Jump to content

Matt's Photo


Member Since 04 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Nov 20 2015 01:28 PM

#2320426 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 02:23 PM

The Flyers did sign Weber to a market value deal -- they just front-loaded it, and that's the key difference here. His AAV is right in line with other comparable elite players for their positions. I don't think the Red Wings would have any qualms throwing an offer out there like this: they have the financial wherewithal and the desperate need to improve at that position. I just wish Holland would throw the "pointless" or "not our modus operandi" that St. James mentions out the window.... You have to change with the times, and if Philadelphia lands a franchise defenseman that roams their blueline for the next 10 years, it was worth it.

That players of the caliber of Suter and Weber were both even available is shocking (less so since they're from the same team, however) and increasingly frustrating that the Red Wings didn't grab one or the other with such a glaring need (despite the salary requirements -- they needed one).

The four 1st-rounders don't concern me when it's a franchise defenseman.

#2320419 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 02:08 PM

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..

#2320391 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 01:04 PM

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.

#2320388 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 01:00 PM

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.

#2320300 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 11:38 AM

Your first mistake is confusing a question with an 'argument'. You make valid points and I accept your reasoning... no reason to get all pissy about it. Need a tampon?

Of course they're "valid" -- how would they not be? On what planet is it allowed where a professional sports league office hands out money to small-market teams just so they can keep a specific player? It's just a downright silly suggestion. They get what they get from revenue sharing, and that's it. No special favors for specific situations.

As an aside, your second mistake (the first being the ridiculous post that started the dialog) is to not be fully aware of the definitions of "argument". For your education: http://dictionary.re...browse/argument (specifically, points #2 and #3). No one is getting "pissy" here, but if that's the road you wish to travel down it would appear the only tampon present here is wedged between your ears.

Oh, and one of the benefits of me being around the forums more often now is that I can sniff out previously banned members who sign up under different usernames. So, in this case, should I call you "MrSandman"? Or "MrSandmann"? Nevermind, you can't answer that now.

Keep the dialog on topic henceforth.

#2320279 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 10:46 AM

NHL bailout. If Nashville lose Weber, they might as well fold. If NHL loses Coyotes and Predators, then that's loss of NHL revenue, no? Would it be in the leagues best interest to bailout Nashville financially if they can't afford their franchise player?

You cannot be serious with this, can you? You do realize that even suggesting this would be paramount to destroying the competitive integrity of the league when the league office steps in to fill the coffers of another millionaire owner just so he can afford a franchise player when it is the fault of his own club's management to mishandle said player and leave him open to be poached by other club well within the rules everyone agreed upon?

We're not talking about "bailing out" an entire franchise -- you're talking about a singular player. This whole argument as absurd on so many levels it's ridiculous.

#2320265 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 10:29 AM

Personally, I am happy the Wings haven't extended themselves in these crazy contracts. There is no way in Hell I offer a guy a 14 year deal. Just look at the Franzen deal, now we are stuck with a load that no one wants and we cannot move him. Plus, we have no idea what the new cap is gonna bring. I honestly do not understand what the Flyers and Wild are thinking. Big front loaded contracts with decades of time on them does not make sense to me.

For a franchise defenseman, one of the top 3 in the entire league, and one just entering his prime I would. We're not talking Christian Erhoff here -- it's Shea Weber. It's ridiculous that Nashville even put itself in a position where he became available to other teams. They burned most of their bridges with him last summer with the arbitration ordeal.

If Weber walks and the oweners don't do a front loaded deal, which I'm sure they wont, then I would fire the GM and ownership.

How do you fire an owner, exactly?

Poile has already had this happen to him once before with Scott Stevens. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

#2320258 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 10:16 AM

That contract is outrageous. If the new CBA doesn't fix this soon, we'll be treading baseball contracts soon. Honestly who thinks paying for one guy like that will be good for them? They won't be able to afford anyone else to help him! I wouldn't have signed it, but maybe it's just the almighty dollar working its evil again. I remember when we fought for the cup, not a $...

