bottlecap Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 About players not wanting to come to Buffalo... It's one thing that Buffalo is a small city with none of the big-city thrills that a NYC could provide. Buf if you come to a team that treats you like a king, a lot of people would want to play here. The way Darcy suspended a long -term veteran for having heart surgery, it makes you look petty and unclassy and adds to the difficulty attracting players here...it leaves a bad impression. Now he's playing, but with a grievance hanging over him and the team.
Mike Oxhurtz Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 About players not wanting to come to Buffalo... It's one thing that Buffalo is a small city with none of the big-city thrills that a NYC could provide. Buf if you come to a team that treats you like a king, a lot of people would want to play here. The way Darcy suspended a long -term veteran for having heart surgery, it makes you look petty and unclassy and adds to the difficulty attracting players here...it leaves a bad impression. Now he's playing, but with a grievance hanging over him and the team. I agree. It's also the same as people booing Drury & Briere when they come back to Buffalo.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Listening to Darcy's interview in between periods, it kinda sounded like his hands were tied. I don't think this is right to put it on him. When they asked about the grievance, he specifically said the union views it one way and "the owners see it another way." I think the league pretty much told the Sabres to do this because it was a non-hockey injury and they did not want precedent being set that players will be paid when they suffer non-hockey injuries. I agree it is petty and looks horrible, just saying Darcy probably had little or no say as to what happened. At best it came from Tommy G and at worst from the owners as a group.
R_Dudley Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Listening to Darcy's interview in between periods, it kinda sounded like his hands were tied. I don't think this is right to put it on him. When they asked about the grievance, he specifically said the union views it one way and "the owners see it another way." I think the league pretty much told the Sabres to do this because it was a non-hockey injury and they did not want precedent being set that players will be paid when they suffer non-hockey injuries.I agree it is petty and looks horrible, just saying Darcy probably had little or no say as to what happened. At best it came from Tommy G and at worst from the owners as a group. Great point and and something I had not considered, that the league overall may have influenced the apporach/decision but I am still not sure what that say's about LQ and TG and if that gets them off the hook. They ultimately have to be responsible for the PR of the business they run/own.
Goodfella25 Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 To be honest, I think Teppo is in the wrong here. He signed a contact and then could not pass a simple physical because of a condition that I don't believe should be considered a "hockey-related injury". Nevertheless, Teppo's greivance still remains and he is citing his heart surgery as a hockey-related injury, which doesn't make sense. And although I don't think playing a sport like hockey could help a heart in that condition, I do not believe that hockey CAUSED the injury, which is the whole point of the suspension/greivance. That being said, I love Teppo, I'm glad he was able to have successful surgery and put a dangerous thing behind him, and I hope somehow everything works out and he comes back this season.
R_Dudley Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 To be honest, I think Teppo is in the wrong here. He signed a contact and then could not pass a simple physical because of a condition that I don't believe should be considered a "hockey-related injury". Nevertheless, Teppo's greivance still remains and he is citing his heart surgery as a hockey-related injury, which doesn't make sense. And although I don't think playing a sport like hockey could help a heart in that condition, I do not believe that hockey CAUSED the injury, which is the whole point of the suspension/greivance. That being said, I love Teppo, I'm glad he was able to have successful surgery and put a dangerous thing behind him, and I hope somehow everything works out and he comes back this season. Yes as my signature line says always 3 sides to every story and Teppo does not get a free pass from me either. However as a Business you know you have to spend money on marketing and what I am wondering is if they may have been able to work this a little different and spent some of that money as a marketing ploy. Call it a good faith/goodwill gesture on rewarding one of your loyal veterans when allot of bleeding is already going on about how you treat said veterans. Was it worth 2.6 M, I don't know maybe not however I can't believe they wouldn't have had some insurance on the side on something they already knew had risks or that they couldn't have negotiated something else/less given circumstances rather than how they did make it look. They are in a business that has a large marketing component so there is no excuse for not considering the effect of all the decisions they make on the public and workers perception of the company. Last now that he is back with the team and started practicing and getting into game shape end the suspension and stop looking like such pissants
wjag Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 About players not wanting to come to Buffalo... It's one thing that Buffalo is a small city with none of the big-city thrills that a NYC could provide. Buf if you come to a team that treats you like a king, a lot of people would want to play here. The way Darcy suspended a long -term veteran for having heart surgery, it makes you look petty and unclassy and adds to the difficulty attracting players here...it leaves a bad impression. Now he's playing, but with a grievance hanging over him and the team. Business, plain and simple.. This has all the earmarks of a trial balloon for both sides... For all we know, he might have retired and was talked out of it by his union.
