Danny Briere 2 goals last night

[carpandean]

I love how the arguments change to adjust to the changing facts.

First, to say that no one thought he was worth $5 million prior to arbitration is a fallacy. Havlat, Arnott and others had already set the bar that the arbiter used in setting the award. The NHLPA chose Briere for the first hearing because they were betting he would get such a reward. If posters on this board or on radio call in show didn't appreciate the changing market then they could find employment working with the Sabres in market forecast.

Havlat was a younger guy (25 year old RFA), who was showing the potential to put up big points, had less questions about his size and defensive abilities (not saying he was a Selke candidate or anything) and was signed to a three year deal that surprised a lot of people. Arnott had a longer record of putting up 20+ goal seasons, also had less question about his size/defense, had scored the cup-winning goal in 2000 (not sure how much that is really worth, but it was one of those examples of a "star" stepping up and scoring a big goal at an important time) and was coming off a career-high season for goals, assists and (obviously) points. All that, still only got him $4.5 million per. So, maybe a few people thought he was worth the 5 x 5 at the time, but it was hardly a wide-spread belief and many (most?) did not share that assessment.

 

Secondly, those who take management's side in the negotiation contend that Buffalo offered $4.5 million per year for 4 years so Buffalo apparently felt he was worth close to $5 million. Also, his agent most assuredly thought he was worth the $5 million or he would have had him sign the deal if it existed.

This sort of argument doesn't work. It's like my students' saying that they got 55, so they almost had satisfactory performance (if passing is 60). In reality, they were below the absolute minimum requirement. They were almost just barely satisfactory. Danny wanted a half million more than the absolute maximum that they were willing to pay. That means that they probably felt he should be a $3.5-4 million per year playing, but if they absolutely had to, would be willing to risk $4.5 million.

 

Thirdly, you can most surely judge the decision based on the results of that decision if you know what variables went into making that decision. We already know that the decision not to keep him was based in part on the belief that they would sign Drury and Connolly would remain healthy (speaking of a bad bet) so already the decision making process was flawed. People who believe it was right to let him go tell us that Buffalo will be better off for it in the long run and that Danny's contract will out live his production. So if Buffalo doesn't get better and Briere continues to excel, then Buffalo made a bad decision. Philadelphia has already reaped the initial rewards of their deal no matter how much credit you or others may want to give Briere for their resurgence.

As for your gambling analogy, if you make the bet using false or misguided assumptions of the risk/ reward involved, then you can invalidate that decision when the bettor tries to change his rational as to why he made the original decision

I agree that you can question the underlying assumptions made at the time, but while his current performance can be indicative of an undervaluation of his potential, you can't use it in judging that assessment. You have to say: given his performance through the summer of 2006, should they have determined that he had the potential to be a $5 million per year player for long term (or "through mid-season last year ... $6-7 million per year")? Likewise, just because the Flyers are "reaping the reward" now doesn't necessarily mean that it was a smart risk to take by signing him to a $50 million contract.

Also, if we had signed Drury, then the impact of Connolly being injured would have been mitigated by having five true centers, not four (Gaustad, Connolly, Roy, Drury when Connolly was healthy and Mair, Gaustad, Roy and Drury when he was not), so it is really just a question of how confident they were that they could resigned Drury. Perhaps they were wrong there, but Danny's performance has nothing to do with that.

[tom webster]

Havlat was a younger guy (25 year old RFA), who was showing the potential to put up big points, had less questions about his size and defensive abilities (not saying he was a Selke candidate or anything) and was signed to a three year deal that surprised a lot of people. Arnott had a longer record of putting up 20+ goal seasons, also had less question about his size/defense, had scored the cup-winning goal in 2000 (not sure how much that is really worth, but it was one of those examples of a "star" stepping up and scoring a big goal at an important time) and was coming off a career-high season for goals, assists and (obviously) points. All that, still only got him $4.5 million per. So, maybe a few people thought he was worth the 5 x 5 at the time, but it was hardly a wide-spread belief and many (most?) did not share that assessment.

