HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Nashville Predators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   This should never happen again (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1224801)

hoosierpred 07-05-2012 07:18 AM

This should never happen again
 
I don't blame players (well maybe a little) for getting what they can get, but I do blame GM's for being stupid enough to give it to them. What happened in the Suter situation should never happen again. Players should be told in no uncertain terms that negotiations WILL occur up to a certain point before the trade deadline, and if no agreement is reached, the player will be traded no matter what. I would do this even with a cup worthy team because the player always has the ability to sign a short contract to eliminate contract negotiation distractions and make sure that he is tradable for the following season. If a player is not willing to sign a short contract in the middle of a cup run season, then there is no question about whose fault it is if they go. When Suter tried to put off contract negotiations in the middle of last season, he should have been gone. :rant:

pekkaslap 07-05-2012 07:23 AM

Yep, and Weber should be getting shopped right now. He's not going to sign longterm here, being realistic.

hoosierpred 07-05-2012 08:05 AM

Right, I'd offer the option of a great long term contract or a decent 2 year contract. (2 years is ideal, because any team we would trade with would at least have him for a year under contract and would make him more valuable in trade)

RaiderDoug 07-05-2012 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosierpred (Post 52152249)
I don't blame players (well maybe a little) for getting what they can get, but I do blame GM's for being stupid enough to give it to them. What happened in the Suter situation should never happen again. Players should be told in no uncertain terms that negotiations WILL occur up to a certain point before the trade deadline, and if no agreement is reached, the player will be traded no matter what. I would do this even with a cup worthy team because the player always has the ability to sign a short contract to eliminate contract negotiation distractions and make sure that he is tradable for the following season. If a player is not willing to sign a short contract in the middle of a cup run season, then there is no question about whose fault it is if they go. When Suter tried to put off contract negotiations in the middle of last season, he should have been gone. :rant:

You're 100% wrong on this. And you're using the benefit of hindsight.

On the trade deadline, we were probably 1 of 6 teams that had a legit shot at winning the Cup. There is no reality where it's beneficial to trade away one of your best players because he might be a UFA.

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup, not hoard a bunch of picks and prospects to win the HF rankings.

There is no player who is going to sign a shorter contract, rather than a longer one, if he has the option, all things being equal. It simply won't happen. So your "sign a short contract" option doesn't fly.

Look at this scenario - Suppose Suter resigned, and DP went out and got David Poile, and come the trading deadline, we're in 1st by 10 pts and it really looks like it's our year - you still want to trade Weber? For the pittance of a trade deadline rental player?

This year is different, because we really don't look like a serious contender going into the season. Weber must be moved because he could fetch a king's ransom in players/picks/prospects that would make this mini-rebuild pretty short.

RaiderDoug 07-05-2012 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosierpred (Post 52153063)
Right, I'd offer the option of a great long term contract or a decent 2 year contract. (2 years is ideal, because any team we would trade with would at least have him for a year under contract and would make him more valuable in trade)

The 2 year deal makes no sense. How would that benefit Weber?

Why would Weber be interested in signing a 2 year deal when he could just wait 1 year and cash in? It's not his concern what his trade value is to the Preds.

Weber has all the leverage here.

101st_fan 07-05-2012 09:33 AM

So the Devils should have made their run without Brodeur, Parise, or Salvador. We should have tried without Weber or Suter, and depending when your cutoff date is possibly Rinne. Phoenix should have traded Whitney and Doan at the deadline according to your proposal.

Wow.

lstcyr 07-05-2012 10:55 AM

While somewhat not comparable, this paragraph from USA TODAY story about Steve Nash and his signing with Lakers shows the character of Nash and what we thought Suter's character was. I've bolded the important part (to me).

""This is what I call a family values contract," Nash's agent Bill Duffy told USA TODAY Sports. "He was seriously considering retiring so he could remain close to his children. We had to twist his arm to have an open mind. He didn't want to be away from his children, and this allows him to be in a competitive situation, and even though it's a rival, he wanted Phoenix to get some value back. It's a win-win."

golfmade 07-05-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lstcyr (Post 52159631)
While somewhat not comparable, this paragraph from USA TODAY story about Steve Nash and his signing with Lakers shows the character of Nash and what we thought Suter's character was. I've bolded the important part (to me).

