That Aud Smell Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Follow what? the first thing to go (hearing). the implication being: you're so old that lots of things have gone. ha. this is a joke that i have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 the first thing to go (hearing). the implication being: you're so old that lots of things have gone. ha. this is a joke that i have made. Ah, yes. I'm pretty sure Number 4 is a functioning power play. Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Ah, yes. I'm pretty sure Number 4 is a functioning power play. Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. So PA, does the new Avatar denoting 5 minutes to midnight have an analogy type definition to it with regards to Regier and Ruff being on the last year of thier respective contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 So PA, does the new Avatar denoting 5 minutes to midnight have an analogy type definition to it with regards to Regier and Ruff being on the last year of thier respective contracts? Nah, just him and Eleven having avatar sex. :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 So PA, does the new Avatar denoting 5 minutes to midnight have an analogy type definition to it with regards to Regier and Ruff being on the last year of thier respective contracts? I can only hope. I wonder how the negotiation between LQ and Lindy is going, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Nah, just him and Eleven having avatar sex. :w00t: It's hammer time! No, sadly, Eleven doesn't love me anymore. I knew I risked pushing him away with my possessiveness and nagging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 All right then. They say the hearing is the first thing to go. If only they would develop a pill for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 I can only hope. I wonder how the negotiation between LQ and Lindy is going, anyway. Wouldn't surprise me if the sticking point in those negotiations were on the lifetime coaching offer. Lindy may want to retire at some point and Larry won't let him. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Interesting tid bit from Bucky's chat on the News site: I spoke with various, um, people inside hockey for their opinion because I didn't understand the decision. In that situation, I will often call people to see if they can explain something that I'm missing or not seeing. In the course of those conversations, I found that people were dumfounded. In one case, I spoke to a person who told me that several GMs were shaking their heads. I made a few calls and found that to be the case. I was looking for answers, not for people to bash the Sabres and found no answers and people wondering what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Interesting tid bit from Bucky's chat on the News site: I spoke with various, um, people inside hockey for their opinion because I didn't understand the decision. In that situation, I will often call people to see if they can explain something that I'm missing or not seeing. In the course of those conversations, I found that people were dumfounded. In one case, I spoke to a person who told me that several GMs were shaking their heads. I made a few calls and found that to be the case. I was looking for answers, not for people to bash the Sabres and found no answers and people wondering what they were doing. I know I'll get bashed, but it looks more and more like Darcy is incompetent. Or is he really that clever that he's going to actually do something to better the team? But then again, it was Bucky, so, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Interesting tid bit from Bucky's chat on the News site: I spoke with various, um, people inside hockey for their opinion because I didn't understand the decision. In that situation, I will often call people to see if they can explain something that I'm missing or not seeing. In the course of those conversations, I found that people were dumfounded. In one case, I spoke to a person who told me that several GMs were shaking their heads. I made a few calls and found that to be the case. I was looking for answers, not for people to bash the Sabres and found no answers and people wondering what they were doing. If so many were "shaking their heads" at the move, why didn't they put a claim in for Kennedy at a discounted rate? I'm dumfounded, myself, over all the uproar about the situation... I'm not a fan of Darcy Regier, and I agree that his mistakes in the pasts (overpaying Stafford, Pommer, etc) probably contributed to his handling of Kennedy -- but honestly, if faced with this situation, what else is there for him to do? Keep 15 forwards on the roster and wait for somebody to get hurt before getting Ennis a roster spot? I like our third and fourth lines (Hecht - Niedermayer - Grier, McCormick - Gaustad - Kaleta) a lot better without Kennedy there, and obviously he wasn't going to fit into the top six. "Move Stafford instead!" Well, it's not that simple. If nobody was interested in Kennedy for $1 mil or less, what makes you think Stafford would get any interest? "Package Stafford with Connolly, somebody would take him!" If that's your plan to move Stafford, don't expect to get a player of Connolly's ilk (which isn't too impressive to some of you) in return -- are you expecting Kennedy to fill Connolly's spot? Look, Darcy doesn't have a great track record, but this move makes tons of sense and I can't wrap my head around how nobody else can see or understand this. We had too many forwards with Niedermayer signed and Ennis virtually a lock for the roster -- Kennedy's arbitration award allows us to buy out the cheapest contract