HFBoards

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

Nashville - Small Market Club

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2012, 01:51 PM
  #1
luckofirish8
Registered User
 
luckofirish8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Nashville - Small Market Club

IMO if Nashville doesnít match the Weber offer, and I donít know if they should or shouldnít, then the owners are effectively admitting that Nashville can't compete with the bigger clubs financially. No real shock and fair enoughÖI have no problem with being a small market club. However, we need to start acting one.

Small market professional franchises (SMC) can and have been successful in other major sports by embracing what they are. In order to be a successful SMC, you usually have to draft well (which we do) and be a forward/quick thinking team that tries to resign young players to long-term deals (not so much...think Tampa Bay Rays from the MLB) very early in the process. If those players opt not to resign they get traded at the height of their value for picks or a group of young prospects. No questions asked, and no hard feelings. Itís the nature of being a SMC. If done right, it can be endless cycle that leads to long-term success within certain budget constraints.

No, it isnít the sexy thing to say or admit, but you as a SMC can be success operating this way. Donít blow smoke about being a cap team when we likely wonít even make the cap floor at this point. Don't let youíre top assets walking out the front door with little or nothing to show for it. What good do these things bring to the franchise.

The Predators should be selling what they we are and what they have been. The underdog SMC that scraps their way to wins and usually makes the playoffs. Most people/fans like the underdog and occasionally the perfect storm of factors leads to a championship. There is nothing wrong with being a SMC. Hell, in some cases it makes the wins even sweeter.

However, there is something very wrong with acting like you arenít a SMC when you havenít really shown the means to be anything else. Whether thatís because you canít convince players to stay or you donít actually have the financial means to do so. Things can change of course, but for the time being IMO we should employ a SCM mentality of moving star caliber players along at the height of their value if they donít want to be here long term.

As is the case with everything, some will be opposed to my train of thought here (and that is your right). I also know this type of mentality can be very taxing on everyone (front office, coaches, players, and fans), but if done right you can see annual success.

Thoughts and/or varying opinions welcomed.

luckofirish8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 01:55 PM
  #2
glenngineer
Registered User
 
glenngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckofirish8 View Post
IMO if Nashville doesnít match the Weber offer, and I donít know if they should or shouldnít, then the owners are effectively admitting that Nashville can't compete with the bigger clubs financially. No real shock and fair enoughÖI have no problem with being a small market club. However, we need to start acting one.

Small market professional franchises (SMC) can and have been successful in other major sports by embracing what they are. In order to be a successful SMC, you usually have to draft well (which we do) and be a forward/quick thinking team that tries to resign young players to long-term deals (not so much...think Tampa Bay Rays from the MLB) very early in the process. If those players opt not to resign they get traded at the height of their value for picks or a group of young prospects. No questions asked, and no hard feelings. Itís the nature of being a SMC. If done right, it can be endless cycle that leads to long-term success within certain budget constraints.

No, it isnít the sexy thing to say or admit, but you as a SMC can be success operating this way. Donít blow smoke about being a cap team when we likely wonít even make the cap floor at this point. Don't let youíre top assets walking out the front door with little or nothing to show for it. What good do these things bring to the franchise.

The Predators should be selling what they we are and what they have been. The underdog SMC that scraps their way to wins and usually makes the playoffs. Most people/fans like the underdog and occasionally the perfect storm of factors leads to a championship. There is nothing wrong with being a SMC. Hell, in some cases it makes the wins even sweeter.

However, there is something very wrong with acting like you arenít a SMC when you havenít really shown the means to be anything else. Whether thatís because you canít convince players to stay or you donít actually have the financial means to do so. Things can change of course, but for the time being IMO we should employ a SCM mentality of moving star caliber players along at the height of their value if they donít want to be here long term.

As is the case with everything, some will be opposed to my train of thought here (and that is your right). I also know this type of mentality can be very taxing on everyone (front office, coaches, players, and fans), but if done right you can see annual success.

Thoughts and/or varying opinions welcomed.
Spot on.

glenngineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 01:58 PM
  #3
Perro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
I think Nashville can handle the cap hit, it's the amount of $$ up front that they really need to think about. Especially if there is no season next year as Weber still gets that money.

