Subban arbitration UPDATE: Signs 8 year/72 million deal

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You don't understand why someone would want more money than less money?

That's not what I said, is it.

7M and a better shot at a Cup > 9M

There's no guarantees, but you can drastically increase your odds. Going for max $$$ handcuffs your team if the cap ever drops.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

That's not what I said, is it.

It's exactly what you said.

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

7M and a better shot at a Cup > 9M

Following that logic,

1M and a much better shot at a Cup > 7M

Except, of course, if you ask PK. Shouldn't be hard to figure out why someone would want more money than less money.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The deal will work for the Habs in the short term but IMO Subban it's a lot of money for a guy that's not a complete defenseman and may never be. It's one of those deals where it will all depend on if Subban has hit his ceiling or if he can get more well rounded and mature. If we have already seen his best then it's probably not going to end well especially in that city.

It's $9 million for Dion Phaneuf. Subban is a similar player to Dion Phaneuf and I wouldn't want either of them on my team, especially at that number. $6 million, maybe. $9 million, or 13% of my payroll, not a chance.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Assignment specific (defensively and positionally), yes they are better than subban IMO.

Okaaaaaayy.... I'll try this: Pretend you're a GM, and you could only pick one. Which of the 4 would you pick to build your defense around? Bouwmeester, Vlasic, Hamhuis or Subban?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Which of the 4 would you pick to build your defense around? Bouwmeester, Vlasic, Hamhuis or Subban?

Bouwmeester @ $5.4 million
Vlasic, @ 4.25 million
Hamhuis @ $4.5 million

or

Subban $9 million

So, you can have two of any of the previous three for almost the same amount as what Subban is being paid. The other three may not have the offensive flair, but they are better defensively and a hell of a lot cheaper. I think the decision is pretty obvious.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by New Era

It's $9 million for Dion Phaneuf. Subban is a similar player to Dion Phaneuf and I wouldn't want either of them on my team, especially at that number. $6 million, maybe. $9 million, or 13% of my payroll, not a chance.

Dion Phaneuf is half the player Subban is. In terms of physical talent it's closer than that. Unfortunately for Dion, he doesn't think the game at a very high level at all. Subban's not elite in that regard either, but still miles ahead of Phaneuf.

[Kaine]

Laughably bad contract. This pleases me.

*Insert giant bug "good, good" gif here*

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Bouwmeester @ $5.4 million
Vlasic, @ 4.25 million
Hamhuis @ $4.5 million

or

Subban $9 million

So, you can have two of any of the previous three for almost the same amount as what Subban is being paid. The other three may not have the offensive flair, but they are better defensively and a hell of a lot cheaper. I think the decision is pretty obvious.

No........You can have Subban or one of the others, not 2. Montreal is not tight against the cap, so PK's cap hit is irrelevant right now.

I would agree the choice is pretty obvious, though.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

No........You can have Subban or one of the others, not 2. Montreal is not tight against the cap, so PK's cap hit is irrelevant right now.

Okay, so pick your defenseman and then a $4-5 million in cap space to spend on another defenseman or forward.

I would agree the choice is pretty obvious, though.

Yup, any one of the other three, and another $4-5 million in cap space. Montreal may not be hurting right now, but they will be when they have to pay Galchenyk and fill out the blueline next season. Montreal's payroll just got really complicated. To me, this is as bad a signing as when Chicago inked Crawford for $6 million a season. Just a very poor decision based on overall ability.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

That's not what I said, is it.

7M and a better shot at a Cup > 9M

There's no guarantees, but you can drastically increase your odds. Going for max $$$ handcuffs your team if the cap ever drops.

This isn't anywhere close to max dollars. With a cap of $69 million, maximum money is $13.8 million. If he had waited 2 years to go to UFA, he likely would have been receiving offers in excess of $10 million/year, so you could make the argument that he did leave money on the table by taking the longer term.

