Trizzak Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I thought so too... didn't know why Bergevin was getting a failing grade for not claiming a guy who wasn't available. Because a good GM would have convinced another GM to put the player he wants on waivers, obviously. Get it together, Commandant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Bergevin's first year: Hiring Therrien: B+ - Not much else available. Subban Contract Follies- F. A move universally laughed at (in hindsight) by members of the press, and fans of opposing teams, Bergevin tests his mettle by creating an ugly PR fiasco with his franchise player over 1.5-2 million dollars over two years. We will now spend more than 10-20 million extra locking up Subban long term, especially if an offer sheet in involved. Keeping up Gallagher and Galchenyuk- A. A departure from past regimes, and one that allowed us to roll 3 lines of offense, and increase scoring from the bottom of the league to the top. Cole Trade- A-. A minus for getting smaller, an A for sending a mouthy union guy packing. Deadline-D-. From Molson's perspective, standing pat cost us 1-5 more home playoff games, costing the organization millions. (A top 6 forward for Gio/Pac would have gone a long way) A puzzling move when you consider we had 6 picks in the first three rounds, and we gambled with a few of them. (McCarron, Crisp, etc) When your team has the best regular season finish in 5 years, and you do nothing at the deadline, this is very disappointing to fans, especially when the team uses these extra picks to lock up future back up goalie, and gamble on prospects. Contracts: Moen-B. A lot of dough, if Moen is to become a fourth liner going forward. Desharnais-B. A good value looking at comparable contracts around the league (Filppula 5 mil, Bozak 4.25, Grabitesky 5.5 pre buyout. Roy 4 million) but cast in a negative light because of DD falling off in the playoffs, and his size. Bouillon-D. With Tinordi, and Drewiske, we now have 3 number 6/7 defenseman. Puzzling that this was done in the middle of the year, and there is no word of a Subban contract negotiation that will prevent an offer sheet next year. Price-C+. Lots of term, lots of dough for a guy who has only won 1 playoff series. Firing his goalie coach and drafting a goalie is a good way to get back to basics with Price. Eller/Pac - A+ These guys got fleeced. Drewiske-F. Stinginess again. I guess Bergevin can't bear parting with draft picks. Gomez buy out- A+. The way to set the tone moving forward. Kaberle buy out- A. Hated this guy in the CH. All things considered, my grade is a B+. He took a team that way underachieved, (we would have been in 10th last year, if we didn't fire Martin imo) to a team that overachieved, and breathed life back into the organization. A great first year, the only reason he gets a B+ instead of an A-, is that I don't think we were as bad last year as the record showed, and the firing of Martin (great move) and injuries set us into a tailspin. Going forward, I can only hope that he doesn't think kicking tires and low balling his guys into cheap contracts is the way to win a Cup. Eventually, every GM needs to have a defining trade that makes something happen, or draft franchise players like Kane/Toews or Crosby/Malkin, The way to win a cup is either to get lucky, get high draft picks, or make something happen on the trade front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Well Lovett, you and I listen to different media outlets because I only hear great stuff about his handling of the Subban affair. Sets the organizational tone, motivates the player to prove things, and keeps that ALL IMPORTANT bridge contract in play for Montreal - which will make us a better team than any club that doesn't bridge because we'll automatically be able to afford more. Does it make his next contract more expensive? Yes. What would he have gotten? 6? Now he'll get 7 or so? Not seeing that as a big deal in the grand scheme especially compared to setting that organizational tone I mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Well Lovett, you and I listen to different media outlets because I only hear great stuff about his handling of the Subban affair. Sets the organizational tone, motivates the player to prove things, and keeps that ALL IMPORTANT bridge contract in play for Montreal - which will make us a better team than any club that doesn't bridge because we'll automatically be able to afford more. Does it make his next contract more expensive? Yes. What would he have gotten? 6? Now he'll get 7 or so? Not seeing that as a big deal in the grand scheme especially compared to setting that organizational tone I mentioned. This is well said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Well Lovett, you and I listen to different media outlets because I only hear great stuff about his handling of the Subban affair. Sets the organizational tone, motivates the player to prove things, and keeps that ALL IMPORTANT bridge contract in play for Montreal - which will make us a better team than any club that doesn't bridge because we'll automatically be able to afford more. Does it make his next contract more expensive? Yes. What would he have gotten? 