""This is what I call a family values contract," Nash's agent Bill Duffy told USA TODAY Sports. "He was seriously considering retiring so he could remain close to his children. We had to twist his arm to have an open mind. He didn't want to be away from his children, and this allows him to be in a competitive situation, and even though it's a rival, he wanted Phoenix to get some value back. It's a win-win."

Was talking about this to some of my coworkers earlier tonight. I personally think it's very comparable.

Byrddog 07-05-2012 11:07 AM

Leave no doubt about it Weber is going to cash in This month or 12 months from now. The decision is what to do this month. The last lockout has not brought common sense to players or mgmt. It has leveled the competition somewhat. The players association has figured out how to work the GM's to provide unreal salary packages while most teams still struggle with the bottom line. And ever increasing ticket prices is hurting teams that do not have strong corp. support. If this continues contraction of the league is assured.

Now the Wild have made there splash they now have there three stooges Parise, Suter and Heatley after that not much. Backstrom is decent but ya just can't see them making a deep run but the NHL has the annointed as Cup contenders.

MarkMM 07-05-2012 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiderDoug (Post 52154019)
You're 100% wrong on this. And you're using the benefit of hindsight.

On the trade deadline, we were probably 1 of 6 teams that had a legit shot at winning the Cup. There is no reality where it's beneficial to trade away one of your best players because he might be a UFA.

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup, not hoard a bunch of picks and prospects to win the HF rankings.

There is no player who is going to sign a shorter contract, rather than a longer one, if he has the option, all things being equal. It simply won't happen. So your "sign a short contract" option doesn't fly.

Look at this scenario - Suppose Suter resigned, and DP went out and got David Poile, and come the trading deadline, we're in 1st by 10 pts and it really looks like it's our year - you still want to trade Weber? For the pittance of a trade deadline rental player?

This year is different, because we really don't look like a serious contender going into the season. Weber must be moved because he could fetch a king's ransom in players/picks/prospects that would make this mini-rebuild pretty short.

Fair point.

It comes to a philosophical management question about whether the best strategy to win a cup is to load up and run, or to build a perennial contender. I know this is argued ad nauseum on these boards, but as an example, Mike Gillis from Vancouver argues that he thinks loading up a for a run isn't the best approach because one bad injury in a long playoffs and all could be lost. There's an element of luck involved hence he argues that it's best to build a team that is always within shot every year, and then with enough genuine chances at the Cup, your day will arrive.

That philosophy applied to Nashville, maybe it would make sense to trade players by a deadline to guarantee you'll always be regenerating. Not as in re-building, but in at least getting something that helps out now and will be here for a while longer.

RaiderDoug 07-05-2012 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkMM (Post 52163585)
Fair point.

It comes to a philosophical management question about whether the best strategy to win a cup is to load up and run, or to build a perennial contender. I know this is argued ad nauseum on these boards, but as an example, Mike Gillis from Vancouver argues that he thinks loading up a for a run isn't the best approach because one bad injury in a long playoffs and all could be lost. There's an element of luck involved hence he argues that it's best to build a team that is always within shot every year, and then with enough genuine chances at the Cup, your day will arrive.

That philosophy applied to Nashville, maybe it would make sense to trade players by a deadline to guarantee you'll always be regenerating. Not as in re-building, but in at least getting something that helps out now and will be here for a while longer.

The problem is, no one is a "perennial" contender.

No matter how good you are at any point, not matter who you sign, no matter how much you spend - the window will close and you will have to rebuild.

Every single Cup winner since the lockout except one (DRW) picked in the top 10 within the previous 5 years - meaning all were built by sucking at one point in the very recent past.

I could possibly buy the argument that Suter should have been traded prior to the 2011-2012 season. Of course, I don't remember a whole lot of "trade Suter" threads at this time last year. I remember a whole lot of trade Weber and give his money to Suter. So anyone saying we should have traded Suter last summer is using hindsight, and that's not fair to DP.

