Sabres changing approach to Free Agency

[inkman]

Linky

 

 

The Buffalo Sabres last week made a notable investment in their future by re-signing goaltender Ryan Miller to a five-year, $31.25 million contract extension starting in 2009-10 and worth $6.25 million against their salary cap.

 

Any other team re-signing their starting goaltender, particularly one considered among the better netminders in the NHL, to that kind of contract would scarcely raise eyebrows. Most observers considered Miller's new contract a fair one given his abilities and performance over the past three seasons.

 

What was surprising was the Sabres, who lost key players to unrestricted free agency due to unwillingness to pay them fair market value, were willing to do so for Miller.

 

Daniel Briere, Chris Drury, Jay McKee, J.P Dumont and Mike Grier were among those lost to free agency over the previous two summers, while Brian Campbell was dealt at last season's trade deadline when it became apparent he too would bolt for the UFA market.

 

It wasn't surprising therefore when rumors started popping up midway through last season regarding Miller, who next season was heading into the final year of his current contract.

 

Conventional wisdom suggested he too would leave Buffalo via trade or next summer's UFA market. Some observers believed he'd wind up with the Detroit Red Wings given he's a Michigan boy who played his college hockey for Michigan State prior to starting his professional career with the Sabres farm team in Rochester.

 

Sabres general manager Darcy Regier however defied expectations in wasting no time getting Miller under contract, opening talks on July 1 (the earliest he was allowed to do so) and closing the deal a little over two weeks later.

 

Miller isn't the only player Regier re-signed over the past year. He retained Thomas Vanek (albeit for much more than Regier would've preferred) by matching an offer sheet of six years and over $42 million from the Edmonton Oilers.

 

Regier also re-signed forwards Derek Roy, Jochen Hecht, Paul Gaustad and Dan Paille to affordable new deals and is expected to re-up forward Jason Pominville to a multi-year contract later this summer.

 

He also showed a willingness to take on some salary for veteran blueline experience by trading for Craig Rivet, who'll earn $3.5 million per season over the next three seasons.

 

It would be easy to suggest the Sabres ownership and management were finally pressured into spending to retain their best players following the howls of outrage from Buffalo fans and pundits which accompanied last summer's loss of Briere and Drury, but there appears to be more behind their decisions than a reputation for cheapness.

 

If the Sabres are to remain a competitive team and bounce pack into playoff contention they need a quality starting goalie. Regier would've been hard pressed to find an affordable upgrade over Miller so it wasn't a difficult decision to retain him for market value.

 

Of the aforementioned forwards only Vanek has an expensive contract, likely to ensure he'll be the highest-paid Sabre for some time.

 

Regier and the Sabres ownership could've justified not matching the Oilers offer sheet and some critics will suggest fan pressure forced management into doing it, but the reality is Vanek was a key part of their future, a young forward with superstar potential whom they simply didn't want to lose.

 

The Sabres front office was taught hard lessons over the last two seasons about retaining key players in today's salary-cap world, but if their recent re-signings are any indication those lessons appear to have been taken to heart.

 

What's also notable is the age of the players Regier has retained in the past year. Unlike Briere, Drury, McKee, Dumont, Grier and Campbell, most of those re-signed ? with the notable exception of the 31-year-old Hecht ? were under 28.

 

That could be a coincidence, but it suggests the mindset of the Sabres management is to lock up their best young players to long-term contracts, thus ensuring they'll spend their best seasons in a Sabres uniform.

 

As for the accusation of the Sabres being a cheap franchise, the club currently has 19 players under contract for next season for just over $46 million, which gives them plenty of cap space to flesh out their roster.

 

Should salaries come in at around $50 million for the finalized roster, it'll also provide plenty of room to bolster the roster (if required) as next season progresses.

 

Most importantly, the Sabres' recent, largely successful efforts to retain their best players will come as welcome relief to a jaded fan base which had started believing ownership cared more about making money than building a winner.

 

These moves not only improve the Sabres' chances of rebounding from a poor performance last season, but also go a long way to improving the image of its front office amongst the fans.

[Screamin'Weasel]

What was surprising was the Sabres, who lost key players to unrestricted free agency due to unwillingness to pay them fair market value, were willing to do so for Miller.

