ghostofsunngerud Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Maybe I missed something here in the midst of summer -- but is all quiet with Ryan Miller and his agent Mike Liut? (Great, great hockey name there for the latter, btw.) I had Miller pegged for arbitration, but then saw from the team's web site that he had not made a demand. I thought I heard noise about how Darcy was trying to work something out with Miller, but if you're Miller, doesn't demanding arbitration give you more leverage. Any insights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Maybe I missed something here in the midst of summer -- but is all quiet with Ryan Miller and his agent Mike Liut? (Great, great hockey name there for the latter, btw.) I had Miller pegged for arbitration, but then saw from the team's web site that he had not made a demand. I thought I heard noise about how Darcy was trying to work something out with Miller, but if you're Miller, doesn't demanding arbitration give you more leverage. Any insights? He is not eligible for Arbitration, you have to have a certain amount of years logged in the NHL to be eligable to go to arbitration, and since this was Miller first full season, he could not. I believe that this is how it works, either that or maybe he was close to a long term deal so he figured there was no point cause he was already getting a fair salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 He is not eligible for Arbitration, you have to have a certain amount of years logged in the NHL to be eligable to go to arbitration, and since this was Miller first full season, he could not. I believe that this is how it works, either that or maybe he was close to a long term deal so he figured there was no point cause he was already getting a fair salary? I think that he was arbitration eligible because I think he was 21 when he signed his 1st contract. If so, he'd need 3 years of pro experience and he does have that. I'd guess that your second thought is dead on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 I think that he was arbitration eligible because I think he was 21 when he signed his 1st contract. If so, he'd need 3 years of pro experience and he does have that. I'd guess that your second thought is dead on. Well, I guess if you count the lockout as a year of pro-experience (which technically it shouldn't), he would only have 2 years although the first he had little playing time and split time in Rochester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Well, I guess if you count the lockout as a year of pro-experience (which technically it shouldn't), he would only have 2 years although the first he had little playing time and split time in Rochester I am pretty sure that part of the CBA was to count the lockout as a year of service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Didn't Miller's agent mention something about a longer deal a few weeks back? I thought their was an article or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofsunngerud Posted July 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Didn't Miller's agent mention something about a longer deal a few weeks back? I thought their was an article or something. There was indeed an article in the Buffalo News -- but it appeared before the date by which arb. demands were to be made. The article also indicated (seemed to assume actually) that Miller would be among those demanding arbitration in response to a qualifying offer. Here's my underlying fear: Is it remotely possible that Miller would accept a qualifying 1-year offer from the Sabres in order to set the stage for a big URF signing with his hometown team (Detroit) at the end of next year? I might be off my rocker with that, I'm not even sure that Miller would be an URF at the end of 06-07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 There was indeed an article in the Buffalo News -- but it appeared before the date by which arb. demands were to be made. The article also indicated (seemed to assume actually) that Miller would be among those demanding arbitration in response to a qualifying offer. Here's my underlying fear: Is it remotely possible that Miller would accept a qualifying 1-year offer from the Sabres in order to set the stage for a big URF signing with his hometown team (Detroit) at the end of next year? I might be off my rocker with that, I'm not even sure that Miller would be an URF at the end of 06-07. I don't believe he is eligible for UFA status at the end of this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Well, I guess if you count the lockout as a year of pro-experience (which technically it shouldn't), he would only have 2 years although the first he had little playing time and split time in Rochester Actually, professional experience counts AHL (except for 18 and 19 year olds called up after their Junior team is done playing). So, by my count, he has 4 years of pro-experience and was Arbitration Eligible. Also, per the CBA, players that were on an NHL roster and earned credit for the '03-'04 get credit for an NHL season for '04-'05. I don't believe he is eligible for UFA status at the end of this season. You are correct, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 I think it would be hilarious if Dave reveals at some point he's been making all this #%^$#! up. :) Seriously, Dave, I am intrigued by how you picked up all of this information. It is awe-inspiring at times. Come on mods, get rid of that profanity filter for all but the worst words. In the context of adults talking about hockey, I don't think sh*t needs to be "bleeped." It just adds confusion as to what word was really used and people probably assume the worst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 I think it would be hilarious if Dave reveals at some point he's been making all this #%^$#! up. :) :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.