What is our goal

[inkman]

Go to WGR550.com and listen to the 2 part interview they did with the station. He says, "Tom Golisano didn't get into this for a hobby. He isn't going to start writing checks to keep this thing going. The team needs to be profitable every year for them to stay in Buffalo."

 

That's not me saying that.

...and it's not you that is completely full of dookie either. It's Larry. None of these numbers make sense but I can tell you one thing, this team makes less money when they miss the playoffs than when they make it. Tom's not going to start writing checks? So where is the cut off? They are already spending 50% more on payroll than when they bought the team. Do they lose money if they spend 46 and not make the playoffs, or do they make money if they spend 50 million and make the playoffs. He's making money, end of story. The only reasonable explanation is that they budget as if they are not going to make the playoffs and when they do all the revenue is profit. Stop feeding us lines of bull Larry, we are smarter than that.

[deluca67]

...and it's not you that is completely full of dookie either. It's Larry. None of these numbers make sense but I can tell you one thing, this team makes less money when they miss the playoffs than when they make it. Tom's not going to start writing checks? So where is the cut off? They are already spending 50% more on payroll than when they bought the team. Do they lose money if they spend 46 and not make the playoffs, or do they make money if they spend 50 million and make the playoffs. He's making money, end of story. The only reasonable explanation is that they budget as if they are not going to make the playoffs and when they do all the revenue is profit. Stop feeding us lines of bull Larry, we are smarter than that.

How they go about budgeting as if they did make the playoffs? It's such a volatile variable. "Make the Playoffs" is such a bland statement. Would they budget making it to the first round? How many games would they budget for, a five or seven game series? How many home games? 2,3 or 4? It seems they only way you could budget is to budget for the 41 home games you know you have and the 82 total.

 

And why does the idea of the Sabres actually making a profit seem to offend so many. I know you realize that the Sabres need to be self reliant to exist. The days of the Knox family spending $10+ million a year to keep the team afloat are long gone and ended up doing more damage than good.

[carpandean]

Go to WGR550.com and listen to the 2 part interview they did with the station. He says, "Tom Golisano didn't get into this for a hobby. He isn't going to start writing checks to keep this thing going. The team needs to be profitable every year for them to stay in Buffalo."

I admit that what I quoted and how I started my response didn't clearly indicate my intent. I was responding to the implication (as I saw it) that they would be spending just enough to guarantee (with minimum reasonable ticket and merchandise sales) a profit and nothing more. Basically, a low-salary/cap doing just enough to get by. To which, I showed that they are spending just like many playoff teams and considerably more than some teams, in and out of the playoffs.

 

And I have to agree with Deluca67 in asking why is making a profit a bad thing? There are only a few sports franchise owners who don't expect to get a profit. It is a business after all. TG already got out his check book to save the team and was handsomely rewarded after a few years. A win-win situation as I see it. Also, if spending an extra $3-4 million on salaries would give them an expected $4+ million is revenues from playoffs, merchandise, ticket sales, etc., you know that TG would be the first one to sign on the dotted line. While one can argue that they are not a small-market team (revenue slightly below the median for NHL teams), they are not, by any means, a large market team. As such, they can't play some of the games that a team like the Rangers can. However, with those few exceptions, the Sabres are spending around where most other teams are.

[sabresnutinphoenix]

During the press conference, Larry Quinn revealed that Darcy asked him just this week what the goal is.

I think this is a huge revelation. Why would the General Manager ask the Managing Partner what the goal is this far into the process.

 

 

I have concluded all along the problem is NOT Darcy!

[deluca67]

I have concluded all along the problem is NOT Darcy!

Good for you! I agree that Darcy has done a great job. I'm just not sure if I agree there is a problem at all. Even the best run companies in the world don;t reach their goals all of the time. I don't think that the Sabres taking a step back this season is indicative of any problem. It seems to be the next step in the maturation process.

[tom webster]

Good for you! I agree that Darcy has done a great job. I'm just not sure if I agree there is a problem at all. Even the best run companies in the world don;t reach their goals all of the time. I don't think that the Sabres taking a step back this season is indicative of any problem. It seems to be the next step in the maturation process.

 

DeLuca, while I find myself agreeing with a lot of you have been saying, I still haven't seen anyone post a scenario where Darcy would ask this question other than out of frustration.

 

As for the team needing to be profitable, I am sure you are aware that profit / loss is more theory than fact. When companies lose money, most of the time it is the result of a team of very good accountants and the need to show a loss. You can bet, for instance, that Larry doesn't give the same economic distress speech when he is recruiting tenants for his waterfront projects.