 

Daniel Briere, Chris Drury, Jay McKee, J.P Dumont and Mike Grier were among those lost to free agency over the previous two summers, while Brian Campbell was dealt at last season's trade deadline when it became apparent he too would bolt for the UFA market.

Ink, I know these are not your quotes and belong to the article author, but this type of thing takes what would be a great article and turns it into shoddy journalism, in my opinion.

 

First, he uses his comments (highlighted) in the first paragraph to allude to the players (highlighted) in the second paragraph, which is completely inaccurate. Let me back this up by first asking what team in the NHL hasn't "lost key players to unrestricted free agency" over the last couple of years? Were they all lost "due to unwillingness to pay them fair market value?"

 

Next, let's look at the players he mentions, shall we?

Daniel Briere: Yes, he was a key player but the Sabres didn't try to get him back period. And does anyone think what he got from Philly was "fair market value?" Hell I don't think even his arbitration award was fair market value when he got that. Yet the Sabres paid it so how is this "unwillingness to pay?"

 

Chris Drury: They bungled this one. But let us also face the truth that he was going to play for the Rangers as long as they wanted him. Matching any offer is far from "unwillingness to pay" as well.

 

Jay McKee: Other than St. Louis, does anyone think McKee was worth $16 million? How can that concievably be considered "fair market value?" Hey, Blues fans, how's that whole thing working out for ya?

 

J.P. Dumont: Thanks to Briere's unfair market value arbitration award, there was no way to keep Dumont and be under the cap with previous signings made earlier that summer. Dumont is one of the players I really miss having here but there was no way to pay him. Period. That is not "unwillingness." It's a salary cap.

 

Mike Grier: Anyother player I totally miss having here. However, he, like Drury, wanted to be closer to home and left on his own without negotiating with the Sabres. His San Jose offer was matched by the Sabres but turned down by Grier. How, again, is this "unwillingness to pay?"

 

Brian Campbell: Let me start by saying I own two Campbell jerseys. I was a fan. He was not going to get the deal from the Sabres he wanted, fair market or otherwise, and had to be traded to avoid getting nothing in return. And, once again, does anyone feel what he got was "fair market value?"

 

All in all, my points are these: contracts recieved does not = fair market value; players demands do not = fair market value; players choosing where to play does not = unwillingness to pay.

 

I did like the article otherwise. I just hate authors that try to paint a picture in favor of thier arguement (without actually having to say it in print), especially if it is not accurate.

[tom webster]

Ink, I know these are not your quotes and belong to the article author, but this type of thing takes what would be a great article and turns it into shoddy journalism, in my opinion.

 

First, he uses his comments (highlighted) in the first paragraph to allude to the players (highlighted) in the second paragraph, which is completely inaccurate. Let me back this up by first asking what team in the NHL hasn't "lost key players to unrestricted free agency" over the last couple of years? Were they all lost "due to unwillingness to pay them fair market value?"

 

Next, let's look at the players he mentions, shall we?

Daniel Briere: Yes, he was a key player but the Sabres didn't try to get him back period. And does anyone think what he got from Philly was "fair market value?" Hell I don't think even his arbitration award was fair market value when he got that. Yet the Sabres paid it so how is this "unwillingness to pay?"

 

Chris Drury: They bungled this one. But let us also face the truth that he was going to play for the Rangers as long as they wanted him. Matching any offer is far from "unwillingness to pay" as well.

 

Jay McKee: Other than St. Louis, does anyone think McKee was worth $16 million? How can that concievably be considered "fair market value?" Hey, Blues fans, how's that whole thing working out for ya?

 

J.P. Dumont: Thanks to Briere's unfair market value arbitration award, there was no way to keep Dumont and be under the cap with previous signings made earlier that summer. Dumont is one of the players I really miss having here but there was no way to pay him. Period. That is not "unwillingness." It's a salary cap.

 

Mike Grier: Anyother player I totally miss having here. However, he, like Drury, wanted to be closer to home and left on his own without negotiating with the Sabres. His San Jose offer was matched by the Sabres but turned down by Grier. How, again, is this "unwillingness to pay?"

 

Brian Campbell: Let me start by saying I own two Campbell jerseys. I was a fan. He was not going to get the deal from the Sabres he wanted, fair market or otherwise, and had to be traded to avoid getting nothing in return. And, once again, does anyone feel what he got was "fair market value?"

