The Official ?why in the hell do you care what the Sabres spend to win? Thread

[X. Benedict]

I believe the survey was about which organization players most want to play in. Not the city itself. I could be wrong.

 

It's all about the wallet though. You gonna take less money to play in Sunrise, to be close to South Beach?

 

I think what you were referring to was the 2007 Hockey News Survey.

 

"The place you would least like to get traded?"

 

Edmonton topped the list.

[RuffRuff]

navy bills fan, do your service more justice by representing them intelligently. Your broad strokes don't paint a picture of anything except your relentlessly negative viewpoint, which I'd bet is more fueled by fatalism than objective analysis.

[X. Benedict]

The latter point is a classic Straw Man. I don't think anyone proposes "overspending on the wrong player."

 

Well even overspending in general.

 

Forget the wrong player, overspending on any player.

Tampa locked up their big three for big dollars 2005-07.

 

It was just a poor roster.

 

Now the Sabres probably can offer a decent one year contract to a UFA, but

any multiyear contract threatens next years roster.

 

They have 29 million committed to 10 players next year.

Which leaves them 26 million to spend if the cap is the same.

They will need to sign 12 players.

Assuming Pomminstein and Miller make 5.5 each next year. (conservative)

 

That gives them 15 million to land 10 players.

 

That is without Sekera, Paille, Kaleta, Stafford, Afinegenov, Connolly, Kotalik, Peters, and MacArthur on the roster.

 

If the Sabres stay 5 million under the cap.

Each of those guys and somebody new can have 1 million dollars.

[Goodfella25]

I'm with Navy on the point about why the fans care about money so much. I think it's merely the penniless and the powerless wanting to play fantasy-owner. Money does dominate our society, doesn't it?

 

I'm not so sure it's about "caring". The way I see it, if you're going to make a sound argument regarding the financial decisions of the Sabres, you have to put yourself in Tommy G's position. It's easy to sit here as an outsider and spend someone else's money, and say "oh I would spend to the cap", "I'd throw $10 million at 'X' player", etc. You have to imagine you're Golisano. Maybe you don't want to spend to the cap. Maybe you're already spending more than you thought you'd need to. Maybe you're planning on selling the team in the near future. His motives are going to be different than the average fan, especially since he admittedly was not a big fan of hockey going into this business venture. And that's really what it is for him isn't it? And the line would blur for any of us who love the team AND have a significant financial investment in it.

 

So I don't think it's a question of why do fans "care" about how much he spends--I think it's just the fact that it's difficult to come up with a sound argument against their spending since you have to look at it as if you were the owner. Where would you draw the line between being a fan and being a businessman? EDIT: or woman?

[stenbaro]

A recent survey put Buffalo near the bottom of the league in places where players want to play. It's not the waterfront or the economy, is it?

 

I'm with Navy on the point about why the fans care about money so much. I think it's merely the penniless and the powerless wanting to play fantasy-owner. Money does dominate our society, doesn't it?

 

The "cap experts" do get annoying, I'll tell you that.

I agree wholeheartily..I am a fan and I cheer for them to win the cup..That is why they play the game..They should use every penny they are allowed to the cap to make their team better..Any less is an insult to the fan...They make it, and more...

[jimiVbaby]

I'll step up and say I'm one of those capologists that almost always advocates against overspending on players. BUT... I feel that Darcy will pay out for top flight/1A superstar players if they were already on the roster.

 

If the Sabres would have won the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes I have no doubt in my mind they would have locked him up to a long term deal paying top money. The facts people skip over is that Brian Campbell et al were not some of the best players at their positions and were looking to be paid like they were. Being a shortsighted GM will get you out of a job in 3 years because the team will be in the bottom quarter of the league and in cap hell.

 

Even further, if Tyler Myers turns out to be a combination of Chara and Lidstrom, he's a Sabre for life.

