PASabreFan Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 hopeles, well what do we know that all of these other teams don't? Do we have the secret recipe in a vault, along with the Colonel's? If winning was just a matter of keeping payroll low, telling your players to take a hike when they cost too much, replacing them with cheap rookies and never adding anything at the deadline because you don't want to upset "chemistry" -- everyone would be doing it! And, in the final analysis, the team that just stole the Cup from us did not follow that blueprint for success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 hopeles, well what do we know that all of these other teams don't? Do we have the secret recipe in a vault, along with the Colonel's? If winning was just a matter of keeping payroll low, telling your players to take a hike when they cost too much, replacing them with cheap rookies and never adding anything at the deadline because you don't want to upset "chemistry" -- everyone would be doing it! And, in the final analysis, the team that just stole the Cup from us did not follow that blueprint for success. All those other teams weren't the best team in hockey. Most of the teams spending big bucks are reacting to not making the playoffs and are trying to sell tickets. And again. The Canes won because of the injuries to the Sabres not anything they did at the deadline. Each team healthy and the Sabres win in at most five games. Even with all the injuries the Sabres were leading going into game seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 The question I have now the "pecking order" advocates is why Henrik Tallinder and his agent won't just point to McKee in St. Louis at 4 million and ask for... 4 million? And Henrik will deserve it! And maybe more. He's blossomed into a fine NHL defenseman and might be heading towards one of the better in the league. My guess is they throw some good money at him and try to lock him up for at least 4 years. Henrik will probably try for a shorter deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Like anyone of you would take a job with half the paycheck, he is doing what is best for him and his family, if the numbers were closer I think things could have been different, but they were not even close. Hear, hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 I guess you are missing the bigger picture here. McKee, Briere or whoever won't be repalced by one single player. If Briere leaves then players like Roy, Pominville, Pialle and Stafford will all have a role in replacing him. Briere missed a bunch of games this season and the Sabres still won 50+. That should tell you something. The Sabres play as a team. With McKee gone it doesn't fall on whoever the Sabres sign to fill his role. It goes to the defensive unit as a whole. Tallinder, Kalinin, Lydman, Campbel along with the rookies and free agents the Sabres bring to camp. All will fill any void you think McKee leaves. The same with Briere. You can't replace a 90 point scorer with "scoring by committee". I'm not expecting the Sabres to sign every one of there players who is heading for UFA status, but there are a few key guys who the checkbook needs to be opened for... Briere Lydman Tallinder Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 hopeles, well what do we know that all of these other teams don't? Do we have the secret recipe in a vault, along with the Colonel's? If winning was just a matter of keeping payroll low, telling your players to take a hike when they cost too much, replacing them with cheap rookies and never adding anything at the deadline because you don't want to upset "chemistry" -- everyone would be doing it! And, in the final analysis, the team that just stole the Cup from us did not follow that blueprint for success. Actually, the Canes did follow that blueprint. Their salary cap figure before the start of last season was very similar to the Sabres. Before they added Weight, their highest paid player was Brind'amour at $3.8 million. No other player made more than $3 million. Two players made than $2 million: Tverdovsky and Hedican. Their two rising stars, Staal and Cole, made about $2.3 million combined. When they added Weight, they added a $5 million dollar contract, and the Recchi trade added about 2.3 million to the payroll. Their bid offseason FA signing, Stillman, made less than $2 million a year. Like the Sabres, they also found success rolling four lines. Their low payroll helped them with that strategy, and gave them the flexiblity to replace Cole at the trade deadline. Now, however, they are starting to throw some big money at players. And while they've been able to sign their 'big names,' they did lose Cullen, a 25 goal scorer, to the Rangers, which could hurt their third line. You can't replace a 90 point scorer with "scoring by committee". I'm not expecting the Sabres to sign every one of there players who is heading for UFA status, but there are a few key guys who the checkbook needs to be opened for... Briere Lydman Tallinder Miller Well it's a good thing the Sabres don't have a 90 point scorer on the team then! :D Those four RFAs are most likely