Rabbit151 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I find it very dis-heartening that almost every national analyst you hear from wonders which teams will pick up those two in July. General consensus outside Buffalo is that both are gone. Why is it so difficult for a high-caliber athlete to find happiness in Buffalo? I feel like punching someone when they automatically talk about Drury going to Philly, San Jose, Toronto, anywhere but Buffalo. And as for Briere, oh of course he's going to Nashville or Montreal or St.Louis,etc. etc...........anywhere but Buffalo. I've heard a lot of former NHLers and current NHLers say they love Buffalo and they continue to live there after their time is done with the Sabres. So what's the problem? Is it solely about the almighty dollar? Look at Drury's career stats, this is the most personal success he's ever had. Briere too. Doesn't an athlete ever look at other factors? To my mind, they've found a perfect home for hockey. Nice team, good guys, a formula for success. But it seems most observers have pencilled them in as gone. Should Regier change the club policy of re-negotiating during the season? I buy the philosophy that it can be a distraction and perhaps mess up the players attitude. But isn't this situation a distraction already? I feel sorry for you Buffalo folks having to endure these shots to your city, you know, outsiders saying how no-one wants to play there because they want to play in T.O., Detroit, NY, Philly, Dallas or Montreal. I put up with the same crap here in Saskatchewan. It's a wonderful place to raise a family, and the passion for our football team is incredible, yet every year it seems we watch players leave because it's a small, insignificant, jerk-water prairie town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niagara66 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I find it very dis-heartening that almost every national analyst you hear from wonders which teams will pick up those two in July. General consensus outside Buffalo is that both are gone. Why is it so difficult for a high-caliber athlete to find happiness in Buffalo? I feel like punching someone when they automatically talk about Drury going to Philly, San Jose, Toronto, anywhere but Buffalo. And as for Briere, oh of course he's going to Nashville or Montreal or St.Louis,etc. etc...........anywhere but Buffalo. I've heard a lot of former NHLers and current NHLers say they love Buffalo and they continue to live there after their time is done with the Sabres. So what's the problem? Is it solely about the almighty dollar? Look at Drury's career stats, this is the most personal success he's ever had. Briere too. Doesn't an athlete ever look at other factors? To my mind, they've found a perfect home for hockey. Nice team, good guys, a formula for success. But it seems most observers have pencilled them in as gone. Should Regier change the club policy of re-negotiating during the season? I buy the philosophy that it can be a distraction and perhaps mess up the players attitude. But isn't this situation a distraction already? I feel sorry for you Buffalo folks having to endure these shots to your city, you know, outsiders saying how no-one wants to play there because they want to play in T.O., Detroit, NY, Philly, Dallas or Montreal. I put up with the same crap here in Saskatchewan. It's a wonderful place to raise a family, and the passion for our football team is incredible, yet every year it seems we watch players leave because it's a small, insignificant, jerk-water prairie town. In this case, I don't think it's about Buffalo the place, its about the salary cap and team management. Buffalo does not have a history like NY or LA where they will drop that much coin on a player. Briere got 5M only because of arbitration. With the salary cap, they are going to to find a situation where there isn't that much money left on many teams. I think being a 6M free agent is going to limit the number of teams that could do it. People who follow numbers will probably pipe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 And in Saskatchewan, you can make bets with girls at bars and then NOT tell your friends what happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In his defense... And in Saskatchewan, you can make bets with girls at bars and then NOT tell your friends what happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 This has nothing to do with the City of Buffalo, this situation has to do with Being able to afford them at the salaries they could get on the open market. The Sabres are right up against the cap and would have to move some players to open up cap space to sign either of them. Then they would have to find cheaper alternatives to replace the players they had to deal to open up the roster spots to make room. They want to make sure that the impact from signing them is not going to affect the overall team compared to letting them go and finding a replacement who will give comparable play on the ice for less money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I find it very dis-heartening that almost every national analyst you hear from wonders which teams will pick up those two in July. General consensus outside Buffalo is that both are gone. Why is it so difficult for a high-caliber athlete to find happiness in Buffalo? I feel like punching someone when they automatically talk about Drury going to Philly, San Jose, Toronto, anywhere but Buffalo. And as for Briere, oh of course he's going to Nashville or Montreal or St.Louis,etc. etc...........anywhere but Buffalo. I've heard a lot of former NHLers and current NHLers say they love Buffalo and they continue to live there after their time is done with the Sabres. So what's the problem? Is it solely about the almighty dollar? Look at Drury's career stats, this is the most personal success he's ever had. Briere too. Doesn't an athlete ever look at other factors? To my mind, they've found a perfect home for hockey. Nice team, good guys, a formula for success. But it seems most observers have pencilled them in as gone. Should Regier change the club policy of re-negotiating during the season? I buy the philosophy that it can be a distraction and perhaps mess up the players attitude. But isn't this situation a distraction already? I feel sorry for you Buffalo folks having to endure these shots to your city, you know, outsiders saying how no-one wants