Why in the hell hasn't DP laid down an offer sheet on Martin Hanzel??? No time for resting on your laurels, you have to make up for your poopty summer last year!!!
- slash&smash

???

Kind of tough considering he signed a 5-year contract extension w/Phx this past October (2011). Hanzal has been off the market for 10 months. He never reached RFA status. Next five seasons w/Coyotes at $3.1m cap hit. UFA after end of '17/'18 season.

???

Kind of tough considering he signed a 5-year contract extension w/Phx this past October (2011). Hanzal has been off the market for 10 months. He never reached RFA status. Next five seasons w/Coyotes at $3.1m cap hit. UFA after end of '17/'18 season.
- blueline

My bad, I went to the HB cap central and saw Martin was a RFA. Should have gone to cap geek. Just dreaming of a legit 1C with size!!! The Yotes destroyed the preds at the C position in the playoffs. Maybe Fisher and Spaling will have a better year since they didn't have surgery this off season.

My bad, I went to the HB cap central and saw Martin was a RFA. Should have gone to cap geek. Just dreaming of a legit 1C with size!!! The Yotes destroyed the preds at the C position in the playoffs. Maybe Fisher and Spaling will have a better year since they didn't have surgery this off season.
- slash&smash

Yeah, HB cap central is a joke. I never even glance at it.

Anyway, considering the chaos that continues to surround the Coyotes, I guess things could change very quickly. Maybe you have described a future for Hansal that no one else could see. That would be a trip!

Phx is becoming an even weirder situation with new reports that proposed new owner is short the necessary cash. Meanwhile, the Doan situation continues to simmer. His recent salary demand of $30m x 4 years is high. (Too high for Preds, I think.)

Yeah, HB cap central is a joke. I never even glance at it.

Anyway, considering the chaos that continues to surround the Coyotes, I guess things could change very quickly. Maybe you have described a future for Hansal that no one else could see. That would be a trip!

Phx is becoming an even weirder situation with new reports that proposed new owner is short the necessary cash. Meanwhile, the Doan situation continues to simmer. His recent salary demand of $30m x 4 years is high. (Too high for Preds, I think.)
- blueline

Doan would make a huge difference in the locker room but the market will price him out of a sight!!! I love his game and would be a perfect BT player, maybe take some pressure off of Weber. Not worth the rumored price just don't want another J.P. contract for awhile.

They cheered Betteman.....they obviously know hockey

All kidding aside, I used to play pickup in LA at a rink on Sepulvada. Lots of die hard fans....most of them transplants, but the love of the game is obvious.
- bruinsbeer69

I would not say they cheered him, but they booed him less and with a bit louder cheering than in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philly, and Vancover in recent years. Of couse, I was not there so maybe my TV sound was a bit off.

Seriously, when a team (like the Preds) match (or even pay) a deal like the Weber deal, does that mean they will be off the NHL revenue sharing dole? I assume a team is not allowed to match an offer like that only to take revenue from teams like the NYR, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston, most if not all of the Canadean teams, etc. via the NHL revenue sharing pool. I actually heard Doug McLean (Sp?) say that the Preds expected to "increase" its revenue sharing percentage. That cannot be true. That makes no sense to me. Can someone in the know (and I realize that limits the potential audience) respond?

Doan would make a huge difference in the locker room but the market will price him out of a sight!!! I love his game and would be a perfect BT player, maybe take some pressure off of Weber. Not worth the rumored price just don't want another J.P. contract for awhile.
- slash&smash

I love Doan, but I think that is a bit too high for him for any team except one that has to throw away cash to make the floor or that has a ton of cap space. However, if they have the space, the Rangers will do it, maybe the Pens too.

WHO THE F$@# IS REBUILDING?

SUTER = REBUILD?????? REALLY? STFU
- buelleo

Seriously? Why the hostile reaction? The man asked a legit question. He obviously is not a Preds fan, but a hockey fan. Otherwise, he would not be on this blog.

Think about it. There is an ownership group that is almost half as large as the teams season roster--never a great sign. There is one and maybe two billlionaires on that team, but it is not a good sign to have to throw non-team revenue money into the Preds. From public reports via the NHL (which I recognize can be suspect) the team has never turned a profit and I understand has recevied a large amount of public funds in the past 7 years. From what I read last April, in a Nashville paper, it was more than 60 million in 7 years or so. Some of that was through a contract to run the arean, which the team does at a loss, but it is still a ton of public money. Taxpayers eventually do not like that kind of spending and it has to stop.

