Jump to content

Front-loadin': Full financial terms of Shea Weber's 14-year offer sheet


Irishjim

Recommended Posts

It's been mentioned several times that one of the Preds owner is a billionaire. I have no doubt... ZERO, that the Preds can match if they want to. The question is not can they come up with the money now, it's do they have the revenue to cover their losses, and God forbid actually make a profit, down the line. The Flyers can spend to the cap because they know they will be making money every year. The Preds can't do the former because they don't know the latter.

sure.. ok, they have a billionaire owner. this does not mean he just reaches into his pockets to pay up weber just because. first of all, i suppose that if he ponied up the money then he would essentially be buying the others out? why hasn't he done that already? why would he want to 'reward' weber with that kind of money when it's clear that he wants to leave?

there's just too many x-factors there that just don't add up, no matter who is a billionaire amongst their ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure.. ok, they have a billionaire owner. this does not mean he just reaches into his pockets to pay up weber just because. first of all, i suppose that if he ponied up the money then he would essentially be buying the others out? why hasn't he done that already? why would he want to 'reward' weber with that kind of money when it's clear that he wants to leave?

there's just too many x-factors there that just don't add up, no matter who is a billionaire amongst their ownership.

First off, I don't necessarily agree that it's clear that Weber wants to leave. I think by signing the offer sheet he made it clear that he would be fine playing in Philadelphia or Nashville. Since he has no real way of knowing who will "win" here. Maybe his preference is to leave, but if he really wanted out then he would have demanded a trade or waited until he became unrestricted.

As far as the billionaire guy, who knows? But Poile did come out and say, after Weber signed, that the owners were willing to provide the resources (that means money) to match. Whether or not they actually want to match is a different story, and I suspect, what the real issue is. Because they are not profitable, and because there could be a lockout, matching could put them in a serious financial hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I don't necessarily agree that it's clear that Weber wants to leave. I think by signing the offer sheet he made it clear that he would be fine playing in Philadelphia or Nashville. Since he has no real way of knowing who will "win" here. Maybe his preference is to leave, but if he really wanted out then he would have demanded a trade or waited until he became unrestricted.

As far as the billionaire guy, who knows? But Poile did come out and say, after Weber signed, that the owners were willing to provide the resources (that means money) to match. Whether or not they actually want to match is a different story, and I suspect, what the real issue is. Because they are not profitable, and because there could be a lockout, matching could put them in a serious financial hole.

it's pretty clear weber wants to play for the flyers. the possibility still exists that he's with the preds, though, so he's not gonna come right out and say that he'd prefer the flyers. cause that would be pretty awkward if it doesnt' work out. well, it will be pretty awkward regardless, but you know what i mean. he's saying what he needs to say.. albeit through his agent. but, his agent, made it very clear that shea wanted to move on. nashville is more than aware of this at this point. which really makes it an important issue. do you pay the guy to stay against his wishes!?

i mean, there are so many negatives to nashville matching, that it would really shock me if they do at this point. i do expect them to make a try at a trade involving those picks and some players because i think the ultimate failure for them would be accepting the 4 1sts only. but, from a preds perspective, maybe that's their best option anyway. take the picks and try to make some trades with other teams. we actually don't really have what they need or want anyway.

hell, maybe they'll even poach someone else's RFA's. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i mean, there are so many negatives to nashville matching, that it would really shock me if they do at this point. i do expect them to make a try at a trade involving those picks and some players because i think the ultimate failure for them would be accepting the 4 1sts only.

I agree, and I don't think they will just take the 4 picks. I think their best bet is to try to trade a couple picks back to the Flyers for players. Second best is probably to match, and if things go bad with Weber trade him a year from now. There will be no shortage of takers and they could probably get a better deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about going to a winner? You're the one who keeps bringing up the Cups. Suter wanted to play with Parise, and Parise wanted to play near home. Suter's fiancee (or whatever) is from Minny I believe. And Minnesota is a solid hockey market. When the North Stars bolted everyone knew it was just a matter of time before the NHL put another franchise there. If Nashville does fail, do you think the NHL will be back there any time soon?

Of course not. They have a lot of money to lose in Quebec, Whitehorse, Regina and trying to put a team in Hamilton.

The question isn't whether or not a team can be PROFITABLE it's whether or not it can be COMPETITIVE.

You can put a team in frakkin' Moose Jaw and it won't be able to match this deal.

It's a fair offer under the rules. The rules stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. They have a lot of money to lose in Quebec, Whitehorse, Regina and trying to put a team in Hamilton.

The question isn't whether or not a team can be PROFITABLE it's whether or not it can be COMPETITIVE.

You can put a team in frakkin' Moose Jaw and it won't be able to match this deal.

It's a fair offer under the rules. The rules stink.

