Nashville Predators talk - The offseason.

[Roman Yoshi]

With Mackstrom going to the Devil's, I do worry the Preds may have missed their opportunity to move Saros to the team with the best offer.

I'm unsure if Carolina or LA make sense, but those are really the only two other teams that need goaltending at this point. Maybe Ottawa.

I just hope we don't go into the next year with both Asky and Saros under contract. One needs to move so that we can improve on defense or forward. Having both just isn't good asset management

 

[herzausstein]

With Mackstrom going to the Devil's, I do worry the Preds may have missed their opportunity to move Saros to the team with the best offer.

I'm unsure if Carolina or LA make sense, but those are really the only two other teams that need goaltending at this point. Maybe Ottawa.

I just hope we don't go into the next year with both Asky and Saros under contract. One needs to move so that we can improve on defense or forward. Having both just isn't good asset management

Did I miss the trade call? I don't see anything for Markstrom to NJD

 

[Predsanddead24]

For what it’s worth, Pekka's big contract was 10.89% of the cap at signing which would be equivalent to a $9.5M AAV contract this offseason. Saros’s current contract was 6.14% of the cap at signing which would be equivalent to a $5.75M AAV contract this offseason. So a $6M contract would be a pretty paltry raise (in terms of pro athletes at least) from that perspective.

Also, Friedman was saying the other day he thought it was likely Saros will want to wait it out until Shesterkin re-signs and resets the goalie market which wouldn’t be a great sign for him taking a team friendly deal. Wasn’t clear to me if that was anything more than just speculation though.

 

[Armourboy]

With Mackstrom going to the Devil's, I do worry the Preds may have missed their opportunity to move Saros to the team with the best offer.

I'm unsure if Carolina or LA make sense, but those are really the only two other teams that need goaltending at this point. Maybe Ottawa.

I just hope we don't go into the next year with both Asky and Saros under contract. One needs to move so that we can improve on defense or forward. Having both just isn't good asset management

Do you know something the rest of the league doesn't? I haven't heard a thing about Markstrom being dealt.

 

[Scoresberg]

Watching the Finals, we really need guys like Niko Mikkola in our defense. Guys like Statsney and Del Gaizo are nice little players, but they aren't a part of a Cup-winning team.

Not that we're even close to winning the Cup, though, but still.

 

[Scoresberg]

Also, I'm not even kidding when I say that I would try to offer sheet Anton Lundell at $9 mil. It's a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd. It may sound risky, but I'm telling you this guy is Barkov-lite. He's so good.

Trade Saros to NJD for the 10th OA, and boom, we're back in the 1st round. Also, we have three 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders, I think it's ok, if we give up one of each.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Also, I'm not even kidding when I say that I would try to offer sheet Anton Lundell at $9 mil. It's a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd. It may sound risky, but I'm telling you this guy is Barkov-lite. He's so good.

Trade Saros to NJD for the 10th OA, and boom, we're back in the 1st round. Also, we have three 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders, I think it's ok, if we give up one of each.

Any of that stuff will happen with 2025 picks, though. Both the Saros trade and the Lundell offersheet. Since free agency and the extension window for Saros open on July 1st, after the draft. And you're probably going to have to offer Lundell $8M AAV at least, right? So we'd be into the next tier up in compensation with 2 1sts.

I think the big risk is that since it's 2025 and 2026 1sts, and we just traded Saros, there is a chance those 1sts could be in lottery range. I wouldn't give those up for Lundell.

 

[Scoresberg]

Any of that stuff will happen with 2025 picks, though. Both the Saros trade and the Lundell offersheet. Since free agency and the extension window for Saros open on July 1st, after the draft. And you're probably going to have to offer Lundell $8M AAV at least, right? So we'd be into the next tier up in compensation with 2 1sts.

I think the big risk is that since it's 2025 and 2026 1sts, and we just traded Saros, there is a chance those 1sts could be in lottery range. I wouldn't give those up for Lundell.