 

All in all, my points are these: contracts recieved does not = fair market value; players demands do not = fair market value; players choosing where to play does not = unwillingness to pay.

 

I did like the article otherwise. I just hate authors that try to paint a picture in favor of thier arguement (without actually having to say it in print), especially if it is not accurate.

 

A) Briere's arb award was "fair market" value that Buffalo realized too late. Look at all the contracts before (Havlat) through and Briere's camp obviously was right with their demands before the hearing. Afterwards, you are right, they chose not to keep them.

 

b) Drury. As you said they bungled this one when they didn't realize what a deal $5.3 million per was.

 

c) McKee could have been had for $2.5 million per. Buffalo decided that was too high.

 

d) Dumont. As I stated on numerous occasions. They chose Connolly and Kotalik over Dumont. Blaming Briere's award is ridiculous unless you thought he was going to play for $2.1 million.( Briere's award minus Dumont's award)

 

e) Griere has vehemently denied that he wanted to be closer to home. He did not believe in the Sabres' commitment to winning.

 

f) Campbell's offer in the summer was again reasonable and Buffalo failed to realize it before it was too late.

 

I get a kick out of people from your side who bristle at the hindsight is 20/20 and only want to talk about what the players got not what they wanted. Then you want to paint the impression that the FO wanted to rid themselves of these players, not that they bungled the negotiations.

[Swedesessed]

I just wanted to say the last 2 posts in this thread were very good, but I notice 1 is optimistic and 1 is negative, all the way through. To me, the truth lies somewhere in the middle for everything mentioned.

[shrader]

I get a kick out of people from your side who bristle at the hindsight is 20/20 and only want to talk about what the players got not what they wanted. Then you want to paint the impression that the FO wanted to rid themselves of these players, not that they bungled the negotiations.

 

I think it takes a bit of laziness on a writers part to bundle all of those players together. There's definitely a different set of circumstances for each of those players. There's definitely some screw ups in there, but there are also situations where they chose one guy over another as you suggested. The big two are obviously that, the big ones, but I'm sure we can find several teams over the last few years that have lost a combination of players at or around the level of Dumont/McKee/Grier. To me, grouping them all together is just as shotsighted as trying to overlook all 5 of them.

[carpandean]

f) Campbell's offer in the summer was again reasonable and Buffalo failed to realize it before it was too late.

You may want to specify which summer. I assume you mean last summer, when he and the Sabres were first talking number and not what he got from the Blackhawks.

[connee]

I get a kick out of people from your side who bristle at the hindsight is 20/20 and only want to talk about what the players got not what they wanted. Then you want to paint the impression that the FO wanted to rid themselves of these players, not that they bungled the negotiations.

It's interesting if you look at this list. With the exception of Campbell (too early to know) none of these players have played up to the level they did when they were here. And they're all old.

 

Out with the old.

[Knightrider]

d) Dumont. As I stated on numerous occasions. They chose Connolly and Kotalik over Dumont. Blaming Briere's award is ridiculous unless you thought he was going to play for $2.1 million.( Briere's award minus Dumont's award)

 

Maxim Afinogenov Aug. 3

Daniel Briere Awarded a one-year, $5 million contract on July 23

Brian Campbell Settled before hearing

Tim Connolly Aug. 1 signed July 28th

J.P. Dumont July 31

Paul Gaustad Aug. 2

Ales Kotalik Settled before hearing July 26th

Toni Lydman July 26

Adam Mair Aug. 4

Andrew Peters Settled before hearing

Jason Pominville July 28

Henrik Tallinder Settled before hearing

 

You cannot simply subtract Dumont's award. Kotalik and Connolly were signed after Briere's award. They would not get that much if Briere's hadn't been so out of whack. Dumont is the evidence that the arbitrators were wrong WRT the market values, since he signed well below his award signed at a cap hit of $2.25M with the Preds. My guess is they were negotiating with all three and the other two simply signed first...

[tom webster]

You cannot simply subtract Dumont's award. Kotalik and Connolly were signed after Briere's award. They would not get that much if Briere's hadn't been so out of whack. Dumont is the evidence that the arbitrators were wrong WRT the market values, since he signed well below his award signed at a cap hit of $2.25M with the Preds. My guess is they were negotiating with all three and the other two simply signed first...

