Jimmy Vesey Traded to Sabres for 3rd in 2021

[Sabel79]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

He played 43 between 2012 to 2014.

Stauber, who I forgot about, played only 6.

I’m fairly certain I payed money to watch Stauber play once... 

[shrader]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

Of course it’s different because of your perspective. Which is it, is Vesey a bad boy because he supposedly lied or is he a bad boy because he is just an asset that had the nerve to use a loophole his superiors created against them?

Nitpick alert: it’s not a loophole when it’s explicitly written into the CBA. They planned for this option.  Van Ryn was a loophole, not this. 

[Andrew Amerk]

On 7/1/2019 at 9:01 PM, Andrew Amerk said:

Out of the 38 Hobey Baker winners, that’s makes him what, the 9th to play for Buffalo?

 

54 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Question for the day.  Vesey is a Hobey Baker winner.  How many previous Hobey Baker winners have played for the Sabres?

?

[tom webster]

56 minutes ago, shrader said:

Nitpick alert: it’s not a loophole when it’s explicitly written into the CBA. They planned for this option.  Van Ryn was a loophole, not this. 

Point taken.

[SwampD]

7 hours ago, Cascade Youth said:

Right about Vesey being a selfish jerk for choosing the Rangers - after his agent made it clear before Murray wasted a draft pick that Vesey planned to rest the market?

I’d say Pi has less of a chance of being right, actually.  And the entire exercise is a disgrace - remember, his first point in this thread was to express delight that Vesey will be booed on home ice.  Please.

I absolutely believe that pi could be right about Vesey and what he did to Nashville (not to Buff as he didn’t do anything to us.)

7 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Bottom line is what Vesey did to NSH is considered a dick move by the vast majority of players and management.     But I don't expect the average fan to understand that, so be it.    He'll put on a Sabres jersey and everybody will cheer for him...  good for him.    But I guarantee there are players in that locker room whom will not forgive nor forget that he disrespected the league by acting like a spoiled child.

I absolutely believe that there isn’t a single player in the locker room that doesn’t know they are cattle, and don’t hold a single thing against Vesey and what he did to Nashville.

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

 

I absolutely believe that there isn’t a single player in the locker room that doesn’t know they are cattle, and don’t hold a single thing against Vesey and what he did to Nashville.

[pi2000]

6 hours ago, Weave said:

I wanted to get back to this.  “Trolling” has a negative connotation, and I get that given how frequently the word is thrown your way, you’d most likely react negatively to the label. But there is trolling, and then there is trolling.

We’ve had our share of posters that just wanted to watch the world burn.  Thankfully, they aren’t here long.  Pi isn’t one of them.  And neither are you.  At worst, Pi’s version of trolling is harmless.  It sure does spark conversation, which is the point of this forum.  And trolling can be productive when it is offered to elicit a genuine idea that isn’t getting consideration.  I think your contributions in this manner are underrated.  The curse of an iconoclast, I guess.

 

It is what it is.  And it is trolling.  I’m ok with it (not that it matters what I am ok with).  And I know I do it frequently enough.

Just curious kind sir, what is your definition of trolling? 

[carpandean]

I wish that they would make one small change to the CBA for these cases.  Give the team that drafted him a sort of right of first refusal at the end.  Something like: if they offer him the maximum ELC before July 1 of the final year, they keep the player.  In other words, they offered they most that they possibly could before the term was up, so the player shouldn't be able to just walk.  Anything short of that, they are not doing everything that they can to keep the player, who presumably out-developed his draft position, so the player should have the right to go to free agency.

 

[Doohicksie]

5 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Just curious kind sir, what is your definition of trolling? 

I'm not him, but I think of trolling as taking a contrary position just to get a rise out of people.

 

[Wyldnwoody44]

19 pages on Vesey, man, this offeason so far has been..... Slow. 

