Sabres front just dont get it....

[LabattBlue]

How do you know that we're only talking 2-3 million for McKee? There are several teams out there that will make a bid for him, and many don't have a #1 defenseman on their rosters.

 

McKee will probably get an offer for $3.5 - $4 million. And if your #3 defenseman is worth $3.5 million/year, what do you pay Tallinder? And what do you pay Briere and Miller?

 

As much as McKee adds to the team, and as much as we all like him, he's not the Sabres #1 defenseman. If they pay him like the #1, they immediately raise the asking price of several other players on the team. We're not only talking an extra million for McKee, we're talking several million dollars scattered throughout the rest of the team.

 

And have a little faith in Regier and Ruff. Last September most were mocking his pickups of Lydman and Numminem. Most thought he was dooming the Sabres to the league basement by letting Satan and Zhitnik go.

 

Regier has done a materful job of finding players that fit the Sabres style of play. He'll continue to do the same if McKee leaves.

Excellent post. I'd love to see McKee back, but not at the price he is going to get on the open market. If Huet just got a 2 year contract worth almost 6 million total, how much is Miller going to be looking for? What about the other up-and-coming players?

 

Jay has had a very good career with the Sabres, but now is the time for him to get his chance for one BIG contract. Good luck to him.

[deluca67]

How do you know that we're only talking 2-3 million for McKee? There are several teams out there that will make a bid for him, and many don't have a #1 defenseman on their rosters.

 

McKee will probably get an offer for $3.5 - $4 million. And if your #3 defenseman is worth $3.5 million/year, what do you pay Tallinder? And what do you pay Briere and Miller?

 

As much as McKee adds to the team, and as much as we all like him, he's not the Sabres #1 defenseman. If they pay him like the #1, they immediately raise the asking price of several other players on the team. We're not only talking an extra million for McKee, we're talking several million dollars scattered throughout the rest of the team.

 

And have a little faith in Regier and Ruff. Last September most were mocking his pickups of Lydman and Numminem. Most thought he was dooming the Sabres to the league basement by letting Satan and Zhitnik go.

 

Regier has done a materful job of finding players that fit the Sabres style of play. He'll continue to do the same if McKee leaves.

 

Bullseye! ;)

 

It is the job of the fan to be emotional. It is Regier's job to step away from the emotion and stay to the plan that has been in effect for years now.

 

Most thought he was dooming the Sabres to the league basement by letting Satan and Zhitnik go.

I know becuase I was one of them. Sometimes you have to not allow yourself to be blind to the facts while hanging on to a position. After the year Regier has just had you would think he earned more then a weeks grace period before having his ability and commitment brought in to question.

[Stoner]

jad, since you feel there is so much wrong with my thinking, next time please feel free to use the back of your sheet of paper. :)

 

nfreeman, yes, increasing revenues is the whole idea. Build it, and they will come. Year One of the building plan was great, but now I worry we are not going to, uh, build on it. Absolutely, I advocate raising ticket prices. Not raising ticket prices after the season we had was as odd as Ralph Wilson not selling the naming rights to the stadium. The conference finals sold out in 12 minutes, and so would the finals have. So the money is out there. People will pay it, if they see the value. Value is a very subjective thing. Some here might say losing McKee is no big deal. You just plug in a younger, cheaper McKee clone. But what most fans see when McKee returns is that the team is committed to winning. So they jump on board.

 

I have no way of crunching the numbers to see if my theory holds up, so it's just that -- a crazy theory. But is it crazy? Let's look at it from another angle. Take the Detroit Red Wings, give their GM a payroll that's $10 million under the cap and put them in the playoffs once every three or four years. And see what happens to their revenues. The fans in Hockey Town will not accept it.

 

Sure, it's a risky strategy, but it just might work. (And, besides, it's a risk that entrepreneurs like Golisano take all the time.) Not only is all kind of revenue generated when you positively change the customers' perception of a product (see the past season), you are bound to save some money as well. For example, if the arena was sold out by season ticket holders, there would be no need to advertise to sell tickets. The production and placement of such ads in all media has to be a very pretty penny for the Sabres. As the old worn out clich? in business goes, it's cheaper to keep a customer than to find a new one.

 

I'm almost willing to risk the franchise to see if this works. I worry that the path the Sabres are on cannot sustain the franchise. A sea change has to occur. Support of the franchise has to increase dramatically. You can argue that in this area of the country, people and businesses will not or cannot do it. I know this. If the folks sense that Golisano is not committed to winning the Cup, they will not do it.