Also, as someone kindly clarified for me last week, the best the team has done is gotten to the second round of the Playoffs. That is not very good so it really looks like they always have been rebuilding. When Jersey (prior to this year) had not gotten past the second round for 7 years, fans did not think it was a good thing. Also, the Preds are still participants in the NHL Welfare system. Thus, it is a legitimate question and does not deserve the juvenile response that you gave. Anyone out there who can give a serious answer?

I'm really upset i missed the trolling Kings fan....that's almost...nope it is....that's an oxymoron. He doesnt even do it that good. Anyone can go to another thread and sling dirt. But there is an art to trolling. And he, my friends, was no artist...
- Van~Damage

I don't understand your point. They say the same thing on the Pens' blog. What's wrong with a hockey fan looking at a blog and comments for a team other than their favorite team? Seems like a natural thing to do; that is, if you are a true hockey fan, and not just a fan of a specific team.

Seriously? Why the hostile reaction? The man asked a legit question. He obviously is not a Preds fan, but a hockey fan. Otherwise, he would not be on this blog.

Think about it. There is an ownership group that is almost half as large as the teams season roster--never a great sign. There is one and maybe two billlionaires on that team, but it is not a good sign to have to throw non-team revenue money into the Preds. From public reports via the NHL (which I recognize can be suspect) the team has never turned a profit and I understand has recevied a large amount of public funds in the past 7 years. From what I read last April, in a Nashville paper, it was more than 60 million in 7 years or so. Some of that was through a contract to run the arean, which the team does at a loss, but it is still a ton of public money. Taxpayers eventually do not like that kind of spending and it has to stop.

Also, as someone kindly clarified for me last week, the best the team has done is gotten to the second round of the Playoffs. That is not very good so it really looks like they always have been rebuilding. When Jersey (prior to this year) had not gotten past the second round for 7 years, fans did not think it was a good thing. Also, the Preds are still participants in the NHL Welfare system. Thus, it is a legitimate question and does not deserve the juvenile response that you gave. Anyone out there who can give a serious answer?
- Patrickj

It's one page back. In previous comments over several blogs it's already been answered ad nauseum.

I don't understand your point. They say the same thing on the Pens' blog. What's wrong with a hockey fan looking at a blog and comments for a team other than their favorite team? Seems like a natural thing to do; that is, if you are a true hockey fan, and not just a fan of a specific team.
- Patrickj

There's nothing wrong with it if you're there to talk hockey. If you're there to be a jerk then there's a lot wrong with it.

They cheered Betteman.....they obviously know hockey

All kidding aside, I used to play pickup in LA at a rink on Sepulvada. Lots of die hard fans....most of them transplants, but the love of the game is obvious.
- bruinsbeer69

If the Cup is ever won in Nashville, I hope the Preds fans show the class that Kings fans did towards Bettman. The booing is ridiculous and Vancouver just took it to an embarrassing level two years ago.

IMHO, the booing mars one of the greatest crowning moments in all of sports. It should be about the Cup, not Bettman.

I would not say they cheered him, but they booed him less and with a bit louder cheering than in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philly, and Vancover in recent years. Of couse, I was not there so maybe my TV sound was a bit off.

Seriously, when a team (like the Preds) match (or even pay) a deal like the Weber deal, does that mean they will be off the NHL revenue sharing dole? I assume a team is not allowed to match an offer like that only to take revenue from teams like the NYR, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston, most if not all of the Canadean teams, etc. via the NHL revenue sharing pool. I actually heard Doug McLean (Sp?) say that the Preds expected to "increase" its revenue sharing percentage. That cannot be true. That makes no sense to me. Can someone in the know (and I realize that limits the potential audience) respond?
- Patrickj

The only way Weber's contract would have any effect on the Preds' revenue sharing would be if it put them over the mid-point to the cap. They still haven't reached the floor so they still get the full revenue sharing.

