Sabres front just dont get it....

[Stoner]

Amen Brother Apus! You speak the truth. You have nailed it. Some battle lines are being drawn here. The players, led by Briere, the vast majority of fans and most of the media are on one side, and ownership, fronted by Darcy, with a small band of Nervous Nellie/Bean Counter fans are on the other. These fans are more concerned with Tom's money than he is. They'd rather win the Salary Cap Cup than the Stanley Cup, it seems. Who will win? Golisano, of course. But the victory will be short-lived. Win the battle. Lose the war.

 

Apus, I like your reference to the "woe is us, small market" mentality surrounding the franchise. But, when you think about it, aren't the Sabres small market because they make themselves small market? Seems to me that's exactly the role ownership here loves to play. My God, what if we broke off the shackles! What WOULD we do.

[hopeleslyobvious]

So, where do you draw the line on these players? PA, you have shown you love to spend other people's money. Whether it be the owner's money, or the rest of the fans money by raising ticket prices. If McKee gets a big offer from someone else, is it better for the team to spend that money on him, or 2 other players? I want McKee back, but if it means we can't sign other players because of it, then we can;t do it.

[Stoner]

"Spending" owners' money is the basis of being a fan. I guess the question for you and others is why can't you take your accountants hat off and put your Sabres hat on? Be a fan. You say you want McKee back, but then you always have a "but" to add. Unless McKee gets an outrageous offer that there's no way we can afford, you sign the guy, even if it's a little more than you might want to pay. That's what owners do who are committed to winning. The statement you make is more important than the money. Does it create some problems? Perhaps. But I'd rather have the "blowback" from signing McKee be that Darcy has to play hardball with a few less important players than have the "blowback" from not signing him be that the fan base and the team are demoralized.

[apuszczalowski]

The problem is Darcy has barely made an attempt to work something out with McKee. I understand not working on contracts during the season, but the day after the team is eliminated, why was he not trying to negotiate a new deal with Jay to keep him from going to Free Agency and try to lock him up for a couple years. If he truley wants to be here he would work out a reasonable deal for both sides.

 

From the impression Darcy has made, he pretty much tossed him an offer for a little bit more then what McKee was making and said its the best we can do. Sign it or Test Free Agency to see what your worth and maybe we can work something out. I wouldn't have a problem with the situation had McKee been the one saying I don't want to make a deal until I test the waters, but that is not the case right now.

 

If the Sabres want ot increase revenue so they can compete with the big boys, why don't they raise ticket prices a little bit. Raise most tickets $5 and as long as the team is competing, I'm sure they won't have a problem getting people to pay that little bit extra. The key is to put a competitive team on the ice.

 

Everyone complained that Darcy shouldn't have made any deals at the deadline just because it could disrupt team chemistry and signing McKee to a deal would cause a ripple effect with the rest of the team, but now that he is about to do that by letting a team leader walk away cause he is looking for a bit of a raise isn't going to effect team chemistry and send a ripple effect through the team??

 

PA is right, most of you seem to care about TG's money more then he does. Yes, the team is a buisness and he should try to make a profit. But if making a profit means that the product will suffer, he is not going to have a good buisness. He may have to spend some money to make money. So what if he loses a couple million in a year that we win the cup, I'm sure they will make it up in merchandise and ticket sales and gain more support as Stanley Cup champions.

 

If TG's entire goal for buying the Sabres was to be able to make big profits, NHL team ownership is not the right way for him to go. Owning a sports franchise is not something you can just write a check and let the profits come rolling in, It takes money to make a team successful and be a winner, then after you are successful, the profits are usually made

[hopeleslyobvious]

The problem is Darcy has barely made an attempt to work something out with McKee. I understand not working on contracts during the season, but the day after the team is eliminated, why was he not trying to negotiate a new deal with Jay to keep him from going to Free Agency and try to lock him up for a couple years. If he truley wants to be here he would work out a reasonable deal for both sides.

 

So who's phone do you have tapped to know that he hasn't made efforts?

[Bmwolf21]

"Spending" owners' money is the basis of being a fan. I guess the question for you and others is why can't you take your accountants hat off and put your Sabres hat on? Be a fan. You say you want McKee back, but then you always have a "but" to add. Unless McKee gets an outrageous offer that there's no way we can afford, you sign the guy, even if it's a little more than you might want to pay. That's what owners do who are committed to winning. The statement you make is more important than the money. Does it create some problems? Perhaps. But I'd rather have the "blowback" from signing McKee be that Darcy has to play hardball with a few less important players than have the "blowback" from not signing him be that the fan base and the team are demoralized.

