Ignorant on this issue, but would Nashville be allowed to match the offer then move Weber for a package they prefer to the four 1sts? Or is there an enforced no-trade period after an offer sheet is matched?
Ignorant on this issue, but would Nashville be allowed to match the offer then move Weber for a package they prefer to the four 1sts? Or is there an enforced no-trade period after an offer sheet is matched?
1 year under the current CBA, which expires September 15
Ignorant on this issue, but would Nashville be allowed to match the offer then move Weber for a package they prefer to the four 1sts? Or is there an enforced no-trade period after an offer sheet is matched?
Enforced no-trade for 1 year. He is either a Flyer or Pred for the next year.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
There are TWO possible outcomes with Weber right now.
#1. Nashville matches. Weber stays a Predator. Philly moves on.
#2. Nashville declines. Weber becomes a Flyer. Nashville gets 4 1st round picks.
THAT'S IT.
Weber CANNOT be traded right now. Period. It's black and white in the CBA.
I think you misread what i stated with Weber ...had nothing to do with "that guy"... And I think its very plausible that a deal is worked out where some of those picks are traded back for roster players. I don't think Philly wants to just "move on" .. they want Weber.
I think you misread what i stated with Weber ...had nothing to do with "that guy"... And I think its very plausible that a deal is worked out where some of those picks are traded back for roster players. I don't think Philly wants to just "move on" .. they want Weber.
You might be him then, since he apparently was tweeting the exact scenario that you were talking about. :p
Holmgren made his play for Weber. If it doesn't work, there isn't anything else they can do. They can't trade to get him for a full year, and by then they can have a NMC in the deal. Holmgren also isn't going to give up roster players to get some of those 4 picks back.
RFA offer sheets don't have many options on how they play out.
You might be him then, since he apparently was tweeting the exact scenario that you were talking about. :p
Holmgren made his play for Weber. If it doesn't work, there isn't anything else they can do. They can't trade to get him for a full year, and by then they can have a NMC in the deal. Holmgren also isn't going to give up roster players to get some of those 4 picks back.
RFA offer sheets don't have many options on how they play out.
lol.. Def not him. I just felt up until the Nash trade..Philly was in drivers seat... I think this helps in that regard...of course it all depends on how badly they want or need Weber ...or if like you said they are content with just having Weber stay in Western Conf. You gotta think Philly needs to do something to keep pace.
Unless they put something in the new CBA that specifically alters situations in the current one, then no.
The other interpretation from his spew is that Nashville would take the picks, then try to trade them BACK to Philadelphia for players. To my knowledge that's legal, but Philly wouldn't do that. They knew going in that they'd give up those picks for Weber, and Holmgren wouldn't be under any pressure to get those picks back at all.
Not necessarily.
Nashville can say "we don't want 4 first round picks, so we'll match...but if you'd like to offer something instead that we want, we won't match and trade those 4 1st rounders back for the return we wanted." Basically telling Philly either you pony something up, or we'll match and you don't get Weber. It's just that the rules stipulate it would have to be a separate transaction from the Weber, even though in real terms it's basically the same thing.
Nashville can say "we don't want 4 first round picks, so we'll match...but if you'd like to offer something instead that we want, we won't match and trade those 4 1st rounders back for the return we wanted." Basically telling Philly either you pony something up, or we'll match and you don't get Weber. It's just that the rules stipulate it would have to be a separate transaction from the Weber, even though in real terms it's basically the same thing.
I get that it's two separate transactions. I just don't see it as a move Holmgren would make.
The 4 first rounders are spread out over 4 years, and Holmgren has shown that he'll make any deal at any time. He knew going in that he could lose those picks, and I can't seem him being worried about getting them back by losing other pieces.
I get that it's two separate transactions. I just don't see it as a move Holmgren would make.
The 4 first rounders are spread out over 4 years, and Holmgren has shown that he'll make any deal at any time. He knew going in that he could lose those picks, and I can't seem him being worried about getting them back by losing other pieces.
It's not about the 4 1st rounders. It's about Weber.
Nashville could say "we'll match", in which case Philly doesn't get Weber.
Or they could say: "You want Weber? Fine, we won't match but ONLY if we set up a deal where I send you back the 1st rounders for a return I like, and we agree on that deal in principle before the deadline. If we don't agree on such a deal, we'll match and keep Weber, and you don't get him."
Nashville has leverage depending on how badly Philly wants Weber. Now, it's possible Holmgren could renege on a deal after they decline to match, but that would be really bad business.
With Richards, Gaborik, Callahan, Stephan, Del Zotto Nash spreading the wealth I doubt Nash gets over 65 pts next year. Especially with the defensive game the NYR play.
Nashville can say "we don't want 4 first round picks, so we'll match...but if you'd like to offer something instead that we want, we won't match and trade those 4 1st rounders back for the return we wanted." Basically telling Philly either you pony something up, or we'll match and you don't get Weber. It's just that the rules stipulate it would have to be a separate transaction from the Weber, even though in real terms it's basically the same thing.
That's interesting - but what's to keep whichever team benefits from the first deal from pulling the plug on the second, besides of course honor?
