HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Notices

So Shea wants a short term deal ?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2011, 07:19 AM
  #76
thomas magnum
Registered User
 
thomas magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
I think that if he wants to sign for anything you do it. When you think about trading him is when he has 1 year left on his contract and you know he won't sign again. You trade him at the beginning of the season and get back max benefit. If you can get 2 years out of a player like Weber you take it.

Now if you knew he was going to bolt as soon as he hits UFA and you have the chance to trade him for either Stamkos or Parise then I say you pull the trigger. The defense in Nashville seems like it could withstand the hit of losing Weber as long as the return on up front was big enough. Those are two of the few guys in the league that I think it would be worth it. This is assuming that Parise is healthy and ready to play at the level he did before the injury.

thomas magnum is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 08:41 AM
  #77
AEM6729
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Nashville
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
This makes me sad.

I'm going to pretend like I never saw that tweet.

AEM6729 is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 08:48 AM
  #78
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas magnum View Post
I think that if he wants to sign for anything you do it. When you think about trading him is when he has 1 year left on his contract and you know he won't sign again. You trade him at the beginning of the season and get back max benefit. If you can get 2 years out of a player like Weber you take it.

Now if you knew he was going to bolt as soon as he hits UFA and you have the chance to trade him for either Stamkos or Parise then I say you pull the trigger. The defense in Nashville seems like it could withstand the hit of losing Weber as long as the return on up front was big enough. Those are two of the few guys in the league that I think it would be worth it. This is assuming that Parise is healthy and ready to play at the level he did before the injury.
I think the real problem with not signing Weber to a long term contract is that it indicates to other players that this is not a place to play long term. Why do we think that Stamkos or Parise would stay here long term if Weber won't?

lstcyr is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 08:58 AM
  #79
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas magnum View Post
I think that if he wants to sign for anything you do it. When you think about trading him is when he has 1 year left on his contract and you know he won't sign again. You trade him at the beginning of the season and get back max benefit. If you can get 2 years out of a player like Weber you take it.

Now if you knew he was going to bolt as soon as he hits UFA and you have the chance to trade him for either Stamkos or Parise then I say you pull the trigger. The defense in Nashville seems like it could withstand the hit of losing Weber as long as the return on up front was big enough. Those are two of the few guys in the league that I think it would be worth it. This is assuming that Parise is healthy and ready to play at the level he did before the injury.
I agree except I'm not sure Parise would qualify. If Weber wants out, I would imagine whatever factors lead to that decision could easily push Parise to UFA. At least with Stamkos, you have 4 or so years before UFA. So even if he wants to test the market, you've locked him down for a bit.

I've said it earlier, long term contracts scare me. I don't want to know how many games a 32-37 year old Weber will miss during the final half of a 10-year deal. He's had intermittent bouts of injuries and history tells you that only gets worse with age. Give me a 3-4 year deal and we'll do this UFA dance again with one year remaining on that deal. If he wants to test the market, trade him with a year remaining.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 09:27 AM
  #80
Preds Partisan
Nothing
 
Preds Partisan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
I think the real problem with not signing Weber to a long term contract is that it indicates to other players that this is not a place to play long term. Why do we think that Stamkos or Parise would stay here long term if Weber won't?
You and others above are exactly right. That's why this signing is so important. It shows financial commitment by the organization, stability, a willingness to keep and build around your best players and sense of commitment to winning. Failure to keep Weber after everything that was said would indicate the opposite and make Nashville look like a budget strapped farm club for the rest of the NHL. The Preds can either be a destination team or the Island of Misfit Toys due in large part to this single contract.

Preds Partisan is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 10:04 AM
  #81
thomas magnum
Registered User
 
thomas magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause View Post
I agree except I'm not sure Parise would qualify. If Weber wants out, I would imagine whatever factors lead to that decision could easily push Parise to UFA. At least with Stamkos, you have 4 or so years before UFA. So even if he wants to test the market, you've locked him down for a bit.