 

If we're going to put our Sabres fans' caps on, why stop at re-signing McKee - why not demand Darcy make a run at trading for Pronger, or signing Chara? You can't have it both ways - bring back McKee and the big names, spend to the cap....but make sure you at least break even, so we don't have to worry about losing the team. But if you don't break even, then go ahead and pay out of your own pcoket, Tommy...

 

And from an earlier post - Sabres' management isn't making Buffalo (and WNY) a small market team - Western New York IS a small market. How many Fortune 500 companies make WNY home? How much has the population increased in the last 10, 15, 20 years? How long have we been waiting for Bass Pro Shops to open? For the revitalized waterfront? For the twin span/signature span bridge to neighbor the Peace Bridge? Don't get me wrong, I love WNY, and hate to see it slowly dieing, but until the economy turns around, and the sponsorship dollars and ticket prices can rival those in the medium-to-big market cities, then we have to deal with the economic realities. I don't think TG should dip into his own pockets to subsidize a higher payroll - he needs to stay within the financial framework of the team and the CBA.

 

I don't worry about McKee and Briere making noise through the media - I'll be more concerned when I see him signing a deal somewhere else. Like I said before, getting ticked off about what could happen is a waste of time and energy. SInce I am not privy to meetings, phone calls, email between the Sabres fron toffice and Jay and/or his agent, I also won't speculate on how much effort either side is putting into negotiations. Jay or his agent could have told the Sabres straight out - I want to test free agency and see what I can get. Maybe he's pissed that the team wouldn't do a long-tern deal with him before last season, and won't negotiate with them until he established his market value. Or maybe he will see if TG and Darcy will match an offer from someone else, or see if the Sabres can get in the same ballpark. I don't know - and I suspect not many on here know what the inside story is either.

 

Either way, lets's see what happens between now & then, and if we do lose McKee to a deal we could have matched, then by all means, hang Darcy in effigy. Call him cheap, a tightwad, an unloyal jerk, whatever. Just remember that, fair or not, if he does manage to re-sign Jay, whatever extra $$ he gives him will have a ripple effect on the team's finances, through ticket, concession & merchandise prices, and payroll (the so-called "pecking order" effect.)

[Chilly]

There's so much wrong with this assessment that it's difficult to address it all.

 

First, to fall in line with this thinking, you have to accept that all contract decisions are being based on finaces alone; that no hockey decisions are being made here. The reality is that the Sabres strategy is to build a system that uses similar, interchangeable players. The goal is to roll four lines and play six defensemen. That strategy is reflected in their salary structure.

 

Unlike teams that build around one or two lines (Flyers, Rangers, Red Wings, Leafs, and Avs), the Sabres avoid the consequences of paying a player big money. The general thinking among management and players is that the more you are paid, the more ice time you get. It's hard to roll four lines when a guy like Sundin or Forseberg is being double-shifted in every crucial situation during the season. It's difficult to get a guy like Campbell ice time when Zhitnik is playing 30 minutes a game. The Sabres broke out of that mold this year with excellent results.

 

Second, what undercuts this argument most for me is that the same thing could have been said last season when the team let Satan and Zhitnik walk. When it became evident that the Sabres were not going to replace them in FA, who was predicting that the team would have a top 5 power play this season? Not me. Instead fans were busy making the case that Golisano was cheap (myself included). The perception was the Sabres were going to be lousy this year because of their cheap management style. Was this the reality? And yet, fans continue to make this wrong-headed argument.

 

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. When the league changed and re-emphasized the rules, the Sabres turn-around was complete.

 

Honestly, I like McKee, but do you really believe that the team will no longer play with heart and determination if he leaves? Do you believe that the defense will crumble without a 2nd line defensemen who didn't play on the power play? Do you believe the excellent development work the coaching staff did with four rookies will end?

 

The Sabres have the perfect philosophy for the new NHL. They continue to beat teams who pay for big names like Forseberg, Sundin, Alfredsson, and Jagr, with guys like Pominville and Roy.

 

Honestly, I'd rather see the Sabres let a guy go than pay him outside the salary structure. I don't want to see them adopt the team-building philosophy of the Leafs, Flyers, and Rangers.

 

Sounds very similar to the current winning franchises in the NFL, doesn't it?

[jad1]

The problem is Darcy has barely made an attempt to work something out with McKee. I understand not working on contracts during the season, but the day after the team is eliminated, why was he not trying to negotiate a new deal with Jay to keep him from going to Free Agency and try to lock him up for a couple years. If he truley wants to be here he would work out a reasonable deal for both sides.

