Eleven Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 What does WGR have to do with professional journalism??? Give it a rest. First, I noted the difference between a call-in show and a written article; second, whether you like the folks on GR or not, they are professionals in their field (they're paid, right?), and we're not professionals in that field. For me, I get a fair amount of information out of Hamilton, a good deal of info from the various morning guests, and a lot of entertainment--but mostly just entertainment--out of the rest of the lot.
static70 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 He can be traded at anytime. He couldn't negotiate / sign an extention until after January 1 because he'd be on a 1 year deal. Ah, ok and thanks for the clarity Taro.
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Actually RFA arbitrations that "must" be accepted. I am looking at the CBA now trying to find it, wanna jump in and help me out here chz, I wasn't sure if it was correct or not myself, I merely speculated since this move baffles me. Nope nothing. The only January date is about age 18 player rules and the rule that a player who has a one year deal can't get an extension until January 1. or what TT said
Taro T Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Which begs the question: are the Sabres betting that he survives waivers so that they can sign him to a multi-year deal now? Are they being proactive about something? Just a possibility, not opinion, and certainly not rumor or anything. Truly doubtful, as they can't renegotiate with him until January 1 unless they buy him out, at which point he isn't an RFA but a UFA. If they thought he was a $700k player this year and an $800k player next year and $900k the following year (just pulled #'s out of the air, for sake of argument) then after buying him out they'd only be willing to offer him $533k (the $700k minus the $167k they'll pay him this year by walking away), $633k, and $900k. I don't see a deal like that working from Tim's point of view. The only way the waiver thing factors into a trade is if Tim is subject to recall waivers. IF he is subject to them (if he's on a 1 way contract, he'd be subject salary-wise; I expect he'd have to clear them to come back up since he was put on them theoretically on the way down), then if there was a wink-wink deal for say Edmonton or TO to take him when the Sabres bring him back up from actually sending him down then the Sabres would be on the hook for $500k of his salary. The teams then make the rest of the trade and Tim essentially is traded w/ the Sabres picking up 1/2 of his salary. I don't see this as terribly likely either; but it MIGHT be possible. I expect that the Sabres don't see Tim factoring in on the top 2 lines this year, and don't see him on the 3rd line unless there are injury issues, and he isn't a 4th liner; so they decided that they didn't want to spend $1MM on the 13th forward. (Apologies to McCormack (sp?), who I had as the 14th. Don't think it really matters whether you're 13th or 14th, you get the same place in the buffet line.)
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Just a thought. Isn't the real problem here a 5-6 year old CBA that hasn't kept up with the NHL. Back in 2005 they didn't see the middle class evaporation that the NHL has seen. Young studs (yum) make the big bucks, great older vets make the big bucks. A guy like Kennedy may not have the chance to play because of the CBA stating this minimum salary award can't be 'walked away from'. I'm sure the Sabres would have kept him for a bit less (or if he hadn't mouthed off in the hearing or accepted a two way deal). $1.6 million seems a bit high to me.