 

The notion that Briere's award was out of whack is contradicted by contracts signed before his award and the fact that Buffalo continued to leak that they offered $4.5 million per year for 4 years(which Danny denies by the way). They want it have both ways that the award was out of whack but that they offered a competetive long term deal.

As for Dumont, your guess would be wrong. Dumont left, in part, because he was angry that they refused to talk to him and then walked away from the award making him a free agent after all other teams had made their signing decisions.

Also, Dumont's award is not evidence that the arbitrators were wrong. Because of the timing of the award, most teams had made their signings that off season. If Dumont was free on July 1st, he would have gotten significantly more.

[nfreeman]

c) McKee could have been had for $2.5 million per. Buffalo decided that was too high.

 

e) Griere has vehemently denied that he wanted to be closer to home. He did not believe in the Sabres' commitment to winning.

 

I get a kick out of people from your side who bristle at the hindsight is 20/20 and only want to talk about what the players got not what they wanted. Then you want to paint the impression that the FO wanted to rid themselves of these players, not that they bungled the negotiations.

 

I agree with your post, although I'd like to know when specifically you think McKee would have signed for $2.5 million. I don't think it was the summer of 2006 (when he signed with STL), or for that matter during the 2005-06 season. My recollection is that there were numbers thrown around about what he wanted at some point well before he became a free agent -- possibly even pre-lockout. Regarding Grier, I recall he was quoted questioning the Sabres' commitment to winning, but I don't think I ever read any specifics beyond that general statement.

 

Either way, I agree with the general principle that the Sabres have been slow to appreciate NHL market trends in several instances and it has cost them, especially with Briere and Soupy. I think they butchered the Drury situation due to naval-gazing by TG and they made hockey decisions on McKee and Dumont.

 

I also think that something more than meets the eye went on with Grier -- after all, they did re-sign a ton of FAs that summer (going all the way to the cap), and guys like Briere, Dumont and McKee wanted to sign but the dollars weren't there. Grier was the only one who voluntarily left and was ticked off on his way out of town. Maybe he told them he wanted $2MM, they wouldn't budge, and he got PO'd because guys like Connolly and Max were getting much bigger deals?

 

 

It's interesting if you look at this list. With the exception of Campbell (too early to know) none of these players have played up to the level they did when they were here. And they're all old.

 

Out with the old.

 

Sorry, I must disagree. Dumont has played better in Nashville than he did here. Briere had another strong playoffs this year. Grier is just as solid for SJ as he was for us. We'd have been a substantially better team last year (and, for that matter, this coming year) with those 3 instead of, say, Max, Connolly, and Kotalik (or for that matter any of our forwards except Roy, Pominville and Hecht).

[Team Strike Force]

It's interesting if you look at this list. With the exception of Campbell (too early to know) none of these players have played up to the level they did when they were here. And they're all old.

 

Out with the old.

 

Makes me worried about Teppo....

[Knightrider]

The notion that Briere's award was out of whack is contradicted by contracts signed before his award and the fact that Buffalo continued to leak that they offered $4.5 million per year for 4 years(which Danny denies by the way). They want it have both ways that the award was out of whack but that they offered a competitive long term deal.

As for Dumont, your guess would be wrong. Dumont left, in part, because he was angry that they refused to talk to him and then walked away from the award making him a free agent after all other teams had made their signing decisions.

Also, Dumont's award is not evidence that the arbitrators were wrong. Because of the timing of the award, most teams had made their signings that off season. If Dumont was free on July 1st, he would have gotten significantly more.

 

We're back to you asserting that what players say are facts... WRT the 4.5M/4, I just don't remember hearing that, but that may be because I'm not local. We simply don't agree on that and that's fine. That said, those at SS were predicting (here also) much lower than 5M. I'd certainly take Gomez over Briere if they are making the same amount of money...

 

Back to Dumont - why would he take a two year contract if he felt he was getting less than market value?

[shack & duff]

Chris Drury is from Trumbull, CT (an hour from MSG), he was a local hero for his little league baseball play and he apparently (wealthy enough from his previous NHL contracts) wanted to satisfy childhood dreams of playing for the team he followed. Good luck keeping him in WNY.

