While he would rather be in Philly, he still has to be at least ok with Nashville. If he is 100% against going back there then he wouldn't take that chance. He'd hold out longer and try and force a trade without signing an offer sheet. Not like it's early september and the clock is really ticking.
- schiefer466

I pretty much agree with this. He wanted a long, term deal and a signing bonus in case of lock out. His preference would be the Flyers but understands that he may stay in Nashville.

Last time I checked every team has a cap. No matter how great Philly is, they can't offer every guy huge contracts. You'll have Giroux, Couturier, and Schenn all up as RFA's in two years. Good luck keeping them all
- sabrescupbound

Especially with Pronger's cap hit lasting the test of time.

and thats why trading him after one year shouldnt even be an option on the table. but hes still paid for 2 years, not 1. its beyond inaccurate to say hes being paid 27mm for 1 year.
- flyershockey

If they trade him after the first season they got one year of service and they paid $27M for it; that's not inaccurate, it's a fact. Arguing over semantics in this case is stupid when the reality of the situation is all that really matters.

Especially with Pronger's cap hit lasting the test of time.
- p_zub

During the season, his salary will on LTIR, so it won't count against the cap.

Especially with Pronger's cap hit lasting the test of time.
- p_zub

LTIR, won't be on the cap, nice try though.

Last time I checked every team has a cap. No matter how great Philly is, they can't offer every guy huge contracts. You'll have Giroux, Couturier, and Schenn all up as RFA's in two years. Good luck keeping them all
- sabrescupbound

Funny because we also have Timonen and Briere coming off. That right there is 14 million dollars.

If they trade him after the first season they got one year of service and they paid $27M for it; that's not inaccurate, it's a fact. Arguing over semantics in this case is stupid when the reality of the situation is all that really matters.
- Jeffmt

Its coming from the (frank)ing eyes of the team trading him.

The point was it would be dumb for the Preds to sign him and then trade him in a year because !!THEY WOULD BE PAYING HIM 27 MILLION FOR ONE YEAR!!
- jak521

No, no, no, you don't get it. He is being prepaid his salary in advance but from the actual budget year funds that he is playing in. If he is traded his salary is paid for the coming year. Obviously Nashville would look for consideration in that regard. It is a very easy thing to do.

- jak521

still PAYING for 2 regardless of if he only served 1. that's your own fault as an org if you trade someone at that point.

LTIR, won't be on the cap, nice try though.
- flyershockey

It's not a clean break, remember. It's on your cap until the first game of the season, and even then, you can only replace his salary with an amount equal to Pronger's caphit - Total available cap space. It's not a easy scenario to plan for, especially as your younger players starting hitting their RFA years.

still PAYING for 2 regardless of if he only served 1. that's your own fault as an org if you trade someone at that point.
- flyershockey

forget it.. its useless.

It's not a clean break, remember. It's on your cap until the first game of the season, and even then, you can only replace his salary with an amount equal to Pronger's caphit - Total available cap space. It's not a easy scenario to plan for, especially as your younger players starting hitting their RFA years.
- p_zub

you dont plan 6 years down the road.. you look at the immediate future. Too much can happen from now until then.

As it is.. We have Hartnell, Timonen, Shelley and Walker all coming off next year. That right there is 14 mil. A few years further down the road Briere and his 6.8 mil come off..

If they trade him after the first season they got one year of service and they paid $27M for it; that's not inaccurate, it's a fact. Arguing over semantics in this case is stupid when the reality of the situation is all that really matters.
- Jeffmt

No, they still got 1 year of service for just the bonus paid now plus the salary. The second half of the bonus on July 1, 2013 (them fulfilling the contract and thus keeping it, then later trading it) is how they got whatever it is they received in trade. It's not semantics, it's simple logic. Next seasons bonus is related to next season, not this one. The league operates season to season, not based on calendar years.

forget it.. its useless.
- jak521

your train of thought? i agree...

