This Has Nothing To Do With Nashville As A Hockey Market

[JackStraw]

Nashville c/would match a $7.8M per year offer. That's not what this offer is

Maybe they could. And for all we know, they can match the offer sheet as it is now. That's not the question though, the question is does it make sense financially for them to do it? If they were comfortable with giving Weber $7.8 million a year why didn't they do it before now? Why were they trying to trade him before the Flyers gave him the offer sheet? Why didn't they hang on to Suter? Heck, why didn't they sign both Suter and Parise?

Maybe because they're in a shaky situation financially? Because they've been losing money? Because they're looking for a $75 million dollar loan? Yes, we all know that this offer sheet was structured to make it as difficult as possible for Nashville to match. But if Nashville was a healthier franchise (financially) it would be less of a problem for them. Which is not to say that it would be no problem, just not a potentially disastrous one.

[radoran]

Maybe they could. And for all we know, they can match the offer sheet as it is now. That's not the question though, the question is does it make sense financially for them to do it? If they were comfortable with giving Weber $7.8 million a year why didn't they do it before now? Why were they trying to trade him before the Flyers gave him the offer sheet? Why didn't they hang on to Suter? Heck, why didn't they sign both Suter and Parise?

Maybe because they're in a shaky situation financially? Because they've been losing money? Because they're looking for a $75 million dollar loan? Yes, we all know that this offer sheet was structured to make it as difficult as possible for Nashville to match. But if Nashville was a healthier franchise (financially) it would be less of a problem for them. Which is not to say that it would be no problem, just not a potentially disastrous one.

Hey, I don't think Nashville thinks Weber is a $7.8M player. I'm, quite frankly, not sure I do, either - is he better than a $4.5M forward and a $3.3M defenseman, combined?

A matter for discussion and debate. As a $27M player, is he better than four Kimmo Timonens?

I go back to the main point - this is *not* a $7.8M/14 year offer. You know it. I know it. The Flyers know it. The League knows it. Weber knows it. Nashville knows it.

Stop dancing around *that* issue debating a deal that I have already said ad infinitum is legal and should be accepted and enforced today. The question isn't whether Nashville screwed up or whether Weber is coming to the Flyers.

This issue is: should one team be able to make the ability to pay a $27M poison pill or $68M in "bonus" money a primary, if not sole, determining factor on whether a player is signed as an RFA when the vast majority of the teams in the league cannot? Can the big buck teams waltz in and effectively steal players by putting off $20M in cap hit for 11 years - and potentially not be on the hook for it anyway?

If this Weber deal goes through, the Flyers *actual paid salary* will be in excess of the "salary cap".

What's the point of that lost season again?

[JackStraw]

Hey, I don't think Nashville thinks Weber is a $7.8M player. I'm, quite frankly, not sure I do, either - is he better than a $4.5M forward and a $3.3M defenseman, combined?

A matter for discussion and debate.

Yes it is. If Suter is worth $7.5 million then Weber is certainly worth $7.8. Is he better than two forwards combined? If he's what you need, then imo yes he is. And I think he is exactly what the Flyers need.

This issue is: should one team be able to make the ability to pay a $27M poison pill or $68M in "bonus" money a primary, if not sole, determining factor on whether a player is signed as an RFA when the vast majority of the teams in the league cannot? Can the big buck teams waltz in and effectively steal players by putting off $20M in cap hit for 11 years - and potentially not be on the hook for it anyway?

I've already said that I think the idea of signing bonuses is kind of stupid and I would think something will be done in the new CBA. The owners initial proposal included getting rid of them entirely, didn't it?

As for the moral, or fairness issue of one team being able to do it and another team not being able to... I don't know. This is professional sports, not potentially life saving vaccines for under-developed countries. You're probably more worked up about it than I am. Give me a good signing bonus and I'll agree with you...

[radoran]

Yes it is. If Suter is worth $7.5 million then Weber is certainly worth $7.8. Is he better than two forwards combined? If he's what you need, then imo yes he is. And I think he is exactly what the Flyers need.

I'm on record saying that Suter is not worth $7.5M :-)

And I do think Weber will fit in nicely.

I've already said that I think the idea of signing bonuses is kind of stupid and I would think something will be done in the new CBA. The owners initial proposal included getting rid of them entirely, didn't it?

