Subban Contract Talk

[417]

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.

Ahh yes...the Butterfly Theory

 

[Whitesnake]

end thread/


amazed that people are so blind to this reality.

So when Bergevin does it to Galchenyuk, it will mean that he doesn't believe in him?

 

[Miller Time]

Ahh yes...the Butterfly Theory

more accurate theory than the 'kook-aid' approach, or the "head in the sand" theory

 

[417]

more accurate theory than the 'kook-aid' approach, or the "head in the sand" theory

So let me get this straight...

Because I approve of a GM taking advantage of mechanisms that are built-in to the CBA to control player costs, it means I've got my head in the sand or i'm drinking the Kool-Aid?

And just to elaborate on your post of having another 3/4M in cap space for the next 3 years...that obviously means that whoever the Habs would of used that money on in this silly hypothetical scenario, would of panned out perfectly right? Because any time a GM has money to spend on free agents, it ALWAYS works out right?

I mean, other than Briere...it always works out....right???

 

[Miller Time]

So when Bergevin does it to Galchenyuk, it will mean that he doesn't believe in him?

i guess we'll see...

whether it's done out of player evaluation, or it's done as a cookie-cutter "philosophy", matters little.

like with Gainey and the approach to contract negotiations, having a one-size-fits-all approach to contract management is a failed strategy that doesn't reflect the business realities of hockey.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

more accurate theory than the 'kook-aid' approach, or the "head in the sand" theory

so, disagree with you = kool aid or head in the sand?

what if, and this is just a crazy theory here....what if 417 is right and because players are becoming regulars at an earlier age, GMs are going to use this tactic to keep costs down all while icing a better team?

I know it's a crazy idea, but I'm willing to look at it's merits.

 

[Miller Time]

So let me get this straight...

Because I approve of a GM taking advantage of mechanisms that are built-in to the CBA to control player costs, it means I've got my head in the sand or i'm drinking the Kool-Aid?

And just to elaborate on your post of having another 3/4M in cap space for the next 3 years...that obviously means that whoever the Habs would of used that money on in this silly hypothetical scenario, would of panned out perfectly right? Because any time a GM has money to spend on free agents, it ALWAYS works out right?

I mean, other than Briere...it always works out....right???

nope, just the emphasis on evaluating a unique individual situation in the context of a general interpretation of a "built-in-mechanism"

 

[Halifaxhab*]

i guess we'll see...

whether it's done out of player evaluation, or it's done as a cookie-cutter "philosophy", matters little.

like with Gainey and the approach to contract negotiations, having a one-size-fits-all approach to contract management is a failed strategy that doesn't reflect the business realities of hockey.

waiting until the last minute to negotiate with UFAs and having a method of developping RFAs is two different things TBH.

Now. To be fair. What is strategy that better reflects the realities of hockey. Seriously, I am open to hearing your case. 417 makes a very compelling, and well thought out one. I would love to see the other side of the coin.

 

[Miller Time]

so, disagree with you = kool aid or head in the sand?

what if, and this is just a crazy theory here....what if 417 is right and because players are becoming regulars at an earlier age, GMs are going to use this tactic to keep costs down all while icing a better team?

I know it's a crazy idea, but I'm willing to look at it's merits.

nope. opinions are just opinons after all.

ignoring arguments made and relying on narrow subjective interpretations in order to blanket justify decision making does...


agree to disagree

 

[Frozenice]

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.

Not at all. If PK is one of your core guys and his demands are reasonable you pay him and you do so because 'he's your guy'. Maybe you make it a 7 year deal, even if you add $8 million to the 6 year deal to make it happen and so it works for both sides. The 5 year deal was bogus, there was no way MB should be buying all his RFA years and get none of his UFA years.

I'm not against a 2 year deal per se, but it has to be at a fair and equitable dollar amount and not what PK was paid.

 

[Whitesnake]

i guess we'll see...

whether it's done out of player evaluation, or it's done as a cookie-cutter "philosophy", matters little.

like with Gainey and the approach to contract negotiations, having a one-size-fits-all approach to contract management is a failed strategy that doesn't reflect the business realities of hockey.

