Subban Contract Talk

[Halifaxhab*]

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.

OH YEAH!

look. giving him the bridge deal isn't as horrible as some like to believe. I would have given him the 5yr deal. But this way works too. And it has the added bonus of getting him for possibly 10 yrs at an avg of 7.5 vs 5yrs @ avg 5.....I'll take the bigger number.

And the other players do come into play on this. If they treat Subban differently than them, what message is that sending? Is he more important than Price? Pacioretty? Would that divide the lockerroom?

And Price was the #1 goaltender in MTL who had a better draft pedigree and been to 2 All-Star games at that point, so yes, he had shown more at the same point in their careers, yet he still got a bridge, and no one said it was insulting to him.

You're big argument against it was that it was an insulting offer and that they would pay for it. Especially with his norris calibre play. But he hadn't played to that level at that point. Perhaps, he looked at the bridge deal and said "oh, yeah?! I'll show them" then stepped up his play to get his long term big money deal? And now has earned the big money deal. But what would have happened if he didn't play well, or got hurt and missed a year? would it have been as insulting then?


Is the bridge strategy that bad? I mean really. There are pros and cons to it.


But just because you feel the bridge concept is terrible, that means anyone who sees value in it, for any reason, is suddenly a kool aid drinking follower?

 

[417]

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.

Not really...a bridge deal is a GM taking advantage of the mechanisms that exist within the CBA to control player salaries while they are still under team control.

Some teams, most teams actually, choose to forego this advantage and pay players more than they're worth before they earned it

I think you're going to see more and more teams adopt the 'bridge deal' because as I just said, it allows teams to control costs over the length of a players career with their respective teams. Once a player reaches UFA status, that cost-control disappears .

It's a complete myth that the Habs will end up paying more now because Subban is on the verge of signing a big deal.

If you think the Habs are going to pay big to retain Subban in the coming weeks...it would be nothing compared to what they will have needed to pay 3 years from now had they signed him to a 5 year deal, 2 years ago.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Not really...a bridge deal is a GM taking advantage of the mechanisms that exist within the CBA to control player salaries while they are still under team control.

Some teams, most teams actually, choose to forego this advantage and pay players more than they're worth before they earned it

I think you're going to see more and more teams adopt the 'bridge deal' because as I just said, it allows teams to control costs over the length of a players career with their respective teams. Once a player reaches UFA status, that cost-control disappears .

It's a complete myth that the Habs will end up paying more now because Subban is on the verge of signing a big deal.

If you think the Habs are going to pay big to retain Subban in the coming weeks...it would be nothing compared to what they will have needed to pay 3 years from now had they signed him to a 5 year deal, 2 years ago.

This makes perfect sense. I have ZERO issues with this. I would have done the 5yr deal, but I am glad we didn't just so that we can sign him to a long term deal and have him with us possibly for 12 yrs by the time this next deal is up....buying 6 yrs of his UFA status

 

[417]

This makes perfect sense. I have ZERO issues with this. I would have done the 5yr deal, but I am glad we didn't just so that we can sign him to a long term deal and have him with us possibly for 12 yrs by the time this next deal is up....buying 6 yrs of his UFA status

I think because of the deals certain RFA's have signed the last few years, people have forgotten what a player who is an RFA is. Again, the only time a team can control salary costs for players, is on their Entry-Level Contract AND on their 2nd contract.

Just because sometimes choose to forego that option on the 2nd contract, doesn't mean every team should.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

OH YEAH!

look. giving him the bridge deal isn't as horrible as some like to believe. I would have given him the 5yr deal. But this way works too. And it has the added bonus of getting him for possibly 10 yrs at an avg of 7.5 vs 5yrs @ avg 5.....I'll take the bigger number.

And the other players do come into play on this. If they treat Subban differently than them, what message is that sending? Is he more important than Price? Pacioretty? Would that divide the lockerroom?

And Price was the #1 goaltender in MTL who had a better draft pedigree and been to 2 All-Star games at that point, so yes, he had shown more at the same point in their careers, yet he still got a bridge, and no one said it was insulting to him.

You're big argument against it was that it was an insulting offer and that they would pay for it. Especially with his norris calibre play. But he hadn't played to that level at that point. Perhaps, he looked at the bridge deal and said "oh, yeah?! I'll show them" then stepped up his play to get his long term big money deal? And now has earned the big money deal. But what would have happened if he didn't play well, or got hurt and missed a year? would it have been as insulting then?


Is the bridge strategy that bad? I mean really. There are pros and cons to it.


But just because you feel the bridge concept is terrible, that means anyone who sees value in it, for any reason, is suddenly a kool aid drinking follower?

