I think PK is very good defensively, but he is still in the process of learning when to lay the big hit and when not to. I would love to also see him lay the big hit without his feet leaving the ice. Can't wait until PK refines all aspects of his already dominating game... he will be one very special player.
Sterling Archer
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2006
- 23,020
- 13,502
The problem with the analysis is that Bershire looks at salary as a percentage of cap. In reality, even in pre cap days when teams had $80M - unlimited cap space, no player that I'm aware of made more then $10. So to conclude that as the cap goes up, the top tier players will get aperçu take is a bit much to assume IMO.
Add to that and he's also assuming that PK basically wins the Norris EVERY year and stays the bestdefensman in the NHL and will demand top dollar.
Not sure any of these scenarios are realistic. I'd say price signs for close to a bit more than what Price got $6.5-$7M for a long term deal. Under very small circumstances can I se PK getting $9-12M a year, regardless or what the cap is. Would Crosby get $20M!?
Add to that and he's also assuming that PK basically wins the Norris EVERY year and stays the bestdefensman in the NHL and will demand top dollar.
Not sure any of these scenarios are realistic. I'd say price signs for close to a bit more than what Price got $6.5-$7M for a long term deal. Under very small circumstances can I se PK getting $9-12M a year, regardless or what the cap is. Would Crosby get $20M!?
Except that people haven't ''overlooked'' it, they just feel the next 5 years are more important than year 6-7-8-9...
The point always was that our cup window is likely to be in 2-3-4 years, with a bunch of youngsters really coming into their own and some older hitting their prime. That's when the cap will be most important to us because it'll be the time to go UFA hunting and the more cash available the better your chances are of landing bigger names.
That's the whole point of the debate. Pretty surprising this wasn't brought up in this article. I mean, when you write an article about why a bridge deal is good, it's kind of important to address the main reason why people are calling it a mistake.
That's assuming Bergevin actually does what you think he'll do.
Kind of like this article is based on so many assumptions, like PK earning upwards of 12M+, and that the cap will keep increasing by about 7M yearly.
All he does is look at the % vs the cap PK's contract over the course of the next 10 years, and comes to the conclusion that signing a bridge deal @8y/8M ends up being the cheapest. Therefore, the bridge deal is the way to go.
But that really has nothing to do with the debate. This isn't about how much PK will earn over 10years, or 12 or 15 or his career. The point is we have a bunch of young players, young vets, and prospects are coming into their own within the next few years, that's likely to be our cup window (it it isn't, then it means we will be going through yet another rebuild). That's the time where our cap will be most important as we'll need to fetch key pieces off UFA. That's the whole point, which not surprisingly wasn't addressed.
Last edited:
There isn't a hockey player in the world who doesn't have an aspect of his game to improve, so sure.
Bottom line is Bergevin played hardball with our best player and risked losing him for nothing. Speculating on contracts 6 years from now and cap sizes is irrelevant. He took a gamble in a spot he had no business gambling in. Bergevin got lucky, if PK had of said trade me. MB would have gone down in history with Houle and Milbury, luckily for him PK has much stronger character than they would have ever credited him with.
Habs Icing
Formerly Onice
MrNasty
Registered User
This Habs board is full of Eeyores. It doesn't matter how well things are going, if someone has one of the worlds most prized possessions or what not, they will always find something wrong with everything.
I am proud of my team, I love my team's general manager, I love their head scout and I am thrilled that they have one of the most entertaining and skilled players in the world and I don't feel the need to find something, anything, wrong for the sake of spending hours upsetting myself while staring at a computer screen.
I am proud of my team, I love my team's general manager, I love their head scout and I am thrilled that they have one of the most entertaining and skilled players in the world and I don't feel the need to find something, anything, wrong for the sake of spending hours upsetting myself while staring at a computer screen.
Well for me it comes down to why not discuss a long term deal, why not lock up your best player?
Why didn't MB think to give him an 8 year contract instead of the bridge?
