Poop teams? They draft and develop players better than any other team in the league, except probably Detroit. Philly fans should know that. Your team is and has been littered with former Preds, not to mention the attempt to sign Hamhuis.

And why should teams like Philly help support other teams? Look at the NFL. More revenue sharing than any league, and it's a behemoth. Guys like Snider and Dolan, and on down the line know that what's best for the league and their franchises is a league with as many competitive and viable teams as possible. Do you think the owners would get the TV, and sponsorship revenue they currently do in a 10-12 team (7 in canada) league? Of course not.

Also, the revenue sharing requires teams to improve themselves or they get cut off. And these things are cyclical. There was a time when Colorado and Dallas were big spenders and teams like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Calgary were broke.
- schiefer466

I agree.. but selection areas need to be more wisely selected. Having 2 teams in florida, one in Phx, one in Nashville, and so on isnt exactly the greatest of ideas..

Paul McCann: Does the Weber Offer Sheet violate the "sprit and intent" of the CBA?
- pmccann

I hope the Preds either match or the league says is invalid... Tired of teams doing this offersheet Cr*P. Again, exactly what is wrong with this league... here we go again. if was a free agent and they wanted to pay him that much..fine but to pout Nashville against the wall is just plain WRONG

That cant happen.. you cant have a decreased cap limit yet an increased cap hit. It will destroy the NHL, and I seriously doubt the players would agree to that.
- jak521

I don't believe he cap his will be increased. Any long deal will be grandfathered in. However, I would expect about a 5-10% reduction in cap with no rollback. So teams tight to the cap cold be scramling in 2013-2014

really? So your saying your players would rather just sign in Philly then wait so they can have there prices driven up? I can see teams like the Rangers, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit to name a few that would pay a nice chunk of change to have Giroux on there roster.
- sabrescupbound

Wrong! It is $27m paid over one year for "two" years of service. The money is already in the Nashville budget. The total is less than what was anticipated as the payout for Suter and Weber. Poile is being very smart. He is freezing Holmgren. Let's see what Holmgren is ready to offer by next Tuesday afternoon. The best option for Poile is to do a good deal. The best option for Holmgren is to pay a fair price for Weber. He has one shot and he needs to make a very good offer to ensure it happens.
- spatso

WRONG! It was suggested suck it up have him for the one year and then trade him... If he isnt traded prior to July 1 it would absolutely be 24 mil for one year of service.

Are you serious?? To question this contract and not the 104.4 million dollar contract signed by Sidney Crosby in which he receives 36 million in the first three years of the deal which if continued would be 72 million over 6 years. Weber's deal will pay him 68 million over the first 6 which is less than the Crosby deal. Bottom line is Congrats to Paul Holmgren for having the balls to get this done and second if David Poile had the balls he would have done this last year. It's managements fault in Nashville their team is in this mess. My advise for Nashville is get a new GM and stop crying about things you could have avoided i.e ( no Suter and possibly now no Weber)
- RobFlyers#1

Crosby 's was a contract extension not a offersheet where another team suffers....

Paul McCann: Does the Weber Offer Sheet violate the "sprit and intent" of the CBA?
- pmccann

YOU ARE WRONG! there has already been contracts just like this see erhoff. The league put the kovy rule in to govern contracts from that point on. This follows all of them Bonus money is not factored in that is why the word SALARY is used NOT SALARY + BOUNUS. Does it suck for nashville I guess. Did the Pass the last CBA?

i think theres a more in the background than we know. for one, dreger reported homer and poile talked at length, and deadlines were set. he also reported poile and preds management were aware of the offer sheet and that it was going to be signed. i could be way off but i dont think nashville is going to match. these 7 days are going to be for poile to try to save face and get what he can. add on top the comments from the agent, and its pretty clear where weber does and doesnt want to be. i think weber signed the offer sheet knowing full well it wouldnt be matched, even though that will never come out.
- flyershockey

I understood the problem was that Holmgren thought he was close to a deal with Poile but Poile continued talking with other teams. The offer sheet was to shut down Nashville doing a deal with another team.

Wrong! It is $27m paid over one year for "two" years of service. The money is already in the Nashville budget. The total is less than what was anticipated as the payout for Suter and Weber. Poile is being very smart. He is freezing Holmgren. Let's see what Holmgren is ready to offer by next Tuesday afternoon. The best option for Poile is to do a good deal. The best option for Holmgren is to pay a fair price for Weber. He has one shot and he needs to make a very good offer to ensure it happens.
- spatso

No team in the NHL is paying anyone 26 or 27 mill in the first 13 months then move him. Will not happen. It obviously can't in the first 12 months, but you don't ask your owner for 26 million, sell him on the player and then turn around a year later and move him. You simply cannot recoup that money. There are no margins in this sport unless you are in a big or major hockey market.

