PerdFan
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2010
- 1,012
- 143
The Flyers did not write in a NTC or NMC clause in the offer sheet. Weber's representatives requested a NTC be added after Nashville matched and Poile declined.
Did Weber signing an offer sheet have any impact on his being traded?
- Thread starter Sureves
- Start date
The Flyers did not write in a NTC or NMC clause in the offer sheet. Weber's representatives requested a NTC be added after Nashville matched and Poile declined.
PerdFan
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2010
- 1,012
- 143
Why would it when they had already paid 85% of the bonus money and Weber's cap hit is actually less than Subban's???
Why does everyone have to make it a "Player A is definitely better than Player B, so team C actually won the trade" kind of thing?? It's ridiculous. I won't speak for the Habs but Nashville traded a very good player for another very good player that just happens to fit Nashville's preferred system of play much better.
That's it in a nutshell. Everyone can take off their tinfoil hats now...no big secret conspiracy theory here to see, move along.
ThirdManIn
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2009
- 55,115
- 4,034
Nashville already paid over half of it and as the rules are now would be on the hook for recapture penalties if he retires before the contact ends, so this makes no sense.
The offer sheet is water under the bridge. Poile has a direction for the team. Subban happened to come available if Weber was available. Subban fits Poile's direction for the team better than Weber. Weber hadn't led the team anywhere. It is what it is, but it was a hockey trade about reinforcing the new identity of the team.
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
Yes because it meant he didn't have a NMC (which he almost certainly would have had if he signed a deal with Nashville before the offer sheet)
No, it didn't.
Contract was matched.
Plus, given the re-capture penalties that Nashville faces should Weber retire prior to his contract expiring, they would be better off holding onto him.
With Weber's loyalties now belonging to Montreal, he could retire with 4 years and only $6 million left on his deal, thus leaving the Predators to eat $6 million in dead cap space for 4 straight seasons. Montreal, would have about $220K of dead cap space, which is basically nothing.
danielpalfredsson
youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
- Aug 14, 2013
- 16,575
- 9,269
Cap recapture with Weber is overblown. His salary drops to 3M with 4 years remaining, and 1M with 3 years remaining. The Predators benefited from 24M in cap relief, meaning depending on when he retires it'll either be 6Mx4 years of cap or 8Mx3 years of cap.
The Predators historically haven't been a cap team. So a 6M-8M cap penalty is really only a 1M-3M if they are going to be spending 5M below the cap anyways. That hurts, but it isn't the doomsday scenario that the cap recapture is often described as. Although the salary cap isn't a given to go up as quickly in the past, it is possibly that in 7 years time the cap will have inflated at least slightly. If the cap goes up it will further lower the significance of Weber's cap recapture.
There's also the possibility that Nashville might get out of the cap recapture. If they have consistently not spent to the cap during Weber's tenure, it will probably be argued that they should be able to retroactively "pay" for the extra cap with space they didn't use during Weber's years with the team. That, and because the Weber deal wasn't their doing, the NHL might be less likely to see this as a situation worth making an example out of.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
In any case, I'm pretty sure Weber's level of commitment to the Preds was above reproach. Signing an offer sheet doesn't mean he was somehow trying to escape.
No one looked good in the 2nd round game 7 against the Sharks. (the one game people remember)
Their first day off was 5 games into the 2nd round.
As far as the contract, ownership was very surprised Weber was traded. They just had dinner with him the week before.
Last edited:
not at all.
The offer sheet was years ago. Weber was very solidly ingrained in Nashville both in the community and within the team as the captain. I don't think Nashville had any intentions of trading him. Not anymore than LA wants to trade Doughty, or Chicago wants to trade Keith, etc.
It really was just about PK being a very attractive piece to add - and Weber being a cost they were willing to pay.
LA would never trade Doughty. But what if Ottawa calls and offers them Karlsson? Technically - Doughty/Karlsson are "closer" in value as players than Weber/PK were, so it's not even apples to apples, but it gets my point across.
I think from Nashville's perspective this was all about PK Subban.
The offer sheet was years ago. Weber was very solidly ingrained in Nashville both in the community and within the team as the captain. I don't think Nashville had any intentions of trading him. Not anymore than LA wants to trade Doughty, or Chicago wants to trade Keith, etc.
It really was just about PK being a very attractive piece to add - and Weber being a cost they were willing to pay.
LA would never trade Doughty. But what if Ottawa calls and offers them Karlsson? Technically - Doughty/Karlsson are "closer" in value as players than Weber/PK were, so it's not even apples to apples, but it gets my point across.
I think from Nashville's perspective this was all about PK Subban.
Individual 1
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2012
- 1,464
- 352
So the question is, did Nashville trade Weber in July of 2016 because of the offer sheet he signed July 18th 2012?
mouser
Business of Hockey
The Flyers wrote a full NMC into the offer sheet that would go into effect the 2nd year (the earliest Weber was eligible). There was a lot of confusion after the fact that many folks thought because Nashville chose not to give Weber a NMC that meant the Flyers didn't have one in the offer sheet.