we have to create a roster spot, then sign a defenseman to fill that roster spot (while also addressing a glaring need for an experienced NHL defenseman). It wasn't "penny pinching." It wasn't "sending a message." It was a business move, and it helped the team out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 The reason that 29 other teams passed on him is alot of these teams have cap problems of their own and are either over the cap already or are up against it. Also there are an over abundance of these 3rd or 4th line type players in the league that can be had for less then what the sabres would have had to pay him. He was a promising player but he can be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Interesting tid bit from Bucky's chat on the News site: I spoke with various, um, people inside hockey for their opinion because I didn't understand the decision. In that situation, I will often call people to see if they can explain something that I'm missing or not seeing. In the course of those conversations, I found that people were dumfounded. In one case, I spoke to a person who told me that several GMs were shaking their heads. I made a few calls and found that to be the case. I was looking for answers, not for people to bash the Sabres and found no answers and people wondering what they were doing. I believe it. It is quite possible, though, that those GMs didn't have all of the facts underlying DR's decision and just gave their snap judgments, since they knew they weren't going to be quoted. It's also possible that some GMs have axes to grind with DR. If so many were "shaking their heads" at the move, why didn't they put a claim in for Kennedy at a discounted rate? I'm dumfounded, myself, over all the uproar about the situation... I'm not a fan of Darcy Regier, and I agree that his mistakes in the pasts (overpaying Stafford, Pommer, etc) probably contributed to his handling of Kennedy -- but honestly, if faced with this situation, what else is there for him to do? Keep 15 forwards on the roster and wait for somebody to get hurt before getting Ennis a roster spot? I like our third and fourth lines (Hecht - Niedermayer - Grier, McCormick - Gaustad - Kaleta) a lot better without Kennedy there, and obviously he wasn't going to fit into the top six. "Move Stafford instead!" Well, it's not that simple. If nobody was interested in Kennedy for $1 mil or less, what makes you think Stafford would get any interest? "Package Stafford with Connolly, somebody would take him!" If that's your plan to move Stafford, don't expect to get a player of Connolly's ilk (which isn't too impressive to some of you) in return -- are you expecting Kennedy to fill Connolly's spot? Look, Darcy doesn't have a great track record, but this move makes tons of sense and I can't wrap my head around how nobody else can see or understand this. We had too many forwards with Niedermayer signed and Ennis virtually a lock for the roster -- Kennedy's arbitration award allows us to buy out the cheapest contract we have to create a roster spot, then sign a defenseman to fill that roster spot (while also addressing a glaring need for an experienced NHL defenseman). It wasn't "penny pinching." It wasn't "sending a message." It was a business move, and it helped the team out. Couldn't they just have healthy-scratched McCormick and sent down Gerbe? Roy-Vanek-Stafford TC-Pommer-Ennis Niedermayer-Hecht-Grier Gaustad-Kaleta-Kennedy If they thought Kennedy was worth keeping, wouldn't it have been easy to do this? It seems like they decided they'd rather have Gerbe and Morrisonn on the NHL roster this year than Kennedy and Weber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Couldn't they just have healthy-scratched McCormick and sent down Gerbe? Roy-Vanek-Stafford TC-Pommer-Ennis Niedermayer-Hecht-Grier Gaustad-Kaleta-Kennedy If they thought Kennedy was worth keeping, wouldn't it have been easy to do this? It seems like they decided they'd rather have Gerbe and Morrisonn on the NHL roster this year than Kennedy and Weber. They signed McCormick for the bigger body and physical play. I wouldn't sit him for Kennedy. As for Gerbe, I don't think he's going to make the big team either way... Weber is up for debate, he has a lot to prove in camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbochan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Interesting tid bit from Bucky's chat on the News site: I spoke with various, um, people inside hockey for their opinion because I didn't understand the decision. In that situation, I will often call people to see if they can explain something that I'm missing or not seeing. In the course of those conversations, I found that people were dumfounded. In one case, I spoke to a person who told me that several GMs were shaking their heads. I made a few calls and found that to be the case. I was looking for answers, not for people to bash the Sabres and found no answers and people wondering what they were doing. Bucky seems to forget Kaleta getting a contract in this whole mess, doesn't he? Or settling for a contract less than what Kennedy wanted. I guess Bucky isn't pals with Kaleta's dad so he doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Bucky seems to forget Kaleta getting a contract in this whole mess, doesn't he? Or settling for a contract less than what Kennedy wanted. I guess Bucky isn't pals with Kaleta's dad so he doesn't count. Speaking of being friends of dads.... It is my yearly reminder that Larry Quinn went to high school with Tim Connolly's dad and made it a point to brag about it before Connolly's concussion problems. Quinn was also the guy who jettisoned Pat LaFontaine out