If they trade him after the first season they got one year of service and they paid $27M for it; that's not inaccurate, it's a fact. Arguing over semantics in this case is stupid when the reality of the situation is all that really matters.
- Jeffmt

It may cost them $27 million for one year's service, but the cost to franchise will be much greater if fans revolt on the team for letting their star player walk for a bunch of prospect they hope will become serviceable NHLers, nevermind elite All Stars.

your train of thought? i agree...
- flyershockey

So you go out and by a car... It costs 10,000 for two years.. but at the end of year one it dies. No refund. You still paid for two years, but you only get one year out of it. SO, you paid 10,000 for ONE YEAR OF USE.

So you go out and by a car... It costs 10,000 for two years.. but at the end of year one it dies. No refund. You still paid for two years, but you only get one year out of it. SO, you paid 10,000 for ONE YEAR OF USE.
- jak521

whens the last time you bought a car that way? never?

still PAYING for 2 regardless of if he only served 1. that's your own fault as an org if you trade someone at that point.
- flyershockey

This is just a silly argument that goes around in a circle because some people want it to mean something other than what it means. The payment in July is simply an advance of monies from the following season. If it was anything else it would violate the salary guidelines of the NHL. So, the any attempt to trade the player in the second year would require consideration in respect of the advance.

If the deal went through as is and Weber became a Flyer and hypothetically the Flyers wanted to trade him they would have exactly the same restrictions and opportunity. The offer sheet is a contract, binding on the offering team and binding on the matching team if they decide to match the offer.

No, they still got 1 year of service for just the bonus paid now plus the salary. The second half of the bonus on July 1, 2013 (them fulfilling the contract and thus keeping it, then later trading it) is how they got whatever it is they received in trade. It's not semantics, it's simple logic. Next seasons bonus is related to next season, not this one. The league operates season to season, not based on calendar years.
- Antilles

Essentially it's like paying a player's full annual salary before the season starts, trading him for another player and then having to pay that player throughout the season. You've paid out annual salaries for two players and only gotten service from one. It's a bad investment any way you look at it. Anyway, I've made my point, I'm done arguing about it.

whens the last time you bought a car that way? never?
- flyershockey

and im done.

No, they still got 1 year of service for just the bonus paid now plus the salary. The second half of the bonus on July 1, 2013 (them fulfilling the contract and thus keeping it, then later trading it) is how they got whatever it is they received in trade. It's not semantics, it's simple logic. Next seasons bonus is related to next season, not this one. The league operates season to season, not based on calendar years.
- Antilles

Exactly, to do it differently would not be cap compliant.

Essentially it's like paying a player's full annual salary before the season starts, trading him for another player and then having to pay that player throughout the season. You've paid out annual salaries for two players and only gotten service from one. It's a bad investment any way you look at it. Anyway, I've made my point, I'm done arguing about it.
- Jeffmt

Part of Weber's value at the time of the trade is that he has already been paid for the season. If you don't take that into account and demand equal value in return, that's your own fault. And it doesn't change that money paid for next season is related to next season, not this one.

No, they still got 1 year of service for just the bonus paid now plus the salary. The second half of the bonus on July 1, 2013 (them fulfilling the contract and thus keeping it, then later trading it) is how they got whatever it is they received in trade. It's not semantics, it's simple logic. Next seasons bonus is related to next season, not this one. The league operates season to season, not based on calendar years.
- Antilles

This whole thing is insane. IF they match and trade him in a year, they will have paid two bonuses: one for the season he played, and the next bonus for the upcoming season even though he is no longer playing for them. In affect, he played ONE season, but got paid for the two. So when someone says he is getting paid 27m for one season.. to them he indeed got paid 27 million for one season with them. Nobody is disputing the actual way it is written out.

and im done.
- jak521

because you tried to use an unrealistic example to prove your incorrect point? you should be done.

This whole thing is insane. IF they match and trade him in a year, they will have paid two bonuses: one for the season he played, and the next bonus for the upcoming season even though he is no longer playing for them. In affect, he played ONE season, but got paid for the two. So when someone says he is getting paid 27m for one season.. to them he indeed got paid 27 million for one season with them. Nobody is disputing the actual way it is written out.
- jak521

they only got one season but hes still being paid for two. so the 27mm is for two years, not one, no matter how it affects nashville. the point of contention is the 27mm, as the argument is shea is being paid 27mm for one year. hes not. and i thought you were done?