Confirmed with Link: PK Subban signed - 8y x 9M$ - Part II Meehan Strikes Back

[Kriss E]

I think markov fired meehan.

Like six years later and Markov kept renewing to the same cap hit. I don't see the relevance.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Like six years later and Markov kept renewing to the same cap hit. I don't see the relevance.

Not very often you see a top 20-30 dman play in this league for nearly a decade without getting a raise, for all the flack Meehan gets, Markov/Meehan have been quite favorable to us.

 

[JohnLennon]

Because PK set his own value from 11M to 8M when he turns 33.
So if he were to sign a deal that gets him to 36, it's pretty darn likely he'd get a front loaded deal that would lower more.

Obviously without knowing the exact details we can't be a 100% certain but Subban valued his prime UFA years at 10.5m and is over 30 years at 8m.

After the 5 year deal he would have 3 prime years left, and 5 years of his over 30 years. It's also reasonable to assume his salary would continue to drop with age.

13
13
12
9
9
8
8
7

Seems like something that's pretty reasonable, on his prime years it's about a 5% increase per year over 3 years due to cap inflation. And then decrease at a similar rate based on age. It works out to 9.875, so not that different then his current deal. So yes I'd take 5 years at 5m and 8 years at 9.875m over 2 years at 2.875 and 8 years at 9m.

In three years, the cap will surely be higher, Subban will be in his prime, AND he will be a UFA. Subban would literally have ALL the leverage. He will not sign a contract with 9.8 AAV. Why would he sign a contract that is only front-loaded for three years and then go down to 9 in his prime at 32, 33? The price of players goes up every single year, the league is getting richer, and hence the cap will continue to rise to the point where players will demand more money. So you think that when he is 32, in seven years when the cap is undoubtedly higher, Subban will be willing to receive 9 million in his prime?

I think both of you are severely underestimating how much more expensive players can be three years from now, especially in Subban's case. If he continues playing how he is now, I think the AAV of a long-term deal for a UFA player like Subban in his prime years, when the cap is much higher three years from now, will probably be around 11M AAV.

And even if we did sign him to a huge bargain of a deal like 9.875 AAV in three years, the current contract including the bridge would still cost less money on average.

 

[Brainiac]

I think markov fired meehan.

Yes of course. But I think it had more to do with giving the job to one of his friends.

Markov called Berezin and it was probably something like:

-Hi Sergei
-Hey buddy, how you doing?
-I'm fine, I'm fine. Sergei, I wanted to ask you, do you know about the number 5.75?
-Yes of course I know about that number. One of my favorite numbers.
-Do you like fractions of that number? Like, we multiply it by 3/100?
-Yes yes, fractions of 5.75 are very nice, indeed!
-Good, I think I have a job for you my friend.

 

[Sorinth]

In three years, the cap will surely be higher, Subban will be in his prime, AND he will be a UFA. Subban would literally have ALL the leverage. He will not sign a contract with 9.8 AAV. Why would he sign a contract that is only front-loaded for three years and then go down to 9 in his prime at 32, 33? The price of players goes up every single year, the league is getting richer, and hence the cap will continue to rise to the point where players will demand more money. So you think that when he is 32, in seven years when the cap is undoubtedly higher, Subban will be willing to receive 9 million in his prime?

I just don't see the big difference between now and then. He already had a huge amount of leverage, he already was willing to go down to 8m after reaching the age of 30. If he's willing to accept 8m when he's 32 why is it so hard to believe that he'd take 9m when he's 32?

The difference between the contract he signed and a contract he would've signed in 3 years are the increased cap and that's pretty much it. His RFA years that are currently lowering his cap hit would be countered by having his 35 & 36 year old seasons.

I gave him a 5% raise per year which equates to a over a 15% raise due to the cap going up.

I think both of you are severely underestimating how much more expensive players can be three years from now, especially in Subban's case. If he continues playing how he is now, I think the AAV of a long-term deal for a UFA player like Subban in his prime years, when the cap is much higher three years from now, will probably be around 11M AAV.

And even if we did sign him to a huge bargain of a deal like 9.875 AAV in three years, the current contract including the bridge would still cost less money on average.

