After Kovy, Waddell Should Have Little On His Mind
Last March, on trade deadline day, the radio voice of the Thrashers Dan Kamal commented on XM’s NHL Live that re-signing Ilya Kovalchuk was “priority one” for the team and that “there is no 1-a or 1-b” regarding this issue. As I’ve opined previously, I agree with Kamal that there is no higher priority than getting the captain to put pen to paper on a new contract and that is where the bulk of Don Waddell’s attention should be right now. However, there are a couple other players on the roster that I wouldn’t mind seeing Waddell take care of as well…sooner rather than later.
Of the forwards that are expected to play in Atlanta this season, there are but four that are under contract past next summer. Todd White, Chris Thorburn and Marty Reasoner are signed through the 2010-11 season.. after that, they’ll become UFAs. Then there is Nik Antropov who signed a 4-year contract in July.
Spencer Machacek is under contract for this season and next, but it’s yet to be seen whether he’ll play in Atlanta or not this year.
Colby Armstrong, Slava Kozlov, Jim Slater, Eric Boulton and Rich Peverley are all scheduled to be UFAs after this year…Bryan Little is set to be a restricted free agent.
And while Army and the Peever are two that I would like to see signed to extensions as early as possible, the name on that list that I feel should be placed on a priority level just below Kovalchuk is Bryan Little.
Bryan Little will be a RFA next summer (AP Photo/Don Heupel)
Last season, in his first full year of play, the 12th pick in the 2006 draft did everything he needed to do in order to show he is indeed ready to play at this level full time. His 31 goals were second on the team, behind Kovy’s 43, and his 51 overall points was good enough for fourth… between White’s 73 and Armstrong’s 40. Those numbers solidified his role as a top-six forward on this team.
He began the year as a part of the only line that was able to generate points on a consistent basis…playing to right White and opposite Slava Kozlov. At the mid-point of the campaign, that line had accounted for 48 of the team’s 124 goals…Little had 19 of them…and had amassed 113 combined points during that time. It was the lone bright spot during the season’s first half that was otherwise painful to watch.
Toward the end of the season, Little was primarily playing on the right side of Kovalchuk’s top line and continued to produce offensively once there…whether it was White or Peverley at the pivot.
In the fall of 2007, he made the team during training camp and played with the Thrashers to begin the year. On opening night, just after the Thrashers’ division championship banner was raised, he scored the only goal for the team during a 3-1 loss to the Capitals. In doing so, he became the first Thrasher to score in his NHL debut. He was demoted later in the season to play in Chicago, but there he helped the John Anderson-coached Wolves on their way to an AHL championship. However, in 48 games played at the NHL level that season, he produced 6 goals and 10 assists.
Little is one of those players that will, in my opinion, live up to the hype given of his potential. It is not inconceivable that he could be pushing 40 goals and/or 75 points this coming season. If he has that kind of year, his price will do nothing but go up all the more…and deservedly so.
This is why I feel that right after Ilya Kovalchuk, Don Waddell should have Little on is agenda.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
162 comments Add your comment
Simon
August 18th, 2009
7:59 am
Rawhide-thanks for the link. Great read!
ranallo10 (in AT)
August 18th, 2009
8:01 am
I think that’s the most expensive “do over” I’ve ever seen…gotta love the ASG.
World Be Free
August 18th, 2009
8:05 am
Bryan Little-I do hope the Thrash get a deal done right after the sign Kovy and get vet help.
ASG-nothing we can do about this folks, so just let it ride. The NHL has a track record of keeping teams in cities vs. moving them unless there are no other options. I think there are options to keep the team here, we just have been heard of them yet.
Sara-great points about filling the financial void in the arena.
R. Stroz
August 18th, 2009
8:21 am
The Spirit Clowns have created their own version of “Groundhog Day.”
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
8:24 am
Ranallo… and aren’t the teams worth less than when they offered to buy him out in 2005? It’s almost like the ASG expected a “do over”, they had 4 years to cook the books, diminish the value of the teams… and the cherry on top… a bad economy.
ranallo10 (in AT)
August 18th, 2009
8:36 am
Hokie — Agreed. Their court costs can likely be chalked up to successfully diminishing the value of the franchise. I have no idea how much we’re talking about but I could see them being content spending $3 million in the courts to save $10 million in the buyout process.
You gotta give ASG credit sometimes, they seem more slippery than a used car salesperson or even a pawn shop owner.
Adam
August 18th, 2009
9:39 am
Does anyone have any comparative numbers for attendance on the Thrashers vs. Hawks?
