Jump to content

The longer Nashville takes..... Is it a good or bad sign?


Guest jackhole
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would guess that the Predators are busy on several fronts. At the least, they are digesting all the details of the offer sheet and determining if/how they can match the offer, or orchestrate a trade, and what the ramifications of each course of action mean.

On a very different level, I would not be surprised if they are in contact with Bettman to see if he can step in and rule that the offer sheets violates what is in the NHL's best interest. Bettman can't be happy. He has built his power base on the support of the small market owners. On one hand the NHL is telling the Players' Association that they don't have the money to support player compensation at the current level, all the while the some owners are demonstrating that they have more money than god.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lunatic: Here's the issue, though. If they void this offer sheet, ehich I haven't seen any report of anything like that, just message board speculation, they'd have a hard time not stripping Parise and Suter of their contracts as well. Plus, if the NHL thought it at all seemed fishy, they'd have likely issued a statement on it already, especially if they want to keep crying poor at the CBA negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lunatic: Here's the issue, though. If they void this offer sheet, ehich I haven't seen any report of anything like that, just message board speculation, they'd have a hard time not stripping Parise and Suter of their contracts as well. Plus, if the NHL thought it at all seemed fishy, they'd have likely issued a statement on it already, especially if they want to keep crying poor at the CBA negotiations.

Except that Suter and Parise were UFA's... the the RFA rules are supposed to give the rights owning franchise the ability to hold onto the player if they want to, not let the player hijack the team's finances. That would be the angle the NHL could choose to approach if they want to interfere.

Let's face it... none of us has a clue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will not match the offer.

Right now they are desperately trying to figure out the best way to save face.

My hunch is that we will hear something before Wednesday, and that it will involve a trade.

My guess? Read, Bourdon, Laughton & picks. (Although I'd like to see us keep Laughton as the eventual successor to Briere.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess that the Predators are busy on several fronts. At the least, they are digesting all the details of the offer sheet and determining if/how they can match the offer, or orchestrate a trade, and what the ramifications of each course of action mean.

On a very different level, I would not be surprised if they are in contact with Bettman to see if he can step in and rule that the offer sheets violates what is in the NHL's best interest. Bettman can't be happy. He has built his power base on the support of the small market owners. On one hand the NHL is telling the Players' Association that they don't have the money to support player compensation at the current level, all the while the some owners are demonstrating that they have more money than god.

It doesn't violate anything.

Nashville should have locked him up long-term two years ago, or even last year. Now they're paying the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my memory, teams normally jump on it immediately and say they are matching. You normally want to give the impression immediately that you are saying "in your face", we are matching so go pound sand. In my opinion if they have to wait this long then Nashville is having some uncertainty as to what they are doing or can do. I guess this is obvious though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that Suter and Parise were UFA's... the the RFA rules are supposed to give the rights owning franchise the ability to hold onto the player if they want to, not let the player hijack the team's finances. That would be the angle the NHL could choose to approach if they want to interfere.

Let's face it... none of us has a clue.

No, RFA only meant that the team was supposed to have first right of refusal, which the Predators do. There is no difference between the way RFA and UFA contracts work, are written, or the terms that can be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, RFA only meant that the team was supposed to have first right of refusal, which the Predators do. There is no difference between the way RFA and UFA contracts work, are written, or the terms that can be used.

That's my point though. Do they really have the right if a big market team weighs the front end if a contract so heavily it may not be possible for the team to refuse? THAT is what the NHL could go after if they wanted to. The right of refusal getting circumvented by front loading the contract. I dunno if they would, just saying that would be the approach I'd expect if they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they do. It might be painful for them to do so, but the right hasn't been stripped of them. Just because they have the right to match, doesn't need to mean that other teams have to allow them to be able to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, RFA only meant that the team was supposed to have first right of refusal, which the Predators do. There is no difference between the way RFA and UFA contracts work, are written, or the terms that can be used.

There is in terms of the contracts structure and its design. The signing bonuses for Parise and Suter don't matter as UFAs. The $26M is clearly designed - as we have all acknowledged - as a poison pill Nashville can't swallow as an RFA.

If this was a $7.8M/year deal, Nashville could easily match. You know this. I know this. The NHL knows this.

The Flyers made a similar deal for Chris Gratton, putting up an offer sheet they *knew* the Lightning couldn't match because of their ownership/financial situation at the time and the NHL stepped in an essentially forced the deal that broke up the Legion.

@Polaris922 is absolutely right - we really have no idea what will go on.

And, even if Nashville decided on Day One they were matching, I would still make Homer (and Weber) wait until 11:29 on Wednesday before telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point though. Do they really have the right if a big market team weighs the front end if a contract so heavily it may not be possible for the team to refuse? THAT is what the NHL could go after if they wanted to. The right of refusal getting circumvented by front loading the contract. I dunno if they would, just saying that would be the approach I'd expect if they do.

the key characters her in RFA are the F and the A. free agent. this is why he was allowed to be courted by several teams without tampering rules being broken. again, this is all on the pred management.

if I were the pred owners, when they announce they will not match, the next announcement should be poile's firing. unless he's been handcuffed by ownership all along on these players being lost.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is in terms of the contracts structure and its design. The signing bonuses for Parise and Suter don't matter as UFAs. The $26M is clearly designed - as we have all acknowledged - as a poison pill Nashville can't swallow as an RFA.

