Florida trades Bolland and Crouse to Arizona

[CarltonTheBear]

Some updates on Bolland's playing status:

Craig Morgan ‏@craigsmorgan
Coyotes GM John Chayka said his understanding is Dave Bolland is injured for the foreseeable future & won't be ready to play any time soon.

Craig Morgan ‏@craigsmorgan
Dave Bolland will head to Long Term Injured Reserve after training camp, per source, giving Coyotes additional flexibility.

Brian Lawton @brianlawton9
If David Bolland is not healthy to play then @ArizonaCoyotes will pay $3,300,000 $1,100,000 per year or 20% of the contract in hard costs.

 

[cabber24]

Brian Lawton @brianlawton9
If David Bolland is not healthy to play then @ArizonaCoyotes will pay $3,300,000 $1,100,000 per year or 20% of the contract in hard costs.

Yep, insurance covers 80%. It's kind of a joke that PHX is only paying out of pocket 1.1M for a 11.53 cap hit (Pronger/Bolland/Datsyuk).

I wish they would just fold up shop and leave PHX already. As soon as I saw the deal I knew taking Bolland's contract absolutely had to be a cap relief deal for PHX. I wish the NHL would view this deal as cap circumvention. I hope he makes a miraculous recovery as plays asap.

 

[Deebo]

Some updates on Bolland's playing status:

Craig Morgan ‏@craigsmorgan
Coyotes GM John Chayka said his understanding is Dave Bolland is injured for the foreseeable future & won't be ready to play any time soon.

Craig Morgan ‏@craigsmorgan
Dave Bolland will head to Long Term Injured Reserve after training camp, per source, giving Coyotes additional flexibility.

Brian Lawton @brianlawton9
If David Bolland is not healthy to play then @ArizonaCoyotes will pay $3,300,000 $1,100,000 per year or 20% of the contract in hard costs.

The 18M in cap space that Bolland, Pronger and Datysuk take up will only cost the Coyotes 1.2M in actual money, assuming that 20% rule applies to Pronger as well and Bolland doesn't play.

 

[Kin]

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

 

[cabber24]

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

He will have make due with below the cap floor in actual players on the ice at the rate their picking up artificial cap use. Won't have the funds to pay anyone extension until the team is Quebec... 2019.

Even though RSE signed a 15-year lease, it allows RSE to move the team after five years if it has lost $50 million in that time. It likely will. The only proviso is that RSE will have to pay the city?s losses beyond its $6 million guarantee to ?make whole? ? where have we heard that term before? ? Glendale if the team moves.

 

[Frank E]

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

Not...taking....bait....

 

[Bates]

Keep up man the City of Glendale cancelled that lease last year.  The Coyotes have one or two years left in Glendale, I can't remember which?? Rumours of an arena at the Univ to be shared has been going around for months.

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

He will have make due with below the cap floor in actual players on the ice at the rate their picking up artificial cap use. Won't have the funds to pay anyone extension until the team is Quebec... 2019.

Even though RSE signed a 15-year lease, it allows RSE to move the team after five years if it has lost $50 million in that time. It likely will. The only proviso is that RSE will have to pay the city?s losses beyond its $6 million guarantee to ?make whole? ? where have we heard that term before? ? Glendale if the team moves.

 

[dappleganger]

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

He will have make due with below the cap floor in actual players on the ice at the rate their picking up artificial cap use. Won't have the funds to pay anyone extension until the team is Quebec... 2019.

Even though RSE signed a 15-year lease, it allows RSE to move the team after five years if it has lost $50 million in that time. It likely will. The only proviso is that RSE will have to pay the city?s losses beyond its $6 million guarantee to ?make whole? ? where have we heard that term before? ? Glendale if the team moves.

That was under the old deal. The new deal allows the Coyotes to move in June 2017, when their lease expires.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/07/23/glendale-arizona-coyotes-arena-deal-dispute-resolved/30571819/


Edit: beat me to it.

 

[cabber24]

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

He will have make due with below the cap floor in actual players on the ice at the rate their picking up artificial cap use. Won't have the funds to pay anyone extension until the team is Quebec... 2019.