You could play that "what if?" game all day -- if taking $2M less gives you a slightly better chance at the Cup, $4M less gives you an even better chance. Hell, if every player in the league agreed to take $3M per year, then every player in the league could make $3M per year.

If the cap goes up 5% a year (which is a low annual increase, historically), $9M will be less than 10% of the cap by the end of this contract.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Okay, so pick your defenseman and then a $4-5 million in cap space to spend on another defenseman or forward.

The question was if you would take Subban over those other guys right now.

Montreal may not be hurting right now, but they will be when they have to pay Galchenyk and fill out the blueline next season. Montreal's payroll just got really complicated. To me, this is as bad a signing as when Chicago inked Crawford for $6 million a season. Just a very poor decision based on overall ability.

Galchenyuk is already making close to a million, he will indeed get a raise, but he won't break the bank.

The Habs have about 22 million coming off the books after the 15/16 season, so it's not like they're in trouble for the foreseeable future. You sign your star players for big contracts (Subban, Price) and worry about the complimentary/filler players later. They're not in cap hell, they will be fine.

[Senator Clay Davis]

One of the bigger positives from this for Bergevin is he can now sell the younger guys to take the bridge contract and prove it, and if you do you'll get paid like PK did. Gives a little more cap flexibility in the future if guys are willing to do it.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

That's not what I said, is it.

7M and a better shot at a Cup > 9M

There's no guarantees, but you can drastically increase your odds. Going for max $$$ handcuffs your team if the cap ever drops.

The superstars like PK deserve their money. The problem in the NHL is overpaying supporting pieces. It's very easy to cut a couple of million from your cap.

Why should superstars take less?

[FireGilbert]

Good contract for both sides. PK will be slightly overpaid for the next two seasons but after that he would have gotten much more as a UFA.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by New Era

Bouwmeester @ $5.4 million
Vlasic, @ 4.25 million
Hamhuis @ $4.5 million

or

Subban $9 million

So, you can have two of any of the previous three for almost the same amount as what Subban is being paid. The other three may not have the offensive flair, but they are better defensively and a hell of a lot cheaper. I think the decision is pretty obvious.

My decision is Subban easily. Subban is a true #1 D-Man. Those 3 simply are not. I'm actually stunned you could make the argument you'd take Hamhuis over him. They're making less because they aren't superstar Norris winning D-Men.

[Clarkey]

What is the max contract length in the new CBA?

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

The superstars like PK deserve their money. The problem in the NHL is overpaying supporting pieces. It's very easy to cut a couple of million from your cap.

Why should superstars take less?

Exactly. Aren't taxes in Quebec super high anyways? So the 7 to 9 mill makes a big difference.

Why should he leave 2 mill on the table? 9 of 69 is 13% of the cap. That # will likely get even lower as the cap rises. If a GM can't put a team together with the other 87% then find an new GM.

A shot at the cup is irrelevant cuz only 1 teams wins the cup so other superstars on 29 teams should be leaving money on the table thinking "oh we have a shot so I should leave money for some other guy?" Not a chance.

Therefore 9 > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 + chance of winning the cup.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

What is the max contract length in the new CBA?

8 for re-signing your own players, 7 for UFAs.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

My decision is Subban easily. Subban is a true #1 D-Man. Those 3 simply are not. I'm actually stunned you could make the argument you'd take Hamhuis over him. They're making less because they aren't superstar Norris winning D-Men.

Should be obvious but some people answer questions like politicians around here

It's a question asking for a one word answer and somehow it morphs into something else so that the answer can somehow be rationalized. Wait, I'm pretty sure I just described every argument on the Internet. Ever.

[FireGilbert]

This makes the Erik Karlsson contract look amazing. The Sens were smart to sign him to a long term deal instead of going the Montreal route with the bridge contract.

It is tricky because bridge contracts are low risk and help your cap situation now while long term deals are high risk and may either help or cripple your cap in the future. In hindsight the Flames should have signed Brodie to an 8 year deal but at the time he had only proven enough for a bridge deal.