But once the season started, and especially once we started playing well towards the end of the year - Poile did what he should have done - gone all in. The window for a championship was as open last year as it has ever been for this franchise.

It's closing now - what we do with Weber determines how long before it opens again.

hoosierpred 07-05-2012 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 101st_fan (Post 52155759)
So the Devils should have made their run without Brodeur, Parise, or Salvador. We should have tried without Weber or Suter, and depending when your cutoff date is possibly Rinne. Phoenix should have traded Whitney and Doan at the deadline according to your proposal.

Wow.

Frankly yes, If you can get some combination of good players under contract and draft picks, heck yes. With Suter, I would have guessed at about a 10% chance of a cup at the beginning of the playoffs...No better. I know we were a lot of people's dark horse, but with our offense I was not convinced. Without him, and without getting a significant return in the form of a top 6 forward plus picks, I think the teams chances at the cup in the next 4 years is less than 10% altogether (2.5% chance a year), but still might have been somewhere around 6% a year with good compensation. So yeah, to me it looks like we have reduced cup chances overall with our handling of the situation.

Top 6 Spaling 07-05-2012 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosierpred (Post 52174589)
Frankly yes

:cry:

hoosierpred 07-05-2012 03:41 PM

There's nothing wrong with management getting some stones....
 
I think it's reasonable to say something like this....

Management: "Sutes, we got a great shot this year, and you are a great big part of it. We'd like to sign you to a nice big fat long term contract"

Sutes: "Well, i'd like to wait and see what my options are till the end of the year"

Management: "If you want to keep your options open depending on the team situation, we'd accept a nice shorter term contract and we will fully support any change that you want to make at the end of the year. If you want to see what you are worth on the open market we'll let you explore that and we will quietly work hard for any trade you want, but we do need to have some sort of contract by such and such a date under generous terms to you. If not, I'm getting a lot of calls from (insert horrible bottom dweller or playoff longshot) and we will be forced to move you now rather than risk losing you at the end of the year for nothing."

Management is not without some tools to pressure.


At bottom line there is only one question that needs to be asked......

Is the chance of winning a Cup this year with Player X greater than the chance of winning the cup in the following years with the players and picks that were traded for. To me that depends a lot on the nature of the holes that you are trying to fill. If you have no gaping holes, the chance that filling holes with players more talented enough to make a difference is small and maybe you could gamble on keeping someone like Suter. But we have glaring holes for offensive centers and snipers. Legwand and Fisher are 3rd line centers and this point in their careers and nobody will convince me otherwise. Erat, and to a lesser extent Hornquist, are probably the only proven legitimate top 6 forwards we have with some hope for some other guys. We have holes enough to fill.

Paranoid Android 07-05-2012 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosierpred (Post 52174589)
Frankly yes, If you can get some combination of good players under contract and draft picks, heck yes. With Suter, I would have guessed at about a 10% chance of a cup at the beginning of the playoffs...No better. I know we were a lot of people's dark horse, but with our offense I was not convinced. Without him, and without getting a significant return in the form of a top 6 forward plus picks, I think the teams chances at the cup in the next 4 years is less than 10% altogether (2.5% chance a year), but still might have been somewhere around 6% a year with good compensation. So yeah, to me it looks like we have reduced cup chances overall with our handling of the situation.

Yikes, I don't know what to say except I am glad you are not our GM.

The goal of hockey is to win games, not hoard assets.

Top 6 Spaling 07-05-2012 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosierpred (Post 52177463)


Is the chance of winning a Cup this year with Player X greater than the chance of winning the cup in the following years with the players and picks that were traded for.

Well I guess Pittsburgh should trade Malkin and Crobsy for a ton of top prospects and picks, because they could get every top prospect in the game and be set for the next 10 years, having a really good shot at the cup. Except once those players hit their prime they should trade them for the new wave of top prospects. Always looking to the future, right?

