the biggest indication that Weber was happy and planning to stay in Nashville was his expression of shock that Suter didnt re-sign.
I truly believe weber thought Suter would sign, possibly bringing Parise with him, and then he would sign, either by negotiation or via the offer sheet match
I think the truth is actually the opposite of what most people assume... instead of preferring Philly but reluctantly accepting Nashville, he preferred Nashville, but was willing to accept Philly in order to ensure he got the cash he wanted
That doesn't make sense at all, dude. Suter had already left and Parise didn't sign there. It was a whole new ball game at that point.
the biggest indication that Weber was happy and planning to stay in Nashville was his expression of shock that Suter didnt re-sign.
I truly believe weber thought Suter would sign, possibly bringing Parise with him, and then he would sign, either by negotiation or via the offer sheet match
I think the truth is actually the opposite of what most people assume... instead of preferring Philly but reluctantly accepting Nashville, he preferred Nashville, but was willing to accept Philly in order to ensure he got the cash he wanted
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
This is a business, and Weber knows what side he's batting for now and for the next 14 years. You don't step on the toes of your cellmate the first day of a 14-year sentence.
I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't buy it for a second.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter to anyone but the Predators and Weber. He's going to get $55m in the next three years. He's a Predator for life. He might as well not exist to us outside of one exchange every year.
This is a business, and Weber knows what side he's batting for now and for the next 14 years. You don't step on the toes of your cellmate the first day of a 14-year sentence.
I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't buy it for a second.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter to anyone but the Predators and Weber. He's going to get $55m in the next three years. He's a Predator for life. He might as well not exist to us outside of one exchange every year.
this is your board so I wont argue further... hes ours for 14 years and Im happy and I believe he's happy. Have a good summer, see you in december at the Bridge!
not trying to start crap on your board but thats a pretty uninformed view of the Preds.
its kind of amusing how many fans that dont really follow us act like we are some lottery team who went out and spent huge money on one player but dont have a supporting cast
We were considered a legitimate cup contender last year(most everyone expected us to beat phoenix, but you know how that kind of thing goes).
The only significant loss has been Suter(unless you think losing Jordin tootoo is a crippling blow), and without being too arrogant, we churn out solid defensemen in bunches, so even if we dont sign or trade for another D-man, we arent that much worse if all that happens is everyone else moves up a slot.
plus we have a lot of young wingers who should play better than they did last year, and neither Legwand nor Erat really had great seasons, so I dont think we will be in too much trouble even if we dont add anyone else this summer or next.. and in a couple of years, the financial hit of Webers deal wont be nearly as burdensome, so as long as we dont go belly-up in a year or two(wont happen) we will be fine...
Eventhough I'm a Flyer fan, I don't think your team is in trouble, it's too bad that Suter left but you guys seem to have a habit of producing decent defensemen. You have a good goalie in Rinne, and a number one defenseman in Weber but you might be a little light in offense but Poile has enough assets to trade for someone to fill that need. The only downfall is your in the western conference where fighting for a playoff spot is hard. Eventhough I'd love to see Weber in Orange & Black I'm glad he'll be in Nashville for a long time and not in Pittsburgh or New York.
Philadelphia Flyers expect they'll land Shea Weber eventually, analysts say
Don't worry guys.. our own resident anal-cysts, say we'll eventually get him .....you know when he is a waning star just like we always do...Hawerchuk, Oates, Jagr, Forsberg, Coffey, Pronger, ....Methuselah
Quote:
Maurice Patton of the Tennessean: Al Morganti (former Flyers writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer and current postgame analyst for the Flyers Comcast telecasts) on Shea Weber:
“Long term, they have a laser on this guy,” he said. “Eventually he’ll wind up here. When they target someone like that, one way or another the guy comes to town.”
Don't worry guys.. our own resident anal-cysts, say we'll eventually get him .....you know when he is a waning star just like we always do...Hawerchuk, Oates, Jagr, Forsberg, Coffey, Pronger, ....Methuselah
Haha, wow. You guys have a pretty deep team and there are other d-men out there, plenty of fish in the sea.
I'm wondering if this writer is still hung up on the gap-toothed girl in kindergarten that wouldn't hold his hand.
Don't worry guys.. our own resident anal-cysts, say we'll eventually get him .....you know when he is a waning star just like we always do...Hawerchuk, Oates, Jagr, Forsberg, Coffey, Pronger, ....Methuselah
That was my first thought when I read it. That they would get him when he's 35.
this is your board so I wont argue further... hes ours for 14 years and Im happy and I believe he's happy. Have a good summer, see you in december at the Bridge!
I'm sure that Paul Holmgren is even now taking every step to repair any damage in the friendship between the two organizations to remain active trading partners. Why, I heard that he even sent over an appeasement gift.
Please consider this to be a "good luck" mascot for Shea and for the entire team, which should be kept nearby in the locker room, or practice facility, or even in, say, an office where contract negotiations are conducted. Just as examples, of course!
Don't worry..at least when we "eventually" get him at 35 he wil waive to come to the Flyers...
Quote:
Josh Cooper of the Tennessean: Shea Weber’s agent said to ESPN that they would ask Nashville to add a no-movement or no-trade clause to the contract they just signed.
“We’ve discussed it,” Poile said, “but we have not resolved that yet.”
Yeah, 10 owners, 8 multi millionaires and two billionaires. Good call! LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by phishman420
And now I hope the league get locked out the year.....would laugh my ass off if Nashville goes bankrupt over this.
