Neech Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I would too. Happens in all lines of work when the boss squeezes you for a raise. Imagine how much money he would make in free agency? Plus he wouldn't have to deal with Therrien, the Canadian dollar, and a franchise that can't get out of it's own way. He didn't mean Subban's looking to leave town, he's saying that he could get more money if he signed his long-term deal in a couple of years. With the projections for a rising cap, guys who are signing for $8 million per season this year could be able to push for $10-12 pretty soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 He didn't mean Subban's looking to leave town, he's saying that he could get more money if he signed his long-term deal in a couple of years. With the projections for a rising cap, guys who are signing for $8 million per season this year could be able to push for $10-12 pretty soon. Yes the money is astronomical, good thing we had a lockout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think there is a difference between Subban going for a short-term deal in order to maximize his payout later on, and him intending to leave Montreal. The former could just be his maximizing his leverage; nothing would stop him from then signing up with Montreal long-term at maximum dollars. It's just business. Every season you spend without a long term contract can be deadly in case of a serious injury. Players are aware of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I wish the nhl could be like the nfl. Sign what you want, but if you suck, you are cut from the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Every season you spend without a long term contract can be deadly in case of a serious injury. Players are aware of that. very good point and all players want the long term security to look after their families. It is always a gamble for both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Every season you spend without a long term contract can be deadly in case of a serious injury. Players are aware of that. Subban could bank 16 million on a two year contract plus endorsements. I think he'll be OK money wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I don't support the NFL model at all. That is a brutal, exploitative model, is what that is. Contracts should be binding on both sides. Personally, I believe that PK will sign with us long-term eventually - on the condition that we pay market value. Bergevin burned any possibility of a "hometown discount" by playing hardball on the RFA deal, and I think it would be 100% reasonable of Subban to say, "OK, just like you said, it's a business. Now pay me every penny of what I deserve." And if the Habs refuse to pay and let him walk, then we are an organization of blithering idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Subban could bank 16 million on a two year contract plus endorsements. I think he'll be OK money wise. I actually think he is probably ok financially right now. I know I would trade bank accounts with him in a heart beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I actually think he is probably ok financially right now. I know I would trade bank accounts with him in a heart beat. Ya, I'd probably trade too. I wonder what he's sitting on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Yes the money is astronomical, good thing we had a lockout. Nobody has come close to the $16.45M that Joe Sakic made in 1997-1998. Due to the lockout, no player can make more than $12.86M this season. Heck, $8M is still only a million more than what Brian Campbell was able to make on free agency in 08-09. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Nobody has come close to the $16.45M that Joe Sakic made in 1997-1998. Due to the lockout, no player can make more than $12.86M this season. Heck, $8M is still only a million more than what Brian Campbell was able to make on free agency in 08-09. joe got paid upfront on that contract, he made 2mill per year for the next 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Re-signing of Markov may come to pass first, and maybe set a "pay scale" for the Habs. Teams set that according to game plan if they are smart, and I think MB is smart enough to know that PK needs to be re-signed, thus signing Markov first will be the way to go. PK and Markov have both been steadfast in their desire to stay in Mtl, and that will get you the only sort of discount you could get. Rising cap, these two will still be a bargain at fair market rate in a year or more. What do you do if you are MB? PK for 2 years at least @7-8 m per and Markov for 3 years, @5-6 m per? Habs need the both of them..... NFL model for contracts is terrible for players, but great for the billionaire owner.... NHL might be too good, but NFL is no good imho. Edited January 15, 2014 by KoRP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Re-signing of Markov may come to pass first, and maybe set a "pay scale" for the Habs. Teams set that according to game plan if they are smart, and I think MB is smart enough to know that PK needs to be re-signed, thus signing Markov first will be the way to go. PK and Markov have both been steadfast in their desire to stay in Mtl, and that will get you the only sort of discount you could get. Rising cap, these two will still be a bargain at fair market rate in a year or more. What do you do if you are MB? PK for 2 years at least @7-8 m per and Markov for 3 years, @5-6 m per? Habs need the both of them..... NFL model for contracts is terrible for players, but great for the billionaire owner.... NHL might be too good, but NFL is no good imho. I know everyone is going to lose it here, but Markov should be traded. With Beaulieu, Tinordi, and Patteryn most likely going to be ready by next year, Markov could be an excellent trade piece and probably bring us a first rounder and a roster player. Most of us have faced the facts that a Cup most likely isn't going to be hoisted in Montreal in the next couple of years. So why keep a player like Markov who's career will be nearly finished by the time this team becomes a contender. IMO, this team should seriously consider what a Markov trade could do for future of this organization. Markov is an excellent D-man, I have his Jersey, but I truly believe trading him this year betters our team when our young players are in their prime. There is a reason Montreal drafted these Defensive prospects in the early rounds. If we're playing for the future it's the right move.I know that Gaborik has been an injury prone player this year and through out his career, but If Markov isn't resigned we could acquire a high caliber player like Gaborik. