Rumor: (The Score update) PK Subban looking for a 7 year deal north of $6.5M

[Lafleurs Guy]

It's easy to throw up baseless arguments...here's one, the sky is actually orange.

The hard part is proving it, still waiting for you to show how this is going to '**** us over at some point down the line'.

Feel free to do so at any point

Like I said, I did this last season. I'm not putting in that effort again. Feel free to read my old posts if you wish.

This is very much like the Gomez trade - black and white. You can argue that the Gomez trade was a good one all you wish, rationalize it, explain it... whatever. It was dumb. And the way we treated PK here was dumb as well.

I'm not going to explain to you why water is wet. It just is.

 

[417]

Not sure why you keep repeating that he was a RFA. Everybody knows this.

Yes everyone knows this, you're correct...but doesn't appear as though everyone understands this. Apparently, people think that because Subban is a great young player and an RFA, it meant the Habs HAD to sign him to a long term deal off his ELC. Just mostly based purely on the fact that other teams were doing the same with their young -but-unproven stars.

It was a stupid management decision. Of course it was well within their rights, nobody is arguing otherwise, they can sign a RFA to an 8 year deal if they want too.
Not suggesting they should have signed him to such a long term but it's within the team's rights.
PK was already a solid player and pretty much everybody except a handful knew just how special PK was going to be.
Bergevin didn't know PK. I remember listening to him on the radio say how he needs to get familiar with the team because being out west in Chicago he didn't really know Montreal's team. So he wasn't going to sign a player coming off his sophomore year to a longer deal, which is fine. But we all knew how good PK was and the potential that you knew he was going to reach.

I don't know...seems like a prudent approach for a rookie GM starting his new role in a very tough and demanding market with a player who is polarizing. What's the issue here??

The bridge deal was stupid. Players are investments, PK was well worth the investment risk. Simple as that.

Saying it's stupid, doesn't make it stupid...make your case.

The Habs did/are investing in PK. They signed him to a bridge deal, now he's about to sign a huge deal. How is that not investing in the player? Matter of fact, they're about to invest in him more than they would have had they followed your course of action.

Except that PK isn't just another player. He was well worth a big contract already and we should have had the foresight to signing him at a longer term with more cash not to put us in the position we are in today.

yes yes...I know, PK Subban is a God and should be treated differently than any other player on this team. He's without fault. Blah, blah, blah.

you know my history here, i'm as big a PK fan as anyone. But some of you go to the extreme with how thin you perceive his skin to be. As though the guy can't handle going through a tough negotiation, as though the organization just has to give in to whatever he wants because he's so great. Ugh! That kind of thinking is nauseating.

PK held out, so ya, it's pretty evident he was lowballed. How naive are you? You know this. Even you said he was worth more than his deal.

I don't care if you think he was lowballed or not...again, completely inconsequential to this debate. Whatever deal Subban is about to sign next, I bet you anything that he feels he's worth more too. Does that mean when he signs a 8yr 64M deal (just throwing numbers out there), that he was lowballed again??? Who the hell cares about how you or I perceive a contract to look like, all that matters is whether or not both sides agree to the deal. When both sides put their names to paper, it means they are both satisfied with the terms and conditions. That's the only absolute here.

 

[417]

Like I said, I did this last season. I'm not putting in that effort again. Feel free to read my old posts if you wish.

This is very much like the Gomez trade - black and white. You can argue that the Gomez trade was a good one all you wish, rationalize it, explain it... whatever. It was dumb. And the way we treated PK here was dumb as well.

I'm not going to explain to you why water is wet. It just is.

So in other words...the bridge deal was/is dumb because you said so

Ohhhh kk...

Well i'm convinced

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So in other words...the bridge deal was/is dumb because you said so

Ohhhh kk...

Well i'm convinced

It's dumb period. Fact that I say so doesn't matter. Just like the Gomez trade was dumb...

 

[Fozz]

My Ignore list is building...tired of arguing with some who are set in their opinions and won't listen to any reason.

Honestly, I'm surprised you waited this long.

 

[Kriss E]

You can't blame all posters because one is clueless...

I found he survived it more than "handled it very well". A lot of ups and down and bumps in the road, definitely not the ideal situation.

Not blaming anybody. You said you don't remember people claiming to trade him. I said I do, very precisely, because I was debating how dumb those posters sounded at the time.

And you don't put up PK's numbers versus the toughest opponents as a #1 by just ''surviving'' it. He did very well. You don't ''survive'' one year and win a Norris the next.

