Jump to content

2012-13 Habs lineup....the Defence


hankhab

Recommended Posts

Price crappy? oh you have done it now!!!! hahaha people on here think he can do no wrong

For the most part he can do no wrong. He is the best player on the team and the majority of losses last season were proven to be due to defensive errors or low scoring, not poor goaltending. It's just people are so focused on blaming the goalie as the last line of defence that, "Price should have stopped that" has become a trademark to any Habs fan who has no idea how to watch hockey.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why lowball, i totally disagree?

Price took $2.75 for 2 years, why would the exact same offer be a lowball, a #1 goalie is a bit more important than a d-man isnt he and Cary wasnt bitching about being underpaid?

Price's contract was coming off a bad 1.5 seasons, and losing his job to Halak.

The Cap was also 56 million then... its 70 million today.

5.5 million over 2 years is what Carey signed.. If PK gets the exact same contract, adjusting for cap inflation the offer would be 7 million over 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Price's contract was coming off a bad 1.5 seasons, and losing his job to Halak.

The Cap was also 56 million then... its 70 million today.

5.5 million over 2 years is what Carey signed.. If PK gets the exact same contract, adjusting for cap inflation the offer would be 7 million over 2 years.

2.5 +3.0 = 5.5. If he wants 3.25 and 3.25 that would be as equivalent as need be and likely Bergevin wouldnt argue. So give him 6.5 instead of 5.5 not a big deal and i doubt this minor cost is what they are not in total agreement about.

And you think Price underachieved as a 20 and 21 year old goalie with a mediocre team in front of him? Just because he didnt meet mainstream media's lofty expectations does not necessarily mean he played bad?

And Halak was already playing pro while Price was still in junior, so also a bit unfair comparison no? And Halak is a fine goalie who was gone and Price had already been annointed #1 before signing for the $5.5.

Price is well paid now and Subban will be in next contract, so maybe should just take the 2 year deal and be happy, whether he does or gets a long contract i really dont care.

All i said, or meant, was that $5.5/2 year deal is not that low ball an offer, when was perfectly fine for a #1 goalie just 2 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem slightly puzzling. Of course, in a normal negotiation, you do go in low and work up to a fair all-around deal. The risk is in alienating the player.

The Habs' argument must be that even though Subban has been our number one defencemen for two years running, this was an artificial situation created by injuries to Markov; that he's not yet a true #1 defenceman (which I think is correct), and that he needs to take a shorter-term deal that will cover the period of his ongoing maturtation into that. Subban, on the other hand, rightly sees himself as the team's #1 defenceman and wants a deal reflecting that.

I worry that it would be a mistake to give Subban a huge deal at this juncture. You have to be careful about over-rewarding a young hotshot with an outsized ego like that...it can become a factor affecting his development. The message a player like PK requires, over and over, is 'you have to earn what you get.' Giving him $5 mil right now completely undercuts that message.

Even worse, if the two sides are far apart, this could drag on into training camp - assuming we have a camp - and missing camp in turn tends to lead to injuries and substandard performance as the player scrambles to catch up.

So, lots to fret about here, not just the slightly remote risk of some jerk GM swooping in with an offer sheet.

Well said CC. Negotiations frame the relationship to a considerable degree. One doesn't want to emphasize a business mentality in a "team".

I think Hoser Theodore's first great big 5 Million dollar contract changed him from being a challenging hockey player playing his heart out, to an overpaid superstar who had better produce big time.... and the status change ruined him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather do what buffalo did with Myers and sign Subban to a highly front loaded deal with a good cap hit. Take advantage of it now while we still can. Philly did that with Richards and Carter and even when they no longer wanted, them, they were able to get a damn good return by having assets signed to long-term deals that are relatively good cap hits. Alternative is stupid contracts like Carolina just handed Skinner. Paying him over $6m before he is a UFA and only really buying 2 years of his UFA years in the contract.

If Skinner is worth $6.25M, PK is easily worth over $5M. I'd try and sign him to a 12 year deal at a cap hit of $5.5M/year, where he makes around $15M in bonuses + salary over the next year. If there is even a across the board salary reduction of 10% with the new CBA, PK still sees a lot of guaranteed front-end money (his incentive for signing), while for the habs, going forward, his cap hit would be reduced. In 3 years the contract would be a bargain once salaries go up again.

I would have done the same with Price and I'd also lock up MaxPac right now with a hugh bonus payment due July 1, 2013.

