Skip to content

Columnist argues that Weber will either sign a long-term deal or get traded

Jul 8, 2012, 6:10 PM EDT

Nashville Predators v Vancouver Canucks - Game Five Getty Images

Restricted free agent Shea Weber could sign a one-year deal with the Nashville Predators and then test the unrestricted free agent market in 2013, but the New York Post’s Larry Brooks doesn’t think he’ll do that.

The problem, as Brooks sees it, is that the new CBA might combat the heavily front-loaded, long-term contracts that we seen superstars command over the last few years. With the current CBA set to expire on Sept. 15, Weber might not have much time left if he wants to sign a deal similar to what his former teammate, Ryan Suter got.

That actually works to the Nashville Predators advantage, as it’s one thing they could potential hold over Weber’s head even if he’s uncertain about the direction of the franchise after the team lost Suter. On the other hand, it might also lead Weber to request a trade in the hope that he can head to a team that he does want to sign a lifetime contract with before they go out of style.

Of course, all this is just speculation until we get more of an indication of what’s happening with Weber.

What we do know is that the Nashville Predators are turning their attention towards re-signing Weber now that they’ve lost Suter. We also know that Weber didn’t want to go to arbitration.

It’s also reasonable to say that if the Nashville Predators do decide to trade Weber, they could get a pretty large haul for him despite the fact that he’s currently unsigned. In fact, given his age and what Weber brings to the table, it wouldn’t be surprising if Nashville could get more back for him than Columbus could get for Rick Nash.

  1. ray2013 - Jul 8, 2012 at 7:09 PM

    That columnist is reading my comments on PHT! It’s an easy observation to make. Since he skipped arbitration, he has to sign a deal with the Preds. They’re not going to want to do this all again next year, so it’ll have to be a long-term deal.

    If he refuses to sign a long-term deal with the Preds, then they have to move him as soon as possible to get the max value and whoever signs him will have to work very hard to get him signed to a long-term deal. No one will want to pay a King’s ransom for Weber only for him to leave next year. Should be interesting.

    • aosplayo - Jul 8, 2012 at 8:15 PM

      I doesn’t have to be a long term deal, he can do another 1 year deal. I agree they will move him, but to title this as an argument is silly. Theres 3 choices:
      1. He signs a deal with Nash (short or long)
      2. Some team makes an offer sheet for him, he still has to sign but would be silly to since Nash will match it, as they said they would.
      3. They trade him

      • ray2013 - Jul 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM

        Does it make sense for Weber to sign an offer sheet from any team, and allow Nashville to match? I don’t think it does.

        If he decides he no longer wants to play for Nashville, then he’d probably try to force a trade to a team he wants to play for, like Nash and Luongo are doing. Signing an offer sheet takes away his control and makes it an either/or situation. Either he signs with Team X, or Nashville matches and he’s in Nashville.

        Signing a short-term deal also doesn’t make much sense for Nashville. Why would they sign him for one year (or even two or three) and let him get to UFA status? Then he can leave and they would get nothing (like with Suter). A long-term deal also has the added benefit of lowering the cap hit for a player like Weber. As a comparison, Suter is going to make $12 million next season. Weber, as a superior player, could probably ask for more and get it. So in order to get his cap hit to a manageable number, and make sure Weber gets paid, it has to be a long-term deal.

        If they decide to trade him, how big of an offer in terms of players, prospects and picks would you have to give to get a player like him? If I gave up a first-liner, my top prospect(s) and a few top draft picks for Weber, I’d want to make sure I had him locked down to a long-term deal, or I will have given away a ransom for a single season.

        Of course, it’s all speculation on my part. I’m just an idiot with a computer. But this situation only makes sense to me is if Nashville signs a long-term deal with Weber, or they trade him. And since Team X is going to have to pay a ransom to acquire Weber, they’re going to want to get full value for that ransom by locking up Weber until he retires (or something happens to force a trade later).

  2. noozehound - Jul 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM

    come to Minnesota! ;-)

  3. purpleguy - Jul 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    Is the nickname of that NY Post coumnist “Captain Obvious”?

Featured video

Are Penguins vulnerable vs. Columbus?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. E. Malkin (4647)
  2. T. Oshie (3782)
  3. M. Duchene (3500)
  4. B. Bishop (3068)
  5. H. Zetterberg (2961)
  1. D. Backes (2942)
  2. M. Brodeur (2926)
  3. P. Bergeron (2860)
  4. V. Tarasenko (2852)
  5. S. Crosby (2287)