As for the moral, or fairness issue of one team being able to do it and another team not being able to... I don't know. This is professional sports, not potentially life saving vaccines for under-developed countries. You're probably more worked up about it than I am. Give me a good signing bonus and I'll agree with you...

I'm not really "worked up" about it - I just remember losing an entire year of hockey to establish some form of "fairness" in the system and, while a start, there is still room to go.

I look for a level playing field. If Poile screwed up and let Suter walk and then Weber signed a four year, $14M offer sheet with the Flyers, that's different - for me - than saying that a deal paying $14M each for four years deal is really a 14 year $7.8M deal with over $20M of that cap hit paid 11 years from now in seasons which the player is neither obligated to play nor the team obligated to have the player on the roster.

Do you think Homer makes this offer if contracts that *end* over 35 are on the cap regardless? I don't think it's a $7.8M hit for 14 years.

[Bakanekimiwa]

Hey, I AGREE that this is a legal offer - that's NOT the point. I've stated it MANY times.

But this is NOT about "Nashville being willing to pay" - this is about Suter and Weber BEING WILLING TO SIGN.

"Why didn't Nashville lock them up?" NEITHER of them would sign.

Why? Because they don't think that Nashville can compete.

And they've both proven why - because Nashville doesn't have the financial backing to exploit loopholes and shove vast quantities of up-front money like a small handful of teams that currently enjoy that competitive advantage.

Nashville COULD have given BOTH of them the same cap hit deals they got - and we don't KNOW what was offered - instead they created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At least Weber chose a winner.

well, i guess we'll never know what it would have taken for both Suter and Weber to want to sign in Nashville. Weber seems to have based his decision largely on how they handled the Suter situation. the Preds have a history of home grown talent and not putting anyone above the 'team'. they promised everyone that ownership, management, were committed to putting a winning product on the ice. they proved that, somewhat, by locking up Rinne. but, then they went out and made some questionable moves before the trade deadline. and the Radulov saga. we'll just leave that one alone.

and leaving deals for Suter and Weber hanging out there to expose them to FA is anything but a commitment to winning. they both had stated their intentions to remain with Nashville. now.. was that all lip service? we'll probably never know. but, what we do know is that Nashville failed to sign key players to long-ish term deals and now they're suffering the consequences.

to me, this issue is far greater than the Flyers exploiting a CBA loophole with their billions. if Poile was able to lock those two down... or at least one of them!, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. to me... it's fair play.

[JackStraw]

I don't object to a more level playing field, although a perfectly level playing field isn't possible imo. And the league shouldn't attempt to make it so. But I also feel that the other component is the viability of the market. So while I don't think that his is entirely about Nashville as a hockey market, I think it is partially about Nashville as a market (and Columbus, and Phoenix, etc...). The NHL can't expect to be able to stick a franchise anywhere and expect it to be able to compete with more established franchises.

[B21]

Well it certainly has something to do with money, wouldn't you say? And the Preds have been losing money for years. According to Forbes they are one of the most efficient NHL teams in terms of translating money spent to wins. And yet they still lose money. You point out that their arena is close to capacity, but there's more to it than that. And "fair" or not, of course market size (population) has something to do with a franchise's success. And has been pointed out by someone else, the fact that the Flyers are owned by a mega-rich corporation would suggest that the Flyers are a good investment.

At the risk of stating the incredibly obvious, the bottom line is in fact "the bottom line". If Nashville was a healthy franchise they could match without much trouble. If they had the fan support of the Leafs (to use the most extreme example) this wouldn't be a problem. Whether the fans they have are "good fans" or not is not the issue, the issue is, how much revenue does the team bring in, and I think it's fair to say that the amount of revenue a team brings in has a lot to do with the team's market. Great market (Toronto) plenty of revenue... not so great market (Nashville) not so much revenue. It really isn't all that complicated.

Isn't that what I have been saying?