It would be funny if an NHL team goes bankrupt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAINDON
Weber's agent said he did not want to be in Nashville. Looking forward to his quotes after this.
If he didn't want to be in Nashville he would have signed a one year deal and left to any destination of his choosing. He wanted to be in Nashville, or Philly. That is the condition HE created for himself by signing the offer sheet.
Shea Weber wanted money, lots of it, and he was fine playing in Nashville or Philly to achieve that goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82
the biggest indication that Weber was happy and planning to stay in Nashville was his expression of shock that Suter didnt re-sign.
I truly believe weber thought Suter would sign, possibly bringing Parise with him, and then he would sign, either by negotiation or via the offer sheet match
I think the truth is actually the opposite of what most people assume... instead of preferring Philly but reluctantly accepting Nashville, he preferred Nashville, but was willing to accept Philly in order to ensure he got the cash he wanted
Excellent point and spot on. If destination was first and foremost, like Parise, all Weber has to do is sign a one year deal and then he is GUARANTEED to play wherever he wants.
Dollars>Destination for Weber. Patently obvious. Stevie Wonder, Helen Keller, and Ray Charles could see it.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 09-12-2012 at 08:31 PM.
Reason: merging
Yeah, 10 owners, 8 multi millionaires and two billionaires. Good call! LOL
People don't like to dump millions into something that hasn't earned them money. From what I've read, the Preds haven't turned a profit in quite a while (possibly never). I personally thought it was insane that they would shell out this much money on something that has never made them any profit, but now that I think about it maybe they believe that Weber can bring them a Stanley Cup and that (plus his name) will increase sales of merch andtickets.
I said this in the off season thread also, but it probably is better for here.
Nashville is going to be paying him a ton of money without him quite possibly not playing this year. I think if they do lock out for a long time again, the situation might get tricky in Nashville.
I said this in the off season thread also, but it probably is better for here.
Nashville is going to be paying him a ton of money without him quite possibly not playing this year. I think if they do lock out for a long time again, the situation might get tricky in Nashville.
Except, even if there is an entire season lost, they have to pay him, what, $24 million in bonuses? They don't get that back, and his salary for 2013-2014 is like $2million, right?
The lockout is a problem for them, sure, but I don't see how it makes it any more likely that they will move Weber, since they can't move him before the second bonus is paid out anyway.
Right, because it would unmask your misguided comment. You implied that because these men have money, that the Predators were "laughably" able to avoid the aforementioned financial suicide. You relegated his comment to the absurd, because of that reason.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. He clearly said the Nashville organization will have money issues. He was not addressing the owners who have said stake in that particular business.
Also, don't try to dodge me. It won't work.
Quote:
And you sound like someone who can't interpret a post correctly.
Sadly, I spent far too much money, time, ink, beer, and coffee, working on logic to be poor at it. You're the one who responds with a comment about the owners, when the original poster was referencing the team.
The owner's total sum of money from aggregate businesses and capital =/= the team's earnings.
smoka47: "Y is X."
You: "Z is ~X!"
Your comment is worthless.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 09-13-2012 at 09:07 PM.
Reason: cleaning up
You implied that because these men have money, that the Predators were "laughably" able to avoid the aforementioned financial suicide. You relegated his comment to the absurd, because of that reason.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. He clearly said the Nashville organization will have money issues. He was not addressing the owners who have said stake in that particular business.
Except is it laughable to assume they were unable to cover this contract. It's far from financial suicide.
The ownership group will have no fiscal issues in covering the debt from Weber's contract. They can EASILY get a loan to cover it if necessary. At worse, the ownership group can decide to inject outside capital from their personal funds.
It was NEVER a financial capability issue, it was always a financial commitment issue.
Except, even if there is an entire season lost, they have to pay him, what, $24 million in bonuses? They don't get that back, and his salary for 2013-2014 is like $2million, right?
The lockout is a problem for them, sure, but I don't see how it makes it any more likely that they will move Weber, since they can't move him before the second bonus is paid out anyway.
something like that yes. The majority of his payouts for the first 6 years are in signing bonuses, his base salary is very low. The bonuses are paid regardless of the lockout.
Except is it laughable to assume they were unable to cover this contract. It's far from financial suicide.
Sure, for the owners. I think we can both admit it will tax the team, which is what Smoka said. It's unfair to strawman him, which is what goober was trying to do.
Quote:
The ownership group will have no fiscal issues in covering the debt from Weber's contract. They can EASILY get a loan to cover it if necessary. At worse, the ownership group can decide to inject outside capital from their personal funds.
I think the latter is more likely. Owners are rich. They don't like loans. Loans usually imply interest. Their own money buys them more stake (sometimes) -- plus no interest.
Quote:
It was NEVER a financial capability issue, it was always a financial commitment issue.
Yep. And a commitment to losing money (at least up front). If you get to know a lot of rich people, it is not easy to get significant money from them. That's why they're rich. Heck, 80% of them drive used cars, for all that money they have. Fiscal people.
I think the latter is more likely. Owners are rich. They don't like loans. Loans usually imply interest. Their own money buys them more stake (usually) -- plus no interest.
I've read the NHL has offered no interest loans to teams for this sort of thing in the past...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener
Yep. And a commitment to losing money (at least up front). If you get to know a lot of rich people, it is not easy to get significant money from them. That's why they're rich. Heck, 80% of them drive used cars, for all that money they have. Fiscal people.
This is true.
Pro sports is a bit of a different business paradigm as a profit motive isn't the ultimate goal (for some owners).
That was my first thought when I read it. That they would get him when he's 35.
