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

[Phillygrump]

I have posted the explanation in countless threads. I believe that the promotion of Sidney Crosby as the savior of the NHL and the face of the NHL was not complete until they helped him get a Stanley Cup. I base this on the league disciplinary double standard that season msot notably the lack of a suspension for Malkin among others.

Bettman wanted his "new Gretzky" to have a ring so the league helped it along.

Its not sour grapes. I don't want a championship that way. What pains me is not Pittsburgh hoisting the trophy, its the sight of that trophy being tarnished and used as a tool to promote a star to revive a league.

I still do not believ in the entire legitimicy of the NHL as an impartial competitive league.

There is virtually nothing you can say that will change my mind. I witnessed it.

[sarsippius]

I hear ya on the little guy thing, I'm an underdog guy too....but when the most big brotherish cable/internet/phone monopoly in the world owns your hockey team, it pollutes your sense of logic!

[jackhole]

Should the NHL establish a welfare program to prop up sorry franchises?

They already do!

[radoran]

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.

It's not what I'm arguing. Nashville could pay Weber $7.8M next season - they were already going to pay him $7.5M

It's not about "financial wherewithal" - it's about a field tilted to people with more money up front.

[radoran]

They already do!

Well, if they want to "expand the game" - as is the stated intention of the League, the Owners and the Players - then investing in the expansion of the league into unfamiliar territory is exactly what is needed.

*IF* that is the intent.

One of my central points is that deals like this 1) throw away that investment money and 2) are counterproductive to the stated interests of the League, Owners and Players.

[BearOnIce]

We aren't going to hear anything until late Wednesday, no matter what Nashville decides to do. They're going to make the Flyers (and us) sweat.

It actually might take them right up to the Wednesday deadline to make a decision. When you have to get multiple ownership involved, it could really get sideways...

[BearOnIce]

@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.

Absolutely correct. NHL is Lala Land, like usual. Weber's agent said it best on TSN when he said that on July 4th everything changed. When Parise and Suter went to the Wild, specifically Sutter, it set a new benchmark for Weber's services. Holmgren being the sharpest GM in the league, and with Sniders financial backing, blew everyone away with the offer sheet. The air left the building. It was a classic checkmate move. Bettman and his posse never saw it coming. The NHLPA just smirked. It is totally within the current CBA. Since nothing was done with Parise or Sutter, nothing could be done with this Weber offer sheet. It did add huge fuel to the fire though for the upcoming CBA. The have's versus the have not's. It effectively has reduced the Preds back into a rebuilding mode, that is if they still want to have a franchise this year. Financially they have no other choice. I see little effect on attendance. That is a die-hard hockey base down there now that will take their lumps to get their hockey fix. Maybe the ownership is lobbying Bettman for a move out of Nashville. Who knows. Short term is Poile got fleeced like no GM ever has, and Nashville is reeling and trying to save face. I expect Poile gone next year over this. Again, now too soon for that as they have to save face. Expect a trade on Wednesday although clearly the Flyers do not have to. That will take the heat of the NHL off this entire situation and all will be forgotten. Kind of like the guy on top of the guy on the ground agreeing to get off. Holmgren literally made the move of the century in GM NHL Land and will never have to buy another beer in Philly in his lifetime.

[BearOnIce]

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.

There is no rule against that in the current CBA. This could be a "fracturing issue" for NHL ownership to take up. It always gpoes back to the big fish eat the little fish. Love it.

[BearOnIce]

@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.

I think plans for Doan are well on the way. Holmgren is not stopping. The best defence is a great offense. Anybody ever thought a 3-way might happen here?

[Spinorama]

This is nonsense. Comcast BOUGHT the Flyers.

well, not for nothing, don't big corporations who buy up teams do so because they see a tremendous value in their investment? The Flyers proved to be a tremendous value with huge earning potential so a company bought them to reap the rewards. What's stopping a big corp from making the same investment in the Preds? I don't completely disagree with your points but I still don't see why clubs with money should have that held against them. If the Preds were delivering the kind of revenue that makes them attractive to investment outside ticket sales, like sales of merch, tv ads, rink time books at Predators Skate zones (if they existed) and so on, then they could be attractive to outside investment as well.

[ruxpin]

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.".

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.

[ruxpin]

@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...

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.

[ruxpin]

Oh and from what I understand the Penguins haven't got an interest in Weber. I can only assume because the price tag has gone so high. I don't think my boys can afford that, though I'm not sure.

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.

[ruxpin]

The intent is to allow the current club the OPPORTUNITY to pony up

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.

[ruxpin]

It's not about "financial wherewithal" - it's about a field tilted to people with more money up front.

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.

[ruxpin]

One of my central points is that deals like this 1) throw away that investment money and 2) are counterproductive to the stated interests of the League, Owners and Players.

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.

[ruxpin]

well, not for nothing, don't big corporations who buy up teams do so because they see a tremendous value in their investment? The Flyers proved to be a tremendous value with huge earning potential so a company bought them to reap the rewards. What's stopping a big corp from making the same investment in the Preds? I don't completely disagree with your points but I still don't see why clubs with money should have that held against them. If the Preds were delivering the kind of revenue that makes them attractive to investment outside ticket sales, like sales of merch, tv ads, rink time books at Predators Skate zones (if they existed) and so on, then they could be attractive to outside investment as well.

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.

[jammer2]

One of the sidebars I find pretty exciting in whole Weber fiasco is having Ryan Ellis free and clear to run the Preds power play. That kid was born to run power plays....wow is it gonna be fun to watch this kid light the league up!

[ctid]

One of the sidebars I find pretty exciting in whole Weber fiasco is having Ryan Ellis free and clear to run the Preds power play. That kid was born to run power plays....wow is it gonna be fun to watch this kid light the league up!

Not trying to hijack this thread or anything. But quick question Jammer, who has the most offensive potential of Ryan Ellis and Ryan Murphy? To me, they both seem like they will become elite powerplay specialists. Although, Ellis can play D aswell.

[jackhole]

Short term is Poile got fleeced like no GM ever has

Seriously, 4 1st round picks is a lot to give up in any situation. If Homer offered that much in a standard trade for Weber, many of us here would be balking at the price. This is the main reason you don't see offer sheets to RFA's that often. Poile may have 'lost' command of the situation (which is the only shrewd part played by Homer), but this deal will cost the Flyers either way.

All this talk about Nash being smoked here is getting out of control. Any hardship for Nashville here is just going to be felt by their owners. Roster-wise, they are either going to have their franchise defenseman for life, a compliment of NHL players to fill holes, or be incredibly well stocked to remake their team through the draft (which financially gives a great bang for the buck).

[Phillygrump]

Not trying to hijack this thread or anything. But quick question Jammer, who has the most offensive potential of Ryan Ellis and Ryan Murphy? To me, they both seem like they will become elite powerplay specialists. Although, Ellis can play D aswell.

How dare you hi-jack our only Weber thread....

[jackhole]

You're the very last person I'd deliberately try to be an ass to.

Ha Ha! Love it! I should use this phase to begin all my conversations with.

[ruxpin]

Ha Ha! Love it! I should use this phase to begin all my conversations with.

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.

[Phillygrump]

I just want to state again that I love this forum. It is head and shoulders better than Philly.com.

Great discussions, great opinions from everyone, and great respect among posters. It is so refreshing to have disagreement without attacks

[ruxpin]

I just want to state again that I love this forum. It is head and shoulders better than Philly.com.

Great discussions, great opinions from everyone, and great respect among posters. It is so refreshing to have disagreement without attacks

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