Jump to content


Matt's Photo

Matt

Member Since 04 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 12:54 PM
****-

#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):

https://twitter.com/...945730584559617

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:

louisville1.jpg louisville2.jpg

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.


#2317951 How bad are we if our roster is now finalized?

Posted by Matt on 10 July 2012 - 09:51 PM

Trying to get through to these homers is like a one legged man trying to win an ass kicking contest. It's not going to happen. It's funny though, the hypocrisy


Enough. The line is drawn in the sand right here. Reply tactfully -- and to the topic at hand -- or find your stay here permanently shortened.

This also applies to all others dragging this thread though the mud.


#2316612 Hi-Res Howard Color/Grunge offset

Posted by Matt on 06 July 2012 - 10:26 PM

I was making some iPad wallpapers for myself tonight and had a really hi-res Jimmy Howard photo that I manipulated quickly in photoshop and figured I'd upload the original (non-cropped for wallpapers) version. The original is 3000px across, but this is downsized to 2000px:

howard-grunge.jpg

I may re-use a version of it for a schedule wallpaper or something later on, I haven't decided yet. But I figured I'd just upload it here regardless.


#2315598 Has the Detroit diamond lost it's shine?

Posted by Matt on 05 July 2012 - 10:06 AM

Ownership offered, and will pay, two-hundred-and-fourteen million to one player, paid over a shorter period of time. No difference whatsoever.

This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. So, in effect, you're saying the Wings are "cheap" for not paying a player $24-million for these players when they did for a team in another sport they own? Or it'd be "cheap" if they didn't spend $30-million per year on a player because someone did with Joe Johnson in the NBA?

This is ludicrous on all fronts and I feel dumber having to even respond to it. What the Tigers do in baseball has had nothing to do with the Red Wings spending habits in hockey. Nothing.


#2315535 Has the Detroit diamond lost it's shine?

Posted by Matt on 05 July 2012 - 08:25 AM

Sometimes I think that ownership currently has a preoccupation with the baseball diamond.


How do you figure that? Were the Wings offering nearly $180-million to two players not enough? The Wings made incredibly strong offers to both players -- the fact that Ilitch also owns the Tigers has nothing to do with it. Being $17-million under the cap isn't because Ilitch doesn't want to spend -- it's that Ilitch trusts his front office team to spend it on the RIGHT players, not spend it for the sake of doing so. Huge difference.

"For me, knowing Detroit's history they don't really pay the market value for a defenseman or any player,'' Wisniewski said on NHL Live. "So I didn't think that was going to be a fit for myself.


He wanted to be overpaid and he got what he wanted. Now he'll roll around in his $100 bills (when he's not suspended) and languish in Columbus for it. Good for him.


#2315523 Optimism, chill people. we have options

Posted by Matt on 05 July 2012 - 08:03 AM

I heard that Semin may actually go play in the KHL next season, but thats just on various rumor sites.

I recall reading on Twitter (from a reputable media member -- not a fly-by-night hockey "insider) that Fedorov is openly courting him to join his KHL team. We'll see.
____

And count me as one of those that thinks that Suter would've been absolutely worth the money if the Wings matched his offer from the Wild. He is a rock-solid all-around defenseman that contributes in all situations and those players, especially in the era of "lifetime" contracts that teams hand out like candy to those they deem franchise players, hardly ever hit the market.

If you think Suter's contract is "bad" just wait until you see what kind of cheddar Weber gets if he signs his offer sheet and goes UFA next July 1. Depending on the outcome of the CBA (if it remains remotely status quo), you're looking at a contract nearing $9-million per season just because franchise defensemen of that caliber do NOT hit the market anymore, the "Crosby cap" be damned. People will scream and yell that he's "not worth more than Crosby" -- but someone WILL pay it and there will be a line to sign him.


#2314485 Ryan Suter agrees to 13-year, $98-mil deal with Wild

Posted by Matt on 04 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

Suter wanted to come to Detroit... Parise didn't... Suter signs wherever Parise wans to go. These guys don't give a s*** about winning they just want to get paid and have fun. I'm sorry but this is just the way that American born players are. The stanley cup isn't their end all be all. It's weird cause most other nations are passionate about the cup but it seems as time goes on players are choosing $$ and lifestyle over being a champion

I should've instituted an IQ test in order to allow you to post.


#2313623 Suter Watch: Decision today, down to Wings/Wild

Posted by Matt on 03 July 2012 - 01:20 PM

Nope, brought to you by Little Caesars:

0269303.jpg

Ilitch with the hard sell?