This sort of argument doesn't work. It's like my students' saying that they got 55, so they almost had satisfactory performance (if passing is 60). In reality, they were below the absolute minimum requirement. They were almost just barely satisfactory. Danny wanted a half million more than the absolute maximum that they were willing to pay. That means that they probably felt he should be a $3.5-4 million per year playing, but if they absolutely had to, would be willing to risk $4.5 million.

I agree that you can question the underlying assumptions made at the time, but while his current performance can be indicative of an undervaluation of his potential, you can't use it in judging that assessment. You have to say: given his performance through the summer of 2006, should they have determined that he had the potential to be a $5 million per year player for long term (or "through mid-season last year ... $6-7 million per year")? Likewise, just because the Flyers are "reaping the reward" now doesn't necessarily mean that it was a smart risk to take by signing him to a $50 million contract.

Also, if we had signed Drury, then the impact of Connolly being injured would have been mitigated by having five true centers, not four (Gaustad, Connolly, Roy, Drury when Connolly was healthy and Mair, Gaustad, Roy and Drury when he was not), so it is really just a question of how confident they were that they could resigned Drury. Perhaps they were wrong there, but Danny's performance has nothing to do with that.

 

I've only got two things to say;

1) For a professor, you use really bad analogies

2) To say thay you can't can't judge the quality of a decision based on said decision's results is mind boggling. Some would say that management's sole focus is on market forecasts and projections and when said management is let go it more often then not is the result of decisions later determined to have been incorrect.

[carpandean]

I've only got two things to say;

1) For a professor, you use really bad analogies

2) To say that you can't can't judge the quality of a decision based on said decision's results is mind boggling. Some would say that management's sole focus is on market forecasts and projections and when said management is let go it more often then not is the result of decisions later determined to have been incorrect.

You'll have to explain (1) to me. There are many similar cases where being a little below or above a cutoff means that you were really far from being "good", "right", etc.. "Our cost were just a little higher than our revenues, so we were almost profitable." "I was not doing 70 in a 55, your honor, I was just barely doing 60." "So, you were speeding. Here's your ticket!" Or how about: "But officer, she'll be 17 next week!" Admittedly, I am putting a lot less effort into coming up with these that I do in preparing my classes.

 

(2) is a fact of logic. Technically, a decision is either right or wrong at the time it is made and that does not change based on the results. Showing positive or negative performance after the fact is often used to support a particular alternative in a decision process, but that doesn't make it correct. What you are really saying is "see, they should have known that this was the most likely outcome." Coaches, CEOs, etc. will be fired despite making all the best decision, because they have bad luck in the outcomes. People are, by their nature, not purely logical and want to blame someone when things go wrong. Part of the reason why golden parachutes for executives exist (though, many are arguably ridiculous in their scale and terms) is because of that very possibility (the other part is the cross-board relationships, but that's another discussion.)

 

Edit: I will give you that results can be used to demonstrate a pattern or systematic problem. Logically, that is still not correct, since it could still just be bad luck, but the chance that this is the case become so small that it is unlikely (It's like flipping a coin 100 times and getting 100 heads. It's still possible that you original assumption that it has a "heads" side and a "tails" side may still be correct, but it's so unlikely, that you'd be safe "concluding" that it actually has two "heads" sides.)

[tom webster]

You'll have to explain (1) to me. There are many similar cases where being a little below or above a cutoff means that you were really far from being "good", "right", etc.. "Our cost were just a little higher than our revenues, so we were almost profitable." "I was not doing 70 in a 55, your honor, I was just barely doing 60." "So, you were speeding. Here's your ticket!" Or how about: "But officer, she'll be 17 next week!" Admittedly, I am putting a lot less effort into coming up with these that I do in preparing my classes.

 

(2) is a fact of logic. Technically, a decision is either right or wrong at the time it is made and that does not change based on the results. Showing positive or negative performance after the fact is often used to support a particular alternative in a decision process, but that doesn't make it correct. What you are really saying is "see, they should have known that this was the most likely outcome." Coaches, CEOs, etc. will be fired despite making all the best decision, because they have bad luck in the outcomes. People are, by their nature, not purely logical and want to blame someone when things go wrong. Part of the reason why golden parachutes for executives exist (though, many are arguably ridiculous in their scale and terms) is because of that very possibility (the other part is the cross-board relationships, but that's another discussion.)

