Weber, Predators In Stalemate: What Does This Mean?

[radoran]

Well, if Bak is right then the NMC is a mute point. But why not just give it to him considering the amount of money they just threw at him to KEEP him. Doesn't make sense unless you believe they do want to get rid of him and that they found a loophole to avoid the matching offer. Can you say "buyers remorse"? Probably not the case but interesting either way... Maybe the Flyers have a deal worked out and the Preds don't want the NTC/NMC getting in the way. Now theres a blast for ya!

They don't have to give it to him to keep him. They can keep him as long as they want without giving him any say over whether or where he gets traded.

Why do they want a "loophole" to not match an offer that they matched?

They cannot trade him for another year after matching the offer sheet.

CANNOT. TRADE. HIM.

[idahophilly]

Ok, just saying that maybe they are "re-thinking" the offer sheet. They can't get out of it now but a year from now maybe... And I know about the 1 year clause in which they can't trade him. Maybe, for their own reasons, they think maybe they will 2-3 years down the road. Anyway you are right. They don't have to give him anything more. But if it's a fractured relationship then maybe they are OK with keeping a mal-content for a year and then getting a real trade with return... I have nothing to base this on but just trying to figure out why they just wouldn't give him the NMC/NTC if you were serious about him being the cornerstone... Something just doesn't add up for me.

[OH1FlyersFan]

well, what i mean by 'go there' is to accuse Weber of being a prima donna. it seems that you and others are 'going there'. he wanted a NTC/NMC and he appears to have had a handshake deal with the flyers. from his perspective, it doesn't make much sense that the Preds wouldn't want to double down on their PR investment in keeping him with a NMC.

frankly, i don't know why this is such a huge deal. it seems that it would make sense for both parties. unless, of course, Nashville's match move really was a PR move and they plan on trading him in a year's time. if that's the case, Nashville's ownership is dumber than anyone fathomed.

Theoretically they have him for 14 years -- that's what the offer sheet requires -- to me, that's almost like a NTC/NMC. In effect, it's pretty much the same thing. If they want him that bad, are willing to pay him that much for those many years to keep him, just give the guy the NTC/NMC and shut all the doors, bar all the windows to prevent any chance of a trade or funny business later on down the road. They want the guy bad enough to possibly bankrupt the franchise, so get rid of any chance that he leaves or finds a way to get out of town on a technicality.

[radoran]

Theoretically they have him for 14 years -- that's what the offer sheet requires -- to me, that's almost like a NTC/NMC. In effect, it's pretty much the same thing. If they want him that bad, are willing to pay him that much for those many years to keep him, just give the guy the NTC/NMC and shut all the doors, bar all the windows to prevent any chance of a trade or funny business later on down the road. They want the guy bad enough to possibly bankrupt the franchise, so get rid of any chance that he leaves or finds a way to get out of town on a technicality.

He can certainly "Nash" his way out of town - or "Heatley" or "Thornton" - and if he does so, again, why does the team want to give him ANY say on where he goes or what they get for him?

The TEAM has a NTC/NMC - they don't have to trade or move him. They gain nothing by giving him the clause.

And, as I've shown a couple of times now, they are no where near "bankrupting the franchise" and any such talk is just silly.

[Polaris922]

I think a lot of you are missing the point. @radoran has it right and a few others, but why would Nashville add the clause? Weber put them on the spot signing the Flyer offer sheet. Those were HIS terms the Preds had to give to match. Those terms did not include the NTC.

Now... What if six years down the road he's not performing, or they need more help up front and one of their prospects has turned into Weber II ? They want the right to choose. How can anyone look at that and say to just give the man a twelve year no trade clause?? I love a lot of guys on my team, but I want my team to have the ability to do what's best for the team. Especially on a contract as long as that!! What if they matched with the intent to shop him around in a couple years to get his real value rather than four 1st round lower half picks? It's their right. You have to respect their right.

[pilldoc]

.If Nashville is upset then do one of two things (actually 3) ........ 2- Null and void the offer sheet and let him come to Philly.

Please someone help me. I do not understand all the workings of the CBS, but can a team null a matched offer sheet? As someone mentioned, it would be like buyers remorse. I thought once the Preds matched the offer sheet, that was it...no going back. If the CBA allows for a null clause (which I serious doubt it does)....and the Preds now all of a sudden null the offer, Preds management would lose face and alot of fans. Can you say a franchize going down quicker that the Titanic of Hindenberg. Just saying, I don't think the CBA allow for a Null and Void clause..but hey I can be wrong. Then if I am the Preds..why match in the first place? I just don't think this a realistic possibility, although this entire thread topic is very interesting.

[Polaris922]

Please someone help me. I do not understand all the workings of the CBS, but can a team null a matched offer sheet? As someone mentioned, it would be like buyers remorse. I thought once the Preds matched the offer sheet, that was it...no going back. If the CBA allows for a null clause (which I serious doubt it does)....and the Preds now all of a sudden null the offer, Preds management would lose face and alot of fans. Can you say a franchize going down quicker that the Titanic of Hindenberg. Just saying, I don't think the CBA allow for a Null and Void clause..but hey I can be wrong. Then if I am the Preds..why match in the first place? I just don't think this a realistic possibility, although this entire thread topic is very interesting.

