ruxpin

I remember the double smarmy. Not sure I remember the nice.

It's the end of July. How is a team OR a player supposed to know what the hell to do?

What else is Weber supposed to say? "Man, this sucks monkey balls? This franchise is big heaping steaming bowl of cow crap and now I'm stuck here?"

Whoops. Sorry. So only one POST per thread then?

So...um..."Habs Talk Semi-Annually" then?

@flyercanuck I don't mind the offseason moves, but, like you, I was underwhelmed by the draft. We picked up a couple decent players, but I don't think even with pictures I will ever understand why we left some really good defensemen on the board only to take yet another center. That center could end up being terrific, but we need to start growing some defensemen so we're not in the position of incessantly having to try to rape other teams for theirs.

Oh man...karma being a ***** and all.

Welcome back, Habs. I enjoyed you as a poster. I'll talk later when I have more time. I'm going for a bike ride.

LMAO. That actually made me smile. "Wait! You didn't follow precedent!" "Oh no. This IS the precedent!"

I agree with the "this is no different." I do think the Richards thing, and possibly the Weber, Suter, and Parise things are probably circumventing the cap. In "legal" and somewhat established ways (although the ante keeps getting raised), but probably in a loop-hole sense that should probably be closed in the next CBA.

Ew...sorry. (not ew to the WFC...ew to the drive)

@Polaris922 More to your point. I have to agree the two payments make the situation out-of-control cumbersome on smaller market, smaller-walleted, teams. If this is not a violation of the current rules--and with your point in mind I'm not as sure, but it still does seem to be within the rules--the rules really do need to be changed so this practice is not repeated. It won't help Nashville, obviously, but going forward it really could damage the league profoundly.

Hey, thanks for the more involved explanation. Seriously. It made it ...for the stupid reader...a little easier to understand where you're coming from. And now that I more clearly understand what you're saying, it makes it a bit harder to disagree with you. Since I prefer to disagree, could you please refrain from clarity and go back to being (for me) vague?

So, now that it's well established that I clearly don't pay enough attention to these things...

The back and forth aside, I think this statement brings us to common ground.

I agree with this, in general, and also specifically how it relates to signing bonuses. Rad, I'm seriously asking because i really don't think I remember: Were signing bonuses as flagrant (or did they exist at all?) before this year? I don't remember such absurd signing bonuses before now. It's almost NFLish.

Shut up, bung hole! (just kidding. I'll second your post!)

LOL! Seriously, though, I have a tremendous amount of respect for rad--being that we're the same person and all that. At first, I really didn't get his concern at all. Now, I think I understand the concern and do think those concerns probably do need to be addressed in the new CBA. But under this current CBA, I just simply reject the notion that this move is either illegal (an assertion rad does NOT appear to be making) or unfair. And I simply outright dismiss the notion that it is somehow in violation of the "intent" of the CBA. I think that is simply fantasy.

I agree with your points on their face. What I'm wondering is how a relatively youthful organization like the Preds makes that jump. It just seems to me that the when the Flyers franchise started and went through its growing stages, it did so at a time when there wasn't nearly as much money involved--even counting for inflation. They wanted to sign a free agent in the 70s, they did so largely on the same level as anyone else. Sure, there might be a couple thousand dollars one way or another and they had to make sure they could afford that difference, but largely you were dealing with similar years and similar contracts. You were also dealing largely with family or group-owned and operated franchises with similar financial constraints, etc. I agree that the Flyers weren't just bought. I agree with with your initial statement about being built to what they are. A bank, or a manufacturer, or a sports franchise or whatever is grown to be profitable. Sometimes so much that it woos other investors or buyers. In this case, the suitor that saw both immediate profit and enormous potential was comcast. But what you have today is the older well-established franchises who have gone through this evolution competing against smaller, newer clubs that have not. I would imagine it is VERY tough for a newer franchise that cannot possibly have the marketing or networked profits yet to compete or even look as attractive as the more established franchises. I'm not sure in today's reality how that jump can be made, without selling out and eventually having 30 teams where Comcast plays the winner of Verizon and Bank of America, etc. I think the basis of rad's argument lies here and it is this that he'd prefer not to see. If this is the crux of the concern, I am sympathetic. I would be wary of such an outcome. Because over time, if this is done on a regular basis, teams like Nashville, Phoenix, and Florida would become simply the feeder teams to the "big boys." Over time, there's no way they make the same money because this would quickly become quite clear to their fan base. If what is going on with Weber right now became the norm, there is only maybe 5-8 franchises that can sustain that...the Flyers being one of them. You would put the smaller franchises in the position of either shutting down, or one by one being sold to Kelloggs or Toyota or whatever. If this is the fear, I get it. But one last time: if this is the fear, get it changed legitimately in the next CBA and protect against this possibility. But under the current CBA (and the previous, for that matter), it is legal, fair, and a perfectly good competitive move.

I am not sure I disagree with this. The current structure of the RFA has made it through at least two CBAs. If your point above is true...and I'm actually sympathetic...then change it in the next CBA. IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that under the rules that are 15 years old, it is both legal AND, therefore, fair in terms of rules of known rules of engagement. If we're talking "fair" on some existential level, maybe. But I don't think THAT level is necessarily relevant.