to play there because they want to play in T.O., Detroit, NY, Philly, Dallas or Montreal. I put up with the same crap here in Saskatchewan. It's a wonderful place to raise a family, and the passion for our football team is incredible, yet every year it seems we watch players leave because it's a small, insignificant, jerk-water prairie town. IMHO, yes. This has nothing to do with the City of Buffalo, this situation has to do with Being able to afford them at the salaries they could get on the open market. The Sabres are right up against the cap and would have to move some players to open up cap space to sign either of them. Then they would have to find cheaper alternatives to replace the players they had to deal to open up the roster spots to make room. They want to make sure that the impact from signing them is not going to affect the overall team compared to letting them go and finding a replacement who will give comparable play on the ice for less money You are correct about the cap factoring into any decisions on what to offer either/both of them. But it appears the cap will go up next year, I'm hearing to ~$48MM, combining that with the likely departure of Teppo, Marty, or both and the Sabres COULD afford both of them at ~$6MM each. The 3 questions become, will that be the going rate for them as there could be someone that would pay $7 or 8 for them (see Richards, Brad for proof that it could happen); what sum are the Sabres budgeting for player salary next year; and who else will be available that could step in and provide a significant portion of their production for a fraction of the cost? (That last 1 being the 1 you are already asking.) My gut feel is that I think the Sabres will bring Chris back for ~$6MM/year but won't be able to re-sign Danny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frisky Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I also think that they have a blueprint for success that they would/will/do want to follow which is to continue drafting well and developing good young and cheaper talent. Supplying from the bottom and cutting off at the top so that they have contributors throughout. But that remains to be seen seeing as they are going with this "video" scouting thing and all those people who supposedly helped find the young talent are with other teams now. I can't see them loading too many eggs in just a couple of baskets when they consider the overall scheme and the long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottnc Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 You are correct about the cap factoring into any decisions on what to offer either/both of them. But it appears the cap will go up next year, I'm hearing to ~$48MM, combining that with the likely departure of Teppo, Marty, or both and the Sabres COULD afford both of them at ~$6MM each. The 3 questions become, will that be the going rate for them as there could be someone that would pay $7 or 8 for them (see Richards, Brad for proof that it could happen); what sum are the Sabres budgeting for player salary next year; and who else will be available that could step in and provide a significant portion of their production for a fraction of the cost? (That last 1 being the 1 you are already asking.) My gut feel is that I think the Sabres will bring Chris back for ~$6MM/year but won't be able to re-sign Danny. I think this is the most important part. What do the Sabres want to spend on salary? They were reluctant to spend to the cap this year. They were more or less forced to do it to keep what they had. I don't believe they'll keep pushing the limit as the cap goes up, and I agree with Dave that I think Drury stays and Danny will be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimFandango Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I think this is the most important part. What do the Sabres want to spend on salary? They were reluctant to spend to the cap this year. They were more or less forced to do it to keep what they had. I don't believe they'll keep pushing the limit as the cap goes up, and I agree with Dave that I think Drury stays and Danny will be gone. Where did you hear this? While i don't imagine they were thrilled with having to do it, not once did i ever hear them mention they were reluctant, or that their hand was forced. Their hand was forced to stay under the cap, which was a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swedesessed Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Most of these reports come from Canada and especially from Toronto...and quite frankly, they do not like Buffalo one bit...so of course they are going to hope...err, I mean report, that Drury and Briere will both be leaving. Based on what facts? None, that is their heart talking. While they may be right, we will never know until the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I find it very dis-heartening that almost every national analyst you hear from wonders which teams will pick up those two in July. General consensus outside Buffalo is that both are gone. Pardon my french, but I am calling bullsh-t on this one. All I read is national publications (as well as international if you count canadian) in regards to hockey and the Sabres. Never once have I heard anyone speculate that both will be leaving. Everything is regarding which one they will pick. I defy you to link on credible source to back your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit151 Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I haven't been documenting it. I've just noticed on various NHL telecasts in the last month or so that the opinions of different analysts seem to conclude that certainly one, and perhaps both are gone. It's kind of like when a guys wife and complains every day about the mundane, "why did you forget to take out the garbage?", "why were you 10 minutes late?", "you can't watch hockey, I'm watching Reba", "why did you throw the bathroom towel on the floor?". And on and on. When you finally decide to divorce her, you have no tangible evidence of her evils, just a collection of minor irritants that slowly drove you mad. We're just guys talking around the water-cooler here, I'm not writing a thesis. I'm looking for opinions. I'm just saying it seems to me, the talk is shifting towards the consensus that one for sure and quite possibly both will go. It's definetly up for dispute. If the Sabres won't negotiate with them