$7.8/year for one of the top 3 defenseman in the game isn't outrageous by any stretch. He's been a perennial Norris contender the last few years and is just now entering his prime. Contracts given out to these players shouldn't be the biggest concern -- they're paid appropriately -- it's the bloated middle-tier that's concerning (see: Ville Leino, Dennis Wideman, et al).

#2320220 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 09:04 AM

Wow. $14m a year for the first 4 years? :blink:

If you want to get him out of Nashville, this is how you try to do it. No point in even submitting an offer sheet if you make it easy for the other club to match. They've got to be massive, front-loaded deals to force the hand of lower-revenue, small-market teams.

#2320196 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 08:38 AM

Good point here by Frank Serevalli (@DNFlyers):


Spending $26M in one calendar yr, NSH would be forking over 16% of entire franchise net worth ($163M in '11 accd to Forbes) to match offer

"Per the CBA, if the Preds match Weber, they can't trade him for an entire year. But they could still trade with the Flyers, a team who has the extra top 6 forwards they need."

Maybe Holmgren decided to take advantage of this rule and loose the competition? Maybe Poile and Holmgren are in on this together somehow? :scared:

Good, that's what I thought. With this out there I think it becomes increasingly clear that the offer sheet was meant to force Poile's hand to complete a trade. It's two-fold for Holmgren: He's fine with sacrificing the draft picks if need be, but he's got the assets to get a trade done, too. If Poile was riding the fence on what he wanted to do and dragging it out it's a genius move by Holmgren. Puts the screws to Poile to get it done and a strong potential to land a franchise defenseman that has Norris trophies in his future.

#2320193 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 08:32 AM

Could Nashville still trade his rights? Lets say Nashville trades him to the Rangers and get a bunch of players or whatever in return. NYR then has the ability to match that deal and Weber belongs to them. Is that a possibility or is their some rule preventing that from happening? I don't know. If that is the case, Nashville may wait 6 days to try and swing a deal before matching or not.

No. When a player signs an offer sheet they can do only one of two things: play for his original team once the offer is matched, or the original club refuses to match and he goes to the team that signed him to the offer sheet.

Two destinations for Weber, and two only: Nashville. Philadelphia. That's it.

Under the previous CBA (at least), the original team could match, they could refuse and get compensatory draft picks relative to the contract, or the two clubs could work out a trade during the 7-day "grace" period. That trade option between the Predators/Flyers is something I'm not sure is possible or not under the new CBA.

#2320182 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Matt on 19 July 2012 - 08:14 AM

As someone pointed out already, Weber should have waited to become an UFA instead of signing this offer sheet. I can only assume he would get more money as a free agent and with the length of this offer sheet he'll be playing for less than he's worth for the majority of his career.

For everyone worried that the Wings now never have a shot at Weber: How many players have stayed in Philly over the last 5 years, let alone 14?

No, it was wise for Weber to act this summer. The shot the owners put across the players' bow over the last week was message enough that there will be major changes to contract term. Weber has a guaranteed contract for 14-years and over $100-million. The way the talk is he'd be lucky to get half that if he waits until next summer -- even less if there is a 5- or 6-year cap on contracts. He needed to get in before the lockdown on contract length, and he did. Good for him, it just sucks the Red Wings weren't in on it. He's a franchise defenseman and there aren't many out there, far fewer that ever become available.

#2318209 Red Wings Alumni Showdown Roster

Posted by Matt on 11 July 2012 - 11:49 AM

TWO Alumni Games (75-100 players) so far...:

Chris Osgood
Mike Vernon
Gordie Howe
Chris Chelios
Dino Ciccarelli
Alex Delvecchio
Ted Lindsay
Joe Kocur
Kris Draper
Kirk Maltby
Darren McCarty
Micky Redmond
Luc Robitaille
Larry Murphy
John Ogrodnick
Mark Howe

More to be added....

#2318007 Reminder: Personal attacks, trolling will not be tolerated

Posted by Matt on 11 July 2012 - 12:11 AM

The one person we're all tiptoeing around naming here is pretty clearly only around to troll. The only type of posts he makes are derogitory towards the Wings, Holland and posters here at LGW. That's what really gets my goat.

