Pointing the Finger at Bergevin? Part II

[Sorinth]

The funny thing is if Galchenyuk did break out big time on the wing, they would say we would be foolish to move him to center when he's doing so good as a winger.

 

[BLONG7]

Pacioretty plays better with Desharnais than Eller or Galchenyuk...DD is the best passer on the team.

This is why we can't have nice things....let me guess, you think MT is a great coach too?

 

[Mach12]

This is a worn out topic but you have to imagine if Bergy handled Subban differently, the Habs would also have more cap flexibility, which would come in handy right now. Granted, the Price and MaxPac contracts are great and help offset this, but it just goes to show how the emphasis on "character" arguably above skill is detrimental.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

This is a worn out topic but you have to imagine if Bergy handled Subban differently, the Habs would also have more cap flexibility, which would come in handy right now. Granted, the Price and MaxPac contracts are great and help offset this, but it just goes to show how the emphasis on "character" arguably above skill is detrimental.

Meh.

They'd have more cap flexibility now, and less in the future.

Subban was never going to sign long term unless he was paid similarly to what Doughty got.

And I bet when Doughtys' contract is up he'll cost more than 2+ million that the Kings currently save against Doughty/Subban.

 

[groovejuice]

This is a worn out topic but you have to imagine if Bergy handled Subban differently, the Habs would also have more cap flexibility, which would come in handy right now. Granted, the Price and MaxPac contracts are great and help offset this, but it just goes to show how the emphasis on "character" arguably above skill is detrimental.

It is detrimental when one expects character to reveal itself exactly the same in all players.

It was absolutely clear to me from PK's first game, that he had a ton of character.

 

[Lebowski]

Meh.

They'd have more cap flexibility now, and less in the future.

Subban was never going to sign long term unless he was paid similarly to what Doughty got.

And I bet when Doughtys' contract is up he'll cost more than 2+ million that the Kings currently save against Doughty/Subban.

Again with that statement, but Subban didn't have the kind of rep Doughty had when he signed his contract. Drew Doughty signed his extension in 2011 after a dominant showing at the 2010 Olympics and becoming the second youngest Norris nominee after a 59 points campaign.

PK didn't have the leverage at that point to ask for 7M a year on a similar term as Doughty.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

They both employ the same agency group, headed by Don Meehan.

Who notoriously gets his clients top dollar on long term contracts.

It has nothing to do with leverage.

Subban was never going to sign a long term contract that would have eaten away years of UFA, and his prime, without getting paid like a top d-man.

I honestly have no idea why people continue to argue this point.

All anyone needs to do is look at the contract he eventually signed.

Unless you think he took that approach out of "spite" (which would be bizarre) what other possible conclusion can you make?

He knew what kind of d-man he could/would be in the NHL, and whether or not he had the "leverage", he was going to get it.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

There's a reason why a guy like Don Meehan is so successful, and why he has so many high end clients on his "roster".

It's because he has a proven track record of getting top dollar for his clients.

And whether Subban signed before the lock out, in the immediate aftermath, or when he eventually did sign...any long term deal was going to pay him like a top d-man in the NHL.

If you think otherwise, provide some sort of evidence to support your argument.

Other than the baseless remarks about how he "could have" signed long term at a lower cap hit.

 

[Lebowski]

Huh. The name of their agent means little. The fact Doughty was already perceived as one of the best defenseman in the league the day he signed his contract, whereas Subban had just barely established himself as a #1 on a last place team, matters a lot.

I'm not sure how you can pretend Subban could have commanded as much money as Doughty at that point, and that his "leverage" doesn't matter. Makes literally no sense to me.

Whether Subban was interested by an 8 years contract or not is all speculation at this point. But if you recall, PK was getting compared with Del Zotto and Carlsson at that point... A far cry from Doughty. Subban would have never got a similar contract as Doughty. Never.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

Subban would have never got a similar contract as Doughty. Never.

And he would have never signed a contract of similar length, which included multiple UFA years, without being paid similarly.

Whether he'd accomplished enough to warrant that to date or not.

Only one here pretending is those who think Subban would have signed a long term deal at some bargain rate, despite there being NO evidence to support it.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

It's a dead and pointless argument anyways.

Subbans' 9 million cap hit isn't preventing the team from improving any more than Toews' 10.5 or Malkins 9.5 cap hit is.

Great players get paid waht they deserve to get paid.

 

[habsfanatics*]

The pieces are there. As much as people wish Galchenyuk to turn into an elite center overnight, it just doesn't happen that way.

