EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Why does everybody think weber is going to be in philli, Nasvile will match the contract. If I were GM and weber didnt want to play for my team I would simply match the contract and trade him to a team other then philli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV. Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The best thing for Nashville to do is negotiate sending back a few of the picks for some of Philly's players. Philly gets Weber, Nashville aren't totally shafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 Shea Weber isn't the only guy he failed to get. He also failed to get every other RFA available as well. Also, the Canucks aren't the only team to fail at getting Shea Weber. 29 teams will fail to get him. Just as 29 teams failed to get Justin Schultz. Wow, that's a lot of failure there. So i guess that's a lot of opportunity to cry about failure. I like this notion that the Canucks get to control all aspects in getting whatever players they want. That would be very nice. However, it's plainly obvious that they are not able to control all aspects in getting whatever players they want. It is an unfortunate reality worthy of writing about with some emotion. Strong emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 How precisely do you know that Shea Weber wanted to come here? How do you know the Aquilini's wanted him? It's the conjecture of a reporter. Nothing more, nothing less. If Weber had wanted to come here wouldn't he have taken the time to approach the team before signing the offer sheet with Philly. Yes, it would have been nice to get him but he wasn't ours for the taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Reporters say anything to sell stories whether it is Willes right now saying we should have got Weber or Tony Gallagher in the 90's spewing crap about Pat Quinn, it is all to sell. Most of it is bs but so many take it as the end all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 This is why I really hope NSH does NOT match; it'd be hilarious to see Gilman try and dance around this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Oh, please. Just stop, and leave, if you're not going to make any relevant points. Columbus missing out on Shea Weber doesn't mean as much as Vancouver missing out on him. Shea Weber wanted to come here, the Aquilini's wanted to bring him in, Mike Gillis did not act. That's how this story goes, if you're inclined to agree with guys like Ed Willes and Jason Botchford, who I have no problem doing. Heck, LAWRENCE GILMAN is quoted as saying that they were prepared to do whatever it took to get him! Check out Botchford's recent article on the offer sheet. Weber was EXACTLY what we needed; the missing piece. And all it would've cost was cash and picks, but Holmgren beat Gillis to the punch. I really do think that it was basically that simple. In the meeting, Weber probably stated the type of deal that he was looking for, and Gillis either didn't agree with the value, or just thought to wait. Either way, he LOST. This "29 other teams" rhetoric is a real loser's attitude. 29 other teams aren't under a tight deadline to win a Cup, 29 other teams aren't 1 horse defenseman away from perhaps being the favourite again, 24 other teams weren't the 5 that Weber had expressed interest in, etc. NOT A RELEVANT POINT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Versace ESQ Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 What are you going to order as a side dish, for the big plate of crow you will be eating this season? Boy am I glad we don't have you for our G.M. In Gillis We Trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Ever study game theory? This is a classic example of the prisoners dilemma. If all the GMs wait a year until Weber is FA, it is better for all of them. But if one makes a stupid offer sheet it is better for that one. Philly won't get Weber anyways, Nashville has to match. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I've "lost" the Schultz & Weber talk? OK. Here's one thing I can guarantee: this board would CRASH with excitement had Gillis been able to land either of the two. And now that he didn't, it's flooded with excuses as to why neither of those players are that important (laughable, in the case of Weber). Elvis was saying that he's glad that we didn't sign Weber, out of fear that Aquilini might somehow be in financial hardship because of it. Like, come on. OK, so you're not satisfied. Good. You shouldn't be. This team is worse than what it was last year, as it stands now, and I don't see Roberto Luongo's value getting any higher, especially in light of the fact that he's off making a fool of himself on Twitter. So what happens next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 If Weber wanted to come here, he would just wait a year and come as a UFA... get over it, he didn't want to come here. He was looking for an extreme amount of money, that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Ever study game theory? This is a classic example of the prisoners dilemma. If all the GMs wait a year until Weber is FA, it is better for all of them. But if one makes a stupid offer sheet it is better for that one. Philly won't get Weber anyways, Nashville has to match. http://en.m.wikipedi...r's_dilemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 Philly is further ahead than anyone else in acquiring Weber because Weber chose to sign with them, but that doesn't mean any of those 4 other teams didn't try and that they didn't put out an offer sheet. All we know is that Weber didn't sign one with anyone else, just Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yeah, it's that easy, isn't it? I've got a $110M offer in front of me, from 1 of the 5 organizations which I expressed interest in committing to, but, instead, I'm going to decline this contract, and play for $8M for 1 year, instead, so I can then become a UFA and thus a Canuck. Nevermind that I might get hit by a bus and die next year, suffer a debilitating injury, or just not have a productive season; I'm willing to risk all of those things TO BECOME A CANUCK. Does that sound like the actions of a rational human being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The Canucks are a Pred rival. The