I'm sorry if this question has been asked and answered already, but is it possible there is some bad blood between Weber and Poile after what happened with the arbtitration hearing last year?
I'm sorry if this question has been asked and answered already, but is it possible there is some bad blood between Weber and Poile after what happened with the arbtitration hearing last year?
Probably. There is also the possibility that the change of agents just before the FA period last year factored into the tension. Is also possible that Weber wanted to set his price via the offer sheet route last year and was upset that the arbitration process prevented that option. It could just be that the CBA uncertainty and owners initial proposal has players demanding huge bonuses and that Weber's agent did actively seek offer sheets with that type of structure when talking with teams over the past few weeks. Inject whatever personality quirks or suspected motivations you'd like into the process ... you'll fit in fine if you do.
I'm sorry if this question has been asked and answered already, but is it possible there is some bad blood between Weber and Poile after what happened with the arbtitration hearing last year?
Poile in an absolute screw up. It would not surprise me if Weber gets matched and Poile is fired within 48 hours afterward. He has cost the ownership to much money in mistakes.
Poile in an absolute screw up. It would not surprise me if Weber gets matched and Poile is fired within 48 hours afterward. He has cost the ownership to much money in mistakes.
The great question the fire Poile crowd has yet to answer ... if Poile was authorized to make a deal with a similar structure to what Philly put in the offer sheet, why wasn't the offer matched almost immediately?
The great question the fire Poile crowd has yet to answer ... if Poile was authorized to make a deal with a similar structure to what Philly put in the offer sheet, why wasn't the offer matched almost immediately?
it's a matter of it coming to this point. maximizing assets is essential for a small market team. poile has botched it in epic proportions.
it's a matter of it coming to this point. maximizing assets is essential for a small market team. poile has botched it in epic proportions.
So tell us exactly what Poile did or didn't offer to Weber, in detail. Tell us what he was authorized to spend that he didn't maximize. The definitive statements that Poile botched it depend on that info.
To reiterate what I've said before ... if Poile was authorized to make huge front loaded deals and didn't, the blame is his. If he failed to act in accordance with the ownership's guidance, the blame is his. If he wasn't authorized to structure deals in the way players demanded, the blame isn't his. If he acted according to the guidance and parameters set by his bosses, he did his job, and the blame is his boss's.
The great question the fire Poile crowd has yet to answer ... if Poile was authorized to make a deal with a similar structure to what Philly put in the offer sheet, why wasn't the offer matched almost immediately?
This has nothing to do with the offer sheet. The offer sheet is a result of Poiles screw ups since before last summer. What happened this summe should not of happened. Someone from the do not fire Poile crowd expain how everything is hunky dory this summer and its just business.
1. Poile Screwed up going to arbitration with Weber and then insulting him.
2. With Ryan Suter. He sat around like a 16 y/o girl believing that her boyfriend when he said he was going to love her forever. Everyone in the world knew Ryan Suter was leaving.
3. The guy can build a team that can make the playoffs but his 30+ year career proves he cannot close a deal with a player who everyone else wants.
5. When does Poile need to go? When Peka demands to be traded? Because that is not a fairytale. Well, atleast we will have Erat and Legwand.. lol
This has nothing to do with the offer sheet. The offer sheet is a result of Poiles screw ups since before last summer. What happened this summe should not of happened. Someone from the do not fire Poile crowd expain how everything is hunky dory this summer and its just business.
1. Poile Screwed up going to arbitration with Weber and then insulting him.
2. With Ryan Suter. He sat around like a 16 y/o girl believing that her boyfriend when he said he was going to love her forever. Everyone in the world knew Ryan Suter was leaving.
3. The guy can build a team that can make the playoffs but his 30+ year career proves he cannot close a deal with a player who everyone else wants.
5. When does Poile need to go? When Peka demands to be traded? Because that is not a fairytale. Well, atleast we will have Erat and Legwand.. lol
So, when you can't answer the question, deflect? Interesting tactic. The facts aren't there to support the rants on the offer sheet, so bring up other perceived issues. Again, interesting.
