repster Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Multi-year for Sekera and Mac with a one-year deal. One RFA to go with Stafford.
spndnchz Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I'm happy about Sekera, on the fence with MacArthur. I'd expect two years 3 million or 3 years for 5 mill. GR says they saw on a Slovak website it was 2 million, not sure if that's per year or 1+1 FWIW, Mancari is a RFA too.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Multi-year for Sekera and Mac with a one-year deal. One RFA to go with Stafford. The longer the better for Sekera as his next contract will be costly. A one year deal for Mac is nice, as long as it's under 2 mill.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 FWIW, Mancari is a RFA too. Who? :unsure: Knowing Darcy, Mancari will be locked up for 5 years on a one-way deal. :rolleyes:
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 The longer the better for Sekera as his next contract will be costly. A one year deal for Mac is nice, as long as it's under 2 mill. I get the feeling it'll be 3 years. He'll then have one year left before UFA. Maybe there's that 4th year, but it really doesn't make much sense from Sekera's point of view to go beyond that.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I get the feeling it'll be 3 years. He'll then have one year left before UFA. Maybe there's that 4th year, but it really doesn't make much sense from Sekera's point of view to go beyond that. I'd be thrilled with either, as long as Darcy can get him to extend a for a few years durng the last year. Let's hope Darcy learned his lesson.
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I'd be thrilled with either, as long as Darcy can get him to extend a for a few years durng the last year. Let's hope Darcy learned his lesson. I'll wait and see what Sekera looks like in 4 years before I take a stance on that one.
tom webster Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I get the feeling it'll be 3 years. He'll then have one year left before UFA. Maybe there's that 4th year, but it really doesn't make much sense from Sekera's point of view to go beyond that. That one year deal for Mac makes no sense unless they have a trade worked out. If I remember correctly, the NHL doesn't allow you to trade a players rights so you have to sign them first. Otherwise, Buffalo would have had to go high to get him to pull out of arbitration. As for Sekera, a Slovak site is reporting that its a $2 million deal which if true would have to be a 2 year deal at $1 million per because a 3 year deal at $666K makes no sense and there is no way they paid him $2 million per year.
wjag Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I'm happy about Sekera, on the fence with MacArthur. What she said.
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 That one year deal for Mac makes no sense unless they have a trade worked out. If I remember correctly, the NHL doesn't allow you to trade a players rights so you have to sign them first. Otherwise, Buffalo would have had to go high to get him to pull out of arbitration. That's not right. The CBA defines a trade as "the transfer... from one Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List to another Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List of a Player's SPC, the rights to a Player (including his SPC, if applicable)". The Sabres have traded Pyatt and Bernier's rights in recent years. Maybe the fact that he had declared arbitration comes into play, but I don't think so. Phoenix just lost Nigel Dawes last week through waivers after he filed for arbitration. That doesn't seem any different to me. As for the one year deal, it looks like the typical scenario where both sides are scared of losing, so they find some middle ground. We'll have to wait and see the terms first though.
tom webster Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 That's not right. The CBA defines a trade as "the transfer... from one Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List to another Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List of a Player's SPC, the rights to a Player (including his SPC, if applicable)". The Sabres have traded Pyatt and Bernier's rights in recent years. Maybe the fact that he had declared arbitration comes into play, but I don't think so. Phoenix just lost Nigel Dawes last week through waivers after he filed for arbitration. That doesn't seem any different to me. As for the one year deal, it looks like the typical scenario where both sides are scared of losing, so they find some middle ground. We'll have to wait and see the terms first though. You are probably right. I forgot about Bernier. Maybe I'm remembering another league. Still doesn't make sense to me to sign a one year deal unless club went high.
