Soupy's contract and timing of Sabres' offers

[nfreeman]

I apologize for this, but I listened to the Schoop interview on the audio vault with Darcy, Lindy and Quinn the other day and I'm still shaking my head. During the discussion of Soupy's contract negotiations, Quinn disclosed that, toward the end, they offered Soupy $29 million for 6 years -- so $4.83 million per year. It's been widely reported that Soupy asked for $5 million x 5 years before the season started, which was in October, and that the Sabres rejected this proposal. The trade deadline was Feb. 26.

 

So, assuming the Sabres could have signed Soupy in October for $5 million x 5 years (and probably could've gotten him to take the $29 million for 6 years at that point) -- why in the world was it not OK with management in October, but it was OK in February? How could 5 months have made such a difference? They knew what they had in Campbell in October. They also knew in October, having had the "benefit" of the 2006 and 2007 offseasons, what the NHL salary/free agency landscape looked like.

 

Before I heard the interview, I had assumed that the Sabres had concluded that Soupy wasn't the guy they wanted to commit big money to on a long-term basis. But then they disclose that they made him exactly that kind of offer -- but by then it was many days late and many dollars short. How could Soupy have not been worth $4.83 million to $5 million per year to them on a long-term deal in October, but he was worth it in February? Were they just asleep at the switch AGAIN in October? They extended Roy in July -- was that all they could emotionally handle? WTF is wrong with them?

 

I am still hopeful that they will remove their heads from their rectums and re-sign Miller, Pominville, Gaustad (whom Miller stated in his year-end interview was a critical guy to be re-signed), Bernier and Paille this summer, but it's hard to be confident.

 

Someone please convince me?

[tom webster]

I apologize for this, but I listened to the Schoop interview on the audio vault with Darcy, Lindy and Quinn the other day and I'm still shaking my head. During the discussion of Soupy's contract negotiations, Quinn disclosed that, toward the end, they offered Soupy $29 million for 6 years -- so $4.83 million per year. It's been widely reported that Soupy asked for $5 million x 5 years before the season started, which was in October, and that the Sabres rejected this proposal. The trade deadline was Feb. 26.

 

So, assuming the Sabres could have signed Soupy in October for $5 million x 5 years (and probably could've gotten him to take the $29 million for 6 years at that point) -- why in the world was it not OK with management in October, but it was OK in February? How could 5 months have made such a difference? They knew what they had in Campbell in October. They also knew in October, having had the "benefit" of the 2006 and 2007 offseasons, what the NHL salary/free agency landscape looked like.

 

Before I heard the interview, I had assumed that the Sabres had concluded that Soupy wasn't the guy they wanted to commit big money to on a long-term basis. But then they disclose that they made him exactly that kind of offer -- but by then it was many days late and many dollars short. How could Soupy have not been worth $4.83 million to $5 million per year to them on a long-term deal in October, but he was worth it in February? Were they just asleep at the switch AGAIN in October? They extended Roy in July -- was that all they could emotionally handle? WTF is wrong with them?

 

I am still hopeful that they will remove their heads from their rectums and re-sign Miller, Pominville, Gaustad (whom Miller stated in his year-end interview was a critical guy to be re-signed), Bernier and Paille this summer, but it's hard to be confident.

 

Someone please convince me?

 

Free, I have been trying to say this same things since I started on tihs board. It is not that the team chose these guys weren't guys they wanted, they just couldn't get the deal done. That is what is so frustrating when posters try to tell me how awful the players are and how right the team was in choosing not to sign them.

[nfreeman]

Free, I have been trying to say this same things since I started on tihs board. It is not that the team chose these guys weren't guys they wanted, they just couldn't get the deal done. That is what is so frustrating when posters try to tell me how awful the players are and how right the team was in choosing not to sign them.

 

This appears to be 100% accurate with respect to Drury and Campbell. I don't think it's the case with Briere (and I don't think you're saying that it is either). Do you think it applies to any of the other guys who have left?

[shrader]

Sorry for the nitpicking, but you're jumping back and forth with terminology a bit here. Derek Roy was not extended. He did not have a contract at that point, so he was re-signed. Miller and Pominville are the ones who would be extended if they work something out this offseason since they are on already existing contracts.

