Jump to content

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


Guest jackhole

Recommended Posts

I know there is this unwritten rule that is anti-offersheets. I think if you really want to sign a player, its OK, perhaps less so if you're trying to drive up the price for your rivals.

I'm against the "unwritten rule" and think it's even stupider than the CBA.

THIS ISN'T A "FAIR" OFFER - IT'S A LEGAL ONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points, thank you for showing Nsh as something other than a woe is me sad story. They absolutely have their issues, then tried to go toe to toe with a bigger fish, and now are getting into a little trouble.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Nashville is a good hockey market or should even have professional sports in general.

This is a question of whether every team in the league needs to be owned by an $86B company with $2.44B cash on hand in order to compete.

That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here folks is that we all know it is not a level playing field. Be it right or wrong..that is just the way it is ever since Bettman wanted to expand the NHL into southern markets. Unless the new CBA address's some of the issues, despite the fact that there is a cap, the more finacially secure teams will find away to get the player they want. We are fortunate that the Flyers have an owener with the finacial fortitude to pursue these types of players. In answer to Rads question...in order to have a level playing in an ideal setting..yeah every team would need to have the cash flow such as Flyers. However, in the real world this does not exist. I have no problem in what Homer did, however I do understand and see both sides of the fence and can very easily see why other fans can be upset with what Homer did. If some are up in arms at the current rules of the CBA, then they need to get together and change it.

Now were Suter and Weber completely honest with Nashville's management is a completely story/topic. However, like others before me have mentioned, Poile had a chance to take care of business in his own house and IMO he screwed the pooch. Poile made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. Homer called his bluff and went after him with Ed's checkbook.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with whether or not Nashville is a good hockey market or should even have professional sports in general.

This is a question of whether every team in the league needs to be owned by an $86B company with $2.44B cash on hand in order to compete.

That's it.

Which is irrelevant if Nsh extended Weber two seasons ago, or signed him last season instead of arbitration, or signed / traded him this offseason. THEY ****ed up, not Snider/Clarke/Homer/Flyers/Comcast. They had two years to figure their mess out and didn't. THAT'S the point. F them.

Wah, Philly has more money. Well, go make more yourselves Nsh, or run your business better.

I'm not personally wealthy, but I don't blame Warren Buffet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS ISN'T A "FAIR" OFFER - IT'S A LEGAL ONE.

Exactly! Homer is just using the tools in his toolbox. He just happens to have a larger toolbox than others. Fairness is of little consequence here. Is it 'fair' that I'd never be able to play the game within a moonshot as well as say... Girioux, no matter how hard I worked at it? No, but it doesn't mean they are going to be able to arrange a situation where I'm gonna be drafted or anything, just to level the playing field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Nashville has every right to match the offer. the rich shouldn't be punished for being rich. the Flyers didn't come into the league as one of the richest organizations in the league. they build up this company from the ground to what it is now. They alone put themselves in the position to make offers such as this. That's the reward they get for running a successful business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.thehockey...Shea-Weber.html

"The second is to match the offer and put your budget completely out of whack. GM David Poile has gone on the record as saying there is no way the Predators can afford front-loaded contracts."

that article is absurd. he suggests a trade could involve cooter, a few 1sts and coburn or grossmanN!? is he out of his mind? there is no way in h e double hockey sticks that homer makes that concession. because that's what it would be... a huge concession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article is absurd. he suggests a trade could involve cooter, a few 1sts and coburn or grossmanN!? is he out of his mind? there is no way in h e double hockey sticks that homer makes that concession. because that's what it would be... a huge concession.

That part of his article is pure speculation.

If Poile has in fact gone on the record and stated that the Preds can't match a front-loaded deal then that's all I need to hear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part of his article is pure speculation.

If Poile has in fact gone on the record and stated that the Preds can't match a front-loaded deal then that's all I need to hear

i know it's speculation, but it's so absurd that it's basically fantasy. anyway, i'm with you... i wanna see the statement from poile about not being able to match front-loaded deals. if i can find that statement.. oh boy do i think poile is sooo not a good GM for saying that.

  • 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.)

Andy, I think that's probably the most reasonable package I've seen in relation to the Weber thing (first time I'm seeing it, too).

I REALLY like Read, though. I'd really hate to see him go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It's unfair. I'll grant that. However, I don't know about you, but I wasn't given a "fair" certificate when I was born. "Fair" really isn't reality, and I'm not sure why it should matter...since it certainly doesn't.

I don't think the league can step in here based on "fair." If it does, I think I stop watching the league. Not because I'm a Flyers' fan but because I'm not sure how the league interfering with something that is, on its face, perfectly legal according to written rules in the name of "fair" is any different than a boldfaced communist intervention in "unfair" earnings.

If they really don't like it, fix it in the next CBA. See if you can get the majority of owners to vote for "fair" even though for a large group of them it is counter to their own benefit. But if they are able to put it in the next CBA, that's fine. Now they've addressed "fair" in a legal way. Until them, any real or imagined move on "fair" that flies in the face of legality and current rules would be a horrible travesty. Flyers involved or not.

