You're Marc Bergevin - What deal do you offer Subban?

[Commandant]

The point was why the insistence on a bridge contract because it is "organizational policy".

The people who created this policy were fired from their positions.

Their policies on the whole were not successful.

Isn't it fair to re-evaluate those policies, instead of stubbornly holding on to them.

[brobin]

Just to add to the Chicago story, they have several deals,that were after a bridge deal, they have a couple that are no longer legal under the current CBA, and there top two stars might be gone too soon because they didn't secure enough UFA years. They are the exact contract none of us should want PK to get, expensive and just into UFA. It's possible Bergevin realizes that those were mistakes. They secured their top players mostly for the years they already owned them under RFA deals. IIRC, their was commentary at the time that those deals were the only way to secure both Kane and Toews under the cap...ie, they would not have done a five year deal if they only had the one guy to deal with. They would have either gone bridge or offered more money over a longer term. So I don't see those deals as comparable to the PK situation.

Duncan Keith was coming off a standard contract and was locked up with what is now an illegal back diving contract to lower his cap hit. Today, they probable lose him to cap issues. Best case, eight year deal at a higher cap hit, something I see in PKs future if he signs a bridge deal and proves he should have a long term deal.

[JGC21]

How does anyone know if Bergevin agreed with what Chicago did, under a different CBA? How do we know if he views Toews and PK as the same class of player?

You know the owners just held out half a year attempting to eliminate the kinds of contracts that Chicago gave out. Note that Chicago probably would have won the cup with the kids on bridge deals. I see no evidence that locking them up early was why they won. They would have had all those players at that time anyway. Those deals will be judged in a few more years when they are either still elite, or burdened with bad contracts. Too early to call.

I agree. Contract length means nothing in terms of winning a cup. Because Doughty is signed for 7 years does that mean LA will win 7 more cups?

After coming off last year's managerial gong show - I think caution is the way to go. There's still time to negotiate a decent bridge contract worth $6-$7M. I'm confident it will be done this week.

[JGC21]

The point was why the insistence on a bridge contract because it is "organizational policy".

The people who created this policy were fired from their positions.

Their policies on the whole were not successful.

Isn't it fair to re-evaluate those policies, instead of stubbornly holding on to them.

Because Bergevin wants to see how PK develops over the next 2 years before handing him the keys to the safe. There's nothing wrong with that logic.

[brobin]

The point was why the insistence on a bridge contract because it is "organizational policy".

The people who created this policy were fired from their positions.

Their policies on the whole were not successful.

Isn't it fair to re-evaluate those policies, instead of stubbornly holding on to them.

You are assuming they are not the policies of Bergevin or Molson. I think most GMs agree with that policy and if they feel they have the leverage will push for them. Why should Bergevin hand out a rich deal that eats up all the RFA years when he doesn't have to? That would be the mark of a bad GM. PK has two leverage points... Sitting out which is not really that much leverage on a 15th place team. Offer sheet, which he doesn't seem to have or be willing to use. If one pops up, Bergevin will probably be forced to match it, but until that time, he appears to be winning that bet.

I don't understand why people want the GM to over pay. I will repeat, I know people who are talking to PK and he is not looking to leave nor is he taking this personally. He is confident he will remain a hab. This is just a standard negotiation tactic, holding out to get as much as he can.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

It's certainly fallacious reasoning to assume that because Bergevin echoes a specific policy from the previous regime, he is mindlessly carrying it on. Either this is a Molson policy, or it is something that Bergevin himself believes in. It's too soon to tell whether MB is making a mistake here. Be cool, be cool.

[brobin]

It's certainly fallacious reasoning to assume that because Bergevin echoes a specific policy from the previous regime, he is mindlessly carrying it on. Either this is a Molson policy, or it is something that Bergevin himself believes in. It's too soon to tell whether MB is making a mistake here. Be cool, be cool.