where the money will go, along with Afinogenov. That's why the team is sitting out the beginning of FA. I expect some ugly contract negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Some comments: I am happy Jay McKee is going to be playing outside the division, and furthermore I am happy for him. He is going to a place that believes he is worth 10% of the entire team, and a franchise type player. Will he make them immediately competitive? I don't think so. I am really surprised he was signed for that much money. I guess John Davidson really was pleased with his scouting while working for OLN. :rolleyes: Jay can probably expect a lot more ice time, and sadly will probably look pretty average for a few years until St. Louis gets forecheck the quality of Buffalo's. $4 Million per. Wow. I was wrong about the money. But I was right about him going to a non-contender. Good Luck, Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Well it's a good thing the Sabres don't have a 90 point scorer on the team then! :D Those four RFAs are most likely where the money will go, along with Afinogenov. That's why the team is sitting out the beginning of FA. I expect some ugly contract negotiations. I know Briere didn't have 90 points this past year, but he will be a consistent 90 point scorer on this team. There is no doubt in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Those four RFAs are most likely where the money will go, along with Afinogenov. That's why the team is sitting out the beginning of FA. I expect some ugly contract negotiations. I'll be very disappointed if the Sabres don't sign at least a couple of these players to 3 year contracts this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshjull Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 You can't replace a 90 point scorer with "scoring by committee". I'm not expecting the Sabres to sign every one of there players who is heading for UFA status, but there are a few key guys who the checkbook needs to be opened for... Briere Lydman Tallinder Miller Players who will be UFAs next offseason Briere Dumont Max Connolly Tallinder Lydman Kalinin? Darcy has a lot of decisions ahead of him this offseason. This summer will make or break Darcy's legacy IMO. The decisions he makes this summer will determine how long this particular team stays relatively intact. Despite some posters statements to the contrary, you can't just plug in rookies and expect to win consistantly. ps. Briere is over a point per game player 1.2 per to be precise. There isn't anyone on that level on the roster or coming up that could replace him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Players who will be UFAs next offseason Briere Dumont Max Connolly Tallinder Lydman Kalinin? Darcy has a lot of decisions ahead of him this offseason. This summer will make or break Darcy's legacy IMO. The decisions he makes this summer will determine how long this particular team stays relatively intact. Despite some posters statements to the contrary, you can't just plug in rookies and expect to win consistantly. No one is advocating plugging rookies into every spot. I know it may help your argument, but it's just not true. The point many of us are trying to make is that there are certain players on this team that they should go the extra mile to keep around (Briere, Miller, Tallinder, Lydman, Drury, etc.) but there are others who are good players, but not worth overpaying in the long run. hopeles, well what do we know that all of these other teams don't? Do we have the secret recipe in a vault, along with the Colonel's? If winning was just a matter of keeping payroll low, telling your players to take a hike when they cost too much, replacing them with cheap rookies and never adding anything at the deadline because you don't want to upset "chemistry" -- everyone would be doing it! And, in the final analysis, the team that just stole the Cup from us did not follow that blueprint for success. PA, I seem to remember all the teams that went crazy during the UFA period last year not having very much success. (Eg: Pittsburgh, Philly). We didn't add anything at the deadline because the right deal wasn't there. Are you seriously suggesting that we should have offered McKee $4 million a year? And correct me if I'm wrong, but your Canes didn't have a very high payroll for most of the year, and most of their dealing was to make up for the fact that one of their better players broke his neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Playfair Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/story/9536238 The Hurricanes on Saturday retained the eighth member of their 2005-06 team, re-signing defenseman Mike Commodore to a two-year, $2.5 million contract. This is a smart and reasonable signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshjull Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 No one is advocating plugging rookies into every spot. I know it may help your argument, but it's just not true. The point many of us are trying to make is that there are certain players on this team that they should go the extra mile to keep around (Briere, Miller, Tallinder, Lydman, Drury, etc.) but