JB, hope you're toying with us, but JV isn't going to make or break this team

[LGR4GM]

I think trading a 3rd for Vesey is good asset management. The chances of a 3rd turning into a 15-20g scorer are low and that pick isn't going to be NHL ready for 6-7 years. Good value to add more competition in camp. 

[That Aud Smell]

6 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Just curious kind sir, what is your definition of trolling? 

with respect to @Weave, i think what he's describing is more stirring the pot. I think @Weave called @PASabreFan an iconoclast; I think that's often right, as far as our purposes go around here. I would even go so far as to say that being a provocateur isn't the same as trolling. IMO, there's something gratuitous and disingenuous about internet trolling. If you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole in order to advance an argument that you genuinely believe, then you're not trolling. I don't think there's a single regular poster who's a troll or who trolls.

[darksabre]

10 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

with respect to @Weave, i think what he's describing is more stirring the pot. I think @Weave called @PASabreFan an iconoclast; I think that's often right, as far as our purposes go around here. I would even go so far as to say that being a provocateur isn't the same as trolling. IMO, there's something gratuitous and disingenuous about internet trolling. If you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole in order to advance an argument that you genuinely believe, then you're not trolling. I don't think there's a single regular poster who's a troll or who trolls.

Here's the thing about trolling: even if it starts out as disingenuous, "for the lulz" if you will, there tends to be enough seeds of conviction in the trolling that eventually it stops being trolling and starts being genuine. A certain politician's base is a perfect example of this phenomenon. A certain internet conspiracy theorist who will not be named has pleaded in actual courts that he's only a troll "playing a character", but we know that's BS too.

I don't like the term "troll" because it provides too much cover.

[Sabel79]

2 hours ago, carpandean said:

I wish that they would make one small change to the CBA for these cases.  Give the team that drafted him a sort of right of first refusal at the end.  Something like: if they offer him the maximum ELC before July 1 of the final year, they keep the player.  In other words, they offered they most that they possibly could before the term was up, so the player shouldn't be able to just walk.  Anything short of that, they are not doing everything that they can to keep the player, who presumably out-developed his draft position, so the player should have the right to go to free agency.

 

Nah.  College kids are already automatically under control longer than kids in Junior.  Sign them or don’t.

[shrader]

2 hours ago, carpandean said:

I wish that they would make one small change to the CBA for these cases.  Give the team that drafted him a sort of right of first refusal at the end.  Something like: if they offer him the maximum ELC before July 1 of the final year, they keep the player.  In other words, they offered they most that they possibly could before the term was up, so the player shouldn't be able to just walk.  Anything short of that, they are not doing everything that they can to keep the player, who presumably out-developed his draft position, so the player should have the right to go to free agency.

 

They've already limited the options of the college player by a significant amount when compared to the major junior guys.  They're stuck with a team for a longer period of time and can't get out even if they want to.  Sure, the major junior guy goes back into the draft after two years, but that at least gives them the chance to move away from a team if they really don't want to be there.  The college guys don't have that option, and on top of that, you now want to essentially remove their chance of leaving all together with your proposal. 

All too often these thoughts of changing the system are born completely out of the fans' greed to not lose any player, but are not practical.  Why would the PA agree to this change?  They're not going to restrict the rights of the player any further than they already are.  Your proposal essentially forces the elite college players to play for the team that drafted them, with no other options in North America.  That's not something either side would even consider.  The league may like the thought, but they know better than to even try it.

[shrader]

Just now, Let's Go B-Lo said:

I prefer the idea of compensatory draft picks for players offered qualifying contracts who refuse to sign them. The player still can walk away and do what they want, the team gets some compensation for any resources and time they spent developing the player.

I was thinking about that option as I typed my post.  I could be convinced.  But for whatever reason, the league decided to move away from compensatory picks during the 2005 lockout, other than for those first round guys.  I don't know the reason, but the league doesn't seem to want them.  I'd imagine it has a lot to do with opening a can of worms with the large number of draft picks who never wind up signing.

