HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Notices

Who else...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2011, 12:39 PM
  #26
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
The team can rent a temporary dehumidification system out of their own money or Metro can fund a permanent capital improvement at the cost of several million tax dollars. Metro's share of the operating losses for the arena are capped as long as the team receives the increased management fee.

At least now I know where the lunatics who post on the Tennessean get the impression that the Preds and their fans are just looking to spend tax dollars on the team.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 01:59 PM
  #27
WartracePred
Registered User
 
WartracePred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
The team can rent a temporary dehumidification system out of their own money or Metro can fund a permanent capital improvement at the cost of several million tax dollars. Metro's share of the operating losses for the arena are capped as long as the team receives the increased management fee.

At least now I know where the lunatics who post on the Tennessean get the impression that the Preds and their fans are just looking to spend tax dollars on the team.
Haha, maybe so. My nonsensical comments are a knee jerk reaction to the lunatics that are against any public dollars used for sports-based businesses. It's called hyperbole. I love to goad lunatics.

Anyway, I guess the Preds will have to fork over a little money for a temporary solution. And honestly, if I had to chose between a million dollar humidifier and raises for school teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc... I'd choose the latter. My wife and her sister are teachers, and my father-in-law a retired principal. See there, I can be civic minded.

WartracePred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 02:41 PM
  #28
utmfisher19
Registered User
 
utmfisher19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Country: United States
Posts: 919
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to utmfisher19 Send a message via MSN to utmfisher19 Send a message via Yahoo to utmfisher19
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
this team just flat out cannot afford to spend even 4 million on a second pair defenseman.
They could with the minimum 2M+ more they'd be making from the playoffs. Then subtract out a Dman off of our team -- O'Brien or Boullion. And (if you really want to get adventurous) if we still couldn't afford it, we can say we wouldn't have signed Lombardi if we kept Hamhuis; and you have your affordability.

utmfisher19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 04:06 PM
  #29
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCpredator View Post
Haha, maybe so. My nonsensical comments are a knee jerk reaction to the lunatics that are against any public dollars used for sports-based businesses. It's called hyperbole. I love to goad lunatics.

Anyway, I guess the Preds will have to fork over a little money for a temporary solution. And honestly, if I had to chose between a million dollar humidifier and raises for school teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc... I'd choose the latter. My wife and her sister are teachers, and my father-in-law a retired principal. See there, I can be civic minded.
I'm not a big fan of 100% taxpayer funded arenas and stadiums. Cities tend to build the facility first, then try to figure out how to fill it so it generates some money. Look at how much money Nashville spent to get the Predators as part of the franchise fee on top of the $144mil to build the building. Before the Preds played a game, the city spent over $170mil ... then several million per year in operating costs and management fees ... another couple mil for a new HD scoreboard .... it adds up.

On top of that, when they built the arena it was done with an inefficient AC system which lacks a dehumidifier ... another several million dollars to upgrade even if they keep the inefficient current AC system and install dehumidifiers.

But, the building is built and needs a tenant to bring people through the turnstiles on a consistent basis. The concessions to keep the team cost the city less than an empty building would ... in our case at least, I'm not so sure about in Glendale. A lot of the people against the arena and the Preds have concerns that were valid before the building was constructed. A lot of the points brought up around the time of the sale would have been valid had they been presented before the building was approved, funded, and constructed. Once those events happened the focus needed to change to maximizing use of the facility, not if a publicly funded facility is a good idea.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 04:18 PM
  #30
token grinder
Registered User
 
token grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by utmfisher19 View Post
They could with the minimum 2M+ more they'd be making from the playoffs. Then subtract out a Dman off of our team -- O'Brien or Boullion. And (if you really want to get adventurous) if we still couldn't afford it, we can say we wouldn't have signed Lombardi if we kept Hamhuis; and you have your affordability.
damn dirty logic. keep that out of here

token grinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 05:44 PM
  #31
nine_inch_fang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to nine_inch_fang
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
Not sure I understand this. There will have to be a dehumidifying system installed between the first and second rounds? Or by the following year?
It would have had to have been installed for those playoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
Those capital improvements require layers of Metro approval. They've been discussed and the city isn't willing to spend the money right now on improvements that aren't show stoppers. If the team were to advance to the second or third round they would have to contract temporary dehumidification systems to keep the arena playable.
I don't know who or how it was being paid for but the permanent desiccant de-humidification system was on order and would have been shipped if the Preds won the series.