2013 ----------> 4,000,000$ (Age 23 at the start of the season)
2013-2014 ---> 4,500,000$ (Age 24 at the start of the season)
2014-2015 ---> 5,000,000$ (Age 25 at the start of the season)
2015-2016 ---> 6,500,000$ (Age 26 at the start of the season)
2016-2017 ---> 7,000,000$ (Age 27 at the start of the season)
2017-2018 ---> 7,000,000$ (Age 28 at the start of the season)
2018-2019 ---> 7,500,000$ (Age 29 at the start of the season)
2019-2020 ---> 8,000,000$ (Age 30 at the start of the season)
8 year contract, signed before winning the Norris. AAV: 6.1875 M$
2020-2021 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 31 at the start of the season)
2021-2022 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 32 at the start of the season)
2022-2023 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 33 at the start of the season)
2023-2024 ---> 10,000,000$ (Age 34 at the start of the season)
2024-2025 ---> 9,500,000$ (Age 35 at the start of the season)
2025-2026 ---> 6,500,000$ (Age 36 at the start of the season)
2026-2027 ---> 6,000,000$ (Age 37 at the start of the season)
2027-2028 ---> 6,000,000$ (Age 38 at the start of the season)
8 year contract, 35% year to year rule + the 50% of lowest to highest. AAV: 9.25 M$
or we can do something like this:
2020-2021 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 31 at the start of the season)
2021-2022 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 32 at the start of the season)
2022-2023 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 33 at the start of the season)
2023-2024 ---> 10,000,000$ (Age 34 at the start of the season)
2024-2025 ---> 10,000,000$ (Age 35 at the start of the season)
5 year deal. AAV: 11.2 M$
2025-2026 ---> 6,000,000$ (Age 36 at the start of the season)
2026-2027 ---> 5,000,000$ (Age 37 at the start of the season)
2027-2028 ---> 4,000,000$ (Age 38 at the start of the season)
2028-2029 ---> 3,000,000$ (Age 39 at the start of the season)
2029-2030 ---> 3,000,000$ (Age 40 at the start of the season)
5 year deal. AAV: 4.2 M$
Any way you slice it, you can draw whatever you want to explain any situation you want. The problem is in 2014-15 when Subban gets a new deal, the habs will have little space to maneuver if they are in a good position to contend. Everything suggested is so impossible to foresee, except that Subban will be paid more in 2014-2015 because he got a bridge deal instead of at least listening and negotiating a contract. Even if Subban is an RFA next off-season, he still has more bargaining chips than MB.
Why didn't MB think to give him an 8 year contract instead of the bridge?
2013 ----------> 4,000,000$ (Age 23 at the start of the season)
2013-2014 ---> 4,500,000$ (Age 24 at the start of the season)
2014-2015 ---> 5,000,000$ (Age 25 at the start of the season)
2015-2016 ---> 6,500,000$ (Age 26 at the start of the season)
2016-2017 ---> 7,000,000$ (Age 27 at the start of the season)
2017-2018 ---> 7,000,000$ (Age 28 at the start of the season)
2018-2019 ---> 7,500,000$ (Age 29 at the start of the season)
2019-2020 ---> 8,000,000$ (Age 30 at the start of the season)
8 year contract, signed before winning the Norris. AAV: 6.1875 M$
2020-2021 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 31 at the start of the season)
2021-2022 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 32 at the start of the season)
2022-2023 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 33 at the start of the season)
2023-2024 ---> 10,000,000$ (Age 34 at the start of the season)
2024-2025 ---> 9,500,000$ (Age 35 at the start of the season)
2025-2026 ---> 6,500,000$ (Age 36 at the start of the season)
2026-2027 ---> 6,000,000$ (Age 37 at the start of the season)
2027-2028 ---> 6,000,000$ (Age 38 at the start of the season)
8 year contract, 35% year to year rule + the 50% of lowest to highest. AAV: 9.25 M$
or we can do something like this:
2020-2021 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 31 at the start of the season)
2021-2022 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 32 at the start of the season)
2022-2023 ---> 12,000,000$ (Age 33 at the start of the season)
2023-2024 ---> 10,000,000$ (Age 34 at the start of the season)
2024-2025 ---> 10,000,000$ (Age 35 at the start of the season)
5 year deal. AAV: 11.2 M$
2025-2026 ---> 6,000,000$ (Age 36 at the start of the season)
2026-2027 ---> 5,000,000$ (Age 37 at the start of the season)
2027-2028 ---> 4,000,000$ (Age 38 at the start of the season)
2028-2029 ---> 3,000,000$ (Age 39 at the start of the season)
2029-2030 ---> 3,000,000$ (Age 40 at the start of the season)
5 year deal. AAV: 4.2 M$
Any way you slice it, you can draw whatever you want to explain any situation you want. The problem is in 2014-15 when Subban gets a new deal, the habs will have little space to maneuver if they are in a good position to contend. Everything suggested is so impossible to foresee, except that Subban will be paid more in 2014-2015 because he got a bridge deal instead of at least listening and negotiating a contract. Even if Subban is an RFA next off-season, he still has more bargaining chips than MB.
