survival of the fittest my friend....its small teams owned by billionaires....you know who ends up paying for their poop the taxpayers....as in nashville the taxpayers are covering their loses.
- Philly1980

Exactly. If I start a business and it doesn't succeed, what happens?

would anyone do

the 11th + couturier for the 4th(nicushkin)?
- Philly1980

I would go 11th + Read + 2nd rounder next year for #4

what if you got back a extra second rounder?
- Philly1980

No.

Boston has more talent under contract, plus an albatross LTIR player in Savard, yet they still always seem to have enough cap flexibility to make deadline additions.

Ditto Pittsburgh, with their two $8.7M players, they've never been in cap "hell" like the Flyers have been, and always leave enough cap space to add key pieces down the stretch.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that Homer & Co. do a better job of working within their budget and being stingier during contract negotiations. I mean, this team is already over the cap, talking about buying guys out, and we're all still talking about throwing another ridiculous OS out there... and we wonder why this team can't seem to manage the cap constraints.
- Tomahawk

We don't exactly have the best track record at making deadline deals anyway, but I do agree that they need to manage the cap better just in case there is someone out there that can help.

No.
- BulliesPhan87

why not...

Exactly. If I start a business and it doesn't succeed, what happens?
- Jimmygrazz

All these godamn hippies caring about the poor teams in the league...

Here is my take on OS'ing RFA's....

Team A (say the flyers last season) has a particular interest in a teams RFA. Before going the OS route I think teams would at least inquire about the availability of said player.

Team B (say the preds last season) say that in order for us to trade said RFA, we need a huge return.. what the going rate would be at the least.

Team A then mulls it over and says, its too steep sorry, but we are probably going to be in contact with RFA. They contact player and come to terms.... Team A then says they have a pending deal with the RFA, but would still make a move if they dont qualify, to offset the loss.

Exactly. If I start a business and it doesn't succeed, what happens?
- Jimmygrazz

If you're going to oversimplify the situation, I imagine it will never make sense to you. Not to say I'm a big fan of having a bunch of financially weak teams in the league.

I agree with Bill's point on the "Gentleman's Agreement" with respect to the RFA system in place in the NHL. It's a complete joke and I'm glad Holmgren (and even Clarke) ignored it and went after assets to make the Flyers better. At the end of the day, a GM should be beholden to making his franchise better and not worrying about making nice.

That said, I hope the Flyers stay away from this year's crop of RFAs. St. Louis isn't Nashville, with respect to the size and strength of their market, and I don't think Bogosian is worth an offer sheet.
- johndewar

I'm less worried about the possibility of collusion behind the scenes and more interested in maybe seeing them amend the compensation schedule for RFA's.

IMO, the RFA market would be more liquid if the compensation wasn't written as a deterrent in the first place. With hockey being such a team game, and the marginal benefit of adding one piece at the cost of multiple future assets always a tricky equation long-term, currently only teams that are desperate and/or cavalier seem to be willing to brave the RFA route.

If the cost to tender an OS were lower across the board, you'd probably see a lot more low to mid-tier RFA movement.

why not...
- Philly1980

Why do you keep putting laugh faces in? Is this a joke?

But to answer your question, I'd rather have our excellent young defensive forward and the solid player we'll get at #11, than to spend both on one high quality player and a second round pick that'll probably equate to another Andreas Nodl.

All these godamn hippies caring about the poor teams in the league...
- Philly1980

Professional sports isnt like any other business. In most industries you'd be quite content if your major rivals struggled or went out of business.

Sports is an industry that has to have competition, and when you consider that it is important for the NHL to expand their revenue base as much as possible and to grab as much market share as they can, it should be understandable that they try and penetrate markets like Nashville, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

I still believe that a better ownership/management team could have made the Thrashers work, and I dont think that Nashville is going to fail. Phoenix made a major miscalculation in moving to Glendale and the franchise is paying for it.

Professional sports isnt like any other business. In most industries you'd be quite content if your major rivals struggled or went out of business.

Sports is an industry that has to have competition, and when you consider that it is important for the NHL to expand their revenue base as much as possible and to grab as much market share as they can, it should be understandable that they try and penetrate markets like Nashville, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

I still believe that a better ownership/management team could have made the Thrashers work, and I dont think that Nashville is going to fail. Phoenix made a major miscalculation in moving to Glendale and the franchise is paying for it.
- Doc_Sarcasm

expand to areas that work(Seattle)....dont try to fit a square peg through a round hole(Phoenix)..

If you're going to oversimplify the situation, I imagine it will never make sense to you. Not to say I'm a big fan of having a bunch of financially weak teams in the league.
- BulliesPhan87

I completely understand the situation. I just think the NHL hates to admit when they are wrong (Phoenix) and does everything they can to save the team and save face which takes money out of the Detroit's and Flyers and Rangers pockets. My theory is if you put a team somewhere and it doesn't work, I am sure there is another owner/city out there that wants a hockey team. There is no doubt in my mind that Toronto could support another team better than Phoenix is.