6? Now he'll get 7 or so? Not seeing that as a big deal in the grand scheme especially compared to setting that organizational tone I mentioned. Afford a little more during the bridge. Afford a lot less after the bridge. I still have my doubts about "bridging" a superstar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Afford a little more during the bridge. Afford a lot less after the bridge. I still have my doubts about "bridging" a superstar. A lot? I suppose that depends on what he signs for, but my guestimate is that the diff between what he wanted before and what we're going to give him is going to be a lot less than people might have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 A lot? I suppose that depends on what he signs for, but my guestimate is that the diff between what he wanted before and what we're going to give him is going to be a lot less than people might have thought. I don't believe one second that he was looking for Doughty's money. My bet would be Cam Fowler's money, maybe a bit more because of Quebec's taxes rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 Afford a little more during the bridge. Afford a lot less after the bridge. I still have my doubts about "bridging" a superstar. In theory, if every player gets a bridge deal for their second contract, the team should never be in a capped-out situation because the guys on the bridge deals are making up for the higher cost of the third contract. For example, the team affords Subban's higher deal by going to a bridge with Galchenyuk and Gallagher. 4 years from now when they're on their third deal, the 'younger talents' that come up in '13-14 and '15-16 get the bridge deal to offset the higher costs to Galchenyuk and Gallagher. When the 'younger talents' get to their third deal, guys like Subban are done with their long-term pact and are either let go or signed cheaper (Subban would be well into his 30's by then); that plus any bridge contracts at that time help offset the more expensive third deal for those guys...and so on. As soon as one player doesn't get a bridge deal, that whole way of thinking goes out the window. Considering it appears Bergevin's mantra is to build through the draft (regularly supplementing the existing core with younger players like they did with Gallagher), I could see him continuing to push for a bridge when Galchenyuk comes up in a couple years to allow for that admittedly hard to follow cycle above to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 In theory, if every player gets a bridge deal for their second contract, the team should never be in a capped-out situation because the guys on the bridge deals are making up for the higher cost of the third contract. For example, the team affords Subban's higher deal by going to a bridge with Galchenyuk and Gallagher. 4 years from now when they're on their third deal, the 'younger talents' that come up in '13-14 and '15-16 get the bridge deal to offset the higher costs to Galchenyuk and Gallagher. When the 'younger talents' get to their third deal, guys like Subban are done with their long-term pact and are either let go or signed cheaper (Subban would be well into his 30's by then); that plus any bridge contracts at that time help offset the more expensive third deal for those guys...and so on. As soon as one player doesn't get a bridge deal, that whole way of thinking goes out the window. Considering it appears Bergevin's mantra is to build through the draft (regularly supplementing the existing core with younger players like they did with Gallagher), I could see him continuing to push for a bridge when Galchenyuk comes up in a couple years to allow for that admittedly hard to follow cycle above to continue. I get all of this, but it works better as long as all you got is some 5M$ players like we used to have. (Gionta-Plek-Markov) Now with Subban and, I'm sure, Galchenyuk, we'll be looking at some 7-8M$ guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I don't believe one second that he was looking for Doughty's money. My bet would be Cam Fowler's money, maybe a bit more because of Quebec's taxes rate. Ahem...weren't you quite vocal about Subban getting a major long term deal...like $7M per for many years? Pretty sure it was you saying that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Ahem...weren't you quite vocal about Subban getting a major long term deal...like $7M per for many years? Pretty sure it was you saying that... I was vocal about giving 8 years 40M$ yes. http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=23810&view=findpost&p=460267 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share Posted July 8, 2013 I get all of this, but it works better as long as all you got is some 5M$ players like we used to have. (Gionta-Plek-Markov) Now with Subban and, I'm sure, Galchenyuk, we'll be looking at some 7-8M$ guys. You'll also be looking at a higher cap. Markov takes up 8.9% of the Habs' cap for next season, Gionta/Plekanec are 7.8%. If the cap in 2014-15 jumps to $75M as some are predicting, Subban is going to come in somewhere around 8-12% which isn't all that different than those guys. By the time Galchenyuk gets to that (there's no way he gets that in two years time), his cap percentage will be around the 8-10% range as well. Of course, if the cap doesn't go up as anticipated...this can be thrown out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcc10 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I don't believe one second that he was looking for Doughty's money. My bet would be Cam Fowler's money, maybe a bit more because of Quebec's taxes rate. 100% guess by you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Well Lovett, you and I listen to different media outlets because I only hear great stuff about his handling of the Subban affair. Sets the organizational tone, motivates the player to prove things, and keeps that ALL IMPORTANT bridge contract in play for Montreal - which will make us a better team than any club that doesn't bridge because we'll automatically be able to afford more. Does it make his next contract more expensive? Yes. What would he have gotten? 