Perro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:17 PM
  #4
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 500
$27million due across 50 weeks is the tough part to fit in.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:28 PM
  #5
RaiderDoug
Registered User
 
RaiderDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Knoxville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Don't disagree one bit.

The fact is, the Preds said they were going to have a big boy payroll, let their players play out their contracts like the big boys do, and when it came down to putting the money out like the big boys do, it's all hemming and hawing and we can't afford this and that.


I mentioned it a few weeks ago, if you're not going to compete with the big boys, then you can't let your players get anywhere near attracting a big boy contract. If that means you have to buy out some of their years, then so be it.

I like you analogy of the Tampa Bay Rays, and it's exactly what I mentioned a few weeks ago. If Evan Longoria had even sniffed FA status, he'd be a yankee or Red Sox, but the Rays locked him up for years, and did so by having to pay a little bit more up front.

Now look at what we're doing with some of our RFA's like Colin Wilson. I still have alot of faith in this guy. He appears to be our best shot at a difference making forward, along with Craig Smith. Yes, we could save a buck by lowballing them and threatening Arb and all sorts of stuff. Or you could give them a contract that would keep them Preds for the next 6 years, even if you have to pay a little more on the front end.

This front office has completely blown it. I don't know if they deserve another shot at screwing it up again.

RaiderDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:05 PM
  #6
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,957
vCash: 500
I don't agree with your big boy theory. There have not been any contracts like Weber's until July 4. These bonuses are the issue and they haven't been up front in the other contracts (except Suter and Parise) and they haven't paid out that much money in one calendar year without a CBA.

To me standing up and being one of the big boys means you're willing to pay top dollar for talent. The Preds have shown that they are willing to do that. It's this unusual cash structure that is the problem not the contract size.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:22 PM
  #7
KevFist
is best pony
 
KevFist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham, AL
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 5,100
vCash: 500
I don't think it says that Nashville can't compete with the bigger clubs. I do think it says ownership did a risk/reward evaluation, and that's the solution they came up with.

Think about it this way.... What if Shea Weber were to turn into our own version of Rick DiPietro? Not only do you have around $7.5 million tied up in annual cap room, but you have all that bonus money tied up in virtual cap money. If ownership is commited to spending more money, then that money needs to be spent on actual players, not tied up in one player's bonus. It's not like ownership's going to magically churn up the bonus cash without having it effect payroll cap spending.

besides, one player doesn't win a cup.

KevFist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:23 PM
  #8
headsigh
leave at once!
 
headsigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Atlanta
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 9,857
vCash: 500
I hope we're more Tampa Bay Rays than Oakland A's.

headsigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:25 PM
  #9
RaiderDoug
Registered User
 
RaiderDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Knoxville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
I don't agree with your big boy theory. There have not been any contracts like Weber's until July 4. These bonuses are the issue and they haven't been up front in the other contracts (except Suter and Parise) and they haven't paid out that much money in one calendar year without a CBA.

To me standing up and being one of the big boys means you're willing to pay top dollar for talent. The Preds have shown that they are willing to do that. It's this unusual cash structure that is the problem not the contract size.
If the Preds don't match the Weber deal, then they're obviously not willing (or able) to pay top dollar for talent.

Any team can say "yes, we'll spend money, but it has to be under a very specific set of circumstances that are favorable to us".

But the market doesn't work like that. Players will go out and seek top dollar, and more often than not the Preds will be competiting with the big markets. This won't be the last time this happens.

The Preds keep saying they're willing to spend - but they never actually do, and we're going to have a cap floor team for the foreseeable future. So be it, but then the team needs to stop chirping about how we're going to resign this guy and we intend to go and get this free agent and build the team this way, yakety yak.

If you're cheap, just say you're cheap.

RaiderDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:28 PM
  #10
Firestorm
Registered User
 
Firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada Eh?
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by transcend View Post
I hope we're more Tampa Bay Rays than Oakland A's.
Or the Kansas City Royals...

Firestorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:34 PM
  #11
RaiderDoug
Registered User
 
RaiderDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Knoxville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFist View Post
I don't think it says that Nashville can't compete with the bigger clubs. I do think it says ownership did a risk/reward evaluation, and that's the solution they came up with.

Think about it this way.... What if Shea Weber were to turn into our own version of Rick DiPietro? Not only do you have around $7.5 million tied up in annual cap room, but you have all that bonus money tied up in virtual cap money. If ownership is commited to spending more money, then that money needs to be spent on actual players, not tied up in one player's bonus. It's not like ownership's going to magically churn up the bonus cash without having it effect payroll cap spending.

besides, one player doesn't win a cup.
Two things - I admit that there's a tremendous amount of risk involved, but there's risk involved in everything.

Suppose he stays healthy, wins multiple Norris Trophys, and one spring Rinne gets hot, we hit on a few young forwards, and we bring home a cup. Would that be worth it?



Next, if ownership is committed to spending more money, where is it?

We had holes on this team prior to Weber/Suter. Where was the money spent? Am I supposed to believe, that, for like the 4th consecutive free agency period - that there was absolutely not one single player that could have helped us?

If we're truly committed to spending more money, how come we hover around the cap floor every single year?

Let's face it, if guys like Weber/Suter really believed that we were a franchise that was truly going to go all out every year to win a cup, they'd still be here.

RaiderDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:39 PM
  #12
vandyfan84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 500
vCash: 500
Very good post.

The Rays are the model small market team.

vandyfan84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:45 PM
  #13
PFL615
Registered User
 
PFL615's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Smashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raiderdoug View Post
don't disagree one bit.

The fact is, the preds said they were going to have a big boy payroll, let their players play out their contracts like the big boys do, and when it came down to putting the money out like the big boys do, it's all hemming and hawing and we can't afford this and that.


I mentioned it a few weeks ago, if you're not going to compete with the big boys, then you can't let your players get anywhere near attracting a big boy contract. If that means you have to buy out some of their years, then so be it.

I like you analogy of the tampa bay rays, and it's exactly what i mentioned a few weeks ago. If evan longoria had even sniffed fa status, he'd be a yankee or red sox, but the rays locked him up for years, and did so by having to pay a little bit more up front.

Now look at what we're doing with some of our rfa's like colin wilson. I still have alot of faith in this guy. He appears to be our best shot at a difference making forward, along with craig smith. Yes, we could save a buck by lowballing them and threatening arb and all sorts of stuff. Or you could give them a contract that would keep them preds for the next 6 years, even if you have to pay a little more on the front end.

this front office has completely blown it. I don't know if they deserve another shot at screwing it up again.
amen!!!!!

PFL615 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:46 PM
  #14
token grinder
Registered User
 
token grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherHockeyFan View Post
Or the Kansas City Royals...
I challenge you to a fist fight if we ever meet.

token grinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:52 PM
  #15
PFL615
Registered User
 
PFL615's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Smashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
I don't agree with your big boy theory. There have not been any contracts like Weber's until July 4. These bonuses are the issue and they haven't been up front in the other contracts (except Suter and Parise) and they haven't paid out that much money in one calendar year without a CBA.

To me standing up and being one of the big boys means you're willing to pay top dollar for talent. The Preds have shown that they are willing to do that. It's this unusual cash structure that is the problem not the contract size.
Management has known the CBA was coming and they knew the terms of Ryan Suter and Shea Weber contract. What happened this summer is no big surprise and is just another way preds fans are trying to excuse this horrible job done by David Poile. It's sickening.

PFL615 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:59 PM
  #16
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderDoug View Post
If the Preds don't match the Weber deal, then they're obviously not willing (or able) to pay top dollar for talent.

Any team can say "yes, we'll spend money, but it has to be under a very specific set of circumstances that are favorable to us".

But the market doesn't work like that. Players will go out and seek top dollar, and more often than not the Preds will be competiting with the big markets. This won't be the last time this happens.

