News: If Shea Weber retires at the end of the 2025/26 season Nashville will suffer a $24.57M cap hit.

[Mickey Marner]

Comparing Montreal to Nashville then just warrants an eye-roll. The second point yeah nothing stopped them from using the buyout after year one of a 14 year contract. That's a ridiculous point to make.

And yeah they can blame Philly because it was their offer sheet that bullied the Preds into that. I'm not even a Preds fan but they're not the only one responsible for that contract is the point and there is no point in penalizing them to the extent of 24 million cap dollars when that only penalizes everyone involved.

Agreed, it's silly. The NHL allowed that deal to be signed on July 24th, 2012, the lockout began September 15th 2012 and when it ended on January 6th, 2013 the deal was illegal. Totally bush league. Shea Weber literally never played a game with his current contract being legal. The Preds are a small market team, they couldn't afford the $64,000,000 compliance buyout.

This deal is completely on that goof, Paul Holmgren. The first deal he ever signed as GM of the Flyers? Mike Richards 12 year deal. Didn't see the end of that deal, or Pronger's, or Bryzgalov's, or Briere's. Still waiting to see if Jeff Carter finishes his contract. His entire M.O. was sign everyone to nonsense deals with no intention of fulfilling them and kick the can down the road for the next guy to clean up.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

He'' get a hockey allergy in 2 years

 

[Juicy Pop]

They signed the contract. How are you not responsible for signing a contract?

They were responsible for paying Weber per the terms of that deal. They were responsible for a whole host of other things that go along with the deal. They are responsible for the terms of the deal leading to a cap benefit that now needs to be recaptured.

There's no getting around this, no matter how bad you feel for Nashville. The CBA is crystal clear, there is not an exception for Nashville's scenario. The NHL can't just make one, no matter how much they want to, without NHLPA approval since it's in the CBA. I don't doubt the NHLPA would like the cap recapture clause to go away but the owners put it in there for a damn good reason and I doubt it goes anywhere.

End of the day, the reason the cap recapture clause exists is because these back-diving deals created scenarios where a player was paid out more in salary than they contributed to the salary cap. Thus, the owners were paying players more than their share of revenue. Owners don't like that and are going to recapture that cap.

At the end of the day the league still allowed an offer sheet that clearly circumvented the cap to be tendered to a player. Nashville was thereby placed in a precarious position; either they sign a ticking time bomb or they lose one of the faces of their franchise.

They league created their own mess by allowing that situation to play out.

 

[RickP]

They signed the contract. How are you not responsible for signing a contract?

They were responsible for paying Weber per the terms of that deal. They were responsible for a whole host of other things that go along with the deal. They are responsible for the terms of the deal leading to a cap benefit that now needs to be recaptured.

There's no getting around this, no matter how bad you feel for Nashville. The CBA is crystal clear, there is not an exception for Nashville's scenario. The NHL can't just make one, no matter how much they want to, without NHLPA approval since it's in the CBA. I don't doubt the NHLPA would like the cap recapture clause to go away but the owners put it in there for a damn good reason and I doubt it goes anywhere.

End of the day, the reason the cap recapture clause exists is because these back-diving deals created scenarios where a player was paid out more in salary than they contributed to the salary cap. Thus, the owners were paying players more than their share of revenue. Owners don't like that and are going to recapture that cap.

Wouldn't a 24M cap recapture penaly be a horrible thing for the NHLPA though? They would lose 24M in salary. They would be the biggest losers in that scenario. Nashville would actually save 24M in expenses that year, so if they ever get that penalty, they could just use it as an opportunity to do a quick rebuild/retool without suffering any financial loss while they suck for a year. That's basically the perfect occasion to tank.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Roll your eyes all you like, the point still stands. They could have taken the picks, packaged them and traded for a star to replace Weber almost immediately.

So now the point becomes he was on his second year of his cap circumventing contract, so it doesn't make sense to amnesty buy him out now. Might as well just keep taking advantage of it. What kind of logic is that? In for a penny, in for a pound? Knowing the risks and still sticking to your guns is called being obstinate.

The Preds could have screwed over Philly twice over by taking the picks and letting them be on the hook for the cap recapture. They were not bullied, they played hardball with Weber before Philly made him an offer and even then still had the option not to match.