of town saying that the team does not take chances on a player when their health is involved, especially a series of serious head injuries. Connolly 65 points $4.5 million Kennedy 26 points $667,000 WAIVED Past 4 years Connolly 153 points $13.5 million $88K per point Kennedy 26 points $855,000 $32K per point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 I believe it. It is quite possible, though, that those GMs didn't have all of the facts underlying DR's decision and just gave their snap judgments, since they knew they weren't going to be quoted. It's also possible that some GMs have axes to grind with DR. Couldn't they just have healthy-scratched McCormick and sent down Gerbe? Roy-Vanek-Stafford TC-Pommer-Ennis Niedermayer-Hecht-Grier Gaustad-Kaleta-Kennedy If they thought Kennedy was worth keeping, wouldn't it have been easy to do this? It seems like they decided they'd rather have Gerbe and Morrisonn on the NHL roster this year than Kennedy and Weber. They could have done this, but then your 4th line isn't quite the energy line you're looking for. (I don't see Kennedy as a 4th liner - he's either a 3rd or 2nd liner.) My suspicion is that the Sabres saw the lineup this year either as you drew it up, or with Tim in the pressbox as the 13th forward who moves into a roster spot at the 1st injury (or Stafford showing that last year was no fluke, leading to roster juggling). At $800k (or whatever amount) they didn't have too big of a problem w/ it, but at $1MM they obviously do have a problem. I don't expect that the issue is the $200k this year; my guess is that the issue is what this scenario does to arbitration awards moving into the future. If a guy playing 50 or so games, scoring 12 goals (or playing 80 games on the 4th line scoring 7 goals) is worth $1MM; what is Ennis worth in arbitration? Gerbe? Kaleta? etc? I'm not saying the Sabres made the right decision. I'm just saying, there's more to the decision than simply Tom's cheap or LQ's a doo-doo head or Darcy's clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 I'm just saying, there's more to the decision than simply Tom's cheap or LQ's a doo-doo head or Darcy's clueless. thanks for that. the world is a complicated place, y'all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 They could have done this, but then your 4th line isn't quite the energy line you're looking for. (I don't see Kennedy as a 4th liner - he's either a 3rd or 2nd liner.) My suspicion is that the Sabres saw the lineup this year either as you drew it up, or with Tim in the pressbox as the 13th forward who moves into a roster spot at the 1st injury (or Stafford showing that last year was no fluke, leading to roster juggling). At $800k (or whatever amount) they didn't have too big of a problem w/ it, but at $1MM they obviously do have a problem. I don't expect that the issue is the $200k this year; my guess is that the issue is what this scenario does to arbitration awards moving into the future. If a guy playing 50 or so games, scoring 12 goals (or playing 80 games on the 4th line scoring 7 goals) is worth $1MM; what is Ennis worth in arbitration? Gerbe? Kaleta? etc? I'm not saying the Sabres made the right decision. I'm just saying, there's more to the decision than simply Tom's cheap or LQ's a doo-doo head or Darcy's clueless. I don't understand how Darcy's decision will affect future arbitration awards. Maybe that's not exactly what you mean, and maybe I'm misreading the bolded line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 If so many were "shaking their heads" at the move, why didn't they put a claim in for Kennedy at a discounted rate? How would they get a discounted rate? They'd pay one million dollars. The Sabres are on the hook for a part of that. Teams that are interested can now negotiate with him, and pay less. Bucky scoffs at the idea the move was about a roster spot: They didn't need to make room for Ennis. The way they're handling the situation is carrying 22 players instead of 23. That's how they're saving the money, by keeping less players on the roster. As one GM told me the other day, "That's pathetic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 I don't understand how Darcy's decision will affect future arbitration awards. Maybe that's not exactly what you mean, and maybe I'm misreading the bolded line. Arbitration awards are based off comparables. If Kennedy were making $1MM playing on the 4th line or in the press box, what agent isn't going to use that as a point of reference? "Clearly my client, who scored 15 goals is worth AT LEAST $1.5, $2, $x(, $whatever he pulls out of the air) if a guy with only 2 NHL seasons under his belt that scored 10 goals 2 years ago and 7 this year is worth $1.1MM. And what arbitrator will rule against the player in that case? By keeping Kennedy around, the Sabres are saying that yes he is worth $1MM and by extrapolation that they'd be willing to pay that for comparable production. Again, I'm not saying the Sabres are right in what they did, but I wouldn't be surprised if that factored into the thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Arbitration awards are based off comparables. If Kennedy were making $1MM playing on the 4th line or in the press box, what agent isn't going to use that as a point of reference? "Clearly my client, who scored 15 goals is worth AT LEAST $1.5, $2, $x(, $whatever he pulls out of the air) if a guy with only 2 NHL seasons under his belt that scored 10 goals 2 years ago and 7 this year is worth $1.1MM. And what arbitrator will rule against the player in that case? By keeping Kennedy around, the Sabres are saying that yes he is worth $1MM and by extrapolation that