The Preds keep saying they're willing to spend - but they never actually do, and we're going to have a cap floor team for the foreseeable future. So be it, but then the team needs to stop chirping about how we're going to resign this guy and we intend to go and get this free agent and build the team this way, yakety yak.

If you're cheap, just say you're cheap.
Being willing or able to pay for top talent is one thing ... being willing or able in this particular structure is something else.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:04 PM
  #17
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smashville615 View Post
Management has known the CBA was coming and they knew the terms of Ryan Suter and Shea Weber contract. What happened this summer is no big surprise and is just another way preds fans are trying to excuse this horrible job done by David Poile. It's sickening.
Name one contract under this CBA that contained $20mil plus in signing bonuses in the first two years. Name one that contained $50mil + in total signing bonuses.

It's easy to to demand others spend their money in the way you want.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:07 PM
  #18
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Right behind you....
Country: United States
Posts: 5,674
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
Name one contract under this CBA that contained $20mil plus in signing bonuses in the first two years. Name one that contained $50mil + in total signing bonuses.

It's easy to to demand others spend their money in the way you want.
Both Parise and Suter's?

Year 1: $2 million base + $10 million bonus
Year 2: $2 million base + $10 million bonus

MuckOG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:33 PM
  #19
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderDoug View Post
If the Preds don't match the Weber deal, then they're obviously not willing (or able) to pay top dollar for talent.

Any team can say "yes, we'll spend money, but it has to be under a very specific set of circumstances that are favorable to us".

But the market doesn't work like that. Players will go out and seek top dollar, and more often than not the Preds will be competiting with the big markets. This won't be the last time this happens.

The Preds keep saying they're willing to spend - but they never actually do, and we're going to have a cap floor team for the foreseeable future. So be it, but then the team needs to stop chirping about how we're going to resign this guy and we intend to go and get this free agent and build the team this way, yakety yak.

If you're cheap, just say you're cheap.
I agree that there will always be top dollar players but I believe that we'll never see again the long term, bonus up front contracts we've just seen. And this is the FIRST time these kind of contracts have been seen in the NHL. That's why Weber's agent said that July 4 made a difference in their perspective on the negotiations. No one had ever front loaded bonuses like this before and I believe that this will never happen again after the new CBA.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:35 PM
  #20
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderDoug View Post
Let's face it, if guys like Weber/Suter really believed that we were a franchise that was truly going to go all out every year to win a cup, they'd still be here.
I don't agree. Would you really give up a chance to get $26 million in bonuses over two years? 13 and 14 years are very long times and the opportunity to win a cup might come for either time in that length of time. With some of the prospects the Wild have they could be good (or they might not)?

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:37 PM
  #21
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smashville615 View Post
Management has known the CBA was coming and they knew the terms of Ryan Suter and Shea Weber contract. What happened this summer is no big surprise and is just another way preds fans are trying to excuse this horrible job done by David Poile. It's sickening.
Management did know CBA negotiations were coming. No one saw the kind of contracts that Suter and Weber got. Total dollars and length, maybe, but not the front end bonuses.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:38 PM
  #22
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG View Post
Both Parise and Suter's?

Year 1: $2 million base + $10 million bonus
Year 2: $2 million base + $10 million bonus
I do believe he was talking about before July 4. And there weren't any to answer the question.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:17 PM
  #23
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG View Post
Both Parise and Suter's?

Year 1: $2 million base + $10 million bonus
Year 2: $2 million base + $10 million bonus
Prior to this summer ... since his contention is that this summer's deal are no surprise. Those types of contracts remain the exception as it is.

And the total prior to this summer remains at ..... zero.

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:20 PM
  #24
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 500
For the STH here ... how many of you pay up front for your tickets?

101st_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:28 PM
  #25
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
 
101st_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Some Army fort
Country: United States
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderDoug View Post

Next, if ownership is committed to spending more money, where is it?
Being able to afford the $110mil spread more evenly or the annual money spread over the course of the year is one thing .. you can afford it in that structure. All at once is an issue.

It's not much different than a STH who can afford tickets on a payment plan, but can't afford to cough up that much cash when signing up for the tickets.

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 03:44 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.