Rumor: Rumors and Proposals Thread | Slow days of summer

[belair]

You trade RNH for Weber in a heartbeat. Teams have won Stanley cups with worse C depth than

McDavid
Draisaitl
Lander

We can always bring in another guy like a Mike Fisher in that trade to fill in at #2 until Draisaitl is ready. Not ideal but our team becomes a hell of a lot better.

You don't run with that depth at this point though. Grabbing a guy like Colin Wilson in the deal would be the only reasonable way to off-set the loss on RNH this early in Draisaitl and McDavid's careers. Even at the cost of one of our bluechip D prospects, that deal would give us some balance in the roster.

 

[Fourier]

Well that is true that a recapture penalty would be a tough pill to swallow but i also believe that in order for a player to be bought out that he has to pass through waivers, and afaik at that point Nashville could reclaim him to avoid a buyout. Obviously it's not a great scenario if his performance has dipped that much, so i'm sure they might want a little extra in return, but if he regresses to buyout levels he's going to end his deal as a Predator regardless.

As a side i also think it's unfortunate Nashville has to deal with this nonsense, they had to match that offer for the health of their franchise, unlike the other clubs who signed players to crazy term as a way to circumvent the cap. It was good for them in the long run still, as i think it was obvious Weber was going to walk, but they still seem a bit victimized IMO.

Very true. But by that time he may choose to simply retire rather than moving his family again.

I agree that it is a bit of a shame that Nashville is stuck with this situation. But they did have a chance to sign him long term earlier and did not since they baulked at making a commitment to both Weber and Suter prior to them hitting UFA years.

 

[misfit]

You don't run with that depth at this point though. Grabbing a guy like Colin Wilson in the deal would be the only reasonable way to off-set the loss on RNH this early in Draisaitl and McDavid's careers. Even at the cost of one of our bluechip D prospects, that deal would give us some balance in the roster.

I don't think Wilson is a Pred anymore.

 

[Mcnofool6110]

I don't think Wilson is a Pred anymore.

http://predators.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=775677

He is for another 4 seasons, no?

 

[Riptide]

That's not true at all. I certainly agree that the positional needs of hockey make it apparent that your best skaters should be your center and dmen but it's also true that in order to win hockey games you need to score goals and the strength of your wings is essential to doing that. Poor wingers = trouble scoring or easily being shutdown. You need offensive diversity. It's important that a team has a variety of players and talents that can execute in particular or multiple roles. You can be a good team without very good wingers but to be a great team you need good-great wingers, they're just too vital to scoring goals and scoring goals is the toughest thing to do in hockey.

Agreed. Ask Pittsburgh how that's worked for them. One of the major reasons (there's been 2-3 reasons) why they haven't had the success they think they should have had was due to having poor wingers that allowed other teams to focus on Crosby/Malkin. I do not think you need great wingers (Hall, Kessel, etc), but you do need good ones. I'll define a good one as being someone that can make a play and ideally create offense on their own - but at least someone who's talented enough that they will pull coverage away from their center or can exploit the space their center creates.

 

[McOvechking]

Agreed. Ask Pittsburgh how that's worked for them. One of the major reasons (there's been 2-3 reasons) why they haven't had the success they think they should have had was due to having poor wingers that allowed other teams to focus on Crosby/Malkin. I do not think you need great wingers (Hall, Kessel, etc), but you do need good ones. I'll define a good one as being someone that can make a play and ideally create offense on their own - but at least someone who's talented enough that they will pull coverage away from their center or can exploit the space their center creates.

Now you've got me all excited to watch Pittsburgh play this year. Their top 6 is looking incredible.

 

[Riptide]

Now you've got me all excited to watch Pittsburgh play this year. Their top 6 is looking incredible.

I can't wait for the puck to drop. Pittsburgh and Edmonton both made some major changes and I'm very excited to see how it plays out on the ice.

 

[I am the Liquor]

He has 8 years and 65m left owning to him. That's still a huge commitment someone would have to make. Luongo had a hell of a time getting traded with a similar contract - and his level of play was not an issue.

