tom webster Posted March 30, 2008 Author Report Posted March 30, 2008 Did the same rules apply under the old CBA? I'm not even talking about the cap here. What were the ramifications for the same move back then, ifi it was even allowed under the same circumstances? I don't know, but I'm not going to point to an extinct set of rules when trying to point out the errors made today. You're missing one important fact though and that is the age and contract status of these players. At 38, Teppo is not likely to play beyond this year. The others you mentioned were all young and in the middle of longer contracts. These guys are far more likely to play again and there is far more incentive to "keep them happy". You are really reaching, which is surprising coming from you. You want me to find another case involving a 39 year old defensemen on a one year contract with a team that claims it has limited resources and wears blue and gold, I can't find you another exact example. As for the old CBA, I again don't think its relevant, but I will let the Koivu case go The Pisani case is identical. An important point to remember, also, is that Buffalo kept Teppo on their reserve list just like Edmonton could have done with Pisani. The point you are missing most, however, is that is important to other players perceptions that you do the right thing as much as it is important to keep the specific player happy.
SabresFan526 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Posted March 30, 2008 While I generally see where you are coming from, Tom, with regard to the Teppo case, I can't really say that we should fault the management on this front. They did the exact same thing that Risebrough did for Foster with Tim Connolly. Whether we agree with the decision to qualify Tim Connolly when his playing future was incredibly uncertain and only allowed him to play only 2 games last year and be completely out of shape for the playoffs, the fact is, the Sabres front office negotiated in good faith with Connolly like Risebrough did with Foster. I agree where you are coming from, but given that they did the same thing for Connolly, it's tough to say that they didn't negotiate in good faith with Connolly, whether deserved or not. Just my opinion.
shrader Posted March 30, 2008 Report Posted March 30, 2008 You are really reaching, which is surprising coming from you. You want me to find another case involving a 39 year old defensemen on a one year contract with a team that claims it has limited resources and wears blue and gold, I can't find you another exact example. That's exactly my point. The Teppo situation wasn't like anything else that has happened around this league. The point you are missing most, however, is that is important to other players perceptions that you do the right thing as much as it is important to keep the specific player happy. All that really matters is where they go from here. If they move forward and take care of their own, the players' perceptions will quickly change. I think its safe to say that guys like Derek Roy and Jochen Hecht have no problem with the way the team treats their own players. Take care of a few more people and that will spread.
Bmwolf21 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Posted March 30, 2008 Here's a good column comparing the Numminen, Pisani and a couple other similar situations - it's a little older (Sep 2007) but pretty well written. LINK The Edmonton Oilers didn't suspend winger Fernando Pisani for being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis -- the intestinal disorder that has hit thousands of people -- so he couldn't take his training camp physical. The Detroit Red Wings didn't suspend Jiri Fischer for his heart condition last year, even though he couldn't pass the physical. They paid him. I also understand the Colorado Avalanche paid Steve Konowalchuk's $1.8-million US salary last year when he suddenly was told he had a heart problem and couldn't play anymore. Yet, the Buffalo Sabres get word that defenceman Teppo Numminen needs heart surgery -- possibly a new valve -- and can't pass his physical, so they suspend him so they don't have to pay one of the NHL's all-time good guys if he can't play for the first month or so. I know in the salary-cap world that teams have to watch their money. Buffalo says it has cap concerns and not having Numminen's $2.6-million salary on the books would give them some relief, because they're about $5 million from the $50.3-million ceiling. But it still seems heartless on Buffalo's part. No pun intended. Numminen has never taken a shortcut in his long NHL career; he's played hurt, he's played sick.