they'd be willing to pay that for comparable production. Again, I'm not saying the Sabres are right in what they did, but I wouldn't be surprised if that factored into the thinking. Will (or can) the arbritator's award be used in future hearings as a comparable? The Sabres may be saying he's not worth 1 million, but the arbitrator already did. I guess I don't see how the Sabres' stance will play into future awards for whatever Sabre. Anyway, Kennedy could still very well be paid that amount to play somewhere in the NHL this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 They signed McCormick for the bigger body and physical play. I wouldn't sit him for Kennedy. As for Gerbe, I don't think he's going to make the big team either way... Weber is up for debate, he has a lot to prove in camp. I agree that this is McCormick's role, but I also think that he will be healthy-scratched more than any other forward this year. It's just not much of a loss having him in the press box. They could have done this, but then your 4th line isn't quite the energy line you're looking for. (I don't see Kennedy as a 4th liner - he's either a 3rd or 2nd liner.) My suspicion is that the Sabres saw the lineup this year either as you drew it up, or with Tim in the pressbox as the 13th forward who moves into a roster spot at the 1st injury (or Stafford showing that last year was no fluke, leading to roster juggling). At $800k (or whatever amount) they didn't have too big of a problem w/ it, but at $1MM they obviously do have a problem. I don't expect that the issue is the $200k this year; my guess is that the issue is what this scenario does to arbitration awards moving into the future. If a guy playing 50 or so games, scoring 12 goals (or playing 80 games on the 4th line scoring 7 goals) is worth $1MM; what is Ennis worth in arbitration? Gerbe? Kaleta? etc? I'm not saying the Sabres made the right decision. I'm just saying, there's more to the decision than simply Tom's cheap or LQ's a doo-doo head or Darcy's clueless. I generally agree, although I think the Sabres wanted to be able to have Kennedy on a 2-way deal so they could send him down if/when he wasn't dressing and save the $700K or so (i.e. so the spread wasn't really $800K vs $1MM; it was $100K vs $1MM). Then when they realized they could save $700K by doing the buyout and pick up Morrisonn for $1.3MM in "new money," they liked that lineup better. Bucky scoffs at the idea the move was about a roster spot: They didn't need to make room for Ennis. The way they're handling the situation is carrying 22 players instead of 23. That's how they're saving the money, by keeping less players on the roster. As one GM told me the other day, "That's pathetic." why is it pathetic? 22 players is still 2 healthy scratches per game. There are quite a few teams that carry less than 23 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntjacks79 Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 If so many were "shaking their heads" at the move, why didn't they put a claim in for Kennedy at a discounted rate? I'm dumfounded, myself, over all the uproar about the situation... I'm not a fan of Darcy Regier, and I agree that his mistakes in the pasts (overpaying Stafford, Pommer, etc) probably contributed to his handling of Kennedy -- but honestly, if faced with this situation, what else is there for him to do? Keep 15 forwards on the roster and wait for somebody to get hurt before getting Ennis a roster spot? I like our third and fourth lines (Hecht - Niedermayer - Grier, McCormick - Gaustad - Kaleta) a lot better without Kennedy there, and obviously he wasn't going to fit into the top six. "Move Stafford instead!" Well, it's not that simple. If nobody was interested in Kennedy for $1 mil or less, what makes you think Stafford would get any interest? "Package Stafford with Connolly, somebody would take him!" If that's your plan to move Stafford, don't expect to get a player of Connolly's ilk (which isn't too impressive to some of you) in return -- are you expecting Kennedy to fill Connolly's spot? Look, Darcy doesn't have a great track record, but this move makes tons of sense and I can't wrap my head around how nobody else can see or understand this. We had too many forwards with Niedermayer signed and Ennis virtually a lock for the roster -- Kennedy's arbitration award allows us to buy out the cheapest contract we have to create a roster spot, then sign a defenseman to fill that roster spot (while also addressing a glaring need for an experienced NHL defenseman). It wasn't "penny pinching." It wasn't "sending a message." It was a business move, and it helped the team out. From an "uproar perspective", it simply comes down to not overpaying MANY players who consistently underperform and exhibit lack of effort and do paying players who are either the opposite of this or have the CHANCE to become that. That's it. I know you don't see it, because you keep posting the "I just don't get why you all are so upset" point of view, but I felt the need to take one last chance to explain it to you. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Will (or can) the arbritator's award be used in future hearings as a comparable? The Sabres may be saying he's not worth 1 million, but the arbitrator already did. I guess I don't see how the Sabres' stance will play into future awards for whatever Sabre. There is a very long list in the CBA about what can or cannot be presented in an arbitration hearing. I don't remember off hand, but I'm guessing that teams' responses to previous arbitration awards are not admissible, but that awards themselves are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.