Flyers are not. Which offersheet do you think they are more likely to accept? Oh right. That doesn't matter, does it? When Gilman said they considered every scenario, that would mean they also considered a large offersheet. They also considered it being matched, and we're already two steps ahead of your thought process. If only it were just about the Canucks getting what they wanted. The first order of business might be to clean up the fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeMinisterBure Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Feel free to find the actual quotes and post them right beside that to show how I was saying the exact sentiment you quoted. I know you tried to post one quote already in response to EotM's questioning, but that was in response to PrimeMinisterBure's quote about how the possibility of a lockout has "no bearing on this discussion." He even said players aren't paid during a lockout, when only salary isn't paid but signing bonuses are. Here's his actual quote that came before the one you tried to use as proof: Nice try on that. What I have said is I'm glad we didn't offer that level of a deal. It's great to bring down the cap hit, but the term and the amount of the signing bonuses versus salary is insane. And Nashville is still considering matching, so it's absolutely possible it won't work anyways. The structure of the deal with the bonuses is the only reason Nashville doesn't, but that is also arguable that they'd be able to earn that money back by keeping him over the course of the next 3-4 years rather than rebuilding. What I've also said is it's definitely something to think about even for the most successful teams, from a monetary standpoint, from a team structure standpoint, and from a league perspective standpoint. There's risk involved in all, and it's something every team must think about. They have to think about that in terms of a business as well as a hockey team, so you can't lose sight of that when there's no guarantee's this will get Philly a cup, or it would have done so for us. For instance, is there any impact Aquilini's divorce could have that might prevent him from going that high on the signing bonuses, but still offering a similar overall deal? Is it possible that your assumption he is Richie Rich with almost infinitely deep pockets isn't quite accurate, or that the cost of such a deal - particularly in the event of a lockout - might impact ticket prices? You've already said it won't, so you must be right and we all have to believe you. There are immediate factors for the Canucks, like cap space and it's impact on signing other players in future, but there's also how it looks around the league. Market value, or that the market will bear it, is your response to that, but just because one person will pay a high amount for something doesn't mean that everyone should, even if it would benefit them and put them closer to their goal. And you keep saying Vancouver didn't offer sheet Weber and that it was a failure as a result of that. It doesn't say either way in any of the articles I've seen, only that they discussed offers with him and his agent. They discussed amounts they thought would be appropriate and we know they felt Nashville would match. That doesn't mean Weber and his agent didn't factor into that discussion and turn down any offers on the basis that it wouldn't get past Nashville. Certainly all of that suggests more than just them getting together for coffee or something and making minimal effort. Even if you look at the factual quotes from the articles posted, it shows the Canucks at least spent a fair amount of time trying to find a deal that would work, and that Weber was spending a similar amount of time talking with each time trying to do the same. After all that, there's still no guarantee it will and he won't be a Pred next year. That doesn't mean we should just give up, and I don't think we did. It just means Philly was the team he chose to sign an offer sheet with since we really don't know what specifically was discussed or offered, although the article suggests the Canucks were still willing to go similar to what Philly offered. It's not just A or B, black or white. You say only a signed offer sheet would have been a valid attempt. I guess that means 4 of the 5 teams failed, and Philly may still fail as the 5th if Nashville matches. Philly is further ahead than anyone else in acquiring Weber because Weber chose to sign with them, but that doesn't mean any of those 4 other teams didn't try and that they didn't put out an offer sheet. All we know is that Weber didn't sign one with anyone else, just Philly. It's useless for me to keep restating the same things that come from actual proof when you just decide to make them fit whatever you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 There are arguments for many things, but your outright stance that this was a failure for Gillis is so misplaced. It does hit the standards of the tweets in your OP though, even if anything you've argued was nothing close to a 'body blow' to the other side of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 No, we also know that the Canucks did not put forth an offer sheet. Like I said, it will be VERY interesting to hear Gilman's comments if Nashville chooses to not match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yeah, it's that easy, isn't it? I've got a $110M offer in front of me, from 1 of the 5 organizations which I expressed interest in committing to, but, instead, I'm going to decline this contract, and play for $8M for 1 year, instead, so I can then become a UFA and thus a Canuck. Nevermind that I might get hit by a bus and die next year, suffer a debilitating injury, or just not have a productive season; I'm willing to risk all of those things TO BECOME A CANUCK. Does that sound like the actions of a rational human being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 This team's only opportunity to win likely within the next couple decades is now. And yet, Gillis chose to pass up a key piece in possibly making that happen by sitting back and watching what others had the courage to do. And for some reason you and many others on here support him in these decisions. That's pretty unbelievable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.