X. Benedict Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 About players not wanting to come to Buffalo... I can't help but laugh Zed, and this doesn't impeach your opinion, but aren't you the guy that wants to get rid of all the guys playing for Buffalo: Gaustad, Hecht, Kotalik, Mair etc....? :)
gregkash Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 About players not wanting to come to Buffalo... It's one thing that Buffalo is a small city with none of the big-city thrills that a NYC could provide. Buf if you come to a team that treats you like a king, a lot of people would want to play here. The way Darcy suspended a long -term veteran for having heart surgery, it makes you look petty and unclassy and adds to the difficulty attracting players here...it leaves a bad impression. Now he's playing, but with a grievance hanging over him and the team. How many of you would be complaining about paying Teppo 2.6 million to do nothing while we're penny pinching? You'd all be on DR for that too. So really, I don't have a problem with it.
tom webster Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 How many of you would be complaining about paying Teppo 2.6 million to do nothing while we're penny pinching? You'd all be on DR for that too. So really, I don't have a problem with it. As we have said on the other thread, this has nothing to do with what's right or what we think. The only thing that matters is what players around the league think. Like someone else said in one way or the other, you spend all this money trying to recruit players and build a better team and than you shoot yourself in a foot. As far as complaining if it were the other way, the real complaint about the organization in this matter is that went for the cheaper alternative and got burned by his health, not much different than what they did with Timmy.
Team Strike Force Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 The doctors say he's ready to play, but does that mean he's ready to play in a game? How long will it take for a 40 year old to condition himself after he's been cleared? Why should the Sabres pay him for that? I don't think he's going to play again, anywhere.
Team Strike Force Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 As we have said on the other thread, this has nothing to do with what's right or what we think. The only thing that matters is what players around the league think. Like someone else said in one way or the other, you spend all this money trying to recruit players and build a better team and than you shoot yourself in a foot.As far as complaining if it were the other way, the real complaint about the organization in this matter is that went for the cheaper alternative and got burned by his health, not much different than what they did with Timmy. Cheaper alternative to what, though? Souray? Timmonen? The last two years Teppo has been a good fit. You can rake the management over coals for lots over the last two offseasons, but not this. It was a good signing at the time to keep him around. No one could have known something like this was on the horizon in 2006. EDIT: After poking around, maybe the Sabres could have seen it coming, just not so soon.
tom webster Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Cheaper alternative to what, though? Souray? Timmonen? The last two years Teppo has been a good fit. You can rake the management over coals for lots over the last two offseasons, but not this. It was a good signing at the time to keep him around. No one could have known something like this was on the horizon in 2006. EDIT: After poking around, maybe the Sabres could have seen it coming, just not so soon. Of course you pick the two most over payed defensemen to make your point. How about Brad Stuart at $3.5 million. There are other free agent signings and other trades that were available if you want to google a list of free agent signings. The Sabres needed to do something to address the backend last off season and did nothing. They benched Spacek and Kalinin in the playoffs but made no attempt to bolster the defense and were thus counting on a forty year old with a heart condition who had to sit out games for them in pervious seasons due to an irregular heart beat.
LabattBlue Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Of course you pick the two most over payed defensemen to make your point. How about Brad Stuart at $3.5 million. There are other free agent signings and other trades that were available if you want to google a list of free agent signings. The Sabres needed to do something to address the backend last off season and did nothing. They benched Spacek and Kalinin in the playoffs but made no attempt to bolster the defense and were thus counting on a forty year old with a heart condition who had to sit out games for them in pervious seasons due to an irregular heart beat. What happened to the thumbs up smiley? Am I the only one who now only sees half of the smileys? :angry:
wjag Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 What happened to the thumbs up smiley? Am I the only one who now only sees half of the smileys? :angry: No.. I don't have them either. I just presume they haven't been restored yet..
