Kennedy Placed on Waivers (old Arbitration thread)

[rbochan]

I would guess some things were said in arbitration that Regier didn't like.

Indeed. Specifically, "1-way deal".

[static70]

Indeed. Specifically, "1-way deal".

:worthy:

 

My thoughts exactly.

[PASabreFan]

And that was the root action of the debacle. Bettman and the rest of his cabal were extremely concerned about the possibility of having to call a potential game winning (or worse potential series winning) goal back. They didn't want to do it, thought it would make the league look bad. As soon as that gate was opened, there was no way the league would resume play. And I will go to my grave knowing that by not finishing the game, the league not just looked worse than it would have looked by finishing the game, it was worse. They could have manned up and done the right thing, but chose to do the expedient thing.

 

It's my understanding that the Zamboni gates were opened at the league's bidding, but I don't know that for fact.

 

And as an aside, my wife asked me why Gregson and McCreary were standing by the scorer's booth. "Was there something wrong w/ the goal?" I thought that they were just standing there trying to stay out of the way of the crowd. Turns out, they were waiting for info regarding whether Hull was in the crease; info they never received. And yes, it turns out there was something horribly wrong with "the goal."

 

So was the decision to "give 'em the goal" (shades of New England?) made the instant the goal was scored, or was this decision made before the series, before the game, before overtime, before the third overtime, when? And I take it that by "game-winning" you mean to suggest the same goal at the other end also would have counted? Was any bad goal going to be allowed -- kicked in, through the side of the net, thrown in, not over the goal line -- or just one relating to the crease rule?

 

It would have been almost impossible to hatch this scheme at the moment the goal was scored, since the gates were opened so quickly -- certainly less than a minute after the goal. And the dude in the suit was out there in 25 seconds (and it had to be less, because he had to get to the corner from wherever he entered the ice).

 

I think this would make a great Oliver Stone movie. I can see Taro as that New Orleans D.A. "Dom's groin goes back, and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left." :nana:

[SabresneedaCup]

So was the decision to "give 'em the goal" (shades of New England?) made the instant the goal was scored, or was this decision made before the series, before the game, before overtime, before the third overtime, when? And I take it that by "game-winning" you mean to suggest the same goal at the other end also would have counted? Was any bad goal going to be allowed -- kicked in, through the side of the net, thrown in, not over the goal line -- or just one relating to the crease rule?

 

It would have been almost impossible to hatch this scheme at the moment the goal was scored, since the gates were opened so quickly -- certainly less than a minute after the goal. And the dude in the suit was out there in 25 seconds (and it had to be less, because he had to get to the corner from wherever he entered the ice).

 

I think this would make a great Oliver Stone movie. I can see Taro as that New Orleans D.A. "Dom's groin goes back, and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left." :nana:

platoon.

[Taro T]

So was the decision to "give 'em the goal" (shades of New England?) made the instant the goal was scored, or was this decision made before the series, before the game, before overtime, before the third overtime, when? And I take it that by "game-winning" you mean to suggest the same goal at the other end also would have counted? Was any bad goal going to be allowed -- kicked in, through the side of the net, thrown in, not over the goal line -- or just one relating to the crease rule?

 

It would have been almost impossible to hatch this scheme at the moment the goal was scored, since the gates were opened so quickly -- certainly less than a minute after the goal. And the dude in the suit was out there in 25 seconds (and it had to be less, because he had to get to the corner from wherever he entered the ice).

 

I think this would make a great Oliver Stone movie. I can see Taro as that New Orleans D.A. "Dom's groin goes back, and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left." :nana:

Did NOT mean to imply that they had planned to give the series to Dallas. Just stating that there were reports out prior to the playoffs that the league was afraid that they might have to call back an apparent game winning goal. The reason they were afraid of this scenario was they knew the ESPN's and HNIC's would be all over them for it. And they rightly should have been, the rule was painfully stupid. (That being stated, since it was a rule, it should have been enforced.)

 

What they got was far worse than what they'd imagined. They screwed up a series winning OT goal and ended up awarding the SC to the Stars.

 

Almost nobody in the rink (including Dom and the refs) knew whether Hull's foot was in the crease at the time of the goal. With Dom not throwing his normal "that goal doesn't count" hissy fit, the league saw no reason not to acquiesce to ESPN and let the camera crews and the kin and the like out onto the ice. ESPN desperately wanted the game to end - they don't run commercials during OT's. And that isn't saying that ESPN simply wanted the game decided and didn't care whether the result was legit. They did want a legitimate goal, but they definitely would have preferred it to come sooner rather than later.

