Paille agrees to multi-year deal

[inkman]

A 2 year deal. Now there's committment for you. The Sabres are nothing more then a player developmental team for the real National Hockey League. Ryan Miller will most likely sign a 3 year deal so he can continue developing into an elite goalie who will command elite money in his late 20's. Pominville will be offered a 3 or 4 year deal at best, and it is a crap shoot as to whether he will take it or see if a real NHL team may offer him his 7 year deal as soon as next summer. Neither player will be offered more then a 4 year deal at less then real NHL market value.

 

How long was Roy's deal? :thumbsup:

[...]

I never included you in the category of "stupid"; perhaps the people you admire, follow and elect; but not you precisely. If you want to include yourself in that category, so be it.

 

For the record, I think almost everyone involved in politics in corrupt. Basically pushing their own agenda's to make more bank. Our entire political system is flawed and as long as greed and humanity are involved, it will stay that way. Although, I do feel the politicians on the right are the more hypocritical of the bunch. Preaching to the masses about higher morals and being involved in financial scams, sexual deviancy and all around abhorrant behavior isn't very becoming.

 

 

I'm principally a lurker on this board and enjoy thoroughly the conversations between all of you. However, I had to chime in after this little tit-for-tat; you have been one of my favorites, inkman, and I'm disappointed to read this. I'm rather into politics and being so your views here permanently color my impression of you and put your statements into a context that is less than favorable.

 

This is not a forum for political discussion, of course, and I don't expect to have any further comment on the matter; none the less I thought you should know what someone "out there" thought of the tenor of the political exchange in this thread.

[VJF59]

Welcome to the board.

 

However, I'm not sure your point is all that accurate or factually correct. Of the three players you named - Miller, Pominville, and Paille, of those three only Miller heads into the 2009 season as a unrestricted free agent. Paille was a restricted free agent this past season, and Pominville will again be a restricted free agent next offseason, meaning that if the Sabres do not sign Pominville to an extension during the season, they still retain his rights and can match any offer sheet or take him to arbitration thereby preventing him from negotiating with any other team. With regard to Paille, there is a strategy for both him and the Sabres in a short 2 year deal. First, he has done nothing to warrant a long term deal from the Sabres at any more money than he has signed for. Second, by giving him a two year deal, the Sabres get exclusive negotiating rights with him when he's up for his next contract because he will again be a restricted free agent. If he outperforms the contract he just signed, the Sabres get to keep his rights and match any offer sheet or take him to arbitration. By doing this, the Sabres are then able to keep him under contract for his next contract and if he's really good can buy out a few of his unrestricted free agent years for a deal that is below market value, similar to what the Sabres did with Derek Roy last offseason.

 

If you want to complain about the Sabres not actively playing in the UFA market, I think you have a very valid complaint. However, if you are complaining about the fact that Paille only signed for two years and that the Sabres will underpay for Pominville, I'm not sure you have a valid point as both of those guys will be restricted free agents when their current contracts expire. As for Miller, I think the jury is still out and if the Sabres sign him to a long term deal i.e. 5+ years, I don't really think you have much to complain about either. We'll see what happens with Miller. Again, welcome to the board.

 

Thanks for the welcome.

 

And thanks for the lesson on: "How to work the collective bargaining agreement to keep your young players developing until they leave for big money from real NHL teams." It is obvious that Darcy and Larry and Lindy know how to play that game very well....and you are well versed in that department as well. As for me, I'm not impressed with anything they do with the young kids. It is what they did not do for Dumont, Grier, McKee, Briere and Drury that upsets me so much with billionaire owner Golisano and his vision of the team.

 

But again, thanks for the welcome to the board.

[VJF59]

How long was Roy's deal? :thumbsup:

 

5 years. Great point. I did not know Roy signed for that long. He is of course the only Sabre signed for 5 years, other then Vanek, who's 7 year deal was not drawn up by the Sabres. Now here's a question for you. Wouldn't you feel better about this team's chances of winning a Stanley Cup if Briere and Drury were also signed for the next 5 years?

