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

[bustaheims]

I guess but you'd have to think you could get a ton more to make it worth that kind of cash.

Well, my guess is Nashville would value known quantities a fair amount more than what would likely be 4 late 1st round picks. My guess is, if they can't negotiate some sort of deal to their liking with the Flyers, they match and maybe even hang on to Weber for a couple seasons before moving him.

 

[Kin]

Well, my guess is Nashville would value known quantities a fair amount more than what would likely be 4 late 1st round picks.

I'm sure they would. I just don't know if it's to the extent that they're willing to pay 27 million dollars for the chance.

 

[Frank E]

Asset value greater than an extra $12 million bucks of cash?

No, it's the full 27, right? Like their choice would be the 4 first rounders and paying Weber squat and paying him this year, being on the hook for next year's bonus and then trying to get what you could for him.

You're absolutely right. 

At this point it's the four firsts, or Weber on your roster this year at $27(?) mil and whatever you could get for him next summer.

 

[cabber24]

What is the compensation NAS would receive if they don't match... I think it's 2 first, 1 second and 1 third or is it 4 first?

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/2011/05/26/compensation-for-signing-a-nhl-restricted-free-agent/

According to above link annual compensation Over $7,835,219 results in 4 first. 110/14 = 7,860,000. So which one is it?

My guess is Philly got as close to the 4 first compensation level as possible without actually reaching it.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm sure they would. I just don't know if it's to the extent that they're willing to pay 27 million dollars for the chance.

I wouldn't do it, but, it really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Poile and his ownership group were willing to take that risk.

 

[bustaheims]

What is the compensation NAS would receive if they don't match... I think it's 2 first, 1 second and 1 third or is it 4 first?

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/2011/05/26/compensation-for-signing-a-nhl-restricted-free-agent/

According to above link annual compensation Over $7,835,219 results in 4 first. 110/14 = 7,860,000. So which one is it?

My guess is Philly got as close to the 4 first compensation level as possible without actually reaching it.

Compensation for offer sheets longer than 5 seasons is based on the total value of the contract divided by 5. It's four 1st round picks.

 

[Corn Flake]

Not sure. Some info I saw suggested that Nashville could move him if they wanted to but for sure Philli could not move him for a calendar year if NSH walks from the offer and they land him that way.  Need to confirm though.

Whoever's saying that is wrong. It's the other way around. Philly would be free to move him, Nashville would not.

That seems completely backwards to me.

 

[Kin]

I wouldn't do it, but, it really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Poile and his ownership group were willing to take that risk.

I'm not a never say never guy but...if Nashville matches I'd put pretty serious money on them planning on keeping him around long-term. That's just too much money to take on.

 

[Kin]

That seems completely backwards to me.

But the idea is that a matching team has to have an actual interest in keeping them around so you avoid the situation being described where Nashville could match and then start an auction.

 

[Frank E]

That seems completely backwards to me.

But the idea is that a matching team has to have an actual interest in keeping them around so you avoid the situation being described where Nashville could match and then start an auction.

But Philly could do that, right?

 

[Corn Flake]

That seems completely backwards to me.

But the idea is that a matching team has to have an actual interest in keeping them around so you avoid the situation being described where Nashville could match and then start an auction.

Makes sense, but he was their asset in the first place that another team walked in and signed... should they keep him to me they should be able to do what they want.. almost as if things go back to normal like every other player under contract.

If it was the other way around (the way I thought it was) where the restriction is on the team who offer sheet the player... they (in this case, Philli) could land the player and then flip him to another team.  That could  screw over the player and represent a situation where the 3rd team gets a player they weren't able to sign themselves for whatever reason.  Ie: Flyers get Weber then flip him the next day to the Islanders.  Weber weeps.

 

[Kin]

But Philly could do that, right?

Sure, just like any team signing any free agent could then turn around and trade them. Be pretty weird though.

 

[Bullfrog]

I disagree. It's a similar situation that I deal with on occasion in construction contracts. Both the Owner and Contractor have the right to submit claims against each other for costs due to delays, unforeseen circumstances, etc. It's always courteous to provide some indication that a claim is being contemplated rather than just coldly throwing it on their desk with no warning. Doing so denies the other the chance to rectify the situation prior to claims being made. It's not conducive to a give-and-take atmosphere and can create a strained relationship. Nonetheless, these claims are a common occurence and are permitted options for the parties to the contract.

I can't speak to the construction business with any degree of authority but I have to guess that the gigantic differences between it and the NHL in terms of the naturally adversarial role between teams render that comparison strained at best.

Similarly, offer sheets are allowed by the CBA and I think it's fair that a GM can approve of their use while still having his own principles on how GM's should conduct themselves when making them.

A GM can absolutely have his own set of principles. It's just naive to think that your principles should or will be adopted by the world at large.