 

[Fozz]

Personally, I think signing Subban to that bridge contract was the proper way to handle it and should be applied to all players at that stage of their career, regardless of their talent level. It's just the smart way of going about it. In fact, I'll add that GMs that sign players to lengthy contracts fresh out of their entry level deals are shortsighted idiots.

 

[417]

I hope no rookie ever comes in and wins a Calder for the Habs...some of you are going to be demanding the Habs give him a max contract

 

[Kriss E]

Yes everyone knows this, you're correct...but doesn't appear as though everyone understands this. Apparently, people think that because Subban is a great young player and an RFA, it meant the Habs HAD to sign him to a long term deal off his ELC. Just mostly based purely on the fact that other teams were doing the same with their young -but-unproven stars.

Are people saying Eller needs to be signed to a long term deal?
PK was already proven. He had been taking on the toughest defensive duties for a year and a half now and put up great numbers. It made sense to lock him up to a mid-long term deal.

I don't know...seems like a prudent approach for a rookie GM starting his new role in a very tough and demanding market with a player who is polarizing. What's the issue here??

You didn't have to be prudent with PK. You knew he was going to be worth a lot more in a couple of years.

Saying it's stupid, doesn't make it stupid...make your case.

The Habs did/are investing in PK. They signed him to a bridge deal, now he's about to sign a huge deal. How is that not investing in the player? Matter of fact, they're about to invest in him more than they would have had they followed your course of action.

The argument for signing PK to a bridge deal was that it gave us more cap space for the next two years. We wasted it on Briere.
Now instead of having PK signed to about 5M for another 3 years, he'll be making 7M+.
Why people did not care about a 2y deal is because they believe Habs's window (if we ever get one) was going to be in year 3-4-5 of Bergevin's tenure with PK-Price-Max entering their prime and Galchenyuk starting to blossom as well.
So those are the years we need to save cap on the most so we can be very aggressive on the open market.
It's all very simple to understand and logical.

yes yes...I know, PK Subban is a God and should be treated differently than any other player on this team. He's without fault. Blah, blah, blah.

you know my history here, i'm as big a PK fan as anyone. But some of you go to the extreme with how thin you perceive his skin to be. As though the guy can't handle going through a tough negotiation, as though the organization just has to give in to whatever he wants because he's so great. Ugh! That kind of thinking is nauseating.

What are you talking about? PK gave an exclusive to Stubbs because public opinion was shifting on him and he just wanted to tell the public all he's asking for is fair value. He held out, so it's very fair to say he didn't think he got his due.
In that interview, he doesn't exclude the possibility of requesting a trade. He sidesteps that question saying how he likes Mtl. He also says he needs to sit down with his family to discuss his future.
You also had Bobby Mac saying the possibility of a trade was very present.

So no, this isn't fans that think PK is a God and got his feelings hurt.
It's a business. It's an employee having a contractual dispute with his employer. In every business, there's only two possibilities that come out of a dispute. Either an agreement or the employee leaves.

And the biggest concern was that there was no need for a dispute.

I don't care if you think he was lowballed or not...again, completely inconsequential to this debate. Whatever deal Subban is about to sign next, I bet you anything that he feels he's worth more too. Does that mean when he signs a 8yr 64M deal (just throwing numbers out there), that he was lowballed again??? Who the hell cares about how you or I perceive a contract to look like, all that matters is whether or not both sides agree to the deal. When both sides put their names to paper, it means they are both satisfied with the terms and conditions. That's the only absolute here.

Are you that naive to think because both side signed that both are satisfied??
So when people get divorced and one side loses half their income, they're satisfied because they both signed the papers and settled on this agreement?

Again, how naive are you? Why do you think PK held out?

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Personally, I think signing Subban to that bridge contract was the proper way to handle it and should be applied to all players at that stage of their career, regardless of their talent level. It's just the smart way of going about it. In fact, I'll add that GMs that sign players to lengthy contracts fresh out of their entry level deals are shortsighted idiots.

yep easing them into big money makes sense on so many levels.

going from 900k to 6-8 per year is crazy. it may cost us a bit of cap hit but it buys us more UFA years too. but the cap usually goes up while those bridges happen so it almost works out anyways.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

Personally, I think signing Subban to that bridge contract was the proper way to handle it and should be applied to all players at that stage of their career, regardless of their talent level. It's just the smart way of going about it. In fact, I'll add that GMs that sign players to lengthy contracts fresh out of their entry level deals are shortsighted idiots.

Completely agree.

The whole offer sheet factor gives breakout young players a whole lot of leverage early in their careers. Strong team building has to have a great balance of risk-reward and most of the time a great deal of luck.

Just look at free agency, players that hit the market often make 1-2M a year more than they should and often get many more years of term than they really should, especially the older players. It all comes down to risk-reward and how desperate some teams are for a type of player and how they think he can help the team.