Just what did the team offer to Suter and in what structure? Was the reportedly substantial offer really sitting on his hands or did he lose out because Minnesota could front load more than we could?
Is it a possibility that Poile went to arbitration to prevent Weber from going this route last summer and fully expected the usual good faith negotiations that result in signed contracts before most scheduled hearings?
I've yet to see a don't fire Poile crowd. I've seen posts like mine that state if he was given the flexibility to make a similar offer and didn't that the blame is his. Sorry if that position requires facts, but, I personally like to make decisions based on those pesky little things.
If Poile is acting in accordance to the guidance provided by the ownership, what he did isn't his screwup. Give a guy a riding mower and he can drive the wheels off of it but he still won't win the Indy 500. The unknown is was Poile given the negotiating equivalent of a race car that he didn't maximize or a go cart that could only compete under ideal circumstances.
You can do a lot better than that from Philadelphia. B Schenn, Couturier, Meszaros + 2 1st rounders is more the equal package for a player like Weber. Don't let these Philadelphia fans make you believe that Weber doesn't have that kind of worth because he does. Good Luck!!!
That is probably Weber's value. However, if Philly was willing to put that type of package together then there wouldn't be an offer sheet. I assume the Flyers while they would love to have Weber on their team, would be fine with Nashville matching since the structure of the contract basically prohibits Nashville from trading him for a good 6 years so they keep him in the West.
That is probably Weber's value. However, if Philly was willing to put that type of package together then there wouldn't be an offer sheet. I assume the Flyers while they would love to have Weber on their team, would be fine with Nashville matching since the structure of the contract basically prohibits Nashville from trading him for a good 6 years so they keep him in the West.
His purposed deal wouldn't prevent the Preds from trading him to another big market club (i.e. the Rangers). I don't think the Preds would go that route, because of the 13M they would owe before they could trade him. That contract structure only eliminates the smaller market clubs really.
Why 6 years? IMO, the structure prohibits them from trading him for 2 years only. Match and they have to pay $26-$27 mil in the next calender year. The Preds would be foolish to not keep him around for the 2nd season at the miniscule salary he's owed, even if he becomes a malcontent. Reevaluate the situation before he's due the 3rd $13 mil bonus in 2014. The $27-$28 mil they will have spent by that point should be treated as a sunk cost and as such, should be ignored.
Firing decisions should be based on results. You can be a nice guy, a class act, but in the end you can't have this much miss management of assets. Not being able to close and not being able to see the writing on the wall to get what you can are Poile's tragic flaws.
13 years is a lifetime with one team. Even with Weber back were not at a point to contend.
We're in a rebuild, time to turn the keys over to someone else. Poile gave it a good try, but in the GM game has passed him by. He made us a competitor, but we're not a competitor right now, we need to build another team around new core.
Why 6 years? IMO, the structure prohibits them from trading him for 2 years only. Match and they have to pay $26-$27 mil in the next calender year. The Preds would be foolish to not keep him around for the 2nd season at the miniscule salary he's owed, even if he becomes a malcontent. Reevaluate the situation before he's due the 3rd $13 mil bonus in 2014. The $27-$28 mil they will have spent by that point should be treated as a sunk cost and as such, should be ignored.
The way the contract is structured it really prohibits Nashville from trading Weber period. In the next 50 weeks the contract will be 25% paid. If you pay that, it makes little sense to trade him then. Just pay then next 2 years, it will be 50% paid.
The contract might make it hard for Nashville to surround Weber with talent the 1st 6 years, but if they match, there almost no chance they are trading Weber at any point during it.
I'm sorry, Pred fans. This situation is a horrible one. What Philly has done is not right at all. It really angers me. I hope your owners/GM have something up their sleeves whether that's matching or doing something else that makes your franchise way better off in the long run.
So, when you can't answer the question, deflect? Interesting tactic. The facts aren't there to support the rants on the offer sheet, so bring up other perceived issues. Again, interesting.