[BetweenThePipes00]

5 years. Great point. I did not know Roy signed for that long. He is of course the only Sabre signed for 5 years, other then Vanek, who's 7 year deal was not drawn up by the Sabres. Now here's a question for you. Wouldn't you feel better about this team's chances of winning a Stanley Cup if Briere and Drury were also signed for the next 5 years?

 

 

I wouldn't feel very good about their chances to pay Pominville and Miller, I'll tell you that. How do they make that work with $10 million added to their cap number for those two guys? One or the other maybe, but not both. I wanted them to keep Drury too ... THEY wanted them to keep Drury. But don't forget that had they invetsed $10 million/a year in those two guys in their 30s it would mean a young player waking away or having to be traded.

They screwed up, we all know they screwed up ... I know you are new but the Drury/Briere thing is ancient history that has been beaten to death.

 

Besides, a couple years back they signed Connolly and Afinogenov to long-term deals and now they have gotten burned because they could not sustain their production. What if they had signed them to 7-year deals? they'd be even more screwed than they are now having to keep them around. We have no idea if Paille can be a consistent player in this league, he had one pretty good season that was not nearly as good as Connolly's or Max's best. Why should he get more than a 2 year deal at this point? If he has another good season, they have a full year where only they can negotiate with him to work out an extension.

 

I understand your frustration with the front office, i really do, but they are not idiots every time they don't sign a guy to a 5+ year deal.

[apuszczalowski]

I wouldn't feel very good about their chances to pay Pominville and Miller, I'll tell you that. How do they make that work with $10 million added to their cap number for those two guys? One or the other maybe, but not both. I wanted them to keep Drury too ... THEY wanted them to keep Drury. But don't forget that had they invetsed $10 million/a year in those two guys in their 30s it would mean a young player waking away or having to be traded.

They screwed up, we all know they screwed up ... I know you are new but the Drury/Briere thing is ancient history that has been beaten to death.

 

Besides, a couple years back they signed Connolly and Afinogenov to long-term deals and now they have gotten burned because they could not sustain their production. What if they had signed them to 7-year deals? they'd be even more screwed than they are now having to keep them around. We have no idea if Paille can be a consistent player in this league, he had one pretty good season that was not nearly as good as Connolly's or Max's best. Why should he get more than a 2 year deal at this point? If he has another good season, they have a full year where only they can negotiate with him to work out an extension.

 

I understand your frustration with the front office, i really do, but they are not idiots every time they don't sign a guy to a 5+ year deal.

But by the time they got into more serious negotiations with Drury, and the fact they said they would match whatever anyone gave him, they would have been on the hook for $7 mil +/- for him alone, so whats the difference between having him at 7 or both signed earlier for $10?

 

With the Cap continuing to grow, its not that hard to work 2 of your best players under the cap at $10 mil, but it involves rotating out some of the lower role players and bringing in cheaper alternatives. It means cutting ties with guys that aren't giving you the best value like Max and Timmy and replacing them with lower priced vets, or giving their spots to the younger up and coming players.

 

The key to working the cap is to be proactive and spend your money wisely. The earlier you sign someone, the better of a deal you can get, and you can't wait for them to break out and have a big season before deciding that they are worth signing. Thats were a good scouting department and GM come in. Ones that know the market and have an eye for talent.

[Bmwolf21]

The key to working the cap is to be proactive and spend your money wisely. The earlier you sign someone, the better of a deal you can get, and you can't wait for them to break out and have a big season before deciding that they are worth signing. Thats were a good scouting department and GM come in. Ones that know the market and have an eye for talent.

Bingo. While the possibility exists that some players will always want to test the market, I don't believe that all do. I think some would rather get a good, LT deal done early and out of the way so they don't have to worry about moving their families, learning a new system, new teammates/line mates, new coaches, new area to live in, etc.

[BetweenThePipes00]

But by the time they got into more serious negotiations with Drury, and the fact they said they would match whatever anyone gave him, they would have been on the hook for $7 mil +/- for him alone, so whats the difference between having him at 7 or both signed earlier for $10?