 

Edit: I will give you that results can be used to demonstrate a pattern or systematic problem. Logically, that is still not correct, since it could still just be bad luck, but the chance that this is the case become so small that it is unlikely (It's like flipping a coin 100 times and getting 100 heads. It's still possible that you original assumption that it has a "heads" side and a "tails" side may still be correct, but it's so unlikely, that you'd be safe "concluding" that it actually has two "heads" sides.)

 

 

Is bad luck an accepted standard in normal business evaluations? An if the Sabre's are allowed to use the bad luck argument can we then give them no credit for Pominville, since they exposed him to waivers, Hasek, since they exposed him to expansion waivers, or for that matter, any draft choice that wasn't picked in the first round?

[carpandean]

Is bad luck an accepted standard in normal business evaluations? An if the Sabre's are allowed to use the bad luck argument can we then give them no credit for Pominville, since they exposed him to waivers, Hasek, since they exposed him to expansion waivers, or for that matter, any draft choice that wasn't picked in the first round?

It's usually better to talk about high or low probability of occurring, but that's all that luck is. The cost of perfect/complete information often exceeds the benefit on imperfect or incomplete, so decisions are based on expectations. Occasionally, an outcome defies the odds, which does not mean the decision was wrong.

 

As for Pominville, placing him on waivers may have been the right decision given what the had shown, the likelihood that he would progress and the likelihood that he would get picked up. As it turned out, he didn't get picked up and he did progress. There is definitely some luck in there. I give them credit for seeing his potential as a prospect and again after being called up, but they did also have some good luck with him.

[tom webster]

It's usually better to talk about high or low probability of occurring, but that's all that luck is. The cost of perfect/complete information often exceeds the benefit on imperfect or incomplete, so decisions are based on expectations. Occasionally, an outcome defies the odds, which does not mean the decision was wrong.

 

As for Pominville, placing him on waivers may have been the right decision given what the had shown, the likelihood that he would progress and the likelihood that he would get picked up. As it turned out, he didn't get picked up and he did progress. There is definitely some luck in there. I give them credit for seeing his potential as a prospect and again after being called up, but they did also have some good luck with him.

 

 

They are supposed to be the experts and yet exposed Pominviller rather then risks losing Peters but you still want to givr them credit? Fair enough, but let's not color the critricism with terms like unlkely outcome based on the expected probability. They reveled in all the praise they got the two years after the lockout but some want to excuse their shortcomings on unexpected outcomes?

I still stand by the belief that if they based their decisions on incorrect projections, then they are open to the criticism that some of them are leveling at them.

 

I understand when people like SabreNod want to overlook their mistakes or give them a pass beased on some desire to show respect or appreciation for past accomplishments. I may not agree, but I understand. I don't agree with the positition that you can only criticize or question their decisions in the context of what they were projecting. Maybe within the context of what was likely or probable to happen, but not within the context of their misguided projections.

[deluca67]

So, let's get you on the record so you can't change your argument, how many players qualify for your lists of"top" offensive players?" Does he have to be in the top five? , ten? what's the cut-off? Is it points per game, as you used in your Palfy example? Is it regular season as you use in Palfy's case or is it playoffs as you hold in contempt of Briere?

Finally, is there ever going to be an argument made where you don't twist the stats to say "yeah, but he didn't do it in 2006/2007!"

First off, what Briere did with the a chance for the Sabres to reach the Cup Finals will always weigh more than anything else.

 

Let's use points per game that way it would be fair to Breire since his best year consisted of 48 games. Since you were not around at that point you should take a look back at the threads and posts proclaiming Briere as 100 pt player and he should be paid as such.

 

When I look at the top offensive players in the NHL Briere is just not one of them. There are many players in the NHL that not only bring the offensive game they also bring other skills every night. It could be hits, penalty kill or being on the ice at crunch time. Briere finished this season at #67 among forwards in average ice time. Shouldn't your best players be on the ice more. Briere needs to look no further than his own bench as an example. Mike Richards had a step up season. Richards was 11th in average ice time which includes over three minutes of PK a game. He manage more points than Briere and was a plus 36 better. He also added 110 hits. All of that for 1/10 of the price this season. At 23 Richards is on his way to being a great NHL player. He may be Philly's Pominville.

