nucci Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I think the disgust comes mostly from how dirty this whole situation feels. Letting Tim go probably makes sense, but the execution of the process just feels...wrong. I agree with that part but also think Quinn has a big say in this.
SwampD Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Am I the only one (along with PA) that sees what's happening here??? IT'S NOT ABOUT KENNEDY. The Sabres just proved today beyond a shadow of a doubt that their management team has no clue what they're doing... and all we're getting from a lot of you is "all this over a 3rd or 4th line forward?". NO, IT'S NOT. I don't know how else to say it. They know exactly what they are doing. Their goal is NOT to win the Cup, and by getting us up in arms over a hometown boy 3rd liner, it keeps us from remembering that this team has not changed one bit to improve itself and we are still relying on Tim Connolly to deliver in the playoffs. It's genius, really.
ntjacks79 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 They know exactly what they are doing. Their goal is NOT to win the Cup, and by getting us up in arms over a hometown boy 3rd liner, it keeps us from remembering that this team has not changed one bit to improve itself and we are still relying on Tim Connolly to deliver in the playoffs. It's genius, really. Actually, that IS genius. :unsure: For ALL of today I actually DID forget that.
Knightrider Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Still looking for this large unheard faction of fans... I see it as a waste of resources. If there had been a trade prior to this, the Sabres likely could have been in a better position, even if it was for only a bag of pucks. Don't tell me that Kennedy couldn't have fetched a draft pick prior to him filing for arbitration.
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Am I the only one (along with PA) that sees what's happening here??? IT'S NOT ABOUT KENNEDY. The Sabres just proved today beyond a shadow of a doubt that their management team has no clue what they're doing... and all we're getting from a lot of you is "all this over a 3rd or 4th line forward?". NO, IT'S NOT. I don't know how else to say it. Exactly the opposite of what U R saying. The mng't does have clue to what they r doing. DR's stuck with what $ he gets. Look. Listen. I've had discussions with Kennedy personally. he wanted to play 4 the Sabres and he got screwed. Not by the Sabres but his agent. He's had one season in the NHL. ONE. U go paying a rookie 1 million bucks after a year like his, the league is ######. ###### I tell U. He IS a 3-4 line forward right now, yeah, he may get better but it's not in any GM's make-up that U pay someone for what they might do. Not now. I'm sick of this crap. Get the ###### over it. He wasn't worth it. This is how I feel about the waiver situation. Everyone up in arms about this one. Not really sure why. This is nothing like 7/1/2007 PA you are being preposterous. Rookies don't deserve to get their salary arbitrated. As far as Tim taking the Sabres to arbitration he and his agent decided that what they want. DR played hardball they lost. If he really wanted to be a Sabre he would have taken the highest figure the Sabres offered and been one. He played with fire got burned. I'd like to throw props at Weber 4 this reason. Or maybe his agent 4 saying "dude U wanna play in the NHL or not?" I agree with that part but also think Quinn has a big say in this. Quinn doesn't know $hit about hockey. DR told him here's our way out, the line up is full and he stamped it. That's all. I may seem pissed, but it's only because this whole town is pissed off 4 no reason with a bunch of misinformation.
Lanny Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I think the disgust comes mostly from how dirty this whole situation feels. Letting Tim go probably makes sense, but the execution of the process just feels...wrong. How could they have handled it differently? If they don't qualify him it's the same thing. Even if they were able to trade him to another team for a 7th round pick would that really be better? Bottom line is the reason they wanted him on a two way contract is because he isn't that good.
SwampD Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Exactly the opposite of what U R saying. The mng't does have clue to what they r doing. DR's stuck with what $ he gets. Look. Listen. I've had discussions with Kennedy personally. he wanted to play 4 the Sabres and he got screwed. Not by the Sabres but his agent. He's had one season in the NHL. ONE. U go paying a rookie 1 million bucks after a year like his, the league is ######. ###### I tell U. He IS a 3-4 line forward right now, yeah, he may get better but it's not in any GM's make-up that U pay someone for what they might do. Not now. I'm sick of this crap. Get the ###### over it. He wasn't worth it. BS. This might be true if Darcy hasn't been selling us "potential" for 13 years now. It's EXACTLY how he justified the current top sixes overinflated saleries.
darksabre Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 How could they have handled it differently? If they don't qualify him it's the same thing. Even if they were able to trade him to another team for a 7th round pick would that really be better? Bottom line is the reason they wanted him on a two way contract is because he isn't that good. Like I said before, I see why they did it. It just doesn't feel like it was professional, which stems from whether or not we should be blaming Kennedy's agent for all this. If anything this is a situation where both sides are to blame. I still don't like it though.
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 BS. This might be true if Darcy hasn't been selling us "potential" for 13 years now. It's EXACTLY how he justified the current top sixes overinflated saleries. So U want to criticize him for not paying TK big money for the next 4 years? He said he might have potential but he's got to show it first.
