't mean Galchenyuk would. Johansen felt like he got slapped in the face. Is that how you want Galchenyuk to feel, because Columbus is not in a good situation with Johansen even if they force him to take a bridge deal.

 

[Tuggy]

So if Galchenyuk takes the #1 center spot this year and puts up ppg numbers you want to go through this whole process again with him?

If Galchenyuk puts up a PPG next season then we are likely the best team in the East. No worries paying him if that happens.

 

[Sorinth]

Mostly I agree with you, but I think that Bergevin was lucky on two counts. 1) And I have no evidence for this claim, I feel that Molson had a stabilizing effect on these negotiations. With an owner who is more hands-off or less diplomatic, MB might have had a disastrous outcome. 2) After MB let the negotiations degrade to the point that arbitration was needed, a lot of hockey players would have taken it personally and taken the 8-year option off the table, leaving just the RFA years. He is lucky that PK didn't. PK is both exceptionally mature and exceptionally enamored with his current team.

My viewpoint is somewhere between the two poles of Lshap and LGuy. As in poker, it helps to combine luck with strategy.

Which is exactly what happened with O'Reilly in Colorado.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Johansen has already said he's been insulted by the offer, so there's a very good chance he bolts as soon as he's able, and would it surprise anyone if he demanded a trade or signed an offer sheet?

O'Reilly decided that after the bridge deal he no longer wanted that long term deal with Colorado and will now hit UFA earlier then if they had given him a long term deal in the first place and it would've have been cheaper as well.

Those are the risks you run by forcing a bridge deal. Do we want to run the risk of losing Galchenyuk at 25? Just because Subban didn't take it personally and still wanted a long term deal doesn't mean Galchenyuk would. Johansen felt like he got slapped in the face. Is that how you want Galchenyuk to feel, because Columbus is not in a good situation with Johansen even if they force him to take a bridge deal.

Johansen wanted a 4yr bridge deal. Covering only his RFA years. He also wanted massive money over that time. He was insulted that they wouldn't give him what he wanted term wise...it had nothing to do with the amount. No GM is going to give that up. He takes a bridge or much longer term, but to demand only 4 yrs and not more, only to reach UFA status and then have the ability to hold the GM over the barrel....sure, that'll happen.

And, this is not a Subban moment for Columbus. This is a player still 4 years away from UFA status, who had just had his breakout year after two really bad years. There is no reason to throw an 8 year deal at this kid. Also, any 8 year deal at this point that would be acceptable to Columbus would be very insulting to Johansen.

This is another reason why bridge deals exist.

 

[Kriss E]

But there's a definite plus-side to that gamble -- our cap hit will be less from 2017-on, thanks to the bridge deal, because we'll avoid renegotiating with Subban as a UFA. If $9M is the price-tag for a RFA in 2014, imagine what the price-tag will be for a UFA in 2017. Sure, Subban would still want to remain a Hab in 2017 even as a UFA, but we'd have to pay for that status, as we did now.

Subban's current cap % is 13. If we assume that his cap hit is 11M in 3 years time when people are expecting it to reach as high as 80m+.
If we use the same 13% and use the 11M cap hit figure, it means the cap would be at 84M.
So I think it's pretty fair to assume that PK's increase in salary would likely be more due to inflation than actual value on to the cap.

You said it, it's pretty much save money off PK until he's 28 vs save money off PK later when he's 28+.

So it comes down to what you feel are the more important years not only for PK but for the team. To me, and I've made this clear from day 1, if we're not already contending in 3 years (which would be the time PK would need to be extended), then Bergevin has failed. Our team could also be completely different. Markov will likely retire, Plekanec will be 35, Price will be 30, Max 29. Will Gallagher still have the same tenacity with three 3 more tough season in the body?
There's too many question marks with players getting older and a transition will need to occur. How will that go is completely unknown.

I would much rather focus on the current years with Price playing his best hockey now, with Max coming out of a career high goal amount, with PK just a year removed from winning the Norris. With Plek still being one of the most effective two way centers out there. Etc..
If we needed cap space to pursue players and make a push for contention, now's the time, not in 4 years.

 

[Sorinth]

Johansen wanted a 4yr bridge deal. Covering only his RFA years. He also wanted massive money over that time. He was insulted that they wouldn't give him what he wanted term wise...it had nothing to do with the amount. No GM is going to give that up. He takes a bridge or much longer term, but to demand only 4 yrs and not more, only to reach UFA status and then have the ability to hold the GM over the barrel....sure, that'll happen.

And, this is not a Subban moment for Columbus. This is a player still 4 years away from UFA status, who had just had his breakout year after two really bad years. There is no reason to throw an 8 year deal at this kid. Also, any 8 year deal at this point that would be acceptable to Columbus would be very insulting to Johansen.

This is another reason why bridge deals exist.

Actually Johansen said he wanted at least a 4 year deal, the key being at least so 4+. So this whole crap about him not wanting more then 4 years is BS. They could give him 5-6 years and actually buy some UFA years. Now they probably won't get any UFA years from him.