because you tried to use an unrealistic example to prove your incorrect point? you should be done.
- flyershockey

No because analogies dont work either.

In writing. He will have been paid two bonuses: One for one season, another for the next. No disputing that. However, in actuality.. and in terms of team service (to the team, not the player) they will have given him 27 million dollars and received 1 single season of service from him. That would be extremely tough to swallow.

So you go out and by a car... It costs 10,000 for two years.. but at the end of year one it dies. No refund. You still paid for two years, but you only get one year out of it. SO, you paid 10,000 for ONE YEAR OF USE.
- jak521

You don't buy a car for a certain amount of time. When you buy a car, you own it permanently. If you can't afford to pay for the car, you can get a loan so you pay for it over time using something as collateral for the loan, often the car itself. But you still aren't buying the car for a certain period. You are owning it permanently. If you rent (or lease) a car, you are paying based on use. If it dies, they replace it. Terrible analogy.

This whole thing is insane. IF they match and trade him in a year, they will have paid two bonuses: one for the season he played, and the next bonus for the upcoming season even though he is no longer playing for them. In affect, he played ONE season, but got paid for the two. So when someone says he is getting paid 27m for one season.. to them he indeed got paid 27 million for one season with them. Nobody is disputing the actual way it is written out.
- jak521

Duh, but his salary for the second year is paid. The new team has no salary to pay other than the $1m provided for in the contract. The team trading him would obviously be looking for consideration of that fact in doing any deal.

No because analogies dont work either.

In writing. He will have been paid two bonuses: One for one season, another for the next. No disputing that. However, in actuality.. and in terms of team service (to the team, not the player) they will have given him 27 million dollars and received 1 single season of service from him. That would be extremely tough to swallow.
- jak521

No, they would have received two seasons of service from him, but only used one, and traded the other for something else.

No because analogies dont work either.

In writing. He will have been paid two bonuses: One for one season, another for the next. No disputing that. However, in actuality.. and in terms of team service (to the team, not the player) they will have given him 27 million dollars and received 1 single season of service from him. That would be extremely tough to swallow.
- jak521

thats why trading him shouldnt even be an option. paul's argument is the structure sets up for 27mm for one year. so is the argument from others in here. the 27mm is not for one year, plain and simple.

thats why trading him shouldnt even be an option. paul's argument is the structure sets up for 27mm for one year. so is the argument from others in here. the 27mm is not for one year, plain and simple.
- flyershockey

That is probably the simplist way of looking at it. You pay him $13.5m for two years. But, he gets big chunks of his salary in advance of the season. If you trade the contract the new team must observe the conditions of the contract.

You’re point being? Minnesota lost money too, actually they lost more than us and are in a much larger hockey market. Plus they just signed TWO GUYS to huge contracts!!! If you're not an owner then why do you care exactly? Do you get a cut of league profits? Did YOU loose money because of the Preds? You bought your tickets sure, but you'd be doing that even if we made money.

Why league revenues concerns anyone other than the owners is beyond me. It's their money, if they want to share it with teams losing money they can. You get no say, I get no say. So how about we ALL stop brining up league finances like it matters to any of us?
- Pelvis

Where exactly did you come by this info?? Source please. According to Forbes list, Wild are #14 with $97 million in revenue and a $-5.7 million opp costs/income ratio and Nashville at #25 with a $82 million in revenue and a $-7.5 opp costs/income ratio. And according to the percent change in revenue, both teams made more than the previous season, Wild at 5% and Nashville at 10%.

I think the big thing everyone is missing as to why Nashville shouldnt offer is the threat of a lockout. They cannot afford to pay Weber 27 mil without a full season.

I think the big thing everyone is missing as to why Nashville shouldnt offer is the threat of a lockout. They cannot afford to pay Weber 27 mil without a full season.
- shifty28

The Pred's bankers will decide if they can match.

and still lost money....
- flyershockey

According to Forbes, Nashville actually had a 10% increase in revenue. Flyers actually lost revenue and here is the quote from forbes;

"The Flyers’ revenue fell by $10 million. Presumably the difference between making the Stanley Cup final in 2010 and losing in the second round last season."

According to Forbes, Nashville actually had a 10% increase in revenue.
- MnGump

strange how revenue isnt the bottom line or what is reported

According to Forbes, Nashville actually had a 10% increase in revenue. Flyers actually lost revenue and here is the quote from forbes;

"The Flyers’ revenue fell by $10 million. Presumably the difference between making the Stanley Cup final in 2010 and losing in the second round last season."
- MnGump

And still lost money

Paul McCann: Does the Weber Offer Sheet violate the "sprit and intent" of the CBA?
- pmccann

I heard you on The Team 1040 this morning. Good interview.

