Matt

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3,245

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by Matt

  1. Matt

    Red Wings Alumni Showdown Roster

    Matt posted a topic in General

    TWO Alumni Games (75-100 players) so far...: Chris Osgood Mike Vernon Gordie Howe Chris Chelios Dino Ciccarelli Alex Delvecchio Ted Lindsay Joe Kocur Kris Draper Kirk Maltby Darren McCarty Micky Redmond Luc Robitaille Larry Murphy John Ogrodnick Mark Howe More to be added....
  2. Matt
    Let's be honest, you only need 2. Heyooooooooooooooooooooo
  3. Matt
    They're sending them out in scheduled releases. I believe I was in the first group that received notification on Friday afternoon and gave us a weekend window until this passed Monday @ 5:00pm to buy tickets. After that the next batch of codes gets released, and so on... If anything check your spam, or hopefully you'll be in on the next scheduled release.
  4. Matt
    I don't think they're split that way. I'm in the Sect 35 end zone. I have two groups of four, bought about 15 minutes apart, and still ended up getting the same section and row (just four seats apart -- we'll probably swap with whomever is there). Visually it'd be pretty cool to have the red vs. blue, but in reality it's going to be interspersed from what I'm seeing.
  5. Matt
    ^ This. You are e-mailed a specific account 'code' (a series of numbers) that you need to enter into the TicketMaster site set up for it. That number is specifically tied to your e-mail address and cannot be used by someone else. Ha! Well, I've always wanted to give away some WC tickets, I just need to come upon a couple more tickets since the 8 acquired today are all getting used. I've got five months to do so, so here's to hoping.
  6. Matt
    Haha! Nope! These are all spoken for, but I'd always like to get some more. (Ideally, I'd like to get another pair to give away on the web site if I can.)
  7. Matt
    Just got 8 tickets. Likely all spoken for, but it's pretty damn nice to know that I've gotten them. I'll sort out the rest later. If opportunities arise to get some more, I'm all over it. Still some feelers left out there to acquire more.
  8. Matt

    Money On The Board Conundrum

    Matt replied to vladdy16's topic in General

    This. The Children's Hospital of Michigan was very grateful for the donation from the site that we put in last year.
  9. Matt

