Proposal: TOR-MTL (Weber)

[Brock Radunske]

I'd be interested in Weber if the Habs were doing a scorched-earth rebuild and they're looking to shed salary.
His value would start really low at full value and increase to a nice return at when he got down around $5 mil per.

Full cap hit = decent prospect + 2nd
@6.5 mil = decent prospect + 1st
@5 mil = A-level prospect + 1st
@50% retention = Young roster player with top 6 upside + A-level prospect + 1st

 

[Randy Randerson]

"My team" has huge holes everywhere, the Leafs only have one and it's at defense, fix that crap and win. It's not an obstacle, cap is not as important as HF wants you to believe.

tell that to Chicago who's franchise players are still under 30 and they're already missing playoffs. You win cups by being good for a long time, big contracts to a small number of aging players inhibits a teams ability to supplement their roster

I'd happily take Weber for the next 2-3 years at his cap hit, the virtually guaranteed albatross while Matthews/Marner/Nylander/Rielly are in their primes isn't worth being better for a short window, especially where we'd likely give up the potential long term RHD solution who's peak and cost would align better with the team's compete window in the deal

Weber for free ? What the heck is that. No number one D ever has gone for "free" why would it start now ?

Are you even familiar with his contract ?

Also, the first thing that leaves a player is skating, I'd say you're clueless.

please note that I said "I wouldn't take him for free". I think you'll find a lot of that sentiment if you try to shop him, contracts matter.

it's nice that you'd say that, judging by your position on this I'd say that means I'm on the right track

 

[Holymakinaw]

Not looking to go nuclear here by trading a bunch of core pieces but think that the Leafs might want to look at what is available to tweak the roster this summer. Wanting to throw this out there and see what needs to be done, if anything to alter it.

Leafs 1st (2018)
Brown/Kapanen - Habs choice
Martin (cap)
Bracco/Nielsen - Habs choice
Zaitsev (replacement RHD - equals out term)


for

Weber (no retention)
Shaw (1M retention)
Deslauriers

Rationale for the retention was Martin's contract ends sooner but it has been out there previously that Montreal was looking to maybe move on from his contract. I'm probably more into acquiring Weber then most Leaf fans so they might not necessarily be into the move but they can start their own thread

All that being said, yay/nay/tweak ?

LOL. Jesus NO. The Leafs would be morons to take on an aging, fading D-man like Weber, with that horrible contract/term.

 

[Mrb1p]

tell that to Chicago who's franchise players are still under 30 and they're already missing playoffs. You win cups by being good for a long time, big contracts to a small number of aging players inhibits a teams ability to supplement their roster

I'd happily take Weber for the next 2-3 years at his cap hit, the virtually guaranteed albatross while Matthews/Marner/Nylander/Rielly are in their primes isn't worth being better for a short window, especially where we'd likely give up the potential long term RHD solution who's peak and cost would align better with the team's compete window in the deal



please note that I said "I wouldn't take him for free". I think you'll find a lot of that sentiment if you try to shop him, contracts matter.

it's nice that you'd say that, judging by your position on this I'd say that means I'm on the right track

Chicago has won 3 cups in this decade... Thats possible the worst example you could bring up. Not only that, but they did this with "Albatross" contracts to Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp....

Plus they overpaid for Toews, the smart thing would've been to trade him away, different beasts.

 

[82Ninety42011]

I'd be interested in Weber if the Habs were doing a scorched-earth rebuild and they're looking to shed salary.
His value would start really low at full value and increase to a nice return at when he got down around $5 mil per.

Full cap hit = decent prospect + 2nd
@6.5 mil = decent prospect + 1st
@5 mil = A-level prospect + 1st
@50% retention = Young roster player with top 6 upside + A-level prospect + 1st

This is probably only way he gets moved but I doubt anybody would retain for that long. Habs are stuck with him now and what a horrible trade it was indeed for losing PK.

 

[Mrb1p]

I'd be interested in Weber if the Habs were doing a scorched-earth rebuild and they're looking to shed salary.
His value would start really low at full value and increase to a nice return at when he got down around $5 mil per.

Full cap hit = decent prospect + 2nd
@6.5 mil = decent prospect + 1st
@5 mil = A-level prospect + 1st
@50% retention = Young roster player with top 6 upside + A-level prospect + 1st

A 2nd and a prospect ? Do you even believe what you're saying ? Travis Hamonic got two first for christs sakes. Dale Weise and Fleischmann got a 2nd and Danault. Petry got two 2nds. Andrew Shaw and Lars Eller both got 2 2nds.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I'd be interested in Weber if the Habs were doing a scorched-earth rebuild and they're looking to shed salary.
His value would start really low at full value and increase to a nice return at when he got down around $5 mil per.

Full cap hit = decent prospect + 2nd
@6.5 mil = decent prospect + 1st
@5 mil = A-level prospect + 1st
@50% retention = Young roster player with top 6 upside + A-level prospect + 1st

Ignoring the fact Montreal wouldn't and doesn't need to shed salary and Weber has more value to a rebuilding team than the first two returns, there's a zero percent chance Montreal trades Weber to Toronto if that's how cheap he is.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Chicago has won 3 cups in this decade... Thats possible the worst example you could bring up. Not only that, but they did this with "Albatross" contracts to Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp....