[radoran]

well, i guess we'll never know what it would have taken for both Suter and Weber to want to sign in Nashville. Weber seems to have based his decision largely on how they handled the Suter situation. the Preds have a history of home grown talent and not putting anyone above the 'team'. they promised everyone that ownership, management, were committed to putting a winning product on the ice. they proved that, somewhat, by locking up Rinne. but, then they went out and made some questionable moves before the trade deadline. and the Radulov saga. we'll just leave that one alone.

and leaving deals for Suter and Weber hanging out there to expose them to FA is anything but a commitment to winning. they both had stated their intentions to remain with Nashville. now.. was that all lip service? we'll probably never know. but, what we do know is that Nashville failed to sign key players to long-ish term deals and now they're suffering the consequences.

to me, this issue is far greater than the Flyers exploiting a CBA loophole with their billions. if Poile was able to lock those two down... or at least one of them!, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. to me... it's fair play.

I'll refer you to the helpful title of the thread and the fact I've called it "fair play" under the current rules.

Now, if you would care to address the actual points about competition, closing CBA loopholes in the upcoming negotiations and the effect long-term, no-commitment contracts and the big bucks being thrown around that caused us to lose an entire season of hockey already are having on the game and, potentially, the salary level in the league - that would be great.

[radoran]

I don't object to a more level playing field, although a perfectly level playing field isn't possible imo. And the league shouldn't attempt to make it so. But I also feel that the other component is the viability of the market. So while I don't think that his is entirely about Nashville as a hockey market, I think it is partially about Nashville as a market (and Columbus, and Phoenix, etc...).

I agree. Then the issue is "contraction." Which I concur should be considered, but will be vehemently opposed by the owners, the players and the League (whose Commissionner has created this situation).

The NHL can't expect to be able to stick a franchise anywhere and expect it to be able to compete with more established franchises.

Which was the argument against expansion in 1967. But since the playing ground was much more level (not entirely - it never will be) hockey was able to take hold in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and St. Louis - not to mention Minnesota, despite losing the Stars once.

Yes, Los Angeles - which has never been a great hockey market but the NHL has succeeded (and expanded) where the mighty NFL has failed with two franchises.

Which calls the question: *if* the league, owners and players *want* to grow the game *as has been their stated objective* into non-hockey markets *then* the issue of fairness, competition and the ability to develop a presence in a market becomes of great importance to the fuiture of the game.

This isn't what *I* necessarily want (I think there are too many teams unless one wanted to created some sort of tiered relegation system a la EPL) but it *is* IMO what the League, Owners and Players have said that they "want."

[Bakanekimiwa]

I'll refer you to the helpful title of the thread and the fact I've called it "fair play" under the current rules.

Now, if you would care to address the actual points about competition, closing CBA loopholes in the upcoming negotiations and the effect long-term, no-commitment contracts and the big bucks being thrown around that caused us to lose an entire season of hockey already are having on the game and, potentially, the salary level in the league - that would be great.

well.. i really don't care to respond to those points because we're just going round and round here now. you've called it 'fair play' and then have been going round and round about how it's NOT fair play. so i'm just reiterating my point. the points that you mention do seem to be a problem that should be addressed... i will agree. however, this is the nature of sports competition. finding an edge. whether it be on the ice or off the ice... sport competition is about finding an edge. the flyers found it here, blame everyone. who cares. the next CBA, whatever it is will have it's flaws that will then be exploited.

i simply don't know why this has your panties in such a twist really. i understand the sentiment of sticking up for the little guy, but if the little guy is a bit of a puss, sometimes he needs to get wise and that happens by learning a lesson. this is a big market team teaching a smaller market team a very valuable lesson. lock up your darn players when you have the chance.

[radoran]

well.. i really don't care to respond to those points because we're just going round and round here now. you've called it 'fair play' and then have been going round and round about how it's NOT fair play. so i'm just reiterating my point. the points that you mention do seem to be a problem that should be addressed... i will agree. however, this is the nature of sports competition. finding an edge. whether it be on the ice or off the ice... sport competition is about finding an edge. the flyers found it here, blame everyone. who cares. the next CBA, whatever it is will have it's flaws that will then be exploited.

i simply don't know why this has your panties in such a twist really. i understand the sentiment of sticking up for the little guy, but if the little guy is a bit of a puss, sometimes he needs to get wise and that happens by learning a lesson. this is a big market team teaching a smaller market team a very valuable lesson. lock up your darn players when you have the chance.

It's "fair" under existing rules.

We are periolously close to losing more hockey as they talk about changing those existing rules. We already lost an entire season of hockey because the small market teams felt they couldn't compete with the big money markets.