[carpandean]

They should use every penny they are allowed to the cap to make their team better..Any less is an insult to the fan...They make it, and more...

So, 90% of hockey fans should be insulted? One team, Dallas, had less than $1M in cap space last year. Five other teams had less than $2M: Colorado, Edmonton, Rangers, Flyers and Toronto. Several of those crossed the boundary due to playoff-push deadline trades. The rest ranged from $2M - $16M in cap space, with the majority over $4M. I guess Detroit's fan should be insulted that they had over $4M and San Jose's fans should be really insulted that they had over $10M. Heck, maybe if Pittsburgh spent some of their $9M, they might have won the cup.

 

I'm not saying that they always spend their money on the right players or that sometimes spending more wouldn't be a smart choice (an extra $2M on the right player last year could have put them into a playoff spot, generating at least one round worth of playoff revenue), but always spending to the cap is not a smart way to run a team and most teams know this. We were in a good position to make a cup run in 2006-07, so they did spent to the cap and it still didn't get us the cup. In 2007-08, they weren't in a similar position after they lost Drury (and had let Briere go), so they didn't spend as much (though, still were about average).

 

 

Edit: good point jimiV. I said it in another thread, but the only reason that some of these big signings haven't killed teams in the past couple of years is the perfect storm of events (strength of Canadian $, increase to highest % of revenue, etc.) that has allowed the cap to grow at an unbelievable rate. As soon as the cap growth rate slows -- and it will -- those teams will be in big trouble.

[PASabreFan]

I'll step up and say I'm one of those capologists that almost always advocates against overspending on players. BUT... I feel that Darcy will pay out for top flight/1A superstar players if they were already on the roster.

 

If the Sabres would have won the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes I have no doubt in my mind they would have locked him up to a long term deal paying top money. The facts people skip over is that Brian Campbell et al were not some of the best players at their positions and were looking to be paid like they were. Being a shortsighted GM will get you out of a job in 3 years because the team will be in the bottom quarter of the league and in cap hell.

 

Even further, if Tyler Myers turns out to be a combination of Chara and Lidstrom, he's a Sabre for life.

 

Unless Tyler wants to win a Cup and realizes it's not going to happen in Buffalo and forces a trade to Detroit but makes sure not too much comes back in return and says goodbye to us in a Goodwill cardigan and...

[mercury]

God I hope we win it all this year, just so that we never have to be subjected to threads like this ever again.

 

For some reason, I doubt that even a championship will help. It just ain't cool to be cool anymore.

[Bmwolf21]

According to the Sports Guy (whose decent into total douchbaggery is now complete with the Celtics winning the NBA title) once your team wins a championship they get a five-year grace period where you can't complain about pretty much anything they do (short of moving the franchise.)

 

I'd like to see how long that would last on the Interwebs and message boards.

[BetweenThePipes00]

According to the Sports Guy (whose decent into total douchbaggery is now complete with the Celtics winning the NBA title) once your team wins a championship they get a five-year grace period where you can't complain about pretty much anything they do (short of moving the franchise.)

 

I'd like to see how long that would last on the Interwebs and message boards.

 

 

That was his rule before the Red Sox made major changes to their first WS winning team and he bitched about them immediately ... to his credit he admitted he was breaking his own rule but it was just too hard not to complain.

It's to be expected, and in fact it will probably get worse if the Sabres ever win a Cup ... I remember it was like 1988 and I had a friend from Chicago ... the Bears were like 10-2 or something and he was bitching about them ... I couldn't understand all the negativity about a first-place team ... he said something I will always remember: "Once you have won it all, you know what it takes. And this team does not have it." That was 20 years ago and I still struggle with whether or not that is true ... sometimes I think it applies for sure, but I doubt Giants fans who saw the 1986 team saw the same things in last year's team ... I am sure they were dismissed as unworthy of winning the whole thing before the playoffs. Sometimes stuff happens.