 

But anyway, my main thought while reading that was that they didn't value him that highly. Whether they're right or wrong on that, if you have a certain maximum value in mind for a player, you shouldn't go beyond it. Back in October, they obviously didn't have him anywhere near that $5 million figure. I think that later deal is more of a face saving situation. You know he won't take it, but at least you look like you're trying.

 

One other thought on why they couldn't have made that offer back in October. I'm not 100% sure on the timeline here, but maybe they viewed Hecht as a higher priority. If you give Campbell that deal before working something out with Hecht, suddenly Jochen may be increasing his demands a bit.

[tom webster]

Sorry for the nitpicking, but you're jumping back and forth with terminology a bit here. Derek Roy was not extended. He did not have a contract at that point, so he was re-signed. Miller and Pominville are the ones who would be extended if they work something out this offseason since they are on already existing contracts.

 

But anyway, my main thought while reading that was that they didn't value him that highly. Whether they're right or wrong on that, if you have a certain maximum value in mind for a player, you shouldn't go beyond it. Back in October, they obviously didn't have him anywhere near that $5 million figure. I think that later deal is more of a face saving situation. You know he won't take it, but at least you look like you're trying.

 

One other thought on why they couldn't have made that offer back in October. I'm not 100% sure on the timeline here, but maybe they viewed Hecht as a higher priority. If you give Campbell that deal before working something out with Hecht, suddenly Jochen may be increasing his demands a bit.

 

Hecht signed October 16th and was probably at the high end of his contract anyway. I doubt that his deal had any effect on Campbell, but who knows.

As for the 6 year $29 million deal, I think they thought he would sign that deal and thus was not a face saving deal. The 3 year deal was definitely done to save face.

[nfreeman]

Sorry for the nitpicking, but you're jumping back and forth with terminology a bit here. Derek Roy was not extended. He did not have a contract at that point, so he was re-signed. Miller and Pominville are the ones who would be extended if they work something out this offseason since they are on already existing contracts.

 

But anyway, my main thought while reading that was that they didn't value him that highly. Whether they're right or wrong on that, if you have a certain maximum value in mind for a player, you shouldn't go beyond it. Back in October, they obviously didn't have him anywhere near that $5 million figure. I think that later deal is more of a face saving situation. You know he won't take it, but at least you look like you're trying.

 

One other thought on why they couldn't have made that offer back in October. I'm not 100% sure on the timeline here, but maybe they viewed Hecht as a higher priority. If you give Campbell that deal before working something out with Hecht, suddenly Jochen may be increasing his demands a bit.

 

1. you are correct on the terminology -- but now I'm gonna be scrutinizing your posts for similar hiccups, so get ready.

 

2. I agree that the team shouldn't exceed its internal valuation for a player. I don't agree that the later offer was a face-saving situation. The Sabres (especially Darcy) don't seem that dishonest/Machiavellian. They just seem incompetent.

 

3. Good point on Hecht. He was extended on October 16. They still could've re-signed Soupy (I'm guessing) at the lower number before, say, Thanksgiving.

[TM8-PL16]

on another note... Campbell made the all-star game again and like it or not that increases his value. He knows it and his agent knows it... it doesn't matter if he deserved to be there or not. The NHLPA and his agent have an obligation to get as much money for their client as possible and they will chirp in the clients ear non-stop to convince them they can get more if they hold out. October he was a one time all-star and the Sabres weren't sure he was worth 5 mill a year... come Feb, Campbell knew he was worth more than that and wouldn't accept that offer or anything less.

 

I think if Campbell doesn't make the all-star game, we re-sign him... but since he did that scewed the pay scale as far as I'm concerned....

 

who knows... but he's gone and to be honest, I don't want him at that crazy money that wouldn't allow us to keep players like Miller and Pommers

[shrader]

1. you are correct on the terminology -- but now I'm gonna be scrutinizing your posts for similar hiccups, so get ready.

