Shea Weber to PHI for what???

[sseagle]

$100M Offer Sheet? 14 years?

I smell a lockout

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=400969

[DaDitka]

Weber's deal is $110M over 14 years, including $68M in signing bonuses over first six years

[DaDitka]

Wow! look at this....

For compensation, they divide 5 years (not 14) into total value (about $100M), which is why #Flyers wld have to give 4 first-rounders.

[glen a richter]

This is ridiculous

[dmiles2186]

I don't blame Weber at all for signing. If someone was stupid enough to present me that much money and that much job security...I'm taking it.

[DaDitka]

I don't mean to be chicken little, but these defensive contracts may very well make keeping Pie impossible.

Hell, I'd be on the phone with Shatty offering him a 6 year 30 million dollar deal right now!

I seriously doubt Pie when sign anything right now for less then 5/35...and I'm not sure he'd sign that.

[glen a richter]

I have no doubt Pie will remain in the note for a long, long time... if the lockout produces a sensible resolution to contract lengths and values.

[DaDitka]

I have no doubt Pie will remain in the note for a long, long time... if the lockout produces a sensible resolution to contract lengths and values.

That....I completely agree with.

But I do still see him getting between 6 to 7 a year on a 5 year (or longer) deal, if he has another strong season an maybe 10 - 15 more points next year. The $/year deal won't be as much an issue as the huge dollars front loaded.

[WaukeeBlues]

Nashville ownership is going to have to think long and hard about this.

My first instinct was "match immediately" no-brainer if you're Nashville but not only is there the cost of the offer sheet but 4 first round picks sitting on the table.

I know a "rebuild" wasn't in the plans but Nashville may have to seriously consider it after Suter leaving for nothing and now Weber being thrown a tenth of a billion dollars.

As for Petro I'm not worried simply because he's not there yet and I think it would be quite cocky, arrogant and unrealistic of him to even claim he's at Weber's or Suter's level right now. 2-3 years down the line I have no doubt he will command a mega salary. But not right now.

[DaDitka]

As for Petro I'm not worried simply because he's not there yet and I think it would be quite cocky, arrogant and unrealistic of him to even claim he's at Weber's or Suter's level right now. 2-3 years down the line I have no doubt he will command a mega salary. But not right now.

I totally agree. My point was that there has been some noise that the team would reach out to him and try to get him done this offseason or next offseason to try and get him a bit cheaper....I don't think he'd be willing to do that now.

I think the bigger effect will be on the second tier talents like Shatty that are going to go from 3 million a year guys to much closer to 5 based on this offseason's signings.

[philco_3]

I hope the new CBA gets this shit under control. I'm sure the owners want to get the payroll down, get these ridiculous lengthy contracts to 5 or 6 years. Also the league needs to properly move Winnipeg to the West and redo all the divisions...correctly, none of that Tampa and Florida in a division with Montreal and Toronto BS.

[WaukeeBlues]

I hope the new CBA gets this shit under control. I'm sure the owners want to get the payroll down, get these ridiculous lengthy contracts to 5 or 6 years. Also the league needs to properly move Winnipeg to the West and redo all the divisions...correctly, none of that Tampa and Florida in a division with Montreal and Toronto BS.

Well they need to stop increasing the cap way above and beyond the rate of inflation, that would definitely help. That's point one.

I'm not necessarily oppossed to the longer term deals per se. What I don't like is what New Jersey got slapped for and that's the "purposeful avoidance of the salary cap." They need to close that loophole with re-drafting the rules to actually provide some clear guidance to GM's as to what's okay and what's not. My thought would be a rule stating that you can sign a player for any number of years that you want, but a certain % differential is not allowed. (E.g. You want to sign Kovy to a 14 year deal? Go right ahead. But you can't have more than a 50% difference in his salary year to year. Something like that). It would discourage long-term deals without forbidding them and also reign in the salary cap circumvention concerns. Boom.

Yea that NHL re-structuring was a joke to the players and the fans. On the business side it was brilliant which is why Bettman was about to have a conniption when the NHLPA rejected it

SO happy they did though.

SE
Nashville
Florida
Tampa Bay
Washington
Carolina

Atlantic
Same

NE
Same

NW
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Colorado
Winnipeg

Central
St. Louis
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Columbus

Pacific
Same

Boom x2

[philco_3]

I hope the new CBA gets this shit under control. I'm sure the owners want to get the payroll down, get these ridiculous lengthy contracts to 5 or 6 years. Also the league needs to properly move Winnipeg to the West and redo all the divisions...correctly, none of that Tampa and Florida in a division with Montreal and Toronto BS.

Well they need to stop increasing the cap way above and beyond the rate of inflation, that would definitely help. That's point one.

I'm not necessarily oppossed to the longer term deals per se. What I don't like is what New Jersey got slapped for and that's the "purposeful avoidance of the salary cap." They need to close that loophole with re-drafting the rules to actually provide some clear guidance to GM's as to what's okay and what's not. My thought would be a rule stating that you can sign a player for any number of years that you want, but a certain % differential is not allowed. (E.g. You want to sign Kovy to a 14 year deal? Go right ahead. But you can't have more than a 50% difference in his salary year to year. Something like that). It would discourage long-term deals without forbidding them and also reign in the salary cap circumvention concerns. Boom.