nine_inch_fang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 05:49 PM
  #32
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by utmfisher19 View Post
They could with the minimum 2M+ more they'd be making from the playoffs. Then subtract out a Dman off of our team -- O'Brien or Boullion. And (if you really want to get adventurous) if we still couldn't afford it, we can say we wouldn't have signed Lombardi if we kept Hamhuis; and you have your affordability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by token grinder View Post
damn dirty logic. keep that out of here
We can't spend past the cap mid-point AFAIK (full revenue sharing), and inserting Hammer's $4.5M price tag in for Bouillon/SOB puts us over. No way we don't sign someone like Lombardi to fill the vacant center position. Before the season started, ORLY seemed like a long shot to even make the team let alone be our #1 center and Goc was/is viewed as a 3rd liner who can fill in in a pinch.

I have a hard time believing that Hamhuis would still be here because of a single playoff series win... 1) He's not worth what he was asking, 2) We can't afford a $4M+ dman on the 2nd pairing even with the extra income, 3) We're better off without him, 4) I got the impression that Hamhuis wanted out of Nashville anyway

I suppose it's possible that a series win puts us off full revenue sharing, but I don't think we're stable enough yet to fully support ourselves. If we qualify for revenue sharing, we will take it.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 06:13 PM
  #33
WartracePred
Registered User
 
WartracePred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
I'm not a big fan of 100% taxpayer funded arenas and stadiums. Cities tend to build the facility first, then try to figure out how to fill it so it generates some money. Look at how much money Nashville spent to get the Predators as part of the franchise fee on top of the $144mil to build the building. Before the Preds played a game, the city spent over $170mil ... then several million per year in operating costs and management fees ... another couple mil for a new HD scoreboard .... it adds up.
At the time the arena was built Mayor Bredesen was doing everything he could to bring a big league team to town. So the taxpayers footed the bill for a multi-use arena that would be used primarily for either a NBA or NHL team. The question is why. What benefit would the city receive for the investment? Was it just a feather in Bredesen's cap? Or did he think the economic impact of a professional sports team would eventually pay for the investment? I hear arguments on both sides of the aisle.

Pundits have always lauded Bredesen's business savvy. And since I'm a huge sports fan, I tend to believe the arguments espoused by the former mayor's office. That the economic impact of the Nashville Predators, including the use of the arena for concerts, basketball tourneys, arena football, etc... would be worth the cost of building and maintaining it. There is no way to put an exact figure on the tax dollars generated from hotels, restaurants, bars, parking lots, and other retail outlets that have gotten a boost from foot traffic to the arena. But the project was approved and carried to fruition based on these assumptions.

WartracePred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 08:21 PM
  #34
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCpredator View Post
At the time the arena was built Mayor Bredesen was doing everything he could to bring a big league team to town. So the taxpayers footed the bill for a multi-use arena that would be used primarily for either a NBA or NHL team. The question is why. What benefit would the city receive for the investment? Was it just a feather in Bredesen's cap? Or did he think the economic impact of a professional sports team would eventually pay for the investment? I hear arguments on both sides of the aisle.

Pundits have always lauded Bredesen's business savvy. And since I'm a huge sports fan, I tend to believe the arguments espoused by the former mayor's office. That the economic impact of the Nashville Predators, including the use of the arena for concerts, basketball tourneys, arena football, etc... would be worth the cost of building and maintaining it. There is no way to put an exact figure on the tax dollars generated from hotels, restaurants, bars, parking lots, and other retail outlets that have gotten a boost from foot traffic to the arena. But the project was approved and carried to fruition based on these assumptions.
The debt service is over $12mil per year ... totaling about $27mil before the Preds played their first game. The operating and management expenses for Metro are over $7mil per year. Basically $20mil per year for the arena. There is also the cost of the Sports Authority .. the creation of which was required for Metro to receive a higher percentage of the sales taxes generated by professional sports teams in a publicly funded facility.

The Preds generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $3mil per year in sales tax on tickets and seat use fees. Total taxes for hockey events were around $2.6mil in 05-06 and 06-07, including concessions, etc. I haven't run the numbers for non-hockey events since the sale, but, pre-sale each hockey game generated around 9-10x the sales tax revenue of a non-hockey event. Basically, the surrounding businesses would have to generate somewhere in the neighborhood of 3x the tax revenue as the arena does per event for the building to break even.

The situation is worse for the financing of the stadium across the river. The sales tax law which provides for the higher rate to Metro specifically excludes the Titans since state funding was also used for LP.

