Weber, Predators In Stalemate: What Does This Mean?

[Polaris922]

I dunno how else @radoran or @murraycraven or a few others including myself can say this. WEBER IS A PREDATOR. Done deal. He's not going anywhere else at least for a year, and he has no ground to bargain from. THE PREDS OWN SHEA WEBER. No matter trade clause or otherwise. He surrendered any bargaining weight when he signed Philly's offer. WEBER WILL NOT BE A FLYER THIS SEASON. Maybe down the road for a good trade. That's Nashville's right to choose if they keep him or not.

Can this topic end now? Lol

[AJgoal]

Who's said he's going to end up with the Flyers? Nobody has brought that up at all, aside from some unnamed people on the internet mentioned in the article posted in the OP. The questions and statement I've seen in this thread are:

Why is this an issue? A. Because Weber is requesting something be added to the final workings of the contract.

Why wasn't an NMC/NTC part of the original offer sheet? A: Because it's not allowed to be, though it can be added later. In effect the offer sheet is like one of us agreeing to a salary, then negotiating things like vacation days into the final contract.

I thought Weber was under contract when the Preds matched? A: No, though financial terms of any contract are now final and can not be changed. Other clauses may still be added. This happens often, it's why you often see "Team X has agreed to terms with Player Y," a day or so before they actually sign a contract. This may be the first time an offer sheet has been matched without the contract being finalized relatively quickly, however.

Weber will belong to the Predators for the next 14 years unless they trade him. My understanding is that this statement is true only if he signs an SPC by December 1. If he does not, he must sit out the entire year and will become a UFA on July 1, 2013. This is a highly unlikely scenario, but the potential for it exists until an SPC is finalized.

These are valid questions brought up in regards to an ongoing contract negotiation. No need for the thread to "die" until everyone who has a question regarding this particular process has they answers they are looking for.

[radoran]

Who's said he's going to end up with the Flyers? Nobody has brought that up at all, aside from some unnamed people on the internet mentioned in the article posted in the OP. The questions and statement I've seen in this thread are:

Why is this an issue? A. Because Weber is requesting something be added to the final workings of the contract.

Why wasn't an NMC/NTC part of the original offer sheet? A: Because it's not allowed to be, though it can be added later. In effect the offer sheet is like one of us agreeing to a salary, then negotiating things like vacation days into the final contract.

I thought Weber was under contract when the Preds matched? A: No, though financial terms of any contract are now final and can not be changed. Other clauses may still be added. This happens often, it's why you often see "Team X has agreed to terms with Player Y," a day or so before they actually sign a contract. This may be the first time an offer sheet has been matched without the contract being finalized relatively quickly, however.

Weber will belong to the Predators for the next 14 years unless they trade him. My understanding is that this statement is true only if he signs an SPC by December 1. If he does not, he must sit out the entire year and will become a UFA on July 1, 2013. This is a highly unlikely scenario, but the potential for it exists until an SPC is finalized.

These are valid questions brought up in regards to an ongoing contract negotiation. No need for the thread to "die" until everyone who has a question regarding this particular process has they answers they are looking for.

The topic of this thread in the Flyers forum is "What Does This Mean For the Flyers?"

If this is a thread about contract negotiations between the Preds and Weber, we can certainly move it where it belongs.

[OH1FlyersFan]

Who's said he's going to end up with the Flyers? Nobody has brought that up at all,

Thanks for pointing that out AJ! Totally agree. I thought the topic was why Nashville has not agreed to a NTC/NMC. I don't think anyone has said in any of the posts I've read that he's coming to the Flyers - despite all the statements made by Polaris, in all caps no less, that he's NOT COMING HERE. Yeah, we get that. I think he's totally missing the point. The point of this post is about understanding Weber's contract, it's structure, the process, what can be included, who has what responsibility, etc. Yes, he's a Predator. For a year. He won't be playing for the Flyers this upcoming season. Got it.

[Polaris922]

Thanks for pointing that out AJ! Totally agree. I thought the topic was why Nashville has not agreed to a NTC/NMC. I don't think anyone has said in any of the posts I've read that he's coming to the Flyers - despite all the statements made by Polaris, in all caps no less, that he's NOT COMING HERE. Yeah, we get that. I think he's totally missing the point. The point of this post is about understanding Weber's contract, it's structure, the process, what can be included, who has what responsibility, etc. Yes, he's a Predator. For a year. He won't be playing for the Flyers this upcoming season. Got it.