At what point would you think it would be a good time to talk about the rules?

I'm sorry that taking a step back and looking at this from more than as a creaming-their-pants fan perspective is off-putting and difficult for you. (there's your oh-so-mature "panties in a bunch" right backatchya)

I'm NOT "sticking up for NASHVILLE" - I'm sticking up for 2/3 of the franchises that, if this is allowed to continue, will be little more than the Washington Generals to the Big Boys Globetrotters. I've been Quite Explicit about this on here while people keep talking about whether Poile is the Second Coming of Mike Milbury.

If YOU want to watch that league because YOUR team is a Globetrotter, terrifiic. I don't.

And neither do most of the NHL owners and players.

[AndyS]

Isn't that what I have been saying?

I was never implying that the fans themselves are lesser fans or that they don't love their hockey club.

But I think you simply chalk up the difference to be the size of the city (i.e. population from which to draw). I don't think that is the essential difference. (It is a factor, but not the only or even primary factor).

[Bakanekimiwa]

It's "fair" under existing rules.

We are periolously close to losing more hockey as they talk about changing those existing rules. We already lost an entire season of hockey because the small market teams felt they couldn't compete with the big money markets.

At what point would you think it would be a good time to talk about the rules?

I'm sorry that taking a step back and looking at this from more than as a creaming-their-pants fan perspective is off-putting and difficult for you. (there's your oh-so-mature "panties in a bunch" right backatchya)

I'm NOT "sticking up for NASHVILLE" - I'm sticking up for 2/3 of the franchises that, if this is allowed to continue, will be little more than the Washington Generals to the Big Boys Globetrotters. I've been Quite Explicit about this on here while people keep talking about whether Poile is the Second Coming of Mike Milbury.

If YOU want to watch that league because YOUR team is a Globetrotter, terrifiic. I don't.

And neither do most of the NHL owners and players.

i think the league will be just fine. there's an enjoyable product on the ice every season and i don't see that changing because some markets are suffering. whatever the league can do to help out the little guys.. hey that's great. the healthy teams in the league, i'm sure that makes it that much better. we haven't gotten anywhere near yankees, red sox MLB type haves and have nots. so on the relative scale here, we're really making a mountain out of a molehill for sure.

i'm not sure why you're getting hot and bothered by this, but ok. it's not that much of a hot button issue for me. you've made your points, i just don't happen to agree with all of them. is that fair? i'm not intending to get juvenile with you(re: panties in a bunch comment). i apologize if it came across that way.

[JackStraw]

Isn't that what I have been saying?

Um... maybe... my brain has gone a little soft(er) in the last few days.

[JackStraw]

I agree. Then the issue is "contraction." Which I concur should be considered, but will be vehemently opposed by the owners, the players and the League (whose Commissionner has created this situation).

Which was the argument against expansion in 1967. But since the playing ground was much more level (not entirely - it never will be) hockey was able to take hold in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and St. Louis - not to mention Minnesota, despite losing the Stars once.

Yes, Los Angeles - which has never been a great hockey market but the NHL has succeeded (and expanded) where the mighty NFL has failed with two franchises.

Which calls the question: *if* the league, owners and players *want* to grow the game *as has been their stated objective* into non-hockey markets *then* the issue of fairness, competition and the ability to develop a presence in a market becomes of great importance to the fuiture of the game.

This isn't what *I* necessarily want (I think there are too many teams unless one wanted to created some sort of tiered relegation system a la EPL) but it *is* IMO what the League, Owners and Players have said that they "want."

I think I agree with that. Does that mean we can move on to the question of whether or not Lilja should give up his #6?

[jammer2]

My take on the long term viability of Nashville. We have all seen first hand the stubbornness of Betteman regarding Phoenix. Despite horrible attendance and a horrible lease, Phoenix has dragged out for years and years. Gary simply refuses to let them go until every available stone has been overturned to keep them there. He very badly wants his vision of hockey in the South to succeed. So, now we have the Preds....very good attendance, over 97% of capacity the past few years. This gives hope that the game can indeed be grown in this market.