 

From the impression Darcy has made, he pretty much tossed him an offer for a little bit more then what McKee was making and said its the best we can do. Sign it or Test Free Agency to see what your worth and maybe we can work something out. I wouldn't have a problem with the situation had McKee been the one saying I don't want to make a deal until I test the waters, but that is not the case right now.

 

If the Sabres want ot increase revenue so they can compete with the big boys, why don't they raise ticket prices a little bit. Raise most tickets $5 and as long as the team is competing, I'm sure they won't have a problem getting people to pay that little bit extra. The key is to put a competitive team on the ice.

 

Everyone complained that Darcy shouldn't have made any deals at the deadline just because it could disrupt team chemistry and signing McKee to a deal would cause a ripple effect with the rest of the team, but now that he is about to do that by letting a team leader walk away cause he is looking for a bit of a raise isn't going to effect team chemistry and send a ripple effect through the team??

 

PA is right, most of you seem to care about TG's money more then he does. Yes, the team is a buisness and he should try to make a profit. But if making a profit means that the product will suffer, he is not going to have a good buisness. He may have to spend some money to make money. So what if he loses a couple million in a year that we win the cup, I'm sure they will make it up in merchandise and ticket sales and gain more support as Stanley Cup champions.

 

If TG's entire goal for buying the Sabres was to be able to make big profits, NHL team ownership is not the right way for him to go. Owning a sports franchise is not something you can just write a check and let the profits come rolling in, It takes money to make a team successful and be a winner, then after you are successful, the profits are usually made

 

Forget about Golisano's money, think about the cap for a minute. McKee will probably warrant a 2 million dollar raise. Briere probably wants at least 2 million more. Miller will probably ask for at least 2.5 million more. And Tallinder will want the same.

 

That's nine million more for four players. With about 14 or 15 more players to sign, most of whom will also be seeking raises.

 

Do you give the big four the raises they're asking for, and then lop off players like Pominville, Connolly, and Kotalik to stay within the cap?

 

Or do you hold the line on salaries, tender the minimum to qualify the RFAs and continue to work on long team deals that benefit the club?

 

Sure we all want to live in fantasy land and throw $5 million at Briere. $3.5 million at McKee and $4 million at Miller, but the reality is that, under the cap, those moves have consequences. For the Sabres, it could mean their third line. I could care less if the Golisano loses a couple of million dollars next season. I do care that Regier brings back Briere, Drury, and Connolly, and the only way that can happen is with a rigid salary structure.

[apuszczalowski]

Some of those players may ask for that much of a raise but alot of them do not deserve that much. Briere's salary should atleast be in the top 3 of the Sabres salary because he was one of the top players on the team. Miller in no way deserves 4 million next year. It was his first year as a starter, which means he had one good year, he gets atleast wht Marty made last year and maybe give him a higher salary for the last year of his deal. Mckee at 3mil is reasonable. Its hard to say what Connolley deserves until it is known if he can even play again. As for Pomminstein and Roy, and the rest of the young guys, giving them between 1-1.5 mil a year (assuming they all made under 1 mil last year) is fair seeing as how this will only be their 2nd full year. Also remember that there will have to be a couple forwards moved this offseason to be able to make a roster this year and not lose anyone to waivers. There is a logjam at forward so some will need to be moved. That is why I am not too concerned about their salaries. Defence is the part that needs to be addressed (along with a backup goalie), Teppoe may not be able to play a full season anymore, and Losing McKee is just adding more holes for the Sabres to try to fill.

 

Sorry if I'm not lookig at everything as Rosey as everyone else and thinking that Darcy will save us and fix everything.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Some of those players may ask for that much of a raise but alot of them do not deserve that much. Briere's salary should atleast be in the top 3 of the Sabres salary because he was one of the top players on the team. Miller in no way deserves 4 million next year. It was his first year as a starter, which means he had one good year, he gets atleast wht Marty made last year and maybe give him a higher salary for the last year of his deal. Mckee at 3mil is reasonable. Its hard to say what Connolley deserves until it is known if he can even play again. As for Pomminstein and Roy, and the rest of the young guys, giving them between 1-1.5 mil a year (assuming they all made under 1 mil last year) is fair seeing as how this will only be their 2nd full year. Also remember that there will have to be a couple forwards moved this offseason to be able to make a roster this year and not lose anyone to waivers. There is a logjam at forward so some will need to be moved. That is why I am not too concerned about their salaries. Defence is the part that needs to be addressed (along with a backup goalie), Teppoe may not be able to play a full season anymore, and Losing McKee is just adding more holes for the Sabres to try to fill.