Plus they overpaid for Toews, the smart thing would've been to trade him away, different beasts.

"Chicago did the wrong thing by overpaying for what a player brings, you should trade away liquid assets to bring in a player who is very likely to be overpaid for what he brings during the time that your core players are peaking, that's completely different"

Seabrook's an albatross now, Hossa never was (he was a cap circumvention), Sharp's longest contract was 5 years from the day it was signed when he was 3 years younger than Weber

We're also coming up to a free agency where there's 3 better dmen than Weber who are all still in their 20's, if we're throwing long term money at our defense, we're better to do it there

 

[Brock Radunske]

A 2nd and a prospect ? Do you even believe what you're saying ? Travis Hamonic got two first for christs sakes. Dale Weise and Fleischmann got a 2nd and Danault. Petry got two 2nds. Andrew Shaw and Lars Eller both got 2 2nds.

You need to consider more than 2018 Weber when you're talking about his value in a trade.
You're also paying 8 million per year for the 2023/2024/2025 version of Shea Weber.
I guarantee that no team is going to jump on that grenade at full value.

 

[Brock Radunske]

Ignoring the fact Montreal wouldn't and doesn't need to shed salary and Weber has more value to a rebuilding team than the first two returns, there's a zero percent chance Montreal trades Weber to Toronto if that's how cheap he is.

I think the bolded text is the most realistic scenario, TBH.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I think the bolded text is the most realistic scenario, TBH.

Especially if people offer crap unless Montreal takes on more cap risk than they would have if they keep him AND don't offer much up of anything even if Montreal takes on more cap risk to take him.

I changed my avatar after the Weber-Subban trade. It was a bad trade then and its a bad trade now.

But Weber is still a really good defenseman and Montreal's not going to trade him to get rid of the contract. They wont have to.

 

[Mrb1p]

"Chicago did the wrong thing by overpaying for what a player brings, you should trade away liquid assets to bring in a player who is very likely to be overpaid for what he brings during the time that your core players are peaking, that's completely different"

Seabrook's an albatross now, Hossa never was (he was a cap circumvention), Sharp's longest contract was 5 years from the day it was signed when he was 3 years younger than Weber

We're also coming up to a free agency where there's 3 better dmen than Weber who are all still in their 20's, if we're throwing long term money at our defense, we're better to do it there

Three ? As in Carlson, Carlson and Carlson ?

 

[Brock Radunske]

Especially if people offer crap unless Montreal takes on more cap risk than they would have if they keep him AND don't offer much up of anything even if Montreal takes on more cap risk to take him.

I changed my avatar after the Weber-Subban trade. It was a bad trade then and its a bad trade now.

But Weber is still a really good defenseman and Montreal's not going to trade him to get rid of the contract. They wont have to.

I agree, Weber is an excellent #1D.
His contract does make it really, really tough to get his true value though.
But as they say, it only takes 1 (gm).
Realistically, they're probably better off keeping Price and Weber and burning the rest down and let them instill the new culture with the young players being inserted into the line up.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Three ? As in Carlson, Carlson and Carlson ?

2019 - Doughty, Karlsson, OEL. Good point on Carlson though, I'll take 28yo Carlson over 33yo Weber and they'll probably be similar cap hits

 

[Captain Mountain]

I agree, Weber is an excellent #1D.
His contract does make it really, really tough to get his true value though.
But as they say, it only takes 1 (gm).
Realistically, they're probably better off keeping Price and Weber and burning the rest down and let them instill the new culture with the young players being inserted into the line up.

I just don't understand why people don't seem to think that Montreal (or any team that isn't Nasvhille) won't use Weber's textbook cap circumventing contract to circumvent the cap issues in later years. Nasvhille is the only team that needs to worry about cap recapture. At what point did people go from "that's a high price, but a clever way to bring the cap hit down, zero way he'll play through the entire contract" to "Ugh, that contract sucks, he'll definitely not be worth it by the end"?

 

[Randy Randerson]

I just don't understand why people don't seem to think that Montreal (or any team that isn't Nasvhille) won't use Weber's textbook cap circumventing contract to circumvent the cap issues in later years. Nasvhille is the only team that needs to worry about cap recapture. At what point did people go from "that's a high price, but a clever way to bring the cap hit down, zero way he'll play through the entire contract" to "Ugh, that contract sucks, he'll definitely not be worth it by the end"?

there's a couple of things that are scary for an acquiring team:
- the decision on whether he retires is entirely his own. I agree that it's a textbook circumvention contract, but if he still feels like he wants to play the last 3 years he can
- there's still 5 years before that's likely to happen and he's coming off a season where he missed nearly 3/4 of the year. There's a bit of a catch 22 here too, like if he comes back and he's good for a full year next year that helps to alleviate the immediate concerns, but then he's turning 34 next offseason so the risk of decline becomes even more prominent

his cap hit is enough that a team looking to acquire a long term guy could get a good one in free agency for a similar number who's much younger, so that feels like a better option

 

[Mrb1p]

I just don't understand why people don't seem to think that Montreal (or any team that isn't Nasvhille) won't use Weber's textbook cap circumventing contract to circumvent the cap issues in later years. Nasvhille is the only team that needs to worry about cap recapture. At what point did people go from "that's a high price, but a clever way to bring the cap hit down, zero way he'll play through the entire contract" to "Ugh, that contract sucks, he'll definitely not be worth it by the end"?

