Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

[FlashyG 1,799]

So again what's the real difference? How much is Weber being paid in the last few years?

I think the difference is their age.

The likelihood of Weber playing at 41 is far greater than Kovalchuk still playing at 44.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

That's a monster deal.

[SwedeLundin77 460]

So what if they have two long term contracts? They don't have a #1 or #2 D-man, they have an amazing #3 D-man, 2 guys who are 3-4 D-men, an over paid #5 d-man and 2 kids, one who has been mediocre, the second who has yet to prove anything as a top 4 D-man in the NHL. In the league today you don't get a #1 d-man without giving them a lengthy contract. If they don't gamble on a player that fills a massive hole on the roster, they should fully expect to be the next Calgary Flames.

Let's just relax a bit.... your panic is way overblown. I am not cool with paying a 35-40 year old (other than Lidstrom) as much money as it would cost to send an offer sheet to Weber, it's simply not worth it. People act like Weber is the only great defensman out there, it's a s***ty mentality.

Nashville would match any offer we put down, and it's not worth 4 first rounders.

[Wing Across The Pond 196]

I think the difference is their age.

The likelihood of Weber playing at 41 is far greater than Kovalchuk still playing at 44.

True. Wonder what his last few years will be salary wise though? Because at the end of the day 41 is better than 44 yeah, but it's still not really a playable age. Only a handful of players do it really and a big bruising body like Weber might not last that long. Lids did, Selanne is as examples, but neither are incredibly physical players, more smart.

[Guest Crymson]

The problem is Holland is getting burned by being too conservative with his moves, and in doing so he's letting the team decline instead of taking a risk and possibly making a wrong move. There's an old saying 'Action is always better than inaction'.

That is an old Hindu saying. You have conveniently left out the rest of the passage, so I'll give it to you in context: "Action is better than inaction. Without action no one can survive," but "Act in such a way that it does not bind but frees one from ignorance." In other words, action is better than inaction, but your actions should be guarded and well-conceived.

Your argument seems to be that Holland making a big splash in the stupidest way imaginable would be preferable to him taking more prudent measures that might not succeed. If so, then the saying you've quoted absolutely disagrees with you.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Crymson

[pucktividi 472]

Can someone explain me what's so brilliant in a fact that Holmgren and the Flyers can throw more $$$ in bonuses than Poile and the Preds?

[Matt 1,048]

From the CBA:

In reality, regardless of any of this, is that the Flyers could still reacquire the 1st-rounders from the Predators for the assets they would have otherwise used in a more "standard" deal. The point still stands that the can still work out a trade between the clubs for Weber, a la Chris Gratton in 1997 with Tampa. They've done this dance before.

[Guest Crymson]

Did Jagr really turn out that badly?

In what universe was Jagr a big free-agent splash?

In reality, regardless of any of this, is that the Flyers could still reacquire the 1st-rounders from the Predators for the assets they would have otherwise used in a more "standard" deal. The point still stands that the can still work out a trade between the clubs for Weber, a la Chris Gratton in 1997 with Tampa. They've done this dance before.

They can't. As of now he is not signed to a contract by anybody, so only his rights could be traded; and because he has signed an offer sheet, his rights cannot be traded.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Crymson

[Matt 1,048]

Can someone explain me what's so brilliant in a fact that Holmgren and the Flyers can throw more $$$ in bonuses than Poile and the Preds?

Because forking over $27-million to one player in a calendar year before you could trade him is a huge stumbling block for a small market club that Forbes valued at $168 million in 2011. Almost 1/3 of the value of the franchise will be doled out to one player ($56-million) during the first four years of the contract. It's a big pill to swallow for a small-market franchise. It's sole purpose is to put the screws to Nashville's ability to match the offer. If the money was spread out over the term evenly Nashville would have matched it the second it was submitted to the league office.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

In what universe was Jagr a big free-agent splash?

They can't. As of now he is not signed to a contract by anybody, so only his rights could be traded; and because he has signed an offer sheet, his rights cannot be traded.

This one?

Obviously it wasn't like Suter and Parise, but don't you remember all the giddy speculation last year about who would sign him? There were something like 5 Cup contending teams that were in the mix for him.

