Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-08-2012, 11:01 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Originally Posted by
OK, I have to ask for a link/source for this.
The only trade we know of down here that came close was Dudley trading him and it was ownership who said no.
It was talked about here on the business board when the divorce of OK Hockey was being discussed. I think it was around the time that they got an extension from Palace Sports, who had been carrying $70MM loan to OK, iirc.
People also denied that Palace was trying to sell Tampa before OK bought the team, but that was a one line item at the bottom of a Damien Cox article, which of course was dismissed as sensationalistic journalism. (In other words, it only made the rounds on the business board because our regulars pick up on that type of thing.)
That's not the point though. Do you think that 7-8 yr contract lengths would adversely affect franchise values? Keep in mind that the only guys who will likely get the max contracts as a matter of routine would be the elite players.
Secondly-- if it is that important, why is the league willing to go to 7? It's either a risk or drag on franchise values or it's not. It's not a risk for a home team at 7 yrs, but is a hill to die on for 5 yrs otherwise?
Who comes up with this stuff? Hollywood drama writers?
You can also tell me if you think Tampa's value was hurt by having Lecavalier's contract on the books when Vinik bought the team-- in your own opinion.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fugu