SDS Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ex.html?eref=T1 Does anyone see a pattern in the short lists of busts listed at the end of the column?
SDS Posted June 30, 2009 Author Report Posted June 30, 2009 http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/c...e-49499237.html Read it and weep. Daniel Bri?re, eight years, $52 million; Scott Gomez, 10 years, $51.5 million; Chris Drury, five years, $35.25 million; Brian Campbell, eight years, $56.8 million; Wade Redden, six years, $39 million; Markus Naslund, two years, $8 million... It's like a bad dream, isn't it? Oh, but it can get worse: Sean Avery, four years, $15.5 million; Ryan Smyth, five years, $31.5 million; Jason Blake, four years, $20 million; Michael Nylander, four years, $19.5 million. Scared yet? Two things. Don't know why it's called free agency because, brother, it ain't free. Second, for all the manufactured hyperbole surrounding the NHL's free agency "frenzy," which begins on Canada Day, the overwhelming evidence suggests you've got a better chance of finding an overrated, overpaid stiff you can't get rid of instead of the missing piece of the Stanley Cup puzzle.
bob_sauve28 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Jay McKee is another one. Imagine if Darcy had signed all these guys? Or some of them. Think we are in a bad fix now....
nfreeman Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Pretty good article (both of them, actually), and pretty interesting that 4 of the 11 guys named in the SI article were ex-Sabres. To me, this says: 1. UFA's almost always hurt their former teams much more by leaving than they help their new teams by arriving. These guys aren't fungible. 2. Lindy got a heckuva lot more out of each of those guys than their new coaches did.
bob_sauve28 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Pretty good article (both of them, actually), and pretty interesting that 4 of the 11 guys named in the SI article were ex-Sabres. To me, this says: 1. UFA's almost always hurt their former teams much more by leaving than they help their new teams by arriving. These guys aren't fungible.2. Lindy got a heckuva lot more out of each of those guys than their new coaches did. That was Marv Levy argument in the mid 1990's. Its a good point
spndnchz Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Pretty good article (both of them, actually), and pretty interesting that 4 of the 11 guys named in the SI article were ex-Sabres. To me, this says: 1. UFA's almost always hurt their former teams much more by leaving than they help their new teams by arriving. These guys aren't fungible. 2. Lindy got a heckuva lot more out of each of those guys than their new coaches did. Word of the day toilet paper again? The word definitely fits. Either they fit the system that we had all too well or the new system they're playing doesn't. Most of those guys don't need to be coached, they just need to be played to the ability they have.
Stoner Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Is it not human nature to play your ass (edit: off) for that big contract, then sit on that ass? We all want to believe something other than money motivates these guys. That, if only Drury had been shown the respect, he would have thrown millions out the window to enjoy the privilege of playing in the New Hockeytown. Edit 2: I started reading the article but couldn't get beyond the mental image of NHL GMs swallowing LB.
nucci Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Is it not human nature to play your ass (edit: off) for that big contract, then sit on that ass? We all want to believe something other than money motivates these guys. That, if only Drury had been shown the respect, he would have thrown millions out the window to enjoy the privilege of playing in the New Hockeytown. Edit 2: I started reading the article but couldn't get beyond the mental image of NHL GMs swallowing LB. Exactly!! How many athletes have their best year right before UFA. Check any sport.
silvermike Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 I guess the key comparison is if players who re-sign for big money do better than those who get it elsewhere.
R_Dudley Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ex.html?eref=T1 Does anyone see a pattern in the short lists of busts listed at the end of the column? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/c...e-49499237.html Nice reads. Thanks. ....1. UFA's almost always hurt their former teams much more by leaving than they help their new teams by arriving. These guys aren't fungible. 2. Lindy got a heckuva lot more out of each of those guys than their new coaches did. Good post
rickshaw Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 What I read is that 3 of our former players are completely overpaid on their new teams and NOT meeting expectations. In other words the Sabres were correct in not signing any of the 3, when they had the chance.
Calvin Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 What I read is that 3 of our former players are completely overpaid on their new teams and NOT meeting expectations. In other words the Sabres were correct in not signing any of the 3, when they had the chance. who'da thunk eh?
shrader Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 What I read is that 3 of our former players are completely overpaid on their new teams and NOT meeting expectations. In other words the Sabres were correct in not signing any of the 3, when they had the chance. What I see is NYR, NYR, NYR.