However as for no team is giving up that much... formula wise that's probably not that far off. Player, prospect, 1st. And it's possible that Nashville would get one of those players (Ebs/Nurse), but I doubt they'd get both. Besides... there's no way they move Weber and not get back a C (player or prospect). If Weber is getting traded to Edmonton, I cannot see it not including one of Draisaitl or RNH.

Say this was the offer at the end of this season.

RNH+ or LD+Nurse+.

If that was the ask, I'd be torn. Long term I think LD will be the better fit in Edmonton. But he hasn't proven a lot (unless he plays well this season). Nurse should be a great player in this league. But same thing... hasn't done a lot - yet. Personally I'd be more inclined to move RNH over LD/Nurse, but then I do not think nearly as highly as most others do about him.

Thoughts?

Chris Pronger never got that type of return. Weber is good but he is no Pronger.

 

[Mr Positive]

That's not true at all. I certainly agree that the positional needs of hockey make it apparent that your best skaters should be your center and dmen but it's also true that in order to win hockey games you need to score goals and the strength of your wings is essential to doing that. Poor wingers = trouble scoring or easily being shutdown. You need offensive diversity. It's important that a team has a variety of players and talents that can execute in particular or multiple roles. You can be a good team without very good wingers but to be a great team you need good-great wingers, they're just too vital to scoring goals and scoring goals is the toughest thing to do in hockey.

We're in a position where we probably have to trade Yakupov or Eberle anyway when McDavid's ELC is up because we can't afford them. If we trade Eberle because we bet on Yakupov, that would be a smart move if we get a special player back, especially one as cap friendly as Weber.

Maybe it means we keep Purcell around for less than he currently makes, or find a more physical version of him. So sure, I agree that we need quality wingers to win, but we have so many of them already.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Agreed. Ask Pittsburgh how that's worked for them. One of the major reasons (there's been 2-3 reasons) why they haven't had the success they think they should have had was due to having poor wingers that allowed other teams to focus on Crosby/Malkin. I do not think you need great wingers (Hall, Kessel, etc), but you do need good ones. I'll define a good one as being someone that can make a play and ideally create offense on their own - but at least someone who's talented enough that they will pull coverage away from their center or can exploit the space their center creates.

The three time Stanley cup champion Chicago Blackhawks decided to make a winger the highest paid player in the league.

Maybe wingers aren't so bad after all.

 

[Samus44]

We're in a position where we probably have to trade Yakupov or Eberle anyway when McDavid's ELC is up because we can't afford them. If we trade Eberle because we bet on Yakupov, that would be a smart move if we get a special player back, especially one as cap friendly as Weber.

Maybe it means we keep Purcell around for less than he currently makes, or find a more physical version of him. So sure, I agree that we need quality wingers to win, but we have so many of them already.

I'm not suggesting we couldn't move a winger all i'm saying is you shouldn't undervalue them. I never said you can't deal them or anything about Eberle for Weber.

Wingers are very important, and i don't think we need to choose between Yakupov and Eberle any time soon. We should be able to save quite a bit of money on our defense going forward as it will likely be very young. I don't see how Eberle brings back Weber and he sure as hell shouldn't be a throw in or add on to another core piece like Draisaitl. Don't you guys remember when for years and years all we had for skill on the wing was Hemsky. Let's try and keep some of these high end scorers. Yakupov hasn't done anything yet that should make anyone consider Eberle expendable.

 

[Riptide]

Chris Pronger never got that type of return. Weber is good but he is no Pronger.

Which time - because that will play a role. St Louis to Edmonton, STL had to trade him due to an upcoming salary cap - which they were over. Edmonton to Anaheim, Edmonton had to trade him due to him demanding to be traded (and he had a full NTC). About the closest comparable would be the Anaheim to Philly trade, where he was in the last year of his contract (where he also had a full NTC).

Pronger for Lupul, Sbisa, 1st (J.Moore), 1st (E.Etem), 3rd* (can't find out what the conditions were on this, and I can't find any record on wiki that Anaheim actually received this pick - should be a 10/11 3rd).

Remember Lupul at the time. It was his 5th season in the league, and over his last 135 games had 45 goals and 96 pts (27.3g/58.3pt pace), while Sbisa had just done very well in his rookie campaign. Many Philly fans were not happy to see Sbisa traded. So him being a comparable to Nurse isn't all that far off.

