Weber?

[FirstState]

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.

I believe when Nashville matched the offer sheet it meant that the ONLY team Weber could be traded to was Philly. I'm not sure how long that rule holds true. It's under my impression that Homer offered that enormous contract with 2 goals in mind. 1.) Nashville can't match, Weber stays in Philly. 2.) Nashville matches, can't afford the lump payments owed to Weber before the contract enters year 2, then trades to Philly. Either way, Homer put a huge amount of pressure on Nashville to pony up or bail. Trade isn't out of the question in future.

[Puck]

@FirstState: My understanding is that, after matching an offer sheet, the matching team cannot trade the player in the first year. I just did some research on the topic, and it looks like after that first year, they can trade him anywhere they want.

[radoran]

@FirstState: My understanding is that, after matching an offer sheet, the matching team cannot trade the player in the first year. I just did some research on the topic, and it looks like after that first year, they can trade him anywhere they want.

Shea Weber is a Predator for the next 14 years unless Nashville decides to trade him.

[King Knut]

Trade isn't out of the question in future.

I'm guessing with the details of the new CBA in place (which of course may never happen), Homer's not going to want to trade for weber ever for the next 14 years.

Unless there is a buyout option, this new CBA really screws the Preds on the Weber deal. And I'm kinda okay with that.

[radoran]

Unless there is a buyout option, this new CBA really screws the Preds on the Weber deal. And I'm kinda okay with that.

We should at the very least wait until there actually is a new CBA before proclaiming the effect on the franchise that so many have already declared is screwed by the deal in the first place.

And, gosh, it's too bad we didn't get that crazy-ass, franchise-screwing deal.

See, the grapes were sour!

[Phillygrump]

We should at the very least wait until there actually is a new CBA before proclaiming the effect on the franchise that so many have already declared is screwed by the deal in the first place.

Wait @radoran, were't you here complaining that this deal was dirty on the behalf of the Flyers because it would destroy the Nashville franchise?

They are two different organizations with two different financial situations. I'm just saying it seems this poster was echoing your earlier sentiments.

[Polaris922]

Is there a way to block any post that has the words "Weber", "trade", and "Flyers" in it? It's redundantly redundant

[Vanflyer]

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.

How can the deal not be finalized? If the contract was not signed (which it was), then Weber would be a Flyer today (and their might be law suits to the Flyers since Snider is one of the key members of the owners that knew the terms of the impending CBA).

I don't really get this. It is not a negotiation. The flyers put an offer sheet in front of Weber (basically a contract), he signed. Nashville had the right to match- and they did and Weber signed. In laymans terms, as I understand it, Nashville has the right to match the contract that the Flyers put in front of Weber. By doing so, Weber has no choice but to sign (no arbitration, negotiation, etc.). Whatever the terms of the Flyers "offer sheet / contract" are the terms that Nashville adopts by matching.

If Weber does not want to sign, then he can not play in the NHL.

[Vanflyer]

something like a mass defection to the KHL occurs.

I know a great hockey streaming sight out of russia if anyone is interested? Ha ha

[Vanflyer]

Or maybe some new provision comes out of the new CBA which frees them from fianancial commitment....just grasping at straws here.

Interesting. Where are Suter and Parise to ask about this??

Edited November 6, 2012 by Vanflyer

[Vanflyer]

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

See above when looking up hipocrisy in the dictionary.

[Vanflyer]

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

Now I have to go delete my posts. That is weird if true. How can you put a "proposed" contract in front of a player without all provisions addressed??

[Vanflyer]

I'm guessing with the details of the new CBA in place (which of course may never happen), Homer's not going to want to trade for weber ever for the next 14 years.

Why not, his salary will be reduced- thus why there is no NHL hockey being played today. The players are angry that the owners do not want to honor EXISTING contracts and want to reduce proportionately. Parise, Suter and Weber are all effd. The god send is that if it does come to pass, Breezy is eff'd too and KHL looks more attractive.

[King Knut]

. The players are angry that the owners do not want to honor EXISTING contracts and want to reduce proportionately.

How does that work even? Is the league really suggesting that existing contracts should be cut off at a league maximum of 5 years, no matter what they've already signed for?

[Phlyer1]

How does that work even? Is the league really suggesting that existing contracts should be cut off at a league maximum of 5 years, no matter what they've already signed for?

It is so wrong to penalize a player for insuring his pay with a long contract. Is it better to keep going on the Free Agent Market?

[Vanflyer]

How does that work even? Is the league really suggesting that existing contracts should be cut off at a league maximum of 5 years, no matter what they've already signed for?

It has nothing to do with the length, it is about the money. In a nut shell, the league wants lower the cap, which in turn lowers the ability to pay current contracts. They want to defer (escrow) moneys due on current contracts to allow the teams to fit under the cap. The players are saying eff that, we signed, you pay NOW under the terms of the contract (they don't want to get their money 2, 3, 4 years from now). That is the stumbling block. Meanwhile, the league has lost 700 million in revenue by this sticking point, which would have covered most of the deferments.

Basically, it is a stake in the sand. If the players cave now, the next CBA will be worse (is their mind set). The owners mind set is "who cares", we made you millionaires and we will do what we want. There is no right side of this, just the loser fans that pour their hearts and cash to make both the league and players rich.

[King Knut]

It has nothing to do with the length, it is about the money.

I read about the escrow for the first time today.

They're definitely trying to restrict lengths of future contracts to five years, but I thought I'd also read they wanted to restrict existing contract lengths, thus altering them.

Something else i read really suggested to me that the new rule about the signing team being responsible for post trade pay outs was also going to apply to existing contracts.

That would be behi d insane to me.

[Vanflyer]

I read about the escrow for the first time today.

They're definitely trying to restrict lengths of future contracts to five years, but I thought I'd also read they wanted to restrict existing contract lengths, thus altering them.

Something else i read really suggested to me that the new rule about the signing team being responsible for post trade pay outs was also going to apply to existing contracts.

That would be behi d insane to me.

I thought you were referring about how long the NHL wanted to take to make existing contracts "whole", not the changing the length before a player can become a UFA or the length of contracts (both are significant issues on the table). I sort of don't mind the UFA one because it actually ensures that a player will play with one team longer- which is good for the fans. The length of the contract one makes sense too as it keeps rich teams from making astronomically long contracts in order to circumvent the cap.