I don't think things would have have worked out different if he had signed 7 x 7.
That Subban and Habs marriage was never going to last. In fact, had they caved and signed him to that deal, it might have made things worst.
From a trade asset perspective...sure.
But I just meant, either way, a divorce was inevitable.
Yeah I think you're right that ultimately in either universe he still gets traded. I do think the bridge deal was a pretty big factor in causing the rift, but I guess that's a bit tautological given they pushed for a bridge because they didn't trust him in the same way St. Louis and LA trusted Pietrangelo and Doughty.
Even if the relationship was never going to work out, it's still very poor asset management in my opinion and I think they could have got far more in a trade in the 7x7 scenario. I bring it up not because I really want to re-litigate the Subban situation, but because it remains relevant when that Bergevin duality of nuking relationships with important players through being a tight-ass while handing out big money deals the second Drouin/Anderson/Shaw were traded here hasn't gone away.
Domi puts up 72pts and they nuke the relationship and trade him for a middle six winger they overpaid. Oh well, at least it was for the sake of committing to Danault and Kotkaniemi in the top 9, right? Well no, turns out he's just going to nuke the relationship with Kotkaniemi while also pissing off Danault and then lowball and lose them both (I don't think they should have kept Danault but why nuke relationships to keep him then balk over 500k?) and then trade the pick we got for Kotkaniemi for Dvorak, who is basically just Lars Eller Premium™ who we traded away for no reason five years ago.
Out of a list of players including Domi, Danault, Kotkaniemi, and Anderson, Bergevin decided that Anderson is the only one he's willing to go out of his way to commit to and keep. It's genuinely baffling.