Not to me. I don't want to lose Edler either... Hodgson, Tanev, and a 1st seems like to little. I'd throw in Ballard or another 1st, whichever they prefer.
edler on his best days is not what weber is on average. even if that equation was even i'd do edler and whichever other player they want to get him in a nanosecond because of the change in attitude that trade would bring. no one ****s with shea weber.
Kypreos is reporting he heard cap hit would be 4.7 at draft on a long term deal.
I don't have a problem with a $4.7 million cap hit *IF* it's a shorter team deal. Giving a guy who has been as inconsistant as Bieksa with a long term deal at that cap hit (with likely a NTC) is asking for trouble.
I'll bet it is what they are reporting it to be...contracts always tend to get underestimated around here. Still think its too much if it is $4.7 but with an inflation in the cap ceiling there will be inflation in contracts.
So Kyper says 4.7 while angus_j says less than Hamhuis. Who wins?
Edit: It is worth noting that a deal at 4.7 would put Bieksa's cap hit at 7.31% of the cap. Compare to Hamhuis's contract last year that came in at 7.58%. As was noted above, salaries tend to get low-balled around here, and I think most of that comes from cap inflation not being considered.
Price always comes in higher than people expect. Same thing every year.
I'm guessing they were looking at 4.2 or 4.3 originally and then the cap came in a bit higher. Bieksa also wanted 6 years, so they might have given him extra money and dropped it to 4 years. We'll find out.
I think Bieksa would have gotten 5.5 from someone on the open market.
Also, Kyper could be wrong, but 4.7 is a pretty specific guess.
Relax. It'll be a 5 year deal, $4.5M with some sort of NTC, whether it's limited or not or what part of the contract it covers could be anything, but I'm pretty certain from everything I've read that it'll be $4.5M.