 

Let McKee and Grier walk.

 

Trade Biron for a cheap veteran backup.

 

Sign the RFAs to lowball, one-year deals.

 

Sign a little known, affordable midlevel defenseman to replace McKee.

 

Does this sound like a plan to build on the success, on and off the ice, that the Sabres had in 2005-06? Another clich?: sometimes you sell the sizzle and not the steak.

 

We shall see what happens! All of this is conjecture at this point.

 

Back to jad. You wrote, "Third, the crossroads for this team happened last season, when the CBA and the rules changes validated the direction Regier and Ruff had taken 4 or 5 years prior. They decided to build a fast skating club, and filled their system with players who fit that system." Darcy himself has indicated there really was no plan to do such a thing before the lockout. He has even admitted that there was a lot of luck involved in having the right players in place to fit the "new NHL." Maybe that's the luck that Golisano is counting on next season.

[deluca67]

jad, since you feel there is so much wrong with my thinking, next time please feel free to use the back of your sheet of paper. :)

 

nfreeman, yes, increasing revenues is the whole idea. Build it, and they will come. Year One of the building plan was great, but now I worry we are not going to, uh, build on it. Absolutely, I advocate raising ticket prices. Not raising ticket prices after the season we had was as odd as Ralph Wilson not selling the naming rights to the stadium. The conference finals sold out in 12 minutes, and so would the finals have. So the money is out there. People will pay it, if they see the value. Value is a very subjective thing. Some here might say losing McKee is no big deal. You just plug in a younger, cheaper McKee clone. But what most fans see when McKee returns is that the team is committed to winning. So they jump on board.

 

I have no way of crunching the numbers to see if my theory holds up, so it's just that -- a crazy theory. But is it crazy? Let's look at it from another angle. Take the Detroit Red Wings, give their GM a payroll that's $10 million under the cap and put them in the playoffs once every three or four years. And see what happens to their revenues. The fans in Hockey Town will not accept it.

 

Sure, it's a risky strategy, but it just might work. (And, besides, it's a risk that entrepreneurs like Golisano take all the time.) Not only is all kind of revenue generated when you positively change the customers' perception of a product (see the past season), you are bound to save some money as well. For example, if the arena was sold out by season ticket holders, there would be no need to advertise to sell tickets. The production and placement of such ads in all media has to be a very pretty penny for the Sabres. As the old worn out clich? in business goes, it's cheaper to keep a customer than to find a new one.

 

I'm almost willing to risk the franchise to see if this works. I worry that the path the Sabres are on cannot sustain the franchise. A sea change has to occur. Support of the franchise has to increase dramatically. You can argue that in this area of the country, people and businesses will not or cannot do it. I know this. If the folks sense that Golisano is not committed to winning the Cup, they will not do it.

 

Let McKee and Grier walk.

 

Trade Biron for a cheap veteran backup.

 

Sign the RFAs to lowball, one-year deals.

 

Sign a little known, affordable midlevel defenseman to replace McKee.

 

Does this sound like a plan to build on the success, on and off the ice, that the Sabres had in 2005-06? Another clich?: sometimes you sell the sizzle and not the steak.

 

We shall see what happens! All of this is conjecture at this point.

 

Back to jad. You wrote, "Third, the crossroads for this team happened last season, when the CBA and the rules changes validated the direction Regier and Ruff had taken 4 or 5 years prior. They decided to build a fast skating club, and filled their system with players who fit that system." Darcy himself has indicated there really was no plan to do such a thing before the lockout. He has even admitted that there was a lot of luck involved in having the right players in place to fit the "new NHL." Maybe that's the luck that Golisano is counting on next season.

 

Last year wasn't "year one". It was the first year of dividends but not the begining of the process. This began way back before Golisano bought the team. Larry Quinn sold Golisano on the idea of buying the Sabres with the idea of being able to win and make money. They prepared for the lockout and the changes in the game before they happened.

 

It may seem like an overnight success story but it's really not. It's the result of hard work and tough/unpopular decisions. That's not luck. That's getting the job done.

 

I do understand how it is easier to believe in a player signed to a big contract the it is to believe in

business plan. That's why teams like the Rangers and Leafs would rather make the big spalsh then do whats right for their franchise. It's that way of thinking that almost cost Buffalo it's hockey franchise. If they go back to that way of thinking then they might as well add the name "Portland" to any new uniforms.

[Stoner]

A few more quick thoughts:

 

1. If Jay is not our number 1 defenseman, and is not a number 1 defenseman in this league, who is going to offer him number 1 money? I am hopeful that the new CBA introduced some sanity to this process. We'll see.