I've said it earlier, long term contracts scare me. I don't want to know how many games a 32-37 year old Weber will miss during the final half of a 10-year deal. He's had intermittent bouts of injuries and history tells you that only gets worse with age. Give me a 3-4 year deal and we'll do this UFA dance again with one year remaining on that deal. If he wants to test the market, trade him with a year remaining.
Well you've got my vote for King of the Presidents of the Preds HFboard forum! I agree with this because I think it is not in the interest of a small market team with a limited budget to sign players to long term contracts they could get stuck with. There are only a few teams in the league that don't have to worry about this right now and hte Preds are not one of them. In a perfect world he would sign a 5 year deal for 7.5 per.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds Partisan View Post
You and others above are exactly right. That's why this signing is so important. It shows financial commitment by the organization, stability, a willingness to keep and build around your best players and sense of commitment to winning. Failure to keep Weber after everything that was said would indicate the opposite and make Nashville look like a budget strapped farm club for the rest of the NHL. The Preds can either be a destination team or the Island of Misfit Toys due in large part to this single contract.
I understand this point of view. It's exactly what happened in Atlanta. Now granted, that was a different sort of situation on why people didn't want to sign there with the **** ownership group and all but still Atlanta got a bad rap and then couldn't sign players. I don't think not signing Weber is a failure though. It all depends on the perception of the way that he signs though. Make no mistake about it, Nashville is not viewed around the league as "the place to play". I don't mean that a knock against the organization though. It's just reality. They don't have the history that certain other teams have.

thomas magnum is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 10:47 AM
  #82
PredsV82
Snot Doc
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky
Country: Scotland
Posts: 11,327
vCash: 50
I could live with a 4 year deal for many of the reasons smokey outlined. That may be technically "short" but is long enough to say "ill play the prime years of my career here then see where things stand"

I can also live with a one year "show me" deal but i wouldnt like it.

Two years or three years are the unacceptable deal lenghts to me. Those say "gimme max dollars for the remaining time that im forced to be here then im outta here"

PredsV82 is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 10:48 AM
  #83
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,731
vCash: 500
Keith Yandle re-signed with the Coyotes for 5 years/$26M... hopefully that helps our situation with Weber.

Legionnaire11 is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 11:16 AM
  #84
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
Keith Yandle re-signed with the Coyotes for 5 years/$26M... hopefully that helps our situation with Weber.
I'd be ecstatic with a 5 year, +30M deal. I don't understand the argument for a longer deal. There's just too much risk. The Preds don't have the ability to buyout the last years of a big deal, bury the contract in the minors, or LTIR the player like the big teams can do. So signing such a deal is so much riskier for the Preds than it is for New York Rangers. The Preds simply don't have the giant eraser that the big teams have.

Can you imagine if the Preds had inked Wade Redden or Shelden Souray? While I like Weber better than either of those players in their primes, would it surprise anyone if Weber wasn't nearly as effective at 32 as he was now? I'd hate to be forced to pay him huge dollars for an additional 3-5 years beyond that. Long term contracts, specifically those that compensate past the mid-30s are terrifying.

Even when stars have a natural downward progression after 30, such as Lecavalier, it still cripples middle market teams. Think Tampa wishes they hadn't signed Vinny to a 4-year deal right about now? He's likely the reason they are struggling with resigning Stamkos. If I'm not mistaken, they are a midpoint team, like us. And 1/5 of their salary goes to Lecavalier. With all the massive failures we've seen around the league when it comes to paying players big dollars past 32-33, it should give the Preds pause to commit too much beyond that point.


Last edited by SmokeyClause: 07-06-2011 at 11:22 AM.
SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 11:37 AM
  #85
David Singleton
HFB Partner
 
David Singleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dickson, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause View Post
I'd be ecstatic with a 5 year, +30M deal. I don't understand the argument for a longer deal. There's just too much risk. The Preds don't have the ability to buyout the last years of a big deal, bury the contract in the minors, or LTIR the player like the big teams can do. So signing such a deal is so much riskier for the Preds than it is for New York Rangers. The Preds simply don't have the giant eraser that the big teams have.

Can you imagine if the Preds had inked Wade Redden or Shelden Souray? While I like Weber better than either of those players in their primes, would it surprise anyone if Weber wasn't nearly as effective at 32 as he was now? I'd hate to be forced to pay him huge dollars for an additional 3-5 years beyond that. Long term contracts, specifically those that compensate past the mid-30s are terrifying.

Even when stars have a natural downward progression after 30, such as Lecavalier, it still cripples middle market teams. Think Tampa wishes they hadn't signed Vinny to a 4-year deal right about now? He's likely the reason they are struggling with resigning Stamkos. If I'm not mistaken, they are a midpoint team, like us. And 1/5 of their salary goes to Lecavalier. With all the massive failures we've seen around the league when it comes to paying players big dollars past 32-33, it should give the Preds pause to commit too much beyond that point.
I'd be ok with a 5yr deal as well.

While a long term deal would certainly be riskier for Nashville, there are some (potential) merits to a longer term deal- even for Nashville.