If Gallagher scores 20g-40p again this year.. That's three solid campaigns for him, does he get a bridge deal similar to PK or does he get a 4-5 year extention worth 3.5-4M a year? I'm sure their is a handful of teams looking for secondary scoring and a spark that a guy like Gally brings and would be willing to offer him a offer sheet. Geez what's the compensation for a 3.5M offer sheet now? In 2012 it was a second round pick for 3.3M. Would you give up a second round pick for Brandon Gallagher? Damn right you would.

What ruins it for some teams is other teams jumping the gun on young players and offering them ridiculous contracts out of ELC.. Just look at Tyler Myers.

 

[diskkkk]

yep easing them into big money makes sense on so many levels.

going from 900k to 8 per year is crazy. it may cost us a bit of cap hit but it buys us more UFA years too. but the cap usually goes up while those bridges happen so it almost works out anyways.

That's what I'm thinking. I think too much money, too soon can spoil a young player.

Imagine being 21-22 years old and being offered a 25M+ contract. It has to get to your head quick.

The bridge/waiting 2 more years before the big contract motivates a youngster, and keeps it head a bit cooler, letting him focus on hockey to prove himself further.

I'm really liking bridge contracts in that regard.

Cheers
-Disk

 

[Kriss E]

That's what I'm thinking. I think too much money, too soon can spoil a young player.

Imagine being 21-22 years old and being offered a 25M+ contract. It has to get to your head quick.

The bridge/waiting 2 more years before the big contract motivates a youngster, and keeps it head a bit cooler, letting him focus on hockey to prove himself further.

I'm really liking bridge contracts in that regard.

Cheers
-Disk

That's all fine and dandy, except that is not at all why PK was given a bridge deal.
Bergevin himself said he needs to see more from PK.

And if a person will let money come to his head, then getting your first million dollar contract will also do that.
PK never seemed like the type to let money, and after learning more about his dad and family, you know he wasn't raised that way.

 

[habsfanatics*]

So then explain the part where despite being only a #4 he played in the same situations as Weber, for the same minutes, and drove possession to the same degree as Weber despite playing with Josh Gorges instead of Ryan Suter. Despite being a #4 he was elite and one of the best in the league on the penalty kill in every demonstrable way.

Subban had elite results in the same situations as the league's elite in 2011-12, but he was only a #4? If a guy plays elite minutes, in elite situations, and gets elite results...he's a #4? It doesn't work that way. You don't play top pairing minutes for a whole season and fluke your way to having possession numbers in line with Shea Weber, especially not with Josh Gorges as your partner.

OMFG, where the hell did you come from? Someone who consistently makes sense.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

That's all fine and dandy, except that is not at all why PK was given a bridge deal.
Bergevin himself said he needs to see more from PK.

And if a person will let money come to his head, then getting your first million dollar contract will also do that.
PK never seemed like the type to let money, and after learning more about his dad and family, you know he wasn't raised that way.

oh for sure. PK seems as well put together as anyone.

but when you set the precedent that even the best takes a bridge deal than it makes the future a lot easier imo.

it's not the disagreeing with the bridge contract, it's just the way that it's painted as a huge gaffe on MB's part. There's pros and cons to each.

and what you say makes sense about money going to their head but there's degrees of rich. 900k is a lot of money but you're still the bottom of the barrel relative to the rest of the league. I think it's more of the prestige of a big contract.

A lot of players attach their self worth to the fact they're making more than the other guy. People do it in our world all the time. Can't expect the NHL to be any different. A player who hasn't quite paid his dues to get the big contract (not saying PK did or didn't) can easily get too big a head.

 

[Kriss E]

oh for sure. PK seems as well put together as anyone.

but when you set the precedent that even the best takes a bridge deal than it makes the future a lot easier imo.

it's not the disagreeing with the bridge contract, it's just the way that it's painted as a huge gaffe on MB's part. There's pros and cons to each.

There is no precedent because every player is a different case. If a player and his agent feel they've done enough to warrant a big deal coming out of the ELC, then they will ask for it. It doesn't matter if every other player went through a bridge deal.
It is always a case by case negotiation. You think Bergevin didn't bring up the fact MaxPac and Price got bridge deals while negotiating with PK?
That didn't stop PK from holding out and asking for more did it?
So if we have another player that feels he's done enough to skip a bridge deal, then he will ask for more. If there's another dispute with the GM, it might not end up as well as with PK.

and what you say makes sense about money going to their head but there's degrees of rich. 900k is a lot of money but you're still the bottom of the barrel relative to the rest of the league. I think it's more of the prestige of a big contract.