Isn't it a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd until above $9 mil?

And also, I realize the risk with them being next year's picks but I just can't see this team falling off the map. We will finish somewhere between 15-20 again. And add Lundell, Pesce and a couple more UFAs to this team, and you're probably looking at a (short) playoff run again.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Isn't it a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd until above $9 mil?

Except I'm assuming you are offering a max term 7-year deal, so for example if it's 7x$8M, the money is averaged over 5 years so it's the equivalent of $11.5M in terms of the compensation range.

And also, I realize the risk with them being next year's picks but I just can't see this team falling off the map. We will finish somewhere between 15-20 again. And add Lundell, Pesce and a couple more UFAs to this team, and you're probably looking at a (short) playoff run again.

I still wouldn't risk it. Not just for Lundell anyway. Things are very precarious in the NHL, and I'm not confident our top line can return to form or that Pesce replacing McDonagh really changes what was already a weak defense. Without goaltending on top of that... I wouldn't ever AIM for a top-5 draft pick intentionally, but things don't always go according to plan in the NHL. Probably the bottom 3 teams in the league last year were there on purpose. The other teams in the top-10 were hoping for better seasons. I think our team has enough holes that we're going to be susceptible to falling into that group unintentionally also.

 

[Scoresberg]

Except I'm assuming you are offering a max term 7-year deal, so for example if it's 7x$8M, the money is averaged over 5 years so it's the equivalent of $11.5M in terms of the compensation range.


I still wouldn't risk it. Not just for Lundell anyway. Things are very precarious in the NHL, and I'm not confident our top line can return to form or that Pesce replacing McDonagh really changes what was already a weak defense. Without goaltending on top of that... I wouldn't ever AIM for a top-5 draft pick intentionally, but things don't always go according to plan in the NHL. Probably the bottom 3 teams in the league last year were there on purpose. The other teams in the top-10 were hoping for better seasons. I think our team has enough holes that we're going to be susceptible to falling into that group unintentionally also.

Yeah, good point. Would go 5 years in that case. He can be a 1st line center here, which he can never be in Florida.

Also, if we were to fall and draft in the top-10, what is best case scenario? Another Fiala, another Askarov or perhaps another Colin Wilson? A boat is a boat, but a mystery box can be anything. Even a boat!

Let's face it, we suck at drafting elite talent, so if you have a decent chance to poach someone else's, I say you do it. Lundell's already established himself as a premium top-6 center in the league and is dominating in the Finals as we speak. Dude is l-e-g-i-t.

 

[Armourboy]

Yeah, good point. Would go 5 years in that case. He can be a 1st line center here, which he can never be in Florida.

Also, if we were to fall and draft in the top-10, what is best case scenario? Another Fiala, another Askarov or perhaps another Colin Wilson? A boat is a boat, but a mystery box can be anything. Even a boat!

Let's face it, we suck at drafting elite talent, so if you have a decent chance to poach someone else's, I say you do it. Lundell's already established himself as a premium top-6 center in the league and is dominating in the Finals as we speak. Dude is l-e-g-i-t.

I'm trying to figure out if he is that why Florida doesn't match? Sure they have Barkov but his injury history is pretty suspect.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I'm trying to figure out if he is that why Florida doesn't match? Sure they have Barkov but his injury history is pretty suspect.

Florida would indeed match... IF he's that good. I'm not sure he is. He's a good young player, but Scoresberg has always had a thing for him and is overrating him a tad. I'd be happy to have him, but I don't see this offersheet scenario making sense for us, alas. Lots of good young RFAs around the league all the time, but there's a reason why almost none of them ever get signed away via offersheet.

 

[Kat Predator]

Like Jim Nill said, "This is not a traditional hockey market." It applies to Nashville at least as much as Dallas.

Intentionally tanking, intentionally returning back to being as competitive as we were as a new expansion team will mean the franchise gets punished and loses market share. It's something the franchise worked long and hard to obtain. I just don't see them flushing it on the old wives tale that "you have to tank to be good".