The comparison, which you seem to have misunderstood, is that it's certainly not unreasonable to expect parties to a contract (or in this case a CBA) to act with courtesy and certain principles even in an adversarial circumstance such as submitting a claim or an offer sheet to a player.

It's naive to think that Burke's principles are somehow unusual or extreme.

 

[lamajama]

I wouldn't do it, but, it really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Poile and his ownership group were willing to take that risk.

I'm not a never say never guy but...if Nashville matches I'd put pretty serious money on them planning on keeping him around long-term. That's just too much money to take on.

Well Nashville may be planning on keeping him around but Weber may not plan on it. Contract or no, if he puts his pout on etc Nashville would essentially have to move him. Could I see Weber doing that? Unfortunately yes because he's trying already to get out, his agent says he wants out and I'm sure he sees Nashville as not being able to compete/sign other players as he's screwing the team in terms of having $$ to sign players Cap or not. I would think Nashville is going to have to reduce overall payroll to soften the blow of $27 million.

 

[bustaheims]

If it was the other way around (the way I thought it was) where the restriction is on the team who offer sheet the player... they (in this case, Philli) could land the player and then flip him to another team.  That could  screw over the player and represent a situation where the 3rd team gets a player they weren't able to sign themselves for whatever reason.  Ie: Flyers get Weber then flip him the next day to the Islanders.  Weber weeps.

Sure, but how many teams would give up the kind of draft picks assets it would take to get a team to walk away from a player just so they can trade them elsewhere? I mean, sure, it may be something that exists in the realm of possibilities, but, it's just so preposterous. I mean, I know we like to bring up teams not wanting to make certain types of moves because it would damage their reputation in the free agent market and that most of them are complete BS, but, this is really one of those situations. There would have been no good faith on the part of the team in those negotiations and their interest would have been almost entirely fraudulent. The scenario you lay out just makes no sense from a practical perspective.

 

[Kin]

Makes sense, but he was their asset in the first place that another team walked in and signed... should they keep him to me they should be able to do what they want.. almost as if things go back to normal like every other player under contract.

I think where that falls apart is describing a player in Weber's situation, in free agency and without a contract, as "theirs". They have certain rights if he signs with an NHL team, yeah, but he's still a free agent. For RFA to work as a concept I think you have to come down on the side of encouraging that whoever signs this contract does so in good faith. Otherwise, I mean, the simple answer is that Weber puts a NTC in there.

The NHL is operating on shaky enough ground with the whole idea that someone who is no longer under contract has their "rights" owned by someone is such a tenuous position legally that I really don't think they want to drill holes in the boat.

If it was the other way around (the way I thought it was) where the restriction is on the team who offer sheet the player... they (in this case, Philli) could land the player and then flip him to another team.  That could  screw over the player and represent a situation where the 3rd team gets a player they weren't able to sign themselves for whatever reason.  Ie: Flyers get Weber then flip him the next day to the Islanders.  Weber weeps.

Sure. But that's no different than it is for any other free agent. Phillly would basically be handicapping themselves in all future negotiations for anyone.

 

[Kin]

The comparison, which you seem to have misunderstood, is that it's certainly not unreasonable to expect parties to a contract (or in this case a CBA) to act with courtesy and certain principles even in an adversarial circumstance such as submitting a claim or an offer sheet to a player.

But, again, removed from the air of competition that is the fundamental basis for sport I don't see what relevance that holds. If I'm the GM of a hockey team I want to do well at the expense of every other team. If you're not in a adversarial situation, yeah, courtesy and Oxbridge pleasantries are delightful but I could name thousands of instances of duplicity or deception in the name of building sports teams. That's the rule, not the exception.

I mean, promising to run by any and all offers for RFA's by the other guy is bordering pretty close to collusion.

It's naive to think that Burke's principles are somehow unusual or extreme.

Except for the mountain of evidence to the contrary, sure.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Maybe this has been said, but couldn't Nashville trade the rights to match the offer before next week? Or does he already have a NMC? Because he could have gone on the block yesterday for the highest price and that would screw Philly royally.

 

[Kin]

Maybe this has been said, but couldn't Nashville trade the rights to match the offer before next week? Or does he already have a NMC? Because he could have gone on the block yesterday for the highest price and that would screw Philly royally.

Regardless of whether or not they can, I don't know why any team would want to be a part of that. I mean they'd give up something more valuable than 4 first round picks for the right to probably have a cheesed off Shea Weber on their team.

 

[bustaheims]

Maybe this has been said, but couldn't Nashville trade the rights to match the offer before next week? Or does he already have a NMC? Because he could have gone on the block yesterday for the highest price and that would screw Philly royally.

No. Once the offer sheet is filed, the only options are match or take compensation from the team that signed the offer sheet.