Poile was also fielding trade offers before Philly submitted their offer sheet, so don't tell me that the UFA route was the "only shot" that Gillis had at landing him.
I never did say that. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. By not
being the one who submitted the offersheet he's still at least in a better position than Holmgren if Weber ever demands out or if Poile feels like trading him.
In the mean time Gillis has an entire season to get Edler onto a contract and if the age of UFA eligibility rises even by one year, one of the main reasons Gillis didn't at least submit a 1-year offersheet imo (the other obvious reason being Weber's desire for the mega deal), Edler's expected NTC won't be kicking in until July 1st, 2014. One of the biggest reasons Edler couldn't have been a properly valued asset to use in trade discussions when Poile was fielding offers for Weber was the fact that he's currently on an expiring contract in an UFA eligible year. Edler would be a great starting point for a team looking to replace two elite level defenceman and there still could be a fit there if Poile wants out of that deal for 2014-2015 (I doubt they trade him after having to pay that $13m signing bonus on July 1st, 2013 when they could keep him until the 2014 entry draft for only $1m more).
Hey, it's a long shot that I do not believe is ever going to happen, just like Weber's never gonna be in a Flyer uniform now, but in this case the odds are now 1%-0% in favour of Gillis and wasn't that what you were arguing? That Holmgren's 1% was better than Gillis' 0%?
Tables on those odds (as miniscule & irrelevant as they may be) are now flipped.
STL didn't with Backes, nor did we with Bernier. It offers a stronger signal of conviction by the team to match early. Nashville probably had some serious convincing to do, to their ownership group. I would guess that it was a lot closer than what many would think.
Your point about matching early is valid (Kesler, Vanek, Backes, Bernier were all matched within 4 days) and it seems my memory failed me on Kesler's offersheet in particular. I know Sakic's took the whole week (for securing finances so point in your favor again) but Federov's holdout culminating in the 'Canes offersheet took the Red Wings 6 days to match (even though they had every intention of matching despite the $12m bonus clause if he were to end up winning a Cup during that time).
And yet Poile reportedly offered Suter a $10m signing bonus and he also, again reportedly, tried to land Parise as well. There's no way ownership thought those three would come in under $33m so $14m for Weber was always well within reason and likely expected (especially once they struck out on both Suter and Parise) which is why it was ultimately matched. This wasn't a Colorado-Sakic offersheet scenario where they were scrambling to secure finances despite every intent to match (something Neil Smith admitted he told the Rags owners - "they'll never let him go").
I doubt that. Some argue that Holmgren did Poile a favor. They're very buddy-buddy, look at all the trades orchestrated by the two of them over the last decade.
So which is it? Holmgren did his buddy a solid or was he being "proactive and TRY"ing to poach a Norris Trophy candidate? If it's the former, how would that have been better for the Flyers than Gillis re-visiting signing him as an UFA would have been for the Canucks?
Even great relationships can turn sour quickly. Especially after something like this.
The whole "burned bridges" notion is ridiculous. These are grown men. Davidson and Gillis never dealing with eachother ever again is hilarious, as is Burke and Lowe. Ego-driven BS. It'll be a great day in the NHL when a franchise gets the balls to hire a non-member of the old boy's fraternity to run their team.
I thought you were of the opinion it was a catastrophic day in the NHL once Aquillini "got the balls to hire old boy's fraternity non-member" Mike Gillis?
Did Kevin Lowe and Bobby Clarke both not have to move upstairs before another Oilers-Sabres/Flyers-Canucks deal happened or am I mistaken? Have Gillis & Davidson made a trade since? It is
an overblown notion that most GMs absolutely will not deal with GMs who have submitted an offersheet on one of their players, but I highly doubt they trade that exact same matched player to that same team unless they vastly
overpay. I don't believe this has ever been done before, correct me if I'm wrong. Philly traded Chris Gratton back to Tampa after first snatching him away via offersheet (only to watch him bust for them) but that's not the same as being forced to pay far more up front for a player than you needed to and then turning around and trading him to the offending team for a package that is just barely better than what someone else is offering.
Anyway, the thing is, Weber obviously had no great qualms about signing in Nashville, or else he wouldn't have exposed himself to the opportunity of that happening. Nashville's a great organization. I don't really blame him, to be honest. He wanted to (obviously) cash in, which is another thing I certainly don't blame him for. But don't assume that he wanted out so bad. He's in Nashville, not Phoenix.
Yeah, I think we pretty much see eye to eye to this. If Weber truly wanted out ASAP above all else, he would've said yes to a 1-year offersheet. It's obvious that his primary concern was getting in while the gettin's still good (not sure that was wise if there ends up being a big salary roll back). The only part I don't agree with is that Nashville is a great organization. They should've surrounded Suter and Weber with some better offensive support to convince them to stay Predators at cap friendly deals like Gillis did with the twins. They let a 27-year old Hamhuis walk for nothing and the next summer they lost an even better player in a 27-year old Suter for nothing yet again. If Gillis lets Edler walk for nothing next July will he get a free pass too?
Just imagine how great that organization would've looked if they didn't make the no-brainer decision to match. Three top two defencemen walking out of your organization 3 years in a row and all they would've had to show for that would've been four late 1st round picks. Not letting the Sedins slip away for nothing like Poile just did with two of the best two-way defencemen in the game ought to be seen as a positive for Gillis. Especially so when you see that they are on unbelievably cap friendly $6.1m contracts. Either give a positive for Gillis and a break even for Poile, or give a negative for Poile and a break even for Gillis (sorry but 27 forwards making more than $6.1m says it can't be anything but
a positive for Gillis to me).
Edited by Millerdraft, 06 August 2012 - 09:45 PM.