If the team was actually bleeding cash, there would be cause for concern, but it is not. It is merely showing small profits or breaking even because that's what works for them. The numbers never add up. They constantly change the equation. They constantly withhold facts (revenue sharing) or add facts (playoffs not as profitable as they once were because of league contribution) because, while they are telling the truth, they are not telling the whole truth.

[tom webster]

I admit that what I quoted and how I started my response didn't clearly indicate my intent. I was responding to the implication (as I saw it) that they would be spending just enough to guarantee (with minimum reasonable ticket and merchandise sales) a profit and nothing more. Basically, a low-salary/cap doing just enough to get by. To which, I showed that they are spending just like many playoff teams and considerably more than some teams, in and out of the playoffs.

 

And I have to agree with Deluca67 in asking why is making a profit a bad thing? There are only a few sports franchise owners who don't expect to get a profit. It is a business after all. TG already got out his check book to save the team and was handsomely rewarded after a few years. A win-win situation as I see it. Also, if spending an extra $3-4 million on salaries would give them an expected $4+ million is revenues from playoffs, merchandise, ticket sales, etc., you know that TG would be the first one to sign on the dotted line. While one can argue that they are not a small-market team (revenue slightly below the median for NHL teams), they are not, by any means, a large market team. As such, they can't play some of the games that a team like the Rangers can. However, with those few exceptions, the Sabres are spending around where most other teams are.

 

More correctly stated, most teams expect the numbers to make sense for them. Sometimes a loss is exactly what they want to show. Sometimes they need the franchise to make their sports network profitable. There is a lot more to buying a business then whether you can show a profit.

[Taro T]

It's not an inconvenient fact, it's an irrelevant fact from a business stand point. It has already happened. He could sell the team now and walk away with that increased value. They need to make the best decision going forward. In fact, failing to do so would cause that team value to drop very quickly. Care to guess how much missing the playoffs this year affected that $220 million? Potential buyers will now expect decreasing ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. because of the year that they had.

 

However, it should be pointed out that the best business decision is not spending as little as possible. They are not trying to operate $10+ million below the cap like some teams, putting the absolute minimum into their team. A better product brings in higher ticket sales, higher merchandise sales, additional playoff game revenue, etc.. The fact is that they are spending as much money as many teams in the playoffs. The real problem is that they have some fat (Max, Timmy, Toni, etc.) who are not playing well enough to justify their cap hits. If they can be unloaded and the right players signed with their money, this team could easily be a contender spending on the same level that they are now.

An interesting thing in the whole discussion is if the team had been able to spend the $1-1.5MM or so extra that they would have spent had Teppo been healthy is the team very likely would have made the playoffs if he had been cleared to play when the non-fully healed sternum became an issue. And they would have made more than the price of Teppo in playoff net even with the minimum 2 home games.

 

They wouldn't have been SC contenders, but they would have been in the dance. (And my preseason pick of seeing the team finish 5th or 6th in the East probably wasn't too far off; but my expectation of total points would have been off by ~6.)

[carpandean]

More correctly stated, most teams expect the numbers to make sense for them. Sometimes a loss is exactly what they want to show. Sometimes they need the franchise to make their sports network profitable. There is a lot more to buying a business then whether you can show a profit.

I'm well aware of the tricks that accountants can play. I really don't care if they are saying that they are making a lot or not, because they are spending a reasonable amount. I just don't like when people say "make a profit" like its an evil thing.

[R_Dudley]

I'm well aware of the tricks that accountants can play. I really don't care if they are saying that they are making a lot or not, because they are spending a reasonable amount. I just don't like when people say "make a profit" like its an evil thing.

 

Agree, it's nice to think they do this for the love of the sport, the region, the home town, etc. but truth be told they are in it for the investment, to make a little bit of money and/or if they can really afford to lose a little as a write off for their business's then it's the prestige...

[Done]

DeLuca, while I find myself agreeing with a lot of you have been saying, I still haven't seen anyone post a scenario where Darcy would ask this question other than out of frustration.

 

As for the team needing to be profitable, I am sure you are aware that profit / loss is more theory than fact. When companies lose money, most of the time it is the result of a team of very good accountants and the need to show a loss. You can bet, for instance, that Larry doesn't give the same economic distress speech when he is recruiting tenants for his waterfront projects.