Concerning the member in question here: the warning in the thread causing tonight's ruckus has been made. Anything further from him will result in removal.

the funny thing about you is, I can't tell if your the cleverest troll I've ever met or just the strangest troll I've ever met lol.

Be patient, it'll take a week for him to respond to that.

#2317992 Reminder: Personal attacks, trolling will not be tolerated

Posted by Matt on 10 July 2012 - 11:39 PM

I guess I never noticed these 'plenty of times' that you said this, and I now see it in the forum guildlines. I don't know how long that's been the there but it's weird I've never seen it before after 6+ years on these forums.

It's been there from the beginning. You've got no one to blame for your lack of reading skills but yourself.

Anyway, I didn't feel the need to go over this mod's head because they were responding back and forth in PM. Their stupidity was more humorous than frustrating, so I didn't fail to do anything but laugh it off. If my post gets deleted even though I was on topic and didn't attack anyone, I'll be sure to come and whine/complain to you from now on.

No, but you felt the need to whine about it publicly on the forum like an offended child rather than taking a route available to you. Oh, that's right -- you failed to read about that part. Again, this feeds into your persecution complex you've laid bare here.

Despite your condescending tone, this was not at all a time that the forum was busier than usual (late Feb/beginning of March), and it was a topic I started. So nothing was reported, the mod just read the topic and clearly wasn't feeling it. Apparently one mod found it ok enough to respond to it, and but the other just removed it.

So right around the NHL Trade Deadline. Right. No traffic increase there. As far as the "condescending tone" is concerned, I will reply in kind when the moderating staff is called "elitist" or "stupid", so get used to it.

I just found the crackdown funny, sorry for being honest. I'll definitely try to hit "print screen" before my posts are removed or something.

Since this one occurrence has offended you so, may I ask what the topic pertained to (since I don't recall seeing it)? I'm virtually 100% confident the moderator that removed the topic did so correctly, but the event has left an ugly scar in your mind since then.

I've looked a this 'warning point" and the details were blank, if you'd like to PM me what this was in reference to I'd love to know. Otherwise I can just assume this is your BS attempt to personally call me out. Which is also just hilarious considering the topic.

Again, you think quite highly of yourself, which is amusing -- but sorry, I have no need to make up "BS attempts" to call you out. What's the point in that? Unfortunately the forum software from four years ago handled warnings a bit differently and there's no specifics other than a record of whom assigned the warning, the date, and the reason. That fancy print-screen effect below:

Attached File  louisville1.jpg   41.29KB   62 downloadsAttached File  louisville2.jpg   70.03KB   66 downloads

And to your second point, of course I'm not the first poster who feels that way, but I'm sure most just take it without argument. If you want to create an open discussion about this let's at least be honest about that. Otherwise, just post your rules and close the topic.

What exactly have I not been honest about? Is this not an open discussion? Your attempts at trying to skew the discussion are laughable, at best. Argue/debate/discuss all you want, I'm game and I always have been. I don't believe I've ever been known to shun open discussion of site policies as long as it's done so with respect from the start. That isn't how it started here.

Look, I love this forum (why else would I be a booster?) but if something is going to be removed/modified/or result in a ban I would hope that it remains consistent . Looks like you guys are heading in the right direction at least.

If there's one thing that all moderators need to accept it's that you can't keep everyone happy. Someone will always be put off about one thing or another, will take something personal when it's not, etc.. You ARE a Booster -- so you know that there's been a two-year long thread on the first page of the private Booster forum specifically discussing the moderator policies of the forum. What have you contributed to it? Nothing. Zero. Not one post. (But let me guess, you didn't see that either, and I magically made that appear, too?)

No disrespect for regular members here, but I do give the opinions of Boosters more weight when it comes to the discussion of moderator policies on the forums here: after all, they have made a contribution to the site and I consider it an "investment" in the site's growth and future. Does that mean they decide policy? Absolutely not, but I do listen to what they have to say.

The moderators and I are not infallible. Things get missed, some things are edited/moved/deleted when they shouldn't be. It happens, and we try our best to fix it on the random times it does happen. And for those that feel that something was handled incorrectly than can always talk to me -- the buck stops here. I can't improve things if I don't know about the problems to begin with.