  • Like 1
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.

I'm sorry, but who is anyone to claim they know the "intentions behind..." when it is specifically written the way it is?

The INTENTIONS are that in the case of an RFA, a team has the right to match if they can. That right isn't present in the UFA. That's the only difference written down. Any other imposition of "intent" is simply in the mind of the person who wants to inflate something that's not there to help their argument/opinion.

I can sit there and say that the "intent" is to benefit pink bunnies in Montana. It's not there anywhere on the page, obviously, but anyone be damned who tells me the "intent" is different.

I'm sorry, but the "intent" argument, again, only works when someone believes something, on its face, is "unfair," and they look at a page with actual rules and when the rules don't STATE it's wrong, it was obviously the "intention" that it is wrong.

It's not obvious, and it clearly doesn't say that anywhere. As far as the rules are written...to a high degree of being deliberately worded...the INTENT is to give the incumbent team the right to match in RFA cases in contrast with UFA cases. If they cannot match, or choose not to, the player moves on.

  • Like 2
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.

@Polaris922

What Rux said, and..... This isn't some new promulgation that just came out last week, it's been on the books since the at least '95 agreement. It's the same thing the Flyers did in '97 with Chris Gratton, if that was such a hideous violation of the intent of the RFA rules, why wouldn't it have been addressed in the next CBA?

You can say you don't like it because the big boys can beat up on the small market teams, and that's fine. Frankly I could give at rat's a*s less about about one Bettman's folly franchises. But nothing about Homer's offer violates a literal reading or the intent of the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Polaris922

What Rux said, and..... This isn't some new promulgation that just came out last week, it's been on the books since the at least '95 agreement. It's the same thing the Flyers did in '97 with Chris Gratton, if that was such a hideous violation of the intent of the RFA rules, why wouldn't it have been addressed in the next CBA?

You can say you don't like it because the big boys can beat up on the small market teams, and that's fine. Frankly I could give at rat's a*s less about about one of Bettman's folly franchises. But nothing about Homer's offer violates a literal reading or the intent of the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville has every right to match the offer. the rich shouldn't be punished for being rich. the Flyers didn't come into the league as one of the richest organizations in the league. they build up this company from the ground to what it is now.

This is nonsense. Comcast BOUGHT the Flyers.

And your point is well-taken when it comes to what it takes to build hockey in a new market - and it doesn't mean that the team is a developmental squad for the Big Bucks guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unfair. I'll grant that. However, I don't know about you, but I wasn't given a "fair" certificate when I was born. "Fair" really isn't reality, and I'm not sure why it should matter...since it certainly doesn't.

So we're watching a rigged game? Titled to the benefit of specific teams? What's the point?

See, in a true competition - which is allegedly what we are sold the NHL as being - "fairness" is an important thing.

Maybe I'll just stick to professional wrestling, where at least they don't pretend that the competition is "fair.".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

@sarsippius

Silly me... Who am I to state that the intent behind the current club being able to match is to protect their interests and investment in a player. I mean, just because it's what was said in several interviews with Bettman in the past and various GM's around the league since 2005 doesn't make it true. The compensation returns for losing a player were just another "gee whiz lets do that" move I guess. My bad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the intent behind the current club being able to match is to protect their interests and investment in a player.

The intent is to allow the current club the OPPORTUNITY to pony up. It doesn't state, explicitly or implicitly, that the intent is to keep a player from moving when A) the player wants out and B)the club doesn't have the financial wherewithal - which is what it sounds like you're arguing. How far is this unwritten language supposed to go? Should the NHL establish a welfare program to prop up sorry franchises?

This whole discussion is beginning to cause me to overstate my feelings on the subject, but JFC this whole "poor Nashville" bit is ridiculous. And frankly I'd need to see a full set of financial statements (not the summary P&L that was posted on one of these threads) before I believe that there's no way can match. Honestly at this point I fully expect them to match, so.....either they do and I'm right, or we get Weber, I'm in a win-win !!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent is to allow the current club the OPPORTUNITY to pony up. It doesn't state, explicitly or implicitly, that the intent is to keep a player from moving when A) the player wants out and B)the club doesn't have the financial wherewithal - which is what it sounds like you're arguing. How far is this unwritten language supposed to go? Should the NHL establish a welfare program to prop up sorry franchises?

This whole discussion is beginning to cause me to overstate my feelings on the subject, but JFC this whole "poor Nashville" bit is ridiculous. And frankly I'd need to see a full set of financial statements (not the summary P&L that was posted on one of these threads) before I believe that there's no way can match. Honestly at this point I fully expect them to match, so.....either they do and I'm right, or we get Weber, I'm in a win-win !!

I'm not poor Nashville... I'm poor small markets! Lol

And you stink being win - win! Lol

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...