there are others who are good players, but not worth overpaying in the long run. My arguement? What is my arguement. I was just stateing we have alot of potential UFAs after next year and because of that Regier has a lot of decisions to make. My statement about rookies was in regards to Deluca thinking that we can lose Briere and the mythical "team" will just move along with other players picking up the slack. IMO that is delusional thinking. If only it was that easy. This is a very good team that is most likely losing two important players(McKee already and probably Grier), Maybe Teppo as well. We are still a good team but after this coming year if we lose more players of that caliber I think its blind faith to assume Regier will just wave a magic wand and all will be well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Players who will be UFAs next offseason Briere Dumont Max Connolly Tallinder Lydman Kalinin? Darcy has a lot of decisions ahead of him this offseason. This summer will make or break Darcy's legacy IMO. The decisions he makes this summer will determine how long this particular team stays relatively intact. Despite some posters statements to the contrary, you can't just plug in rookies and expect to win consistantly. ps. Briere is over a point per game player 1.2 per to be precise. There isn't anyone on that level on the roster or coming up that could replace him. Time to peel the onion a little. It's easy to sit back and criticize using generalities like "we need to open up the wallet" and "spend a few extra bucks" etc. You are holding Darcy accountable for signing/not signing this group of core players before they get to UFA status. How much, exactly, should we pay to keep them? In Briere's case, do you think we should give him a contract now for 4 years @ $6 million per year? 3 years at $5 million? 5 years at $7 million? At what point does it get too rich for your blood? And it's easy to say that Darcy should sign him now for 4 years at $5 million -- but this is almost certainly impossible. Danny is watching the feeding frenzy right now and is fully aware that if he has a big year this year someone is going to give him $25 million - $30 million guaranteed next year (ie $6+ million for at least 4 years and likely 5). As DaveB has been saying, any offer the Sabres would give a guy to keep him out of UFA status has to be a huge offer, when that guy knows he's going to get a huge contract as a UFA. So: how much, specifically, would you give Briere? Connolly? Tallinder? Max? And how much should our overall payroll be? Last year our payroll was about $30 million and we made about $4 million -- but only b/c we went deep into the playoffs and thus had the extra revenue. Do you think our payroll next year should be $33 million? $38 million? $42 million? How much of a locked-in loss do you think it's fair to expect TG to bear, so we as fans can enjoy having expensive players on our team? If you're going to judge Darcy, judge him based on the realities of his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Time to peel the onion a little. It's easy to sit back and criticize using generalities like "we need to open up the wallet" and "spend a few extra bucks" etc. You are holding Darcy accountable for signing/not signing this group of core players before they get to UFA status. How much, exactly, should we pay to keep them? In Briere's case, do you think we should give him a contract now for 4 years @ $6 million per year? 3 years at $5 million? 5 years at $7 million? At what point does it get too rich for your blood? And it's easy to say that Darcy should sign him now for 4 years at $5 million -- but this is almost certainly impossible. Danny is watching the feeding frenzy right now and is fully aware that if he has a big year this year someone is going to give him $25 million - $30 million guaranteed next year (ie $6+ million for at least 4 years and likely 5). As DaveB has been saying, any offer the Sabres would give a guy to keep him out of UFA status has to be a huge offer, when that guy knows he's going to get a huge contract as a UFA. So: how much, specifically, would you give Briere? Connolly? Tallinder? Max? And how much should our overall payroll be? Last year our payroll was about $30 million and we made about $4 million -- but only b/c we went deep into the playoffs and thus had the extra revenue. Do you think our payroll next year should be $33 million? $38 million? $42 million? How much of a locked-in loss do you think it's fair to expect TG to bear, so we as fans can enjoy having expensive players on our team? If you're going to judge Darcy, judge him based on the realities of his job. Isn't it easier to just point the finger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Time to peel the onion a little. It's easy to sit back and criticize using generalities like "we need to open up the wallet" and "spend a few extra bucks" etc. You are holding Darcy accountable for signing/not signing this group of core players before they get to UFA status. How much, exactly, should we pay to keep them? In Briere's case, do you think we should give him a contract now for 4 years @ $6 million per year? 3 years at $5 million? 