Even though RSE signed a 15-year lease, it allows RSE to move the team after five years if it has lost $50 million in that time. It likely will. The only proviso is that RSE will have to pay the city?s losses beyond its $6 million guarantee to ?make whole? ? where have we heard that term before? ? Glendale if the team moves.

That was under the old deal. The new deal allows the Coyotes to move in June 2017, when their lease expires.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/07/23/glendale-arizona-coyotes-arena-deal-dispute-resolved/30571819/


Edit: beat me to it.

Anyways... gonezo! Good riddance.

 

[Bates]

I doubt it but I don't have an inside info. 

Man, can you imagine how good of a GM Chayka will be once he spends 5 years running their AHL team and gets properly mentored?

He will have make due with below the cap floor in actual players on the ice at the rate their picking up artificial cap use. Won't have the funds to pay anyone extension until the team is Quebec... 2019.

Even though RSE signed a 15-year lease, it allows RSE to move the team after five years if it has lost $50 million in that time. It likely will. The only proviso is that RSE will have to pay the city?s losses beyond its $6 million guarantee to ?make whole? ? where have we heard that term before? ? Glendale if the team moves.

That was under the old deal. The new deal allows the Coyotes to move in June 2017, when their lease expires.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/07/23/glendale-arizona-coyotes-arena-deal-dispute-resolved/30571819/


Edit: beat me to it.

Anyways... gonezo! Good riddance.

 

[Kin]

Anyways... gonezo! Good riddance.

I don't really see where they'd move right now that's a viable option. Seattle's not ready and while Quebec City is a good safety valve it's pretty hard to see that as being a desirable spot for the NHL.

If the Coyotes were losing 20-30 million a year and didn't have anyone who wanted to own them then maybe QC would be in play but as is? I bet they stay there until Seattle or some other Western US city wants a team.

 

[Bates]

I think nowhere to actually go is a part of it but I really do believe the present Coyote's owners actually want to stay in AZ.  But if someone doesn't build them an arena in next few years all bets are off, you do need somewhere to play?? 

Anyways... gonezo! Good riddance.

I don't really see where they'd move right now that's a viable option. Seattle's not ready and while Quebec City is a good safety valve it's pretty hard to see that as being a desirable spot for the NHL.

If the Coyotes were losing 20-30 million a year and didn't have anyone who wanted to own them then maybe QC would be in play but as is? I bet they stay there until Seattle or some other Western US city wants a team.

 

[L K]

In a league that is worried about cap circumvention it always struck me as weird that you can acquire players who have no intention of playing/you have no intention of playing for the purposes of faking the cap floor.  At least adjust it so that maybe their LTIR doesn't give you 100% bonus if the player is on LTIR throughout the previous season and starts the next year on LTIR too.  Make some clause where he can go on LTIR 1 month into the year so you can't stash salary/cheat the floor in October.

 

[Kin]

I think nowhere to actually go is a part of it but I really do believe the present Coyote's owners actually want to stay in AZ.  But if someone doesn't build them an arena in next few years all bets are off, you do need somewhere to play?? 

Well, they do play in a taxpayer built arena that's barely 20 years old so they're not exactly homeless even if Glendale is a challenge.

That said I generally agree. If they can figure out a way to be even sort of profitable I don't think there are any super attractive options for moving. That said I assume the arena proposal you're talking about would be a downtown one with the Suns and I wonder how much better being the  second tenant in a building like that would be for them. Also, it would boggle my mind if Phoenix shelled out for that sort of thing after seeing the general folly of taxpayer funded arenas so perfectly spelled out in Glendale.

Still, not my money.

 

[Bates]

The downtown arena would be built first for the Suns as they are really pressuring the City for a new building in next 5 years. The Coyotes would be merely a tenant paying rent and I doubt that makes financial sense?  Most of the talk in AZ is a joint effort between the Coyotes and Arizona State where the Coyotes and the Univ hockey team would play.  It would be built on Univ property in Tempe.  According to local talk part of the NCAA deal for Arizona to get Div 1 hockey was the stipulation that they are building a new arena??  No idea of factual basis of arena deal from either side.  I highly doubt they  staying in Glendale though, that relationship is fractured beyond repair. The 3rd rumor has the local Native Band willing to build the Coyotes an arena to go with their Casino and golf course development near Scottsdale. But there was supposed to be news from the Coyotes before the Draft per Leblanc yet he has been eerily quiet, and it can't be good when Leblanc isn't talking.  He kinda loves the sound of his own voice!!