It's one page back. In previous comments over several blogs it's already been answered ad nauseum.
- Predaceous

I looked and can't see the answers, only shallow commments and the like. The article I read was in April by some guy Rau for the Tennessean. It dealt with the Preds failure to turn a profit after all of these years and getting public funds. He questioned whether the business model could survive. It was a good article, but I do not know anything about the writer or paper since that was only my second visit to Nashville.

The only way Weber's contract would have any effect on the Preds' revenue sharing would be if it put them over the mid-point to the cap. They still haven't reached the floor so they still get the full revenue sharing.
- Predaceous

Seems odd that a team could do a deal like this and still get revenue sharing. Reminds me of Reagan and his (inaccurate) comments about the "Welfare Queens" during the 1980 campaign.

Seems odd that a team could do a deal like this and still get revenue sharing. Reminds me of Reagan and his (inaccurate) comments about the "Welfare Queens" during the 1980 campaign.
- Patrickj

Why is it odd? That's what revenue sharing is for. To help teams compete.

I looked and can't see the answers, only shallow commments and the like. The article I read was in April by some guy Rau for the Tennessean. It dealt with the Preds failure to turn a profit after all of these years and getting public funds. He questioned whether the business model could survive. It was a good article, but I do not know anything about the writer or paper since that was only my second visit to Nashville.
- Patrickj

I don't think you looked very hard. I posted a comment on the previous page, and the Nate Rau column was also specifically addressed, however, I know it's a bore to go back through the comments and blogs, so I'll state it again.

Nate Rau, while his writing has been better lately, considers himself a Consumer Watchdog. His articles have generally bordered on yellow journalism and they always come out when the matter of the lease agreement between the Predators and Metro come up. He also times his negative articles so that they coincide with either the opening of the hockey season or the beginning of the playoffs. It's almost like he refuses to let the Predators get good publicity for any length of time.

While the Predators' owners were talking about putting $60M of their own money into the team it was money they chose to spend. Money that will benefit them down the road aka an investment. They didn't have to put in $60M to cover losses. Rather they bought back del Biaggio's shares, made improvements to the arena etc. The bottom line on the team has been close to even since the new owners took over.

I'm pretty sure they threw that figure out there because they were in the process of negotiating a new lease with the Metro City Council. Why would the city council bother giving them a decent lease term if they publicly said they were doing just fine? (Btw, the reason the Predators receive public funds is because they manage the arena. Not because Nashville is just handing over money. The lease is structured with incentives. The more business they bring to the arena, the more they stand to make. It's a good deal for the city and for the team as there has been a marked economic impact to the city due to Preds games and other arena events. )

Well the lease has been secured, and now the owners have 'deep pockets'. Rau's article really shouldn't be waved around as proof the Preds can't afford Weber. In the presser, Cigarran flat out said they wouldn't have match if they didn't think they could not only afford Weber, but also afford to surround him with players to make the Predators a championship caliber team. I believe them.

So in the future, I would look more towards articles by Jim Diamond or J.R. Lind than Nate Rau if you really want a true pulse of the Nashville Predators.

D

I don't think you looked very hard. I posted a comment on the previous page, and the Nate Rau column was also specifically addressed, however, I know it's a bore to go back through the comments and blogs, so I'll state it again.

Nate Rau, while his writing has been better lately, considers himself a Consumer Watchdog. His articles have generally bordered on yellow journalism and they always come out when the matter of the lease agreement between the Predators and Metro come up. He also times his negative articles so that they coincide with either the opening of the hockey season or the beginning of the playoffs. It's almost like he refuses to let the Predators get good publicity for any length of time.

While the Predators' owners were talking about putting $60M of their own money into the team it was money they chose to spend. Money that will benefit them down the road aka an investment. They didn't have to put in $60M to cover losses. Rather they bought back del Biaggio's shares, made improvements to the arena etc. The bottom line on the team has been close to even since the new owners took over.

I'm pretty sure they threw that figure out there because they were in the process of negotiating a new lease with the Metro City Council. Why would the city council bother giving them a decent lease term if they publicly said they were doing just fine? (Btw, the reason the Predators receive public funds is because they manage the arena. Not because Nashville is just handing over money. The lease is structured with incentives. The more business they bring to the arena, the more they stand to make. It's a good deal for the city and for the team as there has been a marked economic impact to the city due to Preds games and other arena events. )

Well the lease has been secured, and now the owners have 'deep pockets'. Rau's article really shouldn't be waved around as proof the Preds can't afford Weber. In the presser, Cigarran flat out said they wouldn't have match if they didn't think they could not only afford Weber, but also afford to surround him with players to make the Predators a championship caliber team. I believe them.