 

Over the past six seasons Briere finished 64th, 96th, 53rd, 11th, 11th and dropped to 40th this season in points per game. For that year and a half, which oddly enough were contract years, he stepped up his offensive game. The sad thing is that's the only part of his game.

[tom webster]

First off, what Briere did with the a chance for the Sabres to reach the Cup Finals will always weigh more than anything else.

 

Let's use points per game that way it would be fair to Breire since his best year consisted of 48 games. Since you were not around at that point you should take a look back at the threads and posts proclaiming Briere as 100 pt player and he should be paid as such.

 

When I look at the top offensive players in the NHL Briere is just not one of them. There are many players in the NHL that not only bring the offensive game they also bring other skills every night. It could be hits, penalty kill or being on the ice at crunch time. Briere finished this season at #67 among forwards in average ice time. Shouldn't your best players be on the ice more. Briere needs to look no further than his own bench as an example. Mike Richards had a step up season. Richards was 11th in average ice time which includes over three minutes of PK a game. He manage more points than Briere and was a plus 36 better. He also added 110 hits. All of that for 1/10 of the price this season. At 23 Richards is on his way to being a great NHL player. He may be Philly's Pominville.

 

Over the past six seasons Briere finished 64th, 96th, 53rd, 11th, 11th and dropped to 40th this season in points per game. For that year and a half, which oddly enough were contract years, he stepped up his offensive game. The sad thing is that's the only part of his game.

 

Can you just answer the question? Obviously you spent all day doing research so you could make sure you didn't say something like top offensive players must fall within the top 20 in average points per game! Ooops?

 

By the way, all the credit Philly players give to Briere, do you just dismiss that,too?

 

EDIT: Where does Danny stand in playoff points per game the last three years? I'm sure you did the research.

[carpandean]

I don't agree with the positition that you can only criticize or question their decisions in the context of what they were projecting. Maybe within the context of what was likely or probable to happen, but not within the context of their misguided projections.

As I said, you can question their projections based on information available at the time. If, at the time, you thought that he would do $5-7 million per year more to help than to hurt the Sabres, then you can certainly question that decision. My point was that Briere putting up some goals in these playoffs does not guarantee that their projections were wrong given the information at the time. Stating that, because of the points he put up before, they should have expected him to put up those points is fine. However, your assessment of their decision should not change because of that performance.

[tom webster]

As I said, you can question their projections based on information available at the time. If, at the time, you thought that he would do $5-7 million per year more to help than to hurt the Sabres, then you can certainly question that decision. My point was that Briere putting up some goals in these playoffs does not guarantee that their projections were wrong given the information at the time. Stating that, because of the points he put up before, they should have expected him to put up those points is fine. However, your assessment of their decision should not change because of that performance.

 

 

What, are we trying to hit thirty on our own?

 

I think the point you are missing is that a large part of their decision back then was that $5 million would be top salary and,in my opinion, given how they were touted as a "cutting edge" organization, they should have expected an increase in the cap, although in fairness, not the dramatic jump.

 

On an unrelated matter, thank god for lap tops, my wife thinks I'm working.

[carpandean]

On an unrelated matter, thank god for lap tops, my wife thinks I'm working.

I know exactly what you are talking about. My girlfriend thinks I'm working, too. :thumbsup:

[GoatheadInCT]

Just in the two that mattered most for the Sabres.

 

People on this board put Briere on a pedestal as one of the top offensive players in the NHL and believe the Sabres should have paid him as such . He has 1 1/2 great seasons on his resume. The rest were just average.

 

4 out of 5 of the Sens games were decided by 1 goal or less. I have to think that if Briere shot more than the 6.1% the series may have gone a different way. And Danny was hot the year before. Until he got to game seven where he didn't even record a shot on goal.

 

Can you honestly win a game when guys turn the puck over to fast Senators players? It gets a bit ridiculous to expect Danny to score a goal

a game trying to make up for those BONEHEAD plays. I stand by my belief that we should have re-signed him, for Vanek at $7 mil didn't get us JACK SQUAT.

