Confirmed with Link: Sens acquire Callahan + pick for Condon + pick

[DaveMatthew]

Ottawa did not trade an extended Mark Stone.

Mark was traded to Vegas on Febuary 25th.

Mark Stone's Contract was extended on March 8th, by the VGK.


BTW Erik Brannstrom was a 2017 first round pick by the VGK.

Mark Stone negotiated and agreed to the extension prior to the trade going through, on February 25th.

He said so himself when he was interviewed on TSN, within an hour of the official trade call.

The actual "signing" was delayed, but Vegas acquired an extended Mark Stone.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

NJ "won" this year because Nico is not star material.
Chicago and NYR won because they are two of the largest markets and not having them in the playoffs is bad for the business.

If Melnyk sells the team then 100% the team wins the draft. I am willing to bet all my vcoins on it... Are vcoins still a thing?

Edmonton won four lotteries while Arizona hasn't won any because...

 

[DaveMatthew]

How do we know Florida offered Ottawa"futures" for Hoffmann?

Or is this just some retroactive editing after Hoffman was flipped to Florida?

If Ottawa was offered Florida's "futures" as you seem to be suggesting, then why wouldn't Ottawa have just set up a three team trade?

I think Dorion wanted to send Hoffman to the Western Conference, to placate the Karlssons at the time, because of the online issues.

You understand that Dorion could have traded Hoffman to the Western Conference, and still acquired futures instead of a soft, offensively-inept, overpaid winger right?

 

[Acidrain66]

NJ "won" this year because Nico is not star material.
Chicago and NYR won because they are two of the largest markets and not having them in the playoffs is bad for the business.

If Melnyk sells the team then 100% the team wins the draft. I am willing to bet all my vcoins on it... Are vcoins still a thing?

Ok agent Mulder

 

[Ice-Tray]

If this doesn't happen, can we at least finally put all this to rest and just call it what most of us think it is?

Feels like the excuse can has been kicked numerous times for these guys and if it doesn't play out as you predict, that should be the last straw as treating this as anything but cost cutting.

No, because it’s entirely possible that he has to pay down the various debts the team has.

Here’s a good way to consider things, most things in general actually, try not to assume things in the absence of any evidence, especially if it suits an opinion or bias that you already possess.

It’s too easy to simply make up things that fit your opinions if you do that. There has been no evidence anywhere to suggest that the owner s syphoning money from the organization, so it’s best not to assume that.

We do know that there is a sizable debt to go along with the team, and we do know that the owner has hit some financial hardships over the last few years.

We also know that revenues have been dropping due to plummeting attendance.

We also know that there has been some refinancing of debt lately as well.

It looks a lot more like the owner is in financial crisis than anything. It also looks like his best chance at a last kick at the can would be to cut the organizational costs down to the bone, rebuild, and try and make a run with a young, cheap, drafted and developed team before the floor falls out.

Most people know better, it just feels better to hate the man, and stealing money from our beloved team makes that hate feel more justified.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

No, because it’s entirely possible that he has to pay down the various debts the team has.

Here’s a good way to consider things, most things in general actually, try not to assume things in the absence of any evidence, especially if it suits an opinion or bias that you already possess.

It’s too easy to simply make up things that fit your opinions if you do that. There has been no evidence anywhere to suggest that the owner s syphoning money from the organization, so it’s best not to assume that.

We do know that there is a sizable debt to go along with the team, and we do know that the owner has hit some financial hardships over the last few years.

We also know that revenues have been dropping due to plummeting attendance.

We also know that there has been some refinancing of debt lately as well.

It looks a lot more like the owner is in financial crisis than anything. It also looks like his best chance at a last kick at the can would be to cut the organizational costs down to the bone, rebuild, and try and make a run with a young, cheap, drafted and developed team before the floor falls out.

Most people know better, it just feels better to hate the man, and stealing money from our beloved team makes that hate feel more justified.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I never said he was syphoning money or any conspiracy theory, he very well could be servicing debt, but that still just re-enforces the reality that the ultimate priority is cost cutting as we've mostly said, regardless of the reason and quite often at the expense of the club now or in the future.

If we don't re-sign Chabot and Tkachuk, you're prepared to say it's okay and carry on as a happy fan because debt payments are priority?

What's the end goal? Is there a plan to pay off the debt one day and actually prioritize hockey? Will we start to see transactions that are not purely financially motivated?

 

[BatherSeason]

If Ottawa was offered Florida's "futures" as you seem to be suggesting, then why wouldn't Ottawa have just set up a three team trade?

Why?? Not sure, but weren't there a handful of GMs that reported that Ottawa refused to trade players within their division. I feel like it may have even been Dreger.

