Subban Contract Talk

[crystal ball]

Okay, I have to say I'm getting tired of reading about how the Habs low-balled Subban on his last contract, how that's going to cost the team big-time in the current negotiations, and how they could have had him long-term at 5 million.

Here's the difference: His last contract was worth 5.75 million. If he signs for about 8 million for 8 years now, that's an average of 6.975 per season over ten years.

If the team had offered him 5 million a year long-term two seasons ago, his agent MIGHT have agreed to 5 years at that price. Don Meehan's no dummy. He knew Subban had the skill to become the Habs best defenseman. Allowing Subban to sign long-term at less than Andrei Markov, who would be playing out his last few seasons during that contract, would have diminished his client's earning potential. With a rising cap, if Subban didn't fulfill his potential and became merely good rather than great, it would still be no problem for him to get another 5 million dollar contract. If he did become a great defenseman...you know, like a Norris winner...he'd be worth a whole lot more. There's no way Meehan would have let him sign at that price for more than 5 years. So, imagine if MB had signed Subban to 5 million over 5 years on the last contract. In three years from now, he'd have to enter negotiations again. Say he THEN signed Subban to 8 million over 8 years on a long term deal, the average Subban would make over the 12 years of his last two contracts would be 6.75 million. That's IF the cap isn't hugely higher then than it is now, allowing him to make more like 9 million a year. In any case, even if he signed long term for 8 million, that's a difference of 200 grand a year over 10-12 years.

So, considering the minor difference in the cost of Subban's contracts long term, can we please, please stop the whining about how "MB's playing hardball with Subban is going to screw the team's cap in the future?" It's just not true.

Click to read more...

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

A whole bunch of assumptions. Here's a fact though. The team didn't believe in PK at the time and gave him a prove yourself low ball offer. Pretty insulting. If as you say Meehan is a barracuda. He will take the Habs to the tool shed on this deal. Bridge deal was silly. Luckily PK is a quality guy and didn't let it bother him.

 

[Monctonscout]

A whole bunch of assumptions. Here's a fact though. The team didn't believe in PK at the time and gave him a prove yourself low ball offer. Pretty insulting. If as you say Meehan is a barracuda. He will take the Habs to the tool shed on this deal. Bridge deal was silly. Luckily PK is a quality guy and didn't let it bother him.

Funny you call other people's posts "assumptions" then make one of your own..."The team didn't believe in PK at the time".

 

[JusticeBeaver]

Funny you call other people's posts "assumptions" then make one of your own..."The team didn't believe in PK at the time".

haha you beat me to it!

Here's an actual fact: he is an elite dman. He's a character guy on and off the ice.

You give him the monies, and so on, and so forth.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

A whole bunch of assumptions. Here's a fact though. The team didn't believe in PK at the time and gave him a prove yourself low ball offer. Pretty insulting. If as you say Meehan is a barracuda. He will take the Habs to the tool shed on this deal. Bridge deal was silly. Luckily PK is a quality guy and didn't let it bother him.

Talk about assumptions.

Why didn't anyone say it was insulting Price when he got his "prove yourself lowball" offer? Or Pacioretty? or Eller?

Seems to me, this is a buisiness model to be able to not only manage the cap, further evaluate players, but also to buy more UFA years with a 3rd deal all while ensuring they remain in the RFA zone to make it less likely you lose them for nothing.

If Subban had not performed at the level he did for whatever reason (injuries, off year) whould this even be a discussion? Not likely, Bergevin would likely be hailed as a genuis for his forsight to not get sucked into a Myers type situation.

I don't believe he was lowballed, he was given a fair market deal for a good, yet not great young player at the time. He stepped up, played nearly to his full potential. Now he will get paid fair market value again, the difference being, his market value has gone up, but in this case there is more available cap space than when he signed his bridge deal, so you can obviously see that Bergevin was trying simply to manage the cap. So instead of only getting Subban for 5 years (as was rumoured) we get him for 10 years (2yr bridge + 8yr max term contract).

 

[Raimu]

A whole bunch of assumptions. Here's a fact though. The team didn't believe in PK at the time and gave him a prove yourself low ball offer. Pretty insulting. If as you say Meehan is a barracuda. He will take the Habs to the tool shed on this deal. Bridge deal was silly. Luckily PK is a quality guy and didn't let it bother him.

Post of the year.

"Didn't believe in PK". What an absolute joke.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Talk about assumptions.

Why didn't anyone say it was insulting Price when he got his "prove yourself lowball" offer? Or Pacioretty? or Eller?

Seems to me, this is a buisiness model to be able to not only manage the cap, further evaluate players, but also to buy more UFA years with a 3rd deal all while ensuring they remain in the RFA zone to make it less likely you lose them for nothing.

If Subban had not performed at the level he did for whatever reason (injuries, off year) whould this even be a discussion? Not likely, Bergevin would likely be hailed as a genuis for his forsight to not get sucked into a Myers type situation.