[Sabel79]

Honestly.  With the restrictions placed on them on the first place, why punish college kids for playing in college?  I fundamentally do not understand the thinking that leads one to believe they get a better deal... 

[That Aud Smell]

26 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Here's the thing about trolling: even if it starts out as disingenuous, "for the lulz" if you will, there tends to be enough seeds of conviction in the trolling that eventually it stops being trolling and starts being genuine. A certain politician's base is a perfect example of this phenomenon. A certain internet conspiracy theorist who will not be named has pleaded in actual courts that he's only a troll "playing a character", but we know that's BS too.

I don't like the term "troll" because it provides too much cover.

Hmm. Interesting take.

To be clear: I'm saying that the activity of trolling is something that warrants condemnation. Hence, I don't see how trolling offers cover -- at least not around these parts.

I am familiar with that guy's claim(s) that he's basically a wrestling heel (troll) who uses politics and current events as his entertainment fodder.

[shrader]

8 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

That's why I put the qualifying offer caveat in there. You can make the qualifier whatever you want. For me it would be max level ELC. That way teams won't just throw qualifiers around to recoup picks on draft busts. A kid who was a draft bust would surely sign a max level ELC so it would really cut it down to just those players who, for whatever reason, just want to get to FA status.

Ultimately, I don't think the compensation would be worth much.  They currently give out a 2nd round pick if you lose your guy you took in the 1st.  Anything new would probably follow that same model, one year later.  Is it really worth much at that point?  We'd be left right back where we started, with fans thinking the team is losing too much.  I'm not against the idea, I just don't think they have any interest in changing anything right now.

7 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

Honestly.  With the restrictions placed on them on the first place, why punish college kids for playing in college?  I fundamentally do not understand the thinking that leads one to believe they get a better deal... 

I'd love to see a situation where they're allowed to sign a contract but allowed to remain in the NCAA.  Then they could get the same 2 year window that the major junior guys get and everyone would be on a level playing field, except for that ability to return to major junior after playing a handful of NHL games.  But that ball is in the NCAA's court and won't happen anytime soon.

7 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

They'll change it at some point. The current rules were born of a time when most kids who played in the NCAA weren't high level prospects. There will be a kid who is drafted high, goes to 4 years of school because they want to, and then refuses to sign. It will have to happen to the right team of course but let's say Toronto drafts that kid, he goes to BU for 4 years, comes out of school at 22 then signs with the Habs and Toronto gets squadouche. That would make the Eric Lindros saga look like nothing. 

That kid is walking away from an assload of money.  It's not going to happen.

[Pimlach]

18 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Bottom line is what Vesey did to NSH is considered a dick move by the vast majority of players and management.     But I don't expect the average fan to understand that, so be it.    He'll put on a Sabres jersey and everybody will cheer for him...  good for him.    But I guarantee there are players in that locker room whom will not forgive nor forget that he disrespected the league by acting like a spoiled child.

There are not many players in the Sabres locker room, if any at all, that will care what he did or why.  Today’s players are different and the game is a business more than ever before. Unless Rene Robert, Danny Gare, Mike Peca, or Chris Drury are coming back I doubt he will have a problem.   He is Eichels’ buddy so there will be no issues.  

I predict he will have a quiet and mediocre season playing for an inconsistent mediocre team.  Come February he could be traded away.   

[Sabel79]

3 minutes ago, shrader said:

I'd love to see a situation where they're allowed to sign a contract but allowed to remain in the NCAA.  Then they could get the same 2 year window that the major junior guys get and everyone would be on a level playing field, except for that ability to return to major junior after playing a handful of NHL games.  But that ball is in the NCAA's court and won't happen anytime soon.

I mean, the NCAA isn’t going to let some of the workers without rights off the plantation.  That door will remain fully closed. 

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

No they arent. ELCs are essentially all the same. The kid gets his first crack at free agency at 24.