There are intangibles that come with a sports team, but, the pure financials don't match the sales pitch.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 08:51 PM
  #35
WartracePred
Registered User
 
WartracePred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
There are intangibles that come with a sports team, but, the pure financials don't match the sales pitch.
What about marketing expenses, TV contracts, million dollar homes purchased and sold, and players salaries spent in the area each year. Our payroll is around 40 million annually. I know I'm reaching a little, but these expenditures are directly tied to a professional sports franchise.

Ultimately, did Bredesen believe that much in the intangibles? Or were his proformas that far off? I own a multi-unit pizza franchise, pouring over daily revenues and expenses. With the bottom line you've described, I would never have entered the project.

WartracePred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2011, 09:06 PM
  #36
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCpredator View Post
What about marketing expenses, TV contracts, million dollar homes purchased and sold, and players salaries spent in the area each year. Our payroll is around 40 million annually. I know I'm reaching a little, but these expenditures are directly tied to a professional sports franchise.

Ultimately, did Bredesen believe that much in the intangibles? Or were his proformas that far off? I own a multi-unit pizza franchise, pouring over daily revenues and expenses. With the bottom line you've described, I would never have entered the project.
And there lies the rub of 100% publicly funded facilities. You have to sell the intangibles and accept the cost of the arena as essentially the cost of doing business that you'll never see recouped. The time to have those discussions is before the project is started, not after it's built. Once it's built it comes down to maximizing use and taxes generated from the facility to minimize losses. The expense of sporting facilities has made it so private enterprise is unwilling to fund them. When it comes to publicly funding them there are two very vocal extremes with competing studies that extol their view but don't stand up to much scrutiny. The masses in the middle complain if there isn't a sports team, then complain if their taxes go up and only notice when there is big news.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 11:23 AM
  #37
utmfisher19
Registered User
 
utmfisher19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Country: United States
Posts: 919
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to utmfisher19 Send a message via MSN to utmfisher19 Send a message via Yahoo to utmfisher19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
We can't spend past the cap mid-point AFAIK (full revenue sharing), and inserting Hammer's $4.5M price tag in for Bouillon/SOB puts us over. No way we don't sign someone like Lombardi to fill the vacant center position. Before the season started, ORLY seemed like a long shot to even make the team let alone be our #1 center and Goc was/is viewed as a 3rd liner who can fill in in a pinch.
Hamhuis was asking for less than 4.5M to stay here. Oh, and we saved $1M by signing Lombardi and trading Arnott. So we saved ourselves 1.5M for O'Brien, and 1M from Arnott, plus 2M+ revenue from playoffs. That is your 4.5M without even breaking a sweat, and he would have stayed here for less...

Refute it if you like, but there is plenty of room for him on this roster.

utmfisher19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 01:17 PM
  #38
deanwormer
Registered User
 
deanwormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by utmfisher19 View Post
Hamhuis was asking for less than 4.5M to stay here. Oh, and we saved $1M by signing Lombardi and trading Arnott. So we saved ourselves 1.5M for O'Brien, and 1M from Arnott, plus 2M+ revenue from playoffs. That is your 4.5M without even breaking a sweat, and he would have stayed here for less...

Refute it if you like, but there is plenty of room for him on this roster.
If there would be an issue, seems it would be length of contract. Those numbers work for this year and maybe next, but at some point we run up against needing to pay Suter. Given we got the kids coming up, and Klein to grow into a #3, do you really sign Hammer to that contract for more than 2 years? Even if you go 3yrs, if you're Hammer, do you take that?

deanwormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 02:33 PM
  #39
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by utmfisher19 View Post
Hamhuis was asking for less than 4.5M to stay here. Oh, and we saved $1M by signing Lombardi and trading Arnott. So we saved ourselves 1.5M for O'Brien, and 1M from Arnott, plus 2M+ revenue from playoffs. That is your 4.5M without even breaking a sweat, and he would have stayed here for less...

Refute it if you like, but there is plenty of room for him on this roster.
I'm sorry, but those numbers do not make sense. Look at where we are right now: We have $750,000K in cap space. Replace SOB with Hammer and we go over the cap. I'm not sure why you are including Lombardi in the equation... he was going to be signed regardless of our situation on D.

This isn't a money problem. I can see that we would have the money. It is a cap problem since we can't spend past the midpoint. There would have to be significant roster moves in order to fit Hammer. You can say there is plenty of room for him, but the numbers do not support your theory.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 05:48 PM
  #40
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
I'm sorry, but those numbers do not make sense. Look at where we are right now: We have $750,000K in cap space. Replace SOB with Hammer and we go over the cap. I'm not sure why you are including Lombardi in the equation... he was going to be signed regardless of our situation on D.