now, what bargaining power do they have? Earlier this year some of you made it sound like it was a fore-gone conclusion that Drury would go out to San Jose. I dont know how they can afford to have Thornton, Marleau and Drury on the same team, but the talk was about how he would follow Grier and that he and wifey have a house out there. I'm starting to get a bad feeling that we lose both. And in Saskatchewan, you can make bets with girls at bars and then NOT tell your friends what happened! I noticed the topic got pulled from the board, so I thought I should not bring it up again. But, alas, nothing to report. And I thought our Saskatchewan girls had enough integrity to honor a bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottnc Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Where did you hear this? While i don't imagine they were thrilled with having to do it, not once did i ever hear them mention they were reluctant, or that their hand was forced. Their hand was forced to stay under the cap, which was a challenge. Anyone else remember, before the season, Sabres management talking about how they weren't going to spend to the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Anyone else remember, before the season, Sabres management talking about how they weren't going to spend to the cap? Yes, I remember that. It was just after all the signings that they fired all the scouting staff. I'm guessing that move was to make up for the salaries of the players that went over TG's budget for the team in total. Just a hunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Where did you hear this? While i don't imagine they were thrilled with having to do it, not once did i ever hear them mention they were reluctant, or that their hand was forced. Their hand was forced to stay under the cap, which was a challenge. Quinn himself said something to that effect on WGR this past summer. The jist of what he said was that he hadn't expected Tom to allow the budget to go as high as it did. I don't know if it'd still be on their website or not. The interview took place around the time when the logo seemed to be the only thing to talk about. There also might be posts regarding the comments in this site's archive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimFandango Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Quinn himself said something to that effect on WGR this past summer. The jist of what he said was that he hadn't expected Tom to allow the budget to go as high as it did. I don't know if it'd still be on their website or not. The interview took place around the time when the logo seemed to be the only thing to talk about. There also might be posts regarding the comments in this site's archive. In terms of the spending, i am more discussing TG's willingness to spend to the cap. Not once has he made any comment (that i can recall) saying that he was reluctant to spend to the cap. Being reluctant to spend to the cap, and trying to keep costs down are two different things in my opinion. There is some evidence of Ralph Wilson not wanting to spend tons of money, be it on coaches, big name free-agents, etc (speaking loosely here), however i do not see the same in TG. He had to spend to the cap to put a good team on the ice. People say that there was a reluctance from him to spend to the cap... i see the opposite, i see a willingness to spend to the cap, and will not be the least surprised next year if we are close to the cap again (save for $1-2m in excess room to make trades or call-ups easier next year). I do remember Quinn's comments, but again, they echo to me TG's willingness, not reluctance that will be brought under control in the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottnc Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In terms of the spending, i am more discussing TG's willingness to spend to the cap. Not once has he made any comment (that i can recall) saying that he was reluctant to spend to the cap. Being reluctant to spend to the cap, and trying to keep costs down are two different things in my opinion. There is some evidence of Ralph Wilson not wanting to spend tons of money, be it on coaches, big name free-agents, etc (speaking loosely here), however i do not see the same in TG. He had to spend to the cap to put a good team on the ice. People say that there was a reluctance from him to spend to the cap... i see the opposite, i see a willingness to spend to the cap, and will not be the least surprised next year if we are close to the cap again (save for $1-2m in excess room to make trades or call-ups easier next year). I do remember Quinn's comments, but again, they echo to me TG's willingness, not reluctance that will be brought under control in the next few years. I remember Quinn targeting a salary number at 35-37 million or something like that. I would say that setting a target below the cap would mean they didn't want to spend to the cap. Their hand was forced by the unreasonable high, in many eyes, arbitration rulings that drove some salaries up. If you remember correctly, after Danny's arbitration ruling, they started signing guys left and right before their hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In terms of the spending, i am more discussing TG's willingness to spend to the cap. Not once has he made any comment (that i can recall) saying that he was reluctant to spend to the cap. Being reluctant to spend to the cap, and trying to keep costs down are two different things in my opinion. There is some evidence of Ralph Wilson not wanting to spend tons of money, be it on coaches, big name free-agents, etc (speaking loosely here), however i do not see the same in TG. He had to spend to the cap to put a good team on the ice. People say that there was a reluctance from him to spend to the cap... i see the opposite, i see a willingness to spend to the cap, and will not be the least surprised next year if we are close to the cap again (save for $1-2m in excess room to make trades or call-ups easier next year). I do remember Quinn's comments, but again, they echo to me TG's willingness, not reluctance that will be brought under control in the next few years. if this team does not win the cup this year and the final figures show they were operating in the red this season, I can guarantee, the Sabres will not spend to the cap again until they can break even/turn a profit again. TG had to spend to the cap