They could've also taken those picks, lost both of their superstars, and failed as a franchise in Nashville because of it. The idea that they could've traded it for a superstar is pretty weak because that wasn't going to happen. When you actually look at what happened with Nashville and Weber, they didn't actually take advantage of it. I seriously doubt the league is going to come remotely close to your view on it because it is quite extreme for the situation and severely lacking any real context.

 

[Peter Puck]

All this whinging. It's pretty clear what will happen. Weber will retire with 3 years left on his contract) or maybe 4) and Nashville will incur 3 years of 8 million cap recapture. That will not destroy the franchise.

If they really find it too onerous they will trade a 1st or 2nd to Montreal for Weber and then arrange to put him on LTIR (if Weber agrees to do this).

The problem with saying the league will bail Nashville out is that they have imposed recapture on NJ and will soon do the same to Vancouver. That will make it very tough to do anything for Nashville. Also doing something for Nashville in this situation would probably mean having to do something for Montreal who may be hoping to get something for trading Weber back to Nashville.

Nashville is just going to have to deal with a lower cap for 3 years. Its the price they pay for having a higher cap when they had Weber.

 

[MtoD]

At the end of the day the league still allowed an offer sheet that clearly circumvented the cap to be tendered to a player. Nashville was thereby placed in a precarious position; either they sign a ticking time bomb or they lose one of the faces of their franchise.

They league created their own mess by allowing that situation to play out.

That's a horrific viewpoint to take. "Sorry officer, I broke the law but it's your fault for letting it happen!"

Nashville knew the exact terms of the contract they signed, including the fact that it circumvented the cap.

And this is a useless conversation. It doesn't matter if Nashville is a victim here.. the fact remains that the CBA clearly says what will happen and that's what will happen. There's no "except if you're Nashville" clause. Pretty sure the NHL isn't going to dissolve the CBA because poor Nashville.

 

[MtoD]

Wouldn't a 24M cap recapture penaly be a horrible thing for the NHLPA though? They would lose 24M in salary. They would be the biggest losers in that scenario. Nashville would actually save 24M in expenses that year, so if they ever get that penalty, they could just use it as an opportunity to do a quick rebuild/retool without suffering any financial loss while they suck for a year. That's basically the perfect occasion to tank.

Yes, which is why I wrote that I do believe the NHLPA would want to do away with the entire cap recapture clause, let alone this specific instance.

The NHL (i.e. owners) wouldn't though.

They could've also taken those picks, lost both of their superstars, and failed as a franchise in Nashville because of it. The idea that they could've traded it for a superstar is pretty weak because that wasn't going to happen. When you actually look at what happened with Nashville and Weber, they didn't actually take advantage of it. I seriously doubt the league is going to come remotely close to your view on it because it is quite extreme for the situation and severely lacking any real context.

So let's be clear. You expect the owners to not honor a clause in the CBA, thereby dissolving the entire CBA and causing a labor strike?

Makes sense.. I'm sure all 31 owners won't mind losing millions to help Nashville out.

(because that's the only option here under the current CBA if Weber retires. The NHL can't just choose to not apply the cap recapture clause.. that's not how contracts work.)

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

Weber was never worth that deal

He was never an effective Norris dman once Sister left. He was good, but not that good

 

[NoMessi]

Yashin got paid for a long time, too. The Islanders stopped paying him in 2015, and he had not been a part of their org since 2007.

New York teams have made some questionable financial decisions.

Dipietro gets paid until 2029. 10 more years.

 

[vippe]

I try again,

could someone explain to me why the penalty looks like that? It escalates wildly at the end. How come?

 

[RandV]

So now the point becomes he was on his second year of his cap circumventing contract, so it doesn't make sense to amnesty buy him out now. Might as well just keep taking advantage of it. What kind of logic is that? In for a penny, in for a pound? Knowing the risks and still sticking to your guns is called being obstinate.

Yes because there's so much risk that 10 years down the road (this was prior to him being traded) they may have to pay a $6M cap hit penalty for a season or 2 that they should have taken their 28 year old franchise player and Norris caliber and pay him $64 MILLION CASH to buy him out.

I mean say what you want about the contract, but the amnesty buyout was not on the table period. The league didn't give amnesty buyouts so teams could get compliant on the massive back diving/cap circumventing contracts, they did it because there were so many bad contracts out their period that teams wanted to get out of. In today's terms you were looking to buy out guys like Milan Lucic's, not John Tavares.

