Jump to content

Weber?


Guest merrex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry to beat a dead horse everyone, but I'm a little confused as to what the Weber situation is. I read back in the summer that Weber and the Preds have not finalized their deal due to Poile not wanting to give him his requested no movement clause. My opinion on this is probably the same as most of you that Weber doesn't want to be there, and that Nash wants to trade him. Nash doesn't want to limit their trade partners in giving him his no trade, and Weber wants to choose where he gets dealt.

So, apparently if they don't agree by December 1st, then Weber has to sit out the entire season and therefore becomes unrestricted July 1, 2013. So then ,if the lockout wipes out the entire season and Weber/Preds haven't finalized their deal, he automatically is unrestricted July 1st as well. I read all this the one time and can't find any updated info on it. I still feel that Weber will be a Flyer. I don't think Homer will let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to beat a dead horse everyone, but I'm a little confused as to what the Weber situation is. I read back in the summer that Weber and the Preds have not finalized their deal due to Poile not wanting to give him his requested no movement clause. My opinion on this is probably the same as most of you that Weber doesn't want to be there, and that Nash wants to trade him. Nash doesn't want to limit their trade partners in giving him his no trade, and Weber wants to choose where he gets dealt.

So, apparently if they don't agree by December 1st, then Weber has to sit out the entire season and therefore becomes unrestricted July 1, 2013. So then ,if the lockout wipes out the entire season and Weber/Preds haven't finalized their deal, he automatically is unrestricted July 1st as well. I read all this the one time and can't find any updated info on it. I still feel that Weber will be a Flyer. I don't think Homer will let it go.

Interesting if true. I simply don't know how the lockout affecrs things... I still can't figure out if everyones contract length is affected either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shea Weber is a Nashville Predator for the next 14 years, unless the Preds decide to trade him or something like a mass defection to the KHL occurs.

Did he ever officially sign his contract? If not, can the Preds get out of paying the Bonus until he does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This horse is not just dead, you're kicking a frikkin skeleton here. Whether he signs or not, the Preds own Weber for 14 years. He has no leg to stand on arguing the contract. HE signed the contract already accepting the terms when he signed the paper Holmgren gave him. Nashville matched it, and that's the risk he took. I still say Holmgren screwed this up. He could've had Weber a year later and blew it jumping the gun. Now you'll never see him in black and orange unless you trade the farm to get him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weber had a valid contract the second that Nashville matched the Flyers' offer. Any court would find a valid contract between Weber and Nashville, whether he took pen to paper or not, because the CBA declares the terms of the Flyers' contract offer binding on them when Nashville matched.

There is no sign, not sign, it doesn't matter. They can modify certain terms, like adding a NTC/NMC clause, but there's no sitting out a year and magically becoming an UFA. Weber either plays for Nashville or he goes to Russia, unless the Preds decide to trade him. And he has no leverage to force a trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sarsippius

My question was along the lines of Nashville trying to get out of paying the bonuses due (13 million) if he had not officially penned a contract. For instance, if he had not signed before the new CBA comes into effect and the new CBA limits the number of years a contract can be for, would they still be held responsible for a now illegal contract?Because it was signed under the old CBA, I am guessing they are stuck with it (radoran's favorite word) irregardless...... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran Is it fair to speculate that the Flyers did not include a NMC/NTC in the contract to screw Nashville if they decided to pony up and sign him to the terms? These things are a stanard throw in with the Flyers, they must have had some reason to obstain from one now.

There were indications that the Great and Wise Hockey Minds running the Flyers were "unclear" as to whether such a clause could be included in the offer sheet.

These are the same Great and Wise Hockey Minds who didn't figure out Pronger's contract would be counted as a 35+ and then decided not to get out of it when they figured it out and also, too, signed Bryzgalov to a nine-year, iron-clad contract.

I'm sure they'll fix it. :ph34r:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weber got $13M for signing his name and will get another $13M next July 1. Even if the NHL doesn't play another game, ever.

That's a tough pill to swallow for a barely solvent team that stands to lose even more the longer the lockout remains in effect. They should have just let the Flyers keep him.

C'est la frickin' vie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a tough pill to swallow for a barely solvent team that stands to lose even more the longer the lockout remains in effect. They should have just let the Flyers keep him.

C'est la frickin' vie.

If it wasn't viewed as an amortized cost over a decade for billionaires...

Coulda shoulda woulda.

Now ed snider is locking the players out and demanding that they not allow him to offer these sorts of contracts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weber had a valid contract the second that Nashville matched the Flyers' offer.

Well I think the question really being asked here is if by "Matching" the Flyers offer the Predators included a No Movement Clause.

Then the debate would become whether a deal without a NMC is in fact "matching."

Not that I don't think there is any actual debate. I've heard no such thing. I always assumed that they included the NMC when they matched and I assume it still. Perhaps there's some small print in the old CBA (or the new one since it apparently travels through time to legally bind people to rules that were not in place when they signed contracts 5 years ago) that excludes NMC's from the "matching" qualifiers. That would be lame of the NHL CBA, but there are a lot of things that are incredibly lame about the NHL CBA.

So in short, does anyone know if the Preds included the NMC? If they did then the questions are answered and the conversation is over. If they didn't we need to ask if it matters before we can worry about it.

Right now, quite honestly, I don't want the offer sheet we signed with him to have to be honored. THe new CBA is a killer on this sort of thing. We'd be doomed even worse than we already are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think the question really being asked here is if by "Matching" the Flyers offer the Predators included a No Movement Clause.

Then the debate would become whether a deal without a NMC is in fact "matching."

Not that I don't think there is any actual debate. I've heard no such thing. I always assumed that they included the NMC when they matched and I assume it still. Perhaps there's some small print in the old CBA (or the new one since it apparently travels through time to legally bind people to rules that were not in place when they signed contracts 5 years ago) that excludes NMC's from the "matching" qualifiers. That would be lame of the NHL CBA, but there are a lot of things that are incredibly lame about the NHL CBA.

So in short, does anyone know if the Preds included the NMC? If they did then the questions are answered and the conversation is over. If they didn't we need to ask if it matters before we can worry about it.

Right now, quite honestly, I don't want the offer sheet we signed with him to have to be honored. THe new CBA is a killer on this sort of thing. We'd be doomed even worse than we already are.

Offer sheets only address term and dollars, not trade clauses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we know the contract is signed and we know it does not include a no movement clause.

when then the good news is that under the new CBA, we can trade for him and when he gets concussed and can't play again we don't have to pretend like he might come back because it'll be the Predators on the hook for his cap hit.

Make it so!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when then the good news is that under the new CBA, we can trade for him and when he gets concussed and can't play again we don't have to pretend like he might come back because it'll be the Predators on the hook for his cap hit.

Make it so!

really depends on how they handle existing contracts in terms of who gets the cap hit.

I don't expect Weber to be in Nashville for 14 years, but he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...