 

2. I don't buy the "ripple effect theory" of signing McKee to a nice contract. We don't seem to like the idea of a "pecking order" on the Sabres, but there has to be one. Eventually your best players have to be paid. Henrik Tallinder, although a nice player who had a nice season, has no business asking for "McKee money" and he and his agent know it. If they ask for it, we play hard ball. Henrik can go 1. straight to hell and 2. Back to his threesome in Sweden, in no particular order. Arbitration? It wouldn't seem to favor a player like Tallinder, so the leverage would seem to favor the team with a lot of these younger, emerging players.

[X. Benedict]

A few more quick thoughts:

 

1. If Jay is not our number 1 defenseman, and is not a number 1 defenseman in this league, who is going to offer him number 1 money? I am hopeful that the new CBA introduced some sanity to this process. We'll see.

 

2. I don't buy the "ripple effect theory" of signing McKee to a nice contract. We don't seem to like the idea of a "pecking order" on the Sabres, but there has to be one. Eventually your best players have to be paid. Henrik Tallinder, although a nice player who had a nice season, has no business asking for "McKee money" and he and his agent know it. If they ask for it, we play hard ball. Henrik can go 1. straight to hell and 2. Back to his threesome in Sweden, in no particular order. Arbitration? It wouldn't seem to favor a player like Tallinder, so the leverage would seem to favor the team with a lot of these younger, emerging players.

 

I would be greatly surprised if McKee got a contract over 3 mil/per from anyone.

I bet he will get plenty of offers in the 2.3 to 2.8 range. I actually think Buffalo will

end up mathing an offer for anything around 2.5. Most teams need to get faster on

the blueline - Jay doesn't fit the bill as most teams already have their defensive-defensemen.

[apuszczalowski]

Last year wasn't "year one". It was the first year of dividends but not the begining of the process. This began way back before Golisano bought the team. Larry Quinn sold Golisano on the idea of buying the Sabres with the idea of being able to win and make money. They prepared for the lockout and the changes in the game before they happened.

 

It may seem like an overnight success story but it's really not. It's the result of hard work and tough/unpopular decisions. That's not luck. That's getting the job done.

 

Actually If you read the last part of what PA wrote, he even says that Regier has said before that they did get lucky that the New NHL fit what they already had and that they weren't planning on the New NHL when they were building the team like every keeps saying

 

There is no way that last year was all because Regier is such a hockey genius and he new exactly what it would take for a team to be successful in the new NHL. Last year was Year one for almost every team in building for the New NHL cause it was year one for the New NHL. Luck was a big factor in the Sabres being so successful, they were lucky that unlike most teams, the majority of all the players on the team were exactly what the new NHL is about

 

I do understand how it is easier to believe in a player signed to a big contract the it is to believe in

business plan. That's why teams like the Rangers and Leafs would rather make the big spalsh then do whats right for their franchise. It's that way of thinking that almost cost Buffalo it's hockey franchise. If they go back to that way of thinking then they might as well add the name "Portland" to any new uniforms.

 

No where are any of us demanding the Sabres go out and sign top tier free agents, we are only complaining that the front office does not want to pay the players what they deserve from last years team, and the majority of the players deserve a nice raise because of their hard work last year. The front office theory seems to be, if you'll play cheap we'll take a chance until you want more money, then your gone.

 

This is not going to win over fans, and is not going to win you a championship. They are trying to make sure that on paper they will be turning a profit using the least amount of money they can and hope they get lucky and catch lightening in a bottle again and fans will continue to come out, when what they need to do is make sure that the players are happy and the fans are happy with a competitive team on the ice that will be together for a while, not one year and we dump anyone due for a raise.

 

Are we going to Dump Drury next year when he is up for a raise because he may want more then 4 million?

 

I'm am going off of previous reports saying Mckee could double his salary in FA to come up with the figure of 2-3 million if he signed with the sabres. The problem is Regier has pretty much said, heres an offer, go see if anyone will give you more, maybe we can match it, but chances are this is our best deal. It basically tells the other players on the team and potential FA's that Buffalo will not be a place you can spend your career playing for, they will just be a stepping stone until you are ready for your big payday.

