Jump to content

Photo

Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet


  • Please log in to reply
256 replies to this topic

#121 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,519 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:44 AM

It's going to shrink, but by how much is the question. I believe the formula for the cap is (revnues * player share) / 30 + 16 (and the floor is just -16). If that's the case then at the 46% share the owners are seeking for the players (down from 57%) then the new cap max is around 62m. If they settle at 50/50 split then the cap hit is 66m.


A shrinking cap, especially a big shrink, will have to have a system in place for teams that were spending up to the old cap can get relief. It could be buyouts, it could be blanket salary reductions, etc...

His contract is 35+ so if he retires they should be hit nailed for cap space, no?

Edit: I may have misread your opening sentence.


Ya, I was agreeing with you. I was just pointing out that Pronger on the LTIR still hurts the Flyers since you don't actually "get back" the cap space, you're just allowed to go over the cap by that amount. Not getting to bank free cap space for a whole season definitely hurts at trade deadline.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#122 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,309 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:45 AM

A shrinking cap, especially a big shrink, will have to have a system in place for teams that were spending up to the old cap can get relief. It could be buyouts, it could be blanket salary reductions, etc...

Ofcourse, but that's the equivalent of being in cap trouble. Basically meaning the Flyers hand, in one way or the other is now going to be forced.
  • 0

#123 Satans Hockey

Satans Hockey

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,261 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:02 AM

:e-drama:
  • 0

#124 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:05 AM

I have to hand it to the Flyers. Weber is a transcendent player. I thought someone would do this, 4 first rounders is not that much to give up for a talent like Weber, and Weber would get that contract on the UFA market (possibly more than that). Now he might not live up to it, but I'd rather bet on Weber than Suter or Jordan Staal or whoever else has gotten a 10 year+ contract.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#125 DaneykoIsGod

DaneykoIsGod

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,187 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:46 AM

Except that we know the league is ok with hugely front loaded contracts to restricted free agents. They've been going on for decades and the NHL and NHLPA have never deemed to limit them in the CBA. The "spirit" has nothing to do with majorly front loading contracts, it's all about manipulating the cap hit to artificially lower it.

I agree that huge front loaded contracts are BS, but there is no way you're getting an arbiter to agree to void this contract the way the CBA is written.

I will now use the cred that I earned by pointing out I argued with almost the whole board the the Devils and Kovy would lose the last arbitration case and I thought it seemed pretty clear cut. This also seems clear cut, the league would lose so they won't challenge it.


OK, I feel like we're going in circles. Let me ask this: What previously written rules did the Kovalchuk contract violate? IIRC, the Kovy deal didn't violate anything as it was written, but clearly violated the loosely defined "spirit" of the salary cap. Therefore they wrote a new rule specifically addressing why it violated the spirit and amended it to the CBA.

In this case, once again we have a deal that doesn't violate anything as it's currently written, but is pretty clearly violating the loosely defined "spirit" of the salary cap. Therefore IMO they need to write a new rule addressing why it violates the spirit and amend it to the CBA (or, more likely, wait and address it with the new CBA).

Either I'm incorrectly remembering how the Kovy saga played out, or we're disagreeing on what exactly counts as violating the spirit of the cap.

Edited by DaneykoIsGod, 19 July 2012 - 11:48 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

"I don't like those Rangers fans from New Jersey." - Jim Dowd

#126 nyrsuck26

nyrsuck26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:50 AM

Well, this is certainly interesting if nothing else.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#127 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,519 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:52 AM

OK, I feel like we're going in circles. Let me ask this: What previously written rules did the Kovalchuk contract violate? IIRC, the Kovy deal didn't violate anything as it was written, but clearly violated the loosely defined "spirit" of the salary cap. Therefore they wrote a new rule specifically addressing why it violated the spirit and amended it to the CBA.

In this case, once again we have a deal that doesn't violate anything as it's currently written, but is pretty clearly violating the loosely defined "spirit" of the salary cap. Therefore IMO they need to write a new rule addressing why it violates the spirit and amend it to the CBA (or, more likely, wait and address it with the new CBA).

Either I'm incorrectly remembering how the Kovy saga played out, or we're disagreeing on what exactly counts as violating the spirit of the cap.


My disagreement here is that the front loading on contracts has nothing to do with the "spirit" of the cap. The "spirit" was and is about teams artificially lowering the cap hits of contracts to get around the cap ceiling. Front loading a contract doesn't violate any "spirit" since it has been done for decades with neither the NHL nor NHLPA wanting to stop it.

Kovy's contract was designed to circumvent the salary cap with years at the end that no reasonable person would believe would be played which were in place only to lower the average yearly cap hit, that's a violation of a written, but vague, rule at the time. The Weber contract violates no written rule, vague or strict, so has no reason to be voided.

