Pointing the Finger at Bergevin? Part II

[ECWHSWI]

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.

we'll never know, what if are useless now, he is signed, will be a Habs till his early 30's and that's all that matters.

would the cap go up/down in 3 years ? NO ONE knows (even less so by how much)...
would PK and his agent ask for the same (9M) or closer to 10 or 10.5 ? NO ONE knows...
will PK injure himself and become an average D for 9M in the future ? NO ONE knows...


and YES, sometimes the savy decision is to overpay to keep your best player for pretty much his whole career. Is it the case for Subban ? well, since no one here can predict the future... guess we'll have to wait and see.


Exercise in futility. Contract is signed, people should get over it.

 

[Kriss E]

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.

No it's not speculation. It's what Bergevin said about PK in his presser. He also said not everyone needs to go through a bridge deal, which killed the theory that Bergevin was trying to set a precedent.

Here's an article where you see a pretty different stance on how the organization perceived Pacioretty vs Subban.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/spor...s+ongoing+process+Bergevin/7089519/story.html

It's clear they identified Pacioretty as a clear part of their core. Bergevin even admits that he didn't see the team/players much, logically being out west, so he relied on what was mostly told to him by the people around him.

So on one hand you had Pacioretty who Bergevin was eager to lock up to a long term deals because ''we felt he was part of our core...he works out, he's committed, just 23'', and when talking about Subban all he has to say is ''he's a good young player, there's a lot of things that come into play, (but) there's potential there for sure''.

Ya, seems to me like he's pretty excited about one guy and rather hesitant about the other.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

Anyways all, interesting discussion.

The bridge deal and subsequent long term extension has been one of the most polarizing discussions for Habs fans in recent memory.

I think we can all agree having Subban signed until 33 is a positive.

Personally sometimes I think coaches and GM's both badly overrate "experience" and stubbornly and ignorantly think those veterans wtih all that experience won't make the same kind of mistakes young guys do.

If Subbans' cap hit forces the team in future years to have fewer guys like Gonchar an Allen on the books and gives more opportunity to guys like Pateryn or Dietz, it could end up being a blessing in disguise.

For the next 3 years, for 20 million, the Habs have Price/Subban/Pacioretty.

I doubt anyone can find a 3 year security with as good of a trio as that.

It's also better to "overpay" an elite player than to overpay a middling player who has no tangible role with the team.

And maybe I've just spent the last 3 years convincing myself the bridge deal wasn't a bad one and am not quite there yet.

 

[HabsDieHard*]

No it's not speculation. It's what Bergevin said about PK in his presser. He also said not everyone needs to go through a bridge deal, which killed the theory that Bergevin was trying to set a precedent.

Here's an article where you see a pretty different stance on how the organization perceived Pacioretty vs Subban.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/spor...s+ongoing+process+Bergevin/7089519/story.html

It's clear they identified Pacioretty as a clear part of their core. Bergevin even admits that he didn't see the team/players much, logically being out west, so he relied on what was mostly told to him by the people around him.

So on one hand you had Pacioretty who Bergevin was eager to lock up to a long term deals because ''we felt he was part of our core...he works out, he's committed, just 23'', and when talking about Subban all he has to say is ''he's a good young player, there's a lot of things that come into play, (but) there's potential there for sure''.

Ya, seems to me like he's pretty excited about one guy and rather hesitant about the other.

Pacioretty was further along in his career trajecotry than Subban was.

So that long term deal took up more UFA years.

I'm really not even sure what point you're arguing here Kriss.

Pacioretty also fired his agent after signing that deal...which I'm sure he had a reason for doing so eh?

 

[PricePkPatch*]

Anyways all, interesting discussion.

The bridge deal and subsequent long term extension has been one of the most polarizing discussions for Habs fans in recent memory.

I think we can all agree having Subban signed until 33 is a positive.

Personally sometimes I think coaches and GM's both badly overrate "experience" and stubbornly and ignorantly think those veterans wtih all that experience won't make the same kind of mistakes young guys do.

If Subbans' cap hit forces the team in future years to have fewer guys like Gonchar an Allen on the books and gives more opportunity to guys like Pateryn or Dietz, it could end up being a blessing in disguise.

For the next 3 years, for 20 million, the Habs have Price/Subban/Pacioretty.

I doubt anyone can find a 3 year security with as good of a trio as that.

It's also better to "overpay" an elite player than to overpay a middling player who has no tangible role with the team.

And maybe I've just spent the last 3 years convincing myself the bridge deal wasn't a bad one and am not quite there yet.

...we took Gonchar and Allen as returns for long term cap dumps.

Both their contracts are over. We gor them because their contract were expiring.

 

[ECWHSWI]

...we took Gonchar and Allen as returns for long term cap dumps.

Both their contracts are over. We gor them because their contract were expiring.

dont bother, his mind is set, no matter what you'll say, poster would prefer to have Moen and Bourque on the Habs next season

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

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'.

Those "hens" are far more reputable than you, no offense. Regardless, rumors were abundant Subban was not looking to cash in. And as previously mentioned, he was not in a position to command the type of money you claim he might. Doughty came off arguably his best season of his career when he signed his contract, whereas Subban had his best afterwards.

As for your scenario. I don't, for the simple fact while we may end up paying more in the long run, we have a five to six year window where Subban is making significantly less than his market value. For comparison sake, even if he signed for 6M, the cap savings practically covers Gallagher's extension. It was terrible foresight on Bergevin's part.

 

[Kriss E]

Pacioretty was further along in his career trajecotry than Subban was.

So that long term deal took up more UFA years.

I'm really not even sure what point you're arguing here Kriss.

Pacioretty also fired his agent after signing that deal...which I'm sure he had a reason for doing so eh?

You said I was speculating on the reason as to why Bergevin signed him to a bridge deal.
I showed you what made me reach my conclusions. From Bergevin's own words, you can see they valued Patches and Subban differently. Ya, Patches had more experience, which I'm sure played a role. Not sure what's your point.
Fact of the matter, they viewed them both differently. To their eyes, one was proven enough for a long term deal, the other wasn't.