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

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

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?

I don't think we could get Galchenyuk for 3.5-4.5 per long term.

We don't even know what PK wanted last year. And let's see how the club looks cap wise and quality wise in a few years to see if MB did the right thing at least?

It's like a pitbull on a g.d. bone when someone thinks they're right. Can't even grant the other side's logic at all.

You'd actually have to be an insider and know all the terms and how MB actually handled the situation face to face with PK to be so sure this bridge contract was 'dumb'. Hell it's all right to think it's dumb but to be so freaking positive is just preposterous. No matter how much you argue there will be no way you can convince me otherwise.

 

[Monctonscout]

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?

Good point, Desharnais was handed everything on a silver platter...right from Chicoutimi directly to the 1st line in Montreal.



Good one...

 

[Fozz]

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?

And then lose him to free agency in 5 years? Smart move there Einstein.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but hey, this is HF where things are beaten to death, revived, beaten again, an then revived for some more beatings, but...

... why do people think they could have gotten Subban signed to a $5 million, long term deal? The rumors were quite rampant that he was seeking a long term, deal north of $7 million. And that was at a time when the cap was dropping by a good six or seven million.

As noted, signing Subban freed up cap space for other players and whether or not those players worked out is irrelevant. They are separate events. It's like saying I washed my car and then got into an accident, therefore I shouldn't have washed my car.

 

[Fozz]

I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but hey, this is HF where things are beaten to death, revived, beaten again, an then revived for some more beatings, but...

... why do people think they could have gotten Subban signed to a $5 million, long term deal? The rumors were quite rampant that he was seeking a long term, deal north of $7 million. And that was at a time when the cap was dropping by a good six or seven million.

As noted, signing Subban freed up cap space for other players and whether or not those players worked out is irrelevant. They are separate events. It's like saying I washed my car and then got into an accident, therefore I shouldn't have washed my car.

Exactly.

Besides, why would Subban sign that deal, knowing that he'd strike it rich in just 2 years if he kept improving?

 

[DAChampion]

Exactly.

Besides, why would Subban sign that deal, knowing that he'd strike it rich in just 2 years if he kept improving?

The financial security of a long-term contract. Every hockey player knows that they're at a risk of a career-ending injury or simply career-damaging injury.

If it were not for that risk, all good players would just sign 1-year contracts indefinitely, to take maximum advantage of the increasing cap and to play the UFA game every year.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The financial security of a long-term contract. Every hockey player knows that they're at a risk of a career-ending injury or simply career-damaging injury.

If it were not for that risk, all good players would just sign 1-year contracts indefinitely, to take maximum advantage of the increasing cap and to play the UFA game every year.

And conversely all players would sign 8 year, $16 million contracts, "just to be sure".

Some players want the security, some want the flexibility. There are a billion examples out there, I'll let you find them yourself. Sometimes it works out for them, sometimes it doesn't. But if I was an agent, with a budding super-star on my hands who was in his very early 20s, there is no way I would encourage him to sign a long term deal for less. How many players have missed out on the big payday because they signed a short-term deal and then got hurt?

The rumours all said he wanted max term, at max money. Where are the rumours that said he would have accepted less "for financial security?"

 

[417]

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.

yeah...we could play this game all day. I could point to Tyler Myers as well

That's a futile exercise.

If the Habs think they can hold the same firm negotiation with Subban this time, they're fooling themselves. But I don't think that's their approach, Subban did everything they wanted him to do and then some.

Now it's their turn to ante up...we'll see how that plays out.

 

[Kriss E]

And then lose him to free agency in 5 years? Smart move there Einstein.

You've been repeating this for a while now. You realize that upcoming UFAs re-sign with their team all the time, right?
If a player wants to test the UFA market, then he will make sure that his last RFA contract ends in his early UFA years.

The idea that signing a player to a bridge deal means he won't reach UFA status early is just completely wrong.