 

Sorry if I'm not lookig at everything as Rosey as everyone else and thinking that Darcy will save us and fix everything.

 

Couple things. The Hockey News reported a few weeks ago (check my old posts) that there is going to be a slight change to the waivers rules.

 

I wouldn't say that the rest of us are seeing things through rose colored glasses, but we're not going to project doom and gloom just yet. After last summer's criticism and the resulting season, I think management at least deserves the benefit of the doubt from the fans until:

 

1. They make questionable decisions AND

2. Those decisions result in a lower quality of the product on the ice (due to the fact that everyone questioned the moves made last off season, and for the most part they benefitted the team).

 

Also, it's unfair of accusing management of doing nothing. Again, unless you have an inside source that the rest of us don't, you can't accuse Darcy of doing nothing to re-sign McKee, Grier and Numminen. I don't have any more information than anyone else, but to think that there have been no talks seems a little far fetched. IMHO, it seems much more likely that the kind of deal needed to sign them before July 1 would requires paying more than the player is worth.

[Taro T]

The problem is Darcy has barely made an attempt to work something out with McKee. I understand not working on contracts during the season, but the day after the team is eliminated, why was he not trying to negotiate a new deal with Jay to keep him from going to Free Agency and try to lock him up for a couple years. If he truley wants to be here he would work out a reasonable deal for both sides.

He IS trying to negotiate a contract. He has made an offer to Jay (probably actually 2 or 3 offers, 1 for a 1 year deal, 1 for a 2 year deal, and 1 for a 3 year deal). The fact that he hasn't given Jay a pie-in-the-sky offer, does NOT mean that he hasn't been negotiating in good faith.

From the impression Darcy has made, he pretty much tossed him an offer for a little bit more then what McKee was making and said its the best we can do. Sign it or Test Free Agency to see what your worth and maybe we can work something out. I wouldn't have a problem with the situation had McKee been the one saying I don't want to make a deal until I test the waters, but that is not the case right now.

I have posted a response to this argument in other threads, basically asking a question: what is in it for McKee to sign a contract (that isn't wildly above his wildest dreams) PRIOR to July 1? I have yet to see an answer to the question. (I don't recall whose post my question was directed at, but it hasn't been answered by any of the "sign Jay now" posters.) The reason I haven't seen an answer most likely is, because there isn't a reason for him to sign prior to July 1 UNLESS the Sabres give him a contract that is wildly higher than what he could expect to get on the open market.

 

As many here have mentioned, Jay is on record as saying he wants to stay a Sabre. Wouldn't that imply that he will give the Sabres an opportunity to match an offer? That is what I take out of that sentiment, but I could be wrong. If he doesn't give the Sabres the opportunity to match, then I guess he didn't really want that badly to be a Sabre.

If the Sabres want ot increase revenue so they can compete with the big boys, why don't they raise ticket prices a little bit. Raise most tickets $5 and as long as the team is competing, I'm sure they won't have a problem getting people to pay that little bit extra. The key is to put a competitive team on the ice.

1st off, thank you for being willing to raise my costs of attending a game by nearly 20%. :blink: (Darn nice of you. <_< )

 

Part of the reason that the team isn't raising prices for next season is, they made the offer to potential STH's back in Round 1 (before everyone and their brother wanted playoff tickets) to keep prices essentially the same for next season to get people to buy 1st round playoff tickets AND to increase the STH base for next year.

 

Also, one of the criticisms that the criminals received was pretty much raising prices every season after the Sabres made the playoffs. Part of the reason the Sabres were such a tough draw in October was because the ST base was as small as it was. Part of the reason that that ST base never grew was the criminals continually raised prices.

 

By keeping ticket prices the same for next year, the Sabres are actually GROWING the ST base. That means revenues during the early part of next season will be substantially higher than they were last season. (It also means late season sellouts that went this year at "gold" prices, but are now at "value" prices won't make quite as much in '07 as they did in '06, but the decrease will be offset by the increases at the beginning of the season.)

 

As someone else mentioned, it's easier to keep customers than gain new ones. Assuming the Sabres don't collapse this season, I would be very surprised if ticket prices don't rise next year. That is where Sabres revenues will begin to close to those of the rest of the league, as the increase in next year's cap (while substantial) is due to league revenues being where they were prior to the lockout and not taking the hit that all observers expected them to take. I don't see league revenues being 15-20% higher than projections in following seasons as they were this year.