 

I have posted about appalling games Campbell had on local tv against the Rangers and Bruins last season. Maybe he played differently otherwise but I remember a good number of posts criticizing his similar play. I'm glad we got what we received for him (eventually).

 

McKee\Dumont\Grier represent the grit the team needs but there are players like them out there. The FO makes the decisions they make and I criticize them for not pursuing these kind of players.

 

Briere was a luxury but without M\D\G types he isn't going to put you over the top. Ottawa exposed this vulnerability in the ECF.

[inkman]

Briere was a luxury but without M\D\G types he isn't going to put you over the top. Ottawa exposed this vulnerability in the ECF.

 

:thumbsup:

[Screamin'Weasel]

A) Briere's arb award was "fair market" value that Buffalo realized too late. Look at all the contracts before (Havlat) through and Briere's camp obviously was right with their demands before the hearing. Afterwards, you are right, they chose not to keep them.

 

b) Drury. As you said they bungled this one when they didn't realize what a deal $5.3 million per was.

 

c) McKee could have been had for $2.5 million per. Buffalo decided that was too high.

 

d) Dumont. As I stated on numerous occasions. They chose Connolly and Kotalik over Dumont. Blaming Briere's award is ridiculous unless you thought he was going to play for $2.1 million.( Briere's award minus Dumont's award)

 

e) Griere has vehemently denied that he wanted to be closer to home. He did not believe in the Sabres' commitment to winning.

 

f) Campbell's offer in the summer was again reasonable and Buffalo failed to realize it before it was too late.

 

I get a kick out of people from your side who bristle at the hindsight is 20/20 and only want to talk about what the players got not what they wanted. Then you want to paint the impression that the FO wanted to rid themselves of these players, not that they bungled the negotiations.

I don't bristle at hindsight being 20/20. I still feel, in hindsight, that Briere's award was too high. I touched on both what the players wanted as well as what they got. I also noted they did (at least with Drury, and probably in other cases as well) bungle negotiations.

 

I do not recall an offer from McKee for $2.5 million per. I do, however, recall the Sabre's policy of not negotiating with players during the season. The CBA was still new and loop holes being discovered as the years were going by. The CBA, as interpreted by the Sabres as recently as this month, says you cannot negotiate until July 1. That means the Sabres could not negotiate, per thier policy and the CBA, until he became a UFA. So when would his camp have made a $2.5 million per offer? If it was during the season, the Sabre's would not negotiate until it ended and at that point he was, I am sure, looking for more and got it right away from St. Louis.

 

I am pretty sure you have cited WGR as a viable source for Sabres information in the past and they reported Grier's decision to be closer to family. After a player signs, he can say whatever he wants. As the Sabres spent to the cap, offered to match his offers and tried to retain all the players from the previous year and bring the near identical team back, how could anyone feel they were not committed to winning? In the same line, Briere can deny all he wants and the front office can insist all they want. The truth is neither of us know which is or isn't accurate.

 

I will agree with you on the timing of Dumont's hearing really being a problem in retaining him. If his were earlier I think he may have stayed here. And I also agree that the lateness of his hearing cost him when he became a UFA. He was forced to take alot less because so many teams were already set from the early summer signings.

 

Now the Sabre's policy of non-season negotiation is still a questionable one. I think a player should be focused on playing, not signing, but in the same breath, they have the entire summer before a player's final year (except on 1 year contracts) to extend players and the policy lead to the risk of player losses due to UFA. I'd prefered if they had ditched the policy, but I also see the logic in it. IMO, i'd rather they had distracted the player than take the risk of player loss, but it appears they have finally decided to do away with the policy now so the point is moot. This policy more than anything else is what I feel cost them some good players.

 

My main gripe with the article was, as I stated in the first post, the author's way of alluding to all the players mentioned in the second paragraph with the staement he made in the first which is blatantly inaccurate. Could not the same be said about any team that has lost a good player to free agency? If Player X leaves his team and signs for $6 million per with another team, is that his fair market value and did the original team show unwillingness to pay fair market value? If so, any team that lost a player to free agency has shown an unwillingness to pay and the Sabres are not unique and do not deserve this type of comment thrown at them.