BleedBlueandGold85 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 IF the sabres are just letting kennedy go, and there is no trade or long term deal in the works, the sabres have just made a serious mistake......... kennedy has more talent than more than half the forwards we have on this team and hes only going to get better........DUmb move!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Taro T Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Just a thought. Isn't the real problem here a 5-6 year old CBA that hasn't kept up with the NHL. Back in 2005 they didn't see the middle class evaporation that the NHL has seen. Young studs (yum) make the big bucks, great older vets make the big bucks. A guy like Kennedy may not have the chance to play because of the CBA stating this minimum salary award can't be 'walked away from'. I'm sure the Sabres would have kept him for a bit less (or if he hadn't mouthed off in the hearing or accepted a two way deal). $1.6 million seems a bit high to me. There is no way they couldn't see that coming; by having a hard salary cap, the guys in the middle have to get squeezed. And IMHO that is PART of the reason why more of the older 2nd level guys are going back to Europe. The middle tier getting squeezed has little to do with the arbitration issue, again IMHO. Kennedy isn't in the middle tier. He's still at the bottom. He'll get a chance to play. It just won't be for the Sabres. IF the sabres are just letting kennedy go, and there is no trade or long term deal in the works, the sabres have just made a serious mistake......... kennedy has more talent than more than half the forwards we have on this team and hes only going to get better........DUmb move!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At this point in time, he doesn't have more talent than 1/2 the forwards on the Sabres. That's his problem. He can't break into the top 2 lines, and the 3rd line will be the grizzled vet line (at least when they're all healthy). It's a shame that he doesn't play RW, but he's no higher than 4 on the depth chart at either C or LW. And he isn't the prototypical "energy" 4th liner, so though he may be the 4th best LW it looks as though he won't be the 4th line LW. I agree that he'll get better and that they aren't saving much (if any, not sure how they'll stock slots 13 & 14 so they might save up to $333k but that's tops) assuming he isn't claimed by noon tomorrow. I don't like the move, but it appears they don't want to give a guy $1MM to sit in the press box.
static70 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I have to say this waiver baffled me. But with the signing of Morrisonn this smells like another move is coming. Too many D men in the pipeline now and Waiving Kennedy might have been necessary to clear a roster spot. Thats my take on this right now, but I'll wait to see what Darcy says tommorrow.
JJFIVEOH Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 The one article said under the CBA teams cannot walk away from an arbitrators ruling under $1.6 mil? I think Kennedy will re-sign, I get a feeling Darcy is doing a little financial manipulation through loopholes. I don't know which loophole, but this really doesn't make any sense if this isn't the case.
Taro T Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I have to say this waiver baffled me. But with the signing of Morrisonn this smells like another move is coming. Too many D men in the pipeline now and Waiving Kennedy might have been necessary to clear a roster spot. Thats my take on this right now, but I'll wait to see what Darcy says tommorrow. There are no limits to roster spots in the off-season. As long as they are w/in 110% of the salary cap, they can have whoever they want. They have to get back to 23 players max and 100% of the cap at the beginning of the season, which isn't for another 2 months. They were good at present.
frisky Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I've been trying to wrap my head around this all night but just can't make heads or tails of it. Why buy out Kennedy when there is a crap ton of bigger dead weight on the roster? Why not buy out Connolly for starters. Kennedy is young and has up side.
carpandean Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Why not buy out Connolly for starters. Kennedy buyout: (1/3)*($1M) = $333k Connolly buyout: (2/3)*($4.5M) = $3M Darcy wouldn't burn that kind of money.
gregkash Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 the only way i can be okay with this is if there's something bigger coming. If Darcy is buying him out because he won an arbitration award im gonna lose it.
gregkash Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I'm sure the Sabres would have kept him for a bit less (or if he hadn't mouthed off in the hearing or accepted a two way deal). $1.6 million seems a bit high to me. did i miss something? what'd he do?
VansTheMans Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Its simply ridiculous to think Regier has ended Kennedy's career in Buffalo over 300K. RIDICULOUS. :wallbash:
RazielSabre Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 This is just a joke, a good local kid and it's the one player Darcy deems as dead weight. Then he goes and signs more depth players (the story of our offseason). More proof his a blinking idiot. Either that or his not in control of his budget and being told he cant go anywhere near the cap. A poor day for the Sabres. He wasnt anything special but he wasnt exactly a bad player, or a waste of space.