A lot of players attach their self worth to the fact they're making more than the other guy. People do it in our world all the time. Can't expect the NHL to be any different. A player who hasn't quite paid his dues to get the big contract (not saying PK did or didn't) can easily get too big a head.

There aren't too many 21-22yo getting signed to 25M+. The ones that do are superstars and they usually don't get blinded by their cash.
But it's all irrelevant anyways because PK isn't like that.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

There is no precedent because every player is a different case. If a player and his agent feel they've done enough to warrant a big deal coming out of the ELC, then they will ask for it. It doesn't matter if every other player went through a bridge deal.
It is always a case by case negotiation. You think Bergevin didn't bring up the fact MaxPac and Price got bridge deals while negotiating with PK?
That didn't stop PK from holding out and asking for more did it?
So if we have another player that feels he's done enough to skip a bridge deal, then he will ask for more. If there's another dispute with the GM, it might not end up as well as with PK.



There aren't too many 21-22yo getting signed to 25M+. The ones that do are superstars and they usually don't get blinded by their cash.
But it's all irrelevant anyways because PK isn't like that.

yeah it's a precedent for our management. Certain teams have a way of dealing with their young players. MB wanted to establish that right off the hop. Now that it's established. Young players will know what to expect.

You don't think the 'PK got a bridge deal' quote won't hold any weight? Sure there might be the odd player who will demand a long term deal right after the ELC but setting this precedent helps it not get out of control where every player demands it.

PK had to prove that he was a superstar first. Hell he was close and it was sure to pan out that he would but nothing wrong with him actually proving it.

Doesn't seem like PK's sour over it and MB seems to have a good relationship with him. So IMO the bridge deal worked in this case unless PK wants nothing less than 9 per year.

 

[Kriss E]

yeah it's a precedent for our management. Certain teams have a way of dealing with their young players. MB wanted to establish that right off the hop. Now that it's established. Young players will know what to expect.

You don't think the 'PK got a bridge deal' quote won't hold any weight? Sure there might be the odd player who will demand a long term deal right after the ELC but setting this precedent helps it not get out of control where every player demands it.

PK had to prove that he was a superstar first. Hell he was close and it was sure to pan out that he would but nothing wrong with him actually proving it.

Doesn't seem like PK's sour over it and MB seems to have a good relationship with him. So IMO the bridge deal worked in this case unless PK wants nothing less than 9 per year.

1- No, I don't think the ''PK got a bridge deal'' quote is going to hold any weight, just like Max and Price getting one didn't change PK from holding out.

2- Players that merit getting a longer deal off their ELC are a rare bread. PK and Galchenyuk are the only guys we have that could have earned being exceptions. Galchenyuk hasn't proven himself like PK and I don't think he will have by the end of next year either. So he's likely not going to be asking for more than a bridge deal anyways. Players know their worth.

3- Bridge deal with PK was utterly useless, and getting into a dispute with a star player is never a good thing.

 

[V13]

Personally i expect 8yrs/56m

 

[kovaless]

Completely agree.

The whole offer sheet factor gives breakout young players a whole lot of leverage early in their careers. Strong team building has to have a great balance of risk-reward and most of the time a great deal of luck.

Just look at free agency, players that hit the market often make 1-2M a year more than they should and often get many more years of term than they really should, especially the older players. It all comes down to risk-reward and how desperate some teams are for a type of player and how they think he can help the team.

If Gallagher scores 20g-40p again this year.. That's three solid campaigns for him, does he get a bridge deal similar to PK or does he get a 4-5 year extention worth 3.5-4M a year? I'm sure their is a handful of teams looking for secondary scoring and a spark that a guy like Gally brings and would be willing to offer him a offer sheet. Geez what's the compensation for a 3.5M offer sheet now? In 2012 it was a second round pick for 3.3M. Would you give up a second round pick for Brandon Gallagher? Damn right you would.

What ruins it for some teams is other teams jumping the gun on young players and offering them ridiculous contracts out of ELC.. Just look at Tyler Myers.

I agree completely. It's applied to all industries. I run a consulting company. Some young programmer with solid talent still needs to prove themselves before I throw lots of money around. Low twenties making a couple million a year is fine for a bridge contract. Could we have saved money a couple years ago.....yes. But what if we did then he bombed?

Personally, I hate these buyouts. If a GM is stupid to pay stupid money for a dud, and another gm is stupid to trade for them, then they should be stuck. Much more accountability that way. Deep pockets cant save teams.