[SabreNod]

They are supposed to be the experts and yet exposed Pominviller rather then risks losing Peters but you still want to givr them credit? Fair enough, but let's not color the critricism with terms like unlkely outcome based on the expected probability. They reveled in all the praise they got the two years after the lockout but some want to excuse their shortcomings on unexpected outcomes?

I still stand by the belief that if they based their decisions on incorrect projections, then they are open to the criticism that some of them are leveling at them.

 

I understand when people like SabreNod want to overlook their mistakes or give them a pass beased on some desire to show respect or appreciation for past accomplishments. I may not agree, but I understand. I don't agree with the positition that you can only criticize or question their decisions in the context of what they were projecting. Maybe within the context of what was likely or probable to happen, but not within the context of their misguided projections.

 

 

I guess this thread just won't die. Should we start a new one titled "The Pomminstein Waiver: What does it really suggest?" Darcy has said on the record, and recently, that they got lucky with Pomminstein. And the context of the discussion was that every team gets lucky some times, and every team makes decisions that hindsight reveals probably should not have been made. No front office is perfect, just like no team is perfect. That being said, I still don't understand what they see in Peters. The guy just does not have enough game for my taste. There are enforcers with skill out there and we could certainly use an upgrade in that role. But I digress: Briere. He's good. But not good enough to warrant year-long (and counting) arguments and lamentation. He has moved on and so too should fans.

[SabreNod]

Can you honestly win a game when guys turn the puck over to fast Senators players? It gets a bit ridiculous to expect Danny to score a goal

a game trying to make up for those BONEHEAD plays. I stand by my belief that we should have re-signed him, for Vanek at $7 mil didn't get us JACK SQUAT.

 

Your statements about Vanek threaten to discredit any other opinions you might have, because that's just flat ridiculous and unfounded. Yes, Vanek had an off year. Go through the record books and you'll find that many of the very best pros have had off years. And in Vanek's off year he scored what, 9 fewer goals? Yes we should expect a lot from him and yes I wish he had been more consistent this year but he's still young and his upside is through the roof. With Vanek, the Sabres bet on the Come and it'll pay off. His type of skills are RARE. Far more rare, I should add, than Briere's skills. Particularly when Roy has all of Briere's skills and then some.

[deluca67]

Can you just answer the question? Obviously you spent all day doing research so you could make sure you didn't say something like top offensive players must fall within the top 20 in average points per game! Ooops?

 

By the way, all the credit Philly players give to Briere, do you just dismiss that,too?

 

EDIT: Where does Danny stand in playoff points per game the last three years? I'm sure you did the research.

If Umberger doesn't go off this conversation never happens.

 

Where does Danny stand in Playoff scoring the last the last three years? Against the Canes in game Seven he didn't have a shot. Should anything else matter?

[GoatheadInCT]

I guess this thread just won't die. Should we start a new one titled "The Pomminstein Waiver: What does it really suggest?" Darcy has said on the record, and recently, that they got lucky with Pomminstein.

 

OK then- what should we do with Pominville? Should we extend him to a high dollar contract, or let him go after his current deal is up?? Let's hear what you have to say- I'm interested. I'm a Pirates fan- I know this bloody process all too well for teams who try and do it on the cheap.

[SabreNod]

OK then- what should we do with Pominville? Should we extend him to a high dollar contract, or let him go after his current deal is up?? Let's hear what you have to say- I'm interested. I'm a Pirates fan- I know this bloody process all too well for teams who try and do it on the cheap.

 

I fully expect the Sabres to sign Pommer to a long term contract. If they don't, I'll be disappointed. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. They've said what their intentions are.

[GoatheadInCT]

I fully expect the Sabres to sign Pommer to a long term contract. If they don't, I'll be disappointed. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. They've said what their intentions are.

 

Good. I'm just tired of having a team whose great players all leave after a couple of years like a merry-go-round. Free agency is good to

a point... :(

[stenbaro]

If Umberger doesn't go off this conversation never happens.

 

Where does Danny stand in Playoff scoring the last the last three years? Against the Canes in game Seven he didn't have a shot. Should anything else matter?

