Adding revenue is the same as takign revenue away. The situations aren't entirely different. Radulov wasn't there most of the year anyways and if there is such a thing as addition by subtraction he is it. Nashville is worse than last year on paper sure they are but they are still a playoff team with Weber. The loss of revenue is more significant than the increase of revenue for the Wild.
The entire "saving face" by having players being traded makes no sense. If Nashville can't match there is no reason for Philly to do it.
If Nashville's situation is as dire as you are saying it might be (which i disagree) then why would Philly want to help them save face.
It is alot easier for me to believe that this entire situation is that Weber wants this deal done before the CBA gets hammered out because he can make all his money up front and get a life time contract; compared to secret deals already established and financial concerns and what not.
I feel like you are trying to convince yourself that he will be a Flyer and if I was a Flyer fan I would want to do the same thing. Is there a chance all of that happened? Sure, but I just don't find it likely compared to Weber getting what he wants financially. All Holmgren did was block a trade else where and gave himself a slim chance.