Calvin Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Regier has really not given us anything worth being patient about in his tenure. I am as tired of his methods as most of you are on this board. Nothing he does inspires confidence and I have stopped believing that he is capable of making things happen and nor do I believe that his word carries any weight among other GMs. However, like it or not, he is the GM of the Sabres and looks like he is up to something. There's a presser coming up today right? Dare I say that we should wait until this afternoon or evening whenever it is before we take up the pitchforks and torches?
nucci Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 This is just a joke, a good local kid and it's the one player Darcy deems as dead weight. Then he goes and signs more depth players (the story of our offseason). More proof his a blinking idiot. Either that or his not in control of his budget and being told he cant go anywhere near the cap. A poor day for the Sabres. He wasnt anything special but he wasnt exactly a bad player, or a waste of space. What does being a good local kid have to do with it? I won't miss him. I'm tired of seeing small forwards on this team. This is NOT a defense of Regier but I don't see this as a big loss.
Eleven Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I know GR reported yesterday that Regier would address the media after noon today, but I haven't seen any announcement of a press conference. Has anyone else?
Calvin Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I know GR reported yesterday that Regier would address the media after noon today, but I haven't seen any announcement of a press conference. Has anyone else? That's what I meant, him talking to the press after the noon deadline ends.
static70 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 There are no limits to roster spots in the off-season. As long as they are w/in 110% of the salary cap, they can have whoever they want. They have to get back to 23 players max and 100% of the cap at the beginning of the season, which isn't for another 2 months. They were good at present. Really Taro? And thanks again for the information. Now that is quite interesting. Its beginning to look more and more (If Darcy buys Kennedy out today) like a move out of spite from the arbitration hearing. That would just piss me off to no end, let a commodity walk without attempting to dangle him out there for something, even a low round draft pick. Just what is going through my mind now, but I'll wait to hear Darcy's explanation.
Rico7 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Sorry if someone else asked this along the way, but what happens if the Sabres don't buy him out? What are their other options? Mair was placed on waivers last year, but still ended up playing the rest of the season with Buffalo because he went unclaimed. Just curious, but like most of the rest of you, I just don't get what is going on here.
Buffalo Wings Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 What does being a good local kid have to do with it? I won't miss him. I'm tired of seeing small forwards on this team. This is NOT a defense of Regier but I don't see this as a big loss. I don't think being a local kid has anything to do with this, either, but I don't exactly think he was worth dumping. I thought he was a younger (and smaller) Mike Grier - good, defensive, checking forward that can score. Unlike several others, he was playing with some energy that I loved. This all just seemed like a money move to me and we're all ticked that it had to be Kennedy. Maybe a trade is coming because of this, but I can't see it with Darcy.
LabattBlue Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 What does being a good local kid have to do with it? I won't miss him. I'm tired of seeing small forwards on this team. This is NOT a defense of Regier but I don't see this as a big loss. Well unless there are more moves coming, the Sabres got a LOT smaller as room was just made on the roster for Gerbe. Roy, Gerbe & Ennis all in the lineup come October? Kennedy looks like a giant compared to these munchkins.
Taro T Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Sorry if someone else asked this along the way, but what happens if the Sabres don't buy him out? What are their other options? Mair was placed on waivers last year, but still ended up playing the rest of the season with Buffalo because he went unclaimed. Just curious, but like most of the rest of you, I just don't get what is going on here. If he clears waivers and they don't buy him out, they can either send him to Portland or keep him w/ the Sabres. I suppose there's a very outside possibility that they want to keep him but be able to send him down after the season starts. He wouldn't have to clear waivers to go down again until the Sabres have played their 10th game with him up. If the Sabres thought that he hasn't proven his value at $1MM yet, but quite possibly would in October; or if they thought teams weren't paying attention currently, but would in October; then it could make sense in a "they're too cute by 2 orders" sort of way. I still expect the explanation to be much simpler. They don't want to be paying $1MM to a guy they expect to be in the press box as Niedermayer took his 3rd line slot, and Ennis will likely grab one of the top 6, and they don't see him as a 4th liner. Not saying I agree w/ that thinking, as Kennedy would be an ideal candidate to fill a LW or C slot in case of an injury or shaking stuff up on any of the top 3 lines. (Well, maybe not ideal on the top line, but he'd fit well on 2 or 3.)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.