 

With the Cap continuing to grow, its not that hard to work 2 of your best players under the cap at $10 mil, but it involves rotating out some of the lower role players and bringing in cheaper alternatives. It means cutting ties with guys that aren't giving you the best value like Max and Timmy and replacing them with lower priced vets, or giving their spots to the younger up and coming players.

 

The key to working the cap is to be proactive and spend your money wisely. The earlier you sign someone, the better of a deal you can get, and you can't wait for them to break out and have a big season before deciding that they are worth signing. Thats were a good scouting department and GM come in. Ones that know the market and have an eye for talent.

I know, I get it. I was not suggesting that they did ANYTHING right except the Paille deal, which VJF59 seems to have a problem with not only on this thread but another. I am just saying that, at the time, they were proactive and seemed to spend their money wisely on Max and Timmy ... if they were producing like they did in 05-06, they would be nice contracts. As it turned out, it was not money well-spent. Therefore, given the system, the answer is not to just throw 5+ year deals at every kid like Paille who has a decent season.

[shrader]

The key to working the cap is to be proactive and spend your money wisely. The earlier you sign someone, the better of a deal you can get, and you can't wait for them to break out and have a big season before deciding that they are worth signing. Thats were a good scouting department and GM come in. Ones that know the market and have an eye for talent.

 

I can't wait until this trend of signing players longterm early in their careers blows up many people's faces. Players are going to flop. Players are going to get injured. Soon enough we'll see teams paying $5 million a year for Michael Grosek. Its going to be very fun to watch teams scramble in a couple years.

[LabattBlue]

I can't wait until this trend of signing players longterm early in their careers blows up many people's faces. Players are going to flop. Players are going to get injured. Soon enough we'll see teams paying $5 million a year for Michael Grosek. Its going to be very fun to watch teams scramble in a couple years.

...and this is why DR, LQ and SPG better be careful. I am all in favor of locking up your core players, but a couple of mistakes as stated above and a team that watches its pennies like the Sabres, will be in for a whole lot of trouble.

[shrader]

...and this is why DR, LQ and SPG better be careful. I am all in favor of locking up your core players, but a couple of mistakes as stated above and a team that watches its pennies like the Sabres, will be in for a whole lot of trouble.

 

Which is exactly why we won't be seeing much beyond 4 years for any player north of 28 years old. There will be players you make that exception for, but like you said, they have to be very careful about it.

[apuszczalowski]

I can't wait until this trend of signing players longterm early in their careers blows up many people's faces. Players are going to flop. Players are going to get injured. Soon enough we'll see teams paying $5 million a year for Michael Grosek. Its going to be very fun to watch teams scramble in a couple years.

So you are suggesting that they wait until they have a breakout year so that you can be absolutly sure they are worth signing?

 

I'm not suggesting that they sign every player to long term deals right away, but a good GM and scouting department will know if they have a guy about to have a breakout season, or a guy that will probably not contribute much more then they already have. And of course there will be times that it might backfire on them and they wind up with a dud on a LT contract, but there are other times where they will wind up losing a player because they couldn't tell if the player they had would break thru and they do. Thats where having a good GM and scouting staff is the most important thing, having guys that can recognise when a player is about to break out and when a player is about to become a bust. But if you want to succeed in the cap era and build a solid franchise, being proactive and signing guys early to reasonable contracts before they breakout and become top players is something that you need to do, and you have to be willing to gamble and take chances.

 

Looking back on what came out after last offseason and from the offseason before that, having Briere and Drury locked up at a few more years at $5 mil a year would be a deal compared to what other teams paid for not only them, but other comparible players.

[BetweenThePipes00]

So you are suggesting that they wait until they have a breakout year so that you can be absolutly sure they are worth signing?

 

I'm not suggesting that they sign every player to long term deals right away, but a good GM and scouting department will know if they have a guy about to have a breakout season, or a guy that will probably not contribute much more then they already have. And of course there will be times that it might backfire on them and they wind up with a dud on a LT contract, but there are other times where they will wind up losing a player because they couldn't tell if the player they had would break thru and they do. Thats where having a good GM and scouting staff is the most important thing, having guys that can recognise when a player is about to break out and when a player is about to become a bust. But if you want to succeed in the cap era and build a solid franchise, being proactive and signing guys early to reasonable contracts before they breakout and become top players is something that you need to do, and you have to be willing to gamble and take chances.