Here's a thread on Sbisa from shortly after the Pronger trade.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=658841&highlight=sbisa

But ultimately none of those are direct comparables. If you're looking for one, the Anaheim to Philly is probably the closest one, and even that one was when he only had 1 yr left on his contract and was (iirc) 34 years old, and he still fetched a good young forward with potential, a good young D with massive potential and 2 first.

 

[Spawn]

Which time - because that will play a role. St Louis to Edmonton, STL had to trade him due to an upcoming salary cap - which they were over. Edmonton to Anaheim, Edmonton had to trade him due to him demanding to be traded (and he had a full NTC). About the closest comparable would be the Anaheim to Philly trade, where he was in the last year of his contract (where he also had a full NTC).

Pronger for Lupul, Sbisa, 1st (J.Moore), 1st (E.Etem), 3rd* (can't find out what the conditions were on this, and I can't find any record on wiki that Anaheim actually received this pick - should be a 10/11 3rd).

Remember Lupul at the time. It was his 5th season in the league, and over his last 135 games had 45 goals and 96 pts (27.3g/58.3pt pace), while Sbisa had just done very well in his rookie campaign. Many Philly fans were not happy to see Sbisa traded. So him being a comparable to Nurse isn't all that far off.

Here's a thread on Sbisa from shortly after the Pronger trade.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=658841&highlight=sbisa

But ultimately none of those are direct comparables. If you're looking for one, the Anaheim to Philly is probably the closest one, and even that one was when he only had 1 yr left on his contract and was (iirc) 34 years old, and he still fetched a good young forward with potential, a good young D with massive potential and 2 first.

I think you're grossly underestimating the impact his contract would have on his value in a return. He's got a cap hit of 7.85M for the next 11 years and he'll be 30 to start the year. It's almost impossible to imagine him being good value for even 1/2 of that deal. He's still owed nearly 60 million over the length of the deal. This isn't chump change, and there are very few teams that a) can afford that and b) can fit that into their salary structure without drastically changing their roster.

If the Preds ever moved Weber I stand by the return being much less than most think.

 

[Riptide]

I think you're grossly underestimating the impact his contract would have on his value in a return. He's got a cap hit of 7.85M for the next 11 years and he'll be 30 to start the year. It's almost impossible to imagine him being good value for even 1/2 of that deal. He's still owed nearly 60 million over the length of the deal. This isn't chump change, and there are very few teams that a) can afford that and b) can fit that into their salary structure without drastically changing their roster.

If the Preds ever moved Weber I stand by the return being much less than most think.

Yes and no. I was thinking about that after I wrote that, but didn't want to edit it too much. While there is 11 years owing on his contract, he's only really paid anything of value over the next 7 seasons - inc 15/16 (14,12,12,6,6,6,6,3,1,1,1). 62m of the 68m owed is over the next 7 seasons.

On one hand we saw with Luongo how a contract (and his contract is anything but bad - in terms of AAV value) is a negative. The flip side is that having too little term is a negative. Ultimately I think his contract is going to come down to the team. Would this contract be an issue in Edmonton (or any other wealthy team that is more concerned about the cap then actual salary)? Not likely. Would this contract be an issue for Arizona, Florida, etc? For the next 3-5 years, most likely.

 

[tiger_80]

I think you're grossly underestimating the impact his contract would have on his value in a return. He's got a cap hit of 7.85M for the next 11 years and he'll be 30 to start the year. It's almost impossible to imagine him being good value for even 1/2 of that deal. He's still owed nearly 60 million over the length of the deal. This isn't chump change, and there are very few teams that a) can afford that and b) can fit that into their salary structure without drastically changing their roster.

If the Preds ever moved Weber I stand by the return being much less than most think.

The cap hit is actually manageable, real salary drops after 8 years. He will be worth the money for the next 4-5 years. Then he will likely start declining slowly. I think Chara's regression may be a pretty good benchmark. Both are big defenseman who are not very quick on their feet. Chara only started to regress this past year at the age of 38 and is still a top 4 d-man, no doubt about it. I think there is a good chance Weber will be an effective player for the next 7-8 years, if he can stay healthy. Then his salary drops and it should not be too difficult to move him, buy him out, or bury his contract. It's possible someone will trade for him.