If you're referring to the signing bonus shenanigans, I agree. It's a stupid idea. They're paying Weber $13 million dollars to sign, but only $1 million to play? Sounds kind of silly to me. I'll sign for $13 million and they won't even have to pay me the extra $1 million to play!

But if you're talking about the innate unfairness that richer teams (i.e., teams that make more money) have an advantage over poorer teams, I have no problem with that. And I say that as a proud liberal Democrat who believes in universal health care and all kind of that crap. But it makes no sense to me to basically hand every franchise the same amount of money and then see who can spend it the smartest. Or the luckiest.

Edited by JackStraw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're referring to the signing bonus shenanigans, I agree. It's a stupid idea. They're paying Weber $13 million dollars to sign, but only $1 million to play? Sounds kind of silly to me. I'll sign for $13 million and they won't even have to pay me the extra $1 million to play!

But if you're talking about the innate unfairness that richer teams (i.e., teams that make more money) have an advantage over poorer teams, I have no problem with that. And I say that as a proud liberal Democrat who believes in universal health care and all kind of that crap. But it makes no sense to me to basically hand every franchise the same amount of money and then see who can spend it the smartest. Or the luckiest.

I know we're not that far apart in terms of opinion. I'm not taking anything seriously/personally.

It makes no sense to me that one team that has even slightly more resources than another has an inherent competitive advantage.

From a "competitive sport" point of view.

That's why people were booing at the MLB all star game in Kansas City. In 1980 the Royals lost the World Series to the first Philadelphia Phillies championship. But the Royals were a perrennial contender.

When can you postulate the Royals as a perrennial contender? Or even the Edmonton Oilers?

There's your "Islanders" comparison. Edmonton could never compliment Gretzky under today's rules.

Never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, the All-Star game was in Kansas City???

But seriously though, nothing personal here either. I think the biggest difference we have may be that I see the salary cap as the major means by which the league can level the playing field. But the league cannot, and imo should not, see to it that every team has the means to spend to the cap. If there was more revenue to be shared, then there would be less of a problem. And maybe this is at least part of the reason why the league's initial salvo in the CBA war included such a big decrease in the percentage of revenues that goes to players salaries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I don't necessarily agree that it's clear that Weber wants to leave. I think by signing the offer sheet he made it clear that he would be fine playing in Philadelphia or Nashville. Since he has no real way of knowing who will "win" here. Maybe his preference is to leave, but if he really wanted out then he would have demanded a trade or waited until he became unrestricted.

As far as the billionaire guy, who knows? But Poile did come out and say, after Weber signed, that the owners were willing to provide the resources (that means money) to match. Whether or not they actually want to match is a different story, and I suspect, what the real issue is. Because they are not profitable, and because there could be a lockout, matching could put them in a serious financial hole.

Actually Jack, Poile said they had the resources to put a Stanlet Cup winning team on the ice. He never mentioned having the resources to match this specific offer in his response to it. In fact, I'll contend that his statement intentionally skirted around whether they had the resources to match this offer or not. It sounded like a set up to give himself an out later by saying "we couldn't match the money up front but we did what was best for the team." Making Weber and Philly out to be the bad guys.

Which may be true, but they neglected to handle this situation well themselves as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Jack, Poile said they had the resources to put a Stanlet Cup winning team on the ice. He never mentioned having the resources to match this specific offer in his response to it. In fact, I'll contend that his statement intentionally skirted around whether they had the resources to match this offer or not. It sounded like a set up to give himself an out later by saying "we couldn't match the money up front but we did what was best for the team." Making Weber and Philly out to be the bad guys.

Which may be true, but they neglected to handle this situation well themselves as well.

I stand corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran I think a big part of Suter and Praise signing in Minnesota *is* all about winning. Moving forward, I believe the Wild will be substantially better than the Preds. The young talent they have amassed is staggering. Granlund, who arrives this season is better than any Pred forward....ever. The have much more depth, at forward and defense. Of course Rinne is better than the Wild duo, but the gap is not huge. The Wild, from this point forward will finish higher than the Preds for years to come. I boldly predict a trip to the finals for the Wild next season (should there indeed be one). All the Wild needed was an injection of offense, that comes this year...in spades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran I think a big part of Suter and Praise signing in Minnesota *is* all about winning. Moving forward, I believe the Wild will be substantially better than the Preds. The young talent they have amassed is staggering. Granlund, who arrives this season is better than any Pred forward....ever. The have much more depth, at forward and defense. Of course Rinne is better than the Wild duo, but the gap is not huge. The Wild, from this point forward will finish higher than the Preds for years to come. I boldly predict a trip to the finals for the Wild next season (should there indeed be one). All the Wild needed was an injection of offense, that comes this year...in spades.

Right. Now, say Suter signed with Nashville and convinced Parise to go there. How does it all play out then?

And I think the Wild's defense is paper thin. Can be improved, but is a real weak link for them at the moment.