Except it's not for Subban's prime years, it's for 28-36 so some prime years and some aging years. His current contract already dropped from a high of 11m at 27 years old to 8m as a 31 year old. I would expect an even bigger drop going from 28 to 36.

 

[Kriss E]

In three years, the cap will surely be higher, Subban will be in his prime, AND he will be a UFA. Subban would literally have ALL the leverage. He will not sign a contract with 9.8 AAV. Why would he sign a contract that is only front-loaded for three years and then go down to 9 in his prime at 32, 33? The price of players goes up every single year, the league is getting richer, and hence the cap will continue to rise to the point where players will demand more money. So you think that when he is 32, in seven years when the cap is undoubtedly higher, Subban will be willing to receive 9 million in his prime?

I think both of you are severely underestimating how much more expensive players can be three years from now, especially in Subban's case. If he continues playing how he is now, I think the AAV of a long-term deal for a UFA player like Subban in his prime years, when the cap is much higher three years from now, will probably be around 11M AAV.

I think you might be lost a bit in the numbers.
Here's PK's deal:
7-7-11-11-10-10-8-8
So even under the current deal, the salary drops when he reaches 31. So why exactly do you think his salary wouldn't drop when he's 32-33?
By the way, 32-33 is not his prime, and if you think it is, then aren't you upset his current deal ends exactly when you feel will be his prime?? Doesn't make much sense..
Even if his cap hit increases, it's not going to go up by 5M. His 9M cap hit is never going to be a bargain.

And even if we did sign him to a huge bargain of a deal like 9.875 AAV in three years, the current contract including the bridge would still cost less money on average.

Who cares? The point is we could have had 5 years of PK at a very cheap price at the same time a bunch of our other guys enter their prime. How much he does in his entire career here is completely irrelevant. It's not our money.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Anyone know where I can find the article about subban saying he's now a montrealer or Quebecer or wtv before he got signed?

 

[ECWHSWI]

And it is a fantasy, given what we know and what you even admitted, that the years 4+ (you know, those years Bergevin isn't even signed for and where the majority of the players aren't even signed past) are not the ones we should be focusing on.

Yea, you're totally right, who cares about the next 3 years. It's just the years where most of our players are going to be most effective in their careers but who cares.
I can't wait to see player X and Y excel in 4 years, they're gonna be awesome.

hey, if it makes you happy enough to live in that fantasy of yours that it makes you laugh, good on you I guess.

fantasy year 1 : you, wanting to contend
reality, year 1 : Habs GM making more room for the youngsters, willing to take a step back, he's actually willing enough to take a step back he traded a guy who played on our top 4 for scraps and let go of the captain.

fantasy year 3 : you, wanting to contend
reality, year 3 : Plekanec, Parenteau, Bourque, Moen, Prust, Weise (that's half our forward group by the way) and Gilbert are UFA and given their age they're probably not on the team for year 3.

does it mean we should fold, rebuild, etc ? nope, not at all... but does it means that for example, year 3 is more important than year 4 ? well...

 

[ECWHSWI]

I just don't see the big difference between now and then. He already had a huge amount of leverage, he already was willing to go down to 8m after reaching the age of 30. If he's willing to accept 8m when he's 32 why is it so hard to believe that he'd take 9m when he's 32?

The difference between the contract he signed and a contract he would've signed in 3 years are the increased cap and that's pretty much it. His RFA years that are currently lowering his cap hit would be countered by having his 35 & 36 year old seasons.

I gave him a 5% raise per year which equates to a over a 15% raise due to the cap going up.



Except it's not for Subban's prime years, it's for 28-36 so some prime years and some aging years. His current contract already dropped from a high of 11m at 27 years old to 8m as a 31 year old. I would expect an even bigger drop going from 28 to 36.

so, the difference between now and in 3 years, -> when Subban is set to be UFA <- is only the cap hit increase ?

the idea that he'll have a few more good seasons under his belt doesnt count ? (maybe even another Norris or Norris contention seasons)

the fact we'd be competing with all the other teams doesnt count either ?


really ?

 

[Sorinth]

so, the difference between now and in 3 years, -> when Subban is set to be UFA <- is only the cap hit increase ?

the idea that he'll have a few more good seasons under his belt doesnt count ? (maybe even another Norris or Norris contention seasons)

the fact we'd be competing with all the other teams doesnt count either ?


really ?