No... It's a done deal. They are permitted to add things to it but not required to. He's a Prefator for the next twelve months no matter what. No if's, and's, or but's.

[OH1FlyersFan]

He can certainly "Nash" his way out of town - or "Heatley" or "Thornton" - and if he does so, again, why does the team want to give him ANY say on where he goes or what they get for him?

The TEAM has a NTC/NMC - they don't have to trade or move him. They gain nothing by giving him the clause.

And, as I've shown a couple of times now, they are no where near "bankrupting the franchise" and any such talk is just silly.

As far as the bankruptcy goes - you're right. That was hyperbole on my part to make a point they're paying him a bunch of money. I just don't understand why they're quibbling...despite your posts which present your perspective very well.

The franchise obviously wants the guy. Per the terms of his contract, the team has him. They don't have to do anything for 14 years -- IF they don't want to. But they may want to. By not giving him this NTC/NMC, the team is hedging its bet. They want him for his career, for 14 years, until he retires, but not really because they aren't willing to go "all in" and give him the NTC/NMC.

Does that mean they may want to move him at some point in the future? Why? He's their franchise player after all. Other than that Mr. Nash, how was your stay in Columbus? And he had a NMC which he waived. So maybe the whole point is moot if a player can waive the clause when it suits.

I'm just saying Nashivlle should put its NTC/NMC clause where its mouth (and money) is. Nashville doesn't want to be tied up with a 14 year NTC/NMC? Maybe Nashville wants a way out which suggests to me they may have a need or a desire to move him or trade him at some point -- which is the point Polaris made. That's fine. But Weber seems to be committed to staying since he's the one asking for it. I think his franchise should support him. I think we're just not used to that sort of thing since it's usually our FRANCHISE handing out NMC/NTCs like candy to every dandy who comes along. Ha!

[pilldoc]

No... It's a done deal. They are permitted to add things to it but not required to. He's a Prefator for the next twelve months no matter what. No if's, and's, or but's.

Thanks Polaris. That is what I thought.

[radoran]

Does that mean they may want to move him at some point in the future? Why? He's their franchise player after all. Other than that Mr. Nash, how was your stay in Columbus? And he had a NMC which he waived. So maybe the whole point is moot if a player can waive the clause when it suits.

I'm just saying Nashivlle should put its NTC/NMC clause where its mouth (and money) is. Nashville doesn't want to be tied up with a 14 year NTC/NMC? Maybe Nashville wants a way out which suggests to me they may have a need or a desire to move him or trade him at some point -- which is the point Polaris made. That's fine. But Weber seems to be committed to staying since he's the one asking for it. I think his franchise should support him. I think we're just not used to that sort of thing since it's usually our FRANCHISE handing out NMC/NTCs like candy to every dandy who comes along. Ha!

The team isn't committed to Weber, Weber is committed to the team. That's the way the deal works when you are an RFA and sign an offer sheet.

Weber signed the sheet knowing he was committed to one of two teams. One of the two teams will pay $26M to keep him for at least a year.

That's all he has say in the matter.

Yes, players can waive their clauses and go to other teams. That's their right. But, like Simon Gagne, they can determine whether or not you get fair market value or Matt Walker if they have the NTC/NMC.

That's why franchises don't - and shouldn't - hand them out unnecessarily.

[OH1FlyersFan]

The team isn't committed to Weber

Then why would they have signed the offer sheet? That's a heck of a financial obligation they just incurred for someone to whom they aren't committed. In my mind, and maybe that's where the breakdown is here (haha), if you sign a contract like that you better be committed. They're in for one year at least, and even that one year is going to cost them a significant amount of money. And if you really are committed, then for me, the next step as the franchise would be to prove it again, maybe even redundantly so, by agreeing to his requested NTC/NMC.

"That's why franchises don't - and shouldn't - hand them out unnecessarily." ----- I totally agree with you on this. But at this point, Nashville is in for a penny, might as well go in for the pound.

EDIT -- Or maybe it's vice versa. Given the money and number of years, the franchise is already in for a pound, they might as well go in for a penny with the NTC/NMC.

Sorry for beating my side of this dead horse again.

[idahophilly]

This is all very confusing! So Weber or the team can waive the offer? I just threw that out there as a lark but the idea of the player being committed to the team but the team not being committed sounds plausible. But also unfair to the team who issued an offer sheet. We need Howie to walk us through all this...

[idahophilly]

No OH1, you are not really beating a dead horse... I'm more confused now than when this topic started. I thought it was all done once the offer sheet was matched. Now it seems they are working on a new deal and neither side wants to sign. Not what I would be looking for from a star player or committed ownership....

[Claude Monet]

so what if Weber does not sign by Dec. 1? the article said that he would not be able to play for the entire season. But what does that mean in regard to being a Pred? does that mean they hold his rights still or can he hit the open market after a year?