Joe T Choker 07-05-2012 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling (Post 52177939)
Well I guess Pittsburgh should trade Malkin and Crobsy for a ton of top prospects and picks, because they could get every top prospect in the game and be set for the next 10 years, having a really good shot at the cup. Except once those players hit their prime they should trade them for the new wave of top prospects. Always looking to the future, right?

IF you can't sign them ... then hell yes they should've traded them ... but alas they were able to sign them & they traded another cup winning piece in staal for sutter + other things ... it's a shame that Poile hasn't learned from his protege in Shero ... Shea should be put on the block, the same way Staal was put on the block in Pittsburgh ... no signed contract ... see ya later

hoosierpred 07-05-2012 04:08 PM

I think you know that's not what I'm saying....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling (Post 52177939)
Well I guess Pittsburgh should trade Malkin and Crobsy for a ton of top prospects and picks, because they could get every top prospect in the game and be set for the next 10 years, having a really good shot at the cup. Except once those players hit their prime they should trade them for the new wave of top prospects. Always looking to the future, right?

At the beginning of the playoffs, I thought Pittsburgh would come out of the east and I thought their chances of a cup were pretty good, so no, if you have an excellent chance to win the cup in that year you pretty much have to take that risk and hope it pays off, but anyone looking at our offense could see we were still a dark horse. A popular dark horse but a dark horse none the less.

Paranoid Android 07-05-2012 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoarding Assets (Post 52178733)
IF you can't sign them ... then hell yes they should've traded them ... but alas they were able to sign them & they traded another cup winning piece in staal for sutter + other things ... it's a shame that Poile hasn't learned from his protege in Shero ... Shea should be put on the block, the same way Staal was put on the block in Pittsburgh ... no signed contract ... see ya later

I thought "hoarding assets" was a bad thing? Can't quite make up your mind can you ;)

AEM6729 07-05-2012 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiderDoug (Post 52164761)
The problem is, no one is a "perennial" contender.

No matter how good you are at any point, not matter who you sign, no matter how much you spend - the window will close and you will have to rebuild.

Every single Cup winner since the lockout except one (DRW) picked in the top 10 within the previous 5 years - meaning all were built by sucking at one point in the very recent past.

I could possibly buy the argument that Suter should have been traded prior to the 2011-2012 season. Of course, I don't remember a whole lot of "trade Suter" threads at this time last year. I remember a whole lot of trade Weber and give his money to Suter. So anyone saying we should have traded Suter last summer is using hindsight, and that's not fair to DP.

But once the season started, and especially once we started playing well towards the end of the year - Poile did what he should have done - gone all in. The window for a championship was as open last year as it has ever been for this franchise.

It's closing now - what we do with Weber determines how long before it opens again.

This. Most teams who win the Cup did some form of loading up for that year. Not many teams win Cups or go to the Finals for years in a row anymore. The goal is to win the Cup, but not decimate your assets so much that you completely suck in the in-between years.

Uhmkay 07-05-2012 04:18 PM

One more thing that Poile must think about is the potential to have a lockout this upcoming season. Although it's not expected to be the ENTIRE season, there is a chance that it could be.

If we lose another season of hockey, Weber is a UFA Nashville gets nothing. I think Poile is going to be forced to trade Weber before a potential lockout happens, and in enough time that the other team can sign Weber to an extension.

I believe the same think happened in New Jersey when Neidermayer left. He had one year left on his deal going into the lockout. After the lockout ended and they had lsot a season, Neidermayer immediately signed with Anaheim I think.

101st_fan 07-05-2012 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhmkay (Post 52179881)
One more thing that Poile must think about is the potential to have a lockout this upcoming season. Although it's not expected to be the ENTIRE season, there is a chance that it could be.

If we lose another season of hockey, Weber is a UFA Nashville gets nothing. I think Poile is going to be forced to trade Weber before a potential lockout happens, and in enough time that the other team can sign Weber to an extension.

I believe the same think happened in New Jersey when Neidermayer left. He had one year left on his deal going into the lockout. After the lockout ended and they had lsot a season, Neidermayer immediately signed with Anaheim I think.

