Now We Will See How Badly Golisano Wants a Winner...

[nfreeman]

I liked DeLuca's approach, and wanted to just toss out some opinions on his post.

 

Remember too that part of staying the course means that guys who fit into the plan such as Roy and Pominville, who weren't really projected to contribute much, will be back, with more experience under their belts. If the Sabres are to succeed using "The Plan" (pardon me PA), they'll need a couple Roy/Pominville types to come in each year and be counted on for 20pt seasons, speed and either good special teams play, or responsible defensive play.

 

I think this is partly why WNY seems to be taking this loss, this season rather in stride. This is just the beginning for this club and this group of players, not the end of an era. Besides playing completely different styles of hockey (and playing essentially in different eras as well), the 2006 and 1999 Sabres teams differ in this respect as well. Hasek had already hit his prime by 1999, and while he was still amazing, wasn't going to get any better. You can't say the same for Miller, who may already be more of a reliable playoff goalie than Dom ever was (another thread for another day, right there!) Not only were they close this year, it wasn't because they were simply lucky and received good playoff draws. They outplayed Philly and Ottawa and came close to beating Carolina. It's not as if this year ended with a train wreck of a bad call or crappy goal...it just sort of quietly ground to a halt.

 

That's the fun part of building with a young team. You might be able to wait for a guy like Vanek to develop and mature over the course of a few years, knowing that when he really hits his prime in 2 or 3 years, you'll still be competitive.

 

I'm not sure how much Tallinder and Lydman have an impact on McKee as does the performance this postseason by Kalinin, Campbell and Fitzpatrick. There is certainly a role for McKee and there is certainly an emotional/sentimental attachment to him and the community, but players like McKee (essentially defensive specialists) can be found throughout the leauge. I'm not saying I'd like to see him go, but it's alot easier to replace a guy like Jay McKee with another top 4 defensive defenseman than it is to replace a guy like Drury.

 

Yes and Yes. Like I stated above, I think the Sabres, using the type of system they have, will rely on being able to plug at least 2 new rookies into the lineup and have them perform at a competitve level during the season. This year it was Roy and Pominville. Novotny and Stafford are my early picks for next season - guys that can find their niche on the team and maybe get you about 15-25pts.

 

Vanek (also another thread for another time probably!) in my opinion will be fine. Not every player is adept at handling the playoffs (Joe Thorton, Max Afinigenov) yet that's no reason to simply dump a guy. May I remind everyone here that Vanek finished 8th in the NHL this season in points among rookies? In the most talented rookie class in how many years? With two years worth of rookies? 8th! C'mon people. Vanek will come around. It's a matter of him gaining maturity and finidng the right linemates.

 

AMEN brotha!

 

By the way, what a great distraction from the Bills this team will be again come October!!!

 

 

 

Great post, TSC.

 

I think I agree with everything you said, but I think McKee would be a big loss. Yes, Drury would be a bigger loss, but McKee would be a big loss too (one that I think is about 67% likely to occur, unfortunately). I don't think you were necessarily saying otherwise, but McKee is much more than a role player and brings much more to the table than fan support.

 

He is a true top 4 defenseman, an alternate captain, a big hitter, a great shot blocker, a leader on the team and the conscience of our defense. He's one of the 3 or 4 guys who most typifies the magnificent heart of this team. Losing him would be like when we lost Danny Gare and Jim Schoenfeld.

 

Having said that, I regretfully think the odds are that he gets an offer that's too high for the Sabres to stay close enough so that he stays. Accordingly, I'm trying to get emotionally ready and plan for what will happen on the ice if he leaves.

 

That brings me to the other item I would add to your post: I wouldn't be surprised to see Nathan Paetsch sneaking his way in as the 6th or 7th defenseman next year. He looked pretty good to me last night, especially in his skating and offensive decision-making. I could see Teppo retiring and/or McKee leaving, and Paetsch working his way ahead of some or all of Jillson, Janik and Fitzie.

 

I'd even go so far as to say that with Soupy, Paetsch, Henrik, Toni and Dmitri, we'd probably have the best skating defensive corps in the NHL.

 

go Sabres.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

Vanek might be the next Connolly, but even when Tim struggled the most, he didn't have an attitude problem.

 

Therefore, dump Vanek and see what he can fetch. Also, he's too slow for the style of game The Sabres play.

 

Dude with thinking like that you could get a front office job with the leafs. Look how patience with Connolly paid off, Vanek is way to talented to give up on because he had a bad stretch in the playoffs.

[rickshaw]

Vanek is a rookie. He's not from North America. It often takes time for the youngsters from overseas to adapt.

 

Look at the Sedins. Look at lots of young players. Vanek is a keeper and this was all part of the learning curve.

 

He may not be happy being sat, but he wasn't as productive as other rookies on the team. The Pommers, the Gaustads all have other abilities besides scoring. Vanek can't play defense for his life, so he'll need to learn that.

[shrader]

Vanek is a rookie. He's not from North America. It often takes time for the youngsters from overseas to adapt.