During this years playoff run for the Hawks there were several games played in Phillips that were not sellouts and the only 2 playoff games for the Thrashers were played in front of a packed house. If the Thrashers were able to just make it to the second round this year that would really generate some major income. I would also view that as a successful season for this team at this point. Hey and once in you never know what can happen.
As far as Little. I say lock him up for 4yrs at 13.5mil.
h
August 18th, 2009
9:40 am
not sure the ASG is at fault here at all…..it was an agreement which was drafted very poorly by the lawyers when they put their organization together and Belkin tried to take advantage of the crappy agreement. Hopefully, things can start moving forward. It is a big win, and even if there is an appeal, the ASG majority has to be feeling extremely comfortable that they will eventually prevail. I think this is good news. Now we have to see if the ASG goes out and spends a little more money now…….(not holding my breath but you never know)
Rawhide
August 18th, 2009
10:29 am
Here are Michael Gearon’s comments on the court ruling. Needless to say, he’s very pleased with the decision.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
10:32 am
Adam, the Thrashers actually do better from an attendance standpoint. Listed below are the attendance numbers each year but also what place each team finished in the conference standings. So when they have equal finishes, the Thrashers actually outdraw the Hawks. Last year was the first time we did not outdraw them compared to having a similar finish in the standings, but we also did worse than ourselves when having that similar finish in the standings. Last year their 4th place finish was also much better than our year we finished 3rd, so it was the only off year.
As well, we are more profitable from an arena standpoint, but they are definitely more profitable from a TV standpoint. Forgive me if the fonts do not line up in this blog for the numbers below. I tried to use some abbreviations to get it to work but I have no idea how it will look once posted.
Hawks. Thrash Year Hwks Thrs
16,748 14,626 2009 04th 13th
16,280 15,831 2008 08th 14th
15,594 16,240 2007 13th 03rd
15,071 15,550 2006 14th 10th
14,302 —— 2005 15th —-
13,798 15,121 2004 12th 10th
12,894 13,476 2003 11th 11th
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
10:34 am
Let me try this again –
Hawks Thrash Year Hwks Thrs
16,748 14,626 2009 04th 13th
16,280 15,831 2008 08th 14th
15,594 16,240 2007 13th 03rd
15,071 15,550 2006 14th 10th
14,302 ——– 2005 15th —-
13,798 15,121 2004 12th 10th
12,894 13,476 2003 11th 11th
Adam
August 18th, 2009
10:48 am
Thanks EOB!!!
I understand last couple yrs Thrashers numbers for obvious reasons and it’ll be, hopefully, nice to see how they shake up after we have more than one consecutive winning season under our belts.
Adam
August 18th, 2009
10:52 am
If there are no more UFA signings for Dwad this off season who does everyone see getting traded before 10/1 or is he done?
Sara
August 18th, 2009
10:54 am
Adam one thing to note though is that attendance numbers for the NBA do not have the same value as attendance numbers for the NHL. The NHL relies on ticket sales for a disproportionate amount of its revenue compared to the NBA, which makes huge money from its broadcast agreements. So even if the Hawks have less than stellar attendance, they could still be profitable from those other revenue sources. Not so the Thrashers – they’re going to have to have consistently high average attendance figures to have a shot at being profitable (though some consistent deep play-off runs would certainly help out a lot as well).
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
11:06 am
“Unlike the Hawks, the Thrashers are not tied to a 30-year bond payment-agreement for Philips Arena and could be moved.”
However, I remember Waddell mentioning that they have an agreement with the NHL that they won’t try to sell the team out of Atlanta… am i correct?
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
11:12 am
Sara as for your comment about TV revenue, that’s what I was getting at when I had stated that “As well, we are more profitable from an arena standpoint, but they are definitely more profitable from a TV standpoint.”
Adam, you can definitely see that both teams are doing better versus the early part of the decade. Those 10-12 place finishes for both teams in 03-04 are getting outdrawn by a 13th place Hawks finish in 07 and a 14th place Thrasher finish in 08.
At the same time, you can see that things get better with growth as you can see with the Hawks. The Thrashers on the other hand regressed 2 years ago and kept regressing in attendance last year. So this year is very critical for hockey in Atlanta because if they don’t get a good jump at the gate things will look very bleak. Let’s hope Kovalchuk signs and Kubina & Antropov add to the mix while Little & Bogosian continue to grow. Throw in Enstrom, Pavelec, Peverley & Armstrong continuing to grow and all these “ifs” can add up to something good hopefully.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
11:17 am
“However, I remember Waddell mentioning that they have an agreement with the NHL that they won’t try to sell the team out of Atlanta… am i correct?”