This isn't a money problem. I can see that we would have the money. It is a cap problem since we can't spend past the midpoint. There would have to be significant roster moves in order to fit Hammer. You can say there is plenty of room for him, but the numbers do not support your theory.
Considering that somewhere in the neighborhood of $750k-$1.3mil in cap room gets freed when the kids don't qualify for bonuses, we're not as tight on the midpoint as it looks at first glance.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 05:53 PM
  #41
canucks95
Registered User
 
canucks95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Portugal
Posts: 346
vCash: 500
I've never trolled before, but i'll give it a shot

If you think Hamhuis left Nashville for the money, you are crazy, it had nothing to do with going to a team which is one of the best in the league, and close to home? He could've gotten upwards of $5M elsewhere.

And I've got to say, from watching Hamhuis so far, I LOVE what he brings, he moves the puck up the ice well, has a decent shot from the point, is very solid defensively, and does not shy away from contact. He does make a noticeable mistake every 2nd game or so, but hey, for what he brings to the table, I can take it.

And yes, I realize that you guys don't have a need for Hamhuis as you are among the best at producing d-men, it seems out of nowhere sometimes, don't trash the guy just because he wanted a fresh start elsewhere, he is a real solid player, and worth every penny of the 4.5M.

IMO.

canucks95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 05:56 PM
  #42
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
Considering that somewhere in the neighborhood of $750k-$1.3mil in cap room gets freed when the kids don't qualify for bonuses, we're not as tight on the midpoint as it looks at first glance.
Even if they qualify for zero bonuses (unlikely), still 1 million over the midpoint.

Hamhuis was gone no matter what. He's not worth the money he wanted.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 07:01 PM
  #43
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
Even if they qualify for zero bonuses (unlikely), still 1 million over the midpoint.

Hamhuis was gone no matter what. He's not worth the money he wanted.
He isn't worth it for our club. League wide, his salary isn't that out of line.

Of course if we did sign him, we probably don't sign Hornqvist at over $3mil per year after just one good season. We may or may not have brought in Lombardi. It could be done, but it would have taken Poile taking a few different actions during the offseason. It's a fallacy to believe that Y and Z would happen the same if X (Hamhuis) was different.

Which of the possible bonuses do you think the kids might qualify for? They need to pick up the pace to qualify for most of them.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 07:43 PM
  #44
jcupp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hermitage
Country: United States
Posts: 195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks95 View Post
I've never trolled before, but i'll give it a shot

If you think Hamhuis left Nashville for the money, you are crazy, it had nothing to do with going to a team which is one of the best in the league, and close to home? He could've gotten upwards of $5M elsewhere.

And I've got to say, from watching Hamhuis so far, I LOVE what he brings, he moves the puck up the ice well, has a decent shot from the point, is very solid defensively, and does not shy away from contact. He does make a noticeable mistake every 2nd game or so, but hey, for what he brings to the table, I can take it.

And yes, I realize that you guys don't have a need for Hamhuis as you are among the best at producing d-men, it seems out of nowhere sometimes, don't trash the guy just because he wanted a fresh start elsewhere, he is a real solid player, and worth every penny of the 4.5M.

IMO.

Since when is money not a big part of anything? I'm sure money played a big part. I'm not saying he didn' t want move, but my guess money is a major reason kids want to play in the NHL.

Granted, I have only seen very little of Vancouver' s games this year, but Hammers play seems a lot better than he played here last year.

jcupp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 09:37 AM
  #45
utmfisher19
Registered User
 
utmfisher19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Country: United States
Posts: 919
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to utmfisher19 Send a message via MSN to utmfisher19 Send a message via Yahoo to utmfisher19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
I'm sorry, but those numbers do not make sense. Look at where we are right now: We have $750,000K in cap space. Replace SOB with Hammer and we go over the cap. I'm not sure why you are including Lombardi in the equation... he was going to be signed regardless of our situation on D.
I keep bringing in Lombardi because we SAVED 1M in that situation. Followed by the extra 2M+ we would get from the 2nd round of the playoffs, minus the 1.5M salary from O'Brien and with Hamhuis 4.5M, we DON'T go over the cap. Btw, if we kept Hammer, we wouldn't have felt the need to resign Boullion for our 2nd pairing and just used Franson and Sulzer as our 3rd pairing.

Speaking of salaries, Hamhuis was going to sign here for less than 4.5M. His wife LOVES it here and wives have a TON of pull to what cities players in. Again, you can disagree all you want. But to say that it is not possible is not true. This is my last post about it. But, we didn't trade him at the deadline because we told him, 'Get us to the 2nd round and you will stay. Otherwise, we can't afford you' -- fact.