 

That would probably keep league revenues from "skyrocketing" another $300MM in '06-'07, so the Sabres increasing their prices about 5% next year would probably help them get revenues closer to the league mean, which (per the "plan") would also get player expenses closer to the league mean.

Everyone complained that Darcy shouldn't have made any deals at the deadline just because it could disrupt team chemistry and signing McKee to a deal would cause a ripple effect with the rest of the team, but now that he is about to do that by letting a team leader walk away cause he is looking for a bit of a raise isn't going to effect team chemistry and send a ripple effect through the team??

Where were you in March? I thought the board was at least split 50-50 with people wanting to bring in another D-man, if that wasn't the prevailing sentiment. Because your basis for this point is specious at best, I will not address it.

 

PA is right, most of you seem to care about TG's money more then he does. Yes, the team is a buisness and he should try to make a profit. But if making a profit means that the product will suffer, he is not going to have a good buisness. He may have to spend some money to make money. So what if he loses a couple million in a year that we win the cup, I'm sure they will make it up in merchandise and ticket sales and gain more support as Stanley Cup champions.

 

If TG's entire goal for buying the Sabres was to be able to make big profits, NHL team ownership is not the right way for him to go. Owning a sports franchise is not something you can just write a check and let the profits come rolling in, It takes money to make a team successful and be a winner, then after you are successful, the profits are usually made

There are 2 models a franchise can follow in a salary cap world to try to be successful. A team can go out and spend large quantities on a small handful of players (or player) and surround that player with a supporting cast of rookies and castoffs. A team can also try to have depth where it may not have the greatest player at any one position, but can roll quality players at its opponent throughout the lineup.

 

These models can also be crossed in hockey by signing a top-notch goalie and then trying to balance the rest of the lines and by trying to bring in couple of lines worth of higher priced players (or perhaps a full d-squad) and then supporting them with $600k players vs $450k players.

 

The Sabres definitely are following the "we will roll 4 lines, 6 d, and 2 goalies at you that do not have a glaring weakness among them" plan. In order for that philosphy to work, IMO, the team cannot pay a #4 defenseman the way another team would pay it's #1 defenseman because the team would have to pay at least 4 (if not 6) d-men like #1's.

 

We've been speculating a lot on whether Jay will be a Sabre in '06-'07. Right now we are all speculating on what the market for a #3ish d-man will be. I don't see Jay getting a $4MM+ offer. He MAY get an offer for slightly more than $3MM/year but that isn't a given. Especially when you consider that to this point in time ALL players making big bucks are goalies, scorers, or the rare player that someone wants to steal from a rival (Lapointe, Holik, etc.). No defensive defenseman has ever gotten big bucks. McKee may be the 1st, but I'd be very interested in seeing the payroll and structure of the payroll of the team that gives Jay $3.5MM/year for 4 years. That team will very likely end up dysfunctional.

 

As for Briere being upset if Jay leaves. If Jay leaves for $3.5MM/year over 4 years, I don't think he will view it as a sign the Sabres don't want to win or will simply let their players walk. If he leaves for $2.25MM over 3 years, then he will be ticked. I am willing to wait and see how it plays out before I will burn Darcy in effigy or sing his praises.

[X. Benedict]

 

The Sabres definitely are following the "we will roll 4 lines, 6 d, and 2 goalies at you that do not have a glaring weakness among them" plan. In order for that philosphy to work, IMO, the team cannot pay a #4 defenseman the way another team would pay it's #1 defenseman because the team would have to pay at least 4 (if not 6) d-men like #1's.

 

We've been speculating a lot on whether Jay will be a Sabre in '06-'07. Right now we are all speculating on what the market for a #3ish d-man will be. I don't see Jay getting a $4MM+ offer. He MAY get an offer for slightly more than $3MM/year but that isn't a given. Especially when you consider that to this point in time ALL players making big bucks are goalies, scorers, or the rare player that someone wants to steal from a rival (Lapointe, Holik, etc.). No defensive defenseman has ever gotten big bucks. McKee may be the 1st, but I'd be very interested in seeing the payroll and structure of the payroll of the team that gives Jay $3.5MM/year for 4 years. That team will very likely end up dysfunctional.

 

As for Briere being upset if Jay leaves. If Jay leaves for $3.5MM/year over 4 years, I don't think he will view it as a sign the Sabres don't want to win or will simply let their players walk. If he leaves for $2.25MM over 3 years, then he will be ticked. I am willing to wait and see how it plays out before I will burn Darcy in effigy or sing his praises.

Finally a sensible perspective. Thanks Dave.