It's quite possible that if we were a cup contender Bergevin would be taking a different approach, ala LA. People seem to forget that when Doughty was signed, LA was expected to contend for a cup and there was significant pressure to get him signed.

[JCPetit]

Because Bergevin wants to see how PK develops over the next 2 years before handing him the keys to the safe. There's nothing wrong with that logic.

Absolutely. I think that some people are too enamoured with P.K. to understand fully what is at work. When you are talking business, you have to keep your emotions in check. You don't sign a multi-million, multi-year contract with a young man, if you have serious doubts about his ability to handle the situation.

A hockey club is a business; the objective is to make a profit. A majority of the teams in the NHL don't turn a profit. Fortunately, the Habs are not among them. It's not because you have a profitable business that you start throwing money by the window. Quite the contrary. In fact, the best businesses are always very cautious on costs and return on investment. In other words, you want the maximum bang for your bucks. It may sound greedy, and it could be the case if the organization doesn't care about its product (which is not the case in Montreal, IMO).

Obviously, in the present stalemate, management won't sign a long term contract with his young player. It has been decided, right from the start, for reasons we can only guess, that the agreement would be for two to three years at the most. Subban might not be able to get the money he wants, but he would at least triple what he made last year. Rest assured, his future is not in jeopardy, and in two or three years, if he is as good as he thinks (and as we all hope), he will be in a much better position to obtain whatever he might ask.

Again, in the absence of an offer sheet, Subban has nowhere to go. He has to make a deal within the parameters presented to him. He only has one option left: to sit down in his living room and watch his teammates play on TV.

A last point: we have seen with Scott Gomez that a big contract might become a curse more than a blessing, especially for the organization. There has been a number of those big contracts in the past. Just remember Yashin, DiPietro or Redden. All those guys showed excellent prospects when they signed, but for a reason or another it did not pan out as expected. MB just wants to avoid such a mistake. That's all.

[hab29RETIRED]

If Toews had signed a bridge deal he'd be looking at $8m+ as a ufa. As it is the hawks have their core locked up and are a solid team that would have been even better if Tallon hadn't screwed up the qualifying offers on their other RFA's.

If MB did not agree with the philosophy, we obviously picked up the right guy who didn't learn anything from his old organization's success.

How does anyone know if Bergevin agreed with what Chicago did, under a different CBA? How do we know if he views Toews and PK as the same class of player?

You know the owners just held out half a year attempting to eliminate the kinds of contracts that Chicago gave out. Note that Chicago probably would have won the cup with the kids on bridge deals. I see no evidence that locking them up early was why they won. They would have had all those players at that time anyway. Those deals will be judged in a few more years when they are either still elite, or burdened with bad contracts. Too early to call.

[brobin]

If Toews had signed a bridge deal he'd be looking at $8m+ as a ufa. As it is the hawks have their core locked up and are a solid team that would have been even better if Tallon hadn't screwed up the qualifying offers on their other RFA's.

If MB did not agree with the philosophy, we obviously picked up the right guy who didn't learn anything from his old organization's success.

Toews will be a free agent too soon, IMO. They won the cup on the last year of their previous contracts. Are you suggesting that they would not have won the cup that year if they waited until after the cup run to renew contacts with Toews ad Kane?

The success or failure of those deals are yet to be determined. They also have little relevance to PKs situation as I pointed out before.

Long term deals are always a gamble. Chicago hedged by only giving them 5 year deals at a time when the could have gone much longer. Still, like LA, they were a contender and a team with at least four players more elite then PK. Toews and Kane could have sat out...now that is leverage.

Edmonton is in a similar situation to the 2010 Blackhawks, habs are not.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I agree. Contract length means nothing in terms of winning a cup. Because Doughty is signed for 7 years does that mean LA will win 7 more cups?

Doughty only wanted five years while Lombardi wanted seven. That was the only way Doughty was going to get the money he wanted. Had Doughty sat out the season because he didn't get the contract he wanted, LA would have kept a hold of Jack Johnson instead of trading him for Jeff Carter due to the Doughty hole and the Kings definitely would have missed the playoffs.