Speaking of which, how does the unbalanced Oilers lineup look 2 games into the finals? They were lucky to get past Vancouver honestly. Nothing showcased their imbalanced team structure better than having their 6 best skaters play a 5 minute shift to try and score a goal at the end of game 2. Pang explained: they either had to play those guys continuously or play 5-6 guys who'd never been on the ice together.

 

[Scoresberg]

I'm trying to figure out if he is that why Florida doesn't match? Sure they have Barkov but his injury history is pretty suspect.

Obviously, there's a good chance Florida matches. But given that in that scenario, they would have $11 mil in cap space with 8 players to sign. They would most likely lose Reinhart, Montour, OEL, Tarasenko and Kulikov.

Florida would indeed match... IF he's that good. I'm not sure he is. He's a good young player, but Scoresberg has always had a thing for him and is overrating him a tad. I'd be happy to have him, but I don't see this offersheet scenario making sense for us, alas. Lots of good young RFAs around the league all the time, but there's a reason why almost none of them ever get signed away via offersheet.

Remind me of who the last RFA offersheeted was? Not saying it's 100% would happen again and that those two situations have much in common but it was a younger Finnish center last time, too.

 

[Predsanddead24]

I like Lundell and he had an outstanding game last night and the playoffs generally. With a time machine I’d draft him (and Jarvis for that matter) over Askarov. However, while I know playoff performances get extra weight his overall numbers the last two seasons don’t scream 1C to me. He obviously is still young and could keep growing but he looks more like a defensively strong 2C. Personally I wouldn’t risk the contract and assets an offer sheet would take for him.

 

[Scoresberg]

I feel like he might never be the player he could be in Florida. Right now, their center depth is bananas which will hinder Lundell's chance to produce points. He had 5 powerplay points this year, for example.

Above all, he plays the game the right way and is a guy you can build line around. It's not always about points, although in the playoffs he has more points than Reinhart and Bennett.

 

[Predsanddead24]

Like Jim Nill said, "This is not a traditional hockey market." It applies to Nashville at least as much as Dallas.

Intentionally tanking, intentionally returning back to being as competitive as we were as a new expansion team will mean the franchise gets punished and loses market share. It's something the franchise worked long and hard to obtain. I just don't see them flushing it on the old wives tale that "you have to tank to be good".

Speaking of which, how does the unbalanced Oilers lineup look 2 games into the finals? They were lucky to get past Vancouver honestly. Nothing showcased their imbalanced team structure better than having their 6 best skaters play a 5 minute shift to try and score a goal at the end of game 2. The announcer explained: they either had to play those guys continuously or play 5-6 guys who'd never been on the ice together.

Not necessarily advocating tanking but I think the fears about us not being able to handle it as a market are a bit overstated. Nashville is very different than it was the last time we were truly bad. The city has grown and we’re a destination for out of town fans now that will help sell tickets. The arena is also a cash cow for the owners irrespective of what the hockey team does too. On top of that we now have a billionaire owner who is more able to withstand down years.

The Panthers are also a team that is reaping the rewards of high draft picks. Barkov was 2OA and Huberdeua was 3OA and enabled them to get Tkachuk. Ekblad was a 1OA and while not elite is a key player for them too. You do still have to build around those guys but they aren’t the team they are without getting elite players with high picks though.

 

[101st_fan]

Since the lost lockout season and resulting CBA ten players signed an offer sheet ... eight of those were matched. It isn't a real plan to build a roster. It's a longshot at best.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Not necessarily advocating tanking but I think the fears about us not being able to handle it as a market are a bit overstated. Nashville is very different than it was the last time we were truly bad. The city has grown and we’re a destination for out of town fans now that will help sell tickets. The arena is also a cash cow for the owners irrespective of what the hockey team does too. On top of that we now have a billionaire owner who is more able to withstand down years.