5 years at $7 million? At what point does it get too rich for your blood? And it's easy to say that Darcy should sign him now for 4 years at $5 million -- but this is almost certainly impossible. Danny is watching the feeding frenzy right now and is fully aware that if he has a big year this year someone is going to give him $25 million - $30 million guaranteed next year (ie $6+ million for at least 4 years and likely 5). As DaveB has been saying, any offer the Sabres would give a guy to keep him out of UFA status has to be a huge offer, when that guy knows he's going to get a huge contract as a UFA. So: how much, specifically, would you give Briere? Connolly? Tallinder? Max? And how much should our overall payroll be? Last year our payroll was about $30 million and we made about $4 million -- but only b/c we went deep into the playoffs and thus had the extra revenue. Do you think our payroll next year should be $33 million? $38 million? $42 million? How much of a locked-in loss do you think it's fair to expect TG to bear, so we as fans can enjoy having expensive players on our team? If you're going to judge Darcy, judge him based on the realities of his job. So we're to accept the fact that every Sabre who has shown success as an RFA is going to be allowed to walk away? I'm not saying the Sabres have to sign every one of their players that is close to free agency, but I see no reason why we can't have two or three players(who are deemed franchise players) make more than our beloved captain. Darcy has a list of key players who are going to be hitting UFA status at the end of next season and if he is going to stick to his guns and not negotiate during the season, he has some work to do between now and the beginning of October. As far as how much of a loss should TG be expected to absorb...enough so that the Sabres are a contender every year. PS I don't believe that the Sabres made only 4 million last year and since they don't have to open their books to me, we will agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 So we're to accept the fact that every Sabre who has shown success as an RFA is going to be allowed to walk away? I'm not saying the Sabres have to sign every one of their players that is close to free agency, but I see no reason why we can't have two or three players(who are deemed franchise players) make more than our beloved captain. Darcy has a list of key players who are going to be hitting UFA status at the end of next season and if he is going to stick to his guns and not negotiate during the season, he has some work to do between now and the beginning of October. As far as how much of a loss should TG be expected to absorb...enough so that the Sabres are a contender every year. PS I don't believe that the Sabres made only 4 million last year and since they don't have to open their books to me, we will agree to disagree. No one is suggesting that they let everyone walk away. However we are suggesting if the going rate for that player is a lot higher than he is really worth, then he shouldn't be re signed. hopeles, well what do we know that all of these other teams don't? Do we have the secret recipe in a vault, along with the Colonel's? If winning was just a matter of keeping payroll low, telling your players to take a hike when they cost too much, replacing them with cheap rookies and never adding anything at the deadline because you don't want to upset "chemistry" -- everyone would be doing it! And, in the final analysis, the team that just stole the Cup from us did not follow that blueprint for success. Just another thought about your argument. The league is entering it's second year of a new financial landscape where the recipe for success is a lot different than it used to be. Seems to me that all 4 teams in the conference finals were not the really big spenders last off season...Take that for what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Time to peel the onion a little. It's easy to sit back and criticize using generalities like "we need to open up the wallet" and "spend a few extra bucks" etc. You are holding Darcy accountable for signing/not signing this group of core players before they get to UFA status. How much, exactly, should we pay to keep them? In Briere's case, do you think we should give him a contract now for 4 years @ $6 million per year? 3 years at $5 million? 