[JoeLassister]

Absolutely. I think that some people are too enamoured with P.K. to understand fully what is at work. When you are talking business, you have to keep your emotions in check. You don't sign a multi-million, multi-year contract with a young man, if you have serious doubts about his ability to handle the situation.

A hockey club is a business; the objective is to make a profit. A majority of the teams in the NHL don't turn a profit. Fortunately, the Habs are not among them. It's not because you have a profitable business that you start throwing money by the window. Quite the contrary. In fact, the best businesses are always very cautious on costs and return on investment. In other words, you want the maximum bang for your bucks. It may sound greedy, and it could be the case if the organization doesn't care about its product (which is not the case in Montreal, IMO).

At which point do you realise that keeping your emotions in check is about to potentially up your business ?

A last point: we have seen with Scott Gomez that a big contract might become a curse more than a blessing, especially for the organization. There has been a number of those big contracts in the past. Just remember Yashin, DiPietro or Redden. All those guys showed excellent prospects when they signed, but for a reason or another it did not pan out as expected. MB just wants to avoid such a mistake. That's all.

These contracts were bringing players in their mid to late 30's (even early 40s) while it would take Subban to 31 years old only.

[brobin]

At which point do you realise that keeping your emotions in check is about to potentially up your business ?

These contracts were bringing players in their mid to late 30's (even early 40s) while it would take Subban to 31 years old only.

Older players are definitely riskier but youth Iis no guarantee (see Rick Dipietro).

I still don't see any evidence of the business getting messed up. We have a minor hold out for a week into the season. By your logic, teams should just give a player what he wants and never use the tools the Cba gave them to negotiate. PK is using his tools, Bergevin is using his.

The other players we lost were not due to contracts. They were power struggles with the coaches (Roy), failure of the GM to evaluate talent, off ice issues (riberio, Ak, Sk), personality conflicts (grab), etc. I think many of them were poorly handled, but I don't see the evidence that minor contract disputes have caused players to flee. Dryden didn't. Price and Pacs didn't. There were people claiming Price would never sign after his bridge deal or after Halak was given the starter job. Price is here and signed.

[JoeLassister]

Older players are definitely riskier but youth Iis no guarantee (see Rick Dipietro).

I still don't see any evidence of the business getting messed up. We have a minor hold out for a week into the season. By your logic, teams should just give a player what he wants and never use the tools the Cba gave them to negotiate. PK is using his tools, Bergevin is using his.

The other players we lost were not due to contracts. They were power struggles with the coaches (Roy), failure of the GM to evaluate talent, off ice issues (riberio, Ak, Sk), personality conflicts (grab), etc. I think many of them were poorly handled, but I don't see the evidence that minor contract disputes have caused players to flee. Dryden didn't. Price and Pacs didn't. There were people claiming Price would never sign after his bridge deal or after Halak was given the starter job. Price is here and signed.

Never heard or read anything such as this about Price, being on HW boards or in any media.

If Bergevin was using his tools right, PK would have been on the ice tonight. I hope it doesn't come to this, but I would be ready to add "Struggles with the GM" in your list. And, as of right now, we're what, one other great season of Subban away from "failure of the GM to evaluate talent".

[JCPetit]

Older players are definitely riskier but youth Iis no guarantee (see Rick Dipietro).

I still don't see any evidence of the business getting messed up. We have a minor hold out for a week into the season. By your logic, teams should just give a player what he wants and never use the tools the Cba gave them to negotiate. PK is using his tools, Bergevin is using his.

The other players we lost were not due to contracts. They were power struggles with the coaches (Roy), failure of the GM to evaluate talent, off ice issues (riberio, Ak, Sk), personality conflicts (grab), etc. I think many of them were poorly handled, but I don't see the evidence that minor contract disputes have caused players to flee. Dryden didn't. Price and Pacs didn't. There were people claiming Price would never sign after his bridge deal or after Halak was given the starter job. Price is here and signed.