Around the time where he went from gold to red.

 

[AvatarAang]

Ignoring the fact Montreal wouldn't and doesn't need to shed salary and Weber has more value to a rebuilding team than the first two returns, there's a zero percent chance Montreal trades Weber to Toronto if that's how cheap he is.

What an awful comment.

Cap space will and always be a valuable asset. Even if you have space, adding more is still a valuable commodity that you can parlay into more assets to speed up your rebuild.

 

[firstemperor]

I just don't understand why people don't seem to think that Montreal (or any team that isn't Nasvhille) won't use Weber's textbook cap circumventing contract to circumvent the cap issues in later years. Nasvhille is the only team that needs to worry about cap recapture. At what point did people go from "that's a high price, but a clever way to bring the cap hit down, zero way he'll play through the entire contract" to "Ugh, that contract sucks, he'll definitely not be worth it by the end"?

Well, he was already slowly declining at the end of his last Preds run, which was noted by many on here. And the notion that it was a "clever" contract is not some overarching premise. It's more like everyone knew the deal into his late 30's was going to be troublesome, and most were optimistic he'd retire by then.

It's certainly going to be a concern for any team acquiring him with significant assets- as there is no guarantee he retires early. If he does, there's still concern about his hit/term into his late 30's. In the odd case he does retire early, then your not exactly getting longevity out of him as an asset either.

 

[Captain Mountain]

there's a couple of things that are scary for an acquiring team:
- the decision on whether he retires is entirely his own. I agree that it's a textbook circumvention contract, but if he still feels like he wants to play the last 3 years he can
- there's still 5 years before that's likely to happen and he's coming off a season where he missed nearly 3/4 of the year. There's a bit of a catch 22 here too, like if he comes back and he's good for a full year next year that helps to alleviate the immediate concerns, but then he's turning 34 next offseason so the risk of decline becomes even more prominent

his cap hit is enough that a team looking to acquire a long term guy could get a good one in free agency for a similar number who's much younger, so that feels like a better option

That's fine if people feel that way, just don't make offers that legitimately hurts Montreal now and in the future.

 

[Spirit of 67]

What would it take to get Shea Weber on the Leafs?

A suit and tie.

 

[Randy Randerson]

That's fine if people feel that way, just don't make offers that legitimately hurts Montreal now and in the future.

I didn't make any offers, just honest perspective from a fan of a team that needs a top pair RHD. I think you'll be disappointed with what you get back if you deal Weber and I don't see a realistic scenerio that MTL fills its holes enough to compete while he's still good. Seems like a rock & a hard place scenario

 

[Captain Mountain]

What an awful comment.

Cap space will and always be a valuable asset. Even if you have space, adding more is still a valuable commodity that you can parlay into more assets to speed up your rebuild.

Montreal's not even close to the cap right now (only five teams had more space) And unless they make a huge splash they aren't going to be close to the cap for a while. And what's the point of collecting cap space if you're giving up long term flexibility by retaining on Weber without getting really good futures back or trading one of your better players and getting nothing at all back?

 

[Hostile Offer]

there's a couple of things that are scary for an acquiring team:
- the decision on whether he retires is entirely his own. I agree that it's a textbook circumvention contract, but if he still feels like he wants to play the last 3 years he can
- there's still 5 years before that's likely to happen and he's coming off a season where he missed nearly 3/4 of the year. There's a bit of a catch 22 here too, like if he comes back and he's good for a full year next year that helps to alleviate the immediate concerns, but then he's turning 34 next offseason so the risk of decline becomes even more prominent

his cap hit is enough that a team looking to acquire a long term guy could get a good one in free agency for a similar number who's much younger, so that feels like a better option

I agree with you on next year determining a lot. He will have a lot of time to get himself healthy this offseason and we'll see how he looks come October. There are concerns, rightfully, but that doesn't mean the Habs should be selling low on a guy who with a broken foot still looked like a #1D this year when he played and whose cap hit is not an issue, even long term. I guess it's not the right time for speculating his trade possibilities.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Well, he was already slowly declining at the end of his last Preds run, which was noted by many on here. And the notion that it was a "clever" contract is not some overarching premise. It's more like everyone knew the deal into his late 30's was going to be troublesome, and most were optimistic he'd retire by then.

It's certainly going to be a concern for any team acquiring him with significant assets- as there is no guarantee he retires early. If he does, there's still concern about his hit/term into his late 30's. In the odd case he does retire early, then your not exactly getting longevity out of him as an asset either.

Most aren't offering any significant assets, so I'm not sure what your point is.