Soupy's contract and timing of Sabres' offers

[shrader]

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

 

I won't back up what Knightrider said, but 4 months is more than enough time for a player to improve/hurt his standing in the organization. I don't think it had a huge influence on the Campbell situation, but I'm sure at that point, Darcy and co. had a better feeling for what Sekera and Weber brought to the table as hockey players compared to their thoughts back in October, especially with Weber who didn't have a single minute of professional hockey under his belt at that point.

 

edit: I hate it when I don't notice that there's another page in the thread. I see that this point has already been made.

[SabresFan526]

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.

I don't know. He skated the puck in on the PP. I thought he was pretty good at sending the one time pass from the high slot to Spacek at the faceoff dot. I'm sure there are better PP QBs. I don't think Campbell is all that bad at it, but probably not the best PP QB like a Gonchar or someone else.

[X. Benedict]

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.

 

The bar in negotiating last summer was set by Souray. 5 x 5.4 mil. coming off of a 20+ goal season. (and probably minus for every goal). So that is a bit of context for a 5x5 deal.

 

Of course shooting is about the only thing Souray can do.......

 

Campbell has a decent shot when he moves in, but can never seem to find the net from high point (he always seems to miss left of net, (or is that just me? )) No complaints about how he moves the puck on PP, and no great miracles keeping it in the zone....sometimes he can get pushed out but he does cover a lot of ground.

[Bmwolf21]

I don't know. He skated the puck in on the PP. I thought he was pretty good at sending the one time pass from the high slot to Spacek at the faceoff dot. I'm sure there are better PP QBs. I don't think Campbell is all that bad at it, but probably not the best PP QB like a Gonchar or someone else.

I just don't think he deserves the title of a PP QB at all. Those are guys like Gonchar, Zubov, Blake, Rafalski, Streit (and previously Souray.) My defintion of the PP QB is someone who almsot always gets his shot through and on net, and can pass to anyone in the offensive zone - not just his d-partner.

 

As I said in the previous post - he is an offensive defenseman playing the point on the blue line, not a PP QB. There is a difference.

[tom webster]

I won't back up what Knightrider said, but 4 months is more than enough time for a player to improve/hurt his standing in the organization. I don't think it had a huge influence on the Campbell situation, but I'm sure at that point, Darcy and co. had a better feeling for what Sekera and Weber brought to the table as hockey players compared to their thoughts back in October, especially with Weber who didn't have a single minute of professional hockey under his belt at that point.

 

edit: I hate it when I don't notice that there's another page in the thread. I see that this point has already been made.

 

 

I didn't word it well. I meant, as you said, that whatever amount of change in opinion they might have had, it should have had little to do with the Campbell situation.

On a related note, but off topic, it seems that people are taking for granted that Sekera and Weber are the real deal. If prodded, I could come up with twenty defensemen in recent memory that started off with great fanfare only to never exceed those first year performances.

[Knightrider]

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.

 

Maybe Gragnani leaving the blueline? I don't know. To me, offering the same numbers after he made another All-Star selection means they were not that interested in retaining him, but wanted to save face.

 

I think they knew exactly what they were getting with Campbell, Tom. It's Weber and Sekera that they weren't sure about.

[X. Benedict]

I didn't word it well. I meant, as you said, that whatever amount of change in opinion they might have had, it should have had little to do with the Campbell situation.

On a related note, but off topic, it seems that people are taking for granted that Sekera and Weber are the real deal. If prodded, I could come up with twenty defensemen in recent memory that started off with great fanfare only to never exceed those first year performances.

 

I don't expect Weber to be full time on the roster next year.

I think Sekera has a shot.

 

You're right though, no guarantees.

[Knightrider]

I didn't word it well. I meant, as you said, that whatever amount of change in opinion they might have had, it should have had little to do with the Campbell situation.

On a related note, but off topic, it seems that people are taking for granted that Sekera and Weber are the real deal. If prodded, I could come up with twenty defensemen in recent memory that started off with great fanfare only to never exceed those first year performances.

 

My guess is that you can come up with many more than 20 D-men that did exceed their first year performances.

[shrader]

My guess is that you can come up with many more than 20 D-men that did exceed their first year performances.

 

And since the offseason is so boring, I think he should produce this list. Hell, I have nothing better to read right now.

[Knightrider]

And since the offseason is so boring, I think he should produce this list. Hell, I have nothing better to read right now.

 

:lol:

 

Heck, why am I here? I got Kalinined.

 

BTW, I forgot about Butler...

[SabresFanInRochester]

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.

 

Lighten up, Francis. Nothing was directed at you, or anyone for that matter. It's just I don't think I have heard anything positive about Campbell since he left. (Even when our power play was horrible, and we were needing help at the point, there was little acknowledgment of Campbell; it was more Connolly.)