GVH, that’s an awfully loose statement that Waddell just “mentioned” something. You may be right but I want to know there is something in legal writing that can stand up to Balsille’s lawyers, not just a brief mention of something that is rather vague at a press conference or in an interview.
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
11:32 am
Well, I’m not worried about it anyway… if Phoenix and Nashville couldn’t get moved, I trust the same for Atlanta… any sell would need league approval, and I don’t see Bettman allowing that anytime soon.
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
11:33 am
EOB… sorry, wish I had some links for you, but I don’t have time this week to find it. Perhaps someone else will recall with the specifics.
R. Stroz
August 18th, 2009
11:57 am
EOB – There is probably a better link than this…but I don’t have time to find Vivlamore’s article on 5/10/09 in the AJC.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/130097
World Be Free
August 18th, 2009
12:01 pm
Alan-hope we have more UFAs on the radar before training camp. Soon it will get to the point that you will be able to get a good player on a one year deal, as we did last year with Marty.
World Be Free
August 18th, 2009
12:05 pm
EOB-hate to sound like a broken record on a Polka jukebox, but the key to this season is getting Kovy inked before the start of the season. I think everything else will fall into place, once he is signed.
Brendan
August 18th, 2009
12:06 pm
So, what happens now, in the lawsuit? Maybe the funniest thing will be that … by the time the thing ends, Joe Johnson’s contract will have expired, which is what started the hostility in the first place.
I’d like to get Steve Belkin’s comments on that. “Mr. Belkin, how do you feel about the player you didn’t want as a Hawk, being gone, by the time the lawsuit was settled?” I think Belkin’s response would be, “Good. I never wanted him here in the first place.” Actually, that’s not true. Belkin probaby did want him, just not for those trade terms.
Adam, $3.375 million in cap hit. Interesting. Let’s keep ‘em (RFA Proactive contract offers for B. Little) coming!
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
12:08 pm
Stroz… I found it… it helped to know the date, thanks.
http://www.ajc.com/thrashers/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/05/09/thrashers_move_ontario.html
Brendan
August 18th, 2009
12:40 pm
Rawhide, you’ve been a busy Internet Blogger.
Here’s a link to Rawhide’s mistress blog. (I won’t tell Trixie that you keep one on the side. What happens in Vegas doesn’t count. Unless you get caught.) (http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-Tiller/Ruling-Keeps-The-Great-Octocluster-Entangled-In-Itself/127/22568
Brendan
August 18th, 2009
12:41 pm
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-Tiller/Ruling-Keeps-The-Great-Octocluster-Entangled-In-Itself/127/22568
Brendan
August 18th, 2009
12:42 pm
There, I think the link worked that time. I suck at that. I need remedial link training.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
12:52 pm
RS & GVH, thanks for that I read the link. It mentions 3 things of which only 1 makes me feel secure.
1) Atlanta Spirit, which owns the team, is “currently involved in litigation with co-owner Steve Belkin that must be resolved.” Well we have no idea what this is in terms of how it can be resolved, when it will be resolved, or that according to the link that BT provided above, it is resolved.
2) Atlanta Spirit “signed a commitment letter to the league to keep the team in Atlanta a specified number of years” Until I know how many years, this means nothing. What if it is only 2 more years? I am still not satisfied.
3) the naming rights to Philips Arena, home to the Thrashers and Hawks, are “tied to it housing both an NHL and NBA franchise.” This answers the question that some of you were debating above and I have heard this many times before. This is something that would only allow them to have a local buyer. However, if Coke or Home Depot were to purchase naming rights and it allowed Philips to walk, then we are in trouble.
Brendan, as for what happens now, it almost sounds like Belkin is just a lame duck owner with no power on the operational side. He lost the force to be bought out at his price, so now he may have to settle for less money or twittle his thumbs. As for Joe Johnson, considering he is one of the Hawks’ best players, it makes me think that Belkin didn’t have the right foresight in this whole battle to begin with.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
12:54 pm
WBF, I am with you that I too want Kovalchuk signed ASAP, but that is out of our hands and we just have to sit and wait.
Smoothie
August 18th, 2009
12:56 pm
For what it’s worth, I heard Gearon on 680 the Fan this morning say something to the effect of “Belkin has been participating in calls throughout the process.” It was just a quick little reference to Belkin when discussing the lawsuit and whether it has affected their financial situation adversely.