 

I'm in one of those moods today, feel like crap so the most random things are going to catch my eye. But anyway, I'll be sure to plant a few screw ups here in there in my posts just for you. :thumbsup:

[X. Benedict]

How could 5 months have made such a difference? They knew what they had in Campbell in October. They also knew in October, having had the "benefit" of the 2006 and 2007 offseasons, what the NHL salary/free agency landscape looked like.

 

Someone please convince me?

I'm not trying to convince anyone in such matters, but in the fall I really think the club is thinking that the #1 pairing is Lydman-Tallinder with Tallinder as the number 1 D man with a Spacek and Numminen, Kalinin and Campbell and even Lydman splitting a great deal of PP time with the occasional visit from Pomminstein on the point.

 

Of course we know how things played out...but back in the Autumn looking forward, it's hard to justify #1 money on a second pairing with other PP options.

[nfreeman]

I'm in one of those moods today, feel like crap so the most random things are going to catch my eye. But anyway, I'll be sure to plant a few screw ups here in there in my posts just for you. :thumbsup:

 

Gotcha!

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone in such matters, but in the fall I really think the club is thinking that the #1 pairing is Lydman-Tallinder with Tallinder as the number 1 D man with a Spacek and Numminen, Kalinin and Campbell and even Lydman splitting a great deal of PP time with the occasional visit from Pomminstein on the point.

 

Of course we know how things played out...but back in the Autumn looking forward, it's hard to justify #1 money on a second pairing with other PP options.

 

Good point.

[SabresFan526]

I have criticized this management a lot, especially in the wake of Briere and Drury, but this is one player that I don't fault the Sabres management too much on. From what I hear, two deals were offered: 6 years $29 million and 3 years at $5.75 million/year. I think both are very fair deals for Campbell, in fact more than fair and a bit more than what he's worth, but that's the risk you take with a UFA. As for the deal Campbell wanted initially, rumored to be 5 years at $25 million, I still think that it's a bit much but given the latest contract offers, probably a deal he would have accepted.

 

I don't know that I have the answer as to why the Sabres could not get Campbell signed, but I guess if you look long term in terms of their salary plan, my hunch is that they expect that they will sign Miller and Pominville long term for pretty big money i.e. an average of about $5-6 million/per year/per player. Now, include Roy and Vanek's contract and you add Campbell in there, you now have 5 guys making more than $4 million/year. It goes against this management's philosophy of not having a top heavy of team. Second, it also makes getting guys like Paille, Gaustad, and Stafford to deals that are cap friendly difficult. I know and totally understand that the Max, Kotalik, and Connolly are the three guys that totally mess up the entire cap for the team, but realistically you know the Sabres are not going to buy these three out because it costs too much against their cap to buy out anyone and they probably feel that they won't get any value for trading these three guys (in addition to Quinn's love affair with Connolly, Golisano's love affair with Max, and Regier's liking of Kotalik at his pretty cheap price). So given their salary situations and the fact that a lot of guys are coming up for contract renewals as well as where they value Campbell, it just becomes too tough to give Campbell a big money deal for long term, which is what he's looking for. The difference in the two contracts above is almost $1 million/year which can get guys like Paille or Gaustad under contract.

 

And, while I love Campbell and what he brought offensively to the Sabres, I just cannot justify giving top tier defenseman money for a guy who is not very strong in the defensive zone and is right now, not close to Norris Trophy candidate, and that's the type of money he's looking for. I just can't justify it, but that's my opinion. Hence, the reason I'm ok with the trade of Campbell. To me Briere and Drury are worth what they asked for and "agreed" to with the Sabres, Campbell was not. That's my opinion. But, not signing Drury last year when they had an agreement in place is no doubt one of the biggest mistakes this management team made, and I will agree with anyone who has said that thus far.

[Taro T]

on another note... Campbell made the all-star game again and like it or not that increases his value. He knows it and his agent knows it... it doesn't matter if he deserved to be there or not. The NHLPA and his agent have an obligation to get as much money for their client as possible and they will chirp in the clients ear non-stop to convince them they can get more if they hold out. October he was a one time all-star and the Sabres weren't sure he was worth 5 mill a year... come Feb, Campbell knew he was worth more than that and wouldn't accept that offer or anything less.