First and foremost is the message that it can send to the League and players across the League (including Nashville's own upcoming UFAs like Suter, Rinne, Hornqvist, etc.). The theory of course being that it would show a huge amount of confidence in the direction of the Predators in general and their ability to compete for the Stanley Cup.

A longer term deal would potentially be more palatable for Weber in spreading out the salary across the years so that Nashville would have room to build around him. Shorter term deals likely mean more salary for each year- which is prohibitive for Nashville.

Finally, it reinforces what the owners have been claiming over the past season when selling the team to the fans. (Paraphrasing here) "The small market mentality in Nashville is gone. We are going to compete for the Cup." "Shea Weber is going nowhere." "Ryan Suter is going nowhere." etc.

Do those outweigh the negatives you've pointed out regarding long term contracts? I don't know. It likely depends how much the owners really believe in regards to what they're saying (i.e. the small market mentality and whatever their actual beliefs are in their ability to continually increase revenues).


Last edited by David Singleton: 07-06-2011 at 12:17 PM.
David Singleton is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 11:43 AM
  #86
thomas magnum
Registered User
 
thomas magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause View Post
I'd be ecstatic with a 5 year, +30M deal. I don't understand the argument for a longer deal. There's just too much risk. The Preds don't have the ability to buyout the last years of a big deal, bury the contract in the minors, or LTIR the player like the big teams can do. So signing such a deal is so much riskier for the Preds than it is for New York Rangers. The Preds simply don't have the giant eraser that the big teams have.

Can you imagine if the Preds had inked Wade Redden or Shelden Souray? While I like Weber better than either of those players in their primes, would it surprise anyone if Weber wasn't nearly as effective at 32 as he was now? I'd hate to be forced to pay him huge dollars for an additional 3-5 years beyond that. Long term contracts, specifically those that compensate past the mid-30s are terrifying.

Even when stars have a natural downward progression after 30, such as Lecavalier, it still cripples middle market teams. Think Tampa wishes they hadn't signed Vinny to a 4-year deal right about now? He's likely the reason they are struggling with resigning Stamkos. If I'm not mistaken, they are a midpoint team, like us. And 1/5 of their salary goes to Lecavalier. With all the massive failures we've seen around the league when it comes to paying players big dollars past 32-33, it should give the Preds pause to commit too much beyond that point.
BUM STICKITY BUMMMM!!

I totally agree. That's what I was saying in the other thread. 5 years at 5 to 7mil would be perfect for the Preds for all the reasons you stated. If this was Montreal, Detroit, Philly, Toronto or a few others then I"d feel different but it isn't. If you want to front load the contract so be it. Give him 9 mil in his first year and then scale it back from there. It would help a little with the salary near the end of the contract and help when attempting to sign Rinne and Suter.

THEY WANT EFX!


thomas magnum is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 11:58 AM
  #87
David Singleton
HFB Partner
 
David Singleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dickson, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas magnum View Post
BUM STICKITY BUMMMM!!

I totally agree. That's what I was saying in the other thread. 5 years at 5 to 7mil would be perfect for the Preds for all the reasons you stated. If this was Montreal, Detroit, Philly, Toronto or a few others then I"d feel different but it isn't. If you want to front load the contract so be it. Give him 9 mil in his first year and then scale it back from there. It would help a little with the salary near the end of the contract and help when attempting to sign Rinne and Suter.

THEY WANT EFX!

That's specifically what I'm addressing in my prior post. There would be very little "scaling down" from year-to-year with a short term contract. In this case, it's quite likely that it would go up year-to-year given that a 5yr contract would cover his prime UFA years.

That's part of the pros and cons with short term vs. long term.

To me, I'd love to see 8yrs for a total of $48 million- an even $6 million a year. It's a significant contract, albeit one where he's given a home team discount. That said, he would be 33 at the end of it, so he'd likely have another big contract after that.

David Singleton is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 12:07 PM
  #88
thomas magnum
Registered User
 
thomas magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Singleton View Post
That's specifically what I'm addressing in my prior post. There would be very little "scaling down" from year-to-year with a short term contract. In this case, it's quite likely that it would go up year-to-year given that a 5yr contract would cover his prime UFA years.

That's part of the pros and cons with short term vs. long term.

To me, I'd love to see 8yrs for a total of $48 million- an even $6 million a year. It's a significant contract, albeit one where he's given a home team discount. That said, he would be 33 at the end of it, so he'd likely have another big contract after that.
Yeah, I see what you're saying....don't really have anything else to say other than its awesome that you quoted/reposted the Das Efx video.

thomas magnum is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 12:52 PM
  #89
token grinder
Registered User
 
token grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gopreds19 View Post
Fair enough, I'll give you the SK trade.