I think nowhere to actually go is a part of it but I really do believe the present Coyote's owners actually want to stay in AZ.  But if someone doesn't build them an arena in next few years all bets are off, you do need somewhere to play?? 

Well, they do play in a taxpayer built arena that's barely 20 years old so they're not exactly homeless even if Glendale is a challenge.

That said I generally agree. If they can figure out a way to be even sort of profitable I don't think there are any super attractive options for moving. That said I assume the arena proposal you're talking about would be a downtown one with the Suns and I wonder how much better being the  second tenant in a building like that would be for them. Also, it would boggle my mind if Phoenix shelled out for that sort of thing after seeing the general folly of taxpayer funded arenas so perfectly spelled out in Glendale.

Still, not my money.

 

[Kin]

Admittedly I don't know much about college hockey but it seems crazy to me to have a brand new Div-1 NCAA program playing in an arena big enough to house a NHL team. Boston College and Boston University, two of the biggest and most successful NCAA hockey programs, play in rinks that seat 8500 and 7200 respectively. Even North Dakota only seats about 11k for hockey games. You'd have to figure the bare minimum for a NHL team would be in the 14-15K range.

The other options seem difficult as well. It's hard to imagine the NHL being particularly on board with an arena being part of a casino development.

I agree though that Glendale is probably too poisoned to continue.

 

[Bates]

I don't know if the University intends to use arena for basketball as well?  But I also doubt the hockey team would need nhl size. Could also be a concert venue? As for the casino might be hard to fight that after approving Vegas?  It would be the landlord, not the owner so not sure what the issue would be?  But all just conject9at this point as Coyotes have been quiet.

Admittedly I don't know much about college hockey but it seems crazy to me to have a brand new Div-1 NCAA program playing in an arena big enough to house a NHL team. Boston College and Boston University, two of the biggest and most successful NCAA hockey programs, play in rinks that seat 8500 and 7200 respectively. Even North Dakota only seats about 11k for hockey games. You'd have to figure the bare minimum for a NHL team would be in the 14-15K range.

The other options seem difficult as well. It's hard to imagine the NHL being particularly on board with an arena being part of a casino development.

 

[Kin]

As for the casino might be hard to fight that after approving Vegas?  It would be the landlord, not the owner so not sure what the issue would be?

It would be less of a practical matter and more about appearances. Most of these leagues don't want even the appearance of being associated with gambling. It's why so many of them filed objections when New Jersey was looking to legalize sports gaming league wide.

Re: Vegas while it's undeniable that gambling is the big industry there I bet the NHL has all sorts of agreements in place about what official relationship the team can have with casinos(effectively none would be my guess). It's already been reporting that the NHL kiboshed any team name that referenced gambling in any way.

 

[Bates]

So what would be different with team next door to a casino in Scottsdale vs next door to a casino in Vegas?  I think that argument holds no water.

As for the casino might be hard to fight that after approving Vegas?  It would be the landlord, not the owner so not sure what the issue would be?

It would be less of a practical matter and more about appearances. Most of these leagues don't want even the appearance of being associated with gambling. It's why so many of them filed objections when New Jersey was looking to legalize sports gaming league wide.

Re: Vegas while it's undeniable that gambling is the big industry there I bet the NHL has all sorts of agreements in place about what official relationship the team can have with casinos(effectively none would be my guess). It's already been reporting that the NHL kiboshed any team name that referenced gambling in any way.

 

[Kin]

So what would be different with team next door to a casino in Scottsdale vs next door to a casino in Vegas?  I think that argument holds no water.

Well, practically I'd guess there'd be no difference but then practically I don't think legal sports gambling in New Jersey would affect the NHL either. The issue I think would be whether or not there's an actual business relationship between the team and the casino, something that just being neighbours doesn't qualify as.

To be clear, I'm not making an argument here in terms of what I think is morally right. I'm just saying what I think the NHL's policy will be.