View Single Post
01-19-2012, 08:40 AM
Registered User
utmfisher19's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Country: United States
Posts: 938
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to utmfisher19 Send a message via MSN to utmfisher19 Send a message via Yahoo to utmfisher19
Originally Posted by deanwormer View Post
You know, when I sit and think on it, I'm just not buying the idea that there has to be some grand move or gesture that shows Nashville is serious or whatever in becoming a "perennial contender". You know, we the fans think about teams that way, but really - how many teams are in the situation they're gonna' be cup contenders every - or almost every - year?

There's DET. and then...... SJ. Maybe PHI. Everyone else, I'd argue you can tie to the fact that they've acquire a pair of stars and some good next level guys that are playing their whole careers there, but when they're gone it's not guarantee they reload. Det was in the crapper a long time before they rebuilt but they've clearly put in place a system that transcends and passes between groups of players. SJ less so, but probably. But CHI? C'mon - they sucked for a long time, got to draft Toews and Kane - and voila - they're good. All they've proven is they can keep them signed and get them to sign hometown discounts. Same with Pitts. NJ - went down the crapper when Lou stepped back. VAN - maybe - lets see what happens when the sisters retire.

We want to act like Nashville has built a solid team that can make the POs every year and once-in-a-while make a serious run; I'd argue that is the NORMAL for good franchises - that's the Blues (with their 20+ year PO run and now back to being a serious threat), that's Washington (from the Poile days to the Ovechkin-led occasional contender), that's COL (battling DET in some brutal PO series for a few years, then a run with some aging stars, now rebuilt)... I could go on with several more examples, but honestly, any of these teams that are good for a run of 8 or 10 years - how many are they really legitimate cup threats? (not too mention a thing like a #8 seed Edmonton making a run over all those "contenders")

We've pointed out money/big-market does not cure all. Toronto may be on the right path now, but they've been miserable for a LONG time. Montreal too. The Rangers - thrown a lot of money around for a long time and now when they get a star to take a below-market contract and come there they're contending - but sustained as a legitimate cup contender?

*IF* it's about "competitive balance" for Suter and Weber it's about the fact that we're stuck in the same division with DET and CHI and SL. DET is who they are, CHI will have Toews and Kane during Webs/Sutes entire careers. SL has built themselves into Nashville with a few more bucks to spend so their depth can be a little stronger or they can afford to take on a late-career guy to fill lower spot where we have to go with a kid.

So - here they are - in a low profile market. Adored and comfortable, but maybe not quite as respected as they should be. Certainly don't get the options outside of hockey they'd get in CAN or the big markets - the endorsements, etc. Pretty much on a team that will be in the POs for the foreseeable future which - unless you're in DET (and maybe SJ and PHI) - is all you can ask. The market options for a cup? Well, they have to go to a team with stars that have signed below-market long-term contracts otherwise - year-in and year-out - just not any kinda' guarantee that they're gonna' be any more competitive than we are. Seems to me the only thing you can say for those other "regularly competitive" teams is they have a few more bucks to spend so MAYBE they can sign an aged FA or make a trade for a rental that we really can't. Offset to that - we've got a pretty good history of growing kids through the system.

In the end, it's their choice. 600+ guys in the NHL all wanna' win a cup - 23 of them gonna' do that in any given year. PK signs in SL and they're miserable. Sully signs in Pits and they've got mounting injury issues. Ward goes to WSH and they implode and fire the coach. ANA woulda' looked like a good destination this past year, wouldn't they? Very few guarantees. To me, the difference for Webs/Sutes is in Nashville, they're expected to lead, be the example, not just the superstar that puts the team over-the-top, but brings along the kids and helps them all learn. Maybe they're just not cut-out for that?
+1 +2 +3 and +4

very well stated. Completely agree.

Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
Even if Poile knows for 100% certainty that Suter isn't going to re-sign, I would still want to keep him for our playoff run. Trading him would likely only net futures that do nothing for our club now.
Disagree. What if we get a serviceable dman, a high-draft pick, AND a skilled top 6 forward for Suter? Don't we end up better off in that respect?

We fill a top 6 forward, we get a vet dman that can play over Boullion/Hillen, and get a high-draft pick for the future. To me, you HAVE to give up Suter if he hasn't signed by the trade deadline. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. A good GM of a company realizes that he can't give up his assets for nothing. Otherwise, you'd take a loss for the year. This situation is the same... You can't lose Suter for nothing - that leaves a HUGE hole to fill with nothing to get in return.

utmfisher19 is offline   Reply With Quote