Signing Petry really is priority #1. There's not a whole lot of interesting pieces on the FA market this year, and definitely no one to turn our mediocre top 6 into a good one. Barring a blockbuster trade, we'll be more or less the same next season.

Resigning Petry completes our defensive squad going forward, for at least until Markov retires. I have as much faith as ever in Galchenyuk to turn into a #1 center, and I think he could do it as early as next season... if Therrien finally puts him in the position of a #1 center, that is. I believe one of our younger player could step in on our top 9 and help us out offensively, likely Andrighetto or Hudon, or maybe even both. Why look on the outside when some positions of needs can be filled internally?

After that, all Bergevin has to worry about is clearing up some dead weight. For the love of God, no more Desharnais. We have far better, cheaper alternatives to play on our middle 6 wings, and I'd be comfortable going into next season with Galchenyuk-Plekanec-Eller as my top 3 center. It's what makes the most sense anyway.

I could be tempted into keeping Parenteau as a stop gap on the wings next season, if the salary cap allows us to do so. No point in buying him out if there's no one else to fill his shoes.

Prust, as much as I hate to say it, likely has to go as well. Overpaid, not a lot of juice left in his legs... It sucks because he seems like a great locker-room guy, but we need to keep moving forward. If there's room to keep him, great, if the added cap space from trading him is what allows Bergevin to sign Petry, you don't think twice about it.

I'd try to move Emelin as well. He's a #5 in my mind and overpaid by at least 2M. I'm confident Pateryn can bring more or less the same thing to the table for a whole lot less money.

I'd resign Mitchell if he comes relatively cheap. He's decent on the 4th line. Flynn could be kept as a depth guy as well, I don't mind him much.

An interesting FA target could be Frolik. Fast skater, has the talent to play on the 2nd line. Could bump Weise down a line, which would do a lot of good to the look of our top 6.

In short;

Resign: Petry, Mitchell, Flynn
Out: Desharnais, Emelin, Prust, Malhotra, Gonchar, Weaver
In: Pateryn, Andrighetto, Hudon

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Gallagher
Andrighetto - Plekanec - Weise
Hudon - Eller - Parenteau
De La Rose - Mitchell - Smith Pelley

Markov - Subban
Beaulieu - Petry
Pateryn - Gilbert

Great team? Perhaps not. Still needs help on offense, but there's nothing on the market that can fix this at the moment. I have faith in the younger guys to step up. People look at Kucherov and say how great he is... Andrighetto always kept up with him in the junior. Why not give it a shot? Also, that line-up is assuming we get no roster player in exchange for DD/Emelin/Prust.

Any team with Weise in the top 6 has already lost, we need to improve the top 6 big time.

 

[Lebowski]

And he would have never signed a contract of similar length, which included multiple UFA years, without being paid similarly.

Whether he'd accomplished enough to warrant that to date or not.

Only one here pretending is those who think Subban would have signed a long term deal at some bargain rate, despite there being NO evidence to support it.

You're speculations have a whole lot less backbone than mine. What you're saying is that Subban, at the time where he signed his bridge deal, after barely establishing himself as a #1, had as much of a right to ask for a 7M AAV long term contract as a guy that was seen as a top 3 defenseman in the entire league the day he signed his contract.

Plenty of players sign long term contracts right after their ELC for far less money than Doughty. McDonagh, at 4.7M, Tavares, at 5.5M, Pietrangelo and Karlsson, at 6.5M... If Subban was interested in a long term contract at that point, which is what the rumors going around were suggesting, Subban had no leverage at all to ask for the same money as today. There's really no other way to put this, and I fail to see how the concept seems to elude you.

It's a dead and pointless argument anyways.

Subbans' 9 million cap hit isn't preventing the team from improving any more than Toews' 10.5 or Malkins 9.5 cap hit is.

Great players get paid waht they deserve to get paid.

Yes, yes it does. Paying your player more than you could be paying them does hinder your ability to improve the team. Case in point, resigning Petry, which should force MB to move some players around to fit him under the cap.

 

[Hoople]

This is a worn out topic but you have to imagine if Bergy handled Subban differently, the Habs would also have more cap flexibility, which would come in handy right now. Granted, the Price and MaxPac contracts are great and help offset this, but it just goes to show how the emphasis on "character" arguably above skill is detrimental.

A great topic for a thread.

 

[OneSharpMarble]

No, you just came out with a post that suggested that trading our best goalscorer was a good idea.

I've never understood your posts. It's black or white with all of our GMs with you. Ever since Gauthier went away you've been on this crusade about Bergevin sucking.