If Bernie Parent doesnt go off we have a Stanley CUp..If Scott Norwood could kick a 47 yrd field goal on grass we would have a Super Bowl win..IF..It should be next to Buffalo in the world Atlas....If we had a bridge..If we had lower taxes..

 

Its all relative

[GoatheadInCT]

If Umberger doesn't go off this conversation never happens.

 

Where does Danny stand in Playoff scoring the last the last three years? Against the Canes in game Seven he didn't have a shot. Should anything else matter?

 

Three Eastern Conference Finals in a row... and HOW MANY FREAKIN DEFENSEMEN were we down in Game 7?!? Ohh, that's Danny's fault- I forgot. :thumbdown:

[Mike Oxhurtz]

Just in the two that mattered most for the Sabres.

 

People on this board put Briere on a pedestal as one of the top offensive players in the NHL and believe the Sabres should have paid him as such . He has 1 1/2 great seasons on his resume. The rest were just average.

 

4 out of 5 of the Sens games were decided by 1 goal or less. I have to think that if Briere shot more than the 6.1% the series may have gone a different way. And Danny was hot the year before. Until he got to game seven where he didn't even record a shot on goal.

 

With players like Briere & Drury on the team, we went to 2 Eastern Conference Finals. Without them, we finished in 10th place...is that just a coincedence?

[Mike Oxhurtz]

30 pages is coming, by the time the playoffs are through, we'll be pushing the 50 page mark.

[stenbaro]

With players like Briere & Drury on the team, we went to 2 Eastern Conference Finals. Without them, we finished in 10th place...is that just a coincedence?

Only for the foolish :thumbsup:

[Mike Oxhurtz]

Three Eastern Conference Finals in a row... and HOW MANY FREAKIN DEFENSEMEN were we down in Game 7?!? Ohh, that's Danny's fault- I forgot. :thumbdown:

 

Great point!!! I agree with you! But there are people out there that have to "Boo" every ex-Sabre when they come to town. These people will consider every ex-Sabre overrated, overpaid and just in general hate them because they are no longer a Buffalo Sabre regardless if they were traded, offered a contract/not offered a contract or contract extension, or whatever the circumstance was. They act like these players trash-mouthed Buffalo like Willis McGahee did. The one's that should be getting booed is management for screwing up contract negiotiations (or lack there of). The constant recycling of players didn't work this year, and it cost us, what's the excuse going to be if we don't make it to the playoffs again next season? I know the answer, "we're rebuilding", the classic easy to use phrase.

 

If we don't make it to the playoffs next year, then some serious changes in management need to take place (not meaning Lindy Ruff, he needs to stay).

 

People can say what they want about Briere, but Philly & Pittsburgh both made the right moves and it pisses me off to see them that far in the playoffs when we were one step ahead of the Pens the last 2 years, and Philly was the last place team in the NHL just 1 year ago. I'll give management 1 more year to right the ship, but I don't have high confidence in them.

[SabreNod]

Good. I'm just tired of having a team whose great players all leave after a couple of years like a merry-go-round. Free agency is good to

a point... :(

 

 

Nobody likes the idea of losing key guys. And nobody cheered the day the Flyers signed Briere. I grumbled for a few days, too. He's easy to cheer for and clearly a good guy. Fun to watch skate and play. Sometimes astonishingly good in shootouts. Etc.

 

But come on, it gets to the point where dwelling on losses past and worrying about losses future detracts from the fun of being a fan of the team. But to say that we're not in the ECF (or playoffs) this year because we didn't have Briere or Drury is oversimplifying it. An array of factors kept us out, and I don't think we need to rehash those factors.

 

It's also important, vitally important, that we all open our eyes to the reality that the league has swung back in the other direction. Interference isn't called like it was during the 05-06 playoffs. Clearly the NHL does not want the game to become a league of mighty mites with blazing speed and dazzling skill. They seem to prefer a game in which size and physicality prevail. I like both aspects of the game, but I stopped watching hockey for years because it had become so boring, with all those 1-0 games and 1-1 ties resulting in no winner in the point column. It was a time investment that felt like a total drag. And I hope they don't let it get back to that.