Forget about trading Weber if you are Nashville. If they match. He's there player for a very long time. Accepting the offer sheet will also automatically dramiatically decrease the short term value of the franchise. If you own them you would have to ride the wave for at least 4 or 5 years to start seeing any kind of return on your money.

I agree.. but selection areas need to be more wisely selected. Having 2 teams in florida, one in Phx, one in Nashville, and so on isnt exactly the greatest of ideas..
- jak521

Lumping Nashville into that group isn't a great idea. Look at attendance, sponsorships, tv ratings, season ticket sales and on down the line, Nashville is a legitimate market, while being a fraction of the size of Phoenix, Miami, or Dallas.

I don't believe he cap his will be increased. Any long deal will be grandfathered in. However, I would expect about a 5-10% reduction in cap with no rollback. So teams tight to the cap cold be scramling in 2013-2014
- Bieksa#3

It was suggested that terms that are like Webers now will be more like 45-50 mil over 5 years. You cant have that happen. Imagine trying to sign the star player from your team... the cap hits would be insane... were talking 10 mil cap hits. One player with a ten mil cap hit.

i agree Nashville has nobody to blame but themselves. They could have signed him last yr to 3yr 21mil deal as they view him as Keith Yandle type when clearly around the league he is viewed as the Zdeno Chara type.
- 215mike

You can MAKE players sign contracts? Well S**T!!!! Poile really isn't doing his job then is he?

Look, he offered and has been offering them (Suter and Weber) contracts for two years now. They wanted out, and good for them, it's their right to leave if they want to. But let’s not act like it was negligence by Poile's ok?

I understood the problem was that Holmgren thought he was close to a deal with Poile but Poile continued talking with other teams. The offer sheet was to shut down Nashville doing a deal with another team.
- spatso

dreger reported that in the talks, homer set a deadline with poile at which point an offer sheet would be submitted. then also tweeted homer tried to be diplomatic, got frustrated and in true flyer spirit said "ok, we'll do business our way."

I don't believe he cap his will be increased. Any long deal will be grandfathered in. However, I would expect about a 5-10% reduction in cap with no rollback. So teams tight to the cap cold be scramling in 2013-2014
- Bieksa#3

If they roll back the cap, the salaries will be rolled back as well. Not the bonuses, but the salaries. Teams will not be left scrambling to the extent that many think, but regardless this contract protects Weber.

The Preds were counting on the market place to be reduced after the new CBA. Another team just called that bluff.

Lumping Nashville into that group isn't a great idea. Look at attendance, sponsorships, tv ratings, season ticket sales and on down the line, Nashville is a legitimate market, while being a fraction of the size of Phoenix, Miami, or Dallas.
- schiefer466

and still lost money....

YOU ARE WRONG! there has already been contracts just like this see erhoff. The league put the kovy rule in to govern contracts from that point on. This follows all of them Bonus money is not factored in that is why the word SALARY is used NOT SALARY + BOUNUS. Does it suck for nashville I guess. Did the Pass the last CBA?
- PhillyFran

Well with the Kovy situation, the league looked at the contract, said it violated "the spirit and intent of the CBA" and nullified it. There was nothing in the CBA at the time about the disparity between salary in the firs years versus the last years when Kovy signed. The rule was then written after the first contract was voided, because the Devils were clearly trying to circumvent the cap to gain an advantage.

It could hypothetically happen here. Because there is nothing written about factoring in bonus money, and how much is paid in a calendar year vs the league year, and so on, doesn't mean it can't be deemed in violation, just like the Kovy situation. Not saying it will happen, but merely it certainly is possible.

That cant happen.. you cant have a decreased cap limit yet an increased cap hit. It will destroy the NHL, and I seriously doubt the players would agree to that.
- jak521

Decreased cap limit? If the owners get that plus a limit on term lengths they're using Jedi mind tricks.

I don't believe he cap his will be increased. Any long deal will be grandfathered in. However, I would expect about a 5-10% reduction in cap with no rollback. So teams tight to the cap cold be scramling in 2013-2014
- Bieksa#3

We weren't talking about what could happen to this deal with a new CBA, we were discussing what kind of deal he could have gotten if he waited until next year.