Anyway, point is, once a team wins it all and that high standard is set, that is what everything going forward is compared to ... there's nowhereto go but down, really.

[nobody]

I would not be surprised if a poll of players was done about GMs in the league that Darcy would rank pretty high up on the positive list. (I haven't seen one.) I think most players would put more negativity on Quinn / Golisano.

 

The Red Wings spent about $4 million more than the Sabres last year. Ranked 12 vs 21 or thereabouts.

 

There are many ex-players and ex-non-players including ones that were not Sabres that live in Buffalo.

[Ned Braden]

There are many ex-players and ex-non-players including ones that were not Sabres that live in Buffalo.

 

I've always wondered why. Proximity to the border? Or maybe WNY doesn't suck as much as everyone, including residents and non-residents, tends to think.

[carpandean]

The Red Wings spent about $4 million more than the Sabres last year. Ranked 12 vs 21 or thereabouts.

I assume by "spent" you meant their cap hit, not their salary. With Vanek's $10 million salary vs. $7.1 million cap hit, I imagine their salaries were pretty close.

 

As far as the cap, they "spent" $3.3 million more ($48.3 vs. $45.0), but $2.3 million of that was from performance bonuses for their old UFAs (Hasek, Chelios) that don't technically count against the cap (you get a bonus cushion). If Teppo had not gone out, they actually would have had less cap space than Detroit did ($3.4 million vs. $4.5 million.)

 

The real difference, as somebody else pointed out, is probably in the amount that they spent outside of players.

[nobody]

I assume by "spent" you meant their cap hit, not their salary. With Vanek's $10 million salary vs. $7.1 million cap hit, I imagine their salaries were pretty close.

 

As far as the cap, they "spent" $3.3 million more ($48.3 vs. $45.0), but $2.3 million of that was from performance bonuses for their old UFAs (Hasek, Chelios) that don't technically count against the cap (you get a bonus cushion). If Teppo had not gone out, they actually would have had less cap space than Detroit did ($3.4 million vs. $4.5 million.)

 

The real difference, as somebody else pointed out, is probably in the amount that they spent outside of players.

 

 

Right - I didn't have the exact numbers in front of me. I was just trying to point out that the Sabres aren't really being cheap. They do spend money and if they find just the right pieces they can win the Cup for the amount they spend.

[tom webster]

I'll step up and say I'm one of those capologists that almost always advocates against overspending on players. BUT... I feel that Darcy will pay out for top flight/1A superstar players if they were already on the roster.

 

If the Sabres would have won the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes I have no doubt in my mind they would have locked him up to a long term deal paying top money. The facts people skip over is that Brian Campbell et al were not some of the best players at their positions and were looking to be paid like they were. Being a shortsighted GM will get you out of a job in 3 years because the team will be in the bottom quarter of the league and in cap hell.

 

Even further, if Tyler Myers turns out to be a combination of Chara and Lidstrom, he's a Sabre for life.

 

 

I was going to stay out of this argument, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. Your argument and others that have made the same argument implies that it was the FO's plan to let Drury, Briere and Campbell go. In fact, only Briere was a conscious decision.

With Drury, no matter what you believe went down in October, there is no denying that Buffalo was prepared to match New York's offer. With Campbell, they ended up offering almost $6 million per on a 3 year deal after failing to get a deal done in the summer.

In both cases, Buffalo was prepared to pay for the player, just didn't get it done.

[K-9]

I was going to stay out of this argument, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. Your argument and others that have made the same argument implies that it was the FO's plan to let Drury, Briere and Campbell go. In fact, only Briere was a conscious decision.

With Drury, no matter what you believe went down in October, there is no denying that Buffalo was prepared to match New York's offer. With Campbell, they ended up offering almost $6 million per on a 3 year deal after failing to get a deal done in the summer.

In both cases, Buffalo was prepared to pay for the player, just didn't get it done.