 

I don't know the specifics, but Vanek has been playing hockey in the US since at least 1999. There isn't as much of an adjustment as you'd think there is.

[apuszczalowski]

Saying you could find another defencemen like McKee around the league is crazy, behind Chara and Redden, he will probably be the most sought after defencemen on the free agent market. He is more important then most people believe and must be resigned to keep this team competitive. Defencemen won't come cheap (look at the deal McCabe just got) so resigning McKee now instead of waiting til he has a chance to hit the market will be very important for Darcy

[Taro T]

Saying you could find another defencemen like McKee around the league is crazy, behind Chara and Redden, he will probably be the most sought after defencemen on the free agent market. He is more important then most people believe and must be resigned to keep this team competitive. Defencemen won't come cheap (look at the deal McCabe just got) so resigning McKee now instead of waiting til he has a chance to hit the market will be very important for Darcy

You may be correct, but it is hard to base McKee's value on what Toronto paid McCabe.

 

Ferguson is not highly respected, so his judgement of the market may be suspect. He was very concerned that the Loafs would lose McCabe.

 

He probably is also projecting league revenues to keep "skyrocketing" upward (the cap next year could be as much as $46MM, it will probably be about $43), in which case locking in a guy at $5MM per for the next 5 years won't look too bad in 3 years. I doubt the cap will go up $4-7MM each season in the foreseeable future because revenues were most likely so much higher due to record attendance not record TV revenues. The league was off in its revenue projections by about $300MM this year (about 15%). They projections will not be that bad in the future. If revenues go up an additional $100MM next year, the salary cap the following year would grow by about $1.5MM. I think the Loafs are banking on the salary cap to increase by $3-4MM per season in the future, and I'd expect it to be more like $0.5-2MM per season.

 

McCabe will be 31 when the next season starts. If the salary cap in 5 years is $62MM, $5MM per year will be high for a 35 year old but not necessarily horribly out of line. If the salary cap is $47MM in 5 years, I think TO's new GM (and believe me, they will have a new one) will be cursing that no trade clause in the contract.

 

With a $46MM salary cap, the average individual player salary for a team that hits the cap will be $2MM/player. For every $5MM player a team has, if they max out they will have to have 2 $500k players to stay on budget. (If they stay below the cap, they will need even more "cheap" players.)

 

Furthermore, while I personally think McKee is far more valuable to a team than McCabe is (as McCabe tends to play IMHO the way he wants to play regardless of what the team around him is doing and McKee is the consumate team player), goal scorers get paid and guys that don't score don't get paid.

 

McCabe was the 3rd highest scoring defenseman in the league in pts, goals, and pp pts and he was 6th in assists. Although the defensive guys are just as important as the scorers, they've never been paid like the scorers (at least to this point in time).

 

I do expect Jay to get a raise this off season from someone. Hopefully it will be reasonable and from the Sabres. I do not expect to see him command $4MM+. I know he won't get offered McCabe money. How much he will get offered? As more guys re-up with their current teams we'll be able to guess more accurately, but right now my guess is around $3MM and my guess is also that the Sabres will want to keep him at about $2.5MM (perhaps even only $2MM). If the contract is long enough, Jay might go for it. (I hope, I hope, I hope.)

 

I agree that it is in Buffalo's best interest to sign McKee prior to July 1, but it is in his best interest not to sign before that date. I definitely hope to hear of a few Sabres signings this month, but don't know that it will happen.

[ddaryl]

Here is the facts.

 

The Sabres made a 3 - 4 million profit this year, and only because of the playoffs.

 

The Sabres payroll was 8 million under the cap.

 

even with the 3 - 4 million profit this year that still isn;t enough for us to max out last years salary cap. next years salary cap will be more.

 

So as much as I want us to sign all of our FA's and get a stud D in FA and possibly another bonafide offensive weapon, the fact is the Sabres are still incapable of generating the income necessary to sustain that desire.

 

Golisano has money, but it is unfair to expect him to bail out Sabres with extra $$$ every season to produce a winner. truthfully the fans need to buy more tickets, luxury boxes and merchadise if they trully want to see a Sabres team that can compete to the cap limits and other NHL teams in the long run.

[Eleven]

I don't think that Golisano will break the bank, but I also don't think that he expected to make a profit instantly on the team. It's a long-term asset, like an apartment building or a hotel. It is expected to lose money for years.

 

And I don't want many changes, anyway. Spend the money on the current players, keep the salary structure in place so that there aren't any primadonnas, and bring in a player or two if necessary.