[deluca67]

Actually If you read the last part of what PA wrote, he even says that Regier has said before that they did get lucky that the New NHL fit what they already had and that they weren't planning on the New NHL when they were building the team like every keeps saying

 

There is no way that last year was all because Regier is such a hockey genius and he new exactly what it would take for a team to be successful in the new NHL. Last year was Year one for almost every team in building for the New NHL cause it was year one for the New NHL. Luck was a big factor in the Sabres being so successful, they were lucky that unlike most teams, the majority of all the players on the team were exactly what the new NHL is about

No where are any of us demanding the Sabres go out and sign top tier free agents, we are only complaining that the front office does not want to pay the players what they deserve from last years team, and the majority of the players deserve a nice raise because of their hard work last year. The front office theory seems to be, if you'll play cheap we'll take a chance until you want more money, then your gone.

 

This is not going to win over fans, and is not going to win you a championship. They are trying to make sure that on paper they will be turning a profit using the least amount of money they can and hope they get lucky and catch lightening in a bottle again and fans will continue to come out, when what they need to do is make sure that the players are happy and the fans are happy with a competitive team on the ice that will be together for a while, not one year and we dump anyone due for a raise.

 

Are we going to Dump Drury next year when he is up for a raise because he may want more then 4 million?

 

I'm am going off of previous reports saying Mckee could double his salary in FA to come up with the figure of 2-3 million if he signed with the sabres. The problem is Regier has pretty much said, heres an offer, go see if anyone will give you more, maybe we can match it, but chances are this is our best deal. It basically tells the other players on the team and potential FA's that Buffalo will not be a place you can spend your career playing for, they will just be a stepping stone until you are ready for your big payday.

 

You have so much there that I don't agree with.

 

1) Regier has been talking about the "New NHL" for three years. It's why he didn't have many players signed through the lockout. The Sabres made a decision to believe that the NHL would not go back to it's boring bogged down style of play. Is that just luck? So the Leafs weren't a bad team they were just unlucky? If you study what the teacher tells you to then then you ace the exam? Is that luck? The Sabres were prepared not lucky.

 

2) Drury is a better player then McKee and offers more upside. I wouldn't pay Drury $4 million this offseason if he were up. But if he duplicated last season I would.

 

3) If anyone on the Sabres are just playing for that "big payday" then let them go. Drury didn't have to sign with Buffalo. He could have sat out or forced a trade. Drury isn't about the money he is about the rings. Your last point is why Satan is no longer a Sabre. And I like Satan. But he doesn't fit what it means to be a Sabre.

 

McKee will go and make his money. Good for him. The Sabres have four solid blueliners in Tallinder, Lydman, Kalinin and Campbel. Add in Teppo as a fifth or sixth and fill Jays spot through free agency or maybe one of the kids will step up.

 

Also,

 

I said this before. The Sabres are not going to break the bank after one good year for any player. If any of these young kids wants to put their wallet in front of the team then let them go. I want a team of players who want to win. Not the Toronto Maple Leafs.

[jad1]

 

Back to jad. You wrote, "Third, the crossroads for this team happened last season, when the CBA and the rules changes validated the direction Regier and Ruff had taken 4 or 5 years prior. They decided to build a fast skating club, and filled their system with players who fit that system." Darcy himself has indicated there really was no plan to do such a thing before the lockout. He has even admitted that there was a lot of luck involved in having the right players in place to fit the "new NHL." Maybe that's the luck that Golisano is counting on next season.

 

Really, is that why they spent the last 5 years drafting 180 pound speedy forwards? :D The Sabres have emphasized speed since Regier and Ruff began their reign in Buffalo, and under these two they have always been one of the faster skating clubs.

 

Maybe I'm reaching here, but remember the wild suggestions coming from the Sabres about the changes to the game? The blue ice and odd-shaped goalie net. Do you think those were the only suggestions they were making? Do you think they were also lobbying to get rid of the two-line offside and better enforce obstruction?

 

And I'm 99% sure that the luck that Golisano is talking about is staying healthy. I really doubt he has that thinks so little of the the hockey folks in the front office to attribute all their success to "luck."

[jad1]

A few more quick thoughts:

 

1. If Jay is not our number 1 defenseman, and is not a number 1 defenseman in this league, who is going to offer him number 1 money? I am hopeful that the new CBA introduced some sanity to this process. We'll see.

 

2. I don't buy the "ripple effect theory" of signing McKee to a nice contract. We don't seem to like the idea of a "pecking order" on the Sabres, but there has to be one. Eventually your best players have to be paid. Henrik Tallinder, although a nice player who had a nice season, has no business asking for "McKee money" and he and his agent know it. If they ask for it, we play hard ball. Henrik can go 1. straight to hell and 2. Back to his threesome in Sweden, in no particular order. Arbitration? It wouldn't seem to favor a player like Tallinder, so the leverage would seem to favor the team with a lot of these younger, emerging players.