Hephaestus Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Honestly if Kennedy wasn't from Buffalo, 90% of you wouldn't be giving such a #### right now. He should have spent another season in the AHL, or at least not have played the entire year up in Buffalo like he did. He got rushed through the system, and ultimately screwed over by the politics/financial aspect of the game. Now the poor kid sits in free agency, quite unlikely to get picked up with the contract that lingers from arbitration. I hate DR, but cannot blame him for not wanting to shell out that sort of money for another gamble. He's thrown money at "potential" one too many times and been burned.
SwampD Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 So U want to criticize him for not paying TK big money for the next 4 years? He said he might have potential but he's got to show it first. I don't criticize him for not paying. I criticize you for using the "Darcy doesn't pay for potential" excuse when he clearly has and does. He chooses now, for so little money and for a guy that might actually have some, to not pay?
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I don't criticize him for not paying. I criticize you for using the "Darcy doesn't pay for potential" excuse when he clearly has and does. He chooses now, for so little money and for a guy that might actually have some, to not pay? DR has most guys on even salary contracts and the players have stayed at that level or improved. Goose and Stafford r my only contract issues. FTR I'd be willing to switch GM's but sometimes devil u know...
SwampD Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 DR has most guys on even salary contracts and the players have stayed at that level or improved. Goose and Stafford r my only contract issues. FTR I'd be willing to switch GM's but sometimes devil u know... Here's my take on the whole thing. If the Sabres are going to get scored on, I'd prefer it be as a result of watching Timmy Kennedy lose a battle in the corner, rather than watching Timmy Connolly not float on the backcheck.
Stoner Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 I did get a chuckle out of that! And thank you That Auld Smell for challenging: "It feels worse to me than July 1, 2007." That sure is hyperbole First of all, it's just my opinion. It can't be, by definition, hyperbole. Next time someone says they're hot, but you're not, accuse them of hyperbole. :thumbsup: Second, July 1, 2007 was all about the free agent system working in the favor of two players I liked. They got their just payday, and I moved on quickly. This is an entirely different situation. Not sure what's worse. What the Sabres just did, or that some folks on here have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Stoner Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 You don't have to be happy with what just happened, but you really might want to consider getting a handle on reality here. Your response is so far over the top you would think we waived Tyler Myers and not a small, career 3rd line player. The fact that not a single NHL team claimed this prize has not seemed to temper your response. The fact that not a single NHL team wished to trade for this prize has also not tempered your response. Ranting doesn't change the situation. We really are still talking about a very small, 3rd line player who should got an arbitration award that 30 teams summarily rejected. OTOH, if you want to run around like your fire is on fire - then by all means do so. I'm sure I'm not the only one getting a chuckle out of it. Wow, Ralph really has done a number on you, hasn't he?
Stoner Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Anyway, more to the point... how does this get the Sabres closer to their stated goal -- repeated today by Darcy -- of winning a Cup?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Tell me if this makes sense... You go to the Bunny Ranch where there are plenty of nice girls to select from. You've been there before and have sampled many wares. This evening you take a liking to a girl you've been with before....let's just call her...Kennedy. Now Kennedy whispers a few sweet nothings into your ear....you show her some attention and intent to negotiate some private time. Kennedy tells you, "Alright baby....anything you want for the night....$1,500." You look a little stunned.....obviously you enjoy her company, but doesn't she understand there are plenty of other girls around that would be willing to spend some time with you as well? So you tell Kennedy, "I was thinking more along the lines of $700...I guess i could go $800 for some cuddle time." Well, Kennedy doesn't want to lose a sale to a repeat customer, so she says, "Why don't we bring the madame over here and see what she thinks?" So the madame comes over and gets a feel for the situation. She says, "I know you are a good customer, and you ALREADY PAID YOUR $333 FEE to enter the ranch.....so how about to keep you both happy, you give Kennedy $1,000 for her company, and we'll give you back your $333 in a free entry pass for your next visit....sound fair?" You decide you will not pay $1,000 for Kennedy, and walk out the door, leaving your $333 entry fee for the ranch and drive off not getting laid. Now.....how the hell does not paying $667 on top of an already sunk cost of $333 make sense when you were willing to pay $800 for some action just a few minutes beforehand? Like usual......Darcy paid TO NOT GET LAID!!! Tim Kennedy showed to be a copetitive kid with some scrap and still some two way upside. I don't care that he is from Buffalo. I don't think he is a huge loss. Once again however, Regier and the front office show themselves to be clowns. It costs you 200K more to walk away from the deal than if you actually signed him in the first place....which you were willing to. It isn't about the player for the most part....but about the 7th grade mentality and mental skills shown by the organization.