SabresFan526 Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 My only problem here with this management with regard to Teppo is consistency. If you don't want to pay players who are injured, then suspend Tim Connolly. If you're going to let Tim Connolly collect $3.5 million from you for not playing games, then Teppo deserves $2.6 million for not playing games, just like Martin Havlatt receives $6 million for not playing games. Here's my point, the policy of the Sabres management is highly inconsistent here. I understand that they are well within their rights to not pay Teppo for his injury, but if they can justify paying Connolly for no reason, then they should be able to justify paying Teppo for no reason as well. I don't view the situations as differently. Bottom line, one guy is getting paid for not playing games due to injuries while another guy is not getting paid for not playing due to injuries. It's an inconsistent policy.
tom webster Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 My only problem here with this management with regard to Teppo is consistency. If you don't want to pay players who are injured, then suspend Tim Connolly. If you're going to let Tim Connolly collect $3.5 million from you for not playing games, then Teppo deserves $2.6 million for not playing games, just like Martin Havlatt receives $6 million for not playing games. Here's my point, the policy of the Sabres management is highly inconsistent here. I understand that they are well within their rights to not pay Teppo for his injury, but if they can justify paying Connolly for no reason, then they should be able to justify paying Teppo for no reason as well. I don't view the situations as differently. Bottom line, one guy is getting paid for not playing games due to injuries while another guy is not getting paid for not playing due to injuries. It's an inconsistent policy. As much as I disagree with their stance on Teppo, these are two different situations, i.e. Connolly's injuries are work incurred and related.
R_Dudley Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 The doctors say he's ready to play, but does that mean he's ready to play in a game? How long will it take for a 40 year old to condition himself after he's been cleared? Why should the Sabres pay him for that? I don't think he's going to play again, anywhere. The salary is prorated at this point and I believe I recall it works out to something like 31500 a game give or take a 100. So sure let him condition himself for a few games and then re-instate him for the last 4 or so games. If he is leaving the sport as you say let him go out a Sabre(very classy) if he plays well and still has something left I think he would be good influence to have around for the kids next season(weber, sekera, funk) assuming he would even consider coming back to this team, so maybe that little concession, show him we want him, would help bridge that and also demonstrate to the rest of the league/players that maybe all the gossip isn't true... Whats that advertising cost you approx 100 to 150k ? A drop in the bucket for a small advertising campaign knowing the all the papers across country that carry hockey will be picking up and reporting it all... IMO thats not a bad price to pay for that publicity.. Thats all I'm saying ,,, and rest assured all you board old timers I'm done and I won't beat this dead horse no more.. :rolleyes: ... speaking of which I do miss that icon.. Are all the icons coming back anytime ?
SabresFan526 Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 As much as I disagree with their stance on Teppo, these are two different situations, i.e. Connolly's injuries are work incurred and related. You're missing the point. I totally understand the CBA and how it's worded. The management is not legally in the wrong for not paying Teppo. I'm not disputing that part. What I'm saying is that their stance here is inconsistent. And, the CBA as it's written is inconsistent in my opinion. It justifies paying some guys for injuries and not others. For example, guys who get the flu, how is that hockey related? Those guys miss games but get paid. Why not suspend them? Jason Blake or Phil Kessel get cancer. Should they be suspended as those are not hockey related injuries? I understand the rule, but why is it okay to pay a guy who has cancer and misses games vs. paying a guy with heart problems who misses games vs. paying a guy who has the flu who misses games. None of those are hockey related injuries. So who should get paid and who shouldn't? Do you see my point? It's an inconsistent policy at its core. Not arguing whether the Sabres are right or wrong as clearly they are correct based on the wording of the CBA. It's their enforcement of it that bothers me and the inconsistent nature of its enforcement.
tom webster Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 You're missing the point. I totally understand the CBA and how it's worded. The management is not legally in the wrong for not paying Teppo. I'm not disputing that part. What I'm saying is that their stance here is inconsistent. And, the CBA as it's written is inconsistent in my opinion. It justifies paying some guys for injuries and not others. For example, guys who get the flu, how is that hockey related? Those guys miss games but get paid. Why not suspend them? Jason Blake or Phil Kessel get cancer. Should they be suspended as those are not hockey related injuries? I understand the rule, but why is it okay to pay a guy who has cancer and misses games vs. paying a guy with heart problems who misses games vs. paying a guy who has the flu who misses games. None of those are hockey related injuries. So who should get paid and who shouldn't? Do you see my point? It's an inconsistent policy at its core. Not arguing whether the Sabres are right or wrong as clearly they are correct based on the wording of the CBA. It's their enforcement of it that bothers me and the inconsistent nature of its enforcement. As fas as I know, Buffalo has been the only team refusing to pay anybody. You make a good point about Cancer. I wonder how everyone would feel about the situation if Teppo was diagnosed with Cancer. Again, I am not arguing with you but I do see the difference between Connolly and Teppo. Its not much different in the work place were you collect disability if hurt off the job and get workers comp when hurt on the job. You can be let go for excessive disablity but they have to let you come back after workers comp.
