• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Report: Shea Weber agrees to offer sheet with PHI (Dreger on twitter)

As much as I want the new CBA to be "fixed" in a number of areas and generally support the owners
puke.gif
I find it laughable that the owners will cry poor when they do this crap.

I also think whatever upcoming players can sign NOW will and we'll see a flurry of 10-14 years deals. What a joke.
 
lamajama said:
As much as I want the new CBA to be "fixed" in a number of areas and generally support the owners
puke.gif
I find it laughable that the owners will cry poor when they do this crap.

I also think whatever upcoming players can sign NOW will and we'll see a flurry of 10-14 years deals. What a joke.

The owners crying poor are not the ones signing these contracts.
 
Nik? said:
What he's done here is given Nashville the rights to have him signed for basically the rest of his career if they match.

I agree.  If I was Nashville, I'd be elated with this turn of events if the contract is indeed 14 years at approx 100 million.  You'd be getting Weber on more-or-less the same deal as Suter was just signed.  By all accounts Weber is the superior player and one of the top 3 defenseman in the league.  14 years at 100 works out to a 7.1 average salary.  That's a steal in my mind.  If Nashville doesn't sign Weber at this price then I think they are just giving up.  I don't see how they can get better value for their money. 

And I certainly hope that Philly doesn't get Weber for this price.  That will once again make them a powerhouse.  As an aside, I don't believe it is ever a problem to have a Norris candidate defender signed at a reasonable price AND have multiple good young forwards to sign.  If only the leafs could be so lucky to have those problems.  If you have so many great young players you can't keep them all, you can always trade them for high-quality futures (a la Richards, Carter).

Strategically, from Philly's side, I almost wonder if they are doing this to ensure that no one but them and Nashville can get Weber (ie: not another eastern conference team like NJ or Pittsburgh they'll have to compete with).
 
princedpw said:
I agree.  If I was Nashville, I'd be elated with this turn of events if the contract is indeed 14 years at approx 100 million.  You'd be getting Weber on more-or-less the same deal as Suter was just signed.  By all accounts Weber is the superior player and one of the top 3 defenseman in the league.  14 years at 100 works out to a 7.1 average salary.  That's a steal in my mind.  If Nashville doesn't sign Weber at this price then I think they are just giving up.  I don't see how they can get better value for their money. 

A couple things. Firstly, it's $110M over 14 years, so, ~$7.86M per (and, I'm not sure anyone is a steal at that number - it makes him the highest cap hit among defencemen, 5th highest overall). Secondly, the way the contract is structured, with all the bonus money, could make things very difficult for Nashville. If they match, they'd have to pay Weber $27M between now and July 1st, 2013. That's a potentially difficult situation for them. I think they still match, but, they have a very definite financial quandary to resolve before they can do so.
 
A sign that some owners expect the new CBA to have a franchise player clause in it that allows one contract to not count against the cap?
 
bustaheims said:
A couple things. Firstly, it's $110M over 14 years, so, ~$7.86M per (and, I'm not sure anyone is a steal at that number - it makes him the highest cap hit among defencemen, 5th highest overall).

But doesn't it ever strike you as odd that as the cap has ballooned the percentage of the maximum that top players get hasn't really matched it? I mean, I don't remember the exact number but Niedermayer's deal with the Ducks was right up there. Now Weber's coming at a cap hit that's what, 60% of the maximum?
 
Nashville, Tenn. (July 19, 2012) ? Nashville Predators President of Hockey Operations/General Manager David Poile issued the following statement this morning:

"We are in receipt of the offer sheet signed between the Philadelphia Flyers and Shea Weber. Under the rules pertaining to an offer sheet, the Predators have one week to decide whether to match or accept the compensation. We have stated previously that, should a team enter into an offer sheet with Shea, our intention would be to match and retain Shea. Our ownership has provided us with the necessary resources to build a Stanley Cup-winning team. Due to the complexity of the offer sheet, we will take the appropriate time to review and evaluate it and all of its ramifications in order to make the best decision for the Predators in both the short and long-term.

?We do not anticipate any further comments on this situation until we make our decision within the next seven days.?
 
Nik? said:
But doesn't it ever strike you as odd that as the cap has ballooned the percentage of the maximum that top players get hasn't really matched it? I mean, I don't remember the exact number but Niedermayer's deal with the Ducks was right up there. Now Weber's coming at a cap hit that's what, 60% of the maximum?

Not really, no. I mean, in terms of real dollars, Weber is getting the max for the next couple seasons. I think what we've seen is that player values, as seen by teams and players, is not defined by the cap - and, that's not really a surprise. I also think there's a real understanding among the players and teams that having a guy taking up 20% of the cap is not likely to be conducive towards building a winning team. What has happened is pretty much in line with what I expected to happen - when the cap first came out, the expectation was that it would be the mid-range players who would lose out the most. As the cap has risen, they've recouped most of their loses there, and, because of that, while the top players are still going to get paid like top players, there's only so much cap space available to pay them, so, their cap values are going to reined in.
 
Nik? said:
Chev-boyar-sky said:
This is a CBA gripe I have, but why should it be legal to pay a player significant bonuses  6 years and then none at all. Seems to me at least that it should be like the salary where it can't drop by more than x% between consecutive years.