 

I think if Campbell doesn't make the all-star game, we re-sign him... but since he did that scewed the pay scale as far as I'm concerned....

 

who knows... but he's gone and to be honest, I don't want him at that crazy money that wouldn't allow us to keep players like Miller and Pommers

For the agent, I absolutely agree you are correct on this.

 

For the NHLPA, I'm not sure I follow, although it is apparent that they believe this as well. The players receive a set amount of money (somewhere between 54-57% of specified league revenues) each year regardless of how it is distributed. If the nominal value of all contracts exceeds that threshold, the players will give money back; and if it is below they, they get year end bonuses.

 

I realize that the PA probably intends to use escalated salaries for top players as reason for increasing their share of the pie in '11, but until then the players will get exactly what the CBA has spelled out. They also may want the players nominal contracts to exceed what they will actually get to sow discontent in time for the next negotiation.

 

Are there other reasons for the NHLPA to push for players to max out their individual contracts? Because the way I see it, the overall majority of players in the NHLPA benefit when a Sydney Crosby only takes $9MM / yr rather than $10MM+ as that is an extra $1MM that gets spread across all 720 or so players. It only averages ~$1,400 / player, but I'd take a $1,400 bonus and that bonus hits everytime a "name" player takes a "hometown discount".

 

Am I missing something here?

[Taro T]

I'm not trying to convince anyone in such matters, but in the fall I really think the club is thinking that the #1 pairing is Lydman-Tallinder with Tallinder as the number 1 D man with a Spacek and Numminen, Kalinin and Campbell and even Lydman splitting a great deal of PP time with the occasional visit from Pomminstein on the point.

 

Of course we know how things played out...but back in the Autumn looking forward, it's hard to justify #1 money on a second pairing with other PP options.

I agree w/ n.

 

Excellent point. I was thinking Teppo's situation probably had a large role in the Sabres adjusting their value on Brian over the course of the season, but the issues that Talli-man went through this year also factor in.

[SabresFanInRochester]

Free, I have been trying to say this same things since I started on tihs board. It is not that the team chose these guys weren't guys they wanted, they just couldn't get the deal done. That is what is so frustrating when posters try to tell me how awful the players are and how right the team was in choosing not to sign them.

 

Finally! Someone else that sees it in the same light as me. Funny how as soon as Campbell left, everyone started talking about how he sucked. His defense might not be the best, but he was a transition d-man who played a key on the power play. Talking crap about someone must make it easier to dismiss the fact that the player is gone, and make it easier to boo them when they return in another team's jersey? Talk about the fox and the sour grapes!

[Knightrider]

This appears to be 100% accurate with respect to Drury and Campbell. I don't think it's the case with Briere (and I don't think you're saying that it is either). Do you think it applies to any of the other guys who have left?

 

I do not think they thought Campbell was an awful player. I think they weren't convinced about what they had in the pipeline or where the future cap number was headed. By the trade deadline, they knew they had two nhl'ers in Sekera and Weber, and that Funk and Brennan aren't far behind. If he really wanted to be here, with the knowledge that others were going to need to be signed soon, he'd have signed the deadline deal (it wasn't an unrealistic deal). He didn't, but they at least got a 1st and former first who adds toughness to the forward ranks.

[shrader]

I do not think they thought Campbell was an awful player. I think they weren't convinced about what they had in the pipeline or where the future cap number was headed. By the trade deadline, they knew they had two nhl'ers in Sekera and Weber, and that Funk and Brennan aren't far behind. If he really wanted to be here, with the knowledge that others were going to need to be signed soon, he'd have signed the deadline deal (it wasn't an unrealistic deal). He didn't, but they at least got a 1st and former first who adds toughness to the forward ranks.

 

It'll be interesting to see where Butler winds up on the depth chart. He has played at a high level in a very competitive league. Obviously there will be some growing pains, but I'll be very interested to see his progress this year.

[SabresFan526]

Finally! Someone else that sees it in the same light as me. Funny how as soon as Campbell left, everyone started talking about how he sucked. His defense might not be the best, but he was a transition d-man who played a key on the power play. Talking crap about someone must make it easier to dismiss the fact that the player is gone, and make it easier to boo them when they return in another team's jersey? Talk about the fox and the sour grapes!