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 You are probably right. I forgot about Bernier. Maybe I'm remembering another league. Still doesn't make sense to me to sign a one year deal unless club went high. He's going to get a one year deal anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if he just wants to avoid the ugliness of the hearing. I'm also expecting the contract to be not all that far away from what he was asking for.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 As for the one year deal, it looks like the typical scenario where both sides are scared of losing, so they find some middle ground. We'll have to wait and see the terms first though. That is my guess as well. If the Sabres' initial proposal was $1.1MM, and Mac's was $2.2MM (just guessing on both), I can see the Sabres signing him for $1.6MM or so. And while I'd love to feel that a trade is brewing -- especially because I don't see how the Sabres have room for him in their budget -- I can also see this being a purely defensive move by the Sabres. This allows them to hold onto, as DR often puts it, an "asset" and averts the risk of an oversized arbitration award that they would have to walk away from.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 And while I'd love to feel that a trade is brewing I honestly wish the word trade wasn't allowed on this board. There might be a .00000001% chance that Clarke gets traded this offseason, but yet I've already read about it a dozen times. :blink:
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 If you believe this translation and the source of the article, it is 2 years @ $1 million per season: Translation Slovak ice hockey defenseman Andrej Sekera sign with their current employer, a team Buffalo Sabers, a new two-year contract, which they together deliver 2 million U.S. dollar. If true, I'd be quite happy with that deal. (Credit due to SabresFan77 @ hfboards for posting the translation link.)
wjag Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I honestly wish the word trade wasn't allowed on this board. There might be a .00000001% chance that Clarke gets traded this offseason, but yet I've already read about it a dozen times. :blink: Prone to exageration I see.. We all know it's not nearly that high.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I honestly wish the word trade wasn't allowed on this board. There might be a .00000001% chance that Clarke gets traded this offseason, but yet I've already read about it a dozen times. :blink: We can't all just banter pornographic remarks with spndchz back and forth all day. Some of us have to solve this team's problems. As for the bartering of Clarkie -- if a swap is to occur, it's as least as likely to involve him as it is one of the guys we all really want to be moved. He's young, has pretty decent size and skating ability, relatively cheap and had 17 goals in his first full season in the NHL. I can easily see another team preferring to acquire him in exchange for other assets as opposed to our overpriced vets, each of whom has plenty of baggage. Note that I avoided the t-word.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 As for the bartering of Clarkie -- if a swap is to occur, it's as least as likely to involve him as it is one of the guys we all really want to be moved. He's young, has pretty decent size and skating ability, relatively cheap and had 17 goals in his first full season in the NHL. I can easily see another team preferring to acquire him in exchange for other assets as opposed to our overpriced vets, each of whom has plenty of baggage. It would really have to include both. Trading Clarke, alone, doesn't open up enough room to bring anyone in. They might use him in a sweetener in a deal to, for example, move Tallinder for a forward with a higher salary.
... Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 It would really have to include both. Trading Clarke, alone, doesn't open up enough room to bring anyone in. They might use him in a sweetener in a deal to, for example, move Tallinder for a forward with a higher salary. As much as I think Tallinder needs to go now, I think he's not going anywhere until somewhere near the trade deadline - if he is moved at all. In other news, I agree that the MacArthur signing seems like a potential trade move in the future. Perhaps they'll let him "develop" more over the season and save him for the trade deadline as well.
Two or less Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Awesome deal to get Sekera re-signed at such a small sum. Jack Johnson just re-signed with the Kings a day prior to Sekera signing, and Johnson banked $2.85 over 2 years. Someone on another forum compared the two and thought both would get similar deals, although some said Johnson probably demanded a bit more due to his potential. However, i disagreed, because i would have thought Sekera would want a bit extra to keep him here and not go over seas. So i expected around $1.3-1.5 per for Sekera. Also glad MacArthur is signed. I actually like the player. He took several steps last year for us IMO, led the team in 3rd period goals in the 2nd part of the season and i think he still has potential. This is a make it or break it season for him.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 ...although some said Johnson probably demanded a bit more due to his potential. I'd like to be involved in contract talks with someone negotiating for potential.
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I'd like to be involved in contract talks with someone negotiating for potential. But you have no potential.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 It would really have to include both. Trading Clarke, alone, doesn't open up enough room to bring anyone in. They might use him in a sweetener in a deal to, for example, move Tallinder for a forward with a higher salary. I would love for a deal to include both, but as I've stated elsewhere, I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic that DR will be able to do so. It just seems like every other team is also trying to unload overpriced vets. There just aren't going to be enough buyers to take all, or even most, of the albatross contracts around the NHL from all of the sellers. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely we see DR unload Clarkie for a draft pick in order to get down to their budget limit and make room for Kennedy and/or Gerbe. I hope I'm wrong though.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Verbiage question: the club has reached an arbitration settlement on a one-year contract with forward Clarke MacArthur. (Link) Does that mean they settled to avoid arbitration or is that was he was awarded (I believe that his hearing was scheduled for today) and they accepted it? I assume the former.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.