To me, a superstar of Jagr's caliber returning from the KHL is a pretty big free agent splash, even at his age.

[Matt 1,048]

They can't. As of now he is not signed to a contract by anybody, so only his rights could be traded; and because he has signed an offer sheet, his rights cannot be traded.

You didn't understand what I was saying. Once the decision is made on the offersheet -- in this case Nashville choosing not to match -- the Flyers can still trade player assets to re-acquire the the four 1st round picks they lost as part of the offer sheet. See Chris Gratton: http://en.wikipedia....ts#cite_note-19

If the Flyers get Weber they'll have to shed salary, Nashville needs to add it, and the Flyers would probably like to add those No. 1s back. In the end it likely won't end up being as simple as four 1st rounders. Philly could end up re-acquiring up to three of them and send a forward or two back the other way. It's the scenic route to a standard Flyers/Predators trade, the offer sheet just expedited and locked in Philadelphia as the destination.

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

Because forking over $27-million to one player in a calendar year before you could trade him is a huge stumbling block for a small market club that Forbes valued at $168 million in 2011. Almost 1/3 of the value of the franchise will be doled out to one player ($56-million) during the first four years of the contract. It's a big pill to swallow for a small-market franchise. It's sole purpose is to put the screws to Nashville's ability to match the offer. If the money was spread out over the term evenly Nashville would have matched it the second it was submitted to the league office.

But how would it work if nashville matches..They can turn around and trade him correct? And in these offers like this can they put in no-trade clause/no-movement clause

Edited July 19, 2012 by hillbillywingsfan

[vladdy16 2,154]

But how would it work if nashville matches..They can turn around and trade him correct? And in these offers like this can they put in no-trade clause/no-movement clause

They cannot trade him for a year. The "signing bonus" pretty effectively hamstrung Nashville.

[Shaman 713]

That is an old Hindu saying. You have conveniently left out the rest of the passage, so I'll give it to you in context: "Action is better than inaction. Without action no one can survive," but "Act in such a way that it does not bind but frees one from ignorance." In other words, action is better than inaction, but your actions should be guarded and well-conceived.

Your argument seems to be that Holland making a big splash in the stupidest way imaginable would be preferable to him taking more prudent measures that might not succeed. If so, then the saying you've quoted absolutely disagrees with you.

Well that'd be a strawman. His moves have not been prudent at all, as they are in a position currently where their only options are to:

A. Overpay in FA

or

B. Overpay in a trade.

These are not the options that are left to the prudent GMs.

[turbowhistle86 155]

In what universe was Jagr a big free-agent splash?

In the universe where multiple contenders, us included, were going batsh*t crazy hoping to sign him. The question was posed about the Flyers' FA signings ending horribly. I think it's safe to say there was nothing horrible about Jagr's play last season.

[FlashyG 1,799]

Well that'd be a strawman. His moves have not been prudent at all, as they are in a position currently where their only options are to:

A. Overpay in FA

or

B. Overpay in a trade.

These are not the options that are left to the prudent GMs.

But overpaying in the form of an offer-sheet is what he should have done?

[Guest Crymson]

This one?

Obviously it wasn't like Suter and Parise, but don't you remember all the giddy speculation last year about who would sign him? There were something like 5 Cup contending teams that were in the mix for him.

To me, a superstar of Jagr's caliber returning from the KHL is a pretty big free agent splash, even at his age.

He was paid $3.3m for one year. That is not at all the type of big free-agent splash that was being made reference to.

In the universe where multiple contenders, us included, were going batsh*t crazy hoping to sign him. The question was posed about the Flyers' FA signings ending horribly. I think it's safe to say there was nothing horrible about Jagr's play last season.

Bats*** crazy, eh? That's a tremendous exaggeration. The highest bid for Jagr was $3.3m. The Wings offered something in the realm of $2.5m, as did the Penguins. In what universe do those sorts of offers constitute bats***-crazy attempts to sign a player?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Crymson

[Shaman 713]

But overpaying in the form of an offer-sheet is what he should have done?

That's not an overpayment.

[FlashyG 1,799]

You can't possibly pay a player more than Weber will be making for the next few years. On top of that if he gets him, it also costs him 4 first round draft picks.