Well I'm mostly commenting the "we do not believe in him" statement. But I totally agree to have a one size fits all isn't right in my opinion too. Special treatment to special players. But one thing is sure though in the end....agents aren't dumb. And if Subban would have taken a 5 years 5M$ or something, you would have been looking at an agent who would have calculated how much Subban lost in the process of taking that deal, and would have asked to be compensated for it in the next one. When all is said and done, in the end, I don't think players lose too much money. So what would have helped the Habs as far as salary cap is concerned for the next 5 years, maybe it would have been awful for the cap in the next contract....and we would have whined then.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Not at all. If PK is one of your core guys and his demands are reasonable you pay him and you do so because 'he's your guy'. Maybe you make it a 7 year deal, even if you add $8 million to the 6 year deal to make it happen and so it works for both sides. The 5 year deal was bogus, there was no way MB should be buying all his RFA years and get none of his UFA years.

I'm not against a 2 year deal per se, but it has to be at a fair and equitable dollar amount and not what PK was paid.

But here's my argument against the 5 yr deal option, which BTW, I was in favor of. We didn't really have the cap space at the time. Gomez was told to stay home, but the NHL didn't allow us to take his pay off the cap at that point, the "gomez rule" wasn't applied until after the contract was signed.

But why is it in PK's case, everyone argues a deal has to be fair, but when other low cap hit offers are signed by other players who performed well on those deals it's a genius move by the GM? Why is PK any different?

I see the bridge deal that was signed as MB's best option to control the crazy cap issues he faced at the time, and giving him the best option of getting more UFA years bough than offering the 5-6 year deal Subban's camp wanted.

 

[Forlando]

Transition contracts (those after entry level contract and before UFA contract) have existed for a while...some GMs blew away this notion (and they should be hanged for this) because they thought they coul "buy" a cup by throwing money around...yes Kevin Lowe, I am talking to you. This irresponsible behaviour has become a trend among certain GMs.

For once it is great to have an organization and GM that have maintained a different trend by offering transition deals: Price, Subban, Patches, etc.

A healthy and succesful management of a team in a cap world needs this...it actually depends on this. It has nothing to do with the fact that the player is great, proven, unproven or bad.

If you don't understand this notion, then "you know nothing, Jon Snow"

 

[417]

nope, just the emphasis on evaluating a unique individual situation in the context of a general interpretation of a "built-in-mechanism"

The RFA system within the CBA is not an interpretation...It's right there in black and white

I'm not making it up or adding a spin to it

Now I might partly agree with you that taking a singular approach for all contracts may not be the right thing to do in all circumstances... But that doesn't make the bridge deal Subban signed a mistake and I've yet to see you make a case that backs that theory up.

In the end, the only thing you're debating is the different route taken by the Habs to eventually get to the same destination

 

[417]

Transition contratcts (those after entry level contract and before UFA contract) have existed for a while...some GMs blew away this notion (and they should be hanged for this) because they thought they coul "buy" a cup by throwing money around...yes Kevin Lowe, I am talking to you. This irresponsible behaviour has become a trend among certain GMs.

For once is great to have an organization and GM that has maintained a different trend by offering transition deals: Price, Subban, Patches, etc.

A healthy and succesful management of a team in a cap world needs this...it actually dends on this. It has nothing to do with the fact that the player is great, proven, unproven or bad.

If you don't understand this notion, then "you know nothing, Jon Snow"

Agreed 100%..well said

Had very little to do with belief in players... It has everything to do with using the CA to one's advantage

Just like now... It's Subban's turn to use it to his advantage

 

[Frozenice]

But here's my argument against the 5 yr deal option, which BTW, I was in favor of. We didn't really have the cap space at the time. Gomez was told to stay home, but the NHL didn't allow us to take his pay off the cap at that point, the "gomez rule" wasn't applied until after the contract was signed.

But why is it in PK's case, everyone argues a deal has to be fair, but when other low cap hit offers are signed by other players who performed well on those deals it's a genius move by the GM? Why is PK any different?