For any not aware: teams matching an offer sheet have to match all financial terms (salaries, bonuses, etc). But they do not have to match no movement or no trade clauses in the offer sheet.
ThirdManIn
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2009
- 55,115
- 4,034
The title asks if it had any impact, which it technically did. Without the offer sheet Weber likely would have gotten a NMC.
However, the OP clarifies it more by stating Weber's intention of playing for Philly if the deal was left unmatched and asking if he would have been traded regardless of signing the OS, which implies that, if the answer is no, there is still a grudge being held. The answer to the question is yes, he would have been traded in this situation regardless.
King In The North
Sean Bennett
Yep..don't think offersheet was a primary reason. Preds get a younger just-as-good D.
But seriously, I don't get why people are claiming Pernell is the better player right now. I mean Weber beat him out of the job in a best-on-best tournament that is currently taking place.
1point21Gigawatts
hell's a gigawatt?
Maybe? But i think it had more to do with the fact that PK Subban was coming back in return. Who says no to that trade? Offersheet or not, you do that all day everyday.
No, the question is did the fact that Weber signed an offer sheet on July 18, 2012 play any role in him being traded in July 2016 within the context of Nashville being more willing to trade him in light of his willingness to play elsewhere.
Correct!
KingsFan7824
Registered User
If the offer sheet was the problem, don't match it. Take whatever the compensation was going to be, and move on. If he had signed an offer sheet with Vancouver, ok, maybe he'd rather be somewhere else in that scenario. With Philly, he's just looking for the best contract he can get as a RFA. Especially before the new CBA.
Part of the reason the trade was shocking is from the other side. It's not just Subban and Montreal. At this time last year, who thought Weber wasn't going to be in Nashville forever? When Subban was going through his contract stuff, people questioned if he wanted to stay, or if Montreal truly wanted him. When Weber signed the offer sheet, I'm sure people asked the same questions.
That's how money works. Unless the player takes less, or the team just throws the bank at the player, there's always questions. If the player wants a ton, what about loyalty? If the team is being stingy with a great player, what about taking care of your employee?
I'm guessing Nashville thought, well, we've been to the 2nd round a few times, but haven't gotten past the 2nd round yet. Whatever the exact player ranking, it's not like we're trading Weber for just some guy. We have a coach that's more go-go-go. Our fans are expecting more. We're even getting younger in the deal. Let's give it a shot.
Part of the reason the trade was shocking is from the other side. It's not just Subban and Montreal. At this time last year, who thought Weber wasn't going to be in Nashville forever? When Subban was going through his contract stuff, people questioned if he wanted to stay, or if Montreal truly wanted him. When Weber signed the offer sheet, I'm sure people asked the same questions.
That's how money works. Unless the player takes less, or the team just throws the bank at the player, there's always questions. If the player wants a ton, what about loyalty? If the team is being stingy with a great player, what about taking care of your employee?
I'm guessing Nashville thought, well, we've been to the 2nd round a few times, but haven't gotten past the 2nd round yet. Whatever the exact player ranking, it's not like we're trading Weber for just some guy. We have a coach that's more go-go-go. Our fans are expecting more. We're even getting younger in the deal. Let's give it a shot.
LA says no
Probably. And I did say it's not the same, as majority of hockey world seems to say PK > Weber whereas it's normally Doughty ~ Karlsson.
but my point is - if any team calls LA and asks them to trade Doughty, they'll hang up the phone saying he's not for trade. If Ottawa calls and says they want to trade them Karlsson for Doughty - LA likely goes: "Hrmm..." and at least takes a minute to think about it.
Probably how it happened with Weber. Nashville didn't want to trade him, but getting PK was worth it.
Correct.
Which is why Weber's agents asked Nashville to honor the NMC of the offer sheet as signed and they politely declined.
This is similar, in concept, to the ability of a team that acquires a player prior to their new contract w/ NMC starting to decline to honor the NMC- like Nashville did again with Subban. When Nashville acquired Subban they decided to not accept the NMC, so Subban no longer has a NMC.
To the original point of whether any "hard feelings" around Weber signing the offer sheet influenced this trade? In my opinion, no. Nashville has already absorbed the harshest financial impact of the contract (front-loaded bonuses). In fact, by dealing him now, they are also liable to incur very damaging cap recapture penalties that would not have happened if they did not trade him.
This was very simply an opportunity in which Nashville felt they would be getting a player that fit their current identity under Laviolette better than Weber does. They executed the trade in spite of the fact that they've already paid "the poison pill" aspects of the contract, the potential for incurring a cap recapture penalty, and they would actually have a larger cap hit coming back (that's about a wash in overall salary).
Last edited:
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,564
- 10,835
But seriously, I don't get why people are claiming Pernell is the better player right now. I mean Weber beat him out of the job in a best-on-best tournament that is currently taking place.
What don't you get? Or do you actually believe guys like Bouwmeester, Pietrangelo, Vlasic, etc. are actually better than Subban?
Hint: None of them are. Subban is AT WORST the 3rd best d-man for Canada.
Oh right though, stars like Kunitz on the last Olympic team are far better players than scrubs like Giroux.
