Phillygrump Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Can you explain that more?Weber will be locked up for 14 years regardless or who he signs with.So if Nashville matches, Weber is locked up. The only way he moves is by trade in the years ahead, meaning Nashville gets something in the trade (picks/players)So I guess I don't understand how Nashville would get nothing in return after matching the contract and then trading him in 1,2,3 or more years down the road.The problem with that is that they will have paid him 27 mil for a one season rental only to trade him after a year. They would indeed get something in return, but it would not be a good value for them financially or economically.If they traded him after 3 or 4 years his trade value might go down as he approaches 30 and has a cap hit of 7.8 mil plus you would have already paid the great majority of his signing bonus only to get prospects in return. So ultimately, if money is such an issue in Nashville, you'd be paying 27 mil for a year best case only to trade a guy for some futur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Essentially you'd be paying a TON of money just for the trade value of Shea Weber. If they match, they are keeping him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I'm continuously wondering the same thing.To be clear, I'm not in any way portraying Nashville as a "victim" and fully acknowledge that they screwed up in their handling of the players.As Canoli notes "[the Flyers] made the terms so unfavorable to Nashville that they really can't match the offer"This has nothing to do with paying Weber $7.8M a season. Nothing at all. If it was, Nashville can match in a heartbeat - and would. Weber was GONG to make $7.5M next season regardless - so saying that Nashville "couldn't afford Weber" is factually inaccurate.There are maybe half a dozen teams in the league that could "really match the offer" - which exemplifies that there is a distinct competitive advantage which has absolutely nothing to do with talent evalutation or play on the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 To be clear, I'm not in any way portraying Nashville as a "victim" and fully acknowledge that they screwed up in their handling of the players.As Canoli notes "[the Flyers] made the terms so unfavorable to Nashville that they really can't match the offer"This has nothing to do with paying Weber $7.8M a season. Nothing at all. If it was, Nashville can match in a heartbeat - and would. Weber was GONG to make $7.5M next season regardless - so saying that Nashville "couldn't afford Weber" is factually inaccurate.There are maybe half a dozen teams in the league that could "really match the offer" - which exemplifies that there is a distinct competitive advantage which has absolutely nothing to do with talent evalutation or play on the ice.I understand your point, but the way you are presenting it makes it sound as if Nashville had no defense against this play.They absolutely did. They knew what they had with Suter and what they have with Weber yet they let them get out in the open. Their defense against this offersheet starts last year when they could have signed them both long term. Heck, they could have spent some money to add more offensive talent to show these guys they are committed to winning. They weren't defenseless in this. They left themselves susceptible to the offer sheet after fooling around with the Weber situation delaying locking him up while alienating him and giving him reason for caution along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I understand your point, but the way you are presenting it makes it sound as if Nashville had no defense against this play.They absolutely did. They knew what they had with Suter and what they have with Weber yet they let them get out in the open.Suter was 100% Suter's decision. And Weber was refusing to sign long term.Again, we do not know what they were offered, but it's hard for me to look at this franchise and say it was 100% "management's fault" for these guys not being signed.Management clearly played a role and in this discussion (this thread or others) have compared them to the fools in Buffao who let Briere/Drury get onto the market and the brain trust in Atlanta that traded Kovalchuk for a pile of dingo's kidneys.Nashville *would* be able to match the cap hit salary. Whether they can/will pony up the bonus and front loaded part (which is the part I quibble with) remains to be seen.Their defense against this offersheet starts last year when they could have signed them both long term. Heck, they could have spent some money to add more offensive talent to show these guys they are committed to winning.They weren't defenseless in this. They left themselves susceptible to the offer sheet after fooling around with the Weber situation delaying locking him up while alienating him and giving him reason for caution along the way.What didn't they do? They brought in more scoring - including the Kostitsyns. They made the trade for the character vet at the deadline. They brought in the KHL's MVP for the stretch run and the playoffs. They gave Weber $7.5M and were prepared to do it again. They made the Conference Semis for the second consecutive season.And then Suter - "to win" - signs with a team that hasn't even made the playoffs since 07-08.Again, management is not perfect in this situation and they shoulder a lot of blame, but to act like they "should have seen coming" what *everyone* says is an "unprecedented" offer is a little disingenuos from where I sit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 @radoranYou're leaving out the important issue of not giving him that 7.5 mil a year for 3 years last offseason that they said they were prepared to offer.It seems like for the last 2 seasons I've been hearing Nashville say they have all this money to spend. Yet I never see them spend it.Also, I will acknowledge that Nashville isn't 100% to blame, but for some reason these top players of theirs want to leave. Why do you think that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And then Suter - "to win" - signs with a team that hasn't even made the playoffs since 07-08.best line in the thread - ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarsippius Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 best line in the thread - !I also liked the one about Kovalchuk being traded for dingo kidneys. Radoran's on fire! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 @radoranYou're leaving out the important issue of not giving him that 7.5 mil a year for 3 years last offseason that they said they were prepared to offer.It seems like for the last 2 seasons I've been hearing Nashville say they have all this money to spend. Yet I never see them spend it.Also, I will acknowledge that Nashville isn't 100% to blame, but for some reason these top players of theirs want to leave. Why do you think that is?I think there is certainly a perception - you can see the inherent prejudice against Nashville as a hockey market displayed on this board and in the media reaction.I said elsewhere, but, briefly - I don't think NSH vauled either player as worth committing $7.5M/$7.8M of their resources to and were looking to get more, younger and cheaper talent in exchange a la Richards/Crater. They still might get some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think there is certainly a perception - you can see the inherent prejudice against Nashville as a hockey market displayed on this board and in the media reaction.I said elsewhere, but, briefly - I don't think NSH vauled either player as worth committing $7.5M/$7.8M of their resources to and were looking to get more, younger and cheaper talent in exchange a la Richards/Crater. They still might get some.Can't speak for everyone, but I think NSH is a growing market, and certainly legitimate. I was actually pulling for them to go further in the playoffs, just because I thought it would be great for their franchise. However, good GMs lock up players BEFORE they are in danger of losing them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 @doom88 Every time I see a recent pic of Poile, I laugh. That job must be wearing on him, he looks like a skinny version of Herman Munster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Can't speak for everyone, but I think NSH is a growing market, and certainly legitimate. I was actually pulling for them to go further in the playoffs, just because I thought it would be great for their franchise. However, good GMs lock up players BEFORE they are in danger of losing them.And I'm not at all disagreeing with that.I'll go back to the thread I started - this has NOTHING to do with Nashville or this SPECIFIC deal. The PROBLEM is the SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.Arguing the specifics of this offer sheet is pointless. It's legal under the current rules.THE CURRENT RULES SUCK FOR THE LEAGUE, FOR THE OWNERS, FOR THE PLAYERS AND FOR THE GAME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.