I'll take issue with that since it seems to be pointed in my direction, whether it is or not. I have never said nor do I believe that Campbell sucks. He is what he is. He's a very good offensive defenseman, a powerplay QB, and excellent at skating the puck up the ice. He has deficiencies in the defensive zone. This is not a news flash to anyone. Having said that, there are a few things at play here:

 

1. Given the type of player Campbell is does it justify paying him the amount of money that Norris Trophy candidates are getting paid? To be a Norris Candidate you have to be a complete defenseman who is good both offensively and defensively, and Campbell is not that great defensively, which is not a news flash nor makes him suckworthy. It just means that you can't justify paying him the salary that guys like Niedermeyer, Pronger, Chara, Phaneuf, Lidstrom, etc, which is what he's looking for.

 

2. In relation to the rest of the team, can you justify paying Campbell as much money as he wants i.e. $5.75 million/year over 5-6 years when you have to pay Vanek, Roy, Pominville, and Miller over that same time period? If you are paying these 5 guys an average of $5.5 million/year/per player i.e. almost $27.5 million in cap space for 5 players, what do you do about the rest of the team? That leaves about $20-$25 million to pay about 17 players and that's if you are spending to high end of the cap as well as the high end of the Sabres threshold. Can it be done? Possibly, but it will be tough keeping a very competitive team in that scenario. See Tampa Bay.

 

3. Do you feel you can field a competitive team without Campbell with someone filling in his production at a cheaper price in order to keep the other guys? Can Sekera step up and fill in for Campbell? Can the Sabres go out in free agency and get someone who plays a similar style as Campbell but may come in cheaper like a John Michael Liles or a Jeff Finger?

 

In my opinion, the answer to the three questions above are, I can't justify paying Campbell Norris Trophy money, I think you can field a top heavy team, but it will be very tough with very little wiggle room and if the team spends so much and doesn't make the playoffs it's disastrous financially, and I do think the Sabres can field a competitive team without Campbell and can replace his production. Now, if I ask those three or similar questions in relation to Briere and Drury, the answers are different and hence that's why I'm more upset at not keeping Briere/Drury vs. not keeping Campbell. That's my opinion, and for the record, I do not think Campbell sucks.

[tom webster]

I do not think they thought Campbell was an awful player. I think they weren't convinced about what they had in the pipeline or where the future cap number was headed. By the trade deadline, they knew they had two nhl'ers in Sekera and Weber, and that Funk and Brennan aren't far behind. If he really wanted to be here, with the knowledge that others were going to need to be signed soon, he'd have signed the deadline deal (it wasn't an unrealistic deal). He didn't, but they at least got a 1st and former first who adds toughness to the forward ranks.

 

It is doubtful that at the deadline they had any better feeling on these four then they had in October.

[tom webster]

on another note... Campbell made the all-star game again and like it or not that increases his value. He knows it and his agent knows it... it doesn't matter if he deserved to be there or not. The NHLPA and his agent have an obligation to get as much money for their client as possible and they will chirp in the clients ear non-stop to convince them they can get more if they hold out. October he was a one time all-star and the Sabres weren't sure he was worth 5 mill a year... come Feb, Campbell knew he was worth more than that and wouldn't accept that offer or anything less.

 

I think if Campbell doesn't make the all-star game, we re-sign him... but since he did that scewed the pay scale as far as I'm concerned....

 

who knows... but he's gone and to be honest, I don't want him at that crazy money that wouldn't allow us to keep players like Miller and Pommers

 

 

One of the most amazing things management did in the last three years is somehow get people to buy into the notion that this is one of the reasons why they haven't been able to sign their players. It doesn't matter that players all over the league are signing below perceived market value, TG and LQ have convinced some fans of the Sabres that its the union's fault.