So what exactly is the difference between having 4 good years and 6 good years. I already consider him a top-5 D in the NHL right now, even if he wins another Norris he'll still be in that same group of players like Keith and his 2 Norris trophies.

And we wouldn't be competing with all the other teams because we would get a deal done a year before he becomes UFA just like Chicago did with Kane, Toews, or Pittsburgh with Crosby, Malkin, and the list goes on.

 

[ECWHSWI]

So what exactly is the difference between having 4 good years and 6 good years. I already consider him a top-5 D in the NHL right now, even if he wins another Norris he'll still be in that same group of players like Keith and his 2 Norris trophies.

And we wouldn't be competing with all the other teams because we would get a deal done a year before he becomes UFA just like Chicago did with Kane, Toews, or Pittsburgh with Crosby, Malkin, and the list goes on.

you seeing him as a top 5 D doesnt make him so in the eyes of other GMs, being in contention or even winning another Norris would probably...


as for your list, have a good look at it, those who were extended this year signed for more than 9M, ALL of them...

oh, and such a D in his prime, at 27 or 28, would cost LOTS of money to wichever team wants him... and there would be about 30 teams wanting such a player...

you're kidding yourself if you think Subban as a UFA would only be worth his actual salary + cap increase.

 

[Lshap]

Who cares? The point is we could have had 5 years of PK at a very cheap price at the same time a bunch of our other guys enter their prime. How much he does in his entire career here is completely irrelevant. It's not our money.

Not quite. We could have had 3 years of PK at a cheap price. Two of those hypothetical 5 years have already been used and they were cheap -- they were his bridge deal.

And the "It's not our money" angle hasn't stopped us from writing a Tolstoy novel about every dollar of it.

 

[Lshap]

Yes of course. But I think it had more to do with giving the job to one of his friends.

Markov called Berezin and it was probably something like:

-Hi Sergei
-Hey buddy, how you doing?
-I'm fine, I'm fine. Sergei, I wanted to ask you, do you know about the number 5.75?
-Yes of course I know about that number. One of my favorite numbers.
-Do you like fractions of that number? Like, we multiply it by 3/100?
-Yes yes, fractions of 5.75 are very nice, indeed!
-Good, I think I have a job for you my friend.

I might've been nicer to you had I known your Russian was so fluent.

 

[Lshap]

Like six years later and Markov kept renewing to the same cap hit. I don't see the relevance.

Subban, like many other players, continue to hire Meehan for one reason: He's the toughest agent around, the one who will get the most money at the end of the day. His hard-ass approach has nothing to do with how much the player and team like each other -- he's strictly business.

Yet Markov fired him. Obviously, he's a different person and has different priorities than Subban, and decided he didn't want Meehan's strong-arm tactics. As I said, I don't pretend to know the details, but there was obviously a difference in approach between client and agent.

As long as Subban retains Meehan to negotiate on his behalf, his contracts will reflect Meehan's style. We saw Meehan's fingerprints on this latest one; it's reasonable to expect the same approach to the next one. Meehan will demand and get the most money possible, and it'll have absolutely nothing to do with how Subban 'feels' about the Habs.

 

[bsl]

There's no reason to assume that the Habs woukd have failed to resign Subban in four years.

DA I'm surprised at this from you. No reason to assume, but every reason to recognize the risk.

 

[bsl]

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

By going with a bridge deal instead of the 5 year deal there was a greater chance that Subban would hit UFA status earlier. Especially since we took such a hard line.

Look no further then O'Reilly in Colorado. He's likely gone after his 2 year deal is over. So they'll get 4 years from him. Had they signed him to the long term deal he originally wanted they would've had him for longer.

Your argument is valid, but not self evident. You cannot base a self evident argument on assumptions about the future, only facts that are known now.

 

[Sorinth]

you seeing him as a top 5 D doesnt make him so in the eyes of other GMs, being in contention or even winning another Norris would probably...


as for your list, have a good look at it, those who were extended this year signed for more than 9M, ALL of them...

oh, and such a D in his prime, at 27 or 28, would cost LOTS of money to wichever team wants him... and there would be about 30 teams wanting such a player...

you're kidding yourself if you think Subban as a UFA would only be worth his actual salary + cap increase.

