haseoke Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 ELEVEN blocked shots for MCKee tonight.....I've been mad since february or so that we weren't going to sign him until the free agency period, but is there ANY QUESTION, as the longest tenured Sabre, the only guy who's been here since Ruff, as our most punishing defensemen, that he is the heart of blue collar buffalo hockey. i admit we've evolved away from his playing style this season, but if we lose McKee, i won't be able to stand it. ELEVEN blocked shots. Somebody keep this boy where he belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 you know, its a good thing that the sabres are $10 million under the cap at the moment. The sabres are actually in a position to offer a contract mckee cannot refuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haseoke Posted April 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 lets think about this though -- who on the sabres roster ISN'T due for a raise after this season??? i mean, i was stoked thinking about the people we could sign this summer with our cap room, but i think that cap room will disappear if we just resign all our own players. and frankly, i think that's the best idea, because we're a young team, and if we can keep vanek, afinogenov, roy, pominville etc right here, we could become even better in the future. j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 Regeir is a moron with his "we don't discuss contracts during the season" b.s. Explain to me why that is? Because that requires work from an otherwise lathargic, extremely lazy front office? Re-sign this guy now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frisky Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 I hope that we are able to keep McKee. I was bummed when they didn't sign him before the season to an extension. I remember that the reasoning was that they didn't know how he would adjust to the new NHL and wanted to wait and see. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised to see us lose him in free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 I hope that we are able to keep McKee. I was bummed when they didn't sign him before the season to an extension. I remember that the reasoning was that they didn't know how he would adjust to the new NHL and wanted to wait and see. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised to see us lose him in free agency. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he can still be signed after the season ends and free agency begins right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 you know, its a good thing that the sabres are $10 million under the cap at the moment. The sabres are actually in a position to offer a contract mckee cannot refuse. But WILL they? Cap or no cap, this is still a penny pinching team, they way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haseoke Posted April 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 yknow, on that note, i was just reading the article in the niagara gazette about golisano, and it said one of the first big changes he insisted on the organization adopting was paying market value for their players. so this free agency period is a first in a way. We'll see. But after some of the ludicrously big contracts (in terms of the cap) offered last summer, I would be surprised if many teams in the league can afford to offer McKee big money. Remember how we were squawking that the Sabres didnt make a splash in the free agent market, and everyone was commenting that it was because plenty of other clubs spent outside their means in terms of what theyd be able to afford year after year under the new cap? This was supposed to be the summer that came back to bite the rest of the league. j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 But WILL they? Cap or no cap, this is still a penny pinching team, they way I see it. "penny pinching"? After 50 wins and 24 road wins? Maybe 'penny wise' may be a better fit. McKee has had a solid season. But it is a contract year and hundreds of players have had great seasons in contract years. His age and his asking price will go a long way to determine his value to the club. As far as working on contracts during the season. That seems like a pretty good idea. So many teams get cought up in a player having a good season and start tossing around dollars. I have no problem with the Sabres wanting to take a step back and assess a players value apart from the excitement of a season. The Sabres are $10 million under the cap and that's where they would like to stay. They are in the early stages of building a solid NHL Franchise. They can't let this season get the best of them and get away from the plan which at this point has worked perfectly. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 Ah yes, THE PLAN! As I recall, the plan according to Larry Quinn, shortly after he was resurrected, was to win the Cup within three years. And the plan, according to Golisano, was to increase spending on players once revenues picked up. So we'll see where they go after this season. At this moment... who cares? Good point Kristian. They are under the cap, and they're probably not coming up for air. The better point is why would McKee sign a contract now instead of testing the waters? The Sabres had their chance to sign him. As Rob Ray said last night with a smirk, "Good for you Jay." Cheese just hit another jackpot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 Regeir is a moron with his "we don't discuss contracts during the season" b.s. Explain to me why that is? Because that requires work from an otherwise lathargic, extremely lazy front office? Re-sign this guy