Maybe he does suck... I don't know. He's made some good moves and some bad. But I'm not about to write him off. So by all means continue down this path of arguing that everything he does is wrong and suggesting that a team that is hurting for goals should go out and trade Max... but you aren't going to have a whole lot of credibility doing this.

Trading our best goal scorer for Crosby is a good idea, or maybe Malkin or Forsberg+ or any number of very talented forwards that could be a better fit than one big forward who plays a perimetre game. Who knows. But no apparently in your mind I wanted to trade him for Andrew Ference, heaven forbid anyone even mention anything without your approval.

Your 2nd paragraph is another pile of nonsense. I watched Bergevin for his 3 years and didn't say much until this season. I wanted him to be good but he has done nothing to qualify him above mediocre. He did almost nothing and did not bring this team to another level. Keep throwing **** against a wall in the hopes something sticks. Also kudos on bringing up Gauthier, you're posts are like a checklist of desperation, nothing to say but keep grasping at character assassination.

There you go running back to my comment about moving Pacioretty because you really have no leg to stand on. I said everything he does is wrong? I know you're on defence level 10 but you need to stop making up nonsense.

Oh noes not muh credibility! You worry about your credibility, apparently saying nothing and ripping on anyone with something to say is more your style than mine.

 

[Devourers]

I don't see how anyone can deny the bridge deal cost us cap flexibility. You'd have to simply ignore reality. At the time, signing Subban long term would've been cheaper but of course it's also a double edge sword since he'd be UFA a few years sooner. Nobody is saying the bridge deal didn't have its purpose but to deny he could've been signed cheaper in a year with a lower cap, with less comparable deals available and technically less UFA years locked up is just silly.

Say we signed him for 7x7 then, he'd have become a UFA again sooner and would've gotten likely an even bigger pay day his next UFA contract since the cap would likely be higher, more comparable contracts that are even higher, etc. Technically, we would have saved money by doing that but in a few years from now when he would have gotten another deal likely north of 10 mil a season he'll still be locked up. It's just the way it is, you look at guys who signed contracts a few years ago and they're getting paid less than guys similar who signed contracts more recently.

A guy like Karlsson for example had he done a bridge deal would've gotten 9 mil too and it's almost not even really worth debating cause denying it is pretty much denying reality. But the sens will save cap space for the time being and end up having to re-sign him sooner rather than later and his second deal is likely to be a monster one.

Like I said it's a double edged sword, bridge deals allow you to have the player guaranteed for a longer period of time eating up more UFA years but end up costing you more cap hit during those years. I'm fine with paying Subban 9 million now instead of say 7 then just to get two extra guaranteed years of Subban's prime.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

I don't see how anyone can deny the bridge deal cost us cap flexibility. You'd have to simply ignore reality. At the time, signing Subban long term would've been cheaper but of course it's also a double edge sword since he'd be UFA a few years sooner. Nobody is saying the bridge deal didn't have its purpose but to deny he could've been signed cheaper in a year with a lower cap, with less comparable deals available and technically less UFA years locked up is just silly.

Say we signed him for 7x7 then, he'd have become a UFA again sooner and would've gotten likely an even bigger pay day his next UFA contract since the cap would likely be higher, more comparable contracts that are even higher, etc. Technically, we would have saved money by doing that but in a few years from now when he would have gotten another deal likely north of 10 mil a season he'll still be locked up. It's just the way it is, you look at guys who signed contracts a few years ago and they're getting paid less than guys similar who signed contracts more recently.

A guy like Karlsson for example had he done a bridge deal would've gotten 9 mil too and it's almost not even really worth debating cause denying it is pretty much denying reality. But the sens will save cap space for the time being and end up having to re-sign him sooner rather than later and his second deal is likely to be a monster one.

Like I said it's a double edged sword, bridge deals allow you to have the player guaranteed for a longer period of time eating up more UFA years but end up costing you more cap hit during those years. I'm fine with paying Subban 9 million now instead of say 7 then just to get two extra guaranteed years of Subban's prime.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

To me, having Subban at 6, or 7 until the age of 28 or 29...as opposed to having him at 9 until the age of 33 is a no brainer.

I'll happily take the extra 2-3 million on the cap hit in the meantime knowing that he is locked up with the club through his entire prime.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

And he would have never signed a contract of similar length, which included multiple UFA years, without being paid similarly.

Whether he'd accomplished enough to warrant that to date or not.

Only one here pretending is those who think Subban would have signed a long term deal at some bargain rate, despite there being NO evidence to support it.