I'm less worried about the possibility of collusion behind the scenes and more interested in maybe seeing them amend the compensation schedule for RFA's.

IMO, the RFA market would be more liquid if the compensation wasn't written as a deterrent in the first place. With hockey being such a team game, and the marginal benefit of adding one piece at the cost of multiple future assets always a tricky equation long-term, currently only teams that are desperate and/or cavalier seem to be willing to brave the RFA route.

If the cost to tender an OS were lower across the board, you'd probably see a lot more low to mid-tier RFA movement.
- Tomahawk

You outlined a very reasonable RFA market and the NHL would never allow that.

Whoever negotiated the current RFA process into the CBA deserves a raise for completely hoodwinking the PA into believing they actually negotiated for something of value.

Well, that's a different issue.

Again, the league should have gotten rid of it if it's not an avenue that a team could and should pursue to obtain assets.
- johndewar

It's not a different issue. A team could and should pursue to obtain assets. Just not in the way that the Flyers used it.

Why do you keep putting laugh faces in? Is this a joke?

But to answer your question, I'd rather have our excellent young defensive forward and the solid player we'll get at #11, than to spend both on one high quality player and a second round pick that'll probably equate to another Andreas Nodl.
- BulliesPhan87

we have a abundance of defensive forwards...you need a high quality talent like nicushkin with giroux and voracek. As far as im concerned laughton can take couts spot and this team wont skip a bit.

You feel it's okay that one team can try and force another team into giving them a star player, because they are in better shape financially? And here's how it is Philly's problem. Do you want the Cap to go up or down? So the Flyers can spend more money on players? Well the better the League as a whole does financially, the higher the Cap will go. The reason the Cap is going down to 64.3M is because team's like Nashville are struggling. So let's pile on and bury them some more. It has an effect across the entire League.
- MJL

You clearly don't own or run a business.

I completely understand the situation. I just think the NHL hates to admit when they are wrong (Phoenix) and does everything they can to save the team and save face which takes money out of the Detroit's and Flyers and Rangers pockets. My theory is if you put a team somewhere and it doesn't work, I am sure there is another owner/city out there that wants a hockey team. There is no doubt in my mind that Toronto could support another team better than Phoenix is.
- Jimmygrazz

No its the fans pockets...Our ticket prices go up so our teams bottom line stays the same.

Well, to look at it another way, they're basically getting a cut of the Flyers' and other top teams' money as well. So, since the Flyers are responsible for a large portion of the league's success, and basically end up earning money for most other teams, I have no problem with them having a financial edge in signing players.
- jmatchett383

Nothing wrong with having a financial edge in signing players. What is a problem is trying to force a team to decide between putting the franchise in financial hardship, or losing a marquee player.

we have a abundance of defensive forwards...you need a high quality talent like nicushkin with giroux and voracek.
- Philly1980

Just because we have an abundance of a type of player doesn't mean you should throw away your best one on a one sided trade.

You clearly don't own or run a business.
- moylander

His point is an extremely valid one.

we have a abundance of defensive forwards...you need a high quality talent like nicushkin with giroux and voracek. As far as im concerned laughton can take couts spot and this team wont skip a bit.
- Philly1980

No we don't. Laughton is not a defensive presence the way Couturier is.

Boston has more talent under contract, plus an albatross LTIR player in Savard, yet they still always seem to have enough cap flexibility to make deadline additions.

Ditto Pittsburgh, with their two $8.7M players, they've never been in cap "hell" like the Flyers have been, and always leave enough cap space to add key pieces down the stretch.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that Homer & Co. do a better job of working within their budget and being stingier during contract negotiations. I mean, this team is already over the cap, talking about buying guys out, and we're all still talking about throwing another ridiculous OS out there... and we wonder why this team can't seem to manage the cap constraints.
- Tomahawk

At the trade dealine for this past Season, the Flyers had the ability to add a player with a Cap hit of about 5M. I think you're making it into far more then it is. The Cap has never stopped the Flyers from adding quality players, year after year. It hasn't stopped them from doing what they wanted to do.

Nikolai Zherdev is having his KHL contract terminated. First line winger problem solved.
- Jsaquella

I liked Nicky

I completely understand the situation. I just think the NHL hates to admit when they are wrong (Phoenix) and does everything they can to save the team and save face which takes money out of the Detroit's and Flyers and Rangers pockets. My theory is if you put a team somewhere and it doesn't work, I am sure there is another owner/city out there that wants a hockey team. There is no doubt in my mind that Toronto could support another team better than Phoenix is.
- Jimmygrazz

The NHL could handle it better, or have been more careful in expanding to begin with. But that doesn't make this a simple Darwinian scenario. There's a lot more to it than just, "Ok, we don't want hockey here anymore. Pack everything up and get the trucks, Bill."