If the team was actually bleeding cash, there would be cause for concern, but it is not. It is merely showing small profits or breaking even because that's what works for them. The numbers never add up. They constantly change the equation. They constantly withhold facts (revenue sharing) or add facts (playoffs not as profitable as they once were because of league contribution) because, while they are telling the truth, they are not telling the whole truth.

 

Bang on. I am involved very heavily in racing horses, and with good accounting I am able to make the books look like a total disaster in order to offset gains in other projects. The goal is to offset taxes as far out as possible. The problem is, after a bunch of years of expensing and depreciating, unless a client adds new stock on a consistant basis, he is eventually going to have horses with a market value of hundreds of thousands or even millions, but they are valued on the books as worthless or close to it.

 

I see a lot of guys like Golisano in the racing game...some not as wealthy, some 10x as wealthy. Racing isn't nearly the secure investment that a sports franchise is, but some people have no problem writing checks for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, because they have fun with the whole racing scene. I can spot a guy like Golisano a mile away....he is all happy and supportive if he has some luck early on, and gets to the winner's circle and drinks a little champagne in the back room.....but once the cyclical game of racing has a downturn, and a few horses get injured or don't hit the board....he starts to get all serious and "grumpy", begrudging every penny he has to spend in supplementing the operation, sometimes even to the point of damaging his chances to succeed.

 

There are plenty of people out there who have a love of sport and can handle losing a few dollars in order to have some fun and a better chance at the big prize. You don't win the Kentucky Derby by letting your best horses leave the stable. It may make business sense, but you aren't going to win the big race and the big trophy. Quinn said Golisano is not in this for a hobby. That is very telling, and to me it signals a long road of average production from this team. That is purely Golisano's choice and I don't begrudge him.....but I also have a choice in this as well, and I will watch my own balance sheet and income statement.

[Bmwolf21]

There are guys worth $20B in horse racing? Damn, I'm in the wrong line of work...

[tom webster]

I'm well aware of the tricks that accountants can play. I really don't care if they are saying that they are making a lot or not, because they are spending a reasonable amount. I just don't like when people say "make a profit" like its an evil thing.

 

 

The reason that it is important is because TG and staff have said they are not in it for the money and constantly try to tell us how he got into it for the good of the region. If they would just refrain from talking economics for an excuse for mistakes they have made, then there is no reason to nit pick as to how much they have made or haven't made. There is a very good reason that you don't hear other teams crying poverty. A major benefit of the CBA was to establish cost certainty and as a by-product allow teams to leverage their assets (mostly the teams that own their arenas).

 

Their is a very good reason why the NFL, the richest sports league in America is awash in debt. You said you are in the business department so I know I am not telling you anything you don't know. To me the bottom line; businesses don't double in value in five years unless they have a very good business model.

 

And like you said, he is entitled to make what they want and they are spending money, just spare me the small market excuse when you make a mistake.

[carpandean]

There are plenty of people out there who have a love of sport and can handle losing a few dollars in order to have some fun and a better chance at the big prize. You don't win the Kentucky Derby by letting your best horses leave the stable. It may make business sense, but you aren't going to win the big race and the big trophy. Quinn said Golisano is not in this for a hobby. That is very telling, and to me it signals a long road of average production from this team. That is purely Golisano's choice and I don't begrudge him.....but I also have a choice in this as well, and I will watch my own balance sheet and income statement.

Hmm ... let's see ... we spent to the cap in 2006-07 and chose not to trade away Briere at the deadline when they knew they didn't want to keep him this year because ... why was that ... oh yeah, because we were making a push for the cup. TG is clearly winning to put a little extra when they think they have a chance to get that cup.

 

This year, they decided that long-run they couldn't afford to sign Danny and Chris to big, long-term contracts, so they let Danny walk and focused on Chris. As they acknowledged, their negotiating strategy with him didn't work, so they lost him. Then, Teppo went down. So, without much veteran leadership, they probably realized that this year would be more of maturing year for a solid young core. If they did well, great. Otherwise, they would do things to set them up for the future when they have a better chance to go far. This decision was clear at the deadline when they chose to get something for Campbell and then took a young power forward and a first round draft pick, leaving a skeleton defense. They could have brought in some rental defenseman, but since this year didn't look like it was going to be the year, they chose to go with what they had on the blue line and picked up some potentially valuable parts for the future. This summer, to me, will be more telling. Judging by the recent Max-related comments, maybe they will make the right moves to contend next year.