So @radoran and I are mistaken on the topic? I thought "What does this mean for the Flyers?" was asking "What does this mean for the Flyers?". .

If the point has shifted to Weber's asking for the NTC then maybe we should re-title it and move it out of the Flyers' forum into the Preds?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Polaris922

[OH1FlyersFan]

The topic of this thread in the Flyers forum is "What Does This Mean For the Flyers?"

If this is a thread about contract negotiations between the Preds and Weber, we can certainly move it where it belongs.

I agree that the content of this thread hasn't really matched up to the title. Why not just change the title? Ha. The discussion about the contract issues actually has been more interesting to me than what it may or may not mean to the Flyers.

But to try to stay on topic, I'll throw out a little something -- what this means to the Flyers is apparently nothing at this time, though at some point in the future, it could mean a lot in the event of a trade.

[OH1FlyersFan]

So @radoran and I are mistaken on the topic? I thought "What does this mean for the Flyers?" was asking "What does this mean for the Flyers?". .

If the point has shifted to Weber's asking for the NTC then maybe we should re-title it and move it out of the Flyers' forum into the Preds?

Great minds! That's exactly what I just posted too. Haha.

[Polaris922]

I'd "like" that but I've used up my quota for the day.

Why have a quota on "likes" anyway?! I can only like so much then have to dislike the rest? Lol

[OH1FlyersFan]

I think where I got off track is that I didn't really read the title of the thread, I just read HF101's post which was the article about the NTC/NMC contract issues and assumed that's what we were discussing. You know what they say about those who assume!

[Polaris922]

I think where I got off track is that I didn't really read the title of the thread, I just read HF101's post which was the article about the NTC/NMC contract issues and assumed that's what we were discussing. You know what they say about those who assume!

No harm no foul. If he refuses to sign after forcing them into such big money though, he becomes a douchebag in my eyes. He opened the door for this. Accept the consequences of your actions like a man. Lord pay me $26 million in a year you can trade me anytime you want!

[hf101]

Topic moved, Title changed.......even though that was the original title.

Carry on

[Bakanekimiwa]

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?

huh? the NHL can dispute the contract if they feel it violates the CBA. it does not, so there isn't an issue. the NHLPA can also dispute it if they feel it violates the rights of their members. it does not. all i'm saying is... that would be the only way the contract would get voided. in other words... it will not be voided. he will sign, eventually, and be a pred for ???

[Bakanekimiwa]

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.

well, maybe it wasn't the best use of the term, but what i mean is that you've had a bug up your arse about weber since the RFA sheet signing. your sour grapes are simply from not liking his decision to put the preds over a barrel. that's all. but, what did Weber do before signing the offer sheet that made you think of him in a lesser light? i mean.. besides rapping some guys head into the glass a few times during the playoffs, i'm not sure i follow you there.

the fact that he has not received a dime from his signing bonus means very little, if nothing, at all. it's just a formality because he *will* get it. he *will* sign it. other than allowing Nashville to gain some interest on that money, i can see little to now consequence to that. maybe you could enlighten me, though.

[idahophilly]

So @radoran and I are mistaken on the topic? I thought "What does this mean for the Flyers?" was asking "What does this mean for the Flyers?". .

If the point has shifted to Weber's asking for the NTC then maybe we should re-title it and move it out of the Flyers' forum into the Preds?

ah geez! are we gonna start arguing over the topic titlel? The title doesn't matter, the questions are valid...

[idahophilly]

Bak, I'm not on the NHL's side or Webers. I just think the team and the player should sign on the dotted line and shut up. If they want to part ways next season then go for it...

[Polaris922]

Bak, I'm not on the NHL's side or Webers. I just think the team and the player should sign on the dotted line and shut up. If they want to part ways next season then go for it...

Now THAT I am in 100% agreement with. The team owes him nothing beyond what's on paper. He needs to accept that he prompted it, so take his $26,000,000 in 12 months like a man! LOL

[OH1FlyersFan]

I can't believe I'm going to do this twice in one thread, but I agree twice....with a Penguins fan no less. Hehe.