If this was a $7.8M/year deal, Nashville could easily match. You know this. I know this. The NHL knows this.

The Flyers made a similar deal for Chris Gratton, putting up an offer sheet they *knew* the Lightning couldn't match because of their ownership/financial situation at the time and the NHL stepped in an essentially forced the deal that broke up the Legion.

@Polaris922 is absolutely right - we really have no idea what will go on.

And, even if Nashville decided on Day One they were matching, I would still make Homer (and Weber) wait until 11:29 on Wednesday before telling.

From a CBA perspective, there is no difference in the way RFA or UFA contracts can be structured - in fact, they use the exact same form. The only relevant difference between the two is the first right of refusal granted to the team holding the RFA's rights.

I am actually with you on the fact that the Flyers are bullying the Preds, and that this is an issue that needs to be fixed in the CBA. However, I still think that should the NHL try to step in, the Flyers can point to Brad Richards, Parise, and Suter as precedent for rolling monies into the signing bonus. Why is it ok to give Richards 10 of 12 million as a signing bonus, but not ok to give Weber 13 of 14? If there are limits on the bonus payment, they need to be spelled out in the CBA, and they are not. They are also not in violation of the "Kovalchuk Rule" for contract duration and terms, which the league has spelled out.

Furthermore, with the CBA negotiations looming, if the NHL were to step in on this issue, it might cause even more tension with the NHLPA. Front-loaded, guaranteed money is good for the player. I would expect both the NHLPA and the Flyers to appeal the decision should that happen.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a CBA perspective, there is no difference in the way RFA or UFA contracts can be structured - in fact, they use the exact same form. The only relevant difference between the two is the first right of refusal granted to the team holding the RFA's rights.

I am actually with you on the fact that the Flyers are bullying the Preds, and that this is an issue that needs to be fixed in the CBA.

That's the only point I'm making. I'm very clear - this isn't "illegal" according to the rules. It's blatantly unfair if one isn't a Flyers fan.

I want to win because the team I favor builds a team that wins. Not "buys" a team that wins using loopholes and bonus structures based solely on having more money - making up for other disastaers that have flushed huge sums away.

I'll be at the parade and I'll still be wearing my orange and black - but this stinks for the game and for the league.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point Polaris was making is that it was ok to ignore the Parise and Suter contracts because they are UFA deals. My point was that to invalidate the Flyers offer sheet, the NHL would have to invalidate those as well, because though the numbers are different, the structure is exactly the same, and there is no difference between UFA and RFA contracts. Only free agent designations.

I actually somewhat disagree that it stinks for the league. Why? Because it's happening at the perfect time for them to fix it. If this happened next year, the new CBA would be in place and you might see the Flyers, Rangers, Wings, etc. pulling RFAs from other teams constantly with similar tactics until the CBA was up again. At least now the issue is right out front and should be addressed in this go-round. In the short term, it sucks, but in the long term, it should only ever affect one franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with @radoran , we're not saying its illegal, just saying it's circumventing the Intentions behind the RFA status of the CBA. Kudos to Holmgren for finding the leverage, mistake by the Preds in not locking him up sooner... But shame on the negotiators for not predicting the bonus money could be used to fleece small market teams at this stage.

Personally, even if it were my Pens doing it, I'd be pulling for the Preds to match. I'm a sucker for the little guy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point Polaris was making is that it was ok to ignore the Parise and Suter contracts because they are UFA deals. My point was that to invalidate the Flyers offer sheet, the NHL would have to invalidate those as well, because though the numbers are different, the structure is exactly the same, and there is no difference between UFA and RFA contracts. Only free agent designations.

Yes, the "restriction" and the "right to match" are the significant, relevant differences - which this deal is specifically designed to prevent (and yet still may not).

Again, if this was a $7.8M a year deal, Nashville could match in a heartbeat (if they wanted to). It's not that.

One team has a competitive advantage because they have an $86B company with $2.44B in cash on hand behind them and other teams don't.

From where I sit - being a fan of one of the "haves" - that's not good for the league in the short- or long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

knowing their GM if he for some reason does have the resources, he'll wait to the last second just to stick it to homer and us!

I seriously doubt that. Generating nervousness in your own fanbase is way more counterproductive than the gratification you might get for sticking it to another GM and fanbase. If they know they absolutely want to keep him, and are ok with the numbers, I believe they would have matched already and ended the speculation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville would have matched already if they were going to do so.

@AndyS

I disagree. Without exaggeration, the future of the franchise hinges on what they do here and how they do it. With the possibility of a Gratton-style non match followed by an exchange of players for picks, I don't see it as odd that less than 72 hours later we don't have any news. And even if they intend to match, why would hurry? Take the full 7 days and keep Homer and his potential plans to look at Doan or Ryan in limbo, a measure of retribution for Homer trying to raid the franchise.

Let's also not forget that Poile declined to match on Stevens way back when, so he has own personal demons to wrestle with as well. We won't know anything until about 11 pm Wednesday, so we all need to take a deep breath.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...