Revisiting Shea Weber for PK Subban.

[Soundgarden]

The Habs won the trade. The Preds are treating PK like a cap dump and they’re trying to trade him already. Weber outplayed him this year and is a much better leader. PK is toxic. I wouldn’t have him back in MTL.

While it's true we're looking to trade him or Ellis it does not mean that he'll be treated as a cap dump, he still has value. The only people telling us that he's toxic or a locker room cancer are Montreal fans, he seems very well liked by the team and he's been a fan favorite.

 

[the]

A lot of people underestimated Shea Weber, I expected him to decline and at the time I thought it was a bad trade but truth be told he played better than PK Subban.

 

[jetsv2]

I doubt that we'll end up paying that much if he does retire early.

It would be a lot more than you think.

 

[Soundgarden]

It would be a lot more than you think.

No, I realize how much it is, I'm saying the NHL will find a way for Nashville to get off the hook for it. The amount they'd have to pay would be ludicrous.

 

[tony d]

I went with Weber.

 

[Hahahax]

No, I realize how much it is, I'm saying the NHL will find a way for Nashville to get off the hook for it. The amount they'd have to pay would be ludicrous.

And then the habs could claim the penalty was part of why they made the trade in the first place, knowing full well they could force Nashville to take back the contract in due time. Which means they're now f***ed paying an old and useless Weber because the league got Nashville off the hook for something they agreed to when they traded him.

So, could the habs ask for a free buyout too then? Will the league get them off the hook to? They can't do shit this time since it involves two teams and letting one off the hook f***s over the other.

 

[Regal]

No, I realize how much it is, I'm saying the NHL will find a way for Nashville to get off the hook for it. The amount they'd have to pay would be ludicrous.

It's such a mind-bogglingly bad method of determining the punishment that I can't see it either.

We don't like you giving out deals that we don't believe players will play out. Oh, I know, we'll create a penalty that gets harsher the more years of the contract the player plays...

 

[stopclickbait]

No, I realize how much it is, I'm saying the NHL will find a way for Nashville to get off the hook for it. The amount they'd have to pay would be ludicrous.

NHL is gonna make Philly and Weber pay for signing that ludicrous offersheet contract.

 

[Just Linda]

Subban any day of the week. First two years of the trade pretty much speak for themselves with the Habs fizzling out while the Preds made deep playoff runs. This year it was closer on the ice with both guys struggling through some injuries. For the first two months after Weber returned he was incredible and looked like he found the fountain of youth, but the last 6-8 weeks or so he looked very much like a guy coming off consecutive knee and foot surgeries and missing a year in the last 2 months of the season. End of the day I'm going to bet on the 30 year old having a bounceback year over the 34 year old.

Really not sure where the idea Weber's game hasn't declined is coming from either, it's just patently false. I wonder if it's from Habs fans not watching Weber much in Nashville but Weber has clearly declined from his prime. He was never a speedster in his prime but going from average speed to below average speed makes a big difference when his bread and butter was allowing opposing forwards to "win" a puck battle for a split second and then vaporizing them. Now they just win the race to the puck cleanly if he doesn't break up a play at the blue line (which to be fair he's still unbelievably good at).

Judging a players worth based on the team success isn't a good measuring stick. Weber wasn't the reason Montreal didn't do well, there were many many reasons why

 

[JoelWarlord]

Judging a players worth based on the team success isn't a good measuring stick. Weber wasn't the reason Montreal didn't do well, there were many many reasons why

That's true but if the roles were reversed everyone would be tap dancing on Subban's grave at this point and declaring Weber's leadership and grit brings value beyond measure.

 

[Just Linda]

That's true but if the roles were reversed everyone would be tap dancing on Subban's grave at this point and declaring Weber's leadership and grit brings value beyond measure.

And it would be deserved. I'm still not convinced Nashville is better because of the trade, they def could have used what Weber brings this year.

 

[Soundgarden]

And it would be deserved. I'm still not convinced Nashville is better because of the trade, they def could have used what Weber brings this year.