So in the future, I would look more towards articles by Jim Diamond or J.R. Lind than Nate Rau if you really want a true pulse of the Nashville Predators.

D
- Predaceous

Thanks. This post for some reason was not visible on the pages I reviewed, but what ever. I wasn't waiving the article around. It jumped out at me because I saw it when I was there. In my view, on these issues particularly, the saying "where there is smoke..." applies. I have no personal stake down there, I only go there when I have to do so. (Note: Not that there is any thing wrong with the place and I don't mean to imply the opposite. It is just not on my list of usual or preferred destinations.) I do work for cities and other forms of local government, mainly in the Northeast and contrary to what the sports fans and public likes to believe, sports teams generally do not increase funds for a local government, particularly when public funds are being sunk into the team--sometimes under the guise of a contract for some service. If, and it is a big if, the Preds are making money off the arena (for the City depending on the structure of the contract), then it might be different, but I don't know that to be true or not true. Rau said the latter. Sounds to me that it is not as bad as many believe it to be down there with the Preds, but it also is clealry not nearly as rosey as some seem to portray. I hope it works out.

Thanks. This post for some reason was not visible on the pages I reviewed, but what ever. I wasn't waiving the article around. It jumped out at me because I saw it when I was there. In my view, on these issues particularly, the saying "where there is smoke..." applies. I have no personal stake down there, I only go there when I have to do so. (Note: Not that there is any thing wrong with the place and I don't mean to imply the opposite. It is just not on my list of usual or preferred destinations.) I do work for cities and other forms of local government, mainly in the Northeast and contrary to what the sports fans and public likes to believe, sports teams generally do not increase funds for a local government, particularly when public funds are being sunk into the team--sometimes under the guise of a contract for some service. If, and it is a big if, the Preds are making money off the arena (for the City depending on the structure of the contract), then it might be different, but I don't know that to be true or not true. Rau said the latter. Sounds to me that it is not as bad as many believe it to be down there with the Preds, but it also is clealry not nearly as rosey as some seem to portray. I hope it works out.
- Patrickj

I've seen the studies which state that any revenues generated by a pro sports team is just displaced revenue that would have been spent somewhere else, regardless. I disagree with that notion, and here's why;

The study was done in large metropolitan areas who's fanbase resides mostly within the confines of that metro area. Nashville is not a large metropolitan area. A large portion of the fans come in from outside of Davidson County. If the money was going to be spent regardless of whether the Preds were here or not it would have most likely been spent in that person's hometown as opposed to Nashville.

I have also personally seen the effect that the lockout had on the city. Businesses closed, windows were boarded up. Only after hockey came back did businesses come back, and most of the workers downtown will tell you that the nights there are hockey games or other arena events are their busiest nights.

The economic impact has been significant. So if you're talking about giving the Predators' Management Group $6-8M a year and getting back hundreds of millions in return for the city, it's a pretty good deal. Until this year most of that money was being paid by visitors through the hotel/motel taxes.

EDIT: Btw, when I mentioned waiving Rau's article around I wasn't specifically speaking to you. It seems to be the main focus of people who want to act like our owners have no pulse on their own finances. I think the owners know what they're capable of more so than Nate Rau.

I get tired of the posts that look at revenue sharing as some sort of charity. It is meant to be an equalizer for small markets similar to the old Canadian assistance plan that equalized the value of the dollar. Big markets have higher costs of living and therefore higher salaries. Someone making 40k in a small market can live comfortably and buy a small house. It would take a 400k salary in NYC to do the same. This also means bigger markets have a larger amount (not percentage) for their disposable income. Large markets also get larger TV contracts and all of the national TV exposure. Corporations pay more for the national spotlight. Do you think that Ed Snyder owning Comcast and the Flyers has nothing to do with them being on TV so much? Comcast also owns 51% of NBC. When was the last time a small market team was on the NBC regular season network broadcast? Nashville has NEVER been. Small markets cannot and never will be able to compete without revenue sharing. I do not want hockey to become baseball where only a tenth of the teams (being generous) have a legitimate shot to win a championship at the beginning of the season.