 

I like your three points. My only rebuttal with your first point is that if they got it done in the fall, it could have been a little cheaper and maybe things pan out in that instance. Your second and third points are valid. Someone can step in and fill that void, but not in the middle of the season. Sekera played inspirational and looks like he has a solid future but the power play suffered after the trade deadline. We only needed a couple more goals to make the playoffs. A couple power play goals could have made the difference.

[SabresFanInRochester]

I just don't think he deserves the title of a PP QB at all. Those are guys like Gonchar, Zubov, Blake, Rafalski, Streit (and previously Souray.) My defintion of the PP QB is someone who almsot always gets his shot through and on net, and can pass to anyone in the offensive zone - not just his d-partner.

 

As I said in the previous post - he is an offensive defenseman playing the point on the blue line, not a PP QB. There is a difference.

 

I typically agree with your comments, but just to clear the air -- I never used the words "PP QB" to describe Campbell and I did not see anyone post using those words. I said he was a transitional D-man and had strengths on the PP. I did not make Campbell out to be a PP QB, and I agree with your assessment. If Campbell was PP QB and/or strong defensively, then perhaps he is worthy of $6-7 million. I think those deficiencies should be discounted in his salary. Hence, offering him $4-5 million back in October.

[Bmwolf21]

I typically agree with your comments, but just to clear the air -- I never used the words "PP QB" to describe Campbell and I did not see anyone post using those words.

Look in the fourth sentence of 526's post in your previous post.

[SabresFanInRochester]

Look in the fourth sentence of 526's post in your previous post.

 

My paranoia got the best of me. I overlooked that post by 526. Again, I agree with you -- PP QB is a little generous.

[Bmwolf21]

My paranoia got the best of me. I overlooked that post by 526. Again, I agree with you -- PP QB is a little generous.

No biggie.

 

I've been calling - well, murmuring is probably more like it - for more PP scoring from the point, and I think we really need that "point guard" type PP QB who can distribute the puck to our scorers up front and get his shots through to Vanek's tip-in area. I just never saw Soupy as that guy, and looking at other true PP QB's, I really don't see it.

[tom webster]

My guess is that you can come up with many more than 20 D-men that did exceed their first year performances.

 

Exactly my point. Two or three weeks of great play doesn't ensure anything. A few years ago there were those that thought Jean-Luc Grand-Pierre was a future star.

[will]

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?

 

i'm not trying to pick on you, tom, but these guys are all $6mil+/yr. players, some much more. i think if you get above $6mil/yr., they've reached their market value, and any agent/union would be happy...especially in the cases of the players you're mentioning, where their contracts are/were for more than 5 years each, minimum (some more). in these players, i think they and the union are happy with longer contracts even if they're maybe a million less per year than what they could get if they went year to year.

 

my point in my posts is that i don't think ANYONE in hockey is signing for below their market value except for teemu selanne. and i don't think sabres management is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes as was being implied.

[tom webster]

i'm not trying to pick on you, tom, but these guys are all $6mil+/yr. players, some much more. i think if you get above $6mil/yr., they've reached their market value, and any agent/union would be happy...especially in the cases of the players you're mentioning, where their contracts are/were for more than 5 years each, minimum (some more). in these players, i think they and the union are happy with longer contracts even if they're maybe a million less per year than what they could get if they went year to year.

 

my point in my posts is that i don't think ANYONE in hockey is signing for below their market value except for teemu selanne. and i don't think sabres management is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes as was being implied.

 

I don't feel your picking on me at all. Hope you don't mind if your I think you are not making sense at all. Why would the Union care if campbell signed for less but is alright for say Phaneuf to take less. Maximum contract is going to be $11.2 next year. The guys I mentioned all could have gotten considerably more on the open market if they wished to. I'll come up with some more names in the middle tier if it makes you feel better.

Another point. Thornton's deal was for only three years. Patrick Marleau signed a two year extension. Crosby and Iginla's was exactly 5 years. JP Parise signed for only 4 years at less than $3.5 after Roy had signed his deal. I could go on.

[will]

i guess we differ on the concept of these players getting "considerably more" on the open market. what was the max contract allowed when these players (thornton, iginla, crosby) signed? was anyone making that then, or now? i honestly don't know where to look that up, but if you do, i'd like to see the answers.

 

marleau? c'mon, the sharks were "this close" to shipping him out for prospects/picks. and joe's contract averages $7.2mil for the next three years...a deal inked when? - before this season, when the average cap hit of the top ten contracts was just under $7.2mil.

[tom webster]

i guess we differ on the concept of these players getting "considerably more" on the open market. what was the max contract allowed when these players (thornton, iginla, crosby) signed? was anyone making that then, or now? i honestly don't know where to look that up, but if you do, i'd like to see the answers.

 

marleau? c'mon, the sharks were "this close" to shipping him out for prospects/picks. and joe's contract averages $7.2mil for the next three years...a deal inked when? - before this season, when the average cap hit of the top ten contracts was just under $7.2mil.