 

And it both cases both players decided not to accept Buffalo's offer. Argue all you want about how it could have gotten done a lot sooner and a lot cheaper but ultimately both players decided to leave. It takes two to tango as the saying goes and the FO was the proverbial wall flower when it came time to dance the first dance but when they finally put their dancing shows on Drury and Campbell left with another date.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[awill29]

And it both cases both players decided not to accept Buffalo's offer. Argue all you want about how it could have gotten done a lot sooner and a lot cheaper but ultimately both players decided to leave. It takes two to tango as the saying goes and the FO was the proverbial wall flower when it came time to dance the first dance but when they finally put their dancing shows on Drury and Campbell left with another date.

 

GO SABRES!!!

Exactly.

 

If you are Chris Drury last July 1, you have two choices. Money is the same. You can go play in NEW YORK CITY for your childhood team and live out your dream, or you can stay in Buffalo. Not bashing Buffalo, or saying that hockey players don't want to live here, but it doesn't stack up to one of the most populated and popular cities in North America.

 

If you are Campbell, you can take a nice 6M now, and play for the team you love. But he was money hungry (and who wouldn't be? Who wouldn't wait for 3 months for another 1M+ on your current raise?) He ends up going to Chicago, another great city, that Buffalo doesn't match up with.

 

So it's not like they're saying, "Oh, Buffalo sucks!" or "This team is awful!" Hell, Campbell was basically in tears when he got traded to SAN JOSE (not a bad place to live). But when those kinds of teams in those kinds of cities are involved, can you really blame them?

[nfreeman]

If you are Campbell, you can take a nice 6M now, and play for the team you love. But he was money hungry (and who wouldn't be? Who wouldn't wait for 3 months for another 1M+ on your current raise?) He ends up going to Chicago, another great city, that Buffalo doesn't match up with.

 

As long as we're airing pet peeves -- Soupy didn't wait because he thought he could get another $1MM per year. He waited because he thought he'd end up with a much bigger guaranteed pile of dough -- and he was right, because he ended up with $56MM instead of the $18MM the Sabres offered.

[awill29]

As long as we're airing pet peeves -- Soupy didn't wait because he thought he could get another $1MM per year. He waited because he thought he'd end up with a much bigger guaranteed pile of dough -- and he was right, because he ended up with $56MM instead of the $18MM the Sabres offered.

 

Fair enough...but the security of more money just a few months ahead probably had something to do with it.

[jimiVbaby]

I was going to stay out of this argument, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. Your argument and others that have made the same argument implies that it was the FO's plan to let Drury, Briere and Campbell go. In fact, only Briere was a conscious decision.

With Drury, no matter what you believe went down in October, there is no denying that Buffalo was prepared to match New York's offer. With Campbell, they ended up offering almost $6 million per on a 3 year deal after failing to get a deal done in the summer.

In both cases, Buffalo was prepared to pay for the player, just didn't get it done.

Briere.. yes.

 

Drury.. no, and I didn't think that needed to be explained. It has been discussed to great lengths, and really I don't feel like reading anymore posts about it.

 

Campbell, yes. There's no way Campbell signs that kind of contact, and Darcy/Larry/Tom knew it. It's more like "Hey Brian, here's the money you wanted for a whole 3 years. Want to sign this contract? No? Ok good, you're traded to San Jose and we'll make sure we tell everyone you didn't sign our deal." I'd much rather spend the 6 million a year on two defensemen at 3 million per than the defensive liability that Campbell was.

[wjag]

Buffalo's downtown keeps free agents away? Do you think most professional athletes give a rat's ass about the city they live in? Wasn't J.P. Losman pretty much the only professional athlete in Buffalo to actually live in the city?

 

The latter point is a classic Straw Man. I don't think anyone proposes "overspending on the wrong player."

I think you need to draw a strong distinction between players < 25 and not named Crosby and older players who are more established. Younger players will take the money and run. If someone is giving me seven figures to play hockey, I'll live anywhere to start. Once you get negotiating leverage, location is a factor. Price still dominates, but other factors occasionally trump it. For proof, see Hossa.