[SabresFan526]

We're back to you asserting that what players say are facts... WRT the 4.5M/4, I just don't remember hearing that, but that may be because I'm not local. We simply don't agree on that and that's fine. That said, those at SS were predicting (here also) much lower than 5M. I'd certainly take Gomez over Briere if they are making the same amount of money...

 

Back to Dumont - why would he take a two year contract if he felt he was getting less than market value?

The only thing I can tell you with Dumont is that he took the best possible contract that was offered to him at that time. If you remember when he signed with Nashville, it was well into the offseason and most free agents had already signed and most of the money available was off the table as most teams had begun approaching the cap or exceeding it and needed to find ways to get below. I think Dumont's value was legitimately $2.9 million, but by the time he had his arbitration hearing and his award, it was way too late for anyone to sign him. I'm also inclined to agree with TW in that the choice was not between Briere and Dumont, but between three of Afinogenov, Kotalik, Connolly, and Dumont. The Sabres signed the first three first. Now, there are a lot of factors that play into that. Was it a conscious choice by Darcy choosing those three over Dumont? Could it be that their arbitration hearings were scheduled before Dumont's and given Darcy's historic propensity for procrastination prior to arbitration hearings and basically signing them the day before or the day of their arbitration hearing, these three just got signed before Dumont did?

 

In my opinion, though, there was definitely a conscious choice that was definitely made between Connolly and Dumont. Connolly's cap hit is $2.9 million and Dumont's arbitration award was $2.9 million. In hindsight, obviously many will criticize the Max and Kotalik signing, but given what Darcy knew then at that time, I don't really fault him for signing those two. However, I do fault Darcy for signing Connolly instead of Dumont given what he knew and what we all knew at that time. At the time of signing Connolly, he had just had his second major concussion/jaw/neck injury within a 2 year span. Even if the initial diagnosis was wrong knowing the cumulative effects of concussions, I would still be hesitant to sign a guy to a longterm deal knowing that he has previously had a serious concussion forcing him to miss an entire season and is coming off missing most of the playoffs due to another severe concussion that may cause him to miss much of the upcoming season. I would have signed Dumont instead of Connolly and let Connolly walk and miss what turned out to be 80 games for another team with a lackluster playoff performance. This is not hindsight, mind you, because we all knew that Connolly had a serious head related injury that would definitely force him to miss the start of the season and potentially much of the first half of the season. By signing Connolly at all, the Sabres implicitly chose Connolly over Dumont knowing that there was a high likelihood for Connolly to be unhealthy going into the season vs. a fully healthy Dumont at about the same cap number. That's my opinion at least.

 

At the end of the day, it's all in the past. Let's focus on this upcoming season, which I think will be much better for the Sabres than the previous season with more energy and excitement with a bunch of happy guys who are one year older and more mature than last year's team that got destroyed by free agency.

[nfreeman]

The only thing I can tell you with Dumont is that he took the best possible contract that was offered to him at that time. If you remember when he signed with Nashville, it was well into the offseason and most free agents had already signed and most of the money available was off the table as most teams had begun approaching the cap or exceeding it and needed to find ways to get below. I think Dumont's value was legitimately $2.9 million, but by the time he had his arbitration hearing and his award, it was way too late for anyone to sign him. I'm also inclined to agree with TW in that the choice was not between Briere and Dumont, but between three of Afinogenov, Kotalik, Connolly, and Dumont. The Sabres signed the first three first. Now, there are a lot of factors that play into that. Was it a conscious choice by Darcy choosing those three over Dumont? Could it be that their arbitration hearings were scheduled before Dumont's and given Darcy's historic propensity for procrastination prior to arbitration hearings and basically signing them the day before or the day of their arbitration hearing, these three just got signed before Dumont did?