But "picks for Fisher" is way too early to say we came out on the better end, especially considering the other pick hasn't even been made yet. Stefan Noesen could be really good for them.

And as for the SOB trade, it's all too muddy to tell. On the face, sure, I guess we got one year out of SOB and who knows if Parent will ever make their squad. But if Parent doesn't make the NHL, then I guess that's another 1st round bust for Mr. Poile.
just the sk trade?

the trade for fisher got us out of the first round. how that isn't a win is beyond me.

same for the SOB trade. parent has been hurt his entire career. yeah he is a bust. a bust moved to get forsberg for a cup run.

what you opined was you couldn't remember a good trade or a trade poile one. all three he made last year, we won.

token grinder is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 12:54 PM
  #90
OpenWheel
Registered User
 
OpenWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,966
vCash: 500
Not sure why it's become a debate about five years versus much longer. Nobody's very worried if Shea's supposed desire for a short deal means he'll 'only' sign for five. Five is fairly good for Nashville.

By short deal it sounds like if he can't get a blockbuster he wants just two, or maybe three. Which are not such good lengths for Nashville.

OpenWheel is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 01:00 PM
  #91
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gopreds19 View Post
Fair enough, I'll give you the SK trade.

But "picks for Fisher" is way too early to say we came out on the better end, especially considering the other pick hasn't even been made yet. Stefan Noesen could be really good for them.

And as for the SOB trade, it's all too muddy to tell. On the face, sure, I guess we got one year out of SOB and who knows if Parent will ever make their squad. But if Parent doesn't make the NHL, then I guess that's another 1st round bust for Mr. Poile.
Go a little further back, he traded 2 - 2nd round picks for Steve Sullivan too.

The things he did buy trading for UFA contracts was brilliant (didn't we actually get a comp pick for Belfor, then use that pick to draft, Shea Weber)?

Poile has had his flaws for sure but he's good gm for this franchise. Yes, we are handicapped by money, always will be, but that's what Poile is best at.

triggrman is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 01:03 PM
  #92
OpenWheel
Registered User
 
OpenWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Singleton View Post
...
To me, I'd love to see 8yrs for a total of $48 million- an even $6 million a year. It's a significant contract, albeit one where he's given a home team discount.
That would be a really large discount.Why would Shea even consider that? He can hedge against injury and guarantee almost as much money with a much shorter deal, considering if he got hurt after a few years the buyout would be at 2/3rds.

I suspect the holdup is money as much as length. If we were prepared to make the truly blockbuster deal as Shea sees some other top players get, he'd be signed. At least for four or five years. But if we won't offer the high dollars (and 7 million isn't high dollars...) then he wants to think about getting the blockbuster deal in a few years. A bit more risk, but if he stays healthy it could pay off big for him.


Last edited by OpenWheel: 07-06-2011 at 01:25 PM.
OpenWheel is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 02:38 PM
  #93
thomas magnum
Registered User
 
thomas magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenWheel View Post
Not sure why it's become a debate about five years versus much longer. Nobody's very worried if Shea's supposed desire for a short deal means he'll 'only' sign for five. Five is fairly good for Nashville.

By short deal it sounds like if he can't get a blockbuster he wants just two, or maybe three. Which are not such good lengths for Nashville.
We were just saying that we'd rather a 5 year deal than a 10 year deal. You are probably right in that when they say he wants a short term he probably means 1 to 3 years. We'll really just have to wait and see.

thomas magnum is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 03:12 PM
  #94
David Singleton
HFB Partner
 
David Singleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dickson, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenWheel View Post
That would be a really large discount.Why would Shea even consider that? He can hedge against injury and guarantee almost as much money with a much shorter deal, considering if he got hurt after a few years the buyout would be at 2/3rds.

I suspect the holdup is money as much as length. If we were prepared to make the truly blockbuster deal as Shea sees some other top players get, he'd be signed. At least for four or five years. But if we won't offer the high dollars (and 7 million isn't high dollars...) then he wants to think about getting the blockbuster deal in a few years. A bit more risk, but if he stays healthy it could pay off big for him.
Had the Predators been more proactive, he probably would have considered that last off-season (or something real close). Would he this season after seeing what's happening in the market? I'd say probably not.

David Singleton is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 03:44 PM
  #95
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman View Post
Go a little further back, he traded 2 - 2nd round picks for Steve Sullivan too.

