Should Homer have made it "impossible to match?"

[radoran]

There were points I was happy with, yes.

And there were points that I certainly was not.

I spent most of the season begging the team to keep the puck ot of the defensive zone. Not to deny shots, not to limit chances - keep the puck out of the freaking zone.

Like I said - explicitly - he needs to be more consistent. He has been. He can be.

I prefer to think he will be rather than assume he is absolutely incapable of playing goal in the National Hockey League (as has been alleged by others...)

[AndyS]

I love the move Homer made, but could he have thrown a little more at it to land Weber? I think 7.8 million is probably close to fair market value for Weber which I think made it easier for Nashville to justify matching the offer. Should Homer have thrown something like 15 years at 9 mil and again have it be very front loaded to really dissuade Nashville from matching? Not only would it make it harder for Nashville to match, but it also wouldnt look as bad for them if another team was willing to pay well over market value for Weber and they couldnt justify matching it.

I thought he DID make it impossible to match.

Homer did all that he could do, short of trading two of our young cornerstone players (Schenn & Cooter).

[Polaris922]

Is it even necessary to point out that one could say the exact same thing about Fleury?

Actually Fleury had a pretty good season in my opinion. I still think he played too much since Johnson was losing every game he was in, and then Fleury stunk in the playoffs. He had a couple bad streaks but played well overall.

Ok so Bryzgalov didn't steal any games and wasn't stellar... I still think he has the potential in him to be that guy you guys want in net. I like the guy and up till this past season I'd have been glad to have him on my team if Fleury were gone. I'm hoping I'm wrong but I think he'll turn it around. I dunno about 44 wins but he'll do pretty well I think. He seems to recognize he struggled and wants to do better and that's half the battle.

[Bakanekimiwa]

I thought he DID make it impossible to match.

Homer did all that he could do, short of trading two of our young cornerstone players (Schenn & Cooter).

they have 12 players that are set to become FA next year. mostly RFA, but still. 12 players!?!! $33m is now tied up into *2* players! i can't use enough exclamation points to illustrate how insane their match is.

[JackStraw]

Actually Fleury had a pretty good season in my opinion. I still think he played too much since Johnson was losing every game he was in, and then Fleury stunk in the playoffs. He had a couple bad streaks but played well overall.

Ok so Bryzgalov didn't steal any games and wasn't stellar... I still think he has the potential in him to be that guy you guys want in net. I like the guy and up till this past season I'd have been glad to have him on my team if Fleury were gone. I'm hoping I'm wrong but I think he'll turn it around. I dunno about 44 wins but he'll do pretty well I think. He seems to recognize he struggled and wants to do better and that's half the battle.

Sorry, I was referring to the playoffs specifically. Should have made that clear. And I think Bryz will be fine.

[Mad Dog]

Is it even necessary to point out that one could say the exact same thing about Fleury?

I think knowing Fleury's potential, there is no arguing he had beyond bad playoffs. I don't think anybody in his right mind would argue that. I am not sure what happened to him - Polaris would be able to shed more light than any of us. Personally, from very little I know, this was just a clear case of a burnout. The difference is, Fleury has won the Cup, looking fantastic in the process.

You know where I am going with this....

[JackStraw]

I think knowing Fleury's potential, there is no arguing he had beyond bad playoffs. I don't think anybody in his right mind would argue that. I am not sure what happened to him - Polaris would be able to shed more light than any of us. Personally, from very little I know, this was just a clear case of a burnout. The difference is, Fleury has won the Cup, looking fantastic in the process.

You know where I am going with this....

Yeah... I just had to bring it up.

[radoran]

they have 12 players that are set to become FA next year. mostly RFA, but still. 12 players!?!! $33m is now tied up into *2* players! i can't use enough exclamation points to illustrate how insane their match is.

How is it "insane" for Nashville to be paying two players $33M, but perfectly good business for the Flyers to would have been paying Weber and Briere $34M?

And while the "real money" is $33M, the "cap hit" is just below $15M. And for the Flyers it would be similar.

For the record, Flyers have nine players set to become FAs next season.

[Bakanekimiwa]

How is it "insane" for Nashville to be paying two players $33M, but perfectly good business for the Flyers to would have been paying Weber and Briere $34M?

And while the "real money" is $33M, the "cap hit" is just below $15M. And for the Flyers it would be similar.

For the record, Flyers have nine players set to become FAs next season.

of course we're not talking about cap hit. we're talking about real dollars. as we've already established(beaten that horse dead 18 times) the flyers have the deep pockets the make that kind of a financial hit acceptable. as we all well know... nashville does not. or do they? we can't have it both ways here. either they are a billionaire owned wealthy team or they are the poor small market preds.

ok, that was getting off track. my point is... i don't think they'll be able to put a stanley cup caliber team around weber in a year. on the other hand... the flyers most certainly could and would. therefore, what i said holds true. it is insane for nashville to commit $33m to 2 players when they will in now way be able to afford to surround them with enough talent to win the cup. next year nashville will be rinne, weber and a bunch of ahl players you've never heard of.

[radoran]

of course we're not talking about cap hit. we're talking about real dollars. as we've already established(beaten that horse dead 18 times) the flyers have the deep pockets the make that kind of a financial hit acceptable. as we all well know... nashville does not. or do they? we can't have it both ways here. either they are a billionaire owned wealthy team or they are the poor small market preds.

ok, that was getting off track. my point is... i don't think they'll be able to put a stanley cup caliber team around weber in a year. on the other hand... the flyers most certainly could and would. therefore, what i said holds true. it is insane for nashville to commit $33m to 2 players when they will in now way be able to afford to surround them with enough talent to win the cup. next year nashville will be rinne, weber and a bunch of ahl players you've never heard of.