Lanny Posted August 3, 2010 Report Posted August 3, 2010 Like usual......Darcy paid TO NOT GET LAID!!! Tim Kennedy showed to be a copetitive kid with some scrap and still some two way upside. I don't care that he is from Buffalo. I don't think he is a huge loss. Once again however, Regier and the front office show themselves to be clowns. It costs you 200K more to walk away from the deal than if you actually signed him in the first place....which you were willing to. It isn't about the player for the most part....but about the 7th grade mentality and mental skills shown by the organization. Where does Shoane Morrison fit into your example? A better looking girl you end up banging after you leave?
VansTheMans Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 The front office is borderline despicable. There's really no defending this. It was 1 million dollars. 400K more than what they lowballed him with. Meanwhile, Stafford remains on the roster. :death:
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 Where does Shoane Morrison fit into your example? A better looking girl you end up banging after you leave? They were willing to pay him $800K The award was for $1 million They paid him $333K to not be on the team. Basically....they refused to sign him for $667K. That is what we have here. Tim Connolly will have collected that amount by November 8th. Anyone arguing, "nobody else picked him off waivers!".....because it cost them 50% more than the Sabres could have had him for out of pocket. The $333K was gone no matter what. Meanwhile....the total testicle count for the organization drops from 14 to 12.
VansTheMans Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 This is the straw that broke the back. I really can't overlook this. I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to how we are "better off" with Tim Kennedy off the team. :unsure: I'm honestly ASHAMED that we have Regier as our GM. ASHAMED. It's sickening. DR supporters, keep supporting the GM that has failed time and time again to take this team to the next level. Looks real good. :thumbsup:
spndnchz Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkErV-HiF8I Board needs a pep talk, or pep-shoot out.
Eleven Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 They know exactly what they are doing. Their goal is NOT to win the Cup, and by getting us up in arms over a hometown boy 3rd liner, it keeps us from remembering that this team has not changed one bit to improve itself and we are still relying on Tim Connolly to deliver in the playoffs. It's genius, really. Goal is to not win the Cup? Makes no sense, Swamp, and you usually do. If the goal is to not win it, well, they could have sucked harder in three of the last five years. Listen. I've had discussions with Kennedy personally. he wanted to play 4 the Sabres and he got screwed. Not by the Sabres but his agent. He's had one season in the NHL. ONE. U go paying a rookie 1 million bucks after a year like his, the league is ######. ###### I tell U. He IS a 3-4 line forward right now, yeah, he may get better but it's not in any GM's make-up that U pay someone for what they might do. Not now. I'm sick of this crap. Get the ###### over it. He wasn't worth it. Quinn doesn't know $hit about hockey. DR told him here's our way out, the line up is full and he stamped it. That's all. You know, chz, I have no doubt that you've talked with Kennedy, or that he said what you say he said. None whatsoever. You've never given anyone any reason to doubt what you write. And I think you're right that he got screwed by his agent. But I think you're wrong about Quinn. I think that when Darcy goes to lunch, he has to email Quinn first. (EDIT: I think you're correct that Quinn doesn't know $hit about hockey; I just think he pulls the strings anyway.) Anyway, more to the point... how does this get the Sabres closer to their stated goal -- repeated today by Darcy -- of winning a Cup? Yeah, Tim Kennedy was the key to the Cup. It's amazing that Chicago won it without him. Look, there are only so many LW spots, and as much as I'd love to have Kennedy around (and I would!), I would want him on a two-way contract. Again, the whole freaking league seemed to agree. But he's the key to a Stanley Cup?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 Look, there are only so many LW spots, and as much as I'd love to have Kennedy around (and I would!), I would want him on a two-way contract. Again, the whole freaking league seemed to agree. But he's the key to a Stanley Cup? 2 things in play. 1) It would have cost the Sabres $667K to sign him. The rest of the league $1 million. 2) Don't you think the Good Ol' Boyz Network is going to make Kennedy sweat? Take a team to arbitration as a rookie? These guys passed the memo around quicker than the Zovirex the week after the Vegas awards. Let him slide through.
Eleven Posted August 4, 2010 Report Posted August 4, 2010 2 things in play. 1) It would have cost the Sabres $667K to sign him. The rest of the league $1 million. 2) Don't you think the Good Ol' Boyz Network is going to make Kennedy sweat? Take a team to arbitration as a rookie? These guys passed the memo around quicker than the Zovirex the week after the Vegas awards. Let him slide through. Not sure what you're talking about with no. 1. As above, it costs more for the Ennis salary + Kennedy buyout than it would have cost to just sign Kennedy. With no. 2, I really think that is funny! But on the point, no, there are too many competitive GMs/presidents/owners out there, and they would have grabbed him for the price, if the price were right. I don't see 30 executives colluding in a period of 24 hours.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.