Weber is a great defenceman but he isn't the best player in the NHL

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

He was paid $3.3m for one year. That is not at all the type of big free-agent splash that was being made reference to.

Bats*** crazy, eh? That's a tremendous exaggeration. The highest bid for Jagr was $3.3m. The Wings offered something in the realm of $2.5m, as did the Penguins. In what universe do those sorts of offers constitute bats***-crazy attempts to sign a player?

Oh, now we're just using salary as a measure?

The original phrase was a "big free agent splash". I don't think I need to go over Jagr's resume, but his return to the NHL was a pretty big free agent signing. There were multiple teams trying to sign him, and there was also pretty significant risk given his age and the question mark of transitioning from the KHL. Both those factors kept his salary down.

But $3.3 million for a 40 year old who's been away from the NHL for 3 years isn't exactly chump change. In terms of a big free agent splash that could've gone bad but didn't, I'd say Jagr definitely qualifies, which was the original point of the post that started all this.

[kylee 727]

Nashville is getting hosed this off season

[Matt 1,048]

You can't possibly pay a player more than Weber will be making for the next few years. On top of that if he gets him, it also costs him 4 first round draft picks.

Weber is a great defenceman but he isn't the best player in the NHL

No one is saying he's the best player in the NHL, he's just one of the top three -- if not the best -- player at his position and he's now compensated as such. Regardless, the cost of successfully prying a player away via offer sheet -- and offer sheets for *any* players, for that matter -- is done via two ways: vast overpayment or handcuffing a franchise via poison pill(s).

I don't believe Weber is overpaid in this case over the term of the contract, but in order for the Flyers to even pry him from Nashville they had to put in a monster of a poison pill to the tune of $52 million in bonus money alone over the first four years that cannot be reduced by a new CBA-forced salary rollback.

That's $52 million over the first four years no matter what. Period. No way to get around that, have it reduced by 24% Rollback Part 2, etc., etc..

[FlashyG 1,799]

I agree that Weber is one of the top 3 at his position, but I don't necessarily think that justifies a max deal.

You said it yourself, it was a poison pill to prevent Nashville from matching. If they offered him his market value Nashville would definitely match.

You will never land a player via offer sheet without overpaying. I'm not saying Philly made a mistake, I'm just rejecting the notion that signing someone to an offer-sheet is somehow a more prudent strategy than overpaying via trade or signing. Its all overpaying, what difference does it make which way you do it?

[toby91_ca 620]

No one is saying he's the best player in the NHL, he's just one of the top three -- if not the best -- player at his position and he's now compensated as such. Regardless, the cost of successfully prying a player away via offer sheet -- and offer sheets for *any* players, for that matter -- is done via two ways: vast overpayment or handcuffing a franchise via poison pill(s).

I don't believe Weber is overpaid in this case over the term of the contract, but in order for the Flyers to even pry him from Nashville they had to put in a monster of a poison pill to the tune of $52 million in bonus money alone over the first four years that cannot be reduced by a new CBA-forced salary rollback.

That's $52 million over the first four years no matter what. Period. No way to get around that, have it reduced by 24% Rollback Part 2, etc., etc..

I think the general consensus is that he's getting the $52M or 56M, whatever the bonus money is regardless (i.e. no way it could be reduced via rollback, etc.), but I'm guessing it is theoretically possible that something is negotiated in the new CBA such that those bonus amounts could be reduced. Anything is possible of both sides agree to it I would assume.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

You can't possibly pay a player more than Weber will be making for the next few years. On top of that if he gets him, it also costs him 4 first round draft picks.

Weber is a great defenceman but he isn't the best player in the NHL

You could easily make a case Weber is the best d-man in the NHL. The likelihood of any of the first round picks being as good as Weber is very slim. Especially since the Flyers will probably be picking lower in the first round.

Given other contracts in the league right now, this is a very reasonable deal for an elite player. The 14 years is insane, but Weber may not even play out the entire contract and he's in his prime right now.

This was a really shrewd move by Holmgren and the Flyers. Taking advantage of the system before it changes drastically. I'm starting to think today that Nashville won't match either.