Yes, they are.  That kid drafted in the 1st round will only play college for a season or 2 (max).  Not because of losing out on an ELC, but because of losing out on the mid-years of his career.  That stud drafted in the 1st won't stay in school for 4 full years because he really wanted to play for somebody else.  He'll come out at 19 to be able to be an UFA at 26.

This only ends up an issue for the kids that are drafted late & then blossom beyond expectations over the next 4 years.  And nobody seems to care when the meh CHLer blossoms after 2 years and goes back into the draft; which is effectively the same thing.  The team that drafted him loses his rights.

[shrader]

3 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

No they arent. ELCs are essentially all the same. The kid gets his first crack at free agency at 24.

If we're talking about that elite guy, they would be walking away from 3-4 years of that ELC plus the bonuses to go along with it.  It's a significant chunk of change that could never be recovered.  In your scenario, yes, that guy is unrestricted at age 22, but he still gets stuck with 2 years of the ELC restrictions, something he would have already been free of had he signed those 3 years earlier.  So you've pushed back that window where you can make the big bucks, even more lost wages that cannot be recovered.

And on top of that, after that ELC ends, they player would be an RFA with less options.  You're not at UFA status until you have 7 years of service or are 27 years old (I'll ignore the route a guy like O'Regan just took since we're talking about an elite guy here).  So this guy who hold out through college has significantly pushed back the date where his clock starts ticking towards making the real money.  And then there's the other options like endorsements that he also can't get while in the NCAA.  Completely ignoring that, with a very lazy estimate, we're talking about well over $10 million lost on just salary alone.

[carpandean]

59 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

Nah.  College kids are already automatically under control longer than kids in Junior.  Sign them or don’t.

58 minutes ago, shrader said:

They've already limited the options of the college player by a significant amount when compared to the major junior guys.  They're stuck with a team for a longer period of time and can't get out even if they want to.  Sure, the major junior guy goes back into the draft after two years, but that at least gives them the chance to move away from a team if they really don't want to be there.  The college guys don't have that option, and on top of that, you now want to essentially remove their chance of leaving all together with your proposal.

My point was that if a team offers the absolute max ELC to a player still under their control (i.e., they are doing everything possible to sign him), then why should that player be able to just say 'nah, I want that same contract from someone else'?  If a team doesn't make a max offer, then the kid should be free to leave if he thinks he can get more elsewhere.  If you want to shorten the term of control, as a trade-off, that would be fine.

 

50 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

I prefer the idea of compensatory draft picks for players offered qualifying contracts who refuse to sign them. The player still can walk away and do what they want, the team gets some compensation for any resources and time they spent developing the player.

43 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

That's why I put the qualifying offer caveat in there. You can make the qualifier whatever you want. For me it would be max level ELC. That way teams won't just throw qualifiers around to recoup picks on draft busts. A kid who was a draft bust would surely sign a max level ELC so it would really cut it down to just those players who, for whatever reason, just want to get to FA status.

I would be fine with that alternative.  Again, if a team does everything in their power to sign him (offers the highest allowable deal) while still under their control, then he shouldn't be able to just get the same deal from a team that he likes better without the original team getting nothing.

 

Edit: for some reason, I was thinking that they could only be offered an ELC after the four years.  I forgot that they are actually UFAs.  If there's no limit on the deal that they can sign, my point is incorrect.

Edited July 3, 2019 by carpandean

[shrader]

2 minutes ago, carpandean said:

My point was that if a team offers the absolute max ELC to a player still under their control (i.e., they are doing everything possible to sign him), then why should that player be able to just say 'nah, I want that same contract from someone else'?  If a team doesn't make a max offer, then the kid should be free to leave if he thinks he can get more elsewhere.  If you want to shorten the term of control, as a trade-off, that would be fine.

You have to set some arbitrary cutoff point where those rights expire.  That 4 year line from the point of becoming draft eligible has been their standard forever at this point.  If you want to change that, it's a pretty major change that would need to be made across the board.  What would be the corresponding move for the major junior guys, because they're free to sign anywhere after that same timeframe.