If you think that then you're ignoring the previous two years. That's great that you guys finally realize how good Weber is, but we never made the finals, won the presidents trophy or won our division with him as our best player. We did that with Subban in a big leadership role, just because he played like a no.4 this year does not negate his play the previous seasons.

 

[JoelWarlord]

And it would be deserved. I'm still not convinced Nashville is better because of the trade, they def could have used what Weber brings this year.

Uh huh. So Subban taking a team to the final that Weber never took out of the 2nd round gets handwaved away as team factors, but Nashville losing to a team that took a cup finalist to game 7 OT is a reason why they need Weber.

I'm beginning to think these narratives can just be applied after the fact no matter what happens!

 

[Just Linda]

If you think that then you're ignoring the previous two years. That's great that you guys finally realize how good Weber is, but we never made the finals, won the presidents trophy or won our division with him as our best player. We did that with Subban in a big leadership role, just because he played like a no.4 this year does not negate his play the previous seasons.

Of course you never did that with Weber as your best player, you never did it with PK as your best player either. Nashville did that because PK and Weber didn't need to be their best players.

You know what else Montreal never did before the trade with PK on their roster? Win the president's trophy or get to the cup finals.

Nashville has been a far better team than the Habs for a good while now. Thats not because of this trade, that's because of many reasons. They'd have gotten as much success with either player on their team.

 

[Just Linda]

Uh huh. So Subban taking a team to the final that Weber never took out of the 2nd round gets handwaved away as team factors, but Nashville losing to a team that took a cup finalist to game 7 OT is a reason why they need Weber.

I'm beginning to think these narratives can just be applied after the fact no matter what happens!

Uh huh, I was talking more about the PP than the playoffs. I get that the Habs didn't have much better of a PP but no denying that Nashville would have had a better PP with the Weber bomb on it.

Also, PK never carried anyone anywhere. Nashville has plenty of great players who have done well the past few years.

 

[thadd]

It's very close.
The jury is out on whether Weber has lost a step when healthy.
PK doesn't have as deep of a tool-box.
Your opinion of Weber's health should strongly influence your vote here imo.

 

[KingTux]

I think both fan base are happy with the trade

 

[North Cole]

It's such a mind-bogglingly bad method of determining the punishment that I can't see it either.

We don't like you giving out deals that we don't believe players will play out. Oh, I know, we'll create a penalty that gets harsher the more years of the contract the player plays...

It's not that the NHL cares whether a player plays out a contract or not, players can retire whenever they want to. It's that these contracts added a bunch of term for the specific purpose of having a lower AAV and play with the cap hit of signing a franchise player. That's why the NHL targeted those instead of any old player retiring.

Theres a lot more risk in signing someone to 14 years than if you signed them to 6. The team should share in that risk to some degree, especially if they sign the big term to lower the cap hit. I'm sure there will be some concession for the press, loss of picks or something, cant see it being Scott free though.

 

[justafan22]

Subban, but it's closer than I thought it would be 3 years ago

 

[justafan22]

It's not that the NHL cares whether a player plays out a contract or not, players can retire whenever they want to. It's that these contracts added a bunch of term for the specific purpose of having a lower AAV and play with the cap hit of signing a franchise player. That's why the NHL targeted those instead of any old player retiring.

Theres a lot more risk in signing someone to 14 years than if you signed them to 6. The team should share in that risk to some degree, especially if they sign the big term to lower the cap hit. I'm sure there will be some concession for the press, loss of picks or something, cant see it being Scott free though.

There will be a new CBA by then though.

People forget that players rarely screw over teams in hockey.

 

[North Cole]

There will be a new CBA by then though.

People forget that players rarely screw over teams in hockey.

Depends what you consider "screwing a team over" to be. Players going back home to Russia, contract negotiations where a player sits out for half the season, requesting trades, not reporting after a trade, etc. Its not that rare for players to do things to benefit themselves, as they should.

Maybe Weber doesnt feel like hes screwing them over if he retires, maybe he doesnt care since they traded him. Too factors for a blanket statement about screwing teams over. Not to mention, if he did retire early and they had massive recapture, it's more them screwing themselves over.