[carpandean]

In my opinion, the answer to the three questions above are, I can't justify paying Campbell Norris Trophy money, I think you can field a top heavy team, but it will be very tough with very little wiggle room and if the team spends so much and doesn't make the playoffs it's disastrous financially, and I do think the Sabres can field a competitive team without Campbell and can replace his production. Now, if I ask those three or similar questions in relation to Briere and Drury, the answers are different and hence that's why I'm more upset at not keeping Briere/Drury vs. not keeping Campbell. That's my opinion, and for the record, I do not think Campbell sucks.

I agree with your answers about Campbell. The Briere/Drury situation was a little different because of the number of key players up for contracts at one time (Briere, Drury, Vanek, Roy). If you change your questions to include three options: keeping both, keeping one and dropping both, the clear answer to me was the middle one. Some here thinking keeping both would have been the right decision, but I feel that if you had asked those questions about Briere with the condition that Chris would be staying (or, possibly, vice versa), then my answers would have been similar to Campbell's (good, but not worth the money). They went with keeping one, Chris, and did "fail to get it done" in that case. By the point that it seemed very likely they might lose Chris (I'm not convinced that they really should have known he was gone in the fall), it was too late to get Danny at any reasonable price. Their second mistake was their overconfidence in young guys stepping up and Connolly staying healthy, plus they put too much of the need for leadership in the hands Teppo. Mistakes were definitely made and two of them (negotiating with Drury and not having enough leadership) have -- at least to some extent -- been admitted, but there was also a bit of a perfect storm factor to last summer. This summer will tell me more about their abilities and I will neither assume they will do everything right nor condemn them before they have actually done something wrong.

[carpandean]

It is doubtful that at the deadline they had any better feeling on these four then they had in October.

You are assuming that they didn't pay any attention to Rochester. They were the top pair down there and, according to several sources, had grown a lot during that time. Obviously, they couldn't have felt as good about it as they did by the end of the season, but they did scratch Kalinin to bring up Sekera shortly after the deadline. He must have shown them something in Rochester.

[will]

One of the most amazing things management did in the last three years is somehow get people to buy into the notion that this is one of the reasons why they haven't been able to sign their players. It doesn't matter that players all over the league are signing below perceived market value, TG and LQ have convinced some fans of the Sabres that its the union's fault.

 

examples?

 

last i checked, the people that mattered most who got signed this past off-season were all making $6+mil/yr.

 

gomez

drury

briere

timonen

richards, mike

etc.

 

an exception might me souray? but he's basically the same player as campbell, only a bit more extreme on either end (worse D, better O)...and at a cap hit of $5.4mil. no thanks.

 

i've said before that if anyone gives brian more than $3.5mil/yr, they are suckers. and that's a higher number than i was at earlier this season. he stood out on this team because the rest of the defense was inept. once sekera and weber came up, i think people started seeing what real defensemen can and should be doing...hitting, controlling the puck in the corners, and not being a liability.

[nfreeman]

I do not think they thought Campbell was an awful player. I think they weren't convinced about what they had in the pipeline or where the future cap number was headed. By the trade deadline, they knew they had two nhl'ers in Sekera and Weber, and that Funk and Brennan aren't far behind. If he really wanted to be here, with the knowledge that others were going to need to be signed soon, he'd have signed the deadline deal (it wasn't an unrealistic deal). He didn't, but they at least got a 1st and former first who adds toughness to the forward ranks.

 

This is the opposite of what XB said, and, respectfully, I think XB was right. In other words, the fact that they made an offer to Soupy at the deadline that was essentially equal to the proposal from Soupy that they rejected before the season means that they were less confident, not more confident, in their existing group of defensemen. So, while they probably did feel reasonably good about Sekera and (to a lesser extent) Weber in February, and while that may have influenced their decision not to give Soupy, say, a $36 million contract, it doesn't explain why they would offer him the same deal that they rejected 5 months previously.

 

I'll take issue with that since it seems to be pointed in my direction, whether it is or not. I have never said nor do I believe that Campbell sucks. He is what he is. He's a very good offensive defenseman, a powerplay QB, and excellent at skating the puck up the ice. He has deficiencies in the defensive zone. This is not a news flash to anyone. Having said that, there are a few things at play here:

 

1. Given the type of player Campbell is does it justify paying him the amount of money that Norris Trophy candidates are getting paid? To be a Norris Candidate you have to be a complete defenseman who is good both offensively and defensively, and Campbell is not that great defensively, which is not a news flash nor makes him suckworthy. It just means that you can't justify paying him the salary that guys like Niedermeyer, Pronger, Chara, Phaneuf, Lidstrom, etc, which is what he's looking for.