 

In my opinion, though, there was definitely a conscious choice that was definitely made between Connolly and Dumont. Connolly's cap hit is $2.9 million and Dumont's arbitration award was $2.9 million. In hindsight, obviously many will criticize the Max and Kotalik signing, but given what Darcy knew then at that time, I don't really fault him for signing those two. However, I do fault Darcy for signing Connolly instead of Dumont given what he knew and what we all knew at that time. At the time of signing Connolly, he had just had his second major concussion/jaw/neck injury within a 2 year span. Even if the initial diagnosis was wrong knowing the cumulative effects of concussions, I would still be hesitant to sign a guy to a longterm deal knowing that he has previously had a serious concussion forcing him to miss an entire season and is coming off missing most of the playoffs due to another severe concussion that may cause him to miss much of the upcoming season. I would have signed Dumont instead of Connolly and let Connolly walk and miss what turned out to be 80 games for another team with a lackluster playoff performance. This is not hindsight, mind you, because we all knew that Connolly had a serious head related injury that would definitely force him to miss the start of the season and potentially much of the first half of the season. By signing Connolly at all, the Sabres implicitly chose Connolly over Dumont knowing that there was a high likelihood for Connolly to be unhealthy going into the season vs. a fully healthy Dumont at about the same cap number. That's my opinion at least.

 

At the end of the day, it's all in the past. Let's focus on this upcoming season, which I think will be much better for the Sabres than the previous season with more energy and excitement with a bunch of happy guys who are one year older and more mature than last year's team that got destroyed by free agency.

 

Good post. Regarding Connolly, it's hard to argue with you. I think they were thinking that Connolly was a "must keep" -- he had had such a great season and playoffs (he was their top all-around center, even though they had Briere and Drury, and was being talked about as a Conn Smythe candidate before he got hurt in the playoffs), and they did get medical advice that he'd be OK to play the following year. But the concussion thing never seems to go away, does it?

[tom webster]

I don't bristle at hindsight being 20/20. I still feel, in hindsight, that Briere's award was too high. I touched on both what the players wanted as well as what they got. I also noted they did (at least with Drury, and probably in other cases as well) bungle negotiations.

 

I do not recall an offer from McKee for $2.5 million per. I do, however, recall the Sabre's policy of not negotiating with players during the season. The CBA was still new and loop holes being discovered as the years were going by. The CBA, as interpreted by the Sabres as recently as this month, says you cannot negotiate until July 1. That means the Sabres could not negotiate, per thier policy and the CBA, until he became a UFA. So when would his camp have made a $2.5 million per offer? If it was during the season, the Sabre's would not negotiate until it ended and at that point he was, I am sure, looking for more and got it right away from St. Louis.

 

I am pretty sure you have cited WGR as a viable source for Sabres information in the past and they reported Grier's decision to be closer to family. After a player signs, he can say whatever he wants. As the Sabres spent to the cap, offered to match his offers and tried to retain all the players from the previous year and bring the near identical team back, how could anyone feel they were not committed to winning? In the same line, Briere can deny all he wants and the front office can insist all they want. The truth is neither of us know which is or isn't accurate.

 

I will agree with you on the timing of Dumont's hearing really being a problem in retaining him. If his were earlier I think he may have stayed here. And I also agree that the lateness of his hearing cost him when he became a UFA. He was forced to take alot less because so many teams were already set from the early summer signings.

 

Now the Sabre's policy of non-season negotiation is still a questionable one. I think a player should be focused on playing, not signing, but in the same breath, they have the entire summer before a player's final year (except on 1 year contracts) to extend players and the policy lead to the risk of player losses due to UFA. I'd prefered if they had ditched the policy, but I also see the logic in it. IMO, i'd rather they had distracted the player than take the risk of player loss, but it appears they have finally decided to do away with the policy now so the point is moot. This policy more than anything else is what I feel cost them some good players.

 

My main gripe with the article was, as I stated in the first post, the author's way of alluding to all the players mentioned in the second paragraph with the staement he made in the first which is blatantly inaccurate. Could not the same be said about any team that has lost a good player to free agency? If Player X leaves his team and signs for $6 million per with another team, is that his fair market value and did the original team show unwillingness to pay fair market value? If so, any team that lost a player to free agency has shown an unwillingness to pay and the Sabres are not unique and do not deserve this type of comment thrown at them.