 

[Narnia]

Which time - because that will play a role. St Louis to Edmonton, STL had to trade him due to an upcoming salary cap - which they were over. Edmonton to Anaheim, Edmonton had to trade him due to him demanding to be traded (and he had a full NTC). About the closest comparable would be the Anaheim to Philly trade, where he was in the last year of his contract (where he also had a full NTC).

Pronger for Lupul, Sbisa, 1st (J.Moore), 1st (E.Etem), 3rd* (can't find out what the conditions were on this, and I can't find any record on wiki that Anaheim actually received this pick - should be a 10/11 3rd).

Remember Lupul at the time. It was his 5th season in the league, and over his last 135 games had 45 goals and 96 pts (27.3g/58.3pt pace), while Sbisa had just done very well in his rookie campaign. Many Philly fans were not happy to see Sbisa traded. So him being a comparable to Nurse isn't all that far off.

Here's a thread on Sbisa from shortly after the Pronger trade.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=658841&highlight=sbisa

But ultimately none of those are direct comparables. If you're looking for one, the Anaheim to Philly is probably the closest one, and even that one was when he only had 1 yr left on his contract and was (iirc) 34 years old, and he still fetched a good young forward with potential, a good young D with massive potential and 2 first.

Pronger did not have a full NMC. Don't believe the garbage that Andy Strickland spewed at the time of the trade.

 

[belair]

Yes and no. I was thinking about that after I wrote that, but didn't want to edit it too much. While there is 11 years owing on his contract, he's only really paid anything of value over the next 7 seasons - inc 15/16 (14,12,12,6,6,6,6,3,1,1,1). 62m of the 68m owed is over the next 7 seasons.

On one hand we saw with Luongo how a contract (and his contract is anything but bad - in terms of AAV value) is a negative. The flip side is that having too little term is a negative. Ultimately I think his contract is going to come down to the team. Would this contract be an issue in Edmonton (or any other wealthy team that is more concerned about the cap then actual salary)? Not likely. Would this contract be an issue for Arizona, Florida, etc? For the next 3-5 years, most likely.

In terms of dollars and cents, yes, the Oilers and Katz's piggybank would have no problem covering the contract over the whole term. But in the end, that $7.8M contract is a huge investment and it's there until 2026 barring a trade or Weber's retirement. And with the abundance of high end forwards along with up and coming defensive prospects, I think the Oilers need to ask if it's absolutely necessary to have a superstar on defense at that cost.

Personally, I think you'd have to at this point if Weber were to be shopped today, but it's a big risk long-term with Weber already being 30 and several claims of his game beginning to slip.

 

[Spawn]

Yes and no. I was thinking about that after I wrote that, but didn't want to edit it too much. While there is 11 years owing on his contract, he's only really paid anything of value over the next 7 seasons - inc 15/16 (14,12,12,6,6,6,6,3,1,1,1). 62m of the 68m owed is over the next 7 seasons.

On one hand we saw with Luongo how a contract (and his contract is anything but bad - in terms of AAV value) is a negative. The flip side is that having too little term is a negative. Ultimately I think his contract is going to come down to the team. Would this contract be an issue in Edmonton (or any other wealthy team that is more concerned about the cap then actual salary)? Not likely. Would this contract be an issue for Arizona, Florida, etc? For the next 3-5 years, most likely.

Too little term is only a negative when you're talking about a guy under contract for 1 or 2 years. Otherwise teams generally would rather not have guys locked up longer than that. Especially if they're 30+. You give them the term because that is what it takes to get them to sign, but no one wants to have a 30 year old player signed for 11 years unless they absolutely need to. It's not "yes and no" There is no other way to argue that contract is anything but a negative.

How many teams realistically would be bidding for Weber? That need him and not only have the money to acquire him but have the cap space AND the assets required to acquire him? That list twindles very quickly. The most likely situation is that Nasvhille keeps Weber, because they don't actually have to move him. But if they do have to move him, it will be for less than you're suggesting.