 

Had the goal been scored in regulation, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been overturned. It might also have been overturned a couple of minutes into OT. But when the Zamboni doors opened, there was no way the guys running the show (& I don't mean ESPN) were about to go back and clear everyone off the ice and finish the game. That would have looked worse, in their misguided opinions, than awarding a team the SC rather than having one WIN it. Which is why to this day, they maintain the LIE about Hull having control of the puck.

 

And the doors were opened extremely quickly after the goal was scored, I'd guess it was about 10 seconds; but the guy in the suit had to walk all of 10 feet on the ice to get to the celebration. Hull skated to the faceoff circle in front of the Zamboni doors.

[thesportsbuff]

Based on this logic the Sabres may as well "pass" when their turn in the draft comes up... because the player won't compete for the first/second line and they won't be able to afford to sign them until they can...

 

Possibly the dumbest post I've read in this thread yet, so I'm not even gonna bother with a "rebuttal."

[nfreeman]

So we're supposed to say "thank you, Sabres, for having bad contracts like every other team" and "it's not your fault that having bad contracts caused you to waive a player that might possibly be a difference-maker someday"?? If that's the case then let's just eliminate this thread and start one for when the "Hail Darcy, Hail Larry, Hail Lindy" celebration is going to be in downtown Buffalo...

No. We're supposed to stop pretending that having bad contracts that aggregate to an average to below-average amount of wasted cash is an unpardonable, idiotic situation that only happens in Buffalo and is beyond the pale of acceptable GM behavior and grounds for immediate termination.

 

I agree that the Pommer and Hecht contracts in particular are terrible. I also don't like losing Kennedy this way. I think it's a bad hockey decision and makes the Sabres look bad. It's hard to believe this wasn't a case of a line being drawn in the sand unnecessarily. But your theory about the huge dollars wasted on bad contracts being to blame for this and therefore DR is a bozo is too simple and you've really been flogging it to death.

 

Frankly, I kinda hate to admit this as a periodic Bucky basher, but he's got me half-convinced that this was LQ's doing. But it's kinda lame because he admits it's just a hunch.

[PASabreFan]

Almost nobody in the rink (including Dom and the refs) knew whether Hull's foot was in the crease at the time of the goal. With Dom not throwing his normal "that goal doesn't count" hissy fit, the league saw no reason not to acquiesce to ESPN and let the camera crews and the kin and the like out onto the ice. ESPN desperately wanted the game to end - they don't run commercials during OT's. And that isn't saying that ESPN simply wanted the game decided and didn't care whether the result was legit. They did want a legitimate goal, but they definitely would have preferred it to come sooner rather than later.

 

Acquiesce? At the moment the goal was scored, ESPN made some request to get onto the ice?

 

The problem with this whole conspiracy is that you have way too many things happening in a matter of literally seconds. It defies the imagination.

 

I've come to agree with you about the goal, but the rest, in the words of Roby, is a hound's breakfast.

 

As for ESPN wanting to the game to end so they could show commercials, they sure had a very, very lengthy postgame presentation that cost the network a lot of money. And they covered the controversy in depth, and quite bluntly, up to Brian Engblom's explanation of what Lewis said. Then Thorne backed off a bit. He had called the situation "terrible."

[PASabreFan]

Had the goal been scored in regulation, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been overturned. It might also have been overturned a couple of minutes into OT. But when the Zamboni doors opened, there was no way the guys running the show (& I don't mean ESPN) were about to go back and clear everyone off the ice and finish the game. That would have looked worse, in their misguided opinions, than awarding a team the SC rather than having one WIN it. Which is why to this day, they maintain the LIE about Hull having control of the puck.

The lie was always about possession though. At least that's how Lewis and the league framed the call after the game.

[ntjacks79]

No. We're supposed to stop pretending that having bad contracts that aggregate to an average to below-average amount of wasted cash is an unpardonable, idiotic situation that only happens in Buffalo and is beyond the pale of acceptable GM behavior and grounds for immediate termination.

 

I agree that the Pommer and Hecht contracts in particular are terrible. I also don't like losing Kennedy this way. I think it's a bad hockey decision and makes the Sabres look bad. It's hard to believe this wasn't a case of a line being drawn in the sand unnecessarily. But your theory about the huge dollars wasted on bad contracts being to blame for this and therefore DR is a bozo is too simple and you've really been flogging it to death.

 

Frankly, I kinda hate to admit this as a periodic Bucky basher, but he's got me half-convinced that this was LQ's doing. But it's kinda lame because he admits it's just a hunch.