Other teams are taking advantage of these loopholes, but the management is too damn stupid to take advantage of these loop holes like Philly or even Pittsburg has (Crosby extended for less then he is worth, albeit he is a injure risk with his concussion history).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have done the same with Price and I'd also lock up MaxPac right now with a hugh bonus payment due July 1, 2013.

Other teams are taking advantage of these loopholes, but the management is too damn stupid to take advantage of these loop holes like Philly or even Pittsburg has (Crosby extended for less then he is worth, albeit he is a injure risk with his concussion history).

Have you ever considered that it's ownership that doesn't want to do the heavy front-loading? By now everyone knows the loophole, so perhaps it's Molson indicating his preference to not go that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever considered that it's ownership that doesn't want to do the heavy front-loading? By now everyone knows the loophole, so perhaps it's Molson indicating his preference to not go that route.

Of course I've considered it. But for one of the highest revenue teams in the league - that means ownership is either not committed to winning or is just plain stupid. When low revenue teams like the Wild are willing to sign Parise/Suter, Philly signing and throwing offers sheets at players in their prime and even the Hurricaines throwing $10 year/$60M at Stall, you have to wonder either the commitment to win or the intelligence of the habs ownership and management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I've considered it. But for one of the highest revenue teams in the league - that means ownership is either not committed to winning or is just plain stupid. When low revenue teams like the Wild are willing to sign Parise/Suter, Philly signing and throwing offers sheets at players in their prime and even the Hurricaines throwing $10 year/$60M at Stall, you have to wonder either the commitment to win or the intelligence of the habs ownership and management.

I'm just saying, the fact that now three GM's haven't opted to go this route despite that the Habs are a cap team implies it's likely not their decision alone to not front load deals like some wish they would. I don't think it's fair to only indict management for this as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I've considered it. But for one of the highest revenue teams in the league - that means ownership is either not committed to winning or is just plain stupid. When low revenue teams like the Wild are willing to sign Parise/Suter, Philly signing and throwing offers sheets at players in their prime and even the Hurricaines throwing $10 year/$60M at Stall, you have to wonder either the commitment to win or the intelligence of the habs ownership and management.

Only chance in hell Wild signs those guys was to mortage the future and been a while since the Flyers have won a cup hasnt it? Carolina will be lucky to have franchise even survive in long run.

You may ses Habs as being way too conservative, or "Stupid", but i would want touch any crazy long term deal, which 99% of time only work out well for the player (a la Gomez, Yashin, Redden, DiPietro etc ect).

Hard to believe any fan would call for terribly high risk contract to hamstring team for a decade or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long term deals when contracts are pretty much guaranteed don't work. There's a handful of players that have an inner drive to be the best, everybody else needs a carrot to chase.

I've managed people the last dozen years, I can throw a $25,000 raise at someone and give them nothing for 4 years or give that person $5000 raises for 5 years.

In the 1st instance they make an extra $125K, over the 5 years they love me for 6 months and hate me for 4.5 years and don't perform.

In the 2nd scenario they only make an extra $75K and like me for 5 years and keep performing.

It's the exact same if those are $100 raises or $1,000,000 raises, it's all relative and it's how people are hard wired to respond.

Obviously stupid stuff happens when you're competing with other GMs for UFAs but if you can keep incentives during RFA you're much better off, the way Montreal does the short contracts is great IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long term deals when contracts are pretty much guaranteed don't work. There's a handful of players that have an inner drive to be the best, everybody else needs a carrot to chase.

I've managed people the last dozen years, I can throw a $25,000 raise at someone and give them nothing for 4 years or give that person $5000 raises for 5 years.

In the 1st instance they make an extra $125K, over the 5 years they love me for 6 months and hate me for 4.5 years and don't perform.

In the 2nd scenario they only make an extra $75K and like me for 5 years and keep performing.

It's the exact same if those are $100 raises or $1,000,000 raises, it's all relative and it's how people are hard wired to respond.

Obviously stupid stuff happens when you're competing with other GMs for UFAs but if you can keep incentives during RFA you're much better off, the way Montreal does the short contracts is great IMO.

Sounds logical, Obviously Subban's agent sees a much better deal in longer term than the 2 years offered. I just think, if Price was good with 2 year deal, why should Subban be that different (but if he gets a 5-6 year deal, i really could care less)

Some are saying should eliminate long term deals of 10-15 years, but i disagree and say, fly at er, if a GM is dumb enough to offer one and an owner is dumb enough to pay, then go nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you on the long term deals (as long as we don't trade for any of them). You can't cure stupid, ink won't be dry on a new CBA before the same GMs will have found a new loophole to exploit.