tom webster Posted March 30, 2008 Author Report Posted March 30, 2008 While I generally see where you are coming from, Tom, with regard to the Teppo case, I can't really say that we should fault the management on this front. They did the exact same thing that Risebrough did for Foster with Tim Connolly. Whether we agree with the decision to qualify Tim Connolly when his playing future was incredibly uncertain and only allowed him to play only 2 games last year and be completely out of shape for the playoffs, the fact is, the Sabres front office negotiated in good faith with Connolly like Risebrough did with Foster. I agree where you are coming from, but given that they did the same thing for Connolly, it's tough to say that they didn't negotiate in good faith with Connolly, whether deserved or not. Just my opinion. There's no question they negotiated in good faith with Connolly, but when they did that, they fully expected him to play long before he ended up playing. The difference with Minnesota is they are qualifying him knowing he may never play again.
tom webster Posted March 30, 2008 Author Report Posted March 30, 2008 That's exactly my point. The Teppo situation wasn't like anything else that has happened around this league.All that really matters is where they go from here. If they move forward and take care of their own, the players' perceptions will quickly change. I think its safe to say that guys like Derek Roy and Jochen Hecht have no problem with the way the team treats their own players. Take care of a few more people and that will spread. You obviously have never been in business, it takes a lot longer to get back your good name than it does to lose it. You still don't get it. The Pisani situation is identical! To say you only have to treat a player the right way if you think he is going to play again is kind of scary if you really believe that. Maybe that can be their sales pitch to prospective free agents; We will treat you right the first few years of your contract, we won't screw you till the last year of your deal.
X. Benedict Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 There's no question they negotiated in good faith with Connolly, but when they did that, they fully expected him to play long before he ended up playing. The difference with Minnesota is they are qualifying him knowing he may never play again. there is a decent chance though... Displaced femur I think is pretty nasty - probably 4-6 months before he can even think about skating again. What is similar to Connolly is that the club is responsible for his rehab/medical expenses for as long as it takes whether he is under contract or not.
shrader Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 You obviously have never been in business, it takes a lot longer to get back your good name than it does to lose it.You still don't get it. The Pisani situation is identical! To say you only have to treat a player the right way if you think he is going to play again is kind of scary if you really believe that. Maybe that can be their sales pitch to prospective free agents; We will treat you right the first few years of your contract, we won't screw you till the last year of your deal. "and that will spread". Did that sound like an immediate thing to you?
tom webster Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Posted March 31, 2008 there is a decent chance though... Displaced femur I think is pretty nasty - probably 4-6 months before he can even think about skating again. not. What is similar to Connolly is that the club is responsible for his rehab/medical expenses for as long as it takes whether he is under contract or That is one thing that is correct. One other point that may be contrary to those that think this is just a ploy by Minnesota to retain his rights, if Foster sits out all of next year, he is than of unrestricted free agent age and Minnesota would have paid over a million dollars just because its right.
tom webster Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Posted March 31, 2008 "and that will spread". Did that sound like an immediate thing to you? No it didn't and my point is that it will take longer for the good will to spread than it took for the bad will to.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 OK ... I am not saying I love the way the Sabres handled this thing. I agree perception is reality in the minds of a lot of players and it MAY make some players hesitate, all things being equal, about playing for the Sabres. But I also need to say this .... the players, in general, need to grow the hell up. They want the best of both worlds, and as soon as they don't get it they love to point out what victims they are ... now again, i am not talking about Teppo personally ... Why is it that when a player leaves in free agency to the highest bidder, it's a business and he needs to do what is best for his family, but when a team decides that it is a business and they don't want to pay someone who is not capable of playing, they are heartless bastards? Why do fans and players think that $2.6 million is nothing to the team? If it's the difference between making a profit and losing money, is that so bad? Why is that business decision any less legit than a free agent leaving for the team that offers the most money? It's a business, right? The players love to say that when it is convenient for them. When they wanted more than half the revenues and free agency at 27, it was a business. But when someone physically can't play and the team doesn't want to pay him, whoa there, this is a family, how can you do this to him? I mean, yeah, his contract expired, so he was technically not emplyed by the team until he passed his physical, but come on, do the right thing! He's a nice guy! Why are you treating this like a business! Oh but if that player has a better offer next season, well, he needs to do what is best for his family ... you know, it's just business.