 

Looking back on what came out after last offseason and from the offseason before that, having Briere and Drury locked up at a few more years at $5 mil a year would be a deal compared to what other teams paid for not only them, but other comparible players.

I agree with all of that, but there still has to be some balance in what you do. Given his age, even if they believed Paille is going to develop into a great penalty killer who scores 30 goals a year, it would be irresoponsible to sign him to a 5-year deal for bigger money now. The system is such that the team has the advantage early on, and you don't have to sign every young guy long-term and overpay now in the hope of getting a deal down the road. By the same token, as you point out, you can't always sit around and wait for the breakout year, especially if that year is the last year of a contract.

With the Paille deal, I think it is perfect because even if he has somewhat of a breakout year this season, they have a full year, the last year of his deal, to lock him up long-term ... now, if they wait until after the two seasons and his production keeps going up and up and then they try to lock him up, they screwed up and they will have to pay top dollar ...

I feel like I am talking in circles here, so I apologize ... I agree with you, apus, I just thnk that even if you truly believe in a kid you need to take advantage of the system - to a point - when he is young, because every deal you do has a ripple effect and you could find yourself struggling to lock up the next guy you REALLY want because he wants a better deal than the guy you took a shot on and missed. (Incidentally, this is the part of Burke's blustering rant about Lowe I agree with ... that middle contract is disappearing because teams are overpaying guys who are still 3 or 4 years from the open market.)

[apuszczalowski]

I agree with all of that, but there still has to be some balance in what you do. Given his age, even if they believed Paille is going to develop into a great penalty killer who scores 30 goals a year, it would be irresoponsible to sign him to a 5-year deal for bigger money now. The system is such that the team has the advantage early on, and you don't have to sign every young guy long-term and overpay now in the hope of getting a deal down the road. By the same token, as you point out, you can't always sit around and wait for the breakout year, especially if that year is the last year of a contract.

With the Paille deal, I think it is perfect because even if he has somewhat of a breakout year this season, they have a full year, the last year of his deal, to lock him up long-term ... now, if they wait until after the two seasons and his production keeps going up and up and then they try to lock him up, they screwed up and they will have to pay top dollar ...

I feel like I am talking in circles here, so I apologize ... I agree with you, apus, I just thnk that even if you truly believe in a kid you need to take advantage of the system - to a point - when he is young, because every deal you do has a ripple effect and you could find yourself struggling to lock up the next guy you REALLY want because he wants a better deal than the guy you took a shot on and missed. (Incidentally, this is the part of Burke's blustering rant about Lowe I agree with ... that middle contract is disappearing because teams are overpaying guys who are still 3 or 4 years from the open market.)

I am fine with the Paille deal. I wouldn't argue though if they did lock him up longterm (say 5 years at say $1-2 mil a year). The thing about locking a player up longterm is that you can usually get them a little cheaper because if they continue to develop, their salary would have just risen and you still have them at below market value. And thats the key to success in a capped league, you want guys locked up at less then market value.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I am fine with the Paille deal. I wouldn't argue though if they did lock him up longterm (say 5 years at say $1-2 mil a year). The thing about locking a player up longterm is that you can usually get them a little cheaper because if they continue to develop, their salary would have just risen and you still have them at below market value. And thats the key to success in a capped league, you want guys locked up at less then market value.

 

Well yeah, neither would I agrue with that, but no way Paille goes for that ... what's in it for him to give up 2 years of unrestricted free agency? I mean, if the team believes in him enough to offer that deal, he's gotta believe in himself enough to think that 3 years from now when he is 27 he will be worth more than that. so to get him to sign a 5-year deal, they'd have to up the ante ... as it stands, they basically bought themselves another year to evaluate him and decide if they should go there. If they still like what they see this season, they can make it worth his while to give up some of those UFA years.

