DL44 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 "As the organization analyzed the overall situation and worked toward a conclusion, the decision boiled down to three questions: Was Shea Weber the individual that this franchise wanted to lead our team, a team that would compete for the Stanley Cup every year, for the next 14 years? Would matching the offer sheet be in the best long-term interest of the team and organization? Would a decision not to match the offer sheet send a negative message to current Predators players and other NHL organizations, a message that the Predators would only go so far to protect its best players and be pushed around by teams with 'deep pockets?' The answer to each of the above questions is clearly yes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 You didn't disagree with it though, you toldme to stop. And I am pretty sure that isn't your decision. You are usually better at understanding a point without focusing on semantics. When I say "stop talking for the owners" it's pretty obvious I meant "you shouldn't speak for the owners". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 You are forgetting the last 7 years where they pay him virtually nothing. Cherry picking at it's finest. No it's not. In 7 years, he will be 34 or whatever. They may or may not want to re-sign him, they may trade him, he may be retired or have succumbed to multiple concussions - who knows. The only thing we know for sure is the next 7 years and they just lost BIG on that. Also, now that they are $34m behind in the first 7 years, they could sign him for the next 8 years (when he will be 34-40) at $63m and still be better off. I'll take the under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 "As the organization analyzed the overall situation and worked toward a conclusion, the decision boiled down to three questions: Was Shea Weber the individual that this franchise wanted to lead our team, a team that would compete for the Stanley Cup every year, for the next 14 years? Would matching the offer sheet be in the best long-term interest of the team and organization? Would a decision not to match the offer sheet send a negative message to current Predators players and other NHL organizations, a message that the Predators would only go so far to protect its best players and be pushed around by teams with 'deep pockets?' The answer to each of the above questions is clearly yes." Seems pretty simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 No it's not. In 7 years, he will be 34 or whatever. They may or may not want to re-sign him, they may trade him, he may be retired or have succumbed to multiple concussions - who knows. The only thing we know for sure is the next 7 years and they just lost BIG on that. Also, now that they are $34m behind in the first 7 years, they could sign him for the next 8 years (when he will be 34-40) at $63m and still be better off. I'll take the under. Actually, they would need to sign him for less than $22.5M over the last 8 years in order to save the money. Not sure what math that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Actually, they would need to sign him for less than $22.5M over the last 8 years in order to save the money. Not sure what math that was. Keep in mind that the proposal was prior to last year and last year's $7.5m was included in my calculations So 7 years is: 7.5 14 14 14 14 12 12 toal: $87.5 remaining 8 years, $30m since they are $34m ahead of the game, they would have $30m + $34m to play with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 What's his name in Pitt outlined exactly the strategy to deal with a situation like Suter's: Suter: Talk at the beginning of the final year and make your best offer. If he passes, trade him by the deadline and get a return. Absolutely inexcusable to get nothing for him. Weber: missed an opportunity to sign him for a reasonable amount (or trade him for a decent return). In the end, had to pay more than was necessary in order to keep him. As a fan, you may not care how much he gets paid. But it comes out of the owners pockets and they most definitely care. If you can't see that some serious crap has happened to that franchise, then I'll leave it at "we can agree to disagree" "What's his name in Pittsburgh" & other writers/bloggers were talking the Mr. Spock view. No room for intangibles. Ideally you never let your stars hit UFA but it happens for various reasons. Then it becomes a crap shoot. A top player can likely get to $s anywhere so it can come down to as little as wanting to play for that team who's posters he had in his room as a tyke or wanting to play on the same team as a brother/friend. *As a fan I really don't worry about how my team's owner spends his $s. If Ed Snider could have managed to sign the entire Olympic Gold TC (cap hit something like $210 million) & won us a few SCs I'd be happy. I'd still have a roof over my head, food in my tummy & a beer in my hand. * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Keep in mind that the proposal was prior to last year and last year's $7.5m was included in my calculations So 7 years is: 7.5 14 14 14 14 12 12 toal: $87.5 remaining 8 years, $30m since they are $34m ahead of the game, they would have $30m + $34m to play with Why are we even arguing this? The owners are willing to pay out the current contract. That is what matters. Sure, they could have saved themselves some money last season, but you don't think they didn't have a say at that point in time as well? But they are willing to pay him now. That's all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 How so? Cap hit relatively the same. For teams always pushing the ceiling cap hit is the main # (rich owners seldom care about the true $s - Redden in the minors is enough example). To teams that stay nearer the cap floor & open the wallet only when a long playoff run is in sight the true $s are usually important. This was obviously a different scenario then the norm as management/ownership decided the loss in true $s would damage their franchise less then losing Weber would in the next few years (fan support, franchise worth & media contracts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 For teams always pushing the ceiling cap hit is the main # (rich owners seldom care about the true $s - Redden in the minors is enough example). To teams that stay nearer the cap floor & open the wallet only when a long playoff run is in sight the true $s are usually important. This was obviously a different scenario then the norm as management/ownership decided the loss in true $s would damage their franchise less then losing Weber would in the next few years (fan support, franchise worth & media contracts). Exactly... For a smaller market team, this contract was a big hit for Nashville when you look at the overall revenue from even a good season like the last one... But they where backed into a corner, and fought back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Weber's a Pred. FU Holmgren, paella valenciana. I solemnly swear that I hope you get your's. Hooray!