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 None of our D prospects will be anywhere close to filling the hole Markov would leave. As I said earlier on, if we trade one of Markov/Pleks, we should trade them both because we'd be taking a major step back in the short term with hopes of long-term rewards. Either go all in on a mini-rebuild and build around our young stars, or keep the team together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 None of our D prospects will be anywhere close to filling the hole Markov would leave. As I said earlier on, if we trade one of Markov/Pleks, we should trade them both because we'd be taking a major step back in the short term with hopes of long-term rewards. Either go all in on a mini-rebuild and build around our young stars, or keep the team together. I just seriously feel like this team doesn't have what it takes to go deep in the play offs and it drives me insane. It's the same thing every year with this core group of players that are ageing much faster than our teams success rate. I'm not against trading Plek either to tell you the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I just seriously feel like this team doesn't have what it takes to go deep in the play offs and it drives me insane. It's the same thing every year with this core group of players that are ageing much faster than our teams success rate. I'm not against trading Plek either to tell you the truth. I would be for it if it meant that we're actually contenders in a few years. The trouble is that you're trading a sure thing for some maybes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I know everyone is going to lose it here, but Markov should be traded. With Beaulieu, Tinordi, and Patteryn most likely going to be ready by next year, Markov could be an excellent trade piece and probably bring us a first rounder and a roster player. Most of us have faced the facts that a Cup most likely isn't going to be hoisted in Montreal in the next couple of years. So why keep a player like Markov who's career will be nearly finished by the time this team becomes a contender. IMO, this team should seriously consider what a Markov trade could do for future of this organization. Markov is an excellent D-man, I have his Jersey, but I truly believe trading him this year betters our team when our young players are in their prime. There is a reason Montreal drafted these Defensive prospects in the early rounds. If we're playing for the future it's the right move. I know that Gaborik has been an injury prone player this year and through out his career, but If Markov isn't resigned we could acquire a high caliber player like Gaborik. I believe we are a contender--at least a dark horse-- right now. Trading Markov would mean the team has given up hope of even trying to win a cup in the next 3-4 years. Re-sign Markov and pick up some complementary pieces and with #79 to mentor them the young D will help bring the Holy Grail back to its rightful home by 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Markov is our Scott Neidermayer at this point. Around the same age Neidermayer was when the Ducks hoisted the Cup. Neidermayer stayed on the Ducks after that, even when their GM dwindled their repeat chances. You don't have to ask a Ducks player how important that was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Markov is our Scott Neidermayer at this point. Around the same age Neidermayer was when the Ducks hoisted the Cup. Neidermayer stayed on the Ducks after that, even when their GM dwindled their repeat chances. You don't have to ask a Ducks player how important that was. Scott Neidermayer is a hall of fame player. He's won everything there is to win and stayed healthy basically 95% of the time doing it all. Neidermayer was one of the best skaters in the game, Markov can barley move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Scott Neidermayer is a hall of fame player. He's won everything there is to win and stayed healthy basically 95% of the time doing it all. Neidermayer was one of the best skaters in the game, Markov can barley move. You do understand what "our" means right? That means he's of the same importance to the team. That doesn't mean he's the same player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Do you not know what "comparing" means? The reason Neidermayer was kept around is because he could still skate end to end with ease and throw the team on his back. Markov is not the same player he was 5 years ago. He has slowed so much that we have to make sure he's with a D partner that can compensate for his lacking ability. I'm just saying if there was a potential trade partner who is looking at making a run, and looking for a defensive piece to help get them there. I think we should make a trade. I feel like we're missing too many pieces to take a serious run at the cup. You do understand what "our" means right? That means he's of the same importance to the team. That doesn't mean he's the same player. Do you not know what "comparing" means? The reason Neidermayer was kept around is because he could still skate end to end with ease and throw the team on his back. Markov is not the same player he was 5 years ago. He has slowed so much that we have to make sure he's with a D partner that can compensate for his lacking ability. I'm just saying if there was a potential trade partner who is looking at making a run, and looking for a defensive piece to help get them there. I think we should make a trade. I feel like we're missing too many pieces to take a serious run at the cup and Markov could have those top contending teams salivating over him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Do you not know what "comparing" means? The reason Neidermayer was kept around is because he could still skate end to end with ease and throw the team on his back. Markov is not the same player he was 5 years ago. He has slowed so much that we have to make sure he's with a D partner that can compensate for his lacking ability. I'm just saying if there was a potential trade partner who is looking at making a run, and looking for a defensive piece to help get them there. I think we should make a trade. I feel like we're missing too many pieces to take a serious run at the cup. Markov changed his game to instead of relying on speed, relies more on positioning. He's clearly a top defender in the league. Not recognizing that is just bias. He'd be first pairing on almost any team in the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Markov changed his game to instead of relying on speed, relies more on positioning. He's clearly a top defender in the league. Not recognizing that is just bias. He'd be first pairing on almost any team in the NHL. Right now, yes, Markov is a top defender. The problem is right now we're just praying to get past the first round of the play offs. I can honestly see Montreal being a top tier team in the near future and if Markov can't keep pace in 2 years or so, why not get pieces that can? I just have a feeling that when this team is ready to consistently win games, Markov will an unnecessary piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 #79 will be re-signed, I believe. Like I said in the context of Pleks, I just do not believe that "Bergie" is going to unload absolutely core, high-value, defining veterans on the club. He is going to continue "building from within," and we'll just have to hope that we have enough high-end talent coming up to make us contenders within the "Markov window." I doubt it myself, but I also respect that argument that shipping out Markov or Pleks would decimate our team and have consequences that could be hard to calculate: high, high risk moves. A maybe a team that is comfortable ensconced in a playoff position - two years in a row on a 100-point pace - doesn't need to take those kinds of dizzying risks. 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.