 

EDIT: Now that I think about it, Stafford will be an interesting case in this regard ... by not really progressing last season, if they want to lock him up before his contract expires this year they need to take a bit of a leap of faith ... will be interesting to see what happens ... if he does break out, should they have locked him up this offseason when they had the chance?

[apuszczalowski]

Well yeah, neither would I agrue with that, but no way Paille goes for that ... what's in it for him to give up 2 years of unrestricted free agency? I mean, if the team believes in him enough to offer that deal, he's gotta believe in himself enough to think that 3 years from now when he is 27 he will be worth more than that. so to get him to sign a 5-year deal, they'd have to up the ante ... as it stands, they basically bought themselves another year to evaluate him and decide if they should go there. If they still like what they see this season, they can make it worth his while to give up some of those UFA years.

 

EDIT: Now that I think about it, Stafford will be an interesting case in this regard ... by not really progressing last season, if they want to lock him up before his contract expires this year they need to take a bit of a leap of faith ... will be interesting to see what happens ... if he does break out, should they have locked him up this offseason when they had the chance?

I only used the $1-2 mil as what I would be fine with seeing them pay him, but for him, it guarantees him $10 mil, even if he is injured for 4 years out of the 5, or regresses, he is still going to make that amount, instead of risking his value dropping over that span.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I only used the $1-2 mil as what I would be fine with seeing them pay him, but for him, it guarantees him $10 mil, even if he is injured for 4 years out of the 5, or regresses, he is still going to make that amount, instead of risking his value dropping over that span.

 

Yeah well ... agents do not think that way ... it's always a gamble, to be sure, but they will see that as money left on the table. And to be honest, while Tommy G takes his "everyone should be on a 1-year deal" to the extreme, I kind of like the idea of a 24-year old NOT having $10 million guaranteed if he hasn't proven himself yet. For better or worse, at some point you want these guys a LITTLE hungry ... but that is a whole other conversation. At the end of the day, if the Sabres do not evaluate Paille and Stafford and the other kids properly and sign the right ones when they can, they will be screwed ... we certainly agree on that.

[Swedesessed]

My point was that everyone is suffering from fear anxiety (all Sabres players are leaving, etc.), a tactic used by conservatives, to sway the stupid masses to follow their stupidity.

 

 

Keep the Lib propaganda and Conservative stuff away from here (you are both supporting rich snobs who run for office anyway, so what is the difference)

[shrader]

Just look at how many failures are involved with even a good scouting department. Teams are going to hit with these big contracts and they're going to miss. The hits are great and all, but its going to be very tough for a lot of teams to move away from their misses.

[VJF59]

I wouldn't feel very good about their chances to pay Pominville and Miller, I'll tell you that. How do they make that work with $10 million added to their cap number for those two guys? One or the other maybe, but not both. I wanted them to keep Drury too ... THEY wanted them to keep Drury. But don't forget that had they invetsed $10 million/a year in those two guys in their 30s it would mean a young player waking away or having to be traded.

They screwed up, we all know they screwed up ... I know you are new but the Drury/Briere thing is ancient history that has been beaten to death.

 

Besides, a couple years back they signed Connolly and Afinogenov to long-term deals and now they have gotten burned because they could not sustain their production. What if they had signed them to 7-year deals? they'd be even more screwed than they are now having to keep them around. We have no idea if Paille can be a consistent player in this league, he had one pretty good season that was not nearly as good as Connolly's or Max's best. Why should he get more than a 2 year deal at this point? If he has another good season, they have a full year where only they can negotiate with him to work out an extension.

 

I understand your frustration with the front office, i really do, but they are not idiots every time they don't sign a guy to a 5+ year deal.