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidKappa Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Regardless of the funny math going on here, they signed Weber for 14 years at 7.8 mil, a contract he signed while under the age of 35 and locked up arguably the best D-man in the league. This is good for all involved except Philly. Its bad they lost Suter for nothing but Nashville still isn't even at the cap floor yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Why are we even arguing this? The owners are willing to pay out the current contract. That is what matters. Sure, they could have saved themselves some money last season, but you don't think they didn't have a say at that point in time as well? But they are willing to pay him now. That's all that matters. You're right - what's $34m among friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 You're right - what's $34m among friends? Why don't you ask the guys who it actually matters to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Exactly... For a smaller market team, this contract was a big hit for Nashville when you look at the overall revenue from even a good season like the last one... But they where backed into a corner, and fought back... It is a big hit but I think the bigger hit would have been had he left. Nashville goes into rebuild mode for the next 3/4 seasons IMO and kills all the momentum they've gained and who knows if they get it back. I think that's ultimately what this came down too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 It is a big hit but I think the bigger hit would have been had he left. Nashville goes into rebuild mode for the next 3/4 seasons IMO and kills all the momentum they've gained and who knows if they get it back. I think that's ultimately what this came down too I started off thinking the same thing, that Nashville had to do it for the same reasons... Then I looked at the money, and figured that was to much for the Preds to bite off and chew for one player... Well, I guess I was wrong on that one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zirakzigil Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Not surprised and I dont think anyone should be. The organization said from the start they would match any offer sheet to Weber. And I highly doubt the ownership fires their GM. Poile has done very will with the tools he has been given. Suter decided last minute he was going to sign with his pal Parise, they kept him for a playoff run and did their best to convince him to stay, not Poiles fault he ran. Rinne locked up long term, good move by Poile. Weber locked up long term, salary might not be the greatest but thats not 100% his fault. We can argue over the what ifs with Weber, but the fact remains that none of us know what was offered before or what Weber was wanting. Blaming Poile for what could have been is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Not surprised and I dont think anyone should be. The organization said from the start they would match any offer sheet to Weber. And I highly doubt the ownership fires their GM. Poile has done very will with the tools he has been given. Suter decided last minute he was going to sign with his pal Parise, they kept him for a playoff run and did their best to convince him to stay, not Poiles fault he ran. Rinne locked up long term, good move by Poile. Weber locked up long term, salary might not be the greatest but thats not 100% his fault. We can argue over the what ifs with Weber, but the fact remains that none of us know what was offered before or what Weber was wanting. Blaming Poile for what could have been is ridiculous. It's his job, so critiquing in is hardly ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zirakzigil Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 It's his job, so critiquing in is hardly ridiculous What if ownership said no? What if Poile wanted more years and Weber said no? What if the contract wasnt even offered? Speculating on something that may have not even happened is stupid. What we do know is that as of now Weber is locked up long term at a decent cap hit. The dollars really dont mean anything unless you are part of the ownership and paying his salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 What if ownership said no? What if Poile wanted more years and Weber said no? What if the contract wasnt even offered? Speculating on something that may have not even happened is stupid. What we do know is that as of now Weber is locked up long term at a decent cap hit. So on these boards we only speculate on things that you want to speculate about? Okay then. It was reported and thus warrants discussion. You are free to not participate in that discussion. The dollars really dont mean anything unless you are part of the ownership and paying his salary. The dollars are very important for a couple of reasons: 1) Nashville is a revenue sharing team (they receive revenue-sharing transfer payments) - the fact that they matched has some interesting implications for the league and the CBA 2) Because they matched, Nashville may now be vulnerable to other RFA offer sheets for the next few years because, already owing $13m every July 1st, they are going to be in tough to match other offer sheets that are heavily weighted with bonuses In the future, get a clue before you start claiming what does and doesn't mean anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Speculating on something that may have not even happened is stupid. That is just speculation on your part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 The dollars are very important for a couple of reasons: 1) Nashville is a revenue sharing team (they receive revenue-sharing transfer payments) - the fact that they matched has some interesting implications for the league and the CBA 2) Because they matched, Nashville may now be vulnerable to other RFA offer sheets for the next few years because, already owing $13m every July 1st, they are going to be in tough to match other offer sheets that are heavily weighted with bonuses In the future, get a clue before you start claiming what does and doesn't mean anything Probably none more interesting than the fact Philly is a team that shares revenue and Nashville received. Philly, in z very simple sense, just helped them match the deal. Interesting but IMO you have to have a system line this but in sure it's something thd bigger markets will want to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.