You're the very last person I'd deliberately try to be an ass to. Honest. (I like polaris, too, so I'm trying to with him. I just vehemently disagree on this one). But I don't get how these two statements jive. On one hand, you're saying "it's not about financial wherewithall" and then in the very next statement saying that the fact they DON'T have the financial wherewithall causes a field to be tilted." If it's not about financial wherewithal, I really have no idea what your argument is. Nashville probably COULD pay the $7.8M next year. But that's not the offer they have to match. So I'm not sure how that's any more relevant than saying they "could pay $3M." The whole idea of an offer sheet to an RFA--if you REALLY want him--is to make it difficult for the home team to counter/match. If it wasn't, there'd be no offer sheet rule for RFAs. I mean, seriously, if teams weren't allowed to make the offer sheet difficult to match, why have them at all if their only purpose is to automatically have the home team match? I just really don't understand the logic of this side of the argument.

CLEARLY that's the intent, as it is the only differing language between UFA and RFA. UFA: Team B wants to sign a player: they offer, player signs, original team has NOTHING to say about it. RFA: Team B wants to sign a player: they offer, player signs offer, original team has 7 days to try to match. The difference is that in RFA the original team has 7 days to attempt to/decide to match. I don't get the problem here. ------ What I have a problem with is the signing bonus thing. I sometimes have a short memory, but I swear I don't remember the signing bonus as much before THIS offseason. The first I really noticed it was with the Suter/Parise signings. I do think these should probably be addressed in the new CBA. I also think, for the sake of competition, that the lengths of contracts should probably be addressed (although that is slightly less of a concern). But under the current rules, there is nothing either illegal or unfair about it. So long as you're playing by the well-established and clear rules...and this is really not even a new wrinkle since it's constructed very similarly to the Parise/Suter deals....it can't be called anything but fair.

It could also be because they don't have a horse in this race. It's Nashville or Philly. They can have all the interest they want, but why they would state it publicly when it's not an option is beyond me.

I don't at all get what your argument is here. You are stating one thing and using it to justify a position that has nothing to do with what you're stating. NO...the intent is NOT for a club to "be able" to match! The intent IS that the incumbent club "has a right" to match. These are NOT interchangeabe terms and this is not just semantics. I have the right own a property if a) I want to and b) can afford to. The Preds, or any other club, have a right, under the CBA, to match. They have 7 days to do so. They need to determine in those 7 days whether it is economically feasible. If it is not, or if they decide they dont want to, they can decline and take the compensation. THAT is the intent of the CBA. Nothing going on here prevents or supersedes any intent, explicit or otherwise (unless you include "imagined'). Nothing you wrote in your first post or this last one changes that. "Just because that was said." Yes, it was said. But I can't help that you're having difficulty understanding the meaning of what was said. The Predators have several more days to exercise their right. No one is stopping them. If the Flyers made it tough for them, that's fine. This is a competition. The name of the game is to make it tough. It's like whining because the [team A] rigged it by making it "tough" to score against them. This isn't supposed to be collusion. The teams are SUPPOSED to compete and to make it tough. So long as it is within the rules (and has been for over 15 years and HAS been done before) I don't get the problem here. The rules state X. The quotes you made ALSO say X. You're saying Y. And I don't get that.

No, we're not watching a rigged game. We're actually watching something NOT rigged in this case and you for some reason have a problem with that. [EDIT: Read a couple posts down where I *think* I'm finally awakening to what might be the problem. I still won't agree in total, but you'll get better than "for some reason."] We're watching a team following the clearly written rules that, to my knowledge, have been the rules for roughly 15 years or more. A team has a right to offer an RFA an offer sheet. Check. They have the right to offer an RFA whatever the hell they want. Check. The incumbent team has a right to match it within 7 days. Check. I don't see what's rigged here. The very definition of RIGGED would be for the league to swoop in and say "yes, you've followed the rules but we're going to interfere because we suddenly realized we don't like the rules that have been in place for over 15 years." That, my friend, is the definition of rigged: pulling strings behind the scenes in contrast to the publicized rules that alter the outcome that would have assuredly resulted the "legal" way. What you choose to call rigged, I see as the culmination of nature. In any game, the combatant/participant who plays with the better hand or from a stronger position wins. What you keep calling fair, I would scream is the definition of rigged. Now, in the next CBA, if they want to change that and make the rules something else, well then that's fine. We've publicly and for going forward changed the rules. But as constituted it is not only legal (because the rules CLEARLY say it is legal) it is ALSO perfectly fair because everyone involved has had 15+ years to read the damn rule. This is not a new attempt. It has been done before. It's the magnitude that is new, not the practice. But it IS fair since it is a well established ground rule. Poile had plenty of time, including pre-arbitration negotiations last year, to avoid this possibility. He decided to gamble. His gambit has landed him--wide-eyed, knowingly, willingly, and stupidly--in this position. For him--or anyone else--to call "unfair" now is simply crap and disingenuous after-the-fact. If you want to watch professional wrestling, I won't stop you (although I don't think you'll actually enjoy it). But it's not a great analogy.