 

[Mr Positive]

In terms of dollars and cents, yes, the Oilers and Katz's piggybank would have no problem covering the contract over the whole term. But in the end, that $7.8M contract is a huge investment and it's there until 2026 barring a trade or Weber's retirement. And with the abundance of high end forwards along with up and coming defensive prospects, I think the Oilers need to ask if it's absolutely necessary to have a superstar on defense at that cost.

Personally, I think you'd have to at this point if Weber were to be shopped today, but it's a big risk long-term with Weber already being 30 and several claims of his game beginning to slip.

Weber's real salary is about to become 6 million a year (edit: starting 2018), despite his 7.8 cap hit, so he'll actually be one of the best cost saving assets out there. At 7.8 AAV he is also a bargain even at his reduced effectiveness of last year. If a team today were to sign Weber if he had a more normal season for him, we'd be talking about a 10-12 million cap hit. So Weber is actually a prime asset both in salary and in cap management.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Weber's real salary is about to become 6 million a year (edit: starting 2018), despite his 7.8 cap hit, so he'll actually be one of the best cost saving assets out there. At 7.8 AAV he is also a bargain even at his reduced effectiveness of last year. If a team today were to sign Weber if he had a more normal season for him, we'd be talking about a 10-12 million cap hit. So Weber is actually a prime asset both in salary and in cap management.

This only applies as ''good cap management'' if you are trying to reach the cap floor.

 

[Riptide]

How many teams realistically would be bidding for Weber? That need him and not only have the money to acquire him but have the cap space AND the assets required to acquire him? That list twindles very quickly. The most likely situation is that Nasvhille keeps Weber, because they don't actually have to move him. But if they do have to move him, it will be for less than you're suggesting.

I think this boils down to how insistent they are on a #1C (or a prospect with that realistic upside). If that's all they'll take, then yes few teams. But depending on how flexible they're willing to be, I'm sure a lot of teams would be interested.

 

[Riptide]

Weber's real salary is about to become 6 million a year (edit: starting 2018), despite his 7.8 cap hit, so he'll actually be one of the best cost saving assets out there. At 7.8 AAV he is also a bargain even at his reduced effectiveness of last year. If a team today were to sign Weber if he had a more normal season for him, we'd be talking about a 10-12 million cap hit. So Weber is actually a prime asset both in salary and in cap management.

Meh, I doubt that. More like 7-9m (if he was getting 7/8 years). Similar (prob a tad more) to what Seabrook will get if he goes to FA. But I do not think anyone would go quite that crazy at 10-12m till he was 38. That's just a huge risk to take.

This only applies as ''good cap management'' if you are trying to reach the cap floor.

Not really. Just depends on where and how you value him cap wise.

 

[Mr Positive]

Meh, I doubt that. More like 7-9m (if he was getting 7/8 years). Similar (prob a tad more) to what Seabrook will get if he goes to FA. But I do not think anyone would go quite that crazy at 10-12m till he was 38. That's just a huge risk to take.



Not really. Just depends on where and how you value him cap wise.

Weber is definitely on a higher tier than Seabrook. This dip in his production shouldn't distract from what he really is. He gives more offense and is more gritty than Seabrook. Weber is in the top tier of elite Dmen

 

[Spawn]

I think this boils down to how insistent they are on a #1C (or a prospect with that realistic upside). If that's all they'll take, then yes few teams. But depending on how flexible they're willing to be, I'm sure a lot of teams would be interested.

You're kind of agreeing with my point aren't you?

If Nashville demands the type of package that lots are suggesting they would, they aren't going to get a deal for Weber. So they wont deal him. Unless they are in a position where they felt they needed to deal him. In which case they'd have to take less.

 

[tiger_80]

Meh, I doubt that. More like 7-9m (if he was getting 7/8 years). Similar (prob a tad more) to what Seabrook will get if he goes to FA. But I do not think anyone would go quite that crazy at 10-12m till he was 38. That's just a huge risk to take.



Not really. Just depends on where and how you value him cap wise.

Weber is Seabrook with a lot more offense.