The things he did buy trading for UFA contracts was brilliant (didn't we actually get a comp pick for Belfor, then use that pick to draft, Shea Weber)?

Poile has had his flaws for sure but he's good gm for this franchise. Yes, we are handicapped by money, always will be, but that's what Poile is best at.
Poile's been bitten by several trades, but he has some good ones to his name. Drake Berehowsky for a 2nd (basically a late first), Cliff Ronning for a zamboni and Kostistyn for UFA rights.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 03:55 PM
  #96
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenWheel View Post
Nobody's very worried if Shea's supposed desire for a short deal means he'll 'only' sign for five. Five is fairly good for Nashville.

By short deal it sounds like if he can't get a blockbuster he wants just two, or maybe three. Which are not such good lengths for Nashville.
Several people on here have stated their preference for a long/longer term deal in the face of a 5-year option. I think certain people would like to see an 8-10 year deal because it shows a commitment to future success.

I'm in the minority because I'd gladly do a 3-year deal, especially if the money isn't astronomical (I'd do an 24/3, for example). That'd push Shea right up to 29 or so. If something catastrophic happens, you aren't financially crippled for Suter's/Rinne's entire prime.

If he more than lives up to the billing, odds are the future contract discussions won't be any more financially painful than they are now as I think the cap landscape will be more conservative in the next CBA. And if with a year on his deal, he doesn't seem to want to sign up, he's an insanely valuable trade piece. The only downside is the per year price, but that's muted, to me, by the significantly lessened risk.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 04:01 PM
  #97
OpenWheel
Registered User
 
OpenWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Singleton View Post
Had the Predators been more proactive, he probably would have considered that last off-season (or something real close). Would he this season after seeing what's happening in the market? I'd say probably not.
Yeah, although even last season six per year would have seemed low. Erat makes that this year. I was hoping the guesses of around 7 per year for a mid-length were right, because the preds can afford that.

But when I see a Brad Richards get 12m, 12m, 9m, 8.5m, 8.5m for a ten million per year average in the first five years, I now believe Shea and his agent think he's worth at least nine, even for the Preds. And 9 reaches that 'blockbuster' level and may have Poile unable or unwilling to pull the trigger due to the risk and our finances, and I don't blame him. So Shea may want an arbitrators 8 million (As Aaron Sims predicts would be awarded, on his blog) for a couple years, because bring a Brinks truck if he's healthy when he becomes an unrestricted free agent. Unless of course the bargaining agreement changes by a lot, which is a risk for Shea if he wants to wait for a long deal. Although even with changes it would seem he will still claim eight mill, so his main risk is injury.


Last edited by OpenWheel: 07-06-2011 at 04:40 PM.
OpenWheel is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 04:06 PM
  #98
OpenWheel
Registered User
 
OpenWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause View Post
I'm in the minority because I'd gladly do a 3-year deal, especially if the money isn't astronomical (I'd do an 24/3, for example). That'd push Shea right up to 29 or so. If something catastrophic happens, you aren't financially crippled for Suter's/Rinne's entire prime.
24/3 isn't bad. A month ago I would have said that was high for a short deal and prefered a longer deal if that was the amount (to lock up more of his prime and hope it seemed cheaper in later years). But it's scary to think what the bids are if he becomes a free agent. So he'd either have to sign another or be traded during the final year well before the season ended.

But if you are right that the cap changes and is favorable for small market teams, three years would be great.


Last edited by OpenWheel: 07-06-2011 at 04:38 PM.
OpenWheel is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 04:35 PM
  #99
token grinder
Registered User
 
token grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,064
vCash: 500
i don't care if he signs a 1 year deal every year as long as he signs. I don't think signing a 6 year deal shows players around the league anything about wanting to be here. Players know the contract game. They will, for the most part, go where the money is---just look at Florida.

token grinder is offline  
Old
07-06-2011, 04:47 PM
  #100
PredsV82
Snot Doc
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky
Country: Scotland
Posts: 11,327
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Singleton View Post
Had the Predators been more proactive, he probably would have considered that last off-season (or something real close). Would he this season after seeing what's happening in the market? I'd say probably not.
Pure unwarranted speculation on your part. How can you say what weber would or wouldnt have considered? Whether you meant to or nor you post comes across as stating that the reason weber isnt already extended is because poile sat around with his thumb up his hindquarters. I seriously doubt that poile didnt try to extend shea last fall. Its speculation as to why it didnt happen, but i seem to remember it being discussed quite a bit

PredsV82 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.