Just what did the team offer to Suter and in what structure? Was the reportedly substantial offer really sitting on his hands or did he lose out because Minnesota could front load more than we could?
Is it a possibility that Poile went to arbitration to prevent Weber from going this route last summer and fully expected the usual good faith negotiations that result in signed contracts before most scheduled hearings?
I've yet to see a don't fire Poile crowd. I've seen posts like mine that state if he was given the flexibility to make a similar offer and didn't that the blame is his. Sorry if that position requires facts, but, I personally like to make decisions based on those pesky little things.
If Poile is acting in accordance to the guidance provided by the ownership, what he did isn't his screwup. Give a guy a riding mower and he can drive the wheels off of it but he still won't win the Indy 500. The unknown is was Poile given the negotiating equivalent of a race car that he didn't maximize or a go cart that could only compete under ideal circumstances.
Suter is a tough decision because the Preds were Cup contenders. I don't think you can trade him mid-season. But, you make Suter the best offer that management allows you. If he declines, then you trade his rights for something in June.
Weber you do the same thing, you offer him the best deal during the season. If he declines, you trade him in June before he gets to offersheet territory unless you have managements blessing to match ANY offer.
So, with respect to cap circumvention (sorry to keep bringing it up), it seems that there's some debate on whether or not this contract will actually constitute cap circumvention in the NHL's eyes...but there has been agreement that the NHL would not make a decision on that issue until a formal contract is signed with one team or the other and submitted to the League for approval. Am I right?
I guess offer sheets don't require League approval?
(Edit: If the above is true, it could help explain the delay in matching. Maybe GMDP and ownership are not only trying to figure out how to come up with all this cash, but are trying to figure out whether or not the League will void the contract. And if the deal is deemed to be cap circumventing, would the Flyers be the team to be punished since they're the ones who designed the offer sheet, even if we match it? IIRC New Jersey had to give up some picks and some cash for the first deal they offered Kovalchuk.)
So, with respect to cap circumvention (sorry to keep bringing it up), it seems that there's some debate on whether or not this contract will actually constitute cap circumvention in the NHL's eyes...but there has been agreement that the NHL would not make a decision on that issue until a formal contract is signed with one team or the other and submitted to the League for approval. Am I right?
I guess offer sheets don't require League approval?
If the League was going to void the contract, they would of done so by now.
So, when you can't answer the question, deflect? Interesting tactic. The facts aren't there to support the rants on the offer sheet, so bring up other perceived issues. Again, interesting.
Just what did the team offer to Suter and in what structure? Was the reportedly substantial offer really sitting on his hands or did he lose out because Minnesota could front load more than we could?
Is it a possibility that Poile went to arbitration to prevent Weber from going this route last summer and fully expected the usual good faith negotiations that result in signed contracts before most scheduled hearings?
I've yet to see a don't fire Poile crowd. I've seen posts like mine that state if he was given the flexibility to make a similar offer and didn't that the blame is his. Sorry if that position requires facts, but, I personally like to make decisions based on those pesky little things.
If Poile is acting in accordance to the guidance provided by the ownership, what he did isn't his screwup. Give a guy a riding mower and he can drive the wheels off of it but he still won't win the Indy 500. The unknown is was Poile given the negotiating equivalent of a race car that he didn't maximize or a go cart that could only compete under ideal circumstances.
I did not deflect anything i clearly answered your question. Like i said before it has nothing to do with the offer sheet on the table. Fact is Poile screwed up with both Suter and Weber before this summer started and now we are sitting here where we are today.