5 years at $7 million? At what point does it get too rich for your blood? And it's easy to say that Darcy should sign him now for 4 years at $5 million -- but this is almost certainly impossible. Danny is watching the feeding frenzy right now and is fully aware that if he has a big year this year someone is going to give him $25 million - $30 million guaranteed next year (ie $6+ million for at least 4 years and likely 5). As DaveB has been saying, any offer the Sabres would give a guy to keep him out of UFA status has to be a huge offer, when that guy knows he's going to get a huge contract as a UFA. So: how much, specifically, would you give Briere? Connolly? Tallinder? Max? And how much should our overall payroll be? Last year our payroll was about $30 million and we made about $4 million -- but only b/c we went deep into the playoffs and thus had the extra revenue. Do you think our payroll next year should be $33 million? $38 million? $42 million? How much of a locked-in loss do you think it's fair to expect TG to bear, so we as fans can enjoy having expensive players on our team? If you're going to judge Darcy, judge him based on the realities of his job. If you keep losing players, eventually you aren't going to make the playoffs and therefore there won't be the extra revenue. You have to give a little to get a little sometimes. We can't just keep letting players walk while drawing from this supposed never-ending pool of prospects that we have, who can magically do a better job than seasoned NHLers. As for how much money to shell out...well it sure was easy for Darcy to quickly sign Drury to a 4-year deal when he got here. Are you saying Briere or Connolly (if he ever comes back) isn't worth a "Drury-type contract"?? This is why I get mad at Darcy, I really don't understand the logic. If Darcy doesn't sign Briere to a Drury-type deal (or better), then it's pretty clear that he thinks Danny is expendable and Drury isn't, right? Meanwhile he promptly sends qualifying offers to guys like Pyatt and Peters?????? That doesn't even make sense....let those guys go and use the money somewhere else. And how about the Biron situation? I can't wait to see how he screws that one up. Maybe we can hold onto him as a backup all year because "the right deal wasnt there." Or maybe we can trade for a draft pick and then use that pick on a goalie next year! The bottom line is I am sick and tired of seeing my favorite players leave town. I know a lot of it is the market, I know that, but eventually you have to shell out some cash because you can't keep losing players and expect to make miracle runs deep into the playoffs every season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 I see no reason why we can't have two or three players(who are deemed franchise players) make more than our beloved captain. Darcy has a list of key players who are going to be hitting UFA status at the end of next season and if he is going to stick to his guns and not negotiate during the season, he has some work to do between now and the beginning of October. Sorry Labatt -- that's too much of a waffle. I have no problem with Briere making more than Drury, or for that matter, Connolly, Miller or Tallinder doing so (assuming each has the kind of season next year that we think he is capable of based on this year). It's part of the natural escalation. The question is: how much more? $100K? $1 million? $3.5 million? something in the middle? Exactly how much? these are the difficult questions Darcy has to deal with because the devil is in the details. If we are going to take shots at Darcy and demand that he lock these guys up, and criticize him for not doing so, it's appropriate to go on record with exactly what we think they should offer. Otherwise we are trying to have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshjull Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Time to peel the onion a little. It's easy to sit back and criticize using generalities like "we need to open up the wallet" and "spend a few extra bucks" etc. You are holding Darcy accountable for signing/not signing this group of core players before they get to UFA status. How much, exactly, should we pay to keep them? In Briere's case, do you think we should give him a contract now for 4 years @ $6 million per year? 3 years at $5 million? 5 years at $7 million? At what point does it get too rich for your blood? And it's easy to say that Darcy should sign him now for 4 years at $5 million -- but this is almost certainly impossible. Danny is watching the feeding frenzy right now and is fully aware that if he has a big year this year someone is going to give him $25 million - $30 million guaranteed next year (ie $6+ million for at least 4 years and likely 5). As DaveB has been saying, any offer the Sabres would give a guy to keep him out of UFA status has to be a huge offer, when that guy knows he's going to get a huge contract as a UFA. So: how much, specifically, would you give Briere? Connolly? Tallinder? Max? And how much should our overall payroll be? Last year our payroll was about $30 million and we made about $4 million -- but only b/c we went deep into the playoffs and thus had the extra revenue. Do you think our payroll next year should be $33 million? $38 million? $42 million? How much of a locked-in loss do you think it's fair to expect TG to bear, so we as fans can enjoy having expensive players on our team? If you're going to judge Darcy, judge him based on the realities of his job. While your peeling onions feel free to actually read my posts. I don't recall asserting any of the points you are attacking me for. I mentioned how many guys that will be FAs after this year, I forgot to add Drury to the list. Then I stated that Darcy has some important decisions to make this offseason. These are facts not opinions. The opinion was that the decisions he makes will have a huge impact