Edit: The "spirit" never really existed, it was just shorthand for saying there is a vaguely written rule we believe has been violated. The vagueness has been removed so teams effectively can not violate the "spirit" now that the rule is no longer vague.

Edited by Devils731, 19 July 2012 - 11:54 AM.

  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#128 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,309 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:56 AM

OK, I feel like we're going in circles. Let me ask this: What previously written rules did the Kovalchuk contract violate? IIRC, the Kovy deal didn't violate anything as it was written, but clearly violated the loosely defined "spirit" of the salary cap. Therefore they wrote a new rule specifically addressing why it violated the spirit and amended it to the CBA.

In this case, once again we have a deal that doesn't violate anything as it's currently written, but is pretty clearly violating the loosely defined "spirit" of the salary cap. Therefore IMO they need to write a new rule addressing why it violates the spirit and amend it to the CBA (or, more likely, wait and address it with the new CBA).

Either I'm incorrectly remembering how the Kovy saga played out, or we're disagreeing on what exactly counts as violating the spirit of the cap.

26.3 Circumventions.
(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements,
assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or
written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other
transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended
to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the
intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including
without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations
of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range, Player Compensation Cost
Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency


The problem with the Kovy contract was that everyone knew he wouldn't be playing his last 5-6 years where he was scheduled to be making 550k / year, which was only included to lower cap hit extraordinarily. The argument the NHL made was that players rarely play after their 40's and the Kovy rule they agreed upon specifies that it's only for players contracts that take them past the age of 41 (and are longer then 5 years).

This contract for Weber is pretty different, his last 3 years he makes 1m, and it only takes him to 40. The only part that's "hazy" is the front loading which makes it hard for the other team to match, but that's sort of the point of an RFA offer, you want to make it something difficult for them to match so you get your player. (you could also be doing it just to hamstring another team, but I think it's safe to say here the Flyers want Weber, not to screw the Preds over).
  • 0

#129 jim777

jim777

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:04 PM

This must mean Pronger is done.


I know I've said this before but Pronger was only recently cleared to drive a car short distances (Haddonfield to Voorhees, maybe 4 or 5 miles). It's nearly inconceivable that he returns as a player - he has a lot of symptoms still. I personally think he's done, but you definitely have to GM the team like he's not coming back.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png   # 44, Stephane Richer

believe-elias.jpg

"bring knee pads...wear flattering attire...hair and makeup should be performance ready" -from Devils Dance Team audition notice


#130 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,429 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:04 PM

A shrinking cap, especially a big shrink, will have to have a system in place for teams that were spending up to the old cap can get relief. It could be buyouts, it could be blanket salary reductions, etc...


Amnesty clause in the new CBA is also a very real possibility. If they institute an amnesty clause and the Flyers get Weber, they won't have to worry about Pronger's contract at all as they'd likely use it on him.

Its too early to predict the implications on the Flyers future at this point with the new CBA yet to be seen. Even there, getting into cap trouble is worth it to bring a guy like Weber aboard. He changes the whole complexity of their defense.

Regardless of salary trouble, Weber on the Flyers means we still have to deal with him for the next decade.
  • 0

#131 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,415 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:09 PM

I'm part of the crew that says "hell no" to facing Weber for the next 14 years. Nashville really "has" to match or their will be discontent in the fan-base like non other. But it doesn't sound like they want to match.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#132 DaneykoIsGod

DaneykoIsGod

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,187 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:36 PM

My disagreement here is that the front loading on contracts has nothing to do with the "spirit" of the cap. The "spirit" was and is about teams artificially lowering the cap hits of contracts to get around the cap ceiling. Front loading a contract doesn't violate any "spirit" since it has been done for decades with neither the NHL nor NHLPA wanting to stop it.

Kovy's contract was designed to circumvent the salary cap with years at the end that no reasonable person would believe would be played which were in place only to lower the average yearly cap hit, that's a violation of a written, but vague, rule at the time. The Weber contract violates no written rule, vague or strict, so has no reason to be voided.

Edit: The "spirit" never really existed, it was just shorthand for saying there is a vaguely written rule we believe has been violated. The vagueness has been removed so teams effectively can not violate the "spirit" now that the rule is no longer vague.


Ah, OK. So it's basically a disagreement over what "spirit" means.

I believe the Kovy saga addressed one aspect of the spirit of the cap. I also believe "spirit" is too vague a term to be defined in one shot. I believe that one of the main points of a salary cap is to allow teams to be able to compete on a level playing field when it comes to attracting and keeping talent. A big-market team front-loading a contract with so much bonus money that a small-market team couldn't possibly afford to match is a blatant violation of this aspect of the cap's spirit, IMO.

Does this deal violate anything addressed in the original CBA or the Kovy amendment? No. But it is a giant middle finger to one of the core reasons for having a salary cap in the first place.