Without checking the whole thread, either you're exaggerating what I said or I exaggerated what I meant. I don't know enough about the Sabres financial situation and structure to really comment on "huge dollars wasted". All I know is that the Sabres have indicated they have an internal budget, and it's clearly less than the Cap. Any team in that situation absolutely MUST do a far above average job drafting and developing young players. To me, the Kennedy situation illustrates the "Sabres don't know what they're doing" because you can't possibly have as a strategy to "compete for a Cup while spending below the Cap" and at the same time waive players whom fit the definition of the kind of player you need to make such a strategy work. That's all... but I will let it go. The point has been made, I personally think the Sabres have shown themselves to be fools, you and others don't. That's the way it is. I hope I'm wrong - particularly since I have so much invested in this team (emotionally and as a season ticket holder).

[Taro T]

Acquiesce? At the moment the goal was scored, ESPN made some request to get onto the ice?

 

The problem with this whole conspiracy is that you have way too many things happening in a matter of literally seconds. It defies the imagination.

 

I've come to agree with you about the goal, but the rest, in the words of Roby, is a hound's breakfast.

 

As for ESPN wanting to the game to end so they could show commercials, they sure had a very, very lengthy postgame presentation that cost the network a lot of money. And they covered the controversy in depth, and quite bluntly, up to Brian Engblom's explanation of what Lewis said. Then Thorne backed off a bit. He had called the situation "terrible."

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy to screw the Sabres. I am explicitly saying there WASN'T a conspiracy. But the series of events, and the motivations (and I am not using that term sinisterly, I expect you'll take it as such, but whatever) is what got us to the point that there were people walking on the ice. Once that happened, the league was NEVER going to let the game continue. There was no conspiracy to get the doors opened, but once they opened, that was it, literally - game over.

 

As for ESPN showing the ceremony, well no kidding they showed it. Showing a post game celebration for 20 or so minutes was planned to be a part of the broadcast of the last SCF game whether it occurred in Game 4, 5, 6, or 7. What wasn't planned for, was the game running an extra 1-1/2 or so hours. They had budgeted for the celebration, they were losing money on the OT's. They wanted to get on w/ the celebration (if that was how Game 6 was going to end), they'd have been just as happy (probably happier as Game 7's get higher ratings than Game 6's traditionally) to have the Sabres score and be back to SportsCenter w/in 2 minutes. I'm sure CBC wanted the game to end also. There was no conspiracy to get people onto the ice, but there certainly was pressure to get things rolling.

 

The lie was always about possession though. At least that's how Lewis and the league framed the call after the game.

BS.

 

It was never about posession. A player or team can possess the puck without controlling it. A player cannot control the puck without possessing it. Dallas (and in this particular case, Hull as well) never lost possession of the puck in the entire sequence. Hull DID lose control. But to use scenario #9 from the 'phantom' memo, (the one in which it's a good goal) Hull HAD to have maintained control. But he DIDN'T maintain control, and that is why scenario #10 was a closer fit, and oh, btw, under that scenario - NO GOAL. (And if we only go off the rule itself, not the memo's clarifications we also arrive at no goal. But the memo did exist, so we'll try to use it. It just doesn't fit where the league wanted to felt it had to go w/ this after the doors opened.) And honestly, I'm sure that if Bettman could go back in time, HE would have given a direct order to keep the friggin' doors closed until the process to determine a goal had been completed. Because there is no way a person puts himself through that much crud intentionally if he could help prevent it. Knowing the storm this created, I'm sure he'd want to have avoided it. (But this being the NHL, they still didn't have goal review fixed by the next playoffs. You remember that one, the one where they had to change their procedures/rules once again to make the VRJ actually review ALL apparent goals, including the ones that go through the side of the net. So I still wouldn't want to have money down that the league wouldn't have still screwed the pooch on this one.)

 

Possession was the ruse used to make it all appear plausible. If they could get people thinking possession and control are interchangeable, THEN scenario #9 fits the situation. Even though the league KNEW they were full of you-know-what.

 

If Lewis didn't think control factored in why were these his direct quotes in the post game press conference?

 

We determined that Hull played the puck, had possession of the puck and the goal was good. His foot was in first. Our immediate reaction was that it didn't matter. Our view was that he had control. Hull was in possession and control of the puck.

 

A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post, an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession. Therefore, Hull would be deemed to be in control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal, even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck.