He had just finished talking about how the ASG carries no debt and that everything is “out of pocket” before mentioning Belkin. If I in fact heard him right, and that’s what he meant, then Belkin may be in more of a hurry to rid himself of this financial albatross now that the judge has tossed out the buy-out idea. Legal fees on top of capital calls plus a tough economy could spell the end of Belkin. I personally don’t see the ASG selling off the Thrashers (if that is possible) to a new owner until their agreement with the NHL (15 years I believe per Craig Custance) is at least satisfied.
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
1:00 pm
EOB… actually #3 sounds like it needs more clarification to me… it’s always been understood that the two teams were linked to the Philips agreement, but according to Viv’s statement…
“Unlike the Hawks, the Thrashers are not tied to a 30-year bond payment-agreement for Philips Arena and could be moved.”
… I’m confused again.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
1:29 pm
Smoothie, I think Custance is wrong on the 15 years as I know someone who worked on the paperwork for the 2nd $41 mil payment to the NHL and the term was longer than 15 years (unless he meant 15 MORE years).
GVH, I copied that quote right out of Viv’s article, so it is almost as if he is contradicting himself there. I have heard that first quote of his about there needing to be both an NHL and NBA team for the Philips naming rights deal from other sources.
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
1:37 pm
EOB… yeah, I’m agreeing with you… it seems contradictory to everything we’ve ever heard about the Philips deal.
Smoothie
August 18th, 2009
2:04 pm
Not sure really if this proves anything, but I found this old article by Maria Saporta of the ajc.com going back to the time before Philips was built and touches on the elaborate dealings that were conducted to protect the city’s bond covenants:
“Maria Saporta’s column, with assistance from Stan Hubbard, appears regularly. Reach Maria Saporta by e-mail at msaporta @ajc.com”
Per Maria Saporta:
The New Deal
Paying off construction bonds for the arena will require annual debt payments of about $12.5 million for 30 years. Originally, the Hawks pledged all the team’s revenue to back the bonds if the revenue from the arena itself fell short. But the NBA rejected that idea. Here are key parts of the Hawks’ current proposal:
Arena revenue will still be pledges. If a National Hockey League team joins the Hawks, there will be about twice as much money as required. If just the Hawks play, there will be about 1.3 times the required money.
Hawks’ unconditional guarantee to pay off the debt if arena revenues fall short.
Title to the Hawks franchise as collateral is Hawks fail to make up any shortfall.
(Source: Atlanta Hawks)
Back to my commentary: while the Hawks could actually become city property if the ASG were to default on a bond payment, it certainly would not make sense for them to sell off the Thrashers unless they were able to recoup enough money through the sale to be able to pay down significantly the bond obligations or pay them off entirely. In this economic climate, is there anyone willing to put up $150 – 200 M to buy the Thrashers? Because that’s what they would need approximately in proceeds to pay off their existing covenant with the city of Atlanta.
Apologies to midfield who I called out last night because I did not see the quote about the lease agreement from a different article posted about the court ruling. I still think there are other obstacles, just like DWad has said in the past, that would make selling the Thrashers to an owner outside of Atlanta very, very difficult. It just doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s best interests at this point. Perhaps in another 10 years when the ASG only owes $125 M or so to the city.
diego from lilburn
August 18th, 2009
2:10 pm
Sara, the phrase “guardians of hockey in Atlanta” makes me more than a bit queasy myself!
Maybe they will be better stewards of that than they are of being the guardians of the season-ticket holder fanbase!
(ps – once you get it all out you usually feel lots better!)
Tony C.
August 18th, 2009
2:13 pm
Ok that makes sense.
Thrashers/NHL =15 year portion of a 30 year total deal. I can see where you’d make a onger bet on the more profitable league. Especially when you’ve past history of NHL folding in this market (shouldn’t happen, but what’s the saying about a fool[s] and his money?).
I also recall DW being very confident that once the lawsuit was settled, that (A) The club wasn’t going anywhere, and (B) He’d have more loochie to spend.
Would LOVE it if there was an owner “waiting in the wings” as it were, not sure this is the case but I’m finding it harder and harder to be surprised by anything The Gang That Couldn’t Sue Straight does.
Rob
August 18th, 2009
2:22 pm
Smoothie – I re-checked the article. In the very last paragraph it states the following:
The owners have denied that wither team would be sold, but sports business experts have said previously that the viability of the Thrashers is in doubt. Unlike the Hawks, the Thrashers are not tied to a 30-year bond payment-agreement for Philips Arena and could be moved.
That right there says that the Thrash are not tied to the 30 year bond and could be moved…
Glovesave29
August 18th, 2009
2:29 pm
Bertuzzi just signed a 1 yr / $1.5M deal with Detroit
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
2:30 pm
I’m guessing the bond-agreement is something completely separate from the “naming rights”… all it means is the Thrashers revenue is not tied into the construction bonds.