6? Now he'll get 7 or so? Not seeing that as a big deal in the grand scheme especially compared to setting that organizational tone I mentioned. The bridge contract makes perfect sense when you have second tier stars like Pacioretty and Price who are just starting to do damage in the league. When they got their bridge deals, they weren't half the player Subban was a year ago. Add in a Norris, and a potential 55-70 points next year, and we're in for a heavy contract. If he keeps going like he is, I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't taking about "Karlsson/Doughty/Letang" money, but "Crosby/Ovechkin" money next summer. I also see no sense, organizational ethos or not, in having your best player sit on the sidelines for the first five games of the year after you come 15th in the conference. Math aside, this was a "Richard" move from Bergevin. From Subban's perspective, what does he care about the "bridge philosophy" after seeing contracts Markov and Gomez get paid to do absolutely nothing his first few years in the league. If I remember correctly, his issue was more term, than money. If we gave him 7 years, 5 million dollars, we would be in good shape, and at the time, it was the right thing to do. And who exactly are we saving money for by "bridgeing?" More second liners? Do we get a freebie, and get to sign the Davis Drewiskes of the NHL by rubbing our best players into the ground over 1-2 million dollars? What tone do we set? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcc10 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Well Lovett, you and I listen to different media outlets because I only hear great stuff about his handling of the Subban affair. Sets the organizational tone, motivates the player to prove things, and keeps that ALL IMPORTANT bridge contract in play for Montreal - which will make us a better team than any club that doesn't bridge because we'll automatically be able to afford more. Does it make his next contract more expensive? Yes. What would he have gotten? 6? Now he'll get 7 or so? Not seeing that as a big deal in the grand scheme especially compared to setting that organizational tone I mentioned. What media outlet,BergevinandTherrien.net? Yours is the first post I've read that this was handled great,unless you're being sarcastic. You do know that he missed the first 6 games of the season which means it was an absolute mess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Afford a little more during the bridge. Afford a lot less after the bridge. I still have my doubts about "bridging" a superstar. I said it then and is still think so now. Bridging Subban was stupid. WE probably could have locked him up for $5.5M/8 years. The starting point now will be at least $7.5M. Despite all of the allocades he got, I think MB got very lucky. Imagine if someone had given an RFA offersheet to Subban for $7M or $8M. We would have been screwed if someone had given him an offer sheet like the Flames tried with O'Reilly. Considering Philly's blue line, I'm surprised they didn't do it. I think if Subban isn't signed before his next contract is up he will have an offer sheet north of $8M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 The bridge contract makes perfect sense when you have second tier stars like Pacioretty and Price who are just starting to do damage in the league. When they got their bridge deals, they weren't half the player Subban was a year ago. Add in a Norris, and a potential 55-70 points next year, and we're in for a heavy contract. If he keeps going like he is, I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't taking about "Karlsson/Doughty/Letang" money, but "Crosby/Ovechkin" money next summer. I also see no sense, organizational ethos or not, in having your best player sit on the sidelines for the first five games of the year after you come 15th in the conference. Math aside, this was a "Richard" move from Bergevin. From Subban's perspective, what does he care about the "bridge philosophy" after seeing contracts Markov and Gomez get paid to do absolutely nothing his first few years in the league. If I remember correctly, his issue was more term, than money. If we gave him 7 years, 5 million dollars, we would be in good shape, and at the time, it was the right thing to do. And who exactly are we saving money for by "bridgeing?" More second liners? Do we get a freebie, and get to sign the Davis Drewiskes of the NHL by rubbing our best players into the ground over 1-2 million dollars? What tone do we set? 100% agree. Subban is easily going to surpass Letang, for the simple fact that Subban has his name on the Norris. A team like Philly is starving for a dman and I can see them giving Subban an offer sheet. Frankly, I think they were stupid not to last year. You'll also be looking at a higher cap. Markov takes up 8.9% of the Habs' cap for next season, Gionta/Plekanec are 7.8%. If the cap in 2014-15 jumps to $75M as some are predicting, Subban is going to come in somewhere around 8-12% which isn't all that different than those guys. By the time Galchenyuk gets to that (there's no way he gets that in two years time), his cap percentage