[apuszczalowski]

Exactly.

 

If you are Chris Drury last July 1, you have two choices. Money is the same. You can go play in NEW YORK CITY for your childhood team and live out your dream, or you can stay in Buffalo. Not bashing Buffalo, or saying that hockey players don't want to live here, but it doesn't stack up to one of the most populated and popular cities in North America.

 

If you are Campbell, you can take a nice 6M now, and play for the team you love. But he was money hungry (and who wouldn't be? Who wouldn't wait for 3 months for another 1M+ on your current raise?) He ends up going to Chicago, another great city, that Buffalo doesn't match up with.

 

So it's not like they're saying, "Oh, Buffalo sucks!" or "This team is awful!" Hell, Campbell was basically in tears when he got traded to SAN JOSE (not a bad place to live). But when those kinds of teams in those kinds of cities are involved, can you really blame them?

Maybe you might call it money hungry, most would call it looking for job security. Money was never the issue in his negotiations here, he even said that, it was the years being offered, he wanted to stay in Buffalo, the Sabres didn't want to commit long term. I find it funny sometimes how people will go on about players not taking a "hometown discount" or showing commitment to the area/team and yet they will rag on a player who does but ends up leaving because of it. Campbell wanted a long term deal, to play for the team that took a chance and developed him, they however, for whatever reason did not want to take that long term chance on him and dealt him. Briere was the same thing, he was looking at a long term deal, buffalo didn't want the long term deal so he was allowed to walk, but yet everyone says he is greedy and all about the money because another team threw a ton of money at him (and he didn't even accept the biggest offer made to him)

[BetweenThePipes00]

Maybe you might call it money hungry, most would call it looking for job security. Money was never the issue in his negotiations here, he even said that, it was the years being offered, he wanted to stay in Buffalo, the Sabres didn't want to commit long term. I find it funny sometimes how people will go on about players not taking a "hometown discount" or showing commitment to the area/team and yet they will rag on a player who does but ends up leaving because of it. Campbell wanted a long term deal, to play for the team that took a chance and developed him, they however, for whatever reason did not want to take that long term chance on him and dealt him. Briere was the same thing, he was looking at a long term deal, buffalo didn't want the long term deal so he was allowed to walk, but yet everyone says he is greedy and all about the money because another team threw a ton of money at him (and he didn't even accept the biggest offer made to him)

You'll have to find me that post because the people on this board seem split between the Sabres stupidly not giving him the 25-for-5 or simply deciding to pass on making an effort to keep him. They did not even make him an offer after the season ended, unlike Drury ... I'm sure some people said that about HIM when he chose to sign with the Rangers ... but for Briere I don't remember that much hate ... maybe they said he was not worth it, but they didn't call him greedy ... there is a difference.

As for Campbell, he wanted a long-term deal at the top of his market value ... and then that value went even higher than he imagined. He wanted his cake and to eat it too from the Sabres, but he could not have envisioned the deal he ended up with. I still believe there were external pressures applied to him, be it by family, a sense of obligation to the NHLPA or just his agent, because he did not enjoy that process at all. I don't think he is a greedy guy, he just went past the point of no return in negotiations and could not go back without looking like he backed down. And given the Sabres situation, he probably figured they would blink first after what happened last summer. Unless he got injured, he was in a no-lose situation really. The Sabres never blinked, but he still got what he wanted ... most of it anyway, if we assume he wanted to stay.

[rbochan]

...it was the years being offered, he wanted to stay in Buffalo, the Sabres didn't want to commit long term...

Do they ever? I can't recall a recent contract, other than Vanek, that's been more than 3 years. Perhaps the FO wants more out of their prospects, who are inexpensive, than they do out of their vets, who are not as inexpensive. When's the last time the FO signed a real player for long term?