 

1. A team that doesn't have a #1 defenseman on their roster. Just because McKee isn't the best defenseman on the Sabres doesn't mean he would be the best defenseman on another team.

 

2. Whether you buy it or not, it exists. It's going to be hard to sign Briere to less than Drury money. Miller is going to use Biron's salary last season as a starting point for his negotiation, with Drury as the ceiling. And Tallinder is going to use McKee as a starting point.

 

Tallinder had more points than McKee, is younger with more upside, played on the power play, and was matched against the opponent's top line all season. He was an incredible +14 in the playoffs. He's the Sabres #1 defenseman.

[apuszczalowski]

So if Regier knew exactly what it would take to be successful in the New NHL, why didn't any other GM in the league know? Why didn't he know McKee would be a key part of the team? Why didn't he know we would need alot of Defensive help in the playoffs and stock up on NHL caliber defencemen instead of a second round pick?

 

No one new knew what the new NHL would be like and what new rules were gonna be put in. Darcy has been building a team that relies on speed for a while, he got lucky that the new NHL would be all about speed over a more physical game, its not that he knew exactly the way the new NHL was going to be played.

 

Obviously there is no point in arguing this point anymore cause McKee is as good as gone and his spot will be filled by someone in Rochestor, by Fitzpatrick, or by a low priced UFA that Darcy hopes will come in and have an impact. it could work, but it could also make him look like a fool, we won't know until next season

 

Obviously you have all convinced yourself that McKee is a low level defencemen and can be replaced very easily.

 

If you are all content with a revolving door system of players leaving when they reach their upside, good for you, I'd rather see some consistancy with this team and see them stay successful for years to come so they won't have to watch every penny to stay afloat

[hopeleslyobvious]

Absolutely, I advocate raising ticket prices.

 

Very easy to say when you don't go to any games.

 

Honestly, I am disappointed in what I am seeing from a lot of the fans. It feels as if no one has learned anything from last season. Last season, Zhitnik went out of our price range, and I think Teppo and Lydman were both better fits for the team. The team only has so much money to spend. I want to see McKee back as much as everyone else, but if someone is willing to offer him more than we can afford, then it's just a fact of life that he won't be back next year.

 

Also, I am pretty sure we are going to trade for or sign some defenseman during the off season. Maybe we won't bring in the big names that everyone wants, but we will bring in players that make our team better. I agree with Deluca on this one, let everyone else spend too much on the big name players. There are going to be a bunch of teams out there with a great first line, and not much else, while the Sabres will continue to put a great team on the ice where everyone contributes.

 

One last thought, despite PA's comments about Tallinder being inappropriate, I find it funny how he wants us to break the bank to keep McKee here, but would tell Tallinder to "go to hell" if he asked for similar money. Tallinder had a good year, and was exceptional in the playoffs, especially seeing how he was matched up against the other team's top line night in and night out.

 

Why didn't he know we would need alot of Defensive help in the playoffs and stock up on NHL caliber defencemen instead of a second round pick?

 

Couple quick thoughts...

 

You wanted Darcy to forsee losing 4 defenseman in the playoffs?

 

Who would you have given up to upgrade this draft pick to a defenseman?

[X. Benedict]

 

Couple quick thoughts...

 

You wanted Darcy to forsee losing 4 defenseman in the playoffs?

 

Who would you have given up to upgrade this draft pick to a defenseman?

Could you imagine if Miller had gotten run and injured and we lost with Norennen...then the same second guessing would be happening because we didn't keep Biron.

 

Darcy had a good reason for keeping Marty.

He also had a good reason for not getting another defensemen.

Were they the right reasons?

Hard to know, but he had good, sensible reasons for his moves contingencies notwithstanding.

[X. Benedict]

If you are all content with a revolving door system of players leaving when they reach their upside, good for you, I'd rather see some consistancy with this team and see them stay successful for years to come so they won't have to watch every penny to stay afloat

I think Buffalo has begun hockey's version of Moneyball combined with the new realities of free agency in the cap age.

 

You can overpay for a few stars that basically leave you with one great line - and two decent ones

or you can have a fat middle and have a system that relies on 4 lines - that gets point production out of every line throughout. Some players may outgrow the system and some team may outbid Buffalo - but in the end those teams may end up with a concentration of talent on one or two lines and have to sacrifice depth throughout.

