Stoner Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 The fact that he hasn't done well for the Rangers doesn't mean that he wasn't important here. He left a big hole when he left. Butchering that contract was a huge mistake (although not locking up Briere when it was possible was equally huge). Not trying to start anything here -- not even sure I have this right. But didn't Briere take the Sabres to arbitration in the summer of 2006, winning $5,000,000 and forcing the Sabres to make a very tough decision on Dumont?
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Not trying to start anything here -- not even sure I have this right. But didn't Briere take the Sabres to arbitration in the summer of 2006, winning $5,000,000 and forcing the Sabres to make a very tough decision on Dumont? Yes, but why does that matter? Briere didn't have a contract and was going to get a substantial raise that summer based on his performance in '05-'06, so there was going to be a ripple effect on the amount left for the other guys regardless of whether it was via arbitration or via an agreed contract. He asked for $5MM x 5 years, which as it turned out was well below market for him, and the Sabres would have been well served by agreeing to it. And why single out Dumont as being the one affected by the arbitration? Max, TC, Kotalik, Lydman and Tallinder all signed new contracts that summer too. (And Grier and Pyatt got shipped out.)
Robviously Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Not trying to start anything here -- not even sure I have this right. But didn't Briere take the Sabres to arbitration in the summer of 2006, winning $5,000,000 and forcing the Sabres to make a very tough decision on Dumont? Tough decision, my balls. Summer 2006 should have been easy. You keep Dumont because he's a player with size whose game is perfectly suited for the playoffs. You trade Afinogenov because he led the team in points, his value is an an all time high, and his game doesn't seem to translate that well to the playoffs. We could have taken some team to the cleaners and picked up prospects and picks to keep the team competitive for the years *after* the 2006-2007 season. You couldn't keep everyone anyway because of the salary cap. But that would have required a GM/management with some imagination and the mental toughness to make a move that might not be popular on day #1. [And, yes, this is what I was thinking back then as soon as I recovered from the emotional trauma of how the Carolina series ended. This isn't hindsight. And it's not crazy because this is how the Bruins got the Maple Leafs first rounders.]
shrader Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Yes, but why does that matter? Briere didn't have a contract and was going to get a substantial raise that summer based on his performance in '05-'06, so there was going to be a ripple effect on the amount left for the other guys regardless of whether it was via arbitration or via an agreed contract. He asked for $5MM x 5 years, which as it turned out was well below market for him, and the Sabres would have been well served by agreeing to it. And why single out Dumont as being the one affected by the arbitration? Max, TC, Kotalik, Lydman and Tallinder all signed new contracts that summer too. (And Grier and Pyatt got shipped out.) The slight difference would be that they signed those contracts before the Briere decision came down though (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). The Dumont decision was one that couldn't be made until after Briere's hearing happened.
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Tough decision, my balls. Summer 2006 should have been easy. You keep Dumont because he's a player with size whose game is perfectly suited for the playoffs. You trade Afinogenov because he led the team in points, his value is an an all time high, and his game doesn't seem to translate that well to the playoffs. We could have taken some team to the cleaners and picked up prospects and picks to keep the team competitive for the years *after* the 2006-2007 season. You couldn't keep everyone anyway because of the salary cap. But that would have required a GM/management with some imagination and the mental toughness to make a move that might not be popular on day #1. [And, yes, this is what I was thinking back then as soon as I recovered from the emotional trauma of how the Carolina series ended. This isn't hindsight. And it's not crazy because this is how the Bruins got the Maple Leafs first rounders.] Max was a free agent in the summer of 2006. There was nothing to trade. The slight difference would be that they signed those contracts before the Briere decision came down though (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). The Dumont decision was one that couldn't be made until after Briere's hearing happened. Fair enough, but if the Sabres had had the right plan in place, with the right priorities, they could've signed Briere first, which they should've done because he was the best player out of all of the FAs, then signed Grier, Dumont and the other FAs in order of importance -- instead of letting the arbitration calendar and their distaste for long-term contracts drive the agenda.
Robviously Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Max was a free agent in the summer of 2006. There was nothing to trade. Restricted free agent. There was something to trade.
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Restricted free agent. There was something to trade. Good call. I stand corrected.
Stoner Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Restricted free agent. There was something to trade. Salubrious.
korab rules Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Max was a free agent in the summer of 2006. There was nothing to trade. Fair enough, but if the Sabres had had the right plan in place, with the right priorities, they could've signed Briere first, which they should've done because he was the best player out of all of the FAs, then signed Grier, Dumont and the other FAs in order of importance -- instead of letting the arbitration calendar and their distaste for long-term contracts drive the agenda. They tried to sign Grier - he wanted nothing to do with them because they weren't committed to winning - turns out that Grier was right..
Sterling Archer Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 I paid for my ticket. If I wanna boo and heckle the bald guy 3 rows in front of me, I will. Hell, I booed max in his first trip back to Buffalo. I'll boo anybody for any reason.
SwampD Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 I paid for my ticket. If I wanna boo and heckle the bald guy 3 rows in front of me, I will. Hell, I booed max in his first trip back to Buffalo. I'll boo anybody for any reason. Yes. :thumbsup:
X. Benedict Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 I quote the sage Homer Simpson: "Marge, this ticket doesn't just give me a seat. It also gives me the right, no, the duty, to make a complete ass of myself."
Supersabre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Actually, Drury agreed to a contract extension with the Sabres at the start of the 2006-2007 season. But the team got cold feet and pulled it before he could sign. And he was left wondering what happened and where he stood with the team. So after that, I wouldn't blame him for wanting to move on. What was he supposed to do? The Rangers rush in as soon as free agency starts, tell him he's the most important player they can think of, and then offer him an enormous contract. And you wanted him to shrug off the Rangers so that he could trust the Sabres (run by an owner who doesn't care, a hockey illiterate land developer who can't develop any land, and a GM who picked Afinogenov and Kotalik over Dumont) to match the Rangers' offer and get the job done. This after they jerked him around with his contract just a few months prior. He made the right decision. So did Briere. The Sabres are a poorly-run franchise. Unfortunately, Buffalonians seem to think that every pro athlete who comes to town should be loyal to these teams for the rest of their lives no matter how they're treated. Real life doesn't work that way. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
bunomatic Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Tough decision, my balls. Summer 2006 should have been easy. You keep Dumont because he's a player with size whose game is perfectly suited for the playoffs. You trade Afinogenov because he led the team in points, his value is an an all time high, and his game doesn't seem to translate that well to the playoffs. We could have taken some team to the cleaners and picked up prospects and picks to keep the team competitive for the years *after* the 2006-2007 season. You couldn't keep everyone anyway because of the salary cap. But that would have required a GM/management with some imagination and the mental toughness to make a move that might not be popular on day #1. [And, yes, this is what I was thinking back then as soon as I recovered from the emotional trauma of how the Carolina series ended. This isn't hindsight. And it's not crazy because this is how the Bruins got the Maple Leafs first rounders.] Exactly
Sterling Archer Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 I quote the sage Homer Simpson: "Marge, this ticket doesn't just give me a seat. It also gives me the right, no, the duty, to make a complete ass of myself." A personal motto. Prob why I love Bandits games.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.