 

[RyderRocks73]

And whose offer did they match, I wonder? The entire point of the cap recapture penalty is to penalize teams for signing those sorts of contracts. Nashville didn't sign that contract. Philadelphia did and they weren't afforded the choice of matching just the money aspect of it. Had they been afforded the opportunity to structure the pay differently, it likely wouldn't have been a backdiving contract that would've had this severe of a recapture penalty that they weren't aware of when they made the decision to match. The league may still penalize them for it but people are crazy if they're going to let it get to the doomsday number when it serves no purpose for them to do so.

Blatantly false, consider revising

 

[JustaFinnishGuy]

Credit to @GoldOnGold on the Preds board for this;

So we only cap circumvented 1.3 million dollars.

Something tells me this will be a good leg to stand on in the future and Poile's been aware of the possibility for a long time.

 

[mja]

I try again,

could someone explain to me why the penalty looks like that? It escalates wildly at the end. How come?

It's due to the structure of the contract, where the last years have the biggest discrepancy between caphit & actual salary, combined with fewer years to spread out the total recapture penalty.

 

[MtoD]

Credit to @GoldOnGold on the Preds board for this;

So we only cap circumvented 1.3 million dollars.

Something tells me this will be a good leg to stand on in the future and Poile's been aware of the possibility for a long time.

Not how the cap recapture clause works and doesn't address the major reason it's in the CBA.

Owners hate these type of contracts because it makes salaries > cap hit. It means the owners paid the players more than what they were supposed to based on the salary cap. The cap recapture clause makes it so salary = cap hit and the owners didn't pay out extra.

It may be that the Predators didn't benefit from circumventing the cap but it remains that Weber's deal circumvented the cap and the owners will want to credited the extra $ they already paid out because of Weber-type deals.

 

[s3antana5757]

There's no way the league would allow that to happen in my opinion, they were just matching the ridiculous offer-sheet the Flyers gave him, it's not even the Predators fault it's structured that way.

The league should and absolutely would intervene in this case.

But the league created that rule. So you either have to change it for everyone or no one. Nashville understood the implications when they signed him. I hope if he does retire, that Nashville is forced to honor it.

As others have said, he’ll be LTIR so it’s really a moot point.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

Their choices at the time was swallow this poison pill or lose their face of the franchise right when they were ascending and likely torpedoing the franchise. Both options for the franchise sucked. Considering it came how it did, I would suspect the league would show leniency but how much I'm not certain. There's no way they'd allow 24 mil in dead cap space in a situation where the team that is being tagged with it had no say in the structure of the contract.

Of course they had a say. They said "yes!"
Nobody but Nashville faithful are going to cry for the Preds if this comes to pass. Luongo just set the precedent. If the Canucks couldn't weasel out of it, nobody else will be able to, either.
Poile knew what he was getting into. Based on the average lifespan of a GM, he might have thought it would be someone else's problem, but he won't be surprised by it.

Weber will be paid these monies. He agreed in good faith with David Poile to get paid for his work after that work was finished. He's not walking away from it.

Poile could have taken the compensation and let this be Philly's problem. He declined the compensation and agreed to bind his team to these terms.

 

[Edgy]

They could've also taken those picks, lost both of their superstars, and failed as a franchise in Nashville because of it. The idea that they could've traded it for a superstar is pretty weak because that wasn't going to happen.

Or they could have taken those picks, traded them and landed another bonafide star. This seems like a more likely scenario since it happens all the time with players of Weber's calibre. He's not a Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, etc.. face of the franchise player.

When you actually look at what happened with Nashville and Weber, they didn't actually take advantage of it. I seriously doubt the league is going to come remotely close to your view on it because it is quite extreme for the situation and severely lacking any real context.

They absolutely took advantage of it, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's not even debatable.

You're trying to push a narrative where the NHL will look at Nashville with a sympathetic eye because of a fictitious scenario where the franchise would have folded had they not matched the offer sheet. That is not going to happen. How long has Arizona been getting bailed out by the NHL just so it won't fold? with 4 1st round picks, Nashville would have bounced back fairly quickly in a multitude of ways.

I also seriously doubt the league will intervene because the penalties have been imposed on teams with similar contracts, a precedent has been set. NJ and Vancouver are on the hook for the recapture penalty, why would their respective owners agree to let Nashville get off scot free?