It was suggested that terms that are like Webers now will be more like 45-50 mil over 5 years. You cant have that happen. Imagine trying to sign the star player from your team... the cap hits would be insane... were talking 10 mil cap hits. One player with a ten mil cap hit.
- jak521

1 player with a 10 mil cap hit. That's ludicrous, preposterous, that can't happen. Oh wait, that's Ovechkin, and he's been just under 10 mil for a few seasons already.

No team in the NHL is paying anyone 26 or 27 mill in the first 13 months then move him. Will not happen. It obviously can't in the first 12 months, but you don't ask your owner for 26 million, sell him on the player and then turn around a year later and move him. You simply cannot recoup that money. There are no margins in this sport unless you are in a big or major hockey market.

Forget about trading Weber if you are Nashville. If they match. He's there player for a very long time. Accepting the offer sheet will also automatically dramiatically decrease the short term value of the franchise. If you own them you would have to ride the wave for at least 4 or 5 years to start seeing any kind of return on your money.
- acmilano3

You seem to have turned everything upside down, perhaps it is what you want to believe. Nashville has to match (or get a great trade return) to protect the value of the franchise. The money to pay Weber is already in the budget. All this was made a lot easier when Suter moved on. Weber stays in Nashville unless Holmgren puts up the kind of trade offer that Poile likes.

DING!

You are correct Paul.

The intent of tyhe CBA was to create a much more level playing field of the have's and have-nots.

Now I am not saying Nashville is a Have-Not Franchise but I think it is an honest statement saying that their ability to turn a solid profit year after year is not as strong as a team like Philly.

This contract is shows a very ugly ambition by owners. Nashville cannot match with actually harming their franchise. They cannot sign him without harming any chance of success.

Who cares about 4 first rounders when they will be in the lower to mid 20 picks and even if they were good picks, they will not bear fruit until 2018.

Bite a $27 mill bullet for 1 year of service and then trade him?
- LordStanley88

The reason you feel its ridiculous is because it doesn't blatantly favor Philly and will basically ensure he never wears a Flyers uniform.

I hope Nashville does it. Whether its within the rules or not, whether they should have had Weber re-signed or not, whether Suter left or not...douche move. Its poaching however you might dress it up.

Lumping Nashville into that group isn't a great idea. Look at attendance, sponsorships, tv ratings, season ticket sales and on down the line, Nashville is a legitimate market, while being a fraction of the size of Phoenix, Miami, or Dallas.
- schiefer466

Nashville had a LOCAL TV rating of 1.0.. and that was up from .04 the year before. They were one of the best teams in the league all season long yet managed to only sell out half of their home games... and that was a drastic jump from the year before. They made 26 million in ticket sales last year INCLUDING the playoffs... Philly made 58 in the regular season ALONE. I understand they are not a big city, but neither is Buffalo. Nashville has never been above 20th in attendance in the NHL....

DING!

You are correct Paul.

The intent of tyhe CBA was to create a much more level playing field of the have's and have-nots.

Now I am not saying Nashville is a Have-Not Franchise but I think it is an honest statement saying that their ability to turn a solid profit year after year is not as strong as a team like Philly.

This contract is shows a very ugly ambition by owners. Nashville cannot match with actually harming their franchise. They cannot sign him without harming any chance of success.

Who cares about 4 first rounders when they will be in the lower to mid 20 picks and even if they were good picks, they will not bear fruit until 2018.
- Beatle_john

if suter and parise were approved, then no, Paul is not correct. where was this blog from him about those contracts?

Think about it......lets say the league has 3 groups of franchises. 1) willing to go over the cap and spend an average of 12 mill over the cap. 2)teams that spend a healthy amount and make a little or break even. 3) the duds. Phx, Florida, Jackets etc. Those 10 teams are handed 12 mll a piece on a ere from the big boys going over the cap. The bottom teams wouldn't compete but they lose wayyyy less money. It really is common sense
- Bieksa#3

i agree they could compete but they wont keep there players if teams are willing to spend over the cap and they don't mind the luxury tax then can still offer smaller players way more than their team can afford ... for example stamlos tampa bay .. small market team if you are allowed to spend over the salary cap but pay a tax then you can offer as much as you want lets say 15 mil over the cap so you pay a 15 mil luxury tax and divide that between ... 6 small market teams so each team gets 2.5 mil from the original 15 paid in tax... how does that help tampa bay keep stamkos....theoretically....