 

I don't think Reiger is an idiot at all. I think his boss Tom Golisano is nuts, but I think Reiger is as good an NHL GM as there is. Golisano is nuts because he has a strange split personality. On the one hand, he spends his wealth freely on wonderful things. Every University around Rochester has a building with his name on it because he donated every cent to build them. Every hospital has a wing with his name on it because he donated every cent to build them. He donates millions of dollars on countless charitites. Then he buys the Buffalo Sabres, and becomes a cheap skate owner. And the nuttiests part of all of this? He would only have to throw in about 6 to 12 million a year of his vast wealth to go from being a cheap skate to being an NHL owner who seriously wants to win a championship for his city. 6 to 12 million dollars a year for Tom Golisano is like 6 to 12 dollars a year for you an I. But like I said, the guy is nuts. He may be able to buy and sell the owners of the Red Wings, Ducks, Hurricanes and Lightning twice for all I know. But he will sit back and let those teams carry the Cup around the ice before he will spend as much money as they had in order to win those Cups. Nuts, I say.

[tom webster]

I don't think Reiger is an idiot at all. I think his boss Tom Golisano is nuts, but I think Reiger is as good an NHL GM as there is. Golisano is nuts because he has a strange split personality. On the one hand, he spends his wealth freely on wonderful things. Every University around Rochester has a building with his name on it because he donated every cent to build them. Every hospital has a wing with his name on it because he donated every cent to build them. He donates millions of dollars on countless charitites. Then he buys the Buffalo Sabres, and becomes a cheap skate owner. And the nuttiests part of all of this? He would only have to throw in about 6 to 12 million a year of his vast wealth to go from being a cheap skate to being an NHL owner who seriously wants to win a championship for his city. 6 to 12 million dollars a year for Tom Golisano is like 6 to 12 dollars a year for you an I. But like I said, the guy is nuts. He may be able to buy and sell the owners of the Red Wings, Ducks, Hurricanes and Lightning twice for all I know. But he will sit back and let those teams carry the Cup around the ice before he will spend as much money as they had in order to win those Cups. Nuts, I say.

I am as anti Golisano as the next guy, but the Sabres have never been more then $5.5 below the cap. This is the first year that they actually project to be more then $6 million short. It is not that they haven't spent, its that they haven't spent wisely!

[inkman]

Wouldn't you feel better about this team's chances of winning a Stanley Cup if Briere and Drury were also signed for the next 5 years?

 

Drury maybe, although I think his leadership qualities have been vastly overrated. Briere, no way.

[inkman]

(you are both supporting rich snobs who run for office anyway, so what is the difference)

 

My point exactly. :thumbsup:

[carpandean]

I don't think Reiger is an idiot at all. I think his boss Tom Golisano is nuts, but I think Reiger is as good an NHL GM as there is. Golisano is nuts because he has a strange split personality. On the one hand, he spends his wealth freely on wonderful things. Every University around Rochester has a building with his name on it because he donated every cent to build them. Every hospital has a wing with his name on it because he donated every cent to build them. He donates millions of dollars on countless charities. Then he buys the Buffalo Sabres, and becomes a cheap skate owner. And the nuttiests part of all of this? He would only have to throw in about 6 to 12 million a year of his vast wealth to go from being a cheap skate to being an NHL owner who seriously wants to win a championship for his city. 6 to 12 million dollars a year for Tom Golisano is like 6 to 12 dollars a year for you an I. But like I said, the guy is nuts. He may be able to buy and sell the owners of the Red Wings, Ducks, Hurricanes and Lightning twice for all I know. But he will sit back and let those teams carry the Cup around the ice before he will spend as much money as they had in order to win those Cups. Nuts, I say.

You think he's nuts because he is more willing to spend his money on hospitals and universities than on a couple of athletes? :blink:

 

I love the Sabres, but ...

 

 

 

As TW pointed out, the Sabres have never been that far from the cap and, in fact, were so close to the cap in '06-'07 that they had to trade Biron to free up enough space to bring in Zubrus. Last year, were in not for Teppo going down in August, we would have been a fairly average $4 million below.

[inkman]

I'm principally a lurker on this board and enjoy thoroughly the conversations between all of you. However, I had to chime in after this little tit-for-tat; you have been one of my favorites, inkman, and I'm disappointed to read this. I'm rather into politics and being so your views here permanently color my impression of you and put your statements into a context that is less than favorable.

 

This is not a forum for political discussion, of course, and I don't expect to have any further comment on the matter; none the less I thought you should know what someone "out there" thought of the tenor of the political exchange in this thread.

 

Point taken.