We disagree. But I will say all star games mean nothing to me when evaluating a player.

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

Not really...a bridge deal is a GM taking advantage of the mechanisms that exist within the CBA to control player salaries while they are still under team control.

Some teams, most teams actually, choose to forego this advantage and pay players more than they're worth before they earned it

I think you're going to see more and more teams adopt the 'bridge deal' because as I just said, it allows teams to control costs over the length of a players career with their respective teams. Once a player reaches UFA status, that cost-control disappears .

It's a complete myth that the Habs will end up paying more now because Subban is on the verge of signing a big deal.

If you think the Habs are going to pay big to retain Subban in the coming weeks...it would be nothing compared to what they will have needed to pay 3 years from now had they signed him to a 5 year deal, 2 years ago.

Dude, lets look at the deal with PK. The organization said countless times that they were not happy with where he was at. The bridge deal was a prove yourself deal for PK. All the things Bergie and MT said about PK cement that. They fully did not want to give him money now because they were not sure if he was "the guy". PK had all kinds of question marks in the organization's eyes. Now people want to rewrite history?

The team has no issue going all in on other players.

 

[crystal ball]

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.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. My entire point is that bridge contract or no bridge contract, Subban's earnings will end up being pretty much the same over the next 10-12 years. I didn't say he wasn't worth 5x5 last time. I said if he had signed that deal, when he went to negotiate a new deal in three years, he'd still get paid and the averages would work out to be around the same. Therefore, there's no need to keep debating whether the bridge contract was a mistake. In the long run, it just doesn't matter.

 

[Raimu]

well, if we had given him 5 years a 5.75 or whatever the rumor said, then in 3 years we'd be back here *****ing about how he wants 9 mil. There's two sides to every coin.

 

[JayKing]

just give him his long term contract and everything will be forgotten

 

[JusticeBeaver]

well, if we had given him 5 years a 5.75 or whatever the rumor said, then in 3 years we'd be back here *****ing about how he wants 9 mil. There's two sides to every coin.

To further that I believe with increasing hockey revenues and popularity, he could command even more.

Either way it's all rumours. Not sure why people spend so much effort trying to make something that wasn't confirmed into actual fact to try and validate their statments.

Just because you read it here, doesn't mean it's true.

Patches for E.Kane, bogo E5

 

[Whitesnake]

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.

Bergevin will seemingly do that to EVERY player he signs. He is going to do that with Galchenyuk. Bergevin uses that strategy to buy some time. I don't think it means he doesn't belive in them. Even in the way they were treating him, it's not about not believing in the guy more than "I know what's good for you". And we saw it when Therrien almost said that it was because of how HE treated Subban, that Subban made it to the Olympics. So for me, it s a mix of "That's our strategy" and "We know what's good for you all". Nothing about believing or not.

 

[bigtimehockeyfan999*]

A couple things are odd with the OP because its not the average they make between 2 contracts that matter...its the cap hit of one...but I understand the point, completely agree with it and have been preaching it since the argument arose.

We can only speak in hypotheticals because no agreement has been reached yet....but if we look at it logically, the rumour was that pk was looking for about 6 million for 5 years.

If we sign that....ya....these next 3 years or so we would have a discounted PK...but would that discount really help us....do people think these next 3 years are where we are gonna be best contenders....? or the 8 after that.....because I think its after that.....when we've built more through the draft....when galchenyuk is 25....when Gallagher is there too, and bourival, and tinordi, and beaulieu and McCarron and we still have elite price and pk in their primes, under 30.

Wouldn't you rather be paying him 8 for the next 8 years than start negotitions in 3 years time when the market has gone through the roof and subban has improved even more and added another Norris (and he is going to...believe me). He could get 10 then...maybe more...who knows....where we're headed...the game has never had so many original 6 teams thriving, boston, Chicago, Detroit still has their playoff streak going, montreal the rangers....not toronto but still....revenue is soaring

also on an extremely optimistic side....it was announced that subban would be looking for north of the 6.5 pietrangelo got, which is obvoius but the fact that it wasn't...the 7 doughty got or the 7.8 weber got, really makes me believe we could get him for under 8. Usually when they bring up a comparable like that you don't see the the player go earn way over....just a bit.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

A couple things are odd with the OP because its not the average they make between 2 contracts that matter...its the cap hit of one...but I understand the point, completely agree with it and have been preaching it since the argument arose.

We can only speak in hypotheticals because no agreement has been reached yet....but if we look at it logically, the rumour was that pk was looking for about 6 million for 5 years.