Maybe the rule should be all signing bonuses are paid upfront, or spread evenly over the life of the contract (yes I realize I contradicted the 20% thing).

Also seems odd that the Predators are going to lose a guy for who'll earn 12M over the next 6 years in actual salary. How a NHL all-star can be paid 1M per year in salary from the age of 27-31 is beyond me. It's blatant Cap circumvention.

Yeah, I don't get the problem. It's just the structure of the payment. It's not like there's an actual difference between salary and bonuses.

I think I'm just trying to get my head around what's fair in terms of payment/contract so contracts never seem to be circumventing the cap. Parise/Suter's contracts bother me too. Maybe I'm heading down the pathto nowhere but bear with me.

If the bonus money had to be spread over the life of the contract Weber would probably be less inclined to sign this no? Nashville more likely to match, I'd guess.

68 M in bonuses divided by 14 gives us 4.85M. So that 4.85M is a constant for the contract. If Philly decide to pay him 14M in year one, then he makes 9.15M in salary. If they decide to pay him 1M in salary when he's 38 then he'd still get 5.85M in that year. Effectively the Cap hit would go up. Is that beneficial to anybody? I don't know.

I just think that having a system where guys make 14M one year (a crazy amount) and then 1M in a year where they're just as productive/effective, is somehow not right. Maybe if the team could only pay a certain % before the halfway point in the contract, or something to that effect. Even if it put an end to these types of contracts I don't think it would be all that bad of a thing.
 
BlueWhiteBlood said:
If Weber wanted a trade, this seems like a dumb way to go about it. If Nash matches, he's there for life, unless he demands a trade, which seems like another hassle. Maybe he just wanted a contract done and over with?

Weber wants his cash, almost certainly wants out of Nashville, and in the end (not necessarily right now), he's going to get his cake and eat it, too.

It is inconceivable that Weber is ambivalent as to where he plays the rest of his career.  No elite player commits the rest of their playing career to either of two teams, even for an outrageous amount of money.  You can buy the player, but you can't buy their heart, at least not for anywhere near that long.

Here's almost certainly what's going to happen:  Nashville will match the offer, despite how much it is structured to deter them from doing so.  Weber will say whatever he needs to say about being happy to go back to Nashville.  He may or may not put in much effort this year, and he will ask to be traded between 1 and 2 years from now (as he can't be traded in the next year).  It's possible he's already told Nashville as much.  He will have a no-trade clause that allows him to control where he's traded to.  He will heavily or entirely steer trade talks toward Philadelphia.  Poile will have his hands tied, between detesting the idea of having to trade to Philly, yet having to deal with a no-trade clause that more or less puts the player in the driver's seat.

I guarantee this:  Weber will be a hated man in Nashville within 2 years.  For signing a deal structured to punish Nashville for trying to keep him.  For asking for a trade, despite a 14 year contract.  For controlling trade talks.  In the end, this'll make Heatley's exit from Ottawa look amicable, I guarantee it.

The only way this works out for Nashville is if they impress Weber enough on the ice in the next year to make him want to stay.

 
Chev-boyar-sky said:
I think I'm just trying to get my head around what's fair in terms of payment/contract so contracts never seem to be circumventing the cap. Parise/Suter's contracts bother me too. Maybe I'm heading down the pathto nowhere but bear with me.

What I think people are telling you, though, is that there's no real difference between this and the Parise/Suter contracts. There's no real difference to you, me or anyone other than the people involved if Weber gets his 14 million dollars in year one in one big check on July 1st or split into equal installments over the course of the year.

Chev-boyar-sky said:
If the bonus money had to be spread over the life of the contract Weber would probably be less inclined to sign this no? Nashville more likely to match, I'd guess.

Well, I guess. But because it's more lucrative for a player to get as much money as he can upfront all that would happen is that instead of getting money in a bulk payment he'd get paid over the year.

Again, I don't understand why you're seeing a big distinction between salary and the signing bonus. It's just money paid to the player.

Chev-boyar-sky said:
68 M in bonuses divided by 14 gives us 4.85M. So that 4.85M is a constant for the contract. If Philly decide to pay him 14M in year one, then he makes 9.15M in salary. If they decide to pay him 1M in salary when he's 38 then he'd still get 5.85M in that year. Effectively the Cap hit would go up. Is that beneficial to anybody? I don't know.

In that situation all Philadelphia would do is change it to 14 million in salary in year one. Again, why do you care if a guy makes 14 million in year one if it's in the form of a big lump sum as opposed to spread out over the year?

Chev-boyar-sky said:
I just think that having a system where guys make 14M one year (a crazy amount) and then 1M in a year where they're just as productive/effective, is somehow not right. Maybe if the team could only pay a certain % before the halfway point in the contract, or something to that effect. Even if it put an end to these types of contracts I don't think it would be all that bad of a thing.

I think you'd actually have to explain why a player preferring his money up front is a bad thing before that really held weight.
 
I like how the draft pick compensation for Weber is pretty much the same cost that we had to give up for Kessel. 
 
L K said:
I like how the draft pick compensation for Weber is pretty much the same cost that we had to give up for Kessel.

4 first rounds vs. 2 first rounds...? Is that what you mean?
 
Back
Top