Well he's paid like a top-5 D so at least one other GM also sees him the way I do. And your kidding yourself if you think other GMs wouldn't gladly take Subban at 9m. Not too mention what matters is how PK views himself because that's what determines his asking price.

All of them except Crosby you mean. If your going to capitalize the word ALL, at least get your facts straight. Not too mention I even suggested PK would get over 9m so he's basically in the same company as those players.

Subban wouldn't hit UFA status, we would get a deal done while he was still under contract and so couldn't talk to other teams. The threat of hitting the UFA is exactly the same as it was this year because during both negotiations Subban's leverage is being UFA in a year or two.

Subban just sold his prime UFA years, please explain why he would ask for something drastically more in a couple years time. There will be an increase because of the cap, but what else?

 

[Sorinth]

Your argument is valid, but you cannot base a self evident argument on assumptions about the future, only facts that are known now.

My post was about the risks associated with the bridge deal. The risk was Subban turning around after his bridge deal was over and not taking more than a 2 year deal just like O'Reilly did.

Going long term right away had the risk of Subban being UFA at 28, the bridge deal had the risk of him being UFA at 27.

 

[bsl]

There wasn't near the risk people are making out to be. Even Meehan, who kept a tight lid on information in the negotiation , said that they were having a problem valuing contracts in the new CBA with big name players.

PK's deal was precedent setting - he was the first player of this calibre at his position to sign a max term deal under the new CBA with a new mega TV revenue stream kicking in.

Makes it easier for the next guys but this was a unique case.

Correct. Said it many posts ago, got lost in the noise of small picture thinking.

 

[bsl]

Not very often you see a top 20-30 dman play in this league for nearly a decade without getting a raise, for all the flack Meehan gets, Markov/Meehan have been quite favorable to us.

Not very often you see a player on IR on a great salary for almost two years and keep his job, let alone get a raise.

 

[bsl]

My post was about the risks associated with the bridge deal. The risk was Subban turning around after his bridge deal was over and not taking more than a 2 year deal just like O'Reilly did.

Going long term right away had the risk of Subban being UFA at 28, the bridge deal had the risk of him being UFA at 27.

Bold above: This risk is tiny compared to the risk of allowing Subban to reach UFA at age 28 or 29. There are almost no precedents for players bolting or insisting on short term contracts after bridge deals while still RFAs. The risk to the player is enormous if they do that. You do know that right?

I cannot believe people here thinking letting Subban reach UFA was a reasonable risk.

You are forgetting the difference in power a player has as an RFA and a UFA. It is not even close. Other teams are bidding when the player is a UFA. It changes everything. You are introducing massive competition and complication into your negotiation.

That is why UFA deals for stars have the potential to be exponentially more expensive than RFA deals.

Always negotiate the long term deal as late as possible in the RFA years. Especially with the 8 year limit. That is exactly what Habs did. It was exactly the right thing to do, and it was very likely planned all along.

 

[Kriss E]

hey, if it makes you happy enough to live in that fantasy of yours that it makes you laugh, good on you I guess.

fantasy year 1 : you, wanting to contend
reality, year 1 : Habs GM making more room for the youngsters, willing to take a step back, he's actually willing enough to take a step back he traded a guy who played on our top 4 for scraps and let go of the captain.

fantasy year 3 : you, wanting to contend
reality, year 3 : Plekanec, Parenteau, Bourque, Moen, Prust, Weise (that's half our forward group by the way) and Gilbert are UFA and given their age they're probably not on the team for year 3.

does it mean we should fold, rebuild, etc ? nope, not at all... but does it means that for example, year 3 is more important than year 4 ? well...

So I'm living in a fantasy but you're saying the important years are when we only have 5 players signed to contracts. In 4 years, we have 5 players signed. So basically our entire team can be different. Also, our freaking GM isn't even signed to that point.

And I also don't see how ''wanting to contend'' is a fantasy. You don't want to contend? You're really on a roll with the stupid statements.
Stick to not wanting to contend buddy, stay in the land of mediocrity, and keep telling yourself the important times are the ones you know nothing about how your team will look like.