Yes because there's so much risk that 10 years down the road (this was prior to him being traded) they may have to pay a $6M cap hit penalty for a season or 2 that they should have taken their 28 year old franchise player and Norris caliber and pay him $64 MILLION CASH to buy him out.

Apparently there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. They made their bed, time to lay in it.

I mean say what you want about the contract, but the amnesty buyout was not on the table period. The league didn't give amnesty buyouts so teams could get compliant on the massive back diving/cap circumventing contracts, they did it because there were so many bad contracts out their period that teams wanted to get out of. In today's terms you were looking to buy out guys like Milan Lucic's, not John Tavares.

The league didn't give it for that purpose, ok. Did they specify you can't use for that purpose? No. Could Nashville have used it for that and not gotten a peep out of the NHL, absolutely.

Any way you look at it, they had a way out, they had options and 3 times they made the wrong one each time. That's what the NHL and the other owners will be looking at, not the BS scenario being perpetuated here about being bullied by Philly to sign that contract.

Philly took a gamble and would have been the one on the hook for the recapture penalty. Nashville bailed them out by matching the offer. Philly owes the NHL and the Preds absolutely nothing in monetary terms. It was a dick move but completely legal.

 

[Dekes For Days]

As much as I want all of the idiot teams who signed these contracts to get what they deserve, and not avoid the consequences after they already got the benefits, this one would seem pretty stupid to enforce since Nashville was forced into having this contract in the first place.

 

[Wandering Cynic]

This isn't Vancouver. Nashville won't take on a recapture penalty. If they do, it'll be 1 million a year at the most. There's no way that Bettman rigs the dice against a Southern US team.

 

[Juicy Pop]

That's a horrific viewpoint to take. "Sorry officer, I broke the law but it's your fault for letting it happen!"

Nashville knew the exact terms of the contract they signed, including the fact that it circumvented the cap.

And this is a useless conversation. It doesn't matter if Nashville is a victim here.. the fact remains that the CBA clearly says what will happen and that's what will happen. There's no "except if you're Nashville" clause. Pretty sure the NHL isn't going to dissolve the CBA because poor Nashville.

Don't oversimplify it, you lose nuance.

Imagine a situation where, in complete view of an officer, an individual walks up to you, puts a gun to you and demands that you break the nearest store window or else he'll shoot you in the arm and give you $500. You look to the officer for help and see, incredulously, that he looks at you both, gives a gentle nod and walks away. Should you now be held accountable for doing what you must to survive that situation?

If the league really cares about cap circumvention enough to penalize, then they need to own up to the fact that they stamped all of these deals.

 

[goonybird]

poor guy. that news will certainly exacerbate his degenerative lower back rash

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Don't oversimplify it, you lose nuance.

Imagine a situation where, in complete view of an officer, an individual walks up to you, puts a gun to you and demands that you break the nearest store window or else he'll shoot you in the arm and give you $500. You look to the officer for help and see, incredulously, that he looks at you both, gives a gentle nod and walks away. Should you now be held accountable for doing what you must to survive that situation?

If the league really cares about cap circumvention enough to penalize, then they need to own up to the fact that they stamped all of these deals.

You're comparing a life or death situation to a shitty business deal made, so that makes no sense and the comparison is meaningless. No one was dying if the Predators didn't match, additionally nobody held a gun to Poile's head and told him to do that deal - he could have accepted the compensation. Further, even if this deal was, as you are trying to make it out, for "survival" purposes, that doesn't absolve someone of making a poor business decision.

 

[Juicy Pop]

You're comparing a life or death situation to a ****ty business deal made, so that makes no sense and the comparison is meaningless. No one was dying if the Predators didn't match, additionally nobody held a gun to Poile's head and told him to do that deal - he could have accepted the compensation. Further, even if this deal was, as you are trying to make it out, for "survival" purposes, that doesn't absolve someone of making a poor business decision.

The nature and how you interpret matters less than the structure; don't fixate so much on the exact details but on how it's laid out. There were two options; one caused immediate injury with 'compensation' while the other risked future pain at the cost of preserving one's self at the moment. The cap circumventing contract is the weapon that's being ignored by the officer. That is the Weber offer-sheet in essence.

I just think it's a bit silly that Nashville might be punished in some future scenario for not simply allowing him to walk over a decade ago because the league allowed an offer-sheet through that broke the 'spirit of their own rules'.