I don't believe he was lowballed, he was given a fair market deal for a good, yet not great young player at the time. He stepped up, played nearly to his full potential. Now he will get paid fair market value again, the difference being, his market value has gone up, but in this case there is more available cap space than when he signed his bridge deal, so you can obviously see that Bergevin was trying simply to manage the cap. So instead of only getting Subban for 5 years (as was rumoured) we get him for 10 years (2yr bridge + 8yr max term contract).

You think 2.75m was a fair deal for norris calibre hockey? Strange world you live in.

 

[DAChampion]

Bergevin has explicitly confirmed that the team did not believe in Subban at the time.

He said that prior to Therrien, Subban would get scratched. He also said during contract negotiations that they wanted more time to evaluate Subban.

 

[Mr Jackpot]

Bergevin has explicitly confirmed that the team did not believe in Subban at the time.

link?

I doubt that's true

 

[JusticeBeaver]

Can this thread be any more full of false statements?

 

[NORiculous]

A whole bunch of assumptions. Here's a fact though. The team didn't believe in PK at the time and gave him a prove yourself low ball offer. Pretty insulting. If as you say Meehan is a barracuda. He will take the Habs to the tool shed on this deal. Bridge deal was silly. Luckily PK is a quality guy and didn't let it bother him.

How about this... The bridge contract helped forge Subban into what he is today. I thibk the bridge was good.

 

[ClasslessGuy]

You think 2.75m was a fair deal for norris calibre hockey? Strange world you live in.

7G 29A 129PIM in 81 games is a norris calibre season?

 

[NoNachoNoParty]

I think the point with that bridge contract was to set a precedent for all future negos. They used the same with Weise. I'll bet they'll do the same with the Gallys, Tinner and Beaulieu..

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

How about this... The bridge contract helped forge Subban into what he is today. I thibk the bridge was good.

This is an assumption too, but I totally agree with it. A lot of habs fans complain about not developing talent properly, but when it is actually done, they complain that the team had nothing to do with it.

Maybe Subban gets complacent with a "long term" contract. Maybe Subban would have signed for 5 years at 5.5 mil and became a UFA at the end. Bergevin is going to have to pay up now, but I'm sure he's damn happy about it because Subban deserves the money, and we'll most likely have him for his whole prime thanks to that bridge contract.

 

[ak90210]

It was just so painfully obvious Subban was already worth more than 5mil, and Bergevin went with short term savings and it's going to hurt us on the cap the next couple of years. Although Bergevin's strategy seems to be only to hand out 4+year contracts to people who aren't good (see Therrien, Prust, Emelin, Desharnais).

 

[JoelWarlord]

The bottom line is his peers have signed long term deals right out of their ELC's and he wasn't offered a similar contract. Subban was in the discussion of the league's top defensemen at the time of his last signing and the bridge deal was substantially below value.

The whole point of the long term deals is security, Doughty took less money because he's signed long term and doesn't have to worry. Subban could have blown out his knee or regressed in the last 2 years before ever getting his big payday.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Okay, I have to say I'm getting tired of reading about how the Habs low-balled Subban on his last contract, how that's going to cost the team big-time in the current negotiations, and how they could have had him long-term at 5 million.

Here's the difference: His last contract was worth 5.75 million. If he signs for about 8 million for 8 years now, that's an average of 6.975 per season over ten years.

If the team had offered him 5 million a year long-term two seasons ago, his agent MIGHT have agreed to 5 years at that price. Don Meehan's no dummy. He knew Subban had the skill to become the Habs best defenseman. Allowing Subban to sign long-term at less than Andrei Markov, who would be playing out his last few seasons during that contract, would have diminished his client's earning potential. With a rising cap, if Subban didn't fulfill his potential and became merely good rather than great, it would still be no problem for him to get another 5 million dollar contract. If he did become a great defenseman...you know, like a Norris winner...he'd be worth a whole lot more. There's no way Meehan would have let him sign at that price for more than 5 years. So, imagine if MB had signed Subban to 5 million over 5 years on the last contract. In three years from now, he'd have to enter negotiations again. Say he THEN signed Subban to 8 million over 8 years on a long term deal, the average Subban would make over the 12 years of his last two contracts would be 6.75 million. That's IF the cap isn't hugely higher then than it is now, allowing him to make more like 9 million a year. In any case, even if he signed long term for 8 million, that's a difference of 200 grand a year over 10-12 years.

So, considering the minor difference in the cost of Subban's contracts long term, can we please, please stop the whining about how "MB's playing hardball with Subban is going to screw the team's cap in the future?" It's just not true.

We ****ed up last time. Saying so isn't "whining."

Why you would say you don't want to read about this and then create a thread on it is a mystery to me. Esp since some variance of this thread has been done 70 million times already.

And in closing, if you couldn't see that this guy was worth 5 x 5 last time? No idea what to say to you.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

You think 2.75m was a fair deal for norris calibre hockey? Strange world you live in.

Norris calibre?

When he signed the bridge deal, had he won or even been nominated for a Norris trophy at that point? No.