Nashville needs to send an offer sheet to Claude Giroux in 2014-15...
- jochfr

Giroux will be locked up long before this happens. A fact that Nashville should have considered instead of taking him to arbitration and trying to get him for 4.75 and claiming he is on the same level as Keith Yandle or Dustin Buff.

Nashville had the cap space and the ability to lock him up long term long before the Flyers would have ever had the chance to give him an offer sheet.

According to Forbes, Nashville actually had a 10% increase in revenue. Flyers actually lost revenue and here is the quote from forbes;

"The Flyers’ revenue fell by $10 million. Presumably the difference between making the Stanley Cup final in 2010 and losing in the second round last season."
- MnGump

for the flyers playoff revenue just adds to the bottom line. for a team like the preds, even with playoff revenue, they still lose money.

Where exactly did you come by this info?? Source please. According to Forbes list, Wild are #14 with $97 million in revenue and a $-5.7 million opp costs/income ratio and Nashville at #25 with a $82 million in revenue and a $-7.5 opp costs/income ratio. And according to the percent change in revenue, both teams made more than the previous season, Wild at 5% and Nashville at 10%.
- MnGump

Your owner was my source. Google it and pick one haha.

http://www.nhl.com/index..../going_wild_in_minnesota/

“A team that had been at its lowest point in its 12-year history—losing money each of the past two seasons and going from guaranteed sellouts to a season-ticket base of 12,000 by the end of last season—enjoyed a sudden revival. Maher said the Wild sold 850 season-ticket packages Wednesday alone, and team spokesman Ryan Stanzel said the total had climbed north of 1,500 by Friday afternoon.”

http://news.bostonherald....efends_spending_on_stars/

“We’re not making money, and that’s one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we’re spending right now."”


Both articles mention a loss of money. The amount being larger than ours may be wrong on my part. I’ve read several stories that mention different amounts. But it’s there, it’s not an attack on the Wild for signing Suter or anything. It’s not even revenues that’s the problem for the Wild either, it expenses. Either way, they’ve been losing money too and just spent a ton on two players. Just needed an example.

Oh and don’t trust Forbes for information on the NHL, they are usually wrong. I didn’t think the NHL opened their books for anyone.

Giroux will be locked up long before this happens. A fact that Nashville should have considered instead of taking him to arbitration and trying to get him for 4.75 and claiming he is on the same level as Keith Yandle or Dustin Buff.Nashville had the cap space and the ability to lock him up long term long before the Flyers would have ever had the chance to give him an offer sheet.
- MBFlyerfan

Ugh this crap again. The arbitration process ALWAYS works like this. The team goes low, the player goes high, the arbitrator decides usually meeting in the middle. I’m not sure where 7.5 million came from anyway. The arbitrator is supposed to come up with the value of a played based on the performance and pay of his peers. There was no other D man making 7.5 million a year before Shea. Not even the frigging Norris trophy winner that year!!! Where did that number come from?

Also, never mind that fact Poile offered Shea 7 Million a year prior to the arbitration. Plus, you can’t MAKE players sign contracts. If you could he’d be locked up already. Please quit trying to make this situation into negligence on the Predators part. Weber doesn’t want to be here, Suter didn’t want to be here. No amount of term or money will change this.

for the flyers playoff revenue just adds to the bottom line. for a team like the preds, even with playoff revenue, they still lose money.
- flyershockey

I think the bigger picture here is that of 30 teams, almost 2/3 end up in the red annually. Aside from Toronto and Montreal, the other top 8 teams are perennial playoff teams. It's pretty much a given that most teams that don't make the playoffs will lose money, with some exceptions of course, Montreal and Toronto are 2 of the top 5 markets and history shows they will inevitably always turn a profit.

Paul McCann: Does the Weber Offer Sheet violate the "sprit and intent" of the CBA?
- pmccann

It absolutely does.

Furthermore, it completely undermines the NHL's arguments in favor of another lock-out. Hell, it undermines the arguments in favor of the previous lock-out.

Do the owners want a salary cap or not? Is all this talk about "controlling costs" blatantly hypocritical?

On one hand, they cancel a season crying poor and demanding a new system to fix all their problems (supposedly caused by the big, bad, greedy players), then on the other, they do everything in their power to circumvent their own rules.

I couldn't care less about the current cap system staying as it is. It's a piss poor way of doing things. But they were the ones who fought tooth and nail for it. As it turns out, none of their arguments in favor of "parity" hold any water.

It was always about getting a bigger slice of the pie. Fans be damned.