Saying that you think any team will be better than one that just lost it's top two defensemen isn't that big of a stretch now, is it?

So, again, the point isn't that Suter and Praise make the Wild better, it's that the Preds already WERE better before Suter left "because he wanted to win."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that really hasn't been mentioned in all of this is that not only would Nashville have the 27 million in one calendar year to one player, they are also looking at a bit over 6.1 million dollars in "dead money" paid out in each of the first four seasons, money that they have to pay that won't be counted against the cap. They're at 40.8 million versus the 54.1 million dollar cap floor. So while they would be paying Weber enough to reach the cap floor in real dollars over the next 4 seasons, they're only going to get themselves to about 48.7 million, almost 6 million short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that really hasn't been mentioned in all of this is that not only would Nashville have the 27 million in one calendar year to one player, they are also looking at a bit over 6.1 million dollars in "dead money" paid out in each of the first four seasons, money that they have to pay that won't be counted against the cap. They're at 40.8 million versus the 54.1 million dollar cap floor. So while they would be paying Weber enough to reach the cap floor in real dollars over the next 4 seasons, they're only going to get themselves to about 48.7 million, almost 6 million short.

They are short two defensemen (they only have four signed). I don't know who's out there, but they could still bring back the Kostitsyns and, cough, Zherdev then, ahem... sign Semin...

All right, I'm gonna go be sick now...

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a guy named Kubina waiting for a job still...

But my point was real dollar compensation versus salary cap. You would expect a cap floor team to want a player to have a larger cap hit than real money payout (Hartnell will be paid 3.2 million in real dollars this year, but will count 4.2 against the cap), as opposed to one whose cap hit is lower than his real dollar payout, the way Weber is due to be paid. Last year Nashville's payroll was in the area of 52.2 million. Now it has to climb (in real dollars) to a minimum of 60.2 million just to meet the cap floor if they retain Weber. That's a 15% jump. Not saying they won't, but a team that has been reluctant in the past to spend probably isn't looking to change their philosophy that much that fast, unless there is a big revenue change coming for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a guy named Kubina waiting for a job still...

But my point was real dollar compensation versus salary cap. You would expect a cap floor team to want a player to have a larger cap hit than real money payout (Hartnell will be paid 3.2 million in real dollars this year, but will count 4.2 against the cap), as opposed to one whose cap hit is lower than his real dollar payout, the way Weber is due to be paid. Last year Nashville's payroll was in the area of 52.2 million. Now it has to climb (in real dollars) to a minimum of 60.2 million just to meet the cap floor if they retain Weber. That's a 15% jump. Not saying they won't, but a team that has been reluctant in the past to spend probably isn't looking to change their philosophy that much that fast, unless there is a big revenue change coming for them.

Yeah, not disagreeing. And, as I've said, I'm in favor of RFA "poaching" and offer sheets and have been since before Chris Gratton. But I hate "unwritten rules" because they open themselves up to people driving an M1A1 through loopholes like Homer just took the First Armored Division through this one.

I'm not defending Poile here. I just want a level playing field going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just stating additional facts that may have a bearing on the end result of this fiasco.

And they will continue to. I'd just like the Other Facts to be the important ones and not the Strictly Financial ones.

There always have been and always will be idiot GMs. And then there's Mike Milbury.

But a field in which you have a "capped" league where a select few franchises can put $20M of cap space off for 11 years and pay guys almost double their cap hit today is, IMO, ridiculous.

At the very least salary=cap hit with caps on bonuses - especially "signing bonuses".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the way the NFL does it. Cap hit = actual salary plus a proration of the signing bonuses. In this case it would actually lower the cap hit in the first 4 years (5.85/year), but in the middle years when the bonus is reduced or eliminated, it would go up - 8.85 in years 5-6, 10.85 in years 7-10, before it began dropping again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a guy named Kubina waiting for a job still...

But my point was real dollar compensation versus salary cap. You would expect a cap floor team to want a player to have a larger cap hit than real money payout (Hartnell will be paid 3.2 million in real dollars this year, but will count 4.2 against the cap), as opposed to one whose cap hit is lower than his real dollar payout, the way Weber is due to be paid. Last year Nashville's payroll was in the area of 52.2 million. Now it has to climb (in real dollars) to a minimum of 60.2 million just to meet the cap floor if they retain Weber. That's a 15% jump. Not saying they won't, but a team that has been reluctant in the past to spend probably isn't looking to change their philosophy that much that fast, unless there is a big revenue change coming for them.

Essentially what your saying is since Nashville is 15 mil under the cap floor they would not only be on the hook for Weber's 27 mil signing bonus next season, but would have to spend another 7 mil on top of that to be cap compliant?

I believe @jammer2 mentioned this in another thread as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much. They need to spend about 14 to hit the floor. Though they would spend that much on Weber, he only qualifies as a little under 8 towards the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...