I lived in Calgary when the Flames threw stupid money at Phaneuf - and Dion was a better overall d-man than PK at that age (sorry just threw up in my mouth a little too), Phaneufs head swelled, got out of shape, couldn't be coached, and we know the rest.

Subban is a great talent and our best d-man but he is not a can't miss guy. I think it's critical to keep him humbled and make him work for his next big contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long term deals when contracts are pretty much guaranteed don't work. There's a handful of players that have an inner drive to be the best, everybody else needs a carrot to chase.

I've managed people the last dozen years, I can throw a $25,000 raise at someone and give them nothing for 4 years or give that person $5000 raises for 5 years.

In the 1st instance they make an extra $125K, over the 5 years they love me for 6 months and hate me for 4.5 years and don't perform.

In the 2nd scenario they only make an extra $75K and like me for 5 years and keep performing.

It's the exact same if those are $100 raises or $1,000,000 raises, it's all relative and it's how people are hard wired to respond.

Obviously stupid stuff happens when you're competing with other GMs for UFAs but if you can keep incentives during RFA you're much better off, the way Montreal does the short contracts is great IMO.

I agree with what you say, but the main problem is in the NHL there always seem to be GM's throwing stupid money around (I'm looking at you Carolina) When guys like Subban see someone like Skinner getting big money and term in Carolina they want the same (human nature). Throw in teams like Philly handing out offer sheets and it is easy to see how it is a bit more complicated than the scenario you outlined in your management experience. (I'm assuming you haven't been managing NBA, or NFL players for the last dozen years lol)

In short, I think the biggest problem is that if the HAB's don't keep him happy, you can be sure there are other GM's out there who will.

I'm not saying we should drop our pants on this at all, just that I don't think its as easy as managing people in more conventional environments.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you say, but the main problem is in the NHL there always seem to be GM's throwing stupid money around (I'm looking at you Carolina) When guys like Subban see someone like Skinner getting big money and term in Carolina they want the same (human nature). Throw in teams like Philly handing out offer sheets and it is easy to see how it is a bit more complicated than the scenario you outlined in your management experience. (I'm assuming you haven't been managing NBA, or NFL players for the last dozen years lol)

In short, I think the biggest problem is that if the HAB's don't keep him happy, you can be sure there are other GM's out there who will.

I'm not saying we should drop our pants on this at all, just that I don't think its as easy as managing people in more conventional environments.

Exactly... when it comes to HR, running professional sports teams are a whole different environment.

shorter careers, more competition for free agents, public easy to compare production between employees, it changes everything.

Plus you have agents and financial managers, and when we start talking about these huge sums of money and the time value of money, its no surprise guys want their upfront signing bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro athletes have more zeroes in their account than the normal public but their drive is still the same

I've worked with many multi-millionaires and they still suffer from the 'what have you done for me lately mentality?' disease

You look at all these guys with front loaded contracts and tell me how productive they'll be when their salary gets cut from $10MM to $1MM for the last few years of their contract and that's assuming they can even stay productive until that slide happens.

They won't be happy they got that $20MM bonus in the beginning, they'll be Shane Doan's age wondering why they only make $1MM while the other guy is making $7MM

Might have some hope with the older guys who've developed a work ethic on short term contracts but for a guy like Subban I'd rather go higher salary on 2 years to keep him in check.

In a perfect world they'd all be on either performance based contracts or 2 way deals to keep them motivated

Will never happen of course but there would be no Gomez's in that NHL

personally I love to see other teams laying out the multi year deals cause it usually handcuffs them from icing a competitive team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between a pro athlete and a regular person when it comes to drive and determination.

Natural talent will only take most people so far, it is drive and determination to succeed in a sport... a drive that they had as children, and as adolescents and teenagers, to practice, practice, practice every day that got them to the level they are at to make it big in their sport.

You've totally discounted its existence. Its not that simple, and to believe that ever person in the NHL is only motivated by money is naive, and quite frankly small-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. I recognized there are players that have inner drive to be the best regardless of what they're paid but you can't discount $ as a motivational factor for the rest.

If every year was a 'contract year' you don't think you'd see an improvement in a lot of players performance?

A long term contract that doesn't punish guys for poor seasons or reward them for great ones relies solely on that inner drive, which not everyone has and often lose as they get spoiled.

