Taro T Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 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. If the team walks away from an award, it isn't admissible because it wasn't signed by both parties. (Without 2 parties, no contract.) Because the Kennedy contract wasn't "walked away" from, it would count as a comparable. Because that contract never had any $'s paid out on it, I expect that no player would be stupid enough to bring it up. The Sabres (or other teams) could bring it up as an example of what a player ISN'T worth. (Most likely, that's true. I'm not sure where expired contracts signed post-lockout fit into the arbitration evidence matrix, so I won't say that it's definitively true.) Had Kennedy played out the contract, it would be a comparable for other players to bring up as would his inevitable $1.1MM qualifying offer. I don't expect that it would be as damning to other teams as it would be to the Sabres, but it would be very tough for the Sabres to say it shouldn't be a comparable. (But, somebody "comparable" to Kennedy makes $1MM, so the arbitrator saw something to base the decision on. Honestly, I'd have expected the award to be the $1.1MM that TW guessed.) Because the Sabres took a hit to both the IS and the BS (they lose $'s and a hockey asset) to say "Kennedy ain't worth no stinkin' $1MM," the contract won't be something that will show another player is worth Kennedy money. When a player agent says he wants TK money for his client, Darcy can now credibly retort back "I know Timmy Kennedy, and you sir, and Timmy Kennedy as well, are no Timmy Kennedy." Or something to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 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: If we're going to be pedantic about it, you might take one last chance to explain why you keep raising this issue in the face of the fact that every NHL team has bad contracts and the proposition that the Sabres have less "wasted money" than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 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. And the majority of the league carries 22 players on their roster. It leaves the flexibility for a late callup in case one or two guys come down with a short term injury that doesn't require going on the IR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 If we're going to be pedantic about it, you might take one last chance to explain why you keep raising this issue in the face of the fact that every NHL team has bad contracts and the proposition that the Sabres have less "wasted money" than most. Excellent point. I think this is a very overlooked fact. Also I give you triple word score for use of pedantic in the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHL Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Two comments. 1) For prospective Darren Helm is a better third and fourth line center and penaties killer and signed for less per year and about the same age. 2) Value is relative. I liked Kennedy at entry level. But would anybody be happy with his same performance for a second year. I mean if he put up the same numbers and not better numbers. I would have liked to think he would have put up better numbers but that is only based on my hopes. If he is playing 4th line behind Ennis,Vanek, Hecht there is no way his numbers are getting better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Excellent point. I think this is a very overlooked fact. Also I give you triple word score for use of pedantic in the sentence. I like it.... OK, I admit I had to look up "pedantic". I will use it at Wegmans today when the girl asks me what I want on my sub. It will be fun looking at her for those 5 seconds where she internally mulls whether or not to call security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Jimbo chimes in. Brings it all back, of course, to that long-speculated impending sale. Dude still needs an editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 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: Roll your eyes all you want, you're the one (one of the many) trying to make this miniscule, irrelevant move into the next "Black Sunday" situation. It has nothing to do with overpaying anybody. Even if Stafford, Connolly, Roy, Gaustad, Niedermayer, Miller, and everybody else were signed for $1 mil a year, Kennedy is STILL the odd man out by virtue of being too small to fit into our third and fourth lines and not good enough to be in our Top 6. Basically all your argument is telling me is that you believe Kennedy belongs on the first or second line, which is just absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimiVbaby Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Jimbo chimes in. Brings it all back, of course, to that long-speculated impending sale. Dude still needs an editor. Someone mentioned this to me this morning and I have yet to find anything on it. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Someone mentioned this to me this morning and I have yet to find anything on it. Link? Oops, sorry. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jim_kelley/08/05/modano/index.html Scroll down a ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimiVbaby Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Oops, sorry. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jim_kelley/08/05/modano/index.html Scroll down a ways. Thanks. The way I heard it this morning was that he was on a radio station and was a little more 'matter of fact' about it than what reads in the link. A sale of the team would mean less LQ at least. Makes sense really when you think about it. LQ brings in Golisano to buy the team -> team makes money for Golisano -> LQ is given 'partial' ownership so that he can be paid out when Golisano exits... The less payroll the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Oops, sorry. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jim_kelley/08/05/modano/index.html Scroll down a ways. "the Sabres not only balked at paying an arbitrated $1 million for Kennedy's services next season, but told the hometown boy that they were not only rejecting the decision, but were also buying him out at a reported cost of $333,333.33." I like how he implies that rejecting the decision was an option. "He's young, but he showed promise in his first year and even got himself named to Team USA for the Olympics in Vancouver last winter." What line did he play on? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Roll your eyes all you want, you're the one (one of the many) trying to make this miniscule, irrelevant move into the next "Black Sunday" situation. It has nothing to do with overpaying anybody. Even if Stafford, Connolly, Roy, Gaustad, Niedermayer, Miller, and everybody else were signed for $1 mil a year, Kennedy is STILL the odd man out by virtue of being too small to fit into our third and fourth lines and not good enough to be in our Top 6. Basically all your argument is telling me is that you believe Kennedy belongs on the first or second line, which is just absurd. We have every right to be upset. If true then they have been lying to us. Period. The reasons they told why they let Kennedy go,... aren't. They say their goal is to win the Cup,... it isn't. Their moves have been based soley to sell the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 "the Sabres not only balked at paying an arbitrated $1 million for Kennedy's services next season, but told the hometown boy that they were not only rejecting the decision, but were also buying him out at a reported cost of $333,333.33." I like how he implies that rejecting the decision was an option. "He's young, but he showed promise in his first year and even got himself named to Team USA for the Olympics in Vancouver last winter." What line did he play on? :unsure: Like I said, he needs an editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHL Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Oops, sorry. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jim_kelley/08/05/modano/index.html Scroll down a ways. This writer sucks. But congratulations to Kennedy for joining the Olympic team and boo to Golisano for not showing up for waiving a player the day his Paychexs Ceo quits. (month not day) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 We have every right to be upset. If true then they have been lying to us. Period. The reasons they told why they let Kennedy go,... aren't. They say their goal is to win the Cup,... it isn't. Their moves have been based soley to sell the team. What do you mean by "the reasons they told why they let Kennedy go, aren't?" I listened to the Regier press conference. Everything he said about why they bought out Kennedy is true, and is exactly the message I've been trying to convey throughout this thread. The ONLY correlation between the Kennedy decision and his arbitration award is that his award gave Buffalo the option to buy him out. What is untrue about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Here is one from the way out in left field ideas: What is Darcy waived Kennedy as some sort of internal protest to Quinn & Golisano about the internal budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHL Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Here is one from the way out in left field ideas: What is Darcy waived Kennedy as some sort of internal protest to Quinn & Golisano about the internal budget? AT the same time he said the ownership is good maybe 5 times during the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 What do you mean by "the reasons they told why they let Kennedy go, aren't?" I listened to the Regier press conference. Everything he said about why they bought out Kennedy is true, and is exactly the message I've been trying to convey throughout this thread. The ONLY correlation between the Kennedy decision and his arbitration award is that his award gave Buffalo the option to buy him out. What is untrue about this? Do the math. Anyone they get to replace kennedy, of equal or better ability, is going to cost more than kennedy, once you add the penalty. How does that go hand in hand with a team that has money issues? It doesn't. But if the team is sold then that money will come from the new owners. This was a payroll ditch to increase the payout on the sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Do the math. Anyone they get to replace kennedy, of equal or better ability, is going to cost more than kennedy, once you add the penalty. How does that go hand in hand with a team that has money issues? It doesn't. But if the team is sold then that money will come from the new owners. This was a payroll ditch to increase the payout on the sale. ????????? Why would they get anyone to replace Kennedy? They got rid of him because we have too many forwards, not because they wanted to try and get somebody "better." What does this have to do with the organization "lying" to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 ????????? Why would they get anyone to replace Kennedy? They got rid of him because we have too many forwards, not because they wanted to try and get somebody "better." What does this have to do with the organization "lying" to us? Unless whenever the third line goes on the ice they only skate with a center and RW, someone will be replacing him. I'm still trying to figure out all this "too many D and forwards" talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Unless whenever the third line goes on the ice they only skate with a center and RW, someone will be replacing him. I'm still trying to figure out all this "too many D and forwards" talk. Hecht, Niedermayer, Grier will probably be the third line, if I had to guess. McCormick, Goose, Kaleta on the fourth. That leaves Roy, Vanek, Stafford, Connolly, Pominville, Ennis, Gerbe to battle it out for the top two lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Hecht, Niedermayer, Grier will probably be the third line, if I had to guess. McCormick, Goose, Kaleta on the fourth. That leaves Roy, Vanek, Stafford, Connolly, Pominville, Ennis, Gerbe to battle it out for the top two lines. Oh joy! That just made my day, another season of Smurfs :cry: I am hoping Darcy packages up some of these young D with a forward and gets a little size for this group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 7, 2010 Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 Do the math. Anyone they get to replace kennedy, of equal or better ability, is going to cost more than kennedy, once you add the penalty. How does that go hand in hand with a team that has money issues? It doesn't. But if the team is sold then that money will come from the new owners. This was a payroll ditch to increase the payout on the sale. That's not entirely true. They could find someone on a multiyear deal that would be cheaper. If they held on to Kennedy, they would have had to qualify him next year at an even higher rate and then he'd go back to arbitration and get an even bigger bump in pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 7, 2010 Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 649 replies, what's the final word here? Only time will tell who is right. If Kennedy turns into a very good NHL player, the decision is going to go down as one of the all time worst. No one will be able to say, "Yeah, he turned into a very good player, but the Sabres had no choice but to buy him out," because that will be as big a steaming pile of buffalo chips in the future as it is now. And I don't think anyone will be able to say his becoming a very good player came as a surprise, because the signs were there. If he's a flop or just so-so, the franchise is off the hook. The franchise would also be OK if it won the Cup this season. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.