I remember that Lafleur and Robinson also got together and were ready to sit down the first games of a season. It has happened before, and will happen again. They are talking big money here, and there are lot of details we don't know anything about. Bergevin has all my confidence. So far, he has done a good job and I feel quite certain that he is going to resolve the current dispute to our satisfaction.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Older players are definitely riskier but youth Iis no guarantee (see Rick Dipietro).

I love when people rip on the Dipietro contract. When it was signed, he was a starting goaltender. So they paid him $4.5M. If at any point in his career he retires due to injuries, the Islanders are not on the hook for it. He got dealt with several injuries that put him on the IR constantly. Guess what? IR doesn't count to the cap. And the Islanders hated that. The Islanders have been struggling forever to make the cap floor. In the end it still all works out for the Islanders because due to the latest CBA, all teams get the buyout. It never did any harm to the Islanders. The only real harm was Mike Milbury trading away Roberto Luongo because he banked on Dipietro with his first overall pick.

The only real danger in the NHL is signing a player over 35 to a long term deal. In that situation, you're cooked if the player loses their NHL skill.

[brobin]

Never heard or read anything such as this about Price, being on HW boards or in any media.

If Bergevin was using his tools right, PK would have been on the ice tonight. I hope it doesn't come to this, but I would be ready to add "Struggles with the GM" in your list. And, as of right now, we're what, one other great season of Subban away from "failure of the GM to evaluate talent".

I just don't see it. PK says he is staying and will sign. This is what he tells his friends, so I see no reason to doubt him.

Meehan has been pushing PK into holding out for a Doughty type deal since he won the battle with LA. The only tool available to Bergevin was to capitulate, or hold firm until PK decides to give in. What else did you expect him to do?

Did you want him to give PK a big money, long term deal? I think many people in hockey feel that was risky and would set Bergevin for future battles with all the other young stars coming up.

Did you want a four or five year deal that would essentially give PK a lot of money and burn off his RFA years so we could then compete with 29 other teams for his services in his prime? Not me.

I think Bergevin is fighting the good fight and it isn't against PK. It is against Meehan and other agents that are demanding long term deals as a default position for RFAs. I hope he wins and I am confident that either way, PK will be a hab and on the ice soon.

I wouldn't worry yet. Lets see what Monday brings. I think the chances are high that a deal will get done Monday. PK is optimistic, shouldn't we be?

[JoeLassister]

I just don't see it. PK says he is staying and will sign. This is what he tells his friends, so I see no reason to doubt him.

Meehan has been pushing PK into holding out for a Doughty type deal since he won the battle with LA. The only tool available to Bergevin was to capitulate, or hold firm until PK decides to give in. What else did you expect him to do?

Did you want him to give PK a big money, long term deal? I think many people in hockey feel that was risky and would set Bergevin for future battles with all the other young stars coming up.

Did you want a four or five year deal that would essentially give PK a lot of money and burn off his RFA years so we could then compete with 29 other teams for his services in his prime? Not me.

I think Bergevin is fighting the good fight and it isn't against PK. It is against Meehan and other agents that are demanding long term deals as a default position for RFAs. I hope he wins and I am confident that either way, PK will be a hab and on the ice soon.

I wouldn't worry yet. Lets see what Monday brings. I think the chances are high that a deal will get done Monday. PK is optimistic, shouldn't we be?

Big money is relative. I could have lived with PK making Martin St-Louis big money for 6-7-8 years yeah.

I hope he signs a bridge contract + that 8 years deal in 2-3 years. But right now, I'm not confident that we'll see PK in a Habs jersey for a long time. Not confident at all.