just to have close to the same team on the ice again this season and had he not, there is no way he would sell out the entire season. Money was spent because this team came within a couple of injuries of winning its first cup, and any idiot can tell you that you don't dismantle the team at that point to make sure you turn a profit the next year, you spend the extra to go for it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In terms of the spending, i am more discussing TG's willingness to spend to the cap. Not once has he made any comment (that i can recall) saying that he was reluctant to spend to the cap. Being reluctant to spend to the cap, and trying to keep costs down are two different things in my opinion. There is some evidence of Ralph Wilson not wanting to spend tons of money, be it on coaches, big name free-agents, etc (speaking loosely here), however i do not see the same in TG. He had to spend to the cap to put a good team on the ice. People say that there was a reluctance from him to spend to the cap... i see the opposite, i see a willingness to spend to the cap, and will not be the least surprised next year if we are close to the cap again (save for $1-2m in excess room to make trades or call-ups easier next year). I do remember Quinn's comments, but again, they echo to me TG's willingness, not reluctance that will be brought under control in the next few years. Huh? :blink: I expect that your suspicion that they will be relatively close to the cap next year is correct. Especially considering that, as the majority of teams will be expected to spend closer to the cap than the midpoint of the salary range, the players will lose their escrowed paychecks again as their leaguewide total compensation on paper ends up exceeding the 55% that will likely be the players' cut next year. If the cap is $48MM next year, the Sabres spend $46MM (assuming for the moment that actual $'s will be roughly equivalent to salary cap $'s as Drury (or Danny) will likely get a back-loaded contract) and the players give back 10% in escrow, then the Sabres would end up actually spending $41.4MM. Which, given the increase in revenues from last year to next year should allow them to stay in, or near, the black as long as they win at least 1 playoff series. (Which appears to be very reasonable for next year at this point when we know absolutely nothing about who will be where around the league.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimFandango Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Huh? :blink: I expect that your suspicion that they will be relatively close to the cap next year is correct. Especially considering that, as the majority of teams will be expected to spend closer to the cap than the midpoint of the salary range, the players will lose their escrowed paychecks again as their leaguewide total compensation on paper ends up exceeding the 55% that will likely be the players' cut next year. If the cap is $48MM next year, the Sabres spend $46MM (assuming for the moment that actual $'s will be roughly equivalent to salary cap $'s as Drury (or Danny) will likely get a back-loaded contract) and the players give back 10% in escrow, then the Sabres would end up actually spending $41.4MM. Which, given the increase in revenues from last year to next year should allow them to stay in, or near, the black as long as they win at least 1 playoff series. (Which appears to be very reasonable for next year at this point when we know absolutely nothing about who will be where around the league.) Yeah, i rambled on a bit when writing my last post. I just don't forsee the Sabres not spending very close to the cap limit for the next 3-4 years (assuming they stay a playoff contender, which they will be even if neither drury or briere are here). I don't think we will see a $39M team when the cap is $49M, those days of Sabres cost cutting manuevers in terms of payroll are over. Black or red as far as yearly profits are not as important to TG as the overall value of the team as an asset. Does anyone know the price TG paid for the team, and the value of the team at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit151 Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Ya, I said I was dis-heartened at the prospect of losing one or both of Briere and Drury. However, there should be some UFA's out there who'd be happy to get a call from the Sabres who can take the place of those two. Any ideas? Let's assume those two go, who do you guys think we can bring in to replace them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Yeah, i rambled on a bit when writing my last post. I just don't forsee the Sabres not spending very close to the cap limit for the next 3-4 years (assuming they stay a playoff contender, which they will be even if neither drury or briere are here). I don't think we will see a $39M team when the cap is $49M, those days of Sabres cost cutting manuevers in terms of payroll are over. Black or red as far as yearly profits are not as important to TG as the overall value of the team as an asset. Does anyone know the price TG paid for the team, and the value of the team at the moment? Tom paid $92MM in cash and assumed debt. His out of pocket cost was ~$50MM. (A lot of that other $42MM will be covered via operations over the life of the loans.) Accoording to Forbes the team is worth $147MM as of this past November. Not bad, a $97MM appreciation in ~4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimFandango Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 The one thing that i rarely see mentioned in this debate is the length of contracts that each will probably be looking for. I think monetary wise, the sabres can get a deal done with both. However, each will be long term. A four year commitment to each wouldn't be huge in my opinion, but i am guessing briere and drury will be looking for 5 or 6 years each. 6 years for Briere seems like a lot. He is a small guy, and may get worn down. If that happens you are stuck with his cap hit for several years past his prime. Briere at 36 doesn't sound as attractive to me as Drury does at 36, considering Briere's game is based on speed and quickness. I am on the drury if not both side of the debate, but especially when considering the age of the players, and the length of the contract each is probably looking for, it seems like Danny is the reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.