Both sides realize the league is in too tenuous of a position for another work stoppage. The union can't afford contraction of the league and the elimination of dues paying members ... the owners can't afford buildings shut and the inevitable loss of gate revenue both during any lockout and as a backlash once play resumes.

101st_fan 07-05-2012 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosierpred (Post 52174589)
Frankly yes, If you can get some combination of good players under contract and draft picks, heck yes. With Suter, I would have guessed at about a 10% chance of a cup at the beginning of the playoffs...No better. I know we were a lot of people's dark horse, but with our offense I was not convinced. Without him, and without getting a significant return in the form of a top 6 forward plus picks, I think the teams chances at the cup in the next 4 years is less than 10% altogether (2.5% chance a year), but still might have been somewhere around 6% a year with good compensation. So yeah, to me it looks like we have reduced cup chances overall with our handling of the situation.

It's impossible to tell what we've done for the upcoming season until we know what the roster looks like. There are teams that gut themselves at the deadline every season ... they're called sellers and usually are much closer to the cellar than the upper echelon of the league.

Since your concept is to trade players before the deadline that we don't have signed ... we'd have been out Bouillon, Weber, Suter on the backend without the ability to call up Blum since he isn't signed yet either ..... along with Wilson, SK, and Tootoo up front, and our backup goaltender would have been out as well, as would our 3rd and 5th goalies (Smith and Pickard). Even if you compromise greatly on your principal of trading unsigned FAs before or at the deadline, we'd still create holes in our roster that picks and prospects wouldn't fill for the immediate future. Rather than a #4 seed with home ice in the first round, we're probably looking at a low seeding if making the post season at all. That means fewer home playoff games and therefore less revenue. We still wouldn't have Suter now, but, maybe we'd have a pick or two who might develop into a NHL player at one point in the future.

Using your logic on NJ ... they don't make the finals because they wouldn't have their starting or backup goalie, nor would they have their leading playoff goal scorer (tied).

Teams ice the best club they can for that particular season. Worrying about how to maximize the return on a current player for five years down the road just means not accomplishing squat until that distant time .... maybe .... because consistently making such moves just pushes that maybe we'll be good date further into the future.

Beukeboom Fan 07-05-2012 05:55 PM

First - I think it's really crappy the way this worked out, and I feel for the NSH fans.

I think it comes down to players having to be adults. Suter earned the right to be a UFA - so I don't have any problems with him wanting to test the market. But it sure seems now like it was a foregone conclussion that he wasn't going to resign - which is not what he told Poile. Poile can't make Suter sign a long-term deal, but IMO the player 100% owes the GM a realistic anwser to the question "What are you thinking come 7/1?".

I wholeheartedly understand that is a REALLY difficult discussion to have - but IMO Suter owed that to his teammates and his organization. If he knew he was goign to bolt - man up and tell Poile. As it is, he burnt bridges and looks like a coward IMO.

ILikeItILoveIt 07-05-2012 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan (Post 52185979)
First - I think it's really crappy the way this worked out, and I feel for the NSH fans.

I think it comes down to players having to be adults. Suter earned the right to be a UFA - so I don't have any problems with him wanting to test the market. But it sure seems now like it was a foregone conclussion that he wasn't going to resign - which is not what he told Poile. Poile can't make Suter sign a long-term deal, but IMO the player 100% owes the GM a realistic anwser to the question "What are you thinking come 7/1?".

I wholeheartedly understand that is a REALLY difficult discussion to have - but IMO Suter owed that to his teammates and his organization. If he knew he was goign to bolt - man up and tell Poile. As it is, he burnt bridges and looks like a coward IMO.

The stage is set. Wild make their first trip to Nashville. Poile walks up to Suter during warm-ups, puts his hands on his shoulders, leans into him and whispers:
"I know it was you Fredo; you broke my heart"

Suter will forever be known now as, "Fredo". He put Parise up to the "wouldn't it be great to play together in Minnesota!!" While lying to us about loving Nashville and telling Poile he intended to re-sign long term, he was planting the seed of deceit with his Man-Crush Parise.

He is Dead to Us.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.