Weber just got paid $15 million and there is a pending lockout. If he really wants out of Nashville maybe he is willing to sit out the year, which may not happen anyway

[B21]

the reason that Weber's agent gave was that it was not entirely clear if they were allowed to under the CBA. now.. why they couldn't ask the league this before signing.. i have no idea. but, it seems like he had a handshake agreement that they flyers would honor a NTC/NMC. it really seems to me that Weber, his camp, and the Flyers thought there was no way Nashville could match that deal.

the only thing that will happen here is that he'll sign sooner or later. he stands to lose the most here. he's not going to hold out.

Unfortunately for Weber though the Predators are not required to match the "handshake" part of the deal. I see no reason for Nashville to even have this discussion but if they wanted to be the "better" of the two parties then go ahead and give him the NTC/NMC. Just make sure that every team capable of taking on that contract is not on his "no go" list (should they ever need to trade him).

[B21]

I'm not sure of this, but I have read that any NMC/NTC in the offer sheet does not carry over if the team matches. They only have to match the dollar amount and term. So Nashville wouldn't be bound by any such clause that the Flyers may have offered.

Where is @noodl when we need him, eh? If that is true, it pretty much renders this thread moot. That means Weber WOULD be asking for something that was in the deal with the Flyers and not asking for the Predators to add an extra cherry on his $100,000,000 sundae.

[AJgoal]

The Flyers did not offer him an NMC/NTC because under the offer sheet rules they can't. All that can be put in an offer sheet is term and payments, including bonuses. That's it. The offer sheet is not a contract, which is what the article above explains. It contains the financial terms that a contract must contain, but not any other specific clauses that may be included in a contract. Matching an offer sheet only means you are matching the financial terms therein, not that the player has a contract in front of him, completely finished and signed.

[OH1FlyersFan]

The Flyers did not offer him an NMC/NTC because under the offer sheet rules they can't. All that can be put in an offer sheet is term and payments, including bonuses. That's it. The offer sheet is not a contract, which is what the article above explains. It contains the financial terms that a contract must contain, but not any other specific clauses that may be included in a contract. Matching an offer sheet only means you are matching the financial terms therein, not that the player has a contract in front of him, completely finished and signed.

That's helpful. So if the two parties can't agree on a contract with all the other terms and conditions found within that document, then there is no deal? Because all that has essentially happened then is a commitment from Nashville to provide to Weber, within whatever contract gets offered/signed, the same financial terms (money and years) that the Flyers offered?

[idahophilly]

@OH1FlyersFan , thats my question. So if no formal contract is signed and if the team and player can't agree on other terms then what happens?

[Bakanekimiwa]

@OH1FlyersFan , thats my question. So if no formal contract is signed and if the team and player can't agree on other terms then what happens?

the only parties that can void the trade are the NHL and NHLPA. and there is nothing there for them to void it.. so it's a done deal.

[Bakanekimiwa]

Nashville isn't "refusing" to give him a NMC. Weber is demanding something be added to an agreement that was already concluded.

That's the defintion of a "prima donna" in my book.

YMMV

i think there is a lot of room here to be subjective, so i'll just leave that as your opinion. I've not read that he is 'demanding' nor have i read that Nashville is 'refusing'. basically, all we know right now is that he wants one and apparently they haven't given him one. that's the fact. now we can take sides on this and call Weber a prima donna if we want, but i think it's a bit premature to be making those kinds of statements. sounds like sour grapes to me.

my sour grapes are definitely with the Preds org. there is a dissonance with their public statement to their fans and not agreeing to a NMC for Weber. now, you're correct... they don't need to give him one. but, if the preds sincerely mean to keep him there for the duration of his career, then a NMC amounts to nothing more than a show of faith to weber and the fans that they mean it.

all i'm saying is that i think it's weird. i don't think the preds are being d*cks and i don't think weber is a prima donna. it's just weird to let it get to the point where it's public and bad PR.

[AJgoal]

Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency is reached when a player reaches 27 years old OR following seven seasons in the NHL. There are a couple other ways, but they're not terribly important here. Since Weber is 27 now (he was not on July 1), he will become an unrestricted free agent on July 1, 2013 if he does not sign a SPC with Nashville by December 1. It's extremely unlikely that he won't, of course.

[idahophilly]

the only parties that can void the trade are the NHL and NHLPA. and there is nothing there for them to void it.. so it's a done deal.

I don't dispute your facts Bak but you say the NHLPA or the NHL can void this??? That's fricken' broad man, Just sayin?

[murraycraven]

He ain't coming to Philly boys....

As Rad stated the Preds owe him nothing more than the offer sheet that was signed. The Preds matched and he is their property for, at the very least, one year. If he wants a NMC that is his prerogative to ask but Nash does not need to give it to him... I want a Ferrari but I won't be getting one...

We need to move on and figure out how to improve our sorry defense... sans Shea

[radoran]

sounds like sour grapes to me.

So as one of the few people here that was openly questioning the move from the jump, I now have sour grapes because it didn't happen?

I don't think any of this situation reflects well on Weber and I've been quite consistent in that position - before he even signed the offer sheet.

And let's not overlook that, in fact, Weber has gotten zero money from the deal so far. It's a "signing bonus" and you get a "signing bonus" when you sign the contract.