bob_sauve28 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 If all those players get awarded 1 yr arbitration contracts the sabres are screwed after the coming year. Darcy can't sign them all for big bucks, but do you really want Tallinder, Brier and Lydman signing one year deals?
Taro T Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 If all those players get awarded 1 yr arbitration contracts the sabres are screwed after the coming year. Darcy can't sign them all for big bucks, but do you really want Tallinder, Brier and Lydman signing one year deals? I believe under the new CBA that the team gets to decide whether the arbitration should be for a 1 or 2 year deal. If the contract ends up under certain qualifying levels, then the player can elect to reduce a 2 year deal down to 1 year. (Haven't looked that closely at arbitration rules yet. That's next on the list. ;) )
nfreeman Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 I believe under the new CBA that the team gets to decide whether the arbitration should be for a 1 or 2 year deal. If the contract ends up under certain qualifying levels, then the player can elect to reduce a 2 year deal down to 1 year. (Haven't looked that closely at arbitration rules yet. That's next on the list. ;) ) Well, that's an enormous point in our favor. This very likely will enable us to hang onto all of our core players for at least 2 years. For example, if the arbitrator awards, say, Briere $3.5 or $4 million per year, I'd elect the 2 years in a heartbeat. Then we would have 2 more years to watch him, figure out how good and durable he is, figure out our finances, and sign him up long-term. Much better than having a gun to our heads for a one-year deal. Same goes for Tallinder, Lydman, Campbell, Connolly, etc. etc. It also creates an interesting dilemma for the player like Briere who has 1 year to UFA status -- ie sign your qualifying offer and work your butt off for 1 year so you can cash in as a UFA (but bear the risk of injury) -- or go to arbitration and risk being tied up for 2 years. I'd be very interested in the results of your arbitration review and analysis (in fact, I'd say I'm going to wait with bated breath), so please fire when ready.
Taro T Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 Well, that's an enormous point in our favor. This very likely will enable us to hang onto all of our core players for at least 2 years. For example, if the arbitrator awards, say, Briere $3.5 or $4 million per year, I'd elect the 2 years in a heartbeat. Then we would have 2 more years to watch him, figure out how good and durable he is, figure out our finances, and sign him up long-term. Much better than having a gun to our heads for a one-year deal. Same goes for Tallinder, Lydman, Campbell, Connolly, etc. etc. It also creates an interesting dilemma for the player like Briere who has 1 year to UFA status -- ie sign your qualifying offer and work your butt off for 1 year so you can cash in as a UFA (but bear the risk of injury) -- or go to arbitration and risk being tied up for 2 years. I'd be very interested in the results of your arbitration review and analysis (in fact, I'd say I'm going to wait with bated breath), so please fire when ready. Sorry to get your hopes up n. I was right about the team getting to choose the length of the contract the arbitrator will agree on. BUT the team can't elect a 2 year deal when the player choosing arbitration is within 1 year of becoming an UFA. A small bit of good news though. The contracts of UFA's are inadmissible evidence in arbitration hearings. I still haven't fully looked at the entire arbitration section, but those 2 bits seemed relevant to the current discussion.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.