Doubt the new CBA would have a contingency for it, they have already worked towards closing the loophole. Easier for the NHL to work it out case by case with the teams rather then trying to stuff new things into the CBA. Many other things for them to focus on.

 

[justafan22]

Depends what you consider "screwing a team over" to be. Players going back home to Russia, contract negotiations where a player sits out for half the season, requesting trades, not reporting after a trade, etc. Its not that rare for players to do things to benefit themselves, as they should.

Maybe Weber doesnt feel like hes screwing them over if he retires, maybe he doesnt care since they traded him. Too factors for a blanket statement about screwing teams over. Not to mention, if he did retire early and they had massive recapture, it's more them screwing themselves over.

Doubt the new CBA would have a contingency for it, they have already worked towards closing the loophole. Easier for the NHL to work it out case by case with the teams rather then trying to stuff new things into the CBA. Many other things for them to focus on.

Sure. But I really doubt the NHL would allow that penalty to be on a team that screws them over that much.

And why would Weber walk away from guaranteed money? I can't remember any player with multiple years left walking away from LTIR guaranteed cash. (Berglund is the only one and that was a personal reason).

Even guys like Rafalski who retired early did so with one year left, not multiple.

Lupul/Robidas were never LTIR'd as well and didn't officially retire until after their contracts were done.

 

[Regal]

It's not that the NHL cares whether a player plays out a contract or not, players can retire whenever they want to. It's that these contracts added a bunch of term for the specific purpose of having a lower AAV and play with the cap hit of signing a franchise player. That's why the NHL targeted those instead of any old player retiring.

Theres a lot more risk in signing someone to 14 years than if you signed them to 6. The team should share in that risk to some degree, especially if they sign the big term to lower the cap hit. I'm sure there will be some concession for the press, loss of picks or something, cant see it being Scott free though.

No, I know the issue wasn't the length of the deals themselves, I mean that, because of the cap savings early in the deal, the worry was that the extra years were not going to be played out, so teams would end up with a net benefit. The thought was that there was no intention to play those years, and thus the deals violated the spirit of the cap.

As such, it seems odd that the punishment would become worse despite it being less likely the player didn't intend to play those seasons. If Weber plays the '23-24 and '24-25 seasons for his 1 million dollar salary, and then retires before his final year, it's difficult to say he didn't intend to fulfill the contract, whereas if he retires with 4 years left on his deal when his salary goes down from 6 million to 3 million, it's more likely you can say that those low salary years were never meant to be played. Yet, in the first scenario, Nashville is hit with a 24.5+million dollar cap recapture, and in the second, they're hit with just under 5 million over 5 years. So the more likely the contract was to be intended to circumvention, the easier the punishment.

I understand recapturing the cap savings, but it makes no sense to do it the way they did. Why wouldn't they just get punished the same amount they were saving over the same number of years he played for them?

 

[Kshahdoo]

Montreal is rebuilding, so it's way better to have Weber along with young kids, than Subban. To me Subban isn't that bad person, he's just not a right one to be an example for rookies.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Montreal is rebuilding, so it's way better to have Weber along with young kids, than Subban. To me Subban isn't that bad person, he's just not a right one to be an example for rookies.

I can buy this. Subban isn't a leader. He's a motivated player on the ice, and we've seen him "lead" in the sense that in 3/3 playoff seasons he has come out and clearly played his best hockey when it mattered most. But when we dissect the Preds' failure to contend in the playoffs the last 2 seasons, I think one thing that we consistently point to is a lack of more traditional leadership and a question mark about where that comes from on our team right now. When we had Weber and Fisher, that aspect was covered. Lately, it's not clear where we get that leadership from. We don't fault Subban for not being that guy, I don't think anybody ever expected it from him and there are 4 other guys wearing letters on our team not named Subban. But even if we feel we got the better player on the ice overall, and even if Subban seems to be well-liked and not causing any issues for us off the ice, we also do have to wonder about the intangibles lost in terms of traditional leadership.

So that is one area where we did lose something in the trade, and something that we still haven't found a way to replace. And I can definitely see it helping a young building Montreal team to have that element present in Weber too.