If we sign that....ya....these next 3 years or so we would have a discounted PK...but would that discount really help us....do people think these next 3 years are where we are gonna be best contenders....? or the 8 after that.....because I think its after that.....when we've built more through the draft....when galchenyuk is 25....when Gallagher is there too, and bourival, and tinordi, and beaulieu and McCarron and we still have elite price and pk in their primes, under 30.

Wouldn't you rather be paying him 8 for the next 8 years than start negotitions in 3 years time when the market has gone through the roof and subban has improved even more and added another Norris (and he is going to...believe me). He could get 10 then...maybe more...who knows....where we're headed...the game has never had so many original 6 teams thriving, boston, Chicago, Detroit still has their playoff streak going, montreal the rangers....not toronto but still....revenue is soaring

also on an extremely optimistic side....it was announced that subban would be looking for north of the 6.5 pietrangelo got, which is obvoius but the fact that it wasn't...the 7 doughty got or the 7.8 weber got, really makes me believe we could get him for under 8. Usually when they bring up a comparable like that you don't see the the player go earn way over....just a bit.

If we got him at 8yr under 8M I'd be pretty happy.

 

[417]

Dude, lets look at the deal with PK. The organization said countless times that they were not happy with where he was at. The bridge deal was a prove yourself deal for PK. All the things Bergie and MT said about PK cement that. They fully did not want to give him money now because they were not sure if he was "the guy". PK had all kinds of question marks in the organization's eyes. Now people want to rewrite history?

The team has no issue going all in on other players.

I'm sorry, not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall them saying that...and furthermore, i'm not sure how that changes what I wrote

 

[Halifaxhab*]

We disagree. But I will say all star games mean nothing to me when evaluating a player.

It just showed he was more established and closer to reaching that full potential. And while I would have signed him to the 5yr deal. I have no problem seeing the multitude of reason to sign him to a bridge deal, and understand why it was done that way.

I think 417 is correct in that more and more GM's are going to use the bridge strategy as now the NHL has more and more players break in at the start of their ELC's.

It wasn't normal for that to happen even 5-10 years ago. So giving a guy a longer term deal on the 2nd contract made sense. But now as more and more 18-19 yo players are regulars, we'll see the bridge format used to help control the cap. Especially by teams that are contenders like LA, CHI and others that are close to the cap cieling but really want to keep the roster together.

 

[417]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. My entire point is that bridge contract or no bridge contract, Subban's earnings will end up being pretty much the same over the next 10-12 years. I didn't say he wasn't worth 5x5 last time. I said if he had signed that deal, when he went to negotiate a new deal in three years, he'd still get paid and the averages would work out to be around the same. Therefore, there's no need to keep debating whether the bridge contract was a mistake. In the long run, it just doesn't matter.

Exactly. Well said.

It's just a different way to handing a contract negotiation with a start player coming off ELC. It's different than how these have been typically handled in recent years (see Hall, Skinner, Karlsson, etc, etc).

But because it's not the norm...a lot of people are assuming it was a mistake. When in the end, it basically comes down to the same thing.

That's the problem with all the information we have access too these days...everyone thinks they're an expert when it comes to the cap.

 

[Miller Time]

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.

end thread/


amazed that people are so blind to this reality.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

end thread/


amazed that people are so blind to this reality.

Here's a good article on it

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2...vin-right-to-sign-p-k-subban-to-a-bridge-deal

"As you can see, the results are pretty staggering. Bergevin was dealt a serious blow when the cap crunch was announced for 2013-14, and he had to form his team around the incoming six million dollar drop in cap space. What he ended up doing was creating a scenario where he doesn't just get Subban at a severe discount for two years, he's likely to get better value over the next decade, carrying Subban to the age of 33."

 

[Miller Time]

Exactly. Well said.

It's just a different way to handing a contract negotiation with a start player coming off ELC. It's different than how these have been typically handled in recent years (see Hall, Skinner, Karlsson, etc, etc).

But because it's not the norm...a lot of people are assuming it was a mistake. When in the end, it basically comes down to the same thing.

That's the problem with all the information we have access too these days...everyone thinks they're an expert when it comes to the cap.

not the case.

the 3-4M$/year difference in the next 3-4 years will have an immediate and direct impact on the teams ability to spend in other parts of the roster.

combine that to the timing of other contracts (Gally/Galch/Eller/MaxPac/Emelin cap hits the next 3 years all favourable), and it would have been a perfect situation for the habs to have an extra 3-4M$/year in cap space to spend.

in hindsight, the move was CLEARLY a mistake.

only question is how much that mistake was predictable at the time (i.e how confident one was in Subban's ability & likelihood to continue improving)... many knowledgable sport observers made that accurate prediction, shame that the habs brass didn't.