No way in holy hell will Betteman allow this team to leave this market. Even if it appears the current ownership team can't make money, Gary will make them sell the team before he allows it to move. In his eye's the franchise is more than viable at this point. The Preds owners have to keep this in mind when addressing the Weber contract. Even if they lose money hand over fist, Gary will not allow them to leave this market. Thus, they have to watch their own financial backs, nobody will do that for them. They have to make it work, that means playing close to the vest and not getting in a spot where they can't afford to continue. This means not matching the offer and continuing to be conservative. If Phoenix drags out for years and years, Gary will drag out Nashville for a decade before letting them leave.....even if it means bankruptcy for the owners.

[radoran]

I'm hot and bothered over this because I already lost one season of hockey I'll never get back and don't want to lose another one.

And I don't want to lose the league that I enjoy first and foremost in sports.

It doesn't matter if "we" get Weber and there's no hockey in October. And, from where I sit, if owners like Snider insist on being able to pull this kind of stuff off while publicly decrying it (as did the hypocrite in Minnesota) then we're likely to miss out on hockey.

The reason we're all here talking in July.

I think I agree with that. Does that mean we can move on to the question of whether or not Lilja should give up his #6?

Lilja should be required to be included an in any trade.

Even if it doesn't involve the Flyers.

[radoran]

My take on the long term viability of Nashville. We have all seen first hand the stubbornness of Betteman regarding Phoenix. Despite horrible attendance and a horrible lease, Phoenix has dragged out for years and years. Gary simply refuses to let them go until every available stone has been overturned to keep them there. He very badly wants his vision of hockey in the South to succeed. So, now we have the Preds....very good attendance, over 97% of capacity the past few years. This gives hope that the game can indeed be grown in this market.

No way in holy hell will Betteman allow this team to leave this market. Even if it appears the current ownership team can't make money, Gary will make them sell the team before he allows it to move. In his eye's the franchise is more than viable at this point. The Preds owners have to keep this in mind when addressing the Weber contract. Even if they lose money hand over fist, Gary will not allow them to leave this market. Thus, they have to watch their own financial backs, nobody will do that for them. They have to make it work, that means playing close to the vest and not getting in a spot where they can't afford to continue. This means not matching the offer and continuing to be conservative. If Phoenix drags out for years and years, Gary will drag out Nashville for a decade before letting them leave.....even if it means bankruptcy for the owners.

This has nothing to do with Nashville, but...

Where do you put Phoenix and Nashville now that Columbus is moving to Quebec?

[OccamsRazor]

This has nothing to do with Nashville, but...

Where do you put Phoenix and Nashville now that Columbus is moving to Quebec?

Remember once they match he is theirs ...they can not trade him after that not with in the first year...he will be due over 13 mill in the next calender year. Bottom line they match he yours no take backs the Flyers have to move on.

[JackStraw]

@jammer2 - Great post jammer, I agree- Bettman will bend over backwards to see that Nashville doesn't go away. I guess the big question is, to what extent will this situation impact the negotiations for the new CBA?

[JackStraw]

Lilja should be required to be included an in any trade.

Even if it doesn't involve the Flyers.

COMPLETELY AGREE! (Shelley too? Pleeeeaaaaazzzzz?)

Edited July 24, 2012 by JackStraw

[OccamsRazor]

COMPLETELY AGREE!

Shelley too remember Tootoo is gone, they need a tough guy....

*wink*

...make it two tough guys throw Matt Walker in there they only have 4 Dmen signed

[JackStraw]

Where do you put Phoenix and Nashville now that Columbus is moving to Quebec?

Put Nashville in Hamilton. Can you imagine the bullets the Leafs would be sweating having an organization that actually knows how to draft and develop talent right next door? And which would then have the resources to hold onto that talent?

[JackStraw]

Shelley too remember Tootoo is gone, they need a tough guy....

*wink*

...make it two tough guys throw Matt Walker in there they only have 4 Dmen signed

Not sure if I edited my post before you made yours or not, but clearly we're thinking along the same lines...

[radoran]

Put Nashville in Hamilton. Can you imagine the bullets the Leafs would be sweating having an organization that actually knows how to draft and develop talent right next door? And which would then have the resources to hold onto that talent?

There is not gong to be a team in Hamilton. Ever.

Hamilton is half the size of Nashville with Big Brother just up the road and The Two New York Senators just over the Niagara...