Taro T Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 What I read is that 3 of our former players are completely overpaid on their new teams and NOT meeting expectations. In other words the Sabres were correct in not signing any of the 3, when they had the chance at the start of free agency. Is more of how I'd look at it. Drury at the October deal price would have been worth it. It appears they had the chance to sign him then. I'm too tired to recall what Soupy wanted back in August '07, but it probably would have been worth it. After they signed Briere to a 1 year deal coming out of the lockout, I don't think his asking price was ever going to be what the Sabres would be willing to pay; so I'd probably agree w/ you on that one. I still would like to have seen the Sabres offer McKee and Briere multiyear deals coming out of the lockout. I agreed in general with their reasoning behind all the 1 year deals, but hoped they'd roll the dice on both of them back then (and it would have been dice rolling as McKee had the injury issues and hadn't really been the same since he got the worst of his hit on Mario, and Briere wanted ~$2.8MM for 3 years which was a lot for what he'd done to date). Oh well, would've, could've, should've.
Alaska Darin Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Is more of how I'd look at it. Drury at the October deal price would have been worth it. It appears they had the chance to sign him then. I'm too tired to recall what Soupy wanted back in August '07, but it probably would have been worth it. After they signed Briere to a 1 year deal coming out of the lockout, I don't think his asking price was ever going to be what the Sabres would be willing to pay; so I'd probably agree w/ you on that one. I still would like to have seen the Sabres offer McKee and Briere multiyear deals coming out of the lockout. I agreed in general with their reasoning behind all the 1 year deals, but hoped they'd roll the dice on both of them back then (and it would have been dice rolling as McKee had the injury issues and hadn't really been the same since he got the worst of his hit on Mario, and Briere wanted ~$2.8MM for 3 years which was a lot for what he'd done to date). Oh well, would've, could've, should've. I would have passed on Briere but only because he was going to be over 30 and little guys tend to decline quickly past that age. Danny had trouble staying healthy at the best of times and right now he looks like nothing more than a PP specialist.
Taro T Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 I would have passed on Briere but only because he was going to be over 30 and little guys tend to decline quickly past that age. Danny had trouble staying healthy at the best of times and right now he looks like nothing more than a PP specialist. What were your thoughts on keeping Soupy? The Hawks were nuts to offer him what they did, but I probably would have wanted to see him signed at what he'd have commanded early the previous summer.
tom webster Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 What were your thoughts on keeping Soupy? The Hawks were nuts to offer him what they did, but I probably would have wanted to see him signed at what he'd have commanded early the previous summer. Those that defend the team or believe that those two years were a mirage will point to articles like this or use that old argument that buffalo couldn't have signed them at what they got completely ignoring the reality of what they could have signed for. Those that defend the players will refuse to consider the possibility that the players just wanted out. All I know is that whatever Buffalo is doing, or more precisely not doing is not working. Will another tenth place finish once and for all end the argument that they have any clue as to what they are doing? Buffalo is out of the free agency derby not because they won't pay but because they pay too much to the wrong people and then refuse to trade anybody when they have any value at all and then tell us they can't get anyone to take the stiffs off their hands.
nfreeman Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Those that defend the team or believe that those two years were a mirage will point to articles like this or use that old argument that buffalo couldn't have signed them at what they got completely ignoring the reality of what they could have signed for.Those that defend the players will refuse to consider the possibility that the players just wanted out. All I know is that whatever Buffalo is doing, or more precisely not doing is not working. Will another tenth place finish once and for all end the argument that they have any clue as to what they are doing? Buffalo is out of the free agency derby not because they won't pay but because they pay too much to the wrong people and then refuse to trade anybody when they have any value at all and then tell us they can't get anyone to take the stiffs off their hands. I think Drury, Briere and Soupy all wanted to stay and would gladly have signed if offered fair contracts early in their eligible-to-resign periods. In other words, I don't think they wanted to leave because they disliked the city, Lindy, the organization or anything else. I don't think this is "refusing to consider the possibility" that they wanted out -- I just think that the Sabres butchered each situation and by the time they were ready to make respectable offers, it was too late, because by then the crazy offers were in sight. Of course, I could be wrong, but all 3 (especially Soupy and Briere) would have to be pretty skillful liars because I was convinced, in watching their interviews at the time, that they wanted to be here. Having said that, I cannot disagree with the rest of your trenchant post, but I do harbor some hope that Darcy will surprise you between now and training camp.