Pretty long list of guys on mega year deals whose performance has dropped off since signing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you say, but the main problem is in the NHL there always seem to be GM's throwing stupid money around (I'm looking at you Carolina) When guys like Subban see someone like Skinner getting big money and term in Carolina they want the same (human nature). Throw in teams like Philly handing out offer sheets and it is easy to see how it is a bit more complicated than the scenario you outlined in your management experience. (I'm assuming you haven't been managing NBA, or NFL players for the last dozen years lol)

In short, I think the biggest problem is that if the HAB's don't keep him happy, you can be sure there are other GM's out there who will.

I'm not saying we should drop our pants on this at all, just that I don't think its as easy as managing people in more conventional environments.

Carolina is a bad example, the 7 m thrown at Semin was to get under cap floor, assuming the cap increases like it has for the past few seasons, Skinner's contract gets them over the cap floor for next year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. I recognized there are players that have inner drive to be the best regardless of what they're paid but you can't discount $ as a motivational factor for the rest.

If every year was a 'contract year' you don't think you'd see an improvement in a lot of players performance?

A long term contract that doesn't punish guys for poor seasons or reward them for great ones relies solely on that inner drive, which not everyone has and often lose as they get spoiled.

Pretty long list of guys on mega year deals whose performance has dropped off since signing

There have actually been people who have looked at statistics of contract years vs non-contract years. The idea that players play better in a contract year is mostly a media and fan driven phenomenon. It doesn't actually happen. Sure some guys have better years in their contract year, but just as many have their best years in the middle of the deal.

look no further than the performances of Alex Semin, Dustin Penner, and Andrei Kostitsyn last season.

Look no furhter than the way the entire 2009 Habs team blew up in smoke with so many players on contract years. Look at what Kovalev did in 2008 (not a contract year) and 2009 (a contract year) and see that explanation.

Yes there are guys who do better in a contract year, but there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that this is something that regularly occurs. It is better explained as the fact that all players have a career years and down years... and that sometimes those career years will be contract years, and sometimes they won't.

But as fans we get caught up in the hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the top 40 longest contracts for forwards, there's a 12% drop off in production in the years post signing those contracts as compared to the equivalent years prior - this includes the guys with the inner drive like Datsyuk, OV & E. Staal

If you take those guys out it gets alot worse and only a handful actually improved stats

An unusually high number also miss considerable time post signing which to me points to lack of conditioning, which would be expected - who's training harder this offseason, Pacioretty or Gomez?

As for Kovalev & Kostitsyn, if anyone could find a way to motivate either of those guys with anything they'd have saved a lot of coaches and GMs years of frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the top 40 longest contracts for forwards, there's a 12% drop off in production in the years post signing those contracts as compared to the equivalent years prior - this includes the guys with the inner drive like Datsyuk, OV & E. Staal

If you take those guys out it gets alot worse and only a handful actually improved stats

An unusually high number also miss considerable time post signing which to me points to lack of conditioning, which would be expected - who's training harder this offseason, Pacioretty or Gomez?

As for Kovalev & Kostitsyn, if anyone could find a way to motivate either of those guys with anything they'd have saved a lot of coaches and GMs years of frustration.

Ovi change in playing style. Staal nearly killed his brother. With Datsyuk... check Detroits numbers in general, i believe there was a general decrease.

Those are just some cases... but then someone like Cavy in tampa with that huge season. He just wasn't as good as that one season. He has been consistent since. You have to look at why people are giving those contracts. A dude has a phenomenal year! Never repeats it... but just happened to get a contract that year. Is it the contracts fault? Not likely, I'd say the player was just in the right circumstances. Example: Cheechoo... played with Thornton gets 56 goals and 37 goals (slow start)... then gets injured/stops playing with Thornton. (Yes his contract wasn't massive... but that can happen to a guy.)

I agree with Commandant that there isn't a correlation with most players. There is... for a guy like Nikolai Bulin... I believe his numbers skyrocketed in contract years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carolina is a bad example, the 7 m thrown at Semin was to get under cap floor, assuming the cap increases like it has for the past few seasons, Skinner's contract gets them over the cap floor for next year

So you are saying its okay to throw stupid money at someone so you can reach the cap floor, rather then spend the money to fill out the rest of your lineup?

For a small market team that will probably be pushing for changes in the CBA, Rutherford really has signed some dumb contracts - Kaberle, Semin (gets a raise for having one of his worst years), Skinner (production declines from 31 goals to 20 - yes he played less games, but giving him that much money while only buying two of his UFA year's just seems riduclous).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...