You have no basis for that assumption. We have various rumors suggesting he would. At the time of the bridge, Subban wanted long term and held out for it. Even TSN was speculating the number was roughly 5.5M.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

You're speculations have a whole lot less backbone than mine. What you're saying is that Subban, at the time where he signed his bridge deal, after barely establishing himself as a #1, had as much of a right to ask for a 7M AAV long term contract as a guy that was seen as a top 3 defenseman in the entire league the day he signed his contract.

Plenty of players sign long term contracts right after their ELC for far less money than Doughty. McDonagh, at 4.7M, Tavares, at 5.5M, Pietrangelo and Karlsson, at 6.5M... If Subban was interested in a long term contract at that point, which is what the rumors going around were suggesting, Subban had no leverage at all to ask for the same money as today. There's really no other way to put this, and I fail to see how the concept seems to elude you.



Yes, yes it does. Paying your player more than you could be paying them does hinder your ability to improve the team. Case in point, resigning Petry, which should force MB to move some players around to fit him under the cap.

You're badly misinterpreting my argument in this discussion.

I truly believe that if Subban would have signed a deal in the Tavares range long term there would have been no bridge deal.

Whatever you believe Subbans' "leverage" was, or however much you'd like to downplay the relevance of his agency group I believe it's pretty obvious that his agent had presented a case whereby they felt that if the Habs were going to lock him up to a long term deal through most of, if not all of, his prime then they were simply not going to commit to a long term deal.

A 5-6 year deal that took him to 27 or 28 and came somewhere in the 6 range? Maybe he does that...but again, then we are dealing with a UFA Subban VERY soon.

Tell me why the one alternative is so much better than the other.

Because that's your argument on this discussion.

I've never said that they are greatly benefiting from the current contract he's on. I've said that the difference in cap in the next few years to me is evened out by having him locked up through his entire prime.

His is a fair contract for both sides. He's a premier d-man and he's paid like one.

As for your "case in point" with regards to Petry, I'm sorry I have to respectfully disagree. Nothing about PK's cap hit will prevent them from signing him. I've looked at the numbers countless times. There's more than enough room to sign Beaulieu, Galchenyuk and Petry as well as add some scoring depth.

They don't even need to move out Emelin to accomplish it.

That's part of a GM's job though.

Bergevin, whether right or wrong, decided that the duration of his career he was locking up PK for was more important than the cap hit for his ages 22-27.

He is literally lying in the bed he made, and chose to make.

All of the baseless speculation about the long term deals he COULD have signed, whether you think they have "more backbone" than my arguments or not, don't change the fact that the Habs have one of the best d-men in the NHL signed until he's 33 years old.

For the next 6 offseasons Bergevin (presumably) does not have to worry about which d-man will play the most minutes game in and game out for his team.

Huge benefit.

As well, and this is an important factor that is never mentioned...when you compare PK's 9 million dollar cap hit, with the cap at the point that it was when he signed it, it's actually quite reasonable.

Dion Phaneuf signed a 6 year deal when the cap was at 56.7 in 2008/2009.

That deal took him until 2014.

In 2014/2015 dollars that 6.5 cap hit comes in at around 7.9 in cap hit with a 69 cap.

And that's for a deal that ends before UFA.

Drew Doughty signed his deal, which expires when he turns 29, when the cap was at 64.3. Around 7.5 for that one in 2014/2015 dollars.

He wasn't going to sign a long term deal which took up a big chunk of his UFA years unless he was going to be paid like a top d-man.

Until you show some sort of plausible evidence which goes against that hypothesis, it remains as plausible as any scenario you'd like to put forth. If not more so.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

You have no basis for that assumption. We have various rumors suggesting he would. At the time of the bridge, Subban wanted long term and held out for it. Even TSN was speculating the number was roughly 5.5M.

But you have a basis for a differing assumption based on what the hens on TSN prattled on about to stay relevant?

I have no doubt Subban wanted long term.

Nor have I argued otherwise in this thread or any other.

Where my doubts lie, is what was defined as "long term" (I think his and Don Meehans' idea of "long term" probably coincided exactly with when he would have hit UFA) and how much of a bargain he really would have signed for.

6 years 36 million? Sure.

But that's where my argument comes in.

22-28 at 6 a year then UFA?

Or 25-33 at 9 a year then UFA?

I choose the 2nd one.

Apparently so did Bergevin.

Unlike others in this discussion, I've never said one option or the other is significantly better or worse.

They are simply different outcomes with a different set of pros' and cons'.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

As well, take a look at Ekman-Larssons' career accomplishments up untl he signed his 6 year deal.