Did anyone expect him to win a Norris that season? No.

Did they think he had the potential to maybe, someday win one? Sure. But again, likely a couple years down the road.

Was he worth the 5x5 deal? Yes, but we were against the cap and all the other current stars had done a bridge deal, and not signing him to one would be placing a different standard on him vs the other stars (Price, Pacioretty) and that wouldn't sit well I don't think.


Funny, in my world, when a player who hasn't proven he has reached his potential gets a bridge deal. Then shows a glimpse of his full talent AFTER he signs it, I think gee, that guy has proven himself and earned a big money deal. In your world aparently it's a horribe insulting deal because you have a crystal ball to see the future.


The whole point of the bridge deal is simple. We think you got the stuff, but you haven't done it yet, show us, then we'll pay you. At the same time, that bridge deal ensures that the better players stay with you longer (10 yrs - bridge deal+ max term) vs 5 yrs (rumored deal that he had wanted) All while controling the cap.



On a side note. If this happened with a player from another team, that GM would be hailed as a lucky genius to have aplayer perform so well on a bridge deal. In Montreal, because we live in hindsight is 20/20 land....it's insulting, horrible, how can anyone live with this garbage.




And you failed to explain why Subban's deal was so unfair, yet had no issue with Price, Pacioretty or Eller's bridge deals as I mentioned in the post you quoted

 

[Whitesnake]

Main point is that Bergevin gives bridge contracts to everybody as part of his "strategy". I don't believe in this. I think that you need to somewhat be clairvoyant enough that "special players" get "special treatment". Subban is in that category. So whatever the reason, we don't know. But we know that Bergevin works with bridge contracts for everybody. And I don't think it's a good strategy.

 

[Raimu]

I think the point with that bridge contract was to set a precedent for all future negos.

I read that VERY wrong for a second lol. "negos"

 

[RussCourtnallsGhost]

Anyone defending that bridge contract is in an incredible amount of denial. Bergevin got it wrong. He took a risk, and it backfired. How badly did it backfire? We'll find out soon enough.

One thing is for sure, there are a lot of players in the NHL who would've taken such a lowball offer very personally, thankfully PK seems more mature than most give him credit for.

 

[Lions999]

PK is the real deal no matter what you think MT has done. I actually think MT slowed down his progress this year. With all his kindergarten antics I think it hurt PK for a few months.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

I'll just respond to the knuckleheads with this post. A bridge deal is a "prove yourself" deal. If people here think the team believed in PK as a top end Dman at the time and then offered him a "bridge deal" and then focussed on "making him a better person". Then you're delusional as hell.

Fact: Subban wanted a longterm deal
Fact: Team offered Subban a bridge deal to prove himself as they did not believe he deserved a long term deal at the time.

The team has always made PK work for every crum while other players were pampered and given more without really deserving it. But yea.. the team believed in PK all the way. Yea sure.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

Talk about assumptions.

Why didn't anyone say it was insulting Price when he got his "prove yourself lowball" offer? Or Pacioretty? or Eller?

Seems to me, this is a buisiness model to be able to not only manage the cap, further evaluate players, but also to buy more UFA years with a 3rd deal all while ensuring they remain in the RFA zone to make it less likely you lose them for nothing.

If Subban had not performed at the level he did for whatever reason (injuries, off year) whould this even be a discussion? Not likely, Bergevin would likely be hailed as a genuis for his forsight to not get sucked into a Myers type situation.

I don't believe he was lowballed, he was given a fair market deal for a good, yet not great young player at the time. He stepped up, played nearly to his full potential. Now he will get paid fair market value again, the difference being, his market value has gone up, but in this case there is more available cap space than when he signed his bridge deal, so you can obviously see that Bergevin was trying simply to manage the cap. So instead of only getting Subban for 5 years (as was rumoured) we get him for 10 years (2yr bridge + 8yr max term contract).

I thought we were talking about PK. I'm not going to talk about other players. Price, Max, Eller were nowhere near the level of PK when it was contract time and I can say they all got good deals at the time.

A one size fit all strategy is DUMB! I can't believe people are defending it. It is dumb because every situation is different. Every player is different. That wasn't a good deal then and it isn't a good deal now. It's not like PK just broke out one year and took everyone by surprise. The guy was a stud since day 1. You don't throw him a bridge deal, then have the new coach single him out as a player to change. Then all the other crap the team has done to downplay him. The way PK has been handled is not normal. It has never been normal. But in come the koolaid sippers defending everything.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Had no problem with the bridge deal at the time and still don't

Time will tell what it costs us in the long run but it's impossible to say what PKs career path would be if we was given the big money out of the ELC with the extra pressure in a city like Montreal and the 'carrot' loss

Saw 1st hand in Calgary what it did to Phaneuf, went from the next Scott Stevens who would be a perennial Norris winner to a sideshow around town who couldn't be coached and too caught up reading his press clipping and singing Karaoke drunk to ever meet his potential - back then Weber was an afterthought in any conversation about Dion