[Stoner]

Eleven, your term "long term asset" got me to thinking. I'm no financial whiz, but I think you have to look beyond what Golisano made this season. What will he make WHEN he decides to sell the team? He got the franchise for a song. As a good businessman, he saw an opportunity to buy low, gambling that the league could get itself turned around and he could turn the Sabres around, then sell high at some point. He bought the team for $90 million, I think. What would it sell for now? In five years? In 10 years? It is certainly in Golisano's interest to keep building on the momentum here. He would be a fool to let players like Jay McKee go for chump change. Golisano should see that even in "poor" Western New York, a strong market exists, but only if the team keeps winning. He should have only one thing in mind: win the Stanley Cup. It was his avowed goal when he took over, as pronounced by Larry Quinn ("within three years" he said and they damn near did it). Why get wobbly in the knees now? I think "staying the course," rolling out more expensive players and plugging in cheap kids, flirts with disaster. You can catch lightning in a bottle only so many times. By no means am I proposing dramatic change. It is not needed. But you have to take a cold hard look at your deficiencies and address them. Turn the soil over a bit. Don't get stagnant. That's when Stanley Cup hangovers kick in. Bring in a significant player to keep the fans, and the other players, energized. Sign a graybeard who fits into the room. Addition by subtraction works, too. See Zhitnik and Satan. Maybe it's time for Max to go. The point about the fans doing their part is important, too. Don't you get weak in the knees either. Fill that building from Day One in October. Under .500 in November? Stay the course! That's the only staying of the course that I support. :)

[Eleven]

Eleven, your term "long term asset" got me to thinking. I'm no financial whiz, but I think you have to look beyond what Golisano made this season. What will he make WHEN he decides to sell the team? He got the franchise for a song. As a good businessman, he saw an opportunity to buy low, gambling that the league could get itself turned around and he could turn the Sabres around, then sell high at some point. He bought the team for $90 million, I think. What would it sell for now? In five years? In 10 years? It is certainly in Golisano's interest to keep building on the momentum here. He would be a fool to let players like Jay McKee go for chump change. Golisano should see that even in "poor" Western New York, a strong market exists, but only if the team keeps winning. He should have only one thing in mind: win the Stanley Cup. It was his avowed goal when he took over, as pronounced by Larry Quinn ("within three years" he said and they damn near did it). Why get wobbly in the knees now? I think "staying the course," rolling out more expensive players and plugging in cheap kids, flirts with disaster. You can catch lightning in a bottle only so many times. By no means am I proposing dramatic change. It is not needed. But you have to take a cold hard look at your deficiencies and address them. Turn the soil over a bit. Don't get stagnant. That's when Stanley Cup hangovers kick in. Bring in a significant player to keep the fans, and the other players, energized. Sign a graybeard who fits into the room. Addition by subtraction works, too. See Zhitnik and Satan. Maybe it's time for Max to go. The point about the fans doing their part is important, too. Don't you get weak in the knees either. Fill that building from Day One in October. Under .500 in November? Stay the course! That's the only staying of the course that I support. :)

 

I'm not sure it was lightning in a bottle this year. I think Mr. G. has to spend the money to keep McKee & Grier, and should trade Biron for one quality defenseman--but not necessarily a big "name." Big names aren't always big gamers--your Zhitnik example works fine for me. If Regier finds another Toni Lydman out there, that would be great. If the Sabres have to replace Connolly, then so be it, but I hope not.

 

I want Afinogenov here; he's a team player and he's learned to be a good two-way player. He's a 30-goal scorer and not the Mogilny we originally thought, but he does other things that get ignored. For example, I think he's one of the best at getting the puck out of the Sabres zone while maintaining possession, either by skating it out or passing. Plus, he might be the best role model for a young Thomas Vanek, who needs to learn to play the whole game.

 

Bottom line: Tom Golisano can and should spend a little more this year, but the spending should be focused on the guys who got this team so far this year.

[nfreeman]

 

I want Afinogenov here; he's a team player and he's learned to be a good two-way player. He's a 30-goal scorer and not the Mogilny we originally thought, but he does other things that get ignored. For example, I think he's one of the best at getting the puck out of the Sabres zone while maintaining possession, either by skating it out or passing. Plus, he might be the best role model for a young Thomas Vanek, who needs to learn to play the whole game.

 

 

Right on, Eleven. There's a little too much Max-bashing going on here, IMHO. Yes, he had a crappy playoffs, but it wasn't out of selfishness or lack of effort. I think the pressure got to him, and losing Connolly also really hurt. But he still played hard. He went into the corners and dug it out, he backchecked, he blocked shots. This is not a Miro situation.

 

Max was our leading scorer this past season. He had a great year, both scoring and passing. He skated hard all year, he mixed it up physically, he came to his teammates' defense whenever there was a scrum in front of the net. He disappeared in the playoffs, but he will learn from the experience and he will be much better this time next year.

 

Go Sabres.

[Stoner]

I didn't mean that trading Max would be addition by subtraction. It was just the next sentence after I used that phrase. I love Max. But at his age, I don't think you can keep hanging your hat on "give him time, he'll learn with experience." While it's great to point out hustle, some physical play, a blocked shot here and there, he is on this team for one reason: to score on that breakaway in Game 5, a goal that, one could argue, very possibly could have led to our first Stanley Cup championship. He is what he is -- at once one of the most exciting players this franchise has ever seen and one of its most maddening. If in the new NHL his value is high, then maybe a trade brings a piece of the puzzle while also helping Max get a fresh start somewhere else. But it's certainly fine with me if he's back! He does need Connolly, or a Connolly, that's for sure.