 

[417]

end thread/


amazed that people are so blind to this reality.

I'd like to know what your perception of how much the Habs believed in Subban has to do with anything of relevance? Whether or not they believed in him really has nothing to do with whether or not they should of signed him to a bridge deal or not.

I don't care if Subban would of won the Norris trophy his 2nd year in the NHL...because he is a restricted free agent coming off his ELC, the Habs don't HAVE to pay him millions of dollars because that's what other teams are doing. That's the whole point of the RFA system

 

[Miller Time]

Here's a good article on it

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2...vin-right-to-sign-p-k-subban-to-a-bridge-deal

"As you can see, the results are pretty staggering. Bergevin was dealt a serious blow when the cap crunch was announced for 2013-14, and he had to form his team around the incoming six million dollar drop in cap space. What he ended up doing was creating a scenario where he doesn't just get Subban at a severe discount for two years, he's likely to get better value over the next decade, carrying Subban to the age of 33."

put another way, a better gamble on Subban two years ago would have made it tough to sign briers to a 4M$ deal, but would have freed up 3-4M$/year for the next 3 years.

 

[Miller Time]

I'd like to know what your perception of how much the Habs believed in Subban has to do with anything of relevance?

my perception, backed up by both public commentary by the head coach and by private conversations with individuals closely tied to the organization, is as much/little relevant as your own perceptions.

fact is that the team publicly questioned a player who had done nothing but prove his worth/value/commitment.

fact is that the team lost 3 years of discounted rate on one of the best players in the league

 

[417]

the 3-4M$/year difference in the next 3-4 years will have an immediate and direct impact on the teams ability to spend in other parts of the roster.

Sure...if you actually believe that a single contract can impact the financial solvability of an entire roster. But i'm guessing you're just using hyperbole to drive across your point.

combine that to the timing of other contracts (Gally/Galch/Eller/MaxPac/Emelin cap hits the next 3 years all favourable), and it would have been a perfect situation for the habs to have an extra 3-4M$/year in cap space to spend.

The Habs aren't strapped for cap cash...their highest paid player currently makes 6.25M. Yes, Subban is going to beat that, but there are other teams paying several players a lot more money than the Habs are, and they manage to find a way. So will the Habs.

in hindsight, the move was CLEARLY a mistake.

Completely disagree and you don't have a case to say that it was clearly a mistake and you could never, ever prove that one decision regarding a bridge contract can negatively impact the fortunes of an entire roster. This is just more hyperbole by you.

only question is how much that mistake was predictable at the time (i.e how confident one was in Subban's ability & likelihood to continue improving)... many knowledgable sport observers made that accurate prediction, shame that the habs brass didn't

Again, the Habs belief in Subban has very little to do with the decision to offer him a bridge deal. The CBA and the RFA system does.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

put another way, a better gamble on Subban two years ago would have made it tough to sign briers to a 4M$ deal, but would have freed up 3-4M$/year for the next 3 years.

maybe.

But are we all forgetting the cap dropped by nearly 6M the season his ELC came due? the team was up against it, and Bergevin did a desent job dealing with that.

I wasn't a purponent of bridge deals, but I really do see the reasons for them.

Devils advocate - If Subban had signed the 6M over 6yrs deal, and then had a bad lockout year, and an ok season this year.....would we be arguing the deal was too much? would we have wished he was signed to a bridge deal instead?


He got the bridge, played amazing, and will get paid for it. But thankfully, with the cap going steadily up, we'll still be happy in the long run, because had he done the 6 yrs deal, he'd be 28, with 1 or 2 Norris trophies, and a cap that could be as high as 80M by then, he'd be demanding 11-12M a year.

 

[417]

my perception, backed up by both public commentary by the head coach and by private conversations with individuals closely tied to the organization, is as much/little relevant as your own perceptions.

fact is that the team publicly questioned a player who had done nothing but prove his worth/value/commitment.

fact is that the team lost 3 years of discounted rate on one of the best players in the league

Is that right? Because Subban won a Norris trophy and followed that up with another strong season all at under 4M per season.

How do you figure the team lost 3 years of discounted rate on one of the best players in the league?

You've got an odd way to look at things to be honest....

Also the public commentary by the coach/gm or your private conversations with members of the organization have very little to do with anything. Again, and this is something that seems to be lost on many people, the Habs took advantage of what is afforded to them within the CBA to control player salaries. They did it with Carey Price, Max Pacioretty and Lars Eller and will continue to do so as long as Bergevin is the GM of this team.

What's so wrong with that???