You’re owner was my source. Google it and pick one haha.

http://www.nhl.com/index..../going_wild_in_minnesota/

“A team that had been at its lowest point in its 12-year history—losing money each of the past two seasons and going from guaranteed sellouts to a season-ticket base of 12,000 by the end of last season—enjoyed a sudden revival. Maher said the Wild sold 850 season-ticket packages Wednesday alone, and team spokesman Ryan Stanzel said the total had climbed north of 1,500 by Friday afternoon.”

http://news.bostonherald....efends_spending_on_stars/

“We’re not making money, and that’s one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we’re spending right now."”


Both articles mention a loss of money. The amount being larger than ours may be wrong on my part. I’ve read several stories that mention different amounts. But it’s there, it’s not an attack on the Wild for signing Suter or anything. It’s not even revenues that’s the problem for the Wild either, it expenses. Either way, they’ve been losing money too and just spent a ton on two players. Just needed an example.

Oh and don’t trust Forbes for information on the NHL, they are usually wrong. I didn’t think the NHL opened their books for anyone.
- Pelvis

Don't get me wrong, I wasnt calling you out, just wondering where you came by the info, it's seems difficult to find up to date stats regarding team finances. I was actually just arguing the point to the Philly fan that both teams(although may still have lost money) increased their revenues.

LEINO
- Philly1980[/img]

Bryz....


it's funny.

Ugh this crap again. The arbitration process ALWAYS works like this. The team goes low, the player goes high, the arbitrator decides usually meeting in the middle. I’m not sure where 7.5 million came from anyway. The arbitrator is supposed to come up with the value of a played based on the performance and pay of his peers. There was no other D man making 7.5 million a year before Shea. Not even the frigging Norris trophy winner that year!!! Where did that number come from?

Also, never mind that fact Poile offered Shea 7 Million a year prior to the arbitration. Plus, you can’t MAKE players sign contracts. If you could he’d be locked up already. Please quit trying to make this situation into negligence on the Predators part. Weber doesn’t want to be here, Suter didn’t want to be here. No amount of term or money will change this.
- Pelvis

pretty sure for arbitration the player and team each submit a number, and the arbitrator picks one of the two based on which is closer to where the players salary should be. the arbitrator doesn't come up with a number in the middle and award that.

Before I get into this debate ( Its pretty amazing we can debate about hockey this time of year)

I just want to say that after reading Jess blog and twitter feed it put tears in my eyes... it was amazing to think that I was doing the EXACT SAME thing she was last night when she posted her last tweet. That could have happened anywhere and it honestly makes us realize how much we take life for granted...

Now on to hockey. That is a really interesting take on this matter and I fully understand where you are coming from with your argument. With that said the Flyers are working with every tool they have to put the best product on the ice that they can. They are not breaking any rules doing it. Is that not what every fan wants their team to do? In fact Homer tried to work out a deal and when he put the offer sheet out he gave Polie warning, so I do not think he went against the intent of the rule.

Another point I would make is why is it even coming to this? Why did nashville not Pay webber last year. The Cap hit would have been high but all signs pointed to it being higher this year. I am not going to assume I know more then a very successful gm because I dont, but the question still has to be asked especially considering where everything is going. I honestly feel like the Flyers are going to land Webber but I am fully ready to read an article saying the preds matched.

Nashville fans I ask you this question...why was it even allowed to get to this point?

Don't get me wrong, I wasnt calling you out, just wondering where you came by the info, it's seems difficult to find up to date stats regarding team finances. I was actually just arguing the point to the Philly fan that both teams(although may still have lost money) increased their revenues.
- MnGump

It's all good, no hate on by behalf. Good point though about the increased revenues. Something is wrong, when some teams can increase revenues yet they still operate the red. Must be these INSANE player contracts that get even more insane with each passing offseason LOL! Two years ago, today’s Shea Weber would have been 6 to 7 million a year tops. Ticket prices across the board have not increased at the rate players salaries have. If this keeps up (which it doesn’t seem it will thankfully) some large market teams will start losing money as well.

It's all good, no hate on by behalf. Good point though about the increased revenues. Something is wrong, when some teams can increase revenues yet they still operate the red. Must be these INSANE player contracts that get even more insane with each passing offseason LOL! Two years ago, today’s Shea Weber would have been 6 to 7 million a year tops. Ticket prices across the board have not increased at the rate players salaries have. If this keeps up (which it doesn’t seem it will thankfully) some large market teams will start losing money as well.
- Pelvis

The ironic part about all this is the Owners Locked out the players to reduce their salaries and here we are 5 years latter