 

[BatherSeason]

For the Ottawa Senators, unfortunately, money is also an asset.

We didn’t trade picks for money to go into EMs pocket, that money is very likely being stockpiled to be used to pay for our young core players who need raises over the next few years.

It’s far from ideal, but if that’s the situation the owner of the team has put us in, then we have to play the hand we’re dealt, for now.

There is zero evidence out there to suggest that EM is somehow selling picks and robbing the team, there is however much evidence to suggest that revenue is dropping and is continuing to drop, and money has to come from somewhere if the owner doesn’t have the money of his own to put in.

PD pretty much told us that the money saved was for our young players.

Sucks for sure, but it’s a lot less bleak than the owner robbing the team of assets, to buy another house.

Isn't there a different thread for this??

 

[BatherSeason]

It looks a lot more like the owner is in financial crisis than anything

You know what a very good way to get out of a financial crisis would be?

 

[ksens]

You know what a very good way to get out of a financial crisis would be?

 

[harrisb]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I never said he was syphoning money or any conspiracy theory, he very well could be servicing debt, but that still just re-enforces the reality that the ultimate priority is cost cutting as we've mostly said, regardless of the reason and quite often at the expense of the club now or in the future.

If we don't re-sign Chabot and Tkachuk, you're prepared to say it's okay and carry on as a happy fan because debt payments are priority?

What's the end goal? Is there a plan to pay off the debt one day and actually prioritize hockey? Will we start to see transactions that are not purely financially motivated?

Who buys a franchise out of bankruptcy due to debt using entitely debt? Then proceeds to add more debt to the point where we are no longer competitive and bordering on the same situation? Without of course paying down that debt during the good times. Debt is the problem, a problem that lies at the feet of only one person (hint: it's not the fans)

 

[Ice-Tray]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I never said he was syphoning money or any conspiracy theory, he very well could be servicing debt, but that still just re-enforces the reality that the ultimate priority is cost cutting as we've mostly said, regardless of the reason and quite often at the expense of the club now or in the future.

If we don't re-sign Chabot and Tkachuk, you're prepared to say it's okay and carry on as a happy fan because debt payments are priority?

What's the end goal? Is there a plan to pay off the debt one day and actually prioritize hockey? Will we start to see transactions that are not purely financially motivated?

Sorry, the lining his pockets is a popular theme here, and I kind of expanded my post to be a little more general.

I agree that cost cutting is very real, it would be impossible to avoid seeing that.

I’m not prepared to to tell anyone to be happy at this point, though I do appreciate when people keep their focus on stuff that is tangible rather than going off the rails. If money isn’t available to extend the kids, then the cost cutting must be to either service the debt, or the owner is on the verge of bankruptcy and doesn’t actually have the money to run the team, or both.

It could be argued that it may be better long term if the owner is close to insolvency rather than continuing to be capable of running the team on a shoestring, but I guess we’ll see which situation we’re in soon enough hopefully.

I suspect that we’ll continue to see financially motivated moves all the way until The tram and ownership is not under financial stress.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You know what a very good way to get out of a financial crisis would be?

Sell the team!!!!!

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Sorry, the lining his pockets is a popular theme here, and I kind of expanded my post to be a little more general.

I agree that cost cutting is very real, it would be impossible to avoid seeing that.

I’m not prepared to to tell anyone to be happy at this point, though I do appreciate when people keep their focus on stuff that is tangible rather than going off the rails. If money isn’t available to extend the kids, then the cost cutting must be to either service the debt, or the owner is on the verge of bankruptcy and doesn’t actually have the money to run the team, or both.

It could be argued that it may be better long term if the owner is close to insolvency rather than continuing to be capable of running the team on a shoestring, but I guess we’ll see which situation we’re in soon enough hopefully.

I suspect that we’ll continue to see financially motivated moves all the way until The tram and ownership is not under financial stress.

Can't argue with that.

It seems like the Senators would be self sustainable without debt, but if they're saddled with as much as is speculated, they're likely to continue spinning their wheels with constant cost cutting.

 

[harrisb]

Can't argue with that.

It seems like the Senators would be self sustainable without debt, but if they're saddled with as much as is speculated, they're likely to continue spinning their wheels with constant cost cutting.

My hope is the rumour around desmarais and cirque guy holding his debt. That would honestly explain the behaviour, he’s trying to hold on by a thread but he’s dealing with big pockets.

 

[Hun]

Please find someone other than Ottawa media who said that this was a homerun?? They traded an extended Mark Stone and didn't even get a first back.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

For a non-extended Stone, it’s good.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

This one is done.

The topic has strayed too far.