 

Teams like Dallas, and Philadelphia and NYI are already saddled with some bad investments that they may take years to recover from. Having depth throughout the organization means that no player is irreplaceable. The Sabres are going to lose players every year to free agency - but they should continue to sign the players that fit their system. Not every team is going to copy their brand of hockey - but hopefully the system is in place for Buffalo to be competive for years to come.

[Stoner]

One last thought, despite PA's comments about Tallinder being inappropriate, I find it funny how he wants us to break the bank to keep McKee here, but would tell Tallinder to "go to hell" if he asked for similar money.

 

I was wrong. I apologize. It was a FOURSOME. My bad.

 

I will now enter self-imposed sensitivity training, but not before I repeat that "to hell" is where I would tell Tallinder and his agent to go if they ask for $3 million a year because it's what McKee just got. Jay's been around for almost 10 years and has been a key contributor for almost all of those years, while Henrik has been here three seasons or so. I would turn to Henrik and say, "Henrik, I know Jay McKee, Jay McKee is a friend of mine, and you're no Jay McKee. Go to hell."

[hopeleslyobvious]

I was wrong. I apologize. It was a FOURSOME. My bad.

 

I will now enter self-imposed sensitivity training, but not before I repeat that "to hell" is where I would tell Tallinder and his agent to go if they ask for $3 million a year because it's what McKee just got. Jay's been around for almost 10 years and has been a key contributor for almost all of those years, while Henrik has been here three seasons or so. I would turn to Henrik and say, "Henrik, I know Jay McKee, Jay McKee is a friend of mine, and you're no Jay McKee. Go to hell."

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tallinder was never found guilty of anything was he?

[Bmwolf21]

No, Tallinder was cleared of all charges (without going to trial, as best as I can tell) and without splitting hairs, the charge wasn't rape, it was sexual exploitation, which is a lesser charge in Sweden's legal system (according to wire reports.) Swedish law enforcement officials completed two investigations - one by police, one by a special prosecutor - and found no evidence that the girl was raped. My feeling, from the limited amount of info I could find about the incident, was that they were partying together and the girl might have woken up and was embarassed that she had herself a little party with three guys. I also agree with hopelesslyobvious - the comments are still inappropriate.

 

(Disclaimer: If the girl in this incident was indeed raped, and evidence comes out proving that, then by all means Tallinder should be locked up - rape is a horrible crime and rapists need to be punished severely, and their skating & shooting abilities should not give them a free pass.)

 

So if Regier knew exactly what it would take to be successful in the New NHL, why didn't any other GM in the league know? Why didn't he know McKee would be a key part of the team? Why didn't he know we would need alot of Defensive help in the playoffs and stock up on NHL caliber defencemen instead of a second round pick?

 

No one new knew what the new NHL would be like and what new rules were gonna be put in. Darcy has been building a team that relies on speed for a while, he got lucky that the new NHL would be all about speed over a more physical game, its not that he knew exactly the way the new NHL was going to be played.

 

You're right, no one knew EXACTLY how the new rules would affect the level of play, but GMs figuring out things faster than their counterparts happens all the time. Bobby Clarke is a prime example of how some GMs just don't get it, or pick it up way later than others. Maybe Darcy's move toward a faster, more skilled team was a calculated gamble, but that's what he gets paid for. NHL GMs who don't take risks and try to make their teams better, faster, younger, more skilled, don't stay GMs for long. I'm not ready to annoint him as the best exec in Sabres' history, and the jury is still out as to whether this plan can be a viable, long-term blueprint for success, but I am not ready to join some of this board (not singling you out, apuszczalowski) in belittling the team's accomplishments this year by saying "Darcy did an OK job but got lucky that the rules changed."

 

I agree with the other poster - how could Darcy forsee losing 4 defensemen in the playoffs? Did anyone stash away 3 or 4 NHL-calibre defensemen in their AHL affiliate? If Carolina had lost Commodore, Ward, Wallin and Wesley for any extended period of time in the quarterfinals and ECF, would the Canes have fared as well as they did?

 

Obviously you have all convinced yourself that McKee is a low level defencemen and can be replaced very easily.

 

If you are all content with a revolving door system of players leaving when they reach their upside, good for you, I'd rather see some consistancy with this team and see them stay successful for years to come so they won't have to watch every penny to stay afloat

 

I don't think anyone here sees Jay as a low-level defenseman, but I don't think many feel he is our no.1 D-man and therefore shouldn't be paid like our no. 1. Will he be replaced easily? If we were talking about 2 or more d-men taking regular spots with the team this year, then I would say no, he cen't be replaced easily. But plugging in some combo of an NHL-ready defender and Janik or Paetsch as the no. 6 & 7 makes the loss a little more bearable. As long as we have Tallinder, Lydman, Kalinin & Campbell coming back, we should be OK.