 

[Sorinth]

Bold above: This risk is tiny compared to the risk of allowing Subban to reach UFA at age 28 or 29. There are almost no precedents for players bolting or insisting on short term contracts after bridge deals while still RFAs. The risk to the player is enormous if they do that. You do know that right?

So Subban sitting at home for 6 games because he doesn't feel like a fair offer was made. Where he has a discussion with his family and agent about whether he had a future in Montreal represented a tiny risk? We came very close to Subban demanding a trade or signing an offersheet.

The only risk to the player is a career ending injury between his bridge deal and his UFA status. That's a pretty tiny risk.

As for precedents, I already pointed out O'Reilly. Parise got a bridge deal, and decided he didn't want to be a devil long term and so played out his remaining RFA year and left. Weber got a bridge deal, and then went looking for an offer sheet that he thought his team wouldn't match.

I cannot believe people here thinking letting Subban reach UFA was a reasonable risk.

If Subban wanted to be a UFA there was nothing we could do to stop it. Subban has stated many times he wants to be a Hab for life, and he proved him by accepting a low ball bridge deal, and proved it again by signing his current long term deal. There's no reason to think that would change had we given him a long term deal to start with.

You are forgetting the difference in power a player has as an RFA and a UFA. It is not even close. Other teams are bidding when the player is a UFA. It changes everything. You are introducing massive competition and complication into your negotiation.

That is why UFA deals for stars have the potential to be exponentially more expensive than RFA deals.

When you start negotiating an extension one year before his deal expires the power difference is pretty much the same as it is for an RFA. There are no other teams bidding on the player, it's just you. All there is is the threat of the player leaving in one year. That's the same leverage PK had during these negotiations except it was him leaving in 2 years instead of 1.

If you want a player to give up his UFA years then it doesn't matter if he's currently under contract with you or still an RFA.

Always negotiate the long term deal as late as possible in the RFA years. Especially with the 8 year limit. That is exactly what Habs did. It was exactly the right thing to do, and it was very likely planned all along.

We bought 2 RFA years so we didn't wait as late as possible to negotiate a long term deal. And if this was the plan it was a pretty stupid one because it would be better to have Subban at 5m for the next 3 years and then re-sign him to paying him 9m now and getting 2 years of savings when we didn't need those savings.

 

[Kriss E]

Not quite. We could have had 3 years of PK at a cheap price. Two of those hypothetical 5 years have already been used and they were cheap -- they were his bridge deal.

It doesn't matter. It would have amounted to 5 years vs 2 years. So we could have had PK for an additional 3 years at a cheap price, if you rather.

And the "It's not our money" angle hasn't stopped us from writing a Tolstoy novel about every dollar of it.

Every thing is related to having PK to the cheapest cap for the longest and during the most important years. How much money Molson is going to give when adding all contracts is pretty irrelevant to what's being discussed.

 

[Kriss E]

Subban, like many other players, continue to hire Meehan for one reason: He's the toughest agent around, the one who will get the most money at the end of the day. His hard-ass approach has nothing to do with how much the player and team like each other -- he's strictly business.

Yet Markov fired him. Obviously, he's a different person and has different priorities than Subban, and decided he didn't want Meehan's strong-arm tactics. As I said, I don't pretend to know the details, but there was obviously a difference in approach between client and agent.

As long as Subban retains Meehan to negotiate on his behalf, his contracts will reflect Meehan's style. We saw Meehan's fingerprints on this latest one; it's reasonable to expect the same approach to the next one. Meehan will demand and get the most money possible, and it'll have absolutely nothing to do with how Subban 'feels' about the Habs.

Dude, I know you really hate Meehan for doing his job, but if PK is open to a discount then he's going to tell it to Meehan. Just like Markov did. Just like every other player that is open to a discount does.
If PK goes into this ''I'm gonna let Donny do his thing'' then that's PK's decision, not Don Meehan.

PK is the one that decides how it all goes down, not Meehan. If PK says I absolutely do not want it to go to arbitration, then it won't go to arbitration and he'll sign whatever deal is on the table prior to it.

Stop making it sound like Meehan is this puppet master and PK has no say.