Our cup window does not close because pk will be making an addition 3 million for the 3 years after the bridge. Think about it....gallagher...tinordi...beaulieu...galchenyuk....mccarron...hudon.do you think they are going to hit home runs out of EL....no...thats why he did the bridge with PK....he set a precedent, that will not only ensure a lower cap hit for PK in the distant future, but gives us more short term savings from those youngsters because they know....hey...pk gets bridged....so do we. The cap savings and opportunities created from all those bridge deals to come combined is far far far more than what we're going to lose in the 3 years after PK's current deal....dude...chill bergy's got this
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
The precedent argument is full of ****. Had he given PK a long term deal out of his ELC would change nothing for the other players who would have to prove themselves to the same level Subban did. Not an easy task.
And if some player can live up to Subban the way he did in his ELC years, HALLELUJAH!
Crossing my fingers he won't ask for more than 7M$ per year... otherwise, things aren't going to end well.
Spoken like a true, keyboard warrior...
When MB gets fired someday, shoot your resume and email off to Geoff Molson....
Seriously, we all have our opinions, but seriously...
I am hoping he wins another Norris, scores 70 pts and asks for 7.5M....why does it matter? The Bruins fans did not wish a poor season on Chara so he would stay at 5.5M???
Frozenice
No Reverse Gear
- Jan 1, 2010
- 7,024
- 526
Spoken like a true, keyboard warrior...
When MB gets fired someday, shoot your resume and email off to Geoff Molson....
Seriously, we all have our opinions, but seriously...
Bergevin got lucky, it would of been a very bad scene if PK would have publicly asked for a trade. Even if they come to terms, when your best or one of your core players asks to be traded it's changes a lot of things within the team dynamic, especially when the team starts losing more games then they are winning.
But the point is to have as many players at a cheaper price for when the cup window is on. Where we'll be in year 7-8-9 is irrelevant. It's so far away, maybe the whole team will be different.
But our current cup window. With all those youngsters, and guys like MaxPac and Price, is within the next few years.
As for the precedent, it's bs. The reason why Bergevin gave PK a bridge deal was because he wasn't sold on him. So if Galchenyuk becomes our #1 center next year and the following one, then how can Bergevin say it's a similar situation?
Having a dispute with your stars is never a good idea.
depending on what assumptions one makes, it's very easy to come to a conclusion on either side of the "good move/bad move" equation.
Reality is that none of us, including MB, knows how it will play out down the road.
In the short term, here are some facts which aren't up for debate:
- Habs could have managed a larger cap hit for Subban in 2013
- As of today, Habs could manage Subban at a larger cap hit
- Subban's value & salary expectations went up considerably in the 3-4 months since signing the deal
- The contract stalemate created/encouraged negative fan/media reactions/perception towards Subban
- Subban's next contract now coincides with contract renewals on several key RFA/UFA's who will require raises
While it very well could play out close to the assumptions the writer presents, it could also play out differently. Until we get to his UFA seasons there won't be a definitive answer in that regard.
In the immediate moment, and at the time, force-feeding the bridge deal is/was a risky move that, imo, was an unnecessary gamble. The potential "pay-off", as described by the author, imo, still doesn't provide enough benefit in the "best case scenario" to make up for the existing negative impact (not too mention the risk/potential negative impact).
right or wrong, suffice it to say that the organization & it's fans need to keep their fingers crossed that the end result is Subban playing at a high level for the team for a long long time.
Reality is that none of us, including MB, knows how it will play out down the road.
In the short term, here are some facts which aren't up for debate:
- Habs could have managed a larger cap hit for Subban in 2013
- As of today, Habs could manage Subban at a larger cap hit
- Subban's value & salary expectations went up considerably in the 3-4 months since signing the deal
- The contract stalemate created/encouraged negative fan/media reactions/perception towards Subban
- Subban's next contract now coincides with contract renewals on several key RFA/UFA's who will require raises
While it very well could play out close to the assumptions the writer presents, it could also play out differently. Until we get to his UFA seasons there won't be a definitive answer in that regard.
In the immediate moment, and at the time, force-feeding the bridge deal is/was a risky move that, imo, was an unnecessary gamble. The potential "pay-off", as described by the author, imo, still doesn't provide enough benefit in the "best case scenario" to make up for the existing negative impact (not too mention the risk/potential negative impact).
right or wrong, suffice it to say that the organization & it's fans need to keep their fingers crossed that the end result is Subban playing at a high level for the team for a long long time.
MrNasty
Registered User
Great article but one thing is fails to mention is how it affects the expectations of future young players looking to skip a bridge contract. Suddenly the team has to spread the wealth over fewer quality players and risk losing them when they turn UFA at a couple years younger. The bridge contract sets a precedence which shows fairness to past players that had to wait and tells future players they have to wait. The team as a whole is better off that way.