If Poile knew he was given a riding mower to run in the Indy 500 he should have got something more for Weber and Suter than 4 late 1st round draft picks. He is the one that runs the team and if he does not then he needs to resign and let the ownership run the team.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about "cap circumvention." There are two things to realize:
1. The only reason that Kovalchuk's initial contract was nullified was that it had him playing cheaply until age 44. It's highly unlikely that he'll play that long, yet the contract was able to use those years to lower the cap hit. After the arbitrator rejected the contract, the NHL and NHLPA agreed on amendments to the current CBA so that years past age 40 can't be used for cap calculation and years after age 35 count for a minimum of $1M against the cap. NJ made a few minor changes to comply with those amendments, mainly chopping off a few years, and the new contract was accepted by the NHL. It's still a heavily front-loaded contract. Being heavily front-loaded is not the problem. The problem is exploiting the likelihood of a player's retirement to get away with a lower cap hit. Weber's contract takes him to age 40. It fully complies with the amendments that the NHL and NHLPA agreed to and, on top of that, there's every expectation that he'll play until age 40, especially since he's a defenseman.
2. The CBA does not concern itself with "calendar years." It concerns itself with "contract years," which end on the last day of June. The fact that Weber will make $27M in the first calendar year and the fact that the CBA doesn't allow a player to be paid more than $14M per contract year are not in conflict. Calendar years and contract years are apples and oranges. All that the CBA cares about is that Weber isn't paid more than $14M between now and next June 30th, which he's not, and that he's not paid more than $14M between next July 1st and the following June 30th, which he's not. Again, there is no cap circumvention here. Blogs and posts which suggest that there is are wrong.
Neither of these points means that you can't personally dislike Weber's contract and want ones like it to be done away with. It's just that if you're expecting it to be rejected because the initial Kovalchuk contract was or the CBA says this and that, you need to realize that the comparisons are inaccurate. Now, this doesn't rule out the NHL stepping in and making another effective-immediately rule change, like they did with Kovalchuk, but Weber's contract complies with the existing rules.
If the League was going to void the contract, they would of done so by now.
That's my question: can the League void offer sheets that they deem to be cap circumventing, even though an offer sheet isn't technically a full contract yet?
This is just a general question, not necessarily specific to Weber's situation. I think discussion about whether the league would void this particular contract is interesting, but I really want to know about the League's rules in general about whether they can void an offer sheet and whether teams have to submit offer sheets to the League for approval before presenting them to a player.
There's so much misunderstanding about "cap circumvention." People need to realize two things:
1. The only reason that Kovalchuk's initial contract was nullified was that it had him playing cheaply until age 44. It's highly unlikely that he'll play that long, yet the contract was able to use those years to lower the cap hit. After the arbitrator rejected the contract, the NHL and NHLPA agreed on amendments to the current CBA so that years past age 40 can't be used for cap calculation and years after age 35 count for a minimum of $1M against the cap. NJ made a few minor changes to comply with those amendments, mainly chopping off a few years, and the new contract was accepted by the NHL. It's still a heavily front-loaded contract. Being heavily front-loaded is not the problem. The problem is exploiting the likelihood of a player's retirement to get away with a lower cap hit. Weber's contract takes him to age 40. It fully complies with the amendments that the NHL and NHLPA agreed to and, on top of that, there's every expectation that he'll play until age 40, especially since he's a defenseman.
2. The CBA does not concern itself with "calendar years." It concerns itself with "contract years," which end on the last day of June. The fact that Weber will make $27M in the first calendar year and the fact that the CBA doesn't allow a player to be paid more than $14M per contract year are not in conflict. Calendar years and contract years are apples and oranges. All that the CBA cares about is that Weber isn't paid more than $14M between now and next June 30th, which he's not, and that he's not paid more than $14M between next July 1st and the following June 30th, which he's not. Again, there is no cap circumvention here. Blogs and posts which suggest that there is are wrong.
Neither of these points means that you can't personally dislike Weber's contract and want ones like it to be done away with. It's just that if you're expecting it to be rejected because the initial Kovalchuk contract was or the CBA says this and that, you need to realize that the comparisons are inaccurate. Now, this doesn't rule out the NHL stepping in and making another effective-immediately rule change, like they did with Kovalchuk, but Weber's contract complies with the existing rules.
If they were gonna do that, they the probably would have done it for Parise and Suter's contract. The NHL making this contract void is a pipedream.