5.5 cap hit for another 4 years for OEL? Sign me up.

But if it took 5.5 for the Coyotes to get Ekman-Larsson from the moment he signed that deal, why does anyone think that Subban couldn't have gotten more than that when he was looking for his extension?

Subban had 160 NHL games, 78 points and another 21 playoff games.

Ekman Larsson had 178 NHL games, 67 points and 16 at the end of the 2012/2013 season.

Those numbers aren't exactly bang on either, because Ekman Larsson actually signed his deal 6 weeks before the end of the 2012/2013 season and I'm too lazy to figure it out precisely.

In any event.

People CONSTANTLY use taxes as part of the argument as to why Canadiens need to "overpay" players.

So we have Ekman Larsson who with comparable numbers signed a 6 year deal at 5.5....

Why is there any reason to believe Subban signs for any less than that?

The prestige of playing for the Canadiens? No...clearly not.

Subban also played 2 years in junior after being drafted, while OEL played just a year in Sweden before coming over.

Subban signed his bridge deal 5 years after being drafted.

OEL signed his long term extension 4 years after being drafted.

So any comparable long term deal Subban would have signed, would have taken him a further year into UFA than what OELs' did.

There are a lot of factors in this discussion, but people try to make it a black and white one.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I don't see how anyone can deny the bridge deal cost us cap flexibility. You'd have to simply ignore reality. At the time, signing Subban long term would've been cheaper but of course it's also a double edge sword since he'd be UFA a few years sooner. Nobody is saying the bridge deal didn't have its purpose but to deny he could've been signed cheaper in a year with a lower cap, with less comparable deals available and technically less UFA years locked up is just silly.

Say we signed him for 7x7 then, he'd have become a UFA again sooner and would've gotten likely an even bigger pay day his next UFA contract since the cap would likely be higher, more comparable contracts that are even higher, etc. Technically, we would have saved money by doing that but in a few years from now when he would have gotten another deal likely north of 10 mil a season he'll still be locked up. It's just the way it is, you look at guys who signed contracts a few years ago and they're getting paid less than guys similar who signed contracts more recently.

A guy like Karlsson for example had he done a bridge deal would've gotten 9 mil too and it's almost not even really worth debating cause denying it is pretty much denying reality. But the sens will save cap space for the time being and end up having to re-sign him sooner rather than later and his second deal is likely to be a monster one.

Like I said it's a double edged sword, bridge deals allow you to have the player guaranteed for a longer period of time eating up more UFA years but end up costing you more cap hit during those years. I'm fine with paying Subban 9 million now instead of say 7 then just to get two extra guaranteed years of Subban's prime.

there is absolutely nothing that suggest he would have agreed to such a deal.

It's easy to think something is good/bad when all the "could have" have no basis whatsoever on reality.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

I think it's quite plausible he would have signed a 7 year 49 million dollar deal.

Whether or not that's some monstrous advantage is where the debate comes in.

The bridge deal allowed them to lock him up with an 8 year deal until the age of 33.

Also worth mentioning that a 7 year deal would have taken up a couple of his UFA years, which makes it more plausible that 5-6 years would have been the max amount of time he would have signed for at the time.

His last point is correct, and something many in this discussion are ignoring.

There are pros' and cons' to each approach, and to definitively state one is better than the other is where you end up looking silly.

 

[Kriss E]

This is exactly what I've been saying.

To me, having Subban at 6, or 7 until the age of 28 or 29...as opposed to having him at 9 until the age of 33 is a no brainer.

I'll happily take the extra 2-3 million on the cap hit in the meantime knowing that he is locked up with the club through his entire prime.

All of this is irrelevant because Bergevin did not sign him to a bridge deal as this savvy business decision to have him locked up through his prime+.
He signed him to a bridge deal because he didn't know enough about it. That's it. If you know you have a special good player under your hands, you lock him long asap. It's very easy for you to say you're happy PK is signed till 33 at 9M. Maybe you'll change that opinion in 3 years.
Bottom line is we could and should have locked him up sooner. If by the end of his contract he'd be set to become an UFA, and we couldn't extend him, then you trade him for a massive return, which wouldn't necessarily be bad.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

And what was going through Bergevins' head at the time (which neither of us know I will add) isn't relevant because the end result is the same.

Instead of a deal that would have seen him hit UFA before the age of 30, he signed him to a deal that sees him hit UFA at 33.

That...is a fact.

Your proclamation about why he signed him to a bridge deal?

Speculation.

Not saying you're wrong mind you, simply pointing out that it's speculation on your part.