SDS Posted July 1, 2009 Author Report Posted July 1, 2009 I think Drury, Briere and Soupy all wanted to stay and would gladly have signed if offered fair contracts early in their eligible-to-resign periods. In other words, I don't think they wanted to leave because they disliked the city, Lindy, the organization or anything else. I don't think this is "refusing to consider the possibility" that they wanted out -- I just think that the Sabres butchered each situation and by the time they were ready to make respectable offers, it was too late, because by then the crazy offers were in sight. Of course, I could be wrong, but all 3 (especially Soupy and Briere) would have to be pretty skillful liars because I was convinced, in watching their interviews at the time, that they wanted to be here. Having said that, I cannot disagree with the rest of your trenchant post, but I do harbor some hope that Darcy will surprise you between now and training camp. They butchered Drury's situation. They never wanted Briere or Soupy at the higher prices, because, IMHO, they didn't think they were worth the money they wanted, let alone the money they received. So, I don't think that is butchering. They just passed on both.
jad1 Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 They butchered Drury's situation. They never wanted Briere or Soupy at the higher prices, because, IMHO, they didn't think they were worth the money they wanted, let alone the money they received. So, I don't think that is butchering. They just passed on both. I think the first time that Drury realized that the Rangers might be interested in him, he was gone. It probably happened right around the time of the mythic $5 million contract offer that so 'direspected' him. Fault the Sabres management, though, for getting caught off guard when Drury decided to sign with his "hometown" team. Roy and Connolly were in the pipeline to take over for Briere, so he was gone. And it's hard to argue that the Sabres biggest problem was a lack of puck-moving defensemen when Campbell was dealt, so they weren't going to spend big money on him. Regier could have gotten creative and tried to unload cap space to sign Campbell by dealing Tallinder, but that's not the way he works.
Taro T Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Those that defend the team or believe that those two years were a mirage will point to articles like this or use that old argument that buffalo couldn't have signed them at what they got completely ignoring the reality of what they could have signed for.Those that defend the players will refuse to consider the possibility that the players just wanted out. All I know is that whatever Buffalo is doing, or more precisely not doing is not working. Will another tenth place finish once and for all end the argument that they have any clue as to what they are doing? Buffalo is out of the free agency derby not because they won't pay but because they pay too much to the wrong people and then refuse to trade anybody when they have any value at all and then tell us they can't get anyone to take the stiffs off their hands. I'd agree with the bolded part. They have a team that has enough talent to make the playoffs as it is currently constituted but it doesn't have a huge margin of error. Last year by ~the 3/4 mark it was in but it also was only 2 injuries from missing the playoffs and they got both injuries. I wouldn't say that they are out of the FAD because of the reasons you offer, it's far simpler than that. They are out of the FAD because they are too cautious. Very few high end FA's end up worth what they get signed for, so caution is probably warranted. That said, I think Bouwmeester is going to be a steal at $6.6MM by the end of that contract. And going off tangent here, it would be an interesting discussion as to how much the variable pricing plan plays into that caution. Because people can sell the top end games for far more than they paid, the seats will go sold (at least until the "value" price significantly exceeds the demand point). There's only 2 ways to make that price exceed what people will pay - jack the prices up significantly or put a truly bad product on the ice. (Or the 3rd way to do it, do both; or the 4th way, put another 18,000 or so tix available in essentially the same market.) Sticking w/ the 1st 2, the Sabres seem pretty cautious in not putting a huge price increase in for any 1 given year. And, if they don't make the high risk move, while they don't become the '09 Pens, they also don't manage to become the '03 Pens or Caps, or the '08 Isles or Bolts for that matter. Because a fan can make his full money back for a 1/4 of the games at most, the team will have to be pretty bad for people to give up the tix. Yeah, I know they're cautious in large part because that's Darcy's nature. I'm just curious as to what the rest of the reasons for it are. (Man, I've got to stop posting after I've gone a week w/ 4 hours sleep or less / night.)
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Did you know that 23% of guys who sleep with a hot stripper, end up with a STD? When you decide you want to play....sometimes you pay. Darcy is the 40 year old virgin, stuck in the Friend Zone.
nfreeman Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 They butchered Drury's situation. They never wanted Briere or Soupy at the higher prices, because, IMHO, they didn't think they were worth the money they wanted, let alone the money they received. So, I don't think that is butchering. They just passed on both. With Briere, I think they didn't want him until they finally realized that they had lost Drury -- ie June 30 or July 1 of 2007. With Soupy, though, they admitted to offering him close to $30MM for 6 years at the trading deadline -- and he had asked for $5MM x 5 years the previous summer, and they had turned him down, even though they knew where the market was and they had had him in their organization for 8 years. That's butchering it, IMHO. Did you know that 23% of guys who sleep with a hot stripper, end up with a STD? When you decide you want to play....sometimes you pay. Darcy is the 40 year old virgin, stuck in the Friend Zone. You are on fire. I hope you're wrong, but still -- nice work.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.