However, they are tied to the naming rights and there is contractual obligation to the NHL to keep the team in Atlanta for “however long”… so, I would say Viv said a little bit more than he should have in that last paragraph. I would say the Thrashers are NOT eligible to move.
Glovesave29
August 18th, 2009
2:34 pm
The Sharks also took the “C” off of Patrick Marleau’s jersey
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
2:35 pm
I think I figured this all out. I should have caught this the first time. The Thrashers are not tied to the bond payment for the arena itself but they are tied to the naming rights agreement with the Philips company. So the Thrashers can move and not have the bonds effected and it would just be the Hawks that must pay it. But they can’t move without altering the lucrative naming rights revenue that requires both an NHL and NBA franchise play in the arena.
Smoothie
August 18th, 2009
2:38 pm
Agreed Hokie, it was irresponsible at best by Viv, Sekou and Kristi (go figure!) to at least include a paragraph about the naming rights deal and the covenant signed between ASG and the NHL.
Rob, thanks, but where were you last night? See my mea culpa above apologizing to midfield. Too many nitpickers on this blog sometimes.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
2:39 pm
You beat me to it GaVaHokie. Either way, the bonds to pay for construction of the arena are a completely different issue than the naming rights for the arena. The Thrashers are not tied to the construction bonds but are tied to the naming rights for Philips. And that makes complete sense as if they have a contract to sell Budweiser beer that would have nothing to do with how they will be paying for an escalator or the roof.
Smoothie
August 18th, 2009
2:40 pm
Including me!! Hence why I’m trying to unearth some additional facts to quell some of the alarm and potential panic over a Thrashers relo.
Glovesave29
August 18th, 2009
2:47 pm
My thought is, that with any and all of the protection written into any contract to keep the team here in Atlanta – if the owners want to sell, and the proposed buyer has enough cash to make it happen, then we lose the team. The hope of course it to get local ownership with deep ties to the community – too bad those are few and far between.
That being said, I thing Phoenix, Nashville, Florida and Tampa would be the target first…and let’s face it, there are only so many cities that can afford an NHL team. Personally, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Quebec would all be a mistake. Huge fan support in small markets, but no corporate dollars means they are headed for trouble. Vegas, KC, Seattle, Houston – can see enough interest there from either fans OR corporations to justify the expense.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
2:49 pm
Smoothie I think any team in the sun belt is going to have alarm as long as Balsille doesn’t own a team yet. But ask yourself this, does it make more sense to move the Atlanta Thrashers or the Florida Panthers? We are more secure than they are hands down.
The fact that Philips isn’t tied to the community as much anymore is what worries me the most because the naming rights thing is where we have the most security (requiring and NBA and NHL franchise to play in the arena). They can easily offer Philips a buyout and then go sign someone else at a discount but make more money when the 2 are combined. In this economy that might be tough to do though.
Smoothie
August 18th, 2009
3:17 pm
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:wFHt8Kr8RrwJ:mm1.co.fulton.ga.us/cache/00005/168/2008-0169.PDF+philips+arena+operating+lease&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This link gives confirmation to the article by Viv and Schwartz stating that only the Hawks are tied to the bond repayment agreement. There is no mention of the Atlanta Thrashers as far as I can tell.
GaVaHokie
August 18th, 2009
3:28 pm
They can easily offer Philips a buyout and then go sign someone else at a discount but make more money when the 2 are combined. In this economy that might be tough to do though.
True, I’ve always thought anyone looking to buy and move the Thrashers would have to make an offer worth breaking the naming rights agreement (roughly $90 million remaining on the deal)… hypothetically, spending at least $50 million over the book value of the team, then ASG negotiating, say Coca-Cola or Georgia Pacific, to a $40 million deal.
Alan
August 18th, 2009
3:52 pm
You know it’s August when people will talk about anything just to talk about stuff. I knew this kind of garbage (”ONOZ, THE TEAM CAN BE MOVED!!1!”) would get blog time as soon as I read the story.
I’d rather read Eklund rumors.
The Earl of Bud
August 18th, 2009
3:55 pm
GVH, if there is $90 mil remaining, they can also offer a buyout to Philips for $10-20 mil. That would be a lot cheaper for them instead of paying $90 mil if times are tough for them and the whole arena thing isn’t even working out for them as expected. Then, that’s $10-20 mil less that the ASG would have to get from the new buyer to justify the deal, say only $30 mil over book value instead of $50 mil over book value.