[carpandean]

And like you said, he is entitled to make what they want and they are spending money, just spare me the small market excuse when you make a mistake.

I agree that they aren't small market (though, definitely not big market), but just as wrong is everyone complaining that they don't spend money. They aren't spending like a small market team, either.

[tom webster]

I agree that they aren't small market (though, definitely not big market), but just is wrong is everyone complaining that they don't spend money. They aren't spending like a small market team, either.

 

 

We are in agreement here, although I think they may be heading to a low payroll year. Time will tell.

[Done]

There are guys worth $20B in horse racing? Damn, I'm in the wrong line of work...

 

Not many mind you!

 

You can see the difference in attitudes though of a guy like Eugene Melnyk who owns the Senators. Same story...self-made billionaire, owns a big hunk of company he founded, however his holdings went from $1.2 billion to $250 million recently. He owns a big horse farm and tons of horses. He is a sportsman.

 

Sens Owner

 

Here is the biggest of the big. He does whatever he can to bring in the best. He already owns a soccer team. If we can just get him to like hockey....

 

Sheik Mo

[Taro T]

We are in agreement here, although I think they may be heading to a low payroll year. Time will tell.

They probably are as Miller's and Poms' raises won't kick in this season. I'd like to see them add Spacek to the list of guys they negotiate an extension to this off-season; his raise wouldn't kick in this year either. I'd also like to add Sekera to that mix, but considering he has no leverage at all at this time and a ton of potential and he'd probably rather take his chances on playing out this contract.

 

I don't see Bernier, Gaustad, Paille, nor MacArthur getting deals averaging over $2MM unless they are 4 year or longer deals.

 

While I expected that Teppo will want to play somewhere else next season, he's making nice in the papers, so maybe he'll be back. If so, I'd expect it to be for something close to the $2.6MM he expected to make this year. But that won't increase next year's payroll.

 

Kalinin leaving frees up some salary and I'd expect whatever trade gets made will probably free some up as well although I'd prefer to see a $3-4MM D-man come back in the trade.

 

Ryan leaving or staying won't affect payroll any as he was making the league minimum and wouldn't make much more if he is back.

 

The wild card in the salary derby becomes what sort of paychecks do the (hopefully brought in) veteran centerman and the new D-man that the Sabres trade for collect.

 

The backup goalie hopefully will be a slightly over $1MM/year goalie which would be a slight increase over this year but won't force the team to send Weber back and forth to Ra-cha-where-ever on a daily basis.

[Done]

They probably are as Miller's and Poms' raises won't kick in this season. I'd like to see them add Spacek to the list of guys they negotiate an extension to this off-season; his raise wouldn't kick in this year either. I'd also like to add Sekera to that mix, but considering he has no leverage at all at this time and a ton of potential and he'd probably rather take his chances on playing out this contract.

 

I don't see Bernier, Gaustad, Paille, nor MacArthur getting deals averaging over $2MM unless they are 4 year or longer deals.

 

While I expected that Teppo will want to play somewhere else next season, he's making nice in the papers, so maybe he'll be back. If so, I'd expect it to be for something close to the $2.6MM he expected to make this year. But that won't increase next year's payroll.

 

Kalinin leaving frees up some salary and I'd expect whatever trade gets made will probably free some up as well although I'd prefer to see a $3-4MM D-man come back in the trade.

 

Ryan leaving or staying won't affect payroll any as he was making the league minimum and wouldn't make much more if he is back.

 

The wild card in the salary derby becomes what sort of paychecks do the (hopefully brought in) veteran centerman and the new D-man that the Sabres trade for collect.

 

The backup goalie hopefully will be a slightly over $1MM/year goalie which would be a slight increase over this year but won't force the team to send Weber back and forth to Ra-cha-where-ever on a daily basis.

 

We were supposed to get that veteran center and big D-man last year, but Vanek and Roy ate up all the money.

 

The same will happen this year for Gaustad, Paille and Bernier.

 

Here is the UFA chart:

Amount Compensation Due

$773,442 or less None

$773,442 - $1,171,882 3rd round pick

$1,171,882 - $2,343,764 2nd round pick

$2,343,764 - $3,515,645 1st and 3rd round pick

$3,515,645 - $4,687,527 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick

$4,687,527 - $5,859,412 Two 1st's, one 2nd, one 3rd round pick

$5,859,412 or more Four 1st round picks

 

 

Now...if the cap is $56 million, and the average team has 22 with the big club, and maybe another 6 to 8 others signed for an average of 700K not in Buffalo, then you are looking at the travel roster of 22 guys eating up $50 million if a team spends to the cap, or say $42 in the Sabres case. That means the AVERAGE player is making just under $2 million in Buffalo, and $2.3 on a team that pays up.