will be around the 8-10% range as well. Of course, if the cap doesn't go up as anticipated...this can be thrown out the window. If Gally puts up 80+ points during his last year of his ELC, he will NOT be getting a bridge deal. He will be getting market rate. I was vocal about giving 8 years 40M$ yes. http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=23810&view=findpost&p=460267 I totally agree with you. I was actually advocating 12 years $5M pre-lockout and $5.5M/8yrs post lockout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 100% agree. Subban is easily going to surpass Letang, for the simple fact that Subban has his name on the Norris. A team like Philly is starving for a dman and I can see them giving Subban an offer sheet. Frankly, I think they were stupid not to last year. Players get offer sheets all of the time. You only hear about them when they get signed. Teams get quite angry when offer sheet news leaks out before a signing but the rumour was that Detroit and Philadelphia sent offer sheets to Subban and he simply didn't sign them. It would be nice if NHL teams had to make that stuff public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share Posted July 8, 2013 If Gally puts up 80+ points during his last year of his ELC, he will NOT be getting a bridge deal. He will be getting market rate. I don't see that happening - not that I don't like Galchenyuk but it has been a while since any Hab has come near that point total. This is a team built to spread out the scoring, I don't think any Hab gets close to that plateau for a while. I'll acknowledge that if he gets 80, it would be challenging to do a bridge but keep in mind the organization would rather go 2+8 or 3+8 in years than straight to 8 so I'm sure they'd push for a short-term deal, even at closer to market rate than a typical bridge deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I don't see that happening - not that I don't like Galchenyuk but it has been a while since any Hab has come near that point total. This is a team built to spread out the scoring, I don't think any Hab gets close to that plateau for a while. I'll acknowledge that if he gets 80, it would be challenging to do a bridge but keep in mind the organization would rather go 2+8 or 3+8 in years than straight to 8 so I'm sure they'd push for a short-term deal, even at closer to market rate than a typical bridge deal. I think even if he got 70 to 75 points his agent would be demanding market value and the habs would be stupid to risk a O'Reilly situation on insisting on a bridget contract, particularly, when Galchenyuk is giong to be a much better player then O'Reilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I don't see that happening - not that I don't like Galchenyuk but it has been a while since any Hab has come near that point total. This is a team built to spread out the scoring, I don't think any Hab gets close to that plateau for a while. I'll acknowledge that if he gets 80, it would be challenging to do a bridge but keep in mind the organization would rather go 2+8 or 3+8 in years than straight to 8 so I'm sure they'd push for a short-term deal, even at closer to market rate than a typical bridge deal. Do you mean a Hab rookie? Because Kovalev had 84 in 07-08. Wasn't that long ago. Galchenyuk has the highest ceiling for a forward we have drafted since Lafleur. I truly believe that. Higher than Koivu, Richer, Naslund, Shutt. That doesn't mean he'll hit it but he's about the closest thing to a franchise forward we've seen in a long long time. If he stays healthy, keeps developing properly and gets good support, I don't see how it's any stretch to see 80 point seasons out of him. These days less than 10 players even hit the 80 point total but I can see him doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Do you mean a Hab rookie? Because Kovalev had 84 in 07-08. Wasn't that long ago. Galchenyuk has the highest ceiling for a forward we have drafted since Lafleur. I truly believe that. Higher than Koivu, Richer, Naslund, Shutt. That doesn't mean he'll hit it but he's about the closest thing to a franchise forward we've seen in a long long time. If he stays healthy, keeps developing properly and gets good support, I don't see how it's any stretch to see 80 point seasons out of him. These days less than 10 players even hit the 80 point total but I can see him doing it. I honestly think he will be the first hab since Naslund to crack the 100 point mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGC21 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I love the talk about Galchenyuk getting anywhere between 70 and 100 pts even though he's played about 50 NHL games in his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I love the talk about Galchenyuk getting anywhere between 70 and 100 pts even though he's played about 50 NHL games in his career. You mean like the talk about tempering the expectations about Crosby, Ovechkin, Tavares, Stamkos, Malkin, Toews, Kane..... when they came into the league? The kid was a #3 pick for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGC21 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 You mean like the talk about tempering the expectations about Crosby, Ovechkin, Tavares, Stamkos, Malkin, Toews, Kane..... when they came into the league? The kid was a #3 pick for a reason. Exactly. It's exciting to have a bonafide prospect that everyone thinks will be a scoring machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.