I personally hate long term deals. Imagine if everyone had 2 year deals. Now that would be exciting (as long as the KHL did the same thing)

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

I agree completely. It's applied to all industries. I run a consulting company. Some young programmer with solid talent still needs to prove themselves before I throw lots of money around. Low twenties making a couple million a year is fine for a bridge contract. Could we have saved money a couple years ago.....yes. But what if we did then he bombed?

Personally, I hate these buyouts. If a GM is stupid to pay stupid money for a dud, and another gm is stupid to trade for them, then they should be stuck. Much more accountability that way. Deep pockets cant save teams.

I personally hate long term deals. Imagine if everyone had 2 year deals. Now that would be exciting (as long as the KHL did the same thing)

What did PK show you to make you think he'd bomb? He played a strong playoffs as a rookie and 2 good regular seasons after that. Maybe I was blinded but I believed in him quite early. 5.5 over a long term deal wouldn't have been that big of a risk. He still had a cannon and stayed healthy. Loved playing in Montreal and could handle pressure. I'm not sure where the risk is here.

If that programmer you hired came in and blew the doors down for over 2 years. Was your best programmer and had through the roof potential. You'd underpay him for 2 more years?

 

[417]

What did PK show you to make you think he'd bomb? He played a strong playoffs as a rookie and 2 good regular seasons after that. Maybe I was blinded but I believed in him quite early. 5.5 over a long term deal wouldn't have been that big of a risk. He still had a cannon and stayed healthy. Loved playing in Montreal and could handle pressure. I'm not sure where the risk is here.

If that programmer you hired came in and blew the doors down for over 2 years. Was your best programmer and had through the roof potential. You'd underpay him for 2 more years?

If I held those programmers rights and his earning power was limited

Yeah.. Why the hell not if I can lol

 

[kovaless]

What did PK show you to make you think he'd bomb? He played a strong playoffs as a rookie and 2 good regular seasons after that. Maybe I was blinded but I believed in him quite early. 5.5 over a long term deal wouldn't have been that big of a risk. He still had a cannon and stayed healthy. Loved playing in Montreal and could handle pressure. I'm not sure where the risk is here.

If that programmer you hired came in and blew the doors down for over 2 years. Was your best programmer and had through the roof potential. You'd underpay him for 2 more years?

Not trying to play an a-hole here. But there were issues at the time. Honestly, I cant remember all of them. Issues with teammates, and there were and still has serious defensive problems. Now the good news is they were\are correctable, and I think MT has handled him correctly. Now we have to pay. Simple as that.

When determining compensation, I consider many things. And the reality is I can't have a 21 year old making more than everyone else on my payroll. People find out what everyone else makes, and it leads to issues. That's a reality. Can I make sure they are paid well? Yes. Will they get to that magical number? Yes. But it's a process. If someone leaves for more money right away, they have my blessings. Eventually I wouldn't have been able to keep them anyhow. Most rational people can be reasonable. Subban agreed to the bridge contract. He obviously understood certain things, and accepted their analysis. Now it's going to pay off.

Now, you're right my industry is different than sports. I am wrong about that I guess. I look at contracts from a different perspective. Every contract I work on is not guaranteed. It can be cancelled at anytime. If I don't perform or results aren't there, I don't even get two weeks notice. You can bet your ass I bust my ass. I take risk.Subban did too. Now he will cash in.

Anyone slapping a puck into a net for a living has it good regardless.

Good for Subban, he'll get a better deal now. Giving him the bridge contract didn't hurt the team, and giving him 8 million a year now isn't going to cripple the team. Make the deal, and let's have a fun season.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

But he didn't refuse...he signed that deal and is about to sign again

So who's argument is BS here?

Also, i'm a reasonable guy...I usually try to see both sides of an argument and i'd love to in this case see how management was dumb for getting a franchise player signed under value, but you've yet to make any solid argument supporting that. I don't really care about old threads or that it was discussed at length, there's more information today than there was then.

Once Subban signs his long term deal. You realize that you and everyone else who has so vehemently argued against the bridge deal will have to admit you were wrong right?

Kyle Turris refutes your entire theory. He was essentially forced into a bridge contract, demanded a trade and basically forced Phoenix's hand himself by making the situation unbearable going forward. We were incredibly fortunate PK decided not to fight back, but that luxury is over. If you think we could strong arm him again with a 6.5M contract and not budge. All we will accomplish is him demanding a trade and/or forcing arbitration, which will grant him a two year deal where he can then tell us to sod off.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I hope no rookie ever comes in and wins a Calder for the Habs...some of you are going to be demanding the Habs give him a max contract

I would rather give Galchenyuk 3.5-4.5M early than pay double that because of a bridge policy nonsense. Desharnais didn't have to prove anything. So it's fair game, yes?