The problem with the Kovy contract was that everyone knew he wouldn't be playing his last 5-6 years where he was scheduled to be making 550k / year, which was only included to lower cap hit extraordinarily. The argument the NHL made was that players rarely play after their 40's and the Kovy rule they agreed upon specifies that it's only for players contracts that take them past the age of 41 (and are longer then 5 years).

This contract for Weber is pretty different, his last 3 years he makes 1m, and it only takes him to 40. The only part that's "hazy" is the front loading which makes it hard for the other team to match, but that's sort of the point of an RFA offer, you want to make it something difficult for them to match so you get your player. (you could also be doing it just to hamstring another team, but I think it's safe to say here the Flyers want Weber, not to screw the Preds over).


Again, I'm not saying this Weber offer violates the spirit of the cap in any of the same ways the Kovy deal did. I understand that they're different and that this doesn't violate anything as it's currently written. This is a brand new violation of a completely different part of the cap's "spirit", IMO.

It was in that part you quoted: "No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements ... if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to ... Team Payroll Range, ..."

One of the main points of the cap is to keep a level playing field when it comes to team payroll range. This deal flaunts how much more payroll range (not cap space, but cash money payroll range) the Flyers have than the Predators. This offer almost reverts the league back to pre-cap days where the Flyers, Rangers, Red Wings, etc. can outbid anyone else by just putting more money in a couple years into the deal than any small-market team could afford to pay out.
  • 0
Posted Image

"I don't like those Rangers fans from New Jersey." - Jim Dowd

#133 msweet

msweet

    The Voice of Reason

  • Admin
  • 8,869 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:36 PM

I'm part of the crew that says "hell no" to facing Weber for the next 14 years. Nashville really "has" to match or their will be discontent in the fan-base like non other. But it doesn't sound like they want to match.


http://predators.nhl...s.htm?id=638229

Nashville, Tenn. (July 19, 2012) – Nashville Predators President of Hockey Operations/General Manager David Poile issued the following statement this morning:

"We are in receipt of the offer sheet signed between the Philadelphia Flyers and Shea Weber. Under the rules pertaining to an offer sheet, the Predators have one week to decide whether to match or accept the compensation. We have stated previously that, should a team enter into an offer sheet with Shea, our intention would be to match and retain Shea. Our ownership has provided us with the necessary resources to build a Stanley Cup-winning team. Due to the complexity of the offer sheet, we will take the appropriate time to review and evaluate it and all of its ramifications in order to make the best decision for the Predators in both the short and long-term.

“We do not anticipate any further comments on this situation until we make our decision within the next seven days.”


  • 0
Follow me on Twitter @MSweetwood

"Quite frankly, all the players are getting paid too much and all the contracts are too long," general manager Lou Lamoriello said. "But if you want to compete in this market and you want to win, there are some things you have to do."


#134 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:49 PM

Again, I'm not saying this Weber offer violates the spirit of the cap in any of the same ways the Kovy deal did. I understand that they're different and that this doesn't violate anything as it's currently written. This is a brand new violation of a completely different part of the cap's "spirit", IMO.

It was in that part you quoted: "No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements ... if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to ... Team Payroll Range, ..."

One of the main points of the cap is to keep a level playing field when it comes to team payroll range. This deal flaunts how much more payroll range (not cap space, but cash money payroll range) the Flyers have than the Predators. This offer almost reverts the league back to pre-cap days where the Flyers, Rangers, Red Wings, etc. can outbid anyone else by just putting more money in a couple years into the deal than any small-market team could afford to pay out.


This deal is no different in spirit than any of the huge deals paid out of late. It just changes how and when Shea Weber gets his money and capitalizes on the fact that there's an impending lockout and as such for every game Nashville misses, that's money they lose because of Weber's contract. The Predators are able to pay out this contract, it's whether or not they want to. It's very clearly not a circumvention of the salary cap.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#135 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,415 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:50 PM

http://predators.nhl...s.htm?id=638229

Nashville, Tenn. (July 19, 2012) – Nashville Predators President of Hockey Operations/General Manager David Poile issued the following statement this morning:

"We are in receipt of the offer sheet signed between the Philadelphia Flyers and Shea Weber. Under the rules pertaining to an offer sheet, the Predators have one week to decide whether to match or accept the compensation. We have stated previously that, should a team enter into an offer sheet with Shea, our intention would be to match and retain Shea. Our ownership has provided us with the necessary resources to build a Stanley Cup-winning team. Due to the complexity of the offer sheet, we will take the appropriate time to review and evaluate it and all of its ramifications in order to make the best decision for the Predators in both the short and long-term.

“We do not anticipate any further comments on this situation until we make our decision within the next seven days.”