 

Are Gaustad, Paille and Bernier at least considered average? On a playing basis, your average forward is somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd line. They look average or better to me. When you throw in the type of game Gaustad and Bernier can play, I wouldn't be surprised if a team goes $3 million+ for them. Maybe even Paille. Heck, at $2.3 million, you give up a lousy 2nd round pick. With the Sabres track record of not paying up, they are a target...don't kid yourselves.

 

I have no problem paying Gaustad $17 million for 5 years if I need an all-around playoff type of center.

 

Bernier.....maybe 4 for $9 to get away with a 2nd rounder. Same for Paille.

 

I think you need to factor in an extra $5 million for the 3 of them if they stay. That is pretty much the price of letting Kalinin walk, and trading Max for a pick and filling the roster spots with rookie types.

 

I would laugh if Lowe comes knocking for these guys. For a 1st, 2nd and 3rd...you can walk away with Gaustad and Paille. Who needs to wait 5 years on a draft pick when you can plug 2 young guys in who should be top 8 forwards for the next decade?

[X. Benedict]

I would laugh if Lowe comes knocking for these guys. For a 1st, 2nd and 3rd...you can walk away with Gaustad and Paille. Who needs to wait 5 years on a draft pick when you can plug 2 young guys in who should be top 8 forwards for the next decade?

With the likes of Carter, Pavelski, Stoll, O'Sullivan and Erat as RFA's I don't think we have much to worry about. Nobody is going to try to poach Gaustad or Paille.

[nfreeman]

We were supposed to get that veteran center and big D-man last year, but Vanek and Roy ate up all the money.

 

The same will happen this year for Gaustad, Paille and Bernier.

 

Here is the UFA chart:

Amount Compensation Due

$773,442 or less None

$773,442 - $1,171,882 3rd round pick

$1,171,882 - $2,343,764 2nd round pick

$2,343,764 - $3,515,645 1st and 3rd round pick

$3,515,645 - $4,687,527 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick

$4,687,527 - $5,859,412 Two 1st's, one 2nd, one 3rd round pick

$5,859,412 or more Four 1st round picks

Now...if the cap is $56 million, and the average team has 22 with the big club, and maybe another 6 to 8 others signed for an average of 700K not in Buffalo, then you are looking at the travel roster of 22 guys eating up $50 million if a team spends to the cap, or say $42 in the Sabres case. That means the AVERAGE player is making just under $2 million in Buffalo, and $2.3 on a team that pays up.

 

Are Gaustad, Paille and Bernier at least considered average? On a playing basis, your average forward is somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd line. They look average or better to me. When you throw in the type of game Gaustad and Bernier can play, I wouldn't be surprised if a team goes $3 million+ for them. Maybe even Paille. Heck, at $2.3 million, you give up a lousy 2nd round pick. With the Sabres track record of not paying up, they are a target...don't kid yourselves.

 

I have no problem paying Gaustad $17 million for 5 years if I need an all-around playoff type of center.

 

Bernier.....maybe 4 for $9 to get away with a 2nd rounder. Same for Paille.

 

I think you need to factor in an extra $5 million for the 3 of them if they stay. That is pretty much the price of letting Kalinin walk, and trading Max for a pick and filling the roster spots with rookie types.

 

I would laugh if Lowe comes knocking for these guys. For a 1st, 2nd and 3rd...you can walk away with Gaustad and Paille. Who needs to wait 5 years on a draft pick when you can plug 2 young guys in who should be top 8 forwards for the next decade?

 

Great post. I have been thinking for a while that we are very vulnerable on all 3 of these guys. I think there are at least a dozen GMs in the NHL who would seriously consider spending $2.3MM per year plus a one-time 2nd-rounder for each of those 3.

[carpandean]

We were supposed to get that veteran center and big D-man last year, but Vanek and Roy ate up all the money.

 

The same will happen this year for Gaustad, Paille and Bernier.

 

Here is the UFA chart:

Amount Compensation Due

I think you mean "RFA chart:" ;)

 

Vanek and Roy are very different than those three. Vanek was a 23 year old coming off a 40/40/40 (G/A/+/-) season and he got all the way to the offer sheet phase. Roy was a 24 year old gifted center, coming off of a 20+ goal, 60+ point season. They locked him up long-term because they saw that potential was already being realized at such a young age.

