navybillsfan Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 Are the Sabre uppers hinting that they are not going to spend? We are so close, but will they take a step back and screw their fans and themselves??? We have a ton of contracts to do! Biron MUST BE TRADED!!! Get something for him! Some help on D would be great JAY MUST STAY! Fitz is a gonner... Do we need Grier? He was great on Power Play teams..... Sabres have a chance to sell around 12000 to 15000 season tickets this year. The fans of Buffalo have a chance to taste their first championship.... Will Mr. Tom G let it happen???
elcrusho Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 You WOULD think that a Top Free Agent of any Position would want to come to Buffalo now that they have seen what we have done, Grier can leave if he wants to make more money but peronsally I think winning a stanley cup would be more important to me than more money....
Spandrel Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 This season may be an interesting test for guys like Grier to see if they want the money or the Cup. I think Golisano should reward the guys who earned it this year and try and hold the nucleus together, but if someone is given a fair offer from Buffalo and a "better" offer elsewhere, it will be interesting to see what they do.
Stoner Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 I hate to always be the voice of dissent, but I really doubt that the situation in Buffalo is now so attractive that free agents are going to want to come here and that our own players will want to stay for less money. Sorry. I wish I was wrong. After a pretty dismal decade of hockey, I don't think one good season changes the perception of the Sabres. And Lindy probably still has that reputation as a defensive coach who is tough on talented players (see Vanek, Thomas, in the press box). As for a good chance to win the Cup, with the new CBA and salary cap and liberalized free agency etc., it doesn't seem likely you're going to see any "dynasties." It's tough to guess who's going to win it next year. After Tampa and Carolina, my money would be on Florida. :)
fushetti Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 The Sabres qualified Daniel Briere for 1.94 Mil. Why not just negotiate a new deal? PA, if a team extends a qualifying offer, does it restrict negotiations to only the team extending that offer?
Taro T Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 The Sabres qualified Daniel Briere for 1.94 Mil. Why not just negotiate a new deal? PA, if a team extends a qualifying offer, does it restrict negotiations to only the team extending that offer? No. A qualifying offer keeps the player a RFA and is essentially a starting point in the negotiations. Other teams can negotiate with the player (after July 1) but the Sabres retain the right to match the offer and if they don't match the offer, the signing team will owe the Sabres draft picks as compensation (up to 3 #1's). By not making a qualifying offer, the team allows that particular player to become an UFA.
Stoner Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 It's just a formality, really, I think. Qualifying him allows the Sabres to retain his rights. In other words, he is not free and clear to shop his wares come July 1. Briere will decline the qualifying offer and try to negotiate a contract with the Sabres. If that fails, Briere can take it to arbitration. Or he could hold out. Dave and others are much better versed in this and will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm kind of confused about how you lose a RFA if you retain his rights. I know the compensation owed is steep, so you don't see it happen too often.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 I hate to always be the voice of dissent, but I really doubt that the situation in Buffalo is now so attractive that free agents are going to want to come here and that our own players will want to stay for less money. Sorry. I wish I was wrong. After a pretty dismal decade of hockey, I don't think one good season changes the perception of the Sabres. And Lindy probably still has that reputation as a defensive coach who is tough on talented players (see Vanek, Thomas, in the press box). As for a good chance to win the Cup, with the new CBA and salary cap and liberalized free agency etc., it doesn't seem likely you're going to see any "dynasties." It's tough to guess who's going to win it next year. After Tampa and Carolina, my money would be on Florida. :) Let me break out the tiny violins for Vanek. Do you honestly think he sat out most of the playoffs because he was too "talented???" If anything, Ruff showed he'll sit anybody's a$$ down for not hustling, no matter how big a star they think they are. And if you mean Jagr-type free-agents won't come to Buffalo because they might be expected to actually play hard, then good for us. PTR
fushetti Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 No. A qualifying offer keeps the player a RFA and is essentially a starting point in the negotiations. Other teams can negotiate with the player (after July 1) but the Sabres retain the right to match the offer and if they don't match the offer, the signing team will owe the Sabres draft picks as compensation (up to 3 #1's). By not making a qualifying offer, the team allows that particular player to become an UFA. Cool man, thanks for the info.
shrader Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 I'm kind of confused about how you lose a RFA if you retain his rights. I know the compensation owed is steep, so you don't see it happen too often. I don't know if a RFA has ever actually signed with another team. I can only remember two times where a RFA even signed an offer sheet with another team, Fedorov in 98 and Sakic in 97. Dave, you're always the person to turn to for this stuff. Has a RFA ever signed with another team (and the offer wasn't matched)?