[jammer2]

The way I see this.....Nashville didn't want to commit to the long contract with Weber, the Flyers forced their hand. They could not explain to the fan base how a player like Weber slipped through their hands for 4 high first round picks, in essence, they could all be flops or depth players where the Flyers picks would have been. It simply was not enough guaranteed return for the best d-man in hockey. There was no way it would fly with the fan base.

The Preds essentially spent 29 mill to make sure their top asset gave them the kind of return the franchise desperately needed. They never planned to keep Weber long term when they matched this offer. This is why the Preds won't cave in on the no trade clause, they have every intention of dealing him for a Kings ransom once the 1 year has elapsed.

29 mill seems like a lot to invest in a player you intend to deal, but there was no choice here, the backlash from the fan base could and probably would have made this team move....so you invest the large sum of money to essentially save the team. That's my take anyways.

[OH1FlyersFan]

I can see that scenario playing out, Jammer. But won't the end result be the same, just delayed by a year, if it plays out? The fan base in an uproar because they deal the franchise cornerstone, the best defenseman in hockey? I guess it depends on who they get back in exchange. If they really do get a king's ransom, perhaps the fans are mollified, somewhat. If they don't get that ransom, then they're out $29 million for the year they had to pay him, they have (or had) an unhappy, maybe unproductive player for a year, have extremely unhappy fans, and end up facing the same backlash they would have if they had just not signed the offer sheet and let him go. Does this save the team?

[jammer2]

@OH1FlyersFan Well, the 29 mill has no consequence to the fans, it's not their money (although they may pay more in ticket prices to finance the move...lol). I just think the return was unacceptable from a talent and public relations standpoint. The Preds need guaranteed return for their star, not pie in the sky high draft picks. They should be able to pick up the legit star center the team has never had for starters, along with a scoring winger and some other depth. The Preds seem like they are at crossroads, on the cusp of being legit, they need to be careful they don't make an error when dealing the teams best player.

Of course, this is all assuming my theory is correct, the Preds just paid 29 mill to choose their return for Weber, rather than being force fed. I'm also assuming the big bucks owner from Canada who has money to burn is thinking long term for his investment....with a twist of billionaire pride tossed in...lol.

[Polaris922]

@OH1FlyersFan Well, the 29 mill has no consequence to the fans, it's not their money (although they may pay more in ticket prices to finance the move...lol). I just think the return was unacceptable from a talent and public relations standpoint. The Preds need guaranteed return for their star, not pie in the sky high draft picks. They should be able to pick up the legit star center the team has never had for starters, along with a scoring winger and some other depth. The Preds seem like they are at crossroads, on the cusp of being legit, they need to be careful they don't make an error when dealing the teams best player.

Of course, this is all assuming my theory is correct, the Preds just paid 29 mill to choose their return for Weber, rather than being force fed. I'm also assuming the big bucks owner from Canada who has money to burn is thinking long term for his investment....with a twist of billionaire pride tossed in...lol.

I think you're dead on with this too Jammer. They needed a GOOD return if not GREAT return for Weber... not some 20th overall or worse picks in the future. Not just to placate their fans either... they were a serious Cup contender going into the postseason this year. They looked like they might have what it takes to win the West. Sure it didn't happen that way, but they sure looked capable of it going in. They just lost Suter... and now if they'd lost Weber they'd surely be down to the bottom of the playoff contenders for the coming year.

Most importantly they protected their investment in Weber. And if they want to dump his salary after a year then they are SURELY going to get more than some unknown lower half of the first round hopefuls for him. They were smart to match the offer, I'm sure they'll be equally smart if they ever get into talks about trading him.

[PuckMeister]

Guys, This has been one of the more entertaing threads in quite some time. So many intricacies to ponder! I have a question or two regarding the ramifications of the pending lockout. What effect will this have on the 1 Dec. deadline for Webber to sign, and what about his sitting out for the year? does this mean he has to sit out for two years and does nashville have to wait two years to be able to trade him in lieu of one? Please enlighten me because if this is the case, i cannot see Shea not signing unless he plans to play in another league for a year.