[brobin]

I love when people rip on the Dipietro contract. When it was signed, he was a starting goaltender. So they paid him $4.5M. If at any point in his career he retires due to injuries, the Islanders are not on the hook for it. He got dealt with several injuries that put him on the IR constantly. Guess what? IR doesn't count to the cap. And the Islanders hated that. The Islanders have been struggling forever to make the cap floor. In the end it still all works out for the Islanders because due to the latest CBA, all teams get the buyout. It never did any harm to the Islanders. The only real harm was Mike Milbury trading away Roberto Luongo because he banked on Dipietro with his first overall pick.

The only real danger in the NHL is signing a player over 35 to a long term deal. In that situation, you're cooked if the player loses their NHL skill.

You don't think they regret that signing? They have a guy costing a lot of money who may never be the goalie they had hoped. Dipietro is the worse case scenario... He is beaten up but not enough to retire. Yuck.

There is a long term deal is Tampa which many of their fans regret. There is one in Washington that might be a Gomez deal at some point. Neither of those teams can afford a buyout and if they get worse, will handicap the teams for years.

Long term deals are money in the bank for the player, they are usually an albatross for the team. It's GMs gambling the teams success for years after they are probably gone.

[brobin]

Big money is relative. I could have lived with PK making Martin St-Louis big money for 6-7-8 years yeah.

I hope he signs a bridge contract + that 8 years deal in 2-3 years. But right now, I'm not confident that we'll see PK in a Habs jersey for a long time. Not confident at all.

I hope for that bridge then long term deal too. I am confident that he will be a hab for a long time IF he earns that next deal. I am very confident he will sign soon. Have faith.

[JoeLassister]

I hope for that bridge then long term deal too. I am confident that he will be a hab for a long time IF he earns that next deal. I am very confident he will sign soon. Have faith.

I'm confident that he will earn that next deal. Just worried that it could be 7M$ instead of 5M$...

[JCPetit]

Big money is relative. I could have lived with PK making Martin St-Louis big money for 6-7-8 years yeah.

I hope he signs a bridge contract + that 8 years deal in 2-3 years. But right now, I'm not confident that we'll see PK in a Habs jersey for a long time. Not confident at all.

You are not confident, but it doesn't mean that it won't happen. In fact, chances are that cooler heads will prevail and that our friend P.K. will come to reason and put his signature on the contract Bergevin is offering him. You are allowed not to like Bergevin's strategy, but that's the way he wants to do business and it makes a lot of sense to those who refuse to let their emotions get the better of their judgment.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

You don't think they regret that signing? They have a guy costing a lot of money who may never be the goalie they had hoped. Dipietro is the worse case scenario... He is beaten up but not enough to retire. Yuck.

Again, maybe it would be bad for a team that was good but the Islanders weren't going to be good unless Dipietro played better than his contract money. It was a perfect gamble for them to take. He's right now an overpaid back up but that's why the Islanders picked up Nabokov on the cheap. Their goaltending tandem ends up costing the same as it costs the Canadiens on a team so struggling to make the cap floor they attempted to trade for Gomez two seasons ago.

[brobin]

I'm confident that he will earn that next deal. Just worried that it could be 7M$ instead of 5M$...

If he is worth $7, I would gladly pay. If he ends up worth 4, it might still be a good deal and he won't be run out of town as over paid.

Again, maybe it would be bad for a team that was good but the Islanders weren't going to be good unless Dipietro played better than his contract money. It was a perfect gamble for them to take. He's right now an overpaid back up but that's why the Islanders picked up Nabokov on the cheap. Their goaltending tandem ends up costing the same as it costs the Canadiens on a team so struggling to make the cap floor they attempted to trade for Gomez two seasons ago.

Perhaps, but I don't want the habs to be the islanders for 10 years.

[hab29RETIRED]

I thought that was the approach that gainey and gauthier were taking. How did that work out?

You are not confident, but it doesn't mean that it won't happen. In fact, chances are that cooler heads will prevail and that our friend P.K. will come to reason and put his signature on the contract Bergevin is offering him. You are allowed not to like Bergevin's strategy, but that's the way he wants to do business and it makes a lot of sense to those who refuse to let their emotions get the better of their judgment.