View Single Post
Old
08-09-2011, 03:27 PM
  #131
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 44,005
vCash: 500
You are still basing all of this on assumption. You are assuming that Franson could have gotten a good, young forward in return. Somehow I doubt it. Preds fans thought the same thing, and I've even posted in favor of bundling Franson with other pieces for a forward return. The fact remains that Lombardi's contract would count against us (teams spending to or below the midpoint for revenue sharing purposes take into consideration real salary and not cap hit. Also, a player on LTIR does count against the cap until the team paying him spends to the cap. LTIR simply allows a team to spend the amount of that player's salary beyond the cap. For a non-cap ceiling team LTIR does nothing but open up a roster spot.) We had to get rid of it so that we could spend the money elsewhere. In order to get rid of it we had to give up another asset. Francis Bouillon, also on LTIR, likely wouldn't have gotten it done. We aren't going to throw in Klein or Blum. Ellis, Josi, and Ekholm all have better potential than Franson so it would make even less sense to send them. We aren't going to give up a forward of value because, well, we need forwards of value.

If a budget team clears $3.5m in salary per year for two years how is that not a hockey trade? Think about it this way... that $3.5m may never get used on a roster player. I hope it does, but I digress. BUT with that $3.5m you open up even more possibilities. Say your budget only allows for you to spend $3m on another forward. It's going to be hard to find a forward for that amount of money who will provide the team with something it doesn't already have. Now add an extra $3.5m to that. All of the sudden you can spend upwards of $6.5m, leaving open the possibility of a trade for a forward making anywhere from the original $3m all the way to $6.5m without having to deal anyone on the current roster. If you deal a roster player or two you only allow yourself even more options.

Your argument, unless I'm mistaken, has essentially been that this trade merely put money back into the pockets of the owners (which it didn't... it just saved them from having to spend it going forward. If I decide not to buy a soda that I had previously committed to buying it doesn't put an extra $1.25 into my pocket. It just lets me keep my original $1.25.), and you base that opinion on the fact that no moves have been made since. My argument is that there is still time for a move to be made, and even if one is never made it doesn't mean that the trade wasn't in anticipation of a deal.

TMI is online now   Reply With Quote