I have no doubt that Nashville ownership has one or two deep pockets financing the up front bonuses which are amortized over the course of the deal among the other owners.

One of the purposes of the salary cap was to allow smaller market, developing teams to compete with the big market, established franchises. We don't know what might happen in CBA negotiations (these bonuses are not affected by "salary" rollbacks*) and if the cap drops, salaries drop with it. If it does drop, these deals do start to become more burdensome, but it might allow Nashville to boost their relative budget.

Regardless, if Nashville is unable or unwilling to pay into the top 1/3 of the salary cap, then this was probably a foolish decision.

But, I do not expect Nashville to keep Weber (even with the $25M payout - my opinion of the sanity of which means little as the die is cast) but I do expect them to get a nice return for him, having eaten the two bonus payments which now seemingly becomes a sneaky way to include "cash" in a trade transaction (which is banned by the CBA) because they can rightly argue that the overall cost of Weber is lower for the acquiring team.

Or Poile holds onto him and the Preds are able to spend. I just don't think that the Preds organization feels that you need to have $7-8M players on your roster.

This remains to be seen. I'll point out that Tampa won without any high-priced superstars and haven't won since they gave those two big contracts out.

On the other, Pittsburgh did. (Admittedly, it's easier to develop and pick talent when you suck so bad for so long you get that many 1/2 overall picks...).

*Aside: wondering if these bonuses don't count in the (if any) rollbacks, if they will be counted at 100% in the evaluation of cap hit over term...

[Bakanekimiwa]

I have no doubt that Nashville ownership has one or two deep pockets financing the up front bonuses which are amortized over the course of the deal among the other owners.

One of the purposes of the salary cap was to allow smaller market, developing teams to compete with the big market, established franchises. We don't know what might happen in CBA negotiations (these bonuses are not affected by "salary" rollbacks*) and if the cap drops, salaries drop with it. If it does drop, these deals do start to become more burdensome, but it might allow Nashville to boost their relative budget.

Regardless, if Nashville is unable or unwilling to pay into the top 1/3 of the salary cap, then this was probably a foolish decision.

But, I do not expect Nashville to keep Weber (even with the $25M payout - my opinion of the sanity of which means little as the die is cast) but I do expect them to get a nice return for him, having eaten the two bonus payments which now seemingly becomes a sneaky way to include "cash" in a trade transaction (which is banned by the CBA) because they can rightly argue that the overall cost of Weber is lower for the acquiring team.

Or Poile holds onto him and the Preds are able to spend. I just don't think that the Preds organization feels that you need to have $7-8M players on your roster.

This remains to be seen. I'll point out that Tampa won without any high-priced superstars and haven't won since they gave those two big contracts out.

On the other, Pittsburgh did. (Admittedly, it's easier to develop and pick talent when you suck so bad for so long you get that many 1/2 overall picks...).

*Aside: wondering if these bonuses don't count in the (if any) rollbacks, if they will be counted at 100% in the evaluation of cap hit over term...

supposedly, the bonuses would be exempt from any potential rollbacks as they are not considered 'salary'. that's why they structured the deal that way. well, as i said... time will tell how this plays out. if they do trade him in a year, will probably play out a lot like Rick Nash, but i would expect them to get a very decent return. so, if they can afford to suck these short term bonuses up, depending on the return of a trade next year... could be 'not so bad'.

i still think this was a decision more based on the pride of the organization rather than good business. i'm not saying it's right or wrong, they did what they felt they needed to do, i just see it being a real problem for them next summer. unless... as we've discussed.. they trade him. totally crazy, but if it saves the franchise and they get good return, maybe it's not *THAT* crazy.

[HockeyFan]

Agents gets paid on commission.....If you think his agent cared for anything but top dollar, I am not sure what to say........

I made no mention of the intentions of said agent; only that all "talk" was done via the agent -- not the player. It saves Weber's face a bit, he did not bash Nashville or their fans.

Of course it is the agents job to get top dollar. Right or wrong, that is their job.

[radoran]

supposedly, the bonuses would be exempt from any potential rollbacks as they are not considered 'salary'. that's why they structured the deal that way. well, as i said... time will tell how this plays out. if they do trade him in a year, will probably play out a lot like Rick Nash, but i would expect them to get a very decent return. so, if they can afford to suck these short term bonuses up, depending on the return of a trade next year... could be 'not so bad'.

i still think this was a decision more based on the pride of the organization rather than good business. i'm not saying it's right or wrong, they did what they felt they needed to do, i just see it being a real problem for them next summer. unless... as we've discussed.. they trade him. totally crazy, but if it saves the franchise and they get good return, maybe it's not *THAT* crazy.

We'll see.

My point about the bonuses are, if, for example, there's a 20% rollback on "salary" but the bonuses remain, then his cap hit only drops to $7.25M in what wold be a much smaller cap world ($56M at 20%) and the deal gets much worse.

Of course, that would have been true for the Flyers, as well...

[flyerrod]

I made no mention of the intentions of said agent; only that all "talk" was done via the agent -- not the player. It saves Weber's face a bit, he did not bash Nashville or their fans.

Of course it is the agents job to get top dollar. Right or wrong, that is their job.

In reality, I am sure Weber would have been very happy to come to the Flyers. If as you say this went through his agent, he can still say he is happy they matched and happy to still be with Nashville. The Preds front office absolutely **** the bed trying to low ball him last year and that made it an easy call for him to sign an offer sheet that made them pay stupid money to keep him. Weber will be sending Homer Christmas cards for the rest of his life to thank him for the pay day he got. IF Weber can stay healthy, 7.8 mil for 14 yrs is a respectable cap hit for one of the best d-men in the league. For 14 years, that is a big IF though....