I see the bridge deal that was signed as MB's best option to control the crazy cap issues he faced at the time, and giving him the best option of getting more UFA years bough than offering the 5-6 year deal Subban's camp wanted.

Teams like Toronto or Philly would most likely offer sheet PK for $7 or $8 million on a 6 or 7 year deal so the Habs paying him $3 million or so below the market price is low balling him.

Would some team offer sheet Pouliot or Eller or Emelin? Probably not and they probably wouldn't pay him much more then what we did as RFA's. That's the purpose of arbitration and offer sheets, to allow players to be paid a fair market price.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Agreed 100%..well said

Had very little to do with belief in players... It has everything to do with using the CA to one's advantage

Just like now... It's Subban's turn to use it to his advantage

it may very well still be a stroke of luck for MTL. IF Subban had signed a 5 or 6 yr deal. When that deal would be done, as a UFA, the cap very well could be 80M. What do you think Subban's agent would be asking for then? For a 28yo Norris winner top Dman? 11M....12M?

I think the model used worked in this instance. I don't believe in the "isulted" or ruffled feather theory as players know it's a business, and it wasn't a situation we see with COL and ROR.

 

[Miller Time]

Well I'm mostly commenting the "we do not believe in him" statement. But I totally agree to have a one size fits all isn't right in my opinion too. Special treatment to special players. But one thing is sure though in the end....agents aren't dumb. And if Subban would have taken a 5 years 5M$ or something, you would have been looking at an agent who would have calculated how much Subban lost in the process of taking that deal, and would have asked to be compensated for it in the next one. When all is said and done, in the end, I don't think players lose too much money. So what would have helped the Habs as far as salary cap is concerned for the next 5 years, maybe it would have been awful for the cap in the next contract....and we would have whined then.

players also aren't (generally) dumb.

while we may speculate that the total $ Subban can/will get from the habs will be similar, or that his agent will work towards that, there is a reason why players want term.

Injury is a factor. Today, Subban might feel better about how it all shaked out, but rewind 2 years ago and the reality is that he had a 6M$ guarantee/commitment from his team instead of a 20M$ + one.

big difference, and players have long memories of real (or perceived) slights.

 

[Miller Time]

The RFA system within the CBA is not an interpretation...It's right there in black and white

I'm not making it up or adding a spin to it

Now I might partly agree with you that taking a singular approach for all contracts may not be the right thing to do in all circumstances... But that doesn't make the bridge deal Subban signed a mistake and I've yet to see you make a case that backs that theory up.

In the end, the only thing you're debating is the different route taken by the Habs to eventually get to the same destination

so then you would be fine with habs low-balling Subban again given that he is still an RFA?

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Teams like Toronto or Philly would most likely offer sheet PK for $7 or $8 million on a 6 or 7 year deal so the Habs paying him $3 million or so below the market price is low balling him.

Would some team offer sheet Pouliot or Eller or Emelin? Probably not and they probably wouldn't pay him much more then what we did as RFA's. That's the purpose of arbitration and offer sheets, to allow players to be paid a fair market price.

If he got an OS MTL would match. But Price didn't get an OS, Pacioretty didn't....at least they didn't sign one.

So, again, why is the standard different for Subban?

I saw him as a star player, in the same way I saw Price and maybe Pacioretty could be at that point in their careers. I just don't see why the double standard.

 

[417]

it may very well still be a stroke of luck for MTL. IF Subban had signed a 5 or 6 yr deal. When that deal would be done, as a UFA, the cap very well could be 80M. What do you think Subban's agent would be asking for then? For a 28yo Norris winner top Dman? 11M....12M?

I think the model used worked in this instance. I don't believe in the "isulted" or ruffled feather theory as players know it's a business, and it wasn't a situation we see with COL and ROR.

I think that's a faire guesstimate...IMO, if people are going to be shocked by the deal Subban signs in the next few days/weeks, it would look like nothing had the Habs signed him to a 5-6 year deal 2 years ago, and would then need to sign him during his PRIME and facing free agency

I didn't see it at the time, I thought the Habs were crazy for not signing him to a 5-6 year deal...but as time went on, I realized that it was actually the most cost efficient thing to do, both in short term and long term.