now! There's pros and cons to in-season negotiation. The pros are: once they're done you have a happy player and you've had an opportunity to negotiate while you had exclusive rights to the player. The cons are: they are a big distraction for the player (and management as well) and you are going to have an UNhappy player while the negotiations are on-going. You additionally could be distracting other players as they are concerned with how the negotiations are going from both a quality of team that gets iced standpoint and a how much money will I get when my contract comes due standpoint. The Stanley Cup playoffs won't go past June 19 and free agency doesn't begin until July 1. The Sabres will have at least 11 days to negotiate with Jay (and Teppo and Mike and Rory) before other teams can bid for his (their) services. While I would like to have seen Jay get extended during the season, I don't think it could have been done without paying more than the Sabres would have to pay in that interim period after the season. There is only 1 incentive to McKee to sign an extension before the season ends: injury insurance. Except for the Mario concussion, he has been extremely healthy (for a shot blocking defenseman) throughout his career. What other incentive is there to McKee to do the deal during the season rather than after the season is over? I can't think of any, so I can't think of any ways the Sabres wouldn't have had to overpay for his services to get him to sign during the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock DJ Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 The cons are: they are a big distraction for the player (and management as well) and you are going to have an UNhappy player while the negotiations are on-going. You additionally could be distracting other players as they are concerned with how the negotiations are going from both a quality of team that gets iced standpoint and a how much money will I get when my contract comes due standpoint. You would only have an unhappy player if the offer is a joke. McKee likes it here. Give him a reasonable offer, and whether he signs or not, you've at least shown you're willing. Not only does that make McKee happy, it shows the rest of the team you're willing to do what it takes to keep this team together. A reasonable offer has no downside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 You would only have an unhappy player if the offer is a joke. McKee likes it here. Give him a reasonable offer, and whether he signs or not, you've at least shown you're willing. Not only does that make McKee happy, it shows the rest of the team you're willing to do what it takes to keep this team together. A reasonable offer has no downside. Even a reasonable starting offer is going to be less than what McKee wants and will end up with. McKee's agent's 1st number is going to be high as well. Darcy is a tough negotiator, and I believe that a reasonable starting offer will still be looked at unfavorably. Remember, under the criminals negotiations with Darcy were extremely difficult. Jay's negotiations with Darcy did not go well this past off-season either. The only "reasonable" initial offers that I would expect Jay wouldn't be unhappy with would be too high for what Jay is worth. Also, you state that he will be happy whether he signs or not? I don't follow how that can occur. He wants to be a Sabre, if he doesn't sign, it will necessarily be stressful and I would expect it to cause him to be unhappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAAAUGHT!!! Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 I understand why they didn't want to negotiate with McKee before or during the season. There was a lot of changes to the game in the off season and I don't think anyone was quite sure how a defensive defensmen whose game was based on toughness would be fair. McKee isn't the quickest guy (unless your comparing him to Numminem), and he also had some serious knee problems that kept him out of a lot of games last season. But now Jay has shown that even with the new rules, you can still play a rugged game. His skills and defensive awareness are the best I've ever seen them and any team would love to have him. Every shot he has blocked could be a shot on net so his value to me is sky high. Plus he seems like a genuinely nice guy, which the fans in Buffalo appreciate. After watching him this season I would have a hard time finding a reason not to sign him back, especially when his skills are much needed with the blueline corp we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 I understand why they didn't want to negotiate with McKee before or during the season. There was a lot of changes to the game in the off season and I don't think anyone was quite sure how a defensive defensmen whose game was based on toughness would be fair. McKee isn't the quickest guy (unless your comparing him to Numminem), and he also had some serious knee problems that kept him out of a lot of games last season. But now Jay has shown that even with the new rules, you can still play a rugged game. His skills and defensive awareness are the best I've ever seen them and any team would love to have him. Every shot he has blocked could be a shot on net so his value to me is sky high. Plus he seems like a genuinely nice guy, which the fans in Buffalo appreciate. After watching him this season I would have a hard time finding a reason not to sign him back, especially when his skills are much needed with the blueline corp we have. I absolutely agree with you that Jay can play very well in the "new NHL" and want to see him signed this off-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.