spndnchz Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 As fas as I know, Buffalo has been the only team refusing to pay anybody. You make a good point about Cancer. I wonder how everyone would feel about the situation if Teppo was diagnosed with Cancer. Again, I am not arguing with you but I do see the difference between Connolly and Teppo. Its not much different in the work place were you collect disability if hurt off the job and get workers comp when hurt on the job. You can be let go for excessive disablity but they have to let you come back after workers comp. Campbell was let go for excessive sweating, at least we got a player and a pick!
apuszczalowski Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 You're missing the point. I totally understand the CBA and how it's worded. The management is not legally in the wrong for not paying Teppo. I'm not disputing that part. What I'm saying is that their stance here is inconsistent. And, the CBA as it's written is inconsistent in my opinion. It justifies paying some guys for injuries and not others. For example, guys who get the flu, how is that hockey related? Those guys miss games but get paid. Why not suspend them? Jason Blake or Phil Kessel get cancer. Should they be suspended as those are not hockey related injuries? I understand the rule, but why is it okay to pay a guy who has cancer and misses games vs. paying a guy with heart problems who misses games vs. paying a guy who has the flu who misses games. None of those are hockey related injuries. So who should get paid and who shouldn't? Do you see my point? It's an inconsistent policy at its core. Not arguing whether the Sabres are right or wrong as clearly they are correct based on the wording of the CBA. It's their enforcement of it that bothers me and the inconsistent nature of its enforcement. There is a difference, First off, Connolly was injured (many times) on the job, so they can't suspend him without pay for missing time, Teppo's injury is not work related, i.e. he did not get this heart condition playing for the Sabres. Second, guys missing a game or 2 for the flu is like you missing a couple days at work, they are called sick days, and alot of places will still pay you something for missing those days due to illness. Now as for Kessel and Blake (and Koivu too) how much time did they miss and were they getting paid under their NHL contracts? I guess it all depends on weither the "took a leave of abscence" voluntarily, or the team made them leave too. If they didn't miss much time, or weren't going to be out of the lineup long, the teams may have just let them stay on the roster so they could be put back in whenever they were ready. Also how many of those guys missed time after the lockout (I know Kessel did) with the Salary Cap in place? Did any of the players with Cancer fail physicals too? They knew Teppo was going to be lost for a while, and possibly the entire year, or force him to retire. He is only on a one year contract so what people are saying is that the Sabres should have paid him even if he never stepped foot on the ice under this contract as a "PR move" to the NHL so that they would look good to other players by showing that they will pay you no matter what?
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 How many of you would be complaining about paying Teppo 2.6 million to do nothing while we're penny pinching? You'd all be on DR for that too. So really, I don't have a problem with it. True. It is just man, the Sabres can't buy a PR break! Half is their doing though!
Done Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 As fas as I know, Buffalo has been the only team refusing to pay anybody. You make a good point about Cancer. I wonder how everyone would feel about the situation if Teppo was diagnosed with Cancer. Again, I am not arguing with you but I do see the difference between Connolly and Teppo. Its not much different in the work place were you collect disability if hurt off the job and get workers comp when hurt on the job. You can be let go for excessive disablity but they have to let you come back after workers comp. Just like I am not able to win a lawsuit against the Sabres if a puck hits me in the head while in the stands because of assumption of risk, the Sabres had known of Teppo's heart condition. If Teppo tried to mislead them about it in the past, then they can claim fraud and suspend him. By my knowledge, unless there was a specific clause stating that his heart was specific contract matter, by signing Teppo to previous contracts with a known heart condition....this is just a continuation of agency and he should be paid in my opinion. You know they are playing dirty pool when there was no mention to the media, and the transaction took place on a Friday at 4:55 PM. Typical political crap...send out bad info on a Friday afternoon so it gets burried over the weekend if you are lucky.
tom webster Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 Just like I am not able to win a lawsuit against the Sabres if a puck hits me in the head while in the stands because of assumption of risk, the Sabres had known of Teppo's heart condition. If Teppo tried to mislead them about it in the past, then they can claim fraud and suspend him. By my knowledge, unless there was a specific clause stating that his heart was specific contract matter, by signing Teppo to previous contracts with a known heart condition....this is just a continuation of agency and he should be paid in my opinion. You know they are playing dirty pool when there was no mention to the media, and the transaction took place on a Friday at 4:55 PM. Typical political crap...send out bad info on a Friday afternoon so it gets burried over the weekend if you are lucky. Talk abot un-classy and political garbage, what a joke showing Teppo during the telecast talking about getting ready and than not even meantioning the grievance. MSG's broadcast has become a joke when it comes to any kind of journalistic integrity.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.