The fact that Subban is going to make 8M+ now is great...it means he earned it, there's no doubt about his place as one of the league's elite players, nevermind just Dmen. He's one of the best players in the game and therefore, he should be paid like one. 2 years ago, this was not the case and furthermore, even if it was, the Habs weren't required to do so. They are now though..

 

[417]

so then you would be fine with habs low-balling Subban again given that he is still an RFA?

Firstly, I don't believe the Habs 'low-balled' Subban at all...this is conjecture on your part at best.

Secondly, I don't forsee or envision a scenario where the Habs will or would low-ball Subban. I'm sure they're aware of the fact that Subban's got the leverage this time and that they're going to have to pay up.

But should the scenario pop up where it comes out that they low-balled him...then they'll be responsible for the fallout.

However, this doesn't change my opinion on the bridge deal...it was the right thing to do.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

I think that's a faire guesstimate...IMO, if people are going to be shocked by the deal Subban signs in the next few days/weeks, it would look like nothing had the Habs signed him to a 5-6 year deal 2 years ago, and would then need to sign him during his PRIME and facing free agency

I didn't see it at the time, I thought the Habs were crazy for not signing him to a 5-6 year deal...but as time went on, I realized that it was actually the most cost efficient thing to do, both in short term and long term.

The fact that Subban is going to make 8M+ now is great...it means he earned it, there's no doubt about his place as one of the league's elite players, nevermind just Dmen. He's one of the best players in the game and therefore, he should be paid like one. 2 years ago, this was not the case and furthermore, even if it was, the Habs weren't required to do so. They are now though..

I definately prefer paying a player his actual value instead of guestimating based on potential alone.

Now, there may come a player down the road that we may very well have to, but I don't really see one yet. Galchenyuk will very likely get a bridge deal. Gallagher, prhaps they sign him to a longer term deal. But the one thing going in our favor there is that is isn't very big, so some teams will steer clear of him (crazy, I know)


And this notion that Suban was lowballed. I don't understand it. He was good, but still hadn't proven he was elite yet.

 

[Whitesnake]

players also aren't (generally) dumb.

while we may speculate that the total $ Subban can/will get from the habs will be similar, or that his agent will work towards that, there is a reason why players want term.

Injury is a factor. Today, Subban might feel better about how it all shaked out, but rewind 2 years ago and the reality is that he had a 6M$ guarantee/commitment from his team instead of a 20M$ + one.

big difference, and players have long memories of real (or perceived) slights.

You mean as far as not liking the team because of it? If so...wouldn't he only be looking to get out of here and go for a shorter term? 'Cause if he ends up with a 8-year contract, I fail to see how his long memory will help in that case.

 

[Miller Time]

Firstly, I don't believe the Habs 'low-balled' Subban at all...this is conjecture on your part at best.

Secondly, I don't forsee or envision a scenario where the Habs will or would low-ball Subban. I'm sure they're aware of the fact that Subban's got the leverage this time and that they're going to have to pay up.

But should the scenario pop up where it comes out that they low-balled him...then they'll be responsible for the fallout.

However, this doesn't change my opinion on the bridge deal...it was the right thing to do.

Subban's value, at the time he signed his 2nd contract, was FAR greater than the $ value the team signed him for. It caused a hold out that would have been far more protracted were the player not so motivated to play.

we can certainly agree to disagree, though certainly the benefit of hindsight would favour the "conjecture" that a norris trophy caliber dman is worth more than 2-3M$/eyear.


What leverage does he have now that is different than he had then? He is still an RFA. They can still control cost by simply qualifying him and forcing him to hold out or explore offer-sheets if he won't accept the minimum $$ offer he's entitled to via qualification.

this kind of selective interpretation/observation is what i meant by "kook-aid" approach.

They are responsible for the current fall-out of their initial low ball. that is my main point, funny that you voice the same one now but fail to see how equally it applied 2 years ago.