Yea that NHL re-structuring was a joke to the players and the fans. On the business side it was brilliant which is why Bettman was about to have a conniption when the NHLPA rejected it

SO happy they did though.

SE
Nashville
Florida
Tampa Bay
Washington
Carolina

Atlantic
Same

NE
Same

NW
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Colorado
Winnipeg

Central
St. Louis
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Columbus

Pacific
Same

Boom x2

[glen a richter]

What about when the Islanders move? Another re-alignment, they'll definitely be heading very far west.

[philco_3]

What about when the Islanders move? Another re-alignment, they'll definitely be heading very far west.

I was always thinking they would go as far as Kansas City, but I also think Seattle might be a fit for a NHL team . As far as a new alignment I would always think Columbus or Detroit would cross over, since they are in Eastern time Zone, not Nashville.

[dmiles2186]

What about when the Islanders move? Another re-alignment, they'll definitely be heading very far west.

I was always thinking they would go as far as Kansas City, but I also think Seattle might be a fit for a NHL team . As far as a new alignment I would always think Columbus or Detroit would cross over, since they are in Eastern time Zone, not Nashville.

From what I've read lately, the Islanders are supposedly turning their attention to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, Jay Z's new arena for his Brooklyn Nets. Apparently it was made primarily for basketball (obviously) but can convert to a hockey configuration. The only problem is that in it's hockey setup, it would have the lowest number of seats in the league.

[glen a richter]

If the Islanders relocate within New York, it'll be the opposite direction. I don't think there's any way in the universe they end up at Barclay's. I haven't seen Barclay's yet, my colleague is going there in October to see Rush so I'll ask him then, but getting there has to be a strategic nightmare. Brooklyn isn't the easiest place to get around quickly, and even if you do, good luck finding parking. They'll either have incredibly expensive lots somewhere or people will have to take the railroad which is getting more expensive by the year. If they're spending that much money to take the train to see the Islanders, they'd rather spend the same money to take the train to see the Rangers instead. The Isles don't really have that many fans.

[WaukeeBlues]

If the Islanders relocate within New York, it'll be the opposite direction. I don't think there's any way in the universe they end up at Barclay's. I haven't seen Barclay's yet, my colleague is going there in October to see Rush so I'll ask him then, but getting there has to be a strategic nightmare. Brooklyn isn't the easiest place to get around quickly, and even if you do, good luck finding parking. They'll either have incredibly expensive lots somewhere or people will have to take the railroad which is getting more expensive by the year. If they're spending that much money to take the train to see the Islanders, they'd rather spend the same money to take the train to see the Rangers instead. The Isles don't really have that many fans.

That's what Bettman has been saying too I guess.

Wikipedia (I know, not the best source) says that with hockey it's only a 14,500 capacity: about 600 less than the Winnipeg Jets who sources have said would have to sell-out virtually every game to stay in business. I mean it would be nice for them to have a brand new arena, possibility of attracting a different fanbase, etc, but that capacity is LOW.

And I guess they're already scheduled to play a preseason game against the Devils at Barclay's on October 2nd. Might be a good litmus test to see how many people show up/ gameday parking issues, etc...

[glen a richter]

I just google mapped the exact location of the Barclays Center because I wasn't 100% certain exactly where it's situated. It's fairly close to Manhattan, but decently far from a major road. Anyone who's ever driven in Brooklyn knows that if you're not right off a major highway, you still have a while to go before you get to your destination. The proximity to Downtown Brooklyn is frightening from a parking standpoint. There are lots and you could park pretty far and walk, but the league, Wang, Bettman, they all need to keep in mind that Islanders fans are not spread far and wide. I would venture the guess that you folks have never seen someone walking around St. Louis wearing an Islanders jersey, whereas I have seen people wearing Blues gear here plenty of times. Islanders fans are largely concentrated in Nassau and Suffolk and getting to Barclays by car is not a proposition they'd be willing to undertake. Most people are so scared of driving in the city, even if Brooklyn is just an outer borough, that they'd resort to mass transit and a lot of people don't know how mass transit works unless they're going directly to Penn Station. From what I see, Barclays would definitely not work for hockey. Hell, I'm not even sure it'll work for basketball. Unless the price of the ticket is right, given the choice of going to the Knicks or going to the Nets, most New Yorkers would take the Knicks 99 times out of 100.

Edit: Although there actually is a rail stop right across the street, I didn't know that. Maybe it is fairly accessible if you choose not to drive.

[theohall]

... that they'd resort to mass transit and a lot of people don't know how mass transit works unless they're going directly to Penn Station.

Not understanding mass transit in NYC????? How stupid are these people??? Everything related to mass transit is color-coded. I have been there once - never having been there before - and guided around a family of 15 people simply following the color codes.

AFAIK, most hockey fans are technically savvy which means understanding simple color codes should be easy.

Making the trip??? An entirely different proposition.