The Panthers are also a team that is reaping the rewards of high draft picks. Barkov was 2OA and Huberdeua was 3OA and enabled them to get Tkachuk. Ekblad was a 1OA and while not elite is a key player for them too. You do still have to build around those guys but they aren’t the team they are without getting elite players with high picks though.

I think there's also a difference between "surviving" and being profitable to some internal threshold. Nowadays, survival is not in jeopardy. Tank, fail at it, be miserable and out of the playoffs for a whole decade... which is a common outcome when choosing that path... now at least if you did that, the franchise wouldn't be forced to fold or relocate. That evolution of the market has taken place.

However, if the owners don't want to risk the decade of sub-optimal profit margin, then that makes sense too. They will NOT be selling out the building or getting playoff gates at all if they go into the tank. The bottom line would still be affected. Even if there are now greater auxiliary streams of revenue or deeper ownership pockets. Businesses still usually want to make money. And the calculus may say that there is no especially greater amount of money to made today if you won a Championship. 10 years of losing money isn't worth it for the brief bump of a single playoff run?

 

[Kat Predator]

I think there's also a difference between "surviving" and being profitable to some internal threshold. Nowadays, survival is not in jeopardy. Tank, fail at it, be miserable and out of the playoffs for a whole decade... which is a common outcome when choosing that path... now at least if you did that, the franchise wouldn't be forced to fold or relocate. That evolution of the market has taken place.

However, if the owners don't want to risk the decade of sub-optimal profit margin, then that makes sense too. They will NOT be selling out the building or getting playoff gates at all if they go into the tank. The bottom line would still be affected. Even if there are now greater auxiliary streams of revenue or deeper ownership pockets. Businesses still usually want to make money. And the calculus may say that there is no especially greater amount of money to made today if you won a Championship. 10 years of losing money isn't worth it for the brief bump of a single playoff run?

Pulling a Buffalo Sabres "rebuild" might not kill the team entirely, but there is no reason to think it wouldn't hurt. Instead of big corporate sponsors, it could mean settling for Mom and Pop sponsors. Fan interest is fickle. Big money "donors" follow their spreadsheets. Ownership will set those parameters in the end: how much revenue flow must the team generate year to year?

And there are degrees to being a tank franchise as well. Ottawa is a traditional hockey market and they'll have some general hockey fans just show up at games whether they are trying to win or not. Probably to cheer for the Leafs or Canadiens. It's somewhat the same with Buffalo, where people in the area are inured to lots of losing with brief high points in the roller coaster that is the Buffalo sports market and never delivers a championship anyway. On the other extreme is Arizona. A nontraditional market that Bettman went to bat for time after time after time. But ownership was perfectly content to tank forever and twist in the wind until the day heat lightning would strike them in the forehead. Take all that and throw in the lack of ability to close an arena deal and Arizona had been just waiting for someone to unplug the life support for many years.

 

[hido]

I have stated and explained several times how tanking really isn't an option for this market. But one other thing to consider is that in 2027 the Titans will have a brand new shiny toy and a lot of their STHs, who are also Preds STHs, are going to be coughing up a crap ton of money for new PSLs. Like up to a $100,000 a seat (which is f'ing insane, but, whatever, you can't take it with you). If for some crazy reason the Titans are actually good by that point and the the Preds are a 30-35 win team, that will make it a pretty easy decision on which expense to drop to pay for the new PSLs/STs at the new stadium. Nashville loves the Preds, but it's still a football town.

Another case in point is NSC. They have been awful this year. And you can now get in for under $10 on game day (I've seen as low as $2 in a park with really no bad seats). And they are in their third year in beautiful new digs. What was a really hot ticket a year or two ago is now ice cold.

The town does not take well to losers. Most local Preds fans, while frustrated by the first round meltdown, consider the season a success.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Maybe seeing Filip Forsberg in the new reality TV series will win us a bunch of new fans.