I was referring specifically to this when I made my comment. This and the fact that they were trying to trade him.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#136 DaneykoIsGod

DaneykoIsGod

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,187 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:06 PM

This deal is no different in spirit than any of the huge deals paid out of late. It just changes how and when Shea Weber gets his money and capitalizes on the fact that there's an impending lockout and as such for every game Nashville misses, that's money they lose because of Weber's contract. The Predators are able to pay out this contract, it's whether or not they want to. It's very clearly not a circumvention of the salary cap.


To the first bolded point: Right, just like the Kovy deal was no different from the Luongo, Pronger, etc. deals except for how much more extreme and blatant it was.

If this Weber deal goes through, it won't be because the Flyers had more cap space than the Predators. It'll be because they have more money than the Predators. And that's the exact kind of thing the cap was supposed to stop.

And to the second bolded point: There are plenty of reports saying the Predators aren't exactly in great financial standing. Unless you've seen their books, I'm not sure how you can say for sure that they'd be able to afford to pay one player $56M over four years. It's not even necessarily a bonus issue. It's a sheer volume of cash in a short period of time issue. Not all teams can compete equally when it comes to that, and that's exactly what the cap was put in place for.

Sure, it fits the NHL-approved contract template released after the Kovy mess. But the Kovy deal fit the template (or lack thereof) that existed beforehand and was similar to prior approved deals. Just like that, this seems OK on the surface, but flies in the face of one of the biggest reasons we lost an entire season.

The cap is meaningless if big-market teams are still able to outbid small-market teams.

Edit: Sorry for how long an redundant that post was. I'm writing this while doing 10 other things and lost my train of thought a couple times. :lol:

Edited by DaneykoIsGod, 19 July 2012 - 01:08 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

"I don't like those Rangers fans from New Jersey." - Jim Dowd

#137 roomtemp

roomtemp

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:07 PM

The problem with the Kovy contract was that everyone knew he wouldn't be playing his last 5-6 years where he was scheduled to be making 550k / year, which was only included to lower cap hit extraordinarily. The argument the NHL made was that players rarely play after their 40's and the Kovy rule they agreed upon specifies that it's only for players contracts that take them past the age of 41 (and are longer then 5 years).

This contract for Weber is pretty different, his last 3 years he makes 1m, and it only takes him to 40. The only part that's "hazy" is the front loading which makes it hard for the other team to match, but that's sort of the point of an RFA offer, you want to make it something difficult for them to match so you get your player. (you could also be doing it just to hamstring another team, but I think it's safe to say here the Flyers want Weber, not to screw the Preds over).


My problem with the punishment with the Kovalchuk contract was the fact that it was a battle that the Nhl should have waged when the first of its kind came in. Like is Kovalchuk at 44 more unreasonable then Luongo at 43? Since then the rules have been set and anyone complaining at this point just has a sore butt over what happened.
  • 0

#138 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

The length or total monetary value does not irk me but these crazy signing bounuses really grinds my gears. :argh:
  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#139 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,309 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:13 PM

My problem with the punishment with the Kovalchuk contract was the fact that it was a battle that the Nhl should have waged when the first of its kind came in. Like is Kovalchuk at 44 more unreasonable then Luongo at 43? Since then the rules have been set and anyone complaining at this point just has a sore butt over what happened.

On that I agree entirely. I had no problem with the NHL voiding the contract, I thought the punishment (really just the 1st rounder) was excessive. Especially considering they "fixed" those contracts right after, I really felt that punishing the Devils served little to no purpose.
  • 0

#140 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:14 PM

To the first bolded point: Right, just like the Kovy deal was no different from the Luongo, Pronger, etc. deals except for how much more extreme and blatant it was.

If this Weber deal goes through, it won't be because the Flyers had more cap space than the Predators. It'll be because they have more money than the Predators. And that's the exact kind of thing the cap was supposed to stop.


That's not true. The cap was to give the league cost-certainty. Revenues are now tied to a salary cap. I mean, in 2003-04, I think the Red Wings had $70M in salary obligations. We're just now reaching that point under a cap system. Still, there's a salary cap and a salary floor, it's not an 'everyone spends the exact same amount' system.

The cap is meaningless if big-market teams are still able to outbid small-market teams.


You mean like the 2006-07 off-season when Danny Briere, Chris Drury, and Scott Gomez all went to big-market teams from small and mid market teams, all with enormous increases in salary?

The cap is not meaningless if big-market teams are still able to outbid small-market teams. That's how any system should work. Contracts like Weber's present an incredible risk that can only be taken on by a large-market team or by a lunatic owner. It's 14 years long.

I agree that these contracts will be going away in the next CBA, as they should, but a lot of them are going to blow up in that time and we'll see why it can be such a bad decision to sign one. Under the old CBA, small-market teams had the advantage that UFA age was 31 - well past a player's prime. A 29 or 30 year old could be dumped off to a big market team for assets which could re-stock the organization. The problem was, the big-market teams weren't making any money because they had to compete with each other for these old players.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users