 

As for your second point - would you have a problem with changing a couple players here & there each season if you knew that through this course of action, we would be at or near the top of the EC nearly every year? I guess you could ask the New England Patriots about that - they manage to keep their core intact and happy, change out the role players, and continue to have success year in & year out.

[hopeleslyobvious]

 

 

(Disclaimer: If the girl in this incident was indeed raped, and evidence comes out proving that, then by all means Tallinder should be locked up - rape is a horrible crime and rapists need to be punished severely, and their skating & shooting abilities should not give them a free pass.)

 

Couldn't agree more. If he is guilty, lock him up. But until he's found guilty we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

[apuszczalowski]

As for your second point - would you have a problem with changing a couple players here & there each season if you knew that through this course of action, we would be at or near the top of the EC nearly every year? I guess you could ask the New England Patriots about that - they manage to keep their core intact and happy, change out the role players, and continue to have success year in & year out.

I know players will come and go every year and that not everyone will stay, but I guess I see Mckee as a core player (typically guys with the A or C on their jersey are) instead of just a replacable part of this team. We are low at defencemen, and could use an upgrade at the position, yet Darcy is getting rid of one of the better ones we have (and one that is being rumored to be highly sought after in FA) because he wants a raise for having a good season. This is showing the fans and the league that we can't compete financially in the NHL and that once a player reaches their potential, they are gone cause the team won't pay them. This is a guy who has spent his entire career in Buffalo and has said he would like to stay and yet Buffalo would rather toss him aside cause he wants a raise.

 

Obviously all of you aren't going to change your mind and figure Darcy will just wave his magic wand and bring in another low priced defencemen to replace McKee and the Sabres won't lose a step, and i won't change my mind that it will be a little harder to replace a guy like McKee and that the Sabres aren't always going to be able to let good players walk and replace them with a "cheaper alternative"

[Bmwolf21]

I know message boards are the home to over-generalizations and overreacting, but let's not be too overdramatic about this - first, no one is saying "Buffalo would rather toss him aside cause he wants a raise." Not even close - what they are saying is "we'd like to keep him, but we can't blow the bank on him." I didn't think that was the issue - if it was, why bother keeping him at the trade dealine, or even making any effort to re-sign him?

 

Second, I don't expect Darcy to just "wave a magic wand" and replace him. I think that his loss, while it will hurt, it won't cripple us, and after the year we had, I am more than willing to give Darcy a little leeway - some benefit of the doubt, if you will - in keeping this team competitve and financially stable.

 

I guess I just don't want to see us fall into the same "loser Buffalo fan mentality" -- always posting things like "woe is us," "oh no, we can't keep our players", "oh no, we're gonna miss the playoffs next year," "oh no, TG and Darcy are being cheapskates" -- that I see permeating the TSW message board. I don't want to waste my time & energy getting pissed off about what might happen; I'd rather save my outrage for what actually does happen. If Darcy lets Jay walk and he signs somewhere else for 1/2 million more, then hell yes be pissed, and start calling them cheapskates, tightwads, whatever. But I'm not gonna get pissed b/c we can probably pay him between $2 - $2.75M, and someone else might throw $3.5M + at him.

 

Would I be pissed if Jay was one of my favorites and it didn't look like he was coming back? Hell yes. Would I love it if Darcy could work some sort of fair deal to both side, and keep Jay in the red & black (or blue & gold, or navy & metallic yellow, or whatever else color scheme is being toyed with for the uniforms) --you bet I would. I guess I am just being realistic that in this new economic system, all teams will have to make these tough decisions, and that the teams that keep themselves out of salary cap hell and make the correct choices of who to keep and who to cut will be the ones in constant competition for the Cup.

[Stoner]

You know, ole Pus and I and maybe a few other lone voices in the night have been taking a pretty good beating in this thread. We should thank Danny Briere for giving us some fresh ammunition for our position. Because today Danny gives us the wild card of this whole debate: how the lockerroom is going to react if McKee walks over money. And, reading between the lines of Briere's comments in the News today, the reaction will not be good. In fact, he says players are "a little nervous" about the direction the team is taking this offseason. Like I said, we're at a crossroads. Briere knows it and is putting some public pressure on ownership to step up and keep the magic and momentum going for another shot at the Cup. Good for him! I've always been a little lukewarm on Briere as a personality (love the way he plays), but today he has arrived on my good side. I will not forget the leadership he has shown us today.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1049550.asp

[jad1]

So if Regier knew exactly what it would take to be successful in the New NHL, why didn't any other GM in the league know? Why didn't he know McKee would be a key part of the team? Why didn't he know we would need alot of Defensive help in the playoffs and stock up on NHL caliber defencemen instead of a second round pick?