 

[weeze]

I have stated and explained several times how tanking really isn't an option for this market. But one other thing to consider is that in 2027 the Titans will have a brand new shiny toy and a lot of their STHs, who are also Preds STHs, are going to be coughing up a crap ton of money for new PSLs. Like up to a $100,000 a seat (which is f'ing insane, but, whatever, you can't take it with you). If for some crazy reason the Titans are actually good by that point and the the Preds are a 30-35 win team, that will make it a pretty easy decision on which expense to drop to pay for the new PSLs/STs at the new stadium. Nashville loves the Preds, but it's still a football town.

Another case in point is NSC. They have been awful this year. And you can now get in for under $10 on game day (I've seen as low as $2 in a park with really no bad seats). And they are in their third year in beautiful new digs. What was a really hot ticket a year or two ago is now ice cold.

The town does not take well to losers. Most local Preds fans, while frustrated by the first round meltdown, consider the season a success.

That makes it all the more amazing that the Florida Panthers are able to stay in SFL when you watch one of their games on TV the arena always looks about half empty/full. Although according to Hockey-Reference.com the Preds (Cap 17,113) had 17,306 avg for all home games. Florida Panthers (Cap 19,250) had 18,632 avg. Florida has the 7th largest arena in the NHL. How crazy is that! While Nashville is 3rd from the bottom of the list for capacity. With Arizona and Winnipeg only smaller. According to this site, only 10 teams were at 100.0% Capacity or more for the season and the Preds made that list.

 

[Predsanddead24]

I have stated and explained several times how tanking really isn't an option for this market. But one other thing to consider is that in 2027 the Titans will have a brand new shiny toy and a lot of their STHs, who are also Preds STHs, are going to be coughing up a crap ton of money for new PSLs. Like up to a $100,000 a seat (which is f'ing insane, but, whatever, you can't take it with you). If for some crazy reason the Titans are actually good by that point and the the Preds are a 30-35 win team, that will make it a pretty easy decision on which expense to drop to pay for the new PSLs/STs at the new stadium. Nashville loves the Preds, but it's still a football town.

Another case in point is NSC. They have been awful this year. And you can now get in for under $10 on game day (I've seen as low as $2 in a park with really no bad seats). And they are in their third year in beautiful new digs. What was a really hot ticket a year or two ago is now ice cold.

The town does not take well to losers. Most local Preds fans, while frustrated by the first round meltdown, consider the season a success.

Obviously none of us are privy to the financials but I just really don't buy the market can't handle a tank argument. Bridgestone Arena is one of the highest revenue arenas for concerts in the country and the ownership gets a part of that. Corporate seats will still sell to try and wine and dine people regardless of team performance and there has been a huge shift to prioritizing that in recent years. Out of towners will still make it a destination trip to see their team play. I think Porter is right that ownership might not be willing to leave money on the table but that is different from it not being possible.

With NSC you're conflating primary ticket sales with secondary ticket sales. While their are cheap tickets on stubhub if you look at direct ticket sales they are still doing well. Maybe that changes if they continue to struggle but it doesn't seem to be an issue yet.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Obviously none of us are privy to the financials but I just really don't buy the market can't handle a tank argument. Bridgestone Arena is one of the highest revenue arenas for concerts in the country and the ownership gets a part of that. Corporate seats will still sell to try and wine and dine people regardless of team performance and there has been a huge shift to prioritizing that in recent years. Out of towners will still make it a destination trip to see their team play. I think Porter is right that ownership might not be willing to leave money on the table but that is different from it not being possible.

With NSC you're conflating primary ticket sales with secondary ticket sales. While their are cheap tickets on stubhub if you look at direct ticket sales they are still doing well. Maybe that changes if they continue to struggle but it doesn't seem to be an issue yet.

What does "handle" mean, though? The franchise won't be moved to Atlanta. But the Arena won't be full for games either. So they won't be making as much money as they could be making. And I think that's a big thing for most business models, right? They not only want to make as much money as possible, they also want to have a growth curve. Nobody wants to see the revenue dip or linger below capacity if it doesn't have to.