 

 

I don't want to re-hash this whole thing, but you know I have to reply;

a) GR reported what Reiger told them about Griere's move. Griere later called him about it citing the lack of commitment. When he signed his deal, McKee had already left and Buffalo was saying that they weren't going to go to the cap and it looked like there would be a lot of change. It obviously didn't turn out that way and Griere's comments weren't given much play.

b) McKee wanted Warrener money ($2.3/2.5) right up to June 30th. He and his agent were shocked by St. Louis's offer and even now that contract seems ridiculous.

c) Name another team that was as adversely effected by free agency. A team like the Devils may have lost as much or more but they brought in reinforcements. Unless I am wrong, no other team has lost anywhere close to what Buffalo lost.

[shrader]

Tom, I love how you always merge Grier and Briere's names.

[deluca67]

I'm just going to throw this out there.

 

I don't think the Sabres have changed a thing in regards to free agency. We can look back at all the players that left and feel the Sabres have done things wrong in that regards. I don't think it's the case. Drury being the exception. I think all the players are gone because the Sabres plan all along was to make sure they were in good position to get Roy, Vanek, Gaustad, Miller and Pominiville signed long term and build the team from the goal out. I don't feel the Miller signing is any deviation from how they have done business in the past. As the Joker said "It's all part of the plan".

[tom webster]

I'm just going to throw this out there.

 

I don't think the Sabres have changed a thing in regards to free agency. We can look back at all the players that left and feel the Sabres have done things wrong in that regards. I don't think it's the case. Drury being the exception. I think all the players are gone because the Sabres plan all along was to make sure they were in good position to get Roy, Vanek, Gaustad, Miller and Pominiville signed long term and build the team from the goal out. I don't feel the Miller signing is any deviation from how they have done business in the past. As the Joker said "It's all part of the plan".

 

 

How convenient that with 20/20 hindsight, mistakes can become the plan but bad decisions aren't allowed to be looked at in that context.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I'm just going to throw this out there.

 

I don't think the Sabres have changed a thing in regards to free agency. We can look back at all the players that left and feel the Sabres have done things wrong in that regards. I don't think it's the case. Drury being the exception. I think all the players are gone because the Sabres plan all along was to make sure they were in good position to get Roy, Vanek, Gaustad, Miller and Pominiville signed long term and build the team from the goal out. I don't feel the Miller signing is any deviation from how they have done business in the past. As the Joker said "It's all part of the plan".

 

I would tend to agree with this, although I think at one time Campbell was also a member of that list they wanted long term ... but they had a price in mind as a ceiling to pay him.

 

As I said somewhere else on the board the other day ... it's totally fair to say they screwed up saving their money for these young guys when they could have paid proven players ... that's just a difference of opinion on how to build a team. I think both ways have merit. But I think it's unfair to characterize them as not having a plan or a clue, as many have done.

[nfreeman]

I don't want to re-hash this whole thing, but you know I have to reply;

a) GR reported what Reiger told them about Griere's move. Griere later called him about it citing the lack of commitment. When he signed his deal, McKee had already left and Buffalo was saying that they weren't going to go to the cap and it looked like there would be a lot of change. It obviously didn't turn out that way and Griere's comments weren't given much play.

b) McKee wanted Warrener money ($2.3/2.5) right up to June 30th. He and his agent were shocked by St. Louis's offer and even now that contract seems ridiculous.

c) Name another team that was as adversely effected by free agency. A team like the Devils may have lost as much or more but they brought in reinforcements. Unless I am wrong, no other team has lost anywhere close to what Buffalo lost.

 

I need to see some backup on (b), other than just Bucky Gleason's unattributed hysterical accusations. As for ©, how about Ottawa? They've lost Chara, Havlat and now Redden, not to mention good role players like Schaefer and Smolinsky.

[That Aud Smell]

Tom, I love how you always merge Grier and Briere's names.

my wife always did that, intentionally, in homage to those delicious french cheeses.

 

briere = brie

 

grier(e) = gruy?re

[deluca67]

How convenient that with 20/20 hindsight, mistakes can become the plan but bad decisions aren't allowed to be looked at in that context.

Hasn't the Sabres contention all along been looking towards the future and not getting bogged down with heavy contracts for older players? I don't know if it is as much "hindsight" as much as it was not being able to hear what the Sabres were saying through all the hysteria.

 

I also think the only "convenient" aspect of this conversation is the lumping together of all the players that left in an attempt to establish a pattern of unwillingness to pay for talent. Taking each player individually and discussing all aspect of their departure would bare different results.