Last edited by utmfisher19: 01-07-2011 at 09:46 AM.
utmfisher19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 10:17 AM
  #46
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,047
vCash: 500
Hamhuis had his reasons to leave that were not money related. The first being closer to his family, I believe I read Marty (Dan's Dad) was diagnosed with cancer awhile back, not positive on that though.

He also wanted to play a bigger role and was not going to get that in Nashville as long as Suter and Weber were here.

Money though was an issue. Predators can't afford to pay big dollars to a 3rd defenseman.

triggrman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 12:39 PM
  #47
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by utmfisher19 View Post
I keep bringing in Lombardi because we SAVED 1M in that situation. Followed by the extra 2M+ we would get from the 2nd round of the playoffs, minus the 1.5M salary from O'Brien and with Hamhuis 4.5M, we DON'T go over the cap. Btw, if we kept Hammer, we wouldn't have felt the need to resign Boullion for our 2nd pairing and just used Franson and Sulzer as our 3rd pairing.

Speaking of salaries, Hamhuis was going to sign here for less than 4.5M. His wife LOVES it here and wives have a TON of pull to what cities players in. Again, you can disagree all you want. But to say that it is not possible is not true. This is my last post about it. But, we didn't trade him at the deadline because we told him, 'Get us to the 2nd round and you will stay. Otherwise, we can't afford you' -- fact.
Yes, we saved 1M on Lombardi... and then immediately spent the money on Rinne/Hornqvist raises. The 1M from Lombardi does not affect a potential Hamhuis contract whatsoever. Extra 2M from playoff revenue is irrelevant in this discussion since we are talking about cap space. I really doubt Poile would comfortable with a Franson/Sulzer pairing. That is a recipe for disaster. Poile specifically went out and got a vet for Franson to play with.

Look, I totally respect your opinion. I never said it wasn't possible. But it just bothers me when people list rumors and claim them to be facts. Unless you can show me a link or source of Poile saying that, it is only a rumor.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 03:02 PM
  #48
cju1979
Radulov Convert
 
cju1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks95 View Post
I've never trolled before, but i'll give it a shot

If you think Hamhuis left Nashville for the money, you are crazy, it had nothing to do with going to a team which is one of the best in the league, and close to home? He could've gotten upwards of $5M elsewhere.

And I've got to say, from watching Hamhuis so far, I LOVE what he brings, he moves the puck up the ice well, has a decent shot from the point, is very solid defensively, and does not shy away from contact. He does make a noticeable mistake every 2nd game or so, but hey, for what he brings to the table, I can take it.

And yes, I realize that you guys don't have a need for Hamhuis as you are among the best at producing d-men, it seems out of nowhere sometimes, don't trash the guy just because he wanted a fresh start elsewhere, he is a real solid player, and worth every penny of the 4.5M.

IMO.
Dude, he went to Philly first if you indeed forgot and I am pretty damn sure he wasn't like "get me on a contender." We didn't want him to go to Van and even so, he's a pansy.


Last edited by Seth Lake: 01-07-2011 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Not tolerated language
cju1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 03:10 PM
  #49
cju1979
Radulov Convert
 
cju1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman View Post
Hamhuis had his reasons to leave that were not money related. The first being closer to his family, I believe I read Marty (Dan's Dad) was diagnosed with cancer awhile back, not positive on that though.

He also wanted to play a bigger role and was not going to get that in Nashville as long as Suter and Weber were here.
Money though was an issue. Predators can't afford to pay big dollars to a 3rd defenseman.
Bigger role?

He would still be behind...
Pronger, Carle, Mez, Coburn, Timmo
And is still behind
Bieksa, Erhoff, Edler (he only gets on the PP when Christian and Alex tire)

All I 'm saying is that he sucked here and GOOD RIDDANCE

cju1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 03:43 PM
  #50
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cju1979 View Post
Bigger role?

He would still be behind...
Pronger, Carle, Mez, Coburn, Timmo
And is still behind
Bieksa, Erhoff, Edler (he only gets on the PP when Christian and Alex tire)

All I 'm saying is that he sucked here and GOOD RIDDANCE
His rights were traded to Philly where he chose not to sign. Essentially we got Parent back for a piece we were going to lose anyway and then turned Parent and Andersson for SOB.

Hamhius is a very serviceable #3 d-man. Unfortunately for him we can't afford $3.5-4.5mil for a #3 and he moved on.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.