 

Joe signed his contract at the same time that when according to your logic, Drury and Briere were being pressured by their union to go to arbitration and when, as a player in the middle of a 114 point season, he would have commanded a contract that would have dwarfed theirs. Likewise, Marleau and Iginla agreed to their deals in the off season after Briere, Drury and Gomez set the market for a player with less than their type of stats.

Want the other end of the spectrum, while Buffalo was going to pay Teppo $2.6 million, Chris Chelios was playing for $1.15 million. What about Daniel Cleary ? Superior stats to Hecht, yet signed after Jochen for $1 million less per year.

[shrader]

i guess we differ on the concept of these players getting "considerably more" on the open market. what was the max contract allowed when these players (thornton, iginla, crosby) signed? was anyone making that then, or now? i honestly don't know where to look that up, but if you do, i'd like to see the answers.

 

marleau? c'mon, the sharks were "this close" to shipping him out for prospects/picks. and joe's contract averages $7.2mil for the next three years...a deal inked when? - before this season, when the average cap hit of the top ten contracts was just under $7.2mil.

 

The two names I would've argued against are Thornton and Iginla. Those two signed before the market was established. Yes, they could've gotten more, but at the same time, they couldn't be sure the market would head in the direction it did.

 

As for your point about Marleau, they were never going to move him. Those rumors were a media creation. The Montreal media was most responsible for that.

[tom webster]

The two names I would've argued against are Thornton and Iginla. Those two signed before the market was established. Yes, they could've gotten more, but at the same time, they couldn't be sure the market would head in the direction it did.

 

As for your point about Marleau, they were never going to move him. Those rumors were a media creation. The Montreal media was most responsible for that.

 

As I said in my post, Iginla signed after Drury, Gomez and Briere (July 4th)

[ExiledInIllinois]

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.

 

No it is not how awful the players are and they don't want to sign them... It is long term and the vision they see with a team and where they want to go in building it THEIR WAY.

 

Why can't the fans just see this?

 

If I am restorin a car... I know it may be working at the time, if it doesn't feel right... I will tear it apart and do it my way... No matter what a million people are telling me. I want blue in the end, I am will not settle for red.

 

Simple?

 

Call it rebuilding when you may have a contender...

[SabresFan526]

As I said in my post, Iginla signed after Drury, Gomez and Briere (July 4th)

I'm not sure you're right on that. The deal was not officially announced to the public until July 4th, but it was speculated and leaked to the media on July 1st prior to the 1PM EST start of free agency that Iginla had already re-signed with the Flames. I remember even reading an article in ESPN and also TSN's websites on July 1st indicating that Iginla and the Flames were close to a 5 year extension for $35 million, which typically translates to, the deal has been signed but we won't announce it until we have one big press conference to welcome in the new UFAs as well as announce the extensions for Iginla and Regehr. So, I think Iginla was actually signed before Drury, Gomez, and Briere were but it was only announced officially on July 4th. Here's an article from ESPN on July 1st.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2922529

 

I'll see if I can find the TSN article. Either way, I think your point is still valid in that Iginla and Thornton should be receiving maximum salary deals i.e. $10 million per year and they definitely would have gotten it if they both went UFA this summer, but they took hometown discounts to stay with their respective teams. Don't know why it's acceptable for them to take hometown discounts according to the player's union and not Buffalo Sabres players. I'm also not sure why only Sabres players face this much scrutiny and no other players from other teams face this much scrutiny of contract negotiations and agents in their ears telling them to go to UFA and not re-sign with their respective clubs.

[tom webster]

I'm not sure you're right on that. The deal was not officially announced to the public until July 4th, but it was speculated and leaked to the media on July 1st prior to the 1PM EST start of free agency that Iginla had already re-signed with the Flames. I remember even reading an article in ESPN and also TSN's websites on July 1st indicating that Iginla and the Flames were close to a 5 year extension for $35 million, which typically translates to, the deal has been signed but we won't announce it until we have one big press conference to welcome in the new UFAs as well as announce the extensions for Iginla and Regehr. So, I think Iginla was actually signed before Drury, Gomez, and Briere were but it was only announced officially on July 4th. Here's an article from ESPN on July 1st.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2922529

 

I'll see if I can find the TSN article. Either way, I think your point is still valid in that Iginla and Thornton should be receiving maximum salary deals i.e. $10 million per year and they definitely would have gotten it if they both went UFA this summer, but they took hometown discounts to stay with their respective teams. Don't know why it's acceptable for them to take hometown discounts according to the player's union and not Buffalo Sabres players. I'm also not sure why only Sabres players face this much scrutiny and no other players from other teams face this much scrutiny of contract negotiations and agents in their ears telling them to go to UFA and not re-sign with their respective clubs.

 

You may want to consider the possibility that it is "sources close to management" that leak these stories as an excuse for their inabilities. You may also want to consider the possibility that players give hometown discounts to organizations that don't suspend players for health issues.