LabattBlue Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 I don't know if a RFA has ever actually signed with another team. I can only remember two times where a RFA even signed an offer sheet with another team, Fedorov in 98 and Sakic in 97. Dave, you're always the person to turn to for this stuff. Has a RFA ever signed with another team (and the offer wasn't matched)? Scott Stevens signed with St. Louis and they had to give up 4 first round picks as compensation to Washington.
Taro T Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 Scott Stevens signed with St. Louis and they had to give up 4 first round picks as compensation to Washington. I don't think that they got any of those picks into the top 7, so it should have been 5 picks they gave up for him. The league to show their displeasure with St. Louis's wild spending (they gave a then non-major star Brett Hull a "break the bank" contract and the next year they signed another RFA to a "break the bank" offer, Brendan Shanahan from NJ) gave NJ Stevens as compensation for the Shanahan signing. These 2 signings were the catalyst for the 1992 players strike. (The strike may likely have occurred without St. Louis' actions, but it became essentially inevitable afterwards.) There haven't been any other big name RFA signings through the years. While I doubt there have been any small name signings either, I don't know that for certain.
X. Benedict Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 I hate to always be the voice of dissent, but I really doubt that the situation in Buffalo is now so attractive that free agents are going to want to come here and that our own players will want to stay for less money. Sorry. I wish I was wrong. After a pretty dismal decade of hockey, I don't think one good season changes the perception of the Sabres. And Lindy probably still has that reputation as a defensive coach who is tough on talented players (see Vanek, Thomas, in the press box). As for a good chance to win the Cup, with the new CBA and salary cap and liberalized free agency etc., it doesn't seem likely you're going to see any "dynasties." It's tough to guess who's going to win it next year. After Tampa and Carolina, my money would be on Florida. :) Wow. I really don't think any free agent, Restricted or Unrestricted, will make a decision based on a rookie being benched for not backchecking on a team loaded with forwards. If there is a lingering perception in the league about Lindy being purely defensive - they just weren't watching this year.
elcrusho Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 We are not training to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, on the street, in the competition - a man confronts you, he is an enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy what is the problem Mr. Regier...
shrader Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 The league to show their displeasure with St. Louis's wild spending (they gave a then non-major star Brett Hull a "break the bank" contract and the next year they signed another RFA to a "break the bank" offer, Brendan Shanahan from NJ) gave NJ Stevens as compensation for the Shanahan signing. So they gave Hull a big contract the same year they signed Stevens? If that's the case, he was coming off a 72-41-113 season. That contract probably looked fine when he went out and scored 86 goals the next year. Your post made me look up his career stats. Damn, his college numbers were nice. 52-32-84 as a sophomore? :o He's no Paul Kariya, but I'd take it.
Taro T Posted June 21, 2006 Report Posted June 21, 2006 So they gave Hull a big contract the same year they signed Stevens? If that's the case, he was coming off a 72-41-113 season. That contract probably looked fine when he went out and scored 86 goals the next year. Your post made me look up his career stats. Damn, his college numbers were nice. 52-32-84 as a sophomore? :o He's no Paul Kariya, but I'd take it. Yes. They gave him a long contract for Gretzky-type money after 1 killer goal scoring season and one very solid goal scoring season. The contract didn't look fine to any GM other than Ron Caron. St. Louis' excessively large (at the time) contracts can directly be attributed to the start of the "skyrocketing" payrolls that the lockout and new CBA were meant to correct. They were they only team in the league in '91 to have 2 $1MM+ players on the roster and tried to add a 3rd the next off-season. Calgary had seen the potential in Hull, which is why they spent a 6th on him. By the time he reached the NHL, they expected him to be a consistant 40 gpy man and quite possibly a consistant 50 gpy guy. They knew they were giving up a good player when he was 1/2 of the package for Ramage and Wamsley but didn't expect multiple 70+ goal seasons. Of course that trade worked out OK for Calgary as Ramage was a vital part of their '89 SC winning squad.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.