 

Lewis knew damn well that control was required to have been maintained prior to Hull entering the crease in order for the goal to be legit. He also knew that Hull did not control the puck prior to entering the crease before shooting the puck into the net. That's why he kept claiming Hull DID have control and possession. Even though he CLEARLY did not have control in either sense of the term. He didn't have control in the sense that he couldn't propel the puck or alter it's movement after it deflected off his stick on the initial shot; and he didn't have control in the sense provided in the rule book in effect at that time. As you are well aware (but some of our home viewers that missed our last hashing out of this) the rule book currently would consider Hull to have gained control of the puck when it hit his skate but back in '99 you had to have the puck on your stick to initiate control.

 

And FTR, as mentioned above, Brett Hull never lost possession of the puck as no other player (other than Hasek in the course of making a save) made contact with the puck. Had Holzinger been able to throw a check, he could have gone Chris Neil on Hull's butt and it would have been legal. And we'd probably have been moving on to the 4th OT.

[SwampD]

Yep. Just another Sabres offseason. Instead of looking to the future, we're talking about how we failed in the past.

 

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

[deluca67]

Yep. Just another Sabres offseason. Instead of looking to the future, we're talking about how we failed in the past.

 

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

It wouldn't be the case if this front office gave fans something positive to talk about once in a while. Again this off-season is about the players lost and the lack of improvements.

[PASabreFan]

Hey Taro, here's a video for you. You can skip ahead to 9:30. If you're on blood pressure medicine, I'd take one before watching it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOh2MGOrmWI

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Hey Taro, here's a video for you. You can skip ahead to 9:30. If you're on blood pressure medicine, I'd take one before watching it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOh2MGOrmWI

 

 

Better yet, if anyone is on antipsychotic medication, please....don't take it for a few weeks.....then watch the video at 9:30....and I believe you can lawfully purchase a shotgun in NY state if I am not mistaken.

 

I hear Gary and Quinn like to meet up for the veal parm at Chef's on occasion!

[Taro T]

Hey Taro, here's a video for you. You can skip ahead to 9:30. If you're on blood pressure medicine, I'd take one before watching it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOh2MGOrmWI

Just proves that he either doesn't know the rules or will shamelessly lie through his teeth. Or both. Not sure which of the 1st 2 is worse.

 

He'll never change the story. But no matter how often a lie is repeated, it's still a lie.

 

Look, I don't hate Bettman. His backing of the Sabres back at the time of the criminals' demise is a major reason they're still in Buffalo. But, that doesn't change the fact that the Sabres should be lining up for a faceoff to see who's going to win Game 6.

[SwampD]

Just proves that he either doesn't know the rules or will shamelessly lie through his teeth. Or both. Not sure which of the 1st 2 is worse.

 

He'll never change the story. But no matter how often a lie is repeated, it's still a lie.

 

Look, I don't hate Bettman. His backing of the Sabres back at the time of the criminals' demise is a major reason they're still in Buffalo. But, that doesn't change the fact that the Sabres should be lining up for a faceoff to see who's going to win Game 6.

I've worked on shows with Bettmen. I've heard him talk off camera. He doesn't give a s#!t about hockey, it's just the product he manufactures. He certainly doesn't give a s#!t about the players, they are merely the tools used to get his product made. He serves only to make sure that the owners bottom line is protected.

[deluca67]

I've worked on shows with Bettmen. I've heard him talk off camera. He doesn't give a s#!t about hockey, it's just the product he manufactures. He certainly doesn't give a s#!t about the players, they are merely the tools used to get his product made. He serves only to make sure that the owners bottom line is protected.

Isn't that a good thing? If the owners are happy and making money it makes the league stronger.

[nfreeman]

Without checking the whole thread, either you're exaggerating what I said or I exaggerated what I meant. I don't know enough about the Sabres financial situation and structure to really comment on "huge dollars wasted". All I know is that the Sabres have indicated they have an internal budget, and it's clearly less than the Cap. Any team in that situation absolutely MUST do a far above average job drafting and developing young players. To me, the Kennedy situation illustrates the "Sabres don't know what they're doing" because you can't possibly have as a strategy to "compete for a Cup while spending below the Cap" and at the same time waive players whom fit the definition of the kind of player you need to make such a strategy work. That's all... but I will let it go. The point has been made, I personally think the Sabres have shown themselves to be fools, you and others don't. That's the way it is. I hope I'm wrong - particularly since I have so much invested in this team (emotionally and as a season ticket holder).

I appreciate your response and I actually think we're pretty close to agreeing on this. I can't get to the conclusion that they don't know what they're doing based on this, but I can get to this being a bad decision by them, which isn't too far from your position. And I agree that this makes them look bad, although I wouldn't get all the way to "fools." I also certainly respect your emotional and financial investment in the team.

 

 

Separately: here is a pretty good piece on this fiasco and DR generally from Die by the Blade.