on this team going forward. Am I wrong? By the way do you know how the revenue sharing works because I spent an afternoon reading that part of the CBA. Before you ask , Yes I have no life. The Sabres qualify for revenue sharing which is relitively easy to understand though complex to explain. Bottom line is the team has to give 54% of its team revenue towards payroll. Then the league gives them revenue sharing amount equal to the difference bewteen the midpoint and the salary floor. The only time they would get less is if their 54% was more than the salary floor. Example; lets say that the Sabres had a total revenue of 40mil last year. They would have to put 21.6 mil towards salary. Then they would get about 9mil in revenue sharing to get them to the midpoint. Hence last years budget of 28-29 it gave them a cushion which they needed becasue of all the call ups. They will budget next year based on their total revenue projections and their revenue sharing cut. Which should be 8mil if the range is 44mil-28mil. The reason I mentioned this is because they will be able to up their own salary cap at least 3-5mil for next season. Which should give them flexibility to sign guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshjull Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Sorry Labatt -- that's too much of a waffle. I have no problem with Briere making more than Drury, or for that matter, Connolly, Miller or Tallinder doing so (assuming each has the kind of season next year that we think he is capable of based on this year). It's part of the natural escalation. The question is: how much more? $100K? $1 million? $3.5 million? something in the middle? Exactly how much? these are the difficult questions Darcy has to deal with because the devil is in the details. If we are going to take shots at Darcy and demand that he lock these guys up, and criticize him for not doing so, it's appropriate to go on record with exactly what we think they should offer. Otherwise we are trying to have it both ways. Its not having it both ways suggesting he should lock up core players. Having it both ways is hiding behind economics when a bad decision or no decision is made. The economics, because of the revenue sharing are strong enough for this franchise to try to sign players and lock them up. They will be able to because of the revenue sharing, to spend to just under the midpoint about of 36mil, probably about 34mil. Their own revenues should be up due to having 3000 more season ticket holders and counting. So if their own cap goes up 4mil and McKee is gone 1.6mil and probably Grier 1.3 mil. Thats about 6 or 7mil they have to lock up some guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Sorry Labatt -- that's too much of a waffle. I have no problem with Briere making more than Drury, or for that matter, Connolly, Miller or Tallinder doing so (assuming each has the kind of season next year that we think he is capable of based on this year). It's part of the natural escalation. The question is: how much more? $100K? $1 million? $3.5 million? something in the middle? Exactly how much? these are the difficult questions Darcy has to deal with because the devil is in the details. If we are going to take shots at Darcy and demand that he lock these guys up, and criticize him for not doing so, it's appropriate to go on record with exactly what we think they should offer. Otherwise we are trying to have it both ways. Okay pin me down. I don't believe they will all get re-signed, but here is what I would offer each off the top of my head. It's not my money anyways. :) I'm not sure if these are all of the 2007 UFA's Briere 3 years 11.5 million Tallinder 3 years 8 million Lydman 3 years 7.5 million Miller 4 years 10.5 million Max 2 years 5 million Connolly...no long term offer. need to see how he comes back from the concussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshjull Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Okay pin me down. I don't believe they will all get re-signed, but here is what I would offer each off the top of my head. It's not my money anyways. :) I'm not sure if these are all of the 2007 UFA's Briere 3 years 11.5 million Tallinder 3 years 8 million Lydman 3 years 7.5 million Miller 4 years 10.5 million Max 2 years 5 million Connolly...no long term offer. need to see how he comes back from the concussion Hey were is Drury's offer? :lol: He will be a UFA next off season or do we let him go? The plot thickens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Hey were is Drury's offer? :lol: He will be a UFA next off season or do we let him go? The plot thickens He is referring to players that are all RFA's right now. Locking them up to long term deals takes priroity over Drury right now. By the way, do you have a link to the CBA? Didn't think it was public yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 He is referring to players that are all RFA's right now. Locking them up to long term deals takes priroity over Drury right now. By the way, do you have a link to the CBA? Didn't think it was public yet. It's on the NHLPA's site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.