Controversy emerges from P.K. Subban’s retirement

Something doesn’t sound right for former NHL enforcer Cam Janssen and longtime NHL reporter Andy Strickland when you bring up P.K. Subban’s retirement.

On Wednesday, the hosts of the Cam and Strick podcast talked about the defenseman hanging up the skates last week, coming to the conclusion that “Somebody would’ve signed him, if he could still play.”

The hosts also couldn’t believe that he retired at just 33 years old.

Subban was still unsigned after becoming a free agent on July 13 and was said to be hoping to play another season in the league. However, he never got the offer he was looking for. When the announcement of Subban’s retirement was made, Patrick Lortie got the information from two NHL employees that the blue liner would have signed a contract with only two teams : a return with the Montreal Canadiens or a shot at the Stanley Cup with the Toronto Maple Leafs.

But the offer never came.

However, if he really wanted to keep playing, Subban would have accepted an offer from any other team across the NHL, no? That’s what’s so tough to understand, did he simply give up after there were no offer from the Maple Leafs or the Habs, or are Cam and Strick right and “somebody would’ve signed him, if he could still play.” This is a tough one to understand and it comes with its load of controversy. Maybe Subban himself will have to explain it to fans…

Subban was coming off an eight-year, $72 million deal with an average annual value of $9 million. He might have been able to announce a league minimum deal somewhere… but instead he announced his retirement.