tom webster Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Posted March 31, 2008 OK ... I am not saying I love the way the Sabres handled this thing. I agree perception is reality in the minds of a lot of players and it MAY make some players hesitate, all things being equal, about playing for the Sabres.But I also need to say this .... the players, in general, need to grow the hell up. They want the best of both worlds, and as soon as they don't get it they love to point out what victims they are ... now again, i am not talking about Teppo personally ... Why is it that when a player leaves in free agency to the highest bidder, it's a business and he needs to do what is best for his family, but when a team decides that it is a business and they don't want to pay someone who is not capable of playing, they are heartless bastards? Why do fans and players think that $2.6 million is nothing to the team? If it's the difference between making a profit and losing money, is that so bad? Why is that business decision any less legit than a free agent leaving for the team that offers the most money? It's a business, right? The players love to say that when it is convenient for them. When they wanted more than half the revenues and free agency at 27, it was a business. But when someone physically can't play and the team doesn't want to pay him, whoa there, this is a family, how can you do this to him? I mean, yeah, his contract expired, so he was technically not emplyed by the team until he passed his physical, but come on, do the right thing! He's a nice guy! Why are you treating this like a business! Oh but if that player has a better offer next season, well, he needs to do what is best for his family ... you know, it's just business. That's exactly the point. The Sabres treat everything like business but they are the ones whining that no one is giving them a home town discount. People on your side of the question talk like Campbell, Briere or Drury owe Buffalo something. Look at the contracts players in Ottawa, Calgary and San Jose, among others, have signed below market costs. As a previous post stated, Buffalo has chosen to do what till now, no other club has done.
inkman Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 Please, there is class and there is the Sabres. The sad thing is that I don't think they view their moves the same way we do, or even have the foresight to anticipate how these moves will be perceived by the players.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 That's exactly the point. The Sabres treat everything like business but they are the ones whining that no one is giving them a home town discount. People on your side of the question talk like Campbell, Briere or Drury owe Buffalo something.Look at the contracts players in Ottawa, Calgary and San Jose, among others, have signed below market costs. As a previous post stated, Buffalo has chosen to do what till now, no other club has done. Wait a second, don't put words in my mouth. I don't think Campbell, Briere or Drury owe Buffalo anything. They botched Drury, plain and simple. As for Briere and Campbell, they obviously decided they were not worth what they wanted. Those may be horrible decisions, but they never said those guys should give a hometown discount. They didn't even negotiate with Briere, so obviously they were not hoping for him to take a discount. They decided to spend (or not spend) the money elsewhere. Besides, I agreed with your point that perception is reality to a point and it may make some players hesitate about coming to Buffalo. My point was that, in general, not necessarily in this specific situation, the players only treat things like a business when it is convenient for them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 Its called taking care of your people and doing the right thing. Succesful business people know that there is a cost to doing business and business people like myself believe that if you treat people the right way it comes back to you ten fold.Cold hearted and cutthroat is a short term business plan. Have you checked the economy in BFLO?... This just doesn't work for that area! You gotta throw all honor out the window for some strange reason when you are dealing with the WNY area. The Sabres are a product of that area. Get my point?... You have to pinch pennies in BFLO and WNY to be successful and this should have been apparent a long time ago when the first company (Curtis) left after the war. Honor doesn't float when the wolf is always at the door!
tom webster Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Posted March 31, 2008 Have you checked the economy in BFLO?... This just doesn't work for that area! You gotta throw all honor out the window for some strange reason when you are dealing with the WNY area. The Sabres are a product of that area. Get my point?... You have to pinch pennies in BFLO and WNY to be successful and this should have been apparent a long time ago when the first company (Curtis) left after the war. Honor doesn't float when the wolf is always at the door! Have you checked the value of the franchise?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.