 

I don't know why other GMs didn't know. Why did Clarke fill his roster with slow defensemen? Whey did Ferguson sink a bunch of money in an aging goaltender? Why did the Rangers invest all their money in what is essentially a one-line team?

 

Who knows, but the writing was on the wall for several years in the NHL. The trap was killing the game by limiting scoring. The NHL had to buy its way on network TV. They were slow to realize what the NBA and NFL already knew, that scoring sold tickets, but it was inevitable that they would come to the conclusion. The writing was on the wall.

 

Mckee didn't have the best of seasons in '03, was over 30, and wasn't the fastest player on the team. Regier wanted as much salary flexibility as possible coming out of the lockout.

 

And I've pointed this out before, but as much as people rail on Fitzpatrick, the Sabres won playoff games with him in the lineup. In fact they won an ECF game with their 6th, 7th, and 8th defenseman in the lineup. How much more depth do you want? No NHL team is 9 or 10 deep when it comes to defensemen.

[Stoner]

McKee is 28.

[jad1]

McKee is 28.

 

When the season starts, he'll be 29.

 

In '02-'03 he played 59 games, and 5 points and was a -16.

 

In '03-'04 he played 43 games, had 5 points and was +6.

 

In '05-'06 he played 75 games, had 16 points and was even.

 

 

Tallinder is 27.

 

In '02-'03 he played 46 games, and 13 points and was a -3.

 

In '03-'04 he played 72 games, had 10 points and was +5.

 

In '05-'06 he played 82 games, had 21 points and was +10.

 

So the last three season totals:

 

McKee played 177 games, had 26 points, and was -10.

 

Tallinder played 200 games, had 44 points and was a +12.

 

nhl.com didn't have blocked shot stats, but those are the numbers that the two will bring to the table.

[apuszczalowski]

You know, ole Pus and I and maybe a few other lone voices in the night have been taking a pretty good beating in this thread. We should thank Danny Briere for giving us some fresh ammunition for our position. Because today Danny gives us the wild card of this whole debate: how the lockerroom is going to react if McKee walks over money. And, reading between the lines of Briere's comments in the News today, the reaction will not be good. In fact, he says players are "a little nervous" about the direction the team is taking this offseason. Like I said, we're at a crossroads. Briere knows it and is putting some public pressure on ownership to step up and keep the magic and momentum going for another shot at the Cup. Good for him! I've always been a little lukewarm on Briere as a personality (love the way he plays), but today he has arrived on my good side. I will not forget the leadership he has shown us today.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1049550.asp

I just finished reading the article and was about to post that

 

But what does briere know, he just plays for the team :rolleyes:

 

I'm sure the lockerroom is going to be happy to know that once they reach the point of making around 3-4 million, the team is going to let them go, no matter what they bring to the team.

 

McKee is only a one demensional Defensive Defencemen who is slow and blocks shots. Oh, he is also one of the leaders in the locker room and a guy the players look up to and respect? That shouldn't be that hard to find a cheap replacement for. I'm sure that when Darcy lets McKee walk Briere will be wanting that long term deal with the Sabres. :rolleyes:

 

How can paying a lockerroom leader and one of your better veteran defencemen 3-4 million be "breaking the bank"? We aren't talking Chara money here people. I don't want to sit here and cry like they do on the Bills boards about how cheap the team is and have the woe is me mentality, but thats the attitude the front office has with the team right now. Woe is us, We are a small market team, We can't afford to spend money and have to stick to a strict budget to survive, Players will have to play cheap here because we can't pay the big salaries. I thought the CBA was put in place to keep this from happening?

 

The NHL pulled in enough revenue to raise the Salary cap by about 4 million, and this was a team that had the extra revenue of making it to the game 7 of the ECF. How come the sabres self imposed cap is going up at the most 4 million? That should be the minimum to atleast reflect the increase in the league cap. What about all the season tickets that were sold during the playoffs?

 

We ragged on Carolina and its fans for not selling out their arena and for being a small market that didn't support their team yet they decided to invest in the team and build a winner while Buffalo, who we all took pride in the fact we sold out playoff series in 12 minutes is can't figure out how to make money