    Rick Nash traded to the New York Rangers

    Matt replied to Travis's topic in General

    Nothing. You're better off unfollowing that account. It's trash.
  10. Matt
    I'm confident that Weber wants out. His agent has strongly insinuated such in interviews today (the "July 4th", "money not the issue", and "Flyers' history and Cup chances" comments ring the loudest). There's no way that Weber would've signed a 1-year deal with anyone just to reach UFA status next summer when the writing is all over the wall that the next CBA will kill off any of these "lifetime" deals and the mountain of guaranteed money and relative long-term stability they provide. This was his chance to cash in and he did it. As his agent said, if Suter had re-signed in Nashville the agent likely "wouldn't be having this conversation today." Things changed, the Predators took a step back with the loss of Suter and what was likely low-ball offers that he had gotten until after July 1st when Poile had to something he had to try to match. Poile has been lowballing Weber since last summer's arbitration case -- so what really changed? Weber looks to have grown tired of it and took advantage of the opportunity he had presented to him. He wants to go to Philadelphia.
  11. Matt
    Concerning the Wings' reported talk with Weber: If he did tour all of the potential suitors over the past two weeks then I'm confident that where the Red Wings fell short was with the contract offer. If Holland entertained the thought of signing Weber to an offer sheet (as in Holland made the first contact, not Weber's agent) it's frustrating to lose out on a money/term issue again. (Reportedly, anyway.) Saved for posterity. If Poile had the OK from ownership to match any offer -- which he boasted of in the past -- there's no reason to hesitate on matching it. None. It's $110 million no matter how you slice it, whether it's $56 million over the first four years or $28 million. Doesn't matter. Straight from Weber's agent: "Things changed in Nashville on July 4." He. Wants. Out. He may not get it, but in that event he'll likely roll around in $27-million worth of $100 bills next season and then demand a trade next summer if he wanted to, then you're left with a PR nightmare in the form of Rick Nash 2.0.
  12. Matt
    Then why didn't Poile announce that the Predators had matched the offer this morning instead of saying he's going to take time to "look it over". If they've got the cash do it, why wait? So who's really ignorant here? So why was Poile discussing a trade of Weber to one of the Red Wings, Rangers, Sharks or Flyers? Have you ever considered the slap in the face that last year's arbitration process was for last year? Poile & Co. countered with a $4.75m proposal at that hearing... Yet Weber ended up with $7.5m -- a pretty significant difference. Weber just watched his partner jump ship to head closer to home for money that Poile would've reportedly matched. If Poile and Weber were close on money he would've re-signed at this point. No, this points to disillusionment with the franchise. A fracture that first formed last summer and has significantly widened since the beginning of the month. Suter leaving was likely the straw that broke the camel's back in this case, and the comments from Weber's agent "it's not a money issue" but liked the Flyers' history and "Cup chances". Neither of which Nashville can boast of.
  13. Matt
    I would be shocked if that's not adjusted in some way. It's really only taken such huge precedence this summer -- and to a lesser degree, last summer, too -- because of the impact on a potential salary rollback with the CBA. A nice little "offshore" account for players with the bonus money this year, protected from Bettman's grubby little hands. Just to throw a number out there for shiggles: If there was a 25% salary rollback starting next season, Shea Weber would only earn $55 of his $56 million. Oh, the horror!
  14. Matt
    The Flyers did sign Weber to a market value deal -- they just front-loaded it, and that's the key difference here. His AAV is right in line with other comparable elite players for their positions. I don't think the Red Wings would have any qualms throwing an offer out there like this: they have the financial wherewithal and the desperate need to improve at that position. I just wish Holland would throw the "pointless" or "not our modus operandi" that St. James mentions out the window.... You have to change with the times, and if Philadelphia lands a franchise defenseman that roams their blueline for the next 10 years, it was worth it. That players of the caliber of Suter and Weber were both even available is shocking (less so since they're from the same team, however) and increasingly frustrating that the Red Wings didn't grab one or the other with such a glaring need (despite the salary requirements -- they needed one). The four 1st-rounders don't concern me when it's a franchise defenseman.
  15. Matt
    No one is saying he's the best player in the NHL, he's just one of the top three -- if not the best -- player at his position and he's now compensated as such. Regardless, the cost of successfully prying a player away via offer sheet -- and offer sheets for *any* players, for that matter -- is done via two ways: vast overpayment or handcuffing a franchise via poison pill(s). I don't believe Weber is overpaid in this case over the term of the contract, but in order for the Flyers to even pry him from Nashville they had to put in a monster of a poison pill to the tune of $52 million in bonus money alone over the first four years that cannot be reduced by a new CBA-forced salary rollback. That's $52 million over the first four years no matter what. Period. No way to get around that, have it reduced by 24% Rollback Part 2, etc., etc..
  16. Matt
    You didn't understand what I was saying. Once the decision is made on the offersheet -- in this case Nashville choosing not to match -- the Flyers can still trade player assets to re-acquire the the four 1st round picks they lost as part of the offer sheet. See Chris Gratton: http://en.wikipedia....ts#cite_note-19 If the Flyers get Weber they'll have to shed salary, Nashville needs to add it, and the Flyers would probably like to add those No. 1s back. In the end it likely won't end up being as simple as four 1st rounders. Philly could end up re-acquiring up to three of them and send a forward or two back the other way. It's the scenic route to a standard Flyers/Predators trade, the offer sheet just expedited and locked in Philadelphia as the destination.
  17. Matt
    Because forking over $27-million to one player in a calendar year before you could trade him is a huge stumbling block for a small market club that Forbes valued at $168 million in 2011. Almost 1/3 of the value of the franchise will be doled out to one player ($56-million) during the first four years of the contract. It's a big pill to swallow for a small-market franchise. It's sole purpose is to put the screws to Nashville's ability to match the offer. If the money was spread out over the term evenly Nashville would have matched it the second it was submitted to the league office.
  18. Matt
    In reality, regardless of any of this, is that the Flyers could still reacquire the 1st-rounders from the Predators for the assets they would have otherwise used in a more "standard" deal. The point still stands that the can still work out a trade between the clubs for Weber, a la Chris Gratton in 1997 with Tampa. They've done this dance before.
  19. Matt
    Of course they're "valid" -- how would they not be? On what planet is it allowed where a professional sports league office hands out money to small-market teams just so they can keep a specific player? It's just a downright silly suggestion. They get what they get from revenue sharing, and that's it. No special favors for specific situations. As an aside, your second mistake (the first being the ridiculous post that started the dialog) is to not be fully aware of the definitions of "argument". For your education: http://dictionary.re...browse/argument (specifically, points #2 and #3). No one is getting "pissy" here, but if that's the road you wish to travel down it would appear the only tampon present here is wedged between your ears. Oh, and one of the benefits of me being around the forums more often now is that I can sniff out previously banned members who sign up under different usernames. So, in this case, should I call you "MrSandman"? Or "MrSandmann"? Nevermind, you can't answer that now. Keep the dialog on topic henceforth.
  20. Matt
    You cannot be serious with this, can you? You do realize that even suggesting this would be paramount to destroying the competitive integrity of the league when the league office steps in to fill the coffers of another millionaire owner just so he can afford a franchise player when it is the fault of his own club's management to mishandle said player and leave him open to be poached by other club well within the rules everyone agreed upon? We're not talking about "bailing out" an entire franchise -- you're talking about a singular player. This whole argument as absurd on so many levels it's ridiculous.
  21. Matt
    For a franchise defenseman, one of the top 3 in the entire league, and one just entering his prime I would. We're not talking Christian Erhoff here -- it's Shea Weber. It's ridiculous that Nashville even put itself in a position where he became available to other teams. They burned most of their bridges with him last summer with the arbitration ordeal. How do you fire an owner, exactly? Poile has already had this happen to him once before with Scott Stevens. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
  22. Matt
    ...Uh, what?
  23. Matt
    $7.8/year for one of the top 3 defenseman in the game isn't outrageous by any stretch. He's been a perennial Norris contender the last few years and is just now entering his prime. Contracts given out to these players shouldn't be the biggest concern -- they're paid appropriately -- it's the bloated middle-tier that's concerning (see: Ville Leino, Dennis Wideman, et al).
  24. Matt
    If you want to get him out of Nashville, this is how you try to do it. No point in even submitting an offer sheet if you make it easy for the other club to match. They've got to be massive, front-loaded deals to force the hand of lower-revenue, small-market teams.
  25. Matt
    Weber will be a Flyer, based on Kypreos's figures posted on Twitter. Weber will earn $56 million over the next four years. WOW.