 

Gaustad is 26 and this season was a career high with just 10 goals and 36 points. He's a great third-line, special team center, but doesn't have the production or setup ability to get big money. I wouldn't be surprised if he got $2 million per year, but not much more. Paille and Bernier both are young with a lot of potential, but neither has shown consistently that they can live up to that potential. Their contracts will be more of "chance to prove myself" type contracts. I expect all three to be tied up before teams have a chance to put in offer sheets.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about "$42 in the Sabres case" since their planned cap hit this season was over $46 million, which as I said, was on par with many teams and well above several. I expect the Sabres to be at or above $50 million this year if the cap is $56 million.

[Done]

I think you mean "RFA chart:" ;)

 

Vanek and Roy are very different than those three. Vanek was a 23 year old coming off a 40/40/40 (G/A/+/-) season and he got all the way to the offer sheet phase. Roy was a 24 year old gifted center, coming off of a 20+ goal, 60+ point season. They locked him up long-term because they saw that potential was already being realized at such a young age.

 

Gaustad is 26 and this season was a career high with just 10 goals and 36 points. He's a great third-line, special team center, but doesn't have the production or setup ability to get big money. I wouldn't be surprised if he got $2 million per year, but not much more. Paille and Bernier both are young with a lot of potential, but neither has shown consistently that they can live up to that potential. Their contracts will be more of "chance to prove myself" type contracts. I expect all three to be tied up before teams have a chance to put in offer sheets.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about "$42 in the Sabres case" since their planned cap hit this season was over $46 million, which as I said, was on par with many teams and well above several. I expect the Sabres to be at or above $50 million this year if the cap is $56 million.

 

Thanks...RFA I meant....and the $42 million is on top of the two way guys who I figured were about $5 million or so total.

 

I disagree on Gaustad in particular. The word is out on him, and he is just the type of guy that would be more valuable on more physical team. Last year we were talking Vanek at 5-6 million and Roy at 2+ million. We already know where the cap is going, so like I said, Gaustad, Paille and Bernier are already proven 3rd line players with the potential to move up. An average player will be making $2.3 million next year if you spend to the cap and at that price, a team only needs to give up a 2nd rounder.

 

I don't know about signing before July......why should they?

[tom webster]

Thanks...RFA I meant....and the $42 million is on top of the two way guys who I figured were about $5 million or so total.

 

I disagree on Gaustad in particular. The word is out on him, and he is just the type of guy that would be more valuable on more physical team. Last year we were talking Vanek at 5-6 million and Roy at 2+ million. We already know where the cap is going, so like I said, Gaustad, Paille and Bernier are already proven 3rd line players with the potential to move up. An average player will be making $2.3 million next year if you spend to the cap and at that price, a team only needs to give up a 2nd rounder.

 

I don't know about signing before July......why should they?

 

 

Here goes that question, why should they sign when others around are signing. Alex Steen and Robert Nillson have already signed contracts in the $1.5 - 1.7 million per range. This is exactly were Gaustad, Paille and Bernier fit in. Macarthur should be in the $1 million range if they choose to sign him.

 

If Buffalo is serious about changing their reputation the top three should be signed by the end of the first three rounds of the playoffs.

[X. Benedict]

Great post. I have been thinking for a while that we are very vulnerable on all 3 of these guys. I think there are at least a dozen GMs in the NHL who would seriously consider spending $2.3MM per year plus a one-time 2nd-rounder for each of those 3.

 

Trying to sign other people's RFA's is like a bad game of pinochle.

2 off seasons into the CBA you have had only 3 signed offer sheets: Kessler, Penner, Vanek.

Kessler and Vanek were matched by the clubs holding their rights.

 

If you are looking for a 3rd line player to improve your club, there are enough 1.5 million guys on the market as UFA's and you get to keep your picks and leverage for trading season.

Metropolit, Peca, Dupuis, Malone, Ashram and the like.

 

Furthermore you have to look at the players perspective, if a Bernier for example signs a

5 year X 2.3 million offer sheet he is guaranteed 11.5 over that term, but if he has a 30 goal year in year 1 or 2, he could make a ton more using arbitration and bargaining with his future UFA status, rather than making 1.3 million more the first year.

 

You may see it happen more, but I don't think most agents are going to shop their players as RFA's unless they are first line players looking for Vanek contracts or Penner contracts. (5 X 4 mi.). We'll see.