 

2. In relation to the rest of the team, can you justify paying Campbell as much money as he wants i.e. $5.75 million/year over 5-6 years when you have to pay Vanek, Roy, Pominville, and Miller over that same time period? If you are paying these 5 guys an average of $5.5 million/year/per player i.e. almost $27.5 million in cap space for 5 players, what do you do about the rest of the team? That leaves about $20-$25 million to pay about 17 players and that's if you are spending to high end of the cap as well as the high end of the Sabres threshold. Can it be done? Possibly, but it will be tough keeping a very competitive team in that scenario. See Tampa Bay.

 

3. Do you feel you can field a competitive team without Campbell with someone filling in his production at a cheaper price in order to keep the other guys? Can Sekera step up and fill in for Campbell? Can the Sabres go out in free agency and get someone who plays a similar style as Campbell but may come in cheaper like a John Michael Liles or a Jeff Finger?

 

In my opinion, the answer to the three questions above are, I can't justify paying Campbell Norris Trophy money, I think you can field a top heavy team, but it will be very tough with very little wiggle room and if the team spends so much and doesn't make the playoffs it's disastrous financially, and I do think the Sabres can field a competitive team without Campbell and can replace his production. Now, if I ask those three or similar questions in relation to Briere and Drury, the answers are different and hence that's why I'm more upset at not keeping Briere/Drury vs. not keeping Campbell. That's my opinion, and for the record, I do not think Campbell sucks.

 

While I don't disagree with your assertion that we were right not to pay Soupy $6-$7 million per year, my point was simply that we could've had him for $4.83-$5 million per year, on a long-term deal, 5 months before we decided that we were ready to pay that much -- by which time it was too late. And if we were willing to pay that much in February, we should've been willing to pay it in October, since we knew, in October, all we needed to know about Soupy and about NHL economics.

 

Now, XB made an excellent point, which is that what we didn't know last summer was the degree of suckitude that the rest of our defense was going to exhibit. It's quite reasonable to think that the Sabres assumed they would have Teppo and that Lydman, Tallinder and Kalinin would play substantially better than they actually did. Once Teppo disappeared and the other 3 looked lousy all year, Soupy's value to the team probably increased.

[Bmwolf21]

I'll take issue with that since it seems to be pointed in my direction, whether it is or not. I have never said nor do I believe that Campbell sucks. He is what he is. He's a very good offensive defenseman, a powerplay QB, and excellent at skating the puck up the ice. He has deficiencies in the defensive zone. This is not a news flash to anyone. Having said that, there are a few things at play here:

I don't see Campbell as a true PP QB - he's an offensive defenseman playing the blue line on the PP.an offensive defenseman playing the blue line on the PP, and IMO there's a difference. He has had some success on the PP, but he's not a guy that backs opposing PK'ers off the blue line, gets his shot on through traffic, and feathers passes to teammates for scoring ops.

[tom webster]

examples?

 

last i checked, the people that mattered most who got signed this past off-season were all making $6+mil/yr.

 

gomez

drury

briere

timonen

richards, mike

etc.

 

an exception might me souray? but he's basically the same player as campbell, only a bit more extreme on either end (worse D, better O)...and at a cap hit of $5.4mil. no thanks.

 

i've said before that if anyone gives brian more than $3.5mil/yr, they are suckers. and that's a higher number than i was at earlier this season. he stood out on this team because the rest of the defense was inept. once sekera and weber came up, i think people started seeing what real defensemen can and should be doing...hitting, controlling the puck in the corners, and not being a liability.

 

I am talking about the people that signed to remain with their clubs. Thornton, Iginla, Phaneuf, even Crosby, the lists goes on of players that signed before going to free agency for below market value. All these players got great deals but if the argument is that the NHLPA wants all players to go for the maximum, then why haven't these players done that?