Two things ...

1. D is exactly right regarding Rau. Douche bag journalism at his best ... Cass is about the same. They hate the Predators and show it in their writing.

2. Per twitter:

Nashville Predators ‏@PredsNHL

#Smashville, catch Preds captain Shea Weber with @WillyD1025 on @1025TheGame this afternoon around 3:15pm CT

The Captain to speak on air today ...

Two things ...

1. D is exactly right regarding Rau. Douche bag journalism at his best ... Cass is about the same. They hate the Predators and show it in their writing.

2. Per twitter:



The Captain to speak on air today ...
- Predsboro

That's good to know. I'll be listening from my cubicle.

I get tired of the posts that look at revenue sharing as some sort of charity. It is meant to be an equalizer for small markets similar to the old Canadian assistance plan that equalized the value of the dollar. Big markets have higher costs of living and therefore higher salaries. Someone making 40k in a small market can live comfortably and buy a small house. It would take a 400k salary in NYC to do the same. This also means bigger markets have a larger amount (not percentage) for their disposable income. Large markets also get larger TV contracts and all of the national TV exposure. Corporations pay more for the national spotlight. Do you think that Ed Snyder owning Comcast and the Flyers has nothing to do with them being on TV so much? Comcast also owns 51% of NBC. When was the last time a small market team was on the NBC regular season network broadcast? Nashville has NEVER been. Small markets cannot and never will be able to compete without revenue sharing. I do not want hockey to become baseball where only a tenth of the teams (being generous) have a legitimate shot to win a championship at the beginning of the season.
- RockiesTop

Using Ed Snyder to make a point about the NHL Welfare system is not a good choice for numerous reasons, ranging from his history as an owner, how he literally built the Flyers (and the building they play in with his own money (except for a land grant which required him to pay for all infrastructure changes)) to his political views. No need to discuss that, but the beauty of this great USA is that we can disagree and not call each other names.

I am tired of this conversation, so...what a dull MLB trade deadline so far.

Using Ed Snyder to make a point about the NHL Welfare system is not a good choice for numerous reasons, ranging from his history as an owner, how he literally built the Flyers (and the building they play in with his own money (except for a land grant which required him to pay for all infrastructure changes)) to his political views. No need to discuss that, but the beauty of this great USA is that we can disagree and not call each other names.

I am tired of this conversation, so...what a dull MLB trade deadline so far.
- Patrickj

First of all, your opinion makes you a jerk. Just kidding.

As a Dodgers fan, I'm pretty pleased with the acquisition of Hanley Ramirez.

The new owners totally overpaid for the team, and they shouldn't have allowed McCrook to keep the parking lots, but at least they're doing something to improve the team rather than putting their money into some Russian faith healer hoping he'll 'send some kind of cosmic positive vibes.'

Using Ed Snyder to make a point about the NHL Welfare system is not a good choice for numerous reasons, ranging from his history as an owner, how he literally built the Flyers (and the building they play in with his own money (except for a land grant which required him to pay for all infrastructure changes)) to his political views. No need to discuss that, but the beauty of this great USA is that we can disagree and not call each other names.

I am tired of this conversation, so...what a dull MLB trade deadline so far.
- Patrickj

His name is Snider.

Also, you continue to make political comments on a hockey forum followed by phrases such as "No need to discuss that" which is a snarky way (or code, if you prefer) of what I see as stating an out-of-place opinion while simultaneously attempting to close off replies, asserting said opinion as the be-all to end-all, kind of like those who precede their opinions with the phrase "make no mistake".

Most of us here are quite adept in reading between the lines and we see where you are attempting to go, not only concerning the Preds but in other areas as well. We're not quite the stereotyped dumb hicks that appear to be imprinted on your brain.

His name is Snider.

Also, you continue to make political comments on a hockey forum followed by phrases such as "No need to discuss that" which is a snarky way (or code, if you prefer) of what I see as stating an out-of-place opinion while simultaneously attempting to close off replies, asserting said opinion as the be-all to end-all, kind of like those who precede their opinions with the phrase "make no mistake".

Most of us here are quite adept in reading between the lines and we see where you are attempting to go, not only concerning the Preds but in other areas as well. We're not quite the stereotyped dumb hicks that appear to be imprinted on your brain.
- blueline